Food Pantries and the Populations They Serve: Strange Bedfellows or Strategic Partners?

502 PATRICIA A. DUFFY ET AL.Food Pantries and the Populations They Serve:Strange Bedfellows or Strategic Partners?*

Patricia A. Duffy, Auburn UniversityMarina Irimia-Vladu, American University of SharjahSuzie Cashwell, Western Kentucky UniversityJohn P. Bartkowski, Mississippi State UniversityJoseph J. Molnar, Auburn UniversityVanessa Casanova, Auburn University

Although it is often assumed that food pantries are managed by middle-class direc-tors whose social background differs significantly from that of their target populations, nosystematic empirical evidence concerning this issue exists to date. Moreover, scholarshiphas yet to explore the extent to which the presumably distinctive social positions ofpantry directors and clients might result in the stigmatization of poverty, social welfareprograms, and the poor by agency directors. Drawing on insights from attribution theory,this study seeks to shed light on demographic and attitudinal differences between pantrydirectors and food-needy persons. The study begins by comparing the demographiccharacteristics of food pantry directors in a two-state region of the South (Alabama-Mississippi) with those of the food-needy population in the region. It then moves on tocontrast attitudinal disparities between these directors and food-needy persons related tosuch issues as the causes of poverty, the effects of social welfare programs, and thecharacter of those who utilize food assistance programs. Noteworthy differences in race,education, and religiosity emerge when comparing directors with the populations theyserve; however, directors did not differ markedly from their potential clients in key socialattitudes. When asked specifically about food pantry clients, directors responded with amix of sympathy and suspicion. While a substantial portion of directors attribute povertyto structural causes, a significant number also characterize clients seeking food assistanceas possibly having unsavory motivations for doing so. The study concludes with a discus-sion of the implications of these findings.

Introduction

There has long been speculation about the extent to which stigmatizationmay prevent food-needy people from using food assistance programs in localcommunities. Yet, empirical research on this score is decidedly mixed. In theresearch that has emerged on the Food Stamp Program, there are some indica-tions that stigma is a significant factor depressing food stamp use among eligiblepopulations (e.g., Ranney and Kushman 1987). Countervailing evidence sug-gests, however, that a lack of information rather than fear of stigmatization isresponsible for the underutilization of food stamps, at least among the elderly(e.g., Coe 1983). On the heels of such investigations, some researchers haveattempted to examine the impact of stigma on the deterrence of pantry use by

Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 76, No. 4, November 2006, 502–527© 2006 Alpha Kappa Delta

FOOD PANTRIES AND THE POPULATIONS THEY SERVE 503

conducting observational research in pantries (see, for example, Curtis 1997).While observational research has much to recommend it, this method is limitedin its ability to explore food pantry underutilization. Indeed, observationalresearch conducted within pantries is more suited to examining the conditionsthat foster pantry use rather than those factors that undermine it.

This study adopts a different approach to explore the social factors thatmight foster or inhibit pantry use. Here, we will examine the extent to whichpantry directors and food-needy persons differ in terms of social position andsocial attitudes about poverty and food pantry users. The degree to which pointsof convergence or divergence are observed in social position and attitudestoward poverty can provide important insight into the receptivity of pantriestoward their target population while shedding light on debates about foodpantries as a site for stigmatization of the poor. In addition, we directly explorethe attitudes of food pantry directors toward the poor and toward theirclients.

To undertake this investigation, this study draws on several data sources.The authors have collected primary survey data from food pantry directors inAlabama and Mississippi, two of the nation’s poorest states. In addition, thestudy enlists data from the National Survey of America’s Families to comparethe demographic characteristics and social attitudes of food pantry directors withthose of the food-needy population in Alabama and Mississippi. In pairing thesedata sources, we compare the demographic and ideological distance betweenthese two groups while pinpointing factors that could contribute to stigmatiza-tion of clients by pantry personnel.

Food Banking: Social Debates and Conflicting Evidence

Food banks are so named because these umbrella organizations serve ascentralized warehouses for the collection of emergency food, which is distrib-uted to smaller agencies (e.g., food pantries) that provide the food to consumers.While food banks receive some of the commodities they distribute from the U.S.government, they are stocked primarily with privately donated foodstuffs com-ing from a variety of sources. Among those who view government assistance ascumbersome and ineffective (see, for example, Olasky 1992), food banks andtheir associated food pantries may appear to be the best solution to America’shunger problem. Because food pantries are private, voluntary organizationssituated in local communities, they may be viewed as responsive to the needs oflocal citizens.

At the same time, food banks have also attracted criticism. Kamin (2004)notes that the majority of food programs currently fail to address social andpsychological characteristics of food security definitions, which put forth theright of community members to access personally acceptable foods in socially

504 PATRICIA A. DUFFY ET AL.

acceptable ways. Further, according to Kamin, many agencies work at or beyondcapacity, severely constrained by persistent and ongoing limitations in funding,resources, and staffing.

Others have pointed out additional problems with food banking. Hilton(1993) reviews and extends critical perspectives on food banking in the contextof hunger in Winnipeg. She notes that because food banks were originally modeledas a short-term solution to the rising number of people without adequate re-sources to feed themselves, their growth is more a testament to the project’sfailure than to its success. In a similar vein, Poppendieck (1998) charges thatinstead of helping people become economically independent, food banks likelyhave the opposite effect.

Empirical research may lend some support to some of these criticisms.Daponte et al. (1998) contrasted the experiences of low-income food pantryusers and nonusers in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, finding that pantry userswere more likely to have difficulty feeding their families, to run out of moneyfor food, and to serve less nutritious foods than nonusers. The median length ofpantry utilization among clients was two years. Thus, food pantries in this areawere shown to be serving chronic cases, as opposed to the emergency cases theywere purportedly created to serve. Clancy, Bowering, and Poppendieck (1991)found a similar situation in the food pantries of upstate New York, with anumber of clients using the pantry for over three years.

