[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 691-694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              REPORT FROM THE CENTER ON HUNGER AND POVERTY

 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, recently, Tufts University's 
Center on Hunger and Poverty released a far-reaching report, ``Paradox 
of Our Times: Hunger in a Strong Economy.'' The report emphasizes that 
numerous studies on hunger in America have concluded that low-income 
working families do not have access to adequate food, despite the 
nation's economic prosperity. The report's conclusion is supported by 
research from the General Accounting Office, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, numerous state agencies, 
academic researchers, and policy analysts, including the Urban 
Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Tufts 
study will be of interest to all of us in Congress who care about this 
issue, and I ask that the attached Parts I and II of the report be 
printed in the Record.
  The material follows:

[[Page 692]]



  [From the Center on Hunger and Poverty, Tufts University, Medford, 
                             Massachusetts]

            Paradox of Our Times: Hunger in a Strong Economy

      (By Sandra H. Venner, Ashley F. Sullivan, and Dorie Seavey)

       ``It was, the best of times, it was the worst of times . . 
     .'' Charles Dickens.

                            I. Introduction

       America today is haunted by the paradox of hunger and food 
     insecurity amidst unprecedented prosperity. Despite a record 
     economic expansion that is now in its ninth year, accompanied 
     by an historic mix of low inflation and low unemployment, 
     millions of American households are struggling to find 
     sufficient resources to feed their family members.
       Signs of our economy's unparalleled prosperity are 
     everywhere: the national unemployment rate, currently at 4.1 
     percent, is the lowest in thirty years; after-tax average 
     income is expected to be 20% higher in 1999 than in 1977 
     after adjusting for inflation; the stock market toys 
     repeatedly with new highs; consumer spending is at an all-
     time high; the federal budget surplus is positive for the 
     first time since the sixties; and even the poverty rate has 
     edged downward with fewer children living in poverty today 
     than at any time since 1980.\1\ Among the industrialized 
     economies of the world, the United States has emerged from a 
     period of heavy corporate restructuring and deregulation, and 
     stands vibrant and flexible, leading the world in 
     technological innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       According to our national leaders, significant social goals 
     have also been accomplished during this period. Over the last 
     half decade, a profound transformation of our social welfare 
     system has occurred as key elements of the New Deal framework 
     have been replaced by time-limited public assistance and an 
     arrangement in which states have great flexibility over the 
     design and implementation of their welfare programs. 
     Congressional intent to reduce the number of poor families 
     receiving government benefits has been achieved in a 
     remarkably short period of time. The percentages of Americans 
     currently on welfare (2.7%) or receiving food stamps (6.6%) 
     are at historic lows: for welfare cash assistance, the 
     participation rate is the lowest in more than three decades 
     while the food stamp participation rate is the lowest since 
     1978 (``Green Book'', 1998).
       The hallmark of these economic and policy accomplishments, 
     however, is paradox. Beneath the surface of almost 
     unparalleled economic vitality and the touted ``success'' of 
     the 1996 welfare reform law lie deep contradictions and 
     mismatches in the nation's social and economic fabric. The 
     most troubling aspect of our times is that the country's 
     economic prosperity has not been broadly or deeply shared. 
     And perhaps the most glaring manifestation of this fact is 
     the level of food insecurity and hunger in our society. 
     Hunger persists in every region of the country and in every 
     state--in urban, rural, and suburban areas, in households 
     with children, among the elderly and other adults who live on 
     their own, among minority and immigrant communities. Indeed, 
     in some pockets of our society, food insecurity and hunger 
     are at levels that pose significant public health problems, 
     seriously compromising individual and family health and well-
     being while generating a myriad of societal costs.
       This report constitutes a new and somewhat disturbing look 
     into America in 2000. Focusing on families with children, it 
     has three main purposes. The first is to present the most 
     current evidence on the problem of food insecurity and hunger 
     in America, synthesizing information from three key sources: 
     national studies, state and local studies, and finally, 
     reports concerning the use of the non-governmental emergency 
     food system. The second purpose is to identify the key forces 
     driving food insecurity and hunger within what is now the 
     longest economic expansion since the Vietnam War. In 
     particular, we examine two sets of factors: problematic 
     aspects of the two major programs designed to assist poor 
     families--Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the Food 
     Stamp Program--and at a more systemic level, economic forces 
     that are creating growth but also are increasing inequality, 
     insecurity, and wage stagnation at the lower end of the labor 
     market.
       The final purpose of this report is to provide a framework 
     for a comprehensive approach to the problem of hunger and 
     food insecurity in America. A three-pronged approach is 
     suggested: (1) attending to the immediate need to improve 
     access to the Food Stamp Program for people who do not have 
     secure and safe sources of sufficient food, (2) recasting the 
     Food Stamp Program to orient it more to the needs of low-
     income working families, and (3) addressing the deepest roots 
     of hunger in America through a fundamentally new paradigm for 
     domestic social policy that responds to--rather than lags 
     behind--the country's new social and economic realities. 
     Among the key components of such a framework must be a 
     revamped social insurance system (including improved 
     unemployment insurance and portable benefits), more 
     comprehensive income support programs that help families 
     supplement their earnings and stabilize their economic 
     circumstances, and opportunities for individuals and families 
     to build their assets and economic security over the various 
     stages of life.

