Sustenance for Success: Connections between Community College Students and Food Insecurity

Abstract

To assess the connections between student success and food insecurity of community college students the authors present the results of three studies conducted between fall 2017 and spring 2020. Using a cross-sectional design and the intercept method, 858 participants completed the Household Food Security Survey Module. The three hypotheses for the studies were: there is a relationship between food insecurity and (a) GPA, (b) concentration, and (c) energy levels. Food insecurity levels for the participants varied—Monroe, 99%; Spaid and Gillett-Karam, 52%; and Liburd, 30%. Liburd found a significant relationship for all three hypotheses. Monroe’s 2020 findings that 99% of her sample was food insecure presents challenges for addressing unmet needs for African American/Black students. Spaid and Gillett-Karam’s 2018 findings showed that minority women with Pell Grants had food insecurity levels three times higher than other groups. Traditional student support services should include supplemental services for food-insecure student populations.

Introduction

Although most community college researchers usually focus their studies on student success based on retention, persistence, and graduation rate, they often fall victim to the literature emanating from higher education researchers. Many traditional higher education researchers have little background in pinpointing specific issues dealing with the students who attend American community colleges. Serving the most diverse and disadvantaged postsecondary students in the country, community colleges enroll 40–70% of ethnic and racial minorities (Carnevale et al., 2020). One area that needs more attention exclusive from the general knowledge about college students and their success, is the effect of food insecurity among the most vulnerable community college students—women with dependent children, the underprepared, the poor, and the most nutritionally disadvantaged (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Maroto, 2013; Spaid & Gillett-Karam, 2018). By questioning the ideas of student success for these students, early metrics demonstrate differences from senior college students (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2016).

These differences, while literate, are generally placing the diverse populations of community colleges among the larger picture of all higher education students. In this article, the model of student success developed by Maroto (2013) is used and is intended to highlight the characteristics of community college students by focusing on familiar concepts of success—GPA, and on two additional concepts of how energy and concentration levels affect student success in relation to food insecurity. For community colleges, an expanded definition of student success includes the conversations that evoke psychological, sociological, cultural, and economic perspectives (Kuh et al., 2006). Research is needed to provide data on how food insecurity is related to student success given that recent studies show that between 39% and 60% of community college students report that they are food insecure (Freudenberg et al., 2011; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018; Maroto, 2013; Mercado, 2017).

Community Colleges and Student Success

As open-access institutions, community colleges attract traditional aged learners (18, 19, and 20) and adult learners who often use the community college as a gateway to establishing or maintaining a middle class status (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2017). Community colleges are democracy’s colleges, providing the most diverse student body in history with access to higher education (Boggs, 2011). However, retention and graduation rates for community college students are disappointing when compared with rates of four-year institutions. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (Causey et al., 2020) reported that retention rates for four-year public institutions were 71% compared to 49% for two-year public institutions for students who entered in 2017. In addition, graduation rates for the cohort entering fall 2013 were 61% for four-year public institutions compared to 34% for two-year public institutions over a six-year period for first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students (Causey et al., 2020).

Community college leaders are aware of the poor image their colleges have for traditional metrics, and they have advocated for change in the way the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collects data (Mullin & Phillippe, 2013). Changes to the IPEDS reporting system in 2015 included measurements to better reflect the attendance patterns and demographics of community college students (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2015). These changes reflect metrics that include part-time students, community college transfer students, and the idea that many community college students take more than three years to graduate. By changing these metrics, the number of graduates reflected in IPEDS data is more representative of student success at community colleges.

To improve retention and graduation rates, community colleges use many strategies to respond to student needs, which could present a more positive image of student success. Support programs for community college students include student success courses, first-year experience courses, competency-based reforms, developmental education programs, initiatives for underrepresented groups of students, intrusive advising and intrusive non-academic support, service learning, and pathways to success (Jenkins et al., 2020; Karp, 2016; Kuh et al., 2006; Morest, 2013). Recent studies on students and institutional success suggest that retention, graduation, and completion rates remain constant over the last several years for community colleges (Higher Learning Commission, 2018; Jenkins et al., 2020; Levesque, 2018). Therefore, a plausible argument is that factors other than those addressed in current initiatives must be affecting community college students and their success rates.

