scholarly journals Evaluating the Impact of Financial Incentives on SNAP Transactions Shopping at Mobile Produce Markets

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Rummo ◽  
Reece Lyerly ◽  
Jennifer Rose ◽  
Yelena Malyuta ◽  
Eliza Dexter Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background. Offering financial incentives promotes increases in fruit and vegetable purchases in farmers’ markets and supermarkets. Yet, little is understood about whether food-insecure adults purchase more fruits and vegetables as a result of receiving financial incentives in mobile produce market settings.Methods. In 2018-2019, Food on the Move provided a 50% discount to customers using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase fruit and vegetables from 16 market locations in Rhode Island (n=412 market occasions). We used mixed multivariable linear regression to estimate the difference in total dollar sales per transaction per month between SNAP customers and non-SNAP customers. We also estimated the difference in out-of-pocket dollar sales per transaction per month between SNAP and non-SNAP customers, less the 50% discount. This reflects the actual amount spent on fresh fruits and vegetables purchased per visit. In both models, we controlled for the number of market sites per month, with fixed effects for quarter and year.Results. In 2018-2019, the majority of market transactions (n=13,165) were SNAP transactions [n=8,293 (66.0%)]. On average, customers spent $17.32 (SD=16.61) on fruits and vegetables per transaction per month. However, SNAP customers spent significantly more on FVs per transaction per month [$21.68 (SD=17.87)] compared to non-SNAP customers [$9.89 (SD=10.71)] (β=$10.54; 95% CI: 9.85, 11.23). Similarly, out-of-pocket dollar sales per transaction per month (i.e., less the 50% discount) were significantly higher among SNAP customers [$11.47 (SD=9.44)] relative to non-SNAP customers [$9.48 (SD=9.36)] (β=$1.86; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.27).Conclusions. Financial incentives contributed to higher fruit and vegetable purchases among low-income customers who shop at mobile produce markets compared to non-eligible customers. Higher spending on fruits and vegetables may promote healthy diet behaviors and reduce chronic disease risk among food-insecure adults.

scholarly journals The impact of financial incentives on SNAP transactions at mobile produce markets

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale E. Rummo ◽  
Reece Lyerly ◽  
Jennifer Rose ◽  
Yelena Malyuta ◽  
Eliza Dexter Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Offering financial incentives promotes increases in fruit and vegetable purchases in farmers’ markets and supermarkets. Yet, little is understood about whether food-insecure adults purchase more fruits and vegetables as a result of receiving financial incentives in mobile produce market settings. Methods In 2018–2019, Food on the Move provided a 50% discount to customers using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase fruit and vegetables from 16 market locations in Rhode Island (n = 412 market occasions). We used mixed multivariable linear regression to estimate the difference in total dollar sales per transaction per month between SNAP transactions and non-SNAP transactions. We also estimated the difference in out-of-pocket dollar sales per transaction per month between SNAP and non-SNAP transactions, less the 50% discount. This reflects the actual amount spent on fresh fruits and vegetables purchased per visit. In both models, we controlled for the number of market sites per month, with fixed effects for quarter and year. We estimated random intercept variance for date of transaction and market site to adjust for clustering. Results In 2018–2019, the majority of market transactions (total n = 13,165) were SNAP transactions [n = 7.988 (63.0%)]. On average, customers spent $17.38 (SD = 16.69) on fruits and vegetables per transaction per month. However, customers using SNAP benefits spent significantly more on FVs per transaction per month [$22.01 (SD = 17.97)] compared to those who did not use SNAP benefits [9.81 (SD = 10.68)] (β = $10.88; 95% CI: 10.18, 11.58). Similarly, out-of-pocket dollar sales per SNAP transaction per month (i.e., less the 50% discount) were significantly higher [$11.42 (SD = 9.44)] relative to non-SNAP transactions [$9.40 (SD = 9.33)] (β = $1.85; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.27). Conclusions Financial incentives contributed to higher fruit and vegetable purchases among low-income customers who shop at mobile produce markets by making produce more affordable. Higher spending on fruits and vegetables may promote healthy diet behaviors and reduce chronic disease risk among food-insecure adults.

scholarly journals The impact of financial incentives on SNAP transactions at mobile produce markets

