When Healthy Food is Out of Reach

About D.C. Hunger Solutions
D.C. Hunger Solutions, founded in 2002 as an initiative of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), works to
create a hunger-free community and improve the nutrition, health, economic security, and well-being of low-income
people in the District of Columbia. To learn more about D.C. Hunger Solutions, visit www.dchunger.org.
About Social Compact
Social Compact is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to facilitating sustainable private investment in
undervalued communities with the goal of helping families and communities build long-term wealth and strength. To
learn more about Social Compact, visit www.socialcompact.org.
Acknowledgments
When Healthy Food Is Out of Reach was funded by the District of Columbia Department of Health, Community Health
Administration. Special thanks to the Convergence Partnership. Support also was provided by the Altarum Institute,
Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, Capital One, Case Foundation, Church World Service, CityBridge
Foundation, Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation, Consumer Health Foundation, England Family Foundation,
John Edward Fowler Memorial Foundation, HSC Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, MARPAT Foundation, MAZON:
A Jewish Response to Hunger, Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, Moriah Fund, Morningstar Foundation,
Prince Charitable Trusts, Public Welfare Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Share Our Strength,
Sodexo, Trellis Fund, UPS Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wachovia Foundation, Washington Area
Women’s Foundation, Washington Post, Weissberg Foundation, and the World Bank Community Connections Fund.
Points of view or opinions in this publication are those of the authors and do not represent official positions or
policies of the District of Columbia Department of Health or other supporters.
This report was written by D.C. Hunger Solutions staff Alexandra Ashbrook and Kristin Roberts, and by Social
Compact.
D.C. Hunger Solutions gratefully acknowledges the key support of: Michele Tingling-Clemmons, Bureau Chief,
Nutrition and Physical Fitness Bureau, Community Health Administration of the D.C. Department of Health; Anita
Hairston, former Chief of Staff, D.C. Office of Planning; and James K. Graham, GIS Specialist, D.C. Office of
Planning. Thanks also to Keith Sellars and Chad Shuskey, Washington, D.C. Economic Partnership, for their
collaboration and data contributions; Lori Glass, The Reinvestment Fund; Miriam Manon and Allison Karpyn, The
Food Trust; Marc Bleyer, D.C. Office of Planning; Andrew Waxman, Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development
Corporation; and Jim Weill, Jen Adach, and Alexis Bylander, Food Research and Action Center.
Executive Summary
In numerous cities across the United States, studies have documented a troubling “grocery gap”: low-income and
minority communities often have far less access to full-service grocery stores than do higher-income communities.
Nationally, the grocery gap forces many low-income people to spend money and time travelling long distances to
access food at full-service grocery stores. In some neighborhoods where full-service stores are absent, shoppers may
rely on small corner or convenience stores, which often do not have sufficient healthy food and may charge higher
prices for the limited nutritious food available.
Numerous researchers have demonstrated relationships between the food environment and diet, and frequently have
pointed to the grocery gap—and the resulting “food deserts”—as a significant contributor to poor nutrition and rising
rates of obesity and diet-related chronic illnesses. One study documented a significant uptick in fruit and vegetable
consumption when a full-service grocer appeared in a previously underserved neighborhood.1, 2 Food deserts have
particularly detrimental effects in low-income communities where residents often face additional barriers to accessing
nutritious foods and other services necessary for a healthy life.
Limited access to full-service grocery stores also exacerbates the growing food insecurity Americans face—49.1
million Americans lived in food insecure households in 2008. The grocery gap means that communities and grocery
store operators alike are unable to capitalize on the benefits of neighborhood grocery retail. For store operators, there
is a missed market opportunity in the form of lost revenue when neighborhood residents are unable to shop in their
own neighborhoods. For residents, particularly low-income people (including the nearly 38 million Americans
receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/food stamps benefits and the nearly 9 million
participating in the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program (WIC)), lack of full-service grocery stores in a
community also means fewer job opportunities—jobs that can offer benefits and potential for career advancement. In
addition, full-service grocery stores often serve as catalysts for community revitalization by attracting other retail,
improving the livability of the neighborhood, creating foot traffic for other businesses in the area, increasing property
values of neighborhood residences, and expanding the tax base.
Many areas in the District of Columbia are hit hard by the same set of coinciding problems that impact low-income
communities across the U.S.—poverty, hunger, obesity, and lack of access to healthy foods (see Overview Table). In
the nation’s capital, one in eight households struggles against hunger. In fall 2009, approximately 110,000 District
residents—more than one in six—participated in SNAP/the Food Stamp Program, and about 17,500 received
Women, Infants and Children program (WIC) benefits. Furthermore, high rates of obesity and diet-related diseases
affect low-income District residents, and the city has an exceptionally large disparity in obesity rates between AfricanAmericans and Caucasians living in the District.
In view of the relationships among the local food environment and residents’ nutrition, health, and economic status,
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact embarked on a project to investigate access to full-service grocery stores
and determine whether food deserts exist in Washington, D.C. The resulting report, When Healthy Food Is Out of Reach,
reveals a clear gap in access to full-service grocery stores between higher-income and lower-income wards of the
District of Columbia. The report also identifies food deserts in low-income areas, which likely are contributing to
alarming rates of obesity and diet-related diseases in these areas.
Key Report Findings: Access to Full-Service Grocery Stores
•
Finding #1 The District of Columbia’s 43 full-service grocery stores are distributed very unevenly across the
District.3
•
Finding #2 The ratio of full-service grocery stores to residents varies widely among the District's wards.
Ward 3 has five times as many full-service grocers per resident as Ward 4.
1
Moreland, K., Wing, S., and Diez Roux, A. “The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: The atherosclerosis risk in communities
study,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 92, 11 (2002): 1761-67.
2 Cheadle, A., et al. “Community-level comparisons between the grocery store environment and individual dietary practices,” Preventive Medicine, vol. 20, 2 (1991):
250-61.
3 For this report, a full-service grocery store is defined as a business establishment with a minimum of 5,000 square feet primarily engaged in retailing food for
home consumption and preparation, based on listings provided by ACNielsen-Claritas, which regularly provides products in each of the following categories: fresh
fruits (eight or more types), fresh vegetables (eight or more types), fresh meat (five or more types), dairy, and bread. This category does not include restaurants or
carry-out establishments.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 1
•
Finding #3 While nearly all full-service grocers in the District accept SNAP/food stamp benefits, only 48
percent of them accept WIC.
