Food Security

Our variable of interest is the household food security status. The USDA defined “food security” as enough food for all household members at all times for an active and healthy life, while “food insecurity” was defined as the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods (Anderson 1990). Food security, as a foundation

24 of daily life, plays an important role in ensuring school-age children’s current health and

enhancing their long-term growth and development.

Table 3. Definition, Means and Standard Deviation of Variables

Variables Description Mean Std Dev

Household size Number of people living in _household 4.47 1.81

Hispanic =1 if Hispanic, any race 0.23 0.42

White =1 if White, Non-Hispanic 0.53 0.50

Black =1 if Black, Non-Hispanic 0.18 0.38

Other Race =1 if Other Race, Non-Hispanic 0.06 0.24

City School serves city 0.35 0.48

Urban fringe of city School serves urban fringe of city 0.33 0.47

Rural and Town School serves rural and town 0.32 0.47

Mid-Atlantic =1 if Mid-Atlantic 0.10 0.30 Midwest =1 if Midwest 0.17 0.37 Mountain-Plains =1 if Mountain 0.08 0.27 Northeast =1 if Northeast 0.09 0.29 Southeast =1 if Southeast 0.21 0.41 Southwest =1 if Southwest 0.18 0.39 Western =1 if Western 0.16 0.37

Less than high school =1 if p_high_ed = 1 0.12 0.32

High school or GED =1 if p_high_ed = 2 0.24 0.43

Some college or postsecondary =1 if p_high_ed = 3 0.34 0.48

College graduate =1 if p_high_ed = 4 0.30 0.46

Participation Child Participation Status - NSLP 0.61 0.49

Elementary school =1 if school_type = 1 0.33 0.47

Middle school =1 if school_type = 2 0.34 0.47

High school =1 if school_type = 3 0.33 0.47

Food Security - Household Scale Food Security - Household Scale 2.51 0.80 2 parents, both employed FT =1 if 2 parents, both employed FT 0.32 0.47 2 parents, one employed FT =1 if 2 parents, one employed FT 0.36 0.48 Neither parent employed FT =1 if Neither parent employed FT 0.15 0.36 1 parent, employed FT =1 if 1 parent, employed FT 0.16 0.37

25 Children who are food insecure or food insufficient are more likely to suffer

behavior, academic, psychological, and physical problems (Haering and Syed 2009; Whitaker et al. 2006; Alaimo et al. 2001; Casey et al. 2005). In measuring food security status, three scales of measurement were used in SNDA-III, and included an adult food security scale (10 questions), a child food security scale (8 questions) and a household food security scale (18 questions). All scales were a household-level measurement for the past 12 months, suggesting that none of them could directly measure a particular individual household member. For reasons explained below, in this study we used the household food security scale with 18 questions through 3 stages.

With respect to the adult food security scale, the primary limitation was that existing measurement could not provide specific information about children’s food security, because there were no questions to directly ask about the conditions and

experiences of children in households. With respect to the child food security scale, the 8 questions scale that was introduced by Nord and Bickel (2002) could not fully represent potential and indirect impacts from adults and households. As mentioned above,

household level food security measurements fully accounted for the fact that every household member could be influenced by the same living environment. Children living in a food insecure family, whether or not a child herself or himself experienced food insecurity, are associated with a higher risk of hunger and negative health outcomes (Bickel et al. 2001; Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2003). Children might also be

affected indirectly by food insecurity and hunger experienced by adults in the household (Nord and Bickel 2002). Furthermore, food shortage and financial constraints might

26 bring parent stress, which further translate into a source of stress for children (Dunifon

and Kowaleski-Jones 2003). Without considering household effects, it would be

misleading to simply conclude that a child was really safe, if they were classified as food secure based on child food security scale. Therefore, household food security scale could provide a more comprehensive representation of the actual and potential risks of

children’s food insecurity.

The series of 18 questions from the CFSM were available in SNDA-III. We used those 18 questions to determine the food security classification for students. Example questions were (1) “In the last 12 months, did (you/you or other adults in your

household) ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food?” and (2) “(My/Our child was/The children were) not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn't afford enough food. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?” (Gordon et al. 2009). The USDA defines that high and marginal food security are classified as food secure, while low and very low food security are classified as food insecure. Previous literature used the number of

affirmative responses to determine the food security status. More specifically, if parents responded affirmatively to 0 of the 18 questions, the household was categorized as having a high level of food security. If parents responded affirmatively to one or two questions, households were categorized as marginally food secure. Three to seven affirmative responses classified households as having low food security and eight or more affirmative responses indicated very low food security (Eisenmann et al. 2011).

27 In this study, the food security levels were constructed by using the number of

questions that parents did not respond affirmatively. There were three food security levels, including food insecurity ( ), marginal food security ( ) and high food security ( ). In our data, 19 % of students were food insecure, 10% of students are marginally food secure and 71% of students are highly food secure. The food insecure group consisted of low food security and very low food security individuals. The reason for combining these two levels into one is that there were very few observations in the very low food security groups only, accounting for 6.41% of observations our final sample.