scholarly journals Offsetting the cost of community-supported agriculture (CSA) for low-income families: perceptions and experiences of CSA farmers and members

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Stephanie B. Jilcott Pitts ◽  
Leah Connor Volpe ◽  
Marilyn Sitaker ◽  
Emily H. Belarmino ◽  
Amari Sealey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Community Supported Agriculture ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Major Theme ◽  
Healthy Foods ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Cost Offset ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Improve Access

Abstract Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is an alternative food marketing model in which community members subscribe to receive regular shares of a farm's harvest. Although CSA has the potential to improve access to fresh produce, certain features of CSA membership may prohibit low-income families from participating. A ‘cost-offset’ CSA (CO-CSA) model provides low-income families with purchasing support with the goal of making CSA more affordable. As a first step toward understanding the potential of CO-CSA to improve access to healthy foods among low-income households, we interviewed 24 CSA farmers and 20 full-pay CSA members about their experiences and perceptions of the cost-offset model and specific mechanisms for offsetting the cost of CSA. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded using a thematic approach. Ensuring that healthy food was accessible to everyone, regardless of income level, was a major theme expressed by both farmers and members. In general, CSA farmers and CSA members favored member donations over other mechanisms for funding the CO-CSA. The potential time burden that could affect CSA farmers when administering a cost-offset was a commonly-mentioned barrier. Future research should investigate various CO-CSA operational models in order to determine which models are most economically viable and sustainable.

scholarly journals Models for cost-offset community supported agriculture (CO-CSA) programs

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Marilyn Sitaker ◽  
Mackenzie McCall ◽  
Weiwei Wang ◽  
Mia Vaccaro ◽  
Jane Kolodinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Community Supported Agriculture ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Organizational Models ◽  
Local Agriculture ◽  
Cost Offset ◽  
Private Donations ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Farm Business

Cost-offset community supported agriculture (CO-CSA) appears to be a promising way to increase low-income households’ access and intake of fresh produce, while also helping CSA farms expand their farm business. Yet single farms operating CO-CSAs may struggle to balance the demands of farming with CO-CSA program administration, funding, and recruitment. To address these chal­lenges, CO-CSA programs operated by nonprofits have emerged, equipped with dedicated infrastruc­ture, resources, and staffing. This study aims to describe organizational models and best practices of nonprofit CO-CSA programs, using a qualitative approach. We conducted interviews with five well-established nonprofit CO-CSA programs in the U.S. Administration of these five nonprofit CO-CSAs took several forms: (1) providing direct sub­sidies to individual CO-CSA member farms; (2) functioning themselves as an aggregator, packer, and distributor of regional produce; and (3) sourcing from an in-house farm incubator or food hub, then packing and coordinating delivery to pick-up sites. Nonprofit CO-CSA funding strategies included grants from federal and local government sources, private donations, fundrais­ing, and grants. Marketing efforts occurred via social media, community events, and word of mouth. Both fundraising and recruitment were greatly facilitated by relationships with community partners. Having dedicated staff, as well as a com­munity that values local agriculture and social jus­tice, were identified as success factors. This descriptive, qualitative study systematically com­pares the attributes of five nonprofit CO-CSA programs. Future research should focus on identifying the cost-effectiveness of nonprofit CO-CSAs, compare the relative merits of single-farm and nonprofit CO-CSAs, and quantify the eco­nomic benefit of CO-CSA programs for farmers and local communities.

scholarly journals The perceived influence of cost-offset community-supported agriculture on food access among low-income families

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (15) ◽  
pp. 2866-2874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle J White ◽  
Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts ◽  
Jared T McGuirt ◽  
Karla L Hanson ◽  
Emily H Morgan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Food Access ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Community Supported Agriculture ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Diet Change ◽  
Cost Offset ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Meal Planning

AbstractObjectiveTo examine perspectives on food access among low-income families participating in a cost-offset community-supported agriculture (CO-CSA) programme.DesignFarm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) is a multicentre randomized intervention trial assessing the effect of CO-CSA on dietary intake and quality among children from low-income families. Focus groups were conducted at the end of the first CO-CSA season. Participants were interviewed about programme experiences, framed by five dimensions of food access: availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability and accommodation. Transcribed data were coded on these dimensions plus emergent themes.SettingNine communities in the US states of New York, North Carolina, Washington and Vermont.SubjectsFifty-three F3HK adults with children.ResultsCSA models were structured by partner farms. Produce quantity was abundant; however, availability was enhanced for participants who were able to select their own produce items. Flexible CSA pick-up times and locations made produce pick-up more accessible. Despite being affordable to most, payment timing was a barrier for some. Unfamiliar foods and quick spoilage hindered acceptability through challenging meal planning, despite accommodations that included preparation advice.ConclusionsAlthough CO-CSA may facilitate increased access to fruits and vegetables for low-income families, perceptions of positive diet change may be limited by the ability to incorporate share pick-up into regular travel patterns and meal planning. Food waste concerns may be particularly acute for families with constrained resources. Future research should examine whether CO-CSA with flexible logistics and produce self-selection are sustainable for low-income families and CSA farms.