•
Finding #4 The available grocery retail space varies significantly from ward to ward. Wards 4, 7, and 8 have
fewer square feet of grocery retail per person than the District average.
•
Finding #5 On average, residents of Wards 4, 5, and 7 must travel longer distances than residents in other
wards to reach the closest full-service grocery store.
•
Finding #6 The District has an opportunity to capture more of residents’ grocery expenditures. The
District loses more than $112 million in annual grocery revenues to neighboring jurisdictions because existing
grocery retail is insufficient to meet residents’ demand.
•
Finding #7 The District has a grocery gap. Some areas of the District—particularly in Wards 4, 5, 6, 7, and
8—are underserved by full-service grocery retail, compared to other areas.
Food Deserts in the District of Columbia
Based on the analysis of grocery store access, When Healthy Food Is Out of Reach shows that food deserts—areas
of the city with inadequate access to full-service stores and, possibly, potential for new grocery development—
exist in the District. Moreover, Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8 contain low-income areas with limited access to full-service
grocery stores—these areas warrant particular attention in closing the grocery gap.
Recommendations
If the District is to make strides in reducing the city’s income and racial disparities in obesity rates, combating hunger,
and taking advantage of economic development opportunities, it must close the grocery gap and eliminate food
deserts by bringing full-service grocers to underserved areas. To do that, the District should achieve the following:
1. Develop a Healthy Food Access Initiative with an initial budget of several million dollars in public funds
(which would be leveraged by a private institution). Modeled on Pennsylvania’s successful Fresh Food
Financing Initiative and New York City’s “FRESH” Program, the District’s Healthy Food Access Initiative
would: a) attract full-service grocers and other healthy food vendors to low-income neighborhoods; and b)
improve the capacity of existing food retailers in those areas. The Initiative also would create hundreds of
jobs and generate tax revenue for the District. Pennsylvania’s initiative, established in 2004, has helped
finance the development and improvement of 83 full-service grocers and other fresh food outlets across the
state and created and retained approximately 5,000 jobs. The state’s initial investment of $30 million was
leveraged by a private financing institution to create a $120 million fund.4 A similar program—the National
Healthy Food Financing Initiative—was introduced in President Obama’s 2011 budget and reiterated in the
First Lady’s Let’s Move initiative to address childhood obesity.
2. Ensure that WIC program participants have adequate access to retail outlets that accept WIC
benefits. To ensure that WIC participants have access to WIC-approved retailers close to where they live,
the District must recruit additional local full-service grocery stores—particularly in Wards 7 and 8—to
participate as WIC retailers. Further, the District should follow the lead of other cities like Baltimore and
allow several smaller-scale grocery stores to become WIC-approved retailers in food deserts. Adding these
small stores to the D.C. WIC program would help expand healthy food choices (including fresh fruits and
vegetables) for all consumers shopping at WIC-approved stores.
4
More information about the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative available at: http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/programs/fffi.php.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 2
Report Summary
Closing the grocery gap in Washington, D.C., is critical to the nutrition, health, and economic security of low-income
households in the District, as well as that of the city at large. Equally critical is continuing to ensure that all existing
full-service grocery stores accept food stamp benefits and a sufficient number accept WIC, which can help enable
low-income consumers to access healthy food.
The table below summarizes possible connections among income, race/ethnicity, health outcomes, and access to fullservice grocery stores in the District.
District of Columbia Overview: Demographics, Access to Grocery Stores, and Health5
# of FullService
Grocery
Stores
%
Overweight or
Obese
% with
Diabetes
% AfricanAmerican
Ward
Population
Avg.
Household
Income
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
79,290
83,827
80,775
76,880
73,634
65,928
73,856
69,047
$63,000
$98,000
$128,000
$78,000
$49,000
$69,000
$39,000
$29,000
6
8
11
2
3
6
4
3
57.5
47.9
42.2
61.2
67.8
49.2
72.9
71.5
6.0
8.2
3.5
8.1
12.5
6.3
13.8
18.3
D.C.
603,238
$74,000
43
(avg. 5.4
per ward)
55.0
8.0
%
Hispanic
% nonHispanic
Caucasian
43.2
30.4
6.3
77.9
88.2
68.7
96.9
91.8
23.4
8.6
6.5
12.8
2.5
2.4
0.9
1.5
35.2
56.2
83.6
10.3
7.9
27.2
1.4
5.8
60.0
7.9
30.8
Table notes: The shaded rows indicate Wards that have fewer full-service grocers than the District’s average.
Fortunately, the grocery gap—and the resulting food deserts—also presents investment opportunities for the District.
Indeed, several market studies of District neighborhoods in or near current food deserts have found market demand
that potentially could support full-service grocery stores of 50,000 square feet or larger. Investing in grocery retail
development in the District’s underserved communities is a “win-win” that improves public health and nutrition, can
reduce costs for low-income residents, creates jobs, and helps stimulate the local economy and other development
efforts.
5 Population and income source: Social Compact, “Washington, DC Drill Down,” (2008). Existing grocery store source: ACNielsen-Claritas (2008).
Planned grocery store source: Washington DC Economic Partnership (2009). Health indicators source: District of Columbia Department of Health, Center
for Policy, Planning and Epidemiology. “Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey,” 2007 Annual Report (May 2009). Race/ethnicity source: U.S. Census
(2000).
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 3
When Healthy Food Is Out of Reach: Report Overview
In view of the numerous economic and health implications of improving access to full-service grocery stores, this
report identifies and analyzes access to 43 full-service stores in the District of Columbia and stores located within two
miles of the District’s border. This report does not examine store quality or food prices.
Part I: Analysis of Access to Full-Service Grocery Stores
To determine physical access to grocery stores, the report looks at the following:
•
The number of full-service grocery stores (without regard to quality of store) located in each ward (Map 1).
•
The number of full-service grocery stores that accept federal nutrition benefits—SNAP/food stamps and
WIC (Map 2).
•
The total square feet of grocery retail space available to residents of each ward (Table 6).
•
The average distance each ward’s residents travel to a full-service grocery store (Table 7).
•
Grocery dollars spent outside the District, indicating unmet demand.
•
The gap in access to full-service grocery stores, according to the access indicators listed above (Map 3).
Part II: Identifying Food Deserts
The report then identifies areas of the city with limited access to full-service grocery stores and highlights areas in
which limited access overlaps with relatively high poverty. By identifying food deserts that likely are making it more
difficult for low-income families to obtain reasonably-priced healthy food, as well as likely contributing to the
District’s high rates of obesity and related illnesses, this report sets the stage for prioritizing areas for new grocery
store development.
