Long lines at food pantries, food costs pushing limits

[K. A. Pital]

CNN Money

Fragment:

In his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner told a sobering story about the economy, talking of a severe recession that has cost the nation millions of jobs.

He also mentioned a sobering anecdote.

"At the food bank where my wife and son volunteer, the lines are long and getting longer," Geithner said.

Nationwide, food banks are reporting a 30% increase in the number of people seeking assistance -- double the increase reported just six months ago, according to Feeding America, a network of more than 200 food banks across the country. The organization says food banks serve 25 million Americans of the 35 million it estimates are in need of food banks's services.

As a result of growing demand, 72% of food banks have been unable to adequately meet needs, resulting in cut backs in the amount of food they make available to pantries that serve food.

"Millions of Americans simply don't have enough money to buy food," said Ross Fraser, spokesman for Feeding America. "We're seeing the needle moving up in terms of how much people make that come to food pantries."

Food pantries noted that an increasing number of people coming to food banks have recently lost jobs.

[...]

The rest linked to.

So there's 25 million people are so poor that they need food subsidized from food banks - almost 10% of the US population? That's... illuminating to say the least. And yet again the problem of "food costs too much for people to buy" raises it's head.

[Samuel]

Does this mean that Duchess wins the bet?

Honestly, I heard it was bad, but having a short fall of 10 million people...

The only good news is that no one will probably starve to death, the bad news is alot of people are going to go hungry.

[K. A. Pital]

Starvation has never been a threat for most of the First and Second world people in the second half of XX century. Mundane food shortage and malnourishment, however, remains a threat.

It would be interesting to observe the lowering of the average calorie consumption rate for America due to this crisis - depending on the size of the "swing", one could determine how many people are so poor that they experience critical food shortage and genuine suffering. It's only too bad that important scientific data would be observed due to a rather inhumane process of disenfranchisment and pauperization.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The article actually states that 35 million people need food banks, but that the food banks can only meet the needs of 25 million, i.e., that they have only 71% of the food available that they need to provide minimum daily requirements for the people they serve. Nonetheless, it does mean that by the end of 2008, 12% of the American population has ended up reliant on food banks simply to get enough food to survive off of, and the food banks are running a shortfall of 29% less than the actual needs.

[K. A. Pital]

12% is no small figure indeed. IIRC, according to USDA survey, 56% of people who rely on stamps are families with children. To be fair, a similar amount of people is reliant on food aid in Europe.

The current crisis will sharply curtail welfare and the possibilities of "living off the street", so we would be able to observe and compare the social support systems in US and Western Europe, and how they deal (or fail to deal) with the additional stress of feeding a rising number of poor.

[Junghalli]

The more I read stories like this the more it feeds my growing hatred of lolbertarians.

[Surlethe]

Oh, come now, folks. Shortages -- and hence lines -- are a price phenomenon. You make the shortages go away by simply raising the price so that the food goes to the people who value it most. When you let the market operate, you get maximized benefit, minimal regulation costs, and perfect efficiency: the amount of food sold is precisely equal to the amount of food demanded. It's almost like magic!

Whoops, channeling F. A. Hayek again.

[Big Phil]

The article actually states that 35 million people need food banks, but that the food banks can only meet the needs of 25 million, i.e., that they have only 71% of the food available that they need to provide minimum daily requirements for the people they serve. Nonetheless, it does mean that by the end of 2008, 12% of the American population has ended up reliant on food banks simply to get enough food to survive off of, and the food banks are running a shortfall of 29% less than the actual needs.

That's not what it means, actually. Quoting from the abstract of USDA. Mark Nord, M. Andrews, S. Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States, 2007, which can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR66/ERR66.pdf

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year
in 2007, meaning that all household members had access at all times to enough food for an
active, healthy life. The remaining households (11.1 percent) were food insecure at least
some time during the year. About one-third of food-insecure households (4.1 percent of
all U.S. households) had very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or
more adults was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year
because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food
insecurity and very low food security were essentially unchanged from those in 2005 and
2006. The typical food-secure household spent 35 percent more on food than the typical
food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over half of all
food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and
nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the survey.

If you look at the report, they classify people as food insecure if they report three or more of the following conditions

They are classified as food insecure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions.

1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to
buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12
months?
2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”
Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the
size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for
food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to Question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month,
some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because
there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough
money for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat
for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
10. (If yes to Question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month,
some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-18)
11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because
we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t
afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12
months?
13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford
enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last
12 months?
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s
meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t
afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
17. (If yes to Question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month,
some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
18. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

So what does all this mean? It does not mean that 35 million Americans are going to food banks. It also does NOT mean that 12% of Americans are reliant on food banks - that's a complete misrepresentation of the data, mostly on your part but America's Second Harvest and food banks also use this data because it makes the situation sound worse than it actually is and helps them raise more money and get more food donated.

