Socio-Ecological Determinants of Food Pantry Use Among Food Insecure Racial and Ethnic Diverse College Students

Abstract

College students are disproportionately more food insecure as compared to the general U.S. population with racial and ethnic minority students at greater risk. The purpose of this study is to explore socio-ecological characteristics of food pantry utilization among food insecure Black/African American non-Hispanic and Hispanic college students employing secondary data analyses of a larger cross-sectional study of food insecurity among college students. The current study sample (n = 460) was comprised of 174 self-identified Black/African American non-Hispanic, 26 Black/African American & Hispanic, and 260 Hispanic participants. Food pantry use served as the dependent variable. Multi-level independent variables included Individual, Interpersonal, and Community Level factors. A multivariate logistic regression model analyzed the relationship between food pantry use and independent variables found to be significant in earlier independent sample t-tests and chi-square analyses. Statistical significance was set at P < .05 and a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. “Saving” coping mechanisms (OR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.082-1.231] and discrimination experiences of day-to-day unfair treatment (OR = 1.04, 95% CI [.1.000-1.077]) were predictive of food pantry utilization. This study suggests food pantry use among food insecure racial and ethnic minority college students may be influenced by socio-cultural influences at both interpersonal and community levels. Implications include interventions developed with a health equity framework.

Keywords

food insecurity food pantry college students

“Most participants (83%) reported not using the food pantry while 17% reported using the food pantry.”

Introduction

Food insecurity among U.S. college students is a recognized public health concern.¹ College students are disproportionately more food insecure as compared to the general U.S. population. Weighted estimates across 62 peer-reviewed publications reveal 41% of college students as food insecure² as compared to 13.5% in the general U.S. population.³ Underserved, underrepresented, and multi-ethnic students are at greater risk of experiencing food insecurity.^1,4-9 Critically, Black/African American and Hispanic college students are 1.5 times more likely to experience food insecurity as compared to their White and Asian counterparts.^5,7,10-12

Food insecurity is associated with many physical^4,5,12-22 and mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation among college students.^5,7,23-25 Black/African Americans are six times more likely to be observed with serious psychological distress while experiencing food insecurity.²⁶ Moreover, a recent study revealed that among food insecure college students, Black/African American students exhibited lower flourishing scores (i.e., self-perceived success in relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism), and Hispanic/Latino students had significantly higher psychological distress, greater loneliness, and lower resilience as compared with those who were food secure.²⁷ In addition to health issues, food insecurity has been associated with lower academic performance among college students.^16,23,28-30 A recent study revealed that food insecure students were 6 times more likely to have a GPA than 2.5 and 6 times more likely to suspend studies due to finances as compared to food secure students.³¹

Concerns regarding college student food insecurity were first noted during the 2008-2009 Great Rescession.³² Steady increases resulted in Freudenberg et al. (2019) noting college students as the “new face” of food insecurity in the US.³³ Further, COVID-19 resulted in increased awareness about food insecurity among college students.³⁴ Due to the increased prevalence of food insecurity among college students, a rapid growth in college campus food pantries has taken place as evidenced by the increase in College and University Food Bank Alliance membership from 15 schools in 2012 to over 700 schools nationally by 2019.⁷

Although food pantries have the potential to improve health outcomes,³⁵ food-insecure students have been found to not use campus food pantries at high rates, despite reporting a lack of available food.^36-39 For example, in a cross-sectional study of 896 college students, 48.8% were classified as food insecure, yet only 17.4% utilized the campus food pantry.³⁸ Similarly, in a 2022 study among college students, 49.2% of participants were food insecure, with only 40% reporting campus food pantry utilization.³⁷ Racial- and ethnic minority students, specifically those who received Pell grants, accessed food pantry resources at higher rates than their non-Hispanic White counterparts.^40-44 Identified barriers to campus-based food pantry utilization span multiple levels of influence including: a) individual: such as time,^8,37 self-stigma associated with pantry use,^38,39,44-47 lack of pantry awareness,^8,44,45 and beliefs that other students need it more,^37,38,44,45 lack of clarity regarding eligibility^44,47; b) interpersonal: social-stigma^8,36,44; normalcy surrounding lack of food and finances in college^36,39,48; and c) structural: lack of transportation,^8,44,47 limited hours of pantry operation,^37,44,47 location,⁴⁷ food quality and quantity.⁴⁷

A major limitation in increasing our understanding of food insecurity and food pantry use is the lack of research regarding multi-level determinants of food insecurity, with gaps in the literature especially among racial and ethnic minority college students.⁹ Although various strategies such as food pantries have been implemented across U.S. colleges, addressing food insecurity requires a comprehensive approach that can examine and address the multiple determinants, especially among racial and ethnic minority college students.^16,49 More specifically, based on a scoping review of food insecurity among college students, Goldman and colleagues note the need for a greater understanding of how campus climate perceptions influence food pantry use.⁹ To that end, the purpose of this study was to examine characteristics of campus food pantry utilization among Black/African American and Hispanic college students employing a multidimensional socio-ecological framework depicting multiple levels and domains of influence.

Methods

Study Design

The current study employed a secondary analysis utilizing an existing dataset as part of a larger cross-sectional study exploring food insecurity among racial and ethnic minority undergraduate college students attending a large, urban research institution (n = 588).⁵⁰ The study was reviewed and approved by the [blinded for peer review] university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB # 004835). Participant recruitment and eligibility as part of the larger study are detailed in a previous report.⁵⁰

Data Source and Selection

The current study sample (n = 460) was comprised of 174 self-identified Black/African American non-Hispanic, 26 Black/African American & Hispanic, and 260 Hispanic participants. As part of the larger study, the FI screener was as follows: Individuals responding positively to a one item FI screener (In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?)⁵⁰ were invited to participate in the study. Participants were included in the analysis if they met the following criteria: a) self-reported as non-Hispanic Black/African American; b) self-reported as Hispanic; and c) screened with low or very low food security. As the current study focused on examining characteristics of campus food pantry utilization, students who screened as food secure, were not part of the study sample as they would not be eligible to use the campus food pantry.

