Description
file is the drop files area, thank you
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Problem Set 3
ARE 2260 Spring 2024
The assignment is due Friday, March 8 by 11:59pm EST
Max score: 60 (this will be converted to 6 points towards your final grade)
If you plan to take a waiver and submit your assignment within a week of the deadline, please
notify the TA about your late submission. One waiver per semester is allowed.
Question 1: Food Insecurity on College Campuses (30 points)
Please read the article “Food Insecurity on College and University Campuses: A Context and
Rationale for Solutions” and answer the following questions:
•
Why is it difficult to measure food insecurity on college campuses?
•
•
What are the most common solutions to food insecurity among college students?
In your opinion, what solutions/policies are likely to be most effective in reducing food insecurity among
students?
•
What federal and/or state legislation is available to specifically address food insecurity on
college campuses? You might find it useful to review the paper “Food Insecurity Among
College Students: An Analysis of US State Legislation Through 2020” to answer this
question.
•
Based on the definition of a hunger-free campus, would UConn be considered a hunger-free campus?
Question 2: Cross-state variation in SNAP participation rates and economic data (30
points)
For the Excel part of the question, you must submit your work in Excel. PDFs or googlesheets are not accepted.
Instructions: This question targets the use of VLOOKUP, which is frequently used in any data
management and analysis. We will review the use of VLOOKUP in class, but also please see a
brief video on VLOOKUP posted along with this problem set and a WebEx recording with stepby-step instructions for using VLOOKUP and other Excel functions necessary to complete this
assignment. Please contact the TA or instructor if you need further assistance with Excel.
Olease use the file ProblemSet 3.xls with data that has been uploaded for you from 4 sources,
including:
•
•
USDA Food and Nutrition Service, State Level Benefits and Participation, April 2019 (see
the worksheet/tab “SNAP_ben” for SNAP benefits in dollars and “SNAP_ppl” for the number
of SNAP participant (i.e., number of individuals on SNAP)
2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year Estimate Data with Median Household
Income by State (worksheet/tab “income”)
•
•
US Census, annual population estimates, state total population 2019 (tab “population”)
Bureau of Labor Statistics, state % unemployed in labor force 2019 (tab “unemploy”)
These government sources contain public data that you will likely use in the future if you plan a
career in public policy, marketing or economics.
In this assignment, you will practice VLOOKUP function in Excel, which enables you to find and
return a value from a table or a range by row. VLOOKUP is perfect for working with large tables.
Part 1: Use VLOOKUP to merge data from various tabs/worksheets by state name. In a new
worksheet/tab, create a table with the headings like below (label the tab Final). Note that you
will need to calculate Average $ monthly benefits as = Total % benefits / # of SNAP participants.
State
Popul
ation
# of
SNAP
participan
ts
Total $
SNAP
benefits,
monthly
% SNAP
participants
in state
population
Average $
monthly
benefits per
SNAP
participant
Median
household
(HH)
income, $
%
unemployed
in labor
force
Part 2: After you have the table ready, your tasks are:
(1) Sort the table by SNAP participation rate (% participants in state population);
(2) Using the Excel function SUM, calculate the US totals for population, # SNAP participants,
and total $ SNAP benefits;
(3) Using the Excel function AVERAGE, calculate the average across all states and DC for %
SNAP participants in state population, $ monthly benefits per SNAP participant, median
household income, and % unemployed in labor force;
(4) Using the Excel function MAX, find and name the state with the highest % SNAP
participation, the state with the highest median income, and the state with the highest average $
benefit amount per participant. Briefly explain why you think these states have the nation’s
highest records for these measures;
(5) Using the Excel function CORREL, calculate the correlation ratio between % SNAP
participants and % unemployed, and correlation for % SNAP participants in state population and
median household income. Provide a brief explanation for these two numbers.
