View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Establishing a University Food Pantry: Growth, Changes in Shopper Characteristics and Recommendations

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Establishing a University Food Pantry: Growth, Changes in Shopper Characteristics and Recommendations
Language: English
Authors: Gammon, Catherine, Van Camp, Cailyn, Harkema, Julie, Summers, Joelle, Leighton, Paul, Moraniec, Haley
Source: Journal of American College Health. 2023 71(1):211-220.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Students, Hunger, Food, Student Personnel Services, Student Welfare, State Universities, Campuses, Program Effectiveness, Student Experience, Poverty, Familiarity, Recognition (Psychology), Student Characteristics
Geographic Terms: Michigan
DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1888736
ISSN: 0744-8481
1940-3208
Abstract: Objective: Describe trends in usage and shoppers of Eastern Michigan University's (EMU) food pantry over four academic years. Participants: Shoppers of EMU's pantry between September 2015 and April 2019. Methods: Data come from shopper questionnaires and pantry records of daily visits and food distribution. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and chi-square analyses were used to explore shopper characteristics and pantry use over time. Results: Pantry use increased over four academic years (from 1,021 to 3,080 visits/year). An increasing proportion of shoppers use the pantry [greater than or equal to] once/month (6.1% in 2015/2016; 15.1% in 2018/2019). Compared to irregular shoppers ([less than or equal to]7 visits/year), regular shoppers ([greater than or equal to]8 visits) reported higher rates of housing instability and were less likely to have a university meal plan. Conclusion: Data revealed substantial growth of the campus pantry, likely reflecting greater awareness and greater need. The findings highlight financial and social challenges faced by Michigan's college students. Recommendations for pantry establishment/maintenance are indicated.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1377652
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH_3iQQ3HltdgWT1cJ9zUczAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOk5fTFPo5XzUsrs1QIBEICBm3fSeLaBLpDvCVtweVvBr5laclTdHXzam5wrjy4-Pu9F-FbDqXBJQLoQWTcDOYu8KH93oCn-uPgdHdzA0d2JhhQwvQSFm53xLHrBb4MZ-JALqSsekzuIYYxITeoWQ7-QXb8u12--jcaW6aRv5zUbcAe_XI6ktCqBSl58P9LBHTaU0FD7rwiXcPCJ5uY1fWKOvPJDkDFTFcUtzFBX
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161545245;acl01jan.23;2023Jan31.00:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161545245-1">Establishing a university food pantry: growth, changes in shopper characteristics and recommendations </title> <p>Objective: Describe trends in usage and shoppers of Eastern Michigan University's (EMU) food pantry over four academic years. Participants: Shoppers of EMU's pantry between September 2015 and April 2019. Methods: Data come from shopper questionnaires and pantry records of daily visits and food distribution. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and chi-square analyses were used to explore shopper characteristics and pantry use over time. Results: Pantry use increased over four academic years (from 1,021 to 3,080 visits/year). An increasing proportion of shoppers use the pantry ≥ once/month (6.1% in 2015/2016; 15.1% in 2018/2019). Compared to irregular shoppers (≤7 visits/year), regular shoppers (≥8 visits) reported higher rates of housing instability and were less likely to have a university meal plan. Conclusion: Data revealed substantial growth of the campus pantry, likely reflecting greater awareness and greater need. The findings highlight financial and social challenges faced by Michigan's college students. Recommendations for pantry establishment/maintenance are indicated.</p> <p>Keywords: Pantry; food insecurity; college; university</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Although an increasing number of universities and community colleges have established food pantries,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] generational perspectives and the ideology of individualism obscure structural changes that make colleges less affordable, create record levels of student debt and make food pantries an important campus resource.[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]] Research shows that college is increasingly difficult to pay for through part time and summer jobs, and colleges have shifted financial aid from grants to loans.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>],[[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]] Because the costs of college, health care and many other essentials have increased while wages have been stagnant, families also have less to contribute to college costs.</p> <p>Within this context, students make complex tradeoffs between paying for food, rent, utilities, and health care; and additional tradeoffs between time for engaging in their classes, working extra hours for income, and taking out additional loans. Thus, while food pantries in the short term promote student nutrition and health, they also impact longer-term health by increasing the likelihood of academic success in a world where income is linked to better health.[[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]] Food insecurity is associated with difficulty concentrating in class,[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>] lower academic achievement,[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>] and mental health issues.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>] Furthermore, while employment in addition to taking classes may have some benefits, jobs can mean "a lower likelihood of participating in extracurricular activities, visiting professors during office hours, and spending time on campus," which means "fewer opportunities to build relationships that could pave the way for social networks yielding greater returns to the college degree".[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>] Students who take on loans but fail to graduate face the economic stress of having college debt to repay without the (sometimes slim) employment benefits of having the degree.</p> <p>Over the past decade, an increasing number of universities and studies have documented the prevalence of food insecurity (uncertain access to adequate food) among college students. Recent prevalence estimates of food insecurity among college students range from 14 to 59%,[[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]] with 17% of students being homeless.[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>] While the prevalence of food insecurity among college students has been reported, there is less published research on strategies to address this issue. Establishing an on-campus food pantry is strongly endorsed as an option for universities seeking to support students with food insecurity[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>] and resources offering guidance on setting-up an on-campus food pantry are available.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>] As of August 2019, over 700 higher education institutions offer this resource.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>] In spite of an increasing number of universities establishing an on-campus food pantry, there is no peer-reviewed literature reporting year-to-year growth of campus food pantries or examining trends in pantry use and shopper characteristics across academic years.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>] This is partly due to many campus pantries being in operation for less than three years.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>] In addition, there is a lack of published information on patterns of pantry use by shoppers (such as how frequently the pantry is used on a monthly and yearly basis, and how often each shopper uses the pantry within an academic year).[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>] This information would provide valuable practical information for universities seeking to establish a campus pantry, and for campus pantry directors seeking to sustain[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>] the resource.</p> <p>Eastern Michigan University, located in an economically distressed area in Southeast Michigan, established an on-campus food pantry in September 2015. Since opening, the pantry team has collected data on shopper characteristics and daily use of the pantry (allowing for month-by-month and year-by-year comparisons). This valuable data source offers the opportunity to further our understanding of the use and growth of an on-campus food pantry at a mid-sized university (∼20,000 students). The purpose of this study was to explore trends in on-campus food pantry use and shopper characteristics, over four academic years (2015–2019).</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161545245-4">Swoop's food pantry</hd> <p>Eastern Michigan University's on-campus food pantry ('Swoop's'[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]) was founded by former student Haley Moraniec. The pantry is campus-based, student-led, and open to any of the university's affiliates. There is no financial threshold for using the pantry – if a patron has a university card, they can visit the pantry. During the pre-COVID19 time period utilized for this study, the pantry was open Monday through Friday, for 5.5–7 hours per day. The pantry is a 'choice' pantry whereby patrons ("shoppers") make their own food selections instead of being given a prepared hamper/basket. The pantry stocks fresh produce as well as refrigerated, frozen, canned and boxed food. Household, personal hygiene, baby, pet and school supplies are also available. University affiliates are advised that they can use the pantry up to two times per month. This limit is gently enforced to ensure there is enough food to cater to all pantry shoppers. A third visit within a month is permitted, although is considered an 'emergency visit'; in these instances, a pantry staff member will remind the shopper of the twice-per-month recommendation and enquire whether the shopper would like information on any additional support services.