More than a feeling

Effectiveness of charity must matter

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, yet still has one of the highest food insecurity rates. Arkansas consistently ranks among the most food insecure states. The insecurity and hunger many Americans and Arkansans experience is not the result of food scarcity — it occurs amidst a backdrop of food abundance and waste. That paradox baffles even those who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject. So, what gives?

Most people agree something should be done. Disagreement arises when we consider approaches to addressing the problem. Our recently published research in the Journal of Environment Nutrition and Hunger highlights Little Free Pantries (LFP) as one of the many actions taken to address food insecurity in the United States.

LFP are an important movement to assess because it is exemplary of the growing trend in the United States toward charitable solutions, and away from justice-oriented actions focused on entitlement, accountability and equity. Although charitable efforts to address food insecurity have strengths (e.g., meeting urgent need, outlets for personal action) and are often necessary to fill growing gaps, they are also reliant on volunteers, often lack resources and are not always accessible. Ultimately, our analysis concluded that LFP, like many charitable efforts, meet some of the goals for emergency food provision, but fall short in some other critical areas (e.g., accessibility).

Despite charitable efforts mix of pros and cons, sober analysis of these efforts is often unwelcome. Reactions to our research confirm that sentiment. Although we understand some of those reactions, we do not understand some mischaracterizations of our work. First and foremost, our analysis did not conclude that the LFP was entirely flawed. A quick read of the abstract alone belies that characterization. Not only do we conclude LFP is meeting some goals of emergency food provision, but those who read the paper in full will note that we characterize charitable approaches as a “necessity” that continues to fill important gaps for those unable to access federal programs.

Yet, noting shortcomings of the LFP alongside its successes was enough to draw the ire of some readers. Not only does this suggest those readers did not thoroughly read the study (or even the abstract), but reinforces our point that for some involved in charitable efforts, the focus is on how they feel rather than on the impact on the lives of those they hope to serve. Any movement, individual, or institutional that is serious about addressing food insecurity must be willing to take account of their effort, celebrate successes, and recognize where improvements can be made.

It was certainly not our intent to begrudge anyone who feels good for helping others. That feeling can be a great motivating force for addressing public health issues such as food insecurity. However, for those primarily interested in feeling good about their efforts and not interested in how effectively they may or may not be addressing the problem, our research has little to offer. We do not hold LFP to the standard of needing to solve hunger and food insecurity. But we do believe these types of food pantries should be kept in good condition and made accessible to those with a range of disabilities. If the majority of the LFP are not accessible to the disabled, is the best strategy to fix that by pointing the finger at the study that highlights the importance of food access for all? The quick fix is to rebuild, move, or add additional food access points that are monitored, because if people rely on them as we believe they do, then why create disappointment and disillusion when they arrive to get some food support with the LFP unattended/ unsupported or in poor condition.

Our analysis is not the final say in the scholarly debate on charitable versus justice-oriented approaches to addressing food insecurity. Like all good science, our publication explicitly owns its limitations. We look forward to working with community members and service providers who are also willing to recognize limitations, and learn lessons from good empirical analysis rather than discount it.

Kevin Fitzpatrick is a university professor and the Jones Chair in Community in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Arkansas. Don Willis is an assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences.