A Policy Feedback Theory Approach to Food
Assistance Program Distribution Mechanisms
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Hunger continues to spread around the world. In the United States, hunger is also
a growing concern (Libal, Tomczak, Spath, & Harding, 2014), but food assistance
programs work to prevent hunger for low-income individuals and families (Daponte,
Hailand, & Kadane, 2004). Adding up to 80 billion dollars a year, there are an estimated
47 million people in the United States receiving food assistance. The Food Assistance
Program, originally known as food stamps, is funded under the Food Stamp Act of 1964
by the federal government but is administered by states (U.S. Department of Agriculture
[USDA], 2016). Although some states use the new name Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program (SNAP), states in the Great Lakes region of the United States still
use the original name Food Assistance Program to refer to their programs. For this study,
the SNAP will be referred to as the Food Assistance Program.
The Food Assistance Program was originally designed to feed the no income poor;
however, it was later used to supplement the food needs of low-income working residents
under the income poverty threshold (benefits.gov, n. d.). It is federally funded but
administered at the state level. The Food Assistance Program is designed to supplement
the food needs of working adults and families; however, income, assets, and allowable
expenses determine how much benefits they can receive. Regardless of how little the
household income is, there is a benefit maximum based on the group size. Furthermore,
there are work requirements that can limit or disqualify certain adults from benefits.
Currently, a household of a single person with no income can receive a maximum of $194
a month. This benefit distributes to less than $6 per day for food; the amount decreases
per person with more individuals in the group. Inflation and the rising cost of food
consume most of this daily allowance.
Based on the limits of the Food Assistance Program, there is a need to increase
benefits per person to prevent hunger, reduce food insecurity, meet daily nutritional
values, and help individuals eventually achieve self-sufficiency. Currently, the Food
Assistance Program reduces some food insecurity only with other food programs and
some income (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014). Additionally, policy changes are affecting
households with no income, which includes shifting the program focus from feeding the
poor to supplementing the food needs of working low-income families and work
requirements (Gassman-Pines & Hill, 2013). However, there has been a general attempt
to change policy or reevaluate the formula to determine the benefits of the program could
protect additional families from hunger (Gunderson, 2015).
Despite previous research, there is little known about the Food Assistance
Program’s distribution mechanisms and its ability to provide food assistance for families
with no income and access to alternative food sources. This was the gap that I sought to
address with this study. I applied a qualitative case study approach to collect accounts of
the Food Assistance Program in a county with greater than expected levels of poverty in
the Great Lakes region of the United States. I used research questions and a survey
protocol to analyze survey data. The analysis was shaped by the survey questions in the
context of policy feedback theory (PFT). This chapter includes the study background,
problem statement, purpose, social implications, research questions, theoretical
framework, nature of study and assumptions made in the study. The theoretical
foundations served as a guide to understanding the distribution mechanisms are discussed
further in Chapter 2.
Background of the Problem
Hunger has been an issue in the United States for decades. During the Great
Depression, food assistance programs were created to help prevent hunger for lowincome
individuals and families in the United States (Daponte et al., 2004). Since then, the
number of families receiving help from the Food Assistance Program has increased,
especially where foreclosures and unemployment have been high, which creates
implications for the policy on the Food Assistance Program (Slack & Myers, 2014).
Despite some suggesting that the issue of hunger has been resolved, the evidence from
the literature shows hunger is becoming more prevalent in the United States.
It is estimated 925 million people around the world are experiencing food
insecurity (Kozak et al., 2012) and 41 million are struggling in the United States (Feeding
America, 2017). Over 20% of families in the United States are still experiencing unmet
food needs and food insecurity (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2005). Access to federal food
assistance programs is not enough, as hunger and food insecurity continue to increase in
the United States (Fishbein, 2016). Additionally, only 59% are participating in the Food
Assistance Program (Feeding America, 2017).
In addition to research on the issue of food insecurity, there has been substantial
research on food assistance programs and their ability to reduce food insecurity in the
United States (Klerman & Danielson, 2011; Libal et al., 2014; Slack & Myers, 2014). For
example, focusing on different aspects and effects of food security in the United States,
Huffman and Jensen (2008) examined the Food Assistance Program’s ability to meet
basic food needs and increase food security. Likewise, Whitley’s (2013) tested food
security for rural households according to their social integration and social capital.
Echoing this sentiment, Nguyen, Shuval, Bertmann, and Yaroch (2015) examined the
relationship of the Food Assistance Program among food insecurity, diet quality, and
obesity with adults in the United States. Most of the conclusions from research indicate
that the Food Assistance Program reduces food insecurity only when combined with
additional programs and food sources such as food pantries and soup kitchens.
Statement of the Problem
Policy changes over the years, including changes in the Food Assistance
Program’s focus from the poor to low-income working families and work requirements,
have impacted households with little to no income (Gassman-Pines & Hill, 2013). There
have been general attempts to change the policy or to reevaluate the formula used to
determine the benefits of these programs (Gundersen, 2015). However, these attempts
have not met the food security needs of individuals who are with little to no income and
access to alternative food sources. This gap has raised concern about the aptness of
distribution mechanisms of the Food Assistance Program in providing food assistance to
families under these conditions.
One of the issues with the Food Assistance Program is that there is little known its
distribution mechanisms. Originally, the Food Assistance Program was intended to help
feed families with no income. Then there was a shift to social safety programs such as the
Food Assistance Program providing food for families under the federal poverty level.
With the greater participation of families on food assistance and the focus of these
programs changing to providing for low-income families, it left no income families
hungry.
There has been extensive research on the Food Assistance Program; however,
much of the research has been focused on the ability of the Food Assistance Program to
reduce food insecurity combined with other food programs and limited income
(Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014). For example, Oberholser and Tuttle (2004) argued that food
security was only possible when families participated in multiple food programs along
with the Food Assistance Program. Nichols-Casebolt and Morris (2002) also determined
that families without income or access to additional food sources will experience more
food insecurity. Finally, Daponte et al. (2004) suggested that both public and private food
programs combined are needed to meet daily nutritional values.
Despite previous research emphasizing the issue of food assistance programs,
there have not been studies on the role of the Federal Food Assistance Program’s
distribution mechanisms in providing food assistance for families with limited income
and limited access to alternative food sources. But there is a growing concern toward the
Food Assistance Program’s ability to supply basic nourishment for working-class families
(Nicholas-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). Therefore, my research was aimed at filling a gap in
the literature to improve understanding of the experiences of those who receive help from
food assistance programs and to offer guidance for future policy. Relying on data from
the Great Lakes region of the United States, and exploring the issue using a
PFT perspective, I assessed the role of ideas, actors, and networks in supporting the Food
Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms for little to no income families.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the role of distribution
mechanisms of the federal Food Assistance Program in meeting the needs of families
with limited income and limited access to alternative food sources in a county with
greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States.
Additionally, this study was conducted to fill a gap in the literature regarding federal
Food Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms and their ability to meet the food
needs of families with little to no income and limited access to additional food sources.
Through an examination of how ideas, actors, and networks support the Food Assistance
Program in meeting the food needs of individuals with little to no income and limited
access to alternative food sources, I sought to address the national concern of hunger by
broadening understanding of the central role that distribution mechanisms play in the
ability of federal the Food Assistance Program to address the hunger crisis in a county
with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United
States.
Research Questions
From the research problem and purpose of the study, the following principal
research question emerged: How does policy feedback theory help explain the role of
distribution mechanisms in helping the Food Assistance Program to meet the needs of
individuals with limited income and limited access to alternative food sources living
under the poverty level in a county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the
Great Lakes region of the United States? In answering this principal research question,
the following secondary question is provided: What role do ideas, actors, and networks
play in supporting the Food Assistance Program to meet the needs of individuals with
little to no income and limited access to alternative food sources?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework selected for this study is the PFT. The PFT emerged in
the 1980s examining political behavior and the policy-making process (Beland, 2010).
This theory has a solid foundation for analyzing public assistance programs and is still
evolving. This theory has been used to evaluate different aspects of food assistance
programs and is generally associated with the works of policy analysis ranging from
evaluating existing policy to targeting social problems such as social well-being and
economic efficiencies (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014). For example, in the 1990s extensive
welfare reform took place from the efforts of the PFT (Soss & Schram, 2007). This
theory related to the study approach and research questions because it provided details to
focus on the ideas, actors, and networks involved in food assistance programs rather than
conceptualizing each step of the policy process (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014). These elements
helped ground the study by expanding on ideas, actors, and networks involved in the
Food Assistance Program and its distribution mechanisms. This theoretical framework
was also appropriate for proving a platform that might persuade public opinion and even
shift the “locked in” policy in the Food Assistance Program. There will be logical
connections among key elements of the framework concerning a more thorough
explanation in Chapter 2.
Nature of the Study
This study was a case study in a county in the Great Lakes region of the United
States. This case study was conducted in this county given its large population of families
living below the poverty level. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2016), 25.1% of
families are living below the poverty level in this county alone compared to 14.8%
overall living under the poverty level in the United States. Data for this study was
gathered with the permission of the selected county director of the Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) (permission was also granted to identify this organization
in this study) through interviews with 11 program participants and three program
administrators. The purpose of this study was to address a growing national concern by
broadening the understanding of the central role that distribution mechanisms play in the
ability of federal food assistance programs to address the hunger crisis in the United
States.
Scope and Delimitations
My research was limited to exploring the Food Assistance Program and its
distribution mechanisms. The scope of the study was also limited to a single county with
greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States
using a case study design. Sampling was limited towards little to no income participants
expressing how effective the program is regarding their food security. Also, the PFT was
the foundation of the study to examine the Food Assistance Program. I excluded other
food programs from the scope of the study because of their unique challenges.
Limitations of the Study
One of the limitations of the study is that unlike quantitative research, qualitative
researchers must address reliability and validity (see Creswell, 2009). To secure
reliability, a researcher is required to validate an approach consistent with other
researchers (see Gibbs, 2007). Reliability and validity were evaluated in this study by
checking the accuracy of the findings, using specific procedures such as triangulation,
descriptions, and bias clarification. I strived for consistency throughout the study with
documentation of the processes (see Creswell, 2009).
Another potential limitation was access to families on the Food Assistance
Program with no income. Identification of families on the program with no income was
coordinated through the selected county DHHS. Therefore, the results of this study are
limited to the DHHS Food Assistance Program recipients, and other food programs were
not within the scope of this study.
Significance of the Study
This study will be significant for scholars and practitioners as hunger continues to
rise in the United States. Over 41 million people struggle with hunger and food
insecurity, which includes 13 million children and 5.4 million seniors (Feeding America,
2017). Individuals who do not have enough to eat are limited in their ability to provide
health, education, and the other basic needs for their families, and their ability to find a
job and overall ability to function in society is likely to be challenged as well. Therefore,
in this study, I addressed the effectiveness of the distribution mechanisms of the federal
Food Assistance Program in meeting the needs of families with limited income and
access to alternative food sources in the United States. The results of the study can offer
information to improve the federal Food Assistance Program and the distribution
mechanisms for such programs, thus improving the lives of those who receive help from
food assistance programs.
Social Change
My research on the Food Assistance Program can influence public policy and
administration such as reevaluating the Food Assistance Program. Gundersen (2015)
suggested reevaluating the program benefit formula and the program itself. Without
influencing policy, the program recipients and families with little to no income and
limited access to other food programs or resources will continue to experience hunger and
food insecurity. By changing the policy or reevaluating the formula to determine the
benefits of the program, it will protect families from hunger and make a positive impact.
This study will also contribute to knowledge about the common and personal
experiences of food participants on the Food Assistance Program. A large portion of
lowincome individuals and families depend on private food assistance such as food
pantries and soup kitchens due to the failure of the public Food Assistance Program
(NicholsCasebolt & Morris, 2002). Additionally, my research may empower the people it
is intended for by advocating for the Food Assistance Program through scholarly research
to affect social change (see Callahan et al., 2001). To promote a positive understanding of
the history, contributions, and effectiveness of the Food Assistance Program, it is
important that those in the academic community, public government sector, private
business sector for researchers, and government leaders to become knowledgeable about
the factors that show how effective is the Food Assistance Program in its ability to
prevent hunger in the United States. The findings from this study may lead to program
improvements that promote social change by ensuring program participants have enough
to eat and preventing further hunger in the United States.
Summary
With the rising cost of food and limited access to additional food sources, food
insecurity is rising in the United States. Researchers have mentioned the need to
reevaluate the Food Assistance Program mechanisms; however, there is still a gap in the
literature. Understanding distribution mechanisms of the Food Assistance Program is
necessary for the formulation of new and effective policies to adequately address the food
needs of families across the United States. The research design, theoretical framework,
and research questions served as the foundation for this study. The assumptions, scope
and delimitations and limitations were also discussed in this chapter as well as
implications for social change. A review of the literature anchoring this study is provided
in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to address the need to reevaluate the formula to
determine food benefits for low-income households (see Gundersen, 2015). Therefore, I
attempted to reevaluate the Food Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms for food
benefits. Additionally, this study addresses a lack of research on the effectiveness of
distribution mechanisms in meeting the basic food needs of families with little to no
income or limited access to alternative food sources in the United States. In this chapter, a
review of research strategies is presented to assist in locating articles for future reference.
The remaining contents of this literature will review highlight seminal research on the
effects of the federal Food Assistance Program and distribution mechanisms. This chapter
also provides information on the theoretical framework of this study. The most relevant
studies to the research theme are discussed and categorized to establish the gap in the
literature. Lastly, this chapter includes a brief review of the research method that helped
identify what food assistance means for families with limited income and access to food
sources.
Research Strategy
Literature research was conducted using the Walden online library. SocINDEX
was accessed using the general search terms food assistance and distribution mechanisms.
Other search words such as family, children, working poor, low-income, and nutrition
were used to narrow the search. The Walden online library provided all the needed
articles for this review. A review of references was also conducted to locate additional
resources when the general search did not discover articles found through these search
strategies.
Review of the Literature
This literature review is divided into three parts. The first part provides an
explanation of PFT and the role of ideas, actors, and networks. This is followed by the
history of food assistance programs in the United States and highlights important
developments and changes concerning policy. The literature review concludes with an
evaluation of the Food Assistance Program in the literature.
Policy Feedback Theory
Most theories of the policy process are used to examine policy creation with a
focus on political landscapes and interest groups. The PFT brings a new dimension of the
policy process known as “feedback effects,” providing insight on the ability of policy and
that can help policymakers correct and create improved policy (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014).
The PFT is focused exclusively on social well-being or economic efficiency, aiming to
solve social problems or to evaluate existing policies (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014).
The PFT emerged in the 1980s, influenced by historical institutionalism, to
explore political behavior and policymaking (Béland, 2010). In the 1990s, PFT helped
initiate extensive welfare reform (Soss & Schram, 2007), as it was used to initiate policy
implementation and reform (McDonnell, 2009). Initially, the PFT was developed from
policy feedback implemented to shape political dynamics, acting as an input and output in
the policy process (McDonnell, 2009). The PFT was later evolved by Suzanne Mettler
and Mallory SoRelle to understand what the effects are after a policy is adopted,
emphasizing resources and effects on the public. Although the PFT is focused on social
welfare policies, the theory has over the years become used for exploring other policy
areas like criminal justice (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014) and education (McDonnell, 2009).
Because the theory is being used in other policy domains, the PFT was suitable to
examine the Food Assistance Program. Furthermore, the PFT has primarily been used for
single-policy case studies employing historical data, interviews, and statistical analysis
(Mettler, 2005), which fit the purpose and method of this study.
The PFT contains two components (McDonnell, 2009). The first is the concept
that making policies produces new politics (Schattschneider, 1935), and politics affect
identities and resources of political interest groups and changes or increases state capacity
(Skocpol, 1992). The other component of PFT research emphasizes mass political
behavior that forms political identities, attitudes, and actions (Campbell, 2003; Mettler,
2005; Mettler & Soss, 2004; Soss & Schräm, 2007). However, both components suggest
political, interests, institutions, and public perceptions, mobilizing the mass public and
elites to shape future policies by acting once enacted (McDonnell, 2009).