The District’s food deserts located in low-income areas are shown in Map 4.
Part III: Recommendations for Improving Access to Full-Service Grocery Stores in the District
Areas with limited grocery store access that are deemed food deserts can also represent opportunities for grocery store
development. Thus, this report concludes with a preliminary analysis of the potential to attract and support grocery
stores in areas of the District underserved by grocery retail through the creation of a Healthy Food Access Initiative,
similar to Fresh Food Financing Initiatives in other states and cities and to a National Healthy Food Financing
Initiative introduced in President Obama’s 2011 budget. The report also recommends expanding shopping options
for low-income mothers and young children by increasing the number of WIC-approved retailers in the city.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 4
PART I: Analysis of Access to Full-Service Grocery Stores
Access Indicator: Number of Full-Service Grocery Stores Located in Each Ward
Finding #1
The District of Columbia’s 43 full-service grocery stores are distributed unevenly across the city.
The uneven distribution of full-service grocery stores creates a substantial gap in access to groceries.
Wards 7 and 8, the two wards with the lowest average household incomes, have 16 percent of the District’s grocery
stores but 23 percent of the city’s population. Meanwhile, the two wards with the highest average household incomes,
Wards 2 and 3, have 44 percent of the city’s stores but only 27 percent of the population.
The distribution of the 43 full-service grocery stores leaves many residents of lower-income areas of the city with far
less access to stores located in their own wards than residents of higher-income areas have in theirs.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the 43 full-service grocery stores located in Washington, D.C., included in this
report. The report includes all full-service grocers as well as those stores slated for completion by 2010. The data on
stores included in this report were gathered and analyzed in 2009 and do not take into account changes that have
taken place since December 2009. The following two considerations regarding full-service grocers in the District
should be noted: 1) the Harris Teeter store scheduled to be opened in the NoMa area (Ward 6) in 2010 has not yet
opened at this report’s release; 2) the Safeway store at 514 Rhode Island Ave. NE (Ward 5) will close its operations on
March 6, 2010; 3) several stores undergoing renovations in 2010 may close at certain points during the process.
TABLE 1 43 Full-Service Grocery Stores in D.C.
Ward
Store
Ward
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Best D.C. Supermarket
Bestway Supermarket
Giant Food Store
Harris Teeter Supermarket
Murry’s
Safeway Store
Capital Super Market
Giant Food Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Trader Joes Market
Whole Foods Market
Brookville Super Market
Giant Food Store
Giant Food Store
Magruder’s Super Market
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
•
3
Rodman’s Discount Gourmet Food
•
8
•
•
•
3
3
3
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
•
•
8
8
• = store located in D.C.
• = store in D.C. under renovation
Store
Super Fresh Food Market
Whole Foods Market
Whole Foods Market
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Giant Food Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Harris Teeter
Harris Teeter
Murry’s
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Murry’s
Murry’s
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Anacostia Warehouse
Supermarket
Giant Food Store
Murry’s
• = store in D.C. under construction
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 5
Methodology: For purposes of this report, full-service grocery stores are defined as business establishments with a
minimum of 5,000 square feet primarily engaged in retailing food for home consumption and preparation, according
to data provided by ACNielsen-Claritas (2008). The 2008 data were supplemented with information from the
Washington, D.C. Economic Partnership on grocery stores that opened and planned to open in 2009 and 2010. Stores
that closed in the 2009 to 2010 period were taken out of the total list of stores. Additionally, to be considered “fullservice,” stores had to contain the following sections: fresh fruits (eight or more types), fresh vegetables (eight or
more types), fresh meat (five or more types), dairy, and bread. This category does not include restaurants, carry-out
establishments, etc. These criteria are consistent with Social Compact’s methodology for assessing grocery store access
nationally.
The stores identified were not evaluated on the condition of the store’s infrastructure, the quality of the products sold,
or the prices of products.
Map 1 depicts the locations of the 43 full-service grocery stores in the District, as well as stores located outside the
city, within two miles of the District border.
The map illustrates the concentration of full-service grocery stores in Wards 2 and 3 and the paucity of stores east of
the Anacostia River (Wards 7 and 8) and in Wards 4 and 5.
MAP 1 Full-Service Grocery Stores in the Washington, D.C. Area
Developed by Social Compact
4
3
5
1
2
7
6
8
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 6
Access Indicator: Number of Full-Service Grocery Stores per Resident
Finding #2
The ratio of full-service grocery stores to residents varies widely among the District’s wards.
Ward 3 has five times as many full-service grocers per resident as Ward 4.
Analyzing the number of full-service grocery stores per resident gives a
more detailed picture of and can highlight differences in access to fullservice grocers among wards. Fewer stores per resident in an area can
indicate that that area’s residents have less access to full-service grocers
than those in an area with more stores per resident.
The District has approximately one full-service grocery store for every
14,000 residents. In Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8 the store-to-resident ratio is
lower than the District average. Ward 4 demonstrates the greatest
disparity: this ward has fewer than half as many stores per resident
compared to the District average.
Table 2 lists the store-to-resident ratio for each of the District’s eight wards. Shaded wards have ratios below the
District average of 1:14,000.
TABLE 2 District Residents and Full-Service Grocery Stores
Developed by D.C. Hunger Solutions
Ward
# of Residents
# of Grocery
Stores
Store-to-Resident
Ratio
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
79,290
83,827
80,775
76,880
6
8
11
2
1 : 13,215
1 : 10,478
1 : 7,343
1 : 38,440
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
73,634
65,928
73,856
69,047
3
6
4
3
1 : 24,545
1 : 10,988
1 : 18,464
1 : 23,016
D.C.
603,238
43
1 : 14,029
Methodology: The number of residents in each District ward was determined by Social Compact’s 2008
“DrillDown” analysis, a methodology used to analyze inner-city markets and create accurate, business-oriented
profiles of “emerging” neighborhood markets. D.C. Hunger Solutions calculated the stores-to-resident ratio by
dividing the number of residents in each ward by the number of full-service grocery stores located in that ward.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 7
Access Indicator:
Number of Full-Service Grocery Stores that Accept Federal Nutrition Benefits
Finding #3
Nearly all grocery retailers in the District
accept food stamp/SNAP benefits. Only
48% of full-service grocery stores,
however, accept WIC.
