Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Factors associated with continued participation in a matched monetary incentive programme at local farmers’ markets in low-income neighbourhoods in San Diego, California

  • Amanda R Ratigan (a1) (a2), Suzanne Lindsay (a1) (a3), Hector Lemus (a1), Christina D Chambers (a2), Cheryl AM Anderson (a2), Terry A Cronan (a4), Deirdre K Browner (a5) and Wilma J Wooten (a5)...

Abstract

Objective

The Farmers’ Market Fresh Fund Incentive Program is a policy, systems and environmental intervention to improve access to fresh produce for participants on governmental assistance in the USA. The current study examined factors associated with ongoing participation in this matched monetary incentive programme.

Design

Relationship of baseline factors with number of Fresh Fund visits was assessed using Poisson regression. Mixed-effects modelling was used to explore changes in consumption of fruits and vegetables and diet quality.

Setting

San Diego, California.

Subjects

Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) who attended participating farmers’ markets from 2010 to 2012 (n 7298).

Results

Among those with participation for ≤6 months, factors associated with increased visits included reporting more daily servings of fruits and vegetables (F&V) at baseline, being Vietnamese or Asian/Pacific Islander, and eligibility because of SNAP/CalFresh or SSI (v. WIC). Among those who came for 6–12 months, being Asian/Pacific Islander, eligibility because of SNAP/CalFresh and enrolling in the autumn, winter or spring were associated with a greater number of Fresh Fund visits. Among those who came for >12 months, being male and eligibility because of SSI were associated with a greater number of visits. Overall, the odds of increasing number of servings of F&V consumed increased by 2 % per month, and the odds of improved perception of diet quality increased by 10 % per month.

Conclusions

Sustaining and increasing Fresh Fund-type programme operations should be a top priority for future policy decisions concerning farmers’ market use in low-income neighbourhoods.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Factors associated with continued participation in a matched monetary incentive programme at local farmers’ markets in low-income neighbourhoods in San Diego, California
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Factors associated with continued participation in a matched monetary incentive programme at local farmers’ markets in low-income neighbourhoods in San Diego, California
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Factors associated with continued participation in a matched monetary incentive programme at local farmers’ markets in low-income neighbourhoods in San Diego, California
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Corresponding author: Email Ratigan.Amanda@gmail.com