The fundamental principles of PFT were used for a better understanding of the
Food Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms because this theory has a solid
foundation in analyzing public assistance programs. Rather than theorizing each step of
the policy process, this approach can help provide details on the potential of an expansive
focus on public programs, focusing on the ideas, actors, and networks involved (Mettler
& Sorelle, 2014). This theoretical base can also help persuade public opinion and shift the
“locked in” policy in the Food Assistance Program.
The Role of Ideas
The ideas in the PFT are focused on the aim or purpose of a program or policy. To
predict the most valuable approaches to solving social problems or evaluating existing
policy, it is important to note how the policy came into being and its purpose for the
public (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014). Once created, a policy has the power to reshape a
political landscape; this can also affect how policymaking occurs in the future (Mettler &
Sorelle, 2014). Therefore, it is important to consider how the program examined in this
study started.
The Food Assistance Program, formerly known as Food Stamps and now SNAP,
is funded under the Food Stamp Act of 1964 by the federal government, but it is
administered by the states (USDA, 2016). In the Great Lakes region of the United States,
the program is named the Food Assistance Program (USDA, 2016). In an attempt to
prevent hunger in the United States, the program was originally designed to feed the no
income poor. Nearly 30 years later, the policy shifted in many public assistance
programs, which led to refocusing the Food Assistance Program from the no income poor
to the working low-income. The idea was to motivate people to work instead of feeding
people who did not have an incentive to contribute to the economy. The policy shift
supplemented the food needs of low-income working residents under the income poverty
threshold instead of feeding them completely (Benefits.gov, n.d.). However, this does not
consider people in between jobs or who have exhausted other resources. Additionally,
40% of working families on the Food Assistance Program has had to rely on private food
banks to compensate for food shortages, which suggests that families participating in the
program ran out of food before the end of the month (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002).
The Role of Actors
The actors in the PFT refer to the participants in the process (or actions) in the
program or policy. In this case, the policymakers in the U.S. Congress are the actors. The
forming of policy can affect political landscapes (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014). For example,
if policies affect the way people vote, this can influence policymaking, and policymakers
can also be influenced by interest groups or political agendas (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014).
Food policy has always been determined by policymakers in Congress since the
implementation of the program. Congress makes social welfare policy through creation,
funding, and administration. The policymakers in Congress are actors who can terminate,
change, or replace programs that were designed to provide food and nutrition assistance
to prevent food insecurity (Oldmixon & Schecter, 2011). However, there is still a
bipartisan majority coalition of policymakers supporting the food assistance program
(Oldmixon & Schecter, 2011).
Policymakers are important to consider for the Food Assistance Program because
with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; the
program became focused on the working poor. At that time, a strong economy and a drop
in poverty rates triggered Congress to shift the focus of the Food Assistance Program.
The goal was to motivate able-bodied adults to work while still ensuring increased food
purchasing power of low-income households (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). This
policy change was intended to supplement food needs for working families living under
the federal poverty limit instead of feeding them completely if certain household
members fulfilled work requirements or education and training mandates. This shift
forced families on the program to rely on additional food programs and resources to
reduce food insecurity (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004).
The Role of Networks
The networks in the PFT refer to the groups or systems of the program or policy.
Once a policy is created, it can reshape the political landscape to affect subsequent
policymaking (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014), creating an incentive for special interest groups
and social networks to protect public programs or interests. In this study, there was a
focus on the private and public food networks affected or correlated with the Food
Assistance Program. This includes creating incentives for some networks while funding
policy or programs such as the Food Assistance Program.
Private food networks have helped a large portion of Americans meet their basic
food needs because they are not adequately served by the Food Assistance Program. The
two largest private programs are food pantries and soup kitchens. Food pantries distribute
free grocery and food items to families and individuals, and soup kitchens provide meals
for families and individuals. A significant amount of people on the Food Assistance
Program have been relying on the private network of food pantries and soup kitchens to
meet their basic food needs, with one-third of these individuals working (Nichols-
Casebolt & Morris, 2002).
Public food networks are another reliable source for food assistance participants.
According to Nichols-Casebolt and Morris (2002), the USDA operates 13 additional
public food assistance programs to address all aspects of food insecurity in the United
States. The larger programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) and the School Breakfast Program and the School Lunch
Programs. However, the Food Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, is still the
largest, most reliable federal food program because it expands to all Americans regardless
of whether they have children (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). The other programs
have reduced some food insecurity for families with children. The WIC and the School
Breakfast Program and the School Lunch Program are for families with children and do
not assist families and individuals without children. However, most working families rely
on additional resources to cover food shortages (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004).
Hunger in the United States
The principal cause of hunger and food insecurity is poverty (Kozak, Lombe, &
Miller, 2012). According to the USDA, households unable to acquire adequate food
needs, even at times, are food insecure (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013). Food insecurity
refers to the lack of consistent access to food to meet daily needs for all members due to
insufficient money or other resources (Abell, 2015). There are close to 925 million people
around the world experiencing food insecurity and hunger, according to the Food and
Agriculture Organization (Kozak et al., 2012).
Although the United States is one of the world’s greatest food-producers, hunger
and food insecurity is still on the rise. In the United States, 41 million people struggle
with hunger and food insecurity, which includes 13 million children and 5.4 million
seniors (Feeding America, 2017). In other words, more than 22% of world hunger is
experienced in the United States. Moreover, food insecurity is more likely among
households with children (Feeding America, 2017). According to a study conducted by
James (2014), in 2012, nearly 20% of U.S. households were food insecure, representing
33.1 million adults and 15.9 children (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013). However, only 59%
of food-insecure households have participated in federal food assistance programs such as
the SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), the School Breakfast Program, the
National School Lunch Program, and the WIC program (Feeding America, 2017).
The Food Stamp Act of 1964 was designed to prevent hunger in the United States,
eventually becoming a national program available to all states by 1974 (Béland, Howard,
& Morgan, 2014). Nationally, the program is now known as the SNAP. In the Great
Lakes region of the United States, the program is called the Food Assistance Program.
There are other well-known food assistance programs such as the School Breakfast
Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the WIC, known to have reduced food
insecurity and improve the health of children (Gundersen, 2015). Depending on the
monthly income level, a family may be eligible for the programs. Most of the programs
have remained unchanged over the years, but the Food Assistance Program has
undergone many changes over time (Gundersen, 2015). Regardless of the changes,
hunger as not decreased. For example, after the Great Recession, 22% of children were
hungry (Abell, 2015). Families relied on food Banks to reduce food insecurity, and each
month, up to 20,000 people were served by food banks in 2013 (Abell, 2015).
Historical background. The Federal Food Stamp Act of 1977 established the
Food Assistance Program to prevent hunger in the United States. In 2008, the Food
Assistance Program was established by the Federal Food and Nutrition Act, placing
responsibility for the administration of the Food Assistance program with the USDA. The
program is fully funded by the federal government. The Food Assistance Program is
recognized as the SNAP at the national level, formally known as food stamps. In the
Great Lakes region of the United States, the program is known as the Food Assistance
Program.
The Food and Nutrition Service has responsibility for the administration of Food
Assistance Program within the USDA, delegating the administration to state agencies.
State agencies can choose not to participate in the program; therefore, not all states
participate in the program. According to Benefits.gov (n.d.) states in the Great Lakes
region of the United States participate in the program by a State Plan of Operations.
Although the states have some discretion with the program policy, these sources are the
legal base for all policies and procedures and are cited in manuals. State and federal
policies are public information and are available for the public online in the form of
numbered manuals.
Program goal. Originally, the Food Assistance Program was designed to feed the
poor to prevent hunger in the United States. Currently, the purpose of the Food
Assistance Program is to raise the food purchasing power of low-income families and
individuals, as limited food purchasing power contributes to hunger and malnutrition
(Benefits.gov, n.d.). Households eligible for the Food Assistance Program receive
benefits based on net income and the size of the group to increase the food purchasing
power of the eligible households who apply for the program. Food Assistance Program
benefits are not distributed in cash form and are not considered income or assets for other
programs.
The program increases purchasing power by allowing an eligible group to buy
eligible food items at any Food and Nutrition Service authorized approved meal provider
or retail food store. Not all food items are considered eligible for purchase; eligible food
includes any food products intended for human consumption except hot food prepared for
immediate consumption, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco. Food and Nutrition Service
providers can also provide seeds and plants to grow for personal consumption and meals
prepared and served to eligible residents by a shelter for battered women, a substance
abuse treatment center, and children or an adult foster care home approved by the Food
and Nutrition Service. Other providers include retail food and grocery stores recognized
by the Food and Nutrition Service that accepts the electronic benefit transaction card (in
the Great Lakes region, it is called a bridge card). Additionally, meal delivery services
are public or private nonprofit organizations that prepare and deliver meals to elderly
persons (60 years of age or over), physically or mentally impaired persons, and their
spouses, who are unable to prepare all their meals adequately. There are also nonprofit
food purchasing ventures that are private nonprofit associations of consumers whose
members pool their resources to buy food. Finally, individuals may receive food from
house-to-house grocery vendors, such as milk and milk product deliverers, but not ice
cream vendors.
The Food Assistance Program is the largest food assistance program in the United
States (Nord, 2012). In 2010, the Food Assistance Program served over 40 million people
with their food needs (Nord, 2012). By 2013, over 47 million people were participating in
the program with a price tag of almost $80 billion a year (Gundersen, 2015). Although
the Food Assistance Program is funded by the federal government, it is administered by
the states. The Food Assistance Program was originally designed to feed the no income
poor. Through the years, the program was reformed and changed depending on the
political landscape; constricting and relaxing eligibility (Nord, 2012). For example, it
restricted eligibility and changed the focus of the program from the no income poor to the
low-income adults and families (Gundersen, 2015). Additionally, there are income and
asset limits for program participation; gross and net income limits are set at 130% and
100% of the federal poverty threshold (Nord, 2012). Food Assistance Program
participation is estimated to reduce food insecurity by roughly 30% (Ratcliffe &
McKernan, 2010).
The Food Assistance Program serves as a safety net to prevent hunger in the
United States for low-income individuals and families (Daponte et al., 2004). The
National School Lunch Program is another federal assistance food program that operates
in most public and private schools across the United States (Gundersen, 2015). This
program began in 1946 in the National School Lunch Act. In 1966, the School Breakfast
Program began, operating like the National School Lunch Program (Gundersen, 2015).
These programs were designed to ensure low-income kids have access to adequate meals
while at school. By 2012, 12.9 million children were participating in program daily
(Gundersen, 2015). However, according to Gundersen (2015), an extraordinary number
of eligible children do not participate in the School Breakfast and the National Schools
Lunch Programs. These programs have also gone through a series of changes over the
years.
Despite the introductions and changes to the Food Assistance Program over the
years, the Food Assistance Program remains the core component against hunger in the
United States, serving over 47 million people (Gundersen, 2015). Currently, Food
Assistance Program benefits are used to supplement food needs for low-income families,
with a maximum of $668 per month for a family of four without any income (Gundersen,
2015). The benefits increase slightly per additional person in a family. However, this
equals less than $5.50 per person for breakfast, lunch, and dinner per day. Although the
Great Recession has ended, food insecurity is at an all-time high in the United States
(Gundersen, 2015).
Policy related to the Food Assistance Program. A policy is usually formed to
address a problem or issue. The policy process is a system-making process which
involves diagnosing a problem that is worth addressing, such as hunger in the United
States. According to Thies (2000), a policy is formed through the process of defining,
adopting, implementing, evaluating, and changing or discontinuing a policy. In 1964, the
Food Assistance Program, known as “Food Stamps” at the time, was implemented to
address hunger in the United States, if people met the eligibility requirements (Thies,
2000). Eligibility is based on assets, income, and expenses. Any time during the policy
process, a policy can be evaluated and changed (Thies, 2000). Although the Food
Assistance Program is the largest and most expensive program, the federal government
has always implemented programs and actions to reduce food insecurity for people to
endure a healthy and prosperous life in the United States (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013).
In the 1990s, Congress began to reevaluate and change the Food Assistance Program
policies (Thies, 2000).
Policy changes over the years have drastically affected the Food Assistance
Program. Originally, the Food Assistance Program was designed to feed the no income
poor. The biggest policy changes were implemented in 1996, 2002, and in 2009,
ultimately shifting the focus to low-income working families according to Gundersen
(2015). Other policy changes include restricting legal immigrants and setting time limits
for unemployed adults (Gundersen, 2015). Despite the changes, the Food Assistance
Program remains the primary safety net towards the fight against hunger in the United
States. The Food Assistance Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the National
School Lunch Program have been successful in reducing poverty among low-income
families. Food assistance programs are prevalent when the economy is weak; however,
frowned upon when the economy is strong. During the Great Recession, Americans
turned towards and relied on the program. Immediately following the economic
recession, lawmakers began adding provisions to the program. For example, in 2007
Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) was reinstated (D’Angelo, Libal,
Seymour, & Hamel, 2017). This rule implies an ABAWD must work, attend a job
training program, or participate in community service to receive Food Assistance
(D’Angelo et al., 2017).
Lawmakers restrict and loosen requirements on the Food Assistance Program
depending on the political landscape. In 2014, lawmakers were under the impression
people intentionally did not work to collect food assistance (Cowan, 2014). This belief
system sparked media attention and a generalization toward all people participating in the
program. This belief system has carried over to the current lawmakers calling for a $23
billion cut to the Food Assistance Program (Akin, 2016). These programs are crucial for
families experiencing food insecurity. According to D’Angelo et al. (2017), only a small
increment of the population participating in the Food Assistance Program are ABAWD;
the majority are families with children. In other words, adults on the program not willing
to work are a small fraction of the population experiencing food insecurity.
In 2016, 500,000 to 1,000,000 individuals lost access to the Food Assistance
Program because of their ABAWD status according to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities (Carlson, Rosenbaum, & Keith-Jennings, 2016). Although ABAWDs are still
food insecure, they will not qualify for food assistance due to the policy. In 1996,
lawmakers went on the record expressing frustration with ABAWDs not working, and
allowing them to collect food assistance. This is meant to ensure anyone between the ages
of 18 to 50 seek work at least 20 hours per week for the exchange of benefits from the
Food Assistance Program if they are able-bodied (D’Angelo et al., 2017).
Although there were many policy changes and restrictions over the years, many
state agencies are either ill-equipped or lax with the restrictions (D’Angelo et al., 2017).
These rules require intense case management and become a burden for the employees.
Normal benefits are good for one year, but ABAWDs are only allowed three months of
benefits in a 36-month period (D’Angelo et al., 2017). Therefore, government employees
are most likely to overlook or allow a “good cause” to reduce the workload. States have
some flexibility on how they administer such restrictions. For example, some states use
time limit waivers for unemployment rates exceeding 10 % (USDA, 2015). Other states
may allow “good cause” like states in the Great Lakes region of the United States.
Regardless of the policy, changes, and restrictions, hunger in the United States is
still a problem worth solving. Abell (2015) describes hunger as an epidemic in the United
States. The Food Assistance Program was designed as safety-net to prevent hunger in the
United States (Gundersen, 2015). However, policymakers are restricting the programs
instead of expanding them. A study conducted in Lynchburg, Virginia verified and
examined a hunger and poverty problem (Abell, 2015). The natural action is to provide
food where there is hunger. However, food is only a contiguous cause for hunger (Abell,
2015). In other words, feeding a poor person is a temporary solution. The author argued
hunger could be alleviated through economic development and education, as a greater
solution to food insecurity and poverty (Abell, 2015). As policymakers continue to
generalize and restrict food recipients participating in the Food Assistance Program,
hunger is still an epidemic in the United States. Policymakers must get a handle on this
problem, presenting long-term solutions instead of time limits and ABAWD restrictions.