It means that 35 million Americans report conditions that might require them to use food banks, food stamps, etc., at least three times during each year. These conditions include "worrying food would run out before (I/we) got money to buy more," "food bought didn’t last and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more," "couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals," and "relied on few kinds of low-cost food to feed child(ren)" (these are the top 4 criteria defining people as food insecure). Of these, only one (food didn't last) can really be defined as people not having enough to eat; the other three are worrying, couldn't afford balanced meals, and fed kids a boring diet. Some of these people are actually in need and are using food stamps, while others are going to food banks, but some people are just idiots who can't balance a budget, or who take their kids through the McDonalds drive through every day for dinner.

I don't argue that usage of food banks is increasing; a simple count of the people showing up for food tells you families are hurting and demand for food is up. However, I would bet that if food banks actually tracked the number of unique people who show up to get food, or the recipients of that food, it would be significantly less than 35 million.

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind that someone who has recently lost a job may be visiting a food bank, but also still possessing certain assets associated with wealth. For example, if a family has a house, mortgage, two car loans, two adults, and two children (just an example) and the two adults are laid off they are still obligated to meet the mortgage, loans, etc. even though their income has been radically reduced (or is non-existent). No one hands out free mortgage assistance, but you can get free or cheap food. So by reducing the food bill through visiting a food pantry they might devote some of their remaining cash to bill paying. Ideally, they get a new job(s) within a few months, no longer need assistance, and all is well.

The problem now, however, is that people aren't getting new jobs quickly (or at all). Then you have people selling off their possessions, losing their homes, etc. AND needing help to eat.

So, while 25 million might visit a food pantry in the course of a year, there's a vast difference between needing help just one month and needing help all year long. That's part of what makes such seemingly straightforward issues so complex.

[Kanastrous]

There's no requirement to demonstrate need, before accessing a pantry's stores?

I guess that would get cumbersome for an NGO.

[General Zod]

There's no requirement to demonstrate need, before accessing a pantry's stores?

I guess that would get cumbersome for an NGO.

I somehow doubt food banks have the resources to verify the circumstances of everyone who says they need food. It's not as if most people actually want to use a food bank, after all.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"The organization says food banks serve 25 million Americans of the 35 million it estimates are in need of food banks's services."

I don't think I was misrepresenting that, SanchezTW, though I admit that more details about the food banks' method of calculating need show that it's not as serious as it initially appeared.

[Kanastrous]

I had found myself thinking about the possibility of people using the banks to cushion their savings, even while they still had resources available to buy food on their own. But I suppose that the number of people who would try to game the system is probably very small compared to the people using it out of genuine immediate need.

[bobalot]

In times of hardship, contributions to charity (Food Banks etc.) tend to decrease while the need for them tends to increase which exacerbates the problem. Kind of makes a mockery of the idea that charity would make a good substitute for a social welfare system (a claim made by many market worshiping lolbertarians).

[Broomstick]

There's no requirement to demonstrate need, before accessing a pantry's stores?

I guess that would get cumbersome for an NGO.

It depends on the food pantry.

Last time I was poor I did make use of them a few times. Some asked no questions, some wanted official verification of (lack of) funds.

Culturally, there's a pretty strong reluctance to use such things in the US - I have no doubt some people game the system (someone always does) but it's probably an exceedingly low percentage. Frequently, pick up must be during the day, or you have to help pack and move boxes, or something of the sort that would be inconvenient for those who have normal jobs. That, too, cuts down on the scammers.

[Big Phil]

"The organization says food banks serve 25 million Americans of the 35 million it estimates are in need of food banks's services."

I don't think I was misrepresenting that, SanchezTW, though I admit that more details about the food banks' method of calculating need show that it's not as serious as it initially appeared.

Sorry - I didn't edit my post. America's Second Harvest, and the guy quoted in the article, are misrepresenting (exaggerating, if you want to be polite) the magnitude of the problem. You just weren't aware of how these numbers get fudged - I've done a number of research studies for food banks and am very familiar with how the data gets manipulated to paint the worst possible picture. Studies of homelessness (i.e., one night counts) do similar things.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, so how many people are in fact relying on the banks?

[Broomstick]

Good question! I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.

What do you mean by "rely on"? Does that mean "would eat nothing without this help" or does it mean "supplements the food budget" or "we do this so we can use cash for some other expense like housing"?