References

Hide All
1. Marshall, TA (2011) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010: an update. J Am Dent Assoc 142, 654656.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) State-specific trends in fruit and vegetable consumption among adults – United States, 2000–2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 59, 11251130.
3. Statistics Canada (2015) Health Fact Sheets: Fruit and Vegetable Consumption, 2014. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2015001/article/14182-eng.htm (accessed March 2017).
4. Roberts, C (2015) Chapter 7: Fruit and vegetable consumption. In Health Survey for England 2013. vol. 1 [R Craig and J Mindell, editors]. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB16076/HSE2013-Ch7-fru-veg-com.pdf (accessed March 2017).
5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Daily intake of fruits and vegetables. In Australian Health Survey: Updated Results, 2011–2012. Catalogue no. 4364.0.55.003. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/C549D4433F6B74D7CA257B8200179569?opendocument (accessed March 2017).
6. Hall, JN, Moore, S, Harper, SB et al. (2009) Global variability in fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Prev Med 36, 402409.
7. Dubowitz, T, Heron, M, Bird, CE et al. (2008) Neighborhood socioeconomic status and fruit and vegetable intake among whites, blacks, and Mexican Americans in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 87, 18831891.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007) Fruit and vegetable consumption among adults – United States, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 56, 213217.
9. Grimm, KA, Foltz, JL, Blanck, HM et al. (2012) Household income disparities in fruit and vegetable consumption by state and territory: results of the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. J Acad Nutr Diet 112, 20142021.
10. Moore, LV, Roux, AVD, Nettleton, JA et al. (2008) Associations of the local food environment with diet quality – a comparison of assessments based on surveys and geographic information systems. Am J Epidemiol 167, 917924.
11. Moore, LV & Roux, AVD (2006) Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. Am J Public Health 96, 325331.
12. Rose, D & Richards, R (2004) Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program. Public Health Nutr 7, 10811088.
13. Gustafson, A, Lewis, S, Perkins, S et al. (2013) Neighbourhood and consumer food environment is associated with dietary intake among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants in Fayette County, Kentucky. Public Health Nutr 16, 12291237.
14. Baker, EA, Schootman, M, Barnidge, E et al. (2006) The role of race and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to dietary guidelines. Prev Chronic Dis 3, A76.
15. Powell, LM, Slater, S, Mirtcheva, D et al. (2007) Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Prev Med 44, 189195.
16. US Department of Agriculture (2017) Local Food Directories: National Farmers Market Directory. https://www.ams.usda.gov/local-food-directories/farmersmarkets (accessed March 2017).
17. Australia Farmers’ Markets Association (2017) Markets Directory. http://farmersmarkets.org.au/find-a-market/ (accessed March 2017).
18. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2013) Farming Business: Farm shops and farmers’ markets. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/farm-shops-and-farmers-markets (accessed March 2017).
19. Farmers Market Canada (2009) National Farmers’ Market Impact Study 2009 Report. http://www.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/david-connell/farmers-markets/nationalfarmersmarketimpactstudy2009.pdf (accessed March 2017).
20. US Department of Agriculture (2015) Comparison of SNAP Authorized Farmers and Markets FY2008 and FY2015. https://origin.drupal.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/SNAP-FM-093015.pdf (accessed July 2017).
21. US Department of Agriculture (2017) WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). http://www.fns.usda.gov/fmnp/wic-farmers-market-nutrition-program-fmnp (accessed July 2017).
22. US Department of Agriculture (2017) SNAP and Farmers Markets. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/learn-about-snap-benefits-farmers-markets (accessed July 2017).
23. Jilcott Pitts, SB, Wu, Q, Demarest, CL et al. (2015) Farmers’ market shopping and dietary behaviours among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants. Public Health Nutr 18, 24072414.
24. Wheeler, AL & Chapman-Novakofski, K (2014) Farmers’ markets: costs compared with supermarkets, use among WIC clients, and relationship to fruit and vegetable intake and related psychosocial variables. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 3 Suppl., S65S70.
25. Grin, BM, Gayle, TL, Saravia, DC et al. (2013) Use of farmers markets by mothers of WIC recipients, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 10, E95.
26. Baronberg, S, Dunn, L, Nonas, C et al. (2013) The impact of New York City’s Health Bucks Program on electronic benefit transfer spending at farmers markets, 2006–2009. Prev Chronic Dis 10, E163.
27. Olsho, LE, Payne, GH, Walker, DK et al. (2015) Impacts of a farmers’ market incentive programme on fruit and vegetable access, purchase and consumption. Public Health Nutr 18, 27122721.
28. Lindsay, S, Lambert, J, Penn, T et al. (2013) Monetary matched incentives to encourage the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers markets in underserved communities. Prev Chronic Dis 10, E188.
29. Freedman, DA, Mattison-Faye, A, Alia, K et al. (2014) Comparing farmers’ market revenue trends before and after the implementation of a monetary incentive for recipients of food assistance. Prev Chronic Dis 11, E87.
30. Young, CR, Aquilante, JL, Solomon, S et al. (2013) Improving fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income customers at farmers markets: Philly Food Bucks, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 10, E166.
31. Herman, DR, Harrison, GG, Afifi, AA et al. (2008) Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among low-income women in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Am J Public Health 98, 98105.
32. Racine, EF, Vaughn, AS & Laditka, SB (2010) Farmers’ market use among African-American women participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 441446.
33. Dimitri, C, Oberholtzer, L, Zive, M et al. (2015) Enhancing food security of low-income consumers: an investigation of financial incentives for use at farmers markets. Food Policy 52, 6470.
34. Nichols, P, Ussery-Hall, A, Griffin-Blake, S et al. (2012) The evolution of the steps program, 2003–2010: transforming the federal public health practice of chronic disease prevention. Prev Chronic Dis 9, E50.
35. Bunnell, R, O’Neil, D, Soler, R et al. (2012) Fifty communities putting prevention to work: accelerating chronic disease prevention through policy, systems and environmental change. J Community Health 37, 10811090.

Keywords

Factors associated with continued participation in a matched monetary incentive programme at local farmers’ markets in low-income neighbourhoods in San Diego, California

  • Amanda R Ratigan (a1) (a2), Suzanne Lindsay (a1) (a3), Hector Lemus (a1), Christina D Chambers (a2), Cheryl AM Anderson (a2), Terry A Cronan (a4), Deirdre K Browner (a5) and Wilma J Wooten (a5)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed