Time For a Change: Combating Food Insecurity Among Children Policy Brief HSCI 660D: Advance Topics in Health Science & Human Ecology Janella Bayona Marissa Cruz
Department of Health Science and Human Ecology California State University, San Bernardino 5500 University Pkwy San Bernardino, CA 92407
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Humans come from all different walks of life from different cultures to different socioeconomic backgrounds; however, the one on e asset in life that drives us to share cultures, bonding time, and fuels our body with energy is food. Food is one of the most important elements that we ingest in our body bod y for various life altering reasons. For instance, food helps optimize our growth in our entire body and keeps every organ running productively. Unfortunately, some people do not have hav e access to food or nutritious food. The United States of Agriculture (USDA) defines two labels we use to categorize the b road scope between (1) food security and (2) food insecurity. 1. F ood Securi Security ty : No limitations to access to nutritional food in a socially acceptable way and no change in diet from a shortage of acquiring food. 2. F ood I nsecuri nsecurity ty : Low quality of your food, reduced intake of food amounts due to fear of not knowing when your next meal is coming. Among these categories, child food insecurity is impacted the most, from child developmental growth to psychological trauma from stigmas among peers. Research conducted con ducted by Alamio, Olson, Frongillo, and Briefel (2001) has shown the correlation of micronutrient deficiencies coupled with low-quality food affects health outcomes. These health issues are common colds, ear infections, stomach pain, and asthma, which result in poor attendance in school. Also, food insecurity negatively impacts a child’s growth phases by not having the proper amounts of macronutrients. Additionally, Figure 3 represents households by status of food insecurity (high or low) and food secure among children in the United States. We need to shape our approach, not only ethically within policies, but also within our communities to provide a nutritional foundation for children who live in food insecurity households. IMPORTANCE OF FOOD SECURITY IN CHILDREN
Moreover to combat child food insecurities we need to look further into the Social Determinants Of Health (SDOH) with relation to the environment and availab le resources that predispose children to food insecurity. Food insecurity adversely affects poor health outcomes for children by 58% higher than children who are food secure (Cook & Frank et al. 2008). According to Cook and colleagues, c olleagues, poor nutrition leads to more visitations in the hospital. Children who do not have access to fresh fruit or vegetables result in micronutrient deficiencies causing them to have a weak immune system. Children who are food insecure encounter social vulnerability, which results in emotional and psychological distress. (Cook, Frank, Berkowitz, Black, Casey, Cutts, Meyers, Zaldivar, Skalicky, Levenson, Heeren, & Nord et. al. 2004) Not to mention, most children are aware of their circumstances and their family's obstacles. More often, single mothers are skipping meals or consuming less food so their children can eat an adequate adeq uate meal. With that being said Figure 1 represents the leading ten states with food insecurity insecu rity and Figure 2 represents the ten states with the lowest rates of food insecurity. Furthermore, children's health and wellness reflect not only their family’s socioeconomic status, but also their neighborhood coupled with their built environment with access to foods that reflect a healthy lifestyle. Children who live in conditions with safe housing, availability to food markets and access to transportation are more likely to be food secure. On the other hand, children who live in unsafe neighborhoods tend to have more barriers b arriers when it comes to accessing food. These obstacles tend to be living in food deserts, which have little to no n o resources for fresh
3
food items and typically have more convenient co nvenient stores. Additionally, these barriers can be the lack of transportation for families to access programs that provide food relief or access to grocery stores. Also, low health literacy plays a significant role when it comes to grocery shopping. For instance, simply not being aware which particular pa rticular foods are unhealthy is a common commo n barrier among families grocery shopping. Food insecurity overlaps o verlaps every social aspect of safe housing, food desserts, socio-economic status, and social vulnerability among peers. CRITIQUE OF CURRENT FOOD INSECURITY POLICY AND PROGRAMS
Policies regarding food security in the United States have be en a consistent controversial issue and can be traced back to the start of the Great Depression. Most food assistance programs are overseen and developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) who spend over two-thirds of their annual budget on these programs. The National Safety Nutrition Net (NSNN) combats food insecure families through a pool of fifteen national food assistance programs that aim to provide low-income citizens with access to a healthy and nutritious diet. The Economic Research Service (ERS) branch of the USDA reports about one in four Americans participates in at least one food assistance program at some point po int during the year. The following will list some of the standard programs focused on child food insecurity: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is one of the nation’s top additional assistance programs and is heavily focused on helping low-income Americans below the poverty line; including low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed inco mes. ‘CalFresh' is California's version of the SNAP program. To be eligible for SNAP, the applicant representing the household must meet three criteria (according to the 2016 fiscal year): 1. Gross monthly income must be at or below