1

Author: Butkus, Krysta

Title: Food Pantry Participants’ Perceptions of how Transportation and

Pantry use Influences Food Purchases.

The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in

partial completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Food and Nutritional Science

Research Adviser: Carol Seaborn, Ph.D., R.D., C.D, C.F.C.S.

Submission Term/Year: Spring, 2012

Number of Pages: 103

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and

that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University

Library website

I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been

used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the

laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.

My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper.

STUDENT: Krysta Butkus

NAME__________________________ DATE: ________________

ADVISER: Carol Seaborn

NAME __________________________ DATE: ________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only

Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above)

1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Kat Lui_______________ DATE: _____________

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Kerry Peterson_________ DATE: _____________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

This section to be completed by the Graduate School

This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Butkus, Krysta. Food Pantry Participants’ Perceptions of how Transportation and

Pantry use Influences Food Purchases.

Abstract

Food pantries alleviate hunger by providing eligible individuals with food, but food-

impoverished individuals are at increased risk of not having reliable transportation. The

objectives of this study were to determine how food pantry use influences grocery

purchases, if reliable and accessible transportation and associated costs influence grocery

purchases, and to determine the diet quality of pantry participants. Sixty food pantry

clients from Dunn County, Wisconsin were recruited to participate in the study. Eligible

participants met the criteria of having martial status as single, or married with children

under the age of 18 living in the home, or senior citizens over the age of 60. Participants

had incomes less than 185% poverty level. The data collection methods included a survey

and focus groups.

Results indicated that respondents were not consuming the recommended number

of servings per day for fruits, grains, and vegetables. Thematic analysis of focus groups

indicated many transportation and social barriers to accessing food, such as time

constraints with caring for children, poor weather conditions, and high food costs. Coping

methods to manage transportation issues and obtain affordable food or making foods

more affordable, included walking to stores, traveling with others, or strategizing

shopping trips by buying food in bulk or lower quality food. Conclusions drawn from this

study indicated that transportation constraints and nutrition knowledge barriers were

limitations for food pantry participants to meet their dietary needs.

3

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the guidance, support, and motivation I have

received from my graduate education. The encouragement, and advice I have received

from my research advisors, Carol Seaborn, Kat Lui and Kerry Peterson, have taken my

educational experience and personal growth to a new dimension. I also would like to

thank Lana Anderson, and the staff and volunteers of Stepping Stones Food Pantry for

the opportunity to complete my thesis at your facility. The support and guidance I

received while completing my thesis project made this research possible. Finally, I would

like to thank the University of Wisconsin-Stout Student Research Grant Fund for

providing funds to make this research possible.

4

Table of Contents

........................................................................................................................................ Page

Abstract ................................................................................................................................2

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................7

Chapter I: Introduction ........................................................................................................8

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................12

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................13

Research Questions ................................................................................................13

Assumptions of the Study ......................................................................................13

Definition of Terms................................................................................................14

Limitations of the Research ...................................................................................16

Chapter II: Literature Review ............................................................................................17

Demographics of Food Pantry Participants ...........................................................17

Trends in Food Pantry Participation ......................................................................19

Challenges for Food Pantries .................................................................................20

Economic Hardships ..............................................................................................21

Food Preferences Among Food Pantry Participants ..............................................25

Perceptions of Food Access and Security among Food Pantry Clients .................27

Profile of the Foods Provided by Food Pantries ....................................................30

Stepping Stones Food Pantry .................................................................................33

Summary ................................................................................................................34

Chapter III: Methodology ..................................................................................................35

Subject Selection and Description .........................................................................35

5

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................38

Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................39

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................40

Limitations .............................................................................................................41

Summary ................................................................................................................42

Chapter IV: Results ............................................................................................................43

Respondents’ Demographics from Survey ............................................................44

Food Pantry Influences on Pantry Participants’ Grocery Purchases .....................45

Estimation of Pantry Participants’ Dietary Intakes ................................................48

Transportation Access and Grocery Store Purchases ............................................54

Figure 1: Frequency of choosing not to go grocery shopping because of costs as

reported by participants..........................................................................................55

Transportation Distance to Grocery Stores ............................................................58

Focus Group Results ..............................................................................................58

Barriers to Accessing and Preparing Fresh Produce ..............................................59

Transportation Barriers to Acquiring Affordable Food .........................................63

Coping Methods for Transportation Barriers .........................................................66

Coping Methods for Accessing Affordable Food ..................................................68

Summary ................................................................................................................71

Chapter V: Discussion .......................................................................................................72

Limitations .............................................................................................................72

Conclusions: Transportation Access and Food Attainment ...................................72

Conclusions: Food Purchasing Behaviors .............................................................76

6

Conclusions: Vehicle Access and Food Purchases ................................................79

Conclusions: Transportation Costs and Food Attainment .....................................81

Recommendations ..................................................................................................83

Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................83

References ..........................................................................................................................85

Appendix A: Approval by the UW-Stout Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the

Protection of Human Subjects .....................................................................94

Appendix B: Consent forms for the Focus Group and the Consent Forms for the

Additional Participants Surveyed ...............................................................95

Appendix C: Survey Questions ..........................................................................................99

Appendix D: Focus Group Questions ..............................................................................101

Appendix E: Agreement or Disagreement to Nine Survey Items Related to

Transportation, Transportation Costs, Reliable Vehicle Access, Travel

Distances, and Difficulties with Transportation………………………..…103

7

List of Tables

Table 1: Education Level of Survey Respondents.....……............…………………....…45

Table 2: Food Purchases Made at Grocery Stores that Participants Stated were

Influenced by Foods Distributed by the Food Pantry.…....………..………...…46

Table 3: Frequency of Participant Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Foods

Purchased as Related to Purchase Site.................................................................47

Table 4: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of

Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average

per Day by those 60 Years and Older..................................................................49

Table 5: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of

Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average

per Day for those Younger than 60 Years...........................................................50

Table 6: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of

Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average

per Day by Married Parents.................................................................................52

Table 7: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of

Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average

per Day by Single Parents....................................................................................53

Table 8: Frequency of Participant Responses of Purchase Site for Food when

there was Not or was Access to a Vehicle...........................................................57

Table 9: Comparison of Miles Traveled to Grocery Stores by Marital Status..................58

8

Chapter I: Introduction

Food insecurity refers to the inability to afford enough food for an active, healthy

life (Anderson, 1990). Most adults living in food insecure households report the

following: inability to afford balanced meals, inadequacy or running out of food, cutting

the size of meals, or skipping meals. At the most severe level, many food insecure adults

report hunger due to not having enough money for food or not eating for an entire day

(Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2008). Numerous studies have shown associations between

food insecurity and adverse health outcomes among children, such as: iron-deficiency

anemia, acute infection, chronic illness, and developmental problems. In adults, the risk

of chronic diseases such as heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes may be more

prevalent (Seligman, Laraia, & Kushel, 2010). These adverse health effects appear to be

related to food insecurity and the inability to achieve adequate intake, which is the

sufficient consumption of food, vitamins and minerals to maintain health (Otten, Pitzi, &

Meyers, 2006).

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans provide information on how to make

healthy decisions about food eaten, and focus on how foods like fruits, vegetables, whole

grains, and low-fat dairy products, as well as the consumption of less sodium, saturated

and trans fat, and sugar can help prevent diet-related diseases like diabetes and heart

disease (USDA, 2012d). Although information to make healthier food choices is

available, there are many barriers that prevent individuals from consuming a healthier

diet, which include: level of education, occupation, ethnicity, income, and food insecurity

(Cohen, Stoddard, Sarouhkhanians, & Sorensen, 1998).

9

Common responses to food insecurity often entail decreased food budget, reduced

food intake, and alterations in types of food served (Kendall, Olson, & Frongilo, 1996).

With food insecurity, dietary variety decreases and consumption of energy-dense foods

increases. These energy-dense foods that commonly comprise of refined grains, added

sugars, and added saturated/trans fats, tend to be of poor nutritional quality and are less

expensive than fruits, vegetables, dairy, lean meats, and whole grains (Monsivais &

Drewnowski, 2007). Thus, U.S. adults living with food insecurity consume fewer

servings of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and lower levels of micronutrients including: B

vitamins, magnesium, iron, zinc, and calcium (Dixon, Winkleby, & Radimer, 2001; Lee

& Frongillo, 2001). These dietary patterns link the food insecure individuals with

development of chronic disease (Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003).

Food insecurity and the known link to chronic disease is an ongoing concern in

the United States. With high unemployment rates and a sluggish economy, food

insecurity continues to be a concern for many families. In 2009, it was estimated that 43.6

million people were living in poverty in the United States (Nord, Coleman-Jensen,

Andrews, & Carlson, 2010). In addition to those living in poverty, it was estimated that

50.2 million people lived in food insecure households, with 33 million of those people

being adults and 17.2 million being children (Nord et al., 2010). Furthermore, families

headed by a single mother with children comprised 36.6% of the total households living

with food insecurity (Nord et al., 2010).

Poverty is defined as a family income less than the set income threshold

determined by the U.S. Census Bureau based on family size and composition (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2010a). Poverty in the United States and Wisconsin is on the rise. The

10

U.S. Census Bureau summarized that in 2009 16% of all children aged 5-17 were part of

families living in poverty in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). In

comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau also found in 2009 that a slightly higher number,

17.7% of all children aged 18 or younger in Dunn County, Wisconsin, were living in

poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). Other data of the U.S. Census Bureau indicated

that 15.3% of Dunn County, Wisconsin residents were living in poverty in 2009, which

was higher than the state of Wisconsin’s percentage of 11.6% and similar to the 15.1%

poverty rate of the entire United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). Thus, the

percentage of residents living in poverty in Dunn County is higher than the percentage in

the state of Wisconsin, and notably more children are living in poverty in Dunn County

than the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).

Poverty directly affects food security among low-income populations. According

to the Household Food Security Study, 11.4% of Wisconsin residents were living in food

insecure households between 2007 and 2009, and 4.4% of Wisconsin residents were

living in very-low food security homes indicating hunger (Nord et al., 2010). To

illustrate the extent of the increasing food insecurity problem, the percentage of

Wisconsin residents who were living in food insecure homes increased by 2.5%, and

those living in very-low food security households increased 1.7% since the national

survey was completed in 2006 (Nord et al., 2010). Also, families with children headed by

a female of black or Hispanic ethnicity increased the odds for living in a household with

food insecurity (Nord et al., 2010). Food insecurity for low-income families and seniors

in Wisconsin is on the rise, and efforts are being made to address this issue at the

community level through food pantries.

11

Food pantries such as Stepping Stones Food Pantry, located in Dunn County,

Wisconsin, help low-income families to meet food needs every month. Stepping Stones

Food Pantry is the largest food pantry in Dunn County and serves more than 2000

households every month, with the majority of participants being families with children

and the elderly (L. Anderson, personal communication, July 13, 2011). Food pantry

participants of Stepping Stones Food Pantry are allowed to use the pantry services on an

“as needed basis” and are provided with enough food for everyone in the household for

approximately 4-5 days (L. Anderson, personal communication, July 13, 2011). Stepping

Stones receives food resources from Feed My People, a food bank located in Eau Claire,

Wisconsin as well as from members of the community. The food that is donated to Feed

My People comes from a variety of sources including commercial businesses,

government agencies, and members of the community (Feed My People, 2010a and

2010b). Although the facilities of Stepping Stones Food Pantry provide a space for frozen

and fresh produce and provide healthy, nutrient-rich foods, research on how well

Stepping Stones Food Pantry and Dunn County provide for those in need is minimal.

Attitudes among food pantry participants about how transportation and pantry use

influence food purchasing have not been well-documented. Research has described that

transportation to grocery stores is perceived as being limited in rural communities

(Garasky, Morton & Greder, 2004). Research has also described that rural food pantry

participants perceive a lack of access to grocery stores with affordable food (Garasky et

al., 2004). Despite the notion that food pantry participants report having strong food

preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables (Campbell, Hudson, Webb & Crawford, 2011),

food pantries were described as having limited amounts of fresh produce and meat

12

products (Campbell et al., 2011; Mabli, Cohen, Potter, & Zhao, 2010).

Reliable transportation is described as having access to a reliable vehicle all of the

time. Having access to a reliable vehicle allows a person to travel places and obtain food.

The distance needed to travel to a food shopping center can impact where people shop for

food and how frequently they are able to go food shopping. Previous research has

emphasized that low-income urban dwellers that traveled more, consumed more fast food

(Jilcot, Moore, Wall-Bassett, Liu, & Saelens, 2011). However in this same study,

participants that who traveled longer distances shopped more frequently at supermarkets

(Jilcot, et al., 2011). Other research has found that low-income residents without

employment were more likely to not have consistent reliable transportation (Garasky,

Fletcher, & Jenson, 2006).

Statement of the Problem

How transportation costs and reliable transportation to grocery stores affect the

food choices of those who use food pantries is not well documented in research. There

appears to be limited studies on how reliable transportation, transportation costs, and

other food access barriers affect food attainment and food purchases of pantry

participants in rural areas. Rural areas are known to have lower numbers of grocery stores

than urban areas, which may also decrease the choices residents of rural areas have for

grocery shopping. Transportation to area grocery stores becomes more difficult for rural

residents since these individuals need to travel further to obtain needed groceries. More

research is needed locally to determine how the food the pantry users receive at Stepping

Stones influences purchases at grocery stores.

13

Purposes of the Study

The major focus of this study was to document how transportation and food

pantry use influences food purchases made by food pantry clients. The purpose of this

research was to determine 1) how transportation and food pantry use influence grocery

purchases, 2) if transportation costs affect food purchases, and 3) if food pantry

participants enrolled in the services at Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County,

Wisconsin, were consuming adequate portions of food from each of the food groups as

determined by the MyPlate guidelines (USDA, 2012a). More specifically, the following

questions were addressed in the research.

Research Questions

1. Are there relationships between the miles traveled to grocery stores, access to

reliable transportation, and the consumption of specific food groups among food

pantry clients?

2. What food purchasing behaviors do food pantry clients use when grocery

shopping for food, and how does this relate to what pantry clients receive from

the food pantry?

3. How does having access to a reliable vehicle influence food pantry participants’

specific food group purchases at grocery stores?

4. Do travel costs to grocery stores affect the frequency of grocery shopping by food

pantry clients?

Assumptions of the Study

This study assumed the Stepping Stones Food pantry clients represented all food

pantry participants in Dunn County, Wisconsin. It was also assumed that the participants

14

of this study were truthful and complete with responses to the survey questions and in the

focus group sessions.

Definitions of Terms

This section provides the definitions of terms that are used throughout this

research paper to assist the reader.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Recommendations for Americans older than

two years of age that emphasize balancing calories and physical activity, consuming

more high-nutrient dense foods, and consuming less high calorie dense foods. These

guidelines are issued and updated every five years by the USDA and the Department of

Health and Human Services to help Americans maintain a healthy weight, reduce risk of

chronic disease, and promote overall health (USDA, 2012a).

Food bank. An organization that obtains donated and bulk-purchased food from

food manufacturers, growers, processors, grocery retailers, and distributors. The food is

then distributed to food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters or other organizations that

directly serve families and individuals facing hunger (Second Harvest Foodbank, n. d.).

Food insecurity. Includes low food security (reduced quality or variety, but

minimal change in diet intake), and very low food security (disrupted eating patterns and

reduced intake) (Nord & Coleman-Jenson, 2011).

Food pantry. A non-profit organization that distributes food products donated by

farmers, food processing companies, charitable organizations, or non-profit agencies such

as food banks.

Food security. Includes high food security (no reports of indications of food

access problems or limitations), and marginal food security (one or two reported

15

indications of food anxiety, or food shortage, but little or no dietary or intake

changes)(Nord & Coleman-Jenson, 2011).

Low food security. Represents reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet.

There is little or no indication of reduced food intake (Nord & Coleman-Jenson, 2011).

MyPlate. Educational resource released by the USDA in June 2011 to replace the

MyPyramid Plan. The purpose of MyPlate is to help consumers build a healthy plate by

providing simplified guidelines. The new dietary guidelines introduced by the

ChooseMyPlate campaign include: make half your plate fruits and vegetables, make at

least half your grains whole grains, and switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk (USDA,

2012b).

National School Lunch Program. A federally assisted meal program operating

in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides

nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day (USDA,

2012e).

Poverty. Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Statistical

Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary

by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income

is less than the family’s threshold, then the family and every individual in it is considered

in poverty. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not

include capital gains or noncash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, and food

stamps (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A government-funded

food assistance program designed for low-income households that are funded through the

16

USDA, which was at one time called food stamps. Funds are distributed within each state

to provide benefits for qualifying households to assist in food purchase. The amount of

benefits provided to each household under SNAP depends on household size, income and

expenses (USDA, 2012c).