The Effects of Behavioural Contracting and Preferred Reinforcement on Appointment Keeping

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Hayes ◽  
Lisa A. Efron ◽  
Gina S. Richman ◽  
Kelley A. Harrison ◽  
Elizabeth L. Aguilera
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Treatment Implementation ◽  
The Family ◽  
Appointment Keeping ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Contingency Contract ◽  
Therapy Clinic

AbstractThe current study demonstrates the efficacy of using a behavioural contingency contract in conjunction with family-selected reinforcers to increase appointment keeping among low income families in a child and family therapy clinic. Three families with similar presenting problems participated. A multiple baseline across-subjects design with the addition of a reversal component was utilised. Upon treatment implementation, contracts were signed by family members stating that they would receive coupons valuing $30.00 after attending four consecutive clinic appointments. These coupons were selected by the family from a diverse menu. Results indicated increases in appointment keeping following implementation of the behavioural contract. The cost effectiveness of using a behavioural contract in conjunction with economic incentives with low-income families is discussed, and suggestions for future research on appointment keeping are made.

scholarly journals Spatial Considerations for Implementing Two Direct-to-Consumer Food Models in Two States

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 2081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn Sitaker ◽  
Jared McGuirt ◽  
Weiwei Wang ◽  
Jane Kolodinsky ◽  
Rebecca Seguin
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Public Transportation ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Community Supported Agriculture ◽  
Farmers Market ◽  
Customer Base ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Cost Offset ◽  
Block Level ◽  
Low Income Families

To open new markets, some farmers have adapted direct-to-consumer (DTC) models, such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), to reach new settings or audiences. We compared sociodemographic and geospatial contexts to farmers’ experience with one of two DTC innovations: a cost-offset CSA for low-income families and food boxes distributed through rural convenience stores. We geocoded addresses of thirteen farms and DTC pickup sites in two U.S. states (Vermont and Washington) and calculated road network distances from pickup to supermarket, farmers’ market, and farm. We compiled Census block-level demographic and transportation data, and compared it to postseason interviews to explore the effect of suitability of the pickup location; proximity to food retail; and potential farmer burden. Most pickup areas were heavily car-dependent, with low walkability and few public transportation options. Conventional sources of fresh produce were within six miles of most pickups, but farmers markets were further away. Despite modest profitability, both models were deemed worth pursuing, as they expanded farmers’ customer base. Farmers implementing the store-distributed food box were sensitive to market trends and customer needs in choosing pickup location. Farmers seemed more concerned with marketing in convenience store settings, and finding efficient ways to conduct recordkeeping than with delivery distances.

scholarly journals Perceptions of nutrition education classes offered in conjunction with a community-supported agriculture intervention among low-income families

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Isabel Lu ◽  
Karla L Hanson ◽  
Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts ◽  
Jane Kolodinsky ◽  
Alice S Ammerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Social Engagement ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Nutrition Knowledge ◽  
Food Preservation ◽  
Community Supported Agriculture ◽  
Cost Offset ◽  
Low Income Families

Abstract Objective: To examine participants’ experiences with nutrition education classes that were implemented with and designed to complement a cost-offset community-supported agriculture (CSA) programme. Design: Qualitative analysis of data from twenty-eight focus groups with ninety-six participants enrolled in Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK). Transcribed data were coded and analysed by a priori and emergent themes. Setting: Rural and micropolitan communities in New York, North Carolina, Vermont and Washington (USA). Participants: Ninety-six F3HK participants. Results: Participants found recipes and class activities helpful and reported improvements in nutrition knowledge, food preservation skills and home cooking behaviours for themselves and their children; they also reported that classes promoted a sense of community. Some educators better incorporated CSA produce into lessons, which participants reported as beneficial. Other obligations and class logistics were barriers to attendance; participants recommended that lessons be offered multiple times weekly at different times of day. Other suggestions included lengthening class duration to encourage social engagement; emphasising recipes to incorporate that week’s CSA produce and pantry staples and offering additional strategies to incorporate children in classes. Conclusion: Complementing a cost-offset CSA with nutrition education may enhance programme benefits to low-income families by improving nutrition knowledge and cooking behaviours. However, future interventions will benefit from ongoing coordination between educators and local growing trajectories to maximise timely coverage of unfamiliar produce in lessons; synchronous scheduling of CSA pick-up and classes for participant convenience and creative strategies to engage children and/or provide childcare.

