Understanding Food Insecurity and Participation in Food Assistance Programs among Hispanic/Latino Residents of Hialeah, Florida, before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The 63.6 million Hispanic individuals living in the United States constitute the largest ethnic or racial minority group in the country. Hispanic/Latino households report a high prevalence of food insecurity, and often, food-insecure individuals cope by turning to emergency and federal food assistance programs for immediate or long-term assistance. This paper focuses on Hialeah, Florida, a predominantly Hispanic/Latino city in Miami-Dade County. It examines which demographic factors influence participation in food assistance programs and the occurrences of periods of disrupted food access. This study examines two questions: (1) What factors are associated with participation in food assistance programs? (2) To what extent did study participants use food assistance programs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic? We conducted a survey and collected 684 responses from April to August 2022. We gathered data on participants’ identities, household attributes, and their usage of federal and emergency food assistance programs. We used Pearson’s chi-square tests to identify significant associations between food assistance usage, food access, and respondents’ demographic characteristics. We also used binary logistic regression models to assess probabilities. The findings of this research are significant, indicating that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated food access challenges in Hispanic/Latino households in 2022. The data also revealed that low-income households, respondents below the age of 40, individuals born in the United States, those with low educational attainment, and those living in multifamily households had the highest likelihood of using food assistance programs. Single- and non-single-parent households, employment status, languages spoken at home, and number of children in the household were also statistically significant factors in predicting food assistance usage. This research provides valuable insights into how individuals in a city responded to the pandemic by utilizing food assistance programs.

1. Introduction

In the wake of the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic and the economic shock of 2020, global food insecurity rates surged drastically [1,2,3,4]. Though enhanced food security is an important international sustainability goal, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that roughly 2.4 billion people experienced moderate or severe food insecurity in 2022 [5]. The United States of America is no exception. In 2022, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 17 million households (12.8%) experienced food insecurity. These statistics suggest disparities in the food system and inequities in accessing essential dietary resources.

The USDA defines food insecurity as the “household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to safe and adequate food.” Households are food secure when all members have enough food for an active and healthy lifestyle. Households are deemed food insecure when there is limited availability of nutritious and safe food or uncertainty about accessing such food [6,7]. The incidence of food insecurity varies. Most food insecurity occurs intermittently; households and individuals cycle in and out of it [8,9]. However, some individuals and families are chronically food insecure, meaning that they experience food insecurity repeatedly [10,11,12].

Food insecurity is a multifaceted issue that affects a wide range of people. The impacts of food insecurity are not uniform; hence, some population subgroups are very vulnerable to its effects [13,14,15,16,17,18]. For the purposes of this study, the group researched will be referred to as Hispanic/Latino. Hispanic refers to a person with ancestry from a country whose primary language is Spanish [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Terms such as Latino/a and Latinx/e refer to individuals originating from Latin America. The term Hispanic/Latino will be used in this paper for ease of reading; these are also terms most frequently used in Hialeah to describe the city’s residents. However, when discussing research or data from other scholars or sources, we will use their terminology to describe their data. See [25,26,27] for a more detailed discussion of Hispanic, Latino, and Chicano identities and the debates surrounding using these terminologies.

Hispanic/Latino families consistently report a high prevalence of food insecurity. In the United States, Hispanics are more than twice as likely to report household food insecurity than non-Hispanic Whites [28,29,30,31,32]. Food insecurity rates are rising because of inflation, which poses significant challenges for families with difficulty affording groceries and other essentials.

Most food-insecure households often cope by turning to federal and emergency food programs for immediate or long-term assistance. Federal food assistance programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), providing financial assistance to low-income households to purchase food; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), offering nutritional education and support to access healthy foods; and the School Breakfast Program (SBP), serving breakfast meals for eligible youth enrolled in public schools [33,34,35,36]. In addition to federal food assistance programs, many food-insecure households obtain assistance from emergency food outlets. Emergency food outlets encompass soup kitchens, food pantries, food banks, food drives, community fridges, and gardens [37,38]. The combination of emergency food outlets and federal food programs serves as a critical safety net that food-insecure households rely on to address food access needs.

The Questions, Population Studied, and Study Location

This study examines one significant aspect of food insecurity in the United States—participation in food assistance programs. It focuses on two elements of participation: (a) the utilization of federal food assistance programs and (b) the use of emergency food assistance. The paper examines two questions: (1) What factors are associated with participation in food assistance programs? (2) To what extent did study participants use food assistance programs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic? The article explores the relationship between demographic characteristics and food assistance participation among Hispanics/Latinos. We focus on Hispanics/Latinos because they comprise a crucial population group in the U.S. According to the census, the 63.6 million Hispanic residents living in the country constitute the largest ethnic or racial minority group nationwide [39].

This paper adopts an intersectional approach to interrogating food assistance and food access. Hence, the study acknowledges and assesses the dynamics of difference and sameness among Hispanics/Latinos and how these interact with various factors. Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, describes how axes of power interlock and overlap to create distinct experiences for people with multiple grounds of identity [40,41]. The intersectional frame of analysis underscores the diverse ways that race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and age may interact, connect, and create dimensions of inequalities within systems [42,43,44,45].

The study examines the questions posed in Hialeah, Florida. Hialeah, the sixth largest city in the state, is in the northwestern part of Miami-Dade County [46]. In 2022, it had a population of 220,292. Hispanics/Latinos constitute 95.4% of Hialeah residents. Hialeah has the highest percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents in Florida and has the eighth-largest Hispanic population in the United States [47,48]. The three most common ethnic groups are of Cuban, Haitian, and Colombian ancestry. Cuban immigrants have resided in Hialeah since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The result is that the city has the highest percentage of Cuban and Cuban American residents (73.7%) of any city in the United States [49].

Table 1. Census Demographics of the United States, Florida, Miami-Dade County, and Hialeah City.

	United States		Florida		Miami-Dade County		Hialeah City
Characteristics	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Population Size	333,287,557	100.0	22,244,823	100.0	2,673,837	100.0	220,292	100.0
Demographic Characteristics
Female persons	168,189,509	50.4	11,307,152	50.8	1,362,255	50.9	113,010	51.3
Hispanic or Latino	63,675,446	19.1	6,033,020	27.1	1,847,130	69.1	210,159	95.4
Foreign born Person	45,377,798	13.6	4,671,013	21.0	1,443,334	54.0	163,236	74.1
Socioeconomic Status
High school graduate or higher	296,148,349	88.9	19,796,207	89.0	2,207,685	82.5	163,236	74.1
Bachelor’s degree or higher	112,548,632	33.7	7,013,621	31.5	849,768	31.7	43,838	19.9
Persons in poverty	38,399,069	11.5	2,834,667	12.7	406,968	15.2	39,212	17.8
Household Arrangement
Households	124,010,992	100.0	8,157,420	100.0	936,351	100.0	76,255	100.0
Language other than English spoken at home	72,370,775	21.7	6,637,008	29.8	703,200	75.1	70,612	92.6

Compiled from [39,48].

shows the demographic characteristics of Hialeah City, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and the United States. As the table shows, Hialeah has a much higher rate of foreign-born residents than the rest of Florida or the U.S. While over 30% of the U.S., Florida, and Miami-Dade’s residents have at least a bachelor’s degree, only 18.6% of Hialeah’s population does. Hialeah also has a higher poverty rate than the three comparative jurisdictions (17.8%).

The data collected in 2022 are especially timely, as there was a significant rise in food insecurity rates across Miami-Dade County that year. Feeding America reported that in the fiscal year 2020, 10.8% of Miami-Dade County residents experienced food insecurity, marginally below the national rate (10.5%). The county’s food insecurity rate was higher among Hispanic/Latino communities (13.0%) [50]. By 2021, there was a modest improvement, with Miami-Dade County’s overall food insecurity rate decreasing to 10.4%. A similar trend occurred among Hispanic/Latino residents, whose food insecurity rate declined to 10.0%. However, significant changes in food insecurity rates were not observed until 2022. In 2022, Feeding America documented an increase in food insecurity to 13.7% in Miami-Dade County, with a striking surge among Hispanic/Latino communities to 16.0%. These local upticks in 2022 underscore the persistent and evolving nature of structural food access problems. Despite previous stability and slight improvements, Feeding America’s empirical evidence suggests that food insecurity reached its highest level in 2022 since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The year 2022 was also marked by deteriorating economic conditions, with the consumer price index rising by 9.1%—the most significant yearly increase since 1981. This rise in inflation has exacerbated poverty, unemployment, and income inequality [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61].

There has been relatively limited empirical research on Hialeah’s food environment and its long-term sustainability. One study in Miami-Dade found that commuting time was associated with a caregiver’s access to food and food choices [62]. Studies of county residents found that low-income human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients experienced depression, cognitive impairment, and food insecurity [63,64,65,66,67]. While these studies contribute to our understanding of Miami-Dade County food systems, our unique study will expand on this knowledge by examining food assistance access in Hialeah. To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hialeah’s food environment. The study aims to fill this gap in the food access literature by shedding light on how the pandemic impacted food access and how individuals responded to changes in the food environment. These findings in Hialeah will offer insights into the experiences of one of the largest ethnic groups in the country and are relevant to other municipalities in the United States, especially those serving large Hispanic/Latino populations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Hispanic/Latino Food Access

Despite its immense wealth, millions of people in the United States struggle to feed themselves and their families. Food insecurity is particularly acute among Hispanic/Latino communities. The USDA estimated that 20.8% of Hispanic/Latino households experienced food insecurity in 2022. However, some food access studies have reported that food insecurity rates in Hispanic households are significantly higher [68,69,70,71]. For example, the Urban Institute found that 32.3% of Hispanics experienced food insecurity in 2022 [72]. Similarly, the Census Household Pulse Survey (CHHPS) found that 36.9% of Hispanics were food insecure [39].

Food insecurity rates vary among different Hispanic/Latino subgroups. A national study of food insecurity among Hispanics/Latinos using data from the Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement found that 25.3% of Puerto Ricans, 20.8% of Mexicans, 20.7% of Central and South Americans, and 12.1% of Cubans were food insecure [39]. Researchers have added that some Hispanic groups’ low federal food assistance participation rates could be due to ineligibility, fear of deportation, worries about immigration status, reliance on emergency food assistance organizations rather than government programs, or lack of knowledge about food-acquisition processes [73,74,75,76,77,78]. Means-tested programs are also not accessible to all who need food assistance [79,80].

2.2. Food Assistance Organizations and Programs

Many families rely on federal food and nutrition programs to combat food insecurity [81,82,83]. The USDA established a series of food programs to reduce food insecurity, including the SNAP; the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program; the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); the School Breakfast Program (SBP); and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) [84,85,86,87,88,89,90]. In 2022, approximately 55% of food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three most extensive federal nutrition programs: SNAP, WIC, and the NSLP [6].

Studies assessing the impact of federal food assistance programs have found that households using SNAP benefits over a year significantly reduced the likelihood of experiencing food insecurity between 20% and 50% [91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. Some food access scholars have also explored SNAP’s impact on nutrition and found that participation in federal food assistance programs, such as SNAP, may influence the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in children [98].

Emergency food systems have evolved into robust and diverse networks distributing food through various means [99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107]. Emergency food outlets may be food banks, food pantries, community gardens, soup kitchens, delivery services, community fridges, or food drives. Some studies have critiqued emergency food outlets for serving their clients neither healthy nor nutritious food [108,109,110]. Unhealthy and nutrient-poor food makes it difficult for those with diet-related illnesses to follow nutrition guidelines. A study on soup kitchens in Grand Rapids, Michigan, documented the ingredients of the menus and argued that the food contributes to diet-related chronic health risks among houseless populations [111]. Appetite for Change found that food seekers desired more diversity in food offerings [112]. In the same vein, pantry users in Norristown, Pennsylvania, who had chronic health conditions requiring restricted or specialized diets reported that they struggled to find healthy food products to consume [113].

Emergency food outlets recognize the need to provide healthy and nutritious food offerings. However, they lack the organizational capacity and funding to adhere to nutritional policy recommendations or offer more fruit and vegetable options [114]. Food pantries that rely heavily on donations do not entirely control what foods they can provide to food seekers.

2.3. The Influence of Other Demographic Factors on Access to Food Assistance

Demographic characteristics play significant roles in determining access to food assistance programs. [115]. Emergency food outlets sometimes function as White spaces of privilege that inadvertently create racially discriminatory food aid environments for non-White food seekers [116]. However, not all People of Color experience the emergency food landscape similarly. For instance, Hispanic/Latino households in Massachusetts were more likely than other residents to report that they did not know the operating hours or the locations of the emergency food organizations. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latino residents in Massachusetts were more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to report that lack of transportation and inaccessible locations of emergency food outlets hindered their usage of such facilities [117]. Negative experiences associated with emergency food access discourage clients, especially People of Color, from using food assistance organizations.

In addition to race or ethnicity, studies have demonstrated that factors such as education level, income, gender identity, and household composition influence the usage of food assistance programs. Specifically, low-income households with low educational attainment and women are more likely to rely on food assistance programs to mediate food access challenges. Studies have also found that food assistance programs may be stigmatizing, posing social barriers to free food offerings [118,119,120,121]. Food seekers who experience shame and embarrassment while obtaining free food are reluctant to visit food assistance organizations [122]. Moreover, the emotional process of asking for and receiving emergency food assistance is associated with increased distress, loss of appetite, isolation, and worsening of pre-existing health conditions [123]. Taylor and colleagues found that People of Color-led organizations, recognizing these challenges, took steps to reduce stigma when distributing emergency food [124].

2.4. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the United States Food Assistance Programs

In response to the pandemic’s devastating effects, food assistance systems adapted, evolved, and expanded their efforts to meet the soaring problem of food insecurity in 2020 [125]. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the United States government to increase government spending, implement economic stimulus bills, institute new initiatives to address food insecurity, promote sustainability efforts by collaborating with farmers to deliver locally grown fresh food to emergency food recipients, and expand nutrition assistance benefits [60,126,127,128,129].

Most emergency food programs were heavily strained during the pandemic as the historical demand for food relief shocked each outlet’s distribution capacity [130]. In 2020, Feeding America served over 60 million individuals, a 50% increase from 2019 [131]. A study in Miami-Dade County found that leveraging local assets and prioritizing community engagement at all stages of food delivery interventions (planning, implementation, adaptation, and conclusion) was necessary to address and understand the emergent needs of communities amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Garba and colleagues also found each community in Miami-Dade County was unique in its challenges, local policies, and availability of resources [132]. Emergency food assistance programs adapted to the growing demand by reorganizing operations, forging partnerships with public and private organizations, coordinating work with other community emergency food outlets for maximum impact, and finding new volunteers.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Survey Data Collection

Surveys were distributed in Hialeah at various community locations and events. To be eligible, participants had to be over 18 years old, identify as Hispanic/Latino, and reside in Hialeah, Florida. The lead author recruited study participants while volunteering at emergency food and social justice organizations. Appendix A contains a geospatial map showing the locations of the emergency food outlets that operated in Hialeah, Florida, in 2022 (Figure A1). Appendix A also details the methods used to create the map, including explanations of the data sources, collection techniques, and descriptive statistics that summarize the number and frequency of each emergency food outlet category.Study participants were also recruited at other neighborhood community spaces or events at local parks, shopping plazas, flea markets, green spaces, pools, music festivals, restaurants, community college campuses, and farmers’ markets.

The study also utilized a snowball sampling technique to increase the diversity of the sample [133,134,135]. Researchers asked study participants to recommend other people who could participate. The data were collected through an online Qualtrics survey. Qualtrics was used because of its advanced features, such as open-ended questions, language translation, question skip patterns, ease of use with QR codes, and anonymity features. For instance, Qualtrics automatically assigns a random number to each survey, so individuals’ identities remain confidential.

Study participants were shown a QR code they could use to take the survey on their electronic devices. They were given a paper version of the study to record their answers if they preferred. The survey—which took between 15 and 30 min to complete—was administered over five months, from April to August 2022. The participants were offered financial incentives for their time. The survey respondents indicated if they wanted to be entered into a drawing for USD 25 gift cards. In all, 739 surveys were collected on Qualtrics; 684 were completed and usable for analysis.

3.2. Statistical Analysis

We downloaded the survey responses from the 2023 Qualtrics platform into IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28. We completed all the data cleaning, coding, and statistical analyses in SPSS, and tables and figures were constructed in Microsoft Excel version 16.86.2.

Nine dependent and eleven independent variables were analyzed to answer the research questions (see Appendix B). We checked for multicollinearity by assessing the variance inflation factor (VIF). The VIF score for the variable quantified how well each variable was explained by the other variables tested in the model. The statistical analysis had a VIF cutoff of ≥2.5.

We used Pearson’s chi-square (X²) test and binary logistic regression models to examine the relationships between the dependent and the independent variables. The chi-square test is a valuable non-parametric tool for initially assessing the association between categorical variables and identifying if there is a significant relationship between the variables. For more in-depth analyses, we used binary logistic regression models to examine the impact of the 11 independent variables on each dependent variable. The binary logistic regression models help derive predictive models and quantify each independent variable’s unique contribution to an outcome [136,137].

Bivariate analysis of independent variables of age, employment type, country of birth, having children, household type, household income, the presence of children in the household, education level, languages spoken at home, country of origin, and gender were examined with the dependent variables of food assistance usage and food access. The survey collected five non-binary responses. Because of the small number of these responses, this gender identity category was not analyzed in the chi-square and regression models- The Pearson’s chi-square test formula is:

$$X^2=\sum _{i=1}^n{\displaystyle \frac{{\left(O_i-E_i\right)}^2}{E_i}}$$

In the formula, O is the observed frequency, and E is the expected frequency.

Eleven binary logistic regression models were fitted for each independent variable. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported. The binary logistic regression model formula is:

$$ln \left({\displaystyle \frac{\hat{p}}{1-\hat{p}}}\right)=b_{GI}+b_{EM}+b_{CB}+b_{ED}+b_{HC}+b_{CH}+b_{HT}+b_{HI}+b_{LS}$$

In the formula, the probability of one category of the dependent variables examining food assistance participation access is denoted as y; b is the coefficient of the independent variables or predictors, and x is the independent variable. The independent variables are demographic characteristics such as gender identification, age, income, and employment status.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

Respondents from diverse Latin American countries were sampled, but Cuba (44.4%) and Nicaragua (32.0%) were the most frequently referenced countries of origin. All the other respondents (23.5%) were grouped in the “other” category. Most respondents were born in the United States (78.5%), and the remainder were born elsewhere (21.5%). Most respondents were from households where English was the only language spoken at home; this group accounted for 45.9% of the sample. Spanish was the only language spoken in the households of 37.3% of the sample, while other languages were spoken in 16.7% of the households.

Women dominated the sample; 67.2% of the participants were women, and 32.8% were men. The sample was also youthful; most were under 40 years old. Thus, 18–29-year-olds constituted 40.7% of the sample, 30–39-year-olds comprised 37.6%, and those 40 and older comprised 21.7%. Most of the respondents were parents of young children; 72.2% of the sample had a child who was under the age of 18 years. Just over half of the respondents were working full-time (51.1%), while the remainder were working part-time (19.0%), unemployed (15.2%), homemakers (9.6%), and students (5.2%). Most of the sample did not complete college—20.7% had a bachelor’s or graduate degree and 41.9% had some college education. The remainder of the sample did not attend college; 15.8% had some high school or less, while 21.6% had a high school diploma or General Education Development (GED) certificate.

Study participants tended to be low-income—58.3% had annual household incomes of USD 0–USD 49,000, another 27.8% had household incomes of USD 50,000–USD 99,000, and the remaining 14.0% had incomes of USD 100,000 or more. Most respondents lived in multifamily households; 47.5% did so. Another 28.6% lived in two-parent households, 13.5% resided in single-parent households, and the remainder (10.4%) lived alone or with roommates (See Appendix C).

4.2. Overview of the Dependent Variables

Roughly two-thirds of the sample (65.7%) used federal food assistance programs before COVID-19, and fewer (57.2%) used emergency food assistance programs before COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on the sample is readily apparent. Because of the pandemic, the percentage of people saying their household needed federal food assistance jumped to 79%. A similar percentage of respondents (79.8%) also said their household required emergency food assistance because of the pandemic.

The findings show that the percentage of respondents reporting that the pandemic caused them to need federal and emergency food assistance is substantially higher than the percentage who used these programs before the pandemic. Respondents also provided further evidence that the pandemic impacted their food environment; 85.5% indicated that it altered their food access.

Church pantries, food pantries, and food banks were the most often used emergency food assistance organizations or services; about 68.4% of the sample used this program the year before the survey. Over half of the sample used emergency food assistance for meal delivery services (52.9%) or visited soup kitchens or shelters for emergency food (52.0%). Another 45.8% of the respondents visited programs and senior centers to obtain prepared meals.

4.3. Bivariate Analyses of the Dependent and Independent Variables

4.3.1. Ancestry

Ancestry had significant relationships with four dependent variables (

Table 2. The Relationship Between Ancestry and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Cuba		Nicaragua		Other		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	645	100.0	273	100.0	213	100.0	159	100.0	7.879	2	0.019 *
Yes	424	65.7	177	64.8	154	72.3	93	58.5
No	221	34.3	96	35.2	59	27.7	66	41.5
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	621	100.0	263	100.0	207	100.0	151	100.0	11.592	2	0.003 **
Yes	355	57.2	136	51.7	138	66.7	81	53.6
No	266	42.8	127	48.3	69	33.3	70	46.4
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	644	100.0	273	100.0	212	100.0	159	100.0	0.014	2	0.993
Yes	509	79.0	216	79.1	167	78.8	123	77.4
No	135	21.0	57	20.9	45	21.2	33	20.8
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	624	100.0	262	100.0	212	100.0	150	100.0	8.117	2	0.017 *
Yes	498	79.8	215	82.1	156	73.6	127	84.7
No	126	20.2	47	17.9	56	26.4	23	15.3
COVID altered food access	626	100.0	263	100.0	209	100.0	154	100.0	0.411	2	0.814
Yes	535	85.5	226	85.9	176	84.2	133	86.4
No	91	14.5	37	14.1	33	15.8	21	13.6
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	630	100.0	269	100.0	203	100.0	158	100.0	0.262	2	0.877
Yes	333	52.9	142	52.8	105	51.7	86	54.4
No	297	47.1	127	47.2	98	48.3	72	45.6
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	625	100.0	267	100.0	200	100.0	158	100.0	0.920	2	0.631
Yes	286	45.8	125	46.8	86	43.0	75	47.5
No	339	54.2	142	53.2	114	57.0	83	52.5
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	636	100.0	268	100.0	210	100.0	158	100.0	12.803	2	0.002 **
Yes	435	68.4	194	72.4	124	59.0	117	74.1
No	201	31.6	74	27.6	86	41.0	41	25.9
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	637	100.0	267	100.0	212	100.0	158	100.0	4.095	2	0.129
Yes	331	52.0	142	53.2	99	46.7	90	57.0
No	306	48.0	125	46.8	113	53.3	68	43.0

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01.

). Nicaraguans were more likely than Cubans and people of other ancestries to use federal food assistance programs before COVID-19. While 72.3% of people of Nicaraguan ancestry used federal food assistance before COVID-19, roughly 65% of Cubans and others in the sample did. These differences were significant (X² = 7.879, df = 2, p = 0.019). The results were similar for the use of emergency food assistance. About two-thirds of the people of Nicaraguan ancestry used emergency food assistance before COVID-19. In comparison, over half of Cubans and other respondents did likewise (X² = 11.592, df = 2, p = 0.003).

Seventy-nine percent of the sample reported needing federal food assistance before COVID-19; however, a slightly higher percentage reported needing emergency food assistance. Hence, 82.1% of Cubans and 84.7% of other residents required emergency food assistance. A lower rate of Nicaraguans (73.6%) also said they needed emergency food assistance during COVID-19 (X² = 8.117, df = 2, p = 0.017). Nicaraguans (59%) were less likely than Cubans (72.4%) and others (74.1%) to have visited a church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the 12 months before being surveyed (X² = 12.803, df = 2, p = 0.002).

