4.1 Article

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Emergency Food Pantry Use

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 647-656

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2016.12.001

Keywords

SNAP; food stamps; food pantry; emergency food; benefit adequacy

Funding

  1. FNS [GS-10F-0050L]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the association between Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and pantry use. Design: A pretest-posttest design that compared pantry use at program enrollment and after 6 months of participation while controlling for household, economic, and geographic characteristics. Setting: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Food Security Survey: a national telephone survey of SNAP new-entrant households conducted in 2011-2012. Participants: A total of 3,191 households that completed baseline interviews and were still participating in SNAP approximately 6 months later. Main Outcome Measure: Received emergency food from pantries in the past 30 days. Analysis: Logistic regression analysis of pantry use with SNAP participation and time-varying household characteristics as independent variables. Statistical significance was assessed using t tests. The authors applied a Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiple comparisons performed. Results: Participating in SNAP for 6 months was associated with a decrease in pantry use by 5.2 percentage points (P < .001), representing a 24% reduction (from 21.8% to 16.6%). Conclusions and Implications: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit allotments are sufficient for some households, but 76% of SNAP households that enter the program while using pantries continue to do so about 6 months later, which underscores the need to assess the adequacy of SNAP benefit allotments in ensuring access to sufficient food for a healthy, active life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available