SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Select Budget Committee Agenda Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:30 AM Council Chamber, City Hall 600 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Sally Bagshaw, Chair M. Lorena González, Member Bruce Harrell, Member Lisa Herbold, Member Debora Juarez, Member Teresa Mosqueda, Member Mike O'Brien, Member Abel Pacheco, Member Kshama Sawant, Member Chair Info: 206-684-8801; Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov Watch Council Meetings Live View Past Council Meetings Council Chamber Listen Line: 206-684-8566 For accessibility information and for accommodation requests, please call 206-684-8888 (TTY Relay 7-1-1), email CouncilAgenda@Seattle.gov, or visit http://seattle.gov/cityclerk/accommodations. 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Select Budget Committee Agenda November 13, 2019 - 9:30 AM Meeting Location: Council Chamber, City Hall, 600 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Committee Website: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/budget This meeting also constitutes a meeting of the City Council, provided that the meeting shall be conducted as a committee meeting under the Council Rules and Procedures, and Council action shall be limited to committee business. Proposed Changes to the Chair's Initial Budget Proposal Council Central Staff will present Councilmembers' proposed changes to the Chair's Initial Budget Proposal in the form of Council Budget Actions (CBAs) and Statements of Legislative Intent (SLIs). Please Note: Times listed are estimated A. Call To Order B. Approval of the Agenda C. Items of Business I. Proposed Changes with Resource Overlap 1. CBA DEEL-12-A-1 Attachments: Add $75,000 GF (one-time) to DEEL for a human services certificate program and cut $75,000 GF (one-time) from budget action HOM-12-B-1 CBA DEEL-12-A-1 2 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 2 Select Budget Committee 2. CBA HOM-13-C-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Add $775,000 GF (one-time) to HSD to create a rental assistance pilot, impose a proviso, and cut $75,000 GF (one-time) from Council Budget Action HOM-12-B-1 CBA HOM-13-C-1 II. Other Proposed Changes 3. SLI CJ-1-A-2 Attachments: 4. CBA CJ-2-B-1 Attachments: 5. CBA CJ-62-B-1 Attachments: 6. SLI DEEL-8-A-1 Attachments: 7. SLI DEEL-10-A-1 Attachments: Request the City Auditor conduct a review of Seattle Municipal Court's probation program SLI CJ-1-A-2 Impose a proviso on Finance General Reserves for LAW's staffing of a case conferencing pilot CBA CJ-2-B-1 Add $522,600 ongoing GF for youth diversion programs; cut $522,600 for recruitment and retention initiatives from SPD CBA CJ-62-B-1 Request that DEEL develop an implementation plan for the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship and report on progress SLI DEEL-8-A-1 Request that DEEL report on data collection, disaggregation, and usage SLI DEEL-10-A-1 3 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 3 Select Budget Committee 8. SLI DON-5-B-1 Attachments: 9. CBA HOM-14-B-1 Attachments: 10. CBA HOM-6-C-1 Attachments: 11. CBA HOM-15-B-1 Attachments: 12. SLI HOM-20-A-1 Attachments: 13. SLI HOM-21-A-1 Attachments: 14. CBA HSD-20-A-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Request that DON report on a strategy to develop a community-led place-based violence prevention initiative in Westwood and South Delridge SLI DON-5-B-1 Add $8,595,000 GF (on-going) to HSD to create 14 tiny home villages, cut $8,395,000 GF (on-going) across multiple departments to discontinue the Navigation Team, cut $200,000 GF (one-time) from HSD for removing Northlake Village, abrogate 30 FTE, and impose a proviso CBA HOM-14-B-1 Add $210,000 GF to HSD for homeless outreach in North Seattle and impose a proviso CBA HOM-6-C-1 Impose a proviso on Navigation Team appropriations in HSD CBA HOM-15-B-1 Request a report on good neighbor agreements with HSD contractors SLI HOM-20-A-1 Request a report exploring needle collection in HSD contracts SLI HOM-21-A-1 Impose a proviso on HSD's Utility Discount Program Funds CBA HSD-20-A-1 4 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 4 Select Budget Committee 15. CBA HSD-40-B-1 Attachments: 16. SLI OED-7-A-1 Attachments: 17. CBA OED-9-A-2 Attachments: 18. SLI OED-14-A-1 Attachments: 19. SLI OED-15-A-1 Attachments: 20. CBA OH-7-B-1 Attachments: 21. CBA OLS-2-B-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Add $186,300 GF (ongoing) for legal support for sexual violence survivors; cut $186,300 from SPD for recruitment and retention initiatives. CBA HSD-40-B-1 Request that OED identify strategies and resources necessary to support workers during a recession SLI OED-7-A-1 Impose a proviso on funding for the Creative Industry Policy Advisor position in OED CBA OED-9-A-2 Request that OED report on the development of the Business Opportunity Support Program SLI OED-14-A-1 Request that OED form a search committee to provide recommendations for hiring a Creative Industry Director SLI OED-15-A-1 Add $67,000 (one-time) of fund balance in 2020 to OH for homebuyer counseling CBA OH-7-B-1 Add $202,000 (one-time) for the Community Outreach and Education Fund (COEF); cut $100,000 GF (one-time) from high barrier probation pilot support; and transfer $102,000 FG (one-time) from the Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund OLS-2-B-1 5 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 5 Select Budget Committee 22. CBA OSE-2-C-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Add $540,000 Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) to OSE, add $960,000 SBT to HSD, add $300,000 SBT to SPR, add $475,000 SBT to DEEL, cut $2,275,000 SBT from DON, and impose a proviso CBA OSE-2-C-1 Attachment 1 - Healthy Food Availability and Food Bank Network Report 23. CBA SDCI-2-B-1 Attachments: 24. SLI SDCI-3-A-1 Attachments: 25. CBA SDCI-6-B-1 Attachments: 26. CBA SDCI-9-A-1 Attachments: 27. SLI SDOT-2-C-1 Attachments: Proviso on $63,000 in SDCI for updates to green building standards CBA SDCI-2-B-1 Request that OPCD and SDCI prepare a proposal to limit siting of new fossil fuel production and storage facilities SLI SDCI-3-A-1 Add $607,000 GF (ongoing) to SDCI for renter organizing and outreach and reduce incentive funding in SPD for officer hiring CBA SDCI-6-B-1 Add $419,522 (ongoing) GF to SDCI for eviction legal defense and reduce SDOT congestion pricing outreach funding CBA SDCI-9-A-1 Request that SDOT report on current maintenance spending for bicycle infrastructure SLI SDOT-2-C-1 6 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 6 Select Budget Committee 28. CBA SDOT-3-B-1 Attachments: 29. CBA SDOT-9-B-1 Attachments: 30. SLI SDOT-15-A-1 Attachments: 31. SLI SDOT-19-B-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Add $300,000 of General Fund (Transportation Network Company Tax) and 1.0 FTE for SDOT to support implementation of the Transportation Equity Agenda; and cut $300,000 of Finance General Reserve CBA SDOT-3-B-1 Proviso spending on the Delridge Way SW - RapidRide H Line (MC-TR-C042) CIP project CBA SDOT-9-B-1 Request that SDOT develop a plan to make all public transit in Seattle free to ride SLI SDOT-15-A-1 Request that SDOT report on an evaluation of Seattle's Complete Streets policy against national best practices and develop an alternative to Level of Service analysis SLI SDOT-19-B-1 Attachment A - Complete Streets SLI Best Practices Questions 32. SLI SDOT-25-A-1 Attachments: 33. CBA SPD-5-A-1 Attachments: Request that SDOT and CBO report on the schedule and status of third party funding discussions regarding South Transit's West Seattle and Ballard Link Extension project SLI SDOT-25-A-1 Impose a proviso in SPD in 2020 related to emphasis patrols CBA SPD-5-A-1 7 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 7 Select Budget Committee 34. CBA SPD-6-C-1 Attachments: 35. SLI SPD-9-A-1 Attachments: 36. SLI SPD-10-A-1 Attachments: 37. SLI SPD-11-A-1 Attachments: 38. SLI SPD-12-A-1 Attachments: 39. SLI SPD-13-A-1 Attachments: 40. SLI SPU-2-A-1 Attachments: 41. CBA SPU-4-A-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Impose provisos on SPD appropriations related to additional training CBA SPD-6-C-1 Request that SPD report on a City-wide asset loss approach SPD-9-A-1 Request that SPD report on compliance with copper wire laws SPD-10-A-1 Request that SPD report on the Community Service Officer program SLI SPD-11-A-1 Request that SPD report on the Hiring and Retention initiative SLI SPD-12-A-1 Request that SPD report on sworn staff hiring SLI SPD-13-A-1 Request that SPU report on the feasibility of using the City's water pipe infrastructure for a municipal broadband network SLI SPU-2-A-1 Add $179,712 in SPU for a pilot program of mobile pump-out services to RVs; and cut $179,712 from two SPU accounts CBA SPU-4-A-1 8 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 8 Select Budget Committee 42. CBA TNCDRC-104A-1 Attachments: Agenda November 13, 2019 Amend CB 119686, version D2, on Director's rules and the rulemaking process; and pass CB 119686 as amended CBA TNCDRC-104-A-1 Attachment 1 - Amendments to CB 119686 43. CBA TNCSPN-106C-1 Attachments: Substitute Resolution 31914 vD3b for vD1d and adopt Resolution 31914 as amended CBA TNCSPN-106-C-1 Attachment 1 - Substitute Resolution 44. CBA TNCTAX-103C-1 Attachments: Substitute CB 119684 vD4b for vD2e and pass CB 119684 CBA TNCTAX-103-C-1 Attachment 1 - Substitute Council Bill D. Public Comment E. Adjournment Related Budget Legislation: CB 119684 Supporting Documents: AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; imposing a tax on transportation network companies; adding a new Chapter 5.39 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Summary and Fiscal Note 9 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 9 Select Budget Committee CB 119686 Supporting Documents: Res 31914 Supporting Documents: Agenda November 13, 2019 AN ORDINANCE relating to transportation network company drivers; establishing deactivation protections for transportation network company drivers; amending Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 14.32 to the Seattle Municipal Code. Summary and Fiscal Note A RESOLUTION adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center. Summary and Fiscal Note 10 Click here for accessibility information and to request accommodations. Page 10 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA DEEL-12-A-1, Version: 1 11 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version DEEL 12 A 1 Budget Action Title: Add $75,000 GF (one-time) to DEEL for a human services certificate program and cut $75,000 GF (one-time) from budget action HOM-12-B-1 Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This Budget Action adds $75,000 GF (one-time) to the Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL) to contract with a non-profit agency to hire a navigator supporting a human services certificate program at Seattle Central College (SCC). The navigator will support a cohort of up to 24 students by mentoring students, assisting with enrollment and registration, obtaining needed supplies, facilitating connections with instructors and other students, and helping students overcome barriers to attending classes. The human services certificate program at SCC is a degree program targeted to frontline workers at human services agencies, including workers who have not completed a high school degree or its equivalent, to advance their educational attainment and career without requiring the financial and time commitment of a two- or four-year degree. 12 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version DEEL 12 A 1 The Budget Action cuts the funding proposed in HOM-12-B-1 for a smart wallet program for individuals experiencing homelessness and redirects it to add the SCC navigator position. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Increase appropriation to contract for a navigator at Seattle Central College 0 0 DEEL - EE000 DEEL - BO-EE-IL300 Post-Secondary Programs 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $75,000 2 Decrease appropriation for a smart wallet donation program 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(75,000) 13 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA HOM-13-C-1, Version: 1 14 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 13 C 1 Budget Action Title: Add $775,000 GF (one-time) to HSD to create a rental assistance pilot, impose a proviso, and cut $75,000 GF (one-time) from Council Budget Action HOM-12-B-1 Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $700,000 Net Balance Effect $(700,000) Total Budget Balance Effect $(700,000) Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action (CBA) adds $775,000 GF in one-time funding to the Human Services Department (HSD) to create and evaluate a rental assistance pilot for individuals who 1) are age 50 or older, 2) have income limited to federal disability benefits, specifically Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), that is no more than $1,000 per month, and 3) are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness. CBA HOM-13-B-1 added $700,000 for this pilot program. This action cuts the $75,000 (GF) proposed in HOM-12-B-1 for a smart wallet program for individuals experiencing homelessness and redirects it to increase the funding for this pilot program to $775,000. The pilot will provide up to one-year of rental assistance and is estimated to serve as many as 70-100 15 Nov 12, 2019 11:24 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 13 C 1 households. The program will prioritize households who have become or are at-risk of becoming homeless and have transitioned from Washington's Housing and Essential Needs or Aged, Blind and Disabled assistance programs onto SSI or SSDI, receiving benefits of less than $1,000 per month. The program will also provide light case management services. HSD will convene a stakeholder group by January 10, 2020 consisting of representatives of community-based organizations with subject matter expertise, the Office of Housing, the Legislative Department, and other relevant stakeholders to refine the pilot's target population, subsidy levels, and other operational details. The request for proposals and associated process to award these funds should be carried out as early as possible in 2020. The Budget Action also imposes the following proviso: "Of the appropriations in the 2020 Budget for the Addressing Homelessness BSL, $775,000 is appropriated solely to provide rental assistance and related services for no more than 12 months to disabled individuals over the age of 50 who are homeless or at-risk of experiencing homelessness related to a transition onto federal disability programs and to evaluate the effects of that program and may be spent for no other purpose." Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Decrease appropriation for HOM-12-B-1 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(75,000) 2 Increase appropriation for rental assistance 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $775,000 16 Nov 12, 2019 11:24 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI CJ-1-A-2, Version: 1 Request the City Auditor conduct a review of Seattle Municipal Court's probation program 17 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version CJ 1 A 2 Budget Action Title: Request the City Auditor conduct a review of Seattle Municipal Court's probation program Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Council Members: Lisa Herbold,Kshama Sawant,Abel Pacheco,Debora Juarez,Mike O'Brien,Sally Bagshaw Staff Analyst: Asha Venkataraman Date Total Has Attachment: Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO No SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) requests that the City Auditor conduct a review of the Seattle Municipal Court's (SMC's) probation program. This assessment should focus on the impacts of probation on people of color who are currently or have previously been under the Court's jurisdiction as part of probation and the racial proportionality of the imposition, conditions of compliance, length, and successful completion of probation, as well as early release from probation. The audit should also identify gaps in the collection, analysis, and use of data as well as recommendations on how to fill these gaps. Before initiating this work, the City Auditor should consult with the Chair of the committee with jurisdiction over public safety (currently Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans, and Education) about the review's scope and objectives to ensure that it is informed by the Vera Institute of Justice's report on probation. The report is anticipated for completion in November 2019. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: September 15, 2020 18 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA CJ-2-B-1, Version: 1 19 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version CJ 2 B 1 Budget Action Title: Impose a proviso on Finance General Reserves for LAW's staffing of a case conferencing pilot Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Council Members: Lisa Herbold,Kshama Sawant,Abel Pacheco,Debora Juarez,Mike O'Brien,Sally Bagshaw Staff Analyst: Asha Venkataraman Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would impose the following proviso: "None of the money appropriated in the 2020 Budget in Finance General Reserves may be spent on a case conferencing pilot for high-barrier individuals until the Mayor’s Office has presented an analysis and detailed implementation plan to the Chair of the committee with jurisdiction over public safety. The analysis and plan should be developed in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, the Criminal Justice Equity Team, and communities most impacted by the criminal legal system and should include: (1) a discussion of whether and how the pilot aligns with the reentry recommendations, (2) a description of unintended consequences and plan to mitigate them, (3) proposed metrics of success, (4) a racial equity analysis, (5) how the City Attorney’s Office will coordinate with case managers or other clinical personnel not employed by the City who hold lawful releases of information from individuals with behavioral health conditions and high exposure to enforcement and prosecution and are permitted to share protected health information with the City Attorney’s Office and law enforcement, and (6) how the program will be taken to scale.” Background: The Mayor's 2020 Proposed Budget includes $2.9M in Finance General Reserves for four pilots proposed by the High-Barrier Individuals Working Group that are intended to address high-barrier individuals and their involvement in the criminal justice system. Of this amount, $149,500 is intended to support an Assistant City Prosecutor in the City Attorney's Office (LAW) to provide dedicated staffing to case conferencing about high-barrier individuals. It is anticipated that the position would be added to LAW when the supporting funds are transferred out of Finance General Reserves. The proviso in this Council Budget Action restricts all spending that would support the case conferencing pilot. 20 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version CJ 2 B 1 The Council requests that the Mayor's Office submit its analysis and implementation plan by April 1, 2020. 21 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA CJ-62-B-1, Version: 1 22 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version CJ 62 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $522,600 ongoing GF for youth diversion programs; cut $522,600 for recruitment and retention initiatives from SPD Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Council Members: Staff Analyst: Amy Gore Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This action adds $522,600 ongoing GF to the Human Services Department (HSD) to contract with nonprofit organizations to fund educational, community building, and youth diversion programs. The funding in this action is for three separate purposes as described below: (1) $300,000 for a contract with a community-based organization such as Youth Consortium to fund youth diversion programming. The City funded a $25,000 contract with some member organizations of the Youth Consortium in the 2018 budget. Consistent with the 2020 Endorsed Budget, there was not funding included in the 2020 Proposed Budget for this purpose. (2) $122,600 for a contract with a community-based organization such as Creative Justice to fund an arts-based alternative to secure detention for young people in Seattle. Creative Justice provides twice- 23 Nov 12, 2019 11:10 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version CJ 62 B 1 weekly sessions over a three- to four-month period for youth referred to the program. In that time period, youth work with a mentor on a unique project. In exchange for their work, Creative Justice youth receive community service credit and stipends that help pay court fines. Program participation is considered as mitigation in cases filed with King County Juvenile Court. (3) $100,000 for a contract supporting youth outreach services with a community-based organization such as the Rainier Beach Action Coalition’s Corner Greeters program. The program is a non-arrest crime reduction safety project that is led by community members. This project focuses on transforming spaces that are most prevalent for youth crime by employing youth from the neighborhood to create engaging events with food, music, and information about local resources. The 2020 Proposed Budget includes $1.8 million in GF for Youth Development and Education contracts. This action increases the total to $2.3 million, an increase of 29.5 percent. This budget action cuts $522,600 GF from the $1.6 million allocated in the 2020 Proposed Budget to the Seattle Police Department (SPD) for the purposes of recruitment and retention initiatives. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Add ongoing GF for youth diversion and education programs 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H2000 Preparing Youth for Success 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $522,600 2 Cut from recruitment and retention initiatives 0 0 SPD - SP000 SPD - BO-SP-P1800 Patrol Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(522,600) 24 Nov 12, 2019 11:10 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI DEEL-8-A-1, Version: 1 25 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version DEEL 8 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that DEEL develop an implementation plan for the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship and report on progress Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Abel Pacheco Council Members: Staff Analyst: Brian Goodnight Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: The Washington State Opportunity Scholarship (WSOS) provides scholarships to low- and middle-income students pursuing degrees, certificates, or apprenticeships in high-demand trade, health care, or Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (STEM) fields. WSOS partners with industry and philanthropic donors whose contributions are matched by the State of Washington to raise funds to support two different pathways: (1) a Baccalaureate Scholarship for those pursuing a bachelor’s degree in a STEM or health care field; and (2) a Career and Technical Scholarship for those pursuing a degree or certificate in a highdemand trade, health care or STEM field. In the 2019 legislative session, the State Legislature modified the WSOS program to allow municipalities to contribute funding to the program, which along with State matching funds are awarded to program participants from that municipality. Seattle has an opportunity to be the first municipality to partner with WSOS and to design a program that matches the workforce needs of the city. Collaboration with WSOS would also further the City’s commitment to post-secondary education and training, complementing the Seattle Promise investments included in the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy. The Council requests that the Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL) coordinate with WSOS and industry partners to develop a plan for implementing the municipal match scholarship program in Seattle. Throughout the process, where possible, the Executive should work with WSOS to compile relevant information that could be provided to other municipalities that want to create similar programs. The Council further requests that DEEL provide a report to the Council by March 31, 2020 summarizing the status of the work with WSOS in developing an implementation plan that complements the City's Seattle Promise program. The report should, at a minimum, include the following information: a) Partners participating in the process; b) Recommended focus for the scholarships to be offered (i.e., industries to be targeted, baccalaureate degrees or career and technical education certificates, etc.); 26 Oct 28, 2019 07:25 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version DEEL 8 A 1 c) Recommended eligibility criteria and strategies for promoting the opportunity; and d) Recommended funding levels, including funding source and estimated number of students to be served. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: March 31, 2020 27 Oct 28, 2019 07:25 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI DEEL-10-A-1, Version: 1 28 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version DEEL 10 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that DEEL report on data collection, disaggregation, and usage Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Abel Pacheco Council Members: Staff Analyst: Brian Goodnight Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: Background As stated on page 10 of the Implementation and Evaluation Plan (I&E Plan), the overall outcome for the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) Levy is: “African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, other students of color, refugee and immigrant, homeless, English language learners, and LGBTQ students achieve academically across the preschool to post-secondary continuum.” The I&E Plan further states, on page 17: “While FEPP Levy goals and outcomes are often framed at the population level with the intent to achieve outcomes for all Seattle students, [the Department of Education and Early Learning’s (DEEL)] evaluation activities are committed to disaggregating data to better understand who is being served, how well, and with what results. When outcomes are presented merely in aggregate, race-based inequities are hidden and enabled to persist. DEEL commits to disaggregate data by age, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, socioeconomic status, gender, ability, and income to the extent possible to promote equity in our investments.” Additionally, as part of its work with the FEPP Levy Oversight Committee, in June 2019, DEEL created a Data Workgroup with the following goal: “To create a unified strategy and guidelines for DEEL around collecting and presenting demographic data of the children/students, families and providers we serve.” Request The Council requests that DEEL provide a written report or presentation to the Council by May 1, 2020 describing its demographic data collection and analysis process. The report should, at a minimum, include discussion of: a. How data are collected; 29 Oct 28, 2019 07:24 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version DEEL 10 A 1 b. Who DEEL partners with for data collection and sharing; c. How data are disaggregated for evaluation activities; d. Other data sources or considerations used in determining target populations; and e. Identified opportunity gaps or inequities currently present in areas where the City invests FEPP levy funds. The Council requests that DEEL also address the following items in the report: 1. How is DEEL using data to inform the creation of funding opportunities and allocations? 2. How is DEEL ensuring that students experiencing the effects of the largest opportunity gaps are being targeted and supported by FEPP Levy investments? 3. What data are being used to inform the Culturally Specific and Responsive investment strategy? 4. How will DEEL use performance data from recipients of FEPP Levy funds to inform future funding allocations? Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: May 1, 2020 30 Oct 28, 2019 07:24 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI DON-5-B-1, Version: 1 31 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version DON 5 B 1 Budget Action Title: Request that DON report on a strategy to develop a community-led place-based violence prevention initiative in Westwood and South Delridge Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Lish Whitson Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Department of Neighborhoods, in consultation with the Safe and Healthy Communities Subcabinet and Office of City Auditor, report on next steps and funding needed to replicate the Rainier Beach: A Beautiful Safe Place for Youth (ABSPY) program in the Westwood and South Delridge neighborhoods. ABSPY is a program of the Rainier Beach Action Coalition in collaboration with the Seattle Police Department, the Office of City Auditor, the Seattle Neighborhood Group and other City agencies and community-based organizations. ABSPY uses evidence-informed strategies to identify and address the place-based causes of youth victimization and crime at five focus locations, known as "hotspots" through non-arrest interventions. These interventions include business engagement, school campus safety, positive behavioral interventions and supports, crime prevention through environmental design, safe passage activities, and youth and neighborhood engagement. Funding for ABSPY has been provided through grants provided by George Mason University's Center for Evidence-Based Crime Prevention Policy. Responsible Council Committee(s): Date Due to Council: April 3, 2020 32 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA HOM-14-B-1, Version: 1 33 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 14 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $8,595,000 GF (on-going) to HSD to create 14 tiny home villages, cut $8,395,000 GF (on-going) across multiple departments to discontinue the Navigation Team, cut $200,000 GF (one-time) from HSD for removing Northlake Village, abrogate 30 FTE, and impose a proviso Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This Budget Action adds $8,595,000 GF, including $200,000 GF in one-time funding, to the Human Services Department (HSD) to establish and operate an estimated 14 new tiny home villages. This Budget Action offsets that increase by cutting funds in the 2020 Proposed Budget for relocation of the Northlake Tiny Home Village and the Navigation Team. It cuts $200,000 GF (one-time) from HSD for the closure and removal of the Northlake Tiny Home Village in 2020 and all funding in the 2020 Proposed Budget for the Navigation Team, including the staff in HSD and the Seattle Police Department (SPD) positions (actual cuts would not be made to SPD officers, rather attrition cuts would be made, potentially requiring adjustments). The funds in non-homeless specific programs in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) and Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) that have supported 34 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 3 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 14 B 1 encampment clean-ups are also cut, reducing the appropriation for those broader programs. The total reduction stemming from the Navigation Team cut is $8,395,000, and the per department reductions are: HSD: $3,322,000 and 17 FTE SPD: $2,351,000 and 13 FTE FAS: $1,314,000 DPR: $1,408,000 This reduction discontinues all Navigation Team activities, including a projected 6,150 contacts with 2,750 individuals experiencing homelessness, 1,300 clean-ups, and 1,500 tons of removed garbage and waste. Departments will continue to have some funds for general trash abatement, grounds work, and other clean-up activities. The Community Police Teams and bike patrol officers in SPD currently engage with individuals experiencing homelessness when an encampment poses an obstruction. That work will likely continue. In addition, HSD will continue to fund nine agencies to do outreach and engagement. This Budget Action imposes the following proviso: "Of the funds made available to the Human Services Department, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and Department of Finance and Administrative Services in 2020, no funds may be used, directly or through contract, to erect fencing for the purpose of preventing unauthorized encampments from being established." Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Decrease appropriation for FAS clean up services 0 0 FAS - FA000 FAS - BO-FA-RCCP Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Protection 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(1,314,000) 2 Decrease appropriation for closure of Northlake Tiny Home Village 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(200,000) 3 Decrease appropriation for contracted outreach services 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(762,000) 4 Decrease appropriation in HSD for remainder of Navigation Team 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(206,999) 5 Increase appropriation for tiny home villages 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $8,595,000 6 Pocket Adjustments 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(2,353,001) 7 Pocket Adjustments Admin Spec III (1) (1) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 8 Pocket Adjustments Counslr (2) (2) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 9 Pocket Adjustments Manager2,Human Svcs (1) (1) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 35 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 3 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 14 B 1 10 Pocket Adjustments Manager3,Human Svcs (1) (1) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 11 Pocket Adjustments Mgmt Systs Anlyst (1) (1) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 12 Pocket Adjustments Mgmt Systs Anlyst,Sr (2) (2) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 13 Pocket Adjustments Plng&Dev Spec II (2) (2) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 14 Pocket Adjustments StratAdvsr1,General Govt (6) (6) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 15 Pocket Adjustments StratAdvsr2,Exempt (1) (1) HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 16 Actual cuts would be made for attrition not positions. Amounts may need adjustment 0 0 SPD - SP000 SPD - BO-SP-P1800 Patrol Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(2,351,000) 17 Decrease appropriation for SPR clean-up services 0 0 SPR - PR000 SPR - BO-PR-10000 Cost Center Maintenance and Repairs 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(1,408,000) 36 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 3 of 3 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA HOM-6-C-1, Version: 1 37 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 6 C 1 Budget Action Title: Add $210,000 GF to HSD for homeless outreach in North Seattle and impose a proviso Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $210,000 Net Balance Effect $(210,000) Total Budget Balance Effect $(210,000) Budget Action Description: This Budget Action adds $210,000 GF to the Human Services Department (HSD) to contract with a nonprofit service provider to expand outreach to homeless individuals residing in unsanctioned encampments in North Seattle, including in the Lake City and Aurora neighborhoods. The mental health outreach workers should collaborate with the Navigation Team, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program, local businesses, Community Police Teams, beat patrols, and local service providers. This Budget Action also imposes the following proviso: "Of the appropriations in the 2020 Budget for the Addressing Homelessness BSL, $210,000 is appropriated solely to enter into a new contract with a non-profit service provider to conduct outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness." 38 Nov 12, 2019 12:16 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 6 C 1 Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description 1 Increase appropriation for outreach workers in North Seattle Position Title Number FTE of Positions 0 Dept 0 HSD - HS000 BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount HSD - BO-HS-H3000 Addressing Homelessness 00100 - General Fund 2020 Expenditure Amount $0 $210,000 39 Nov 12, 2019 12:16 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA HOM-15-B-1, Version: 1 40 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 15 B 1 Budget Action Title: Impose a proviso on Navigation Team appropriations in HSD Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: The Budget Action imposes the following proviso, which will be lifted each quarter after the Executive submits the required reports, on appropriations for the Navigation Team in the Human Services Department (HSD): “No more than $830,500 of the money appropriated in the 2020 Adopted Budget for the Addressing Homelessness BSL may be spent for the functions and activities performed by the City’s Navigation Team until the Executive files with the City Clerk, without vote, quarterly reports on the topics outlined below. Upon the filing of an initial report by January 31, 2020, an additional amount of up to $830,500 may be spent; upon the same filing of another report on the same topics by April 30, 2020, an additional amount of up to $830,500 may be spent; upon the same filing of another report on the same topics by July 31, 2020, an additional $830,500 may be spent; and upon the same filing of another report on the same topics by November 19, 2020, an additional $830,500 may be spent." It is the Council’s intent that the Executive provide quarterly reports according to the “schedule and subjects” listed below. The first, second and third quarterly reports may be incorporated into distinct Clerk files, the filing of which will each release an additional $830,500 of appropriation authority. As part of the Executive’s commitment to accountability and continuous quality improvement, the Human Services Department (HSD) will present to the City Council quarterly reports on Navigation Team activities to connect people living within unmanaged encampments to services and shelter. These reports will also include information on efforts to reduce negative impacts stemming from encampments throughout Seattle. The “schedule and subjects” for quarterly reports with additional requirements by quarter are listed below. Schedule and Subjects: 41 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 4 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 15 B 1 A. Reporting in every Quarter (1-4): HSD and the Navigation Team will report on performance measures that are reflected in the updated Theory of Change. These metrics include: 1) connecting individuals living unsheltered to services, 2) connecting people to safer spaces, and 3) addressing hazardous and unsafe conditions stemming from, and found within, unmanaged encampments. Specifically, the report will provide measures for the prior quarter, including: • Total number of contacts made quarterly, duplicated and unduplicated; • Number of referrals to services by service category (e.g., obtaining documents, mental health, coordinated entry assessment, etc.); • Breakdown, by percentage, of client demographic information quarterly; • Percentage of people whose needs assessment screening was completed; • Total number of referrals to shelter quarterly, duplicated and unduplicated; • Number of shelter arrivals at the shelter referred to within a 48 hour period following referral—quarterly, duplicated and unduplicated; • Number of times in the quarter a Field Coordinator provided assistance to or responded to a call for support from a Community Police Team or bike patrol officer; • Number of times in the quarter a System Navigator provided assistance to or responded to a call for support from a Community Police Team or bike patrol officer; • Number of instances diversion strategies or resources were utilized and the number of individuals/households that moved to permanent housing because of this service; • Breakdown of referrals to specific shelter type by quarter to date; • Average shelter bed availability by quarter, broken down by type (i.e., basic shelter, tiny house village, enhanced shelter); • Quarterly and year-to-date total tonnage of garbage, waste, and debris removed from unmanaged encampments; • Total number of inspections conducted by quarter; • Total number of unmanaged encampments removed (broken down by 72-hour clean-up, obstruction, and hazard) by quarter; and • Attendees, dates, and minutes of all meetings in this quarter to coordinate the Navigation Team and/or outreach providers in deploying staff to provide outreach services, managing particular cases, and otherwise coordinate the delivery of services among contracted agencies or with the Navigation Team, particularly for providers that focus on populations overrepresented among homeless individuals. HSD will provide relevant qualitative updates on key projects and developments that are either Navigation Team-led or intersect with homelessness response efforts. Updates may include: • Analysis of emerging trends; • Progress in developing and implementing a Racial Equity Toolkit on the Navigation Team; • Trainings and workshops attended, or undertaken, by the Navigation Team or by individual members, • Upcoming opportunities for continual improvement; and • Qualitative updates on new shelter resources that have come online and/or notable trends. B. Additional Quarter-Specific Requirements 1. Additional Requirements for the Quarter 1 Report: By January 31, 2020, the Executive shall: • Clarify the definition in FAS Rule 17-01 of “obstruction” and its meaning in associated rules and policies as shown: 42 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 4 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 15 B 1 “people, tents, personal property, garbage, debris or other objects related to an encampment that: are in a City park or on a public sidewalk; interfere with the pedestrian or transportation purposes of public rights-ofway; or interfere with areas that are necessary for or essential to the intended use of a public property or facility.” Please clarify whether encampments in parks must be an interference in order to warrant an exemption to the requirement for prior notice. • Provide any items requested in checkpoint 1.3D of the Review of Navigation Team 2018 Quarter 1 Report that have not yet provided to Office of the City Auditor. • Provide a report identifying those outreach providers funded by HSD that follow the Outreach Standards of Care. For agencies that do not yet meet these standards, please describe the steps and timeline these agencies have agreed upon to come into compliance with those standards. • Provide a list of recommendations to increase the rate that individuals referred to a shelter arrive at that shelter within 48 hours. • Transmit a table that describes the obstruction that warranted an exemption to the requirement for prior notice for all obstruction removals that were carried out in the previous quarter, including the name of the location, date of the removal, date that notice of removal was posted, and date(s) less than two weeks prior to the removal when outreach services visited that location and spoke to all individuals dwelling in that encampment. 2. Additional Requirements for the Quarter 2 Report: By April 30, 2020, the Executive shall: • Discuss the results of the training curriculum and core competencies review (including trauma-informed care) that was due to be completed in third quarter of 2019, including: a. List of identified competencies and training requirements, prior to completing the review, for each Navigation Team position; b. Gaps or deficiencies identified in competencies or training; c. How the core competencies or training requirements were changed to address the gaps or deficiencies; and d. New list of core requirements and trainings by position (including requirements related to traumainformed care and racial equity impacts). • Complete a staffing assessment that includes: a. Average caseload of HSD positions and the target caseload for comparable positions funded by other City contracts; b. Summary of the skills not included in the current Navigation Team structure that are typically found on similar teams operating in other jurisdictions, the pathway to adding these skills to the Navigation Team, and the estimated cost of those pathways; c. The determination for each evaluation point raised in Attachment 1 of HSD’s January 2019 response; and d. Results of a customer survey that includes, at minimum: i. Questions on what would make customers more likely to accept an offer of shelter; ii. Questions on what would increase the likelihood that a customer stays at a shelter following a referral from the Navigation Team; and iii. Whether respondents feel the inclusion of law enforcement makes them more or less likely to engage with the Navigation Team or accept services • Provide a theory of change for obstruction and hazard removals that are principally carried out by Community Police Team and bike patrol officers. • Provide the findings from the Racial Equity Toolkit analyzing the Navigation Team, the steps HSD has outlined to address any concerning findings, and the timeline for completing those steps. 43 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 3 of 4 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 15 B 1 3. Additional Requirements for the Quarter 3 Report: By July 31, 2020, the Executive shall: • Provide a written report discussing the City’s compliance with the Auditor recommendations on checkpoint 2.3, strategies to prevent trash accumulation. 4. Additional Requirements for the Quarter 4 Report: By November 19, 2020, the Executive shall: • Provide a report that details the steps taken to implement the recommendations identified in the report submitted by January 31, 2020 to increase the rate that individuals referred to a shelter arrive at that shelter within 48 hours 44 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 4 of 4 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI HOM-20-A-1, Version: 1 45 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 20 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request a report on good neighbor agreements with HSD contractors Ongoing: Yes Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: The Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) requests the Human Services Department (HSD) and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) analyze the possibility of HSD contracted agencies that are located in critical and environmentally sensitive areas under the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit accepting a good neighbor agreement. Under such an agreement, the human services provider will be responsible for trash and waste removal within a certain distance of its facility to maintain overall cleanliness. HSD and SPU will consult five to ten contracted agencies that are located in critical or environmentally sensitive areas under the NPDES permit to understand the willingness of agencies to enter into good neighbor agreements and the potential barriers to establishing such agreements. The report will estimate the potential savings that could be achieved for SPU's programs and the environmental impact of reduced trash and waste in the areas covered by good neighbor agreements. The report will be submitted to the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts committee (or its successor committee) and Central Staff Executive Director by January 31, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Date Due to Council: January 31, 2020 46 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI HOM-21-A-1, Version: 1 47 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version HOM 21 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request a report exploring needle collection in HSD contracts Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Jeff Simms Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) requests that the Human Services Department (HSD) assess the feasibility of requiring needle collection by all homeless outreach agencies and provide a report to the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee (or its successor committee) and the Central Staff Executive Director by January 31, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Date Due to Council: January 31, 2020 48 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA HSD-20-A-1, Version: 1 49 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HSD 20 A 1 Budget Action Title: Impose a proviso on HSD's Utility Discount Program Funds Ongoing: No Has CIP Amendment: No Primary Sponsor: Teresa Mosqueda Has Budget Proviso: Yes Council Members: Staff Analyst: Amy Gore Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This action imposes a proviso on the two new FTE’s for the Utility Discount Program (UDP) in the 2020 Proposed Budget, to be lifted after the development of a dedicated service provider line and warm hand-off process for incoming calls. HSD depends on service providers to refer applicants to the UDP; currently, providers are reporting long wait times on the existing UDP customer service phone line. A dedicated line and warm hand off would assist in the enrollment of new UDP customers and be a more efficient use of service providers’ and clients’ time. The proviso would be imposed on FTE funding beginning in July of 2020, with the expectation that the two new staff will enable the development of the dedicated service provider line and warm hand-off process during the first half of 2020. In particular, this Council Budget Action imposes the following proviso: “Of the $169,037 increase in appropriation in the 2020 Budget for the Human Services Department’s Utility Discount Program, only $84,519 may be spent prior to submitting a report to Council demonstrating the establishment of a dedicated service provider line and warm hand-off process for incoming calls.” 50 Oct 30, 2019 02:27 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA HSD-40-B-1, Version: 1 51 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HSD 40 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $186,300 GF (ongoing) for legal support for sexual violence survivors; cut $186,300 from SPD for recruitment and retention initiatives. Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Council Members: Staff Analyst: Amy Gore Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This action adds $186,300 GF (ongoing) to the Human Services Department to contract for legal representation for non-intimate partner sexual violence survivors. This legal support will focus on defending the civil rights and wishes of sexual violence survivors regardless of the criminal and civil judicial systems’ procedures and responses. This legal support includes protecting the privacy rights of survivors. Consistent with the 2020 Endorsed Budget, the proposed budget includes $775,950 GF for services for victims of sexual assault; this action increases the program funding by 24.0 percent ($962,250 total). This budget action cuts $186,300 GF from the $1.6 million allocated in the 2020 Proposed Budget to the Seattle Police Department (SPD) for the purposes of recruitment and retention initiatives. 52 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version HSD 40 B 1 Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Add ongoing GF for legal support 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H4000 Supporting Safe Communities 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $186,300 2 Cut from recruitment and retention initiatives 0 0 SPD - SP000 SPD - BO-SP-P1800 Patrol Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(186,300) 53 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI OED-7-A-1, Version: 1 54 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version OED 7 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that OED identify strategies and resources necessary to support workers during a recession Ongoing: Yes Primary Sponsor: Abel Pacheco Council Members: Staff Analyst: Yolanda Ho Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Office of Economic Development (OED) assess the types of strategies and amount of funding that would be needed to support residents experiencing unemployment and underemployment in the event of a recession. This assessment should include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) examples of strategies that have effectively alleviated unemployment and underemployment in other cities similar to Seattle; (2) anticipated impacts of a recession on employment in Seattle, with a specific focus on populations that would be disproportionately impacted; (3) identification of existing programs that could be expanded and/or new programs that could be created to support job/entrepreneurial training and education as well as small business development, prioritizing programs that would assist those most vulnerable to the impacts of a recession; and (4) estimated costs of expanding or creating these programs. OED should submit a report to the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee, or successor committee, and the Council Central Staff Executive Director, by March 31, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Date Due to Council: March 31, 2020 55 Oct 29, 2019 12:18 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA OED-9-A-2, Version: 1 56 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OED 9 A 2 Budget Action Title: Impose a proviso on funding for the Creative Industry Policy Advisor position in OED Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Yolanda Ho Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This Budget Action imposes the following budget proviso: "None of the $99,000 appropriated in the 2020 budget for the Creative Industry Policy Advisor (Strategic Advisor 2, exempt) in the Office of Economic Development's Business Services BSL may be spent until authorized by a future ordinance. It is anticipated that such authorization will not occur until the Chair of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee, or successor committee, receives and approves a report on how this position will support the diversity of workers in the Creative Industries sector, including those in the film and music industries." Under the leadership of its new Director, OED will be implementing an Inclusive Economy Agenda, which centers racial equity in the office's core functions. Part of this initiative is OED's Creative Industry Cluster strategy, a new concept still under development that will be led by the Office of Film + Music. This position added in the 2020 Proposed Budget will report to the Creative Industry Director position that has not yet been filled, and is intended to support the implementation of OED's Creative Industry sector strategy with marketing, stakeholder management, and policy research and development. This proviso is intended to ensure that OED engages with film and music industry stakeholders as it develops the responsibilities for this new position and that the Creative Industry initiative prioritizes these industries. 57 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI OED-14-A-1, Version: 1 58 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version OED 14 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that OED report on the development of the Business Opportunity Support Program Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Yolanda Ho Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Office of Economic Development (OED) provide a progress report on the development of a dedicated Business Opportunity Support Program, to be funded by 1 percent contributions from capital improvement projects. This program is intended to advance OED's inclusive economy agenda by providing a reliable source of funding for a variety of initiatives, such as the Small Business Stabilization Fund and construction mitigation for small businesses impacted by public or private large-scale construction projects. OED should submit a report to the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee, or successor committee, and the Council Central Staff Executive Director by March 31, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Date Due to Council: March 31, 2020 59 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI OED-15-A-1, Version: 1 60 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version OED 15 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that OED form a search committee to provide recommendations for hiring a Creative Industry Director Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Yolanda Ho Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Office of Economic Development (OED) and the Mayor's Office (MO) convene a volunteer search committee to provide recommendations for hiring OED's Creative Industry Director. As part of the restructuring of the Office of Film + Music included in the 2020 Proposed Budget, this new position replaces what was previously the Director of the Office of Film + Music, and will report to the OED Director. The search committee should include representatives of workers in the film and music industries, including but not limited to: IATSE Local 488; Teamsters Local 399; Teamsters Local 174; IATSE Local 600; Directors Guild of America; SAG - AFTRA; AFM Local 76-493; and the International Guild of Symphony, Opera, and Ballet Musicians. OED and the MO should submit a memorandum containing the membership of the volunteer search committee to the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee, or successor committee, and the Council Central Staff Executive Director by January 31, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Date Due to Council: January 31, 2020 61 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA OH-7-B-1, Version: 1 62 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OH 7 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $67,000 (one-time) of fund balance in 2020 to OH for homebuyer counseling Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Mike O'Brien Council Members: Staff Analyst: Traci Ratzliff Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Other Funds Office of Housing Fund (16600) Revenues $0 Expenditures $67,000 Net Balance Effect $(67,000) Total Budget Balance Effect $(67,000) Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action adds $67,000 (one-time) in fund balance from the Office of Housing's (OH's) Operating Fund for homebuyer counseling for first-time low-income homebuyers who will be future owners at the Othello Square co-op project. This funding, in addition to the $150,000 in one-time funding included in the Mayor's 2020 Proposed Budget, brings the total funding available for this activity to $217,000. 63 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OH 7 B 1 Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description 1 Add funding for homebuyer counseling Position Title Number FTE of Positions 0 Dept 0 OH - HU000 BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount OH - BO-HU-2000 Homeownership & Sustainability 16600 - Office of Housing 2020 Fund Expenditure Amount $0 $67,000 64 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA OLS-2-B-1, Version: 1 Add $202,000 (one-time) for the Community Outreach and Education Fund (COEF); cut $100,000 GF (onetime) from high barrier probation pilot support; and transfer $102,000 FG (one-time) from the Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund 65 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OLS 2 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $202,000 (one-time) for the Community Outreach and Education Fund (COEF); cut $100,000 GF (one-time) from high barrier probation pilot support; and transfer $102,000 FG (one-time) from the Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Teresa Mosqueda Council Members: Staff Analyst: Karina Bull Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Other Funds Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund (00164) Revenues $102,000 Expenditures $102,000 Net Balance Effect $0 Office of Labor Standards Fund (00190) Revenues $202,000 Expenditures $202,000 Net Balance Effect $0 66 Nov 12, 2019 11:15 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OLS 2 B 1 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This budget action would add $202,000 (one-time) in 2020 for the Office of Labor Standards (OLS) Community and Outreach Education Fund (COEF). This budget action also would cut $100,000 GF (one-time) from high barrier probation pilot support that is currently in reserves and transfer $102,000 FG (one-time) from the Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund. The COEF is a program that partners with community-based organizations to increase understanding of Seattle’s labor standards and other applicable laws; provide culturally competent and language-specific outreach and technical assistance; build trust with low-income worker communities; and increase access to labor standards enforcement/complaint resolution services. In the 2015 Adopted Budget, the Council appropriated $1,000,000 for COEF spending as a two-year contract cycle. In the 2017 Adopted Budget, the Council increased appropriations to $1,500,000 per year for the COEF. Since the last increase, the Council passed six new labor standards, five of which will go into effect in 2020, and the State passed additional worker protection laws. This budget action would support contracted services and outreach projects that increase awareness and understanding of Seattle labor standards and recently passed State worker protection laws. Consistent with the 2020 Endorsed Budget, the 2020 Proposed Budget includes $1,500,000 for the COEF (out of OLS’ total proposed $6.9 million of spending in 2020). With this budget action, the COEF would comprise $1,702,000 of a total budget of $7.1 million. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Add appropriation to OLS for COEF 0 0 FG - FG000 FG - BO-FG-2QA00 Appropriation to Special Funds 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $100,000 2 Cut appropriation to reserve for high barrier probation pilot 0 0 FG - FG000 FG - BO-FG-2QD00 Reserves 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(100,000) 3 Add appropriation to OLS for COEF 0 0 FG - FG000 FG - BO-FG-2QA00 Appropriation to Special Funds 00164 - Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund 2020 $0 $102,000 4 Use of fund balance 0 0 FG - FG000 FG - BO-FG-2QD00 Reserves 00164 - Unrestricted Cumulative Reserve Fund 2020 $102,000 $0 5 Add revenue to OLS 0 0 OLS - LS000 OLS - BR-LS-REVENUE - Office of Labor Standards - Revenue 00190 - Office of Labor Standards Fund 2020 $102,000 $0 6 Increase appropriation to COEF 0 0 OLS - LS000 OLS - BO-LS-1000 Office of Labor Standards 00190 - Office of Labor Standards Fund 2020 $0 $202,000 7 Increase GSF revenue to OLS for COEF 0 0 OLS - LS000 OLS - BR-LS-REVENUE - Office of Labor Standards - Revenue 00190 - Office of Labor Standards Fund 2020 $100,000 $0 67 Nov 12, 2019 11:15 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA OSE-2-C-1, Version: 1 68 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OSE 2 C 1 Budget Action Title: Add $540,000 Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) to OSE, add $960,000 SBT to HSD, add $300,000 SBT to SPR, add $475,000 SBT to DEEL, cut $2,275,000 SBT from DON, and impose a proviso Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: Yes Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Yolanda Ho Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Other Funds Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund (00155) Revenues $0 Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This Budget Action reduces one-time Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) support for capital improvements in the P-Patch program in the Department of Neighborhood (DON) from $3,000,000 to $725,000. Currently, the P-Patch Program receives $200,000 of Parks District funding annually to support 69 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 3 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OSE 2 C 1 maintenance but has otherwise not received substantial capital improvement funding since 2008. The $2,275,000 decrease in SBT is redirected to other priorities, including those identified by the SBT Community Advisory Board (CAB). This action increases SBT support in the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE), Human Services Department (HSD), Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL) and Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) for the following one-time expenditures, all of which are eligible for SBT funding under Seattle Municipal Code 5.53.055: 1. Adds $75,000 SBT to OSE for consultant services to assess scratch cooking infrastructure at Seattle Public Schools (SPS). SPS Nutrition Services does not currently have the capability to prepare food from scratch, which would improve the freshness, quality, variety, and taste of school food. An assessment of operational and renovation requirements to transition to scratch cooking will provide SPS with recommendations and cost estimates to implement this change; 2. Adds $300,000 SBT to SPR and $140,000 SBT to OSE for installation of water bottle filling stations at community centers and Seattle Public Schools, respectively, to encourage youth to drink more water. Investments should be prioritized for neighborhoods with higher proportions of low-income households and people of color; 3. Adds $960,000 SBT to HSD to provide micro-grants to food banks, meal program sites, and home child care programs for kitchen equipment and supplies, such as refrigerators, commercial grade ovens and other appliances, to help them provide fresh food options; 4. Adds $225,000 SBT to OSE for consultant services to develop an evaluation plan for all SBTsupported programs. This will assess the evaluation capacity needs across SBT-funded programs and services and create a plan to evaluate these programs and services, including identifying shared measurement protocols to collect common measures; 5. Adds $100,000 SBT to DEEL to provide grants to community-based organizations, such as WestSide Baby, that work to provide diapers to families of diaper-aged children for whom a lack of access to diapers presents a barrier to using and accessing childcare services, or for families who access diapers via food banks, shelters, enhanced shelters, and tiny home villages; 6. Adds $375,000 SBT to DEEL to evaluate how the City can facilitate connecting families with childcare providers and develop strategies and models based on best, promising, or emerging practices to address the lack of affordable and accessible childcare for infant and toddler care (0-3 years of age) from other jurisdictions. DEEL should work with community-based organizations, providers, organized labor, and other relevant stakeholders to research and identify strategies and models, including non-center based models, to expand childcare access and infrastructure in the birth to three age group for all families in Seattle; and 7. Adds $100,000 SBT to OSE for consultant support to assist with the CAB's annual report and other materials, and analyze key issue areas, such as opportunities and gaps in prenatal-to-aged three programs and services in Seattle. This Budget Action imposes the following proviso: "Of the appropriations in the 2020 budget for the Department of Neighborhoods, $725,000 is appropriated for capital improvements for P-Patch gardens located within Healthy Food Priority Areas, as presented on page 22 of the Healthy Food Availability & Food Bank Network Report, published in 70 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 3 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version OSE 2 C 1 February 2019, and may be spent for no other purpose. Furthermore, the Council anticipates that funding will be prioritized for gardens located within areas where all three factors - lower income, longer travel times to healthy food retailers, and higher percentage of unhealthy food retailers - are present." Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Increase SBT support to connect families to child care 0 0 DEEL - EE000 DEEL - BO-EE-IL100 Early Learning 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $375,000 2 Increase SBT support to provide families with diapers 0 0 DEEL - EE000 DEEL - BO-EE-IL100 Early Learning 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $100,000 3 Decrease SBT support for P-Patch program 0 0 DON - DN000 DON - BO-DN-I3300 Community Building 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $(2,275,000) 4 Increase SBT for micro-grants to purchase supplies 0 0 HSD - HS000 HSD - BO-HS-H1000 Supporting Affordability and Livability 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $960,000 5 Increase SBT support for Community Advisory Board consultant support 0 0 OSE - SE000 OSE - BO-SE-X1000 Office of Sustainability and Environment 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $100,000 6 Increase SBT support for evaluation plan 0 0 OSE - SE000 OSE - BO-SE-X1000 Office of Sustainability and Environment 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $225,000 7 Increase SBT support for scratch cooking at Seattle Public Schools 0 0 OSE - SE000 OSE - BO-SE-X1000 Office of Sustainability and Environment 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $75,000 8 Increase SBT support for water filling stations at Seattle Public Schools 0 0 OSE - SE000 OSE - BO-SE-X1000 Office of Sustainability and Environment 00155 - Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund 2020 $0 $140,000 9 Increase SBT support for water bottle filling stations at community centers 0 0 SPR - PR000 SPR - BO-PR-10000 00155 - Sweetened Cost Center Maintenance Beverage Tax Fund and Repairs 2020 $0 $300,000 71 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 3 of 3 Healthy Food Availability Food Bank Network Report FEBRUARY 2019 Public Health a Seattle King County Seattle Children?si? Research Institute SUGGESTED CITATION Bolt K, Carter L, Casey D, Chan NL, Chen R, Jones-Smith JC, Knox M, Oddo VM, Podrabsky M, Saelens BE, Schachter A, Ta M, Pinero Walkinshaw L, Yang A. Healthy Food Availability & Food Bank Network Report. Report for City of Seattle and Seattle City Council. Feb 2019. CONTACT INFORMATION Nadine L. Chan, PhD, MPH Nadine.chan@kingcounty.gov 206-263-8784 FUNDING SOURCE This report is funded by City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance 125324. 73 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 1 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Healthy food availability & food bank network ............................................3 SECTION 1 What do we know about access to healthy food? ...........................................................5 Objective ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 11 SECTION 2 Assessment of food environments by neighborhood: which areas should we prioritize for increasing access to healthy food? .............................................................................................. 16 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 23 SECTION 3 What is the price and availability of healthy food in Seattle stores?.............................. 32 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 46 SECTION 4 A. Who experiences food insecurity in Seattle? ........................................................ 56 B. Who falls into the “food security gap”? ................................................................ 56 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 57 Section 4A. Who experiences food insecurity in Seattle? ..................................................................... 57 Results ............................................................................................................................... 57 Section 4b. Who falls into the food security gap? ................................................................................. 67 Results ............................................................................................................................... 