Table of Contents
Introduction
With over 325 million people, the United States of America is currently one of the wealthiest countries throughout the world. (U.S. Census, 2017) From a global perspective, the United States and its citizens are viewed as living the most lavishly and comfortably compared to other nations. But in spite of this elaborate viewpoint of being the “Land of Opportunity”, a large portion of the nation either lives near or below the line of poverty.
Poverty can be described as the lack of or deprivation of resources, both materialistic and monetary possessions and can have an effect on human capital. Human capital is the composition of knowledge, skills, habits, and health of a person that gives them the ability to perform laborious tasks and produce some form of economic value from it. The foundation of human capital varies based in the individual, however the investment of education and experiences can increase one’s own capital. The term human capital was coined by Theodore Schultz, who believed that training, benefits and education lead to an overall improvement in the quality and quantity of production produced by one person. Therefore, when human capital is increased, income and revenue increases for both parties involved. Persons afflicted with situations of poverty are more likely to lack an education, have decreased accessibility to food items, and may even participate in illicit drug usage, therefore decreasing their human capital.
As of 2017, the national median household income being $55, 322, yet 12.3% of the population is stated to be persons currently living in poverty. As stated in “Social Problems: Continuity and Change”, the United States spends more money on the repercussions of poverty than addressing and resolving it. People who experience poverty are typically poor, in less health, and experience higher crime rates than those who don’t. In an article written by Eckholm (2007), it was estimated that nearly $500 billion was spent addressing childhood poverty, as it leads to adult unemployment, lower paying employment, and physical and mental issues. (Eckholm, 2007) In an article Rank (2011), nearly 75% of Americans will become poverty stricken or live below the poverty line for at least a year during their lifetime. These same persons will then utilize the help of social programs, increasing the amount of money spent annually by the United States. (Rank, 2011)
127 our experts are availableright now
Other studies have shown that childhood poverty can translate into adulthood. Poor children are 32% more than likely to become poor adults, they are more likely to drop out of high school, and are more likely to experience problems with employment. (Ratcliffe & McKernan, 2010) As stated previous, 12.3% of the national population live in poverty. For the state of North Carolina, the number of poverty stricken persons is 14.7% statewide and 19.9% in Greensboro. (U.S. Census, 2017) Overall, poverty can have a varying effect on those living near or below the poverty line. This paper will discuss poverty and how it potentially influences education, food resources, and illicit drug usage at national and local perspectives.
Poverty and Education
Poverty-stricken children are more likely to attend schools with inadequate resources, therefore not receiving a suitable education. They are then less likely to graduate high school and ultimately less likely to attend college. This lack of education then continues the cycle of poverty by creating low-income households from low-paying jobs, etc. Of the national population, 87% of Americans have achieved a high school degree or higher, and 30.3% have achieved and bachelor’s degree or higher. Within the state of North Carolina, 86.3% of Americans have achieved a high school degree or higher, and 29% have achieved and bachelor’s degree or higher. In the city of Greensboro, 89.2% of Americans have achieved a high school degree or higher, and 36.8% have achieved and bachelor’s degree or higher. (U.S. Census, 2017)
Poverty and Food Security
Food security is the term used to describe the accessibility of food to people at all times, in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are ranges of food security and insecurity used to describe the accessibility to food items. In 2017, 112.3 million people in the United States identified with being food secure, meaning that there was ample access to food items at all times. Food security, once used as a broad term, is now separated into 2 classifications: high food security and marginal food security. High food security relates to those areas where there are no limitations to food accessibility. Marginal food security is the term used to describe concerns over food sufficiency or food shortages, but typically do not relate to food intake or diet changes. Like food security, food insecurity now has 2 classifications: low food security and very low food security.
In 2017, 15 million people identified as food insecure, with 9.3 million being low food secure and 5.8 million being very low food secure. Low food security, once labeled food insecurity without hunger, is the label used to define a reduction in quality, variability, and desirability in food options, but yet doesn’t reduce food intake. Very low food intake, formerly labeled food insecurity with hunger is the label used to define a disruption in food intake and eating patterns. Again, these labels are used to measure the level of accessibility and adequateness to food options at a household economic level.
