Abstract

1. Perceived Benefit of the BackPack Food Program Based on Income and Food Insecurity Samantha J. Tupy, Sarah K. Sifers Minnesota State University, Mankato Abstract Evaluation of a supplemental food program for elementary children using parent satisfaction surveys indicated a neutral perception of the program, but lower per capita household income and greater food insecurity significantly predicted greater perceived benefit suggesting the program should be targeted and evaluation results be interpreted carefully. Introduction In 2012, 15.9 million children lived in food insecure homes. Food insecurity is associated with negative health and educational outcomes (Winicki & Jemison, 2003). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived benefits of the BackPack Food Program based on the household per capita income and food insecurity. The program is provides food for weekends and school breaks to elementary students in low-income public schools without requiring proof of need. Methods 74 parents who completed consumer satisfaction surveys regarding the program. Consistent with demographics of the area, the majority of respondents (69%) were Caucasian. Most families (86%) had an income below $40,000 with an average of 4.5 people per household. Survey results were used to calculate per capita household income, food insecurity (α = .716), and perception of the program as beneficial (α= .785). Income was leptokurtic and positively skewed reflecting a disproportionately low income sample. Food insecurity was normally distributed. Linear regression was used to determine whether per capita income and food insecurity predicted perception of the program as beneficial. Results Perceived benefit of the program was normally distributed with a mean indicating a neutral perception of the program (neutral score = 17.5, actual mean = 17.8). The linear regression model accounted for 62.3% of the variance = 0.623, F(2, 44) = 34.75, p < 0.01) in the Perceived Benefit of the BackPack Program with both income (β = -0.25, t = -2.63, p < 0.5) and food insecurity (β = 0.78, t = 8.19, p < 0.01) significantly predicting perceived benefit. Relationship between Income and Perceived Benefit Relationship between Food Insecurity and Perceived Benefit Discussion Discussion Although perception of the program by all participants was neutral, per capita household income and food insecurity both significantly accounted for a large portion of the variance in perceived benefit of the program. That is, the program may be perceived as most beneficial by recipients if it is targeted to those with the highest amount of need, defined as either per capita income or food insecurity, and overall results regarding perceived benefit may be misleading. Requiring a specified per capita household income alone is not recommended as a portion of participants indicated food insecurity and perceived benefit from the program even at higher levels of income. Additionally, using overall satisfaction results are misleading regarding the benefit of the program. References Feeding America. (2013).Hunger and poverty statistics. Retrieved from http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx. Winicki, J., & Jemison, K. (2003). Food insecurity and hunger in the kindergarten classroom: Its effect on learning and growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21, 145-157.