Systematic identification of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia

Systematic identification of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Systematic identification of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia Abigail Klinker, Jung Sun Lee This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9313582/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Food insecurity is a growing public health problem reaching 13.5% in 2023, the highest it has been since 2014. Many food insecure households rely on charitable food assistance (e.g., food pantries, meal programs) to meet their food needs. However, no established methodology and datasets are available to document the current availability, accessibility, and utilization of charitable food assistance programs in the U.S. This study examined the feasibility of creating a statewide list of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia, U.S. by compiling existing food bank administrative data. Methods Food bank administrative data were collected as a census of all active agencies and programs through partnerships with Feeding Georgia and nine Georgia Regional Food Banks (December 2022-February 2023). The process of creating the agency list documented the structure of food bank administrative data, and outlined necessary procedures to collect, clean, and merge the records of constantly evolving active agencies and programs. Results This study compiled a statewide list of all active agencies and programs across Georgia as of February 2023 (N = 2,404). Food banks utilized a variety of data management practices and data structures to document agency operations. The necessary procedures and factors that impacted the feasibility of list creation outlines a framework for repeated efforts. Conclusions The findings of this study prove that compiling a statewide list of charitable food assistance agencies and programs is feasible. Establishing the methodology to create datasets for charitable food assistance organizations is a critical step to inform research, program, and policy decisions to improve food access for food insecure Americans. food insecurity charitable food assistance program food banks food pantries low-income populations Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION THE GROWING ROLE OF CHARITABLE FOOD ASSISTANCE The charitable food assistance network was created as a community resource to provide immediate, emergency food relief. While designed to be used periodically in times of necessity, these programs have become an essential, reliable source of food for low-income and food insecure households in the U.S. [1,2]. Feeding America is one of the largest domestic hunger relief organizations that served an estimated 50 million Americans in 2023 [3,4]. Feeding America receives donations from national food and grocery manufacturers, retailers, and growers. They distribute these resources to Regional Food Banks, which then distribute food and other items to “partner agencies” that serve households (e.g., food pantries) through their respective “programs” ( Figure 1 ). Food banks also supply community programs that do not hold partner agency status referred to as “non-partner programs.” These include organizations whose primary purpose is not food assistance, such as schools and residential programs. Figure 1: Feeding America Network and Food Distribution Process Figure created using Microsoft PowerPoint In Georgia, there are nine Feeding America-affiliated food banks ( Figure 2 ). The capacity of each Regional Food Bank varies based on the number of counties served and the total number of low-income households most likely to utilize charitable food assistance programs in their coverage areas. Each food bank estimates its impact by the number of meals served or pounds of food distributed ( Table 1 ) [5-13]. Figure 2: Georgia Regional Food Banks Figure provided by Feeding Georgia Table 1: Georgia Regional Food Banks’ Service Capacities Food Bank Number of Counties Served Total Population in Service Area (approx., 2023) Household Income <200% FPL*† Food Distributed‡ Atlanta Community Food Bank 24 5,148,000 1,589,000 79.3 million meals (FY 2022) Chattanooga Area Food Bank 9 436,000 164,000 17 million meals (2022) America’s Second Harvest of Coastal Georgia 20 584,000 319,000 22.8 million pounds (19 million meals) (2022) Food Bank of Northeast Georgia 16 1,006,000 250,000 12.3 million pounds across 3 programs (2022) Feeding the Valley Food Bank 16 442,000 191,000 16 million pounds (13 million meals) (2022) Georgia Mountain Food Bank 5 530,000 121,000 6 million pounds (2022) Golden Harvest Food Bank 18 543,000 319,000 118 million meals (year unknown) Middle Georgia Community Food Bank 24 586,000 261,000 12 million pounds (2020) Second Harvest of South Georgia 27 508,500 287,000 No distribution summary available *FPL, Federal Poverty Line; 200% FPL is the highest specific income bracket documented by the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey where households may qualify for certain federal assistance programs. †Data from American Community Survey, 2017-2022 5-Year Estimates, rounded to nearest 1,000. ‡Published reference periods vary greatly by food bank GAPS IN COORDINATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE During the pandemic, the expansion of federal and state safety net policies proved effective in mitigating food insecurity and economic depression [14-16]. Yet these policies have been scaled back while food prices and food insecurity have continued to rise [1]. Charitable food assistance programs have been left to absorb increasing demand that exceeds their intended purposes [17]. Following the pandemic, there was an increase in food assistance research at the agency and food bank scale, but minimal statewide assessments [18-21]. The only state- and nationwide assessment of charitable food assistance programs has been Feeding America’s Hunger in America Study in 2014 (HIA14) [22]. Changes over the past ten years remain undocumented [22-23]. No assessment has been conducted to know where active programs are located, who is being served, or where gaps persist. In recent years, nonprofits like Vivery began documenting active programs and their location, hours, and services [24], but these efforts are limited to the organizational scale and remain focused on helping households find food rather than fostering system-wide coordination, assessment, and support. There is a lack of data and data systems to monitor and evaluate what has become a consistent source of food for households [1,2]. Timely action is necessary to ensure that the charitable food network is responsive and resilient at a crucial time of increased need. SCOPE The current study was undertaken to address the need to identify, assess, and track the charitable food assistance landscape at the state level. This study was conducted through unique partnerships between the University of Georgia, nine Georgia Regional Food Banks, and Feeding Georgia, an organization that coordinates statewide initiatives with eight Georgia Regional Food Banks. The goal of the study was to develop feasible and practical strategies for regular data collection, with the hope that food banks manage essential information (e.g., agency name, address, services offered) to facilitate the compilation of agency data. This study aimed to 1) understand how food banks manage information about their partner agencies and programs, 2) use food bank administrative data to compile a standardized statewide list that reflects agency operations, and 3) identify challenges that impacted the list creation process and strategies to resolve experienced barriers. METHODS The study conducted a census of all active agencies and programs associated with nine Feeding America-affiliated food banks in Georgia. The study was conducted between October 2021 - May 2023. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD BANK ADMINISTRATIVE DATA In October 2021, Feeding Georgia and the University of Georgia research team explored an opportunity to study the status of Georgia charitable food assistance programs. Initial brainstorming sessions carefully evaluated potential approaches, required resources, and logistics for designing and conducting a statewide study involving all nine Georgia Regional Food Banks. Feeding Georgia also consulted with representatives from each food bank to gauge their interest and support for a statewide study. Feeding Georgia shared Regional Food Banks’ contacts with the research team. The research team contacted food banks via email to introduce the project and request to explore or “walk through” their administrative data. It was unknown if Regional Food Banks maintained data, or the extent of data, regarding their partner agencies. The first step to the study and partnering with food banks assessed if data existed, and if it was comprehensive enough to support further analysis including identifiers, location, and services offered. Data walk-through meetings were conducted from December 2022 - February 2023 via Zoom to understand food bank data management practices and clarify how food bank operations were captured in the data. These meetings were recorded after all participants gave verbal consent, and the research team took notes for written records. The research team used these records along with continued communication (i.e., emails, phone calls, follow-up video calls) to understand and compare data management protocols and align data across food banks. The format of data walk-through meetings was fluid and minimally structured, which allowed the research team to organically learn more about food bank and agency operations, programs of interest, and organizational priorities while giving food bank associates flexibility to discuss topics of interest and grow rapport. Following the data walk-through meetings, the research team requested administrative data files from all food banks, including both partner agency and non-partner programs, to compile the statewide agency list. ITERATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW PROCESS Communication with Regional Food Banks continued throughout the entire agency list creation process. In cases when the research team had not received a response to requests for administrative data or clarifications, the research team sent a follow-up email. If there was still no response, Feeding Georgia sent an additional follow-up email. Data collection As the data were received, the research team assessed them for missing or duplicate variables and entries. If multiple files were provided by food banks, they were cross-checked to ensure that all the agencies were listed in their respective files. Some food banks provided other data sources to the research team, such as utilizing their website for agency hours of operation. The research team identified agencies listed online that were not found in the received data and requested that food banks confirm the active agencies and programs. Data cleaning and standardization After the food bank administrative data were initially examined, they were cleaned using R version 4.2.2 (2022-10-31). Data cleaning and standardization steps varied greatly between each food bank. Food banks’ data management protocols affected how data were standardized to retain details about agency operations, distribution locations, and programs offered. Steps included but were not limited to: converting data files to the same file type, merging data files, combining multiple columns, and separating distribution site addresses from mailing addresses (i.e., PO Boxes). The research team aligned names for similar services provided by