Thematic coding. A method of organizing qualitative data through the use of

classification codes to group major themes, ideas, and interpretations during analysis

(Harris, Gleason, Boushey, Beto, & Bruemmer, 2009).

Very low food security. Represents reports of multiple indications of disrupted

eating patterns and reduced food intake, which is associated with hunger (Nord &

Coleman-Jenson, 2011).

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Serves to safeguard the health of low-

income women, infants, & children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing

nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health

care (USDA, 2010a).

Limitations of the Research

Due to the size and population used for this study, there are a few limitations.

This study only investigated the accessibility, affordability, food purchasing behaviors,

and availability of food groups to food pantry participants in Dunn County, Wisconsin.

Therefore, the results of this study may not be applicable to other areas of the country or

even within the state of Wisconsin.

17

Chapter II: Literature Review

This chapter provides a literature review of food pantries and food pantry

participants in the United States. The demographics of food pantry participants will be

discussed, followed by trends in food pantry participation and the challenges faced by

food pantries. The economic hardships faced by food pantry participants and coping

strategies utilized will be discussed. There will be a discussion of food preferences

among food pantry participants. Perceptions of food access as affected by transportation,

foods offered at grocery stores, and nutritional quality of food obtained will be reviewed.

Finally, a discussion of what foods are typically offered at food pantries and specifically

details of the Stepping Stone Food Pantry participants will be provided.

Demographics of Food Pantry Participants

Food pantry participants represent a portion of the low-income households who

are using at least one of the resources available in order to meet monthly food needs.

According to the Feeding America Study completed by the USDA, 81% of households

that were interviewed used food pantries over soup kitchens or shelters (Mabli et al.,

2010). The demographics of food pantry clients were well described, as households with

at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home compromised 44% of the food

pantry population, while senior citizens represented 20.6% of households (Mabli et al.,

2010). Notably, 67% of all food pantry clients were women. The age of pantry

participants ranged from 18 to over 65, but the majority of pantry participants that

represented 72% of the entire client population were between the ages of 30 and 64

(Mabli et al., 2010). According to the Household Food Security Study an estimated 5.6

million people in the United States used food pantries at some point over a 12-month

18

period in 2009 (Nord et al., 2010).

The use of food pantries can vary based on household size and income level.

Households with children parented by a single mother (13.7%) were more likely to use

food pantries than those households without children (3.7%), households with more than

one adult (2.9%) or households with elderly members (3.1%) (Nord et al., 2010)). Use of

food pantries was higher among Black (8.6%) and Hispanic households (7.6%), than non-

Hispanic Whites (3.7). This is consistent with the higher rates of poverty and food

insecurity of these minority groups. In spite of the lower use rate, non-Hispanic Whites

comprised a majority (55%) of food-pantry users because of the larger representation of

this ethnic group in the general population (Nord et al., 2010).

In 2009, the use of food pantries by households with food insecurity was 15 times

more likely than households with food security (Nord et al., 2010). Although low-

income families with food insecurity were more likely to use food pantries, the negative

connotation associated with the use of food pantries may prevent some needy families

from using its resources (Smith & Morton, 2009). For example, taking free food from a

food pantry for individuals may be difficult, because of inability to accept the fact these

resources were needed to meet monthly food needs (Smith & Morton, 2009).

According to the Household Food Security Study (Nord et al., 2010),

approximately 66.9% of households with food pantry users participate in at least one

federal food and nutrition assistance program. The majority of food pantry participants

were receiving SNAP benefits (48.9%), while 22.6% of households with food pantries

participants were enrolled in the National School Lunch Program, and 20.7% of

households with food pantry participants were WIC clients (Nord et al., 2010).

19

Trends in Food Pantry Participation

Recently, the percentage of people using food pantries has increased dramatically.

In 2010, the Feeding America Organization provided food to 37 million Americans,

including 14 million children, which was an increase of 46% over 2006 when the

organization was feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children per year

(Hunger in America, 2010). In 2010, Feeding America was feeding 1 million more

Americans each week than the food bank did in 2006 (Hunger in America, 2010). This

indicated that food pantry participants seemed to be relying more on food pantries in

order to meet basic food needs every month. In addition, more people have started to use

pantries for the first time since 2005. In 2005, the average “newcomer rate” was 14.0%

per month, while in 2009 this rate increased to 20.8% new food pantry participants per

month (Mabli et al., 2010). Along with the percentage of new food pantry participants

increasing per month, the percentage of food pantries that were serving more clients from

2005 to 2009 increased 74.3% (Mabli et al., 2010).

The various populations food pantries serve over the year can vary by season. In

the summer months, more families with children have been identified as using food

pantries compared to other times during the year (Nord et al., 2010). In contrast, the

number of migrant workers who used food pantries during the winter months increased as

well. Food pantries have also stated that during the holiday months, additional clients will

begin to use food pantries (Mabli et al., 2010). In addition, food pantry use varies across

the nation. Of all regions in the United States, the Midwest was shown to have the highest

census of food pantry participants compared to the Southern, Northwestern, and Western

regions (Nord et al., 2010). This participation in food pantries in the Midwest is in sharp

20

contrast to the states who have the lowest and very lowest food security which are:

Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Florida, California, and North

Carolina (Hunger in America, 2010).

Along with the trend of increased food pantry clients, the percentages of food

pantry participants that are living in low food security or very low food security

households increased from 2005-2009. According to the Feeding America Study

completed for the USDA in 2010 (Mabli et al., 2010), the number of food pantry

participants who were living with low food security increased from 39.1% in 2005 to

41% in 2009. The number of food pantry clients who were living with very low food

security had also increased from 31.1% in 2005 to 35% in 2009. Food pantry participants

who were receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits

increased from 36.3% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2009. However, the percentage of food pantry

participants that were not receiving SNAP benefits, but were eligible, has also increased

from 35.1% to 39.3%. These data indicate that the proportion of participating food pantry

users are increasing, and the proportion of food pantry participants who are not using

federal food and nutrition assistance programs is staying the same. This implies that

eligible food pantry participants are not utilizing all of the resources available to them to

obtain nutritious food.

Challenges for Food Pantries

Food pantries face many challenges because of the increasing number of clients.

Insufficient funding and food supply shortages are major challenges for food pantries

(Mabli et al., 2010). Food pantries have tried to prevent food shortages of staple foods,

such as grain products and meats, by limiting the number of staple foods that can be

21

taken by each family. At the Stepping Stones Food Pantry, rules to prevent shortages of

staple foods also apply. With hundreds of families visiting the Stepping Stones Food

Pantry every week, keeping essential food items in stock is challenging. Allowing food

pantry participants to take needed essential food products is important so families can be

fed; however, this can become problematic if one family takes a large portion of a food

pantry’s stock of one item (Akobundu, Cohen, Laus, Schulte, & Soussloff, 2004). This

may cause the inability of other families to obtain staple foods.

Other reasons why food pantries may have problems providing for the needs of

participants appears to be due to shortages in volunteers or not enough paid staff. In the

Household Food Security Study compiled by Nord et al. (2010), results indicated that

67.7% of pantry programs, 42% of kitchen programs, and 15.3% of shelter programs had

no paid staff. Other confounding results indicated that pantry programs had on average

six volunteers per week (Nord et al., 2010). These data indicate that food pantries may

not have the adequate staff to adequately man, stock, and maintain food pantries.

Therefore, among all food pantries that participated in the Feeding America study, 66.6%

of all food pantries were facing at least one problem associated with staffing,

refrigeration/freezers, and lack of donations in meeting the food needs of clientele (Mabli

et al., 2010).

Economic Hardships

In rural communities, poverty rates can be as high as 15.1% of the community’s

total population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, between 2006 and 2010

the percentage of people living in Dunn County, Wisconsin who were poverty stricken

was 14.2% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). By comparison, the percentage of people living

22

in poverty in 2006 to 2010 for the state of Wisconsin was lower at 10.5% (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2010c). The percentage of people living below poverty in Dunn County was also

much higher than the national average of 12.9% (National Alliance to End Homelessness,

2010). These data indicate that Dunn County has a much higher percentage of its

residents living in poverty compared to the state and national averages.

Hardships for food pantry participants. The poor economy has drastic

consequences for those that live in poverty. According to a report completed by the

Economic Research Services (Gibbs, Kusmin, & Cromartie, 2005), food insecurity in

rural areas was considered to be more extreme than in urban or suburban areas because of

lower educational status, concentration of employment in lower-wage businesses, and

higher unemployment rates. Besides these general economic hardships for rural low-

income individuals, those that use food pantries have additional hardships.

Biggerstaff, Morris and Nichols-Casebolt (2002) stated that economic hardships

for food pantry and soup kitchen participants could be classified into three categories:

housing and family situations, loss of public benefits, and distribution of utilities. Those

food assistance participants who experienced housing or family situations described

being homeless, victims of domestic violence, or having to let other people move in to

help pay expenses. Others suffered from loss of public benefits, the loss of food stamps,

Medicaid, or health insurance. Those with disruption of utilities because of non-payment

of bills experienced cut offs of phone service, electricity, or heat (Biggerstaff et al.,

2002).

Senior citizens, a specific subgroup that use food pantries, have emphasized that

after spending money on bills and medications, limited funds for food are available at the

23

end of the month (Keller et al., 2006). Other hardships described for seniors that make

paying bills or obtaining food difficult include having less than a high school diploma,

being disabled or unemployed, or living alone (Ziliak & Gundersen, 2009).

Economic hardships throughout the rural community. Besides economic

hardships occurring for pantry participants, hardships have been portrayed throughout the

rural communities for this population. Research has depicted that rural communities tend

to have fewer grocery stores available for community members compared to urban or

suburban areas (Garasky et al., 2004). Because fewer grocery stores are available in rural

communities, families in rural areas may need to travel further to access food. And some

low-income residents living in rural communities have expressed that the cost of food

was higher in the local community compared to areas that were further away (Smith &

Morton, 2009; Webber, Sobal, & Dollahite, 2010). But some low-income rural residents

emphasized that even though grocery stores were cheaper further away, considering the

cost of gasoline to travel there would make the total cost the same (Smith & Morton,

2009).

Also, low-income residents in rural counties of Minnesota and Iowa have

expressed the desire for more community grocery stores so prices of the foods could be

compared even though some of those prices were expected to be more expensive (Smith

& Morton, 2009). Although previous research has described grocery stores in rural

communities to be more expensive than those further away, future research on low-

income rural residents’ perceptions on the affordability of their food environment may be

warranted.

24

Price inflation. In addition to the prices of grocery stores in rural communities

being higher than urban communities, the annual food price inflation also affects food

costs for all communities. In a report completed by the Economic Research Service, the

Consumer Price Index for 2011 increased 4.8% for all food. This inflation was predicted

to increase an additional 2.5% to 3.5% in 2012 (USDA, 2012b). With the recent and

substantial inflation of food prices, low-income populations are expected to continue to

struggle with purchasing foods and finding affordable food in the community. In

addition, Garasky Fletchen, and Jenson (2006) emphasized that gasoline prices have

increased dramatically in the last few years. These gasoline price increases as a result of

inflation have caused challenges for families to obtain the necessary funds to afford

gasoline.

Coping strategies for economic hardships. Although there are many economic

hardships for low-income populations, some low-income rural residents have found ways

to cope with the high costs of foods and limited numbers of grocery stores in the

community. Planting gardens, sharing food with others, buying in bulk, and using

coupons or federally-funded government assistance food programs have all been ways

low-income rural residents have been able to afford and access food (Smith & Morton,

2009; Hoisington, Shultz & Butkus, 2002). Buying lower-priced fresh produce and

lower-quality meat products were also coping strategies (Leibtag & Kaufman, 2003).

Other coping strategies low-income households use to stretch food during the month were

making or buying food in bulk, using leftovers, or freezing food for later use (Hoisington

et al., 2002). Senior citizens have described eating at family or friends houses to save

money on food costs (Keller et al., 2006). Food pantry participants bought canned or

25

frozen fruits and vegetables instead of fresh (Hoisington et al., 2002), or used fresh

produce in the beginning of the month, and canned or frozen at the end of the month to

help save costs (Webber, Sobal & Sollahite, 2010).

However, other research suggests that when purchasing power in the home

decreases due to a loss of income, low-income populations have been shown to use less

nutrient-dense foods, buy less food, skip meals, or reduce overall intake (Ruel, Garrett,

Hawkes, & Cohen, 2010; Wood, Shultz, Butkus, & Ballejos, 2009).

Food Preferences among Food Pantry Participants

Healthy balanced meals are an important part of having a healthy life, and this

concept is not viewed differently among food pantry users. According to food pantry

participants, having meats, poultry, fish, fruits, and vegetables available at food pantries

was viewed as very important. Specifically, fresh fruits vegetables such as tomatoes and

apples were also viewed as important items to be offered at food pantries according to the

pantry participants (Campbell et al., 2011). Notably, food pantry participants preferred

fresh fruits and vegetables to canned or frozen produce. On the other hand, food pantry

users viewed candy, soda and snack items as not very important items to receive at food

pantries (Campbell et al., 2011). In addition, low-income rural residents have emphasized

that quality, smell, texture, and appearance were also important when purchasing food at

grocery stores (Smith & Morton, 2009; Keller et al., 2006). Nevertheless, rural

communities with few grocery stores often have limited quantities and varieties of foods

to purchase (Webber et al., 2010). Therefore, having access to healthy nutritious food at

food pantries was described no differently than the grocery store limitations in rural areas

by food pantry participants (Campbell et al., 2011; Smith & Morton, 2009).

26

The nutritional quality of foods that food pantry users do choose can be improved.

Food pantry participants in Massachusetts chose foods that represented the least amounts

of servings from the fruit and dairy groups (Akobundu, Cohen, Laus, Schulte, &

Soussloff, 2004). Results of the study indicated that the estimated number of days that the

fruit and dairy products food pantry participants obtained would last only three days.

Other findings from the study indicated that food pantry participants obtained fats, oils,

and sweet products in the largest quantities, while grains were chosen in the next largest

quantity, followed by vegetables and meats (Akobundu et al., 2004).

Food pantry participants could obtain five days’ worth of vegetables and meat

servings, and seven days’ worth of grains by consuming the food taken from the food

pantry to meet daily-recommended servings for these food groups (Akobundu et al.,

2004). This indicates that food pantry participants are able to access healthy food at food

pantries, but not in the quantities needed to meet the USDA recommended daily servings

for all food groups to last for seven days.

Food pantry participants are not limited to the number of pantries used every

month to access the food needed by the family. The number of pantries that a household

will use every month to access enough food can vary from using only one or up to five

food pantries in a given month (Campbell et al., 2011). According to the Feeding

America Study, 60.4% of adult food pantry participants expressed satisfaction with the

amount of food received when going to the food pantry. In addition, the percentage of

adult food pantry participants who were very satisfied with the variety of food received

when going to a food pantry was slightly lower at 57.5% (Mabli et al., 2010). Thse data

indicate that there is room for improvement with how food pantries can deliver food to

27

the clients served.

Perceptions of Food Access and Security Among Food Pantry Clients

Transportation access. Access to affordable food for food pantry participants is

not always feasible due to lack of reliable transportation. According to a study conducted

by Garasky et al. (2004), lack of access to affordable transportation has been depicted to

significantly increase the likelihood of being food insecure when living in rural

communities. In addition, limited access to private transportation significantly increased

the odds of not having employment (Garasky et al., 2006). Unemployment reduces

income, and therefore, funds to afford food and groceries. Other research suggests that

residents living in deprived rural communities had longer travel times to stores with fresh

produce than those residing in less deprived rural communities (Smith et al., 2010).

Although affordable transportation was limited to local grocery stores in rural and

suburban areas of Iowa, food pantry participants described that the shopping centers used

were safe (Garasky et al., 2004).

Senior citizens have difficulties accessing transportation for various reasons as

well. Senior citizens that used grocery store delivery services have complained that the

foods delivered were expired, of poor quality and not senior-friendly (Keller et al., 2006).

In addition, seniors have emphasized that public transportation such as buses or taxis

limit the ability to purchase all the foods needed because of only being able to purchase

what could be carried (Keller et al., 2006). Research has characterized that many senior

citizens do not have access to a vehicle, or do not have a valid drivers’ license. To access

food, seniors have shared that family and friends assist in grocery shopping or provide

rides to the stores to obtain groceries (Keller et al., 2006). However, seniors have also

28

positively affirmed enjoyment by being able to purchase food from convenience stores

nearby, but also expressed concerns about prices at those locations as being higher

(Keller et al., 2006). These limitations for food purchasing may impose on the nutritional

quality of the foods that seniors purchase.