   II. Hunger and Food Security in the United States: What Does the 
                           Evidence Tell Us?

       Information about the extent and severity of hunger and 
     food insecurity \2\ in the U.S. comes from several sources. 
     To provide information about circumstances at the national 
     level, in 1995 the U.S. government began to annually collect 
     data on the prevalence of food insecurity and hunger among 
     households. State and local studies of household food 
     security, typically conducted by non-governmental 
     organizations, also contribute important information. 
     Finally, evidence of food insecurity comes from studies that 
     document changes in emergency food demand in various parts of 
     the country. These varied sources of information capture 
     different aspects of food insecurity and hunger in America 
     today, and taken together constitute a composite of the 
     problem.


              National Data on Food Insecurity and Hunger

       Prior to the mid-1990s, estimates of the number of 
     households or individuals who were hungry or at risk of 
     hunger relied upon extrapolations of the poverty rate. With 
     the development and implementation of the USDA Food Security 
     Measure,\3\ the ability to consistently and reliably measure 
     the prevalence of hunger improved dramatically. The U.S. 
     government now collects information on the food security of 
     households in all states, and reports on an annual basis the 
     food security status of population groups over time.
       The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has 
     released four years of household food security data, which 
     together cover the period from 1995 to 1998.\4\ The most 
     recent data released (1998 figures) show that an estimated 
     10.5 million households experienced some degree of food 
     insecurity, or 10.2% of all households in the United States. 
     Of the more than 30 million people who lived in these 
     households, nearly 40% (or 12.4 million) were children. Over 
     9 million households (3.6%) experienced hunger, the most 
     severe state of food insecurity (USDA, 1999).
       In 1998, households with children--the focus of this 
     report--experienced food insecurity at more than double the 
     rate for households without children (15.2% versus 7.2%). 
     Households with the youngest children (under six) experienced 
     an even higher level of food insecurity (16.3%). Of the 
     different types of households with children, those headed by 
     single females showed the highest food insecurity and hunger 
     levels, with nearly one in three reporting food insecurity 
     and one in ten experiencing hunger (USDA, 1999).
       Food insecurity prevalence for households with children 
     under 18 remained virtually unchanged across the four-year 
     period ending in 1998 at about 15% (see table below), 
     although the data indicate a small decline in the prevalence 
     of hunger. Given the unprecedented strength of economic 
     indicators during this period, a decline in the national food 
     insecurity prevalence could reasonably have been expected. 
     Instead, the data indicate that food insecurity remains a 
     serious, persistent problem in the U.S. with a significant 
     proportion of families and individuals struggling to meet 
     their basic food needs.

   FOOD SECURITY PREVALENCE ESTIMATES FOR CHILDREN AND HOUSEHOLDS WITH
                         CHILDREN 1995 AND 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1995             1998
                                       ---------------------------------
                                          000s      %      000s      %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Households with children under 6......   18,003   100.0   17,176   100.0
  Food insecure.......................    3,047    16.9    2,796    16.3
    Without hunger....................    2,149    11.9    2,132    12.4
    With hunger.......................      898     5.0      664     3.9
Households with children under 18.....   37,520   100.0   38,178   100.0
  Food insecure.......................    5,791    15.4    5,812    15.2
    Without hunger....................    3,940    10.5    4,216    11.0
    With hunger.......................    1,851     4.9    1,596     4.2
Children in households................   70,279   100.0   71,463   100.0
  Food insecure.......................   12,231    17.4   12,373    17.3
    Without hunger....................    8,131    11.6    9,114    12.8
    With hunger.......................    4,100     5.8    3,259     4.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1999). Advance Report on
  Household Food Security in the United States, 1995-1998. Nord, M.
  (September 28, 1999). ERRATA Table 2D in Household Food Security in
  the United States 1995-1998 (Advance Report).