67 Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 69 SECTION 5 Meeting the need: What do we know about Seattle’s food bank network? .................. 85 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 86 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 87 Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 96 APPENDIX A Evaluation team structure and team biographies ................................................... 103 APPENDIX B Seattle healthy food survey .................................................................................... 110 APPENDIX C Ground truthing ..................................................................................................... 129 APPENDIX D Data sources of UW CPHN SNAP-eligible data ......................................................... 133 APPENDIX E Food bank network analysis appendix items ........................................................... 136 74 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK The Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance 125324 requires the “4) identification and assessment of food deserts in the city and 5) [assessment of] the effectiveness and efficiency of the food bank network in the city.” Input from the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board, the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax Evaluation City Review Team, community and research experts, and published studies shaped our approach to developing this report, which has five sections (Figure 1): KEY FINDINGS 1. What do we know about access to healthy food? From an early almost exclusive focus on the physical distance to supermarkets – the original “food desert” – our understanding of access to healthy food has evolved to include five dimensions of access: availability, accessibility/convenience, affordability, acceptability, and accommodation. 2. Which Seattle areas should we prioritize for increasing access to healthy food? When we expand the assessment of food environments to include income, travel times to healthy food retailers, and how inundated an area is by retailers selling less healthy food, we find that healthy food priority areas are clustered near the southern boundary around the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point). We also see pockets throughout Seattle including neighborhoods in the north end, where, although most of their neighbors are economically secure, low-income residents – especially those who rely on public transportation – may face challenges in accessing healthy food. 3. How available is and what does healthy food cost in Seattle? Larger food stores are more likely to carry healthy food items compared to smaller food stores. In lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with a higher percentage of Black or Hispanic populations, there is a lower availability of large food stores and healthy foods. At the same time, when available, protein, milk, and vegetables tended to cost less in these neighborhoods than in high-income neighborhoods. In contrast, fruit was more expensive in lower-income neighborhoods than in high-income neighborhoods. 4. Who and how many people experience food insecurity in Seattle? In Seattle, about 13% of adults experience food insecurity (not having enough money for food). Seattle families with children experienced higher rates of food insecurity, from 22% of families with young children (Best Starts for Kids Survey) to 51% of low-income families with children (Seattle Shopping and Wellness Survey). While estimates vary across data sources, we saw consistent patterns showing that in general, people of color, lower-income, less educated, and those who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual more commonly reported experiences of food insecurity. Participation in SNAP/Basic Food continued to rise among one age group: older adults. Not until 300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) do we see food insecurity begin to drop to a low level for Seattle adults; for people of color, it is at 400% FPL. In 2017, about 13,400 Seattle residents experienced food insecurity, yet made too much income to qualify for food assistance benefits. The estimate would be higher if it included people who, although receiving benefits, still experience food insecurity. 5. How is the food bank network meeting the needs of its clients? Seattle food bank survey respondents reported distributing more than 22,885,000 pounds of food each year. Food banks described an increase in need, reporting more visits from older adults, homeless, and people living further north and south. Among the 60% of food bank respondents who reported a rise in visits over the last year, 39% reported their funding remained the same or was reduced. To keep up with 75 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 3 demand, 65% of food bank respondents reported having to reduce the variety and 41% had to reduce the amount of food offered to each client. A majority (68%) of food banks reported having less than 10% of their budget for direct food purchases. Clients of food banks expressed the desire for consistent access to quality food such as fresh produce and proteins, and emphasized the importance of maintaining a sense of dignity at the food bank such as by creating experiences that replicate those at a grocery store. Food banks’ reported hours of distribution revealed limited hours over the weekend and evenings, which may signal an additional gap in access. To more effectively serve clients, staff emphasized addressing operational needs such as sufficient staffing and space, more purchasing power, and investments in coordinated mobile systems to support procurement and delivery. FINAL REMARKS We hope the report is a resource for people and organizations interested in building equitable access to healthy food in Seattle. It provides a comprehensive and updated snapshot of what access to healthy food looks like in Seattle. This report concludes the report required by Ordinance 125324 to assess access to healthy food and the food bank network in Seattle. Figure 1. Report of healthy food availability and the food bank network in Seattle Section • Methods 1. What do we know about access to healthy food? • Literature review of more than 175 articles, reports, and websites published over past 10 years 2. Assessment of food environments by neighborhood: which areas should we prioritize for increasing access to healthy food? • Identified healthy food priority areas using measures of 1) income, 2) multi-mode travel times to healthy food retailers, and 3) inundation of less healthy retailers in an area 3. What is the price and availability of healthy food in Seattle stores? • Surveyed a sample of 134 food stores across Seattle, plus all 23 food stores in the neighborhoods of High Point, Haller Lake, and South Park, to measure availability and price of 19 healthy food items 4. Who experiences food insecurity in Seattle? Who falls into the "food security gap"? • Identified disparities and estimated rates of food insecurity by analyzing 5 survey datasets and review of community reports; estimate number of people who are food insecure and have incomes that do not qualify for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 5. Meeting the need: what do we know about Seattle's food bank network? • Interviewed 13 food bank staff; conducted 7 focus groups (3 English, 1 each in Vietnamese, Russian, Cantonese, and Spanish) with 47 food bank clients; surveyed 25 of 30 Seattle food banks 76 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 4 SECTION 1 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD? SUMMARY To identify domains of access to healthy food, we reviewed over 175 scientific articles, reports, and websites published since 2007. To capture context specific to Seattle, we also reviewed non-academic local reports describing food access. We describe the history and evolution of the concept of “food desert” and discuss the multidimensional approaches to improving healthy food access in Seattle. Key findings Recent research on access to healthy foods in the United States has been conducted amid increasing concern about obesity and associated health outcomes, with particular attention to disparities in healthy food access related to income and race/ethnicity. To date, simply improving the availability of healthy food has not been enough to drive improvements in diet quality and health outcomes, or to close the healthy-eating gap between high- and low-income households. Our understanding of healthy food access has evolved from the original “food desert” concept (with an early and almost exclusive focus on physical distance between residents’ homes and local supermarkets) to include multiple dimensions of access including availability, accessibility/convenience, affordability, acceptability, and accommodation. In the Seattle area and elsewhere, research on food access has gone beyond simple measures of store proximity to consider the extent to which healthy food choices are associated with affordability, transportation mode (accessibility/convenience), type of grocery store (accessibility/convenience, and accommodation), and a variety of personal and social factors. 77 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 5 SECTION 1 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD? OBJECTIVE The purpose of this section is to review the literature on healthy food access so we can refine our understanding (a) of multiple dimensions of healthy food access in Seattle and (b) of the roles these dimensions may play in reducing disparities in nutritional quality and health outcomes. In the 19th century, scientific interest in the relationship between diet and health was driven by concerns about malnutrition among impoverished populations. In the 21st century, concerns about widening disparities in nutrition-related diseases such as obesity and diabetes have rekindled this interest and focused attention on the role of physical access to healthy food1. Following a nationwide red alert about the health consequences of our rapidly spreading obesity epidemic, federal, state, and local governments embraced the notion that eliminating “food deserts”—locations with limited access to nutritious food, especially in low-income areas—would reduce low dietary quality and related health disparities. In this context, the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax (Ordinance 125324) requires as part of the evaluation activities the “4) identification and assessment of food deserts in the city.” As we prepared to address this requirement, we solicited input from City of Seattle staff in the Human Services Department and the Office of Sustainability and Environment, researchers at the UW Center for Public Health Nutrition, and other stakeholders. A message we heard repeatedly was that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition of “food desert” did not adequately capture the nuances and multiple domains of access to healthy food, an insight that set the stage for our review of the food access literature. With the goal of understanding the evolution of scientific thinking about healthy food access, we queried the scientific search engine PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) using the following terms, alone and in combination: food access, food insecurity, domains of access, food desert, food environment, inequality, disparities and inequity. We also read non-academic literature, primarily from government websites, pertaining to food access in Seattle and King County and reviewed sources identified by team members and experts in the field. Overall, we reviewed more than 175 articles, reports, and websites published after 2007. We chose 2007 as our cut-off because we found comprehensive historical reviews published in 2008 and later years. RESULTS DIMENSIONS OF FOOD ACCESS—MOVING TOWARD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW Origins of the “food desert” concept Introduced in Scotland in the early 1990s,2 the term “food desert" was defined in the 2008 United States Farm Bill as “an area…with limited access to affordable and nutritious food, particularly such an area composed of predominantly lower income neighborhoods and communities.”3,4 In a 2009 report3 to Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture outlined a framework in which individual, social, and environmental characteristics – including access to supermarkets – might influence food choices, diet, and health outcomes. In this context, “food deserts” were proposed as a potential contributor to nutrition-related health disparities. 78 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 6 Disparities in access confounded with food insecurity Neighborhoods with large communities of color often experience disproportionate rates of morbidity, mortality, and adverse health outcomes, and these outcomes have been associated with environmental characteristics such as residential segregation, poverty, and neighborhood deprivation—including fewer supermarkets.2,5 One study found that African American neighborhoods had 48% fewer chain supermarkets than their white neighborhood counterparts and Hispanic neighborhoods had only 32% as many chain supermarkets as non-Hispanic neighborhoods.6 In addition, disparities have been found in quality, variety, quantity, and price of healthy food, reflecting inequities across several domains of access.2,7,8 Among communities of color, access to healthy food is often confounded with food insecurity (limited or uncertain access to adequate food). Elevated rates of food insecurity and limited access to supermarkets in their neighborhoods2 have been reported for African American,2,6,9,10 Latino2, and Navajo11,12 communities. Government supports elimination of food deserts Two years after the Farm Bill defined food deserts, the 2010 Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) made more than $400 million available to eliminate food deserts, primarily by retaining and increasing the supply of supermarkets in areas with limited food access.13 The rationale went as follows: 1) some studies had shown that people made food choices based on what was immediately available in their neighborhoods,2 2) supermarkets and large grocery stores generally have lower prices and broader availability of healthy foods compared to smaller markets, 3) when given the option, low-income households may shop where food prices are lower,3 and 4) the purchase and consumption of more healthy foods improve diet quality and improve health. Operational definitions of food deserts Generally, food deserts have been defined as low-income areas (census tracts, ZIP codes, or census block groups) with low access to supermarkets. The USDA’s Economic Research Service recently replaced its Food Desert Locator with the Food Access Research Atlas, an on-line tool that identifies lowincome census tracts and enables users to then identify areas with low food access by choosing one of two distances from the nearest supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store. In urban areas, users choose between more than ½-mile and 1 mile away; in rural areas they choose between more than 10 miles and 20 miles away.   Low-income census tracts are defined as those where either (a) >20% of the population is below the poverty level or (b) the tract's median family income (MFI) is ≤80% of the statewide MFI, based on the 2010 Decennial Census and 2006-2010 American Community Survey.14–16 Low-access is determined by the Euclidian or "straight-line" distance between the centers of two grid cells, one containing population-level poverty estimate and the other the nearest supermarket. Limitations of the food desert concept Supermarket proximity alone does not adequately measure access to healthy food After using the USDA tools for identifying food deserts, researchers have concluded that simple proximity to a supermarket does not fully capture the nuances of access to healthy food.17 Using this measure alone can lead to inaccurate estimates of who does and does not have adequate access to 79 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 7 nutritious food.18 Problems with using this metric may be due to its reliance on the following assumptions:    People can and do shop primarily at the grocery store closest to home. Full-service supermarkets are the primary source for nutritious foods and meet the needs and food preferences of all residents. Mode of transportation to/from food stores is the same for all residents.18,19 Food deserts have limited association with diet and health outcomes A 2012 systematic review concluded that proximity measures of supermarket availability were unrelated to dietary outcomes.20 Another study concluded that “food swamps” (areas with a preponderance of stores selling fast food and junk food rather than healthy food options) were better than food deserts as predictors of neighborhood obesity rates.21 And a report focusing on policy applications of food deserts found that choosing slightly different boundaries to represent the same geographic area (i.e., census tracts vs. ZIP codes vs. census block groups) yielded inconsistent correlations with the outcomes of interest.19 The exclusive focus of food desert research on access to chain supermarkets and grocery stores highlights these retail outlets as sources of fresh produce but ignores the fact that they also sell vast amounts of cheap, unhealthy foods. A study in the San Francisco Bay Area found that small markets contributed to community food security and provided culturally acceptable foods at relatively low prices. The researchers noted, however, that small, full-service stores were no panacea, as it was often difficult for these neighborhood markets to maintain quality at low profit margins.22 Because the mix of foods sold in small and medium-sized stores is so heterogeneous, in-store assessments (as described in Section 3 of this report) may be the most accurate way to determine the availability of healthy foods. As mentioned above, the 2010 Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) was designed to bring grocery stores and other healthy food retailers to underserved communities across America.13 The HFFI "expands access to nutritious food in these communities … introducing a new supermarket does little through efforts such as developing and equipping grocery to change diet, increase access to nutritious stores, small retailers, corner stores, and farmers markets 23 selling healthy food." However, multiple studies have food, or improve health… access, while found that introducing a new supermarket does little to necessary, is not sufficient to move the change diet, increase access to nutritious food, or improve needle on healthy diets or health outcomes health among residents in the neighborhoods where these in surrounding communities. supermarkets have opened.24–26 While this result does not discount the importance of providing access to healthy foods, it suggests that access, while necessary, is not sufficient to move the needle on healthy diets or health outcomes in surrounding communities. In the Seattle area as well, proximity to the nearest supermarket is not associated with diet quality (research described below). Broadening our conceptualization of food access The physical environment in which people obtain and eat food is only one component of food access. In the real world, people’s food choices are made in the (connected) contexts of policy, a broad set of food environments, and individual and social factors. Sections 3 and 5 provide details about various food environments in the City of Seattle, including the price and availability of healthy food at retail stores 80 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 8 and food banks throughout the city. Across all these settings, healthy food access can be limited by cost as well as capacity to address the risk of providing healthy, perishable foods. Most sections of this report focus on the food environment and policy-backed supports to improve availability and access to food. However, policies that simply increase food access by introducing supermarkets do not improve dietary quality or health outcomes27 and physical proximity to a supermarket does not Individual and social factors also assure utilization. Recent reviews have stressed that increasing shape food choices and behaviors. access to healthy food is not enough to close the healthy-eating gap between high- and low-income families.28 Individual and social factors also shape food choices and behaviors. For example, education and nutrition knowledge generally predict increased preferences for healthy foods,26 although this can vary across populations.29 Introducing the five dimensions of healthy food access To consider a broader conceptualization of healthy food access, researchers have retooled five dimensions of healthcare access and applied them to healthy food access (Box 1). These dimensions proved very useful in our assessments of the Seattle food environment, and we refer to them throughout this report. Although the first three dimensions – availability, accessibility/conveniencei, and affordability – have been studied extensively,20 accommodation and acceptability could have equal or greater impacts on healthy food choices. While we had limited capacity to assess all five dimensions for the entire food system serving Seattle’s food insecure population, we were able to look at most dimensions in our assessment of the food bank network (Section 5). Box 1. Dimensions of healthy food access20,30      Availability: adequacy of supply of healthy food, such as number of places to purchase produce and presence of certain types of restaurants in neighborhoods Accessibility/Convenience: geographic location of food supply and ease of getting to that location (key measures are travel time and distance) Affordability: Food prices, people’s perception of worth relative to food cost and ability to pay for food that is available (often measured by store audits or regional price indices) Accommodation: how well food sources accept and adapt to residents’ needs (store hours, types of payment accepted, offerings of culturally relevant food items) Acceptability: Attitudes regarding attributes of the local food environment and whether the supply of products meets personal standards (measured by surveys, interviews, focus groups) Researching food access in Seattle Research focusing on food access in the City of Seattle and King County has gone beyond the food desert concept by introducing dimensions of affordability and vulnerability, testing different definitions of lowincome, and replacing “as-the-crow-flies” distance estimates with calculations of travel times in four different modes. Using the U.S. Department of Agriculture definition of food desert, the Food Access Research Atlas identifies areas of north and south Seattle as low-income and low-access based on the ½-mile Euclidian i To avoid confusion with the more general term “access,” we revised the original dimension “accessibility” to “accessibility/convenience “ HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT 81 Page 9 (straight-line) distance from a supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store. However, the Food Access Research Atlas does not factor in affordability or other components of healthy food access. A 2012 study in King County measured access to supermarkets via four travel modes: walking, bicycling, riding transit, or driving within 10 minutes trip time for each mode. Food affordability was determined by stratifying seven supermarket chains as low-, medium-, and high-cost, and researchers tested different definitions of low-income (by census block groups) and vulnerability (which included lack of vehicle ownership) for households. Findings that fewer than 8% of low-income families lived within a 10minute bus ride to a low- or medium-cost supermarket and more than 89% lived beyond a 10-minute walk to a low-cost supermarket31 provide a more nuanced perspective on the constraints and choices involved in food access. While this study considered domains of accessibility/convenience and affordability, studying only low- or medium-income block groups fails to address food access barriers faced by low-income households living in high-income areas.19 Nationwide, an estimated 8.5 million low-income individuals live in moderate- and higher-income areas that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket.32 A study in Portland identified an abundance of “food mirages,” areas where supermarkets and grocery stores were plentiful, but healthful foods were unaffordable, especially in regions of gentrification.18 In “Women in the Green Economy: Voices from Southeast Seattle,” Got Green reported that 67% of the women surveyed cited cost as the largest barrier to healthy food; 23% cited geographic accessibility as another barrier.33 Women in the Delridge neighborhood surveyed for a “Seattle Women and Food Access Report” in 2014 emphasized that lower food prices and increased economic ability could help remove barriers to accessing healthy food; they also cited the importance of improving public transportation, and some women supported cooperative ownership for local grocery stores.34 The 2014 Seattle Obesity Study found that only one in three respondents bought most of the food for their household at the supermarket closest to home. And physical distance to a household’s primary supermarket was not linked to diet quality. Instead, income, education, and shopping at high-cost (compared to medium- and low-cost) stores was the best predictor of diet quality (probably reflecting unmeasured confounding rather than a causal relationship between high-cost supermarkets and higher fruit and vegetable intake). Cost for essentially the same 100 commonly consumed and widely available market-basket foods differed substantially, from an average $224 at low-cost supermarkets to $393 at high-cost supermarkets.17 Also in the Seattle area, a 2018 longitudinal study focused on correlates of dietary behaviors among middle-aged Hispanic and white women living in low-income neighborhoods and found weak relationships between most aspects of the food environment and dietary behaviors. There were two notable exceptions, however: among Hispanic women, the presence of ethnic food stores was associated with higher fruit and vegetable consumption, while among white women, having fast-food restaurants in the neighborhood was associated with consumption of more soft drinks and a higher percentage of calories consumed from fat. Regarding the finding in Hispanic women, this could be related to the accommodation and acceptability dimensions of food access, i.e., access to culturally relevant and recognizable fruits and vegetables. In addition, education showed different relationships to healthy eating in the two groups of women. Among white women, higher education was associated with higher consumption of fruits and vegetables and lower consumption of soft drinks; among Hispanic women, however, higher education was associated with consumption of a greater percentage of calories from fat.29 This study found that women of differing ethnic groups did not respond similarly to 82 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 10 environment conditions or educational attainment, underscoring the importance of understanding the roles of individual, social, and cultural factors in actual dietary behavior. Improving measurement of food access Over a decade of research on food deserts, scientific understanding of food access has evolved considerably and researchers have developed new measures to address some of the shortcomings of the food desert concept. One such metric is the Modified Retail Food Environment Index (mRFEI),35 which combines the food desert concept’s emphasis on an area’s lack of access to healthy foods with the food swamp concept’s focus on areas where healthy food options are inundated with unhealthy food options. Another improved measure, the Healthy Food Priority Area index (HFPAi), was developed to examine the food environment of Baltimore City.5 Section 2 describes PHSKC’s adaptation of the HFPAi to capture multiple dimensions of healthy food access in the City of Seattle. DISCUSSION Beyond food access As concern about America’s obesity epidemic grew, the food desert concept garnered a great deal of attention, interest, and governmental support, in part because it suggested a relatively straightforward solution in which a redistribution of supermarkets would improve food access, which would in turn lead to improvements in diet quality and health outcomes. Eliminating food deserts does not, however, appear to meaningfully improve either food access or health.1 Cross-sectional evidence linking food deserts with residents’ diet quality is weak and rigorous studies of newly introduced supermarkets in food deserts suggest that their presence does not result in improved dietary intake. While the rationale behind the food desert concept had intuitive appeal, research has shown that framing food access as a function of the spatial distribution of supermarkets does not accurately describe people’s actual food access behaviors. In addition, our literature review suggests that while education and nutrition knowledge predict preferences for healthy foods,26 closing the healthy-eating gaps -- between high- and low-income families and between groups of different races/ethnicities -- may require interventions tailored to specific groups. Although a focus on food deserts can be framed as a food justice issue, this approach may have the unintended consequence of obscuring the need to focus on upstream causes of food insecurity such as poverty and the limitation it places on ability to meet basic needs.27 The food desert concept fails to capture the nuances of healthy food access and ignores underlying structural inequalities that shape the local food environment and an individual’s or household’s access to healthy affordable food.5,20 Improving healthy food access requires careful consideration of multiple domains – accessibility/convenience, affordability, accommodation, availability, acceptability, and possibly others as well. Meaningful improvement of dietary quality and health outcomes are more likely to occur when policies include a focus on upstream causes of food insecurity and health inequities such as poverty, racism, and unequal opportunity.27 In conclusion, when addressing the issue of food insecurity in Seattle, it is important to consider the full spectrum of food access dimensions. Expanding our concept of food access beyond proximity-togrocery-stores forces us to consider more broadly defined ‘healthy food environments’ and offers a meaningful context for understanding the barriers individuals and households face in accessing healthy food. In addition, Section 3 discusses disparities by race/ethnicity and income in the distribution of store 83 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 11 types across Seattle neighborhoods and Section 4 provides details about who in Seattle experiences food insecurity. Limitations This review aimed to provide a narrative summary of the current literature about neighborhood healthy food access. Unfortunately, research on this topic has struggled to define and delineate the aspects of healthy food access that impact diet quality. The evidence base is also limited by the absence of empirical tests of comprehensive models of diet quality that examine potential influences of various environmental, social, and individual factors on diet quality. Our approach to examining the literature and its relevance to Seattle also has limitations, which include conducting a selective narrative review rather than a systematic review. We did not comprehensively evaluate study quality or extract data from the studies to conduct a quantitative synthesis. Given the general, non-academic audience for this report and interest in local information, we summarized studies to provide a qualitative synthesis of the current knowledge about food access. Our literature review emphasized public health research and practice. The PubMed search engine we used included biomedical literature, life science journals, and online books, so we could have missed relevant studies in health economics or social sciences research literature. Although the literature base is continually growing, we limited the end date of our review to November 2018 and might miss more recently published relevant articles. Finally, because we did not include “student” or “campus” in our search terms, our review did not address food insecurity among college students. As reported in Section 2 of this report, food insecurity is high in Seattle’s University District (and among 18-24 year olds) and the University District is identified as meeting two of the three factors we used to define a healthy food priority area. 84 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 12 References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Block JP, Subramanian S V. Moving Beyond “Food Deserts”: Reorienting United States Policies to Reduce Disparities in Diet Quality. PLoS Med. 2015;12(12):e1001914. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001914 Walker RE, Keane CR, Burke JG. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Heal Place. 2010;16(5):876-884. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013 Ver Ploeg M, Breneman V, Farrigan T, et al. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences Report to Congress.; 2009. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42711/12716_ap036_1_.pdf?v=0. Accessed August 29, 2018. Johnson R. CRS Report for Congress The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and Legislative Action Specialist in Agricultural Policy.; 2008. www.crs.gov. Accessed September 4, 2018. Misiaszek C, Buzogany S, Freishtat H. Baltimore City’s Food Environment: 2018 Report. Baltimore, MD; 2018. Powell LM, Slater S, Mirtcheva D, Bao Y, Chaloupka FJ. Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Prev Med (Baltim). 2007;44(3):189-195. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.08.008 Lee RE, Heinrich KM, Medina A V, et al. A picture of the healthful food environment in two diverse urban cities. Environ Health Insights. 2010;4:49-60. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20706621. Accessed August 21, 2018. Kumar S, Quinn SC, Kriska AM, Thomas SB. “Food is directed to the area”: African Americans’ perceptions of the neighborhood nutrition environment in Pittsburgh. Health Place. 2011;17(1):370-378. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.017 Richardson AS, Boone-Heinonen J, Popkin BM, Gordon-Larsen P. Are neighbourhood food resources distributed inequitably by income and race in the USA? Epidemiological findings across the urban spectrum. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2):e000698. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000698 Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood Environments: Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74-81.e10. doi:10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2008.09.025 Pardilla M, Prasad D, Suratkar S, Gittelsohn J. High levels of household food insecurity on the Navajo Nation. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(1):58-65. doi:10.1017/S1368980012005630 O’Connell M, Buchwald DS, Duncan GE. Food access and cost in American Indian communities in Washington State. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111(9):1375-1379. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2011.06.002 Healthy Food Financing Initiative. USDA ACF Office of Community Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/programs/community-economic-development/healthy-foodfinancing. Published 2017. Accessed August 2, 2018. About the Atlas. USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/food-access-research-atlas/about-the-atlas.aspx#definitions. Published 2017. Accessed August 2, 2018. VanderHeide J. An Alternative Method for Determining Geographies with Low Access to Healthy Food: Case Study Lowell, MA. 2015. https://sites.tufts.edu/gis/files/2016/01/VanderHeide_John_Nutr231_2015.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2018. Documentation. USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/food-access-research-atlas/documentation/. Published 2017. Accessed August 2, 2018. Aggarwal A, Cook AJ, Jiao J, et al. Access to supermarkets and fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(5):917-923. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301763 85 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 13 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Breyer B, Voss-Andreae A. Food mirages: Geographic and economic barriers to healthful food access in Portland, Oregon. Heal Place. 2013;24:131-139. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.07.008 Ver Ploeg M, Dutko P, Breneman V. Measuring food access and food deserts for policy purposes. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2015;37(2):205-225. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppu035 Caspi CE, Sorensen G, Subramanian S V, Kawachi I. The local food environment and diet: A systematic review. Heal Place. 2012;18(5):1172-1187. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.05.006 Cooksey-Stowers K, Schwartz M, Brownell K. Food Swamps Predict Obesity Rates Better Than Food Deserts in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1366. doi:10.3390/ijerph14111366 Short A, Guthman J, Raskin S. Food Deserts, Oases, or Mirages? J Plan Educ Res. 2007;26(3):352364. doi:10.1177/0739456X06297795 Feroli C. USDA Announces New Partnership to Increase Rural Residents’ Access to Healthy Food USDA Rural Development. USDA Rural Development. https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/usda-announces-new-partnership-increase-rural-residents’-access-healthy-food. Published 2017. Accessed August 2, 2018. Drewnowski A, Moudon A V, Jiao J, Aggarwal A, Charreire H, Chaix B. Food environment and socioeconomic status influence obesity rates in Seattle and in Paris. Int J Obes. 2014;38(2):306314. doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.97 Drewnowski A, Aggarwal A, Hurvitz PM, Monsivais P, Moudon A V. Obesity and supermarket access: Proximity or price? Am J Public Health. 2012;102(8):e74-80. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300660 Allcott H, Diamond R, Dubé J-P. The Geography of Poverty and Nutrition: Food Desserts and Food Choices Across the United States.; 2018. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3095779 Rosenberg N, Cohen N. Let Them Eat Kale: The Misplaced Narrative of Food Access. Fordham Urban Law J. 2018;45(4). https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol45/iss4/5. Accessed November 15, 2018. Rehm CD, Peñalvo JL, Afshin A, Mozaffarian D. Dietary Intake Among US Adults, 1999-2012. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2542. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.7491 Bowen D, Jabson J, Barrington W, et al. Environmental and Individual Predictors of Healthy Dietary Behaviors in a Sample of Middle Aged Hispanic and Caucasian Women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2277. doi:10.3390/ijerph15102277 Andress L, Fitch C. Juggling the five dimensions of food access: Perceptions of rural low income residents. Appetite. 2016;105:151-155. doi:10.1016/J.APPET.2016.05.013 Jiao J, Moudon A V, Ulmer J, Hurvitz PM, Drewnowski A. How to identify food deserts: Measuring physical and economic access to supermarkets in King County, Washington. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(10). doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300675 Ver Ploeg M, Breneman V, Dutko P, et al. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data. Econ Res Rep. November 2012. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uersrr/262227.html. Accessed August 21, 2018. Women in the Green Economy: Voices from Southeast Seattle. https://gotgreenseattle.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/gotgreen-women-report-lowres-9-11.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2018. Women and Food Access.; 2014. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SeattleWomensCommission/Women-andFood-Access-Study-Final-Report_2014.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2018. Children’s Food Environment State Indicator Report, 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition Physical Activity and Obesity, Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/ChildrensFoodEnvironment.pdf. Published 86 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 14 2011. Accessed June 1, 2018. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 15 87 SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT OF FOOD ENVIRONMENTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD: WHICH AREAS SHOULD WE PRIORITIZE FOR INCREASING ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD? SUMMARY This section identifies healthy food priority areas (HFPA) in Seattle – locations to prioritize for improving access to healthy, affordable food. The analysis goes beyond locating food deserts (distance to nearest supermarket in low-income areas) by including three of the five domains of access to healthy food described in Section 1: affordability (ability to pay), accessibility/convenience (location and ease of transport), and availability (adequacy of food supply). We identified areas that had higher poverty levels and looked for overlap with areas that had longer travel times to the four nearest healthy food retailers and/or areas inundated by retailers selling less healthy options than retailers selling healthy food (such as produce). Key findings While Delridge and areas in north and south Seattle are specified as food deserts according to United States Department of Agriculture, additional analyses show the following nuances:  Areas with higher concentrations of poverty are located at the northern city boundary, pockets of areas around Greenwood and Sand Point, the University District, as well as from the Central District extending south into Southeast and West Seattle.  People with longer travel times to healthy food retailers lived in areas by water, Eastlake, the corridor around the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point), and the University District. Longer travel times are likely to impact lower-income households living in these areas more than wealthier households.  One-way travel times to healthy options were almost four minutes longer for people living in areas with a profusion of food retailers selling less healthy options compared to areas with more balanced options for food (11 minutes vs. 7 minutes).  The healthy food priority areas near the southern boundary around the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point) overlapped on all three factors: lower income, longer travel times to healthy food retailers, and higher percentage of unhealthy food retailers. We also identified small areas across Seattle including neighborhoods in the north end, where, although most of their neighbors are economically secure, low-income residents – especially those who rely on public transportation – may face challenges in accessing healthy food. 88 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 16 SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT OF FOOD ENVIRONMENTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD: WHICH AREAS SHOULD WE PRIORITIZE FOR INCREASING ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD? OBJECTIVE The objective of this section is to identify healthy food priority areas (HFPA) in Seattle – locations to prioritize for improving access to healthy, affordable food. The Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax (Ordinance 125324) asks for the “identification and assessment of food deserts in the city.” As reviewed in Section 1, assessing the food environment has evolved beyond the original food desert calculation of proximity to supermarkets. Concerns about using this metric include assuming people shop primarily at the supermarket closest to home or that supermarkets are the only place people shop for produce (which excludes other categories of retailers with produce sections, such as ethnic groceries, warehouses, and produce or farmer’s markets). Similarly, people we consulted (local community and subject matter experts) about this work called for us to examine other known domains of access to healthy food. Of the five dimensions of food access introduced in Section 1, we found reliable data to look at three dimensions: affordability (ability to pay), accessibility/convenience (location and ease of transport), and availability (adequacy of food supply). We adapted methods of a recent report assessing inequities in the food environment in Baltimore1 and identifying healthy food priority areas. The results from our analyses identify areas in Seattle where low-income households live and where access to healthy, affordable food and a healthy food environment is limited. We compare results to food desert locations identified by the USDA Food Access Research Atlas. We also compare results to areas where low-income households have limited food retail access, as identified by a 2013 report from the City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment. RESULTS FOOD DESERT LOCATIONS, ACCORDING TO THE USDA FOOD ACCESS RESEARCH ATLAS The term food desert refers to a low-income neighborhood with limited or no access to a supermarket. The USDA Food Access Research Atlas identifies Delridge as the only neighborhood that qualifies as a food desert using the 1-mile distance criterion. Using the ½-mile distance criterion, several other neighborhoods, predominately in North and South Seattle, are considered food deserts (Figure 1). At the end of this section, we discuss how the food deserts identified here compare to healthy food priority areas that emerged from our additional analyses. See addendum at the end of this section for detailed methods. 89 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 17 Figure 1. Food desert locations identified by USDA Food Access Research Atlas Note: A food desert refers to a low-income neighborhood with limited or no access to a supermarket. The USDA Food Access Research Atlas (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/) identifies Delridge as the only neighborhood that qualifies as a food desert using the 1-mile distance criterion. Using the ½-mile distance criterion, several other neighborhoods, predominately in North and South Seattle, are considered food deserts. AREAS WITH HIGHER POVERTY LEVELS While Section 3 of this report gives information about the price of food, another aspect of looking at the dimension of affordability is by looking at income. We used the American Community Survey data for 2012 through 2016 to analyze areas by percent of people living …higher poverty areas are at the below 200% Federal Poverty Level (FPL). We selected 200% FPL northern city boundary, pockets because it is Washington state’s cutoff for participation in the of areas around Greenwood and federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Figure 2 shows a map on the left with the distribution of percent of people Sand Point, the University living below 200% FPL. The darkest shaded areas have the highest District, as well as from the percent of people living below 200% FPL. The map on the right Central District extending south shows areas where at least a quarter of people live below 200% FPL. into Southeast and West Seattle. We chose a cut point of 25% because it allows us to see predominantly low-income areas as well as areas with moderate concentrations of low-income households. We found that higher poverty areas are at the northern city boundary, pockets of areas around Greenwood and Sand Point, the University District, as well as from the Central District extending HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 18 90 south into Southeast and West Seattle. We estimate that approximately 182,500 [95% CI, 95,800 – 262,200] people of all ages in the City of Seattle have a household income below 200% FPL. Figure 2. Income <200% Federal Poverty Level in Seattle Note: At left, we see areas (census tracts) with least to most percent of people living below 200% FPL, which is the cutoff for income eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance in Washington State. At right, we see areas where more than a quarter of people are living below 200% FPL. Areas with higher concentrations of poverty are located at the northern city boundary, pockets of areas around Greenwood and Sand Point, the University District, as well as from the Central District extending south into Southeast and West Seattle. Source: American Community Survey (2012-2016). ACCESSIBILITY/CONVENIENCE: AREAS WITH LONGER TRAVEL TIME TO HEALTHY FOOD RETAILERS Figure 3 shows one-way travel time (walking, driving, or using public transit) to the four nearest healthy food retailers. We chose four instead of one retailer because studies show people do not necessarily shop at the food retailer closest to home2. Based on previous work, we identified areas with poorer access to healthy food as places that had one-way travel time of 10 minutes or more3. The highlighted areas with longer travel times are largely areas along the water, Eastlake, the corridor around the The highlighted areas with longer travel times are Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South largely areas along the water, Eastlake, the corridor Park, Delridge, and High Point), and the University around the Duwamish waterway (including District. Citywide, the average one-way travel time Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point), was just over 7 minutes, ranging from about 1.6 and the University District. minutes to about 18 minutes. 91 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 19 Figure 3. Average travel time to the nearest four healthy food retailers in Seattle (2015-2018) Note: At left, we see areas (.25 mile x .25 mile grid) with shortest to longest average one-way travel times (driving, walking, and public transit) to the four nearest healthy food retailers. At right, we see areas where it takes at least 10 minutes to travel to the four nearest healthy food retailers. These areas are generally concentrated along the water, including Eastlake, the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point), and the University District. Sources: King County Public Health Food Permit records categorized by the University of Washington Urban Form Lab (2015) ; City of Seattle list of farmers market locations (2017); online web searches of food retailers (2018); Open Trip Planner (2018); Open Street Map (2018); General Transit Feed Specification (2018). AVAILABILITY: AREAS INUNDATED BY RETAILERS SELLING LESS HEALTHY OPTIONS THAN RETAILERS SELLING HEALTHY FOOD (SUCH AS PRODUCE) The third dimension of access to healthy food is about availability of food options. Studies show that being surrounded by fast food and less healthy food options in your neighborhood contributes to health inequities, even if you live in a neighborhood with retailers that sell produce.4 Neighborhoods with a preponderance of stores selling fast food and less healthy food options rather than healthy food options are called “food swamps,” which is a better Travel times to healthy food retailers were almost 4 predictor of neighborhood obesity rates than minutes longer for areas with the highest food food deserts.4 We measured food swamp scores swamp scores (at the 90th percentile) than in areas by taking all the food retailers in an area, and below (11 minutes vs. 7 minutes). calculating what percent don’t have a produce 5,6 section. Food retailers that don’t have a produce section are categorized as “less healthy food retailers”, while those with a produce section are categorized as “healthy food retailers”. Areas with the 92 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 20 highest food swamp scores are more inundated by food retailers that don’t offer a produce section than other areas. So, a measure of 100% means that all food retailers in that area sell less healthy food (or none have a produce section). We found that most of the retail outlets in Seattle’s food environment fall in the “less healthy” category, as reflected by food swamp scores that ranged from 80% – 100%, with an average of 95% (Figure 4). Areas in Seattle with the highest food swamp scores (at the 90th percentile) are generally located at the western edges of the city, Eastlake, downtown, and the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point). Areas with the lowest (healthiest) scores (for example, adjacent to Magnuson Park near Sand Point) are typically areas with relatively few nearby food retailers of any type. Food swamp scores did not differ substantially between low-income or wealthier areas. When we looked at how travel times are related to food swamps, we saw that one-way travel times to healthy food retailers were almost 4 minutes longer for areas with highest food swamp scores (at the 90th percentile) than in other areas (11 minutes vs. 7 minutes). Figure 4. Food swamps in Seattle (2015-2018) Note: We measured food swamp scores by examining all the food retailers within a 2.25 mile x 2.25 square around each location in Seattle (.25 mile x .25 mile grid), and calculating what percent don’t offer a produce section. A high food swamp score indicates an area inundated by retailers offering more options for unhealthy food than healthy food, such as produce. Areas in Seattle with the highest food swamp scores (at the 90th percentile) are generally located at the western edges of the city, Eastlake, downtown, and the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point). Sources: King County Public Health Food Permit records categorized by the University of Washington Urban Form Lab (2015); City of Seattle list of farmers market locations (2017); online web searches of food retailers to classify whether retailers from the categorized food permit database offered produce (2018). HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 21 93 HEALTHY FOOD PRIORITY AREAS The healthy food priority areas near the To identify healthy food priority areas (HFPA), we looked southern boundary around the Duwamish for overlap in areas where we saw higher poverty areas waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, (where at least 25% of people were living under 200% Delridge, and High Point) overlapped on all three FPL) and at least one other dimension of access to factors: lower income, longer travel times to healthy food (travel times exceeding 10 minutes or healthy food retailers, and higher percentage of having a food swamp score at the 90th percentile) (see unhealthy food retailers. Figure 5). We found that healthy food priority areas located near the southern boundary around the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point) overlapped on all three factors: lower income, longer travel times to healthy food retailers, and higher percentage of unhealthy food retailers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, more than half of the geographical areas with at least one We also identified small areas including additional factor beyond income is zoned as neighborhoods in the north end, where, predominately industrial. The HFPA index also although most of their neighbors are identified small areas including neighborhoods in the economically secure, low-income residents north end, where, although most of their neighbors are – especially those who rely on public economically secure, low-income residents – especially transportation – may face challenges in those who rely on public transportation – may face accessing healthy food. challenges in accessing healthy food. Figure 5. Healthy food priority areas in Seattle Note: The healthy food priority area (HFPA) index is constructed from three true/false factors: (1) more than 25% percent of population is below 200% of the federal poverty level, (2) average travel time to the nearest 4 healthy food establishments is greater than 10 minutes, and (3) food swamp score is above the 90th percentile. The final HFPA index is calculated by summing the travel time and food swamp components where the poverty component is true. The healthy food priority areas near the southern boundary around the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point) overlapped all three factors: lower income, longer travel times, and higher percentage of unhealthy food retailers. The HFPA index also identified small areas including neighborhoods in the north end, where, although most of their neighbors are economically secure, low-income residents – especially those who rely on public transportation – may face challenges in accessing healthy food. 94 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 22 DISCUSSION In identifying healthy food priority areas, we adapted emerging best practices about how to systematically assess food environments and highlight inequities in access to healthy food in the City of Seattle. We looked at three dimensions of healthy food access: affordability (by selecting census tracts where more than a quarter of the population reported income below 200% FPL), accessibility/convenience (by calculating multi-modal travel times to four healthy food retail locations), and availability (by taking into account the extent to which the supply of unhealthy foods “swamps” impact local food retail environments). When we compare locations identified by the USDA food desert map to healthy food priority areas (Figure 6), we see some similarities: Figure 6. Comparison of USDA food desert map7,8 and HFPA map of Seattle Both maps highlight areas near the northern city boundary, the southern half of the city, and University District as locations where low-income residents may experience challenges in food access. When we look across the three HFPA factors of poverty, travel time, and food swamps, we see that the map of Seattle’s healthy food priority areas offers a more nuanced perspective than the USDA map, and could be used to guide further inquiries as well as refine programs and policies to improve healthy food access in Seattle. Compared to the 2013 mapping project to help the Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment identify areas where low-income households have limited food retail access, the HFPA map offers the following enhancements (see Figure 7): 95 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 23     Expands healthy food retailers beyond supermarkets, farmers markets, and produce stands to include additional food retail outlets (grocery stores and warehouses) classified as healthy based on the literature. 9 Uses local knowledge and interactive matching to further classify small grocery stores, ethnic and otherwise, as healthy food retailers if these establishments had a produce section. Focuses on travel time along transportation networks using multiple modes (walking, driving, or public transit) to the nearest four healthy food retail outlets. Uses population with incomes below 200% FPL ($50,200 for household of four in 2018) rather than 80% of area median income ($80,250 for household of four in 2018) and tailors income criteria (>25% of area population with income below 200% FPL rather than a larger percentage) to include smaller low-income communities living in areas that are predominantly higher income. Figure 7. Comparison of OSE food access map and HFPA map of Seattle Our HFPA results are consistent with the 2013 report in identifying the Duwamish waterway (including Georgetown, South Park, Delridge, and High Point) as areas with limited food retail access. Areas along the north city boundary identified as having limited food retail access in the 2013 report coincide with areas meeting the poverty threshold only or poverty and one additional factor in our HPFA analysis. However, the neighborhood district of southeast Seattle (along Rainier Avenue) – identified by the prior mapping project as a limited food retail access area – meets only the poverty threshold for our index. This difference may reflect new businesses selling produce in the area since the 2013 report and existing HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 24 96 businesses that previously had not been classified as offering produce (such as ethnic grocery stores). Likewise, our approach identifies small pockets throughout Seattle, such as the area near Magnuson Park, as low-income locations with limited food access, which are not identified in the 2013 report. The University District is another area we identified as meeting the poverty threshold and the threshold for one additional factor of the HFPA index. We note in Section 4, (a) young adults are at higher risk for food insecurity than older adults and (b) food insecurity among college students is associated with impaired academic performance and failure to graduate.10 The 2013 mapping project excluded the University District because while many college students have no income, those who have access to other financial resources or support are likely to have access to healthy food.11–13 With additional resources, a reasonable next step would be to validate these results by working with residents and organizations in priority areas to learn if the results presented here match their experiences. Additionally, this work on access could be complemented by examining other dimensions of healthy food access – accommodation (hours of operation, types of payment allowed, culturally relevant offerings) and acceptability (attitudes about whether food meets personal standards). We hope this updated assessment to identify healthy food priority areas will (a) complement the City’s efforts to understand food access among low-income Seattle residents, including affordable housing residents8, (b) inform the upcoming update of the Seattle Food Action Plan, and (c) inform the planning process for the Human Service Department’s food-and-meals Request for Proposals. In addressing healthy food access, strategies should involve a comprehensive approach, which includes securing and strengthening the hunger safety net through Food Banks and emergency food operations. However, solutions aimed solely at bolstering the safety net may not adequately address all aspects of healthy food access. Therefore, strategies should also include evidence-based approaches with consideration to factors influencing access to healthy food such as: affordability, location and convenience, as well as the adequacy of the healthy food supply — factors described in Section 1 and included in the healthy food priority areas analysis outlined in this section. Limitations This analysis is not without limitations and there are several that should be noted:  We were limited in our ability to further disaggregate the categorized food permit database. Our approach to identifying healthy food retailers was based on the standard practice of classifying establishment type based on categorizations used in previous studies. While we did not have resources to verify actual presence of healthy food in each food retailer, we used local knowledge and searches of local databases that led us to categorize several more retailers as having produce sections and thus as healthy food retailers. Had we not manually re-coded the retailers, the analyses would have led to findings showing some Seattle areas as having longer average travel times to healthy food retailers and higher food swamp scores.  The food retail environment is dynamic and although our 2015 categorized food permit database is three years old, it represents the most recent categorized food permit database available to the study team. While it provides a snapshot of food retailers at a point in time, it does not capture recent closures/openings. Additional work described in Section 3 of this report was consistent with our findings in identifying South Park and High Point as healthy food priority areas. In our analysis, Haller Lake was classified as having short travel times to the nearest four healthy food retailers and a food swamp score on the lower end of the range. However, after this report’s analysis, two HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 25 97 healthy food retailers have closed and one new healthy food retailer has opened in Haller Lake, which on balance does not substantively affect this original classification.  We were unable to capture the price of healthy items as a component of access—although sensitivity analyses removing more expensive food retailers14 (e.g. Whole Foods, PCC, and Metropolitan Market) suggested substantially similar results to those presented here. See Section 3 for more details about price and availability of healthy food across Seattle store types. 98 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 26 ADDENDUM – DETAILED METHODS FOR SECTION 2 METHODS Identifying healthy food priority areas We identified healthy food priority areas by constructing a three-component index that incorporates information about 1) income relative to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), 2) travel time to nearby healthy food retailers, and 3) an assessment of the balance of healthy and less healthy food offerings in the local food environment. After generating each component, we applied a threshold to transform each component from a continuous measure to a binary one (0 or 1). We constructed the final index by first identifying areas that met our low-income criterion and, within those areas, adding the other two components with equal weight. Higher scores on the HFPA index can be used to identify areas to be considered for policy and programmatic priority. Before constructing the index, however, we needed to identify healthy and less healthy food retailers in Seattle. We started with a 2015 census of King County Public Health Food Permit records that the University of Washington Urban Form Lab (UFL) had categorized into establishment types such as “supermarket,” “grocery store with produce section,” and “convenience store,” as shown in Table 1 below. Hereafter, we refer to these categorized records as the “categorized food permit database.” This is the same data set used to identify stores for the retail audit component of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax evaluation. We extended the categorized food permit database by geolocating records with a valid address but missing longitude and latitude coordinates and condensing retailers with multiple food permits (for example, a supermarket can have more than one food permit for each department such as bakery/deli and meat/seafood) into a single record. We dropped records for retailers, such as stadiums, where access was contingent on paying an admission fee (except warehouse-type stores such as Costco). We also omitted retailers located outside a one-mile buffer of the city boundaries. We included this buffer in the analysis to reduce “edge effects” on our calculations. Finally, all establishments coded as a grocery store – ethnic or otherwise – were assessed using information available online (e.g., Yelp and Google reviews) to identify stores with a produce section that might be included in the “healthy” classification. Building on prior work3 and feedback from the UW Center for Public Health Nutrition, we made one further modification to our extended version of the categorized food permit database. In an effort to capture the healthfulness of food options at different kinds of retail outlets, we categorized each food retail outlet in Seattle, based on type of establishment, as “healthy” or “less healthy” (Table 1). While one can argue for the healthfulness of fish and meat markets and many restaurants, our criterion for a healthy food retail establishment was that it offer an assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables. This criterion is motivated by research evidence15–17 linking fruit and vegetable consumption to healthy outcomes and federal dietary guidelines for increased fruit and vegetable consumption.17 We also added farmers markets to the list of healthy food retail establishments as they feature similar produce selections relative to the other establishments classified as healthy. These 18 farmers-market locations are from the 2017 City of Seattle list. Our final dataset included 3,927 food retailers, 132 of which we classified as healthy. 99 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 27 Table 1. Classification of healthfulness of food retail establishments based on establishment type* Healthy Supermarket Grocery Store w/ produce section Warehouse w/ produce section Farmers Market Produce Market Restaurant Quick Service Coffee Shop Bakery/Deli Fast Food Convenience Store Fish/meat market Less healthy Dessert Tavern/Pub Food/Drugstore Combo Specialty Food Store Grocery Store w/o produce section Warehouse w/o produce section *Sub-categorization distinctions between “ethnic” and “traditional” have been omitted for this chart. Constructing the index Factor 1. Below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) The first component of the HFPA index comes from income levels by census tract as assessed by the American Community Survey (2012-2016). An area was considered eligible for HFPA status if more than 25% of the area’s population reported household income below 200% of FPL. We chose a cut point of 25% because it enabled us to capture both predominantly low-income areas and moderate concentrations of low-income households in predominantly high-income areas. We selected 200% FPL as a useful metric in part because it serves as Washington state’s cutoff for participation in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Factor 2. Travel time to healthy food retailers The second component of the HFPA index assesses travel time to healthy food retailers (defined in Table 1 above) by examining multi-modal travel times to these locations. First, we converted the area of the city into a grid of .25 mile x .25 mile cells (each about the size of a 4 block x 4 block area in the heart of downtown Seattle). This “rasterization” process (cells arranged in grid with rows and columns commonly used in Geographic Information Systems) allowed us to create a spatially continuous measure of travel time which we generated using Open Trip Planner (OTP), Open Street Map, and General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data from King County Metro Transit. To account for the fact that people don’t necessarily shop at the food retailer closest to home2, we calculated the travel times between each of the city’s 1450 valid grid cells and the four nearest healthy food locations for three different modes of travel: driving, walking, and public transit. To account for transit-schedule variability, we averaged the public transit times over several estimates depending on time of day and day of week. Once travel times by each of the three modes were generated for the four closest healthy food locations for each grid cell, we computed a mode-averaged score where we used the walk time if it was the fastest of the three. Otherwise, we averaged the driving-time and public-transit-time estimates, weighted by census-tractlevel ACS estimates of vehicle availability. We created the final travel-time estimate for each grid cell by averaging the four composite travel-time estimates. Informed by previous work3, we used one-way trip distance greater than 10 minutes as our threshold for this component. Factor 3. Food swamp index The third component of our index captures the proportion of all retail food outlets in the nearby food environment that offers “less healthy” options: 100 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 28 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑠𝑤𝑎𝑚𝑝 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = (# 𝐿𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑦 𝐹𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑠) × 100 (# 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑠) We computed this “food swamp” index for each grid cell (same grid as the travel-time analysis) using a 2.25 mi x 2.25 mi “moving window.” That is, for each grid cell, the metric was calculated by examining all retail food locations that fall within the window centered on the grid cell of interest. Once the calculation was completed, the next grid cell was assessed and the window was re-centered accordingly. We used a 2.25 mi x 2.25 mi window because it corresponds with the median size of Seattle’s “health reporting areas,” geographic units used by Public Health-Seattle & King County (PHSKC) to report health outcomes and demographic data. Unlike some similar studies, we included taverns and bars as food establishments because a review of the coding scheme for the categorized food permit data suggested that many of these locations do sell food. To reduce estimate instability, we excluded any grid cell with fewer than 10 food establishments in the 2.25 mi x 2.25 mi window. For this component, we identified all grid cells with a food swamp index score above the 90th percentile (98.4%) as the threshold for contributing to the final healthy food priority area index. Calculating Seattle’s healthy food priority area index We combined all three components by summing the equally weighted travel time and food swamp index components categorized as true/false (0 or 1) in grid cells that met the conditions specified by the income component (>25% of the area’s population with income below 200% FPL). To ensure standardization, we excluded any grid cell where any of the three components were missing (190 were excluded – mainly marinas and water areas, which should not impact any analyses or conclusions). Figure 1 summarizes the process for calculating the HFPA index. Figure 1. Calculating the healthy food priority area (HFPA) index Calculate HFPA components •% of population below 200% of the federal poverty level •Average one-way travel time to the nearest 4 healthy food retailers •Food Swamp Index Apply thresholds to HFPA components •>25% of the population below 200% of the federal poverty level •Travel time > 10 minutes, one-way •Food Swamp Index score above 90th percentile (98.4%) Calculate HFPA index •Identify areas meeting the poverty criteria •In those areas, sum travel time and food swamp index components categorized as true/false based on thresholds 101 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 29 References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Misiaszek C, Buzogany S, Freishtat H. Baltimore City’s Food Environment: 2018 Report. Baltimore, MD; 2018. Drewnowski A, Aggarwal A, Hurvitz PM, Monsivais P, Moudon A V. Obesity and supermarket access: Proximity or price? Am J Public Health. 