Conceptual Framework

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework⁵¹ served as the conceptual framework for the current study.⁵² The NIMHD research framework is informed by the socio-ecological model and serves as a guide for encouraging research that addresses the complex multi-faceted nature of minority health comprised of domains of influence (i.e., biological, behavioral, environmental, socio-cultural environment) categorized along multiple levels of influence (i.e., individual, interpersonal, community).⁵² This framework was selected as the conceptual framework for this study for the purposes of identifying the complex multi-level determinants of health disparities, particularly among minoritized populations. The NIMHD Framework can also serve as a useful tool to identify determinants and factors for minoritized populations that experience persistent health disparities.

Measures

Aligning with the NIMHD research framework, constructs assessed by level of influence and domain are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1.

Multi-Level Determinants of FI Based on NIHMD Framework.

		Levels of Influence
		Individual	Interpersonal	Community
Domains of influence	Health	Food insecurity psychological distress loneliness
	Behavioral	Food insecurity coping cooking skillsEmployment		Cultural familiarity cultural validation humanized educational experienceHolistic support
	Physical/Built environment	HousingMeal planFinancial support	Living Situation
	Socio/CulturalEnvironment	Sociodemographic	Social support	Experience of discrimination

Individual Level of Influence: Health Domain

Food Insecurity

The USDA Food Security Survey Short Form is a validated⁵³ 6-item questionnaire (five items for self-administration) used to measure the level of food security.^54,55 For self-administration purposes, two of the six items are combined to create a single item with a 2-point value for an affirmative response, resulting in scoring based on 6 affirmative points. A sum score was generated ranging from 0-6 with higher scores reflecting higher levels of food insecurity. Scores were categorized as 0-1= high/marginal food security; 2-4= low food security; 5-6 = very low food security. This measure has demonstrated validity in food insecurity among college students⁴ and good reliability (Cronbach α = .87).⁵³ In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the USDA Food Security Survey Short Form items was α = .60.

Psychological Distress

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler6) 6-item version of the original 10-item scale used to measure non-specific psychological distress.⁵⁶ Responses range from “none of the time” to “all of the time” for the following questions “During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel: a) nervous; b) hopeless; c) restless or fidgety; d) so depressed that nothing could cheer you up; e) that everything was an effort; f) worthless.” A sum score was generated ranging from 0-24 with higher scores reflecting higher levels of psychological distress. This scale has demonstrated very good internal consistency (Cronbach α = .89).⁵⁶ In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the Kessler6 items was .83.

Loneliness

The 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale was used to measure loneliness on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = hardly ever to 3 = often).⁵⁷ A sum score was generated ranging from 3-9 with higher scores reflecting higher levels of loneliness. This scale has shown an acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach α = .72).⁵⁷ In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the 3 UCLA Loneliness Scale items was .81.

Individual Level of Influence: Behavioral Domain

Food Pantry Use

Food pantry use was assessed by asking participants how often they obtained food from the food pantry within the last 30 days. The three categorical response options were “never,” “sometimes,” and “often.” A dichotomous variable was created to distinguish between food pantry users and non-users. Participants who answered “sometimes” and “often” were categorized as food pantry users. Participants who answered “never” were categorized as non-users.

Food Insecurity Coping Strategies

The 29-item Coping Strategies Scale is based on strategies used by students experiencing food insecurity.^38,58,59 Items comprised three subconstructs including: saving (19 items), food intake/access (6 items), and selling (4 items) utilizing a three-point scale with response options of “often,” “sometimes,” and “never.”

The savings subconstruct was comprised of the following items: taking fewer classes, using less utilities, sharing rent with others, planning menus before buying food, cutting out food coupons, saving money on medications, stretching food to last longer, sharing groceries/meals with roommates, saving food for emergencies, participating in paid research to buy food, borrowing money from family/friends, attending functions where there was free food, participating in a food assistance program (SNAP), eating meals at places where you pay what you can, joining a group (e.g., church) where free meals are provided, visiting family on weekends to bring food back to school, holding one or more part- or full-time jobs, and using a credit card to buy food.

Items representing the intake subconstruct included the following: how often respondents ate more than needed when food was plentiful, ate less healthy meals to eat more food, took food home from on-campus dining hall, obtained food from dumpster or trash, purchased cheap and processed food, and bartered services/items to buy food.

Items representing the selling subconstruct included the following: selling textbooks, personal possessions, blood/plasma, and sperm/eggs to buy food. Sum scores were calculated for each subconstruct with higher scores reflecting greater utilization of coping strategies. In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas for the 19 savings items, the six food intake/access items, and the four selling items were .70, .60, and 64.

Cooking Skills

A single-item that uses a 4-point Likert scale was used to measure perceived cooking skills. Students were asked “How would you rate your cooking skills?” Response options included “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor.”⁵⁹

Individual Level of Influence: Socio-Cultural Domain

Sociodemographic

Variables included self-reported age, race, ethnicity, sex (assigned at birth), undergraduate level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), enrollment status (full-time vs part-time), housing, employment status (working <20 hours/week, working >20 hours/week, not working), sources of financial support (loans, grants/scholarships, working, and/or parents/family), having a Pell Grant), and meal plan status.

Interpersonal Level of Influence: Socio-cultural environmental domain

Experience of Discrimination

The Everyday Discrimination Scale⁶⁰ assessed self-reported experiences of interpersonal discrimination that are chronic or episodic in everyday life. The scale comprises 10 items (e.g., being treated with less courtesy, receiving less respect, people acting as if they are afraid of you, and being called names) using a 4-point scale (never, 1 time, 2 or 3 times, 4 or more times). A total sum score was calculated with higher scores indicating greater experiences of day-to-day discrimination. This scale has shown an acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach α = .84).^60,61 In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for 10 items of the Everyday Discrimination Scale was .79.