Policymakers must get a handle on hunger in the United States and present creative food
solutions to help alleviate poverty and reduce hunger (Abell, 2015).
Policy reforms have weakened the Food Assistance Program. Tarasuk, Dachner,
and Loopstra (2016) critiqued food banks in Canada to examine the effect they had on
food insecurity; a cross-sectional survey sampling of 120,000 Canadians, aged 12 and
older. Although food banks did not reduce food insecurity, it was clear that food
recipients relied on them. For example, 70 % of households who participated in food
assistance programs were food insecure; furthermore, more than 50 % of food bank
clientele were food assistance recipients (Tarasuk et al., 2016). This study concluded food
banks do not reduce food insecurity and are an imperfect response to the problem,
providing a cautionary tale for other countries such as the United States. Most
importantly, policy reforms have weakened the food assistance programs, indicating no
clear resolution to the problem (Tarasuk et al., 2016).
Food assistance programs in the literature. The literature has studied the
effectiveness of the Food Assistance Program, also known as the SNAP along with other
food programs and food sources. Early research has confirmed a large portion of
lowincome individuals depend on private food assistance, such as food pantries and soup
kitchens. For example, Nichols-Casebolt & Morris (2002) analyzed the relationship
between working-class individuals and the Food Assistance Program. They found the
majority of working individuals are receiving food assistance but relying on other
resources to reduce food insecurity.
Also, they found that the Food Assistance Program without private food sources is
not providing enough for recipients with some income. The authors reported more than
one-third of the working-class individuals are receiving food assistance to reduce food
insecurity (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). The researchers cite the growing concern
toward the program’s ability to supply basic nourishment for working-class households
(Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). Even though most working individuals with some
income and private food sources are experiencing some food security, the study
concluded that more than one-third of the working class in Virginia are receiving food
assistance to reduce food insecurity (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). The study
indirectly confirms those without income will experience even more food insecurity.
This study also presents crucial evidence that the Food Assistance Program is not
fully able to provide adequate food security for individuals and families that are
employed or employable with some income. In other words, individuals and families with
no income would not have enough to meet their daily nutritional needs while on the Food
Assistance Program. However, while this study does offer important findings, it is limited
to the state of Virginia. The tested sample is also only focused on the working poor.
Individuals and families on the Food Assistance Program with some income are most
likely to rely on additional food sources to reduce food insecurity. Furthermore,
participating in the Food Assistance Program does not provide adequate nutrition or
prevent food insecurity. What about the individuals and families with no income? This
study presents a substantial contribution to the food assistance programs and their ability
when all sources are available. However, the study does not address the recipients with no
income and limited resources.
In another quantitative study conducted by Oberholser & Tuttle (2004), the
researchers studied the relationship between social demographic characteristics and food
insecurity. They used a chi-square analyses to test the relationship between
demographics, race, marital status and food programs (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004).
Consistent with the previous study (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002), testing the
relationship between social demographic characteristics and food insecurity, they
concluded that there was an increase in food insecurity among Food Assistance Program
recipients. Food security was only possible when families participated in multiple food
programs along with the Food Assistance Program (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004).
The results in the study were limited due to the inability for the researchers to
distinguish between the households that qualify but do not participate and
nonparticipating households (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004). This study provided beneficial
information on the association of social demographic characteristics and food insecurity.
However, it was also limited to families with some income. The researchers present a gap
between food insecurity and nutritional and economic needs (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004).
Another seminal piece of working families experiencing food insecurity on the Food
Assistance Program without participating in other food programs, such as food pantries,
soup kitchens, Program for Women, Infant, and Children, and Summer Lunch Programs.
During the same year, Daponte et al. (2004) designed an Extended Food Plan
according to the USDA (1999) to measure the dollar amount of food resources needed to
meet daily nutritional values. They sought to determine if public and private food
assistance programs are meeting the minimal needs of poor households (Daponte et al.,
2004). These programs were designed as a safety net to ensure low-income households
are meeting the daily nutritional food intake and not experiencing hunger (Daponte et al.,
2004). This quantitative study applied a multivariate liner regression to examine the
relationship between different types of food assistance programs available and an
Extended Thrifty Food Plan (ETFP). The study concluded that the available food
assistance programs (both public and private combined) are meeting the valued cost of
the Extended Thrifty Food Plan. Similar to previous studies, Daponte et al. (2004) looked
at different food programs among poor households with continuing food shortages. These
programs included the Food Assistance Program, WIC, and food pantries. However, on
the contrary to other studies, they concluded that the available food assistance programs
(both public and private combined) are meeting the valued cost of the Extended Thrifty
Food Plan. It appears both public and private combined are needed to meet daily
nutritional values.
This quantitative study presented seminal research to the Food Assistance
Program’s ability to reduce food insecurity combined with other food programs and
additional food sources. However, it fails to address the households with no income and
limited access to private food sources. The researchers present seminal works on the
efficacy of the Food Assistance Program and private food sources. After surveying 398
low-income recipients in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, they confidently stated there
was a significant amount of food available when all resources were consumed (Daponte
et al., 2004). However, the study fails to address no income recipients and access to the
additional private food sources along with any barriers.
In later years, researchers began to examine dietary patterns associated with food
assistance programs. Nnakwe (2008) analyzed the dietary patterns of low-income food
assistance participants in a Midwest town. This quantitative study used the Person
ChiSquare to compare the differences in food security, food intake, educational level, and
marital status (Nnakwe, 2008). The study concluded there is a relationship between food
security and level of education; households with children reported more food insecurity
than households with no children (Nnakwe, 2008). Moreover, the researchers cited
households with children are more likely to have food insecurity than households with no
children (Nnakwe, 2008). Oberholser & Tuttle (2004) study also supports Nnakwe (2008)
relationship between food security and level of education (Nnakwe, 2008). Food
insecurity increased as food groups decreased (Nnakwe, 2008). Again, both studies focus
on working households with some income along with additional food sources. The
studies fail to address the no income households and the limited access to additional food
sources.
Although this study provides critical information on food insecurity and dietary
patterns, the study was limited to the working class who had access to the local food
pantries, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. The study fails to address the no income
poor and the working low-income that may not have access to the additional food sources
to reduce food insecurity.
Concurrently, Huffman and Jensen (2008) tested the Food Assistance program’s
basic ability to reduce food insecurity. This quantitative study used a cross-sectional
approach to test the relationship between food insecurity, labor force participation, and
Food Assistance Program participation (Huffman & Jensen, 2008). The study concluded
that individuals participating in the workforce and the Food Assistance Program
experience less food insecurity (Huffman & Jensen, 2008). According to Huffman &
Jensen (2008) households participating in the Food Assistance Program with employment
income experience less food insecurity. Where does that leave the households with no
employment income? Because the researchers challenged the Food Assistance Program’s
ability to reduce food insecurity, they were able to measure the programs ability to meet
the basic needs of low-income individuals. Individuals participating in the workforce and
the Food Assistance Program experience less food insecurity (Huffman & Jensen, 2008);
therefore, those not participating in the workforce will experience more food insecurity
causing individuals to rely on other sources.
In 2011, Newman, Todd, & Ploeg (2011) analyzed the changes in the participation
of low-income children in the many food assistance programs from “1990 to 2009”, along
with other determinates. This study showed an increase in Food Assistance participation
from 1990 to 2008 to help those with food insecurity. The data showed lowincome
household children participated in multiple food assistance programs to reduce hunger.
This quantitative study used a regression to test the relationship between income and the
participation of different food assistance programs. The study concluded poor and very
poor children were more likely to participate in multiple food programs in 2008, much
more than 1990 (Newman et al., 2011). In other words, participating in one program may
not be enough for families experiencing food insecurity. This study focuses on the
changes in the participation of low-income children in the many food assistance programs
from “1990 to 2009”, along with other determinates supports much of the other research
during that timeframe (Newman et al., 2011).
In 2013, Whitley (2013) expanded the research on food insecurity to rural areas,
because many studies focused on urban areas. Big cities in the United States tend to
overshadow small towns in rural areas spread all along the mid-west and on the outskirts
of big cities. Whitley’s (2013) article examined the food insecurity of rural households
according to their social integration and social capital. This qualitative study employed
the case study approach, attempting to identify a trend in poverty and hunger linked to
limited access to retail grocery stores and local resources in the community, allowing
those who are less connected to stay hungry (Whitley, 2013). Whitley (2013) concluded,
rural towns “food deserts” received less fresh food compared to urban towns, due to
smaller populations and less retail grocery stores. This study supports previous research
on the Food Assistance Program and the need for additional sources, such as food
pantries and soup kitchens, in both rural and urban towns causing low-income families on
the Food Assistance Program will continue to experience hunger.
Other research attempted to look at the relationship of food insecurity and health
problems. Gundersen and Ziliak (2014) presented the relationship between food
insecurity and health problems. Although the Food Assistance Program reduced food
insecurity, health problems among program recipients were still prevalent among some
food insecurity (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014). Research has shown increasing maternal
mental health for mother reduces food insecurity as well. Although the majority of studies
conducted on the Food Assistance Program are quantitative approaches, the article
concludes that more qualitative research should be conducted to influence better policy
toward food insecurity (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014). This gap addresses the need for more
qualitative approaches toward the Food Assistance Program.
Moreover, Gassman-Pines and Hill (2013) sought to examine the effects of social
programs, such as food assistance, Earned Income Tax Credit, and child-care subsidies.
Social safety net programs were designed by the federal government to improve the
wellbeing of families. Randomized research designs were deployed to learn if these social
programs influence family well-being. The authors concluded the Food Assistance
Program is reducing food insecurity and meeting its primary goal. Although the Food
Assistance Program does not change the likelihood of keeping low-income families
completely food insecure, there is no evidence that social programs affect family
wellbeing negatively. Due to the policy changes in 1996, an overhaul of the United States
social programs, there is a direct affect improving family and economic well-being. The
Earned Income Tax Credit, child-care subsidies, and the Food Assistance Program had a
positive effect on improving family well-being.
Digging deeper, Nguyen, Shuval, Bertmann, & Yaroch (2015) examined the
relationship of the Food Assistance Program among food insecurity, diet quality, and
obesity with adults in the United States. This quantitative study used the Bivariate and
Multivariate method to test the relationship between the three variables (Nguyen et al.,
2015). They concluded that there was a relationship with food assistance members and
food insecurity, linking them to lower diet quality and obesity (Nguyen et al., 2015). This
study will help supports and reinforces Gundersen & Ziliak (2014) research. The Food
Assistance Program is not enough to feed a household without income. This study shows
that the little amount provided for households is hindering their health rather than
reducing hunger.
At the same time, Gundersen (2015) cited the opposite, when he examined the
effectiveness of the food assistance programs, such as the SNAP (also known as the Food
Assistance Program in the Great Lakes region of the United States), the National School
Lunch Program, and the School Breakfast Program abilities to reduce food insecurity
among children and children’s general health. Using a Theoretical Effect of SNAP, the
article presents positive effects of the Food Assistance Program on low-income families
and preventing food insecurity. By 2013 there were over 47 million people receiving food
assistance, totaling 80 billion dollars; 14 million participants and a 50 billion dollar
increase since the Great Recession (Gundersen, 2015).
Gunderson (2015) concluded on the positive effects of the programs toward
families with children. However, Gunderson’s study is limited to low-income children,
and he doesn’t cover all aspects of how food assistance may affect children’s health.
What about families without children that may not have access to the National School
Lunch and the School Breakfast Programs to supplement the Food Assistance Program?
Another concern, Gunderson focuses on low-income families with children. What about
families with no income? Although the study is limited to low-income families with
children and does not cover all aspects of children’s health, Gundersen (2015) cites the
need for research to re-evaluate the formula used to determine benefits and make it more
effective by ensuring low-income households have enough food and the need to test the
relationship between food insecurity and obesity.
The study presents a big gap in the literature and justifies a need to evaluate the
Food Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms. Social safety net programs were
designed by the federal government to improve the well-being of families (GassmanPines
and Hill, 2013). However, there is a possibility the no income families without children
are hindered by the programs.
Effectiveness. Hunger is still on the rise. To battle hunger in the United States, the
government has designed food assistance programs, such as WIC and the SNAP, (known
as the Food Assistance Program). More than 20 % of families in the United
States are still experiencing unmet food needs and food insecurity according to Nord,
Andrews, and Carlson (2005). In other words, even with access to federal food assistance
programs, hunger and food insecurity continue to increase in the United States (Fishbein,
2016).
These programs were designed to prevent hunger and increase food security in the
United States. When these programs fail to prevent hunger, Americans tend to rely on
food banks and soup kitchens. The ineffectiveness of the federal food programs triggered
the increase of food banks as early as the 1980s (Poppendieck, 1999; Warshawsky, 2010),
initiating food banks to become the largest food system in the United States
(Warshawsky, 2010). Food banks are usually a response to government program
ineffectiveness or decreased funding (Fishbein, 2016).
How effective are the food assistance programs? According to Mykerezi and
Mills (2008) participation in the Food Assistance Program can lower food insecurity by
19 %. Similarly, Nord and Golla (2009) cited food security improves immediately after
benefits are available. In other words, it helps reduce food insecurity but fails to prevent
food insecurity. These interventions are not addressing the entire problem. Originally, the
Food Assistance Program, formally known as “Food Stamps” was designed as a defense
mechanism against hunger during economic crises in some areas of the country, dating as
far back as the 1930s in the United States (Vancila, 2008).
The program was eventually expanded across the United States by 1977, to
prevent hunger. Operating as a safety-net against hunger, the program was geared
towards the no income poor initially. Over the years, as the economy recovered, and
political landscapes changed, the program was reformed multiple times, changing the
focus of the program to the low-income working families. These changes were an attempt
to motivate people to work to receive food benefits. These changes were also inspired by
many factors. The program itself was scrutinized for encouraging people not to work and
collect benefits from the government. This stigma still exists today forcing people not to
participate in the program, to avoid the stigma, bureaucracy, and the cost-benefit
breakdown (Vancila, 2008).
A study conducted by Vancila (2008) in Wisconsin investigated why low-income
families chose not to participate in the Food Assistance Program. Households that met the
food assistance requirements were opting out of the program and leaning on other
resources such as food pantries, soup kitchens and shelters for their additional food needs.
The study concluded with six themes as the cause for non-participation which included
accessibility, stigma, bureaucracy, cost-benefit, program ignorance, and deservingness of
the benefits (Vancila, 2008). The Food Assistance Program is the largest federal program
addressing hunger in the United States, yet many eligible households are choosing to opt
out. The Food Assistance Program was originally designed to feed the no-income poor
then shifted to the low-income working households. Although the program is still the
biggest defense against hunger in the United States, many households are choosing to opt
out to avoid the issues currently attached to the program.
Distribution Mechanisms
The Food Assistance Program was originally known as “Food Stamps” in the
1960s. The distribution of food during that time was through a form of paper money
called a stamp(s) or coupon(s). Like money, it represented an amount and provided
purchasing power of food items to prevent hunger and reduce food insecurity in the
United States. This process represented the distribution mechanism for the program until
the 1990s. Up until the 1980s, the Food Assistance Program was expanded. In the 1990s,
to save money on printing paper coupons or stamps and to prevent fraud, the program
was revamped, initiating a specialized debit card system called an electronic benefit
transfer.
A form of electronic benefit for income eligible households, basically a debit card
for food purchase (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013). Along with saving the government
money, it provided immediate access to the benefits instead of waiting in a line for the
benefits each month. In 2008, all food stamp recipients received an electronic benefit
transfer card—a mechanism to distribute food in the United States according to the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013).
Most of the literature on food assistance programs are quantitative studies in an
attempt to measure the effectiveness of the program along with additional public and
private food resources. The selected approach for this study is qualitative, to get an
“indepth” understanding of the Food Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms.