Other factors, especially non-academic issues, could be exacerbating students’ successful completion of community college. One factor might be food insecurity (Karp, 2016). The ideal state of physical well-being for college students includes rest, exercise, and a diet that supports optimal physical functioning. Moreover, rising academic costs coupled with cost-of-living expenses force students to decide between paying for education and paying for food (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018). This negotiation between basic needs and personal advancement can jeopardize any student’s ability to achieve success. The choice to purchase textbooks instead of food is a reality for many students (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2017). Other students may buy a snack instead of a meal to afford transportation to and from school. Very few things are more disruptive than the uncertainty of knowing when and how the next meal will come. Food insecurity affects nutritional, economical, and educational behaviors (Goldrick-Rab, 2018; Wood et al., 2016) and is a barrier to student success.

Definition of Food Insecurity

Food insecurity in the United States, previously referred to as food insufficiency, was first addressed in 1990 as part of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act (Morris et al., 2016). Defined as the inability to obtain an adequate amount of food and nutrition, food insecurity has been researched by several of scholars including Anderson (1990), Cady (2014), Dubick et al. (2016), Goldrick-Rab et al. (2015), Goldrick-Rab et al. (2017), Jyoti et al. (2005), Maroto (2013), Radimer (1990), Spaid and Gillet-Karam (2018), and Wood et al. (2016). An individual’s perception of and access to nutritional options define the varying levels of food insecurity in his or her household (Liburd, 2020; Maroto, 2013). Food insecurity and hunger are not interchangeable terms for defining the physiological results due to lack of food.

Food insecurity describes the experience of anxiety and uncertainty of not knowing the source of the next meal. Hunger is a physical consequence of the most severe forms of food insecurity. The food insecurity experience also manifests through the choice to eat less frequently, smaller portions, less healthy and cheaper food, or choosing not to eat at all (Fincher et al., 2018; Goldrick-Rab, 2018). “Food insecurity is a household-level economic and social condition of limited access to food, while hunger is an individual-level physiological condition that may result from food insecurity” (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2020).

Food Insecurity among Community College Students

Many community college students may not have the financial resources to purchase food and pay tuition (Goldrick-Rab, 2018). The increased cost of tuition may be the cause of their inability to do both. The average annual cost of tuition and fees at public two-year colleges increased by $930 (approximately 34% after adjusting for inflation) between 2009 and 2019 (Ma et al., 2019). Due to financial constraints that cause food insecurity, some community college students struggle with student success. Couch et al. (2017) noted that food insecurity among college students has many negative impacts that include poor health and poor effects on academic performances.

Studies show that food insecure students tend to have lower GPAs than students who are food secure (Couch et al., 2017; Maroto et al., 2015). In addition, food insecure students are more likely to have difficulty attending classes (Couch et al., 2017). Dubick et al. (2016) reported that of the food insecure students in their study, 32% believed that hunger had an impact on their education. In addition, 55% of the participants reported that hunger prevented them from buying a required textbook, while 53% reported missing a class, and 25% reported dropping a class as a result of being food insecure. An example of these choices for students is going the entire day without eating or choosing to purchase a less healthy option at a fast-food restaurant instead of eating a salad because fast food provides greater quantity for the same price as a smaller portion of a healthier option (Dubick, et al., 2016).

The seminal research on community college students and food insecurity was conducted by Maroto (2013). Her study focused not only on food insecurity but also on the relationship between food insecurity and student success. Maroto’s research on community college students showed a significant relationship between food insecurity and GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels. Goldrick-Rab and colleagues (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018) have conducted several studies on thousands of students over the last five years finding that between 39% and 56% of community college students reported that they were food insecure.

Using Maroto’s (2013) study as a guide, Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) conducted a study at four community colleges and found a food insecurity rate of 52% among the women in their study. In addition, minority women using Pell grants were three times more likely to be food insecure than non-Pell grant recipients. Maroto (2013), Goldrick-Rab et al. (2018), and Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) used items from the USDA’s Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) to survey the students (see Appendix A). Several recent studies on community college students and food insecurity also used the HFSSM (see Table 1). Wood et al. (2016) surveyed 3,647 students from California campuses and employed the Stressful Life Events Scale, a scale that accounts for experiences with food and housing insecurities developed by the Community College Equity Assessment Lab (CCEAL). Their findings indicated that 49% of the participants were food insecure.

Table 1.