agencies (program type) whenever possible; however, this was not always feasible as food banks used unique terminology. If inconsistencies were found in the data, the entries were checked with records of food bank data management protocols, and the research team iteratively asked the food banks for clarification or further data. AGENCY LIST COMPILATION When individual food bank lists were adequately cleaned and formatted, they were merged to create the statewide list of agencies and programs. Descriptive analyses of the statewide list were conducted for key variables including the count of agencies and program types by food bank. RESULTS INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD BANK ADMINISTRATIVE DATA How and what information is managed The data walk-through meetings confirmed that Regional Food Banks managed administrative data containing information about agencies and programs including identifiers, location, and services offered. However, they used different data management software to record and manage the data. About half of food banks (55.6%) used Primarius or the cloud version P2. Some food banks used Excel worksheets or paper entries, especially for food banks serving multiple states or rural areas with limited access to digital resources and internet access. The type, amount, and format of data managed by food banks varied greatly. For example, some food banks tracked only basic administrative information, others documented non-food programs hosted by agencies, and some included separate documentation for mobile food pantries. Two-thirds of food banks (66.7%) utilized multiple data files to manage administrative data separated by program type or other administrative needs. How different agencies and programs are documented A partner agency vs. non-partner program The research team aimed to identify all programs supplied by the food banks to document all programs households could access, even if they did not reach partner agency status. In general, non-partner programs were included in the data with no distinction from partner agencies. Food bank associates identified these non-partner programs using institutional knowledge or the scheme of agency identifiers. Mobile pantries Half of the food banks managed mobile pantries directly, while the other half placed the responsibility of operating mobile pantries on the agencies. If mobile pantries were managed by agencies, they were rarely included in the dataset. Programs with multiple programs or locations The number of locations and programs operated by one agency varied greatly. Examples of variation in program locations included partner agencies being a part of a larger non-profit organization, agencies that hosted a secondary program at a separate site, or agencies offering multiple programs at the same site. Food banks either recorded the agency headquarters with one program listed regardless of the number of programs or locations available, recorded all programs hosted at a distinct location in one data entry, or recorded separate entries for each program hosted by an agency. Separate data entries for programs at distinct locations were preferred because they better described how programs were distributed and the populations they may reach. ITERATIVE REVIEW Frequency of contact From scheduling the initial data walk-through meeting until all data were received, the research team spoke to a food bank associate 7.2 times on average during agency list creation. Feeding Georgia’s facilitated communication was necessary at least once for seven of nine food banks. The need for Feeding Georgia's involvement to engage food banks indicated that the process was burdensome. Data collection Outside of data walk-through meetings, sometimes food banks requested that the research team utilize their websites for data. When the research team confirmed data available online with food banks, or cross-checked programs listed online with raw data provided by the food banks, it was found that food bank websites were not fully updated with active agencies or current locations, hours of operations, and services offered. Data cleaning and standardization Standardization across food banks exposed possible inconsistencies where food bank administrative data did not adhere to the protocols described in the data walk-through meetings. About 11% of data entries (n=270) were inconsistent with the guidelines provided by food banks, mainly related to multiple programs or distribution sites. Examples include entries where all fields contained unique information but with the same address, duplicate entries but with unique agency identifiers, or multiple entries for programs at one agency when data management protocols instructed to include only one program per agency. These entries were further examined prior to statewide agency list creation. In many instances, these were managed on a case-by-case basis for further data standardization. CHALLENGES IN LIST CREATION Several factors affected the feasibility of collecting and standardizing data prior to compiling the statewide agency list. Internet Bandwidth Many food banks serve rural areas in Georgia with decreased internet bandwidth and access. This impacted what methods were most feasible for the food bank to collect and document administrative information from the agencies. It was more common for agencies to submit paper forms to Regional Food Banks in rural areas where internet was less accessible. The research team relied on digital tools that facilitated the translation of paper records to digital data including an R package that scraped PDF files of scanned paper records into the R coding script. Data Literacy The second consideration for compiling the statewide list involves conversations around data management and food bank associates’ level of data literacy. Oftentimes, associates were not data professionals, but community organizers responsible for managing agencies, programs, and coordinating food bank and community efforts. Many times, food bank associates had a long tenure with the organization and were very knowledgeable about ongoing and historical agency operations. With the rapid development of technology, associates continued with previously utilized methods and documentation processes. This led to the variety of data files and types including Excel spreadsheets and paper records as associates adapted their methods to growing operations, rather than adopt new technology and digital tools. During the data walkthrough meetings, technical terms surrounding data management like “variables” or topics around data output and structure may not be familiar to the associate. In order to mitigate some of these barriers, data walk through meetings were fluid in structure and often used common terms. When referencing data and data management protocols, the research team needed to be extremely specific with tangible examples of what “variables” they were requesting from the food bank, sometimes creating a hypothetical case of how a food bank associate would make a new entry or log a delivery to agencies. This identified that data management protocols were built with the focus of agencies and programs operations rather than with initial consideration of technical methods such as different locations, agency identifiers, or how to adapt documentation as operations grew and developed. Data literacy was also mitigated during iterative review steps throughout list creation by providing clear examples of what the research team was looking for. If there were inconsistencies in the data, oftentimes the research team would resolve the concern via phone call where they and the associate could discuss agency operations descriptively, and the data were cleaned accordingly. Institutional Knowledge and Dynamic Agency Operations Institutional knowledge of the food bank associates was both an invaluable tool and a challenge when assessing the data that was available. Knowledge gained from working closely with agencies could mitigate other digital barriers like internet access and digital literacy. Yet, because associates’ experience is not recorded in the data, the necessary partnership and thorough conversation around data management and agency operations added to the intensity and time commitment of the process. AGENCY LIST COMPILATION The final agency list included 2,404 agencies and programs. The most common programs offered across Georgia included food pantries (n=1,377, 57.3%), backpack programs (n=225, 9.4%), direct distribution (n=145, 6.0%), mobile food pantries (n=75, 3.1%), and meal programs (n=74, 3.1%). It is important to note that since agency-run mobile pantries were not frequently documented in food bank administrative data, the count of mobile food pantries may not be representative of the mobile pantries active at the time of list creation. Agency list creation framework The development of the statewide agency list resulted in a novel data collection framework that can serve as a reference for creating a statewide agency list in Georgia, or in other states (Figure 3) . Figure 3: Framework for Creating the Statewide Agency List With the considerations highlighted throughout this paper, the framework highlights the iterative process of data collection, data cleaning, and communication and relationship-building with Regional Food Banks. Since food bank data were often supplemented by associates’ institutional knowledge, key topics of conversation are highlighted in Figure 3 as well. The parts of the process with Feeding Georgia facilitation is also highlighted, notably within the iterative clarification of the data. The organization’s necessary and frequent involvement was crucial to initial relationship-building with the food banks and launching the study. Practical methodology requires continued partnership and collaboration with Regional Food Banks and Feeding Georgia to describe food bank and agency operations, identify data management practices, and clarify the received data as it is standardized and compiled into a statewide list of charitable food assistance agencies and programs. Creation of the statewide agency list and development of the framework identified that this process is feasible, though not without challenges which can be mitigated in future efforts. DISCUSSION This exploratory study identified a practical systematic process to collect and compile information on the charitable food assistance landscape in Georgia, resulting in the first comprehensive list of 2,404 agencies and programs. This effort was possible through unique partnerships between university faculty and staff, Georgia Regional Food Banks, and Feeding Georgia, and intentional efforts to thoroughly understand food bank administrative data management practices. The discursive approach of compiling the agency list and the unique challenges in its process are linked to a key takeaway of the study: food banks are independent and unique organizations, even when they belong to the same bodies like Feeding Georgia and Feeding America. Their agencies, programs, and administrative processes are built around the communities they serve. Data management practices are established by the individuals responsible for managing them and are as unique to the person as they are to the organization. Many instances in this study relied on food bank associates’ institutional knowledge and how they folded innovative operations to fit within the data structure available and familiar to them. Ultimately cleaning, standardizing, and compiling the data would not be possible without clarification and validation from the food bank associates charged with documenting agency operations. TAKEAWAYS FROM THE PROCESS AND KEY METRICS FOR FUTURE The approaches used in this paper serve as a starting point for regular data collection. Several challenges identified in this study still exist and impact the feasibility of making the methodology routine and automated. Barriers to creating the agency list are directly interrelated, which speaks to the need for more foundational efforts in the charitable food assistance space. Lessons learned from this paper serve to support more streamlined initiatives in the future and the steps highlighted below aim to mitigate barriers for future iterations. Decrease burden on food banks The project relied heavily on collaboration with Regional Food Banks; therefore, reducing the burden on associates is crucial. The research team should clearly communicate the expected time commitment and the iterative nature of the project during the initial outreach. Initial outreach should detail what data files will likely be required, and confirm that the research team is requesting the raw data files rather than a summary report of services. All parties involved should be well-informed of the project expectations, time commitment, and for an outside institution to view and collect potentially sensitive data. In future iterations, the decreased burden on food bank associates should also lessen the need of Feeding Georgia involvement in data collection and cleaning steps. Prioritize conversations about unique agency and program operations. Requesting all non-partner programs alongside partner agencies was a crucial step in documenting available programs. Non-partner programs serve many clients and omitting them from a statewide list overlooks vital resources that low-income and food insecure households utilize. Specifically, backpack programs and direct distribution programs accounted for 15.3% of programs and would have likely been missed by not explicitly requesting all non-partner programs. Most of the variation in the statewide agency list was associated with inconsistencies in documenting agencies with multiple programs or locations. Prioritizing conversations about how these programs are managed in the data is necessary for retaining information about different services offered across Georgia and aligning different data structures to compile a statewide list. These may include programs like mobile pantries, agencies with multiple distribution locations, or large non-profits. As many mobile pantries are hosted by individual agencies and omitted from the statewide list, future research could further investigate mobile pantry distribution with additional conversations around routes and distribution schedules. Mitigate limited digital literacy and internet bandwidth It is difficult to propose feasible solutions to limited internet access among the agencies due to the large scale of intervention that is required, but it is a critical factor to account for when discussing data practices and the possibility of digital infrastructure across the charitable food assistance landscape. Document institutional knowledge The research team should be diligent about documenting associates’ knowledge. Strategies include conducting fluid data walk-through meetings, prompting open-ended discussions about unique food bank and agency operations, taking meeting notes, and recording meetings to reference associates’ descriptions during data cleaning. Food banks used preexisting systems to document operations that were not specifically created for the Regional Food Bank. Therefore, food bank associates needed to fit unique agency operations into a pre-determined structure, and if an agency grows it may be difficult to document the expansion. These factors can lead to inconsistencies in the data and food bank associates’ knowledge of agency operations is essential to mitigate these challenges. IMPLICATIONS The agency list is a foundational effort with future implications for programs, research, and policy efforts to support food security. Having adequate food and nutrition security has been shown to mitigate chronic disease, household healthcare costs, and financial stability [15-17]. Yet, unlike federal programs, charitable food assistance programs operate independently, with no unified standards, limited infrastructure, and often minimal visibility into the broader network around them. Conducting a census is an essential first step to assess the availability and accessibility of charitable food assistance programs and inform initiatives that strengthen the network. Programs When the research team shared that food bank websites did not provide accurate program information, food banks updated details online which led to a more reliable resource for households to find food. Therefore, previous initiatives that relied on crowd-sourced lists or web-scraping [25-30] have had limited success in producing reliable, up-to-date agency lists. As AI tools help access a large amount of data across the internet, the potential drawbacks of web-scarping techniques should be considered. Continued agency list compilation will prompt updated food bank resources that can be shared among the community and better reach those in need Conversations around data and data management protocols could lead to revised data practices within the food bank such as a written data management policy. Once written policies are created, it is more feasible for associates to uniformly document programs, facilitate the transfer of knowledge between associates, and ultimately be a strong step to streamline statewide agency list compilation and decrease associate burden. Research Future research can utilize the agency list to identify characteristics and experiences of charitable food assistance programs and their clients, and fill a gap in the literature since HIA14. Insights from future research at the agency- and program-levels can identify barriers to acquire or distribute food, assess the nutritional quality of food provided, and highlight unmet needs present in the community as an area of opportunity for future intervention. Program locations from the statewide list can be utilized for geospatial analysis to examine the distribution of programs and identify underserved areas based on population demographics such as income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation, and SNAP retailers by census tract. These overlays can suggest strategies to improve the availability of charitable food assistance and help mitigate barriers in accessing healthy food. One overlapping consideration between implications for research and programs is building out a digital interface to document food bank operations. This will likely fall in the research scope, yet it is important to note that food banks and programs would be impacted by its creation. A digital interface would unify the data, mitigate associate burden, and allow for the possibility of longitudinal assessments in future research. Since Regional Food Banks must currently adapt processes to adhere to a third-party digital tool, a customizable digital tool will alleviate daily administrative burdens on associates as well. This then allows more resources to be allocated to additional projects within the food bank. Policy In 2023, over 34.9% of SNAP recipients utilized charitable food assistance programs in the U.S. [31]. Additionally, over 40% of households facing food insecurity did not receive federal food assistance [1]. There is a gap in state-level assessments of how households engage with both charitable and federal food assistance programs. Establishing foundational documentation of charitable programs creates the data necessary for a comprehensive understanding of food assistance use and guide policy and program interventions. Policy changes in 2025 impacted SNAP benefit eligibility, federal funding for food assistance programs, and adjustments to the Thrifty Food Plan [32]. As the federal safety net decreases, households will rely more on charitable food assistance programs. Providers may spend valuable time navigating logistical barriers associated with increased demand instead of serving clients. If programs operate in a constant state of urgency, they will not be able to scale sustainably at the rate that is needed. Foundational work such as conducting a census of active agencies is essential for strengthening organizational resiliency, and enabling programs to meet needs as national nutrition policy and the broader economic climate continue to evolve. There is a timely need for communities, local governments, and research institutions to prioritize support for the charitable food assistance landscape and households it serves. LIMITATIONS This study is not without limitations. The researchers were unable to fully verify the validity and reliability of the food bank administrative data to ensure that the data accurately, timely, and consistently reflected the on-the-ground operations of the charitable food assistance programs. The approach used in this study was exploratory in a single state and requires validation to refine the data collection and compilation process for other states. However, this study is the first to document the dynamic charitable food assistance landscape, and serves as a foundation for future state and nationwide research. CONCLUSION The findings of this study suggest that compiling a statewide list of charitable food assistance agencies and programs is feasible through continued partnerships with Regional Food Banks and support from Feeding Georgia. A census of charitable food assistance programs is the first step to measure the availability, accessibility, and utilization of charitable food assistance and identify gaps in food need. The approaches and recommendations utilized in this study suggest policy, program, and research efforts to combat food insecurity across the state and nation. Abbreviations HIA14: Hunger in America Study 2014 SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program TEFAP: The Emergency Food Assistance Program WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Declarations ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE This paper is a part of the Georgia Hunger Study, which received the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board Ethics approval (ID PROJECT00007024); however, this part of the project did not use human participants, therefore no consent procedures were needed. CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION Not applicable AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no competing interests. FUNDING This research was funded by the Georgia Department of Human Services (Grant ID FP00027556). Georgia Department of Human Services had no involvement or restrictions regarding publication. AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS JSL and AK designed and conducted the study; AK analyzed data; and AK and JSL wrote the paper. AK had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is possible due to collaboration and assistance from Dr. Jerry Shannon, Dr. Alison Berg, and Maya Rao (University of Georgia) and Callahan Roan and Dana Craft (Feeding Georgia). Thank you to Georgia Regional Food Banks and Feeding Georgia for their time and assistance on this project. Thank you to the GA Department of Human Services (DHS) for funding this study. References Rabbit MP, Reed-Jones M, Hales LJ, Burke MP. Household food security in the United States in 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2024. Report No.: ERR-337. Byrne AT, Just DR. The other half: an examination of monthly food pantry cycles in the context of SNAP benefits. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2021;3(4):716-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13150. Charitable Food Assistance Participation in 2022 [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2024 February]. Available from: https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Charitable%20Food%20Assistance%20Participation%20in%202022.pdf. Charitable food assistance participation in 2023 [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2024 December]. Available from: https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/charitable-food-assistance-participation. America's Second Harvest of Coastal Georgia [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://www.helpendhunger.org/. Atlanta Community Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://www.acfb.org. Chattanooga Area Food Bank 2022 Impact Report [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://chattfoodbank.org. Feeding the Valley Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding Georgia; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://feedingthevalley.org. Food Bank of Northeast Georgia [Internet]. Feeding Georgia; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://foodbanknega.org. Georgia Mountain Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://www.gamountainfoodbank.org. Golden Harvest Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://goldenharvest.org/. Middle Georgia Community Food Bank [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://mgcfb.org. Second Harvest of South Georgia [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://feedingsga.org/programs. Toossi S, Jones JW, Hodges L. The food and nutrition assistance landscape: fiscal year 2020 annual report. U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2021. Report No.: EIB-227. Han J, Meyer BD, Sullivan JX. Income and poverty in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Paper presented at: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity; August 6, 2020. Fox LE, Burns K. The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2020. United States Census Bureau; 2021. Report No.: P60-275. Poppendieck J. Sweet charity?: Emergency food and the end of entitlement . New York, NY: Viking; 1998. Bartfeld J, Hellenbrand A, Hilgendorf A, Francis CD, Dorfman SJ. Food pantries during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a survey of visitors to Feeding Wisconsin network pantries. Feeding Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2021. Orbe A, Martin KS. Food Access in Connecticut: one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Connecticut Foodshare: Institute for Hunger Research & Solutions; 2021. Kahle RW, Roderick G. Lowcountry Food Bank Feeding America client survey (FACS): summary report. Kahle Strategic Insights: Lowcountry Food Bank; 2021. Codner A, Zack RM, Liu X, Bangham C, Nelson E, Hicks JM, Greece JA. Socio-demographic factors associated with hunger among food pantry users in Eastern Massachusetts. Journal of Nutritional Science. 2023;12(53). https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2022.118. Weinfield NS, Mills G, Borger C, Gearing M, Macaluso T, Montaquila J, Zedlewski S. Hunger in America 2014, national report. Feeding America; 2014. Mills G, Weinfield NS, Borger C, Gearing M, Macaluso T, Montaquila J. Hunger in America 2014, state report for Georgia. Feeding America; 2014. Vivery [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from: https://www.vivery.org/. Find Food [Internet]. WhyHunger; 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from: https://whyhunger.org/find-food. Little Free Pantry. 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from: https://www.littlefreepantry.org. FoodPantries.org [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from https://www.foodpantries.org. Burke MP, Huffman E. Estimating the number, distribution, and predictors of food pantries in the US. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2023;55(3), 182-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2022.12.001. Sundermeir S., Martin N, Poirier L, Reznar M, Barnett D, Uriarte A, Stephenson J, Lewis E, Matsuzaki M, Gittelsohn J. Current use and demand for digital tools to enhance food pantry management: findings from a nationwide survey. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 2023;19(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2023.2228728. Barnett DJ, Sundermeir SM, Reznar M, Lightner A, Poirier L, Rosenblum A, Oladimeji AY, Igusa T, Neff R, Ruggiero CF, Lewis EC, Jager L, Moses L, Velez-Burgess V, Gagnon B, Attar N, Gittelsohn J. Protocol for the support application for Food PAntrieS trial: design, implementation, and evaluation plan for a digital application to promote healthy food access and support food pantry operations. Front Public Health. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1340707. Rabbitt MP, Reed-Jones M, Hales LJ, Burke MP. Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2024. Report No.: AP-124. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Related Nutrition Programs in P.L. 119-21: An Overview [Internet]. Congress.gov; 2025 [cited 2026 March]. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48552. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 17 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 17 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 09 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 08 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9313582","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":627964887,"identity":"b4021f71-aa70-41f5-855b-879ce4bd2e46","order_by":0,"name":"Abigail Klinker","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Georgia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abigail","middleName":"","lastName":"Klinker","suffix":""},{"id":627964890,"identity":"70d40957-52e0-44a5-adcc-d38ab24c8bc0","order_by":1,"name":"Jung Sun Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Georgia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jung","middleName":"Sun","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-03 13:54:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9313582/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9313582/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107907667,"identity":"0ca3173b-c7b3-4cdc-a26b-eeb733a8d9d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 12:52:50","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45649,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFeeding America Network and Food Distribution Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure created using Microsoft PowerPoint\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1FeedingAmericaNetworkandFoodDistributionProcess.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9313582/v1/e79bcbdec89bea615d38db85.png"},{"id":108006510,"identity":"235cc1a4-995a-40f9-914e-3c475c3dd68d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 12:55:48","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":119614,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Regional Food Banks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure provided by Feeding Georgia\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2GeorgiaRegionalFoodBanks.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9313582/v1/bbc3b106cb8112e8d5f75830.png"},{"id":107907669,"identity":"6b4ceab8-e58a-4973-80b9-fec21a32ff9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 12:52:50","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1396438,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFramework for Creating the Statewide Agency List\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3Frameworkforcreatingthelist.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9313582/v1/c39c974ce51eadb974d0800e.png"},{"id":108008617,"identity":"b1264a3e-bb38-4710-a856-869c163e06d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 13:07:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1576169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9313582/v1/1245fd9d-4ff8-4e01-8625-1c02f4178f71.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Systematic identification of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eTHE GROWING ROLE OF CHARITABLE FOOD ASSISTANCE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe charitable food assistance network was created as a community resource to provide immediate, emergency food relief. While designed to be used periodically in times of necessity, these programs have become an essential, reliable source of food for low-income and food insecure households in the U.S. [1,2].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFeeding America is one of the largest domestic hunger relief organizations that served an estimated 50 million Americans in 2023 [3,4]. Feeding America receives donations from national food and grocery manufacturers, retailers, and growers. They distribute these resources to Regional Food Banks, which then distribute food and other items to \u0026ldquo;partner agencies\u0026rdquo; that serve households (e.g., food pantries) through their respective \u0026ldquo;programs\u0026rdquo; (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1\u003c/strong\u003e). Food banks also supply community programs that do not hold partner agency status referred to as \u0026ldquo;non-partner programs.\u0026rdquo; These include organizations whose primary purpose is not food assistance, such as schools and residential programs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1: Feeding America Network and Food Distribution Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure created using Microsoft PowerPoint\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Georgia, there are nine Feeding America-affiliated food banks (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2\u003c/strong\u003e). The capacity of each Regional Food Bank varies based on the number of counties served and the total number of low-income households most likely to utilize charitable food assistance programs in their coverage areas. Each food bank estimates its impact by the number of meals served or pounds of food distributed (\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e) [5-13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2: Georgia Regional Food Banks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure provided by Feeding Georgia\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1: Georgia Regional Food Banks\u0026rsquo; Service Capacities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFood Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Counties Served\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Population in Service Area (approx., 2023)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHousehold Income \u0026lt;200% FPL*\u0026dagger;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFood Distributed\u0026Dagger;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAtlanta Community Food Bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5,148,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,589,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79.3 million meals (FY 2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChattanooga Area Food Bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e436,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e164,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 million meals (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Second Harvest of Coastal Georgia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e584,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.8 million pounds (19 million meals) (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood Bank of