For example there are higher depression and diabetes. Being food insecure as a senior is equivalent to being 14 years older We have seen dramatic increases in our country as a whole National reports are now followed by policymakers
Programs like school breakfast show improvement in school test scores
USDA introduced new language to describe ranges of severity of food insecurity. Placement on this continuum is determined by a households response to a series of questions about behaviors, and experiences associated with difficulty in meeting food needs. The food security status of every household is somewhere on this contintum.
There are 18 core food security module questions for households with children and 10 Core food Security Module Questions without children. A series of questions that cover a wide range of food insecurity are asked Respondents answer – was this true often or sometimes, almost or some months but not every month and yes to other questions
Twice as many women as men visited pantries
20% of respondents were below age 30, and 26% over 50 years of age. 54% - the majority were between ages 30 and 50
80% of households had children; 50% had children between 17 and 5 years of age and 30% had children under 5. 20% of households had no children
Of pantry users surveyed 58% were white, 20% were Hispanic and 20% represented the total of other ethnic groups; 8% American Indian, 7% African American, 4% Hmong. The 3% in “hot pink” represent an ethnicity other than something listed here. 0 % represents less than .5% of the population but more than 0. The ethnicity of those surveyed is very similar to 2004 with two exceptions: 5.5% increase in the number of Hispanic households interviewed 3.7% decrease in the number of Native American households interviewed Most interviews were done on Saturday due to student schedules. Some populations may be more likely to visit pantries during the week
Of pantry users surveyed: 33% have less than an 11th grade education, (34% in 2004) 37% had an educational level of a high school diploma or equivalent (45% in 2004) – 6% fewer than in 2004 30% had more than a high school education. (13.3% in 2004) 17% more people with education beyond high school were using pantries than in 2004
82% of pantry users surveys were identified as experiencing food insecurity, 38% of which are very low food insecure.
Food security levels for 2009 were also reviewed by ethnicity. This does not statistically indicate the percentage of people by ethnicity using pantries, because it is snapshot of users on the particular day that interviews were conducted. It does, however, give a representation of food security within each ethnic population. The table above combines very low and low food security status within each ethnic group
The Caucasian population of pantry users showed a 79% rate of low or very low food security compared to the combined ethnic population of 85% experiencing low or very low food security, only a 6% difference.
Households with children experienced an 82% rate of low or very low food security. That means households reported reduced quality, variety and some reported multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake. Among pantry users, the food security rate of those with and without children are very similar. This is not true of the total population. Households with children, single headed female households, language difficulties, maternal education, perceived social capital, proximity to supermarkets are all correlated with food insecurity
Between 1999 and 2004 there was a drop in food insecure households, 82% in 1999 versus 71% in 2004. In 2009 there was an increase of food insecure individuals compared to 2004, 89% versus 71%, which is an 18% increase in food insecurity in the past 5 years
In 2009 pantry users, 86%, reported the most common reason they did not get enough food was due to not having enough money, this compared to 90% in 2004 and 91% in 1999, a fairly consistent response over the 10 year period. After not having enough money for food the most common reasons in 2009 for not having enough food were 37% reported not being able to get to the pantry during open hours, 35% have no car, 25% reported the bus costs too much, 23% reported the bus doesn’t go where they need it, 22% reported it’s too hard to get to the store and 20% reported there is no grocery store in the area. In some ways the above reasons all relate to transportation
Pantries were interested in understanding usage patterns. 40% of users have been using pantries for over 2 years and 41% were using a pantry for the first time sometime within the last year.
We also learned that 41% were utilizing more than one pantry for food resources and 22% have been doing so for 9-12 months
Food Share, as a Federal Nutrition program is a primary resource designed to alleviate food insecurity. However, in 2009, 43% of pantry users did not think they were eligible. This was the most common response given for not receiving them, bout 2% fewer than in 2004. Of interest is that there are more who feel the application process is too difficult or they don’t know how to apply, even though the process has been streamlined and outreach has been done. This may be reflective of the number of new pantry users not understanding the system very little change has been shown in this factor over the past five years
Fruit and vegetable consumptions is an indicator of overall diet quality and is a protective factor for health risks including obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. Seventy percent know the importance of eating fruits and vegetables and about the same amount know they should eat more. What people know is best for them and wheat they do or have the resources to do are not the same
Cost is the most commonly cited reason for not eating enough fruit and vegetables – followed by feeling they will spoil too quickly.