2012;102(8):e74-80. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300660 Jiao J, Moudon A V, Ulmer J, Hurvitz PM, Drewnowski A. How to identify food deserts: Measuring physical and economic access to supermarkets in King County, Washington. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(10). doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300675 Cooksey-Stowers K, Schwartz M, Brownell K. Food Swamps Predict Obesity Rates Better Than Food Deserts in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1366. doi:10.3390/ijerph14111366 Mui Y, Jones-Smith JC, Thornton RLJ, Pollack Porter K, Gittelsohn J. Relationships between Vacant Homes and Food Swamps: A Longitudinal Study of an Urban Food Environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1426. Census Tract Level State Maps of the Modified Retail Food Environment Index (MRFEI). Food Access Research Atlas. USDA Economic Research Services . https://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx. Accessed December 6, 2018. Memorandum. Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) & Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE). http://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6576193&GUID=2096C66B355D-4486-9C67-51C0B23FDA52. Published 2018. Rundle A, Neckerman KM, Freeman L, et al. Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):442-447. doi:10.1289/ehp.11590 Phillips E, McDaniel A, Croft A. Food Insecurity and Academic Disruption Among College Students. J Stud Aff Res Pract. June 2018:1-20. doi:10.1080/19496591.2018.1470003 Tippett R. Impact of Off-Campus College Students on Local Poverty Rates. UNC Carolina Demography, Carolina Population Center. https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2015/03/09/impactof-off-campus-college-students-on-local-poverty-rates/. Published 2015. Accessed January 17, 2019. Bishaw A. When Off-Campus College Students are Excluded, Poverty Rates Fall in Many College Towns. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/randomsamplings/2013/07/when-off-campus-college-students-are-excluded-poverty-rates-fall-in-manycollege-towns.html. Published 2013. Accessed January 17, 2019. Benson C, Bishaw A. Small and Large College Towns See Higher Poverty Rates. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/10/off-campus-college-studentspoverty.html. Published 2018. Accessed January 17, 2019. Mahmud NK, Monsivais P, Drewnoski A. The Search for Affordable Nutrient Rich Foods: A Comparison of Supermarket Food Prices in Seattle-King County. Seattle, WA; 2009. http://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/reports/cphnbrf2.pdf. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2224-2260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8 Murray CJL, Abraham J, Ali MK, et al. The State of US Health, 1990-2010: Burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA. 2013;310(6):591. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.13805 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th ed. US Department of Health and Human 102 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 30 Services, US Department of Agriculture; 2015. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Accessed December 4, 2018. 103 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 31 SECTION 3 WHAT IS THE PRICE AND AVAILABILITY OF HEALTHY FOOD IN SEATTLE STORES? SUMMARY During May through July 2018, we conducted in-store surveys in a sample of 134 food stores in Seattle, plus 23 food stores in the three priority neighborhoods to measure the availability and price of 19 healthy food items. The primary objective of this assessment was to assess the price and availability of healthy food in Seattle by neighborhood characteristics, such as income level and race/ethnicity composition, in order to assess whether differences in healthy food availability and the price of healthy foods exist in these neighborhood contexts. A secondary objective was to conduct a pilot study of instore healthy food availability in a census (rather than a sample) of stores in three priority neighborhoods: Haller Lake, High Point, and South Park. Analyses are weighted to be representative of the types of stores in each neighborhood. Key findings Availability:  Lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents had fewer supermarkets and superstores and more small stores, such as convenience stores.  There was lower availability of healthy foods in lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents.  Mean healthy food availability scores varied by Seattle City Council District, with Council District 5 scoring the lowest, and Council District 6 scoring the highest. Price:  The price of healthy foods tended to be lower in lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents. When available, protein, milk, grains, and vegetables tended to be less expensive in lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents as compared to prices of these foods in neighborhoods of higher income and fewer Black or Hispanic residents. However, statistical confidence intervals around many of these estimates overlapped, indicating that the price differences are likely not statistically significant. Pilot census study:  The categorized food permit data basei was only moderately accurate in identifying food stores-indicating a dynamic food environment in Seattle, with many food stores closing, opening, and moving during a relatively short period of time.  Despite the inaccuracies, the overall conclusions drawn using the census and in-stores assessments would be similar to those drawn using existing data and scoring methods developed in Section 1 of this report for two out of the three priority neighborhoods.  Decision-makers will need to weigh the trade-offs in accuracy with the cost of in-person data collection and the potential need to repeat data collection frequently in the context of a rapidly changing city. i Public Health Food Permit records categorized by University of Washington Urban Forum Lab (UFL) researchers under the direction of Dr. Anne Vernez Moudon, hereafter referred to as “categorized food permit database.” 104 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 32 SECTION 3 WHAT IS THE PRICE AND AVAILABILITY OF HEALTHY FOOD IN SEATTLE STORES? OBJECTIVE This section of the report speaks primarily to two of the five dimensions of food access—availability and affordability. Our primary objective was to examine availability and price of healthy foods in Seattle according to neighborhood characteristics of income and race and ethnicity in order to assess whether differences in healthy food availability and the price of healthy foods exist in these neighborhood contexts. A secondary objective was to conduct a pilot study of in-store healthy food in a census (rather than a sample) of stores in three priority neighborhoods. We conducted in-store healthy food availability and price assessments, which are complementary to the work by the Evaluation Team to develop a healthy food priority area (HFPA) index described in Section 2, which uses only pre-existing data to characterize the food environment in Seattle. Specifically, citywide, we are able to combine the in-store assessment of healthy food availability with census demographic information to objectively assess inequities in healthy food availability and price. In addition, we assess whether the information gained from the intensive primary data collection in three priority neighborhoods provides valuable information beyond what could be inferred from preexisting secondary data sources. RESULTS HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY AND PRICES IN SEATTLE ACCORDING TO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS Development of our tool to conduct in-store healthy food assessments To assess healthy food availability, we developed an abbreviated in-store healthy food assessment survey that was based on the widely-used Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Convenience Stores (NEMS-CS), which is often considered a gold standard for in-store healthy food availability assessment.2 We collected the availability and prices for 19 individual healthy food items within five categories of fruit, vegetables, grains, proteins, and milk. We used the healthy food scoring algorithm from the NEMS-CS to assign points for each of these healthy foods (see Table 1 for the foods included and the points assigned for each food). The final list of food items was based on input from Seattle Human Services Department, Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment, Seattle City Councilmembers, and the SBT Community Advisory Board. We refer to our newly developed survey tool as the Seattle Healthy Food Survey (Appendix B). See addendum at the end of this section for detailed methods. 105 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 33 Table 1. Products included in the Seattle Healthy Food Survey Healthy food items1 Fruit Apples Bananas Oranges Vegetables Broccoli Carrots Green lettuce Tomatoes Yellow onions Grains 100% whole wheat bread White bread Frosted Flakes cereal Original Cheerios cereal Rice (white or brown) Protein Canned beans (black, kidney, or garbanzo) Eggs Lean fresh ground meat Milk 1% Milk 2% Milk Fat-free milk Whole milk Total points available in survey 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 2 1 6 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 0 1We additionally collected the availability and prices of five junk food products and sweets, which are not included in this analysis: Lays potato chips, Pringles potato chips, Reese’s peanut butter cups, Oreos, and Little Debbie Honey Buns. These items received no points in the Healthy Food Survey scoring tool and were not included in the market basket. Comparison of NEMS-CS to Seattle Healthy Food Survey to assess healthy food availability in Seattle food stores We tested how well our newly developed healthy food availability survey, which we call the Seattle Healthy Food Survey, performed as compared to the NEMS-CS by conducting both our survey and the NEMS-CS survey in 23 stores. The same research assistant conducted both surveys in each store on the same day, back-to-back. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the total scores for healthy food availability for the Seattle Healthy Food Survey and the NEMS-CS. The two tools were highly correlated with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.875 (Table 2). This strong relationship between the two measures supports the proposition our Seattle Healthy Food Survey measures the availability of healthy food similarly to the NEMS-CS. 106 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 34 Figure 2. Scatterplot of Seattle Healthy Food Survey total score versus NEMS-CS availability total score Table 2. Descriptive statistics of NEMS-CS score and Seattle Healthy Food Survey score in the 23 priority area stores surveyed with both tools N = 23 Mean (StDev) Median Range Correlation NEMS-CS availability score 9.1 (5.3) 8 1-22 Seattle Healthy Food Survey availability score 7.6 (3.8) 7 1-18 0.875 Stores Identified in the Food Permit Database versus SBT Retail Audit: Weighting our sample stores to be representative of the distribution of food stores in Seattle In Seattle, the categorized food permit database contains 493 food stores citywide; we surveyed 27% (n=134) of these food stores using the Seattle Healthy Food Survey as part of the Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) retail audit sample. Table 3 displays the percent of each store type present citywide in Seattle compared to their representation in the SBT retail audit sample of food stores. This table illustrates the degree to which the SBT retail audit sample is representative of the store types in all of Seattle. Compared to Seattle, the SBT retail audit sample contains more supermarkets (17.2% versus 11.8% citywide), more warehouses/superstores (5.2 % versus 1.4% citywide), more grocery stores (21.6% versus 17.4% citywide), and more drug stores (12.7% versus 8.9% citywide). The SBT retail audit sample contains fewer small stores than are present citywide in Seattle (43.3% versus 60.5% citywide). This means that small stores are under-represented in the SBT retail audit sample, while larger stores are over represented in the sample, compared to the distribution of all food stores in Seattle. These findings are 107 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 35 not surprising since we used quotas (as described in the Baseline SBT Evaluation Report)1 to obtain a sample that had an adequate number of each store type distributed geographically throughout the City. Table 3 additionally displays the proportion of each food store type in both the food permit database and the SBT retail audit sample by 1) neighborhood median household income (low, medium, high), 2) neighborhood percent Black/Hispanic (low, medium, high) residents and 3) Council District. In the food permit database, 45.4% (n=224) of all Seattle food stores are in the lowest-income neighborhoods, 37.5% (n=185) of stores are in the middle-income neighborhoods, and 17% (n=84) are in the highest-income neighborhoods. Meaning, there is a higher number of food stores in lower-income neighborhoods as compared to middle- and higher-income neighborhoods. However, the types of stores within each neighborhood differ. There are more small stores (n=149, 66.5%) in the lower-income neighborhoods, compared to the middle (n=105, 56.8%) and higher income neighborhoods (n=44, 52.4%). Conversely, there are more grocery stores and supermarkets in the middle and higher income neighborhoods, as compared to the lower-income census tract. There are also fewer supermarkets and more small stores in neighborhoods with the highest percentage of Black or Hispanic residents. In terms of Council Districts, Districts 2 and 7 had a larger share of stores compared to the other districts. Weighting our sample stores to be representative of the distribution of food stores in Seattle To account for these differences in our food availability and food prices analyses below, we create four different weights to adjust our sample so that it is representative of the distribution of store types in Seattle 1) citywide and then within 2) each tertile of income (low, medium, high) and 3) each tertile of race/ethnicity (low, medium, high). For analyses by Council District, we weight the stores to be representative within Council District. (See addendum for details of post-estimation weights) Table 3. Comparison of Seattle food stores in the categorized food permit database to the SBT retail audit store sample All Seattle stores in categorized food permit database N = 493 N (%) Store type Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store Median household income in census tract $14,155 - $63,077 (lowest income group, n=25 census tracts/neighborhoods) Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store $65,772 - $88,706 (middle income group, n=26 census tracts/neighborhoods) SBT retail audit store sample N = 134 N (%) 58 (11.8) 7 (1.4) 86 (17.4) 298 (60.5) 44 (8.9) 23 (17.2) 7 (5.2) 29 (21.6) 58 (43.3) 17 (12.7) 224 (45.4) 61 (45.5) 20 (8.9) 3 (1.3) 34 (15.2) 149 (66.5) 18 (8) 10 (16.4) 3 (4.9) 12 (19.7) 27 (44.3) 9 (14.8) 185 (37.5) 47 (35.1) 108 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 36 Table 3. Comparison of Seattle food stores in the categorized food permit database to the SBT retail audit store sample Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store $91,005-$159,652 (highest income group, n=20 census tracts/neighborhoods) Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store Percent Black or Hispanic in census tract 0.79%-6.34% (lowest % Black or Hispanic, n=20 census tracts/neighborhood) Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store 6.42%-15.31% (middle % Black/Hispanic, n=21 census tracts/neighborhoods) Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store 15.74%-50.99% (highest % Black/Hispanic, n=30 census tracts/neighborhoods) Supermarket Warehouse /Superstore Grocery Small store Drug store Council Districts 1 2 3 4 5 All Seattle stores in categorized food permit database N = 493 N (%) 27 (14.6) 4 (2.2) 30 (16.2) 105 (56.8) 19 (10.3) SBT retail audit store sample N = 134 N (%) 9 (19.2) 4 (8.5) 9 (19.2) 19 (40.4) 6 (12.8) 84 (17) 26 (19.4) 11 (13.1) 0 (0) 22 (26.2) 44 (52.4) 7 (8.3) 4 (15.4) 0 (0) 8 (30.8) 12 (46.2) 2 (7.7) 80 (16.2) 26 (19.4) 15 (18.8) 0 (0) 15 (18.8) 44 (55) 6 (7.5) 6 (23.1) 0 (0) 8 (30.8) 8 (30.8) 4 (15.4) 170 (34.5) 40 (29.9) 23 (13.5) 2 (1.2) 32 (18.8) 92 (54.1) 21 (12.4) 7 (17.5) 2 (5) 6 (15) 21 (52.5) 4 (10) 243 (49.3) 68 (50.8) 20 (8.2) 5 (2.1) 39 (16.1) 162 (66.7) 17 (7) 10 (14.7) 5 (7.4) 15 (22.1) 29 (42.7) 9 (13.2) 51 (10.3) 111 (22.5) 75 (15.2) 50 (10.1) 55 (11.2) 17 (12.7) 41 (30.6) 15 (11.2) 10 (7.5) 15 (11.2) HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT 109 Page 37 Table 3. Comparison of Seattle food stores in the categorized food permit database to the SBT retail audit store sample All Seattle stores in categorized food permit database N = 493 N (%) 58 (11.8) 93 (18.9) 6 7 SBT retail audit store sample N = 134 N (%) 19 (14.2) 17 (12.7) Availability and price of healthy foods in Seattle We surveyed 134 food stores spread throughout the City of Seattle to assess healthy food availability and price. (See appendix for full details of store sampling and data collection protocol) Of all stores, 96% (n=128) carried at least one of the products measured in the Seattle Healthy Food Survey. Table 4 displays healthy food availability score (range 0-25 points) and price per pound of healthy foods by store type. All results have been weighted to be representative of the distribution of all food stores in Seattle. Healthy food availability score Larger stores (warehouses, supermarkets, grocery stores) had higher availability of healthy foods, compared to smaller stores (drug stores, small stores). On average, warehouses/superstores had the highest availability score (20.6 [95% CI=17.86, 23.29]), followed closely by supermarkets (19.0 [95% CI=15.90, 22.09]) and then grocery stores (16.2 [95% CI=14.10, 18.31]). Drug stores and small stores had a substantially lower healthy food availability scores as compared to the larger store types (9.5 [95% CI=8.76, 10.18] and 6.8 [95% CI=5.49, 8.08], respectively). Despite carrying no fruit, vegetables, or meat, drug stores had a higher availability score than small stores; this is largely due to the fact that drug stores consistently carried some eggs, beans, milk, and grains. The availability of foods in small stores ranged widely; 75% (n=39) of all small stores carried milk, 69% (n=36) carried grains, 56% (n=29) carried fresh fruit, 50% (n=26) carried proteins, and 25% (n=13) carried fresh vegetables. Only one small store carried fresh meat. Price per pound of healthy food Mean prices of healthy food (per pound) are displayed in Table 4. For most food categories, as would be expected, prices were generally lower in larger stores (supermarkets and warehouses/superstores) as compared to relatively smaller stores (grocery, small and drug stores). For meat, small stores had the lowest mean price, but only one small store had any meat, so this should not be inferred to reflect general pricing at small stores. Rather, a better conclusion is that small stores generally did not carry meat. Grocery stores had a lower average price on meat compared to supermarkets, warehouses, and superstores; however, the confidence intervals overlap indicated that this difference is not likely to be statistically significant. For milk, drug stores had a similarly low price compared to supermarkets, while small stores had the highest prices for milk. Within store type, price per pound tended to be highest for meat and milk (per gallon) and lower for fruits and vegetables. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 38 110 Table 4. Average healthy food availability score and price per pound of healthy foods in Seattle by store type Seattle Healthy Mean price ($) Food Survey Fruit Vegetables Grain Meat Eggs Beans Milk availability per pound per pound per pound per pound per pound per pound per gallon score Store type Mean score Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) N N N N N N N N 19.0 1.58 1.69 2.41 5.78 1.34 1.24 3.41 Supermarket (15.90, 22.09) (0.98, 2.17) (1.57, 1.81) (2.04, 2.79) (5.17, 6.39) (1.11, 1.56) (1.12, 3.67) (2.70, 4.13) N=23 N=22 N=21 N=23 N=18 N=18 N=19 N=20 20.57 1.46 1.92 1.90 5.45 1.71 0.91 2.88 Warehouse/superstore (17.86, 23.29) (0.77, 2.16) (1.18, 2.66) (1.71, 2.09) (4.69, 6.21) (0.58, 2.84) (0.77, 1.05) (2.26, 3.51) N=7 N=7 N=7 N=7 N=6 N=6 N=7 N=7 16.21 1.99 1.97 2.39 4.95 2.12 1.57 4.17 Grocery (14.10, 18.31) (1.35, 2.63) (1.63, 2.30) (1.80, 2.99) (4.02, 5.89) (1.80, 2.44) (1.42, 1.73) (3.67, 4.67) N=29 N=26 N=28 N=26 N=20 N=25 N=23 N=25 6.81 2.77 2.35 2.29 3.99 2.72 2.11 5.18 Small store (5.49, 8.08) (2.41, 3.13) (1.48, 3.21) (1.88, 2.70) (n/a) (2.42, 3.01) (1.78, 2.44) (4.68, 5.68) N=52 N=29 N=13 N=36 N=1 N=28 N=24 N=39 9.47 2.59 1.76 1.71 3.34 Drug store (8.76, 10.18) N/A N/A (1.73, 3.44) N/A (1.47, 2.04) (1.53, 1.89) (3.10, 3.59) N=17 N=17 N=17 N=10 N=17 Fruit includes apples, oranges, bananas Vegetables includes broccoli, carrots, green lettuce, tomatoes, onions Grains includes 100% whole wheat bread, white bread, frosted flakes cereal, original cheerios cereal, rice (white or brown) Milk includes, in this order, fat-free milk, 1% milk, 2% milk, whole milk. The mean milk price is drawn from fat-free milk if available, then 1% milk, then 2% milk, then whole milk. 111 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 39 Table 5 displays the healthy food availability score and price per pound of healthy foods by neighborhood median household income and percent Black or Hispanic, across the sample of stores surveyed in Seattle. Results are weighted to match the distribution of store types in each tertile. Healthy food availability score by median household income Neighborhoods with higher median household income levels had higher mean healthy food availability scores compared to middle- and lower-income neighborhoods (12.80 [95% CI=11.04, 14.55] in the highest income group, vs. 10.98 [95% CI=9.67, 12.29] in the middle income group, vs. 8.58 [95% CI=7.57, 9.62] in the lowest income group). Healthy food availability score by race/ethnicity When comparing by race/ethnicity, neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents had lower healthy food availability scores, on average (9.29 [95% CI=8.19, 10.40]in the highest % Black or Hispanic group, vs. 11.05 [95% CI=9.73, 12.36] in the middle % Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, vs. 11.90 [95% CI=9.92, 13.89] in the lowest % Black or Hispanic neighborhoods). Price per pound of healthy food by median household income Average price per pound of grains, vegetables, meat, and beans were less expensive in the lowest neighborhood income group compared to the highest neighborhood income group; but in many cases, the confidence intervals overlap, indicating that differences are likely not statistically significant. Fruit tended to be more expensive in the lowest income neighborhoods. Price per pound of healthy food by race/ethnicity Prices were lower for fruit, vegetables, grains, meat, and eggs in neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents. Although, similar to results by neighborhood-level income, the confidence intervals on the estimates are overlapping in many cases, indicating that prices may not be statistically significantly different. Milk and beans had higher average prices in neighborhoods where more Black or Hispanic residents reside; however, here again, the differences are likely not statistically significant. This means that while higher-income areas and areas with fewer Black or Hispanic residents have greater access to healthy foods, the prices in these areas also tended to be higher, on average. 112 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 40 Table 5. Average healthy food availability score and price per pound of healthy foods in Seattle according to neighborhood income and race tertiles Seattle Healthy Mean price ($) Food Survey Fruit Vegetables Grain Meat Eggs Beans Milk availability score per pound per pound per pound per pound per pound per pound per gallon N = 128 N = 84 N = 69 N = 109 N=43 N=90 N=76 N = 108 Mean score Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. Mean $/lb. (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Median household income in Census tract (weighted⸸) $0 - $63,077 8.58 2.46 1.63 2.24 4.98 2.13 1.78 4.46 (lowest income group) (7.57, 9.62) (2.04, 2.87) (1.39, 1.86) (1.91, 2.56) (4.07, 5.90) (1.96, 2.30) (1.49, 2.08) (4.06, 4.85) $65,772 - $88,706 10.98 2.36 2.35 2.15 4.96 2.27 1.80 4.59 (middle income group) (9.67, 12.29) (1.99, 2.74) (1.97, 2.72) (1.82, 2.49) (4.23, 5.68) (1.97, 2.57) (1.49, 2.10) (4.10, 5.08) $91,005-$159,652 12.80 2.10 2.10 2.81 5.97 2.50 1.87 4.52 (highest income (11.04, 14.55) (1.76, 2.44) (1.61, 2.59) (2.38, 3.24) (5.16, 6.79) (2.16, 2.83) (1.75, 1.99) (4.12, 4.92) group) Percent Black or Hispanic in Census tract (weighted⸸) 0%-6.34% 11.90 2.40 1.92 2.56 6.15 2.67 1.67 4.27 (lowest % Black or (9.92, 13.89) (2.06, 2.74) (1.74, 2.10) (2.0, 3.12) (5.52, 6.79) (2.39, 2.96) (1.38, 1.97) (3.72, 4.82) Hispanic) 6.42%-15.31% 11.05 2.40 2.45 2.71 5.97 2.37 2.00 4.53 (intermediate % Black (9.73, 12.36) (2.01, 2.78) (1.91, 2.98) (2.43, 3.07) (5.11, 6.82) (2.10, 2.63) (1.72, 2.28) (4.20, 4.86) or Hispanic) 15.74%-50.99% 9.29 2.31 1.78 2.10 4.53 2.14 1.73 4.72 (highest % Black or (8.19, 10.40) (1.91, 2.72) (1.45, 2.11) (1.80, 2.40) (3.93, 5.13) (1.90, 2.38) (1.48, 1.99) (4.25, 5.18) Hispanic) ⸸Post-estimation weights adjust results to the categorized food permit database distribution of store types within either the income categories or the percent Black or Hispanic categories. Finite population correction and, as appropriate, sub-population sizes are adjusted for. Census tract median household income & percent Black or Hispanic Fruit includes apples, oranges, bananas Vegetables includes broccoli, carrots, green lettuce, tomatoes, onions Grains includes 100% whole wheat bread, white bread, frosted flakes cereal, original cheerios cereal, rice (white or brown) Milk includes, in this order, fat-free milk, 1% milk, 2% milk, whole milk. The mean milk price is drawn from fat-free milk if available, then 1% milk, then 2% milk, then whole milk. 113 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 41 Table 6 displays the healthy food availability score and price per pound of healthy foods by Council District, across the sample of stores surveyed in Seattle. The analyses by Council District are weighted by the proportion of store types present in each Council District. Healthy food availability score Mean healthy food availability score varied from 7.69 (95% CI: 5.63, 9.75) in Council District 5, to 13.48 (10.90, 16.02) in Council District 6. Price per pound of healthy food No single Council District had the highest or lowest price on all the food categories by pound and the majority of confidence intervals overlapped, indicating few statistically significant differences across Districts in the price of food. Table 6. Average healthy food availability score and price per pound of healthy foods in Seattle by Council District (using post-estimation weights) Council Districts Seattle Healthy Food Survey availability score N = 128 Mean score (95% CI) 1 (Stores N=17) 2 (Stores N =41) 3 (Stores N =15) 4 (Stores N =10) 5 (Stores N =15) 6 (Stores N =19) 7 (Stores N =17) 9.14 (8.13, 10.17) 7.91 (6.82, 9.0) 12.58 (10.11, 15.05) 13.15 (10.56, 15.74) 7.69 (5.63, 9.75) 13.48 (10.90, 16.02) 11.26 (9.49, 13.03) Mean price ($) Fruit per pound Vegetables per pound Grain per pound Mean $/lb. (95% CI) 2.65 (2.39, 2.92) 2.33 (1.81, 2.85) 2.11 (1.69, 2.53) 2.11 (1.62, 2.59) 2.63 (2.14, 3.12) 1.82 (1.33. 2.31) 2.55 (1.93, 3.18) Mean $/lb. (95% CI) 1.89 (1.72, 2.10) 1.70 (1.25, 2.16) 1.70 (1.56, 1.83) 3.40 (2.42, 4.38) 1.78 (1.55, 2.01) 2.03 (1.67, 2.39) 2.56 (1.84, 3.27) Mean $/lb. (95% CI) 2.41 (1.96, 2.86) 2.06 (1.66, 2.47) 2.48 (1.87, 3.09) 3.29 (2.93, 3.65) 1.53 (0.87, 2.20) 2.97 (2.55, 3.40) 2.37 (1.92, 2.81) Meat per pound Eggs per pound Mean $/lb. (95% CI) Mean $/lb. (95% CI) 5.78 (5.25, 6.31) 4.23 (3.30, 5.15) 5.37 (4.35, 6.39) 7.70 (7.21, 8.20) 5.51 (4.96, 6.05) 6.06 (5.46, 6.67) 4.90 (4.09, 5.71) 2.35 (2.17, 2.53) 2.17 (1.85, 2.49) 2.05 (1.77, 2.31) 2.85 (2.65, 3.05) 2.02 (1.79, 2.26) 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) 2.42 (1.93, 2.91) Beans per pound Milk per gallon Mean $/lb. (95% CI) 1.98 (1.69, 2.27) 1.86 (1.44, 2.28) 1.63 (1.11, 2.14) 1.89 (1.80, 1.97) 1.33 (1.23, 1.42) 1.92 (1.39, 2.48) 1.77 (1.63, 1.90) Mean $/lb. (95% CI) 4.66 (4.02, 5.30) 4.61 (4.18, 5.04) 4.04 (3.39, 4.68) 4.20 (3.42, 4.99) 4.69 (3.86, 5.52) 4.57 (3.93, 5.21) 5.06 (4.41, 5.71) PILOT STUDY OF FULL CENSUSES OF FOOD STORES AND IN-STORE HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY IN THREE PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOODS We also conducted a full census of food stores in Haller Lake (within Council District 5), High Point (within Council District 1), and South Park (within Council District 1), to understand if a full census of all stores would add value for characterizing the food environment, above and beyond what could be learned from traditional food environment analyses based on the food permit database or beyond taking just a sample of stores in these priority neighborhoods. To assess the value-added of the census, we examined three questions: 1) how accurate is the categorized food permit database in identifying the overall number and types of food stores? 2) would these neighborhoods be picked up in our HFPA index (Section 2)? and 3) does the in-store assessment of healthy food availability give a different 114 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 42 assessment of healthy food availability compared to a “food swamp” score based on the categorized food permit database? 1. How accurate is the categorized food permit database? The ground-truthing (i.e. the in-person driveby to assess and categorize food stores and restaurants) revealed that the categorized food permit database provided only a moderately accurate count of food stores compared to what was physically verifiable during the ground-truthing. The positive predictive value for all store types was 0.70, meaning that 70% (n=39) of the stores listed in the categorized food permit database were confirmed in the ground-truthing (Appendix C); its sensitivity was 0.54, meaning that the categorized food permit database successfully identified 54% of all stores and restaurants present (39 of 72) in these three neighborhoods. (See addendum at the end of this section for detailed methods of the ground-truthing and the calculation of positive predictive value and sensitivity). The categorized food permit database indicated there were three healthy food stores (defined as superstores, supermarkets, produce and farmers markets) across all three neighborhoods, while the ground-truthing indicated there was only one healthy food store across these three neighborhoods. For less-healthy food stores (defined as grocery stores, drug stores, small stores, and all restaurants/quick service/fast food), the categorized food permit database indicated there were 53 unhealthy food stores, while the ground-truthing indicated there were 71 of these stores. A food swamp is defined as an area where there are relatively more fast-food and junk-food retail establishments and relatively fewer healthy food alternatives.7 When using a crude food swamp score (unhealthy retailers divided by total retailers) for all three neighborhoods combined, the food permit database indicated these areas were less of a food swamp (53 out of 56 = 94.6) compared to ground-truthing (71 out of 72 = 98.6). Table 7. Total count of healthy versus less healthy food stores and restaurants in the categorized food permit database versus those identified via ground-truthing in South Park, High Point, and Haller Lake Number of healthy and less healthy stores Number of healthy food stores from categorized food permit database Number of healthy food stores from ground-truthing exercise/census Number of less healthy food stores from categorized food permit database Number of less healthy food stores from ground-truthing exercise South Park High Point Haller Lake Overall 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 1 18 8 27 53 23 10 38 71 2. Would these neighborhoods be picked up in the HFPA scoring method (Section 2)? South Park and High Point would have been flagged as a potential healthy food priority area, while Haller Lake would not. Haller Lake meets the threshold for poverty, but based on the categorized food permit database, would not have met the travel time or food swamp criteria. The discrepancy may be driven by the recent closure of two supermarkets in this area. 115 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 43 Table 8. Healthy food priority area indicators for South Park, High Point, and Haller Lake Score on poverty indicator Binary indicator Score on travel times Binary indicator Score on food swamp Binary indicator Total score South Park 57.5% 1 14.14 min 1 98.81 1 3 High Point 45.17% 1 10.77 min 1 96.14 0 2 Haller Lake 31.93% 1 6.29 min 0 94.87 0 1 3. Does the in-store assessment of healthy food availability give a different assessment of healthy food availability compared to the assessment using the categorized food permit database? We surveyed 23 food stores (88% survey rate) as part of the census in these neighborhoods; four of these stores had already been included as part of our original SBT retail audit sample. Table 9 shows the average healthy food availability score in each of these neighborhoods; healthy food is availability is low in these areas, recalling that the average supermarket in Seattle scores 19 points. Also for comparison, the middle income group and intermediate group of proportion Black or Hispanic population both had a mean score of approximately 11 points (Table 5). The in-store healthy food assessment is consistent with the findings of the HFPA score using the categorized food permit database for one out of the three priority neighborhoods (South Park and High Point). Haller Lake would have been misclassified— seemingly having short travel times to the nearest healthy food and a food swamp score on the lower end of the spectrum (Table 8). High Point would have been flagged for having 2 indicators, but would not have been flagged for having all 3 indicators. 116 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 44 Table 9. Healthy food availability scores and price per pound for healthy food for food stores in the Haller Lake, South Park, and High Point neighborhoods, coded by survey and permit database status Store Store type Seattle Healthy Food Survey availability score Mean (95% CI) N Fruit Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N Vegetables Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N Grain Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N Meat Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N South Park South Park Chevron C Small store 6.75 $2.54 $1.29 $1.81 South Park Grocery C Small store (4.03, 9.47) (-18.84, 23.83) (n/a) (-0.55, 4.17) Fruteria Sandoval CP Small store N=4 N=2 N=1 N=2 Seaport Food Mart CP Small store High Point Walgreen’s CS Drug store Delridge Arco AM/PM C Small store High Point Mini Market C Grocery 8.43 $4.03 $1.87 $1.99 M & J Mini Mart C Small store (5.71, 11.14) (3.81, 4.25) (-9.56, 13.29) (1.23, 2.75) N=7 N=5 N=2 N=6 Cottage Grove Mart C Small store Rocky’s Shell CP Small store Super-24 Food Store CP Small store Haller Lake Cash & Carry CS Grocery Plutos on Aurora CS Small store European Foods C Small store 7-Eleven Store #2360 C Small store Haller Lake Food Shop C Small store 7-Eleven Store #27901 C Small store Aurora Mini Mart C Small store 7.41 $3.24 $1.88 $1.91 Northgate Shell C Small store (4.43, 10.40) (1.95, 4.53) (-1.14, 4.90) (1.24, 2.60) N=12 N=8 N=3 N=9 Asian Food Center CP Small store Addis Market CP Small store Ebenezer Tienda Latina C P Small store Northgate Way 76 CP Small store Northgate Chevron D Small store Tobacco Street DP Small store K-Smoke Mart DP Small store C = Stores surveyed for census S = Stores surveyed in SBT sample P = Stores not in the categorized food permit database D = Stores that declined participating in the survey Note that not listed in this table, are stores that were included in the permit database, but not present during ground-truthing. Eggs Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N Beans Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N Milk Mean price/lb. (95% CI) N N/A 2.65 (n/a) N=1 2.20 (n/a) N=1 $4.99 (4.99, 4.99) N=3 N/A 2.31 (1.30, 3.33) N=4 1.98 (1.60, 2.38) N=4 $4.29 (3.19, 5.38) N=6 2.99 (n/a) N=1 2.32 (1.61, 3.04) N=6 1.70 (1.0, 2.40) N=2 $3.80 (2.64, 4.96) N=8 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT 117 Page 45 DISCUSSION Availability and price by neighborhood characteristics We surveyed 27% (n=134) of all food stores in Seattle as part of the SBT retail audit sample using our Seattle Healthy Food Survey tool to assess in-store healthy food availability. We tested our Seattle Healthy Food Survey against a widely used gold-standard tool and found that it performs well (Pearson’s correlation=0.875). This adds additional understanding to the Seattle’s retail food environment in combination with other aspects of food availability, food insecurity, and opportunities to improve healthy food access. In Seattle, lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents, had fewer large food stores and more small stores. Consistent with this finding, we found lower availability of healthy foods for lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents. At the same time, when available, protein, milk, grains and vegetables tended to be less expensive in neighborhoods with lower-income or more Black or Hispanic residents (in contrast, fruit was more expensive in lower-income neighborhoods and milk was more expensive in neighborhoods with more Black or Hispanic residents). It should also be noted that although average prices were higher, the confidence intervals around many of these estimates overlapped, indicating that the price differences are likely not statistically significant. The tendency for higher prices in neighborhoods with higher income and fewer Black or Hispanic residents could be due to retailers pricing foods differently or stocking brands with different price points, depending on the surrounding neighborhood’s demographic composition. It could also be that maintaining a higher variety of foods costs stores money and this is reflected in the pricing of the foods they carry. As was anticipated, we found that larger food stores provide neighborhoods with greater access to healthy foods. Warehouses/superstores had the highest mean availability score, followed closely by supermarkets, and then grocery stores. Drug stores and small stores had substantially lower mean scores as compared to these larger store types. Relatedly, supermarkets and warehouse/superstores offered these healthy foods - fresh fruits and vegetables, eggs, and beans - at lower prices as compared to grocery and small stores (no drug stores surveyed carried any fresh produce), making them the more affordable options for most of the measured foods. Unexpectedly, grocery and small stores offered meat at cheaper prices as compared to the larger stores (no drug stores surveyed carried any meats). Milk prices also varied unexpectedly, with the lowest cost milk in warehouse/superstores, then drug stores, supermarkets, grocery, and small stores. Grains were similarly priced at all stores, with the exception of warehouse/superstore, where they were markedly cheaper. Pilot census of healthy food availability in all stores in three priority neighborhoods With a focus on the High Point, Haller Lake, and South Park neighborhoods in Seattle, we found that the categorized food permit database was only moderately accurate in identifying food stores present in these neighborhoods. Some of the inaccuracy is likely due to the fact that the categorized food permit database is from 2015; however, this represents the most recent categorized version available to the team and therefore, reflects what would normally be available to researchers or policymakers. The inaccuracy of the categorized food permit data base would lead to these neighborhoods scoring 118 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 46 somewhat better on a crude food swamp measure than would be the case based on the ground-truthed information. Only one of these neighborhoods (South Park) were identified as particularly poor food environments on our HFPA index; a second neighborhood, High Point, would be flagged if we used 2 out of 3 indicators on the HFPA as indicating potential risk for being a HFPA. An in-store healthy food availability assessment revealed that the in-store availability was low and is consistent with the findings using the categorized food permit database and the HFPA index for South Park and High Point. The lack of healthy food in Haller Lake would not have been detected if relying only on the categorized food permit database. Two of these neighborhoods—South Park and High Point— were counted as having zero healthy food stores in the categorized food permit database and they also had zero healthy food stores identified in ground-truthing. The third neighborhood—Haller Lake—was counted as having three healthy food stores per the categorized food database, however two stores had closed in the interim and at the time of the in-person census, only one healthy food store remained. Comparing the categorized food permit database to the in-person census revealed what seems to be a fairly rapid turnover in food establishments. Policymakers will have to weigh the costs of intensive in-person, in-store surveying of food environments with the information gained from this exercise. While the in-person survey did reveal the inaccuracies of the categorized food permit database and the fairly rapid turnover of stores, conclusions would have been largely similar had we relied on secondary data for two of the three neighborhoods (if the more lenient threshold of 2 of 3 indicators were used). Another consideration for policymakers would be the potential need to repeat the in-person data collection fairly frequently in this context of what seems to be high turnover. This is likely context-specific since Seattle may be changing more rapidly than cities across the US. Considerations for future work could include developing reliable tools to categorize the publiclyavailable PHSKC food permit database such that it provides researchers, program-implementers, and policy makers with more timely, usable data about the presence and makeup of food stores in Seattle. This may be a more affordable option than relying on ground-truthing methods to validate these lists; ground-truthing can be time-intensive, and requires a substantial amount of driving hours. Additionally, there may be opportunities to assess how neighborhoods with low healthy food accessibility (as measured by the Seattle Healthy Food Survey and the Healthy Food Priority Area indices in Section 2) are served by the SBT revenue-funded food access programs, aimed at increasing healthy food accessibility for lower-income families. There may be opportunities to target low healthy food availability neighborhoods identified in this report with these healthy food access programs. Limitations This study has limitations that should be noted. Although we surveyed a large sample of food stores citywide, we have only a sample of stores rather a census of stores in most Seattle neighborhoods. Additionally we are aware that individuals do not necessarily always shop for food in their neighborhoods or even at the stores most proximal to their home, so there are limits to characterizing access to food, healthy or otherwise, based only on the food stores within a given neighborhood; furthermore, we did not survey popular stores such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, or PCC, as our original 119 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 47 sample was drawn for the SBT retail audit, and these stores tend to devote little shelf space to sugary beverages. Our ground-truthing exercise estimated the accuracy of the categorized food permit database for grocery-type food stores at 71%, due mostly to an undercount of total stores. The low sensitivity and positive predictive values of this database likely indicates in part that the Seattle food store landscape changes quickly. Because we created our post-estimation weights using the distribution of food stores citywide in the categorized food permit database, our assessment of healthy food availability is potentially an under-count, and our weights may not reflect the true universe of stores in a given area if that neighborhood has changed their store type-makeup since 2015. Although we had originally proposed to compare how well our sample of stores captured in the SBT retail audit might capture the food environment in the three priority neighborhoods, we realized that this would not be a meaningful comparison for two main reasons. First, our sampling strategy was not designed to be representative of such a small area. And two, we picked these neighborhoods precisely because we suspected limited numbers of food stores, which was indeed the case. With only 23 food stores spread across all three neighborhoods, even a 50 or 75% sample would still be a small number of stores. For these reasons, we do not compare how our sample performed compared to the entire census of stores in these areas. We were not able to measure all healthy food items present in food stores. Though our Seattle Healthy Food Survey performed well compared to the longer gold-standard NEMS-CS survey, our survey only measured three fruit, and five vegetables. It is possible stores carried additional healthy fresh foods (e.g., more culturally relevant heathy foods) that this survey did not capture, and we did not capture any potentially healthy foods sold in prepared food stores. This report section concludes the City-approved scope of work to assess the price and availability of healthy food items in Seattle. 120 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 48 ADDENDUM – DETAILED METHODS FOR SECTION 3 METHODS Overview To assess and describe the price and availability of healthy foods across Seattle, the Evaluation Team: 1) developed and validated an abbreviated measurement tool for in-store healthy food availability, 2) conducted in-store assessments of healthy food availability and prices in 134 food stores in Seattle, 3) created and applied post-estimation weights to make sure the sample of stores was representative of the distribution of stores in Seattle within tertile groups of key neighborhood characteristics (income and race/ethnicity), and finally 4) assessed mean healthy food availability and price per pound of healthy foods according to neighborhood median income level and neighborhood proportion of people who are Black or Hispanic (two populations for which prior literature has documented disproportionately low access to healthy foods). To obtain a more comprehensive assessment of healthy food availability in food stores and to assess the added value of a full census of stores in three low-income Seattle neighborhoods believed to have limited food access – hereafter called “priority neighborhoods” -- the Evaluation Team conducted a pilot census of food stores and in-store healthy food availability. Specifically, we 1) conducted an in-person street-by-street drive-by (“ground-truthing”) to ensure that all food stores were identified, 2) compared our ground-truthed sample to the Public Health Food Permit records categorized by the University of Washington Urban Form Lab (UFL) researchers under the direction of Dr. Anne Vernez Moudon, hereafter referred to as “categorized food permit database” to determine accuracy of the categorized food permit database, 3) assessed whether the ground-truthing would offer different conclusions compared to the healthy food priority area (HFPA) index created in Section 2, and 4) conducted in-store food availability measurement in all stores. Primary data source Primary data include: 1) in-store healthy food availability and price assessments in all food stores, excluding restaurants and including only stores that sell primarily unprepared foods and beverages, such as supermarkets, superstores, grocery stores, drug stores, and small stores (convenience, gas stations) in the SBT retail audit sample of stores throughout Seattle, and 2) a census of all food establishments and a survey of all food stores identified via a “ground-truthing” exercise in three priority Seattle neighborhoods. SBT retail audit store sampling design To assess healthy food availability in the City of Seattle, we capitalized on our ongoing, in-store retail audit that is a key part of the Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) Evaluation.1 Specifically, we used the same sample of stores and added in-store healthy food availability and price components to our existing instore audit. Our original sample of stores was identified prior to passage of the SBT, in the fall of 2017 based on a list of all permitted, permanent food establishments in 2015, maintained by PHSKC. The UFL at the University of Washington previously created algorithms to classify each of these businesses into meaningful food store or restaurant categories (supermarkets, grocery stores, corner stores, counter-service restaurants, etc.). We used this classification to categorize stores and restaurants. 121 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 49 We aimed for a geographically balanced sample of food stores (supermarkets, grocery stores, drug stores, corner stores, gas stations), coffee shops, and counter-service restaurants in Seattle. When selecting our store sample, we obtained geographic balance by dividing our study area into 16 equalsized areas, mapping all the food establishments based on their address locations, then selecting a quota of stores from each store type within each of the 16 areas (figure 1). Responding to interest expressed by the City of Seattle and the SBT Community Advisory Board, we also worked with community liaisons and consulted lists of “minority-owned businesses” to identify small stores owned by people of color and added these to the sample derived from the process described above. In-store healthy food assessments throughout Seattle The abbreviated in-store healthy food assessment was based on the widely-used Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Convenience Stores (NEMS-CS), which is often considered a gold standard for instore healthy food availability assessment.2 The final list of food items was based on input from Seattle Human Services Department, Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment, City Councilmembers, and the SBT Community Advisory Board. We refer to our newly developed survey tool as the Seattle Healthy Food Survey (Appendix B). We measured the availability and prices of fruit, vegetables, grains, proteins, milk, sweets, and junk foods. Specifically, we collected the availability and prices for 19 individual healthy food items, and six sweets or junk food items (see Table 1 for the list of all healthy foods included in the assessments). Data collectors attended one six-hour training, then practiced data collection in the field until 90% raw agreement on responses was achieved. All surveys were conducted between May 21 and July 20, 2018. We paused data collection the week of July 4 to minimize capturing holiday-specific sales. Trained data collectors conducted in-store food assessments using the Seattle Healthy Food Survey in all food stores in the SBT retail audit store sample, including warehouses, superstores, supermarkets, grocery stores, drug stores, and small stores. We did not conduct the Seattle Healthy Food Survey in any restaurants (e.g., traditional restaurants, quick-service restaurants, coffee, or beverage shops). Priority neighborhoods store census The Evaluation Team additionally identified three priority neighborhoods—Haller Lake, High Point, and South Park—to conduct a census of all stores, identifying, counting, and listing all food stores and all restaurants found within the neighborhood boundaries (in contrast with the sample in the SBT retail audit work which was planned to be geographically balanced across the city as a whole, rather than comprehensive of any given Seattle neighborhood). We surveyed all food stores in these three neighborhoods to measure the availability and price of healthy foods. The Evaluation Team selected these three low-income, limited food access neighborhoods by consulting a variety of sources. First, we used the USDA Food Access Research Atlas, to identify neighborhoods with limited supermarket access (defined as a census tract with at least 500 people, or 33 percent of the population, living more than ½ mile from the nearest supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store, calculated from the geographic center of each census block-level ½-kilometer grid cell).3 We additionally referenced the May 2013 Mapping Food Access in the City of Seattle report produced by the City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment,4 and conferred with City Councilmembers. After identifying potential areas, we defined neighborhood boundaries using the Seattle Department of Neighborhood’s neighborhood boundaries.5 To ensure that we captured all retail food outlets in these priority areas, we conducted a traditional ground-truthing exercise in the three priority neighborhoods. Ground-truthing involves canvassing all 122 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 50 streets within the neighborhood boundaries to enumerate all observed food stores. Two data collectors drove all streets in each of the three neighborhoods, recording the store name, store address, and store type, for every observed food establishment. We secondarily used the information gathered in the ground-truthing to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the categorized food permit database. In these three neighborhoods, trained data collectors surveyed all food stores (a census rather than a sample) using both the Seattle Healthy Food Survey and the NEMS-CS gold-standard tool. By surveying this set of stores with both tools, we are able to determine how well our shorter Seattle Healthy Food Survey performs as compared to the NEMS-CS gold-standard tool. The full NEMS-CS tool was not used through our SBT store audits because it would have added considerable length and burden to the audit and captured some additional but less relevant information. Understanding the performance of our abbreviated tool allows us to assess the degree to which we can confidently conclude that our own abbreviated tool can be used as a valid assessment of healthy food availability. This is important since we used our own tool in the larger SBT retail audit store sample. Secondary data source Secondary data include: 1) the 2015 Public Health Food Permit records categorized by the University of Washington Urban Form Lab (UFL), and 2) 2016 US Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data for the city of Seattle. 2015 categorized food permit database As above, the categorized food permit database includes all permitted food establishments in King County. For the purpose of this analysis, we excluded all stores outside of the city of Seattle, as well as all stores with duplicate permits (e.g., if the same store had one permit for the grocer, and one for the bakery section, we only counted it as one permitted establishment). We used this categorized food permit database as the sampling frame for the SBT retail audit store sample. We also used it to identify stores and restaurants in the priority neighborhoods, to compare against the ground-truthed assessment of stores and restaurants. Finally, we use this categorized food permit database to create post-estimation weights for our stores that we use in the analyses of healthy food availability and price by neighborhood characteristics (described further below). 2016 US Census Boundary Files and American Community Survey (ACS) 2016 US Census Boundary Files provided census tract boundaries and 2012-2016 ACS provided aggregate demographic characteristics for all Seattle census tracts, including proportion of the population in each of five race and ethnic groups and median household income. Census tract boundary files Census tract boundary files were used to identify census tracts in Seattle and to identify the census tract location of each store in the categorized food permit database. Variables Healthy food availability score The first outcome of interest is the availability of healthy foods in different stores throughout Seattle by neighborhood characteristics wherein those stores are located. We developed a guide to score the availability of healthy foods available in a store as measured by the Seattle Healthy Food Survey based on the NEMS-CS gold-standard tool’s scoring guide. Each healthy food item receives at least one point if it is available, with healthier items receiving more points than their less healthy counterparts (see Table 1 for available points by food item and within each food category). All unhealthy junk foods receive zero points and are therefore not included in the healthy food availability score. Each store receives an 123 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 51 overall availability score out of 25 total points, which is the sum of all points earned for each healthy food product in that store. Healthy food price The second outcome of interest is the price of healthy foods in Seattle. To assess the price of healthy foods we calculate the mean price per pound of food by food category. We express mean price as price per pound, with the exception of milk, which we express as mean price per gallon. Mean food prices are calculated by food category, as grouped in Table 1, with the proteins further separated into individual foods since the average price of the three items in this group were quite different and many times stores had only one of these protein foods. Neighborhood income We created tertiles (three groups of approximately equal size based on the distribution of values in the data, i.e. census tracts in the lowest third of the distribution, the middle third, and the highest third) of median household income based on the distribution of census-tract level median household income from the 2016 American Community Survey. Neighborhood race/ethnic composition We used data from the American Community Survey to determine the proportion of the population in each census tract that was either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic, which we used to create tertiles of census-tract level proportion of the population that is either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. We focused on the proportion of the population that was either Black or Hispanic since previous literature has noted consistent inequities in food environments comparing neighborhoods with higher population proportions of Black or Hispanic populations to neighborhoods with lower population proportions of Black and Hispanic individuals. Similar to neighborhood income, we grouped census tracts into tertiles of proportion Black or Hispanic. Table 1. Products included in the Seattle Healthy Food Survey Healthy food items1 Fruit Apples Bananas Oranges Vegetables Broccoli Carrots Green lettuce Tomatoes Yellow onions Grains 100% whole wheat bread White bread Frosted Flakes cereal Original Cheerios cereal Rice (white or brown) Protein Canned beans (black, kidney, or garbanzo) Eggs Total points available in survey 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 2 1 6 2 2 124 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 52 Lean fresh ground meat Milk 1% Milk 2% Milk Fat-free milk Whole milk 2 4 1 1 2 0 1We additionally collected the availability and prices of five junk food products and sweets, which are not included in this analysis: Lays potato chips, Pringles potato chips, Reese’s peanut butter cups, Oreos, and Little Debbie Honey Buns. These items received no points in the Healthy Food Survey scoring tool and were not included in the market basket. Statistical analysis Primary objective/analysis Our primary objective is to assess healthy food availability and prices by Seattle neighborhood characteristics, including Seattle City Council District, neighborhood median income, and neighborhood race/ethnic composition. To do so, first we assessed the performance of our Seattle Healthy Food Survey by comparing it to the established NEMS-CS. Specifically, we used Pearson’s correlation to assess criterion validity of our newly developed tool to the established NEMS-CS tool in the 23 stores where both survey tools were used. After confirming the performance of our newly developed tool, we then estimated, in our full sample of stores, the healthy food availability scores and healthy food prices by: 1) Seattle City Council District, 2) census tract-level median household income tertiles, 3) proportion of the population that is Black or Hispanic, in tertiles. It was important to apply post-estimation weights based on store types to these analyses since we know that store type is correlated with the healthfulness, availability, and price of foods sold (e.g., supermarkets tend to have all the foods and generally at lower prices than small stores). We created three sets of weights, the purpose of which is to adjust measures up or down such that we achieve universe “store type” representativeness in our final analyses. To achieve this, we created postestimation weights to ensure that the stores in the SBT retail audit store sample were proportionally representative by neighborhood characteristic. Post-estimation weights adjust results to the universe’s distribution of store types within 1) three income categories (census tracts with lowest, middle, and highest incomes), 2) three percent Black or Hispanic categories (census tracts with lowest, middle, and highest percentages), and 3) the seven Council Districts. In addition, finite population correction is accounted for in analyses and, as appropriate, sub-population sizes are adjusted for. These weights ensure that the sample of stores included in the availability and price analyses are representative of the makeup of food stores in each census tract tertile or each Council District. For all availability scores and food prices, we present the post-estimation-weighted average healthy food availability score and average price per pound of healthy foods separately by Council District, neighborhood income tertiles, and tertiles of neighborhood race/ethnic composition (proportion Black or Hispanic). Secondary objective/analysis A secondary goal of this study was to conduct a pilot study of three priority neighborhoods, in which we surveyed all the stores (rather than a sample) and assessed in-store healthy food availability and price 125 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 53 across all stores in the three priority neighborhoods. We calculated the average healthy food availability and average healthy food prices for the stores included in full census. In addition, we compare the in-store healthy food availability and prices to the findings from our HFPA assessments in Section 2, which uses the same categorized food permit database to create a HFPA index based on a combination of estimates of neighborhood poverty, travel times time to healthy food locations, and the ratio of unhealthy to total food retail outlets (“food swamps”). In secondary analyses, we additionally assessed the accuracy of the categorized food permit database for these three priority neighborhoods. Data collectors drove 112 miles to ground-truth the Haller Lake, High Point, and South Park neighborhoods in order to capture all food stores and restaurants in these neighborhoods. To determine the accuracy of the categorized food permit database, we calculated the positive predictive value and sensitivity (Box 1) of all individual food stores and restaurants in the database, in comparison to all individual food stores and restaurants found in the ground-truthing exercise. Box 1. Positive predictive value and sensitivity Positive predictive value of the categorized food permit database was defined as the probability that stores listed in the categorized food permit database were both located by data collectors while ground-truthing and still in operation:6 true positives true positive + false positives 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒= Sensitivity was defined as the probability that stores identified in the ground-truthing exercise were also listed in the categorized food permit database:6 true positives 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 =true positives + false negatives We defined “true positives” as stores listed in the categorized food permit database and confirmed during ground-truthing. We defined “false positives” as stores that were in the database, but not physically there during ground-truthing (e.g., stores that closed or moved) and “false negatives” as stores missing from the list, but physically there during ground-truthing (e.g., new stores identified).6 126 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 54 References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Chan N, Chen R, Jones-Smith J, et al. The Evaluation of Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax. Baseline Report: Pre-Implementation of the Tax. Seattle; 2018. http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/SBTBaselineReport. pdf. Glanz K, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD. Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in stores (NEMSS): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4):282-289. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.019 Unites States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. Food Access Research Atlas. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/. Published 2015. Urban FoodLink. Mapping Food Access in the City of Seattle. Seattle; 2013. Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. Neighborhood Planning. https://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/programs-and-services/neighborhood-planning. Caspi CE, Friebur R. Modified ground-truthing: An accurate and cost-effective food environment validation method for town and rural areas. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0360-3 Rose D, Nicholas Bodor J, Swalm C, C. Rice J, A. Farley T, Hutchinson P. Deserts in New Orleans? Illustrations of Urban Food Access and Implications for Policy. Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 2009. 127 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 55 SECTION 4 A. WHO EXPERIENCES FOOD INSECURITY IN SEATTLE? B. WHO FALLS INTO THE “FOOD SECURITY GAP”? SUMMARY To understand who in Seattle experiences food insecurity (defined as not having enough money for food), we analyzed data from five different surveys of Seattle residents. We also estimated the number of people in Seattle who fall into the “food security gap” – lower-income Seattle residents who do not qualify for nutrition assistance programs like U.S. Department of Agriculture Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but who cannot reliably afford healthy food due to competing basic needs such as housing, health care, and child care. The findings provide context for the assessment of the Seattle food bank network (Section 5). Key findings Although rates of food insecurity differed by data source, patterns of disparity were similar across all data sources. Food insecurity was highest among those with the lowest income and lowest educational attainment. In general, people of color experienced food insecurity at higher rates than white populations; and households in which the primary language spoken was not English were more likely than English-speaking households to experience food insecurity (the exception was Chinese-speaking households). Although no gender differences were found among adults or school-age children, rates of food insecurity were two times higher among individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) than among those who identified as heterosexual. Food insecurity increased with grade level for children in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades; and tended to be higher among young adults compared to adults in their mid-40s and older. We also found that participation in SNAP/Basic Food, and by inference food insecurity, continues to rise in Seattle for one age group – older adults. Not until 300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) do we see food insecurity begin to drop to a low level for Seattle adults; for people of color, it is at 400% of the FPL. We estimated that 13,420 Seattle residents in 2017 fell into the “food security gap,” defined as residents not eligible for food assistance benefits yet lacked enough money to buy the food they needed. This estimate would be higher if it included people who, although receiving benefits, still experience food insecurity. 