Editorial Vol. 8 Issue 1

Editorial Vol. 8 Issue

Food Insecurity and Assistance on Campus: A Survey of the Student Body

According to recent studies, food insecurity affects from 34%-59% of college students. This will continue to be an issue as tuition increases and more low-income and first-generation students enter universities and colleges. Nearly 52% of college students live at, or near, the poverty level, compared to a national poverty rate of 14.5%. This leaves many undergraduate and graduate students with challenging decisions around meeting their basic housing, nutritional, and educational expenses. To assess food insecurity at Kansas State University (KSU), a random sample of undergraduate and graduate students was surveyed. Findings include a high rate of food insecurity (44.3%) among respondents. This measure was calculated by summing the affirmative responses to the USDA short-form food security questions in the survey. This means that during a 7-month period during the 2016 to 2017 academic year, 44.3% of respondents experienced at least two of the following: 1) didn’t have enough food to last and didn’t have money to buy more, 2) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals, 3) cut the size of or skipped meals, 4) ate less than they felt they should because they didn’t have enough money, or, 5) were hungry and didn’t eat. This finding is consistent with other studies that report food insecurity rates between 34% and 59% at U.S. universities and community colleges. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were generally aware that food insecurity is a significant problem on college campuses. A majority of respondents (63%) reported that they knew students besides themselves who, currently or sometime during the academic year, had problems with food insecurity or hunger. Yet food assistance (e.g., food pantries) and SNAP are seldom used and responses regarding the use of an on-campus food pantry were mixed. Despite this mixed response, over 2,000 students had used the campus food pantry within the one-year period between opening in 2017 to 2018 (Bishop 2018)

Enhancing Financial Literacy among College Athletes

College students, including athletes, have limited exposure to financial education prior to enrolling in college (Britt et al., 2015). Athletes juggling two full-time roles as athlete and college student have limited time for financial education and the opportunity to work. Some athletes receive athletic scholarships and some do not, but either way, many athletes must seek additional funding and student loans to pay for college. Huston’s (2010) model demonstrated connections between financial literacy, behaviors, and education to serve as a framework for our study. The purpose of this study was to determine college athletes’ subjective and objective financial literacy, how they applied this knowledge, and their preferred mode(s) of financial education to pilot financial literacy education geared specifically for athletes based on their preferences. Data was collected from two institutions in the same Power 5 conference: monthly spending logs, focus groups, interviews, a financial knowledge survey, and pre- and post-tests flanking a financial literacy module in first-year experience courses and summer bridge. A Money 101 course was piloted over eight weeks, and peer financial counseling was offered. As athletes might gain access to their name, image, and likeness (NIL) for potential income in the near future, financial education is paramount

Marriage and Materialism: Actor and Partner Effects Between Materialism, Importance of Marriage, and Marital Satisfaction

Drawing upon both the incompatibility of materialism and children model and marital paradigms theory, the purpose of the current study was to examine husband-wife actor and partner effects between materialism and marital satisfaction and to explore perception of the importance of marriage as a mediator of these relationships. Using a sample of 706 couples from the RELATE dataset, wives’ materialism negatively predicted both their own marital satisfaction as well as their husbands’ marital satisfaction. However, when controlling for financial problems in marriage, these effects became non-significant. Additionally, upon adding both wives’ and husbands’ importance of marriage (as well as combined couples’ “common fate” importance of marriage) to the model as mediators, indirect effects (actor and partner) between materialism and marital satisfaction were noted. Thus, when one partner (regardless of gender) places a high value on money and possessions, both spouses are less likely to place a high value on marriage, and are subsequently less likely to be satisfied in their marriage. Implications for financial therapists are discussed