author: butkus, krysta · 2 butkus, krysta. food pantry participants’ perceptions of how...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Author: Butkus, Krysta
Title: Food Pantry Participants’ Perceptions of how Transportation and
Pantry use Influences Food Purchases.
The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in
partial completion of the requirements for the
Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Food and Nutritional Science
Research Adviser: Carol Seaborn, Ph.D., R.D., C.D, C.F.C.S.
Submission Term/Year: Spring, 2012
Number of Pages: 103
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition
I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and
that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University
Library website
I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been
used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the
laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.
My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper.
STUDENT: Krysta Butkus
NAME__________________________ DATE: ________________
ADVISER: Carol Seaborn
NAME __________________________ DATE: ________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only
Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above)
1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Kat Lui_______________ DATE: _____________
2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Kerry Peterson_________ DATE: _____________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
This section to be completed by the Graduate School
This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.
Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:
2
Butkus, Krysta. Food Pantry Participants’ Perceptions of how Transportation and
Pantry use Influences Food Purchases.
Abstract
Food pantries alleviate hunger by providing eligible individuals with food, but food-
impoverished individuals are at increased risk of not having reliable transportation. The
objectives of this study were to determine how food pantry use influences grocery
purchases, if reliable and accessible transportation and associated costs influence grocery
purchases, and to determine the diet quality of pantry participants. Sixty food pantry
clients from Dunn County, Wisconsin were recruited to participate in the study. Eligible
participants met the criteria of having martial status as single, or married with children
under the age of 18 living in the home, or senior citizens over the age of 60. Participants
had incomes less than 185% poverty level. The data collection methods included a survey
and focus groups.
Results indicated that respondents were not consuming the recommended number
of servings per day for fruits, grains, and vegetables. Thematic analysis of focus groups
indicated many transportation and social barriers to accessing food, such as time
constraints with caring for children, poor weather conditions, and high food costs. Coping
methods to manage transportation issues and obtain affordable food or making foods
more affordable, included walking to stores, traveling with others, or strategizing
shopping trips by buying food in bulk or lower quality food. Conclusions drawn from this
study indicated that transportation constraints and nutrition knowledge barriers were
limitations for food pantry participants to meet their dietary needs.
3
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the guidance, support, and motivation I have
received from my graduate education. The encouragement, and advice I have received
from my research advisors, Carol Seaborn, Kat Lui and Kerry Peterson, have taken my
educational experience and personal growth to a new dimension. I also would like to
thank Lana Anderson, and the staff and volunteers of Stepping Stones Food Pantry for
the opportunity to complete my thesis at your facility. The support and guidance I
received while completing my thesis project made this research possible. Finally, I would
like to thank the University of Wisconsin-Stout Student Research Grant Fund for
providing funds to make this research possible.
4
Table of Contents
........................................................................................................................................ Page
Abstract ................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................7
Chapter I: Introduction ........................................................................................................8
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................12
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................13
Research Questions ................................................................................................13
Assumptions of the Study ......................................................................................13
Definition of Terms................................................................................................14
Limitations of the Research ...................................................................................16
Chapter II: Literature Review ............................................................................................17
Demographics of Food Pantry Participants ...........................................................17
Trends in Food Pantry Participation ......................................................................19
Challenges for Food Pantries .................................................................................20
Economic Hardships ..............................................................................................21
Food Preferences Among Food Pantry Participants ..............................................25
Perceptions of Food Access and Security among Food Pantry Clients .................27
Profile of the Foods Provided by Food Pantries ....................................................30
Stepping Stones Food Pantry .................................................................................33
Summary ................................................................................................................34
Chapter III: Methodology ..................................................................................................35
Subject Selection and Description .........................................................................35
5
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................38
Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................39
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................40
Limitations .............................................................................................................41
Summary ................................................................................................................42
Chapter IV: Results ............................................................................................................43
Respondents’ Demographics from Survey ............................................................44
Food Pantry Influences on Pantry Participants’ Grocery Purchases .....................45
Estimation of Pantry Participants’ Dietary Intakes ................................................48
Transportation Access and Grocery Store Purchases ............................................54
Figure 1: Frequency of choosing not to go grocery shopping because of costs as
reported by participants..........................................................................................55
Transportation Distance to Grocery Stores ............................................................58
Focus Group Results ..............................................................................................58
Barriers to Accessing and Preparing Fresh Produce ..............................................59
Transportation Barriers to Acquiring Affordable Food .........................................63
Coping Methods for Transportation Barriers .........................................................66
Coping Methods for Accessing Affordable Food ..................................................68
Summary ................................................................................................................71
Chapter V: Discussion .......................................................................................................72
Limitations .............................................................................................................72
Conclusions: Transportation Access and Food Attainment ...................................72
Conclusions: Food Purchasing Behaviors .............................................................76
6
Conclusions: Vehicle Access and Food Purchases ................................................79
Conclusions: Transportation Costs and Food Attainment .....................................81
Recommendations ..................................................................................................83
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................83
References ..........................................................................................................................85
Appendix A: Approval by the UW-Stout Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the
Protection of Human Subjects .....................................................................94
Appendix B: Consent forms for the Focus Group and the Consent Forms for the
Additional Participants Surveyed ...............................................................95
Appendix C: Survey Questions ..........................................................................................99
Appendix D: Focus Group Questions ..............................................................................101
Appendix E: Agreement or Disagreement to Nine Survey Items Related to
Transportation, Transportation Costs, Reliable Vehicle Access, Travel
Distances, and Difficulties with Transportation………………………..…103
7
List of Tables
Table 1: Education Level of Survey Respondents.....……............…………………....…45
Table 2: Food Purchases Made at Grocery Stores that Participants Stated were
Influenced by Foods Distributed by the Food Pantry.…....………..………...…46
Table 3: Frequency of Participant Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Foods
Purchased as Related to Purchase Site.................................................................47
Table 4: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of
Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average
per Day by those 60 Years and Older..................................................................49
Table 5: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of
Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average
per Day for those Younger than 60 Years...........................................................50
Table 6: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of
Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average
per Day by Married Parents.................................................................................52
Table 7: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of
Servings of Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average
per Day by Single Parents....................................................................................53
Table 8: Frequency of Participant Responses of Purchase Site for Food when
there was Not or was Access to a Vehicle...........................................................57
Table 9: Comparison of Miles Traveled to Grocery Stores by Marital Status..................58
8
Chapter I: Introduction
Food insecurity refers to the inability to afford enough food for an active, healthy
life (Anderson, 1990). Most adults living in food insecure households report the
following: inability to afford balanced meals, inadequacy or running out of food, cutting
the size of meals, or skipping meals. At the most severe level, many food insecure adults
report hunger due to not having enough money for food or not eating for an entire day
(Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2008). Numerous studies have shown associations between
food insecurity and adverse health outcomes among children, such as: iron-deficiency
anemia, acute infection, chronic illness, and developmental problems. In adults, the risk
of chronic diseases such as heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes may be more
prevalent (Seligman, Laraia, & Kushel, 2010). These adverse health effects appear to be
related to food insecurity and the inability to achieve adequate intake, which is the
sufficient consumption of food, vitamins and minerals to maintain health (Otten, Pitzi, &
Meyers, 2006).
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans provide information on how to make
healthy decisions about food eaten, and focus on how foods like fruits, vegetables, whole
grains, and low-fat dairy products, as well as the consumption of less sodium, saturated
and trans fat, and sugar can help prevent diet-related diseases like diabetes and heart
disease (USDA, 2012d). Although information to make healthier food choices is
available, there are many barriers that prevent individuals from consuming a healthier
diet, which include: level of education, occupation, ethnicity, income, and food insecurity
(Cohen, Stoddard, Sarouhkhanians, & Sorensen, 1998).
9
Common responses to food insecurity often entail decreased food budget, reduced
food intake, and alterations in types of food served (Kendall, Olson, & Frongilo, 1996).
With food insecurity, dietary variety decreases and consumption of energy-dense foods
increases. These energy-dense foods that commonly comprise of refined grains, added
sugars, and added saturated/trans fats, tend to be of poor nutritional quality and are less
expensive than fruits, vegetables, dairy, lean meats, and whole grains (Monsivais &
Drewnowski, 2007). Thus, U.S. adults living with food insecurity consume fewer
servings of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and lower levels of micronutrients including: B
vitamins, magnesium, iron, zinc, and calcium (Dixon, Winkleby, & Radimer, 2001; Lee
& Frongillo, 2001). These dietary patterns link the food insecure individuals with
development of chronic disease (Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003).
Food insecurity and the known link to chronic disease is an ongoing concern in
the United States. With high unemployment rates and a sluggish economy, food
insecurity continues to be a concern for many families. In 2009, it was estimated that 43.6
million people were living in poverty in the United States (Nord, Coleman-Jensen,
Andrews, & Carlson, 2010). In addition to those living in poverty, it was estimated that
50.2 million people lived in food insecure households, with 33 million of those people
being adults and 17.2 million being children (Nord et al., 2010). Furthermore, families
headed by a single mother with children comprised 36.6% of the total households living
with food insecurity (Nord et al., 2010).
Poverty is defined as a family income less than the set income threshold
determined by the U.S. Census Bureau based on family size and composition (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010a). Poverty in the United States and Wisconsin is on the rise. The
10
U.S. Census Bureau summarized that in 2009 16% of all children aged 5-17 were part of
families living in poverty in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). In
comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau also found in 2009 that a slightly higher number,
17.7% of all children aged 18 or younger in Dunn County, Wisconsin, were living in
poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). Other data of the U.S. Census Bureau indicated
that 15.3% of Dunn County, Wisconsin residents were living in poverty in 2009, which
was higher than the state of Wisconsin’s percentage of 11.6% and similar to the 15.1%
poverty rate of the entire United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). Thus, the
percentage of residents living in poverty in Dunn County is higher than the percentage in
the state of Wisconsin, and notably more children are living in poverty in Dunn County
than the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).
Poverty directly affects food security among low-income populations. According
to the Household Food Security Study, 11.4% of Wisconsin residents were living in food
insecure households between 2007 and 2009, and 4.4% of Wisconsin residents were
living in very-low food security homes indicating hunger (Nord et al., 2010). To
illustrate the extent of the increasing food insecurity problem, the percentage of
Wisconsin residents who were living in food insecure homes increased by 2.5%, and
those living in very-low food security households increased 1.7% since the national
survey was completed in 2006 (Nord et al., 2010). Also, families with children headed by
a female of black or Hispanic ethnicity increased the odds for living in a household with
food insecurity (Nord et al., 2010). Food insecurity for low-income families and seniors
in Wisconsin is on the rise, and efforts are being made to address this issue at the
community level through food pantries.
11
Food pantries such as Stepping Stones Food Pantry, located in Dunn County,
Wisconsin, help low-income families to meet food needs every month. Stepping Stones
Food Pantry is the largest food pantry in Dunn County and serves more than 2000
households every month, with the majority of participants being families with children
and the elderly (L. Anderson, personal communication, July 13, 2011). Food pantry
participants of Stepping Stones Food Pantry are allowed to use the pantry services on an
“as needed basis” and are provided with enough food for everyone in the household for
approximately 4-5 days (L. Anderson, personal communication, July 13, 2011). Stepping
Stones receives food resources from Feed My People, a food bank located in Eau Claire,
Wisconsin as well as from members of the community. The food that is donated to Feed
My People comes from a variety of sources including commercial businesses,
government agencies, and members of the community (Feed My People, 2010a and
2010b). Although the facilities of Stepping Stones Food Pantry provide a space for frozen
and fresh produce and provide healthy, nutrient-rich foods, research on how well
Stepping Stones Food Pantry and Dunn County provide for those in need is minimal.
Attitudes among food pantry participants about how transportation and pantry use
influence food purchasing have not been well-documented. Research has described that
transportation to grocery stores is perceived as being limited in rural communities
(Garasky, Morton & Greder, 2004). Research has also described that rural food pantry
participants perceive a lack of access to grocery stores with affordable food (Garasky et
al., 2004). Despite the notion that food pantry participants report having strong food
preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables (Campbell, Hudson, Webb & Crawford, 2011),
food pantries were described as having limited amounts of fresh produce and meat
12
products (Campbell et al., 2011; Mabli, Cohen, Potter, & Zhao, 2010).
Reliable transportation is described as having access to a reliable vehicle all of the
time. Having access to a reliable vehicle allows a person to travel places and obtain food.
The distance needed to travel to a food shopping center can impact where people shop for
food and how frequently they are able to go food shopping. Previous research has
emphasized that low-income urban dwellers that traveled more, consumed more fast food
(Jilcot, Moore, Wall-Bassett, Liu, & Saelens, 2011). However in this same study,
participants that who traveled longer distances shopped more frequently at supermarkets
(Jilcot, et al., 2011). Other research has found that low-income residents without
employment were more likely to not have consistent reliable transportation (Garasky,
Fletcher, & Jenson, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
How transportation costs and reliable transportation to grocery stores affect the
food choices of those who use food pantries is not well documented in research. There
appears to be limited studies on how reliable transportation, transportation costs, and
other food access barriers affect food attainment and food purchases of pantry
participants in rural areas. Rural areas are known to have lower numbers of grocery stores
than urban areas, which may also decrease the choices residents of rural areas have for
grocery shopping. Transportation to area grocery stores becomes more difficult for rural
residents since these individuals need to travel further to obtain needed groceries. More
research is needed locally to determine how the food the pantry users receive at Stepping
Stones influences purchases at grocery stores.
13
Purposes of the Study
The major focus of this study was to document how transportation and food
pantry use influences food purchases made by food pantry clients. The purpose of this
research was to determine 1) how transportation and food pantry use influence grocery
purchases, 2) if transportation costs affect food purchases, and 3) if food pantry
participants enrolled in the services at Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County,
Wisconsin, were consuming adequate portions of food from each of the food groups as
determined by the MyPlate guidelines (USDA, 2012a). More specifically, the following
questions were addressed in the research.
Research Questions
1. Are there relationships between the miles traveled to grocery stores, access to
reliable transportation, and the consumption of specific food groups among food
pantry clients?
2. What food purchasing behaviors do food pantry clients use when grocery
shopping for food, and how does this relate to what pantry clients receive from
the food pantry?
3. How does having access to a reliable vehicle influence food pantry participants’
specific food group purchases at grocery stores?
4. Do travel costs to grocery stores affect the frequency of grocery shopping by food
pantry clients?
Assumptions of the Study
This study assumed the Stepping Stones Food pantry clients represented all food
pantry participants in Dunn County, Wisconsin. It was also assumed that the participants
14
of this study were truthful and complete with responses to the survey questions and in the
focus group sessions.
Definitions of Terms
This section provides the definitions of terms that are used throughout this
research paper to assist the reader.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Recommendations for Americans older than
two years of age that emphasize balancing calories and physical activity, consuming
more high-nutrient dense foods, and consuming less high calorie dense foods. These
guidelines are issued and updated every five years by the USDA and the Department of
Health and Human Services to help Americans maintain a healthy weight, reduce risk of
chronic disease, and promote overall health (USDA, 2012a).
Food bank. An organization that obtains donated and bulk-purchased food from
food manufacturers, growers, processors, grocery retailers, and distributors. The food is
then distributed to food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters or other organizations that
directly serve families and individuals facing hunger (Second Harvest Foodbank, n. d.).
Food insecurity. Includes low food security (reduced quality or variety, but
minimal change in diet intake), and very low food security (disrupted eating patterns and
reduced intake) (Nord & Coleman-Jenson, 2011).
Food pantry. A non-profit organization that distributes food products donated by
farmers, food processing companies, charitable organizations, or non-profit agencies such
as food banks.
Food security. Includes high food security (no reports of indications of food
access problems or limitations), and marginal food security (one or two reported
15
indications of food anxiety, or food shortage, but little or no dietary or intake
changes)(Nord & Coleman-Jenson, 2011).
Low food security. Represents reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet.
There is little or no indication of reduced food intake (Nord & Coleman-Jenson, 2011).
MyPlate. Educational resource released by the USDA in June 2011 to replace the
MyPyramid Plan. The purpose of MyPlate is to help consumers build a healthy plate by
providing simplified guidelines. The new dietary guidelines introduced by the
ChooseMyPlate campaign include: make half your plate fruits and vegetables, make at
least half your grains whole grains, and switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk (USDA,
2012b).
National School Lunch Program. A federally assisted meal program operating
in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides
nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day (USDA,
2012e).
Poverty. Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Statistical
Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary
by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income
is less than the family’s threshold, then the family and every individual in it is considered
in poverty. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not
include capital gains or noncash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, and food
stamps (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A government-funded
food assistance program designed for low-income households that are funded through the
16
USDA, which was at one time called food stamps. Funds are distributed within each state
to provide benefits for qualifying households to assist in food purchase. The amount of
benefits provided to each household under SNAP depends on household size, income and
expenses (USDA, 2012c).
