User:Joshuaalexh1/sandbox

Access Availability:
Between the years 1980 and 2000, obesity rates have doubled among young children and tripled among teens. However, many studies are being conducted to provide insight into whether genetics are the only facet, or if economic and environmental circumstances are playing a role. According to the “Thrifty Gene Hypothesis,” a common genetic explanation for the increasing rates is the mismatch between today’s environmental nutrients and “[|energy thrifty phenotype].” It has been deduced that thrifty genotype are just one aspect, the tendency to be sedentary, and increasing rates of sugar and fat consumption, are also linked to the increase in obesity. The tendency for children to be sedentary can be linked to the accessibility to safe play areas and after school programs, which differ between different socioeconomic classes. Studies have shown that rates of participation in after school programs is similarly low across all socioeconomic groups; however, current research is showing that this may be do to external factors, other than the need or want to participate. Research shows that low attendance in high-socioeconomic households may be caused by enriching activities children are participating in outside of school funded programs, while children in low-socioeconomic households might not participate because of their lack of access. The research showed that parents of low-income and minority youth were less likely to report easy access to conveniently located after school programs, when compared to high-income and White parents. Disparities to access are further exacerbated by the inequality in access to transportation. Availability to participate in most after school programs is dependent on the parents ability to get their child or children to the desired location, for it is very uncommon for after school programs to have the resources to provide transportation. In addition, youth from disadvantaged families are less likely to have access to a car, to provide their own transportation, and are more likely to live in high crime neighborhoods, eliminating their ability to transport themselves without a car. According to the study conducted, inability to find transportation was directly linked to the lack of involvement in the CCLC after school program, a program that targets low-income youth. The CCLC conducted a survey in which 20% of youth stated that the reason they were not able to enroll was not because of lack of desire, but rather inability to find transportation. Additionally, 46% of the remaining youth stated that it was not the lack of desire that kept them from participating, but rather the inability to find a ride home from the program.

Inescapable Obligations:
Barriers, other than transportation, that prevents low-income youth from participating in afterschool programs offered in their community, include unavoidable obligations and responsibilities, including chores, jobs, family assistance, and household management. The 21st CCLCs evaluations found that 50% of non-participating youth could not take part of their programs because of after school responsibilities. Another 28% stated that they could not participate because they were required to take care of their younger siblings after school as their parents worked. As highlighted in a recent brief by the Harvard Family Research Project, “In some evaluations of welfare-to-work programs, the only group of adolescents who experienced gains in participation in formal after school activities were those without younger siblings ." This study linked youth employment as a reason for lack of involvement in afterschool activities. Like sibling care, employment is another facet that prevents low-income household members from taking advantage of after school programs. Although youth from more affluent homes are more likely to be employed during high school education years, than are youth from less affluent homes, youth from low-income homes who do work are likely to work longer hours in relation to those from high-income households . This study linked youth employment as a reason for lack of involvement in afterschool activities. Like sibling care, employment is another facet that prevents low-income household members from taking advantage of after school programs. Although youth from more affluent homes are more likely to be employed during high school education years, than are youth from less affluent homes, youth from low-income homes who do work are likely to work longer hours in relation to those from high- income households .Therefore youth from low-socioeconomic homes who are employed have fewer free non-school hours to participate in school programs. The inability to participate in afterschool programs that could result in calorie loss, and the increase in fast food targeting towards the larger ethnic groups in low-income families, are all factors linked to the rise of inadequate spread of obesity though different races. Hispanic and African American teen and children are now more targeted by fast food restaurants, according to TV broadcast statistics, Spanish-language advertisement on TV has increased by 8%, and restaurants such as KFC and Burger King have increased there spending from 35% to 41% while decreasing English-language advertising.

Federal and National Level Studies:
In 2009, The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “food desert” study examined access to supermarkets, and found that 23.5 million people within the United States did not have access to a supermarket within a one-mile radius of where they resigned. More than 113 studies have been conducted to determine if healthy food and supermarkets are equally accessible to every socioeconomic class ;97 of said 113 found that healthy food and supermarkets are unequally distributed between different socioeconomic groups, 14 of said 113 found mixed and 2 of said 113 found no unequal distribution. 85% of the studies resulted in the conclusion of unequal distribution between different socioeconomic classes, primarily those from low-, middle- and high-income. Studies in which supermarkets were compared to other food outlets such as small grocery stores and convenience stores were also conducted; in this study supermarkets were used as a proxy for food access, for they provide the most reliable access to a wide variety of nutritious and affordable food. The study showed that low-income communities and communities with minorities inhabited less supermarkets and more convenience and small grocery stores, than did predominantly White and wealthy communities. 89 out of 98 national and local studies have found uneven geographic access to supermarkets in urban areas. Nationwide studies have concluded that zip codes composed primarily of low-income households are 25% less likely to inhabit a chain supermarket store but contain 1.3 times as many convenient stores when compared to zip codes composed of middle-income households. Zip codes composed of predominantly African American households have about half the amount of chain supermarkets, as do zip codes composed of predominantly White households. According to a 685 urban and rural census tracts assessment of three states, low-income neighborhoods have approximately half as many supermarkets and four times as many small grocery stores when compared to high-income neighborhoods. The same study also found that predominantly White neighborhoods inhabit four times as many supermarkets as predominantly African American neighborhoods. .

Local Level Studies:
Studies done at the local level demonstration similar trends as those done at the national level; there are 2.3 times as many supermarkets per household in low-poverty areas in Los Angeles, compared to high-poverty areas. Predominantly White regions have 1.7 times as many supermarkets as Latino regions, and 3.2 times as many as African American regions. Amongst affluent neighborhoods in Alaska, those composed of predominantly White citizens have better access to grocery stores than those composed of predominantly African American, indicating that race may be an element independent of income. In West Louisville, Kentucky, low-income African American community that suffers from high rates of diabetes have one supermarket for every 25,000 resident, in comparison to the United State’s average of one supermarket for every 12,500 resident. In Washington, DC, the city’s lowest income warts, seven and eight, have on average one supermarket for every 70,000 people, while two of the three highest-income warts, two and three, have one supermarket for every 11,881 people. Twenty percent of there food stamp inheritors live in a neighborhood that does not inhabit a grocery store ” In Washington, DC, the city’s lowest income wards (Wards 7 and 8) have one supermarket for every 70,000 people while two of the three highest-income wards (Wards 2 and 3) have one for every 11,881 people. One in five of the city’s food stamp recipients lives in a neighborhood without a grocery store.”. Twenty-one studies have found that food stores in low-income communities are less likely to stock healthy or fresh foods or snacks. Said food stores are also more likely to offer lower quality items at higher prices, compared to food stores in predominantly White communities.