Health problems are often seen in conjunction with food insecurity. In 2009, 45% reported someone in their household being overweight and 43% reported someone experiencing depression. After these two the most commonly reported health problems for pantry users surveyed were high blood pressure, asthma and diabetes. Food insecure women experience a greater degree of emotional eating in response to sadness, stress, anxiety, boredom or loneliness. Toddlers living in households with temporary or persistant food insecurity have lower cognitive scores and worse health linked to mothers depression and iron anemia Being overweight and experiencing depression is not only related to food insecurity but also to costly secondary health outcomes.
More people using food pantries own their own home than they did 5 years previously by 7.3% In 2009, of those respondents who rent or own their own home, and replied to the housing questions, 18% were at risk for losing their housing. Owning a home is also more costly for this population with 39% of homeowners paying 750 to over 1000/month vs. 8% of renters paying this amount. Of those renting, 56% pay below $500.00 per month compared to 36% of home owners paying this amount – some of which is probably subsidized mortgages.
In 2009, 60% of households have at least one adult working; 35% fewer than in 2004. In addition, 20% fewer have one adult in the household working than they did in 2004. More people were clearly unemployed and using food pantries in 2009
When food security status of those employed are compared to the overall population surveyed, employment has very little impact on improving food security for food pantry users. Percentages are nearly the same in all categories. Of those employed 39% are very low food insecure compared to 38% in the overall sample. Of those employed, 6.3% were high food security compared to 7% overall, 10.8% were marginally food secure compared to 11% and there was no difference in low food security at 44%. Pantry users also report that the main reason they do not have enough money for food is that there isn’t enough money. Food security is fundamentally linked to family economic security. As recommended in the Ending Hunger in Wisconsin call to action: The goals to increase family economic security include: • Increasing access to education and training • Improving job opportunities • Improving access to affordable and appropriate childcare for working parents • Making housing and energy more affordable for families • Ensuring that people utilize available forms of economic assistance to help meet basic needs. www.endhunger.org
Hourly wages for the primary job shows that more people making over $8.85 per hour in 2004 are now making more in 2009 (45.6% in 2009 vs. 30% in 2004) More people who were making below $8.85 per hour in 2004 are now making even less (44.5% in 2009 vs. 69.9% in 2004) and 30% of pantry users are now making less than $8.84 per hour, even though there has been an increase in minimum wage.
Pantry users reported multiple sources of household income. At the time of this survey 53% reported income from employment, 28% reported receiving social security benefits, 22% reported receiving SSI benefits, and 19% received unemployment compensation
Pantry users were asked which resources would help them get enough money for food. In 2009, 55% cited affordable housing as the strategy that would help the most, 40% responded that learning how to budget money would help, and 40% reported having garden space to grow food. In 2004, the three most often cited resources were affordable housing, 54%, having a grocery store nearby, 42%, and having garden space to grow food, 36%. This is particularly true to those who are most affected by food insecurity
The three most often cited strategies in 2009 to have enough money for food were 49% borrowing from friends (a question not asked in 2004), 37% neglecting health care needs (8% more than 5 years ago) and 35% not paying rent on time. There was a difference in 2004 with 31% not paying rent on time, 29% neglecting health care needs. Getting another job has declined as a strategy for obvious reasons. Payday loans were used by one quarter of respondents. You have probably observed the growth of pay day stores, check cashing stores and car title loan sites. These are emergency cash establishments that provide very temporary relief – but seldom helping a situation overtime
Food assistance programs play an important role in improving food security status. Those food insecure most often rely on food pantries, followed by friends and relatives, food share and school meals to get the food they need. Most rely on a combination of these resourses. Pantries were cited by 510 out of 713 pantry users surveyed as the most often used resource for those with low and very low food security status. This assistance was followed by 323 using friends and relatives for assistance, 298 using Food Share, 270 using school lunch programs and 238 using school breakfast programs. Those who are food insecure are also more likely to use all of these resources than those who report their households being food secure. These are all programs to help food security status – but programs alone wont do it.
Food assistance program utilized in 2009 is very similar to 2004 for pantry users with an increase across the board in federal nutrition program. As the need increases this is a trend we like to see. Federal nutrition programs were designed to provide assistance when needed. Food Share was fully implemented in 1974, The average benefit today is $100.00 per person per month. Eligibility requires an gross income, net income and asset test. Generally, those with an income below 130% of poverty line or $2389.00 pre year for a family of four are eligible.