4.3.2. Income

In the bivariate analyses, income significantly affected all 10 dependent variables. The higher the respondent’s household income was, the lower the chances the respondent used federal food assistance programs were (

Table 3. The Relationship Between Household Income and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		$0–$49,999		$50,000–$99,999		$100,000 or more		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	500	100.0	293	100.0	139	100.0	68	100.0	56.911	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	327	65.4	212	72.4	98	70.5	17	25.0
No	173	34.6	81	27.6	41	29.5	51	75.0
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	481	100.0	285	100.0	129	100.0	67	100.0	39.812	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	259	53.8	177	62.1	69	53.5	13	19.4
No	222	46.2	108	37.9	60	46.5	54	80.6
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	499	100.0	292	100.0	139	100.0	68	100.0	75.067	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	403	80.8	258	88.4	116	83.5	29	42.6
No	96	19.2	34	11.6	23	16.5	39	57.4
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	479	100.0	283	100.0	129	100.0	67	100.0	103.490	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	405	84.6	263	92.9	113	87.6	29	43.3
No	74	15.4	20	7.1	16	12.4	38	56.7
COVID altered food access	483	100.0	285	100.0	131	100.0	67	100.0	64.710	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	421	87.2	264	92.6	119	90.8	38	56.7
No	62	12.8	21	7.4	12	9.2	29	43.3
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	495	100.0	291	100.0	137	100.0	67	100.0	30.057	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	269	54.3	177	60.8	76	55.5	16	23.9
No	226	45.7	114	39.2	61	44.5	51	76.1
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	492	100.0	288	100.0	137	100.0	67	100.0	30.066	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	233	47.4	153	53.1	69	50.4	11	16.4
No	259	52.6	135	46.9	68	49.6	56	83.6
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	494	100.0	290	100.0	137	100.0	67	100.0	62.288	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	364	73.7	229	79.0	112	81.8	23.0	34.3
No	130	26.3	61	21.0	25	18.2	44.0	65.7
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	494	100.0	290	100.0	137	100.0	67	100.0	40.560	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	272	55.1	180	62.1	79	57.7	13	19.4
No	222	44.9	110	37.9	58	42.3	54	80.6

Significance levels (p values): *** α = <0.001.

). The data show that more than 70% of the respondents with household incomes of under USD 100,000 used federal food assistance programs before COVID-19, and only one-fourth of those with incomes of USD 100,000 or more used such programs (X² = 56.911, df = 2, p = <0.001).

As income increased, the likelihood of using emergency food assistance before COVID-19 decreased dramatically. Thus, 62.1% of the respondents with household incomes of under USD 50,000 and 53.5% of those with incomes of USD 50,000–USD 90,000 used emergency food assistance before COVID-19. However, only 19.4% of the respondents with a household income of USD 100,000 or more used emergency food assistance in the past year (X² = 39.812, df = 2, p = <0.001).

The results of the remaining bivariate analyses follow the same pattern. Respondents living in households with incomes of USD 100,000 had vastly different engagement with emergency food assistance programs than those whose income falls below USD 100,000. When respondents lived in households with incomes of USD 100,000 or more, they were far less likely to use food assistance programs or say that COVID-19 altered their food needs and access than the other respondents.

4.3.3. Educational Background

There was a strong relationship between educational attainment and the use of food assistance programs (

Table 4. The Relationship Between Educational Attainment and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Some High School or Less		High School Diploma or GED		Associates Degree or Some College or Less		Bachelors or Graduate Degree		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	643	100.0	101	100.0	135	100.0	274	100.0	133	100.0	19.286	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	424	65.9	75	74.3	95	70.4	187	68.2	67	50.4
No	219	34.1	26	25.7	40	29.6	87	31.8	66	49.6
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	619	100.0	97	100.0	127	100.0	266	100.0	129	100.0	27.324	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	354	57.2	72	74.2	71	55.9	159	59.8	52	40.3
No	265	42.8	25	25.8	56	44.1	107	40.2	77	59.7
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	642	100.0	99	100.0	135	100.0	275	100.0	133	100.0	30.034	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	507	79.0	81	81.8	102	75.6	239	86.9	85	63.9
No	135	21.0	18	18.2	33	24.4	36	13.1	48	36.1
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	622	100.0	97	100.0	129	100.0	267	100.0	129	100.0	27.277	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	496	79.7	70	72.2	86	66.7	233	87.3	86	66.7
No	126	20.3	27	27.8	43	33.3	34	12.7	43	33.3
COVID altered food access	624	100.0	96	100.0	129	100.0	270	100.0	129	100.0	22.038	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	533	85.4	77	80.2	116	89.9	244	90.4	96	74.4
No	91	14.6	19	19.8	13	10.1	26	9.6	33	25.6
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	628	100.0	92	100.0	131	100.0	274	100.0	131	100.0	14.067	3	0.003 **
Yes	332	52.9	45	48.9	77	58.8	158	57.7	52	39.7
No	296	47.1	47	51.1	54	41.2	116	42.3	79	60.3
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	623	100.0	91	100.0	130	100.0	271	100.0	131	100.0	15.888	3	0.001 **
Yes	286	45.9	40	44.0	65	50.0	140	51.7	41	31.3
No	337	54.1	51	56.0	65	50.0	131	48.3	90	68.7
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	634	100.0	100	100.0	129	100.0	273	100.0	132	100.0	15.939	3	0.001 **
Yes	434	68.5	56	56.0	90	69.8	206	75.5	82	62.1
No	200	31.5	44	44.0	39	30.2	67	24.5	50	37.9
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	635	100.0	100	100.0	131	100.0	272	100.0	132	100.0	24.793	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	330	52.0	46	46.0	71	54.2	166	61.0	47	35.6
No	305	48.0	54	54.0	60	45.8	106	39.0	85	64.4

Significance levels (p values): ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

). Respondents with bachelor’s or graduate degrees were less likely than other respondents to use food assistance programs. In all but one instance, study participants with a bachelor’s or graduate degree had the lowest participation rate in food assistance programs.

About 74% of the study participants with less than a high school diploma used federal and emergency food assistance programs before COVID-19. In contrast, about half the college graduates participated in federal food assistance programs, and 40.3% participated in emergency food assistance programs before the pandemic. However, respondents with an associate degree or some college education were most likely to say the pandemic altered their federal food assistance needs. Almost 87% agreed with the statement; 81.8% of those with less than a high school diploma also reported that this was the case with them (X² = 30.034, df = 2, p = <0.001). Respondents with some college education or an associate degree were also most likely to report that the pandemic altered their emergency food assistance needs; 87.3% felt this way (X² = 27.227, df = 2, p = <0.001). Roughly 90% of the respondents with some college/associate degree and those with a high school diploma indicated that COVID-19 altered their food access. In comparison, 74.4% of the participants with a bachelor’s or graduate degree felt likewise (X² = 22.038, df = 2, p = <0.001).

About 58% of the respondents with high school diplomas and those with some college or associate degree said they used emergency assistance meal delivery services. This compares to 48.9% of the respondents with less than a high school diploma and 39.7% of the participants with college and graduate degrees (X² = 14.067, df = 2, p = 0.003). While about half of the individuals with a high school diploma and those with some college or associate degree visited senior centers for prepared meals, only 31.3% of those with a college or graduate degree made such visits (X² = 15.888, df = 2, p = 0.001).

Residents with less than a high school diploma were least likely to visit a church pantry, food pantry, or food bank; 56% reported this. More than three-quarters of those with some college or associate degree visited pantries and food banks (X² = 15.939, df = 2, p = 0.001). While 61.0% of the respondents with some college or associate degree also visited soup kitchens, only 35.6% of those with college or graduate degrees sought food from these venues (X² = 24.793, df = 2, p = <0.001).

4.3.4. Living in Households with Children

When federal food assistance use before COVID-19 was considered, there was a significant difference between study participants who lived in households with children and those who did not (X² = 9.450, df = 1, p = 0.002). Respondents who lived in households with children (58.0%) were slightly more likely than those with no children (52.9%) to use federal food assistance programs. That is, 68.5% of the respondents who lived with children and 54.0% who did not said they used emergency food assistance programs before the pandemic—the difference between these two groups was insignificant (

Table 5. The Relationship Between Children in the Household and the Using Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Children in the Household		No Children in the Household		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	616	100.0	495	100.0	121	100.0	9.450	1	0.002 **
Yes	351	57.0	287	58.0	64	52.9
No	265	43.0	208	42.0	57	47.1
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	640	100.0	514	100.0	126	100.0	1.027	1	0.311
Yes	420	65.6	352	68.5	68	54.0
No	220	34.4	162	31.5	58	46.0
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	639	100.0	514	100.0	125	100.0	31.161	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	505	79.0	429	83.5	76	60.8
No	134	21.0	85	16.5	49	39.2
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	619	100.0	497	100.0	122	100.0	50.961	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	494	79.8	425	85.5	69	56.6
No	125	20.2	72	14.5	53	43.4
COVID altered food access	621	100.0	501	100.0	120	100.0	14.864	1	0.001 **
Yes	530	85.3	441	88.0	89	74.2
No	91	14.7	60	12.0	31	25.8
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	625	100.0	505	100.0	120	100.0	10.013	1	0.002 **
Yes	331	53.0	283	56.0	48	40.0
No	294	47.0	222	44.0	72	60.0
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	620	100.0	502	100.0	118	100.0	5.150	1	0.023 *
Yes	284	45.8	241	48.0	43	36.4
No	336	54.2	261	52.0	75	63.6
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	631	100.0	508	100.0	123	100.0	9.731	1	0.002 **
Yes	433	68.6	363	71.5	70	56.9
No	198	31.4	145	28.5	53	43.1
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	632	100.0	511	100.0	121	100.0	14.768	1	0.001 **
Yes	329	52.1	285	55.8	44	36.4
No	303	47.9	226	44.2	77	63.6

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

).

Individuals living in households with children were far more likely to say that their household needed federal food assistance because of the pandemic than those with no children in their households. Thus, 83.5% of the former and 60.8% of the latter felt this way (X² = 31,161, df = 1, p = <0.001). The distribution was similar when households needing emergency food assistance because of the pandemic were considered; 85.5% of respondents in households with children and 56.6% of those living without felt their household’s need for emergency food assistance programs were altered by the pandemic (X² = 50.961, df = 1, p = <0.001).

There was a significant difference between the percentage of respondents living in households with children who felt that the pandemic altered their overall food access and those who lived in households with no children. Hence, 88.0% of the households with children and 74.2% without children felt COVID-19 altered their household’s food access (X² = 14.864, df = 1, p = 0.001).

Table 5 also shows that study participants who lived in households that had children were significantly more likely to use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services (X² = 10.013, df = 1, p = 0.002), visiting programs and senior centers for prepared meals (X² = 5.150, df = 1, p = 0.023), obtaining food from church pantries, food pantries, or food banks (X² = 9.731, df = 1, p = 0.002), and visiting soup kitchens or shelters (X² = 14.768, df = 1, p = 0.001).

4.3.5. Parental Status

The study also examined how parental status was related to the use of food assistance programs (

Table 6. The Relationship Between Having Children and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Have Children		No Children		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	621	100.0	452	100.0	169	100.0	0.120	1	0.911
Yes	355	57.2	259	57.3	96	56.8
No	266	42.8	193	42.7	73	43.2
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	645	100.0	467	100.0	178	100.0	8.831	1	0.003 **
Yes	467	72.4	323	69.2	101	56.7
No	178	27.6	144	30.8	77	43.3
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	644	100.0	466	100.0	178	100.0	35.920	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	466	72.4	396	85.0	113	63.5
No	178	27.6	70	15.0	65	36.5
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	624	100.0	453	100.0	171	100.0	35.027	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	453	72.6	388	85.7	110	64.3
No	171	27.4	65	14.3	61	35.7
COVID altered food access	626	100.0	456	100.0	170	100.0	11.476	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	456	72.8	403	88.4	132	77.6
No	170	27.2	53	11.6	38	22.4
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	630	100.0	454	100.0	176	100.0	1.150	1	0.284
Yes	333	52.9	246	54.2	87	49.4
No	297	47.1	208	45.8	89	50.6
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	625	100.0	450	100.0	175	100.0	5.471	1	0.019 *
Yes	286	45.8	219	48.7	67	38.3
No	339	54.2	231	51.3	108	61.7
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	636	100.0	459	100.0	177	100.0	17.626	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	435	68.4	336	73.2	99	55.9
No	201	31.6	123	26.8	78	44.1
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	637	100.0	459	100.0	178	100.0	6.561	1	0.010 **
Yes	331	52.0	253	55.1	78	43.8
No	306	48.0	206	44.9	100	56.2

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

). The percentage of respondents with and without children who used federal food assistance programs before the pandemic were virtually identical; the difference was insignificant. The chi-square test found that respondents with children were significantly more likely than those without to have used emergency food assistance programs before COVID-19. Hence, 69.2% of respondents with children and 56.7% without children used federal food assistance programs before the pandemic (X² = 8.831, df = 1, p = 0.003).

However, when it came to the question of needing federal food assistance or emergency food assistance during the pandemic, the results were very significant in both instances. The data showed that 85.0% of study participants who had children needed federal food assistance because of COVID-19; in contrast, 63.5% of the respondents who did not have children needed this type of assistance (X² = 35.920, df = 1, p = <0.001). Similarly, 85.7% of the respondents had children, and 64.3% who were childless said their household needed emergency food assistance because of the pandemic (X² = 35.027, df = 1, p = <0.001).

Overwhelmingly, individuals with children felt that COVID-19 altered their food access—88.4% felt this way. In comparison, 77.6% of the respondents who did not have children felt the same way (X² = 11.476, df = 1, p = <0.001).

Respondents with children were more likely to use the four types of emergency food assistance programs studied than individuals who did not have children. While the difference in the use of meal delivery services was insignificant, there were significant differences in visits to senior centers for prepared meals (X² = 5.471, df = 1, p = 0.019), obtaining foods from pantries and food banks (X² = 17.626, df = 1, p = <0.001), and visits to soup kitchens and shelters (X² = 6.561, df = 1, p = 0.010).

4.3.6. Household Type

Four household types were studied: single parent, two parents, multifamily, and living alone or with roommates. The study found that multifamily households had the highest use of federal and emergency assistance programs and were most vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19. Those living in single-parent households tended to be the second most frequent users of emergency food assistance programs. The respondents who used food assistance programs the least were those residing in single-person households or households with roommates (

Table 7. The Relationship Between Household Type and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Single Parent		Two Parent		Multifamily		Living Alone or with Roomates		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	618	100.0	80	100.0	178	100.0	295	100.0	65	100.0	0.893	3	0.827
Yes	354	57.3	49	61.3	98	55.1	170	57.6	37	56.9
No	264	42.7	31	38.8	80	44.9	125	42.4	28	43.1
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	642	100.0	88	100.0	182	100.0	306	100.0	66	100.0	6.199	3	0.102
Yes	422	65.7	55	62.5	111	61.0	216	70.6	40	60.6
No	220	34.3	33	37.5	71	39.0	90	29.4	26	39.4
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	641	100.0	88	100.0	183	100.0	305	100.0	65	100.0	10.719	3	0.013 *
Yes	507	79.1	67	76.1	138	75.4	257	84.3	45	69.2
No	134	20.9	21	23.9	45	24.6	48	15.7	20	30.8
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	621	100.0	81	100.0	179	100.0	297	100.0	64	100.0	11.300	3	0.010 **
Yes	496	79.9	65	80.2	140	78.2	249	83.8	42	65.6
No	125	20.1	16	19.8	39	21.8	48	16.2	22	34.4
COVID altered food access	624	100.0	82	100.0	179	100.0	298	100.0	65	100.0	14.893	3	0.002 **
Yes	533	85.4	72	87.8	150	83.8	265	88.9	46	70.8
No	91	14.6	10	12.2	29	16.2	33	11.1	19	29.2
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	627	100.0	83	100.0	181	100.0	298	100.0	65	100.0	28.878	3	<0.001 ***
Yes	331	52.8	29	34.9	82	45.3	189	63.4	31	47.7
No	296	47.2	54	65.1	99	54.7	109	36.6	34	52.3
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	623	100.0	85	100.0	180	100.0	296	100.0	62	100.0	8.529	3	0.036 *
Yes	285	45.7	37	43.5	68	37.8	152	51.4	28	45.2
No	338	54.3	48	56.5	112	62.2	144	48.6	34	54.8
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	633	100.0	86	100.0	179	100.0	303	100.0	65	100.0	10.842	3	0.013 *
Yes	432	68.2	56	65.1	116	64.8	224	73.9	36	55.4
No	201	31.8	30	34.9	63	35.2	79	26.1	29	44.6
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	634	100.0	86	100.0	181	100.0	301	100.0	66	100.0	11.087	3	0.011 **
Yes	329	51.9	39	45.3	84	46.4	177	58.8	29	43.9
No	305	48.1	47	54.7	97	53.6	124	41.2	37	56.1

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

). The differences in the household types in the use of federal food assistance before COVID-19 were insignificant. There were also differences between household types in their use of emergency food assistance programs pre-pandemic.

Multifamily households were significantly more likely than others to say they needed federal food assistance during the pandemic. While 84.3% of the respondents in multifamily households said their household needed federal food assistance and 83.8% indicated that they needed emergency food assistance because of the pandemic, roughly three-quarters of the respondents in single- and two-parent households, as well as 69.2% of the individuals living alone or with roommates, indicated that they needed federal food assistance because of COVID-19 (X² = 10.719, df = 1, p = 0.013).

Over 80% of the study participants in multifamily and single-parent households reported that their households needed emergency food assistance because of the pandemic. In contrast, two-thirds of those living alone or with roommates made similar reports (X² = 11.300, df = 1, p = 0.010). About 89% of the respondents residing in multifamily households and 87.8% living in single-parent households said the pandemic altered their household’s food access. In contrast, 70.8% of the study participants living alone or with roommates said likewise (X² = 14.893, df = 1, p = 0.002).

Respondents in multifamily households (63.4%) were the most likely, and those who lived in single-parent households (34.9%) were the least likely to use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services (X² = 28.878, df = 1, p = <0.001). More than half of the respondents living in multifamily households received prepared food from senior centers, while only 37.8% of the respondents in two-parent households did likewise (X² = 8.529, df = 1, p = 0.036). Approximately 65% of the study participants in single- and two-parent households visited pantries and food banks, and 73.9% from multifamily households visited these venues for emergency food (X² = 10.842, df = 1, p = 0.013). A much higher percentage of respondents from multifamily households also visited soup kitchens and shelters for emergency food; 58.8% did. In contrast, less than 47% of the other respondents made such visits (X² = 11.087, df = 1, p = 0.011).

4.3.7. U.S.- and Non-U.S. Born

A higher percentage of individuals born in the United States used emergency food assistance programs before the pandemic than those born in another country; 67.3% of U.S.-born and 60.1% of respondents born outside of the U.S. used these programs (

Table 8. The Relationship Between Country of Birth and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Born in the United States		Born Outside of the United States		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	621	100.0	489	100.0	132	100.0	1.206	1	0.272
Yes	355	57.2	274	56.0	81	61.4
No	266	42.8	215	44.0	51	38.6
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	645	100.0	507	100.0	138	100.0	2.437	1	0.119
Yes	424	65.7	341	67.3	83	60.1
No	221	34.3	166	32.7	55	39.9
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	644	100.0	506	100.0	138	100.0	20.246	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	506	78.6	419	82.8	90	65.2
No	138	21.4	87	17.2	48	34.8
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	624	100.0	490	100.0	134	100.0	42.808	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	498	79.8	418	85.3	80	59.7
No	126	20.2	72	14.7	54	40.3
COVID altered food access	626	100.0	492	100.0	134	100.0	5.549	1	0.018 *
Yes	535	85.5	429	87.2	106	79.1
No	91	14.5	63	12.8	28	20.9
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	630	100.0	495	100.0	135	100.0	37.201	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	333	52.9	293	59.2	40	29.6
No	297	47.1	202	40.8	95	70.4
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	625	100.0	495	100.0	130	100.0	43.884	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	286	45.8	260	52.5	26	20.0
No	339	54.2	235	47.5	104	80.0
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	636	100.0	498	100.0	138	100.0	47.723	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	435	68.4	374	75.1	61	44.2
No	201	31.6	124	24.9	77	55.8
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	637	100.0	500	100.0	137	100.0	48.788	1	<0.001 ***
Yes	331	52.0	296	59.2	35	25.5
No	306	48.0	204	40.8	102	74.5

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, *** α = <0.001.

). The difference was insignificant. However, foreign-born respondents (61.4%) were slightly more likely than U.S.-born respondents (56.0%) to use federal food assistance programs before the pandemic. The difference was also insignificant.

However, U.S.-born respondents were significantly more likely to say their household needed federal food assistance during the pandemic—82.8% of U.S.-born and 65.2% of individuals born outside of the U.S. indicated this was the case (X² = 20.246, df = 1, p = <0.001). The difference between the groups was even more stark when the need for emergency food assistance during the pandemic was examined. Thus, 85.3% of U.S.-born respondents and 59.7% of individuals born in other countries said their households needed emergency food assistance because of the pandemic (X² = 42.808, df = 1, p = <0.001).

A high percentage of both groups report that COVID-19 altered their food access. More specifically, 87.2% of U.S.-born and 79.1% of foreign-born respondents said this. The difference was significant (X² = 5.549, df = 1, p = <0.018).

A low percentage of foreign-born respondents used four types of emergency services studied. This made the differences between the U.S.-born and foreign-born respondents very significant. While 59.2% of the U.S.-born respondents used emergency food assistance for meal delivery services, only 29.6% of the respondents born outside of the U.S. used this program (X² = 37.201, df = 1, p = <0.001). More than half (52.5%) of the U.S.-born study participants and one-fifth of the foreign-born participants visited senior centers to obtain prepared meals (X² = 43.884, df = 1, p = <0.001). While three-quarters of the U.S.-born respondents said they received food from church pantries, food pantries, and food banks, 44.2% of individuals born outside of the U.S. secured food this way (X² = 47.723, df = 1, p = <0.001). The data showed that 59.2% of the U.S.-born study participants visited soup kitchens and shelters for emergency food. In comparison, only 25.5% of respondents born outside of the U.S. visited these venues to obtain emergency food (X² = 48.788, df = 1, p = <0.001).

4.3.8. Languages Spoken in the Household

Respondents who spoke a combination of languages were much more likely than those who spoke only English or Spanish to say they used federal food assistance programs before the pandemic (

Table 9. The Relationship Between Languages Spoken at Home and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		English Only		Spanish Only		Languages other than English or Spanish Only		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	637	100.0	302	100.0	223	100.0	112	100.0	7.645	2	0.022 *
Yes	418	65.6	189	62.6	143	64.1	86	76.8
No	219	34.4	113	37.4	80	35.9	26	23.2
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	613	100.0	286	100.0	218	100.0	109	100.0	6.798	2	0.033 *
Yes	349	56.9	153	53.5	122	56.0	74	67.9
No	264	43.1	133	46.5	96	44.0	35	32.1
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	636	100.0	302	100.0	222	100.0	112	100.0	8.296	2	0.016 *
Yes	502	78.9	253	83.8	164	73.9	85	75.9
No	134	21.1	49	16.2	58	26.1	27	24.1
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	616	100.0	286	100.0	218	100.0	112	100.0	23.407	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	490	79.5	251	87.8	154	70.6	85	75.9
No	126	20.5	35	12.2	64	29.4	27	24.1
COVID altered food access	618	100.0	289	100.0	217	100.0	112	100.0	7.853	2	0.020 *
Yes	528	85.4	259	89.6	176	81.1	93	83.0
No	90	14.6	30	10.4	41	18.9	19	17.0
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	622	100.0	299	100.0	214	100.0	109	100.0	11.547	2	0.003 **
Yes	329	52.9	178	59.5	105	49.1	46	42.2
No	293	47.1	121	40.5	109	50.9	63	57.8
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	617	100.0	299	100.0	208	100.0	110	100.0	15.788	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	281	45.5	159	53.2	86	41.3	36	32.7
No	336	54.5	140	46.8	122	58.7	74	67.3
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	628	100.0	297	100.0	219	100.0	112	100.0	17.438	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	430	68.5	226	76.1	141	64.4	63	56.3
No	198	31.5	71	23.9	78	35.6	49	43.8
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	629	100.0	296	100.0	221	100.0	112	100.0	15.486	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	326	51.8	178	60.1	99	44.8	49	43.8
No	303	48.2	118	39.9	122	55.2	63	56.3

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

). While 62.6% of the English-only speakers and 64.1% of the Spanish-only speakers used federal food assistance programs, 76.8% of other respondents did likewise (X² = 7.645, df = 2, p = 0.022). Similarly, English-only (53.5%) and Spanish-only speakers (56.0%) were more likely to use emergency food assistance programs before the pandemic than speakers of other languages (67.9%) (X² = 6.798, df = 2, p = 0.033).

However, English-only speakers were much more likely than the other respondents to say that their households needed federal food assistance because of COVID-19 (83.8%) and that their households needed emergency food assistance because of the pandemic (87.8%). Most English-only speakers (89.6%) said COVID-19 altered their food access. In comparison, 81.1% of Spanish-only and 83.0% of other language speakers said likewise (X² = 7.853, df = 2, p = 0.020). English-only speakers were most likely to use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services; 59.5% did this. Less half of the remaining respondents used this service (X² = 11.547, df = 2, p = 0.003).

Only one-third of other language speakers visited programs and senior centers for prepared meals. However, over half of English-only speakers used this food acquisition strategy (X² = 15.788, df = 2, p = <0.001). Just over three-quarters of English-only speakers, 64.4% of Spanish-only speakers, and 56.3% of other language speakers went to pantries and food banks for food (X² = 17.438, df = 2, p = <0.001). Roughly 60% of the English-only speakers visited soup kitchens and shelters. In contrast, about 44% of the remaining study participants visited such food venues (X² = 15.486, df = 2, p = <0.001).

