Sheila Mammen, Jean Bauer, Leslie Richards, Peter St. Marie IAREP/SABE Conference at LUISS

1. Sheila Mammen, Jean Bauer, Leslie Richards, Peter St. Marie IAREP/SABE Conference at LUISS Roma, Italy September 5, 2008 A Paradox of Place and Circumstance: Food Consumption BehaviourAmong Rural Low-Income Families

2. The Paradox • Paradox about USA: • based on per capita GDP, extremely wealthy • but lower levels of life expectancy and higher levels of infant mortality & child poverty • Paradox among states in USA: • in prosperous states rural low-income families appear more food insecure • not widely reported in other studies

3. Food Security • Food security defined: “Families' consistent and dependable access to sufficient food to maintain an active and healthy life.” Nord et al., 2005 • Families are food insecure when safe and nutritionally adequate food is not readily available or when they have to resort to extraordinary means to obtain it.

4. Rural Poverty • Poverty is disproportionately higher & more persistent in rural areas in US. • Rural low-income families are more likely to face unemployment, underemployment & lower wages. • Rural low-income families are more likely to confront food insecurity.

5. Research Questions • Why are rural low-income families from prosperous states paradoxically more food insecure? • Conversely, why are rural low-income families from less prosperous states more likely to be food secure? • How does the food consumption behaviour of rural low-income families in prosperous states differ from families in less prosperous states?

6. What is a Prosperous State? • To determine prosperous states, we ranked the states according to infant mortality rate, percent of residents with bachelor’s degree & fiscal capacity index. (States with high fiscal capacity have a relatively high capability to cover their expenditure needs using their own resources given what it would cost to provide a standard set of public services to their citizens [Rueben et al., 2006]). Based on these indicators, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota & Oregon may be considered prosperous while Louisiana, Michigan & Nebraska may be considered less prosperous.

7. Range of Food Insecurity • Initial response: moderate consumption changes • decrease quality of food • reduce variety of food • positive coping strategies Low Food Security [USDA] • Later response: severe consumption changes • decrease children's quantity • adults skip meals • negative coping strategies Very Low Food Security [USDA] 

8. Family Ecological Systems Model • Adapted from: • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) • Huddleston-Casas, C. & Braun, B. (2006).

9. Macrosystem Exosystem community school Mesosystem Micro culture society family peers mass media health agencies religion economic system political system nationality

10. Data and Methods • USDA funded multi-state longitudinal project, NC-223/NC-1011, "Rural low-income Families: Tracking Their Well-being in the Context of Welfare Reform“ http://fsos.cehd.umn.edu/projects/rfs.html • 13 states • incomes below 200% of federal poverty line • one child under 13 years old • mothers recruited through programs for low income families e.g., food stamps, food pantries • qualitative & quantitative data

11. Least food insecure California (10%) Louisiana (0%) Nebraska (0%) 54 families Most food insecure Massachusetts (44%) Michigan (25%) Minnesota (25%) Oregon (20%) 81 families Sample • 3 waves of data, August 1999 - July 2002 • States with most and least food insecurity in 3 waves

12. Percentage of Food Insecure Families In Food Insecure & Food Secure States

13. Comparison of NC-1011 & USDA Measures of Food Insecurity

14. Sample Demographics, W1

15. Hypotheses H1: Families in food insecure (prosperous) states are more likely to have lower median per capita income than families in food secure (less prosperous) states. H2: Families in food insecure states are more likely to experience greater material hardship and incur greater housing costs as a share of family income.

16. Results • Median per capita family income: • no clear picture • yearly income increases for families in food insecure states • with exception of W2, median per capita family income in food insecure states was higher than in food secure states • Income itself cannot explain food insufficiency.

17. Results(cont.) • Index of Material Hardship: • "In the past year, has there been a time when you had a hard time making ends meet or paying for necessities?” • Did you have trouble paying for (yes/no): food, clothing, medical care, dental care, medicines, other • Material hardship: • in all 3 waves, families in food insecure states suffered greater material hardship.(stat. sig. in W1 & W3.) • for food insecure states, hardship experienced by families declined from W1 to W2, but increased from W2 to W3 • hardship experienced by families in food secure states declined steadily from W1 to W3

18. Results (cont.) • Total housing cost as share of annual family income: • amount spent on rent/mortgage, gas/oil, electric • Housing cost as share of family income: • families in food insecure states spent more income on housing costs in 3 waves (26%-33%) • families in food secure states spent, on average, 27% of household income on housing costs

19. Comparison Between Families in Food Insecure & Food Secure States Shaded blocks indicate stat. significant difference between food insecure and secure states.

