Socioeconomic Predictors of Diet Among Low-Income Caregivers and Children

Background. A balanced diet promotes optimal health. Financial hardship can restrict diet maintenance. This study assessed how socioeconomic status (SES) indicators, public assistance programs, and education level relate to dietary behaviors for low-income children and adults.

Methods: Data were collected from a sample of children attending 22 low-income childcare centers. Trained researchers used a computer-based tool to assess children’s fruit and vegetable preferences (FVP). Total scores are summed with higher scores indicating preference for more foods.

Caregivers responded to a paper survey about diet intake, with higher summed scores indicating poorer diet. Household composition and income were used to calculate poverty ratio. Other measures include a 2 item FI screen, education level, marital status, WIC/SNAP, and child’s birthdate.

Analyses included descriptive statistics and two hierarchical linear regression models.  Model 1 focused on adult diet.  Control variables (marital status, education) were entered in step 1, FI and WIC/SNAP in step 2, and poverty in step 3.  Model 2 focused on child FVP.  Control variables (child age, caregiver marital status, education) were entered in step 1, FI status and WIC/SNAP receipt in step 2, and poverty in step 3.  

Results: The sample included 120 caregiver/child dyads. Half of the children were male (n=54, 51%), primarily Black (n=98, 82%), and had an average age of 46 months (range: 27-70 months). Almost half of caregivers were married (n=50, 42%), 25% had a high school degree or less (n=29), 46% (n=53) receive WIC and/or SNAP, 50% (n=52) were categorized as high poverty, and 38% (n=45) reported being food insecure.

In model 1 (adult diet), FI and WIC/SNAP receipt did not significantly predict adult diet. The addition of high poverty to the model resulted in a significant model R²=.40 (F_(5,98)= 3.58, p=.005), and a significant change from step 2 to step 3 (R²D= .07, F_(1,93)=7.16, p=.009). Being FI was negatively associated with diet compared to those who were food secure (B=1.18, t=2.15, p=.03). Those living in poverty had a significantly better diet than those who were not poor (B=-2.15, t=-2.68, p=.009), adjusting for marital status and education.

In the model examining child diet, FI, WIC/SNAP receipt, and poverty were not significantly associated with child diet after adjusting for covariates.

Conclusions.

Among adults, being FI resulted in poorer dietary patterns; however, being at 185% of poverty or less resulted in better diet. In the child model, SES predictors were not significantly associated with child diet preferences. Caregivers often serve as a buffer from FI for their children, despite income or assistance.  The presence of assistance programs like WIC and SNAP may serve to protect those parents.  Child FVP may also be related to subsidized meal standards provided in the day care.  Further exploration of the role of poverty on diet is needed. Social work practitioners should assist in connecting caregivers who are food insecure to resources for affordable, healthy food options.  Food policy should be amplified to assist caregivers that are food insecure.