Perceptions of food offered at grocery stores. Having the ability to purchase

affordable food at local grocery stores in rural areas is important to food pantry

participants, since use of food pantries is not the only source of acquiring food for this

population. Rural food pantry participants use food stamps as another source of accessing

affordable food through grocery stores (Garasky et al., 2004, Wood et al., 2009). Senior

citizens have expressed concerns about shopping at grocery stores because labels were

hard to read or becoming tired of shopping in stores due to fatigue (Keller et al., 2006).

Seniors have difficulties viewing the nutritional quality of the foods purchased and the

need to make grocery shopping trips shorter may cause the inability to purchase all foods

needed. This could result in a nutritionally inadequate diet.

Low-income individuals have varying opinions on the food variety offered in the

local community. The need for having a variety of food at grocery stores is important for

low-income individuals who express that varieties of food are limited to those that the

store perceives that the community wants, when in fact, that may not always be the case

(Smith & Morton, 2009). Low-income rural residents also believed that because there

were fewer food shopping centers in local communities, the grocers that were available

were over inflating food prices (Smith & Morton, 2009; Hendrickson, Smith &

Eikenberry, 2006).

Other research has depicted that low-income individuals in urban areas confirmed

29

shopping outside of the community, because nearby grocers had limited food choices

(Hendrickson et al., 2006). However, low-income rural residents still shop within the

community to support neighborhood businesses (Hendrickson et al., 2006), and do not

shop outside of their community because the cost it takes to travel outside of the area is

too high (Garasky et al., 2006). Yet, in some cases, rural low-income individuals buy

food outside of the community, because prices were lower (Keller et al., 2006).

Food security in the home. In order to make meals affordable for the whole

family, food pantry users will stretch food to make meals large enough for the entire

family. A study conducted in the state of Washington found that food pantry participants

would add more filler ingredients such as noodles and potatoes to dishes to stretch the

meat and vegetables in their meals (Wood et al., 2009) These filler foods vary in

nutritional content and can severely limit the nutritional quality of the foods food pantry

participants consume (Wood et al., 2009). Food pantry participants were also found to

lock the kitchen cabinets or eat smaller meals. However, limiting the amount of food the

family could have by locking cabinets or eating smaller meals was found to be associated

with poor child nutrition and food insecurity (Wood et al., 2009).

Nutritional quality of food accessed. Food pantry participants have also

expressed concerns about the nutritional quality of the family’s diets. Low-income

families have expressed complaints about how it is difficult to consider nutrition when

the family is hungry. Families who were using food stamps have also perceived that it

was difficult to buy nutritious foods with food stamps, since the cost of those nutritious

foods was so high compared to less nutritious food (Hoisington et al., 2002). Seniors

have expressed that eating nutritious food was important to them, but due to limited

30

funds, transportation constraints, and the needed convenience when eating alone, less

nutritious, less tasty and more convenience foods were purchased (Keller et al., 2006).

Buying nutritious foods becomes more of a challenge for the low-income family when a

household member loses a job, or if the household runs out of food stamps early in the

month (Hoisington et al., 2002).

The specific nutrient intake of food pantry participants is somewhat described by

research. The percentage of food pantry participants in Quebec that met the daily-

recommended servings of dairy products was 21% (Starkey, Gray-Donald, & Kuhnlein,

1999). This percentage, although low, was similar to the general population who were

able to meet the daily serving requirements for dairy. Both of these percentages are

considered inadequate, and efforts should be taken to improve dairy consumption for

both the general population and food pantry participants. Although dairy consumption

was lower for both the general population and food pantry participants, calcium intake

was much lower for food pantry participants than the rest of the population (Starkey et

al., 1999). In addition, research has indicated that food pantry participants have

inadequate intakes of the B complex vitamins, vitamin C, vitamin A, magnesium, iron,

calcium, and zinc; whereas, the pantry participants have adequate intakes of protein,

fiber, iron and folate (Akobundu et al., 2004; Dixon, Winkleby, & Radimer, 2001; Lee &

Frongillo, 2001; Starkey et al. 1999; Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999).

Profile of the Foods Provided by Food Pantries

In West-central Wisconsin, which includes Dunn County, food pantries receive

food from the food bank, Feed My People. Feed My People provides a cost-effective

means to provide food and technological support to all the surrounding food pantries

31

served. According to Feed My People (2010a), more than 85 agencies in 14 counties are

provided with food distributed from this food bank. The food pantries, soup kitchens, and

shelters supported by the Feed My People food bank serve over four million meals every

year by the food distributed. Food pantries can use facility-owned vehicles to transport

food goods from the food bank to the food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters. In other

cases, food banks will provide transportation of food goods to the foodshelf (Rochester,

Nanney, & Story, 2011). In all cases, regardless of transportation costs, food pantry

participants will not have to pay for the foods received.

Although food pantries have many benefits, there are some limitations. Food

pantry limitations include the amounts and types of food that can be brought in and

served to their pantry participants. For example, food pantries may not have the adequate

refrigerator or freezer space needed to store sufficient amounts of fresh produce,

vegetables, or fruits to meet the recommended amount of fresh fruits and vegetables as

stated by the Dietary Guidelines of America 2010 (USDA, 2012d). Due to limitations in

storage space, food pantries may perceive the ability to store and access fresh fruits and

vegetables as being insufficient to their needs (Rochester, Nanney, & Story, 2011).

Food pantries have various ways of implementing policies throughout the facility.

According to one study, a large majority of food pantries have food sourcing policies

written describing that nutritious and culturally-appropriate food should be provided by

the pantries. However, the majority of these policies are informal (Rochester et al., 2011).

Although food pantries may have policies that state healthy and culturally appropriate

foods should be distributed to food pantry participants, implementation of these policies

requires availability of enough healthy foods to uphold these policies. Unfortunately, the

32

inadequate refrigerator and freezer space and the lack of community donations of

nutritious foods have prevented food pantries from meeting these policy

recommendations (Rochester et al., 2011). Volunteer staff, versus paid staff, was also

seen as a limitation to upholding policy recommendations (Rochester et al., 2011). As a

comparison, Stepping Stones Food Pantry does not have any formal food distribution

policies, and runs primarily on volunteer staff (Stepping Stones, 2011).

Along with food pantries perceiving the access to fresh fruits and vegetables as

inadequate, food pantries also perceive the ability to access lean meats, low-fat dairy

products, and cereals low in sugar as inadequate. Access to canned goods, on the

contrary, was perceived as being adequate (Rochester, Nanney, & Story, 2011). Along

with not having enough storage space for fresh produce, corporate community donors of

food pantries may not always provide food pantries with healthy food options all of the

time, which may limit the amount of nutritious food distributed (Rochester, Nanney &

Story, 2011).

The food sources that food pantries utilize vary from day to day. As community,

government agencies, and local businesses provide a large majority of the foods provided

to food pantries, the products received by pantries are never constant. These variations of

foods can cause concerns for the nutritional quality of foods offered at the pantries.

According to one study completed in Massachusetts, food pantries were found to have

high nutritional quality of fiber, iron, and folate in the foods that were available to food

pantry participants (Akobundu et al., 2004). In addition, cholesterol content and saturated

fats of the foods were within recommended daily servings. However, foods provided at

the food pantries were often low in calcium, vitamin C, and vitamin A (Akobundu et al.,

33

2004; Starkey et al., 1999). These data suggest that food pantries are limited in fresh

fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, since foods with the highest nutrient quality of

vitamin C, vitamin A, and calcium are found in these products.

Stepping Stones Food Pantry

In recent years, both the amount of food that the Stepping Stones Food Pantry has

distributed and the number of people that have utilized the facility drastically increased.

In 2010, the number of people who used the food pantry per month was 688 compared to

640 in 2009 (L. Anderson, personal communication, June 13, 2011). Although the

number of people who used the food pantry in 2010 stayed relatively the same as in 2009,

the number of pounds of food that the Stepping Stones Food Pantry distributed increased

from 492,000 pounds in 2009, to over 600,600 pounds of food in 2010 (L. Anderson,

personal communication, June 13, 2011).

Stepping Stones Food Pantry receives its food from a number of sources, both

locally and nationally. Government commodities provide Stepping Stones Food Pantry

with approximately 10% of the total food donations. Feed My People food bank, located

in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, provides approximately 50% of the total food donated to

Stepping Stones Food Pantry. Finally, community members and local shopping centers

provide the Stepping Stones Food Pantry with food donations that equal to approximately

40% of total food donations to the food pantry (L. Anderson, personal communication,

June 13, 2011).

Food pantry participants at Stepping Stones Food Pantry can obtain an average of

20-40 pounds of food, two times per month. The food normally distributed by the

Stepping Stones Food Pantry is an assortment of fresh, frozen, and canned goods. Of the

34

food distributed to the food pantry, 30% of the food is fresh and frozen, and the

remaining 70% is canned or pre-packaged. The building project of the Stepping Stones

Food Pantry took place between 2009 and 2011, which has allowed pantry staff the

ability to store and acquire more food for the pantry participants (L. Anderson, personal

communication, June 13, 2011).

Summary

Food access is an important public policy issue across America and in the rural

area of Dunn County, Wisconsin. Food pantry clients such as those served by the

Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County are often the most vulnerable households

in a community, lacking financial and social resources to solve problems related to food

acquisition. Understanding the circumstances under which these families attempt to meet

nutritional needs is vital to addressing the problems of food insecurity.

Food purchases at grocery stores can be influenced by available transportation,

amount of food stamps provided by the government, food preferences, and family

income. This study sought to determine if the food choices food pantry clients have at the

food pantry influence food choices made at grocery stores, as information regarding this

question is not well studied. In addition, transportation costs to grocery stores are known

to influence where low-income populations shop, but how transportation costs and

proximity to grocery stores affect what foods pantry participants buy as well as how the

foods received at food pantries influence food choices and preferences at grocery stores

were also examined.

35

Chapter III: Methodology

This chapter discusses the methodology of the study. First, a description of the

subject selection is provided, followed by the instrumentation. Next, this chapter presents

the data collection procedures, data treatment, and analysis procedures. Lastly, the

chapter concludes with a description of the limitations of the methodology that relate to

the subject selection, instrumentation, and data collection procedures.

This study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative research methods to

gather the most in-depth and accurate data from participants. Qualitative data were

collected by use of questions from the survey given to qualifying participants who

participated in the Stepping Stones Food Pantry. The qualitative research data were

obtained from three focus group sessions that were composed of qualifying participants

from Stepping Stones Food Pantry.

Subject Selection and Description

After approval by the University Wisconsin-Stout Institutional Review Board

(IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research, subjects for this study were

recruited from the Stepping Stones Food Pantry located in Dunn County, Wisconsin. See

Appendix A for the IRB approval memo. Eligible participants were either married or

single with children under the age of 18 living in the home, or senior citizens over the age

of 60. Participants from each of these groups were eligible to join in the focus group

sessions and survey. Subject selection was based on the knowledge that single, married,

and elderly populations were the most representative populations served by the Stepping

Stones Food Pantry, as well as the most common groups who utilize food pantries

(Biggerstaff, McGrath-Morris, & Nichols-Casebolt, 2002). To be eligible for benefits

36

from Stepping Stones Food Pantry, individuals provide proof of residence in Dunn

County. Also, in order to be eligible for benefits from the food pantry, households were

required to have an income lower than 185% federal poverty level (Stepping Stones,

2011). For a household of four members or one member, the qualifying income is less

than $796 or $388 per week, respectively (Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 2012).

Therefore, residence and income were controlled among the participants in this study.

The Stepping Stones Food Pantry was the preferred location to conduct the study because

the pantry serves over 2,000 pantry participants every month, making it the largest pantry

in the county. Therefore, this is the most representative sample of food pantry

participants in the area.

In order to maximize participant selection for the focus groups, the researcher was

present on the busiest days of the month during October 2011, when potential focus

group participants were known to attend the food pantry. After communicating with the

pantry coordinator, it was decided that pantry participants at Stepping Stones Food Pantry

attended in the largest numbers at the beginning of the month, since it was during this

time federal assistance would arrive for the families. Single or married parents were

expected to come to the food pantry in largest numbers on the first Tuesday and

Wednesday of the month. Adults over the age of 60 were known to attend in the largest

numbers on the first Thursday of every month, since this was when they received

commodity boxes.

Focus group sessions were planned prior to recruiting participants in order to

minimize scheduling difficulties for finding available times for all focus group

participants to meet. The focus group sessions were scheduled to occur one month after

37

recruitment. Similar times to the recruitment efforts were utilized in scheduling the focus

groups. The single parent focus group was held on the first Tuesday in November; the

married parent focus group was held on the first Wednesday in November; the senior

focus group was held on the first Thursday in December. Timing of all three focus groups

occurred approximately two hours before the pantry opened to maximize turnout rates.

Discussions with the pantry coordinator assisted in scheduling the focus group sessions.

An initial screening of all pantry participants occurred when clients came to the

intake desk when first arriving at the food pantry. The receptionist at the desk screened

the participants to determine eligibility for the research study by asking the participants

the following questions: single, married, or older than 60, and if any children under 18

years were present in the household. Every eligible participant was requested to speak to

the researcher about participating in the study. Participants who presented themselves to

the researcher were given an explanation of the study, and what was required from them

in order to participate in the study. Upon initial agreement to participate, participants

were asked to leave a name and phone number with the researcher, and were given an

invitation to attend a focus group on a specific date and time that the focus group

interview and survey would be completed. The day and time ensured that each of the

three subject groups were composed of similar participants, either single or married with

children under age 18 or adults older than 60. Once 20 participants were obtained for

each focus group, the focus group subject selection was complete.

Two weeks prior to the focus group sessions, a letter was sent by mail to each

participant that initially agreed to participate in the study to increase the turnout rates for

the focus group sessions. The food pantry coordinator mailed the letters, since access to

38

the participant’s addresses was not permitted to the researcher. The phone record for each

participant interested in the study was provided if no mailing address was recorded.

Follow-up phone calls were made by the researcher a day or two before the focus groups

to increase the turnout rates as well. If subjects did not answer, a phone message was left,

if available. Those subjects who were not able to have a message left were called a

maximum of two times.

Due to the limited turnout rates of the focus groups (n = 17), surveys were

obtained from additional pantry participants who met the criteria described above

(married or single with children under the age of 18 living in the home, or senior citizens

over the age of 60). Again, the researcher was present at the busiest days the pantry was

open, to obtain the largest numbers of eligible pantry participants to complete the survey.

Consent forms were provided to all participants who showed interest in participating in

the study to ensure understanding of the purpose of the study. See Appendix B for

consent forms for the focus group and the consent forms for the additional participants

surveyed. The researcher also briefed each subject on the purpose of the survey and time

commitment for the study for further clarification. Forty-three additional surveys were

completed during the second survey data collection phase.

Instrumentation

The development of the survey was constructed through discussions with the

Food Pantry Coordinator at Stepping Stones Food Pantry and the researcher’s advisor.

The questions were formatted quantitatively or qualitatively to provide the researcher

with the most accurate information. See Appendix C for the survey questions. The

average reading level in the United States is the sixth grade; therefore, surveys were

39

written at a sixth-grade reading level to increase understanding and comprehension of the

surveys. Surveys were also written in a 12-point font to ensure readability. Some

questions required short written answers but participants were informed of the time

commitment of 10 minutes to complete the survey in the consent form provided with the

survey. The surveys were distributed to all families or food pantry participants who gave

consent on the days the researcher was present.

The researcher, the researcher’s committee members, and the pantry site

supervisor collaborated to develop the focus group questions (See Appendix D).

Questions were formatted as open-ended questions to facilitate discussion. Focus groups

were used as part of the data collection to obtain further detail about the research topics

that would be difficult to gather from a survey. All questions were asked at all focus

group sessions. Questions were formatted so that the more sensitive questions were asked

toward the end of each of the focus group discussions. Before the focus group sessions,

the researcher summarized the consent form out loud as an additional measure of

clarification of the study’s purpose for the participants.

Data Collection Procedures

Before the study began, subjects were informed that participation was voluntary,

and that no negative consequences would occur if subjects chose not to participate.

Consent to participate in the study was obtained from a consent form that was approved

by the UW-Stout IRB. Consent forms (see Appendix B) were distributed to participants

prior to beginning the focus group sessions or prior to the distribution of surveys to

additional pantry participants who were not part of the focus groups. Each subject was

informed of the purpose of the consent form and given a brief description of the study

40

and its purpose at the time the survey was distributed. Subjects completed the survey

prior to beginning the focus group sessions. Once all participants were finished with the

surveys, the focus group sessions began.

All focus groups were tape-recorded so that the researcher could later transcribe

the sessions. Participants were informed that the sessions would be recorded prior to

beginning the discussion. Clarification of all questions was provided as needed, and

probing questions were used to facilitate further discussion and to focus in on responses

related to each of the questions asked.

