Food Pantries and the Populations They Serve: Strange Bedfellows or Strategic Partners?

Abstract

Although it is often assumed that food pantries are managed by middle-class directors whose social background differs significantly from that of their target populations, no systematic empirical evidence concerning this issue exists to date. Moreover, scholarship has yet to explore the extent to which the presumably distinctive social positions of pantry directors and clients might result in the stigmatization of poverty, social welfare programs, and the poor by agency directors. Drawing on insights from attribution theory, this study seeks to shed light on demographic and attitudinal differences between pantry directors and food-needy persons. The study begins by comparing the demographic characteristics of food pantry directors in a two-state region of the South (Alabama-Mississippi) with those of the food-needy population in the region. It then moves on to contrast attitudinal disparities between these directors and food-needy persons related to such issues as the causes of poverty, the effects of social welfare programs, and the character of those who utilize food assistance programs. Noteworthy differences in race, education, and religiosity emerge when comparing directors with the populations they serve; however, directors did not differ markedly from their potential clients in key social attitudes. When asked specifically about food pantry clients, directors responded with a mix of sympathy and suspicion. While a substantial portion of directors attribute poverty to structural causes, a significant number also characterize clients seeking food assistance as possibly having unsavory motivations for doing so. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings.

American Poverty Cause Beliefs and Structured Inequality Legitimation

“…These explorations present mounting and consistent evidence that poverty cause beliefs vary between cultures Nasser 2001, 2002;Feather 1974;Furnham 1982a;Morçö l 1997;Muzdybayev 2001;Nasser and Abouchedid 2006) and are affected by gender, race, political leaning, religion, location, income or class affiliation, and a variety of other factors (Bullock 1999;Bullock and Limbert 2003;Bullock and Waugh 2005;Cheung 1999;Cheung and Chan 2000;Cozzarelli et al 2001;Duffy et al 2006;Feagin 1972Feagin , 1975Furnham 1982aFurnham , 1982bFurnham , 1982cFurnham , 1996Griffin and OhenebaSaky 1993;Huber and Form 1973;Hughes and Tuch 2000;Hunt 1996Hunt , 2002Kluegel and Smith 1986;Kluegel 1987;Lee et al 2004;Pellegrini et al 1997;Smith 1985;Smith and Stone 1989;Zucker and Weiner 1993). Table 1 contains a summary of primary socioeconomic categories and group memberships (independent variables) that past researchers studying American samples found significant.…”

Sexual orientation disparities in food insecurity and food assistance resource use in U.S. adult women: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005-2014

“…Summary statistics were calculated to describe demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial factors. Age was recoded into four categories representing respondents across emerging (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), young (26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35), middle (36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45), mid-late (46-59) stages of adulthood. NHANES' original variable structure was retained for race/ethnicity categories (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Mexican American, other Hispanic, and other race including multiracial).…”

“…To calculate the relative risk of food insecurity, severe food insecurity, SNAP participation, and emergency food assistance use in SMW (versus exclusively heterosexual women), we estimated prevalence ratios and associated 95% con dence intervals using Poisson regression with robust variance estimation. This method has been used in previous studies with LGBT populations where the outcomes of interest are common (i.e., > 10%) [31,32] such that other analytic methods (e.g., logistic regression) may overestimate the prevalence ratio [33][34][35]. Covariates selected a priori as potential confounders included age, race/ethnicity, income, educational attainment, health insurance coverage, risky drinking, and smoking.…”

Increasing access to healthy food at a cooperative grocery store

“…She clearly values a strong work ethic and is discouraged when the people she is helping do not share this value, because it will be difficult for them to find and keep a job. Duffy et al (2006) that the attitudes of food pantry directors were as or less judgmental of their clients than were the clients' attitudes toward themselves. In general, the outreach workers did not speak in a judgmental way about their clients, though like most everyone, they did slip a few times.…”

“…18! were not always honest about their needs, and a few expressed the belief that many of the people using the pantry should be working (Duffy et al 2006).…”