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-5">Swoop's intake form</hd> <p>Each academic year, all pantry visitors are required to complete an 'intake form' before using the pantry for the first time. Patrons complete the form on a personal electronic device before visiting the pantry, or on a pantry-provided iPad when they visit the pantry for the first time. Since opening in 2015, questions on the pantry's intake form have changed, although there have always been questions about the shopper's demographic information, housing, and participation in benefit programs. The most recent version of the intake form asks patrons about demographic variables including age (date of birth), gender, major, and class level (what is your role at this university?: freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, 5th year senior, graduate student, lecturer, other), whether the patron has a university meal plan, number of people the patron provides food for, employment status, number of paid positions/jobs the patron holds, the patron's financial aid status, how the patron heard about the pantry, housing insecurity (questions modified from the Hope Center's #RealCollege survey[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>]) specific benefit programs the patron participates in, and whether the patron has any dietary needs (eg, diabetic, lactose intolerant). Noteworthy question changes over the four years of pantry operation have included (i) the removal of items on disability status and sexual orientation, (ii) the addition of a question on class level, and (iii) changing the question on housing insecurity from 'are you experiencing housing instability?' (yes or no response options), to a more comprehensive, multiple-choice question asking students whether they've experienced different indicators of housing instability (eg, having slept in their car or not paid their rent).</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-6">Swoop's daily tracking form</hd> <p>Data on daily pantry use have been collected since the pantry opened. Each day, pantry staff record the following data for each visitor: university ID number, date of visit, pounds of food taken. By recording university ID number, pantry staff are able to identify individuals shopping more than twice per month. Although university ID number is collected, it is for pantry use only and the visit is not shared on any university information systems or databases.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-7">Focus group</hd> <p>The lead author hosted a focus group discussion with two pantry staff regarding changes and strategies that had been implemented to support the increased use of the pantry over the previous four academic years. While growth of the pantry had not been formally quantified at the time of the focus group discussion, the pantry staff were acutely aware that usage had increased and that pantry operations had been adapted to meet the increased demand. They directly oversaw the increase in both the amount of food and the quantity of items available; the logistics of procurement, storage and dissemination; staffing; and fundraising.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-8">Statistics</hd> <p>The protocol for this study and the secondary analysis of data collected by Eastern Michigan University's student food pantry were approved by Eastern Michigan University's Human Subjects Review Committee. Pantry data were analyzed for each of the university's academic years (from the beginning of September to the end of April). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and percentages) were used to explore (i) pantry shopper characteristics (eg, the demographic profile of pantry shoppers and the proportion of shoppers experiencing housing insecurity), and (ii) pantry use over time (eg, average visits per day/month and average lbs of food taken per person/month/year). Shoppers were classified as 'regular shoppers', 'irregular shoppers', or 'non-users' based on number of visits per academic year. Individuals completing an intake form but not visiting the pantry during the same academic year were classified as 'non-users'. Shoppers visiting the pantry ≤7 times per year were classified as 'irregular shoppers' and shoppers visiting the pantry ≥8 times per year were classified as 'regular shoppers'. Pantry visit frequency data was matched to intake form data using university ID numbers. To explore differences in characteristics between irregular, regular, and non-users, independent cases from all four years were pooled and examined (to increase sample size). In the event that an individual provided records for multiple years, their most recent year of information was included. Independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests were used to examine mean differences for continuous variables. Chi-square analyses were used to examine relationships among categorical variables. All analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 25.0) and statistical significance was set at <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161545245-10">Pantry user characteristics</hd> <p>Characteristics of pantry users for each academic year are shown in Table 1. The most recent year of data indicates that the majority of pantry users were female (66%), full-time students (89.3%), employed (70.2%), received financial aid (81.3%) and Medicare/Medicaid (57.5%), and reported experiencing at least one indicator of housing instability in the 30 days prior to completing the intake form (56.7%). Most pantry visitors reported that the pantry food served more than one person in their household (mean = 1.4 people) and a notable proportion of patrons reported having special dietary needs (lactose intolerant = 32.5%, vegetarian = 28.3%). Compared to the university's student body in 2018–2019, pantry shoppers were (on average) younger and comprised of a greater proportion of females, Black/African Americans, and students from the university's largest college (the College of Arts and Sciences).</p> <p>Table 1. Characteristics of pantry users for four academic years.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>2015–2016 Pantry users</td><td>2016–2017 Pantry users</td><td>2017–2018 Pantry users</td><td>2018–2019 Pantry users</td><td>EMU student body</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean (SD) or %</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean (SD) or %</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean (SD) or %</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean (SD) or %</td><td>Mean or %</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold><italic>Demographics</italic></bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Age (years)</bold></td><td char=".">429</td><td char=".">23.7 (7.2)</td><td char=".">490</td><td char=".">23.6 (7.3)</td><td char=".">465</td><td char=".">22.6 (5.9)</td><td char=".">688</td><td char=".">22.9 (5.5)</td><td char=".">24.5</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">307</td><td char=".">70.1%</td><td char=".">337</td><td char=".">68.2%</td><td char=".">314</td><td char=".">65.3%</td><td char=".">493</td><td char=".">66.0%</td><td char=".">61.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td char=".">120</td><td char=".">27.4%</td><td char=".">139</td><td char=".">28.1%</td><td char=".">148</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">211</td><td char=".">28.2%</td><td char=".">38.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Transgender</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">0.7%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1.4%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1.2%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">1.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Non-binary</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1.8%</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">2.2%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">4%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Race/ethnicity</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>White</td><td char=".">173</td><td char=".">39.7%</td><td char=".">204</td><td char=".">41.6%</td><td char=".">193</td><td char=".">40.9%</td><td char=".">305</td><td char=".">41.2%</td><td char=".">64.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Black/African-American</td><td char=".">183</td><td char=".">41.3%</td><td char=".">216</td><td char=".">44.1%</td><td char=".">204</td><td char=".">43.2%</td><td char=".">295</td><td char=".">39.9%</td><td char=".">17.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Biracial/multiracial</td><td char=".">44</td><td char=".">9.9%</td><td char=".">38</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td char=".">37</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td char=".">71</td><td char=".">9.6%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic/Latino</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">2.4%</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">2.1%</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">2.4%</td><td char=".">5.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1.6%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">1.0%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1.5%</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">2.4%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">3.9%</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">3.1%</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">4.4%</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">4.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Student status</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Full time</td><td char=".">296</td><td char=".">94.3%</td><td char=".">290</td><td char=".">84.8%</td><td char=".">334</td><td char=".">89.3%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">83.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Part time</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">5.7%</td><td char=".">52</td><td char=".">15.2%</td><td char=".">40</td><td char=".">10.7%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">16.5%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>College</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Arts and Sciences</td><td char=".">81</td><td char=".">54.4%</td><td char=".">229</td><td char=".">45.5%</td><td char=".">217</td><td char=".">44.7%</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">48.1%</td><td char=".">34.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Business</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">9.4%</td><td char=".">45</td><td char=".">8.9%</td><td char=".">52</td><td char=".">10.7%</td><td char=".">67</td><td char=".">8.9%</td><td char=".">14.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Health and Human Services</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">24.2%</td><td char=".">131</td><td char=".">26.0%</td><td char=".">120</td><td char=".">24.7%</td><td char=".">181</td><td char=".">24.1%</td><td char=".">22.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">3.4%</td><td char=".">40</td><td char=".">8.0%</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">6.6%</td><td char=".">49</td><td char=".">6.5%</td><td char=".">10.