Northeast Georgia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,006,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.3 million pounds across 3 programs (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeeding the Valley Food Bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e442,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e191,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 million pounds (13 million meals) (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeorgia Mountain Food Bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e530,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e121,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 million pounds (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGolden Harvest Food Bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e543,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e118 million meals (year unknown)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMiddle Georgia Community Food Bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e586,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e261,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 million pounds (2020)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecond Harvest of South Georgia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e508,500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e287,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo distribution summary available\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 623px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*FPL, Federal Poverty Line; 200% FPL is the highest specific income bracket documented by the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey where households may qualify for certain federal assistance programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026dagger;Data from American Community Survey, 2017-2022 5-Year Estimates, rounded to nearest 1,000.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Dagger;Published reference periods vary greatly by food bank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGAPS IN COORDINATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the pandemic, the expansion of federal and state safety net policies proved effective in mitigating food insecurity and economic depression [14-16]. Yet these policies have been scaled back while food prices and food insecurity have continued to rise [1]. Charitable food assistance programs have been left to absorb increasing demand that exceeds their intended purposes [17].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the pandemic, there was an increase in food assistance research at the agency and food bank scale, but minimal statewide assessments [18-21]. The only state- and nationwide assessment of charitable food assistance programs has been Feeding America\u0026rsquo;s Hunger in America Study in 2014 (HIA14) [22]. Changes over the past ten years remain undocumented [22-23]. No assessment has been conducted to know where active programs are located, who is being served, or where gaps persist. In recent years, nonprofits like Vivery began documenting active programs and their location, hours, and services [24], but these efforts are limited to the organizational scale and remain focused on helping households find food rather than fostering system-wide coordination, assessment, and support. There is a lack of data and data systems to monitor and evaluate what has become a consistent source of food for households [1,2]. Timely action is necessary to ensure that the charitable food network is responsive and resilient at a crucial time of increased need.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSCOPE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study was undertaken to address the need to identify, assess, and track the charitable food assistance landscape at the state level. This study was conducted through unique partnerships between the University of Georgia, nine Georgia Regional Food Banks, and Feeding Georgia, an organization that coordinates statewide initiatives with eight Georgia Regional Food Banks. The goal of the study was to develop feasible and practical strategies for regular data collection, with the hope that food banks manage essential information (e.g., agency name, address, services offered) to facilitate the compilation of agency data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to 1) understand how food banks manage information about their partner agencies and programs, 2) use food bank administrative data to compile a standardized statewide list that reflects agency operations, and 3) identify challenges that impacted the list creation process and strategies to resolve experienced barriers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study conducted a census of all active agencies and programs associated with nine Feeding America-affiliated food banks in Georgia. The study was conducted between October 2021 - May 2023.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eINITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD BANK ADMINISTRATIVE DATA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn October 2021, Feeding Georgia and the University of Georgia research team explored an opportunity to study the status of Georgia charitable food assistance programs. Initial brainstorming sessions carefully evaluated potential approaches, required resources, and logistics for designing and conducting a statewide study involving all nine Georgia Regional Food Banks. Feeding Georgia also consulted with representatives from each food bank to gauge their interest and support for a statewide study. Feeding Georgia shared Regional Food Banks\u0026rsquo; contacts with the research team. The research team contacted food banks via email to introduce the project and request to explore or \u0026ldquo;walk through\u0026rdquo; their administrative data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIt was unknown if Regional Food Banks maintained data, or the extent of data, regarding their partner agencies. The first step to the study and partnering with food banks assessed if data existed, and if it was comprehensive enough to support further analysis including identifiers, location, and services offered. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eData walk-through meetings were conducted from December 2022 - February 2023 via Zoom to understand food bank data management practices and clarify how food bank operations were captured in the data. These meetings were recorded after all participants gave verbal consent, and the research team took notes for written records. The research team used these records along with continued communication (i.e., emails, phone calls, follow-up video calls) to understand and compare data management protocols and align data across food banks. The format of data walk-through meetings was fluid and minimally structured, which allowed the research team to organically learn more about food bank and agency operations, programs of interest, and organizational priorities while giving food bank associates flexibility to discuss topics of interest and grow rapport.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the data walk-through meetings, the research team requested administrative data files from all food banks, including both partner agency and non-partner programs, to compile the statewide agency list.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eITERATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW PROCESS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommunication with Regional Food Banks continued throughout the entire agency list creation process. In cases when the research team had not received a response to requests for administrative data or clarifications, the research team sent a follow-up email. If there was still no response, Feeding Georgia sent an additional follow-up email.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData collection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the data were received, the research team assessed them for missing or duplicate variables and entries. If multiple files were provided by food banks, they were cross-checked to ensure that all the agencies were listed in their respective files. Some food banks provided other data sources to the research team, such as utilizing their website for agency hours of operation. The research team identified agencies listed online that were not found in the received data and requested that food banks confirm the active agencies and programs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData cleaning and standardization\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the food bank administrative data were initially examined, they were cleaned using R version 4.2.2 (2022-10-31). Data cleaning and standardization steps varied greatly between each food bank. Food banks\u0026rsquo; data management protocols affected how data were standardized to retain details about agency operations, distribution locations, and programs offered. Steps included but were not limited to: converting data files to the same file type, merging data files, combining multiple columns, and separating distribution site addresses from mailing addresses (i.e., PO Boxes). The research team aligned names for similar services provided by agencies (program type) whenever possible; however, this was not always feasible as food banks used unique terminology. If inconsistencies were found in the data, the entries were checked with records of food bank data management protocols, and the research team iteratively asked the food banks for clarification or further data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAGENCY LIST COMPILATION\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen individual food bank lists were adequately cleaned and formatted, they were merged to create the statewide list of agencies and programs. Descriptive analyses of the statewide list were conducted for key variables including the count of agencies and program types by food bank.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eINITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD BANK ADMINISTRATIVE DATA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHow and what information is managed\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data walk-through meetings confirmed that Regional Food Banks managed administrative data containing information about agencies and programs including identifiers, location, and services offered. However, they used different data management software to record and manage the data. About half of food banks (55.6%) used Primarius or the cloud version P2. Some food banks used Excel worksheets or paper entries, especially for food banks serving multiple states or rural areas with limited access to digital resources and internet access. The type, amount, and format of data managed by food banks varied greatly. For example, some food banks tracked only basic administrative information, others documented non-food programs hosted by agencies, and some included separate documentation for mobile food pantries. Two-thirds of food banks (66.7%) utilized multiple data files to manage administrative data separated by program type or other administrative needs. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHow different agencies and programs are documented\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cu\u003eA partner agency vs. non-partner program\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research team aimed to identify all programs supplied by the food banks to document all programs households could access, even if they did not reach partner agency status. In general, non-partner programs were included in the data with no distinction from partner agencies. Food bank associates identified these non-partner programs using institutional knowledge or the scheme of agency identifiers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cu\u003eMobile pantries\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHalf of the food banks managed mobile pantries directly, while the other half placed the responsibility of operating mobile pantries on the agencies. If mobile pantries were managed by agencies, they were rarely included in the dataset.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cu\u003ePrograms with multiple programs or locations\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of locations and programs operated by one agency varied greatly. Examples of variation in program locations included partner agencies being a part of a larger non-profit organization, agencies that hosted a secondary program at a separate site, or agencies offering multiple programs at the same site. Food banks either recorded the agency headquarters with one program listed regardless of the number of programs or locations available, recorded all programs hosted at a distinct location in one data entry, or recorded separate entries for each program hosted by an agency. Separate data entries for programs at distinct locations were preferred because they better described how programs were distributed and the populations they may reach.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eITERATIVE REVIEW\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency of contact\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom scheduling the initial data walk-through meeting until all data were received, the research team spoke to a food bank associate 7.2 times on average during agency list creation. Feeding Georgia\u0026rsquo;s facilitated communication was necessary at least once for seven of nine food banks. The need for Feeding Georgia\u0026apos;s involvement to engage food banks indicated that the process was burdensome.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData collection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOutside of data walk-through meetings, sometimes food banks requested that the research team utilize their websites for data. When the research team confirmed data available online with food banks, or cross-checked programs listed online with raw data provided by the food banks, it was found that food bank websites were not fully updated with active agencies or current locations, hours of operations, and services offered.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData cleaning and standardization\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStandardization across food banks exposed possible inconsistencies where food bank administrative data did not adhere to the protocols described in the data walk-through meetings. About 11% of data entries (n=270) were inconsistent with the guidelines provided by food banks, mainly related to multiple programs or distribution sites. Examples include entries where all fields contained unique information but with the same address, duplicate entries but with unique agency identifiers, or multiple entries for programs at one agency when data management protocols instructed to include only one program per agency. These entries were further examined prior to statewide agency list creation. In many instances, these were managed on a case-by-case basis for further data standardization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCHALLENGES IN LIST CREATION\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral factors affected the feasibility of collecting and standardizing data prior to compiling the statewide agency list.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternet Bandwidth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMany food banks serve rural areas in Georgia with decreased internet bandwidth and access. This impacted what methods were most feasible for the food bank to collect and document administrative information from the agencies. It was more common for agencies to submit paper forms to Regional Food Banks in rural areas where internet was less accessible. The research team relied on digital tools that facilitated the translation of paper records to digital data including an R package that scraped PDF files of scanned paper records into the R coding script.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Literacy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second consideration for compiling the statewide list involves conversations around data management and food bank associates\u0026rsquo; level of data literacy. Oftentimes, associates were not data professionals, but community organizers responsible for managing agencies, programs, and coordinating food bank and community efforts. Many times, food bank associates had a long tenure with the organization and were very knowledgeable about ongoing and historical agency operations. With the rapid development of technology, associates continued with previously utilized methods and documentation processes. This led to the variety of data files and types including Excel spreadsheets and paper records as associates adapted their methods to growing operations, rather than adopt new technology and digital tools.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the data walkthrough meetings, technical terms surrounding data management like \u0026ldquo;variables\u0026rdquo; or topics around data output and structure may not be familiar to the associate. In order to mitigate some of these barriers, data walk through meetings were fluid in structure and often used common terms. When referencing data and data management protocols, the research team needed to be extremely specific with tangible examples of what \u0026ldquo;variables\u0026rdquo; they were requesting from the food bank, sometimes creating a hypothetical case of how a food bank associate would make a new entry or log a delivery to agencies. This identified that data management protocols were built with the focus of agencies and programs operations rather than with initial consideration of technical methods such as different locations, agency identifiers, or how to adapt documentation as operations grew and developed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eData literacy was also mitigated during iterative review steps throughout list creation by providing clear examples of what the research team was looking for. If there were inconsistencies in the data, oftentimes the research team would resolve the concern via phone call where they and the associate could discuss agency operations descriptively, and the data were cleaned accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstitutional Knowledge and Dynamic Agency Operations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional knowledge of the food bank associates was both an invaluable tool and a challenge when assessing the data that was available. Knowledge gained from working closely with agencies could mitigate other digital barriers like internet access and digital literacy. Yet, because associates\u0026rsquo; experience is not recorded in the data, the necessary partnership and thorough conversation around data management and agency operations added to the intensity and time commitment of the process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAGENCY LIST COMPILATION\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final agency list included 2,404 agencies and programs. The most common programs offered across Georgia included food pantries (n=1,377, 57.3%), backpack programs (n=225, 9.4%), direct distribution (n=145, 6.0%), mobile food pantries (n=75, 3.1%), and meal programs (n=74, 3.1%). It is important to note that since agency-run mobile pantries were not frequently documented in food bank administrative data, the count of mobile food pantries may not be representative of the mobile pantries active at the time of list creation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAgency list creation framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe development of the statewide agency list resulted in a novel data collection framework that can serve as a reference for creating a statewide agency list in Georgia, or in other states \u003cstrong\u003e(Figure 3)\u003c/strong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3: Framework for Creating the Statewide Agency List\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the considerations highlighted throughout this paper, the framework highlights the iterative process of data collection, data cleaning, and communication and relationship-building with Regional Food Banks. Since food bank data were often supplemented by associates\u0026rsquo; institutional knowledge, key topics of conversation are highlighted in Figure 3 as well. The parts of the process with Feeding Georgia facilitation is also highlighted, notably within the iterative clarification of the data. The organization\u0026rsquo;s necessary and frequent involvement was crucial to initial relationship-building with the food banks and launching the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePractical methodology requires continued partnership and collaboration with Regional Food Banks and Feeding Georgia to describe food bank and agency operations, identify data management practices, and clarify the received data as it is standardized and compiled into a statewide list of charitable food assistance agencies and programs. Creation of the statewide agency list and development of the framework identified that this process is feasible, though not without challenges which can be mitigated in future efforts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis exploratory study identified a practical systematic process to collect and compile information on the charitable food assistance landscape in Georgia, resulting in the first comprehensive list of 2,404 agencies and programs. This effort was possible through unique partnerships between university faculty and staff, Georgia Regional Food Banks, and Feeding Georgia, and intentional efforts to thoroughly understand food bank administrative data management practices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe discursive approach of compiling the agency list and the unique challenges in its process are linked to a key takeaway of the study: food banks are independent and unique organizations, even when they belong to the same bodies like Feeding Georgia and Feeding America. Their agencies, programs, and administrative processes are built around the communities they serve. Data management practices are established by the individuals responsible for managing them and are as unique to the person as they are to the organization. Many instances in this study relied on food bank associates\u0026rsquo; institutional knowledge and how they folded innovative operations to fit within the data structure available and familiar to them. Ultimately cleaning, standardizing, and compiling the data would not be possible without clarification and validation from the food bank associates charged with documenting agency operations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTAKEAWAYS FROM THE PROCESS AND KEY METRICS FOR FUTURE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe approaches used in this paper serve as a starting point for regular data collection. Several challenges identified in this study still exist and impact the feasibility of making the methodology routine and automated. Barriers to creating the agency list are directly interrelated, which speaks to the need for more foundational efforts in the charitable food assistance space. Lessons learned from this paper serve to support more streamlined initiatives in the future and the steps highlighted below aim to mitigate barriers for future iterations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecrease burden on food banks\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe project relied heavily on collaboration with Regional Food Banks; therefore, reducing the burden on associates is crucial. The research team should clearly communicate the expected time commitment and the iterative nature of the project during the initial outreach. Initial outreach should detail what data files will likely be required, and confirm that the research team is requesting the raw data files rather than a summary report of services. All parties involved should be well-informed of the project expectations, time commitment, and for an outside institution to view and collect potentially sensitive data. In future iterations, the decreased burden on food bank associates should also lessen the need of Feeding Georgia involvement in data collection and cleaning steps.