State
SNAP benefits,
$ Apr 2019
Alabama
84,031,740
Alaska
14,676,186
Arizona
92,094,926
Arkansas
36,991,559
California
479,428,789
Colorado
53,085,578
Connecticut
47,900,307
Delaware
14,553,838
District of Columbia
13,931,081
Florida
324,369,732
Georgia
169,081,690
Hawaii
36,679,061
Idaho
16,153,804
Illinois
214,468,054
Indiana
67,677,767
Iowa
35,227,578
Kansas
21,432,230
Kentucky
60,288,579
Louisiana
96,906,155
Maine
16,954,141
Maryland
70,829,362
Massachusetts
92,116,494
Michigan
140,297,888
Minnesota
42,087,241
Mississippi
49,191,245
Missouri
80,848,241
Montana
12,294,294
Nebraska
19,033,103
Nevada
48,624,847
New Hampshire
7,731,320
New Jersey
79,319,308
New Mexico
52,083,626
New York
359,045,704
North Carolina
143,762,312
North Dakota
5,649,719
Ohio
166,487,299
Oklahoma
66,790,676
Oregon
73,408,033
Pennsylvania
205,014,079
Rhode Island
20,063,409
South Carolina
68,886,660
South Dakota
10,088,731
Tennessee
106,493,826
Texas
385,446,164
Utah
19,349,743
Vermont
8,216,475
Virginia
82,382,972
Washington
98,435,040
West Virginia
32,506,593
Wisconsin
63,923,345
Wyoming
2,997,337
State
# of SNAP
individuals,
Apr 2019
Alabama
717,163
Alaska
87,526
Arizona
769,805
Arkansas
347,080
California
3,623,654
Colorado
447,801
Connecticut
364,182
Delaware
128,321
District of Columbia
106,298
Florida
2,765,663
Georgia
1,397,447
Hawaii
154,526
Idaho
146,903
Illinois
1,737,117
Indiana
566,081
Iowa
317,878
Kansas
196,818
Kentucky
533,922
Louisiana
794,152
Maine
155,769
Maryland
612,581
Massachusetts
752,757
Michigan
1,175,365
Minnesota
405,566
Mississippi
443,868
Missouri
684,676
Montana
107,433
Nebraska
162,585
Nevada
419,347
New Hampshire
76,113
New Jersey
695,964
New Mexico
444,329
New York
2,662,511
North Carolina
1,278,787
North Dakota
48,096
Ohio
1,385,222
Oklahoma
565,900
Oregon
596,165
Pennsylvania
1,747,214
Rhode Island
150,288
South Carolina
590,881
South Dakota
80,939
Tennessee
889,691
Texas
3,322,131
Utah
170,989
Vermont
68,932
Virginia
701,304
Washington
818,771
West Virginia
302,044
Wisconsin
613,035
Wyoming
26,025
State
Median household
income, $
Alabama
51,734
Alaska
75,463
Arizona
62,055
Arkansas
48,952
California
80,440
Colorado
77,127
Connecticut
78,833
Delaware
70,176
District of Columbia
92,266
Florida
59,227
Georgia
61,980
Hawaii
83,102
Idaho
60,999
Illinois
69,187
Indiana
57,603
Iowa
61,691
Kansas
62,087
Kentucky
52,295
Louisiana
51,073
Maine
58,924
Maryland
86,738
Massachusetts
85,843
Michigan
59,584
Minnesota
74,593
Mississippi
45,792
Missouri
57,409
Montana
57,153
Nebraska
63,229
Nevada
63,276
New Hampshire
77,933
New Jersey
85,751
New Mexico
51,945
New York
72,108
North Carolina
57,341
North Dakota
64,577
Ohio
58,642
Oklahoma
54,449
Oregon
67,058
Pennsylvania
63,463
Rhode Island
71,169
South Carolina
56,227
South Dakota
59,533
Tennessee
56,071
Texas
64,034
Utah
75,780
Vermont
63,001
Virginia
76,456
Washington
78,687
West Virginia
48,850
Wisconsin
64,168
Wyoming
65,003
State
Population
Alabama
4,903,185
Alaska
731,545
Arizona
7,278,717
Arkansas
3,017,804
California
39,512,223
Colorado
5,758,736
Connecticut
3,565,287
Delaware
973,764
District of Columbia
705,749
Florida
21,477,737
Georgia
10,617,423
Hawaii
1,415,872
Idaho
1,787,065
Illinois
12,671,821
Indiana
6,732,219
Iowa
3,155,070
Kansas
2,913,314
Kentucky
4,467,673
Louisiana
4,648,794
Maine
1,344,212
Maryland
6,045,680
Massachusetts
6,892,503
Michigan
9,986,857
Minnesota
5,639,632
Mississippi
2,976,149
Missouri
6,137,428
Montana
1,068,778
Nebraska
1,934,408
Nevada
3,080,156
New Hampshire
1,359,711
New Jersey
8,882,190
New Mexico
2,096,829
New York
19,453,561
North Carolina
10,488,084
North Dakota
762,062
Ohio
11,689,100
Oklahoma
3,956,971
Oregon
4,217,737
Pennsylvania
12,801,989
Rhode Island
1,059,361
South Carolina
5,148,714
South Dakota