128 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 56 OBJECTIVE While there are different ways to ask a person if they have experienced food insecurity, surveys often use some form of this statement, “In the past year, the food that we bought just didn’t last, and we didn’t have money to get more.” To understand the scope of this inequity, we first turned to survey data and local community reports for information about who in Seattle is experiencing food insecurity, and how that picture has changed over time. Secondly, we took a closer look at the group of people who, while experience food insecurity, also make too much money to qualify for nutrition assistance programs. The findings provide context for the assessment of the food bank network in Seattle (Section 5). The findings will also inform Seattle’s (a) Office of Sustainability and Environment in planning the expansion of eligibility for the Fresh Bucks program and upcoming update of the Food Action Plan, and (b) Human Services Department in preparing their Request for Proposals for Food and Nutrition planning. SECTION 4A. WHO EXPERIENCES FOOD INSECURITY IN SEATTLE? To look at food insecurity among adults, youth, families with children, and SNAP-eligible adults accessing services, we analyzed and compared data from five surveys. See addendum at the end of this section for detailed methods and more information about each survey:      Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey of adults, Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) of public school students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, Best Starts for Kids Health Survey (BSK) of parents/caregivers of young children (infants through fifth grade), Surveys of low-income families through the Seattle Shopping and Wellness Survey (SeaSAW) of low-income families with children age 7-17 and Surveys from the University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition (CPHN) of lowincome adults eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) who were using health care, food bank, or healthy food programs funded through the Partnership to Improve Community Health.i Looking across multiple data sources helps us detect patterns in disparities across ages; from infants and children through teenagers and adults. The findings below show how the patterns change by Seattle City Council District, economic security, education, race/ethnicity, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, and age. RESULTS Comparing food insecurity results across surveys Despite differences in questions and populations sampled, patterns of disparity in food insecurity across all the surveys were similar. Despite differences in questions and populations sampled, patterns of disparity in food insecurity across all the surveys were similar (see methods addendum for a description of the survey questions). Since the samples and the questions in each survey were so different, the estimated rates of food insecurity across samples varied considerably. For example, overall estimates of food insecurity were highest for the low-income families participating in the 2017 Seattle Shopping and Wellness Survey (SeaSAW), surveys of SNAP-eligible adults participating in healthy i For more information see https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/partnerships/pich/grant.aspx. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 57 129 food programs (51% and 48%), and for families raising young children (22%). Food insecurity rates among adults (13%) and school-age youth (11%) were lower overall. Looking at comparable data across surveys, we present the results by the following demographic categories: place (Council District, see Figure 1), economic security (income and Federal Poverty Level), education, race/ethnicity, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, and age. Figure 1. Seattle City Council District map Food insecurity by place (Chart 1) Among adults, food insecurity did not differ significantly across Seattle City Council Districts. Among school-age youth, food insecurity in District 2 (15%, Southeast/Georgetown) was higher than the Seattle average (11%); and food insecurity in District 4 (5%, Northeast) was lower than all districts except in District 6 (8%, Northwest). Youth food insecurity was also lower in District 6 than in District 1 (13%, West Seattle/South Park) and District 2 (15%). Across the adult and youth surveys, food insecurity estimates for each Council District were very similar (within 1%) with the exception of District 1, where the adult estimate was 4% lower than the estimate for youth, and District 4, where the city’s lowest food insecurity rate for school-age youth (5%) was juxtaposed with the city’s highest rate of adult food insecurity (15%), a difference likely driven by the University of Washington student population. Source: Office of the City Clerk Chart 1. Food insecurity for adults and school-aged children by Council District (BRFSS, 2011-2013; HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016) 130 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 58 Food insecurity by economic security (Chart 2) Across all data sources, food insecurity was inversely related to economic security. At all income levels, rates of food insecurity were highest among families with young children. Among families raising young children, more than half with annual income below $50,000 reported experiencing food insecurity. At all income levels, food insecurity was highest among families with young children. Among families raising young children, more than half with annual income below $50,000 reported experiencing food insecurity. Chart 2. Seattle food insecurity by household annual income (BRFSS, 2011-2013; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; CPHN, 2014-2017) ^ Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates ! Interpret with caution; sample size is small, so estimate is imprecise 131 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 59 Food insecurity by Federal Poverty Levelii (Chart 3) Across all samples, the highest levels of food insecurity were reported by respondents who met SNAP/Basic Food’s eligibility criteria of incomes below 200% of the FPL, identifying a food security gap among SNAP-eligible populations. Not until we reach 300% of the FPL for adults and 400% of the FPL for families with young children do we see food insecurity nearly disappear. In 2018, the poverty guideline for a 2-person household (e.g. one adult and one child) was $16,460, 300% of the FPL would be $49,380 and 400% of the FPL would be $65,840. For a 4-person household (e.g. two adults and two children), the 2018 poverty guideline was $25,100; a household earning $75,300 would be at 300% of the FPL and $100,400 at 400% of the FPL. At both 200-299% of the FPL and 300-399% of the FPL, more than one in four families raising young children reported food insecurity. Families in these income brackets would not qualify for food assistance through SNAP, suggesting that they would fall into the broader food security gap (up to 399% of the FPL) discussed in Section 4B below. Chart 3. Seattle food insecurity by Federal Poverty Level (BRFSS, 2011-2013; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; CPHN, 2014-2017) ^Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates ! Interpret with caution; sample size is small, so estimate is imprecise ii We use Federal Poverty Level to refer to the poverty guidelines. The poverty guidelines are a version of the federal poverty measure. They are issued each year in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds, produced by U.S. Census Bureau, for use for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. The poverty guidelines do not vary by the age of adults or number of children in a family/household. They do vary by geography—Alaska and Hawaii have separate guidelines. For more information see https://aspe.hhs.gov/2018-poverty-guidelines. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 60 132 Food insecurity by education (Chart 4) Across all data sources, food Across all data sources, food insecurity was highest among adults insecurity was highest among adults with lowest educational levels. Since the HYS does not collect data with lowest education levels. on family income, maternal education is used as a proxy for family socioeconomic status. When we analyzed HYS food insecurity by participation in the Free and Reduced Price Meal Program as a rough validity check, the results closely mirrored our findings by maternal education, with 21% of students who receive free school meals reporting food insecurity, compared to 6% of students who did not receive free school meals (data not shown). Among school-aged youth, “not eating breakfast” was also inversely related to maternal education (data not shown). Chart 4. Seattle food insecurity by adult parent/caretaker education (BRFSS, 2011-2013; HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; CPHN, 2014-2017) ! Interpret with caution; sample size is small, so estimate is imprecise ^ Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates 133 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 61 Food insecurity by race/ethnicity (Chart 5) In general, people of color experienced higher rates of food insecurity than white populations, except for Asian respondents who generally reported similar rates of food insecurity to white respondents. Among school-aged youth and SNAP-eligible adults, food insecurity rates were highest for American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) respondents. While the other surveys we examined lacked sufficient data to report reliable estimates of food insecurity among AIAN respondents in Seattle, studies with larger samples have found high rates of food insecurity among AIAN households, both rural and urban, supporting our findings.1,2 Similar to the findings among school-aged youth, students of color were more likely to have not eaten breakfast compared to white students (data not shown). Chart 5. Seattle food insecurity by race/ethnicity (BRFSS, 2011-2013; HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; CPHN, 2014-2017) ! = Interpret with caution; sample size is small, so estimate is imprecise ^ = Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total<50. HYS and SeaSAW: suppressed if cell total < 10) 134 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 62 Food insecurity by primary language (Chart 6) With the exception of Chinese-speaking households, school-aged youth from households in which the primary language spoken was not English were more likely than those from English-speaking households to experience food insecurity. As with food insecurity, there were large, though not all statistically significant, differences in eating breakfast by primary language spoken at home, with students from English- and Chinese-speaking households more likely to have eaten breakfast compared to students from other non-English speaking households (data not shown). There were no differences by primary language in the sample of SNAP-eligible adults. Chart 6. Seattle food insecurity by primary language spoken at home (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; UW CPHN, 2014-2017) ! = Interpret with caution; sample size is small, so estimate is imprecise ^ = Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total<50. HYS and SeaSAW: suppressed if cell total < 10) Food insecurity by gender (Chart 7) No significant gender differences in food insecurity were found for adults, school-age children, or young children. Chart 7. Seattle food insecurity by gender (BRFSS, 2011-2013; HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; UW CPHN, 2014-2017) 135 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 63 Food insecurity by sexual orientation (Chart 8) Across all data sources, rates of food insecurity were two times higher among individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) than as heterosexual. As with food insecurity, lesbian, gay, and bisexual students were significantly more likely than heterosexual students (37% vs. 26%) to report not eating breakfast (data not shown). Across all data sources, rates of food insecurity were two times higher among individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) than as heterosexual. Chart 8. Seattle food insecurity by sexual orientation (BRFSS, 2011-2013; HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016; BSK, 2016-2017) Food insecurity by age (Chart 9) Among school-age youth, food insecurity increased with age and was significantly higher for 12th graders compared to 8th graders. According to the 2011-2013 averaged BRFSS data, food insecurity for Seattle adults declined with age, with respondents 65 years and older showing the lowest rates. In more recent data for adults raising children in Seattle, food insecurity followed a similar (decreasing) age gradient until age 50+, where the rate jumped to 50% (perhaps not surprising as this group is likely to include older adults with fixed incomes raising grandchildren). Because the food insecurity rate for older adults in King County almost doubled from 2010 to 2013 and BRFSS food insecurity data were unavailable after 2013, we followed SNAP/Basic Food trends by age to see if this pattern continued in Seattle (see Chart 10 below). Chart 9. Seattle food insecurity by age/grade groups (BRFSS, 2011-2013; HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016; BSK, 2016-2017; SeaSAW, 2017; UW CPHN, 2014-2017) ^ Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates ! Interpret with caution; sample size is small, so estimate is imprecise 136 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 64 Trends by age group for SNAP/Basic Food participation (Chart 10) In the years after the Great Recession, use of SNAP/Basic Food (formerly Food Stamps) benefits in Seattle decreased for all age groups except older adults (age 65+ years). While the rates of SNAP/Basic Food participation in Seattle for children and 18-64 year-old adults peaked between 2012 and 2013 and have since declined to pre-Recession levels, rates for older adults rose before and during the Great Recession, plateaued from 2013 to 2016, and rose again in 2017. In addition, the number of unduplicated older-adult SNAP/Basic Food clients has increased each year. By 2017, more than one in seven older adults in Seattle participated in the SNAP/Basic Food program (see Chart 10). In 2017, King County re-instated the three month time-limit on SNAP assistance for unemployed adults who are able-bodied and without dependents. The limit had been waived in 2008 as a way to support many adults experiencing extended unemployment during the Great Recession. These policy changes and economic conditions may be contributing to the increase in 2008 and declining adult participation we see in 2017.3,4 Chart 10. Trends in SNAP/Basic Food participation by age in Seattle 137 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 65 Food insecurity and participation in food assistance programs High proportions of low-income families and adults participating in food assistance programs report food insecurity. Among Seattle SNAP-participating low-income families surveyed for the SeaSAW study, 66% reported being food insecure, while the CPHN surveys show that more than half of adults participating in SNAP (56%) were food insecure. Similarly, 68% of WIC-participating Seattle families reported being food insecure (SeaSAW, 2017) and 63% of Seattle SNAP-eligible adults participating in food banks/pantries were food insecure (CPHN, 2014-2017). These data could indicate that food assistance programs are reaching the intended people. It could also suggest that a food security gap exists even among those receiving food-assistance benefits. Access to fresh fruits and vegetables SeaSAW and the BSK Health Survey included questions about access to fresh produce and elicited different patterns of results. Among the general population of Seattle families with young children (BSK sample, in which 22% reported food insecurity), 85% said they were “usually” or “often” able to find affordable fresh fruits and vegetables in their neighborhoods. When we look at responses from lowincome Seattle families completing an initial survey for the Seattle Shopping and Wellness Study (SeaSAW), 58% reported that within the past 12 months it had “often” or “sometimes” been hard to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, slightly higher than this sample’s 51% food insecurity rate. Although the samples and questions from the two different surveys are not directly comparable, the high level of access to affordable fresh produce among BSK survey respondents suggests that the BSK question could have been interpreted as a broader inquiry about neighborhood availability of fresh produce rather than the family’s ability to buy fresh produce. 138 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 66 SECTION 4B. WHO FALLS INTO THE FOOD SECURITY GAP? “My daughter is small in comparison to other kids her age…She is healthy but underweight and it is a struggle to be low income and provide healthy food options for her. I think with low income families or those families that fall in between making slightly too much to not be able to receive any services, it is a struggle to provide children a well-rounded life…” -Seattle parent responding to 2016 BSK Health Survey Here, we estimate the number of people in Seattle who fall into the “food security gap,” which we define as lower-income Seattle residents who do not qualify for nutrition assistance programs like U.S. Department of Agriculture Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Basic Food in Washington, but cannot reliably afford food due to competing basic needs such as housing, health care, and child care. See addendum at the end of this section for detailed methods. “We work hard as a family but now it seems that even with a decent job, we still can’t afford to [live] like we should be living. We still can’t afford groceries and we don’t qualify for food stamps. Rent keeps going up…” -Seattle parent responding to 2016 BSK Health Survey RESULTS Households in Washington state are eligible for SNAP benefits if they earn less than 200% of the FPL and meet Federal program requirements and citizenship or alien status requirements.iii To establish an income ceiling or cut-point for estimating the food security gap, we looked at data to find the income level at which people no longer experienced food insecurity. While some respondents at the highest income levels reported experiencing food insecurity, we saw a large drop-off, which started at 300% of FPL for the general population but differed for people of color. Specifically, BRFSS survey data show that the income level at which rates of food insecurity drop off for Seattle adults was 300% of the FPL (Chart 11), while it was 400% of the FPL for people of color (Chart 12). iii See https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/basic-food for Basic Food eligibility criteria. Legal immigrants who are not eligible for federal Basic Food solely due their immigration status may be eligible for the state Food Assistance Program (https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/state-food-assistance-program-fap). HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 67 139 Chart 11. Food insecurity by income, Seattle adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) Among people of color, food insecurity rates were higher overall and at all income levels greater than 200% FPL (Chart 12). (We used King County data for racial/ethnic analyses due to small sample sizes in Seattle data.) About 8% of people of color in King Countyiv with incomes at 300-399% were food insecure. Unlike for white respondents, food insecurity rates remained at or above 5% at higher income levels. Chart 12. Food insecurity by income and race/ethnicity, King County adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) iv Sample sizes were insufficient to disaggregate by race in Seattle. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 68 140 We used 400% FPL as the cut-point in the final estimate of the number of people in the food security gap in Seattle. Increasing the cut-point to 400% FPL allowed us to account for racial differences and to accommodate findings of a drop-off in food insecurity for families with young children at 400% FPL (Chart 3). At the 200-299% FPL, we estimate 10,400 Seattle residents experienced food insecurity in 2017. At the 300-399% FPL, we estimate an additional 3,000 food insecure residents in 2017. Altogether, we estimate 13,420 Seattle residents experienced food insecurity yet made too much income to qualify for SNAP in 2017.v We estimate 13,420 Seattle residents experienced food insecurity yet made too much income to qualify for SNAP in 2017. DISCUSSION In the absence of annual survey data on food insecurity since 2013, we triangulated across multiple data sources, finding consistency in food insecurity patterns by place, race/ethnicity, economic security, educational attainment, and sexual orientation. The major inconsistency in the data by Council District was in District 4 (Northeast Seattle), which reported both the city’s highest rate of adult food insecurity and the lowest rate of food insecurity among school-age youth. This apparent paradox may reflect the high concentration of young adultsvi, many of whom are students in the University District and earning little or no income, paired with prosperous neighborhoods (Windermere, Hawthorne Hills, Laurelhurst, Wallingford) whose children attend the local schools. While the patterns of findings were very similar across data sources, the actual estimates of food insecurity varied considerably, with the highest estimates coming from the SeaSAW survey of lowincome families with children, the CPHN survey of SNAP-eligible adults, and the BSK survey of families with young children. We would expect high estimates of food insecurity in samples selected for low income families or adults (SeaSAW and CPHN). The high level of food insecurity in the BSK sample may stem in part from the economic burden of raising children and in part from the wording of the question. Unlike the questions in the other surveys, which limited the time frame for recalling food insecurity to the past 12 months, the BSK survey question expanded the recall frame dramatically to “since this child was born,” which could have been as long as 10 years ago. Across all surveys, we found disparities by race/ethnicity, education, and sexual orientation, and extremely high levels of food insecurity among respondents at the lowest levels of economic security. In all samples, the highest levels of food insecurity were reported by respondents at poverty levels that meet eligibility criteria for SNAP; and food insecurity was uniformly high in the samples of low-income families and low-income adults participating in food assistance programs such as SNAP, suggesting that current benefits might not be sufficient to meet basic needs in these groups and identifying a food security gap among SNAP-eligible populations that was not addressed in Section 4B. SNAP benefits target households with the most need and are equal to the cost of the US Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food Plan (a diet plan intended to provide adequate nutrition at a minimal cost). Households with no net income receive the maximum monthly SNAP benefit, based on household size. For all other eligible households, the monthly SNAP benefit is the difference between the maximum v Numbers may not add up to the total due to rounding. High concentrations of 15-19 year olds and 20-24 year olds in Council District 4 confirmed in downloadable Neighborhood Profiles at http://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=3eb44a4fdf9a4fff9e1c105cd5e7fe27. vi HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 69 141 benefit, for the household size, and the household’s expected contribution (30% of the household’s net income).5,6 In fiscal year 2017, the annual average SNAP/Basic Food benefits per Seattle clientvii was $1,159, approximately $97 per month (or about $24 per week). Based on work from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, on average, low-income families report an additional $4-9 per week would be needed to meet food needs. A $30 increase in monthly benefits is estimated to increase spending on groceries, including vegetables, increase time preparing food, decrease spending on fast food, and decrease food insecurity.7 Furthermore, at both 200-299% of the FPL and 300-399% of the FPL – poverty levels that do not qualify for food assistance through SNAP – more than one in four families raising young children reported food insecurity, and would fall into the broader food security gap (up to 399% of the FPL) discussed in Section 4B. As suggested by the differing estimates of the food security gap by race/ethnicity, belonging to multiple at…more than one in four families raising risk groups in Seattle (low economic security; people of young children reported food insecurity, but color; households with children; low educational make too much (200-399% of the FPL) to attainment; lesbian, gay, or bisexual; non-Englishqualify for food assistance through SNAP. speaking) may amplify unmeasured disadvantages related to food insecurity. Finally, using annual data on SNAP/Basic Food participation as a proxy for food insecurity, we suspect that, as with SNAP/Basic Food participation, food insecurity among Seattle’s older adults may be continuing an ascent that began more than 15 years ago and is not occurring in any other age group. For those living on a fixed income in a city experiencing an economic and population boom, increased costs of health care and housing could further increase the risk of food insecurity for Seattle’s older adults. After a four-year hiatus, the Behavioral Risk Surveillance System (BRFSS) has resumed asking the key question about food insecurity, which will be included in the 2018 and 2019 surveys. Public Health – Seattle & King County will update data about food insecurity when 2018 and 2019 data are released from the Department of Health. In addition to updating data about food insecurity, Public Health – Seattle & King County will continue to track food insecurity in older adults, and follow what appears to be a continuing shift in the distribution of school-age poverty – one of the upstream causes of food insecurity – out of Seattle and into South Region school districts. Limitations Limitations of BRFSS data The recovery from the Great Recession (2007-2009) was protracted and delayed; we included 20112013 BRFSS data to capture the aftereffects of the recession and its impact on food insecurity. Unfortunately, the BRFSS question about running out of food and not having money to buy more was not asked in Seattle between 2013 and 2017, so the 2011-2013 BRFSS average is the most current local population-level data on food insecurity. Although including 2010 data would have increased the sample size for analysis, we chose not to include 2010 data, as food insecurity in 2010 differed significantly from 2011 and later years (data not shown). Because the 2012 BRFSS only asked the food security question vii SNAP/Basic Food clients are typically households – “assistance units” of people who live together and whose resources are counted to determine eligibility. 142 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 70 from September to December, the sample size for the 2012 survey year was small. Review of quarterly trends in food insecurity from past years' data showed slight seasonal variation in which the first quarter prevalence of food insecurity was higher than in later quarters; therefore, food insecurity for 2012 may be underestimated and may contribute to an underestimate for the 2011-2013 period. The food insecurity question was last asked in 2013 and will be included in 2018 and 2019 BRFSS surveys. With changes in Seattle demographics and increased cost of living in recent years, estimates from 2011 to 2013 BRFSS data may underestimate the current state of food insecurity in Seattle. PHSKC will update this analysis when 2018-19 data on food insecurity become available. As noted in the detailed methods in the addendum at the end of this section, by combining three years of data, we were able to generate stable, cross-sectional estimates for food insecurity for that time period. However, this meant we were unable to examine trends or changes within demographic subgroups over time. Despite increasing sample sizes by combining multiple years of data, sample sizes for stratified analyses were relatively small for some variables, as reflected by wide confidence intervals. Point estimates for these variables should be interpreted with caution. BRFSS results were suppressed in instances where sample size was less than 50 total respondents. The BRFSS surveys adults 18 and older, whereas the ACS and OFM population estimates include all individuals. To estimate the food security gap, we made the assumption that food insecurity prevalence is similar among adults and youth younger than 17, which is supported by the analysis of HYS data. While food insecurity was higher among families with children than without children in 2010, this gap closed between 2011 and 2013, due to increasing rates of food insecurity among older adults and adults who were not in a partner relationship.8 Because this difference had disappeared by 2013, we did not stratify our analysis of 2011-2013 BRFSS data by the presence of children. We based the food security gap calculation on Washington state’s 200% FPL SNAP eligibility criteria but did not take into account other eligibility criteria (e.g. dependents, work requirements, citizenship status), as this information was not available in the BRFSS data. As noted in the detailed methods in the addendum below, the BRFSS income estimates are imprecise because BRFSS collects broad income categories rather than exact household income. Until 2011, the top income category was “$75,000+.” Starting in 2012, the BRFSS added additional income categories “$75,000 to <$100,000” and “$100,000+.” As such, the income approximation is different for 2011 vs. 2012-13. This affects the precision of the estimated income-to-poverty ratio, particularly for larger families and those with incomes above the top income range. Lastly, the BRFSS has been conducted via cell phone and landline since 2009. While the landline survey asks about the number of household members, the cell-phone survey did not do so initially. For cellphone respondents with missing information on household size, we imputed the number of household members based on marital status, assigning unmarried respondents a household size of one and married respondents a household size of two. Limitations of HYS data The comprehensiveness of the HYS data is dependent on schools that opt to participate in the survey. However, the participation of Seattle schools in HYS was relatively high from 2012 to 2016. Participation in HYS is voluntary and responses are based on self-report, which can be subject to recall or response bias. The question about free/reduced price lunch was first asked in 2016, so our analysis for this variable did not combine three years of data. 143 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 71 Estimates of food security by Council Districts were based on mapping of participating HYS schools that fell within Council District geographies. The numbers of schools and students represented in each school are not necessarily equally distributed across Council Districts. Although the HYS data is more current than the BRFSS data, it is possible that the combined data from 2012, 2014, and 2016 may underestimate the current state of food security among Seattle's school-aged youth, given the fast pace of demographic change in the region. The “no-breakfast-today” measure might not accurately reflect food insecurity among 8th through 12th graders, since some schools may have piloted some form of "breakfast after the bell" program during the 2012 to 2016 period. Washington State's "Breakfast after the bell" House Bill 1508 (https://www.governor.wa.gov/newsmedia/new-law-offers-breakfast-after-bell-program-hungry-students) was signed into law March 2018 and does not go into effect until the 2019-20 school year. It is conceivable that students attending public schools in Seattle could live outside the school district boundaries. Seattle Public Schools posts annual enrollment reports online. Table 1C of the annual report includes combined counts of students who are out of district or whose attendance area is unknown. In 2016 the total numbers of out-of-district or unknown-attendance-area students were 53 for grades 6-8 and 154 for grades 9-12. Limitations of SeaSAW data Because of small sample size and uneven geographic distribution of participants, SeaSAW data could not be examined by Council Districts. In addition, use of a convenience (non-random) sample precludes generalization of SeaSAW results to the overall Seattle population of low-income families. The data analyzed for this report are from all Seattle respondents who completed a baseline survey and is not limited to families currently participating in SeaSAW. Limitations of UW CPHN data The data of SNAP-eligible adult came from three evaluation studies with differing sampling methods ranging from a convenience sample to a stratified random sample. For the pooled Seattle estimates presented, the data were predominantly from a convenience sample of SNAP-eligible adults receiving some type of service and would not be generalizable to all SNAP participants. Income data were available for participants surveyed through two of the three evaluation projects. Estimates by Council District were not possible due to small sample sizes. Limitations of survey questions (overall) Modern definitions of food insecurity increasingly include references to nutrition and healthy food. For example, the United Nations’ Committee on World Food Security defines food security as “the condition in which all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”9 However, the standard food-insecurity questions – for the surveys analyzed here and for many surveys across the country (for example, “running out of food and not having money to buy more”) — are rooted in concerns about scarcity rather than nutrition and improved health outcomes. In the current analysis, two surveys did include questions about access to healthy food, but they were not directly comparable, and one left considerable latitude for interpretation. Removing barriers to accessing and choosing healthy food should be able to both reduce hunger and improve health. Our 144 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 72 ability to evaluate progress on these fronts require both coordination and validation of assessment tools. Limitations of existing survey data The surveys included as data sources in this report do not capture Seattle’s homeless residents very well. As food insecurity is likely to be high in this population, food insecurity in Seattle may be higher than seen in survey estimates. Limitations of estimating the food security gap The analysis does not address the food security gap that exists among low-income residents who experience food insecurity even while receiving food-assistance benefits, as described in Section 4A above. 145 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 73 ADDENDUM – DETAILED METHODS FOR SECTION 4A METHODS Data sources To estimate food insecurity in Seattle for . . .  . . . adults, we combined the three most recent years of available data (2011 to 2013) on food insecurity from the annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).     . . . school-aged youth (8th, 10th, and 12th graders), we combined 2012, 2014, and 2016 data for Seattle Public Schools from the bi-annual Washington Healthy Youth Survey (HYS). As a validation on the food security question, we also examined whether school-aged youth ate breakfast. . . . families with children in fifth grade and younger, we used data from the 2016-2017 Best Starts for Kids (BSK) Health Survey. … low-income families with children age 7-17, we report analyses from the 2017 Seattle Shopping and Wellness (SeaSAW) Child Cohort survey described in the SBT Evaluation Baseline Report to the City of Seattle. 10 … SNAP-eligible adults accessing services, we report combined analyses of three surveys from the University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition evaluations of: nutrition-support programs SNAP-Ed (2016), Fresh Bucks (2014, 2015, 2017), and healthy food access strategies funded through the Partnership to Improve Community Health (2016). See Appendix D for details of these data sources. In the absence of BRFSS data on food insecurity after 2013, we looked at trends using annual unduplicated client counts of Basic Food participation (which includes both the federally funded Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program [SNAP] and the state’s Food Assistance Program [FAP]), which generally tracks food insecurity. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) posts these data online for three age groups: children from birth to 17 years, adults from 18 to 64 years, and adults age 65 and older. Outcomes of interest Each survey asked slightly different questions about food insecurity.  For adults, the BRFSS food insecurity question was: "The food that [I/we] bought just didn’t last, and [I/we] didn’t have money to get more. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?" The analyses combined responses for "often" and "sometimes" to capture any level of food insecurity.  For school-aged youth, the HYS food insecurity question asked, "How often in the past 12 months did you or your family have to cut meal size or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?" with response options of “almost every month,” “some months but not every month,” “only 1 – 2 months,” and “did not have to skip or cut the size of meals.” Response options were combined to create a binary variable reflecting any level of need to skip or cut meal sizes compared to not having to skip or cut meal sizes. We also analyzed the HYS question, “Did you eat breakfast today?” as a rough validation of the food insecurity question. While students might not eat breakfast for a variety of reasons, for some students not eating breakfast reflects not having enough food for breakfast. For consistency with the food insecurity items, we tabulated the proportion reporting “no breakfast.” 146 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 74    For families with children in fifth grade and younger, the BSK Health Survey question asked, “Since this child was born, how often has it been very hard to get by on your family’s income – hard to cover basics like food?” The response options, “all of the time,” “most of the time”, or “some of the time” were combined to create a binary variable reflecting food insecurity. In addition, to analyze access to affordable produce we analyzed responses to the question: “How often can you find affordable fresh fruits and vegetables in your neighborhood?” The response options “usually” or “always” were combined to create a binary variable. For low-income families with children, the SeaSAW question about food insecurity asked respondents, to “Please tell us whether the statement was often true, sometimes true, or never true for your household: Within the past 12 months the food we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” A second question, with the same response options focused on healthy foods: “Within the past 12 months we found it hard to buy healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables.” For both questions, response options “often true” and “sometimes true” (versus “never true”) were combined to create affirmatives for food insecurity and difficult access to healthy foods. For SNAP-eligible adults accessing services, the UW Center for Public Health Nutrition (UW CPHN) surveys asked the same question used in the BRFSS (see above). Analyses We analyzed each data set by demographic breakdowns, many of which were shared across data sources. Results were considered significantly different if their confidence intervals, where available, did not overlap – a conservative approach.      For Seattle adults (BRFSS data), we analyzed food insecurity by King County region, Council District, race/ethnicity, age groups, gender, income levels, poverty levels, educational attainment, and sexual orientation. For school-aged youth in Seattle (HYS data), we analyzed food insecurity and “breakfast today” by King County region, Council Districts, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken at home, gender, maternal education as a proxy for household socioeconomic status11, sexual orientation, and participation in free or reduced-price lunches at school (FRL data available only for 2016). For Seattle families with young children (BSK survey data), we analyzed food insecurity by: King County region, family income, respondent’s education level, race/ethnicity, language spoken at home, child gender, respondent gender and sexual orientation, child age, and respondent age. For Seattle low-income families with children (SeaSAW data), Seattle Children’s Study Team members analyzed baseline survey responses from Seattle respondents about food insecurity and difficulty purchasing healthy food from the Seattle Shopping and Wellness (SeaSAW) study by family income, adult householder education, child race and age, and participation in food support programs. For SNAP-eligible adults accessing services (UW CPHN data), UW CPHN Study Team members analyzed food insecurity data combined across the three evaluations for Seattle respondents by family income, education level, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, gender, age, and participation in food assistance programs. Combining multiple years of data for both BRFSS and HYS data allowed us to provide more reliable snapshots of food insecurity in Seattle for specific time periods. However, we were unable to use these averaged estimates to report on overall trends or changes over time within subgroups. To look at 147 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 75 change over time we used annual SNAP/Basic Food participation as a proxy for food insecurity by age groups (the only demographic breakdown available). BRFSS, HYS, and BSK analyses were conducted using Stata/IC 15.0. For BRFSS data, raking sampling weights created by Public Health – Seattle & King County (PHSKC) were applied to construct Seattle population estimates and account for complex survey design and nonresponse. HYS data for King County were weighted to school-district total enrollment by grade and sex; to account for differential participation among school districts across survey years, the final weights were adjusted to sum to total public-school enrollment, by grade and sex, for the county. BSK Health Survey responses were weighted based on age, region, respondent’s highest level of education, and child’s race/ethnicity. With the BRFSS data, which are available by ZIP Code, we approximated Council Districts using ZIP Codes that fell within each Council District excluding portions of ZIP Codes that fell outside Seattle city boundaries. With the HYS data, we approximated Council Districts using schools in the dataset that were located within each Council District’s geographic boundaries. For the BSK Health Survey, we used birth certificate data and school directories to create the survey sample and geocoded respondent addresses to identify those living in Seattle. To learn more about food insecurity from low-income families, Seattle Children’s research team analyzed baseline survey data on demographic characteristics and participation in food-support programs among families reporting food insecurity in the Seattle Shopping and Wellness (SeaSAW) study. [For more details about the study see Section 2: Child Cohort Survey: Health Behaviors in the Evaluation of Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax Baseline Report: Pre-implementation of the Tax.] 10 The study enrolled families with incomes below 312% of the Federal Poverty Level with a 7-10 or 12-17 yearold child who had ever consumed sugary beverages (parents reported on food habits of younger children, while the older children reported directly on their own eating habits). To address a data gap on food insecurity among low-income populations eligible for food assistance programs, UW CPHN research team analyzed Seattle-specific data collected from three prior evaluation studies with this population between 2014 and 2017. The sample includes SNAP recipients or individual eligible for participation in food assistance programs. For details about data sources, including characteristics of the samples and links to the methodology of the individual evaluations, see Appendix D. 148 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 76 ADDENDUM – DETAILED METHODS FOR SECTION 4B METHODS As described in Section 4A, we used 2011-2013 data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to look at the demographic characteristics of Seattle adults reporting food insecurity. To estimate rates of food insecurity at different poverty levels, we approximated household income based on the income ranges collected in BRFSS. Table 1 shows the income approximations used for this analysis. Table 1. Approximate household income from BRFSS income categories BRFSS Income Category Income Approximation† 2011 2012-13 <$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 to < $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $15,000 to < $20,000 $17,500 $17,500 $20,000 to < $25,000 $22,500 $22,500 $25,000 to < $35,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 to < $50,000 $42,500 $42,500 $50,000 to < $75,000 $62,500 $62,500 $75,000+* $75,000 n/a $75,000 to < $100,000** n/a $87,500 $100,000+** n/a $100,000 †Where applicable, we assigned approximate income to the median value of the income range * top income category in 2011 ** income categories included starting in 2012 As a standard of practice, the poverty levels are expressed as a ratio of household income to the federal poverty level. Each year the federal poverty guidelines specify the poverty level for an individual and an amount to add for each additional household member.viii Using this formula, we calculated the poverty guidelineix for each BRFSS respondent based on the survey year and number of household members. We then calculated the income-to-poverty ratio by dividing each respondent’s household income (as approximated in the table above) by their poverty guideline; we express this ratio as a percentage of the federal poverty level (FPL). For example, the poverty guideline for a family of four in 2011 was $22,350 ($10,890 for an individual plus $3,820 for each additional person). The income-to-poverty ratio for a 2011 BRFSS respondent with income in the range “$25,000 to less than $35,000” (approximated as $30,000) and four total household members is $30,000/$22,350 x 100% = 134% FPL. viii See https://aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-and-federal-register-references for federal poverty guidelines based on household size. ix Each year the U.S. Census Bureau updates the federal poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines, a simplified version of thresholds. The poverty thresholds are used for statistical purposes (e.g. to estimate the number of people in poverty) whereas the guidelines are used to determine eligibility for programs and benefits such as SNAP. Since the BRFSS does not collect information about the ages and relationships of all household members, we were unable to calculate the poverty thresholds and instead used the federal poverty guidelines when estimating food insecurity rates. Therefore, the food gap analysis incorporates both the poverty thresholds (from the American Community Survey) and the poverty guidelines, which we consider sufficiently similar for our purpose of estimating the number of Seattle residents in the food security gap. For more information about the federal poverty measures, see https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 77 149 Establishing the food security gap cut point To determine the size of the “food security gap” we estimated how many people in Seattle were experiencing food insecurity but had incomes too high to qualify for SNAP benefits (also known as Basic Food in Washington state). Households in Washington state are eligible for SNAP benefits if they earn less than 200% FPL and meet certain other criteria.x We grouped BRFSS respondents by income-topoverty range (i.e. <100% FPL, 100-199% FPL, 200-299% FPL, etc.) and calculated survey-weighted estimates of the percent of adults in each range who reported food insecurity (Chart 2). We then identified the income cut point above which the prevalence of food insecurity fell below 5%; this cut point represented the upper limit of our food security gap estimate. In the 2011-13 period, 15% of Seattle adults (95% CI: 8%-26%) with incomes between 200-299% FPL reported food insecurity, compared to 4% of adults with incomes 300-399% FPL (95% CI: 1%-10%). The reported food insecurity rate remained below 5% at higher income levels. Based on these findings, we initially identified 300% FPL as the upper end income cut point for our food security gap estimates (Table 2). Table 2. Food insecurity by income level (FPL) Federal Poverty Level (FPL) Seattle Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) % 95% CI <100% FPL 43% (30, 57) 100-199% FPL 27% (20, 37) 200-299% FPL 15% (8, 26) 300-399% FPL 4% (1, 10) 400-499% FPL 3% (1, 9) 500%+ FPL 4% (2, 9) While this cut point worked as intended when applied to the overall population, it yielded different distributions when applied separately to non-white and non-Hispanic white groups. Among non-white King County residents, food insecurity rates were higher overall and at all income levels greater than 200% FPL (Chart 3). Among non-white respondents in King Countyxi with incomes at 300-399% FPL, 8% were food insecure (95% CI: 3%-19%); food insecurity rates were also at or above 5% for non-white residents earning 400-499% FPL and 500+% FPL. In contrast, among non-Hispanic white adults in King County, only 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) of those at 300-399% FPL experienced food insecurity, suggesting that a more realistic income cut point for the food security gap may be higher for non-white adults than for non-Hispanic white adults. Therefore, we adjusted the food security gap income cut-point to 400% of FPL. x See https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/basic-food for Basic Food eligibility criteria. Legal immigrants who are not eligible for federal Basic Food solely due their immigration status may be eligible for the state Food Assistance Program (https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/state-food-assistance-program-fap). xi Sample sizes were insufficient to disaggregate by race in Seattle. HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 78 150 Table 3. Food insecurity by income and race/ethnicity, King County adults (2011-2013) Federal Poverty Level (FPL) Whites People of Color % 95% CI % 95% CI (32, 44) 34 (28, 41) 200-299% FPL 37 10 (6, 15) 20 (12, 31) 300-399% FPL 3 (1, 6) 8 (3, 19) 400-499% FPL 1 (1, 3) 6 (2, 14) 500%+ FPL 3 (2, 5) 5 (2, 13) <200% FPL Estimating the number of people in the food security gap To estimate the number of people in the food security gap, we obtained American Community Survey (ACS) 2017 one-year estimates to calculate the proportion of people in Seattle in each income-topoverty range. We then applied these proportions from the ACS to the 2017 Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) small area preliminary population estimates for Seattle to obtain the total number of individuals in each income range. Finally, we multiplied these population estimates by the BRFSS food insecurity estimates for each income range to calculate the approximate number of people experiencing food insecurity in each income range in 2017, with recalculated margins of error (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Steps in computing food security gap estimate Compute BRFSS* household income as ratio of poverty level Establish food security gap cut-point Estimate population in food security gap •Approximate household income based on BRFSS* income range response •Calculate estimate of food insecurity in each incometo-poverty range •Calculate estimated % of Seattle population in each income-to-poverty range •Estimate poverty level using federal poverty guidelines •Identify income cut-off above which food insecurity prevalence <5% •Multiply by OFM** population estimates to obtain number of individuals in each income range •Divide household income by poverty guidelines to obtain income-to-poverty ratio •Multiply by BRFSS food insecurity estimate for each income range *BRFSS = Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System **OFM =Washington State Office of Financial Management 151 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 79 References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Waxman E. Mapping food insecurity and distress in American Indian and Alaska Native communities Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/mapping-food-insecurityand-distress-american-indian-and-alaska-native-communities. Published 2016. Accessed December 4, 2018. Jernigan VBB, Huyser KR, Valdes J, Simonds VW. Food Insecurity among American Indians and Alaska Natives: A National Profile using the Current Population Survey-Food Security Supplement. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2017;12(1):1-10. doi:10.1080/19320248.2016.1227750 Bolen E, Rosenbaum D, Dean S, Keith-Jennings B. More Than 500,000 Adults Will Lose SNAP Benefits in 2016 as Waivers Expire Affected Unemployed Childless Individuals Are Very Poor; Few Quality for Other Help. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/more-than-500000-adults-will-lose-snapbenefits-in-2016-as-waivers-expire. Published 2016. Accessed December 24, 2018. Able Bodied Adults without Dependents - ABAWD DSHS. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/ablebodied-adults-without-dependents-abawd. Accessed January 22, 2019. Keith-Jennings B. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits. Published 2014. Accessed December 24, 2018. Nchako C, Cai L. A Closer Look at Who Benefits from SNAP: State-by-State Fact Sheets. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-closer-look-at-who-benefitsfrom-snap-state-by-state-fact-sheets#Washington. Published 2018. Accessed December 24, 2018. Anderson PM, Butcher KF. The Relationships Among SNAP Benefits, Grocery Spending, Diet Quality, and the Adequacy of Low-Income Families’ Resources. Cent Budg Policy Priorities. 2016;14. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-relationships-among-snapbenefits-grocery-spending-diet-quality-and-the#_ftn1. Accessed August 8, 2018. Households that ran out of food, King County (2010, 2011, 2013). Communities Count. http://www.communitiescount.org/index.php?page=food-hardship-insecurity. Accessed November 15, 2018. Food Security International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/topic/foodsecurity. Accessed December 4, 2018. The evaluation of Seattle’s Sweetened Beverage Tax Baseline report: pre-implementation of the tax. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/SBTBaselineReport. pdf. Published 2018. Accessed August 1, 2018. Richardson S, Bensley L, Hawkins V. Healthy Youth Survey Data Analysis & Technical Assistance Manual. Washington State Department of Health. https://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/Pubs/210-088_HYSDataAnalysisManual.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed December 6, 2018. 152 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 80 Chart 1 Table. Food insecurity by Council District Adults (BRFSS, 20112013) School-aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016) Families with Children (BSK, 2016-2017) SNAP-Eligible Adults (CPHN data, 20142017) % 95% CI Low-Income Families (SeaSAW, 2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI Seattle overall 13% (11, 16) 11% (10, 12) 22% (17,29) 51% (45,58) 48% (43,53) King County overall 13% (12, 15) 12% (11, 12) 30% (26,33) n/a n/a n/a n/a 1-WSeattle, SouthPark 9% (5, 15) 13% (11, 16) 2-SoEast, Georgetown 14% (7, 24) 15% (13, 18) 3-Central 12% (7, 21) 12% (8, 17) 4-Northeast 15% (8, 26) 5% (4, 7) 5-North 11% (7, 18) 10% (9, 13) 6-Northwest 8% (5, 14) 8% (6, 10) Seattle and King County Council District n/a 7-PioneerSq-Magnolia 11% (6, 21) 10% (8, 13) CI = 95% Confidence Interval; n/a = data not analyzed by Council District Chart 2 Table. Food insecurity by household income Household income Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) Families with Children (BSK, 2016-2017) % 95% CI SNAP-eligible adults (CPHN, 2014-2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI <$15k 39% (27 ,52) 74% (56, 86) 59% (49,69) $15-<25k 34% (24 ,45) 76% (51, 91) 48% (34,62) $25-<35k 21% (11 ,37) 65% (45, 81) 32% (19,50) $35-<50k 8% (4 ,15) 56% (40, 71) ^ ^ $50-<75k 2% (1 ,7) 19% (10, 33) ^ $75k+ 3% (2 ,8) n/a n/a $75-<100k n/a n/a 26% (10, 51) Household income (SeaSAW only) Low-Income Families (SeaSAW, 2017) % 95% CI <$12k 67% (54,81) $12-<24k 62% (48,76) $24-<36k 53% (38,69) $36-<48k 39% (22,57) ^ $48-$72k ^ ^ ^ ^ $72k+ ^ ^ ^ ^ $100-<150k n/a n/a 5% (2, 9) n/a n/a $150k+ n/a n/a 1% (1, 3) n/a n/a CI = 95% Confidence Interval; n/a=this income level not available for survey or confidence intervals not available for these data ^Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total<50. HYS, SeaSAW and UW CPHN data: suppressed if cell total < 10) Chart 3 Table. Food insecurity by Federal Poverty Level (FPL) Federal Poverty Level (FPL) Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) Families with Children (BSK, 2016-2017) Low-Income Families (SeaSAW, 2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI % <100% FPL 43% (30 ,57) 76% (57, 88) <130% FPL n/a n/a n/a n/a 100-199% FPL 27% (20 ,37) 58% (42, 72) n/a SNAP-Eligible Adults (CPHN data, 20142017) 95% CI % 95% CI n/a n/a 68% (52,77) 61% (53,69) n/a n/a n/a 48% (38,56) 153 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 81 200-299% FPL 15% (8 ,26) 26% (14, 42) n/a n/a ^ ^ 300-399% FPL 4% (1 ,10) 27% (12, 49) n/a n/a ^ ^ 400-499% FPL 3% (1 ,9) n/a n/a n/a n/a ^ ^ 400%+ FPL n/a n/a 4% (2, 6) n/a n/a n/a n/a 500%+ FPL 4% (2 ,9) n/a n/a n/a n/a ^ ^ CI = 95% Confidence Interval; n/a=this FPL not available for survey or confidence intervals not available for these data ^Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total<50. HYS, SeaSAW and CPHN data: suppressed if cell total < 10) Chart 4 Table. Seattle food insecurity by adult and parent/caretaker education Education Level Less than HS Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) % 95% CI ^ ^ School-aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016)a % 95% CI 24% (21, 27) Families with young children (BSK, 2016-2017)b % 95% CI 71% Low-Income Families (SeaSAW, 2017) % 95% CI (44, 89) ^ SNAP-Eligible Adults (CPHN data, 2014-2017) % 95% CI ^ n/a n/a HS/GED or less n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 67% (55,77) HS grad/GED diploma Some college, vocational, or trade 4 yr college degree 19% (13, 27) 18% (16, 21) 48% (30, 66) 72% (58,85) n/a n/a 16% (11, 22) 15% (13, 17) 28% (14, 48) 49% (36,61) 58% (50,66) 6% (4, 9) 6% (5, 7) 14% (10, 20) 39% (23,55) n/a n/a Advanced degree n/a n/a 5% (4, 6) 8% (5, 13) ^ ^ n/a n/a 4 yr college or n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39% (34,44) advanced degree a Maternal education level; b Respondent education level; CI = Confidence Interval ^Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total<50. HYS, SeaSAW and CPHN data: suppressed if cell total < 10); n/a = this education level not available for survey or confidence intervals not available for these data Chart 5 Table. Seattle food insecurity by race/ethnicity Race/ ethnicity Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) School-aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016)* % 95% CI % 95% CI AIAN NHˇ ^ ^ 23% Asian NHˇ 13% (7, 22) Black NHˇ 27% (15, 42) Hispanic Multiple 18% ^ NHPI NHˇ ^ Families with Children (BSK, 2016-2017) % 95% CI Low-Income Families (SeaSAW, 2017) % 95% CI SNAP-Eligible Adults (UW CPHN data, 2014-17) % 95% CI n/a ^ 92% (61,99) (12, 32) n/a ^ 46% (32,60) (42, 82) 66% (56,76) 53% (41,65) 39% (18, 65) 47% (31,62) 23% ^ (11, 43) ^ 57% (35,78) 52% ^ (38,66) ^ n/a n/a ^ ^ (16, 31) ^ ^ 11% (9, 13) 20% 18% (16, 21) 65% (9, 32) ^ 17% (15, 19) 13% (11, 16) ^ 19% (15, 25) 56% (25,84) 58% (38,75) Other NH n/a n/a 18% (15,21) n/a n/a White 11% (9, 15) 7% (6, 8) 15% (10, 21) 34% (18,50) 41% (36,47) NHˇ ˇ NH=non-Hispanic; NHPI=Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; AIAN=American Indian/Alaska Native; n/a = no data available; CI = 95% Confidence Interval ^ Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total < 50. HYS, SeaSAW and UW CPHN data: suppressed if cell total < 10) 154 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 82 Chart 6 Table. Seattle food insecurity by primary language spoken at home Language School-Aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016) Families with Young Children (BSK, 2016-2017) Low-income families (SeaSAW, 2017) SNAP-Eligible Adults (UW CPHN data, 2014-2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI English 9% (8, 10) 19% (13, 25) 55 (46,64) 47% (43,52) Spanish 18% (16, 21) 62% (29, 86) ^ ^ 53% 37,68) Russian 48% (37, 59) ^ ^ n/a n/a n/a n/a Ukrainian 57% (45, 69) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Vietnamese 13% (10, 17) ^ ^ n/a n/a n/a n/a Chinese 9% (6, 12) ^ ^ n/a n/a n/a n/a Korean 18% (10, 31) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Japanese 20% (11, 33) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Somali / Oromo n/a n/a ^ ^ 55 (39,72) n/a n/a (26,60) 48% (36,61) Other 16% (14, 19) 40% (19, 65) 43 CI = 95% Confidence Interval *Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates (BSK: suppressed if n<50.) n/a = this language not available for survey or confidence intervals not available for these data Chart 7 Table 1. Seattle food insecurity by gender for adults Parents/Caregivers of Young Children (BSK, 2016-2017) % 95% CI Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) Gender % Male 95% CI 14% Female (11 ,19) 13% 13% (9 ,17) 24% Low-income families (SeaSAW, 2017) SNAP-Eligible Adults (CPHN, 2014-2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI (8, 21) 52 (32,72) 42% (37,48) (18, 32) 50 (43,58) 54% (47,60) CI = 95% Confidence Interval Chart 7 Table 2. Seattle food insecurity by gender for school-aged youth and young children School-aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016) % 95% CI Gender Young Children (BSK, 2016-2017) % 95% CI Male 12% (10, 13) 28% (19, 39) Female 11% (9, 12) 17% (11, 25) CI = 95% Confidence Interval Chart 8 Table. Seattle food insecurity by sexual orientation Sexual Orientation Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) School-aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016) Parents/Caregivers of Young Children (BSK, 2016-2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI LGB 24% (15, 36) 16% (13, 19) 43% (21, 69) Heterosexual 12% (10, 16) 7% (6, 9) 21% (15, 28) 155 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 83 Chart 9 Table 1. Seattle food insecurity by age Parents/Caregivers of Young Children (BSK, 2016-2017) Adults (BRFSS, 2011-2013) Age 7-10 Children in low-income families (SeaSAW, 2017) SNAP-Eligible adults (UW CPHN, 2014-2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI n/a n/a n/a n/a 48 (39,72) n/a n/a 12-17 n/a n/a n/a n/a 59 (47,71) n/a n/a 18-24 16% (9, 27) ^ ^ n/a n/a n/a n/a 18-30 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40% (32,48) 25-29 n/a n/a 63% (32, 85) n/a n/a n/a n/a 30-34 n/a n/a 26% (13, 43) n/a n/a n/a n/a 31-50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51% (43,58) 35-39 n/a n/a 18% (11, 28) n/a n/a n/a n/a 25-44 19% (14, 25) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40-49 n/a n/a 16% (10, 23) n/a n/a n/a n/a 45-64 10% (7, 14) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50+ n/a n/a 50% (20, 80) n/a n/a n/a n/a 51-65 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 57% (48,65) 65+ 4% (2, 7) n/a n/a n/a n/a 41% (29,54) n/a = no data for age group in survey or confdience internval not avaiable for these data; CI = 95% Confidence Interval ^ = Too few cases to protect confidentiality and/or report reliable estimates. (BRFSS and BSK: suppressed if marginal total<50 Chart 9 Table 2. Seattle food insecurity by grade for school-aged youth and young children Age/Grade School-aged youth (HYS, 2012, 2014, 2016) Young Children (BSK, 2016-2017) Children in low-income families (SeaSAW, 2017) % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI 0-5 n/a n/a 21% (13,32) n/a n/a K-5th grade n/a n/a 24% (17,32) n/a n/a 7-10 n/a n/a n/a n/a 48 (39,72) 12-17 n/a n/a n/a n/a 59 (47,71) 8th grade 9% (8, 11) n/a n/a n/a n/a 10th grade 11% (9, 13) n/a n/a n/a n/a 12th grade 13% (11, 17) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a = no data for age group in survey or confdience internval not avaiable for these data; CI = 95% Confidence Interval 156 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 84 SECTION 5 MEETING THE NEED: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT SEATTLE’S FOOD BANK NETWORK? SUMMARY The objectives of the Food Bank Network Assessment are to assess 1) to what extent the city’s food bank network is able to serve the population experiencing food insecurity and 2) what opportunities exist for the food bank network to improve equitable access to healthy food. This assessment addresses four of the five dimensions of access to healthy food: accessibility/convenience, accommodation, availability, and acceptability. The fifth dimension, affordability, is not applicable. We conducted key informant interviews with staff from Seattle food banks and focus group discussions with clients to gather insight on needs and potential opportunities for improvement. We administered the Food Bank Network Survey to collect measures of impact, access, and operational capacity of food banks. A total of 13 staff members participated in interviews, 47 clients attended discussion groups, and 25 out of 30 food banks responded to the survey. Qualitative data were audio-recorded and transcribed when participant consent was given, otherwise detailed notes were taken. We coded these notes and the transcribed narrative using Dedoose and analyzed them for themes. We summarized and analyzed quantitative data using Stata 13 and Tableau 10.5. Key findings Seattle food bank survey respondents (n=25) reported distributing 22,885,225 pounds of food each year. Food banks described an increase in need, reporting more visits from older adults, homeless, and people living further north and south. Among the 60% of food bank respondents who reported a rise in visits over the last year, 39% reported their funding remained the same or was reduced. To keep up with demand, 65% of food bank respondents reported having to reduce the variety and 41% had to reduce the amount of food offered to each client. A majority (68%) of food banks reported having less than 10% of their budget for direct food purchases. Clients of food banks expressed the desire for consistent access to quality food such as fresh produce and proteins, and emphasized the importance of maintaining a sense of dignity at the food bank such as by creating experiences that replicate those at a grocery store. Food banks’ reported hours of distribution revealed limited hours over the weekend and evenings, which may signal an additional gap in access. To more effectively serve clients, staff emphasized addressing operational needs such as sufficient staffing and space, more purchasing power, and investments in coordinated mobile systems to support procurement and delivery. 157 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 85 SECTION 5 MEETING THE NEED: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT SEATTLE’S FOOD BANK NETWORK? OBJECTIVE The objectives of the Food Bank Network Assessment are to assess 1) to what extent the city’s food bank network is able to serve the population experiencing food insecurity and 2) what opportunities exist for the food bank network to improve equitable access to healthy food. This assessment addresses four of the five dimensions of access to healthy food: accessibility/convenience, accommodation, availability and acceptability. The fifth dimension, affordability, is not applicable. Further descriptions of these dimensions can be found in Section 1. Findings will inform the redevelopment of the Request for Proposal process currently underway by Seattle’s Humans Services Department. Defining the food bank network At the time of this report we identified 34 food banks that could be considered a part of the broader Seattle food bank network. For the purposes of this assessment we focused only on the 30 that met specific inclusion criteria. Food banks included in this Figure 1: Food Banks in Seattle assessment had to be 1) actively operating, 2) distributing food on-site more than once a month, and 3) either located within the City of Seattle boundaries or known to serve many Seattle residents. We distinguished between a food bank and food pantry based on frequency of operation, thereby excluding food pantries that only distributed food on-site once a month or less. Our list primarily included members of the Seattle Food Committee (SFC) due to their representation of food banks and programs serving those in need of supplemental food in Seattle. The SFC works with food distributors and other service providers to coordinate and maximize the efficiency of Seattle’s emergency food system. Since some food banks distribute out of multiple fixed locations we counted each active building site separately. The network of 30 food banks included in this assessment does not capture the additional food programs and smaller pantries that are also providing food throughout Seattle. Figure 1 shows the locations of the 30 food banks and status of City funding, overlaid onto a base map of the percentage of people below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level. Given that food banks operate as an emergency food resource, this base layer was identified as the best proxy for food insecurity and included instead of the healthy food priority areas (HFPA) described in Section 2. While HFPA’s highlight the need for strategies that increase access to healthy food, they do not adequately represent where food banks should be located. The food bank network list can be viewed in Appendix E – Item 1, which also lists those omitted from this assessment and reason for exclusion. 158 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 86 RESULTS Findings presented here focus primarily on the needs, operational demands, and impact of food banks in Seattle based on three components of primary data collection: key informant interviews, client focus group discussions, and the Food Bank Network Survey. Primary data collection consisted of interviewing 13 food bank staff, conducting 7 focus groups (3 English, 1 each in Vietnamese, Russian, Cantonese, and Spanish) with 47 food bank clients, and surveying 25 of 30 Seattle food banks. See addendum at the end of this section for detailed methods. For detailed analyses and discussion on food insecurity and access to healthy food in Seattle, please refer to Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this report. THE FOOD BANK NETWORK’S ABILITY TO MEET NEEDS Context on how the food bank network operates The food bank network in Seattle consists of sites throughout the city where perishable and/or nonperishable food items are distributed free of charge during designated hours. Twenty-nine food banks are currently members of the Seattle Food Committee which meets twice monthly to strategize and collaborate on collective emergency food system efforts. Food banks can provide food in a number of ways but the primary on-site distribution model is called Client Choice. The standard design of this model has clients progress through an ordered line, making selections from a set number of items by category. Some food banks apply this model through a grocery store design, where their physical layout resembles a store and members walk through as if they were shopping. It is also possible for food banks to operate as a food pantry, providing prepacked bags or boxes of non-perishable food. Most food banks (67%) also provide additional food through backpack programs, no-cook bags, or prepared meals. Most food banks in Seattle are low-barrier in terms of eligibility, meaning there is little documentation required to receive food. Based on our survey responses, the majority (94%) do not require any proof of income requirements, though many ask for proof of address (71%) and/or identification (65%). Seventyseven percent of survey respondents in Seattle have a designated service area defined by zip codes, but of those, only 31% turn people away or refer them if they do not reside within that service area. Typically, if a client is homeless, they will be asked to report the most applicable zip code – often of the shelter or encampment. In addition to being a food resource, food banks often serve as a convenient site for clients to connect with other needed resources. The majority of survey respondents report providing this link in some way, either through on-site service delivery, enrollment assistance, or referrals. Many food banks provide items such as infant toddler supplies, pet food, hygiene kits, and support through a Community Connector position that provides social service navigation. The Community Connectors at Food Banks Pilot Program came into fruition in August 2017 after Seattle food Bank leadership submitted a proposal that was approved by Seattle City Council. Food banks already contracted with HSD to provide food services were eligible to apply. Eleven food bank agencies have designated Community Connector(s) that are city-funded to provide on-site assistance to food bank clients and help them navigate, as well as enroll in, social services programs such as housing, employment, and job readiness. 