An Excerpt: “Relief and Recovery: Addressing COVID-19’s Impact on Food Insecurity”
By Seth Billingsley and Daniel Bennett, Ph.D.
Seth Billingsley is a 2021 recipient of the Center for Public Justice’s Hatfield Prize. Billingsley (John Brown University ‘21) and faculty advisor Daniel Bennett, Ph.D., explore COVID-19’s impact on food insecurity and propose innovative recommendations for faith communities, government, & other civil society institutions to respond to food insecurity in a post-pandemic world.
DISCOVER
Refrigerated trailers serving as temporary morgues, family members saying their goodbyes to loved ones via video chat, and permanently shuttered doors of family-owned businesses — the unanticipated and devastating arrival of COVID-19 in the United States imparted hundreds of harrowing images onto the public consciousness as the coronavirus ravaged the bodies of hundreds of thousands of people across the nation and upended every sector of society. Almost overnight, thousands of families found themselves without employment while thousands more — already economically insecure — found their situations worsened.
Of the many heart-wrenching scenes brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, lines of families waiting to receive food will likely remain one of the most pertinent. In Dallas, Texas, for example, a line of cars stretched for miles as thousands waited to receive food from the North Texas Food Bank. Some families arrived as early as 5 a.m. — four hours before volunteers began distributing food — to secure a spot in line. In just one day 25,000 people received food. Between March and August 2020, the Feeding Texas network surpassed 400 million pounds of food provided to hundreds of thousands of Texans, a jump of 60 percent compared to the same period only a year prior. This unprecedented shift was reflected around the country, swiftly undoing decades of progress in alleviating and diminishing the food insecurity crisis.
What is Food Insecurity?
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines a food-insecure household as one that, at some point during any given year, was “unable to acquire adequate food for one or more household members because they had insufficient money and other resources for food.” The USDA recognizes two further categorizations of food insecurity. The first, low food security, implies “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet” with “little or no indication of reduced food intake.” The second, very low food security, means that one or more members of a given household experienced “disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake” due to an inability to “afford enough food.” According to USDA reporting, in 2019 about 13.7 million households experienced food insecurity, a decrease from 14.3 million households in 2018.
Food insecurity is distinct from hunger, as the latter represents an individual’s physical sensation and need. The former, meanwhile, refers to a complex and diverse web of financial and economic challenges at the household level which result in inconsistent access to meals, limited nutritional value and variety, and a general uncertainty regarding where food will come from. Put simply, as the food distribution network Feeding America explains, “food insecurity does not exist in isolation” but is connected to a number of interrelated causes and effects. As such, families may become food-insecure due to any number of factors, including seemingly unrelated shocks, such as rising transportation costs or school closures. Lastly, food insecurity can be described as either temporary or enduring; households can be classified as food-insecure for an extended period of time, or only very briefly.
In 2019, over 10 percent of families were classified as food-insecure, including 13 percent of families with children. Those percentages translate to over 35 million people, including 5.3 million children. The food insecurity crisis closely relates to poverty — in that same year 34.9 percent of families living beneath the federal poverty line experienced food insecurity. There are also significant racial and ethnic disparities among households experiencing food insecurity. Black households, for example, were twice as likely to experience food insecurity as compared to white households. In 2019, 1 in 12 white individuals (7.9%) experienced food insecurity compared to 1 in 6 Latino individuals (15.6%), 1 in 5 Black individuals (19.1%), and 1 in 4 Native American individuals (25%).
“COVID-19 fundamentally shifted the nature of the food insecurity crisis in the United States. ”
Food insecurity also varies by geography, as Americans in different states and communities have varying access to supermarkets and other food vendors. The USDA reports that 19 million Americans — a staggering six percent of the population — live in food deserts. A food desert is an area “where people have limited access to a variety of healthy and affordable food.” Food deserts are more prevalent in rural areas, but this may be partially accounted for due to the differing qualifications for rural and urban food deserts: in urban settings a given area is identified as a food desert if the nearest supermarket is over a mile away, but for rural regions, that distance increases tenfold. In these neighborhoods, purchasing nutritious and affordable food not only costs more, but it also often requires comparatively extensive travel thereby further increasing both direct and indirect costs through travel expenses and lost time available for work. Food-insecure households tend to be concentrated in pockets throughout the nation. Southern and Rust Belt states see levels of insecurity well above the national average while several states, including California and Iowa, fall below the average.