The Food Stamp Program (now known federally
as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or “SNAP”) and WIC (Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children) program are critical
nutrition and income supports for tens of
thousands of low-income District residents.
These programs are effective in boosting lowincome consumers’ grocery purchasing power,
stimulating the local economy, and promoting
healthy eating. The programs’ benefits to
participants and to the local economy are greatest
when all eligible retailers accept food stamp and
WIC payments so that the federally-funded debit
cards and vouchers can be used fully and
conveniently.
Thus, local grocery stores’ acceptance of benefits
is another important aspect of District residents’
access to groceries. Table 3 lists the benefits
accepted at each store included in this analysis
(note: one Harris Teeter store in Ward 6 is not
yet open, so is not yet accepting nutrition
benefits).
SNAP / Food Stamps
The SNAP/ Food Stamp Program provides lowincome households with monthly benefits that
can be used only to buy food. Benefits come on
an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card,
similar to a debit card, that participants can use at
most grocery stores and other food retailers. In
September 2009, more than 110,000 District
residents participated in the Food Stamp
Program, pumping millions of federal dollars
into local food retail outlets.6 In fiscal year 2008,
TABLE 3 Acceptance of Federal Nutrition
Benefits at Full-Service Grocery Stores
Developed by D.C Hunger Solutions
Ward
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
Store
Best DC Supermarket
Bestway Supermarket
Giant Food Store
Harris Teeter
Murry’s
Safeway Store
Capital Super Market
Giant Food Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Trader Joes Market
Whole Foods Market
Brookville Super Market
Giant Food Store
Giant Food Store
Magruder’s Super Market
Rodman’s Discount Gourmet
Food
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Super Fresh Food Market
Whole Foods Market
Whole Foods Market
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Giant Food Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Harris Teeter
Harris Teeter
Murry’s
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Murry’s
Murry’s
Safeway Store
Safeway Store
Anacostia Warehouse
Supermarket
Giant Food Store
Murry’s
Accept
SNAP?
Accept
WIC?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
City-wide monthly participation data provided by U.S. Department of Agriculture.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 8
District residents received $112,324,800 in federal food stamp dollars.7 Every $1 in food stamp benefits generates
$1.84 in local economic activity.8, 9
Table 4 shows that food stamp participants live in all wards of the District (food stamp recipients also work and
travel throughout the city), which makes acceptance of food stamps at every full-service grocer in the District
imperative for customer access and, in many cases, a viable business opportunity for grocery stores.
The vast majority (41 out of 42) of the District’s full-service grocery stores accept food stamps. Additionally, many
smaller stores, pharmacies, and ten farmers’ markets in Washington, D.C., accept food stamps. (In 2008, D.C.
Hunger Solutions surveyed 21 smaller food stores in Wards 7 and 8. All 21 stores accepted food stamps.) In total,
there are 378 retailers that accept food stamps in the District.10
The Harris Teeter planned for the NoMa neighborhood in Ward 6 should be encouraged to follow the example of
other Harris Teeter stores in the District and begin accepting food stamps when it opens in 2010. Similarly,
Magruder’s (in the Chevy Chase neighborhood of Ward 3)—currently the only full-service grocery store in the District
not accepting food stamps—should be encouraged to become authorized to accept food stamps.
TABLE 4 Acceptance of SNAP/Food Stamps at District Grocery Stores
Developed by D.C Hunger Solutions
Ward
# of Residents
Receiving Food
Stamps (June 09)
# of Full-Service Grocery
Stores that Accept Food
Stamps
% of Grocery
Stores
Accepting
Food Stamps
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
7,709
10,970
334
9,888
14,607
12,990
20,934
24,015
6 out of 6
8 out of 8
10 out of 11
2 out of 2
3 out of 3
5 out of 5
4 out of 4
3 out of 3
100%
100%
91%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D.C.
101,447
41 out of 42
98%
D.C. WIC
The WIC program serves pregnant or breast-feeding mothers and children
under age five. Families participating in WIC receive monthly vouchers to
purchase healthy foods at eligible stores. In a typical month, more than
17,500 District residents participate in WIC, boosting food purchases in
area stores that accept D.C. WIC vouchers.11 In fiscal year 2008, District
residents received nearly $13.5 million in federal WIC benefits.12
In October 2009, the D.C. WIC Agency (part of the D.C. Department of
Health), implemented the new federal rules for items included in the WIC
food package. The new WIC food package is aimed at reducing obesity and
improving health. It allows participants to purchase a wider variety of food,
including fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and provides WIC State
7
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Annual State Level Data,” (2008).
Hanson, Kenneth, and Elise Golan. “Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service: Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, Report Number 26-6 (2002), http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr26/fanrr26-6/fanrr26-6.pdf.
9 Economic effect of increasing food stamps measured for the whole U.S. economy. It may vary by location.
10 JPMorgan Chase. November Retailer Report to EFS, (November 2009).
11 WIC participation data by Ward are provided by the D.C. WIC Agency (July 2009).
12 Food Research and Action Center. 2008 State of the States.
8
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 9
agencies greater flexibility in prescribing food packages to accommodate the cultural preferences of WIC
participants.13
As Table 5 shows, while almost all full-service grocery stores in the District accept food stamps, only 48 percent of
the full-service grocery stores included in this report accept D.C. WIC. (Two additional pharmacies in the District are
authorized to accept WIC, and the D.C. WIC Agency plans to allow farmers’ markets to accept WIC fruit and
vegetable cash vouchers. Unlike food stamps, WIC benefits are not widely accepted at smaller food stores in the
District.) Even though the WIC population is smaller than the food stamp population, it is crucial for the District to
increase the number of WIC-authorized retailers: WIC participants are predominantly breast-feeding mothers and
young children. Ensuring convenient, sufficient access to the healthy foods that WIC makes affordable is critical to
giving low-income children a healthy start. Further, since the WIC population faces special obstacles in using public
transportation or finding the time to shop, it is critical that stores in areas with significant numbers of WIC
participants accept WIC benefits. Because WIC-approved stores must stock sufficient quantities of approved healthy
foods, such as fruits and vegetables, authorizing more stores to accept WIC benefits can also support access to
healthy food for the broader community and might have a ripple effect on community health.
With the 2009 implementation of the new WIC food package in the District, the D.C. WIC Agency can focus on
promoting the use of WIC and work with full-service grocery vendors, as well as smaller corner stores, to accept this
benefit. Priority should be given to approving new WIC vendors in Wards 7 and 8—given these wards’ high
percentages of low-income residents who likely are eligible for WIC. (District-wide WIC participation is counted by
the locations at which participants enroll, not by the Wards or neighborhoods in which participants live.)
