Perhaps you’ve read by now that more than one in three D.C. households with children — 37.4% in fact — suffered from food hardship during the past two years. In other words, the adults in these households couldn’t always afford to buy enough food for themselves and their families.
This is one of many figures in the Food Research and Action Center’s followup analysis of survey data Gallup collected during 2009-10.
Like the analysis I wrote about back in January, it breaks out food hardship by state, Congressional district and metropolitan statistical area, i.e., each of the urban-centered geographical areas the federal government uses for statistical purposes.
The difference is that the new analysis also includes break-outs for households with children and households without. This makes a big difference for the District, as it does nationwide.
Looking at household food hardship rates overall puts the District midway between states with the highest and the lowest. Ranking is nearly the same for households without children. But for households with children, the District’s food hardship rate is higher than any state’s.
One might say this is an apples and oranges comparison because the District is only a city — different, in relevant respects, from even small states. More sensible perhaps to focus on how the District stacks up among Congressional districts.
Not much better. Food hardship rates for households with children were higher in only nine Congressional districts and at least a full percent higher in only five.
How, I wonder, can we account for this?
But virtually all families below the poverty threshold are eligible for food stamps. And the District has achieved recognition from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its success in getting its residents into the food stamp program.
Could it be that food stamp benefits aren’t high enough to pay for a full month’s worth of food for any entire family? I’ve thought so for some time. FRAC as well.
We’ve got some District-specific evidence now in Feeding America’s recent Map the Meal Gap report, which shows that the actual cost of the meal plan USDA uses as the basis for food stamps is considerably higher here than in the nation as a whole.
But now we’re looking only at households with children. Many of them poor enough to be at risk of food hardship don’t have to rely solely on food stamps to feed themselves as their children.
Mothers with young children may get coupons for certain additional food purchases from WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children).
Some of those younger children may also get free meals and/or snacks in programs like Head Start and child care centers.
School-age children can get free or reduced-price school meals and possibly also after-school snacks or suppers. During summers, meals for all children are free.
Needless to say, the more meals children get in these programs, the fewer the family food budget has to cover.
The issue seems to boil down to this: Are the programs not reaching enough low-income families or are they just not enough to offset food shortages in the home?
I’ve spent quite a bit of time prowling around the Web and can’t find an answer. May provide some answers in a followup posting.
Question marks notwithstanding, we’ve got ample evidence that far too many District residents have sometimes gone hungry. Probably still do.
We’ve got a strong network of nonprofits that serve meals to poor people or give them foods they can prepare at home. We’ve got organizations like DC Hunger Solutions and its partners that strive to increase participation in federally-funded free and reduced-price meals programs.
We’ve got a local government that’s concerned about hunger and nutrition, though follow-through sometimes falls short.
But hunger is not a problem the District can solve on its own. We need more federal funding for nutrition assistance programs — and for other anti-poverty programs as well.
With Congress riveted on deeper spending cuts, the best hope is that we don’t get less.