Voices of Hunger Food Insecurity in the United States

Edited by COURTNEY I.P. THOMAS

VOICES OF HUNGER: FOOD INSECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES

COURTNEY I.P. THOMAS, EDITOR

VOICES OF HUNGER: FOOD INSECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES

COURTNEY I.P. THOMAS, EDITOR

First published in 2014 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC as part of the Food Studies book series

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Voices of hunger : food insecurity in the United States / Courtney I.P. Thomas, editor. 1 online resource. -- (Food studies book series) Food insecurity in the United States Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed. ISBN 978-1-61229-531-2 (pdf) -- ISBN 978-1-61229-530-5 (pbk : alk. paper) 1. Food security--United States. 2. Hunger--United States. I. Thomas, Courtney Irene Powell. II. Title: Food insecurity in the United States.

TX360.U6 363.80973--dc23

2014023475

For Mom, Dad, and my husband, Chris.

Table of Contents Preface ...... viii Courtney I.P. Thomas Chapter 1: Voices of Hunger in America ...... 1 Courtney I. P. Thomas Chapter 2: Butter Beans and Okra and Peaches! Oh, My! Rethinking Community at the Memphis Farmers’ Market ...... 28 Arielle Goldberg Chapter 3: Understanding Low-income Virginians’ Perceptions of Healthy Food, Local Food, and Food Access: Implications for Nutrition Programming ...... 51 Sarah A. Misyak, Meredith Ledlie Johnson, Mary M. McFerren, Kim L. Niewolny, Kathryn W. Hosig, and Elena Serrano Chapter 4: Food Security: Access, Culture, and Desert Communities ...... 63 Ausan Al Eryani Chapter 5: Is There a Place for Space in the Analysis of Policy Utilization? The Case of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) ...... 70 Ketra Rice Chapter 6: Water Security in a Hungry World ...... 107 Julia Sherry Chapter 7: Farm to School Programs and Food Insecurity ...... 115 A. Bryce Hoflund, Can Chen, and Carol Ebdon Chapter 8: Virginia Family Nutrition Program: Meeting the Nutrition Needs of Food Insecure Families ...... 133 Stephanie Diehl Chapter 9: A Student’s Perspective on Food Insecurity in Southwestern Virginia ...... 139 Chelsea MacCormack Chapter 10: 209 Manna Ministries ...... 146 Kelly Berry Chapter 11: Micah’s Mobile Backpack: An Evolution in Alleviating Weekend Food Insecurity ...... 155 Jennie Hodge Conclusion ...... 166 Anna Isserow

vii

Preface

Courtney I.P. Thomas

I grew up in a food secure home, but one that sustained itself on a deeply divided diet. On the one hand, there was an abundance of fresh and home-preserved produce—green beans, tomatoes, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, beets, lima beans, peas, apples, raspberries, strawberries, cherries. On the other, there was the food that my family purchased, which was heavily processed and nutritionally questionable—E-Z Squeez Cheeze, fish sticks, Treet Meat, Ramen noodles, hot dogs, deli meats, hamburger helper, Rice A Roni, Sunny Delight, Marshmallow Fluff, Tang. But I never experienced hunger nor did I experience the alienation that many Americans feel from their food. Because I grew up on a family farm, I always knew where food came from. I knew that you could milk cows and collect honey from bees and butcher pigs to get sausage and bacon. I understood that vegetables came from the garden and apples and cherries from trees. That set me apart from many of my contemporaries. But gardening was never fun. It was never novel. It was hard, dirty, hot work. In my community, people wanted their children to have more stable lives in more lucrative careers. Success often meant getting off the farm. As a high school student, I volunteered at a local food pantry and saw the quantity (and quality) of food that went into the government-subsidized food baskets. But I also saw the food-shaming that came alongside food aid. The questionnaire used at the time, which has been replaced by simple income questions, asked people applying for food questions like “how many times in the last month have you had to skip a meal because you could not afford to buy food?” or “how many times in the last month have you had to choose between buying food and paying for another essential product such as medicine or housing?” I watched as people who were clearly hungry left empty handed rather than answer the questions. I watched others swallow their pride and with tears in their eyes answer because they had run out of other options. My first experience with hunger came when I was a young adult visiting a food insecure friend in Norfolk, VA. It was the first Saturday of the moth so she and all of the other food stamp recipients in the area had just received their benefits. She left me at her home with her two young sons while she and my viii PREFACE ix husband went to buy food at the local Walmart. They were gone for five hours and there was no food in the house. I don’t mean that there was no food in the house that was appealing; there was simply no food. No bread, no milk, no eggs, no cheese, no peanut butter, no nothing. The children, who were two and five years old, were hungry but there was nothing to eat. When my husband returned I berated him for taking so long. He explained that they had stood in line at the store for more than two hours behind other food stamp recipients. He asked why I hadn’t ordered a pizza or gone to the convenience store for food, two thoughts that hadn’t even occurred to me because I had never been in a home with bare cupboards before. I was hungry and irritable but the kids were resigned as if this was a common occurrence in their home because it was. In 2013 one of my students, Ausan Al Eryani, and I attended the second annual Food Studies Conference in Urbana, IL. We met many dedicated scholars and practitioners, and attended numerous panel discussions where we were introduced to a variety of fascinating research projects. However, as we drove home to Blacksburg, VA, we discussed what we found to be an underrepresented topic of discussion—the problem of hunger in the United States. From that discussion the first chapter of this edited volume was born. In 2014 I attended the Food Studies Conference in Austin, TX and was pleasantly surprised to see that the number of food scholars looking at issues of issues of food security in the United States had grown enormously. As I talked to other conference attendees, I began to think about an edited volume addressing the issue from a variety of perspectives and disciplines. This book is the end result. It is divided into four parts. Part 1 features interviews with food insecure Americans. Part 2 examines some of the economic, geographic, and environmental roots of food insecurity. Part 3 discusses programs designed to combat food insecurity. Finally, Part 4 presents testimonials from practitioners who work with food security initiatives, specifically in Southwestern Virginia, an area like many others in the United States that is both rich in agriculture but characterized by hunger. I am grateful to all of the contributors for their hard work. Their research and experiences have made me think about food security in new ways. They have inspired me as I expect that they will inspire you. I am also deeply indebted to my editorial assistant throughout this project, Anna Isserow. Anna came to me as an undergraduate student with an interest in civic agriculture and food systems. By the time she graduated with degrees in Public and Urban Affairs and Political Science, she had developed her talents and interests and become a capable scholar. Her work on this project has been invaluable. Finally, I want to thank Common Ground Publishing. They have worked to create an active knowledge community that brings together scholars and professionals interested in food studies from disciplines across academia and countries around the world. Their conferences are the highlight of my academic year and their publication opportunities have provided a forum for research such as that contained in this volume. From this, we can all learn.

About the Contributors

Courtney I. P. Thomas Courtney I. P. Thomas is a visiting assistant professor of political science at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA where she also serves as an academic advisor and internship coordinator. Her research emphasizes international political economy, political violence, and food politics. Courtney has presented her research at conferences in Ljubljana, Slovenia; Salzburg, Austria; Baltimore, MD; Las Vegas, NV; Austin, TX; and Washington, D.C. Her recent publications include In Food We Trust (University of Nebraska Press © 2014) and Political Culture and the Making of Modern Nation-States (Paradigm Press © 2014).

Arielle Goldberg Arielle Goldberg is a senior policy analyst for the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. She has a Masters in urban planning and a Ph.D. in political science. Prior to her current role in affordable housing development, she taught political science and urban studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tulane University in New Orleans, and at the City University of New York. Her interest in holistic approaches to community and economic development stems from her work on the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after 9/11 and her study of food access at the Memphis Farmers’ Market.

Sarah A. Misyak Sarah Misyak is a post-doctoral fellow with the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise at Virginia Tech. She works with Virginia Cooperative Extension's Family Nutrition Program on their Food Security Project. Her doctoral research was on the barriers to accessing local foods through farmers markets for low-income mothers of young children.

Kathy Hosig Kathy Hosig, PhD, MPH, RD, is an associate professor of population health sciences at Virginia Tech. Dr. Hosig is a registered dietitian with a BS degree in nutrition and dietetics from Virginia Tech, a doctorate in human nutrition from Purdue University and a master of public health degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She currently teaches health education/health behavior at the graduate level and has taught nutrition at the undergraduate and graduate level, including medical school. Her research focuses on promotion of healthful eating and physical activity habits through public health programs across the lifespan.

Elana Serrano Elana Serrano conducts research and provides leadership for the development, implementation, evaluation, and promotion of extension education programming in Virginia in childhood obesity, focusing on limited resource audiences. She evaluates the effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices to address

x ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS xi childhood obesity, including menu labeling of children’s meals at restaurants, school-based initiatives and wellness policies, cooperative extension programs, and community food systems. Dr. Serrano utilizes a combination of social science evaluation and analysis designs and mixed methods approaches, and directs the creation of sampling designs and procedures, sample size estimations, and appropriate statistical analyses for related studies. As an extension specialist, she trains extension field and on-campus faculty, develops and evaluates educational materials, secures outside funding to support programming in the area, and partners with local, state, and national agencies, such as WIC and the Department of Education, to achieve health promotion goals. She has published numerous articles and reports for lay audiences, legislators, and other key stakeholders and has presented to a wide range of groups, including the Virginia General Assembly.

Kim Niewolny Dr. Kim Niewolny is an assistant professor and extension specialist in the Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education at Virginia Tech. Kim’s teaching, extension, and research activities are highly integrated and center on the role participatory, adult and community-based education plays in historical and emerging agricultural and community development with a specific focus on "civic agriculture" within the context of the land-grant system and civil society, and the interactions between the two. Her scholarship emphasizes: asset- based community development; action research and community-based participatory research; sociocultural, experiential, and social movement learning in higher, extension, and community education Dr. Niewolny holds research training and experience in qualitative research methods with special interest in narrative inquiry. Current funded research and extension initiatives center on: 1) beginning farmer training and program development, 2) community food security, and 3) farm-to-school program development. Kim serves as the Director of the Virginia Beginning Farmer and Rancher Coalition Program (VBFRCP), a statewide coalition-based extension program that aims to improve opportunities for viable farm start-up and sustainability. Kim is also a co-director of the USDA AFRI funded Appalachian Foodshed Project (AFP), a community-university initiative focusing on enhancing community food security in the Appalachian regions of Virginia, North Carolina, and all of West Virginia. In addition to teaching several graduate courses in community development, adult agricultural education, and community food systems, Kim provides teaching leadership in Virginia Tech’s undergraduate minor in Civic Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS). Kim received her Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Adult and Extension Education from Cornell University. She also received a master’s degree in community and rural development from Cornell’s Development Sociology Department, and her B.S. degree in biology and wildlife resource management from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Mary McFerren Mary McFerren has been a faculty member at Virginia Tech since 1987, holding several field positions within Virginia Cooperative Extension before joining the Family Nutrition Program. She provides primary management and leadership of

xii VOICES OF HUNGER the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) in accordance with federal guidelines and identified needs and goals of limited resource families/individuals in Virginia. She also handles the overall coordination and leadership in planning, developing, implementing, evaluating, and reporting EFNEP and SNAP-Ed policies and management recommendations to district and unit staffs.

Ausan Al Eryani Hailing from Falls Church, Virginia, Ausan graduated from Virginia Tech in 2013 with a degree in political science. He then joined Teach for America and currently teaches middle school English in Detroit, Michigan. His current and future research focus on why hunger and food deserts are some of the most underrated and tragic issues facing America today. He will be pursuing graduate studies after his Teach for America appointment.

Ketra Rice Ketra Rice's research interests include health policy, food policy, food security and food deserts, community and regional development, and areas of social and economic policy. Ketra holds a Ph.D. in public policy and management and an MS in agricultural economics from the Ohio State University and a BS and MBA from Alabama A&M University.

Julia Sherry Julia Sherry is a rising senior at Virginia Tech, studying international studies and environmental policy and planning, with a minor in Spanish. She is passionate about issues centered around water and people, and intends to work in the field of international development focused the provision of clean water and adequate sanitation.

A. Bryce Hoflund A. Bryce Hoflund is an assistant professor, School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Dr. Hoflund’s research focuses on networks, network management and leadership, health care policy, food policy, and health care and food safety regulation. She has published her work in Regulation & Governance, Administration & Society, Public Organization Review, the Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, and Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. In 2013, Dr. Hoflund received the International Award for Excellence in the area of food studies for her co-authored paper that was published in Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, "Improving Food Safety through Self-Regulation: Exploring the Applicability of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) System to the Spinach and Peanut Industries." Dr. Hoflund received her Ph.D. from the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech, her M.P.A. from the Reubin O’D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University, and her B.A. in political science with a minor in public administration from American University.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS xiii

Can Chen Can Chen is a Ph.D. student in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Mr. Chen is a doctoral student of public administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Before coming to the U.S., he conducted many research projects involving local public services and policy analysis for Chinese local governments. His primary research fields are transportation finance, public budgeting, and policy analysis. He has given presentations at national and international conferences such as the Western Social Science Association (WSSA) and the Chinese Public Administration Society (CPAS), as well as the International Conference on Public Administration (ICPA). Before joining UNO’s PhD program, Mr. Chen received his M.P.A degree from Xiamen University, China, and bachelor degrees of political science and economics from Harbin Engineering University, China.

Carol Ebdon Carol Ebdon is the Regents/Foundation professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Dr. Ebdon’s research and teaching experiences are in the areas of public budgeting and finance. She has published extensively in public administration and public finance journals. During a recent hiatus from the university, Dr. Ebdon served as the finance director for the City of Omaha. Dr. Ebdon received her Ph.D. in public administration from the State University of New York at Albany.

Stephanie Diel As a registered dietitian with a master's in health sciences, Stephanie Diel works for Virginia Tech as an area coordinator for Virginia cooperative extension's Family Nutrition Program (FNP). The FNP is funded jointly by two USDA grants - EFNEP and SNAP-Ed. She provides supervision and training for 15 program assistants who provide nutrition education to limited-resource families in a 28 county area of the northern part of the commonwealth of Virginia. In her 26 year career, she has worked as a public health nutritionist, a consultant dietitian for an OB/GYN office, a dietitian in a long-term care facility, and as a clinical dietitian at a specialty rehabilitation hospital for children and adolescents. For the past 13 years, Stephanie’s career has been in community nutrition with Virginia cooperative extension. Throughout her career, she has had the opportunity to work with nutrition throughout the lifecycle (from infants to the elderly or from cradle to grave!). These experiences have provided many learning opportunities which she draws from daily as she continues to work toward a healthy future for all.

Chelsea MacCormack Chelsea MacCormack is a 2014 graduate of Virginia Tech who holds a degree in agriculture and applied economics. Chelsea has worked with in many different food security agencies throughout the New River Valley including Feeding America Southwest Virginia and the Hale-Y Community Gardens. She was shown the beauty of gardening by her mother, professors, and especially all the people associated with a Virginia Tech academic minor in civic agriculture and

xiv VOICES OF HUNGER food systems. Chelsea now loves to sow, reap, and eat the produce she grows and plans to translate this love for food sovereignty and gardening into a career.

Kelly Berry Kelly Berry is the founder and student mepresentative of 209 Manna Ministries, a food pantry just for college students. She is a rising senior majoring in agricultural sciences in the college of agriculture and life sciences. She received the Aspire Award for Practicing Civility with creating and founding of 209 Manna Ministries. The endeavor began her sophomore year at Virginia Tech as she began to research food insecurities and college food pantries. Being a Hokie at Virginia Tech is not just about the education you receive or the degree you earn. It’s about how you live and leave your mark on society. Ut Prosim is the motto at Virginia Tech. It is a lifestyle that Hokies inspire to live by every day.

Jennie Hodge Jennie grew up a well-fed child although she listened to her dad recall eating mayonnaise sandwiches and sometimes going hungry at the end of the day as a boy. The stories from his childhood helped convert her into a champion for alleviating childhood food insecurity. In 2011 she accepted a call to serve as director of Micah’s Backpack: her town’s weekend feeing program for economically disadvantaged youth. The following year, Jennie steered the launch of Micah’s Garden, a cooperative community garden where folks grow food for themselves and for friends and neighbors who use 3 local food pantries. In 2013, Micah’s Mobile Backpack became a reality and extended Micah's Backpack to year round outreach. Jennie earned a BA in English language and literature from the University of Virginia in 1991 and a MALS in humanities from Hollins University in 2009. In her spare time she loves to read, garden, and travel. Jennie has made Blacksburg, Virginia home for the last 15 years with her husband, 3 kids 2 dogs, and 2 cats.

Anna Isserow Anna Isserow graduated from Virginia Tech in May 2014 with degrees in environmental policy and planning, and political science. Her interest in food studies stems from the civic agriculture and food systems minor at Virginia Tech, and volunteer work at the Hale YMCA Community Garden and the farmers’ market in Blacksburg VA. Attending the International Conference on Food Studies in 2013 has connected her passion for food, healthy eating, art, community engagement, and agriculture and reinforced the focus on community identity and agriculture she holds for the future.

Chapter 1: Voices of Hunger in America

Courtney I. P. Thomas

As food scholars, we are inundated with information about food movements and consumer sovereignty. We are told to “vote with our food dollars” to ensure that the food we purchase and consume reflects our own commitments to animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and economic development. But what does this discourse mean for people who are food insecure, whose food choices reflect limited access as a result of poverty and/or unemployment? In 2011, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households. That is to say, the residents of approximately 16% of American households did not have consistent and dependable access to enough food to maintain an active, healthy life. Households with children, particularly households with children led by single women, were far more likely to be food insecure than households without children. Food insecurity in America disproportionately impacts children, the elderly, the disabled, and racial and ethnic minorities. The United States Department of Agriculture had identified 6,500 American food deserts, areas where people have a limited access to a variety of healthy and affordable foods. Yet the United States is one of the largest food producing countries in the world. It exports billions of dollars in food every year. This chapter gives voice to the hungry among us. Its content is the result of interviews with food insecure people living in food deserts who discuss, in their own words, what they eat, where they buy their food, and how they feel about their food choices (or lack thereof). My aim is not to speak for the hungry, but to instead present their stories, as told by the countless Americans who remain hungry in a land of plenty. The United States is one of the world’s leading agricultural producers and is the world’s largest food exporter. And yet millions of Americans are food insecure. That is, they do not have access to the foods necessary to live active and healthy lives. At the same time, America is in the midst of an obesity epidemic. Seemingly contradictorily, there is enormous overlap between these two populations. That is to say, a lot of people who are hungry are also obese. Why is this and what does it mean for American families and American society?

1 2 VOICES OF HUNGER

Part of the problem can be traced to two different barriers to entry in food markets faced by many poor Americans: the first, inaccessibility and the second, unavailability. The second is more easily understood. Many Americans live in areas that do not have grocery stores. This “food desert” dynamic impacts rural and urban communities across the country and poses a serious threat to food security. Consider, for example, the problem of transportation. How do you get food? You drive to a grocery store. What if you don’t have a car? You take public transit. What if there is no public transit? You walk. What if the nearest grocery store is 20 miles away? You…what? You can have all the money in the world but if you can’t get to a place to buy food that money does you no good. Of course, that isn’t the only problem for most food insecure Americans because they also have the problem of accessibility. That is to say, they don’t have a lot of money either. These Americans could live next to a grocery store but without money they still can’t acquire the food they need to survive. So let’s say you find someone to take you shopping. How often? Ideally you would shop infrequently to maximize the efficiency of each trip. However, what if you only have enough money to buy food for the week? How do Americans who are living from paycheck to paycheck in areas without grocery stores eat? The answer often comes down to two kinds of food that are readily available in most food deserts: fast food and convenience store food. But the food available in convenience stores is overpriced and the selection is limited and nutritional suboptimal. And fast food poses health risks as well. Whence, perhaps, the overlap between obesity and food insecurity. We know that the poor eat nutritionally questionable meals but we often make wrong assumptions about why. We say they’re lazy, that they don’t know any better, or that they don’t care. But poverty does not necessarily predict for irrationality as market agents. Is it possible that the poor would make different food choices if only they had the resources to do so? Research has shown that SNAP beneficiaries will buy fresh foods at farmers’ markets if given the chance thus indicating that the problem may be one of accessibility and availability rather than preference. But how do people who are hungry perceive their food choices? What do they want for themselves and their families? Hunger has always been a problem in America. Prior to the Great Depression food insecurity was battled by churches and other private charities. However, the country’s first Food Stamp Program, a pilot program, was implemented by the United States government in 1939 as part of the New Deal. From 1939-1943 recipients took the money that they would have spent on food and instead bought orange stamps from the government. For every $1 of orange stamps purchased they received 50 cents worth of blue stamps. Orange stamps could be used to buy any food available. Blue stamps could be used to buy foods that were categorized as “surplus” by the Department of Agriculture. The program advanced the mission of the USDA—to extend food security to every American—and addressed a practical problem that was at the heart of the Great Depression. Americans didn’t have money to buy food but that didn’t mean that food wasn’t available. While tens of thousands of Americans went hungry in the nation’s cities, farmers were dumping milk in the streets of rural America because they couldn’t get fair prices for their products. It was partially a problem of infrastructure as this was in the days before an interstate highway system, but it

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 3 was also a market failure associated with inaccessibility. Markets respond to people with money. When people don’t have money, they cannot act as market agents.

The program was thus framed, not as a food security measure, but as a support structure for the nation’s farmers. This is because in laissez-faire America, it was far more popular to support farmers than it was to feed the hungry.

Many things have changed. Many things have not. The Food Stamp Program was suspended from 1943 to 1961 as the war years and the 1950s brought economic prosperity back to the American people. But studies throughout that time showed a persisting need for federal food aid and in 1961 newly elected President Kennedy’s first Executive Order (#10914) called for an expanded food distribution program. This new initiative eliminated the stamps for surplus foods but still required that food stamps be purchased from the government. For their money, however, participants received more “bang per buck” enabling them to buy more food. Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of

4 VOICES OF HUNGER

Paynesville, WV were the country’s first food stamp recipients. On May 29, 1961 they bought $95 in food stamps to feed their 15 person household and bought a can of pork and beans at Henderson’s Supermarket. Many things have changed. Many things have not. By 1964 there were food stamp programs in 22 states with 380,000 participants. President Johnson requested that Congress make the program permanent as part of his War on Poverty dedicated to the creation of a Great Society. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 developed standardized eligibility requirements for all participants across states; prohibited discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation; divided responsibility for and costs of administering the program between the states and the USDA; and specified which products could be purchased with food stamps. Alcoholic beverages and imported food purchases were prohibited. The House version would have outlawed soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury frozen foods. Many things have changed. Many things have not. A bill to reform the original mandate passed in 1977. The primary change was the elimination of the purchasing requirement, a barrier that had prevented many eligible families from participating in the program. The program also restricted the eligibility for students and aliens, penalized households whose heads voluntarily quit jobs, eliminated the requirement that households must have cooking facilities, and expanded oversight requirements to reduce instances of fraud. The program came under intense scrutiny in the 1980s, the Era of Small Government, and major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted cutbacks to the program. In the late 1980s the government eliminated sales tax on food stamp purchases. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the USDA tested the Electronic Balance Transfer program, replacing physical food stamp coupons with debit cards. EBT has now replaced the traditional food stamps and made it easier for businesses and consumers alike to use federal food aid. In 2008 the Food Stamp Program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), emphasizing its role as a supplemental program. The message is clear: Americans are not supposed to be able to eat on SNAP benefits alone. But how are those benefits supplemented? Some families supplement their SNAP benefits by working one or more jobs. But often they supplement through other food security programs such as food pantries, soup kitchens, school lunch programs, and backpack programs. Enacted by an override of a Presidential veto on the precipice of the Great Recession, the 2008 law increased the federal food commitment by more than $10 billion over the following 10 years. In the aftermath of the economic collapse of 2008/2009, the 2009 Recovery Act provided a temporary boost to SNAP benefits; average benefits increased by about 20% a month beginning in April 2009. Those expired and will end on November 1, 2013. The cuts will total about $5 billion in the 2014 fiscal year. After the cuts, SNAP benefits will average less than $1.40 per person per meal. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the cuts will create hardships for families that rely on SNAP and, of course, for the 22 million children who receive federal food aid through the SNAP program, 10 million of which live in what the government calls “deep poverty” with family incomes below half of the poverty line. It reports that “the cut will be the equivalent of

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 5 taking away 21 meals per month for a family of four or 16 meals for a family of three, based on calculations using the $1.79 to $2 per meal provided for in the Thrifty Food Plan. USDA research has found that the Recovery Act’s benefit boost cut the number of households in which one or more persons had to skip meals or otherwise eat less because they lacked money—what USDA calls ‘very low food security’—by about 500,000 households in 2009.”1 This came after House Republicans split the Farm Bill’s farm and nutrition measures into separate pieces of legislation, passing the farm legislation over Democrats’ objections. Previously, the bill required compromise between the two parties. The Republicans supported the agricultural subsidies in the bill while the Democrats supported the SNAP benefits. Neither could afford to veto and thus both passed. This split leaves the future of federal food assistance very uncertain. The vitriol leveled at people who receive food aid is truly astounding. In September 2013 Panera’s CEO took the SNAP Challenge and discovered how difficult it was to live on the allotted $4.50/day. His story was covered by MSNMoney and in the comments section of the article readers expressed their views on the SNAP program and its recipients.2

x Brutus625 Sep 17, 2013 12:03PM For $4.50/day, you can buy 2 cans of fruit ($1), 2 cans of vegetables ($1), a bag of rice ($1) and a package of cheap hot dogs ($1), and have a few pennies left over. Beans aren't expensive. Ramen isn't expensive. Bread isn't expensive. Eggs aren't expensive. Bologna isn't expensive. You can make a whole pan of corn bread for less than $1. If you aren't happy eating on $4.50/day - GOOD, you shouldn't be happy or content, that's the whole friggin point - sustain yourself long enough to find a way to support yourself and buy your own food. The idea is to get off the program as fast as possible, not milk it for as long as possible and then whine and moan about what you are getting for free.

x Someone (jdmeck) Sep 17, 2013 12:41PM Food Stamps are one of the most abused and wasteful social program this country has ever developed. A family of four receives more money monthly then my family of five spends a month on food. The amount paid out each month should be cut by at least one third. Purchases by food stamps should be (if not already) restricted to the following: Fresh/frozen non prepared meats & fish, fresh/frozen non prepared vegetables, deli meats/cheeses, canned goods, breads, non sweetened dairy, and non sweetened juices. The following should always be banned, and processes need to be in place where not already, to restrict: Soda, bottled water, power and energy drinks, sweetened juices, coffee, tea, ice cream, candy, energy bars, any pre-prepared meals or

1 Dean and Rosenbaum, "SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut for Nearly All Participants In November 2013." 2 Picchi, "Panera CEO Goes Hungry on Food Stamps.”

6 VOICES OF HUNGER

sandwiches, snacks/junk food, or any food that is mail ordered or shipped anywhere. If these rules would be followed, and recipients would learn how to shop and properly eat, no one would be hungry and we the taxpayers would save billions. Tobacco and alcohol should be banned from purchase by welfare funds. No cash should be allowed to be pulled off of any assistance cards except at banks and should be limited to a very low percentage of funds…Also, SNAP is not meant to feed you three meals a day.

x Tim-K Sep 17, 2013 12:45PM The whole SNAP program is a joke. The retail grocery industry promotes SNAP because they are the direct beneficiaries of the program in sales dollars. Go into any retail grocery store and see the SNAP people picking up national brand junk food soda chips, the best steak etc...I work and my wife works (have three kids - one in College which we help out) so we have to buy Sam Choice products and the yellow stickered reduced meat at Walmart, while I watch some fat lazy SNAP recipients pick up the best meat and loads of junk. Give me a break- go back and let the Salvation Army or locals hand out government surplus food.

x Taxpayer 1 Sep 17, 2013 12:06PM What would these SNAP recipients do if the taxpayer wasn't there to feed, clothe, and house them? The dems just keep growing dependency to grow their base. If they were that hungry, I would think they would be motivated to make a few life changes.

x welala Sep 17, 2013 2:39PM We need to demolish the food stamp program. We will never get rid of teen pregnancy if we keep rewarding them for having babies. No welfare NO BABIES it's that simple!!!!!!

x minny moth Sep 17, 2013 5:00PM Can’t believe this when you see all the food stamp moms many weighing in at 400 lbs, they don't look like they ever go hungry with all that weight

x Shaun Carter Sep 17, 2013 5:24PM Why not give the recipients a box full of food that covers the staples (bread, pasta, milk, cheese, oil, and meat, and some frozen veggies). Have it all packaged in "Govt. Program boxes" and distributed at Walmart or a local food pantry. I bet you could cut the dollar amount way down and discourage frivolous spending. People might think twice

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 7

about signing up since you would have to "go get your food box" instead of regular shopping.

These comments represent a lot of the public perceptions about people who receive SNAP benefits. The problem is that most of them are wrong. The Coalition Against Hunger3 lists identified six myths about food stamp recipients. But the truth is telling.

1. People who get SNAP don’t work. FACT: SNAP benefits provided nearly $81 billion in food aid to 46.7 million Americans in 2012. About 30% of households enrolled in SNAP do work. Of all SNAP households, 49% include children, 16% include seniors, and 20% include someone disabled. In all, 76% of SNAP households contain a child, a senior, or a disabled person. 80% of SNAP recipients are either working or categorized as unable to work (children, the elderly, the disabled). 2. SNAP is a drain on taxpayers. FACT: Every $1 spent on SNAP generates $1.73 in economic activity. Keynesianism at its finest. 3. SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse. FACT: SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program. The programs fraud rate is about 3%. Research shows that the fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers. The programs administrative costs are less than 8%, way less than many nonprofit organizations and other government programs. That goes toward administrative costs, training, and nutrition education which are investments in the program and society writ large. 4. SNAP benefits go to undocumented aliens. FACT: Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for SNAP. Documented immigrants have to live in the United States for at least five years before becoming SNAP eligible. 5. Hunger isn’t a problem in my community. FACT: Yes. It is. Check out your areas hunger statistics on the USDA’s Hunger Map. 6. SNAP leads to unhealthy eating habits and obesity. FACT: No studies support this. In fact, the opposite may very well be true. SNAP benefits cannot be used to cover pet food, hygiene products, alcohol, tobacco, or other household items.

These facts and statistics are all well and good but what do they really tell us about the people they represent? What does it mean to be hungry in the world’s most agriculturally productive economy? Are SNAP recipients happy with their food choices or are they frustrated by their lack of access to specific segments of the food market such as organic foods or local foods? To find out, we talked to food insecure people and the SNAP educators who work with them in two Virginia counties. These are their stories.

3 "6 SNAP (Food Stamp) Myths."

8 VOICES OF HUNGER

Brunswick County, VA My first interviews were in Brunswick County, a four hour drive away from my home. I set out early one morning just after sending my kids off to their daycare. Along the way my GPS detoured me from the main road (which was not even an interstate highway but a two lane state road) onto a series of back roads and byways. At one point I got stuck behind a horse drawn carriage near an Amish community. For more than an hour I drove through rural Virginia. I saw no grocery stores, no fast food restaurants, no places to buy food at all despite the fact that I was surrounded by the some of the state’s most productive agricultural land. I drove down the main streets of towns that were completely devoid of places to eat. After hours of driving I finally found a gas station, the first for many miles. I went inside to use the rest room and discovered that this was also the community “grocery store.” There was a small fast food grill, a few shelves of canned items, and a fresh produce cooler that held two heads of lettuce and a bunch of overripe bananas. I couldn’t figure out why my GPS took me on such a convoluted route but it did give me the opportunity to see first-hand the food availability, or lack thereof, in one of the state’s food deserts. Brunswick County is one of the poorest in Virginia. There is a Food Lion in town and a Walmart about ten miles away. There are several fast food restaurants, a pizza parlor, a Mexican restaurant, and a Chinese carry-out. Richmond, the state capital, is about an hour away and is the nearest large city. Ten percent of the households are more than one half mile from a supermarket and do not own vehicles. I interviewed participants in the SNAP education program at the local government building that houses the SNAP program and its employees.

Subject #1:

A mom in her late 20s to early 30s arrives with three children. The youngest is two and she chews on her pacifier while looking at me with huge, brown eyes. The mom lives with the children, their father, and her mother. She immediately shatters every stereotype of a woman receiving SNAP benefits. She feeds her family an organic, home grown, gluten free, red dye free, low sodium diet. She shops at farmers’ markets and drives 3 hours round trip to Whole Foods once a month to buy groceries. She lives near the landfill but “gardens” in pots on her porch. She would love to see more local food choices and exercise facilities. She does not work outside of the home. She had read a lot about food choices, and was excited to talk about how she feeds her family.

We drive to the Whole Foods in Richmond, an hour and a half away, to shop. We grow our own vegetables—tomatoes, cucumbers, broccoli, cauliflower. When I cook, I sneak in the vegetables. I’m going to try avocado chocolate chip cookies. The only ingredient that I cannot find around here is the vegetarian chocolate chips.

It takes me three hours to grocery shop because I have to read the labels. My kids are allergic to red dye. It’s a pesticide and if they eat it they’ll be climbing up the walls. We just found out that our daughter is sensitive to gluten. My mom has high blood pressure so we have to watch the

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 9

sodium intake. We go once a month and stock up on what we need. We can find what we need at Whole Foods. Sometimes we order online. It has to be low sodium, gluten free, dye free, low sugar. My son is very picky about what food looks like and the textures. We make our own brownie mix because a lot of it is too sweet. We cut the sugar out or add Splenda. Birthday parties—oh my. No juice, no Hawaiian punch.

We go to the local farmer’s market. We get all our string beans from there and we can them. We’ll go to the strawberry patch and make our own jellies. I don’t trust what’s in these things nowadays. Everybody is getting sick. Food Lion is okay but we tried coconut from there one day and it was mildewed. My son will not eat it to this day.

We grew peas for the first time this year. Before I could get them in the house my daughter said, “Peas, mama, candy.” She calls them candy. Fresh, uncooked, off the vine. Tomatoes, string beans, cauliflower, broccoli. They love their vegetables raw. My girls eat anything; it’s my boy who’s picky.

It’s hard to get fresh fruits and vegetables. We have a farmer’s market but it’s so expensive. I can go thirty minutes farther and get the same thing and pay less and get twice as much. We can get natural honey. There’s a man who shows the kids how they make honey. He has a clover field. My kids love it because they see the difference between the spring honey and the darker fall honey. When we go they have to pick one thing new that they haven’t seen or one thing new that they haven’t tried. Last year it was figs. We cooked them with pork chops with string beans and Italian dressing. They loved it.

Mama has to come up with ingenious ways to sneak foods in. Cauliflower in the mac and cheese to thicken the cheese sauce. We saw that one on Pinterest. We get the big bags of frozen fruit at Sam’s club. They love Greek yogurt. They don’t like the other kind. We’ll throw Greek yogurt in with apple juice and frozen fruit and they’ll drink it. It’s better than the Poweraid that their friends drink. They’ll put it in the cooler and drink it at the ball games. Everyone else has Gatorade but it has too much salt.

We cook most of our meals. We very seldom eat out. There are very few options. I’d rather fix homemade French fries and homemade chicken nuggets. My husband went out and got the kids chicken nuggets and they were perfectly round. My kids said they, “They’re salty. They burn my tongue.” They ate the apple slices.

Instead of fast food we’ll make baked potato rounds and my son will use cookie cutters to make shapes and put his own spices on. They’d rather have baked than fried. That’s what we do with chicken nuggets. We’ll coat them with corn flakes or rice crispies.

10 VOICES OF HUNGER

I’m always looking for the organic food. There are too many pesticides in the other food. When I heard about the spinach outbreak [E. coli outbreak in 2007] and now we grow our own. We plant in pots so we can step out on our front porch so we can get what we need.

I’d love to see more organic foods in our grocery stores. A Whole Foods locally would be great. My family members are vegetarians and shopping is hard. I’ll take orders and go to the Farmer’s Market and bring food back. It’s bad. I’ll go to the grocery store and see people who only shop once a month and they buy things like frozen pizza, chips. People ask why I don’t have that and I say that my kids won’t eat it. We’re trying to watch our weight. I know so many people who have gastric bypass and die from it. We watch what we eat. It would be nice to have a place to go to do different sports. We recently took our daughter to get her hearing aids [near Richmond] and we went to the batting cages. The parks here aren’t really friendly and there’s nothing for the little kids. My kids are outside kids. We can’t walk on our road because we live where the landfill is. But I wish there were more places to exercise.

Subject #2:

A mom in her early to mid-20s arrives with four children ages 8, 7, 2, and 1. She works part time. Her grandmother and grandfather help around the house. The children’s father is works in another town and is home on the weekends. Her family hunts for meat. She was very excited to tell me about how hunting feeds her family. She was just diagnosed with cervical cancer and doesn’t know how that will impact her family.

I have to feed me and the four kids during the week and their dad on weekends. He works out of town. My grandmother stays in between houses.

We eat a lot of deer meat. We’re not big on store bought meat; we hunt. We eat yogurt, fruits, vegetables, cereal. We have soda when we’re at my dad’s but the kids don’t get it.

We shop at Food Lion. It’s about five minutes from my home. I keep a list and pick up what I need. We compare labels. I try to teach them to look at the differences between different kinds of foods. We don’t go to the farmer’s market because I’m not interested. I don’t like to shop anywhere but Food Lion. We don’t buy organic food or eat locally produced foods except the meat that we hunt.

A normal meal would be macaroni and cheese, mashed potatoes, and deer meat. We make the deer meat into burgers and sausage. I do all of my cooking at home. We don’t eat out much. The kids like oranges, grapefruit. They love a lot of fruit. They’re not big on vegetables, except

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 11

corn, and they're not big on meat. My one year old will eat a lot of meat but the rest aren’t big on it. Fruits, vegetables, and yogurts. We buy different kinds. I just bought the low fat vanilla. I’m going to make the peanut butter dip that we learned about in [the SNAP] class.

I go to the grocery store about once a month unless I run out of something or I really need something. I take all four kids with me when I go.

I get recipes off boxes and from the SNAP classes. We do classes once a week for six weeks. We talk about product labels and comparisons like between hamburger meat and turkey. We talk about sodium and fast foods. We talk about germs. The SNAP office gets food and we cook it. We get kitchen tools and shopping lists. We read food labels. In one class we looked at ramen noodles and saw that the noodles had no trans- fat or salt but the packets did and that was hidden.

Since I’ve been taking the classes I’ve made a lot of changes. I’ve been making healthier choices. Instead of buying hamburger I buy turkey. I’ve learned to use garlic powder instead of garlic salt. The other night we made sloppy joes and we don’t have to drain the meat because there’s so little grease. We eat whole wheat spaghetti noodles. We know because whole wheat is the first ingredient.

We eat our meals together unless the kids in school. They’d rather me pack their lunch than eat the school lunch. Every once and a while I’ll buy a junk food snack for them but that’s not very often. I have bags of chips in the house that haven’t been eaten. They’re not interested in junk food. When I pack a lunch for my daughter to take to school she gets chicken salad, Ritz whole grain wheat crackers, peaches, an apple, and some kind of juice like Kool Aid.

Subject #3:

An African-American single mom with three kids ages 5, 3, and 5 months who works at the local pizza parlor. She couldn’t get off work to come to the SNAP office for the interview but I dropped by the restaurant and she was willing to speak with me. She gave very short and direct answers. Unlike Subject #1, who had a lot to say and was excited to share her ideas and experiences, Subject #3 was quiet and more reserved as if she wasn’t quite sure why I wanted to talk to her. She was very proud to tell me that she could read the interview consent form by herself.

Four people live at home, me and the three kids. We shop and Food Lion or McDonald’s. The kids like spaghetti, pizza, and French fries. They also like fruits and vegetables and milk.

12 VOICES OF HUNGER

Sometimes I cook meals. Sometimes I buy things to cook from scratch. And sometimes we eat out. Our favorite meal is fried chicken, greens, corn, and rolls. I don’t shop at the farmer’s market. We eat out at McDonald’s, Hardees, and Pico’s pizza.

When I shop, I make a list of the things I need. I’m learning to make healthier meals. Instead of buying prepared meals or tv dinners, I’m learning to make my own foods. I learned to cook by watching my mom but now I’m making changes. I started eating turkey instead of beef. We try new recipes together. When I shop I look at the sales papers. I compare the store brand with the name brand. I like to try new recipes that the kids like. They cook with me. We’re making healthier meals.

Subject #4:

Subject #4 is a single mother who works for the SNAP-Ed program. She was on food stamps for several years after a bad car accident. She brings a lot of personal experience to her work and uses that experience to better relate to her students.

I was a single mom, I was on food stamps. I remember having to stretch my food dollars. For nine years my daughter and I were on food stamps and we would go to the grocery store once a month. We would go to Walmart and get everything we needed. I’d go to the local Food Lion once a month if I needed milk or bread during the month.

Now that I’m teaching the SNAP classes, it’s nice to hear the participants repeat back what we’ve taught them.

For the most part, they shop based on convenience even if it is more expensive. I tell them to be wary of convenience. Everywhere is selling soda. It’s on the endcaps. And I’ll see people in the stores and they’ll have soda lined all the way around their carts. They have the frozen pizza, the frozen this, the frozen that. And I tell them that you pay extra for the convenience.

The average home size around here is two parents and at least two kids. They generally shop at Food Lion, sometimes at fruit stands.

Transportation is a big problem for our clientele. They don’t have transportation. It’s hard to get people to come to classes. They get either a $25 or $50 gas card for coming but it’s not limited to gas and most of them don’t use them for fuel. They can get anything that’s in the convenience store at the gas station.

Our clients don’t really use coupons because they have the SNAP benefits. We talk about using the generic brands instead of the name brands. And we tell them when they choose foods to look at the labels and think about the salt and sugar content. Even though money is tight

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 13

they don’t really change the way mom or granny taught them to eat because that’s what they know.

Before the classes we see way more processed food or convenience foods in their diets. Most have never tried ground turkey, never even thought of ground turkey. We try to show them that eating healthy doesn’t cost a lot of money. It can with mostly organic. But we give them easy alternatives. We tell them that if you can’t get fresh, get frozen. If you can’t get frozen, get canned. We talk to them about added salt and sugar. They cringe about yogurt and cottage cheese because they don’t eat like that. Some want different choices but some do not. Some aren’t going to change form how they were bought up.

We talk about the difference between juice and punch and we show them how much sugar is in soda and things like Capri Sun. We talk about things they’d never try on their own. We buy the foods at the Food Lion, where many of them shop, and we cook the recipe together. They’re exposed to different ingredients and foods and they get equipment like thermometers to check the temperature of the food.

Of the people who don’t come to classes, a lot report that “almost always” they eat less than they should because there’s not enough money because they’re not buying what they should. They’re spending more money and not realizing what they could get. So many have the frozen pizza when they could get a whole chicken, a whole turkey, a roast. By the third week of the month they’re out of food. They go to a church or a food bank or they go without.

The Farmer’s Market in South Hill reports that it’s doing very well. It’s recently re-opened. The ones that use it report that they enjoy it but a lot don’t have access to it because that’s 17 miles away.

Our clients recognize the difference between the taste of organic and conventional but a lot don’t understand what it means to be organic or not organic. There are some who grow their own food. There are a lot of farmers in the area.

Most of our clients can read and write but most do not have a high school education. Some have a college education. This is one of the poorest areas in the state. Some work. There are jobs at stores and local companies but there is high unemployment. Kids stay with grandparents or neighbors while their parents work. For a lot of the kids, their only meals are the free or reduced breakfast and lunch at school.

Montgomery County, VA On the other end of the state, Montgomery County, Virginia is home to Virginia Tech, Radford University, a rapidly growing population, a world-renowned

14 VOICES OF HUNGER corporate research center, and Blacksburg, the largest town in the state. It is an agricultural community with an active local food movement and with hundreds of grocery stores and restaurants. It is also a food desert. Why? Because as soon as you drive beyond the town limits of Blacksburg/Christiansburg/Radford you find yourself in tiny towns with no grocery stores, no restaurants, and very few food options. There is no system of public transportation. In the more remote regions of the county, the poorest regions by far, the nearest grocery stores are a half hour’s drive away. This is the place where I’ve lived for most of my life. I met with Subject #5 in her apartment in a local low-income housing complex in Christiansburg that is managed by Community Housing Partners. She is in her mid to late 60s. Her apartment is small with beautiful antique dolls that used to belong to her daughter. She has a flower garden outside her first story window. She worked for the Russell Corporation in North Carolina and lived there for about 25 years. She says that when the company went out of business so did she. She moved to Christiansburg when her daughter relocated there. Her daughter lives across the hall. She has five children and ten living grandchildren but she lives alone and is the only person who eats in her home. The nearest grocery store is less than one mile away. There are more than a dozen restaurants within a one mile radius of her home. Four grocery stores in particular are within a few miles of her home. The cheapest food is at the Dollar General Market but it also has the most limited selection. Food Lion and Kroger compete for the next lowest prices. Wades, the locally owned grocery store, tends to be more expensive but does a discount day for seniors and includes a very large and relatively inexpensive prepared foods section. It has a number of clearance sales as well.

I mostly buy at Wades and sometimes at the Dollar General Market. I don’t eat a lot of meat and if I do I’ll get it at Wades [Wades has a butcher on staff and generally has the best quality meat in town]. The Dollar General is a little cheaper than Wades. I drive to the store because I own my own car. I shop about twice a week to pick up a little something here and a little something there.

I buy stuff to make salads, pinto beans, green beans, potatoes, fruit, apples, pears, plums. I used to buy bananas but they make me sick. I don’t eat a lot of meat because I’d rather have chicken or turkey. I do eat a hamburger once in a while. I make spaghetti with hamburger meat. I made a bowl of that earlier this week.

When I shop, I go in and look to decide what I want. I look at sales papers whenever I get them. I use coupons if I can find them.

I prepare my meals at home. I come from a family of thirteen children. I’m the oldest. I took care of nine boys while mom and daddy worked. I had to learn from my mother. I learned the best I could. We were poor so we ate a lot of gravy and biscuits and eggs. I eat pinto beans but I don’t care for them. I like them with fried onions and cornbread. I like boiled

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 15

eggs not fried eggs. I’ll eat salads and sandwiches. With just me, I’m not going to cook a lot of food.

I went to Country Cookin’ yesterday [about a mile away; meals cost about $5-$8 with the Senior Citizen Discount and includes an all you can eat salad and vegetable bar. You can eat the salad bar there and take home the meal as carry out to stretch the experience over two meals.]. I had green beans, sweet potatoes, and corn. Then I made a salad. I can only eat iceberg lettuce. I had lettuce, tomato, and a few cucumbers and a little bit of boiled egg and I had thousand island dressing. And I had a bowl of fruit. Pineapple, watermelon, cantaloupe. One roll and one piece of strawberry cake and one glass of tea. That’s my favorite meal. I love salads. I eat crackers with them because that makes them taste better.

I eat out occasionally. I eat at Country Cookin’. I go to Hardees, most of the time to get a breakfast sandwich. I’ve been to Wendy’s a few times. They have a good chicken sandwich. I’ve been to McDonald’s maybe twice. I don’t know why I skip over it because they have good food. On Sunday I’ll go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and get a meal—a chicken breast, slaw, and potatoes. I only eat twice on Sunday, once before I go to church and once when I come home.

I don’t eat organic foods and I’ve never been to a farmers’ market. I don’t grow my food. I can’t even keep flowers in my yard. The kids in the complex tear them up. I had a sunflower yesterday, the first sunflower I ever grew, and the kids destroyed it.

Our SNAP educator, comes to the community building. She always brings something new for us to learn to cook. One time she made salad. She made us smoothies but I didn’t like them. It was peach but I didn’t like it. She makes different kinds of things that we don’t usually eat. But when you get used to something, sometimes you don’t want to eat other things. She tells us how much salt is in food, how much sugar, how much grease, especially in fast food and stuff like that. I don’t eat out that much myself. I’ve been aiming to try some of the recipes. She had sweet potato French fries and I’d like to try that. I love sweet potatoes.

I don’t eat much bread. I haven’t made bread since I’ve been here. If I want bread I buy a can of biscuits. I do make sandwiches once in a while.

I’m on fifteen medications including high blood pressure medicine, Coumadin (a blood thinner), and Zoloft. I have to be careful. I’m not supposed to eat anything dark green or with Vitamin K. No celery, no spinach, no collards. No one has given me recipes of what I could eat that doesn’t have that. I love green stuff. I do eat the lettuce. But I have asked everyone for recipes.

16 VOICES OF HUNGER

The nearest grocery store is the Food Lion, about a mile away. I’ll go in every once in a while to pick up one or two things.

Tonight I’ll have a salad because I didn’t eat breakfast until 12:00.

It’s hard to buy food because every time you go to the store things have gotten more expensive. You have to make do with less money every time. I’m just cooking for me but it’s hard with gas and medicines and everything else. I do my best but every month you get less and less.

I met Subject #6 in the house she rents in Radford. She is a single mom in her mid-30s. She has three children—an 18 year old son who just graduated from High School, a 12 year old son, and a 13 year old son with autism. The boys’ fathers do not pay child support. She escaped an abusive marriage with all three boys and now owns her own home-based craft business. She has also become very involved with a local non-profit group and dedicates about 40 hours a week as an unpaid volunteer to the organization. She lives with her boyfriend who works full time and as much overtime as he can manage at a local manufacturing plant. Their combined income recently made them ineligible for SNAP benefits.

Usually Walmart is the only place we can afford to buy food. We’ve gone everywhere else and compared prices with the foods that we have to have. We’ve even tried to go to Wades, which sells shitty stuff, but it’s still more expensive than Walmart. If he’s at work with the car, I’ll send a boy down to Wades with cash (or food stamps, if there are any left) to buy what we need. I do give the kids $5 a month to buy candy and they go the Farmers’ Market to do it because they have the big buckets of choose your own candy.

It’s about a ten minute drive to Walmart and about a ten minute walk to Wades. Those are the closest grocery stores.

We’ve cut back to buying food once a week. We used to do it every two weeks or once a month if we could, just to make sure we had enough. When he began to work full time the government cut our food stamps and we had to go to once a week because they only give us enough for a week. [This is a problem: the SNAP educators work with families on meal planning because you can save a lot of money if you do large grocery trips once a month instead of small frequent trips. However, when benefits are cut and families only have enough for the week they have to shop more frequently. They can’t take advantage of as many sales, they can’t buy in bulk, and they are far more likely to convenience shop or impulse buy.]

We basically buy food from paycheck or whenever I get an order [for my handicraft business]. We try to use the food stamps to buy the meat because that’s the most expensive and then we use the cash to buy everything else. But sometimes we’re so low on food we use the food

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 17

stamps for whatever we need and save the rest for later. But that very rarely works out. We just end up not having anything to eat in the house.

We try to go down the middle because we can’t afford the healthy stuff but I don’t want them eating crap. We don’t buy potato chips because that’s 50% air and who can afford to buy air? Their breakfast is usually pancakes or oatmeal. I cook dinner but the kids are responsible for breakfast and lunch on their own. Every now and then we trade off. For dinners I try to make sure we have meat, a vegetable (canned or frozen because fresh is too expensive), and a starch (usually mashed potatoes in a box because the fresh ones are too expensive). You have to buy the cheapest foods you can when you have teenage kids and a mom with several jobs that she doesn’t get paid for. And then they get their candy budget. Cause they’re kids and they need it. And I’m not a Nazi.

Fresh produce is too expensive. We try to make a budget so they can have fresh fruits and vegetables once a week. The kids like green apples and bananas. I try to make dinners that incorporate them (like fajitas) so that a pepper or onion will go farther. A lot of things the adults like, the kids won’t eat. So we don’t waste money on things they won’t eat.

Organic foods? No. I’m not paying an extra eighty cents for nothing. It’s a pretty package but who can afford that?

We go to the farmers’ market once a year. The kids go more often for the big cheap candy. I think local foods are great and as an owner of a local business I’m all about it, but they need to charge reasonable prices. I can’t afford to buy what they’re selling even though I’d like to.

We choose what to buy mostly based on what the kids will eat. I can’t afford to buy things they won’t eat. I try to do coupons but it takes way too much time. Maybe if I had fewer jobs. It wasn’t bad before they changed all the rules but you can’t get all the stuff for free anymore. It used to be awesome. I’d get so much free stuff. TV shows ruin it for everyone.

I wish I could buy different foods. I’d rather have vegetables and fruits. I had to stop my diet because I can’t afford the healthy stuff. At least when we were getting more SNAP money we could afford yogurt. Now I get the big tubs and I have to ration it. I had to cut back a lot on what I could eat. I wanted to try putting my son on a gluten free diet to see how it would affect his autism but I’m not sure we can afford to do that right now. I’d love to buy more seafood. I don’t buy that because it’s too expensive and they won’t eat it. We don’t kiwi. We’re not rich enough for kiwi. I think you need to show a paystub to buy a kiwi.

The kids consider McDonald’s or pizza to be a good meal. I think a good meal is what I make them for dinner: meat, side, vegetable.

18 VOICES OF HUNGER

They eat breakfast and lunch at school during the week. They love the school year. The summers are hard. We’re always ridiculously broke during the summer. That’s one of the reasons I hate the summer. Everyone says that summers are great because there’s camping and the lake and picnics and all that. But that’s only good if you can afford it. If you work all the time you can’t do those things. And if you don’t have any money it’s hard to keep the kids occupied and fed over the summer.

I do most of my cooking at home, about 98%. I don’t eat in restaurants. If we do to out we try to get the kids McDonald’s or something. Our goal is to do that once every couple weeks but it probably ends up happening once a month. It happens more now that our food stamps were cut because if we’re going to pay cash anyway we might as well. Its’ cheaper than what we can make at home. We keep it at most to once a week because I don’t want them thinking they can eat crap because they’re poor. [Here is another problem: as families lose benefits they cook less and eat more fast food. If they have to pay cash anyway, they might as well pay cash for really cheap fast food.]

I want to start a vegetable garden now that we have a house. I have herbs now but I want to make it bigger. We have to see if we’re going to stay here but there’s a big back yard. I didn’t know that you could buy seedlings with food stamps. That doesn’t matter because we won’t get them next year.

If I could tell people who are at the conference one thing it’d be this: don’t be dicks. I think the most annoying thing about food stamps is Facebook. People are judgmental but it’s because they don’t qualify because they won’t get a job or because they were born rich and don’t have a clue what it’s like to live off the amount they give you. It’s hard. We work and it’s still hard. He hasn’t had a weekend off in six months but we still don’t have anything to eat today.

We haven’t had to supplement with food pantries yet. We end up donating more than we get. The schools send home stuff and people give us stuff but the kids won’t eat it. I don’t want it to go to waste so we drop it off so someone else can use it. It’s hard to find a food pantry that doesn’t want to tell you about Jesus. I have religion. I need food.

The kids used to get the backpacks which is completely stupid because there’s nothing in there that qualifies as real food. Little boxes of cereal, fruit roll ups, instant oatmeal. I’d rather them not have that. Nothing that you could actually cook or get real food out of. I’d send them off to their rooms to share what was in there but it didn’t help us put together a meal.

It’s hard. We only get a few dollars a day to feed our entire family. And we pay taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, sales taxes. We’re about to

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 19

have all the food stamps taken away. I don’t know what we’ll do but we’ll figure it out.

Subject #7 was the SNAP Educator for Montgomery County. She teaches classes about nutrition and exercise and helps recipients get as much out of their benefits as they can.

There are usually four or five people per family. A lot of seniors receive SNAP and they tend to live by themselves. Most of the households have a single parent or a grandparent with the grandchildren.

Most people buy their food at Food Lion and Kroger. I’ve been told that the Dollar General has some frozen food and canned food. Some of my participants have said that the one close to their homes has food that they can buy.

My clients in Shawsville don’t have a grocery store so they have to go to Salem or Christiansburg to buy groceries. That’s about ten or fifteen miles away. Transportation doesn’t seem to be an issue. Most people can either catch a ride with someone if they don’t have a car or take the bus. I volunteer at the Elliston food pantry and people come together. It’s more difficult in the remote towns. I did a program in Pulaski that was on a bus line so clients could go to Food Lion or the food pantry. A lot of my people have to go to food pantries as well to supplement. I saw one woman at two different food pantries on back to back nights. She had a large family.

Very few use the farm stands or the farmers’ markets. They say it’s too expensive.

I get a feeling that they shop one or two times a week, multiple trips. I try to teach them to make fewer, large trips and to plan ahead. That’s hard with this population because they’re surviving and they live stressful lives. They can’t plan ahead so they go when it’s urgent.

They tend to buy more processed foods. Cereal. Bread. Boxed foods. Mac n cheese. Pork and beans. Canned foods. Convenience is key. A lot of the young people don’t do a lot of cooking. They fix dinner out of a can. It’s quicker that way.

In my classes, I try to do a recipe after every nutrition talk. I use fresh foods, whatever is in season. I went through a lot of peaches. We made smoothies and peach French toast. I tell them to use whole grain bread and fruit. We made sweet potato home fries. I feel like people will like fresh foods the more they’re exposed to them. People are so far from that that they don’t think that the fresh foods taste good. I want to show them all the different ways they can cook fresh foods, to say, “This is what I

20 VOICES OF HUNGER

can do to green beans.” Use different seasonings like garlic instead of salt or cheese and make a lot of different things.

My clients choose food based on taste and preference. If someone is used to eating pork and beans that’s that they go for every time. People don’t like to try new things. I find that a lot of the senior groups eat the frozen dinners because they don’t want to cook for just one person. Typical meals in my clients’ homes are usually boxed or frozen. Frozen pizza or chicken nuggets. French fries out of the bag. I used to think meat and vegetables, but I don’t think it’s like that anymore.

I think advertising plays some kind of role. But some people tell me that they’ll just buy the store brand rather than the name brand because it’s cheaper. The kids go for the brands and they do influence the purchasing decisions.

I hear a lot of complaints about the cost. It’s expensive to eat healthy. I think they’re happy with the junk food because you can’t go wrong with a candy bar but I hear a lot of complaints about the costs of chicken, beef, fruits and vegetables. Everyone has their own preferences and places that they think have the best quality foods.

I hear a lot say that they’d like to buy steak but they can’t because it’s expensive. It’s usually meat that they don’t buy because of the expense. It’s never something exotic. They say that nuts are very expensive.

Most of them cook at home. They eat at a lot of restaurants. I knew a couple that treats itself once a month to go to a restaurant in Pulaski. They’re on a very tight budget with SNAP and food pantries but they treat themselves once a month. I try to encourage cooking at home because you get more foods. I know clients that eat at places like Red Lobster. They probably rely more heavily on the fast food but a lot do go to sit down restaurants. Though after my nutrition lessons they may not want to go to fast food again.

They don’t buy organic foods. That’s not a thought, an option, or a care.

I don’t think they seek out locally produced food. Whatever is easiest to go out and get is what they get. If it involves an extra step, they’re not likely to do it. The food pantries might have local surplus in the summers but I’m not sure that going out and seeking local food is a priority.

I don’t think they’re growing their own foods. No one has mentioned a garden or even a container garden.

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 21

The adults in the households are typically not working. There are young couples, both on disability, that don’t work. Most seniors don’t work. It’s gotten worse since the Great Recession.

There’s not enough access to fresh foods. It’s a struggle for a lot of families. Most people I work with, and they’re young people, suffer from diabetes. Or heart disease or obesity.

It’s important to remember that SNAP is supplemental. People cannot buy an entire month’s groceries on SNAP. They supplement with food pantries, soup kitchens, backpack programs. Food is a basic human right and not everyone has enough food. I try to give them as much information about where to get food, food pantries and soup kitchens. The quality of food that people receive at food banks and even at stores is problematic. I don’t like the foods that they give out. The food pantries take the food from Kroger, cakes, breads, doughnuts and I’m not sure that those foods are helping anyone but I guess some food is better than no food. I’m not sure why the food pantries accept those things. I’ve heard that people will choose the white bread over the whole grains because that’s what they’re familiar with.

Subject #8 and her husband are both college graduates. Her husband just finished a second degree and she is working on a second degree as well. They are considered low income mainly because of a job loss that kept them on one income off and on for 2 years. In that time they got behind on a lot of things and most of their income is going to pay off back debt and current car repairs. They do not qualify for food stamps but they do receive WIC benefits.

I typically buy my food at Kroger or Walmart, depending on where I have the best deals with coupons. Every once in a while I will go to Food Lion. All three stores are less than 10 minute away from me. I am buying for 4 people: 2 adults, a 4 year old, and a 16 month old. The two kids get their lunch at school/daycare so it is breakfast and dinner most days that I have to worry about. I try to cook as many meals as possible. When I cook I try to have two vegetables, one meat, and one carb/bread. When my husband cooks, it's a different story. I used to subsist on Hamburger/Chicken/Tuna helpers but as those all have MSG in them. I cannot eat them anymore and am looking for alternatives. I have chronic migraines so I have to watch all food labels for MSG, MSG producing ingredients, and artificial sugars. My oldest daughter had surgery when she was 9 months old that resulted in the loss of all but 1/6 of her large intestines and so must have low (but not fake) sugar foods and no apples. It makes shopping on a shoestring budget extremely difficult.

What tends to happen is that I make the helper meals for the family and eat a salad or yogurt myself. I cannot afford to purchase organic food but would dearly love to if I had the funds. In the summer I did try to go to the locals farmers’ market but as with organic, it is more expensive than

22 VOICES OF HUNGER

what I can buy at Walmart so I don't do it often. I always buy the store brands except for certain items (low sugar yogurt). I did invest in a raised planter garden this summer. I got tomatoes, lettuce and two crops of peas out of it. I intend to do more lettuce next summer. I am on WIC for the milk/egg help. I have almost a complete meal I can make using a combination of WIC checks and we make it at least 1 time a week.

My ideal meal would be the two veggies, one meat, and one carb I mentioned but those veggies being organic or local and the meat being antibiotic free. I would prefer the carb being real potatoes or whole wheat pasta. Typically it is frozen veggies with cheap, high fat meat and instant rice or mashed potatoes.

Subject #9 is feeding a family of four: herself, her husband, her 25 year old brother, and her 5 year old daughter. She lives in a rural area of Montgomery County, about five miles from Christiansburg and 15 from Blacksburg with her husband and brother. Her daughter just started kindergarten.

I’m feeding a family of four. My brother is living with us part time. So I’m cooking for four but it’s more like five because my brother eats for two. I usually buy food at Kroger but I’ll occasionally shop at Target or Walmart, depending on where I am. Shopping at Kroger gets us gas points. We drive to the one in Christiansburg. It’s exactly six miles away. I usually go once a week unless we run out of something like milk in the middle of the week.

What we buy depends on what we feel like eating or our mood for the week. We get different proteins. Taco stuff. My daughter is big into frozen dinners. My brother likes pizza so we get a lot of frozen pizza. I’ll buy whatever catches my eye. We go based on what’s on sale and what we have coupons to buy. We do digital coupons so that I don’t have to cut them out. That works well. They update them every week. My five year old helps determine what we buy. We have to get things that she likes for snacks after school. We have to get the cherry pop tarts.

I’m happy with the food we buy. No one complains except when it’s gone and I have to go shopping again. There’s nothing that I’d like to buy but I don’t. Especially now that Kroger sells Taylor ham and I don’t have to go to New Jersey to buy it.

My family’s favorite is chicken teriyaki. Chicken, rice, teriyaki sauce, sometimes mushrooms but my brother isn’t a big fan of those. If it grows in the ground, he doesn’t eat it.

I usually cook at home. I’d say about 99% of the time. I haven’t had a lot of money to go out to eat. My aunt sent some money for me to travel to New Jersey and there was some left over so we went out for Chinese food because we hadn’t had that in a while. Tonight I’m cooking a

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 23

London Broil. My daughter usually eats breakfast at home but gets free lunch there. This morning she had a cherry frosted pop tart. If she runs out of those, she’ll eat mine—the strawberry unfrosted ones.

If we go to a restaurant it’s usually fast food. We like O’Charley’s and Macado’s. We look at places that have the kids eat free nights.

I do not buy kiwi. I think I’ve bought them once but they’re not on my normal shopping list.

We don’t usually buy organic foods. They’re little more expensive so we maximize our food stamp money. We usually buy store brands.

My husband’s mom gives us duck eggs because she raises ducks. She sells them at Eats in Blacksburg. Don’t usually go to the farmer’s market.

We don’t grow our own food. We tried. I tried to grow zucchini but the deer ate the squash blossoms. I don’t have a green thumb.

Kroger is pretty much the closest grocery store. There’s a small market at the gas station up the road but they’re overpriced. They’re good if you want a soda but that’s about it.

Last night we had leftover Chinese food. We had stuffed salmon the night before because Kroger had that on sale. My daughter had a pot pie. My brother took a sandwich to work.

We’re not all lazy bums who are on food stamps.

Subject #10 is in her late twenties. She holds a BA in English and an MA in Human Development. She currently works on a contact through AmeriCorps as a program developer for a childcare center. Her monthly income is approximately $700 but she’s been furloughed since the government shutdown. She has a chronic case of Lyme’s Disease that she has been treating aggressively for the last year. She lives with her boyfriend who works as a cook at a local inn/conference center.

Two people eat regularly in my home. I shop at Kroger and the Farmer’s Market. You get double points on SNAP benefits at the Farmer’s Market. [This benefit is funded by local charities and depends on donations. It is currently not available.] You go in, swipe your card, you get your tokens, and they never expire. You get twice as much for your money. I choose Kroger over Food Lion because Food Lion is a little overpriced by comparison. I get gas reward points at Kroger and get twice as many because my prescriptions are there. I travel at least two miles to buy food. I generally shop once every two weeks but I might make small trips for milk or eggs or something like that.

24 VOICES OF HUNGER

When deciding what to buy I look at the bare necessities that will put together meals and that are decently healthy if I can and I put together my lists. I didn’t do that before I was on SNAP but when you have $200 to spend in a month you have to make it count. I don’t have the luxury to roam around the store browsing anymore.

I buy a decent amount of fresh produce. Eggs. Milk. Bread. Some canned soups. The majority is spent on fresh produce or frozen items. Frozen meats, some frozen veggies, I will always get the clearance meats and pop them in the freezer. That’s almost exclusively how I buy meats. I buy deli meats for sandwiches. When I’m shopping I get very little processed foods. He buys pop tarts, energy drinks, and things like that. I won’t support that. He has to buy it. My stuff is all fresh produce. Coco Wheats are my junk food.

I choose based on necessity. We need to have our staple foods and I’ll buy those every two weeks. Beyond that…well…at this point I don’t buy for other reasons. We’re buying for sustenance, to get us through every day.

I do coupons but not as much as I should. I just found out about Kroger’s digital coupons and I’ll use that more but I don’t look online for coupons and I don’t receive a newspaper that has coupons so my access is limited. I look at the sales and decide what to buy from that. We don’t have television, we don’t get the paper, and I haven’t had cable in a decade so advertising doesn’t play a big role in what we buy.

For the most part, I’m happy with the foods I buy for my family. A big part of that is the ability to go to a Farmer’s Market. I’m supporting my local economy, I get better produce, and I get twice the food. For the most part, I make the best decisions of food to bring into the house with what we have. However, because there is a limit on what I can spend on food, it does determine what I can buy. Before, I would have gotten an all natural, whole grain bread. Now I’m getting an 88 cent Kroger loaf that’s on sale because that fits into the budget better.

I like to have a protein and two types of veggies for supper. That’s a good meal. I don’t do a lot of pasta and bread but I’ll fix it for him. But usually our plates have protein and two veggies, more veggies for me. I haven’t yet converted him to meatless Monday or anything like that. He won’t even try deep fried tofu. I was on a gluten free diet for a time. The transition wasn’t difficult because I don’t eat a lot of those things anyway. I used to juice but now I can’t because I can’t afford that much bulk produce.

I cook at home. My mom cooked all our meals; it was a rarity that we ate out. So I learned from her. I almost always cook dinners. I fix myself breakfast occasionally and a lunch to take to work occasionally. For a

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 25

very special occasion we will eat out and that might be a $1 menu hamburger because there’s no money for that right now. Sometimes my mom will send a gift card and we’ll go out.

I actually do occasionally buy kiwi. My boyfriend loves kiwi. He taught me that you can eat it with the skin on and that’s not so bad. That’s now a treat. It’s not an every trip thing. I’ll buy them if they’re on sale but it’s a special occasion.

I used to buy organic food. I was a Whole Foods junkie. When I had the money I’d spend $50 on cheese. But not anymore. I used to shop at Eats but I don’t anymore. My discount membership is active but I don’t know what they do as far as SNAP benefits go. I’m not in that part of town anymore but that might be something I add back in. I wouldn’t go there to buy, say, a package of gluten free pasta because I can get that somewhere else for less money. I’d go there for specialty items.

I eat locally produced produce: greens, onions, peppers, bread, tomatoes, beets. I grow herbs and I just recently found an article about growing from scraps which I want to start doing in pots: onions, scallions. I have never had my own garden but now my upstairs neighbors have a massive veggie garden and I have my own plot. I’ve never gone in fully because I kill plants. Basil was thriving for me. This past summer I was home and we had tons of herbs, peppers, and other food in pots on the deck. Brought it back…basil lived. But I’ll keep trying. I don’t know about seedling sales but I wish I knew more about how to use the resources that are available. We’ve looked into food pantries but haven’t supplemented that way yet.

The assistance that SNAP offer is not enough to cover the needs. This is the entire food budget for most people on SNAP. It’s not supplemental. It’s their entire budget. And that’s really fucking frustrating. It’s difficult because I’ve never needed this assistance and my family has never needed this kind of assistance. I could probably ask them for money but that was never an option for me. This is very real. It puts you in the position of having to report things to DSS. I was very hesitant to tell them that there was another person in the house because they could drop the benefits. We can make it on $200 but it’s hard. I’d like to buy organics but I don’t. I’d like to shop more at the Farmer’s Market but I’m not there so I shop where it’s convenient. Food costs to people who are not economically challenged are never thought about. My food stamps come in on the 9th of every month. We haven’t been able to buy food for four days. We bought 88 cent pot pies and ate those. I’ve never had to experience that. I have a Master’s degree. You never see yourself there. Yet we need to acknowledge that there’s this huge problem. There are ways to feed us all. And you want to punch people in the face because they are derogatory in their comments about you. People don’t say it to me. I want to be vocal about the situation that I’m in, that it was

26 VOICES OF HUNGER

a choice to take the position I’m in because you commit to a year of poverty. I’m okay with that. But it is very frustrating to be lumped in with the “food stamp” or the “welfare” people. I’ve had people, acquaintances, not friends, making very large blanketed statements about the people who are receiving the benefits. If you ask people what kind of people receive food stamps, they have a very clear picture of what that looks like and it’s not true. I certainly don’t fit that stereotype. That’s why I’m so vocal. I am very thankful for that $200. When I found out about the budget crisis I cried because WIC was going to be cut. My best friend was pregnant at 16 and that was my first introduction to WIC. She needed that to buy milk and eggs and cheese. There is no support system for many of these people. I’m lucky because I have a great support system. I have family and friends who won’t let me go hungry or go homeless. I’m lucky. So I feel like I have to be vocal because I’m so lucky. That is something new as well. I don’t think I’ve ever been in the position where I’ve had to graciously accept help but I’m there now. That has been a shift that has been hard for me to swallow because I’m used to being the helper. I’m used to being on the other side. I’ve learned to humble myself, to be thankful for what is offered, and to take it. I’ve had to accept help from my parents. And it feels degrading at moments. But I think for me self-sufficiency is a really big thing in my life. So to have to ask for help… and I can imagine for a lot of other people, that wears them down as well because they have to ask for help and they don’t have another option. How do you build up self-esteem and the drive to do other things if you’re always being kicked down? And to hear politician speak, they’re always speaking about that population negatively.

This is situational poverty. It’s temporary. I’ve worked with this population. I’ve researched them. But I’ve never understood it. I can’t imagine being offered slightly more than this for a family of five and being expected to deal with this. I can’t imagine having to add in child care on top of that. The general fast food worker is expected to hold down a part time job as well as a full time job and take good care of their families. You’re kidding me. Another way that we discuss social assistance, you can love it or hate it but I see a lot of people talking before they’ve crunched the numbers. Where are you going to find work? It’s frustrating.

Once you look beyond the statistics, beyond the stereotypes, beyond the clichés of welfare moms and deadbeat dads you see that hungry Americans are really a subset of America as a whole. Some of them are well educated. Some are not. Some have made bad choices and some have had truly terrible luck. Some are healthy and some are sick. Some are raising children alone and some live with nuclear families. Some are working and others are unemployed for a variety of reasons. They are our neighbors, our friends, our parents and grandparents, and they are our children, and they are trying to do the best they can with what they have. They are not looking for a handout. They do not express a sense of

VOICES OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 27 entitlement. They do not seem angry about the recent cuts to the SNAP program but instead seem resigned to having to do more with less. Long ago Americans decided that people should support their families through productive work. During the New Deal we accepted that people may need help but we held fast to the belief that anyone receiving public aid should forego luxury goods in order to feed and care for their families. Hard work, self- reliance, the American dream—these are the social facts of our national community. Now, in an era when state governments want to drug test welfare recipients and the federal government is making massive cuts to the SNAP program, we must consider these values and determine if they continue to represent who we are and who we want to be. For is it not possible that we could revise our expectations to say that no American, regardless of how many bad decisions he or she has made or how good or terrible his or her fortune has been, should go hungry in a land of plenty? What does it say about our politics that our government has voted to distribute $195 billion in agricultural subsidies over the next ten years but has cut food aid to the most vulnerable Americans? It was food riots that set off the legitimacy crises known collectively as the Arab Spring. What does food insecurity in the United States mean for the future of American democracy? As we have learned in the recent Great Recession, food insecurity can become the “new normal” for previously prosperous American families without warning. What does this “new normal” mean for American families? None of the food insecure people I interviewed asked these questions but they are questions that food scholars must tackle in the name of social justice. If not us, who?

References “6 SNAP (Food Stamp) Myths." Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger, 05 May 2014. . Dean. Stacy and Dottie Rosenbaum, "SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut for Nearly All Participants In November 2013." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2 Aug. 2013. 04 May 2014. . Picchi, Aimee. "Panera CEO Goes Hungry on Food Stamps." MSNMoney. 17 Sept. 2013. .

Chapter 2: Butter Beans and Okra and Peaches! Oh, My! Rethinking Community at the Memphis Farmers’ Market

Arielle Goldberg

Introduction In cities across the United States, farmers’ markets have become a symbol of urban revitalization. Once the primary source of food for all urban dwellers, today many farmers’ markets are a niche enterprise, catering to a middle and upper- middle class that has become increasingly conscious of and engaged in a burgeoning local food movement. Advocates of farmers’ markets laud the fact that they provide fresh, local produce and create a sense of community and vitality in an increasingly depersonalized, global economy. Such effects are valued by cities seeking to attract and retain a tax base that values and is willing to pay for authenticity. Yet farmers’ market communities are not necessarily inclusive; many farmers’ markets may mirror or even reinforce the social inequalities present in society by encouraging participation by some and not others. This chapter contends that Federal programs such as the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) promote inclusivity by subsidizing the participation of low-income seniors; however, factors such as a dearth of farmers who accept SFMP vouchers, as well as recipients’ lack of clarity about SFMNP rules and their unpleasant interactions with certain non-SFMNP farmers contribute to a sense of marginalization among recipients. Some recipients manage these challenges by forming an informal network or community of support, which mitigates but does not extinguish their sense of exclusion. This chapter explores the question of community at urban farmers’ markets by analyzing the experience of low-income, African American seniors who use SFMNP vouchers to shop at the Memphis Farmers’ Market. The program subsidizes farmers from Tennessee and other participating states by providing low-income seniors with vouchers to buy fresh produce from markets and other authorized sources. This study addresses two questions about the SFMNP in Memphis. First, how well does the SFMNP meets its goal of providing recipients

28 RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 29 with fresh, quality produce at the Memphis Farmers’ Market? To do so, the study analyzes their perceptions of the availability, quality, and price of the produce. Second, how do voucher recipients experience the socio-political atmosphere at the Memphis Farmers’ Market? Do recipients detect a market community and do they feel that they are part of that community? Many studies of markets tend to focus on the former set of questions. For example, studies of the SFMNP focus on health related effects of the program, such as whether it increases the intake of fresh fruits and vegetables. Several studies examine the exclusivity and social construction of farmers’ markets, although they tend to focus on how different markets serve different communities.1 An analysis of the socio-political atmosphere at the farmers’ market is significant for several reasons. First, farmers’ markets and the SFMNP are on the national and urban agenda yet they remain surprisingly understudied, especially by political scientists.2 Second, planners, economic development scholars, and developers regard farmers’ markets as a catalyst for urban reinvestment, especially by upwardly mobile individuals who value and have the means to pay for neighborhood community, character, and high-quality amenities. At the same time, urban scholars recognize that the consequences of reinvestment are often gentrification and the displacement of lower- income, communities of color. The SFMNP is designed to provide individuals of limited means access to farmers’ markets that they might otherwise not be able to afford. Voucher recipients often use their vouchers at farmers’ markets in middle-class or gentrifying neighborhoods by choice or because they lack other options. How they are treated by other customers and farmers can either reinforce power dynamics evident in the larger society, or create a space for a more inclusive understanding of community. Finally, how voucher recipients experience the market may also impact the efficacy of the program by encouraging or discouraging their participation. If these seniors do not feel comfortable at the farmers’ market, they may be less likely use their vouchers, even if they rely on the program as their primary source of fresh produce during the summer months.

Whose “Authentic” Space? Before transportation and cooling technology enabled commercial producers to ship goods across state and national borders with limited amounts of spoilage, local farmers provided food to urban centers through farmers’ markets. These markets provided food to people of all walks of life, but they also reflected and reinforced widespread social divisions. Farmer’s markets were used by many different social groups, but access to products was socially stratified by market hours. Wealthier classes went to market with their servants in the wee hours when prices were higher, but the best products were still available. Other classes

1 Alkon (2008) “Paradise or Pavement: The social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability;” Zukin (2008) “Consuming Authenticity;” Zukin (2009) Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Spaces. 2 Black (2009) “A White House Farmers Market?”; Obama (2009) “Remarks by the First Lady at the Opening of FRESHFARM Farmers’ Market.”

30 VOICES OF HUNGER followed in subsequent time slots according to descending class status and product quality.3 Advocates of contemporary farmers’ markets often praise their selection of fresh, local foods as well as the economic development 4 and community- generating effects, which result from face-to-face interactions with farmers and other customers.5 Farmers’ markets tend to encourage greater social interaction than supermarkets, 6 but that social interaction does not necessarily transcend racial and class differences. Farmers’ markets often are located in gentrifying or already middle-class or affluent neighborhoods and tend to attract white, middle class customers. 7 Farmers’ markets are a place-making enterprise. However, studies of markets suggest that even those that are located in ideologically liberal cities such as Berkeley or New York tend to be fairly exclusive spaces.8 While customers participate in farmers markets for myriad reasons, they consistently prioritize quality and experience over price.9 Sharon Zukin (2008) argues that the decision to shop at a farmer’s market reflects a response to the implicit existential question: are we organic farmers’ market or mass consumption Costco? Costco or Whole Foods? Which is the authentic space for our authentic self? In her examination of the Union Square farmers’ market in New York, she finds that most Greenmarket shoppers praise the products’ quality and variety rather than their local roots. Some like the social atmosphere of the space the whole feeling of community that they see in the space on market days. 10 Zukin contrasts the Union Square Farmers markets as a primarily white, middle-class, and somewhat exclusive space with the predominantly African American shopping district of Fulton Street in Brooklyn. These markets are spatially and socially segregated. But, more recently, farmers’ markets are viewed as an economic development tool with the potential to catalyze gentrification, economic investment, and neighborhood change. Of course, this may result in negative consequences for existing residents. As new and existing businesses begin to cater to the consumption preferences of well-

3 Mayo (1991) “The American Public Market.” 4 Carr and Servon (2009) “Vernacular Culture and Urban Economic Development: Thinking Outside the (Big) Box.” 5 Feagan and Krug (2004) “Niagara Region Farmers’ Markets: local food systems and sustainability consideration;” Hinrichs (2003) “The practice and politics of food system localization;” Lyson, Gillespie, and Hilchey (1995), “Farmers markets and the local community: bridging the formal and informal economy;” Sage (2003), “Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in southwest Ireland;” Winter (2003) “Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.” 6 Sommer, Herrick, and Sommer (1981) “The Behavioral Ecology of Supermarkets and Farmers’ Markets.” 7 Brown (2002) “Farmers’ market research 1940-2000: An inventory and review.” 8 Alkon (2008) “Paradise or Pavement: The social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability;” Zukin (2008) “Consuming Authenticity.” 9 Andreatta and Wickliffe (2002) “Managing farmer and consumer expectations: A study of a North Carolina North Carolina Farmers Market;” Baber and Frongillo (2003) “Family and seller interactions in farmers’ markets in upstate New York.” 10 Zukin (2008) Consuming Authenticity.

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 31 heeled market customers, existing residents may find themselves priced out of the market or unable to find products that they desire.11 Alison Alkon’s (2008) analysis of the social construction of place in two Northern California farmers’ markets (one in Berkeley, the other in Oakland) shows similar results. Participants in both markets articulated and exhibited a commitment to social justice. Those who frequented the West Oakland farmers’ market viewed the market as a purposive response to a history of environmental injustice and racial inequality that left African American neighborhoods chronically underserved. Respondents emphasized the importance of supporting African American farmers and small businesses as well as addressing the needs of low-income communities of color. At the North Berkeley market, participants focused more on issues of environmental sustainability. Moreover, some farmers at the North Berkeley market equated paying higher prices with personal values and personal choice, as opposed to larger structural factors such as low wages that prevented lower-income individuals from being able to afford fresh produce.12 These attitudes may be rooted in the struggles small farmers themselves face in trying to make ends meet. Andreatta and Wickliffe’s (2002) study of a North Carolina market found that farmers’ markets have become an important ―source of income for small farmers without the capital or scale of production to participate in traditional agricultural markets. However, participation in urban farmers’ markets is not lucrative or sustainable for all small farmers. Griffin and Frongillo (2003) determine that farmers in Upstate New York participated in markets because of the economic and social benefits, but they struggled with high fuel costs, finding an affordable labor force, keeping up with the demand for new products, and finding a ―nicheǁ in the midst of competition from supermarkets and other farmers.13 Lucy Jarosz’s (2008) study of farmers at a Seattle market illustrates similar results including the capriciousness and physically demanding nature of agricultural production and competition from California farmers who harvested their crops two months earlier and lowered their prices once Washington farmers introduced their produce.14

Food Scarcity in Low-income Neighborhoods The economic development goals of cities and real estate interests, the consumption preferences of middle-class shoppers, and the economic challenges faced by farmers are all likely contributors to the exclusivity of many farmers’ markets. These findings are troubling given the praise farmers’ markets have received for facilitating a healthful diet. Many studies have shown that low- income individuals are less likely to have access to quality foods for a range of reasons including a lack of disposable income, scarcity of neighborhood

11 Zukin (2008) Consuming Authenticity. 12 Alkon (2008) “Paradise or Pavement: The social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability.” 13 Griffin and Frongillo (2003) “Experiences and perspectives of farmers from Upstate New York farmers’ markets.” 14 Jarosz (2008) “The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas,” 239.

32 VOICES OF HUNGER supermarkets, and limited availability of transportation.15 Guthrie and Lin (2002) found that 19% of elderly persons were lower income (defined as below 130% of the federal poverty level). Approximately 22% of this low-income group was African Americans and about 43 % lived in the South. Compared to a comparison group of higher income seniors, this group was more likely to have health problems such as diabetes and high blood pressure. They were also likely to eat fewer meals and to skip meals (including lunch and dinner). Other studies have also found high rates of malnutrition among the elderly.16 Efforts by the Project for Public Spaces and the Kellogg Foundation (2009) have improved access to farmers’ markets in low income neighborhoods, but many low-income individuals still must find fresh produce outside the boundaries of their own backyard.

The SFMNP

These findings suggest a need for food security programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) and the lesser known Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP). The SFMNP provides low-income seniors with vouchers to purchase locally-grown produce at authorized locations including farmers’ markets, roadside stands, CSAs, and the farms themselves. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the SFMNP program in 2001. The SFMNP provides grants to participating states, which administer the program through a state agency. In 2009, the Federal Government awarded SFMNP grants to 49 17 states and tribal governments. Tennessee received a SFMNP grant of $564,863 in FY 2009. The Tennessee Department of Health oversees the program and in 2008 it administered the program in five out of 95 Tennessee counties, including Shelby County in which Memphis is located. Vouchers were distributed to 103 farmers at 21 farmers markets and 14 stands across the state.18 According to the Department of Health, the goals of the program were: to increase the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and to expand the awareness and use of produce grown by Tennessee farmers. 19 To participate in the program farmers had to meet the geographic criteria of being located in Tennessee and complete a training and certification program, which included learning how to verify that the vouchers were filled out correctly. They also received a stamp, which enabled them to validate the vouchers and deposit them in their bank for remuneration. County administrators worked with an agricultural extension program that visited the farm to ensure that it met the guidelines for participation.

15 Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) “Placing the food system on the urban agenda: the role of municipal institutions in food systems planning.” 16 Wellman, et. al. (1997) “Elder insecurities: poverty, hunger, and malnutrition.” 17 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, (2010) “Senior FMNP and WIC FMNP as of April 2010.” 18 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2010a) “SFMNP Profile- FY 2009.” 19 Tennessee Department of Health (2009) “SFMNP Information Sheet.”

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 33

The SFMNP voucher recipients had be at least 60 years of age and have a household income that did not exceed 185% of the federal poverty line.20 The 2009 Poverty Threshold was $10,830 for an individual and $14,570 for a family of two.21 Seniors in Memphis who participated in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program automatically qualified for the SFMNP. The threshold for that program was $13,284 for an individual senior and $17,808 for a family of two. Given that all of the individuals in this study qualified through their participation in the Commodity Program, their income should have been less than the SFMNP maximum of 185% of the federal poverty line. The Tennessee program provided recipients with $20 per month, distributed as four $5 vouchers, for two months a year, July and August.22 With an annual budget of $16 million, the seasonal SFMNP was a small fraction of the total federal funding of nutrition programs.23 It did not and could not remedy the larger problem of food insecurity in low- income neighborhoods; however, it could have made a meaningful difference in the lives of participants. Despite the fact that the SFMPN had been around for nearly 10 years at the time of this research, studies generally focused on whether the program achieved its articulated goals and largely neglected questions of community. These studies typically measured the impact of the program on participants’ consumption of fruits and vegetables. They indicated that the program encouraged increased consumption of fresh produce and generated positive attitudes on the part of participating voucher recipients and farmers.24 Dollahite, et. al.’s (2005) study assessed whether partnerships of federal and state program stakeholders generated the community capacity necessary to lower the barriers to market access at New York farmers markets. The partnership successfully identified barriers to participation such as market hours and location, a limited number of participating farmers, transportation, and the need for nutrition and recipe programming targeted to seniors.25 This chapter builds upon earlier scholarship on both farmers’ market communities and the SFMNP. Previous studies of farmers’ markets focus broadly on the existence and significance of a farmers’ market community26 or depict

20 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2009) “SFMNP Fact Sheet.” 21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2009) “The 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines.” 22 Memphis and Shelby County Health Department (2008) “The Commodity and Supplemental Food Program in Shelby County.” 23 U.S. Department of Agriculture (2009a) “FY 2009 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan.” 24 Kunkel, Luccia, and Moore (2003) “Evaluation of the South Carolina Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Education Program;” Anderson, et. al. (2001) “5 A Day fruit and vegetable intervention improves consumption in a low income population;” Anliker, Winne, and Drake (1992) “An Evaluation of the Connecticut Farmers’ Market Coupon Program.” 25 Dollahite, et. al. (2005) “Building community capacity through enhanced collaboration in the farmers market nutrition program.” 26 Andreatta and Wickliffe (2002) “Managing farmer and consumer expectations: A study of a North Carolina Farmers Market;” Carr and Servon (2009) “Vernacular Culture and Urban Economic Development: Thinking Outside the (Big) Box;” Feagan, Morris, and

34 VOICES OF HUNGER markets as spaces that reflect the interests and values of their particular members.27 This study expands that research by examining the experience of low- income individuals who are underrepresented at urban farmers’ markets,28 but participate in them in increasing numbers with the assistance of the SFMNP. It also contributes to the extant literature on the SFMNP and factors that impact the efficacy of the program. Earlier studies of the SFMNP focus on recipients’ consumption behaviors and structural barriers to participation, such as transportation. This study expands that research by focusing on important but difficult to measures factors, such as recipient interactions with other customers and with farmers.

The Memphis Farmers’ Market The downtown Memphis Farmers’ Market was an ideal case for a study of the socio-political experience of SFMNP recipients. The market is located in the South Main neighborhood of downtown, which is part of a larger urban redevelopment effort that is intended to reverse flight out of the core. The market is housed in the pavilion of Memphis Central Rail Station, which is several blocks from the Civil Rights Museum—the site where Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Rail travel to Memphis has declined over the years and now the Station welcomes the City of New Orleans train and the local trolley. The upper floors have been converted to moderately priced apartments. The Memphis Farmers’ Market was created as a 501(c) 4 nonprofit in 2005. As of 2009, the market website listed 69 vendors who hail from the greater Memphis area, western Arkansas, and northern Mississippi. Approximately 23 farmers sold produce; the rest sold meat, seafood, prepared foods, plants, or pottery. According to the market’s website, the mission of the Farmers’ Market was to serve as a community- gathering place where local farmers, producers and artisans can offer fresh agricultural and related products. The website also identified four primary goals: improve the community's nutrition options; assist area farmers, producers, and artisans with sustainable business opportunities; generate a sense of local pride while furthering the economic development of our community; and provide a vehicle to educate the community on nutrition and good health.29 The customer base at the Memphis Farmers’ Market is similar to those described in other studies of farmers’ markets. My formal participant observation and recruitment lasted five weeks and the majority of the customers I saw were, based on their appearance, white and middle or upper- income. Even without a

Krug (2004) “Niagara Region Farmers’ Markets: local food systems and sustainability consideration;” Hinrichs (2003) “The practice and politics of food system localization;” Lyson, Gillespie, and Hilchey (1995) “Farmers markets and the local community: bridging the formal and informal economy;” Sage (2003) “Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in southwest Ireland;” Winter (2003) “Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.” 27 Alkon (2008) “Paradise or Pavement: The social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability;” Zukin (2008) “Consuming Authenticity.” 28 Brown (2002) “Farmers’ market research 1940-2000: An inventory and review.” 29 Memphis Farmers Market. “Frequently Asked Questions.”

