Second Harvest National Research Study
America's Second Harvest is the nation's largest charitable hunger-relief organization, serving 23.3 million
FIGURE 3.7
Prevalence of hunger, 2001 and 2002
persons per year. In 2001 Mathematica Policy Research conducted a landmark study of the Second Harvest network by means of interviews with 32,000 clients and 24,000 questionnaires from local agencies. The findings are reported in Hunger in America, 2001 National Report (Myoung Kim, Jim Ohls, and Rhoda Cohen, Princeton, NJ, 2001). The study found the following characteristics of recipients of emergency food assistance:
- More than 23.3 million people sought emergency food assistance in 2001: 21.3 million at food pantries, 1.3 million at kitchens, and 0.7 million at shelters. Of the adult clients who visited emergency food programs in 2001, approximately 61.6 percent were female, 38.3 percent male.
TABLE 3.10
Prevalence of food security, food insecurity, and hunger, by selected household characteristics, 2002
| Food insecure | |||||||||
| Total1 | Food secure | All | Without hunger | With hunger | |||||
| Category | (thousand) | (thousand) | (percent) | (thousand) | (percent) | (thousand) | (percent) | (thousand) | (percent) |
| All households | 108,601 | 96,543 | 88.9 | 12,058 | 11.1 | 8,259 | 7.6 | 3,799 | 3.5 |
| Household composition: | |||||||||
| With children < 18 | 38,647 | 32,268 | 83.5 | 6,379 | 16.5 | 4,899 | 12.7 | 1,480 | 3.8 |
| With children < 6 | 17,073 | 14,039 | 82.2 | 3,034 | 17.8 | 2,450 | 14.4 | 584 | 3.4 |
| Married-couple families | 26,069 | 23,357 | 89.6 | 2,712 | 10.4 | 2,204 | 8.5 | 508 | 1.9 |
| Female head, no spouse | 9,496 | 6,456 | 68.0 | 3,040 | 32.0 | 2,212 | 23.3 | 828 | 8.7 |
| Male head, no spouse | 2,375 | 1,855 | 78.1 | 520 | 21.9 | 381 | 16.0 | 139 | 5.9 |
| Other household with child2 | 707 | 599 | 84.7 | 108 | 15.3 | 102 | 14.4 | 6 | .8 |
| With no children < 18 | 69,954 | 64,276 | 91.9 | 5,678 | 8.1 | 3,360 | 4.8 | 2,318 | 3.3 |
| More than one adult | 41,538 | 38,929 | 93.7 | 2,609 | 6.3 | 1,651 | 4.0 | 958 | 2.3 |
| Women living alone | 16,174 | 14,472 | 89.5 | 1,702 | 10.5 | 985 | 6.1 | 717 | 4.4 |
| Men living alone | 12,242 | 10,875 | 88.8 | 1,367 | 11.2 | 724 | 5.9 | 643 | 5.3 |
| With elderly | 24,791 | 23,229 | 93.7 | 1,562 | 6.3 | 1,099 | 4.4 | 463 | 1.9 |
| Elderly living alone | 10,072 | 9,327 | 92.6 | 745 | 7.4 | 490 | 4.9 | 255 | 2.5 |
| Race/ethnicity of households: | |||||||||
| White non-Hispanic | 80,266 | 73,859 | 92.0 | 6,407 | 8.0 | 4,294 | 5.3 | 2,113 | 2.6 |
| Black non-Hispanic | 13,515 | 10,546 | 78.0 | 2,969 | 22.0 | 1,999 | 14.8 | 970 | 7.2 |
| Hispanic3 | 10,344 | 8,099 | 78.3 | 2,245 | 21.7 | 1,654 | 16.0 | 591 | 5.7 |
| Other non-Hispanic | 4,475 | 4,038 | 90.2 | 437 | 9.8 | 313 | 7.0 | 124 | 2.8 |
| Household income-to-poverty ratio: | |||||||||
| Under 1.00 | 11,515 | 7,128 | 61.9 | 4,387 | 38.1 | 2,736 | 23.8 | 1,651 | 14.3 |
| Under 1.30 | 17,010 | 11,272 | 66.3 | 5,738 | 33.7 | 3,681 | 21.6 | 2,057 | 12.1 |
| Under 1.85 | 25,134 | 17,802 | 70.8 | 7,332 | 29.2 | 4,894 | 19.5 | 2,438 | 9.7 |
| 1.85 and over | 64,263 | 60,997 | 94.9 | 3,266 | 5.1 | 2,321 | 3.6 | 945 | 1.5 |
| Income unknown | 19,204 | 17,744 | 92.4 | 1,460 | 7.6 | 1,044 | 5.4 | 416 | 2.2 |
| Area of residence: | |||||||||
| Inside metropolitan area | 87,617 | 77,997 | 89.0 | 9,620 | 11.0 | 6,528 | 7.5 | 3,092 | 3.5 |
| In central city4 | 26,922 | 23,047 | 85.6 | 3,875 | 14.4 | 2,517 | 9.3 | 1,358 | 5.0 |
| Not in central city4 | 45,552 | 41,542 | 91.2 | 4,010 | 8.8 | 2,791 | 6.1 | 1,219 | 2.7 |
| Outside metropolitan area | 20,983 | 18,545 | 88.4 | 2,438 | 11.6 | 1,731 | 8.2 | 707 | 3.4 |
| Census geographic region: | |||||||||