There are also some seasonal variations - during the school year poor children may receive meals at schools through some government programs. During that time the family may or may not go to food pantries, but when school is not in sessions they may have to in order to keep the children fed.

[Big Phil]

Good question! I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.

What do you mean by "rely on"? Does that mean "would eat nothing without this help"

Hardly anyone fits into this category; pretty much only hardcore homeless people who won't or can't get off the street.

or does it mean "supplements the food budget" or "we do this so we can use cash for some other expense like housing"?

Probably 98% of people who use food banks fall into this category, to one degree or another. Most people who "use food banks" aren't regular users either. If I remember the last study I did of the subject, something like 50-70% of all food bank users were infrequent or specific occasion users (i.e., someone lost a job and they needed the food bank for a month to get by).

[Master of Ossus]

I seem to be late to the party on this one, but that data is clearly based on the CPS' measure of "food security." You guys know I'm a big fan of the CPS, but its food security section is total bullshit. It was written up by a group of sociology professors and nutritionists who didn't understand the CPS methodology and manipulated the questions to vastly exaggerate the scale of hunger in the US.

Among other problems, as many as 60% of households that answer the CPS don't answer questions on the food security question and researchers are instructed to pimp that section especially strongly to families with children (so not only is it not random, but there's intentional bias in the data-gathering). Further, unlike other parts of the CPS, the food security section isn't spot-checked by second teams nor subject to the computer-assisted surveying methods which all other economic data passes through (possibly because the ridiculously subjective nature of many of the questions being asked precludes "accuracy" checks), and many (all?) of the questions in that section ask about activities and feelings in the last YEAR, even though households stay in the sample and are surveyed when they first enter the sample on a monthly basis. That causes all kinds of problems with memory (e.g., "Was it 11 months ago? 13?"), and obscures the magnitude of the actual problem.

Finally, the questions themselves are ridiculous. One question asks if, during the last year, you were worried that you would run out of food in the house and be unable to purchase more. (Emphasis added). You can kinda see what they're trying to get at, but to me that question reveals as much about the answerer's neuroses as it does about their actual hunger. And what happens if you say you were worried about that 11 months ago? Your entire household is "marginally food insecure" on the basis of that ONE QUESTION and so your family is counted in the 25 million+ figure cited in the OP.

Unfortunately, because that section of the CPS is so poorly done the US doesn't really have a good measurement of food security and hunger. Consequently, I don't think anyone has any good data on the scope of hunger in the US.

(Incidentally, the USDA's definition of households with "low food security" is that the household "reduced the quality, variety, and desirability of their diets, but the quantity of food intake and normal eating patterns were not substantially disrupted." So, in other words, they're eating enough, they're just not eating what they WANT to be eating. When I was in graduate school I easily fit into that definition, although it's questionable as to whether I would have actually answered the CPS questions in such a way that I would have been placed into that group.

Only people who are in the "very food insecure" category have actually had at least one household member's eating patterns disrupted by a genuine lack of food.)

Edit: Fixed typo.

[K. A. Pital]

Only people who are in the "very food insecure" category have actually had at least one household member's eating patterns disrupted by a genuine lack of food.)

Hmm, so how many really are there, amongst all the respondents?

[Master of Ossus]

I don't have data from 2008, but in 2007 it was estimated that somewhere around 4% of US houesholds were "very food insecure," subject to all of the problems that that section in the CPS had, above. You can see a huge summary of the data and reporting on it here:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err66/

[Uraniun235]

There are also some seasonal variations - during the school year poor children may receive meals at schools through some government programs. During that time the family may or may not go to food pantries, but when school is not in sessions they may have to in order to keep the children fed.

Where I work we refer to that as Free/Reduced (as in reduced price) - basically kids who qualify either to have their breakfasts and lunches completely subsidized or partially subsidized. I think it's federally funded but I'm not sure. I think close to two-thirds of our district qualifies - but then we're a partly rural school district with a lot of migrant families.

I think we also have (had?) a program that continues to serve breakfasts during the summer months, precisely because a lot of parents come to rely on that subsidized school food.

[Master of Ossus]

It's federally-funded. A family of four qualifies if their combined income is (something like) $40k? It's the federal poverty guideline multiplied by 185%, IIRC, and they're free if the family has income less than (something like) 135% of the poverty line.

[K. A. Pital]

Thanks MoO. 4% is around 4,5 million, right? And yeah, the concept of self-described "food security" in reality undermines the ability to investigate the scale of actual malnourshiment and hunger.