Hunger and Food Insecurity in
Pennsylvania
1. What is the scope of the Problem ?
At the World Food Summit in 1996, the United
States – along with 185 other countries – pledged “to reduce the number of
undernourished people to half their present level no later than 2015.”
Subsequently, this commitment was incorporated into Healthy People 2010
initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It adopted a
specific target – reduce U.S. food insecurity to 6 percent by 2010.
The USDA monitors the progress toward that
goal through an annual 18-question supplement to the Current Population Survey
(CPS) – the same survey that provides national data about employment, poverty,
etc. The first survey, conducted in April 1995, revealed that 12 percent of
U.S. households were food insecure, including 4 percent with hunger. The latest
reported survey data, published in November 2007, indicates that 12,648,000
U.S. households (10.9 percent) were at risk of hunger (food insecure),
including 4,617,000 (4.0 percent) with hunger.
Here in Pennsylvania, and based on an average
of three years of data (2004–2006), the USDA report indicates that 10.0 percent
of Pennsylvania households experienced food insecurity at some point in the 12
months preceding the survey. In one-third of those households, one or more
members also experienced hunger. Translated into human terms, an estimated
492,000 Pennsylvania households were at risk of hunger. In an estimated 164,000
of these households, at least one household member experienced hunger.
When the 2004-06 data are compared with data
collected in previous years, we see a mix of findings. Compared with the
previous year’s data, food insecurity has not changed significantly (from 9.8
to 10 percent). However, hunger is up from 2.9 percent and at the highest level
since the USDA began collecting this data in 1995. Compared with 1996-1998
data, which is the best Pennsylvania report on record, food insecurity is up by
20 percent and hunger is up by 27 percent. During 2004-06, Pennsylvania’s rate
of food insecurity was 21st best in the U.S; its rate of hunger was 15th. Both
of these rankings marked a decline from last year’s report.
Food insecurity is driven by economic trends,
especially the decline in the buying power of wages. It translates directly
into more people who need help from pantries, food banks and child nutrition
programs. As evidenced by the rise in hunger in recent years, charitable efforts
are not keeping up with the growing number of people at risk.
Households that meet a part of their food
needs through a food pantry/cupboard are among the food insecure. During
October 2007 an estimated 460,000 Pennsylvanians received food assistance in
this way. Based on a Hunger Action survey of 1155 pantries and cupboards, the
number of households seeking help in October 2007 was 2 percent higher than in
October 2006 and 9 percent higher than in October 2001 when the survey was
first taken. Recent increases in fuel costs (heating and gasoline) and food
costs have contributed to this trend.
2. Who are the “food insecure”?
Data collected in 2005 by America’s Second
Harvest, the national food bank network, provides the following profile of
people who receive food assistance from charitable food providers:
- 39 percent were children;
- 12 percent were seniors;
- 42 percent lived in rural or suburban areas and 58 percent lived in
metropolitan areas;
- 88 percent had a residence; 53 percent had access to a working car;
- 66 percent of households had incomes that were below $15,670, which
was then the federal poverty level for a family of three;
- 35 percent of households received food stamps;
- 04 percent received welfare; and
- 36 percent of recipient households included an employed adult.
One of the biggest changes in recent years is
the increasing number of employed adults seeking help. Some pantries report
that up to 70 percent of households include an employed adult member.
3. Why has the United
States made so little progress toward its goal of reducing food insecurity to 6
percent by 2010?
During the late ‘90s the United States made
significant progress toward ending hunger and reducing food insecurity. Since
that time, we’ve stopped making progress; current levels of food insecurity and
hunger are slightly higher than in 2000. With 89 percent of American households
food secure, we still are far from our national goal of 94 percent by 2010.
Many factors affect a household’s food
insecurity. Income is the most important; hunger is seven times more prevalent
in households with annual incomes below 185 percent of poverty as in households
with incomes above that range. On the other hand, nearly two-thirds of
households with income below the official poverty line are food secure. Thus,
while income is a very important factor, it is not the only significant one.