| Northeast | 20,242 | 18,372 | 90.8 | 1,870 | 9.2 | 1,266 | 6.3 | 604 | 3.0 |
| Midwest | 25,180 | 22,755 | 90.4 | 2,425 | 9.6 | 1,602 | 6.4 | 823 | 3.3 |
| South | 39,195 | 34,325 | 87.6 | 4,870 | 12.4 | 3,442 | 8.8 | 1,428 | 3.6 |
| West | 23,984 | 21,090 | 87.9 | 2,894 | 12.1 | 1,950 | 8.1 | 944 | 3.9 |
| 1Totals exclude households whose food security status is unknown because they did not give a valid response to any of the questions in the food security scale. In 2002, these represented 336,000 households (0.3 percent of all households.) | |||||||||
| 2Households with children in complex living arrangements—e.g., children of other relatives or unrelated roommate or boarder. | |||||||||
| 3Hispanics may be of any race. | |||||||||
| 4Metropolitan area subtotals do not add to metropolitan area totals because central-city residence is not identified for about 17 percent of households in metropolitan statistical areas. | |||||||||
| SOURCE: Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, "Table 2. Prevalence of Food Security, Food Insecurity, and Hunger, by Selected Household Characteristics, 2002," in Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report Number 35, United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, October 2003 [Online] http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FANRR35/fanrr35.pdf [accessed January 7, 2004] | |||||||||
- More than a third (38.9 percent) of all emergency client households had at least one member working.
- Sixty-four percent of the households have incomes at or below the poverty level.
- Assistance from government welfare programs (TANF, general assistance, and Supplemental Security Income) was the main source of income for 15.9 percent of all clients. Other government assistance (social security, workers' compensation, and unemployment compensation) was the main source of income for 30.5 percent of clients.
- Some 44.9 percent of recipients at all program sites were white; 35.4 percent, African-American; 16.7 percent, Hispanic; and 4.8 percent, Native American/Alaskan Native.
- Almost two-thirds (62.8 percent) of clients are high school graduates.
- Almost two-thirds (63.9 percent) of clients have applied for and 29.8 percent currently receive food stamps. See Figure 3.8 for an analysis of the use of food stamps by type of food program.
- Ten percent of all clients are homeless. Thirty-six percent reported having to choose between paying for food and paying their rent or mortgage. Figure 3.9 shows the housing situation for pantry, kitchen, and shelter clients.
- Twenty-nine percent reported that at least one household member was in poor health.
FIGURE 3.8
Use of food stamp program by program type
Over half of the agencies surveyed reported an increase in the number of clients serviced at program sites since 1998.
U.S. Conference of Mayors Status Report
Since 1982 the U.S. Conference of Mayors has conducted an annual survey of hunger and homelessness in
FIGURE 3.9
Housing, by program type, 2001
U.S. cities. The 2002 survey focused on twenty-five cities and indicated a growing demand for emergency food assistance. The Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 2002 (Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2002) reported that demand for emergency food assistance had increased by an average of 19 percent from the previous year in all twenty-five of the cities surveyed. Demand for emergency food among families with children increased 17 percent. Thirty-eight percent of persons requesting emergency food assistance were employed. The causes of hunger, according to officials in the surveyed cities, included low-paying jobs, unemployment, high housing costs, and weakening of the economy.
User Comments Add a comment…