At the end of the focus groups, all participants were provided a token of

appreciation that was comprised of fresh fruit and vegetables, MyPlate magnets,

information on shopping on a budget, and kid-friendly foods (parent groups only). The

contents of the gifts bags were provided through the support of the University of

Wisconsin-Stout Student Research Grant Fund.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed following data collection from the focus groups by

identifying trends and themes between food purchasing behaviors, perceptions of the

food pantry, and transportation access to grocery centers. The researcher performed data

coding on the focus group results and a statistical consultant at UW-Stout performed data

analysis on survey data collected. Responses were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences, Version 18) statistical analysis software.

The survey items were analyzed using descriptive statistics including frequencies,

means, standard deviations, and percentages. Statistical significance was judged using a

significance level of 0.05 using 2-tailed tests, where appropriate. A test statistic was

41

considered statistically significant if the calculated significance value was equal to or was

less than 0.05.

The focus groups were analyzed by first transcribing the audiotape from each

focus group. Responses from all focus group transcripts were then complied together

according to questions and common responses. After data for all questions were

organized and categorized, responses were analyzed for trends, patterns, and common

themes. Similar responses to each question were grouped together and were compared

and contrasted among questions in order to identify and strengthen themes and participant

viewpoints.

Limitations

This research was limited to those subjects who chose to participate in the focus

group sessions or who chose to complete the survey. This research was also limited to

subjects who used Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County, Wisconsin. Therefore,

this study gathered information on food pantry participants that resided within Dunn

County, Wisconsin, which may not be representative of food pantries in other areas.

Also, focus group sessions had small turnout rates, which could have resulted in some

bias as the opinions and viewpoints of a larger number of pantry participants were

missing. Some questions asked participants to state how many serving sizes of each of

the food groups they consumed on average in the last week; therefore, some participants

may have over or underestimated serving sizes due to lack of knowledge of serving sizes

or limited memory on the average number of servings consumed during the last week for

each food group.

42

Summary

Food insecurity is an enormous public health issue. Responses to a decreased food

budget include decreased intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy, lean meats, and whole grains.

The increased consumption of energy-dense food of poorer nutritional quality can

decrease levels of micronutrients and lead to development of chronic disease. Food

pantries such as Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County, Wisconsin, help those

who are food insecure meet food and basic nutritional needs each month. How access to

and cost of transportation affect food purchase is not well researched. The methodology

discussed in Chapter 3 documents how transportation issues and food received at food

pantries influences food purchases at grocery stores. Chapter 4 outlines the results

gathered from both quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures. Chapter 5

discusses the significance of the findings.

43

Chapter IV: Results

This study aimed to determine how transportation and food pantry use influences

food purchases made by food pantry clients enrolled in the services at Stepping Stones

Food Pantry in Dunn County, Wisconsin. The purposes of this research were to

determine 1) how transportation and food pantry use influence grocery purchases, 2) if

transportation costs affect food purchases, and 3) if food pantry participants of Stepping

Stones Food Pantry were consuming adequate portions of food from each of the food

groups as determined by the MyPlate guidelines (USDA, 2012c).

The two phases of research, completion of a survey and focus groups sessions

were used to answer the following research questions:

1. Are there relationships between the miles traveled to grocery stores, access to

reliable transportation, and the consumption of specific food groups among

food pantry clients?

2. What food purchasing behaviors do food pantry clients use when grocery

shopping for food, and how does this relate to what pantry clients receive

from the food pantry?

3. How does having access to a reliable vehicle influence food pantry

participants’ specific food group purchases at grocery stores?

4. Do travel costs to grocery stores affect the frequency of grocery shopping by

food pantry clients?

In short, the methods involved the recruitment of Stepping Stones Food Pantry

users to participate in the three focus groups and survey. Surveys were distributed to

participants before the focus groups began. Following completion of the survey, the focus

44

groups were conducted. Focus groups were used to provide additional in-depth

information, which the survey alone could not achieve. To elicit more data, additional

food pantry participants were recruited to complete the survey after the focus group phase

of the research was completed. Focus groups were analyzed using thematic analysis and

coding, while surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and two-tailed t-tests.

This chapter will describe the results of these analyses as they relate to the research

questions. The data from the survey are first discussed followed by the focus group

results.

Respondents’ Demographics from Survey

A total of 60 respondents completed the research survey. This sample included 52

females, and 7 males. One respondent did not report his or her gender. Ages ranged from

18 to 84. The average respondent age was 45.7 years, and the mode age reported was 28.

Respondents who reported an age less than 60 years comprised 66% (n = 39) of the total

sample. One respondent did not report his or her age. With regards to marital status, 55%

(n = 33) were single or divorced, while the remainder of the respondents were married

45% (n = 27). Survey respondents were asked to report how many children under the age

of 18 were living in their home. The responses ranged from 0 to 9 children. Of those

respondents who were under the age of 60, the average number of children who lived

within the household who were under the age of 18 years was 3; for those over the age of

60 years, the average number of children living in the household who were under the age

of 18 was 0.

When respondents were asked to identify the highest level of education

completed, responses ranged from less than a high school diploma (n = 7) to a 4 year

45

Bachelor’s degree (n = 5). As described in Table 1, respondents who had a high school

degree made up 41.7% (n = 25) of the sample, while those with some college education

made up 33.3% (n = 20) of the sample.

Table 1

Education Level of Survey Respondents

Response Frequency Percent

Less than high school diploma

7 11.7

High school diploma or GED 25 41.7

Some college, no degree 20 33.3

2 year degree (Associate’s) 3 5

4 year degree (Bachelor’s) or higher 5 8.3

Total 60 100

Note: Frequency reported as n.

Food Pantry Influences on Pantry Participants’ Grocery Purchases

In order to gain insight on how the food pantry influences food purchases of

pantry participants at grocery stores, respondents were asked to indicate if pantry use

influences food purchases. This survey item was added after the focus group sessions

were completed in order to gain further information on the food purchases made by the

additional pantry participants surveyed (n = 43). Respondents for this question were not

part of the focus group sessions. Respondents were asked to indicate either a YES or NO

response, followed by specifying exactly what foods purchases were influenced. The

responses of those respondents who selected YES that food purchases are affected by

pantry use are depicted in Table 2. Respondents indicated that using the food pantry

46

influenced 63.3% (n = 21) of fruit purchases, 54.5% (n = 18) of dairy purchases, 51.5%

(n = 17) of meat purchases, 48.5% (n = 16) of vegetable purchases, and 33.3% (n = 11) of

grain purchases, while 6.1% (n = 2) of respondents indicated that using the food pantry

influenced “other purchases.”

Table 2

Food Purchases Made at Grocery Stores that Participants Stated were Influenced by

Foods Distributed by the Food Pantry

Food Group

Frequency Valid Percent a

Fruit

21 63.6

Dairy

18 54.5

Meat

17 51.5

Vegetables

16 48.5

Grains

11 33.3

Other

2 6.1

Note: Frequency values represent the number of times each food group was chosen by

participants who indicated pantry use influenced food purchases. Participants were able to select

more than one choice (n=33). a Only participants who did not participate in focus groups responded to this survey item.

In order to determine how food purchases related to the purchase site, survey

respondents were asked to indicate where various foods were obtained (see Table 3).

Results indicated that 60% (n = 36) of fresh vegetables were obtained at grocery stores,

while 60% (n = 36) of canned vegetables were obtained at the food pantry. Similarly,

56.7% (n = 34) of fresh fruits purchases were obtained at grocery stores, while 48.3%

(n = 29) of canned fruits were obtained at the food pantry. For grain products, 33.3%

(n = 20) of refined and enriched grains were obtained from the food pantry. The majority

47

of dairy products were obtained at grocery stores, as indicated by the results of 68.3%

(n = 41) of dairy product purchases coming from grocery stores.

Table 3

Frequency of Participant Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Foods Purchased as

Related to Purchase Site

Purchase Site

Produce

Grocery

Store

Food

Pantry

Convenient Store

Home

Garden

Family

Friend

Missing

Fresh Vegetables

36 (60)a 21 (35.0) 0 1 (1.7) 0 2 (3.3)

Canned Vegetables

19 (31.7) 36 (60.0) 0 0 0 5 (8.3)

Frozen Vegetables

34 (56.7) 15 (25.0) 0 2 (3.3) 1 (1.7) 8 (13.3)

Fresh Fruits

34 (56.7) 23 (38.3) 0 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7)

Canned Fruits

20 (33.3) 29 (48.3) 1 (1.7) 0 0 10 (16.7)

Frozen Fruit

34 (56.7) 8 (13.3) 1 (1.7) 3 (5.0) 1 (1.7) 13 (21.7)

Refined Grains

27 (45.0) 20 (33.3) 6 (10.0) 0 1 (1.7) 6 (10.0)

Enriched Grains

28 (46.7) 20 (33.3) 3 (5.0) 0 1 (1.7) 8 (13.3)

Dairy Products

41 (68.3) 7 (11.7) 8 (13.3) 0 1 (1.7) 3 (5.0)

a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)

48

Estimation of Pantry Participants’ Dietary Intakes

It was of interest to determine the estimated number of servings consumed from

the listed food groups of those respondents who were over and under the age of 60 years,

and those who were married or single. A determination of the dietary intakes of these

specific groups was sought, since these individuals comprise the greatest numbers that

use the Stepping Stone’s Food Pantry.

Table 4 describes the dietary intakes of those 60 years and older. Results indicated

that 52.4% (n = 11) of respondents consumed green vegetables, 52.4% (n = 11) of

respondents consumed canned vegetables, and 38.1% (n = 8) of respondents consumed

starchy vegetables on average once per day. Seven (33.3%) respondents indicated that

frozen vegetables were consumed twice per day. It was estimated that fresh fruits were

consumed once per day by 28.6% (n = 6) by subjects who were over 60 years, while

canned fruits were consumed on average once per day by 47.6% (n = 10) of the subjects.

Frozen fruits were never consumed by 33.3% (n = 7) of the sample. Similarly, 33.3% (n

= 7) of the sample consumed refined grains once per day. Five (23.8%) respondents

consumed enriched grains four or more times per day. Finally, dairy products were

consumed twice a day by 28.6% (n = 6) of respondents 60 years and older.

49

Table 4

Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of

Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by those 60 Years

and Older

Produce Never Once Twice Three

Times

Four or

More

Missing

Green Vegetables 0

11 (52.4)a 7 (33.3) 2 (9.5) 0 1 (4.8)

Canned Vegetables 1 (4.8)

11 (52.4) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.8) 2 (9.5) 3 (14.3)

Frozen Vegetables 4 (19.0)

5 (23.8) 7 (33.3) 2 (9.5) 0 3 (14.3)

Starchy Vegetables 2 (9.5)

8 (38.1) 5 (23.8) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.8) 2 (9.5)

Fresh Fruit 1 (4.8) 6 (28.6) 4 (19.0) 5 (23.8) 3 (14.3) 2 (9.5)

Canned Fruit 2 (9.5)

10 (47.6) 5 (23.8) 2 (9.5) 0 2 (9.5)

Frozen Fruit 7 (33.3)

4 (19.0) 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.8) 3 (14.3)

Refined Grains 3 (14.3)

7 (33.3) 2 (9.5) 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3)

Enriched Grains 2 (9.5)

3 (14.3) 3 (14.3) 4 (19.0) 5 (23.8) 4 (19.0)

Dairy

1 (4.8) 3 (14.3) 6 (28.6) 5 (23.8) 5 (23.8) 1 (4.8)

a Frequency reported as n, parentheses indicate percent (%).

Results of the estimated number of servings consumed from the listed food groups

of respondents aged 60 years and younger are depicted in Table 5. The percentage of

respondents aged 60 years and younger estimated to consume green vegetables were

43.6% (n = 17) and canned vegetables (33.3%, n = 13) once per day. Respondents were

estimated to consume frozen vegetables once, 30.8% (n = 12) to twice, 30.8 (n = 12) a

day, while starchy vegetables were estimated to be consumed by 25.6% (n = 10) of

respondents either once, twice, or three times per day. Fresh fruits were consumed twice

50

per day by 25.6% (n = 10) of respondents. Thirteen (33.3%) respondents were estimated

to consume canned fruits once per day, while 51.3% (n = 20) of respondents were

estimated to never eat frozen fruit. Eleven (28.2%) respondents were estimated to

consume refined grains once per day, while 25.6% (n = 10) of respondents were

estimated to consume enriched grains three times per day. Nineteen (48.7%) respondents

were estimated to consume dairy products four or more times per day by those 60 years

and younger.

Table 5

Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of

Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by those Younger

than 60 Years

Produce Never Once Twice Three

Times

Four or

More

Missing

Green Vegetables

5 (12.8)a 17 (43.6) 11 (28.2) 3 (7.7) 3 (7.7) 0

Canned Vegetables

4 (10.3) 13 (33.3) 11 (28.2) 7 (17.9) 4 (10.3) 0

Frozen Vegetables

7 (17.9) 12 (30.8) 12 (30.8) 6 (15.4) 2 (5.1) 0

Starchy Vegetables

4 (10.3) 10 (25.6) 10 (25.6) 10 (25.6) 5 (12.8) 0

Fresh Fruit

8 (20.5) 9 (23.1) 10 (25.6) 7 (17.9) 4 (10.3) 1 (2.6)

Canned Fruit

10 (25.6) 13 (33.3) 7 (17.9) 5 (12.8) 3 (7.7) 1 (2.6)

Frozen Fruit

20 (51.3) 7 (17.9) 5 (12.8) 3 (7.7) 2 (5.1) 2 (5.1)

Refined Grains

6 (15.4) 11 (28.2) 6 (15.4) 7 (17.9) 9 (23.1) 0

Enriched Grains

8 (20.5) 6 (15.4) 8 (20.5) 10 (25.6) 7 (17.9) 0

Dairy

4 (10.3) 4 (10.3) 2 (5.1) 10 (25.6) 19 (48.7) 0

a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)

51

Results of the estimated number of servings from the listed food groups of

married respondents with children under 18 years are depicted in Table 6. Twelve

(44.4%) respondents were estimated to consume green vegetables once per day; similarly

44.4% (n = 12) of respondents were estimated to consume frozen vegetables twice per

day. Nine (33.3%) respondents were estimated to consume starchy vegetables twice per

day as well. It was estimated that canned vegetables were consumed once per day by

48.1% (n = 13) of respondents. Fresh fruits were consumed twice per day by 29.6% (n =

8) of respondents. Canned fruits were estimated as being consumed once or twice per day

by 29.6% (n = 8) of respondents. However, frozen fruits were estimated as never being

consumed by 40.7% (n = 11) of respondents. Eleven (40.7%) of respondents were

estimated to consume refined grains once per day, while 33.3% (n = 9) of respondents

were estimated to consume three servings per day of enriched grains. Finally, dairy

products were estimated as being consumed four or more times per day by 33.3% (n = 9)

of married respondents.

52

Table 6

Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of

Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by Married Parents

Produce Never Once Twice Three

Times

Four or

More

Missing

Green Vegetables

4 (14.8)a 12 (44.4) 6 (22.2) 2 (7.4) 2 (7.4) 1 (3.7)

Canned Vegetables

1 (3.7) 13 (48.1) 6 (22.2) 2 (7.4) 4 (14.8) 1 (3.7)

Frozen Vegetables

5 (18.5) 7 (25.9) 12 (44.4) 2 (7.4) 0 1 (3.7)

Starchy Vegetables

2 (7.4) 7 (25.9) 9 (33.3) 6 (22.2) 2 (7.4) 1 (3.7)

Fresh Fruit

5 (18.5) 6 (22.2) 8 (29.6) 3 (11.1) 3 (11.1) 2 (7.4)

Canned Fruit

6 (22.2) 8 (29.6) 8 (29.6) 3 (11.1) 1 (3.7) 1 (3.7)

Frozen Fruit

11 (40.7) 5 (18.5) 4 (14.8) 1 (3.7) 2 (7.4) 4 (14.8)

Refined Grains

2 (7.4) 11 (40.7) 2 (7.4) 6 (22.2) 5 (18.5) 1 (3.7)

Enriched Grains

4 (14.8) 3 (11.1) 5 (18.5) 9 (33.3) 3 (11.1) 3 (11.1)

Dairy

2 (7.4) 4 (14.8) 4 (14.8) 7 (25.9) 9 (33.3) 1 (3.7)

a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)

The estimation of servings consumed per day for single parents with children

under 18 years are depicted in Table 7. Green vegetables were estimated as being

consumed once per day by 48.5% (n = 16) of the respondents; similarly, canned, frozen,

and starchy vegetables were estimated as being consumed once per day by 33.3%

(n = 11), 30.3% (n = 10), and 33.3% (n = 11) of respondents. Fresh fruits were estimated

as being consumed once or three times per day by 27.3% (n = 9) of respondents, while

canned fruits were estimated as being consumed once per day by 45.5% (n = 15), and

53

frozen fruits were estimated as never being consumed by 48.5% (n = 16) of

respondents. Seven (21.2%) of respondents reported consuming refined grains in the

categories of never, once, and more than four times per day. However, 27.3% (n = 9) of

respondents were estimated to consume more than four servings of enriched grains per

day. Finally, 45.5% (n = 15) of the single parent respondents were estimated to consume

more than four servings of dairy per day.