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">6.0%</td><td char=".">45</td><td char=".">8.9%</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">8.8%</td><td char=".">72</td><td char=".">9.6%</td><td char=".">11.3%</td></tr><tr><td><bold><italic>Employment</italic></bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Employment status</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td char=".">245</td><td char=".">70.6%</td><td char=".">269</td><td char=".">73.5%</td><td char=".">263</td><td char=".">72.7%</td><td char=".">528</td><td char=".">70.2%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td char=".">102</td><td char=".">29.4%</td><td char=".">97</td><td char=".">19.2%</td><td char=".">99</td><td char=".">27.3%</td><td char=".">224</td><td char=".">29.8%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Income ($)</bold></td><td char=".">442</td><td char=".">480.0 (547.9)</td><td char=".">505</td><td char=".">672.8 (2,122.3)</td><td char=".">486</td><td char=".">807.5 (2,247.5)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold><italic>Housing</italic></bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>No. people you provide food for</td><td char=".">441</td><td char=".">1.6 (0.9)</td><td char=".">504</td><td char=".">1.6 (1.0)</td><td char=".">486</td><td char=".">1.6 (1.1)</td><td char=".">753</td><td char=".">1.4 (0.8)</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Experiencing housing instability?</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td char=".">37</td><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char=".">89</td><td char=".">18.7%</td><td char=".">76</td><td char=".">16.3%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td char=".">391</td><td char=".">91.4%</td><td char=".">386</td><td char=".">81.3%</td><td char=".">390</td><td char=".">83.7%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Yes – last 30 days</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">425</td><td char=".">56.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Yes – last year</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">430</td><td char=".">57.3%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold><italic>Benefits</italic></bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>First-time receiving food assistance?</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td char=".">423</td><td char=".">95.7%</td><td char=".">429</td><td char=".">85.0%</td><td char=".">402</td><td char=".">82.9%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">4.3%</td><td char=".">76</td><td char=".">15.0%</td><td char=".">81</td><td char=".">16.7%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Receives financial aid</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td char=".">394</td><td char=".">89.1%</td><td char=".">434</td><td char=".">85.9%</td><td char=".">393</td><td char=".">80.9%</td><td char=".">609</td><td char=".">81.3%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">10.9%</td><td char=".">71</td><td char=".">14.1%</td><td char=".">90</td><td char=".">18.5%</td><td char=".">140</td><td char=".">18.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>No. of benefit programs you participate in</bold></td><td char=".">143</td><td char=".">1.3 (0.8)</td><td char=".">154</td><td char=".">1.2 (0.8)</td><td char=".">135</td><td char=".">1.2 (0.7)</td><td char=".">233</td><td char=".">1.3 (0.8)</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Medicare/Medicaid</td><td char=".">102</td><td char=".">71.3%</td><td char=".">94</td><td char=".">61.0%</td><td char=".">93</td><td char=".">68.9%</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">57.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Social security</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">9.8%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">8.4%</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">8.9%</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">11.2%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Reduced/free school meals</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">6.3%</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">9.1%</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">11.1%</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">6.9%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>SNAP</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">22.4%</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">22.7%</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">14.1%</td><td char=".">46</td><td char=".">19.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold><italic>Swoop's</italic></bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Location: convenient & confidential?</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td char=".">377</td><td char=".">91.7%</td><td char=".">420</td><td char=".">91.5%</td><td char=".">437</td><td char=".">95.2%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">0.7%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1.3%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Convenient, not confidential</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1.7%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Conf, not convenient</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1.9%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">2.8%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1.3%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Not yet visited Swoop's</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">3.2%</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">5.2%</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1.7%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Requested items</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Fruit and/or vegetables</td><td char=".">62</td><td char=".">30.1%</td><td char=".">54</td><td char=".">23.5%</td><td char=".">62</td><td char=".">23.8%</td><td char=".">80</td><td char=".">28.2%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Meat and/or fish</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">16.5%</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">13.9%</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">12.3%</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">13.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Boxed/shelf items</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">9.7%</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">10.0%</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">11.2%</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">10.6%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy products</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">8.7%</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">3.9%</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">7.3%</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">8.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Canned items</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2.9%</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">5.2%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">1.9%</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">3.2%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Dietary needs</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Diabetic</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">15.5%</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">12.8%</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">19.7%</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">15.8%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Lactose intolerant</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">19.0%</td><td char=".">38</td><td char=".">24.4%</td><td char=".">40</td><td char=".">29.2%</td><td char=".">86</td><td char=".">32.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Low salt</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">13.8%</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">12.2%</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">10.9%</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">14.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetarian</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">29.3%</td><td char=".">40</td><td char=".">25.6%</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">30.7%</td><td char=".">75</td><td char=".">28.3%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Hear about Swoop's</bold></td><td char=".">410</td><td char="." /><td char=".">457</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Word of mouth</td><td char=".">214</td><td char=".">52.2%</td><td char=".">248</td><td char=".">54.3%</td><td char=".">279</td><td char=".">61.9%</td><td char=".">484</td><td char=".">65.1%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Professor/staff</td><td char=".">62</td><td char=".">14.4%</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">13.3%</td><td char=".">66</td><td char=".">14.6%</td><td char=".">221</td><td char=".">29.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Social media</td><td char=".">38</td><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">7.7%</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char=".">100</td><td char=".">13.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>CAPS referral</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">2.0%</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">2.2%</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">0.7%</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Financial aid referral</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0.5%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">0.9%</td><td char=".">0</td><td>0%</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">2.3%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Syllabus</td><td char=".">0</td><td>0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">0.9%</td><td char=".">41</td><td char=".">5.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Flyer or sign</td><td char=".">79</td><td char=".">19.3%</td><td char=".">87</td><td char=".">19.0%</td><td char=".">60</td><td char=".">13.3%</td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">17%</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0161545245-11">Changes in pantry user characteristics over time</hd> <p>Since opening, the proportion of female shoppers has declined by ∼4%, and the proportion of users identifying as non-binary and transgender increased by ∼3%. Between 2015/2016 and 2018/2019, there was a small increase in the proportion of shoppers affiliated with the smaller colleges on campus and a concurrent decrease in shoppers from the largest college. The proportion of shoppers reporting that using the campus pantry was their first-time receiving food assistance declined by ∼13% between 2015/2016 and 2018/2019. In earlier years, a minority of students reported they were experiencing housing instability (8.6–18.7%); due to a question change that better defined housing insecurity on the most recent intake form, a much larger proportion of shoppers (56.7%) reported experiencing some degree of housing insecurity in the 30 days prior to completing the pantry's intake form in 2018–2019. Across all four academic years, the most commonly reported dietary needs were lactose intolerance and vegetarianism and the most requested pantry items were fresh fruit and/or vegetables followed by meat and/or fish. Each year, word of mouth was the most common way that pantry shoppers found out about the pantry, although in 2018–2019, almost a third of users heard of the pantry from professors or staff.