What Data Should We Ask of Food Pantry Clients?

I once got a phone call at my food pantry from a woman who had recently tried to get help from another pantry in the region. Crying into the phone, she wanted to make a complaint about the volunteer she had worked with, mistaking our pantry as the parent organization.

This woman was trying to get food for the first time from this site but was told because she didn’t have proof of identification for every member of her household, she wasn’t eligible. She became understandably upset, and in the ensuing argument was told she was banned from visiting for a year. She was panicked that her family would go hungry, and frustrated by the excessive demands to qualify for food assistance.

Requiring proof of identification from every member of her household was an excessive and inappropriate expectation. Who carries that kind of information with them? How do they manage that with children in the household? I was frustrated that this happened, but requiring documentation or proof of need is a longstanding tradition in emergency food assistance. Our desire to make sure that people really “deserve” the help motivates demands for proof of income, address, or other evidence that proves a household struggles with hunger.

The more information organizations require of their clients, the more people they deter from participating.

If our goal is to reduce hunger, then this is antithetical to our mission. In many cases, merely the fear or stigma of having to prove one’s need is enough to stop many people from seeking help.

Most food pantries require their clients’ names, birthdays, address, and the names and birthdays of all household members. Sometimes this information is required to determine eligibility (like address for programs who only serve certain zip codes), while others simply need it for their records. Federal programs like TEFAP may also require an income declaration for proof of need.

 When I first started working at one of my food pantries, they required gender as well, for a completely unknown reason (as soon as possible I changed it to asking our shoppers’ pronouns instead.)

Requiring documentation represents an burden for many different reasons. Immigrants, regardless of their immigration status, may be fearful of authority and avoid situations that leave them vulnerable and subject to scrutiny. In addition, too many organizations do not or are unable to translate their documents and signage explaining their requirements, which makes them largely inaccessible to people who don’t read or write in English. Not knowing expectations can be immensely intimidating.

I have also worked with multiple survivors of domestic violence who refused to share even their names out of fear that their abuser might find them. The administrative requirements of food assistance should never outweigh the safety of the people we are trying to serve, but in many cases, this demands making exceptions to existing policy.

Documentation can also be a barrier for people who are houseless, or who don’t have easy access to the necessary paperwork. They may or may not have an ID, and might not carry any other information with them. I’ve also worked with many young adults who were covertly trying to improve their family’s food supply and were therefore unable to access the information they need to get food.

Requiring documentation also increases the responsibilities of staff and volunteers to appropriately manage the information. TEFAP forms must be stored for years, while other intake documents must also be processed and stored while respecting the confidential nature of their contents.

But shortcuts can be equally problematic.

I recently connected with a food pantry that based eligibility on preexisting participation with federal programs like SNAP, WIC, and Social Security. Although it saved them from having to evaluate any other data, it also meant that a) their pantry was deliberately unavailable to populations that couldn’t access federal services and b) implies a greater government connection than often exists, which can be problematic for people fearful of authority or concerned with confidentiality.

How food pantries can be thoughtful about data expectations:

• Minimize your eligibility requirements and ask for as little information as possible. What information do you really need and why do you need it (for partner reports, grants? Do these partners really need it, or are there alternatives you can offer?)

• It can be tempting to make your client paperwork look as official and legitimate as possible. But this can increase client fears that their information is being collected by the government or other agencies outside of your organization. Developing less formal-looking paperwork can help.

• Reassuring clients that we recognize the burden and annoyance of completing any paperwork helps minimize its importance and made it less intimidating. My previous food pantry participated in TEFAP, which meant there was one form that clients had to complete annually (or provide a signature at each visit). The speech my team gave was, “I know this looks super official and scary, but we promise that no one will ever look at this form and it will disappear in a dusty office drawer until we shred it.” This introduction opened up an opportunity to have a comfortable conversation about what we did with the information we collected, and how it was kept confidential.

---

Eligibility requirements persist in response to the fear that welfare abuse can be prevented through strict oversight and evaluation.

Adding documentation requirements limits service to shoppers who adhere to YOUR version of need. Who is excluded?

After a decade of working in food pantries, I can say with confidence that no one is trying to exploit food assistance. Every step we take to make services more accessible is progress towards ending hunger.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!