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 35 quantitative measure, it was obvious that the typical farmers’ market shoppers were not a random sample of the Memphis population, which was approximately 35% white and more than 62% African American. Memphis is 279 square miles with predominantly African American neighborhoods in the North and South, and predominantly White neighborhoods to the East.30 The Farmers’ Market is on the West side of the City within blocks of the Mississippi River. Downtown reflects the high degree of racial segregation in Memphis, but customers are drawn from the immediate area and middle-class neighborhoods around the city, especially Midtown. Memphis has several major supermarkets including Kroger’s, Snucks, and Piggly Wiggly. The upscale Whole Foods is located in East Memphis, which swelled as a result of white and, more recently, middle-class African American flight. In addition to supermarkets, there are several Easy Way stores, which primarily sell fresh produce to a variety of Memphis neighborhoods. Easy Way has seven locations around Memphis, including in neighborhoods where Farmer’s Market voucher participants lived, for example, in Whitehaven and downtown Memphis.

Data and Methods This study is primarily exploratory and descriptive. Voucher recipients at the Memphis Farmers’ Market are the unit of analysis. Participants were recruited in person over a five week period between the end of July and early September 2009, from the two stands that appear to attract the most voucher recipients. Since the stands are located diagonally across the aisle from each other, I was able to observe both of them simultaneously. I approached individuals who were paying with vouchers or holding vouchers and asked them if they would participate in a phone interview in the near future. I was able to generate a list of 75 individuals who said they were willing to participate. Three additional individuals said that they preferred not to participate. I contacted the individuals between November 2009 and February 2010. Three of the telephone numbers were no longer in service and two individuals chose not to participate. I completed telephone interviews with 25 seniors receiving vouchers. Interviews ranged from 25 minutes to 90 minutes and included structured and open-ended questions. The first half of the questionnaire included scaled questions regarding the quality, availability, and variety of produce sold by farmers who accept the vouchers. The second half of the questionnaire included open ended questions that focused on what they liked and disliked about the voucher program and the farmers’ market. To determine the salience of community for recipients, I asked them to describe their interactions with SFMNP and non-SFMNP farmers and with other customers. Voucher recipients were the primary focus of this study; however, their perceptions of the market are influenced by their interactions with other customers and with farmers who do and do not participate in the SFMNP. Due to limited resources, I was able to conduct interviews only with SFMNP farmers. In September, 2009, I completed face-two face interviews with representatives from three of the four farms (four individuals) that accept the vouchers. Two of these

30 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2000) “Quick Facts.”

36 VOICES OF HUNGER interviews were conducted at the farmers’ market and one was conducted in the evening at the Memphis Public Library. Farmers from the fourth farm vended at the market less frequently and therefore were less likely to have had interactions with voucher recipients. These interviews lasted between 45-90 minutes and focus on why farmers participated in the program, challenges they faced, their perceptions of voucher recipients, and their perceptions of why more farmers do not participate in the program. I transcribed and coded these interviews by theme.

Voucher Recipients and Market Participation All of the participants in this study were African American and the overwhelming majority were female (23 out of 25). Participants ranged in age from 61 to 85, with a median age of 68. The recipients hailed from nine different zip codes, although 92% of the respondents lived in South Memphis. The overwhelming concentration of recipients in the South Memphis area was somewhat surprising given the similar racial and socio-economic composition of several census tracts in North Memphis. Therefore, it may have been that they were the ones I have had the most luck contacting, or there was a systematic and therefore significant, but unidentified, reason for their spatial concentration. The majority (60%) of the voucher recipients had never been to a farmers’ market prior to receiving vouchers. Twenty percent said they had been to the downtown market before and another 20% said they had gone to other farmers’ markets in the past, either the Agricenter Farmers Market, which was approximately 20 miles east of the downtown market, or to the Scott Street Farmers’ Market, which was displaced and ultimately forced to close in the late 1990s. Voucher recipients varied in terms of the length of time and the frequency with which they patronized the downtown market. Whereas 75% (19 out of 25) of the recipients said they had visited the market for two or more summers, approximately 25% of the recipients said the summer of 2009 was their first time at the market. The market was only open on Saturdays between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Approximately half of the recipients said they attended the market only once per month, i.e. they spent all of the vouchers at one time. About 25% said they went once per week and another 20% said they went two to three times per month. Almost all of the recipients went to the market in the morning before 11:00 a.m., although they were split between early and mid- morning. Approximately 44% (11) said they typically went to the market before 9:00 a.m. and 48% (12) reported going between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00am. Only two recipients said they went to the market after 11:00 a.m.

Availability and Quality of the Desired Produce The main goal of the SFMNP is to afford to low-income seniors the opportunity to consume more fresh produce. Findings show that the SFMNP is achieving that goal in that approximately 44% of recipients reported eating more fresh fruit and vegetables when they have the vouchers. Nearly all of the recipients praised the program. Some said the vouchers encouraged them to change their approach to eating. One woman commented, “I just think it’s a real nice program. I mean it makes you want to better your health habits and take better care of yourself.”

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 37

Another senior explained that the program enabled her to practice the healthful eating she preferred, but could not afford without the vouchers: “I love to eat as healthy as I can and often I cannot afford to. I have so much fun looking for recipes and cooking better.” Recipients’ enthusiasm for the program appeared to be affected by their perceptions of the quality and availability of their desired produce. The majority of recipients said they thought the quality of the produce they bought with vouchers at the market was better than what they typically purchased at the supermarket or grocery store. Over 75% of recipients stated that they thought the quality of the produce was either much better or somewhat better than what they found at the supermarket. Recipients were especially positive about the quality of the vegetables. At the high end, 58% (14) of recipients said they thought the vegetables were ―much better than what they got at the supermarket and 38% (9) of recipients said that they thought the quality of the fruit was much better. At the low end, approximately 25% (6) of recipients said they thought the quality of the fruits and vegetables were about the same as what they found at the supermarket. None of the recipients perceived the produce at the market as being worse than what they found at the supermarket. It is difficult to imagine recipients feeling like they were members of the farmers’ market community if they could not find or purchase at least some of the produce they preferred to eat. The products most commonly sought and purchased by voucher recipients are butter beans, crowder peas (black-eyed peas), okra, greens, watermelon, and peaches. The majority of recipients (78%) said that they were able to get the produce they wanted either always or most of the time at the market, and 22% said they were able to find what they wanted only sometimes. Voucher recipients identified the limited number of farmers who take the vouchers as the main reason for not being able to find the produce they wanted, although some said the SFMNP farmers usually carried what they wanted, but had sold out of it by the time they arrived. There appears to be a weak, but not statistically significant correlation between arrival time at the market and recipients finding what they wanted. Additional observations would be necessary to confirm that relationship. One might expect the limited number of participating SFMNP farmers to negatively impact recipients’ consumption behavior, but the fact that over three quarters of recipients reported finding the produce they wanted, suggests otherwise. Taken together, the four SFMNP farmers carried a wide enough variety of fruits and vegetables to satisfy most of the voucher recipients’ consumption preferences. However, the low number of participating farmers negatively impacted how recipients experienced the market in other ways.

The Importance of Choice The overwhelming majority of the recipients were very positive about the SFMNP program and the participating farmers; however, many identified the limited number of SFMNP farmers as the main weakness of the program. This finding was somewhat surprising given the high praise for the current SFMNP farmers (see below), the quality of the available produce, and the fact that most recipients

38 VOICES OF HUNGER said they were frequently able to find the produce they wanted. Recipients were not always explicit about why having more farmers was important, although several were frustrated that non-SFMNP farmers had produce they wanted, which they could not purchase with vouchers. Several also mentioned that they thought the prices at the market were higher than the prices at certain local groceries. A small minority of recipients speculated that farmers who accepted the vouchers charged more than the other stands. My own observations did not reveal any evidence that the SFMNP stands were systematically setting their prices higher because they knew they have a captive customer base. There were certainly stands with lower prices than some of the SFMNP stands, but there were also stands whose prices for produce were higher. Although voucher recipients did not explicitly talk about lack of choice, that appeared to be the issue underlying these various comments. Only four farmers at the downtown market accepted vouchers and some of them did not regularly display their SFMNP signs. As a result, most of the recipients appeared to cluster around two of the stands. It was understandable that even recipients who were very pleased with the program and the SFMNP farmers would find frustrating their lack of access to the myriad other produce stands at the market. The dearth of participating farmers negatively impacted recipients on two fronts. First, it prevented recipients from shopping effectively. Whereas other studies concluded that farmers’ market customers usually prioritize ―quality and experience over price,31 voucher recipients were by definition fiscally constrained and therefore more likely to be concerned with the price as well as quality. With only four SFMNP stands, recipients were unable to practice an effective comparison shopping strategy to maximize quantity or balance quality and price in the produce they procured. Second, the limited number of SFMNP farmers negatively affected their perceptions of their position in the farmers’ market community. This issue is discussed in the following section.

Whose Community? The final section of the interview with recipients explored the idea of community at the farmers’ market. Recipients were asked if they perceived the existence of a community at the market. If they offered an affirmative response, they were asked to describe that community and explain whether they felt they were a part of the market community. They were also asked to describe their interactions with the farmers and with other customers. Voucher recipients perceptions of the socio- political atmosphere at the market are somewhat mixed. Several participants were perplexed by my questions about community and the atmosphere of the market, noting that they were simply there to redeem their vouchers and purchase their produce. In fact, two or three recipients said they would prefer to use the vouchers at a grocery store closer to home. Many others, however, detected a market community and felt that they were a part of that community. Voucher recipients’ sense of belonging to the community stemmed from the activities they engaged in at the market as well as generally positive interactions

31 Andreatta and Wickliffe (2002) “Managing farmer and consumer expectations: A study of a North Carolina Farmers Market.”

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 39 they had with other customers and the farmers who accepted the vouchers. Recipients expressed many of the positive attitudes about a market community as described in other studies of farmers’ markets.32 Recipients commented on the aesthetics or spectacle of the market—the fresh produce, the music, the hustle and bustle. The downtown market had several small tables with chairs and often had a local band playing. Several recipients explained that they enjoyed walking around the farmers’ market. For example:

I enjoy going there because people are friendly and I get to see so many different things, it’s like going to a fair to me. I’m not shopping everywhere, but I like going through there looking.

I like it cause you can go down there and walk around, get exercise in, you can sit down, you can listen to music down there at the farmer’s market. Sure can. You enjoy yourself.

Recipients’ experiences with other customers and SFMNP farmers also enhanced their sense of a market community and their role in that community. Most recipients described their interactions with other customers in positive terms, noting that they were generally friendly and pleasant. Some respondents emphasized meeting new people:

Yes, I do [feel like I’m part of the community]. The people are so friendly out there, it just seems like it’s someone you really know, and you get to meet different people.

Other recipients said they were pleasantly surprised to find people they knew at the market.

My experience was a good thing because the other customers we were…well most of the people we laughed about bumping into each other and then we would begin to talk about the food and they would say that person over there takes vouchers, they would direct you to who else had a good product.

Recipients’ comments indicated that they had positive interactions with cash- paying customers and other voucher recipients. From the latter group, however, they received support and advice that was more specific to their needs. These interactions constituted a sort of informal community of voucher recipients within and perhaps alongside other communities at the market. Ironically, some of the structural factors that limited the number of SMFNP farmers whom recipients could patronize affected this informal community. Due to Memphis’ location in

32 Alkon (2008) “Paradise or Pavement: The social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability;” Andreatta and Wickliffe (2002) “Managing farmer and consumer expectations: A study of a North Carolina Farmers Market;” Zukin (2008) “Consuming Authenticity.”

40 VOICES OF HUNGER the southwest corner of Tennessee, the Memphis market draws farmers from Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Nine out of 23 (39%) farmers who sell produce are from Arkansas or Mississippi. Under SFMNP rules, those farmers are not permitted to accept vouchers in Tennessee, which limited the pool of SFMNP eligible farmers to fourteen. Of those, only four completed the SFMNP certification process. Voucher recipients tended to cluster around two of the four SFMNP stands, which brought them in close proximity to each other. Recipients had the opportunity to share the experience of feeling frustrated by the limited number of stands and, in some cases, the prices at the market. More experienced recipients also helped first-timers navigate the voucher program and the market by providing information about which stands accepted the vouchers and which of the four had the best produce and prices. The SFMNP farmers also made respondents feel welcome at the market. Nearly all of the recipients praised the farmers who took the vouchers noting that they were kind and helpful. As one 81 year old woman explained:

Mostly I went to the same one and they were real good to deal with. Real nice people. And they tried to make it pleasant for you. I usually go to that one stand. It was a man and his wife and children.

This respondent’s description of her interactions with SFMNP farmers is typical of the way recipients talk about SFMNP farmers. Not everyone said they felt included in the farmers’ market community. Recipients expressed frustration over the limited number of farmers as well as initial unpleasant interactions with non- SFMNP farmer. Many of the recipients arrive at the market assuming that all stands accepted the vouchers. The fact that some SFMNP farmers forgot or chose not to display their SFMNP sign did not help to clarify the situation for them. As a result, recipients often located the SFMNP farmers through a process of trial and error, or with the guidance of other voucher recipients who had previous experience with the market. The following exchange with a 66 year old woman is quoted at length to illustrate some recipients’ sense of exclusion.

Not really. Do I feel like I’m equally serviced there or provided for there? Well, it goes back to what I said about spending cash. I feeling like there could be a slight discrepancy there where they don’t accept vouchers and I can’t get it unless I pay cash, so for now I would not call myself a part of it…I guess I don’t feel a part of the farmers’ market community because of the line that’s drawn there right now.

She went on to explain a negative interaction at a non-SFMNP stand, which she felt captured how some individuals at the market felt about voucher recipients.

I would describe it as I walked up and I picked up, I think peas again, and when I got to the register she saw my vouchers and she immediately said we don’t take vouchers, go over there. I didn’t react to the situation…I wouldn’t call it a bad way it was done, but it was enough for me to feel a little uncomfortable, since I didn’t know there were two

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 41

sides. It reminded me of when there was whites and colored sides. They [the Health Department administrators] didn’t tell me there were two sides, they just told me to come down to Front Street [to the farmers’ market]. That would be the only part that would make me feel I’m not part of the community.

This respondent felt that this interaction was less about race than socio-economic status and prejudice towards individuals who received public assistance. Her story was not unique. Many other recipients also described an awkward or unpleasant initial experience with non-SFMNP farmers during their first visit to the market— a stark contrast to their praise for SFMNP farmers. Recipients commonly reported that non- SFMNP farmers were short with them when they tried to use their vouchers typically responding, “We don’t take those.” As one 64 year old woman explained, “They’ve got an attitude because they don’t take them, but you know, that’s life.” A minority of respondents described their interactions with non-SFMNP farmers in positive terms. For example, one woman specifically raised the point that paying with vouchers did not negatively impact her experience.

Yes, I do [feel like I’m part of the community]. I experience it because by me having the vouchers, it does not make me feel any lesser than the people who are paying when I don’t have money to buy. Like when I first went there, I wanted something and he said well we don’t take vouchers. They didn’t make you feel any lesser than the people who are paying cash…So the next time you go you will either purchase what they have with cash or use your vouchers.

Most recipients said they could only afford to purchase produce from the farmers who took the vouchers, but a few purchased products with cash when they wanted something that was not available from an SFMNP farmer. Recipients in the latter category were more likely to describe non-SFMNP interactions positively or say they understood the farmers’ attitudes, since they were there to make money. In sum, although many recipients described the market atmosphere in positive terms, there were aspects of their experiences that made these seniors feel marginalized or excluded from the larger farmers’ market community. The fact that their choice of products was limited to three or four SFMNP farmers and they had unpleasant interactions with certain non-SFMNP farmers indicated to them that they were viewed differently than other customers. The informal community of voucher recipients helped to dampen the detrimental effects of those experiences, but many recipients remained unclear about who accepted SFMNP vouchers and why.

The SFMNP Farmers: Who Are They? Four farmers at the downtown market were certified to participate in the SFMNP, although only three attended regularly. They had participated in the program for between two and five years at the time of this study. The farmers traveled distances of 35, 50, and 100 miles from their farms to the downtown market,

42 VOICES OF HUNGER which means that the farmer who lived the farthest had to get up at 3:30 a.m. to load the truck and be at the market by the time it opened at 7:00 a.m. All of the farmers were raised on their parents’ family farm and either continued to work in agricultural or explored other options before returning. One of the farmers made a living as a systems engineer, but continued to help his parents maintain the family business because of his passion for farming. For the other two farmers, farming was their primary source of income. One of the farmers took over the family farm after other forms of employment proved less fulfilling. The third farmer had to drop out of high school when her brother went into the army and her family needed her help on the farm. She eventually completed her GED and two semesters of college, but had to quit when she became pregnant with her third child. The farmers identified the opportunity to augment their income as the main incentive to participate in the program, although most of them emphasized the importance of assisting voucher recipients. One farmer initially joined the voucher program after he was approached by a program administrator who was trying to increase the number of participating farmers. In describing his decision to join he explained that he saw it as an opportunity to develop a niche customer base and to support the program and the voucher recipients:

At that point it came down to a market decision. If we could have something that would give us an advantage at the market, then why not. They’re not taking vouchers and we are, that and the fact that we had been asked several times by people at the market if we take vouchers... And I guess I got tired of saying no, we don’t. So it was more marketing, and just wanting to have something else to help the people that were coming. If they took time to come out to the farmers market, and there were only like one or two people taking vouchers, it really defeated the purpose for even having the program, because they couldn’t come out there and buy some of the things that they wanted to buy, so it weakened [the program]…[and] You know the thing I have a hard time getting my hands around is that they only get $20 per month, but it’s the fact that they are willing to go down there for that $20… Obviously it is worth their time to get their voucher to get $40 over two months, obviously it must be worth it in their mind. I think for them to take that time, yes the program is successful.

The vouchers proved more lucrative for some farmers than for others. One farmer estimated the vouchers made up 80% of market earnings in the high traffic weeks of July and August, while another estimated about 50%. For another farmer, the return on participation was much lower, ranging from a high of 25% for two weeks to a lower typical range of only 7-10%. The difference between the farmers who get more voucher customers and the one who gets fewer was likely due to the fact that they were located in different parts of the market. In 2010, the market itself was structured in the shape of a T with most farmers under the main pavilion and the overflow distributed along two sides of the stem of the T in a makeshift aisle in the parking lot. This area was uncovered, which made it hotter, but it is also less congested, which made it easier to identify the stands that took

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 43 the vouchers. The farmers for whom the vouchers contributed 50% and 80% of their income were located along the uncovered aisle, while the other farmer was located under the pavilion. One farmer for whom the vouchers made-up approximately 80% of her market earnings observed that the program helped some Tennessee farmers who were struggling to stay in business:

I thought it would be good. And I knew elderly people needed help, and I knew they know how to cook. So we grow vegetables during those two months, for the vouchers. Because if it wasn’t for the vouchers we’d grow less than half…

For this farmer, awareness of the cooking habits of seniors and personal experience with financial hardship appeared to translate into sensitivity to the struggles faced by voucher recipients:

Yeah, because every winter we live with no income, and worry about how we are going to pay the bills, and I know these people feel when they don’t have money to buy food. It’s hard.

Are the Tradeoffs Worth It? Most of the farmers said it was relatively easy to complete the SFMNP certification process, but all of the farmers reported that there were certain costs and challenges associated with participating in the program. To prevent fraud, the SFMNP required that the recipients bring vouchers from the correct month and sign them at the time of purchase. Farmers then had to stamp the vouchers and deposit them with their bank. Several of the farmers learned from experience that failure to monitor the vouchers could be costly because a $5 voucher that was from the previous year or had been incorrectly signed could be rejected by the bank with a $20 penalty. Another more persistent challenge was the time it took to service voucher recipients. Whereas none of the voucher recipients expressed frustration about the wait time, all of the farmers identified it as an issue, although with varying levels of concern. Most of the farmers referred to it as a tradeoff between helping voucher customers and helping cash-paying customers. The former took more time because voucher recipients had to spend a minimum of $5 and could not receive change if they did not spend the full amount. Helping recipients to find the right combination of fruits and vegetables that added up to increments of $5 could be time consuming. Those who made a significant portion of their day’s income from the vouchers were willing to accept the tradeoff and believed voucher and cash-paying customers were generally willing to wait or find ways to accommodate each other. In describing the long line of voucher customers, one farmer explained:

Most of the other [cash-paying] customers is alright with it. They think it’s good for the people that get them. Some people, like when I’ve got 15 or 20 people back here, and somebody walks up to pay cash that’s

44 VOICES OF HUNGER

holding eggplants, sometimes I try to wait on them real quick, get the money. Most of the people with the vouchers is okay with that, but some get ill since they’ve might been waiting for 15-20 minutes.

The farmers who had not yet achieved a critical mass of voucher customers were uncertain about the financial benefits of participation in the program.

Those people are thinking they are doing a favor by coming to me with a voucher, and honestly they are killing me on time… I’m having to pay another person just to take these vouchers. Some of them [voucher recipients] are as nice as can be, some are just nit picky…If they were nice and easy going, I don’t mind working with them, but a lot of them are time consuming, time consuming…they want to get the $5. Actually they want $5.50 or something, and sometimes I’ll let it slide, sometimes I will ’cause I can’t, here at this market, I can’t [weigh it] exactly. The other market I can because it’s by the pound. But again you go back into the it’s costing me time to figure, I have to take a tomato off to make it, up to $0.50, sometimes it‘s always going to be a nickel over. I’m going to lose a nickel, plus the time doing it. That’s just the way it is.

This quote indicates that farmers and recipients saw this exchange from different perspectives, especially in terms of the cost of the produce. Whereas voucher recipients felt that the prices were high, the farmers often felt that they tried to accommodate voucher recipients as much as possible, even lowering their prices in some cases. Although the farmers at this particular stand were hopeful that the number of voucher recipients would increase over time, making participation worthwhile, at the time they saw their participation in altruistic terms:

It's not, at least in our case, it’s not the business, it’s about helping people, that’s why we do it, they always give you a good taste in your mouth when they go with a big smile and they say thank you.

Why is SFMNP Participation So Low? Farmer participation was essential component of a successful SFMNP program. Although the overwhelming majority of voucher recipients were very positive about the program and the farmers who participated, most felt that there could be more farmers taking the vouchers. Due to limited resources, I was not able to interview non-SFMNP farmers about their views of the program, but I did ask SFMPN farmers why they thought other farmers had not joined. They offered reasons ranging from the farmers were not located in Tennessee so they were not eligible to they did not want the hassle of monitoring the vouchers and working with voucher recipients to total the $5. Several of the farmers also speculated that some of the farmers chose not to participate because even though they marketed their products as homegrown in Tennessee, they were really purchasing some of it from produce warehouses located in Tennessee or in another state, an issue mentioned in other studies of farmers’ markets. A visit to their farm, required for the SFMNP certification process, would likely reveal these practices. Some

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 45 speculated that many farmers were personally in favor of the vouchers and thought it was good for people to get them but didn’t want to deal with the hassle of the program. In other cases, they had witnessed farmers or other customers who appeared to look down upon the voucher recipients. One farmer offered the following observation about the attitudes of his own children and some farmers and customers at the market:

They have no grasp or appreciation of being poor, because they’ve never gone without. I’ve been blessed in that I’ve always made a decent income ever since they’ve been in this world. So they’ve never had to struggle, do without…So they don’t have an understanding of people who just don’t have much…and I think in a lot of aspects, some of the other people who may harbor some of those prejudices, don’t understand that either… I don’t harbor any hard feelings toward them, I don’t harbor any prejudices against them because I’ve seen them from all aspects. I’ve seen poor African Americans, like I’ve seen poor whites…[But] you can look at a person’s expression, their demeanor, or move in a certain direction, and you can tell they don’t want [lower-income people] to be there, and why is this person here…why is this person shopping at the same place I do. The market isn’t a membership club. It’s not exclusive to any one type of person. It’s for everyone.

This was not a commonly articulated theme among the farmers I interviewed, but it does fit with voucher recipients’ descriptions of their interactions with some non-SFMNP farmers.

Conclusions Farmers’ markets are an increasingly popular economic development tool to attract food- conscious urban dwellers. Previous studies have found that farmers’ market customers are more likely to be white and middle-class or upwardly mobile. This research explored the experience of low-income, African American seniors who were able to frequent the predominantly white Memphis Farmers’ Market with the assistance of a SFMNP subsidy. It examined recipients’ perceptions of the quality, availability, and price of produce at the Memphis Farmers’ Market. It also explored whether recipients detected a market community and whether they felt that they are part of that community. This study confirmed the findings of previous studies that the SFMNP was generally meeting its goals of augmenting the amount of fresh, quality produce that low-income seniors consumed. In terms of the second question, voucher recipients’ descriptions of their experience of the farmers’ market community were slightly more positive than one might expect given previous studies’ conclusions about the demographics and consumption preferences of farmers’ market customers. Many recipients were reluctant to criticize the program or the market and only expressed some concerns after they were asked specifically. Recipients’ positive perceptions of the program were shaped by a combination of the high quality of the produce available to

46 VOICES OF HUNGER them, their interactions with other customers and with SFMNP farmers, and the entertainment and activities taking place at the market. There were limits to recipients’ sense of inclusion in the market community, however. The dearth of participating SFMNP farmers and unpleasant interactions with certain non-SFMNP farmers led some recipients to feel that they were not equal members of the market community. Few recipients framed this marginalization through the lens of race; those who did, linked race to prejudice against low-income individuals who received public assistance. Yet given the history of racial tension in Memphis and the fact that nearly all of the voucher recipients at the downtown market were African American while the majority of non-SFMNP customers and farmers were white, race and socio-economic status were likely to be conflated. This study also found a more complex market community at work, which included at least one sub-community of voucher recipients. Voucher recipients reported positive interactions with all market customers, but they relied on an informal community of other voucher recipients to address challenges that were especially germane to them. Other studies reported that typical farmers’ market customers cared about quality, variety, and atmosphere more than price.33 Or, in the case of Alkon’s study of farmers’ markets in Berkeley and Oakland (2008), customers cared about sustainability and supporting African American businesses, respectively. Voucher recipients at the Memphis market also cared about quality and atmosphere. In their own neighborhoods, they may also have cared about supporting African American businesses. In the context of the Memphis Farmers’ Market, though, they were compelled by circumstance to care as well about the price of produce, opaque or unexplained rules, and the limited selection of SFMNP stands. The community of voucher recipients appears to have mitigated the sense of marginalization that could have result from recipients’ initial experiences at the market, namely unpleasant interactions with a couple of non- SFMNP farmers, the subsequent search to find farmers that do accept the vouchers, and the inevitable realization that the vast majority of farmers did not accept them. Nevertheless, this informal community did not adequately counteract some recipients’ confusion about farmer participation and SFMNP rules. Many of the interviewees remained uninformed about how many farmers accepted the vouchers and how many were actually eligible to do so. There was no guarantee that farmers who did not meet the geographic criteria for the program would have participated if they could have, but by better informing recipients about the rules, program administrators could have alleviated speculation that all non-SFMNP farmers excluded recipients from their customer base by choice. It remained unclear whether the number of SFMNP farmers would increase in the future. Some farmers at the Memphis Farmers’ Market were eligible to participate in the SFMNP, but chose not to at the time of this research. One of the benefits to the farmers that accepted vouchers as that they were able to capitalize on a niche market. There were costs, however minimal, associated with monitoring voucher use and estimating the right mix of fruits and vegetables to

33 Andreatta and Wickliffe (2002) “Managing farmer and consumer expectations: A study of a North Carolina Farmers Market;” Zukin (2008) Consuming Authenticity.”

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 47 total $5. For the two farmers who made a significant portion of their market income from vouchers, the tradeoff between assisting voucher recipients and assisting cash-paying customers was worthwhile. For non-SFMNP farmers who heard about the challenges of the program and did not enjoy the benefits of it, there may have been less incentive to participate. As with any exploratory research this study is limited in its scope, and one must be careful about generalizing its results to other cases and cities. Moreover, the study was completed in 2010 and, therefore, does not capture changes to the infrastructure or practices at the Memphis Farmers’ Market or the design and delivery of the SFMNP, which may subsequently have affected the experience of voucher recipients. Still, this study provided insight into the factors that contributed to voucher recipients’ sense of inclusion and exclusion at that time. It also introduced several directions for future research. Future studies might examine whether the informal community of voucher recipients at the Memphis market exists at other farmers markets and, if so, how it impacts the experience of recipients at those markets. Moreover, additional research could help to unpack the role of race and socio-economic status on recipients’ interactions with farmers and other customers by examining the experience of white voucher recipients at other farmers markets. Finally, anecdotal evidence, including my own experience conducting this research, indicates that many market stakeholders including planners and customers may be unfamiliar with the SFMNP. Further research is necessary to determine the level of awareness of and potential support for the program among cash-paying customers and other stakeholders. These stakeholders, especially staff and customers may be a particularly effective source of mobilization. SFMNP staff members have the power to expedite and support farmers in the certification process. Customers have the purchasing power to put pressure on farmers. Farmers’ markets are part of a place- making endeavor. Planners, scholars, customers (cash-paying and voucher recipients), local organizations, and SFMNP and market staff have the opportunity to make markets a place that fosters inclusiveness instead of reproducing inequality and marginalization by welcoming recipients, recruiting SFMNP eligible farmers, and encouraging them to participate in the program.

References Alkon, A. 2008. Paradise or Pavement: The social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability. Local Environment: The Journal of Justice and Sustainability 13(3): 271-289. Anliker, J.A., M. Winne, and L. Drake. 1992. An Evaluation of the Connecticut Farmers’ Market Coupon Program. Journal of Nutrition Education 24: 185-191. Anderson, J.V., D.I. Bybee, R.M. Brown, D.F. McLean, E.M. Garcia, L. Breer, and B.A. Schillo. 2001. A Day fruit and vegetable intervention improves consumption in a low income population. Journal of American Dietetic Association 101: 195-202.

48 VOICES OF HUNGER

Andreatta, S. and W. Wickliffe, II. 2002. Managing farmer and consumer expectations: A study of a North Carolina Farmers Market. Human Organization 1(2): 167-176. Baber, L. M. and E.A. Frongillo. 2003. Family and seller interactions in farmers’ markets in upstate New York. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18(2): 87–94. Black, J. 2009. A White House Farmers Market? Washington Post, August 20. Accessed on October 20, 2010 at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/all- we-can-eat/food-politics/a-white-house-farmers- market.html. Brown, A. 2002. Farmers’ market research 1940-2000: An inventory and review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7 (4): 167-176. Carr, J.H. and L.J. Servon. 2009. Vernacular Culture and Urban Economic Development: Thinking Outside the (Big) Box. Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (1): 28-40. Dollahite, J.S., J.A. Nelson, E.A. Frongillo, and M.R. Griffin. 2005. Building community capacity through enhanced collaboration in the farmers market nutrition program. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 339-354. Feagan, R., D. Morris, and K. Krug. 2004. Niagara Region Farmers’ Markets: local food systems and sustainability consideration. Local Environment 9 (3): 235-254. Griffin, M.R. and E.A. Frongillo. 2003. Experiences and perspectives of farmers from Upstate New York farmers’ markets. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 189-203. Guthrie, J.F. and B.H. Lin. 2002. Overview of the Diets of Lower- and Higher- Income Elderly and Their Food Assistance Options. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34: S31-S41. Herman D.R., G.G. Harrison, A.A. Afifi, and E. Jenks. 2008. Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among low-income women in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. American Journal of Public Health 98 (1): 98-105. Hinrichs, C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 33–45. Jarosz L. 2008. The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 231-244 Kunkel ME, B. Luccia, and A.C. Moore. 2003. Evaluation of the South Carolina Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Education Program. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 (7): 880. Lyson, T. A., G.W. Gillespie, and D. Hilchey. 1995. Farmers markets and the local community: bridging the formal and informal economy. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(3): 108–113. Mayo, J. 1991. The American Public Market. Journal of Architectural Education 45 (1): 41-57. Memphis and Shelby County Health Department. 2008. The Commodity and Supplemental Food Program in Shelby County. Memphis, TN: Memphis and Shelby County Health Department. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://www.shelbycountytn.gov/FirstPortal/dotShowDoc/

RETHINKING COMMUNITY AT THE MEMPHIS FAMERS’ MARKET 49

Government/CountyServices/HealthServices/AdministrativeServices/NR080326_ csfp.htm. Memphis Farmers Market. Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed August 10, 2010http://www.memphisfarmersmarket.org/faq. Obama, M. 2009. Remarks by the First Lady at the Opening of FRESHFARM Farmers’ Market (press release) September 17. Accessed on October 21, 2010 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/remarks-first-lady- farmers-market. Plattner, S. 1982. Economic Decision Making in a Public Marketplace. American Ethnologist 9: 399-420. Pothukuchi K & Kaufman J. 1999. Placing the food system on the urban agenda: the role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 213-224. Project for Public Spaces. 2009. Diversifying Farmers’ Markets Report. New York: Project for Public Spaces. Sage, C. 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in southwest Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 47–60. Shephard, R.J. 2008. When Culture Goes to Market: Space, Place, and Identity in an Urban Marketplace. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Sommer, R., J. Herrick, and T.R. Sommer. 1981. The Behavioral Ecology of Supermarkets and Farmers’ Markets. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1: 13-19. Spitzer, T. M. 1995. Public Markets and Community Revitalization. New York: Urban Land Institute and Project for Public Spaces. Tennessee Department of Health. 2009. SFMNP Information Sheet. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Health. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. 2009. SFMNP Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: Department of Agriculture. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/SeniorFMNPoverview.htm. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009a. FY 2009 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan. Washington, D.C.: Department of Agriculture. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy09budsum.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. 2010. Senior FMNP and WIC FMNP as of April 2010. Washington, D.C.: Department of Agriculture. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SFMNP-FMNP-Map.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. 2010a. SFMNP Profile-FY 2009. Washington, D.C.: Department of Agriculture. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/SFMNPFY2009Profile.htm. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 2000. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://quickfacts.census.gov/ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2009. The 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines. Washington

50 VOICES OF HUNGER

D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/ 09poverty.shtml. Wellman N.S., D.O. Weddle, S. Kranz, and C.T. Brain. 1997. Elder insecurities: poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97: S120-2. Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 23–32. Zukin, S. 2008. Consuming Authenticity. Cultural Studies 22 (5): 724-748. Zukin, S. 2009. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Spaces. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 3: Understanding Low-income Virginians’ Perceptions of Healthy Food, Local Food, and Food Access: Implications for Nutrition Programming

Sarah A. Misyak, Meredith Ledlie Johnson, Mary M. McFerren, Kim L. Niewolny, Kathryn W. Hosig, and Elena Serrano

Introduction Providing improved access to farmers markets and other local for outlets for low- income audiences is an increasingly popular nutrition intervention strategy to promote the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and address the obesity crisis in the United States. This study employed a cross sectional approach using focus group discussions to explore Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program- eligible Virginians’ perceptions of healthy food, access to and perceptions of local foods, the benefits and barriers to shopping at farmers markets, and the impact of local foods on diet quality. The researchers then applied a thematic approach to identify themes from qualitative data gathered during the focus groups discussions. These included: a generational gap in the perceptions of local foods, differences in the perceptions of local food compared to food from supermarkets, and real and perceived barriers to local food access. These results may provide guidance to organizations and programs marketing local foods to low-income consumers in order to make these programs more effective and culturally appropriate. Providing improved access to farmers markets and other local food outlets for low-income audiences is an increasingly popular nutrition intervention strategy designed to promote the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and address the nation’s obesity crisis. A lack of access to and availability of fresh foods is tied to health disparities in addition to obesity and diabetes risk across the

51 52 VOICES OF HUNGER

US1 while increasing access, or even perceived access, to fresh, local foods may increase the consumption of fruits and/or vegetables.2 There are several recognized barriers to food access cited in community- based reports and popular press, such as transportation issues, seasonality of food choices, lack of variety, lack of awareness and convenience, though little formal research has been completed on the subject.3 In addition, barriers to local food access potentially render traditional or currently used marketing initiatives for local food venues less effective for a low-income audience. These barriers may be rooted in social constructs, such as social class and gender issues, which influence the perception of ‘access’ more than the built environment. Therefore, if increasing access to local foods is to be an effective dietary intervention, we need to know more about how the target audience relates to the aesthetics and social constructs of a food outlet and how these perceptions inform consumers’ perspectives about healthy food and food access. Ultimately, this can help us to understand the motivations that influence consumers’ food and shopping choices. This study explored perceptions of healthy food, access to and perceptions of local foods, benefits and barriers to shopping at farmers markets, and the impact of local foods on diet quality. The results can provide guidance to organizations and programs marketing local foods to low-income consumers, such as Cooperative Extension, departments of agriculture and health, farmers markets, food councils, and community gardening initiatives, and can be used to make these programs more targeted and culturally appropriate to increase program impact.

Experimental Methods The study used a cross sectional, mixed methods approach consisting of focus group discussions and a short questionnaire designed to explore perceptions of low-income populations toward farmers markets, local foods and health. In order to explore barriers to farmers market and local food access by low-income audiences, participants were recruited if they met eligibility criteria for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), outlined by the SNAP- Education Program guidelines. SNAP-eligible individuals were recruited with assistance from Virginia Cooperative Extension Family Nutrition Program (FNP), the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), and SNAP- Education (SNAP-Ed) providers for Virginia for participation in focus group discussions. FNP Program Assistants recruited program participants through the Department of Social Services (the location of SNAP offices), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, health clinics, food banks, and other locations with high proportions of SNAP-

1 Larson, Story, and Nelson (2009) “Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S.” 2 Gustafson, et. al. (2012) “Food Store Environment Modifies Intervention effect on Fruit and Vegetable Intake among low-Income women in North Carolina.” 3 McLaughlin and Merrett (2002) “Community-supported agriculture: Connecting farmers and communities for rural development.”

UNDERSTANDING LOW-INCOME VIRGIANIANS’ FOOD PERCEPTIONS 53 eligible participants. Participants were provided with refreshments and a monetary incentive in exchange for participation in this study. Participants completed a short questionnaire prior to the focus group discussions covering demographic characteristics including gender, age, educational achievement, annual household income, and the number of children/dependents living at home. Discussions lasted from 60-90 minutes and were led by a trained focus group facilitator and co-moderator, following the protocol outlined by Krueger.4 Each session was audio-taped and field notes were taken. Focus group questions, developed specifically for this project by field and content experts, were partially adapted from previous studies and formative work with SNAP-eligible populations.5 Participants were asked about their perception of healthy food, access to and perception of local foods, benefits and barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets, and the impact of local foods on diet quality. Focus group discussions were semi-structured, allowing for flexibility on the part of the researchers in which questions were asked and how these questions were asked. Some specific questions from the focus group guide include:

1. How often do you shop at farmers’ markets or roadside stands? a. What are other ways you get local foods? 2. What are some of the reasons you may shop at farmers’ markets? 3. What are some of the reasons you may not shop at farmers’ markets? 4. How would you describe a person who shops at farmers’ markets? a. In what ways are they like you or different? 5. What are ways that farmers’ markets influence health?

Researchers used a thematic approach to identify themes from the qualitative data collected during the focus group discussions.6 The data were then coded by the researchers in an inductive and iterative fashion to further identify themes.7 The codes and themes were checked against the transcripts by a separate researcher who was not previously involved with the study. Based on preliminary analyses of the transcripts, themes were identified separately for ‘older’ and ‘younger’ audiences. For the purpose of this study participants were designated as ‘older’ if they were above 40 years of age and ‘younger’ if they were 40 years of age or below. A total of four focus group discussions were held in four counties in central and western Virginia between September and October of 2013. Five to nine individuals were recruited per focus group discussion with a total of 26 participants. Three participants (11.5%) were male and 23 (88.5%) were female. The average participant age was 38.46 years. The average participant had a high school education or less, had an annual household income of less than $10,000,

4 Krueger and Casey (2000) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 5 Byker, et. al. (2013) “Do farmers’ markets improve diet of participants using federal nutrition assistance programs?” 6 Creswell (2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. 7 Strauss (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.

54 VOICES OF HUNGER and ate an average of 2.04 servings of fruits per day and 2.58 servings of vegetables per day. The average age of older participants was 58.4 years while the average age of younger participants was 26 years of age. The majority of older participants had a high school degree or some high school education and had an annual household income of less than $10,000. The average younger participant had some college or continuing education with an annual household income between $10,001- $20,000.

Results Responses from participants were divided into three major categories or themes by the researchers (Figure 1) with smaller patterns identified for each theme. The three main themes were 1) a generation gap in the perception of local, fresh foods; 2) attitudes toward food; and 3) perceived access to local foods.

Figure 1: Concept Map of Themes and Patterns Developed from Responses from SNAP- Eligible Individuals: The larger circles denote themes. Smaller circles denote patterns for each theme. Lines denote connections between patterns and themes.

Generation Gap in the Perception of Fresh, Local Foods

A significant generation gap existed in the attitudes towards farmers’ markets and, more generally, toward fresh fruits and vegetables. Older participants tended to have positive attitudes toward fresh, local foods, perceiving them to be of a better quality than foods from other food outlets. For example, when asked how

UNDERSTANDING LOW-INCOME VIRGIANIANS’ FOOD PERCEPTIONS 55 shopping at a farmers’ market would affect her health, one older participant responded:

“It would taste better. You know, if you’re diabetic, you’ve got medical needs. The nutrition is still in the vegetables and stuff. Stuff comes out of the cans and there’s no nutrition. I mean it’s got to be all gone out.” She also said, “Because it’s [the produce from farmers markets] fresh. You know it ain’t been in no tin can for antique years.”

Another older participant stated:

I go [to the market] periodically, especially if I want something fresh to fix like string beans or things like that. They do have a variety of things down there, even meats that you might want to fix, cook with rather. I find that theirs is real good.

Fresh fruits and vegetables from other food outlets tended to not be as highly valued by older participants. When describing food from the store participants expressed dissatisfaction with the quality, saying:

You get them [tomatoes and cucumbers] in the stores they say that they’re home grown tomatoes. They’re not. In the summer the tomatoes and cucumbers in the stores are kind of bad and kind of mushy and got mold on it. And I looked at them and said, ‘no thank you.’ I don’t want no cucumbers, I don’t want no tomatoes. I’ll pass on it.

Younger participants’ attitudes toward fresh local foods tended to be less positive. While they recognized fruits and vegetables as healthy, they were not their preferred choices of food. When asked to describe her ideal healthy meal participants responded: “Lots of greens, fruit. I don’t eat this, by the way, what I’m supposed to eat. But I’m trying to learn how to cook healthy but I still put butter and sugar in everything.” Another participant said, “I don’t eat that much [healthy food] but when I do I say healthy foods are, I say greens and fruit and that’s it. And baked food.” Some younger participants regarded fresh, local foods as better quality even though they did not choose to purchase local foods. For example, one participant remarked, “It’s a better quality [at the market]. Because it’s fresh. I don’t shop there. My grandparents used to have a garden. It tastes better too.” The generation gap between perception of local foods and farmers’ markets became especially apparent when many of the younger participants identified farmers’ markets as being more appropriate for use by an older population. “I think about older people shopping at farmers’ markets… I guess they are just so used to growing fruits and vegetables.” Younger participants were also aware of senior groups which traveled together to farmers’ markets from senior centers. Older participants indicated they would value being able to purchase their foods from farmers’ markets for quality and nutritional benefits. Younger participants, however, were more hesitant in expressing interest in and valuing of local foods. Many younger participants acknowledged that purchasing their food

56 VOICES OF HUNGER from farmers’ markets would positively impact their health, at least in the short term, but also indicated they would eventually fall back into established, less healthy eating patterns. Older participants described either having gardens themselves or recalling neighbors and family members with gardens. These gardens provided a source of fresh fruits and vegetables while also connecting participants to family and friends and providing a sense of community. Participants spoke fondly of family, friends and neighbors with gardens who shared, or continue to share, produce as a means of support in times of food insecurity or due to an overabundance of fresh food. Older participants expressed positive associations with their own gardens. “To get some of the best cucumbers I’ve ever had in my life is you go down my back steps…” Of the younger participants, some seemed disinterested in the idea of having their own garden or having to work to grow their own food. Although a minor theme, some younger participants mentioned gardens, expressing positive associations with their parents’ and grandparents’ gardens. Both older and younger participants lacked access to fresh fruits and vegetables from gardens. Barriers to having gardens included: 1) living in areas where stray dogs and cats may defecate in beds, rendering food unsafe for consumption; 2) vandalism from neighbors and children; 3) lack of space; 4) lack of time; and 5) lack of interest.

Perceptions of Food

Overall, participants perceived fresh, local foods as being cleaner and safer than foods from grocery stores. Foods from farmers’ markets were perceived as cleaner than grocery store foods because they were not sprayed with water to keep them looking fresh and weren’t handled or touched by as many shoppers as foods from the grocery store. One participant commented, “I’d be more apt to go from a farmers’ market and just bite into a tomato where I wouldn’t go to Walmart and just bite a tomato.” Foods at farmers’ markets were also seen as safer because they were less likely to be ‘sprayed’ with chemicals while they were grown. Although participants did not necessarily identify this attribute of produce as ‘organic,’ some participants recognized that being able to speak directly with growers or producers enabled them to make purchasing choices based on food safety or, more specifically, what chemicals were used to grow their food. One participant remarked:

I’d want to know what they put on the plants. You know bugs and stuff. There’s so much stuff out there. You don’t know what they’re spraying on there… I don’t want to eat something that maybe might damage you later. You don’t know because certain food they might spray something on there that I’d be allergic to… You’ve got to ask questions.