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-12">Use of the pantry</hd> <p>Annual use of the pantry by university patrons increased over four academic years (see Figure 1), with a 202% increase in pantry between 2015/16 and 2018/2019. On average, pantry use increased by 686 visits each academic year. This growth is especially notable because the university shrank from 21,854 students in the Fall 2015 semester to 17,565 in Winter 2019. Along with increased visits, the total pounds of food distributed increased each year (see Figure 1). Figure 2 displays the month-to-month variation in pantry use and reveals that the busiest months for the pantry are the middle and later points of the semesters (October/November and March/April). Daily, monthly, and annual pantry use data are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Visits to the pantry and pounds of food distributed from the pantry per academic year.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Visits to the pantry and pounds of food distributed from the pantry across months of the academic year.</p> <p>Table 2. Use of the pantry by academic year.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>2015–2016</td><td>2016–2017</td><td>2017–2018</td><td>2018–2019</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Average visits per day</bold></td><td>6.2</td><td>9.2</td><td>12.6</td><td>19.0</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Average lbs food taken per visit</bold></td><td>13.5</td><td>18.7</td><td>17.2</td><td>17.0</td></tr><tr><td><bold>% of enrolled students completing pantry intake form</bold></td><td>2.0%</td><td>2.4%</td><td>2.4%</td><td>4.0%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>% of enrolled students visiting pantry ≥ one time</bold></td><td>1.8%</td><td>2.1%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>4.4%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Monthly use patterns</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Once per month</td><td>76.1%</td><td>65.5%</td><td>66.5%</td><td>63.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Twice per month</td><td>23%</td><td>31.4%</td><td>29.4%</td><td>31.1%</td></tr><tr><td>>Twice per month</td><td>0.9%</td><td>3.2%</td><td>4.1%</td><td>5.4%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Yearly use patterns</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Shopping ≤ four times per year</td><td>82.4%</td><td>75.9%</td><td>76.5%</td><td>72.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Shopping ≤ seven times per year</td><td>93.9%</td><td>88.4%</td><td>87.1%</td><td>84.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Shopping ≥ eight times per year</td><td>6.1%</td><td>11.6%</td><td>12.9%</td><td>15.1%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Between 2015/2016 and 2018/2019, the average number of pantry visitors per day more than tripled. Over the last three years, the average amount of food taken per shop has remained fairly constant (17–18 lbs of food per visit). Each month, the majority of shoppers visit the pantry once, although there is evidence of a declining trend in the proportion visiting just once, and an increase in the proportion of shoppers using the pantry 3 or more times per month. Data in Table 2 also indicate a declining proportion of shoppers using the pantry sporadically/irregularly and an increase in the proportion of shoppers using the pantry more regularly.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-13">Comparison of irregular, regular, and non-users</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics of irregular, regular, and non-users are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Compared to irregular users, a significantly greater proportion of regular users were employed, received social security benefits, were diabetic, and reported experiencing housing instability. Compared to irregular users, a significantly lower proportion of regular users reported that using the food pantry was their first-time receiving food assistance. Chi-square analyses revealed that a larger proportion of regular shoppers (compared to irregular shoppers) identified their gender as non-binary, their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian, and had a university meal plan.</p> <p>Table 3. Characteristics of regular and irregular pantry shoppers and non-shoppers (2015<bold>–</bold>2019).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td><bold>Irregular users</bold><bold>(≤7 visits per school year</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref><bold>)</bold><bold><italic>N</italic> = 1105</bold></td><td><bold>Regular users</bold><bold>(≥8 visits per school year</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref><bold>)</bold><bold><italic>N</italic> = 173</bold></td><td /><td><bold>Non-users</bold><bold>(0 visits per school year</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref><bold>)</bold><bold><italic>N</italic> = 502</bold></td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td><bold><italic>N</italic></bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">d</xref></td><td><bold>Mean (SD</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">e</xref><bold>)</bold><bold>or %</bold></td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td><bold>Mean (SD)</bold><bold>or %</bold></td><td><bold><italic>p</italic> Value</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">b</xref></td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td><bold>Mean (SD)</bold><bold>or %</bold></td><td><bold><italic>p</italic> Value</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">c</xref></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Age</bold> (years)</td><td char=".">1041</td><td char=".">23.0 (6.1)</td><td char=".">165</td><td char=".">24.3 (7.5)</td><td char=".">0.035</td><td char=".">476</td><td char=".">23.5 (6.5)</td><td char=".">0.402</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Employed</bold></td><td char=".">951</td><td char=".">55.5%</td><td char=".">156</td><td char=".">64.7%</td><td char=".">0.031</td><td char=".">427</td><td char=".">51.3%</td><td char=".">0.051</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Receives financial aid</bold></td><td char=".">1101</td><td char=".">83.4%</td><td char=".">173</td><td char=".">88.4%</td><td char=".">0.091</td><td char=".">500</td><td char=".">80.8%</td><td char=".">0.098</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Racial/ethnic group</bold></td><td char=".">1084</td><td char="." /><td char=".">165</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.019</td><td char=".">493</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.025</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td char="." /><td char=".">38.5%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">42.4%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">39.1%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>African-American</td><td char="." /><td char=".">42.7%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">37.0%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">48.3%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Bi- or Multi-Race</td><td char="." /><td char=".">10.1%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">6.7%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">6.7%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td char="." /><td char=".">3.0%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.8%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">1.4%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.8%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">3.0%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">1.8%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char="." /><td char=".">4.0%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">9.1%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">2.6%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td char=".">1095</td><td char="." /><td char=".">169</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.007</td><td char=".">451</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.061</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char="." /><td char=".">65.7%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">60.9%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">71.8%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td char="." /><td char=".">30.5%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">30.2%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">24.8%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Trans-gender</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.6%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.8%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.9%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Non-binary</td><td char="." /><td char=".">2.3%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">7.1%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">2.4%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Participates in... Medicare/Medicaid</bold></td><td char=".">323</td><td char=".">63.2%</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">52.5%</td><td char=".">0.115</td><td char=".">152</td><td char=".">67.8%</td><td char=".">0.172</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Social Security</bold></td><td char=".">323</td><td char=".">8.7%</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">19.7%</td><td char=".">0.010</td><td char=".">152</td><td char=".">6.6%</td><td char=".">0.169</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Free/reduced price school meals</bold></td><td char=".">323</td><td char=".">7.7%</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">9.8%</td><td char=".">0.582</td><td char=".">152</td><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char=".">0.855</td></tr><tr><td><bold>SNAP</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">f</xref></td><td char=".">323</td><td char=".">18.9%</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">19.7%</td><td char=".">0.886</td><td char=".">152</td><td char=".">25.0%</td><td char=".">0.123</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Dietary needs...