”*4 -
dv—‘vwr -q~ ~\

Mmhzmmmm

um

.i.‘

 

. . .
.. n“,
‘ yu.
. H

-..y

.umu
,,-. .
I

run.-
1.1:...
.

. ,f.

’1- .

a~ M
.,.

 

Will!!![MINI/HITIIHIHIVIIMH’WIIIU1WWW

193 00753 0979

 

LIERARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FOOD BANK USERS,
NON-USERS AND PAST USERS IN A POPULATION
OF LON-INCOME SINGLE MOTHERS

presented by
PATRICIA KAY SMITH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

nge in“ m

<§&,é_é4¥o~SME>

Major professor

Datelg‘lo’QQ

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

”first?

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES retun on or before due due.

  

DATE DUE ~ DATE DUE DATE DUE

   
 
     

 

. r; _ ' - ‘3..-
L3 3129:

.L‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H i
JEN l 1 L33

 

 

 

 

3 I» E": A“

‘ A.‘ ’ 2,)“;

' We
I

Wot-1999

”In J 1"? fi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

usu Is An Afflrmdlve Mon/Equal Opportunity autumn
Wane-9.1

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FOOD BANK USERS, NON-USERS AND PAST USERS
IN A POPULATION OF LOW-INCOME SINGLE MOTHERS

By
Patricia Kay Smith

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

1991

ABSTRACT

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FOOD BANK USERS, NON-USERS AND PAST USERS
IN A POPULATION OF LOW-INCOME SINGLE MOTHERS

by

Patricia Kay Smith

Seventy-four low-income single mothers with young children, recruited through a
door-to-door census in Lansing, MI, participated in a structured, one-hour interview.
Thirty-seven subjects were users, 21 were non-users, and 16 were past users of the
Ingham County Food Bank Average income for all families was 81% of the 1989 poverty
level for a family of three. Results demonstrated that users compared to non—users: (1) had
larger households with older children; (2) purchased food more frequently at a
convenience store; (3) participated in more assistance programs; (4) were less able to buy
enough food with available resources; (5) skipped meals (mothers and children) more
often because of no food in the home; and (6) reported fewer family members who would
gladly give help or support. Past users were more stigmatized by assistance program
participation than users. All three groups would turn to family members first for

emergency food assistance. No past users would turn to the food bank first for help.

Copyright by
PATRICIA KAY SMITH
199 l

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the unending patience and support from the following people:
My husband, Garry Goolsby;
My major professor, Dr. Sharon Hoerr;
My friend and fellow survivor, Dr. Carol Friesen;

My committee members Dr. Judith Anderson, Dr. Harry Perlstadt,
Mary Kieselbach-Director of the Ingham County Food Bank, and Dr. Won Song;

My intrepid interviewers Victoria Louden, Gail Moore, Gail Haus, Jill Rosekrans,
Marci Askegard, and especially Karen Ellerman and Jennifer Baumgartner;

The office secretary, Linda Hudson, who always had a warm and welcoming smile;
My father and sister, who have always stuck with me through thick and thin;
The world's most patient and articulate statistics consultant, Dr. John Gill;
and of course

All the women who invited us, strangers though we were,
into their homes and shared their lives with us.

 

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. ix
CHAPTER I
Introduction ............................................................................... 1
Food Bank Use in Ingham County, Michigan ........................................ 3
Operational Definitions .................................................................. 5
CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature
At Risk - Single Mothers with Young Children ............................. 7
Domestic Resource Management .............................................. 11
Overall Food Shopping Proficiency .................................. 12
Choice of Store--Location and Type ................................. 13
Size Effect on Food Cost .............................................. 16
Brand Preference ....................................................... 18
Food Shopping Frequency ............................................ 19
Social Welfare Resource Management ........................................ 20
Multiple Assistance Program Participation .......................... 21
Factors Affecting Program Participation ............................. 23
Social Support and Help-Seeking Behavior .................................. 28
Statement of the Problem ................................................................ 33
The Research Hypotheses ............................................................... 33
CHAPTER III
Methods
Sampling ......................................................................... 35
Interviewing Procedures ........................................................ 37
The Questionnaire ............................................................... 39
Data Analysis .................................................................... 40
Income Calculations .................................................... 41
Index Scores ............................................................ 41

CHAPTERIV

Results and Discussion
Division of the sample into food bank non—users, users
and past users .................................................................... 52
H01: Demographics ........................................................... 53
H02: Domestic Resource Management ..................................... 69
H03: Cash Value Available to Purchase Food ............................. 82
H04: Assistance Program Participation ..................................... 87
H05: Ingham County Food Bank ........................................... 100
H06: Informal Social Support Network .................................... 104
H07: Meal Skipping Due to Lack of Food ................................. 108
CHAPTER V
Summary and Recommendations
Summary of Results ............................................................ 114
Implications for Policy .......................................................... 118
Strengths and Limitations of the Study ....................................... 119
Suggestions for Future Research .............................................. 121
Strategies for Dissemination of the Findings ................................. 122
Conclusions ...................................................................... 123
LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................ 126
APPENDICES
A — Hunger and Emergency Food Assistance Bibliography ...................... 132
B - Food Closets Within the City of Lansing ....................................... 142
C - Conceptual Model of the Study Variables ...................................... 144
D — Boundary Maps of Selected School Attendance Areas ........................ 145
E - Pro-Survey Flyer .................................................................. 149
F -- Pre-Screening Questions .......................................................... 150
G — Informed Consent Form .......................................................... 151
H - UCRIHS Letter of Approval ..................................................... 152
I— Questionnaire ....................................................................... 153
J - Where the Subjects Obtained Information About What
Was Happening in Lansing ....................................................... 179
K - Sarnple Revised Questionnaire ................................................... 180

vi

Table 3.1.

Table 3.2.

Table 3.3.
Table 3.4.
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.

Table 4.3.

Table 4.4.

Table 4.5.

Table 4.6.
Table 4.7.
Table 4.8.

Table 4.9.

Table 4.10.

Table 4.11.

Table 4.12.

Table 4.13.

Table 4.14.

Table 4.15.

LIST OF TABLES

Questions considered for inclusion in the domestic resource

management index ............................................................... 45
Questions considered for inclusion in the social support network

index. ............................................................................. 46
Correlation matrix of domestic resource management variables ........... 48
Correlation matrix of social support network variables ..................... 49
Average composition of respondents' households .......................... 53
Demographics of households and families by food bank use status

of the single mother. ............................................................ 54
Sources and average amount of families' incomes in the month

before the interview. ............................................................ 55
Age, race, and marital status of low-income single mothers by food

bank use status ................................................................... 57
Education status of low-income single mothers by

food bank use status ............................................................ 58
1989 Federal poverty income guidelines by family size. ................... 61
Maximum 1989 monthly food stamp coupon allotments. .................. 61
Average frequency of household grocery shepping in the month

before the interview. ............................................................ 71
Frequency of household grocery purchases by food bank use status

of single mother. ................................................................ 71
The choice of primary grocery store by percentage (number) of
neighborhood residents in the sample ......................................... 74
Mean appliance and utility scores by food bank use status of single
mother. ........................................................................... 78
Average household expenditures for food in the last month by food

bank use status of the single mother. ......................................... 82
Adequacy of the households“ food stamp allotments by food bank

use status of the single mother ................................................. 85

Average number of assistance programs (other than food bank)
participated in by families, categorized by food bank use status of

the single mother. ............................................................... 91
The degree of multiple assistance program participation by families
in each food bank use category. ............................................... 91

Table 4.16.

Table 4.17.

Table 4.18.
Table 4.19.

Table 4.20.

Percentage (number) of respondents who had participated in the food
stamp and AFDC programs reporting being bothered or embarrassed
by their participation ............................................................ 94

Relationship between stigma associated with FS use and AFDC
participation by percentage (number) of respondents participating in

both programs ................................................................... 94
Where low-income, single mothers found out about the ICFB ............ 101
Average friend and family frequency of interaction indices of single

mothers by the woman's food bank use status .............................. 104

The relationship of mothers' meal skipping to childrens's meal
meal skipping in the month before the interview by percentage
(number) of the whole sample ................................................. 109

Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.11.

Figure 4.12

LIST OF FIGURES

Employment status of low-income single mothers as a percentage of

each food bank use category ................................................... 5 9
The direction of perceived income change over the last twelve

months by the proportion of women in each food bank use category ..... 63
Comparison of the racial composition of Lansing, Michigan, and the

study sample. .................................................................... 65
Percentage of food bank non-users, users and past users choosing

each store as their principal grocery store. ................................... 69
Primary transportation to the grocery store of food bank users, non-

users and past users ............................................................. 73

Perceived adequacy of food storage space by food bank use group. ..... 79

Proportion of subjects responding when asked whether or not they
were able to purchase enough food for their household with

available cash and food stamps. .............................................. 86
Assistance program participation of low-income single mothers and

their families by food bank use status ......................................... 88
Percentage (number) of children in each age group by food bank use
category ........................................................................... 89

Percentage (number) of respondents in each food bank use category
botheredor embarrassed by AFDC and food stamp program
participation. ..................................................................... 96

Where low-income, single mothers would turn first for help if they
needed food or help buying food by proportion of food bank use

categories ......................................................................... 103
Percentage of children and mothers skipping meals due to lack of
food in the home by food bank use category ................................. 110

CHAPTERI

Introduction

Food banks, food closets and food pantries are private, community-based
organizations which rely heavily on donations of food, money, and volunteer time to
provide a few days supply of groceries to people in need. These facilities are a temporary
stop-gap measure for households without food and with no place else to turn for help.
Perhaps surprisingly, emergency food assistance requests through food banks have been
increasing nationwide despite reports in recent years of an improving economy (eg., Bread
for the World, 1985; Contra Costa County Hunger Task Force, 1987; The Maryland Food
Committee, 1988; Minnesota Food Education and Resource Center, 1985; Project Bread
Hunger Hotline et a1, 1987). In 1989, emergency food requests to the Ingham County
Food Bank (ICFB) in Lansing, Michigan, came in from an average of 1,719 households
per month, an increase of 17% over the average of 1,465 requests per month in 1988 (M.
Kieselbach, personal communication, February 2, 1990). Use of the ICFB reached a
previous all-time high of 1,666 households a month in 1983, which was the bottom of the
most recent economic recession in the state.

A request for emergency food assistance identifies a family in crisis. The crisis,
characterized by no food in the home, might be the culmination of one or more chronic
problems within the family or household, such as underemployment, low educational
attainment, lack of adequate food storage or preparation facilities, or barriers to maximum
participation in the social welfare system. Or the crisis might be the outcome of an acute
event which drains resources already depleted by err-going problems. A medical

emergency not covered by insurance, a high housing or utility bill, or divorce or

1

abandonment are examples of potentially resource-draining events (eg., Contra Costa
County Hunger Task Force, 1987; Governor's Task Force on Hunger, 1988; Interim
Study Committee on Hunger and Nutrition in South Carolina, 1986; Oregon Food Share,
1986; Project Bread Hunger Hotline, 1986; The Task Force on Hunger, 1985). Whatever
the cause, it is unlikely the family's food crisis occurred overnight.

No published studies have been located which specifically examine why some low-
income families reach a point where they turn to a food bank, while comparable families do
not. Several studies in the research literature have examined low-income families in
relation to other assistance programs such as the Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants and Children (W1C), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC or ADC), or
food stamps (e.g., Emmons, 1986; MacDonald, 1985; Rush et al, 1988; Stuart, 1975).
Other reports, primarily by community- or govemment-based organizations, provide
profiles of hungry people and/or emergency assistance in a specific area of the country (see
Appendix A). However, no research has been found regarding the following relevant
questions: 1) What, if any, characteristics or behaviors differ between families that do not
use the food bank and families that do? 2) What appear to be the most prevalent chronic
factors present in a family or household which might lead up to food bank use? 3) Are
there families who should be turning to the food bank in times of distress who are not
doing so, and if not, why not?

This exploratory study was undertaken to look at factors which might differentiate
low-income food bank users and non-users, such as issues related to the management of
food resources in the household, social welfare system participation, informal social
support, demographics, and selected hunger indicators. The results might be used by local
social service and assistance agencies to screen for families at risk for a potential food crisis
in the home, to improve interventions for at—risk families, and to reach at-risk families not
yet in any assistance system. Information obtained on the needs and experiences of both

the user and non-user families might also be used by agencies such as the ICFB, the

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), and WIC as another weapon
in the ongoing battle for limited county, state, and federal dollars.

Food Bank Use in Ingham County, Michigan

The ICFB is a tax-exempt, non-profit organization made up of a system of 34 "food
closets" or distribution centers throughout Ingham County. Twenty-one of the closets are
located within the city limits of Lansing, the geographic area of interest within the county
(see Appendix B). The food closets are all run by volunteers . The ICFB also has a central
office with three full-time paid and several volunteer staff members and a warehouse from
which donated and purchased food is distributed to the individual closets. All applicants
for assistance are screened through the central office, where a record is kept on a recipient
data form of all assistance requests. Eligibility is determined on an individual basis.
Names and social security numbers of all the adults in the household must be provided and
some form of identification must be shown by the individual picking up the food from the
food closet. An individual or household can receive assistance from the ICFB up to five
times a year, but no more than once in any thirty day period, except under extenuating
circumstances verified by someone such as a Department of Social Services (DSS)
caseworker, school counselor, or Public Health nurse. If requests for assistance are
received from an individual or household three months in a row, they might be asked to
participate in EFNEP, see a budget counselor, or participate in a garden project sponsored
by the ICFB.

There appears to be a large gap between actual food bank use and potential need in
Ingham County. Potential need for the purposes of this study was defined as number of
persons living near, at or below the federal poverty threshold. In 1989, the ICFB supplied
three to six day emergency food packages to an average of approximately 5,150 individuals
per month (M. Kieselbach, personal communication, February 2, 1990). This was at a

time when there were over 33,000 persons in Ingham County living below 100% of the
federal poverty level and over 44,000 living below 125% of the poverty level (13.2% and
17.4%, respectively, of the county's population) (Bureau of the Census, 1983).

Therefore, there were over 38,000 individuals not using the ICFB in any given month who
were potential users. Not everyone living below 125 % of poverty is at risk for running out
of food, but clearly there are a great number of people in Ingham County "living on the
brink" financially.

Prior studies conducted in several locations around the United States, including
Ingham County, have created profiles of food bank users (Appendix A). Using data from
a random selection of ICFB intake sheets from 1985, Dahl (1986) and Wu (1986)
determined that 75% of the ICFB users were getting food stamps, 46% received AFDC,
and 11% had at least a part-time jobl. Obviously, although use of the ICFB might have
been a consequence of poverty, it did not necessarily reflect non-participation in social
programs or even unemployment.

In Ingham County, the typical food bank user household (S four times per year)
was found to be a single-parent family with two children (Dahl, 1986). Almost 90% of the
single-parent households with children in the city of Lansing are headed by a woman (U .8.
Bureau of the Census, 1983). It was therefore assumed for the purposes of this study that
an equally high percentage of the single-parent households using the Ingham County Food
Bank (ICFB) are headed by women. Children under 18 years old made up fifty-four
percent of the "typical" ICFB users in the Dahl study and 55% of the"frequent" (2 five
times a year) ICFB users in the Wu (1986) study. Another study conducted in the same
year (Howard, 1986), using a random sample of 179 intake records of ICFB users, found
that 64% of the individuals served in those cases were children .

 

1 Recent figures for 1989 showed that 54% of ICFB users received food stamps, 34% were on AFDC, and
16% were employed at least part-time (M. Kieselbach, personal communication, February 2, 1990).

Although not the focus of this study, the fact that low-income women and young
children are potentially at risk for the consequences of nutritional deficit cannot be ignored.
An acute food crisis in the home necessitating use of the food bank is not necessarily
synonymous with nutritional risk. However, poor young children in the United States
have been shown in previous studies to exhibit low height-for-age, a sign of possible
chronic nutritional deficit (Jones, N esheim & Habicht, 1985; Owen, Kram, Nelson &
Montalvo, 1969). Young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of
undemutrition because they are going through a period of rapid growth and development.
In women of child-bearing age, the greatest consequence of possible undemutrition due to
chronic lack of food is the risk present to any children they may conceive (eg., Als,
Tronick, Adamson & Brazelton, 1976; Habicht, Yarbrough, Lechtig & Klein, 1973;
Lubin, Bonner & Schrock, 1980). Therefore, families with a female single parent and at
least one child age six years or under were selected as the focus of this study because:

1) low-income, single mothers and their children appear to be the predominant users of the
ICFB; 2) the need to turn to the food bank might be a sign of a chronically low food
supply in the home exacerbated by an acute crisis; and 3) young children and women of

child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to the potential effects of undemutrition.

Operational Definitions

Domestic resource management — the manner in which the household's food and
food purchasing resources are handled; includes factors such as choice of food store, size
effect on food cost, brand preference, food shopping proficiency, frequency of shopping
and adequacy of food storage, major appliances and utilities.

Social welfare resource management — the extent to which a family participates in
all social welfare programs for which it might be eligible; affected by barriers to
participation such as stigma or lack of knowledge about a particular program.

Informal social support - the extent to which a person's material needs (ie., money,
food, transportation), informational needs (ie., advice, referrals) and/or socioemotional
needs (companionship, security, sense of worth) are met by her network of friends and
family.

Federal poverty threshold/Poverty level/Poverty line — the level of household
income equal to three times the cost of the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan; varies according to
number of family members and place of residence. Updated each February to account for
changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Income - before tax cash receipts from all sources, including money borrowed or
used from savings; does not include non-cash benefits, such as food stamps and WIC.

Low-income - family or household income at or below 185% of the federal
poverty threshold. Some studies reviewed defined low-income as either those in the lowest
income quartile of their study or below the poverty threshold and may or may not include
government assistance benefits.

Poor - having a family or household income, before or after receipt of government
benefits, at or below 100% of the federal poverty threshold.

Poorest of the poor - having a family or household income, before or after receipt
of government benefits, at or below 50% of the federal poverty threshold.

Food security - access at all times, through normal food channels, to enough
nutritionally adequate food for an active, healthy life. (Select Committee on Hunger, 1989;
World Bank, 1986).

Family -- all closely related individuals within a household; can include parents,
siblings, children, grandchildren, and wards of the Respondent. Does not include relatives
such as aunts, uncles, cousins, or grandparents.

Household - all persons, related or not, who live in the same house and regularly
buy food and share meals together.

CHAPTERII

Review of the Literature

When an attempt is made to uncover why a low-income household must reach out
for emergency assistance, it becomes evident that there are many factors at work, each one
of which might interact with any of the other factors. This study focused on what
conditions might lead to a food crisis in a very specific type of family, what activities are
undertaken to avoid running out of food, and what actions the family takes when and if it
does run out of food. The first section of this review of the relevant literature examines
from a demographic standpoint why single mothers with young children are a group at risk
for poverty and therefore possess increased potential for a food crisis in the home. The
second, third and fourth sections of the literature review examine the behaviors and
characteristics other than demographics which were selected for examination in this stud --
the management of domestic food resources in low-income households, the management of
social welfare resources by low-income families, and informal social support networks and

help-seeking behavior among single and low-income mothers.

EB'l-S' llll .11: CHI

Single mothers and their children are at a high risk for poverty, especially if the
women are divorced, separated or never married (as opposed to widowed). Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is a federal means-tested entitlement program
developed to assist financially troubled single parent families. However, in Michigan, if a

single mother has to rely solely on AFDC and food stamps to provide for her family and

the family qualifies for maximum benefits from both programs, the family's income will
still be at only 82% of the poverty threshold (Shapiro & Greenstein, 1988).

According to estimates based on a sample survey by the US. Census Bureau
(1987), 23% of all families in the United States with children under age 18 at home are
headed by a woman: 18% of white families, 54% of African American families, and 29%
of Hispanic farrrilies. Twenty-eight percent of families headed by single women include
children under the age of six. The number of female headed households with children has
increased 136% since 1970.

This more than doubling of female-headed families with children in the United
States built on a trend that was seen starting in 1960 (Norton and Glick, 1986). Drawing
primarily on early to mid-1980's US. census data, Norton and Glick constructed the
following "social and economic profile" of single parent families. Eighty-eight percent of
these families nationwide are headed by women; 60% of the female-headed single parent
families have incomes which place them below the poverty line. This rate of poverty is
more than twice that of families headed by a single father. About one-third of all female—
headed families with children under 18 years of age in the United States are headed by an
African American woman. This is approximately one—half of all African American families
with young children. Only 15% of white families with young children are headed by a
single woman. Never married women make up 20% of the single mothers, an increase of
500% from 1970, but the number of women who have become single parents through
widowhood has mhnw by over 20% during the same time period.

According to Norton and Glick's (1986) analysis, twenty-eight percent of female
single parents are not likely to have a high school diploma (a decline from 48% in 1970)
and 46% are unlikely to have gone on for even one more year of education after high
school. Only 8% of female single parents are likely to have at least a four year college
degree. Fifty-three percent of lone mothers with any preschoolers and 45% with any
children under three years of age are working. Divorced mothers are more likely to be

working than never married mothers, white mothers more likely than African American
mothers.

Data from the 1979 decennial census showed that in Lansing, Michigan, women
headed 28% of all families with children under the age of 18 in the home, a somewhat
higher percentage than national estimates of 23% (U .S. Bureau of the Census, 1983).
Sixty-five percent of these families were headed by white women and 30% by African
American women. The mean yearly income of these female-headed families was
approximately $10,200.00 (1979 dollars), but forty-three percent of these families had
incomes which placed them below the 1979 poverty threshold. Twenty-eight percent of
these families had children below the age of six present and incomes below the poverty
threshold .

In 1986, the median income for female headed families in the United States was
estimated to be $14,280. This amount was 54% of the median income for households
headed by a single male and 43% of the median income for households headed by a
married couple (U .8. Bureau of the Census, 1987).

A woman with children can become a single mother for several reasons - divorce,
separation, widowhood, or having children out-of-wedlock. In 1986, 52% of the African
American single mothers heading families in the United States had never married, 43%
were divorced or separated and 5% were widowed. In that same year, 75 % of the white
single mothers heading families were separated or divorced, 17% had never married and
7% were widowed (US. Bureau of the Census, 1987).

Divorce or separation can have a devastating effect on the income status of the
household. Weiss (1984), using data from the University of Michigan's Panel Study of
Income Dynamics (PSID), followed for five years the income and consumption patterns of
a samme of divorced and separated mothers with children under 18 living in the household.
He compared them to a married sample drawn from the P811) data set. Regardless of

income status before the dissolution of the marriage, divorce or separation brought about a

10

dramatic drop in income for the woman. In the first year after the break-up, income was
reduced by 55% for those women in the upper income levels, by 44% for those at the
middle income level, and by 23% for those with the lowest pre-break-up incomes. On the
average, once the incomes dropped they did not rise for the duration of the time period
studied; however, it must be noted that the incomes also did not tend to drop farther. On
the other hand, the incomes of the women who were married for the duration of the study
rose steadily over the five years. The husband's income accounted for an average of 80%
of the income in these households. The incomes of all the separated or divorced mothers
averaged half those of the still married women by the end of the five years. This income
decline was especially devastating for the low-income single mothers, who started out the
study with incomes at about three-fourths of their manied counterparts.

Income has been shown to be the single greatest determinant of food expenditure in
the household. Hermann (1964), in developing an economic model to explain the variance
in household food expenditures, found that 23% of the variance was explained by
household income. Therefore, marital status can jeopardize food availability to the family
through its effect on income.

Although there appears to be a dearth of literature specific to the economic status of
families with children headed by never-married women, the logical assumption can be
made that their financial outlook is as bleak as, if not worse than, that of families with a
divorced or separated single mother. Some factors figuring into this might be lack of a
source of child support, interrupted education, and limited work experience before the birth
of the first child, particularly if the woman was a teenage mother (Wilson, 1988).

Women who become mothers for the first time while still adolescents are at
particular risk for economic problems. A longitudinal study was conducted in Baltimore
comparing women who were unwed mothers in their teens with both classmates and same
age women from several national surveys (Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn & Morgan, 1987).

In 1984, seventeen years after the beginning of the study, the teenage mothers were still not

11

as likely to have their high school diploma or equivalent as their classmates and they were
also less likely to have completed school than women in the national surveys who delayed
childbearing until their twenties. At the 1984 follow-up less than one-quarter of the teenage
mothers had never been married. However, of those that had ever married, 44% were
currently divorced and another 6% had been married more than once. Women from the
national studies who had their first child later demonstrated more permanence in their
relationships and were more likely to be married and less likely to be divorced.

When examining the welfare dependence of the teen mothers, the researchers found
that although 29% had received welfare in the year before the 1984 follow-up, only 12% of
the entire sample had received public assistance for the entire study period. In this
population, the most significant determinants of being on welfare in 1984 at the 17 year
follow-up included: a) 9th grade education or less, p = .001; b) being below expected
grade level at time of first pregnancy, p = .003; c) having two or more additional children
within five years of the first, p = .03; and d) not being married within five years of the first
birth, p = .03. Receiving welfare during the five years after the first birth and not being a

high school graduate were significant at the p = .12 and p = .15 levels, respectively.

W
A large part of managing a family's or household's domestic or in-house food
resources is the actual process of obtaining the food. Hammett and Van de Mark (1973)
pointed out that food buying is a "complex procedure", but concluded that low-income (as
well as experience and family stability) is related to frequently making routine purchase
choices which bypass some of the more complicated decision-making steps. A large body
of research literature exists focusing on the low—income consumer and basic aspects of food

shopping decisions-ie.,overall food purchasing proficiency, store choice, package size,

brand preference, and frequency of shopping. This will be the focus of this section of the

12

review of the literature. It must be noted that much of the research in this area was
conducted ten to twenty-five years ago, when advocacy for the poor was an area of
tremendous interest in the United States. This does not, however, denigrate the value of
this research in explaining the basic food shopping behaviors of today's low-income
consumer.

Although preplanning of food purchases using a shopping list or through menu
planning are assumed in home economics to be an important part of the food purchasing
process, an extensive search of the consumer, home economics, and dietetics literature
failed to uncover any studies concerning the efficacy of these activities as related to
expenditures of either time or money. These two processes appear not to have been the
central focus of any organized research, although they have been peripherally examined in
the research literature as a part of the total food purchasing process (eg., Anderson, 1988;
Koh, 1978; Suter & Barbour, 1975; Sinkula, 1984; Verma, Montgomery & Cyrus, 1987).

[1 ll E l S] . E t] .

When it comes to food, low-income, female heads of households are apparently
able to make "econorrrical purchases of what they ordinarily buy" (p. 50) according to a
study in Riley County, Kansas, by Barney and Morse (1967). This ability was assessed
by comparing what the homemakers actually spent on a typical shopping trip, usually
shopping at only one store, with what college students who were seniors in home
economics determined the same list of items would cost after comparison shopping at two
stores. Students could substitute brands, but nothing else. The low-income homemakers
spent 7% less than what the students estimated the foods would cost (p S .01, ANOVA),
indicating that the women had better "buymanship" skills than the supposedly highly
educawd and well-trained students.

When a household has limited food buying resources, it is not only important that

the homemaker shop economically, but that she also get the maximum nutrient return per

13

dollar spent on food. In examining data from over 14,000 households in the Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Peterkin and Hama (1983) found that the low-income
households (0-99% of the poverty threshold) had a higher nutrient return per dollar than
households with higher incomes. However, these low-income households were still less
likely than those with higher incomes to attain recommended levels of the nutrients studied.
Apparently this was because, with smaller weekly food expenditures, they had to purchase
less food (Morgan, Peterkin, Johnson & Goungetas, 1985). This had been seen earlier by
Barney and Morse (1967), who found that honremakers in their study spent just slightly
more than half of what was necessary to purchase the U.S.D.A.'s Low-Cost Food Plan for
their families. This finding was taken as an indication that the homemakers had insufficient
food monies to purchase an adequate diet for their familiesl. From the above studies, it
appears that many low-income homemakers, although not able to provide their families
with what might be considered optimal in terms of nutrient intake, are managing the best

they can with limited resources.

An important question addressed primarily through descriptive studies in the late
1960's and the 1970's was whether the poor, particularly the urban poor, paid more for
food than higher income consumers. It was hypothesized that perhaps the large grocery
store chains charged more for food in the inner-city than in the suburbs. Another theory
was that the poor had less access to large stores due to lack of transportation, which forced
them to shop at expensive small neighborhood markets or convenience stores. Under these
circumstances the low-income shepper would be affected by what Kunreuther (1973)
referred to as the "store effect" in the pricing of any given food item. He defined store

effect as the difference in price for the same size item between small and large stores.

 

1 No comparison appears to have been made, however, between the homemakers food expenditures and the
cost for their families of the U.S.D.A.'s Thrifty Food Plan, which is the estimated amount of food
necessary for a minimally adequate diet.

14

Karnmcr and Shawhan (1970) compared similar-sized food stores in low- and high-
irrcome areas of Cincinnati, but found no significant differences in the prices charged for a
market-basket of 57 items. The authors concluded that prices were the same at similar
types of stores regardless of location. However, they did find that prices varied between
different types of stores, with convenience stores charging the most.

In a 1968 study conducted in Philadelphia (Goodman,1968), a sample of residents
in an urban redevelopment area were surveyed regarding the food stores in which they
shopped. The average cost of a market-basket of food items at these stores was
determined. It was found that 92% of the respondents reported doing their principal
grocery shopping outside of the area in which they lived. Eighty-one percent shopped at
large chain supermarkets as opposed to medium-sized independent stores or small "mom-
and-pop" type stores, even though there were no chain supermarkets located within the
study area. Almost half (45%) of the study participants drove to the store where they did
most of their grocery shopping, while 55% walked or used public transportation. This
appeared to demonstrate a willingness to spend time and/or money to travel some distance
for an affordable food source.

The most frequently stated reasons for shopping at a particular store by the
respondents in the survey by Goodman (1968) were price (52%) and quality (42%),
followed by location (28%). Fifty-one percent stated they believed the large supermarkets
had lower prices relative to the other types of stores in the study. Surprisingly, one of the
medium-sized independent stores within the study area had the lowest average prices of the
twelve stores examined. Three of the four independent stores regularly patronized had
lower average prices than the large chain supermarkets. The small neighborhood markets
were 10-15% more expensive than the other stores studied. Only two-fifths of the
respondents reported using the small stores (all located within the study area) even as a

secondary shopping resource. These shoppers used the small stores three or more times a

15

week, but typically bought less than three types of goods, indicating that use of these types
of stores was on an "emergency" or "fill-in" basis.

Studies conducted in other cities have supported these findings. Berry and
Solomon (1971) studied choice of store in a low-income, primarily Mexican-American area
of Denver. Although there were no supermarkets within walking distance of the center of
the area studied, 65% of the respondents made the effort to shop regularly at chain
supermarkets located on the edge or outside of the study area. Again, the two most
important factors mentioned for choosing a particular store were price (55%) and quality
(32%), followed by location (29%). Sixty-four percent of the sample used automobile
transportation to get to the store, either their own car or riding with someone else.

Boone and Bonno (1971) found that the consumers most frequently patronizing the
small neighborhood markets in a small southern city were those living in extreme poverty.
Convenience, friendship, and availability of credit were named as the primary reasons for
patronizing these stores. The shoppers in this group also indicated that they realized that
they were paying higher prices than if they shopped somewhere else. Shoppers actually
paid 6%-12% more than at the lowest priced chain supermarkets or medium-sized
independents in the study. Boone and Bonno concluded that low-income households did
indeed pay more if they shopped at the small neighborhood stores, but that in many cases
people shopped there by choice and not out of necessity.

The higher cost of shopping at convenience stores appears to be supported by
Campbell and Desjardins (1987) in their intensive study of the management of food
resources by 2010w—income Canadian families. A positive correlation was found between
frequency of shopping in convenience stores and weekly per capita food expenditures
(r=.421, p=.06), indicating a strong trend toward higher food costs for the family the more
often convenience stores were patronized.

However, it appears that the poorest of the poor usually choose not to shop at

convenience stores, even though they are the group least likely to own an automobile

16

(Alexis, Simon, & Smith, 1969). In a study in Rochester, New York, it was found that
although only 22.5% of the respondents in the $O-$3,000 income bracket owned cars, as
opposed to 72.5% of those in the $3,001-SS,000 low-income bracket, the choice of store
type did not differ significantly between the two groups. Fifty-nine percent of the low-
income group as a whole tended to shop at chain stores and 33% did their grocery
shopping at independent neighborhood markets. This was significantly different from the
middle and high income consumers in the study, where over three-quarters of both these
groups did their major food shopping in chain supermarkets (X2 = 23.2, p S .01).

From these studies on choice of food store, it can be seen that urban, low-income
consumers do pay more for food if they shop at small, neighborhood markets or
convenience stores. However, the majority of shoppers make an effort to access less
expensive (or perceived less expensive) large stores, even if they have to go outside their
immediate neighborhood to do so. Additionally, these consumers have access to some
form of transportation, primarily automobiles,,for shopping. If any group uses the
expensive, small neighborhood markets as their primary shopping location, it is likely to be
the poorest of the poor. They appear to do so not only because of easy access, but because
of friendship with the store owner and, in some areas, availability of credit. But even this

poorest group will shop at a larger, more economical store if they can.

W

The particular store a person shops in is not the only reason a consumer might pay
more for food items. Pricing also tends to be affected by what Kunreuther (1973) termed
the "size effect" or "the differences in price per ounce for various sizes of a particular brand
item within any given store" (p. 369). When looking at the size effect on pricing of eight
commonly purchased items in 11 large and 11 small stores, he found that with only one
exception in the large stores and three exceptions in the small stores, the average price per

ounce did indeed decline as the size of the package increased. Savings, if the largest size

17

was purchased rather than the smallest, ranged from 15% to 50%. Frank, Douglas, and
Polli (1967) found that household income and education of the household head were
negatively correlated with purchasing small sizes of items, as were brand loyalty and total
amount of the item purchased over time. Average price paid per unit and the number of
adults in the household tended to be positively correlated with purchasing smaller sizes.

Kunreuther measured size effect in a survey of middle-income and low-income
consumers in New Haven, Connecticut, by using a ratio of actual size purchased1 to the
number of sizes thought to be available by the particular shopper. The low-income
respondents had the lowest ratio for seven of the eight items studied. This indicated that
even though the low-income shoppers were aware that there was a variety of sizes to
choose from, they tended to purchase the smaller sizes. Seventy-two percent of the low-
incorne homemakers indicated that they knew large size packages usually cost less per
ounce. However, low-income consumers, when considering which size of an item to
purchase, must make several decisions. They must decide how much of their food budget
they can spend for a particular item, how much storage space they have available,
household consumption rates, and even if they are able to get larger sizes home if they did
not come to the store by car. Over half of the low-income shoppers (59% vs. 13% of the
middle-income shoppers) felt they had inadequate storage space, and 42% walked to their
principal grocery store.

Other interesting findings in this study included that, although the size of the low-
income families was an average of 1.2 persons larger than the middle-income families, the
low-income households averaged less spent per week on groceries than the middle-income
households ($36.60 vs. $39.40). Also, more than 60% of the total low-income population
showed at small local grocers.

Although the scope of this study was limited, it demonstrated a tendency for low-

 

1 '1" equaling the smallest size available to m equaling the largest size available

18

income families to purchase small sizes of food items, even though they were aware that
this was more expensive than buying the larger sizes when they were available. These
consumers, when compared to middle-income consumers, appeared to be influenced by

smaller food budgets, less available storage space, and lack of automobile transportation.

BtandErcfetence
Another factor affecting the actual food purchasing decision is brand preference.

N ational brands generally cost more than private store brands or generic items. Coe
(1971), using a list of 25 commonly purchased grocery items, studied and compared the
brand preferences and loyalties of middle- and low-income consumers. Eighty-nine
percent of the low-income group indicated that their regular purchases from this group of
foods were of national brand items, as opposed to 58% of the purchases of the middle-
income group. There were eight items that, if someone from the low-income group
purchased them, they only purchased a national brand.

Through anecdotal comments of the respondents it was found that the low-income
shoppers were generally aware that the national brands were more expensive. A known
brand name and higher price were equated with quality by this group. These consumers
felt "protected" by the fact that the national producers were willing to keep their products in
the public eye through extensive advertising. The middle-income consumers, on the other
hand, felt that the higher prices on the national brands were due to the cost of the
advertising and that unknown store brands were not only less expensive, but were just as
"safe". This group felt protected by consumer protections laws and regulations.

In contrast, Sanjur and colleagues (1979), when studying food expenditures and
consumption of 576 urban and rural low-income EFNEP families in New York state,
found that the honremakers in the study listed price most frequently (44%) as the factor
influencing food purchasing decision, not brand preference (29%). These two reasons

were followed by amount of the product needed for the week (19%), food quality (17%),

l9

sale items (16%), and amount of spendable money (8%). When the researchers examined
in more detail the influence of brand preference on the purchase decision, only when
purchasing fish or grain products were the homemakers more likely to purchase national
brands than store brands (level of significance not given).

