The State of Food Insecurity in the United States

According to newly released data on food insecurity, a full 14.9% of American households did not have access to enough food for an active, healthy life at some point during 2011. This finding comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,which puts out an annual report every September that calculates the prevalence of food insecurity, identifies the demographic characteristics and life circumstances of food insecure households, and analyzes food expenditures and participation in nutrition assistance programs.

In simplest terms, the 2011 Household Food Security in the United States report suggests that the recession and slow economic recovery have created tough economic times for many families. The rate of food insecurity has therefore remained relatively high, though stable, over the past three years (2009-2011). Food insecurity rates also remain marked by profound racial and demographic disparities. While 11.4% of white households were food insecure, 25.1% of black households and 26.2% of Hispanic households were food insecure in 2011. Families with children, particularly those headed by single parents, and households living with incomes below 185% of the poverty level are among the hardest hit by food insecurity. Elderly households and households with multiple childless adults have food insecurity rates lower than the national average.

The new report on food insecurity also includes interesting data about the food expenditures of different types of families. The USDA has a measure called the Thrifty Food Plan that sets a national standard for a low-cost, adequate, and nutritious diet. By comparing the median weekly food spending for different types of families to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), we can get another measure of how families are faring. In 2011, the median weekly amount spent on food per person was $47.50, about 15% higher than the so-called “thrifty” plan. Research I contributed to as an Emerson Hunger Fellow at FRAC in 2011 suggests that the TFP may be a low-ball estimate of adequate food spending to begin with. If the TFP represents a bare minimum standard, then families spending below it may not be spending enough – that is they are being “too thrifty,” because they cannot afford to spend any more. Indeed, low-income households (those beneath 185% of the poverty line) spent roughly 7% less than the TFP during 2011.

In the face of widespread food insecurity, many families are accessing assistance. In 2011, 57% of food insecure households participated in one of the three largest assistance programs (SNAP, National School Lunch Program or WIC). Of food insecure households below 185% of the poverty level in 2011, 40.1% reported receiving SNAP in the past 30 days, 32.2% said their kids received free/reduced price lunch, and women or young children in 11.2% of households received WIC. While the USDA is careful to note that not all of these households would necessarily qualify for these programs, these data show that there is great need for even broader access to nutrition assistance. 44.7 million people participated in SNAP in 2011. These numbers are right in line with the number of Americans reporting household food insecurity to the USDA (50.1 million, or 16.4%) and food hardship to Gallup in early 2012 (18.2%). SNAP is playing a crucial role in supporting families during tough economic times and making sure many children and families get the nutrition they need. However, there is room for improvement. Expanding access to SNAP by reducing administrative hurdles to participation will help families better weather economic insecurity.

Put simply, receiving food assistance is good for families, particularly kids. Children’s HealthWatch (a national study of the impact of economic and social conditions on kids’ health) has gone so far as to characterize SNAP as an effective “vaccine.” In a 2012 report they wrote, “Children’s HealthWatch demonstrated that SNAP, like an effective immunization, significantly decreases families’ and children’s food insecurity, which are established child health hazards.” Additional past research from Children’s HealthWatch has shown that children in households receiving SNAP in 2009 and 2010 (following the ARRA increase in SNAP funding) were more likely to be classified as “well” than children in similar eligible families not receiving SNAP. Furthermore, spending on food stamps is an effective economic stimulus that benefits everyone. Past research from the USDA shows that SNAP has macroeconomic importance. The program makes a difference for local economies through a multiplier effect. As the USDA explains, “every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity.” Both the moral and economic arguments for supporting SNAP are sound.

Despite compelling evidence that SNAP is a vital and effective program, several states (Pennsylvania and Michigan come to mind) have recently made it harder for families to qualify for SNAP, by reinstating an asset limit. These states are bucking a national trend toward eliminating asset limits. These limits on how much families can save and still be eligible pose an administrative barrier to applying to SNAP, discourage saving on the part of lower-income families, and fail to support the aspirations of families to ultimately be economically stable enough to not need public assistance. States cite tight budgets when reinstating their asset limits for SNAP in a misguided effort to save money. However, instead of saving money, they’re likely to be increasing administrative costs, turning down federal dollars that could stimulate local economic activity, and failing to address widespread food insecurity among their residents.

All available data on food insecurity points to the importance of having access to both assets and assistance in times of need. Liquid assets help families weather unexpected events, such as a job loss or large medical bill. Being able to access SNAP or other assistance during times of hardship means families do not have to completely deplete their rainy day funds to stay afloat. The USDA reports that food insecurity in the U.S. is frequently reoccurring, but not chronic. Thus, while 14.9% reported bouts of food insecurity during 2011, a more modest 8.4% said they had experienced food insecurity in the past 30 days when asked about the last month. Therefore, SNAP and savings should ideally work in concert to help families bridge income gaps and weather times of economic instability. Asset limits effectively sever this relationship by forcing families to choose between savings goals and continued assistance. This is (or at least, should be) a false choice and leaves families vulnerable to future struggles.

The state of food security in the U.S. is unacceptable and sadly, unsurprising. Persistently high unemployment coupled with a dearth of living wage jobs, a massive loss of household wealth during the recession, and ongoing structural barriers to ending poverty all play a role. With nearly 15% of Americans reporting difficulty affording enough food, the importance of a robust and accessible safety net, complete with nutrition assistance programs and support for the savings efforts of all Americans, cannot be emphasized enough.