Thematic coding. A method of organizing qualitative data through the use of
classification codes to group major themes, ideas, and interpretations during analysis
(Harris, Gleason, Boushey, Beto, & Bruemmer, 2009).
Very low food security. Represents reports of multiple indications of disrupted
eating patterns and reduced food intake, which is associated with hunger (Nord &
Coleman-Jenson, 2011).
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Serves to safeguard the health of low-
income women, infants, & children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing
nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health
care (USDA, 2010a).
Limitations of the Research
Due to the size and population used for this study, there are a few limitations.
This study only investigated the accessibility, affordability, food purchasing behaviors,
and availability of food groups to food pantry participants in Dunn County, Wisconsin.
Therefore, the results of this study may not be applicable to other areas of the country or
even within the state of Wisconsin.
17
Chapter II: Literature Review
This chapter provides a literature review of food pantries and food pantry
participants in the United States. The demographics of food pantry participants will be
discussed, followed by trends in food pantry participation and the challenges faced by
food pantries. The economic hardships faced by food pantry participants and coping
strategies utilized will be discussed. There will be a discussion of food preferences
among food pantry participants. Perceptions of food access as affected by transportation,
foods offered at grocery stores, and nutritional quality of food obtained will be reviewed.
Finally, a discussion of what foods are typically offered at food pantries and specifically
details of the Stepping Stone Food Pantry participants will be provided.
Demographics of Food Pantry Participants
Food pantry participants represent a portion of the low-income households who
are using at least one of the resources available in order to meet monthly food needs.
According to the Feeding America Study completed by the USDA, 81% of households
that were interviewed used food pantries over soup kitchens or shelters (Mabli et al.,
2010). The demographics of food pantry clients were well described, as households with
at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home compromised 44% of the food
pantry population, while senior citizens represented 20.6% of households (Mabli et al.,
2010). Notably, 67% of all food pantry clients were women. The age of pantry
participants ranged from 18 to over 65, but the majority of pantry participants that
represented 72% of the entire client population were between the ages of 30 and 64
(Mabli et al., 2010). According to the Household Food Security Study an estimated 5.6
million people in the United States used food pantries at some point over a 12-month
18
period in 2009 (Nord et al., 2010).
The use of food pantries can vary based on household size and income level.
Households with children parented by a single mother (13.7%) were more likely to use
food pantries than those households without children (3.7%), households with more than
one adult (2.9%) or households with elderly members (3.1%) (Nord et al., 2010)). Use of
food pantries was higher among Black (8.6%) and Hispanic households (7.6%), than non-
Hispanic Whites (3.7). This is consistent with the higher rates of poverty and food
insecurity of these minority groups. In spite of the lower use rate, non-Hispanic Whites
comprised a majority (55%) of food-pantry users because of the larger representation of
this ethnic group in the general population (Nord et al., 2010).
In 2009, the use of food pantries by households with food insecurity was 15 times
more likely than households with food security (Nord et al., 2010). Although low-
income families with food insecurity were more likely to use food pantries, the negative
connotation associated with the use of food pantries may prevent some needy families
from using its resources (Smith & Morton, 2009). For example, taking free food from a
food pantry for individuals may be difficult, because of inability to accept the fact these
resources were needed to meet monthly food needs (Smith & Morton, 2009).
According to the Household Food Security Study (Nord et al., 2010),
approximately 66.9% of households with food pantry users participate in at least one
federal food and nutrition assistance program. The majority of food pantry participants
were receiving SNAP benefits (48.9%), while 22.6% of households with food pantries
participants were enrolled in the National School Lunch Program, and 20.7% of
households with food pantry participants were WIC clients (Nord et al., 2010).
19
Trends in Food Pantry Participation
Recently, the percentage of people using food pantries has increased dramatically.
In 2010, the Feeding America Organization provided food to 37 million Americans,
including 14 million children, which was an increase of 46% over 2006 when the
organization was feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children per year
(Hunger in America, 2010). In 2010, Feeding America was feeding 1 million more
Americans each week than the food bank did in 2006 (Hunger in America, 2010). This
indicated that food pantry participants seemed to be relying more on food pantries in
order to meet basic food needs every month. In addition, more people have started to use
pantries for the first time since 2005. In 2005, the average “newcomer rate” was 14.0%
per month, while in 2009 this rate increased to 20.8% new food pantry participants per
month (Mabli et al., 2010). Along with the percentage of new food pantry participants
increasing per month, the percentage of food pantries that were serving more clients from
2005 to 2009 increased 74.3% (Mabli et al., 2010).
The various populations food pantries serve over the year can vary by season. In
the summer months, more families with children have been identified as using food
pantries compared to other times during the year (Nord et al., 2010). In contrast, the
number of migrant workers who used food pantries during the winter months increased as
well. Food pantries have also stated that during the holiday months, additional clients will
begin to use food pantries (Mabli et al., 2010). In addition, food pantry use varies across
the nation. Of all regions in the United States, the Midwest was shown to have the highest
census of food pantry participants compared to the Southern, Northwestern, and Western
regions (Nord et al., 2010). This participation in food pantries in the Midwest is in sharp
20
contrast to the states who have the lowest and very lowest food security which are:
Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Florida, California, and North
Carolina (Hunger in America, 2010).
Along with the trend of increased food pantry clients, the percentages of food
pantry participants that are living in low food security or very low food security
households increased from 2005-2009. According to the Feeding America Study
completed for the USDA in 2010 (Mabli et al., 2010), the number of food pantry
participants who were living with low food security increased from 39.1% in 2005 to
41% in 2009. The number of food pantry clients who were living with very low food
security had also increased from 31.1% in 2005 to 35% in 2009. Food pantry participants
who were receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits
increased from 36.3% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2009. However, the percentage of food pantry
participants that were not receiving SNAP benefits, but were eligible, has also increased
from 35.1% to 39.3%. These data indicate that the proportion of participating food pantry
users are increasing, and the proportion of food pantry participants who are not using
federal food and nutrition assistance programs is staying the same. This implies that
eligible food pantry participants are not utilizing all of the resources available to them to
obtain nutritious food.
Challenges for Food Pantries
Food pantries face many challenges because of the increasing number of clients.
Insufficient funding and food supply shortages are major challenges for food pantries
(Mabli et al., 2010). Food pantries have tried to prevent food shortages of staple foods,
such as grain products and meats, by limiting the number of staple foods that can be
21
taken by each family. At the Stepping Stones Food Pantry, rules to prevent shortages of
staple foods also apply. With hundreds of families visiting the Stepping Stones Food
Pantry every week, keeping essential food items in stock is challenging. Allowing food
pantry participants to take needed essential food products is important so families can be
fed; however, this can become problematic if one family takes a large portion of a food
pantry’s stock of one item (Akobundu, Cohen, Laus, Schulte, & Soussloff, 2004). This
may cause the inability of other families to obtain staple foods.
Other reasons why food pantries may have problems providing for the needs of
participants appears to be due to shortages in volunteers or not enough paid staff. In the
Household Food Security Study compiled by Nord et al. (2010), results indicated that
67.7% of pantry programs, 42% of kitchen programs, and 15.3% of shelter programs had
no paid staff. Other confounding results indicated that pantry programs had on average
six volunteers per week (Nord et al., 2010). These data indicate that food pantries may
not have the adequate staff to adequately man, stock, and maintain food pantries.
Therefore, among all food pantries that participated in the Feeding America study, 66.6%
of all food pantries were facing at least one problem associated with staffing,
refrigeration/freezers, and lack of donations in meeting the food needs of clientele (Mabli
et al., 2010).
Economic Hardships
In rural communities, poverty rates can be as high as 15.1% of the community’s
total population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, between 2006 and 2010
the percentage of people living in Dunn County, Wisconsin who were poverty stricken
was 14.2% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). By comparison, the percentage of people living
22
in poverty in 2006 to 2010 for the state of Wisconsin was lower at 10.5% (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010c). The percentage of people living below poverty in Dunn County was also
much higher than the national average of 12.9% (National Alliance to End Homelessness,
2010). These data indicate that Dunn County has a much higher percentage of its
residents living in poverty compared to the state and national averages.
Hardships for food pantry participants. The poor economy has drastic
consequences for those that live in poverty. According to a report completed by the
Economic Research Services (Gibbs, Kusmin, & Cromartie, 2005), food insecurity in
rural areas was considered to be more extreme than in urban or suburban areas because of
lower educational status, concentration of employment in lower-wage businesses, and
higher unemployment rates. Besides these general economic hardships for rural low-
income individuals, those that use food pantries have additional hardships.
Biggerstaff, Morris and Nichols-Casebolt (2002) stated that economic hardships
for food pantry and soup kitchen participants could be classified into three categories:
housing and family situations, loss of public benefits, and distribution of utilities. Those
food assistance participants who experienced housing or family situations described
being homeless, victims of domestic violence, or having to let other people move in to
help pay expenses. Others suffered from loss of public benefits, the loss of food stamps,
Medicaid, or health insurance. Those with disruption of utilities because of non-payment
of bills experienced cut offs of phone service, electricity, or heat (Biggerstaff et al.,
2002).
Senior citizens, a specific subgroup that use food pantries, have emphasized that
after spending money on bills and medications, limited funds for food are available at the
23
end of the month (Keller et al., 2006). Other hardships described for seniors that make
paying bills or obtaining food difficult include having less than a high school diploma,
being disabled or unemployed, or living alone (Ziliak & Gundersen, 2009).
Economic hardships throughout the rural community. Besides economic
hardships occurring for pantry participants, hardships have been portrayed throughout the
rural communities for this population. Research has depicted that rural communities tend
to have fewer grocery stores available for community members compared to urban or
suburban areas (Garasky et al., 2004). Because fewer grocery stores are available in rural
communities, families in rural areas may need to travel further to access food. And some
low-income residents living in rural communities have expressed that the cost of food
was higher in the local community compared to areas that were further away (Smith &
Morton, 2009; Webber, Sobal, & Dollahite, 2010). But some low-income rural residents
emphasized that even though grocery stores were cheaper further away, considering the
cost of gasoline to travel there would make the total cost the same (Smith & Morton,
2009).
Also, low-income residents in rural counties of Minnesota and Iowa have
expressed the desire for more community grocery stores so prices of the foods could be
compared even though some of those prices were expected to be more expensive (Smith
& Morton, 2009). Although previous research has described grocery stores in rural
communities to be more expensive than those further away, future research on low-
income rural residents’ perceptions on the affordability of their food environment may be
warranted.
24
Price inflation. In addition to the prices of grocery stores in rural communities
being higher than urban communities, the annual food price inflation also affects food
costs for all communities. In a report completed by the Economic Research Service, the
Consumer Price Index for 2011 increased 4.8% for all food. This inflation was predicted
to increase an additional 2.5% to 3.5% in 2012 (USDA, 2012b). With the recent and
substantial inflation of food prices, low-income populations are expected to continue to
struggle with purchasing foods and finding affordable food in the community. In
addition, Garasky Fletchen, and Jenson (2006) emphasized that gasoline prices have
increased dramatically in the last few years. These gasoline price increases as a result of
inflation have caused challenges for families to obtain the necessary funds to afford
gasoline.
Coping strategies for economic hardships. Although there are many economic
hardships for low-income populations, some low-income rural residents have found ways
to cope with the high costs of foods and limited numbers of grocery stores in the
community. Planting gardens, sharing food with others, buying in bulk, and using
coupons or federally-funded government assistance food programs have all been ways
low-income rural residents have been able to afford and access food (Smith & Morton,
2009; Hoisington, Shultz & Butkus, 2002). Buying lower-priced fresh produce and
lower-quality meat products were also coping strategies (Leibtag & Kaufman, 2003).
Other coping strategies low-income households use to stretch food during the month were
making or buying food in bulk, using leftovers, or freezing food for later use (Hoisington
et al., 2002). Senior citizens have described eating at family or friends houses to save
money on food costs (Keller et al., 2006). Food pantry participants bought canned or
25
frozen fruits and vegetables instead of fresh (Hoisington et al., 2002), or used fresh
produce in the beginning of the month, and canned or frozen at the end of the month to
help save costs (Webber, Sobal & Sollahite, 2010).
However, other research suggests that when purchasing power in the home
decreases due to a loss of income, low-income populations have been shown to use less
nutrient-dense foods, buy less food, skip meals, or reduce overall intake (Ruel, Garrett,
Hawkes, & Cohen, 2010; Wood, Shultz, Butkus, & Ballejos, 2009).
Food Preferences among Food Pantry Participants
Healthy balanced meals are an important part of having a healthy life, and this
concept is not viewed differently among food pantry users. According to food pantry
participants, having meats, poultry, fish, fruits, and vegetables available at food pantries
was viewed as very important. Specifically, fresh fruits vegetables such as tomatoes and
apples were also viewed as important items to be offered at food pantries according to the
pantry participants (Campbell et al., 2011). Notably, food pantry participants preferred
fresh fruits and vegetables to canned or frozen produce. On the other hand, food pantry
users viewed candy, soda and snack items as not very important items to receive at food
pantries (Campbell et al., 2011). In addition, low-income rural residents have emphasized
that quality, smell, texture, and appearance were also important when purchasing food at
grocery stores (Smith & Morton, 2009; Keller et al., 2006). Nevertheless, rural
communities with few grocery stores often have limited quantities and varieties of foods
to purchase (Webber et al., 2010). Therefore, having access to healthy nutritious food at
food pantries was described no differently than the grocery store limitations in rural areas
by food pantry participants (Campbell et al., 2011; Smith & Morton, 2009).
26
The nutritional quality of foods that food pantry users do choose can be improved.
Food pantry participants in Massachusetts chose foods that represented the least amounts
of servings from the fruit and dairy groups (Akobundu, Cohen, Laus, Schulte, &
Soussloff, 2004). Results of the study indicated that the estimated number of days that the
fruit and dairy products food pantry participants obtained would last only three days.
Other findings from the study indicated that food pantry participants obtained fats, oils,
and sweet products in the largest quantities, while grains were chosen in the next largest
quantity, followed by vegetables and meats (Akobundu et al., 2004).
Food pantry participants could obtain five days’ worth of vegetables and meat
servings, and seven days’ worth of grains by consuming the food taken from the food
pantry to meet daily-recommended servings for these food groups (Akobundu et al.,
2004). This indicates that food pantry participants are able to access healthy food at food
pantries, but not in the quantities needed to meet the USDA recommended daily servings
for all food groups to last for seven days.
Food pantry participants are not limited to the number of pantries used every
month to access the food needed by the family. The number of pantries that a household
will use every month to access enough food can vary from using only one or up to five
food pantries in a given month (Campbell et al., 2011). According to the Feeding
America Study, 60.4% of adult food pantry participants expressed satisfaction with the
amount of food received when going to the food pantry. In addition, the percentage of
adult food pantry participants who were very satisfied with the variety of food received
when going to a food pantry was slightly lower at 57.5% (Mabli et al., 2010). Thse data
indicate that there is room for improvement with how food pantries can deliver food to
27
the clients served.
Perceptions of Food Access and Security Among Food Pantry Clients
Transportation access. Access to affordable food for food pantry participants is
not always feasible due to lack of reliable transportation. According to a study conducted
by Garasky et al. (2004), lack of access to affordable transportation has been depicted to
significantly increase the likelihood of being food insecure when living in rural
communities. In addition, limited access to private transportation significantly increased
the odds of not having employment (Garasky et al., 2006). Unemployment reduces
income, and therefore, funds to afford food and groceries. Other research suggests that
residents living in deprived rural communities had longer travel times to stores with fresh
produce than those residing in less deprived rural communities (Smith et al., 2010).
Although affordable transportation was limited to local grocery stores in rural and
suburban areas of Iowa, food pantry participants described that the shopping centers used
were safe (Garasky et al., 2004).
Senior citizens have difficulties accessing transportation for various reasons as
well. Senior citizens that used grocery store delivery services have complained that the
foods delivered were expired, of poor quality and not senior-friendly (Keller et al., 2006).
In addition, seniors have emphasized that public transportation such as buses or taxis
limit the ability to purchase all the foods needed because of only being able to purchase
what could be carried (Keller et al., 2006). Research has characterized that many senior
citizens do not have access to a vehicle, or do not have a valid drivers’ license. To access
food, seniors have shared that family and friends assist in grocery shopping or provide
rides to the stores to obtain groceries (Keller et al., 2006). However, seniors have also
28
positively affirmed enjoyment by being able to purchase food from convenience stores
nearby, but also expressed concerns about prices at those locations as being higher
(Keller et al., 2006). These limitations for food purchasing may impose on the nutritional
quality of the foods that seniors purchase.
