Food Insecurity in East Harlem

Phil Clarke

Isaac Newton Middle School for Math and Science

pclarke15@schools.nyc.gov

 

INTRODUCTION:

You are a policy analyst working for the city of New York, and East Harlem has asked for your help. In this neighborhood, many families struggle to find affordable, healthy food close to home, a challenge linked to poverty, housing costs, limited access to grocery stores, health disparities, and the limits of emergency food support. East Harlem has been described as a place with high food insecurity, heavy reliance on SNAP and soup kitchens, and a food environment where bodegas and fast-food outlets are more common than supermarkets. Your job is to look at food insecurity the way a real policy analyst would: not just as a hunger problem, but as a public policy problem shaped by economics, geography, and government action. You will use the Six Step Public Policy Analyst to investigate who is affected, what causes the problem, which policies already exist, and which solutions would be most effective and fair for East Harlem residents.

 

TASK

You will create a policy brief that explains the food insecurity problem in East Harlem and recommends at least three realistic solutions. As the policy analyst, you must use evidence from reliable sources to show why the problem exists, who is most affected, and how your recommendations would improve food access, health, and community stability.

 

Resources

You may use the resources below to assist you in completing the project:

●       Eating in East Harlem — neighborhood foodscape data and background.

●       East Harlem Directory of Community Resources — local food access and emergency food supports.

●       Foodscape: East Harlem  — statistics on food insecurity, SNAP, supermarket access, and related indicators.

●       Emergency Food in NYC — citywide food insecurity context.

●       NYC Food Resource Guide: East Harlem — current local food aid and access points, with verification notes.

●       Refettorio Harlem — example of a local food justice organization and meal program.

 

PROCESS

Your group will write a one-paragraph definition of food insecurity in East Harlem. Use the six steps of PPA.

1.   Day 1: Define the Problem

a.     Write your problem as a single declarative sentence (not a question).

b.     Do not add any evidence, causes, or solutions.

c.      Include the specific location of the problem (e.g., room, area, or page).

2.   Day 2: Gather the Evidence (Click on link)

a.     Restate the problem you wrote in Step 1.

b.     Find at least three different types of evidence that support the problem (examples: statistics, expert articles, case studies, surveys, government reports, peer‑reviewed research, interviews, or firsthand accounts).

c.      Collect some evidence yourself if possible (short surveys, interviews, or focus groups).

d.     Check that each source is reliable (the author, date, publisher, or organization is trustworthy).

e.     Record each source and write a full citation for it.

Below are some resources you may use:

●       Eating in East Harlem — neighborhood foodscape data and background.

●       East Harlem Directory of Community Resources — local food access and emergency food supports.

●       Foodscape: East Harlem  — statistics on food insecurity, SNAP, supermarket access, and related indicators.

●       Emergency Food in NYC — citywide food insecurity context.

●       NYC Food Resource Guide: East Harlem — current local food aid and access points, with verification notes.

 

3. Day 3:   Identify the Causes (Click on link)

a.     Research your social problem to find its causes.

b.     List the main causes you find (most problems have more than one).

c.      For each listed cause, write one clear sentence explaining how it contributes.

d.     If there are other contributing factors you won’t detail, add a short note acknowledging them.

4.  Day 4:  Evaluate an Existing Policy (Click on link)

a.     Read the problem and the attempted solution already provided.

b.     Pick one existing policy from the materials.

c.      List two advantages and two disadvantages of that policy.

d.     Decide if the policy should: (i) stay the same, (ii) be changed or strengthened, or (iii) be replaced by a new policy.

e.     Write one clear sentence explaining your decision and one sentence giving a specific change or alternative.

5. Day 5:  Develop Solutions (Click on link)

a.     Review your notes from the previous steps.

b.     Brainstorm at least three new policy solutions using that information.

c.      Make each policy specific (describe actions, rules, or procedures—not vague goals).

d.     Ensure each policy is distinct (not just small changes to another idea).

e.     For each policy, write clear details: who it affects, what will happen, when/how it will be done, and any resources needed.

f.       Check that you have three or more fully detailed, distinct policies before moving on.

6.  Day 6: Select the Best Solution  (Feasibility vs. Effectiveness) (Click on link)

a.     Use the solutions you developed in the previous step.

b.     For each solution, give an effectiveness score (how well it solves the problem).

c.      For each solution, give a feasibility score (how realistic it is to implement).

d.     Rank the solutions from best to worst using the combined scores.

e.     Highlight the top 2 solutions you will evaluate next.

 

EVALUATION

Policy Brief Rubric

Criteria	4 - Exceeds	3 - Meets	2 - Approaching	1 - Beginning
Problem explanation	Clearly explains food insecurity in East Harlem with precise data, neighborhood context, and a strong public policy focus.	Explains the problem with relevant data and a clear neighborhood context.	Gives a partial explanation with limited data or weak context.	Gives little or no accurate explanation of the problem.
Cause analysis	Identifies multiple root causes and shows how they connect using the PPA framework.	Identifies several causes and uses the PPA framework correctly.	Mentions causes, but connections are unclear or incomplete.	List causes without explanation or evidence.
Current efforts	Evaluates existing food supports and clearly identifies strengths and gaps.	Describes existing supports and some gaps.	Names a few supports but does not evaluate them well.	Shows little awareness of current efforts.
Policy options	Compares at least three realistic policy options with strong evidence and clear criteria.	Compare at least three options, providing evidence and criteria for each.	Mentions options, but the comparison is weak or uneven.	Gives few or unrealistic options.
Recommendation	Gives a clear, persuasive recommendation with implementation steps and success measures.	Gives a clear recommendation and basic implementation ideas.	Gives a recommendation with limited support.	Recommendation is unclear or unsupported.
Evidence and sources	Uses five or more strong sources; evidence is well integrated and cited correctly.	Uses at least five sources with mostly correct citation practices.	Uses fewer sources or citations are inconsistent.	Uses little evidence or no reliable citations.
Organization and writing	Well organized, polished, audience-appropriate, and free of major errors.	Mostly organized and easy to follow, with minor errors.	Some organization, but errors sometimes interfere with meaning.	Hard to follow; errors interfere with understanding.

 

CONCLUSION

This WebQuest helps you understand food insecurity in East Harlem as a real public policy issue that requires evidence, analysis, and civic action. As a policy analyst, you are not just describing a problem; you are helping a community think through solutions that can improve daily life for children, families, and older adults.

 

STANDARDS:

New York State Social Studies Framework, Grades 9-12

F. Civic Participation 2: Participate in activities that focus on a classroom, school, community, state, or national issue or problem.

New York State Next Generation Learning Standards

8W1b: Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using credible sources

while demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.