Table 7

Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of

Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by Single Parents

Produce Never Once Twice Three

Times

Four or

More

Missing

Green Vegetables

1 (3.0)a 16 (48.5) 12 (36.4) 3 (9.1) 1 (3.0) 0

Canned Vegetables

4 (12.1) 11 (33.3) 8 (24.2) 6 (18.2) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)

Frozen Vegetables

6 (18.2) 10 (30.3) 7 (21.2) 6 (18.2) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)

Starchy Vegetables

4 (12.1) 11 (33.3) 6 (18.2) 7 (21.1) 4 (12.1) 1 (3.0)

Fresh Fruit

4 (12.1) 9 (27.3) 6 (18.2) 9 (27.3) 4 (12.1) 1 (3.0)

Canned Fruit

6 (18.2) 15 (45.5) 4 (12.1) 4 (12.1) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)

Frozen Fruit

16 (48.5) 6 (18.2) 4 (12.1) 5 (15.2) 1 (3.0) 1 (3.0)

Refined Grains

7 (21.2) 7 (21.2) 6 (18.2) 4 (12.1) 7 (21.1) 2 (6.1)

Enriched Grains

6 (18.2) 6 (18.2) 6 (18.2) 5 (15.2) 9 (27.3) 1 (3.0)

Dairy

3 (9.1) 3 (9.1) 4 (12.1) 8 (24.2) 15 (45.5) 0

a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)

54

Transportation Access and Grocery Store Food Purchases

In order to provide insight of the sample population’s access to transportation,

respondents were asked to indicate the agreement or disagreement with nine survey items

that related to transportation, including transportation costs, reliable vehicle access, travel

distances, and difficulties with transportation (See Appendix E for data). Respondents

strongly agreed, 50.8% (n = 30) with the statement that cost of transportation to grocery

stores influenced food purchases. However, 31.6% (n = 19) of respondents strongly

agreed to traveling to grocery stores that were further away due to lower food prices. In

order to obtain more information on respondents’ views of transportation costs,

respondents were asked if cost of travel did or did not influence where grocery shopping

was performed. Results indicated that 42.4% (n = 25) of respondents strongly agreed with

the statement of “cost of travel does influence where I go grocery shopping,” while

26.3% (n = 15) of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement “cost of travel does

not influence where I go grocery shopping.” The statement “I need to budget for gas

when grocery shopping for food” was strongly agreed by 44.8% (n = 26) of the

respondents. Finally, 42.4% (n = 25) of respondents strongly agreed with the statement of

“I have access to a vehicle all of the time, while 8.5% (n = 5) of respondents strongly

disagreed with the statement.

55

Of particular interest was the survey item “I have chosen not to go grocery

shopping because of the cost it takes to get there.” Figure 1 indicates that the most

common response for the statement “I choose not to go grocery shopping because of the

costs to get there,” was the category of “neither agree or disagree “ which comprised

39.3% (n = 22) of total survey respondents followed by the response of strongly disagree,

30% (n = 18).

Figure 1. Frequency of choosing not to go grocery shopping because of costs as reported

by participants.

55

Of particular interest was the survey item “I have chosen not to go grocery

shopping because of the cost it takes to get there.” Figure 1 indicates that the most

common response for the statement “I choose not to go grocery shopping because of the

costs to get there,” was the category of “neither agree or disagree “ which comprised

39.3% (n = 22) of total survey respondents followed by the response of strongly disagree,

30% (n = 18).

Figure 1. Frequency of choosing not to go grocery shopping because of costs as reported

by participants.

56

In order to gain insight on how having access to a vehicle influenced where food

was purchased, those who responded to the statement: “I have access to a vehicle all of

the time” were divided into two categories of agree or disagree for data analysis while

omitting the “neither agree or disagree” responses (see Table 8). Those who had no

access to a vehicle were found to purchase 58.3% (n = 7) of fresh vegetables at grocery

stores, while those who had access to a vehicle purchased 61% (n = 26) of the majority of

fresh vegetables at grocery stores. Those who had no access to a vehicle were found to

obtain 58.3% (n = 7) of frozen vegetables at the grocery, while 16.7% (n = 2) obtained

the majority of frozen vegetables from the food pantry. Those respondents who had

access to a vehicle were found to obtain 57.1% (n = 24) of frozen vegetables from the

grocery store and 23.8% (n = 10) of frozen vegetables from the food pantry. Results

indicated that those without access to a reliable vehicle obtained 58.3% (n = 7) of canned

fruit from the food pantry, while those with who had access to a reliable vehicle obtained

4.9% (n = 18) of canned fruits from the food pantry. Finally 66.7% (n = 8) of those

without access to a reliable vehicle obtained dairy products at grocery stores; similarly,

69% (n = 29) of those with access to a vehicle obtained dairy products from the grocery

store.

57

Table 8

Frequency of Participant Responses of Purchase Site for Food when there was Not or

was Access to a Vehicle

Purchase Site

Produce Grocery

Store

Food

Pantry

Convenient

Store

Home

Garden

Family or

Friend

Missing

Fresh Vegetables 7 (58.3)ab

26 (61.0)

5 (41.7)

13 (31.0)

0

0

0

1 (2.4)

0

0

0

2 (4.8)

Canned Vegetables 4 (33.3)

14 (33.3)

7 (58.3)

24 (57.1)

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (8.3)

4 (9.5)

Frozen Vegetables 7 (58.3)

24 (57.1)

2 (16.7)

10 (23.8)

0

0

0

2 (4.8)

0

1 (2.4)

3 (25.0)

5 (11.9)

Fresh Fruits 7 (58.3)

23 (54.8)

3 (25.0)

18 (42.9)

0

0

1 (8.3)

0

1 (8.3)

0

0

1 (2.4)

Canned Fruits 5 (41.7)

13 (31)

7 (58.3)

18 (42.9)

0

1 (2.4)

0

0

0

0

0

10 (23.8)

Frozen Fruit 7 (58.3)

24 (57.1)

1 (8.3)

5 (11.9)

0

1 (2.4)

1 (8.3)

1 (2.4)

0

1 (2.4)

3 (25.0)

10 (23.8)

Refined Grains 5 (41.7)

22 (52.4)

4 (33.3)

14 (33.3)

1 (8.3)

3 (7.1)

0

0

0

0

2 (16.7)

3 (7.1)

Enriched Grains 7 (58.3)

19 (45.2)

4 (33.3)

14 (33.3)

0

1 (2.4)

0

0

0

1 (2.4)

1 (8.3)

7 (16.7)

Dairy Products

8 (66.7)

29 (69.0)

1 (8.3)

5 (11.9)

2 (16.7)

5 (11.9)

0

0

0

1 (2.4)

1 (8.3)

2 (4.8) a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)

b1

st row indicates no access to a vehicle, 2

nd row indicates access to a vehicle

58

Transportation Distance to Grocery Stores

To compare the study with other research studies, it was of interest to the

researcher to determine how many miles pantry participants travel to the grocery stores

most frequently used. The range of miles traveled to grocery stores was from 0.25 miles

to 25 miles. Eight respondents did not indicate how many miles were traveled to grocery

stores. A 2-tailed t-test was completed to determine if there were any significant

differences in miles traveled. A significant difference (p < 0.05) in miles traveled to

grocery stores was found between single and married parents (see Table 9). It was found

that married pantry users traveled on average 13.2 miles while the single pantry users

traveled 8.25 miles to a grocery store.

Table 9

Comparison of Miles Traveled to Grocery Stores by Marital Status

Marital Status

N Mean

Miles

SD t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Married

23

13.20

8.24

2.36

50

0.022

Single

29

8.25

6.88

Focus Group Results

The second phase in this research was conducted through the use of three focus

groups consisting of 3 to 12 participants each. A total sample of 19 adults, including 17

females and two males completed the focus groups. Each of the focus groups focused on

a different population that used the food pantry. Participants in the first and second focus

groups met the inclusion criteria for being married with children under the age of 18

living in the home, or single with children under the age of 18 living in the home.

59

Participants in the third focus group met the inclusion criteria of being over the age of 60.

All focus group participants met the inclusion criteria of having the status of currently

enrolled in the services provided by the food pantry.

Four main themes developed that were particularly relevant to the research

questions developed: (a) barriers to accessing fresh produce, (b) transportation barriers to

acquiring affordable food, (c) coping methods for accessing affordable food, and (d)

coping methods for transportation constraints in obtaining affordable foods. These main

themes will be evaluated and supported by statements made by participants from all three

sessions.

Barriers to Accessing and Preparing Fresh Produce

Throughout each of the focus groups, discussions about the difficulties of

accessing enough food for the family were discussed in great detail. The high costs of

groceries were related to why certain foods were purchased. The food pantry clients did

not believe that pantry use resulted in a balanced diet for the whole family, nor were

many food pantry clients aware of how to prepare and use food items. These insights

provided information on the perceptions of pantry client about the purpose of a food

pantry.

Cost. Participants were prompted to think about beliefs relative to the cost of

fresh and nutritious foods at stores. It was clear that many participants believed that

“fresh vegetables and fruits are expensive.” Others responded with frustration, “[fresh

produce] costs too much, I don’t want to do it anymore.” Others were resigned to not

having fruit and vegetables but commented upon not having enough funds to access even

enough food, “Yeah there’s been times where I’ve had little or no money, and I’m like, I

60

don’t care. I don’t need to eat. I’ll go days, I have in the past.” One particular response

makes a very clear point about the barriers to accessing fresh produce due to costs:

I wanna get apples, I wanna get oranges, I wanna get onions…I can’t do it

because it takes up such a huge part of my food money, and you can’t buy it all at

once either because…it will go bad…so it’s like I either have to like put money

aside at home and hope I can travel 20 miles every other day to get more, or I’m

out of luck. So it sucks. It’s really even cut out the option to even have [fresh

produce].

Related to the perceived high costs of produce, participants stated that buying

fresh produce in large quantities did not help to alleviate costs either, since doing so

would only result in a large portion of the produce spoiling. This main idea was described

well by one participant: “…it’s hard to purchase [fresh produce] because…sometimes

you have to buy in quantities. …and you know, they’ll go rotten or you won’t go through

them.” These statements help to explain why food pantry clients factor in cost as a reason

for not having the ability to purchase fresh produce.

Perceptions of healthy food. Focus group participants were prompted to answer

the question “how do food pantries measure up in providing a balanced diet?” This topic

was discussed in detail, and many related topics developed during the focus groups also

explained why the pantry cannot provide a balanced diet. Although it was found in the

survey results that canned goods were primarily obtained at the food pantry, the amount

of canned goods provided to pantry clients may not provide a balanced diet for the whole

family. One client described this concept: “ I have two boys, 8 and 10, I get two cans of

vegetables. And it’s like, really? That’s a can for a kid…by the time the kids are done

61

eating, there isn’t nothing for you.” Conversely, among the senior focus group

participants, the large quantities of food provided at the pantry was a limitation to utilize

and prepare meals. One senior noted: “I don’t eat as well as I should because I live alone,

and I don’t think about making all that for one person.”

Food pantry clients were very concerned with the poor quality of the food that

was provided at the pantry, which greatly influenced reasons for thinking the pantry did

not provide the family with a balanced diet. One client noted that: “I never see anything

in the fresh fruit section.” Others noted that food pantries limited the amount of fresh

produce the participants could obtain from the food pantry. A client commented

indirectly on the quality of the food saying that “I have taken stuff home and it’s gone

bad the same day.” Many of the pantry clients determined the quality of food by the taste

associated with it. Participants discussed ideas such as: “I’m not just gonna buy garbage.

It’s gotta taste good.” Therefore, taste of produce was very important and was equated

with quality.

In addition, the concept of affordable food was also related to poor quality among

the pantry clients. One client stated: “The type of food that you get that is affordable

doesn’t usually mean great quality.” Many of the comments provided by the focus group

participants seemed to indicate that the individuals viewed the foods donated to the

pantry as hand-me-downs, or were foods that grocery stores did not want anymore. One

senior focus group participant noted: “I like vegetables; lettuce. And the last couple times

I came [to the food pantry] the lettuce was pretty bad. I’m not happy with the

vegetables.” Another senior noted: “…the grocery stores are donating things that are not

good.” Finally, another senior stated: “sometimes they have tomatoes that are rotten on

62

the bottom. So I don’t like to look at that.” Comments such as these describe that pantry

clients were looking for food pantries to be a place to obtain quality products, and in

enough quantity to meet the needs of all members of the family every day.

Knowledge barriers to preparing food. During the discussions, participants

offered many opinions and beliefs about the food provided by the pantry that lead to the

concept that there was a knowledge barrier of how to prepare many foods. Many

participants discussed how the food pantry provided many boxed foods, which if not

provided with the knowledge on how to expand the uses of these foods, would limit the

types of meals that could be made from them. For example, one pantry client noted:

“Once in a while there’s been some pretty fancy foods that I’ve picked up [from the food

pantry]. I just don’t know what to do with it.” Other clients noted: “I got [cereal boxes]

all piled up [at home]. I’m not even a cereal eater. So what do I do with all those boxes?”

Another idea that was discussed was how pantry clients would attempt to use a

food item received from the food pantry in cooking at home, but then realized the family

did not like it, and ended up wasting a large portion of the food and the additional

ingredients. Another food that was talked about to a great extent by the focus group

participants was the powdered milk that the pantry provided. Participants responded to

this food item by stating: “ I have tons of it,” which also indicates that these individuals

were taking this product from the food pantry, but not utilizing it in cooking or milk

consumption at home. Other focus group participants noted the importance of wanting to

make homemade food rather than having all convenience foods provided at the pantry:

“It’d be nice you know to get flour, sugar, and the basics…you can cook with them

instead of figuring out what to do with them.” These ideas explain that pantry participants

63

want to cook, but may not be provided with the appropriate knowledge of how to prepare

some of the foods provided at the food pantry, which is very common at the limited

staffed food pantries.

In addition, the participants of the senior focus group discussed grocery shopping

and not buying products such as meats, since the quantities were too large for just one

person. One person described: “Any roast or anything you want to get…that’s way too

big for one person. You can eat cold meat and sandwiches and stuff but you can’t eat it

all week. You know, but you never see a small one. I’d love to see a small little beef roast

or a little pork that I like put together.” Since the seniors were more likely to live alone,

the need to have foods that were sized and priced to meet needs in grocery stores and at

the food pantry was important. The seniors also discussed on frequent occasions of

buying pre-made foods such as “TV dinners” or microwavable meals indicating that

preparing simple meals was not commonly practiced in the homes of many pantry clients.

Transportation Barriers to Acquiring Affordable Food

The second half of each focus group discussion focused on questions relating to

transportation access and the ability to obtain food. The discussion resulted in noting that

food pantry clients have many transportation barriers for accessing enough food that was

related to not having access to a reliable vehicle and having to drive far distances to

grocery stores. This section will describe these two barriers in greater detail.

Unreliable vehicle. Participants were asked to share a story that discussed a time

where a problem existed with accessing transportation to obtain food. Many of the

participants had experienced a period of time that resulted in the inability to access

transportation and obtain food. During the single and married parent focus groups,

64

struggles with obtaining groceries while caring for children was brought up on numerous

occasions. One parent described, “ If you are a single parent you’re home, you got sick

kids… you cannot leave them when you go 12 blocks to the store.” Gathering groceries

with children was a large challenge for many, since children cannot be left alone at young

ages. Parents described multiple situations where it was necessary to take the child’s

“stroller with the basket and walked to [the grocery store].” The hardships of needing to

walk to the store became apparent in the married parents’ discussions as well: “I’d put

his car seat under the stroller and shove things underneath that with food items, and even

in the actual stroller seat and put him in the basket. He’d be sitting with food items in

between his legs, I mean, I remember laughing one time because my stroller’s wheels

were bowing on the way home.” Another participant described a scenario she and her

kids experienced:

When my kids were little I didn’t have a car. The nearest grocery store to me

was…12 blocks. Going is no problem because you move faster and have no

weight. But coming home when you’re loaded down with groceries, and you’re

carrying anywhere from 10-12 bags, while each kid is carrying 2-4.

The theme of parents having to walk to grocery stores with children was a

common theme among the two parent focus groups when transportation was unavailable.

