Development, Validity, and Cross-Context Equivalence of the Child Food Insecurity Experiences Scale for Assessing Food Insecurity of School-Age Children and Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Children ages 6 to 17 years can accurately assess their own food insecurity, whereas parents are inaccurate reporters of their children's experiences of food insecurity. No globally applicable scale to assess the food insecurity of children has been developed and validated. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a globally applicable, experience-based measure of child and adolescent food insecurity and establish the validity and cross-contextual equivalence of the measure. METHODS: The 10-item Child Food Insecurity Experiences Scale (CFIES) was based on items previously validated from questionnaires from the United States, Venezuela, and Lebanon. Cognitive interviews were conducted to check understanding of the items. The questionnaire then was administered in 15 surveys in 13 countries. Other items in each survey that assessed the household socioeconomic status, household food security, or child psychological functioning were selected as criterion variables to compare to the scores from the CFIES. To investigate accuracy (i.e., criterion validity), linear regression estimated the associations of the CFIES scores with the criterion variables. To investigate the cross-contextual equivalence (i.e., measurement invariance), the alignment method was used based on classical measurement theory. RESULTS: Across the 15 surveys, the mean scale scores for the CFIES ranged from 1.65 to 5.86 (possible range of 0 to 20) and the Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.88 to 0.94. The variance explained by a 1-factor model ranged from 0.92 to 0.99. Accuracy was demonstrated by expected associations with criterion variables. The percentages of equivalent thresholds and loadings across the 15 surveys were 28.0 and 5.33, respectively, for a total percentage of nonequivalent thresholds and loadings of 16.7, well below the guideline of <25%. That is, 83.3% of thresholds and loadings were equivalent across these surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIES provides a globally applicable, valid, and cross-contextually equivalent measure of the experiences of food insecurity of school-aged children and adolescents, as reported by them.

Backpack Programs and the Crisis Narrative of Child Hunger-A Critical Review of the Rationale, Targeting, and Potential Benefits and Harms of an Expanding but Untested Model of Practice.

In recent years, school-based food backpack programs (BPPs) have come into national prominence as a response to a perceived crisis of child hunger in America. Distributing bags of free food directly to schoolchildren for their own personal consumption each weekend, BPPs bring together private donors, faith communities, and public schools around an intuitively appealing project: children are hungry, and so we give them food. Perhaps because of their intuitive appeal, BPPs have expanded rapidly, without rigorous evaluation to determine their impacts on children, families, and schools. This Perspective aims to open up thinking about BPPs, first articulating the implicit conceptual model that undergirds BPPs, drawing on documentation offered by major program providers and on our own experience working with several schools implementing BPPs, to provide a window into what BPPs do and how and why they do it. We focus in particular on how the crisis narrative of child hunger has shaped the BPP model and on the related interplay between public sympathy and the neoliberal climate in which structural solutions to family poverty are eschewed. We then assess the BPP model in light of existing knowledge, concluding that BPPs fit poorly with the needs of the majority of children living in food-insecure households in the United States and consequently put children at risk of negative consequences associated with worry, shame, stigma, and disruptions to family functioning. Finally, we provide recommendations for practice and research, emphasizing the importance of 1) responding to children's actual needs throughout program implementation, 2) avoiding unnecessary risks by effective targeting of services to only those children who need them, and 3) rigorously evaluating program outcomes and unintended consequences to determine whether, even for the small number of US children who experience hunger, the benefits of the BPP model outweigh its psychosocial costs.

Severity of household food insecurity and lifetime racial discrimination among African-American households in South Carolina.

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, 30% of African-American households with children had low or very low food security, a rate double that of white households with children. A household has low food security if its members experience food shortages and reductions in food quality attributable to a lack of household resources or access and very low food security if its members also experience reductions in food intake and disrupted eating patterns. Households that are either low or very low food secure are known collectively as food insecure. We examined the association between the severity of household food insecurity and reports of lifetime racial discrimination among a sample of food-insecure African-American households in South Carolina. DESIGN: Data were collected from 154 African-American respondents. Food insecurity was measured using the US Department of Agriculture's Household Food Security Survey Module. Lifetime racial discrimination was measured using the Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire-Community Version (PEDQ-CV). We used logistic regression to test the association between severity of food insecurity (low vs. very low food secure), PEDQ-CV score and PEDQ-CV subscales. All models were adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic variables. RESULTS: A one-unit increase in the frequency of lifetime racial discrimination was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of being very low food secure (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, P < .05). More reports of discrimination that were stigmatizing or devaluing (OR 1.16, P < .05), took place at a workplace or school (OR 1.15, P < .05) or were threatening or aggressive (OR 1.39, P < .05) increased the odds of being very low food secure. More reports of racial discrimination that were excluding or rejecting did not significantly increase the odds of being very low food secure (OR 1.07, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Severity of household food insecurity is associated with lifetime racial discrimination among African-American households in South Carolina.

Very Low Food Security in US Households Is Predicted by Complex Patterns of Health, Economics, and Service Participation.

Background: Very low food security (VLFS) happens at the intersection of nuanced and complex patterns of risk characteristics across multiple domains. Little is known about the idiosyncratic situations that lead households to experience VLFS.Objective: We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis, which can handle complex combinations of predictors, to identify patterns of characteristics that distinguish VLFS households in the United States from other households.Methods: Data came from 3 surveys, the 2011-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the 2005-2012 NHANES, and the 2002-2012 Current Population Survey (CPS), with sample participants aged ≥18 y and households with income <300% of the federal poverty line. Survey participants were stratified into households with children, adult-only households, and older-adult households (NHIS, CPS) or individuals aged 18-64 y and individuals aged ≥65 y (NHANES). Household food security was measured with the use of the 10-item US Adult Food Security Scale. Variables from multiple domains, including sociodemographic characteristics, health, health care, and participation in social welfare and food assistance programs, were considered as predictors. The 3 data sources were analyzed separately with the use of CART analysis.Results: Household experiences of VLFS were associated with different predictors for different types of households and often occurred at the intersection of multiple characteristics spanning unmet medical needs, poor health, disability, limitation, depressive symptoms, low income, and food assistance program participation. These predictors built complex trees with various combinations in different types of households.Conclusions: This study showed that multiple characteristics across multiple domains distinguished VLFS households. Flexible and nonlinear methods focusing on a wide range of risk characteristics should be used to identify VLFS households and to inform policies and programs that can address VLFS households' various needs.