Abstract

Evaluation of a supplemental food program for elementary children

using parent satisfaction surveys indicated a neutral perception of

the program, but lower per capita household income and greater

food insecurity significantly predicted greater perceived benefit

suggesting the program should be targeted and evaluation results be

interpreted carefully.

Introduction

In 2012, 15.9 million children lived in food insecure homes. Food

insecurity is associated with negative health and educational

outcomes (Winicki & Jemison, 2003). The purpose of this study was

to evaluate the perceived benefits of the BackPack Food Program

based on the household per capita income and food insecurity. The

program is provides food for weekends and school breaks to

elementary students in low-income public schools without requiring

proof of need.

Methods

74 parents who completed consumer satisfaction surveys regarding

the program. Consistent with demographics of the area, the

majority of respondents (69%) were Caucasian. Most families

(86%) had an income below $40,000 with an average of 4.5 people

per household.

Survey results were used to calculate per capita household income,

food insecurity (α = .716), and perception of the program as

beneficial (α = .785). Income was leptokurtic and positively skewed

reflecting a disproportionately low income sample. Food insecurity

was normally distributed. Linear regression was used to determine

whether per capita income and food insecurity predicted perception

of the program as beneficial.

Results

Perceived benefit of the program was normally distributed with a

mean indicating a neutral perception of the program (neutral score

= 17.5, actual mean = 17.8). The linear regression model accounted

for 62.3% of the variance = 0.623, F(2, 44) = 34.75, p < 0.01) in the

Perceived Benefit of the BackPack Program with both income (β = -

0.25, t = -2.63, p < 0.5) and food insecurity (β = 0.78, t = 8.19, p <

0.01) significantly predicting perceived benefit.

Relationship between Income and Perceived Benefit

Relationship between Food Insecurity and Perceived Benefit

Discussion

Discussion

Although perception of the program by all participants was neutral,

per capita household income and food insecurity both significantly

accounted for a large portion of the variance in perceived benefit of

the program. That is, the program may be perceived as most

beneficial by recipients if it is targeted to those with the highest

amount of need, defined as either per capita income or food

insecurity, and overall results regarding perceived benefit may be

misleading. Requiring a specified per capita household income

alone is not recommended as a portion of participants indicated

food insecurity and perceived benefit from the program even at

higher levels of income. Additionally, using overall satisfaction

results are misleading regarding the benefit of the program.

References

Feeding America. (2013).Hunger and poverty statistics. Retrieved

from

http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/hunger-and-p

overty-statistics.aspx

.

Winicki, J., & Jemison, K. (2003). Food insecurity and hunger in

the kindergarten classroom: Its effect on learning and growth.

Contemporary Economic Policy, 21, 145-157.

Perceived Benefit of the BackPack Food Program Based on Income and Food Insecurity Samantha J. Tupy, Sarah K. Sifers

Minnesota State University, Mankato