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Rummo ◽  
Reece Lyerly ◽  
Jennifer Rose ◽  
Yelena Malyuta ◽  
Eliza Dexter Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Total N ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background. Offering financial incentives promotes increases in fruit and vegetable purchases in farmers’ markets and supermarkets. Yet, little is understood about whether food-insecure adults purchase more fruits and vegetables as a result of receiving financial incentives in mobile produce market settings.Methods. In 2018-2019, Food on the Move provided a 50% discount to customers using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase fruit and vegetables from 16 market locations in Rhode Island (n=412 market occasions). We used mixed multivariable linear regression to estimate the difference in total dollar sales per transaction per month between SNAP transactions and non-SNAP transactions. We also estimated the difference in out-of-pocket dollar sales per transaction per month between SNAP and non-SNAP transactions, less the 50% discount. This reflects the actual amount spent on fresh fruits and vegetables purchased per visit. In both models, we controlled for the number of market sites per month, with fixed effects for quarter and year. We estimated random intercept variance for date of transaction and market site to adjust for clustering.Results. In 2018-2019, the majority of market transactions (total n=13,165) were SNAP transactions [n=7.988 (63.0%)]. On average, customers spent $17.38 (SD=16.69) on fruits and vegetables per transaction per month. However, customers using SNAP benefits spent significantly more on FVs per transaction per month [$22.01 (SD=17.97)] compared to those who did not use SNAP benefits [9.81 (SD=10.68)] (β=$10.88; 95% CI: 10.18, 11.58). Similarly, out-of-pocket dollar sales per SNAP transaction per month (i.e., less the 50% discount) were significantly higher [$11.42 (SD=9.44)] relative to non-SNAP transactions [$9.40 (SD=9.33)] (β=$1.85; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.27).Conclusions. Financial incentives contributed to higher fruit and vegetable purchases among low-income customers who shop at mobile produce markets compared to non-eligible customers. Higher spending on fruits and vegetables may promote healthy diet behaviors and reduce chronic disease risk among food-insecure adults.

scholarly journals The impact of financial incentives and restrictions on cyclical food expenditures among low-income households receiving nutrition assistance: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sruthi Valluri ◽  
Susan M. Mason ◽  
Hikaru Hanawa Peterson ◽  
Simone A. French ◽  
Lisa J. Harnack
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Added Sugar ◽  
Food Expenditures ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Low Income Households

Abstract Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest anti-hunger program in the United States. Two proposed interventions to encourage healthier food expenditures among SNAP participants have generated significant debate: financial incentives for fruits and vegetables, and restrictions on foods high in added sugar. To date, however, no study has assessed the impact of these interventions on the benefit cycle, a pattern of rapid depletion of SNAP benefits that has been linked to worsening nutrition and health outcomes over the benefit month. Methods Low-income households not currently enrolled in SNAP (n = 249) received benefits every 4 weeks for 12 weeks on a study-specific benefit card. Households were randomized to one of four study arms: 1) incentive (30% incentive for fruits and vegetables purchased with study benefits), 2) restriction (not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candy using study benefits), 3) incentive plus restriction, or 4) control (no incentive or restriction). Weekly household food expenditures were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. Results Compared to the control group, financial incentives increased fruit and vegetable purchases, but only in the first 2 weeks after benefit disbursement. Restrictions decreased expenditures on foods high in added sugar throughout the benefit month, but the magnitude of the impact decreased as the month progressed. Notably, restrictions mitigated cyclical expenditures. Conclusions Policies to improve nutrition outcomes among SNAP participants should consider including targeted interventions in the second half of the month to address the benefit cycle and attendant nutrition outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02643576. Retrospectively registered December 22, 2014.

scholarly journals Accelerating Evaluation of Financial Incentives for Fruits and Vegetables: A Case for Shared Measures

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 12140
Author(s):  
Nadine Budd Nugent ◽  
Carmen Byker Shanks ◽  
Hilary K. Seligman ◽  
Hollyanne Fricke ◽  
Courtney A. Parks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Evaluation Model ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Dietary Quality ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
The U.S

Food insecurity, or lack of consistent access to enough food, is associated with low intakes of fruits and vegetables (FVs) and higher risk of chronic diseases and disproportionately affects populations with low income. Financial incentives for FVs are supported by the 2018 Farm Bill and United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and aim to increase dietary quality and food security among households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and with low income. Currently, there is no shared evaluation model for the hundreds of financial incentive projects across the U.S. Despite the fact that a majority of these projects are federally funded and united as a cohort of grantees through GusNIP, it is unclear which models and attributes have the greatest public health impact. We explore the evaluation of financial incentives in the U.S. to demonstrate the need for shared measurement in the future. We describe the process of the GusNIP NTAE, a federally supported initiative, to identify and develop shared measurement to be able to determine the potential impact of financial incentives in the U.S. This commentary discusses the rationale, considerations, and next steps for establishing shared evaluation measures for financial incentives for FVs, to accelerate our understanding of impact, and support evidence-based policymaking.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Farmers’ Markets for Kids programme

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (18) ◽  
pp. 3397-3405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Dannefer ◽  
Erica Bryan ◽  
Alyce Osborne ◽  
Rachel Sacks
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Education Programme ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Farmers Market ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the impact of Farmers’ Markets for Kids, a farmers’ market-based, child-oriented nutrition education programme, on attitudes and behaviours related to preparing and consuming produce among child participants and their caregivers in New York City (NYC).DesignRetrospective pre-test/post-test cross-sectional survey with caregivers of children participating in Farmers’ Markets for Kids classes.SettingFour NYC farmers’ markets where Farmers’ Markets for Kids classes are implemented; these markets serve low-income communities.SubjectsTwo hundred and twelve adult caregivers of children who participated in Farmers’ Markets for Kids classes.ResultsCaregivers reported that children’s consumption of fruits and vegetables had increased since participating in Farmers’ Markets for Kids and that their children more frequently assisted with food preparation; both of these improvements were statistically significant. Caregivers also reported significant improvements in attitudes: since participating in Farmers’ Markets for Kids, their children were more willing to try new fruits and vegetables and caregivers found it easier to prepare fruits and vegetables for their children. Almost all respondents (99 %) reported purchasing more fruits and vegetables since participating in Farmers’ Markets for Kids and 95 % had prepared the programme’s recipes at home.ConclusionsFindings suggest that Farmers’ Markets for Kids may be an effective approach for increasing produce consumption among participating children and improving related attitudes among children and caregivers. This evaluation provides support for future efforts to undertake more rigorous evaluations of such programmes.

scholarly journals Barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption among farmers’ market incentive programme users in Illinois, USA

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1345-1349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea R Singleton ◽  
Sydney Fouché ◽  
Rucha Deshpande ◽  
Angela Odoms-Young ◽  
Corey Chatman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Vegetable Consumption ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Farmers Market ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Adjusted Logistic Regression

AbstractObjectivePrevious research indicates that low-income individuals often struggle to consume the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables (F&V). LINK Up Illinois is a farmers’ market incentive programme that aims to increase F&V consumption among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients by improving access to and affordability of locally grown foods. The present research aimed to identify barriers to F&V consumption that exist among users of the LINK Up Illinois programme.DesignCross-sectional.SettingFarmers’ markets in Chicago, Springfield, Northbrook, Woodstock, Aurora and Urbana, IL.SubjectsIn 2016, a volunteer sample of 140 LINK Up Illinois users (mean age 42·5 years; 81·7 % female; 28·7 % African American; 44·0 % obese) completed a survey at participating farmers’ markets across the state. Information on demographics, food shopping behaviours, programme satisfaction, barriers to F&V consumption and frequency of F&V consumption was collected and examined.ResultsApproximately 23 % of survey participants reported consuming F&V ≥3 times/d. The barriers to F&V consumption most often reported by survey participants were the cost of F&V (29·5 %), spoilage (18·6 %), knowing how to cook F&V (8·7 %) and not thinking about F&V when hungry (8·6 %). Results from multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models suggested that reporting one or more barriers was associated with reduced odds of consuming vegetables ≥3 times/d, but not fruits.ConclusionsCost, spoilage and knowledge of cooking are key barriers to F&V consumption that exist among LINK Up Illinois users. Strategies are needed to mitigate these barriers and increase F&V consumption in this population.

scholarly journals Healthy eating: a matter of prioritisation by households or policymakers?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthy Eating ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Food System ◽  
Vegetable Consumption ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable Consumption ◽  
Healthy Foods ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Decision Making Processes

Abstract I reflect upon the potential reasons why American low-income households do not spend an optimal proportion of their food budgets on fruits and vegetables, even though this would allow them to meet the recommended levels of fruit and vegetable consumption. Other priorities than health, automatic decision-making processes and access to healthy foods play a role, but solutions for the persistent socio-economic inequalities in diet should be sought in the wider food system which promotes cheap, mass-produced foods. I argue that, ultimately, healthy eating is not a matter of prioritisation by individual households but by policymakers.

scholarly journals Patterns of fruit and vegetable availability and price competitiveness across four seasons are different in local food outlets and supermarkets

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (15) ◽  
pp. 2846-2854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Valpiani ◽  
Parke Wilde ◽  
Beatrice Rogers ◽  
Hayden Stewart
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Price Competitiveness ◽  
Retail Outlets ◽  
Eastern North Carolina