Social Networks and Social Support

The 12-item Lubben Social Network Scale was used to measure students’ social networks and support.^62,63 The questionnaire includes two subscales employing a 5-point scale to assess social networks/support among friends and family members with a total score calculated as the sum of all items.⁶³ Participants were asked how many and how often they interact with friends and family. A sum score ranging from 0-20 was generated for each subscale with higher scores reflecting greater social engagement/support. These scales have demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach α = .84-.89 for family & Cronbach α = .80-.82 for friends).⁶³ In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas for the family subscale items and the friends subscale items were .77 and .80 respectively.

Community Level of Influence: Socio-Cultural Environmental Domain

Campus Climate

The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) scale⁶⁴ was employed to assess campus climate. In contrast to typical campus climate surveys that identify problems with discrimination that are used to inform diversity efforts, the CECE assesses climate by focusing on positive actionable elements that allow diverse populations to thrive.⁶⁵ To that end, the CECE assesses student experiences regarding elements of inclusive and equitable environments that are relevant to diverse backgrounds.⁶⁵ This scale consists of two subconstructs of cultural relevance (cultural familiarity and cultural validation) and two subconstructs of cultural responsiveness (humanized educational environment and holistic support) demonstrating acceptable internal reliability (cultural familiarity Cronbach α = .81; cultural validation Cronbach α = .91; humanized educational experience Cronbach α = .87; and holistic support Cronbach α = .94.^64,66 All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).⁶⁴ In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas for the cultural familiarity, cultural validation, humanized educational experience, and holistic support items were .86, .87, .90, and .70 respectively.

Cultural familiarity is comprised of 3 items that measure students’ opportunities to connect with various agents on campus (e.g., faculty administrators, staff, and peers) who are like them in terms of background and experiences. Responses from this scale are summed. The total score ranges from 5 to 25 with higher scores indicating a campus environment with greater cultural familiarity.

Cultural validation, or campus culture that validates the cultural backgrounds, knowledge, and identities of diverse students were measured with 3 items. Possible scores range from 3 to 15 with higher scores indicating a campus environment with greater cultural validation.

Humanized Educational Environment, or the availability of opportunities for students to develop meaningful relations with members of faculty and staff who care about and are committed to their success was assessed with 3 items. Responses to items were summed with possible scores ranging from 3 to 15. Higher scores indicate a campus environment with greater humanized educational experiences.

Holistic support is comprised of 4 items that measure student’s access to at least one faculty or staff member in which the student is confident that they will provide them with the information they need, offer the help they seek, or connect them with the information or support that they require regardless of the problem with which the student faces. Responses are summed with a total possible score ranging from 4 to 20, with higher scores reflecting a campus environment with greater holistic support.

Data Analysis

Survey data were exported from REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture web-based application)⁶⁷ and uploaded into IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29.0.1 where all statistical analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were computed for all demographic variables by food pantry use. Independent sample t-tests and chi-squared tests were used to identify any differences between food-insecure food pantry users and non-users across multi-level variables.

A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed to analyze the relationship between food pantry use and individual, interpersonal, and community level predictor variables found to be significant in earlier independent sample t-tests and chi-square analyses. Cox & Snell R² and Nagelkerke R² values were utilized to explain the variation in food pantry use within the multivariate logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at P < .05 and a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Among the 460 participants, approximately 37% were screened as low food security while 63% were screened as very low food security. Most participants (83%) reported not using the food pantry while 17% reported using the food pantry. Approximately 38% of participants identified as Black/African American, 6% as Black/African American & Hispanic, and 57% as Hispanic. No statistically significant differences were revealed by race/ethnicity related to level of food insecurity (P = .515) nor food pantry use (P = .210). Further, most participants self-reported as female, enrolled full-time, upper level, living off campus, employed, receiving financial support, with no university meal plan (Table 2). Approximately 54% reported receiving a Federal Pell Grant as part of their financial aid package.

Table 2.

Participant Demographics by Food Pantry Use (n = 460).

	Non-User (n = 383)	User (n = 77)	Total
Age	20.80 ± 3.53	20.89 ± 2.70	20.86 ± 3.54
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Race/Ethnicity
Black/African American	142 (81.6)	32 (18.4)	174 (37.8)
Black/African American & Hispanic	19 (73.1)	7 (26.9)	26 (5.7)
Hispanic	222 (84.4)	38 (14.6)	260 (56.5)
Sex (assigned at birth)
Female	274 (71.5)	58 (75.3)	332 (72.2)
Male	109 (28.5)	18 (23.4)	127 (27.5)
Intersex	0(0)	1(1.3)	1 (0.2)
Student status
Full-time	343 (89.8)	71 (93.4)	414 (90.4)
Part-time	39 (10.2)	5 (6.6)	44 (9.6)
Undergraduate level
Freshman	57 (14.9)	12 (15.6)	69 (15.0)
Sophomore	81 (21.1)	13 (16.9)	94 (20.4)
Junior	120 (31.3)	26 (33.8)	146 (31.7)
Senior	125 (33.6)	26 (33.8)	152 (33.0)
Housing
Campus/university	99 (25.8)	18 (23.4)	117 (25.4)
Parent/guardian	103 (26.9)	22 (28.6)	126 (27.3)
Off-campus	178 (46.5)	35 (45.5)	213 (46.2)
Couch surfing	3 (0.8)	2 (2.6)	5 (1.1)
Employment status
Yes, ≤20 hours/week	149 (38.9)	27 (35.5)	177 (38.5)
Yes, >20 hours/week	87 (22.7)	19 (25.0)	106 (23.0)
No	147 (38.4)	30 (39.5)	177 (38.5)
Financial support
Parents/family	231 (60.3)	48 (62.3)	279 (60.5)
Loans	116 (30.3)	16 (20.8)	133 (28.9)
Grants/scholarships	256 (66.8)	53 (68.8)	309 (67.0)
Working	235 (61.4)	48 (62.3)	283 (61.4)
Federal Pell Grant Recipient
Yes	199 (52.0)	48 (62.3)	247 (53.6)
University meal plan
Yes	102 (26.8)	18 (23.7)	120 (26.2)
Food insecurity
Low	148 (38.6)	20 (26.0)	168 (36.4)
Very low	235 (61.4)	57 (74.0)	293 (63.6)

^aParticipants could select all that applied for financial support.