W

Frequency of shopping has been hypothesized to have an effect on family food
expenditures. The twenty families in the Campbell and Desjardins study (1987) shopped
for food on an average of six days during the two weeks examined. The researchers found
no difference in cost per capita or cost per meal between those families that bought most of
their food in one or two large shopping trips and those that made many small trips. It was
poinwd out that transporting the groceries home can be a major barrier to engaging in large
shopping trips. Only one family in their small sample population had a car. The most
prevalent means of getting to the store was walking.

Families who shop more often might not be spending any more money than
infrequent shoppers because they do not have more money to spend. But are frequent and
infrequent shoppers getting the same "value" for their food dollars? Block and Kellerman
(1977), after studying the food purchasing and consumption practices of 289 low-income,
rural households in Missouri, developed a measure of "food shopping efficiency" (the
Daily Recommended Food Servings Efficiency or DRSE), which evaluated "how well the
households met their nutritional needs given their limited financial resources" (p. 257).
This measure took into account how well the household met the consumption standards of
the recommended servings from the basic four food groups (USDA, 1958), as well as the
amount of money spent on food. Using multiple regression, with the DRSE as the
dependent variable, the researchers found that shopping less than once a week had a
significant, positive relationship with greater shopping efficiency (p<.05). They

hypothesized that this might have been due to one or more factors, such as more careful

20

planning, less impulse buying, taking advantage of economy-of-size savings by purchasing

larger sizes, more home production, or the purchase of fewer perishable items.

The research presented above on the management of domestic food resources
demonstrates that low-income consumers are able to shop efficiently for what they
ordinarily buy and that they make an effort to access low cost food sources. The poorest
consumers appear to be those most likely to shop at local markets and convenience stores,
but they tend to do so out of choice, not necessity. Low-income consumers as a group,
however, are more likely than higher income consumers to purchase smaller size packages
and national brands. Both these practices have the effect of increasing food costs.
Shopping less than once per week, although it does not affect total amount of food dollars
spent for food, appears to be an important factor in the household getting the most nutrition
for available food dollars.

Wm

Participation by a low-income household in one or more government assistance
programs for which members of the household are eligible can be viewed as a positive step
toward increasing the household's disposable income. This increase in income can be
accomplished either through an actual cash transfer to the household, as with Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC or ADC), or by freeing up household monies by
providing in-kind benefits which cover some of the basic needs of the household. Food
stamps (FS) and the Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Food Program (WIC) are
major food-related, in—kind benefit programs. Other programs which directly benefit the
children in the household--such as free or reduced price school lunch, Headstart meals, and
the summer school feeding program--reduce the direct demand on home food supplies.
Another program, the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is

unique in that it does not offer material assistance, but provides low-income homemakers

21

with the knowledge and skills necessary to better use limited food dollars to give their

families the most nutritious, low-cost meals possible.

“1.1!. E E"'

In Michigan, if a family with no other income source received the maximum AFDC
and food stamp allotments allowed in 1987, they would still be living at only 82% of the
poverty threshold (Shapiro & Greenstein, 1988). If a three person family were living on
AFDC alone, their maximum benefit would only have brought them up to 56% of the
poverty threshold. Being on AFDC in Michigan does, however, automatically qualify the
family for Medicaid benefits.

Multiple assistance program participation among the low-income population appears
to be the norm rather than the exception, particularly if food stamps are one of the programs
being used by the household. Long (1988) in her analysis of April 1984 panel data from
the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) found that 95% of the households
which contained at least one person receiving food stamps (FS households) also were
participating in at least one other government assistance program. Sixty-six percent of FS
households were participating in four or more assistance programs, a proportion twice that
of the study's low-income population as a whole. Long calculated that, for the average FS
household, 84% of the poverty gap1 was closed by the income from in-kind and cash
government benefit programs

Long's (1988) results showed that the FS households participating in the largest
number of programs had lower incomes before and higher incomes after receiving benefits
from the programs than those FS households that used relatively fewer programs. Each
additional program a household used increased household income by approximately
$132.00 per month. Over 60% of the FS households that participated in a total of six or
more assistance programs (including food stamps) had incomes above poverty after the

 

1 ”The difference between actual pre-transfer cash income and the poverty level." (Weinberg, 1986)

22

income transfers were received, as opposed to only 43% of the FS households participating
in one to three programs. It must be noted, however, that it was the households with
disabled or elderly members which were most likely to move out of poverty and not
households headed by a single mother or even two-parent households.

Another study of the April 1984 SIPP data set (Weinberg, 1987) examined
government assistance program use by "pre-transfer" poor female-headed single parent
households1 in more detail. This researcher found that 86% of these households were
receiving at least some government assistance income, 58% of them receiving AFDC.
Thirty-one percent were participating in a combination of AFDC, food stamps and
Medicaid and another 22% were using these three programs plus at least one other
program.

Emmons (1986) studied govemment and emergency (private) food program
participation of a non-random sample of 76 low-income urban families that were on both
food stamps and AFDC and had at least one child under age three. Ninety percent of the
families were headed by single women. When examining participation by the families in
other food and meal programs over the course of a month, she found that 71% participated
in at least one other food or meal program, such as WIC, T'EFAP (federal surplus
commodities), Headstart, school lunch or breakfast, or emergency foods. Twenty-one
percent of the families, all of whom were supposedly "caught in the safety net" of
government benefit programs, had to use emergency food programs at least once during the
month. These sixteen families used emergency foods a total of 36 times. Thirty-three of
these occurrences were visits to a food closet and three to soup kitchens. Because of the
biases inherent in non-random sample selection, it is not known whether these families

were representative of the population as a whole or not.

 

1 Households which had yearly incomes at or below the Federal poverty level before the receipt of
government assistance

23

It can be seen from the above studies that multiple program participation is
important, especially for those families who rely on govemment benefits as their main
source of income. However, even with the use of multiple programs, a single-parent
family is not likely to have an income which brings it up to the official poverty threshold

and it might still be at risk for a food crisis in the home due to its low income.

E E El] . E E . . .

An individual might not participate in a particular assistance program for which s/he
is eligible if the assistance is not needed or is not perceived as being needed. However,
there might also be barriers to participation present. Nine hundred and forty-nine
households from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSlD) were found to be eligible for
food stamps in 1979 (Coe, 1983). However, 54.6% of these eligible households did not
participate in the food stamp program that year. Thirty-eight percent of the eligible, non-
participating households thought that they did not meet the eligibility requirements; 13%
said they did not need food stamps; 11% had been told they were ineligible; 8% cited
stigma as a barrier to participation and another 8% cited administrative hassles. Only 4% of
the respondents gave knowing nothing about the eligibility requirements as their reason for
non-participation and only 1% felt that the benefits were to low too bother applying for. It
was clear from these figures that informational problems, particularly those concerning
program eligibility, were a major barrier to program participation.

Further analysis using dummy variable regression found that participation in AFDC
or general assistance (GA) was positively associated with participation in the food stamp
program (p 5 .01), as was the number of children in the household under the age of 18
(p 5 .01). AFDC or GA recipients were 51% more likely to participate in the food stamp
program than someone not receiving public assistance income. Thirty-eight percent of the
variance was accounted for by the fact that these households were less likely to feel they

did not meet some non-financial criteria. Another 13% was accounted for by the fact that

24

AFDC and GA recipients were less likely to feel there was a stigma attached to food stamp
use.

The number of hours worked in a year by the household head (p 5 .05), the
household head's level of education (p 5 .01), and the monthly household income
(p 5 .01) all had a significant negafiye impact on food stamp program participation. Those
households where the head worked more than 1500 hours a year or where there was other
outside income were likely to not participate because they thought the household was
ineligible for food stamps. Household heads with the highest levels of education, although
possessing more information about program eligibility than their less well-educated
counterparts, tended to have negative attitudes toward the program.

Wyers (1977) defined stigma as "loss of face, dignity, self-respect, and/or social
acceptance which occurs as a result of exposing a personal blemish or handicap" (p. 956).
He made the point that it is not the action per se, i.e. receiving assistance, that is the stigma,
but "it is the evaluation of others that produces the stigmatizing effect, the 'spoiled
identity' " (p. 958). It is generally believed that the stigma attached to receiving public
assistance accounts for a large proportion of non-participation in assistance programs. It
might therefore be surprising that perceived stigma in the use of food stamps accounted
directly for only 8% of the non-participation in the above study. However, the researchers
showed that stigma worked through other variables as well, such as education level of the
household head.

Stuart found in his 1975 study of assistance recipients in Hartford, Connecticut,
that stigma was significantly related to the particular program in which the individual was
participating (X2 = 18.80, p < .025). When asked how distressed they had felt when
applying for the program, 67% of the food stamp recipients said they had not been
bothered at all, but only 33% of the AFDC recipients said it had not bothered them to apply
for that program. Stuart's data showed that the greater stigma attached to the AFDC
program might have been due, at least in part, to the respondents' perception of how well

25

their needs were met by the program and how fairly they felt they had been treated when
originally applying. Only 23% of the AFDC recipients felt their needs were well met by that
program and only 29% felt that the person taking the applications treated everyone equally.
This was in contrast to the food stamp recipients, 67% of whom felt their needs were being
met by the program and 77% of whom felt that there was no favoritism shown by workers
taking applications. Additionally, Stuart asked participants in the study whether they
thought the assistance they were receiving was a right they had as citizens or was charity.
Almost two-thirds of both the AFDC and food stamp subjects stated that they felt it was a
right to which they were entitled.

When Goodban (1985) asked a sample of 100 African American, single mothers
receiving AFDC whether they were ever embarrassed or ashamed about receiving AFDC or
food stamps, sixty-one said they were at least sometimes ashamed of being on AFDC.
However, only thirty-six replied that shame or embarrassment was a problem with food
stamps. Goodban also found that those who were not embarrassed about being on AFDC
were also not stigmatized by participation in the food stamp program (r = .60, p = .0001).
Several women in the study voluntarily mentioned that they were not embarrassed by using
food stamps because they knew that they were fulfilling a "basic need", ie.-food, for both
themselves and their children.

Although the studies by Stuart (1975) and Goodban (1985) only examined people
who were already participating in the assistance programs, they appear to have uncovered
the fact that there are differing levels of stigma attached to participation in the AFDC and
food stamp programs. That such a high proportion of the AFDC participants in both
studies felt stigmatized by that program is difficult to generalize to the rest of the low-
income population. However, it can be hypothesized that the participating mothers might
have been in such dire straits that the perceived social and psychological costs of being on
welfare were outweighed by the utility of the benefits of participation (Moffitt, 1983).

Choosing to participate, however, might not mitigate the non-economic costs. Moffitt also

26

found that a woman's initial decision to go on AFDC was affected by perceived stigma, but
once the woman was on welfare there was no additional stigmatizing effect as a result of
her participation.

Household income can be a significant barrier to participation in the AFDC
program, even if the family's earned income is still below the federal poverty level. An
analysis of the program in Michigan (Shapiro & Greenstein, 1988) demonstrated that if the
net income of a family of three was greater than $593.00/month (78.5% of the poverty
threshold) in 1987, the family would not qualify for AFDC. If the family was already on
AFDC and the mother started working, when her net income reached or exceeded $623.00
(82.4% of poverty) or more per month, the family would be removed from the AFDC rolls
after four months.

A study of 558 AFDC participants in Hennepin County, Minnesota, who were
working when President Reagan's Omnibus Reconciliation Act (OBRA) tightened earnings
disregardsl drastically for the program, demonstrated that when the families were dropped
from the AFDC program because of the mother's earnings, the family was not likely to
return to the welfare rolls (Moscovice & Craig, 1984). Of the 357 subjects (64%) who had
their grants terminated because of earned income, 303 (84.9%) were still working and off
AFDC six months later. Even though they had increased their participation in the work
force over this time by increasing the number of hours worked per week and by frequently
taking on second jobs, these women still experienced an overall drop in net income of 6%.
At the same time, the percentage of net income nwded to meet basic needs went from 73%
to 85% for this group of working mothers. Additionally, this group was no longer eligible
for Medicaid. Despite the serious negative consequences of choosing work over AFDC,
only one person out of the twelve who were on AFDC and not working at the end of the
study period said that she stopped working so she would not lose her AFDC grant. It

 

1 That portion of earned income overiooked in the calculation of program benefits.

27

should be noted that the results, although dramatic, were based on transitions occurring
over a fairly short period of time.

However, the results of the above study were confirmed by Feaster, Gottschalk,
and Jakubson (1986) when they compared the beginning and ending work status of two
randomly selected panels of AFDC participants. The data for the first panel were analyzed
for a twelve month period prior to the implementation of the OBRA. The OBRA was
implemented four months into the year covered by the data from the second panel.
Although 84% of the cases in the first panel that started out the year with earned income
were still open at the end of the twelve months that the cases were followed, only 54% of
similar cases in the second panel were still open at the end of the time they were studied
Therefore, a large number of cases terminated in the second panel due to earned income did
not return to AFDC.

One reason women might choose work instead of accepting AFDC, even though
the family might be worse off, is the significant effect that personal income has been found
to have on the self-efficacy of single mothers (Downey & Moen, 1987). Women who
work might feel that they are more in control of their lives than those who do not. Also,
the women might perceive that even low-paying jobs carry less stigma than being on
AFDC. However, some women might view the significant disadvantages of working,
such as lack of health insurance and a potential decrease in an already low household
income, as incentive to stay on the AFDC rolls until they can be sure of adequately

supporting their families.

Although this section of the literature review on social welfare resource
management has concentrated primarily on families whose incomes were at or below
poverty level, it must be remembered that families with earned incomes above poverty still
qualify for many in-kind, food-related programsl. Their food and food-buying resources

 

1 Above poverty income cut-offs for selected programs: 130% of poverty--food stamps, free school
breakfast and lunch; 185% of poverty--WIC, reduced price school lunch, TEFAP.

28

also would be enhanced by participation in one or more of the programs for which they
might be eligible.

5.15 ”1151.1“.

Low-income households, when asked to whom they would turn for help if they had
no money or food, are likely to state that they would turn first to their families for
assistance. Forty-seven percent of the respondents in a survey of randomly selected low-
income households in Utah said that they considered their families their primary resource
under these circumstances (Fairchild & Ernst, 1986). This demonstrated reliance by the
low-income respondents on their informal social support network, or that part of their
social system consisting of family and friends. The type of support that a person receives
from her informal social support network generally falls into two categories:

1) instrumental assistance-cg, money, child-care, food, advice, information; and

2) socioemotional assistance-cg, security, sympathy and understanding, a sense of
worth, and companionship (Thoits, 1982). A person's formal social support network
consists of those professionals and agencies which a that individual might use for help or
support. This component of social support includes doctors, ministers, lawyers, social
service agencies, etc.

Structural analysis of the informal support network involves examination of obser-
vable aspects of the linkages in the network, including the number of members in the
network (size), the interactions among members independent of the central person
(density), frequency of contact between the central person and network members, accessi-
bility of network members, and strength of network ties (eg., Thoits, 1982; Tolsdorf,
1976; Vernon & Roberts, 1985 ; Walker et a1, 1977). A qualitative study based on 45 in-
depth, semi-structured interviews (McLanahan, Wedemeyer, & Adelberg, 1981) found that
the informal support networks of single mothers appeared to fall into three basic structures:

29

1) small, very dense networks based on the woman's family of originl; 2) large, extended
networks usually involving a number of new female friends (particularly other single
mothers) and community support organizations; and 3) dense or extended networks where
the principle provider of informal support was a key male.

A dense network is one in which there is a great deal of interaction between the
members of the network independent of the central individual (Walker, McBride, &
Vachon, 1977). In the McLanahan et al. study, the dense family of origin network was
found to supply the woman with a sense of security and personal worth, as well as a great
deal of material support in the form of financial assistance and help with domestic responsi-
bilities and job problems. However, family of origin networks also appeared to isolate the
woman from intimate relationships outside the network and from community supports.
The extended, less dense networks, consisting primarily of new friends, appeared to be
characteristic of women who were attempting to increase their independence. These
women, however, were more likely to exhibit low self-esteem and be more distressed than
women with dense family of origin networks.

Members of a support network can directly affect the help-seeking behavior of an
individual in several ways. They can buffer the psychological stress of a negative
experience or provide adequate material or informational support, thereby reducing the need
for seeking assistance outside the network. At other times they might take on the role of
screencr and referral agent to professional services. Additionally, a person's informal
support network often establishes the values and norms for help-seeking behavior of its
members (Gourash, 1978).

A study of two groups of low-income mothers by Birkel and Reppucci (1983)
attempted to determine whether persons with dense networks were less likely to engage in

help-seeking behavior than those with open networks. The researchers argued that there

 

1 Family of origin — a person's original family--ie. parents, brothers and sisters--as opposed to the family
into which that person marries.

30

was likely to be less encouragement and referral from the informal support network to the
formal support network if the values of a dense network did not agree with those of the
available existing formal support structure. Also, a dense network might not allow
information to reach the central person in the network easily or might exert pressure on the
individual to adhere to the help-seeking norms and values of the network. An example of
this might be when a woman needs clothes for her children which she cannot afford, but
her family and relatives have a very negative attitude toward accepting "charity" and
discourage her from going to the local Salvation Army for assistance or do not offer
information about other sources of help.

In each group examined in the Birkel and Reppucci study, the frequency of contact
per month that each mother had with network members was measured, as was the density
of her network, the geographical proximity of network members and the degree of overlap
of the mother's kin and friendship networks. The fnst group examined consisted of low-
income women at high-risk for child abuse enrolled in a special parenting group. The
number of monthly contacts these mothers had with kin was found to be significantly
associated with the number of parenting group sessions attended (F [3,27] = 3.23,

p < .05). When the group was divided into low-users (S 4 sessions attended) and high-
users (2 6 sessions attended), low-users were younger (t = 2.28, p < .05), had larger kin-
networks (t = 4.84, p < .01), made more monthly contacts with kin (t = 4.29, p< .001),
and had denser networks overall (t = 2.86, p < .01) than high users. Thirty-eight percent
of the high-users, as opposed to 7% of the low-users, stated that they had no contact at all
with any family members.

For the second sample-a group of mothers receiving WIC--use of professional
consultation for child-rearing concerns was negatively associated with overall network
density (r = -.49, p < .05) and with number of monthly contacts with kin (r = -.42,

p < .05). In both groups, dense, family-oriented networks negatively affected the help-

and information-seeking activities of the low-income mothers. However, this study did not

31

determine why this was the case. The researchers did not ascertain whether these activities
were influenced by lack of referral, pressure to adhere to network norms, or through
sufficient provision of necessary assistance and advice from network members.

McKinlay (1973) studied 83 low-income women in Aberdeen, Scotland, relative to
their informal support networks and use of prenatal care services. Women who were
classified as underutilizers of the professional services were more likely to live in close
proximity to relatives (X2 = 8.49, p < .005) and have more frequent interactions with them
(X2 = 53.05, p < .001) than women who regularly used the prenatal care services
(utilizers). Utilizers had more frequent interaction with their friends than underutilizers
(X2 = 12.79, p < .005); one-third of the underutilizers stated that they had no friends
outside of their family of origin. Some women, mostly underutilizers, reported anecdotally
that the first person with whom they discussed their pregnancy was their mother, who
encouraged them not to seek prenatal care until absolutely necessary because they
themselves had not done so. After the birth of their child, when the mothers in the study
were asked whom they consulted before having their baby seen by the family doctor,
utilizers were more likely than underutilizers to consult no one first (X2 = 12.15, p <
.005), possibly indicating greater independence from their support networks.

When investigating informal social support, it is important to include measures
which obtain separate information on both the subject's family and on her friends. This is
because the relative number of members from each group in the physical structure of the
network appears to have direct and indirect influence on the woman's behavior, as
demonstrated in the research findings discussed. It is also important to study both family
and friends because support from family and support from friends appear to help to
mitigate different problems with which single mothers must cope.

Gladow and Ray (1986) found in their study of low-income, rural single mothers in
Washington state that both the scale of family support and scale of friend support entered
into a stepwise regression model predicting total problems faced by the mothers (friend

32

support: F = 12.64, p < .001; family support: F = 9.42, p < .01). When the responses
to questions concerning specific individual problems were correlated with the responses to
the emotional support question from the friend and family support scales, emotional
support from friends was negatively correlated with problems related to dating, lack of
emotional support, transportation and forming close friendships. Emotional support from
family was negatively correlated with problems related to recreation and finances. Overall
friend support was also found to be predictive of decreased loneliness (F = 5.19, p < .05).
The researchers concluded that support from family and from friends both influence the
well-being of a single mother, but in different ways. Gladow and Ray also suggested that
the woman who uses both her friends and family for support would probably be better off

than the woman who relies on only one of the two groups.

In summation, although a support system can be important in helping a low-income
single mother through a crisis, having a dense, family-oriented network might hinder her in
seeking needed assistance from outside sources. Having a more loose network, including
involvement with friends, appears to provide a woman with more information about
outside resources and to exert less pressure on her than does having a dense support
network which might apply pressures for adherence to norms and values of the network.
A loose, extended network might also be indicative of the single mother who is in the
process of increasing her independence from her family. However, the research does not
appear to adequately demonstrate the reasons a woman with a dense family-of—origin
network might not seek assistance from the formal sector. It might simply be because she
is receiving sufficient and appropriate assistance from her family.

Support from family and from friends appears to decrease the number of problems
that a low-income, single mother might have to face. However, each group influences
different problems. Therefore, women who can rely on mth family and friends are likely

better off than women who rely more heavily on only one informal support group.

33

Statementntthefimhlem

From the literature reviewed it is apparent that single-parent, female-headed families
are a significant, vulnerable sub-group of low-income Americans. There are many factors
«including income, shopping behaviors, barriers to welfare participation, and social
support networks, to name only a few-—continually interacting to affect the food security of
these women and their children. Therefore, many aspects of the lives of families must be
investigated in concert and not in isolation. (See Appendix C for a conceptual model
derived from these factors and used in the initial design of the study.)

In order to determine: 1) what, if any, characteristics or behaviors differ between
families that do not use the food bank and families that do; 2) what appear to be the most
prevalent chronic factors present in a family or household which might lead up to food
bank use; and 3) if there are there families who should be turning to the food bank in times
of distress who are not doing so, and if not, why not, the following hypotheses were

proposed for study.

Wares

The following hypotheses were tested using the data collected in this exploratory
study.

H01: Demographics

Food bank users, non-users and past users will not differ demographically in terms
of household or family size , transience, income, age, race, marital status,
education or employment status.

H02: Domestic Resource Management

H02a: Food bank users, non-users and past users will purchase most of their
food at large grocery stores and will shop for food with equal frequency.
All groups will be equally likely to report using a shopping list, plan
menus before big trips to the grocery store, purchase national brand foods
and use a car to access the grocery store.

34

H021). Users, non-users, and past users will have the same number of working
major appliances, utilities and amount of food storage space.

H02c: Food bank non-users, users and past users will have the same total
domestic resource management scores.

H03: Cash Value Available to Purchase Food

H03a: There will be no difference between any of the groups in the amount of
money, including food stamps but not WIC, spent on food in a month.

H031): For users, non-users and past users who receive food stamps, the number
of weeks food stamps last the household and the amount of money added
to the food stamps to purchase groceries will be the same .

H04: Assistance Program Participation
H0421: No difference will be found between food bank non-users, users and past
users in participation in individual assistance programs or in total
assistance program participation.

H041): No group will be less informed about particular assistance programs or
attach more stigma to assistance program participation than any other
group.

H05: Ingham County Food Bank (ICFB)

H053: Non-users will know of the ICFB as often as users and past users.

H051): Non-users who know of the food bank, users, and past users will be
equally as likely to choose the ICFB as their first avenue of assistance in a
food crisis.

H06: Informal Social Support Network

H063: Non-users, users and past users will interact as often with close friends as
with family members or relatives.

H061): Overall social support network scores will not vary among users, non-
users and past users of the ICFB.
H07: Meal Skipping Due to Lack of Food

The frequency of meal skipping due to lack of food in the home will be the same in
non-user, user, and past user families.

CHAPTERIII

Methods

Sampling

The criteria for a woman's inclusion as a subject in this study were that: 1) she was
a single mother (divorced, separated, or never manied); 2) the household in which she was
living contained at least one child under age six; and 3) her family's income did not exceed
185% of the federal poverty level. Because it was determined that one means of ceping
with inadequate income is to live with another adult or family, the woman was not required
to be the head of the household in which she resided. A subject's food bank use status was
determined by whether she reported using the ICFB never (non-user); at least once within
the last year (user); or at one time, but not within the last twelve months (past user) (Q#48B
& D). A final sample of 74 subjects--twenty-one non-users, thirty-seven users and sixteen
past users--was obtained.

Only eight percent of all the households in Lansing are headed by poor, single
mothers with children under the age of six years (US Bureau of the Census,l983).
Additionally, there was no appropriate existing sampling frame available to use with this
population, which includes families that have no phone or that are not involved in the social
welfare system. Therefore, a non-probability sampling method was used to maximize the
likelihood of contacting members of the target population. It was determined that a door-
to-door census technique was the only available means of contacting potential subjects who

were not a part of the normal socioeconomic system.

35

36

Three neighborhoods, based on the boundaries of Gier Park, Walnut, and Bingham
elementary schools (see Appendix C), were selected for inclusion in the study because of
the high proportion of students in those schools from families receiving AFDC (Gier Park--
41%, Walnut-43%, Bingham-49%) (personal communication, P. Peterson, March,
1989). Although AFDC is not used exclusively by female-headed, single parent
households, the majority of recipients fit that profile. There were a total of 813 female,
single heads of families with children under 18 years living in these three neighborhoods
(personal communication, Lansing City Planning Department, March, 1989). This was the
best census information available at the time the sampling process occurred. Thirty-one
percent of these families lived in the Gier Park neighborhood, 31% in the Bingham
neighborhood, and 38% resided in the Walnut school neighborhood. Therefore, including
a small over-sampling to allow for unusable interviews, it was decided that 36 interviews
would be conducted in the Gier Park neighborhood, 36 in the Bingham area, and 43
interviews in the Walnut area. One hundred usable interviews was set as the desired
number of interviews for the final sample based on time and resource constraints, the fact
that it was an exploratory study, and the minimum number necessary to be able to use
discriminant analysis (personal communications, Dr. J Gill and Dr. H. Perlstadt, April,
1989). However, because the study took longer than anticipated, only the Walnut and
Bingham neighborhoods were surveyed. A final sample of 74 usable interviews was
obtained.

Within the two neighborhoods surveyed, the blocks to be sampled were randomly
selected through a draw of street names and block numbers. This allowed a homogeneous
sampling of the neighborhood residents and avoided possible concentration on a group of
blocks where senior citizens, married couples or some other distinctive population not
fitting the study profile had clustered. Blocks were drawn in groups of five and each group
was assigned a consecutive letter of the alphabet. Groups A, C, E, etc. were assigned to

one principal interviewer and the remaining blocks were assigned the the second principal

37

interviewer. Each principal interviewer was instructed that she and her partner could
sample the blocks within each group in any order, to be able to move logically through the
neighborhood, but the group of blocks as a whole had to be sampled before the next group
of five blocks.

The interviewers were instructed to knock on every door on both sides of the street
on the randomly chosen blocks. If no one was at home, the interviewers proceeded to the
very next house on the block. In those households where someone was found at home, at
the conclusion of the prescreen in non—eligible or refuser households or the at end of
interview in subject households, the interviewers asked whether a single mother lived next
door to the person to whom they were speaking. If the respondent said "yes" or did not
know, the adjacent house(s) were sampled. If the interviewers were told that a single
mother did not live in a particular house, that house was not sampled. Interviewers
returned a minimum of three times to contact someone in a house where they had been told
a single mother lived before they considered it a non-respondent household. At houses
where household headship was unknown, if no one was home at the time of initial contact,
no return calls were made unless there was evidence of children in the home. These
procedures were used to minimize the amount of time neekd to cover the houses on a
block, while maximizing the amount of initial information obtained about the households.
Large commercial apartment buildings were not sampled due to problems with access.
These procedures were followed on each of the randomly chosen blocks until the necessary

number of interviews for that neighborhood was completed.

I"El

Two to three days before the survey began, on each group of randomly chosen
blocks, one page flyers (see Appendix D) printed on bright gold paper announcing that the

survey was occurring were placed in the doors or behind mailboxes of all houses and

38

apartments to be screened for potential respondents. In addition to brief, rather generic
information about the survey itself, the flyer included a phone number for people to call if
they had any questions or required more information.

The operations department of the Lansing Police Department was notified when the
interviewers began in each neighborhood. This was done not only to let the police
patrolling the neighborhoods know what the interviewers were there for, but to provide
central operations with information in case the police received phone calls concerning
strangers going door-to—door in the area.

The interview staff over the course of the study consisted of the principal
investigator and four to six paid interviewers recruited from graduate and senior
undergraduate students at Michigan State University. The interviewers received a
minimum of ten hours of training and practice in basic interviewing techniques,
presentation of the questionnaire, and personal safety. To help assure personal safety, all
canvassing and interviewing activities were conducted in pairs during daylight hours.

When the interviewers found someone at home through the sampling procedures
described in the previous section, the interviewers introduced themselves and proceeded
with a series of pre-screening questions (see Appendix E) to determine if the family
(represented by the single mother) or another family in the household was eligible to
participate in the survey. If there was no single mother in the household, or if the
respondent became ineligible to participate based on one of the pre—screening questions, the
interviewers asked the respondent if there were single mothers living on either side of
them, thanked the respondent for his/her time, and moved on to the next appropriate house.
If the family met the criteria of the study, the woman was asked to participate in a forty
minute interview to be conducted in her home. She was told that she would receive a five
dollar gift certificate to a local grocery store upon completion of the interview. If the
woman wished to participate, but could not do the interview at the time of the initial

contact, an appointment was made for the interviewers to return. All respondents were

39

required to sign an informed consent form before the interview took place (see
Appendix F). Approval for the project was received from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects after expedited review (see Appendix G).

110"

A standardized questionnaire was used for all interviews (see Appendix H). It
consisted primarily of close-ended questions covering demographics, domestic resource
management, social welfare resource management, social support, and selected hunger
indicators. All questions were read by the interviewers to the respondents to control for the
unknown literacy levels of the subjects.

Some of the questions used were selected, with or without adaptation, from
questionnaires used in other studies (Contra Costa County Hunger Task Force, 1987;
Fairchild & Ernst, 1986; Interim Study Committee on Hunger and Nutrition in South
Carolina, 1986; Mid-Columbia Community Action Council, 1987; Minnesota Food and
Education Resource Center, 1985; NHANES III [draft], 1988; Oregon Food Share, 1986;
Social Science Research Bureau and Department of Resource Development, 1987). Other
questions were developed from recommendations given by experts in the various areas of
interest. The third source of material for the questionnaire was the research literature
(Anderson, 1988; Block and Kellerman, 1977; Coe, 1971; Goodban, 1985; Goodman,
1968; McKinlay, 1973).

The questionnaire was pro-tested with a group of seven volunteer, low-income
mothers after initial editing by the researcher's thesis committee members1 . It was then re-
edited and presented to the head of the Ingham county EFNEP program and the thesis
committee members for further comment. Final editing took place after the pilot study,

based on the data and other information obtained.

 

1 Three professionals in nutrition, one in sociology and survey research, and the director of the Ingham
County Food Bank.

40

A pilot study consisting twenty interviews was conducted in a neighborhood similar
to the neighborhoods chosen for the study. The procedures to be used in the actual survey
were followed as closely as possible, to locate any inherent problems and also to determine
a reasonable response rate. Sixteen usable surveys were obtained (80% response rate)
from the pilot. Data analysis was inconclusive in determining which questions
discriminated best between food bank users and non-users. Based on findings from the
pilot study, some of the original questions were rewritten for clarification and others were

added to the questionnaire.

DataAnalxsis

All data analysis was performed using a version of the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+ V3.1) (SPSS, Inc., 1989) on an IBM/PC compatible
computer. To increase the efficiency of the analysis process, oneway AN OVA was used to
screen for interval-level variables where the means were not equal among the three groups--
users, non-users and past users. The ANOVA technique allows the researcher to control
the level of alpha when comparing more than one pair of means. However, if the F—value
is statistically significant, it does not allow for determination of which pair(s) of means are
different. Therefore, for each interval-level variable that achieved significance at p S .10
with ANOVA, the means of each possible pair of groups (users vs. non-users; ex-users vs.
non-users; ex-users vs. users) were tested for equality using the Tukey Multiple
Comparison method (Tukey MC). This controls for the increased probability of
committing a Type I error when conducting multiple comparisons (Glass &
Hopkins,l984). Bonferroni chi-square was used to evaluate the ordinal data, again to
control for an increased probability of Type I error with multiple comparisons (W ickens,
1989). For both the Tukey MC and Bonferroni chi-square, a maximum error rate of p

S. 10 was set for each group of comparisons.

41

Incomefialculatinns

Yearly income for the families in the study was calculated by multiplying their
income for the previous month by twelve. Although this method might over-estimate
yearly income for some families and under-estimate it for others, it was the only means
available to reach at least a rough determination of yearly income. Other income

calculations were computed using the following formulas:

(p. 54) Per capita family income: family's total income in the month before the interview

 

number of persons in the fanTrIy

(p. 61) Average yearly per capita income of all families in each group:

average yearly family income of each gro_up_
average family size of group

 

(p.61) To convert 1985 dollars to 1989 dollars, the 1985 dollar figure was multiplied by
the ratio of the 1989 CPI to the 1985 CPI, i.e, $10,398.00 x 124
107.6

IndezLScQtes

Index scores can sometimes be used to examine a larger underlying concept which
is difficult or impossible to quantify using only one or two variables. Combining the
results of several observed variables, each of which obtains information on a different
aspect of the concept, allows the investigator to better view the "total picture". In this case,
the "total picture" is the overall ability of the family to manage food resources in the home
(domestic resource management or DRM index) and the overall informal social support
network of the single mother (SSN index). These composite indices can also increase the
efficiency of the data analysis when the index scores are treated as individual variables in
analyses in place of the individual variables which comprise the index.

In the analysis of this study, an attempt was made to construct a DRM index from
questions #2, 2A, 3, 6, 7, 10-1 1, 31, and 32 (see Table 3.1) and an SSN index from
questions #3943 (see Table 3.2). Before any difference in mean scores could be tested for

either of these indices, the validity of the indices had to be examined (Carmines & Zeller,

42

1979). After a search of the relevant literature and examination by experts, it was
presumed that each of the included questions was valid on its face in contributing to a
description of the named underlying concepts (Allen & Yen, 1979, p. 96), ie. domestic
resource management and the informal social support network.

In the next step of index creation, the appropriate correlations were run between the
variables in each of the above designated indices to examine all possible bivariate
relationships between the items (Babbie, 1989). The correlation matrix for the DRM index
is presented in Table 3.3. The matrix for the SSN index is laid out in Table 3.4. Items
thought to measure varying aspects of the same underlying concept should exhibit at least
moderate correlations (Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 223). Those questions which
consistently correlated r S .20 with the other items in the index should be dropped from
further consideration. When two items correlated r 2 .80, one of the items should be
selected to remain in the index and the other dropped, because they both apparently
measured the same dimension of the underlying concept.

Because the responses to the various questions to be used in the indices were
scored in several different metrics--there were nominal, ordinal, dichotomous, and interval
measures--factor analysis could not be used to examine the cohesiveness of the
hypothesized group relationships. Factor analysis requires interval data or at least ordinal
data where there is a strong belief that the numbers assigned to the answer categories reflect
the true distance between the categories (Kim & Mueller, 1978, 73-74).

The correlations between the variables included in the DRM index were weak at
best (see Table 3.3). The one exception was the correlation between total number of times
shopping (SHOP####) and number of times shopping at the convenience store (MSQD)
(r = .79), a relationship which exhibits a high degree of multicollinearity. Overall shopping
frequency and number of times the household shopped at Quality Dairy were also the only
variables included in the DRM index which discriminated between food bank use

categories. Given the weak bivariate relationships between variables and the lack of

43

discriminating power of the individual variables, it was felt that nothing would be gained
by further attempts to combine the variables into a single DRM index score. Additionally,
it was found that with response categories of the variables in differing metrics, it was
difficult to determine how to weight the answers to the individual variables in relation to the
other variables to be used in the final index. This particular problem was also an obstacle
in the creation of the SSN index.

When the correlation matrix for the social support network variables was examined
(Table 3.4), it could be seen that the correlations between the family network variables
were quite good, the correlations between the friend network variables were not quite as
strong, and the correlations between the family and friend network variables were relatively
weak and scattered. It appeared that these family and friend network variables were not
measuring aspects of the same overall underlying concept.

