We examined the associations of a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) point-of-purchase financial incentive program at farmers’ markets with produce purchase, consumption, and food security outcomes. We conducted cross-sectional, interviewer-administered intercept surveys with 325 adult SNAP participants at six incentive programs, five comparison farmers’ markets, and nine comparison supermarkets in California in the summer of 2018. The program provided dollar-for-dollar point-of-purchase incentives with $10 or $20 maximum at participating farmers’ markets. We measured produce consumption by an NCI screener; food security by the USDA 6-item screener; and program satisfaction with open-ended questions asked of a subsample. The quantitative analysis involved multilevel linear and logistic regression, adjusted for covariates. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed thematically. Shoppers at farmers’ markets offering $20 incentives had significantly higher odds of purchasing most of their produce at farmers’ markets than shoppers at $10 incentive (3.1, CI: 1.1, 8.7) or comparison markets (8.1, CI 2.2, 29.7). Incentives were not associated with quantitatively measured produce consumption. Each additional incentive dollar was associated with reduced odds of food insecurity (0.987, CI 0.976, 0.999). Participants appreciated the program; supermarket shoppers lacked awareness. Point-of-purchase incentives are appreciated and underutilized. Further understanding of optimal program design for produce consumption and food security impact is needed.

This cross-sectional study was part of a larger evaluation of a fruit and vegetable (FV) incentive program for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants in California. We examined the price differences in FV to explore whether these could help explain a previously observed lack of effect of the incentive program on FV consumption. Differences by type (organic/no-spray or conventional), among a convenience sample of farmers’ markets (n = 11) and nearby supermarkets (n = 7), were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests adjusting for clustering by market. We calculated the cost of market baskets comprising recommended FV servings for a household using median prices to consider the implications of FV price differences for SNAP shoppers who use financial incentives for FV. We found that farmers’ markets primarily offered organic FV while supermarkets primarily offered conventionally grown FV. Farmers’ market prices tended to be lower than supermarkets for organic FV but higher for conventional FV. Compared to supermarkets, the market basket composed only of organic FV cost USD 16.34 less at farmers’ markets, whereas a basket comprised of a mix of conventionally and organically grown FV cost USD 3.68 more. These differences warrant further exploration; FV price and type should be considered in studies aimed at understanding the impact of SNAP financial incentive programs.

Studies have identified geographic variation in overweight and obesity rates among children, with higher rates of overweight and obesity often found among children living in rural compared to urban areas. A small number of studies have explored differences in overweight and obesity based on more nuanced gradations along the urban-rural continuum. The purpose of the present study was to identify differences in overweight and obesity based on gradations along the urban-rural continuum among children in 42 Californian counties with populations less than 500 000. An observational study was conducted using FITNESSGRAM data collected from 5th, 7th and 9th grade students in public schools in California during 2010-2011. The FITNESSGRAM dataset was merged with the 2011 Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics Common Core of Data, which includes an 'urban-centric locale' code for each school, consisting of four broad classifications - city, suburb, town, and rural - each of which is further broken down into three subcategories. Multivariate analyses using a general linear model were conducted to compare differences in body mass index (BMI) between geographic regions of schools (city, suburb, town and rural) as well as 11 urban-centric locale code subcategories; none of the schools were located in large cities. The percentage of students who were overweight and/or obese was compared by grade level, gender, and race/ethnicity across geographic regions using multivariate logistic regression models. Analyses were adjusted for student age, grade, gender, race/ethnicity (African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Indian/Alaskan, White, two or more races or unknown), eligibility for free or reduced price meals, and clustering of students by school. When a stratified analysis was done, the variable of stratification (ie grade, gender, race/ethnicity) was not included among the covariates. When significant differences in BMI or prevalence of overweight or obesity were found between geographic regions, Tukey's method was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons at a 5% procedure-wise error rate. A p-value at or less than 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. Students in suburban schools had significantly lower mean BMI and lower prevalence of overweight than students in other geographic areas (ppp=0.01, respectively), with 7th grade students in suburbs having lower rates of obesity than those in towns. Among 9th grade students, prevalence of overweight (but not obesity) varied by urban-rural status (p=0.02). Among females, prevalence of overweight and obesity varied (p=0.006, ppp=0.01, p p=0.001). Large suburban areas had the lowest rates of obesity compared to all other subcategories. Students attending schools in suburban, especially larger suburban, areas appear to have lower prevalence of obesity than their peers at schools in other geographic areas. Further research is needed to understand the factors associated with differences in weight status between urban, suburban, town and rural areas.