Differences in Multi-level Determinants by Pantry Use vs Non-use

Table 3 presents findings on the multi-level domains and levels of influence by food pantry usage. At the Individual Level, statistically significant differences emerged by the level of food security (P = .035) between users vs non-users whereas a larger percentage of food pantry users exhibited very low food security as compared to non-users (74% and 61.4% respectively). Additionally, food pantry users demonstrated higher mean scores for both the saving (M = 33.65, SD = 5.52, P < .001) and selling (M = .72, SD = 1.03, P = .047) coping mechanisms as compared to non-users.

Table 3.

Multi-Level Characteristics Among Food Pantry Non-users (n = 383) vs Users (n = 77).

	Food PantryNon-User		Food pantry user			P
	f	%	f	%		P
Food insecurity
Level of food insecurity
Low	148	38.6	20	26.0		.035*
Very low	235	61.4	57	74.0
Mental health
	M	SD	M	SD	t	P
Psychological distress	9.89	4.53	10.87	5.00	−1.84	.067
Loneliness	5.90	1.77	5.88	1.83	.072	.943
Individual level: Behavioral domain
Perceived cooking skills	f	%	f	%		P
Excellent	72	18.8	17	22.1		.639
Good	175	45.7	38	49.4
Fair	111	29.0	19	24.7
Poor	25	6.5	3	3.9
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Food insecurity coping: Saving	30.12	4.97	33.65	5.52	−5.56	<.001*
Food insecurity coping: Intake	4.04	2.01	4.47	2.31	−1.73	.085
Food insecurity coping: Selling	.47	.89	.72	1.03	−2.37	.047*
Interpersonal level: Behavioral domain
Social support friends	10.27	3.62	10.14	4.09	.28	.778
Social support family	10.24	3.88	9.18	3.52	2.21	.028*
Interpersonal level: Socio-cultural domain
Discrimination: Day-to-day unfair treatment	10.59	7.59	13.13	7.76	−2.66	<.008*
Community level: Socio-cultural domain
Cultural familiarity	16.45	4.67	16.87	4.84	−.71	.476
Cultural validation	10.17	2.89	10.47	2.55	−.84	.403
Humanized educational experience	11.05	2.84	10.31	2.76	2.09	.038*
Holistic support	12.89	3.55	12.81	3.59	.19	.854

*Tests are significant at P < .05.

Within the Interpersonal Level, food pantry users exhibited statistically significantly higher mean scores for experiences of day-to-day unfair treatment (M = 13.13, SD = 7.76, P = .008) as compared to non-users (M = 10.59, SD = 7.59). Additionally, food pantry users demonstrated lower mean scores for social support from family (M = 9.18, SD = 3.52, P = .028) as compared with non-users (M = 10.24, SD = 3.88).

At the Community Level, statistically significant differences emerged regarding humanized educational experiences between food pantry users and non-users (P = .038) whereas food pantry users exhibited lower mean scores (M = 10.31, SD = 2.76) as compared to food pantry non-users (M = 11.05, SD = 2.84).

Multi-level Determinants on Food Pantry Use

Direct logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of multi-level factors on the likelihood that participants would report they had used the food pantry. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, χ2(16, N = 461) =47.271, P < .001, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between food pantry users vs non-users. The model explained 11.0% (Cox & Snell R²) and 18% (Nagelkerke R²) of the variance in food pantry use and correctly classified 84.1% of cases. As depicted in Table 4, only two independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model: savings coping mechanism and discrimination day-to-day unfair treatment. The strongest predictor of food pantry users was the saving coping mechanism, reporting an odds ratio of 1.15 (95% CI [1.082-1.231]). When holding all other predictor variables constant, the second predictor of food pantry use was discrimination day-to-day unfair treatment, finding an odds ratio of 1.04 (95% CI [.1.000-1.077]).

Table 4.

Summary Statistics From Logistic Regression of Food Pantry Use (n = 460).

Explanatory Variable	OR	95% CI		P
Explanatory Variable	OR	LL	UL	P
Individual level: Health domain
Food security
Low	Reference
Very low	1.369	.73	2.58	.330
Psychological distress	1.028	.96	1.19	.403
Loneliness	.987	.82	1.20	.887
Individual level: Behavioral domain
Cooking skills
Excellent	Reference
Good	1.173	.57	2.43	.667
Fair	1.319	.57	3.05	.516
Poor	.796	.19	3.38	.757
Food insecurity coping (saving)	1.154	1.08	1.23	<.001*
Food insecurity coping (intake)	.895	.77	1.31	.161
Food insecurity coping (selling)	1.122	.86	1.47	.400
Interpersonal level: Socio-cultural domain
Discrimination: Day-to-day unfair treatment	1.038	1.00	1.08	.049*
Interpersonal level: Behavioral domain
Social support (family)	.942	.87	1.02	.134
Social support (friends)	.983	.90	1.07	.697
Community level: Socio-cultural environment domain
Cultural familiarity	1.064	.98	1.15	.134
Cultural validation	1.056	.92	1.21	.435
Humanized educational experience	.938	.84	1.05	.251
Holistic support	1.040	.95	1.14	.384

*Tests are significant at P < .05; OR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Discussion

The current study offers novel insights into the multi-level determinants of food pantry use among food insecure racial and ethnic minority college students, a population disproportionately affected by food insecurity.^5,7,10-12 By applying the NIMHD Research Framework,⁵² this study advances the understanding of how individual, interpersonal, and community level factors influence campus-based food pantry utilization among racial and ethnic minority college students. Although prior research has focused broadly on barriers to food pantry use, to our knowledge, this is the first known study to examine campus-based food pantry utilization among racial and ethnic minority college students using a multi-level ecological framework. Collectively, results both support previous research and present key novel findings.