When the next step in the index derivation was undertaken, a friend variable--
FNDFIFl‘N--was removed from further consideration because of its strong correlation with
CLOSEFND. It was decided to remove a second friend variable--FNDSMEET--from
consideration because only a small subgroup, those women who had more than one friend
and whose friends knew each other, were asked that question. As more friend variables
were removed, the family variables potentially gained more weight in the final score simply
because of the larger number of family variables which would remain in the index.
Additionally, the only variables which discriminated significantly among any of the groups
were three family variables: FAMFUN, GLADHEIP, and FAMFIFI'N. Given the above
findings , it did not seem feasible or practical to combine the SSN variables into an overall
SSN index.

Within the SSN variables there appeared to be a strong family network component
and possibly a friend network component, which were evaluated as separate sub-indices.
First, frequency of interactions with close friends and with family members (SUPPFND and

SUPPFAM) were calculated for each subject by summing the points of each chosen response

44

category in the respective family and friend matrices (Q#35 & 38) after recoding so the
points ranged from 0=never to 5=everyday. A maximum of 30 points was possible.
SUPPFND and SUPPFAM were then analyzed as individual and distinct continuous variables.
The family network score (FAMNET) for each subject was then the sum of SUPPFAM,
CALLFAM, GLADHELP, FAMCLOSE and FAMFIF'I'N. The friend network score (FNDNET)
was the sum of SUPPFND, CLOSEFND and FNDSKNOW.

To more equally weight all questions used to create FAMNET and FNDNET,
further recoding was done so that all values assigned to response choices were within the
range of 0 to 4. Interval variables were divided as closely as possible into quintiles based
on frequency of responses by the entire sample. The response categories of "Never" and
"Less than once a month" in the matrices (Q#35 and 38) were combined to reduce the
number of answer categories to five. The dichotomous variables were assigned a value of
0 for the least desirable response choice and 4 for the most desirable. With the variable
CALLFAM, the response choices were assigned the values of -4, -2, 0, 2, and 4. A
maximum of 40 points was possible for FAMNET and a maximum of 32 points was

possible for FNDNET.

45

Table 3.1. Questions considered for inclusion in the domestic resource
management index.

Q#2. (IIMESQD) Thinking about all the times someone has gone to the
store to buy food for your household in the last 4 weeks or month,
how many times would you say someone went to buy food at

Quality Dairy, the Magic Market,orthe 7-11?

Q#2A.(mQSIQB.E) In the last month, out of all the times someone went to
the store to buy food for the household, how many times would you
say someone went to Shoprite, Krogers, or Meijers?

W is the sum of the above two questions plus Q#ZC
concerning frequency of shopping at any other stores]

Q#3. (SIQRMQSI) At which store did your household buy most of its
food in the last 4 weeks?

Q#6. (51121.51) How often do you use a shopping list when grocery
shopping? Would you say you never, almost never, sometimes,
frequently, almost always, or always use a shepping list?

Q#7. W) How often does someone in your household plan
menus before big trips to the grocery store are made? Would you
say that menus are never, almost never, sometimes, frequently,
almost always, or always planned?

Q#10. (EKQSIZE) When food items come in different size packages, do
you usually buy the small, medium, or large size?

Q#ll. WEED) Do you and your neighbors or friends ever share or
trade food to help each other out when you don't have enough food
in the house and can't afford to buy more?

Q#31. (AEESQQRE) Let's take a look now at some of the things you have
to work with in your home. Which of the following working
appliances do you have in your home right now? Do you have a
working refiigerator? oven? freezer? microwave? stove or range?

Q#32. (quSIQRQ) Which of the following things do you have in your
home right now? Enough room to store food? running water? hot
water? electricity? a kitchen sink drain that works?

Table 3.2. Questions considered for inclusion in the social support
network index.

Q#34. W) Thinking about all your friends first, how many of them would
you consrder close friends?

Q#34A. (mm) How many of your close friends live within fifteen minutes of
you, either driving or walking?

Q#35. With your close friends, how many times a week or month do you:
Less than 1 to 3 About Several Don’t

oncea timesa oncea times Every recall
Never month month week a week day or NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get or
ive help W) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
et or
give support (31251122) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
‘scuss
aroblems (ENDERQBJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 O
T xchange
advice (ENDAILV) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Get together for 5n
or relaxation (1511123111) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Talk on
the phone (ENDEHQNE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

 

 

(51mm is the sum of the chosen responses in the above matrix, after recoding so
the responses run from 0=never to 5=everyday.)

Q#36. (FNDSKNQE) Do your close friends know each other?

Q#36A. (FNDSMEEI) How often would you say any of your close friends get
together when you can't make it? Would you say they get together
often, sometimes, hardly ever or never?

Q#37. (ENDEAM) Are any of your close friends also good friends with any other
members of your family, other than your children?

 

47

Table 3.2 (con't)

Q#38. Think about your family and relatives now. With family members or relatives,
how many times a week or a month do you:...

Less than 1 to 3 About Several Don't
once a times a once a times Every recall
Never month month week a week day or NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get or

five help (EAMHELE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
et or

give support (EAMSHEE) l 2 3 4 5 6 0
'scuss

problems (EAMERQB) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

change

advice W) 1 2 3 4 5 6 O
et together for fun

or relaxation W) l 2 3 4 5 6 0

Talk on

the phone (EAMEHQNE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

 

 

(film is the sum of the chosen responses in the above matrix, after recoding
so the responses run from 0=never to 5=everyday.)

Q#39. (CW) Tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree or
strongly agree with the following statement: I know I can call on members of

my family for help or support whenever I need to.

Q#40. (GLADHELE) How many different family members or relatives would gladly
give you help or support if you asked?

Q#41. (CIDSEEAM) Would you consider your family a close family or not so close?

Q#42. (EAMEIHN) How many of your family and relatives, other than those who
live with you, live within fifteen minutes of you, either driving or walking?

 

48

«N a m N. .«o 35:8 gouge—8 an. ac and

.comoEooo E o

an: 358 fine on .385 8;; Basses when use. a
ooze—E8 35%. “So.— 0

822280 “Sea Suave...— ».§m e
Baggaoua—EEoEgfimBaaoua—ga

 

689— 03:9. 0%. 02.8. 352. 183. 395. gm. can gmhmf Omaha..- UK;
35.“ Ag aim .u 88.: an hm" —... ownhu. 528... Ag...- ngcu ”do;
EA 058m. 608.: gm? mung- age 88w. Dad.” gum... mag:

OSOA 6N3. flnvmm. E8. 82v. R386 03h". omgm. gm

88. m 88. FWNO. made 83.- a an m . NN—va—n—

$954 a; fig 82. 38. 9mm H. 25%

8°C. a BN8. g H . umgr 5% 8. Baum

08c; omhhfi can ophm .t gig—05h

884 gamma pan. 55.505

8.: ea DOWNS;

884 «anthem—fl

 

0532 mags mag: nun—gm mN—mOu—x— 2552.5; 55.5 5850.5 map—MOE 053E. aagm

 

ado—eat...» Eve—ounce:— eeeaeuoe ounce—co he 5.5a:— =e=a_e.:eu .Qm «Bah

49

an a w u a £38 58.3 2.. ac Hana:

359:8 on 683 308898 coca—“Eco A a v

320598 a: a

803 68958 .835 um «38:. :23 8338 icon; Adam 0

833:8 Ernie an; e
Sun—oboe 35% ion 0
839:8 .388. .833 macaque a
use: 3355c 82.5 ”8:238 82o 3.5: 8:525 93 flows—Eco a

 

88.“ an. 08:. RE. E8. owned. a 038. 88. 88.. 882.- 5.32m
88.“ A _. v 82. an. 38.- 9.2. «an. :8. and. 88. Emzmczm
883 “.38. a 88“. .88. swan. ”aqua. 03:. 0.33. 3023.82".

88; $8.- «and. «an. 82. 82. 88.. $8.- mzoEcE

884 as. 2.2. 82. 38. 88. $2. zen—oz..—

88._ a 4.3.". a :8. 88. >982”—

88._ an. an. 88. $8. 858.:

88.“ a 82. 82. 8:82..—

883 an. a amaze

83 pg zEEoE

88; 92886

25.52...— .uhm—Zmnzn— BOZv—wn—Zm $40182“— ZEQE >302"— mOEQZm Laban—2m Elm—2m EEG;— DEM—85

 

awe—eat: tone—a .398 do 5.59: coca—9.30 in «Bah

SI)

mm . w u .0 .EE 5°23 2.. a... a

.aonmuooowsmu

a§ 692.9 33.8.. 8 .385 8.5 8388 15% “as. u

883:8 3:33 is. v
8.3.050 25% as.— o

.Hxazouaaaaunxxuuuavoxumagmas»;..
ungxfinuaconxuanxqsacoua::EOo.un=vxan.annuaonmnzamucuawzxxuu

 

uwmso.
ES.

mauuaw

amuse.
onwmc.

mquuuw

“anaaw
onvw~.

manna.

«cage.

caam=u5Em .nmmazmfi=gm >phzexmx=am meanxmmH=Lm 7=—un=gm

haw".

magma:

.uauuwu
coco:
wave.
mung:
N5o_v
owncr
capo.

quNN.
33.
nowzw
v82.
ovv:w
manna.
omwo_.
oagfiw
mumamw

oamna.

nbmor

88.
.qunu.
88.
.uuduu
9.2.
2:.

N-cr

canoe.

~n-f
osvo:
na—cr

Jana".
om—c.
«ago.

wan—r

bhmfi.

hunc.
omaofi.

aomor

88.
.«Huu.
.nauw.
.nuuua
.waaau

h_oo.

no__.

came:
once“.
mN-r
nwmfi.
now".
come.
new".
www~.
amwfi.
ofiwfi.

38.
«£8.

hNNcr
monfir

mom“.

mofior

mvao.

nmnu.
ovmafl.
.uauua
unmo.
.quaua
ovao.
vnno.
wave.
won“.
more.

..Ncn—.
umamor
nn~u_.

fifihc.

~m-€
mvvo.

"one:
nvsoc
mvsor
owm~v

‘32. En
082.- $3025—
..SS. 88550
5 fi. 233.20
83.. ”20:85.”—
88.- 55m
28. >55...
58.. 8.82%
88.- 282$.
and." .3835.

_>h=<o;e~ mnummnzam argumAzgm .mam¢:u7rm ,Prmrxuvbm .u’wmmmHXHu

 

9.83 a in use.

QM u w a. no «8:8 8:928 05 2m. nun—Ea
8338338386508 83282;

808508 E u

an: .8358 38% 3 385 8:3 88.88 38.. 3 o
noun—9:8 3.33 as. u

8338 3:33 imam o

839:8 88:88 8:88 «.888.— .—

3885.550 ggssgoxggamD—a 80528."an

 

51

88.8 988. 88. 38. «an. and. 8:. an. 88. 88. 25%".
98.2 oqu 0a.“. 0% can". a 0% 0% 0% m§02<m

88.8 a 82. a 22. 32. a «and. $550

.83 82. ad... and. flan. an. and. 55.2w

88; add. «wad. «dud. a a“. mzomgm

884 a a “dad. «a: 2%.."—
884 EN: a a >Q<2<m

go; a a Evan—24mm

88; a mmDm2<u~

OS“: 5%"—

Em mmSUEm E50 3230 mZO=m2<m 22%,?"— >Q<2<m flog—Aim mmDmZ<m Haw—2(a—

 

O.=oov a in 055.

CHAPTER 4
Results and Discussion

The results of the data analyses are reported and discussed in this chapter. They are
presented according to the seven hypotheses of the study. The discussion immediately
follows the results of each hypothesis. In addition to the quantitative questions asked, the
subjects were also asked to respond to several open-ended questions which required a more
lengthy, qualitative response. In other instances, the mothers voluntarily expanded on the
answers given to the quantitative questions. This qualitative data aids in illustrating and
providing more depth to the results derived from the quantitative questions and is presented

immediately following each discussion in the sub-sections entitled "Qualitative Data".

11'” El l'filll _ l

The majority of the following analyses are based on comparisons between the three
food bank user groups. Of the seventy-four subjects, thirty-seven (50%) of the
respondents stated that they had used the ICFB at least once within the last year. Twenty-
one (28%) of the respondents had never used the ICFB; sixteen (22%) had used the ICFB
some time in the past, but not within the last twelve months before the interview.

Of the users, 27 (73%) had used it at least once within the last six months before
the interview. Thirteen of the users (35%) had received food from the ICFB three or more

times in the last year and six (16%) had received food five or more times.

52

53

H01: Demographics
Food bank users, non-users and past users will not differ demographically

in terms of household or family size, transience, income, age, race,
marital status, education or employment status.

D I' [II 111 IE .1.

Results: The majority of households in which the respondents were living were
headed by the women themselves (90% non-users; 84% users; 94% past users) (Q#56).
Households on average consisted of only a family made up of the respondent and two
children, but over 35% of the households contained at least one non-family member (Q#74)
(see Table 4.1). Eighteen of the mothers (24%) had a male companion or fiance’ living
with them at the time of the interview (Q#74A). The only households containing more than
one non-family member were three in which a food bank user lived.

Households which included a single mother who was a food bank user were larger
than those with a non-user(Q#1) (Tukey Multiple Comparisons, q = 3.589, p S .05).

Table 4.1. Average composition of respondents' households.

 

 

 

variable I: meanzb'd. range
household
size 74 3.5:t1.4 2 — 7
no. of children 74 2.0112 1 — 6
no. of non-family members 27a 1.3:t0.7 1 — 3
family
size 73 3,111.3 2 - 7
income, month before'interview (S) W 70 5381222 0 - 1367
per capita income ($) '33 7O 189:1:74 O - 450
a 36.5% of the whole sample

5 Dollar amount rounded to nearest whole dollar
c Does not include food stamps

54

This was because these households tended to include one more child (Q#16) (Tukey MC,

q = 3.505, p S .05) (see Table 4.2) and not because they were more likely to include a non-
family member. It follows logically then that families of food bank users were larger than
those of non-users (T ukey MC, q = 3.263, p S .10). The difference in family size between
non- and past users approached significance with q = 2.93 (critical value, q = 2.96).

None of the groups tended to be more transient than the others, as indicated by the
average number of times the families moved in the year before the interview (Q#72) (Table
4.2). However, most of the families had moved at least once in that time period. The
number of times families had moved in the last year ranged from zero to ten.

Mean income for all families in the month before the interview (not including the
value of food stamps) was $533.00 (Q#58), with an average per capita family income in
that month of $189.00 (Table 4.1). AFDC was the principal source of income for 85 % of

Table 4.2. Demographics of households and families by food bank use
status of the single mother.

 

 

 

non-users users past users

variable (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
household

size 2.9:t1.2 1‘ 3.911.57‘" 3.6:tl.4

no. of children 1.5:t0.8 2.31:1.4X" 2.1i1.0

contain unrelated member(s) (%) 33.3 40.5 31.2

(7)b (15) (5)

family

size 2.5i0.8 3.31:1.4x“ 3.4112

times moved in last year 1.4:t1.8 1.4:l:l.8 1.2:t2.4

income, month before interview (3) c 518i244 516i195 598i238

monthly per capita income, (3) ° 205:1:63 l74:l:76 203i80
a Mean 1: standard deviation

b Number of subjects represented by the percentage
0 Dollar amount rounded to nearest whole dollar, does not include food stamps
" non-users vs. users
* ps .10, Tukey MC
" p S .05, Tukey MC

55

families (Q#59, 59A) (see Table 4.3). Fifteen percent of the families had at least some

income from salaries in that last month; only 19% had received any child support. The

majority of respondents (66.7% non-users, 78.3% users, 68.8% past users) reported that

their family's income was the same or higher than it had been twelve months before

(Q#57). There were no statistically significant differences among any of the three groups

on the above income variables.

Table 4.3. Sources and average amount of families' incomes

in the month before the interview.

 

 

income source n mean+ s.d. range
AFDC 58 3 4831124 9 206 — 900
child support 14 42110 25 - 50
salary 11 4321400 40 - 1200
selling blood or plasma 6 42130 17 — 100
881 3 2551144 105 - 393
unemployment 2 282137 256 — 308
social security 1 60 60
other c 23 1001108 10 — 360

 

a Although 62 families were receiving AFDC at the time of the interview, one had not
received it the month before. Complete AFDC income information was not available

on the other three families
9 Dollar amounts rounded to nearest whole dollar

c Other sources of income included, but were not restricted to: unrepomd earnings, funds
borrowed for a security deposit on a house or an abortion, money taken out of savings,
income from a garage sale, small amounts of cash borrowed for non-specified purposes.

11 1.“.11

Results: The average age of the women interviewed for the study was 25.5

years, with a range of 17 to 42 years (Q#64). Over half of the respondents were white,

30% African American, 11% Hispanic, and 4% native American (Q#76). The majority

(65 %) of the subjects had never manied, 23% were separated and 12% were divorced

56

(Q#70) ( see Table 4.4). The average length of time a woman had been separated or
divorced was three and a halfyears (Q#7OA). The respondents had lived in Lansing an
average of sixteen years, with only two women having lived in the city less than a year and
two others having lived there less than two years (Q#71). Thirty—nine percent of the
women had lived in Lansing all their lives.

Age or race did not differ significantly among users, non-users and past users
(Table 4.4). In terms of marital status, only one out of thirty-seven users and two out of
sixteen non-users were divorced. In contrast, almost one-third of past users were
divorced. Past users, in fact, were far more likely to be divorced than users (Bonferroni
chi-square, df= 2, X2 = 9.178, p; S .05). Over three-quarters of the non-users, two-
thirds of the users and less than half of the past users had never married.

The average mother in the study had completed only 11 years of formal education
(Q#67), but had eventually obtained her diploma or equivalent General Education
Development degree (GED) (Q#67A) (see Table 4.5). One mother had dropped out of
school after the seventh grade and another had completed a bachelor's degree. Eighteen
percent of the women were in adult education, high school or college at the time of the
interview (Q#67B). Only nine women were not in school and did not plan to return to
school (Q#68A). However, all nine had finished high school and two had two years of
post-high school education.

The fact that non-users were more likely to have obtained their high school diploma
or GED as compared to users approached statistical significance at X2 = 4.314 (Bonferroni
chi-square, df = 1, p; S .10, critical value = 4.53). The opposite is true, however, when
examining non-users' and users' intentions to return to school. Ninety-four percent of the
food bank users who were not already in school had at least tentative plans to return to
school versus 71% of the non-users who were not currently attending classes (Bonferroni
chi-square, df= 1, X2 = 7.501, p}; S .05) (T able 4.5). This might be expected, since more

users still needed to finish high school. Past users were more likely than users to currently

57

Table 4.4. Age, race, and marital status of low-income single
mothers by food bank use status.

 

variable all non-users users past users
(n=74) (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)

 

mean age (years) 25.4155 3 23.6156 25.8153 27.1156

race or ethnicity (%)

 

white, non-Hispanic 55.4 66.7 48.6 56.3
(41) b (14) (18) (9)
African-American , 29.7 14.3 40.5 25.0
(22) (3) (15) (4)
Hispanic 10.8 19.0 5.4 12.5
(8) (4) (2) (2)
native American 4.1 ---- 5.4 6.3
(3) (0) (2) (1)
marital status (%) zr
divorced 12.2 14.3 2.7 31.2
(9) (3) (1) (5)
separated 23.0 9.5 29.7 25.0
(17) (2) (11) (4)
never married 64.9 76.2 67.6 43.8
(43) (16) (25) (7)
3 Mean 1 standard deviation

9 Number of subjects represented by the percentage

3 users vs. past users

1X2 ' 9.178, (f- 2, p; S .05, Bonferroni-chi square

58

Table 4.5. Education status of low-income single mothers by food bank
use status.

 

 

d non-users users past users
variable (n=74) (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
meanyearsinschool 11.611.4 a 11.8109 11311.6 11.911.7
high school diploma/GED (%) 71.6 85.7 59.5 81.3

(53) b (18) (22) (13)
currently in school (%) 17.6 19.0 8.1 37.51’

(13) (4) (3) (6)
plan to rettun to school (%) c 85.2 70.6 94.11 80.0

(52) (12) (32) (8)

 

a Mean 1 standard deviation

b Number of subjects represented by the percentage

c This variable only includes those women who were not currently in school.
Therefore, the n's were: all = 61 non-users = 17 users - 34 past users a 10

1 past users vs. users; X2 = 7.501, df= 1, p; S .05, Bonferroni chi-square

1 users vs. non-users: X2 = 6.845, df = 2, p); s .05, Bonferroni chi-square

be in school (Bonferroni chi-square, df= 1, X2 = 6.845, p; S .05). Future schooling
plans of the respondents ranged from "taking a few classes" at the local community college
or earning a GED to training as a corrections officer or attending medical or dental school
(Q#68A).

Of the non-users, three worked full-time and two part-time; one food bank user
worked full-time and four had part-time jobs; two past users worked full-time (Q#69,
69A). Those unemployed respondents who indicated they were actively looking for work
had been seeking employment for an average of nineteen weeks, with a range of a few days
to two years. Sixty percent of the unemployed food bank users, 71% of the unemployed
non-users, and 56% of the unemployed past users were not actively looking for work
(Q#69B) (see Figure 4.1).

It was interesting to note that two women who were doing some babysitting in their homes
on a regular, daily basis still considered themselves unemployed. There were no

significant differences in employment between any of the groups.

59

 

% I non-users 8 users I past users
80

(n=21) (n=37) (n=16)

 

working unemployed, unemployed, not
looking looking

 

 

 

Figure 4.1. Employment status of low-income single mothers
as a percentage of each food bank use category.

Based on the above results, the null hypothesis H01 concerning the demographics
of the sample population must be retained in part and rejected in part. Users differed from
non-users on household and family size and on intention to return to school. Past users
were more likely to be divorced and more likely to currently be in school than users. The

groups did not differ in terms of transience, income, age, race or employment status.

Discussion: The average food bank user household in the Dahl (1986) study
was composed of one adult and two children, which is consistent with the reported
structure of the average AFDC household in Michigan1 and with the findings of Emmons
(1986) in a low-income population in Cleveland In the sample studied here, although
family size of the food bank users fits the AFDC and Dahl profiles, actual household size
averages one person more. This discrepancy might be a reflection of the fact that when
seeking assistance, these women tend to not report the presence of the other person—often a

male companion—in the the household, for fear of losing benefits. Most of the women did

 

1 Derived from Michigan Department of Social Services ”Monthly Assistance Payments Statistics"
(publication no. 67) for 1989.

60

not appear to try to hide the presence of the other household occupant from the
interviewers. This is a testament to the atmosphere of confidentiality which the
interviewers were able to establish. A second reason that household size on the food bank
records and actual household size might differ is that a social security number is requested
by the ICFB for each adult in the household. If the woman does not have the information
available for the other adult, she will then frequently request food for only herself and her
children. Perhaps she decides that food for three is better than no food at all

(M. Kieselbach, personal communication, May 15, 1990). It is to the detriment of these
food bank user households to not receive food for this extra person because an emergency
food package for three people will actually have to feed four.

With a mean family income, excluding food stamps, of $538.00 per month, the
average family in the study was at 64% of the 1989 federal poverty level for a family of
three (see Table 4.6). The average AFDC grant for the sample was $483.00. When
considering income of this population, however, food stamps should be included. The
women were not asked directly what their actual monthly food stamp allotment was.
Assuming that the typical family did not have food stamps left at the end of the month, the
average amount reported spent per month on groceries by the families which bought 97-
100% of their groceries with food stamps (n=37) was $147.78. This was very close to the
$148.59 average food stamp allotment for AFDC families in Michigan in fiscal year (FY)
1989 and is 63% of the 1989 maximum food stamp allotment for a family of three (see
Table 4.7). On this basis, if $147.78 is accepted as a good approximation of the actual
average food stamp allotment for these families and this amount is added to their other
income, average family income in the study is raised to $682.00 per month. This puts the
family at 81% of the poverty line. Using 1987 data, Shapiro and Greenstein (1988) found
that the average AFDC and food stamp allotments in Michigan brought a single parent
family up to 82% of poverty. The sample in this study appears to mirror those findings,

but it must be remembered that some of the incomes incorporated into the average include

61

Table 4.6. 1989 Federal poverty income guidelines by family size.

 

 

size of family poverty poverty 185% of
guideline guideline poverty guideline
(yearly income, $) (monthly income, .3)“ (monthly income, $)a.b
2 8,020 668 1,236
3 10,060 838 1,550
4 12,100 1,008 1,865
5 14,140 1,178 2,179
6 16,180 1,348 2,494
7 18,220 1,518 2,808
8 20,260c 1,688 3,123

 

Source: Federal Register

:1 Amounts rounded to nearest dollar
9 Income cut-off for study participation eligibility
C For family units with more than 8 members, add $2,040 for each additional member.

 

 

Table 4.7. Maximum 1989 monthly food stamp coupon
allotments.
household food stamp
size allotment ($)
1 9O
2 165
3 236
4 300
5 356
6 427
7 472
8 540

 

Source: Federal Register

a For family units with more than 8 members, add
$68.00 for each additional member.

62

income other than AFDC. The families which were existing solely on AFDC and
foodstamps were at 79% of poverty, a small decline from Shapiro and Greenstein's
findings. It must also be pointed out that in some instances "other" income consisted of a
substantial sum of money borrowed for a specific purpose, such as a down payment on a
rental house or an abortion. These funds, therefore, would not be used for basic
necessities such as food.

The 19% of families who had received a child support payment in the month before
the interview was a somewhat higher rate than might be expected (Wilson, 1988), and was
over twice the rate found in a survey of low-income families conducted in Washington state
(Governor's Task Force on Hunger, 1988). Many of these families in the current study,
however, were receiving support for only one of the children or the payment was the only
one they had received in the last six months. It is important to remember also that all child
support payments are counted as income when calculating food stamp allotments. As
income increases, the food stamp allotment decreases. Therefore, the family's income
actually only increased by about two-thirds of the actual value of the payment (ie., $33.00
for a $50.00 support payment) because of the decline in the amount of food stamps
received If over $50.00 was received then the AFDC allotment was reduced, also.

When the income of the families in the study is compared to the average yearly per
capita income for Lansing as a whole, a large discrepancy is found. If only the per capita
income for family members (as opposed to all household members) in the study is
calculated and the fact that in some instances the family's income was also supporting
additional non-family members is disregarded, yearly per capita income for these families
averaged $2,268.00 (1989 dollars). In 1985, the average yearly per capita income in
Lansing was $11,983.00 (1989 dollars) (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1988) or over five
times that of the study population. This is similar to what Farley and Neidert (1986) found
in their analysis of national data from the March 1985 Current Population Survey conducted
by the Census Bureau. When they compared non-poor households to households that

63

relied on government assistance for the majority of their income, they found the per capita
income in the non-poor households to be six times that of the dependent poor households.
The income for a large portion of the families in the study appears to have been
relatively stable, at least over the last twelve months (see Figure 4.2). Many of the women
who reported that their income was higher than it had been a year ago were quick to point
out that it was only slightly higher. It is interesting to note that the income of non-users
appears to be undergoing the most transition, either higher or lower, although the trend is
small. The fact that over 30% of the past users indicated that their current income had
dropped from the previous year is similar to the trend found for current food bank users in
a statewide Minnesota study (Minnesota Food Education and Resource Center, 1985).
With the small numbers in the study it is difficult to draw any conclusions, though this
might perhaps be one indication that sorrre past users are still at risk for a food emergency.
For food bank status groups not to differ dramatically on the income variables lends
some credence to the hypothesis that, although income is the primary determinant of food

 

9, II non-users E users I past users
56 (n=27) (n=37) (n=16)

 

 

 

30W
201
10]

 

0 1 '
lower same higher

 

 

 

Figure 4.2. The direction of perceived income change over the last twelve
months by the proportion of women in each food bank use
category.

64

purchasing power in the household (Herrmann, 1964), other factors affecting disposition
and management of that income might play a crucial role in food availability. For example,
when allocating available income, it appears that low-income families will pay rent, utility,
medical or other large, fixed bills before buying food (Williams, Nall and Deck 1976).

Sixty-five percent of the sample had changed residence at least once in the last
twelve months compared to the 20% residential movement rate of all single parent families
in the United States (Norton & Glick, 1986). Even though the families in the study tended
to have moved only once in the last year, moving can be a stressful event. Moving also
inevitably involves expenses over and above the family's normal budget.

The racial mixture of the sample reflects the heterogeneity of the two neighborhoods
in the study. Lansing as a whole is a predominantly white community with approximately
14% African Americans and 6% Hispanic Americans. However, it was seen in this sample
that African Americans were disproportionately concentrated in this low-income population
when compared to the general population of Lansing (see Figure 4.3). They were
especially over-represented among food bank users, where they were three times more
prevalent than in Lansing's general population. This should not be too surprising, since
census data show that poor African Americans living in central city poverty areas in the
United States increased dramatically in the 1980's (O'Hare, 1987), and over half of all
female-headed African American households in the country are poor (Wilson, 1988).

Two out of three children living with an African American female single parent are living in
poverty and 48% of those live with a mother who has never married (O'Hare, 1987). The
high prevalence of low-income, African American single mothers is an ongoing concern
nationwide. Although native Americans and Hispanics also appear to be over—represented
in the sample as a whole relative to their presence in the general population, it must be
remembered that their numbers in this study (eight Hispanics and three native Americans)
were quite small, making it difficult to draw any conclusions or even discuss trends

regarding these groups. It should be noted, however, that Norton and Glick (1986) found

 

65

 

 

Lansing I sample I non-users E] users “ii past users
00 (n=130,414) (n=74) (11:21) (n=37) (n=16)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.02 m

native American

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.3. Comparison of the racial composition of Lansing,
Michigan and the study sample.

that Hispanic single mothers had less education and lower employment rates than either
African American or white single mothers, factors which have a direct effect on earning
capacity.

Early childbearing, with its concomitant social and economic impacts (Wilson,
1988) cannot be ignored in a study such as this one. There was a question asked in the
interview concerning the woman's age at the birth of her first child (Q#65), but problems
with the question wording precluded analysis except for multigravidas and five of the
primagravidas. For those women whose data were felt to be valid (11 = 46), the mean age
at the birth of the first child was 19 years (19313.8 years), somewhat older than might be
expected if teenage motherhood is thought to be a leading cause of dropping out of school
and subsequent poverty (Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn & Morgan, 1987; Hofferth & Moore,
1979; Wilson, 1987).

Eight of the respondents (11%) were under 20 years of age at the time of the

66

interview. In one household the respondent was older (age 39), but the preschooler in the
household belonged to the woman's unmarried sixteen year old daughter, who also lived in
the home. It appeared that the eighteen month old granddaughter had simply been "tacked
on to the end of the line" of children in the home. A situation similar to this was
encountered in one other home, but in this case the teenager was interviewed and not the
older mother. This researcher learned that in such cases it is important to interview both
women because they seem to split the responsibilities in the household. In these homes the
older mother was the breadwinner and the younger mother appeared to a certain extent to
manage the food in the home. As Sheirer (1983) demonstrated in her profile of a nationally
representative sample of AFDC families, the teenage mother and her child living with her
parent(s) is not an uncommon household structure in this population.

The average 11.6 years of formal schooling for these single female household
heads is in agreement with what was found in a random sample of low-income persons in
Utah (Fairchfld & Ernst, 1986). Thirty-one percent of the female household heads in the
Utah study did not have a high school diploma or equivalent and more than 95% did not
have at least a four year college degree, as compared to 38% and 99%, respectively, of this

sample.

Qualitative Data: The majority of respondents expressed a need to further their
education to be better able to support themselves and their families in the future.
Regardless of whether or not the women in this study dropped out of school because of
pregnancy, it appears that their children perhaps have kept them from furthering their
education and most likely have kept them out of the workforce. What was most surprising
was the degree of educational and career ambition of many women in the study. Forty-

' four of those not currently in school reported definite plans to return to school and another
eight had tentative plans (Q#68). Many were not content with simply attaining their GED's

or high school diplomas, but said they wanted their associate's degree from the community

 

67

college or a four-year degree from a university. Career goals ranged from training as a dog
groomer to obtaining a license as a sign language interpreter to becoming a pulmonologist.
One women was going through the dental hygiene program at the community college so
that she would be able to work her way through dental school at the University of
Michigan. Interestingly, although the meteoric increase in prison construction in the state
has had a devastating effect on funds budgeted by the legislature for human services, the
increased availability of jobs in corrections has impacted on this population. One woman in
the study sample was waiting to pass her final test to become a corrections officer and two
others were signed up for training programs. It is difficult to judge how many of the
women will follow through with their educational and career plans, but many of the
respondents were quite firm in their declarations of intent.

Reasons given by the women for not looking for work included: a) wanting to stay
home with the child(ren); b) lack of affordable child care; c) distrust of child care;
d) inability to obtain an adequately paying job; e) need for more school/training; f) in school
or returning to school soon; 8) disabled, injured or temporarily laid off. A primary barrier
to employment and educational advancement for these women was child care, similar to
what was found in the Washington state survey (Governor's Task Force on Hunger,
1988). In several cases women who were in school offered the information that while they
were in class their mother, who lived nearby, cared for the children However, many
women were in the same situation as one mother who stated she wanted to go back to
college to become a secretary when her kids got "old enough". Several women put it in
terms of waiting until the kids were in school full time. Another group of respondents said
they wanted to be home with their children while they were young. Many women were
afraid of day care facilities because of what they had seen on the evening news or read in
the newspaper:

68

I'm just going to stay home and take care of my kids. I don't trust anyone else to do it.
(#1314) 1

I don't want my daughter to be raised by strangers. (#1215)
I don't really trust nobody with my kids. (#1226)

I don't like the idea of leaving my two youngest anywhere where their older sister isn’t
because they can't talk to tell me if anything is wrong. (#1231)

For others, getting a job and having to use day care was simply not economically
advantageous:
I couldn 't find anything that I could do that would pay a babysitter. (#1221)

I 'm waiting for the minimum wage to go up. I need a job that pays enough so that
all my income doesn't go to the babysitter (#8302)

It wouldn't be worth the cost of a babysitter, transportation, etc. for the amount of
money I would make. (#8201)

It's hard with two kids. I couldn't aflord to pay a babysitter with the kind of job I
would get. (#1233)

Though the women frequently focused on affordable child care as an issue, their

comments often implied lack of training for reasonably paying jobs.

The way the welfare system is you can't afi'ord to get any measly minimum wage

job because it would be sabotaging your survival. You need $7-$8 an hour and

you can't get that without some college. (#1202)
To make the equivalent of her income on AFDC and food stamps (ie., 81% of the poverty
level) the average woman in the study would have to have a job that paid at least $3.94 per
hour (assuming a 40 hour work week and a full fifty-two weeks of work). In order to
bring the family up to the poverty line, which the federal government assumes is the
minimum necessary to rmet basic nwds, the mother would need to make at least $5.10 per
hour. Of course, if she were working full-time she would have additional expenses other
than babysitting, such as transportation and clothing, that she would most likely not have if
she were staying home. The family would also eventually lose its Medicaid benefits. The

loss of healthcare benefits in a family with young children is a serious problem.

 

1 Respondentcodenumber

69

H02: Domestic Resource Management

H0232

Results: The single mothers were the primary food shoppers in 88% of the
households surveyed (Q#4). In another 8% of the households, she and another person did
most of the grocery shopping. Half of all the shoppers purchased most of their groceries at
Meijers (Q#3) (see Figure 4.4), a large multi-purpose discount store located within driving
but not walking distance of both neighborhoods (Q#3). Another 34% of the principal food
shoppers bought most of the household's groceries at Shoprite, a chain of independently
owned medium-sized grocery stores. There was a Shoprite located within the Walnut
school neighborhood, but there was not one within walking distance of the Bingham

school area.

31191221118

Food bank users, non-users and past users will purchase most of their food
at large grocery stores and will shop for food with equal frequency. All
groups will be equally likely to report using a shopping list, plan menus
before big trips to the grocery store, purchase national brand foods and use
a car to access the grocery store.

 

QUALITY DAIRY ow

NEIGHBORHOOD
MARKET '

0

 

(n-21)

 

10

 

20

I non-users IE users

(n=37)

 

 

 

 

no
30 40 50
I past users
(n=16)

 

 

 

Figure 4.4. Percentage of food bank non-users, users and past
users choosing each store as their principal grocery

store.