Perceptions of food offered at grocery stores. Having the ability to purchase
affordable food at local grocery stores in rural areas is important to food pantry
participants, since use of food pantries is not the only source of acquiring food for this
population. Rural food pantry participants use food stamps as another source of accessing
affordable food through grocery stores (Garasky et al., 2004, Wood et al., 2009). Senior
citizens have expressed concerns about shopping at grocery stores because labels were
hard to read or becoming tired of shopping in stores due to fatigue (Keller et al., 2006).
Seniors have difficulties viewing the nutritional quality of the foods purchased and the
need to make grocery shopping trips shorter may cause the inability to purchase all foods
needed. This could result in a nutritionally inadequate diet.
Low-income individuals have varying opinions on the food variety offered in the
local community. The need for having a variety of food at grocery stores is important for
low-income individuals who express that varieties of food are limited to those that the
store perceives that the community wants, when in fact, that may not always be the case
(Smith & Morton, 2009). Low-income rural residents also believed that because there
were fewer food shopping centers in local communities, the grocers that were available
were over inflating food prices (Smith & Morton, 2009; Hendrickson, Smith &
Eikenberry, 2006).
Other research has depicted that low-income individuals in urban areas confirmed
29
shopping outside of the community, because nearby grocers had limited food choices
(Hendrickson et al., 2006). However, low-income rural residents still shop within the
community to support neighborhood businesses (Hendrickson et al., 2006), and do not
shop outside of their community because the cost it takes to travel outside of the area is
too high (Garasky et al., 2006). Yet, in some cases, rural low-income individuals buy
food outside of the community, because prices were lower (Keller et al., 2006).
Food security in the home. In order to make meals affordable for the whole
family, food pantry users will stretch food to make meals large enough for the entire
family. A study conducted in the state of Washington found that food pantry participants
would add more filler ingredients such as noodles and potatoes to dishes to stretch the
meat and vegetables in their meals (Wood et al., 2009) These filler foods vary in
nutritional content and can severely limit the nutritional quality of the foods food pantry
participants consume (Wood et al., 2009). Food pantry participants were also found to
lock the kitchen cabinets or eat smaller meals. However, limiting the amount of food the
family could have by locking cabinets or eating smaller meals was found to be associated
with poor child nutrition and food insecurity (Wood et al., 2009).
Nutritional quality of food accessed. Food pantry participants have also
expressed concerns about the nutritional quality of the family’s diets. Low-income
families have expressed complaints about how it is difficult to consider nutrition when
the family is hungry. Families who were using food stamps have also perceived that it
was difficult to buy nutritious foods with food stamps, since the cost of those nutritious
foods was so high compared to less nutritious food (Hoisington et al., 2002). Seniors
have expressed that eating nutritious food was important to them, but due to limited
30
funds, transportation constraints, and the needed convenience when eating alone, less
nutritious, less tasty and more convenience foods were purchased (Keller et al., 2006).
Buying nutritious foods becomes more of a challenge for the low-income family when a
household member loses a job, or if the household runs out of food stamps early in the
month (Hoisington et al., 2002).
The specific nutrient intake of food pantry participants is somewhat described by
research. The percentage of food pantry participants in Quebec that met the daily-
recommended servings of dairy products was 21% (Starkey, Gray-Donald, & Kuhnlein,
1999). This percentage, although low, was similar to the general population who were
able to meet the daily serving requirements for dairy. Both of these percentages are
considered inadequate, and efforts should be taken to improve dairy consumption for
both the general population and food pantry participants. Although dairy consumption
was lower for both the general population and food pantry participants, calcium intake
was much lower for food pantry participants than the rest of the population (Starkey et
al., 1999). In addition, research has indicated that food pantry participants have
inadequate intakes of the B complex vitamins, vitamin C, vitamin A, magnesium, iron,
calcium, and zinc; whereas, the pantry participants have adequate intakes of protein,
fiber, iron and folate (Akobundu et al., 2004; Dixon, Winkleby, & Radimer, 2001; Lee &
Frongillo, 2001; Starkey et al. 1999; Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999).
Profile of the Foods Provided by Food Pantries
In West-central Wisconsin, which includes Dunn County, food pantries receive
food from the food bank, Feed My People. Feed My People provides a cost-effective
means to provide food and technological support to all the surrounding food pantries
31
served. According to Feed My People (2010a), more than 85 agencies in 14 counties are
provided with food distributed from this food bank. The food pantries, soup kitchens, and
shelters supported by the Feed My People food bank serve over four million meals every
year by the food distributed. Food pantries can use facility-owned vehicles to transport
food goods from the food bank to the food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters. In other
cases, food banks will provide transportation of food goods to the foodshelf (Rochester,
Nanney, & Story, 2011). In all cases, regardless of transportation costs, food pantry
participants will not have to pay for the foods received.
Although food pantries have many benefits, there are some limitations. Food
pantry limitations include the amounts and types of food that can be brought in and
served to their pantry participants. For example, food pantries may not have the adequate
refrigerator or freezer space needed to store sufficient amounts of fresh produce,
vegetables, or fruits to meet the recommended amount of fresh fruits and vegetables as
stated by the Dietary Guidelines of America 2010 (USDA, 2012d). Due to limitations in
storage space, food pantries may perceive the ability to store and access fresh fruits and
vegetables as being insufficient to their needs (Rochester, Nanney, & Story, 2011).
Food pantries have various ways of implementing policies throughout the facility.
According to one study, a large majority of food pantries have food sourcing policies
written describing that nutritious and culturally-appropriate food should be provided by
the pantries. However, the majority of these policies are informal (Rochester et al., 2011).
Although food pantries may have policies that state healthy and culturally appropriate
foods should be distributed to food pantry participants, implementation of these policies
requires availability of enough healthy foods to uphold these policies. Unfortunately, the
32
inadequate refrigerator and freezer space and the lack of community donations of
nutritious foods have prevented food pantries from meeting these policy
recommendations (Rochester et al., 2011). Volunteer staff, versus paid staff, was also
seen as a limitation to upholding policy recommendations (Rochester et al., 2011). As a
comparison, Stepping Stones Food Pantry does not have any formal food distribution
policies, and runs primarily on volunteer staff (Stepping Stones, 2011).
Along with food pantries perceiving the access to fresh fruits and vegetables as
inadequate, food pantries also perceive the ability to access lean meats, low-fat dairy
products, and cereals low in sugar as inadequate. Access to canned goods, on the
contrary, was perceived as being adequate (Rochester, Nanney, & Story, 2011). Along
with not having enough storage space for fresh produce, corporate community donors of
food pantries may not always provide food pantries with healthy food options all of the
time, which may limit the amount of nutritious food distributed (Rochester, Nanney &
Story, 2011).
The food sources that food pantries utilize vary from day to day. As community,
government agencies, and local businesses provide a large majority of the foods provided
to food pantries, the products received by pantries are never constant. These variations of
foods can cause concerns for the nutritional quality of foods offered at the pantries.
According to one study completed in Massachusetts, food pantries were found to have
high nutritional quality of fiber, iron, and folate in the foods that were available to food
pantry participants (Akobundu et al., 2004). In addition, cholesterol content and saturated
fats of the foods were within recommended daily servings. However, foods provided at
the food pantries were often low in calcium, vitamin C, and vitamin A (Akobundu et al.,
33
2004; Starkey et al., 1999). These data suggest that food pantries are limited in fresh
fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, since foods with the highest nutrient quality of
vitamin C, vitamin A, and calcium are found in these products.
Stepping Stones Food Pantry
In recent years, both the amount of food that the Stepping Stones Food Pantry has
distributed and the number of people that have utilized the facility drastically increased.
In 2010, the number of people who used the food pantry per month was 688 compared to
640 in 2009 (L. Anderson, personal communication, June 13, 2011). Although the
number of people who used the food pantry in 2010 stayed relatively the same as in 2009,
the number of pounds of food that the Stepping Stones Food Pantry distributed increased
from 492,000 pounds in 2009, to over 600,600 pounds of food in 2010 (L. Anderson,
personal communication, June 13, 2011).
Stepping Stones Food Pantry receives its food from a number of sources, both
locally and nationally. Government commodities provide Stepping Stones Food Pantry
with approximately 10% of the total food donations. Feed My People food bank, located
in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, provides approximately 50% of the total food donated to
Stepping Stones Food Pantry. Finally, community members and local shopping centers
provide the Stepping Stones Food Pantry with food donations that equal to approximately
40% of total food donations to the food pantry (L. Anderson, personal communication,
June 13, 2011).
Food pantry participants at Stepping Stones Food Pantry can obtain an average of
20-40 pounds of food, two times per month. The food normally distributed by the
Stepping Stones Food Pantry is an assortment of fresh, frozen, and canned goods. Of the
34
food distributed to the food pantry, 30% of the food is fresh and frozen, and the
remaining 70% is canned or pre-packaged. The building project of the Stepping Stones
Food Pantry took place between 2009 and 2011, which has allowed pantry staff the
ability to store and acquire more food for the pantry participants (L. Anderson, personal
communication, June 13, 2011).
Summary
Food access is an important public policy issue across America and in the rural
area of Dunn County, Wisconsin. Food pantry clients such as those served by the
Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County are often the most vulnerable households
in a community, lacking financial and social resources to solve problems related to food
acquisition. Understanding the circumstances under which these families attempt to meet
nutritional needs is vital to addressing the problems of food insecurity.
Food purchases at grocery stores can be influenced by available transportation,
amount of food stamps provided by the government, food preferences, and family
income. This study sought to determine if the food choices food pantry clients have at the
food pantry influence food choices made at grocery stores, as information regarding this
question is not well studied. In addition, transportation costs to grocery stores are known
to influence where low-income populations shop, but how transportation costs and
proximity to grocery stores affect what foods pantry participants buy as well as how the
foods received at food pantries influence food choices and preferences at grocery stores
were also examined.
35
Chapter III: Methodology
This chapter discusses the methodology of the study. First, a description of the
subject selection is provided, followed by the instrumentation. Next, this chapter presents
the data collection procedures, data treatment, and analysis procedures. Lastly, the
chapter concludes with a description of the limitations of the methodology that relate to
the subject selection, instrumentation, and data collection procedures.
This study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative research methods to
gather the most in-depth and accurate data from participants. Qualitative data were
collected by use of questions from the survey given to qualifying participants who
participated in the Stepping Stones Food Pantry. The qualitative research data were
obtained from three focus group sessions that were composed of qualifying participants
from Stepping Stones Food Pantry.
Subject Selection and Description
After approval by the University Wisconsin-Stout Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research, subjects for this study were
recruited from the Stepping Stones Food Pantry located in Dunn County, Wisconsin. See
Appendix A for the IRB approval memo. Eligible participants were either married or
single with children under the age of 18 living in the home, or senior citizens over the age
of 60. Participants from each of these groups were eligible to join in the focus group
sessions and survey. Subject selection was based on the knowledge that single, married,
and elderly populations were the most representative populations served by the Stepping
Stones Food Pantry, as well as the most common groups who utilize food pantries
(Biggerstaff, McGrath-Morris, & Nichols-Casebolt, 2002). To be eligible for benefits
36
from Stepping Stones Food Pantry, individuals provide proof of residence in Dunn
County. Also, in order to be eligible for benefits from the food pantry, households were
required to have an income lower than 185% federal poverty level (Stepping Stones,
2011). For a household of four members or one member, the qualifying income is less
than $796 or $388 per week, respectively (Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 2012).
Therefore, residence and income were controlled among the participants in this study.
The Stepping Stones Food Pantry was the preferred location to conduct the study because
the pantry serves over 2,000 pantry participants every month, making it the largest pantry
in the county. Therefore, this is the most representative sample of food pantry
participants in the area.
In order to maximize participant selection for the focus groups, the researcher was
present on the busiest days of the month during October 2011, when potential focus
group participants were known to attend the food pantry. After communicating with the
pantry coordinator, it was decided that pantry participants at Stepping Stones Food Pantry
attended in the largest numbers at the beginning of the month, since it was during this
time federal assistance would arrive for the families. Single or married parents were
expected to come to the food pantry in largest numbers on the first Tuesday and
Wednesday of the month. Adults over the age of 60 were known to attend in the largest
numbers on the first Thursday of every month, since this was when they received
commodity boxes.
Focus group sessions were planned prior to recruiting participants in order to
minimize scheduling difficulties for finding available times for all focus group
participants to meet. The focus group sessions were scheduled to occur one month after
37
recruitment. Similar times to the recruitment efforts were utilized in scheduling the focus
groups. The single parent focus group was held on the first Tuesday in November; the
married parent focus group was held on the first Wednesday in November; the senior
focus group was held on the first Thursday in December. Timing of all three focus groups
occurred approximately two hours before the pantry opened to maximize turnout rates.
Discussions with the pantry coordinator assisted in scheduling the focus group sessions.
An initial screening of all pantry participants occurred when clients came to the
intake desk when first arriving at the food pantry. The receptionist at the desk screened
the participants to determine eligibility for the research study by asking the participants
the following questions: single, married, or older than 60, and if any children under 18
years were present in the household. Every eligible participant was requested to speak to
the researcher about participating in the study. Participants who presented themselves to
the researcher were given an explanation of the study, and what was required from them
in order to participate in the study. Upon initial agreement to participate, participants
were asked to leave a name and phone number with the researcher, and were given an
invitation to attend a focus group on a specific date and time that the focus group
interview and survey would be completed. The day and time ensured that each of the
three subject groups were composed of similar participants, either single or married with
children under age 18 or adults older than 60. Once 20 participants were obtained for
each focus group, the focus group subject selection was complete.
Two weeks prior to the focus group sessions, a letter was sent by mail to each
participant that initially agreed to participate in the study to increase the turnout rates for
the focus group sessions. The food pantry coordinator mailed the letters, since access to
38
the participant’s addresses was not permitted to the researcher. The phone record for each
participant interested in the study was provided if no mailing address was recorded.
Follow-up phone calls were made by the researcher a day or two before the focus groups
to increase the turnout rates as well. If subjects did not answer, a phone message was left,
if available. Those subjects who were not able to have a message left were called a
maximum of two times.
Due to the limited turnout rates of the focus groups (n = 17), surveys were
obtained from additional pantry participants who met the criteria described above
(married or single with children under the age of 18 living in the home, or senior citizens
over the age of 60). Again, the researcher was present at the busiest days the pantry was
open, to obtain the largest numbers of eligible pantry participants to complete the survey.
Consent forms were provided to all participants who showed interest in participating in
the study to ensure understanding of the purpose of the study. See Appendix B for
consent forms for the focus group and the consent forms for the additional participants
surveyed. The researcher also briefed each subject on the purpose of the survey and time
commitment for the study for further clarification. Forty-three additional surveys were
completed during the second survey data collection phase.
Instrumentation
The development of the survey was constructed through discussions with the
Food Pantry Coordinator at Stepping Stones Food Pantry and the researcher’s advisor.
The questions were formatted quantitatively or qualitatively to provide the researcher
with the most accurate information. See Appendix C for the survey questions. The
average reading level in the United States is the sixth grade; therefore, surveys were
39
written at a sixth-grade reading level to increase understanding and comprehension of the
surveys. Surveys were also written in a 12-point font to ensure readability. Some
questions required short written answers but participants were informed of the time
commitment of 10 minutes to complete the survey in the consent form provided with the
survey. The surveys were distributed to all families or food pantry participants who gave
consent on the days the researcher was present.
The researcher, the researcher’s committee members, and the pantry site
supervisor collaborated to develop the focus group questions (See Appendix D).
Questions were formatted as open-ended questions to facilitate discussion. Focus groups
were used as part of the data collection to obtain further detail about the research topics
that would be difficult to gather from a survey. All questions were asked at all focus
group sessions. Questions were formatted so that the more sensitive questions were asked
toward the end of each of the focus group discussions. Before the focus group sessions,
the researcher summarized the consent form out loud as an additional measure of
clarification of the study’s purpose for the participants.
Data Collection Procedures
Before the study began, subjects were informed that participation was voluntary,
and that no negative consequences would occur if subjects chose not to participate.
Consent to participate in the study was obtained from a consent form that was approved
by the UW-Stout IRB. Consent forms (see Appendix B) were distributed to participants
prior to beginning the focus group sessions or prior to the distribution of surveys to
additional pantry participants who were not part of the focus groups. Each subject was
informed of the purpose of the consent form and given a brief description of the study
40
and its purpose at the time the survey was distributed. Subjects completed the survey
prior to beginning the focus group sessions. Once all participants were finished with the
surveys, the focus group sessions began.
All focus groups were tape-recorded so that the researcher could later transcribe
the sessions. Participants were informed that the sessions would be recorded prior to
beginning the discussion. Clarification of all questions was provided as needed, and
probing questions were used to facilitate further discussion and to focus in on responses
related to each of the questions asked.