TABLE 5 Acceptance of WIC at District Grocery Stores
Developed by D.C. Hunger Solutions
Ward
# of WIC Participants
Enrolling in Each Ward
(July 09)
# of Full-Service
Grocery Stores that
Accept WIC
% of Grocery
Stores
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
6,892
no WIC clinic in Ward
721
1,954
255
2,086
3,258
2,406
3 out of 6
4 out of 8
2 out of 11
2 out of 2
3 out of 3
3 out of 5
2 out of 4
1 out of 3
50%
50%
18%
100%
100%
60%
50%
33%
D.C.
17,572
20 out of 42
48%
Map 2 (see next page) provides a picture of the relative dearth of WIC-approved retailers in Wards 7 and 8, which
already have fewer full-service stores than the District average and have child poverty rates of 37 percent and 47
percent, respectively.14
Methodology: D.C. Hunger Solutions called each of the 42 full-service grocery stores currently open to verify food
stamp acceptance. The list of WIC-approved stores was provided by the D.C. WIC Agency.
13
14
USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Benefits & Services: WIC Food Packages, http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkg.htm.
U.S. Census (2000).
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 10
MAP 2 Full-Service Grocery Stores that Accept SNAP/Food
Stamps and D.C. WIC
Developed by Social Compact
4
3
5
1
2
7
6
8
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 11
Access Indicator: Square Feet of Grocery Retail Available to District Residents
Finding #4
District residents have unequal amounts of grocery retail space located in and near their own wards.
Residents of Wards 4 and 7 in particular have considerably fewer
square feet of full-service grocery retail space per person than the
District average.
Calculating the number of square feet of grocery retail available to each
person in each ward of the District gives a picture of access that
accounts for variation in store sizes—details of grocery store access not
captured by simply counting the number of stores in each ward.
Larger stores can serve more customers and maintain larger, more
varied inventories (as well as, in many cases, sell products at lower
costs). Furthermore, as described in the methodology section below,
the square feet calculation accounts for stores just outside the District
border and captures a more accurate representation of grocery retailers available to District residents.
Across the District, an average of 2.11 square feet15 of full-service grocery retail space is available for each resident.
There are wide gaps between the number of square feet available per person in Ward 7 and Ward 3: Ward 7, one of
the lowest-income wards, has only 1.67 square feet of grocery space per person, whereas residents of Ward 3, the
highest-income ward, are better served with 2.73 square feet per person. Wards 4 and 8 also have less grocery retail
space per person than the District average. The wards shaded in Table 6 are those that have fewer square feet of
grocery retail space per person than the District average.
Methodology: The calculation of square feet of grocery retail
per person takes into account the tendency of customers to
shop outside of ward and District boundaries by including, for
each resident, stores located within a two-mile radius of where
that resident lives. To determine the number of square feet of
grocery retail space available to each resident in each of the
District’s eight wards, Social Compact calculates the following:
1) the sum of the square feet of all the full-service grocery stores
located within two miles of each Census block group in the
District; 2) the average number of grocery retail square feet for
all block groups in a ward; and 3) the average number of grocery
square feet divided by the total population of the block groups
in the ward.
The figure for Washington, D.C., as a whole is calculated as a
ratio of the sum of the square feet of all grocers in the District
and within two miles of the District border to the total District
population.
15
TABLE 6 Grocery Retail Space Per
Person
Developed by Social Compact
Ward
Sq. Ft. Per Person
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
2.34
2.19
2.73
1.69
2.25
2.21
1.67
2.09
D.C.
2.11
Data on store sizes (square feet devoted to groceries) were provided by ACNielsen-Claritas.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 12
Access Indicator: Average Distance to Full-Service Grocery Stores
Finding #5
Residents of Wards 4, 5, and 7 must travel longer distances on average than residents in other wards to
reach the closest full-service grocery store.
The average distance residents travel to a full-service grocery store
is another indicator of District residents’ access to affordable
healthy foods. Comparing average distances to full-service grocery
stores for residents of each ward helps show which areas of the city
are better-served versus underserved by grocery retail.
The wards shaded in Table 7 have a greater average distance than
the District average. Of course, within each ward, the actual
distance to the nearest full-service grocer may be much longer for
some residents than the average distance for the whole ward.
The distances listed in Table 7 do not account for factors that
affect “walkability,” including safety, the presence of physical
barriers such as highways, weather, and the reality of walking while
carrying bags of groceries, or supervising young children. Nor do the average distances reflect other realities that can
affect access to grocery stores: proximity to convenient public transit routes, ownership of a car or access to a
borrowed car, access to shuttle services and taxi cabs, or extra income to pay for transportation. Any of these factors
can limit an individual’s or family’s ability to reach a nearby
grocery store.
TABLE 7 Average Distance for
Low-income people, whose budgets already are stretched to
meet basic needs, often do not have extra money to pay for
additional transportation costs and are most affected by long
distances to grocery stores. Low-income District residents also
typically have fewer transportation options than higher-income
residents.
Methodology: To calculate the average distance to a grocery
store for residents of each District ward, Social Compact
measured the average distance (in miles) from the center of each
census block group to the nearest full-service grocery store
(irrespective of Ward and/or District boundaries). Then, the
distances for all block groups in a ward are averaged to calculate
the average distance to a grocery store for residents of each
ward.
Residents to Full-Service Grocers
Developed by Social Compact
Ward
Avg. Distance to Grocer
(miles)
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
.30
.33
.44
.66
.65
.41
.66
.50
D.C.
.52
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 13
Access Indicator: Grocery Dollars Leaking Out of the District
Finding #6
The District has an opportunity to capture more of residents’ grocery dollars.
The District loses more than $112 million in annual grocery revenues
to neighboring jurisdictions because existing grocery retail is
insufficient to meet residents’ demand.
Grocery sales leakage gives another perspective of the inadequate
access to full-service grocery stores in the District: District residents
spend an estimated $920 million on groceries annually; of this amount,
at least $112 million is “leaked” — spent outside the District. In other
words, District residents are spending 12 percent of their grocery
dollars elsewhere because existing District grocery outlets are not
satisfying local demand. 16
What is “Leakage?”
“Leakage” is used to describe the
amount of money that residents
spend on groceries outside an area.