 

70

Only two women reported buying most of the their household's food at Quality Dairy
(QD), a chain of local convenience store. No group was more likely to report doing most
of their grocery shopping at one store over another store. However, store choice did differ
by neighborhood (X2 = 17.455, df = 2, p = .0002). Women living in the Walnut school
neighborhood were six times more likely to shop at Shoprite than women living in the
Bingham school neighborhood, who were more likely to shop at Meijers. The most
frequently given reason for shopping at a particular store was that it was easy to get to
(46%), followed by lower prices than other stores (35%), sales and coupons (16%),
products the shopper liked (16%) and it carried needed items other than food (15%)1
(Q#3a). Users and past users who shopped at Shoprite were very likely to give easy
access as a reason for their store choice (users: Bonferroni chi-square, df = 2,
X2 = 22.849, p); S .01; past users: Bonferroni chi-square, (if: 2, X2 = 8.652, p; S .05).
Seventy-three percent of all the women who shopped at Meijers gave lower prices as a
reason for shopping there. Several women stated they shopped at a particular store because
their parents had shopped there or because it was where the person who gave them a ride
shopped.

The average number of times food was purchased for the household in the month
before the interview was eleven, with a range of two to thirty-five times (see Table 4.8).
When comparing shopping frequency of the three groups under study, significant differ-
ences begin to emerge between users and non-users (1‘ able 4.9). Users not only shopped
for food more often in the last month than non-users (Tukey MC, q = 3.961, p S .05), but
this difference was almost entirely accounted for by the fact that users shopped over five
times more often at the convenience store than non-users (Tukey MC, q = 5.353, p S .01)
(Q#2). The correlation between total number of times shopping and times shopping at the

convenience store was r = .79 (p < .001), explaining 62% of the variance.

 

1 Respondents could give more than one answer.

 

71

Table 4.8. Average frequency of household grocery
shopping in the month before the interview.

 

 

mean+ s.d. rmge
variable (n=74)
total no. times groceries purchased
inlast month 11.3181 2-35
no. times food purchased
at large store 3 5014.9 1 - 32
no. times food purchased at
convenience store 5.6172 0 — 30

 

a large stores a Meijers, Krogers or Shoprite

Table 4.9. Frequency of household grocery purchases by food
bank use status of single mother.

 

 

 

non-users users past users
variable (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
total times groceries purchased
in last month 7 .717.1 1* 13.718.7x** 10.6164
no. times food purchased
at large store(s) b 5.8164 4513.8 5 .214.7
no. times food purchased
at convenience store 1,512.3 8.418.6x*** 4915.0
11 Mean 1 standard deviation

b large stores .. Meijers, Krogers or Shoprite
x users vs. non-users
*"' p S .05, Tukey MC
*" p S .01, Tukey MC

 

 

72

When asked how often they or the person who was the primary food shopper used
a shopping list when grocery shopping (Q#6), 28% of the women reported a shopping list
was never or almost never used, 28% used a list sometimes, and 43% said they used a
shopping list frequently, almost always or always. Past users were twice as likely as non-
users to report using a shopping list frequently to always . In 34% of the households
someone frequently, almost always or always planned menus before big trips to the
grocery store were made (Q#7). Thirty-eight percent of the households never planned
menus and another 28% sometimes did Neither shopping list use or menu planning
differed between groups at the p; S .10 level.

Brand preference was evaluated by asking the women which type of brand——
national, store or generic—of nine selected food items they normally purchased. Seventy-
four percent of the women appeared to demonstrate a brand preference by selecting one
type of brand for over half the items. Of these 54 women, 32 (60%) stated they normally
purchased national brands more than the store or generic brands (94.1% of the non-users,
82.6% of the users and 66.7% of the past users). Within this sub-sample there were no
significant differences in brand preference between any of the groups. Only three of the
respondents reported they usually purchased the generic brand

Seventy-one percent of the women traveled to the grocery store by car. Some had
their own cars (31%), others obtained a ride from a friend or relative (29%) or borrowed a
car (11%). Fifteen percent of the women walked to the store (none of the non-users
walked), and the remaining 14% traveled by bus or taxi. Two women walked to the store,
then took a cab home with their purchases (see Figure 4.5). Users and past users were
more likely to walk or take public transportation to the store and non-users were more
likely to go by car (users vs. non-users: Bonferroni chi square, (if = l, X2 = 7.644, p); S
.05) (past users vs. non-users: Bonferroni chi square, df= 1, X2 = 6.345, p; S .05).

73

 

I non-users 63 users I past users
% (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

car walk bus and/or taxi

 

 

 

T users vs. non-users, car vs. other transportation? Bonferroni X2 = 7.644; 43 1; p; S .05
1 past users vs. non-users, car vs. other transportation; Bonferroni X2 = 6.345; rif= l;
p: S .05

Figure 4.5. Primary transportation to the grocery store of food
bank users, non-users and past users.

Based on these results, HOza in regards to principal store choice, shopping list and
menu planning use and brand preference must be retained However, H023 pertaining to

shopping frequency and transportation to the grocery store can be rejected.

Discussion: The fact that 60% of the respondents in the study chose to shop at a
large chain supermarket (either Meijers or Krogers), which was not within walking
distance of either neighborhood is similar to the findings of Berry & Solomon (1971) and
Alexis et al. (1969). However, it is a smaller proportion than the 81% in Goodman's
(1968) study of central city residents who chose this store type and location.

That the majority of women traveled to the grocery store by car also is in agreement
with the results of Berry & Solomon (1971). However, over 25% more traveled by car in
this study than in the survey by Goodman (1968). Although in this sample traveling by car
to shop for food was strongly associated with shopping at Meijers (X2 = 14.960,

p = .0001), it is not known whether the women chose to shop at Meijers because they had

 

74

access a car or if they first decided Meijers was the best place to shop and then, if
necessary, found transportation.

It appears that the choice of store might actually have been most strongly influenced
by the neighborhood in which the respondent lived If she lived in the Bingham school
neighborhood, where within walking distance there was only a convenience store and, at
one end of the neighborhood, a small neighborhood market, the subject most often chose to
shop at Meijers (see Table 4.10). It might be that if the women have to drive or take public
transportation to shop at a larger store, Meijers is their store of choice. A different trend is
seen in the Walnut school neighborhood, where the Shoprite was easily accessed from
almost anywhere in the neighborhood, even if the woman had to walk to the store. In that
neighborhood it was the store of choice, even though it is generally more expensive than
Meijers. It is worth noting that in this sample "easy access" was not necessarily
synonymous with "within walking distance". It often was related to the fact that the person

who regularly gave the respondent a ride to grocery shop at that particular store.

Table 4.10. The choice of primary grocery store by percentage
(number) of neighborhood residents in the sample?

 

NEIGHBORHOOD
Walnut Brngham
(n=41) (n=33)

 

%
SIQRE;
Meijers 39.0 63.6
(16) a (21)
Shoprite 53.7 9.1
(22) (3)
other 7.3 27.3

(3) (9)

a Number of subjects represented by the percentage
1x2 =117.455,4r= 2, p .. .0002

75

The fact that "easy access" and not "lower prices" was the most frequent reason
stated by this low-income sample for store choice contrasts with what other researchers
have discovered (Berry & Solomon, 1971; Goodman, 1968). In these other studies,
"lower prices" and "quality" predominated.

Differences in frequency of food shopping in general and food shopping at Quality
Dairy in particular were the most striking findings for this hypothesis. The possible
implications of these results will be discussed under H033.

It appears that the findings here tend to support what Coe (1971) discovered, ie. that
national brands are the brand of choice in a low-income population. However, somewhat
"cleaner" results might have been obtained regarding brand preference in this population if
all the women simply had been asked whether they normally purchased national, store, or
the generic brand and why.

Qualitative Data: One woman made the interesting comment that, although she
would have preferred to shop at Meijers, she liked shopping at Shoprite (the medium-sized
independent located in the Walnut school neighborhood) because they carried her groceries
out to her car for her. She appreciated the extra service because ” a single parent has to do
everything. You get so tired. " (#1202)

After examination of the research literature and discussion with experts, it became
apparent that shopping list use and menu planning have been assumed to be good behaviors
for food resource management, but no one appears to have systematically researched the
efficacy of either practice. Some mothers in this study did comment that making (and
remembering to take) a shopping list or planning ahead made shopping easier for them, but
over half of this population did not engage frequently in either behavior. One mother
' remarked that she never used a shopping list because she always bought the same thing and
basically had the list in her head. Sinkula (1984) hypothesized that the single parent, with
limited time and energy, might decide that the costs of "organized shopping efforts",

 

 

76

especially the time costs, outweigh the perceived benefits. Sinkula did not specify what
those benefits rrright be.

The women who expressed a preference for a particular type of brand of food
(national, store or generic) were asked to explain why they purchased that particular brand
type. Taste and quality were the two top reasons given by the women who typically
purchased national brands:

Because brand names tend to have more taste. Unbrand names don't seem to be good.
(#1218)

I guess because it (national brands) tastes better. It's not as watered down. (#1215)

Just for the fact I know what's in them. There's a lot less salt in them and stuff
(#1220)

Additionally, the comments of one woman suggested that buying national brand
foods was one of the few " good" things she could do for her children:

Somewhere in the back of my mind I think the quality is better. If my children are
going to eat it] want it to be the best. (#1213)

The children's preferences also appeared to have influenced the type of brand purchased,
particularly cold cereal:

The kids might not eat the cheapest thing. (#3312)

Cause my kids won't eat other brands. They think they taste difi’erent. (#1219)

Some women said they preferred national brands because they were what their
parents always bought:

I heard they're better. It's all my mother ever bought". (#8302)

Probably because that's what I had at my mom's when I was growing up. (#1308)
Other women mentioned that they purchased national brands of certain items—such as apple
juice, peanut butter and cold cereal—because they got them with WIC coupons. This is
even though in most instances the coupons do not specify that they must be used for a
certain brand or brand type (K. Scrimger, personal communication, May 18, 1990). These

women clearly preferred national brands when given an unrestricted choice, even if they

77

purchased mostly the generic or store brand when spending their own money or food
stamps.
Cost was the primary consideration for the women who usually purchased the store
or generic brands:
With food stamps you get more [of the unbranded]. They’re cheaper. (#3314)

The quality [of store brands] is similar to national brands, but they're less
expensive. (#3301)

National brands are expensive. I don't care for the taste of generic. (#1222)

They (store brand) are cheaper. They’re better quality than unbranded and probably
the same quality as the national brands. (#1229)

Although Kunreuther (1973) empirically demonstrated that foodstuffs purchased in
larger size packages typically cost less per unit than those purchased in small packages,
cost was not the primary reason given by the respondents for purchasing a particular
package size. There was no clear distinction among the groups on which size package
(small, medium or large) was generally purchased. Most respondents purchased a
particular size because it was the "right size" to feed the household Some reported buying
the large or medium size because they would have leftovers or it would last the household
the entire month. Other respondents purchased the medium or small size because they did
not want to have leftovers or food wasted Only two women said they bought small
packages because they could not afford the larger ones:

I try to buy large whenever possible because it's cheaper. Sometimes I 'm forced to
buy smaller because of limited money. (#1302)

Budget-wise I don't have the money to buy in quantity. (#3316)

 

78

H02b: Wand past users will have the same number of working
major appliances, utilities and amount of food storage space.

Results: Three of the households in the study had no working refrigerator, two
did not have a working range and five had no working oven. All but one of the households
had some type of freezer, usually as part of the refrigerator, that was at least somewhat
operational. One home did not have hot water because the gas had been shut off and in
three houses the kitchen sink drain was not working. All households had running water
and electricity.

When the women were given simple scores1 for the number of major appliances
and utilities they had, users and non-users were significantly different in their mean
appliance scores (Tukey MC, q = 3.890, p S .05), but not in mean utility scores (see Table
4.11).. Appliance scores and utility scores were only weakly correlated at r = .24
(p = .022)

Table 4.11 Mean appliance and utility scores1 by food
bank use status of single mother.

 

 

non-users users past users
score (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
appliance score 5.4105 a,b 4.9710.7X** 5.13105
utility score 4.0+0.0 c 3.891.31 4.00100

 

a non-users: n=20

b maximum possible score = 6.0
c maximum possible score = 4.0
X users vs. non-users

" p S .05, Tukey MC

 

1 Each woman was given 1 point for each major appliance she had (see Q#31 in the survey, Appendix H)
and 0 if she did not have that appliance. The appliance score was a simple total of all the points given
for having the specified appliances. The utilities score was calculated in the same manner, summing
over the utilities (not including storage) listed in Q#32 of the survey.

 

79

Lack of specific major appliances or utilities did not appear to be a problem for the
majority of households. However, almost one quarter of all the women in the study
reported that they did not have enough room to store food. Although the groups were not
significantly different on this variable, eleven of thirty—seven users and one out of every
four past users reported not having enough food storage space, while only 9.5% of the

non-users perceived this as a problem (see Figure 4.6).

 

 

enough storage I not enough storage

 

 

 

 

 

 

non—users USCI'S past users
(n=21) (n=37) (n=16)

 

Figure 4.6. Perceived adequacy of food storage space
by food bank use group.

Given the above results, the hypotheses concerning number of utilities and amount
of storage space must be retained The hypothesis concerning number of appliances can be

rejected.

Discussion: Although the difference in the appliance scores between users and
non-users is statistically significant, it must be examined in the light of its practical
significance. The slightly higher mean score of the non-users was driven not by the fact

that users or past users were less likely to have a range or refrigerator, but by the fact that

80

non-users were slightly more likely to own a microwave oven in addition to their other
major appliances. The microwave was included in the list of major appliances in the survey
because it was thought that women who did not have a range and could not afford to buy or
rent one might be able to buy or borrow a microwave. The microwave might also be a less
expensive alternative in terms utility bills. Apparently, however, this population perceived
the value of the microwave oven as an adjunct and not an alternative to a range.

Even though lacking one or more major appliances, having no gas to heat water or a
non-functional kitchen drain were not pervasive problems, they should not be underrated
For those families affected, they were problems not easily solved and seriously hampered
daily living.

For some families, having appliances was a major financial sacrifice. One woman
with six children was paying $75.00 every two weeks to rent her range and refrigerator
(plus another $112.00 bi-weekly for a washer, dryer and TV). Another woman had a
$70.00 monthly payment on the refrigerator she was purchasing.

Compared to the results of Kunreuther (1973), fewer respondents in this study felt
they had inadequate storage space, although 25% of the sample answered in the negative to
that part of Q#32. Whether or not the family had enough room to store food might reflect
on both ability to purchase the larger, more economical package sizes and frequency of
shopping, ie. a household might have to shop more often because they could only store
small amounts of an item at any given time.

Over half of households in the study (55 %) normally purchased medium sized
packages of food items; another 30% purchased large sizes and only three households
regularly purchased the small sized packages. The relationship between available food
storage and purchased package size appears to be very tenuous at l‘rb = .17 (rank biserial
correlation when a tie is present) (Cureton, 1968). No one reported having to buy the
medium or small sizes because they did not have enough room to store a larger size.

Statistically, there appeared to be no relationship between shopping frequency and

81

perceived amount of storage space in this sarnple. The rank biserial correlation (Glass &
Hopkins, 1984) between perceived storage capacity and overall shopping frequency was
l'rb = -.08; the relationship between storage and frequency of shopping at Quality Dairy
was very weak at rpb = -.17.

H026 Food bank non-users, users and past users will have the same total
domestic resource management index scores.

Results: Failure to derive a DRM index prohibited the testing of this hypothesis.
The correlations between the variables included in the score were weak at best (see Table
3.3). The one exception was the correlation between total number of times shopping and
number of times shopping at Quality Dairy (r = .79), a relationship which exhibits a high
degree of multicollinearity. Overall shopping frequency and number of times the
household shopped at Quality Dairy were also the only variables inclu®d in the score
derivation which discriminated between food bank use categories. Given the weak
bivariate relationships between variables and the lack of discriminating power of the
individual variables, it was felt that nothing would be gained by further attempts to combine

the variables into a single score. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be tested at this time.

Discussion: The inability to derive a DRM index might be a reflection of the fact
that the individual items were poorly written or did not effectively measure the actual
content domain (Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 223). The processes by which the items were
matched to the domain were perhaps not rigorous enough or perhaps there is no such
domain as theorized. Also, the concept of domestic resource management in relation to
food--an area in which instruction is given regularly in home economics classes and

programs such as EFNEP--might not have been adequately defined in this study.

82

H03: Cash Value Available to Purchase Food

H033: There will be no difference between any of the groups in the amount of
money, including food stamps but not WIC, spent on food in a month.

Results: An average of $175.00 per month in food stamps and cash was spent by
the households on food, with a range of $70.00 to $450.00. The per capita amount spent
was calculated to be $52.00/person/month (range $17.00 — $117.00). Typically, 83% of
the total amount spent was food stamps (see Table 4.12). Neither the monthly total spent,
per capita amount spent, or percent of cash value for food that was food stamps differed
between the groups.

Almost half of all the women (47%) in the study reported that they had borrowed
money in the last six months to buy food (29% of non-users, 51% of users and 62% of
past users). The difference between past users and non-users on this variable approached
significance at p}; S .10 with X2 = 4.259 (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 1, critical
value = 4.53).

Given the above results, HO3a concerning differences in amounts of cash value

available to purchase food must be retained.

Table 4.12. Average household expenditures for food in the last month
by food bank use status of the single mother.

 

 

a! non-users users past users
variable (n=71) (n=20) (n=35) (n=16)
usual amount spent in cash
and food stamps ($) 175176 3 149163 191181 173175
monthly per
capita expenditure ($) 52115 5119 53118 49112
% of food dollars that
were food stamps 83 78 85 87

(n=73) (n=37)

 

a Dollar amounts rounded to nearest whole dollar

83

Discussion: As was seen under H023, food bank users were shopping
significantly more often than non-users, both overall and at the Quality Dairy, a
convenience store. However, users were not spending any more money per capita than
non-users, probably because they did not have more money to spend. This is somewhat
dissimilar to the findings of Campbell and Desjardins (1987) who found that frequent
shopping per se did not increase household food expenditures in their population, but
frequent shopping in convenience-type stores did Boone and Bonno (1971) and
Goodman (1968) confirmed that convenience stores were indeed more expensive than
independent grocery stores or chain supermarkets.

A likely consequence of shopping frequently at a more expensive food store such as
a convenience store and not spending more money is purchasing less food in the long run
and being less likely to meet the household's optimal nutrition needs. As researchers have
found, even when the low-income homemaker is shopping as efficiently as possible, s/he
will still have difficulties meeting the minimal nutrition needs of the household (Barney and
Morse, 1967; Morgan et al, 1985).

The average household in this study was spending 25% of its income, including
food stamps, on food. This is substantially less than the 42% of income spent on food in
1988 by the poorest 20% of families in the United States, but it is much more than the
proportion of income--9%--spent on food by the wealthiest 20% of families in this country
(Blaylock & Elitzak, 1989).

Similar to the non-users in this study, but in sharp contrast to users and past users,
29% of both "adequately fed" and "hungry" households in the CCHIP (Community
Childhood Hunger Identification Project) survey (Connecticut Association for Human
Services, 1986) sometimes borrowed money for food. However, "hungry" families in the
Washington state survey (Governor's Task Force on Hunger, 1988) were twice as likely as
adequately fed families to report borrowing money specifically to purchase food,

proportions similar to what was found between ICFB users and non-users.

84

HO3b: The number of weeks food stamps last the household and the amount of
money added to the food stamps to purchase groceries will be the same for

users, non-users and past users who receive food stamps.

Results: The single mothers who received food stamps reported that the food
purchased with their stamps lasted approximately 3.5 weeks (Q#50C) (see table 4.13).
Two-thirds of the food stamp recipients added money (an average of $44.00/month) to
their food stamps in order to purchase more food (Q#50D&E). Food purchased with food
stamps lasted non—users almost the whole month, while that purchased by users lasted only
three weeks (Tukeys MC, q = 4.328, p S .01). Food bank users were more than twice as
likely as non-users to report usually adding cash to their food stamps (Bonferroni chi—
square, df = 2, X2 = 7.130, p; S .10). The average amount of cash added by the groups
did not differ, however. One quarter of the women who stated that they could never or
only sometimes buy enough food for their household reported adding no money to their

food stamps in order to buy more food.
Given the above results H031, must be retained in part and rejected in part.

Discussion: As in this study, in the statewide Minnesota study of food bank
users (Minnesota Food Education and Resource Center, 1985), half of the subjects who
were receiving food stamps reported that their stamps ran out by the end of the third week
of the month. Another 32% said their stamps ran out by the end of the second week. For
those classified as "hungry" in the CCHIP survey (Connecticut Association for Human
Services, 1986) food stamp allotments lasted an average of 2.4 weeks.

More than one family in the current study was having problems because their food
stamp allotments changed monthly depending on the family's fluctuating income. When
cash income increases, the family might actually perceive that they have less money
available to spend on food. Research has shown that a higher proportion of each dollar
added to the household budget that is food stamps goes to food than of each dollar that is
cash (e.g., Johnson, Burt & Morgan, 1981; Senauer & Young, 1986). There might also

85

Table 4.13. Adequacy of the households' food stamp allotments by
food bank use status of the single mother.

 

 

d non-users users past users
variable (n=69) (n=19) (n=36) (n=14)
number of weeks food stamps last
participating households 3410.9 3 3.9112 3.210.6"”" 3411.0
% of participating households adding
money to food stamp allotment 46.4 21.1 58.3‘1 50.0

(32) b (4) (21) 0)
amount of money added
to food stamps per month ($) 44136 C 60150 45135 49112

 

a Mean 1 standard deviation
b Actual number of subjects represented by the percentage
cDollaramounts roundedtonearestwholedollar

x users vs. non-users
"" pS .01, Tukeys MC
1p; S .10, Bonferroni chi-square, df= 2, X2 = 7.130

be sufficient enough lag time in the adjustment of the food stamp allotment that the month
the food stamps are decreased the family's income might again have declined.

It is noteworthy that forty-six percent of the women who, in response to Q#l 1A,
reported that all of their food expenditures were in food stamps stated in response to a later
question (Q#SOE) that they sometimes or always added anywhere from $7.00 to $45.00 in
cash to their food stamp allotment to purchase food . This discrepancy reinforces the need
in surveys to ask for important information in several different ways and at different points
in the questioning process in order to obtain the most valid data.

Fifteen percent of the study participants-six users, four past users and one non-
usernstated they could not buy enough food for their household with available food
dollars. Another 22%--twelve users, three past users and one non-user--could buy enough
food only some of the time (Q#15). Ninety percent of non-users said they could purchase
enough food with available cash and food stamps, while almost half (49%) of the users

 

86

reported never or only sometimes being able to buy enough food (Bonferroni chi—square,
df= 2, X2 = 9.163, p); S .05) (see Figure 4.7). The women who reported they could
never or only sometimes buy enough food with available food dollars estimated that they
would need an average of $53.00 a month more to adequawa feed the household (Q#15A),

not an unsubstantial amount of money.

 

I non-users El users I past users
(n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
1.

 

no sometimes yes

 

 

 

1' non-users vs. users: Bonferroni chi square, df = 2, X2 = 9.163, p; S .05

Figure 4.7. Proportion of subjects responding when asked whether
or not they were able to purchase enough food for their
household with available cash and food stamps.

Qualitative Data: When asked whether she could feed her family for the whole
month on her food stamps, one mother's succinct reply was "Are you kidding?" (#1302).
Other respondents said it was possible if they were careful and "budgeted it out". One
woman discussed how she prefered to buy more fruits and vegetables and meats, but
instead bought starchy foods that were less expensive. Two mothers made the point that
whether or not they could buy enough food in any given month depended in large part on
the children's appetites that month.

87

Some mothers in this study talked about what it was like toward the end of the
month in their homes.
It's hard. Some months I have to stretch out the food at the end of the month. (#1302)
It (the food) lasts until the last week. The last week it's really low. (#3310)
It gets kinda' low at the end of the month, but we get by. (#1309)
I would like to buy more. When I don't plan well, it's sometimes "lean". (#3316)

H04: Assistance Program Participation

H043: mm between food bank non-users, users and past
users in participation in individual assistance programs or in total assistance
program partrcrpatron.

Results: The majority of women in the study (95%) were currently receiving food
stamps (FS) (Q#SOA). Eighty-four percent of the respondents were on Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) (Q#54B). Forty-five percent were receiving
supplemental food either for themselves or one or more of their children through the
Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) (Q#47B). Another
16% of the families had received WIC within the last year (Q#47A). Only one out of five
respondents was receiving federal commodity foods through the Temporary Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (OM) and just two women said they used community
or soup kitchens (Q#45). Twelve of the respondents (16%) reported they had gone
through the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) program (Q#46A)
(see Figure 4.8).

Users were more likely than non-users to avail themselves of commodity foods
through TEFAP (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 1, X2 = 5.089, p; S .10). TEFAP was the
only one of the above assistance programs that exhibited a significant difference in

88

 

 

I non-users E users I past users
% (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
100
90

 

   
   

 

  
  

.v v
.0

 

 
   
   
        
 
     
     
       
 
      
 

as

v

 

A...

$23

 

 

go’s

 

Q'.
89.?

o

O

   

9

     

 
 
  

.,.
.09

$20

0
b

 

food AFDC WIC TEFAP EFNEP soup
stamps kitchens

 

 

 

T users vs. non-users: Bonferonni chi-square, df = 1, X2 = 5.089, p; S .10

Figure 4.8. Assistance program participation of low-income single mothers
and their families by food bank use status.

participation depending upon the respondent's food bank use status.

Four other food assistance programs-school breakfast, school lunch, Headstart and
the summer feeding program--directly benefit children in the household . Much of the
participation in school-based nutrition programs by families is a reflection of the ages of the
children in those families. The average age of the children in non-user households was 2.9
years, in user households the average child was 4.8 years of age, and children in the
households of past users were on average 4.7 years old The children in non-user families
were significantly younger than those in user families (T ukey MC, q = 3.233, p < .10).
The difference in the average age of the children in past user and non-user families
approached significance at the p S .10 level with q = 2.527 (critical q value = 2.96).

Over half of the children in non-user households were under the age of two years (the
age group of children principally served by WIC), while in user and past user households
only about one-quarter of the children were that young (Q#17) (see Figure 4.9). The trend
is reversed at the other end of the age spectrum, where one out of three children from user

 

89

 

II <2years I 2years III 3-4years El 5years C1 26years I

 

16% (5) 53% (17) 26% (9)

     

' 7)
12% (4) 21% (1'8) 25% (9)

non-users users past users

Figure 4.9. Percentage (number) of children in each age group by food
bank use category (n=152)

families and 29% of those from past user families were age 6 years or older. Only 16% of
the children from non-user families were in the 6 years and over age group. Only two non-
user households contained elementary school age children and only four non—user
households had children in the 3 to 4 year age range (the age requirement for Headstart
participation).

Fifteen households-62% of those with age-eligible children--had at least one child
participating in the school breakfast program and twenty-one households--100% of those
with age-eligible children—-had at least one child receiving free or reduced price school
lunch. Users were more likely than non-users to have at least one child participating in
school breakfast (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 2, X2 = 7.676, pg S .10). Past users were
more likely than non-users to have a child enrolled in Headstart or who had just graduated
from the program (Bonferroni chi—square, df = 2, X2 = 7.744, p; S .10). Six families had
a child currently or in the last school year enrolled in Headstart; two of those were food
bank users and four were past users. Six more families had children starting the program
in the fall term. Only five families had children who participated in the summer feeding
program--three users and two past user (Q#19). Past users were more likely than non-

users to have a child who participated in summer feeding (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 2,

 

90

X2 = 11.857, p; S .01). Again, it must be remembered that part of the difference in
participation in these child nutrition programs is a reflection of the age distributions of the
children in the households.

Almost all of the families met the income criteria for each of the programs discussed
above, with very few exceptions. None of the programs is mutually exclusive, therefore,
depending primarily on the age range of the children, most families could participate in any
of the ten programs included in the study. The actual number of programs used at least
some time in the last year1 ranged from zero to eight. Almost all the families who had used
particular programs in the recent past were still using them. Current and past users, on
average, participated in one more program than non-users (users vs. non-users: Tukey
MC, q = 4.171, p S .05) (past users vs. non-users: (1‘ ukey MC, q = 3.07, p S .10) (see
Table 4.14). Almost one-quarter of the current users and 37% of the past users in the last
twelve months had participated in at least half of the assistance programs included in the
study, while none of the families that had never used the food bank had participated in that
many programs (see Table 4.15).

Given the above results, H043 regarding degree of participation in individual
assistance programs and total program participation is retained in part and rejected in part.

Discussion: It is not surprising that such a high percentage of low-income single
mothers in this study were participating in the food stamp program. A recent study by the
United States General Accounting Office (1990) found that 87% of the low-income
households in their sample eligible for food stamps and participating in at least one other
welfare program, such as AFDC, actually received food stamps. In addition, the GAO
found that the liklihood of a household using food stamps increased by 67% with every

additional child in that household Also, never married women who were eligible for the

 

1 The time frame for food stamp use was the last six months.

91

 

Table 4.14. Average number of assistance programs (other than food
bank) participated in by families, categorized by food bank

use status of the single mother.

 

 

mothers ' food bank avg. # of programs
use status It (meanisd) range
non-users 21 2611.1 0 — 4
users 37 3.9116 X** 0 - 8
past users 16 3811.9 Y* 0-7

 

X users vs non-users

Y past users vs non-users
* pS .10, Tukeys MC
** pS .05, Tukeys MC

Table 4.15. The degree of multiple assistance program participation by
families in each food bank use category. 1‘

 

 

 

 

number of programs d non-users users past users
' ' in (n=74) (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
%
0 5.4 9.5 2.7 6.3
(4) b (2) (1) (1)
2-4 75.7 90.5 75.7 56.2
(56) (19) (28) (9)
2 5 ' 18.9 0.0 21.6 37.5
(14) (0) (8) (6)
a Does not include food bank use

9 Number of subjects represented by the percentage

 

92

program, particularly non-white women, had a higher probability of participating in the
program than men or widowed, divorced or separated women.

The AFDC participation rate by the current sample, however, is in contrast to what
was found by Weinburg (1987). In his examination of poor female-headed, single parent
households, 86% received government transfer income of some kind, but only 58% were
on AFDC, as opposed to the 84% who were currently receiving AFDC in this sample.

That the low-income families in this study participated in an average two or three
government assistance programs supports what has been found in previous research, i.e.,
that multiple assistance program participation is the norm rather than the exception. Long
(1988) found that 95 % of the low-income households in her data set who were
participating in the food stamp program were also participating in at least one other
government assistance program. Almost three-quarters of the families in the study by
Emmons (1986), all of whom were on food stamps and AFDC, also participated in at least
one other assistance program. In a study by MacDonald (1985) of multiple transfer
program participation, eighty-six percent of the households on public assistance (most were
on AFDC) participated in at least one other major government assistance program.

It must be remembered that multiple program participation is almost a necessity for
these families if, for whatever reasons, they must rely on government transfer income to
support their families. As found both by Shapiro and Greenstein (1988) and by this study,
relying on AFDC alone or AFDC and food stamps does not bring a family's income up to
the poverty line, the income level the federal government presumes is needed to provide a
minimally adequate amount of basic goods and services for a given family size.

93

H04b: Worm about particular assistance prograrrrs or

attach more stigma to assistance program participation than any other group.
Results: All respondents had heard of FS, AFDC and WIC (Q#47, 51, 52A&B,
54). Only three women did not know what commodity foods were (Q#44A). In contrast,
three out of four women said they had never heard of EFNEP (Q#46). However, food
bank users were more likely to know about this program than non-users (Bonferroni chi-
square, df = I, X2 = 5.376 , p; S .10). This was the only program where there was a
significant difference between any of the groups in terms of knowing of a specified
program's existence. Nineteen percent of the women did not know what the community or
soup kitchens were (Q#45A).

Whether the respondents attached any stigma to assistance program participation

was addressed by asking whether the women had "ever been bothered or embarrassed"
about using food stamps (Q#50F, 51A) or AFDC (Q#54D). Past users were significantly
more likely than users to admit being bothered or embarrassed about using food stamps
either currently or in the past (Bonferroni chi-square, df = I, X2 - 4.760 ,
p; S .10) (see table 4.16). There was no statistically significant difference between groups
on the question concerning embarrassment and AFDC participation. There appears to be a
trend among non-users and users to be more stigmatized by receipt of AFDC than by using
food stamps. Past users were equally likely to be bothered or embarrassed by participation
in either program.

When the relationship between being embarrassed about food stamp use and being
embarrassed about AFDC participation was examined, a clear association emerged (see
Table 4.17). If a woman reported not being bothered or embarrassed about her
participation in one program, she was likely to report feeling the same way about the other
program (X’2 = 28.890, df = 1, p S .0000). Fifty-five percent of the women who were
participating in both FS and AFDC reported not feeling stigmatized by either program, but

94

Table 4.16. Percentage (number) of respondents who had participated in
the food stamp and/or AFDC programs reporting being
bothered or embarrassed by their participation.

 

 

 

program all “ non-users 9 users C past users 4
%
food stamps 31.4 31.6 22.2 53.321
(22) (6) (8) (8)
AFDC 40.3 47.1 31.4 53.3

(27) (3) (11) (8)

 

a food stamps: n=70; AFDC: n=67

9 food stamps: n=19; AFDC: n=17

c food stamps: n=36; AFDC: n=35

d food stamps: n=15; AFDC: n= 15

2 past users vs. users

IBonferroni chi-square, df= 1, x2 - 4.760 , pz 5 .10

Table 4.17. Relationship between stigma associated with FS use and
AFDC participation by percentage (number) of respondents

participating in both programs (n = 67).?

 

 

 

 

bothered or embarrassed by AFDC
yes no
bothered or embarrassed
by food stamp use: %
yes 28.4 4.5
(19) (3)
no 1 1.9 55.2
(8) (37)

 

1x2.28.89o,df-1,ps.0000

95

over one—quarter of the dual program participants reported being bothered or embarrassed
by both programs. Regardless of the respondent's food bank use status, similar
relationships existed. Sixty percent of the users and 53% of the non-users were not
bothered or embarrassed by either program (users: X2 = 4.646, df = I , p = .03) (non-
users: Fisher's exact test, p < .003). The opposite is true for the ex-users, however, 53%
of whom were bothered or embarrassed by their participation in both programs (Fisher's
exact test, p < .0002) (see Figure 4.10). Past users were almost four times as likely as
current users to feel bothered or embarrassed about participating in both programs. The
difference between the two groups was significant at p: S .05 (Bonferroni chi-square,
df= 2, X2 " 10.348).

Respondents were also asked whether they considered food stamps and AFDC a
handout and whether these programs were a right to which they were entitled. Two-thirds
of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that food stamps were a handout and
70% did not feel that AFDC was a handout. Only two women did not feel that food stamps
were a right and 36% strongly agreed that they were. Forty percent of the women strongly
agreed that AFDC was a right to which they were entitled and again only two disagreed
Although non-users, users and past users did not differ in the direction of their opinions,
users and non-users differed significantly in the degree of their feelings about food stamps.
Users were much more likely than non-users to strongly agree that food stamps were a
right to which they were entitled (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 2, X2 ' 11.321 , p}; S .05)

Given the above results, hypothesis H041, concerning lack of information and

stigma as barriers to program participation must be rejected.

Discussion: That the women in this sample felt more stigmatized by AFDC than
by food stamps supports the findings of both Stuart (1975) and Goodban (1985). Both

non-users' and users' responses displayed this trend, but not past users'. There is no

96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% E neither program I 1 program I both programs
70
60
50
40 §
30 ‘\
20 \
10 \
o. .
non-users users past users 1'
(n=l7) (n=35) (n=15)

 

T users vs. past users: Bonferroni chi-square, (if: 2, X2 = 10.348 , p25 .05

Figure 4.10. Percentage (number) of respondents in each food bank use
category bothered or embarrassed by AFDC and food stamp
program participation (n=67).

information available to explain this difference. The significant relationship in this sample
between lack of embarrassment with participation in one program and not being bothered
by participation in the other program either also agrees with results obtained by Goodban.
The questions regarding whether the women considered food stamps and AFDC a
handout or a right to which they were entitled yielded results very similar to those of the
Stuart study (1975), where the majority of the women felt that they were indeed a right and
not charity. If anything, the results of this study were even more striking in terms of the
women feeling that they were entitled to these benefits. Interestingly, two or three
respondents interpreted the word "handout" used in Q#53A and Q#55A as having a
positive meaning and based their "agree" or "strongly agree" response on that
interpretation. In retrospect, using the word "charity" instead might have been a better

choice.

