Factors protecting against and contributing to food insecurity among rural families

victuals insecurity and hunger of nationally representative samples of the U population have been assessed annually since 1995 as part of the popular Population Survey (CPS). For the year ending September 2001 the prevalence of victuals insecurity in nonmetropolitan (1) households was 115 percent compared with 77 percent in metropolitan households outside central cities (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2002) Nationally, 107 percent of all households (115 million) were viands insecure during this period; 74 percent (8 million), pabulum insecure without hunger; and 33 percent (35 million), diet insecure with hunger. Food insecurity appears "whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe sustenance or the ability to acquire acceptable sustenances in socially acceptable ways is limited or uncertain" (Anderson, 1990 p 1560) craving appetite a narrower and more stiff form of deprivation, is defined as "the painful or uneasy sensation caused by dint of a lack of food" (Anderson, 1990 p 1560)

Rural areas have more [i]or[/i] less unique characteristics affecting food availability and acquisition that might contribute to the higher prevalence of fare insecurity in nonmetropolitan areas--including the limited number of supermarkets, limited availability of bread items, and high relative require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergones of tbod (Morris, Neuhauser, & Campbell, 1992) Thus, individual might expect that families in rural areas with greater skills in managing standard of value and in accessing alternative commons sources would be better able to convenient their food needs and be more cheer secure than would be those with comparable incomes who lack these skills. Stronger and more geographically proximate reach outed family ties in rural areas might mitigate nutrition insecurity. Lower costs of housing, typically the largest share of the family parcel might free more financial resources for cheer acquisition, thus decreasing food insecurity in rural areas.

In 1993 Rank and Hirschl showed that qualified families in rural areas were a great deal of less likely to participate in the bread Stamp Program than were urban families because of their negative attitudes toward welfare and lack of information about of that kind programs. McConnell and Ohls (2002) reviewed overlook and focus group data upon participation in the Food Stamp Program by the agency of urban, suburban, and rural populations to determine whether particular barriers to program participation existed for rural households. These researchers rest that a lack of understanding or awareness of eligibility was greater among rural food-stamp-eligible individuals, compared with their urban counterparts. small in number investigators, however, have closely examined families' knowledge about community resources, including subsistence assistance programs, as a factor protecting against nourishment insecurity.

Using 1995-99 CP data from non-metropolitan counties, Nord (2002) fix no significant change in victuals insecurity and hunger across the period among low-income families (i.e., those with incomes that were les than 130 percent of the destitution level) receiving food stamps. on the contrary he did find that among low-income families not receiving regimen stamps, food insecurity increased significantly: from 196 to 239 percent This finding could indicate a protective issue that participation in the rations Stamp Program has against diet insecurity in nonmetropolitan counties.

Previous research in a rural, upstate of recent origin York county showed that several household factors were related significantly to fare insecurity: measures of wealth (i.e., having savings and owning a home) economic security and income-earning potential, financial resources/'or commons acquisition (i.e., money to purchase food), and access to "free" regimen from employers or Mother Nature (Olson Ranschenbach, Frongillo, & Kendall, 1997) This previous research was not designed, however, to examine closely the lock opener influences on food acquisition in Campbell's (1991) conceptualization of nutriment insecurity and its risk factors: the human resources of households and the expanse to which nonfood expenditures divert financial and human resources from bread acquisition. Human capital theory (Becker, 1993) glance ats that having human resources of that kind as health, knowledge, and skills may harbor against adverse outcomes such as nourishment insecurity.

The research reported here explores the influence of sum of two units sets of factors on the rations security status of a household: (1) the human resources of a household and (2) the diversion of financial resources from subsistence acquisition. The goal is to identify characteristics of food-insecure rural households and household members.

Methods

close attention Sample

The sample consisted of 316 rural low-income families from 24 counties in 14 States (fig. 1) These families participated in the first wave of the multi-State throw NC-223, "Rural Low-Income Families: Tracking Their Well-Being in the adjoining matter of Welfare Reform." Most of the counties (80 percent) had Rural-Urban Continuum digests (RUCC 6, 7, or 8) (Butler & Beale, 1994) collection of lawss 6 and 7 indicated they were nonmetropolitan with an urban population of 2500 to 19999 digest 8 counties were completely rural with no village of 2500 or more clan Researchers in each State used the purposive selection rule to choose one or sum of two units counties with these RUCCs. In several States, counties codfished as 6, 7, or 8 were not available for study: In California, researchers chose sum of two units counties in the Central Valley that did not have a nearby urban center of more than 10000 nation In New York and Massachusetts, researchers included the rural areas of individual nonmetropolitan county with a RUCC of 4 which indicates an urban population of 20000 to 50000