World Café visioning community planning process
Initiatives covered a range of these four areas. May times they overlap. For instance – home gardens enlarged and became market gardens. A new grocery store improved food access and also provided jobs. A commercial kitchen provided a facility for family, community and entrepreneurial food ventures.
Family Economcv Security is what will make the difference
The “Resource Bible” for community agencies, schools and individuals. This tool helps to ensure that people know about resources available to them so available forms of economic assistance are utilized to meet basic needs.
Money for Food, cooking, shopping, Feeding Your Family
Save a lot Grocery Store- survey results – Hunger Prevention Grant – Food Expenditure Neighborhood survey
Healthy Weight Coalition – took on EBT at the Farmers Market and fruit and audit of fruit and vegetable availability at outlets in low incline neighborhoods as part of their strategic plan
Other gardens were developed, community police departments changed and vandalism and racism was an issue in this garden with Hispanic and Hmong cultures
* Food Share Outreach – initially partnered with Economic Support on outreach efforts. Education to pantries on how Food share participation would benefit their customers and lighten their load resulted in ongoing Food Share outreach at pantries. The increase utilization in Brown County compared to state increase is substantial.
Two largest markets are already certified
* Food and Hunger Network – previously focused on food donations for emergency food, is now engaged in a planning process which includes: carrying fresh produce, cold storage at pantries, church gardens, Plant a Row for the Hungry, coordinating food aquisition as a group – most recently arranging Green Bay to be a drop site for Feeding America (formerly Second Harvest) and a for profit cold storage facility donating temporary storage for foods before distribution
Collect donations at cash register to purchase a bag of food for pantry distribution. Donations are consolidated to purchase pallets of food. Food selections r now based on providing a meal with accompanied recipe
Feed the Children distributed food and hygeine boxes to 400 needy families identified by 14 agencies. In partnership with the Green Bay Packers
Initiatives have covered a range of these four areas but primarily the bottom three. Family economic security is about job training and availability that pays a livable wage, affordable childcare, housing, energy assistance and nutritious food . This requires long term planning and a systems approach for healthy city community development –ordinances that apply to predatory businesses, food policies, transportation, land use planning for urban agriculture ……. Poverty is at the core of food security issues – but recognizing food insecurity and hunger as poverty- based problem oversimplifies the issue – there are many impoverished families and individuals who maintain food security and like poverty, food insecurity is correlated with the sate of the economy . Ending Hunger in Wisconsin addresses goals for each one of these strategies. Pick one up – include itn in…
Brown County UW-Extension Food Security Presentation
Brown County 2009 Community Food Security Report Karen Early M.S. R.D. Brown County UW Extension Nutrition Education Program Program Coordinator Cathy Huntowski Brown County UW Nutrition Education Program Nutrition Educator Gail Trimberger MSSW, LCSW University of Wisconsin Green Bay Social Work Professional Programs Assistant Professor
History: First local study done in 1998 in response to changes in welfare and family support programs. Validated in1999. Share findings with community Implemented initiatives to increase access to healthy food, improve utilization of Federal nutrition programs and improve emergency food assistance in Brown County Repeated survey in 2004 and 2009
Purpose: To Determine Prevalence and level of food security among at‐risk households in Green Bay, Wisconsin in 2009 and how it compares to 2004 and 1999 findings Contributors to food insecurity Strategies used to improve food security Demographics, housing status and nutrition knowledge of pantry users Types of initiatives that would increase the availability and accessibility of food
Preparation:Re‐establish University partnershipConvene an advisory committeeStudents conduct literature reviewDetermine community focused questionsTranslate survey into Spanish, Hmong and RussianEnlisted participation of food pantriesDetermine sample size and interpreter needsTrain students Arrange interview schedule
Community Advisory Committee Steve Hero –Director of Social Concerns Green Bay Diocese Rosemary Jonas –Integrated Community Services Donna Kessler –St. Patrick’s Food Pantry David Littig – UWGB Professor Emeritus Political Sciences Kathy McMurray –NEWCAP ‐TFAP Cathy Putman – United Way Gail Trimberger –UWGB Social Work Professor Julie Van Klooster –St. Luke’s Methodist Food Pantry Judy Knudsen – Brown County UWEX Family Living Educator Cathy Huntowski – Brown County UWEX Nutrition Educator Karen Early –Brown County UWEX Nutrition Program Coordinator