159 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 87 Impact of food banks in Seattle The impact of Seattle’s food bank network should not be understated. Throughout the year, the average Seattle food bank:      Distributes 995,010 pounds of food Serves 15,403 individuals Is visited 54,649 times Provides 18,655 to-go lunches Provides 1,893 sit-down meals “There’s a sense of community. These are hard times and I’ve been a part of this community. This is the only time I see some of these people. There’s always conversation, we can gripe about the hard times. The community dinners are a social thing you don’t always get elsewhere.” -Food bank client (Council District 6) During focus group discussions, clients described ways food banks are having a tremendous impact on their life, such as freeing up limited income for other needs, and providing them with a sense of security. Some also talked about their food bank as a place of community and connection with others, where they feel respected and treated well by staff. Food insecurity is often an ongoing occurrence for clients, and the food bank’s presence helps to mitigate the stress of this experience. Others described needing the food bank especially during financial emergencies such as a divorce, medical expense, loss of employment, or loss of housing. Some stated that the food bank helps to cover 50% or more of their food needs and offers a chance to have fresh produce. Clients who referenced a current or recent experience of homelessness, emphasized the value of no-cook bags or meals that do not require access to a kitchen. Limited capacity to meet increasing need Despite the positive impact food banks in Seattle have, there are limitations in their ability to meet the needs of all residents experiencing food insecurity. Sixty percent (60%) of food bank respondents reported an increase over the last year in the number of individuals using the food bank, demonstrating a rise in demand. Survey respondents estimate that the amount of food received from one visit lasts an individual an average of 3.3 days and that many of their food bank clients must visit multiple food banks to get their needs met. The need for food banks is also highlighted by our “We’re seeing an increase from the rising estimation of food insecurity and the food security gap. cost of rent and healthcare, aging Most recent BRFSS estimates (2011 to 2013) tell us that population, more people experiencing 13% (95% CI: 11-16) of Seattle adults report experiencing homeless, immigrants not eligible for food food insecurity, which is significantly higher than the benefits or reticent to enroll in benefits due reported 7% in 2010 (95% CI: 5-10).1 As expected, food to fear of deportation.” insecurity has the biggest impact on residents in lower-Food bank staff income brackets. Thirty-nine percent (39%) (95% CI: 2752) of respondents earning less than $15,000 a year reported food insecurity compared to 3% (95%CI: 2-8) of those earning $75,000 a year or more. Among low-income (<312% FPL) Seattle families participating in the child cohort (SeaSAW) study, more than half (51%) reported food insecurity; a slightly higher percentage (58%) reported that it was hard for them to buy healthy food. Examining the food security gap, we learned that an estimated 10,442 individuals face food insecurity in Seattle, yet do not quality for SNAP benefits. The number of visits to King County food banks for 2018 (2,202,879) is 63,740 more than it was in 2008 (2,139,139) at the peak of the recession and the number of older adults (55+) using food banks has increased.2 160 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 88 Staff described noticing increases in specific demographics at their food bank, particularly among clients experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, as well as older adults. In addition to an increasing number of food bank visits by older adults in King County, this is also seen in the rates of basic food participation. Among Seattle residents ages 65+, basic food participation has more than doubled from 5,920 people in 2008 to 10,964 people in 2017.3 As described in Section 4 of this report, by using our annual data on Basic Food participation as a proxy for food insecurity, we suspect that, as with Basic Food participation, food insecurity among Seattle’s older adults may be continuing an ascent that began “Our limited hours can make it stressful or feel more than 15 years ago and is not occurring with any competitive for visitors. We’re open 8 hours a other age group. For those living on a fixed income in a week to serve 1,000 visitors which makes it city experiencing an economic and population boom, difficult to replenish food or offer personalized increased costs of healthcare and housing could attention. Expanding hours would improve exacerbate the risk of food insecurity. Food bank staff access but require more staffing and potentially in Seattle are also seeing increased number of clients more food. Our home delivery program has had traveling from further south, some whom have a waitlist for years. We don’t have capacity to recently had to move outside of the city limits. Staff meet the need of home-bound folks attribute this change to a lack of resources for experiencing hunger in our neighborhood.” homeless and older adults, as well as changes in the -Food bank staff cost of living and housing affordability in Seattle. The capacity of many food banks has not kept up with demand. As a result of resource constraints, well over half of all food banks (65%) reported having to reduce the variety of food offered and 41% reported having to reduce the volume. Sixty percent (60%) saw a rise in people utilizing their food bank over the last year and among those that reported a rise in visits to their food bank, many (39%) have seen their funding levels stay the same or decrease. Within the last year, the majority (84%) of survey respondents reported having difficulties securing predictable and long term funding, finding opportunities to apply for, and funding for non-food operational expenses. Most survey respondents (79%) also experienced difficulty managing labor-intensive fundraising activities and events. When food bank staff were asked if they were interested in expanding their food distribution, the majority (82%) said they would like to. However, in order to do so many noted requisite operational resources, namely staffing, vehicles, food donations, funding, and space. IN THEIR OWN WORDS: WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO CLIENTS Individuals who rely on local food banks shared what is and is not working well. Three primary messages were echoed throughout our discussions with clients: the importance of dignity, availability of quality food, and convenient access. A dignified experience It was clear during discussions that the atmosphere in which food is provided is as important as the food itself. Clients were quick to share the impact food bank staff and volunteers have by creating a sense of community and treating them like customers. The physical space was also a frequent topic, with clients describing how much more welcoming a food bank seems when it is spacious, clean, and organized. Staff echoed this from their perspective, pointing out that the buildings themselves cannot be welcoming, comfortable, or respectful when they are in poor condition. 161 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 89 Experiences at the food bank are especially positive when “Just the whole grocery style, having more the distribution process is orderly and allows clients to dignity, not being alienated. Being able to make their own selections. Clients made this clear; dignity pick out what you want and not feel like goes hand in hand with having choice over food items. you’re just some number in a line or the next Those who had been through a grocery store design, person that they’re waiting for. It’s a lot more described a process that felt less alienating. In situations dignified than being handed a box” where food limits or other rules need to be communicated, – Food bank client (Council District 4) clients note that this too can be done in a dignified way. They suggested using simple and large graphics so that everyone can still understand the message regardless of language, literacy, or vision capabilities. This change, clients said, could have prevented situations where they had been confused and felt ashamed after being asked to put items back. Consistent availability of quality food Another high priority for food bank clients was that the food be consistently safe to eat and include nutritious options. Overall, clients were very grateful and positive about food options available in food banks, pointing out that many improvements had already been made in recent years. However, many also brought up challenges with food safety, particularly long expired items, rotting produce, or moldy baked goods. This was especially frustrating in the context of carrying heavy bags home only to find much of the food inedible. Some described having to choose between the risk of food sickness and hunger, a choice that is especially difficult when living outside. Clients want to see consistent availability of staples like eggs, potatoes, tomatoes, and canned goods. There is also a strong emphasis on the value of healthy foods like fresh fruits, vegetables, and low-sodium proteins. Multiple clients also brought up a request for cooking necessities, like oil, spices, and dish soap. This was confirmed by survey results where staff ranked their most frequent requests from clients. In order, these included proteins (meat, meat alternatives), dairy (milk, butter, cheese), fresh produce, eggs, prepared/non-cook foods and oils. Convenient access Lastly, clients focused on the importance of easy access, emphasizing a need for low barrier eligibility, expanded hours of operation, and home deliveries. One group highlighted their appreciation for minimum eligibility requirements, in particular not requiring proof of address or qualifying zip code. Older adults in particular wanted to highlight what a difference it made to have chairs provided while “You know what was unpleasant? When there were waiting in line. Most also thought their food bank no chairs, benches, and there were crowds, and we had close proximity to bus routes allowing them to had to stand outside, sometimes under the rain. And get to the food bank easily. However, access to there are a lot of disabled people. The fact that they food banks could be improved in different ways. placed chairs and benches is a really big deal, a great Anyone experiencing a physical limitation or help. Now you can sit and move with the line. When bringing food for a large family faced significant there were crowds it was not good, it was really obstacles getting home with food if walking or uncomfortable.” taking multiples buses. Clients were enthusiastically supportive of home delivery -Food bank client (Council District 5) programs where they existed, while those that did -Food bank client (District 3) schedule with not have them requested their food bank start one. Clients also valued having a weekly consistent days of operation, and varied distribution hours to accommodate the different times of day people were available. Some pointed out that food had actually been easier to get when experiencing 162 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 90 homelessness or unemployment. Limited food bank hours made it more difficult once they found a job, yet they were still struggling to cover the cost of food. Many noted that weekend access was lacking and hours that extended before and after rush hour were also helpful. WHERE DO WE SEE GAPS IN ACCESS? Seventy-one percent (71%) of survey respondents reported “It’s useful to be open on Friday because having to turn people away, although infrequently. The basically, I know at least from Friday until most common reason for this was due to the distribution maybe Tuesday or Wednesday I will have site being closed. Potential gaps in access to food banks can food. Most places are not open on the be seen in how hours of distribution fall across days of the weekends so from Friday [on], you want to week and time of day by Council District. It is important to ensure you can make it at least through the note that the hours which food banks are distributing food weekend if not a little longer.” is not the only measure of access, capacity, or impact. This was the indicator we had the most complete data for but it -Food bank client (Council District 3) is a one-dimension snapshot of access. Total hours of distribution does not take into account other important aspects of access like amount of food, quality of food, or number of people served. Additionally, while reporting data at the Council Districts helps to provide more detail, we recognize that these particular geographic boundaries may not accurately capture which food banks are the most convenient. The results from this gap analysis provide an important, though incomplete picture of access. Access by day of the week across Seattle and Council Districts Examining hours of distribution across days of the week allows for a detailed picture of access. As seen in Table 1, Saturday through Tuesday have the lowest total number of food bank hours open for distribution. Weekends offer very few opportunities anywhere for residents to get food, with no hours available anywhere on Sunday. 163 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 91 Access by time of day across Seattle and Council Districts We see additional gaps in access, when examining distribution hours by time of day across Council Districts. As seen in Table 2, the most common distribution hours are midday (11 - 2 PM), with the fewest hours available during the evening (5 - 8 PM). Analysis of this data by Council District reveals there are very minimal hours open during the morning (8 – 11 AM) for those in Districts 4, 5, and 6. Only a few hours are open for food distribution each week during the afternoon (2-5 PM) in Districts 1 and 5 and very few options exist in the evenings for clients who live in Districts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Comparing Council Districts by distribution availability and level of adult food insecurity Figure 2 shows how Council Districts rank by the number of food bank hours available per 1,000 adult residents experiencing food insecurity in each District. This helps to see whether food bank resources align with need. This measure does not account for close proximity to food banks over District boundaries. Geographically, we see the fewest hours of food bank distribution according to need in Districts 5, followed by Districts 4 and 2. District 5 only has 1.7 hours per 1,000 adults experiencing food insecurity, compared to District 3 which has over 3 times the number of hours. Since food bank clients do not shop within Council Districts this ranking does not perfectly represent access. Food banks that are physically located in one Council District have defined service areas that include zip codes of another District. This is not to say that Council Districts with more resources are oversaturated as it is important to consider the context of locations. For example, we know District 3 includes the downtown area, with a high concentration of resources and foot traffic making it a convenient area for many accessing food banks. However, this does show strong support for the conclusion that those who are food insecure and live in District 5 or 4 will likely have more difficulty finding an open food bank near them. 164 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 92 OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO QUALITY FOOD There are existing opportunities where access could be made more equitable, and overall effectiveness and efficiency of the network improved. The recommendations provided here reflect the priorities expressed by food bank clients and staff. They are the key findings that were consistently found throughout our analyses but will not necessarily have the same significance for each distinct food bank. Improving coordination across the food bank network Some noted the network as a whole could be more efficient by increased coordination. Food banks could align policies so that they are consistent in eligibility requirements and visit limits. Staff noted that food banks should either have fewer geographic limits but more visitation limits (food banks accept all zip codes but only one visit per week) or allow more visitation access per service area. This would help to ensure that hours of operation and location are accessible across the city. Some note that collaborating as a network would be useful to collectively focus on the root causes of hunger and collaborate on a system-wide solution. This starts with more inter-agency communication, touring each other’s facilities, and sharing ideas. Improving cultural relevancy of healthy food Providing food that is more culturally relevant to the service population is an important way food banks can improve equitable access and reduce waste. Increased discretionary funds for food purchasing would allow food banks to more easily attain food items in good condition and that reflect the preferences of their service population. Heavy reliance on outside donations or food rescue can pose challenges by reducing selection, quality, and consistent availability. One of the top reasons food banks report having to throw out spoiled food is because it was not a popular item. Staff also struggle to secure nutritionally dense non-cook foods, to “I would say it’s less having enough food than it’s having the right kind of food. And when you rely on the donations, that’s hard. Which is why we say purchasing budget, because that’s what gives the organization the autonomy. When you rely on whatever service and Food Lifeline and grocery stores you’re at their mercy to get whatever they have.” -Food bank staff 165 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 93 offer homeless clients who don’t have access to a kitchen. Food banks would like to increase or start offering certain categories of food, while decreasing others as shown in Table 3 and 4. While food banks in Seattle make concerted efforts to stay aware of client needs, preferences, and dietary restrictions this can be difficult when client populations are continually changing. More consistent surveying of clients would allow for closer monitoring of what foods people are requesting. Table 3. Top categories food banks want to increase Category Oils, dressings, sauces Percent want to increase 88% Table 4. Top categories food banks want to decrease Category Processed breads Percent want to decrease 53% Spices 82% Soda, sugary drinks 47% Fresh fruits veg Eggs Dairy Tofu, meat alternatives Nuts, nut butters 77% 77% 71% 71% 65% Baked pastry/ dessert 47% Increasing client choice Food banks can provide a more dignified experience for clients “Would love to initiate a grocery store by offering as much choice as possible. Some are trying to do model but we are limited by space this in different ways; shifting to a grocery store shopping constraints. As service numbers continue model, using preference cards, or offering vouchers to a local to grow, we are also straining to meet Co-op. The majority of survey respondents (68%) provide food the demand for fresh proteins, especially onsite through a standard Client Choice model, while some meat and dairy options.” (28%) apply a Client Choice model through a grocery store design. Only one food bank provided food through the Pre-Food bank staff Packed model. Staff and clients state that this re-design is improving morale by providing more dignity and choice, though making this change requires significantly more space and a different layout. While many food banks would like to transition to this model, they need the square footage and/or a remodel to do so. Investments in operational costs Staff have identified specific changes needed at their specific food bank, such as changing their distribution model, expanding hours, or increasing the volume of food. Capacity to create changes to improve food access relies on funding to cover fundamental operational expenses like personnel and space, as well as refrigeration, and vehicles. When asked where they would allocate additional funding, food bank staff focused on four major funding priorities: staffing, better food selection, changing distribution models, and increased space. Food selection and distribution models are addressed above. This section focuses on the costs of staffing and space. 166 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 94 Staffing “Staffing’s huge. Our goal is to be open Food banks have an average of 3 paid full-time staff members seven days a week eventually, but it’s and 1.5 part-time staff members. Over a quarter (27%) of always good to have two staff members survey respondents operate without full-time staff. Food banks on hand. My hugest challenge is finding utilize volunteers, reporting an average of 52 volunteers each staff—if you interview or put an ad out, week. Although volunteers are an incredible asset for food you’re going to pay less than half of banks, it is challenging to rely on inconsistent volunteer labor. Seattle’s median income. You will not As many food banks noted, skilled staff recruitment and make Amazon money.” retention is especially difficult with low wages. The majority (78%) of survey respondents would like to increase their -Food bank staff staffing capacity, especially staff who are committed for a longer period of time and can provide specific types of expertise. Common staffing needs include volunteer coordinators, development managers, operations managers, event planners, drivers, warehouse managers, and procurement support. Food banks serve a diverse population with many non-English speaking clients, in particular Vietnamese, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese and Russian, and struggle to ensure that information is translated and that they have a way to provide their input as customers. Positions like the community connector are desired, especially multilingual staff to communicate with clientele. Building space When asked about challenges with operations, staff repeatedly brought up space constraints. Many described running out of space to store food and to process clients. This has limited the capacity to accept more food, provide on-site resource connections, and to convert to a grocery store model. Having more space would increase capacity, but it would also create a more trauma-informed experience. According to staff, when the distribution space is crowded it can be very stressful for clients. Due to Seattle’s economic boom and the high demand for space, staff report that existing sites and parking space are in jeopardy. Mobile and targeted food distribution Many food banks recognize an opportunity to expand their reach and become more responsive, resourceful, and efficient through their delivery systems. As many emphasized, more coordination across the network of food banks would be useful to align their policies and match access to need. Most procure and deliver food through third-party delivery or staff utilizing their own vehicles. However, many also report relying on volunteers who utilize their own vehicles. The majority of food banks are distributing food to or from off-site locations through various modes such as home delivery, mobile popup food banks, satellite locations, or another agency. 167 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 95 This does not mean distribution sites should be “Maybe it doesn't have to necessarily be that eliminated but that better transportation systems everyone goes the extra mile of getting [food] are a critical part of accessibility. Food banks can exactly to [a client’s] door. Maybe it is just getting it more easily deliver food in targeted ways; someplace that is much more convenient for them. directing food to where it is most needed. Staff So maybe that's a mobile Food Bank out in a state they rely on volunteers and rented vehicles, parking lot, maybe that is finding a way to get them lacking consistent access to transport. Home groceries - getting it through their faith community delivery programs that deliver to home-bound or at a local community center something like that.” clients are especially popular among older adults -Food bank staff but often have a waitlist. Some staff believe that increased mobility is necessary for a targeted response and to increase food rescue. These systems would allow staff to identify the best, most convenient locations for delivery so that food is brought closest to those whose needs and obstacles are greatest. As need continues to shift to new parts of the city, this is one way that food banks can be better equipped to respond. “How can we be reflective and thoughtful about the work that we do so that it is less reactive and more strategic, more intelligent, more root-cause focused and more authentic? That’s where we struggle. How do you keep up with the day to day demands, the needs that we have just to get the work done, and then at the same time, create the space that we need as a community to come together to have the important conversations about with these next dollars, what do we do? Where is that right investment? Where are there holes? What do we need to be doing differently? How do we do a better job in having conversations with our customers? How do we do better at involving them in the planning of our work? I think that's our biggest challenge.” -Food bank staff DISCUSSION This assessment aimed to shed light on the ways the food bank network in Seattle could be improved to provide more equitable access for residents experiencing food insecurity. To do this we relied on both quantitative and qualitative data in order to capture the impact food banks are having in Seattle and ways they can better serve those facing food insecurity. While many food banks are experiencing an increase in demand, they feel limited in their ability to adequately meet this demand with current levels of funding and capacity. Results from this assessment confirms findings from the food insecurity analyses, identifying growing need among older adults and those experiencing homelessness – a population often not captured by population-based datasets. While exploring gaps in access across Council Districts we identified geographic areas where residents may have less access to food bank resources. We should also keep in mind that food banks themselves have disparate access to resources depending on the neighborhood. Neighborhood assets such as volunteers who have time to give, local businesses to host fundraisers or provide donations, and grocery stores to participate in food rescue, are not found in all neighborhoods. The finding showing limited hours on evenings and weekends may be worth exploring. Without further assessment, it is not clear if clients would come if food banks were to expand hours on evenings and weekends, times when schoolmeal programs are limited and individuals working traditional workweek schedules have more time to get to the food bank. 168 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 96 Key findings are as follows:    Equitable access involves giving clients choice over their food and consistently providing food that is good quality and relevant to needs. Foods banks would be able to increase food and target distribution more efficiently with better coordinated mobile systems to support procurement and delivery. Food banks need adequate staffing and space to better serve Seattle residents. These operational costs are fundamental to functioning efficiently and effectively. Limitations The findings of this assessment are subject to a number of limitations. First, the data collected came from convenience samples and were not representative samples. However, we would have expected much lower participation rates had we not had the ongoing collaboration and support from food bank staff, the City of Seattle Human Services Department, the Seattle Food Committee, the SBT Community Advisory Board, and others. Our response rate for the comprehensive survey was 75%, which demonstrates that not all food banks are represented in the survey results. An additional four food banks participated in an abbreviated version, bringing our total response rate to 93%. Key informant interviews gathered information from staff members who represented 48% of the food banks on our list, thus not capturing all food bank perspectives. The same occurred with our focus group discussions which targeted specific populations and may not have captured opinions representative of all food bank clients. Participants who were able to attend a focus group discussion are also likely to have been the individuals with more resources available to attend, such as time and transportation. Second, our data is subject to social desirability bias as food bank staff may want to describe their food bank positively (or alternatively as having deficits in order to encourage more support) and food bank participants may not want to provide negative feedback. This was especially apparent in certain focus groups where participants expressed feeling like they have no right to complain about a free resource. In these cases, the facilitator was trained to encourage honest, constructive feedback about the food bank. In one focus group a manager of the food bank chose to attend the discussion. Although the manager directly encouraged to the group to be honest, this may have impacted participants’ willingness to provide a candid critique. Third, the gap analysis used the total number of hours open for distribution per Council District. It is important to consider that this is only one measure and does not capture many other aspects of access. Some food bank staff emphasized that a need for new hours may not be equally relevant to each food bank. The gap analysis compared results by Council District but this does not capture which food banks are the most convenient to clients; residents do not access food banks exclusively in their Council District and some food banks are located close to the boundary of two council districts. Finally, without responses from all food bank providers, we were unable to expand the gap analysis to examine pounds of food distributed, individuals served, square footage of food banks, staffing capacity, and operating budgets. NEXT STEPS This report completes the scope of work specified in the Sweetened Beverage Tax (Ordinance 125324). Food bank providers suggested that future assessments should include 1) mapping density of zip codes served based on designated service areas and 2) updating the gap analysis with 2018 BRFSS data on 169 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 97 food insecurity rates. They also expressed hope that next steps will include allocating funds towards the needs identified through this assessment with modifications according to the profile of each food bank. 170 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 98 ADDENDUM – DETAILED METHODS FOR SECTION 5 METHODS Sample, Data Collection, Variables, and Descriptive Analysis The Food Bank Network Assessment relied on three components of primary data collection: key informant interviews, client focus group discussions, and the Food Bank Network Survey. Key informant interviews We interviewed 13 food bank staff members between June 28 and August 15, 2018. We conducted two two-hour group discussions in person, as well as four one-hour individual interviews over the phone. To obtain our sample of interviewees we sent an email to the Executive Director and/or Manager for each food bank on the SFC list inviting them to participate. The invitation provided a brief summary of the Food Bank Network Assessment, purpose of the interview, and eligibility criteria. Interviewees did not need to be in a specific leadership position, but were required to: 1) be currently employed at the Seattle-based food bank they intended to represent and 2) have at least three years of working experience in a Seattle-based food bank. Thirteen food banks agreed to participate which included representation of all seven council districts. The remaining food banks either did not respond or declined to participate due to schedule conflicts or ineligibility. Demographic data for the key informant sample are summarized in Appendix E – Item 2. Key informant interviews and discussions were facilitated by a PHSKC researcher. They began with a reminder of the purpose of the interview, a description of how the data would be used, as well as an opportunity to ask questions before providing consent. Each interview was audio recorded with permission and focused on the following topic areas: Food bank services and clientele, client needs, and food bank needs. The complete topic guide can be viewed in Appendix E – Item 3. Our primary aim in gathering qualitative data from the client and staff perspective was to explore ways food banks are addressing food insecurity and identify what opportunities exist for improvement. Recorded audio files were transcribed and when necessary, translated through Datagain Services. Audio files were deleted once the transcription was complete. Detailed notes were typed by a PHSKC researcher. Notes from interviews and discussions were double coded using Dedoose software and analyzed for major themes. Key informant interviews were double coded by MSW candidate interns and the focus group discussions were double coded by two PHSKC staff. The initial list of codes was created through an iterative process of development. The lead researcher first reviewed transcripts and created a codebook. Two coders separately applied these codes and met continually with the facilitator to make needed revisions until a refined codebook was agreed on by all. Since codes represent analytic categories from which to view and organize all narrative text, this process allows for the identification of all possible categories at the level of detail necessary. Coders independently re-applied the codes from the final codebook. Key themes were identified by the lead researcher and were shared with the Seattle Food Committee to collect feedback prior to finalization. Demographic information was analyzed through Stata, producing univariate summary statistics (Observations, Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum), as well as one-way frequency tables. Focus group discussions Seven focus group discussions were held between August 16 and September 5, 2018, and a total of 47 food bank clients participated. Food banks were invited based on their location, space availability, 171 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 99 service population demographics, and service capacity. In making this consideration, we sought to attain a diverse group of food banks to capture varied perspectives and experiences. We sent an email to the Executive Director and/or Manager of each food bank and invited them to participate in hosting a focus group discussion. The invitation provided a brief summary of the Food Bank Network Assessment and purpose of the discussion. Of the nine food banks invited, seven agreed to participate. One food bank declined due to a lack of time availability and one did not respond. Most food banks identified a priority population to recruit based on age and/or language spoken. This resulted in four non-English speaking groups (Vietnamese, Russian, Cantonese, and Spanish) and three English-speaking groups. Twenty-three percent (23%) of focus group participants identified their housing status as homeless, 83% did not have any full-time employment, and 70% were receiving basic food assistance (SNAP). Only 17% of participants had at least one child in the household, the majority (62%) were over the age of 59, while 26% were under the age of 30. Demographic data for the focus group sample are summarized in Appendix E – Item 4. Food bank staff recruited clients for the focus groups discussions, with support from PHSKC. PHSKC offered staff a flier to assist with recruitment, as well as a $200 honorarium to the food bank for their support. A copy of the topic guide was shared with food banks prior to the discussion to ensure that questions were appropriate. Some minor modifications were made as a result, including asking some questions one-on-one rather than in the group. This modification created a more comfortable setting for what some staff identified as potentially sensitive topics regarding their need for and use of services. PHSKC provided refreshments and gift card incentives ($30 to Safeway) for participants. Four of the discussions were facilitated by a trained bilingual facilitator and three by a PHSKC researcher. These discussions also began with an explanation of the purpose and how the data would be used, as well as answering participant questions before they gave consent. Five discussion groups were audio recorded with permission and detailed notes were taken for two discussion groups where participants did not want to be recorded. Questions focused on the following topic areas: Food bank services utilized, impressions of food bank experience, client needs, ease of access, and impact. The topic guide used for potentially sensitive topics and demographics can be viewed in Appendix E – Item 5 and the group discussion topic guide can be viewed in Appendix E – Item 6. Seattle Food Bank Network Survey Seventeen food bank respondents completed the Seattle Food Bank Network Survey and an additional eight completed some portion of it, a total of 25 or an 83% response rate. Only one survey was collected per food bank. The full version of the online survey was open from September 18 to October 26, 2018. An abbreviated survey was available from November 9 to November 21, 2018 to collect essential data from the remaining food banks missing from the sample. All 30 food banks considered to be within the Seattle food bank network received an email inviting them to participate, sent to the Executive Directors and/or Food Bank Manager. The invitation provided a brief summary of the Food Bank Network Assessment, purpose of the survey, and the survey link. The Food Bank Network Survey was designed using input from various stakeholders including food bank representatives, Seattle Human Services Department, SBT Community Advisory Board, UW Center for Public Health Nutrition, Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment and Seattle City Councilmembers. Scientific literature and grey literature were also reviewed, and the survey tool was informed by The San 172 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 100 Diego County Food Pantry Capacity Survey,4 the USDA Healthy Pantry Assessment Toolkit5 and the survey developed by Tarasuk et al.6 The survey tool was piloted by nine different food bank staff members. The pilots took place over the phone and participants were asked to describe how they interpreted and thought through each survey question. These pilots helped identify where questions were confusing and response options were incomplete, as well as where functionality of the online survey could be improved. The complete survey can be viewed in Appendix E – Item 7. The Food Bank Network Survey data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools7 hosted at the UW Institute of Translational Health Sciences. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies, providing: 1) an intuitive interface for validated data entry, 2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation, and export procedures, 3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages, and 4) procedures for importing data from external sources. REDCap at ITHS is supported by the National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1 TR002319. Survey data were extracted from RedCap and analyzed in Stata to perform a descriptive analysis. Openended responses were collated and examined for recurring themes. Continuous variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions, while categorical variables were summarized using univariate summary statistics (Observations, Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, Minimum, and Maximum), as well as one- and two-way frequency tables. Results reported here are based only on the data received from the survey respondents and therefore not representative of all 30 food banks. Gap analysis For the gap analysis included in this section we used data on the number of hours open for food distribution and population of adult food insecurity by Council District. Hours of operation for all 30 food banks was attained through the survey, as well as cross checking the SFC food bank directory and food bank websites. The total number of hours food banks are open for on-site distribution were calculated for each Council District. This included the limited number of hours where food bank distribution is restricted to specific populations based on age, disability, or families with children. Total hours were examined across Council Districts, day of the week, and time of day. This analysis also compared total hours to the estimated population count of adult food insecurity by Council District. The district-level population counts of adult (18+) food insecurity was calculated using the percent of adults experiencing food insecurity reported by the 2011-2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) data, applied to 2017 Washington State Office of Financial Management population estimates of people over 18. More information on these estimates is provided in Section 4 of this report. 173 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 101 References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Public Health Seattle-King County. Food insecurity (adults), King county (Average: 2010-2013). https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/data/community-health-indicators/behavioral-riskfactor-surveillance-system.aspx?shortname=Food insecurity Published 2018. Accessed August 1, 2018. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. Client Counts and Direct Service Expenditures: Economic Services Total; Basic Food Program. http://clientdata.rda.dshs.wa.gov/Home/ShowReport?reportMode=0. Accessed November 1, 2018. United States Department of Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution Program Tables (The Emergency Food Assistance Program). https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fooddistribution-program-tables. Accessed November 1, 2018. Schumann MJ, Trull C, Noack C. 2015 Food and Function: An Assessment of the Capacity of Food Pantry Programs in San Diego County. Caster Family Center for Nonprofit and Philanthropic Research, University of San Diego. 2015. https://digital.sandiego.edu/npi-foodsecurity/1 Regional Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Centers of Excellence; Western Region at Colorado State University. Healthy food pantry assessment toolkit. https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/library/materials/healthy-food-pantry-assessment-toolkit. Accessed November 1, 2018. Tarasuk V, Dachner N, Hamelin AM, Ostry A, Williams P, Bosckei E, Poland B, Raine K. A survey of food bank operations in five Canadian cities. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1);1234. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1234 Paul A. Harris, Robert Taylor, Robert Thielke, Jonathon Payne, Nathaniel Gonzalez, Jose G. Conde, Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support, J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81. 174 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 102 APPENDIX A EVALUATION TEAM STRUCTURE AND TEAM BIOGRAPHIES 175 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 103 APPENDIX A EVALUATION TEAM STRUCTURE AND TEAM BIOGRAPHIES SEATTLE'S SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX EVALUATION TEAM STRUCTURE The Seattle Office of the City Auditor established a contract with Public Health – Seattle & King County to complete the evaluation outlined in Section 5B of the Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance. The Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) Evaluation Team is comprised of academic researchers and public health practitioners which includes national experts on policy evaluation, food policy, obesity, sugary beverages and beverage taxes, dietary assessment, and assessment of beverage purchasing. Each organization listed here contributed to the overall study design and led different components of the report on healthy food availability and the food bank network: Public Health – Seattle & King County coordinated the research efforts, served as the point of contact with the City of Seattle, and led the work for all sections except section 3 on price and availability of healthy food in Seattle stores; the University of Washington co-led and coordinated the SBT Evaluation Team’s overall research efforts, served as the point of contact for national academic research advisors, and led the study on price and availability of healthy food in Seattle stores; Seattle Children’s Research Institute contributed to the design, analysis, and interpretation of findings. The Office of the City Auditor contributed to the study design, monitored progress, and served as the point of contact with the City Review Team (comprised of staff representing City Council, City Budget Office, Finance and Administrative Services, Executive Office, and City Departments, such as the Human Services Department and the Office of Sustainability and Environment) to review the methods and reports from the SBT Evaluation Team. BIOGRAPHIES Kaylin Bolt, M.P.H., M.S.W., M.Ed., is a Social Research Scientist at Public Health – Seattle & King County in the Assessment, Policy Development and Evaluation unit. She received her bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Calvin College, and her Master of Public Health and Social Work from Washington University in Saint Louis, as well as her Master of Education from the University of Missouri-Saint Louis. Ms. Bolt has held researcher and evaluator roles on projects funded by the Washington State Department of Health, Gates Foundation, NIH, CDC, Bloomberg Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Kellogg Foundation. She has worked primarily in public health research, program design and evaluation, most often through a mixed-methods approach. For this study, Ms. Bolt's role was to oversee the Food Bank Network Assessment efforts. In all components of the Food Bank Network Assessment, Ms. Bolt led the development of data collection tools (survey design, topic guides), implementation, analysis and synthesis of results. Louise Carter, Ph.D., is a social research scientist at Public Health – Seattle & King County in the Assessment, Policy Development and Evaluation unit. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in History from Wellesley College and a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from the University of Minnesota. She has worked as an academic researcher, a journalist, and as communications director for a policy research center at the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs. She also helped a Microsoft team put together an on-line resource on pregnancy, parenting, and child health. Her role as lead/coordinating writer for this report was informed by research on childhood obesity that she conducted with colleagues at the University of Washington. 176 Daniel Casey, M.P.H, is an epidemiologist at Public Health – Seattle & King County in the Assessment, Policy Development and Evaluation unit. He received his B.A. from the College of William and Mary and his Master of Public Health from the University of Washington. For this report, he developed, executed, and drafted the healthy food priority area analysis and provided cartography support for the rest of the report. Nadine Chan, Ph.D., M.P.H., is the Assistant Chief of the Assessment, Policy Development, and Evaluation unit at Public Health – Seattle & King County and Clinical Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine. She has published, led, and co-led studies evaluating cross-sector strategies to improve health equity. Her work includes mixed-method studies of complex policy and program interventions, including conducting natural experiments, to study changes in policies, systems, and environments and their impacts on health outcomes (e.g., evaluations of the King County menu labeling policy, the Partnerships to Improve Community Health initiative, Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative, and launch of the evaluation for the Best Starts for Kids Initiative.) As the Assistant Chief of Assessment, Policy Development, and Evaluation at Public Health - Seattle & King County, Dr. Chan provides oversight of a nationally recognized team of researchers responsible for community assessment and evaluation, and who routinely analyze population-level datasets and administrative program data. Dr. Chan’s work has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, King County, and City of Seattle. Dr. Chan received her undergraduate degree in cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley, masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, and completed a post-doctorate fellowship on cancer prevention disparities at the University of California in San Francisco. For this study, Dr. Chan co-leads the Evaluation Team with Dr. Jesse Jones-Smith and is the point of contact between the City of Seattle Office of the Auditor and the Evaluation Team. Dr. Chan coordinates and monitors the contracted research efforts; convenes and documents weekly Evaluation Team meetings; writes, reviews, and presents reports to the Office of the City Auditor as requested; serves as the point of contact with the SBT Community Advisory Board and the City Review Team; directly oversees the Public Health staff members working on the SBT evaluation, and contributes to the study design, writing and review of reports, publications, and presentations. Roxana Chen, Ph.D., M.P.H., is an Affiliate Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Services at the University of Washington and social research scientist at Public Health – Seattle & King County. Dr. Chen received her Master of Public Health in Behavioral Sciences and Health Promotion at the University of Illinois at Chicago and her Ph.D. in Health Services from the University of Washington. Her areas of research include chronic disease disparities and cross-sectoral strategies between health and housing to improve health. She has expertise in community-based participatory research and using mixed methods to evaluate community and population-level interventions. Dr. Chen attends weekly SBT Evaluation Team meetings and contributes to reports and publications about the SBT. For this report, Dr. Chen analyzed population-level data to estimate food insecurity among adults and school-aged youth in Seattle, and contributed to the writing of the section on food insecurity in Seattle. She also provided input on other components of the healthy food availability and food bank network assessments. 177 Jessica Jones-Smith, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.D., is an obesity epidemiologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Health Services (primary) and Epidemiology (joint) and a core faculty member of the Nutrition Sciences Program at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She holds an MPH in Public Health Nutrition from the University of California, Berkeley and a Ph.D. in Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, San Francisco and spent 4 years as an Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health before arriving at the University of Washington. Dr. Jones-Smith studies social, environmental, and economic causes and correlates of obesity risk. Specifically, her research focuses on investigating distal drivers of nutrition-related health inequities and follows three main lines: 1) investigating community and individual economic resources as causal factors in obesity-related health status; 2) evaluating the obesity-related impacts of health and social policies; and 3) documenting disparities in nutrition-related diseases based on socioeconomic factors and race/ethnicity, across the lifespan and in numerous populations. Dr. Jones-Smith has previously used a natural experiment approach to evaluate how increased economic resources stemming from the opening of Native American-owned casinos has impacted the weight related-health outcomes of Native American mothers and children. She has also recently evaluated the impacts of the economic recession on children’s BMI, the impact of a nationwide advocacy campaign on obesity-related legislation, and the impacts of the WIC package change on healthy food availability in Baltimore City. Her current approach combines public health nutrition and epidemiologic methods with econometric techniques to study these topics. Dr. Jones-Smith co-leads the overall evaluation with Dr. Nadine Chan and directly leads the SBT evaluation’s store audit component and co-leads the norms and attitudes component, and leads the food availability and pricing portion of the food access assessment, including leading study design, overseeing data collection and manuscript/report writing. She facilitates the weekly all-team meetings. She contributes to drafting, reviewing and editing study reports and documents. She is the main point of contact for external scientific advisors. Melissa Knox, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Washington and a Research Affiliate at the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology at UW. Dr. Knox received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley and was a Research Associate at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance before joining the Department of Economics. Her research focuses on using natural experiments and other econometric approaches to investigate the causal impact of health policies on household behavior, health care utilization, and health. Her research frequently concentrates on detecting the effects of these policies on the well-being of socially disadvantaged populations. She has previously studied Mexico’s health care sector, measuring the impact of that country's health care reform on a variety of health and labor market outcomes. Dr. Knox provides input on research design and data analysis, mainly for the adult survey and retail audit components of the evaluation. She also contributes to report writing for the project. Vanessa M. Oddo, Ph.D., M.P.H., is an Acting Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Services at the University of Washington School of Public Health. Dr. Oddo received her Master of Public Health in Public Health Nutrition from Tufts University and her Ph.D. in Nutrition from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She uses epidemiologic methods to investigate determinants of 178 obesity. Her main line of research investigates the role of employment status and working conditions on obesity and cardiovascular disease risk. Dr. Oddo co-leads the adult survey of norms and attitudes. She coordinates the data collection and analyses for the adult survey. She is also responsible for leading report and manuscript writing for the adult survey component of the evaluation, in collaboration with Dr. Jones-Smith and the SBT Evaluation Team. In addition, she provides input on the retail audit component of the SBT evaluation. Mary Podrabsky, M.P.H., R.D., is a Research Coordinator at the University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition (UW-CPHN), and Clinical Instructor in the Nutritional Sciences Program. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Food, Nutrition and Institution Management from Washington State University, and completed her dietetic internship at Rush Medical Center in Chicago, IL. Ms. Podrabsky received her Master of Public Health – Nutritional Sciences degree from the University of Washington. She is skilled in a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods and in her position at UW-CPHN, she has served as Research Coordinator and Project Manager for more than 20 nutrition and physical activity policy and environment-related research and evaluation projects. Ms. Podrabsky provides input on various aspects of evaluation implementation, as well as oversight of UW project budget and contract administration. Brian E. Saelens, Ph.D., is a Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington and Principal Investigator at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Dr. Saelens is trained as a clinical/health psychologist, with a bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Cornell University and a master’s and Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Saelens’ research interests include pediatric obesity treatment and prevention. His work examines strategies to improve the efficacy and reach of family-based weight management interventions for youth with already elevated weight status. He also explores how environmental factors and policies influence physical activity and eating behaviors in children and adults. He collaborates with community partners and local public health practitioners to help implement policy, systems, and environment change around healthy eating and active living in South King County. Dr. Saelens is a member of the King County Children and Youth Advisory Board for the Best Starts for Kids initiative. His research and evaluation work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, CDC, USDA, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He has authored over 200 peer-reviewed scientific publications. Dr. Saelens leads the child cohort component of Seattle's Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) evaluation and is responsible for leading report writing and other dissemination products for the child cohort component. He attends weekly Evaluation Team meetings. For this report, he contributed to the study design, data interpretation, and review of the final report. Abigail Schachter, M.P.H., is an epidemiologist at Public Health – Seattle & King County in the Assessment, Policy Development and Evaluation unit. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from Harvard University and a Master of Public Health in Health Behavior and Health Education from the University of Michigan. For this evaluation, Ms. Schachter’s role was to conduct the food security gap analysis and write the food gap section of the report. She also attended weekly SBT Evaluation Team meetings and contributed to the writing and review of the food security section of the report. 179 Myduc Ta, Ph.D., M.P.H., is an epidemiologist at Public Health – Seattle & King County in the Assessment, Policy Development and Evaluation unit. Dr. Ta received her undergraduate degree in biochemistry and cell biology from the University of California, San Diego; a Master of Public Health degree with an emphasis in epidemiology from the University of California, Los Angeles; and a doctoral degree in epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She completed a postgraduate CDC public health surveillance systems fellowship at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, WV and post-doctoral training in applied epidemiology as a CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Officer. As a former (class of 2008) CDC EIS Officer assigned to the Washington state Department of Health Non-infectious Conditions Epidemiology unit, Dr. Ta conducted quantitative and field investigations in the areas of: chronic disease risk factors (nutrition and physical activity), injury, and environmental health. In her current position she provides epidemiologic data analysis expertise and knowledge of surveillance systems in support of programmatic work on healthy eating and active living, youth health and well-being, and injury and violence prevention. This includes leading the analysis for a component of Public Health’s menu labeling evaluation and co-leading population-level data analysis to support final reporting for the CDC Community Transformation Grant. For this study, Dr. Ta oversaw the healthy food availability assessment that includes the following components: literature review of food access and summary of food assistance programs, mapping the food environment, and food insecurity and food security gap analyses. She led the development of the design and analysis plan, consulted on analyses of the population-level food insecurity and food security gap estimation, and provided input on the healthy food priority area analysis and food bank network assessment. Dr. Ta attends weekly SBT Evaluation Team meetings, provides population-level data to inform other SBT evaluation components, contributes to writing and reviewing of this report, and served as the practicum site supervisor for Ms. Yang. Lina Pinero Walkinshaw, M.P.H., is a Research Scientist at the University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition (UW CPHN). She received her bachelor’s degree in Sociology, Anthropology, and Spanish from Carleton College, and her Master of Public Health from the Community Oriented Public Health Practice program at the University of Washington. Ms. Pinero Walkinshaw has expertise in managing and conducting primary data collection efforts, and is skilled in qualitative and quantitative study implementation and data analysis. Her work focuses primarily on research and evaluation of policies and programs to support food access, food security, and health equity as it relates to nutrition. In coordination with Dr. Jones-Smith, Ms. Pinero Walkinshaw manages the retail audits portion of the SBT evaluation, and the food availability and pricing portion of the food access assessment. She provides input on study design, develops data collection protocols, manages retail audit (i.e. store survey) data collection, conducts analyses of retail audit, food availability and pricing data, and assists with report and manuscript writing. In addition, she provides input on the other evaluation components. Alicia Yang, R.D., is a practicum intern at Public Health – Seattle & King County in the Assessment, Policy Development, and Evaluation unit. She is a Master of Public Health candidate at University of Washington. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Food and Nutritional Sciences from Seattle Pacific University and completed her dietetic internship at Golden Gate Dietetic Internship. She attended weekly SBT Evaluation Team meetings, was responsible for conducting and summarizing the literature review on dimensions of food access as well as researching and synthesizing information on 180 principle food assistance programs and initiatives. Ms. Yang contributed to drafting the report sections on dimensions of food access and food assistance programs. In addition, she supported data analysis activities on food insecurity among adults. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is dedicated to the people who experience food insecurity, especially the many food bank network participants who made time to share their diverse perspectives with us. The Evaluation Team is especially grateful for the tremendous help we received from community and subject matter experts listed below. The assessment of the food bank network relied on generous participation of food banks in Seattle, the Seattle Food Committee, Frank Miranda, Sabrina Jones, Christina Wong (SBT Community Advisory Board), Joe Gruber, and Jennifer Muzia to inform and develop data collection materials, pilot test surveys, host focus group conversations; University of Washington graduate student interns Kayla Cody and Edsel Blanche, to conduct outreach and data coding; focus group facilitators: Sharissa Tojok (Cantonese facilitator), Kim Tran (Vietnamese facilitator), Lenny Orlov (Russian facilitator), and Gabriel Perez (Spanish facilitator); and DataGain Services for transcribing audio recordings. We appreciate the many food stores that were included in this study and for his help as a community liaison with Somali grocers for the retail audits, we would like to thank Mr. Abdullahi Jama. We would like to thank the City of Seattle staff who worked closely with the Evaluation Team to develop the study design or provided data support, including Natalie Thomson, Leslie Stewart, Liz Fikejs, Carol Cartmell, Bridget Igoe, Sharon Lerman, Priya Saxena, Katie Clemens, Fahima Mohamed, Brian Rosete, Pamela Calderon Maskara. From the University of Washington Urban Form Lab, Dr. Anne Vernez Moudon and Dr. Phil Hurvitz provided their list of categorized food businesses in King County. From Public Health – Seattle and King County, we would like to thank Alastair Matheson, Sara Jaye Sanford, Mariko Toyoji, and Lin Song for their analytic support, Gloria Albetta for copy-editing, and Joie McCracken (Hsu) for managing the production of this report. This report is funded by City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance 125324. 181 APPENDIX B SEATTLE HEALTHY FOOD SURVEY 182 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 110 Confidential SBT Store Census Page 1 of 2 Data Tracking Business ID - 6mo Enter Store ID Business Name Business Address, Full __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ (Type name from your store list. If store name has changed, record new name on your store list.) __________________________________ (Type address from your store list. If it's a new store, enter address from store building or Google.) Business City () Data Collection Date Data Collector Name Audit Start Time __________________________________ () __________________________________ () __________________________________ () Survey Completion Code () Survey Disposition Code () Did this store receive a $10 cash incentive? () Cash incentive receipt: Take photo of receipt, upload here 11/14/2018 9:37am Seattle Kent Auburn Federal Way Completed Partially Completed Not Started Not Eligible Temporarily not accessible Not safe Asked to leave / Observation not allowed by staff Not accessible for audit ( i.e. only clerk-assisted Does not meet study criteria (describe in notes) Store closed permanently Yes No () 183 projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Store Census Page 1 of 11 Groceries Business ID - 6mo __________________________________ Produce Banana () Price 1 lb Each None __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Red Delicious Apple 1 lb Each None () Price Sale __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Yes No 184 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 2 of 11 Sale Type Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Orange, cheapest 1 lb Each None () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No 185 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 11 Yellow Onions () Price 1 lb Each None __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Tomatoes (cheapest) 1 lb Each None () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx __________________________________ __________________________________ 186 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 11 Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Carrots, 1lb bag (cheapest) Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Broccoli, 1 bunch (cheapest) 1 lb Each None () Price Sale __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Yes No 187 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 5 of 11 Sale Type Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Green leaf lettuce, 1 head/bunch (cheapest) Yes lettuce head/bunch No lettuce at all No lettuce head/bunch, yes bag/box of lettuce () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No 188 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 11 Bakery White Bread (cheapest), 1 loaf () Price Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Whole Wheat Bread (cheapest), 1 loaf Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx __________________________________ __________________________________ 189 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 7 of 11 Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Eggs White Eggs (cheapest), 1 dozen () Price Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No Meat Ground meat fresh, >80% lean (cheapest) 1lb Type Yes No (Hierarchy: beef -> chicken/turkey -> pork Has to be MORE than 80% lean) Beef Chicken/turkey Pork 190 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 8 of 11 Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Cereal Frosted Flakes Cereal, 15 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ 191 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 9 of 11 For $xx.xx __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Original Cheerios Cereal, 12 oz Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No Rice Rice, unseasoned 1lb/16oz (cheapest) Yes rice 1lb container Yes rice but no 1lb container No rice (Heirarchy: Brown rice -> white rice, bag -> box Always pick 1lb unless there is none) Rice Type Brown Rice White Rice Rice Packaging Bag Box Rice Package Size in POUNDS (lbs) __________________________________ 192 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 10 of 11 Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No "Canned Beans, Unseasoned whole beans (no green beans)" Canned Beans, cheapest small can (14.5 - 15.5 oz) Bean type Price Yes No (Heirarchy: Black -> kidney -> garbanzo) Black beans Kidney beans Garbanzo beans __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx 11/14/2018 9:37am __________________________________ __________________________________ projectredcap.org 193 Confidential Page 11 of 11 Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? groceries time stamp __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No __________________________________ () 194 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential SBT Store Census Page 1 of 6 Snacks Business ID - 6mo __________________________________ Chips Lay's Regular Potato Chips, Salted 2.75 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Lay's Regular Potato Chips, Salted 10 oz Yes No Might be called Family Size Price () __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org 195 Confidential Page 2 of 6 Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Pringles Regular Potato Chips, Salted 2.36 oz Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Pringles Regular Potato Chips, Salted 5.2 oz Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) 196 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 3 of 6 Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No "Cookies, Original Oreos" Cookies, Original Oreos 2 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ 197 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org Confidential Page 4 of 6 Minimum purchase required? Yes No Cookies, Original Oreos 14.3 oz Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Little Debbie Honey Buns Little Debbie Honey Buns 3 oz () Price Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price 11/14/2018 9:37am __________________________________ projectredcap.org 198 Confidential Page 5 of 6 Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Little Debbie Honey Buns 10.6 oz Yes No () Price __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Sale Yes No Sale Type Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Minimum purchase required? Yes No Reese's Peanut Butter cups Reese's Peanut Butter cups 1.5 oz (2pk) () Price Sale 11/14/2018 9:37am Yes No __________________________________ (9999 = Not able to obtain price) Yes No 199 projectredcap.org Confidential Page 6 of 6 Sale Type Sale Price Buy #xx Get #xx For $xx.xx Minimum purchase required? snacks time stamp Reduced price Buy #x get #x Buy #x for $priceTOTAL Buy #x for $priceEACH Other __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Yes No __________________________________ () 200 11/14/2018 9:37am projectredcap.org APPENDIX C GROUND TRUTHING 201 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 129 APPENDIX C DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF GROUND-TRUTHING OF THE FOOD ENVIRONMENT OF 3 PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOODS The accuracy of the categorized food permit database versus an on-the-ground ground-truthing exercise. Data collectors drove 112 miles to ground-truth the Haller Lake, High Point, and South Park neighborhoods. In groundtruthing, data collectors identified a total of 72 eligible food establishments; 39 in Haller Lake, 23 in South Park, and 10 in High Point. The 2015 categorized food permit database included only 56 stores across these three neighborhoods. In addition to finding more stores than listed in the database (i.e. “false negatives”), data collectors were not able to find many stores that the database listed as present (i.e. “false positives”). Table 1 below displays the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and positive predictive value and sensitivity of the categorized food permit database across all stores types in the database, as well as only the stores types included in the SBT retail audit sample (which did not include traditional restaurants). The positive predictive value for all store types was 0.70, meaning that 70% (n=39) of the stores listed in the categorized food permit database were confirmed in the on-the-ground ground-truthing. The positive predictive value for only store types included in the SBT retail audit sample was slightly higher at 0.72, meaning that 72% of the stores listed in the database (n=28 true positives) were confirmed in ground-truthing. The categorized food permit database’s sensitivity was 0.54 for both all store types and SBT retail audit store types-only, meaning that the categorized food permit database successfully identified 54% of all stores present (n=72) in these three neighborhoods. These low positive predictive values and sensitivities are the result of high numbers of false positives (n=17 stores that were in the database, but not physically there during ground-truthing) and false negatives (n=33 stores missing from the database, but physically there during ground-truthing). The false positives could be the result of stores closing or moving, while the false negatives could be the result of new stores opening. Data collectors asked all 33 false negative stores when they opened; 11 (33%) verified that they had opened since 2015. The remaining 22 (67%) stated that they had opened prior to 2015; it is unclear why these 22 stores were not listed in the categorized food permit database. At the neighborhood level, the categorized food permit database was most accurate in the High Point neighborhood, correctly identifying 80% of all stores present (positive predictive value=1.00; sensitivity=0.80). In Haller Lake, the categorized food permit database correctly identified 56% of all stores present (positive predictive value=0.70; sensitivity=0.56), and in South Park the database correctly identified 39% of all stores present in the neighborhood (positive predictive value=0.50; sensitivity=0.39). Table 2 stratifies by store type the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and positive predictive value and sensitivity of all stores in the categorized food permit database. The categorized food permit database has higher accuracy for grocery-type food stores, as compared to prepared foods (grocery-type food stores positive predictive value=0.83, sensitivity=0.71; prepared foods positive predictive value=0.68, sensitivity=0.51). This means that the database successfully identified 71% of all grocery-type food stores in the neighborhoods, and 51% of all prepared foods. The database only successfully identified 17% of all coffee shops in the neighborhoods (positive predictive value=0.25, sensitivity=0.17). These results may mean that analyses conducted using the categorized food permit database underestimate the availability of both healthy and unhealthy food stores in Seattle. 