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

Roma, ItalySeptember 5, 2008

A Paradox of Place and Circumstance:Food Consumption Behaviour

Among Rural Low-Income Families

The Paradox

Paradox about USA:– based on per capita GDP, extremely wealthy– but lower levels of life expectancy and higher

levels of infant mortality & child poverty

Paradox among states in USA:– in prosperous states rural low-income families

appear more food insecure– not widely reported in other studies

Food Security

Food security defined:“Families' consistent and dependable access to

sufficient food to maintain an active and healthy life.” Nord et al., 2005

Families are food insecure when safe and nutritionally adequate food is not readily available or when they have to resort to extraordinary means to obtain it.

Rural Poverty

Poverty is disproportionately higher & more persistent in rural areas in US.

Rural low-income families are more likely to face unemployment, underemployment & lower wages.

Rural low-income families are more likely to confront food insecurity.

Research Questions

Why are rural low-income families from prosperous states paradoxically more food insecure?

Conversely, why are rural low-income families from less prosperous states more likely to be food secure?

How does the food consumption behaviour of rural low-income families in prosperous states differ from families in less prosperous states?

What is a Prosperous State?

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

Range of Food Insecurity

Initial response: moderate consumption changes– decrease quality of food– reduce variety of food– positive coping strategiesLow Food Security [USDA]

Later response: severe consumption changes– decrease children's quantity– adults skip meals– negative coping strategiesVery Low Food Security [USDA] 

Family Ecological Systems Model

Adapted from:

– Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979)

– Huddleston-Casas, C. & Braun, B. (2006).

Micropeers family

religion

healthagencies

massmedia

schoolcommunity

nationality

societyculture

politicalsystem

economicsystem

Data and Methods

USDA funded multi-state longitudinal project, NC-223/NC-1011, "Rural low-income Families: Tracking Their Well-being in the Context of Welfare Reform“ http://fsos.cehd.umn.edu/projects/rfs.html

– 13 states• incomes below 200% of federal poverty line• one child under 13 years old

– mothers recruited through programs for low income families e.g., food stamps, food pantries

– qualitative & quantitative data

Least food insecure

California (10%)Louisiana (0%)Nebraska (0%)

 

54 families

Most food insecure Massachusetts (44%)Michigan (25%)Minnesota (25%)Oregon (20%)

 81 families  

3 waves of data, August 1999 - July 2002

States with most and least food insecurity in 3 waves

Sample

Percentage of Food Insecure FamiliesIn Food Insecure & Food Secure States

Comparison of NC-1011 & USDA Measures of Food Insecurity

       

NC1011 (N=13) USDA (N=50)

State% Persistently food insecure

Ranking by food

insecurity  % Persistently food insecure

Ranking by food

insecurity

Food insecure

MA (n=16) 43.8 1 6.4 50

MI (n=12) 25 2 9.2 33

MN (n=28) 25 2 7.1 47

OR (n=25) 20 4 13.7 7

Food secure

CA (n=30) 10 12 11.7 20

LA (n=11) 0 13 13.1 9

NE (n=13) 0 13 10.7 24

           

Sample Demographics, W1

 

Food Insecure Food Secure

Median age 32 29

Ethnicity (majority) 59% White 43% Hispanic

Partnered 54% 57%

HS education & above 65% 87%

Median number of children 2 2

Partner working 86% 94%

Living with others 17% 32%

Median monthly income $1,338 $1,184

Hypotheses

H1: Families in food insecure (prosperous) states are more likely to have lower median per capita income than families in food secure (less prosperous) states.

H2: Families in food insecure states are more likely to experience greater material hardship and incur greater housing costs as a share of family income.

Results

Median per capita family income:– no clear picture– yearly income increases for families in food insecure states– with exception of W2, median per capita family income in

food insecure states was higher than in food secure states

Income itself cannot explain food insufficiency.

Results (cont.)

Index of Material Hardship:– "In the past year, has there been a time when you had a

hard time making ends meet or paying for necessities?”

– Did you have trouble paying for (yes/no): food, clothing, medical care, dental care, medicines, other

Material hardship:– in all 3 waves, families in food insecure states suffered

greater material hardship. (stat. sig. in W1 & W3.)

– for food insecure states, hardship experienced by families declined from W1 to W2, but increased from W2 to W3

– hardship experienced by families in food secure states declined steadily from W1 to W3

Total housing cost as share of annual family income:– amount spent on rent/mortgage, gas/oil, electric

Housing cost as share of family income:– families in food insecure states spent more

income on housing costs in 3 waves (26%-33%)

– families in food secure states spent, on average, 27% of household income on housing costs

Results (cont.)