According to data provided by the USDA, less than 20% of food secure families were not concerned that there was not enough food within their households, that purchased food items would not last, or that they could not afford balanced meals. These same indicators of food security were of high concern, at 90% or greater for low food and very low food security households. Food secure households were also of no concern for cutting meal sizes, skipping meals, or not eating at all. In concern for being hungry but not eating, losing weight, or not eating for a whole day, less than 20% of low food security households shared this concern while 30-68% of very low food security households did. In respect to not eating for a whole day over the course of 3 or more months, this concern solely affected very low food security households, at 24%. Although this data is representative of households without children, households with children exhibited similar patterns and concerns for food security. (Definitions of Food Security, 2018)
In 2017, incidences of food insecurity for varying groups were higher than the national average of 11.8%. Of households in America with children under the age of 18, only 84.3% were food secure, regardless of government protections that attempt to curb reductions in food intake for children. The remaining 15.7% were deemed food insecure. In about 250,000 households in America, at least one or more child has experienced a reduced intake in food or a complete disruption of eating patterns throughout the year. 30.8% of food insecure households were low income and living below the poverty threshold, which is $24, 858 for a family of 4 in the United States. The prevalence of low food insecurity is more common in non-metropolitan areas, at about 13.3%, and 13.4% in southern region areas. Very low food security households were common in 12.6% of low-income households, 5.4% in non-metropolitan areas, and 5.1% in southern region areas. Within North Carolina, the prevalence of food insecurity is above the national average. (Key Statistics & Graphics, 2018)
In 2015, it was estimated that half of North Carolina households were low income families, averaging a household income of $46,291 a year. In Guilford County, NC, 19% of families were deemed food insecure, which equates to about 93,510 persons. Of this population, over 25,000 children were eligible for free or reduced school meals. Within this population, only 42% of children eligible to receive free and reduced priced breakfast actually received it, and another 21% eligible to receive free summer meals received them (Food Insecurity, 2015)
In an article presented by Dimitri, et al. (2015), a study was conducted to determine if there was a relationship of the food consumption behavior of consumers and the food consumption incentives they received. During the 2011-2012 farmer’s market season, a six-month study was created in 3 cities in the United States; New York City, Boston, and San Diego. 300 economically disadvantaged women, who received food assistance benefits from their respective cities were used during this study. Women located in the New York City area received WIC benefits (Women, Infants, and Children), while those living in or near Boston and San Diego received SNAP benefits (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Each of the women selected for the study were provided with study vouchers, where they could use the voucher funds towards the purchase of fruits and vegetables at the farmer’s market. Vouchers were marked and tracked using serial numbers, and each participant was awarded a small payment for completing surveys after each shopping experience within the farmer’s market. Every woman who participated also provided personal information in regards to age, income, demographics, education, household size, ethnicity, and food frequency. Reports were gathered at the beginning of the study, and then again at 16 weeks to determine if there were any changes in vegetable consumption since participating in the study.
From the data collected, Dimitri, et al. determined that the women involved in the study did in fat increase vegetable consumption. Previous studies showed that 89% of study participants failed to meet the daily dietary requirements of fruit and vegetable servings. This study showed that 71% of the study participants increased their fruit and vegetable consumption, eating fruits and vegetables up to 5 times a day. Overall, Dimitri, et al. suggests that incentives can be used as positive implementations towards healthier food choices. The thought is that incentives that are provided to those who are on government assisted programs, as well as other who are not, could have an effect on the selection of healthier food options and increase on overall interest in healthier foods. (Dimitri, Oberholtzer, Zive, & Sandolo, 2015)
In addition to procurement policies being established in small scale communities like schools and work places, the USDA has several public food programs that have implemented varying forms of healthy food procurement policies. These programs include Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP), Women, Infant and Children (WIC), Farmer Market Nutrition Program, Seniors Farmer Market Nutrition Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), Nation School Lunch Program (NSLP), and Child Nutrition Program. These programs help to combat food insecurity, where 14.3% of the population are lacking enough food for an active and healthy life.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program is a federally funded program that provides food to low income American citizens at no financial obligation. Food items purchased through TEFAP is provided through individual states, which is then provided through local food organizations, soup kitchens, food pantries, or any other organization that caters to the public directly. Basic yet high quality food items such as fruits, vegetables, dairy products, meat, and pasta are provided through TEFAP. The Child Nutrition Program is an umbrella network that targets child hunger in various forms. Subprograms such as The School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program are all included in the Child Nutrition Program network. The School Breakfast Program navigates nonprofit breakfast programs for school and childcare/daycare facilities. Like the School Breakfast Program, the School Lunch Program provides reduced priced or free lunches to children in school or childcare/daycare facilities.
The Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) is a government funded program that allows low income seniors to utilize coupons in exchange for food at farmers’ markets. These coupons can be used for items such as fruits, vegetables, honey and herbs. They can also be used at roadside stands and various agricultural programs. Lastly, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is a program geared to improving the health of citizens of at least 60 years old. CFSP is designed to supplement existing diets with healthy foods provided by the USDA.