202 Table 1. Accuracy of the 2015 categorized food permit database compared to an in-person on-the-ground assessment (“ground-truthing”) of all food establishments in three Seattle neighborhoods—Haller Lake, High Point, and South Park.1 Public Health food establishment Public Health food establishment permit database, permit database, only store types all store types categorized by the included in the UW Urban Form Lab SBT Evaluation Sample List Neighborhood Neighborhood Haller High South Haller High South Overall Overall 2 2 Lake Point Park Lake Point Park All stores in Number of stores in permit database, pre-ground56 30 8 18 39 20 6 13 database truthing Stores on the list and confirmed during groundTrue positives3 39 22 8 9 28 16 6 6 truthing Stores that are on the list, but not physically there False positives during ground-truthing (e.g., stores that closed or 17 8 0 9 11 4 0 7 moved) Stores missing from the list, but physically there False negatives 334 17 2 14 24 11 2 11 during ground-truthing (e.g., new stores identified) Positive True positives / (true positives + false positives) 0.70 0.73 1.00 0.50 0.72 0.80 1.00 0.46 predictive value Sensitivity True positives/ (true positives + false negatives) 0.54 0.56 0.80 0.39 0.54 0.59 0.75 0.35 1Food banks, farmers markets, and catering companies, as well as stores categorized as “closed” by the UW Urban Form Lab, were excluded from this analysis. store was categorized as both a false positive and false negative. It was a false positive because it was not at the location listed on permit list; it was also coded as false negative because a store with this exact name from the permit list was found at a different address, within Haller Lake, than the permit list had specified. 3True positives include exact matches (exact name, address, and store type match), close matches (exact address and store type matches, but names that differ while suggesting the same store, e.g., Haller Lake Food Shop and Haller Lake Market), and lenient matches (exact address and store type matches, but store type names are different while suggesting the same products for sale, e.g., South Seattle Market and M&J Mart). 4Data collectors called all 33 of these stores to determine when they opened; 11 of these 33 stores confirmed that they had opened since 2016. 2One 203 Table 2. Accuracy of the 2015 categorized food permit database by store type in three Seattle neighborhoods— Haller Lake, High Point, and South Park. # of stores in Positive permit database, True False False Store type predictive Sensitivity5 pre-groundpositives1 positives2 negatives3 value4 truthing Grocer-type food stores 18 15 3 6 0.83 0.71 Supermarkets 2 0 2 0 0 N/A Warehouse/superstore 1 1 0 0 1.00 1.00 Grocery stores 1 1 0 1 1 0.50 Small stores 13 12 1 5 0.92 0.71 Drug stores 1 1 0 0 1.00 1.00 Prepared foods 34 23 11 22 0.68 0.51 Fast food 5 5 0 0 1.00 1.00 Quick-service 12 7 5 12 0.58 0.37 Traditional restaurants 17 11 6 10 0.65 0.52 Coffee 4 1 3 5 0.25 0.17 1Stores on the list and confirmed during ground-truthing that that are on the list, but not physically there during ground-truthing (e.g., stores that closed or moved) 3Stores missing from the list, but physically there during ground-truthing (e.g., new stores identified) 4True positives / (true positives + false positives) 5True positives/ (true positives + false negatives) 2Stores 204 APPENDIX D DATA SOURCES OF UW CPHN SNAP-ELIGIBLE DATA 205 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 133 APPENDIX D DATA SOURCES OF UW CPHN SNAP-ELIGIBLE DATA The table below summarized each of the three data sources pooled for the analysis of food insecurity among Seattle SNAP-eligible participants. Details about the methods for each survey comprising the data source are available from links to published report or peer reviewed journal articles provided in the “Citations” column. For the Seattle-specific analyses, the sample was predominately a convenience sample of SNAPeligible adults accessing some type of service (e.g. healthcare, food bank, or Fresh Bucks nutrition incentive). Data Source Year/s Language Sample Fresh Bucks/PICH Evaluation 2014, 2015, 2017 English, a few other languages but not consistently This is a convenience sample of Fresh Bucks program participants. HFAP/PICH Evaluation 2016 English & Spanish This is a combination of (1) a convenience sample of Fresh Bucks, PICH Farm Stand, or PICH Good Food Bag program participants, and (2) a convenience sample of nonprogram Location Seattle/King County location determined by recruitment site (e.g., if they shopped at a Seattle vs. non-Seattle farmers market). Seattle/King County location determined by zip code. Data Source Purpose Fresh Bucks evaluation, funded by City of Seattle OSE in 2014 and PICH 20152017 Healthy Food Access Programs evaluation, funded by PICH Notes Some individuals in these two datasets across years may be repeats. When recruiting and surveying at markets, a few individuals let us know they had done surveys with us in prior years. Citations Center for Public Health Nutrition. (2014). 2014 Fresh Bucks Evaluation. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://www.freshbuckseattle.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/2014-FreshBucks-Evaluation-FullReportFINAL.pdf Bradford, V., Quinn, E., Walkinshaw, L.P., Rocha, A., Chan, N., Saelens, B., & Johnson, D. (2018). Fruit and Vegetable Access Programs and Consumption in Low-Income Communities. Journal of Hunger and Envionmental Nutritio. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2018.14 98819 206 Data Source Year/s Language Sample Location Data Source Purpose Notes Citations These Seattle and King County data are a subset of a statewide sample. Walkinshaw, L. P., Quinn, E. L., Rocha, A., & Johnson, D. B. (2018). An Evaluation of Washington State SNAP-Ed Farmers’ Market Initiatives and SNAP Participant Behaviors. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50(6), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2018.01.003 Ritter, G., Walkinshaw, L. P., Quinn, E. L., Ickes, S., & Johnson, D. B. (2018). An Assessment of Perceived Barriers to Farmers’ Market Access. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavio. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2018.07.020 participants, e.g., individuals recruited at community sites. SNAP-Ed Evaluation 2016 English & Spanish This is a stratified random sample of SNAP recipients in Seattle and King County. Seattle/King County location determined by zip code. Washington State SNAPEd Farmers Market Access Evaluation, funded by WA DOH/USDA 207 APPENDIX E FOOD BANK NETWORK ANALYSIS APPENDIX ITEMS 208 HEALTHY FOOD AVAILABILITY & FOOD BANK NETWORK REPORT Page 136 APPENDIX E FOOD BANK NETWORK ANALYSIS APPENDIX ITEMS ITEM 1 – FOOD BANK NETWORK LIST Council District Food Bank Paradise of Praise West Seattle Food Bank 1 Providence Regina House White Center Food Bank *Not technically in Seattle but assigned to D1 and included in survey data collection because serves many who live in Seattle. 2 3 4 5 6 7 El Centro de la Raza Rainier Valley Food Bank St. Vincent de Paul Asian Counseling & Referral Service Jewish Family Service Byrd Barr Place YWCA The Food Bank at St. Mary's Seattle Indian Center Cherry Street Food Bank FamilyWorks Blessed Sacrament University District Food Bank North Helpline: Lake City North Helpline: Bitter Lake Epic Life Church - The Giving Room Bethany Community Church Phinney Ridge Lutheran Church Greenwood Food Bank Ballard Food Bank Puget Sound Labor Agency Immanuel Community Services Pike Market Senior Center Queen Anne Food Bank at Sacred Heart The Salvation Army Excluded from map, gap analysis, and staffing averages Excluded from Assessment Excluded from Assessment Chicken Soup Brigade Excluded from Assessment Filipino Community of Seattle *Excluded because food distribution occurs primarily through delivery and requires predetermined eligibility based on income, residence, and health/ diagnoses. Website http://www.paradiseofpraise.org/ http://www.westseattlefoodbank.org/ https://washington.providence.org/supportive-housing/reginahouse/ https://www.whitecenterfoodbank.org/ http://www.elcentrodelaraza.org/ http://www.rvfb.org/ http://svdpseattle.org/ https://acrs.org/ http://www.jfsseattle.org/ https://byrdbarrplace.org/ https://www.ywcaworks.org/ https://www.thefbsm.org/ http://seattleindian.org/ http://www.northwestharvest.org/cherry-street-food-bank https://www.familyworksseattle.org/ http://www.blessed-sacrament.org/outreach/ http://www.udistrictfoodbank.org/ http://www.northhelpline.org/ http://epiclifechurch.org/ http://www.churchbcc.org http://prlc.org/ https://www.familyworksseattle.org/ http://www.ballardfoodbank.org/ http://www.pugetsoundlaboragency.org/ http://www.icsseattle.org/ http://www.pmfb.org/ https://www.qafb.org/ https://northwest.salvationarmy.org/northwest_division/curehunger/ http://www.lifelong.org/chicken-soup-brigade/ Highline Area Food Bank *Excluded because food distribution occurs outside of city limits. https://highlineareafoodbank.org/ Spiritual Miracles Food Bank *Excluded because food distribution occurs outside of city limits. *Excluded because food distribution is through a small operation and not member of SFC. 209 https://www.filcommsea.org/ Excluded from Assessment Salvation Army White Center *Excluded because food distribution occurs outside of city limits and is restricted to White Center residents. http://www.tsawhitecenter.org/ ITEM 2 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY Position Title 6 Executive Directors 6 Managers or Coordinators Total # of years at food bank .5 to 17 years (average of 6) Total # of years at a Seattle food bank 5 to 20 years (average of 9) Race / Ethnicity 100% White / Caucasian (13 total) Gender 55% female (7) 46% males (6) ITEM 3 - KEY INFORMANT TOPIC GUIDE Introductions & Opener 1. Can you state your name, your position title and how long you have been with _______ Food Bank? Food Bank Services and Clientele 2. Great, and can you briefly describe the services and programs you offer? Prompt: Backpack programs, food delivery, other programs or services? 3. Can you describe the population your food bank serves? Prompts: Demographic breakdown? Languages spoken? Immigrant / refugee status? Are there eligibility requirements? Do most clients live nearby? Housing status? Age? Family sizes? How has your service population changed over time? (At your individual food bank but also feel free to speak to the Seattle area at large.) Prompts: Have demographics changed? Language of clients? Number of clients or demand? How have their needs changed (food or non-food)? Family sizes? What do you see as being the strengths of what___ food bank provides and how it provides it? What do you think the strengths are of the food bank network as a whole in Seattle? Prompts: What is going well? 4. 5. Food Bank Client Needs 6. How easy do you think it is for current or potential clients to access your food bank? (This includes transportation, location, hours, language support services, outreach and awareness of food bank.) Prompts: What makes it easy or difficult? (Follow up: Across Seattle, how easy do you think it is for people to access food banks? Are there areas more or less easy to access than others?) 7. What do you think would make the food bank more accessible? (What about the food bank network?) 8. For the frequency and quantity of food that is distributed by your food bank, how well are you able to meet your community’s food security needs? (How well do you think the network is able to do this?) Prompts: What gets in the way? What makes it difficult? What would you need to better meet those needs? 210 9. 10. 11. Now thinking about nutrition and dietary needs, how well do you think you are able to meet your community’s nutritional needs? (How well do you think the network is able to do this?) Prompts: What gets in the way? What makes it difficult? What would you need to better meet those needs? From what you know about the demographics of your community, how well do you think you are able to meet your client’s cultural identify and food preference needs? (How well do you think the network is able to do this?) Prompts: What gets in the way? What makes it difficult? What would you need to better meet those needs? How does your food bank stay aware of client’s needs? Prompts: What type of data is collected and how frequently? How are those findings used? Food Bank Needs 12. What is the biggest struggle for your food bank? (What would you say the biggest struggle is for the network as a whole?) Prompts: What are the areas where you feel your food bank could improve? What do you need to be able to do that? What are some things that are currently not funded at your food bank that you wish were? Food Banks and Root Causes 13. Can you briefly describe your food bank’s direct service strategy for helping people get to a place where they no longer need to rely on food banks for food, for example: case management, referrals to supportive services (housing, job training, etc.)? Prompts: ASK if no strategies: Why not? 14. ASK if implementing strategies: How effective do you think these strategies are? Why or why not? What would make them more effective? Can you briefly describe your food bank’s involvement in any policy efforts aimed at addressing root causes of hunger, such as housing, health care, wages, anti-poverty efforts? Prompts: ASK if not engaged in policy efforts: Why not? ASK If engaged in policy efforts: How successful do you think these policy efforts are? Why or why not? What would make them more successful? Closing Question 15. How do food banks in Seattle currently collaborate? Prompts: What opportunities do you think there are to further these collaborations? ITEM 4 - FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY Age 29 and under 30-44 45-59 60-74 75+ Total: Frequency 12 2 4 18 11 47 Percentage (%) 25.53 4.26 8.51 38.3 23.4 100 Cum. (%) 25.53 29.79 38.3 76.6 100 211 Household Size 1 or 2 3 or more Total: Frequency 34 13 47 Percentage (%) 72.34 27.66 100 Cum. (%) 72.34 100 Number of children (<18 yrs) in household At least 1 Did not answer No children Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 8 3 36 47 17.02 6.38 76.6 100 17.02 23.4 100 HH Income: Receive Social Security Disability (SSI, SSDI) Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 32 12 46 4.35 69.57 26.09 100 4.35 73.91 100 HH Income: Full-time employment Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 39 6 47 4.26 82.98 12.77 100 4.26 87.23 100 HH Income: Part-time employment Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 39 6 47 4.26 82.98 12.77 100 4.26 87.23 100 HH Income: TANF Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency 2 39 6 47 Percentage (%) 4.26 82.98 12.77 100 Cum. (%) 4.26 87.23 100 HH Income: Unemployment Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 42 3 47 4.26 89.36 6.38 100 4.26 93.62 100 HH Income: Child Support Did not answer No Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 45 47 4.26 95.74 100 4.26 100 212 HH Income: General Assistance (GAU) Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 42 3 47 4.26 89.36 6.38 100 4.26 93.62 100 HH Income: Veterans Pension / Disability Did not answer No Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 45 47 4.26 95.74 100 4.26 100 HH Income: Social Security Disability (SSI, SSDI) Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 37 8 47 4.26 78.72 17.02 100 4.26 82.98 100 HH Income: None Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency 2 31 14 47 Percentage (%) 4.26 65.96 29.79 100 Cum. (%) 4.26 70.21 100 Housing: Own Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency 1 40 6 47 Percentage (%) 2.13 85.11 12.77 100 Cum. (%) 2.13 87.23 100 Housing: Rent, Subsidized (SHA, LIHI) Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 1 24 22 47 2.13 51.06 46.81 100 2.13 53.19 100 Housing: Rent, Unsubsidized Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 1 40 6 47 2.13 85.11 12.77 100 2.13 87.23 100 Housing: Senior housing Did not answer Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 1 2.13 2.13 213 No Yes Total: 42 4 47 89.36 8.51 100 91.49 100 Housing: Homeless Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency 1 35 11 47 Percentage (%) 2.13 74.47 23.4 100 Cum. (%) 2.13 76.6 100 If Homeless: Shelter Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency 1 40 6 47 Percentage (%) 2.13 85.11 12.77 100 Cum. (%) 2.13 87.23 100 If Homeless: Encampment Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 1 44 2 47 2.13 93.62 4.26 100 2.13 95.74 100 If Homeless: Vehicle Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency 1 45 1 47 Percentage (%) 2.13 95.74 2.13 100 Cum. (%) 2.13 97.87 100 Receive basic food (SNAP / Food stamps) Did not answer No Yes Total: Frequency Percentage (%) Cum. (%) 2 12 33 47 4.26 25.53 70.21 100 4.26 29.79 100 Race / Ethnicity AIAN Asian or Asian American Black Did not answer Hispanic Other White Total: Frequency 2 20 Percentage (%) 4.26 42.55 Cum. (%) 4.26 46.81 4 1 9 2 9 47 8.51 2.13 19.15 4.26 19.15 100 55.32 57.45 76.6 80.85 100 Gender Identity Did not answer Female Male Non-binary Frequency 2 20 23 2 Percentage (%) 4.26 42.55 48.94 4.26 Cum. (%) 4.26 46.81 95.74 100 214 Total: Variable Age Household size Children in household Number years going to food bank 47 100 Obs 47 45 44 Mean 55.787 2.511 0.455 SD 21.768 2.312 1.109 Min 20.000 0.000 0.000 Median 63.000 2.000 0.000 Max 88.000 11.000 4.000 44 5.105 5.998 0.200 3.000 28.000 ITEM 5 - FOCUS GROUP DEMOGRAPHIC SLIP AND INTERVIEW GUIDE Below are some questions we would like to know! Filling it out is optional, so you don’t have to answer any questions if you don’t want to. These are also anonymous, so don’t write your name on this form. If you would like to fill it out in private or need help filling out the form feel free to ask. Thank you! 1. How old are you? ____________ (years) 2. How many people are in your household? ______________ 3. How many children are in your household? (Under 18 years old) ______________ 4. What is your housing situation? Rent, Subsidized (examples: SHA, LIHI) Rent, Unsubsidized Own Currently Homeless If currently homeless, where have you most recently been staying? Encampment On the Street Shelter Vehicle/RV/Boat With Friends or Family Other: _______________________________ 5. What sources of income does your household have? (Check all that apply) Full-time employment Part-time employment TANF 215 Unemployment Child Support No Income Social Security Disability (SSI, SSDI) Veterans Pension / Disability Social Security Retirement General Assistance (GAU) Other : _________________________________ 6. Does your household receive Basic Food (SNAP, Food Stamps)? Yes No 7. How do you describe yourself? Select all that apply. American Indian or Alaska Native Asian or Asian American Black or African-American Hispanic or Latino / Latina Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander White or Caucasian Other: ________________________________________ 8. What zip code do you live in? ________________________ (If you aren’t sure, list the city) 9. Which language is usually spoken at home? _______________________ 10. Do you currently identify as….? Female Male Non-binary Other: ____________________ 11. How long have you been coming to this food bank? ___________________ ITEM 6 - FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION TOPIC GUIDE Food Bank Services Utilized (Asked in one-on-one setting.) Individual 1. What types of programs do you currently use that help you get food? 216 Prompts: List examples of programs available. Backpack programs, summer lunch, food pantry, food delivery, SNAP, TANF, WIC, FMNP, Fresh Bucks, summer meals, or other resources. If multiple are available: Which of those programs have worked the best for you? Prompts: How so? Individual 2. How has your need for help getting food changed over time? Prompts: Has it become greater or less? Why has it changed in that way? Individual 3. How long does a typical food box or bag from a visit to ___ food bank last? Prompts: Do you eat most of it, half or less than half? Group Introductions & Opener (Asked in group setting.) Let's go around the room and share how long you've lived in the area, and your favorite food. Impressions of Food Bank Experience I'm going to ask you some questions now that are just about your experiences with the food bank here. Group 1. Group 2. Group 3. Group 4. Group 5. What are some things that you like about ________ food bank? Prompt: What are some of the best things? What are some things you don't like or would want to change about the food bank here? Prompt: What makes you say that? Why would you like to change that? When you come to the food bank do you feel like you can get everything you need in terms of food? Prompts: Why or why not? What is missing? Is the amount enough? Are the types of foods that you need or want available? Do you ever need to supplement with other meal programs (like a local church or soup kitchen)? I want everyone to think about your most positive experiences coming here to get food. What made it go so well? Prompts: Was it the interactions you had, the types of food available, other services you got help with, how easy the process was? What makes you say that? What made it [positive] for you? Now I want you think about your most frustrating or negative experiences coming here to get food. What make it frustrating? Prompts: Was it the interactions you had, the types of food available, other services you got help with, how easy the process was? What makes you say that? What made it [a negative experiences] for you? Food Bank Client Needs Group 6. What would make it easier to get the food you need from this food bank specifically? Group 7. Now thinking outside of just this food bank, what do you need for you to get the food you need? 217 Prompt: What do you think would need to change? How do you feel about the options of food that are available at this food bank? Group 8. Prompts: How would you change the type of food options you get here? Can you receive or pick nutritious / healthy options? Can you pick items that you prefer to cook with? Besides the food this food bank offers, how do you feel about other services or programs they have here? Group 9. Prompts: Do they connect people to other resources? Anything missing that you’d like to see? Ease of Access Group 10. How easy is it to get to this ______ Food Bank for you? Prompts: Is there good public transportation / parking? How easy is it to get here during the scheduled hours? How would you change the schedule and hours? How could this be made better? Impact What kind of impact does this food bank have on you or others in the community? Prompts: Let’s imagine that this food bank were to close for three months for building renovations, how would that impact those that use this food bank? Group 11. [SAY: And I want to make sure I say right away, that there are no plans for this food bank to close.] What would people do to fill that gap? Are there other food banks close by that people would be able to go to? Closing Question Group 12. Are there any things that I missed or didn’t ask about that you’d like to share now? Or anything you thought of and didn’t get a chance to share? Thank you so much for your time. [Remind when results will be shared, distribute gift cards.] ITEM 7 - SEATTLE FOOD BANK NETWORK SURVEY Seattle Food Bank Network Survey Public Health-Seattle King County is conducting a Food Bank Network Assessment, as a part of the Sweetened Beverage Tax Evaluation that is funded by the City Ordinance 125324. The goal of the Food Bank Network Assessment is to improve equitable access to quality food through our food bank network. Information provided through this survey will be key to understanding food bank network capacity. Participation is voluntary. 1. Name of food bank: 218 2. Contact name: (For any follow up questions and to share results) 3. Contact email: 4. Physical address of food bank: 5. Year that agency was founded in Seattle: 6. Year agency began providing food assistance in Seattle: 7. Which of the following best describes your food bank? Stand-alone food bank (exclusively intended for food distribution) Stand-alone food bank (exclusively intended for food distribution but share space with other service agency/ies) Operated by multi-service agency Operated by place of worship (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) Operated by health center Other 8. What on-site distribution model does your food bank utilize primarily? This is only for non-prepared food that you distribute ON-SITE from the address you provided. CLIENT CHOICE [Standard design]: Members progress through a specific line or order to select a set number of items by food category CLIENT CHOICE [Grocery store design]: Space is designed to resemble grocery store; members typically walk through the food bank more freely than client choice to select a set number of items by food category PRE-PACKED: Members pick up boxes or bags of food items already selected, ready for pickup OTHER: Please describe in next field Please specify: 9. Do you distribute food (prepared and/or non-prepared) to or from locations other than the address you provided? Yes No How do you distribute food to or from off-site locations? Select all that apply. Mobile pop-up distribution (i.e. in a parking lot, apartment building, etc.) Satellite location(s) (fixed locations where your food bank operates) Another agency (you provide food for their distribution but your food bank staff is not operating this distribution) Home delivery (prepared, packaged, to-go meals) Home delivery (bags of mostly non-prepared food) Other (please specify in next field) None Please specify: 219 10. What additional food-related services or programs does your food bank provide? Select all that apply. Backpack program Prepared, packaged, to-go meals (i.e. sack lunches) Prepared, served, sit-down meals Special options for those with limited / no cooking options i.e. (non-perishables or no-cook bags) Store food for other programs (non-prepared or prepared) Commercial kitchen (commercial-grade facility, licensed for the safe preparation of food) Onsite garden (that provides produce for members) Summer meals program Other (please specify in next field) None Please specify: 11. On average, how many prepared, served, sit-down meals (perishable) do you provide per month? This includes Summer Meals program. Please provide your best estimate. 12. On average, how many prepared, packaged, to-go meals (perishable) do you distribute per month? Please provide your best estimate. 13. What has been particularly SUCCESSFUL about your food distribution models and delivery systems (on and off-site)? 14. What has been particularly CHALLENGING or needs to change about your food distribution models and delivery systems (on and off-site)? 15. Do you currently provide any on-site nutrition education or resources at your food bank? Select all that apply. Visible nutrition education posters Recipe handouts Offering samples with recipe Cooking classes / demos by your staff (or volunteers, students, community members) Cooking Classes / demos through another organization (WSU Extension, Solid Ground, etc.) On-site Nutritionist or Registered Dietitian (who provides counseling and education to members Other (please specify in next field) None What "Other" on-site nutrition education or resources do you provide? List below. 220 Which organizations do you partner with to provide cooking classes / demos? List below. On average, how many hours per week is a Nutritionist or Registered Dietitian available to members onsite? 16. Do you currently provide DIRECT DELIVERY of any of these additional services or resources at your food bank? Select all that apply. Case management Community Connector Healthcare services Job support (training / job skills / resume) GED / Post-secondary education program Utilities assistance Housing programs Rental assistance / diversion services (to prevent loss of housing) Childcare Free mailbox services Hygiene kits Transportation assistance (ORCA LIFT, regional reduced fare, VLRF, etc) Clothing bank Infant / toddler supplies (formula, diapers, etc) Pet food and /or pet supplies Other (please specify in next field) None Please specify: 17. Do you currently provide assistance with ENROLLMENT (applications / sign-up) for any of these additional services at your food bank? Select all that apply. Other food programs (SNAP, Fresh Bucks, etc.) WIC Health insurance Job support programs (training / job skills / resume) GED / Post-secondary education programs Utilities assistance programs Housing programs Rental assistance / diversion services (to prevent loss of housing) Childcare assistance services Free mailbox services Transportation assistance programs (ORCA LIFT, regional reduced fare, VLRF, etc) Other (please specify in next field) None Please specify: 221 18. Do you currently provide any INFORMATION or REFERRALS to any of these additional services at your food bank? Select all that apply. Other food banks or pantries Other food programs (SNAP, Fresh Bucks, etc.) Other meal programs WIC Healthcare services Health Insurance Job support programs (training / job skills / resume) GED / Post-secondary education program Utilities assistance Housing programs Rental assistance / diversion services (to prevent loss of housing) Childcare assistance services Free mailbox services Hygiene kits Transportation assistance (ORCA LIFT, regional reduced fare, VLRF, etc) Clothing bank Infant / toddler supplies (formula, diapers, etc.) Other (please specify in next field.) None Please specify: 19. What has been particularly SUCCESSFUL about your on-site resources (services, programs, enrollment and referrals)? This does NOT include direct food distribution or delivery. 20. What has been particularly CHALLENGING or needs to change about your on-site resources (services, programs, enrollment and referrals)? This does NOT include direct food distribution or delivery. 21. Any additional comments or concerns you would like us to know about the services your food bank provides? Please share in the space below. SECTION 2: Service Population In this section you will be asked about the people you serve. Please provide your best estimates. 22. What is the estimated total number of UNDUPLICATED households (unique households) that utilize your food bank each month? 23. What is the estimated total number of DUPLICATED households that utilize your food bank each month? 222 24. What is the estimated total number of UNDUPLICATED individuals (unique members) that utilize your food bank each month? 25. What is the estimated total number of DUPLICATED individuals that utilize your food bank each month? 26. Compared to one year ago, how would you say the number of unduplicated individuals and households utilizing your food bank has changed? Increased Decreased Stayed the same What do you think drove or contributed to that change? 27. Compared to one year ago, how would you say the number of duplicated individuals and households utilizing your food bank has changed? Increased Decreased Stayed the same What do you think drove or contributed to that change? 28. Does your food bank collect and report race / ethnicity information on your service population? IF YES: Provide the percentage that identify by each of the categories that appear below. Yes No Percent that identify as BLACK: Percent that identify as WHITE: Percent that identify as NATIVE HAWAIIAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER: Percent that identify as AMERICAN INDIAN / ALASKAN NATIVE: Percent that identify as HISPANIC: Percent that identify as ASIAN: 223 Percent that identify as MULTIPLE RACE / ETHNICITY: Percent that identify as OTHER / UNKNOWN: 29. Using your best estimate, indicate what percentage of service population this past year is represented by each of the following: Note these are not mutually exclusive, so they mostly likely will NOT add up to 100%. Not known 0% 1-4% 5-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-100% Veterans or active duty military Homeless or housing insecure (i.e. sleeping outside, car, shelter or with friends) Families with children Disabled Seniors (Over 55) Limited or non-English speaking 30. If your food bank serves individuals whose primary language is not English, please select the TOP FIVE most common. Amharic Arabic Cantonese Cambodian / Khmer Korean Laotian Mandarin Oromo Russian Spanish Somali Thai Tagalog Tigrinya / Tigrigna Vietnamese Other (please specify in next field) None Please specify: 31. Any additional comments or concerns you would like us to know about the characteristics or demographics of your food bank service population? Please share in the space below. 224 32. What is the estimated annual operating budget for your food bank? Does NOT include other services or programs in your agency. 33. Compared to one year ago, how has the total funding for your food bank changed? This only refers to revenue / funds and does NOT include in-kind donations / food. Increased Decreased Stayed the same What contributed to this change in funding? (i.e. grant ended, got new funding from 0% , etc.) 1-9% ≥10% ≥20% ≥30% ≥40% ≥50% ≥60% ≥70% ≥80% Private grants (e.g. foundations) United Way of King County Individual Donations Corporate Donations City of Seattle Federal / state grants Special fundraising events Other(s) (please specify in next field) Please specify: 225 35. How often does your food bank face the following funding challenges? Select all that apply. Never Occasionally Frequently Difficulty securing predictable, long term funding, Difficulty finding funding opportunities to apply for Difficulty finding time and resources to fill out grant applications Difficulty managing fundraising activities and events Difficulty finding funding for operational expenses (not food) Difficulty finding funding sources that would allow us to purchase food Difficulty maintaining diversified funding streams Other (please specify in next field.) Please specify: 36. On average, how many paid, full-time staff members (including Americorps) are employed at your food bank whose primary time is dedicated to food bank related activities? "Full-time" defined as ≥30 hours per week. "Primary time" defined as over 50%. "Food bank related activities" includes working in leadership / management, direct distribution, kitchen, delivery / driving, warehouse, procurement, outreach, advocacy, fundraising, development, etc. 37. On average, how many paid, part-time staff members (including Americorps) are employed at your food bank whose primary time is dedicated to food bank related activities? "Part-time" defined as < 30 hours per week. 38. Would you like to increase staffing capacity at your food bank? (If you had the necessary resources: space, funds, staff to train and supervise.) Yes No 226 Complete this statement by selecting your TOP PRIORITY. Are committed for a longer period of time Can provide more hours per week Can provide specific tasks, positions or expertise (please specify in next field) Other (please specify in next field) Please list the positions or expertise you would like to hire and describe how this would help you. Please specify: 39. On average, how many volunteers support your food bank related activities each week? 40. On average, how many total volunteer hours are provided at your food bank each week? 41. Would you like to increase volunteer capacity at your food bank? (If you had the necessary resources: space, funds, staff to train and supervise.) Yes No Complete this statement by selecting your TOP PRIORITY. Are committed for a longer period of time Can provide more hours per week Can provide specific tasks, positions or expertise (please specify in next field) Other (please specify in next field) Please list the positions or expertise you would like to find in your volunteers and describe how these would help you. Please specify: 42. When picking up food or distributing food, what transportation do you most frequently use? Please rank your TOP THREE. Most frequent 2nd most frequent 3rd most frequent Donor delivery Third party delivery (e.g. Food Lifeline, Operation Sack Lunch, NW Harvest, Solid Ground) Staff use their own vehicle Staff use a rented or agency vehicle Staff use a shared vehicle (with other agency or food bank) Volunteers use their own vehicle 227 Volunteers use a rented or agency vehicle Volunteers use a shared vehicle (with other agency or food bank) 43. What is the estimated square footage of your food bank's operation space? This includes storage, processing / sorting, cooking, office, bathroom and distribution space. 44. Please identify the number of refrigeration units you have from the types listed below. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Household (domestic) refrigerator Typically freezer combo. Commercial reach-in refrigerator Commercial walk-in refrigerator Commercial open-air refrigerator 228 45. Please identify the number of freezer units you have from the types listed below. If any are refrigerator combos, please include them again here, even if reflected on previous answers. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Household (domestic) freezer Typically refrigerator combo. Commercial reach-in freezer Commercial walk-in freezer Household (domestic) chest freezer Commercial chest Freezer 46. On average, how many bags or boxes of food does your food bank distribute per month? Does NOT include prepared meals (i.e. sack lunches or meal programs). Please provide your best estimate. 47. On average, how many pounds of food does your food bank distribute per month? Does NOT include prepared meals (i.e. sack lunches or meal programs). Please provide your best estimate. 0% 1-9% ≥10% ≥20% ≥30% ≥40% ≥50% ≥60% ≥70% ≥80% Northwest Harvest (donated) Northwest Harvest (purchased, SmartBuys) TEFAP / EFAP Food Lifeline (donated and/or grocery rescue Food Lifeline (purchased and/or Bulk buy) Miscellaneous grocery rescue & gleaning (NOT including Food Lifeline) Community donations / Food Drives / Events P-Patches and farmers markets Direct purchasing Other(s) (please specify in next field) 229 Please specify: 0% 1-4% ≥5% ≥10% ≥15% ≥20% ≥25% ≥30% ≥35% ≥40% Fresh fruits & vegetables Other fruits & vegetables (canned or frozen) Canned soups (stews, chili, etc.) Meat, poultry, seafood (frozen, canned, fresh, processed) Other protein (tofu, beans, nuts, nut butter) Dairy (milk, yogurt, cheese, etc.) Eggs Grains & pastas Bakery items (pastries, bread) Processed items & snacks (chips, crackers, granola bars, cereal, etc.) Soda & sugary drinks Pre-made and deli items Other (miscellaneous) 230 50. How would you like to change the amount you are distributing of the following categories? Start distributing Increase Decrease Stay the same FRESH fruits & vegetables FROZEN fruits & vegetables CANNED fruits & vegetables Canned soups (stews, chili, etc.) Meat, poultry, seafood (frozen, canned, fresh, processed) Tofu and other meat-alternatives Dried & canned beans Nuts & nut butters Dairy (milk, yogurt, cheese, etc.) Eggs Grains & pastas Whole grain breads (includes: loaves, buns, tortillas, pita, naan, etc.) Non-whole grain breads (includes: same as above) Baked pastry / dessert items Processed items & snacks (chips, crackers, granola bars, cereal, etc.) Soda & sugary drinks Dried spices Oils, dressings, sauces, condiments Pre-made and deli items Baby food / formula Pet food Prepared meals (i.e. sack lunches and meal programs) Other(s) (please specify in next field) Please specify: 51. Which categories or specific items are most requested or desired by members? 231 52. Of all the food you receive, on average, what percent do you throw out or compost because it is (or becomes) unfit for consumption? Provide your best estimate. Do NOT include food offered but that you decline. 53. What are the most common causes for why food you receive needs to be thrown out or composted? Rank your TOP THREE. Most common 2nd most common 3rd most common Food arrived unsafe to consume from the source (already was spoiled, dented, past expiration, etc.) Food arrived unsafe to consume because we lacked transport capacity to pick up when fresh (vehicles / drivers) Food arrived safe to consume but spoiled because we lacked sorting capacity (e.g. staff or staff time) Food arrived safe to consume but spoiled because we lacked refrigeration or freezer space Food arrived safe to consume but spoiled because we lacked the schedule and hours to redistribute in time Food arrived safe to consume but spoiled because it was not a popular item and wasn't selected Other (please specify in next field) Please specify: 232 54. Based on the amount of food provided on a typical distribution day, how many DAYS do you estimate one visit to last an individual? Does NOT include prepared meals (i.e. sack lunches or meal programs). 55. What percentage of your members do you estimate also visit other food banks? 0% 1-4% 5-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-100% Don't know What is this estimate based on? (i.e. anecdotal, data tracking, etc.) 56. What is your food bank's approach to members accessing other food banks? 57. Would you be interested in expanding your food distribution if you had the necessary food and operational resources? (This could mean an increase in the AMOUNT OF FOOD distributed and/or increase the NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS served.) Yes Yes, if we had No (please select from next field) Please specify: Select all that apply. More space (to store, sort, distribute food) More refrigeration capacity More freezer capacity More shelves / racks for food storage More staffing / volunteers (to store, sort, distribute food) More funds to purchase more food More funds to pay for necessary operational costs More capacity for additional distribution hours More drivers to make the deliveries or pickups More vehicles to make the delivery or pickups More food donations to do so Other (please specify in next field) Please specify: 233 You indicated that you would expand your food distribution if you had more food donations. Would you be interested in receiving more donations from any of the following? Select all that apply. Restaurants Grocers or food distributors Donations (food drives) Other (please specify in next field) Please specify: 58. Indicate your level of agreement with this statement: Strongly agree Agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 59. Indicate your level of agreement with this statement: Strongly agree Agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 60. Within the last year, has your food bank had to make any of the following adjustments due to resource constraints? Select all that apply. Reduce the selection of certain foods / variety available Reduce the amount of food given Reduce hours of operation Reduce staff or hours Prioritize who to serve Turn people away Other (please specify in next field) None Please specify: 61. Any additional comments or concerns you would like us to know about the sufficiency of the resources your food bank has to operate? Please share in the space below. 234 62. Please note any requirements your food bank has for new members at their initial screening / sign-up? Check all that apply. This does NOT include separate home delivery requirements. Require I.D. Require proof of address Require proof of income Other (please specify in next field) No requirements Please specify: 63. Do you have a designated service area (defined by zip codes) for your food bank? Yes and we turn people away / refer them if not in our service area Yes but we only restrict access to federally funded foods if individual is outside service area Yes but we do not turn people away No we do not have a specific service area 64. How often does your food bank staff typically have to turn people away for ANY reason? Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly Frequently When your food bank has to turn people away, what is the most common reason? Did not have required material Closed for holidays Not a distribution day Ran out of food Not TEFAP eligible Outside zip code requirements Other (please specify in next field) Please specify: 65. What zip codes are being served by your food bank? 98101 98109 98117 98127 98141 98160 98175 98194 98102 98110 98118 98129 98144 98161 98177 98195 98103 98111 98119 98131 98145 98164 98178 98198 98104 98112 98121 98133 98146 98165 98181 98199 98105 98106 98113 98114 98122 98124 98134 98136 98148 98154 98166 98168 98185 98188 Others (please spec ify 98107 98108 98115 98116 98125 98126 98138 98139 98155 98158 98170 98174 98190 98191 in next field) Please specify: 235 66. On average, how many days a month is your food bank open for on-site food distribution? Does NOT include mobile food bank or home delivery. 67. In general, when is your agency open for food distribution on-site? Monday Tuesday Wed. Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Closed 7 - 8 a.m. 8 - 9 a.m. 9 - 10 a.m. 10 - 11 a.m. 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. 12 - 1 p.m. 1 - 2 p.m. 2 - 3 p.m. 3- 4 p.m. 4 - 5 p.m. 6 - 7 p.m. 7 - 8 p.m. 68. In general, is the schedule you provided above consistent throughout the month? (i.e. "Meaning, the days and hours open are the same every week.) Yes No Please clarify below how the schedule varies. (i.e. "Our food bank is only open on the 3rd Monday of the month, but is open every Thursday and Friday.) 69. How frequently are individuals or households permitted to shop / receive food at your food bank? Multiple times per week Once per week 2-3 times per month Once per month Less than once per month 70. Do you think your schedule (days and hours open) is meeting the needs of your service community? Yes, definitely Yes, mostly Somewhat No, mostly not No, definitely not What changes to your schedule do you think are needed? What prevents your food bank from making these changes? 236 71. Is the food bank physically accessible by persons whose walking ability is limited? No, not accessible Yes, but limited or from alternative entry Yes, fully accessible main entrance and exit 72. Do you have parking spots available onsite for members? (In a lot or free street parking.) Yes, we have enough parking spots Yes, but not enough parking spots to meet member need No, we have no parking spots How many parking spots are typically available for members? 73. Indicate your level of agreement with this statement: Almost always true Usually true Occasionally true Usually not true Almost never true 74. How do you make people aware of your food distribution and delivery programs? Select all that apply. Active in-person outreach (i,e. door to door, visiting agencies) Permanent signage outside building Printed posters or fliers at other agencies Website Newsletters Local paper Word of mouth Other (please specify in next field) Please specify: 75. Accessibility involves many things. We want to know about things that you think would MOST HELP your members fully utilize and connect to your food bank. What would make your food bank more accessible to members? Please rank the TOP THREE. 1st priority 2nd priority 3rd priority Increase / start home delivery Increase / start mobile food bank site Increase options for transportation (more public transit / parking) Change location Change physical building structure (space, layout, ADA design) Have consistent language support services for non-English speaking individuals Other (please specify in next field) 237 Please specify: 76. Does your food bank regularly (every 1 to 3 years) collect input from food bank members on needs and preferences through any of the following? Survey(s) Group discussion(s) Formal one-on-one conversation(s) Informal one-one-one conversation(s) Short screening during sign-up Other None 77. Which of the following does your food bank currently have or do? Select all that apply. Is involved with an advocacy or policy-oriented coalition. Sends key government officials updates at least annually Has a nutrition policy. (i.e. guidelines to determine which foods are purchased, or accepted / refused as donations) Has a food purchasing budget. Has an ethical purchasing policy or guidelines. Is involved in community organizing efforts. Is involved with grassroots campaigning. 78. Indicate your level of agreement with this statement: Strongly agree Agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 79. What actions or unique role does your food bank take in helping members become food-secure so that they no longer need to utilize the food bank? 80. How often are these statements true for your food bank? 238 Almost always true Usually true Occasionally true Usually not true Almost never true Food options that are healthy and nutritious Food options for those with dietary limitations Food options that meet cultural preferences Connection to additional needed services / resources Food options for non-English language speakers A location(s) that is convenient to get to and find A food distribution process that is respectful and dignified A space that is easy to navigate for members who may be experiencing a physical impairment or medical condition (that makes mobility challenging) A space that is easy to navigate for members who may be experiencing a social, emotional or behavioral disorder (that makes social interactions and / or crowds challenging) 81. If you were to allocate funding and resources to changing things at your food bank, what would you prioritize? Select your TOP THREE priorities. Food amount Food types Distribution model(s) Delivery systems for pickups / deliveries Staffing Scheduling Space Refrigeration and freezers Location Parking Other (please specify in next field) Please specify: 82. What things would you like to see the food bank network as a whole do better in order to equitably reduce food insecurity in the City of Seattle? 83. Any additional comments or concerns you would like us to know about the impact of your food bank or the food bank network in Seattle? Please share in the space below. 81. Any additional comments or concerns you would like us to know about the impact of your food bank or the food bank network in Seattle? Please share in the space below. 239 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SDCI-2-B-1, Version: 1 240 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 2 B 1 Budget Action Title: Proviso on $63,000 in SDCI for updates to green building standards Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Abel Pacheco Council Members: Staff Analyst: Ketil Freeman Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This budget action imposes a proviso on appropriations in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). Expenditures subject to the proviso will be limited to use for updates to green building standards administered by SDCI, as follows: "Of the appropriations in the 2020 Budget to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, $63,000 is appropriated solely to develop updates to green building standards and green-building incentive programs, which will be proposed to the Council, and may be spent for no other purpose. The Council anticipates that proposed updates will include incentives to use cross-laminated timber as a construction material." SDCI administers a variety of programs and regulations that require or provide incentives for using green building practices. These programs include incentives for new downtown buildings to meet a United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard, an incentive pilot program to meet Living Building Challenge standards, and incentives to develop to the Built Green 4star standard. These programs and regulations were established at various times and were intended to accomplish somewhat different objectives. A comprehensive review of the programs and regulations will help the Council understand whether the programs should be revised to help the City achieve its overall green building and climate protection objectives. 241 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SDCI-3-A-1, Version: 1 242 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 3 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that OPCD and SDCI prepare a proposal to limit siting of new fossil fuel production and storage facilities Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Mike O'Brien Council Members: Staff Analyst: Ketil Freeman Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) develop, and conduct any necessary associated environmental review, on a regulatory proposal to limit development of new fossil fuel production and storage facilities within the Seattle city limits. In August 2019 the Council passed Resolution 31896, which established the docket of Comprehensive Plan amendments the Council will consider in 2020. Resolution 31896 contemplates that the Council will consider the following types of policy changes related to fossil fuels and public health: "Section 5. Amendments related to fossil fuels and public health. The Council requests that OPCD, in consultation with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, the Office of Sustainability, and the Environmental Justice Committee, draft, evaluate, undertake environmental review and provide recommendations for potential amendments to the Environment, Land Use or Utilities Elements that would clarify the City’s intent to protect the public health and meet its climate goals by limiting fossil fuel production and storage." Any policy and / or regulatory proposal related to the location of fossil fuel production and storage facilities in Seattle's shorelines may be combined with the 2020 update to the Seattle Shoreline Master Program, for which Comprehensive Plan amendments may be adopted outside of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The report should be submitted to the Chair of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee, or its successor committee, and the Central Staff Executive Director, by June 30, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Planning, Land Use & Zoning Date Due to Council: June 30, 2020 243 Oct 28, 2019 07:28 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 3 A 1 244 Oct 28, 2019 07:28 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SDCI-6-B-1, Version: 1 245 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 6 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $607,000 GF (ongoing) to SDCI for renter organizing and outreach and reduce incentive funding in SPD for officer hiring Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Council Members: Staff Analyst: Ketil Freeman Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This Budget Action adds $607,000 GF (ongoing) to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) Compliance BSL to contract with community-based organizations for renter outreach, education, and organizing. This action also reduces by $607,000 an $814,000 appropriation in the Seattle Police Department's Proposed Budget to fund recruitment bonuses for police officers. Of the appropriation to SDCI, the Council expects that the funding would be contracted as follows: - $100,000 to a non-profit organization with experience organizing LGBTQ renters to aid LGBTQ seniors; - $107,000 to a non-profit organization with experience organizing renter “know your rights” forums, such as the “Renter Rights Boot Camps” organized by Be:Seattle; 246 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 6 B 1 - $200,000 to a non-profit organization, such as the Tenants Union of Washington, which provides renter advocacy services, to fund the establishment of building-based tenant associations; and - $200,000 to a non-profit organization, such as WACAN, with experience doing direct outreach to renters, such as door-knocking to help renters build capacity and advocacy. Consistent with the 2020 Endorsed Budget, the proposed budget includes an ongoing appropriation of $615,000 GF for tenant services grants and contracts. The 2019 Adopted Budget also included $96,000 GF (one-time) for eviction defense legal services. That one-time appropriation is not included in the proposed budget. SDCI will recompete tenant service grants and contracts in 2020. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Increase appropriation for renter organizing and outreach 0 0 SDCI - CI000 SDCI - BO-CI-U2400 Compliance 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $607,000 2 Reduce appropriation for recruitment bonuses 0 0 SPD - SP000 SPD - BO-SP-P1800 Patrol Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(607,000) 247 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SDCI-9-A-1, Version: 1 248 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 9 A 1 Budget Action Title: Add $419,522 (ongoing) GF to SDCI for eviction legal defense and reduce SDOT congestion pricing outreach funding Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Council Members: Staff Analyst: Ketil Freeman Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This Budget Action adds $419,522 General Fund (GF) to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) Compliance BCL to contract with the Housing Justice Project of the King County Bar Association or similar organization to provide legal representation for Seattle renters facing eviction. The action also cuts $419,522 from the Seattle Department of Transportation's (SDOT) proposed budget for congestion pricing public engagement and outreach. This action, combined with the eviction legal defense add in SDCI-7-B-1, would appropriate $534,522 to SDCI for eviction legal defense. That would fund six tenant rights attorneys. The 2020 Endorsed and Proposed Budgets include an ongoing appropriation of $615,000 for tenant services grants and contracts. The 2019 Adopted Budget also included $96,000 for eviction defense legal services. That appropriation was one-time and is not included in the Mayor's proposed budget. SDCI will recompete 249 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDCI 9 A 1 tenant service grants and contracts in 2020. The 2020 Proposed Budget includes approximately $470,000 of carryforward SDOT 2019 appropriations in the Mobility Operations BSL to support outreach and pubic engagement on congestion pricing efforts. The source of this funding is one-time Commercial Parking Tax. This Council Budget Action would reduce commercial parking tax funding for congestion pricing outreach and public engagement by $419,522. The Council Budget Action would use these commercial parking tax funds to offset a matching reduction in GF spending in the Mobility Operations BSL. The net result is to cut $419,522 of GF from SDOT’s budget for other uses identified in this Council Budget Action. If this Council Budget Action is approved, the remaining GF contributions to SDOT would be sufficient to meet the minimum requirements established by the Move Seattle Levy. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Increase appropriation for eviction prevention legal defense 0 0 SDCI - CI000 SDCI - BO-CI-U2400 Compliance 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $419,522 2 Decrease appropriation for congestion pricing outreach 0 0 SDOT - TR000 SDOT - BO-TR-17003 Mobility Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(419,522) 250 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SDOT-2-C-1, Version: 1 251 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 2 C 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SDOT report on current maintenance spending for bicycle infrastructure Ongoing: Yes Primary Sponsor: Mike O'Brien Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Calvin Chow Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: Council requests that the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) provide a report identifying the amount of SDOT's annual expenditures to maintain bicycle infrastructure and recommending accounting and budget process changes to measure this spending from year to year. The 2020 Proposed Budget includes $38,722,268 for the Maintenance Operations Budget Summary Level (BSL). The Maintenance Operations BSL provides appropriations for routine maintenance of the City's right-of-way, including roadways, sidewalks, and landscaping. Within this BSL, the budget does not identify specific funding for maintenance of bike facilities, such as protected bike lanes and trails. Council requests that SDOT (a) identify the amount of annual funding for maintenance of bike facilities; (b) identify accounting and budget process changes to clearly identify this category of spending in future budget proposals; and (c) work with the Seattle Bike Advisory Board and stakeholders to develop a list of priority locations for ongoing maintenance. Council requests that SDOT report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee (or successor committee) and the Central Staff Director by April 1, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Sustainability & Transportation Date Due to Council: July 1, 2020 252 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SDOT-3-B-1, Version: 1 253 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 3 B 1 Budget Action Title: Add $300,000 of General Fund (Transportation Network Company Tax) and 1.0 FTE for SDOT to support implementation of the Transportation Equity Agenda; and cut $300,000 of Finance General Reserve Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Mike O'Brien Council Members: Staff Analyst: Calvin Chow Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would add $300,000 and 1.0 FTE Strategic Advisor 1 position to support implementation of the Transportation Equity Agenda in SDOT's Mobility Operations BSL. This Council Budget Action would also cut $300,000 in Transportation Network Company Tax from Finance General Reserves. SDOT’s Transportation Equity program relies on Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD) funding and revenues from the Residential Parking Zone (RPZ) program. The Transportation Equity program manages the low-income transit access and vehicle license fee rebate programs authorized by STBD Proposition 1. In the 2018 Adopted Budget, Council added $230,000 and a term-limited 1.0 FTE Strategic Advisor 1 to establish a Transportation Equity Work Group and to develop a Transportation Equity Agenda for the department. The work of the Transportation Equity Work Group was anticipated to Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 254 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 3 B 1 be complete by the end of 2019, but the start of the work was delayed, and recommendations are now anticipated to be complete in Spring 2020. The Strategic Advisor 1 position was created as a term-limited temporary assignment through April 2021. The 2020 Proposed Budget includes baseline STBD and RPZ funding for the Transportation Equity program, but it does not include any additional funding to implement the Transportation Equity Agenda. SDOT anticipates that these resources and carry-forward of the remaining portion of the $230,000 will be sufficient to complete the work of the Transportation Equity Work Group. SDOT is waiting for the recommendations to be complete before identifying implementation steps and resource needs. The intent of this Council Budget Action is to provide resources and staff to oversee implementation of the agenda and provide funding for recommendations that are not budget neutral, for example helping resource community organizations for community outreach. The Transportation Equity Agenda is anticipated to include recommendations for: (1) affordability, housing and displacement; (2) community engagement; (3) transit access; (4) transparency; and (5) safety. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Reduce TNC revenue in FG Reserves 0 0 FG - FG000 FG - BO-FG-2QD00 Reserves 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $(300,000) 2 Add funding for nonlabor costs. 0 0 SDOT - TR000 SDOT - BO-TR-17003 Mobility Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $183,709 3 Pocket Adjustments 0 0 SDOT - TR000 SDOT - BO-TR-17003 Mobility Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $116,291 1 1 SDOT - TR000 SDOT - BO-TR-17003 Mobility Operations 00100 - General Fund 2020 $0 $0 4 Pocket Adjustments StratAdvsr1,General Govt 255 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SDOT-9-B-1, Version: 1 256 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 9 B 1 Budget Action Title: Proviso spending on the Delridge Way SW - RapidRide H Line (MC-TR-C042) CIP project Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Calvin Chow Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would add the following proviso on the SDOT budget: “None of the appropriations in the 2020 budget for the Seattle Department of Transportation’s MobilityCapitol BSL may be spent on construction of the Delridge Way SW – RapidRide H Line (MC-TR-C042) CIP Project until the department has provided a report to Council detailing: (1) Community engagement efforts as part of 90% design; (2) Community feedback on 90% design; (3) Project changes from 90% design to 100% design; (4) Status of project funding sources; (5) Planned construction schedule; (6) Outreach and engagement plan for businesses that may be affected by the project, and the role of the Office of Economic Development to address potential impacts; (7) Pedestrian access and crossings at bus stops; (8) Decisions regarding 24/7 dedicated bus lanes, and parking removal; (9) Implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan as part of the project, as required by Chapter 15.80 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and (10) SDOT’s consideration of a traffic diverter on 26th Avenue SW at SW Genesee and speed humps on 25th Ave SW north of Genesee; potential modification of the southbound protected bicycle lane (PBL) to a two-way PBLs from SW Juneau to SW Kenyon (with reduction of the double yellow line space).” 257 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SDOT-15-A-1, Version: 1 258 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 15 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SDOT develop a plan to make all public transit in Seattle free to ride Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Kshama Sawant Council Members: Staff Analyst: Calvin Chow Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: Council requests that SDOT develop an administrative plan and supporting budget proposal to make all public transit in Seattle (including bus, light rail, and streetcar) free to ride. Models to investigate could include providing ORCA passes with public funding, requiring employers to provide ORCA passes to employees, and establishing a Seattle Ride Free Zone. Council requests that SDOT report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee (or successor committee) and the Central Staff Director by June 1, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Sustainability & Transportation Date Due to Council: June 1, 2020 259 Oct 29, 2019 02:12 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SDOT-19-B-1, Version: 1 260 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 19 B 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SDOT report on an evaluation of Seattle's Complete Streets policy against national best practices and develop an alternative to Level of Service analysis Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Mike O'Brien Has Attachment: Yes Council Members: Staff Analyst: Calvin Chow Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: Council requests that the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) evaluate the City of Seattle’s Complete Streets policy against current best practices as identified by Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition and shown in Attachment A. SDOT’s evaluation should answer the following questions: (1) How does Seattle’s Complete Streets policy incorporate equity into its vision, project selection criteria and performance measures? (2) Does Seattle’s Complete Streets policy apply in all projects including retrofit, construction, maintenance and ongoing projects? (3) Does Seattle’s Complete Streets policy focus on specific exceptions to the policy with a clear procedure that requires high level approval or public notice prior to the exception being granted? (4) How does Seattle’s Complete Streets check list ensure that the most vulnerable users’ (people walking and biking, including people with disabilities) needs are being met in each project? Council further requests that SDOT develop an alternative to Level of Service analysis for assessing transportation impacts in project development, including recommendations for subsequent legislative action. Historically, Level of Service analysis has focused on vehicle throughput and has not captured the impact on other modes of travel. The alternative to Level of Service analysis should seek to quantify: (5) the degree to which a project contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (6) the degree to which a project supports affordable multimodal transportation options; (7) the degree to which a project improves transportation safety, particularly for people with disabilities; and (8) the degree to which a project creates walkable neighborhoods, including promoting access via bike, 261 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 19 B 1 scooter, or other multi-modal device. Council requests that SDOT report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee (or successor committee) and the Central Staff Director by June 30, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Sustainability & Transportation Date Due to Council: June 30, 2020 262 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 Attachment A: Complete Streets SLI Best Practices Questions Core Question: Does Seattle's Complete Streets policy satisfy the best practices established by Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets Coalition ? National Complete  Streets Coalition  Rubric Elements 1. Vision and intent 2. Diverse users Updated Best Practices 1) Is the policy clear in intent, stating firmly the jurisdiction's commitment to a Complete Streets approach using "shall" or "must language? (In the body of the ordinance Includes an equitable vision for how and why the community wants to complete and not the "whereas statements) its streets. Specifies need to create complete, connected, network and specifies 2) Does the policy mention the need to create a completed network? at least four modes, two of which must be biking or walking. 3) Does the policy mention equity? Does the policy mention four modes, two of which are walking and biking? 1) Does the policy language require Seattle to "prioritize" vulnberable users or neighborhoods with histories of systematic dis/underinvestment? Benefits all users equitably, particularly vulnerable users and the most underinvested and underserved communities. 2) Does the policy establish an accountable, and measureable definition of priority groups or places? 3. Commitment in all projects and phases Applies to new, retrofit/reconstruction, maintenance, and ongoing projects. 4. Clear, accountable exceptions Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires highlevel approval and public notice prior to exceptions being granted. 5. Jurisdiction Requires interagency coordination between government departments and partner agencies on Complete Streets 6. Design 7. Land use and context sensitivity 8. Performance measures 9. Projects selection criteria 10. Implementation steps Questions 1) Does the policy require all new construction and reconstruction/retrofit projects to account for the needs of all modes of transportation and all users of the road network? 2) Does the policy require all maintenance projects and ongoing operations, such as resurfacing, repaving, restriping, rehabilitation, or other types of changes to the transportation system to account for the needs of all users of the road network? 3) Does the policy specify the need to provide accomodations for all modes of transportation to continue to use the road safely and efficiently during any construction or repair work that infringes on the right of way and/or sidewalk? 1) Does the policy include exceptions listed by the National Complete Streets Coalition, and no others? 2) Does the policy state who is responsible for approving exceptions? 3) Does the policy require public notice prior to granting an exception in some form? 1) Does the policy require private development projects to comply? 2) Does the policy specify a requirement for interagency coordination between various agencies such as public health, housing, planning, engineering, transportation, public works, City Council, and the Mayor's Office? 1) Does the policy direct the adoption of specific, best state-of-practices design guidance and/or require the development of/revision of internal design policies and Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines and sets a guides? time frame for their implementation. (Best state-of-the-practice design (AASHTO, 2) Does the policy set a specific time frame for implementation? APA, NACTO, US Access Board) 1) Does the policy require revised land use policies, plans, zoning ordinances, or equivalent documents to specify how they will support and be supported by the community's Complete Streets vision? 2) Does the policy require the consideration of the community context as a factor in decision-making? 3) Does the policy specify the need to mitigate unintended consequences such as involuntary displacement? 1) Does the policy establish specific performance measurements under multiple categories such as access, economy, and environment, safety, and health? 2) Does the policy establish specific performance measures for the implementation process such as tracking how well the public engagement process reaches Establishes performance standards that are specific, equitable, and available to underrepresented populations or updates to policies and documents? 2 (b) Does the policy embed equity in performance measures by measuring disparities by the public. income/race/vehicle access/langugage/etc. as relevant to Seattle? 3) Does the policy specify a timeframe and agency responsibility/authority for recurring collection of performance measures, and their publicization? 1) Does the policy establish specific criteria to encourage funding prioritization for Complete Streets? Provides specific criteria to encourage funding prioritization for Complete Streets implementation. 2) Does the policy specifically address how equity will be embedded in project selection criteria? Considers the surrounding community’s current and expected land use and transportation needs. Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy. 1) Does the policy require that the related procedures, plans, regulations, and other processes be revised within a specified time frame? 2) Does the policy assign responsibility for implementation to a new or existing committee that includes both internal and external stakeholders that are representative of underinvested and vulnerable communities defined in the performance measurement? 3) Does the policy create a community engagement plan with specific strategies for who when, and how they will approach public engagement in the project selection, design, and implementation process. 3(b) Does the policy spcifically addresses how the jurisdiction will overcome barriers to engagement for underrepresented communities like apartment residence and language? 263 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SDOT-25-A-1, Version: 1 264 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SDOT 25 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SDOT and CBO report on the schedule and status of third party funding discussions regarding South Transit's West Seattle and Ballard Link Extension project Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Calvin Chow Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: Council requests that the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and the City Budget Office (CBO) provide a report on the schedule and status of third party funding discussion with Sound Transit on the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extension project. Through Sound Transit's environmental process, the Sound Transit Board has identified Preferred Alternatives for the Sound Transit project with third party funding. Sound Transit intends to release a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project in 2020. Council requests that SDOT and CBO report on the process and schedule for the City to discuss third party funding options with Sound Transit, including identifying key decision points and summarizing funding discussions to date. Council requests that SDOT and CBO report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee (or successor committee) and the Central Staff Director by July 1, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Sustainability & Transportation Date Due to Council: July 1, 2020 265 Nov 12, 2019 10:47 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SPD-5-A-1, Version: 1 266 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 5 A 1 Budget Action Title: Impose a proviso in SPD in 2020 related to emphasis patrols Ongoing: No Has CIP Amendment: No Primary Sponsor: Abel Pacheco Has Budget Proviso: Yes Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would impose a proviso on the Seattle Police Department’s (SPD’s) budget related to emphasis patrols. The Mayor's 2020 Proposed Budget would add $848,000 to pay for neighborhood emphasis patrols. The proviso would restrict $100,000 of this funding to pay only for emphasis patrol spending on emphasis patrols in the University District. This Council Budget Action imposes the following proviso: “Of the appropriation in the 2020 Budget for the Seattle Police Department, $100,000 is appropriated solely for emphasis patrols in the University District and may be spent for no other purpose. If the Seattle Police Department determines that a higher or more important use of the funds is advisable, or does not deploy emphasis patrols similar to the 2019 ‘Pre-Summer Emphasis Patrols’ or ‘Seven Neighborhood Emphasis Patrols,’ then the Council may review a proposal to lift the proviso restriction as part of a 2020 quarterly supplemental budget process.” 267 Oct 30, 2019 02:05 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SPD-6-C-1, Version: 1 268 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 6 C 1 Budget Action Title: Impose provisos on SPD appropriations related to additional training Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: Yes Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would impose two provisos on Seattle Police Department (SPD) appropriations to restrict a total of $300,000 so that it may only be spent on training related to sex work. The Council intends that SPD will collaborate and contract with a community-based organization (CBO) that has the subject matter expertise to deliver training to SPD leadership and relevant sworn officers aimed at addressing the criminal justice system’s response(s) to the various needs of individuals involved in the sex trade. The CBO should be peer based, people of color led, and provide direct services to sex workers. This Council Budget Action imposes the following provisos: “Of the appropriation in the 2020 budget for the Seattle Police Department (SPD), $150,000 is appropriated solely for SPD to contract with a community based organization that works in the advocacy and direct service realms to deliver select SPD officers and leadership a training on effective and respectful interactions with sex workers and may be spent for no other purpose.” “Of the appropriation in the 2020 budget for the Seattle Police Department (SPD), $150,000 is appropriated solely for overtime for a training on sex workers that is delivered to all SPD Captains and Assistant Chiefs, SPD’s Vice and High Risk Victims Unit Detectives, North Precinct Sergeants and Officers, North Precinct Community Police Team and Anti-Crime Team Officers and all SPD Victim Advocates and may be spent for no other purpose.” 269 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SPD-9-A-1, Version: 1 270 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 9 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SPD report on a City-wide asset loss approach Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) develop a City-wide approach to collect and report the theft, damage, or vandalism of City assets, including the theft of copper wire and the damage caused to City infrastructure during copper wire theft. Seattle City Light (SCL) has reported 19 copper thefts from streetlights in 2019, with a year-to-date repair cost of over $113,000. These are in addition to seven other copper thefts from SCL physical facilities in 2019. Seattle Public Utilities and the Seattle Department of Transportation have also indicated that they have incurred theft of copper wire, although the theft is not always reported to SPD. Staff at SPD have indicated that a cursory review showed 52 incidents in 2018 where copper wire was noted as part of the theft report. SPD is requested to submit to the Chair of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee (GESCNA-Ed) – or a successor Committee – and to the Director of Council’s Central Staff every quarter beginning on April 1, 2019 a report that: (1) Identifies whether City departments are tracking damage to City infrastructure, including damage caused by copper wire theft; (2) Recommends how City departments could most effectively track damage to City infrastructure; and (3) Recommends steps that SPD and other departments can take to deter theft and to identify and address frequent offenders of copper wire theft. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: April 1, 2020 271 Oct 31, 2019 09:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SPD-10-A-1, Version: 1 272 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 10 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SPD report on compliance with copper wire laws Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: The Statement of Legislative Intent would request that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) report on the eight scrap metal recycling businesses in Seattle and their compliance with copper wire sales transactions and recordkeeping requirements established by RCW 19.290.020. RCW 19.290.020 requires that every scrap metal business doing business in this state must create as part of each recycling transaction an accurate and legible record of each transaction involving private metal property or nonferrous metal property. The record must be open to the inspection of any commissioned law enforcement officer at all times during business hours and must be maintained wherever that business is conducted for five years following the date of the transaction. SPD is requested to submit to the Chair of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee (GESCNA-Ed) – or a successor Committee – and to the Director of Council’s Central Staff on March 31, 2020 a report that: (1) Indicates how SPD is responding to Council’s request to examine records of copper wire transfers; (2) Identifies steps that SPD is taking to ensure that metal recyclers are keeping accurate records of transactions and are taking action to deter purchase of stolen metals; and (3) Identifies financial or personnel related resources that are needed to ensure that SPD has what it needs to effectuate this Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) as well as SLI SPD 9-A-1. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: March 31, 2020 273 Oct 31, 2019 09:29 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SPD-11-A-1, Version: 1 274 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 11 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SPD report on the Community Service Officer program Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) submit a report on the status of the implementation and operations of the Community Service Officer (CSO) program, including information on the six new CSOs that are funded in the 2020 Proposed Budget. SPD is requested to submit the report to the Chair of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee (GESCNA-Ed) – or a successor Committee – and to the Director of Council’s Central Staff by April 1, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: April 1, 2020 275 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SPD-12-A-1, Version: 1 276 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 12 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SPD report on the Hiring and Retention initiative Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent requests that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) submit an implementation report that identifies any initial positive results of SPD’s efforts to operationalize the 12 recommendations that are funded as part of the $1.6 million Recruitment and Retention add in the 2020 Proposed Budget. SPD is requested to submit the report to the Chair of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee (GESCNA-Ed) – or a successor Committee – and to the Director of Council’s Central Staff by May 29, 2020. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: May 29, 2020 277 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SPD-13-A-1, Version: 1 278 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPD 13 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SPD report on sworn staff hiring Ongoing: Yes Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Has Attachment: No Council Members: Staff Analyst: Greg Doss Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent was included in the 2019 Adopted Budget and is requested to be continued in the 2020 Adopted Budget. This Statement of Legislative Intent would require the Seattle Police Department to submit to the Council in the third week of each month, beginning in January of 2020, the “SPD Sworn Staffing Model” (SPD Sworn Hiring Projections with Year-to-Date Actuals) as well as a report on Precinct staffing. The model shall include actuals from the beginning of the prior year through the preceding month and hiring projections through the end of the following year. The department shall also submit a precinct census in a format similar to what has been transmitted in 2019. The department shall transmit these reports electronically to the Central Staff member who is responsible for police matters and to the Chair of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee or any successor committee that is responsible for public safety matters. Responsible Council Committee(s): Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans & Education Date Due to Council: January 20, 2020 279 Nov 12, 2019 10:07 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: SLI SPU-2-A-1, Version: 1 280 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPU 2 A 1 Budget Action Title: Request that SPU report on the feasibility of using the City's water pipe infrastructure for a municipal broadband network Ongoing: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Brian Goodnight Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Statement of Legislative Intent: The City of Anacortes is developing a municipal broadband network and has recently deployed fiber optic cables inside of water lines as a method of building out the system. This alternative to traditional deployment techniques is intended to save costs and be less disruptive. Seattle has previously studied the state of broadband services within the city and opportunities for supporting a municipally-owned broadband network. The evaluation requested by this budget action should build upon the City's previous work. (Reference: www.seattle.gov/tech/initiatives/broadband/studies-andhistory) The Council requests that Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), in coordination with Seattle Information Technology, evaluate the following: 1. The feasibility of installing fiber optic cables inside of City-owned water pipes; 2. The cost for installing fiber optic cables inside of City-owned water pipes, including how the cost compares to traditional fiber optic cable deployment techniques; and 3. The secondary benefits to SPU from having a fiber optic network built into its water facilities, including enhanced monitoring functionality, leak or blockage detection, or improved system maintenance. The Council further requests that SPU provide a report to the Council by August 3, 2020 summarizing its findings. Responsible Council Committee(s): Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Date Due to Council: August 3, 2020 281 Oct 28, 2019 07:29 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPU 2 A 1 282 Oct 28, 2019 07:29 PM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA SPU-4-A-1, Version: 1 283 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPU 4 A 1 Budget Action Title: Add $179,712 in SPU for a pilot program of mobile pump-out services to RVs; and cut $179,712 from two SPU accounts Ongoing: Yes Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: No Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Brian Goodnight Council Bill or Resolution: Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Summary of Dollar Effect See the following pages for detailed technical information 2020 Increase (Decrease) 2021 Increase (Decrease) General Fund General Fund Revenues $0 General Fund Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Other Funds Drainage and Wastewater Fund (44010) Revenues $0 Expenditures $0 Net Balance Effect $0 Total Budget Balance Effect $0 Budget Action Description: This budget action would add $179,712 in the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Drainage and Wastewater Fund to begin a pilot program that provides mobile pump-out services to recreational vehicles (RVs). The budget action would also cut a total of $179,712 from an ongoing reserve account ($100,000) and a precapital planning account ($79,712) in the SPU Drainage and Wastewater Fund. 284 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version SPU 4 A 1 It is estimated that the pilot program funding could provide eight pump-out events per month, with each event consisting of a four-hour period during which five to eight RVs could be serviced. In total, the pilot program would service between 40 and 64 RVs per month. This estimate assumes that SPU would be able to partner with the RV Remediation Interdepartmental Team or separately with the Seattle Police Department to guarantee SPU employee safety and to help coordinate the response. The Council requests that SPU provide updates to the Council on the progress in setting up the pilot program and the program's accomplishments during the year, as this information will help to inform the development of the 2021 budget. Background: SPU has previously conducted two field tests at RV sites near drainage infrastructure that drain to waterways that are identified as critical areas under the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The trials were limited in scope, serving six out of a possible 17 RVs. SPU is also in the process of filling a temporary position that will work to determine the scope of this body of work and to explore potential program options. Given that the temporary position and the appropriation authority provided by this budget action are funded by the Drainage and Wastewater Fund, RV pump-out services will only be able to be provided in environmentally sensitive areas that affect the City's NPDES permit. Budget Action Transactions # Transaction Description Position Title Number FTE of Positions Dept BSL Fund Year Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount 1 Decrease appropriations in precapital planning account 0 0 SPU - SU000 SPU - BO-SU-N200B Utility Service and Operations 44010 - Drainage and Wastewater Fund 2020 $0 $(79,712) 2 Decrease appropriations in reserve account 0 0 SPU - SU000 SPU - BO-SU-N000B General Expense 44010 - Drainage and Wastewater Fund 2020 $0 $(100,000) 3 Increase appropriations for mobile pump-outs for RVs 0 0 SPU - SU000 SPU - BO-SU-N200B Utility Service and Operations 44010 - Drainage and Wastewater Fund 2020 $0 $120,000 4 Increase appropriations for staffing related to mobile pump-outs for RVs 0 0 SPU - SU000 SPU - BO-SU-N200B Utility Service and Operations 44010 - Drainage and Wastewater Fund 2020 $0 $59,712 285 Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA TNCDRC-104-A-1, Version: 1 286 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version TNCDRC 104 A 1 Budget Action Title: Amend CB 119686, version D2, on Director's rules and the rulemaking process; and pass CB 119686 as amended Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: Yes Primary Sponsor: Lorena González Council Members: Staff Analyst: Karina Bull Council Bill or Resolution: CB 119686 Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This budget action would amend CB 119686, version D2, as shown in Attachment 1; and pass CB 119686 as amended. The amendment would require the Director to issue rules on (1) passenger privacy and safety concerns for deactivations that include but are not limited to allegations of sexual assault, and (2) the definition of “egregious misconduct.” The amendment also would require the Director to develop rules and regulations through an inclusive rulemaking process that includes participation of representatives of local sexual assault organizations. 287 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 1 Attachment 1 to Council Budget Action TNCDRC 104-A-1 (CB 119686) Sponsor: CM González Amend CB 119686, version D2, to require Director rules on privacy and safety issues and to include representatives of local sexual assault organizations in the rulemaking process. On page 9, after line 20 SMC 14.32.050 Protection from unwarranted deactivation D. Deactivation Appeals Panel 1. The City shall establish a “Deactivation Appeals Panel” (“Panel”) for purposes of hearing TNC driver challenges to deactivations. The Agency shall contract with one or more persons or entities (“neutral arbitrator”) to conduct arbitration proceedings to hear deactivation challenges. The neutral arbitrator shall be one member of the Panel. The remaining Panel members shall consist of an equal number of partisan panel members, representing the interests of the TNC driver and the TNC, respectively. 2. The utilization of the Panel arbitration proceeding created by this Chapter 14.32 is voluntary upon agreement by both parties, except as provided for under subsection 14.32.050.B, and shall be of no cost to the TNC driver. If utilized, the Panel shall be the sole arbitration proceeding for challenging the deactivation. 3. The cost of arbitration, including any fee charged by an arbitrator, will be shared equally by the TNC and the Driver Resolution Center. If the TNC driver is not represented by a representative of the Driver Resolution Center, the TNC shall be solely responsible for the cost of arbitration. 288 Page 1 of 4 4. The arbitration shall be conducted no later than 30 days after the notice of intent to arbitrate has been provided to the TNC under subsection 14.32.050.C.4, within a time frame mutually agreed by the parties, or as ordered by the Panel. 5. Subject to rules issued by the Director, the Panel may conduct pre-hearing procedures, as well as an evidentiary hearing at which parties shall be entitled to present witnesses and written evidence relevant to the dispute, and to cross-examine witnesses. 6. The Panel’s decision in any case shall be by majority vote, with each panel member holding one vote. 7. The Panel shall issue a written decision and, if appropriate, award relief. The Panel shall endeavor to issue the written decision within 48 hours of the evidentiary hearing. 8. Upon a decision concluding an unwarranted deactivation occurred, the Panel may order such relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, all remedies provided in Section 14.32.170. Should the Panel order that the TNC driver be reinstated, such order shall be limited to reinstatement to provide TNC services from a passenger drop-off location or a passenger pick-up location in the City. 9. The decision of the Panel shall be final and binding upon the parties. 10. Nothing in this subsection 14.32.050.D shall be construed as restricting a TNC driver’s right to pursue any remedy at law or equity for an unwarranted deactivation. 11. The Director shall issue rules to effectuate the terms of this Section 14.32.050 including, but not limited to, rules regarding the definition of unwarranted deactivation, driver eligibility to challenge deactivations, the selection of and criteria for the neutral arbitrator and partisan panel members, and the number of partisan panel members. The Director shall further consider methods issue rules on methods to protect passenger privacy and 289 Page 2 of 4 address potential safety concerns during the Deactivation Appeal Panel proceeding Panel arbitrations for deactivations that include but are not limited to allegations of egregious misconduct. E. Subject to the provisions of this Section 14.32.050 and rules issued by the Director, a TNC may immediately deactivate a TNC driver if such action is required to comply with any applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations or where a TNC driver has engaged in egregious misconduct. The Director’s rules shall define egregious misconduct to include, at minimum, allegations of sexual assault. F. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Section 14.32.050, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a federal or City holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, a Sunday, nor a federal or City holiday. 14.32.060 Driver Resolution Center A. The Agency may contract with a Driver Resolution Center to provide driver resolution services. Those services shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Consultation and/or direct representation for TNC drivers facing 2. Other support for TNC drivers to ensure compliance with applicable labor deactivation; standards and/or to support their ability to perform TNC services; and 3. Outreach and education to TNC drivers regarding their rights under this Chapter 14.32 and other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 290 Page 3 of 4 B. The Director must approve in advance, by rule or otherwise, the provision of any services by a Driver Resolution Center pursuant to contract other than those identified in subsection 14.32.060.A. Any additional services provided must be consistent with this Chapter 14.32. 14.32.116 Rulemaking authority The Director is authorized to administer this Chapter 14.32. The Director shall exercise all responsibilities under this Chapter 14.32 pursuant to rules and regulations developed under Chapter 3.02. The Director is authorized to promulgate, revise, or rescind rules and regulations deemed necessary, appropriate, or convenient to administer, and evaluate the provisions of this Chapter 14.32, providing affected entities with due process of law and in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Chapter 14.32. The Director shall develop such rules and regulations through an inclusive stakeholder engagement process that includes, at minimum, participation of representatives of local sexual assault organizations and a focus on survivor-centered policies and procedures. Effect: This amendment would require the Director to issue rules on (1) passenger privacy and safety concerns for deactivations that include but are not limited to allegations of sexual assault, and (2) the definition of “egregious misconduct.” The amendment also would require the Director to include participation of representatives of local sexual assault organizations in the rulemaking process. 291 Page 4 of 4 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA TNCSPN-106-C-1, Version: 1 Substitute Resolution 31914 vD3b for vD1d and adopt Resolution 31914 as amended 292 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version TNCSPN 106 C 1 Budget Action Title: Substitute Resolution 31914 vD3b for vD1d and adopt Resolution 31914 as amended Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: Yes Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Amy Gore Council Bill or Resolution: Res 31914 Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This action substitutes version D3b of Resolution 31914, shown in Attachment 1, for version D1d and adopts Resolution 31914. This CBA is a mutually exclusive alternative to CBA TNCSPN-106-B-1 which substitutes version D3 of Resolution 31914 and is included in the Chair's Balancing Package. This CBA makes all of the changes included in the Chair's Balancing Package, but it changes "purchase of transit service" as an eligible use of Transportation Network Company (TNC) tax revenues to "purchase of King County Metro bus service." If approved, Council should also adopt CBA TNCTAX-103-C-1 which makes a similar change to Council Bill 119684. In addition, the substitute resolution: (1) makes clarifying and technical corrections; (2) allows for an increase in appropriations for the Driver Resolution Center and costs related to administering driver protections if the cost of those uses increases; (3) amends the target incomes for rental affordable housing funded with TNC tax revenues; and (4) amends Section 1 of the bill so that the list of specified transportation and transit investments that are eligible to be funded with TNC tax revenues includes the Center City Streetcar Connector, the purchase of King County Metro bus service, additional support for the Sound Transit West Seattle and Ballard Link Extension, and a transportation assistance voucher program; This action adopts Resolution 31914. The non-binding resolution outlines the proposed spending plan for TNC tax revenues. It includes four eligible expenditures: (1) funding the administration of the TNC tax and regulations, (2) a driver resolution center and costs related to administering driver protections, (3) housing 293 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version TNCSPN 106 C 1 affordable to households to be located near frequent transit service, and (4) projects related to transportation and transit, as described above. The TNC tax would generate approximately $8.9 million in 2020. Based on the spending plan in Resolution 31914, $1.5 million would be appropriated to FAS to set up the tax, $250,000 would go to FAS to establish a new Driver Resource Center and $3.5 million would be used for affordable housing near transit and $3.5 million would be spent on transportation and transit. In the 2020 Proposed Budget, $1.5 million of TNC tax revenue is appropriated to Finance and Administrative Services; the remaining $7.3 million in revenue is in Finance General Reserves to be appropriated through a separate ordinance to SDOT, OH, OLS and FAS as described in the spending plan in Resolution 31914. The Chair’s Balancing Package transfers $3.05 million of 2020 TNC tax revenues from Finance General Reserves to SDOT to fund transportation projects, including Fortson Square, Market to MOHAI, and the redesign of Thomas Street. 294 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax Spending Plan RES D1dD3b 1 Attachment 1: 2 CITY OF SEATTLE 3 RESOLUTION __________________ 4 5 6 7 8 9 ..title A RESOLUTION adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center. ..body WHEREAS, Seattle is one of the fastest-growing major cities in the country, gaining 100,000 10 new residents and more than 50,000 jobs in the last 20 years, and this growth is a boon to 11 our economy and a testcreates greater demand for our transportation system; and 12 WHEREAS, Seattle families’ transportation-related spending is second only to their spending on 13 housing, and a well-functioning transportation system that provides many alternatives to 14 the expense of car ownership makes living and working in Seattle more affordable; and 15 16 17 18 WHEREAS, public transit provides affordable and critical transportation services to all consumers; and WHEREAS, the Seattle streetcar network has seen an increase in ridership of 18 percent in 2018, totaling a combined system-wide ridership of 1,673,000 riders; and 19 WHEREAS, the Center City Connector Streetcar Connector line will provide a critical link in the 20 Seattle streetcar network, connecting residents and visitors to regional bus lines, ferries at 21 Coleman Docks, and light rail connections; and 22 23 24 WHEREAS, existing sources of funding for affordable housing are insufficient to meet the needs of all individuals and families experiencing a housing cost burden; and WHEREAS, investments in affordable housing provide access to opportunity for low-wage 25 workers and their families, increase mobility from poverty, and foster inclusive 26 communities accessible to all; and 295 Last revised February 2, 2017 1 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax Spending Plan RES D1dD3b 1 WHEREAS, individuals and families making in the range of $15 to $25 per hour are especially 2 dependent on transit for commuting to centrally located destinations such as their jobs, 3 schools, grocery stores, libraries, and clinics; and 4 WHEREAS, co-locating affordable housing investments near transit infrastructure amplifies 5 investments’ capacity to simultaneously address Seattle’s mobility and affordability 6 challenges; and 7 WHEREAS, transportation network companies (TNCs) provide application dispatch services 8 that allow passengers to directly request the dispatch of drivers via the internet using 9 mobile interfaces such as smartphone applications; and 10 WHEREAS, TNCs are major hiring entities, with 31,676 TNC drivers issued permits by King 11 County in 2018 as recorded by the King County Department of Licensing; and 12 WHEREAS, in the pursuit of economic opportunity, many TNC drivers are immigrants and 13 people of color who have taken on debt or invested their savings to purchase and/or lease 14 vehicles and for-hire licenses; and 15 WHEREAS, TNC drivers who have access to a driver conflict resolution center for education 16 and representation in cases such as unwarranted deactivation will be more likely to 17 remain in their positions over time, and such experienced drivers will improve the safety 18 and reliability of the TNC services provided to passengers and thus reduce the safety and 19 reliability problems created by frequent turnover in the TNC industry; and 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, research shows TNCs contribute to growing traffic congestion in large U.S. cities; and WHEREAS, over 24 million TNC trips were taken in Seattle in 2018, showing consistent growth year over year; and 296 Last revised February 2, 2017 2 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax Spending Plan RES D1dD3b 1 WHEREAS, The City of Seattle intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the 2 Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, 3 and impose a tax on TNCs operating in Seattle; and 4 WHEREAS, Mayor Durkan has proposed further investments in affordable housing near transit, 5 transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center using proceeds from a tax on TNC 6 companies providing 1,000,000 rides per quarter or more on a per-ride basis; and 7 WHEREAS, the purpose of this plan is to effectuate Seattle’s vision to provide housing and 8 transit opportunities for all, and support drivers in the TNC community by bringing 9 educational tools and representation that is afforded to other sectors; 10 NOW, THEREFORE, 11 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THE 12 MAYOR CONCURRING, THAT: 13 Section 1. Spending Plan. The City shall use the proceeds of the transportation network 14 company (TNC) tax imposed by Chapter 5.39 of the Seattle Municipal Code to accelerate 15 affordable housing production for low-wage workers and their families at locations that are 16 within the frequent transit network, make investments in transportation, including transit, and 17 provide for workplace protections. Eligible expenditures include: 18 A. Funding of the administration of the TNC tax and regulations related to TNC 19 drivers up to $2,000,000 in the first year and ,up to $1,500,000 in the second, third, and fourth 20 years. for the second year and each year after up to $1,500,000. Beginning in year five, this 21 amount may increase each year, subject to appropriations, to reflect the rate of inflation, 22 consistent with the Consumer Price Indexthe cost of administrating the TNC tax and regulations, 23 and subject to appropriations. 297 Last revised February 2, 2017 3 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax Spending Plan RES D1dD3b 1 B. Up to $3,500,000 per year shall fund a Driver Resolution Center to provide driver 2 resolution services and costs related to administering driver protections. Beginning in year five, 3 this amount may increase each year, subject to appropriations, to reflect the cost of operating a 4 Driver Resolution Center and costs related to administering driver protections. 5 C. After administrative costs related to the tax and regulations of TNC drivers, as 6 described in subsection A of this section, and after funding the Driver Resolution Center and 7 other driver protections as described in subsection B of this section, up to 50 percent of revenue 8 from the tax over its first six full years shall be used to finance acquisition, construction, 9 rehabilitation, operations, and maintenance of property to provide housing that serves low- 10 income households and provide for the housing needs of low-income households within the 11 frequent transit network, as defined by the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Transit Master 12 Plan. The low-income housing funded hereby should serve renter households making up to 60 13 percent of the annual median family income and owner households making up to 80 percent of 14 the annual median family income for the statistical area or division thereof including Seattle, for 15 which median family income is published from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing 16 and Urban Development, or successor agency, with adjustments according to household size in a 17 manner determined by the Director of Housing. Beginning in the seventh full year after adoption 18 of this tax, up to $5,000,000 (in 2020 dollars, indexed to reflect the rate of inflation) per year 19 shall be used to provide operating support for Office of Housing (OH)–funded housing 20 affordable to households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the median family income. 21 D. After administrative costs related to the tax and regulations of TNC drivers as 22 described in subsection A of this section, and after funding the Driver Resolution Center and 23 other driver protections as described in subsection B of this section, and after the funding for 298 Last revised February 2, 2017 4 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax Spending Plan RES D1dD3b 1 affordable housing as described in subsection C of this section, the remainder of revenue 2 collected in the first six full years that the tax is imposed shall be used to support projects related 3 to transportation and transit, including, but not limited to, the purchase of King County Metro 4 bus service, the Center City Streetcar Connector, additional support for the Sound Transit West 5 Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions, and a transportation assistance voucher program, as 6 appropriated. Beginning in the seventh full year after adoption of this tax, after the administrative 7 costs, funding the Driver Resolution Center, and after up to $5,000,000 (in 2020 dollars, indexed 8 to reflect the rate of inflation) used to support for OH-funded housing affordable to households 9 with incomes at or below 30 percent of the median family income per year, the remainder of the 10 net proceeds shall be used to support projects related to transportation improvements and transit. 11 Section 2. Every year, or at such other intervals as the City Council may specify, the 12 Executive shall prepare a report to include total revenue collected per year and the cost of 13 administration of the tax and regulatory oversight related to the TNC tax. 14 Section 3. Accountability and Oversight Committees. For the purpose of overseeing the 15 funding for low-income housing with access to the frequent transit network, the Housing Levy 16 Oversight Committee shall provide a report to the City Council as to the progress of funding 17 received from the TNC tax. The Director of the Office of Housing, or the Director’s designee, 18 will prepare and submit to the Oversight Committee, City Council, and Mayor an annual 19 progress report on the implementation of funds from the TNC tax. 20 For the purpose of overseeing the spending of tax proceeds related to transportation 21 improvements, the Levy to Move Seattle Oversight Committee (or its successor) shall oversee 22 and monitor the progress of funding received from the tax. The Director of the Department of 23 Transportation, or assigned designee, will prepare and submit to the Oversight Committee, City 299 Last revised February 2, 2017 5 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax Spending Plan RES D1dD3b 1 Council, and Mayor an annual report on the implementation of programs receiving funding from 2 the tax. 3 Adopted by the City Council the ________ day of _________________________, 2019, 4 and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this ________ day of 5 _________________________, 2019. 6 ____________________________________ 7 President ____________ of the City Council 8 The Mayor concurred the ________ day of _________________________, 2019. 9 ____________________________________ 10 Jenny A. Durkan 11 Filed by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. 12 ____________________________________ 13 Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk 14 (Seal) 300 Last revised February 2, 2017 6 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CBA TNCTAX-103-C-1, Version: 1 Substitute CB 119684 vD4b for vD2e and pass CB 119684 301 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/12/2019 powered by Legistar™ 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version TNCTAX 103 C 1 Budget Action Title: Substitute CB 119684 vD4b for vD2e and pass CB 119684 Ongoing: No Has Budget Proviso: No Has CIP Amendment: No Has Attachment: Yes Primary Sponsor: Lisa Herbold Council Members: Staff Analyst: Amy Gore Council Bill or Resolution: CB 119684 Date Total Yes 0 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 LH BH KS AP DJ MO SB TM LG Budget Action Description: This action substitutes version D4b of Council Bill (CB) 119684, shown in Attachment 1, for version D2e. This CBA is a mutually exclusive alternative to CBA TNCTAX-103-B-1 which substitutes version D4 of Council Bill 119684 and is included in the Chair's Balancing Package. This CBA makes all of the changes included in the Chair's Balancing Package, but it changes "purchase of transit service" as an intended use of Transportation Network Company (TNC) tax revenues to "purchase of King County Metro bus service." If approved, Council should also adopt CBA TNCSPN-106-C-1 which makes a similar change to Resolution 31914. The substitute bill: (1) Makes clarifying and technical corrections; (2) Removes the supplemental tax of six cents and increases the base TNC tax by six cents; (3) Amends Section 12 of the bill so that the list of specified transportation and transit investments that are intended to be funded with TNC tax revenues includes the Center City Streetcar Connector, the purchase of King County Metro bus service, additional support for the Sound Transit West Seattle and Ballard Link Extension, and a transportation assistance voucher program; and (4) Adds a new section to the bill to clarify that the TNC tax revenues appropriated to the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) are not counted as part of the "Minimal Annual GSF Appropriation" as required in Section 5 of Ordinance 124796. This action also passes CB 119684 which creates a $0.57 per ride tax for TNC trips originating anywhere within the City of Seattle operated by TNC companies that provided at least one million rides in the preceding quarter. The tax will go into effect on July 1, 2020; revenues are anticipated beginning in October 2020. Based on the estimated number of rides, a tax rate of $0.57, and a July 1, 2020 effective date, the 302 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 1 of 2 2020 Seattle City Council Budget Action Agenda Tab Action Option Version TNCTAX 103 C 1 proposed tax would generate an estimated $8.9 million in 2020. In the 2020 Proposed Budget, $1.5 million of TNC tax revenue is appropriated to Finance and Administrative Services; the remaining $7.3 million in revenue is in Finance General Reserves to be appropriated through a separate ordinance to SDOT, OH, OLS and FAS as described in the spending plan in Resolution 31914. The Chair’s Balancing Package transfers $3.05 million of 2020 TNC tax revenues from Finance General Reserves to SDOT to fund transportation projects, including Fortson Square, Market to MOHAI, and the redesign of Thomas Street. The legislation also amends several sections of Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 5.55 to add the proposed TNC tax to existing general administrative provisions of the SMC, such as records preservation, rulemaking, and applicable violations and penalties, so that these provisions would also apply to the TNC tax. 303 Nov 12, 2019 10:27 AM Seattle City Council Budget Action Page 2 of 2 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 Attachment 1: 2 CITY OF SEATTLE 3 ORDINANCE __________________ 4 COUNCIL BILL __________________ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ..title AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; imposing a tax on transportation network companies; adding a new Chapter 5.39 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code. ..body WHEREAS, transportation network companies (TNCs) provide application dispatch services 12 that allow passengers to directly request the dispatch of drivers via the internet using 13 mobile interfaces such as smartphone applications; and 14 WHEREAS, over 24 million TNC trips were taken in Seattle in 2018; and 15 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council seek to invest in affordable housing near transit, 16 transportation and transit investments including the Center City Connector Streetcar 17 Connector, and a driver conflict resolution center using proceeds from a tax on TNC 18 companies providing 1,000,000 rides per quarter or more on a per-ride basis; and 19 WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) assesses a per-ride 20 regulatory fee for the costs to FAS of operating and enforcing the TNC regulatory 21 scheme; and 22 23 24 WHEREAS, as of the date of submitting this ordinance to establish a tax on TNC rides, the fee to regulate TNCs was $0.14; and WHEREAS, The the City of Seattle intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the 25 Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, 26 and impose a tax on TNCs operating in Seattle; NOW, THEREFORE, 304 Template last revised November 21, 2017 1 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter 5.39 is added to the Seattle Municipal Code as follows: 3 Chapter 5.39 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY TAX 4 5.39.010 Administrative provisions 5 All provisions contained in Chapter 5.55 shall have full force and application with respect to 6 taxes imposed under this Chapter 5.39 except as may be expressly stated to the contrary herein. 7 5.39.020 Definitions 8 The definitions contained in Chapter 5.30 shall be fully applicable to this Chapter 5.39 except as 9 may be expressly stated to the contrary herein. The following additional definitions shall apply 10 11 throughout this Chapter 5.39: “Application dispatch” means technology that allows consumers to directly request 12 dispatch of drivers for trips and/or allows drivers or TNCs to accept payments for trips via the 13 internet using mobile interfaces such as, but not limited to, smartphone and tablet applications. 14 “For-hire vehicle” has the same meaning as given in Section 6.310.110. 15 “Motor vehicle” has the same meaning as given in Section 6.310.110. 16 “Operating in Seattle” means, with respect to a TNC, providing application dispatch 17 services to any affiliated driver at any time for the transport of any passenger for compensation 18 from a point within the geographical confines of Seattle. 19 “Personal vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is not a taxicab or for-hire vehicle, that is 20 subject to regulation under Chapter 6.310, and that is used by a driver to provide trips arranged 21 through a TNC application dispatch system. 22 “Taxicab” has the same meaning given in Section 6.310.110. 23 “TNC” means a transportation network company. 305 Template last revised November 21, 2017 2 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 “TNC dispatched trip” or “trip” means the provision of transportation by a transportation 2 network company driver to a passenger in a TNC vehicle through the use of a TNC’s application 3 dispatch system. The term “TNC dispatched trip” does not include transportation provided by 4 taxicabs or for-hire vehicles: 5 6 7 8 9 “TNC driver” or “driver” means a driver, licensed or required to be licensed under Chapter 6.310, affiliated with, and accepting dispatched trips from, a TNC. “TNC vehicle” means a personal motor vehicle used for the transportation of passengers for compensation that is affiliated with a TNC. “Transportation network company” means a person, licensed or required to be licensed 10 under Chapter 6.310, operating in Seattle that offers prearranged transportation services for 11 compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers 12 using their personal vehicles. 13 “Trip that originates in Seattle” means a TNC dispatched trip where a passenger enters a 14 TNC vehicle within Seattle city limits. 15 5.39.030 Tax imposed—Rates 16 17 18 A. There is imposed a tax on every TNC operating in Seattle. The amount of the tax due shall be the tax rate under subsection 5.39.030.B$0.57 per trip that originates in Seattle. B. The tax rate shall be : 19 1. Ffifty-one seven57 cents per trip.; and 20 2. In addition to the tax rate per trip imposed under subsection 5.39.030.B.1, 21 the taxpayer shall pay a supplemental rate per trip in an amount to be set by the Director. For the 22 period from July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, the Director shall set the supplemental 23 rate under this subsection 5.39.030.B.2 at an amount equal to $0.14 minus the total fees per ride 306 Template last revised November 21, 2017 3 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 imposed under subsection 6.310.150.B. If the total fees per ride imposed under subsection 2 6.310.150.B exceed $0.14, then the supplemental rate shall be zero. For the period after 3 December 31, 2020, the Director shall set the supplemental rate under this subsection 4 5.39.030.B.2 at $0.06. 5 5.39.040 Deductions 6 A taxpayer may deduct from the measure of the tax any trip that originates in Seattle and 7 terminates outside the state of Washington. 8 5.39.050 Tax threshold 9 No tax shall be due under Section 5.39.030 from a TNC that reports fewer than 1,000,000 trips 10 that originate in Seattle in the prior calendar quarter. Any TNC below this threshold shall 11 complete and file a return and declare no tax due on the return. The TNC shall enter on the tax 12 return the number of trips originating in Seattle even though no tax may be due. 13 5.39.060 Transportation network company tax—When due 14 The tax imposed by this Chapter 5.39 shall be due and payable in accordance with Section 15 5.55.040. The transportation network company tax shall be due and payable in quarterly 16 installments. The Director may use discretion to assign businesses to a monthly or annual 17 reporting period. Forms for such filings shall be prescribed by the Director. Persons 18 discontinuing their business activities in Seattle shall report and pay the transportation network 19 company tax at the same time as they file their final business license tax return. 20 5.39.070 Excise tax in addition to other license fees and taxes—Part of operating overhead 21 22 A. The tax imposed by Chapter 5.39 is a general excise tax on the privilege of conducting certain business within Seattle and shall be in addition to any license fee or tax 307 Template last revised November 21, 2017 4 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 imposed or levied under any other law, statute, or ordinance whether imposed or levied by the 2 City, state, or other governmental entity or political subdivision. 3 B. It is not the intention of this Chapter 5.39 that the tax imposed herein be construed 4 as a tax upon the purchasers or customer, but that tax shall be levied upon, and collectible from, 5 the person engaging in the business activities herein designated and that such tax shall constitute 6 a part of the operating overhead or cost of doing business of such persons. 7 5.39.080 Transportation network company tax—Constitutional limitation 8 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter 5.39, if imposition of the tax under this 9 Chapter 5.39 would place an undue burden upon interstate commerce or violate constitutional 10 requirements, a taxpayer shall be allowed a credit to the extent necessary to preserve the validity 11 of the tax, and still apply the tax to as much of the taxpayer’s activities as may be subject to the 12 City’s taxing authority. 13 Section 2. Section 5.30.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 14 125324, is amended as follows: 15 5.30.010 Definition provisions 16 The definitions contained in this Chapter 5.30 shall apply to the following chapters of the Seattle 17 Municipal Code: Chapters 5.32 (Amusement Devices), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), 5.39 18 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 19 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax—Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition 20 Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax), and 5.55 (General Administrative 21 Provisions) unless expressly provided for otherwise therein, and shall also apply to other 22 chapters and sections of the Seattle Municipal Code in the manner and to the extent expressly 308 Template last revised November 21, 2017 5 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 indicated in each chapter or section. Words in the singular number shall include the plural and 2 the plural shall include the singular. Words in one gender shall include ((the)) all other genders. 3 Section 3. Subsection 5.30.060.C of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last 4 amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5 5.30.060 Definitions, T—Z 6 7 *** C. “Taxpayer” means any “person,” as herein defined, required by Chapter 5.55 to 8 have a business license tax certificate, or liable for any license, tax, or fee, or for the collection of 9 any tax or fee, under Chapters 5.32 (Revenue Code), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), 5.39 10 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 11 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax—Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition 12 Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), and 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax), or who engages in any 13 business or who performs any act for which a tax or fee is imposed under those chapters. 14 15 *** Section 4. Section 5.55.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 16 125324, is amended as follows: 17 5.55.010 Application of chapter stated 18 Unless expressly stated to the contrary in each chapter, the provisions of this Chapter 5.55 shall 19 apply with respect to the licenses and taxes imposed under this Chapter 5.55 and Chapters 5.32 20 (Amusement Devices), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), ((5.37 (Employee Hours Taxes),)) 5.39 21 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 22 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax—Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition 309 Template last revised November 21, 2017 6 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax), and under other titles, chapters, and 2 sections in such manner and to such extent as indicated in each such title, chapter, or section. 3 Section 5. Subsection 5.55.040.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last 4 amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5 5.55.040 When due and payable—Reporting periods—Monthly, quarterly, and annual 6 returns—Threshold provisions—Computing time periods—Failure to file returns 7 A. Other than any annual license fee or registration fee assessed under this Chapter 8 5.55, the taxes imposed by Chapters 5.32 (Amusement Devices), 5.35 (Commercial Parking 9 Tax), 5.39 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business 10 License Tax), 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax—Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and 11 Ammunition Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), and 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax) shall be due and 12 payable in quarterly installments. The Director may use discretion to assign businesses to a 13 monthly or annual reporting period depending on the tax amount owing or type of tax. Taxes 14 imposed by subsections 5.52.030.A.2 and 5.52.030.B.2 for ((punchboards)) punch boards and 15 pull-tabs shall be due and payable in monthly installments. Tax returns and payments are due on 16 or before the last day of the next month following the end of the assigned reporting period 17 covered by the return. 18 19 20 *** Section 6. Subsection 5.55.060.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 310 Template last revised November 21, 2017 7 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 5.55.060 Records to be preserved—Examination—Inspection—Search warrants—Estoppel 2 to question assessment 3 A. Every person liable for any fee or tax imposed by this Chapter 5.55 and Chapters 4 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53 shall keep and preserve, for a period 5 of five years after filing a tax return, such records as may be necessary to determine the amount 6 of any fee or tax for which the person may be liable; which records shall include copies of all 7 federal income tax and state tax returns and reports made by the person. All books, records, 8 papers, invoices, ticket stubs, vendor lists, gambling games, and payout information, inventories, 9 stocks of merchandise, and other data, including federal income tax and state tax returns, and 10 reports needed to determine the accuracy of any taxes due, shall be open for inspection or 11 examination at any time by the Director or a duly authorized agent. Every person’s business 12 premises shall be open for inspection or examination by the Director or a duly authorized agent. 13 For the purposes of this Section 5.55.060, for the tax imposed by Chapter 5.53, “business 14 premises” means wherever the person’s business records and tax documents are maintained and 15 does not mean every site owned or operated by the person. 16 17 *** Section 7. Subsection 5.55.150.E of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last 18 amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 19 5.55.150 Appeal to the Hearing Examiner 20 21 *** E. The Hearing Examiner shall ascertain the correct amount of the tax, fee, interest, 22 or penalty due either by affirming, reversing, or modifying an action of the Director. Reversal or 23 modification is proper if the Director’s assessment or refund denial violates the terms of this 311 Template last revised November 21, 2017 8 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 Chapter 5.55, or Chapters 5.30, 5.32, 5.35, ((5.37,)) 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 2 5.53. 3 Section 8. Section 5.55.165 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 4 125324, is amended as follows: 5 5.55.165 Director of Finance and Administrative Services to make rules 6 The Director of Finance and Administrative Services shall have the power and it shall be the 7 Director’s duty, from time to time, to adopt, publish, and enforce rules and regulations not 8 inconsistent with this Chapter 5.55, with Chapters 5.30, 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 9 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53, or with law for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of such chapters, 10 and it shall be unlawful to violate or fail to comply with any such rule or regulation. 11 Section 9. Subsections 5.55.220.A and 5.55.220.B of the Seattle Municipal Code, which 12 section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, are amended as follows: 13 5.55.220 Unlawful actions—Violation—Penalties 14 15 A. It shall be unlawful for any person subject to the provisions of this Chapter 5.55 or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53: 16 1. To violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter 17 5.55, or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53, or any lawful rule 18 or regulation adopted by the Director; 19 2. 20 upon authority of the Director; 21 3. To make any false statement on any license, application, or tax return; 22 4. To aid or abet any person in any attempt to evade payment of a license fee 23 To make or manufacture any license required by this Chapter 5.55 except or tax; 312 Template last revised November 21, 2017 9 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 5. To refuse admission to the Director to inspect the premises and/or records 2 as required by this Chapter 5.55, or to otherwise interfere with the Director in the performance of 3 duties imposed by Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53; 4 6. To fail to appear or testify in response to a subpoena issued pursuant to 5 Section 3.02.120 in any proceeding to determine compliance with this Chapter 5.55 and Chapters 6 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53; 7 8 7. To testify falsely in any investigation, audit, or proceeding conducted pursuant to this Chapter 5.55; 9 8. To continue to engage in any business activity, profession, trade, or 10 occupation after the revocation of or during a period of suspension of a business license tax 11 certificate issued under Section 5.55.030; or 12 9. In any manner, to hinder or delay the City or any of its officers in carrying 13 out the provisions of this Chapter 5.55 or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 14 5.52, and 5.53. 15 B. Each violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter 5.55, or 16 Chapters 5.32, 5.35, ((5.37,)) 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53 shall constitute a 17 separate offense. Except as provided in subsection 5.55.220.C, any person who commits an act 18 defined in subsection 5.55.220.A is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable in accordance 19 with Section 12A.02.070. The provisions of Chapters 12A.02 and 12A.04 apply to the offenses 20 defined in subsection 5.55.220.A, except that liability is absolute and none of the mental states 21 described in Section 12A.04.030 need be proved. 22 *** 313 Template last revised November 21, 2017 10 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 Section 10. Subsection 5.55.230.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last 2 amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 3 5.55.230 Denial, revocation of, or refusal to renew business license tax certificate 4 A. The Director, or the Director’s designee, has the power and authority to deny, 5 revoke, or refuse to renew any business license tax certificate or amusement device license 6 issued under the provisions of this Chapter 5.55. The Director, or the Director’s designee, shall 7 notify such applicant or licensee in writing by mail in accordance with Section 5.55.180 of the 8 denial of, revocation of, or refusal to renew the license and on what grounds such a decision was 9 based. The Director may deny, revoke, or refuse to renew any business license tax certificate or 10 other license issued under this Chapter 5.55 on one or more of the following grounds: 11 1. The license was procured by fraud or false representation of fact. 12 2. The licensee has failed to comply with any provisions of this Chapter 5.55. 13 3. The licensee has failed to comply with any provisions of Chapters 5.32, 14 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53. 15 4. 16 Title 5 or Title 6. The licensee is in default in any payment of any license fee or tax under 17 Section 11. Severability. If any part, provision, or section of this ordinance is held to be 18 void or unconstitutional, all other parts, provisions, and sections of this ordinance not expressly 19 so held to be void or unconstitutional shall continue in full force and effect. 20 Section 12. It is the intent of the Mayor and the Council through the annual budget 21 process to use the proceeds of the tax imposed by Seattle Municipal Code Section 5.39.030 for 22 the following purposes: 23 A. Administrative costs related to the tax and regulations of TNC drivers; 314 Template last revised November 21, 2017 11 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 B. Investment in affordable housing near transit; 2 C. Transportation and transit investments, including, but not limited to, the purchase 3 of King County Metro bus service, the Center City Streetcar Connector, additional support for 4 the Sound Transit West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions, and a transportation assistance 5 voucher program, as appropriated the Center City Connector Streetcar; and 6 D. A driver conflict resolution center. 7 Section 13. It is the intent of the Mayor and the Council that TNC tax revenues which are 8 appropriated to the Seattle Department of Transportation are not counted as part of the Minimal 9 Annual GSF Appropriation to the SDOT budget as required in Section 5 of Ordinance 124796, 10 for the Move Seattle Levy. 11 12 13 14 315 Template last revised November 21, 2017 12 Kate Garman/Amy Gore MO TNC Tax ORD D2eD4b 1 Section 14. Sections 1 through 12 of this ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2020. 2 Section 15. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its approval by 3 the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it 4 shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020. 5 Passed by the City Council the ________ day of _________________________, 2019, 6 and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this _____ day of 7 _________________________, 2019. 8 ____________________________________ 9 President ____________ of the City Council 10 Approved by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. 11 ____________________________________ 12 Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor 13 Filed by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. 14 ____________________________________ 15 Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk 16 (Seal) 316 Template last revised November 21, 2017 13 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 CITY OF SEATTLE ORDINANCE __________________ COUNCIL BILL __________________ AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; imposing a tax on transportation network companies; adding a new Chapter 5.39 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code. WHEREAS, transportation network companies (TNCs) provide application dispatch services that allow passengers to directly request the dispatch of drivers via the internet using mobile interfaces such as smartphone applications; and WHEREAS, over 24 million TNC trips were taken in Seattle in 2018; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council seek to invest in affordable housing near transit, transportation and transit investments including the Center City Connector Streetcar, and a driver conflict resolution center using proceeds from a tax on TNC companies providing 1,000,000 rides per quarter or more on a perride basis; and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) assesses a per-ride regulatory fee for the costs to FAS of operating and enforcing the TNC regulatory scheme; and WHEREAS, as of the date of submitting this ordinance to establish a tax on TNC rides, the fee to regulate TNCs was $0.14; and WHEREAS, The City of Seattle intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, and impose a tax on TNCs operating in Seattle; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS: 317 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 Section 1. A new Chapter 5.39 is added to the Seattle Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 5.39 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY TAX 5.39.010 Administrative provisions All provisions contained in Chapter 5.55 shall have full force and application with respect to taxes imposed under this Chapter 5.39 except as may be expressly stated to the contrary herein. 