scholarly journals Making community-supported agriculture accessible to low-income families: findings from the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids process evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A Garner ◽  
Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts ◽  
Karla L Hanson ◽  
Alice S Ammerman ◽  
Jane Kolodinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Diet Quality ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Community Supported Agriculture ◽  
Geographically Dispersed ◽  
Cost Offset ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Fresh Foods

Abstract A randomized trial of Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) was initiated across 4 states and 12 farms to test whether cost-offset community-supported agriculture (CO-CSA) could improve diet quality among children in low-income families. Intervention households purchased a 50% subsidized share of local produce and were invited to nine complimentary nutrition classes. The purpose of this study was to assess F3HK reach, dose, and fidelity via a mixed methods process evaluation. Screening and enrollment records indicated reach; study records and postlesson educator surveys tracked dose delivered; CSA pickup logs, lesson sign-in sheets, postseason participant surveys, and postlesson caregiver surveys assessed dose received; and coordinator audits and educator surveys tracked fidelity. Educator interviews contextualized findings. The results of this study were as follows. Reach: enrolled caregivers (n = 305) were older (p = .005) than eligible nonenrollees (n = 243) and more likely to be female (p < .001). Dose: mean CSA season was 21 weeks (interquartile range [IQR]: 19–23). Median CSA pickup was 88% of the weeks (IQR: 40–100). All sites offered each class at least once. Most adults (77%) and children (54%) attended at least one class; few attended all. Eighty-two percent of caregivers indicated that their household consumed most or all produce. Median lesson activity ratings were 5/5 (“very useful”). Fidelity: CSA locations functioned with integrity to project standards. Educators taught 92% of activities but frequently modified lesson order. This study demonstrates the feasibility of pairing a CO-CSA intervention with nutrition education across geographically dispersed sites. Greater integration of intervention elements and clearer allowance for site-level modifications, particularly for educational elements, may improve intervention dose and, ultimately, impact.

scholarly journals Food Stress in Adelaide: The Relationship between Low Income and the Affordability of Healthy Food

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul R. Ward ◽  
Fiona Verity ◽  
Patricia Carter ◽  
George Tsourtos ◽  
John Coveney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Household Income ◽  
Healthy Food ◽  
Healthy Foods ◽  
Food Stress ◽  
Low Incomes ◽  
Food Basket ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Relationship

Healthy food is becoming increasingly expensive, and families on low incomes face a difficult financial struggle to afford healthy food. When food costs are considered, families on low incomes often face circumstances of poverty. Housing, utilities, health care, and transport are somewhat fixed in cost; however food is more flexible in cost and therefore is often compromised with less healthy, cheaper food, presenting an opportunity for families on low incomes to cut costs. Using a “Healthy Food Basket” methodology, this study costed a week’s supply of healthy food for a range of family types. It found that low-income families would have to spend approximately 30% of household income on eating healthily, whereas high-income households needed to spend about 10%. The differential is explained by the cost of the food basket relative to household income (i.e., affordability). It is argued that families that spend more than 30% of household income on food could be experiencing “food stress.” Moreover the high cost of healthy foods leaves low-income households vulnerable to diet-related health problems because they often have to rely on cheaper foods which are high in fat, sugar, and salt.

Demonstrating Nutrient Cost Gradients: A Brooklyn Case Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 84 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 244-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Karp ◽  
Gary Wong ◽  
Marguerite Orsi
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
Food Selection ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Micronutrient Deficiencies ◽  
Caloric Density ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Introduction: Foods dense in micronutrients are generally more expensive than those with higher energy content. These cost-differentials may put low-income families at risk of diminished micronutrient intake. Objectives: We sought to determine differences in the cost for iron, folate, and choline in foods available for purchase in a low-income community when assessed for energy content and serving size. Methods: Sixty-nine foods listed in the menu plans provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for low-income families were considered, in 10 domains. The cost and micronutrient content for-energy and per-serving of these foods were determined for the three micronutrients. Exact Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparisons of energy costs; Spearman rho tests for comparisons of micronutrient content. Ninety families were interviewed in a pediatric clinic to assess the impact of food cost on food selection. Results: Significant differences between domains were shown for energy density with both cost-for-energy (p < 0.001) and cost-per-serving (p < 0.05) comparisons. All three micronutrient contents were significantly correlated with cost-for-energy (p < 0.01). Both iron and choline contents were significantly correlated with cost-per-serving (p < 0.05). Of the 90 families, 38 (42 %) worried about food costs; 40 (44 %) had chosen foods of high caloric density in response to that fear, and 29 of 40 families experiencing both worry and making such food selection. Conclusion: Adjustments to USDA meal plans using cost-for-energy analysis showed differentials for both energy and micronutrients. These differentials were reduced using cost-per-serving analysis, but were not eliminated. A substantial proportion of low-income families are vulnerable to micronutrient deficiencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document