STRAFFORD COUNTY COMMUNITY NEEDS

NUTRITION

NEW HAMPSHIRE

FOOD INSECURITY (2005)

Number of households food insecure: 33,000
Percent of households food insecure: 6.5%
Number of households food insecure with hunger: 11,000
Percent of households food insecure with hunger: 2.2%

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Research and Action Center, State of the States, 2007

Definitions of Food Insecurity and Hunger: Food insecure households do not have access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times. Among food insecure households, some reach a level of severity such that one or more household members are hungry.

Hungry households are those in which adults have decreased the quality of food they consume because of lack of financial resources to the point where they are quite likely to be hungry on a frequent basis, or in which children's intake has been reduced due to lack of family financial resources, to the point that children are likely to be hungry on a regular basis and adults' intake is severely reduced.

Even when hunger is not present, adults in food insecure households are so limited in resources to buy food that they are running out of food, reducing the quality of food their family eats, feeding their children unbalanced diets, skipping meals so their children can eat, or taking other steps that impair the adequacy of the family's diet.

FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM (School Year 2005-2006)
Average daily student participation: 19,745
Free and reduced price students: 10,595
Paid students: 9,149
Change in free and reduced price participation in last 10 years: 42.4%
Free and reduced price student participation rate (compared to school lunch participationr): 33.5%
Rank among states: 47 (unchanged from 2002-2004 ranking)
Additional free and reduced-price children served if reached participation rate of 60%: 8,385
Additional federal $ state would receive if reached participation rate of 60%: $1,733,756
Number of schools participating: 396
School participation rate (compared to number of schools serving lunch): 79%
Federal reimbursement for school breakfast: $2,930,687
School breakfast mandate in state law: Yes

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM (School Year 2005-2006)
Average daily student participation: 112,369
Free and reduced price students: 31,634
Paid students: 80,735
Number of schools participating: 501
Federal reimbursement for school lunch: $15,009,125

SUMMER NUTRITION PARTICIPATION (July 2005)
Average daily July summer nutrition participation: 4,087
July Summer Food Service participation: 3,273
July National School Lunch participation in free and reduced price lunch: 813
Change in average daily summer nutrition participation in last 10 years: 50.5%
Low-income participation rate (compared to regular year free and reduced price school lunch): 14.3%
Rank among states: 30
Additional low-income children served if participation rate reached 40%: 7,313
Additional federal $ states would receive if participation rate reached 40%: $394,182
Number of Summer Food Service sponsors: 28
Number of Summer Food Service sites: 98
Federal funding for Summer Food Service Program: $499,475

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM (FY 2006)
Average monthly individual participation: 56,338
Change in participation in last 5 years: 58.5%
Average monthly benefit per person: $85.61
Participation rate (FY 2004): 54%
Rank among states: 41 (N.H. ranked 47 in 2002-2004, one of the "worst-performing states")
Federal funding for food stamps: $57,878,223

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC) (FY 2006)
Average monthly number of participants: 16,407
Women: 4,004
Infants: 4,220
Children: 8,183
Change in last 10 years (total participation): -15.2 %
Federal funding for WIC: $9,896,840

CHILD AND ADULT FOOD CARE PROGRAM (FY 2006)
Number of participating family child care homes: 172
Family child care home average daily participation of children: 1,299
Change in child participation in last 10 years: -50.5%
Number of participating child care centers (includes Head Start): 134
Child care center average daily participation of children (includes Head Start): 5,057
Change in child participation in last 10 years: 17.3%
Federal funding for CACFP: $2,629,446

THE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TEFAP) (FY 2006)
Federal entitlement funding: $331,993
Federal bonus commodity funding: $326,380
Administrative funding: $149,497

COMMODITY SUPPLEMENT FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP) (FY 2006)
Average monthly participation: 6,919
Federal funding for CSFP: $1,357,880

N.H. Behind in Efforts to Feed the Hungry

Foster's Daily Democrat, March 3, 2003

A recent report found that while nutrition programs are producing positive results, there are still many gaps in the federal government's plan to feed the hungry, especially people in New Hampshire. "The resources are there to improve this situation dramatically, but the federal government and the states have to do a far better job of making anti-hunger programs available," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). "Our political leaders have to see what is happening in every community and respond."