20. Food Consumption Behaviours • Systematic examination of open-ended qualitative responses: • Selection of strategy…whether family adopted strategy • Intensity of use…how often family used strategy

21. Food Coping Strategies of Families in Food Insecure & Secure States

22. Specific Examples of Coping Strategies • Shopping techniques • use coupons, buy in bulk, select off-brands • Community support • use food banks/pantries, churches & others • Meals with extended family • eat at homes of family members • Human capital • garden, freeze, can, prepare big soups/stews • Consumption reduction behaviours •  diet ("needing to loose weight" to manage or reduce hunger), curb appetite (smoking, drinking coffee, ignoring mealtimes), triage (making deliberate choices as to which family who eats first; children first then adult males) • Money techniques •  use credit cards, juggle bills, write bad checks • Government programs • food stamps, WIC

23. Food Consumption Behaviour Placed Within Family Ecological Systems Model

24. Macro 5 Exo 4 4 Meso 2,4 2 Micro 1,3 1,3 1,3,5 1,3 2 2 4 4 5 Food insecure states Selection of strategy Food secure states Selection of strategy Food secure states Intensity of use Food insecure states Intensity of use

25. Explaining the Paradox • Large proportion of rural low-income mothers in food insecure (prosperous) states: • did not have high school education • less likely to be married/partnered • spouses less likely to work • less likely to co-reside with others • Substantial portion of families in food insecure states who were Hispanic were migrant/seasonal workers • ironic…globally, families engaged in agricultural production are more vulnerable to food insufficiency

26. Explaining the Paradox (cont.) • Per capita income did not explain paradox. • Perhaps higher income of those in prosperous states made them ineligible for federal programs or benefits were too little. • Rural low-income families in prosperous states had greater difficulties paying for basic necessities. • When families encounter material hardships, more likely to face food insecurity. • Rural low-income families in prosperous states had higher housing costs. • Harsh winters in food insecure states. • When low-income families have to trade off between housing and food, they choose housing.

27. Explaining the Paradox (cont.) • Rural low-income families adapt consumption behaviour to fit their unique family circumstances. • Behaviours, positive & negative, are drawn from across the ecosystem. • Rural low-income families preferred to rely on themselves & their abilities (microsystem); next on extended family, friends & local community (mesosystem); finally, government (macrosystem). • Families in food insecure (prosperous) states used dangerous consumption reduction strategies e.g., dieting, curbing appetite & triage. • Families in food secure (less prosperous) states used human capital coping techniques e.g., gardening, canning.

28. Authors and Affiliations • Sheila Mammen, Ph.D. • Associate Professor • Department of Resource Economics • University of Massachusetts Amherst • smammen@resecon.umass.edu • Jean Bauer, Ph.D. • Professor • Department of Family Social Science • University of Minnesota • jbauer@umn.edu • Leslie Richards , Ph.D. • Associate Professor • Department of Human Development and Family Sciences • Oregon State University • leslie.richards@oregonstate.edu • Peter St. Marie • Undergraduate Research Assistant • Department of Resource Economics • University of Massachusetts Amherst • pstmarie@student.umass.edu

29. References • Bauer, J. W. (2004). Basebook Report. Low-income rural families: Tracking their well-being and functioning in the context of welfare reform. University of Minnesota, Rural Families Speak Web site: http://fsos.cehd.umn.edu/projects/rfs/publications.html • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). • Huddleston-Casas, C. & Braun, B. (2006). Rural families speak out III: Laboring towards economic self-sufficiency. (Webcast). University of Minnesota, Rural Families Speak Web site: http://breeze5.umn.edu/maypresentation • Mammen, S., Bauer, J.W., & Richards, L. (In press) Understanding persistent food insecurity: A paradox of place and circumstance. Social Indicators Research. • Rueben, K., Hoo, S. & Yilmaz, Y. (2006). Fiscal Capacity of States, Fiscal 2002. Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, Tax Policy Center Web site: http://www.urban.org/publications/1001039.html