Qualitative Data: Lack of information about an assistance program is often cited

as a reason for non-participation, particularly in studies of the food stamp program

 

97

(eg. Coe, 1983; United States General Accounting Office, 1990). This was clearly not a
problem in this study, at least for food stamps, AFDC, and WIC. The women expressed a
variety of reasons for not participating in TEFAP. Some said they did not know how to
apply or that they were eligible or where to go. Others used to get the commodity foods,
but said they stopped when cheese was no longer being distributed. Transportation was a
significant barrier to participation for one respondent:

I went one time. I was going to get a card, but without transportation I haven't. I can 't
even afi’ord bus fare. It would help a lot. (#1312)

Several women expressed the feeling that the program was for others who were worse off:

...because I 'm a stubborn person. I think that people who are poorer than I am are the
ones who need it. (#1229)

I never went to apply for it because I think I 've got enough here for mysey and my
child and there's probably people out there who need it worse than I do. (#1211)

For some respondents, not knowing what a soup kitchen or community kitchen
was appeared to have been a barrier to taking advantage of the free meals offered at them
Other women who knew of the kitchens reported not knowing that there was one within
walking distance of their home. However, personal attitudes about the kitchens were
perhaps the greatest barrier to their use by this population:

I have food stamps and money. I figure those are for people who are destitute and
homeless. (#1302 )

I feel embarrassed. Plus, they 're for other people who don 't have nothing and I feel I
have more than they do. (#1204)

I don't feel too comfortable with it. (#1222 )
I don't like the type of people that hang out in them. (#1305)

The only one I know of is the one down on Michigan Avenue and it's not the kind of
people I want my kids with. (#1312)

Again, transportation was a problem for one of the respondents:

By the time I get to the point I can't afiord to buy food, I can 't aford to get anywhere
but two blocks away to the food bank. (#1231 )

98

One woman who had used the food bank five times in the last year simply stated that she
did not want to use the community kitchens. Another subject reported that if she needed
food she would go to the food bank to get some and cook it herself. Apparently, use of the
community kitchens carries more stigma with it than use of the food bank.

Lack of knowledge about the program appears to be the major banier to
participation by these women in EFNEP or the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program. It was found by the interviewers, however, that reported lack of knowing about
the program might in part be because the women do not remember it by that name or
acronyrrr. Some asked if it was that "that cooking program" or even "that county extension
program that teaches cooking". One woman in the pilot study even reported not knowing
of the program, although the interviewer saw her graduation certificate sitting on the shelf.
Clearly, this program has an "identity problem", which has been realized by its
administrators (M. Bucklin, personal communication, May 1, 1990).

The comments by many of the women about the AFDC and food stamp programs
appear to reflect a greater degradation of self-esteem as a result of being on AFDC and a
greater likelihood of being embarrassed by attitudes of others when in the act of using food
stamps. When asked what bothered or embarrassed them about being on AFDC, the
women said:

I hate it. It's self-degrading. The case workers look down on you. Relatives think
you enjoy being on ADC. I 'm always telling my daughter to get an education and do
better. (#1213 )

It really strongly aflects you self-esteemwise. It's the victim 's role that you're placed
in. It can be a trap. You need to have a job. (#1202)

I feel that a lot of people have a bad outlook on it. I think it's bad on my self-image.
(#1308)

I don't want my kid thinking you grow up and get on welfare. Others think you're
lazy. (#3303)

I should be able to work, but I'm afraid to leave my child with someone right now.
Others talk about you when cashing checks or using food stamps. (#3314)

 

99

There' s people that I went to school with that ask me what I'm doing. They're at LC C
and] have to say I'm at home with my kids and on welfare. (#1312)

Friends say you should get a job and sometimes it bothers me. (#1315)

1 like to work. I feel like I 'm helpless because I'm on ADC and I don't like it. (#1208)

I t’s a handout. I've always worked until they fired me ..... More than one person has

told me that people are going to look down on me because I 'm on ADC. They're going

to say I had my kids to get more welfare. (#1231)

I just feel like people say that you're lower than they are. (#1222 )

Similar, though somewhat less strident, remarks were made concerning feeling

stigmatized by food stamp use:

It depends on the person at the counter. Others think women are breeding to avoid
work. (#3303 )

People have stereotypes of people who accept aid fiom the State. You feel
discriminated against. You 're not treated equal sometimes. (#3308)

Probably when I first had to be on them I was really humiliated. I think you grow
numb to it after a year. Just say you have to survive. I think that feeling 's always
there. (#1202

Most people tend to look down on food stamps. I look down on them. (#1213)

I feel like a failure. (#1309)

I 'm always embarrassed. When we were younger we had everything we needed.
Right now I have no choice. I feel like I 'm poor or something. (#1225)

They're not real money. Everybody knows you're on welfare. (#1204)

I guess it bothers me some, but it's been a necessity. I figure I've paid my taxes and
should get help when I need it. (#1302)

Rainwater (1982) makes the point that the stigma attached to program participation, either
by the woman herself or by others, must be viewed as a cost of assistance program
participation. Because the women chose to go on the programs and continue to use them
very likely reflects the fact that they feel the benefits to them and their children outweigh the
costs of being stigmatized by program participation, as discussed by Moffitt (1983).

Some women reported being bothered or embarrassed when they first went on
assistance, but that it did not bother them any more. Others stated that they were not

bothered or embarrassed because they felt they had no other choice:

100

You have to suck in your pride. I 'm not going to be on it much longer. I can stretch it
out. (#!229)

I 'd rather not use them [food stamps], but if you don't have any choice ..... (#1313)

If I have to use them there ain't no use in being embarrassed by them. It's the only
way I can get food. (#1311)

[ I was embarrassed ] at first. I used to think people abused the system. I 'm not
anymore because I know I need the help. (#1220)

At first I was. I was afraid someone might see. (#8203)
It is difficult to judge whether either of these attitudes were in®ed the true feelings of the
women or if they were, as Rainwater (1982) discussed, used as a defense mechanism
against the negative attitudes of others and of the woman herself toward participation in
public assistance programs. Rainwater also made the point, however, that
The most common defenses are actually more constructive. The woman accepts,
because she cannot avoid it, the social status into which she has fallen, but she
demonstrates her basic commitment to mainstream values by moving as rapidly as she
can to dig out of her situation of dependency and to "get back on her own feet".

On whether food stamps were a right or a handout, even though most of the
respondents agreed that they were a right, over and over again they stated that food stamps
or AFDC were only a right for those who really needed them. This could possible be
because the women felt that the behaviors of the welfare "cheats" reflected badly on

everybody who truly needed the help and who was honest.

H05: Ingham County Food Bank (ICFB)
Hosa: WW
Non-users will know of the ICFB as often as users and past users.

Results: Four non-users had never heard of the Ingham County Food Bank
(Q#48), making this group significantly different from the users who, of course, all knew

101

of the ICFB (Bonferroni chi-square, df= 1, x2 = 7.37, p s .05). Based on this finding,
H05a can be rejected.

Discussion: The fact that only four of twenty-one non-user respondents had not
heard of the ICFB perhaps seems of little consequence. However, one of the four women
stated that she was not always able to buy enough food for herself and her one year old.
Her earned income was $250.00 in the month before the interview plus food stamps and
WIC. What will happen when her baby is taken off the WIC roles , but the woman's food
stamp allotment does not go up to compensate is of concern. This woman might also be in
trouble if she loses her part-time job and has no income while going through the application
process for AFDC.

Of the respondents who knew of the ICFB, half had first heard about it from family
or friends; only 20% recalled hearing about the ICFB for the first time from their
caseworker (Q#48A) (see Table 4.18). The fact that friends appeared to be a major source
of information about the food bank might be useful knowledge for the ICFB to use in

Table 4.18. Where low-income, single mothers found out
about the ICFB.

 

 

 

 

d non-users users past users
source (n=70) (n=17) (n=37) (n=16)
%
family 17.1 17.6 13.5 25.0
(12) a (3) (5) (4)
friend 34.3 23.5 35.1 43.8
(24) (4) (13) (7 )
caseworker 20.0 --- 27.0 25 .0
(14) (0) (10) (4)
other/don't recall 28.6 58.8 24.3 6.3

(20) (10) (9) (1)

 

a Actual number represented by the percentage.

 

 

102

targeting informational campaigns about its services. Perhaps a campaign along the lines of
"Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk" might be effective, e.g. "Friends Don't Let
Friends Go Hungry". Q#73A-D collected information concerning where the respondents
obtained information about what was happening in Lansing and also the general television
viewing and radio listening habits of the women (see Appendix I). This information might

also assist the ICFB in targeting outreach efforts.

Qualitative data: One would hope that social services would make sure that
applicants learned of the food bank if they were obviously in need. However, one mother
in the study reported that it was not until she started to cry and asked where she could get
food for her children until her food stamps came through that the social services
caseworker told her about the food bank.

One of the research questions was whether there were families who should be using
the food bank who were not. One non-user, who knew of the food bank, admitted that she
had needed to use it, but could not explain why she had not.

H05b= WWW
Non-users who know of the food bank, users, and past users will be

equally as likely to choose the ICFB as their first avenue of assistance in a
food crisis.

Results: Only nine of all respondents (12%) stated they would turn to the food
bank first if they ran out of money and needed food or help buying food (Q#43) (see
Figure 4.11). Eight of those nine were food bank users and one was a non-user.
Surprisingly, none of the past users said they would turn to the food bank first for help.
The data showed that 30 of the respondents, or 40% overall, would turn to their mothers

first for help; another 26% would turn first to other family members or relatives. Twelve

percent would ask a friend first for assistance. Statistically, there were no differences

 

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% I non-users ES users I past users
(n=21) (n=37) (n=16)

60

50

4o

30

20

10

0 .

mother other family food bank friend other source
Figure 4.11. Where low-income, single mothers would turn first

for help if they needed food or help buying food by
proportion of food bank use categories.

between any of the groups regarding choice of first avenue of assistance in a food crisis.

Therefore, H053 is retained.

Discussion: The fact that no past users would turn to the ICFB first in the event
of a food crisis is disturbing. Respondents were not asked why this was the case and no
one voluntarily offered an explanation. One hypothesis is that the respondents associated
the food bank with an unpleasant experience at the Department of Social Services. Or
perhaps they had a bad experience at the food closet where they picked up their food. One
clue that might help to shed light on this question was seen in HO4b, where it was found
that past users appeared to feel more stigmatized by assistance program participation than
either current users or non-users. This feeling might carry over to assistance programs
other than AFDC or food stamps. If a person felt the the stigma of program participation
outweighed the benefits, Moffitt (1983) reported they were likely to decide against using

that particular program.

104

H06: Informal Social Support
HOfia:

Non-users, users and past users will interact as often with close friends as
with family members or relatives.

Results: Average frequency of interactions with close friends or with family
members and relatives, as calculated by the process explained in the methods section, did
not differ among the food bank use categories (see Table 4.19). The difference between
frequency of interaction with friends and with family was calculated by subtracting
SUPPFND from SUPPFAM for each subject and then comparing the mean differences of the
groups. No group interacted more frequently with family than with friends or vice versa
than either other group .

When the individual variables included in these composite frequency scores were
evaluated for how well they discriminated between groups, the only significant difference
occurring between users and non-users was in how often the women got together with
family members or relatives for fun or relaxation (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 2, X2 =
6.817, p}; S .10). Sixty-two percent of the non-users reported getting together with family
members or relatives at least once a week for fun or relaxation, while only 27% of the users

reported socializing with relations that often. Over one-third of the users reported that they

Table 4.19. Average friend and family frequency of interaction indices
of single mothers by the woman's food bank use status.

 

 

non-users users past users
“arable (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
friend interaction index 16.4:t7.3 3") 15 .8182 18.9:t4.9
family interaction index 16.9:t6.4 15.6:l:6.3 l8.6:t5.4

 

a Mean 1: standard deviation
5 A maximum of 30 pts was possible

 

 

105

socialized with family members or relatives less than once a month or never and almost

40% of past users never got together with family and relatives for fun or relaxation.
Given the above results, H06a must be retained.

Discussion: In contrast to the above results comparing those who have used an
emergency food assistance system with those who have not, previous investigations of
low-income mothers have found a negative association between help seeking in the formal
sector and frequency of contact with kin networks. Birkel and Reppucci (1983) found in
their study that the more frequent contact a low-income single mother had with her kin
network, the less likely she was to seek outside assistance from food assistance and mental
health care professionals. The women who were least likely to use prenatal care services in
McKinlay's research (1973) had more frequent contact with their kin networks than those
woman who were classified as utilizers of the professional services. McKinlay also found
the opposite to be true in relation to friends-~utilizers had more frequent contact with fi-iends
than underutilizers.

H06b: Overall social support network scores will not vary among non-users, users
and past users of the ICFB.

Results: As explained in the methods section, an overall social support network
score which included both family and friends variables could not be calculated. Therefore,
H061, cannot be tested at this time. The inability to derive an overall social support
network index might be because the individual items were poorly written or did not
effectively measure the same underlying concept (Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 223), as
discussed earlier under HOzc. Again, the processes by which the items were matched to

the domain were perhaps not rigorous enough and the domain of content of informal social

support might not have been adequately defined in this study.

 

 

106

When group means for the FAMNET and FNDNET sub-indices (see p. 44 of
methods) were compared, there were no significant differences found between groups. In
examination of individual variables included in these sub-indices, non-users reported
significantly more family members or relatives would gladly give them support or help if
asked (GLADHELP) than did users (Tukey's MC, q = 4.44, p S .01) or past users (T ukey's
MC, q = 5.298 , p S .10). Non-users also reported more family members living within
fifteen minutes of them (FAMFIFI'N) than did users (Tukey's MC, q = 3.191, p S .10)

Although Q#43 concerning where a woman would turn first for assistance if she
needed food was evaluated under HOsb, it is in essence a question about informal social
support (Figure 4.11). There is a strong propensity for women in all three food bank use

categories to turn to their families first in event of a food crisis.

Discussion: That the women in this study would turn to family first for help in a
food crisis is not surprising, given the results of the Utah study of a general low-income
population (Fairchild & Ernst, 1986), where 47% of the respondents stated that they would
turn to family first if they needed food. Actual proximity of family members and relatives
also appears to potentially have an effect on help-seeking behavior, both in this study and
in previous work. McKinlay (1973) found that the women in his study who sought the
least assistance in the formal sector were also the ones living in closest proximity to their
families.

The social support section of this questionnaire was built around the family and
friend interaction matrices because of a desire to compare the results of this sample with the
results of two other populations in Michigan with whom these matrices have been used
(Perlstadt, Smith, McConnell & Numinen, 1989; Social Science Research Bureau,
Department of Resource Development , 1987 ). The additional social support network
questions (Q#34, 34A, 36, 37, and 39-42) were used to fill information gaps concerning
size, density, strength and perceived accessibility of the friends and family support

 

 

107

networks left by the matrix questions . Because there was only a limited amount of
interview time available for each broad area under study in this questionnaire, it was not
possible to include more questions to cover other dimensions of informal social support,
such as the actual amount of help or support received or the woman's satisfaction with that
help or support. It was presumed that, with detailed questioning concerning frequency of a
variety of interactions occurring under a range of circumstances where social support might
be given, this might serve at least as a rough proxy for amount of help and support
received. However, the fact that the matrix questions were worded to include both getting
and giving help and support did not allow for examining just the help and support received
or the reciprocity of relationships between the individual and other members of her
network.

Another flaw in the SSN section of the questionnaire was that it did not necessarily
capture any of the support given by a live-in male companion. It is not known in this study
whether the women who were living with someone as a couple included their companion in
with their close friends, their family or not at all. As McLanahan (1981) and her colleagues
found, the male companion can be a significant part of some women's support networks
and not of others. When examining the impact of a romantic involvement, along with
support from family and fi'iends, Gladow and Ray (1986) found that friendships were
probably more important to the single mother than romantic involvement in terms of her
overall well-being, but that a romantic involvement did have a negative association with the

woman's feelings of isolation.

 

 

108

H07: Meal Skipping Due to Lack of Food
The frequency of meal skipping due to lack of food in the home will be the
same in non-user, user, and past user families.

Results: The children in 21% of households studied had skipped at least one
meal in the six months before the interview due to lack of food in the home (Q#21, 22). In
12% of the households, the children had skipped at least one meal in the last four weeks
(Q#20). One out of three mothers had skipped at least one meal in the last month due to
lack of food in the home (Q#24); an equal number had skipped at least one meal in the last
six months before the interview (Q#25, 26). Over three-quarters of the women who
skipped meals in the last month had skipped between one and four meals. One woman was
skipping a meal every day. Forty-three percent of the women who skipped meals in the
last six months had skipped meals five or more times; five of the women had skipped meals
more than ten times in the six month time period due to lack of food in the home. If the
mother was not skipping meals it was highly unlikely that the child or children in the home
were skipping meals (last month: X2 = 10.430, p S .002; last six months: X2 = 15.680, p
S .0001) (see Table 4.20).

Meal sldpping by both the children and the mothers was significantly more likely to
occur among food bank users than among non-users. Meal skipping during the month
before the interview was more prevalent for both the children (Bonferroni chi—square,

(9‘ = 1, X2 = 5.267, p); S .10) and the mothers (Bonferroni chi-square, df = I,

X2 = 7.117, p; S .05) who were users than for those who were non-users. During the six
months preceding the interview just the food bank user mothers were more likely to have
skipped meals than non-user mothers (Bonferroni chi-square, df = 1, X2 = 7.117, p; S
.05). The difference in meal skipping between the children of food bank users and non-
users during the preceding six months approached significance at X2 = 4.321

 

109

(critical value = 4.53, p; S .10) (see Figure 4.12). The past users did not differ statistically

from either users or non-users.

Given the above results, H07 can be rejected.

Table 4.20 The relationship of mothers' meal skipping to children's
meal skipping in the month before the interview by
percentage (number) of the whole sample?

 

 

 

mothers
no yes
child(ren)
no 66.2 21.6
(49) (16)
yes 2.7 9.5
(2) (7)

 

1x2 =10.430,4f= 1, p = 0012

Discussion: The fact that the children in one out of five households had skipped
meals because there was no food in the home is remarkably consistent with results found in
a statewide study in Minnesota (Minnesota Food Education and Resource Center, 1985)
and a non-random national survey of emergency food recipients conducted by PIRGs
(1986). As can be seen from Figure 4.12, at every time period in this study mothers were
more likely to skip meals than children. In sixteen of the twenty-three homes where
mothers had skipped meals in the month before the interview, the children had not skipped
a meal.

It seems highly unlikely that there would be households where the children had
skipped a meal but the mother had not. However, this appears to have happened in four of
the households in this study. One possibility is that perhaps the mother's typical eating
pattern was to only eat one or two meals a day, even when there was food in the house, to

make sure there would be enough food for the children. Then, when there was no food

110

 

I non-users El users I past users
3;) (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)

 

 

children, last children, last 6 mothers, last mothers, last 6
month months month months

 

 

 

x non-users vs. users
laonrerroni chi square, df= 1 x2 = 5.267, pz 5 .10
*Bonrerroni chi square, 4f: 1, x2 = 7.117, pz s .05

Figure 4.12 Percentage of children and mothers skipping meals due
to lack of food in the home by food bank use category.

available, she did not "skip" a meal because she would not have eaten it anyway on a
normal day.

It does not appear that mothers in this sample frequently used friends and/or
relatives as an alternative meal source for themselves or their children. When asked if they
had sent their children to a friend's or relative's to eat in the last month because there was
no food in the house (Q#23), only five women (four food bank users, one past user)
admitted that they had done this. Nine women (seven food bank users, one non-user, one
past user) said that they themselves had eaten at a friend's or relative's at least once in the
last month because there was not enough food in the house (Q#27). None of the groups
differed significantly in this behavior, although it is noteworthy that it was primarily food

bank users who were using friends or relatives as a source of meals, or at least admitting to

 

111

doing so. The CCHIP survey found that those households defined as "hungry" in their
results (those having "five or more positive responses on eight hunger variables") were
significantly more likely than "adequate" households to send their Children to a friend's or

relative's for meals (p S .001) (Connecticut Association for Human Services, 1986).

Qualitative Data. When asked about their children skipping meals, the mothers
frequently volunteered that if food were in short supply, they themselves would skip a meal
before they would make their children skip a meal. One mother skipped breakfast and
regularly cut back on her milk consumption toward the end of each month so she could
save the milk for her daughter. Another mother would only eat a can of green beans
instead of a meal if the family was short on food. One respondent who typically ate only
one meal a day, said she knew there wouldn't be enough food in the house for her and her
son if she started eating more often. Yet another subject'reported that two to three days
before she picked up her food stamps she might not eat because the children may want
more food. In the CCHIP survey in New Haven, Connecticut (Connecticut Association
for Human Services, 1986), mothers in 31% of the households reported that there were
days when they themselves skipped meals or ate less so their children could eat enough.

Although not a specific question on the survey, another frequent food conservation
strategy reported by the mothers was that, even though the family might not be skipping
meals, sometimes the entire family, not just the mother, might eat less. They would have
just soup instead of soup and a sandwich or the children would not get any snacks.
Seventeen percent of the CCHIP respondents reported that there were days when they cut
back on the size of the children's meals so there would be enough food to go around. Even
though most respondents did not report taking advantage of meals at friend's or relative's
when they were short of food in their own homes, one woman did remark that if she were
sending the children to her mother's to eat because the family had no food, she would not

tell her mother that was why they were coming over.

112

A frequent reason given by respondents in community based studies of food bank
users for why they ran out of food is inadequacy of their assistance allotments
(eg., Bureau of Nutrition-Nutrition Surveillance Program, 1989; HANNYS, 1987; Project
Bread Hunger Hotline et al, 1987). Clients reported their food stamps or grant monies had
run out before the end of the month or they had a problem with their case and did not
receive their food stamps or received less than usual. Similar problems were reported by
several respondents to this survey along with the following comments:

What they give us on food stamps and what they give us on money just don't make
ends meet. (#1305)

Didn't have the money to get the food. You don't get enough to take care of
personal stufir and buy food and take care of bills. (#1313)

What we're allowed on ADC and what's happening with our economy. Food costs
went up and ADC stayed down. (#1202)

My food stamps were cut to $65.00. (#3309)

I didn’t have any money. It was only one day. A couple of days before my food
stamps are the worst. (#1229)

Not having transportation to the larger, less expensive stores and being forced to
shop at the neighborhood market lead to a food crisis in other homes:
This month we didn't have transportation to get to K rogers [because the car was
stolen] and bought most of our food at Sunset and Quality Dairy. Some months we
have transportation, others we don't. (#1312)
Sunset is more expensive than other stores. I have no transportation. (#1315)
Many women, however, shouldered the blame themselves for the household
running out of food, feeling that they had improperly budgeted or mismanaged the food
purchasing resources:
I mismanaged. I didn'tfigure right. (#1215 )
Just didn’t stretch it long enough. ((#1207)
.. .probably because 1 didn ': budget well. (#1213)
...misbudgeting; not planning well. (#3316)
...not shopping properly. (#1218)

113

Additionally, with these families there was little leeway in the food budget for
unexpected company-~a problem in three homes--or the now ex-husband who drank up the
food money, or those months when food costs were higher. There was especially no

cushion for those women who experienced a sudden job loss or whose food stamps were

stolen.

CHAPTERS

Summary and Recommendations

It was hoped from the beginning of this project that some practical and immediate
use could be made of the research findings. This chapter presents a summary of those
findings, as well as some policy recommendations derived from them. Strengths and
limitations of the study which could not be appropriately addressed in the discussion are
also presented at this point.

One of the most important things investigating a research question does is create
more questions. Therefore, in this summary chapter are also recommendations for further
research which suggested themselves during the course of this project . Also put forth here
are the planned strategies for the dissemination of the findings and recommendations to
advocates for the poor, politicians, fellow researchers in the area of hunger, and
nutritionists. And, finally, some concluding remarks are offered which provide a "profile"
of the women in this study and which attempt to place food bank use into the broader

context of not only their lives, but the lives of nutrition professionals as well.

SummmfResults

A request for emergency food assistance identifies a family in crisis. Investigating
possible differences in characteristics and behaviors of those who do and do not use the
Ingham County Food Bank (ICFB) rrright help to improve interventions for households
potentially at risk for no food in the home or for chronic users of the food bank.

Knowledge of differences in food bank users and non-users might also assist agencies in

114

 

115

screening for families at risk for a potential food crisis and help identify means to reach at-
risk families not yet in any assistance system.

Although a preliminary picture of food bank users in this population began to
emerge during the data analysis, this research was not able to clearly define why some
women were non-users of the ICFB. The non-users actually appear to be a dichotomous
group, with some members who will never have to use the food bank and others who are
in all likelihood "pre-users".

However, this exploratory study of thirty-seven current food bank users, twenty-
one non-users and sixteen past users identified several trends and statistically significant
differences among the groups which might prove useful to investigate further in an
explanatory or predictive study. The statistically significant results included the following,
which have been informally categorized according to the order of the stated hypotheses
(pg. 33) and to potential use in screening (8) for families at serious risk for a food crisis in

the home or for intervention (I) to help reduce or eliminate the food crisis risk.

Demographics:

0 Households and families which included a single mother who was a food bank user
were larger than those of non-users. This was because there was one more child in
the households and not because those households were more likely to include a
second adult . (S)

0 Past users were more likely to be currently in school than users. Users were
significantly more likely to have plans to further their education than non-users, but
users were somewhat more likely to have already gone back to school and obtained
a high school diploma or equivalent. (S, I)

O The children in the households of non-users were significantly younger then those

in households of users and past users. (S)

116

Domestic Resource Management

0 Shopping at a convenience store occurred five times more often among users than
non-users. Overall, users shopped for food more often in the last month than non-
users. (8, I)

0 Walking or taking public transportation to the grocery store was more likely for
users and past users than non-users. Non-users were more likely to travel to the
store by car. (8,1)

Cash Value Available to Purchase Food:

0 Never or only sometimes being able to purchase enough food for their households
with available cash and food stamps was a problem reported significantly more
often by food bank users than non-users. (8,1)

0 Food purchased with food stamps lasted non-users almost the whole month, while
that purchased by users lasted an average of three weeks. (8)

Assistance Program Participation:

0 Being bothered or embarrassed about using food stamps was reported significantly
more often by past users than users. Also, past users were almost four times as
likely as current users to feel bothered or embarrassed about participating
concurrently in food stamps and AFDC. (8,1)

0 Not one of sixteen past users stated that they would turn to the food bank first for
assistance if they needed food. The reasons for this are not known. (8,1)

0 Using federal commodity foods from the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance
program (T'EFAP) was more likely for users than non-users. Users were also more
likely than non-users to have heard of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
program (EFNEP). (I)

0 Current and past users, on average, participated in one more assistance program

than non-users. (I)

117

Ingham County Food Bank:

0 Four (19%) of the non-users did not know about the ICFB. One of those four
reported not being able to purchase enough food for herself and her child with
available resources. (I)

Informal Social Support Network:

0 Getting together with family and relatives for fun or relaxation was reported to
happen more often for non—users than for users. Non-users also reported having
more family and relatives living within fifteen minutes of them than did users and
more whom they thought would be glad to give help or support . (8)

Meal Skipping Due to Lack of Food:

0 Meal skipping by both the children and the mothers due to lack of food in the home

was significantly more likely to occur among food bank users than among non-

users. (8)

Variables which approached statistical significance and likely merit further study
include the difference in family size and whether or not the woman had her high school
diploma or GED. Several factors presumed to possibly differentiate food bank users from
non-users were in fact not found to do so in this study, although many of them provided
good descriptors for the sample as a whole. These variables included transience, income,
age, race, employment status, preplanning of food purchases, available utilities and food
storage space, amount spent per capita on food, choice of the food bank as the first avenue
of food assistance and interacting more frequently with family than with friends. It must be
noted that on most variables there was a large range of responses within each food bank

use category.

Notable descriptors found for the sample as a whole included:
1) The average household in this study spent $175.00 per month in food stamps and
cash on food or $52.00 per person. This was 26% of the average family income

118

and about half of what the typical family in the United States spends.

2) The average income for the entire study sample was $538.00 in the month before
the interview, which was 64% of the federal poverty level in 1989. With food
stamps, the average family income was at 81% of poverty. AFDC was the
principal source of support for 85% of the families.

3) The average family had moved at least once in the last twelve months. Some
families had moved as many as ten times during the year.

4) African Americans appear to be disproportionately concentrated in this low-income
population when compared to the racial composition of the city of Lansing as a
whole. African Americans were three times more prevalent among food bank users

than among the city's general population.

11"121'

EFNEP, or the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, works directly
with low-income homemakers with young children on many of the food resource
management problems revealed by this study (Synectics Corporation, 1979). It is a
program which teaches the necessary skills for managing limited family food resources and
has a proven record of success. Yet, it is a program that is not readily available to everyone
who needs it because of consistent shortfalls in Federal funding. This study demonstrates
that a substantial need for programs such as EFNEP exists.

Affordable, accessible, trustworthy child care is vital for these women if they are to
be able to either complete their education or work to support their families. As it now
. stands, many of them must put their lives on hold and rely on the government to support
their families until the last child is in school full-time. Also, for those women who want to

and are able to work, it must be economically advantageous for them to do so. These

 

 

119

women should not be required to take the risk of putting their families in further economic
jeopardy because they want to work.

Food stamps, in most cases, are not meant to be 100% of a family's food
purchasing resources. However, with what little cash many of these families have
available to add to their stamps to purchase food, food stamps are not adequate. This
shorfall can especially be felt in the summertime, when school—aged children are eating
more meals at home. The basis for determining food stamp allotments must be

reexamined, anchored in reality not theory.

Slll"' flSl

Several aspects of this study were lmh its strengths and its limitations:

Q . .

The questionnaire was broad-based, with input from experts in all the relevant areas
covered. This document allowed an investigation of a broad range of issues which might
impact on food availability in the family. However, in order to keep the interview time
with the subjects of reasonable length, in-depth questioning in any one area was not
feasible. It must be kept in mind that this study was exploratory in nature and one of its
purposes was to reveal what areas warranted further, in-depth examination.

For the purposes of efficient data collection, the majority of questions were
quantitative in nature. This provided objective data so often lacking in other studies of food
assistance use. However, this type of investigation cannot explain individual behavior as
well as more qualitative, open-ended questioning might. Fortunately, the anecdotal
responses of the subjects, solicited or offered voluntarily, did much to provide some depth
to the results.

Some problems existed with individual questions which could easily be corrected if

those particular questions were used in future research. Problems with wording of a few

120

questions made some of the data unusable in the final analyses (eg., Q#65). Also, offering
restricted answer categories, such as "close, not so close" as opposed to "very close,
somewhat close, not so close, not close at all" (Q#41) lead to not only the loss of
information from the subject, but also to unexpected difficulties in data analysis. A serious
omission on the questionnaire was that there was no question asking directly why users
and past users had had to use the food bank the last time. An example of the questionnaire
with revisions is offered in Appendix J.

Thermal:

The process used to obtain the sample, a door~to-door census with call-backs, was
expensive, especially in terms of time. The decision to do the sampling in this manner was
not reached lightly. Drawing a sample from assistance program rolls or school enrollment
lists might have been employed. However, it was agreed that the census method was the
only way of reaching those families who were not in any of the major assistance programs
or who did not have school age children.

Most of the interviewers were not required to keep detailed records of time spent in
the field, so it was difficult to estimate person hours required to obtain each interview.
However, there were many weeks when in 15 to 21 team hours only one or no interviews
were obtained. Most interviews took two hours to complete, one hour for the portion
discussed in this thesis and one hour for a nutrition assessment of the mother and one of
her children, results of which will be presented elsewhere. Additional time was needed for
many of the interviews because one or more call-backs were required to complete both
parts.

The stability of the statistics would have been improved with a larger sample size,
particularly in the non-user and past user groups. Increasing the maximum age for the

youngest child in the household to ten or twelve years would have increased the pool of

121

subjects available and allowed more in-depth comparisons of the effect of the childrens'
ages on food availability in the home.

Wench
As with most research, particularly exploratory research, more questions were
generated with this study than were answered. What follows here are recommendations
from the researchers involved in this work, as well as other interested parties, of possible
areas for future examination.

1) A study similar to the current one needs to be conducted with a larger sample size
based on power analysis using data from this study. This follow-up study should
use a revised questionnaire based on the findings of this study (see Appendix J for
an example), focused on the best discriminators (such as frequency of shopping,
the family informal support network, educational status, transportation to the
grocery store, demographics, meal skipping) and using more in-depth, qualitative
questions.

2) A multi-community study, where assistance resources varied in quality and quantity
between areas, would be of interest, as would a study contrasting assistance use by
persons in urban and rural areas.

3) This study demonstrated the need for a long-term follow-up of non-users to
determine the incidence of future food bank use in this sub-sample and the
precipitating factors of that use.

4) Vital is an in—depth profile of past users to assess their current food security and
also to attempt to answer the question of why they are reluctant to return to the food
bank for assistance.

5) A comparison of single mothers who have only older children with those who have

only younger children would be of interest. It would be done to investigate the

6)

7)

8)

122

differences in coping strategies and food problems related to the children's ages,
such as the differing appetites of a two year old and a twelve year old, and also
potentially the mothers' ages and experiences.

It has been suggested that a study of homeless single mothers and their children
concerning issues related to food security would be of importance. Although
difficult to conduct because of problems locating and accessing the population, a
study such as this could prove to be worthwhile in documenting the unique needs
and problems of this growing population. The current study examined only non-
homeless families.

A comparison of the social support network questions with comparable data
collected in studies of the general population of the greater Lansing, MI, area and
the support needs of parents of handicapped children could provide further insights
into the significance of family and fiiend network in the lives of all these groups.
There is a need to examine in depth the nutrient adequacy of the diets these types of
households are currently obtaining with available food dollars. Knowledge gained
from this research could be applied in programs such as EFNEP to develop the

most practical interventions for improving the diets without increasing the cost

5 'ED"'ElE'l'

In order to disseminate the results of this research to those who can best make use

of the findings, the following avenues will be pursued.

O A one page fact sheet will be developed for use in conjunction with the following

strategies as well for distribution on its own to interested parties.

Verbal presentations will be given to local and state nutrition groups and hunger
coalitions (e.g., Food & Nutrition Advisory Commission, Nutritionists and Dietitians
in Official Public Health Agencies, Ingham County Food Bank Board, annual WIC
Conference).

123

0 An executive summary will be developed for distribution to local, state and federal
policy makers.

o A verbal or written presentation of the results will be made to the Lansing School

District's Board of Education, focusing on the need to make child care available if
women are to be able to retum to school.

0 Poster presentations on preliminary results have already been conducted at the annual
metings of the Michigan Dietetics Association and the Michigan Home Economics
Association and at the first annual fall meeting of the American Institute of Nutrition.
The final results have presented as a poster at the annual nweting of the American
Public Health Association.

0 Articles will be submitted for consideration to peer-reviewed public health, nutrition
and possibly sociology journals.

0 Results of the study will be submimd to appropriate national and statewide organization
newsletters for dissemination to members of those organizations.

0 Personal meetings will be held with the local directors of the Ingham County Food
Bank and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program to discuss the general
findings and also data collected specifically for those organizations.

Commons

Although for the purposes of scientific study it is easiest to collect and analyze data
on a group basis, it must never be forgotten that a family's ability to maintain an adequate
food supply and their decision to turn to the emergency food assistance system when in
need are complex and individual. Even though there were distinct differences between the
food bank use categories, within each group there was a range of potential risk among the
individual families for no food in the home. To most effectively serve families at risk for a
food crisis in the home, each family must be evaluated on its own merits.

However, it was stated in the introduction to this study that one of the outcomes of
this investigation might be to assist agencies in screening for potential risk. Because of the
small sample size and restricted sampling frame, it is difficult to generalize the results of
this study to the general population. However, given these caveats and logically assuming

that food bank use is a good proxy for a food crisis in the home, the following provisional

124

description of a typical food bank user in Ingham County, Michigan, is provided.

The typical food bank user has two children and has never married. She does not have
her high school diploma or equivalent and is not currently in school. The woman is not
working and feels she does not have the skills to get a job that would make it
economically feasible to get off welfare. Furthering her education or looking for even a
minimum wage job is not possible at this time because she cannot afford child care.
Even if she could access day care, she is afraid of what might happen to her children,
given what she has seen in the newspapers and on TV about day care facilities. The
family's income is significantly below the federal poverty guidelines, even with AFDC
and food stamps. The single mother says she is not bothered or embarrassed about
being on public assistance and, indeed, is probably participating in several different
programs. To get to the grocery store she most likely has to walk or take the bus and
she shops for food frequently, especially at small neighborhood convenience stores.
However, she reports that she can only purchase three weeks worth of food using just
her food stamps and at best, even with added cash, can only purchase enough food for
her household some of the time. She says she would turn to her family or relatives fnst
if she needed food or help buying food, but she feels only three relatives would gladly
help her out if she asked and only two relations actually live close by .

If poverty level income is the minimum income necessary to meet basic needs and
the average inconre of the families in this study at 81% of the poverty level (which is
comparable to all families in Michigan relying on AFDC and food stamps for most of their
income), it must be concluded that the holes in the Federal safety net of assistance
programs are indeed large enough for almost any low-income single mother and her
children to fall through. These are families who, for the most part, are living "on the
brink". One of the greatest barriers to these woman improving their lives and the lives of
their families, both in terms of food security and otherwise, is lack of access to affordable
child care where the women feel their children are safe fiom harm. Women who want to
attend school and want work must stay at home on public assistance in order to care for

their pre-school children because they have no other choice.

