Estimates of Different Clients Across the Whole A2h System (4.8)
The estimates derived so far, along with additional data collected in the
survey, make it possible to derive an estimate of the total
number of different clients served by all three types of A2H emergency food
providers, taken together. Survey questions asked respondents whether they
had used other types of providers (besides the one at which they were
interviewed) during the week of the survey. About 31% of kitchen users
said they had also used a pantry, and about 31% of shelter users had used a
kitchen or a pantry. 1 Using
these data, together with the estimates of provider use derived earlier, we have
calculated estimates of system-level clients (displayed in Table 4.8.1).
As shown, we estimate that between 23.7 and 27.0 million people used these
providers in 2005.
Table 4.8.1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL CLIENTS,
UNDUPLICATED ACROSS AGENCIES
(PERSONS)
|
|
Each Agency Type Considered Separately |
After Correcting for Overlap of Clients Across Agencies a |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Estimated number of different pantry clients in a year |
21.7 to 24.7 million |
21.7 to 24.7 million |
|
2. Estimated number of different kitchen clients in a year |
1.8 to 2.0 million |
1.2 to 1.4 million |
|
3. Estimated number of different shelter clients in a year |
1.3 to 1.4 million |
0.8 to 0.8 million |
|
4. Total different clients in system |
n.a. |
23.7 to 27.0 million |
a Any client using a pantry is counted under pantries. Clients using only kitchens and shelters are counted under kitchens.
n.a. = not applicable.
1 Because we have data on cross-agency use only in a single week (the period before the survey), the figures on multiple-agency use reported in the text may somewhat underestimate the full degree of this type of use when used to estimate different clients in the annual estimates. This is true because clients could have used other types of agencies in weeks other than the one asked about. However, because most of the annual counts are based on a single agency type—pantries—we do not believe that the underestimation is substantial. For instance, to establish a probable upper bound on the possible error, suppose the multiple-use factors reported in the text were doubled. The resulting change in the overall annual estimate of different clients would then be less than 5%.


