Luận án Tiến sĩ: Hy vọng qua cộng đồng từ thiện Tulsa - Nghiên cứu của Randy K. Macon

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE FEEDING HOPE THROUGH TULSA'S PHILANTHROPIC COMMUNITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By RANDY K. MACON Norman, Oklahoma 2014 FEEDING HOPE THROUGH TULSA'S PHILANTHROPIC COMMUNITY A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE COLLEGE BY ________________________________ Dr. Chan Hellman, Chair ________________________________ Dr. Gerard Clancy ________________________________ Dr.

Julie Miller-Cribbs ________________________________ Dr. Chad Johnson ________________________________ Dr. Curt Adams © Copyright by RANDY K. MACON 2014 All Rights Reserved.

This work is respectfully dedicated to those who have known the pain of going to bed hungry and to those sentinels working tirelessly to ensure future generations do not. Acknowledgements Althea Gibson is credited with these words of wisdom: No matter what accomplishment you make, somebody helped you. With this sentiment, and my unending gratitude, I wish to collectively acknowledge all the somebodies who have supported me along this spectacular journey. In particular, I would like to immortalize the contributions of Dr.

Chan Hellman and Dr. They inspired hope. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements. iv Table of Contents.

v List of Tables. vi List of Figures. viii Chapter One: Introduction. 1 Statement of Problem.

6 Purpose of Study. 9 Significance of Study. 10 Definition of Terms. 11 Chapter Two: Review of Literature.

25 Chapter Three: Methodology. 36 Chapter Four: Results. 38 Hypotheses One, Two, and Three. 47 Conclusions Related to the Hypotheses.

49 Implications to Nonprofit Organizations. 50 Implications to Research. 66 Appendix B: Information Sheet for Consent to Participate in a Research Study. 73 Appendix C: Institutional Review Board Letter of Approval.

75 Appendix D: Map of Respondent Zip Codes. 76 v List of Tables Table One: Demographic Variables of Participants. 29 Table Two: Completed Surveys Per Organizations. 38 Table Three: Zero-Order Correlation Matrix.

40 Table Four: Results of Hierarchical Regression DV SWL. 43 Table Five: Results of Hierarchical Regression DV SPANE Balance. 45 vi List of Figures Figure One: The Philanthropic Emergency Food Response System. 6 Figure Two: Boundaries of Zip Code 74127.

30 Figure Three: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs. 48 vii Abstract Hope Theory continues to emerge in the scholarly literature. A facet of positive psychology, this theory is comprised of three facets: goals, pathways thinking, and agency thinking. To date there has been limited application of hope theory to the context of work underway in the nonprofit sector.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to apply hope theory as a lens to predict well-being among clients seeking food-related assistance from nonprofit organizations in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The measurement instruments used in this study were the Future Hope Scale, the Food Security Survey, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE). The results suggest that respondents living in food insecure conditions struggle with life satisfaction and report high levels of negative affect based on their experiences. Additionally, Hope Agency accounted for significant variance in both satisfaction with life and affect, over and above food insecurity and hope pathways, among this sample.

The results of this study can inform future research specific to hope theory and have direct application to the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors engaged in this work in Tulsa, Oklahoma. viii Chapter One: Introduction On any given day in the United States, more than 35 million individuals, including 12 million children, struggle to find their next meal (Berg, 2008; Brown, Shepard, Martin, & Orwat, 2007). households faced some level of food insecurity—meaning that at least one person had to reduce the quantity of food consumed at some point during the year due to lack of resources (Coleman-Jensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2012). For this same three-year period, Oklahoma matched the national average with 14.7% of households, approximately 600,000 individuals, stressed by hunger related issues (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012; Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma, n.

With each passing year an increasing number of individuals face food insecurity making hunger a pervasive issue in our country, across our state, and in our communities. As individuals strive toward the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, those challenged with food insecurity face added obstacles beyond their empty cupboards. Food insecurity has been empirically linked to instances of anxiety, shame, exclusion, powerlessness, depression and guilt (Hamelin, Beaudry, & Habicht, 2002; Siefert, Heflin, Corcoran, & Williams, 2004). Two primary sources of support exist for those dealing with food insecurity: the government and the philanthropic sector (including faith-based organizations).

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formally known as food stamps, is the largest assistance program administered by the U. Department of Agriculture through the Food and Nutrition Service division (Cunnyngham, Sukasih, & Castner, 1 2013). Title IV of the omnibus Farm Bill, most recently reauthorized as the Agricultural Act of 2014, provides for SNAP assistance to low-income families and individuals through FY2018 (Chite, 2014; U. For fiscal year 2012, a total of $86.5 billion was appropriated to the SNAP program to assist an average of 46 million individuals each month (United States Department of Agriculture, n.) By 2012, more than 800,000 Oklahoma residents relied on SNAP assistance at some point during the year (Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2012).

President Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 reduces the SNAP appropriation to $84.25 billion, of which $5 billion will be reserved for use only if needed and will require additional approvals to access (Food Research Action Center, n.) Current SNAP benefits are capped at $200 per month for an individual or $668 per month for a family of four (United States Department of Agriculture, 2013a). When divided over a month’s time, SNAP allocations equal between $5.60 per person per day, or between $1. As a supplemental program, SNAP is not intended to cover the full cost of food for any recipient. However, the reality is that many in extreme poverty are unable to obtain nutrient-rich foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables even with SNAP assistance (Leung et al.

As of January 2013, the projected cost of one moderately priced nutritious meal, prepared at home, for an adult male between the ages of 19 and 50 is $3. Assuming an adult male qualifies for the full SNAP allocation, and assuming he is able to prepare a balanced meal using the projected 2 budget, he still faces a gap of $1.26 projected cost minus $1. To fill this gap, individuals often turn to the philanthropic sector for hope. Generally defined, philanthropy includes “private initiatives for public good, focusing on quality of life” (McCully, 2008, p.

America has maintained a philanthropic ethos since the country’s founding. Elements supporting this spirit are woven into the preamble of our country’s most important document, the Constitution of the United States: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare [emphasis added], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. pmbl) Classified today as a part of the third sector (distinct from private business or public government), philanthropic organizations exist to carry out the mission of promoting general welfare. The philanthropic sector in the U.

is comprised of millions of autonomous nonprofit organizations powered by tens of millions of volunteers and trillions of dollars in assets (Payton & Moody, 2008, p. One estimate predicts that as much as 41 trillion U. dollars will be involved in an intergenerational transfer of wealth from 1998 through 2052 (Whitaker, 2007) and much of this asset base could end up in the philanthropic sector as families create new private foundations or further fund foundations already in existence. A sampling of 1,122 of the largest grant-making foundations in the United States taken in 2011 3 revealed that, of the $24.5 billion awarded by this group during this timeframe, $696.7 million went to support food, nutrition and agriculture (The Foundation Center, 2013).

This amount did not include funds given by individual donors directly to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, which is a more difficult number to obtain; one estimate suggests this is as much as 83 percent of all charitable donations given in the United States (Payton & Moody, 2008). The combined philanthropic response to hunger in America is estimated to be more than $14 billion annually (Brown, Shepard, Martin, & Orwat, 2007). These funds support a sophisticated infrastructure for emergency food delivery in the United States. Feeding America, formerly known as America’s Second Harvest, is the largest domestic hunger-relief charity and coordinates a network of 202 local food banks across the U.

which collectively assist more than 37 million Americans – including 14 million children and 3 million senior citizens – each year (Feeding America, n. Most food banks do not provide food directly to individuals. Instead, these distributors work through partner programs, mostly nonprofit organizations themselves, to ensure assistance reaches those who need it most (see Figure 1). As an example, through relationships with 450 partner programs across a 24- county service area, the Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma distributes more than 15 million pounds of food annually using a force of 10,000 volunteers and more than 50 full-time employees.

With this food, these partner programs serve an estimated 247,000 meals to 70,000 individuals each week (Community Food Bank of Eastern 4 Oklahoma, 2013). Assistance is provided in two primary ways: through emergency kitchens, also known as soup kitchens, and pantry programs. Emergency kitchens serve prepared meals to be consumed on site (Coleman- Jensen et al. There is usually no formal intake process and no limit to the number of times an individual can utilize a soup kitchen in a given period.

Pantry programs distribute bags of groceries for use offsite (Coleman-Jensen et al. After participating in an intake process, clients seeking pantry assistance generally receive enough groceries to last between three and seven days. Grocery items are either pre-selected by program staff or volunteers or, in some cases, chosen with client input. Access to this type of assistance is often limited to a pre-determined number of visits in a given period, based on each organization’s capacity.

Individuals living in rural areas face additional challenges, such as transportation and scarcity of fresh fruits and vegetables, when relying on food pantry assistance (Whitley, 2013). 5 Figure 1 The Philanthropic Emergency Food Response System Feeding America network local food banks nonprofit partner programs individual clients Figure 1. The philanthropic emergency food response system. Statement of Problem It is estimated that hunger cost the United States more than $90 billion in 2007 (Brown, Shepard, Martin, & Orwat, 2007).

By 2010 this cost had increased to $167.5 billion of which the philanthropic sector contributed $17. Hungry and malnourished individuals have more healthcare needs, miss more days of work and school, and are usually less productive when working or learning than individuals who receive proper nourishment (Brown et al., 2007; Shepard et al. Moreover, individuals dealing with hunger often find that it invades other aspects of life and forces them to make stressful life choices that can lead to increased levels of anxiety, depression, psychosocial dysfunction, and suicide (Brown et al., 2007; Mander, 2008; Shepard et al. For example, approximately 6 40 percent of respondents to a 2011 study reported experiencing stress over having insufficient funds to pay rent, pay medical bills, and purchase food (Shepard et al.

Food insecurity impacts children in unique ways. When compared with their peers from food secure households, children experiencing food insecurity contend with educational challenges at higher rates. Specifically, they are 50 percent more likely to miss days of school, 200 percent more likely to be suspended; and approximately 50 percent more likely to be retained at a given grade level (Shepard et al.