Past Studies Using the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) with Community College Students in the United States

Author and Year	Setting	Sample Size	Rate of Food Insecurity
Freudenberg et al., 2011	6 colleges	1,086	39.2%
Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015	10 colleges	4,312	39%
Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017	70 colleges	33,934	56%
Goldrick-Rab, 2018	31 colleges	3,139	42%
Maroto, 2013	2 colleges	301	56%
Mercado, 2017	4 colleges	693	60.5%

Many of the studies reviewed for this article used the HFSSM. Goldrick-Rab and associates chose to conduct large-scale studies sending a version of the HFSSM to thousands of student email addresses that the students completed online (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018; Maroto, 2013). Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) chose to approach several hundred students on community college campuses, face-to-face, using electronic tablets loaded with the HFSSM for students to complete in-person. With the evidence of several studies (Goldrick-Rab, 2018; Maroto, 2013; Spaid & Gillett-Karam, 2018; Wood et al., 2016) that indicate a relationship between student success and food insecurity, there is a need to explore this topic further.

Methods

Research Design

For the three research studies on community college students presented here, the authors used the same instrument and methods. In addition, for each of the three studies the stated hypotheses were that there is a significant relationship between food insecurity and grade point average, concentration levels, and energy levels. A cross-sectional quantitative research design was used, mirroring Maroto’s (2013) work that examined the prevalence of food insecurity and GPA, energy levels, and concentration levels among community college students.

Purpose and Framework

The purpose of each of these three quantitative studies was to use Radimer’s (1990) hunger model to examine the relationship between food insecurity, self-reported GPA, energy levels, and concentration levels among community college students at institutions on the East Coast of the United States. Radimer’s work provided the benchmarks and classifications used to identify and measure the prevalence and severity of food insecurity in the quantitative portion of this study. She is a pioneer of food insecurity categorization and assessment research. Her grounded theory approach to researching the hunger experiences in women and children in rural and urban areas of upstate New York was instrumental in the conceptualization of food insecurity and hunger as we know them today. The goals of Radimer’s research were (a) to understand the hunger experience and (b) to create measurable and reliable indicators of hunger.

Radimer (1990) found that the food insecurity experience differs for children, adults, and households. Hunger is the most severe consequence of the food insecurity experience. Food insecurity has four components: quantity, quality, certainty, and availability of food. The four components of food insecurity reflect the physical, psychological, and social aspects of the experience. Additionally, Radimer’s study resulted in the need to contextualize experiences of hunger through the lens of economic circumstance. Approaching the issue of hunger in this way not only revealed that low-income households were more at risk of experiencing food insecurity but also outlined the progression from being food secure to the most severe instance of hunger. Her research identified three characteristics of individual hunger: (a) insufficiency, (b) inadequacy, and (c) disrupted eating patterns. These issues comprise the foundation for defining the levels of severity of food insecurity used as the basis of categorization by the USDA (2020). When applying Radimer’s model of hunger to the three research studies on food insecurity presented here, the authors expected to find a significant relationship between food insecurity and GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels for community college students that would confirm the findings of several prior studies (Dubick et al., 2016; Goldrick-Rab, 2018; Maroto, 2013; Wood et al., 2016). By making these connections among food insecurity, GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels the authors intended to show that there are additional factors beyond the traditional metrics—retention, persistence, and graduation rates—that influence student success.

Procedures

The USDA currently uses the HFSSM to assess national household food security in adults and children on an annual basis. Due to its widespread use and long standing as a food security instrument, the HFSSM is reliable for assessing and measuring experiences of food insecurity and hunger. Maroto’s (2013) research employed a 10-item (eight items including two subitems) subset of the HFSSM survey used to assess adult food insecurity. Like Maroto’s (2013) study, the survey instrument used for these three studies incorporated items from the HFSSM to collect student food insecurity data.

The intercept method was used to gather data from all of the participants in the three research studies (Butler, 2011; Maroto, 2013). This survey method includes approaching students in places where they frequently gather on campus, including the learning resources centers, the student centers, libraries, and lounges. The researchers asked students if they were interested in completing a survey on food insecurity. Students used tablets loaded with the electronic copies or handed paper copies of the surveys to provide their responses. The SPSS software package was used to analyze the data for the three studies, employing Chi square and Fisher’s Exact tests.

Samples and Settings

For all three studies, the samples were community college students and the settings were community colleges on the East Coast of the United States. The HFSSM was used to gather data using the intercept method. The differences among the studies are detailed below.

• In fall 2017, Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) surveyed 217 community college students at four community colleges. This study was funded through the National Health Institutes, Award Numbers UL1GM118973, 8RL5GM118972, and 8TL4GM118974, and was a three-phase, mixed methods study; however, only the quantitative phase of the study is reported here. Survey participants received a $10 gift card to the community college bookstore or cafeteria as an incentive to participate in the study.