Student Literature Review Topics: Causes of Food Insecurity: Perceived and Real History and Utilization of Food Pantries History and Utilization of Food Stamps/Food Share Food Insecurity and Food Choices: Fruits and Vegetables Relationship between Food Security and Health Strategies to Improve Food Security: A Consumer Perspective Strategies to Improve Food Security: Community Interventions Relationship between Food Security and Housing Security Relationship between Food Security and Employment
Professional Social Work Students Jenna Albright, Kelly Hirsch, Kristina Andrew, Amanda Johnson, Alisha Andrews, Danielle Kuntz, Kristen Beck, May Kaying, LorAlan Berdan, Jodi Loritz, Amy Binsfeld, Adria Meyerhofer, Colleen Bird, Dawn Natzke, Lisa Bohl, Jessica Nell, Alebra Cornelius, Katrina Puyleart, Natalie Doemel, Stephanie Scott, Melia Everhart, Sharon Skenandore, Carolyn Feck, Eugene Smalls, Lauren Flannery, Crystal Smith, Heather Goetsch, Lyn Stanton, Trish Gordon, Holly Visser, Amber Grall, Tara Wettstein, Lacey Groelle, Alicia Wheeler, Sarita Gruszynski, Jenna Wilke, Arielle Hille, Christina Wold, Laura Zimbler
Participating Food Pantries AIDS Resource Center Pauls Pantry Pulaski Community Pantry Resurrection Lutheran Church St. Bernards Church St. Patrick Catholic Parish St. Willebrord Parish The Salvation Army Trinity Lutheran Church Calvary Lutheran Church DePere Christian Outreach Denmark Food Pantry First Presbyterian Church First United Methodist Church The Giving Tree Grace Lutheran Church Manna for Life
UWGB Students Entering 713 Surveys collected at 17 Brown County Pantries
40 UWGB Professional Social Work Program Entering Data
Why Do We Look at Food Insecurity? There are physical, mental and emotional health consequences Affects learning and behavior in children Community strategies can improve food security for individuals National rate is the highest ever Nobody in the United Sates needs to be food insecure or hungry.
National Food Insecurity Rate 14.6% of U.S. households struggle to put enough food on the table (2008) Over 46 million, including 16.7 million children live in these households.
…continued That’s an increase of 4.1 million people from 2007 to 2009. The highest recorded rate of food insecurity
Food Insecurity Affects: Mental physical and emotional functioning 1 in 5 U.S. children now live in food insecure households
Mental Functioning Diminished capacity to concentrate and learn Lower test scores and school achievement Repeating a grade in school Increase in school absences, tardiness and school suspension
Physical Health Poorer overall health and compromised ability to resist illness More health problems such as stomach aches, headaches, colds, ear infections, and fatigue All contributing to increased health costs
Emotional Health Difficulty getting along with others Higher rates of aggression and passivity, Hyperactivity and anxiety Affects feeling self self worth and ability to actualize potential
Food Security Defined:When all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life.
A Food Secure Community Provides Availability of a variety of foods at a reasonable cost Access to a grocery store or other sources that supply food Sufficient personal income to purchase food that meets nutritional needs for each household member Freedom to choose enough personally acceptable food Confidence in the quality and safety of food available Access to accurate information about food and nutrition
Methodology: Sample size goal of 808 interviews Sample size determined based on the average number served per month at each pantry. Interviews conducted at 17 pantries by 40 UW Green Bay Social Work students USDA methodology was utilized to determine food security status based on a series of questions Cross tabulations computed to show relationship of food security to selected factors 88.2% of target sample was interviewed with 713 responding
Questionnaire The USDA Food Security Survey was used to measure food security status.
USDAs revised labels describe ranges of food security Detailed categories General categories(old and new labels are the same) Old label New label Description of conditions in the household High food No reported indications of food-access problems or limitations security Food security Food security One or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food Marginal food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no security indication of changes in diets or food intake Three or more affirmative responses. Reports of reduced Food insecurity Low food security quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of without hunger reduced food intake Food insecurity Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and Food insecurity Very low food reduced food intake. with hunger security (Eight affirmative out of 18 with children and six out of ten affirmative without children)
Examples of Food Security/Hunger Questions: “The food we bought just didn’t last, and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? In the last 12 months, did you ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food?