As food banking has grown to “industry-like” proportions, other criticshave highlighted the increased bureaucracy within the private food assistancesystem, which creates more social distance between volunteers and clients.Discussing food assistance programs in Wilmington, Delaware, Curtis (1997)commented that the recent adoption of eligibility standards in some foodpantries, driven by a large increase in demand, has made the system less friendlyto clients and more like the bureaucracies of the welfare programs. Clientsmay also face stigmatization and humiliation from agency directors who aresuspicious of clients’ motivations for seeking assistance (Poppendieck 1998).

Other studies, however, indicate that the evidence on this score is notunequivocal. Ethnographic research on faith-based food assistance programs inMississippi has revealed that these programs are characterized by a mix ofjudgment (in the form of eligibility requirements and screening procedures) andcompassion (in the form of generous giving and close interpersonal relation-ships) (Bartkowski and Regis 2003). Moreover, a study of the East AlabamaFood Bank found that stigma did not appear to constitute an important obstacleto food pantry use in that area. Clients reported being treated with respect bypantry directors, while food-needy nonclients reported that lack of knowledge ofpantry services, not fear of stigmatization, was the primary reason they did notuse a pantry (Duffy et al. 1999).


Thus, evidence concerning stigma deterring food pantry use is mixed. Inaddition, there is no consensus concerning the extent of social distance betweenfood pantry directors and the food-needy population. The attitudes of pantrydirectors toward their clients are also largely unknown. Are directors generallysympathetic toward the plight of the poor, or largely suspicious? This study isdesigned to address these questions. Before turning to the investigation itself, wefirst review the theoretical framework used to conduct the study.

Theoretical Considerations: Attributions of Poverty

Our study of Alabama-Mississippi food banking is guided by insights fromattribution theory. Attribution theory is concerned with the types of explanationsfor social conditions such as poverty, homelessness, crime, and homosexualitythat are embraced by particular groups (e.g., Bobo and Smith 1994; Bullock2004; Hunt 1996; Wood and Bartkowski 2004; see Crittenden 1983 for review).In general, three key types of attributions have been identified in previousscholarship on social problems. Individualistic attributions trace the cause ofsocial problems to the persons affected by those problems (e.g., the individual’simmoral behavior, financial irresponsibility, and lack of initiative). Situationalattributions locate the cause of social problems in structural conditions beyondthe control of the individual (e.g., macroeconomic shifts, low wages, inadequateschooling). Finally, fatalistic attributions link social problems to bad luck, mis-fortune, and poor health.

Research on attributions of poverty, particularly germane for our study,highlights the individualistic nature of Americans’ explanations for this socialproblem. For many years, Americans have embraced individualistic attribu-tions of poverty (Bartkowski and Regis 2003; Bobo and Smith 1994; Feagin1975; Kluegel and Smith 1986; Somers and Block 2005). General Social Surveydata regarding explanations for poverty reveal that about 75 percent of adultsattribute poverty to loose morals such as drunkenness, while approximately90 percent believe a lack of effort evidenced among the poor is a significantcause of poverty (Bobo and Smith 1994).

Identifying the contours of attributions of poverty is important for tworeasons. First, a careful analysis of attributions enables social scientists to deter-mine how perceptions about the causes of poverty vary across social groups(e.g., class, race-ethnicity, gender, region, religion). Research has consistentlyshown that whites, men, and middle-income Americans embrace individua-listic attributions of poverty at significantly higher rates than do AfricanAmericans, women, and low-income populations (Bullock 1999; Feagin 1975;Hunt 1996; Kluegel and Smith 1986; Seccombe 1999). Moreover, whitesaffiliated with conservative Protestant faiths (e.g., Southern Baptists) tend tobe more inclined toward individualistic attributions of social (particularly racial)


inequality than adherents in other religious traditions (Emerson, Smith, andSikkink 1999).

Interestingly, distinctive attribution styles have even been evidenced amonggroups that share a familiarity with poverty, albeit through different experi-ences—social workers and the poor. In an innovative study, Bullock (2004)compared social workers’ and poor persons’ explanations of poverty and percep-tions of welfare programs. She found that welfare recipients viewed prejudiceas playing a greater role in causing poverty than did social workers. Bullocktraces these distinctive attributions to the fact that social workers and welfarerecipients occupy different social and economic positions, and have differentexperiences of poverty. Social workers, part of the privileged knowledge class,have a secondhand familiarity with poverty through the populations they serve.The poor enjoy fewer class privileges and have firsthand experience with livedpoverty, including the prejudices that legitimize it.

This is not to say that all poor persons uniformly attribute poverty to struc-tural causes. There is some evidence that poor individuals are more likely toattribute their own poverty to structural conditions while using individualisticattributions to explain the poverty of others (Coley, Kuta, and Chase-Lansdale2000; Seccombe 1999). Nor do all social service providers hold highly indi-vidualistic views of poverty’s causes. When compared with the individualisticattributions of poverty that hold sway among U.S. citizens at large, socialworkers are quite inclined to embrace structural attributions of poverty (Bullock2004; Jones 1994). Nevertheless, there is some evidence that future socialworkers (majors in the field) are more inclined toward fatalistic explanations ofpoverty (Schwartz and Robinson 1991).

A second reason that attributions are important to examine is found in theirreal-world consequences. Because individualistic attributions of social problemstend to “blame the victim,” social programs designed to ameliorate the conditionin question tend to receive considerably less support among groups in whichindividualistic attributions hold sway. Restrictive strategies of welfare reformsuch as family caps, time limits, and work requirements enjoy more supportamong the middle class than among the poor (Bullock 1999). By contrast, thosewho embrace situational attributions are more inclined to support programs thatare presumed to alter the structural causes of social problems. Thus, support forthe existence and expansion of social welfare programs is more widely evid-enced among those who locate the cause of poverty in structural sources suchas racial prejudice, unequal opportunity, and other forces beyond the control ofthe poor (Bartkowski and Regis 2003; Bullock 1999; Bullock, Williams, andLimbert 2003; Kluegel and Smith 1986).

In Bullock’s (2004) comparative study of social worker and welfare recipientattitudes, she found welfare recipients to be more supportive of progressive


welfare policies than were social workers, due in part to the structural attributionamong poor persons in which prejudice is seen as a significant cause of poverty.This finding is consistent with previous research that highlights welfare-reliantwomen’s views that increased childcare, job training, and medical coverageare needed to promote the welfare-to-work transition among recipients (Burtonet al. 1998). The current study extends research on attributions of poverty, andcomparisons of social welfare providers’ and recipients’ attitudes about poverty,by examining how pantry directors and food-needy persons view the causes ofpoverty, the effects of social welfare programs, and the character of those whoutilize food assistance programs.

Methods

Pantry Directors

Using a list compiled from food bank organizations within Alabama andMississippi, 250 pantries were selected at random from each state (500 in total).A survey that examined demographics of pantry directors, their knowledge ofcharitable choice, and their attitudes about poverty, welfare, and food pantryclients, was mailed in January 2002 to all 500 selected locations. Return envelopeswere provided and coded to decrease second mailing attempts. Overall, threemailings were completed. Fifty surveys were undeliverable, leaving a possible450 surveys of which 235 were returned. Envelopes that were returned undeliver-able were checked for forwarding addresses. If no forwarding address was onthe envelope, follow-up phone calls were made to the agency based on theoriginal list. We omitted anyone who indicated that they were not current foodpantry directors at the time. The overall return rate was just over 50 percent.

Food-Needy Population

Data for the food-needy population were taken from a subset of the 1999National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF), conducted by Westat for theUrban Institute. (More recent rounds of NSAF data had not yet been releasedto the public.) The entire NSAF sample is representative of the civilian,noninstitutionalized population under age 65. Data for the 1999 survey wereobtained from February to October 1999. Over 42,000 households were inter-viewed, providing information on more than 109,000 people. The samplingprocess was not completely random, so weights were provided with the datato enhance representativeness. Full information on the sampling design isprovided by the Urban Institute (Converse et al. 2001; Wang, Cantor, andVaden-Kiernan 2000). Three subsets of data were merged and used in thisstudy: “Focal Child Public Use Data Set,” “Adult Pair Public Use Data Set,” and“Family Respondent Public Use Data Set.”


NSAF respondents were asked a number of questions about their demo-graphic characteristics, family income, economic hardships, and their use ofgovernment programs. In addition, they were asked to respond to a series ofquestions designed to measure their attitudes toward poverty, welfare, andrelated social concerns. Respondents identified as food-needy were those whoreplied affirmatively to the question: “In the last 12 months, since (name ofcurrent month) of last year, did you or other adults in your family ever cut thesize of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?”(See Wang, Cantor, and Vaden-Kiernan 2000 for questionnaire.) An affirmativeanswer to this question would indicate a moderately high level of food hardship.These individuals would be the type of persons food pantries are designed toserve. Because the data set excludes individuals over age 65, it is not representa-tive of the entire food-needy population. However, more comprehensive surveysthat include questions on food security, such as the Current Population Survey,do not include any questions assessing respondents’ attitudes toward povertyand related social concerns.

Results

Demographic Profile

Our survey data indicate that about two-thirds of food pantries in Alabamaand Mississippi are faith-based (often church-sponsored) organizations. Addi-tional pantries—although they were not sponsored by a religious organization,they were affiliated with one—brought the total percentage of pantries either runby or affiliated with a religious organization to around 75 percent. Seventypercent (158) of the pantries identified themselves as serving a primarily ruralarea, whereas 30 percent (69) indicated that they were located in a metropolitanstatistical area (MSA). About two-thirds (64%) of pantry directors are women.

Table 1 compares pantry directors to the food-needy population in terms ofrace, education level, and church attendance. For the comparison of directors andtheir prospective client base, only those NSAF respondents identified as living inAlabama or Mississippi were analyzed to better match our director sample.

Over 60 percent of the directors identified their race as white, whereas37 percent self-identified as African American. The racial makeup of the food-needy population was significantly different: 48 percent black, 50 percent white,and the remainder reporting another racial background.

Pantry directors, not surprisingly, tended to have higher education levelsthan the food-needy population. Only 4 percent of directors reported less thana high school education, compared to 45 percent of the food-needy population.Forty-four percent of directors held a college or graduate school degree, comparedto 11 percent of the food-needy population.


Both directors and the food-needy population reported a high level of in-volvement in religious activities. Eighty-six percent of pantry directors indicatedthat they attend church once a week or more, which is not surprising given thehigh level of religious affiliation of the pantries. By contrast, the food-needypopulation was more likely to attend church only occasionally (22%) or a fewtimes a month (24%).

In summary, food pantry directors in Alabama and Mississippi are morelikely than the food-needy population in those states to be white and far morelikely to be well educated. Both groups, directors and food-needy people, reporthigh levels of involvement with churches; however, directors report much strongerchurch involvement, on average, than respondents in the food-needy sample.

Table 1Characteristics of Directors versus Food-Needy Population

Pantry Food-NeedyDirectors Population

% % χ2

Race Black 37 48 15.71**White 63 50Other 0 2

n = 215 n = 580

Education Less than high school 4 45 339.43**High school graduate 17 24Some college/ 35 20technical schoolCollege graduate 27 7Graduate degree 17 4

n = 231 n = 580

Church Attendance Never 2 16 232.39**Occasionally 3 22A few times a month 9 24Once a week or more 86 38

n = 231 n = 580

Percentage and χ2 for food-needy population based on weighted values.**Significant at 1 percent level.


Attitudes toward Welfare Programs and Family Structure

NSAF respondents were asked questions concerning welfare programsand family structure (support for single motherhood or mothers’ employment).Four of these questions were matched with identically worded questions inour survey of pantry directors. The response framework was slightly different inthe two surveys. In the NSAF survey, respondents could answer “strongly agree,”“agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Pantry directors were allowed toanswer “unsure,” as well as “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “stronglydisagree.” For this comparison, all responses to both surveys were collapsed intotwo categories, “agree” and “other.” For both sets of respondents, “agree”consists of answers “strongly agree” and “agree.” For food-needy respondents,“other” was “disagree” or “strongly disagree.” For pantry directors, the “other”category includes those two responses and “unsure.” (A detailed breakdown ofresponses by pantry directors is available on request.)