Therefore, the PFT was selected to provide details on the potential of an expansive focus
on the Food Assistance Program, to focus on the ideas, actors, and networks involved.
Although there have been many researchers reporting on the food assistance
programs in the United States, Klerman and Danielson (2011) took a different approach.
In conjunction with program effectiveness, the effects of a change in program policy were
also analyzed. Klerman and Danielson (2011) examined the caseload increase of the Food
Assistance Program, which has proliferated between 2000 and 2005. The Food
Assistance Program was designed to offer benefits to low-income families to meet their
basic food needs was working effectively, but the caseload had increased by 140% within
a 10-year timeframe (Klerman & Danielson, 2011). Over the last two decades, policy on
the Food Assistance Program has shifted away from focusing on aiding the non-working
poor to supplement the food needs of low-income families that work.
Klerman and Danielson (2011) used a multivariate analysis and a difference-
indifferences identification strategy to analyze such rapid growth from 2000-2010. They
concluded, although the Food Assistance Program is helping people eat, there is a lag in a
declining economy, along with the policy shift from the non-working poor to the
lowincome poor has caused a 140 % caseload increase. Any increase or decrease in the
economy will continue to influence the Food Assistance Program caseload with long lags,
which can only explain a portion of the caseload increase; however, the remaining
increase is caused by the policy shift over the years. The Earned Income Tax Credit,
child-care subsidies, and the Food Assistance Program had a positive effect on improving
family well-being. However, due to the policy changes in 1996, an overhaul of the United
States social programs, there is a direct affect improving family and economic wellbeing.
This evaluation of the SNAP, also known as the Food Assistance Program, rapid
caseload increases from 1989 to 2009 according to Jacob Klerman and Caroline
Danielson (2011), presented a drastic caseload increase between 2000 and 2005 by half.
This rapid increase in caseload was triggered by a Great Recession and a shift in policy
from Food Assistance Program families combining the assistance with other cash
assistance programs to Food Assistance Program families with the absence of cash
assistance programs and income (Klerman & Danielson, 2011). The Food Assistance
Program caseload grew by 140 % in just ten years, from 2000 to 2010.
Within the last two decades, there has been a broad shift in the U.S. social safety
net programs possibly causing a large portion of the caseload increase; the policymakers
refocused the Food Assistance Program from assisting the non-working poor to
lowincome working families, as a motivation to promote people to work (Klerman &
Danielson, 2011). Continued policy changes and reforms over the 2000s allowed states
the flexibility to focus food assistance toward working families. Such changes have
allowed easier access to the Food Assistance Program and restricted access to cash
programs, hence increasing the caseload. According to Klerman and Danielson (2011)
policy changes, reforms, and the Great Recession triggered a rapid caseload increase
within two decades (Klerman & Danielson, 2011). The study focused on the roles of the
policy changes, and the economy to get a more robust interpretation of the caseload
increase over a 20-year span.
In more current research, Slack and Myers (2014) examined the geography of the
program, the changes in Food Assistance Program recipients during and before the Great
Recession, and other characteristics associated with this result. Based on its geography,
they examined the changes in Food Assistance Program recipients during and before the
Great Recession, and other characteristics associated with this result. This quantitative
study applied descriptive statistics to examine data pulled from the US Department of
Agriculture. The findings show a substantial difference in Food Assistance Program
usage during the downturn of the economy. The study concluded increased participation
in the Food Assistance Program in areas that were affected by the Great Recession, where
foreclosures and unemployment increased. These results embrace a variety of
implications for the policy on the Food Assistance Program, especially during a time of
economic downturn.
Although this program is administered by the states, it is funded by the federal
government; the Food Assistance Program is structured as a safety net to supplement the
food needs of low-income families under the income poverty threshold and prevent food
insecurity (Benefits.gov, n. d.). According to Klerman and Danielson (2001), the Food
Assistance Program was originally designed for non-working, no-income families.
However, today the Food Assistance Program is meant to prevent hunger and reduce food
insecurity by only supplementing the food needs of low-income families (Slack & Myers,
2014). Is it achieving its goal without additional food sources? Currently, a household of
one person, with no income, can receive a maximum of $194 a month; this distributes to
less than $6 per day for food; the amount decreases per person as more individuals are
added to the group (Gunderson, 2015).
Although Gassman-Pines and Hill (2013) agree with Klerman and Danielson
(2001) in the policy change affecting the increase in Food Assistance Program recipients
and caseloads, Slack and Myers (2014) insist on a downturn in the economy and a Great
Recession for increased participation in food assistance and caseload spike. However,
Gundersen (2015) cites a 14 million participant increase and a fifty-billion-dollar increase
since the Great Recession, even though the economy recovered. Most of the studies focus
on the increase in participation of the program rather than the effectiveness of the
program.
I have not encountered differing point of views from authors on the same subject
until now. Although they don’t agree on why the caseload increased, they do agree on the
Food Assistance Program meeting the basic needs of low-income families. However, I
disagree with all the authors in this area. An enormous amount of low-income families
depends on private food assistance, such as food pantries and soup kitchens due to the
failure of the public Food Assistance Program (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002).
Families with no income are relying on additional food sources, such as food pantries and
soup kitchens to meet their basic food needs.
Different points of view can benefit a qualitative researcher to identify different
gaps in previous research to identify the issue that needs to be addressed. This opposition
inspired some critical thinking on the subject; therefore, leading to richer data being
presented. To get a better understanding of the problem, a researcher must broaden his
viewpoints within the literature review (see Maxwell, 2013). This literature supports the
Food Assistance Program in its ability to meet the basic needs of low-income families,
while my study questions the effectiveness of the program. This literature provided a rich
perspective from the different views on the program. For example, Gassman-Pines and
Hill (2013) and Slack and Myers (2014) point to the policy change in 1996 shifting the
focus from no-income poor to the low-income working families. This perspective will
offer a better analysis for my study which focuses on the effectiveness of the Food
Assistance Program.
Literature has documented both the positive and negative impact of the food
assistance programs and their ability to reduce food insecurity. Research has also
documented the effects of the Great Recession (Klerman & Danielson, 2011) and the link
between the food assistance programs and obesity among adults and children (Nguyen et
al., 2015). It has also been documented that families are forced to rely on multiple food
programs and other sources to supplement their food needs (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris,
2002). Regardless where they live, program recipients are seeking additional means of
food to survive. While the Food Assistance Program is reducing some food insecurity
among working families with some income (Huffman & Jensen, 2008), other families
with no income are not getting the minimum daily food needs (Daponte et al., 2004).
Even though the result of the Food Assistance Program sounds grim, not all families have
the same experience.
It is known that that families with no income are still experiencing food insecurity
on the Food Assistance Program (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002; Daponte et al.,
2004). It is also known there is a need to re-evaluate the formula used to determine
benefits and make it more effective by ensuring low-income households have enough
food. There is little known about the Food Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms
and its ability to provide food assistance for families with no income and access to
alternative food sources. Researchers have cited the program effectively reduces food
insecurity when it is combined with income and other food sources, such as food shelters
and soup kitchens (Daponte et al., 2004).
Current program policy is geared towards assisting working families toward
supplementing their food needs. What is not known, however, is the distribution
mechanisms of the Federal Food Assistance Program and its ability to meet the basic food
needs of families with little to no income and limited access to alternative food sources in
the United States. The PFT may provide insight into how on the Food Assistance
Program’s distribution mechanisms and understanding the needs of the entire population.
Summary and Conclusions
The Food Assistance Program is only able to increase food security when it is
combined with other public and private food programs. Even then, families are still
finding themselves with a food shortage at the end of the month. The policy shift from the
no-income poor to working low-income was not beneficial for individuals and families
with exhausted financial resources or in-between jobs. Families on the Food Assistance
Program are forced to buy cheap food to stretch their buying power, causing preventable
diseases, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity. Researchers have called for
an evaluation of the distribution formula used to determine the amount of food needed to
reduce food insecurity.
This gap in the literature for the federal Food Assistance Program’s distribution
mechanisms and its ability in meeting the food needs of families with little to no income
and access to additional food sources. The next chapter will provide information on how
this study was performed, how the participants were identified, the questions that were
asked, and how the information was organized, coded and analyzed.
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
This study was conducted to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the
Food Assistance Program distribution mechanisms in meeting the needs of individuals
who have limited income and limited access to alternative food sources. This study was a
case study in a county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes
region of the United States, which was selected given its large population of families
living below the poverty level. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2016), 25.1% of
families are below the poverty level in the selected county in the Great Lakes region
alone compared to 14.8% overall in the United States. The purpose of this study was to
describe the experiences of the families on the Food Assistance Program with little to no
income. In this case, a household of four people with at least two children was considered
a family. The family was required to be participating in the Food Assistance Program and
could have little to no access to income.
The information collected in the interviews (see Appendix B) were divided into
factors and categories such as food security, food insecurity, additional food resources,
and additional challenges. These factors and categories were measured in a thematic
process and compared to each other for patterns regarding how effective the Food
Assistance Program is in the studied county. These variables were in line and related to
the theoretical construct of the study, which was the PFT. This theory has been used to
evaluate different aspects of food assistance programs and is generally associated with the
works of policy analysis, ranging from evaluating existing policy to targeting social
problems such as social well-being and economic efficiencies (Mettler & Sorelle, 2014).
Research Questions
The main research question was: How does policy feedback theory help explain
the role of distribution mechanisms in helping the Food Assistance Program to meet the
needs of individuals who have limited income and limited access to alternative food
sources below the poverty level in a county with greater than expected levels of poverty
in the Great Lakes region of the United States? To help answer this principal research
question, the following secondary question was designed: What are the role of ideas,
actors, and networks in supporting the Food Assistance Program meet the needs of
individuals with little to no income and limited access to alternative food sources?
Research Methodology
I used a qualitative method for this study on the Food Assistance Program and its
distribution mechanisms. The qualitative method allowed me to explore the social
problem by understanding the meaning of the groups involved (see Creswell, 2009). This
method allowed me to explore the effectiveness of the Food Assistance Program by
answering my research questions to gain a better understanding of its ability to provide
enough food for families with limited income and limited access to additional food
sources along with its impact on the recipients. Furthermore, qualitative methods are
often used for more flexible spontaneity, exploring a phenomenon in its natural
environment (Rudestam & Newton, 2007), which fit the nature of this study. A
quantitative methodology was not selected for this study due to the lack of qualitative
studies on the Food Assistance Program.
Research Design
A research design is a plan guiding the researcher through a process of collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting data in a direct flow to answer specific research questions
aligned with the purpose of this study (see Yin, 2008). This process served as a step-
bystep framework for my research. A case study design was selected to examine the
experiences of families participating in the Food Assistance Program and further
understand the effectiveness of the Food Assistance Program. The case study design was
in alignment with my methodology, and research questions; due to a limited timeframe,
this consistency provided an in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the Food
Assistance Program (see Creswell, 2014).
Other relevant designs like phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and
narrative designs were considered but may have been less effective in providing the
understanding necessary for families on the Food Assistance Program. This case study
design was the best fit to examine a bounded system to gather information (see Creswell,
2014). The case study design was most applicable to this study and was selected because
I was concerned with what is occurring over time and what was currently being
experienced or has been experienced as the result of a phenomenon.
Role of the Researcher
The research for this study was conducted by me as the researcher. I identified
myself strictly as a doctoral student researching to be used exclusively for completing my
doctoral dissertation at Walden University. I discussed the proposed study with active
program recipients over the phone. Once contact was made with interested participants, I
served as the point of contact with participants. A letter describing the proposed study
was also sent to the state located in the Great Lakes region of the United States for
approval.
Procedures
The following procedures served as a sequential guide for me as the researcher in
recruiting and informing interview participants, collecting and analyzing the
, and validating the findings:
1. Contacted, via e-mail and telephone, DHHS to provide information about the
study.
2. Requested approval to conduct the study from the county DHHS.
3. A letter was sent detailing the nature of the study to DHHS Institutional Review
Board (IRB) to ensure the protection and confidentiality of program participants,
approval granted.
4. Posted recruitment flyers at local supermarkets in low-income cities of the county
with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States and presented the study and provided a copy of the letter describing
the study when contact was made.
5. Recruited participants to participate in the interviews. A sample of the interview
questions was designed by me (see Appendix A, B, and C).
6. During initial contact from the recruitment flyer, each participant was mailed a
copy of the letter describing the proposed study and a consent form. The initial
contact captured and recruited 14 participants for a detailed interview at a local
library (see Appendix A).
7. Interviews were conducted in a private meeting room in a safe and comfortable
setting. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to steps
outlined at the end of this chapter.
8. Data collected from the interviews were coded manually into chunks of
information manually and analyzed in a thematic analysis process for patterns to
interpret the information.
Ethical Issues and Participation
Participation in this study was voluntary and confidential for all participants.
Permission was granted by the county director of the DHHS and the DHHS IRB of the
county located in the Great Lakes region of the United States. The participants in this
study were adult males or females 21 or older representing a family of at least two
children under the age of 18. Participants were recruited at three local supermarkets in the
studied county that accepts the Food Assistance Program benefit cards. No known harm
was associated with participating in this study.
Given that I am a state employee, I segregated my role as a civil servant to
administer the study. I introduced myself as a Ph.D. candidate with Walden University. I
kept my role objective and neutral, allowing the participants to provide information that is
not distorted, keeping the contact open and honest. My role as the researcher was
communicated with the participants to prevent bias and distortion in the study.
All 14 participants were required to complete a consent form before participating.
Each participant’s confidentiality was protected on a password protected drive during the
selection process and locked in a box before and after the interview. Interviews were
conducted in a private meeting room at a local public library in the county with greater
than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States. Interviews,
journals, files, and notes were stored on a password-protected drive and kept in a locked
box in my home during all phases of the study. Only I have access to the interview notes,
journals, and validated results. Identifying information was removed from journals and
notes before data validation.
Data Collection
Primary data for this study was collected through interviews. The first primary
data source consisted of interviews with Food Assistance Program recipients from a
county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States. The sample for this interview group consisted of 11 participants, heads of
families, selected from three different low-income cities in a county with greater than
expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States. These
individuals were recruited from supermarkets that accept the Food Assistance Program
benefit cards via random sampling from a recruitment flyer posted to recruit voluntary
participants. The participants were required to be a family of at least two children under
the age of 18 years and have minimal to no income. Studies have suggested families with
income and access to additional food sources experience less food insecurity (Daponte et
al., 2004). Other studies suggest food security was only possible when families
participated in multiple food programs along with the Food Assistance Program
(Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004).
Participants were recruited with an informational flyer posted in the “help
wanted” sections of three major local supermarkets in the county with greater than
expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States. The flyer
consisted of general information about the study and my contact information. The
recruitment process for limited income participants at local supermarkets where Food
Assistance Program cards are accepted for potential volunteers was the desired strategy to
recruit participants while guaranteeing confidentiality.
The interviews focused on the food needs of the participant with the intent to put
the participant’s experience in the proper context. The initial contact was comprised of
building rapport, signing the consent form, and gathering the interview information.
Information gathered during initial contact provided further insight if the client qualified
to participate in the final interview. The initial contact discovered if the participant met
the age and family size requirements. The purpose of sharing the information was to
assist in building rapport and developing credibility towards sharing their experiences
objectively. No specific research questions were addressed during the initial contact. The
initial contact was used to screen for participants with little to no income to participate in
the one on one interviews.
The interviews also addressed the details of the participants’ present experiences,
by asking focused questions that stemmed from the research questions in this study. The
interviews were conducted at a local library in a safe and comfortable setting that was
free from distraction and ensured privacy. As a first step in the data analysis process, data
were organized from the interviews to create and organize files as the first step towards
beginning the analysis process (see Creswell, 2004). Interviews and files were preserved
in a locked box in my workspace. The process of analyzing the information began once
the data were detailed and transcribed.