</bold><bold>Eats a low salt diet</bold></td><td char=".">312</td><td char=".">13.5%</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">6.2%</td><td char=".">0.102</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">14.9%</td><td char=".">0.391</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Is a diabetic</bold></td><td char=".">312</td><td char=".">14.1%</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">10.7%</td><td char=".">0.059</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Is lactose intolerant</bold></td><td char=".">312</td><td char=".">30.1%</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">24.6%</td><td char=".">0.374</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">29.8%</td><td char=".">0.890</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Is a vegetarian</bold></td><td char=".">312</td><td char=".">27.9%</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">0.639</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">29.2%</td><td char=".">0.852</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Number of people the user provides food for</bold></td><td char=".">1104</td><td char=".">1.5 (0.8)</td><td char=".">173</td><td char=".">1.6 (1.1)</td><td char=".">0.071</td><td char=".">501</td><td char=".">1.6 (1.0)</td><td char=".">0.386</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Experiencing housing instability</bold></td><td char=".">1076</td><td char=".">31.1%</td><td char=".">167</td><td char=".">44.9%</td><td char="."><0.001</td><td char=".">440</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td char=".">0.304</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Number of benefit programs participating in</bold></td><td char=".">323</td><td char=".">1.3 (0.7)</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">1.4 (1.0)</td><td char=".">0.176</td><td char=".">152</td><td char=".">1.3 (0.9)</td><td char=".">0.513</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Number of dietary needs reported</bold></td><td char=".">312</td><td char=".">1.1 (0.6)</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">1.2 (0.5)</td><td char=".">0.233</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">1.1 (0.6)</td><td char=".">0.370</td></tr><tr><td><bold>College</bold></td><td char=".">964</td><td char="." /><td char=".">163</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.128</td><td char=".">453</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.013</td></tr><tr><td>Arts and Sciences</td><td char="." /><td char=".">47.8%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">47.9%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">46.1%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Business</td><td char="." /><td char=".">10.4%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">8.6%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">6.6%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Health & Human Services</td><td char="." /><td char=".">25.3%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">18.4%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">26.9%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td char="." /><td char=".">5.1%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">6.7%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">9.7%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td char="." /><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">14.7%</td><td /><td /><td char=".">7.7%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Full-time student</bold></td><td char=".">464</td><td char=".">88.8%</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">85.7%</td><td char=".">0.549</td><td char=".">193</td><td char=".">88.1%</td><td char=".">0.867</td></tr><tr><td><bold>First-time receiving food assistance</bold></td><td char=".">640</td><td char=".">88.0%</td><td char=".">63</td><td char=".">58.7%</td><td char="."><0.001</td><td char=".">277</td><td char=".">93.1%</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Income</bold></td><td char=".">639</td><td char=".">658.9 (1689.8)</td><td char=".">60</td><td char=".">525.0 (371.1)</td><td char=".">0.541</td><td char=".">277</td><td char=".">584.5 (1539.6)</td><td char=".">0.579</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 School year is equivalent to 8 academic months.</p> <ulist> <item>2 Comparison of irregular and regular users.</item> <item>3 Comparison of non-users to all users (regular and irregular combined).</item> <item>4 Number of people providing data for each variable.</item> <item>5 Standard deviation.</item> <item>6 SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 4. Comparison of regular and irregular pantry user characteristics (2018–2019).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Irregular users (≤7 visits per school year<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref>) <italic>N</italic> = 464</td><td>Regular users (≥8 visits per school year<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref>) <italic>N</italic> = 110</td><td /><td>Non users (0 visits per school year<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref>) <italic>N</italic> = 179</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>N</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">d</xref></td><td>Mean (SD<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">e</xref>) or %</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean (SD) or %</td><td><italic>p</italic> Value<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">b</xref></td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean (SD) or %</td><td>p Value<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">c</xref></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Class level</bold></td><td char=".">463</td><td char="." /><td char=".">110</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.121</td><td char=".">179</td><td char="." /><td char=".">0.120</td></tr><tr><td>Freshmen</td><td char="." /><td char=".">12.5%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">9.1%</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">19.0%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Sophomore</td><td char="." /><td char=".">18.6%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">13.6%</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">16.8%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Junior</td><td char="." /><td char=".">28.3%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">23.6%</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">19.6%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Senior</td><td char="." /><td char=".">29.4%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">39.1%</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">31.8%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Graduate student</td><td char="." /><td char=".">9.5%</td><td char="." /><td char=".">10.9%</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">11.7%</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td><bold>Has a university meal plan</bold></td><td char=".">460</td><td char=".">29.8%</td><td char=".">110</td><td char=".">14.5%</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">24.7%</td><td char=".">0.575</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Number of paid jobs held by the user</bold></td><td char=".">461</td><td char=".">0.9 (0.7)</td><td char=".">110</td><td char=".">1.0 (0.7)</td><td char=".">0.233</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">0.8 (0.7)</td><td char=".">0.012</td></tr><tr><td><bold>No. of housing instability indicators in last 30 days</bold></td><td char=".">462</td><td char=".">1.0 (1.2)</td><td char=".">110</td><td char=".">1.0 (1.2)</td><td char=".">0.800</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">1.0 (1.2)</td><td char=".">0.906</td></tr><tr><td><bold>No. of housing instability indicators in last 12 months</bold></td><td char=".">462</td><td char=".">1.2 (1.5)</td><td char=".">110</td><td char=".">1.1 (1.3)</td><td char=".">0.627</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">1.2 (1.5)</td><td char=".">0.970</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 School year is equivalent to 8 academic months.</item> <item>8 Comparison of irregular and regular users.</item> <item>9 Comparison of non-users to all users (regular and irregular combined).</item> <item>10 Number of people providing data for each variable.</item> <item>11 Standard deviation.</item> </ulist> <p>Analyses comparing non-users with all individuals who had completed the intake form revealed that a larger proportion of non-users identified as Black/African-American. In addition, compared to shoppers, non-users were more likely to report that the campus food pantry would be their first-time receiving food assistance. Non-users also appeared less likely to hold a paid position than individuals using the pantry.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-14">Strategies to accommodate increased used of the pantry</hd> <p>The increased demand on the pantry has been met using multiple strategies. These included re-location of the pantry to a larger space, requests for additional food storage space within the building that houses the pantry, and the employment of a graduate assistant and a growing number of student internship positions to manage and complete many of the day-to-day operations of the pantry. Over its four years of operation, the pantry has increased access opportunities by opening on more days and for longer hours each week. In addition, the pantry team has increased the annual number of organized food drives, the number of partnerships with local grocery stores, and the frequency and quantity of food acquired from the county's food bank. The pantry team has also created 'side-line' initiatives to support shoppers, including a way for students to donate leftover university meal-plan credit to pantry shoppers, and an option for people to donate household items such as appliances, clothing and furniture to pantry shoppers (this includes an effort to create better ways for students to donate food and appliances when they move out of the dorms). Finally, the pantry team has established an advisory board of university affiliates that support the pantry's faculty advisor and largely student-run operation. The advisory board meets monthly and consists of students, faculty, academic advisors, professional staff, and social workers who leverage their positions in, and knowledge of, the university to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of the pantry.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-15">Discussion</hd> <p>Through analyzing four years of data on pantry shoppers and pantry use, this study identified the demographic profile of shoppers as well as population groups which are over- and under-represented among pantry shoppers. The data revealed shifts in the demographic profile of shoppers over time and the substantial year-on-year growth of the pantry. Exploration of shopping patterns revealed an increasing proportion of students relying more heavily on the pantry as a food source. Feedback from students regarding desired items and dietary requirements lends to several practical recommendations for campus pantry directors. In addition, the data analysis permitted the projection of total visits and food distribution for the upcoming academic year, which will support the campus pantry team in ensuring adequate provision of food for all shoppers.