At the end of the focus groups, all participants were provided a token of
appreciation that was comprised of fresh fruit and vegetables, MyPlate magnets,
information on shopping on a budget, and kid-friendly foods (parent groups only). The
contents of the gifts bags were provided through the support of the University of
Wisconsin-Stout Student Research Grant Fund.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed following data collection from the focus groups by
identifying trends and themes between food purchasing behaviors, perceptions of the
food pantry, and transportation access to grocery centers. The researcher performed data
coding on the focus group results and a statistical consultant at UW-Stout performed data
analysis on survey data collected. Responses were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences, Version 18) statistical analysis software.
The survey items were analyzed using descriptive statistics including frequencies,
means, standard deviations, and percentages. Statistical significance was judged using a
significance level of 0.05 using 2-tailed tests, where appropriate. A test statistic was
41
considered statistically significant if the calculated significance value was equal to or was
less than 0.05.
The focus groups were analyzed by first transcribing the audiotape from each
focus group. Responses from all focus group transcripts were then complied together
according to questions and common responses. After data for all questions were
organized and categorized, responses were analyzed for trends, patterns, and common
themes. Similar responses to each question were grouped together and were compared
and contrasted among questions in order to identify and strengthen themes and participant
viewpoints.
Limitations
This research was limited to those subjects who chose to participate in the focus
group sessions or who chose to complete the survey. This research was also limited to
subjects who used Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County, Wisconsin. Therefore,
this study gathered information on food pantry participants that resided within Dunn
County, Wisconsin, which may not be representative of food pantries in other areas.
Also, focus group sessions had small turnout rates, which could have resulted in some
bias as the opinions and viewpoints of a larger number of pantry participants were
missing. Some questions asked participants to state how many serving sizes of each of
the food groups they consumed on average in the last week; therefore, some participants
may have over or underestimated serving sizes due to lack of knowledge of serving sizes
or limited memory on the average number of servings consumed during the last week for
each food group.
42
Summary
Food insecurity is an enormous public health issue. Responses to a decreased food
budget include decreased intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy, lean meats, and whole grains.
The increased consumption of energy-dense food of poorer nutritional quality can
decrease levels of micronutrients and lead to development of chronic disease. Food
pantries such as Stepping Stones Food Pantry in Dunn County, Wisconsin, help those
who are food insecure meet food and basic nutritional needs each month. How access to
and cost of transportation affect food purchase is not well researched. The methodology
discussed in Chapter 3 documents how transportation issues and food received at food
pantries influences food purchases at grocery stores. Chapter 4 outlines the results
gathered from both quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures. Chapter 5
discusses the significance of the findings.
43
Chapter IV: Results
This study aimed to determine how transportation and food pantry use influences
food purchases made by food pantry clients enrolled in the services at Stepping Stones
Food Pantry in Dunn County, Wisconsin. The purposes of this research were to
determine 1) how transportation and food pantry use influence grocery purchases, 2) if
transportation costs affect food purchases, and 3) if food pantry participants of Stepping
Stones Food Pantry were consuming adequate portions of food from each of the food
groups as determined by the MyPlate guidelines (USDA, 2012c).
The two phases of research, completion of a survey and focus groups sessions
were used to answer the following research questions:
1. Are there relationships between the miles traveled to grocery stores, access to
reliable transportation, and the consumption of specific food groups among
food pantry clients?
2. What food purchasing behaviors do food pantry clients use when grocery
shopping for food, and how does this relate to what pantry clients receive
from the food pantry?
3. How does having access to a reliable vehicle influence food pantry
participants’ specific food group purchases at grocery stores?
4. Do travel costs to grocery stores affect the frequency of grocery shopping by
food pantry clients?
In short, the methods involved the recruitment of Stepping Stones Food Pantry
users to participate in the three focus groups and survey. Surveys were distributed to
participants before the focus groups began. Following completion of the survey, the focus
44
groups were conducted. Focus groups were used to provide additional in-depth
information, which the survey alone could not achieve. To elicit more data, additional
food pantry participants were recruited to complete the survey after the focus group phase
of the research was completed. Focus groups were analyzed using thematic analysis and
coding, while surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and two-tailed t-tests.
This chapter will describe the results of these analyses as they relate to the research
questions. The data from the survey are first discussed followed by the focus group
results.
Respondents’ Demographics from Survey
A total of 60 respondents completed the research survey. This sample included 52
females, and 7 males. One respondent did not report his or her gender. Ages ranged from
18 to 84. The average respondent age was 45.7 years, and the mode age reported was 28.
Respondents who reported an age less than 60 years comprised 66% (n = 39) of the total
sample. One respondent did not report his or her age. With regards to marital status, 55%
(n = 33) were single or divorced, while the remainder of the respondents were married
45% (n = 27). Survey respondents were asked to report how many children under the age
of 18 were living in their home. The responses ranged from 0 to 9 children. Of those
respondents who were under the age of 60, the average number of children who lived
within the household who were under the age of 18 years was 3; for those over the age of
60 years, the average number of children living in the household who were under the age
of 18 was 0.
When respondents were asked to identify the highest level of education
completed, responses ranged from less than a high school diploma (n = 7) to a 4 year
45
Bachelor’s degree (n = 5). As described in Table 1, respondents who had a high school
degree made up 41.7% (n = 25) of the sample, while those with some college education
made up 33.3% (n = 20) of the sample.
Table 1
Education Level of Survey Respondents
Response Frequency Percent
Less than high school diploma
7 11.7
High school diploma or GED 25 41.7
Some college, no degree 20 33.3
2 year degree (Associate’s) 3 5
4 year degree (Bachelor’s) or higher 5 8.3
Total 60 100
Note: Frequency reported as n.
Food Pantry Influences on Pantry Participants’ Grocery Purchases
In order to gain insight on how the food pantry influences food purchases of
pantry participants at grocery stores, respondents were asked to indicate if pantry use
influences food purchases. This survey item was added after the focus group sessions
were completed in order to gain further information on the food purchases made by the
additional pantry participants surveyed (n = 43). Respondents for this question were not
part of the focus group sessions. Respondents were asked to indicate either a YES or NO
response, followed by specifying exactly what foods purchases were influenced. The
responses of those respondents who selected YES that food purchases are affected by
pantry use are depicted in Table 2. Respondents indicated that using the food pantry
46
influenced 63.3% (n = 21) of fruit purchases, 54.5% (n = 18) of dairy purchases, 51.5%
(n = 17) of meat purchases, 48.5% (n = 16) of vegetable purchases, and 33.3% (n = 11) of
grain purchases, while 6.1% (n = 2) of respondents indicated that using the food pantry
influenced “other purchases.”
Table 2
Food Purchases Made at Grocery Stores that Participants Stated were Influenced by
Foods Distributed by the Food Pantry
Food Group
Frequency Valid Percent a
Fruit
21 63.6
Dairy
18 54.5
Meat
17 51.5
Vegetables
16 48.5
Grains
11 33.3
Other
2 6.1
Note: Frequency values represent the number of times each food group was chosen by
participants who indicated pantry use influenced food purchases. Participants were able to select
more than one choice (n=33). a Only participants who did not participate in focus groups responded to this survey item.
In order to determine how food purchases related to the purchase site, survey
respondents were asked to indicate where various foods were obtained (see Table 3).
Results indicated that 60% (n = 36) of fresh vegetables were obtained at grocery stores,
while 60% (n = 36) of canned vegetables were obtained at the food pantry. Similarly,
56.7% (n = 34) of fresh fruits purchases were obtained at grocery stores, while 48.3%
(n = 29) of canned fruits were obtained at the food pantry. For grain products, 33.3%
(n = 20) of refined and enriched grains were obtained from the food pantry. The majority
47
of dairy products were obtained at grocery stores, as indicated by the results of 68.3%
(n = 41) of dairy product purchases coming from grocery stores.
Table 3
Frequency of Participant Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Foods Purchased as
Related to Purchase Site
Purchase Site
Produce
Grocery
Store
Food
Pantry
Convenient Store
Home
Garden
Family
Friend
Missing
Fresh Vegetables
36 (60)a 21 (35.0) 0 1 (1.7) 0 2 (3.3)
Canned Vegetables
19 (31.7) 36 (60.0) 0 0 0 5 (8.3)
Frozen Vegetables
34 (56.7) 15 (25.0) 0 2 (3.3) 1 (1.7) 8 (13.3)
Fresh Fruits
34 (56.7) 23 (38.3) 0 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7)
Canned Fruits
20 (33.3) 29 (48.3) 1 (1.7) 0 0 10 (16.7)
Frozen Fruit
34 (56.7) 8 (13.3) 1 (1.7) 3 (5.0) 1 (1.7) 13 (21.7)
Refined Grains
27 (45.0) 20 (33.3) 6 (10.0) 0 1 (1.7) 6 (10.0)
Enriched Grains
28 (46.7) 20 (33.3) 3 (5.0) 0 1 (1.7) 8 (13.3)
Dairy Products
41 (68.3) 7 (11.7) 8 (13.3) 0 1 (1.7) 3 (5.0)
a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)
48
Estimation of Pantry Participants’ Dietary Intakes
It was of interest to determine the estimated number of servings consumed from
the listed food groups of those respondents who were over and under the age of 60 years,
and those who were married or single. A determination of the dietary intakes of these
specific groups was sought, since these individuals comprise the greatest numbers that
use the Stepping Stone’s Food Pantry.
Table 4 describes the dietary intakes of those 60 years and older. Results indicated
that 52.4% (n = 11) of respondents consumed green vegetables, 52.4% (n = 11) of
respondents consumed canned vegetables, and 38.1% (n = 8) of respondents consumed
starchy vegetables on average once per day. Seven (33.3%) respondents indicated that
frozen vegetables were consumed twice per day. It was estimated that fresh fruits were
consumed once per day by 28.6% (n = 6) by subjects who were over 60 years, while
canned fruits were consumed on average once per day by 47.6% (n = 10) of the subjects.
Frozen fruits were never consumed by 33.3% (n = 7) of the sample. Similarly, 33.3% (n
= 7) of the sample consumed refined grains once per day. Five (23.8%) respondents
consumed enriched grains four or more times per day. Finally, dairy products were
consumed twice a day by 28.6% (n = 6) of respondents 60 years and older.
49
Table 4
Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of
Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by those 60 Years
and Older
Produce Never Once Twice Three
Times
Four or
More
Missing
Green Vegetables 0
11 (52.4)a 7 (33.3) 2 (9.5) 0 1 (4.8)
Canned Vegetables 1 (4.8)
11 (52.4) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.8) 2 (9.5) 3 (14.3)
Frozen Vegetables 4 (19.0)
5 (23.8) 7 (33.3) 2 (9.5) 0 3 (14.3)
Starchy Vegetables 2 (9.5)
8 (38.1) 5 (23.8) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.8) 2 (9.5)
Fresh Fruit 1 (4.8) 6 (28.6) 4 (19.0) 5 (23.8) 3 (14.3) 2 (9.5)
Canned Fruit 2 (9.5)
10 (47.6) 5 (23.8) 2 (9.5) 0 2 (9.5)
Frozen Fruit 7 (33.3)
4 (19.0) 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3) 1 (4.8) 3 (14.3)
Refined Grains 3 (14.3)
7 (33.3) 2 (9.5) 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3)
Enriched Grains 2 (9.5)
3 (14.3) 3 (14.3) 4 (19.0) 5 (23.8) 4 (19.0)
Dairy
1 (4.8) 3 (14.3) 6 (28.6) 5 (23.8) 5 (23.8) 1 (4.8)
a Frequency reported as n, parentheses indicate percent (%).
Results of the estimated number of servings consumed from the listed food groups
of respondents aged 60 years and younger are depicted in Table 5. The percentage of
respondents aged 60 years and younger estimated to consume green vegetables were
43.6% (n = 17) and canned vegetables (33.3%, n = 13) once per day. Respondents were
estimated to consume frozen vegetables once, 30.8% (n = 12) to twice, 30.8 (n = 12) a
day, while starchy vegetables were estimated to be consumed by 25.6% (n = 10) of
respondents either once, twice, or three times per day. Fresh fruits were consumed twice
50
per day by 25.6% (n = 10) of respondents. Thirteen (33.3%) respondents were estimated
to consume canned fruits once per day, while 51.3% (n = 20) of respondents were
estimated to never eat frozen fruit. Eleven (28.2%) respondents were estimated to
consume refined grains once per day, while 25.6% (n = 10) of respondents were
estimated to consume enriched grains three times per day. Nineteen (48.7%) respondents
were estimated to consume dairy products four or more times per day by those 60 years
and younger.
Table 5
Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of
Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by those Younger
than 60 Years
Produce Never Once Twice Three
Times
Four or
More
Missing
Green Vegetables
5 (12.8)a 17 (43.6) 11 (28.2) 3 (7.7) 3 (7.7) 0
Canned Vegetables
4 (10.3) 13 (33.3) 11 (28.2) 7 (17.9) 4 (10.3) 0
Frozen Vegetables
7 (17.9) 12 (30.8) 12 (30.8) 6 (15.4) 2 (5.1) 0
Starchy Vegetables
4 (10.3) 10 (25.6) 10 (25.6) 10 (25.6) 5 (12.8) 0
Fresh Fruit
8 (20.5) 9 (23.1) 10 (25.6) 7 (17.9) 4 (10.3) 1 (2.6)
Canned Fruit
10 (25.6) 13 (33.3) 7 (17.9) 5 (12.8) 3 (7.7) 1 (2.6)
Frozen Fruit
20 (51.3) 7 (17.9) 5 (12.8) 3 (7.7) 2 (5.1) 2 (5.1)
Refined Grains
6 (15.4) 11 (28.2) 6 (15.4) 7 (17.9) 9 (23.1) 0
Enriched Grains
8 (20.5) 6 (15.4) 8 (20.5) 10 (25.6) 7 (17.9) 0
Dairy
4 (10.3) 4 (10.3) 2 (5.1) 10 (25.6) 19 (48.7) 0
a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)
51
Results of the estimated number of servings from the listed food groups of
married respondents with children under 18 years are depicted in Table 6. Twelve
(44.4%) respondents were estimated to consume green vegetables once per day; similarly
44.4% (n = 12) of respondents were estimated to consume frozen vegetables twice per
day. Nine (33.3%) respondents were estimated to consume starchy vegetables twice per
day as well. It was estimated that canned vegetables were consumed once per day by
48.1% (n = 13) of respondents. Fresh fruits were consumed twice per day by 29.6% (n =
8) of respondents. Canned fruits were estimated as being consumed once or twice per day
by 29.6% (n = 8) of respondents. However, frozen fruits were estimated as never being
consumed by 40.7% (n = 11) of respondents. Eleven (40.7%) of respondents were
estimated to consume refined grains once per day, while 33.3% (n = 9) of respondents
were estimated to consume three servings per day of enriched grains. Finally, dairy
products were estimated as being consumed four or more times per day by 33.3% (n = 9)
of married respondents.
52
Table 6
Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of
Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by Married Parents
Produce Never Once Twice Three
Times
Four or
More
Missing
Green Vegetables
4 (14.8)a 12 (44.4) 6 (22.2) 2 (7.4) 2 (7.4) 1 (3.7)
Canned Vegetables
1 (3.7) 13 (48.1) 6 (22.2) 2 (7.4) 4 (14.8) 1 (3.7)
Frozen Vegetables
5 (18.5) 7 (25.9) 12 (44.4) 2 (7.4) 0 1 (3.7)
Starchy Vegetables
2 (7.4) 7 (25.9) 9 (33.3) 6 (22.2) 2 (7.4) 1 (3.7)
Fresh Fruit
5 (18.5) 6 (22.2) 8 (29.6) 3 (11.1) 3 (11.1) 2 (7.4)
Canned Fruit
6 (22.2) 8 (29.6) 8 (29.6) 3 (11.1) 1 (3.7) 1 (3.7)
Frozen Fruit
11 (40.7) 5 (18.5) 4 (14.8) 1 (3.7) 2 (7.4) 4 (14.8)
Refined Grains
2 (7.4) 11 (40.7) 2 (7.4) 6 (22.2) 5 (18.5) 1 (3.7)
Enriched Grains
4 (14.8) 3 (11.1) 5 (18.5) 9 (33.3) 3 (11.1) 3 (11.1)
Dairy
2 (7.4) 4 (14.8) 4 (14.8) 7 (25.9) 9 (33.3) 1 (3.7)
a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)
The estimation of servings consumed per day for single parents with children
under 18 years are depicted in Table 7. Green vegetables were estimated as being
consumed once per day by 48.5% (n = 16) of the respondents; similarly, canned, frozen,
and starchy vegetables were estimated as being consumed once per day by 33.3%
(n = 11), 30.3% (n = 10), and 33.3% (n = 11) of respondents. Fresh fruits were estimated
as being consumed once or three times per day by 27.3% (n = 9) of respondents, while
canned fruits were estimated as being consumed once per day by 45.5% (n = 15), and
53
frozen fruits were estimated as never being consumed by 48.5% (n = 16) of
respondents. Seven (21.2%) of respondents reported consuming refined grains in the
categories of never, once, and more than four times per day. However, 27.3% (n = 9) of
respondents were estimated to consume more than four servings of enriched grains per
day. Finally, 45.5% (n = 15) of the single parent respondents were estimated to consume
more than four servings of dairy per day.