In North Carolina, there are several public food procurement agencies established today. These programs include “NC at your service-Eprocurement”, Education Outreach, Sustainability, Surplus Property and Interactive Purchasing System (IPS). These agencies are designed to aid in the design and purchasing of food products for procurement policies. Pertaining to North Carolina public schools, the North Carolina Child Nutrition Procurement Alliance was established to ensure high quality yet reasonably priced food items and supplies for the children within their school system. Along with initiating purchasing power within the state, the procurement alliance aids in the design of cafeteria menus, which include healthy choices such as milk, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
At a local perspective, Greensboro, NC has not been without its share of food insecurity. In the Northeast cooridor of the city lied a food desert, where a full-service grocery store had not resided in the area in nearly 18 years.
Poverty and Drug Use
The use of drugs in the United States is a trend that is increasing not only in the use and frequency of drugs, but also the age group that begin to use these drugs. There have been several studies that have found an increased correlation between the uses of particular drugs in particular states within the Unites States. Of these states and the data collected, citizens as young as 12 years old have begun to use drugs and participate in drug related activities. According to a study completed by the National Institute of Health, an estimated 23.9 million Americans aging 12 years or old were involved with substance use, abuse and dependency in 2012. These same 23.9 million abusers amounted to 9.2% of the population, engaging in not only illicit drug use, but pain medications, stimulants, tranquilizers and other psychotherapeutic drugs as well. Marijuana use amongst people 12 years old or older also increased to 18.9 million users, up from the 14.4 million users examined in 2007.
Drug use and drug poisoning is a growing health concern within the United States, and has surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of injury or death (Rossen, et al. 2014). There have been several studies conducted that have suggested that drug related abuse and death affects rural communities more so than it does within Urban communities, however it is possible that these fluctuations in incidents could be related to geographic and regional patterns. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the use of illicit drugs has reached an extraordinarily high by citizens within the United States from 12 years old or older. Use of illicit drugs throughout a lifetime and within the last year has increased in 2014 in comparison to previous years.
In a study completed by Rossen, et al. (2014), the geographical “hot spots” of drug usage throughout the United States as well as the age-related deaths due to drug use was examined. Information gathered for the study was collected during the years of 2007 to 2009. Rossen, et al. (2014) hypothesized that correlations between drug abuse and location were not only prevalent in rural communities, but rather that there were underling geographical patterns that connected the communities with the highest drug abusage together. Within the study, data was collected from 2007-2009 pertaining to drug poisoning deaths from the National Vital Statistics Multiple Cause of Death files. Deaths obtained from these files were then classified using international classifications of diseases. Age related deaths were calculated by county and year. Residential density, rural percentage, ethnicity, education, health status, and employment status amongst others were factors used to aid in the calculations.
The predicted mean for county level age related deaths for the years 2007-2009 was estimated at 30.76 per a 100,000 population. A raw county level estimation of age-related deaths was up to 222.4 out of the same 100,000 population. In relation to clustering, the data suggested that there was a significant spatial autocorrelation between age related deaths throughout the United States. Similar age-related deaths trended to being closer to each other than one would expect by random chance.
In conclusion of this study, Rossen, et al. (2014) discussed that counties in the United States with higher age-related deaths tended to geographically be located closer together, regardless of being a rural community or not. In conjunction with this information, counties with low incidences of age-related deaths were also clustered together. Previous research stated that age related deaths due to drug poisoning was a major concern in rural communities alone and that these drug related deaths were disproportionately higher in these regions, particularly in those surrounding the Appalachian Mountains. Rossen, et al. (2014) partially agreed with this theory, although it as discovered that there were several communities in rural areas that had significantly low rates of age-related deaths throughout the central United States in cities such as North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas. Rossen, et al. (2014) also discovered a correlation in the high frequency areas between users who were in low income areas and those who were in high employment related disability areas, but not exclusive to rural communities. Geographic hot spots also correlated with those that were in closer proximity to drug availability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, areas of poverty should be addressed and corrected within the United States. There is an irrational notion that those plagued with poverty have done so because of their own short comings, not because of a lack of resources or other inadequacies imposed on these people. To address those factors that create situations of poverty would benefit the economy as less money would be spent to offset these social and economic deficiencies.
Food security and public food procurement policies offer several benefits to citizens of all forms. Whether procurement is in the form of a government agency, or an agreement within a local community, the overall goal is to make natural and healthy foods more appealing, affordable, and accessible to the consumer. Healthy food options should not be selective or determined based upon one person’s thoughts or beliefs, but rather affordable to all people, regardless of income, locality, or accessibility.