The second source of primary data consisted of interviews with Food Assistance
Program supervisors or middle managers (administrators) with the first-hand experience
with distribution mechanisms. Managers and directors are experts and elaborated on the
effects and changes of the distribution mechanisms of the Food Assistance Program over
the years.
The third data source consisted of documentaries and statistical reports on food
assistance and Hunger in the United States. These data sources will provide corroborating
evidence regarding getting multiple data sources, methods and theoretical schemes; to
secure a reliable study. According to Nowell, Norris, White, and Moules (2017), the
additional focus on rigorous and relevant thematic analysis can also improve the
credibility of the research process.
The data collection process was tedious and lengthy; therefore, the NVivo
software was employed to manage the data. Although NVivo helped manage and sort the
information, it did not code the data. Coding was necessary to reduce the ample data into
smaller amounts of information, in a meaningful and systematic way. The data coding
process was conducted with open-coding. There were no pre-set codes, but I developed
and modified the codes through the coding process. I manually coded the data; however,
Microsoft Excel was also helpful in coding data (see Bree & Gallagher, 2016)
Data Analysis
Data analysis was critical in the validation of qualitative research. Therefore, a
theoretical thematic analysis method was conducted to identify patterns or themes for the
qualitative data collected in the study. According to Braun and Clark (2006), a thematic
analysis can identify themes (patterns) to summarize the data and make good sense of it.
The first step of the data-gathering portion of my research was to understand the type of
information the data conveyed, once the data were organized and then generated into
initial codes. The next step was to begin listing statements in the text that had specific
relevance to the phenomenon being studied. The proposed research was attempting to
extract statements to understand how the Food Assistance Program affects families with
little to no income.
Braun and Clark (2006) suggested a researcher employing a thematic analysis
should become familiar with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review
themes, define themes, and write up, according to their six-phase framework. A
theoretical thematic process assisted me with rich text information gathered from the
interviews, to get a deep level analysis on both small and large levels of data gathered.
This method and procedure of analysis of the data involved careful interpretation by me
as the researcher, in interpreting the data. The data collected from the 14 participants in
the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States through the form of interviews were transcribed and analyzed through
Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step guide.
A theoretical thematic analysis was conducted to look for data between and within
themes for patterns and differences related to the research question in this study. I took
the following steps, in order to interpret the collected data: read and re-read the
transcripts from the interview questions, organized the data in meaningful and systematic
way (generated initial codes through open-coding), searched for themes related to the
research question, reviewed the themes (reviewed, modified, and developed each theme),
defined each theme, and completed a final write up of my findings that will follow. The
data identified several themes. Examples of patterns: School Breakfast, Lunch Program,
Food Pantries, Soup Kitchens, Food Shortage, Food Security, Food Insecurity, Food
Assistance, and hardships.
Verification of Validity
Reliability and validity were evaluated in this qualitative research study by me as
the researcher checking the accuracy of the findings, using specific procedures such as
triangulation, descriptions, and bias clarification. In this research, I strived for
consistency throughout the study with stringent documentation of the processes (see
Creswell, 2009). Triangulation also ensured a comprehensive, rich, and robust account
for the qualitative researcher (see Patton, 2002).
Triangulation
Data source and data-point triangulation were used in this study, to strengthen the
validity and reliability of the data, establishing consistency among the data, and arriving
at the evidence for reasonable conclusions. Participants were recruited from three
different low-income areas (cities) within a county with greater than expected levels of
poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States, to enhance the data-point
reliability for the validation of consistency in my findings. Likewise, the Food Assistance
program directors or middle manager (administrators) interviews were recruited from
personnel from different DHHS districts across the selected county in the Great Lakes
region of the United States. The third data source was gathered from documentaries and
statistical information that focused on food assistance and Hunger in the United States.
These different data sources provided corroborating evidence regarding getting multiple
data sources, methods and theoretical schemes and secured a reliable study. According to
Nowell et al. (2017), the additional focus on rigorous and relevant thematic analysis
improved the credibility of my research process.
Reliability
There are two issues that could have affected this study regarding reliability and
validity. First, I work for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as a
manager which could be a conflict of interest and could have affected the reliability of the
study. However, I segregated my civil service role entirely during the process and
presented myself strictly as a Ph.D. candidate from Walden University. Secondly, I grew
up on the benefits; therefore, I clarified any bias from the outset of the study so that the
reader understands my position to ensure the evidence of trustworthiness and quality of
my research. My research employed peer review and debriefing, to clarify researcher
bias, member checks, and rich, thick description (see Creswell, 2009).
Clarification of researcher bias was critically important in this study. The reader
needs to understand the researcher’s position about this topic (see Creswell, 1998). I was
a former recipient of the Food Assistance Program. During my adolescence, I
experienced increased stress and anxiety from food insecurity while participating in the
Food Assistance Program. Feeling hungry and scared were common occurrences.
Verifying the findings kept the essence of qualitative inquiry intact (see Creswell, 2009).
I was cognizant of my experiences and bracketed them accordingly to ensure the integrity
of the study.
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this case study was to address the issue of hunger by broadening
understanding of the role distribution mechanisms supporting the capacity of the federal
Food Assistance Program for individuals with limited income and access to alternative
food sources. The principal research question was: How does policy feedback theory help
explain the role of distribution mechanisms in helping the Food Assistance Program to
meet the needs of individuals with limited income and limited access to alternative food
sources living under the poverty level in a county with greater than expected levels of
poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States? To help answer this principal
research question, I developed a secondary question: What role do ideas, actors, and
networks play in supporting the Food Assistance Program to meet the needs of
individuals with little to no income and limited access to alternative food sources? The
data collected for this study were gathered to answer these research questions.
Demographics
Participant demographics and characteristics relevant to the study included 11
Food Assistance Program recipients and three program administrators from the DHHS in
the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States. This study allowed the participants and administrators an opportunity to
share their personal experiences with the Food Assistance Program (see Appendices B &
C). All the interviews were conducted in a private setting at a local library in the studied
county.
All 14 participants were recruited through flyers posted at the local supermarkets
and e-mailed to the county DHHS administrators. Potential parent participants were
informed by the flyer that they had to live in the local county, be actively receiving food
assistance, have a family of at least four people, and have little to no income to be
selected for the study. By answering “yes” to these questions, completing the initial
participant contact interview, and agreeing to be interviewed allowed them to participate
in the study and share their experiences. Potential administrator participants were
informed by an e-mailed flyer to the county DHHS that they had to be an administrator of
the Food Assistance Program in the local county. Answering “yes” to the question and
agreeing to be interviewed allowed them to share their experiences in administering the
Food Assistance Program because managers are experts and can elaborate on the effects
and changes of the distribution mechanisms of the Food Assistance Program over the
years.
The study included a purposeful sampling mix of male and female adults over 18
years of age, living in the selected county, and participating in the Food Assistance
Program with little to no income or working for the selected DHHS as an administrator.
The personal information of all participants has been kept confidential. The names used
in the responses are changed to numbers to protect the identity of the participants in the
study (see Tables 1 & 2).
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Participant Gender Marital status Income Family size
1 Female Single No 4
2 Female Married Yes 6
3 Male Widowed Yes 4
4 Female Married No 7
5 Male Married Yes 5
6 Female Single Yes 5
7 Female Single No 4
8 Female Divorced No 5
9 Female Single No 4
10 Female Divorced No 4
11 Female Divorced No 5
Table 2
Administrator Demographics and
Ex perience Level
Administrator Gender Years of
service
Level Caseload
1 Female 15 2nd line 77,000
manager
2 Female 18 2nd line
manager
75,000
3 Female 30 2nd line
manager
76,000
Data Collection
Random sampling was used to identify participants for the study. Data were
collected through in-depth face-to-face interviews and participant observation.
Participants were asked questions from an interview guide created by me. To ensure the
accuracy of statements, handwritten notes were used to collect responses. The sample size
included 14 participants: 11 individuals (families) participating in the Food
Assistance Program and three program administrators in the selected county.
Identifying myself as a Ph.D. candidate, there were no obstacles in gaining access
to parent participants on the Food Assistance Program. Program administrator
participants were accessed with permission from the selected county DHHS director,
allowing access and preventing any issues of trust and understanding. Although many
DHHS offices in the selected county were aware of my study, it was difficult to interview
more than three program administrators due to the long work hours and heavy caseloads.
Many of them were either too busy or unavailable.
All the interviews were conducted at a local library in the selected county in the
Great Lakes region in a safe, quiet, and private setting with a duration of 1 hour each day.
All participants’ personal information and identities were carefully protected and not
included in the research results. Each participant in the study was identified as a number.
All the data collected will be secured in a box for seven years at my home office.
The interview questions (Appendix C) covered several themes: food programs
participation, benefit adequacy, food shortage, and additional food resources. The
interviews were kept open and honest. Participants were encouraged to ask questions and
clarify answers when needed. To ensure accuracy and trustworthiness, all questions and
responses were rechecked and verified by the participants at the end of each interview.
There were no variations in data collection from the plan presented in Chapter 3. There
were no unusual circumstances encountered in data collection.
Data Analysis
The method and procedure of analysis of the data involved careful interpretation
by me. NVivo software helped organize the data, sorting and managing all the collected
information. A large amount of data collected was systematically coded by hand,
reducing the data into smaller amounts of information. The data coding process was
conducted with open-coding. Themes were identified through theoretical thematic
analysis. The theoretical thematic analysis helped identify themes (patterns) to summarize
the data and make sense of it (see Braun & Clark, 2006). The thematic analysis also
helped me become familiar with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes,
review themes, define the themes, and create a write-up, according to Braun and Clark’s
(2006) six-phase framework. The thematic analysis process allowed for a deeper look
into the data, between and within themes for patterns and differences.
During the thematic analysis, I listed statements in the text that had relevance to
the phenomenon being studied, extracting statements to understand how the Food
Assistance Program affects families with little to no income. Participant responses
revealed that many families experience anxiety, depression, and shame due to food
shortages and program policy bureaucracy. Participants were also frustrated with
economic inflation and the cost of food. According to the participant responses analyzed
through the chosen coding method, six related themes emerged:
1. Participation in the school breakfast and lunch programs
2. Insufficient Food Assistance Program benefits
3. Monthly food shortages.
4. Additional food resources monthly
5. Added anxiety, stress, and shame
6. Food program benefit formula should be re-evaluated.
After participant response analysis, all participant recipients and administrators were in
line with their responses, revealing the need to reevaluate the Food Assistance Program’s
distribution mechanisms benefit formula. The participants in this study reported similar
experiences and the administrators validated them. There were no discrepant responses.
All responses will be detailed in the Results section of this chapter.
Policy Feedback Theory
The PFT helped examine the Food Assistance Program process because it
provided the feedback effects, providing insight of the ability of the policy or program
that can encourage policymakers to correct and create improved policy (Mettler &
Sorelle, 2014). In this study the theoretical framework helped to focus on social
wellbeing or economic efficiency, aiming to solve social problems or to evaluate the
existing policy. Additionally, the theory provided a focus on the ideas, actors, and
networks involved in the Food Assistance Program (see Mettler & Sorelle, 2014).
According to the emerging themes, the program is ineffective without
participation in other food programs and other resources, and the benefits alone do not
reduce food shortages. The data shows that distribution mechanisms were significant for
participants. For example, not having enough benefits on their electronic benefit
transaction card each month brought added anxiety, stress, and shame. The data shows
that reducing the monthly benefits or inadequate benefits force clients to seek additional
resources and introduce unnecessary barriers. The data also shows the distribution
mechanisms for the Food Assistance Program benefit formula should be reevaluated.
The Role of Ideas
The ideas in the PFT refer to the aim or purpose of the program or policy. Though
the Food Assistance Program was created to prevent hunger in the United States,
according to the emerging themes, the program is not effective in preventing hunger, food
shortage, or food insecurity. The previous policy shifts supplemented the food needs of
low-income working residents under the income poverty threshold instead of feeding
them completely (Benefits.gov, n. d.). However, according to the data, families on the
Food Assistance Program rely on private food banks to compensate for food shortages.
This study confirms that families participating in the program were likely to run out of
food before the end of the month.
The Role of Actors
The actors in the PFT refer to the participants in the process (or actions) in the
program or policy. In this study, the policymakers in the United States Congress are the
actors. Food policy has always been determined by policymakers in Congress since the
implementation of the program. These actors can terminate, change, or replace programs
that were designed to provide food and nutrition assistance to prevent food insecurity. For
example, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
refocused the program toward meeting food needs for working families living under the
federal poverty limit instead of feeding them completely if certain household members
fulfilled work requirements, or education and training mandates. However, according to
the emerging themes in this study, participants did not always have a consistent income to
supplement their food needs, and some had no income. Many of the participants were
either in-between jobs, exhausted their unemployment, or did not receive their child
support payments timely. These barriers have forced families on the program to rely on
additional food programs and resources to reduce food insecurity (Oberholser & Tuttle,
2004).
The Role of Networks
The networks in the PFT refer to the groups or systems of the program or policy,
which in this study relates to the private and public food networks associated with the
Food Assistance program. Private food networks have helped many Americans meet their
basic food needs because they are not served properly by the Food Assistance Program.
The two largest private programs are food pantries and soup kitchens. According to the
data in this study, a significant amount of families on the Food Assistance Program were
relying on the private network of food pantries and soup kitchens to meet their basic food
needs. Public food networks are another reliable source for Food Assistance Program
participants. According to Nichols-Casebolt and Morris (2002), the USDA operates 13
additional public food assistance programs to address food insecurity in the United
States. The larger programs include the WIC and the School Breakfast and National
School Lunch programs. However, the Food Assistance Program, also known as SNAP,
is still the largest, most reliable federal food program because it expands to all Americans
regardless of whether they have children (Nichols-Casebolt & Morris, 2002). Despite
these programs, according to the data in this study, many working families still must rely
on additional resources to cover food shortages.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
There are four major criteria to gauge reliability and trustworthiness: credibility,
transferability, dependability, and conformability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All four
criteria were addressed through the reliability and validity evaluated in this qualitative
research study by me. This process includes checking the accuracy of the findings
throughout the research and after using triangulation, descriptions, and bias clarification. I
strived for consistency throughout the study with documentation of the processes (see
Creswell, 2009). Triangulation also ensured a comprehensive account of the qualitative
data (see Patton, 2002).
There were two issues of concern affecting the reliability and trustworthiness of
my research. First, I work for the DHHS, creating a conflict of interest that may have
affected the reliability of the study. However, I segregated my role as a civil servant
during the process and only presented myself as a Ph.D. candidate from Walden
University. Second, I grew up on public assistance, which may have created a personal
bias; clarifying this bias ensures the evidence of trustworthiness and quality of the
research.
My research was also peer reviewed and debriefed to clarify researcher bias and
conducted member checks for rich descriptions (see Creswell, 2009). Clarification of
researcher bias was critical in the study, so the readers could understand my position
about this topic (see Creswell, 1998). The findings were verified to keep the essence of
qualitative inquiry intact (see Creswell, 2009). I was conscious of my experiences and
bracketed them accordingly to ensure the integrity of this study.
Triangulation
Data source and data-point triangulation were used in this study to strengthen the
validity and reliability of the data, establishing consistency among the data and arriving at
the evidence for reasonable conclusions. Eleven participants were recruited from three
different low-income areas (cities) within the county in the Great Lakes region of the
United States to enhance the data-point reliability for the validation of consistency in my
findings. Likewise, three Food Assistance Program administrators from the DHHS were
recruited from personnel from different districts across the selected county. The third data
source was gathered from three documentaries and statistical information focused on food
assistance and hunger in the United States. These different data sources provided
corroborating evidence regarding getting multiple data sources, methods, and theoretical
schemes and secured a reliable study. Additionally, focusing on rigorous and relevant
thematic analysis improved the credibility of my research process (see Nowell et al.,
2017).
Results
Research Questions
The responses of the participants revealed six themes that relate to the central
research question:
1. Participating in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs.
2. Monthly Food Assistance Program benefits are not enough.
3. Monthly food shortages.
4. Seeking additional food resources monthly.
5. Added anxiety, depression, and shame.
6. Food program benefit formula should be re-evaluated.
Supporting Data
During the face-to-face interviews, all 14 participants answered predetermined
interview questions (Appendix C). Each participant described their experiences and
feelings with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected
levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States, along with personal
demographics, such as family size, marital status, and access to income. While
transcribing the interviews, it was clear most of the responses were related to themes of
inadequate monthly Food Assistance Program benefits for each family size, as well as
experiences with anxiety, depression, and shame due to food shortages and program
policy bureaucracy.
Most of the participant responses related to three or more of the stated themes.
Although all participant and administrator responses were in line with each other, one
administrator was persistent the benefits can be enough with additional resources but not
for special culture diets. Although her responses did fit into most of the other resulting
themes, she agreed the program is outdated. All the participant recipients suggested
breakfast, and lunch meals were skipped if families were not participating in the School
Breakfast, Lunch and Summer Food Programs. All participants and most administrators
believed monthly Food Assistance Program benefits are not adequate for each family
size. On average, all participant recipient families ran out of food on average four days a
month, and additional food resources are sought on average twice a month. Most of the
participants and administrators believe the program changes continue to hinder
participating families with possible future employment and their ability to thrive in
society. All participants and administrators strongly stated the Food Assistance Program
distribution mechanisms benefit formula is outdated and should be re-evaluated.
All participants and administrators’ responses led to the themes of monthly food
benefits are not enough, the need to seek additional food sources, and the Food
Assistance Program’s need to be reevaluated. Other participant responses led to the
themes of participating in School Breakfast and Lunch programs, food shortages, and
added anxiety, depression, and shame.
Data from Program Participants
Participant 1 is a single female with three kids. She is currently not working and
has no income. She participates in the School Breakfast and Lunch Program. She does not
visit food pantries or soup kitchens. She runs out of food 4-5 days a month and believes
the Food Assistance Program should be re-evaluated. She related her experiences with the
Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the
Great Lakes region of the United States:
I can’t afford to make breakfast and lunch for three kids every day, so the
Breakfast and Lunch Programs help conserve for dinner meals. I feel like the
government does not account for all food items and costs. Towards the end of
each month, we always run out of food and benefits. My worker does not help and
makes me feel less of a person when I ask for more. She refers me to local food
pantries. My car is not working currently, and I do not have the money to fix it.
This hardship makes it difficult to go to food pantries and soup kitchens. The
benefits need to be re-evaluated! They are not enough when you are out of work
or in-between jobs. We try to make it work by skipping meals and buying cheaper
foods items. I find myself anxious and depressed not knowing if we have enough
food for our next meal.
Although Participant 1 is solely relying on the Food Assistance Program, she is still
looking for a job. She finds it hard to focus on the job market when she is always worried
about her next meal. She has a pile of job applications waiting for her at home, hoping to
land a job interview soon. She exhausted her unemployment last year.
Participant 2 is a married female with four kids. Her husband is currently working
odd jobs providing some income to the household. She relies on the Food Assistance
Program to supplement what they already have. They occasional run out of food. Her
family participates in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. They use it as an extra
meal if they don’t have enough food at home to pack for school. They do not run out of
food often, but sometimes they do. Weekends and summers are a challenge. She sends
the kids to the park in the summer to get a free lunch through the Summer Lunch
Program. The WIC program was helpful when her kids were infants; however, her kids
have aged out. They refuse to visit food pantries or soup kitchens due to their special
cultural diet. Although she tries to make it work with some income, she believes the Food
Assistance Program should be re-evaluated; it is not enough for them. She related her
experiences with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected
levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
Food in this country is too expensive. Any extra food program that I participate in
can help conserve our meals at home. The breakfast, lunch, and summer programs are
helpful. The WIC program helped so much when my kids were younger. Baby formula is
costly. Now my kids only eat adult food. I don’t visit pantries due to our special diet. We
do not run out of food much because I participate in any program I can to prevent that.
However, some months we do! It is a lot of work! It is a full-time job. I do not know what
we would do if my husband did not work odd jobs, bringing some income home. I believe
the program should be reevaluated. Why should we have to participate in four or five
programs to have enough food to eat? It should be just one program until we get back on
our feet. Participant 2 believes it is a full-time job participating in multiple food
programs. She is grateful that her husband is working, but she could never have time to
find a job while ensuring her family has enough to eat. Although her family can make it
work and get by with participation in multiple food programs with some income to the
household, she believes the Food Assistance Program should be re-evaluated. The income
is not enough for living expenses and food.
Participant 3 is a widowed male with three kids. He is currently working a
minimum wage job and earning some income. He participates in the School and Lunch
Programs because he cannot afford to pack lunches for his kids. On the weekend they eat
breakfast or lunch at his mother’s home. He runs out of food about ten days a month. He
often feels stress, depression, and hunger. He visits food pantries twice a month.
Occasionally, when his food is low, they will visit soup kitchens. Although he works and
receives subsidized housing, and earns some income, he believes the Food Assistance
Program should be re-evaluated. He related his experiences with the Food Assistance
Program in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes
region of the United States:
I am grateful for the help, but it is not enough! I cannot feed the kid’s breakfast,
lunch, and dinner. My biggest concern is dinner. The benefits are not enough. I have
explained this to my worker many times. The stress and pressure make it hard to function
at work every day. I also have trouble sleeping sometimes. I am grateful to have
subsidized housing. I don’t know what I would do if I lost my job or if I had to pay more
for rent. They need to take another look at the program. Participant 3 is doing the best he
can with what he has. He finds it hard to thrive at work when he is always worried about
his next meal. He feels the income he earns barely pays the bills. Therefore, how can he
supplement any food for his family the government does not provide with the food
benefits? He hopes to earn more income in the future, to stop worrying and stressing so
much. He looks forward to a good night sleep, one day.
Participant 4 is a married female with five kids. Her husband lost his job a few
months ago for not showing up to work. He has chronic back pain. He was denied
disability benefits. Therefore, there is currently no household income. She applied for
cash benefits with the state but hasn’t participated in the work requirements yet, so she
cannot access them. Her family is solely relying on the food benefits, currently. They
participate in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. They send the kids to the park in
the summertime to get a free lunch. They run out of food 10-15 days a month. She and
her husband feel embarrassed to ask for additional help. She is ashamed to go to food
pantries. She believes the Food Assistance Program should be re-evaluated. She related
her experiences with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than
expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
We are in a tight spot. My husband is unable to work, and they will not give him
disability benefits. It is hard feeding seven people in one household. When the
kids are in school, they can secure a lunch through the lunch program. In the
summer, it is difficult, so I send them to the park for a free lunch. We never have
enough to eat. The government does not provide enough benefits for our family
size. I am ashamed to go to food pantries and soup kitchens. All food programs
should be on one card, to save the families time and dignity. We cannot afford to
run around town for additional help. Our caseworker never helps! My husband
and I are stressed out and frustrated, triggering martial problems.
Participant 4 and her family are facing hard times, with her husband’s back problems. She
is unable to work in the summer. She is the only one that can care for her family. It is
difficult for her to visit soup kitchens and food pantries. It would be easier for all the
benefit programs to be available on one card until they can get back on their feet.
Participant 5 is a married male with three kids. He works and has some income.
His family participates in the School Breakfast and Lunch programs. He believes the
monthly food benefits are not enough, even though he works full time. He can barely pay
his bills. His household runs out of food on average seven days a month. He related his
experiences with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected
levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
I work full time, and I still don’t make enough to pay my all the bills and feed my
household. My wife will work odd jobs during the school year when the kids are
at school, but summers are tough, and we struggle more. We have to rely on the
Food Stamps to supplement what we have. Some months are harder than others
depending on the bills or occasions. The School Breakfast and Lunch Programs
help. In the summer we look for parks that offer the Summer Lunch Program. I
visit the food pantry twice a month. They will not allow more than two visits a
month. I don’t like to take my kids to soup kitchens; they are dirty. They need to
re-evaluate the amount of benefits they give people. This would reduce the
amount of stress and anxiety my family must go through. We are forced to buy
the cheapest food items to maximize our benefits.
Participant 5 believes the amount of benefits the state gives is not realistic. Although he is
grateful for the help, his family finds themselves food insecure about seven days a month.
His income is used for the household bills and other expenses. The state counts that
income against him and reduces their benefit amount. He wishes they took into
consideration the cost of living and rising food costs. He worries about the quality of the
food he feeds his family, to make it work each month.
Participant 6 is a single female with four children. She is receiving
Unemployment Compensation Benefits and Child Support payments. Although she has
some income, she is worried because the Unemployment Compensation will run out soon
and her Child Support payments are inconsistent. Most of the time, the fathers of the
children do not pay on time. They run out of food 3-5 days a month. She participates in
the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. She barely has enough to pay for her monthly
rent, so she relies on the Food Assistance Program to feed her family. She related her
experiences with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected
levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
I was laid off four months ago and been receiving unemployment since that time.
It helps me pay the rent and keep the lights on. The Food Stamps help feed us. In
the summer it is hard because the kids do not get a free lunch. During the school
year, my kids get a free lunch which helps me focus only on dinner items. I send
them to the local park to play and get a free lunch sometimes. We always need
more! It is not easy feeding four kids. I try to stretch the benefits, but I hate
buying cheap food items. Most of the time, I have no choice. I find myself visiting
food pantries twice a month. I am only allowed two bags of food items every two
weeks at the local food pantry. We do not like to use soup kitchens; they are dirty.
The Food Stamps are not enough! If they were, I would not have to visit a food
pantry every two weeks.
Participant 6 is worried and stressed the state would not extend her Unemployment
Compensation Benefits. She is concerned about her rent first and then food. If the Child
Support payments were more consistent, this would help her with buying more quality
food items. She is due back in court next month to request more Child Support from one
of the fathers of her children. He has a good job but refuses to help her with the kids.
Participant 7 is a married female with five kids. Her husband works a minimum
wage job, so they have some household income. He lost his job a few years ago at the
factory, so he had to start over. He is taking classes online at night to reinvent himself.
They rely on the Food Assistance Program to supplement their food needs. They
participate in the School Breakfast and Lunch Program. They do not run out of food
because they budget and stretch each dollar, along with their monthly food benefits. She
related her experiences with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than
expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
Until they increase my husband’s wages, the government will have to feed our
family. My husband had a good job and made decent money, but he was
eventually laid off. We rely on the Food Assistance Program, but they will only
supplement the household income. Furthermore, most of our income goes to
household expenses. We use the School Lunch Program to secure a meal for our
kids in school. What they give our family is not enough. We skip meals to get
through the week, so we do not run out of food. It’s very stressful, but we make it
work. They need to re-evaluate the food program and reduce the paperwork
involved. Every few months they send me paperwork and stress me out. They
never answer the phone or return phone calls at the DHHS.
Participant 7 stretches each dollar her husband earns and all the benefits the state
provides. She is currently looking for a job but has not had any luck. She didn’t graduate
from high school, so it is tough for her in the job market. She knows how to stretch and
conserve, so her family does not have to suffer without food. However, just because her
family does not experience food shortages, they still experience hunger. This hardship has
taken an emotional toll on the family is.
Participant 8 is a single female with four kids. She currently has no income. She is
in-between jobs. She receives Section 8 (subsidized housing benefits), so she is not
responsible for any monthly rent payments. Every time her gas and electricity bill is past
due; she relies on the state to pay it for her. They run out of food 2-3 days a month. Her
family participates in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs and are solely relying on
the Food Assistance Program for all their food needs at home. She related her experiences
with the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected levels of
poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
We are grateful for the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs during the school
year. These programs guarantee my children breakfast and lunch meals during the
day. These secured meals help stretch our food items at home. I do not believe the
benefits are enough for my family size. We always run out of food each month.
This hardship forces me to seek additional resources instead of a job. The
summers are hard because I have to provide more meals for my family. I do not
have a car right now so visiting food pantries is hard when I must catch the bus. I
wish they would re-evaluate the program and secure my family more food until I
get back on my feet. A few months ago, my kids got sick from eating cheap food
items from the local gas station.
Participant 8 solely relies on the Food Assistance Program during the summer. She is
unable to visit food pantries because her vehicle has been impounded for unpaid parking
tickets. Her monthly benefit amount runs out quick if she buys higher quality ingredients.
They find themselves buying cheaper food items from the local gas stations and party
stores. Currently, there are no supermarkets in her area, but they are building a Meijer’s a
few blocks away.
Participant 9 is a divorced female with four kids. She has some income from Child
Support and shares custody of her kids with her ex-husband. She is going to school full
time and does not have time to work. Her ex-husband makes too much money for the
School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, so she solely relies on the Food Assistance
Program. They run out of food about six days a month. She related her experiences with
the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in
the Great Lakes region of the United States:
Life is hard for a divorced mother with four kids. My ex-husband only takes the
kids on the weekends, so the weekdays are hard for me. When we used to get the
School Breakfast and Lunch Program, it was a little bit easier but when they
found out my ex-husband makes too much they took it away. My monthly food
benefits are not enough. They count my children’s child support income against
us and reduce our benefits. My monthly income barely covers my living expenses.
I have been using my student loans to pay for school and my rent. It’s easier for
me to skip meals on the weekend when the kids are with their father. They need to
re-evaluate the program and take all these things into consideration.
Participant 9 is unable to work because she goes to school full time. Her Child Support
income barely covers the household expenses. Her kids do not qualify for the School
Breakfast and Lunch Programs, currently. She believes that food costs are too high to get
through the entire month without running out of food. She does not have time to visit
food pantries, so she finds it easier to skip meals and send the kids to their father. She
hopes the federal government takes another look at day to day expenses and the rising
cost of food. She often finds herself anxious about running out of food.
Participant 10 is a single female with three kids. She has no income. She was
relying on Child Support until the fathers of her children stopped paying support. Her
family participates in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. She runs out food 1-2
days a month. She related her experiences with the Food Assistance Program in the
county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States:
My kids participate in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. It helps a lot
during the school year, but the summers are difficult. During the school year,
school lunch helps a lot. School lunch meals help conserve more food for our
dinners while securing a meal for the kids. I do not believe the Food Assistance
Program provides enough benefits. We always run out of food. Food shortage
puts a strain on our family because I have to spend my gas money visiting food
pantries across the city. I find myself stressed out and anxious. I do not like
visiting soup kitchens because they are nasty. I do not know how they expect me
to feed three kids with just $367 of benefits per month. They need to change this
program and get rid of all those caseworkers that do not help.
Participant 10 was doing okay when she had some Child Support income. Once she had
to rely solely on the Food Assistance Program, things got worse for her family. She found
herself visiting food pantries across the city and spending money she didn’t have on gas
money. She is frustrated with the bureaucracy of the program and the department. She
wishes they would fix the program and hire case managers that would help the public.
Participant 11 is a single female with four kids. She has some income. She
participates in the School Breakfast and Lunch Program. She runs out of food 3-4 days a
month. She believes the program is broken. She related her experiences with the Food
Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the
Great Lakes region of the United States:
How can I feed my kids a quality meal with so little benefits? I work part-time
cleaning homes and offices, and they count that against me. The money I earn
barely covers rent and gas money. The state helps me with my gas and electric bill
but only in the winter. We try to consolidate meals during the summer when there
is no school. School meals help. When we run out of food, my neighbor and I take
turns visiting the food pantries and split the food. I wish they would re-evaluate
the program and take into consideration the cost of food items and inflation. The
stress and frustration of working so hard and not getting anywhere are truly
depressing. They need to fix our broken system. The food I feed my kids is cheap
and unhealthy because that is all we can afford, to reduce monthly food shortages.
Participant 11 believes she can reduce the number of days they run out of food if
they buy cheaper food items. However, they still run out of food 3-4 days a
month. She believes the program is ineffective and unrealistic without
participating in multiple food programs with some monthly income. Even then,
she feels quality food items are out of the question while trying to reduce food
shortages.
Data from Program Administrators
Administrator 1 is a female that has worked for the Department of Health and
Human Services administrating the Food Assistance Program for 15 years. She manages
110 case managers and supervisors that maintain 77,000 food cases in her district. She
related her experiences administrating the Food Assistance Program in the county with
greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
The program has changed at least four different times over the last 15 years, each time
adding sanctions and reducing the benefits for clients. These changes include Time
Limited Food Assistance (TLFA), felony restrictions, and benefits reductions, leading
recipients from one hardship to another. In my opinion, the program has been helpful for
some but not others. The disabled, seniors and
families without income suffer the most. It may be effective for families or single
adults in urban areas but not for everyone else in rural areas. Rural areas have food
deserts, where there are limited supermarkets and resources, and unreachable resources
such as food pantries and soup kitchens. The program does not provide enough benefits
for families without income. It only works with additional resources and some income.
Quality food items are not possible with the limited food benefits. I strongly believe the
program should be re-evaluated. The program may be helpful in reducing poverty and
hunger, but it could be contributing to health issues such as preventable diseases like
obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Administrator 1 is passionate about her job and
helping people. She believes families without income, disabled individuals, and seniors
suffer the most with hunger. Rising food costs and limited benefits force families to eat
cheaper food items. Hence, causing other epidemics such as obesity, hypertension, and
diabetes. She has only seen benefits go down and not up, over the past 15 years. The
federal government needs to take another look at the program and be more realistic for
the entire population.
Administrator 2 is a female that has worked for the department administrating the
Food Assistance Program for almost 18 years. She manages 95 case managers and
supervisors that maintain 75,000 food cases in her district. She related her experiences
administrating the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected
levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
The federal government has drastically changed a couple of times if I can
remember correctly. These changes were things like work requirements added to
the program. These changes were supposed to help clients find a job, requiring
them to work to collect food benefits. These work requirements were so bad for
the state they had to add a waiver for our state because the unemployment rate
was so high (over 10%). I believe the Food Assistance Program is helpful towards
poverty, allowing low-income families to use their limited income towards other
rising expenses. However, the food program is only effective with some income
and other resources. It can be effective among families with no income! The
program does not provide enough monthly benefits to feed a family entirely.
However, clients will have to maximize all other available resources to get by.
Furthermore, the program is outdated and needs to be re-evaluated. The cost of
living and inflation has outdated the program.
Administrator 2 believes the program is not keeping up with inflation. Families without
income and access to additional resources will suffer the most. Quality foods are not
possible with limited benefits for families. The federal government should not let the
TLFA waiver expire in the state and re-evaluate the distribution mechanisms for the
program based on the cost of living and inflation. The waiver is set to expire at the end of
2018. She believes these actions can also reduce fraud and the selling of food benefits for
cash.
Administrator 3 is a female that has worked for the department administrating the
Food Assistance Program for almost 30 years. She manages 110 case managers and
supervisors that maintain 76,000 food cases in her district. She related her experiences
administrating the Food Assistance Program in the county with greater than expected
levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States:
I have seen the program change drastically about two times during my career. I
think when they shifted from food stamps to electronic benefit transactions it was
beneficial to the public. However, the TLFA was not a good change. The idea of
TFLA was to force people to work to get food benefits in the state, but that
allowed some people to fall through the cracks. Many people are still having
trouble finding jobs. Thank god there is a waiver in the state, but it is due to
expire at the end of the year for this county. I believe the program can be effective
on the one hand but hindering on the other. Clients have different barriers that
may cause the program to hinder their family. These barriers include
transportation, education, and resources. The program can be enough if they apply
it with other food programs and some income. I believe I could make it work if I
had to live on the program. However, I strongly believe the program should be
reevaluated and be more realistic to the different family barriers and the cost of
food.
Administrator 1 believes the program has been very beneficial to many families
but difficult for others across the state. Nonetheless, the program needs to be more
realistic to rising food costs and family barriers that are hindering families across the
state. She strongly believes the program’s distribution mechanisms should be reevaluated
to help all people versus some.
Documentaries and Studies
A Place at The Table is a documentary about hunger in America. It focused on
families with children experiencing hunger. It explored the impact of hunger on families
with children. These impacts included goals, long-term goals, and education. This
documentary looked at the correlation between poverty and obesity, suggesting some
potential solutions to hunger and improving the national food system.
What was discovered is some people are ashamed to acknowledge they are
suffering from hunger and the effects of hunger such as added stress, anxiety, depression,
and preventable health risks. Moreover, one out of every two kids in the United States
will be on the federal Food Assistance Program, eventually at some point. The average
food stamp benefit is $3.00 a day. This generation will eventually get sick and die
younger from the available food compared to previous generations. As many as 50
million Americans rely on charitable food programs to reduce food insecurity. It is
important to note, although charity is a great gesture, it doesn’t end hunger. Public policy
can work only with the right representation to changes policies toward food and food
programs.
FOOD, INC is a documentary that explored the corporate agriculture industry
exposing how farming is harming people, animals, and the environment. Experts discuss
how factory farming, food safety, and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) play an
important factor towards health and hunger. Although feeding people may be the first
step to solving the hunger problem, self-sufficiency is the goal. Self-sufficiency is not
possible with rising food costs, unsafe farming, and genetically modified foods. Many
families continue to suffer from providing well-balanced meals so they can thrive in
society. Limited income and food benefits force families to buy cheaper food items that
are unhealthy and affecting their health. Cheap food items put children and adults at risk
with obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.
Food cost is the result of unhealthy eating. Economic hardship forces families to
stretch their income and food assistance benefits. Buying a family size bag of chips is
much cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables. A study conducted on food costs
suggested healthier foods are $550 more a year on average (Rao, Afshin, Singh, &
Mozaffarian, 2013). This cost difference is extremely burdensome for a family with
limited or no income, hence resulting in a poor diet. This difference in cost is about $1.50
more per day for about a $5.00 food budget per person per day for healthier food items. A
diet full of processed foods and snacks is much cheaper than a diet full of fruits,
vegetables, and fish (Rao et al., 2013). Unhealthy food is 30 % cheaper than healthier
food. These price differences leave families no choice and may lead to health problems,
creating a strain for the Medicaid program and the healthcare system.
These third data sources are in line and support the emerging themes inducted
from the primary and secondary data collected from the study participants. According to
the primary and secondary data sources in this study, families in the county with greater
than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States will
continue to experience such burdens of added stress, anxiety, depression, and preventable
health risks. The participants in this study also elected to capitalize this 30 % purchasing
power to maximize their monthly food benefits, consuming cheaper food items. Although
this reduced some food insecurity, it still did not prevent monthly food shortages and
introduced other possible health risks. Nonetheless, families still experience food
insecurity. Families in all data sources rely on additional food resources with or without
income while participating in the Food Assistance Program.
Statistics from Third Party Sources
According to the United States Census (2016), in the United States, the population
was 325,719,178, with 63% of that population in the labor force and a per capita income
of $29,829. However, 12.7% were living under the federal poverty level during (United
States Census, 2016). Of these numbers, 21.8 million households participated in the Food
Assistance Program during (USDA, 2016).
In the state of this study, the population was 9,962,311during (United States
Census, 2016). 15 percent of the population were living below the poverty level, with a
per capita income of $27,549. 61 percent were active in the labor force. 777,906
households were participating in the Food Assistance Program with an average monthly
benefit per household $232.22.
The population in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the
Great Lakes region of the United States is 1,753,616 according to the United States
Census (2018). Of that, 85.1% of the population have a high school diploma, and only
22.3% have a bachelor’s degree, with 58.8% active in the labor force (United States
Census, 2018). An overwhelmingly 22.9% of the population are living below the poverty
level (United States Census, 2018). The average benefit amount per household is $246.
These statistics suggest clients are receiving an average of about $4 per day for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner. This amount is unrealistic towards quality food items.
Although the maximum monthly allowance is $194 per month per person, the average
state recipient gets about $122 according to the United States Department of Agriculture
(2016). Program restrictions and benefit reductions have reduced the participation of
individuals in the Food Assistance Program. However, 1 in 4 people in the county with
greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States is
still experiencing food shortages. In 2016, the number of state program recipients
dropped 23 %. This decrease in participation reduced the state’s cost 31 %, from $261
million to $181 million, but did not reduce food insecurity in the state.
Similar studies in the past have also documented hunger in the United States. A
study conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture documented 1 in 6 Americans
across the nation are facing food insecurity. The families in the study also experienced
financial hardships and difficulties with employment. In the county with greater than
expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United States, 1 in 4 people is
experiencing food insecurities. According to this study, food insecurities and food
shortages are playing a detrimental role in recipients finding employment, reducing
stress, health, and their overall ability to thrive in society.
Summary
The data results represented the 11 program participants and three program
administrators interviewed, and the third data source correlated with the primary research
question and secondary questions. All the data shows the participants experienced food
shortages, health risks, added stress and humiliation, and participation in additional food
sources. The program participants continue to participate in the food programs until they
earn more money or do not qualify anymore. The major themes emerged as a result of the
responses of the participants: breakfast and lunch meals are skipped for families not
participating in the School Breakfast, Lunch and Summer Food Programs, monthly Food
Assistance Program benefits are not adequate for each family size, families ran out of
food on average 4 days a month, additional food resources were sought on average twice
a month, food costs and shortages caused families anxiety, depression, and shame,
program changes continue to hinder participating families, and the Food Assistance
Program benefit formula should be reevaluated.
This chapter discussed how all ethical concerns during the research procedures
were addressed, describing how the data collection and data analysis components were
completed, providing evidence of trustworthiness during the research study process, and
presenting the results of my research study based on the responses of the participants and
concluded with a summary of the results. Chapter 5 will include an analysis and
interpretation of the research findings. Chapter 5 will present a more detailed analysis of
the results and interpret the findings based on the theoretical framework of my research
and the literature review as described in chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 5 will also include
recommendations for future research, providing a framework for public policy
practitioners and any implications for social change because of my research study.
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
In examining the role of distribution mechanisms of the federal Food Assistance
Program, this study was intended to fill a gap in the literature on the federal Food
Assistance Program’s distribution mechanisms and its ability to meet the food needs of
families with limited income and limited access to additional food sources living under
the poverty level. Using PFT as a theoretical frame, this study was intended to address the
principal question: How does policy feedback theory help explain the role of distribution
mechanisms in helping the Food Assistance Program meet the needs of individuals who
have little to no income and limited access to alternative food sources below the poverty
level in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region
of the United States by learning about the experiences of federal Food
Assistance Program recipients?
The effectiveness of the distribution mechanisms in helping these individuals meet
their food needs was evaluated through a case study of the Food Assistance Program in a
county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States. Through an examination of how ideas, actors, and networks support the
Food Assistance Program in its capacity to meet the food needs of individuals with little
to no income and limited access to alternative food sources, I sought to broaden
understanding of the central role that distribution mechanisms play in the ability of the
federal Food Assistance Program to address the hunger crisis in the selected county. This
case study was conducted in a county in the Great Lakes region of the United States,
given its large population of families living below the poverty level. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau (2016), 25.1% of families are below the poverty level in the selected
county compared to 14.8% overall in the United States. Data for this study was collected
with the permission of the county DHHS through interviews with 11 program participants
and three program administrators.
Interpretation of the Findings
Six themes emerged from the interviews: participating in the school breakfast and
lunch programs; monthly food assistance program benefits are not enough; monthly food
shortages, seeking additional food resources monthly; added anxiety, depression, and
shame; and food program benefit formula should be reevaluated. This first theme is
focused on the participation of the school breakfast and lunch programs. The participants’
related their participation of this program to secure meals and conserve for other meals
while the children attend school. Supplying breakfast, lunch, and dinner without the
participation of the School Breakfast and Lunch program was challenging for families
with limited or no income and access to other resources. Table 3 illustrates how this
theme emerged through selective coding.
Table 3
Emergent Theme of Breakfast and Lunch Programs Based on Manual Coding
Participant Securing meals (Theme: Breakfast and lunch programs)
1 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
2 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
3 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
4 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
5 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
6 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
7 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
8 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
9 Previous participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
10 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
11 Current participation in school breakfast and lunch programs
The 11 participants expressed frustration with the Food Assistance Program
benefit amounts (distribution mechanisms) that seemed to threaten the quality of life and
their ability to function in society. These participants noted that the benefits were not
enough alone. They consistently found themselves short on food items, scrambling to
coordinate daily meals, and even skipping meals. The food costs and inflation consumed
the benefits quickly and pushed the participants to seek additional resources. This burden
was an added expense and invited additional strains to the food insecurity.
Additionally, some of the participants who were in-between jobs found it hard to
participate in the job search when they were food insecure and sought additional food
items to get through the month. The participants who worked or had some income found
it a burden to seek additional food resources, which took time away from their work or
development and introduced added expenses for the logistics and time involved to seek
additional food resources. The participants often had to sacrifice meat items to maximize
their benefits but still found themselves food insecure. The benefit amount forced all
participants to seek cheaper food items, creating health risks and concerns such as
hypertension, diabetes, and obesity (see Table 4).
Table 4
Emergent Theme of Insufficient Food Benefits Based on Manual Coding
Participant Not enough benefits (Theme: Insufficient food benefits)
1 It doesn’t account for all food items.
2 If you buy meat items, it’s not enough.
3 The benefits are barely enough.
4 We never have enough to get through the month.
5 We always have to rely on additional resources
6 We always need more.
7 Not enough!
8 It’s not enough.
9 Food costs are too high; it runs out fast.
10 During the summer, never enough.
11 We can’t buy all the food items we need.
The next theme is related to the previous theme, which involves the number of
days the participants ran out of food in a monthly period. All the participants recounted
how they suffered every time they ran out of food each month. The monthly food
shortage ranged from 1 to 10 days a month, one day being the minimum and ten days
being the maximum monthly food shortages. In other words, all the participants
experienced a 5-day medium of food shortages each month. Through manual coding, the
theme emerged from the fact that the participants experienced some food shortage (see
Table 5).
Table 5
Emergent Theme of Monthly Food Shortages Based on Manual Coding
Participant Days without food monthly (Theme: Monthly food shortages)
1 4-5 days
2 Not often, but we skip meals
3 10 days
4 10-15 days
5 7 days
6 10-15 days
7 7 days
8 3-5 days
9 Not often, but we skip meals
10 4 days
11 3-4 days
The next theme emerged from the responses on how often participants sought
additional food resources. When seven of the participants ran out food, they pursued
additional resources. These resources included food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters.
Although the other four participants did not visit food pantries, soup kitchens, and
shelters, they would have if they did not have barriers such as shame, transportation, and
religious food restrictions. The seven participants found themselves visiting food pantries
at least once a month. Some would visit twice a month, reaching their monthly limit.
Food shortages would cause them to seek help at soup kitchens and shelters. Manual
coding helped identify themes that related to participants seeking additional food
resources (see Table 6).
