Researchers have found that more than half of LGBTQ+ adults in Massachusetts faced food insecurity in 2024, while access to food assistance barely shifted. The findings point to a troubling gap between rising need and help that feels private, practical and safe enough to use.

Essential Takeaways

  • A stark divide: Food insecurity affected 54.9% of LGBTQ+ adults in 2024, compared with 33.3% of non-LGBTQ+ adults.
  • The gap is growing: Rates rose between 2022 and 2024 and remained higher among LGBTQ+ participants.
  • Help isn't always easy to reach: Embarrassment, privacy worries and difficulty finding information discouraged food pantry use.
  • People want flexible options: Grocery cards, delivery, collection services and help with SNAP applications were among the suggested solutions.
  • Money isn't the whole story: Researchers say economic differences alone didn't explain the disparity.

More than half faced food insecurity in 2024

The headline figure is difficult to ignore. In 2024, 54.9% of LGBTQ+ adults included in the Massachusetts survey experienced food insecurity, meaning they couldn't reliably obtain enough affordable, nutritious food. Among non-LGBTQ+ adults, the figure was 33.3%, according to the study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers examined responses from 9,174 adults who took part in the Massachusetts Statewide Food Access Survey between 2022 and 2024. The difference persisted after accounting for demographic and financial factors, suggesting that the problem isn't simply a reflection of income.

That matters because a food budget can look like the obvious explanation, while the lived reality is often more complicated. Housing costs, discrimination, unstable work and limited support can all make the weekly shop feel like a high-wire act.

Need rose, but assistance didn't keep pace

The study found that food insecurity among LGBTQ+ adults increased during the research period. Yet reported use of food pantries and SNAP, the US food assistance programme, remained broadly unchanged.

That mismatch is one of the study's most revealing details. More people needed support, but the routes to that support didn't become noticeably more popular. Researchers say this points to barriers beyond eligibility, including concerns about privacy, embarrassment and a wish to remain self-reliant.

As JAMA Network Open research has noted, people may avoid assistance even when they qualify if the process feels exposing, confusing or inconvenient. A service can exist on paper and still remain out of reach in practice.

Why privacy and dignity matter

For some LGBTQ+ adults, visiting a food pantry may raise worries about being recognised or having personal information shared. Others may feel uncomfortable asking for help, particularly when stigma has already shaped their experiences in healthcare, housing or employment.

The researchers also identified trouble accessing information and services. That could mean not knowing where to apply, struggling with forms or finding that opening hours and transport don't fit around work and other responsibilities.

These details turn a statistics story into a practical one. If assistance requires a public queue, a complicated application and several awkward conversations, it may not feel like assistance at all. It may feel like another obstacle.

Flexible food support could make a difference

Participants suggested grocery gift cards, home delivery, curbside collection and online ordering as more accessible alternatives. They also highlighted help navigating SNAP enrolment, which could remove some of the paperwork and uncertainty.

Those ideas share a useful principle: give people more control over how support reaches them. A discreet delivery or digital order may be less stressful than travelling to a pantry, while a supermarket card can offer choice around dietary needs, household size and personal comfort.

For anyone seeking help, it may be worth asking local LGBTQ+ community centres, food banks or public health services about confidential referrals and delivery schemes. Eligibility rules vary, so checking directly is often the quickest route to an accurate answer.

Community-led solutions are the next test

The study's authors argue that future programmes should be designed with LGBTQ+ communities rather than simply offered to them. That means involving people with lived experience when deciding where services operate, how applications work and what privacy protections are needed.

The Greater Boston Food Bank and Mass General Brigham were among the collaborators involved in the research. Their participation also underlines the value of linking academic findings with organisations that understand the everyday mechanics of food access.

The wider lesson is straightforward but important: food assistance works best when it is easy to find, simple to use and free from unnecessary judgement. A quieter, more flexible system could help close a gap that income alone hasn't explained.

Small changes in access can make support feel genuinely supportive.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: