Campus‐based programmes to address food insecurity vary in leadership, funding and evaluation strategies

Abstract

College food insecurity is a known detriment to student success, but little is known about the implementation of campus-based programmes to help address this issue on campus in the United States. The objective of this research study was to determine the types of food insecurity initiatives implemented and assess how such programmes are managed, funded, and evaluated. A cross-sectional, 23-item online survey was administered among individuals involved with campus food insecurity initiatives identified through professional networks. Food pantries were the most common (97.1%) and mobile food sharing applications were the least common (14.7%) food security initiatives. A majority of respondents (69.7%) stated that at least one programme on their campus was evaluated, although the methods varied and uncertainty about the methods used was common. An allocated budget was provided at some institutions (38.9%), but funding mechanisms varied. Student Life Offices were most commonly reported as being responsible for programme management. Most respondents (75.3%) reported there had been programme changes due to COVID-19. This research confirmed that food insecurity programmes are widely available, although the type, funding,

Creating a culture that supports food security and health equity at higher education institutions

“…Risk factors for college food insecurity include classification as a first-generation, nontraditional, international student or military connected-student; disability status; having dependents; identifying as gender non-conforming or transgendered or part of a racial, ethnic or minority group (1,2,(4)(5)(6)(7) . Campuses across the country have implemented a wide range of programming to improve food security such as food pantries, campus gardens, farmers' markets, meal share or voucher programmes, mobile food applications, campus food gleaning, food recovery efforts and meal deliveries while some higher education institutions have relied on working groups or task forces to further these efforts (1,(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38) . More can be done to raise awareness of federal nutrition assistance programmes and improve food insecurity policies and programmes on campuses.…”

“…There are also student-led food insecurity initiatives and programs, including campus gleaning, food recovery efforts, food lockers, and meal deliveries (1,(33)(34)(35) . Although these campus-based initiatives exist and are growing in popularity, little data is available on the impact these programs have on the food security status of participants (1)(2)(36)(37) since evaluation strategies across campuses are inconsistent (38) . Furthermore, college students have voiced the need for further interventions to address inadequate financial resources, unrealistic food costs on campus, meal plan inflexibilities, and the need to learn life skills while in college (36) .…”

“…Furthermore, college students have voiced the need for further interventions to address inadequate financial resources, unrealistic food costs on campus, meal plan inflexibilities, and the need to learn life skills while in college (36) . Some higher education institutions have established working groups or task forces to coordinate and oversee initiatives around meeting the basic needs of their students (38)(39) . In some circumstances, colleges and universities have hired dedicated staff member(s) or assigned existing staff to lead campus initiatives or serve as points of contact to help food insecure students find assistance (33,(38)(39) .…”

“…Some higher education institutions have established working groups or task forces to coordinate and oversee initiatives around meeting the basic needs of their students (38)(39) . In some circumstances, colleges and universities have hired dedicated staff member(s) or assigned existing staff to lead campus initiatives or serve as points of contact to help food insecure students find assistance (33,(38)(39) .…”

Association between food insecurity status, campus food initiative use and diet quality in Australian university students

“…24 ARFS total diet quality score (ranging from 0 to 73) is calculated by summing the points within eight subscales, with 20 points related to vegetables, 12 to fruits, 12 to bread and cereals, 10 to dairy foods, 7 to meat, 6 to meat alternatives, 2 to spreads or sauces and 1 to water. 25 Scores were categorised into the following groups: 'needs work' (<33), 'getting there' (33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38), 'excellent' (39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46) or 'outstanding' (47+). 23 Five demographic and education characteristics of students were collected including age category (18-24 years, 25-34 years, 35-44 years), sex (male, female), enrolment type (domestic or international student), faculty of enrolment (Business and Law; Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities; Engineering and Information Science; Science, Medicine and Health); course level of the subjects students are studying (100 level = first-year undergraduate; 200 level = second-year undergraduate; 300 level = thirdyear undergraduate; 400 level = fourth-year undergraduate; postgrad = postgraduate study) and living situation (living in own home or with parents, living in on campus accommodation or renting, doing a homestay, living in a share house or irregular accommodation).…”