Table 2 features a series of comparisons of survey responses providedby food-needy NSAF respondents and food pantry directors. The survey item,“Welfare helps people get on their feet when facing difficult situations such asunemployment, a divorce, or a death in the family,” yielded responses that werestatistically identical across both groups, with about three-quarters reportingagreement in some form (agree or strongly agree). Responses to the statement,“Welfare makes people work less than they would if there wasn’t a welfareprogram,” indicate that the food-needy population was statistically more likelyto agree with this statement (68%) than were the directors (48%).

In response to the statement, “People who want children ought to getmarried,” there was a small and stastically insignificant difference in responses.Over 70 percent (77% for directors and 72% for food-needy respondents) ofboth groups agreed with the statement. By contrast, there was a fairly substantialdifference between groups in response to the statement, “When children areyoung, mothers should not work outside the home.” Just under half (49%) of thefood-needy population agreed with this statement, compared to about one-third(32%) of pantry directors.

Results of this comparison provide evidence that, in general, pantry directorsdo not have harsher attitudes toward welfare than members of the food-needypopulation that they wish to serve. In fact, respondents from the food-needypopulation were more likely to agree that welfare reduces work effort than werethe pantry directors. This finding is in line with previous research that under-scores the suspicion that some poor persons harbor toward others who areimpoverished (Coley, Kuta, and Chase-Lansdale 2000; Seccombe 1999). Theattitudes of both groups toward unwed motherhood appear similar, with over70 percent of all respondents saying that people who want children should


Table 2Attitudes of Directors versus Food-Needy Population in the South

Pantry Food-NeedyDirectors Population

% % χ2

“Welfare helps people get on their feetwhen facing difficult situations such asunemployment, a divorce, or a death inthe family.”

Agree 76 75 0.35Other 24 25

n = 232 n = 580

“Welfare makes people work less thanthey would if there wasn’t a welfaresystem.”

Agree 48 68 43.42**Other 52 32

n = 231 n = 580

“People who want children ought toget married.”

Agree 77 72 3.35Other 23 28

n = 228 n = 580

“When children are young, mothersshould not work outside the home.”

Agree 32 49 27.31**Other 68 51

n = 228 n = 580

**Significant at 1 percent level.“Agree” indicates a response of “Agree” or “Agree Strongly.” “Disagree” indicatesa response of “Disagree” or “Disagree Strongly” or (for directors) “Unsure.”Percentage and chi-square for food-needy population based on weighted values.


marry. When it comes to mothers of young children working outside the home,pantry directors tend to be less socially conservative than the food-needypopulation.

Overall, our results indicate that the typical food-pantry director inMississippi or Alabama is a well-educated white woman whose attitude towardwelfare either mirrors or is less judgmental than that of her potential client base.She is less likely than her clients to believe that mothers of young childrenshould not work (perhaps a product of a higher education level) but expresses asimilar view that people who want children should marry.

Regional Differences in Attitudes

The NSAF data were collected from a national sample, allowing a com-parison of responses to the four attitude items by the food-needy populationin different regions of the country. Consistent with sociological convention,regions were defined following standard census definitions: Midwest, Northeast,South, and West. Table 3 provides the results of this analysis.

For each attitude item, there was a significant difference in response acrossregions, although the differences in most cases were not large. Interestingly, themajority of respondents in all regions agreed both that welfare lets people getback on their feet and also that it makes people work less. Hence, respondentscould apparently see both a positive and a negative impact of welfare programs.Respondents in the South had the highest rate of agreement with the statement,“Welfare makes people work less than they would if there wasn’t a welfareprogram.”

Over 60 percent of the respondents in all regions agree that those who wantchildren should marry, with respondents in the South having the highest rate ofagreement. The majority of respondents in all regions agreed with the item,“When children are young, mothers should not work outside the home.”Respondents in the South were somewhat less likely than those in other regionsto agree with this statement. Hence, those in the South were somewhat lessaccepting than those in other regions of unwed motherhood, but more tolerantof mothers of young children working outside the home.

Directors’ Attitudes toward Poverty and Food Pantry Clients

Beyond the four survey items discussed above, directors were asked severaladditional questions about their attitudes toward poverty in general and foodpantry clients in particular. In this portion of our study, we aimed to comparefood-needy persons’ and pantry directors’ attributions of poverty. Responses tostatements about the causes of poverty are summarized in Table 4. No statementabout the cause of poverty received strong support from food pantry directors.About 15 percent of directors agreed or strongly agreed that poverty was caused


Table 3Responses of Food-Needy Population to Attitudal Questions by Region

Midwest Northeast South West% % % % χ2

Welfare helps people geton their feeta

Agree 76 81 82 81 15.20**Disagree 24 19 18 19

n = 826 n = 682 n = 1007 n = 772

Welfare makes peoplework lessa

Agree 63 64 71 68 21.89**Disagree 37 36 29 32

n = 818 n = 677 n = 1006 n = 759

People who wantchildren should marrya

Agree 63 62 73 72 50.93**Disagree 37 38 27 28

n = 826 n = 688 n = 1024 n = 790

Mothers of youngchildren should not worka

Agree 57 61 54 69 66.8**Disagree 43 39 46 31

n = 831 n = 690 n = 1028 n = 787

aSee Table 2 for exact wording of items.**Significant at 1 percent level.Percentage and chi-square for food-needy population based on weighted values.“Agree” indicates a response of “Agree” or “Agree Strongly”; “Disagree” indicatesa response of “Disagree” or “Disagree Strongly.”

by prejudice and discrimination. A slightly higher percentage, 23 percent, agreedor strongly agreed that poverty is caused by a lack of good schools for manycitizens. Around 27 percent of directors agreed or strongly agreed that povertywas caused by a lack of ability or talent in poor people. Eleven percent agreed or

514P

AT

RIC

IA A

. DU

FF

Y E

T A

L.

Table 4Directors’ Attitudes about Poverty

Strongly Strongly NoAgree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree Response

% % % % % %

Poverty is caused by prejudice and discrimination 3.4 11.9 14.0 42.2 24.7 3.8against minority individuals.

Poverty is caused by the failure of society to 3.8 19.6 14.9 44.3 14.9 2.5provide good schools for many Americans.

Poverty is caused by the lack of ability and 3.4 23.4 8.9 41.7 20.0 2.6talent among poor people.

Poverty is caused by loose morals and 2.1 8.5 6.4 40.9 40.4 1.7drunkenness.

Generally speaking, we are spending too little 7.7 19.1 24.3 35.3 11.5 2.1money on welfare programs in this country.

N = 235.


strongly agreed that poverty is caused by drunkenness or loose morals. Less thana third (27%) of the directors agreed or strongly agreed that we are spending toolittle money on welfare in this country. Most disagreed or strongly disagreedwith this statement.

Table 5 provides the summary of responses to statements about food pantryclients. Only 18 percent of directors agreed that food pantry use was caused bymere bad luck, and no directors strongly agreed with that statement. A little overhalf of the directors saw physical disability or sickness as a frequent cause offood pantry use. This result is in line with the self-identified causes for foodpantry use in the East Alabama area (Duffy et al. 1999), where about one-thirdof the interviewed food pantry clients said they were disabled.

Nearly 60 percent of directors agreed or strongly agreed that food pantryclients who are able to work are trying to find work. At that same time, around32 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there are too manypeople using food pantries who should be working. Whether these directorsbelieve that the respondents are responsible for not finding jobs, or whether theybelieve the problem lies in macroeconomic conditions (e.g., high unemploy-ment) cannot be determined from the response to this question alone. In re-sponse to the statement, “Many people getting food are not honest about theirneed,” 49 percent of the directors agreed or strongly agreed. Only 3 percentstrongly disagreed. Hence, about half the directors responding to this surveyindicate a substantial level of distrust of their clients’ honesty. On a more posi-tive note toward the client, some 66 percent of directors believed low wages insome businesses and industries precipitated food pantry use.

Correlation Analysis

To discern more about director attitudes, we performed a correlation ana-lysis of their responses to the questions about poverty and food pantry use.The results are presented in Table 6. For this analysis, responses were codednumerically. Responses were given a value from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (stronglydisagree) or in the reverse order depending on whether agreement with thequestion indicated a “judgmental” attitude toward the poor—that is, one thatexpresses suspicion about the motivations, initiative, or morals of the poor.Higher values are associated with a more judgmental attitude. Hence, items 4-1,4-2, 4-5, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6 were coded so that “1” represented “stronglyagree.” In general, these items reflect structural or fatalistic attributions ofpoverty, which places blame for the situation in factors beyond the individual’scontrol. By contrast, “1” represents “strongly disagree” for items 4-3, 4-4, 5-1,and 5-2. These measures generally reflect individual attributions of poverty andsuspicion toward food pantry clients. Because of the coding, it was hypothesizedthat all significant correlations would be positive.

516P

AT

RIC

IA A

. DU

FF

Y E

T A

L.

Table 5Directors’ Attitudes about Food Pantry Clients

Strongly Strongly NoAgree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree Response

% % % % % %

There are too many people using food pantries 11.5 20.5 17.0 37.0 12.3 1.7who should be working.

Many people getting food are not honest about 11.9 37.0 17.5 28.1 3.0 2.5their need.

Food pantry use is often caused by the sickness 9.3 43.0 11.1 28.5 6.4 1.7and physical handicaps of poor people.

People who use food pantries are just having 0.0 18.3 17.0 44.7 15.7 4.3bad luck.

Most people who use food pantries and who are 8.9 50.6 17.9 17.5 2.6 2.5able to work are trying to find jobs so they cansupport themselves.

Food pantry use is caused by low wages in 11.5 54.9 12.3 14.5 2.1 4.7some businesses and industries.

N = 235.

FO

OD

PA

NT

RIE

S A

ND

TH

E P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S T

HE

Y S

ER

VE

517

Table 6Correlations of Responses to Questions in Tables 4 and 5

Item 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6

4-1 Poverty is caused by prejudice 1and discrimination againstminority individuals.

4-2 Poverty is caused by the failure .48** 1of society to provide goodschools for many Americans.

4-3 Poverty is caused by a lack of −.12* −.15* 1ability and talent among poorpeople.

4-4 Poverty is caused by loose −.05 .04 .34** 1morals and drunkenness.

4-5 Generally speaking, we are .23** .20** .07 .05 1spending too little money onwelfare.

5-1 There are too many people .05 .11 .15** .32** .16** 1using food pantries whoshould be working.

518P

AT

RIC

IA A

. DU

FF

Y E

T A

L.

Table 6(continued)

Item 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6

5-2 Many people getting food are −.04 .06 .14** .28** .16** .55** 1not honest about their needs.

5-3 Food pantry use is often caused .06 .11 −.22** −.18** −.10 −.04 −.10 1by the sickness and physicalhandicaps of poor people.

5-4 People who use food pantries .11 .16** −.06 −.06 .14** −.02 −.05 .12* 1are just having bad luck.

5-5 Most people who use food .16** .24** .10 .30** .25** .38** .26** −.08 .06 1pantries and who are able towork are trying to find jobs.

5-6 Food pantry use is caused by .27** .21** −.03 .03 .08 .04 −.07 .20** .02 .15** 1low wages in some businessesand industries.

Numerical coding (1 to 5) used in correlation calculations. Items 4-3, 4-4, 5-1, and 5-2 coded in reverse order from other items.*Indicates significance at the .10 level; **indicates significance at the .05 level.


The responses to items 4-1, 4-2, and 4-5 (structural attributions) are signifi-cantly correlated in the expected direction. Directors who believe that poverty iscaused by discrimination are also likely to believe that society fails to providegood schools for many citizens and that we are spending too little money onwelfare. Directors who disagree with questions 4-1 and 4-2 (statements thatattribute poverty to societal causes), thereby embracing individual attributions ofpoverty, are not inclined to believe that we are spending too little money onwelfare.

Item 4-3 imputes the cause of poverty to a lack of ability and talent amongpoor people (typically interpreted as an individual attribution of poverty). Re-sponses to question 4-3 were significantly negatively correlated with responsesto both 4-1 and 4-2. Because of the way responses were coded, a negativecorrelation for these items means that directors who agreed with item 4-3 werealso likely to agree with items 4-1 and 4-2. While this result may seem some-what contradictory, a likely reason for the correlation is that directors whoagreed with all three statements may believe that societal failure, in terms ofprejudice and poor schooling, results in the subsequent lack of talent and abilityamong those in poverty. Or, those who disagree with all three statements maybelieve that poverty stems from a cause (e.g., “divine will”) not presented in thesurvey.