AbstractObjectiveTo explore the effect of seasonality on fruit and vegetable availability and prices across three outlet types (farmers’ markets, roadside stands and conventional supermarkets).DesignCross-sectional survey of geographically clustered supermarkets, farmers’ markets and roadside stands. Enumerators recorded the availability and lowest price for eleven fruits and eighteen vegetables in each season of 2011.SettingPrice data were collected at retail outlets located in central and eastern North Carolina.SubjectsThe sample consisted of thirty-three supermarkets, thirty-four farmers’ markets and twenty-three roadside stands.ResultsOutside the local harvest season, the availability of many fruits and vegetables was substantially lower at farmers’ markets and roadside stands compared with supermarkets. Given sufficient availability, some items were significantly cheaper (P<0·05) at direct retail outlets in the peak season (e.g. cantaloupe cost 36·0 % less at roadside stands than supermarkets), while others were significantly more expensive (e.g. carrots cost 137·9 % more at farmers’ markets than supermarkets). Although small samples limited statistical power in many non-peak comparisons, these results also showed some differences by item: two-thirds of fruits were cheaper at one or both direct outlets in the spring and autumn, whereas five of eighteen vegetables cost more at direct retail year-round.ConclusionsCommonly consumed fruits and vegetables were more widely available at supermarkets in central and eastern North Carolina than at direct retail outlets, in each season. Contingent on item availability, price competitiveness of the direct retail outlets varied by fruit and vegetable. For many items, the outlets compete on price in more than one season.

scholarly journals The impact of a multilevel childhood obesity prevention intervention on healthful food acquisition, preparation, and fruit and vegetable consumption on African-American adult caregivers

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela CB Trude ◽  
Pamela J Surkan ◽  
Elizabeth Anderson Steeves ◽  
Keshia Pollack Porter ◽  
Joel Gittelsohn
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Vegetable Consumption ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Fruit Intake ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Food Acquisition ◽  
Multilevel Studies ◽  
Adult Caregivers ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the secondary impact of a multilevel, child-focused, obesity intervention on food-related behaviours (acquisition, preparation, fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption) on youths’ primary caregivers.DesignB’More Healthy Communities for Kids (BHCK) group-randomized controlled trial promoted access to healthy foods and food-related behaviours through wholesaler and small store strategies, peer mentor-led nutrition education aimed at youths, and social media and text messaging targeting their adult caregivers. Measures included caregivers’ (n516) self-reported household food acquisition frequency for FV, snacks and grocery items over 30 d, and usual FV consumption in a sub-sample of 226 caregivers via the NCI FV Screener. Hierarchical models assessed average treatment effects (ATE). Treatment-on-the-treated-effect (TTE) analyses evaluated correlation between behavioural change and exposure to BHCK. Exposure scores at post-assessment were based on self-reported viewing of BHCK materials and participating in activities.SettingThirty Baltimore City low-income neighbourhoods, USA.ParticipantsAdult caregivers of youths aged 9–15 years.ResultsOf caregivers, 90·89 % were female; mean age 39·31 (sd9·31) years. Baseline mean (sd) intake (servings/d) was 1·30 (1·69) fruits and 1·35 (1·05) vegetables. In ATE, no significant intervention effect was found on caregivers’ food-related behaviours. In TTE, each point increase in BHCK exposure score (range: 0–6·9) increased caregivers’ daily fruit consumption by 0·2 servings (0·24 (se0·11); 95 % CI 0·04, 0·47). Caregivers reporting greater social media exposure tripled their daily fruit intake (3·16 (se0·92); 95 % CI 1·33, 4·99) and increased their frequency of unhealthy food purchasingv. baseline.ConclusionsChild-focused community-based nutrition interventions may also benefit family members’ fruit intake. Child-focused interventions should involve adult caregivers and intervention effects on family members should be assessed. Future multilevel studies should consider using social media to improve reach and engage caregiver participants.

scholarly journals A Crook is a Crook . . . But is He Still a Crook Abroad? On the Effect of Immigration on Destination-Country Corruption

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Dimant ◽  
Margarete Redlin ◽  
Tim Krieger
Keyword(s):  
Method Of Moments ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Generalized Method Of Moments ◽  
Destination Country ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Econometric Methodology ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Method Of Moments Estimator ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis paper analyzes the impact of migration on destination-country corruption levels. Capitalizing on a comprehensive dataset consisting of annual immigration stocks of OECD countries from 207 countries of origin for the period 1984-2008, we explore different channels through which corruption might migrate. We employ different estimation methods using fixed effects and Tobit regressions in order to validate our findings. Moreover, we also address the issue of endogeneity by using the Difference- Generalized Method of Moments estimator. Independent of the econometric methodology, we consistently find that while general migration has an insignificant effect on the destination country’s corruption level, immigration from corruption-ridden origin countries boosts corruption in the destination country. Our findings provide a more profound understanding of the socioeconomic implications associated with migration flows.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document