  W1 W2 W3

Annual median family per capita income ($)      

Food insecure 3852 (81) 4850 (81) 5551 (81)

Food secure 3193 (54) 5236 (54) 5116 (54)

       

Index of material hardship

Food insecure 2.42 (81) 1.52 (81) 1.71 (81)

Food secure 1.72 (54) 1.10 (54) 0.90 (54)

       

Total housing costs as a share of income (%)

Food insecure 31 (75) 32 (73) 25 (75)

Food secure 22 (52) 22 (40) 16 (48)

       

Comparison Between Families inFood Insecure & Food Secure States

Shaded blocks indicate stat. significant difference between food insecure and secure states.

Food Consumption Behaviours

Systematic examination of open-ended qualitative responses:

– Selection of strategy…whether family adopted strategy

– Intensity of use…how often family used strategy

Selection of strategy by rank Intensity of use by rank

Food insecure states Food secure states Food insecure states Food secure states

 

1. Shopping techniques

1. Shopping techniques

1. Shopping techniques 1. Shopping techniques

2. Community support 2. Meals with extended family

2. Community support 2. Meals with extended family

3. Consumption reduction behaviours

3. Human capital 3. Consumption reduction behaviours

3. Human capital

4. Money techniques 4. Money techniques and Meals with friends

4. Money techniques 4. Money techniques

5. Government programs —

5. Human capital 5. Government programs

       

Food Coping Strategies of Families in Food Insecure & Secure States

Shopping techniques– use coupons, buy in bulk, select off-brands

Community support– use food banks/pantries, churches & others

Meals with extended family– eat at homes of family members

Human capital– garden, freeze, can, prepare big soups/stews

Consumption reduction behaviours–  diet ("needing to loose weight" to manage or reduce hunger), curb appetite (smoking,

drinking coffee, ignoring mealtimes), triage (making deliberate choices as to which family who eats first; children first then adult males)

Money techniques–  use credit cards, juggle bills, write bad checks

Government programs– food stamps, WIC

Specific Examples of Coping Strategies

Food Consumption Behaviour Placed Within Family Ecological Systems Model

1,3

2

4

5

1,3,5

2

4

1,3

2

4

5

1,3

2,4

4

Food insecure statesSelection of strategy

Food insecure statesIntensity of use

Food secure statesIntensity of use

Food secure statesSelection of strategy

Explaining the Paradox

Large proportion of rural low-income mothers in food insecure (prosperous) states:– did not have high school education– less likely to be married/partnered– spouses less likely to work– less likely to co-reside with others

Substantial portion of families in food insecure states who were Hispanic were migrant/seasonal workers– ironic…globally, families engaged in agricultural production

are more vulnerable to food insufficiency

Explaining the Paradox (cont.)

Per capita income did not explain paradox. – Perhaps higher income of those in prosperous states made them

ineligible for federal programs or benefits were too little.

Rural low-income families in prosperous states had greater difficulties paying for basic necessities.– When families encounter material hardships, more likely to face food

insecurity.

Rural low-income families in prosperous states had higher housing costs.– Harsh winters in food insecure states.– When low-income families have to trade off between housing and food,

they choose housing.

Explaining the Paradox (cont.)

Rural low-income families adapt consumption behaviour to fit their unique family circumstances.

Behaviours, positive & negative, are drawn from across the ecosystem.

Rural low-income families preferred to rely on themselves & their abilities (microsystem); next on extended family, friends & local community (mesosystem); finally, government (macrosystem).

Families in food insecure (prosperous) states used dangerous consumption reduction strategies e.g., dieting, curbing appetite & triage.

Families in food secure (less prosperous) states used human capital coping techniques e.g., gardening, canning.

Sheila Mammen, Ph.D.– Associate Professor – Department of Resource Economics– University of Massachusetts Amherst– smammen@resecon.umass.edu

Jean Bauer, Ph.D.– Professor– Department of Family Social Science– University of Minnesota– jbauer@umn.edu

Leslie Richards , Ph.D.– Associate Professor – Department of Human Development and Family Sciences– Oregon State University– leslie.richards@oregonstate.edu

Peter St. Marie– Undergraduate Research Assistant– Department of Resource Economics– University of Massachusetts Amherst– pstmarie@student.umass.edu

Authors and Affiliations

Bauer, J. W. (2004). Basebook Report. Low-income rural families: Tracking their well-being and functioning in the context of welfare reform. University of Minnesota, Rural Families Speak Web site: http://fsos.cehd.umn.edu/projects/rfs/publications.html

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Huddleston-Casas, C. & Braun, B. (2006). Rural families speak out III: Laboring towards economic self-sufficiency. (Webcast). University of Minnesota, Rural Families Speak Web site: http://breeze5.umn.edu/maypresentation

Mammen, S., Bauer, J.W., & Richards, L. (In press) Understanding persistent food insecurity: A paradox of place and circumstance. Social Indicators Research.

Rueben, K., Hoo, S. & Yilmaz, Y. (2006). Fiscal Capacity of States, Fiscal 2002. Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, Tax Policy Center Web site: http://www.urban.org/publications/1001039.html

References