Additional Questions Were Added: Demographics Food Assistance Utilization Reasons for Not Enough Food Nutrition and Health Housing Employment Strategies Used to Have Enough Resources to Help
Results: Demographics Gender Age of Respondent Age of Children in Household Ethnicity of Respondent Educational Level
Gender of Food Pantry Users Surveyed 31% Male Female 69% Note. N = 681
Age of RespondentsPie Chart Representing Age Demographics of Respondents 7% 2% 20%17% 30 or younger 31 ‐ 40 41 ‐ 50 51 ‐ 60 61 ‐ 70 26% 71+ 28%
Age of Children of the Pantry Users Surveyed Age of Children in Households 20% 30% Under 5 yrs. 5 yrs. ‐ 17 No children 50%
Ethnicity American Indian or Ethnicity reported by respondents Alaskan Native Asian American 4% 3% 8% African American 0% 0% 7% 20% White Native Hawaiian or Pasific Islander0% Russian0% Hispanic Somalian 58% Hmong
Education Level Food Security by Level of Education 15%30% Less than 9th grade 9th ‐11th grade 18% High school graduate or equivalent More than high school 37%
Results: Food Security Status Overall Gender Ethnicity With children 10 year comparison
Overall Food Security Status Percent of Overall Food Security Status 2009 (N = 713)Very Low Food Security 38% Food Security Level Low Food Security 44% Very Low Food Security Low Food Security 1 Marginal Food SecurityMarginal Food Security High Food Security 11% High Food Security 7% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Food Security by Ethnicity of Respondents Percentage of Low & Very Low Food Security Level by Ethnicity Hmong 96%American 90% Indian African Percentage of Low & Very 87% Low Food Security Level byAmerican EthnicityCaucasian 79% Hispanic 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Food Security Comparison Regarding Ethnicity Comparison between White and Combined Ethnic Populations Experiencing Low to Very Low Food SecurityCombined Ethnic 85%Population Combined Ethnic Population White Population White 79%Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Food Security Status of Respondents with Children Food Security Status of Households With Children, 2009 (N = 713)Food Insecure 81.7 % Food Insecure Food Secure Food Secure 18.2% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Brown County UW-Extension 2009 Food Security Research
Food Security Status: Ten Year Comparison Ten Year Comparison of Food Security Status of Food Pantry Users 2009 (N = 713), 2004 (N = 641), 1999 (N = 277)100% 89.00%90% 81.70%80% 71.16%70%60% 200950% 1 200440% 1999 28.30%30% 18.30%20% 11.00%10% 0% Secur e Insec u re Fo o d Foo d Brown County UW-Extension 2009 Food Security Research
Perceived and Real Contributors to Food Insecurity Ten Year Comparison of Reasons Why Not Enough food 2009 (N=713), 2004 (N=641), 1999 (N=277) Multiple Response child care problems 36.7% 7.1% cant get to the pantry during open hours 31.0% 36.7% 61.3% no grocery store in the area 21.0% 20.1% 39.0% work schedule 26.6% 20.8% bus doesnt go where I need it to go 31.5% 22.8% bus costs too much 50.0% 24.8% no car 32.0% 34.7% 68.3% 1999 too hard to get to the store 32.2% 21.6% 2004 22.0% dont know how to prepare the foods given to me 13.5% 12.8% 2009 not able to cook or eat because of health problems 13.5% no working refrigerator available 9.6% 14.0% no working stove available 13.0% 11.2% on a diet 16.2% not enough time for shopping or cooking 20.3% 91.0% not enough money for food 90.4% 85.6% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Results: Utilization of Food Assistance First time use of food pantries Pantry usage in the past 12 months Utilization of Food Share
First Time Use of Food Pantry First Time Use of Food Pantry 2009 (N = 713), 2004 (N = 641) more than 2 years ago 40.6% 40.1% 1 to 2 years ago 12.0% 17.7% 6 months to a year ago 14.7% 13.4% 2004 28.2% 2009sometime in the last 6 months 23.2% today is the first time 4.1% 4.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Pantry Usage in Past 12 Months Food Pantry Usage it the Past 12 Months 2009 (N = 713)9‐12 22.0% 6‐9 8.6% Number of Months 4‐6 15.1% Received Food from more than 1 Pantry 1‐3 43.6% Food from more than 1 0 4.1% Pantry Yes 41.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Reasons People do not Receive Food Share Reasons People do not Receive Food Share (food stamps) Multiple Response 2009 (N = 627), 2004 (N = 641) I dont want food stamps 21.4% 17.2% I dont need food stamps 20.1% 20.5% application process is too difficult 14.6% 19.2% don’t know how to apply 19.0% 25.3% 2004applied for food stamps but not eligible 35.7% 2009 31.5% don’t think youre eligible 44.7% 43.0% don’t know about food stamps 13.2% 11.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Results: Nutrition and Health Importance of consuming 5 or more Consumption of the right amount Reasons why people don’t eat the right amount Reported health problems
