scholarly journals Best Practices and Innovative Solutions to Overcome Barriers to Delivering Policy, Systems and Environmental Changes in Rural Communities

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Haynes-Maslow ◽  
Isabel Osborne ◽  
Stephanie Jilcott Pitts
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Innovative Solutions ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Policy Systems

To better understand the barriers to implementing policy; systems; and environmental (PSE) change initiatives within Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) programming in U.S. rural communities; as well as strategies to overcome these barriers, this study identifies: (1) the types of nutrition-related PSE SNAP-Ed programming currently being implemented in rural communities; (2) barriers to implementing PSE in rural communities; and (3) common best practices and innovative solutions to overcoming SNAP-Ed PSE implementation barriers. This mixed-methods study included online surveys and interviews across fifteen states. Participants were eligible if they: (1) were SNAP-Ed staff that were intimately aware of facilitators and barriers to implementing programs, (2) implemented at least 50% of their programming in rural communities, and (3) worked in their role for at least 12 months. Sixty-five staff completed the online survey and 27 participated in interviews. Barriers to PSE included obtaining community buy-in, the need for relationship building, and PSE education. Facilitators included finding community champions; identifying early “wins” so that community members could easily see PSE benefits. Partnerships between SNAP-Ed programs and non-SNAP-Ed organizations are essential to implementing PSE. SNAP-Ed staff should get buy-in from local leaders before implementing PSE. Technical assistance for rural SNAP-Ed programs would be helpful in promoting PSE.

Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) position statement: provide funding for incentive programs to expand healthy food offerings in SNAP-authorized small food stores

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea R Singleton ◽  
Oluwafikayo S Adeyemi ◽  
Kaustubh V Parab ◽  
Alexandra M Roehll ◽  
Edson Flores ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Healthy Food ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Food Stores ◽  
Incentive Programs ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Food Offerings

Abstract Individuals and families with limited access to healthy foods often experience increased risk for poor diet and chronic disease. Low-income communities are more likely to have a large number of small food stores (e.g., corner stores and dollar stores) compared to higher-income communities. Since many of these small food stores participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), increasing healthy food offerings in these stores may expand healthy food retail in low-income communities. We recommend the provision of funding for incentive programs that encourage SNAP-authorized small food stores in low-income communities to expand their healthy food offerings. This programming should (a) provide seed grants to store owners to develop or reconfigure store infrastructure, (b) offer store owners technical assistance and educational materials on marketing strategies for promoting healthy food items to customers, and (c) give a tax break to SNAP-authorized small food stores in low-income communities that maintain a predetermined minimum stock of U.S. Department of Agriculture-recognized staple foods.

scholarly journals Results of a Nutrition Incentive Program Within a Bi-State Region: A Mixed-Method Evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 191-191
Author(s):  
Cheryl Gibson ◽  
Heather Valentine ◽  
Rose-Bertine Mercier ◽  
Susan Harvey ◽  
Lauren Landfried ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Grocery Store ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Grocery Stores ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Incentive Program ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives To conduct a process and impact evaluation of Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) Heartland, a nutrition incentive program, to facilitate program delivery and sustainability at farmers markets and grocery stores, and to examine the impact on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) customers. Methods Across 4 years, we employed a mixed methods approach, including surveys with customers (n = 678) and vendors (n = 223), and interviews with market managers (n = 52) and grocery store employees (n = 38). Study samples were obtained using a geographically-stratified, probability-proportional-to-size sampling plan. Customer surveys included demographic, social, dietary and health-related variables. Survey respondents included SNAP customers who had used DUFB (n = 382) and those who had not (n = 296). Results DUFB customers were primarily female (81%) and white (48%), with a mean age of 46 ± 15 years. Non-DUFB users had similar characteristics. Of DUFB users, 56% indicated food insecurity issues and 27% rated their general health as fair to poor. Most learned of DUFB on-site. DUFB customers reported being able to afford more produce (98%), consuming a greater variety of produce (59%), and reducing their intake of unhealthy foods (45%). Importantly, 93% of DUFB users indicated the presence of the program influenced their decision to shop at the site. Among non-DUFB users, most were unaware of the program but 98% indicated they were likely to participate next time they shopped. Grocery store cashiers reported DUFB implementation was easy and it did not add time to complete a sales transaction. Store directors felt DUFB brought about a greater focus on locally grown produce and all expressed a desire to continue the program. Market managers stated participation in DUFB increased produce sales, and the number and diversity of customers. Market vendors viewed DUFB as beneficial, stating it resulted in a new customer base and increased produce sales. Conclusions Results were instrumental in identifying successes and challenges faced by locations that were implementing the DUFB program. DUFB was well accepted with few implementation barriers noted. However, many SNAP users were not aware of the nutrition incentive program. Findings will be used to refine materials and develop strategies to extend program reach. Funding Sources USDA Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program.