In contrast to the individualistic attributions that hold sway among Americansin general, few directors agreed with the statement that poverty is caused byloose morals or drunkenness. The responses to this statement were positivelycorrelated to responses to the statement linking poverty to lack of ability andtalent.

Directors who agreed with statements 4-3 or 4-4, that poverty results fromsome individual failing, were also likely to take a more judgmental attitudetoward their clients, as indicated by the significant correlation between responsesto this statement and responses to statements 5-1 and 5-2. (Items 5-1 and 5-2 arealso significantly correlated with each other.) Those who express suspiciontoward their clients were likely to view welfare allocations as overspending, asshown by the significant correlations between item 4-5 and items 5-1 and 5-2.

Item 5-3, that food pantry use is caused by sickness or handicaps, wasnegatively and significantly correlated with items 4-3 and 4-4, which placed theblame for poverty on lack of ability and talent or loose morals. Because of theway values were assigned, this negative correlation indicates that directors whoagreed with item 5-3 were more likely than others to agree with items 4-3 and4-4. Item 5-3 was also significantly correlated (with the expected positive sign)with item 5-4, which blamed food pantry use on bad luck.

Directors who agree that food pantry clients who can work are trying tofind jobs (item 5-5) are likely to agree with statements 4-1 and 4-2, placing the


blame for poverty on society, and with item 4-5, that we are spending too littlemoney on welfare. Those who agree with item 5-5 are likely to disagree withquestion 4-4, placing the blame for poverty on loose morals and drunkenness,and with items 5-1 and 5-2, which express suspicion toward clients.

Item 5-6, which relates food pantry use to low wages in some industries,is significantly correlated with items 4-1 and 4-2, which link poverty to societalfailures. It is also significantly correlated with statement 5-3, linking pantry useto sickness and disability, and to item 5-5, which states that pantry clients whocan work are trying to find jobs.

Further Analyses

A factor analysis was also conducted. Using the scree plot criteria, twofactors were retained. Factors were extracted using the principal componentmethod with the varimax rotation method. Moderate to high intercorrelations(.482 to .715) exist between items 4-3 (poverty is caused by lack of abilityand talent), 4-4 (poverty is caused by loose morals and drunkenness) (bothindividual attributions), and items 5-1 and 5-2, both of which appear to indicatedirector suspicion of the clients’ motives and situation. Moderate to highintercorrelations (.532 to .743) also exist between items 4-1, 4-2, and 5-6, all ofwhich place the cause of poverty or food pantry use on societal failures (dis-crimination, poor schools, and lack of good wages). Together, the two factorsaccounted for 39 percent of the variance. (Full results of the factor analysis areavailable on request.)

Regressions relating director characteristics (race, education, income, gender,and church attendance rates) and community type (metro area versus rural areasand small towns) to factor scores were performed. The results are reported inTable 7. Both regressions had low R-square values but the F test was significantat the 5 percent level in both cases. For Factor 1, which represents individualattributions of poverty and suspicion of clients, race was the only significantvariable. Hence, the results indicate that African-American directors are lesslikely than white directors to harbor individual attributions of poverty and sus-picion of their clients. In the second regression, relating characteristics to afactor that measures the degree to which directors place the causes of povertyon societal failure, race, education, household income, and church attendancewere significant. Because of the scoring of the variables, a negative parameterindicates a higher level of agreement that poverty is linked to societal failure,while a positive coefficient represents a lower level of agreement.

In our sample, African-American directors are significantly more likelythan white directors to see societal failure (poor schools, discrimination, and lowwages) as a cause of poverty and food pantry use. Higher levels of education arealso associated with a structural attribution of poverty. Directors with higher


Table 7Factor Analysis Regressions

Factor 1 “Suspicion” Factor 2 “Societal Failure”

Intercept .34 −.47Race −.58** −.36*Education −.05 −.10*Income −.02 .11**Female −.17 −.02Metro .21 .07Church .06 .20*F 3.01** 3.54**R-square .1 .11

*Significant at the 5 percent level.**Significant at the 1 percent level.Race is a binary variable with 1 indicating “African American,” 0 otherwise.Female is a binary variable with 1 indicating female, 0 otherwise. Education istreated as a continuous variable with higher values corresponding to highereducation. Income is coded as a continuous variable, by categories. Metro is abinary variable with a value of 1 if the pantry is located in a small metropolitanarea (SMA) or larger city. Church is coded as a continuous variable for thenumber of times per month the director attends church. Because of the coding ofresponses, a negative coefficient in the regression for Factor 2 indicates a higherlevel of agreement that societal failure causes poverty.

household income and those who attend religious services frequently are lesslikely than others in the sample to agree that societal failures cause poverty.

Because race was a significant variable in both regressions, we performedan item-by-item comparison of directors’ attitudes by racial identification. Forall items reported in Tables 2, 4, and 5, we subset the director sample by raceand compared responses to all items. Items with statistically significant differ-ences in response by race are reported in Table 8. In our survey, 215 directorsreported their race. Of the directors reporting their race, almost all provided ananswer to the attitudinal questions. The lowest response rate for an attitudinalitem was 206 and the highest 213. (Details of response rates by question areavailable on request.)


Table 8Director Attitude, by Race

African American White% % χ2

Welfare makes people work lessthan they would if there wasn’ta welfare system.

Agree 37 55 6.42*Other 63 45

People who want children oughtto get married.

Agree 67 83 6.96**Other 32 17

Poverty is caused by prejudiceand discrimination againstminority individuals.

Agree 29 6 19.82**Other 71 94

Generally speaking, we arespending too little money onwelfare programs in this country.

Agree 39 20 8.77**Other 61 80

There are too many people usingfood pantries who should beworking.

Agree 19 41 10.65***Other 81 59

Many people getting food are nothonest about their need.

Agree 42 55 3.31*Other 58 45

Food pantry use is often causedby the sickness and physicalhandicaps of poor people.

Agree 37 63 13.67***Other 63 37


Table 8(continued)

African American White% % χ2

People who use food pantries arejust having bad luck.

Agree 10 26 7.18***Other 90 74

Most people who use food pantriesand who are able to work aretrying to find jobs so they cansupport themselves.

Agree 72 55 5.93**Other 28 45

***Significant at 1 percent level; **significant at 5 percent level; *significantat 10 percent level. “Agree” indicates a response of “Agree” or “AgreeStrongly”; “Other” indicates a response of “Disagree,” “Disagree Strongly,” or“Unsure.”

African-American directors are less likely than white directors to agree thatwelfare makes people work less than they would in the absence of a welfaresystem (37% versus 55%). They are also less likely to agree that people whowant children ought to get married (67% versus 83%.) African-Americandirectors were more likely than white directors (29% versus 6%) to view povertyas caused by discrimination (structural attribution) and more likely than whitedirectors (39% versus 20%) to agree we are spending too little money on welfare.They are less likely than white directors (19% versus 41%) to agree that thereare too many people using food pantries who should be working. Further, theyare less likely than white directors to agree that food pantry clients are nothonest about their needs (42% versus 55%) and more likely to agree that foodpantry clients who can work are trying to find jobs (72% versus 55%). Com-pared to white directors, African-American directors are less likely to believethat food pantry use is caused by sickness and disability of the clients (37%versus 63%) and are also less likely to believe that people who use food pantriesare just having bad luck (10% versus 26%).


Given that about half the food-needy people in these two Deep South statesare African Americans and that only about a third of directors are AfricanAmerican, racial biases may factor into an atmosphere that may make someclients or potential clients uncomfortable. Without further research, however, itis impossible to judge the extent of that problem. Further, based on the results ofprevious research, directors in our sample appeared to be less likely to ascribepoverty to individual failings than does the population as a whole (Bobo andSmith 1994).

Conclusion

This study set out to compare the social positions, poverty attributions, andwelfare attitudes of food pantry directors with that of the food-needy population.An awareness of these differences can shed light on debates about the stigmat-ization of food pantry clients by agency directors. Highly religious and well-educated white women comprise the majority of pantry directors in Alabamaand Mississippi. While it is not surprising to discover that pantry directors arebetter educated than their clients, the differences in religiosity were noteworthyand unanticipated. The religiosity of pantry directors is probably influenced bythe fact that faith-based organizations undertake the lion’s share of food assist-ance in this two-state region (Cashwell et al. 2004).

Directors, as a group, do not appear to differ strongly from the low-incomefood-needy population in these two states in terms of their attitudes towardwelfare, unwed motherhood, or mothers working outside the home. No state-ment in our questionnaire about the causes of poverty, whether the stated causewas based in personal failings (individual attribution) or societal conditions(structural attribution), received overwhelming agreement or disagreement, therebyleaving open the possibility that directors believe poverty is caused by factorswe did not consider or by a combination of forces that are not readily discerniblethrough discrete questions. Perhaps, given the high level of religious serviceattendance in this group, a sizable number may simply accept poverty as aninevitable social condition—akin to the biblical statement that “the poor weshall always have with us.” Alternatively, some may believe that the causes ofpoverty are complex and diverse, leading them to disagree with all the questions.

Despite the generally wide-ranging views about the causes of poverty, fewdirectors believed that food pantry use is caused by sheer bad luck (fatalisticattribution). Just over half of all directors saw physical illness or disability as asignificant reason for food pantry use. An even larger percentage, about two-thirds of our respondents, saw low wages as a cause of food pantry use. Becausepantry clients would not be viewed as responsible for either of these conditions,these responses appear to indicate a structural attribution of poverty, which iscoupled with a sympathetic or nonjudgmental attitude toward their clients. At


the same time, nearly half the directors supported the statement that many pantryclients are not honest about their needs, indicating that suspicion about clienthonesty is widespread in the two states covered by this sample. Whereas amajority of directors believed that the clients who could work were trying to findwork, a sizable minority of nearly one-third of respondents believed that thereare too many people using the pantry who should be working. Thus, the overallattitudes of pantry directors are best described as a mix of sympathy and sus-picion. African-American pantry directors were less likely than white directorsto express suspicion of their clients’ honesty, and more likely to view discrimi-nation as a cause of poverty, although even among African-American directorsagreement with this statement was not high.

The combination of sympathy and suspicion evinced by directors towardtheir clients may be a product of the wide range of experiences that pantrydirectors have had with the populations they serve. Directors may indeed haveobserved cases in which poverty was conferred by structural circumstances andothers incidences that seem to be more a product of individual choices. More-over, an umbrella concept of “the poor” might be one that is foreign to pantrydirectors. Situated on the front lines of the fight against hunger, directors arelikely to serve various constituencies, ranging from young teen mothers headinga fatherless family to other households composed of older, disabled adults. Theircloseness to those they serve might lead them to develop a view of “the poor”that is marked by heterogeneity, complexity, and nuance.

Clearly, additional research on the attitudes of pantry directors, and theways in which those views influence the director–client relationship, is needed.Research in which pantry workers’ attitudes about clients are matched explicitlywith their clients’ perception of either being stigmatized or respected would bequite useful to shed additional light on how stigma might influence pantry use.Yet, until that research is conducted, scholars should be mindful of the complexviewpoints of pantry directors, marked as they are by a mix of sympathy andsuspicion. Given that the majority of food pantries are faith-based, policymakersneed to reserve judgment on how directors’ attitudes will impact the implemen-tation of policies under the “Charitable Choice” provision of 1996 PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (faith-based initiatives)or other food-related policies. Moreover, more attention needs to be given tothe complex points of convergence and divergence between attitudes held bydirectors and their clientele.

The divergence of directors’ attitudes along racial lines may be especiallyimportant in regions of the country, such as the Deep South, where providers ofprivate-sector services are far more likely to be white than are their potentialclients. Further, the apparent link between increased religious service attendanceand lack of agreement with societal failure as a cause of poverty among this


population could use more analysis in this age of faith-based initiatives. Ifincreasing government resources for the provision of antipoverty services are tobe given to faith-based organizations, then more needs to be known about theindividuals running these organizations, especially in comparing their attitudestoward their clients’ circumstances with those of employees in the public sectorwho have traditionally provided such services.