4.3.9. Employment Status

The data revealed that a slightly higher percentage of full-time workers said they used federal food assistance programs before the pandemic than any other group in the sample (

Table 10. The Relationship Between Employment Status and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Full Time		Part Time		Unemployed		Homemaker		Student		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	618	100.0	315	100.0	114	100.0	95	100.0	61	100.0	33	100.0	8.870	4	0.064
Yes	353	57.1	180	57.1	73	64.0	58	61.1	28	45.9	14	42.4
No	265	42.9	135	42.9	41	36.0	37	38.9	33	54.1	19	57.6
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	642	100.0	327	100.0	121	100.0	98	100.0	62	100.0	34	100.0	2.618	4	0.624
Yes	423	65.9	222	67.9	76	62.8	65	66.3	41	66.1	19	55.9
No	219	34.1	105	32.1	45	37.2	33	33.7	21	33.9	15	44.1
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	641	100.0	325	100.0	121	100.0	99	100.0	62	100.0	34	100.0	24.036	4	<0.001 ***
Yes	506	78.9	258	79.4	99	81.8	87	87.9	45	72.6	17	50.0
No	135	21.1	67	20.6	22	18.2	12	12.1	17	27.4	17	50.0
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	621	100.0	315	100.0	115	100.0	97	100.0	61	100.0	33	100.0	11.714	4	0.020 *
Yes	496	79.9	249	79.0	96	83.5	84	86.6	47	77.0	20	60.6
No	125	20.1	66	21.0	19	16.5	13	13.4	14	23.0	13	39.4
COVID altered food access	623	100.0	317	100.0	116	100.0	96	100.0	61	100.0	33	100.0	20.147	4	<0.001 ***
Yes	532	85.4	267	84.2	99	85.3	91	94.8	54	88.5	21	63.6
No	91	14.6	50	15.8	17	14.7	5	5.2	7	11.5	12	36.4
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	627	100.0	313	100.0	119	100.0	99	100.0	62	100.0	34	100.0	17.796	4	0.001 **
Yes	332	53.0	165	52.7	67	56.3	65	65.7	24	38.7	11	32.4
No	295	47.0	148	47.3	52	43.7	34	34.3	38	61.3	23	67.6
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	622	100.0	315	100.0	118	100.0	94	100.0	61	100.0	34	100.0	16.022	4	0.003 **
Yes	285	45.8	141	44.8	57	48.3	56	59.6	23	37.7	8	23.5
No	337	54.2	174	55.2	61	51.7	38	40.4	38	62.3	26	76.5
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	633	100.0	320	100.0	119	100.0	99	100.0	62	100.0	33	100.0	17.015	4	0.002 **
Yes	434	68.6	220	68.8	84	70.6	78	78.8	38	61.3	14	42.4
No	199	31.4	100	31.3	35	29.4	21	21.2	24	38.7	19	57.6
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	634	100.0	322	100.0	120	100.0	97	100.0	62	100.0	33	100.0	23.988	4	<0.001 ***
Yes	329	51.9	157	48.8	69	57.5	67	69.1	27	43.5	9	27.3
No	305	48.1	165	51.2	51	42.5	30	30.9	35	56.5	24	72.7

Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

). So, 67.9% of full-time and 62.8% of part-time workers also used federal assistance programs. Two-thirds of unemployed respondents and homemakers also used federal food assistance programs before the pandemic. Though students were the least likely to report using these programs, 55.9% used the federal food assistance programs. The differences in the percentages were insignificant. The differences in the use of emergency food programs among the five groups studied were also insignificant.

Unemployed respondents were the most likely to report that their household needed federal food assistance because of the pandemic; 87.9% did. In comparison, half of the students reported needing federal food assistance because of COVID-19 (X² = 24.036, df = 4, p = <0.001). Similarly, unemployed respondents (86.6%) were the most likely, and students (60.6%) were the least likely to say that their households needed emergency food assistance because of the pandemic (X² = 11.714, df = 4, p = 0.020).

Almost all the unemployed respondents (94.8%) said the pandemic altered their food access. At the other end of the spectrum, 63.6% of the students said this was the case for them (X² = 20.147, df = 4, p = <0.001). Two-thirds of the unemployed respondents said they used emergency food assistance for meal delivery services, while 32.4% of students used these services (X² = 17.796, df = 4, p = 0.001).

Roughly 60% of the unemployed respondents visited programs and senior centers to obtain prepared meals. This is uncommon among students; 23.5% used this strategy to acquire food (X² = 16.022, df = 4, p = 0.003). Unemployed respondents (78.8%) and those employed part-time (70.6%) were the two groups most likely to visit pantries and food banks for food. Students (42.4%) were the least likely to obtain food from these venues (X² = 17.015, df = 4, p = 0.002). Unemployed respondents were also most likely to say they went to soup kitchens and shelters to obtain emergency food; 69.1% reported this. More than half of those employed part-time also went to soup kitchens and shelters, as did 27.3% of students (X² = 23.988, df = 4, p = <0.001).

4.3.10. Age

The youngest respondents were the most likely and the oldest least likely to report that they used federal food assistance programs before the pandemic (

Table 11. The Relationship Between Age and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		18–29 Years Old		30–39 Years Old		40 Years or Older		X2	df	Significance (p value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	604	100.0	246	100.0	228	100.0	130	100.0	12.864	2	0.002 **
Yes	347	57.5	157	63.8	132	57.9	58	44.6
No	257	42.5	89	36.2	96	42.1	72	55.4
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	628	100.0	255	100.0	236	100.0	137	100.0	18.853	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	417	66.4	172	67.5	174	73.7	71	51.8
No	211	33.6	83	32.5	62	26.3	66	48.2
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	627	100.0	256	100.0	234	100.0	137	100.0	22.936	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	501	79.9	196	76.6	209	89.3	96	70.1
No	126	20.1	60	23.4	25	10.7	41	29.9
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	607	100.0	248	100.0	230	100.0	129	100.0	26.675	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	488	80.4	187	75.4	209	90.9	92	71.3
No	119	19.6	61	24.6	21	9.1	37	28.7
COVID altered food access	609	100.0	246	100.0	232	100.0	131	100.0	11.813	2	0.003 **
Yes	525	86.2	208	84.6	213	91.8	104	79.4
No	84	13.8	38	15.4	19	8.2	27	20.6
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	613	100.0	246	100.0	234	100.0	133	100.0	26.181	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	327	53.3	147	59.8	135	57.7	45	33.8
No	286	46.7	99	40.2	99	42.3	88	66.2
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	609	100.0	247	100.0	232	100.0	130	100.0	23.716	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	281	46.1	132	53.4	113	48.7	36	27.7
No	328	53.9	115	46.6	119	51.3	94	72.3
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	619	100.0	251	100.0	233	100.0	135	100.0	18.656	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	426	68.8	169	67.3	181	77.7	76	56.3
No	193	31.2	82	32.7	52	22.3	59	43.7
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	620	100.0	252	100.0	234	100.0	134	100.0	25.200	2	<0.001 ***
Yes	326	52.6	142	56.3	139	59.4	45	33.6
No	294	47.4	110	43.7	95	40.6	89	66.4

Significance levels (p values): ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

). Thus, 63.8% of 18–29-year-olds, 57.9% of 30–39-year-olds, and 44.6% of those 40 years and older used such programs. These differences are significant (X² = 12.864, df = 2, p = 0.002).Even more significant are the differences in the percentage of respondents who used emergency food assistance programs before COVID-19. The 30–39-year-olds were the most likely users; 73.7% used these programs. Over two-thirds of the youngest and just half of the oldest respondents used emergency food assistance programs in pre-pandemic times (X² = 18.853, df = 2, p = <0.001).

Roughly 89% of the 30–39-year-olds indicated that their households needed federal food assistance, and 90.9% said they needed emergency food assistance before the pandemic. In comparison, 70.1% of respondents who were 40 years or older needed federal food assistance before the pandemic, and 71.3% required emergency food assistance before COVID-19. The 30–39-year-olds were the most likely to say that the pandemic altered their food access; 91.8% indicated this was the case. This can be compared to 84.6% of the youngest and 79.4% of the oldest respondents who claimed COVID-19 altered their food access (X² = 11.813, df = 2, p = 0.003).

One-third of the respondents who were 40 years and older used emergency food assistance for meal delivery services. However, more than half of the remaining respondents used this type of service (X² = 26.181, df = 2, p = <0.001). The oldest respondents were also the least likely to visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals, while the youngest used this food acquisition strategy the most. Hence, 27.7% of the former and 53.4% of the latter group used this approach to obtain food (X² = 23.716, df = 2, p = <0.001).

Though more than half of the oldest respondents used pantries and food banks, they were the least likely to obtain food from these venues. Similarly, the oldest respondents were the least likely to use soup kitchens and shelters. One-third of them received food from these places; however, more than half of the remaining respondents visited soup kitchens and food pantries (X² = 25.200, df = 2, p = <0.001).

4.3.11. Gender

No significant relationships existed between gender and any of the dependent variables (

Table 12. The Relationship Between Gender and the Use of Food Assistance Programs in Hialeah, Florida.

Experiences with Food Assistance Programs	Total Sample		Woman		Man		X2	df	Significance (p Value)
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Used federal food assistance programs prior to COVID	640	100.0	431	100.0	209	100.0	1.327	1	0.249
Yes	421	65.8	290	67.3	131	62.7
No	219	34.2	141	32.7	78	37.3
Used emergency food assistance programs prior to COVID	616	100.0	415	100.0	201	100.0	2.192	1	0.139
Yes	351	57.0	245	59.0	106	52.7
No	265	43.0	170	41.0	95	47.3
Household needed federal food assistance because of COVID	639	100.0	431	100.0	208	100.0	0.006	1	0.937
Yes	505	79.0	341	79.1	164	78.8
No	134	21.0	90	20.9	44	21.2
Household needed emergency food assistance because of COVID	619	100.0	418	100.0	201	100.0	2.633	1	0.105
Yes	494	79.8	326	78.0	168	83.6
No	125	20.2	92	22.0	33	16.4
COVID altered food access	621	100.0	420	100.0	201	100.0	0.702	1	0.402
Yes	530	85.3	355	84.5	175	87.1
No	91	14.7	65	15.5	26	12.9
Use emergency food assistance for meal delivery services in the past 30 days	625	100.0	417	100.0	208	100.0	0.877	1	0.349
Yes	329	52.6	214	51.3	115	55.3
No	296	47.4	203	48.7	93	44.7
Visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals in the past 30 days	620	100.0	413	100.0	207	100.0	0.433	1	0.510
Yes	282	45.5	184	44.6	98	47.3
No	338	54.5	229	55.4	109	52.7
Obtained food from church pantry, food pantry, or food bank in the past 12 months	631	100.0	423	100.0	208	100.0	2.455	1	0.117
Yes	432	68.5	281	66.4	151	72.6
No	199	31.5	142	33.6	57	27.4
Visit a soup kitchen or shelter for emergency food in the past 12 months	632	100.0	425	100.0	207	100.0	1.794	1	0.180
Yes	327	51.7	212	49.9	115	55.6
No	305	48.3	213	50.1	92	44.4

). Despite the lack of significance, some of the relationships are worth mentioning. Though approximately 79% of men and women said their households needed federal food assistance because of the pandemic, a higher percentage of men (83.6%) than women (78.0%) said their households required emergency food assistance during the pandemic. A higher percentage of men (87.1%) than women (84.5%) said the pandemic altered their food access. Men were more likely than women to indicate that they used emergency food assistance for meal delivery services, visited senior centers for prepared meals, obtained food from pantries and food banks, and visited soup kitchens and shelters to obtain food.

4.4. Binary Logistic Regression Models

4.4.1. The Use of Federal Food Assistance Programs Before COVID-19

The results show that when respondents had a household income above USD 100,000, the odds of using federal food assistance before COVID-19 were 89.0% less likely (OR = 0.110; CI = 0.053–0.229, p = <0.001) than participants whose household income is USD 0–USD 49,999. The model predicts that for participants above the age of 40, the odds of using federal food assistance before the COVID-19 pandemic are 55.6% less likely (OR = 0.444; CI = 0.225–0.877, p = <0.019) than 18–29-year-old survey participants. The results also illustrate that for individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher, the odds of using federal food assistance before COVID-19 are 65.8% less likely (OR = 0.342; CI = 0.147–0.796, p = <0.013) than participants who have less than a high school diploma (

Table 13. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for the Use of Federal Food Assistance Programs Prior to COVID-19.

