# “I Was Thinking About Food All the Time, I Didn’t Have Enough”: Understanding the Multidimensional Nature of Food Insecurity Among Undergraduates at an Urban U.S. Campus

## TL;DR

This study explores how college students at an urban U.S. university experience food insecurity, highlighting the need for campus policies that go beyond meal plans to address multiple factors.

## Contribution

The study introduces a socio-ecological framework to analyze food insecurity among undergraduates, revealing how meal plans alone are insufficient.

## Key findings

- Meal plans with unlimited swipes do not ensure food security due to persistent barriers like food agency and utilization.
- Students rely on campus events for free food, while formal assistance like food pantries is underused.
- Dining hall hours and transportation issues hinder access to food, especially for students with limited resources.

## Abstract

Background: Food insecurity among college students is a multidimensional challenge shaped by individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy factors. Although many campuses require or provide meal plans, students may experience food insecurity when barriers related to agency (choice and autonomy), utilization (nutrition security), and availability persist. This study explored how undergraduate students at a private, urban U.S. university experience and navigate the multiple dimensions of food insecurity. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews via Zoom between December 2024 and January 2025 with n = 22 undergraduate students recruited based on food security status, determined by a Fall 2024 longitudinal survey using the USDA Six-Item Short Form. Transcripts were double-coded by trained research assistants in ATLAS.ti using an inductive codebook. Thematic analyses followed a phronetic, iterative approach, organizing findings within a socio-ecological determinants framework and comparing themes by food security status. Results: We identified nine themes across four domains (individual, interpersonal, institutional and community, and political). At the individual level, constrained personal resources for groceries and cooking, time scarcity leading to skipped meals, and health impacts that detracted from academics emerged as key themes. Interpersonally, reliable family financial support was protective and informal support from peers/coaches filled gaps sporadically for some. At the institutional and community level, dining hall hours misaligned with student schedules, perceived limited variety and nutrition quality reduced food agency and utilization, and transportation impeded use of the sole grocery partner accepting university meal plan benefits. Notably, meal plans including unlimited meal swipes provided stable access but did not guarantee food security when food agency and utilization barriers persisted. Many students relied on campus events for free food; formal assistance (e.g., food pantry) was largely underused. At the policy level, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) awareness and enrollment was limited among our sample. Conclusions: Meal plan access alone is insufficient to ensure food security. Campus strategies should extend beyond access to prioritize flexibility, variety, and alignment with students’ schedules and preferences, while strengthening communication and eligibility support for external benefits. Future work should design and evaluate interventions that integrate all dimensions of food security and address institutional policies affecting students’ basic needs.