       In addition to the USDA, the Urban Institute also documents 
     food insecurity and other measures of economic well-being as 
     part of a multi-year national monitoring project. This effort 
     includes the fielding of a nationally representative survey 
     called the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF). 
     Based on a sample of 44,461 households in 13 states, the 1997 
     NSAF found that half of all families at 200% of the poverty 
     line or below worried about food shortages or had difficulty 
     affording food (Urban Institute, 1999).\5\ In their 
     examination of low-income households, the USDA reported that 
     nearly 40% of all households whose incomes were below half of 
     the poverty line experienced food insecurity in 1998 (USDA, 
     1999).


               state and local food insecurity prevalence

       Studies that measure state and local food insecurity 
     prevalence differ in scope and methodology. Some studies of 
     household food insecurity provide evidence of the statewide 
     prevalence, while others detail the characteristics of 
     household food insecurity on a local level.\6\ Studies of 
     economic well-being often incorporate a measure of food 
     insecurity as well. Depending upon the scope of

[[Page 693]]

     the study, samples range from random, representative samples 
     to convenience samples of at-risk populations. Although 
     studies use questions from the USDA Food Security Core 
     Module, each sampling approach provides specific information 
     about households that experience food insecurity and hunger.
       Food insecurity and hunger prevalence appears to vary 
     considerably at the state level. USDA data shows that the 
     percentage of households experiencing food insecurity ranged 
     from 4.6% of households in North Dakota to 15.1% of 
     households in New Mexico (calculated as a three-year average 
     over the period of 1996-1998) (Nord et al., 1999). The Urban 
     Institute survey found that the percentage of low-income 
     families who worried about food or had difficulty purchasing 
     food among the 13 states surveyed ranged from 47% in 
     Wisconsin to 61% in Texas (Urban Institute, 1999).
       These survey results have been augmented by a number of 
     recent studies conducted by citizen groups, academic 
     institutions, and state government agencies:
       A survey of at-risk households in Green Bay, Wisconsin 
     conducted at 21 meal sites in April and May 1998 found that 
     66% of respondents reported food insecurity with varying 
     degrees of hunger. Of these, well over half (58.1%) suffered 
     moderate to severe hunger (Kok, 1998).
       A California study of 823 families with incomes below the 
     poverty line seeking emergency services in April and May 1998 
     found that 27% of households experienced food insecurity with 
     severe hunger, and 33% were food insecure with moderate 
     hunger present--an overall hunger prevalance of 60% 
     (California Food Policy Advocates, Persons . . ., 1998).
       Using the USDA's Core Food Security Module, the Rhode 
     Island Department of Health conducted a pilot food security 
     assessment of households residing in poverty census tracts. 
     Of the 410 households surveyed, 24.4% were determined to be 
     food insecure. Among food insecure households, 15.6% were 
     food insecure without hunger and 8.8% of households 
     experienced hunger (RIDOH, 1999).

            Food Insecurity Among Former Welfare Recipients

       In addition to the sources cited above, documentation on 
     the food security status of former welfare recipients is 
     being collected by states in their examination of the effects 
     of policy changes on former recipients. While many studies of 
     the economic well-being of this population are currently 
     underway, some results are available. These studies, though 
     different in their methodologies, document persistent food 
     insecurity among former welfare recipients.
       According to Urban Institute's national study more than 
     one-third (38%) of former recipients reported that they ran 
     out of food and did not have money for more (Loprest, 1999). 
     A number of state surveys of former welfare recipients report 
     similar outcomes:
       In a Wisconsin welfare ``leaver'' study, 375 former 
     recipients were asked if there was ever a time after leaving 
     welfare when they could not buy food; 32% of those families 
     responded ``yes.'' Of those unable to purchase food, 49% 
     reported going either to a church, food pantry, food kitchen, 
     or shelter at some point; 46% went to friends and relatives, 
     and 5% reported going hungry (WDWD, 1999).
       In 1997, 17% of 384 South Carolina survey respondents 
     reported that there were times, after leaving the welfare 
     program, when they had no way to buy food (SCDSS, 1999).
       A post-time limit welfare tracking study in Connecticut 
     found that 22% of 421 respondents indicated that they 
     ``sometimes'' or ``often'' did not have enough to eat. Of 
     these respondents, 96% reported that the food they bought did 
     not last and they did not have money to buy more sometime 
     during the three months after the benefit termination 
     (Hunter-Manns et al, 1998).
       In Michigan, 27% of families who had their cash assistance 
     benefits terminated due to sanctions reported not having 
     sufficient food (Colville et al, 1997).