Consumption of the Recommended Amount of Vegetables and Fruit Consumption of the Right Amount of Vegetables and Fruit 2009 (N = 675), 2004 (N = 641) 1.60% dont know should eat more 69.1% 73.2% 2004 2009 29.3% eat right amount 26.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
Reasons Why Not Enough Vegetables and Fruits are Eaten Reasons People Do Not Eat the Right Amount of Vegetables and Fruits N = 713: multiple response, 2009 10.6% 12.7% not available in the store where I need to 12.5% shop 14.5% the store doesnt carry the kinds I like 15.8% I feel they spoil too quickly and will go to waste they cost too much14.9% 47.0% I don’t care for the taste My kids wont eat them I don’t know what to do with them (how to prepare them) other 69.4%
Health Problems of Pantry User Households Reported Health Problems of Household Members of Pantry Users Multiple Responses 2009 (N = 713), 2004 (N = 641) Other NR 26.2% Asthma 34.1% 33.3% Heart disease 15.7% 14.6%High blood pressure 36.3% 35.3% 2004 Diabetes 22.5% 24.6% 2009 Underweight NR 13.5% Overweight 40.0% 45.3% Depression 46.3% 42.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Results: Housing and Employment Housing status Adults currently working Food security status and employment Hourly wage Sources of income
Current Housing Status Current Housing Status 2009 (N = 624), 2004 (N =641) 12.0%own my home 19.3% 2004 83.8% 2009 rent 78.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Food Security by Employment Status 2009 Food Security Status by Current Employment, 2009 (N = 351) 6.3% 10.8% 39.0% High food security Marginal food security Low food security Very low food security 43.9%
Sources of Income Sources of Household Income Last Month (multiple response) 2009 (N = 713) employment 7.3% 16.0% pension 8.3% 52.9% unemployment disability/workers compensation social security22.0% child support W2 4.6% 6.2% SSI 11.5% earned income tax credit 19.2% housing assistance 28.3% 12.6% other
Results: Strategies Used to Improve Food Security Resources that would help improve food security Strategies used to have enough money for food Food assistance used in last 12 months by food security level Food assistance used in last 12 months 2005-2009 compared
Strategies Used to Have Enough Money for Food Strategies Used to Have Enough Money for Food Multiple Responses 2009 (N = 713), 2004 (N = 641) other 0.0% 12.7% borrowed from a friend 0.0% 48.5% used rent‐to‐own stores 0.0% 6.9% used payday loan services 0.0% 23.0% neglected healthcare needs 28.9% 36.6% 2004 got an additional job 24.3% 2009 18.1% living with another household 19.8% 17.4%not paid rent or mortgage on time 31.1% 34.5% moved into a shelter 6.8% 2.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Types of Assistance Used to Improve Food Security by Food Security Level Food Assistance Used by Food Security Level 2009 (N = 713) Food Share 298 49 Food Pantries 510 113 Meal Sites 152 21 Summer Breakfast 63 9 Summer Lunch 160 Food Security Level 22 75 Food Insecure Shelter 6 Food Secure School Lunch 270 40 School Breakfast 238 31 Friends/Relatives 323 33 WIC 161 25 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Types of Food Assistance Used: 2004 ‐ 2009 Compared Food Assistance Programs Used by Respondents in the Last 12 Months 2009 (N = 713), 2004 (N = 641) food share (food stamps, 42.8% Quest card) 49.8% food pantries 92.9% 89.3% 20.3% community meal sites 24.8% 5.7%summer breakfast programs 10.0% 18.2%summer lunches in the park 26.1% 2004 13.6% shelters 11.6% 2009free or reduced school lunch 38.7% 44.5% free or reduced school 38.7% breakfast 38.5% 46.8% friends/relatives 51.0% 23.5% WIC 26.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Limitations of Research Pantry hours and student availability Assertiveness Interpreters Pantry acceptance Consumers visiting multiple sites Confidentiality Data analysis
2. Access to Affordable and Healthy food (examples) Nutrition education Needs assessment and advocacy for development of downtown Save-A-Lot Grocery Development of downtown New Leaf Market Food Cooperative in the works Fruit and Vegetable Access Audit Community garden development
Community Gardens Community gardens space availability increased gardeners from 6 families on one city lot to 180 families on 20 acres of gardens at one time. Now reduced to130 plots and reduced acreage. Farmers market start-up for 16 new minority vendors Growers developed small businesses Established new farmers market
3. Federal Food Program Outreach: Food Share Food Stamp outreach to eligible participants increased participation by 98% while the state utilization rate increased 52% EBT at the Farmers Market is coming in 2011
EBT at the Farmers Market coming next season!!!
Percent Change in Food Share Recipients 2000‐2008 Figure 34 Percent Change in Food Stamp Recipients 2000 ‐ 2008 Brown County 191% Brown County Wisconsin Wisconsin 80% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
3. Federal Food Program Outreach: WIC (Women Infant and Children) Figure 35 Estimated Percentage of Eligible WIC Recipients Served 2008 Brown County 106% Brown County Wisconsin Wisconsin 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
3. Federal Food Program Outreach: School and Summer Meals Summer breakfast program participation increased by 540% School breakfast program participation increased by 539% Number of summer lunch program meal sites increased by 660%
Percentage of Green Bay Students Eligible of Free and Reduced Meals Figure 36 Percentage of Free and Reduced Lunch Recipients 2009‐10 53% 2008‐09 51% 2007‐08 48% 2006‐07 46% 2005‐06 45% 2004‐05 43% Percentage of Free and 2003‐04 40% Reduced Lunch Recipients 2002‐03 37% 2001‐02 33% 2000‐01 34% 1999‐00 31% 1998‐99 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of Low Income Children With School Breakfast Access Figure 37 Percent of low‐income children who have access to breakfast in their schools (2006) Brown County 86% Brown County Wisconsin Wisconsin 81% 78% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88%
Percent Change in School Breakfast Daily Participation Figure 38 Percent change in average daily participation in breakfast program (1999 ‐ 2006) Brown County 196% Brown County Wisconsin Wisconsin 95% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
Percent Change in Daily Summer Meal Sites July 2001‐2008 Figure 39 Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Summer Meal Sites July 2001 – July 2008 Brown County 76% Brown County Wisconsin Wisconsin 19% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
3. Federal Food Program Outreach: Senior Farmers Market Vouchers Advocated for statewide access to Senior Farmers Market Voucher Program Distributed 550, $30.00 vouchers to Brown County Seniors each year in 2002 – 2005 Turned program management over to Aging and Disability Resource Center in 2006
4. Emergency Food Assistance: Food Pantries Postal Food Drive Boy Scout Food Drive Beer Belly /run CROP Walk – funds raised were used to purchase refrigerators for 8 pantries desiring to diversify the foods offered to families Festival Foods Cart Away Hunger Feeding America Plant a Row for the Hungry University of Wisconsin Green Bay “Empty Bowl” fundraiser with ceramics department.
Food Pantry Utilization Trends Food Pantry Usage Trends 2007‐2009 Households Adults Children 7,000 6,000 5,842 5,430 5,000 4,295 4,505 4,000 4,074 3,597 3,000 2,727 3,048 2,445 2,000 1,000 0 07 08 09 07 08 7 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 9 07 08 09 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 . c. g. g. r. c. c. ne ne ri l ri l n. g. b b b t t t De Ap Oc Oc Oc De De Ju Ap Au Ap Au Au Fe Fe Fe Ju Ju
Strategies to End Hunger in Wisconsin 1. Family Economic Security 2. Access to Affordable and Healthy Food 3. Federal Nutrition Programs 4. Emergency Food Assistance
“To eliminate food insecurity…. interventions are needed including, adequate funding for and increase in utilization of food and nutrition assistance programs, inclusion of food and nutrition education in such programs, and innovative programs to promote and support individual and household economic self‐sufficiency.”(American Dietetics Association Position Paper on Food Insecurity, 2010)