the 130% of the poverty line, for a three person family 2. Net monthly income, or income after deductions are applied for items such as high housing costs and child care, must be less than or equal to the poverty line 3. Assets must fall below certain limits ($2,250 for household without an elderly or disabled member, $3,250 for with) If all three criteria are met, families and other participants are able to apply for SNAP and will receive an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card, along with mo nthly benefits, allowing SNAP members to purchase healthy and nutritious meals at participating grocery and convenience stores, and some farmers’ markets and co-op food programs. Women, Infants, & Children (WIC) Women, Infant, & Children (WIC) is a Federal grant program that targets low -income pregnant women, postpartum women, infants up to one-year-old, one -year-old, and children up to 5 years of age. WIC provides these resources at multiple locations including: hospitals, county health departments, departments, mobile clinics, community centers, schools, migrant health centers, and pu blic housing sites. To be eligible for WIC, participants must meet a certain, residential, residential, income, and nutrition risk requirement. The applicant's income must be between the 100-185 percent Federal poverty income guidelines. Additionally, members must be prescreened by a health professional to indicate the applicant is at ‘nutrition risk.' This prescreen depends on the state, benefits in this
4
supplemental nutrition program include: checks or vouchers to purchase specific food each month, and EBT card, WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program Pr ogram (FMNP), food packages and access to WIC food warehouses, along with educational edu cational intervention. Child Nutrition Programs
N ati onal nal Scho S choo ol L unch Pr ogr am: Eligible students that attend a participating school, from grades K-12, qualify for free or reduced-price lunches Free Lunch: household income at or below 130% poverty line o Reduced-price lunch: between 130-185% poverty line o Scho School B rea reakfast kfast Pro Pr ogra gr am: offers free or reduced price Federally approved breakfast meals to children at participating schools and children in residential child care institutions C hild and and A dult C ar e Pro Pr ogra gr am (C A C F P) : provides meals and snacks to children at after-school programs, family day care homes, child care centers, h omeless shelters, and to functionally impaired adults at adult day care centers c enters in high-need areas Summ Summer F ood Ser Ser vice Pro Pr ogra gr am (SF SP) : provides meals to children during summer vacation that attend schools, camps, parks, playgrounds, pla ygrounds, housing projects, churches, community centers, and other public sites. Eligible sites must: Be located in an area where half of the children live with a household income o below 185% of the Federal poverty level Have at least half of the children served at the site meet the income criterion c riterion o F r esh F r uit ui t and and V egeta getable Pr ogra gr am: focuses on providing children a nutritionally dense meal by offering fruit and vegetable snacks for free to all children at participating schools o r full Aft Af ter Scho School Snacks Snacks and Supp Supper s: children are provided free, reduced-price, or priced after school snacks. ‘Area eligible' locations include schools in which at least half of their students qualify for free or reduced-price meals through the NSLP program
What’s the problem?
Although the USDA and FNS offer o ffer a broad range of supplemental food assistance programs, food insecurity remains a relevant problem today. There are significant gaps in the implementation of these programs. Almost all programs target children while they are in the school season, leaving weekends, long holidays, and summer breaks vulnerable. Even with federal assistance, many children and families still lack adequate resources to achieve food security. It is also possible that the eligibility poverty range discludes a significant portion of the low-income population. Also, many families who are qualified for these programs do not utilize them, thus insisting on a need for education and intervention to the head of the household. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
A larger population of the United States is still experiencing food insecurity despite the significant amount of supplemental food assistance federal programs offered by the NSNN. These programs account for a significant portion of the federal budget, posing the need for policy changes and modifications. To combat food insecurity in children more effectively, we must:
I mpleme lement mor more e summ summer , holida holi dayy bre break, and we weekend progr program amss and incr i ncre ease acce access ss to the curr cur r ent progr prog r ams. ams. School feeding programs such as the NSLP and School Breakfast Program need to be extended to more schools. Research has
5
found that children consume about half of o f their calories at school, thus raising the question of food assistance options when school is not in season. For every 100 school lunch program sites, only 43 offer food assistance during the summer, resulting in a very significant population of children not being b eing reached for about three months out of the year. Which is why we need to implement a summer, holiday, and weekend program, community-based partners must be involved to attain a designated site to feed food-insecure children. For a community site to qualify in providing food assistance, the given area must be in a location where 50% children are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The eligibility percentage was raised from 33% to 50% in 1981 ultimately disqualifying potential sites. Lowering this rate anywhere from 5-15% will increase increase overall access, increase possible participation, could potentially target more children, and more food assistance sites would be eligible to open.