The Pandemic’s Impact on Food Insecurity
COVID-19 fundamentally shifted the nature of the food insecurity crisis in the United States. The economic challenges brought about by the coronavirus contributed to an unprecedented surge in demand for food and aid only months into 2020. Between March and December 2020, the number of food-insecure households doubled, resulting in an astonishing one-fourth of American families experiencing food insecurity. This stark increase in food insecurity only exacerbated existing racial disparities among those experiencing food insecurity. The Northwestern Institute for Policy Research found that, by June 2020, the prevalence of food insecurity among Black households had risen to 42 percent and 39 percent for Hispanic households compared to about 25 percent of non-Hispanic white households. Forty percent of Americans reported experiencing food insecurity for the first time in 2020. Prior to the pandemic, approximately 35 million Americans lived in food-insecure households, but by the end of 2020 that number had risen to 45 million.
In an effort to track the impact of the pandemic, the United States Census Bureau conducted a Household Pulse Survey each week, and during the last week of February 2021, approximately 22 million adults — over 10 percent of Americans — were still struggling to put food on the table. A brief analysis of the survey data revealed that 21.5 percent of Black respondents and 16 percent of Hispanic respondents reported that they “often” or “sometimes” did not have enough to eat within the past seven days, compared to just 7.2 percent of white respondents and 6.1 percent of Asian respondents. While these numbers may seem to indicate a decline in food insecurity, they in fact reveal the drastic impact of the pandemic and continuation of need: in 2019, 10.9 percent of Americans experienced food insecurity at some point during the whole 12-month period; in February, 10.5 percent experienced this in one week alone.
Increased food insecurity was a result, in part, of the economic crisis triggered by the pandemic. As the coronavirus forced many businesses to close, thousands of Americans lost their jobs. For families already on the economic margins, as well as those experiencing new economic hardship as a result of the pandemic, securing consistent access to food became more difficult. Many civil society institutions — including schools, houses of worship, and nonprofit organizations — that historically provided children and families with meals and other supports also struggled to stay open due to the pandemic. School closures had an outsized impact on food insecurity among families with children. While less than 15 percent of households with children experienced food insecurity in 2019, that number doubled to almost 30 percent by May 2020. Before 2020, on average, households with children were less likely to experience food insecurity, but 2020 demonstrably shook that norm. Families who relied on school meals from public or faith-based schools suddenly needed to feed children when they could not afford to. The sudden and unanticipated nature of school closures created immense financial hardship and additional, unanticipated expenses.
Short and Long-Term Impacts of Food Insecurity on Families
While the economic impact of the pandemic is still felt today, there will invariably be long-term complications resulting from the crisis. Economic challenges frequently involve both short- and long-term consequences for families, and the economic toll on many nonprofits and religious institutions will continue. Thousands of nonprofits laid off employees, and an estimated 11 percent of these organizations will permanently shutter their doors.
Impacting not only the body but also the mind, food insecurity can leave a lasting negative impact on health, particularly in children. Inexpensive food is often unhealthy, and food insecurity is therefore associated with some of the deadliest chronic diseases including diabetes, obesity, and developmental disorders, among other illnesses. Food-insecure families also experience greater exposure to psychological stressors, and they feel these stressors differently than financially and food-secure families as a result of both a lack of nutrition and the additional stress that accompanies poverty and economic hardship. In addition to their own stress, children in food-insecure households experience the stress of their parents and caregivers: when caregivers feel uncertain and worried about putting food on the table, children recognize and adopt these sentiments and behaviors. It comes as little surprise, then, that the impact of food insecurity extends beyond the immediate physical health of a child: children who experience food insecurity are more likely to struggle academically and experience difficulty with social skills and engaging with their peers. These impacts extend to food-insecure adolescents as well. Teenagers who live in food-insecure households are comparatively more likely to struggle in school and less likely to attend college. Additionally, food-insecure teens possess a higher probability of having children as young adults and are more likely to experience psychological distress in young adulthood.
The additional challenges of food insecurity extend to the elderly as well. Difficulties associated with food access and economic stability for adults are generally heightened for the elderly: Transportation becomes more challenging and employment may be less feasible. Food-insecure elders also experience additional health challenges as a result of their decreased nutrition including lower general corporeal health — including thinner skin and other ailments — and increased age-related challenges.