This indicated that parents were forced to take children grocery shopping, which can pose

a huge challenge when access to a vehicle was not available. Although, it appeared that

the parents were able to find ways to get to the stores regardless of the difficulties of

taking care of the children.

65

Driving far distances. Along with not having access to a vehicle, the food pantry

participants in the focus groups also described the distance traveled to reach the grocery

store; some traveled up to 25 miles. During the focus groups, participants were asked to

describe a story or situation where transportation problems existed with accessing food.

Many participants related how transportation problems or traveling far distances

prevented them from accessing enough food during the month. One participant stated:

I remember a winter where I didn’t have the money to come to town you know, as

far as gas. And we ran out of food…I didn’t have the gas to go the food pantry or

the money to spend on groceries. So… wait around a couple weeks for that

unemployment check or whatever every couple weeks. Or whatever, so that you

can.

The idea of high gasoline prices as a barrier for not having the ability to obtain

enough food was discussed by other participants as well. One participant stated, “With

gas prices the way they are, I mean right there takes a good portion, ya know if they don’t

get food share, right there takes a good portion of the food money.” Another participant

stated, “We’re 25 miles out from any grocery stores.” Along with travel distances being

an issue, poor weather conditions can take a toll on pantry participants’ ability to access

food. One participant stated: “Last winter when I didn’t have a vehicle, I’d run out of

bread, and everything else.”

The senior users of the pantry try to help each other out with transportation to

obtain groceries, but some of them did state, “It’s not a problem mostly because we’re all

right there, and I take them where they gotta go. I don’t think in the winter even I would

drive all the way out in the country for one person, I couldn’t do it.” These comments

66

indicate that gasoline prices, farther travel distances, and poor weather conditions all

contribute to not being able to access enough food due to transportation problems.

Coping Methods for Transportation Barriers

Throughout the focus group discussions, many participants described a wide

variety of coping methods used to help alleviate the hardships of not being able to access

enough food due to transportation barriers. Many methods were discussed for how pantry

clients have coped when transportation barriers prevented going to a grocery store to

obtain food. The methods that become most prominent during the discussions were: (a)

traveling with others and (b) grocery shopping while completing errands. This section

will describe these themes in more detail.

Traveling with others. During the focus groups, participants were asked to

describe how transportation barriers were resolved in order to obtain food. Many of the

senior food pantry members lived in apartment complexes, which allowed for easy

accessibility ways for traveling with others. At the same time, seniors who lived in

apartments tended to have a sense of community and responsibly to help each other out

with obtaining food. If someone were going to Second Harvest, that person would ask if

anyone needed anything if travel was an issue. The seniors in the focus group described

that once they got back from the store, the senior who came back from Second Harvest

would “go from door to door [of the apartment complex] and see who wanted what,”

from the items that were obtained. The need to pitch in for gasoline when somebody went

to the store did not seem to be much of an issue for the seniors, since many agreed with

one person’s statement: “I’m going anyway.” This indicated the sense of wanting to help

each other out with obtaining groceries when possible.

67

The parent focus groups did not seem to have as much of a close connection to

others within the age group for getting help with transportation. Instead, the parent

groups seemed to rely more on parents and friends for accessing transportation. Some of

the parents described planning shopping trips in advance: “When I make my trips to […]

I plan my trips ahead of time. I…let everybody know, on such and such a day I’m

going…start making out your list for what you need.” However, there seemed be more

resistance for rides from family and friends. As one parent describes: “You either had to

call and beg for a ride from somebody or stay home.” The parents noted some distress

when trying to plan shopping trips with others, since they needed to plan for care for their

children. One of the parents stated: “I don’t like feeling rushed if I have to have someone

give me a ride. Then the whole time I’m like, oh my gosh, I have to hurry, I have to

hurry.” Statements as these indicate that the parents felt more rushed than the seniors to

get grocery shopping done.

Shopping during convenient times. All focus groups were asked to comment on

why grocery shopping at specific places was preferred. Among the responses were to

shop at department grocery stores to “get it all done in one spot.” Others responded with:

“I try to incorporate [shopping] into whatever else I’m doing.” Another respondent

stated: “I kinda buy a lot when I do go. And get everything done in one day.” Many of

the participants thought grocery shopping was best to be done all at once, since the

majority of pantry clients agreed that by going grocery shopping every day or every week

would cost more in the long run.

While discussing coping methods for transportation, many of the parents alluded

to the idea that having kids made it more difficult to complete grocery shopping. Parents

68

described the need to go grocery shopping during times “when the kids are in school.” In

addition to planning grocery shopping trips around the children’s schedules, many

parents described efforts to go grocery shopping only a few times a month, to only once a

month. One participant described those strategies such as “We always shop once a

month. Always make one big long list,” which helps to alleviate costs associated with

both travel distances and grocery costs.

Seniors also used methods to complete grocery shopping. There was a large

agreement among many seniors that grocery shopping once a month was ideal for them

as well, since that was the time when the most money would be available. One senior

stated: “A lot of us can only go shopping once a month, because of social security check,

disability check, and that.” Most of the seniors agreed with this statement. The seniors

needed to rely on social security checks and disability checks for a large portion of

income, and receipt of those checks were the times when these individuals were more

likely to go grocery shopping.

Coping Methods for Accessing Affordable Food

Throughout the discussion, the participants of all focus groups described a wide

variety of coping methods used to help reduce the cost of groceries. Some of the coping

strategies used included: (a) using resources at home and (b) strategizing shopping trips.

This section describes in detail these two coping methods.

Using resources at home. Participants described throughout the focus groups the

strategies used in the event of running out of food. Some of the pantry clients described

what resources were available at home to make ends meet until additional money came

in. One parent described her experience: “I got by with what I had. And sometimes you

69

have to. Until the help comes.” Others discussed how food would be prepared from

scratch. One of the parents noted: “I was taught, you eat what you put on the table. So I

you know, when I go to the table I grab a few potatoes, and this and that, and sometimes I

grab me a big bag of chicken. I can take that and put it in the roaster.” Another participant

stated: “I only buy a little bit at a time, because I’m always trying to figure out how to

make pizza with what I have.”

Many seniors were only supporting themselves, and did not need to cook large

meals, unlike the parent focus groups. The seniors would describe that when shopping for

meats, buying a standard amount and portioning it into smaller sizes would be utilized.

One participant stated: “I buy the big pork chops. The big dang thing…And then I

separate them. I only need one so I separate them into little freezer bags and put them the

freezer, and take them out whenever I’m ready. And then I don’t have to keep running

back and forth to the store.” Strategies such as these helped the seniors save money for

food during the month.

Strategizing shopping trips. While some participants discussed how resources

from home would be used in order to make ends meet, others described how grocery

shopping trips would be strategized to make monthly grocery purchases the most

affordable. Many of the parents described situations where supplemental foods from the

food pantry would be utilized to expand the food pantries at home. Common responses

around this topic included pantry clients stating that any food obtained from the food

pantry would help to decrease the costs of groceries: “If you don’t have to buy that extra

box of cereal for the kids or soup or…potatoes. I mean, take that money and put it

towards the other foods that you need, ya know, figure out your food meals for the

70

month.” Another participant stated: “I stock up big time on the meat and that takes a big

chunk of money…I get boxed hamburger helpers and tuna helpers and that usually lasts

us.” Statements such as these indicated that food pantry participants stretched food by

buying a few more expensive items at the store and add filler foods to make those items

last longer.

Participants also strategized shopping trips by bringing shopping lists, coupons, or

by using gas card points to help keep on track with purchasing and help reduce costs.

Participants would use the gas card points to get milk, bread, and bananas at gas stations.

When using coupons, pantry clients checked the sales at multiple stores every week in

order to find the best deal. As described, every dollar saved was worth fighting for, even

if more time out of the weekly schedule was needed to plan for a shopping trip by

gathering coupons. As one client explained, “I keep a running total on what goes in my

carts. So that I know I don’t go over.” To many, keeping track of the amount of money

spent on groceries was important. Pantry clients also described how there was a clear

difference between the prices of the various grocery stores used. Whenever possible, the

clients would try to go to the least expensive grocery store to obtain groceries.

Sharing food with others. Along the topics of using the resources at home, many

of the senior food pantry clients described how food would be shared with others in the

community. As one senior explained, “ You don’t want to cook up a big meal by

yourself.” Cooking meals was a barrier for the seniors, since many lived alone. However,

many of the seniors enjoyed cooking for groups, which reflected childhood experiences.

Another senior stated: “I share with neighbors and friends what I have. See what I can

make out of stuff.” Seniors have a sense of community. Another person explained

71

another important concept about sharing food with others: “Sometimes if I know

someone who doesn’t have something, I’ll share with them.” This indicated, that the

seniors wanted to help each other out in times of need.

Summary

The results of the survey and focus groups sessions provide insights to the

limitations pantry clients have to accessing food due to lack of resources and

transportation. The following chapter will discuss the significance of these findings and

how the data relates to other published research.

72

Chapter V: Discussion

This research was conducted through the use of a research survey and three focus

groups sessions with food pantry clients from Dunn County, Wisconsin meeting the

inclusion criteria of: single and married parents with children under the age of 18 years

living in the home, and seniors over the age of 60 years. Results of this research describe

the barriers and coping methods food pantry clients use for accessing adequate amounts

of food and transportation. Chapter five will begin by discussing the limitations of this

research. Then, results will be compared to findings from peer-reviewed literature,

followed by final conclusions. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for

future research.

Limitations

As detailed in chapter three, the limitations of this research include lack of

validation of the survey and focus group instruments. Most importantly, small turnout

rates for the focus groups and survey respondents could result in some bias as the

opinions and viewpoints of a larger number of pantry clients were missing. In addition,

education on what is considered a survey size was not provided to clients, which could

have caused an over or underestimation of the numbers of servings consumed per week

for each of the food groups listed in the research survey and during the focus groups.

Finally, qualitative research methods by use of the focus groups cannot be validated,

since this is considered a subjective method of analysis.

Conclusions: Transportation Access and Food Attainment

The first question this research sought to answer was “Are there relationships

between the miles traveled to grocery stores, access to reliable transportation, and the

73

consumption of specific food groups among food pantry clients?” Results of particular

interest that relate to transportation access and food attainment are the transportation

barriers pantry clients perceive to have when accessing food, the coping methods used to

access food when transportation barriers are present, and pantry client’s perceptions of

diet adequacy.

Transportation barriers. Both parent focus groups indicated that many

difficulties have been experienced with accessing food due to the inability to leave the

home, because of taking care of kids, or poor weather conditions. A study by Garasky,

Morton and Greder (2006) was completed to help describe how transportation problems

related to the food security status of rural low-income residents. Similar to the results

found in the Garasky, Morton, and Greder study, food insecurity was greater in

households that were larger and comprised of younger respondents (Bartfeld, Ryu, &

Wang, 2010). These results are comparable to what were found in the present study.

Some 27.1% of survey respondents from Stepping Stones Food Pantry moderately agreed

that transportation problems prevented the pantry clients from obtaining food more than

once a month. However, of those that had transportation problems, 25.4% of survey

respondents stated that asking for help from someone who lived outside of the home was

not necessary in order to access food when there was a transportation problem. Similarly,

survey respondents in the study by Garasky, Morton, and Greder (2006) indicated often

or always having help with accessing transportation.

Coping methods. Many of the pantry clients in the focus groups described

situations relating to transportation problems due to having limited funds to obtain food,

and would cope by using the resources at home, until help came. A study completed by

74

Tarasuk, Mclntyre, and Li (2007) indicated that a significant decline in energy

consumption was observed in relation to the time of month since receipt of a monthly

income for those with moderate or severe food insecurity occurred when compared to

food secure individuals. In the current study, parents in the focus group indicated going

days without eating in order to save food for children, if the need arose. Although it could

not be assessed how much energy consumption was decreased during the times of limited

food, it is probable to assume energy needs were not being met. Senior citizens described

in the focus groups sharing food with others, since many lived together in apartment

complexes. However, other studies have found that giving food to friends was unrelated

to food insecurity (Garasky, Morton, & Greder, 2006).

These results can conclude that obtaining adequate amounts of food for parents

with children is difficult, because of the inability to leave the home enough times to

obtain enough food to feed the entire family. Although it could not be assessed how much

energy consumption was decreased during the times when pantry clients had limited food

in the home due to not being able to leave, it is probable to assume on occasion energy

needs are not met. Although transportation barriers exist for seniors as well, the sense of

community and smaller household size enables transportation to obtain food in the event

of not having access to transportation.

Perceptions of diet adequacy. Diet adequacy of the survey respondents was used

to determine if there were dietary differences based on subgroup classifications of being

single, married or over the age of 60 years. The majority of single parents (45%) and

married parents (33.3%) were found to consume dairy products four times per day, while

the majority of those over the age of 60 years (28.6%) were found to consume dairy

75

products twice per day. According to the Dietary Guidelines of America (USDA, 2010b),

adults should consume 3 servings of low-fat dairy products per day. Although this study

did not assess what type of milk was consumed at home, during the focus groups

participants of the single and married groups indicated purchasing 2% or whole milk

since that was what their children were drinking. From the data, it would indicate that the

parent groups were consuming adequate amount of servings per day of dairy, while those

over 60 years were not. A study conducted by Elborn, Johnson, and Fischer (1998) found

that 50% of adults over 60 years consumed milk products once per day, and only 16% of

adults over 60 years consumed milk products twice per day. Variables that were found to

increase milk consumption were knowledge, consumption of milk during adolescence,

perceived milk intolerance, and following a diabetic diet (Elborn et al., 1998).

Survey results also resulted in providing information about respondent’s fruit and

vegetable intake. Single parents were found to consume green vegetables once per day

most frequently, while married parents were found to consume green vegetables once per

day, or frozen vegetables twice per day. Also, the majority of married parents were found

to consume fresh fruit two times per day, while the majority of single parents were found

to consume canned or fresh fruit only once per day. Similarly, the majority of survey

respondents over 60 years reported consuming fresh or canned vegetables and canned

fruit once per day. All groups were found to consume less than the recommended number

of 2½ servings of fruits and vegetables per day (USDA, 2010b). However, in 2009,

approximately 34.9% and 23.2% of residents over the age of 18 years in Wisconsin were

consuming more than 2 servings of fruits and vegetables, respectively (Centers for

76

Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). Percentages did not drastically change due to

household income (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010).

Information about the number of servings of refined and enriched grains

consumed per day by survey respondents was also investigated. The majority of

respondents aged 60 years and older were found to consume refined grains once per day,

and enriched grains four or more times per day. The majority of married parent

respondents were found to consume refined grains once per day, and three servings per

day of enriched grains. Finally, the majority of single parent respondents were found to

consume refined grains between never and four times per day, and to consume enriched

grains four or more times per day. According to the Dietary Guidelines of America,

adults should consume at least half of the grains as whole grains (USDA, 2010b). All

three groups were meeting this recommendation.

Based on these findings it can be concluded that transportation limits food

purchasing power of pantry clients when access to transportation is unavailable. The

overall diet quality of pantry clients was inadequate in fruit and vegetable consumption;

while only those over the age of 60 years were inadequate in dairy consumption.

Conclusions: Food Purchasing Behaviors

The second question that this research sought to answer was “What food

purchasing behaviors do food pantry clients use when grocery shopping for food, and

how does this relate to what pantry clients receive from the food pantry?” Results of

particular interest were pantry clients’ knowledge barriers to food preparation, shopping

trip strategies used, and perceptions of pantry foods offered.

77

Shopping trip strategies. One of the overriding themes that developed in the

focus groups was that using shopping strategies that minimized food costs, such as using

shopping lists, or shopping during convenient times, was especially important. This result

was comparable to other studies (Dibsadall, Lambert, Bobbin, & Frewer, 2002; Shriver,

Hildebrand, & Austin, 2010). However, Dibsadall et al. (2002) reported that even though

75% of the low-income adults surveyed thought the prices of fresh fruit and vegetables

were reasonable, more than 50% of surveyed low-income adults stated that buying more

fresh produce than what was currently purchased was out of reach. Current findings of

this study indicated that pantry clients felt that shopping in bulk, and only a few times a

month, made food-shopping costs more affordable. Many food pantry clients in the

current study also indicated in the focus groups that grocery shopping was completed

during times when monthly income from either food stamps, or disability was received.

In addition, this study found that fruit and vegetable consumption was lower than the

recommended intake, indicating that these items were not convenient to purchase due to

the travel time needed to always replace. To support this statement, Shriver et al., (2010)

found that fruit and vegetable purchases were limited due to the time, and number of trips

needed to get these items, since fruits and vegetables need to be purchased every few

days in order to stay fresh. One study documented how low-income populations believe

that food stamps should be based on growth spurts and appetites of their children not just

household size so enough healthy food could be purchased for the whole family (Wiig &

Smith, 2008).

