Impact of Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives on Household Fruit and Vegetable Expenditures

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the impact of the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grant program on self-reported fruit and vegetable (FV) expenditures. Design: Pre-post quasi-experimental study design. Setting: Farmers markets and grocery stores in states with FINI projects. Participants: A total of 2,471 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) households in 4 intervention groups who lived near a FINI retailer (farmers market or grocery store) and 4 matched comparison groups who did not live near a FINI retailer. Main Outcome Measures: Awareness and use of point-of-sale incentives and changes in self-reported monthly household FV expenditures. Analysis: Ordinary least squares intent-to-treat regression model using lagged dependent variable model framework.Results: Awareness of FINI was higher among households who were near a FINI retailer and had shopped there before FINI than those who lived near a FINI retailer but had not shopped there before FINI; the number of information sources from which SNAP participants heard about FINI was positively associated with incentive receipt (P < 0.05). Among those who received incentives, the average amount of incentives received at the last shopping trip ranged from $15 to $23. The FINI program had a positive impact on the average monthly FV expenditures for those in the farmers market shopper, grocery store shopper, and grocery store general intervention groups-increases ranged from $9 to $15 (P < 0.05). Conclusions and Implications: Point-of-sale incentives were associated with an increase in FV expenditures among SNAP households. Further research is needed to examine (1) effective messaging strategies to increase incentive awareness and (2) the long-term impact of incentives on FV expenditures.

Higher Fruit and Vegetable Intake Is Associated with Participation in the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) Program

“…With a change from 7.1% to 16.0% in DUFB use among the study population, the information strategy used appears to be helpful in getting SNAP recipients to participate in the FM incentive program, similar to a previous study [ 16 ]. The change in incentive program use is comparable in magnitude to a multi-state incentive evaluation, which found that 14.6% of their general farmers’ market sample used incentives during the intervention period, up from 11.5% who had previously received incentives before the study [ 24 ]. However, the results presented here indicate a simple information strategy may not be sufficient to motivate usage among SNAP recipients who do not already consume F&V. These individuals may not value the FM incentive program as highly, or experience other barriers such as limited transportation or inconvenient FM operation hours, among others [ 13 , 23 , 24 ].…”

“…The change in incentive program use is comparable in magnitude to a multi-state incentive evaluation, which found that 14.6% of their general farmers’ market sample used incentives during the intervention period, up from 11.5% who had previously received incentives before the study [ 24 ]. However, the results presented here indicate a simple information strategy may not be sufficient to motivate usage among SNAP recipients who do not already consume F&V. These individuals may not value the FM incentive program as highly, or experience other barriers such as limited transportation or inconvenient FM operation hours, among others [ 13 , 23 , 24 ]. Among participants who had not previously used the program, 15% reported use after our brief informational intervention, which is much lower than the previously mentioned clinical intervention, which resulted in 61% of participants using the program [ 16 ].…”

“…Longitudinal studies of DUFB incentive type programs are not typical, instead most are cross-sectional. Other longitudinal studies have examined incentives at grocery stores [ 25 ] rather than FM or looked only at F&V purchase rather than consumption [ 24 ]. Further, previous studies used an intercept survey method at FMs, which is also prone to selection bias (you can only recruit current farmers’ market shoppers), limits the generalizability of the results, and may be inconvenient for respondents [ 8 , 10 , 14 ].…”

Innovative Partnerships to Address Food Insecurity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Brighter Bites Produce Voucher Program

“…Healthy food incentive programs, such as the USDA Healthy Incentives Program and the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), have been shown to increase fruit and vegetable expenditure and intake [11][12][13], reduce food insecurity [14], and improve healthy eating behaviors [15]. Although effective, these programs are underutilized, with only a small fraction of SNAP participants having access to them [15].…”

“…Other strategies, including local farming collectives, neighborhood gardens, increasing access through free delivery and drop-off points, and healthy incentive programs, are necessary to provide food to households at the greatest risk [10]. Healthy food incentive programs, in particular, have been shown to improve food security, increase fruit and vegetable expenditures and intake, and improve healthy eating behaviors [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Partnerships between non-profits and grocery retail stores have been shown to be effective at creating incentive programs [16][17][18][19].…”