Characteristics	Use of Federal Food Assistance Programs Prior to COVID-19
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	0.058	0.311	1.059	0.575	1.950	0.853
Other	−0.331	0.261	0.718	0.430	1.198	0.204
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	0.034	0.266	1.035	0.614	1.743	0.898
$100,000 or more	−2.210	0.376	0.110	0.053	0.229	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	0.108	0.449	1.114	0.462	2.686	0.810
Associate’s degree or some college or less	−0.606	0.399	0.545	0.250	1.192	0.129
Bachelors or graduate degree	−1.074	0.432	0.342	0.147	0.796	0.013 *
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.209	0.397	1.232	0.566	2.683	0.599
Have children
Has children	0.370	0.407	1.447	0.652	3.215	0.364
Household type
Two parents	0.897	0.371	2.453	1.184	5.079	0.016 *
Multifamily	0.855	0.345	2.353	1.197	4.622	0.013 *
Living alone or with roommates	0.917	0.489	2.501	0.959	6.518	0.061
Country of birth
Born in the United States	0.567	0.351	1.763	0.886	3.506	0.106
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	0.014	0.268	1.014	0.599	1.716	0.958
Other languages	0.647	0.364	1.909	0.935	3.899	0.076
Employment status
Part-time	−0.386	0.317	0.680	0.365	1.265	0.223
Unemployed	−0.367	0.322	0.692	0.369	1.301	0.253
Homemaker	0.359	0.417	1.433	0.633	3.244	0.389
Student	0.494	0.565	1.640	0.542	4.959	0.381
Age
30–39 years old	−0.023	0.316	0.977	0.526	1.816	0.942
40 years or older	−0.812	0.347	0.444	0.225	0.877	0.019 *
Gender
Man	−0.181	0.237	0.835	0.525	1.328	0.446

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants who identify as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, *** α = <0.001.

).

The results indicate that for two-parent households, the odds of using federal food assistance before COVID-19 are 2.453 times more likely (OR = 2.453; CI = 1.184–5.079, p = <0.016) than single-parent households. Similarly, the results show that for multifamily households, the odds of using federal food assistance before COVID-19 are 2.353 times more likely (OR = 2.353; CI = 1.197–4.622, p = <0.013) than single-parent households.

4.4.2. The Use of Emergency Food Assistance Programs Prior to COVID-19

The findings indicate that when household income is above USD 100,000, the odds of using emergency food assistance before COVID-19 are 88.3% less likely (OR = 0.117; CI = 0.053–0.259, p = <0.001) than participants whose household income is USD 0–USD 49,999. The results also show that for individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher, the odds of using emergency food assistance before COVID-19 are 65.6% less likely (OR = 0.344; CI = 0.151–0.782, p = <0.011) than for individuals who have less than a high school diploma. The model predicts that for participants above the age of 40, the odds of using emergency food assistance before the COVID-19 pandemic are 55.6% less likely (OR = 0.439; CI = 0.226–0.854, p = <0.015) than for 18–29-year-old respondents (

Table 14. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for the Use of Emergency Food Assistance Programs Prior to COVID-19.

Characteristics	Use of Emergency Food Assistance Programs Prior to COVID-19
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	0.169	0.286	1.184	0.676	2.075	0.555
Other	−0.201	0.251	0.818	0.500	1.337	0.422
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	−0.315	0.243	0.730	0.453	1.175	0.195
$100,000 or more	−2.142	0.405	0.117	0.053	0.259	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	−0.682	0.420	0.505	0.222	1.152	0.104
Associate’s degree or some college or less	−0.541	0.384	0.582	0.274	1.237	0.160
Bachelors or graduate degree	−1.067	0.419	0.344	0.151	0.782	0.011 *
Having children in the household
Children in the household	−0.192	0.407	0.825	0.372	1.832	0.637
Have children
Has children	0.221	0.411	1.248	0.557	2.793	0.591
Household type
Two parents	0.467	0.374	1.595	0.767	3.319	0.212
Multifamily	−0.096	0.348	0.909	0.460	1.797	0.783
Living alone or with roommates	0.253	0.486	1.288	0.497	3.338	0.603
Country of birth
Born in the United States	−0.041	0.343	0.960	0.490	1.880	0.905
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.460	0.248	0.631	0.388	1.026	0.064
Other languages	0.102	0.324	1.108	0.587	2.090	0.752
Employment status
Part-time	−0.047	0.303	0.954	0.527	1.727	0.877
Unemployed	−0.37	0.300	0.691	0.384	1.245	0.219
Homemaker	0.046	0.373	1.047	0.504	2.175	0.902
Student	−0.300	0.542	0.741	0.256	2.144	0.580
Age
30–39 years old	−0.285	0.290	0.752	0.426	1.329	0.326
40 years or older	−0.823	0.339	0.439	0.226	0.854	0.015 *
Gender
Man	0.015	0.225	1.015	0.653	1.578	0.947

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants who identify as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.3. Household Need for Federal Food Assistance Because of COVID-19

The results show that with a household income above USD 100,000, the odds of a household needing federal food assistance because of COVID-19 are 88.1% less likely (OR = 0.119; CI = 0.055–0.257, p = <0.001) than participants whose household income is USD 0–USD 49,999. The results indicate that for multifamily households, the odds of households needing federal food assistance because of COVID-19 are 2.365 times more likely (OR = 2.365; CI = 1.000–5.595, p = <0.050) than single-parent households. The results indicate that Spanish-only households’ odds of needing federal food assistance because of COVID-19 are 50.5% less likely (OR = 0.495; CI = 0.257–0.953, p = <0.035) than English-only households (

Table 15. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Households Needing Federal Food Assistance Because of COVID-19.

Characteristics	Households Needed Federal Food Assistance Because of COVID
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	−0.039	0.391	0.961	0.447	2.068	0.920
Other	−0.372	0.343	0.689	0.352	1.351	0.279
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	−0.277	0.353	0.758	0.380	1.512	0.432
$100,000 or more	−2.128	0.393	0.119	0.055	0.257	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	−0.281	0.544	0.755	0.260	2.190	0.605
Associate’s degree or some college or less	0.356	0.524	1.427	0.511	3.985	0.497
Bachelor’s or graduate degree	−0.989	0.528	0.372	0.132	1.048	0.061
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.609	0.449	1.839	0.764	4.431	0.174
Have children
Has children	0.346	0.498	1.414	0.533	3.752	0.487
Household type
Two parents	0.336	0.451	1.399	0.578	3.385	0.456
Multifamily	0.861	0.439	2.365	1.000	5.595	0.050 *
Living alone or with roommates	0.949	0.590	2.584	0.813	8.215	0.108
Country of birth
Born in the United States	0.618	0.380	1.855	0.881	3.903	0.104
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.703	0.334	0.495	0.257	0.953	0.035 *
Other languages	−0.061	0.464	0.941	0.379	2.336	0.895
Employment status
Part-time	−0.163	0.417	0.849	0.375	1.925	0.695
Unemployed	0.825	0.548	2.283	0.780	6.683	0.132
Homemaker	−0.131	0.481	0.877	0.341	2.253	0.785
Student	−0.445	0.600	0.641	0.197	2.078	0.458
Age
30–39 years old	0.770	0.435	2.160	0.922	5.063	0.076
40 years or older	−0.121	0.422	0.886	0.387	2.025	0.774
Gender
Man	−0.382	0.303	0.682	0.377	1.236	0.207

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants identifying as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.4. Household Need for Emergency Food Assistance Because of COVID-19

The findings reveal that when household incomes are above USD 100,000, the odds of a household needing emergency food assistance because of COVID-19 are 95.0% less likely (OR = 0.050; CI = 0.020–0.125, p = <0.001) than when household incomes are USD 0–USD 49,999. The results indicate that for households with children, the odds of needing emergency food assistance because of COVID-19 are 3.454 times more likely (OR = 3.454; CI = 1.126–10.599, p = <0.030) than participants without children. The findings signify that Spanish-only households’ odds of needing emergency food assistance because of COVID-19 are 67.7% less likely (OR = 0.323; CI = 0.146–0.715, p = <0.005) than English-speaking households. The results reveal that for participants born in the United States, the odds of a household needing emergency food assistance because of COVID-19 are 2.820 times more likely (OR = 2.820; CI = 1.162–6.840, p = <0.022) than respondents born outside of the United States (

Table 16. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Households Needing Emergency Food Assistance because of COVID-19.

Characteristics	Households Needed Emergency Food Assistance Because of COVID
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	−0.253	0.465	0.776	0.312	1.930	0.586
Other	−0.304	0.441	0.738	0.311	1.752	0.491
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	−0.526	0.448	0.591	0.246	1.422	0.240
$100,000 or more	−3.000	0.469	0.050	0.020	0.125	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	0.481	0.492	1.617	0.422	6.189	0.483
Associate’s degree or some college or less	1.021	2.509	2.775	0.785	9.810	0.113
Bachelors or graduate degree	−0.526	0.712	0.591	0.174	2.004	0.399
Having children in the household
Children in the household	1.240	4.696	3.454	1.126	10.599	0.030 *
Have children
Has children	0.129	0.038	1.137	0.313	4.135	0.845
Household type
Two parents	−0.358	0.317	0.699	0.201	2.428	0.573
Multifamily	−0.081	0.017	0.923	0.272	3.128	0.897
Living alone or with roommates	−0.285	0.142	0.752	0.171	3.312	0.706
Country of birth
Born in the United States	1.037	5.255	2.820	1.162	6.840	0.022 *
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−1.131	7.764	0.323	0.146	0.715	0.005 **
Other languages	0.146	0.063	1.158	0.371	3.615	0.801
Employment status
Part-time	−0.031	0.003	0.969	0.330	2.843	0.954
Unemployed	0.835	1.321	2.304	0.555	9.562	0.250
Homemaker	−0.137	0.056	0.872	0.279	2.727	0.813
Student	−0.354	0.235	0.702	0.168	2.936	0.628
Age
30–39 years old	0.266	0.247	1.304	0.457	3.718	0.619
40 years or older	−0.421	0.607	0.656	0.228	1.893	0.436
Gender
Man	0.052	0.018	1.053	0.497	2.232	0.892

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants who identify as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.5. Food Access Altered by COVID-19

The results reveal that if the household income is above USD 100,000, the odds of food access needs being altered because of COVID-19 are 88.1% less likely (OR = 0.119; CI = 0.049–0.289, p = <0.001) than if the household income is USD 0–USD 49,999. There were no other significant interactions with the other independent variables (

Table 17. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Households Altering Food Access because of COVID-19.

Characteristics	COVID Altered Food Access
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	−0.099	0.463	0.906	0.366	2.243	0.830
Other	−0.282	0.428	0.754	0.326	1.746	0.510
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	0.018	0.462	1.018	0.412	2.519	0.968
$100,000 or more	−2.128	0.453	0.119	0.049	0.289	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	0.892	0.722	2.440	0.593	10.047	0.217
Associate’s degree or some college or less	0.825	0.607	2.282	0.695	7.492	0.174
Bachelors or graduate degree	−0.474	0.602	0.622	0.191	2.027	0.431
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.482	0.556	1.620	0.545	4.813	0.385
Have children
Has children	0.595	0.644	1.813	0.513	6.412	0.356
Household type
Two parents	0.269	0.598	1.309	0.406	4.222	0.653
Multifamily	0.624	0.590	1.866	0.587	5.930	0.290
Living alone or with roommates	−0.241	0.705	0.786	0.197	3.129	0.732
Country of birth
Born in the United States	0.214	0.451	1.239	0.512	2.996	0.635
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.562	0.408	0.570	0.256	1.268	0.168
Other languages	−0.957	0.505	0.384	0.143	1.033	0.058
Employment status
Part-time	0.096	0.491	1.101	0.421	2.880	0.844
Unemployed	1.857	1.057	6.403	0.807	50.791	0.079
Homemaker	1.307	0.719	3.697	0.904	15.126	0.069
Student	−0.075	0.716	0.928	0.228	3.775	0.916
Age
30–39 years old	−0.115	0.537	0.891	0.311	2.551	0.830
40 years or older	−0.866	0.545	0.421	0.145	1.225	0.112
Gender
Man	0.268	0.377	1.307	0.624	2.739	0.478

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants who identify as women. Significance levels (p values): *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.6. Use of Emergency Food Assistance for Meal Delivery Services

The analysis reveals that with a household income above USD 100,000, the odds of using emergency meal delivery services are 72.2% less likely (OR = 0.278; CI = 0.132–0.585, p = <0.001) than if the household income is USD 0–USD 49,999. The study indicates that the odds of using emergency meal delivery services are 3.087 times more likely for multifamily households (OR = 3.087; CI = 1.501–6.350, p = <0.002) than single-parent households. The results also demonstrate that the odds of using emergency meal delivery services are 2.907 times more likely for participants living alone or with roommates (OR = 2.907; CI = 1.063–7.953, p = <0.038) than single-parent households.