Factors Related to Food Access

Participants identified fuel costs associated with transportation and a lack of transportation as the main barriers to accessing farmers’ markets. However, upon

UNDERSTANDING LOW-INCOME VIRGIANIANS’ FOOD PERCEPTIONS 57 further discussion, concerns about transportation were masking other concerns about accessing local foods. Many participants reported living within walking distance to or a short drive from farmers’ markets. The distance to farmers’ markets was often comparable or shorter than distances to supermarkets, dollar stores, or convenience stores. Participants generally had steady access to cars, either their own vehicles or ones borrowed from friends or family for their normal food shopping. When asked if a local farmers’ market was easy to get to, a participant responded: “uh uh because I ain’t walking.” When asked if her normal shopping location was easy to get to the same participant responded, “Yeah, because I go get my dad’s van then.” Some participants indicated they traveled an hour or more to get to stores or food banks where they could obtain free or low- cost food. A participant commented on the practice of buying items in bulk from a farmers’ market to get a cheaper price:

Where we live you can’t have that. We don’t have the option for that unless we come over here [25 minutes from their home] and then you don’t know how much you’re giving for it, you know. So that’s why I just don’t go to them [farmers’ markets].

Discussion

In this population, there was a clear generation gap in the view of fresh, local foods. Older participants expressed valuing fresh, quality fruits and vegetables more because they do not have convenient access to such foods. Why do younger participants not share this perception? It is possible that younger consumers may not value fresh, local foods due to shifts in rural communities away from agriculture. Rural economies have moved away from farm and agriculture-related jobs to jobs in the service industry.8 If leaving farms and agriculture behind is a sign of progress, it may explain younger participants’ lack of interest in accessing farmers’ markets or utilizing gardens as a source of fresh food. In general, participants had positive associations with gardens even if they were unwilling to garden themselves or faced unique barriers, such as threats of vandalism or health risks from stray dogs and cats. Participants reported transportation as a barrier, however they were willing to travel similar or longer distances to other food outlets. Instead, it appeared that cost and convenience were the true barriers to accessing fresh fruits and vegetables from farmers’ markets. As a result, providing additional modes of transportations to local food outlets may be an ineffective strategy for increasing local food consumption. Reducing costs may be more effective. Programs such as the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program, the, Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, and SNAP Farmers Market Programs, which have documented increases in sales and consumption of fruits and vegetables by low-

8Smith and Tickamyer (Eds.) (2011). Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America.

58 VOICES OF HUNGER income populations, may be more beneficial. 9 Incentives, matched benefit programs, and mobile farmers markets may also be fruitful.10

Conclusions

The issue of access to local foods is clearly more complex than just ‘what’ and ‘where’. Instead, researchers must dig deeper, especially considering cost and convenience for low-income populations. A potential strategy to promote farmers’ markets to older, low-income populations is through increased partnerships between churches and other emergency food outlets with farmers’ markets. Though providing transportation opportunities to farmers’ markets may not impact market attendance, making sure low or no cost food options are available at farmers’ markets may be effective in bringing older, low-income populations to farmers’ markets and other local food access points. Efforts to improve quality of life in impoverished areas and neighborhoods may also be effective in providing safe gardening spaces. School gardens may be an effective strategy for providing gardening spaces and lead to increased fruit and vegetable consumption for younger generations in areas where the concerns listed above limit gardening opportunities. 11 More recently, WIC gardens represent a promising initiative for reaching mothers of young children. However, peer-reviewed evaluations of such programs are needed to determine reach and effectiveness. Socio-cultural issues should also be taken into account when considering potential programs or strategies. These findings suggest that local foods should be marketed as being fresh, clean, and ‘unsprayed’ (as opposed to organic) to reach a larger segment of the low-income population. Based on these results, the term organic may be misconstrued as ‘expensive.’ Further, nutrition education alone may not be enough to elicit behavior change in younger populations. Some younger participants acknowledged that they believed that shopping at farmers’ markets would positively impact their health but that they were unwilling to commit to changing their behavior long-term. Taking these results in conjunction with the food access and food security literature, researchers and practitioners should use integrated approaches which combine nutrition education with initiatives to change cultural norms and policies which impact local food access. An example of one such integrated initiative which was the impetus for this project was the USDA mandate for the inclusion of farmers’ markets in nutrition education to expand the scope of existing SNAP-Ed nutrition education efforts.12 This mandate encouraged coordination between SNAP-Ed and other health

9 Herman, Harrison, and Jenks (2006) “Choices made by low-income women provided with an economic supplement for fresh fruit and vegetable purchase.” 10 Payne, et. al. (2013) “Implementing a farmers' market incentive program: perspectives on the New York City Health Bucks Program.” 11 Heim, Stang, and Ireland (2009) “A garden pilot project enhances fruit and vegetable consumption among children.” 12 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2013) “SNAP Nutrition Education Grants Program streamlined, will focus on critical problem of obesity.”

UNDERSTANDING LOW-INCOME VIRGIANIANS’ FOOD PERCEPTIONS 59 promotion initiatives. Beyond providing States with increased flexibility in how they address the needs of SNAP-eligible populations in their state, the mandate was also meant to shift health promotion initiative from focusing on individual health to public health and community-based approaches.12 Some broad examples of possible future initiatives include cultural campaigns to increase the appeal of gardening, fresh foods, and farmers’ markets for younger populations and policy initiatives which improve the affordability and availability of fresh, local foods for older populations.

Acknowledgements All research activities were approved by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB number: 12-490). Partial funding was provided by the Virginia Family Nutrition Program.

References Abusabha, R., Namjoshi, D. & Klein, A. (2011). Increasing access and affordability of produce improves perceived consumption of vegetables in low-income seniors. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 111, 1549-1555. Baronberg, S., Dunn, L., Nonas, C., Dannefer, R. & Sacks, R. (2013). The impact of New York City's Health Bucks Program on electronic benefit transfer spending at farmers markets, 2006-2009. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E163. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.130113. Bertmann, F., Ohri-Vachaspati, P., Buman, M. & Wharton, C. (2012). Implementation of wireless terminals at farmers' markets: impact on SNAP redemption and overall sales. American Journal of Public Health, 102, e53-5. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300727. Buttenheim, A., Havassy, J., Fang, M., Glyn, J. & Karpyn, A. (2012). Increasing supplemental nutrition assistance program/electronic benefits transfer sales at farmers' markets with vendor-operated wireless point-of-sale terminals. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112, 636- 41. Byker, C., Misyak, S., Shanks, J. & Serrano, E. (2013). Do farmers’ markets improve diet of participants using federal nutrition assistance programs? A literature review. Journal of Extension, In Press. Byker, C., Shanks, J., Misyak, S. & Serrano, E. (2012). Characterizing farmers' market shoppers: A Literature review. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 7, 38-52. Carr, P.J. & Kefalas, M. (2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America. Boston, MA: Beacon. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dover, S.E., Buys, D.R., Allocca, S., & Locher, J.L. FIELD NOTES: PEOPLE, PROGRAMS, & POLICIES. Farmers' market produce delivery program for mitigating nutritional risk in older adults. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 8, 1-10.

60 VOICES OF HUNGER

Evans, A., Jennings, R., Smiley, A., Medina, J., Sharma, S., Rutledge, R., Stigler, M. & Hoelscher, D. (2012). Introduction of farm stands in low-income communities increases fruit and vegetable among community residents. Health & Place, 18, 1137-1143. Food and Nutrition Service. USDA. (2013). SNAP Nutrition Education Grants Program streamlined, will focus on critical problem of obesity. (Release No. FNS-0005.13). Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2013/fns-000513 Grace, C., Grace, T., Becker, N., & Lyden, J. (2007). Barriers to using urban farmers' markets: An investigation of Food Stamp clients' perceptions. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1, 55-75. Grin, B., Gayle, T., Saravia, D., & Sander, L. (2013). Use of farmers markets by mothersof WIC recipients, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2011. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E95. Gustafson, A., Sharkey, J., Samuel-Hodge, C., Jones-Smith, J., Cai, J., & Ammerman, A. (2012). Food Store Environment Modifies Intervention effect on Fruit and Vegetable Intake among low-Income women in North Carolina. Journal of Nutrition & Metabolism. DOI: 10.1155/2012/932653. Haynes-Maslow, L., Parsons, S., Wheeler, S. & Leone, L. (2013). A qualitative study of perceived barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income populations, North Carolina, 2011. Preventing Chronic Disease, doi: 10.5888/pcd10.120206. Heim, S., Stang, J. & Ireland, M. (2009). A garden pilot project enhances fruit and vegetable consumption among children. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 109, 1220-1226. Herman, D., Harrison, G.G. & Jenks, E. (2006). Choices made by low-income women provided with an economic supplement for fresh fruit and vegetable purchase. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 106, 740-744. Jilcott, S., Keyserling, T., Crawford, T., McGuirt, J. & Ammerman, A. (2011). Examining associations among obesity and per capita farmers' markets, grocery stores/supermarkets, and supercenters in US counties. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 111, 567-572. Kropf, M.L., Holben, D.H., Holcomb, J.P. Jr, & Anderson, H. (2007). Food security status and produce intake and behaviors of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Farmers' Market Nutrition Program participants. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 107, 1903-1908. Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Larson, N. I., Story, M. T., & Nelson, M. C. (2009). Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 36, 74-81. Leone, L.A., Beth, D., Ickes, S.B., Macguire, K., Nelson, E., Smith, R.A., Tate, D.F. & Ammerman A.S. (2012). Attitudes toward fruit and vegetable consumption and farmers' market usage among low-income North Carolinians. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 7, 64-76.

UNDERSTANDING LOW-INCOME VIRGIANIANS’ FOOD PERCEPTIONS 61

Lindseth, A.N. (2004). A phenomenological hermeneutical method for researching lived experience. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 8, 145-153. MacMillan Uribe, A.L., Winham, D.M. & Wharton, C.M. (2012). Community supported agriculture membership in Arizona. An exploratory study of food and sustainability behaviors. Appetite, 59, 431-436. McLaughlin, P. & Merrett, C.D. (2002). Community-supported agriculture: Connecting farmers and communities for rural development. Rural Research Report. Macomb, IL: Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs. Parmer, S.M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D. & Struempler, B. (2009). School gardens: an experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference, and consumption among second-grade students. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 41, 212-217. Payne, G.H, Wethington, H., Olsho, L., Jernigan, J., Farris, R. & Walker, D.K. (2013). Implementing a farmers' market incentive program: perspectives on the New York City Health Bucks Program. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E145. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.120285. Racine, E.F., Smith Vaughn, A. & Laditka, S.B. (2010). Farmers' market use among African- American women participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 110, 441-446. Rahman, T., Cushing, R., & Jackson, R. (2011). Contributions of built environment to childhood obesity. Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine, 78, 49- 57. Rose, N., Serrano, E. & Hosig, K. (2008). The 100-mile diet: a community approach to promote sustainable food systems impacts dietary quality. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 3, 270-285. Smith, K. & Tickamyer, A.R. (Eds.). (2011). Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services. (2013) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education guidance. Retrieved from http://snap.nal.usda.gov/snap/Guidance/FY2014SNAP- EdGuidance.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services. (2013). WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-FMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf Virginia Department of Health. (2013). WIC approved food list: Effective April 1, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.vahealth.org/DCN/Publications/Files/PDFs/WICfood%20Lis t%202012%20web%20Eng.pdf Young, C.R., Aquilante, J.L., Solomon, S., Colby, L., Kawinzi, M.A., Uy, N., & Mallya, G. (2013). Improving fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income customers at farmers markets: Philly Food Bucks,

62 VOICES OF HUNGER

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2011. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10:E166. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.120356.

Chapter 4: Food Security: Access, Culture, and Desert Communities

Ausan Al Eryani

The plight of food desert communities in the United States remains both widely misunderstood and tragically underestimated. The economic and political dimensions of the realities faced by food insecure Americans tend to dominate the conversations. However, the cultural implications of food insecurity are often overlooked. The combination of political, economic, and cultural perceptions of food insecure Americans often limits our ability to understand the stress associated with food as a necessity and, many argue, a basic human right. Data from 2012 indicated that 13.5 percent of American households were food insecure and had difficult at some time during the year providing sufficient food resources for all family members due to a lack of resources. This means that approximately 48 million Americans live in food insecure households.1 Those numbers have remained essentially constant since 2008, the beginning of the economic crisis known as the Great Recession. These Americans confront two fundamental problems when it comes to food security: inaccessibility in terms of economic resources and inaccessibility in terms of geographic location. Many food insecure individuals struggle to provide food for their families because they don’t have enough money to buy food. However, food insecure individuals increasingly face geographic barriers to food choice. Many Americans live in what are called food deserts. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), a program affiliated with First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Initiative, defines a food desert as “a low-income census tract where a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store.”2 To be recognized as a food desert, the area must qualify as a low-income census tract by meeting the eligibility criteria established by the Treasury Department’s New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program. NMTC defines a low-

1 "Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America." 2 “Access to Healthy Food: Data and Maps.”

63 64 VOICES OF HUNGER income census tract as: “any census tract where (1) the poverty rate for that tract is at least 20 percent, or (2) for tracts not located within a metropolitan area, the median family income for the tract does not exceed 80 percent of statewide median family income; or for tracts located within a metropolitan area, the median family income for the tract does not exceed 80 percent of the greater of statewide median family income or the metropolitan area median family income.”3 Moreover, a food desert is defined as one where a minimum of 500 individuals of the tract’s population have low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. In this context, the federal definition of a food desert differentiates between those who live in urban and rural areas. In urban communities, low access requires that individuals live more than one mile away from a supermarket or large grocery store. In rural areas, low access requires that individuals live more than ten miles from a supermarket or large grocery store. Communities that lack access to supermarkets and large grocery stores are not necessarily without food retailers. In many low income communities, urban and rural alike, convenience stores and fast food restaurants provide some food choices for consumers. This means that many residents of food deserts are forced to confront increasing fuel prices and the rising costs of food items at grocery stores and supermarkets while they are faced with the convenient, albeit nutritionally questionable, options offered by local retailers. When we begin classifying communities as “food deserts” or American citizens as “food insecure,” we must be conscious of our choice of language and terminology as those impact our perceptions of these communities and the people within them. Specifically, we must emphasize the impact of “low access” on these individuals and their communities. “Low access” implies that there are structural barriers, both financial and geographic, to healthy, nutritionally adequate, and culturally appropriate foods within many American communities and for many American households. Distance from a grocery store remains a significant contributor to our understanding of what it means to live in a food desert, and many Americans can empathize with the geographic barriers that confront food insecure households. It is not uncommon for the average American to struggle with high gas prices and other transportation barriers. However, adding the notion of poverty often elicits responses grounded in pity, apathy, and at times, even disdain. Because discussions of poverty in American society tend to “blame the victim,” it becomes tempting to look at food insecure households and assume that their circumstances are the consequence of their own poor decisions, undesirable work ethic, or personal failures. When we discuss poverty, it becomes simple and often comfortable to distance ourselves from the plight of those affected. Here, language and its cultural implications give us the license to disengage from the suffering of our fellow citizens on the basis of socioeconomic identity. Our identities are the expressions of ourselves that we communicate through various public demands, values, and responsibilities associated with our individual and collective roles. The language we use when we discuss food deserts caters to the creation, reinforcement, and consolidation of a specific identity. Consider, for example,one report produced by the Rural Sociological

3 “Access to Healthy Food: Data and Maps.”

FOOD SECURITY 65

Society entitled Starved for Access: Life in Rural America (2007). “Starved” suggests a severe deprivation, presumably leading to suffering or, at the very least, distress. However, many food insecure Americans do not look “starved.” On the contrary, because their food choices are limited by income and access, a disproportionate number of food insecure Americans are overweight or even obese. How often do we look at these individuals and assume that because they do not look “starved,” their lack of food access must be the result of poor personal choices rather than structural inequalities? Similarly, Michael Pollan, journalist and author of The Omnivore’s Delimma, promotes an alternative to modern American industrial food realities. Pollan promotes “buying local” and “sustainable eating,” concepts noble and crucial in addressing the crisis of food and food production, but the language throughout his work centers upon a series of assumptions that do not reflect the realities faced by food insecure individuals. At the heart of his work is the age-old question: what’s for dinner? For many Americans, this question is meaningless because they’re asking: is there dinner? Pollan dodges this question. When pressed in a PBS interview in December 2010 to respond to critics who claim that his promotion of a diet rich in local and organic foods is unrealistic for many low income Americans, especially those living in food desert communities, Pollan responded that his goal is simply to “put out choices.” 4 Pollan’s work emphasizes the importance of choice in his depiction of an ideal food citizen. But for many food insecure Americans, the fundamental problem is a lack of choice in terms of their food purchases. Whether that lack of choice stems from a lack of income or a lack of access is irrelevant. In the context of food, the absence of choice defines who they are. Vegetarians, locavores, and even conscious omnivores are defined not simply by their specific food choices the food identities those choices create. In contrast, members of food deserts are defined economically and personally by barriers, nutritional distress, and rigid limitations that prevent them from enjoying the lifestyle and food identities that Pollan, among others, idealize. Discussions of food deserts and food insecure populations in the United States thus reinforce specific assumptions about the identities of food insecure Americans. We acknowledge that many people face economic and geographic barriers to adequate and nutritious food. However, our devotion to the sacredness of individuality and consumer sovereignty leads genuine befuddlement when we try to understand how those barriers constitute a fundamental lack of choice. We know that the poor and food insecure do buy food. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that Americans with household incomes between $15,000 and $19,999 spend approximately 15% of their budgets on foods consumed at home and in restaurants. Doesn’t that mean that their food purchases reflect their preferences? By contrast, middle class Americans spend approximately 13% of their money on food while wealthy Americans spend a mere 11% of their budget on food. If we accept that the wealthy and middle class are voting with their food dollars, can we not assume that the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their money on food, are doing the same? We assume that the power of “choice” is as applicable to food insecure Americans as it is to their more affluent or middle class counterparts. Thus, the

4 "Overheard with Evan Smith: Michael Pollan - Food Deserts and Locavores.”

66 VOICES OF HUNGER identity of the “good food citizen” emerges. The “good food citizen” considers the environmental, economic, and ethical implications of his food choices. He makes conscious food decisions based on nutrition and sustainability, eschewing “processed,” “conventional,” and “fast” foods for “whole,” “local,” and “organic” alternatives. By contrast, the “bad food citizen” chooses the Twinkie™ over the apple, the convenience store over the farmers’ market, the fast food over the home cooked meal. These identities are defined by our dogmatic and uncritical acceptance of the centrality of consumer choice in relation to food purchases. Furthermore, they are grounded in our persistent belief that any individual can overcome economic and geographic barriers to food access and that to do otherwise signifies a personal failure on behalf of the individual rather than the society in which he lives. Indeed, to be an acceptable “food citizen,” one must push beyond personal limitations and dramatically reevaluate the relationship between man and food. To do otherwise is lazy and irresponsible. However, the language we associate with food desert communities – including words such as “starved” or “poor” – implicitly exacerbates the theoretical and emotional realities that attend good food citizens (i.e. those at who prioritize conscious food choices) as opposed to bad food citizens (i.e. those trapped on the periphery of the food system). By promoting an “us” versus “them” mentality in food discussions, the societal pressure on members of a food deserts to conform to the “good food citizen model” increases. And when they cannot do so, they are marginalized, condemned, and ignored as less important and less valuable to society as a whole. But does the “bad food citizen” represent a fair or accurate characterization of food insecure Americans? To address this issue we must examine the economic environment facing citizens of food deserts as well as the overall state of the modern American food system. The American fast food industry dominates U.S. food consumption, particularly in underdeveloped communities. McDonalds, Subway, and Burger King are ubiquitous across the country, even in communities without grocery stores, supermarkets, or other food retailers. The industry generated $184 billion in 2010 alone.5 Moreover, the industry employs about 12 percent of the American workforce, primarily in minimum-wage paying jobs.6 Across the United States, fast food restaurants maintain a powerful presence in low-income communities. Studies show that in some cities, “there are twice as many fast food restaurants in predominantly African-American neighborhoods than in white ones.”7 This industry benefits enormously from federal agricultural subsidies, particularly in corn. Because American taxpayers subsidize the corn industry, beef, high fructose corn syrup, and other fast-food ingredients appear artificially inexpensive to the consumer. As a consequence, over the last 30 years, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables increased nearly twice as fast as the price of carbonated drinks. The food industry fights tirelessly to protect the subsidies on which their economic competitiveness depend. In 2012, the agribusiness industry poured nearly $13 million into lobbying, “a 48 percent increase over its lobbying in the final three months of 2011.”8 Much of was designed to influence the 2012

5 "Topic: Fast Food." 6 Nestle, “Does the Future Hold Jobs in the Food Industry?” 7 Freeman, “Fast Food: Oppression through Poor Nutrition.” 8 Choma, "Pharma, Utilities and Big Ag Lead Lobbying in 2012."

FOOD SECURITY 67 reauthorization of the Farm Bill. The legislation allocated billions of dollars of subsidies designed to aid farms and landowners by keeping their products competitive, stabilizing grain prices, and providing an adequate food supply for the American population. But the benefits of this legislation are not felt equally across the American food system. The fast and processed food industries benefit disproportionately from agricultural subsidies, “benefits” that they pass on to consumers. Because fast food is convenient, inexpensive, and easily accessible, the country’s poorest communities and consumers often have a geographic and monetary incentive to spend their food dollars on the “cheapest” food available. This is often considered to be the nutritionally and ethically “worst” decision possible and reinforces the stereotype the poor Americans are “bad food citizens.” Such economic and geographic realities have led to misleading interpretations of the market power associated with citizens of food deserts in particular. Studies indicate that low-income Americans and residents of food deserts eat more fast food than the average citizen. But what does that mean? Does it mean that food insecure Americans prefer fast food because of its taste, nutritional value, or quality? Or does it suggest that these Americans are buying the only foods they can afford or access based on their incomes and the choices available in the communities in which they live? In August of 2012 the national average for a pound of red delicious apples stood at $1.504. By comparison, a McDouble™ including two 100% beef patties, a slice of American cheese, pickles, onions, ketchup, and mustard cost $1-2, depending on geographic location. Which is the “better” choice for a food insecure American? The apples or the hamburger? If you have two dollars to spend on food, which would you choose? And, of course, even asking this question assumes that the consumer has a choice. How many food insecure Americans live in communities where they can buy a McDouble™ but do not have access to the apples? In those cases, is it fair to imply that the food purchase is the reflection of a choice at all? Is this “choice” equivalent or even comparable to one made by a middle class American with transportation and disposable income who lives in a community with numerous grocery stores, supermarkets, and restaurants in addition to fast food establishments? Studies have shown that households with incomes of less than $25,000 per year spent more than $4 per capita on organic produce in 2001 and 2004.9 This reinforces the assumption that “they” can and sometimes do exercise their “food choice” and select the healthier, more sustainable option. “They” could be “good food citizens” if they wanted to be! It’s all about priorities. Choices. The implication is that those who do not conform to the “good food citizen” model do so because they choose not to. “They” don’t know better. “They” don’t want to make healthy choices for their families. “They” are to blame for the problems that they face in relation to food. The food insecurity facing millions of Americans creates a series of economic and ethical quandaries. In many cases, hunger, obesity, poor academic performance, and chronic health problems are intricately linked to poor nutrition

9 Stevens-Garmon, et. al. "Organic Demand: A Profile of Consumers in the Fresh Produce Market."

68 VOICES OF HUNGER and lack of food choice. But how do we fix the problem? Often the solutions include calls for healthier eating, a greater number of supermarkets and large grocery stores in poor communities, or increased government spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, although we as a society recognize that a food security crisis exists in the United States, we simultaneously participate in a culture that judges and often condemns individuals who cannot reap the benefits of our abundant and diverse food supply with its organic, free-range, local, sustainable, and, of course, more “conventional” options. Within American society, food choice, individual responsibility, and a reverence for the modern-day citizen as a consumer have created a subculture in which those who confront hunger endure shame, guilt, and a code of silence. This culture makes it difficult to effectively address the crisis of food insecurity and hunger in America. The problem is that the United States is a culture defined by its surplus, by its excess, by its diverse array of choices, especially in food. From the well-stocked shelves of the modern supermarket with its dozens of cereal options and bounty of fresh produce to the all-you-can-eat buffets of our restaurants, we are inundated with constant proof of the richness of our society and the options it offers to consumers. Consequently, the culture of surplus shames those among us who face the pressures associated with scarcity, such as those who live in food desert communities or who receive public food benefits. The $78 billion SNAP program is seen as excessive, unnecessary, and shameful, not because we as a society are ashamed that there are hungry people amidst the surplus but because the individuals who receive those benefits cannot “get it together” and become part of the majoritarian surplus-enjoying culture. American political and cultural discourse vilifies those who receive SNAP benefits as “freeloaders” in search of a handout. As a consequence, hungry Americans are ashamed of their hunger. As external pressures increase, those in food poverty internalize the rhetoric. Children refuse their free or reduced school lunches. Families avoid taking food from food pantries for fear that they will be recognized by volunteers. Consumers try to hide the fact that their purchases are made with SNAP benefits. People go hungry rather than accept help because they are ashamed to admit that they cannot buy or access food. Even those sympathetic to the food crisis in the United States contribute to the marginalization of hungry Americans. Americans are challenged to make conscious effort to understand precisely what is on our plates. How was it grown? Was it genetically modified? Is it safe? Is it sustainable? Is it ethical? But when we ask “what’s for dinner?” we reveal our unspoken assumption that there is, in fact, something to eat, and not just something but many things from which we can make the most sustainable, ethical, and nutritious choices. The problem is that for food insecure Americans, the question is not “what is for dinner?” but rather “is there dinner?” To ask only the former but not the latter is to dismiss the possibility that culture of scarcity exists, where food is a luxury and its absence presents deep social, emotional, and psychological consequences, and, by extension, to dismiss the people who face those consequences on an ongoing basis. Ultimately, it is culturally comfortable to disregard the realities faced by food insecure individuals and members of food desert communities as economic

FOOD SECURITY 69 inevitabilities, at best, or personal failings, at worst. We cannot begin to address the food security crisis in this country until we acknowledge the cultural and political forces that marginalize and vilify the hungry among us. Questions about identity, about what it means to be a food citizen in a country of surplus in which scarcity persists, must be confronted before we can begin to implement policies designed to eradicate hunger. It is critical that we examine our own privilege, our own relationship to food, our own status relative to scarcity or surplus so that we can better understand our biases, our assumptions, our cultural blinders lest we project our own access to food choice onto those who do not have the same freedom. References Access to Healthy Food: Data and Maps. Policy Link. Web. 07 May 2014 < http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.7634025/k.763F/Data_ and_Maps.htm> Andrea Freeman, Fast Food: Oppression through Poor Nutrition, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 2221 2007).Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol95/iss6/8 Choma, Russ. "Pharma, Utilities and Big Ag Lead Lobbying in 2012." Pharma, Utilities and Big Ag Lead Lobbying in 2012. Open Secrets Blog, 27 Apr. 2012. Web. 05 May 2014. . "Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America." Feeding America. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2014. . Nestle, Marion. "Food Politics." » Does the Future Hold Jobs in the Food Industry? N.p., 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 05 May 2014. "Overheard with Evan Smith: Michael Pollan - Food Deserts and Locavores: KLRU Video." PBS Video. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2014. . Stevens-Garmon, John, Chung L. Huang, and Biing-Hwan Lin. "Organic Demand: A Profile of Consumers in the Fresh Produce Market." Choices Article -. Choices, 2007. Web. 05 May 2014. . "Topic: Fast Food." Www.statista.com. The Statistics Portal, n.d. Web. 05 May 2014. .

Chapter 5: Is There a Place for Space in the Analysis of Policy Utilization? The Case of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Ketra Rice

Introduction While the U.S. is deemed a rich nation, the attributes of our nation often blind us from some of the more intractable problems of our society, such as the inadequate distribution of healthful and nutritious food. As a nation, our per capita income is such that we spend less than 10 percent of our disposable income on food. 1 Yet, statistics for 2011 showed that nearly 15 percent of Americans lived in food insecure households.2 These are households with limited access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. While food insecurity is largely driven by factors such as low wages and limited opportunities for accumulating assets, within, and perhaps beyond, these dreadful conditions are communities in areas that have come to be known as “food deserts.” These communities, by definition, lack healthful food sources, such as grocery stores, supermarkets and other healthful food retail outlets3. This lack implies a spatial disparity in food availability, which requires that researchers understand how an

1 United States Department of Agriculture (2011) “Food Security in the United States.” 2 Food security is defined as “access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members.” It includes at a minimum the guaranteed availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods and the assured ability to acquire them in socially acceptable ways without resorting to stealing, scavenging, or other coping strategies. [United States Department of Agriculture (2011) “Food Security in the United States.”] 3 Healthful food retail outlets are establishments generally known as traditional food stores, such as supermarkets, grocery stores and specialty food stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh and prepared meats, canned and frozen foods, dairy, and whole grain food products. [United States Department of Agriculture (2011) “Food Security in the United States.”]

70 THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 71 inadequate supply of nutritious foods affects diet, health and well-being in specific communities. Considerable policy and academic attention has focused on the topics of healthful food access and availability and how the insufficient quantity and quality of healthful foods seem to be concentrated in particular geographic areas.4 These geographic areas are often resource scarce and spatially isolated, which contributes to diet and health disparities and numerous other related societal ills.5 Further exploration of spatial disparities6 in diet and health is an important topic for researchers and those affected alike as trends indicate that health disparities across geographic regions continue to persist.7 These trends raise concerns for policymakers as they attempt to strengthen current food assistance programs and address growing chronic health disparities within the United States. The formulation of appropriate policy requires a comprehensive understanding of why spatial disparities continue to exist, what unambiguous effects they have on diet and health, and what types of policy interventions may best alleviate such disparities. The concept of “space” is central to understanding food deserts as spatial research examines geographic differences in outcomes as they relate to social and economic wellbeing.8 Consumers who live in food deserts are at greater risk of poorer dietary health because the risk of not meeting recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables is greater in places where fresh produce is rarely available. Food deserts are in essence disadvantaged locations that result in limited food retail sources, which may lead to inadequate nutrition and an increase in consumers’ risk of poor health. In addition, the majority of Americans acquire their food from retail sources, not by growing it themselves. 9 As the American Heart Association reports, there is a direct link between low fruit and

4 Bitler and Haider (2010) “An Economic View of Food Deserts in the United States;” Ver Ploeg, et. al. (2009) “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and their Consequences;” Rose, et. al. (2009) “Deserts in New Orleans? Illustrations of Urban Food Access and Implications for Policy;” Sharkey and Horel (2009) “Characteristics of Potential Spatial Access to a Variety of Fruits and Vegetables in a large Rural Area.” 5 Morton, et. al. (2005) “Solving the Problem of Iowa Food Deserts: Food Insecurity and Civic Structure,” Morton, et. al. (2005) “Solving the Problem of Iowa Food Deserts: Food Insecurity and Civic Structure;” Blanchard and Lyson (2003) “Retail Concentration, Food Deserts, and Food Disadvantaged Communities in Rural America;” Kaufman (1999) “Rural Poor Have Less Access to Supermarkets, Large Grocery Stores.” 6 Spatial disparities in diet and health are differences in diet and health outcomes and their determinants between different groups of people, defined by geographic location [Carter- Pokras and Baquet (2002) “What is a “Health Disparity”?” 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) “National Center for Health Statistics.” 8Bourdieu (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste; Kearns and Joseph (1993) :Space in its Place;” Lobao, Hooks, and Tickamyer (2007) Advancing the Sociology of Spatial Inequality in The Sociology of Spatial Inequality. 9 Fulfrost and Howard (2006) “Mapping the Markets: The Relative Density of Retail Food Stores in Densely Populated Census Blocks in the Central Coast Region of California”

72 VOICES OF HUNGER vegetable consumption and major health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.10 Thus, health vulnerability can be exacerbated in a food desert. In an effort to parse out the impact of space on diet and health outcomes, I further describe and examine conceptual perspectives on health and space from a health geography and rural sociology lens; and I then incorporate these perspectives into a conceptual and methodological analysis of the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which aims to improve diet and health outcomes for low-income participants across the U.S. The conceptual analysis involves identifying and classifying the geographic factors associated with each conceptual perspective under which SNAP participation could be influenced; and the methodological analysis involves the statistical measurement of the associations between geographic factors and SNAP participation in spatial regression models.

Conceptual Perspectives on Health and Space: Perspectives in Health Geography Perspectives in health geography have attempted to identify the impact of space and posit that the physical and social environments can serve as exposures to poor diet and poor health. 11 Health geography applies geographical information, methods, and theories to the study of health in specific geographic areas in order to provide a spatial understanding of a population's health, the distribution of disease in an area, and the environment's effect on health and disease. Theories suggest that the health experiences of individuals depend partly on the physical and social environment where they live. Three conceptual frameworks support this notion: (1) spatial patterning and diffusion of physical and biological risk factors, (2) the role of space and place in social relations, and (3) landscapes and sense of place. Spatial patterning and diffusion of physical and biological risk factors look at the ecological landscape and its significance on rates of disease transmission and health outcomes attributable to factors such as environmental pollution and climate. For example, a warming climate affects the occurrence and spread of disease by affecting the size and range of pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks.12 Extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or droughts often trigger disease outbreaks, especially in geographic regions where treatment and prevention measures may

10 American Heart Association (2009). 11Gittlesohn and Sharma (2009) “Physical, Consumer and Social Aspects of Measuring the Food Environment Among Diverse Low-Income Populations;” Frank and Engelke (2001) “The Built Environment and Human Activity Patterns: Exploring the Impacts of Urban Form on Public Health;” Curtis and Jones (1998) “Is There a Place for Geography in the Analysis of Health Inequality?;” Blaxter (1990) Health and Lifestyles; Fox and Goldblatt (1982) Longitudinal Study: Socio-Demographic Mortality Differentials, a First Report on Mortality in 1971-1975 According to 1971 Census Characteristics, Based on Data Collected in the OPCS Longitudinal Study; McGranahan (1980) “The Spatial Structure of Income Distribution in Rural Regions.” 12 McMichael (1996) Human Population Health, In Climate Change 1995 – Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific Technical Analyses.

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 73 be inadequate.13 Spatial patterning and diffusion of physical and biological risk factors clearly identify the physical or ecological landscape as a likely contributor to some chronic diseases. While this chapter is focused on food policy outcomes, an examination of spatial patterning and diffusion of physical and biological risk factors is still essential to identify how the ecological landscape may contribute to outcomes. The role of space and place in social relations considers the material landscape and the social structures that marginalize or exclude individuals from achieving a healthy lifestyle. The social order of the landscape is progressively inscribed in people’s minds through the physical and social products they can access, including education, employment, services, and the general activities of everyday life. These all lead to an unconscious acceptance of social differences and a sense of one’s place in society and the subsequent health behaviors that embody a marginalized group of people.14 The role of space and place in social relations can perpetuate class systems that lead to landscapes of consumption. For example, the locations for upper class leisure (exclusive gyms, recreation grounds, restaurants, etc.) can be contrasted with those available in lower class locations. The location patterns of consumption associated with food availability could also be interpreted in the same way. Further empirical research has shown that disadvantaged neighborhoods, characterized by lower social class, have been shown to be associated with a variety of poor health behaviors.15 In addition, the absence of supermarkets in a community has been related to a reduced likelihood of consuming sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables and other healthful foods.16 A separate and unequal landscape of consumption can inhibit individuals’ ability to procure healthful food and live healthy lives. A critical component of this chapter is to identify the material food landscape and measure its effect on policies implemented to improve diet and subsequent health outcomes. The third conceptual framework from the geographical literature supporting the notion of the effects of health and space is landscapes and sense of place. Landscapes and sense of place is a humanistic approach to understanding place and stresses the meaning and bonds that people establish with the places where they live. Kearns and Joseph (1993) describe that certain places have special meanings to the people who live there and their understanding of health and well- being is shaped by the culture within that landscape. The special bond which develops between children and their childhood environments forms part of their identity as they develop and move into adulthood. Their understanding of diet and health stems from the community and people they grew up with, thus shaping their understanding of health as adults. Food has special meaning in different places and our accepting of what we eat, and subsequently its effect on our bodies, stems from our bonds created with our food through our landscapes and sense of place. A key component of this chapter is to identify the potential social

13 Epstein (1999) “Climate and Health.” 14 Bourdieu (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. 15 Ellaway and MacIntyre (1996) “Does Where You Live Predict Health Related Behaviors? A Case Study in Glasgow.” 16 Edmonds, et. al. (2001) “Ecological and Socioeconomic Correlates of Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Consumption among African-American Boys.”

74 VOICES OF HUNGER food landscape and measure its effect on policies implemented to improve diet and health outcomes. Further studies in health geography have examined the impact of space on similar individuals (similar in terms of socioeconomic status) and their individual health outcomes. Blaxter (1990) and Fox and Goldblatt (1982) showed that for individuals of similar social class, health conditions varied according to the socioeconomic environments in which they lived. That is, the individuals were themselves similar in terms of their social class, but their health varied depending on the location in which they resided, with evidence suggesting that more socially and economically declining rural areas may experience worse individual health outcomes due to higher levels of socio-economic deprivation in those areas. Social and economic dimensions of access are important as isolated rural areas are more likely to be food deserts, as well as deserts for other types of resources, such as healthcare. For the poor and immobile, the physical inaccessibility for procuring food and health services is further constrained.

Rural Sociological Perspectives Sociological perspectives, particularly rural sociology, that explain spatial– structural constraints are closely related to the role of space and place in social relations. Spatial-structural perspectives view environments as partially socially constructed. The ability to control the spacing of human activity reflects the unequal distribution of power and control of resources.17 In other words, spatial arrangements of goods and resources produce inequalities, such that relations of power and structures of inequality are embedded in spatial design. Spatial-structure explains differential access to food resources and other social resources for procuring healthful food and achieving a healthy lifestyle. An unequal distribution of power and control over food resources is partially the result of power and consolidation among food producers, distributors and retailers. In 2000, five firms controlled 46 percent of the food retailing market in the United States, resulting from few firms gaining ownership and control within multiple stages—production, distribution and retail—of the food system.18 The increasing consolidation of the food industry has implications for food access to rural residents, as studies documenting price differences in food costs between urban (excluding urban city centers) and rural areas find that rural residents pay more for groceries because of lack of access to supermarkets/grocery stores.19 Thus, when applying consolidation to the question of geographic space, we see more deprivation occurring in rural and urban poor areas as a result of this transformation in the food industry. Consolidation has led to increased spatial disparities in food access and availability, as well as, price disparities, which has left many poor urban areas and rural communities without access to retailers providing healthy and nutritious food. As diets related chronic illnesses continue to increase nationally, and we continue to see evidence that the highest rates of

17 Tickamyer (2000) “Spatial Inequality in the Future of Sociology.” 18 Hendrickson and Heffernan (2002) “Multi-National Concentrated Food Processing and Marketing Systems and the Farm Crisis.” 19 Kaufman (1999) “Rural Poor Have Less Access to Supermarkets, Large Grocery Stores.”

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 75 food insecurity occur in rural and poor urban areas, we can only deduce that this trend in food retail consolidation will only result in greater levels of poor health for the rural and urban poor.20 The spatial-structural perspective implies that consolidation creates a structural inequality. Spatial-structural constraints emphasize the inequality across geographic regions regarding the disproportionate share of resources and explain the social and economic constraints created and imposed as a result of this disproportionate share. These constraints then inhibit individuals’ ability to live healthy lives. Evidence has shown that spatial inequality exists across geographic areas of the U.S., with rural areas and other less developed locations suffering from inadequate resources, services, and opportunities, with food deserts serving as a clear example of the food inadequacies these communities face.21 The spatial structural explanation of diet and health disparities specifically emphasizes rural-urban differences, but the theory can explain differences across all geographic areas, whether they are rural, urban or suburban. When thinking of diet and health disparities across geographic locations, we are essentially saying that there exists a spatial inequality in food resources that can hinder individuals from procuring a healthy diet. The integration of conceptual perspectives in health geography and rural sociology help to elucidate the complex nature of geographic influences contributing to diet and health disparities. There are various factors that contribute to these disparities, and thus, multiple policy implementation methods may be required. As many policies and programs related to diet and health are implemented across the U.S. in unvarying fashion, an analysis of the geographic variation in policy usage or practice can provide valuable information for policymakers.

U.S. Food Policy U.S. food policy is established and enforced at the federal level through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), with the FDA’s key food policy goals being to ensure a safe, national food supply and the USDA’s key policy goals being to support the agricultural economy and provide a safe and sufficient nutritious food supply. While some of the policy goals of each organization may overlap, the FDA is generally involved with the regulation and supervision of food and drug safety, and the USDA is more directly involved with the distribution and assistance of food for specific groups of people. In the specific context of providing a safe and sufficient nutritious food supply for specific groups of people, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) attempts to meet these goals through the implementation of food distribution and assistance programs. Food distribution programs are designed to strengthen the nutrition safety net through commodity distribution and other nutrition assistance to low-income

20 Jensen, et. al. (2011) “Household Food Security in the United States in 2010.” 21 Lobao, Hooks, and Tickamyer (2007) Advancing the Sociology of Spatial Inequality in The Sociology of Spatial Inequality.

76 VOICES OF HUNGER families, emergency feeding programs, Indian reservations, and the elderly. Several programs include the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), Food Distribution Disaster Assistance Program, Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and the Schools/Child Nutrition Commodity Program. Food assistance programs are designed to increase food security by providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition (USDA, 2012a). Two major programs are the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Both programs are designed to help consumers purchase food. The WIC program targets low-income women, infants, and children up to age five by providing vouchers to purchase specific foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to healthcare. WIC limits the purchase of foods to specific foods researched to be nutritious.22 SNAP provides financial assistance to improve nutrition and help reduce food insecurity of low-income households. The SNAP program is aspatial in nature, which causes some concern when looking at the food availability and access constraints posed by consumers living in food deserts. As a result of these availability and access constraints, the SNAP program allows the use of benefits at convenience stores, with convenience stores accounting for 36 percent of all SNAP authorized stores in 2010, more than the individual percentages for supermarkets and supercenters (17%), grocery stores (15%), and specialty markets and combinations stores (32%) (USDA, 2012a). As one of the key goals of the SNAP program is to improve nutrition, the fact that convenience stores are authorized to accept benefits are a conflict to this goal. It is documented by studies conducted at the USDA that convenience stores, on average, offer limited and lower quality healthful foods than grocery stores or supermarkets.23 The SNAP program, like other types of programs, is complex as the ways in which it must address food deficiencies manifest over time in response to changes in the environment. In the process of adaptation, the multiple goals of an agency tasked with carrying out policy often leads to goal conflict. As food deserts become more prevalent, adding a spatial component to analyzing consumer usage of SNAP benefits is vital as the policy seeks to have a greater impact in minimizing nutrition deficiencies. The prevalence of food deserts and the subsequent levels of inadequate nutrition associated with them are of concern, as efforts aimed at improving dietary health are at a critical forefront in national food and health policy discussion.24

22 Nutritious foods for the WIC program are defined as those necessary to meet the special nutritional needs of children and pregnant and breastfeeding Mothers. 23 Ver Ploeg, et. al. (2009) “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and their Consequences.” 24 The White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, the Partnership for a Healthier America, and First Lady Michelle Obama have brought dietary health and food access to the forefront of food and health policy discussion “White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President.”

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 77

Integrating Conceptual Perspectives in the Analysis of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

SNAP Background

Originally established by the Food Stamp Act of 1964, SNAP has evolved from its original goal of strengthening the agricultural economy and providing improved levels of nutrition to low-income households, to a more specific goal of preventing food insecurity by increasing the food purchasing power of low- income households, enabling them to obtain a more nutritious diet by preparing food at home. The USDA – Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers SNAP under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended. The Food and Nutrition Act establishes five uniform national eligibility standards: (1) defines a SNAP household; (2) defines categories of households automatically eligible for benefits; (3) sets income limits; (4) sets resource limits; and (5) sets various nonfinancial criteria. Under SNAP rules, a household is defined as individuals who share a residential unit and purchase and prepare food together. Each individual’s income and countable resources are aggregated to determine eligibility. 25 To be eligible for SNAP, a household that is not categorically eligible26 and does not include an elderly or disabled member must have a monthly gross income that is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline ($2,389 for a family of four in the contiguous United States in fiscal year 2010). Households that are not categorically eligible are permitted up to $2,000 in countable resources or $3,000 in countable resources if at least one household member is elderly or disabled. The program’s nonfinancial eligibility standards restrict the participation of dependent students, strikers, people who are institutionalized, felons, unauthorized immigrants, nonimmigrant visitors to the United States, and some lawful permanent resident noncitizens. The Food and Nutrition Act only provides for exceptions to the eligibility standards in certain high-cost areas, such as Alaska and Hawaii. The FNS administers SNAP nationally, while state and local welfare agencies operate the program locally. However, there is no variation in program eligibility criteria across localities in the 48 contiguous U.S. states. The federal government fully funds SNAP benefits and cooperating agencies share administrative costs, with FNS paying about 50 percent of those costs. In 2011, nearly one in seven Americans received support from SNAP. The vast majority of

25 Countable resources include cash, resources easily converted to cash (such as money in checking or savings accounts, savings certificates, stocks or bonds, or lump-sum payments), and some non-liquid resources, such as certain vehicles. [United States Department of Agriculture (2012b) “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010.”] 26 A household is categorically eligible if all of its members receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash or in-kind Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or General Assistance (GA) through the state. [United States Department of Agriculture (2012b) “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010.”]