Supporting previous studies reporting modest utilization of food pantries,^36-39 the current study revealed only 17% of food insecure racial and ethnic students as food-pantry users. Further a greater percentage of students experiencing very low food security in the current study reported using the pantry (20%) as compared with those experiencing low food security (12%) suggesting normative beliefs surrounding food that exist among college students. For example, previous studies have revealed barriers to food pantry access including perceived normalcy surrounding lack of food and finances in college^36,39,48 and beliefs that other students may be in more need of resources.^{37,38,45,48,68} Lastly, although only approaching statistical significance, the current study is in line with previous studies suggesting an association between receiving a Federal Pell Grant and food pantry use.^40-44 For example, Twill et al. (2016) found that 57% of campus food pantry users reported receiving the Federal Pell Grant⁴⁰ and our study found that 62.3% of food insecure Black/African American non-Hispanic and Hispanic college students who used the food pantry reported receiving a Federal Pell Grant.

Most noteworthy, results reveal three key novel findings pertaining to multi-level factors influencing campus-based food pantry use. First, at the individual level, the most significant predictor of food pantry use was the adoption of “saving” coping strategies such as reducing utility use, skipping meals, or taking fewer classes—behaviors that reflect the severity of food insecurity and the lengths to which students go to manage it.⁵⁹ This finding adds nuance to the current literature by showing that behavioral adaptations to food insecurity are not just consequences, but may also serve as predictors of resource utilization. Further research is warranted to assess the predictive nature of behavioral adaptations to food insecurity and campus-based food pantry use.

Second, at the interpersonal level, the current study uniquely identified day-to-day discrimination as a statistically significant predictor of food pantry uses. This finding supports a growing body of literature linking interpersonal racism and other forms of discrimination and food insecurity in the U.S.^69-74 More specifically, Larson et al. (2021) found experiencing interpersonal racism in the past month was associated with food insecurity among emerging adults.⁷⁴ The combination of day-to-day discrimination and low family support may create an obstructive social environment; thus, increasing the need for access to food. Further, this finding links interpersonal racism to basic needs behavior, highlighting how social marginalization may exacerbate college students’ vulnerability and increase reliance on institutional support systems.

Third, at the community level, the current study aimed to gain a better understanding of the influence of campus climate and food pantry use. Results reveal statistically significantly lower scores on humanized educational experiences (i.e., experiences where diverse students perceive that faculty and staff are committed to their success⁶⁵) among food pantry users; thus, suggesting students who use campus-based food pantries may feel less supported or connected to faculty and/or staff, consequently compounding their sense of marginalization and lessen engagement with other campus resources.⁶⁶ This is consistent with previous research that found students who experience food insecurity are more likely to experience less on-campus social support.^29,75,76 This insight challenges assumptions that students who access resources are more engaged and may point to gaps in relational support and opportunities for developing culturally responsive campus environments. Additional research exploring campus climate pertaining to racial and ethnic minority college student experiences regarding inclusive and equitable environments and food insecurity is warranted.

Nonetheless, interpretation of findings should be considered in the context of a few study limitations. First, the study sample was comprised of undergraduate-level students at a single university which may affect generalizability to graduate-level and college students attending institutions in other geographical regions. Second, reliance on self-reported experiences (e.g., discrimination) over a long duration (e.g., in the past 12 months) can potentially introduce recall bias and affect the validity of the results. More specifically, current research has suggested the use of “since being in college” as opposed to “in the last 12 months.”⁹ Third, the sample was homogenous in food insecurity status thus students who are not food insecure were not represented in this sample. Lastly, the variables representing both levels and domains of influence per NIMHD Research Framework were limited due to the nature of the study being a secondary data analysis of a larger study on food insecurity among racial and ethnic college students. For example, variables representing the health domain were only assessed at the individual level.

Practical Recommendations for Increasing Food Pantry Use Among Food Insecure Racial and Ethnic College Students

Despite limitations, the current study provides additional insight into food insecurity and food pantry use among racial and ethnic minority college students. Collectively, the current study suggests food pantry use among food insecure racial and ethnic minority college students may be influenced beyond individual and structural barriers and include socio-cultural influences at both the interpersonal and community level. While the NIMHD Research Framework was instrumental for assessing multi-level determinants of food pantry use, it is not designed to provide actionable guidance for intervention development as it does not offer a roadmap for addressing structural and relational inequities that perpetuate food insecurity among racial and ethnic college students. Accordingly, translation of current findings for improving health equity regarding food insecurity among college students may be served by applying a justice-based health equity framework such as the Health Equity Framwork.⁴⁷ Centering health equity at a population level, the Health Equity Framework provides a justice-based model for guiding solutions encouraging multi-level, equity driven interventions that target factors (i.e., psychological pathways, individual, relationships and networks, systems of power) that affect access to resources and opportunities.^47,77 To that end, based on findings from the current study, the following practical multi-level recommendations are presented to increase campus-based food pantry use among food insecure racial and ethnic minority college students.