• Liburd (2020) collected data from 493 students in fall 2019 at three campuses of one community college. She conducted a mixed methods study. This article contains only the quantitative segment of her study. As an incentive, students who completed the survey received a $10 gift card to the campus bookstore.

• Monroe’s (2020) study included 148 African American/Black community college students at three community colleges between December 2019 and March 2020. Students who participated in the survey could win one of four Amazon.com $25 gift certificates in a raffle.

The Household Food Security Survey Module

Four subgroups comprised the 10 items of the HFSSM (Maroto, 2013). The subgroups are financial resources, emotional responses, physical responses, and changes in behavior. The first three items of the HFSSM deal with the impact of financial resources on the food insecurity experience. Items 1 and 2 refer to the feelings of uncertainty about having ample food that result from not having enough money. Item 3 on the survey deals with the limits of food choices due to limited funds. Items 4 and 5 are about identifying changes in behavior, such as skipping meals or reducing portion sizes due to lack the of sufficient funds. Items 6, 7, and 8 of the survey refer to the experiences of physical side effects from inadequate financial resources. Items 4 and 8 contain a sub-item referring to how many months in a year the incident occurred.

The responses to the HFSSM are coded on a ten-point scale based on the USDA research methodology. Response scores of 0 are categorized as “high food security.” Scores of 1 or 2 are considered “marginal food security.” Scores of 3 to 5 are categorized as “low food security,” and scores of 6 to 10 are categorized as “very-low food security.” The food insecurity experience is synonymous with the low and very-low food security categories (National Research Council, 2006).

Demographic Characteristics

A total of 858 community college students responded to the HFSSM in these three studies. More females than males were willing to complete the survey. A plurality (38%) of participants were Black; although 37% of the participants were White. Most of the students were not currently using a Pell grant to pay for school. Single parents comprised 11% of the survey participants (see Table 2). Survey participants reported their income levels primarily between $0 and $1,500 per month. The modal age was 18–19 with a range of 18–53.

Table 2.

Selected Demographic Variables for Three Studies

	Spaid & Gillett-Karam		Liburd		Monroe		Total
Sample	n=217		n=493		n=148		N=858
Gender
Male	86	40%	181	37%	65	44%	332	39%
Female	129	59%	309	62%	83	65%	521	60%
Other	2	1%	3	<1%	0	0%	5	<1%
Race/Ethnicity
Black	98	45%	78	16%	148	100%	324	38%
American Indian	4	<2%	1	<1%	0	0%	5	<1%
Asian	12	5%	12	2%	0	0%	24	3%
Hispanic	13	6%	133	27%	0	0%	146	17%
White	91	42%	226	46%	0	0%	317	37%
Multiracial*	7	3%	16	3%	0	0%	23	3%
Unknown	1	<1%	27	5%	0	0%	28	3%
Pell Status
Yes	104	48%	129	26%	67	45%	300	35%
No	113	52%	350	71%	81	55%	544	63%
Don’t Know	0	0%	14	3%	0	0%	14	2%
Single Parent
Yes	36	17%	38	8%	18	12%	92	11%
No	181	83%	455	92%	130	88%	766	89%

^*Note. Numbers may not add up to sample n or percentage as participants were able to choose more than one Race/Ethnicity category.

Results

Food insecurity levels varied among the participants in the three studies: Monroe (2020), 99%; Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018), 52%; and Liburd (2020), 30%.¹ Tables 3 and 4 contain an item analysis for the responses of the eight items on the HFSSM that indicate food insecurity levels for the samples of the three research studies. The data for the two sub-items were not included in this table. The instrument is structured in a three-level Likert scale (Often, Sometimes, and Never) for Items 1–3 and a categorical yes/no-scale for Items 4–8.

Table 3.

Responses to the Household Food Security Survey Module by Author, Items 1 –3

In the last 12 months:
	Indication of Food Insecurity		Total of Often and Sometimes	Food Security
	Often	Sometimes		Never
1. I worried whether my food would run out before I got money to buy more.
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	18%	35%	53%	47%
Liburd	10%	22%	32%	68%
Monroe	24%	39%	63%	37%
2. The food I bought just didn’t last, and I didn’t have money to get more.
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	14%	33%	47%	53%
Liburd	6%	17%	23%	77%
Monroe	15%	46%	61%	39%
3. I couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	20%	43%	63%	37%
Liburd	12%	17%	29%	71%
Monroe	28%	33%	61%	39%

Table 4.