125

This study demonstrates why nutritionists must look beyond the aspects of a
person's life that directly and obviously impact on his/her diet or nutritional status.
Nutrition professionals must not only have the ability to assist in applying the necessary
band-aid solutions to an acute problem such as no food in the home, but they must possess
the skills and knowledge to identify, advocate for and work toward long-term solutions of
the larger and seemingly unrelated problems which directly or indirectly impact on food

access and availability in the home.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alexis M, Simon L S, Smith K M (1969). Some determinants of food buying behavior.
In: Alexis M, Holloway R J, Hancock R S (Eds). Empirical Foundations of
Marketing (pp. 20-32). Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.

Allen M J, Yen W M (1979). Introduction to Measurement Theory. Monteray, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Als H, Tronick E, Adamson L, Brazelton T B (1976). The behavior of the full-term but
underweight newborn infant. Dev Med Child Neur, 18(5):590-602.

Anderson, J E L (1988). EFNEP Evaluation in Colorado using a simplified progression
form. J Nutr Ed, 20(5):227-23l.

Babbie E (1989). The Practice of Social Research (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.

Barney H S, Morse R L D (1967). Shopping compared of low-income homemakers and
students. J Home Ec, 59(1):48-50.

Berry L L, Solomon P J (1971). Generalizing about low-income food shoppers: A word
of caution. J Retail, 47(2):4l-51, 92.

Birkel R C, Reppucci N D (1983). Social networks, information-seeking, and the
utilization of services. Am J Comm Psychol, ll(2):185-205.

Blaylock J, Elitzak H (1989). Food expenditures. National Food Review, 12(2): 16-23.

Block C E, Kellerman B J (1977). Food shopping efficiency among the rural poor: An
exploratory inquiry. Home Ec Res J, 5(4):255-262.

Boone L E, Bonno J A (1971). Food buying habits of the urban poor. J Retailing,
47(3):79-84.

Bread for the World (1985). Unfed America '85: A Report of Hunger Watch U.S.A.
Surveys. Washington, DC: Author.

Bureau of N utrition-Nutrition Surveillance Program (1989). 1988 Census of Emergency
Food Relief in New York State. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health.

Campbell C C, Desjardins E (1987). Managing Limited Food Resources: Strategies Used

by Families with Limited Incomes. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of
Nutritional Sciences.

126

127

Carmines E G, Zeller R A (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.

Coe B D (1971). Private versus national preference among lower- and middle-income
consumers. J Retail, 47(3):61-72.

Coe R D (1983). Nonparticipation in welfare programs by eligible household: the case of
the food stamp program. J Econ Issues, 17(4): 1035-56.

Connecticut Association for Human Services (1986) Community Childhood Hunger
Identification Project: New Haven Risk Factor Survey. New Haven, CT: Author.

Contra Costa County Hunger Task Force (1987). In the Midst of Plenty, the Shadow of
Hunger. Contra Costa County, CA: Author.

Crocker L, Algina J (1986). Introduction to Classical & Modem Test Theory. Chicago:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cureton EE (1968). Rank-biserial correlation when ties are present. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 28:77-79.

Dahl D (1986). Recipient profile of the Ingham County food bank. Unpublished study.
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University.

Downey G, Moen P (1987). Personal efficacy, income, and family transitions: A
longitudinal study of women heading households. J Health Soc Behav, 28:320-33.

Emmons G (1986). Food procurement and the nutritional adequ of diets in low-income
families. J Am Diet Assoc, 86(12):]684-93.

Fairchild G T, Ernst S L (1986). Utah nutrition monitoring project: Study of low-income
households in Utah, 1985. Salt Lake City: Utahns Against Hunger and Utah
Department of Health Family Health Services Division

Farley R, Neidert L J (1986). The safety net in 1985: An examination of the consequences
of federal transfer programs. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American
Statistical Association, pp.150-155.

Feaster D, Gottschalk P, Jakubson G (1987). Impact of 1981 AFDC reforms on months
worked and welfare duration. J Hum Resources, 22(4):542-50.

Frank R E, Douglas S P, Polli R E (1967). Household correlates of package-size
prorreness for grocery products. J Marketing Research, 3:381-384.

Furstenberg F F Jr., Brooks-Gunn J, Morgan 8 P (1987). Adolescent mothers and their
children in later life. Family Planning Perspectives, l9(4):142-151.

Gladow N W, Ray M P (1986). The impact of informal support systems on the well being
of low income single parents. Farn Relations, 35(1):]13-123.

Glass G V, Hopkins K D (1984). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

128

Goodban N (1985). The psychological impact of being on welfare. Soc Serv Rev,
59(3):401-22.

Goodman C S (1968). Do the poor pay more? I Marketing, 32:18-24.

Gourash N (1978). Help-seeking: a review of the literature. Am J Comm Psychol,
6(5):413-23.

Governor's Task Force on Hunger (1988). Hunger in Washington State. Spokane, WA:
Author.

Habicht J, Yarbrough C, Lechtig A, Klein R E (1973). Relationship of birthweight,
maternal nutrition and infant mortality. N utr Rep Int , 7(5):533-46.

Hammett R A, Van de Mark M S (1973). Research model for process of choice in family
food buying. Home Ec Res J, l(4):269-276.

HANNYS (Hunger Action Network of New York State) (1987). Food with dignity: A
study of people using food pantries in New York State. Albany, NY: Author.

Herrrnann R O (1964). Household socio-economic and demographic characteristics as
determinants of food expenditure behavior. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.

Herrrnann R0 (1964). Household socioeconomic and demographic characteristics as
determinants of food expenditure behavior. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.

Hofferth S L, Moore K A (1979). Early childbearing and later economic well-being.
American Sociological Review, 44:784-815.

Howard M (1986). Profile of a Community in Need. Lansing, MI: Greater Lansing Food
Bank.

Interim Study Committee on Hunger and Nutrition in South Carolina (1986). Accounting
for Hunger. Columbia, SC: Author.

Johnson 8 R, Burt J A, Morgan K J (1981). The food stamp program: Participation, food
cost, and diet quality for low-income households. Food Technology, 35(10):58—70.

Jones D Y, Nesheim M C, Habicht J (1985). Influences in child growth associated with
poverty in the 1970's: an examination of HANESI and HANESII, cross-sectional US
national surveys. Am J Clin N utr, 42:714-24.

Kammer J B, Shawhan G L (1970). Comparison of food prices in high- and low-income
areas. J Home Ec, 62(1):56-7.

Kim J, Mueller C W (1978). Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Koh E T (1978). Nutrition knowledge and food practices by low income households in
southwest Mississippi, 1975-1976. Lorman, MS: Alcorn State University.

129

Kunreuther H (1973). Why the poor may pay more for food: Theoretical and empirical
evidence. J Business, 46:368-83.

Lubin A H, Bonner J L, Schrock R O (1980). Effect of maternal iron status on the
subsequent development of iron deficiency in the infant. J Pediatr, 96:1114.

MacDonald M (1985). The role of multiple benefits in maintaining the social safety net:
the case of food stamps. J Hum Resources, 20(3):421-36.

Maryland Food Committee (1989). Not By Bread Alone: A Call to End Hunger.
Baltimore: Author.

McKinlay J B (1973). Social networks, lay consultation and help-seeking behavior. Soc
Forces, 51:275-91.

McLanahan S, Wedemeyer N V, Adelberg T (1981). Network structure, social support,
and psychological well-being in the single-parent family. J Marriage Fam: 601-12.

Mid-Columbia Community Action Council (1987). Missing the Mark: Addressing the
Emergency Food Needs of Infants and Small Children. The Dalles, OR: Author.

Minnesota Food Education and Resource Center (1985). Homegrown Hunger: A Study
of People Who Use Emergency Food Shelves in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN:
Author.

Moffitt R (1983). An economic model of welfare stigma. Am Econ Rev; 7:3(5):1023-
35.

Morgan K J, Peterkin B B, Johnson 8 R, Goungetas B (1985). Food energy and nutrients
per dollar's worth of food from available home food supplies. Home Ec Res J,
14(2):241-251.

Moscovice 1, Craig W (1984). The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and the working
poor. Soc Serv Rev;58(1):47-62.

Norton A J, Glick P C (1986). One parent families: A social and econorrric profile.
Family Relations, 35:9-17.

O'Hare W P (1987). Black demographic trends in the 1980's. Millbank Quarterly,
65(suppl 1):35-55.

Oregon Food Share (1986). Hunger Factors Assessment Findings: Profiles of the
Hungry. Portland, OR: Oregon Food Bank.

Owen G M, Garry P J, Kram M, Nelson C E, Montalvo J M (1969). Nutritional status of
Mississippi preschool children: a pilot study. Am J Clin Nutr, 22(1 1): 1444-1458.

Owen G M, Kram M, Garry P J, Lowe J E, Lubin A H (1974). A study of nutritional
status of preschool children in the United States, 1968-1970. Pediatrics, 53(4):597-
645.

Perlstadt H, Smith P K, McConnell B, Nurninen V (Winter 1990). Support needs of
parents with children receiving special health care. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Social Science Research Bureau. (working paper #31)

130

Peterkin B B, Hama M Y (1983). Food shopping skills of the rich and poor. Fam Econ
Rev, 3:8-12.

PIRGs (Student Public Interest Research Groups) (1986). Portraits of America's Hungry.
Boston: National Student Campaign Against Hunger.

Project Bread Hunger Hotline, Western Massachusetts Food Bank, Worcester County
Food Bank, Boston Food Bank (1987). Left Out of the Commonwealth...Again: The
Second Annual Survey of the Emergency Food Network in Massachusetts. Boston,
MA: Authors.

Rainwater L (1982). Stigma in inconre-tested programs. In I Garfinkel (Ed.), Income
Tested Transfer Programs: The Case for and Against (pp. 19-54). New York:
Academic Press.

Rivera J, Martorell R (1988). Nut;rition, infection, and growth part 11: effects of
malnutrition on infection and general conclusions. Clin Nutr, 7(4): 163-7.

Rush D, Kurzon M R, Seaver W B, Shanklin D S (1988). Study of food expenditures.
Am J Clin Nutr, 48:512-9.

Sanjur D, Haines P, Travis 8, Brooks M, Hammons B, Irnmink M D C (1979). Food
expenditures, consumption, and nutrient availability among New York state EFNEP
households. Search, 9(3):1-58.

Scheirer, M A (1983). Household structure among welfare families: Correlates and
consequences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(4):761-77l.

Senauer B, Young N (1986). The impact of food stamps on food expenditures: Rejection
of the traditional model. Amer J Agr Econ;68(1):37-43.

Shapiro I, Greenstein R (1988). Holes in the Safety Nets: Poverty Programs and Policies
in the States. Michigan. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Sirnko M D, Cowell C, Gilbride J A (1984). Nutrition assessment: a comprehensive guide
for planning intervention (pp. 70). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Sinkula J M (1984). A look at some shopping orientations in single parent households.
AMA Educators' Proceedings, pp. 22-25.

Social Science Research Bureau; Department of Resource Development (1987). 1987
Lansing Area Survey. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

SPSS, Inc (1989). SPSS/PC+ V3.1. Chicago: Author.

Stuart A (1975). Recipient views of cash versus in-kind benefit programs. Soc Serv Rev,
49(1):79-91.

Suter C B, Barbour H F (1975). Identifying food-related values of low-income mothers.
Home Ec Res J, 3(3):198-204.

Synectics Corporation (1979). The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program:
Historical and Statistical Profile. Washington, DC: Science & Education
Administration-Extension, US. Department of Agriculture.

131

The Maryland Food Committee (1988). Hunger Knows N 0 Season: A Statewide Report
on Food Pantries and the People They Serve. Baltimore, MD: Author.

The Task Force on Hunger (1985). Hunger in Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri
Association for Social Welfare.

US. Bureau of the Census (1983). 1980 Census of Population and Housing: Census
Tracts, Lansing - East Lansing, Mich. . Washington, DC: US. GPO. (Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, N o. 419)

U. 8. Bureau of the Census (1987). Household and Family Characteristics: March 1986.
Washington, D. C.: U. S. GPO. (Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 419)

US. Bureau of the Census (1988). County and City Data Book, 1988. Washington,
DC: U. S. GPO

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (March 1989). Food security in the
United States: the measurement of hunger. Issue brief, lOlst Congress, 1st session.

United States General Accounting Office (1990). Food stamp program: A demographic
analysis of participation and nonparticipation (GAO/PEMD-90-8). Washington, DC:
Author.

Verma 8, Montgomery D E, Cyrus E J (1987). The infludence of extension nutrition
education programs provided by Louisiana's two land-grant institutions. J Nutr
Ed;19(4):163-168.

Walker KN, McBride A, Vachon M L S (1977). Social support networks and the crisis of
bereavement. Soc Sci Med, 11(1):35-41.

Weinberg D H (1987). Filling the "poverty gap," 1979-84. J Hum Resources, 22(4):
563-73.

Weiss R S (1984). The impact of marital dissolution on income and consumption in
single-parent households. J Marriage and Family, Feb: 1 15-27.

Wickens T D (1989). Multiway Contingency Tables Analysis for the Social Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Williams P L, N all M, Deck P (1976). Financial problems of urban families. Home Ec
Research J, 4(3):185-96.

Wilson J B (1987). Women and poverty: A demographic overview. Women & Health,
12(34):21-40.

World Bank (1986). Poverty & Hunger. Netherlands: Author.

Wu D (1986). Profile of the frequent users of the Ingham County food bank.
Unpublished study. Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan

State University.

Wyers N L (1977). Shame and public dependency: A literature review. J Sociology and
Social Welfare, 4(6): 955- 966.

APPENDIX A

Hunger and Emergency Food Assistance Bibliography

132

APPENDIX A

D '11 IE I! . EU I'
A Selection of Reports, Studies, Writings and Federal Hearings

American Red Cross (April, 1987). Recognizing the Needs of the Homeless and the
Hungry (ARC 4608-A).

Anti-Hunger Coalition of Texas (1982). Hunger in Texas: A State of Need. Austin:
Author.

Ballantine C L (1982). Hunger is More Than An Empty Stomach. Washington, DC:
US. GPO. (SuDoc# Y 4.Ag 4:H 89/983)

Boehm WT, Nelson PE, Longen KA [USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives
Service] (1980). Progress Toward Eliminating Hunger in America. Washington,
DC: US. GPO (SuDoc# A 1.107:446)

 

Boulder County Department of Community Action Programs (December, 1983). Food
Needs in Boulder County. Boulder, CO: Author.

Bread for the World (1983). Hunger Watch. Washington, DC: Author.

Bread for the World (1985). Unfed America '85: A Report of Hunger Watch US. A.
Surveys. Washington, DC: Author.

Bread for the World (1989). No Child Should Go to Bed Hungry. Washington, DC:
Author.

Brown LJ, Pizer HF (1987). Living Hungry in America. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co.

Brown LJ, Allen D (1988). Hunger in America. Ann Rev Public Health; 9:503-526.

Bureau of Nutrition-Nutrition Surveillance Program (1989). 1988 Census of Emergency
Food Relief in New York State. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health.

Busch L, Lacy WB (eds). (1984). Food Security in the United States. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Campbell CC (April, 1985). Joint Report on Emergency Food Relief in New York State.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University and New York State Department of Health.

Campbell CC, Desjardins E (1987). Managing Limited Food Resources: Strategies Used
by Families with Limited Incomes. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of
Nutritional Sciences.

Campbell CC, Weber J, Pelletier D, Dodds J (October, 1987). The development of a
surveillance system to monitor emergency food relief in New York State. Am J Public
Health 77(10): 1350-135 1.

133

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (May, 1983). Soup Lines and Food Baskets: A
Survey of Increased Participation in Emergency Food Programs. Washington, DC:
Author

Chicago Hunger Watch (1983). Hunger in Chicago: Summary. Chicago: Author.

Citizens' Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition in America (1968). Hunger USA.
Boston: Beacon.

Citizens' Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition in America (1977). Hunger USA
Revisited. New York: Field Foundation.

Citizens' Commission on Hunger in New England (February, 1984). American Hunger
Crisis: Poverty and Health in New England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of
Public Health.

Clancy K, Bowering J, Poppendieck J (March, 1989). Audit and Evaluation of Food
Program Use in New York State: Report on Phase One. Syracuse, NY: Department
of Nutrition and Food Management, Syracuse University.

Colorado Council of Churches-The Research, Education and Action Coalition on Hunger
(1978). Malnutrition in Colorado-A New Approach to Hunger. Denver: Author.

Connecticut Association for Human Services (1985) Community Childhood Hunger
Identification Project: New Haven Risk Factor Survey. New Haven, CT: Author.

Contra Costa County Hunger Task Force (1987). In the Midst of Plenty, the Shadow of
Hunger. Contra Costa County, CA: Author.

Crossroads Urban Center and University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work (April,
1986). We Are the World, Too! Hunger in Salt Lake County.

Dehavenon AL (May, 1985). The Tyranny of Indifference and the Re-institutionalization
of Hunger, Homelessness and Poor Health. New York: East Harlem Interfaith
Welfare Committee.

Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University and New York State Department of
Health (February, 1987). Emergency Food Relief Surveillance Report, April 1986 -
June 1986. Ithaca, NY: Author.

East Harlem Interfaith Welfare Committee (April, 1982). Children and Hunger, Poverty,
and Disease in East Harlem in 1981: A survey of the Food Emergencies in 723 Client
Households of Six Religious Voluntary Agencies. New York, NY: Author.

The Economic Opportunities Commission and The Division of Economic Opportunities
(April, 1987). 1986 Report on the Status of Hunger in Alexandria. Alexandria, VA:
Authors.

Fairchild G T, Ernst S L (January, 1986). Utah Nutrition Monitoring Project: Study of
low-income households in Utah, 1985. Salt Lake City: Utahns Against Hunger and
Utah Department of Health Family Health Services Division.

Florida IMPACT (1981). Hunger in My Community. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

134

Food and Nutrition Advisory Commission (1984). A Right to Food. Lansing, MI:
Michigan Department of Public Health.

Food Law Center, California Rural legal Assistance (1981). Hunger in Califomia--Does
It Still Exist in the 80's? San Francisco: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (1983). How to Document Hunger in Your Community.
Washington, DC: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (November, 1983) Still Hungry: A Survey of People in
Need of Emergency Food. Washington, DC: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (1984). Hunger in the Eighties: A Primer.
Washington, DC: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (June, 1984). Glut of Hunger—An Analysis of Federal
Food Programs. Washington, DC: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (November, 1984). Bitter Harvest: A Status Report on
the Need for Emergency Food Assistance in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (December, 1985). Bitter Harvest II: A Status Report
on the Need for Emergency Food Assistance in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Food Research and Action Center (1987). Miles to Go: Barriers to Federal Food
Programs. Washington, DC: Author.

The Governor's Task Force on Hunger (June, 1986). Hunger in Vermont.

Governor's Task Force on Hunger (1988). Hunger in Washington State. Spokane, WA:
Author.

HANNYS (Hunger Action Network of New York State) (October, 1987). Food with
dignity: A study of people using food pantries in New York State. Albany, NY:
Author.

Hollings EF (1970). The Case Against Hunger: A Demand for a National Policy. New
York: Cowles Book Company, Inc.

Honorable Edward Kennedy (December 22, 1983). Going Hungry in America. Report to
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, US. Senate.

House of Representatives-House Committee on Agriculture (June 6, 1983). Hunger in
America--A Summary of the Hearings of the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing,

Consumer Relations, and Nutrition. Congressional Record (daily ed.); 129(78):E
2728-2736.

Howard M (1986). Profile of a Community in Need Lansing, MI: Greater Lansing Food
Bank.

Hunger Action Center (December, 1983). Tucson Hunger Survey. Tucson, AZ: Author.

Hunger Action Network of New York State (October, 1987). Food With Dignity: A
Study of People Using Food Pantries in New York State. Albany, NY: Author.

135

Hunger Watch--New York State (February, 1984). Hunger, Undernutrition and
Malnutrition in New York State. Part 1: Profile of "At-Risk" Population and Service

Agencies.

Interim Study Committee on Hunger and Nutrition in South Carolina (1986). Accounting
for Hunger. Columbia, SC: Author.

The John Zogby Group (February, 1988). Structures of Misery: Hunger in Our
Communities--An Investigation of Hunger in Oneida County, New York. Utica, NY:

Author.

Kelly GL, Rauschenbach BS, Campbell CC (July, 1989). Private Food Assistance in
New York State: Challenges for the 90's. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Division of
Nutritional Sciences.

Kotz N (1979). Hunger in America: The Federal Response. New York: The Field
Foundation.

Lawrence D, Molnar A (December, 1985) They're Still Hungry: Vital Statistics on
Poverty and Hunger in New York City. New York, NY: Community Food Resource
Center, Inc.

Legal Action Center for the Homeless and New York University Metropolitan Studies
Program (April, 1987). Below the Safety Net: A Study of Soup Kitchen Users in
New York City. New York: Authors.

Leinwand G (1985). Hunger and Malnutrition in America. New York: Watts.

The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service (January, 1989). Counting
Hunger in America: More Accurate and Comparable Data. In: Subject and Policy
Areas for the 101st Congress. Prepared for the House Select Committee on Hunger
(unpublished document).

MacEwen V, Richardson J (May, 1986). Federal Food Assistance Programs and a Brief
Bibliography on Hunger in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, The Library of Congress.

MANNA (August, 1987). Hunger Watch 1987. Nashville, TN: Author.

The Maryland Food Committee (1988). Hunger Knows No Season: A Statewide Report
on Food Pantries and the People They Serve. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health (October, 1983). 1983 Massachusetts
Nutrition Survey. Boston: Author.

Mayors Task Force on Food and Hunger (presented to Mayor R.L. Berkley, November
10, 1984). Task Force Report: Hunger in Kansas City. Kansas City, KA: Author.

Michigan Coalition on Food and Nutrition [MCFAN] (November, 1989). Michigan in
Action: Toward a Hunger-Free State - A Report on the Impact of Nutrition Programs
in Michigan. Lansing, MI: Author.

Mid-Columbia Community Action Council (1987). Missing the Mark: Addressing the
Emergency Food Needs of Infants and Small Children. The Dalles, OR: Author.

136

Minnesota Food Education and Resource Center (December, 1985). Homegrown Hunger:
A Study of People Who Use Emergency Food Shelves in Minnesota. Minneapolis,
MN: Author.

Minnesota's Task Force on Emergency Food and Shelter (1983). Recommendations to
Eliminate Homelessness and Hunger in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Office of the
Governor.

Missouri Association for Social Welfare (March, 1986). Hunger in Missouri: Report of
the Task Force on Hunger.

Morris PM (January, 1988). An Evaluation of the Nutritional Quality of Meals Served in
Soup Kitchens in New York State and an Examination of the Factors That Determine
Quality. MS Thesis, Cornell University.

Muller J (1987). The soup kitchen: A critique of self-help. Community Development
22:36-45.

New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Nutrition-Nutrition Surveillance
Program (September, 1989). 1988 Census of Emergency Food Relief in New York
State. Albany, NY: Author.

The New York State Committee Against Hunger (January, 1985). A State of Emergency:
Hunger in the Empire State. (revised March, 1985). New York, NY: Author.

The New York State Committee Against Hunger (July, 1985). The Summer Hunger
Crises. New York, NY: Author.

National Council of Churches (August, 1983). Work Group on Hunger and Poverty
Report. New York.

New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Nutrition (July, 1988). New York State
Emergency Food Relief Programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP]. Albany, NY: Author.

New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Nutrition (July, 1988). New York State
Emergency Food Relief Programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP] Homeless and Destitute Component. Albany, NY: Author.

Northern California Anti-Hunger Coalition (December, 1983). Survey of Reports of
Emergency Food Assistance in Three Counties. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Northern California Anti-Hunger Coalition (1984). Hunger Survey. Sacramento, CA:
Author.

Office of the County Executive (July, 1986). Report of the Special Commission on
Hunger and Malnutrition in Suffolk County. Hauppauge, NY: Author.

The Ohio Senate Hunger Task Force (1984). Final Report, 1984.

Oklahoma Conference of Churches (Winter 1982-83). Hunger and Malnutrition in
Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.

137

Oklahoma IMPACT (1983). Hunger and Malnutrition in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, OK:
Author.

Oregon Food Share (September, 1986). Hunger Factors Assessment Findings: Profiles of
the Hungry. Portland, OR: Author.

Painter M (ed) (Winter, 1988). The campaign to end hunger & homelessness [Special
issue]. Food Monitor, 43.

Physician Task Force on Hunger in America (1985). Hunger in America: The Growing
Epidemic. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Physician Task Force on Hunger in America (January, 1986). Hunger Counties 1986:
The Distribution of America's High-Risk Areas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
School of Public Health.

Physician Task Force on Hunger in America (May, 1986). Increasing Hunger and
Declining Help: Barriers to Participation in the Food Stamp Program. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University School of Public Health.

PIRGs (Student Public Interest Research Groups) (1986). Portraits of America's Hungry.
Boston: National Student Campaign Against Hunger.

Porter DV, Washington MH (1986). Summary of Reports Concerning Hunger in
America, 1983-1986. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The
Library of Congress.

President's Task Force on Food Assistance (January, 1984). Report of the President's
Task Force on Food Assistance. Alexandria, VA: US. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service.

Project Bread Hunger Hotline, Western Massachusetts Food Bank, Worcester County
Food Bank (1986). Left Out of the Commonwealth: A Survey of the Emergency Food
Network in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Authors.

Project Bread Hunger Hotline, Western Massachusetts Food Bank, Worcester County
Food Bank, Boston Food Bank (1987). Left Out of the Commonwealth...Again: The
Second Annual Survey of the Emergency Food Network in Massachusetts. Boston,
MA: Authors.

Public Voice for Food and Health Policy (February, 1986). Rising Poverty, Declining
Health: The Nutritional Status of the Rural Poor. Washington, DC: Author.

Public Voice for Food and Health Policy (1987). Profiles of Rural Poverty: Facing
Barriers to the Food Stamp Program. Washington, DC: Author.

Public Voice for Food and Health Policy (1988). Patterns of Risk: The Nutritional Status
of the Rural Poor. Washington, DC: Author.

Public Voice for Food and Health Policy (February, 1986). Rising Poverty, Declining
Health: The Nutritional Status of the Rural Poor. Washington, DC: Author.

Quantum Analysis, Inc. A Report on Hunger in Erie County. Buffalo, NY: Author.

138

Rauschenbach BS, Andersen EJY, Thompson FE, Frongillo EA (July, 1988).
Characteristics of Individuals Eating Meals at Soup Kitchens in Albany, Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse, and Westchester County, New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, Division of Nutritional Sciences.

Rauschenbach BS, Frongillo EA, Thompson FE, Andersen EJY, Spicer D (1990).
Dependency on soup kitchens in urban areas of New York State. Am J Public Health
80(1 ):57-60.

The Research, Education and Action Coalition on Hunger, Colorado Council of Churches
(1978). Malnutrition in Colorado—A New Approach to Hunger. Denver, CO: Author.

Riches G (1986). Food Banks and the Welfare Crisis. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian
Council on Social Development.

Rhode Island Community Food Bank (May, 1984). Hunger in Rhode Island 11.
Providence, RI: Author.

Save the Children Federation (September, 1984). Hard Choices: Portraits of Poverty and
Hunger in America. Westport, CT: Author.

Schiff A (May, 1987). Pantries and Poverty: Food Emergencies in New York City. New
York, NY: New York Community Trust.

Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, U. 8. Senate (1973). Hunger 1973
(incl. press reaction). Washington, DC: US. GPO.

Social and Scientific Systems, Inc. (May, 1983). A Report on Nine Case Studies of
Emergency Food Assistance Programs [submitted to the United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C. ].

Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, Comrrrittee on Labor and Public
Welfare, US. Senate (1967). Poverty: Hunger and Federal Food Programs
Background Information. Washington, DC: US. GPO.

Taren D, Thompson FE, Andersen E, Frongillo EA, Lambert JKJ, and Scholes J
(September, 1986). Monitoring the Use of Soup Kitchens and Food Pantries in New
York State - The First Year: July 1985-June 1986. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,
Division of Nutrition Sciences.

The Task Force on Hunger (1985). Hunger in Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri
Association for Social Welfare.

Texas State Senate Interim Committee on Hunger and Nutrition (November, 1984). Faces
of Hunger in the Shadow of Plenty. 1984 Report and Recommendations. Austin, TX:
Author.

Thompson FE, Taren DL, Andersen E, Casella G, Lambert JKJ, Campbell CC, Frongillo
EA, Spicer D (1988). Within Month Variability in Use of Soup Kitchens' 1n New York
State. Am J Public Health 78(10): 1298- 1301.

139

U. 8. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture (1983). Problems of hunger and
malnutrition. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer
Relations, and Nutrition, 98th Congress, 1st session, February 28, 1983. Committee
print. (SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:H 89/2)

U. 8. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture (1984). Review of studies of the
domestic hunger problem and proposed solutions. Hearing before the Subcommittee
on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and Nutrition, 98th Congress, 1st
session, October 20, 1983. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no.98-40)
(SuDoc# Y 4.Ag 8/1:98-40)

US. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture (1984). Hunger in the United States and
related issues. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer
Relations, and Nutrition, 99th Congress, 2nd session, March 2 and March 30, 1984.
Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 93-63) (SuDoc# Y 4.Ag 8/ 1:98-63)

U. 8. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture (1985). The war we must not lose-the
war on hunger. 99th Congress, 1st session, April 1985. Committee print. (SuDoc# Y
l.1/8:98-1176)

U. 8. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture (1986). Hunger Relief Act of 1986.
Joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Dorrrestic Marketing, Consumer Relations,
and Nutrition, 99th Congress, 2nd session, on HR 4990, June 25, 1986. Washington,
DC: US. GPO (serial no. 99-32) (SuDoc# Y 4.Ag 8/1:99-32).

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1984). Accessibility and
effectiveness of anti-hunger programs. Hearing, 98th Congress, 2nd session, June 25
and July 23, 1984. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 98-1) (SuDoc# Y 4.H
89:Ac 2)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1986). Hunger among migrant and
seasonal farmworkcrs. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd session, July 31, 1986.
Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-22) (SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:99-22)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1986). Hunger among the
homeless. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd session, March 6, 1986. Washington, DC:
US. GPO. (serial no. 99-13)

US. Congress, House Select Comrrrittee on Hunger (1986). Socioeconomic factors
associated with hunger and poverty in urban America. Hearing, 99th Congress, lst
session, November 8, 1985. Washington, DC: US. GPO (serial no. 99-9)
(SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:99-9)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1986). The causes and
consequences of hunger and poverty in Houston. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd
session, June 6, 1986. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-13) (SuDoc# Y
4.H 89:In 2)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1986). Hunger among the
homeless. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd session, March 6, 1986. (serial no. 99-13)
(SuDoc# Y 4.H 89.99-13)

140

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1987). Hunger and homelessness.
Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st session, February 25, 1987. Washington, DC: US.
GPO (serial no. 100-1) (SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:100-1)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1987). Hunger among the homeless:
A survey of 140 shelters, food stamp participation and recommendations. 100th
Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:H 75)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1987). Poverty, hunger, and the
welfare system. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd session, August 5, 1986. Washington,
DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-23) (SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:99-23)

US. Congress, House Select Comrrrittee on Hunger (1988). Poverty and hunger in
Hispanic America: The inadequacy of data for policy planning. Hearing, 100th
Congress, 2nd session, March 30, 1988. Washington, DO: U. S. GPO.

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger (1989). Food Security in the United
States: The Measurement of Hunger. Issue Brief.

U. 8. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger-Domestic Task Force (1985).
Coordination and simplification of domestic federal assistance programs. Hearing,
99th Congress, lst session, July 9, 1985. Washington, D. C. U. S. GPO. (serial no.
99- 5) (SuDoc#Y4.:H89 99- 5).

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger-Domestic Task Force (1986).
Appalachia: Rural woman and the econorrrics of hunger. Hearing, 99th Congress, 1st
session, October 22, 1985. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-8)
(SuDoc# A 107.2:H 89)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger-Intemational Task Force (1986).
Strategies to reduce hunger in America. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd session, May
21, 1986. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-829)

US. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger and the Select Committee on Aging
(1986). Hunger and the elderly. Joint hearing before the Domestic Task Force of the
Select Committee on Hunger and the Select Committee on Aging, 99th Congress, 2nd
session, April 22, 1986. Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-572) (SuDoc#
Y 4.H 89:99-15)

U. 8. Congress, House Select Committee on Hunger and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and the Environment (1986). Health
consequences of hunger on U. 8. infants and children. Joint hearing, 99th Congress,
1st session, May 23, 1986. Washington, D. C.: U. S. GPO. (serial no. 99-23)
(SuDoc# Y 4.H 89:99-23)

U. 8. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means (1984). Impact of federal budget
cuts on emergency food and shelter nwds. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Public
Assistance and Unemployment Compensation, 98th Congress, 2nd session, April 9,
1984. Washington, D. C.: U. S. GPO. (serial no. 98-81) (SuDoc# Y 4.W 36:98-81)

U. 8. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means (1985). Poverty and hunger' in
America. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment
Compensation, 99th Congress, lst session, April 30,1985.

141

US. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (1979).
Hunger in America, ten years later. Hearing before the subcommittee on Nutrition,
96th Congress, 1st session, April 30, 1979. Washington, DC: US. GPO.
(SuDoc# Y 4.Ag 8/3:H 89)

US. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (1986). Strategies to
reduce hunger in America. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2nd session, May 21, 1986.
Washington, DC: US. GPO. (serial no. 99-829) (SuDoc# Y 4.L 11/4:S)

US. General Accounting Office (June 23, 1983). Public and Private Efforts to Feed
America's Poor. Report to the Honorable Dennis Eckart, House of Representatives.
GAO/RCED-83- 164.

The United States Conference of City Human Service Officials (1987). The Continuing
Growth of Hunger, Homelessness and Poverty in America's Cities: 1987.
Washington, DC: Author.

United States Conference of Mayors (June, 1983). Hunger in American Cities: Eight Case
Studies. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Conference of Mayors (October, 1983). Urban Hunger. Washington, DC:
Author.

United States Conference of Mayors (January, 1986). The Growth of Hunger,
Homelessness and Poverty in America's Cities in 1985: A 25 City Survey.
Washington, DC: Author.

United States Conference of Mayors (January, 1989). A Status Report on Hunger and
Homelessness in America's Cities: 1988. Washington, DC: Authors.

Warwick Community Action Program (1982). A Survey of Hunger in Rhode Island.
Warwick, RI: Author.

Weber JL (January, 1988). A Description of Food Pantries in New York State and Food
Stamp Program Participation by Their Clients. MS Thesis, Cornell University.

West Virginia Food Law Project (January, 1983). Hunger in West Virginia. Gassaway,
WV: Author.

APPENDD( B

Food Closets Within the Lansing City Limits

142

APPENDIX B

FOOD CLOSETS WITHIN THE LANSING, MICHIGAN, CITY LIMITS

# households # households % change
Name and location served in 1988 served in 1989 1988-1989
Amencan Red ross
1800 E. Grand River 48906 712 1,042 +46.5
Bethlehem Lutheran Church
549 E. Mt. Hope 48910 179 183 +2.0
Central United Methodist Church
215 N. Capitol Ave. 48933 649 1,022 +57.5
Christ Lutheran Church
122 8. Pennsylvania 48912 171 236 +38.0
Christ United Methodist Church
517 W. Jolly 48910 363 193 -47.0
Cristo Rey Community Center
1717 N. High 48906 3,260 3,526 +8.0
First Baptist Church
227 N. Capitol 48933 250 275 +100
First Presbyterian Church
211 N. Chestnut 48933 206 305 +48.0
Friendship Baptist Church
925 W. Main 48915 6 1 -83.0
Galilee Baptist Church
2511 Rec Rd. 48910 47 57 +210
Good Samaritan Center
1229 E. Main 48912 427 30 -93.0
Kingsley Community Center
1220 W. Kalamazoo 48915 1,261 1,301 +3.0
Lansing Action Center
101 E. Willow 48906 1,819 3,235 +78.0
Michigan Econorrrics for
Human Development 48906 480 421 - 12.0
Mt. Hope Presbyterian Church
700 W. Mt. Hope 48910 264 519 +965

143

 

North Presbyterian Church

108 W. Grand River 48906 275 278 +1.0
Our Savior Lutheran Church

1601 W. Holmes Rd. 48910 69 22 -68.0
Potter Park United Methodist Church

1001 Dakin 48912 1,269 1,637 +29.0
Prince of Peace Baptist Church

2000 Forest 48910 39 25 -36.0
The Salvation Army

525 N. Pennsylvania 48912 2,136 2,340 +9.5
Seventh Day Adventist Community Center

5400 W. St. Joseph 48917 88 75 -9.0
Trinity Lutheran Church

Maw 48933 46 36 -21.5
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS

SERVED IN LANSING 13,986 16,759 +20%

APPENDIX C

Conceptual Model of the Study Variables

144

APPENDIX C

A conceptual model of the study variables and their possible effect on food bank use.
This model was used only in the initial design of the study and was never tested.