884,659
Tennessee
6,829,174
Texas
28,995,881
Utah
3,205,958
Vermont
623,989
Virginia
8,535,519
Washington
7,614,893
West Virginia
1,792,147
Wisconsin
5,822,434
Wyoming
578,759
Unemployed
Number
Unemployed
Percent of labor force
Alabama
62,149
2.8
Alaska
21,501
6.2
Arizona
165,900
4.6
Arkansas
48,570
3.6
California
763,836
3.9
Colorado
82,834
2.6
Connecticut
71,424
3.7
Delaware
18,995
3.9
District of Columbia
21,775
5.3
Florida
311,096
3
Georgia
170,011
3.3
Hawaii
18,058
2.7
Idaho
25,739
2.9
Illinois
245,850
3.8
Indiana
108,183
3.2
Iowa
48,057
2.8
Kansas
46,081
3.1
Kentucky
89,917
4.3
Louisiana
102,362
4.9
Maine
20,099
2.9
Maryland
116,059
3.6
Massachusetts
108,402
2.8
Michigan
197,822
4
Minnesota
100,280
3.2
Mississippi
71,008
5.5
Missouri
99,739
3.2
Montana
18,611
3.5
Nebraska
31,678
3.1
Nevada
59,201
3.8
New Hampshire
19,881
2.6
New Jersey
155,492
3.5
New Mexico
45,841
4.8
New York
372,324
3.9
North Carolina
195,092
3.8
North Dakota
9,854
2.4
Ohio
241,438
4.2
Oklahoma
60,919
3.3
Oregon
75,638
3.6
Pennsylvania
290,508
4.5
Rhode Island
19,701
3.5
State
South Carolina
60,140
2.5
South Dakota
15,565
3.3
Tennessee
112,581
3.4
Texas
492,450
3.5
Utah
40,271
2.5
Vermont
8,199
2.4
Virginia
120,083
2.7
Washington
163,815
4.2
West Virginia
39,208
4.9
Wisconsin
106,480
3.4
Wyoming
10,906
3.7
Perspective
Food Insecurity Among College Students: An Analysis of US
State Legislation Through 2020
Melissa N. Laska, PhD, RD1; Sheila Fleischhacker, PhD, JD2; Christina Petsoulis, JD, MPH3;
Meg Bruening, PhD, RD4; Michael J. Stebleton, PhD5
ABSTRACT
Many US college students experience food insecurity (FI). Given most students are excluded from receiving federal nutrition assistance, additional efforts are needed to alleviate student FI. This perspective discusses proposed and enacted state statutes, resolutions, and bills addressing college FI to date, which range
in depth, breadth, and success. Overall, states have demonstrated their promising role in addressing FI;
however, college FI promises to be a continuing challenge, particularly given continued widespread unemployment that began with the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 and the global struggle for economic
recovery.
Key Words: food insecurity, college students, food security, policy, state legislation (J Nutr Educ Behav.
2021;53:261−266.)
Accepted November 18, 2020. Published online December 22, 2020.
INTRODUCTION
Completion of higher education is an
important determinant of health,
including morbidity and mortality.1
Unfortunately, the experience of
food insecurity (FI) during college
has potential to hinder academic performance and progress. Data prior to
2019 suggest 1 in 3 US college students experienced FI, or lack of consistent access to enough food for an
active, healthy lifestyle.2 Further,
although data are lacking, college
student FI has potentially increased
during the coronavirus disease 2019
pandemic, given the high rates of
young adult joblessness.3 Further,
most students do not qualify for federal nutrition assistance, like the
USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). Congress instituted
student SNAP exclusions at a time
when most college students were considered to be of privilege—that is,
from middle-to-upper class, collegeeducated, generally White families
supporting students’ college attendance immediately post−high school.
However, times have changed. Today,
more than 40% of students seeking
bachelor’s degrees are the first in their
family to do so4 and a similar percent
are students of color.5 Studies show
these students are at highest risk for
experiencing FI.2
To address FI, some colleges across
the US have begun patchwork hunger
relief efforts, including campus food
pantries and meal donation programs.