The "gaps" the center's report describes extend to every state, including New Hampshire, which was one of the "worst-performing" states when it comes to food stamps. The specific ranking was not available. The Granite State ranked 37th in the nation for its school breakfast program and 38th for the summer nutrition program, two programs vital to feeding hungry children. The rankings were based on the percentage of people eligible for program benefits who actually received them. The center compiled the report by analyzing federal data, including statistics from the Department of Agriculture and the Census Bureau. More than 33 million people in the United States are hungry or live on the edge of hunger, according to the agencies' research.

As of 2001, 6.5% of households in New Hampshire were living on the edge of hunger and 1.9% were hungry. Federal nutrition programs such as the food stamp program and the national school lunch program are suffering when they are needed most, Weill said, adding that the federal government has all the means available to improve the situation. President Bush's proposed fiscal 2004 budget includes no additional funding for these programs. The report proposes two concurrent strategies for improving the situation: a greater commitment by the federal government, beginning with additional funding, and a redoubling of efforts by state and local governments to use those funds in the most effective ways.

Terry Smith, food stamp program manager for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, said more work is being done to increase the visibility of programs such as these. As of 2000, only about half of the people in New Hampshire eligible for food stamps were actually participating in the program, but the number was steadily improving, he said. Reports from FRAC confirm that New Hampshire’s 2002 average monthly participation of 41,053 cases represents a 13% increase since 2000, and that 42-56% of eligible persons participated in the program.

Congress reviews the federal nutrition programs every four to five years. The food stamp program was reauthorized last year, and all federal child nutrition programs will be reviewed this year as lawmakers begin work on the fiscal 2004 budget. A letter detailing the importance of the child nutrition programs was sent in November by a group of organizations to all members of the Senate and House Budget committees. These organizations include the FRAC, the American Federation of Teachers, the YMCA of USA and the Children's Defense Fund. "Numerous studies show hunger's detrimental effect on a child's ability to learn and thrive in school," said the letter, co-authored by several officials of the participating organizations. “Through a targeted expansion of universal programs, we can ensure that many more children (have) the nutrition they need to succeed." "Many private citizens are taking heroic measures to stem a rising tide of hunger in communities across America," Weill said. "But they are saying to the president and to the nation's governors that they have done as much as one person or one hundred thousand persons can do; the government must do its share."

School Breakfast

Most schools have recognized for several decades that serving lunch is important for their students. As a result, the lunch program is available in the vast majority of public schools. But schools were slower to come to a realization of how important it is that they serve breakfast. Indeed, the federal breakfast program as a whole is a more recent initiative, created as a pilot program by Congress in 1966 and first permanently authorized in 1975.

For this and other reasons, breakfast participation numbers (of both schools and students) lag behind lunch numbers. Of course, many families eat breakfast at home together, so fewer children would be eating breakfast at school than eat lunch. But there are many reasons children need good school breakfasts. Some poor families cannot afford to feed their children a nutritious breakfast every day, and the School Breakfast Program is an essential support to them. For many other families, today’s long commuting patterns, varied work schedules and long work hours for parents mean that the children leave home long before school starts, or the parents leave the house before the children are awake or ready for breakfast. Moreover, many children, and teenagers in particular, have trouble eating a solid breakfast when they first awake – they eat better if there is some time between sleep and breakfast, and then do better in school if they have had a decent morning meal. A good breakfast in school is essential for all these children to be alert and ready to learn.

At the same time that more children need school breakfast just to avoid being hungry during morning classes, the evidence is mounting of the powerful positive nutritional, educational and behavioral effects of a good breakfast eaten at school – close in time to the period during which a child is being taught. Indeed, more and more schools are having children eat breakfast in the classroom – often served from a cart in the hallway – just before and during the first class of the day. The studies show that, in addition to ensuring that students do not start the day hungry, school breakfast also promotes healthier eating to fight obesity; improves students’ achievement, behavior and test scores; and reduces absenteeism, tardiness worked hard to expand the reach of school breakfast, and have made considerable progress. In the 2002-2003 school year, breakfast was available in 78 percent of the schools where lunch was available, up from 76 percent two years earlier and 42 percent in 1989. On a typical day in the 2002-2003 school year, 8.2 million children participated in the program, up from 8.1 million in the prior year. Of the participating children, 6.8 million received free or reduced price breakfasts. This was up from 6.7 million children in the prior year, and double the level in the late 1980s.

For every 100 students who received free or reduced price lunches in 2002-2003, 42 got a free or reduced price breakfast, up from 29 per 100 in 1989.

While there is room for all states to improve on this measure, there is broad variation among the states.

Source: Food Research and Action Center, State of the States 2004