Other factors such as family stability, financial management skills, nutrition
knowledge and cooking skills, and membership in broader community networks also
are important.
Two broader trends have slowed progress
toward our goal.
- Low Wages. From 01-02 to 06-07, Pennsylvania employees at
the 10 percent wage level saw their wages decline from $7.86 to $7.81 an
hour. This decline occurred even though the minimum wage was increased by
$1.10 increase in January, 2007. Approximately 22 percent of employees
earn less than a poverty wage (defined as the wage necessary for a full-time,
full-year worker to earn $20,650 annually, which is the federal poverty
level for a family of four). Meanwhile, the costs of many other
essentials, such as housing, energy and medical care, increased
significantly. For families caught in the squeeze between low wages and
rising costs, the food budget is a place where adjustments can be made.
Using emergency food assistance becomes a way for these families to keep
food on the table while still paying the bills.
- Modern Lifestyles. Social changes -- more single-parents families,
fewer stay-at-home parents, a faster pace of life, an emphasis on
convenience -- encourage the consumption of more prepared foods. These
foods tend to be more expensive, thereby adding pressure to the budgets of
low-income families.
4. What
publicly-funded nutrition programs are available to help?
Within state government, six executive
agencies contribute to the fight against hunger and food insecurity through the
administration of food and nutrition programs. These programs are supported by
a combination of federal and state funds. At the local level, several of these
programs are implemented through generous contributions of volunteer labor.
PA Department of Agriculture. PDA administers four programs: the State Food Purchase
Program (SFPP), the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), The Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP). The SFPP is entirely state funded, currently at $18.00 million. The
FMNP is currently funded at around $5.15 million ($2.9 federal, $2.25 state).
TEFAP is entirely federal funded; the value of product it provides varies from
year-to-year and recently has fallen $6.5 million a year. The CSFP also is
entirely federally funded at $3 million.
PA Department of Education. PDE administers four child nutrition programs: the
National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP). All are federally funded without any spending caps. For school meals,
PA pays an additional subsidy of at least 10 cents per lunch and 10 cents per
breakfast. Schools that offer both lunch and breakfast receive higher
reimbursement rates for lunch, and schools that apply statewide nutritional
standards to ala carte and vended foods and beverages qualify for an additional
bump in reimbursement rates. Total state funding for school-based meal programs
is around $36 million.
PA Department of Health. PDH administers the Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Currently it is entirely federally funded at
about $150 million. Most of the money is for “food prescriptions” designed to
meet specific dietary deficiencies. A part may be spent for nutrition assessment
and counseling services offered by WIC staff (about $26 million annually) and
administration (about $14 million annually). In the late ‘80s state funds were
invested in WIC; that ended in 1997.
PA Department of Aging. Through 52 local area agencies, Aging administers
congregate dining, which provides a group meal at a senior center; and home
delivered meals, which provides prepared food to homebound persons. These are
not entitlement programs and participation depends on the availability of
funds. About $50 million in state and $10 million in federal funds pay for
these programs.
PA Department of Public Welfare. DPW administers the Food Stamp Program, a federal
entitlement that brought over $1.2 billion in grocery purchases to Pennsylvania
in SFY 2006-07. The state’s cost is a 50 percent share of administration, or
around $110 million annually. DPW also operates the Nutrition Education
Program, which last year brought about $15 million in federal funds to the
Commonwealth for nutrition education.
PA Department of Community and
Economic Development. DCED
administers federal funds that come to Pennsylvania via the Community Services
Block Grant (CSBG). The CSBG funds are distributed to community action
agencies, some of which provide anti-hunger programs. DCED also administers the
Neighborhood Assistance Program (NAP), which provides 50 percent tax credits to
business that donate to local charities. Food banks are among the key
beneficiaries of this Program, which is authorized to dispense $18 million in
tax credits annually. DCED also administers funds appropriated by the General
Assembly to support the development of supermarkets and other fresh-food
retailers in underserved, disadvantaged urban and rural communities.
5. What are key policy issues that
decision-makers need to resolve?