Table 7
Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Number of Servings of
Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy, and Grain Consumed on Average per Day by Single Parents
Produce Never Once Twice Three
Times
Four or
More
Missing
Green Vegetables
1 (3.0)a 16 (48.5) 12 (36.4) 3 (9.1) 1 (3.0) 0
Canned Vegetables
4 (12.1) 11 (33.3) 8 (24.2) 6 (18.2) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)
Frozen Vegetables
6 (18.2) 10 (30.3) 7 (21.2) 6 (18.2) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)
Starchy Vegetables
4 (12.1) 11 (33.3) 6 (18.2) 7 (21.1) 4 (12.1) 1 (3.0)
Fresh Fruit
4 (12.1) 9 (27.3) 6 (18.2) 9 (27.3) 4 (12.1) 1 (3.0)
Canned Fruit
6 (18.2) 15 (45.5) 4 (12.1) 4 (12.1) 2 (6.1) 2 (6.1)
Frozen Fruit
16 (48.5) 6 (18.2) 4 (12.1) 5 (15.2) 1 (3.0) 1 (3.0)
Refined Grains
7 (21.2) 7 (21.2) 6 (18.2) 4 (12.1) 7 (21.1) 2 (6.1)
Enriched Grains
6 (18.2) 6 (18.2) 6 (18.2) 5 (15.2) 9 (27.3) 1 (3.0)
Dairy
3 (9.1) 3 (9.1) 4 (12.1) 8 (24.2) 15 (45.5) 0
a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)
54
Transportation Access and Grocery Store Food Purchases
In order to provide insight of the sample population’s access to transportation,
respondents were asked to indicate the agreement or disagreement with nine survey items
that related to transportation, including transportation costs, reliable vehicle access, travel
distances, and difficulties with transportation (See Appendix E for data). Respondents
strongly agreed, 50.8% (n = 30) with the statement that cost of transportation to grocery
stores influenced food purchases. However, 31.6% (n = 19) of respondents strongly
agreed to traveling to grocery stores that were further away due to lower food prices. In
order to obtain more information on respondents’ views of transportation costs,
respondents were asked if cost of travel did or did not influence where grocery shopping
was performed. Results indicated that 42.4% (n = 25) of respondents strongly agreed with
the statement of “cost of travel does influence where I go grocery shopping,” while
26.3% (n = 15) of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement “cost of travel does
not influence where I go grocery shopping.” The statement “I need to budget for gas
when grocery shopping for food” was strongly agreed by 44.8% (n = 26) of the
respondents. Finally, 42.4% (n = 25) of respondents strongly agreed with the statement of
“I have access to a vehicle all of the time, while 8.5% (n = 5) of respondents strongly
disagreed with the statement.
55
Of particular interest was the survey item “I have chosen not to go grocery
shopping because of the cost it takes to get there.” Figure 1 indicates that the most
common response for the statement “I choose not to go grocery shopping because of the
costs to get there,” was the category of “neither agree or disagree “ which comprised
39.3% (n = 22) of total survey respondents followed by the response of strongly disagree,
30% (n = 18).
Figure 1. Frequency of choosing not to go grocery shopping because of costs as reported
by participants.
55
Of particular interest was the survey item “I have chosen not to go grocery
shopping because of the cost it takes to get there.” Figure 1 indicates that the most
common response for the statement “I choose not to go grocery shopping because of the
costs to get there,” was the category of “neither agree or disagree “ which comprised
39.3% (n = 22) of total survey respondents followed by the response of strongly disagree,
30% (n = 18).
Figure 1. Frequency of choosing not to go grocery shopping because of costs as reported
by participants.
56
In order to gain insight on how having access to a vehicle influenced where food
was purchased, those who responded to the statement: “I have access to a vehicle all of
the time” were divided into two categories of agree or disagree for data analysis while
omitting the “neither agree or disagree” responses (see Table 8). Those who had no
access to a vehicle were found to purchase 58.3% (n = 7) of fresh vegetables at grocery
stores, while those who had access to a vehicle purchased 61% (n = 26) of the majority of
fresh vegetables at grocery stores. Those who had no access to a vehicle were found to
obtain 58.3% (n = 7) of frozen vegetables at the grocery, while 16.7% (n = 2) obtained
the majority of frozen vegetables from the food pantry. Those respondents who had
access to a vehicle were found to obtain 57.1% (n = 24) of frozen vegetables from the
grocery store and 23.8% (n = 10) of frozen vegetables from the food pantry. Results
indicated that those without access to a reliable vehicle obtained 58.3% (n = 7) of canned
fruit from the food pantry, while those with who had access to a reliable vehicle obtained
4.9% (n = 18) of canned fruits from the food pantry. Finally 66.7% (n = 8) of those
without access to a reliable vehicle obtained dairy products at grocery stores; similarly,
69% (n = 29) of those with access to a vehicle obtained dairy products from the grocery
store.
57
Table 8
Frequency of Participant Responses of Purchase Site for Food when there was Not or
was Access to a Vehicle
Purchase Site
Produce Grocery
Store
Food
Pantry
Convenient
Store
Home
Garden
Family or
Friend
Missing
Fresh Vegetables 7 (58.3)ab
26 (61.0)
5 (41.7)
13 (31.0)
0
0
0
1 (2.4)
0
0
0
2 (4.8)
Canned Vegetables 4 (33.3)
14 (33.3)
7 (58.3)
24 (57.1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (8.3)
4 (9.5)
Frozen Vegetables 7 (58.3)
24 (57.1)
2 (16.7)
10 (23.8)
0
0
0
2 (4.8)
0
1 (2.4)
3 (25.0)
5 (11.9)
Fresh Fruits 7 (58.3)
23 (54.8)
3 (25.0)
18 (42.9)
0
0
1 (8.3)
0
1 (8.3)
0
0
1 (2.4)
Canned Fruits 5 (41.7)
13 (31)
7 (58.3)
18 (42.9)
0
1 (2.4)
0
0
0
0
0
10 (23.8)
Frozen Fruit 7 (58.3)
24 (57.1)
1 (8.3)
5 (11.9)
0
1 (2.4)
1 (8.3)
1 (2.4)
0
1 (2.4)
3 (25.0)
10 (23.8)
Refined Grains 5 (41.7)
22 (52.4)
4 (33.3)
14 (33.3)
1 (8.3)
3 (7.1)
0
0
0
0
2 (16.7)
3 (7.1)
Enriched Grains 7 (58.3)
19 (45.2)
4 (33.3)
14 (33.3)
0
1 (2.4)
0
0
0
1 (2.4)
1 (8.3)
7 (16.7)
Dairy Products
8 (66.7)
29 (69.0)
1 (8.3)
5 (11.9)
2 (16.7)
5 (11.9)
0
0
0
1 (2.4)
1 (8.3)
2 (4.8) a Frequency reported as n, parenthesis indicate percent (%)
b1
st row indicates no access to a vehicle, 2
nd row indicates access to a vehicle
58
Transportation Distance to Grocery Stores
To compare the study with other research studies, it was of interest to the
researcher to determine how many miles pantry participants travel to the grocery stores
most frequently used. The range of miles traveled to grocery stores was from 0.25 miles
to 25 miles. Eight respondents did not indicate how many miles were traveled to grocery
stores. A 2-tailed t-test was completed to determine if there were any significant
differences in miles traveled. A significant difference (p < 0.05) in miles traveled to
grocery stores was found between single and married parents (see Table 9). It was found
that married pantry users traveled on average 13.2 miles while the single pantry users
traveled 8.25 miles to a grocery store.
Table 9
Comparison of Miles Traveled to Grocery Stores by Marital Status
Marital Status
N Mean
Miles
SD t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Married
23
13.20
8.24
2.36
50
0.022
Single
29
8.25
6.88
Focus Group Results
The second phase in this research was conducted through the use of three focus
groups consisting of 3 to 12 participants each. A total sample of 19 adults, including 17
females and two males completed the focus groups. Each of the focus groups focused on
a different population that used the food pantry. Participants in the first and second focus
groups met the inclusion criteria for being married with children under the age of 18
living in the home, or single with children under the age of 18 living in the home.
59
Participants in the third focus group met the inclusion criteria of being over the age of 60.
All focus group participants met the inclusion criteria of having the status of currently
enrolled in the services provided by the food pantry.
Four main themes developed that were particularly relevant to the research
questions developed: (a) barriers to accessing fresh produce, (b) transportation barriers to
acquiring affordable food, (c) coping methods for accessing affordable food, and (d)
coping methods for transportation constraints in obtaining affordable foods. These main
themes will be evaluated and supported by statements made by participants from all three
sessions.
Barriers to Accessing and Preparing Fresh Produce
Throughout each of the focus groups, discussions about the difficulties of
accessing enough food for the family were discussed in great detail. The high costs of
groceries were related to why certain foods were purchased. The food pantry clients did
not believe that pantry use resulted in a balanced diet for the whole family, nor were
many food pantry clients aware of how to prepare and use food items. These insights
provided information on the perceptions of pantry client about the purpose of a food
pantry.
Cost. Participants were prompted to think about beliefs relative to the cost of
fresh and nutritious foods at stores. It was clear that many participants believed that
“fresh vegetables and fruits are expensive.” Others responded with frustration, “[fresh
produce] costs too much, I don’t want to do it anymore.” Others were resigned to not
having fruit and vegetables but commented upon not having enough funds to access even
enough food, “Yeah there’s been times where I’ve had little or no money, and I’m like, I
60
don’t care. I don’t need to eat. I’ll go days, I have in the past.” One particular response
makes a very clear point about the barriers to accessing fresh produce due to costs:
I wanna get apples, I wanna get oranges, I wanna get onions…I can’t do it
because it takes up such a huge part of my food money, and you can’t buy it all at
once either because…it will go bad…so it’s like I either have to like put money
aside at home and hope I can travel 20 miles every other day to get more, or I’m
out of luck. So it sucks. It’s really even cut out the option to even have [fresh
produce].
Related to the perceived high costs of produce, participants stated that buying
fresh produce in large quantities did not help to alleviate costs either, since doing so
would only result in a large portion of the produce spoiling. This main idea was described
well by one participant: “…it’s hard to purchase [fresh produce] because…sometimes
you have to buy in quantities. …and you know, they’ll go rotten or you won’t go through
them.” These statements help to explain why food pantry clients factor in cost as a reason
for not having the ability to purchase fresh produce.
Perceptions of healthy food. Focus group participants were prompted to answer
the question “how do food pantries measure up in providing a balanced diet?” This topic
was discussed in detail, and many related topics developed during the focus groups also
explained why the pantry cannot provide a balanced diet. Although it was found in the
survey results that canned goods were primarily obtained at the food pantry, the amount
of canned goods provided to pantry clients may not provide a balanced diet for the whole
family. One client described this concept: “ I have two boys, 8 and 10, I get two cans of
vegetables. And it’s like, really? That’s a can for a kid…by the time the kids are done
61
eating, there isn’t nothing for you.” Conversely, among the senior focus group
participants, the large quantities of food provided at the pantry was a limitation to utilize
and prepare meals. One senior noted: “I don’t eat as well as I should because I live alone,
and I don’t think about making all that for one person.”
Food pantry clients were very concerned with the poor quality of the food that
was provided at the pantry, which greatly influenced reasons for thinking the pantry did
not provide the family with a balanced diet. One client noted that: “I never see anything
in the fresh fruit section.” Others noted that food pantries limited the amount of fresh
produce the participants could obtain from the food pantry. A client commented
indirectly on the quality of the food saying that “I have taken stuff home and it’s gone
bad the same day.” Many of the pantry clients determined the quality of food by the taste
associated with it. Participants discussed ideas such as: “I’m not just gonna buy garbage.
It’s gotta taste good.” Therefore, taste of produce was very important and was equated
with quality.
In addition, the concept of affordable food was also related to poor quality among
the pantry clients. One client stated: “The type of food that you get that is affordable
doesn’t usually mean great quality.” Many of the comments provided by the focus group
participants seemed to indicate that the individuals viewed the foods donated to the
pantry as hand-me-downs, or were foods that grocery stores did not want anymore. One
senior focus group participant noted: “I like vegetables; lettuce. And the last couple times
I came [to the food pantry] the lettuce was pretty bad. I’m not happy with the
vegetables.” Another senior noted: “…the grocery stores are donating things that are not
good.” Finally, another senior stated: “sometimes they have tomatoes that are rotten on
62
the bottom. So I don’t like to look at that.” Comments such as these describe that pantry
clients were looking for food pantries to be a place to obtain quality products, and in
enough quantity to meet the needs of all members of the family every day.
Knowledge barriers to preparing food. During the discussions, participants
offered many opinions and beliefs about the food provided by the pantry that lead to the
concept that there was a knowledge barrier of how to prepare many foods. Many
participants discussed how the food pantry provided many boxed foods, which if not
provided with the knowledge on how to expand the uses of these foods, would limit the
types of meals that could be made from them. For example, one pantry client noted:
“Once in a while there’s been some pretty fancy foods that I’ve picked up [from the food
pantry]. I just don’t know what to do with it.” Other clients noted: “I got [cereal boxes]
all piled up [at home]. I’m not even a cereal eater. So what do I do with all those boxes?”
Another idea that was discussed was how pantry clients would attempt to use a
food item received from the food pantry in cooking at home, but then realized the family
did not like it, and ended up wasting a large portion of the food and the additional
ingredients. Another food that was talked about to a great extent by the focus group
participants was the powdered milk that the pantry provided. Participants responded to
this food item by stating: “ I have tons of it,” which also indicates that these individuals
were taking this product from the food pantry, but not utilizing it in cooking or milk
consumption at home. Other focus group participants noted the importance of wanting to
make homemade food rather than having all convenience foods provided at the pantry:
“It’d be nice you know to get flour, sugar, and the basics…you can cook with them
instead of figuring out what to do with them.” These ideas explain that pantry participants
63
want to cook, but may not be provided with the appropriate knowledge of how to prepare
some of the foods provided at the food pantry, which is very common at the limited
staffed food pantries.
In addition, the participants of the senior focus group discussed grocery shopping
and not buying products such as meats, since the quantities were too large for just one
person. One person described: “Any roast or anything you want to get…that’s way too
big for one person. You can eat cold meat and sandwiches and stuff but you can’t eat it
all week. You know, but you never see a small one. I’d love to see a small little beef roast
or a little pork that I like put together.” Since the seniors were more likely to live alone,
the need to have foods that were sized and priced to meet needs in grocery stores and at
the food pantry was important. The seniors also discussed on frequent occasions of
buying pre-made foods such as “TV dinners” or microwavable meals indicating that
preparing simple meals was not commonly practiced in the homes of many pantry clients.
Transportation Barriers to Acquiring Affordable Food
The second half of each focus group discussion focused on questions relating to
transportation access and the ability to obtain food. The discussion resulted in noting that
food pantry clients have many transportation barriers for accessing enough food that was
related to not having access to a reliable vehicle and having to drive far distances to
grocery stores. This section will describe these two barriers in greater detail.
Unreliable vehicle. Participants were asked to share a story that discussed a time
where a problem existed with accessing transportation to obtain food. Many of the
participants had experienced a period of time that resulted in the inability to access
transportation and obtain food. During the single and married parent focus groups,
64
struggles with obtaining groceries while caring for children was brought up on numerous
occasions. One parent described, “ If you are a single parent you’re home, you got sick
kids… you cannot leave them when you go 12 blocks to the store.” Gathering groceries
with children was a large challenge for many, since children cannot be left alone at young
ages. Parents described multiple situations where it was necessary to take the child’s
“stroller with the basket and walked to [the grocery store].” The hardships of needing to
walk to the store became apparent in the married parents’ discussions as well: “I’d put
his car seat under the stroller and shove things underneath that with food items, and even
in the actual stroller seat and put him in the basket. He’d be sitting with food items in
between his legs, I mean, I remember laughing one time because my stroller’s wheels
were bowing on the way home.” Another participant described a scenario she and her
kids experienced:
When my kids were little I didn’t have a car. The nearest grocery store to me
was…12 blocks. Going is no problem because you move faster and have no
weight. But coming home when you’re loaded down with groceries, and you’re
carrying anywhere from 10-12 bags, while each kid is carrying 2-4.