At the individual level, the current study found “saving” coping strategies serving as the main predictor of campus-based food pantry resource utilization. As such, structured solutions to support coping strategies may include the following strategies that may be facilitated as part of the campus-based food pantry services: a) workshops on meal planning to empower students with practical skills to reduce reliance on coping mechanisms like skipping meals and selling possessions; b) financial literacy programs that include budgeting for food and accessing aid; and c) provision of small, rapid-response grants to students facing acute food insecurity to prevent reliance on harmful coping strategies like skipping meals or selling personal items.

At the interpersonal level, greater day-to-day discrimination, lower family support and fewer humanized educational experiences were associated with food pantry use. Thus campus-based strategies that reduce social marginalization through strengthen culturally responsive campus environments are warranted. Enhancing inclusive campus climates to address food insecurity among racial and ethnic minority students may include the following practical applications: a) cultural ally training for faculty, staff, and student leaders to increase perceptions of cultural responsiveness and fill gaps in relational support; b) culturally responsive food insecurity peer support groups that create supportive and inclusive environments where food insecure students can connect, share experiences, and build mutual support; and c) partnering with student organizations to train students from diverse backgrounds to serve as peer navigators that can assist with access to food resources, reduce stigma, and build community.

At the institutional level, addressing systems of power via reforming institutional policies and practices to reduce barriers are warranted. Practical applications may include the following: a) normalizing food pantry use through inclusive messaging in course syllabi, new student orientation, and campus-wide campaigns that frame food access as right; b) integrating campus-based pantry access into student services (e.g., financial aid, advising, housing); c) incorporating campus-based food pantry into wellness programs (e.g., health promotion, counseling, health services) to frame it as part of holistic student health; and d) establishing a campus-wide task force to ensure equitable funding and staffing of food pantries, meal voucher programs, and culturally relevant food initiatives.

Despite its public health significance, negligible work exists on the evaluation of programs and policies addressing food insecurity on college campuses.^28,78-80 Further, more research is needed regarding campus-based interventions that address multi-level determinants of food insecurity. Implications for further research include the use of equity-focused multi-level frameworks to develop and evaluate system-thinking programs with the aim of decreasing the prevalence of food insecurity among college students.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Conception and design (RD, MS, KC, AD, DH), analysis and interpretation of data (RD, JJ,JP, RJ). Drafting of the manuscript (RD, JJ, J) and critical revision of the manuscript (all authors).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The current study was funded by the College of Public Health at the University of South Florida.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Rita DeBate

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings may be available from the corresponding author, RD, upon reasonable request. *

References

Olfert

Hagedorn-Hatfield

Houghtaling

, et al. Struggling with the basics: food and housing insecurity among college students across twenty-two colleges and universities. J Am Coll Health. 2023;71(8):2518-2529. doi:10.1080/07448481.2021.1978456

Nikolaus

Ellison

Nickols-Richardson

. Food insecurity among college students in the United States: a scoping review. Adv Nutr. 2020;11(2):327-348. doi:10.1093/advances/nmz111

Rabbitt

Reed-Jones

Hales

Burke

United States . Department of agriculture. Economic research service sb. Household food security in the United States in 2023. In: Economic Research Service. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2024.

Patton-López

López-Cevallos

Cancel-Tirado

Vazquez

. Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity among students attending a midsize rural university in Oregon. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46(3):209-214. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2013.10.007

Payne-Sturges

Tjaden

Caldeira

Vincent

Arria

. Student hunger on campus: food insecurity among college students and implications for academic institutions. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(2):349-354. doi:10.1177/0890117117719620

Nazmi

Martinez

Byrd

, et al. A systematic review of food insecurity among US students in higher education. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2019;14(5):725-740. doi:10.1080/19320248.2018.1484316

Henry

. Experiences of Hunger and Food Insecurity in College. Palgrave Macmillan; 2020:1-129. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2294337

Antwi

Olawuyi

Ifafore

Opara

. Mixed-methods to explore barriers to the use of food security initiatives in a historically black college and university (HBCU). BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):3105-3111. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-20627-1

Goldman

Freiria

Landry

Arikawa

Wright

. Research trends and gaps concerning food insecurity in college students in the United States: a scoping review. J Am Coll Health. 2024;2:1-40. doi:10.1080/07448481.2024.2351420

10.

Freudenberg

NML

Jones

, et al. Food insecurity at CUNY: results from a survey of CUNY undergraduate students. 2011. https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/Center_for_Human_Environments/cunyfoodinsecurity.pdf

11.

Maroto

Snelling

Linck

. Food insecurity among community college students: prevalence and association with grade point average. Community Coll J. 2015;39(6):515-526. doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.850758

12.

Morris

Smith

Davis

Null

. The prevalence of food security and insecurity among Illinois university students. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(6):376-382.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.03.013

13.

Hughes

Serebryanikova

Donaldson

Leveritt

. Student food insecurity: the skeleton in the university closet. Nutr Diet. 2011;68(1):27-32. doi:10.1111/j.1747-0080.2010.01496.x

14.

Farahbakhsh

Hanbazaza

Ball

Farmer

Maximova

Willows

. Food Insecure Student Clients of a University-Based Food Bank Have Compromised Health, Dietary Intake and Academic Quality. Australia: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2017:67.

15.

Mirabitur

Peterson

Rathz

Matlen

Kasper

. Predictors of college-student food security and fruit and vegetable intake differ by housing type. J Am Coll Health. 2016;64(7):555-564. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1192543

16.

Henry

. Understanding food insecurity among college students: experience, motivation, and local solutions. Annals of Anthropological Practice. 2017;41(1):6-19. doi:10.1111/napa.12108

17.

Knol

Robb

McKinley

Wood

. Food insecurity, self-rated health, and obesity among college students. Am J Health Educ. 2017;48(4):248. doi:10.1080/19325037.2017.1316689

18.