ENDNOTES

*Work on this project was partially funded by the Southern Rural Development Center.

REFERENCES

Bartkowski, John P. and Helen A. Regis. 2003. Charitable Choices: Religion, Race, and Poverty inthe Post-Welfare Era. New York: New York University Press.

Bobo, Lawrence and Ryan Smith. 1994. “Antipoverty Policy, Affirmative Action, and Racial Atti-tudes.” Pp. 365–95 in Confronting Poverty: Prescriptions for Change, edited by Sheldon H.Danziger, Gary D. Sandefur, and Daniel H. Weinberg. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Bullock, Heather E. 1999. “Attributions for Poverty: A Comparison of Middle Class and WelfareRecipient Attitudes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29:2059–82.

———. 2004. “From the Front Lines of Welfare Reform: An Analysis of Social Worker andWelfare Recipient Attitudes.” The Journal of Social Psychology 144:571–88.

Bullock, Heather E., Wendy R. Williams, and Wendy M. Limbert. 2003. “Predicting Support forWelfare Policies: The Impact of Attributions and Beliefs about Inequality.” Journal of Poverty7:35–56.

Burton, Linda, Andrew J. Cherlin, Judith Francis, Robin Jarrett, James Quane, Constance Williams,and N. Michelle Stem Cook. 1998. What Welfare Recipients and the Fathers of Their ChildrenAre Saying about Welfare Reform. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved June21, 2005. <http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/welfare.pdf >.

Cashwell, Suzie T., John P. Bartkowski, Patricia A. Duffy, Vanessa Casanova, Joseph J. Molnar, andMarina Irimia-Vladu. 2004. “What Do Private Food Agency Directors Know about CharitableChoice?” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 31(2):157–77.

Clancy, Katherine L., Jean Bowering, and Janet Poppendieck. 1991. “Characteristics of a RandomSample of Emergency Food Program Users in New York: I. Food Pantries.” American Journalof Public Health 81(7):911–17.

Coe, Richard. 1983. “Nonparticipation in Welfare Programs by Eligible Households: The Case ofthe Food Stamp Program.” Journal of Economic Issues 17:1035–56.

Coley, Rebekah Levine, Ann M. Kuta, and P. Linday Chase-Lansdale. 2000. “An Insider View:Knowledge and Opinions of Welfare Reform from African-American Girls in Poverty.”Journal of Social Issues 56:707–26.

http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/welfare.pdf


Converse, Nathan, Adam Safir, Fritz Scheuren, Rebecca Steinback, and Kevin Wang. 2001. 1999NSAF Public Use File User’s Guide. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved June 28,2005. <http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1999_Methodology_11.pdf>.

Crittenden, Kathleen S. 1983. “Sociological Aspects of Attribution.” Annual Review of Sociology9:425–46.

Curtis, Karen A. 1997. “Urban Poverty and the Social Consequences of Private Food Aid.” Journalof Urban Affairs 19(2):207–26.

Daponte, Beth O., Gordon Lewis, Seth Sanders, and Lowell Taylor. 1998. “Food Pantry Use amongLow-Income Households in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.” Journal of Nutrition Education30:50–7.

Duffy, Patricia A., Joseph J. Molnar, Latoya Claxton, Ginger Hallmark, Conner Bailey, and SteveMiklouchich. 1999. Private Food Assistance in East Alabama: Issues of Access and Need,Final Report. Starkville, MS: Southern Rural Development Center.

Emerson, Michael O., Christian Smith, and David Sikkink. 1999. “Equal in Christ, but Not in theWorld: White Conservative Protestants and Explanations of Black-White Inequality.” SocialProblems 46:398–417.

Feagin, Joe. 1975. Subordinating the Poor: Welfare and American Beliefs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Hilton, Karla. 1993. “Close Down the Food Banks.” Canadian Dimension 27(4):22–3.Hunt, Matthew O. 1996. “The Individual, Society, or Both? A Comparison of Black, Latino, and

White Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty.” Social Forces 75:293–322.Jones, Loring. 1994. “Direct Service Workers’ Attitudes toward Employment, Unemployment, and

Client’s Problems.” Journal of Social Service Research 19:161–79.Kamin, Dana 2004. Food for Thought: Community Food Plan—Report on Food Security in

Kensington/Alexandra Park, Draft Report. Toronto, ON: Scadding Court CommunityCentre. Retrieved June 28, 2005. <http://www.scaddingcourt.org/pdflibrary/Community%20Food%20Plan%20Report.pdf>.

Kluegel, James R. and Eliot R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs about Inequality: Americans’ View of What Isand What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Olasky, Marvin. 1992. The Tragedy of American Compassion. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.Poppendieck, Janet. 1998. Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement. New York:

Viking.Ranney, Christine and John E. Kushman. 1987. “Cash Equivalence, Welfare Stigma, and Food

Stamps.” Southern Economic Journal 53(4):1011–27.Schwartz, Sanford and Margaret M. Robinson. 1991. “Attitudes toward Poverty during Undergradu-

ate Education.” Journal of Teaching Social Work Education 27:290–6.Seccombe, Karen. 1999. “So You Think I Drive a Cadillac?”: Welfare Recipients’ Perspectives on

the System and Its Reform. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Somers, Margaret R. and Fred Block. 2005. “From Poverty to Perversity: Ideas, Markets, and

Institutions over 200 Years of Welfare Debate.” American Sociological Review 70:260–87.Wang, Kevin, David Cantor, and Nancy Vaden-Kiernan. 2000. The 1999 NSAF Questionnaire.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved June 28, 2005. <http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1999_Methodology_1.pdf>.

Wood, Peter B. and John P. Bartkowski. 2004. “Attribution Style and Public Policy Attitudes towardGay Rights.” Social Science Quarterly 85:58–74.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1999_Methodology_11.pdf

http://www.scaddingcourt.org/pdflibrary/

http://www.urban.org/

Food Pantries and the Populations They Serve: Strange Bedfellows or Strategic Partners?

Documents

Transcript of Food Pantries and the Populations They Serve: Strange Bedfellows or Strategic Partners?