Liz: What is “Eat Well to be Well”?

Amy: Eat Well to Be Well is a public awareness campaign targeting adults age 60+. The campaign was created by the Twin Cities Hunger Initiative, a community initiative that is striving to reduce and end hunger in the Twin Cities.

The campaign’s purpose is to inform seniors about the positive benefits of food stamps. The goals include:

• To educate the community about food support (food stamps).
• To dispel myths around food support.
• To increase access to information about the food support program.
• To increase participation, especially among the working poor and older adults.

Liz: Why are you specifically targeting older adults?

Amy: The economy has been rough on everyone, but older adults and retirees are caught in a tighter financial bind than most of us. The loss of investment wealth, rising costs of healthcare, housing costs and increased food costs all impact those on limited incomes drastically.

• 75,000 Minnesotans are age 60 and above and have incomes at or near poverty ($18,213/year for a family of two)
• The USDA finds that one in five low-income households with seniors report “food insecurity” or hunger: They do not have consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives.

Better nutrition is a key to healthy aging. Maintaining one’s independence is critically important to older adults; research confirms independence is tied to mental and physical well-being. Poor nutrition, or skipping meals due to budget concerns, will derail independence.

Not eating enough healthy foods can result in increased frailty, more falls and broken bones, more illnesses, and more frequent and longer hospital visits. All of these mean reduced independence.

Liz: What are some of the most important foods for people—and older adults in particular—to eat?

Healthy foods as identified in the USDA food pyramid like grains, fruits, vegetables, meats, milk and beans.

Liz: What is SNAP?

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is a federal nutrition program. Minnesota refers to SNAP as “food support,” otherwise known as food stamps. Hunger Solutions Minnesota has started a Minnesota Food Help Line to determine eligibility for the food stamp program and to provide application assistance.

Liz: What resources are available for older people who are having a tough time making ends meet and sometimes end up choosing between their meds and a nutritious meal?

Amy: Older adults (and those caring for them) should be aware of food support available. Some myths exist about allowable income to qualify for the program, so it’s worth checking out. Older adults are the largest qualifying segment that underutilizes this benefit.

• In 2009, older adults (age 60+) who qualified for SNAP received an average of $111 in food support per month. This goes a long way toward purchasing healthy, nutritious food.
• The asset limit has been raised to $7,000 and does not include vehicles.
• IRAs and tax-preferred retirement accounts are counted as assets.

Homebound older adults or their caregivers can determine their eligibility for the program by applying over the phone.

For more information about Food Support (food stamps) call Hunger Solutions‘ Minnesota Food Help Line at 1-888-711-1151. To locate the food shelf closest to you, call 2-1-1. To order materials for the Eat Well to Be Well Campaign, contact the Minnesota Institute of Public Health, 763-427-5310 Ext. 126.

Quarterly Economic Pulse - April 2010

The most recent edition of the Quarterly Economic Pulse has just been released.

There are glimmers of hope. Unemployment has probably peaked (though all of those discouraged workers out there could re-enter the labor market—which is a good thing—and drive the unemployment rate up a bit further, which is generally viewed as not such a good thing). People are saving more (good for community stability) and they’re paying down their debt (good for individual stability).

But we still have eight unemployed workers for each job opening, poverty is growing in the suburbs even faster than in the central cities, and the suburbs are now home to the lion’s share of low-income people. (See Brookings report for more detail on suburban poverty). Consumer confidence remains low, and will probably stay that way until the job market improves.

Housing sales are increasing, and there are still a lot of foreclosed properties on the market, keeping housing prices low (which also makes housing more affordable). Median sales price for a Twin Cities house in February was $159,000. One in six Minnesotans owe more on their homes than they are worth. One in three Minnesota students are eligible for free or reduced price school lunch.

So, we’re starting to emerge from the recession but we still have a long way to go, and a lot of people will be facing hard times for the foreseeable future.

Wilkinson and Pickett examine income inequality across 23 countries. (Income inequality is measured in many ways, but one typical measure is to compare the income of the richest 20% of the population to the income of the poorest 20% of the population.) In Japan, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, the richest 20% are about four times as rich as the poorest 20%. At the other end of the spectrum (i.e., the U.S. and Singapore), that is more than doubled, which is to say that the U.S. has very high inequality (only Singapore is worse).

Does it matter? Absolutely, say Wilkinson and Pickett. They tie inequality to many of our major social populations:

If you fail to avoid high inequality, you will need more prisons and more police. You will have to deal with higher rates of mental illness, drug abuse, and every other kind of problem.

Take the example of health and life expectancy. The United States spends more per person ($6,000) on healthcare than any other country. You’d think that would at least put us in the top half for life expectancy, wouldn’t you? But no. In fact, only 3 of the 23 countries have lower life expectancies than the U.S. (those would be Portugal, which spends about $1,800 per person; Denmark, which spends about $2,800 per person; and Ireland, which spends about $2,500 per person). Highest life expectancy goes to Japan, which spends about $2,200 per person. The same pattern holds for infant mortality and teen pregnancy (see chart).

Conclusion? The more equally wealth is distributed in a society, the better the health of that society. They examine social relations, mental health, drug use, life expectancy, violence and homicide rates, obesity, education, teen pregnancy rates, incarceration rates and social mobility. The pattern holds.

Not convinced? They also look at inequality within the United States, and compare many of these same social ills across states, and the same pattern obtains. The authors contend that if the United States could reduce its income inequality to the average of the four most equal countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland), we would see:

• The proportion of the population feeling they could trust others increase by 75%
• Rates of mental illness drop by two-thirds
• Rates of obesity drop by two-thirds
• Teen birth rates cut in half
• Prison populations reduced by 75%

Now that’s something worth striving for!

If you’re a single person, that level in 2009 is $10,830. For a family of four it’s $22,050. Doesn’t seem like much, does it? According to the Cost of Living in Minnesota budget calculator, a no-frills basic needs budget for a single person in Minnesota is more like $25,000. For a family of four, $55,788. More than double the poverty level.

So who can live on $10,080 a year? Where did that magic figure come from? Well, the federal government sets the poverty level based on the costs of a no-frills food plan developed by the Dept. of Agriculture. One can quibble over whether the food plan is adequate. (Most, even the developer of the threshold, would quibble that it’s not. For those of you interested in the detail, here is a fascinating report.)

To calculate the poverty threshold, they take the cost of this basic food plan (updated every year to take inflation into account), and multiply it times three, and there’s your poverty threshold. It’s multiplied by three because food accounted for about one-third of the average budget of a household of three or more people when this formula was developed (1963-1964).

Fast forward to 2009. Consumption patterns have changed. Housing and healthcare costs have grown substantially and take up a much larger portion of the average household budget than they did 40 years ago. Transportation costs have grown with commutes, and two-wage-earner households require childcare.

As a result of these kinds of changes, today food is more like 15% of the basic household budget. So what does that mean?

Let’s take the single person. One-third of $10,830 is $3,610. If we take that as our food need (based on the economic USDA plan) and apply the updated pattern (food as 15% of budget), the “poverty threshold” goes up to $24,066 a year. For a family of four, it goes up to $49,000.

There are a lot of debates about the poverty threshold and how it’s measured, but pretty much everyone agrees that it vastly underestimates how much is required for a minimally adequate standard of living.