            reports from emergency food assistance providers

       Emergency food providers, like soup kitchens and food 
     pantries, help supplement the food obtained through federal 
     food assistance programs, and also provide food to those who 
     are either ineligible for or do not participate in government 
     assistance programs. In addition to receiving commodities 
     through the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program 
     (TEFAP), emergency food providers obtain food supplies from 
     food banks and food rescue organizations, known collectively 
     as food recovery organizations (Youn, 1999).
       When families experience food shortages, some turn to 
     emergency food programs, yet, many households remain food 
     insecure. In fact, the very act of seeking emergency food 
     assistance implies that families are unable to meet their 
     food needs after pooling resources from their own households, 
     federal food programs, or friends and family. Utilization of 
     emergency food assistance programs is therefore an indicator 
     of food insecurity.

                 Emergency Food Demand High Nationwide

       Recent national studies document persistent, and even 
     increased, demand for emergency food assistance. Second 
     Harvest reported that its emergency food programs across the 
     country served over 21 million people (an unduplicated count) 
     in 1997. Of the clients interviewed, 78.5% had insufficient 
     income for food and relied upon agency or government food 
     programs. Over one-quarter (27.5%) of Second Harvest clients 
     reported that adults in their household missed meals during 
     the previous month because they did not have enough food or 
     money to buy food. Of those households with children, 9.1% 
     reported that children missed meals in the prior month for 
     similar reasons (Second Harvest, 1998). In addition, Catholic 
     Charities reported that during 1998, the demand for emergency 
     food assistance rose an average of 38% among reporting 
     agencies (GAO, July 1999).
       The recently-released U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 
     26 major cities reveals that 85% of respondent cities 
     reported a rise in emergency food assistance demand between 
     November 1998 and October 1999, with requests increasing by 
     an average of 18% over the previous year. For those cities 
     reporting increases, the rising demand for emergency food 
     ranged from 1% in Chicago to 45% in Los Angeles. Nearly 60% 
     of those requesting food assistance were children and their 
     parents. In addition, over two-thirds (67%) of adults 
     requesting food assistance were employed. In all of the 
     cities surveyed, people relied upon emergency food assistance 
     facilities not only in emergencies but also as a steady 
     source of food over long periods of time. Officials in 
     virtually every city surveyed anticipate increased requests 
     for emergency food assistance in 1999, especially among 
     families with children (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1999).

      State and Local Emergency Food Programs Seeing More Families

       Reports from states and metropolitan areas present a 
     similar, if not a more striking, picture of emergency food 
     demand in various regions throughout the United States. Of 
     those studies reviewed, recent increases in the number of 
     clients ranged from 14% to 36%.
       Maryland emergency providers reported that from September 
     1997 to September 1998, soup kitchens experienced a 25% 
     increase in the number of children served, a 24% increase in 
     the number of women served, and a 19% increase in the number 
     of families served. Food pantries reported an 8% increase in 
     children, a 21% increase in women, and a 24% increase in the 
     number of families served (Center for Poverty Solutions, 
     1998).
       A Massachusetts study of 98 emergency providers found that 
     between 1996 and 1997, 63% experienced a rise in the total 
     number of emergency food requests, with clients served 
     increasing an average of 22.4%. Over half (52.4%) of the 
     clients requesting emergency food assistance were families 
     with children, and nearly half of the programs reported an 
     increasing number of families with children requesting 
     services. (Project Bread and the Center on Hunger and 
     Poverty, Tufts University, 1998).
       A recent survey of 330 New York City providers revealed 
     that emergency food requests at each site increased an 
     average of 36% from January 1998 to January 1999. Providers 
     reported a 72% increase in the number of families with 
     children seeking emergency food assistance (New York City 
     Coalition Against Hunger, 1999).
       Of the greater Philadelphia community food providers 
     surveyed between April 1998 and April 1999, 67% reported a 
     greater demand for food assistance during this time period. 
     Overall, providers reported an 18% increase in the number of 
     individuals seeking food assistance compared to the previous 
     year, with 45% of their clients from families (Philabundance, 
     1999).
       Connecticut also reported higher demand for food 
     assistance. Of the 128 food sites that reported an increased 
     demand for assistance between October 1997 and October 1998, 
     the number of persons served grew by an average of 24% 
     (Connecticut Association for Human Services, 1999).
       At emergency food programs in Utah, researchers found a 24% 
     increase in the number of individuals served from 1997 to 
     1998, and an astonishing 107% increase over the prior two-
     year period (Utah Food Bank, 1999).
       An Oregon survey of over 680 regional food providers 
     reported that the number of people who received emergency 
     food boxes increased 14% from 1997 to 1998, to a high of 
     458,208 individuals, or 1 in 8 people in Oregon and Clark 
     County, Washington (Oregon Food Bank, 1999).