Examining Barriers and Facilitators to Delivering SNAP-Ed Direct Nutrition Education in Rural Communities

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 736-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Haynes-Maslow ◽  
Isabel Osborne ◽  
Stephanie Jilcott Pitts
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Change Initiatives ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Local Leaders

Purpose: To better understand the barriers to implementing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) direct education programming in rural communities, as well as strategies to overcome these barriers. This includes (1) barriers to implementing direct education in rural communities, and (2) facilitators to overcoming direct-education barriers in rural communities. Design: This was a qualitative study that included in-depth interviews. Setting: Fifteen states across all 7 SNAP-Ed regions. Participants: Participants were eligible if they (1) were SNAP-Ed staff who were involved with implementing programs; (2) implemented at least 50% of their programming in rural communities, and (3) worked in their role for at least 12 months. Twenty-seven (n = 27) staff participated in interviews. Measures: Online surveys ascertained if participants were interested in participating in a 60-minute interview about implementing SNAP-Ed in rural communities. Interviews were semistructured and focused on the barriers and facilitators to implementing SNAP-Ed direct-education nutrition programming in rural areas. Analysis: Qualitative interviews were analyzed using content analysis in Atlas.ti. Results: Barriers to implementing direct education in rural communities included lack of healthy food and physical activity infrastructure to reinforce messages taught in class, funding restrictions, transportation for SNAP-Ed staff and the perception that this was also a problem for participants, and SNAP-Ed staff being seen as “outsiders” (not from the community). Facilitators included partnering with other organizations to increase recruitment and retention of SNAP-Ed participants, buy-in from local leaders, and SNAP-Ed staff being from the community. Conclusion: Partnerships between SNAP-Ed programs and non-SNAP-Ed organizations were essential in helping to recruit and retain participants. The SNAP-Ed staff should get buy-in from local leaders before starting direct-education programming. The SNAP-Ed programs should explore innovative delivery modalities including online and text messaging due to transportation issues in widespread rural geographies. Lastly, more work should be done to complement SNAP-Ed direct education with policy, systems, and environmental change initiatives.

scholarly journals Use of Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change Strategies Within Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed), 2014–2016 (P04-160-19)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Burke ◽  
Stacy Gleason ◽  
Anita Singh ◽  
Margaret Wilkin
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Change ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Numerical Data ◽  
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Change Strategies ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Policy Systems

