ObjectiveThis session explores why households move in and out of food insecurity.Design, Setting and ParticipantsThe two-phased, longitudinal mixed-methods study used a socio-ecological theoretical framework. First, employing a cross sectional, observational design, we administered in-person surveys to 320 adults in very low food secure households with children in 8 counties in North Carolina with the highest food insecurity rates (>30%). Over 1 year later, we repeated select questions, including the Household Food Security Survey Module and conducted in-depth interviews with a cohort (n=28) of participants.Outcome Measures and AnalysisWe produced separate cross-tabular estimates comparing baseline and follow up data for household food security and socioeconomic characteristics and analyzed interview data for events that triggered food shortages.ResultsMost respondents reported having different life circumstance at follow-up compared to baseline that affected their household’s food security. Almost half of participants’ food security improved. Categories of circumstances that affected food security included: family composition (e.g. change in marital status or household size); health (e.g. prolong illness or recovery); unexpected living expenses (e.g. car repair or purchase); and seasonal expenses (e.g. energy cost, school fees). Participation in SNAP, WIC, school food and financial assistance programs remained consistent between times baseline and follow-up.Conclusions and ImplicationsHouseholds can often manage until an unexpected expense upsets planned budgets and strategies. Reducing income volatility, helping to limit expenses (e.g., providing affordable health care, improving affordability of housing, strengthening resource management skills), and offering emergency financial assistance as a needed buffer may enable households to improve and maintain their food security.FundingUniversity of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research. ObjectiveThis session explores why households move in and out of food insecurity. This session explores why households move in and out of food insecurity. Design, Setting and ParticipantsThe two-phased, longitudinal mixed-methods study used a socio-ecological theoretical framework. First, employing a cross sectional, observational design, we administered in-person surveys to 320 adults in very low food secure households with children in 8 counties in North Carolina with the highest food insecurity rates (>30%). Over 1 year later, we repeated select questions, including the Household Food Security Survey Module and conducted in-depth interviews with a cohort (n=28) of participants. The two-phased, longitudinal mixed-methods study used a socio-ecological theoretical framework. First, employing a cross sectional, observational design, we administered in-person surveys to 320 adults in very low food secure households with children in 8 counties in North Carolina with the highest food insecurity rates (>30%). Over 1 year later, we repeated select questions, including the Household Food Security Survey Module and conducted in-depth interviews with a cohort (n=28) of participants. Outcome Measures and AnalysisWe produced separate cross-tabular estimates comparing baseline and follow up data for household food security and socioeconomic characteristics and analyzed interview data for events that triggered food shortages. We produced separate cross-tabular estimates comparing baseline and follow up data for household food security and socioeconomic characteristics and analyzed interview data for events that triggered food shortages. ResultsMost respondents reported having different life circumstance at follow-up compared to baseline that affected their household’s food security. Almost half of participants’ food security improved. Categories of circumstances that affected food security included: family composition (e.g. change in marital status or household size); health (e.g. prolong illness or recovery); unexpected living expenses (e.g. car repair or purchase); and seasonal expenses (e.g. energy cost, school fees). Participation in SNAP, WIC, school food and financial assistance programs remained consistent between times baseline and follow-up. Most respondents reported having different life circumstance at follow-up compared to baseline that affected their household’s food security. Almost half of participants’ food security improved. Categories of circumstances that affected food security included: family composition (e.g. change in marital status or household size); health (e.g. prolong illness or recovery); unexpected living expenses (e.g. car repair or purchase); and seasonal expenses (e.g. energy cost, school fees). Participation in SNAP, WIC, school food and financial assistance programs remained consistent between times baseline and follow-up. Conclusions and ImplicationsHouseholds can often manage until an unexpected expense upsets planned budgets and strategies. Reducing income volatility, helping to limit expenses (e.g., providing affordable health care, improving affordability of housing, strengthening resource management skills), and offering emergency financial assistance as a needed buffer may enable households to improve and maintain their food security. Households can often manage until an unexpected expense upsets planned budgets and strategies. Reducing income volatility, helping to limit expenses (e.g., providing affordable health care, improving affordability of housing, strengthening resource management skills), and offering emergency financial assistance as a needed buffer may enable households to improve and maintain their food security.