It is calculated by subtracting annual
sales revenue of full-service grocery
stores in the area from area
residents’ annual aggregate grocery
(“food at home”) expenditures.
Leakage can indicate unmet
demand.
Dollars that are “leaked” into neighboring jurisdictions suggest unmet
demand. That is, District residents do not have sufficient full-service
grocery retail options to meet their grocery needs and likely are travelling out of the District to shop. Importantly,
leakage is a measure not only of access to grocery stores but also an indicator of potential markets for grocery retail
development.
District residents
spent $920
million on
groceries
District full-service
grocery stores
earned $807.6
million in revenue
$112.4 million was
leaked out of the District
Methodology: Social Compact calculated annual aggregate grocery expenditures using Consumer Expenditure
Survey (CE) data (2008) and grocery sales revenue from ACNielsen-Claritas grocery store data (2008). For stores
undergoing renovation and planned stores, the grocery sales revenue was calculated by using the average grocery sales
revenue per square feet of similar stores located in the District. Leakage is determined by subtracting annual sales
revenue of full-service grocery stores in the District from District residents’ annual aggregate expenditures on food for
home consumption as defined by the CE. Total grocery revenue used in the calculation above is the total estimated
revenue for the 43 full-service grocery stores in this report.
16
Expenditure data are for 2008.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 14
Access Indicators Combined: The Grocery Gap
Finding #7
The District has a grocery gap.
Some areas of the city—particularly in Wards 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8—are underserved by full-service grocery retail,
compared to other areas, and compared to demand for groceries.
Taken together, the access indicators examined in the previous sections identify the areas of the District with the least
access to full-service grocery stores. Along with the locations of grocery stores, Map 3 depicts access to grocery
stores as a combination of the following: below-average square feet of grocery retail space per person; above-average
distance to a grocery store; and above-average grocery sales leakage. Areas shaded in tan rank worse than the District
average on all three measures. Wards 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 each contain areas that, according to all three access indicators,
have less access to full-service grocery stores than average for city residents.
MAP 3 Areas of the District with Limited Grocery Store Access
Developed by Social Compact
4
3
5
1
2
7
6
8
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 15
To reflect the reality that individuals’ shopping patterns transcend political boundaries, the map accounts for all
grocery stores available within two miles of each census block group. Thus, the map provides a realistic picture of
which District neighborhoods’—and their residents’—grocery needs are not being met.
The next section looks deeper into the grocery gap to identify those areas of the District that have limited access to
grocery stores as well as relatively high concentrations of poverty—the areas most in need of better access to fullservice grocery stores. The next section also discusses why this report is primarily concerned with the impact of the
grocery gap on lower-income communities.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 16
PART II: Identifying the District’s Food Deserts
Finding #8
Food deserts exist in the District.
In Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8, food deserts impact lower-income areas.
Communities and neighborhoods with limited access to full-service grocery stores often are called “food deserts.”
But not all areas underserved by full-service grocery retail are of equal concern. The U.S. Congress, in the 2008 Farm
Bill, defined a food desert as an “area in the United States with limited access to affordable and nutritious food,
particularly such an area composed of predominantly lower income neighborhoods and communities” [emphasis
added].17
While recognizing that limited access to grocery stores can be problematic for District residents at any income level,
this analysis is concerned primarily with low-income areas with limited grocery store access—which Congress noted as
a particular concern in the Farm Bill. (This analysis also recognizes that not every individual or household in a lowerincome area has a low income, and that some low-income people live in areas with higher average incomes.) There
are several reasons to focus a grocery gap analysis on low-income individuals and communities, including the
following: low-income households with already-tight food budgets often have little or no extra money to spend on
travel to distant grocery stores; larger grocery stores tend to have lower prices than small markets, and consequently,
those who live far from full-service grocers may ultimately pay a “poverty tax” to purchase higher-priced foods in
small neighborhood stores;18 and full-service grocery stores can bring new job opportunities to communities.
Additionally, as suggested in this report’s Overview Table (see Executive Summary), the disparity in access to fullservice grocery stores between lower- and higher-income areas of the District parallels health disparities, where lowerincome city residents have higher rates of obesity and nutrition-related chronic illnesses (particularly type 2 diabetes).
Furthermore, understanding the specific impact of food deserts on low-income communities can help policymakers
and economic development experts prioritize areas for grocery store development and develop solutions to the special
challenges of attracting stores to underserved areas.
Map 4, on the next page, illustrates the District’s food deserts and highlights affected low-income communities.
17 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food—Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and
Their Consequences,” Report to Congress, (June 2009).
18 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food—Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and
Their Consequences,” Report to Congress, (June 2009).
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 17
Highlighted in dark purple on Map 4 are the District’s food deserts where limited access to full-service grocery stores
(as defined in previous sections) overlap with census tracts in which more than 51 percent of individuals have incomes
below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.19 (Light purple are other areas with limited grocery store access.) Map
4 reveals that Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8 contain food deserts and warrant further examination for opportunities to develop
new grocery stores and help close the District’s grocery gap.
Methodology: Map 4 was developed using poverty data provided by the District of Columbia Office of Planning.
The Office of Planning matched census tracts where 51 percent or more of the population lives at incomes below 200
percent of the federal poverty level with those tracts that have below-average access to full-service grocery stores (as
identified by Social Compact in Map 3).
MAP 4 Food Deserts and Intersection with Poverty in the District of Columbia
19
Poverty rates mapped by Census tract are provided by the D.C. Office of Planning and use 2000 Census data. 200% of the 2009 federal poverty level for an
individual is $21,660/year. On the whole, 35.9% of District residents have family incomes below 200% of the poverty level.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 18
PART III: Recommendations for Improving Access
to Grocery Stores in the District
Improving access to full-service grocery stores should be a centerpiece of the District’s current and future health,
economic development, and community revitalization initiatives. Increasing the presence of full-service grocery stores
in a community has the potential to improve residents’ nutrition and overall health and possibly to lower residents’
food costs. In addition, attracting new grocery stores makes good economic sense—grocery retailers are anchor
businesses that create jobs, generate tax revenue, draw foot traffic to support neighboring businesses, and help spur
other development.
Recommendation #1
The District should follow the lead of other cities and states
and create a Healthy Food Access Initiative that attracts
grocers and other healthy food vendors to underserved lowincome District neighborhoods and that improves the
capacity of existing food retailers in those areas.
An initial budget of several million dollars in public funds (which
would be leveraged by a private institution) should be sufficient to
create a pool of funds for financing grocery store development
and improvement and other fresh food retail ventures.
