Pennsylvania Hunger Caucus

Legislative Hunger Caucus

Why is a hunger caucus needed?

Hunger and food insecurity are pressing moral and economic issues for the Commonwealth. Even though Pennsylvania is a world leader in food production and processing, far too many Pennsylvanians struggle every day with hunger and food insecurity.

The most recent USDA study on hunger and food security found that in Pennsylvania 10.0 percent of Pennsylvania households were at risk for hunger (food insecure). In one-third of those households (3.3 percent overall), one or more members also experienced hunger. Translated into human terms, an estimated 492,000 Pennsylvania households were at risk of hunger. In an estimated 164,000 of these households, at least one household member experienced hunger.

Hunger is at the highest level in Pennsylvania since the USDA began collecting this data in 1995. Compared with 1996-1998 data, which is the best Pennsylvania report on record, food insecurity is up by 20 percent and hunger is up by 27 percent.

While Pennsylvania produces and sells more than enough food to meet the nutritional needs of its people, we currently lack both the focus on ending hunger and food insecurity and a strategy to act on our shared commitment. Government at the state, federal and local levels working together with community partners can more effectively address hunger and the underlying causes contributing to it.

Hunger and food insecurity is driven by economic trends, especially the recent decline in the buying power of wages, the increase in food costs and the increase in fuel costs. It translates directly into more people who need help from pantries, food banks, child nutrition programs, and congregate meals at senior centers. As evidenced by the rise in hunger in recent years, charitable efforts are unable to keep up with the growing number of people at risk. Households that meet a part of their food needs through a food pantry are among the food insecure.

This problem deserves attention because, simply put, hunger hurts Pennsylvania. It hinders the physical and mental development of our children, exacerbates the ill health conditions of our seniors and saps the strength of the working poor. There is substantial and conclusive evidence that hunger has a number of serious detrimental effects on the health, quality of life and productivity of people of all ages. Compassion for these individuals serves as the principal motivation for many who support or engage in the effort to address their needs through both public and private programs. For many, this compassion is combined with a strong sense – often faith-based – that allowing hunger to remain is morally wrong.

A landmark study, The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger: Estimated Annual Burden to the United States2, was released on June 5, 2007. For the first time, the impact of hunger and food insecurity on the national and state economies was quantified. The study revealed hunger and food insecurity costs Pennsylvania $3,245,360,000 per year; representing the state’s share of the $90.4 billion cost to the nation as a whole. This nearly $3.25 billion is the cost burden in Pennsylvania. Simply put, Pennsylvania pays a steep price for hunger.

Specific impacts of hunger and food insecurity, identified in the study as significant cost drivers, include the fact that hungry and food insecure people are 1.3 times more likely to be hospitalized and require longer in-patient stays, and 1.93 times more likely to need mental health services. Additionally, hungry and food insecure children are 2.07 times more likely to require special education, 1.6 times more likely to miss days of school, and 1.44 times more likely to repeat a grade. Food insecure students were also nearly twice as likely to be suspended from school. Other significant impacts highlighted in the study that food-deprived people were more likely to suffer from activity-limiting health impairments (2.95 times); poorer overall health status (2.9 times); depression (3.5 times) and psychosocial dysfunction (7 times).

The study noted that, “These and related outcomes are linked to an increased likelihood of school failure, including dropping out of school. In their adult years, children so affected will face greater likelihood of limited employability, lessened workforce productivity, and poorer judgment and job performance.” The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger: Estimated Annual Burden to the United States makes it clear that the value of governmental investments in health care, education and economic development are squandered when not paired with anti-hunger investments. Conversely, an effective effort to reduce hunger and food insecurity can yield substantial benefits not only for individuals directly affected but also for the economy of the Commonwealth.

What could a hunger caucus do?

Assess need and decrease hunger by a number of means:

Education of the State Assembly on issues of hunger in the Commonwealth.
Influence how Pennsylvania can achieve a larger impact with its food programs through assessment and accountability for state funds designated to anti-hunger/nutrition programs.
What can be done to improve access to food and nutrition among at-risk children?
Assess how Pennsylvania can lower barriers that deny access to anti-hunger programs. Pennsylvania’s experience with CHIP demonstrated our ability to achieve high participation in a publicly-funded benefit program. That success can be replicated in our anti-hunger/nutrition programs if there is the will to do so.
Do we want the working poor to rely increasingly on charity for a portion of their food supply? As globalization proceeds, and the buying power of low-skill wages erodes, many more working households are relying on food pantries for a portion of their food. What we used to call “emergency food” has become a regular monthly source of food for low-wage families. If unchecked, this trend is likely to continue.
Through the legislative process, we could enable low-wage families to obtain more of their food through the existing market structure (grocery stores). Effective tools to do that are available: index the minimum wage, strengthen earned income tax credits, improve access to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly called Food Stamps), improve access to programs to insure children’s health care, child care subsidies, and education and skills training for adults with families.
Permanently establish the Governor’s Inter-Agency Council on Food and Nutrition, create a cabinet-level hunger advisor to the governor on hunger and nutrition issues, and require an annual report of the state of hunger in Pennsylvania.
Influence and support federal anti-hunger programs where possible.
Develop cooperative programs between government, the public sector and private sector to address hunger and nutrition related issues.

Why should a member become involved?

There is NO DISTRICT in Pennsylvania where hunger does not exist. As an elected policy maker in Pennsylvania, it is both our moral imperative and fiscal imperative to decrease the high human and economic toll of hunger in the Commonwealth in a cooperative bi-partisan way.