Table 6
Emergent Theme of Additional Food Resources Based on Manual Coding
Participant Food pantries/soup kitchens (Theme: additional food resources)
1 I would visit food pantries if I had transportation.
3 We visit food pantries at least once a month.
4 Food pantries, twice a week.
5 We visit the church twice a month for additional food.
6 We visit food pantries twice a month.
7 I don’t know where they are
8 We visit food pantries and soup kitchens on holidays.
9 We visit food pantries twice a month.
10 Food pantries and soup kitchens occasionally.
11 Food pantries twice a month.
The next theme emerged from multiple interview questions. The 11 participants
experienced some form of stress and anxiety participating in the Food Assistance
Program. These mental burdens stemmed from food shortages to seeking additional food
resources. Other mentions included reductions and restrictions to the program. The
participants expressed the shame and humiliation that came with the participation in the
program. There is already a stigma that affects the program recipients but seeking
additional food to supplement food shortages brings additional shame and
embarrassment. A few of the participants would rather skip meals than deal with the
additional shame. The participants who were married also expressed martial problems
and strains from food insecurity. Some even found themselves depressed from all the
added struggles involved with the food shortages, stigma, and bureaucracy of the
program. Manual coding assisted in the development of this theme (see Table 7).
Table 7
Emergent Theme of Added Anxiety, Stress, and Shame Based on Manual Coding
Participant Ashamed and stressed (Theme: Added anxiety, stress, and shame)
1 I stress about not having enough food often.
3 I can’t sleep from the worry and stress about food.
5 I get anxiety when we run out of food.
6 Although I’m grateful, they make me feel like I’m a beggar.
8 Frustration and anxiety every time we run out.
9 We get weak and frustrated when we have to seek additional food.
10 Anger and shame!
The final theme was identified by program participants and program
administrators. All 14 participants expressed their frustration with the program formula
that should be re-evaluated and updated. According to the program administrators, the
program policy is outdated and is not practical with economic challenges that exist for
some program recipients. Outdated policy and distribution mechanisms pose a challenge
for those participants’ in-between jobs, those who have exhausted unemployment
benefits, or those who do not qualify for disability payments. This includes the cost of
items and inflation. The participants have only experienced food benefit reduction from
the program changes and restrictions that hinder their ability to thrive in society. The
program may delay food insecurity, but it does not prevent it. The program can only
reduce food insecurity when some income is available and other food resources. This may
have worked for some of the recipients but not all of them. Manual coding assisted in the
development of this theme (see Table 8).
Table 8
Emergent Theme of Benefit Formula Reevaluation Based on Manual Coding
Participant Benefit program outdated (Theme: Benefit formula reevaluation)
1 The program is not enough! They need to take another look.
2 They don’t consider high food costs.
3 The benefits are too little.
5 The benefits are insufficient.
6 The program should be reevaluated.
7 They need to increase the benefits and reduce the paperwork.
9 The cheap food items are not working for my family.
10 The program is not effective without other resources.
11 It’s not working. They need to fix it.
The findings confirm with the literature that the Food Assistance Program reduces
some food insecurity when there are some income and availability to additional food
resources. For example, Nicholas-Casebolt and Morris (2002) studied the growing
concern toward the Food Assistance Program’s ability to supply basic nourishment for
working-class families. Other studies were focused on the dietary patterns of low-income
families on the Food Assistance Program. However, the findings also disconfirm the
program’s ability to prevent food shortage. For example, Huffman and Jensen (2008)
examined the Food Assistance Program’s ability to meet basic food needs and increase
food security and found it was effective with other resources. However, the data in this
study show participants still had food shortages while maximizing other food resources.
The findings also extend knowledge of the barriers and hardships created by the Food
Assistance Program when clients are forced to seek additional food resources. These
barriers include no income, transportation, added expenses, and negative mental effects.
In the context of the theoretical framework of the study, my findings show that the
distribution mechanisms are negatively affecting the participants. My findings show that
limiting or reducing the distribution mechanism benefits will continue to increase food
shortages forcing participants to seek additional food resources. Such burdens have
introduced added expenses, anxiety, and hardship, unable to prevent food shortages.
Some clients had limited or no income, which made it difficult to rely on other food
resources. Other participants found it frustrating and stressful when the other food
resources were also limited. Analyzing the ideas, actors, networks of the theoretical
framework against my findings, there are funding, political, and policy concerns involved
with the program.
Ideas
According to the theory, ideas are focused on the aim or purpose of the program.
The findings illustrated that the program did prevent some food insecurity for families
who had some income and access to other resources. Although this is consistent with the
literature review, the program did not completely prevent food shortages. Furthermore, it
was ineffective in preventing food insecurity and food shortages for families with no
income, as they experienced the most food shortages. This idea plays an important role in
the Food Assistance Program because it was designed originally to prevent hunger in the
United States. Although the idea of the program was initially to prevent hunger in the
United States, over time and through political pressure, the program was changed to
supplement the food needs of the working class. This shift created a gap for limited
income food recipients relying on the program. Interpreting the data in this study, the idea
in the theoretical framework takes a closer look at limited income food recipients and
ensure they are not falling through the cracks. The participants in this study experienced
more food shortages when income was not available, along with other hardships. Food
shortages and hunger introduced added stress, anxiety, and depression, affecting the
overall ability to function and contribute to society. The idea of the Food Assistance
Program is no longer relevant to all citizens and needs to be reevaluated.
Actors
According to the theory, the actors involved are the policymakers forced to make
drastic policy changes and cuts to the food programs. The findings illustrated the current
distribution mechanisms are ineffective in preventing food insecurity and food shortages.
The actors are geared toward the participants in the process (or actions) in the program or
policy. The actors play an important role in the program; any changes to the program can
have a catastrophic effect for some families but not others. Although some changes may
have intended to get people to work, such changes did guarantee people jobs and created
additional barriers for families.
Restricting or reducing the program to alleviate political pressure does not solve
the hunger problem in the United States. In fact, according to the findings of this study, it
has not prevented food insecurity or food shortages for families relying on the program.
The findings in this study represent a need for the actors to change a “locked in” policy to
fill the gap of little to no income families to reduce food insecurity and food shortages.
The policymakers have a moral responsibility to all people that may or may not thrive in
society. Policymakers should start with the initial idea of the program and build from
there.
Networks
According to the theory, networks are geared toward the groups or systems of the
program or policy. The networks play an important role due to their association to the
program, consistent with the literature. This role in the program process is vital because it
created incentives for special interest groups and social networks to protect public
programs or interests. In this study, we focus on the private and public food networks
affected or correlated with the Food Assistance Program. The findings in this were not
consistent with the literature review and illustrated a pointless need for incentives for
some networks while reducing or restricting funding a specific policy or program such as
the Food Assistance Program. Adding a “middleman” or an added step in the process
created additional barriers such as hardships, expenses, and added stress for families,
while still experiencing food insecurity and food shortages.
Once the Ideas and Actors are looked at closer, the networks may or may not be
necessary any further. The networks involved, according to the theoretical framework,
include the private and public food programs designed to address the hunger epidemic in
the United States. According to the findings in this study, program participants that had
some income and sought additional food resources experienced less food insecurity but
still had some food shortages. These participants were grateful to experience less food
insecurity but still experienced added stress, additional expenses, and other hardships,
while seeking additional resources. The participants with no income experienced more
food insecurity and added barriers, such as transportation, shame, and limit restrictions
while seeking additional food resources. Funding other public and private food networks
may not have been the answer to the program or the public, in addressing hunger.
The theoretical framework under which the research was conducted indicated that
it was important for public policy administrators to understand the phenomenon of hunger
and the Food Assistance Program in a county with greater than expected levels of poverty
in the Great Lakes region of the United States paradigm and through the prism of the
newest economic challenges and changes. The findings in this study can play an
important role in helping policymakers understand the effects of the Food Assistance
Program. After the passage of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 by the federal government,
the majority of public policy administrators assumed hunger in America would be
resolved. However, hunger is still an epidemic in the United States and participation in
the Food Assistance Program has increased. Administrators of public policy, as well as
the broader American society, are realizing the current distribution mechanisms of the
Food Assistance Program are not effective with limited income, other food programs, and
additional food resources. Program recipients still find themselves food insecure.
Limitations of the Study
This qualitative study addressed the reliability and validity uniquely (see
Creswell, 2009). The reliability and validity were evaluated in this study by me as the
researcher checking the accuracy of the findings, using specific procedures such as
triangulation, descriptions, and bias clarification. I validated an approach that was
consistent with other researchers (see Gibbs, 2007). Data were collected through the form
of interviews from program participants, program administrators, and third party data
sources.
In this research, I strived for consistency throughout the study with stringent
documentation of the processes (see Creswell, 2009). Access to program participants was
not as difficult as expected. However, access to more program administrators was limited,
due to busy work schedules and heavy workloads. The data from all sources confirmed
the emerging themes and was limited strictly to the research question and theoretical
framework of the study.
Summary of Key Findings
Through an examination of the role of distribution mechanisms of the federal
Food Assistance Program, in meeting the needs of families limited income and limited
access to alternative food sources, this study was intended to answer the following
question: How does policy feedback theory explain the role of distribution mechanisms in
helping the Food Assistance Program to meet the needs of individuals who have limited
income and limited access to alternative food sources below the poverty level in a county
with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the United
States?
By examining the role of ideas, actors, and networks, the findings revealed the
Food Assistance Program is ineffective for little to no income food recipients relying on
the program. The participants in this study experienced more food shortages when
income was not available, along with other hardships.
Food shortages and hunger bring on added stress, anxiety, and depression,
affecting the overall ability to function and contribute to society. For example, the
findings revealed that the role of ideas was critical, given the importance of the purpose
of the program; to prevent hunger. The idea of the Food Assistance Program is no longer
relevant to all citizens and needs to be re-evaluated. Furthermore, the findings revealed
that the role of the actors was critical, given the importance of their role in the process.
Political pressures and landscapes have negatively impacted the program and extended
the burden to families experiencing food insecurity and food shortages.
The policymakers can change a “locked in” policy to fill the needs of limited
income families to reduce food insecurity and food shortages. The policymakers have a
moral responsibility to all people that may or may not thrive in society. Moreover, the
role of networks involved in the process hinders the program distribution mechanisms
because it affects program funding and creates additional barriers for clients forced to
seek additional food resources. Removing the networks can allow families to rely solely
on the distribution mechanisms of the Food Assistance Program, reducing barriers, added
stress and allowing families to maximize benefits. This could be known as a “one-stop
shop” reducing food shortages and increasing food security in the United States.
Recommendations for Further Research
The vast amount of hunger around the world and food insecurity in local
communities has challenged researchers. This study focused on the effects of distribution
mechanisms of Federal Food Assistance Program, in meeting the needs of families with
limited income and limited access to alternative food sources, as personally experienced
by the selected participants. In the county selected, 25.1% of families are living below the
poverty level (United States Census Bureau, 2016). The data from this study have
introduced new concerns about the health risks and added burdens associated with the
Food Assistance Program. As families across the state continue to live under the poverty
level and experience food insecurity, it is important to conduct further studies that will
show the health effects of the Food Assistance Program in the United States. Decreased
benefit amounts and restrictions have an impact on the quality of food items purchased to
reduce food insecurity for families living under the poverty level, and it is recommended
that public policy leaders, government officials, and educators further study these effects
on the people they are charged to serve.
It is also recommended that researchers study the experiences of families living
under the poverty limit and their ability to thrive in society, as their numbers increase
around the nation; as well as the phenomenon of hunger that continues to challenge
researchers. Further research is needed to provide evidence on how work employment
restrictions for the Food Assistance Program are helping to reduce hunger and increase
food insecurity. All the participants and administrators agreed it should be a priority for
policymakers to re-evaluate the program to suit all families and take into consideration
the cost of food and inflation.
According to the findings of this study, program distribution mechanisms must be
adjusted to address the challenges and barriers clients face from the program; it could also
reduce food insecurity. For instance, why have multiple programs and resources to seek
at different times, when one program can be a “one-stop shop.” Funding multiple
programs and resources while reducing or restriction the distribution mechanisms of the
Food Assistance Program did not increase food security or reduce food shortages.
Families without income experienced more food shortages each month. Participants that
sought additional resources believed it was helpful but did not prevent food shortages.
These hardships caused participants to experience added stress, shame, expenses, and
depression, while not preventing food shortages. Funding the Food Assistance Program
sufficiently alone could reduce the burden, stress, and hardship involved with running out
of food. Ultimately, reducing food insecurity.
My research introduced an ample amount of knowledge. At the start of the
research, my goal was to have families on the Food Assistance Program and
administrators share their experiences with food insecurity. However, while the recipients
were grateful for the food assistance provided by the federal government, many expressed
concerns about continued food shortages, program benefit reductions, and program
restrictions. My research provided an in-depth view of the Food Assistance Program’s
distribution mechanisms and its ability to reduce food shortages and hunger facing future
generations in different communities across the state, living below the federal poverty
level. The question the resonated with me is “why do I have to participate in multiple
different food programs and visit multiple food pantries to prevent running out of food
each month?” The answer to this question will assist policy makers (for a closer look at
the ideas, actors, and networks) in preventing further food shortages and reducing food
insecurity in the United States.
My passion to reduce hunger in the United States is the driving force for my
research. No human being should go hungry in the United States. There are so many
other challenges families have to face in the United States, hunger should not be one of
them. Hunger can affect a family’s ability to participate and thrive in society. My
research represents my commitment to the phenomenon of hunger in the United States.
My research is also intended to affect social change, assisting policymakers and
government officials to re-evaluate policies that may help some families but hinder others
in the United States.
Social Implications and Recommendations for Future Public Policy Initiatives
My research focused on the effectiveness of the Food Assistance Program towards
food insecurity in the United States. Research has shown the Food Assistance Program
reduces some food insecurity, only with some income and additional food resources.
Participants and administrators expressed concern with the distribution mechanisms for
the program and found them to be ineffective. Although both public and private food
programs combined are needed to meet daily nutritional values (Daponte et al., 2004), the
participants in this study found it to be a burden to participate in multiple programs and
seek additional food resources each month; others saw it as a barrier and had to skip
meals. Furthermore, families with no income experienced more food shortages each
month.
This study on the distribution mechanisms of the Food Assistance Program in a
county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States is based on historical and current data of food insecurity and hunger in the
United States: (a) 14.8% of the population in the United States are living below the
poverty level, and (b) 25.1% of the population are living below the poverty level in the
selected county. The maps below are an illustration of poverty in the United States and
the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the Great Lakes region of the
United States. These facts have implications for public policymakers and government
officials.
Conclusion
My research has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the Food Assistance
Program’s distribution mechanisms for families with limited income and limited access to
additional resources. Furthermore, the program restrictions, barriers, and added stresses
are detrimental to families and may have long-lasting effects. The benefit formula is
outdated and does not take into consideration the effects of inflation and rising food costs.
Families with some income still experienced food shortages and sought additional food
resources to reduce food insecurity. Families with no income experienced more food
shortages and barriers seeking additional resources.
A program evaluation of the distribution mechanisms while re-evaluating the
ideas, actors, and networks involved in the process according to the theoretical
framework in this study can help adjust the benefit formula and reduce the stress and
barriers in seeking additional food resources. Funding the Food Assistance Program
sufficiently verses partially funding multiple food programs would be more efficient for
families living under the poverty limit across the nation. Seeking additional food
resources throughout the month is an added burden and stressful for families. Such
hardships and barriers can be avoided if the Food Assistance Program was re-evaluated
accordingly, adjusting the distribution mechanisms benefit formula, removing work
restrictions, and the added barriers. Multiple program funding may exceed the cost of an
adequate food benefit increase of the benefit formula for the Food Assistance Program
recipients.
These program changes can increase food security and reduce the added expenses,
stress, and barriers involved in the process that recipients are facing each day, living
under the poverty level in the county with greater than expected levels of poverty in the
Great Lakes region of the United States and across the nation. This can help families
focus on finding employment, earning more income, improved health, reducing stress,
and their overall ability to function better in society. Policymakers can change the views
of public opinion, by removing the stigma attached to the public food programs. There
should be no shame in addressing food shortages in the United States. Compassion and
understanding from policymakers can help families living under the poverty level thrive
in the United States until they get back on their feet and give back to the system. This can
allow families to perform more civic duties and volunteer more of their time to the
communities they live in, initiating mass social change in the United States and leading
the way to prevent the phenomenon of hunger around the world.