78 VOICES OF HUNGER

SNAP households (76 percent) included a child (under age 18), an elderly person (age 60 and over), or a disabled nonelderly person.

Review of SNAP Participation Research The FNS conducts research on SNAP participation and non-participation among a sample of low-income households and reports on the socio-demographic characteristics of those households. In addition, FNS conducts research on the differences in dietary patterns across low-income participating and non- participating households, with dietary patterns measured by the healthy eating index.27 Selected data from the FNS 2010 report on characteristics and dietary patterns of low-income SNAP participating and non-participating households are summarized in Table 1 and provide context of diet patterns for low-income individuals. The data show the percentages of each demographic subgroup with high and low HEI scores. Healthy eaters were more likely than less healthy eaters to be female, older than 60, white, married, have a high school diploma, and not working. The results also showed that there was not a significant difference between the healthy eating scores of SNAP participants and nonparticipants. The results from the research on diet patterns have led to nutrition education efforts conducted by FNS. In 2011, $375 million in federal funds was approved for SNAP-education efforts to improve the likelihood that persons eligible for SNAP will make healthy food choices within a limited budget and choose physically active lifestyles.28 While these education efforts are immense and much needed, numerous research has shown that residents living in food disadvantaged communities are negatively impacted by poor nutrition due to inadequate availability of healthful food choices, rather than just personal preferences for food. 29 Therefore, an examination of the food environment is warranted.

27 The Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2005) is a measure of diet quality that assesses conformance to federal dietary guidance. Nine components are food-based and assess intakes of total fruit; whole fruit; total vegetables; dark green vegetables, orange vegetables, and legumes; total grains; whole grains; milk; meats and beans; and oils. The remaining three components assess intakes of saturated fat, sodium, and calories from solid fat, alcoholic beverages, and added sugar. Scoring criteria assign higher scores for greater consumption of food-based components and lower scores for greater consumption of sodium and saturated fat. Maximum scores for each component range from 5 to 20, with a total possible 100 points . [United States Department of Agriculture (2012c) “Characteristics and Dietary Patterns of Healthy and Less-Healthy Eaters in the Low- Income Population.”] 28 United States Department of Agriculture (2012d) “Nutrition Program Fact Sheet: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-Ed).” 29Blanchard and Lyson (2002) “Access to Low Cost Groceries in Nonmetropolitan Counties: Large Retailers and the Creation of Food Deserts;” Blanchard and Lyson (2003) “Retail Concentration, Food Deserts, and Food Disadvantaged Communities in Rural America;” Morland, et. al. (2001) “Neighborhood Characteristics Associated with the Location of Food Stores and Food Service Places;” Kaufman (1999) “Rural Poor Have Less Access to Supermarkets, Large Grocery Stores.”

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 79

Table 1. 2010 USDA Reported Proportions of Person-Level Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Healthy Eating Index High and Low Scores – Low Income Adults aged 19 + All Low-Income SNAP Income-Eligible Other Low-Income Individuals Participants Nonparticipants Nonparticipants

Healthy Less - Healthy Less- Healthy Less- Healthy Less- Eaters Healthy Eaters Healthy Eaters Healthy Eaters Health Eaters Eaters Eaters y Eaters HEI ≥70 HEI HEI ≥70 HEI HEI HEI HEI ≥70 < 49 < 49 ≥70 < 49 HEI < 49 Num. of 506 2,792 76 661 243 1,260 187 871 Individuals Sampled Sex: Male 34.5* 46.8 36.7 37.7 39.5 46.9 27.4** 53.8 Female 65.6** 53.2 63.3 62.3 60.5 53.1 72.6** 46.2

Age: 19-30 18.3** 34.7 18.2 37.8 15.8** 36.4 21.3 30.0 31-40 13.0** 21.7 12.5 23.4 14.9 20.0 11.1* 22.7 41-50 14.9 16.5 28.3 17.5 12.6 16.1 11.6 16.2 51-60 11.3 10.0 18.5 11.4 13.2 9.9 5.8 8.8 > 60 42.5** 17.2 22.6 9.9 43.5** 17.6 50.2* 22.4

Race: White 59.6 59.5 57.4 49.1 52.1 61.2 69.5 65.5 Black 9.6** 18.2 10.3* 27.4 10.3 14.8 8.5* 15.4 Hispanic 24.7 17.5 28.1 18.4 28.9 18.2 18.1 15.8 Other 6.1 4.9 4.2 5.1 8.7 5.9 3.9 3.4

Married 44.0 38.1 38.4 28.5 47.6 36.7 42.3 47.4

Education: Level Less than 29.7 36.8 33.0 45.1 31.1 37.7 26.5 29.1 HS 30.5 31.7 30.4 31.9 30.8 29.6 30.4 34.3 HS/GED 39.8 31.5 36.7 23.0 38.2 32.7 43.1 36.6 More than HS Work Hours: 67.8** 51.6 75.0 64.0 70.0** 52.3 62.0** 40.6 0 11.0 13.6 12.9 12.5 10.1 14.6 11.2 13.1 1 to 34 21.2** 34.9 12.1 23.5 20.0* 33.1 26.9* 46.3 35 or more * Significant at .05 level; **Significant at .01 level. Statistical significance of differences in proportions using the Benjamini-Hochberg (B-H) approach. Source: United States Department of Agriculture (2012e). Characteristics and Dietary Patterns of Healthy and Less-Healthy Eaters in the Low-Income Population.

When examining each class of variables, results showed that the strongest factors related to SNAP participation among eligible households were state SNAP policies, in particular the use of short certification periods and fingerprinting technology, perceived eligibility of benefits, the number of children in the household, the education of the head of household, the amount of household resources and receipt of additional assistance any time in the past or present, poor health, and demographic characteristics. When examining their model of participation, they included a comprehensive set of variables at the individual level and a set of policy variables at the environmental level. The context of the

80 VOICES OF HUNGER physical food environment was not included in the model and thus is an area of which this research contributes. Additional social science research and econometric studies of SNAP participation have examined participation rates as a function of local office policies and application procedures,30 state level policies and income mobility,31 food insecurity and family structure,32 and employment status and labor force participation. 33 Each of these research studies has contributed to our understanding of individual participation in the SNAP program; however, no study has measured how aggregate participation in a particular area may be associated with the social and physical food environment. The goal of this research is to explore and provide an analysis of environmental level characteristics and their association to aggregate level SNAP participation rates, as there has not been such an analysis of participation rates across places. Because social and physical environments shape food environments, an exploration of SNAP participation rates across places can provide insight into the association between food assistance programs and food environments.

SNAP in Geographic Context: Method and Data Aggregate level SNAP participation is explored in geographic context as a function of the county food environment and additional physical and social county characteristics. Because the model explicitly incorporates spatial aspects based on the delineation of spatial units (county boundaries), spatial regression methods are used to test for spatial patterns in the data. Data for this analysis was collected from the USDA’s Food Environment Atlas. The atlas provides data on aggregate level county SNAP participation and the county physical, social and food environment, with variables reflecting food access, county type characteristics, and all retail food availability within each U.S. County. Variables identified from the atlas were mapped to the conceptual perspectives to begin examining the SNAP program’s current participation rates in geographic context. The data are aggregate county-level measurements and include SNAP participation rates and food environment statistics for each U.S. county and county-equivalent in the contiguous U.S. Because the SNAP program’s criteria are different for Alaska and Hawaii, counties in those states are excluded from this analysis. Thus, the final data include 3,108 counties. Complete data for each variable of interest was available and is used for the years of either 2006 or 2007. Because the data used in this analysis include a census of all counties in the contiguous U.S., the findings from this study are interpreted as true aggregate

30 Bhattarai, Duffy, and Raymond (2005) “Use of Food Pantries and Food Stamps in Low- Income Households in the United States;” Bartlett and Burstein (2004) “Food Stamp Program Access Study: Eligible Nonparticipants.” 31 Hanratty (2006) “Has the Food Stamp Program Become More Accessible? Impacts of Recent Changes in Reporting Requirements and Asset Eligibility Limits.” 32 Hernandez and Ziol-Guest (2006) “Food Assistance Program Participation among Fragile Families.” 33 Hisnanick and Walker (2000) “Food Stamp Receipt: Those who left versus those who stayed in a time of welfare reform.”

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 81 level associations. In Figure 1, explanatory variables from the data set are mapped to the previously defined conceptual perspectives. The variables are operationalizations of the conceptual perspectives based on conceptual reasoning and aim to identify key aspects of the social and physical environment, particularly the food environment, which may influence SNAP participation among low-income individuals in a particular locality.

NCHS - Metro or Rural County Type Persistent Poverty County

Landscapes and Sense of Place

Spatial Space and Patterning Place in and Natural Amenity Index Social Diffusion Relations

Local Food Environment Spatial Structure Food Desert County Poverty Rate

Figure 1. Variable Constructs Mapped to Conceptual Perspectives on Space and Health

Because spatial patterning and diffusion of physical and biological risk factors looks at the natural landscape and its significance on rates of disease transmission and health outcomes, linking the natural amenity index to this concept is reasonable. The natural amenity index is a measure of the ecological quality of the environment in terms of topographical qualities, such as mountain ranges, climate, and water (i.e. near oceans or lakes). These qualities also contribute to the larger physical and social environment in terms of the material landscape and its influence on healthful consumption. Using the natural amenity index as an explanatory factor in the variation in SNAP participation is reasonable as the pattern of participation can be viewed in response to increased consumption opportunities that may be available due to a higher level of natural amenities in the ecological environment. Landscapes and senses of place conceptualize a humanistic approach to understanding place and stress the meaning and bonds that people establish with the places where they live. The type of county can be reasonably linked to this concept. The bonds that people develop among the neighbors and communities in which they live shape their diet and health behaviors, and shape the way they navigate through their communities to procure assistance. Persistent poverty counties have had poverty rates exceeding 20% consistently for over 50 years, which may have an impact on norms and the rate at which individuals participate in SNAP within those counties. There are also vast differences between the social ties and connections in small rural areas and in larger metropolitan areas,

82 VOICES OF HUNGER particularly the non-governmental food assistance that may be provided through extended families and social organizations. As such, linking the variables for Metro or Rural county type to the landscapes and sense of place, conceptual perspective is warranted. Space and place in social relations and spatial structure both consider the material landscape and the differential access to resources for procuring healthful food and achieving a healthy lifestyle. The differential access to acquiring and making use of SNAP benefits can also be viewed in this context. It is reasonable to link an indicator of county food access (food deserts), the county poverty rate, and the food environment to these conceptual perspectives. The food desert indicator is an aggregate measure of the percentage of residents who are greater than 10 miles from the nearest grocery store and have no transportation. The county poverty rate is the percentage of residents who are below the official U.S. poverty threshold and used as a proxy for the current social structure. The local food environment measures the ratio of healthful to unhealthful food retail outlets in the county. Healthful food retail outlets include all grocery stores, supercenters, specialty food stores, such as meat markets/produce markets, and full-service restaurants. Unhealthful food retail outlets include all convenience stores, gas stations with convenience, and fast food restaurants. Prior research has shown that the lack of availability of food retail may inhibit individuals from making use of SNAP assistance.34 As such, the food environment is a key variable of interest. The variables used to operationalize the conceptual explanations of geographic variation are further described in Table 2. The data reflect a mean SNAP participation rate across counties of 31.4% and a mean poverty rate of 15.3%. The mean food environment score is 0.99, indicating that the average county has a relatively evenly balanced proportion of healthful and unhealthful food retail outlets. The mean food desert measure is .77%, indicating that, on average, less than one percent of a county’s residents are more than 10 miles from a grocery store or supermarket and have no car. Roughly 13% of counties are persistent poverty and 65% are non-metropolitan (rural). The natural amenity index shows a mean of 3.49, indicating a relatively average level of environmental quality across counties. Additional statistics and exploratory mapping are provided in the next section showing the relationships between the mean SNAP rate and the explanatory variables and illustrating spatial patterns in the data.

34 Rice (2010) “Measuring the Likelihood of Food Insecurity in Ohio’s Food Deserts.”

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 83

Table 2. Variables Used in SNAP Analysis Dependent Variable Variable Name Description and Measurement Descriptive Statistics N= 3, 108 Snap07 Snap participation rates for 2007 among the low- Mean = 31.4% income population. The number of participants in Min = 1.12% SNAP as a percentage of the low-income Max = 76.89% population. St. Dev. = 13.11

Measured as a continuous variable. Explanatory Variables Variable Name Description and Measurement Natamen USDA Natural Amenity Index - 2000. A measure of Mean = 3.49 the physical characteristics of a county area that Min = 1 enhance the location as a place to live. The index is Max = 7 constructed by combining measures of climate St. Dev. = 1.04 topography, and water area that reflect environmental qualities.

Measured on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the highest. Metro Metro is the National Center for Health Statistics % of each 2006 metro-rural county classification codes. county type: Metro1 Measured on a scale from 1 to 6: 1: 2% 1 - large central metro 2: 11% 2 - large fringe metro 3: 11% 3 - medium metro 4: 11% 4 - small metro 5: 22% 5 - non-metro (rural) with city of 10,000 or more 6: 43% 6 - non-metro (rural) without city of 10,000 or more Total Metro: Metro1 is a binary code created from Metro where 1 35% = all metro and 0 = all rural Total Non- Metro (Rural): 65% Perpov Persistent Poverty County. A county where the Perpov: 12.6% poverty rate has been 20% or higher in each Non-Perpov: decennial census from 1960 - 2000. The continued 87.7% persistence of poverty is most evident within several predominantly rural regions and populations such as Central Appalachia, the Lower Mississippi Delta, the southern Black Belt, the Rio Grande Valley region and Native American lands (USDA, 2012g).

Binary with 1 = persistent poverty and 0 = non- persistent poverty Foodenv07 An indicator of food availability in 2007. Computed Mean = .99 as the proportion of healthful to unhealthful food Min = 0 retail outlets in the county. Healthful = # Grocery Max = 11 stores + # Supercenters and Club warehouses + # St. Dev. = .704 Specialty food stores (Meat markets/Produce

84 VOICES OF HUNGER

markets) + # Full-service restaurants. Unhealthful = # Convenience stores + # Gas stations with convenience + # Fast food restaurants.

Measured as a continuous variable, with values above 1 indicating a higher quality food environment. Fooddesert A proxy of aggregate access and proximity to food Mean = .77% retail. Min = 0% The percentage of housing units in the county in Max = 16.36% 2006 that are more than 10 miles from a grocery St. Dev. = 1.511 store or supermarket and have no car.

Measured as a continuous variable. Poverty County poverty rate. Computed as the percent of Mean = 15.3% county residents in 2006 with household incomes Min = 3.1% below the official U.S. poverty threshold. Max = 54.4% St. Dev. = 6.05 Measured as a continuous variable.

Data Description The mean SNAP participation rate across counties is 31.4%. However, this rate varies slightly when stratifying the counties into groups defined by the explanatory variables. SNAP participation rates are slightly lower as rurality of the county increases and in counties where over 5% of the population is greater than 10 miles from the nearest grocery store and/or supermarket and have no transportation. Furthermore, the participation rate is much lower across all rural counties that also have greater than 5% of their population more than 10 miles from the nearest grocery store and/or supermarket. For counties classified as rural and with a 5% or greater food desert population, SNAP participation is 24%, compared to 47% for counties classified as metro and with a less than 5% food desert population. Figures 2 through 5 show the mean participation rates by county groupings. The lower level of participation based on the food desert and county type validates research on the relative exclusion of food retail in rural, food desert areas. SNAP participation rates are slightly higher in persistent poverty counties, counties with higher poverty rates and in counties with food environment scores lower than 1. The relationship between higher poverty and higher SNAP participation rates confirm existing research regarding higher levels of participation as poverty increases; however, the higher participation rate in lower quality food environments requires further investigation. One aspect missing in this study is the SNAP authorization status of the types of food retail stores measured in the food environment score. Perhaps, many of the unhealthful food retail stores are also SNAP authorized and thus would explain this relationship. When examining participation rates by the natural amenity index, the mean rates were only significantly smaller for the highest index group. An assumption that can be made is that higher quality ecological environments also have a higher quality material landscape and thus a greater number of opportunities for procuring healthful food in other ways besides federal food assistance. Thus, the

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 85 results confirm that the social environment and built environment likely has a greater effect on consumption behavior and thus, diet and health outcomes, rather than solely the natural landscape. Figures 6 through 9 show the mean participation rates in relationship to poverty, the food environment and the natural amenity index.

Mean SNAP Participation Rate 40% 36% 34% 35% 35% 33% 33% 30% 28% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Large Large Medium Small Non-metroNon-metro central fringe metro metro (rural) with (rural) metro metro city of without 10,000 or city of more 10,000 or more

Figure 2. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Metro – Rural County Type

Mean SNAP Participation Rate 40% 34% 35% 30% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% All Rural Counties All Metro Counties

Figure 3. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Combined Metro - Rural County Type

86 VOICES OF HUNGER

Mean SNAP Participation Rate 35% 32% 30% 25% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Food Desert > 5% w/ No Access Food Desert <= 5% w/ No Access

Figure 4. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Food Desert Measure

Mean SNAP Participation Rate 47% 50% 40% 30% 24% 20% 10% 0% Food Desert > 5% w/ No Access -Food Desert > 5% w/ No Access - Rural Metro

Figure 5. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Combined Metro - Rural County Type & Food Desert Measure

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 87

Mean SNAP Participation Rate

45% 42% 40% 35% 30% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Persisent Poverty Counties Non-Persistent Poverty Counties

Figure 6. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Persistent Poverty County Type

Mean SNAP Participation Rate 50% 41% 40% 35% 27% 30% 24% 20% 20% 10% 0% Less than 5% - less 10% - less 15% - less Greater than 5% than 10% than 15% than 20% 20%

County Poverty Rates

Figure 7. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by County Poverty Rate

88 VOICES OF HUNGER

Mean SNAP Participation Rate

40% 35% 35% 30% 25% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Food Environment Score < 1 Food Environment Score >= 1

Figure 8. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Food Environment Measure

Mean SNAP Participation Rate 40% 34% 35% 33% 28% 30% 26% 25% 25% 22% 20% 17% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1234567 Natural Amenity Index

Figure 9. Mean SNAP Participation Rate by Natural Amenity Index

In examining the descriptive statistics, further measures of association are explored as a prelude to regression analyses. A correlation matrix is provided in Table 3 providing the degree and direction of correlation among the variables considered in the analysis.

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 89

Table 3. SNAP Analysis Correlation Matrix

In viewing the correlation matrix, moderate correlations are detected between SNAP participation and each of the explanatory variables, with the exception of the natural amenity variable. Since the correlation between SNAP participation and the natural amenity index is extremely low (-0.0865), this variable is excluded from the regression model. In examining the correlations among the explanatory variables, the data indicate a moderately high positive correlation between the county poverty rate and persistent poverty counties (0.6597); therefore, I choose to drop persistent poverty and only include the county poverty rate in the regression analyses. Exploratory mapping of the variables included in the regression analyses was conducted in ArcMap 10.1 to illustrate spatial patterns. Mapping of the dependent variable displays clusters of high SNAP participation, particularly in several southeastern states, as well as coastal states. The clustering of high SNAP participation also parallel the clustering identified when mapping county poverty rates, food environment, and county types. Mapping of the food desert variable alone showed no pattern as the overall mean for this variable is less than 1% of the county population. Figures 10 through 15 illustrate spatial patterns of variables included in the analysis.

90 VOICES OF HUNGER

Figure 10. County SNAP Participation Rates – 2007

County SNAP Rates

0% - 19.9% 20% - 29.9% 30% - 39.9% 40% - 49.9% 50% - 76.9%

Figure 11. County Food Environment Scores – 2007

County Food Environment Scores

< 1 >= 1

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 91

Figure 12. Percentages of Food Desert Households in County – 2006

Food Desert Households < 5% >= 5%

Figure 13. County Poverty Rates - 2006

County Poverty Rates Less than 5% 5 - 9.9% 10 - 14.9% 15 - 19.9% Greater than 20%

92 VOICES OF HUNGER

Figure 14. Metro – Rural County Type - 2006

County Type

Non-metro without a city of 10,000 or Non-metro with a city of 10,000 or Small metro Medium metro Large fringe metro Large central metro

Figure 15. Combined Metro – Rural County Type - 2006

County Type

Rural Metro

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 93

Model Specification and Results

Model Specification

Based on the preliminary descriptive statistics and exploratory mapping, further investigation of the associations between the explanatory variables and the SNAP participation rate is examined using spatial regression modeling. Because the model explicitly incorporates spatial aspects based on the delineation of spatial units (county boundaries), I begin the analysis by testing for spatial dependence.35 Spatial dependence occurs when values of the dependent variable or error term observed in one location are correlated with the observations of the dependent variable or error term at other locations. In this definition, there are two types of spatial dependence differentiated: spatial lag and spatial error. Spatial lag is defined as when the dependent variable y in county i is affected by that same variable in both county i and j.36 This spatial association suggests that there is dependence among observations such that the expected value of the dependent variable for county i varies depending on the level of the dependent variable in neighboring counties. For example, instead of letting expected SNAP participation for a county depend just on its own county characteristics, the spatial lag model is formed where SNAP participation is a function of its own county characteristics and the level of SNAP participation among neighbors. This reasoning suggests a spatially lagged dependent variable where a positive value associated with the spatial lag indicates that counties are expected to have high SNAP participation values if, on average, their neighbors have high SNAP participation values. A theoretical assumption for spatial lag in this research is that SNAP participation rates may be influenced by the food environment of neighboring counties and spatial interaction may occur due to SNAP participants commuting across county boundaries due to the presence or absence of healthful food retail. An assessment of the existence and strength of spatial interaction can be tested in a spatial lag model. Spatial error refers to spatial dependence in the regression error term, thus occurring when the error terms across different spatial units are correlated, meaning that the spatial dependence may be attributable to the use of spatial data regardless of the model being theoretically spatial or not.37 An assumption can be made that the error terms across counties are correlated since in the data collection process it is unclear if correct boundaries of observations were perfectly measured. Either form of spatial dependence – lag or error – leads to the problem of spatial autocorrelation 38 in statistical modeling. It is not clear a priori which

35Palmer-Jones and Sen (2006) “ It Is Where You Are That Matters: The Spatial Determinants of Rural Poverty in India;” Joines, et. al. (2003) “A Spatial Analysis of County-level Variation in Hospitalization Rates for Low Back Problems in North Carolina;” Anselin (1992) “Spatial Data Analysis with GIS: An Introduction to Application in the Social Sciences;” Anselin (2001) “Spatial Econometrics.” 36 Anselin (2001) “Spatial Econometrics.” 37 Palmer-Jones and Sen (2006) “It Is Where You Are That Matters: The Spatial Determinants of Rural Poverty in India.” 38 Spatial dependency leads to spatial autocorrelation in statistics since this violates OLS

94 VOICES OF HUNGER model—spatial lag or spatial error—is more suitable in the analysis; thus, estimates of both models are conducted. The common test used for measuring and visualizing spatial autocorrelation is the Moran’s I (global and local) statistic.39 The global Moran’s I is a statistical measure of global autocorrelation, which tests for overall clustering of the data, by evaluating the values of a variable at any one location with the value at all other locations. Based on the spatial cross-products of the deviations from the mean, the Moran’s I and is calculated for n observations on a variable x at locations i, j and is written as

¦¦wxij()() i xx j x n ij I 2 (1) Sxx0 ¦()i i

Where

Wij = weight matrix applied to the comparison between county i and county j,

xi = the variable value at county i

xj = the variable value at county j x = the mean of the variable.

S = the sum of the elements of the weight matrix, so 0 Sw0 ¦¦ ij ij

For a row-standardized spatial weight matrix, the normalizing factor S0 equals n (since each row sums to 1), and the statistic simplifies to a ratio of a spatial cross product to a variance. The expectation of Moran’s I statistic under the null hypothesis of no spatial autocorrelation is 1/(n 1). A Moran’s I value greater than its expected value indicates positive spatial autocorrelation. The Moran's I function calculates a standardized Z score, which varies between -1.0 and +1.0. Values near +1.0 indicate clustering while a value near -1.0 indicates dispersion. The global Moran’s I produce a statistic that summarizes the entire study area while the local Moran’s measures local indicators of spatial association (LISA) visualized in the form of significance and cluster maps. The LISA measure for each observation gives an indication of the extent of significant spatial clustering assumptions of independence among observations. 39Anselin (1992) “Spatial Data Analysis with GIS: An Introduction to Application in the Social Sciences;” Anselin and Berra (1998) “Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics;” Joines et. al. (2003) “A Spatial Analysis of County-level Variation in Hospitalization Rates for Low Back Problems in North Carolina;” Palmer-Jones and Sen (2006) “It Is Where You Are That Matters: The Spatial Determinants of Rural Poverty in India.”

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 95 of similar values around that observation, and the LISA maps depict the locations with significant local Moran statistics and classifies those locations by type of association.40 The spatial weights matrix contains information on the assumed spatial interdependence between all pairs of observations, thus quantifying the spatial relationships that exist in the data. The ith and jth element of W represents the relative spatial dependence between the ith and jth observation. In my analysis, I define a first order rook contiguity 41 matrix for the spatial weights, which considers common boundaries between counties. Spatial autocorrelation is formalized in terms of first-order (i.e. only adjacent counties) rook contiguity where the dependent variable or error term for each county is correlated with observations for the dependent variable or error term at contiguous, neighboring counties. In the contiguity matrix, Wij equals 1 when counties i and j have a border in common, and is zero otherwise. The spatial weights matrix is created in OpenGeoDa 1.2.0 software, of which I also used to conduct the regression analyses. Amid spatial dependence, the OLS assumptions of uncorrelated error terms and independent observations are violated (Anselin, 1992), leading to biased coefficients (spatial lag) and biased standard errors (spatial error). Thus, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of spatial lag and/or spatial error regression models, rather than OLS estimation is used. The analysis proceeds with the tests for spatial autocorrelation, followed by the estimation of ordinary least squares (OLS) models and the testing of OLS regression residuals for spatial lag and spatial error, and concluding with the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of spatial regression models. In the standard linear regression model, spatial dependence is modeled in the form of a spatially lagged dependent variable or in the error structure. The standard spatial lag model, as developed by Anselin (1992), is specified as

ܻ௜ ൌߩܹܻ௜ ൅ܺ௜ߚ൅݁௜ (2) Where i is an index of counties with i = 1…. 3,108 counties, Y = (n x 1) vector of observations on the dependent variable in county i, W = (n x n) spatial weight matrix applied to observations of Y in county i, thus WY is a spatially lagged dependent variable for county i,

40 Anselin, Syabri, and Kho(2006) “GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial Data Analysis.” 41 There are two types of contiguity matrices - rook and queen. The rook matrix defines a neighbor as an area with a shared border, while the queen matrix defines a neighbor as an area with a shared border and a shared vertex. With irregular areal units, such as a county (as opposed to grids), the difference between rook and queen weights is often minimal [GeoDa Center (2013).] Therefore, since rook weights will usually have fewer neighbors than queen weights, on average, each neighboring observation in the rook matrix reflects more influence. For this analysis, using the rook weights file with fewer neighbors was presumed most reasonable.

96 VOICES OF HUNGER

ρ = a spatial autoregressive coefficient, or the extent to which the dependent variable can be explained by the average of the ones of its nearest counties in space, X = (n x K) matrix of explanatory variables in county i, e = vector of random errors for county i. Substituting my variables into the model, the model is written out as:

݋௜ ൅ݎݐ௜ ൅ ߚ݂݋݋݀݁݊ݒͲ͹௜ ൅ߚ݉݁ݐݎ݁ݏͲ͹௜ ൌߩܹܵ݊ܽ݌Ͳ͹௜ ൅ ߚ݂݋݋݀݀݁ܲܣܰܵ

(ݐݕ௜ (3ݎߚ݌݋ݒ݁

The standard spatial error model, which incorporates spatial dependence into the error structure, is specified as follows:

(௜ ൌܺ௜ߚ൅݁௜ǡ ݓ݅ݐ݄݁ ൌ ߣܹ݁ ൅ ߦ (4ܻ Where: λ = an autoregressive coefficient, W = a spatial weights matrix, thus We are spatially lagged errors, ξ = a vector of independent random errors.

Model Results The Moran’s I statistic and local Moran’s significance and cluster maps are shown in Figures 16 through 18. The significance and cluster maps depict the location of significant local Moran’s I statistics and the type of spatial association. The high-high (dark red) and low-low (dark blue) clusters signify positive spatial autocorrelation, meaning the SNAP participation rate is high for clusters of neighboring counties or low for clusters of neighboring counties. The high-low (light red) and low-high (light blue) counties signify negative spatial autocorrelation, meaning a county is a high outlier among low neighbors or a low outlier among high neighbors. Significance is indicated by shades of green, with 1,318 counties showing significance at or below the 0.05 level. The scatterplot depicts the high-high cluster locations. The statistic of 0.608 (p < .001) indicates significance for spatial autocorrelation for almost all high-high clusters in the data. OLS estimates and ML estimates for spatial lag and error are presented in Table 4. The OLS results show statistically significant results for all variables; however, the global Moran’s I and Robust LM test statistics for spatial lag and error indicate that the OLS estimates are biased and inconsistent and that spatial regression methods may be preferred. The Moran’s I of 0.466 (p < .001) is statistically significant, indicating strong spatial autocorrelation of the residuals. The Robust LM tests for lag (145.609) and error (271.816) also show significance (p < 0.001) and indicate the presence of spatial dependence. As both tests are

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 97 statistically significant, a spatial lag and spatial error model are both estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. Moran’s I = 0.607808

Figure 16. Moran's Statistic and Scatterplot

Figure 17. LISA Cluster Map

98 VOICES OF HUNGER

Figure 18. LISA Significance Map

The spatial lag and spatial error models both show a statistically significant relationship between the SNAP participation rate and all variables in the analysis. The spatially lagged dependent variable is statistically significant, indicating the appropriateness of the spatial lag model. In the spatial lag model, the variables for food desert, food environment, and county type all show a negative relationship to the SNAP participation rate. The coefficient for the food desert measure tells us that as the number of residents in the county with no transportation and greater than 10 miles from the nearest supermarket/grocery store increases by one percent, the county SNAP participation rate decreases by one percentage point. At an aggregate level this confirms the spatial disparity that food desert households face. The coefficient for the food environment tells us that as the proportion of healthful to unhealthful food retail in the county increases by 1 unit, the SNAP participation rate in the county decreases by 1.4 percentage points. As stated earlier, data missing in this analysis are the SNAP authorization status for stores. Thus, this finding related to the food environment requires further data for analysis. The coefficient for poverty shows a positive relationship to the SNAP participation rate, and tells us that as the county poverty rate increases by one percentage point, the SNAP participation rate increases by 1.24 percentage points. The coefficient for Metro tells us that a one point increase in the metro index results in a 1.5 percentage point decrease in SNAP participation. Metro was also recoded as a binary variable named “Metro1” where all metro counties were coded as 1 and all rural counties as 0. Metro1 replaced the variable for Metro in a second set of analyses and all other variables remained the same. The coefficient for Metro1 was positive and shows that a metropolitan county has a 3.72

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 99 percentage point higher SNAP participation rate than a rural county. The results for the explanatory variables in the spatial error model parallel the results in the spatial lag model and the spatial error model also shows a highly significant coefficient on the spatially correlated error, indicating the appropriateness of the spatial error model. Table 4 summarizes the model results. Table 4. SNAP Participation Rate Models Results OLS ML Spatial Lag Spatial Error Coefficient P -value Coefficient P -value Coefficient P -value ρ (W Snap07) 0.588 < 0.001 λ 0.698 < 0.001 Constant 27.660 < 0.001 10.227 < 0.001 25.825 < 0.001 Fooddesert -1.645 < 0.001 -1.004 < 0.001 -0.884 < 0.001 Foodenv07 -2.756 < 0.001 -1.446 < 0.001 -1.844 < 0.001 Poverty 1.290 < 0.001 0.794 < 0.001 1.053 < 0.001 Metro -2.545 < 0.001 -1.543 < 0.001 -1.759 < 0.001 Metro1 6.216 < 0.001 3.720 < 0.001 3.803 < 0.001

R-Squared 0.431 0.654 0.670 Log Likelihood -11535 -10884 -10869 AIC 23080 21781 21748 Moran's I 0.466 < 0.001 Robust LM (lag) 145.608 < 0.001 Robust LM (error) 271.816 < 0.001 Likelihood Ratio 1301.3 < 0.001 1332.1 < 0.001 N= 3,108 The spatial weights matrix is the standard rook contiguity matrix with counties as units of observation.

A Moran’s I test of the residuals from the spatial lag and spatial error models show that the models correct for the spatial autocorrelation. Figures 19 and 20 depict the Moran’s I statistic for both models’ residuals.

100 VOICES OF HUNGER

Moran’s I = - 0.048942

Figure 19. Moran's Statistic for Lag Residuals

Moran’s I = - 0.069197

Figure 20. Moran's Statistic for Error Residuals

The estimation of the spatial models produced results that were more consistent than the OLS estimation as each model controlled for the spatial dependence in the data. By estimating the spatial models there was improvement in model fit over the OLS model and the results can be interpreted with less bias. The model results reveal the geographic variation in SNAP participation and show that of the four discussed spatial conceptual perspectives, the landscapes and sense of place perspective and the space and place in social relations/spatial structure perspectives can aid in our understanding of the spatial constraints that inhibit or minimize individuals from utilizing and/or maximizing food assistance programs. The model also shows that there is spatial structure in the data, which suggests the need to understand spatial relationships and spatial variation in the data when evaluating SNAP usage. The benefits of estimating the spatial models are that I was able to derive information regarding the geographic variation in SNAP participation using the spatial context of the data.

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 101

Summary and Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to conceptualize the relationship between space and diet and health outcomes, then integrate these concepts by statistically examining the relationship between space and program participation in SNAP, as a stated goal of SNAP is to enable low-income consumers to obtain a more nutritious and healthy diet. The spatial conceptual perspectives examined led to the identification of specific explanatory variables used in statistical analysis. Explanatory variables linked to the conceptual perspectives were measured, and the results showed that there are statistically significant linear relationships between a county’s SNAP participation rate among its low-income population and the physical and social attributes of the county in which they reside. Specifically, the SNAP participation rate was nearly four percentage points higher in metropolitan counties and one percentage point lower in counties with a greater percentage of their population without transportation and living more than 10 miles from the nearest supermarket and grocery store. The results also confirmed that counties with higher poverty rates have higher SNAP participation rates. Thus, the landscapes and sense of place conceptual perspective and the space and place in social relations/spatial-structure conceptual perspectives explain the variation in participation in a nutrition focused federal assistance program. The descriptive analysis identified that rural areas with a higher indication of being a food desert have much lower average SNAP participation rates over other county types, which supports previous literature on disparities in consumption opportunities and outcomes for residents living in rural food deserts. The results from this analysis contribute to theory that geographic characteristics not only predict diet and health disparities but also predict the usage of assistance offered that seeks to minimize diet and health disparities. Thus, a conclusion drawn from this study is that the implementation of federal food assistance programs should be evaluated within the framework of spatial organization. The use of a geographic approach for analyzing and mapping the data allowed for the exploration of spatial patterns and provided evidence for formulating spatial policies that might help mitigate diet and health disparities. The nature of the social and built environments, as evidenced by the existence of food deserts, continues to have an effect on outcomes; thus, factors that influence the structure of local built environments and spatial-structural shifts affecting local food availability should be taken in context when designing policies aimed at improving nutrition. In this context, other areas of social service, such as community and regional planning and transportation policy, should inform national food assistance policies. The importance of geographical differences in the usage of SNAP benefits reveals an opportunity to devise program criteria that responds to and incorporates spatial differences. However, analyzing the geography of SNAP participation is not just about examining variation in policy usage. It is also about conceptualizing what implementation strategies would be required to achieve intended outcomes given differences across space. The importance of a geographical perspective is that even aspatially administered policies have spatially varying outcomes and implications. Understanding this variation provides an opportunity to formulate and implement

102 VOICES OF HUNGER

SNAP policies and procedures which explicitly respond to and incorporate spatial difference. Perhaps a broader contribution from this study is that not only are there disparities in diet and health outcomes across space, but this analysis can also be used to look at differences in other social outcomes across space as well. Spatial disparities are not only related to diet and health. The geographic composition and context of some rural areas coupled with a higher concentration of poverty also inhibits certain education and employment opportunities, which also have a relationship to diet and health. As the SNAP program explicitly focuses on improving nutrition, exploring space in the context of SNAP program participation was appropriate in examining how the usage of such benefits varies across different environments. If some environments have a substantially lower level of participation among its low- income population than others, a reexamination of the way benefits are distributed across spaces should be examined. Perhaps, the program must vary in the way it administers the program and in its education components to reflect the differences across specific types of counties. In addition, an increased effort on expanding the number of healthful food retail outlets to utilize benefits must be initiated in rural food desert areas. My hope from this study is that some insight can be drawn that helps to reevaluate the aspatial origin of public policies, particular food policies, and begin to fully integrate spatial concepts and theories in policy design in order to fully maximize policy goals and objectives.

References American Heart Association. (2009). Retrieved June 20, 2009, from the World Wide http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4973 Anselin, L. (1992) Spatial Data Analysis with GIS: An Introduction to Application in the Social Sciences. Technical Report 92-10. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. Anselin, L., & Berra, A.K. (1998) Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. In A. Ullah 7 D.E.A. Giles. eds. Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics. New York: Marcel Dekker. Anselin, L. (2001) Spatial Econometrics. In B. Baltagi ed. A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Anselin, L., Syabri, I. & Kho, Y. (2006). GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial Data Analysis. Geographical Analysis 38, 5 – 22. Bartlett, S. & Burstein, N. (2004). Food Stamp Program Access Study: Eligible Nonparticipants. Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program. USDA Economic Research Service. EFAN- 03-013-2 Washington, DC. Bhattarai, G.R., Duffy, P.A., & Raymond, J. (2005). Use of Food Pantries and Food Stamps in Low-Income Households in the United States. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39(2), 276-298. Bitler, M., & Haider, S.J. (2010). An Economic View of Food Deserts in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30(1): 153- 176.

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 103

Blanchard, T., & Lyson, T. (2002). Access to Low Cost Groceries in Nonmetropolitan Counties: Large Retailers and the Creation of Food Deserts. Paper Presented at The Measuring Rural Diversity Conference, Washington D.C. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://srdc.msstate.edu/measuring/blanchard.pdf. Blanchard, T., & Lyson, T. (2003). “Retail Concentration, Food Deserts, and Food Disadvantaged Communities in Rural America.” Final Report for Food Assistance Grant Program, Southern Rural Development Center, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved April 14, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://srdc.msstate.edu/focusareas/health/fa/blanchard02_final.pdf. Blaxter, M. (1990). Health and Lifestyles. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Carter-Pokras, O. & Baquet, C. (2002). What is a “Health Disparity”? Public Health Reports 117, 426-434. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2011). National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. Retrieved September July 16, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm Curtis, S., & Jones, I.R. (1998). Is There a Place for Geography in the Analysis of Health Inequality? Sociology of Health and Illness 20(5), 645-672. Desai, A., Greenbaum, R.T., & Kim, Y. (2009). Incorporating Policy Criteria in Spatial Analysis. The American Review of Public Administration 39(1), 23-42. Domina, T. (2006). What Clean Break? Education and Nonmetropolitan Migration Patterns, 1989-2004. Rural Sociology 71(3), 373-398. Edmonds, J., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J., Cullen, K.W., & Myres, D. (2001). Ecological and Socioeconomic Correlates of Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Consumption among African-American Boys. Preventive Medicine 32, 476-481. Ellaway, A., & MacIntyre, S. (1996). Does Where You Live Predict Health Related Behaviors?: A Case Study in Glasgow. Health Bulletin (Edinburgh) 54, 443-446. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012). Retrieved November 6, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts- adaptation/ Epstein, P.R. (1999). Climate and Health. Science 285, 347-348. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2012). Retrieved May 12, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm192695.htm Fox, A.J. & Goldblatt, P.O. (1982). Longitudinal Study: Socio-Demographic Mortality Differentials, a First Report on Mortality in 1971-1975 According to 1971 Census Characteristics, Based on Data Collected in the OPCS Longitudinal Study. London: HMSO. Frank, L.D., & Engelke, P. (2001). The Built Environment and Human Activity Patterns: Exploring the Impacts of Urban Form on Public Health. Journal of Planning Literature 16, 202-218.

104 VOICES OF HUNGER

Fulfrost, B., & Howard, P. (2006). Mapping the Markets: The Relative Density of Retail Food Stores in Densely Populated Census Blocks in the Central Coast Region of California. Report to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties and the Agriculture and Land Based Training Association. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.escholarship.org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/uc/item/34j371tf GeoDa Center (2013). Retrieved January 30, 2013, from the World Wide Web: https://geodacenter.asu.edu/node/402#choice Gittlesohn, J., & Sharma, S. (2009). Physical, Consumer and Social Aspects of Measuring the Food Environment Among Diverse Low-Income Populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36(4S), S161- S165. Gundersen, C. & Oliveira, V. (2001). The Food Stamp Program and Food Insufficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(4), 875- 887. Hanratty, M. J. (2006). Has the Food Stamp Program Become More Accessible? Impacts of Recent Changes in Reporting Requirements and Asset Eligibility Limits. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25 (3), 603-621. Hendrickson, M.K., & Heffernan, W.D. (2002). Multi-National Concentrated Food Processing and Marketing Systems and the Farm Crisis. Report Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Symposium: Science and Sustainability. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/paper.pdf Hernandez, D. S., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2006). Food Assistance Program Participation among Fragile Families. National Poverty Center Working Paper. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from the World Wide Web: http://www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/income_volatility_agenda/Herna ndez%20Ziol-Guest.pdf. Hisnanick, J.J., & Walker, K.J. (2000). Food Stamp Receipt: Those who left versus those who stayed in a time of welfare reform. Working Paper 236. U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from the World Wide Web: https://www.census.gov/sipp/workpapr/wp236.pdf. Jensen, A.C., Nord, M., Andrews, M.., & Carlson, S. (2011). Household Food Security in the United States in 2010, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 125. Joines, J.D., Hertz-Picciotto, I., Carey, T.S., Gesler, W., & Suchindran, C. (2003). A Spatial Analysis of County-level Variation in Hospitalization Rates for Low Back Problems in North Carolina. Soc Sci Med 56(12), 2541- 2553. Kaufman, P. R. (1999). Rural Poor Have Less Access to Supermarkets, Large Grocery Stores. Rural Development Perspectives 13(3), 19-26. Kearns, R.A., & Joseph, A.E. (1993). Space in its Place: Developing the Link in Medical Geography. Social Science and Medicine 37(6), 711-717.