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-16">Intake form information</hd> <p>Groups that were well represented among shoppers included African-Americans, those receiving financial aid, and students holding at least part-time employment. These findings are consistent with previous research, reporting that black students and those receiving financial support services were more likely to experience food insecurity[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>] and that food insecure students report high levels of employment.[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>] The findings suggest that students may be drawing on multiple resources to support themselves (financial aid services, employment, food pantry), conveying the substantial financial challenge that attending college represents for some.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>] The demographic profile of shoppers was characterized by a higher proportion of females, suggesting that pantries should ensure adequate supplies of feminine products (eg, sanitary products, female-orientated hygiene items). In addition, the data indicate fewer males shop at the pantry than are represented in the wider student body. Although females tend to earn less than males, gender is not a predictor of food insecurity status among college students,[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>] as such, the difference in male vs. female use of the campus pantry may reflect differences in help-seeking behaviors (with females being more likely to seek help than males)[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>] and/or gendered expectations for women being responsible for cooking and shopping. Outreach efforts that target males and minimize the stigma associated with campus pantry use[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>] may facilitate males' use of the pantry and better support all demographics represented within the student body.</p> <p>Over the four years of pantry operation, there has been a small increase in the proportion of shoppers identifying as transgender and non-binary (reflected in a small decrease in the proportion of female shoppers). Research reports that transgender and non-binary groups experience less family support and more housing insecurity challenges,[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>] and employment discrimination.[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>] As such these groups may be driven to use resources such as a campus food pantry.</p> <p>Since the pantry opened, a decreasing proportion of shoppers indicate that using the campus pantry would be their first-time receiving food assistance. This decline may result (in part) from some shoppers having used the campus pantry earlier in their student career. This trend may also reflect shifts in Michigan's economy and the increasing costs of attending college,[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>] which may be driving more families to draw on financial support resources, and more students to use the campus pantry.</p> <p>While an increasing proportion of shoppers report receiving food assistance prior to using the campus pantry, for a majority (>80%) the campus pantry represents their first-time receiving food assistance. This is consistent with previous research reporting that a majority of food insecure students (57%) said that university was their first-time experiencing food insecurity.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>] Furthermore, a majority of shoppers in the current study indicated experiencing housing insecurity (56.7%). It is understandable that that those experiencing food insecurity may be facing additional economic challenges. Collectively, the results emphasize the financial hurdle that attending university currently presents; alongside smaller scale solutions like campus food pantries, larger scale solutions are needed to make postsecondary education more affordable.[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]</p> <p>Consistent with previous research, the most commonly requested pantry items included fruits and vegetables.[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref45">34</reflink>] Fresh meat and fish were also popular items that patrons hoped to be able to get from the pantry. Relative to other foods (such as canned and boxed items) fresh produce and animal products – along with milk and eggs – are expensive to purchase; but ensuring adequate supplies of these fresh products not only meets shoppers' need for diverse sources of nutrition, but prevents food pantries from perpetuating health problems associated with a highly processed, calorie heavy-nutrient deficient diet.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>] In addition, the consistent increase in the proportion of lactose intolerant shoppers suggests a need for pantries to stock dairy-free alternatives (which are also more expensive than their dairy counterparts).</p> <p>Patrons were most likely to have heard about the pantry via word of mouth, suggesting that, despite advertising efforts of the pantry, awareness of the pantry was not high. This finding is consistent with previous research reporting that students want more awareness and outreach regarding resources like campus pantries.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>] This effort requires thinking creatively about how to reach students whose job and economic distress may interfere with regular attendance on campus and meaningful engagement with campus life. In the most recent year, an encouraging proportion of shoppers had also been informed about the pantry by a faculty member/class instructor, suggesting the success of an initiative to have faculty include a short statement about the pantry in their syllabi. The findings imply the value of a whole-university, coordinated approach to promoting campus resources to students – an approach that requires removing the perceived stigma not just of using a food pantry, but also of the university needing to have a pantry.</p> <p>Consistent with previous research, the majority of shoppers used the pantry (on average) less than once per month, suggesting they were using the pantry to supplement food intake, rather than as a sole source of food.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>] In the current study, 15.1% of shoppers demonstrated a heavier reliance on the pantry (visiting at least once per month), whereas El Zein and colleagues[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>] reported that 36.4% of shoppers in their study used the campus pantry as their sole source of food. The average employment rate of the sample in the El Zein article was lower than that of this study's sample (49.7 vs. >70%, respectively), suggesting a smaller proportion of them received an income which could have allowed them to purchase food. In addition, 22.9% of the sample in the El Zein article reported receiving a Pell grant, whereas 81.3% of the current study's sample received financial aid. While these two statistics are not directly comparable, they suggest the current sample may have received more financial support and potentially reduced their reliance on the pantry. Despite high levels of irregular pantry use, the annual data indicates an increasing proportion of shoppers being classified as 'regular shoppers' and increasing numbers of shoppers registering third, fourth and fifth 'emergency pantry visits'. This may reflect increasing need for support due to the increased cost of attending college.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>]</p> <p>Compared to irregular shoppers, regular shoppers were more vulnerable overall, experiencing housing instability, managing a chronic disease (diabetes), being within 1 or more "minority" populations, not having access to a university meal plan, and utilizing other federal benefits. Previous research has highlighted the important role that campus pantries can play in connecting students with additional support services.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>] Given the profile of regular shoppers and the trend for an increasing proportion of them, they increasingly have needs that go beyond food. By providing needed food with dignity, the pantry becomes a natural location for asking about other needs and it is important to exploit the opportunity to provide further support options for students.</p> <p>Previous research has highlighted the lack of literature describing differences between those who do and do not use a campus pantry.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>] This study helps to address this limitation by comparing actual pantry shoppers to those who only completed an intake form (indicating their intention to shop at the pantry) but did not subsequently visit the pantry ('non-users'). Non-users were more likely to report that the campus food pantry would be their first-time receiving food assistance. Previous research reports that common barriers to using a pantry include social stigma and embarrassment,[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>] which may weigh more heavily on students who have not used food assistance resources before. It is also plausible that non-users may experience less severe food insecurity than shoppers, and therefore feel less compelled to use the pantry.</p> <p>A further consideration is that the non-user group may contain students experiencing the greatest challenges to accessing the pantry. Previous research has reported that the most severely food insecure students may be the ones not using the food pantry, partly due to logistical barriers (such as not having transportation to get to the pantry, not having time outside of employment to use the pantry).[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>] Future research should seek to better understand the characteristics of individuals who express an intention to use the pantry, but do not convert their intention into action. Such research should not assume that all students who might need to use the pantry actually know about it, as economic distress may make them marginally engaged with the usual sources of campus information. It is possible that pantries need to do additional outreach and also find ways to accommodate and service those who are struggling to access to the campus resource.