Responses to the Household Food Security Survey Module by Author, Items 4 – 8

In the last 12 months:
	Yes	No
4. Did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	27%	73%
Liburd	20%	80%
Monroe	37%	63%
5. Did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there enough money for food?
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	39%	61%
Liburd	25%	75%
Monroe	39%	61%
6. Were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there wasn’t enough money for food?
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	22%	78%
Liburd	25%	75%
Monroe	49%	51%
7. Did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food?
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	22%	78%
Liburd	11%	89%
Monroe	25%	75%
8. Did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food?
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	17%	83%
Liburd	7%	93%
Monroe	21%	79%

Monroe’s (2020) results indicate the highest percentages of food insecurity for her sample of African American/Black community college students. On six of the eight items, her data show the highest percentages of food insecurity. For two items, 3 and 5, Monroe’s results are the same or 2% lower than the Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) study. For item 3, Monroe’s data show that 61% of her sample indicated that they could not afford to eat balanced meals, often or sometimes. Spaid and Gillett-Karam’s (2018) respondents indicated that they could not afford to eat balanced meals 63% of the time. Monroe’s (2020) results for item 5 show 39% with a yes response to “Did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food?” and Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) also show 39% in the yes category. Furthermore, on all other HFSSM items, Monroe (2020) shows the highest percentages that indicate food insecurity. Liburd’s (2020) data reflect the lowest levels of food insecurity for her sample.

Inferential Statistics

The hypotheses for the research studies were:

H_a1: There is a relationship between Food Insecurity and GPA.

H_a2: There is a relationship between Food Insecurity and Concentration.

H_a3: There is a relationship between Food Insecurity and Energy.

Nonparametric inferential statistics were used to analyze the data from the three studies (see Table 5). The alpha level was set at <.05 for all three studies. For Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) and Liburd (2020) studies, a Pearson’s Chi-square was calculated. Because Monroe’s (2020) sample was smaller and the results of the Chi-square showed that more than 20% of the cells contained expected frequencies of less than 5, a Fisher’s Exact test was conducted.

Table 5.

Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact Results for Food Insecurity and Student Success Measure

Authors	Hypothesis	χ 2	P Value	Size Effect	Fisher’s Exact
Spaid & Gillett-Karam	Ha1	.384	0.535	0.042
	Ha2	.248	0.618	0.034
	Ha3	4.961	0.026	0.151
Liburd	Ha1	40.266	0.000	0.286
	Ha2	15.421	0.000	0.177
	Ha3	24.937	0.000	0.225
Monroe	Ha1		0.001	0.270	25.076
	Ha2		0.085	0.193	5.060
	Ha3		0.263	0.241	2.633

A significance relationship was found for all three hypotheses in Liburd’s (2020) study (H_a1: p = <.001, H_a2: p = <.001, and H_a3: p = <.001); that is for GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels. For Monroe’s (2020) study, a significant relationship was found for hypothesis 1 (H_a1: p = <.01); and for the Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) study, a significant relationship was found for hypothesis 3 (H_a3: p = <.05). Liburd’s results indicated that 26% of food insecure students reported a GPA between 3.0 and 3.49 and that 58% of these students reported low levels of concentration and 72% reported low energy levels. Monroe results revealed that 53% of students with very high levels of food insecurity reported a GPA between 2.5 and 2.9. Finally, Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) results indicated that 52% of food insecure students reported low energy levels.

Discussion

The tri-study hypotheses stated that there was a significant relationship between food insecurity and grade point average, concentration levels, and energy levels for community college students. Liburd’s (2020) work supported all three hypotheses. Monroe’s (2020) study showed a relationship between food insecurity and grade point average. Spaid and Gillett-Karam’s (2018) work supported the relationship between food insecurity and energy levels.

Radimer’s (1990) hunger model was used as the framework for the three studies presented. She conducted the pivotal research using qualitative methods on hunger that led to the development of the HFSSM used by the USDA for its current studies on food insecurity (Radimer, 2002). Maroto’s (2013) research was among the first quantitative studies on community college students, student success, and food insecurity. She found a significant relationship between food insecurity and GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels. Similarly, Liburd’s (2020) results showed a significant relationship between food insecurity and GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels. However, Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018) found only a relationship between food insecurity and energy levels, and Monroe (2020) found that food insecurity was related to GPA as reported by Maroto et al. (2015). All three of these studies used the same methods as Maroto (2013), but included different samples of community college students. The three studies were conducted from fall 2017 through spring 2020.