    

e

  
   

 

\

RMS

 

 

RMD
7

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent's level of formal education
Employment status of respondent
Respondent's ethnicity/race

Food bank use

Family size

Household make-up

{(FggnlfiLE-E‘a

7'

lNC Total family income
MAR Marital status of single mother
(divorced, widowed. never married)
RMD Resource management: domestic
RMS Resou'cc management:
social welfare system

88 Social Support

APPENDIX D

Boundary Maps of Selected School Attcndence Areas

145
APPENDIX D

LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT MAP

 

 

 
 

 

 

u n 4., nq‘

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingham County

   

 

crntonCou I
lngnamCoumy _
.Guna'nimlmf 7 " 1m:
human .,
, . , Ottawddtle
.4 urn... [—1
T Li
I M :1... J—
v mama
I Begum
C l -
..Rddle - ..
sacrou

 

 

 

.(51

@ uotmi All. El. cu.

 

 

 

 

 

LHope

5:?

lulu-n Cantu

 

':.__|

 

I
’ ( I; l
C =
E Wt 0: 52“" I31 ‘Il .
Inf“ 2 I q
‘ a Rev 1 lender:
J /E _‘l
E
..C. :
3
It

 

 

I Elementary School
mam School

 

5 ngll School

 

 

 

CS) puma-mu. laelllty

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Elementary School:
Allen 1
Attwood 2
Averill 3
Bingham 4
Cavanaugh 5
Cumberland 6
Elmhurst 7
Fairview 8
Forest View 9
Harley Franle 10
Gier Park 11
Grand River 12
Gunnisonville 13

on 14
Lewton 15
Lyon: 16
Maple Grove 17
Maplewood 18
Moore: Park 19
Mount Hope 20
Henry H. North 21
Northwestern 22
Pleasant View 23
Post Oak 24
Rec 25
Vivian Riddle 26
Sheridan 27
Verlinden 28
Wainwright 29
Walnut 30
Wexford 31
Willow 32
Woodcreek 33
Middle Schools 34, 35, 36
Gardner, Otto,
Pattengill, Rich
High Schools 37, 38

Eastern, Everett, Sexton

District-wide Facilities
With No Attendance
Boundaries 39
Marvin E. Beekman Center,
Holmes Alternative
Education Center,

Hill Academic 6: Vocational
Center,

Main St. Child Care Center,
Education Ctr. - Happy Time
Day Care Center

146

WALNUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Revised July. 1988

 

Clinton County I I

I
Ingham County I Sheridan Rd.

 

 

Grand River Ave. Lake Lansing Rd...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eaton County
Ingham County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Walnut Elementary School
1012 North Walnut Street

mmmmdmwmmmummmwmm

Commencinginthenorthwestattheinterwction ofPine Streetextcnded andNonh GrandRivcrAvenue. southeast
along North Grand River to Washington Avenue.

'l'benceaonthalongWashingtonbtheGdeiver,

Thence south along the riverto Saginaw Street.

Thence westalongSaginaw toSycatnore Street.

Thence north along Sycamore to Daleford Avenue.

'lhence went along Daleford to State Street.
1hencenorthalong$tatetoMapleSM

Thence eat along Maple to Pine Street.

Thence north along Pine and Pine extended to the point of beginning.

147

BIN GHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Efi'ective July. 1988

 

l 1

Grand River Ave.

q—Willow JP“

_. Oaklmd _ _ I .
Sa tnaw
r Jerome

 

 

 

   
    
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logan

 

 

 

Holmes St.

 

 

 

 

—1—m~°~ / 1

 

 

 

Bingham Elementary School
121 Bingham Street

The school service area of the Bingham School shall be within these described boundaries:

Commencing in the northwest at the intersection of the Grand River and Michigan Avenue. east along Michigan to
Hosmer Street.

Thence north along Hosmer to Jerome Street.

Thence east along Jerome to Holmes Street.

Thence north along Holmes. including both sides of Holmes. to its end.
Thence due east to Marshall Street.

Thence south along Marshall to Michigan Avenue.

Thence west along Michigan to Clifford Street.

Thence south along Clifford. including bath sides of Clifford. to Prospect Street.
Thence west along Prospect to Holmes Street.

Thence south along Holmes to M96.

Thence west along [496 to the Grand River.

Thence north along the river to the point of beginning.

148

GIER PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Revised July. 1988

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I:

J I :- Stoll Rd. I
N .
". E
"’o E
. T

State Rd.
t
Jones Lake Rd.
x Clinton CountL
Ingh‘m County ShOHdm Rd.

 

Grand River Ave. ,
Lake Lansing Rd.———.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r
A fl/l lllnole 5, /
Wlllowhp/ § M 78

' « .a\/
‘ Saginaw 3
Q
o .9
5' i

Mich!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gier Park Elementary School
401 East Gier Street

'lheschoolsavieeareaofdteGiu'ParkSchoolshaubewidtindtesedescfibedboundanes:

Commencing in the northwest at the intersection of Jones Lake Road extended and Chilson Street extended. east
along Chilson extended and Chilson to the NYCRR.

Thence south along the railroad to David Street extended.

Thence east along David. including both sides of David. to Illinois Avenue.
Thence south on Illinois. including both sides of Illinois. to East North Street.
Thence west on East North. including both sides of East North. to the railroad.
Thence south along the NYCRR to the PMRR.

Thence northwest along the railroad to North Street.

Thence west along North to North Grand River Avenue.

Thence west along North Grand River to Pine Street extended.

Thence north on Pine extended to the PMRR.

Thence northwest along the railroad to Jones Lake Road extended.

'Ihence north along J ones Lake Road extended to the point of beginning.

IN ADDITION. those students living in the former Hurd School area shall attend Gier Parlr.

ALSO. students living in the Hildebrandt housing project shall attend Gier Park (3112-3220 Turner Street - even
s: e .

APPENDIX E

Prc-Survey Flyer

149

APPENDD( E

PRE-SURVEY FLYER

éééééiéééééé

MSU FOOD USE SURVEY

   

An important survey is going to be conducted in your
neighborhood in the next few days!

th_nLJkuna_1he_mumexz
The survey is being conducted by people from the Department
of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Michigan State
University.
HanJ£_LMLJmLmflLJhLZ
We are trying to learn more about things that affect how
single mothers obtain and use food in their homes. This

information will help us and others in our efforts to improve
services to single mothers.

flhaL_Dn_l_BA¥£_IQ_DQZ
If your house is randomly selected, someone will come to your
door and you will be asked a few simple questions to see if
your household is the kind of household we're looking for.
If it is, you will be asked to answer some more questions.
It's up to you to decide whether or not you want to
participate!

 

9 ' .,

 

Only the people conducting the study will ever see your
questionnaire. Your answers will be completely
confidential. Your name will not be connected with your
answers in any way.

 
 

FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL:
Dr. Sharon Hoerr or Pat Smith at MSU. Phone: 355-7701.

éééééééééééé

OQOQQQGQGQ fifififlsfifififififi
fifififififififififi fifififififififififi

 

APPENDIX F

Pre—Screening Questions

150
APPENDIX F

W

Hello, my name is and this is . We are working on
an important study talking to single mothers about how they obtain and use tood tor themselves and
their children. You probably received a tlyer in your door trom the Department at Food Science and
Human Nutrition at Michigan State University telling you we would be in your neighborhood.

[IF SPEAKING TO A YOUNGER [IF SPEAKING TO AN OLDER WOMAN
WOMAN, ASK:] OR A MAN, ASK:]

Are you a single V is there a single mother in this household?
[IF "NO" ASK:] [IF "NO", THANK RESPONDENT AND END]
[IF "YES" GO TO ***1 [IF "ms", ASK:]

"May I speak to her?"
IF NOT AVAILABLE, ASK WHEN WOULD BE
A GOOD TIME TO STOP BY TO SEE HER.

IF HOME, REPEAT INTRODUCTION
THEN GO TO ***

 

*** l'd like to ask you a lew preliminary questions to see it you tit our survey.

Do you have any babies or children age 6 or under living with you?

[IF "YES", CONTINUE. IF "NO", THANK THE PERSON AND END THE INTERVIEW.]

How big Is your tamily?

(SHOW DESIGNATED RESPONDENT INCOME CARD APPROPRIATE FOR FAMILY SIZE.)

Would you say your tamiiy's monthly income is above or below this amount?

[IF "BELOW", CONTINUE. IF "ABOVE", THANK THE PERSON AND END THE INTERVIEW.)

.I would like to ask you a lew more questions that won't take more than 40 minutes. Your house was
chosen at random to take part in this study and it you choose to participate your answers will never
be identified with you or anyone in your household. When we tinish, to show our appreciation ior
your help with this important study. you'll receive a $5.00 glit certificate to a local grocery store.
Would you be willing to help us with this survey oi lood use?

[IF "NO" THANK RESPONDENT AND END INTERVIEW.]
[IF "YES", ASK:]
"May we sit down somewhere?"

APPENDIX G

Informed Consent Form

15 1
APPENDIX G

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

You are being asked to participate in a study being conducted by Patricia Smith and
Dr. Sharon Hoerr, from the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Michigan
State University. You are asked to answer as completely as you can a short questionnaire
which I will read to you. Total interview time will be about 40 minutes. Any information
collected from you will be kept in strict confidence at all times. Results of all the interviews
will be grouped together and no individuals will be identified in any reports. In this
manner, information regarding your participation will be kept confidential. Upon
completion of the interview, you will receive a $5.00 gift certificate to a local grocery store.

If you decide to participate, you may refuse to answer any questions you wish and
you are free to withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time. Your signature
below indicates that you have decided to participate in this study and that you understand
the information in this consent form. If you would like a copy of this consent form, one
will be provided for you.

Date

 

Participant's signature

Interviewer' signature

APPENDIX H

UCRIHS Letter of Approval

152
APPENDIX H

UCHRIS LETTER OF APPROVAL

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

WCOW ONIESEAICHINVOLVING EASl'LANSlNG 0 IICHIGAN 0 «us-nu
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)
206 sum HALL
(517) 393-973.

December 2. 1988 W

Patricia K. Smith

165 S. Anthony Annex

Dear Ms. Smith:

Subject: "PREDICTORS OF FOOD BANK USE IN A DOW-INCOME
' POPULATION W"

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proggsed
research protocol has been reviewed by another committee mem r.
The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and
you have approval to conduct the research.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar
year. If you plan to continue this pro'ect be and one year, please make

provisions for obtaining appropriate S approval gngnmmh

Anyjchan es in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed
by C S prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be
notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints,
etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work.

Thank on for bringing this project to my attention. lfI can be of any
future elp, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

ohn K. Hudzik, Ph.D.
air, UCRIHS

JKH/sar

cc: 8. Hoerr
MSU is - Wee Adios/Eyed Opportunity Institution

APPENDIX I

Questionnaire

l 5 3
APPENDIX I

Respondent Code

 

Interviewer Neighborhood Interview

Record of Calls

 

Call Date Time Outcome Initials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Interview Started
a.m.lp.m.

 

This is a survey looking at how single mothers get and use food in their homes.
I also want to talk about different things that can affect how and _w_he_r_e a family
gets food or things that might keep them from having engugh food. Before we
begin, I need to read to you this informed consent form and you and I both have
to sign it. This is just to let the people back at the office know that I have
explained the survey to you and that you voluntarily ageed to participate. (READ
INFORMED CONSENT AND OBTAIN R ' s SIGNATURE)

154

A LOT OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ASK ABOUT FOOD USE IN YOUR
WHEN I TALK ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD, I MEAN EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN THIS
HOUSE AND REGULARLY BUYS FOOD AND SHARES MEALS W.

1 . INCLUDING YOURSELF. YOUR CHILDREN, RELATIVES OR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE A
REGULAR PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD. BUT NOT INCLUDING ANY CHILDREN WHO LIVE AWAY
FROM HOME, HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD RBHT NOW?

2. THINKING ABOUT ALL THE TIMES SOMEONE HAS GONE TO THE STORE TO BUY FOOD FOR
YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN THE LAST 4 WEEKS OR MONTH, HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY
SOMEONE WENT TO BUY FOOD AT QUALITY DAIRY, THE MAGIC MARKET, OR THE 7-11?

 

A. In the last month, out of all the times someone went to the store to buy food for the household, how
many times would you say someone went to Shoprite, Krogers, or Meijers?

 

B. Where else did someone go to buy food for the household in the last month?

G. How many times was food bought there?

 

3. AT WHICH STORE DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD BUY MOST OF ITS FOOD IN THE LAST 4 WEEKS?

 

 

A. Why did your household buy most of its food at ?
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
Products they like ................... 1
Better prices than other stores. 2
Easy to get to .......................... 3
Accepts food stamps ............... 4
Accepts WIC ........................... 5
Sales ...................................... 6
Other ..... (Specify) .............. 7

4. WHO DOES MOST OF THE GROCERY SHOPPING IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD?

Respondent ........................... 1
Other adult ............................. 2
Teenage child ......................... 3

Other ..................................... 4

155

5. WHAT'S YOUR (THEIR) ONE MAIN SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE GROCERY STORE?

Own car .............. (Ask B) ............... 1
Walk ................. (Ask A) ................. 2
Bus ................... (Ask A) ................ 3
Taxi ................... (Ask A) ................ 4
Friend or relative drives... (Ask A) 5
Borrowacar ........ (Ask A) ............... 6
Bus there. taxi back ..... (Ask A) ....... 7

Other (Specify, then ask A).. 8

A. Do you have a car that runs?
Yes... (Ask B) ........... 1
No... (Go to Q. 6) ..... 2
B. is the car reliable?

Yes .......... 1
No ............ 2
NA ........... 9

6. HOW OFTEN DO YOU (THEY) USE A SHOPPING LIST WHEN GROCERY SHOPPING? WOULD YOU
SAY YOU (THEY) NEVER, ALMOST NEVER, SOMETIMES, FREQUENTLY, ALMOST ALWAYS, OR
ALWAYS USE A SHOPPING LIST?

Never ...................... 0
Almost never ........... 1
Sometimes .............. 2
Frequently ............... 3
Almost always .......... 4
Always ..................... 5
Doesn't need to use
a list, always buys

the same thing ...... 6

7. HOW OFTEN DOES SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD PLAN MENUS BEFORE BIG TRIPS TO THE
GROCERY STORE ARE MADE? WOULD YOU SAY THAT MENUS ARE NEVER, ALMOST NEVER.
SOMETIMES. FREQUENTLY, ALMOST ALWAYS, OR ALWAYS PLANNED?

Never ...................... 0
Almost never ........... 1
Sometimes .............. 2
Frequently ............... 3
Almost always .......... 4

Always ..................... 5

156

8. WHAT ARE SOME THINGS THAT MAKE GROCERY SHOPPING EASY OR HARD FOR YOU?

9. I’M GOING TO READ A LIST OF THINGS PEOPLE BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE. F IRST. JUST
TELL ME WHETHER YOU (THE PERSON WHO DOES THE GROCERY SHOPPING) BUY(S) IT OR
NOT. THEN TELL ME WHETHER YOU (THEY) USUALLY BUY(S) THE NATIONAL BRAND, THE
STORE BRAND OR THE GENERIC BRAND. NATIONAL BRANDS ARE LIKE DEL MONTE OR
MAXWELL HOUSE. STORE BRANDS ARE LIKE FOOD CLUB OR SPARTAN. THE GENERIC BRAND
IS THE KIND THAT HAS THE BLACK AND WHITE LABELS.

(Probe: "DO YOU NORMALLY BUY THE NATIONAL BRAND, THE STORE BRAND, OR THE
GENERIC BRAND?")

DOESN‘T RARELY NATIONAL STORE GENERIC

4

 

A. (IF BUYS 5 OR MORE OF ONE TYPE OF BRAND)
Do you usually buy brands more than the other brands?
Yes... (Ask B) ............ 1
No... (Go to 0.10).. 2

B. What are the reasons you usually buy brands more than the other brands?

10. WHEN FOOD ITEMS COME IN DIFFERENT SIZE PACKAGES, DO YOU USUALLY BUY THE SMALL.
MEDIUM. OR LARGE SIZE?

Small..... (Ask A) ........................................ 1
Medium ..... (Ask A) .................................... 2
Large ..... (Ask A) ....................................... 3

Dependson the product... (Go to 0.11)... 4

157

A. Why do you usually buy the size?

1 1. ABOUT HOW MUCH DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD SPEND ON GROCERIES IN THE LASTIMQ WEEKS
OR LAST MONTH? THIS AMOUNT SHOULD INCLUDE FOOD STAMPS. F YOU GET THEM. AN
ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH YOU SPENT IS FINE.

3 2 wks/mth

A. How much of the s was food stamps?

 

12. IS THIS ABOUT WHAT YOU USUALLY SPEND EVERY TWO WEEKS (EVERY MONTH)?
Yes.... (Go to Q. 13) ............ 1
No.... (Ask A & B) ................ 2
Dont know.. (Go to Q. 13)... 3

A. What made these last two weeks (month) different?

B. How much would you say your household normally spends on groceries in two weeks (a month)?
$_____

13. DOES THIS INCLUDE MONEY SPENT FOR BABY FORMULA?
Yes... (Ask A) ............... 1
No... (Go to Q. 14) ...... 2

A. About how much is spent every two weeks (month) for baby formula?
$_____

14. DOES THE S SPENT AT THE GROCERY STORE OR MARKET INCLUDE PURCHASES OF
NON-FOOD ITEMS LIKE DISH SOAP, PET FOOD. BEER, CIGARETTES, PAPER PRODUCTS, OR
GARBAGE BAGS?

Yasm. (Ask A) ......................... 1
No....(Go to 0.15) ................. 2
Don‘tknow..(Go to 0.15) ...... 3

A. About how much was spent on these non-food items? Again, a rough estimate will be fine.

$
Don‘t know ........ 001

158

15. ARE YOU ABLE TO BUY ENOUGH FOOD FOR YOUR HOUSEHOLD WITH THE MONEY YOU HAVE
TO SPEND?

Yes ..... (Go to 0.16) .......................... 2
No ..... (Ask A) ...................................... 0
Sometimes. but not always... (Ask A).... 1

A. How much more money do you think you would need to spend every two weeks (every month) to
buy enough food for your household?

$______

16. LET‘S TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S EATING PATTERNS NOW. FIRST, HOW MANY
CHILDREN LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? BY CHILDREN, I MEAN ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF

18.
(If only 1 child ask A)

A. What is his or her first name?

 

17. HOW MANY MEALS A DAY DOES EAT?
an

HOW MANY MEALS A DAY DO THE CHILDREN EAT? TELL ME ABOUT EACH CHILD INDIVIDUALLY.
BEGINNING WITH THE YOUNGEST. FIRST GNE ME HIS OR HER AGE AND THEN HOW MANY
MEALS HE OR SHE USUALLY EATS EACH DAY.

One Two Three Four Five Constantly

 

(If only one child in household and it is less than one year old, now go
to 0.19 and ask only about day care meals)

 

18. ARE THERE USUALLY FOODS AVAILABLE IN YOUR HOME FOR (TI-IE
CHILDREN) TO SNACK ON?
Yes... (Ask A) ................. 2
No... (Go to 0. 19) ......... 0

Sometimes... (Ask A) ...... 1

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. What are typical snacks (that the children) 031(3)? (Circle all that apply)
Toast Donuts Chips Jello Processed Meat
Ice Cream Muffins Fruit/Juice Sandwiches Peanut Butter
Koolaid Soup Popsicle Cheese Other (specify)
Crackers Cake Candy Cookies
19. DOES (DO ANY OF THE CHILDREN iN YOUR HOUSEHOLD) GET MEALS FROM ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS?
NUMBER OF KIDS
YES NO NA RECEIVING
[Free or reduced
price school breakfast 1 2 9
Free or reduced price
school lunch 1 2 9
Day care meals 1 2 9
Summer feedingflggram 1 2 9
Headstart 1 2 9
20. IN THE PAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, HAS (HAVE ANY OF THE CHILDREN) HAD TO
SKIP ANY MEALS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

Yes... (Ask A) .............. 1
NO....(GO to 0.22).... O

A. How many times has this happened in the last four weeks?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
More than seven times ......... 4
Almost daily ......................... 5
Everyday ............................. 6
21. NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST mounts. SINCE . HAS

 

(HAVE ANY OF THE CHILDREN) HAD TO SKIP MEALS ANY OTHER TIMES BECAUSE
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

Yes... (Ask A) .............. 1
No....(Go to 0.23) ..... 0

160

A. About how many times in the last 6 months has this happened?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
Eight to ten times ................. 4
More than ten times .............. 5
Almost daily ......................... 6
Everyday ............................. 7
(Go to 0. 23)

22. NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST QMQNIHS, SINCE

HAS (HAVE ANY OF THE CHILDREN) HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE THERE
WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

 

Yes... (Ask A) .............. I
No...(Go to 0.23) ..... 0

A. About how many times in the last 6 months has this happened?

Once or twice ....................... 1

Three or four times .............. 2

Five to seven times .............. 3

Eight to ten times ................. 4

More than ten times .............. 5

Almost daily ......................... 6

Everyday ............................. 7
23. IN THE LAST FOUR WEEKS, HAVE YOU EVER SENT (THE CHILDREN) OVER TO A
FRIEND'S OR RELATIVE'S HOME TO EAT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE

HOUSE?
Yes (Ask A) .......... 1

NO..(GO to 0.24)... 0

A. About how many times in the four weeks has this happened?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
More than seven times ......... 4
Almost daily ......................... 5

Everyday ............................. 6

161

24. IN THE PAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, HAVE YOU,YOURSELF. HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE
THERE WASNT ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

Yes... (Ask A) ........... 1
No (Go to 0.26)... 0

A. How many times has this happened in the past four weeks?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
More than seven times ......... 4
Almost daily ......................... 5
Everyday ............................. 6

25. NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST W SINCE HAVE THERE BEEN

ANY OTHER TIMES THAT YOU. YOURSELF, HAVE HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE THERE
WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

 

Yes... (Ask A) .............. 1
M...(Go to 0.27) ...... 0

A. How many times in the last 6 months have you had to do this?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
Eight to ten times ................. 4
More than ten times .............. 5
Almost daily ......................... 6
Everyday ............................. 7

(Go to 0.27)

26. NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST W SINCE HAVE YOU,
YOURSELF, HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

Yes... (Ask A) .............. 1
No...(Go to 0.27) ...... 0

 

A. How many times in the last 6 months have you had to do this?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
Eight to ten times ................. 4
More than ten times .............. 5
Almost daily ......................... 6

Everyday ............................. 7

162

27. IN THE LAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, HAVE YOU, YOURSELF, EVER EATEN AT A FRIEND'S OR
RELATIVE'S HOME BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD lN THE HOUSE?
Yes ......... (Ask A) ................................ 1

No.... (Go to next instruction).... 0

A. How many times in the four weeks did you do this?

Once or twice ....................... 1
Three or four times .............. 2
Five to seven times .............. 3
More than seven times ......... 4
Almost daily ......................... 5
Everyday ............................. 6

(If R or any of the children had to skip any meals at any time, ask
0.28. Otherwise, skip to 0.29)

28. WHAT IS THE MAIN REASON YOU DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGHFOODINTHEHOUSE? (IF SAYS "RAN
OUT OF MDNEY" ASK "WHAT WAS THE MIN REASON YOU RAN OUT OF DDNEY? IF
SAYS "RAN OUT OF FOO " ASK "WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON YOU RAN OUT OF FOOD?")

No transportation to grocery store ........... 01
Ran out of Food Stamps ........................ 02

Ran outofmoney (Circle only if no
further explanation on lack of

money given) . ................................... 03
Applied for assistance and was
waiting to receive ................. 04
Recent job loss ...................................... 05
Unusual expenses... (Specify) ............ 06
Not enough money left after
paying the bills. ............ 07
Didn‘t receive child support payment ....... 08
Other ......... (Specify) ......................... 09
NA ........................................................ 99

29. IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS, SINCE , HAVE YOU EVER BORROWED MONEY TO BUY
FOOD BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE AND COULDN'T AFFORD
TO BUY MORE?

Yes ..................................... 2
No ....................................... 1
Doesn‘t recall or want to say.. 0

163

30. DO YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS OR FRIENDS EVER SHARE OR TRADE FOOD TO HELP EACH
OTHER OUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE AND CAN'T AFFORD
TO BUY MORE?

Yes ..................................... 1
No ....................................... 0

31. LETS TAKE A LOOK NOW AT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH IN YOUR HOME.
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WORKING APPLIANCES DO YOU HAVE lN YOUR HOME RIGHT
NOW? WAKE (READ EACH NAM; WITH LEAD IN AND CHECK
APPROPRIATE BOX) .-

Stove or

 

A. Do you have a working:

 

 

- Ye; NO
IHOIpIaIe I 1 I o I
[Toaster Oven I 1 I 0 I

 

32. WHICH OFTHE FOLLOWING THINGS DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR HOME RBHT NOW? (READ EACH
MME AND CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX)

 

33. DO YOU HAVE A WORKING TELEPHONE?

Yes .......... 1
No ............ 0

164

SINGLE-PARENT S MIGHT SOMETIMES NEED A LITTLE HELP OR SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS OR
FRIENDS OR FAMILY. HELE IS THINGS LIKE LOAN ING OR GIVING $329 OR MONEY, BABYSITTING, OR
GIVING SOMEONE A RIDE AND m IS THINGS LIKE A SHOULDER TO CRY ON WHEN YOU'RE
DOWN OR SOMEONE TO KEEP YOU COMPANY. I WANT TO LOOK AT BOTH THE HELP AND SUPPORT
YOU GIVE AND GET AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN HELP AND SUPPORT. ANY INFORMATION YOU
CAN GIVE ME IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR STUDY ON FOOD USE AND SINGLE MOTHERS.

34. THINKING ABOUT ALL YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD YOU CONSIDER
QLQSE FRIENDS?

(If "0", go to 38)

A. How many of your close friends live within fifteen minutes of you, either driving or walking?

35. (READ ZACH ACTIVITY PRECIDED BY:) "WTIH YOUR CLOSE_EBIENQ$ , HOW
MANY TIMES A WEEK OR A MONTH DO YOU...“

Less than 1 to 3 About Several Don't
once a times a once a times Every recall
Never month month week a week day or NA

 

Est or
give help 1 g 3 4
Get or

ive support 1
Discuss
problems 1
Exchange
advice 1
Get together for
En or relaxation( 1
Talk on I
the phone 1

0

 

 

 

IN N N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UIU'IU'IUIUIU‘I
@GQOQQ

 

 

3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4

00000

IN N

 

36. DO YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS KNOW EACH OTHER?
Yes... (Ask A) ........ 1
No... (Go to 37) 0
A. How often would you say any of your close friends get together when you can‘t make it? Would
you say they get together often. sometimes. tantalum. or met?
Often ................ 3

Hardly ever ........ 1
Never ................ 0

165

37. ARE ANY OF YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS ALSO GOOD FRIENDS WITH ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
YOUR FAMILY, OTHER THAN YOUR CHILDREN?

Yes .......... 1
No ........... o

38. THINK ABOUT YOUR W NOW. (READ EACH ACTIVITY PRICES]?
BY:) "WITH FAMILY MEMBERS OR RELATIVES, HOW MANY TIMES A WEEK OR A MONTH DO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU...”
Less than 1 to 3 About Several Don‘t
once a times a once a times Every recall
Never month month week a week day or NA
F(Inst or
give ham 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Get or
give support 1 g 3 4 5 6 0
Discuss
roblems 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Exchange
advice 1 :2 3 4 5 6 0
Get together for
flirt or relaxation 1 g 3 4 5 6 0
Talk on 1
the phone 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY DISAGREE. DISAGREE. AGREE. OR STRONGLY AGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

I know I can call on members of my family for help or support whenever I need to.

Strongly disagree ........ -2
Disagree ..................... —1
Neutral ....................... 00
Agree ......................... 01
Strongly agree ............ 02

40. HOW MANY DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS OR RELATIVES WOULD GLADLY GIVE YOU HELP OR
SUPPORT IF YOU ASKED?

 

41. WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOUR FAMILY A CLOSE FAMILY OR NOT SO CLOSE?
Close .................. 1
Not so close ........ 0

. 42. HOW MANY OF YOUR FAMILY OR RELATIVES. OTHER THAN THOSE WHO LNE WITH YOU, LNE
WITHIN FIFTEEN MINUTES OF YOU EITHER DRIVING OR WALKING?

166

43. IF YOU RAN OUT OF MONEY AND NEEDED FOOD OR HELP BUYNG FOOD. WHAT WOULD YOU
DO OR WHO WOULD YOU CALL FIRST FOR HELP? (PROBE: WHAT RELATION ARE
TIEY 10 YOU?)

Mother .................... 01
Father ..................... 02
Sister ...................... O3
Brother .................... 04
Other relative ........... 05
Friend ..................... 06
Food bank ............... 07
Church .................... 08
Other Organization... 09
Other ...................... 10

THIS NEXT GROUP OF QUESTIONS LOOKS AT SOURCES OF FOOD AVAILABLE TO YOU OTHER THAN
BUYING IT AT THE GROCERY STORE. REMEMBER THAT YOUR ANSWERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND
WILL IN NO WAY AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO PARTICPATE IN ANY OF THE PMGRAMS VIE'RE GOING TO
TALK ABOUT.

44. DO YOU GET COMMODITY FOODS, LIKE THE FREE CHEESE OR DRIED MILK?
Yes... (Go to Q. 45) 1
No.... (Ask A) ............... 2
A. What's the reason you don't get commodity foods?

45. DO YOU USE ANY OF THE COMMUNITY KITCHENS OR SOUP KITCHENS?
Yes... (Go to Q. 46).... 1
No.... (Ask A) ............... 2
A. What's the reason you don't use the community kitchens or soup kitchens?

46. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF EFNEP OR THE EXPANDED FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION
PROGRAM?

Yes.... (Ask A) .......... 1
No... (Go to 0.47)... 2

A. Have you ever gone through the EFNEP program?
Yes ............. 1

167

47. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF WIC?

A. Did you receive WIC any time in the last year, since last

B. Are you receiving WIC now?

Yes.... (Ask A) .......... 1
No...(Go to 0.48)... 2

 

Yes.... (Ask B) ............. 1
No....(Go to 0.48) 2
(NA....... 9)

Yes ............. 1
No ............... 2
(NA. ...... 9)

48. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE FOOD BANK OR THE FOOD CLOSET S?

Yes.... (Ask A-B) ...... 1
NO (Go to 0.4.9)... 2

A. How did you Iind out about the food bank or food closet?

B. Have you ever used the food bank or one of the food closets?

Family ............................ 01
Friends .......................... 02
Caseworker/DSS ........... 03
More than one place ....... 04
Media ............................ 05
Other ............................ 06
Don't recall ..................... 07
(NA ............. 99)
Yes.... (Ask D) ............. 1
No.." (Ask C) ............... 2

(MW... 9)

C. What are the reasons you've never used the food bank or food closets?

(GO 1'0 9. 49)

49.

50.

 

DID YOU RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS ANY TTME IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. SINCE

168

. Have you used the food bank or a food closet anytime in the last year. since last
?

 

Yes.... (Ask E) ................ 1
No....(Go to 0.49) ........ 2
(NA ...... 9)

. How many times?

Have you used the food bank or a food closet anytime in the last six months, since

 

?
Yes.... (Ask G) ................ 1
No.... (Go to 0.49) ........ 2
(NA......... 9)
. Howmany times?
. Where did you pick up your food?

HAVE YOU GOTTEN FOOD FROM ANY PLACE ELSE IN THE LAST SD( MONTHS, SINCE

TO TIDE YOU OVER UNTIL YOU COULD BUY SOME FOOD?
Yes.... (Ask A) ............... 1
No.. (GO to 50) ............ 2

A. What was this source (were these other sources)?

 

Yes.... (Ask A) ............. 1
No....(Go to 0.52) ..... 2

A. Are you receiving Food Stamps now?

Yes.... (Ask B) ............. 1
No...(Go to 0.51) ...... 2
(NA........ 9)

B. Are you able to feed your family for the whole month on your Food Stamps?

Yes ................ 1
No .................. 2
(NA ........... 9)

169

C. How many weeks does the food you buy with your food stamps usually last?

D. Do you add money to your Food Stamps so you can buy more food?
Yes ..... (Ask E) .............................. 1
No ...... (Ask F) ............................... 2
Sometimes ..... (Ask E) ................... 3

Need to add.
but don‘t have money... (Ask F) .. 4

(NA---....... 9)

E. About how much money do you add?
5 wk/mth

F. Have you ever been bothered or embarassed about using foodstamps?

Yes... (Ask G) .............. 1
No...(Go to 0.53) ...... 2
(NA. .............. 9)

G. What is it about food stamps that bothers or embarrasses you?

(Go to 0. 53)

51. WHAT IS THE REASON YOU’RE NOT GETTING FOOD STAMPS NOW?

 

Doesn‘t need them .............................................. 1
Not qualified any more .......................................... 2
Waiting to receive alter reapplying ......................... 3
Feels it's not worth the trouble .............................. 4
Other ........ (Specify) ........................................ 7
(Ask A)
Too embarassing... (Ask B) ................................ 5
Feels it's charity or a handout... (Go to 0. 54) 6
(NA 9)
A Were you ever bothered or embarrassed about using food stamps?

Yes... (Ask B) .............. 1

No... (Go to 0. 53) ...... 2

(NA ............... 9)

170

B. What is it about food stamps that bothers or embarrasses you?

(Go to 0. 53)
52. HAVE YOU EVER APPLIED FOR FOOD STAMPS?

 

Yes ..... (Ask A) ...... 1
No.." (Ask B) ......... 2
(NA. ............... 9)
A. What is the reason you're not getting Food Stamps now?
Not qualified..... (Go to 0. 53) ..................................... 1
Applied and now waiting to receive... (Go to 0. 53) ....... 2
Other .............. (Go to 0. 53) ...................................... 3
(NA 9)
B. What is the reason you‘ve never applied for Food Stamps?
Doesn't need them .................................................. 01
Doesn‘t think they're qualified ................................... 02
Doesn't want to go through the hassle ....................... 03
Can't fill out the forms ............................................... 04
Doesn't have transportation to go and apply ............... 05
Doesn't know about Food Stamps ............................. 06
Feels it's "charity“ or a 'handout'.. (Go to 0. 53B) 07
Other ........ (Specify) ............................................ 08

(NA 99)

53. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, AGREE. OR STRONGLY AGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

a. Food stamps are a handout.

Strongly disagree ........ 1
Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5

(NA ...................... 9)

171

b. Food stamps are help that everyone who needs it has a right to receive.
Strongly disagree ........ 1

Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5

(NA ...................... 9)

54. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AFDC OR ADC. AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN?
Yes.... (Ask A) ............. 1
No.... (Go to Q. 56) 2

A. Did you receive ADC any time in the last year, since last ?
Yes.... (Ask B) ............. 1
No..” (Go to 0.55) 2

B. Are you receiving ADC now?

Yes.... (Ask D) ....... 1
No ..... (Ask C) ........ 2
(NA ............. 9)

C. What's the reason you're not getting ADC now?

D. Are (Were) you ever bothered or embarrassed about getting ADC?

Yes... (Ask E) .............. 1
No (Go to 0.55) ...... 2
(NA. ............... 9)

E. What is it that bothers(ed) or embarrasses(ed)you about ADC?

172

55. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE. DISAGREE. OR STRONGLY DISAGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

A. ADC is a handout.

Strongly disagree ........ 1
Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5
(NA. ............ 9)

B. ADC is help that everyone who needs it has a right to receive.
Strongly disagree ........ 1

Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5

(NA ............. 9)

ID LIKE TO KNOW A LIT—IIE MORE ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD AND ABOUT YOU SO WE CAN
COMPARE THE INFORMATION YOU'VE GIVEN ME WITH THE INFORMATION FROM THE OTHER PEOPLE
IN THE STUDY.

56. ARE YOU THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD?
Yes.... (Go to Q. 57) ..... 1

No.... (Ask A ) .............. 2
A. Who is the head of the household?
Mother .................... 1
Boyfriend/fiance' ...... 2
Female friend ........... 3
Other ...................... 4
(NA. ........... 9)

57. THINKING ABOUT ALL YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS IN THIS HOUSEHOLD. IS YOUR EAMJLX‘S INCOME
HIGHER. LOWER, OR ABOUT THE SAME AS IT WAS LAST YEAR?