Abstract Objectives SNAP-Ed is the nutrition education and obesity prevention component of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the nation's largest nutrition assistance program for eligible low-income households. The 2010 Child Nutrition Act directed SNAP-Ed to include multi-level and public-health approaches, which was operationalized through policy, systems, and environmental change strategies (PSE). This analysis examines how states incorporated and planned to use PSEs in SNAP-Ed programming. Methods Data were collected from all 50 states, District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands (collectively described as “states”) for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. The data sources were state SNAP-Ed plans, annual reports, and administrative data. Qualitative methods were used to abstract the textual information from state plans and annual reports. Numerical data were collected from administrative data sets. Both textual and numerical data were categorized, counted, and relative frequencies were calculated. Results Between 2014 and 2016, the percentage of states that included PSEs as a statewide goal for SNAP-Ed increased from 25 to 47 and the percentage that planned to implement at least one PSE increased from 56 to 98. Among states that planned to implement PSEs in 2016, the 3 most common settings were places where people learn (e.g., schools) (92%), live (e.g., local communities) (90%), and work (e.g., worksites) (83%). States partnered with a wide range of organizations to deliver PSEs, with the 3 most common being government programs or agencies (77%), agricultural organizations (58%), and others non-specified (e.g., food alliances, wellness committees) (48%). Between 2014 and 2016, the percentage of states that planned to target environmental settings from the SNAP-Ed evaluation framework increased from 31 to 78. Conclusions States increasingly planned to use and were using PSEs across a range of settings and partners in SNAP-Ed between 2014 and 2016. This increase is encouraging as PSEs are important to use in conjunction with direct nutrition education and social marketing to improve nutrition and prevent obesity. Funding Sources U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

scholarly journals Between- and within-Group Differences in Fruit and Vegetable Purchases, Consumption, and BMI among Hispanic Farmers’ Market Shoppers Who Use SNAP

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 9923
Author(s):  
Ginnie Sawyer-Morris ◽  
Sara Grajeda ◽  
Tara Tracy ◽  
Allison Karpyn
Keyword(s):  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Household Size ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Fruit And Vegetable ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Farmers Market ◽  
Nutrition Assistance

(1) Background: Despite considerable efforts to increase farmers’ market access (FM) and improve household fruit and vegetable (FV) purchasing in low-income communities, little is known about the FV purchasing and consumption characteristics of low-income Hispanic farmers’ market shoppers. (2) Methods: A secondary analysis of baseline data from a farmers’ market study conducted between 2015 and 2017 (n = 2825) was performed. Participants who also received supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) completed a 31-item online survey assessing demographics, health characteristics, and FV purchasing and consumption habits. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used to assess between- and within-group differences amongst Hispanic and non-Hispanic households. Regression analyses were used to examine associations among BMI, FV purchasing and consumption, and household size for Hispanic and non-Hispanic households as well as for Hispanic subgroups. (3) Results: The sample included 515 Hispanic and 2310 non-Hispanic SNAP-using FM shoppers in 13 states. Despite experiencing significantly higher food insecurity (89% vs. 81%, non-Hispanic), Hispanic shoppers consumed similar amounts of FV (3.04 cups/day) and spent less doing so. Significant subgroup differences were identified for FV purchasing. (4) Conclusions: Findings emphasize the importance of food insecurity and household size in FV interventions and underscore the capacity of Hispanic families to maintain FV consumption.

scholarly journals The US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Education improves nutrition-related behaviors

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Ryan-Ibarra ◽  
Amy DeLisio ◽  
Heejung Bang ◽  
Omolola Adedokun ◽  
Vibha Bhargava ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Food Resource ◽  
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Supplemental Nutrition ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
The Us ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Nutrition Assistance

Abstract The aim of this study was to measure whether participating in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Education (SNAP-Ed) interventions is associated with changes in meeting recommendations for healthy eating and food resource management behaviours, such as shopping, among low-income children, adolescents, and adults in eight states in the US Southeast. The study used a one-group pre-test post-test design, analysing aggregate data on nutrition and shopping behaviours collected during Federal Fiscal Year 17 from SNAP-Ed direct education in community settings. Twenty-five implementing agencies in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee provided aggregated data on program participants. Because survey questions differed, agencies followed standard recoding guidelines. The number of participants varied depending on the indicator; the maximum number was n 43 303 pre-tests, n 43 256 post-test. Participants were significantly more likely to consume more than one kind of fruit (pooled relative risk (RR), 1⋅10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1⋅09–1⋅11) and more than one kind of vegetable (pooled RR, 1⋅14; 95% CI, 1⋅12–1⋅15) after the intervention than before. On average, participants consumed 0⋅34 cups more of fruit per day (95% CI, 0⋅31–0⋅37), and 0⋅22 cups more of vegetables per day (95% CI, 0⋅19–0⋅25) after the intervention, compared to before. About 701 policy, systems, and environmental changes for nutrition supports were reported. This study suggests that SNAP-Ed direct education is associated with positive behaviour changes in the US Southeast. It provides a methodology that can inform data aggregation efforts across unique SNAP-Ed programs or other similar nutrition education programs to report on the collective impact.