Goldrick-Rab and associates (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018) did not report findings on student success as defined in the three current studies (GPA, concentration levels, and energy levels). However, they conducted food insecurity studies with community college students and found that in the 30 days prior to the survey; half of their participants had marginal, low, or very low levels of food security. Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018), Liburd (2020), and Monroe (2020) also found significant levels of food insecurity for their samples.

Wood et al. (2016) reported that only 12.2% of their respondents indicated that they were food insecure. However, Mercado (2017) conducted a study using items from the HFSSM and found that 60.5% of the respondents stated that they were food insecure. Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018), Liburd (2020), and Monroe (2020) reported levels of food insecurity for their samples at 52%, 30%, and 99%, respectively, and Maroto (2013) found that 56% of her sample reported food insecurity.

The differences in food insecurity levels between Wood et al. (2016) and the other five studies (Liburd, 2020; Maroto, 2013; Mercado, 2017; Monroe, 2020; Spaid & Gillett-Karam, 2018) may be due to the instruments used in each study. Wood et al. (2016) used the Community College Success Measure (CCSM), whereas all five of the other researchers collected their data through the HFSSM, which is also used by the USDA to gather annual data in the United States and around the world. In addition, the difference in Mercado’s (2017) study, as compared with the studies reported here, was that her instructions to the respondents were to indicate food insecurity based on the last 30 days. Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018), Liburd (2020), and Monroe (2020) asked participants to report on food insecurity based on the last 12 months as did Maroto (2013).

Limitations of the Studies

The three studies discussed pose several limitations. The instrument, the HFSSM, is a self-reporting instrument. Objectivity could be lacking on the part of the participants in the reporting of any self-reported data. The researchers could not verify the accuracy of self-reported GPA due to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). An assumption was made that students responded to the survey honestly and that they correctly responded to the survey items as intended by the researchers. The target population and samples were limited to community college students who voluntarily agreed to participate in the surveys and were solicited to participate using the intercept methods. Incentives were used in all three studies to solicit participation. Caution should be used in applying these results to the general population of community college students. None of the participants were under 18 or over 54 years old. The settings were limited to the East Coast of the United States. All data were gathered during the day and early evening.

Implications for Community Colleges

Notwithstanding the limitations of these studies, the results provide community college leaders with an opportunity to review their own campus practices and to develop strategies to support students in a broader context. The studies by Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018), Liburd (2020), and Monroe (2020) offer additional evidence and support for the inclusion and addition of food insecurity influencing student success factors. Monroe’s (2020) findings that 99% of her sample, which included only African American/Black students, was food insecure presents challenges that historically have gone unmet. The traditional student support services of tutoring, supplemental instruction, first-year experience, alternative admission program, and any number of activities that relate to the academic experience may need to be expanded. This expansion of services could be targeted to include services for specific populations of students due to the results presented here and in the other studies mentioned above. New methods are needed to ensure that student success is not thwarted because students are hungry, do not receive a balanced diet of nutritious foods, or are worried about where their next meal will come from.

Recommendations for Future Research

Goldrick-Rab and associates (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018) have recommended food pantries on community college campuses, along with food scholarships, discounts at the college cafeteria and food courts, and partnerships with community food pantries. Further studies are needed to ascertain which strategies are most effective in alleviating food insecurity and supporting student success.

Additional research is needed that clarifies the results of these quantitative studies. This might include qualitative studies in which the HFSSM questions are used to guide interviews or focus groups among community college students at rural, suburban, and urban colleges and among various ethnic groups and genders. Finally, larger-scale studies at regional or national levels could confirm results presented here in relation to the success of community college students and food insecurity.

The studies by Spaid and Gillett-Karam (2018), Liburd (2020), and Monroe (2020) offer additional evidence and support for the inclusion and addition of food insecurity in influencing student success factors. Indeed, Monroe’s findings that 99% of African American/Black participants indicated that food insecurity presents an opportunity to the academy to clarify the research on food insecurity. Strategies to support food security for community college students have been recommended and put in place for some time at institutions around the country. Further research is needed to determine the full extent of food insecurity for community college students, which students are food insecure, and the most effective strategies for dealing with food insecurity and increasing student success in community colleges.