The analysis indicates that the odds of using emergency meal delivery services for respondents born in the United States are 3.686 times more likely (OR = 3.686; CI = 1.749–7.770, p = <0.001) than those born outside the United States. Additionally, in households that speak languages other than Spanish and English, the odds of using emergency meal delivery services are 50.2% less likely (OR = 0.498; CI = 0.256–0.971, p = <0.041) than in English-only households. The findings signify that 30–39-year-olds’ odds of using emergency meal delivery services are times less likely (OR = 0.397; CI = 0.215–0.733, p = <0.003) than 18–29-year-old participants. For those 40 years or older, the odds of using emergency meal delivery services are 81.4% less likely (OR = 0.186; CI = 0.092–0.377; p = <0.001) than for 18–29-year-old survey participants (

Table 18. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Using Emergency Food Meal Delivery Services In The Past 30 Days.

Characteristics	Used Emergency Food Assistance for Meal Delivery Services in the Past 30 Days
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	0.362	0.362	1.437	0.796	2.592	0.229
Other	0.147	0.147	1.158	0.695	1.929	0.574
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	−0.162	0.257	0.851	0.515	1.407	0.529
$100,000 or more	−1.281	0.380	0.278	0.132	0.585	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	0.171	0.438	1.186	0.503	2.798	0.696
Associate’s degree or some college or less	−0.158	0.393	0.854	0.395	1.844	0.687
Bachelors or graduate degree	−0.672	0.429	0.511	0.220	1.185	0.118
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.680	0.425	1.975	0.859	4.541	0.109
Have children
Has children	0.486	0.422	1.626	0.712	3.718	0.249
Household type
Two parents	0.666	0.392	1.946	0.902	4.199	0.090
Multifamily	1.127	0.368	3.087	1.501	6.350	0.002 **
Living alone or with roommates	1.067	0.513	2.907	1.063	7.953	0.038 *
Country of birth
Born in the United States	1.305	0.380	3.686	1.749	7.770	<0.001 ***
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.222	0.263	0.801	0.479	1.339	0.397
Other languages	−0.697	0.341	0.498	0.256	0.971	0.041 *
Employment status
Part-time	−0.180	0.308	0.836	0.457	1.527	0.559
Unemployed	0.192	0.330	1.212	0.635	2.314	0.560
Homemaker	−0.288	0.391	0.749	0.348	1.613	0.461
Student	−0.872	0.565	0.418	0.138	1.266	0.123
Age
30–39 years old	−0.924	0.313	0.397	0.215	0.733	0.003 **
40 years or older	−1.683	0.361	0.186	0.092	0.377	<0.001 ***
Gender
Man	0.253	0.231	1.288	0.819	2.025	0.274

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants who identify as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.7. Visit to Programs and Senior Centers for Prepared Meals

If household income exceeds USD 100,000, the odds of visiting programs and senior centers for prepared meals are 75.0% less likely (OR = 0.250; CI = 0.110–0.569, p = <0.001) than when household income is USD0–USD 49,999. For individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher, the odds of visiting programs and senior centers for prepared meals are 60.4% less likely (OR = 0.396; CI = 0.172–0.916, p = <0.030) than those with less than a high school diploma. The odds of visiting programs and senior centers for prepared meals are 4.260 times more likely for those born in the United States (OR = 4.260; CI = 1.883–9.635, p = <0.001) than those born outside the United States. Spanish-only households are 46.2 times less likely to visit programs and senior centers for prepared meals (OR = 0.538; CI = 0.322–0.896, p = <0.017) than English-only households. The results show that the odds of visiting programs and senior centers for 30–39-year-olds are 62.1% less likely (OR = 0.379; CI = 0.209–0.687, p = <0.001) than for 18–29-year-olds. The odds of visiting programs and senior centers for 40 years or older are 62.1% less likely (OR = 0.187; CI = 0.092–0.380, p = <0.001) than for 18–29-year-olds (

Table 19. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Visiting Programs and Senior Centers for Prepared Meals In The Past 30 Days.

Characteristics	Visited Programs and Senior Centers for Prepared Meals in the Past 30 Days
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	0.309	0.300	1.362	0.756	2.453	0.304
Other	−0.031	0.256	0.970	0.588	1.600	0.904
Household income
$50,000–$99,999	0.142	0.250	1.152	0.706	1.879	0.570
$100,000 or more	−1.387	0.420	0.250	0.110	0.569	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	−0.143	0.430	0.867	0.373	2.012	0.739
Associate’s degree or some college or less	−0.408	0.387	0.665	0.311	1.421	0.293
Bachelors or graduate degree	−0.926	0.427	0.396	0.172	0.916	0.030 *
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.544	0.433	1.723	0.737	4.028	0.209
Have children
Has children	0.656	0.412	1.927	0.859	4.323	0.111
Household type
Two parents	−0.111	0.387	0.895	0.419	1.911	0.775
Multifamily	0.220	0.360	1.246	0.615	2.525	0.542
Living alone or with roommates	0.598	0.524	1.818	0.651	5.073	0.254
Country of birth
Born in the United States	1.449	0.416	4.260	1.883	9.635	<0.001 ***
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.621	0.261	0.538	0.322	0.896	0.017 *
Other languages	−0.618	0.341	0.539	0.276	1.051	0.070
Employment status
Part-time	0.024	0.301	1.024	0.567	1.849	0.936
Unemployed	0.612	0.323	1.844	0.979	3.473	0.058
Homemaker	0.426	0.391	1.531	0.712	3.295	0.276
Student	−0.811	0.582	0.445	0.142	1.391	0.164
Age
30–39 years old	−0.970	0.303	0.379	0.209	0.687	<0.001 ***
40 years or older	−1.675	0.360	0.187	0.092	0.380	<0.001 ***
Gender
Man	0.126	0.230	1.135	0.722	1.782	0.584

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants identifying as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.8. Obtaining Food from Church Pantry, Food Pantry, or Food Bank

The analysis reveals that with a household income above USD 100,000, the odds of obtaining food from church pantries, food pantries, or food banks are 82.1% less likely (OR = 0.179; CI = 0.089–0.359, p = <0.001) than participants whose household income is USD 0–USD 49,999. For those born in the United States, the odds of obtaining food from church pantries, food pantries, or food banks are 2.249 times more likely (OR = 2.249; CI = 1.151–4.393, p = <0.018) than for those born outside of the United States (

Table 20. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Obtaining Food From Church Pantry, Food Pantry, or Food Bank In The Past 12 Months.

Characteristics	Obtained Food from Church Pantry, Food Pantry, or Food Bank in the Past 12 Months
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	−0.025	0.335	0.975	0.506	1.880	0.940
Other	−0.104	0.296	1.110	0.621	1.984	0.725
Household income
$50,000−$99,999	0.267	0.311	1.305	0.710	2.400	0.391
$100,000 or more	−1.721	0.355	0.179	0.089	0.359	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	0.651	0.471	1.918	0.761	4.833	0.167
Associate’s degree or some college or less	0.436	0.415	1.546	0.686	3.485	0.293
Bachelors or graduate degree	−0.115	0.446	0.892	0.372	2.139	0.797
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.005	0.419	1.005	0.442	2.285	0.990
Have children
Has children	0.547	0.448	1.729	0.719	4.157	0.221
Household type
Two parents	−0.206	0.406	0.813	0.367	1.804	0.611
Multifamily	0.544	0.399	1.724	0.788	3.769	0.173
Living alone or with roommates	−0.412	0.516	0.663	0.241	1.823	0.425
Country of birth
Born in the United States	0.810	0.342	2.249	1.151	4.393	0.018 *
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.057	0.294	0.945	0.531	1.680	0.847
Other languages	−0.191	0.374	0.826	0.397	1.720	0.610
Employment status
Part-time	0.064	0.352	1.066	0.535	2.125	0.856
Unemployed	0.528	0.423	1.695	0.740	3.881	0.212
Homemaker	−0.458	0.408	0.632	0.284	1.407	0.261
Student	−0.168	0.556	0.845	0.284	2.512	0.762
Age
30−39 years old	−0.069	0.365	0.933	0.456	1.909	0.850
40 years or older	−0.531	0.384	0.588	0.277	1.249	0.167
Gender
Man	0.063	0.266	1.065	0.632	1.793	0.814

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0−$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants who identify as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, *** α = <0.001.

).

4.4.9. Visits to Soup Kitchens and Shelters for Emergency Food

When household incomes exceed USD 100,000, the odds of visiting soup kitchens and shelters are 76.8% less likely (OR = 0.232; CI = 0.106–0.508, p = <0.001) than when household incomes are USD 0–USD 49,999. Survey participants with a bachelor’s degree or more are 63.5% less likely to visit a soup kitchen or shelter (OR = 0.365; CI = 0.157–0.847, p = <0.019) than those with less than a high school education. The results demonstrate that those born in the United States are 3.714 times more likely to visit a soup kitchen or shelter (OR = 3.714; CI = 1.778–7.755, p = <0.001) than those born outside the United States.

The analysis reveals that unemployed survey participants are 3.558 times more likely to visit a soup kitchen or shelter (OR = 3.558; CI = 1.731–7.316, p = <0.001) than those working full-time. Forty years or older respondents are 70.7% less likely to visit a soup kitchen or shelter (OR = 0.293; CI = 0.146–0.586, p = <0.001) than 18–29-year-old study participants (

Table 21. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictors for Visiting a Soup Kitchen or Shelter for Emergency Food in the Past 12 Months Programs.

Characteristics	Visited a Soup Kitchen or Shelter for Emergency Food in the Past 12 Months
	β Coefficient	Standard Error (SE)	Odds Ratio (OR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)		p-Value
				Lower	Upper
Ancestry
Nicaragua	0.234	0.302	1.263	0.699	2.282	0.438
Other	0.188	0.266	1.207	0.717	2.033	0.478
Household income
$50,000−$99,999	0.103	0.258	1.108	0.669	1.837	0.69
$100,000 or more	−1.460	0.399	0.232	0.106	0.508	<0.001 ***
Educational attainment
High school diploma/GED	−0.299	0.432	0.741	0.318	1.730	0.489
Associate’s degree or some college or less	−0.075	0.394	0.928	0.429	2.008	0.85
Bachelors or graduate degree	−1.009	0.430	0.365	0.157	0.847	0.019 **
Having children in the household
Children in the household	0.666	0.431	1.947	0.836	4.535	0.122
Have children
Has children	0.163	0.419	1.176	0.517	2.675	0.698
Household type
Two parents	0.501	0.39	1.651	0.768	3.548	0.199
Multifamily	0.783	0.365	2.188	1.070	4.473	0.032 *
Living alone or with roommates	0.822	0.518	2.275	0.824	6.279	0.112
Country of birth
Born in the United States	1.312	0.376	3.714	1.778	7.755	<0.001 ***
Languages spoken at home
Spanish only	−0.378	0.262	0.685	0.410	1.146	0.15
Other languages	−0.385	0.348	0.680	0.344	1.346	0.269
Employment status
Part-time	0.485	0.309	1.625	0.887	2.977	0.116
Unemployed	1.269	0.368	3.558	1.731	7.316	<0.001 ***
Homemaker	0.463	0.390	1.589	0.741	3.410	0.234
Student	−0.626	0.567	0.535	0.176	1.624	0.27
Age
30−39 years old	−0.561	0.306	0.571	0.313	1.040	0.067
40 years or older	−1.228	0.354	0.293	0.146	0.586	<0.001 ***
Gender
Man	0.099	0.236	1.104	0.695	1.753	0.675

Notes: The reference group for ancestry is Cuba. The reference group for household income is $0–$49,999. The reference group for educational attainment is survey participants who have completed some high school or less. The reference group for having children in the household is having no children in their household. The reference group for having children is having no children. The reference group for country of birth is those born outside of the United States. The reference group for household type is survey participants living in single-parent households. The reference group for languages spoken at home is households that speak English only. The reference group for employment status is working full-time. The reference group for age is survey participants 18–29 Years Old. The reference group for gender is survey participants identifying as women. Significance levels (p values): * α = ≤0.05, ** α = <0.01, *** α = <0.001.

).

5. Discussion

The study investigated the intricate relationships between demographic characteristics, household attributes, food assistance participation, and food access among Hispanic/Latino Hialeah residents. Understanding food assistance participation in Hispanic/Latino communities is significant and urgent because they comprise the largest racial or ethnic minority group in the U.S. Hispanics/Latinos constitute 19.1% of the total population [138]. However, about one-fifth of Hispanic/Latino households experience food insecurity and account for 21.9% of in the United States [6].