The theme of parents having to walk to grocery stores with children was a
common theme among the two parent focus groups when transportation was unavailable.
This indicated that parents were forced to take children grocery shopping, which can pose
a huge challenge when access to a vehicle was not available. Although, it appeared that
the parents were able to find ways to get to the stores regardless of the difficulties of
taking care of the children.
65
Driving far distances. Along with not having access to a vehicle, the food pantry
participants in the focus groups also described the distance traveled to reach the grocery
store; some traveled up to 25 miles. During the focus groups, participants were asked to
describe a story or situation where transportation problems existed with accessing food.
Many participants related how transportation problems or traveling far distances
prevented them from accessing enough food during the month. One participant stated:
I remember a winter where I didn’t have the money to come to town you know, as
far as gas. And we ran out of food…I didn’t have the gas to go the food pantry or
the money to spend on groceries. So… wait around a couple weeks for that
unemployment check or whatever every couple weeks. Or whatever, so that you
can.
The idea of high gasoline prices as a barrier for not having the ability to obtain
enough food was discussed by other participants as well. One participant stated, “With
gas prices the way they are, I mean right there takes a good portion, ya know if they don’t
get food share, right there takes a good portion of the food money.” Another participant
stated, “We’re 25 miles out from any grocery stores.” Along with travel distances being
an issue, poor weather conditions can take a toll on pantry participants’ ability to access
food. One participant stated: “Last winter when I didn’t have a vehicle, I’d run out of
bread, and everything else.”
The senior users of the pantry try to help each other out with transportation to
obtain groceries, but some of them did state, “It’s not a problem mostly because we’re all
right there, and I take them where they gotta go. I don’t think in the winter even I would
drive all the way out in the country for one person, I couldn’t do it.” These comments
66
indicate that gasoline prices, farther travel distances, and poor weather conditions all
contribute to not being able to access enough food due to transportation problems.
Coping Methods for Transportation Barriers
Throughout the focus group discussions, many participants described a wide
variety of coping methods used to help alleviate the hardships of not being able to access
enough food due to transportation barriers. Many methods were discussed for how pantry
clients have coped when transportation barriers prevented going to a grocery store to
obtain food. The methods that become most prominent during the discussions were: (a)
traveling with others and (b) grocery shopping while completing errands. This section
will describe these themes in more detail.
Traveling with others. During the focus groups, participants were asked to
describe how transportation barriers were resolved in order to obtain food. Many of the
senior food pantry members lived in apartment complexes, which allowed for easy
accessibility ways for traveling with others. At the same time, seniors who lived in
apartments tended to have a sense of community and responsibly to help each other out
with obtaining food. If someone were going to Second Harvest, that person would ask if
anyone needed anything if travel was an issue. The seniors in the focus group described
that once they got back from the store, the senior who came back from Second Harvest
would “go from door to door [of the apartment complex] and see who wanted what,”
from the items that were obtained. The need to pitch in for gasoline when somebody went
to the store did not seem to be much of an issue for the seniors, since many agreed with
one person’s statement: “I’m going anyway.” This indicated the sense of wanting to help
each other out with obtaining groceries when possible.
67
The parent focus groups did not seem to have as much of a close connection to
others within the age group for getting help with transportation. Instead, the parent
groups seemed to rely more on parents and friends for accessing transportation. Some of
the parents described planning shopping trips in advance: “When I make my trips to […]
I plan my trips ahead of time. I…let everybody know, on such and such a day I’m
going…start making out your list for what you need.” However, there seemed be more
resistance for rides from family and friends. As one parent describes: “You either had to
call and beg for a ride from somebody or stay home.” The parents noted some distress
when trying to plan shopping trips with others, since they needed to plan for care for their
children. One of the parents stated: “I don’t like feeling rushed if I have to have someone
give me a ride. Then the whole time I’m like, oh my gosh, I have to hurry, I have to
hurry.” Statements as these indicate that the parents felt more rushed than the seniors to
get grocery shopping done.
Shopping during convenient times. All focus groups were asked to comment on
why grocery shopping at specific places was preferred. Among the responses were to
shop at department grocery stores to “get it all done in one spot.” Others responded with:
“I try to incorporate [shopping] into whatever else I’m doing.” Another respondent
stated: “I kinda buy a lot when I do go. And get everything done in one day.” Many of
the participants thought grocery shopping was best to be done all at once, since the
majority of pantry clients agreed that by going grocery shopping every day or every week
would cost more in the long run.
While discussing coping methods for transportation, many of the parents alluded
to the idea that having kids made it more difficult to complete grocery shopping. Parents
68
described the need to go grocery shopping during times “when the kids are in school.” In
addition to planning grocery shopping trips around the children’s schedules, many
parents described efforts to go grocery shopping only a few times a month, to only once a
month. One participant described those strategies such as “We always shop once a
month. Always make one big long list,” which helps to alleviate costs associated with
both travel distances and grocery costs.
Seniors also used methods to complete grocery shopping. There was a large
agreement among many seniors that grocery shopping once a month was ideal for them
as well, since that was the time when the most money would be available. One senior
stated: “A lot of us can only go shopping once a month, because of social security check,
disability check, and that.” Most of the seniors agreed with this statement. The seniors
needed to rely on social security checks and disability checks for a large portion of
income, and receipt of those checks were the times when these individuals were more
likely to go grocery shopping.
Coping Methods for Accessing Affordable Food
Throughout the discussion, the participants of all focus groups described a wide
variety of coping methods used to help reduce the cost of groceries. Some of the coping
strategies used included: (a) using resources at home and (b) strategizing shopping trips.
This section describes in detail these two coping methods.
Using resources at home. Participants described throughout the focus groups the
strategies used in the event of running out of food. Some of the pantry clients described
what resources were available at home to make ends meet until additional money came
in. One parent described her experience: “I got by with what I had. And sometimes you
69
have to. Until the help comes.” Others discussed how food would be prepared from
scratch. One of the parents noted: “I was taught, you eat what you put on the table. So I
you know, when I go to the table I grab a few potatoes, and this and that, and sometimes I
grab me a big bag of chicken. I can take that and put it in the roaster.” Another participant
stated: “I only buy a little bit at a time, because I’m always trying to figure out how to
make pizza with what I have.”
Many seniors were only supporting themselves, and did not need to cook large
meals, unlike the parent focus groups. The seniors would describe that when shopping for
meats, buying a standard amount and portioning it into smaller sizes would be utilized.
One participant stated: “I buy the big pork chops. The big dang thing…And then I
separate them. I only need one so I separate them into little freezer bags and put them the
freezer, and take them out whenever I’m ready. And then I don’t have to keep running
back and forth to the store.” Strategies such as these helped the seniors save money for
food during the month.
Strategizing shopping trips. While some participants discussed how resources
from home would be used in order to make ends meet, others described how grocery
shopping trips would be strategized to make monthly grocery purchases the most
affordable. Many of the parents described situations where supplemental foods from the
food pantry would be utilized to expand the food pantries at home. Common responses
around this topic included pantry clients stating that any food obtained from the food
pantry would help to decrease the costs of groceries: “If you don’t have to buy that extra
box of cereal for the kids or soup or…potatoes. I mean, take that money and put it
towards the other foods that you need, ya know, figure out your food meals for the
70
month.” Another participant stated: “I stock up big time on the meat and that takes a big
chunk of money…I get boxed hamburger helpers and tuna helpers and that usually lasts
us.” Statements such as these indicated that food pantry participants stretched food by
buying a few more expensive items at the store and add filler foods to make those items
last longer.
Participants also strategized shopping trips by bringing shopping lists, coupons, or
by using gas card points to help keep on track with purchasing and help reduce costs.
Participants would use the gas card points to get milk, bread, and bananas at gas stations.
When using coupons, pantry clients checked the sales at multiple stores every week in
order to find the best deal. As described, every dollar saved was worth fighting for, even
if more time out of the weekly schedule was needed to plan for a shopping trip by
gathering coupons. As one client explained, “I keep a running total on what goes in my
carts. So that I know I don’t go over.” To many, keeping track of the amount of money
spent on groceries was important. Pantry clients also described how there was a clear
difference between the prices of the various grocery stores used. Whenever possible, the
clients would try to go to the least expensive grocery store to obtain groceries.
Sharing food with others. Along the topics of using the resources at home, many
of the senior food pantry clients described how food would be shared with others in the
community. As one senior explained, “ You don’t want to cook up a big meal by
yourself.” Cooking meals was a barrier for the seniors, since many lived alone. However,
many of the seniors enjoyed cooking for groups, which reflected childhood experiences.
Another senior stated: “I share with neighbors and friends what I have. See what I can
make out of stuff.” Seniors have a sense of community. Another person explained
71
another important concept about sharing food with others: “Sometimes if I know
someone who doesn’t have something, I’ll share with them.” This indicated, that the
seniors wanted to help each other out in times of need.
Summary
The results of the survey and focus groups sessions provide insights to the
limitations pantry clients have to accessing food due to lack of resources and
transportation. The following chapter will discuss the significance of these findings and
how the data relates to other published research.
72
Chapter V: Discussion
This research was conducted through the use of a research survey and three focus
groups sessions with food pantry clients from Dunn County, Wisconsin meeting the
inclusion criteria of: single and married parents with children under the age of 18 years
living in the home, and seniors over the age of 60 years. Results of this research describe
the barriers and coping methods food pantry clients use for accessing adequate amounts
of food and transportation. Chapter five will begin by discussing the limitations of this
research. Then, results will be compared to findings from peer-reviewed literature,
followed by final conclusions. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for
future research.
Limitations
As detailed in chapter three, the limitations of this research include lack of
validation of the survey and focus group instruments. Most importantly, small turnout
rates for the focus groups and survey respondents could result in some bias as the
opinions and viewpoints of a larger number of pantry clients were missing. In addition,
education on what is considered a survey size was not provided to clients, which could
have caused an over or underestimation of the numbers of servings consumed per week
for each of the food groups listed in the research survey and during the focus groups.
Finally, qualitative research methods by use of the focus groups cannot be validated,
since this is considered a subjective method of analysis.
Conclusions: Transportation Access and Food Attainment
The first question this research sought to answer was “Are there relationships
between the miles traveled to grocery stores, access to reliable transportation, and the
73
consumption of specific food groups among food pantry clients?” Results of particular
interest that relate to transportation access and food attainment are the transportation
barriers pantry clients perceive to have when accessing food, the coping methods used to
access food when transportation barriers are present, and pantry client’s perceptions of
diet adequacy.
Transportation barriers. Both parent focus groups indicated that many
difficulties have been experienced with accessing food due to the inability to leave the
home, because of taking care of kids, or poor weather conditions. A study by Garasky,
Morton and Greder (2006) was completed to help describe how transportation problems
related to the food security status of rural low-income residents. Similar to the results
found in the Garasky, Morton, and Greder study, food insecurity was greater in
households that were larger and comprised of younger respondents (Bartfeld, Ryu, &
Wang, 2010). These results are comparable to what were found in the present study.
Some 27.1% of survey respondents from Stepping Stones Food Pantry moderately agreed
that transportation problems prevented the pantry clients from obtaining food more than
once a month. However, of those that had transportation problems, 25.4% of survey
respondents stated that asking for help from someone who lived outside of the home was
not necessary in order to access food when there was a transportation problem. Similarly,
survey respondents in the study by Garasky, Morton, and Greder (2006) indicated often
or always having help with accessing transportation.
Coping methods. Many of the pantry clients in the focus groups described
situations relating to transportation problems due to having limited funds to obtain food,
and would cope by using the resources at home, until help came. A study completed by
74
Tarasuk, Mclntyre, and Li (2007) indicated that a significant decline in energy
consumption was observed in relation to the time of month since receipt of a monthly
income for those with moderate or severe food insecurity occurred when compared to
food secure individuals. In the current study, parents in the focus group indicated going
days without eating in order to save food for children, if the need arose. Although it could
not be assessed how much energy consumption was decreased during the times of limited
food, it is probable to assume energy needs were not being met. Senior citizens described
in the focus groups sharing food with others, since many lived together in apartment
complexes. However, other studies have found that giving food to friends was unrelated
to food insecurity (Garasky, Morton, & Greder, 2006).
These results can conclude that obtaining adequate amounts of food for parents
with children is difficult, because of the inability to leave the home enough times to
obtain enough food to feed the entire family. Although it could not be assessed how much
energy consumption was decreased during the times when pantry clients had limited food
in the home due to not being able to leave, it is probable to assume on occasion energy
needs are not met. Although transportation barriers exist for seniors as well, the sense of
community and smaller household size enables transportation to obtain food in the event
of not having access to transportation.
Perceptions of diet adequacy. Diet adequacy of the survey respondents was used
to determine if there were dietary differences based on subgroup classifications of being
single, married or over the age of 60 years. The majority of single parents (45%) and
married parents (33.3%) were found to consume dairy products four times per day, while
the majority of those over the age of 60 years (28.6%) were found to consume dairy
75
products twice per day. According to the Dietary Guidelines of America (USDA, 2010b),
adults should consume 3 servings of low-fat dairy products per day. Although this study
did not assess what type of milk was consumed at home, during the focus groups
participants of the single and married groups indicated purchasing 2% or whole milk
since that was what their children were drinking. From the data, it would indicate that the
parent groups were consuming adequate amount of servings per day of dairy, while those
over 60 years were not. A study conducted by Elborn, Johnson, and Fischer (1998) found
that 50% of adults over 60 years consumed milk products once per day, and only 16% of
adults over 60 years consumed milk products twice per day. Variables that were found to
increase milk consumption were knowledge, consumption of milk during adolescence,
perceived milk intolerance, and following a diabetic diet (Elborn et al., 1998).
Survey results also resulted in providing information about respondent’s fruit and
vegetable intake. Single parents were found to consume green vegetables once per day
most frequently, while married parents were found to consume green vegetables once per
day, or frozen vegetables twice per day. Also, the majority of married parents were found
to consume fresh fruit two times per day, while the majority of single parents were found
to consume canned or fresh fruit only once per day. Similarly, the majority of survey
respondents over 60 years reported consuming fresh or canned vegetables and canned
fruit once per day. All groups were found to consume less than the recommended number
of 2½ servings of fruits and vegetables per day (USDA, 2010b). However, in 2009,
approximately 34.9% and 23.2% of residents over the age of 18 years in Wisconsin were
consuming more than 2 servings of fruits and vegetables, respectively (Centers for
76
Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). Percentages did not drastically change due to
household income (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010).
Information about the number of servings of refined and enriched grains
consumed per day by survey respondents was also investigated. The majority of
respondents aged 60 years and older were found to consume refined grains once per day,
and enriched grains four or more times per day. The majority of married parent
respondents were found to consume refined grains once per day, and three servings per
day of enriched grains. Finally, the majority of single parent respondents were found to
consume refined grains between never and four times per day, and to consume enriched
grains four or more times per day. According to the Dietary Guidelines of America,
adults should consume at least half of the grains as whole grains (USDA, 2010b). All
three groups were meeting this recommendation.
Based on these findings it can be concluded that transportation limits food
purchasing power of pantry clients when access to transportation is unavailable. The
overall diet quality of pantry clients was inadequate in fruit and vegetable consumption;
while only those over the age of 60 years were inadequate in dairy consumption.
Conclusions: Food Purchasing Behaviors
The second question that this research sought to answer was “What food
purchasing behaviors do food pantry clients use when grocery shopping for food, and
how does this relate to what pantry clients receive from the food pantry?” Results of
particular interest were pantry clients’ knowledge barriers to food preparation, shopping
trip strategies used, and perceptions of pantry foods offered.
77
Shopping trip strategies. One of the overriding themes that developed in the
focus groups was that using shopping strategies that minimized food costs, such as using
shopping lists, or shopping during convenient times, was especially important. This result
was comparable to other studies (Dibsadall, Lambert, Bobbin, & Frewer, 2002; Shriver,
Hildebrand, & Austin, 2010). However, Dibsadall et al. (2002) reported that even though
75% of the low-income adults surveyed thought the prices of fresh fruit and vegetables
were reasonable, more than 50% of surveyed low-income adults stated that buying more
fresh produce than what was currently purchased was out of reach. Current findings of
this study indicated that pantry clients felt that shopping in bulk, and only a few times a
month, made food-shopping costs more affordable. Many food pantry clients in the
current study also indicated in the focus groups that grocery shopping was completed
during times when monthly income from either food stamps, or disability was received.
