Hunger and Food Insecurity in Pennsylvania Scope of the Problem At the World Food Summit in 1996, the United States – along with 185 other countries – pledged “to reduce the number of undernourished people to half their present level no later than 2015.”   Subsequently, this commitment was incorporated into Healthy People 2010 initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  It adopted a specific target – reduce U.S. food insecurity [1] to 6 percent by 2010. The USDA monitors the progress toward that goal through an annual 18-question supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) – the same survey that provides national data about employment, poverty, etc. The first survey, conducted in April 1995, revealed that 12 percent of U.S households were food insecure, including 4 percent with hunger. The most recent CPS survey to include the 18-question supplement occurred in November 2001. That data has not yet been made available to the public.  Based on data collected in previous years, we know that between 6.0 – 6.5 percent of Pennsylvania households experienced food insecurity at some point in the 12 months preceding the survey. Of these households, about one-third also experienced hunger. This translates into approximately 750,000 Pennsylvanians who live in food insecure households.  Of this total, about 250,000 live in households where someone also experiences hunger. [2] The prevalence of hunger and food insecurity in Pennsylvania declined during the last half of the 1990s, reflecting the strong economy and increased household income.  Although difficult to determine precisely, the amount of the decline was between 15 and 20 percent.  Pennsylvania’s rates of hunger and food insecurity are among the five lowest in the United States.  During 1997-99 (the latest state-by-state data available), only North Dakota had clearly lower rates.   People who meet a part of their food needs through a food pantry/cupboard or soup kitchen are among the food insecure. An estimated 800,000 Pennsylvanians per year received food assistance in this way throughout the late ‘90s and 2000.  Based on a Hunger Action survey, the number seeking help jumped dramatically (around 20 percent) in late 2001.  In 2002 the need decreased somewhat but continues to run ahead of 2000 totals.  Both USDA data and anecdotal evidence from Pennsylvania suggest that among the very poor – that is, those with incomes less than half the federal poverty line – rates of food insecurity and hunger have increased in recent years. Who are the “food insecure”? Data collected in 2001 by America’s Second Harvest, the national food bank network, provides the following profile of people who receive food assistance from charitable food providers: ·                    40 percent are children ·                    11 percent are seniors ·                    17 percent are from rural areas, 35 percent from suburban areas, and 48 percent from large cities ·                    36 percent must choose between buying food or paying the rent/mortgage ·                    78 percent of households have incomes that are below 150 percent of poverty; ·                    31 percent of households receive food stamps ·                    14 percent receive welfare; and ·                    40 percent include an employed adult. One of the biggest changes in recent years is the increasing number of employed adults seeking food assistance. Why has the need for charitable food assistance persisted through the recent period of economic prosperity?     Many factors affect a household’s food insecurity.  Income is perhaps the most important; hunger is seven times more prevalent in households with annual incomes below 185 percent of poverty as in households with incomes above that range.[3]   However, factors such as family instability, job loss and accidents play significant roles.  Thus, some households experience episodes of food insecurity and hunger even thought their annual incomes are well above the poverty line.  On the other hand, nearly two-thirds of households with income below the official poverty line are food secure. Several broader trends have slowed progress toward a hunger-free Pennsylvania.   ·                    Declining Wages.  From 1979 to 2000, the median inflation-adjusted wage of all Pennsylvania employees fell from $12.78 an hour to $12.27 an hour (4 percent).  The decline was greatest among low-wage employees (from $7.00 an hour in 1979 to $6.31 an hour in 2000, a drop of 10 percent).  Meanwhile, the costs of other essentials, such as housing and medical care, have increased significantly.  For families caught in the squeeze between declining wages and rising costs, the food budget becomes a frequent pressure point.  Utilization of emergency food assistance becomes a way for these families to keep food on the table while still paying the bills. ·                    Dropping Participation in the Food Stamp Program.  From January 1996 to July 2001, the number of Pennsylvanians participating in the Program dropped by 400,000 individuals (35 percent). The USDA reports that only 35 percent of the national decline occurred because of rising incomes and assets (see www.fns.gov/oane).  The largest part of the decline (56 percent) occurred because fewer eligible individuals participated in the Program.  Applied to Pennsylvania, this identifies a huge loss in federal dollars (around $17 million a month) that could have been made available to low-income families to purchase groceries. This loss is one of the main reasons that food pantries and cupboards continued to see high demand for food assistance throughout the economic expansion of the late ‘90s. ·                    Mixed Results from the Welfare Reform Initiative. According to Department of Public Welfare data [4] , 37 percent of parents who left welfare achieved regular employment and were clearly better off than while on welfare.  The others haven’t done so well: 36 percent worked intermittently and 27 percent had no recorded wages at all.   For these latter groups of families, welfare reform has resulted in more reliance on charitable food providers. ·                    Modern Lifestyles. Social changes -- such as more single-parents families, fewer stay-at-home parents, a faster pace of life, and an emphasis on convenience -- tend to encourage the consumption of more prepared foods.  These foods tend to be more expensive, thereby adding pressure to the budgets of low-income families.   Publicly-Funded Nutrition Programs PA Department of Agriculture.  PDA administers three programs: the State Food Purchase Program (SFPP), the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).  