Broton

Goldrick-Rab

. Going without: an exploration of food and housing insecurity among undergraduates. Educ Res. 2018;47(2):121-133. doi:10.3102/0013189x17741303

19.

Bruening

van Woerden

Michael

Laska

. Hungry to learn: the prevalence and effects of food insecurity on health behaviors and outcomes over time among a diverse sample of university freshmen. article. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ. 2018;15(1):1-10. doi:10.1186/s12966-018-0647-7

20.

Dhillon

Diaz Rios

Aldaz

, et al. We don’t have a lot of healthy options: food environment perceptions of first-year, minority college students attending a food desert campus. Article. Nutrients. 2019;11(4):816. doi:10.3390/nu11040816

21.

Allen

Alleman

. A private struggle at a private institution: effects of student hunger on social and academic experiences. J Coll Student Dev. 2019;60(1):52-69. doi:10.1353/csd.2019.0003

22.

Shi

Davies

Allman-Farinelli

. The association between food insecurity and dietary outcomes in university students: a systematic review. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021;121(12):2475-2500.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2021.07.015

23.

Martinez

Frongillo

Leung

Ritchie

. No food for thought: food insecurity is related to poor mental health and lower academic performance among students in California’s public university system. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(12):1930-1939. doi:10.1177/1359105318783028

24.

Alaimo

KOC

Frongillo

. Food insufficiency and American school-aged children's cognitive, academic, and psychosocial development. Pediatrics. 2001;108(3):824. doi:10.1542/peds.108.3.824-a

25.

Broton

Weaver

. Hunger in higher education: experiences and correlates of food insecurity among Wisconsin undergraduates from low-income families. Soc Sci. 2018;7(10):179. doi:10.3390/socsci7100179

26.

Allen

Becerra

. Associations between food insecurity and the severity of psychological distress among African-Americans. Ethn Health. 2018;23(5):511-520. doi:10.1080/13557858.2017.1280139

27.

DeBate

Himmelgreen

Gupton

Heuer

. Food insecurity, well-being, and academic success among college students: implications for post COVID-19 pandemic programming. Ecol Food Nutr. 2021;60(5):564-579.

28.

Broton

Cady

, eds. Food Insecurity on Campus: Action and Intervention. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2020.

29.

Henry

. Experiences of Hunger and Food Insecurity in College. Springer; 2020.

30.

Chaparro

Zaghloul

Holck

Dobbs

. Food insecurity prevalence among college students at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(11):2097-2103.

31.

Hege

Stephenson

Pennell

, et al. College food insecurity: implications on student success and applications for future practice. Journal of student affairs research and practice. 2021;58(1):44-61. doi:10.1080/19496591.2020.1726359

32.

Hagedorn-Hatfield

Hood

Hege

. A decade of college student hunger: what we know and where we need to go. Front Public Health. 2022;10:837724. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.837724

33.

Freudenberg

Goldrick-Rab

Poppendieck

. College students and SNAP: the new face of food insecurity in the United States. American journal of public health. 2019;109(12):1652-1658. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305332

34.

Himmelgreen

Stern

. Food insecurity during the time of COVID-19: vulnerability, health conditions, and taking action. Ecol Food Nutr. 2021;60(5):543-547. doi:10.1080/03670244.2021.1977022

35.

Wang

Liu

Shen

Loehmer

McCaffrey

. A systematic review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(9):1704-1716. doi:10.1017/S1368980019000144

36.

Daugherty

Birnbaum

Clark

. ‘Having enough’: students’ understanding of food insecurity and campus food pantry use. J Poverty. 2019;23(7):600-620. doi:10.1080/10875549.2019.1652721

37.

Brito-Silva

Wang

Moore

, et al.

College campus food pantry program evaluation: what barriers do students face to access on-campus food pantries?

Nutrients. 2022;14(14):2807. doi:10.3390/nu14142807

38.

McArthur

Fasczewski

Farris

Petrone

. Use and perceptions of a campus food pantry among food insecure college students: an exploratory study from appalachia. Journal of Appalachian health. 2020;2(2):7-23. doi:10.13023/jah.0202.02

39.

Miller

Middendorf

Wood

Lutter

Jones

Lindshield

. Food insecurity and assistance on campus: a survey of the student body. Online Journal of Rural Research & Policy. 2019.

40.

Twill

Bergdahl

Fensler

. Partnering to build a pantry: a university campus responds to student food insecurity. J Poverty. 2016;20(3):340-358. doi:10.1080/10875549.2015.1094775

41.

El Zein

Mathews

House

Shelnutt

. Why are hungry college students not seeking help? Predictors of and barriers to using an on-campus food pantry. Nutrients. 2018;10(9):1163. doi:10.3390/nu10091163

42.

Crutchfield

Carpena

McCloyn

Maguire

. The starving student narrative: how normalizing deprivation reinforces basic need insecurity in higher education. Fam Soc. 2020;101(3):409-421. doi:10.1177/1044389419889525

43.

Esaryk

Jiménez Arriaga

Kalaydjian

Martinez

. Campus food pantry use addresses a gap among California public university students. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2021;53(11):921-930. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2021.06.005

44.

Idehai

Mbaya

Chung

Bhurosy

. A systematic review of factors associated with student use of campus food pantries: implications for addressing barriers and facilitating use. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):97. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17583-7

45.

El Zein

Vilaro

Shelnutt

Walsh-Childers

Mathews

. Obstacles to university food pantry use and student-suggested solutions: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0267341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267341

46.

Mitchell

Prescott

. The role of campus food pantries in the food security safety net: on-going or emergency use at a midwest campus pantry. Nutrients. 2022;14(22):4876. doi:10.3390/nu14224876

47.

Landry

Hagedorn-Hatfield

Zigmont

. Barriers to college student food access: a scoping review examining policies, systems, and the environment. Journal of Nutritional Science (Cambridge). 2024;13:e51. doi:10.1017/jns.2024.25

48.