A. What can be done to improve
nutrition among at-risk children?
Most federal nutrition programs for children
are uncapped entitlements. Strategic use of these programs would enable
Pennsylvania to use federal dollars to fund nutritional gains. Among the areas
to be examined are these.
- The role of nutrition during the pre-school years of children’s
lives. WIC is important and widely used by low-income families. Less well
utilized is the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals to
children who are in the care of a child care provider that enrolls in the
Program.
- PA still has 260 lower-income schools that do not provide
breakfast. Many school districts shut down their food services over the
summer, despite the opportunity to provide meals to low-income children
through the Summer Food Service Program. How can we encourage these
schools to recognize the link between nutrition, educational achievement
and good health?
B. How can Pennsylvania lower
barriers that deny access to nutrition programs?
Pennsylvania ’s experience with CHIP
demonstrated our ability to achieve high participation in a publicly-funded
benefit program. That success can be replicated in our nutrition programs if
there is the will to do so.
- We can utilize eligibility information provided to one program to
establish eligibility in another. DPW and the Social Security
Administration recently adopted this approach with SSI recipients and food
stamps. Similarly, the National School Lunch Program uses data provided by
the Food Stamp Program. We can do more of this. For example, DPW could
align the resource rules between food stamps and a TANF-funded program,
thereby simplifying food stamp eligibility.
- The DPW on-line application via COMPASS has been a positive
development. It has created much more flexibility in the application
process.
C. How can Pennsylvania achieve a
larger impact with its food programs?
In 2004 Governor Rendell reactivated the
Inter-Agency Council on Food and Nutrition, a body that was first appointed by
Gov. Casey but had been inactive for 10 years. This Council brings together all
of the agencies listed on the previous page for the purpose of lowering
barriers to access and improving overall effectiveness. To be successful, it
needs more visibility and a stronger public endorsement by Governor Rendell.
D. What about the rise in obesity
among low-income individuals?
Low-income individuals are subject to the
same factors that drive weight trends in general society: advertising, super-sizing,
a taste for fast food, infrequent physical labor and exercise, the prevalence
of highly processed carbohydrates and sugars in the diet. But they also face
additional challenges: alternating periods of high and low food consumption;
the need to select inexpensive, high-energy foods that provide more calories
for the same cost than fresh items; and less access to high volume grocery
outlets that offer a variety of foods at a modest price. How can we encourage
more consistency in food supply and more fresh fruits and vegetables in their
diets?
E. Do we want the working poor to
rely increasingly on charity for a portion of their food supply?
As globalization proceeds, and the buying
power of low-skill wages erodes, many more working households are relying on
food pantries for a portion of their food. What we used to call “emergency
food” has become a regular monthly source of food for low-wage families. If
unchecked, this trend is likely to continue.
- In response, should we continue to strengthen the charitable food
distribution network?
- Alternatively, we could enable low-wage families to obtain more of
their food through the existing market structure (grocery stores).
Effective tools to do that are available: index the minimum wage,
strengthen earned income tax credits, improve access to the Food Stamp
Program, improve access to CHIP for children’s health care, improve access
to child care subsidies, and improve access to education and skills training
for adults with families.
PA
Hunger Action Center (December 11, 2007)
Food security is defined as “assured access at all
times to enough food for an active and healthy life, with no need for recourse
to emergency food sources or other extraordinary coping behaviors to meet basic
food needs”. People who frequently worry about the source of their next meal,
or who need the help of food pantries or of extended family members in order to
eat, are “food insecure”. Hunger is defined as “the uneasy or painful sensation caused
by lack of food due to the recurrent and involuntary lack of access to food”.
According to the Economic Research Service of the
USDA, the monthly rates of food insecurity and hunger are just over half the
annual rates. Thus, from mid-November to mid-December 2005, 5.9 percent of
American households were food insecure and 2.2 percent of households included someone
who experienced hunger. See Household Food Security in the United States, 2005
(Nord, et al. November 2006).
- Household Food Security in the United States, 2000