The vulnerability of the Hispanic/Latino population to food insecurity is a concerning issue that needs immediate attention. Yet, studies of this nature are limited. In a previous study, Hialeah residents were asked about their nutrition and physical activity [139]. Our study greatly expands the understanding of food access in Hialeah. It provides insights into access to and use of federal and local food assistance programs.

Our study enhances the understanding of access and security in Hialeah’s food system by considering the social, economic, household, and cultural factors linked to food insecurity, participation in food assistance programs, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food needs. This research is particularly pertinent, as the USDA reported very high food insecurity rates in 2022. This was also a time when many communities experienced a high demand for food assistance and struggled to meet the need and sustain adequate service levels.

Our findings support that of other researchers who found that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated food insecurity and created new challenges in the Hispanic/Latino communities. A wide array of studies highlights the COVID-19 pandemic’s detrimental effects on food security in the United States [56,118]. However, one study conducted in Central Texas countered these findings; it found that the COVID-19 pandemic did not exacerbate food insecurity [140].

Researchers frequently argue that federal and emergency food assistance programs fail to meet the needs of food-insecure populations adequately [141]. Our findings reveal that federal food assistance did not shield respondents from food access challenges. When the pandemic hit, many of those already participating in federal food assistance programs increased their use of emergency food assistance to meet their food needs.

Our study points to the need to look beyond race and ethnicity when analyzing food access. We contend that focusing solely on racial and ethnic backgrounds in Hispanic/Latino populations provides only a limited understanding of the differences in food assistance needs and usage. The study demonstrates how multiple independent variables impact needs and usage, creating differences in food assistance program participation in a Hispanic/Latino community. The intersectional approach reveals more than studies that examine food insecurity through siloed lenses.

Researchers have identified structural barriers hindering access to food and participation in food assistance programs. Such barriers reduce the likelihood of lower food insecurity rates [142,143]. Our study identified several factors that can act as barriers to accessing food. Such factors include country of origin, household income, nativity in the United States, age, educational attainment, employment status, and living arrangements. Like us, other researchers have found that unemployment status correlates with a high probability of seeking aid from soup kitchens [144]. The burgeoning numbers of unemployed food seekers at soup kitchens correspond to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic resulted in staggering job losses and opportunities, which increased food insecurity and created greater demand for food assistance programs.

The chi-square analysis indicated that country of origin plays a statistically significant role in food assistance participation. This is the case because cultural and national backgrounds are linked to respondents’ foodways and can influence knowledge of food assistance, access to programs, and usage of said programs. These findings demonstrate notable variations in food access outcomes among Hispanic/Latino subgroups. The significant role of country of origin underlines the necessity of considering diverse cultural and regional backgrounds rather than homogenizing the Hispanic/Latino demographic in food access research.

We found an inverse relationship between household income and participation in federal and emergency food assistance programs, such as meal delivery, senior centers, food pantries, and soup kitchens. Hialeah residents whose household income exceeded USD 100,000 were the least likely to need and use federal and emergency food assistance before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, the likelihood of using emergency food decreases as household income increases. These findings support earlier food access scholarships, positing that income is related to participation in food assistance programs and overall food security outcomes [90,145].

Age is also strongly related to participation in food assistance programs. The study found that participants 40 or older were less likely to use federal and emergency food assistance programs before the COVID-19 pandemic than other respondents. The oldest respondents were also less likely to utilize meal delivery services, visit programs and senior centers, and visit soup kitchens than younger study participants. Other scholars have also found that age is critical in influencing food insecurity, nutritional health, and participation in food assistance programs [146,147].

Other household attributes that significantly influence participation in food assistance programs include languages spoken at home, the presence of children in the household, and household types. Spanish-speaking-only households were less likely to visit senior centers for prepared meals. Conversely, households that spoke languages other than Spanish alone or English only were less likely to use meal delivery services. Survey participants with children in the household were positively associated with needing emergency food assistance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The USDA studied single-parent households with children and found that such households are highly likely to experience food insecurity. However, the USDA has paid no attention to how multifamily households fare in their efforts to acquire food to meet their nutritional needs. We believe it is vital to examine multifamily households as research shows that such household configurations have become increasingly common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our study highlights the susceptibility of multifamily households to experiencing food access challenges. It shows that two-parent and multifamily households were most likely to use federal food assistance programs before the COVID-19 pandemic. Multifamily households were also positively associated with needing federal food assistance because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multifamily households also demonstrated a higher odds ratio of accessing meal delivery services for emergency food assistance. While multifamily households may benefit from having more than one adult in the household who could contribute to food costs, those households might able be disadvantaged by such arrangements. For instance, children and multiple unemployed individuals may live in dwellings with many people to feed. Our study supports Heflin and Patnaik’s (2023) research. The researchers found a higher probability of food insecurity among older adults living in multigenerational households with children than those living in married-couple households [148].

Respondents with the highest educational attainment (bachelor’s degree or higher) were least likely to use federal and emergency food assistance programs. The likelihood of using emergency food relief increased as educational attainment decreased. Our results showed an upward trend of utilizing food assistance programs with reduced levels of educational attainment.

The findings also point to the vulnerability of men in experiencing food access difficulties and needing food assistance. The study revealed that 83.6% of men needed federal food assistance to cope with food-related challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Men were also more likely than women to report an overall disruption in their food access because of the pandemic. These findings may seem surprising as women receive more attention in the food access literature and are seen as more susceptible to food insecurity. However, some studies have found that men face unique difficulties accessing adequate food. For example, a study in Maryland found that low-income men experienced accumulated hardships that heightened their risks for food insecurity [149]. Some international studies have also reported the heightened vulnerability of men in achieving food security and access [150,151].

The gender differences presented above are potentially linked to the notion of machismo prevalent in Hispanic/Latino communities. The idea of machismo refers to behavioral and attitudinal personas with specific sociocultural roles, beliefs, values, and expectations about masculinity and what it means to identify as a man. These connotations may be positive or negative, but they are directly linked to historical, cultural, political, religious, and socioeconomic conditions in Hispanic/Latino societies. For example, traditional machismo may perpetuate sexist beliefs of men assuming regulatory and dominant roles over women [152,153]. Consequently, machismo may manifest in food-seeking behavior wherein men may be reluctant to seek help from food assistance programs. The findings of this study support other food access studies that have revealed that gender influences food assistance program usage [154].

The differences in food assistance participation suggest that disparities and structural barriers are prevalent in accessing the United States food safety net. People born in the United States were likelier to participate in emergency food assistance programs and experience COVID-related food access interruptions. However, people born outside the United States were less likely to seek assistance at emergency food outlets such as meal deliveries, prepared meals, and food pantries. These differences in the utilization of emergency food assistance suggest that disparities and barriers exist for people born outside of the United States, which may include immigrants, migrants, or refugees. These findings align with studies outlining the challenges immigrants, migrants, and refugees face in accessing social services and provisions, especially food, in the United States. These structural barriers may include limited access to informal social networks, concerns about potential encounters with immigration authorities or law enforcement, or stigma and fear associated with accepting social provisions from government agencies [155].

Strengths and Limitations

The study has several strengths. Our study is the first to investigate food insecurity and participation in food assistance programs for Hispanic/Latino residents of Hialeah, Florida. Though this paper focuses on survey results, the study used a community participatory research framework and mixed qualitative methods, including volunteering. This approach resulted in direct contact and community engagement with residents. By actively involving community members in the research process, this study ensures that the diverse voices of study participants are recognized and valued. Prior research has indicated that not all food-insecure individuals seek food assistance despite the need for numerous reasons. So, in addition to food distribution venues, data were collected in neighborhoods, community spaces, or events where residents gather. These research sites included shopping plazas, flea markets, green spaces, pools, music festivals, restaurants, and farmers’ markets.

The primary researcher also established relationships with social service agencies to distribute surveys. The study implemented inclusive measures to help capture Hialeah’s rich diversity in the sample. For example, the surveys were available in three major languages: English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole. The Haitian Creole language option received positive feedback from Haitian-identifying participants, as it addressed the communication challenges respondents experience when navigating documents written only in English or Spanish. By considering a wide range of perspectives, employing diverse research methods, and actively engaging with the community, this study provides valuable insights into the emergency food access experiences of a robust sample of Hialeah residents.

This study does have limitations. Relying on surveys may have missed critical perspectives in the Hialeah area. The study recognizes that selection bias may have occurred when identifying eligible respondents, potentially skewing the results toward individuals more willing to participate or contribute. The voluntary nature of survey participation could result in self-selection bias, where those experiencing more severe food insecurity or those with stronger food access opinions are more likely to respond. In addition, the survey’s time requirement (15–30 min) may limit participation, as individuals with demanding schedules, such as those balancing work or childcare responsibilities, might be unable to complete it. The presence of self-selection bias may result in the sample not fully capturing the diverse perceptions of the Hialeah community. Although the survey was accessible in three languages (English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole), city residents who spoke additional languages could have been inadvertently excluded from the study. Hence, the survey results may be missing people who were not fluent or comfortable participating in the three language options. These limitations underscore the need for further research and the author’s commitment to transparency.

6. Conclusions

The United States food assistance safety net is vital in supporting food security efforts and becomes even more essential during crises. In the aftermath of social disruptions, public health emergencies, extreme climatic events, and economic shocks, federal and emergency food assistance programs serve as critical lifelines for families experiencing food access challenges. The cascading crisis associated with the COVID-19 pandemic especially underscored the importance of these programs in meeting the heightened demand for food security support.

There was a strong demand in Hispanic/Latino communities for food assistance before the pandemic; the reliance on such programs increased during the pandemic. Many food studies contend that Hispanics/Latinos are vulnerable to food insecurity and face difficulties accessing food assistance programs. Individual factors such as household income, poverty, high cost of living, less educational attainment, and single-parent households consistently link to food insecurity. Understanding the impact of demographic and household factors on food access is crucial to enhancing food assistance operations’ efficiency, meeting growing demands amid crisis responses, and remaining inclusive in their distribution. Our analysis contributes to this by exploring several social, economic, and cultural factors contributing to the elevated food access difficulties among the Hispanic/Latino population. Our case study of Hialeah, Florida, presents robust evidence that characteristics such as household income, country of origin, nativity status in the U.S., age, household composition, languages spoken at home, and educational attainment emerged as significant determinants in food assistance usage. The evident disparities in accessing food assistance programs based on individual aspects raise equity and justice concerns and highlight an urgent issue.

The data demonstrate that the Hispanic/Latino community is not a monolith. Ergo, in addition to racial and ethnic identities, it is crucial to examine how economic, social, and cultural variables intersect and influence food access and participation in food assistance programs. Therefore, studying this population subgroup through a comprehensive and intersectional lens is crucial. The intersectionality framework allows us to see and understand how multiple social and economic categories interact and reveal interlocking power systems at the social structural level of food systems. The intersectionality paradigm is fundamental to understanding the diverse contexts and the complex intricacies of food access within marginalized groups in the United States, such as Hispanic/Latino communities.

The food assistance study of Hialeah, Florida, suggests that the existing federal and emergency food program network extensively supports the community’s food access needs. However, our study found that additional efforts are needed to improve food assistance access to alleviate food insecurity. We encourage government officials, emergency food outlet representatives, food justice/sovereignty activists, residents, funders, and community organizations to collaborate to address the multiple dimensions of access to food assistance programs. These concentrated efforts include eliminating barriers to food assistance programs, removing eligibility standards, increasing outreach to address diverse community needs, recognizing inequities in obtaining food assistance relief, and raising awareness of the individuals who are most vulnerable to experiencing food access difficulties. For instance, our study found that people born outside of the United States within Hispanic/Latino communities were less likely to use food assistance services, indicating the need for targeted efforts to make food assistance programs more accessible for immigrants, refugees, and migrants. Such a multifaceted approach with multiple stakeholders working together is critical for implementing equitable and inclusive approaches to distributing food assistance tailored to the specific needs of diverse subgroups within marginalized communities.

Future research should extend studies like this to encompass a broader range of ethnic and racial groups, gender identities, socioeconomic groups, and sexual expressions. It should also delve deeper into the relationship between participation in food assistance and the eligibility requirements of food assistance programs. In addition, qualitative inquiries should investigate why specific populations within these communities are either turning to or avoiding food assistance programs. Such analyses can provide greater insight into the demand and need for food assistance, and the barriers food seekers encounter. These research contributions could aid in understanding the complex food access challenges faced by other diverse groups, especially during crises that disrupt food access systems.