Howell

. The Impacts of a Food Pantry on College Students. Unviersity of Central Florida; 2022. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd2020/1388

49.

Reppond

Thomas-Brown

Sampson

Price

. Addressing food insecurity in college: mapping a shared conceptual framework for campus pantries in Michigan. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2018;18(1):378-399. doi:10.1111/asap.12161

50.

Brown

Buro

Jones

, et al. Multi-level determinants of food insecurity among racially and ethnically diverse college students. Nutrients. 2023;15(18):4065. doi:10.3390/nu15184065

51.

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities . NIMHD research framework. https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/about/overview/research-framework/nimhd-framework.html. Accessed 23 May 2021.

52.

Alvidrez

Castille

Laude-Sharp

Rosario

Tabor

. The national Institute on minority health and health disparities research framework. American Journal of Public Health. 2019;109(S1):S16-S20. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304883

53.

Gulliford

Mahabir

Rocke

. Reliability and validity of a short form household food security scale in a Caribbean community. BMC Public Health. 2004;4:22. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-4-22

54.

Six-item short form of the food security survey module. USDA, Economic Research Service; 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/survey-tools/

55.

Bickel

GNM

Price

Hamilton

Cook

. Guide to Measuring Household Food Security, Revised 2000. In: USDA FaNS , editor. Washington, DC 2000.

56.

Kessler

Barker

Colpe

, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184

57.

Hughes

Waite

Hawkley

Cacioppo

. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys:results from two population-based studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655-672. doi:10.1177/0164027504268574

58.

Hagedorn

McArthur

Hood

, et al. Expenditure, coping, and academic behaviors among food-insecure college students at 10 higher education institutes in the appalachian and southeastern regions. Curr Dev Nutr. 2019;3(6):nzz058. doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz058

59.

McArthur

Ball

Danek

Holbert

. A high prevalence of food insecurity among university students in appalachia reflects a need for educational interventions and policy advocacy. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2018;50(6):564-572. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2017.10.011

60.

Williams

Yan

Jackson

Anderson

. Racial differences in physical and mental health: socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. J Health Psychol. 1997;2(3):335-351. doi:10.1177/135910539700200305

61.

Krieger

Smith

Naishadham

Hartman

Barbeau

. Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(7):1576-1596. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.006

62.

Lubben

. Assessing social networks among elderly populations. Fam Community Health. 1988;11:42-52.

63.

Lubben

Blozik

Gillmann

, et al. Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network Scale among three European community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontol. 2006;46(4):503-513. doi:10.1093/geront/46.4.503

64.

Museus

Zhang

Kim

. Developing and evaluating the culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) scale: an examination of content and construct validity. Res High Educ. 2016;57(6):768-793.

65.

Museus

Saelua

. The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) student surveys. Assess Update. 2017;29(6):8-9. doi:10.1002/au.30116

66.

Museus

Shiroma

. Understanding the relationship between culturally engaging campus environments and college students' academic motivation. Educ Sci (Basel). 2022;12(11). doi:10.3390/educsci12110785

67.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

68.

Jermany

. I'm not that needy: black students' perceptions of food assistance adn the impact of self-categorization on campus food pantry utilization. ProQuest Central. 2022. https://tricountycc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/i-m-not-that-needy-black-students-perceptions/docview/2851044460/se-2

69.

Bowen

Elliott

Hardison-Moody

. The structural roots of food insecurity: how racism is a fundamental cause of food insecurity. Sociology Compass. 2021;15(7):11. doi:10.1111/soc4.12846

70.

Odoms-Young

Bruce

. Examining the impact of structural racism on food insecurity. Fam Community Health. 2018;41(S2):S3-S6. doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000183

71.

Dickinson

. Black Agency and Food Access: Leaving the Food Desert Narrative behind: Black Food Geographies: Race, Self-Reliance and Food Access in Washington, D.C., Ashanté Reese. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; 2019:184.

72.

Phojanakong

Brown Weida

Grimaldi

Lê-Scherban

Chilton

. Experiences of racial and ethnic discrimination are associated with food insecurity and poor health. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2019;16(22):4369. doi:10.3390/ijerph16224369

73.

Burke

Jones

Frongillo

Fram

Blake

Freedman

. Severity of household food insecurity and lifetime racial discrimination among African-American households in South Carolina. Ethn Health. 2018;23(3):276-292. doi:10.1080/13557858.2016.1263286

74.

Larson

Slaughter-Acey

Alexander

Berge

Harnack

Neumark-Sztainer

. Emerging adults’ intersecting experiences of food insecurity, unsafe neighbourhoods and discrimination during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(3):519-530. doi:10.1017/S136898002000422X

75.

Repella

Rice

Arroyo-Izaga

Torheim

Birgisdottir

Jakobsdottir

. Prevalence of food insecurity and associations with academic performance, food consumption and social support among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: FINESCOP project in Iceland. Nutrients. 2024;16(6):764.

76.

Cockerham

Camel

James

Neill

. Food insecurity in baccalaureate nursing students: a cross-sectional survey. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37(2):249-254.

77.

Peterson

Charles

Yeung

Coyle

. The health equity framework: a science- and justice-based model for public health researchers and practitioners. Health Promot Pract. 2021;22(6):741-746. doi:10.1177/1524839920950730

78.

Goldrick-Rab

. Paying the price: college costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. Rev High Educ. 2018;42(1):7-10. doi:10.1353/rhe.2018.0041

79.

Davis

Sisson

Clifton

. A call for evidence to support food security interventions on college campuses. J Am Coll Health. 2020:1-3. doi:10.1080/07448481.2019.1705829

80.

Lindberg

Hansen-Connell

Pittman

. Food Insecurity on College Campuses: A Review of Literature and Perspectives from the Field. Wilder Research; 2019:18.