The SFPP is entirely state funded, currently at about $16.5 million.  The FMNP is currently funded at around $5.8 million ($3.8 federal, $2.0 state).  TEFAP is entirely federal funded; this year, it will make available commodities totaling about $16 million. PA Department of Education.  PDE administers four child nutrition programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). All are federally funded without any participation or spending caps.   For school lunches, Pennsylvania pays a state match of 10 cents per lunch.  Schools that offer breakfast qualify for a larger match (12 or 14 cents per lunch, depending on student participation in the breakfast program). PA Department of Health.  PDH administers the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).  Currently it is entirely federally funded at about $132 million.  Most of the money is spent on “food prescriptions” designed to meet specific dietary deficiencies.  A portion may be spent for nutrition assessment and counseling services offered by WIC staff (about $24 million annually) and administration (about $12 million annually).  Starting in the late ‘80s state funds were invested in WIC; that ended in 1997. PA Department of Aging.  Through 52 local area agencies, Aging administers two nutrition programs: congregate dining, which provides a group meal at a senior center; and home delivered meals, which provides prepared food to homebound persons.  These are not entitlement programs and participation depends on the availability of funds.  About $50 million in state and $10 million in federal funds pay for these programs.    PA Department of Public Welfare.  DPW administers the Food Stamp Program, a federal entitlement that brought $700 million in grocery purchases to Pennsylvania in SFY 2002. The only state cost is a 50 percent share of administration.  DPW also operates the Nutrition Education Program, which last year brought about $7 million in federal funds to the Commonwealth for nutrition education. Key Nutrition Decisions for Pennsylvania’s Next Governor 1.      How can Pennsylvania strengthen child nutrition within the parameters of tight budgets? Most federal nutrition programs are uncapped entitlements.  Strategic use of these programs would enable Pennsylvania to use federal dollars to fund nutritional gains. To succeed, such an approach requires two things.  The first is public support by the Governor and cabinet secretaries for these programs, much as the Ridge and Schweiker Administrations have supported CHIP.  The second is the targeted investment of a modest amount of state funds to leverage the federal resource.  For example, currently most low-income children who receive a subsidized school lunch when school is in session do not receive any nutritional support during the summer vacation.  Start-up grants could be used to encourage more local organizations to offer the Summer Food Service Program during the months that school is not in session. 2.      Will Pennsylvania invest state dollars to repair the WIC infrastructure? Pennsylvania’s WIC has been undermined by the slow erosion in federal funding for nutrition services.  This deterioration has caused the closing of satellite offices, the reduction of staff, and the shortening of office hours.  These changes have made the Program less accessible to mothers and their children. Will Pennsylvania again invest in WIC?  This will be a key question for the next Governor.  Within the Senate, there is strong support to correct the statutory inflexibility that doomed the previous investment of state funds (see Senate Bill 803).  But that change would do no good unless combined with a renewed dollar commitment by the Commonwealth. 3.      Will Pennsylvania encourage broader utilization of the Food Stamp Program? This Program accounts for about 60 percent of the public funding committed to ending hunger in Pennsylvania.  Thus, effective utilization of this resource is a key to an effective anti-hunger policy. The 2002 Farm Bill reauthorized the Food Stamp Program for another five years and gave the states a variety of new options to make the Program more accessible to working parents and low-income seniors.  The next Governor will need to decide whether to take full advantage of these options.  He also will decide whether or not to continue investing a small amount of state funds ($500,000) in outreach and education activities designed to increase Program participation rates. 4.      Will Pennsylvania renew its strong commitment to the State Food Purchase Program? The Commonwealth’s level of support for the charitable food distribution network has been among the very best in the nation.  The Program has strong bipartisan support.  Over the 19 years of its existence, funding has increased from $8 million in 1983-84 to nearly $17 million in 2001-02. For the current fiscal year, state funding was cut by $500,000, a decision that many within the charitable network consider misguided in light of the increased need of the past year. The Farm Bill signed by President Bush in May increases the supply of federal commodities by up to $40 million;  that increase is expected to help fill the gap in Pennsylvania. PDA also is aggressively seeking “bonus commodities” from the USDA; starting in 2001-02, it began to utilize $1 million of state funds to cover administrative costs associated with the storing and distribution of that additional source of food.   ************ PA Hunger Action Center (July 30, 2002) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Food security is defined as “assured access at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life, with no need for recourse to emergency food sources or other extraordinary coping behaviors to meet basic food needs”.  People who frequently worry about the source of their next meal, or who need the help of food pantries or of extended family members in order to eat, are “food insecure”.  Hunger is defined as “the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food due to the recurrent and involuntary lack of access to food” [2] According to the Economic Research Service of the USDA, rates of food insecurity and hunger for shorter periods of time are below the annual rates.  The monthly prevalence of hunger is about 60 percent of the annual prevalence, and the daily prevalence is 13 to 18 percent of the annual rate.  See Household Food Security in the United States, 2000 (Nord, et al. February 2002). [3] Household Food Security in the United States, 2000 [4] Welfare Reform after Three Years (PA Department of Public Welfare, May 2001). Click here to return to the About Hunger and Poverty page.