           Emergency Food Providers Struggling to Meet Demand

       Emergency food providers are struggling to meet the 
     increased food needs of their clients. Although the provider 
     network continues to grow, reports indicate that it is unable 
     to meet the demand for assistance, and providers must 
     sometimes either turn clients away or provide them with less 
     in order to stretch resources over a growing client 
     population. For example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors report 
     that in 1998, on average, 21% of requests for emergency food 
     assistance went unmet (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1999).
       Studies also indicate a shift in the composition of people 
     using emergency food programs. Soup kitchens, which have 
     traditionally served homeless adults, report an increase in 
     the number of families with children. Pantries report 
     increased requests for

[[Page 694]]

     evening hours in order to serve needy working parents. And 
     food bank directors report increased regular use of their 
     programs by clientele who used to stop in occasionally for a 
     bag of food.
       Taken together, this evidence raises red flags concerning 
     the depth of food insecurity experienced by many families. 
     Typically, seeking out emergency food assistance is an end-
     stage coping strategy. As such, emergency food program 
     activity constitutes a unique barometer for gauging the 
     paradox of hunger in a strong economy, and is evidence of the 
     numbers of households and individuals for whom neither 
     employment in the strong economy nor federal safety nets are 
     providing the support necessary to ensure their food 
     security.


                        Summing Up the Evidence

       Based on data from national, state and local studies as 
     well as reports from emergency food providers, the evidence 
     on hunger and food insecurity in the United States can be 
     summarized as follows.
       The national data show remarkably persistent levels of 
     aggregate household food insecurity over the last four years 
     that appear unresponsive to favorable national economic 
     trends. Approximately one in ten households in the US report 
     food insecurity; over 30 million adults and children live in 
     these households.
       Household food security at the state level varies widely 
     around the national average, ranging from less than 5% to 
     over 15%.
       Local studies using the same food security survey 
     instrument used by the USDA have found hunger prevalence 
     rates among various at-risk groups that are 5 to 10 times the 
     overall national rate.
       Recent reports from emergency food assistance providers 
     across the country indicate greater dependence of food 
     insecure families on the emergency food system, increased 
     regular reliance on this system to meet household food needs, 
     a significant number of unfulfilled requests, and greater 
     numbers of families with children among their clientele.


                               FOOTNOTES

     \1\ Shapiro and Greenstein (1999): U.S. Census Bureau, 
     Statistical Abstract of the United States 1999.
     \2\ Food insecurity occurs whenever the availability of 
     nutrionally adequate and safe food, or the ability to acquire 
     acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways, is limited or 
     uncertain. Hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful 
     sensation caused by a recurrent or involuntary lack of food 
     and is a potential, although not necessary, consequence of 
     food insecurity. Over time, hunger may result in 
     malnutrition.
     \3\ The USDA Food Security Core Module consists of an 18-item 
     instrument constructed as a scale measure. The items ask 
     about a household's experiences of increasingly severe 
     circumstances of food insufficiency and behaviors undertaken 
     in response to them during the 12-month period preceding the 
     survey (Hamilton et al, 1997).
     \4\ The Advance Report (Nord, 1999) builds on an earlier 
     historic report released in 1997 that presented the first-
     ever national prevalence estimates of food security using 
     1995 data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.
     \5\ To assess household food security, the NSAF includes 
     three questions from the USDA's Food Security Core Module.
     \6\ The studies reviewed for this report were published or 
     released after January 1998 and represent only a portion of 
     available data. For a more comprehensive collection of state 
     and local food security studies, see the compilation of 
     studies released in February 1999 by the Food Security 
     Institute at the Center on Hunger and Poverty.

                          ____________________