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-17">Pantry growth and operational adjustments</hd> <p>Use of the pantry increased substantially each year, over four academic years. The data on growth (∼686 additional visits each year) and pounds of food taken per visit (17–18 lbs per visit) allows the pantry team to estimate pantry use and food provision for the 2019-2020 academic year (∼3,766 visits and ∼66,000 lbs of food distributed over 8 academic months). The data also revealed the busiest months for the pantry, which tend to be mid-way through and late during the semester (likely coinciding with the depletion of student loans). These findings can assist campus pantry teams in planning adequate provision for shoppers. Organizing food drives and donation opportunities to coincide with the busiest months can help ensure adequate provision of supplies for pantry shoppers. As previous research has discussed, it is unclear whether the substantial increase in pantry use is primarily due to greater food insecurity among students or greater awareness of the pantry as a resource.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref55">25</reflink>]</p> <p>The focus group discussion revealed several practical strategies to support growth of a campus pantry. There are a number of sources of potential support for donations of food, money and labor both from on campus and off. Nevertheless, scaling up resources to match demand requires support from faculty, administrators, professional staff, the university foundation and outreach to alumni, other campus support services, the community and local businesses and nonprofit partners. While it is obvious to say that pantries in economically distressed areas should not underestimate demand, neither should other colleges. For example, the Federal Reserve reports that "four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money."[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref56">36</reflink>] Indeed, outsourcing and other corporate strategies for managing labor have created "the precariat," a collection of poorly paid lower and middle-class workers living paycheck to paycheck with no job security or benefits.[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref57">37</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-18">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>A strength of this study is that it directly addresses several gaps in the literature by reporting pantry growth and changes in day-to-day use of the pantry over four academic years. This practical information pertaining to growth and sustainability is lacking in the literature[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref60">25</reflink>] and we hope that the findings of this study can add to the resources available to universities and campus pantry directors seeking to set up and sustain an on-campus pantry. A limitation of this study includes the use of self-reported data, which could have introduced bias into the findings. In addition, for some variables there were large amounts of missing data (eg, for questions pertaining to dietary requirements and participation in benefit programs). The generalizability of the findings reported by this paper should be also considered – these data represent students at a mid-size university that recruits heavily from its surrounding areas of Detroit and Ypsilanti. As such, the findings will generalize best to similar-sized universities with surrounding areas demonstrating similar socio-economic characteristics. With that being said, comparisons between the current study's findings and previous research revealed several similarities (eg, student groups more likely to use a food pantry) which increases our confidence that the findings from this study can be generalized to other campuses and campus pantries.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-19">Practical recommendations for campus pantry teams</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Items to supply in the pantry: female-specific products, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and dairy-free alternatives.</item> <p></p> <item> Arrange food drives and donations for the middle/end of the semester to ensure pantry demand can be met.</item> <p></p> <item> Faculty and instructors can effectively disseminate information about the campus pantry to increase student's awareness by adding to their syllabus a short statement.</item> <p></p> <item> Campus pantry shoppers are likely to be experiencing other economic and/or social challenges in addition to food insecurity. Campus pantries are well-placed to increase shoppers' awareness of, and access to additional support services (such as those related to housing).</item> <p></p> <item> Any efforts to reduce the stigma and embarrassment associated with using a campus pantry – open houses, social media, and normalizing need – may help certain groups connect with the pantry, such as males and those who find themselves experiencing food insecurity for the first time at college.</item> <p></p> <item> At a mid-sized university (∼20,000 students), campus pantry use totaled 1,021 visits in its first year of operation. Total visits have increased by ∼686 per academic year, with 17–18 lbs of food being distributed for each of those visits. We hope these data can help universities and pantry campus directors plan provision.</item> <p></p> <item> If seeking to establish a new, on-campus pantry, anticipate growth and make efforts to acquire a building space that will accommodate increased shelving; storage space can help reduce the need for frequent shopping to restock.</item> <p></p> <item> Create food donation partnerships with local grocers in exchange for advertisement/promotion of the partnership and food donation via regular newsletters, the pantry website and social media.</item> <p></p> <item> Connections with other local food pantries allows for the exchange of information, referrals, and ways to share bulk donations that are perishable or create challenges with limited storage space.</item> <p></p> <item> Apply for/request graduate assistant, work study and student internship positions to support the day-to-day operation of the pantry while providing meaningful work and educational opportunities.</item> <p></p> <item> Establish an advisory board of key stakeholders that can help provide direction and advocacy for the pantry. This should include a representative from the university's foundation who can establish a dedicated food pantry fund and strategize crowd-funding campaigns.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0161545245-20">Conclusion</hd> <p>Data collected over four years from an on-campus food pantry at a mid-sized university in Michigan revealed substantial year-on-year pantry growth and an annual increase in the proportion of the student body using the pantry. The increasing engagement with this campus resource is both encouraging (as it demonstrates increased awareness and comfort with use) and disheartening (due to the evident financial strain on students). Pantry shoppers, particularly more regular/frequent shoppers, are likely to be experiencing financial, health, and social challenges in addition to food insecurity and food pantries may be well positioned to connect these students with services that will further support them in completing their degrees. Pantry teams seeking to set up or scale up a campus pantry can draw on support from stakeholders within the university, local community, and nonprofit partners to ensure demand on the pantry can be met.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-21">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank all individuals who have supported the running and management of Swoop's over the last 4 years, without whom this valuable source of data would not exist.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-22">Conflict of interest disclosure</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States of America and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Eastern Michigan University.</p> <hd id="AN0161545245-23">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, CG, upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0161545245-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> CUFBA | Resources. https://cufba.org/resources/. Accessed August 6, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Haneman VJ. Intergenerational equity, student loan debt, and taxing rich dead people. Soc Sci Res Network. 2019 :1–50. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3427834.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Eppard LM, Rank MR, Bullock HE, et al. Rugged Individualism and the Misunderstanding of American Inequality. Lanham, Maryland: Lehigh University Press; 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Greene TW. Three ideologies of individualism: toward assimilating a theory of individualisms and their consequences. Crit Sociol. 2008; 34 : 117 – 137. doi: 10.1177/0896920507084628.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Goldrick-Rab S. Paying the price: college costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barak G, Leighton P, Cotton A. Class, race, gender, and crime: the social realities of justice in America. 5th ed. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Michigan's College Affordability Crisis. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/michigans-college-affordability-crisis/. Published September 6, 2019. Accessed November 4, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> NCHS Pressroom - 1998 News Release - Health US 1998. https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/98news/huspr98.htm">www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/98news/huspr98.htm</ulink>. Published May 24, 2019. Accessed December 11, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Zhang BPB Gary Burtless, and Kan. What growing life expectancy gaps mean for the promise of Social Security. Brookings. https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/what-growing-life-expectancy-gaps-mean-for-the-promise-of-social-security/">www.brookings.edu/research/what-growing-life-expectancy-gaps-mean-for-the-promise-of-social-security/</ulink>. Published February 12, 2016. Accessed December 11, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A roadmap to reducing child poverty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2019. doi: 10.17226/25246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, et al. The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014. JAMA. 2016; 315 : 1750 – 1766. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.4226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maroto M. Food insecurity among community college students: prevalence and relationship to GPA. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013; 45 (4 Suppl): S35. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.04.095.