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrioritize conversations about unique agency and program operations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRequesting all non-partner programs alongside partner agencies was a crucial step in documenting available programs. Non-partner programs serve many clients and omitting them from a statewide list overlooks vital resources that low-income and food insecure households utilize. Specifically, backpack programs and direct distribution programs accounted for 15.3% of programs and would have likely been missed by not explicitly requesting all non-partner programs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMost of the variation in the statewide agency list was associated with inconsistencies in documenting agencies with multiple programs or locations. Prioritizing conversations about how these programs are managed in the data is necessary for retaining information about different services offered across Georgia and aligning different data structures to compile a statewide list. These may include programs like mobile pantries, agencies with multiple distribution locations, or large non-profits. As many mobile pantries are hosted by individual agencies and omitted from the statewide list, future research could further investigate mobile pantry distribution with additional conversations around routes and distribution schedules.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMitigate limited digital literacy and internet bandwidth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is difficult to propose feasible solutions to limited internet access among the agencies due to the large scale of intervention that is required, but it is a critical factor to account for when discussing data practices and the possibility of digital infrastructure across the charitable food assistance landscape. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDocument institutional knowledge\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research team should be diligent about documenting associates\u0026rsquo; knowledge. Strategies include conducting fluid data walk-through meetings, prompting open-ended discussions about unique food bank and agency operations, taking meeting notes, and recording meetings to reference associates\u0026rsquo; descriptions during data cleaning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFood banks used preexisting systems to document operations that were not specifically created for the Regional Food Bank. Therefore, food bank associates needed to fit unique agency operations into a pre-determined structure, and if an agency grows it may be difficult to document the expansion. These factors can lead to inconsistencies in the data and food bank associates\u0026rsquo; knowledge of agency operations is essential to mitigate these challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIMPLICATIONS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe agency list is a foundational effort with future implications for programs, research, and policy efforts to support food security. Having adequate food and nutrition security has been shown to mitigate chronic disease, household healthcare costs, and financial stability [15-17]. Yet, unlike federal programs, charitable food assistance programs operate independently, with no unified standards, limited infrastructure, and often minimal visibility into the broader network around them. Conducting a census is an essential first step to assess the availability and accessibility of charitable food assistance programs and inform initiatives that strengthen the network.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrograms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the research team shared that food bank websites did not provide accurate program information, food banks updated details online which led to a more reliable resource for households to find food. Therefore, previous initiatives that relied on crowd-sourced lists or web-scraping [25-30] have had limited success in producing reliable, up-to-date agency lists.\u0026nbsp;As AI tools help access a large amount of data across the internet, the potential drawbacks of web-scarping techniques should be considered. Continued agency list compilation will prompt updated food bank resources that can be shared among the community and better reach those in need\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eConversations around data and data management protocols could lead to revised data practices within the food bank such as a written data management policy. Once written policies are created, it is more feasible for associates to uniformly document programs, facilitate the transfer of knowledge between associates, and ultimately be a strong step to streamline statewide agency list compilation and decrease associate burden.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eResearch\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research can utilize the agency list to identify characteristics and experiences of charitable food assistance programs and their clients, and fill a gap in the literature since HIA14. Insights from future research at the agency- and program-levels can identify barriers to acquire or distribute food, assess the nutritional quality of food provided, and highlight unmet needs present in the community as an area of opportunity for future intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eProgram locations from the statewide list can be utilized for geospatial analysis to examine the distribution of programs and identify underserved areas based on population demographics such as income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation, and SNAP retailers by census tract. These overlays can suggest strategies to improve the availability of charitable food assistance and help mitigate barriers in accessing healthy food.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOne overlapping consideration between implications for research and programs is building out a digital interface to document food bank operations. This will likely fall in the research scope, yet it is important to note that food banks and programs would be impacted by its creation. A digital interface would unify the data, mitigate associate burden, and allow for the possibility of longitudinal assessments in future research. Since Regional Food Banks must currently adapt processes to adhere to a third-party digital tool, a customizable digital tool will alleviate daily administrative burdens on associates as well. This then allows more resources to be allocated to additional projects within the food bank.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePolicy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, over 34.9% of SNAP recipients utilized charitable food assistance programs in the U.S. [31]. Additionally, over 40% of households facing food insecurity did not receive federal food assistance [1]. There is a gap in state-level assessments of how households engage with both charitable and federal food assistance programs. Establishing foundational documentation of charitable programs creates the data necessary for a comprehensive understanding of food assistance use and guide policy and program interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePolicy changes in 2025 impacted SNAP benefit eligibility, federal funding for food assistance programs, and adjustments to the Thrifty Food Plan [32]. As the federal safety net decreases, households will rely more on charitable food assistance programs. Providers may spend valuable time navigating logistical barriers associated with increased demand instead of serving clients. If programs operate in a constant state of urgency, they will not be able to scale sustainably at the rate that is needed. Foundational work such as conducting a census of active agencies is essential for strengthening organizational resiliency, and enabling programs to meet needs as national nutrition policy and the broader economic climate continue to evolve. There is a timely need for communities, local governments, and research institutions to prioritize support for the charitable food assistance landscape and households it serves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLIMITATIONS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is not without limitations. The researchers were unable to fully verify the validity and reliability of the food bank administrative data to ensure that the data accurately, timely, and consistently reflected the on-the-ground operations of the charitable food assistance programs. The approach used in this study was exploratory in a single state and requires validation to refine the data collection and compilation process for other states. However, this study is the first to document the dynamic charitable food assistance landscape, and serves as a foundation for future state and nationwide research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study suggest that compiling a statewide list of charitable food assistance agencies and programs is feasible through continued partnerships with Regional Food Banks and support from Feeding Georgia. A census of charitable food assistance programs is the first step to measure the availability, accessibility, and utilization of charitable food assistance and identify gaps in food need. The approaches and recommendations utilized in this study suggest policy, program, and research efforts to combat food insecurity across the state and nation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eHIA14: Hunger in America Study 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTEFAP: The Emergency Food Assistance Program\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper is a part of the Georgia Hunger Study, which received the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board Ethics approval (ID PROJECT00007024); however, this part of the project did not use human participants, therefore no consent procedures were needed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCONSENT FOR PUBLICATION\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCOMPETING INTERESTS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFUNDING\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the Georgia Department of Human Services (Grant ID FP00027556). Georgia Department of Human Services had no involvement or restrictions regarding publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAUTHORS\u0026apos; CONTRIBUTIONS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJSL and AK designed and conducted the study; AK analyzed data; and AK and JSL wrote the paper. AK had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis project is possible due to collaboration and assistance from Dr. Jerry Shannon, Dr. Alison Berg, and Maya Rao (University of Georgia) and Callahan Roan and Dana Craft (Feeding Georgia). Thank you to Georgia Regional Food Banks and Feeding Georgia for their time and assistance on this project. Thank you to the GA Department of Human Services (DHS) for funding this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRabbit MP, Reed-Jones M, Hales LJ, Burke MP. Household food security in the United States in 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2024. Report No.: ERR-337.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eByrne AT, Just DR. The other half: an examination of monthly food pantry cycles in the context of SNAP benefits. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2021;3(4):716-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharitable Food Assistance Participation in 2022 [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2024 February]. Available from: https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Charitable%20Food%20Assistance%20Participation%20in%202022.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharitable food assistance participation in 2023 [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2024 December]. Available from: https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/charitable-food-assistance-participation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmerica\u0026apos;s Second Harvest of Coastal Georgia [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://www.helpendhunger.org/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtlanta Community Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://www.acfb.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChattanooga Area Food Bank 2022 Impact Report [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://chattfoodbank.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeeding the Valley Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding Georgia; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://feedingthevalley.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFood Bank of Northeast Georgia [Internet]. Feeding Georgia; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://foodbanknega.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorgia Mountain Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://www.gamountainfoodbank.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGolden Harvest Food Bank [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://goldenharvest.org/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiddle Georgia Community Food Bank [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://mgcfb.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSecond Harvest of South Georgia [Internet]. Feeding America; 2023 [cited 2023 May]. Available from: https://feedingsga.org/programs.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToossi S, Jones JW, Hodges L. The food and nutrition assistance landscape: fiscal year 2020 annual report. U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2021. Report No.: EIB-227.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan J, Meyer BD, Sullivan JX. Income and poverty in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Paper presented at: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity; August 6, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFox LE, Burns K. The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2020. United States Census Bureau; 2021. Report No.: P60-275.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoppendieck J. \u003cem\u003eSweet charity?: Emergency food and the end of entitlement\u003c/em\u003e. New York, NY: Viking; 1998.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBartfeld J, Hellenbrand A, Hilgendorf A, Francis CD, Dorfman SJ. Food pantries during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a survey of visitors to Feeding Wisconsin network pantries. Feeding Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2021. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrbe A, Martin KS. Food Access in Connecticut: one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Connecticut Foodshare: Institute for Hunger Research \u0026amp; Solutions; 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKahle RW, Roderick G. Lowcountry Food Bank Feeding America client survey (FACS): summary report. Kahle Strategic Insights: Lowcountry Food Bank; 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCodner A, Zack RM, Liu X, Bangham C, Nelson E, Hicks JM, Greece JA. Socio-demographic factors associated with hunger among food pantry users in Eastern Massachusetts. Journal of Nutritional Science. 2023;12(53). https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2022.118.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeinfield NS, Mills G, Borger C, Gearing M, Macaluso T, Montaquila J, Zedlewski S. Hunger in America 2014, national report. Feeding America; 2014.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMills G, Weinfield NS, Borger C, Gearing M, Macaluso T, Montaquila J. Hunger in America 2014, state report for Georgia. Feeding America; 2014.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVivery [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from: https://www.vivery.org/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFind Food [Internet]. WhyHunger; 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from: https://whyhunger.org/find-food. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLittle Free Pantry. 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from: https://www.littlefreepantry.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoodPantries.org [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 July]. Available from https://www.foodpantries.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurke MP, Huffman E. Estimating the number, distribution, and predictors of food pantries in the US. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2023;55(3), 182-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2022.12.001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSundermeir S., Martin N, Poirier L, Reznar M, Barnett D, Uriarte A, Stephenson J, Lewis E, Matsuzaki M, Gittelsohn J. Current use and demand for digital tools to enhance food pantry management: findings from a nationwide survey. Journal of Hunger \u0026amp; Environmental Nutrition, 2023;19(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2023.2228728.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarnett DJ, Sundermeir SM, Reznar M, Lightner A, Poirier L, Rosenblum A, Oladimeji AY, Igusa T, Neff R, Ruggiero CF, Lewis EC, Jager L, Moses L, Velez-Burgess V, Gagnon B, Attar N, Gittelsohn J. Protocol for the support application for Food PAntrieS trial: design, implementation, and evaluation plan for a digital application to promote healthy food access and support food pantry operations. Front Public Health. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1340707.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRabbitt MP, Reed-Jones M, Hales LJ, Burke MP. Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2024. Report No.: AP-124.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Related Nutrition Programs in P.L. 119-21: An Overview [Internet]. Congress.gov; 2025 [cited 2026 March]. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48552.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-nutrition","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nutn","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Nutrition](http://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/nutn/default.aspx","title":"BMC Nutrition","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"food insecurity, charitable food assistance program, food banks, food pantries, low-income populations","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9313582/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9313582/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood insecurity is a growing public health problem reaching 13.5% in 2023, the highest it has been since 2014. Many food insecure households rely on charitable food assistance (e.g., food pantries, meal programs) to meet their food needs. However, no established methodology and datasets are available to document the current availability, accessibility, and utilization of charitable food assistance programs in the U.S. This study examined the feasibility of creating a statewide list of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia, U.S. by compiling existing food bank administrative data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood bank administrative data were collected as a census of all active agencies and programs through partnerships with Feeding Georgia and nine Georgia Regional Food Banks (December 2022-February 2023). The process of creating the agency list documented the structure of food bank administrative data, and outlined necessary procedures to collect, clean, and merge the records of constantly evolving active agencies and programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study compiled a statewide list of all active agencies and programs across Georgia as of February 2023 (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,404). Food banks utilized a variety of data management practices and data structures to document agency operations. The necessary procedures and factors that impacted the feasibility of list creation outlines a framework for repeated efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study prove that compiling a statewide list of charitable food assistance agencies and programs is feasible. Establishing the methodology to create datasets for charitable food assistance organizations is a critical step to inform research, program, and policy decisions to improve food access for food insecure Americans.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Systematic identification of charitable food assistance programs in Georgia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-27 12:52:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9313582/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-17T15:35:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-17T15:30:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-09T05:36:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-09T00:36:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Nutrition","date":"2026-04-09T00:33:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-nutrition","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nutn","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Nutrition](http://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/nutn/default.aspx","title":"BMC Nutrition","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"62e56c3d-4815-4418-95ef-04ce3fcab4d1","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 27th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T12:52:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-27 12:52:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9313582","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9313582","identity":"rs-9313582","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}