THE CASE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 105

Letsmove.gov. (2012). White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.letsmove.gov/sites/letsmove.gov/files/TaskForce_on_Childh ood_Obesity_May2010_FullReport.pdf Lobao, L., Hooks. G., & Tickamyer, A. (2007). Advancing the Sociology of Spatial Inequality in The Sociology of Spatial Inequality. Albany: State University of New York Press. Lyson, T.A., & Raymer, A.L. (2000). Stalking the Wiley Multinational: Power and Control in the U.S. Food System. Agriculture and Human Values 17, 199-208. McGranahan, D.A. (1980). The Spatial Structure of Income Distribution in Rural Regions. American Sociological Review 45(2), 313-324. McKernan, S.M., & Ratcliffe, C. (2003). Employment Factors Influencing Food Stamp Program Participation: Final Report. Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program. USDA Economic Research Service. E-FAN-03-012. Washington, DC. McMichael, A.J. (1996). Human Population Health, In Climate Change 1995 – Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific Technical Analyses. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Morland, K., Wing, S., Roux, A.D., & Poole, C. (2001). Neighborhood Characteristics Associated with the Location of Food Stores and Food Service Places. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 22(1), 23-29. Morton, L.W., Bitto, E.A., Oakland, M.J., & Sand, M. (2005). Solving the Problem of Iowa Food Deserts: Food Insecurity and Civic Structure. Rural Sociology 70(1), 94-112. Palmer-Jones, R., & Sen, K. (2006). It Is Where You Are That Matters: The Spatial Determinants of Rural Poverty in India. Agricultural Economics 34(3), 229-242. Rice, K. (2010). Measuring the Likelihood of Food Insecurity in Ohio’s Food Deserts. Journal of Food Distribution Research 41(1), 101-107. Rose, D., Bodor, J.N., Swalm, C.M., Rice, J.C., Farley, T.A., & Hutchinson, P.L. (2009). Deserts in New Orleans? Illustrations of Urban Food Access and Implications for Policy. Paper prepared for University of Michigan National Poverty Center/USDA Economic Research Service, USDA Conference “Understanding the Economic Concepts and Characteristics of Food Access.’ Sharkey, J.R., & Horel, S. (2009). Characteristics of Potential Spatial Access to a Variety of Fruits and Vegetables in a large Rural Area. Paper prepared for University of Michigan National Poverty Center/USDA Economic Research Service, USDA Conference “Understanding the Economic Concepts and Characteristics of Food Access.” Sturm, R. (2007). Disparities in the Food Environment Surrounding US Middle and High Schools. Public Health 122, 681-690. Tickamyer, A.R. (2000). Spatial Inequality in the Future of Sociology. Contemporary Sociology 28(6), 805-13. United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). Food Security in the United States. Retrieved February 8, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/

106 VOICES OF HUNGER

United States Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. (2012a). Building a Healthy America: A Profile of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/Other/Buildi ngHealthyAmerica.pdf United States Department of Agriculture. (2012b). Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Report No. SNAP-11-CHAR. United States Department of Agriculture (2012c). Characteristics and Dietary Patterns of Healthy and Less-Healthy Eaters in the Low-Income Population. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation /HEI.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (2012d). Nutrition Program Fact Sheet: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-Ed). Retrieved November 20, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nal.usda.gov/snap/SNAP-Ed Factsheet2011.pdf Ver Ploeg, M., Breneman, V., Farrigan, T., Hamrick, K., Hopkins, D., Kaufman, P., Lin, B.H., Nord, M., Smith, T., Williams, R., Kinnison, K., Olander, C., Singh, A., & Tuckermanty, E. (2009). Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and their Consequences, [Administrative Publication No. (AP-036)] Retrieved September 23, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/

Chapter 6: Water Security in a Hungry World

Julia Sherry

Water security is a prerequisite to food security, as water is a vital and irreplaceable input to food production. Access to an adequate water supply is vital to food security, as crop production cannot occur without adequate water resources. In fact, in the food security conversation, the role of politics, equitable access, and food affordability are largely irrelevant if the water supplies necessary to grow food are insufficient. Threats to water resources are therefore indirect threats to food security. Water scarcity is already a present reality in many regions, both in the United States and globally, and the threat is ever increasing as world population growth, greater demand for water and food, climate change, and poor water management threaten already overextended water resources. This chapter argues that water security is a prerequisite to food security and that in order to fully understand food security one must first understand the important connections between food production and water resources. The first section of this chapter will use the concept of “virtual water” to analyze connections between food and water, and will consider the effects of global agricultural trade on water resources of a region. The next section of this chapter will extend the scope of food and water connections to a global scale, and will analyze the current and future threats to water resources and the implications this may have on food security. According to the World Water Assessment Program, more water is used globally for agriculture than for all other domestic and industrial uses of water combined. In fact, 70 percent of global freshwater consumption goes to irrigation.1 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations adds, “the daily drinking water requirement per person is 2-4 liters, but it takes 2000 to 5000 liters of water to produce one person's daily food… 90% or more of water usage is hidden in our food.”2 Large quantities of freshwater are required to grow crops for human consumption. A kilogram of grain for example requires a water

1 "UN-Water Statistics." 2 "UN Water Statistics."

107 108 VOICES OF HUNGER input of around 1,500 liters.3 Meat, on the other hand, can require more than ten times more water input per unit compared to crops. One kilogram of beef, for example, can require around 15,000 liters of water for production.4 From this perspective it becomes clear that the water we “eat,” or the water that is used in the production of the crops and livestock used to feed the world, affects global water resources to a greater extent than even the water we use to drink, to cook with, and for sanitation purposes. Food security, therefore, is directly tied to water security, as food production is dependent upon an agricultural region’s water supply. A helpful way to conceptualize and quantify this connection between water and food is through the lens of “virtual water.” A term coined in 1995 by Tony Allan, virtual water refers to the sum total volume of freshwater used in each step of the production chain for agricultural and industrial products.5 This water input is called the water “embedded” in the good, or the “virtual water content” of a good. As mentioned in the earlier example, the production of one kilogram of beef requires an input of 15,000 liters of water, meaning that the virtual water content of this product is 15,000 liters per kilogram. This number refers to the amount of water consumed by the animal, used to grow grasses that the animal eats, and used to process and ship the meat. A cup of coffee, on the other hand, has about 140 liters of water “hidden” in its production, used to grow, package, and ship the beans.6 Generally, crops have a lower virtual water content compared to livestock, that is to say, they require less water input per unit of output. The notion that food requires vast water inputs in production provides a framework for practically understanding the way the global political economy effects and is affected by water resources, and how all of this is tied to food security. Despite its own problems with hunger, food deserts, and food insecurity, the United States is the world’s leading agricultural exporter. International agricultural trade links the demand for food to the water resources used for the production of this food. By studying international agricultural trade, therefore, one can conceptualize a network of virtual water flows, and observe how the food we eat affects the state of global and regional water resources. Through the trade of agricultural products, nations with scarce water resources can assuage their water shortages by importing their food, which allows them to use their own scarce water resources for other purposes. By importing water-intensive goods (products with a large virtual water content that require large quantities of water to produce) and exporting less water- intensive goods, a country can simultaneously enhance food security and conserve their own domestic water resources This can lead to what some call “national water savings through trade.”7 In other words, in response to domestic water shortages, a country can “virtually import” water through importing water- intensive goods, such as crops, and conserve their domestic water resources for other uses. Countries that import agricultural products are dependent on the water resources of the state that exports these goods. If each state were responsible for

3 “UN Water Statistics.” 4 "Water Footprint: Introduction." 5 Allen, Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planet's Most Precious Resource, 2. 6 Allen, Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planet's Most Precious Resource, 2. 7 Carr, "Global Food Security and ‘Virtual Water.’”

WATER SECURITY IN A HUNGRY WORLD 109 producing the food demanded by their citizens themselves, countries with scarce water resources could not hope to experience food security. Tony Allan, the creator of the virtual water concept, argues, “virtual water has been, and will remain, the remedy to regional water scarcity.” 8 Through a combination of intelligent trade and wise allocation of domestic water resources, national water resources can be conserved. Regions with water shortages, therefore, can experience food security either through unsustainable overexploitation of their water resources for food production, or through importing virtual water through agricultural products at the cost of experiencing dependency on the water resources of other countries. Many states choose to conserve their domestic water resources through a net import of virtual water through agricultural trade. These include Japan, Mexico, Italy, China, Russia, and much of northern Africa and the Middle East.9 Jordan, for example, has very scarce water resources and imports nearly all of its food, much of it from the United States. In fact, the amount of water required to produce Jordan’s food imports requires a water input five times more than the annual renewable water resources that Jordan itself possesses.10 This country is therefore a “virtual water importer,” meaning it imports water intensive goods and experiences water dependency on other nations. The demand for food in Jordan, therefore, is linked to the water resources of the United States, and other virtual water exporters. In 1986, 40 percent of the world's population lived in countries, like Jordan, that were net importers of virtual water through agricultural trade. By 2008, this percentage had increased to 60 percent of the global population.11 Other nations, on the other hand, are net exporters of virtual water, including The United States, Australia, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, and Cote d’Ivore. 12 These countries use their domestic water resources to produce crops that they export to other countries. Recent studies of virtual water flows through food production and trade shows that 40 percent of the net virtual water exports come from Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.13 The United States, for example, virtually exports water through trade in agricultural products to roughly three quarters of the world’s states, many of which would be water and food insecure without this virtual water import.14 Though the combination of abundant water resources and agricultural subsidies, it is in the short-term economic advantage of the United States to use domestic water resources to produce food to be exported to other countries. The United States virtually exports most of its water through grain exports, which provide food security to many nations that are water insecure. Oil-bearing crops have become water-intensive exports of increasing

8 Allan, Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planet's Most Precious Resource, 18. 9 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 36-37, Table 4.1. 10 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 2, 22. 11 Carr, "Global Food Security and ‘Virtual Water.’” 12 Carr, "Global Food Security and ‘Virtual Water,’” 40, Table 4.2. 13 Carr, "Global Food Security and ‘Virtual Water.’” 14 Allen, Virtual Water, 99.

110 VOICES OF HUNGER importance in the United States.15 In efforts to meet increasing energy demands and to become more energy-independent and rely less on foreign oil, the U.S. increasingly produces crops for bioenergy. Thus, the United States exports water for energy, not simply water for food. Countries, like the U.S. that are net exporters of virtual water experience “national water loss,” and use domestic water resources for producing commodities that are consumed by other people in other countries.16 This has implications for food and water security within the United States as well as within a global perspective. The connections between food production and water have global effects as well as national and regional impacts. National water saving through the import water-intensive goods can involve global level water savings if trade flows from sites regions with high water productivity to regions with low water productivity. 17 Due to a variety of climate and geographic factors, the water requirement of similar crops varies across differing locations. “Global water saving through trade,” therefore, can occur when regions that have greater productivity per drop of water export crops to regions with lower water productivity. “Water productivity” of a good refers to the “product units produced per unit of water consumption or pollution.”18 This application boils down to simple logic: less total water will be used if crops are grown in places with the highest output of crop per unit of water input, or a high “crop per (water) drop” ratio. Corn, for example, is better suited to be grown in the Midwest of the United States than in the Sahara Desert of Africa relative to the best output yield of corn per unit of water input. That is to say, the same amount of corn will require less water to if produced in the Midwestern United States than in the desert. As virtual water scholar Arjen Hoekstra states, by “encouraging nations to use their relative water abundance or scarcity to either encourage or discourage the use of domestic water resources for producing export commodities,” and encouraging production of crops in areas with high water productivity, global water resources can be used more efficiently and can be conserved on a global scale.19 The overall outcome of this virtual trade of water through agricultural export and import is “global water savings.” Studies show that international trade of agriculture products conserves 350 billion cubic meters of water per year and decreases global water use by 5%.20 The global food trade and the “virtual water” embedded in agricultural prodcuts can also have negative impacts on water resources, and can pose long- term threats to global and regional food security. Countries like the United States

15 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 39. 16 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 39. 17 Chapagain, Hoekstra, and Savenije, "Water saving through international trade of agricultural products." 18 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 42. 19 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 39. 20 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 42.

WATER SECURITY IN A HUNGRY WORLD 111 that are net exporters of virtual water through agricultural goods are especially at risk for overextending their water resources and risk using their accessible water faster than it can be replaced. Sixteen percent of global water use is for products for export, not for domestic consumption, and this has profound impacts on the water resources of producing countries.21 There are links, for example, between the demand for grain in Japan and the degradation and depletion of water resources in the United States. Some studies even connect the depletion of the Aral Sea with the high demand for cotton from the European Union.22 The Aral Sea decreased in area by 60% between 1960 and 2000, due to the diversion of the two rivers that feed into the sea: the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya. Diverting these rivers allowed cotton to be irrigated and grown in the desert, to meet the lucrative demand for cotton in the European market.23 It is in the economic interest of water exporters to continue producing crops to capitalize on demand for food from water insecure nations, but this pattern has negative externalities and may lead to food insecurity on an even greater scale. Consumers of imported agricultural products unknowingly or uncaringly place pressure on the water resources of the region from which the food was imported, and bear none of the cost of the environmental degradation and resource overconsumption. Furthermore, water dependent countries that consume food imports from water-abundant nations also put themselves at risk for food insecurity if the producer experiences a water shortage. Because of its leading role in the global food trade, water resources in the United States, the largest net exporter of virtual water, are becoming increasingly insecure. A combination of climate change, poor water management, increased population, and increased domestic demand for water for competing uses, as well as international demand for agricultural products, have encouraged producers to overdraw groundwater from several key agricultural aquifers, including the Ogallala aquifer that runs underneath most of the productive farmland in the country. The High Plains Water-Level Monitoring Study was formed by the USGS in response to a Congress directive to report on water-level changes in the Ogallala aquifer, also known as the High Plains aquifer. A study done by this group in 2013 reveals that the “area-weighted, average water-level changes in the aquifer were an overall decline of 14.2 feet from predevelopment (pre-1950s) to 2011.”24 The threat posed by international demand for agricultural products can also be seen in surface waters of the United States. The Colorado River supplies water used to irrigate nearly 4 million acres of land.25 It is now so dammed and diverted for consumptive use in agricultural, as well as to meet the municipal

21 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 22. 22 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 104-105. 23 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 104-105. 24 McGuire, “Water-level and storage changes in the High Plains aquifer, predevelopment to 2011 and 2009–11: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012– 5291.” 25 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Interim Report No. 1.”

112 VOICES OF HUNGER demands of growing cities, that it barely reaches the Gulf of Mexico, the historic mouth of the river. The United States virtually exports a net annual amount of 92 billion m3, and it is presumed that without this international demand for virtual water export, the United States’ water resources would be under less acute stress26. A threat on water resources in the U.S. is not only a thread to its food security, but also to the food security of all the countries that import food from it. The United States exports crops to nearly three quarters of the world’s countries.27 The demand for water intensive goods produced in the United States is a double-edged sword: demand from other countries puts pressure on the water resources in the United States and can lead to overexploitation of the domestic water resources while the overexploitation of US water resources endangers the food supply of those who import crops from the United States. Almost one-fifth of the world’s population, around 1.2 billion people, already lives in an area experiencing physical water scarcity where water supplies cannot satisfy demand in the region. Almost one out of every four people on the Earth faces economic water scarcity, where there is insufficient infrastructure to transport water from rivers and aquifers for use.28 These challenges to global water resources will become even more urgent in the future. The amount of affordable and easily accessible freshwater on the earth is limited, and is a small percentage of the total quantity of water on the face of the earth. Though water covers about 70% of earth’s surface, only 2.5% of the water on earth is fresh. The rest is found in oceans, too salty for consumption or use. Around 70% the Earth’s freshwater is either locked up permanently in glaciers and snowfields or is stored too deeply underground to be readily accessed. This means that out of all earth’s water resources, only .007% is freshwater that is easily accessible for human use.29 In many places, these limited freshwater resources are being used at a much faster rate than they are being replaced by natural cycles, a trend revealed by declining water levels in many lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers. Population growth and climate change will put further stress on these already stretched water resources. The UN estimates that by the year 2025, water scarcity will affect approximately 1.8 billion people, with two-thirds of the world's population living in water-stressed regions.30 A majority of population growth will take place in developing countries that are already experiencing a great deal of water stress, but the United States will not be spared the impacts of global water insecurity. This means that increased stress will be placed on already stretched water resources. In the last century, water use has increased twice as fast as population, indicating that demand for water will increase at a dramatic rate. 31 Furthermore, as society moves towards biofuels as an energy source, water demand for irrigation and production of “bioenergy will demand huge amounts of water.”32

26 Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources, 39. 27 Allen, Virtual Water, 99. 28 "Water Scarcity: International Decade for Action 'Water for Life.'" 29 "UN Water Statistics." 30 "Clean Water Crisis, Water Crisis Facts, Water Crisis Resource." 31 "Clean Water Crisis, Water Crisis Facts, Water Crisis Resource.". 32 Falkenmark, “Water and the next generation – towards a more consistent approach.”

WATER SECURITY IN A HUNGRY WORLD 113

On top of this, climate change adds another layer of risk to water resources both on a global and on a local scale, affecting snowpack melt, groundwater storage, precipitation patterns, and evapotranspiration rates, which are all crucial to balance created by the water cycle. Droughts are longer and more severe than in the past. Even with impeding climactic threats to water resources, it is expected that “rising water demands [will] greatly outweigh greenhouse warming in defining the state of global water systems to 2025.”33 All of this seems to indicate there are limits on the freshwater than society can consume sustainably, and that society is beginning to push up against these limits. Trade of water intensive goods, as previously noted, is mitigates regional water scarcity and promotes water global water conservation through water efficient production of goods. Water security is a prerequisite to food security. Without adequate water resources, nations can stay food secure through importing “virtual water” in the form of agricultural products. Global trading networks of virtual water have profound effects on the water resources of agriculture exporting nations. High demand for a good in one region can have negative externalities, such as environmental degradation and water resource depletion, in the region that the demanded good is produced. On the other hand, export of water intensive goods from places with higher water productivity to places with lower water productivity can lead to an overall savings of water. In order to attain food security, a nation must be water secure, either through secure domestic water resources or through importing “virtual water” through agricultural trade. Water and food security cannot be separated in the United States or across the world.

References Allan, Tony. Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planet's Most Precious Resource. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011. Carr, Joel. "Global Food Security and "virtual Water."" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 5 Sept. 2012. http://thebulletin.org/global-food-security-and- virtual-water Chapagain A.K., Hoekstra A.Y.. "Water footprints of nations". Value of Water Research Report Series. No. 16, Volume 1/2: Main Report/Appendices, IHE Delft, the Netherlands. 2004. Chapagain A.K., Hoekstra A.Y., Savenije H.H.G.. "Water saving through international trade of agricultural products." Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10(3): 455-468.2006. "Clean Water Crisis, Water Crisis Facts, Water Crisis Resource." National Geographic. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/fres hwater-crisis/ “Coping with water scarcity. Challenge of the twenty-first century,” UN-Water and FAO, (2007) Falkenmark, M. 2009. “Water and the next generation – towards a more consistent approach. In Water management in 2020 and beyond,” (eds.)

33 Vörösmarty, et. al. “Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth.”

114 VOICES OF HUNGER

A.K. Biswas, C. Tortajada, and R. Izquierdo, pp. 65-88. Heidelberg: Springer. Hoekstra, A.Y., and Chapagain A. K.. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. McGuire, V.L., 2013, “Water-level and storage changes in the High Plains aquifer, predevelopment to 2011 and 2009–11: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5291”, 15 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5291/. Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. "National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption". Value of Water Research Report Series No.50, UNESCO-IHE. 2011. Oki T, Kanae S. "Virtual water trade and world water resources". Water Sci. Technol.. 49(7): 203-209. 2004. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Interim Report No. 1. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/report1.html. "UN-Water Statistics" UN-Water. 6 Feb. 2014. http://www.unwater.org/statistics/en/ Vörösmarty, C. J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R. B. Lammers (2000), “Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth,” Science , 289 (5477), 284-288. "Water Footprint: Glossary." Waterfootprint.org: Water Footprint and Virtual Water. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Glossary "Water Footprint: Introduction." Waterfootprint.org: Water Footprint and Virtual Water. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home "Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture." London: Earthscan, and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 2007. "Water Scarcity: International Decade for Action 'Water for Life.'" UN News Center. May 5 2014. http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml

Chapter 7: Farm to School Programs and Food Insecurity

A. Bryce Hoflund, Can Chen, and Carol Ebdon

Introduction Food insecurity and childhood obesity often go hand-in-hand. While there is some literature that examines the impact of Farm to School programs on childhood obesity, there is little research that considers its impact on food insecurity. Through a case study of the Farm to School program in the Omaha Public Schools in Omaha, Nebraska, this chapter presents some of the preliminary results with regard to the impact of Farm to School programs on childhood food insecurity. We argue that Farm to School programs have the potential to address food insecurity in the long run; however, additional research needs to be conducted as Farm to School programs mature. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that approximately 9 out of 10 Americans are able to put food on the table daily. Many others, however, are food insecure, which the USDA defines as not having enough food for an active, healthy life. The USDA notes that in the first decade of this century, food insecurity rates rose in 41 states. In the other nine, the numbers stayed flat. In 2012, an estimated 49 million people lived in food insecure households, including approximately 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children. Furthermore, the USDA states that, “In 2012, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (20.0 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (35.4 percent) or single men (23.6 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (24.6 percent) and Hispanic households (23.3 percent).” 1 Food security is strongly associated with income, although other household circumstances as well as federal, state, and local government policies and economic conditions matter.

1 Coleman-Jensen, Nord, and Singh, “Household Food Security in the United States in 2012.”

115 116 VOICES OF HUNGER

Those that live in food insecure households are also more likely to suffer from health problems, such as diabetes and adult and childhood obesity, than those who live in food secure households. At first glance, the connection between food insecurity and obesity may seem ironic, but researchers have identified and documented a number of risk factors. For example, low-income neighborhoods may lack farmers markets and grocery stores that provide fresh fruits and vegetables,2 but offer a great number of fast food restaurants (especially near schools).3 Furthermore, when healthy food is available, it is often more expensive and of lower quality than other foods.4 Other scholars have determined that low- income and food insecure individuals have fewer opportunities for physical activity5 and experience cycles of “feast or famine” in terms of food availability.6 Combined with more typical risk factors, such as sedentary lifestyles and increased portion sizes, that many Americans face, these and other risk factors that are unique to low-income and food insecure individuals translate to higher levels of obesity over time. The prevalence of childhood obesity has become a major public health concern. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 12.5 million children and adolescents aged 2—19 years are obese.7 The estimated annual medical cost of adult and childhood obesity in the U.S. is approximately $147 billion.8 Obesity at this young age affects current and long- term health care costs, and may also affect future employment prospects and job productivity. In addition to an increased risk of obesity, children who live in food insecure households also suffer more problems at school. Scholars have documented effects such as increased behavioral problems, smaller gains in math and reading achievement between kindergarten and third grade, and, among those ages six to eleven, a higher likelihood of repeating a grade, 9 and deficiencies in non- cognitive classroom measures, such as interpersonal skills, self-control, and other problems related to learning. 10 Over time children who suffer from food insecurity may have difficulties finding and maintaining jobs as well as being functional members of society. Although there are a number of strategies that can be implemented to combat the wicked problem of food insecurity (such as school gardens, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, etc.), this chapter focuses on Farm to School

2 Beaulac, Kristjansson, and Cummins, “A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966- 2007.” 3 Fleischhacker, et. al. “A Systematic Review of Fast Food Access Studies.” 4 Drewnowski, “Healthier Foods Cost More.” 5 Moore, et. al. “Availability of Recreational Resources in Minority and Low Socioeconomic Status Areas.” 6 Bruening, et. al. “Feeding A Family in a Recession: Food Insecurity Among Minnesota Parents.” 7 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Childhood Obesity Facts, 2013.” 8 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Childhood Obesity Facts, 2013.” 9 Nord, “Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics.” 10 Howard, “Does Food Insecurity at Home Affect Non-Cognitive Performance at School? A Longitudinal Analysis of Elementary Student Classroom Behavior.”

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 117 programs as a primary intervention technique. In this chapter, we review and discuss the findings from the existing Farm to School literature. Drawing on the implementation of the Farm to School program in the Omaha Public Schools District (OPS) in Omaha, Nebraska, we also present the preliminary results of a case study that explores the advantages and challenges of using Farm to School as a mechanism to reduce food insecurity. We argue that Farm to School programs have the potential to address food insecurity in the long run; however, additional research needs to be conducted as Farm to School programs mature. This chapter is organized into five sections. In the first section, we provide an overview of the Farm to School movement in the United States and review the Farm to School literature. In the second section, we discuss our methodology for conducting this research. In the third section, we provide an overview of the Farm to School program and food insecurity in OPS. In the fourth section, we report on and discuss our preliminary findings. Finally, we conclude by discussing future research questions.

Literature Review In this section, we provide an overview of the Farm to School movement in the United States and review the existing Farm to School literature. Studies that seek to understand the potential impact of Farm to School programs on food insecurity are scant. This chapter seeks to fill this gap.

Overview of the Farm to School Movement in the United States

Congress created the modern school lunch program with the passage of the National School Lunch Act in 1946. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) was created as a “measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well- being of the nation’s children and to encourage domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities.”11 The primary goal of this federally assisted meal program was to provide highly nutritious meals for children to promote the health and well-being of the nation’s children.12 The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) further expanded the NSLP by creating the School Breakfast Program (SBP) and expanding the Special Milk Program (SMP). By 1970, 22 million children were participating, and by 1980 the figure was nearly 27 million. In 1990, over 24 million children ate school lunch every day. In 2012, the NSLP was operating in over 100,000 public and nonprofit private schools and residential care institutions, and providing over 31 million low cost or free lunches to children at a federal cost of $11.6 billion for per year.13 School meal programs have experienced substantial reforms since their beginnings. When the NSLP was founded, the purpose of school meals was to feed underweight children and prevent malnutrition. Recently, the rising concern

11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “National School Lunch Program Fact Sheet, 2013.” 12 Levine, School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America's Favorite Welfare Program. 13 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The Farm to School Census, 2013.”

118 VOICES OF HUNGER over obesity has resulted in a growing interest in adapting school meals to increase children’s consumption of fresh and healthy food as one effective means to fight childhood obesity. Since the late 1990s, the Farm to School program has emerged as a movement to connect schools across the nation with their local farms. In general, the Farm to School program can be defined as a program that “connects schools (K-12) and local farms with the objectives of serving healthy meals in school cafeterias, improving student nutrition, providing agriculture, health and nutrition education opportunities, and supporting local and regional farmers.”14 The first two pilot Farm to School programs were implemented in California and Florida in 1996 and 1997. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 formally created the Farm to School program within USDA to facilitate the growing Farm to School movement. Currently, the Farm to School program is operational in more than thirty-eight hundred schools spanning all fifty states and reaching over twenty-one million students.15

Farm to School Literature

The literature indicates that Farm to School programs have the potential to provide school children with healthy and nutritious food, support local farmers and economies, and promote long-run sustainability. 16 A 2010 survey on childhood nutrition conducted by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics found that while “the average scores for all the components of the survey were below the standards, dairy (milk and milk products) and total protein foods (meat, fish, poultry, eggs, etc.) were closest to the standards. Scores for greens and beans and whole grains were farthest from the standards (between 14 and 18 percent and between 16 and 18 percent, respectively). This meant that 2- to 17-year-olds consumed far less than the recommended level of dark green vegetables and beans and of whole grains.”17 To combat the problems of obesity and nutritional deficiency, one of the primary school-based obesity interventions is to increase students’ consumption of healthy food. Farm to School programs can promote locally produced fresh fruits and vegetables into school cafeterias, raise students’ nutrition knowledge, and potentially increase students’ dietary consumption of more healthy foods. 18 Berlin, Norris, Kolodinsky, and Nelson (2012) conducted a study that examined Farm to School programs as a means of dealing with childhood overweight and obesity. They found that Farm to School programs have potential as a method to address this issue. Farm to School programs can also offer stable and institutionalized markets for a wide range of small local farmers, and support local agriculture and economy.19 The U.S. agricultural industry experienced dramatic changes in the

14 “National Farm to School Network.” 15 “National Farm to School Network.” 16 Azuma and Fisher, “Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: Evaluating the Barriers and Opportunities for Farm-to-School Programs.” 17 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, “America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2013.” 18 Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra, “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference?” 19 Azuma and Fisher, “Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: Evaluating the Barriers and Opportunities for Farm-to-School Programs.”

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 119 past decades. Because of global competition and the national agricultural and trade policies that favor large-scale farms, small farms are having a hard time surviving.20 Farm to School programs offer institutionalized markets to bolster local farming and agricultural development. In addition, through offering agriculture and health education to children, Farm to School programs engage farmers in the local community and strengthen the local farm-school relationship. In addition, buying locally produced food reduces transportation costs, and promotes the long-run environmental sustainability of the food system. According to National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (2008), fresh produce in the U.S. travels over 1,500 miles on average to reach consumers and leads to more energy consumption and pollution emissions that contribute to global warming and lower air quality. Buying locally sourced food can effectively reduce the energy consumption and air pollution associated with transporting food. There are challenges to implementing Farm to School programs. Pierson and Hammer (2003) note that the successful implementation of Farm to School programs require schools to overcome the challenges associated with food price, procurement, distribution, and lack of adequate kitchen facilities. Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra (2008) argue that the primary barrier is cost, noting that Farm to School programs “cost school districts more money in labor costs to prepare raw foods, monitor salad bars, and clean up; local and/or organic food costs; transaction costs to set up new invoicing and delivery arrangements; and training food service workers in new prep/storage procedures.”21 Vo and Holcomb (2011) contend that the primary challenges are program operation costs, food supply, and distribution logistics. Through twenty in-depth interviews with Vermont’s school food directors or coordinators, Roche and Kolodinsky (2011) discuss five major barriers to offering fresh produce in schools: (1) labor cost and increased labor time; (2) training and skills for food service; (3) the higher cost of local food; (4) the storage and equipment of local produce; and (5) the availability and transportation of local food. In addition, for specific geographical regions, food seasonality is one of the greatest barriers for Farm to School programs. Gregorie and Strohbehn (2002) assert that the absence of adequate and stable fresh food supply and quantity due to food seasonality is one of the biggest challenges for schools in the Midwest to implement Farm to School programs. Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra (2008) identified three factors that increase potential success of Farm to School programs. The first is having an active leader or champion for the program. They note that such a leader or champion can “guide the programs forward through complex political and institutional barriers to achieve their goals.”22 The second is building successful partnerships with diverse stakeholders that will support the program.23 The final is for leaders and Farm to School teams learning to use resources and assets (financial, social, and physical) creatively.24

20 Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra, “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference?” 21 Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra, “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference?” 22 Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra, “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference?” 23 Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra, “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference?” 24 Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra, “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference?”

120 VOICES OF HUNGER

In a previous study, we explored network leadership issues in the Farm to School program in Douglas County, Nebraska that was funded through a federal grant.25 We found that the size of the school district, available resources, and the personality of the food services director were important factors in determining a district’s interest in participating in the program. Issues identified by participants focused on nine areas: (1) the short growing season; (2) unpredictability of local suppliers and weather; (3) food safety; (4) the procurement process; (5) cost; (6) logistics of storage and transportation; (7) the quantity needed by large districts; (8) new USDA rules; and (9) the lack of political will to implement the program. We identified four leadership challenges including: (1) a lack of coordination of Farm to School activities; (2) a lack of information sharing among participants; (3) difficulties with how to measure success; and (4) sustainability. Our conclusion was that a stronger governance structure for the Farm to School network and a leader to coordinate activities among the participants would be useful to improve and expand the program. This review of the literature indicates that there is limited peer-reviewed research on Farm to School programs. Joshi, Azuma, and Feenstra (2008) examined fifteen Farm to School program studies and pointed out that only four of the studies appeared in peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, although some of the Farm to School literature mentions reducing food insecurity as one goal of Farm to School programs, there have been no peer-reviewed studies to date that examine the advantages, challenges, and impacts Farm to School programs might have on childhood food insecurity. Given the current state of the literature, many scholars argue for more empirical research into Farm to School programs. This exploratory study contributes to the literature by examining the impacts of a Farm to School program on childhood food insecurity.

Methodology In 2013, the USDA released the results of its first Farm to School census. In order to determine the prevalence of Farm to School programs in the United States, the USDA surveyed an estimated thirteen thousand school districts and found that 43 percent of public school districts across the country are participating in Farm to School programs. Nebraska has 249 public school districts. Of the 187 districts that completed the census, 22 percent are engaged in Farm to School activities while 14 percent stated that they plan to start in the future. During the 2011-2012 school year, the Nebraska school districts that bought local products spent an estimated $35.7 million on school food, with $4.3 million (or 12%) of that directed locally. The Farm to School program was introduced in the Omaha Public Schools (OPS) as part of the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW). Although many school districts, including OPS, had been working on bringing Farm to School programs into their schools previously, the CPPW program represented the first systematic effort to incorporate Farm to School into schools in the Douglas County area. The CDC developed the CPPW program to reduce chronic

25 Hoflund, Chen, and Ebdon, "Network governance and leadership: Lessons learned from the Douglas County Communities Putting Prevention to Work Farm to School Program."

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 121 disease related to obesity and tobacco through evidence-based strategies to improve health outcomes through environmental and policy change. Nationwide, fifty communities received grant funding for a two-year period, from April 2010 to March 2012. Twenty-eight communities focused solely on obesity, with eleven addressing only tobacco use, and another eleven focusing on both obesity and tobacco.26 Through a partnership with Live Well Omaha (LWO), the Douglas County Health Department (DCHD), in Omaha, Nebraska received approximately $6 million in funding to promote community-level environmental and policy changes to create a physical and cultural environment that supports and sustains healthy, physically active lifestyles. The goals of CPPW were to: (1) increase physical activity; (2) increase healthy eating and decrease consumption of foods with high calories and poor nutrition; and (3) promote policies and environments to support healthy lifestyles. Ten activities were included in the Douglas County partnership: (1) the Farm to School program; (2) the Share the Road Campaign; (3) a Bike Share Program; (4) Transportation Master Plan Update; (5) Safe Routes to School; (6) Movin’ After School; (7) School Gardens; (8) Healthy Neighborhood Stores; (9) Partners for a Healthy City; and (10) the City at Risk Marketing Campaign. The Farm to School program was one of the core CPPW program activities in Douglas County. The total CPPW grant costs for this program were $198,556 (excluding overhead costs for grant administration and evaluation). The primary goal of the Farm to School program was to get local, healthy foods into school cafeterias by providing educational opportunities and information, promoting collaboration among food producers and food service directors, and developing and implementing some procedures and policies for local schools trying to procure local foods. Five of the seven Douglas County school districts participated in the program, encompassing 82,638 students. OPS is the largest school district participating in the Farm to School program. We collected data about the OPS Farm to School Program by conducting in- depth, open-ended interviews and examining written documents. The research is based on approximately 11 hours of interviews with ten individuals who are key stakeholders in this initiative, as well as grant reports and other documentation. Our interviewees included distributors, government officials, and school administrators. This range of interviewees provided diverse perspectives on the Farm to School program. We conducted the interviews via telephone and in person. The interviews were not recorded, but notes were taken. In order to obtain candid responses to our questions, interviewees were guaranteed anonymity. We asked a series of questions about the Farm to School program, including questions related to the background and role of the interviewee, the goals of the program, key players and project management, motivation of schools to participate, food insecurity, sustainability, and procedures and challenges in purchasing local food. Each individual was also asked whether they considered Farm to School to be successful, and to describe the criteria by which they judge success.

26 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Communities Putting Prevention to Work Community Overview, 2010.”

122 VOICES OF HUNGER

The interviews were used in tandem with document analysis to determine whether they supported one another. 27 From each interview, we gathered additional contacts using snowball or chain sampling, in which interviewees are asked to provide names of individuals who know about the issue. 28 When we completed the interviews, we compiled the interview notes and employed various qualitative techniques, including content analysis, to distill themes and other insights provided by interviewees. There are limitations to this study. With a small sample size, we may have missed a perspective that is different from the individuals we interviewed. However, our use of the snowball method should have helped to overcome this issue in that each interviewee identified others who they saw as key actors in the Farm to School program. In addition, our research is based on current and recent activities of Farm to School, which may not be any indication of what might occur in the future. Finally, this case reflects only the experience in one school system and is not generalizable to other communities. However, the results of this case study may be of interest to practitioners working with Farm to School programs and to scholars interested in food insecurity.

The Omaha Public School District

Demographic Profile

The Omaha Public School District (OPS) is the largest school district in the state of Nebraska with 50,461 students enrolled in the 2012-2013 school year (Table 1). Nearly one in every five students in the entire state attends OPS. The district has 91 schools in OPS, including 62 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, 7 high schools, and 11 other secondary schools.29 OPS serves a large and diverse group of students and has been a majority- minority school district since the 2002-2003 school year. In the 2012-2013 school year, the number of minority students attending OPS was 34,175, representing 67.7 percent of the total school enrollment (OPS 2013b). The racial/ethnic composition of OPS included 32.3 percent White, 26 percent African American, 31.4 percent Hispanic, 3.4 percent Asian, and 5.6 percent Multi-racial (Table 1). Over the past ten years, OPS has experienced a nearly 10 percent increase in overall student enrollment. This increase is due primarily to the growth of the Hispanic/Latino population and the influx of refugee students into Omaha.30 The number of refugee students coming from 12 different countries increased from 992 in the 2009-2010 school year up to 1,556 in the 2012-2013 school year.31 Students participating in the English as a Second Language (ESL) program have also grown rapidly over the last decade, from 4,364 in the 2002-2003 school year

27 Caudle, “Using Qualitative Approaches.” 28 Caudle, “Using Qualitative Approaches.” 29 Omaha Public Schools District (2013a) “Omaha Public Schools Districts 2013-2014 Budget.” 30 Omaha Public Schools District (2013b) “2013 Enrollment Achievement Booklet.” 31 Omaha Public Schools District (2013b) “2013 Enrollment Achievement Booklet.”

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 123 to 6,288 in the 2012-2013 school year.32 The sheer size and diversity of the student population makes OPS an ideal case to study food insecurity in larger urban school districts. Table 1. Characteristics of Omaha Public School District 2012-2013 School Year District Characteristics Omaha Public School District (OPS) Total Number of Schools 91 Total Number of Students 50,461 Percentage of Minority Students 67.7% Percentage of White Students 32.3% Percentage of African American Students 26.0% Percentage of Hispanic Students 31.4% Percentage of Asian Students 3.4% Percentage of Multi-Racial Students 5.6% Percentage of English Language Learners 12.5% Percentage of Refugee Students 3.3% Percentage of Students Qualifying for 73.1% Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Cost Per Lunch $1.65 Total Food Service Working Staff 406 Source: Omaha Public Schools District (OPS), Research Division Website. Retrieved from: http://district.ops.org/DEPARTMENTS/GeneralFinanceandAdministrativeService s/Research.aspx

It is widely acknowledged that the student participation rate in the Free/Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) program is a reliable and comparable indicator of socioeconomic status (poverty) across American public schools districts.33 OPS has experienced a rapid increase in student FRPL program participation rates. As shown in Figure 1, the student FRPL program participation rate increased from about 50 percent in 2001-2002 to 73.1 percent in the 2012-2013 school year, an annual increase of 1.6 percent and a total gain of 23.5 percentage points over this period. All minority student groups have steadily increased their participation rates in the FRPL program (Table 2).

32 Omaha Public Schools District (2013b), “2013 Enrollment Achievement Booklet.” 33 Wang, Duncombe, and Yinger, “School District Responses to Matching Aid Programs for Capital Facilities: A Case Study of New York’s Building Aid Program.”

124 VOICES OF HUNGER

Figure 1. Omaha Public Schools District (OPS) 2001-02 to 2013-14 School Year Percentage of Students on Free/ Reduced Lunch Program (by Racial/Ethnic Category)

Source: Omaha Public Schools District (2013c).

In the 2012-2013 school year, approximately 36,907 students participated in the FRPL program, accounting for 73.1 percent of the overall student population. Of the OPS minority student population, over 87 percent, or approximately 29,780 students, participated in the FRPL program. Furthermore, 88 percent of these minority students qualified for free lunch, which further showed a higher share of very low-income families and more demanding family socio-economic needs for enough nutritious food. Table 2 Omaha Public Schools District (OPS) Free/Reduced Lunch Program Participation 2008-09 to 2012-13 School Year OPS School Free/Reduced Lunch % Free/Reduced Population Eligible Lunch Year All Minorit All Students Minority All Minori Students y Students ty 2012- 50,461 34,175 36,907 29,780 73.1% 87.1% 13 2011- 50,378 33,705 36,015 29,047 71.5% 86.2% 12 2010- 49,508 32,875 34,328 27,725 69.3% 84.4% 11 2009- 49,076 30,203 32,985 25,287 67.2% 83.7% 10 2008- 48,075 29,012 29,950 22,843 62.3% 78.7% 09 Source: Omaha Public Schools District (2013c).

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 125

OPS Activities to Encourage More Nutritious Eating

With the CPPW Farm to School program, OPS signed a policy memo to increase the supply of locally grown or raised foods in the school district.34 However, the district began focusing on local foods several years prior to the CPPW grant, when the food services director attended a USDA meeting that addressed the preference for providing locally grown and source food in schools. She then began making trips to local producers. OPS has been very active in bringing more local foods into the school kitchens in recent years. Our interviewees noted that more and more regionally grown vegetables, fruits, cheeses, and meats are being served in OPS school cafeterias. When asked why OPS participated in the Farm to School program, one interviewee stated, “Because we are an urban district, in the City of Omaha, kids don’t know where food comes from. At the time Farm to School started, there were not a lot of school or community gardens…..And, it helps to purchase local to keep the economy going.” OPS spends approximately $40 million per year on food services. The overall percentage that is spent on local foods is not large, although district officials cannot say for sure how much is spent locally. For example, they have a contract with a produce distributor that includes geographic preference provisions, but do not have a way to break out how much fits in the local category in total. The distributor estimated that about 4-5 percent of their business with school districts is through local growers, but that is increasing each year. The major problem identified with the Farm to School program in OPS is in making sure that the food is safe: “It would be great if someone could look at individual growers and let us know who is GAP[Good Agricultural Practices] certified. We sat one on one with producers and they didn’t know how to begin with produce safety. So it takes a lot of preparation.” Another concern is the additional effort required. One interviewee noted that, “Geographic preference is an extra step.” OPS staff prepares menus about six months in advance, working with a menu committee and the vendors. They have to consider whether the producers will be able to provide sufficient quantities of a good at a given time. With a large number of schools, transportation to the schools is also an issue. Smaller local producers have difficulty delivering to every school; OPS is working to help the producers by having fewer delivery points, with the district then distributing to each individual school. In addition to the Farm to School program, several other programs are operated by OPS with the purpose of providing healthy and nutritious foods to students. One program mentioned by our interviewees is the “Grab and Go Breakfast!" program, which provides a free nutritional breakfast to all children in the school district. Over 20,158 students participated daily during the 2012-2013 school year.35 OPS also participates in the USDA’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which introduces fresh fruits and vegetables as healthy snacks throughout the school day. The OPS Nutrition Services Department administers this program, and participating schools order fresh fruits and vegetables from it

34 Wang, et. al. “Communities putting prevention to work: Final evaluation report.” 35 Omaha Public Schools District (2013a) “Omaha Public Schools Districts 2013-2014 Budget.”

126 VOICES OF HUNGER twice a week. The third program is the After School Program. This program offers snacks or meals to students staying after school. In partnership with Omaha community organizations, OPS offers more than 1,700 free snacks every month. Finally, OPS sponsors the Summer Food Service Program in order to provide nutritious meals to students during summers. Over 300,000 healthy meals are provided to students free of charge every summer.36

Discussion of Case Findings In this section we discuss the results of our interviews with regard to Farm to School and food insecurity in OPS and highlight the advantages, challenges, and thoughts about the future of Farm to School programs in addressing food insecurity.

Advantages of the Farm to School Program in Addressing Food Insecurity

Our interviews mentioned two ways – hands on learning and better eating habits – by which the OPS Farm to School program helps reduce food insecurity. First, Farm to School programs encourage hands on learning, which might (and sometimes does, according to our interviewees) translate to gardening efforts at home, at school, or in the community. One goal of the program, according to an interviewee, is that it “promotes more people to grow produce, whether in a pot, or barrel, or their yard. This can also help people with income because they can sell produce at stands and farmers’ markets. They can also share it with their neighbors or take it to a mission.” The idea is that the knowledge gained at a young age about how to eat well and how to be self-sufficient in some ways by gardening will lead to long-term behavioral changes on the part of the children. If they are taught to garden at school and understand where fresh fruits and vegetables come from, they might be more likely to encourage their family, friends, and other members of the community to garden. What they learn at school can then be translated into service to the larger community in a number of ways. Second, our interviewees maintain that children are eating better meals as a result of the introduction of Farm to School in OPS. For example, one principal at a school with a high level of families in poverty noted that children in the school have the opportunity to receive three solid meals a day at school, comprised of fresh fruits and vegetables, which then means that not only are they receiving better nutrition in the short-run, but in the long-run are learning how to eat more nutritious meals. An interviewee stated, “The way to expose kids to healthy foods is not just once or twice a week, but to do it on a regular basis. We have to approach them the same way advertisers are approaching them. Our kids eat too much crap, and they drink soda. The lunches that they bring to school are usually really unhealthy. I would prefer to provide them with food because I know it’s healthy.” Educating children in this way creates good habits and helps achieve the

36 Omaha Public Schools District, “Nutrition Service Department.”

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 127 goal of creating long-term behavioral changes. If those individuals who are food insecure are also more likely to suffer from related health problems like diabetes, obesity, etc., the knowledge that is gained through the implementation of a Farm to School program has the potential to effect long-term change. Related to this, our interviewees indicated that the food is fresher and more nutritious because of reduced travel time.