Congress introduced 17 (12 unique)
college FI-related bills during the
1
Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
2
Law Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
3
University of Minnesota Law School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
4
College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
5
Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and Development, University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors have not stated any conflicts of interest.
Address for correspondence: Melissa N. Laska, PhD, RD, Division of Epidemiology and
Community Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 S 2nd St, WBOB 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454; E-mail: [email protected]
Ó 2020 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.11.010
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 53, Number 3, 2021
116th legislative session (2019−20),
though none have yet been enacted.6
In part, growing federal action has
been spurred by state action, which
has varied in depth, breadth, and success. Congress also requested a 2018
Government Accountability Office
report on college FI that recommended the USDA share information
on state SNAP agencies’ approaches to
help eligible students, among other
actions.7 The goal of this perspective
was to review state legislative efforts
on college FI and discuss implications
for research, policy, and practice.
CURRENT STATE
LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS
In consultation with academic law
librarians, a search of current and
past legislation addressing college FI
was conducted using Westlaw legal
database. Searches were independently conducted by 2 legal experts
(S.F. and C.P.), dually screening, extracting, and coding results; discordance was resolved via discussion
and consensus. Searching all digital
archives in Westlaw through October 23, 2020, “Statutes & Court
Rules” and “Proposed and Enacted
Legislation” categories were selected
for each state and searched for keywords: “food insecurity” “college”
“university” “hunger.” Each state’s
legislative website was then searched
261
262
Laska et al
using the same keyword terms. Legislative efforts focusing more generally
on college affordability were excluded.
Fifteen unique laws, bills, or resolutions were identified (Table).
California first passed landmark
legislation in 2017, 6 other states
enacted policies in 2019, and 6 more
introduced bills since then. Seven
states enacted legislation or passed
resolutions: California (n = 2), Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota,
New Jersey (n = 2), and Washington.
Six states introduced a bill or resolution: Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania. Most legislation (n = 9;
69%) was introduced by Democrats;
2 bills (MN, PA) were introduced by
Democrats and Republications, and 2
bills were introduced by Committee
(CT, OR). Collectively, these legislative efforts were initiated from or
referred to a variety of committees,
including education/higher education (n = 7), human services (n = 5),
appropriations (n = 3), ways and
means (n = 3), and rules and legislative procedures (n = 1).
California, Minnesota, and New Jersey established hunger-free campus
designations for colleges meeting minimum criteria, like having campus food
pantries. California allocated $7.5 million for hunger-free state universities
and community colleges to support
meal sharing programs, food pantries,
or CalFresh (California SNAP) enrollment. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts
have current legislation for HungerFree Campus Programs and Funds.
Several states have SNAP-related
policies. Illinois and Hawaii expanded
SNAP eligibility for students in career/
technical education/training programs. California expanded the CalFresh Restaurant Meal Program (which
allows SNAP benefit use in approved
restaurants by individuals 60+ years
old, disabled, or homeless) to allow
campus restaurant participation. New
Jersey passed and Michigan introduced
resolutions urging SNAP student eligibility expansion. Washington established a pilot to support homeless
students and those from foster care.
Three states had enacted (Connecticut) or current legislation (Indiana, Oregon) to study college FI.
Of the 6 legislative actions that
had not been enacted to date: (1)
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 53, Number 3, 2021
New Mexico indefinitely postponed
their legislation due to the pandemic;
(2) Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon’s last legislative actions were
early 2020 (prepandemic); (3) Pennsylvania passed the House in May,
2019, but it has been in the Senate
Committee on Education since September, 2018; and (4) Michigan only
recently introduced their resolution
in May, 2020, and it was referred to
the Committee on Appropriations.
DISCUSSION
The recent but rapidly growing legislative attention on college FI across
13 states is encouraging, but narrow
in scope. Thirty-seven states have no
relevant legislation, and implementation of much of the legislation
passed in 2019 has been stymied by
pandemic-related challenges.
Several states adopted hunger-free
campus policies, building on California’s statute. Minnesota has the
only such policy without a grant
component to support college FI efforts. One common requirement of
state hunger-free campus designations is the hosting of a campus food
pantry.2 Today, over 900 colleges
have pantries, designed for shortterm hunger relief but not addressing
root causes of hunger. Research suggests campus pantry users are students
in greatest need; however, barriers to
use include stigma, insufficient information on pantry policies, and inconvenient/intermittent hours.8 To date,
there have been no rigorous evaluations of campus food pantries’ effectiveness in alleviating chronic student
hunger.
