Summer, 1990 (v2n4)
	Hunger in the Heartland California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. 1991 Reviewer's note: This study is part of a national effort by the Washington, D.C. -based Food Research and Action Center to document hunger in various regions of the country. The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLA) carried out the California component of the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CCHIP) in California's Central Valley. It was one of nine CCHiP surveys conducted in different states across the country. CRLA operates both statewide and within communities to address the needs of California's low-income rural residents in the areas of health and nutrition, housing, education, economic development, labor and immigration.. In the midst of some of the richest farm areas in the world in California's Central Valley, low-income families - many of them farmworker families - struggle to survive. Hunger and poverty stand in stark contrast to the Valley's economic recovery. Even as farmworkers work to grow and harvest much of the country's fruits and vegetables, returning billions of dollars to California's economy, they and their families often do not have enough to eat. These are some of the findings of Hunger in the Heartland, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation's study of poverty and hunger among children of Fresno, Kings, Stanislaus and Tulare counties. Methodology Project researchers used a questionnaire developed and field-tested by the Connecticut Association for Human Services. This questionnaire was designed to estimate the prevalence of hunger, defined as "the mental and physical condition that comes from not eating enough food, due to insufficient economic, family or community resources." The questionnaire also explored some of the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with hunger in some low-income families. The CCHIP surveyed a sample of low-income families in the four-county area. This sample was assumed to be representative of all low-income families at or below 185% of the federal poverty level with at least one child under 12. These low-income families represent 13 percent of all households in the four-county area. The CCHIP staff randomly selected 12 census tracts, covering 13 communities for the survey area. Families in each census tract with incomes below 185 percent of the 1989 poverty level were then randomly chosen for the study. In total, trained community residents interviewed 335 eligible families with at least one child under age 12. There were more than 100 questions, which focused on household food security and experience of hunger, family size and structure, shopping and eating habits, participation in food assistance programs, employment and family finances, and children's health and health care. Results Responses to the survey document a clear pattern of hunger and related nutritional and health problems among the children of low-income families in California's Central Valley. More than one- third of the study families face severe hunger, i.e. they encounter serious problems getting enough food and they experience regular food shortages (Figure 1). These families answered "yes" to five or more of the eight survey questions that dealt with hunger. Ninety-seven percent of hungry families run out of money for food an average of seven days per month. As many as 65,900 school-age children in the four-county area are hungry. In addition to those families facing severe hunger, another 32 percent of the study families encounter periodic problems obtaining enough food (Figure 1). They answered "yes" to at least one of the questions that dealt with hunger. In total, over two-thirds of families in the study reported at least one instance in the last year when they did not have enough food to eat. Hungry children in the CCHIP sample experience twice as many specific health problems as children whose families are not hungry. These problems include weight loss, fatigue, irritability and inability to concentrate. Despite these problems, the study children are not receiving even minimal health care. Twenty-three percent of the children have no medical coverage at all. An additional 18 percent are not covered by MediCal, although they do pay for some other health insurance. In total, 41 percent do not participate in the state MediCal program despite the fact that all children in families below 185 percent of poverty are eligible. To cope with inadequate food, the hungry families surveyed have various strategies: 98 percent buy less expensive food, 82 percent get money from family and friends, 46 percent get food from friends and relatives and 46 percent use commodities from the federal government through local food banks and pantries (Figure 2). What Contributes to Hunger? The CCHIP study found that housing costs contribute to hunger. The average CCHIP household spends 44 percent of its income on shelter and 33 percent of hungry families spend more than half of their total income on shelter. To avoid homelessness, families pay housing costs and have little money left for food. Another factor contributing to hunger is severe unemployment. Unemployment in the four counties studied (11.3-12.4 percent) is over twice as high as the statewide average (5.3 percent). Weather conditions, seasonality of agricultural work, plant closures and mechanization contribute to joblessness in the Central Valley, according to the study. Although unemployment is higher than average for the state, the majority (53 percent) of CCHIP households have at least one member who works. Most of the employed respondents are farmworkers (51 percent). Although having a job helps, the average contributing adult in CCHIP households cannot find steady work (at least 10 days/month) for four months/year. Barriers to full-time work among respondents or contributing adults include: wanting to stay home with children, lack of child care, inability to find a job, language barriers, and lack of training and education. Inadequacy of the Food Safety Net Federally-funded food assistance programs are woefully inadequate and private sector food programs do not bridge the gap to prevent hunger, according to the study. The CCHIP survey found very low rates of participation in most food programs due mainly to the fact that families do not have access to them. The study suggests that improved funding, outreach, implementation and benefit levels would go far to prevent hunger in the Central Valley and other rural areas. The CCHIP survey found that the Food Stamp Program is badly underutilized by low-income families with children in the Central Valley. Only 48 percent of the total sample participate compared to 58 percent in the Michigan CCHIP, 61 percent in the Minnesota CCHIP and 69 percent in the Connecticut CCHIP. Of those who have not applied for food stamps, 67 percent do not think their household is eligible. Of these, 74 percent probably are eligible. Of those families receiving food stamps, 39 percent are still hungry. One reason is that food stamp allotments are inadequate to cover food needs. In fact, families could only eat an average of two weeks per month using food stamps. Participation in the Women, Infant and Children Supplemental Food Program (WIC) is also low. Only 30 percent of CCHIP families deemed eligible are receiving WIC. Again, this figure is significantly less than the percentage of eligible persons served by WIC in other CCHIP study states (38 - 77 percent). The majority of study participants (52 percent) do not receive WIC benefits because they think they are not eligible. Yet, WIC does not deny participation to undocumented families, and is mandated to target services to migrant farmworkers who are a significant portion of this CCHIP population. Conclusions & Recommendations The study concludes that enormous social costs - in terms of health, MediCal, education, welfare and youth guidance expenditures - may be on the horizon for California's low-income children unless adequate food and nutrition can be provided. "Making sure that all families have enough to eat is the first, most basic step in implementing any plan to fight poverty." Unless hunger is alleviated, improvements in housing, education and jobs will not make much of a difference, the study maintains. Long-term solutions must involve an improved standard of living through better wages, benefits, public assistance, housing, education and transportation. However, the report's recommendations focus on shorter-term solutions involving food and nutrition programs as a first and essential step. The study suggests improvements in five federal food and nutrition programs as follows: Improve outreach, benefits and lower barriers to access in the Food Stamp Program. Expand California WIC to serve all eligible women and children. Mandate provision of School Breakfast to California's neediest children. Triple participation in the Summer Food Program to prevent seasonal hunger. Expand and improve coordination of private sector emergency food programs. Hunger in the Heartland concludes, "The choice is ours: hunger can either be alleviated and prevented, or allowed to fester. If we do not invest in prevention, we will pay a much higher price in the years ahead" Contributed by Gail Feenstra   [ Back | Search | Feedback ]