Background: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides over 40 million Americans with money for food without typically providing participants with food or nutrition information. Educational SMS text messages can reach large numbers of people, and studies suggest SNAP participants appreciate nutrition education and have access to mobile phones. Objective: Using a pre-post intervention design, we assessed the feasibility of, and program satisfaction and outcomes resulting from, the San Diego County, California SNAP agency sending monthly food and nutrition education SMS text messages to all SNAP participants to increase fruit and vegetable purchasing and consumption. Methods: We developed and sent 5 behavioral science–informed SMS text messages with links to a project website in English and Spanish with information about selecting, storing, and preparing seasonal fruits and vegetables. The San Diego County SNAP agency sent monthly texts to ~170,000 SNAP households from October 2020 to February 2021. SNAP participants completed web-based surveys in response to a text invitation from the SNAP agency in September 2020 (baseline, n=12,036) and April 2021 (follow-up, n=4927). Descriptive frequencies were generated, and adjusted multiple linear mixed models were run on a matched data set of participants that completed both baseline and follow-up surveys (n=875) assessing pre- or postattitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and self-efficacy. We used adjusted logistic regression models to assess differences between the matched (n=875) and nonmatched (n=4052) participants related to experiences with the intervention (questions asked only at follow-up). Results: After the intervention, matched participants reported significant increase in knowing where to get information about selecting, storing, and preparing fruits and vegetables (3.76 vs 4.02 on a 5-point Likert scale with 5=strongly agree, P<.001); feeling good about participating in SNAP (4.35 vs 4.43, P=.03); and thinking the CalFresh program helps them eat healthy (4.38 vs 4.48, P=.006). No significant pre- or postdifferences were found in fruit or vegetable consumption, though most participants at follow-up (n=1556, 64%) reported their consumption had increased. Among the sample that completed the follow-up survey only (n=4052, not including 875 participants who completed follow-up and baseline), 1583 (65%) and 1556 (64%) reported purchasing and eating more California-grown fruits and vegetables, respectively. Nearly all respondents appreciated the intervention (n=2203, 90%) and wanted it to continue (n=2037, 83%). Conclusions: SNAP can feasibly provide food and nutrition messages via text to participants. A monthly text campaign was well received by responding participants and improved some measures of their self-reported knowledge, self-efficacy, produce consumption, and perceptions of SNAP participation. Participants expressed interest in continuing to receive texts. While educational messages will not solve the complex food and nutrition challenges confronting SNAP participants, further work should employ rigorous methods to expand and test this intervention in other SNAP programs before considering to implement it at scale.

Background/Objectives: Nutrition incentive programs can increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables and improve food security among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants and others in the United States. This qualitative study explored SNAP participants’ and farmers’ market staff’s perceptions of and experiences with a pilot supplemental benefit program offered at seven farmers’ markets in 2023 as part of the California Fruit and Vegetable Electronic Benefit Transfer Pilot Project. The pilot introduced specific characteristics that differ from more traditional nutrition incentive program dollar-for-dollar match incentive models, particularly the traditional model operating in California. Specific differences included the following: (1) offering a monthly USD 60 supplemental benefit that could be redeemed in a single shopping trip; (2) providing the supplemental benefit as a match that could be spent on any SNAP-eligible item in any retail location (rather than solely on fruits and vegetables at the farmers’ market). Methods: We conducted a qualitative, cross-sectional study including seven focus groups with 40 SNAP shoppers and six focus groups with 14 farmers’ market staff at six pilot-participating farmers’ markets in California. All focus groups were conducted by trained research staff and were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the immersion crystallization method. Results: Our findings include that shoppers appreciated several features of the pilot, particularly the ability to obtain an entire month’s supplemental benefit during one shopping trip and the ability to spend the benefit earned on any SNAP-eligible item at any SNAP retailer. Farmers’ market staff appreciated that the pilot benefited shoppers but found it difficult to manage due to staff and shopper confusion about the program, increased program utilization, subsequent long lines, and the spending of the earned incentives at other SNAP retailers. Both shoppers and staff reported that the program was difficult to understand. Conclusions: These findings can inform future nutrition incentive program designs to benefit SNAP participants while offering sustainable models for farmers’ markets.