Another common element of hunger-free campuses is meal donation
program participation. Swipe Out
Hunger,9 a nonprofit since 2010,
runs the largest program with 120
campus chapters nationwide. The
program allows students with meal
plans to donate extra meals to students in need. Swipe Out collaborates
with food service providers to facilitate donations, however, challenges
—like providers limiting allowable
meal donations (eg, 1,000 total meal
donations/semester maximum for
the University of Minnesota-Twin
Cities, which enrolls 50,000+ students)—hinder program reach. To
date, there have been no prospective
evaluations of program impact on
student FI.
Most state policies (53%) address
SNAP, because enhancing SNAP participation could be one of the most
effective approaches to address
chronic FI.10 In 2018, the Government Accountability Office recommended USDA share information on
state SNAP agency approaches to
help eligible enroll students, given
less than half of eligible students actually participate.7 One approach being
used in partnership with campuses in
various states—not just states with legislative college FI efforts—is improving campus dissemination of SNAP
enrollment information. Hunger-free
campus policies require a designated
college staffer to lead such dissemination, though many campuses have yet
to go beyond this minimum requirement. SNAP-related efforts have also
emerged at the federal level, with 4 of
the 12 federal college FI bills introduced in 2019−2020 focusing on
enhanced SNAP enrollment among
eligible college students.6 Recently,
Swipe Out Hunger and the Congressional Hunger Center began the
College SNAP Project11 to provide students with state-specific SNAP enrollment information; however, only
information for 10 states is currently
available on this program’s website.
While increasing SNAP eligibility
awareness is helpful, most students
are not eligible unless they are, for
example, part of a work study program, a single parent, or a recipient
of assistance under a Title IV-A program.7 Two federal bills have proposed expansion of SNAP student
eligibility.6 Despite federal exclusions, however, state SNAP agencies
have some flexibility—though limited—in eligibility determinations.
Notwithstanding, states differ widely
in adoption of SNAP policies and outreach, including implementation
approaches to benefit students.12 Examples of stronger state policies
include those by Illinois and Hawaii
addressing SNAP eligibility, allowing
participation in some college-level
technical training programs to meet
work requirements. Other states, like
New York, have worked within the
flexibility granted by USDA to
expand SNAP student eligibility, for
State
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Status
College FI Relevant Provisions
Enacted (2017)
Postsecondary education: student hunger.
Introduced as Assembly Bill 214 by Assembly
member Weber (D-79) and co-sponsors
Bloom (D-50), Bovanegra (D-39), Bradford (D35) among others, referred to the Committee
on Higher Education and the Committee on
Human Services, chaptered by the Secretary
of State
Enacted (2017)
An act concerning food-insecure students at
public institutions of higher education. Introduced as Substitute House Bill 7257, Special
Act Number 19−25 by the Joint Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and referred to this Committee
Relating to Human Services−Hawaii Nutrition
Employment and Training Program. Introduced as Senate Bill 50 SD2 HDI by Senator
Russel Ruderman (D-2), referred to the Committee on Human Services; enacted as Act 156
Enacted (2019)
An act concerning public aid. Introduced as
Senate Bill 1641 by Sen. Robert Peters (D-Chicago), referred to the Committee on Human
Services
Enacted (2019)
Amended Education Code x66027.8 and x41207.47 as follows:
California State Universities are required (University of California
campuses are encouraged) to designate hunger-free campuses
that have a: (1) campus staffer sharing CalFresh (ie, SNAP in
California) student enrollment information, (2) campus food pantry or regular food distribution, possibly via local partnerships,
and (3) meal sharing program for students to donate unused
meal credits for use by students in need. Program parameters
must be made public and a campus staffer designated to work
with student volunteers. A meal sharing program is not required
for community colleges. Each hunger-free campus will receive
one-time funding ($7.5 million total) with campus reporting
requirements.
Amended Education Code x 66025.93 and added Section 69519.3
and amended Section 18901.11 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code as follows: If located in a county participating in RMP (Restaurant Meals Program, allowing CalFresh users who are 60+
years old, disabled, or homeless to use benefits in participating
restaurants), colleges must (1) apply to participate in the RMP (if
a qualifying facility is on campus, that is, one operated by the
college selling food for on-site consumption), and (2) provide
RMP information to externally-operated campus food vendors
and students. Qualifying campus facilities may participate, even
if not located in a participating county.