R e-evalu e-evaluate ate the effect eff ectii veness veness and ade adequacy quacy of of the the benef benefii ts offer off ered ed i n the p rograms is to combat exist xi stii ng pr ogr ams. Although the aim of federal food aid programs food insecurity among the population, some researchers have suggested that participation in the programs may have a perverse effect and make families more susceptible to remaining food insecure, and also cause a sense of dependence on these programs. The intention of supplemental food programs is to aid families in acquiring food during brief times of hardship, such as unemployment un employment and is not meant to be of long-term use. Food insecurity is a complex, multidimensional topic, and further research should be done d one to examine if the benefits offered in programs like SNAP are truly meeting the needs of low-income families.
I ncre ncr ease com community uni ty responsi responsibil bilii ty and and invo i nvolve lvem ment in i n deve develop lopii ng elig li g i bi lity li ty and and accessibility. Furthermore, the eligibility and resources the for food assistance programs are at the federal level of government. Many families fall through the national safety net, and many household h ousehold incomes just barely disqualify for the poverty threshold to apply for assistance. It is evident that communities across America have significant differences in demographic factors such as: socioeconomic status, culture, race, ethnicity, and resources that ultimately affect adequate access to food security. It is unfeasible for the Federal government to generalize every different demographic in the United States and their needs. Therefore, giving the power and freedom to the States to modify and tailor these Federal assistance programs to ‘custom fit' eligibility requirements and benefits to their communities, will likely have a more efficient approach to lowering food insecurity in high-risk areas.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Unfolding the aspects of food security and food insecurity, among our youth the difference is beyond clear to predict adverse health outcomes coupled poor academic performance. Furthermore, food insecurity is highly relevant to the impact of children and how it affects them physically and psychologically. There are programs p rograms in effect to help combat food insecurity among children, but what about summer when they're not in school or young children who do not qualify for WIC and other oth er programs relating to only infants and toddlers. We are facing an issue that will not go away, awa y, the problem of food insecurity among children will affect
6
our society and generations to come. We need to shape our approaches, by remolding our core values as community members to ensure no child questions whether they will eat today or will they be able to attain a fresh fruit or vegetable in their household. We will not n ot have children will be stigmatized, feel socially isolated, or socially vulnerable we will have children be children and By these three policy recommendations (1) Implement more summer, holiday break, and weekend programs and increase access to the current programs (2) Re-evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the benefits offered in the existing programs and (3) Increase community responsibility and involvement in developing eligibility and accessibility. As members of society, we need to shape our approaches, for our youth and combat food insecurity among children.
7
Appendix
F igure 1.Source: Calculated by ERS, USDA, using data from the December 2013, 2014, and 2015 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements.
F igure 2.Source: Calculated by ERS, USDA, using data from the December 2013, 2014, and 2015 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements.
8
F igure 3.Source: Calculated by ERS, USDA, using data from the December 2013, 2014, and 2015 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements.
9
References 1. Chilton, Mariana, and Donald Rose. “A Rights-Based Approach to Food Insecurity in the 11. United States.” American States.” American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 7 (July 2009): 1203 – 11. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.130229.
2. Food Security, Poverty, and Human Development in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1196/annals, 1425.001, 2008. http://chwasst.pairserver.com/wpcontent/uploads/JCDAF_AnnNYSci_2008.pdf 3. Food Insufficiency, Family Income, and Health In U.S. Preschool and School Aged Children. American Journal of Public Health, 91(5):78106. May 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446676/ 4. Food Insecurity is Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes Among Human Infants and Toddlers. Journal of Nutrition, 134:1432-1438. June 2004. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173408 5. Gunderson, Craig & Ziliak J.P. Childhood Food Insecurity in the U.S.: Trends, Causes and Policy options. The Future of Children. Princeton Brookings. Research Report. 2014. 1-15. 6. Haerig S.A., Syed S.B. Community Food Security in the United States Cities: A S urvey of the Relevant Sientific Literature. Center for a Livable Future. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 2009. 1-86. 7. Smith, Mike, and JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Community Food Security in United States Cities: A Survey of the Relevant S cientific Literature.” Johns Literature.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Accessed May 22, 2017. http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-andinstitutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable future/research/clf_publications/pub_rep_desc/CFS_USA.html.