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson *T, Malan *H, Glik D, Martinez S. College students identify university support for basic needs and life skills as key ingredient in addressing food insecurity on campus. Calif Agr. 2017; 71 : 130 – 138. doi: 10.3733/ca.2017a0023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Food insecurity among community college students: prevalence and association with grade point average. Community Coll J Res Pract. 39. https://<ulink href="http://www.tandfonline-com.ezproxy.emich.edu/doi/full/">www.tandfonline-com.ezproxy.emich.edu/doi/full/</ulink> 10.1080/10668926.2013.850758. Accessed August 6, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling KE, Fahrenkamp AJ, Wilson SM, D'Auria AL, Sato AF. Physical and mental health outcomes associated with prior food insecurity among young adults. J Health Psychol. 2017; 22 : 572 – 581. doi: 10.1177/1359105315609087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> El Zein A, Mathews AE, House L, Shelnutt KP. Why are hungry college students not seeking help? Predictors of and barriers to using an on-campus food pantry. Nutrients. 2018; 10. doi: 10.3390/nu10091163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaines A, Robb CA, Knol LL, Sickler S. Examining the role of financial factors, resources and skills in predicting food security status among college students. Int J Consum Stud. 2014; 38 : 374 – 384. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton-López MM, López-Cevallos DF, Cancel-Tirado DI, Vazquez L. Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity among students attending a midsize rural university in Oregon. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014; 46 : 209 – 214. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.10.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaparro MP, Zaghloul SS, Holck P, Dobbs J. Food insecurity prevalence among college students at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. Public Health Nutr. 2009; 12 : 2097 – 2103. doi: 10.1017/S1368980009990735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuy Castellanos D, Holcomb J. Food insecurity, financial priority, and nutrition literacy of university students at a mid-size private university. J Am Coll Health J ACH. 2018; 68 : 1 – 5. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1515762.Published Online October 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldrick-Rab S, Baker-Smith C, Coca V, Looker E, Williams T. College and University Basic Needs Insecurity: A National #RealCollege Survey Report. 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gupton JT, Trost JL, Collins K. Food pantries as a gateway for academic enhancement and basic needs support. New Dir Community Coll. 2018; 2018 : 61 – 71. doi: 10.1002/cc.20328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reppond HA, Thomas‐Brown K, Sampson NR, Price CE. Addressing food insecurity in college: mapping a shared conceptual framework for campus pantries in Michigan. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2018; 18 : 378 – 399. doi: 10.1111/asap.12161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farahbakhsh J, Ball GDC, Farmer AP, Maximova K, Hanbazaza M, Willows ND. How do student clients of a university-based food bank cope with food insecurity? Can J Diet Pract Res. 2015; 76 : 200 – 203. doi: 10.3148/cjdpr-2015-020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price CE, Sampson NR, Reppond HA, Thomas-Brown K, Camp JK. Creating a community of practice among college campus food pantry directors in Michigan. J Community Pract. 2019; 27 : 96 – 109. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2019.1580655.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swoop's Food Pantry. https://<ulink href="http://www.emich.edu/swoopspantry/">www.emich.edu/swoopspantry/</ulink>. Accessed November 2, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cady C, White CC. Food pantries on campus to address student hunger. New Dir Community Coll. 2018; 2018 : 73 – 82. doi: 10.1002/cc.20329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds E, Johnson C, Jamieson JA, Mawhinney H. Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity among students attending a small, rural Canadian university. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2018; 79 : 125 – 128. doi: 10.3148/cjdpr-2018-004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raskind IG, Haardörfer R, Berg CJ. Food insecurity, psychosocial health and academic performance among college and university students in Georgia, USA. Public Health Nutr. 2019; 22 : 476 – 485. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018003439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg D, Downs MF, Golberstein E, Zivin K. Stigma and help seeking for mental health among college students. Med Care Res Rev. 2009; 66 : 522 – 541. doi: 10.1177/1077558709335173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reisner SL, Hughto JMW. Comparing the health of non-binary and binary transgender adults in a statewide non-probability sample. PLoS One. 2019; 14 : e0221583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221583.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White Hughto JM, Reisner SL, Pachankis JE. Transgender stigma and health: a critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2015; 147 : 222 – 231. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanbazaza M, Ball GDC, Farmer AP, Maximova K, Farahbakhsh J, Willows ND. A comparison of characteristics and food insecurity coping strategies between international and domestic postsecondary students using a food bank located on a university campus. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2017; 78 : 208 – 211. doi: 10.3148/cjdpr-2017-012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor JA, Canfield JP, Larson K. FUEL NKU: A Campus Community Hunger Initiative. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship. 2018; 10 : 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiolet T, Srour B, Sellem L, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ. 2018; 360 : k322. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018. Published online 2017:66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Standing G. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic; 2016.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Catherine Gammon; Cailyn Van Camp; Julie Harkema; Joelle Summers; Paul Leighton and Haley Moraniec</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1377652
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Establishing a University Food Pantry: Growth, Changes in Shopper Characteristics and Recommendations
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gammon%2C+Catherine%22">Gammon, Catherine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Van+Camp%2C+Cailyn%22">Van Camp, Cailyn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harkema%2C+Julie%22">Harkema, Julie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Summers%2C+Joelle%22">Summers, Joelle</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leighton%2C+Paul%22">Leighton, Paul</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moraniec%2C+Haley%22">Moraniec, Haley</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+American+College+Health%22"><i>Journal of American College Health</i></searchLink>. 2023 71(1):211-220.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hunger%22">Hunger</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Food%22">Food</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Personnel+Services%22">Student Personnel Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Welfare%22">Student Welfare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Universities%22">State Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Campuses%22">Campuses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Poverty%22">Poverty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Familiarity%22">Familiarity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recognition+%28Psychology%29%22">Recognition (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Michigan%22">Michigan</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1888736
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0744-8481<br />1940-3208
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: Describe trends in usage and shoppers of Eastern Michigan University's (EMU) food pantry over four academic years. Participants: Shoppers of EMU's pantry between September 2015 and April 2019. Methods: Data come from shopper questionnaires and pantry records of daily visits and food distribution. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and chi-square analyses were used to explore shopper characteristics and pantry use over time. Results: Pantry use increased over four academic years (from 1,021 to 3,080 visits/year). An increasing proportion of shoppers use the pantry [greater than or equal to] once/month (6.1% in 2015/2016; 15.1% in 2018/2019). Compared to irregular shoppers ([less than or equal to]7 visits/year), regular shoppers ([greater than or equal to]8 visits) reported higher rates of housing instability and were less likely to have a university meal plan. Conclusion: Data revealed substantial growth of the campus pantry, likely reflecting greater awareness and greater need. The findings highlight financial and social challenges faced by Michigan's college students. Recommendations for pantry establishment/maintenance are indicated.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1377652
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1377652
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1888736
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 211
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hunger
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Food
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Personnel Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Welfare
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Campuses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Poverty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Familiarity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recognition (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Michigan
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Establishing a University Food Pantry: Growth, Changes in Shopper Characteristics and Recommendations
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gammon, Catherine
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Van Camp, Cailyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harkema, Julie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Summers, Joelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leighton, Paul
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moraniec, Haley
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0744-8481
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-3208
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 71
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of American College Health
              Type: main
ResultId 1