Mandates Connecticut State Colleges and Universities and University of Connecticut study student FI and report to General
Assembly. Factors of interest are: FI prevalence, campus food
pantries, emergency student hardship grants, policies impacting
student food access (eg, meal plan suspensions due to unpaid
tuition or holidays), and programs benefitting students with FI.
Appropriates funds for the Hawaii Nutrition Employment & Training
Program (for material, supplies, and 7 full-time positions). The
interagency program recruits and supports SNAP recipients in
250+ college/career programs. Recipients are provided with
extra benefits for gas, books, supplies, and uniforms and are
exempt from work requirements (20 h/wk).
Amended 305 ILCS 5/12-4.13 (b) as follows: college student SNAP
eligibility: career/technical education programs offered at community colleges and approved by Illinois Community College
Board are considered employment/training programs for SNAP
Enacted (2019)
263
(continued)
Laska et al
Illinois
Law/Bill/Resolution Details
Hunger-free college campuses.
Introduced as Assembly Bill 453 by Assembly
member Limon (D-37) and cosponsor Senator
Wiener (D-11), referred to the Committee on
Higher Education, with additional amendments and appropriations since enactment
(eg, Assembly Bill 1809)
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 53, Number 3, 2021
Table. State Laws, Resolutions and Bills Addressing Food Insecurity (FI) Among College Students, as of March, 2020
264
Table. (Continued)
Indiana
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
Status
Student hunger and homelessness. Introduced
as House Bill 1018 by Representatives Earl
Harris (D-2) and Karlee Macer (D-92), referred
to the Committee on Rules and Legislative
Procedures
An act establishing a community college campus Hunger Pilot Program. Introduced as
H.1233/ S.757 by Representative Meschino
(D-3rd Plymouth) and Senator Lovely (D-Second Essex), referred to the Committee on
Higher Education
Introduced (2020)
A resolution to urge the USDA to grant a federal
waiver to temporarily suspend the rules that
make college students ineligible for SNAP
benefits. Introduced as HR 251 by Representative Rachel Hood (D-76), referred to the
Committee on Appropriations
Hunger-Free Campus Act. Introduced as
HF2366 by Representative Pryor (DFL-Minnetonka), referred to Ways & Means with companion in the Senate, SF2706 by Senators
Lang (R-17), Jensen (R-47), & Clausen (DFL57), referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means and then to the Committee on Higher
Education Finance and Policy
Hunger-Free Campus Act. Introduced as
A4702/S3239 by Assembly members Wimberly (D-35), Jasey (D-27), and Mukherji (D33), and co-sponsored by DeAngelo (D-14),
Chiaravalloti (D-31), Quijano (D-20), Karabinchak (D-18), and McKnight (D-31), referred to
the House Committee on Human Services and
then Appropriations and Senate Health,
Human Services & Senior Citizens Committee,
approved as P.L. 2019, c.89
Introduced (2020)
Introduced (2019)
College FI Relevant Provisions
eligibility. Department of Human Services, with stakeholders,
must establish protocols to identify/verify eligibility exemptions
and verify students’ participation in the programs.
Establishes a student hunger and homelessness study committee
to: (1) study prevalence of housing and FI in Indiana college students, (2) provide suggestions for eliminating these issues. Must
report results of the study to the governor and legislative council
in 2021.
Establishes a fund to address FI on community college campuses
(the MA Community College Campus Hunger Program) for
Department of Education to use in issuing grant funds to community colleges based on the demonstrated need and implementation plans. Funds will be used for colleges to offer meal cards,
meal plans, meal vouchers, and other campus-designed projects to address community college student FI.
Urges the USDA to grant a federal waiver to temporarily suspend
the rules that make college students ineligible for SNAP benefits
by sending copies of the resolution to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Deputy Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, and the Michigan congressional delegation.
Enacted (2019)
Amended Minnesota Statute 136.F.245 creates a Hunger-Free
Campus designation for state community/technical colleges that:
(1) have a campus food pantry or food distribution, (2) provide
students with food assistance information, for example, SNAP,
(3) participate in an annual hunger awareness event, (4) offer
student emergency assistance grants, and (5) have a hunger
task force meeting 3+/y and including 2+ student members.