Challenges Faced by Farm to School Programs in Addressing Food Insecurity

While there are many potential benefits that Farm to School programs could have on childhood food insecurity, our interviewees also cited some challenges. The challenges represent institutional challenges as well as challenges at the individual family level. We discuss three institutional challenges – cost, program advertising, and the requirements of the USDA School Lunch Nutrition Guidelines and the No Child Left Behind Act – and two challenges at the individual family level – lack of resources to practice what they have learned in school at home and toxic soil. With regard to institutional challenges, the first challenge our interviewees mentioned is cost. Supplying fresh, nutritious, locally-sourced food is more expensive than relying on USDA commodities and other large scale producers. One interviewee noted, “It would be nice to have more affordable products. Even though you have Farm to School, it costs farmers more to make the products than it costs large-scale producers.” Interviewees also mentioned that just “getting the word out” to parents, interested community organizations, and businesses that might support or want to get involved in the program is difficult. According to one interviewee “what they [the students and families] have is what they’re used to having…they don’t know what else it out there.” In order to solve this issue, one interviewee said, “We only have a big banner for advertising, but we would like to send a flyer home with every student. We could also advertise in day care programs and in churches.” Another institutional challenge is the USDA School Lunch Nutrition Guidelines that set requirements for balanced meals. One interviewee mentioned that in order to provide a balanced meal, you have to meet the USDA’s guidelines, which often leads to “kids having to take things they don’t want and then they don’t eat them. They [the guidelines] also specify that schools give the same amount of food to kindergartners, first graders, and sixth graders. Sixth graders are often hungry!” Related to this are the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Schools struggle with having the time to devote to nutritional education in light of the requirements of NCLB. One interviewee captured their dilemma well: “Education is a requirement for fresh fruits and vegetables. NCLB is an issue. We cannot add any time during science, for example. We have to find the time to insert it into something we are already doing. The focus is all on academics, but we need to be concerned about health too.” With regard to challenges at the individual family level, one of our interviewees mentioned that some children have difficulty taking what they have learned from the Farm to School program – anything from learning to grow gardens to preparing nutritious meals – and applying that knowledge in the home

128 VOICES OF HUNGER environment. Children that suffer from food insecurity are more likely to have parents who lack the resources, such as time, money, education, and cooking equipment, to cook fresh and healthy meals at home. Often, according to this interviewee, many families lack the basics such as “a refrigerator, cooking knowledge, a stove, and other needed equipment.” Finally, our interviewees mentioned a related challenge in terms of growing home gardens. Many of the students in OPS live in areas that have toxic soil. One interviewee notes, “Lead in particular is an issue…you have to be careful in North Omaha with lead and chemicals.” The City of Omaha is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site. Over 11,000 properties are in the site, which is the “largest residential lead contamination cleanup in the nation.” Soil in these yards is being replaced by the EPA after being contaminated primarily from a lead smelter that operated in the eastern part of the city for over 100 years. Eventually, the soil will be safe, but there are still concerns that may prevent the application of knowledge at home gained through the Farm to School program.37

Future Directions of the Farm to School Program

When asked about the success of efforts like the Farm to School program in reducing food insecurity, one interviewee said, “They have been successful, but it’s very hard to mitigate a problem nationwide, citywide, and school wide that is very different in each location.” They note that the program has expanded and people are more aware of the importance of it. In general, the interviewees noted that knowledge, education, and understanding of food are key to reducing food insecurity. Furthermore, the individuals that we interviewed indicated that Farm to School programs should be a collaborative effort and should exist along with other programs designed to alleviate food insecurity issues. In addition to the Farm to School program, OPS indicates that it is also implementing weekend meal programs funded by ConAgra (a major food conglomerate headquartered in Omaha), a free community lunch program and four weeks of free breakfasts and lunches during summer school. Schools also work with local businesses to provide food and refer families to local food pantries. One interviewee noted that they feed about one hundred families through their holiday gift bag program and gift cards to local retailers like WalMart.

Conclusion This research represents an initial attempt to explore Farm to School programs as a means of addressing food insecurity issues in children. Our review of the Farm to School literature and a preliminary case study of Farm to School programs in the Omaha Public Schools yield mixed results. The literature on Farm to School programs is sparse, and studies related to the relationship of these programs to food insecurity are virtually nonexistent. Some advocates have suggested that a

37 “EPA: Some Omaha superfund sites are lead-free.”

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 129 reduced level of food insecurity may be an outcome of Farm to School programs. This may occur as a result of not only providing school children with health and nutritious food, but also by educating children and their families about the benefits of a healthy food lifestyle. Our findings provide support for the contention that the Farm to School program is increasing awareness about the food system and how to eat healthy meals. Some of this awareness is being transferred from children to their parents. These efforts have the chance of creating long-term changes in behavior to healthy eating. However, we found a number of institutional and family-level challenges. The challenges addressed by our interviewees include cost, advertising, federal requirements, lack of family resources, and environmental conditions. In addition, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of Farm to School in addressing childhood obesity and food insecurity, because the program is relatively new and because there are no mechanisms in place to be able to isolate the results of this program. There are, however, a couple of conclusions that we can draw from this study. First, food insecurity continues to be a concern. Urban public school districts like OPS face interrelated issues of high poverty rates, increasingly diverse student bodies from different cultural backgrounds, and growing numbers of refugees. While these conditions may be exacerbated in larger districts, they also exist in smaller and rural schools to some extent. These trends are likely to continue and indicate increasing demands for nutritious foods for students. Second, childhood food insecurity is an issue that needs to be addressed holistically and collaboratively. Farm to School programs represent only one intervention among many that can be used to address these wicked problems. Some schools in our study are able to provide three meals per day to needy children during the week in the school year, and “backpack” provisions for children to take home on weekends, thanks to partnerships with nonprofit organizations. This does not fully address needs in summer when school is not in session, though. And programs like school or community gardens are logical partners to Farm to School efforts. Our initial research, while limited in scope, highlights the potential of Farm to School programs as a promising nutritional food supply tool to address the issues related to childhood food insecurity. In addition, in light of the current Farm to School national movement, we conclude that there needs to be more promotion of and further integration of Farm to School programs into current school food programs and activities. Additional research should be done in several areas. First, additional case studies of Farm to School programs would be useful in helping scholars and practitioners better understand the variations in how these programs are implemented and ways in which challenges can be overcome. Second, more evaluation research needs to be done about Farm to School programs in the long run to assess their effectiveness in addressing childhood obesity and food insecurity. Scholars need to design and execute rigorous evaluation studies of Farm to School programs. This will require development of measures and instruments can be used to isolate and identify effects of this particular program. Third, scholars should study how Farm to School programs coexist with other programs to address issues of food insecurity. Farm to School programs are one

130 VOICES OF HUNGER part of a puzzle to address this problem. Developing models of how the pieces of the puzzle fit together in effective ways would be a significant contribution.

References Azuma, Andrea Misako and Andrew Fisher. Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: Evaluating the Barriers and Opportunities for Farm-to-School Programs. Community Food Security Coalition, 2001. Retrieved from http://mda.maryland.gov/farm_to_school/Documents/HealthyFarmsHeal thyKids.pdf Beaulac, Julie, Elizabeth Kristjansson, and Steven Cummins. “A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966-2007.” Preventing Chronic Disease, 6 (2009), A105. Berlin, Linda, Kimberly Norris, Jane Kolodinsky, and Abbie Nelson. “The Role of Social Cognitive Theory in Farm-to-School-Related Activities: Implications for Child Nutrition.” Journal of School Health 83 (2013): 589-595. Bruening, Meg, Richard MacLehose, Katie Loth, Mary Story, and Dianne Neumark-Sztainer. “Feeding A Family in a Recession: Food Insecurity Among Minnesota Parents.” American Journal of Public Health 102 (2012): 520-526. Caudle, Sharon L. “Using Qualitative Approaches.” In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, & Kathryn E. Newcomer, 69-95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994. Coleman-Jensen, Mark Nord, and Anita Singh. Household Food Security in the United States in 2012. USDA Economic Research Report No. (ERR- 155), September 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research- report/err155.aspx#.U0cWU8dw324 Drewnowski, Adam. “Healthier Foods Cost More.” Nutrition Reviews 68 (2010): 184–185. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Fleischhacker, Sheila, Kelly R. Evenson, Daniel A. Rodriguez, and Alice S. Ammerman. “ A Systematic Review of Fast Food Access Studies.” Obesity Reviews 12 (2011): e460-71. Gregoire, Mary B. and Catherine Strohbehn. “Benefits and Obstacles to Purchasing Food from Local Growers and Producers.” Journal of Child Nutrition & Management 26 (2002): 1-7. Hoflund, A. Bryce, Can Chen, and Carol Ebdon. "Network Governance and Leadership: Lessons Learned from the Douglas County Communities Putting Prevention to Work Farm to School program." Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal (forthcoming). Howard, L. L. “Does Food Insecurity at Home Affect Non-Cognitive Performance at School? A Longitudinal Analysis of Elementary Student

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND FOOD INSECURITY 131

Classroom Behavior. Economics of Education Review 30 (2010): 157- 176. Joshi, Anupama, Andrea Misako Azuma and Gail Feenstra. “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference? Findings and Future Research Needs.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 3 (2008): 229-246. Larson, Nicole, Mary Story, and Melissa C. Nelson. “Neighborhood Environments Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the US.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36 (2009), 74-81 Levine, Susan. School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America's Favorite Welfare Program. Princeton University Press, 2008. Lincoln Journal Star. EPA: Some Omaha superfund sites are lead-free. June 4, 2013. Retrieved from http://journalstar.com/news/state-and- regional/nebraska/epa-some-omaha-superfund-sites-are-lead- free/article_7598c830-9c7f-5fc8-8c41-ca75c18c59a3.html Moore, Latetia V., Ana V. Diez Roux, Kelly R. Evenson, Aileen McGinn, and Shannon Brines. “Availability of Recreational Resources in Minority and Low Socioeconomic Status Areas.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34 (2008): 16-22. National Farm to School Network website: http://www.farmtoschool.org/ National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. Food Miles: Background and Marketing. 2008. Retrieved from http://struancapital.com/PDF/Foodmiles.pdf Nord, Mark. “Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB56/ Omaha Public Schools District (2013a), Omaha Public Schools Districts 2013- 2014 Budget, Retrieved from: http://district.ops.org/DEPARTMENTS/GeneralFinanceandAdministrati veServices/BudgetPlanningandAnalysis.aspx Omaha Public Schools District (2013b), 2013 Enrollment Achievement Booklet, Retrieved from: http://district.ops.org/DEPARTMENTS/GeneralFinanceandAdministrati veServices/Research/StatisticalReports/tabid/2338/Agg7692_SelectTab/ 9/Default.aspx Omaha Public Schools District (2013c), Annual Free & Reduced Lunch Report, Retrieved from: http://district.ops.org/DEPARTMENTS/GeneralFinanceandAdministrati veServices/Research/StatisticalReports/tabid/2338/Agg7692_SelectTab/ 5/Default.aspx Omaha Public Schools District (OPS), Nutrition Service Department Website. http://district.ops.org/DEPARTMENTS/DistrictOperationalServices/Nut ritionServices.aspx Roche, Erin and Jane M. Kolodinsky. “Overcoming Barriers to Providing Local Produce in School Lunches in Vermont.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1 (2011): 89-97. Pierson, Teri and Janet Hammer. Barriers and Opportunities to the Use of Regional and Sustainable Food Products by Local Institutions: A Report

132 VOICES OF HUNGER

to Community Food Matters and the Portland/Multnomah Food Policy Council. Portland: Community Food Matters, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/116839 U.S. Bureau of Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1993: The National Data Book. Government Printing Office. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Childhood Obesity Facts, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Communities Putting Prevention to Work Community Overview, 2010. Accessed July, 22, 2013 at: http://www.cdc.gov/CommunitiesPuttingPreventiontoWork/communitie s/index.htm U.S. Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch Program Fact Sheet, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Farm to School Census, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census/#/page/about Vallianatos, Mark, Robert Gottlieb and Margeret Ann Haase. (2004). “Farm-to- School Strategies for Urban Health, Combating Sprawl, and Establishing a Community Food Systems Approach.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (2004): 414-423. Vo, Anh and Rodney B. Holcomb. “Impacts of School District Characteristics on Farm-to-School Program Participation: The Case for Oklahoma.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 42 (2011): 43-59. Wang, Wen, William D. Duncombe, and JohnYinger, J. “School District Responses to Matching Aid Programs for Capital Facilities: A Case Study of New York’s Building Aid Program.” National Tax Journal, 64 (2011): 759-794. Wang, Hongmei, Melissa Tibbits, Kelly Shaw-Sutherland, and Liyan Xu. 2012. Communities putting prevention to work: Final evaluation report. Omaha, NE: Nebraska Center for Rurah Health Research, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Chapter 8: Virginia Family Nutrition Program: Meeting the Nutrition Needs of Food Insecure Families

Stephanie Diehl

As a nutrition educator for over 25 years, I have had the opportunity to teach many people about the benefits of healthy eating. I have worked with people from “cradle to grave” and have provided nutrition education as a public health nutritionist, long-term care dietitian, hospital dietitian with children and adolescents, and community educator. I have counseled and taught people who couldn’t wait to hear about nutrition, others who would prefer not to hear a thing about nutrition, and others who would just like to argue about nutrition facts and research. It seems that since everyone eats every day, anyone can consider himself or herself to be an expert about food and nutrition. In relative terms, nutrition is a young science and new discoveries are constantly made. For example, at one point, margarine was good and butter was bad but, later on, butter was good and margarine was bad. First eggs were bad for your cholesterol. Now they’re good. But, as with most things in life, most of nutrition comes down to moderation, with which many of us struggle, and variety. As a Virginia Tech faculty member and an Area Coordinator with Virginia Cooperative Extension’s Family Nutrition Program (FNP), I now supervise paraprofessionals who provide nutrition education in their communities to limited-resource families. Virginia FNP is comprised of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Education (SNAP-Ed) program.

EFNEP EFNEP is administered by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). EFNEP is a nutrition education program that currently operates in all 50 states and in American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In Virginia, EFNEP is administered by the Cooperative

133 134 VOICES OF HUNGER

Extension (VCE) system, under the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Virginia Tech. EFNEP was initiated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1968 based on Federal legislation from Sec. 32 of An Act to Amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and For Other Purposes, August 1935, Chapter 641, 74th Congress 1st sess., 49 Stat.750 744. Congressional legislation provides funding for EFNEP to continue the work of providing nutrition education to low-income households. It is designed to assist limited-resource audiences in acquiring the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and changed behavior necessary for nutritionally sound diets, and to contribute to their personal development and the improvement of the total family diet and nutritional well-being. Through an experiential learning process, adult program participants learn how to make food choices that can improve the nutritional quality of the meals they serve their families. This enhances their ability to select and buy food that meets the nutritional needs of their family. They gain new skills in food production, preparation, storage, safety and sanitation, and they learn to better manage their food budgets and related resources from federal, state, and local food assistance agencies and organizations. They also may learn about related topics such as physical activity and health. EFNEP is delivered as a series of eight or more lessons, often taught over several months, by paraprofessionals (peer educators) and volunteers, many of whom are indigenous to the target population. The hands-on, learn-by-doing approach allows the participants to gain the practical skills necessary to make positive behavior changes. Through EFNEP, participants also experience increased self-worth, recognizing that they have something to offer their families and society. The delivery of EFNEP youth programs takes various forms. EFNEP provides nutrition education at schools as an enrichment of the curriculum, in after-school care programs, and through 4-H EFNEP clubs, day camps, residential camps, community centers, neighborhood groups, and home gardening workshops. In addition to lessons on nutrition, food preparation, and food safety, youth topics may also include related topics, including physical activity and health. Paraprofessionals usually live in the communities in which they work. They recruit families and receive referrals from current and former participants, neighborhood contacts and community organizations and agencies such as local schools and businesses, workforce preparedness centers, health and wellness facilities, non-profit and faith-based organizations, and the local Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and WIC offices. Methods for program delivery may include direct teaching in group or one-to-one situations; mass media efforts to develop understanding, awareness, and involvement in the educational program; and development and training of volunteers to assist with direct teaching of adults and youth.

SNAP-Ed SNAP-Ed is a federal/state partnership that supports nutrition education for persons eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Two key federal partners are the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

VIRGINIA FAMILY NUTRITION PROGRAM 135 and the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). FNS determines national policies and procedures, monitors state programs, and reimburses states for up to half of program costs. NIFA facilitates communication among federal, state, and local partners, and provides programmatic leadership to university contractors for effective nutrition education through the land-grant system. The goal of SNAP- Ed is to improve the likelihood that persons eligible for SNAP will make healthy choices within a limited budget and choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPlate.

Virginia Family Nutrition Program Virginia Cooperative Extension’s Family Nutrition Program (FNP) is funded by EFNEP and SNAP-Ed grants. Its goal is to help limited-resource families and children learn to eat more healthfully and to exercise more throughout the commonwealth of Virginia in a variety of ways. Almost every county and city in Virginia has access to a Family Nutrition Program Assistant in a local Virginia Cooperative Extension office. To qualify for the program, a person must be eligible for SNAP benefits or for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). FNP paraprofessionals can help participants figure out how to feed their families foods that taste good and are healthy in ways that don’t cost a lot of money. All FNP recipes have been tested with a variety of people so they taste good, are low calorie, don’t cost a lot, and can be prepared in 30 minutes or less. That’s quicker than driving through a fast food line!

Why We Do This People are busier than ever before, and fast food is so easy and accessible. However, with a little planning and preparation, home cooked meals can be just as fast and easy. Too many children and adults are overweight, and weight problems are becoming the number one cause of death in the United States. By learning to eat smart, and move more, adults and youth can enjoy healthier and happier lives. If participants don’t have time to meet with a Family Nutrition Program Assistant, we have a newsletter that can be mailed to the home. We also work with low income youth in lots of places, such as schools, recreation centers, boys and girls clubs and churches. There is no cost to join, and after the cooking classes are finished, the group can explore other activities in a neighborhood 4-H club. Adult graduates of our program are able to buy more food with less money, and can stretch their food budget. They cook more at home and are able to feed their families healthier foods. They prepare, serve and store foods that are safer to eat, and they also eat more fruits and vegetables and whole grains. Lastly, they become more active. Young people who are part of our 4-H youth program learn more about eating right, being active, and cooking and food safety. They learn to help their parents choose healthier foods for their family.

136 VOICES OF HUNGER

Programming across the Commonwealth Some of the nutrition education in Virginia FNP is conducted via Super Pantries. This is a collaborative effort between Cooperative Extension, the food bank, and a community agency. The pantries provide participants with nutrition education, development of food preparation skills, and food to take home. Participants have the opportunity to try new, healthy recipes at the pantries. The curriculum utilized for teaching is “Eat Smart, Move More”. Here, participants truly “learn by doing.” The Super Pantry program is time intensive for the staff, but it provides participants with practical skills. Participants report an increase in nutrition knowledge, a gain in food preparation skills, and an increase in self-esteem as a result of the Super Pantry program. After the program, one pantry participant stated, “You mean I can make cole slaw! I thought I had to buy it at the store.” Another said, “I know what a green pepper is but I never buy them because I don’t know what to do with them.” After learning to prepare corn salad that used green peppers as an ingredient, the adult participant now feels comfortable buying fresh peppers for home use. The Virginia Tech “Healthy Weights for Healthy Kids” curriculum is one of the curricula used to provide nutrition education to youth participants. Youth complete six “hands-on” nutrition education lessons through the program. Physical activity is an integral part of each session. By the end of one program, 92% of the children identified the correct food guide plan compared to 57% before the program. Moreover, 96% choose healthy drinks compared to 82% before, 71% make healthy snack choices compared to 32% before, and 91% think that healthy eating can help them in school compared to 72% before. This program was developed as a partnership with the school nutrition director, the physical education teachers, and community volunteers. All of the youth involved in the program were enrolled in VCE’s 4-H program. Participants represented a school system which has more than 30% of its students speaking English as a second language. As a Family and Consumer Sciences agent with VCE for almost 10 years, I helped plan and coordinate multiple nutrition education programs, similar to ones described above, for youth and adults. After seeing many good outcomes from these programs, my team decided that a joint adult/youth program may produce even better results. Thus, we developed the “Families, Food, and Fun” program.

Families, Food, and Fun “Families, Food, and Fun - A Whole Family Approach to Nutrition and Physical Activity” was developed to reduce the incidence of childhood overweight and promote healthier choices in family meals. It involves three VCE program areas: Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS), FNP, and 4-H. Many programs provide nutrition education only to children or adults, but this one reaches the entire family. Extension agents and nutrition program assistants collaborate to teach about nutrition, resource management, and physical activity. Over the past six years, this after-school program has reached more than 450 children and parents from fourteen schools. At least 50% of the children at each of the cooperating schools receive free/reduced school meals. For each program series, four to six sessions are conducted that involve 8-12 hours of education per participant. The

VIRGINIA FAMILY NUTRITION PROGRAM 137 families participate in experiential learning, prepare a healthy meal, eat together, and receive food and recipes to take home. Local foods are used for meals and take-home boxes whenever possible. Much of the food for the program is obtained from the area food bank. Families learn the importance of good nutrition, regular physical activity, and cooking basics. As a result of the program, parents report reading labels more often, making healthier food choices, eating more fruits and vegetables, and having family meals more often. The children report an increase in choosing healthy foods, an increase in physical activity awareness, an increase in choosing healthy drinks, and an increase in using MyPlate to plan meals. One parent from the series that utilized local foods remarked:

“My son, a 9 year old 3rd grader, and I loved our “cooking class”. It provided me an opportunity to meet some other parents and reconnect with neighbors I hadn’t seen for some time. Each class supplied a wealth of information on how to eat healthier, locating and shopping locally, and proper sanitary ways of preparing that week’s meal. Each participant /family was provided the recipes of the meal, which was prepared and eaten that evening. Each time the children help by making a dish. My son loved this during our group, but has enjoyed it even more so as we have made many the recipes at home for family gatherings over the holidays, sleepovers, birthday parties, and family dinners. Some of our favorites include: quiche, personalized pizza, fruit parfait, and broccoli forest salad, spaghetti made with spaghetti squash, snapped green beans raw and cooked, and many more.

Something I did not expect from these classes was the rejuvenation of the importance of the family sitting down together for dinner. We did this before we attended the classes, but the education afforded by this allowed me to refocus. To shop at local merchants, with the mind set of looking for the supplies I needed to help my family make nutritious food together and then enjoy being together, without the T.V., the cell phones, radios, or other distractions, just us as a family. We not only do this at dinner, but we try very hard to do this for breakfast as well.

I am a strong proponent of helping keep my family’s money in our local economy. The shear depth and magnitude of taking the few extra minutes, and sometimes the few extra dollars, to shop locally has become truly apparent to me. As time has passed after our class ended, and our national economy continues to slump; it is our families, neighbors and friends we turn to. I feel so blessed to have had the opportunity to be part of these classes last year. The techniques of meal planning, shopping, and budgeting have been invaluable. My son and I are branching out, with information from these classes, we have successfully planted two pots of snow pea seeds, which have sprouted and a cabbage, which so far continues to live.

I work in another of the city’s elementary schools, and know how invaluable and important this information is to other families like mine,

138 VOICES OF HUNGER

single parent families, and families new to the area or country. I am well versed in our economic hardships, but I whole-heartedly believe that programs such as this, presented by knowledgeable, caring, and creative Extension Agents, can only help restore local economy, aid in healthier and happier families, and assist in providing hope for a better future. I pray that this program and more like it will continue to be provided, free of charge, at convenient public areas.”

One of my objectives as an extension professional has been to help families by collaborating with schools/communities to provide opportunities for families to gain knowledge and make nutrition behavior changes that result in healthier lives. To reach this goal, the Families, Food, and Fun program is continuing to be offered to underserved populations. FFF involves program assistants with FNP, FCS agents, and 4-H. In these programs, families gain nutrition knowledge, learn new ways to incorporate physical activity into their life, practice new food preparation techniques, and eat meals as a family. For example, one of the programs had a follow-up session where the families learned how to use local strawberries to make a reduced-calorie jam. During my time as a FCS agent, the Families, Food, and Fun program was created, nourished, and has grown due to hard work of my colleagues and community partners. The FNP program assistants that I now supervise as an Area Coordinator, continue the Families, Food, and Fun program and other family-oriented nutrition education. Hands-on education and learning by doing are critical components of an educational program that will have positive impacts. By teaching SNAP and WIC families how to make changes and not just trying to tell people what we think they should do, behaviors can and do change in a positive way and families’ lives become healthier. Of all the programs I have worked with in my tenure as an FCS agent, I am most proud of this initiative.

Chapter 9: A Student’s Perspective on Food Insecurity in Southwestern Virginia

Chelsea MacCormack

Southwestern Virginia is home to rolling hills, picturesque countryside farms, and some of the best parts of the Appalachian Trail. We have Virginia Tech football in the fall, berry picking in the summer, and hillside sledding in the winter. This is where I grew up. Since the age of five, I lived in Botetourt County, Virginia on the outskirts of a town called Fincastle. This is where I first learned that I live a blessed life. I started volunteering at the local food pantry when I was just starting high school. I didn’t even know it existed before my confirmation class from church sent me there one spring. It was located right next to the post office in town, which happened to be directly across the street from my house, yet I never even noticed the need for a food pantry. This seems to be true of most people. We don’t notice the need in our own communities, even when that need is right in front of us. We are quick to think about starving children in Africa and other parts of the world, but hungry children next door might as well be invisible. I first began working in the food pantry storage area unloading boxes, sorting food, and packing grocery bags. I started packing boxes and cans as the customers arrived. Most days would run fairly smoothly as everyone received two or three bags of groceries to take home. At the time, I was very disconnected from the people receiving the food. They stayed in the front of the building while I worked in the back. Occasionally, I would help customers carry the bags to their cars and they would thank us profusely, but their need didn’t weigh on me as it does now. I would simply scurry back to my work among the shelves. It wasn’t until I was older that I started to understand their thanks. Now, even though I don’t fully know their hardships, I can empathize. After a few weeks of working at the food pantry, I was asked to sign in customers. The volunteer who usually performed this job was absent and since I had the neatest handwriting, I was moved to a desk at the front of the room. The customers came in, told me their names, and I wrote them down while checking their credentials. My new job became more difficult as I started recognizing the

139 140 VOICES OF HUNGER faces walking through the door. They were the mothers of girls I went to school with, the teachers who taught my classes, and the ladies who served my lunch. I started to feel very uncomfortable, especially once the mother of a friend arrived. She saw me at the desk and walked right back to the end of the line, hoping that I would be replaced by the time her turn came. She did this a few times before she disappeared. She didn’t want to ask her daughter’s friend for help feeding her family. A part of this was her pride, but mostly I felt her shame. I wanted to leave the desk, but knew I couldn’t. She didn’t end receive food that day and I blamed myself. My hometown isn’t the most deprived county in the nation, but we live in the mountains near the old coal mining counties that are often portrayed as rough and rugged. Botetourt County doesn’t have the highest poverty rating in the U.S. or even in the state. But the local poverty was apparent to me because it was so concentrated in my high school. Twenty-two percent of students in Botetourt County are eligible for the federal free lunch program. This might not seem like a lot, but that means that 1,119 students from my school system received free lunches. Those 1,119 kids belong to families which fall below the federal poverty guidelines. To some extent, hunger in Botetourt County doesn’t make sense. We are, after all, a farming community. We are surrounded by farms that grow food, yet we can’t feed ourselves. This problem is not uncommon of farming communities across the country and is directly related to the incomes generated by small family farms. Farmers may grow food, but most of what consumers pay at the grocery store doesn’t go back to the farmer. Instead, farmers sell their produce for small sums to wholesalers or food processors. At that point, the farmer’s product becomes something else completely. Their corn is turned into ethanol, their wheat into bread. Then this food product is packaged, transported, sold to a retailer or a restaurant, and finally distributed to consumers. The dollar spent on bread is thus divided among agents at every step in the production process leaving very little, about ten cents of every dollar spent, for the farmer. Since, 1993, the farmers’ portion of every food dollar has decreased steadily, increasing only slightly in the past five years. Therefore, farmers make very little income and often have trouble feeding their families. Once I entered college at Virginia Tech, it was easy to forget the troubles of my hometown. Blacksburg seemed bright, shiny, and new to me. Virginia Tech changed my life. However, I eventually could not ignore the poverty that I encountered in my backyard. I enrolled in a new academic program, a minor in Civic Agriculture and Food Systems that focused on issues of food availability including deserts and food sovereignty. Because of this program, I began to understand food as a human right. No one should be forced to go without food or be unable to provide it for themselves and their family. I saw others reach the same conclusion, wrestling with the same problems, and looking to implement solutions. This was inspiring, even more so when the students within the minor began to implement our plans to end hunger in Blacksburg. I created a donation system, at my part-time job at a local cupcake shop, where we packaged and donated our left over cupcakes for food pantry customer’s birthdays and special occasions. I worked on programs through our local community garden to contribute more fresh fruits and vegetables to our local food pantry. I even

A STUDENT’S PERSEPCTIVE ON FOOD INSECURITY 141 created yield tracking programs to better measure the community garden’s impact on the surrounding community. Community gardens in the United States became popular in the late 1800s. They were a social activity within American cities that was part of a broader civic beautification movement. They were also an educational space designed to teach the youth and the unemployed. However, community gardens became very popular World War I as a way of providing food security during a time of limited food supplies. During the Great Depression, communities used gardens to promote food security among the unemployed. During the Second World War, Victory Gardens provided food to communities as many of the country’s agricultural resources were redirected for troops serving abroad. They waned in popularity after the war only to enjoy a resurgence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Through the years, community gardens have been a place of social gathering, education, food security, and community growth. Many argue that there are even mental health benefits to gardening. Gardening can release stress and worry. Fresh air, nature, and working with your hands can help provide a sense of connection to yourself and to your food. Gardening brings together those who struggle with food insecurity with land and the ability to provide for them. Gardening isn’t about pity or charity which may be interpreted as an affront to an individual’s pride or self respect. It is about communal development. Many gardens serve their communities in a variety of ways. Katie’s Place, in Bluefield, Virginia, for example, creates connections among people with disabilities through a sustainable farm. These special-needs farmers participate in all aspects of the growing process and report experiencing joy through the building of a home and a farm. The connection to nature helps them build a “stronger, healthier, and happier community.” However, although gardens may help to connect a community to its hungry members, they are not necessarily a mechanism that can end hunger. Food pantries and food banks are more common programs designed specifically to fight hunger and advance food security. During the summer between my junior and senior year at Virginia Tech, I worked for a food security program called Feeding America Southwestern Virginia. In 2014 I served as the hunger study coordinator and a program intern. In this capacity, I got to travel around southwestern Virginia and study the programs Feeding America facilitated. According to the Feeding America, food insecurity is the “lack of access to enough food for an active healthy lifestyle for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods.” This simply means that food insecure households do not necessarily know when their next meal is coming or how they will get it. This could be due to many factors including limited income or lack of nutritious foods in their area. Areas that do not have access to nutritious foods, such as fresh produce, are known as food deserts. According to the USDA, “in 2010, 29.7 million people, or 9.7 percent of the population, lived in low-income areas (½ kilometer-square grids where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds for family size) more than 1 mile from a supermarket.” Thus the number of food insecure households is not an insignificant number. Millions of people in the United States lack food security.

142 VOICES OF HUNGER

In Virginia, 12.7% of the population is considered food insecure. The average cost of a meal is only $2.76, yet over one million people in Virginia cannot that amount despite the fact that it would seem insignificant to most. After all the food costs are added together it would take over 4 million dollars to feed those one million food insecure people. Montgomery County, where Virginia Tech is located, has a 14.2% food insecurity rate. In Southside Virginia, Danville has the highest food insecurity rate in Virginia at 23.1%. Both of these counties were within my service area at Feeding America Southwest Virginia. Many people who live in food insecure households are eligible for SNAP, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that used to be called Food Stamps. However, there is a disconnect between those eligible for SNAP and those who live in poverty. There are large numbers of people who live just above the SNAP eligibility line who remain food insecure. These people do not have the ability to feed themselves, but also qualify for as many federal resources that could help improve their quality of living. Twenty-six percent of food insecure households in the United States fall into this category. Many food-based charities exist because of this disconnect. They provide the food assistance not offered by the government to those who need it. As I traveled from county to county with Feeding America, I got to see and meet people who lived within these food insecure households. I met men and women who were making wages just above the SNAP eligibility line and people would live off of a can of food a day. One experience that was particularly memorable occurred at mobile food pantry in Vansant, Virginia. The mobile food pantry was one of Feeding America’s more innovative programs. It uses a semi-truck that can carry enough food to serve 200-400 people to one of our more remote locals. In Virginia, there are some places were food pantries cannot sustain themselves. Across the state, many food pantries are affiliated with Feeding America, but not directly run by the organization due to lack of infrastructure and finances within the area Feeding America provides these food pantries with food to fill their shelves and advises the leadership when needed to create and sustain their programs. However, each food pantry has its own leadership and distribution locations within the communities they serve. Most of those distribution centers are permanent locations. The mobile food pantry is different. It comes straight from Feeding America’s headquarters in Salem, Virginia and drives to areas that lack resources necessary to sustain a food pantry. My visit to the mobile food pantry took place on a warm summer day with a light drizzle of rain that was settling on the roads. We drove three hours to see the program in action. We expected a decent turnout but nowhere near as many as we saw. When we arrived, as the truck was just setting up its food stands, there were already 150 families waiting for their one chance to receive food aid for the entire month. Throughout the course of the day, we saw over 400 families. These families ranged from single mothers to veterans to the mentally handicapped. They all told the same story. They or their family members had worked for the mines before they were injured or grew too old and too weary to continue. There were very few non-mining jobs in the area, just a few local businesses that barely stayed afloat. One man told a fellow intern and friend, Quin Strouse, his story while waiting in the line that wrapped around the abandoned food mart. The man was

A STUDENT’S PERSEPCTIVE ON FOOD INSECURITY 143 tall wearing a short gray beard and had one glossy eye, which he revealed to Quin as being blind. The man was a veteran from the Vietnam War and had lived in Vansant since returning from his service. He told Quin that Vansant had been a mining town since the early 1900s, which means if you aren’t a healthy coal miner; then you are most likely unemployed. This unemployment leads to other problems within the community, including drug usage among the younger generations. It’s the fast, large amount of money made away from the mines creating too strong a gravitational pull into that trade. The man made a meager wage and admitted that most of it is allocated to rent and electricity leaving very little for food. Quin says the man lit up when asked about the impact of the mobile food pantry. He was so grateful, grateful for more than just the food, but also the willingness of the volunteers and the community that is created within the line. He knew his neighbors in line and could tell us that the impact of the mobile food pantry was greater than we would ever know. The conditions in this town were all in sharp contrast to the town just a few miles down the road where the mining engineers and executives lived. They had houses that seemed like mansions and their names were on every building proclaiming the mining industry’s control over the whole area. The miners, by contrast, lived in tiny, run-down houses and had to come to us for food. Down the road, the executives drove their large cars to shop at the high end supermarkets that bore their names. The rains flood the roads due to poor runoff from the mountains as a direct result of heavy mining. This wasn’t a mining town of the 1880s, where workers were paid in script that could only be redeemed in the mining company’s stores; where everything in the town was owned and operated by the mining company to keep employees trapped in poverty and under their control. Nevertheless, Vansant looked and sounded eerily similar to those mining towns I had learned about in my history classes. Another poignant memory from my experience with Feeding America involves a woman in a food pantry outside of Smith Mountain Lake. Smith Mountain Lake is a man-made lake in one of the wealthiest parts of Roanoke and Bedford Counties. The lake is associated with the upper-class of southwestern Virginia, so when I heard I was going to a food pantry near the lake, I was utterly confused. I immediately judged them and assumed that was the most unnecessary food pantry, but it ended up being one of the most efficient ones I visited. The woman I met there was one of the last clients of the day. She had a small girl clinging to her arm. A family who frequented the pantry led her in. She was more than willing to talk with me, sharing her story as easily as her smiles. She had been doing well for herself until she lost her job, her boyfriend, and her house all within a few months. She had never had to ask for help before and was very proud of that fact. She came from a background of poverty, but she pulled herself out of it, relying on her own merits to make a life for herself. At this point, however, she had to accept help. She had to provide for her elementary-age daughter. She never wanted her daughter to have to miss a meal due to mother’s pride or stubborn nature. This selfless emphasis on her daughter’s health may have been what brought her to the food pantry, but I was alarmed when I noticed that she was the one that really needed help. I noticed a scar on her arm. She saw me looking, yet made no move to cover it. She had carved ‘hurt’ into the skin of her forearm, above her wrist. It was a rigid scar that still showed a little red and

144 VOICES OF HUNGER was clearly cut by a razor. She gave me a slow sad smile and said she hadn’t cut in a while but the pain had been so bad and the loss so real that she had needed to feel something she could control. She didn’t want her daughter to experience that kind of pain, the kind that comes from poverty, herself. She had to protect her daughter’s innocence. Poverty doesn’t just affect a person’s stomach, but impacts their entire way of life. This woman’s concern for her daughter was entirely sane. She knew that her family was a perfect candidate for poverty. She was a single mother. About 54.1% of families in poverty are led by single mothers. She had been born poor. People born into poverty have a higher rate of living in poverty later in life. They have less access to education and other basic resources that would aid them in escaping poverty. The cycle of poverty is oppressive. The lack of access to proper nutrition causes children to struggle in school, causes adults to lose focus and energy at work, all of which perpetuates the condition. Ultimately, poverty breeds poverty. Over the years, I have had many conversations with people who don’t believe that poverty exists in America. They think that poverty a problem found only in third world countries. As a society, we tend to forget that many issues of hunger, poverty, and social justice don’t simply disappear alongside a growing Gross National Product. I have had the opportunity to teach my peers about the needs within their communities and to encourage them to serve. Many people my age are answering that call and looking to create lasting change within our country. We have new ideas and the willingness to learn, make mistakes, and persevere until absolute poverty is eradicated. Now, with my last year of college coming to an end, I have the opportunity to follow my passion into the workforce. I get to take the theories and concepts from my schooling and create experiences that proctor new ideas that impact actual change. I get to join those who have been in the field for years who have experiences that far surpass mine. If we work together, hunger is an oppression that is conquerable. We have enough food to feed everyone and innovative researchers are constantly creating new and better ways to feed even more. Numbers can be very discouraging and food sovereignty can seem like an unattainable goal but it is within our reach. Yet, I know that hope survives. I saw it in the eyes of those I served. I saw it in their determination. They were not simply people waiting in line for handouts. They were the same people setting up the pantry and cleaning at the end of the day. They were the people who smiled at me and asked me how they could pray for me, despite the fact that their needs were much more drastic then mine. They gave me hope. I saw God in that hope. I saw His patience and joy through times of trials. I also saw His righteous anger at their hurt and pain, but most importantly I saw and felt His love. This is what fuels my passion. These people showed me love and service. And so I will continue to use my knowledge and experience to better their quality of life and give that love back to them because I know that hunger and poverty don’t need to be a reality.

References Carilion Clinic. (2012). Roanoke Valley Community Health Needs Assessment Final Report. Roanoke: Carilion Clinic.

A STUDENT’S PERSEPCTIVE ON FOOD INSECURITY 145 d'Otreppt, S., Cohen, N., & Straley, N. (2010). Poverty in the U.S. by the Numbers. NPR. Education.com. (2014). Botetourt County Public Schools School District. Retrieved March 2014 ERS. (2012). Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Feeding America . (2011). Map the Meal Gap: Food Insecurity in Your County. Feeding America. Katie's Place Farm. (2012). Katie's Place Farm - About Us. Retrieved March 2014, from Katie's Place Farm: http://katiesplacefarm.wix.com/kp#!about_us/csgz Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2009). Enduring influences of Childhood Poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty. NSPCC. (2009). Young People who Self-harm: Implications for Public Health Practitioners. London: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Strouse, Q. (2013, July 2). Burning Passion: Mobile Food Pantry. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from Endless Opportunity FASWVA blog: http://endless-opportunities-faswva.blogspot.com/2013/07/burning- passion-mobile-food-pantry.html University of Missouri Extension. (2009, April). Community Gardening Toolkit. Retrieved March 2014, from Extension - Universtiy of Missouri: http://extension.missouri.edu/p/MP906-4 USDA. (2014). Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation (Summary) . Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. USDA- ERS. (2013). Food Dollar Series. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture- Economic Research Service.

Chapter 10: 209 Manna Ministries

Kelly Berry

When I was a sophomore at Virginia Tech, I heard a story that changed my life. The story involved a student who was struggling to juggle the many expenses of being a college student: food, housing, tuition, textbooks. At the end of each day, this young man would go to the library and find an empty cubicle where he would lay his head for the night. Each morning he would go to the gym where he had rented a locker. There he would take a shower, dress, and get ready for a full day of classes. All evening he would work so that he could earn enough money to sustain himself. This was his daily routine, but food was not always part of it. This young man’s story inspired my story, my mission to make a difference in the Virginia Tech community and to end food insecurity on my campus. What struck me most about his story was the disparity between the conditions in which he lived throughout college and the relative luxury that I was able to enjoy. I was privileged to go downtown for dinner and get in my car to go grocery shopping. This privilege was something I took for granted until I started to do research on food insecurity among college students. In addition to the stresses associated with coursework and social responsibilities that all students face, some students are forced to cope with a lack of basic necessities. As I was thinking about the plight of this student I began to wonder: “Are there more students who face these same challenges? How do others cope with this situation? How can I help?” My inquiries lead to the discovery that many students here at Virginia Tech struggle with issues with poverty. Tuition for in-state students is $18,000 annually, a large expense for an individual who is typically limited to low-wage, part-time employment. More than 60% of Virginia Tech students receive some sort of financial aid. The average student who attends Virginia Tech will have loans amounting to $7,000 per undergraduate year. Moreover, almost half of our student body receives some type of federal loan. These loans, scholarships and financial aid typically do not often cover the cost of food and basic necessities. These staggering statistics again provoked the question: “How can I help?” My mission work and service to others began with Maranatha, a non- denominational choir in Fredericksburg, Virginia. I have been a part of Maranatha

146 209 MANNA MINISTRIES 147 for nine years, including singing tours every summer. Along with performing, we would do mission work at each stop. During one tour, I had the experience to work in a food pantry in Huntsville, Alabama. While working in the food pantry, I saw how food insecurities impacted people of all ages and walks of life. Once I matriculated at Virginia Tech, I became an active member and leader within the Wesley Foundation. Each year, we go on spring break mission trips to various places. Last spring break we went to Huntsville, Alabama, and worked on houses that had been impacted by flooding and tornado damage. In addition to this work, we were able to work in the cooperative parish’s food pantry, where we stocked shelves and assisted people as they went through collecting needed food and supplies. Reflecting on these profound service immersion trips I wondered, “Would a student centered food pantry work at Tech?” After a quick online search, I discovered that students at West Virginia University, University of Arkansas, and Oregon State established food pantries to help students deal with food insecurity. I also reached out to the food pantries in Huntsville. The leaders of these food pantries were able to provide more information about the logistics of opening something similar on a college campus. When I spoke with collegiate food pantries, I found out that programs on campuses with 22,000-25,000 students typically serve 200 or more food insecure students each week. Using those statistics, based on the undergraduate student population at Virginia Tech— approximately 30,000— I realized that we might expect 300 students would need weekly assistance. From these conversations, I realized that the prevalence of college food pantries has increased dramatically across the nation. There is an overwhelming need for collegiate food pantries. My curiosity was piqued and I was invigorated by the desire to make a difference. The story about the student living in the library was the spark that ignited a new passion within me to help provide other students with their daily needs. To make my dream of creating a food pantry a reality, I knew that I needed the support of an organization that would host this mission and provide a foundation upon which it could grow. I first approached the campus minister of the Wesley Foundation at Virginia Tech, Bret Gresham, to see if Wesley would be willing to support this ministry. He supported me from the beginning, and following approval from the organization’s student body we began to envision what this dream would look like. Bret advised me that in order for this effort to be successful we needed to get the university to participate. This task alone seemed so daunting. To approach these individuals who operate a university of 30,000 students about what was merely, at that point, a dream, I was, to say the least, a little bit nervous. However, Bret encouraged me with great confidence that this was a possibility. Due to Wesley’s positive relationship with the Division of Student Affairs, a meeting was arranged with the Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. Frank Shushok, to ascertain what sort of assistance and support the university could contribute. Dr. Shushok offered whatever assistance he himself could provide and asked that we present this project to the departmental heads of Student Affairs. Going into this meeting, I did not know what to expect and I was very nervous. Things began to calm down once I began to share my vision of the food pantry. Dr. Shushok’s friendly presence enabled me to feel comfortable. While presenting, all I could keep thinking is, “Will this actually become reality?