Meeting the Need: Addressing Food Insecurity During the Pandemic
Addressing a complex problem like food insecurity requires a response from both government and a diverse array of civil society institutions. During the trials of 2020 and 2021, and as the nation continues its recovery, a strong and robust social safety net is needed to address the ongoing food insecurity crisis. The social safety net is an interconnected constellation of services and programs that deliver aid to individuals and families during times of economic hardship. It is composed of federal, state, and local governments, as well as civil society institutions like secular and faith-based organizations, houses of worship, and businesses.
The federal government took a necessary leading role in coordinating and administering pandemic-related legislation and relief efforts. In order to respond to increased food insecurity, existing federal safety net programs saw expansion and additional funding, and Congress authorized and implemented new, pandemic-focused programs. Some programs delivered direct aid to families and individuals, while others relied on partnerships with civil society institutions to provide the services to their communities. Federal legislation also aimed to support and bolster civil society institutions — including faith-based organizations and houses of worship — that might otherwise have had to close their doors due to the pandemic’s health and economic challenges.
“The pandemic provided many valuable lessons for what policy solutions worked, and which ones failed.”
Direct Aid to Individuals and Families
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a pillar of the federal government’s efforts to reduce food insecurity. Administered by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, SNAP “provides nutrition benefits to supplement the food budget of needy families so they can purchase healthy food and move towards self-sufficiency.” By providing low-income families with food assistance, SNAP allows for the purchase of groceries and fresh produce in order to facilitate a healthy, balanced diet. SNAP eligibility varies from state to state and often includes limits on resources and income. If a household is deemed eligible, funds are transferred monthly to an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, which functions like a debit card. The poverty threshold data released annually by the Census Bureau provides detailed accounts for households of various sizes. For a family of four, for example, the weighted average threshold currently stands at $26,142 per year. Between 2012 and 2018, SNAP participation was in decline as food insecurity decreased, but the onset of the pandemic put an end to this trend.
As part of the effort to meet the additional need brought on by the pandemic, the USDA implemented several significant changes to SNAP. These changes related to both the application process for aid and the size of the benefit allotment. Federal eligibility requirements were relaxed which allowed states to simplify and widen their own application procedures, such as allowing college students to temporarily apply for SNAP benefits. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of March 2020 and the Families First Act included several of the most notable adjustments, including emergency allotments and Pandemic-EBT (P-EBT).
The authorization of emergency allotments to SNAP households gave states the ability to “give SNAP households emergency supplementary benefits;” to date “all states have used this option.” Prior to this change, only about 40 percent of households received the maximum available benefit as 60 percent of SNAP households had additional sources of income, so the maximum benefit was unnecessary for these households. This change, however, permitted even families with additional income to access the full benefit available to a household of their size.
P-EBT allowed states “to submit requests to provide meal replacement benefits through SNAP…for households with children who attended a school that was closed in the spring of 2020 for at least five days and who otherwise would have received free or reduced-price meals.” The P-EBT School Meals program sought to address the additional burden facing families with children who greatly felt the economic burden of needing to provide additional meals. The program allowed eligible schoolchildren to receive emergency meal replacement nutrition benefits through parents’ EBT cards so their families could purchase meals during school closures. Eligibility depended on whether the student was already eligible for free or reduced-price meals at their school.
Finally, an additional increase of 15 percent to all SNAP benefit allotments was approved by Congress for the months of January through June 2021, and the American Rescue Plan stimulus package signed into law by President Biden in March 2021 again extended this increase through September 2021.
Indirect Aid to Individuals and Families
In addition to SNAP, the USDA’s The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) supplements the diets of low-income Americans by “providing them with emergency food assistance at no cost.” As opposed to SNAP, which delivers aid directly to individuals, TEFAP provides food directly to food banks and other food-distribution organizations. TEFAP allows the USDA to purchase “a variety of nutritious, high-quality USDA Foods, and makes those foods available to State Distributing Agencies.”
In order to qualify for TEFAP “public or private nonprofit” institutions, which include faith-based organizations, must demonstrate that they “provide nutrition assistance to low-income Americans.” They can do this either through meal preparation and serving, or through meal delivery programs, like a mobile food pantry. In either case, the organizations must also identify which local households “are eligible for the service using state income standards.” While TEFAP is not new and Congress annually appropriates funds for this program in order to serve local food agencies, the $900 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act from December 2020 allocated an additional $400 million in funding for TEFAP’s partners.
In addition to the increased funding for existing programs, the federal government also created new programs during the pandemic, including the temporary Farmers to Families Food Box program. Designed to support the strained social safety net and food supply chain, this new program purchased food from farmers, packaged it in privately operated distribution centers, and delivered it in over 138 million boxes between April 2020 and May 2021. Authorized in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the program granted the USDA the authority and ability to purchase up to $6 billion in fresh food from domestic producers of all sizes. After subsequent packaging in distribution centers, the USDA transported the food to “food banks, community and faith-based organizations, and other nonprofits serving Americans in need.” The program operated in rounds of authorization and required subsequent reauthorization following each round; the final reauthorization occurred in January 2021 and the program ended in May 2021.
As an indirect aid program, eligibility for Farmers to Families wasn’t tied to any one person; the Department of Agriculture developed this unique program to facilitate meal distribution through the existing local social safety net — namely, by utilizing business supply chains and nonprofit networks. It is distribution centers, not states or even nonprofits, that apply for access to food. These centers would typically serve restaurants and other food-related businesses, but due to the pandemic, many of these companies experienced economic hardship as restaurants closed and thus their business decreased. Farmers to Families offered these distributors not only an opportunity to stay open, but the ability to aid their communities. Instead of solely packaging meals for cafeterias or grocery stores, these centers supplemented their normal business with community aid. When a distribution center received authorization, they packaged the food boxes and sent them to local nonprofits or government entities, provided that these institutions meet certain qualifications established by the USDA. Importantly, any nonprofit or government agency received boxes regardless of their typical operations, but they had to possess the necessary equipment to store large quantities of fresh food and the necessary network to distribute it.
Farmers to Families and TEFAP represent the immense potential for partnership between the federal government and civil society in addressing food insecurity. By delegating distribution to nonprofits, businesses, and local governments, the federal government allows institutions already involved in local communities to make critical decisions about where and how aid ought to be distributed. Farmers to Families had challenges, including overpriced food and rotten produce, but for a program developed quickly during a pandemic, it displayed immense potential for further programs and opportunities.
The development of programs and partnerships such as Farmers to Families, however, should not fall entirely onto the shoulders of government. Involving community leaders at a local level must be a centerpiece for welfare programs and relief operations orchestrated by the federal government. The voices and needs of program recipients must always be a primary consideration for any successful program, and community organizers, nonprofits, and even businesses are better equipped to intimately understand these needs than lawmakers. The temporary changes to social safety net programs brought about by the pandemic succeeded when they focused on the needs of the communities and included local institutions in the relief process. A robust social safety net, inclusive of civil society institutions, is necessary to eliminate food insecurity, whether in a time of crisis or calm.
Read the rest of “Relief and Recovery: Addressing COVID-19’s Impact on Food Insecurity,” which includes the research team’s recommendations for addressing food insecurity through public policy and civil society, and a case study of Northwest Arkansas.
Seth Billingsley graduated from John Brown University in 2021 with a Bachelor’s of Business Administration in international business and a Bachelor’s of Arts in political science. He completed his research for The Hatfield Prize during his senior year. Seth served as the Co-Chair of his university’s American Enterprise Institute Executive Council as well as the Chair for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute student board at his school. Billingsley’s undergraduate research and experiences centered on a variety of topics including education policy, macroeconomics, and the intersection of faith and politics. He now works as Environment Texas’ Conservation Associate in Austin, Texas. Seth is passionate about climate change and has worked for over a decade to rehabilitate injured and orphaned birds of prey.
Daniel Bennett, Ph.D., is an associate professor of political science at John Brown University, where he teaches American politics, constitutional law, political behavior, research methods, and more. His research generally focuses on the intersection of politics, law, and religion in the United States; his current research examines the politicization of religious freedom and the influence of group attitudes on support for constitutional protections. In addition to his academic publications he has written for popular outlets like Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition, and Religion and Politics. He also serves as assistant director at the Center for Faith and Flourishing, and has served as both president and vice-president for Christians in Political Science. He and his wife live in Siloam Springs, AR with their three children.
Address Food Insecurity in Your Community
Inspired by what you’ve read? Consider starting a Political Discipleship group to address food insecurity in your community. The Center for Public Justice’s Political Discipleship is a guide for active Christian citizenship, designed to empower people with skills and tools to shape policy and address inequality and injustice in their communities. To learn more about starting a group, visit our website or contact katie.thompson@cpjustice.org.
The Hatfield Prize is made possible through the generosity of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust. We thank them for their support, but acknowledge that the findings and conclusions presented in these reports are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of these foundations.