Enacted (2019)
Establishes a Hunger-Free Campus Grant Program providing
grants to public colleges with hunger-free designations. Campuses must: (1) establish a task force meeting 3+ times/y; (2)
designate a staffer to assist students in SNAP enrollment, (3)
provide options for SNAP benefit use at campus stores, (4) participate in an awareness day and plan an awareness event, (5)
establish campus food pantry or stigma-free alternative, (6) participate in a meal donation program, like Swipe Out Hunger, and
(7) run an annual student survey and share results.
(continued)
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 53, Number 3, 2021
Michigan
Law/Bill/Resolution Details
Laska et al
State
State
New Mexico
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Washington
Law/Bill/Resolution Details
Status
College FI Relevant Provisions
Urges Congress to expand SNAP eligibility requirements for students enrolled in college
and other institutions of higher education. Resolution 191 sponsored by Assembly members
Verrelli (D-15), Mejia (D-32), Spearman (D-5),
initiated from the Committee on Human
Services
Reduce College Hunger Pilot Program. House
Bill 69. Sponsors include Representatives Ferrary (D-37), Trujillo (D-25), and Stansbury (D28), referred to the Committee on Education
Resolution passed
(2019)
Urges Congress to expand SNAP eligibility requirements for students enrolled in college and other institutions of higher education, specifically nontraditional, low income, or full-time students.
Introduced; postponed
indefinitely (2020)
Appropriates $100,000 from the general fund to the higher education department for expenditure in fiscal year 2021 for a pilot program to reduce college hunger. Any unexpended or
unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2021
shall revert to the general fund.
Mandates the Higher Education Coordinating Commission to
study the prevalence of food and housing insecurity of students
at community colleges and public universities, and issue recommendations to address gaps in services/programs.
Relating to needs of students at post-Secondary
Institutions of Education; Declaring an Emergency.
House Bill 4055. Introduced at the request of
the House Interim Committee on Education of
Oregon Council of Presidents and Oregon Student Association, referred to the Joint Committee on Ways & Means
An act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.
30, No. 14), known as the Public School Code
of 1949, in misc. provisions relating to institutions of higher education, establishing the
Hunger-Free Campus Grant Program and the
Hunger-Free Campus Grant Fund. Introduced
as House Bill 2205 by Representatives Kenyatta (D-181), O’Mara (D-165), and Murt (R152), referred to the Committee on Education
Introduced (2020)
Homeless and Foster Care Students Pilot Program.
RCW 28B.50.916. Introduced as S.5800 by
Senators Randall (D-26), Zeiger (R-25), among
others, referred to the Committee on Ways &
Means
Enacted (2019)
Introduced (2020)
Establishes Hunger-Free Campus Grant Program for public colleges with hunger-free designations. Campuses must: (1) establish task force meeting 3+/y; (2) designate a staffer to assist in
student SNAP enrollment, (3) have campus stores be SNAP
authorized, (4) participate in an awareness day and plan an
awareness event, (5) establish campus food pantry or stigmafree alternative, (6) participate in meal donation program, and (7)
survey students annually and share results. Program to be
funded via $1,000,000 from the general fund. Funding will be on
continuing basis.
Establishes a pilot program in 4 colleges to assist students
experiencing homelessness or from foster care. Students will be
provided with low-cost meals and access to food banks, housing
assistance (eg, on breaks), case management and laundry, storage, and shower facilities. Colleges must study student housing
and FI during pilot and share results.
Laska et al
D indicates Democrat; DFL, Democratic−Farmer−Labor Party; FI, food insecurity; R, Republican; RCW, Revised Code of Washington; RMP, Restaurant Meals Program;
SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Note: Numbers appearing after “D” and “R” indicate the district number.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 53, Number 3, 2021
Table. (Continued)
265
266
Laska et al
example among students enrolled in
vocational classes.13 More documentation of cross-state differences and
their impact is needed. During the
pandemic many states also requested
USDA waivers to temporarily halt
SNAP work requirements for students;
these were all denied.14 Further,
recent USDA efforts to implement
stricter SNAP work requirements were
expected to result in many lowincome college students losing SNAP
benefits; however, the USDA final rule
on SNAP work requirements was temporarily suspended by Congress (P.L.
116−127) during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and halted during recent litigation.15,16
IMPLICATIONS FOR
RESEARCH, POLICY AND
PRACTICE
St