Higher ..................... 3
Lower ...................... 1
Same ...................... 2

1 7 3
58. WHAT WAS YOUR FAMILY'S TOTAL INCOME FOR LAST MONTH. FOR ?

$

 

59. NEXT. I'M GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF PLACES WHERE A FAMILY CAN GET INCOME. PLEASE
TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT LASLMQNIIiYOU OR THE MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY IN THIS

HOUSEHOLD GOT MONEY FROM EACH OF THESE PLACES . (READ EACH ITEM AND CHECK
APPROPRIATE BOX)

[59A: For each that was a source, ask: "How much did you and your
family members receive from last month?"]

 

Don‘t

(If "yes ",

blood

or money or money
odd

 

kD

B. Does this amount include vendored payments?

Yes ..... (Ask C) .................................... 1
No.." (Go back to "Unenployment ").. 0
(NA ................... 9)
C. How much do you receive . not including vendored payments?
$

 

(Go back to "Unenploylenu

D. What was your main source of income last month?

174

60. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HELPS OUT WITH THE HOUSEHOLD'S BILLS?
Yes ............. 1
No ............... O

61 . DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME LAST MONTH THAT I DIDN'T MENTION?
Yes.... (Ask A-B) ......... 1
No.... (Go to Q. 62) ..... 0

A. How much was 'I (were they)?

B. What were they?

62. HOW MUCH DID YOU, YOURSELF, SPEND LAST MONTH ON THE FOLLOWING THINGS?
(62A: AFTER RENT AND UTILITIES ASK "WAS IT VENDORED?") "

Amount Vendored

 

Rent or mortgage I
Utilities I
Medical or dental expenses
not covered by insurance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EXPENSES OR BILLS OVER ABOUT $25 LAST mNTH THAT I DIDN'T
MENTION?

Yes.... (Ask A-B) ......... 1
No...(Go to 0.64).. 2
A. What were they?

B. How much was it (were they)?

FINALLY, I‘D LIKE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY.

64. WHAT YEAR WERE YOU BORN?
(R's age: 1989 - birth year - )

65. HOW OLD WERE YOU WHEN YOU HAD (YOUR FIRST CHILD)?

175

66. ARE YOU PREGNANT OR BREAST-FEEDING RIGHT NOW?
Yes ....... 1
No ......... 2

67. WHAT IS THE HIGHEST GRADE OR YEAR OF REGULAR SCHOOL YOU HAVE FINISHED? [ Circle
two-digit code for highest grade (year) finished) 1

Nokxmd Gmde th

school School Sahara Qsllsss
(Ask A-B) (Ask A-B) (Ask A-B) (Ask B)

00 01 13

02 09 14

03 10 15

04 11 16

05 12 17

06 18

07 19
08 20+

A. Did you receive a high school diploma or get your GED?

Yes ....... 1
No ......... 2
(NA ....... 9)
B. Are you in school right now?
Yes ....... 1
No ......... 2
68. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL?
Yes... (Ask A) .................... 1
No.... (Go to 0. 69) ........... 2

A. What are they?

176

69. ARE YOU PRESENTLY WORKING, OR ARE YOU UNEMPLOYED. A STUDENT, A
HOMEMAKER, OR WHAT? (PROBE: "WHAT IS THE MAIN THING THAT YOU DO? "

Working... (Ask A) .................. - ...... - 1

With a job. but not working because of temporary
illness. on sick leave, vacation. labor dispute.

 

on strike, bad weather... (Ask A) .......................... 2
Unemployed, looking for work... (Ask C) ............... 3
Unemployed. not baking for work.. (Ask D) ......... 4
In school ........ (Ask B) ......................................... 5
Homemaker ..... (Ask B) ....................................... 6
Disabled ........ (Go to 0. 70) ............................. 7
Other ........ (Specify) ..... (Go to 0. 70) ............ 8

A. Is your job full or part time?

Full time... (Go to 0. 70) .............. 1
Part time....(Go to 0. 70) ............ 2
(NA. ............ 9)

B. Are you baking for work right now?
Yes... (Ask C) 1
No... (Ask D) ..... 2

(NA....... 9)

C. How long have you been looking for a job?

days/wks/mths
(Go to 0. 70)

D. Why are you not looking for work right now? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

Can only get minimum wage job ........ 01
Lack of education ............................. 02
Lack of child care .............................. 03
Chose to stay home with child ........... 04
Getting more training/

going I) school first ............... 05
Pointless to look .............................. 06
Too much of a hassle ........................ 07
Other.... (Specify) ........................ 08

(NA ................ 99)

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

177

WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT MARITAL STATUS? ARE YOU WIDOWED, DNORCED. SEPARATED.
OR NEVER MARRIED?

Widowed.... (Ask A) . ..................... 1
Divorced..... (Ask A) ....................... 2
Separated... (Ask A) ..................... 3

Never married... (Go to 0. 71) ...... 4
A. How long have you been widowed (divorced) (separated)?

yrs/mths/wks
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN LANSING?

 

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MOVED IN THE PAST YEAR?

 

WHAT ARE YOUR MAIN SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT‘S GOING ON IN LANSING?
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

 

Television ............................ 1
Radio .................................. 2
Newspaper .......................... 3
Word of mouth ..................... 4
Nothing ............................... 5
Other ...... (Specify) .......... 6

A. What TV station do you normally watch?

B. What time do you usually watch Channel ?

C. What radio station do you normally listen to?

D. What time do you usually listen to ?

HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS HOUSEHOLD ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. PARENT S, SISTERS.
OR BROTHERS?

 

(If "1" or more, ask A)

75.

76.

178

A. What relation are they toyou? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

Friend ........................ 1
Boyfriend ................... 2
Fiance ........................ 3
Boarder ........................ 4

Other.... (Specify) 5
(SIZE OF FAMILY ............... )

IF SOMEONE GAVE YOU AN EXTRA $10.00 THIS MONTH, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IT?

WHICH OF THESE CATEGORIES BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP?
WHITE, NON-HISPANIC; BLACK; HISPANIC-AMERICAN; ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDS
AMERICAN; OR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN?

 

 

White. non-Hispanic ...................... 1

Black ............................................ 2

Hispanic-American ........................ 3

Asian or Pacific Islands American... 4

Native American Indian .................. 5

Other (specify) ....................... 6
A K OU O R IM l

 

Time Interview Ended a.m.lp.m.

APPENDIX I

Where the Subjects Obtained Information About What
Was Happening in Lansing

l 79
APPENDIX J

Percentage (number) of subjects who used each of the following resources
as one 0 their main sources of information for what was going on in

Lansing.a

 

 

information d non-users users post users
source (n=74) (n=21) (n=37) (n=16)
television 77.0 81.0 78.4 68.8
(57) (17) (29) (11)
radio 16.2 4.8 13.5 37.5
(12) (1) (5) (6)
newspaper 47.3 23.8 54.1 62.5
(35) (5) (20) (10)
word of mouth 36.5 19.0 48.6 31.3
(27) (4) (18) (5)
nothing 2.7 ---- 5.4 ----
(2) (0) (2) (0)
other 12.2 14.3 13.5 6.3
(9) (3) (5) (1)

 

3 Subjects could give more than one answer

Number of subjects watching television by station and time of day.a

 

 

 

TV station

time of

6 10 47 other
morning 3 1 3 2
afternoon 21 2 3 3
6 o'clock news 22 3 ..........
prime time 11 3 2 2
late night 9 2 1 l
allday 11 3 2

 

a Subjects could name more than one station for the same time of day.

APPENDIX K

Sample Revised Questionnaire

180

A LOT OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ASK ABOUT FOOD USE IN YOUR

WHEN I TALK ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD, I MEAN EVERYBODY WHO
LIVES IN THIS HOUSE AND REGULARLY BUYS FOOD AND SHARES MEALS
IQGEIHEE

1. INCLUDING YOURSELF. YOUR CHILDREN. RELATIVES OR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE A
REGULAR PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD, BUT NOT INCLUDING ANY CHILDREN WHO LNE
AWAY FROM HOME, HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD RIGHT NOW?

2. THINKING ABOUT ALL THE TTMES SOMEONE HAS GONE TO THE STORE TO BUY FOOD FOR
YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN THE LAST 4 WEEKS OR MONTH, HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY
SOMEONE WENT TO BUY FOOD AT QUALITY DAIRY, THE MAGIC MARKET. OR THE 7-11?

 

A. In the last month, out of all the times someone went to the store to buy food for the household,
how many times would you say someone went to Shoprite, Krogers. or Meijers?

 

B. Where else did someone go to buy food for the household in the last month?

C. How many times was food bought there?

 

3. AT WHICH STORE DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD BUY MOST OF ITS FOOD IN THE LAST 4 WEEKS?

Meijers ................... 1

Shoprite ................. 2

Kroger ................... 3

Qually Dairy ........... 4

Other ..................... 5

Don't know ............. 6
A. Why did your household buy most of its food at ?

 

(CIRCLE "1" FOR ALL THAT APPLY)

 

181

4. WHAT‘S YOUR ONE MAIN SOURCE OF TRANSPORT ATTON TO THE GROCERY STORE?

Own car .............. (Ask B) ............... 1
Walk ................. (Ask A) ................. 2
Bus ................... (Ask A) ................ 3
Taxi ................... (Ask A) ................ 4
Friend or relative drives... (Ask A) 5
Borrowacar ........ (Ask A) ............... 6
Bus there, taxiback ..... (Ask A) ....... 7

Other (Specify, then ask A).. 8

A. Do you have a car that runs?

Yes... (Ask B) ........... 1
No...(Go to 0.5) ..... 0
B. Isthecarreliable?
Yes .......... 1
No ............ 0
NA. .......... 9

5. WHAT ARE SOLE THINGS THAT MAKE GROCERY SHOPPING EASY FOR YOU?

A. What are some things that make it hard for you?

6. WHEN YOU GO GROCERY SHOPPING. DO YOU USUALLY BUY THE NATIONAL BRAND, THE
STORE BRAND OR THE GENERIC BRAND?

(IF NEEDED: ”National brands are like Del Monte or Maxwell House.
Store brands are like Food Club or Spartan. The generic brand is
the kind that has the black and white labels.)"

National ............................... (Ask A) ............. 1

Store ................................... (Ask A) ............. 2

Generic .............................. (Ask A) ............... 3

Buysmorethanonetype... (Go to 0.7) ...... 4
A. What are the reasons you usually buy the brand more than the other

 

brands?

182

7. ABOUT HOW MUCH DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD SPEND ON GROCERIES IN THE LAST 1m
WEEKS OR LAST MONTH? THIS AMOUNT SHOULD INCLUDE FOOD STAMPS, IF YOU GET
THEM. AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH YOU SPENT IS FINE.

1 2 wks/mth

A. How much of the s was food stamps?

 

8. IS THIS ABOUT WHAT YOU USUALLY SPEND EVERY TWO WEEKS (EVERY MONTH)?

Yes....(Go to 0.9) .............. 1
No.... (Ask A & B) ................ 2
Don'tknow.. (Go to 0.9) ..... 3

A. What made these last two weeks (month) different?

B. How much would you say your household annually spends on groceries in
two weeks (a month)?

3—

9. DOES THIS INCLUDE MONEY SPENT FOR BABY FORMULA?
Yes... (Ask A) ............... 1

No... (Go to 0.10) ...... 2

A. About how much is spent every two weeks (month) for baby formula?
$—

10. DOES THE S SPENT AT THE GROCERY STORE OR MARKET INCLUDE PURCHASES
OF NONoFOOD ITEMS LIKE DISH SOAP, PET FOOD, BEER. CIGARETTES, PAPER PRODUCTS,

OR GARBAGE BAGS?

 

Yes.... (Ask A) ......................... 1
No (Go to 0.11) ................. 2
Don‘tknow..(Go to 0.11) ...... 3

A. About how much was spent on these non-food items? Again, a rough estimate will be fine.

3
Don‘t know ........ 001

 

183

11. AREYOUABLETOBUYENOUGH FOODFORYOURHOUSEHOLDWITHTHEWNEYYOU
HAVE TO SPEND?

Yes ..... (Go to 0.12) .......................... 2
No ..... (Ask A) ............... 0
Sometimes, but not always... (Ask A).... 1

 

A. How much more money do you think you would need to spend every two weeks (every
month) to buy enough food for your household?

$__

12. LET'S TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THE CHILDREN NOW. FIRST, HOW MANY CHILDREN LIVE IN
YOUR HOUSEHOLD? BY CHILDREN, I MEAN ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18.

13. (IF ONLY ONE CHILD ASK) WHATIS HISIHER MALE? HOWOLD IS HEISHE?
HOW IS HE/SHE RELATED TO YOU?

(IF MORE THAN ONE CHILD ASK) TELL RE ABOUT EACH CHILD
INDIVIDUALLY.BEGINNING WITH THE YOUNGEST. FIRST GIVE ME THEIR NAME AND THEN
THEIR AGEAND THEN HOW THEY ARE RELATED TO YOU.

(IF NECESSARY: "Are they your own child, your grandchild, a niece
or nephew, a friend's baby, or whatever.")

 

 

14. ARE THERE USUALLY FOODS AVAILABLE IN YOUR HOME FOR (THE
CHILDREN) TO SNACK ON?
Yes ..................... 2
No ...................... 0

Sometimes .......... 1

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOES __(DO ANY OF THE CHILDREN IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD) GET MEALS FROM ANY
OF THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS?
NUMBER OF KIDS
YES NO NA FECEIVING
Free or reduced
Lrice scth breakfast 1 0 9
Free or reduced price
scth lunch 1 0 9
Meals at the baby-sitter
or at day care 1 0 9
Summer feedinm 1 0 9
Headstart 1 0 9
IN THE PAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS. HAS (HAVE ANY OF THE CHILDREN) HAD
TO SKIP ANY MEALS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD N THE HOUSE?
Yes... (Go to 0. 1 7). ......... 1
No... (Go to 0. 18) ........... 0
NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST QMQNIHS, SINCE .HAS

 

____(HAVE ANY OF THE CHILDREN) HAD TO SKIP MEALS ANY OTHER TIMES
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

Yes... (Go to 0.19) .......... 1
M... (GO to 0.1.9) ........... 0

NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST QMQNIHS, SINCE

HAS (HAVE ANY OF THE CHILDREN) HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

 

TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE. DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

A. I cannot give my child(dren) a balanced meal because lcan‘t afford that.

Strongly agree ............... 02
Agree ........................... 01
Neutral .......................... 00
Disagree ....................... -1

Strongly disagree .......... -2

(NA ........................ 09)

20.

21.

22.

23.

185

My child(ren) islare not eating enough because I just can‘t afford enough food.

Strongly agree ............... 02
Agree ........................... 01
Neutral .......................... 00
Dismree ....................... -1
Strongly disagree .......... -2
(NA ........................ 09)

IN THE PAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, HAVE YOU,YOURSELF, HAD TO SKIP MEALS
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

Yes... (Go to 0.21) .......... 1
No... (Go to 0.22) ........... 0

NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST W SINCE HAVE THERE
BEEN ANY OTHER TIMES THAT YOU, YOURSELF, HAVE HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE
THERE WASN'T' ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE?

 

Yes... (GO to 0.23). ......... 1
NO... (GO to 0.23) ........... 0

NOW, THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST W SINCE HAVE YOU,
YOURSELF, HAD TO SKIP MEALS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD IN THE
HOUSE?

 

HOW OFTEN ARE YOU HUNGRY, BUT YOU DON'T EAT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD
ENOUGH FOOD? WOULD YOU SAY THIS HAPPENS TO YOU NEVER, ALMOST NEVER,
SOMETIMES, ALMOST ALWAYS OR ALWAYS?

Always ........................... .0
Almost always .................. 1
Sometimes ...................... 2
Almost never ................... 3

Never .............................. 4

186

24. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

A. I can't afford to eat the way I should.

Strongly agree .............. 02
Agree .......................... 01
Neutral ......................... 00
Disagree ...................... -1
Strongly disagree ......... -2
(NA ...................... .09)

 

IfR or any ofthe children had to skipanymeals atmy time,
ask 9.25. Otherwise, skip to 9.26

25. WHEN YOU OR YOUR CHILD(REN) HAD TO SKIP MEALS, WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON
YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUG'IFOGDNTHEHOUSE? (IF SAYS "RAN OUT OF MONEY " ASK
"WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON YOU RAN OUT OF I‘DNEY? IF SAYS "RAN OUT OF
FOOD" ASK "WHAT WIS THE MIN REASON YOU RAN OUT OF FOOD?")

26. DO YOU WORRY WHETHER YOUR FOOD WILL RUN OUT BEFORE YOU GET MONEY TO BUY

MORE?
Yes ............................ 0
No ............................. 2
Sometimes ................. 1

27. HOW OFTEN DO YOU WORRY ABOUT WHERE THE NEXT DAY'S FOOD IS GOING TO COME
FROM? DO YOU WORRY ALL THE TIME, MOST OF THE TTME. SOMETMES. HARDLY EVER,

OR NEVER?
All the time .......................... 0
Most of the time ................... 1
Sometimes .......................... 2
Hardly ever .......................... 3
Never .................................. 4

28. IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS, SINCE , HAVE YOU EVER BORROWED MONEY TO BUY
FOOD BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE AND COULDN'T
AFFORD TO BUY MORE?

Doesn‘trecallorwanttosay..0

187

29. DO YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY EVER BORROW OR LOAN FOOD STAMPS TO
HELP EACH OTHER OUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE AND

CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY MORE?
(PROBE: "WHO DO YDU.BORROW’STAMPS FROM’OR LOAN'STAMPS TO?")
Family ..................... 2
Friends ................... 1
Neither .................... 0

30. DO YOU AND YOUR NEBHBORS OR FRIENDS EVER SHARE OR TRADE FOOD TO HELP
EACH OTHER OUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN THE HOUSE AND CAN'T
AFFORD TO BUY MORE?

31. DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM IN YOUR HOME TO STORE YOUR FOOD?

Yes .......... 1

No ............ 0
32. DO YOU HAVE A WORKING TELEPHONE?

Yes .......... 1

No ............ 0

SINGLE-PARENTS MIGHT SOMETIMES NEED A LITTLE HELP OR SUPPORT FROM
NEIGHBORS OR FRIENDS OR FAMILY. HELE IS THINGS LIKE LOANING OR GIVING
EQQQ OR MONEY, BABYSITTING, OR GIVING SOMEONE A RIDE AND W IS
THINGS LIKE A SHOULDER TO CRY ON WHEN YOU'RE DOWN OR SOMEONE TO
KEEP YOU COMPANY. I WANT TO LOOK AT BOTH THE HELP AND SUPPORT YOU
GIVE AND GET AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN HELP AND SUPPORT. ANY
INFORMATION YOU CAN GIVE ME IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR STUDY ON FOOD
USE AND SINGLE MOTHERS.

33. THINKING ABOUT ALL YOUR FRIENDS FIRST, HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD YOU CONSIDER
QLQSE FRIENDS?

(If "0", go to 37)

A. How many of your close friends live within fifteen minutes of you, either driving or walking?

B. How many of your close friends do you think you can count on for help in times of trouble?

188

34. (READ EACH ACTIVITY PRECDED BY: ) ”WITH YOUR CLOSEEBIENQS ,
HOW MANY TIMES A WEEK OR A MONTH DO YOU...“

Less than 1 to 3 Once or Several Don‘t
once a times a twice a times Every recall
Never month month week a week day or NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
Get or

give help 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Get or

give support 1 g 3 4 5 6 0
Discuss

problems 1 i 3 4 5 6 0
Exchange

gdvice 1 g 3 4 5 6 0
Get together for

_fgn or relaxation. 1 g 3 4 5 6 0
Talk on I

the phone 1 g 3 4 5 6 0

 

 

35. THINK ABOUT YOUR W NOW. (READ EACH ACTIVITY
Pm BY:) "WITH FAMILY MEMBERS OR RELATIVES. HOW MANY TIMES A WEEK
OR A mNTH DO YOU...”

Less than 1 to 3 Once Several Don't
once a times a or twice times Every recall
Never month month a week a week day or NA

 

E591 or
give hey I
Get or
give support 1
Discuss
problems 1
Exchange
gdvice 1
Get together for
_fgn or relaxatan 1
Talk on I

‘ the phone

3 4 5 6 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOQGG
000°C

3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ire flue Ire Ire Hre Ire

 

36. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY DISAGREE. DISAGREE. AGREE. OR STRONGLY AGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

lknowlcancallon membersofmyfamilyforhelporsupportwheneverlneedto.

Strongly disagree ........ -2
Disagree ..................... -1

Neutral ....................... 00
Agree ......................... 01
Strongly agree ............ 02

37. HOW MANY DIFFERENT FAMILY MEWERS OR RELATIVES WOULD GLADLY GIVE YOU HELP
OR SUPPORT IF YOU ASKED?

 

189

38. WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOUR FAMILY VERY CLOSE. CLOSE, NOT TOO CLOSE OR NOT AT
ALL CLOSE IN THEIR FEELINGS TO EACH OTHER?

Very close ............... 02
Close ...................... 01
Neutral .................... 00
Not too close ........... -1

Not close at all .......... -2

39. HOW MANY OF YOUR FAMILY OR RELATIVES, OTHER THAN THOSE WHO LIVE WITH YOU.
LNE WITHIN FIFTEEN MINUTES OF YOU EITHER DRIVING OR WALKING?

40. IF YOU RAN OUT OF MONEY AND NEEDED FOOD OR HELP BUYING FOOD, WHAT WOULD YOU
DOORWHO WOULD YOU CALL FIRST FOR HELP? (PROBE: WHAT RELATION ARE
THEY TO YOU?)

Mother .................... 01
Father ..................... 02
Sister ...................... 03
Brother .................... 04
Other relative ........... 05
Friend ..................... 06
Food bank ............... 07
Church .................... 08
Other Organization... 09
Other ...................... 1 0

41 . WHO USUALLY LOOKS AFTER YOUR KIDS WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO OUT?

Grandmother ........... 01
Sister ...................... 02
Other relative ........... 03
Older child ................ 04
Friend ..................... 05
Neighbor ................. 06
Day care .................. 07
Other ...................... 08

No one .................... 09

190

42. IS DAYCARE OR GETTING A BABYst FOR YOUR CHILDREN A PROBLEM FOR YOU?

Yes ........... (Ask A) ........ 05
No ..... (Go to 0.43) ....06

A. Why is daycare or getting a baby-sitter a problem for you?

THIS NEXT GROUP OF QUESTIONS LOOKS AT SOURCES OF FOOD AVAILABLE TO YOU OTHER
THAN BUYING IT AT THE GROCERY STORE. RELEMBER THAT YOUR ANSWERS ARE
CONFIDENTIAL AND WLL IN NO WAY AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO PARTICPAT'E N ANY OF THE
PROGRAMS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.

43. DO YOU GET COMMODITY FOODS, YOU KNOW, THE FREE FOOD THE GOVERNMENT GIVES
AWAY?

Yes... (Go to 0.44).... 1
No.... (Ask A) ............... 2

A. What's the reason you don't get commodity foods?

44. DO YOU USE ANY OF THE COMMUNITY KITCHENS OR SOUP KITCHENS?
Yes... (Go to 0. 45).... 1
No.... (Ask A) ............... 0

A. What's the reason you don‘t use the community kitchens or soup kitchens?

45. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF EFNEP OR THE EXPANDED FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION
PROGRAM?

Yes.... (Ask A) .......... I
No (Go to 0.46)... 0

A. Have you ever gone through the EFNEP program?

191

46. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF WIC?

Yes.... (Ask A) .......... 1
No...(Go to 0.47)... O

A. Did you receive WIC any time in the last year, since last

 

Yes.... (Ask B) ............. 1
No.." (Go to 0.47) 0
(NA........ 9)
B. Are you receiving WIC now?
Yes ............. 1
No ............... 0
(NA. ...... 9)

47. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE FOOD BANK OR THE FOOD CLOSET S?
Yes.... (Ask A-B) ...... 1
No... (Go to 0. 48)... 0

A. How did you find out about the food bank or food closet?

Family ............................ 01
Friends .......................... 02
Caseworker/DSS ........... 03
Picked up a brochure ....... 04
Media ............................ 05
Other ............................ 06
Don't recall ..................... 07
(NA ............. 99)
B. Have you ever used the food bank or one of the food closets?
Yes.... (Ask D) ............. 1
No.... (Ask C) ............... 2
(NA........... 9)

C. What are the reasons you've never used the food bank or food closets?

 

I so so 3.48 I

192

D. Have you used the food bank or a food closet anytime in the last year, since last
?

 

Yes.... (Ask E) ................ 1
No.... (Go to F) ............. 2
(NA-...... 9)

E. How many times?

F. When was the last time you used the food bank or food closet?

G. What was the reason you had to use the food bank or food closet the last time?
(IF SAYS "RAN OUT OF FOOD", ASK "WY DID YOU RUN OUT OF FOOD?")

48. HAVE YOU GOTTEN FOOD FROM ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, SINCE
TO HELP YOU OUT?

 

Yes.... (Ask A) ............. 1
No.." (Go to 0. 49) ..... 2
A. Who helped you out with some food?

49. DID YOU RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS ANY THE N THE LAST SIX MONTHS, SINCE
7

 

Yes.... (Ask A) ............. 1
No....(Go to 0.51) ..... 2

A. Are you receiving Food Stamps now?

Yes.... (Ask B) ............. 1
No (Go to 0.50) ...... 2
(NA....... 9)

B. Are you always, almost always, sometimes, almost never, or never wle to feed your family
for the whole month on just your Food Stamps?

Always ........................... .4
Almost always .................. 3
Sometimes ...................... 2
Almost never ................... 1

Never .............................. 0

193

C. How many weeks does the food you buy with just your food stamps usually last?

D. How much do you usually get in food stamps?

 

E. Do you usually spend all your food stamps every month or do you usually have
some left over?

Spend all ................... 0
Have some left ........... 1
Varies ....................... 2

F. Do you add money to your Food Stamps so you can buy more food?

Yes ..... (Ask G) .............................. 0
No ...... (Ask H) ............................... 2
Sometimes ..... (Ask G) ................... 1

Need to add,
butdon't have money (Ask H).. 4
(NA..."........ 9)

G. About how much money do you add?
8 wk/mth

H. Have you ever been bothered or embarrassed about using food stamps?

Yes... (Ask I) .............. 1
M... (GO to 0.52) ...... 2
(NA. .............. 9)

I. What is it about food stamps that bothers or embarrasses you?

 

I Go to $2.52 ]

194

50. WHAT IS THE REASON YOU'RE NOTGETI'ING FOOD STAM’S NOW?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't need them .............................................. 1
Not qualified any more - - 2
Waiting to receive after reapplying ......................... 3
Feels it's not worth the trouble ..... 4
Other ........ (Speci f y) ........................................ 7
[ Ask A 1
Too embarrassing... (Ask B) ................................ 5
Feels it's charity or a handout... (Go to 0. 53) 6
(NA 9)
A . Were you ever bothered or embarrassed about using food stamps?
Yes... (Ask B) .............. 1
No... (Go to 0. 52) ...... 2
(NA. ............... 9)
B. What is it about food stamps that bothers or embarrasses you?
I Go to Q. 52 j
51. HAVE YOU EVER APPLIED FOR FOOD STAMPS?
Yes ..... (Ask A) ...... 1
No.... (Ask B) ......... 2
(NA ............... 9)
A. What is the reason you're not getting Food Stamps now?
Not qualified ..... (Go to 0. 52) ..................................... 1
Applied and now waiting to receive... (Go to 0. 52) ....... 2
Other .............. (Go to 0. 52) ...................................... 3
9)

 

(NA

195

B. What is the reason you've never mplied for Food Stamps?

 

 

Doesn‘t need them .................................................. 01
Doesn't think they're qualified ................................... 02
Doesn‘t want to go through the hassle ....................... 03
Can't fill out the forms...-.---...- _ ........... 04
Doesn‘t have transportation to go and apply ............... 05
Doesn‘t know about Food Stamps ............................. 06
Feels it's 'charity' or a 'handout".. (Go to 0. 528) 07
Other ........ (Specify) .................... - ....... 08

(NA..... 99)

52. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY DISAGREE. DISAGREE. AGREE, OR STRONGLY AGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

A. Food stamps are charity.

Strongly disagree ........ 1
Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5

(NA. ..................... 9)

B. Food stamps are help that everyone who needs it has a right to receive.

Strongly disagree ........ 1
Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5
(NA ...................... 9)

53. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ADC, AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN?
Yes.... (Ask A) ............. 1
Ah... (Go to 0. 55) 2

A. Did you receive ADC any time in the last year. since last ?
Yes.... (Ask B) ............. 1
No.... (Go to 0. 54) 2

196

8. Are you receiving ADC now?

Yes.... (Ask D) ....... 1
No ..... (Ask C) ........ 2
(NA. ............ 9)

C. What's the reason you're not getting ADC now?

D. Are (Were) you ever bothered or embarrassed about getting ADC?

Yes... (Ask E) .............. 1
M (Go to 0.54) ...... 2
(NA ............... 9)

E. What is it that bothers(ed) or embarrasses(ed)you about ADC?

54. TELL ME WHETHER YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE. OR STRONGLY DISAGREE
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

A. ADC is charity.
Strongly disagree ........ 1
Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5
(NA ............ 9)
8. ADC is help that everyone who needs it has a right to receive.
Strongly disagree ........ 1
Disagree ..................... 2
Neutral ....................... 3
Agree ......................... 4
Strongly agree ............ 5

(NA ............. 9)

197

I'D LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE MORE ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD AND ABOUT YOU SO
WE CAN COMPARE THE INFORMATION YOU'VE GIVEN ME WITH THE INFORMATION
FROM THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE STUDY.

55. ARE YOU THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD?
Yes.... (Go to 0. 56) ..... 1

No..” (Ask A ) .............. 2
A. Who is the head of the household?
Mother .................... 1
Boyfriend/fiance' ...... 2
Female friend ........... 3
Other ...................... 4
(NA ........... 9)

56. THINKING ABOUT ALL YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS IN THIS HOUSEHOLD, IS YOUR EAMILIS
INCOME HIGHER, LOWER, OR ABOUT THE SAME AS IT WAS LAST YEAR?

 

Higher ..................... 3
Lower ...................... 1
Same ...................... 2
57. WHAT WAS YOUR FAMILY'S TOTAL INCOME FOR LAST MONTH, FOR ?
S

 

58. NEXT , I‘M GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF PLACES WHERE A FAMILY CAN GET INCOME.
PLEASE TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT WYOU OR THE MEMBERS OF YOUR
FAMILY IN THIS HOUSEHOLD GOT MONEY FROM EACH OF THESE PLACES . (READ EACH
ITEM AND CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX)

[5811: For each that was a source, ask: "How much did you and
your family members receive from last month?"]

 

Don't

(If "yes or,

Pension

 

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Workmen's compensation 1 fig 3

Alimony 1 3; 3

Selling blood or plasma 1 jz 3

Anything else, like savings

or borrowed money or money 1 2 3

from odd jobs

None of the above (Ask 02 1|

B. Does this amount include vendored payments?
Yes ..... (Ask C) - 1
No.." (Go back to "Unenployment ").. 0
(NA .................... 9)

C. How much do you receive , not including vendored payments?

3
(Go back to "Unwloy-ent)

 

D. Whatwasyourmainsouroeolinoomelastmonth?

59. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HELPS OUT WITH THE HOUSEHOLD'S BILLS R EXPENSES?
Yes.... (Ask A) ........ 1

No ............................ 0
A. Who helps out?

60. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCES OF NCOME LAST WNTH THAT I DON'T IENTION?
Yes.... (Ask A-B) ......... 1
M.." (Go to Q. 61) ..... 0

A. How much was i (were they)?

8. What were they?

199

61. HOW MUCH DD YOU. YOURSELF. SPEND LAST MONTH ON THE FOLLOWING THINGS?
(61A: AFTER RENT AND UTILITIES ASK "WAS IT VENDORED?") "

Amount Vendored

 

 

 

 

 

Rent or mgggge I I
Utilities , I I
Medical or dental expenses I

not covered by insurance

 

62. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EXPENSES OR BILLS OVER ABOUT $25 LAST MONTH THAT I
DIDN'T MENTION?

Yes.... (Ask A-B) ......... 1

No (Go to 0.63) .. 2
A. What were they?

8. How much was it (were they)?

FINALLY, I'D LIKE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATTON ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY.

63. WHAT YEAR WERE YOU BORN?

(R's age: 1989 - birth year - )

7 IF HAS ONLY ONE CHILD ASK Q. 64A.
IF HAS MORE THAN ONE CHILD ASK . 64B

 

 

 

 

64A. IS YOUR FIRST CHILD?
Yet... (Ask A) ............. 1
No... (Go to Q. 65) ...... 2
A. How old were you when you had ?
[ NOW GO TO 9. 65 l

 

64B. HOWOLD WERE YOU WHEN YOU HAD YOUR FRST CHILD?

 

200

65. ARE YOU PREGNANT OR BREAST-FEEDING RGHT NOW?

Neither ............................ 0
Pregnant ......................... 1
Breast-Ieeding ................ 2

66. WHAT IS THE HBHEST GRADE OR YEAR OF REGULAR SCHOOL YOU HAVE FINISHED?
[Circle two-digit code for highest grade (year) finished”

No formal Grade High

actual 552ml 5.9mm Callas:
(Ask A-B) (Ask A-B) (Ask A-B) (Ask B)

00 01 13

02 09 14

03 10 15

04 1 1 16

05 12 17

06 18

O7 1 9

08 20+

A. Did you receive a high school diploma or get your GED?

Yes ....... 1
No ......... 2
(NA ....... 9)
B. Are you in school right now?
Yes.... (Ask C) ............. 1

No... (GO to Q. 67)........2

C. What are you taking in school?

 

L NOWGOTOQ.68 J

67. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL?
Yes... (Ask A) .................... 1
No.... (Go to Q. 68) ........... 2

A. What are they?

68. ARE YOU PRESENTLY WORKING?
Yes ..... (Ask A) ........ 1
No ..... . (Ask B) ....... o

2m

A. How many hours a week do you work?

 

B. Are you baking for work right now?
Yes... (Ask C) 1
No-. (Ask D) ..... 2
(NA--.- 9)
C. How long have you been baking for a job?
__ days/wks/mths

 

[Goto Q69]

B. Why are you not looking Ior work right now? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

 

 

Can‘t get job that pays enough .......... 01
Need more education/training ........... 02
Can‘t afford child care ....................... 03
Don't trust child care- - -- 04
Chose to stay home with child ........... 05
Temp. laid oft/Injured. - 06
In school .......................................... 07
Disabled .......................................... 08
Other.... (Specify) ........................ 09

(NA ............. .. 99)

WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT MARITAL STATUS? ARE YOU WDOWED, DNORCED,
SEPARATED, OR NEVER MARRIED?

Widowed.... (Ask A) . ..................... 1
Divorced ..... (Ask A) ....................... 2
Separated... (Ask A) ..................... 3

Never married (Go to 0.70) ...... 4

A. How long have you been widowed (divorced) (separated)?

yrs/mths/wks

HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN LANSING?

 

HOW MANY TMES HAVE YOU MOVED IN THE PAST YEAR?

 

202

72. HOW DO YOU USUALLY FIND OUT ABOUT WHAT‘S GOING ON N LANSNG?
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

Television ............................ 1
Radio .................................. 2
Newspaper .......................... 3
Word of mouth ..................... 4
Nothing ............................... 5
Other ...... (Specify) .......... 6

A. What TV station do you normally watch?

B. What time do you usually watch Channel ?

73. HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS HOUSEHOLD ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN, PARENTS,
SISTERS. OR BROTHERS?

 

(If "1" or more, ask A)
A. What relaion aretheybyou? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

Friend ........................ 1
Boyfriend ................... 2
Fiance ........................ 3
Boarder ........................ 4

Other.... (Specify) 5
(SIZE OF FAMILY ............... )

74. WHICH OF THESE CATEGORIES BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RACE OR ETHNIC GFDUP?
WHITE, NON-HISPANIC; BLACK; HISPANIC-AMERICAN; ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDS
AMERICAN; OR NATNE AMERICAN INDIAN?

 

 

White, non-Hispanic ...................... 1
Black ............................................ 2
Hispanic-American ........................ 3
Asian or Pacific Islands American..- 4
Native American lndian .................. 5
Other (specify) ....................... 6
WWW

 

Time Interview Ended a.m.lp.m.

CHIGRN STATE UN V.

lllllllll2 llglllgll llllllll|l7llllgll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lllgllllllglllllglllllgllllEs