Assessing Technical Assistance Needs Among Recovery Residence Operators in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Miles ◽  
Terry Bunn ◽  
Amber Kizewski ◽  
Tyler Jennings ◽  
Teresa Waters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Systems Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Community Perception ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Voluntary Certification ◽  
Recovery Housing

Abstract Background: Recovery support services such as recovery housing may assist individuals with increasing their access to social support, employment services, and systems of care. Lack of evidence-based practices and calls for increased oversight of these settings suggests a growing need for technical assistance and training for recovery residence owners and staff members, yet little is known about their areas of greatest technical assistance needs, and if there are differences between the needs of owners/operators of one recovery residence vs. owners/operators of multiple recovery residences. Methods: We developed and administered a survey to assess the technical assistance needs of recovery housing operators in the United States using a convenience sample of individuals who own or operate a recovery residence (N= 376). The survey was disseminated electronically via e-mail using REDCap to collect survey responses. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the survey respondents, and bivariate analyses were conducted to test for differences in TA needs by the number of residences owned by the respondent (1 vs. 2+). Thematic analysis methods were used to analyze open text survey response items focusing on challenges, resources needed to overcome challenges, and community perception of recovery residences. Results: A total of 77 owners/operators completed the survey (20% response rate), representing urban, suburban, and rural communities. Almost one-half (45%) of respondents were the owner of their residence(s), and more than half (56%) of the respondents reported that their residence was certified based on a set of national best practices for recovery housing. Differences were observed between number of owned residences; owners/operators of a single residence expressed greater interest in technical assistance on house-specific policies and linkage to established systems of care, whereas owners/operators of multiple residences were more interested in technical assistance on complex topics such as building financial sustainability, and incorporation of best practices into their recovery residences. Conclusion: As an increasing number of states move to implement voluntary certification or licensing for recovery residences, targeted training and technical assistance to owners/operators will facilitate the successful adoption of recovery residence best practices and quality standards.

scholarly journals Exploring the association of urban or rural county status and environmental, nutrition- and lifestyle-related resources with the efficacy of SNAP-Ed (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education) to improve food security

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 957-966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L Rivera ◽  
Jennifer Dunne ◽  
Melissa K Maulding ◽  
Qi Wang ◽  
Dennis A Savaiano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Security ◽  
Environmental Factors ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Household Food Security ◽  
Rural County ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Household Food ◽  
Households With Children ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Policy Systems

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the association of policy, systems and environmental factors with improvement in household food security among low-income Indiana households with children after a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) direct nutrition education intervention.DesignHousehold food security scores measured by the eighteen-item US Household Food Security Survey Module in a longitudinal randomized and controlled SNAP-Ed intervention study conducted from August 2013 to April 2015 were the response variable. Metrics to quantify environmental factors including classification of urban or rural county status; the number of SNAP-authorized stores, food pantries and recreational facilities; average fair market housing rental price; and natural amenity rank were collected from government websites and data sets covering the years 2012–2016 and used as covariates in mixed multiple linear regression modelling.SettingThirty-seven Indiana counties, USA, 2012–2016.SubjectsSNAP-Ed eligible adults from households with children (n328).ResultsNone of the environmental factors investigated were significantly associated with changes in household food security in this exploratory study.ConclusionsSNAP-Ed improves food security regardless of urban or rural location or the environmental factors investigated. Expansion of SNAP-Ed in rural areas may support food access among the low-income population and reduce the prevalence of food insecurity in rural compared with urban areas. Further investigation into policy, systems and environmental factors of the Social Ecological Model are warranted to better understand their relationship with direct SNAP-Ed and their impact on diet-related behaviours and food security.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document