Purpose of the District’s Healthy Food Access Initiative
The Healthy Food Access Initiative would assist developers and
grocery store operators in securing financing to cover
development costs. It would also include a robust and flexible
package of other incentives and assistance designed to draw more
fresh food retailers into underserved areas of the District, as well
as to expand the capacity of local business owners to sell
affordable fresh foods. The District’s Initiative would be modeled
on the successful Fresh Food Financing Initiative in Pennsylvania
and the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH)
Initiative in New York City, and akin to the National Healthy
Food Financing Initiative, which was introduced in President
Obama’s 2011 budget and forms a key prong of the First Lady’s
Let’s Move initiative to reduce childhood obesity.20, 21
A Healthy Food Access Initiative would effectively help close the
District’s grocery gap, create hundreds of jobs, encourage local
entrepreneurs to establish fresh food businesses in the District’s
food deserts, and improve the existing food retail options in lowincome areas of the District. The Initiative also would help the
District make strides toward becoming a healthier community:
research shows a link between the local food environment and
residents’ dietary intake and an uptick in fruit and vegetable
The National Healthy Food
Financing Initiative
In his 2011 budget, President Obama called
for $400 million in financing and other
investment in full-service grocery stores and
other fresh food retailers. The funds are
spread among the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, and U.S. Department of the
Treasury.
Modeled on Pennsylvania’s successful
program, the national Healthy Food
Financing Initiative would provide financing
to attract new grocery stores to communities
that are underserved by fresh food and
would support renovation and expansion of
existing stores so they can provide the
healthy foods that communities want and
need. The National Healthy Food Financing
Initiative would allow states and localities to
create complementary incentives to meet
local communities’ needs.
Additionally, House Resolution 975,
introduced in December 2009, supports a
National Fresh Food Financing Initiative.
These both are important and encouraging
steps forward in improving access to healthy
foods in low-income communities across the
U.S., including in the District of Columbia.
20
Giang, T., Karpyn, A., Laurison, H.B., Hillier, A., and Perry, R.D. “Closing the Grocery Gap in Underserved Communities: The Creation of the Pennsylvania
Fresh Food Financing Initiative,” Journal of Public Health Management Practic, 14, 3 (2008): 272-79.
21 Information about New York City’s Food Retail Expansion to Support Health initiative available at www.nyc.gov/fresh.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 19
consumption when full-service grocers are present.22, 23
The Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative, a public-private partnership created in 2004, provides solid
evidence and rationale for such a program in the District. The state’s initial investment of $30 million was leveraged
by a private financial institution to form a $120 million state-wide program. Since 2004, the Pennsylvania program has
financed 83 full-service grocers and other fresh food outlets, created or retained approximately 5,000 jobs, and
improved fresh food access for about 400,000 people.24, 25 A full-service grocer developed recently in a low-income
Philadelphia neighborhood created more than 370 jobs and generated more than $540,000 in local tax revenue in one
year.26
Development and implementation of a Healthy Food Access Initiative in the District would begin with the creation of
a working group that informs and oversees the Initiative. The working group would include local civic leaders,
District agencies (e.g., Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, Office of Planning, Department of
Small and Local Business Development, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs), grocery industry
representatives (both independent and chain grocers), food wholesalers, community economic development
organizations, and others.
Key components of a District Healthy Food Access Initiative could include the following:
1. Creation of financial, development, and operating incentives.27 In addition to promoting use of the District’s
existing business incentives (most notably, the Supermarket Tax Exemption), the District and the Healthy
Food Access Initiative working group should determine what types of incentives would address grocery
retailers’ specific needs and entice grocers to locate in the District. The city also should explore strategies to
meet the needs of smaller-scale entrepreneurs who could sell fresh foods via produce stands, mobile markets,
and community co-ops. For existing retailers, the District should explore options to help stores stock,
promote, and sell fresh produce and other healthy foods (e.g., renovations and training for corner stores to
create a produce section).
The following are several examples of incentives and assistance that the District could offer to draw grocers
and other fresh food retailers into low-income neighborhoods:
•
One-time grant and loan financing to help grocers and other fresh food retailers cover development
and start-up costs;
•
“Fast-tracked” licensing, permitting, and other approval processes for new grocery stores or other
produce retail in underserved areas;
Note: this component would complement other efforts in the District to bring fresh produce sales
to new locations (such as high-traffic public spaces) and to support the development of fresh
produce mobile markets.
•
Assistance with assembling and acquiring land for new grocery store sites;
•
Zoning and building incentives that encourage developers to include fresh food retail in housing or
other development;
•
Assistance accessing and choosing energy-efficient equipment and making energy-efficiency upgrades
to control energy costs; and
Moreland, K., Wing, S., and Diez Roux, A. “The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: The atherosclerosis risk in communities
study.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 92, 11 (2002): 1761-67.
23 Cheadle, A., et al. “Community-level comparisons between the grocery store environment and individual dietary practices.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 20, 2 (1991):
250-61.
24 Jeremy Novak, The Reinvestment Fund. Written Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Health Innovations in Addressing Childhood Obesity, (December 16, 2009).
25 Policy Link, The Food Trust, and The Reinvestment Fund. A Healthy Food Financing Initiative: An Innovative Approach to Improve Health and Spark Economic
Development, (December 31, 2009), http://www.policylink.org/.
26 U.S. House Resolution #975, (December 15, 2009).
27 The resource guide Doing Business in Washington, DC, published by the Washington, DC Economic Partnership, details tax and other financial incentives available
to businesses in the District.
22
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 20
•
Small business planning training and technical assistance, such as financial management, fresh produce
handling, and worker training.
2. Establishment of eligibility for incentives and assistance. The District, with the Healthy Food Access
Initiative working group, would determine—according to degree of need for fresh food retail—the areas of
the District eligible for incentives and other assistance. A variety of businesses in addition to mainstream fullservice grocers, could be eligible for incentives: operators of produce stands, small corner stores, mobile
markets, and other similar retailers all could participate in the District’s Healthy Food Access Initiative.
Additionally, the District may define other stipulations for grocers and entrepreneurs; these could include, for
example, strategies to encourage training and hiring of District residents, and prioritizing grocery operators
residing in the District.
