View
48
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Sheila Mammen, Jean Bauer, Leslie Richards, Peter St. Marie IAREP/SABE Conference at LUISS Roma, Italy September 5, 2008. A Paradox of Place and Circumstance: Food Consumption Behaviour Among Rural Low-Income Families. The Paradox. Paradox about USA: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Sheila Mammen, Jean Bauer, Leslie Richards, Peter St. MarieIAREP/SABE Conference at LUISS
Roma, ItalySeptember 5, 2008
A Paradox of Place and Circumstance:Food Consumption Behaviour
Among Rural Low-Income Families
The Paradox
Paradox about USA:– based on per capita GDP, extremely wealthy– but lower levels of life expectancy and higher
levels of infant mortality & child poverty
Paradox among states in USA:– in prosperous states rural low-income families
appear more food insecure– not widely reported in other studies
Food Security
Food security defined:“Families' consistent and dependable access to
sufficient food to maintain an active and healthy life.” Nord et al., 2005
Families are food insecure when safe and nutritionally adequate food is not readily available or when they have to resort to extraordinary means to obtain it.
Rural Poverty
Poverty is disproportionately higher & more persistent in rural areas in US.
Rural low-income families are more likely to face unemployment, underemployment & lower wages.
Rural low-income families are more likely to confront food insecurity.
Research Questions
Why are rural low-income families from prosperous states paradoxically more food insecure?
Conversely, why are rural low-income families from less prosperous states more likely to be food secure?
How does the food consumption behaviour of rural low-income families in prosperous states differ from families in less prosperous states?
What is a Prosperous State?
To determine prosperous states, we ranked the states according to infant mortality rate, percent of residents with bachelor’s degree & fiscal capacity index. (States with high fiscal capacity have a relatively high capability to cover their expenditure needs using their own resources given what it would cost to provide a standard set of public services to their citizens [Rueben et al., 2006]). Based on these indicators, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota & Oregon may be considered prosperous while Louisiana, Michigan & Nebraska may be considered less prosperous.
Range of Food Insecurity
Initial response: moderate consumption changes– decrease quality of food– reduce variety of food– positive coping strategiesLow Food Security [USDA]
Later response: severe consumption changes– decrease children's quantity– adults skip meals– negative coping strategiesVery Low Food Security [USDA]
Family Ecological Systems Model
Adapted from:
– Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979)
– Huddleston-Casas, C. & Braun, B. (2006).
Micropeers family
religion
healthagencies
massmedia
schoolcommunity
nationality
societyculture
politicalsystem
economicsystem
Data and Methods
USDA funded multi-state longitudinal project, NC-223/NC-1011, "Rural low-income Families: Tracking Their Well-being in the Context of Welfare Reform“ http://fsos.cehd.umn.edu/projects/rfs.html
– 13 states• incomes below 200% of federal poverty line• one child under 13 years old
– mothers recruited through programs for low income families e.g., food stamps, food pantries
– qualitative & quantitative data
Least food insecure
California (10%)Louisiana (0%)Nebraska (0%)
54 families
Most food insecure Massachusetts (44%)Michigan (25%)Minnesota (25%)Oregon (20%)
81 families
3 waves of data, August 1999 - July 2002
States with most and least food insecurity in 3 waves
Sample
Percentage of Food Insecure FamiliesIn Food Insecure & Food Secure States
Comparison of NC-1011 & USDA Measures of Food Insecurity
NC1011 (N=13) USDA (N=50)
State% Persistently food insecure
Ranking by food
insecurity % Persistently food insecure
Ranking by food
insecurity
Food insecure
MA (n=16) 43.8 1 6.4 50
MI (n=12) 25 2 9.2 33
MN (n=28) 25 2 7.1 47
OR (n=25) 20 4 13.7 7
Food secure
CA (n=30) 10 12 11.7 20
LA (n=11) 0 13 13.1 9
NE (n=13) 0 13 10.7 24
Sample Demographics, W1
Food Insecure Food Secure
Median age 32 29
Ethnicity (majority) 59% White 43% Hispanic
Partnered 54% 57%
HS education & above 65% 87%
Median number of children 2 2
Partner working 86% 94%
Living with others 17% 32%
Median monthly income $1,338 $1,184
Hypotheses
H1: Families in food insecure (prosperous) states are more likely to have lower median per capita income than families in food secure (less prosperous) states.
H2: Families in food insecure states are more likely to experience greater material hardship and incur greater housing costs as a share of family income.
Results
Median per capita family income:– no clear picture– yearly income increases for families in food insecure states– with exception of W2, median per capita family income in
food insecure states was higher than in food secure states
Income itself cannot explain food insufficiency.
Results (cont.)
Index of Material Hardship:– "In the past year, has there been a time when you had a
hard time making ends meet or paying for necessities?”
– Did you have trouble paying for (yes/no): food, clothing, medical care, dental care, medicines, other
Material hardship:– in all 3 waves, families in food insecure states suffered
greater material hardship. (stat. sig. in W1 & W3.)
– for food insecure states, hardship experienced by families declined from W1 to W2, but increased from W2 to W3
– hardship experienced by families in food secure states declined steadily from W1 to W3
Total housing cost as share of annual family income:– amount spent on rent/mortgage, gas/oil, electric
Housing cost as share of family income:– families in food insecure states spent more
income on housing costs in 3 waves (26%-33%)
– families in food secure states spent, on average, 27% of household income on housing costs
Results (cont.)
W1 W2 W3
Annual median family per capita income ($)
Food insecure 3852 (81) 4850 (81) 5551 (81)
Food secure 3193 (54) 5236 (54) 5116 (54)
Index of material hardship
Food insecure 2.42 (81) 1.52 (81) 1.71 (81)
Food secure 1.72 (54) 1.10 (54) 0.90 (54)
Total housing costs as a share of income (%)
Food insecure 31 (75) 32 (73) 25 (75)
Food secure 22 (52) 22 (40) 16 (48)
Comparison Between Families inFood Insecure & Food Secure States
Shaded blocks indicate stat. significant difference between food insecure and secure states.
Food Consumption Behaviours
Systematic examination of open-ended qualitative responses:
– Selection of strategy…whether family adopted strategy
– Intensity of use…how often family used strategy
Selection of strategy by rank Intensity of use by rank
Food insecure states Food secure states Food insecure states Food secure states
1. Shopping techniques
1. Shopping techniques
1. Shopping techniques 1. Shopping techniques
2. Community support 2. Meals with extended family
2. Community support 2. Meals with extended family
3. Consumption reduction behaviours
3. Human capital 3. Consumption reduction behaviours
3. Human capital
4. Money techniques 4. Money techniques and Meals with friends
4. Money techniques 4. Money techniques
5. Government programs —
5. Human capital 5. Government programs
Food Coping Strategies of Families in Food Insecure & Secure States
Shopping techniques– use coupons, buy in bulk, select off-brands
Community support– use food banks/pantries, churches & others
Meals with extended family– eat at homes of family members
Human capital– garden, freeze, can, prepare big soups/stews
Consumption reduction behaviours– diet ("needing to loose weight" to manage or reduce hunger), curb appetite (smoking,
drinking coffee, ignoring mealtimes), triage (making deliberate choices as to which family who eats first; children first then adult males)
Money techniques– use credit cards, juggle bills, write bad checks
Government programs– food stamps, WIC
Specific Examples of Coping Strategies
Food Consumption Behaviour Placed Within Family Ecological Systems Model
1,3
2
4
5
1,3,5
2
4
1,3
2
4
5
1,3
2,4
4
Food insecure statesSelection of strategy
Food insecure statesIntensity of use
Food secure statesIntensity of use
Food secure statesSelection of strategy
Explaining the Paradox
Large proportion of rural low-income mothers in food insecure (prosperous) states:– did not have high school education– less likely to be married/partnered– spouses less likely to work– less likely to co-reside with others
Substantial portion of families in food insecure states who were Hispanic were migrant/seasonal workers– ironic…globally, families engaged in agricultural production
are more vulnerable to food insufficiency
Explaining the Paradox (cont.)
Per capita income did not explain paradox. – Perhaps higher income of those in prosperous states made them
ineligible for federal programs or benefits were too little.
Rural low-income families in prosperous states had greater difficulties paying for basic necessities.– When families encounter material hardships, more likely to face food
insecurity.
Rural low-income families in prosperous states had higher housing costs.– Harsh winters in food insecure states.– When low-income families have to trade off between housing and food,
they choose housing.
Explaining the Paradox (cont.)
Rural low-income families adapt consumption behaviour to fit their unique family circumstances.
Behaviours, positive & negative, are drawn from across the ecosystem.
Rural low-income families preferred to rely on themselves & their abilities (microsystem); next on extended family, friends & local community (mesosystem); finally, government (macrosystem).
Families in food insecure (prosperous) states used dangerous consumption reduction strategies e.g., dieting, curbing appetite & triage.
Families in food secure (less prosperous) states used human capital coping techniques e.g., gardening, canning.
Sheila Mammen, Ph.D.– Associate Professor – Department of Resource Economics– University of Massachusetts Amherst– smammen@resecon.umass.edu
Jean Bauer, Ph.D.– Professor– Department of Family Social Science– University of Minnesota– jbauer@umn.edu
Leslie Richards , Ph.D.– Associate Professor – Department of Human Development and Family Sciences– Oregon State University– leslie.richards@oregonstate.edu
Peter St. Marie– Undergraduate Research Assistant– Department of Resource Economics– University of Massachusetts Amherst– pstmarie@student.umass.edu
Authors and Affiliations
Bauer, J. W. (2004). Basebook Report. Low-income rural families: Tracking their well-being and functioning in the context of welfare reform. University of Minnesota, Rural Families Speak Web site: http://fsos.cehd.umn.edu/projects/rfs/publications.html
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Huddleston-Casas, C. & Braun, B. (2006). Rural families speak out III: Laboring towards economic self-sufficiency. (Webcast). University of Minnesota, Rural Families Speak Web site: http://breeze5.umn.edu/maypresentation
Mammen, S., Bauer, J.W., & Richards, L. (In press) Understanding persistent food insecurity: A paradox of place and circumstance. Social Indicators Research.
Rueben, K., Hoo, S. & Yilmaz, Y. (2006). Fiscal Capacity of States, Fiscal 2002. Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, Tax Policy Center Web site: http://www.urban.org/publications/1001039.html
References
Recommended