Frente a mediadas legislativas.

In Model 1 of Table 6.1, I regressed the dependent variable food insecurity on the objectified cultural capital variable transportation and the institutional cultural capital variable education. In Model 2 of Table 6.1 I added in the embodied cultural capital variables: locus of control and self-esteem. In Model 3 of Table 6.1 I added in the variable food social services utilization. Model 4 of Table 6.1 included the control variables: age, marital status, children present in the home, income, and financial strain.

6.3.1 Non-significant Results

In Model 1, a 15 minute improvement in Marta accessibility is associated with a 9.39% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. Getting a car is associated with a 17.25% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. A one unit increase in education is associated with a 1.02% increase in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level (Table 6.1).

In Model 2, a 15 minute improvement in Marta accessibility is associated with a 9.25% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. Getting a car is associated with a 17.37% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. A one unit increase in education is associated with a 0.82 % increase in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. A one unit increase in difference in locus of control between Wave 1 and Wave 3 is associated with a 0.02% increase in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one unit increase in difference in self-esteem between Wave 1 and Wave 3 is associated with a 0.69% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level (Table 6.1).

In Model 3, a 15 minute improvement in Marta accessibility is associated with an 8.75 % decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. Getting a car is associated with a 16.79% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. A one unit increase in education is associated with a 1.27% increase in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. A one unit increase in difference in locus of control between Wave 1 and Wave 3 is associated with a 0.05 % decrease in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one unit increase in difference in self-esteem between Wave 1 and Wave 3 is associated with a 0.72 % decrease in the probability of food

insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one unit increase in the number of food social services accessed is associated with a 6.39% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level (Table 6.1).

In Model 4, a 15 minute improvement in Marta accessibility is associated with a 0.85% increase in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. Getting a car is associated with a 19.61% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one unit increase in education is associated with a 1.49% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. A one unit increase in difference in locus of control between Wave 1 and Wave 3 is associated with a 2.08% increase in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one unit increase in difference in self-esteem between Wave 1 and Wave 3 is associated with a 0.90% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one unit increase in the number of food social services accessed is associated with a 2.55% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A year older in age is associated with a 0.61 % increase in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. Being married or living with someone (versus other categories) was associated with an 8.55% decrease in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. Being divorced or separated (versus other categories) was associated with a 7.92 % increase in the probability of food insecurity, but not at a significant level. Being widowed (versus other categories) was associated with a 133.50% increase in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. Having never married (versus other categories) was associated with no percentage change in the probability of food security. A one unit increase in the number of children living in the home was associated with a 5.35 % increase in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one category increase in income is associated

with a 4.01% decline in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level. A one category increase in financial strain is associated with a 23.76% decline in the probability of food insecurity, though not at a significant level (Table 6.1).

6.3.2 Significant Results

In Model 1, there were no significant findings. In Model 2, there were no significant associations between the variables. Model 3 did not yield any significant findings. Model 4 did not yield any significant findings (Table 6.1).