148 VOICES OF HUNGER

Will it become a part of the culture at Virginia Tech?” I normally call our campus minister Bret, but that day in the conversation with Dr. Shushok, I called him Reverend Bret Gresham. I was so nervous that I referenced Bret in third person while he was sitting next to me in the room, this made everyone laugh which relieved my nerves, and then I even laughed at myself. Then my nervousness was gone and it was time to let the vision for the food pantry truly shine. When I finished and asked if Dr. Shushok had any questions, he said, “We will support you 110%,” and we scheduled a meeting to meet with the department heads of Division of Student Affairs. Between talking with Dr. Shushok and the impending presentation with the department heads, we had a summer to prepare the space and the presentation. To get started, we had to designate a space for the food pantry: an old library in the Wesley Foundation that students used for studying. Creating space for all things new, we began to move all of the belongings and furniture out of this room to make room for the new food pantry. A family owned business, Wood Products by Berry LTD., donated ten steel storage shelves to put food once the room was cleared. Groups from Fieldstone UMC’s Summer Project Youth (SPY) donated their time to assemble the shelves and prepare the room for its new purpose. After a summer preparations we began discerning and planning what the food pantry would look like and how it would run. In the next few weeks we prepared our presentation, assembling enough information from our contacts at other universities and other food pantries to answer questions about college food pantries. When the day arrived I was apprehensive about how the presentation would go. Briefing the department heads of Student Affairs meant not only speaking to thirty-three department heads but also to most of the deputy heads – forty people in all, I learned when I arrived. The presentation was an enormous success. This was a huge opportunity for me to express my passion and knowledge of college food pantries, and to share with them my vision for Virginia Tech to have one of its own. The response from the thirty-three department heads of the Division of Student Affairs was very positive and the Vice-President, Dr. Patty Perillo, simply asked, “When will this be available for students?” We had full university support. They thanked me for being courageous and living out our school’s motto of Ut Prosim (That I May Serve). They said that this is an example of what they want all students at Virginia Tech to aspire to: to step out of their comfort zones and believe in what they are passionate about doing. The group was extremely enthusiastic to hear about this opportunity, available right here on Virginia Tech’s campus, to serve students. Since the Division of Student Affairs has the most direct contact with students, they agreed to help by sending students who they knew needed assistance, allowing us to provide brochures and flyers in all of the departments, and giving us university web space. When creating a name when our food pantry began, we were inspired by the location of the Wesley Foundation (209 West Roanoke Street), manna (the abundant food provided from God in the bible), and the ministry of the Wesley Foundation; hence: 209 Manna Ministries. While 209 Manna Ministries is located in the Wesley Foundation, which is the United Methodist Campus Ministry at Virginia Tech, we provide food to any student in need, regardless of religious affiliation. Even though we are a religious organization, we are not using the

209 MANNA MINISTRIES 149 pantry as a tool for evangelism. Our doors are open, and our loving arms outstretched, to any and all who need help. In order to fill our new shelves we collaborated with multiple organizations on campus, and held food drives at the local Kroger supermarket to collect donations. Some of the on-campus dormitories, Greek life organizations, and religious groups held competitions and collected food at their events. Receiving donations became a campus- and community-wide effort. One dorm on campus held a haunted house in their dorm ; the cost to enter was a canned good or $5 donation for the food pantry. Then, along with all the food they collected, they took the money they received and bought more items that were needed. The support and surprising response for a college food pantry were astronomical. In the spirit of Virginia Tech’s motto, Ut Prosim, people were eager to learn more about the food pantry and find ways to help. While collecting food at Kroger, we would ask if the shoppers would buy an extra item from a provided list. Most of the time the shoppers would come out with bags full to donate. Many students went even further; they wanted to know how else they could help. They were particularly interested in how the pantry would run. We told the donors that the students would come into the pantry and shop, just like they had in the store, but instead of using money they would be given points to use in the pantry. Our shopping experience is based on a point system inspired by Huntsville’s pantry. In order to give each individual freedom of choice and the ability to maintain dignity, our system allocates a specific number of points per individual or family. These points serve as currency. Each item in the pantry has a point value, ranging from 1 to 6, based on the prices of the items in grocery stores. Colored stickers serve as price tags. For example, a single can of vegetables or fruit would have a pink sticker that would be represent one point. We give each student fifty points each week to shop. The point system allows students to feel comfortable shopping as if they were going to a store. Instead of giving them a preselected bag of food that may contain things they either do not like or cannot eat, due to allergies or religious restrictions, for example, we enable students to actually use all the items they get. The food pantry operates every Thursday from 4:00-6:30pm. Student volunteers undertake all the responsibilities of the food pantry. Volunteers restock items, label items, and do inventory. They also help students shop, bag their items, and hold food drives. Our shopping experience is very similar to going to a grocery store. When new students first come to our pantry, they fill out an application in a private area. This application is a confidential form to gain demographic insight and information to help us better understand the need and demand for 209 Manna Ministries. The demographic information will also enable us to apply for grants to better help the students over time. Students also sign a release acknowledging that all the food we provide is donated in one way or another. We give them the instructions on the point system and explain how the pantry works. Then we allow the students to shop. Finally, we check the students out and have them fill out an exit poll to find out what they liked or disliked about the pantry. We will use exit polls to monitor our own progress and evolve strategically to best meet student needs and demand for our services. If a student has children to support, we increase the weekly points by twenty- five points per week, per child. We have found that this number of points

150 VOICES OF HUNGER adequately helps supplement daily needs for five to seven days. Our pantry does not try to completely feed any individual or family, but we do help give relief to students who cannot purchase enough food every week to eat due to their other college expenses. Our vision is students serving students with hunger. Connecting with the students provides security and support, which is what 209 Manna Ministries strives to have with each individual. Our connections with students is evident. When we were working with the students of the apartment fire, I found that the students found security in talking to me as a fellow student, not as an employee of the campus. I feel that is because they view me as an equal, a fellow student who shares an often difficult stage of life. We sometimes feel that people who are older than us have life experience and much to teach, but college has changed over the decades, and students need other students. Our mission at 209 Manna Ministries food pantry is to meet the needs of Virginia Tech students who lack food and basic daily necessities. This is accomplished through donations and support from departments within Virginia Tech, the local community and businesses. We reach out to local churches, community organizations and businesses. We have been met with tremendous support, both with donations and volunteers to help us get on our feet quickly and effectively. It is our fervent hope and goal that by working together with the local community to meet these basic needs, our ministry can grow over time and we can help more students stay in college, reach their potential and more fully enjoy their Virginia Tech experience. While there are community food pantries, such as those at Fieldstone United Methodist Church and Blacksburg United Methodist Church, for the entire surrounding community of Blacksburg, there was no pantry with a specific and unique outreach effort for students until we began 209 Manna Ministries. Our pantry is strictly for undergraduate and graduate students at Virginia Tech. In providing for students that need assistance, 209 Manna Ministries helps “deliver superior service to, and care for, students in the spirit of Ut Prosim.” (Ut Prosim – That I May Serve – is the Mission of the Division of Student Affairs at Virginia Tech.) When a student arrives at the food pantry they must show our campus identification card, called a Hokie Passport, to ensure that they are indeed a students. We will turn not any student away for any reason. 209 Manna Ministries, in conjunction with the Wesley Foundation at Virginia Tech, seeks to embody the spirit of Ut Prosim as a way of life. We believe when students serve their peers, their service both raises awareness of the problem of food insecurity and bridges the social gap between those who have much and those who have little. 209 Manna Ministries is a very tangible way for our community to Love Out Loud, which is our way of life in our campus ministry. To protect and maintain the dignity of students who come for support, we will allow students to come and shop for items they need one day each week. Confidentiality of students who have food insecurities will be met and kept through a system whereby students are given points that can be used to shop in the food pantry. Volunteers pick up the donations every week, hold food drives, stock the pantry shelves and help students shop for and bag items.

209 MANNA MINISTRIES 151

Our partnership with the university is crucial to the success of the pantry. On one occasion, around thirty students were displaced from their apartments due to a fire in their building. The Dean of Students Office at Virginia Tech arranged an emergency meeting with the students the morning after the fire. We were asked to come and talk about the food pantry to provide assistance to the students. We were the only student organization asked to come and assist these students. All of the other organizations were different departments within Virginia Tech. The students had lost everything, and as they came to me after the meeting, I began to notice that they found security in talking to me, a fellow student, instead of an employee of Virginia Tech. Approaching a fellow student is much easier than approaching an adult. It was wonderful to see everyone so dedicated to helping these students, and in return the students were extremely grateful to know they had support from people who truly cared. Our partnership with the university has been recognized by the university administration as well as the students. The following email exchange between the Dean of Students at Virginia Tech and the Vice President of Student Affairs illustrates this relationship as it discusses one young woman that 209 Manna Ministries was able to help.

“I know you recall meeting Mary [name changed for confidentiality] at the end of last semester – the student who shared her story with you and I during a Student Forum. She was finishing her first semester here, but was struggling because her baby and significant other were living back home in Newport News. There had been some confusion and misunderstanding about her qualifying to break her housing contract. Some of us worked on that confusion and it was quickly resolved. Mary’s hope was to find a way to have her family here in Blacksburg by the start of Spring semester.

On Friday, Mary visited the Dean of Students office and shared with a staffer that she found an apartment and that her family would be on a bus arriving in Roanoke on Saturday! Her plan was to take the Smart Way bus to Roanoke, meet her family, take the bus back and move into their new apartment. There was some confusion with the bus tickets and it turned out the family could not arrive until today. Our staffer talked with Mary several times and began to realize that she did not have anything here in Blacksburg for the baby nor for the apartment. And, they had no way to transport more from home in Newport News. I talked with our staffer early Saturday and we agreed that we had to spring into action to support this student and her arriving family.

With our staffer at the helm, here is an overview of what everyone has done to support our student in the last 36 hours:

· Arriving on Sunday meant the Smart Way bus to Roanoke would not be an option. Knowing we should not transport students in our personal vehicles, we called another staffer for group think and she volunteered

152 VOICES OF HUNGER

the HRL van and a staff member to take Sarah to pick up her family in Roanoke.

· Our staffer sent me to find a “pack and play” – I wasn’t sure exactly what I was looking for, but found one.

· Our staffer sent email to her friends in the B’burg Junior Women’s Club to see what anyone might have to donate. In no time at all, our staffer had a sofa, a chair, an entertainment center, a bookcase, a queen size bed, mattress and box, and a crib from her group members.

· Turns out one of these women lives across the street from blank, so he jumped into the project as well. Blank helped load furniture from his neighbor and also helped carry a truck load of items from my basement. We also secured a kitchen table and two chairs, several lamps, a rocking chair, a TV, rugs, and misc. kitchen items.

· Another person showed up with a complete set of nursery linens, baby toys, diapers, etc. – even matching curtains.

· I called Bret Gresham to see if he might be able to open the student food bank today. He met us there within 10 minutes and Mary walked out with six bags of groceries.

· Another person caught wind of this effort and I called someone to borrow her truck. When she learned what we were doing, she made a trip to Wal Mart and to the Dollar Tree and set up a full kitchen for Mary. She worked diligently to set up the apartment as others went back and forth on pick-up duty.

· We needed some people power to unload a couple of the heavy items. Another staffer sent a note to his fraternity listserv and who other than they showed up to help, with a fraternity brother in tow. They did the heavy lifting.

· We have processed an emergency grant which will be available for Mary on Monday.

· Another staffer has friends in the Women’s Club also prepared a full hot meal for Mary and her family to enjoy tonight.

When we met Mary at her apartment about 12:30 today, there was not one thing in the place. Nothing. By 6:30 this evening, the apartment was fully furnished, the kitchen was stocked, and baby has a warm, safe crib. I wish everyone could have seen the smile on Mary’s face, holding her baby, when we all left the apartment tonight. For the first time in 5 months, this young family is together. I don’t know when I have felt

209 MANNA MINISTRIES 153

more proud of a group of people than all of those who pitched in yesterday and today.

Our staffer simply did an outstanding job of coordinating this effort for our student.

Thanks to all for making this happen. What a great example of Hokies pulling together for one of our students. Mary asked me several times why all these people would help – I told her it is simple – she is a Hokie and now has many people who care about her and her family. She is completely overwhelmed with gratitude. And, now she can focus on her academics without the distraction of being separated from her family.

Well done everyone.

Tom Brown Dean of Students”

And the reply from the VP of Student Affairs:

“I feel so incredibly honored to call you my friends and colleagues! You amaze and inspire me - thank you from the bottom of my heart!

I feel so blessed to be a part of this Hokie community! Wow - how did I get so lucky?!

You made Mary and her family feel supported, affirmed and included - way to go, wonderful people! You are setting her up for success and giving her the opportunity she deserves to thrive here! Awesome!

YOU ARE SIMPLY THE BEST!

Thank you all!

Patty Perillo Vice President for Student Affairs, Virginia Tech”

The Wesley Foundation received an “Acorn Award” from the Division of Student Affairs for its role in helping this student. During the fall of 2013, the story that inspired 209 Manna Ministries was once again fully realized through the relationship established with a young woman at Virginia Tech who allowed our dream to come full circle. This student, who was similar to the student who inspired the food pantry, had no place to live while she put herself through school. She was always asking for ways to help out with the food pantry, to assist others due to her personal understanding of what the other students were going through who shared her hardship. She wanted to

154 VOICES OF HUNGER volunteer and give to students in similar situations as she was. She understood better than most the need for this service, and she wanted to help. She came and shopped, but also touched me and my life, because even though she was going through a tough time herself, she wanted to reach out to others and as she was shopping. She said I inspired her, but really she inspired me. We at 209 Manna Ministries are glad to be a part of this effort. This is how Ut Prosim at Virginia Tech works at its finest. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in service to others.” Word is beginning to spread. One of the food pantries in the CUFBA (College University Food Bank Alliance) is the Rampantry of Virginia Commonwealth University. They contacted me about starting a food pantry after reading about 209 Manna Ministries. It is a small world when it comes to networking and working for the common good of students without hunger. We have been collaborating since the start of their pantry. I am proud to say that they have become a huge success as well. They serve 721 students with emergency food along with 100 students on a weekly basis. 209 Manna Ministries officially opened its doors to students in November 7, 2013. Along the way, we have met many students like the young man who inspired me to question the need for food pantries on college campuses. We have found students with young children, students with stories that demand action from us. These students deserve a helping hand. On campus, every student looks pretty much alike – you’d never know how much some struggle just to meet very basic needs. While every student struggles at some point, getting enough food each week to maintain basic health is fundamental. For these hungry students, there simply is not enough money to go around. For these few, the alternative could be giving up, not getting their degree, not fulfilling their potential if 209 Manna Ministries did not exist. I feel connected to these students even though I have never met them. Hearing and learning other people’s stories of food insecurity helps me grow as a person. Their stories also help bridge the gap between those who have much and those who have little. We all have different stories, and yet we all come together with common interests and goals in mind. I love that this campus lives to serve others, that it embodies Ut Prosim as a way of life, and that 209 Manna Ministries is actually open and serving students. Finally, I love that what was once a dream is now a reality for those who give, those who receive, and those who do both. We currently have about twenty students that come into our pantry, and we are actively working to advertise our existence around campus and to reach out to students. While providing food is our basic mission, 209 Manna Ministries does more: we also stand as a place where students can come and feel safe. We take great comfort from the personal interactions and the connections we make with our pantry recipients – they nourish us by sharing their stories with us. We are awed by their strength and grateful to be able to give back something as simple as good, wholesome food and fellowship.

Chapter 11: Micah’s Mobile Backpack: An Evolution in Alleviating Weekend Food Insecurity

Jennie Hodge

On a humid afternoon in late July 2013, a converted school bus lumbered up the repeatedly patched pavement of a local mobile home park. By now, kids and their families had grown accustomed to seeing this particular school bus during the summer. As the bus lurched toward its first stop, the volunteer driver’s grin spread as he recognized the kids who lived in a cluster of three mobile homes at the first stop. Brakes on and engine off, the driver climbed down the bus steps and chocked the wheels. When not driving, he served as a look out of sorts, keeping his eyes open for kids we hadn’t met before. The driver and a parent struck up a conversation about Virginia Tech’s football prospects for the fall season. Two high-school-aged volunteers grabbed their clipboards and disembarked to greet the waiting kids. One exuberant boy couldn’t hold back his glee: it was Friday afternoon, and the food and books had arrived. He blew past the high-schoolers and charged onto the bus with a huge smile. An octogenarian volunteer smiled back and greeted him by name. She didn’t let him slip past her to the books until he filled out his menu for the next week. He knew the routine and gave in. For his main dishes, he checked three cans of tuna and a jar of peanut butter. Next, he chose two fruit cups and skipped the mixed-veggie option. Finally, for snacks, he selected a granola bar and fruit chews. And, like every week, he scribbled "popsicles" in the space set aside for favorite foods. The volunteer chatted with him as he filled out his menu--the two had developed a rapport that erased the seven-decade difference in their ages. When he finished, she announced that she planned to share popsicles on the last day of distribution in late August. Next, he headed to the back of the bus. The week’s book volunteers, two teachers from his elementary school, greeted him warmly and watched as he produced his most recent titles from his bag. He needed no further instructions and chose two new books for the coming week. The teachers recorded his

155 156 VOICES OF HUNGER selections, gave him encouragement on his summer reading, and waved good-bye as he headed toward the front of the bus. Three younger kids had finished filling out their menus and jumped on the bus to exchange books. During all the hustle and bustle, I was waiting on the street at the back of the bus, swigging from a water bottle. As the kids hopped off the final step of the bus, I called to them. I hunted through the bins for their food bags. We met and I shared their personalized weekend food bags with them. The previous Friday’s menu was stapled to each bag and the kids got whatever they chose plus the items we always included: two boxes of juice and two of milk. In addition, this week we shared carrots, tomatoes, blueberries, and corn. Volunteers had planted, grown, and harvested the carrots and tomatoes in our cooperative community garden. Another volunteer shared the blueberries she selected at the neighboring U-pick farm. The six dozen ears of corn were a gift from local family farmers. The first boy’s mom smiled and said that her son would eat the veggies since they came from the bus. When the half dozen kids had all made their choices, said their hellos and good-byes, and grabbed baggies full of blueberries, thank-yous from kids and volunteers echoed all around as we prepared to move along. Safety chocks came off the wheels. The teenaged volunteers climbed on board and shared a bench seat. One of them related, “Every child deserves to have enough food to eat, and it makes me feel good to see so many people who are happy to take that step up to help make sure that happens.”1 The teachers reorganized the book bins. The driver peeked over his shoulder and checked the rearview mirror for approaching cars. We pulled out of the drive and moved up the hill to the next stop. For thirteen weeks in the summer of 2013, Micah's Mobile Backpack shared more than 700 meals per week as well as an average of almost thirty pounds of fresh produce every week in July and August, much grown in Micah’s Garden, the cooperative community garden. And in addition to bringing the food, we showed food insecure kids that their community continues to care for them during the summers. So how exactly did I, and these other volunteers, young and young at heart, from a college town in southwestern Virginia, find ourselves riding along in a school bus passing out food and books? Micah’s Mobile Backpack is a response to the childhood food insecurity we encountered in our community. The bus didn’t appear magically or immediately. Our revolutionary approach to summertime weekend food delivery grew out of a dream to make a difference in the lives of our young friends and neighbors by extending our school year backpack feeding program. That summer saw the dream come alive and positively impacted the lives of at least 150 children a week. During the school year, Micah’s Backpack alleviates weekend food insecurity by providing weekend meals to nearly 300 children at elementary, middle, and high schools in Montgomery County, Virginia. The program started during the 2007–2008 school year, after Pastor John Wertz Jr. of St. Michael Lutheran Church in Blacksburg told about a half dozen individuals about backpack programs in other communities. Most of us were surprised to hear about the number of area children who qualified for free meals during the school year. At the time that we started Micah’s Backpack, 16.53% of the students in

1 Hosig, “Gmail.”

AN EVOLUTION IN ALLEVIATING WEEKEND FOOD INSECURITY 157

Blacksburg’s seven public schools qualified for free or reduced-price meals.2 Less than five years later, as we began to plan for the launch of Micah’s Mobile Backpack, the student population relying on the meals had grown to 24.25%.3 And these numbers, which are reported by students and their parents, may not reflect the true number of food insecure children in our community. We embraced Pastor John’s story of backpack feeding. Within a couple of weeks, we had partnered with the closest elementary school. We were soon delivering to five students at Price’s Fork Elementary School. As the school year progressed, we expanded to 18 bags, adding children at Kipps and Gilbert Linkous Elementary Schools. As we started to look ahead to the following school year, a Virginia Tech student and regular volunteer urged us to reach out to all five of our community’s elementary schools. In August 2009, we sent six bags to each of the first three schools and added six each to Margaret Beeks and Harding Avenue Elementary Schools. Once we had a presence in every public elementary school, we began to see a huge increase in the number of community partners interested in sharing their time, financial resources, and ideas with us. We live in a very generous community, and individuals and partners have provided enough funding that we have never had to turn away a child. In 2010, we expanded again with the addition of Blacksburg Middle and Blacksburg High Schools. One of our youth volunteers recalls,

In my eighth-grade math class, I remember overhearing a classmate complain that he was very hungry, and his mom hadn't been able to go to the grocery store in a month. We had already started Micah's Backpack, but we were only doing the elementary schools, not the middle or the high schools. I decided that hunger is not only for little kids but also kids in my grade and older. I shared this with volunteers at Micah’s Backpack, and I told my guidance counselor about the hungry boy. We then decided to start help feed kids in Blacksburg Middle School and High School. That way every child [who is hungry] gets food over the weekend.4

We started out feeding a dozen kids at the middle school; within a year, that number had more than tripled, and it has remained between thirty-five and forty in the years since. I suspect that part of that growth came from word of mouth and the progression of elementary-age participants through the school system. Micah’s Backpack stands out as unique because of our community-based approach to alleviating weekend food insecurity. Most backpack programs involve a pairing between one interfaith or civic group and one school. Our approach allows for an exchange in which we feed kids and build community at the same time. From the very beginning of Micah’s Backpack we discovered that a major reason people share their time and resources comes from the sense of community

2 Virginia Department of Education, "Program Statistics & Reports." 3 Virginia Department of Education, "Program Statistics & Reports." 4 Hodge, "BMS."

158 VOICES OF HUNGER created by the volunteer experience. For example, we wear personalized nametags: a simple way of making sure everyone feels comfortable addressing one another. Also, we offer an amusing atmosphere by sharing riddles and trivia questions at the beginning of the packing line. As the leader on Thursday nights, I serve in a hospitality function: greeting volunteers and moving through the group introducing volunteers to one another and helping them make connections. Lastly, we welcome young and young-at-heart, sprinters and marathoners as volunteers. People appreciate this flexibility. Our style helps connect people from all parts of our larger community who rally around a helping idea and enjoy the Micah’s Backpack experience. Overall, the community-based model allows us to tap into the wisdom of the group and the resources of many. We like this model and champion it. Now in our 6th year, we share meals and snacks with approximately 280 kids every week. In addition to our seven public schools, we deliver bags to younger children at two income-based preschools. Our participation numbers change slightly as children move in and out of our school system. Occasionally families will stop asking for food when their economic outlook improves. During the 2013-14 school year, we provided more than 6,350 meals plus snacks every month. The concept of weekend backpack feeding started twenty years ago in a Little Rock, Arkansas, elementary school when a school nurse recognized the problems that can develop when hungry kids try to function at school. Students visited her clinic with headaches, nausea, and irritability. She contacted her local food pantry, the Rice Depot, and a partnership to alleviate weekend food insecurity was born. 5 Micah's Backpack is one of hundreds of organizations inspired by this original partnership. While backpack program organizations vary from community to community, the common mission of feeding kids on the weekend remains the same. Providing kids in need with a more stable food source has impacts beyond each individual meal. Well-fed families and children are more productive at work and in school. An eighth-grade civics teacher from Montgomery County observes the impact of food security saying, “Unbelievably, some students become hyper and unable to focus as they are thinking about food. They tend not to be able to sit still. The more typical behavior is that of lethargy, where the student is too tired to focus or complete required work.” 6 Furthermore, when parents whose resources are stretched have to worry less about food sources, they can focus on other essentials such as rent, day care, medicine, and utilities. How we prepare the gift of Micah’s Backpack has evolved over the past few years. However, one thing remains central to what we do throughout the year: on Thursdays we pack six meals plus snacks for kids. Every bag contains two breakfasts, two lunches, three snacks, and two dinners, plus two juice boxes and two milk boxes. We send home individually sized, shelf-stable, and easy-to- prepare foods. Virginia Tech students in the Human Food, Nutrition, and Exercise program evaluate and adjust our menu to try to keep our offerings as healthy as

5 "Arkansas Rice Depot." 6 Teller, “CFNRV CIG."

AN EVOLUTION IN ALLEVIATING WEEKEND FOOD INSECURITY 159 possible. For example, on their advice, we have switched to diced fruit in juice in lieu of fruit in syrup. But we wanted to do more. We began asking what we could do to make sure kids had food during the summer months. The Food Research and Action Center, a national hunger advocacy group, reports,

Only one in seven of the low-income students who depended on the National School Lunch Program [also known as free and reduced lunch] during the regular 2009–2010 school year had access to summer meals in 2010. The limited reach of the Summer Nutrition Programs meant that for the majority of those children, the end of the school year was the end of the healthy, filling meals on which they counted. It also meant a summer of struggling to avoid going hungry….The number of low- income children who are receiving free or reduced-price lunch during the regular school year is one excellent indicator of the need for summer food.7

We knew that the kids who participated in Micah’s Backpack during the school year had hunger issues year round. To solve this problem, we started dreaming big: Micah’s Mobile Backpack, a pioneering approach to the problem of summer food insecurity. Recognizing that food insecurity has no seasonal limits, we launched Micah’s Mobile Backpack in the summer of 2013. The mobile backpack operates as a client-choice food pantry on wheels. It delivers directly to kids at their homes and partner schools. In creating Micah’s Mobile Backpack, we applied and adapted the school year backpack model for summer break. I know of no other program with a youth focus for multi-meal summer feeding deliveries. As Micah's Backpack continued to grow, people quickly began asking what could be done to help hungry children during the summers. Before launching Micah’s Mobile Backpack, we tried two other models for summer feeding with mixed results. Heading into the summer of 2010, we thought we had a good, sustainable plan in place to feed kids during the summer break. Traditionally, a summer school session for elementary-school-aged children met at Kipps Elementary School. The population of summer school participants largely overlapped with the population served by Micah’s Backpack. Thus we planned to extend our school-year program for the six-week summer term, delivering bags to the kids at Kipps. But as we began our planning, the county school board announced cost-cutting measures that included the elimination of the summer session. Unable to develop a new plan for summer feeding, we decided our best option was to distribute a list of available food resources to our students in hopes that their families would make use of that assistance. In the summer of 2011, we began to work on Plan B: to provide a more substantial week’s supply of staples that families could pick up from our location. The content of these bags differed from our school-year bags. We included a box of pasta, a jar of pasta sauce, a large box of cereal or oatmeal, a couple of cans of fruit and veggies, and a jar of peanut butter. If we were lucky in our food bank

7“Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation.”

160 VOICES OF HUNGER shopping, we could include a box of crackers or cookies. We believed that adding more food would make the trip to pick it up worthwhile for the families involved. We called about 20 families living within a couple miles of the distribution center to remind them about the food pickup. The first week, one family came. Nineteen bags remained untouched. The second week, no families came. Volunteers were puzzled. The third week, we called the participating families again and two came. We changed tactics. We called the families to ask if we could have their addresses so that volunteers could deliver the food, and all twenty agreed. For the rest of the summer, three volunteers drove food to the participants’ homes once a week. Although this approach helped a small number of families, it was not scalable or sustainable for our organization. The children and their parents expressed their gratitude, and this, our first face-to-face contact with the neighbors we served, made an impression on me. But we did not yet realize that we were developing a model for helping to alleviate summertime food insecurity. In the spring of 2012, as we tried to determine how to approach the upcoming summer, our food bank partner, Feeding America Southwest Virginia, contacted us to see if we would be interested in participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Summer Food Service Program. This program provides a variety of free foods, including turkey-and-cheese and peanut-butter- and-jelly sandwiches, milk boxes, and snacks. 8 This sounded like an ideal program for us. Who doesn’t love free food to distribute? And we would be going into our community and building relationships, continuing the process we had started the previous summer. It seemed like a win-win. We eagerly signed up. We met with a representative from Feeding America’s children’s program and watched a thirty-minute presentation on the Summer Food Service Program. So far, so good. Again, the free food was a huge temptation. We filled out our paperwork and shared the amazing story of free food far and wide first with volunteers and later with families. The initial challenge to our participation in the Summer Food Service Program involved finding good locations. The USDA requires the site be at a 50% poverty level according to recent US Census data, a requirement that proved more difficult to find than we expected. Both the front door of our university’s conference center hotel and a nearby cemetery met the poverty-level prerequisite, but a local partner church that was across the street from those spots did not. We ultimately found two locations. The first was a mobile home park in the northeastern part of town. We planned to serve lunch there once a week. Since 2006, one of our interfaith partners, Blacksburg United Methodist Church, has maintained a mobile home, Fun143, in the park, and that positive presence created a natural fit for us. 9 Children and their families had an existing relationship based on comfort and trust with the staff and volunteers at Fun143. We served lunch there every Thursday that summer. Our volunteers enjoyed the experience, and the kids got a meal before they began tutoring, playing, or participating in other planned activities. Each week, twelve to fifteen kids joined us for a meal and conversation with us. The site enabled us to reach a lot of food

8 Food and Nutrition Program, "Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)." 9 "Blacksburg Estates Ministries."

AN EVOLUTION IN ALLEVIATING WEEKEND FOOD INSECURITY 161 insecure kids, in large part because of the infrastructure that Blacksburg United Methodist had already developed and nurtured. Thinking that mobile home parks were ideal locations to reach our target demographic while still meeting the 50% poverty level requirement, we chose another one on the other side of town as our second site. There we decided to distribute lunches at the park’s playground. Every week that summer, at least six eager volunteers showed up to share food on Tuesdays and Thursdays. However, on most days, the volunteers outnumbered the kids. Disappointed, we tried to figure out why kids weren’t coming to the park for lunch. We posted more flyers and asked the kids who did come to share the news of the lunchtime meal with their friends and neighbors. About midway through the summer, the problems with the playground location became clear. A middle-school-aged girl told us in casual conversation that many parents don’t let their children come to the playground. We had not realized that it was a prime location for mischief for older teens. Also, the playground was located at one end of the park, too far from many homes for kids to get to without parent supervision. Selecting our location without input from the neighborhood had been a huge mistake. The Summer Food Service Program presented a few other challenges. For one, kids had to eat the lunches in front of us, a requirement that might have deterred shy children from coming. In addition, we overestimated the number of kids who would participate and received a huge amount of extra food. As a consequence, we had to call our grocery store partner to ask for space in their walk-in freezer to store hundreds of extra sandwiches until we could share them with other hunger relief agencies. Ultimately, as much as the volunteers enjoyed building relationships with the kids we met, the USDA program did not fulfill our ultimate objective. We are a weekend feeding program, and that is our mission. Providing lunches was nice, but it was not our calling. These two attempts at summer food distribution did provide us with valuable knowledge and experiences, and we began to develop our own plan for a summer feeding program. We realized that transportation issues presented one of the biggest hurdles to feeding food insecure kids during the summer. Around 5% of Blacksburg’s households do not have vehicles, and many of these families are the same ones whose children we serve during the school year. We needed a way to get the food to them during the summer.10 We needed to create a mobile backpack program. Pastor John was completely supportive and provided help and encouragement throughout the process. He knew that a mobile backpack “was a solution that came with many unique issues. Where would we get the money to get started? Should we get a bus or a trailer? How would it really work? We didn't have the answers to any of those questions, but we knew that Micah's Mobile Backpack was where we needed to go.”11 We would go further than the Summer Food Service Program by pinpointing the needs of the youth in our community, demonstrating our community’s commitment to them even when school was not in session.

10"CLRSearch.com - We Know Real Estate Search." 11 Wertz, “Gmail.”

162 VOICES OF HUNGER

Having learned from our earlier experiences, we solicited input from the parents of the children we served as we entered the planning process. In February 2012, we conducted a telephone survey of families who received food during the school year. Ninety-two percent of the parents indicated that weekend food in the summer would be helpful. Many parents also confirmed our sense that transportation barriers impacted their ability to get food.12 Armed with numbers and summer feeding stories, I dove into the grant application process. In April 2012, I submitted a letter of inquiry to the Community Foundation of the New River Valley which was launching a new Community Impact Grant program. We were invited to move forward and I spent many hours crafting what I hoped would be the perfect grant proposal: part data and part firsthand anecdote. After we submitted the application, the Community Foundation invited us to its offices to talk about our proposal and answer questions. In August, we learned that we had received the $10,000 grant. Many months of dreaming, researching, writing, and crossing fingers had paid off. The Community Foundation’s announcement explained, “Micah’s Backpack has had a tremendous impact in Blacksburg and continues to come up with creative ways to provide nutritious meals for children in need. We are so pleased to award our very first Community Impact Grant to Micah’s Mobile Backpack.”13

Illustration Credit: Lisa Acciai

The idea of mobile food is not unique. However, the concept of mobile food with a target audience of out-of-school kids is. Some regional food banks have launched refrigerated mobile pantries that provide staples and perishable foods to partner agencies, typically in rural areas. Feeding America Southwest Virginia, for example, has a mobile pantry that visits very remote areas, but food insecure

12 "Participants' Parent Phone Survey." 13 Micah’s Backpack Goes Mobile with Community Impact Grant.”

AN EVOLUTION IN ALLEVIATING WEEKEND FOOD INSECURITY 163 children are not its focus.14 Since we had no model to follow, we had to devise a program from scratch. We decided that a converted bus would work best. This meant that we needed to find one. We would also need a large number of volunteers as well as the participation of our community garden partners so we could share fresh food. Between September 2012 and June 2013, volunteers, Pastor John, and I drafted, revised, and redrafted plans until we had a blueprint for Micah’s Mobile Backpack that would work. We settled on two tentative routes that emphasized the higher-poverty neighborhoods, made contacts with our partner locations and mobile home park offices to announce the plan, and recruited volunteers. As word of our new program spread in our community, volunteers with specialized knowledge and talents began to offer their help. Bryan Katz, a school bus aficionado and traffic engineer, worked his connections and found the perfect bus for a great price. He later recalled, “I was extremely honored to help. I was excited to be able to contribute my talents and knowledge of school buses to identify the bus that would best fit the needs of the program. Having a shorter bus that is easier to drive, with air conditioning, and with a wheelchair lift I felt provided the perfect combination for our program!” 15 Because the bus is handicapped-accessible, it has no seats on the right side in the back, providing us with storage space. Moreover, the wheelchair lift enables us to load carts full of food onto the bus--a huge time and back saver. Fran Shepherd, a reading teacher at Price’s Fork Elementary, suggested that we offer books on the bus. We jumped at this additional opportunity. Why not feed kids’ minds along with their bodies? She rallied teachers and other personnel to serve as volunteer librarians and organized a team to manage the mobile backpack library. Shepherd enjoyed volunteering and “appreciated the opportunity in the summer of 2013 to take books on the Micah’s Mobile Backpack bus.”16 We overcame another hurdle when a church member with a commercial driver’s license heard we needed a bus driver and signed up to drive every route. He came early to load the bus and stayed late to unload and clean up. His dedication made a real difference in the safe operation of the mobile backpack. In addition to the stops like the one described at the beginning of the chapter, we tried establishing a rural location. However, after three weeks of driving there and sitting for an hour with no kids in sight, I relearned the lesson that a central location with free food is not helpful for food insecure families who lack reliable transportation. I eliminated the stop, and we focused our time and efforts where we were reaching kids: on their doorsteps. Similarly, although we had stop at the town’s library, it only had 2-3 children each week. I would have liked to have reached more families with a central downtown location. I am hopeful that in the coming summers, children without transportation will walk or use public transportation to get to the library and families with vehicles will continue to come. At the time of writing, we are beginning to plan for the second summer of Micah’s Mobile Backpack. We expect the program to grow. We anticipate

14 "Mobile Food Pantry to Help Serve Those in Need." 15 Katz, “Gmail.” 16 Shepherd, “Letter to Jennie Hodge.”

164 VOICES OF HUNGER providing more than 6,000 meals and hope to share at least 400 pounds of kid- friendly fruits and vegetables such as beans, blueberries, carrots, corn, peas, and tomatoes.

Illustration Credit: Lisa Acciai

Micah’s Mobile Backpack has already had a substantial impact on the people in our community, both those served and those who do the serving. At one mobile home park, we fed nineteen children during our first visit. By August, an average of 52 kids from toddlers to high-schoolers greeted us each week when they stepped out their front door to visit the bus. As a consequence, as Pastor John relates, the volunteers for Micah’s Mobile Backpack have a “much more personal” experience with the challenges of food security and community development. Unlike the school-year program, where volunteers have no contact with the students being helped, during the summer, “You are packing a bag of food for a specific student based on their order from the week before. You go to the students’ neighborhood, and you have the opportunity to hand them their bag of food, engage them in conversation, and get a small glimpse of how the gift of food makes a difference in their lives.”17

17 Wertz, “Gmail.”

AN EVOLUTION IN ALLEVIATING WEEKEND FOOD INSECURITY 165

With a tremendous amount of support and dedication from volunteers and partners, Micah’s Mobile Backpack achieved its first-year goals. Fewer kids in our community suffered from summertime food insecurity. We developed relationships, and our efforts are helping to strengthen our local community and beyond. So come June, we will stock the shelves with food, recruit volunteers, and gas up the bus to begin another journey with food for the body, mind, and soul. I know we will be making a difference. Micah’s Mobile Backpack proves that reducing summertime food insecurity for school-aged kids is possible. I am excited to think about the long-term ripple effects of our program as other folks hear about what we’ve done and explore ways to replicate and expand the mobile backpack program in their communities. We know of no other hunger relief agency that offers what Micah’s Mobile Backpack does--yet. Within a few years, I hope that we will no longer be alone, and the food-security issues of children in other communities will be advanced by our success.

References "Arkansas Rice Depot." Food For Kids Provides Hungry Children in Arkansas with Backpacks Filled with Kid Friendly Food. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. "Blacksburg Estates Ministries." Blacksburg United Methodist Church Blacksburg Estates Ministries Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. "CLRSearch.com - We Know Real Estate Search." CLRSearch. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 June 2012. "Community Foundation of the New River Valley." Micah’s Backpack Goes Mobile with Community Impact Grant. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. Hodge, Olivia J. "BMS." Comcast.net. N.p., 08 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. Hosig, Rachel. "One Account. All of Google." Gmail. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. “Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation.” . N.p., n.d. 10 August 2012. Katz, Bryan. "One Account. All of Google." Gmail. N.p., 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. "Mobile Food Pantry to Help Serve Those in Need." Feeding America SWVA. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. "Participants' Parent Phone Survey." N.p., n.d. 12 Feb. 2012. "Program Statistics & Reports." VDOE : N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. Shepherd, Fran. "Letterhead12micahsbackpack." Letter to Jennie Hodge. 9 Mar. 2014. MS. Price's Fork Elementary School, Blacksburg, VA. “Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)." Food and Nutrition Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. Teller, Gus. "CRNRV CIG." Gmail. N.p., 12 June 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. Wertz, John, Jr. "One Account. All of Google." Gmail. N.p., 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

Conclusion

Anna Isserow

Sitting in Austin, TX in a session at the International Food Studies Conference on cooking and history, I came across a subject I had never before considered. The lecturer was discussing her research on translation in relation to food. I was captivated by her research. I do not speak any language other than English fluently, but I understand that translation can be difficult. To capture the true intent behind an action in words which are not native to that action, or which do not accurately represent the action or feeling correctly, has the potential to leave a wide understanding gap and a loss of truth and accuracy in the representation. Imagine a chef in France, she explained, who is cooking a meal. Imagine the way his hands move through the food and the exact angle his knife cuts. Then imagine that action being written into words, which are then translated into English, or Spanish, or Hebrew, and then used to reproduce cooking actions back into food by a chef in a different culture. From the French chef’s hands to an American kitchen, the gap between physical and technical culinary skills to the recipe on the page is gigantic. This gap in understanding I realized, is prevalent in other places in the food studies community. The gap between chef and recipe is similar to the gap between food stamp recipients and the media, between food deserts and grocery store profit margins, between students in classrooms and real world challenges. These gaps come back to a lack of mutual understanding. The chapters in this volume highlight those gaps in understanding and demonstrate that there are ways to address them. Community outreach, education, and dedicated academics and students can broaden understanding, and from that, action can emerge. These chapters include scientific and academic approaches to food studies, as well as personal stories and interviews. Allowing subjects to speak for themselves, to illustrate firsthand what they are faced with, but then backing those experiences up with academic research is like having that French chef translate himself, closing the gap between understanding and ignorance. These authors have a powerful tool in their understanding, and can use that to effect vast positive change in the areas they are most passionate about in the larger community both in and out of the classroom.

166 CONCLUSION 167

After attending the conference I began to see how my work with the community garden and farmers’ market near my university connected with this understanding gap. I began to how public policies focused on hunger alleviation and food security impact the individual people who need to grow food in the garden to augment their income enough to feed themselves or who depend in the SNAP matching at the farmers’ market. As illustrated by the personal stories in these chapters, policies can make sense on paper, just like a recipe, but when you meet families who each face different circumstances and challenges, solutions seem less readily apparent. Identifying the proper course of action is difficult. But as more people see food security as a human right, more programs designed to alleviate hunger emerge. Virginia Tech is an example of an institution that is fighting hunger through positive community oriented change. The university has recently created a program called Civic Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS). The CAFS minor, “is designed to promote academic enhancement, personal growth, and civic engagement while strengthening students’ capacity to learn about civic agriculture and food systems through the practice of reflection and experiential learning to solve real-world problems.”1 Based on Thomas A Lyson’s concept of Civic Agriculture, the minor provides students with dynamic team taught classes in combination with an intensive fieldwork application to extend learning from classroom to community. Civic Agriculture is based on a trend toward localizing some agriculture and food production with a focus on linking it to a community’s social and economic development. 2 The minor teaches students to think in terms of cornerstones, such as ecological stewardship, relationship building, and democratic participation and civic engagement, and in terms of capitals which a community already has which can be assessed and used to create change. When I took my first Civic Agriculture class in the fall of 2012, I began to understand our food system in terms of community and agriculture. I started out without any grasp of the scale, scope, or importance of food systems. Every week we were asked to define Civic Agriculture, and each week we learned more and more in the classroom that enhanced our understanding. The first time I was asked to define Civic Agriculture, I said that creating a definition was a “challenge for me because I really did not know a lot about agriculture and have never been able to grow anything. In class we discussed a definition as well as experiences of civic agriculture and my group came up with a few buzz words including relationships, sustainability, learning, regional interactions… I think the most important part of defining civic agriculture is the community effort and intention.”3 I laugh as I read this because of the great changes which have occurred in my life concerning food systems in the two years since I first wrestled with the issue. I am now an adept gardener and I have decided to pursue a career in the field. What is interesting, however, is my constant focus on intentionality. I have always emphasized intention as a vehicle for change and action. By the end of that first year, classroom knowledge had expanded and my skills in the field grew to the point that I was able to explain growing practices to new volunteers.

1 "Civic Agriculture and Food Systems Minor." 2 Lyson, Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. 3 Isserow, Weekly Writing.

168 VOICES OF HUNGER

The last assignment of the year was a critical reflection on the class. I quoted Patricia Allen who says that, “everyone—regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or social class---needs to eat in order to live.”4 I realized that bringing people out of their normal routines and to a student garden creates space for dialogue. This is why food links people together so well. Even if you have never gardened, you have eaten. Engaging in civic agriculture gives people a way to join into a food system at an earlier point than just at the consumer level, and in a more hands-on, involved way. Food can transcend culture, gender, social differences because everyone needs it. No one can live without food. Moreover, everyone has a food history which can encourage open discussion. These ideas may seem elementary, but it became obvious that most people do not think of food or food systems in this way. My experiences working in the community garden allowed me to meet land owner and director as well as gardeners from twenty countries who were all eager to teach me about their gardening practices and to become friends in and out of the gardens. Growing in a community garden, and growing at the school farm, farmers market booths and community nutrition education classes, and relationships with the most amazing faculty and community members in the area has changed me, and inspired my own goals, similar to a few of the authors in this volume, to be an active food citizen in my community. Like the authors of these chapters, I found a way to connect to food that was both personal and academic. From these researchers I have learned that we must give people the chance to speak for themselves rather than assume that others can tell their stories for them. Many of the chapters included in this volume highlight the experiences of food insecure Americans in their own words. From this I have learned that perception is half the battle. I have seen the negativity levelled at food aid recipients, and the disparities in food availability that need to be addressed, as the authors in this volume explain. Translating words to action is only the beginning. There are cultural and political challenges involved in the fight against hunger. This text gives readers the opportunity to explore these challenges, to understand where each individual exists in the system and to understand what we can do to effect necessary change.

References Allen, P. (2004) Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American Agrifood system. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press. "Civic Agriculture and Food Systems Minor." 19 May 2014. . Isserow, Anna. Weekly Writing. 2012. Lyson, Thomas A. (2004) Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.

4 Allen, Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American Agrifood system.

When I was a child, my grandparents owned a small grocery store in Quinque, Virginia, a small town about twenty miles north of Charlottesville, the nearest city. They provided food, including milk, meat, fresh produce, canned goods, and candy for their very small community. More than this, they provided a sense of community, a place of civic engagement where people could gather and share news and ideas. When my grandparents retired, their store was converted into a convenience store with far more limited and almost exclusively processed food offerings, forcing residents to travel much further for food and eliminating altogether the communal connections found in the old Powell’s Store. This is a change not unfamiliar to communities across the United States. The proliferation of food deserts, especially across America’s rural landscapes and in its urban centers, has eroded many families’ access to food. Market pressures privilege large food distributors and wealthy communities while economic instability compounds the food security crisis assailing the world’s wealthiest economy, its third largest agricultural producer, and its leading agricultural exporter. Many Americans across the United States are hungry, finding it increasingly more difficult to reliably feed their families while public programs designed to fight food insecurity face budget cuts. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, food insecurity plagued a new demographic: the educated, the formerly middle class, the never-before-hungry. This shined a new light on the way that American culture treats people who are food insecure. What does this mean for our communities and our fellow citizens and how can the crisis of hunger in America be addressed? This edited collection looks at the problem of food insecurity in the United States from a variety of perspectives and examines efforts underway to put food on the tables of America’s families. From national programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to community endeavors like Micah’s Backpack, these chapters analyze food security initiatives, their challenges, and their successes. It also introduces us to the hungry among us, allowing us to better understand the problem of food insecurity from the perspective of those who face it on an ongoing basis. These chapters remind us that food is not just essential for individual human life. It is also the lifeblood of our communities.

Courtney I. P. Thomas is a visiting assistant professor of political science at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA where she also serves as an academic advisor and internship coordinator. Her research emphasizes international political economy, political violence, and food politics. Her recent publications include In Food We Trust (University of Nebraska Press © 2014) and Political Culture and the Making of Modern Nation-States (Paradigm Press © 2014).

FOOD-STUDIES.COM