In addition, this study found that fruit and vegetable consumption was lower than the
recommended intake, indicating that these items were not convenient to purchase due to
the travel time needed to always replace. To support this statement, Shriver et al., (2010)
found that fruit and vegetable purchases were limited due to the time, and number of trips
needed to get these items, since fruits and vegetables need to be purchased every few
days in order to stay fresh. One study documented how low-income populations believe
that food stamps should be based on growth spurts and appetites of their children not just
household size so enough healthy food could be purchased for the whole family (Wiig &
Smith, 2008).
Perceptions of pantry foods offered. Using the food pantry was considered to be
a supplement of grocery purchases that allowed the purchase of additional items normally
78
not on a shopping list. Other studies have indicated that the use of “choice food pantries,”
or giving pantry clients the freedom to choose what items to take home, is preferred more
over the traditional method of given food pre-packaged for clients (Remly, Zubieta,
Lambea, Quinonez, & Taylor, 2010). This is also a method used at Stepping Stones Food
Pantry. Focus group findings indicated that choice food pantries were perceived by
clients to have less waste and provided culturally appropriate foods (Remly et al., 2010).
Pantry clients of Stepping Stones indicated on several occasions that the pantry was a
supplement to overall monthly food needs, and these supplement foods allowed pantry
clients to purchase items at the store that were not normally on a shopping list.
Although there are benefits of the choice food pantry, not understanding
nutritional concepts, not offering enough food, and having inconsistent food items
available can be limitations (Remly et al., 2010). These findings support the results found
in the current study. Pantry clients perceived that some of the food felt like hand-me-
downs. More of a concern, a knowledge barrier seemed to exist for knowing how to
prepare some of items taken from the pantry. Of particular distress was the powered milk
and dry beans. Many clients were taking these items home, but not using the food due to
lack of knowledge of cooking procedures. Other research found that food pantries were
consistently short in energy-dense, ready-to-serve meals, and volunteers would observe a
great demand for minimal preparation meals, such as soups, and pork-and-beans
(Companion, 2010).
Therefore, conclusions can be made that pantry clients want to receive foods from
a food pantry that are convenient, are based on family preferences, and can be used in the
home with the client’s current knowledge. Although pantry clients may not perceive that
79
Stepping Stones Food Pantry provides for all food preferences, clientele are still
benefiting from the program, since it does help to reduce the overall money spent on food
per month.
Conclusions: Vehicle Access and Food Purchases
The third questions this this research sought to answer was “How does having
access to a reliable vehicle influence food pantry participants’ specific food group
purchases at grocery stores?” Results of particular interest to vehicle access and food
purchases were related to findings regarding how access to a vehicle, or no vehicle,
relates to food purchase site, and the coping methods for not having transportation.
Vehicle access and purchase site. In light of the survey findings, no dramatically
different values were found between those who had access to a vehicle than those who
did not have access as to where foods were purchased. Similar results were found by
other studies in rural areas (Bitto, Morton, Oakland & Sand, 2003). The current findings
of this study determined that the majority of fresh fruit and vegetables, grains, and dairy
products were obtained from groceries stores, while the majority of canned and frozen
fruits and vegetables were obtained from the food pantry. Results of another rural study
by Garasky et al. (2006) indicated that 90% of the 562 survey respondents did not have
transportation problems preventing them from getting to a store. This result could
indicate that participants of the current study did not have trouble getting to a grocery
store, even if transportation was limited. This conclusion can be supported by other
research. Dibsadall et al. (2002) found that of the 45% of survey respondents who stated
that they had no access to a car, 71% of those survey respondents indicated getting to a
local supermarket was easy.
80
Senior focus group participants in the current study stated that traveling with
others to obtain groceries would be utilized. The study by Shergold, Parkhurst, and
Musselwhite (2012) also found results supporting a sense of community among older
adults and transportation. Having access to a car meant willingness to help other older
adults who did not have transportation (Shergold et al., 2012).
However, when no transportation was available, the current study indicated that
food pantry clients would walk to the store in order to obtain needed food. Many of the
parent focus group participants indicated taking the child’s stroller, placing food
underneath the child, or having the children carry bags home when needing to walk to the
store. The process of walking to the grocery store to obtain food can significantly
decrease the amount of food brought into the home, since only so many bags of groceries
can be carried at a time by any one person or child. During the focus groups, one pantry
member had an extraordinary case where no current access to a vehicle was available,
which negatively impacted the amount of food that could be brought into the home at a
given time. Many of the other clients revealed stories about past transportation problems;
however, since Menomonie just began a bus route through the UW-Stout campus and
popular town designations, such as grocery stores, this client’s story reveals
transportation issues that have recently developed since the implementation of this bus
route. In this participant’s story, traveling by bus was very inconvenient. As this person
states “Sometimes you have to wait an hour, two hours, when you’re done shopping to
get picked up again.” Due to transportation problems, this client was forced to grocery
shop once a week in order to have enough food in the house to feed the family. However,
Menomonie’s bus transit does not run on the weekends, which caused food shortage
81
problems during the weekend on occasion. Although this client did say walking to a
grocery store could be done, it was to a much more expensive store, and therefore, this
option was rarely used.
Based on these findings, it can be concluded that in rural communities,
transportation access to food purchase sites may not be a large factor for the senior focus
group participants, since they have a sense of community with other seniors. This does
not go to say that transportation is not an issue in this rural community, but by traveling
with others, the differences between food purchase site of those with and without access
to a reliable transportation were not overwhelming except perhaps for some parents with
children.
Conclusions: Transportation Costs and Food Attainment
The fourth question this research sought to answer was “Do travel costs to
grocery stores affect the frequency of grocery shopping by food pantry clients?” Results
of particular interest related to pantry participant’s travel distances to grocery stores, and
perceptions of the cost of foods.
Travel distances. A significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was found between single
and married parents on the distances traveled to grocery stores. Married parents were
found to travel on average 13.2 miles, while single parents were found to travel on
average 8.25 miles to grocery stores. This could indicate that married parents were more
food insecure than single parents, since traveling and gas prices may more be of concern
(Bartfeld et al., 2010). Also the statement “I need to budget for gas in order to go grocery
shopping” was strongly agreed with by 44.8% of survey respondents in the current study,
and 50% of survey respondents strongly agreed that the cost of transportation influenced
82
food purchases. This result could also indicate some reasons why other groups of pantry
clients did not have significant differences in travel time to grocery stores. Findings from
other research studies support this statement, denoting that those who live in smaller
towns tend to shop within the community more than urban counterparts (Bitto et al.,
2003).
Conversely, 31.6% of survey respondents strongly agreed that they would travel
further to grocery stores that had lower food prices. Results of a study conducted by
Bartfeld et al. (2010) indicated that living more than 15 miles from a grocery store
significantly increased the probability of being food insecure by 67%, but living closer to
grocery stores was not. These results are contradictive to each other, indicating that travel
distance to grocery stores may not be representative of other research. However, travel
distances to cheaper stores could be due to traveling further due to the place of
employment (Bitto et al., 2003). Focus group participants indicated on various occasions
that going grocery shopping before or after a work shift was convenient, so perhaps those
that worked further away were those that went grocery shopping at farther distances from
home. Also, focus group participants did state that traveling with others to help alleviate
costs of travel was utilized, which could help to explain why some survey respondents
stated traveling to more distance grocery stores that had lower prices. It is important to
note that the percentage of food pantry clients who would drive further to grocery stores
with cheaper food was not the majority, indicating a need for food assistance for the
majority of pantry clients.
83
Recommendations
Based upon this current study’s findings, and other peer-reviewed research, some
recommendations can be made for improving the diet adequacy and transportation issues
for pantry clients. Pantry clients appeared to have a knowledge barrier for knowing how
to prepare or use some of the pantry items received. The three recommendations
suggested from this research are listed below:
1. Nutrition education by use of recipes, or cooking tips, should be included on
pantry items that are not culturally appropriate or common to the pantry clients
served by Stepping Stones Food Pantry. Increased attention should be made to
ensure education and recipes provided to pantry participants are appropriate for
limited grocery budgets and are suitable to educate on the use of these items at
home.
2. Educating pantry clients on the benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption may
also help to improve dietary intakes. Providing handouts or signs illustrating the
benefits of fruits and vegetables may increase awareness.
3. Since time constraints seems to be large problem for parents who use the food
pantries, assessing the times of pantry hours could determine if the pantry times
are convenient for the majority of pantry users might eliminate this constraint.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research is recommended to explore food pantry participants’
transportation barriers for accessing food in rural communities. Pantry clients indicated
that the need to budget for food purchases was important; however, others indicated that
they were willing to travel further in order to obtain lower-priced foods. Exploring the
84
cost factors associated with transportation travel and grocery purchases needs to be
conducted with larger populations with food pantry clients, which could result in broader
generalizations to the total population of food pantry clients.
85
References
Akobundu, U. O., Cohen, N. L., Laus, M. J., Schulte, M. J., & Soussloff, M. N. (2004).
Vitamins A and C, calcium, fruit, and dairy products are limited in food pantries.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104(5), 811-813.
Anderson, S. A. (1990). Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample
populations. Journal of Nutrition, 120 (suppl 11), 1559-1600.
Bartfeld, J. S., Ryu, J., & Wang, L. (2010). Local characteristics are linked to insecurity
among households with elementary school children. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 5(4), 471-483. doi: 10.1080/19320448.2010.527278
Bitto, E. A., Morton, L. W., Oakland, M. J., & Sand, M. (2003). Journal for the Study of
Food and Sociology, 6(2), 35-48.
Biggerstaff, M. A., McGrath-Morris, P., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (2002). Living on the
edge: Examination of people attending food pantries and soup kitchens. Social
Work, 47(3), 267-277.
Campbell, E., Hudson, H., Webb, K., & Crawford, P. B. (2011). Food preferences of
users of the emergency food system. Journal of Hunger & Environmental
Nutrition, 6(2), 179-187.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). State-specific trends in fruit and
vegetable consumption among adults–United States, 2000-2009. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 59(35), 1125-1130. Retrieved from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a1.htm
86
Cohen, N. L., Stoddard, A. M., Sarouhkhanians, S., & Sorensen, A. G. (1998). Barriers
toward fruit and vegetable consumption in a multiethnic worksite population.
The Journal of Nutrition Education, 30(6), 381-386.
Companion, M. (2010). Constriction in the variety of urban pantry donations by private
individuals. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(5), 633-646.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00511x
Dibsadall, L.A., Lambert, N., Bobbin, R. F., & Frewer, L. J. (2002). Low-income
consumers’ attitudes and behaviors towards access, availability and motivation to
eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutrition, 6(2), 159-168. doi:
10.1079/PHN202412
Dixon, L. B., Winkleby, M. A., & Radimer, K. L. (2001). Dietary intakes and serum
nutrients differ between adults from food-insufficient and food-sufficient families:
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, 1988-1994. Journal of
Nutrition, 131, 1232-1246.
Elborn, S. M., Johnson, M. A., & Fischer, J. G. (1998). Milk consumption in older
Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 1221-1224.
Feed My People (2010a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.fmpfoodbank.org/
Feed My People (2010b). Who’s hungry. Retrieved from: http://www.fmpfoodbank.org/
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. (2012). WIC income eligibility guidelines 2011-
2012. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/
incomeguidelines.htm
87
Garasky, S., Fletcher, C. N., &. Jenson, H. H. (2006). Transitioning to work: The role of
private transportation for low-income households. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 40(1), 64–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00046.x
Garasky, S., Morton, L. W., & Greder, K. A. (2006). The effects of the local food
environment and social support on rural food insecurity. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 1(1), 83-103. doi:10.1300/J477v01n01_06
Garasky, S., Morton, L. W., & Greder, K. (2004). The food environment and food
insecurity: Perceptions of rural, suburban, and urban food pantry clients in Iowa.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 16(2), 41-48.
Gibbs, R., Kusmin, L., & Cromartie, J. (2005). Low-skill employment and the changing
economy of rural America. Economic Research Report (EER-10). Retrieved
from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err10/
Harris, J. E., Gleason, P. M., Boushey, C., Beto, J. A., & Bruemmer, B. (2009). An
introduction to qualitative research for food and nutrition professionals. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association, 109(1), 80-90.
Hendrickson, D., Smith, C., & Eikenberry, N. (2006). Fruit and vegetable access in four
low-income food desert communities in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human
Values, 23(3), 371-83
Hoisington, A., Shultz, J. A., & Butkus, S. (2002). Coping strategies and nutrition
education needs among food pantry users. Journal of Nutrition Education &
Behavior, 34(6), 326-333.
88
Hunger in America. (2001). Hunger study 2010. Retrieved from
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-
2010.aspx
Jilcot, S. B., Moore, J. B., Wall-Bassett, E. D., Liu, H., & Saelens, B. E. (2011).
Associations between travel times and food procurement practices among female
supplement assistance program participants in eastern North Carolina. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(5), 385-389.
Keller, H. H., Dwyer, J. J., Senson, C., Edwards, V., & Edward, G. (2006). A social
ecological perspective of the influential factors for food access described by low-
income seniors. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(3), 27-44.
doi:10.1300/J477v01n03_03
Kendall, A., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A. (1996). Relationship of hunger and food
insecurity to food availability and consumption. Journal of American Dietetic
Association, 96, 1019-1024.
Lee, J. S., & Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Nutritional and health consequences are associated
with food insecurity among U.S. elderly persons. Journal of Nutrition, 131, 1503-
1509.
Leibtag, E. S., & Kaufman, P. R. (2003). Exploring food purchase behavior of low-
income households: How do they economize? Agriculture Information Bulletin
747(7). Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB747/aib74707.pdf
Mabli, J., Cohen, R., Potter, F., & Zhao, Z. (2010). Hunger in America 2010: National
report prepared for feeding America. Retrieved from: http://feedingamerica.org/
hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-2010.aspx.
89
Monsivais, P., & Drewnowski, A. (2007). The rising cost of low-energy-density food,
Journal of American Dietetic Association 107, 2071-2076.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010). Fact sheet: Rural homelessness.
Retrieved from www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1613
Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2008). Household food security in the United
States. USDA, Economic research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err83/err83.pdf.
Nord, M., & Coleman-Jenson, A. (2011). Food security in the United States: Definitions
of hunger and food security. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity/labels.htm
Nord, M., Coleman-Jensen, A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2010). Household food
security in the United States, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Report. ERR-108. Retrieved from ers.usda.gov/publications
Otten, J. J., Pitzi, J., & Meyers, L. D. (2006). Dietary reference intakes: The essential
guide to nutrient requirements. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Remly, D. T., Zubieta, A. C., Lambea, M. C., Quinonez, H. M., & Taylor, C. (2010).
Spanish- and English-speaking client perceptions of choice food pantries. Journal
of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 5(1), 120-128.
doi:10.1080//19320240903574387
Rochester, J. S., Nanney, M. S., & Story, M. (2011). Assessing foodshelves’ ability to
distribute healthy foods to foodshelf clients. Journal of Hunger and
Environmental Nutrition, 6(1), 10-26.
90
Ruel, M. T., Garrett, J. L., Hawkes, C., & Cohen, M. J. (2010). The food, fuel, and
financial crises affect the urban and rural poor disproportionately: A review of
the evidence. The Journal of Nutrition, 140, 170S–176S.
doi:10.3945/jn.109.110791
Second Harvest Foodbank (n.d.). FAQs. Retrieved from: http://www.secondharvest
madison.org/aboutus/faqs.aspx
Seligman, H. K., Laraia, B. A. & Kushel, M. B. (2010). Food insecurity is associated
with chronic disease among low-income NHANES participants. Journal Nutrition
140(2), 304-310. doi: 10.3945/jn.109.112573.
Shergold, L., Parkhurst, G., & Musselwhite, C. (2012). Rural car dependence: An
emerging barrier to community activity for older people. Transportation Planning
and Technology, 35(1), 69-85. doi:10.1080/03081060.2012.635417
Shriver, L. H., Hildebrand, D., & Austin, H. (2010). Determinants of fruit and vegetable
availability in Hispanic head start families with preschool-aged children living in
an urban midwestern area. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(5).
299-306.
Smith, D. M., Cummins, S., Taylor, M., Dawson, J., Marshall, D., Sparks, L., &
Anderson, A. S. (2010). Neighbourhood food environment and area deprivation:
Spatial accessibility to grocery stores selling fresh fruit and vegetables in urban
and rural settings. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(1), 277–284.
doi:10.1093/ije/dyp221
91
Smith, C. & Morton, L. W. (2009). Rural food deserts: Low-income perspectives on food
access in Minnesota and Iowa. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,
41(3), 176-187.
Starkey, L. J., Gray-Donald, K., & Kuhnlein, H. V. (1999). Nutrient intake of food bank
users is related to frequent use, household size, smoking education and country
of birth. Journal of Nutrition, 129. 883–889.