Perceptions of pantry foods offered. Using the food pantry was considered to be

a supplement of grocery purchases that allowed the purchase of additional items normally

78

not on a shopping list. Other studies have indicated that the use of “choice food pantries,”

or giving pantry clients the freedom to choose what items to take home, is preferred more

over the traditional method of given food pre-packaged for clients (Remly, Zubieta,

Lambea, Quinonez, & Taylor, 2010). This is also a method used at Stepping Stones Food

Pantry. Focus group findings indicated that choice food pantries were perceived by

clients to have less waste and provided culturally appropriate foods (Remly et al., 2010).

Pantry clients of Stepping Stones indicated on several occasions that the pantry was a

supplement to overall monthly food needs, and these supplement foods allowed pantry

clients to purchase items at the store that were not normally on a shopping list.

Although there are benefits of the choice food pantry, not understanding

nutritional concepts, not offering enough food, and having inconsistent food items

available can be limitations (Remly et al., 2010). These findings support the results found

in the current study. Pantry clients perceived that some of the food felt like hand-me-

downs. More of a concern, a knowledge barrier seemed to exist for knowing how to

prepare some of items taken from the pantry. Of particular distress was the powered milk

and dry beans. Many clients were taking these items home, but not using the food due to

lack of knowledge of cooking procedures. Other research found that food pantries were

consistently short in energy-dense, ready-to-serve meals, and volunteers would observe a

great demand for minimal preparation meals, such as soups, and pork-and-beans

(Companion, 2010).

Therefore, conclusions can be made that pantry clients want to receive foods from

a food pantry that are convenient, are based on family preferences, and can be used in the

home with the client’s current knowledge. Although pantry clients may not perceive that

79

Stepping Stones Food Pantry provides for all food preferences, clientele are still

benefiting from the program, since it does help to reduce the overall money spent on food

per month.

Conclusions: Vehicle Access and Food Purchases

The third questions this this research sought to answer was “How does having

access to a reliable vehicle influence food pantry participants’ specific food group

purchases at grocery stores?” Results of particular interest to vehicle access and food

purchases were related to findings regarding how access to a vehicle, or no vehicle,

relates to food purchase site, and the coping methods for not having transportation.

Vehicle access and purchase site. In light of the survey findings, no dramatically

different values were found between those who had access to a vehicle than those who

did not have access as to where foods were purchased. Similar results were found by

other studies in rural areas (Bitto, Morton, Oakland & Sand, 2003). The current findings

of this study determined that the majority of fresh fruit and vegetables, grains, and dairy

products were obtained from groceries stores, while the majority of canned and frozen

fruits and vegetables were obtained from the food pantry. Results of another rural study

by Garasky et al. (2006) indicated that 90% of the 562 survey respondents did not have

transportation problems preventing them from getting to a store. This result could

indicate that participants of the current study did not have trouble getting to a grocery

store, even if transportation was limited. This conclusion can be supported by other

research. Dibsadall et al. (2002) found that of the 45% of survey respondents who stated

that they had no access to a car, 71% of those survey respondents indicated getting to a

local supermarket was easy.

80

Senior focus group participants in the current study stated that traveling with

others to obtain groceries would be utilized. The study by Shergold, Parkhurst, and

Musselwhite (2012) also found results supporting a sense of community among older

adults and transportation. Having access to a car meant willingness to help other older

adults who did not have transportation (Shergold et al., 2012).

However, when no transportation was available, the current study indicated that

food pantry clients would walk to the store in order to obtain needed food. Many of the

parent focus group participants indicated taking the child’s stroller, placing food

underneath the child, or having the children carry bags home when needing to walk to the

store. The process of walking to the grocery store to obtain food can significantly

decrease the amount of food brought into the home, since only so many bags of groceries

can be carried at a time by any one person or child. During the focus groups, one pantry

member had an extraordinary case where no current access to a vehicle was available,

which negatively impacted the amount of food that could be brought into the home at a

given time. Many of the other clients revealed stories about past transportation problems;

however, since Menomonie just began a bus route through the UW-Stout campus and

popular town designations, such as grocery stores, this client’s story reveals

transportation issues that have recently developed since the implementation of this bus

route. In this participant’s story, traveling by bus was very inconvenient. As this person

states “Sometimes you have to wait an hour, two hours, when you’re done shopping to

get picked up again.” Due to transportation problems, this client was forced to grocery

shop once a week in order to have enough food in the house to feed the family. However,

Menomonie’s bus transit does not run on the weekends, which caused food shortage

81

problems during the weekend on occasion. Although this client did say walking to a

grocery store could be done, it was to a much more expensive store, and therefore, this

option was rarely used.

Based on these findings, it can be concluded that in rural communities,

transportation access to food purchase sites may not be a large factor for the senior focus

group participants, since they have a sense of community with other seniors. This does

not go to say that transportation is not an issue in this rural community, but by traveling

with others, the differences between food purchase site of those with and without access

to a reliable transportation were not overwhelming except perhaps for some parents with

children.

Conclusions: Transportation Costs and Food Attainment

The fourth question this research sought to answer was “Do travel costs to

grocery stores affect the frequency of grocery shopping by food pantry clients?” Results

of particular interest related to pantry participant’s travel distances to grocery stores, and

perceptions of the cost of foods.

Travel distances. A significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was found between single

and married parents on the distances traveled to grocery stores. Married parents were

found to travel on average 13.2 miles, while single parents were found to travel on

average 8.25 miles to grocery stores. This could indicate that married parents were more

food insecure than single parents, since traveling and gas prices may more be of concern

(Bartfeld et al., 2010). Also the statement “I need to budget for gas in order to go grocery

shopping” was strongly agreed with by 44.8% of survey respondents in the current study,

and 50% of survey respondents strongly agreed that the cost of transportation influenced

82

food purchases. This result could also indicate some reasons why other groups of pantry

clients did not have significant differences in travel time to grocery stores. Findings from

other research studies support this statement, denoting that those who live in smaller

towns tend to shop within the community more than urban counterparts (Bitto et al.,

2003).

Conversely, 31.6% of survey respondents strongly agreed that they would travel

further to grocery stores that had lower food prices. Results of a study conducted by

Bartfeld et al. (2010) indicated that living more than 15 miles from a grocery store

significantly increased the probability of being food insecure by 67%, but living closer to

grocery stores was not. These results are contradictive to each other, indicating that travel

distance to grocery stores may not be representative of other research. However, travel

distances to cheaper stores could be due to traveling further due to the place of

employment (Bitto et al., 2003). Focus group participants indicated on various occasions

that going grocery shopping before or after a work shift was convenient, so perhaps those

that worked further away were those that went grocery shopping at farther distances from

home. Also, focus group participants did state that traveling with others to help alleviate

costs of travel was utilized, which could help to explain why some survey respondents

stated traveling to more distance grocery stores that had lower prices. It is important to

note that the percentage of food pantry clients who would drive further to grocery stores

with cheaper food was not the majority, indicating a need for food assistance for the

majority of pantry clients.

83

Recommendations

Based upon this current study’s findings, and other peer-reviewed research, some

recommendations can be made for improving the diet adequacy and transportation issues

for pantry clients. Pantry clients appeared to have a knowledge barrier for knowing how

to prepare or use some of the pantry items received. The three recommendations

suggested from this research are listed below:

1. Nutrition education by use of recipes, or cooking tips, should be included on

pantry items that are not culturally appropriate or common to the pantry clients

served by Stepping Stones Food Pantry. Increased attention should be made to

ensure education and recipes provided to pantry participants are appropriate for

limited grocery budgets and are suitable to educate on the use of these items at

home.

2. Educating pantry clients on the benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption may

also help to improve dietary intakes. Providing handouts or signs illustrating the

benefits of fruits and vegetables may increase awareness.

3. Since time constraints seems to be large problem for parents who use the food

pantries, assessing the times of pantry hours could determine if the pantry times

are convenient for the majority of pantry users might eliminate this constraint.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research is recommended to explore food pantry participants’

transportation barriers for accessing food in rural communities. Pantry clients indicated

that the need to budget for food purchases was important; however, others indicated that

they were willing to travel further in order to obtain lower-priced foods. Exploring the

84

cost factors associated with transportation travel and grocery purchases needs to be

conducted with larger populations with food pantry clients, which could result in broader

generalizations to the total population of food pantry clients.

85

References

Akobundu, U. O., Cohen, N. L., Laus, M. J., Schulte, M. J., & Soussloff, M. N. (2004).

Vitamins A and C, calcium, fruit, and dairy products are limited in food pantries.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104(5), 811-813.

Anderson, S. A. (1990). Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample

populations. Journal of Nutrition, 120 (suppl 11), 1559-1600.

Bartfeld, J. S., Ryu, J., & Wang, L. (2010). Local characteristics are linked to insecurity

among households with elementary school children. Journal of Hunger &

Environmental Nutrition, 5(4), 471-483. doi: 10.1080/19320448.2010.527278

Bitto, E. A., Morton, L. W., Oakland, M. J., & Sand, M. (2003). Journal for the Study of

Food and Sociology, 6(2), 35-48.

Biggerstaff, M. A., McGrath-Morris, P., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (2002). Living on the

edge: Examination of people attending food pantries and soup kitchens. Social

Work, 47(3), 267-277.

Campbell, E., Hudson, H., Webb, K., & Crawford, P. B. (2011). Food preferences of

users of the emergency food system. Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition, 6(2), 179-187.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). State-specific trends in fruit and

vegetable consumption among adults–United States, 2000-2009. Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report, 59(35), 1125-1130. Retrieved from:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a1.htm

86

Cohen, N. L., Stoddard, A. M., Sarouhkhanians, S., & Sorensen, A. G. (1998). Barriers

toward fruit and vegetable consumption in a multiethnic worksite population.

The Journal of Nutrition Education, 30(6), 381-386.

Companion, M. (2010). Constriction in the variety of urban pantry donations by private

individuals. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(5), 633-646.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00511x

Dibsadall, L.A., Lambert, N., Bobbin, R. F., & Frewer, L. J. (2002). Low-income

consumers’ attitudes and behaviors towards access, availability and motivation to

eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutrition, 6(2), 159-168. doi:

10.1079/PHN202412

Dixon, L. B., Winkleby, M. A., & Radimer, K. L. (2001). Dietary intakes and serum

nutrients differ between adults from food-insufficient and food-sufficient families:

Third National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, 1988-1994. Journal of

Nutrition, 131, 1232-1246.

Elborn, S. M., Johnson, M. A., & Fischer, J. G. (1998). Milk consumption in older

Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 1221-1224.

Feed My People (2010a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.fmpfoodbank.org/

Feed My People (2010b). Who’s hungry. Retrieved from: http://www.fmpfoodbank.org/

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. (2012). WIC income eligibility guidelines 2011-

2012. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/

incomeguidelines.htm

87

Garasky, S., Fletcher, C. N., &. Jenson, H. H. (2006). Transitioning to work: The role of

private transportation for low-income households. The Journal of Consumer

Affairs, 40(1), 64–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00046.x

Garasky, S., Morton, L. W., & Greder, K. A. (2006). The effects of the local food

environment and social support on rural food insecurity. Journal of Hunger &

Environmental Nutrition, 1(1), 83-103. doi:10.1300/J477v01n01_06

Garasky, S., Morton, L. W., & Greder, K. (2004). The food environment and food

insecurity: Perceptions of rural, suburban, and urban food pantry clients in Iowa.

Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 16(2), 41-48.

Gibbs, R., Kusmin, L., & Cromartie, J. (2005). Low-skill employment and the changing

economy of rural America. Economic Research Report (EER-10). Retrieved

from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err10/

Harris, J. E., Gleason, P. M., Boushey, C., Beto, J. A., & Bruemmer, B. (2009). An

introduction to qualitative research for food and nutrition professionals. Journal

of the American Dietetic Association, 109(1), 80-90.

Hendrickson, D., Smith, C., & Eikenberry, N. (2006). Fruit and vegetable access in four

low-income food desert communities in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human

Values, 23(3), 371-83

Hoisington, A., Shultz, J. A., & Butkus, S. (2002). Coping strategies and nutrition

education needs among food pantry users. Journal of Nutrition Education &

Behavior, 34(6), 326-333.

88

Hunger in America. (2001). Hunger study 2010. Retrieved from

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-

2010.aspx

Jilcot, S. B., Moore, J. B., Wall-Bassett, E. D., Liu, H., & Saelens, B. E. (2011).

Associations between travel times and food procurement practices among female

supplement assistance program participants in eastern North Carolina. Journal of

Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(5), 385-389.

Keller, H. H., Dwyer, J. J., Senson, C., Edwards, V., & Edward, G. (2006). A social

ecological perspective of the influential factors for food access described by low-

income seniors. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(3), 27-44.

doi:10.1300/J477v01n03_03

Kendall, A., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A. (1996). Relationship of hunger and food

insecurity to food availability and consumption. Journal of American Dietetic

Association, 96, 1019-1024.

Lee, J. S., & Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Nutritional and health consequences are associated

with food insecurity among U.S. elderly persons. Journal of Nutrition, 131, 1503-

1509.

Leibtag, E. S., & Kaufman, P. R. (2003). Exploring food purchase behavior of low-

income households: How do they economize? Agriculture Information Bulletin

747(7). Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB747/aib74707.pdf

Mabli, J., Cohen, R., Potter, F., & Zhao, Z. (2010). Hunger in America 2010: National

report prepared for feeding America. Retrieved from: http://feedingamerica.org/

hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-2010.aspx.

89

Monsivais, P., & Drewnowski, A. (2007). The rising cost of low-energy-density food,

Journal of American Dietetic Association 107, 2071-2076.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010). Fact sheet: Rural homelessness.

Retrieved from www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1613

Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2008). Household food security in the United

States. USDA, Economic research Service. Retrieved from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err83/err83.pdf.

Nord, M., & Coleman-Jenson, A. (2011). Food security in the United States: Definitions

of hunger and food security. Retrieved from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity/labels.htm

Nord, M., Coleman-Jensen, A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2010). Household food

security in the United States, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Report. ERR-108. Retrieved from ers.usda.gov/publications

Otten, J. J., Pitzi, J., & Meyers, L. D. (2006). Dietary reference intakes: The essential

guide to nutrient requirements. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Remly, D. T., Zubieta, A. C., Lambea, M. C., Quinonez, H. M., & Taylor, C. (2010).

Spanish- and English-speaking client perceptions of choice food pantries. Journal

of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 5(1), 120-128.

doi:10.1080//19320240903574387

Rochester, J. S., Nanney, M. S., & Story, M. (2011). Assessing foodshelves’ ability to

distribute healthy foods to foodshelf clients. Journal of Hunger and

Environmental Nutrition, 6(1), 10-26.

90

Ruel, M. T., Garrett, J. L., Hawkes, C., & Cohen, M. J. (2010). The food, fuel, and

financial crises affect the urban and rural poor disproportionately: A review of

the evidence. The Journal of Nutrition, 140, 170S–176S.

doi:10.3945/jn.109.110791

Second Harvest Foodbank (n.d.). FAQs. Retrieved from: http://www.secondharvest

madison.org/aboutus/faqs.aspx

Seligman, H. K., Laraia, B. A. & Kushel, M. B. (2010). Food insecurity is associated

with chronic disease among low-income NHANES participants. Journal Nutrition

140(2), 304-310. doi: 10.3945/jn.109.112573.

Shergold, L., Parkhurst, G., & Musselwhite, C. (2012). Rural car dependence: An

emerging barrier to community activity for older people. Transportation Planning

and Technology, 35(1), 69-85. doi:10.1080/03081060.2012.635417

Shriver, L. H., Hildebrand, D., & Austin, H. (2010). Determinants of fruit and vegetable

availability in Hispanic head start families with preschool-aged children living in

an urban midwestern area. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(5).

299-306.

Smith, D. M., Cummins, S., Taylor, M., Dawson, J., Marshall, D., Sparks, L., &

Anderson, A. S. (2010). Neighbourhood food environment and area deprivation:

Spatial accessibility to grocery stores selling fresh fruit and vegetables in urban

and rural settings. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(1), 277–284.

doi:10.1093/ije/dyp221

91

Smith, C. & Morton, L. W. (2009). Rural food deserts: Low-income perspectives on food

access in Minnesota and Iowa. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,

41(3), 176-187.

Starkey, L. J., Gray-Donald, K., & Kuhnlein, H. V. (1999). Nutrient intake of food bank

users is related to frequent use, household size, smoking education and country

of birth. Journal of Nutrition, 129. 883–889.

Stepping Stones (2011). Food pantry. Retrieved from

http://steppingstonesdc.org/foodpantry.html

Tarasuk, V. S., & Beaton, G. H. (1999). Women’s dietary intakes in the context of

household food insecurity. Journal Nutrition, 129(2S Suppl), S521-524.

Tarasuk, V., Mclntyre, L., & Li, J. (2007). Low-income women’s dietary intakes are

sensitive to the depletion of household resources in one month. Journal of

Nutrition, 137(8), 1980-1897.

U.S. Census Bureau (2010a). Definitions. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2010b). Small area income and poverty estimates. Retrieved from

www.census.gov/cgibin/saipe/saipe.cgi.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010c). State and county quickfacts: Dunn County, Wisconsin.

Retrieved from quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/55033.html

USDA (2012a). Dietary guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.choosemyplate.gov/

dietary-guidelines.html

USDA (2012b). Choose a food group. Retrieved from http://www.choosemyplate.

gov/food- groups/

92

USDA (2012c). About SNAP. Retrieved from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap.htm

USDA. (2012d). Analysis and forecast of the CPI for food. Retrieved from http://www.

ers.usda.gov/briefing/cpifoodandexpenditures/consumerpriceindex.htm

USDA (2012e). National school lunch program. Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/

USDA (2011). USDA press release. Retrieved from http://www.cnpp.usda.

gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm

USDA (2010a). About WIC. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/

USDA (2010b). Dietary guidelines for America [PDF]. Retrieved from:

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm

Vozoris, N. T., & Tarasuk, V. S. (2003). Household food insufficiency is associated with

poorer health. Journal of Nutrition, 133, 120-126.

Webber, C. B., Sobal, J., & Dollahite, J. S. (2010). Shopping for fruits and vegetables.

Food and retail qualities of importance to low-income households at the grocery

store. Appetite, 54(2), 297-303.

Wiig, K, & Smith, C. (2008). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget: Factors

influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try to make ends

meet. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 1726-1734.

doi: 10.1017/S1368980008004102

Wood, D. K., Shultz, J. A., Butkus, S. N., & Ballejos, M. E. (2009). Patterns of food

coping strategies among food pantry clients. Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition, 4(2), 185-202.

93

Ziliak, J., & Gundersen, C. (2009). Senior hunger in the United States: Differences

across states and rural and urban areas. University of Kentucky Center for Poverty

Research Special Reports. Retrieved from http://www.ukcpr.org/

Publications/seniorhungerfollowup.pdf

94

Appendix A: Approval by the UW-Stout Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the

Protection of Human Subjects October 12, 2011

Krysta Butkus

Food and Nutrition Department

UW-Stout

Title: “Food pantry participants' perceptions of how transportation and pantry use influence food

purchases”

Subject: Protection of Human Subjects

Dear Krysta,

In accordance with Federal Regulations, your project, “Food pantry participants' perceptions of how

transportation and pantry use influence food purchases” was reviewed on October 12, 2011, by a member

of the Institutional Review Board and was approved under Expedited Review through October 11, 2012.

If your project involves administration of a survey or interview, please copy and paste the following

message to the top of your survey/interview form before dissemination:

If you are conducting an online survey/interview, please copy and paste the following message to the top of

the form:

“This research has been approved by the UW-Stout IRB as required by the Code of Federal

regulations Title 45 Part 46.”

Responsibilities for Principal Investigators of IRB-approved research:

1. No subjects may be involved in any study procedure prior to the IRB approval date or after the

expiration date. (Principal Investigators and Sponsors are responsible for initiating Continuing

Review proceedings.)

2. All unanticipated or serious adverse events must be reported to the IRB.

3. All protocol modifications must be IRB approved prior to implementation, unless they are

intended to reduce risk.

4. All protocol deviations must be reported to the IRB.

5. All recruitment materials and methods must be approved by the IRB prior to being used.

6. Federal regulations require IRB review of ongoing projects on an annual basis.

Thank you for your cooperation with the IRB and best wishes with your project.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the IRB office

at 715-232-1126 or email foxwells@uwstout.edu.

Sincerely,

Susan Foxwell

Research Administrator and Human Protections Administrator,

UW-Stout Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB)

95

*NOTE: This is the only notice you will receive – no paper copy will be sent

Appendix B: Consent Forms for the Focus Group and the Consent Forms for the

Additional Participants Surveyed

Consent Form for Focus Groups

Title: Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use

influences food purchases.

Description:

The study aims to determine how transportation costs are related to the food purchases

made by food pantry participants residing in Dunn County, Wisconsin. This study also

aims to determine how the foods obtained from food pantries influence food purchases

made by pantry participants. A final aim of this study is to determine pantry participant’s

food intake, and of what quality foods from each food group are consumed.

Risks and Benefits:

There are no serious risks involved with this study. Some sensitive questions may be

asked such as marital status, describing past food purchases, and how transportation

affected your food purchases. The benefits of this study include receiving a fruit and

vegetable basket upon completing the focus group session and survey, as well as on-site

day care for children, if needed, and refreshments during the session. In addition,

participants in the study will provide the food pantry with information on how to better

serve food pantry participants.

Minors:

If you are under the age of 18 years, you are not eligible to participate in this study.

Time Commitment:

The time commitment for this study is approximately two minutes to complete a short 15-

question survey and a focus group session. No additional requirements are needed from

you upon the completion of the survey and focus group session.

Confidentiality:

Your name, or any other identifying information, will not be included on any survey.

Focus group sessions will be tape-recorded, however, only the researcher will have

access to the tape-recording. All identifying information revealed on the tape-recording

will be removed. We do not believe that you can be identified from any of the

information provided to us.

Right to Withdraw:

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate

without any adverse consequences to you. You have the right to stop the survey, refuse to

answer any question on the survey or focus group, or leave the focus group at any time.

However, should you choose to participate and later wish to withdraw from the study,

once the survey and focus group session have been completed, there is no way to identify

96

your anonymous document or information in the tape-recording after it has been turned

into the investigator.

IRB Approval:

This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's

Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the

ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions

or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have

any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please

contact the IRB Administrator.

Investigator: Krysta Butkus

715-892-1052

butkusk4381@my.uwstout.edu

Advisor: Carol Seaborn

715-232-2216

seabornc@uwstout.edu

IRB Administrator

Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services

152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg.

UW-Stout

Menomonie, WI 54751

715-232-2477

foxwells@uwstout.edu

Statement of Consent:

By completing the following survey and focus group session, you agree to participate in

the project entitled, Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and

pantry use influences food purchases.

97

97

Consent Form for Additional Pantry Participants Surveyed

Consent to Participate in UW-Stout Approved Research

Title: Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use

influences food purchases.

Description:

The study aims to determine how transportation costs are related to the food purchases

made by food pantry participants residing in Dunn County, Wisconsin. This study also

aims to determine how the foods obtained from food pantries influence food purchases

made by pantry participants. A final aim of this study is to determine pantry participant’s

food intake, and of what quality foods from each food group are consumed.

Risks and Benefits:

There are no serious risks involved with this study. Some sensitive questions may be

asked such as marital status, and how transportation affected your food purchases. The

benefits of this study include providing the food pantry with information on how to better

serve food pantry participants.

Minors:

If you are under the age of 18 years, you are not eligible to participate in this study.

Time Commitment:

The time commitment for this study is approximately 10 minutes to complete a short 12-

question survey. No additional requirements are needed from you upon the completion of

the survey.

Confidentiality:

Your name, or any other identifying information, will not be included on any survey. We

do not believe that you can be identified from any of the information provided to us.

Right to Withdraw:

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate

without any adverse consequences to you. You have the right to stop the survey, or refuse

to answer any question on the survey at any time. However, should you choose to

participate and later wish to withdraw from the study, once the survey has been

completed, there is no way to identify your anonymous document after it has been turned

into the investigator.

IRB Approval:

This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's

Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the

ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions

or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have

98

98

any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please

contact the IRB Administrator.

Investigator: Krysta Butkus

715-892-1052

butkusk4381@my.uwstout.edu

Advisor: Carol Seaborn

715-232-2216

seabornc@uwstout.edu

IRB Administrator

Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services

152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg.

UW-Stout

Menomonie, WI 54751

715-232-2477

foxwells@uwstout.edu

Statement of Consent:

By completing the following survey, you agree to participate in the project entitled, Food

pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use influences

food purchases.

99

99

Appendix C: Survey Questions

Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use influences food purchases

Please complete this survey as accurately as possible. Do not include your name or any identifying information.

Completion of this survey indicates your willingness to participate in this research study.

Please circle the most accurate response for the following questions.

1. I am satisfied with the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables I receive at food pantries.

Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree

2. I am satisfied with the quality of food I receive from food pantries.

Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree

3. How many miles do you travel to get to the grocery store you shop at most frequently? _____ miles

Please tell us about your transportation access to grocery stores. Mark one box for each question.

4. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Agree

Moderately

Agree

Neither Agree

or Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

The cost of transportation to grocery

stores can influence the amount of food

purchases I am able to make.

I choose to travel to grocery stores that

are further from where I live, most of the

time, because prices are lower.

The cost of travel DOES influence where

I go shopping for food most of the time.

The cost of travel DOES NOT influence

where I go shopping for food most of the

time.

I need to budget for gas to drive to get

groceries.

I have chosen not to go grocery

shopping, because of the cost it takes to

travel there.

I have access to a reliable vehicle all of

the time.

Transportation problems have kept me

from going somewhere to obtain food

more than once a month.

I have needed to ask someone I don’t live

with to help with transportation to get

food.

5. The foods I receive from food pantries influence what I will buy at grocery stores: [ ]YES [ ]NO

5a. If YES, what purchases were made that were influenced by items received at the food pantry?

Mark all that apply.

[ ] Fruits [ ] Grain products

[ ] Meat products [ ] Dairy products [ ] Other _____________________

[ ] Vegetables

100

100

5b. If NO, please provide a brief statement of why below.

6. The foods I receive from food pantries provide my family and I with a balanced diet. [ ]YES [ ]NO

6a. If NO, please provide a brief statement of why below:

Please tell us about your recent consumption of the following foods. Mark one box for each question.

7. In the last 7 days, how many times during the day have you consumed each of the following?

Never Once Twice Three

Times

Four or

More

Green vegetables (ex. leafy greens)

Canned vegetables

Frozen vegetables

Starchy vegetables (ex. potatoes)

Fresh fruit

Canned fruits

Frozen fruit

Refined grains (white bread)

Enriched grains (wheat bread)

Dairy products

Please tell us about where you obtain each of the following foods. Mark one box for each question.

8. In the past month, where did you obtain the majority of each of the following foods?

Grocery

Store

Food

Pantry

Convenience

Store

Home

Garden

Family or

Friend

Fresh vegetables

Canned vegetables

Frozen vegetables

Fresh fruit

Canned fruit

Frozen fruit

Refined grains (white bread)

Enriched grains (wheat bread)

Dairy products

Please tell us a little about yourself.

9. Are you: [ ] Male [ ] Female

10. How old are you? ______

11. Are you: [ ] Married [ ] Single [ ] Divorced

12. How many children between the ages of under the age of 18 live in your home? _____children

13. Are you currently employed? YES [ ] NO [ ]

13a. If yes, are you employed [ ] Full Time [ ] Part Time [ ] Other

14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

[ ] Less than high school diploma

[ ] High school diploma or GED

[ ] Some college, no degree

[ ] 2 year degree (Associate’s)

101

101

[ ] 4 year degree (Bachelor’s) or higher

102

102

Appendix D: Focus Group Questions

Opening

Tell us your first name and what your favorite food is.

Introduction

Describe to us what you feel are the most important foods to have adequate

amounts of.

Transition

When you think of a food pantry, what comes to mind?

Key Questions

Objective: How does the food that pantries distribute influence the food purchases pantry

participants make at grocery stores.

Think back to the last time you went grocery shopping for food; tell us how the

food you received from food pantries influence the food purchases you make at

grocery stores?

o Think about if you gather more grains at the food pantry, how will that

affect what you buy at a store

Objective: What food purchasing behaviors do food pantry participants use when

grocery shopping for food

Besides how the food pantry influences the food purchases you make, how do you

determine what your other food purchases will be?

Objective: Are healthy nutritious foods at grocery stores affordable for food pantry

participants to buy

When you think of affordable food, what comes to mind?

How do you feel about the cost of fresh nutritious food when it comes to

purchasing them?

Objective: Does food pantry foods limit the consumption of any food groups for pantry

participants

How do you feel the food pantry does in providing a balanced diet? A balanced

diet includes all five food groups: vegetables, grains, fruits, meat and dairy.

Transition:

The next part of our discussion will cover how transportation affects food purchases.

When you think of adequate transportation, what comes to mind?

Objective: How transportation influences food pantry participants’ food purchases at

grocery stores.

103

103

Describe or share a story to us if you have had a problem with accessing

transportation to get food.

o What was the outcome of the transportation problem? Did you go without

getting food, just use what you had at home…ect. How did you get to the

store (did you drive, or someone else?)

Objective: Does the cost of travel to grocery stores affect where and when food pantry

participants in rural communities purchase food?

Describe to us where you purchase your groceries, and why you chose that

location.

o How far from your home is the location to where you go grocery

shopping?

How has the time/expense to travel and get groceries influenced how much and

how often you go grocery shopping?

o Do you always drive, or do others? Do you split the cost of groceries?

Because of what has been shared, do you feel like you are able to go grocery

shopping as much as you need to?

Ending:

Of the topics we discussed, which one is the most important to you?

Probing questions if ideas are not getting out

Who else has some thoughts about this? –Maybe something a little different

What else have people experienced?

You’ve been discussing several different ideas; what haven’t we heard yet

Remember, we want to hear all your opinions; who has something else?

104

104

Appendix E: Agreement or Disagreement to Nine Survey Items Related to

Transportation, Transportation Costs, Reliable Vehicle Access, Travel Distances,

and Difficulties with Transportation

Fre

qu

ency

of

Res

po

nse

s o

n B

arr

iers

to

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

to

gro

cery

Sto

res

Fre

qu

ency

rep

ort

ed a

s n

, p

aren

thes

es i

nd

icat

e p

erce

nt

(%)

S

tro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

30

(50

.8)a

19

(31

.6)

25

(42

.4)

8 (

14.0

)

26

(44

.8)

2 (

3.5

)

25

(42

.4)

14

(23

.7)

14

(23

.7)

Mo

der

atel

y

Ag

ree

15

(25

.4)

18

(30

.0)

17

(28

.8)

10

(17

.5)

18

(31

.0)

8 (

14.3

)

17

(28

.8)

16

(27

.1)

12

(20

.3)

Nei

ther

Ag

ree

no

r

Dis

agre

e

10

(16

.9)

12

(20

.0)

11

(18

.6)

15

(26

.3)

10

(17

.2)

22

(39

.3)

5 (

8.5

)

9 (

15.3

)

11

(18

.6)

Mo

der

atel

y

Dis

agre

e

3 (

5.1

)

6 (

10.0

)

2 (

3.4

)

9 (

15.8

)

2 (

3.4

)

6 (

10.7

)

7 (

11.9

)

5 (

8.5

)

7 (

11.9

)

Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

1 (

1.7

)

5 (

8.3

)

4 (

6.8

)

15

(26

.3)

2 (

3.4

)

18

(32

.1)

5 (

8.5

)

15

(25

.4)

15

(25

.4)

105

105

Res

ponse

s

The

cost

of

tran

spo

rtat

ion

to

gro

cery

sto

res

can

infl

uen

ce t

he

amo

un

t of

food

pu

rch

ases

I a

m a

ble

to

mak

e.

I ch

oose

to

tra

vel

to

gro

cery

sto

res

that

are

fu

rth

er f

rom

wher

e I

live,

most

of

the

tim

e, b

ecau

se p

rice

s ar

e lo

wer

.

The

cost

of

trav

el D

OE

S i

nfl

uen

ce w

her

e I

go

sh

op

pin

g

for

food m

ost

of

the

tim

e.

The

cost

of

trav

el D

OE

S N

OT

infl

uen

ce w

her

e I

go

shoppin

g f

or

foo

d m

ost

of

the

tim

e.

I nee

d t

o b

ud

get

fo

r gas

to

dri

ve t

o g

et g

roce

ries

.

I hav

e ch

ose

n n

ot

to g

o g

roce

ry s

ho

ppin

g,

bec

ause

of

the

cost

it

tak

es t

o t

rav

el t

her

e.

I hav

e ac

cess

to

a r

elia

ble

veh

icle

all

of

the

tim

e.

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n p

roble

ms

hav

e k

ept

me

from

goin

g

som

ewher

e to

ob

tain

fo

od

mo

re t

han

once

a m

onth

.

I hav

e nee

ded

to

ask

som

eon

e I

don

’t l

ive

wit

h t

o h

elp

wit

h t

ransp

ort

atio

n t

o g

et f

oo

d.