3. Assurance that grocers serve low-income consumers. As part of its Healthy Food Access Initiative, the
District should prioritize working with retailers in low-income areas to make sure they are adequately serving
their neighborhoods and are responsive to low-income consumers’ needs. Most importantly, acceptance of
federal nutrition program benefits (SNAP/food stamps and WIC) should be required of all Healthy Food
Access Initiative retailers—grocery stores as well as small-scale fresh food vendors where applicable. The
Healthy Food Access Initiative should include training on accepting nutrition program benefits and assistance
with applying to become food stamp and WIC vendors.
4. Improvements to the District’s existing grocery stores. It often has been observed that the quality of grocery
stores and the prices differ across the city: residents of low-income neighborhoods sometimes may experience
lower quality in their local stores (both full-service stores and convenience stores) than in stores located in
higher-income neighborhoods. To address this disparity, the District’s Healthy Food Access Initiative could
offer financial and other assistance that enables existing retailers to expand their capacity to sell fresh foods
and renovate to provide quality shopping environments. For example, Healthy Corner Store Program28
participants could receive financing to purchase or upgrade produce refrigerators.
5. Analysis of transportation options to ensure access to full-service grocery stores. To ensure a substantial
customer base for future grocery stores and to improve District residents’ access to existing grocery stores,
the city should examine the role of public transportation in residents’ travel to and from grocery stores and
design transit routes to facilitate access to full-service stores. The District also should consider supporting
special transportation routes (e.g., from a central community location to a grocery store) for residents of food
deserts, particularly seniors. Furthermore, the District should promote its emerging efforts to create walkable
communities—such as the Office of Planning’s Healthy By Design initiative, which aims to create healthy
communities with walkable destinations, and transit-oriented development efforts—and within those
initiatives, work to generate pedestrian traffic around grocery store sites.
6. Promotion of positive images of the neighborhoods around potential and existing grocery store sites. In
addition to offering incentives to make the city attractive to developers and grocers, the District should
highlight its existing and planned development efforts—for example, new commercial and residential
developments and revitalization programs like the Great Streets Initiative. The District also should explore
strategies to address crime and security concerns at grocery sites, for example, by installing plentiful lighting,
and helping stores purchase grocery carts with wheel locking systems. Safety measures also must ensure that
customers feel comfortable shopping at new and existing stores.
28 The D.C. Healthy Corner Store Program, funded by the District of Columbia Department of Health and led by D.C. Hunger Solutions, worked in 2008 and
2009 to increase corner stores’ capacity to promote and sell fresh and healthy foods. The program inventoried 21 stores in Wards 7 and 8 of the District and then
partnered with 13 to make changes to their availability, marketing, merchandizing of healthy foods. The stores saw marked increases in fresh food sales but faced
substantial limitations in their physical capacity to stock fresh foods.
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 21
Recommendation #2
The District should ensure that WIC program participants have adequate access to retail outlets that accept
WIC benefits.
As discussed above, the population served by WIC—low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, and
young children—often faces special obstacles in getting to food stores. WIC is a crucial health, nutrition, and
development intervention with positive effects for low-income women and children. The District must ensure that
WIC participants have access to WIC-approved retailers close to where they live.
As this report has shown, Wards 7 and 8 together have just three WIC retailers. These two wards, however, have the
District’s highest numbers of low-income people, and about a third of each Ward’s population is children.29 The
District must recruit additional full-service grocery stores in the city—and particularly in those wards containing food
deserts—to participate as WIC retailers.
In the meantime, the District also should encourage several smaller-scale grocery stores to take necessary steps to
become WIC-approved retailers, and then apply for authorization to determine their eligibility to become a WIC
vendor. Numerous WIC agencies around the country allow small grocery stores and corner stores to accept WIC
benefits. Adding small stores to the D.C. WIC program not only would create an opportunity to better serve WIC
participants, but also would help expand healthy food choices (including fresh fruits and vegetables) for all consumers
shopping at WIC-approved stores.
29
U.S. Census (2000).
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 22
Conclusion
This analysis reveals a clear gap in access to full-service grocery stores in the District of Columbia. The “grocery
gap”—particularly that between higher-income and lower-income wards of the District—results in food deserts
across the District, which particularly affect low-income areas. Food deserts also may be contributing to the District’s
alarming rates of overweight, obesity, and diet-related chronic illnesses; the District’s Department of Health found in
2010 that the second leading cause of preventable death in the city was the combination of poor diet and physical
inactivity.30 Moreover, obesity and type 2 diabetes are appearing in lower-income communities at considerably higher
rates than in higher-income ones—mirroring, in many cases, the disparity in access to full-service grocery stores. In
order to help reduce negative health outcomes, the District will need to close the grocery gap by drawing into the
District’s food deserts more full-service grocers where residents can purchase adequate, healthy, and affordable food.
Fortunately, food deserts also represent unrealized opportunities for the District. The Initiative for a Competitive
Inner City (ICIC) found in 2006 (as in 1998) that urban areas hold substantial untapped retail markets—their densely
concentrated populations make up for low average incomes to create strong purchasing power.31 While more
research is needed to identify potential sites for new grocery stores in underserved parts of the District, the city’s
grocery sales leakage suggests markets for new grocery stores. Indeed, several recent market studies of neighborhoods
in or near current food deserts—e.g., the Bellevue Small Area Plan32 and the District’s Redevelopment Plan for Barry
Farm/Park Chester/Wade Road33 (both in Ward 8)—have found enough demand in each neighborhood to
potentially support grocery stores of 50,000 square feet or larger.
Investing in grocery retail development in underserved communities of the District is a “win-win.” If the District is to
make strides in reducing the income and racial disparities in obesity rates in the city, and ensure that economic
development efforts include benefits for low-income people, the District must close the grocery gap by bringing fullservice grocers to underserved areas. Improving access to full-service grocery stores will do much to ensure a better
quality of life and greater economic opportunity for all District residents.
30
District of Columbia Department of Health, Center for Policy, Planning and Epidemiology. Preventable Risk Factors Attributed to Preventable Causes of Death in the
District of Columbia, 2007, (February 2010).
31 Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. Realizing the Inner City Retail Opportunity: Progress and New Directions, (2006).
32 District of Columbia Office of Planning. Bellevue: Embracing the Revitalization, draft (October 2009).
33 District of Columbia Office of Planning. New Communities Initiative Redevelopment Plan: Barry Farm/Park Chester/Wade Road, draft (November 2006).
D.C. Hunger Solutions and Social Compact | 23
D.C. Hunger Solutions
Social Compact
(202) 986-2200
www.dchunger.org
(202) 547-2581
www.socialcompact.org