Stepping Stones (2011). Food pantry. Retrieved from
http://steppingstonesdc.org/foodpantry.html
Tarasuk, V. S., & Beaton, G. H. (1999). Women’s dietary intakes in the context of
household food insecurity. Journal Nutrition, 129(2S Suppl), S521-524.
Tarasuk, V., Mclntyre, L., & Li, J. (2007). Low-income women’s dietary intakes are
sensitive to the depletion of household resources in one month. Journal of
Nutrition, 137(8), 1980-1897.
U.S. Census Bureau (2010a). Definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html
U.S. Census Bureau (2010b). Small area income and poverty estimates. Retrieved from
www.census.gov/cgibin/saipe/saipe.cgi.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010c). State and county quickfacts: Dunn County, Wisconsin.
Retrieved from quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/55033.html
USDA (2012a). Dietary guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.choosemyplate.gov/
dietary-guidelines.html
USDA (2012b). Choose a food group. Retrieved from http://www.choosemyplate.
gov/food- groups/
92
USDA (2012c). About SNAP. Retrieved from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap.htm
USDA. (2012d). Analysis and forecast of the CPI for food. Retrieved from http://www.
ers.usda.gov/briefing/cpifoodandexpenditures/consumerpriceindex.htm
USDA (2012e). National school lunch program. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/
USDA (2011). USDA press release. Retrieved from http://www.cnpp.usda.
gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm
USDA (2010a). About WIC. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/
USDA (2010b). Dietary guidelines for America [PDF]. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm
Vozoris, N. T., & Tarasuk, V. S. (2003). Household food insufficiency is associated with
poorer health. Journal of Nutrition, 133, 120-126.
Webber, C. B., Sobal, J., & Dollahite, J. S. (2010). Shopping for fruits and vegetables.
Food and retail qualities of importance to low-income households at the grocery
store. Appetite, 54(2), 297-303.
Wiig, K, & Smith, C. (2008). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget: Factors
influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try to make ends
meet. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 1726-1734.
doi: 10.1017/S1368980008004102
Wood, D. K., Shultz, J. A., Butkus, S. N., & Ballejos, M. E. (2009). Patterns of food
coping strategies among food pantry clients. Journal of Hunger & Environmental
Nutrition, 4(2), 185-202.
93
Ziliak, J., & Gundersen, C. (2009). Senior hunger in the United States: Differences
across states and rural and urban areas. University of Kentucky Center for Poverty
Research Special Reports. Retrieved from http://www.ukcpr.org/
Publications/seniorhungerfollowup.pdf
94
Appendix A: Approval by the UW-Stout Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the
Protection of Human Subjects October 12, 2011
Krysta Butkus
Food and Nutrition Department
UW-Stout
Title: “Food pantry participants' perceptions of how transportation and pantry use influence food
purchases”
Subject: Protection of Human Subjects
Dear Krysta,
In accordance with Federal Regulations, your project, “Food pantry participants' perceptions of how
transportation and pantry use influence food purchases” was reviewed on October 12, 2011, by a member
of the Institutional Review Board and was approved under Expedited Review through October 11, 2012.
If your project involves administration of a survey or interview, please copy and paste the following
message to the top of your survey/interview form before dissemination:
If you are conducting an online survey/interview, please copy and paste the following message to the top of
the form:
“This research has been approved by the UW-Stout IRB as required by the Code of Federal
regulations Title 45 Part 46.”
Responsibilities for Principal Investigators of IRB-approved research:
1. No subjects may be involved in any study procedure prior to the IRB approval date or after the
expiration date. (Principal Investigators and Sponsors are responsible for initiating Continuing
Review proceedings.)
2. All unanticipated or serious adverse events must be reported to the IRB.
3. All protocol modifications must be IRB approved prior to implementation, unless they are
intended to reduce risk.
4. All protocol deviations must be reported to the IRB.
5. All recruitment materials and methods must be approved by the IRB prior to being used.
6. Federal regulations require IRB review of ongoing projects on an annual basis.
Thank you for your cooperation with the IRB and best wishes with your project.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the IRB office
at 715-232-1126 or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
Susan Foxwell
Research Administrator and Human Protections Administrator,
UW-Stout Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB)
95
*NOTE: This is the only notice you will receive – no paper copy will be sent
Appendix B: Consent Forms for the Focus Group and the Consent Forms for the
Additional Participants Surveyed
Consent Form for Focus Groups
Title: Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use
influences food purchases.
Description:
The study aims to determine how transportation costs are related to the food purchases
made by food pantry participants residing in Dunn County, Wisconsin. This study also
aims to determine how the foods obtained from food pantries influence food purchases
made by pantry participants. A final aim of this study is to determine pantry participant’s
food intake, and of what quality foods from each food group are consumed.
Risks and Benefits:
There are no serious risks involved with this study. Some sensitive questions may be
asked such as marital status, describing past food purchases, and how transportation
affected your food purchases. The benefits of this study include receiving a fruit and
vegetable basket upon completing the focus group session and survey, as well as on-site
day care for children, if needed, and refreshments during the session. In addition,
participants in the study will provide the food pantry with information on how to better
serve food pantry participants.
Minors:
If you are under the age of 18 years, you are not eligible to participate in this study.
Time Commitment:
The time commitment for this study is approximately two minutes to complete a short 15-
question survey and a focus group session. No additional requirements are needed from
you upon the completion of the survey and focus group session.
Confidentiality:
Your name, or any other identifying information, will not be included on any survey.
Focus group sessions will be tape-recorded, however, only the researcher will have
access to the tape-recording. All identifying information revealed on the tape-recording
will be removed. We do not believe that you can be identified from any of the
information provided to us.
Right to Withdraw:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate
without any adverse consequences to you. You have the right to stop the survey, refuse to
answer any question on the survey or focus group, or leave the focus group at any time.
However, should you choose to participate and later wish to withdraw from the study,
once the survey and focus group session have been completed, there is no way to identify
96
your anonymous document or information in the tape-recording after it has been turned
into the investigator.
IRB Approval:
This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's
Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the
ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions
or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have
any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please
contact the IRB Administrator.
Investigator: Krysta Butkus
715-892-1052
Advisor: Carol Seaborn
715-232-2216
IRB Administrator
Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services
152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg.
UW-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
715-232-2477
Statement of Consent:
By completing the following survey and focus group session, you agree to participate in
the project entitled, Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and
pantry use influences food purchases.
97
97
Consent Form for Additional Pantry Participants Surveyed
Consent to Participate in UW-Stout Approved Research
Title: Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use
influences food purchases.
Description:
The study aims to determine how transportation costs are related to the food purchases
made by food pantry participants residing in Dunn County, Wisconsin. This study also
aims to determine how the foods obtained from food pantries influence food purchases
made by pantry participants. A final aim of this study is to determine pantry participant’s
food intake, and of what quality foods from each food group are consumed.
Risks and Benefits:
There are no serious risks involved with this study. Some sensitive questions may be
asked such as marital status, and how transportation affected your food purchases. The
benefits of this study include providing the food pantry with information on how to better
serve food pantry participants.
Minors:
If you are under the age of 18 years, you are not eligible to participate in this study.
Time Commitment:
The time commitment for this study is approximately 10 minutes to complete a short 12-
question survey. No additional requirements are needed from you upon the completion of
the survey.
Confidentiality:
Your name, or any other identifying information, will not be included on any survey. We
do not believe that you can be identified from any of the information provided to us.
Right to Withdraw:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate
without any adverse consequences to you. You have the right to stop the survey, or refuse
to answer any question on the survey at any time. However, should you choose to
participate and later wish to withdraw from the study, once the survey has been
completed, there is no way to identify your anonymous document after it has been turned
into the investigator.
IRB Approval:
This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's
Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the
ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions
or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have
98
98
any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please
contact the IRB Administrator.
Investigator: Krysta Butkus
715-892-1052
Advisor: Carol Seaborn
715-232-2216
IRB Administrator
Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services
152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg.
UW-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
715-232-2477
Statement of Consent:
By completing the following survey, you agree to participate in the project entitled, Food
pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use influences
food purchases.
99
99
Appendix C: Survey Questions
Food pantry participants’ perceptions of how transportation and pantry use influences food purchases
Please complete this survey as accurately as possible. Do not include your name or any identifying information.
Completion of this survey indicates your willingness to participate in this research study.
Please circle the most accurate response for the following questions.
1. I am satisfied with the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables I receive at food pantries.
Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree
2. I am satisfied with the quality of food I receive from food pantries.
Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree
3. How many miles do you travel to get to the grocery store you shop at most frequently? _____ miles
Please tell us about your transportation access to grocery stores. Mark one box for each question.
4. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements.
Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The cost of transportation to grocery
stores can influence the amount of food
purchases I am able to make.
I choose to travel to grocery stores that
are further from where I live, most of the
time, because prices are lower.
The cost of travel DOES influence where
I go shopping for food most of the time.
The cost of travel DOES NOT influence
where I go shopping for food most of the
time.
I need to budget for gas to drive to get
groceries.
I have chosen not to go grocery
shopping, because of the cost it takes to
travel there.
I have access to a reliable vehicle all of
the time.
Transportation problems have kept me
from going somewhere to obtain food
more than once a month.
I have needed to ask someone I don’t live
with to help with transportation to get
food.
5. The foods I receive from food pantries influence what I will buy at grocery stores: [ ]YES [ ]NO
5a. If YES, what purchases were made that were influenced by items received at the food pantry?
Mark all that apply.
[ ] Fruits [ ] Grain products
[ ] Meat products [ ] Dairy products [ ] Other _____________________
[ ] Vegetables
100
100
5b. If NO, please provide a brief statement of why below.
6. The foods I receive from food pantries provide my family and I with a balanced diet. [ ]YES [ ]NO
6a. If NO, please provide a brief statement of why below:
Please tell us about your recent consumption of the following foods. Mark one box for each question.
7. In the last 7 days, how many times during the day have you consumed each of the following?
Never Once Twice Three
Times
Four or
More
Green vegetables (ex. leafy greens)
Canned vegetables
Frozen vegetables
Starchy vegetables (ex. potatoes)
Fresh fruit
Canned fruits
Frozen fruit
Refined grains (white bread)
Enriched grains (wheat bread)
Dairy products
Please tell us about where you obtain each of the following foods. Mark one box for each question.
8. In the past month, where did you obtain the majority of each of the following foods?
Grocery
Store
Food
Pantry
Convenience
Store
Home
Garden
Family or
Friend
Fresh vegetables
Canned vegetables
Frozen vegetables
Fresh fruit
Canned fruit
Frozen fruit
Refined grains (white bread)
Enriched grains (wheat bread)
Dairy products
Please tell us a little about yourself.
9. Are you: [ ] Male [ ] Female
10. How old are you? ______
11. Are you: [ ] Married [ ] Single [ ] Divorced
12. How many children between the ages of under the age of 18 live in your home? _____children
13. Are you currently employed? YES [ ] NO [ ]
13a. If yes, are you employed [ ] Full Time [ ] Part Time [ ] Other
14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
[ ] Less than high school diploma
[ ] High school diploma or GED
[ ] Some college, no degree
[ ] 2 year degree (Associate’s)
101
101
[ ] 4 year degree (Bachelor’s) or higher
102
102
Appendix D: Focus Group Questions
Opening
Tell us your first name and what your favorite food is.
Introduction
Describe to us what you feel are the most important foods to have adequate
amounts of.
Transition
When you think of a food pantry, what comes to mind?
Key Questions
Objective: How does the food that pantries distribute influence the food purchases pantry
participants make at grocery stores.
Think back to the last time you went grocery shopping for food; tell us how the
food you received from food pantries influence the food purchases you make at
grocery stores?
o Think about if you gather more grains at the food pantry, how will that
affect what you buy at a store
Objective: What food purchasing behaviors do food pantry participants use when
grocery shopping for food
Besides how the food pantry influences the food purchases you make, how do you
determine what your other food purchases will be?
Objective: Are healthy nutritious foods at grocery stores affordable for food pantry
participants to buy
When you think of affordable food, what comes to mind?
How do you feel about the cost of fresh nutritious food when it comes to
purchasing them?
Objective: Does food pantry foods limit the consumption of any food groups for pantry
participants
How do you feel the food pantry does in providing a balanced diet? A balanced
diet includes all five food groups: vegetables, grains, fruits, meat and dairy.
Transition:
The next part of our discussion will cover how transportation affects food purchases.
When you think of adequate transportation, what comes to mind?
Objective: How transportation influences food pantry participants’ food purchases at
grocery stores.
103
103
Describe or share a story to us if you have had a problem with accessing
transportation to get food.
o What was the outcome of the transportation problem? Did you go without
getting food, just use what you had at home…ect. How did you get to the
store (did you drive, or someone else?)
Objective: Does the cost of travel to grocery stores affect where and when food pantry
participants in rural communities purchase food?
Describe to us where you purchase your groceries, and why you chose that
location.
o How far from your home is the location to where you go grocery
shopping?
How has the time/expense to travel and get groceries influenced how much and
how often you go grocery shopping?
o Do you always drive, or do others? Do you split the cost of groceries?
Because of what has been shared, do you feel like you are able to go grocery
shopping as much as you need to?
Ending:
Of the topics we discussed, which one is the most important to you?
Probing questions if ideas are not getting out
Who else has some thoughts about this? –Maybe something a little different
What else have people experienced?
You’ve been discussing several different ideas; what haven’t we heard yet
Remember, we want to hear all your opinions; who has something else?
104
104
Appendix E: Agreement or Disagreement to Nine Survey Items Related to
Transportation, Transportation Costs, Reliable Vehicle Access, Travel Distances,
and Difficulties with Transportation
Fre
qu
ency
of
Res
po
nse
s o
n B
arr
iers
to
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
to
gro
cery
Sto
res
Fre
qu
ency
rep
ort
ed a
s n
, p
aren
thes
es i
nd
icat
e p
erce
nt
(%)
S
tro
ng
ly
Ag
ree
30
(50
.8)a
19
(31
.6)
25
(42
.4)
8 (
14.0
)
26
(44
.8)
2 (
3.5
)
25
(42
.4)
14
(23
.7)
14
(23
.7)
Mo
der
atel
y
Ag
ree
15
(25
.4)
18
(30
.0)
17
(28
.8)
10
(17
.5)
18
(31
.0)
8 (
14.3
)
17
(28
.8)
16
(27
.1)
12
(20
.3)
Nei
ther
Ag
ree
no
r
Dis
agre
e
10
(16
.9)
12
(20
.0)
11
(18
.6)
15
(26
.3)
10
(17
.2)
22
(39
.3)
5 (
8.5
)
9 (
15.3
)
11
(18
.6)
Mo
der
atel
y
Dis
agre
e
3 (
5.1
)
6 (
10.0
)
2 (
3.4
)
9 (
15.8
)
2 (
3.4
)
6 (
10.7
)
7 (
11.9
)
5 (
8.5
)
7 (
11.9
)
Str
ong
ly
Dis
agre
e
1 (
1.7
)
5 (
8.3
)
4 (
6.8
)
15
(26
.3)
2 (
3.4
)
18
(32
.1)
5 (
8.5
)
15
(25
.4)
15
(25
.4)
105
105
Res
ponse
s
The
cost
of
tran
spo
rtat
ion
to
gro
cery
sto
res
can
infl
uen
ce t
he
amo
un
t of
food
pu
rch
ases
I a
m a
ble
to
mak
e.
I ch
oose
to
tra
vel
to
gro
cery
sto
res
that
are
fu
rth
er f
rom
wher
e I
live,
most
of
the
tim
e, b
ecau
se p
rice
s ar
e lo
wer
.
The
cost
of
trav
el D
OE
S i
nfl
uen
ce w
her
e I
go
sh
op
pin
g
for
food m
ost
of
the
tim
e.
The
cost
of
trav
el D
OE
S N
OT
infl
uen
ce w
her
e I
go
shoppin
g f
or
foo
d m
ost
of
the
tim
e.
I nee
d t
o b
ud
get
fo
r gas
to
dri
ve t
o g
et g
roce
ries
.
I hav
e ch
ose
n n
ot
to g
o g
roce
ry s
ho
ppin
g,
bec
ause
of
the
cost
it
tak
es t
o t
rav
el t
her
e.
I hav
e ac
cess
to
a r
elia
ble
veh
icle
all
of
the
tim
e.
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n p
roble
ms
hav
e k
ept
me
from
goin
g
som
ewher
e to
ob
tain
fo
od
mo
re t
han
once
a m
onth
.
I hav
e nee
ded
to
ask
som
eon
e I
don
’t l
ive
wit
h t
o h
elp
wit
h t
ransp
ort
atio
n t
o g
et f
oo
d.