5.39.020 Definitions The definitions contained in Chapter 5.30 shall be fully applicable to this Chapter 5.39 except as may be expressly stated to the contrary herein. The following additional definitions shall apply throughout this Chapter 5.39: “Application dispatch” means technology that allows consumers to directly request dispatch of drivers for trips and/or allows drivers or TNCs to accept payments for trips via the internet using mobile interfaces such as, but not limited to, smartphone and tablet applications. “For-hire vehicle” has the same meaning as given in Section 6.310.110. “Motor vehicle” has the same meaning as given in Section 6.310.110. “Operating in Seattle” means, with respect to a TNC, providing application dispatch services to any affiliated driver at any time for the transport of any passenger for compensation from a point within the geographical confines of Seattle. “Personal vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is not a taxicab or for-hire vehicle, that is subject to regulation under Chapter 6.310, and that is used by a driver to provide trips arranged through a TNC application dispatch system. “Taxicab” has the same meaning given in Section 6.310.110. “TNC” means a transportation network company. “TNC dispatched trip” or “trip” means the provision of transportation by a transportation network company driver to a passenger in a TNC vehicle through the use of a TNC’s application dispatch system. The SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 318 File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 term “TNC dispatched trip” does not include transportation provided by taxicabs or for-hire vehicles: “TNC driver” or “driver” means a driver, licensed or required to be licensed under Chapter 6.310, affiliated with, and accepting dispatched trips from, a TNC. “TNC vehicle” means a personal motor vehicle used for the transportation of passengers for compensation that is affiliated with a TNC. “Transportation network company” means a person, licensed or required to be licensed under Chapter 6.310, operating in Seattle that offers prearranged transportation services for compensation using an onlineenabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles. “Trip that originates in Seattle” means a TNC dispatched trip where a passenger enters a TNC vehicle within Seattle city limits. 5.39.030 Tax imposed-Rates A. There is imposed a tax on every TNC operating in Seattle. The amount of the tax due shall be the tax rate under subsection 5.39.030.B per trip that originates in Seattle. B. The tax rate shall be: 1. Fifty-one cents per trip; and 2. In addition to the tax rate per trip imposed under subsection 5.39.030.B.1, the taxpayer shall pay a supplemental rate per trip in an amount to be set by the Director. For the period from July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, the Director shall set the supplemental rate under this subsection 5.39.030.B.2 at an amount equal to $0.14 minus the total fees per ride imposed under subsection 6.310.150.B. If the total fees per ride imposed under subsection 6.310.150.B exceed $0.14, then the supplemental rate shall be zero. For the period after December 31, 2020, the Director shall set the supplemental rate under this subsection 5.39.030.B.2 at $0.06. 5.39.040 Deductions A taxpayer may deduct from the measure of the tax any trip that originates in Seattle and terminates outside the SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 319 File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 state of Washington. 5.39.050 Tax threshold No tax shall be due under Section 5.39.030 from a TNC that reports fewer than 1,000,000 trips that originate in Seattle in the prior calendar quarter. Any TNC below this threshold shall complete and file a return and declare no tax due on the return. The TNC shall enter on the tax return the number of trips originating in Seattle even though no tax may be due. 5.39.060 Transportation network company tax-When due The tax imposed by this Chapter 5.39 shall be due and payable in accordance with Section 5.55.040. The transportation network company tax shall be due and payable in quarterly installments. The Director may use discretion to assign businesses to a monthly or annual reporting period. Forms for such filings shall be prescribed by the Director. Persons discontinuing their business activities in Seattle shall report and pay the transportation network company tax at the same time as they file their final business license tax return. 5.39.070 Excise tax in addition to other license fees and taxes-Part of operating overhead A. The tax imposed by Chapter 5.39 is a general excise tax on the privilege of conducting certain business within Seattle and shall be in addition to any license fee or tax imposed or levied under any other law, statute, or ordinance whether imposed or levied by the City, state, or other governmental entity or political subdivision. B. It is not the intention of this Chapter 5.39 that the tax imposed herein be construed as a tax upon the purchasers or customer, but that tax shall be levied upon, and collectible from, the person engaging in the business activities herein designated and that such tax shall constitute a part of the operating overhead or cost of doing business of such persons. 5.39.080 Transportation network company tax-Constitutional limitation Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter 5.39, if imposition of the tax under this Chapter 5.39 would place an undue burden upon interstate commerce or violate constitutional requirements, a taxpayer shall SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 320 File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 be allowed a credit to the extent necessary to preserve the validity of the tax, and still apply the tax to as much of the taxpayer’s activities as may be subject to the City’s taxing authority. Section 2. Section 5.30.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.30.010 Definition provisions The definitions contained in this Chapter 5.30 shall apply to the following chapters of the Seattle Municipal Code: Chapters 5.32 (Amusement Devices), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), 5.39 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax-Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax), and 5.55 (General Administrative Provisions) unless expressly provided for otherwise therein, and shall also apply to other chapters and sections of the Seattle Municipal Code in the manner and to the extent expressly indicated in each chapter or section. Words in the singular number shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular. Words in one gender shall include ((the)) all other genders. Section 3. Subsection 5.30.060.C of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.30.060 Definitions, T-Z *** C. “Taxpayer” means any “person,” as herein defined, required by Chapter 5.55 to have a business license tax certificate, or liable for any license, tax, or fee, or for the collection of any tax or fee, under Chapters 5.32 (Revenue Code), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), 5.39 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax-Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), and 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax), or who engages in any business or who performs any act for which a tax or fee is imposed under those chapters. *** SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 11 321 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 Section 4. Section 5.55.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.55.010 Application of chapter stated Unless expressly stated to the contrary in each chapter, the provisions of this Chapter 5.55 shall apply with respect to the licenses and taxes imposed under this Chapter 5.55 and Chapters 5.32 (Amusement Devices), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), ((5.37 (Employee Hours Taxes),)) 5.39 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business TaxUtilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax), and under other titles, chapters, and sections in such manner and to such extent as indicated in each such title, chapter, or section. Section 5. Subsection 5.55.040.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.55.040 When due and payable-Reporting periods-Monthly, quarterly, and annual returns-Threshold provisions-Computing time periods-Failure to file returns A. Other than any annual license fee or registration fee assessed under this Chapter 5.55, the taxes imposed by Chapters 5.32 (Amusement Devices), 5.35 (Commercial Parking Tax), 5.39 (Transportation Network Company Tax), 5.40 (Admission Tax), 5.45 (Business License Tax), 5.46 (Square Footage Tax), 5.48 (Business Tax-Utilities), 5.50 (Firearms and Ammunition Tax), 5.52 (Gambling Tax), and 5.53 (Sweetened Beverage Tax) shall be due and payable in quarterly installments. The Director may use discretion to assign businesses to a monthly or annual reporting period depending on the tax amount owing or type of tax. Taxes imposed by subsections 5.52.030.A.2 and 5.52.030.B.2 for ((punchboards)) punch boards and pull-tabs shall be due and payable in monthly installments. Tax returns and payments are due on or before the last day of the next month following the end of the assigned reporting period covered by the return. *** SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 of 11 322 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 Section 6. Subsection 5.55.060.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.55.060 Records to be preserved-Examination-Inspection-Search warrants-Estoppel to question assessment A. Every person liable for any fee or tax imposed by this Chapter 5.55 and Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53 shall keep and preserve, for a period of five years after filing a tax return, such records as may be necessary to determine the amount of any fee or tax for which the person may be liable; which records shall include copies of all federal income tax and state tax returns and reports made by the person. All books, records, papers, invoices, ticket stubs, vendor lists, gambling games, and payout information, inventories, stocks of merchandise, and other data, including federal income tax and state tax returns, and reports needed to determine the accuracy of any taxes due, shall be open for inspection or examination at any time by the Director or a duly authorized agent. Every person’s business premises shall be open for inspection or examination by the Director or a duly authorized agent. For the purposes of this Section 5.55.060, for the tax imposed by Chapter 5.53, “business premises” means wherever the person’s business records and tax documents are maintained and does not mean every site owned or operated by the person. *** Section 7. Subsection 5.55.150.E of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.55.150 Appeal to the Hearing Examiner *** E. The Hearing Examiner shall ascertain the correct amount of the tax, fee, interest, or penalty due either by affirming, reversing, or modifying an action of the Director. Reversal or modification is proper if the Director’s assessment or refund denial violates the terms of this Chapter 5.55, or Chapters 5.30, 5.32, 5.35, (( 5.37,)) 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 of 11 323 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 Section 8. Section 5.55.165 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.55.165 Director of Finance and Administrative Services to make rules The Director of Finance and Administrative Services shall have the power and it shall be the Director’s duty, from time to time, to adopt, publish, and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with this Chapter 5.55, with Chapters 5.30, 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53, or with law for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of such chapters, and it shall be unlawful to violate or fail to comply with any such rule or regulation. Section 9. Subsections 5.55.220.A and 5.55.220.B of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, are amended as follows: 5.55.220 Unlawful actions-Violation-Penalties A. It shall be unlawful for any person subject to the provisions of this Chapter 5.55 or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53: 1. To violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter 5.55, or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53, or any lawful rule or regulation adopted by the Director; 2. To make or manufacture any license required by this Chapter 5.55 except upon authority of the Director; 3. To make any false statement on any license, application, or tax return; 4. To aid or abet any person in any attempt to evade payment of a license fee or tax; 5. To refuse admission to the Director to inspect the premises and/or records as required by this Chapter 5.55, or to otherwise interfere with the Director in the performance of duties imposed by Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53; 6. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL To fail to appear or testify in response to a subpoena issued pursuant to Section 3.02.120 Page 8 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 324 File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 in any proceeding to determine compliance with this Chapter 5.55 and Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53; 7. To testify falsely in any investigation, audit, or proceeding conducted pursuant to this 8. To continue to engage in any business activity, profession, trade, or occupation after the Chapter 5.55; revocation of or during a period of suspension of a business license tax certificate issued under Section 5.55.030; or 9. In any manner, to hinder or delay the City or any of its officers in carrying out the provisions of this Chapter 5.55 or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, and 5.53. B. Each violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter 5.55, or Chapters 5.32, 5.35, ((5.37,)) 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53 shall constitute a separate offense. Except as provided in subsection 5.55.220.C, any person who commits an act defined in subsection 5.55.220.A is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with Section 12A.02.070. The provisions of Chapters 12A.02 and 12A.04 apply to the offenses defined in subsection 5.55.220.A, except that liability is absolute and none of the mental states described in Section 12A.04.030 need be proved. *** Section 10. Subsection 5.55.230.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 125324, is amended as follows: 5.55.230 Denial, revocation of, or refusal to renew business license tax certificate A. The Director, or the Director’s designee, has the power and authority to deny, revoke, or refuse to renew any business license tax certificate or amusement device license issued under the provisions of this Chapter 5.55. The Director, or the Director’s designee, shall notify such applicant or licensee in writing by mail in accordance with Section 5.55.180 of the denial of, revocation of, or refusal to renew the license and on what grounds such a decision was based. The Director may deny, revoke, or refuse to renew any business license tax SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 325 File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 certificate or other license issued under this Chapter 5.55 on one or more of the following grounds: 1. The license was procured by fraud or false representation of fact. 2. The licensee has failed to comply with any provisions of this Chapter 5.55. 3. The licensee has failed to comply with any provisions of Chapters 5.32, 5.35, 5.39, 5.40, 5.45, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, 5.52, or 5.53. 4. The licensee is in default in any payment of any license fee or tax under Title 5 or Title 6. Section 11. Severability. If any part, provision, or section of this ordinance is held to be void or unconstitutional, all other parts, provisions, and sections of this ordinance not expressly so held to be void or unconstitutional shall continue in full force and effect. Section 12. It is the intent of the Mayor and the Council through the annual budget process to use the proceeds of the tax imposed by Seattle Municipal Code Section 5.39.030 for the following purposes: A. Administrative costs related to the tax and regulations of TNC drivers; B. Investment in affordable housing near transit; C. Transportation and transit investments, including the Center City Connector Streetcar, and D. A driver conflict resolution center. Section 13. Sections 1 through 12 of this ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2020. Section 14. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020. Passed by the City Council the ________ day of _________________________, 2019, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this _____ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ 326 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119684, Version: 1 President ____________ of the City Council Approved by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor Filed by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk (Seal) 327 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 of 11 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ George Dugdale MO TNC Tax SUM D1b SUMMARY and FISCAL NOTE* Department: Mayor’s Office Dept. Contact/Phone: Kate Garman/7-8760 CBO Contact/Phone: George Dugdale/3-9297 * Note that the Summary and Fiscal Note describes the version of the bill or resolution as introduced; final legislation including amendments may not be fully described. 1. BILL SUMMARY Legislation Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; imposing a tax on transportation network companies; adding a new Chapter 5.39 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Summary and background of the Legislation: The City intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, to impose a tax on Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) operating in the City. The new tax would be imposed at $0.57 per ride that originates within the city limits of the City of Seattle. No tax would be due from a transportation network company that reports fewer than one million trips that originate in the City in the prior calendar quarter. $0.06 of the tax will be offset by lowering of an existing fee on TNC rides in the City. Companion legislation to this bill lowers that fee. 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Does this legislation create, fund, or amend a CIP Project? ___ Yes _X_ No 3. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Does this legislation amend the Adopted Budget? ___ Yes _X_ No . Appropriation change ($): Estimated revenue change ($): General Fund $ 2020 2021 Revenue to General Fund 2020 2021 $9,417,005 Positions affected: Other $ 2020 2021 Revenue to Other Funds 2020 2021 $19,911,013 No. of Positions 2020 2021 Total FTE Change 2019 2020 328 1 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. George Dugdale MO TNC Tax SUM D1b Does the legislation have other financial impacts to the City of Seattle that are not reflected in the above, including direct or indirect, short-term or long-term costs? This legislation will be complemented by proposed appropriations in the 2020 that provide funding for the Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) to allow for implementation and collection of this tax and for the estimated first half-year of revenues to be held in Finance General, pending future appropriation. Is there financial cost or other impacts of not implementing the legislation? Not implementing the legislation would not cause any additional financial costs, but proposed expenditures for Affordable Housing, Transportation, Worker Protections and Tax Administration set out in the companion spending Resolution would not be available to the City. 3.a. Appropriations ____ This legislation adds, changes, or deletes appropriations. 3.b. Revenues/Reimbursements __X__ This legislation adds, changes, or deletes revenues or reimbursements. Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement Resulting from this Legislation: Fund Name and Number General Fund (00100) Dept Revenue Source Seattle TNC Tax TOTAL 2020 Revenue 2021 Estimated Revenue $9,417,055 $19,911,013 $9,417,055 $19,911,013 Is this change one-time or ongoing? This is an ongoing change. Revenue/Reimbursement Notes: The spending plan for these additional revenues is included as part of the companion Resolution. The 2020 revenue number assumes revenues are collected starting July 1, 2020. 3.c. Positions ____ This legislation adds, changes, or deletes positions. Position Notes: The anticipated impact of this legislation is the addition of 3.0 FTE positions in FAS. Those positions will be legislated in 2020. 329 2 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. George Dugdale MO TNC Tax SUM D1b 4. OTHER IMPLICATIONS a. Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? The Department of Finance and Administrative Services will administer the tax. The uses of proceeds from the tax are discussed in the companion Resolution to this legislation. b. Is a public hearing required for this legislation? No c. Does this legislation require landlords or sellers of real property to provide information regarding the property to a buyer or tenant? No d. Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation? No e. Does this legislation affect a piece of property? No f. Please describe any perceived implication for the principles of the Race and Social Justice Initiative. Does this legislation impact vulnerable or historically disadvantaged communities? What is the Language Access plan for any communications to the public? The proceeds from tax will be used to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center and other driver protections. People of color are disproportionately affected by rising costs associated with housing affordability and access to transportation. In addition, the Driver Resolution Center will provide resolution services to TNC drivers and TNCs, which may include services such as providing a venue for drivers to contest deactivation by a TNC. Many drivers are people of color and/or immigrants. g. If this legislation includes a new initiative or a major programmatic expansion: What are the specific long-term and measurable goal(s) of the program? How will this legislation help achieve the program’s desired goal(s). Revenues from the tax will be reported at least annually once the tax is being collected. Evaluation methods for the programs funded by the revenue stream will be detailed as those programs are funded once the tax is in effect. List attachments/exhibits below: 330 3 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 CITY OF SEATTLE ORDINANCE __________________ COUNCIL BILL __________________ AN ORDINANCE relating to transportation network company drivers; establishing deactivation protections for transportation network company drivers; amending Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 14.32 to the Seattle Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Washington Constitution provides in Article XI, Section 11 that “[a]ny county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws”; and WHEREAS, the state of Washington, in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 46.72.001, has authorized political subdivisions of the state to regulate for-hire drivers and for-hire transportation services, which terms encompass the regulation of transportation network company (TNC) drivers, TNCs, and TNC services, to ensure safe and reliable TNC services; and WHEREAS, TNCs provide application dispatch services that allow passengers to directly request the dispatch of drivers via the internet using mobile interfaces such as smartphone applications; and WHEREAS, in 2018, the two largest TNCs accounted for over 24 million trips in the City and King County; and WHEREAS, these two companies are also major hiring entities, accounting for most of the 31,676 TNC drivers issued permits by King County in 2018 as recorded by the King County Department of Licensing; and WHEREAS, the regulation of TNC driver protections better ensures that drivers can perform their services in a safe and reliable manner and thereby promotes the welfare of the people and is thus a fundamental governmental function; and 331 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 WHEREAS, the establishment of minimum labor standards for TNC drivers is a subject of vital and imminent concern to the people of this City and requires appropriate action by City Council to establish such minimum labor standards within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings A. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, The City of Seattle is granted express authority to regulate for-hire transportation services pursuant to chapter 46.72 RCW. This authority includes regulating entry, requiring a license, controlling rates, establishing safety requirements, and any other requirement to ensure safe and reliable transportation services. B. In the pursuit of economic opportunity, many transportation network company (TNC) drivers are immigrants and people of color who have taken on debt or invested their savings to purchase and/or lease vehicles to provide TNC services. C. The TNCs represent that their business models rely on TNC drivers being classified as independent contractors, and that they are exempt from minimum labor standards established by federal, state, and local law. D. TNC drivers are subject to TNC companies’ policies that can be unilaterally changed so they can be deactivated for a variety of reasons, and they do not have consistent access to due process for such deactivations, nor do they have regular access to human resources staff who have the power to correct unwarranted deactivations, via either in-person meeting or telephone, to air their deactivation-related grievances. E. The TNCs deactivate drivers with unclear processes for review of those deactivations. Establishing a reasonable standard for the deactivations of TNC drivers as well as access to a neutral Deactivation Appeals Process in which unwarranted deactivations may be challenged will help ensure that thousands of drivers who provide vital transportation services in Seattle will be able enjoy a small measure of SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 332 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 job security. F. TNC drivers who have protection against unwarranted deactivation will be more likely to remain in their positions over time, and to devote more time to their work as TNC drivers. Such experienced drivers will improve the safety and reliability of the TNC services provided by the TNCs to passengers and thus reduce safety and reliability problems created by frequent turnover in the TNC services industry. Section 2. A new Chapter 14.32 is added to the Seattle Municipal Code as follows: CHAPTER 14.32 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY DRIVERS DEACTIVATION RIGHTS 14.32.010 Short title This Chapter 14.32 shall constitute the “Transportation Network Company Driver Deactivation Rights Ordinance” and may be cited as such. 14.32.015 Declaration of policy It is declared to be the policy of the City, in the exercise of its police powers for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for the maintenance of peace and good government, to ensure that TNC drivers can perform their services in a safe and reliable manner, and thereby promote the welfare of the people who rely on such services to meet their transportation needs. 14.32.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Chapter 14.32: “Agency” means the Office of Labor Standards and any division therein. “Aggrieved party” means the TNC driver or other person who suffers tangible or intangible harm due to the TNC’s violation of this Chapter 14.32. “Application dispatch” means technology that allows consumers to directly request dispatch of TNC drivers for trips and/or allows TNC drivers or TNCs to accept trip requests and payments for trips via the internet using mobile interfaces such as, but not limited to, smartphone and tablet applications. “Available platform time” means the time a TNC driver is logged in to the driver platform prior to SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 333 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 receiving a trip request from a TNC. “City” means The City of Seattle. “Compensation” means payment owed to a TNC driver by reason of providing TNC services. “Days” means calendar days. “Deactivation” means the blocking of a TNC driver’s access to the driver platform, changing a TNC driver’s status from eligible to provide TNC services to ineligible, or other material restriction in access to the driver platform that is effected by a TNC. “Director” means the Director of the Office of Labor Standards. “Dispatch location” means the location of the TNC driver at the time the TNC driver accepts a trip request from the TNC. “Dispatch platform time” means the time a TNC driver spends traveling from dispatch location to passenger pick-up location. Dispatch platform time ends when a passenger cancels a trip, fails to appear for a trip, or enters the TNC driver’s vehicle. “Driver platform” means the driver-facing application dispatch system software or any online-enabled application service, website, or system, used by a TNC driver, that enables the prearrangement of passenger trips for compensation. “Driver Resolution Center” means a non-profit organization registered with the Washington Secretary of State that contracts with the Agency to provide culturally competent TNC driver representation services, outreach, and education, that is affiliated with an organization that has experience representing workers in grievance proceedings and whose administration and/or formation was/is not funded, excessively influenced, or controlled by a TNC. “Operating in Seattle” means, with respect to a TNC, providing application dispatch services to any affiliated driver at any time for the transport of any passenger for compensation from or to a point within the geographical confines of Seattle. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 334 Page 4 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 “Passenger drop-off location” means the location where a passenger exits a TNC driver’s vehicle at the end of a trip. “Passenger pick-up location” means the location where a passenger has requested to be picked up at the time of dispatch, for the purpose of receiving TNC services. “Passenger platform time” means the period of time commencing when a passenger enters the TNC driver’s vehicle until the time when the passenger exits the TNC vehicle. “Representative” means a person who gives advice or guidance and includes, but is not limited to, family members, friends, licensed professionals, attorneys, advocates, and Driver Resolution Center advocates. “Respondent” means the TNC who is alleged or found to have committed a violation of this Chapter 14.32. “TNC services” means services related to the transportation of passengers that are provided by a TNC driver while logged in to the driver platform, including services provided during available platform time, dispatch platform time, and passenger platform time. “Transportation network company” or “TNC” means an organization whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, licensed or required to be licensed under Chapter 6.310, operating in Seattle that offers prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform, such as an application dispatch system, to connect passengers with drivers using a “transportation network company (TNC) endorsed vehicle,” as defined in Chapter 6.310. “Transportation network company driver” or “TNC driver” means a licensed for-hire driver, as defined in Chapter 6.310, affiliated with and accepting trips from a licensed transportation network company. For purposes of this Chapter 14.32, at any time that a driver is logged into the driver platform, the driver is considered a TNC driver. “TNC dispatched trip” or “trip” means the dispatch of a TNC driver to provide transportation to a passenger in a TNC endorsed vehicle through the use of a TNC’s application dispatch system. The term “TNC SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 335 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 dispatched trip” or “trip” does not include transportation provided by taxicabs or for-hire vehicles, as defined in Chapter 6.310. “Written” or “writing” means a printed or printable communication in physical or electronic format including a communication that is transmitted through email, text message, or a computer system, or is otherwise sent and maintained electronically. 14.32.030 TNC driver coverage A TNC driver is covered by this Chapter 14.32 if the TNC driver provides TNC services within the geographic boundaries of the City for a TNC covered by this Chapter 14.32. 14.32.040 TNC coverage A. TNCs that report greater than 1,000,000 trips that originate in the City per the most recent quarterly report under Section 6.310.540 are covered under this Chapter 14.32. B. Separate entities that form an integrated enterprise shall be considered a single TNC under this Chapter 14.32. Separate entities will be considered an integrated enterprise and a single TNC under this Chapter 14.32 where a separate entity controls the operation of another entity. The factors to consider include, but are not limited to: 1. Degree of interrelation between the operations of multiple entities; 2. Degree to which the entities share common management; 3. Centralized control of labor relations; and 4. Degree of common ownership or financial control over the entities. 14.32.050 Protection from unwarranted deactivation A. TNC driver deactivation rights 1. No TNC shall subject a TNC driver to unwarranted deactivation, as defined by Director’s 2. Subject to driver eligibility standards created by Director’s rule, a TNC driver shall have rule. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 336 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 a right to challenge all permanent deactivations and temporary deactivations, as defined by Director’s rule. 3. The TNC driver has the right to elect between representing themselves during any deactivation challenge or being represented by a representative, including an advocate from the Driver Resolution Center. The Driver Resolution Center shall have discretion to determine whether to represent a TNC driver. 4. Upon deactivation, every TNC shall furnish to the TNC driver a written statement of the reasons for and effective date of deactivation and provide notice, in a form and manner designated by the Agency, of the TNC driver’s right to challenge such deactivation under this Section 14.32.050. The Agency shall create and distribute the notice in English and other languages as provided by rules issued by the Director. B. The TNC driver and TNC may, by mutual agreement, proceed to arbitration through the Deactivation Appeals Panel arbitration (“Panel arbitration”) proceeding created by this Chapter 14.32 instead of proceeding under any applicable arbitration agreement between the TNC driver and the TNC (“private arbitration agreement”). In the absence of a private arbitration agreement between a TNC driver and a TNC, the TNC driver shall have an absolute right to challenge the deactivation pursuant to subsections 14.32.050.C and 14.32.050.D, regardless of agreement by the TNC. C. Deactivation Appeals Panel process 1. If the TNC driver and TNC agree to proceed to arbitration through the Deactivation Appeals Panel arbitration proceeding created by this Chapter 14.32, the TNC driver and/or a representative must provide notice to the TNC of intent to challenge the deactivation no later than 60 days after the deactivation. 2. The TNC and the TNC driver and/or a representative shall attempt to resolve the challenge informally no later than 15 days after the notice of intent to challenge has been provided to the TNC, or within a time frame mutually agreed by the parties. 3. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL If the parties resolve the challenge informally pursuant to subsection 14.32.050.C.2, they Page 7 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 337 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 must memorialize that resolution in a written agreement. 4. The TNC driver and/or representative must provide notice of intent to arbitrate to the TNC no later than 15 days after the notice of intent to challenge has been provided to the TNC under subsection 14.32.050.C.1. 5. If a TNC driver demonstrates that a TNC failed to engage in the informal appeals process under this subsection 14.32.050.C, there shall be a presumption, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence, before the Deactivation Appeals Panel that the deactivation is unwarranted. D. Deactivation Appeals Panel 1. The City shall establish a “Deactivation Appeals Panel” (“Panel”) for purposes of hearing TNC driver challenges to deactivations. The Agency shall contract with one or more persons or entities (“neutral arbitrator”) to conduct arbitration proceedings to hear deactivation challenges. The neutral arbitrator shall be one member of the Panel. The remaining Panel members shall consist of an equal number of partisan panel members, representing the interests of the TNC driver and the TNC, respectively. The partisan panel members shall not be compensated by the City. 2. The utilization of the Panel arbitration proceeding created by this Chapter 14.32 is voluntary upon agreement by both parties and shall be of no cost to the TNC driver. If utilized, the Panel shall be the sole arbitration proceeding for challenging the deactivation. 3. The cost of arbitration, including any fee charged by an arbitrator, will be shared equally by the TNC and the Driver Resolution Center. If the TNC driver is not represented by a representative of the Driver Resolution Center, the TNC shall be solely responsible for the cost of arbitration. 4. The arbitration shall be conducted no later than 30 days after the notice of intent to arbitrate has been provided to the TNC under subsection 14.32.050.C.4, within a time frame mutually agreed by the parties, or as ordered by the Panel. 5. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Subject to rules issued by the Director, the Panel may conduct pre-hearing procedures, as Page 8 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 338 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 well as an evidentiary hearing at which parties shall be entitled to present witnesses and written evidence relevant to the dispute, and to cross-examine witnesses. 6. The Panel’s decision in any case shall be by majority vote, with each arbitrator holding 7. The Panel shall issue a written decision and, if appropriate, award relief. The Panel shall one vote. endeavor to issue the written decision within 48 hours of the evidentiary hearing. 8. Upon a decision concluding an unwarranted deactivation occurred, the Panel may order such relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, all remedies provided in Section 14.32.170. Should the Panel order that the TNC driver be reinstated, such order shall be limited to reinstatement to provide TNC services from a passenger drop-off location or a passenger pick-up location in the City. 9. The decision of the Panel shall be final and binding upon the parties. 10. Nothing in this subsection 14.32.050.D shall be construed as restricting a TNC driver’s right to pursue any remedy at law or equity for an unwarranted deactivation. 11. The Director shall issue rules to effectuate the terms of this Section 14.32.050 including, but not limited to, rules regarding the definition of unwarranted deactivation, driver eligibility to challenge deactivations, the selection of and criteria for the neutral arbitrator and partisan panel members, and the number of partisan panel members. The Director shall further consider methods to protect passenger privacy and address potential safety concerns during the Deactivation Appeal Panel proceeding. E. Subject to the provisions of this Section 14.32.050 and rules issued by the Director, a TNC may immediately deactivate a TNC driver if such action is required to comply with any applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations or where a TNC driver has engaged in egregious misconduct. F. For deactivations not described in subsection 14.32.050.E, the TNC shall provide the TNC driver with 14 days’ notice of the impending deactivation. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 of 15 339 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 G. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Section 14.32.050, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a federal or City holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, a Sunday, nor a federal or City holiday. 14.32.060 Driver Resolution Center A. The Agency may contract with a Driver Resolution Center to provide driver resolution services. Those services shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Consultation and/or direct representation for TNC drivers facing deactivation; 2. Other support for TNC drivers to ensure compliance with applicable labor standards and/or to support their ability to perform TNC services; and 3. Outreach and education to TNC drivers regarding their rights under this Chapter 14.32 and other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. B. The Director must approve in advance, by rule or otherwise, the provision of any services by a Driver Resolution Center pursuant to contract other than those identified in subsection 14.32.060.A. Any additional services provided must be consistent with this Chapter 14.32. 14.32.116 Rulemaking authority The Director is authorized to administer this Chapter 14.32. The Director shall exercise all responsibilities under this Chapter 14.32 pursuant to rules and regulations developed under Chapter 3.02. The Director is authorized to promulgate, revise, or rescind rules and regulations deemed necessary, appropriate, or convenient to administer, and evaluate the provisions of this Chapter 14.32, providing affected entities with due process of law and in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Chapter 14.32. 14.32.140 Violation The failure of any respondent to comply with any requirement imposed on the respondent under this Chapter SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 340 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 14.32 is a violation. 14.32.170 Remedies A. The payment of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and interest provided under this Chapter 14.32 is cumulative and is not intended to be exclusive of any of the above referenced remedies and procedures. 1. Interest shall accrue from the date the unpaid compensation was first due at 12 percent annum, or the maximum rate permitted under RCW 19.52.020. 2. When determining the amount of liquidated damages payable to aggrieved parties due under this Section 14.32.170, the Panel shall consider: B. a. The total amount of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and interest due; b. The nature and persistence of the violations; c. The extent of the respondent’s culpability; d. The substantive or technical nature of the violations; e. The size, revenue, and human resources capacity of the respondent; f. The circumstances of each situation; g. Other factors pursuant to rules issued by the Director. A respondent found to be in violation of this Chapter 14.32 shall be liable for full payment of unpaid compensation plus interest in favor of the aggrieved party for the period of deactivation under the terms of this Chapter 14.32, and other equitable relief. The Director shall issue rules regarding the method of calculating unpaid compensation. The Director is authorized to designate a daily amount for unpaid compensation. For a first violation of this Chapter 14.32, the Panel may assess liquidated damages in an additional amount of up to twice the unpaid compensation. 1. For subsequent violations of this Chapter 14.32, the Panel may assess an amount of liquidated damages in an additional amount of up to twice the unpaid compensation. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 of 15 341 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 2. For purposes of establishing a first and subsequent violation for this Section 14.32.170, the violation must have occurred within ten years of the settlement agreement or Panel’s written decision. 14.32.230 Private right of action A. Any person or class of persons that suffers financial injury as a result of a violation of this Chapter 14.32, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the TNC violating this Chapter 14.32 and, upon prevailing, may be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs and such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the payment of any unpaid compensation plus interest due to the person and liquidated damages in an additional amount of up to twice the unpaid compensation. Interest shall accrue from the date the unpaid compensation was first due at 12 percent per annum, or the maximum rate permitted under RCW 19.52.020. B. For purposes of this Section 14.32.230, “person” includes any entity a member of which has suffered financial injury, or any other individual or entity acting on behalf of an aggrieved party that has suffered financial injury. C. For purposes of determining membership within a class of persons entitled to bring an action under this Section 14.32.230, two or more TNC drivers are similarly situated if they: 1. Are or were contracted to perform TNC services by the same TNC or TNCs, whether concurrently or otherwise, at some point during the applicable statute of limitations period, D. 2. Allege one or more violations that raise similar questions as to liability, and 3. Seek similar forms of relief. For purposes of subsection 14.32.230.C, TNC drivers shall not be considered dissimilar solely because their: 1. Claims seek damages that differ in amount, or 2. Job titles or other means of classifying TNC drivers differ in ways that are unrelated to their claims. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 342 Page 12 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 E. Nothing contained in this Chapter 14.32 is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the City, or its officers, employees, or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from or by reason of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or administration of this Chapter 14.32 on the part of the City by its officers, employees, or agents. 14.32.235 Encouragement of more generous policies A. Nothing in this Chapter 14.32 shall be construed to discourage or prohibit a TNC from the adoption or retention of protections more generous than the ones required by this Chapter 14.32. B. Nothing in this Chapter 14.32 shall be construed as diminishing the obligation of a TNC to comply with any contract, or other agreement providing more generous protections to TNC drivers than required by this Chapter 14.32. 14.32.240 Other legal requirements This Chapter 14.32 defines requirements for TNC driver deactivation protections and shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, requirement, policy, or standard that provides for greater requirements; and nothing in this Chapter 14.32 shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any power or duty in conflict with federal or state law. 14.32.250 Severability The provisions of this Chapter 14.32 are declared to be separate and severable. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, subsection, or portion of this Chapter 14.32, or the application thereof to any TNC, TNC driver, or circumstance, is held to be invalid, it shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Chapter 14.32, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 125684, is amended as follows: 3.15.000 Office of Labor Standards created-Functions There is created within the Executive Department an Office of Labor Standards, under the direction of the SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 13 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 343 File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 Mayor. The mission of the Office of Labor Standards is to advance labor standards through thoughtful community and business engagement, strategic enforcement and innovative policy development, with a commitment to race and social justice. The Office of Labor Standards seeks to promote greater economic opportunity and further the health, safety, and welfare of employees; support employers in their implementation of labor standards requirements; and end barriers to workplace equity for women, communities of color, immigrants and refugees, and other vulnerable workers. The functions of the Office of Labor Standards are as follows: A. Promoting labor standards through outreach, education, technical assistance, and training for employees and employers; B. Collecting and analyzing data on labor standards enforcement; C. Partnering with community, businesses, and workers for stakeholder input and collaboration; D. Developing innovative labor standards policy; E. Administering and enforcing City of Seattle ordinances relating to minimum wage and minimum compensation (Chapter 14.19), paid sick and safe time (Chapter 14.16), use of criminal history in employment decisions (Chapter 14.17), wage and tip compensation requirements (Chapter 14.20), secure scheduling (Chapter 14.22), commuter benefits (Chapter 14.30), transportation network company driver deactivation protections (Chapter 14.32), and other labor standards ordinances the City may enact in the future. *** Section 4. No provision of this ordinance shall be construed as providing any determination regarding the legal status of TNC drivers as employees or independent contractors. Section 5. Section 2 of this ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2020. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 344 Page 14 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: CB 119686, Version: 1 Passed by the City Council the ________ day of _________________________, 2019, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this _____ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ President ____________ of the City Council Approved by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor Filed by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk (Seal) 345 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 15 of 15 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ Kerem Levitas OLS TNC Driver Deactivation Rights ORD D1b SUMMARY and FISCAL NOTE* Department: Office of Labor Standards Dept. Contact/Phone: Kerem Levitas, 6-9758 CBO Contact/Phone: Julie Dingley / 684-5523 * Note that the Summary and Fiscal Note describes the version of the bill or resolution as introduced; final legislation including amendments may not be fully described. 1. BILL SUMMARY Legislation Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to transportation network company drivers; establishing deactivation protections for transportation network company drivers; amending Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 14.32 to the Seattle Municipal Code. Summary and background of the Legislation: The ordinance takes effect on July 1, 2020. The ordinance establishes deactivation protections for transportation network company (TNC) drivers, establishes a Deactivation Appeals Panel to hear deactivation disputes, and provides for the Office of Labor Standards (OLS) to contract with a Driver Resolution Center to represent drivers at arbitration proceedings. 1. Deactivation Rights. The ordinance establishes the following rights for TNC drivers: a. TNCs may not subject TNC drivers to unwarranted deactivations. b. TNC drivers may challenge any permanent deactivation. c. TNC drivers may represent themselves or be represented by a representative during any deactivation challenge. d. Upon deactivation, a TNC must provide notice of deactivation rights. 2. Deactivation Appeals. TNCs may challenge a deactivation through private arbitration under their existing contract with a TNC or through a Deactivation Appeals Panel (DAP). If the DAP process is used, the TNC and TNC driver must attempt to resolve any dispute informally. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute informally, the driver may challenge the deactivation before the DAP. The panel consists of one neutral arbitrator and an equal number of partisan panel members, representing the interests of the TNC driver and the TNC, respectively. 3. Driver Resolution Center (DRC). OLS is authorized to contract with a DRC to provide culturally competent consultation and direct representation, as well as outreach and education to drivers regarding their rights under relevant labor standards. Funding for the Driver Resolution Center and related driver protections will be provided from revenues from the proposed TNC tax found in companion legislation. 346 1 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. Kerem Levitas OLS TNC Driver Deactivation Rights ORD D1b 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Does this legislation create, fund, or amend a CIP Project? ___ Yes __X__ No 3. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Does this legislation amend the Adopted Budget? ___ Yes _X___ No Does the legislation have other financial impacts to the City of Seattle that are not reflected in the above, including direct or indirect, short-term or long-term costs? Yes – The legislation creates a new labor standard and authorizes OLS to contract with a Driver Resolution Center to provide consultation and direct representation, as well as outreach and education to drivers regarding their rights under relevant labor standards. Additional funding and/or positions needed to carry out the requirements of this bill will be detailed in additional 2020 legislation. Is there financial cost or other impacts of not implementing the legislation? There are no financial costs to the City of not implementing the legislation. 4. OTHER IMPLICATIONS a. Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? No. b. Is a public hearing required for this legislation? No. c. Does this legislation require landlords or sellers of real property to provide information regarding the property to a buyer or tenant? No. d. Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation? No. e. Does this legislation affect a piece of property? No. f. Please describe any perceived implication for the principles of the Race and Social Justice Initiative. Does this legislation impact vulnerable or historically disadvantaged communities? What is the Language Access plan for any communications to the public? 347 2 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. Kerem Levitas OLS TNC Driver Deactivation Rights ORD D1b This ordinance establishes deactivation rights for TNC drivers. TNCs classify these drivers as independent contractors and represent that they are exempt from existing minimum labor standards established by federal, state, and local law. In 2018, the King County Department of Licensing issues 31,676 TNC driver permits. A large number of those drivers are immigrants and people of color who have taken on debt or invested their savings to purchase and/or lease vehicles to provide TNC services. TNC drivers are subject to TNC companies’ policies that can be unilaterally changed so they can be deactivated or terminated for a variety of reasons. The TNCs frequently deactivate drivers with limited review of those deactivations. Establishing a reasonable standard for the deactivations of TNC drivers as well as cost-free access to an arbitration process in which unwarranted deactivations may be challenged will help ensure that thousands of drivers, particularly drivers who are immigrants or people of color, and who provide vital transportation services in Seattle will be able enjoy a small measure of job security. The ordinance requires that notices that are provided by OLS be made available in “English and other languages.” OLS has extensive experience developing materials in other languages and working with community partners to ensure that translations are appropriate for the particular demographic groups in impacted communities. OLS intends to provide translations based on the specific demographics of the TNC driver community, as established through available data and consultation with driver and community-based organizations. Further, through the request for proposal process, OLS is committed to ensuring that the DRC provides its services in an accessible manner. g. If this legislation includes a new initiative or a major programmatic expansion: What are the specific long-term and measurable goal(s) of the program? How will this legislation help achieve the program’s desired goal(s). This legislation will be the ninth local labor law (assuming passage of the hotel related legislation now being considered by Council) that OLS will provide education and outreach on and implement. OLS currently has a staff of 28 FTEs and contracts with communitybased organizations for outreach and education to both workers and businesses. OLS will evaluate any contract with the DRC using the same metrics it uses to evaluate its contracts with community-based contractors (e.g., number of intakes, number of outreach activities, number of cases, case completion time). List attachments/exhibits below: 348 3 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Text File #: Res 31914, Version: 1 CITY OF SEATTLE RESOLUTION __________________ A RESOLUTION adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center. WHEREAS, Seattle is one of the fastest-growing major cities in the country, gaining 100,000 new residents and more than 50,000 jobs in the last 20 years, and this growth is a boon to our economy and a test for our transportation system; and WHEREAS, Seattle families’ transportation-related spending is second only to their spending on housing, and a well-functioning transportation system that provides many alternatives to the expense of car ownership makes living and working in Seattle more affordable; and WHEREAS, public transit provides affordable and critical transportation services to all consumers; and WHEREAS, the Seattle streetcar network has seen an increase in ridership of 18 percent in 2018, totaling a combined system-wide ridership of 1,673,000 riders; and WHEREAS, the Center City Connector Streetcar line will provide a critical link in the Seattle streetcar network, connecting residents and visitors to regional bus lines, ferries at Coleman Docks, and light rail connections; and WHEREAS, existing sources of funding for affordable housing are insufficient to meet the needs of all individuals and families experiencing a housing cost burden; and WHEREAS, investments in affordable housing provide access to opportunity for low-wage workers and their families, increase mobility from poverty, and foster inclusive communities accessible to all; and WHEREAS, individuals and families making in the range of $15 to $25 per hour are especially dependent on 349 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: Res 31914, Version: 1 transit for commuting to centrally located destinations such as their jobs, schools, grocery stores, libraries, and clinics; and WHEREAS, co-locating affordable housing investments near transit infrastructure amplifies investments’ capacity to simultaneously address Seattle’s mobility and affordability challenges; and WHEREAS, transportation network companies (TNCs) provide application dispatch services that allow passengers to directly request the dispatch of drivers via the internet using mobile interfaces such as smartphone applications; and WHEREAS, TNCs are major hiring entities, with 31,676 TNC drivers issued permits by King County in 2018 as recorded by the King County Department of Licensing; and WHEREAS, in the pursuit of economic opportunity, many TNC drivers are immigrants and people of color who have taken on debt or invested their savings to purchase and/or lease vehicles and for-hire licenses; and WHEREAS, TNC drivers who have access to a driver conflict resolution center for education and representation in cases such as unwarranted deactivation will be more likely to remain in their positions over time, and such experienced drivers will improve the safety and reliability of the TNC services provided to passengers and thus reduce the safety and reliability problems created by frequent turnover in the TNC industry; and WHEREAS, research shows TNCs contribute to growing traffic congestion in large U.S. cities; and WHEREAS, over 24 million TNC trips were taken in Seattle in 2018, showing consistent growth year over year; and WHEREAS, The City of Seattle intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, and impose a tax on TNCs operating in Seattle; and WHEREAS, Mayor Durkan has proposed further investments in affordable housing near transit, transportation, SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 5 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 350 File #: Res 31914, Version: 1 and a driver conflict resolution center using proceeds from a tax on TNC companies providing 1,000,000 rides per quarter or more on a per-ride basis; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this plan is to effectuate Seattle’s vision to provide housing and transit opportunities for all, and support drivers in the TNC community by bringing educational tools and representation that is afforded to other sectors; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THE MAYOR CONCURRING, THAT: Section 1. Spending Plan. The City shall use the proceeds of the transportation network company (TNC) tax imposed by Chapter 5.39 of the Seattle Municipal Code to accelerate affordable housing production for low-wage workers and their families at locations that are within the frequent transit network, make investments in transportation, including transit, and provide for workplace protections. Eligible expenditures include: A. Funding of the administration of the TNC tax and regulations related to TNC drivers up to $2,000,000 in the first year, for the second year and each year after up to $1,500,000. Beginning in year five, this amount may increase each year to reflect the rate of inflation, consistent with the Consumer Price Index, and subject to appropriations. B. Up to $3,500,000 per year shall fund a Driver Resolution Center to provide driver resolution services and costs related to administering driver protection. C. After administrative costs related to the tax and regulations of TNC drivers, as described in subsection A of this section, and after funding the Driver Resolution Center and other driver protections as described in subsection B of this section, up to 50 percent of revenue from the tax over its first six full years shall be used to finance acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, operations, and maintenance of property to provide housing that serves low-income households and provide for the housing needs of low-income households within the frequent transit network, as defined by the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Transit 351 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 5 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ File #: Res 31914, Version: 1 Master Plan. The low-income housing funded hereby should serve households making up to 80 percent of the annual median family income for the statistical area or division thereof including Seattle, for which median family income is published from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or successor agency, with adjustments according to household size in a manner determined by the Director of Housing. Beginning in the seventh full year after adoption of this tax, up to $5,000,000 (in 2020 dollars, indexed to reflect the rate of inflation) per year shall be used to provide operating support for Office of Housing (OH)- funded housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the median family income. D. After administrative costs related to the tax and regulations of TNC drivers as described in subsection A of this section, and after funding the Driver Resolution Center and other driver protections as described in subsection B of this section, and after the funding for affordable housing as described in subsection C of this section, the remainder of revenue collected in the first six full years that the tax is imposed shall be used to support projects related to transportation and transit, including the Center City Streetcar. Beginning in the seventh full year after adoption of this tax, after the administrative costs, funding the Driver Resolution Center, and after up to $5,000,000 (in 2020 dollars, indexed to reflect the rate of inflation) used to support for OH-funded housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the median family income per year, the remainder of the net proceeds shall be used to support projects related to transportation improvements and transit. Section 2. Every year, or at such other intervals as the City Council may specify, the Executive shall prepare a report to include total revenue collected per year and the cost of administration of the tax and regulatory oversight related to the TNC tax. Section 3. Accountability and Oversight Committees. For the purpose of overseeing the funding for low -income housing with access to the frequent transit network, the Housing Levy Oversight Committee shall provide a report to the City Council as to the progress of funding received from the TNC tax. The Director of the Office of Housing, or the Director’s designee, will prepare and submit to the Oversight Committee, City SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 5 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ 352 File #: Res 31914, Version: 1 Council, and Mayor an annual progress report on the implementation of funds from the TNC tax. For the purpose of overseeing the spending of tax proceeds related to transportation improvements, the Levy to Move Seattle Oversight Committee (or its successor) shall oversee and monitor the progress of funding received from the tax. The Director of the Department of Transportation, or assigned designee, will prepare and submit to the Oversight Committee, City Council, and Mayor an annual report on the implementation of programs receiving funding from the tax. Adopted by the City Council the ________ day of _________________________, 2019, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ President ____________ of the City Council The Mayor concurred the ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ Jenny A. Durkan Filed by me this ________ day of _________________________, 2019. ____________________________________ Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk (Seal) 353 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 5 Printed on 10/30/2019 powered by Legistar™ Kate Garman MO TNC Tax Spending Plan SUM D1a SUMMARY and FISCAL NOTE* Department: Mayor’s Office Dept. Contact/Phone: Kate Garman / 727-8760 CBO Contact/Phone: Julie Dingley / 684-5523 * Note that the Summary and Fiscal Note describes the version of the bill or resolution as introduced; final legislation including amendments may not be fully described. 1. BILL SUMMARY Legislation Title: A RESOLUTION adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center. Summary and background of the Legislation: This legislation adopts a plan for how the proceeds from the proposed Seattle Transportation Network Company tax (TNC tax) will be used:     First, the plan funds the setup and ongoing costs of administering and collecting the TNC tax and regulations related to TNC drivers by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS). In the first year that cost is up to $2,000,000 and in the second and beyond $1,500,000, indexed for inflation beginning in the fifth year. The plan funds up to $3,500,000 per year for a Driver Resolution Center that provides resolution services to TNC drivers and TNCs, which may include services such as providing a venue for drivers to contest deactivation by a TNC. This Center will be administered by a neutral, third-party non-profit organization and be funded in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services and/or the Office for Labor Standards, with support and evaluation funding provided within this part of the spending plan. The proceeds remaining after expenses the above two items shall be split during the first six full years of tax collection. Up to half of the proceeds shall go to the Office of Housing (OH)’s Low-Income Housing Fund to finance acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance of property to provide housing that serves low-income households and proves for the housing needs of low-income households with the frequent transit network as defined by the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Transit Master Plan. The remainder of the proceeds shall be used to support projects related to transportation and transit, including the Center City Streetcar. Beginning in the seventh full year of collection, the funds will be spent as follows: 1. Ongoing costs of administering and collecting the TNC tax and regulations related to TNC drivers by FAS as described above. (up to $1,500,000, indexed for inflation) 2. Costs for operations of the Driver Resolution Center, as described above. (up to $3,500,000) 3. Operating support for OH-funded housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 30% of the Median Income. (up to $5,000,000) 354 1 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. Kate Garman MO TNC Tax Spending Plan SUM D1a 4. Projects related to transportation improvements and transit (remainder of the tax proceeds). 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Does this legislation create, fund, or amend a CIP Project? ___ Yes _X_ No 3. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Does this legislation amend the Adopted Budget? ___ Yes _X_ No Does the legislation have other financial impacts to the City of Seattle that are not reflected in the above, including direct or indirect, short-term or long-term costs? No. Is there financial cost or other impacts of not implementing the legislation? No. 4. OTHER IMPLICATIONS a. Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? The Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS), the Office of Labor Standards (OLS), Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and Office of Housing (OH) will receive the funds described in the spending plan once the tax is collected and appropriation authority is transferred from Finance General to the appropriate departments. b. Is a public hearing required for this legislation? No. c. Does this legislation require landlords or sellers of real property to provide information regarding the property to a buyer or tenant? No. d. Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation? No. e. Does this legislation affect a piece of property? No. f. Please describe any perceived implication for the principles of the Race and Social Justice Initiative. Does this legislation impact vulnerable or historically disadvantaged communities? What is the Language Access plan for any communications to the public? The resolution adopts a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company (TNC) tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, 355 2 Template last revised: May 1, 2019. Kate Garman MO TNC Tax Spending Plan SUM D1a transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center and other driver protections. People of color are disproportionately affected by rising costs associated with housing affordability and access to transportation. In addition, the Driver Resolution Center will provide resolution services to TNC drivers and TNCs, which may include services such as providing a venue for drivers to contest deactivation by a TNC. Many drivers are people of color and/or immigrants. g. If this legislation includes a new initiative or a major programmatic expansion: What are the specific long-term and measurable goal(s) of the program? How will this legislation help achieve the program’s desired goal(s). The resolution adopts a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to support affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center and other driver protections. Evaluation plans will be developed as the City studies the minimum wage for drivers. List attachments/exhibits below: 356 3 Template last revised: May 1, 2019.