Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 17.
Published in final edited form as: J Acad Nutr Diet. 2023 Oct;123(10 Suppl):S25–S45. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2023.07.007

Table 3.

Sociodemographic characteristics of Latino/a parents/caregivers in Mejorando la Esperanza en Seguridad Alimentaria (Improving Hope for Food Security) overall and by site for California (CA), New York (NY), and Texas (TX)

Total
CA
NY
TX
Characteristic (n = 62) (n = 17) (n = 25) (n = 20)

n (%)
Gender a
Female 57 (92) 16 (94) 25 (100) 16 (80)
Male 5 (8) 1 (6) 0 (0) 4 (20)
Educational attainment
Less than high school/GEDb 14 (23) 5 (29) 7 (28) 2 (10)
High school/GED or some college 30 (48) 9 (53) 11 (44) 10 (50)
Occupational training, certificate, or college degree 18 (29) 3 (18) 7 (28) 8 (40)
Racial identity c
Hispanic/Latino 38 (61) 15 (88) 8 (32) 15 (75)
Black 7 (11) 0(0) 7 (28) 0 (0)
Indigenous 8 (13) 0 (0) 6 (24) 2 (10)
White 10 (16) 1 (6) 4 (16) 5 (25)
Did not specify racial identity 2 (3) 1 (6) 0 (0) 1 (5)
Hispanic/Latino heritage d
Dominican 6 (10) 0 (0) 6 (24) 0 (0)
Ecuadoran 5 (8) 0 (0) 5 (20) 0 (0)
Mexican 41 (66) 17 (100) 5 (20) 19 (95)
Puerto Rican 6 (10) 0 (0) 4 (16) 2 (10)
Other Central/South American 9 (15) 0 (0) 8 (32) 1 (5)
Other 5 (8) 2 (12) 0 (0) 3 (15)
Nativity
US-born 26 (42) 9 (53) 2 (8) 15 (75)
Foreign-born 36 (58) 8 (47) 23 (92) 5 (25)
Current residence
Rural or small town 12(19) 0 (0) 1 (4) 11 (55)
Small city 9 (15) 0 (0) 3 (12) 6 (30)
Large city or suburbs 41 (66) 17 (100) 21 (84) 3 (15)
Language spoken at home
English 22 (36) 6 (35) 2 (8) 14 (70)
Spanish 34 (55) 11 (65) 20 (80) 3 (15)
Both English and Spanish 6 (10) 0 (0) 3 (12) 3 (15)
Employment status
Working for pay 27 (43.5) 6 (35.3) 14 (56) 7 (35)
Not working for pay 35 (56.5) 11 (64.7) 11 (44) 13 (65)
Partner’s employment status
Working for pay 33 (53) 9 (53) 15 (60) 9(45)
Not working for pay 6 (10) 1 (6) 2 (8) 3 (15)
N/Ae or missing 23 (37) 7 (41) 8 (32) 8 (40)
Program participation
Free/reduced-price school meals 45 (73) 12(71) 21(84) 12 (60)
SNAPf 39 (63) 12(71) 15(60) 12 (60)
WICg 24 (39) 8 (47) 9 (36) 7 (35)
Community food distribution 41 (66) 14 (82) 14 (56) 13 (65)
Medicaid 43 (69) 13 (77) 19 (76) 11 (55)
Household food security status g
High 2 (3) 2(12) 0(0) 0 (0)
Mar3inal 3 (5) 0 (0) 3 (12) 0 (0)
Low 21 (34) 5 (29) 7 (32) 9 (45)
Very low 36 (58) 10 (59) 15 (56) 11 (55)
median (range)
Age (y) 40 (20–68) 38 (22–68) 41 (28–58) 35 (20–57)
Household size 4 (2–8) 5 (2–8) 5 (2–8) 4 (2–8)
No. of children 2 (1–5) 2 (1–5) 2 (1–5) 2 (1–5)

household food security was assessed using the 18-item US Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Module.23 Missing data points (n = 72) from 13 different participants were imputed according to US Department of Agriculture guidelines. Affirmative response tallies increased for six of those participants, causing two participants’ categorical scores to change from “low” to “very low” food security.

a

Gender was asked as an open-ended item (What is your gender?)

b

GED = General Educational Development high school equivalency.

c

Racial identity was asked as an open-ended item (“What is your race?”). All participants were Hispanic or Latino/a. However, when asked about race, many participants reported Hispanic or Latino/a ethnicity. Columns may not add to 100%, as some participants reported more than one race.

d

Heritage was asked as a closed-ended item, where participants could report multiple heritages and identify an additional heritage as needed. Columns may not add to 100%, as some participants reported more than one heritage.

e

N/A = not applicable.

f

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

g

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.