Explore the vast range of titles available.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent policy response to mitigate disease spread had far-reaching impacts on health and social well-being. In response, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) underwent several pandemic-era modifications, including a 15 % monthly benefit increase on January 1, 2021. Research documenting the health effects of these SNAP modifications among low-income households and minoritized groups who were most impacted by the economic fallout during the first years of the pandemic is lacking. We aimed to estimate the health effects of the 15 % SNAP benefit increase in January 2021, among SNAP-eligible US households. We estimated the effects of the SNAP increase on food insufficiency, mental health, and financial well-being using a rigorous quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. August 19, 2020, to March 29, 2021. Participants were drawn from the national US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey waves 13-27 ( 44 477). Compared with SNAP-eligible non-recipients, SNAP-eligible recipients experienced decreased food insufficiency (-1·9 percentage points (pp); 95 % CI -3·7, -0·1) and anxiety symptoms (-0·09; 95 % CI -0·17, -0·01), and less difficulty paying for other household expenses (-3·2 pp; 95 % CI -4·9, -1·5) after the SNAP benefit increase. Results were robust to alternative specifications. Expansions of federal nutrition programmes have the potential to improve health and financial well-being. This study provides timely evidence to inform comprehensive safety net nutrition policies during future economic crises and public health preparedness response plans.

Food insecurity is now recognized as a major health crisis in the United States. This is due to the size of the problem – more than 42 million persons were food insecure in 2015 – as well as the multiple negative health outcomes and higher health care costs attributable to food insecurity. An extensive body of literature from multiple fields has examined the causes and consequences of food insecurity and the efficacy of food assistance programs – especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We review this literature and provide suggestions for future research directions. We suggest examining the distribution of food insecurity within households, the impact of the food distribution system on food insecurity, the coping mechanisms of low-income food secure families, food insecurity among American Indians, the effects of charitable food assistance, the causal relationship between food insecurity and health outcomes, the declining age gradient in food insecurity among Seniors, the effects of labor force participation and the Great Recession on food insecurity, and the long-term consequences of food insecurity. In addition, the impact of two recent policy recommendations on food insecurity – the minimum wage and the Affordable Care – Act should be considered.

Food insecurity is a global phenomenon which impacts a variety of social, economic, and life-stage groups. One such group affected by food insecurity is college students, who tend to experience food insecurity at a prevalence which exceeds the average of their local communities. The impacts of food insecurity in this population are multifaceted and have implications for their college experience and beyond. Food insecurity has been observed to have negative effects on college student academic performance, physical health, and mental health. This review explores the impacts of and solutions for food insecurity in this population globally, with particular emphasis on the United States, and specifically California.

The low intake of fruits/vegetables (FV) by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants is a persistent public health challenge. Fruit and vegetable incentive programs use inducements to encourage FV purchases. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify structural factors in FV incentive programs that may impact program effectiveness, including (i.) differences in recruitment/eligibility, (ii.) incentive delivery and timing, (iii.) incentive value, (iv.) eligible foods, and (v.) retail venue. Additionally, the FV incentive program impact on FV purchase and/or consumption is summarized. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, a search of four bibliographic databases resulted in the identification of 45 publications for consideration; 19 of which met the pre-determined inclusion criteria for full-length publications employing a quasi-experimental design and focused on verified, current SNAP participants. The data capturing study objective, study design, sample size, incentive program structure characteristics (participant eligibility and recruitment, delivery and timing of incentive, foods eligible for incentive redemption, type of retail venue), and study outcomes related to FV purchases/consumption were entered in a standardized chart. Eleven of the 19 studies had enrollment processes to receive the incentive, and most studies (17/19) provided the incentive in the form of a token, coupon, or voucher. The value of the incentives varied, but was usually offered as a match. Incentives were typically redeemable only for FV, although three studies required an FV purchase to trigger the delivery of an incentive for any SNAP-eligible food. Finally, most studies (16/19) were conducted at farmers’ markets. Eighteen of the 19 studies reported a positive impact on participant purchase and/or consumption of FV. Overall, this scoping review provides insights intended to inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of future FV incentive programs targeting SNAP participants; and demonstrates the potential effectiveness of FV incentive programs for increasing FV purchase and consumption among vulnerable populations.

Increased fruit and vegetable (FV) intake is associated with decreased risk of nutrition-related chronic diseases. Sociodemographic disparities in FV intake indicate the need for strategies that promote equitable access to FVs. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) supports state and local programs that offer nutrition incentives (NIs) that subsidize purchase of FVs for people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While a growing body of research indicates NIs are effective, the pathways through which GusNIP achieves its results have not been adequately described. We used an equity-focused, participatory process to develop a retrospective Theory of Change (TOC) to address this gap. We reviewed key program documents; conducted a targeted NI literature review; and engaged GusNIP partners, practitioners, and participants through interviews, workshops, and focus groups in TOC development. The resulting TOC describes how GusNIP achieves its long-term outcomes of increased participant FV purchases and intake and food security and community economic benefits. GusNIP provides NIs and promotes their use, helps local food retailers develop the capacity to sell FVs and accept NIs in accessible and welcoming venues, and supports local farmers to supply FVs to food retailers. The TOC is a framework for understanding how GusNIP works and a tool for improving and expanding the program.

To report perspectives of participants in a food benefit programme that includes foods high in added sugar (FAS) restrictions and FAS restrictions paired with fruits and vegetables (F/V) incentives. Randomised experimental trial in which participant perspectives were an exploratory study outcome. Participants were randomised into one of three Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-like food benefit programme groups: (1) restriction: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits; (2) restriction paired with incentive: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits and 30 % financial incentive on eligible F/V purchased using benefits; or (3) control: same food purchasing rules as SNAP. Participants were asked questions to assess programme satisfaction. Adults in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN metropolitan area, eligible for but not currently participating in SNAP who completed baseline and follow-up study measures (n 254). Among remaining households in each group, most found the programme helpful in buying nutritious foods (88·2 %-95·7 %) and were satisfied with the programme (89·1 %-93·0 %). Sensitivity analysis results indicate that reported helpfulness and satisfaction with the programme may in some instances be lower among the restriction and the restrictions paired with incentive groups in comparison to the control group. A food benefit programme that includes restriction on purchase of FAS or restriction paired with a financial incentive for F/V purchases may be acceptable to most SNAP-eligible households with children.

Background This research evaluated the effects of financial incentives and purchase restrictions on food purchasing in a food benefit program for low income people. Methods Participants (n=279) were randomized to groups: 1) Incentive- 30% financial incentive for fruits and vegetables purchased with food benefits; 2) Restriction- no purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candies with food benefits; 3) Incentive plus Restriction; or 4) Control- no incentive or restrictions. Participants received a study-specific debit card where funds were added monthly for 12-weeks. Food purchase receipts were collected over 16 weeks. Total dollars spent on grocery purchases and by targeted food categories were computed from receipts. Group differences were examined using general linear models. Results Weekly purchases of fruit significantly increased in the Incentive plus Restriction ($4.8) compared to the Restriction ($1.7) and Control ($2.1) groups (p <.01). Sugar-sweetened beverage purchases significantly decreased in the Incentive plus Restriction (−$0.8 per week) and Restriction ($-1.4 per week) groups compared to the Control group (+$1.5; p< .0001). Sweet baked goods purchases significantly decreased in the Restriction (−$0.70 per week) compared to the Control group (+$0.82 per week; p < .01). Conclusions Paired financial incentives and restrictions on foods and beverages purchased with food program funds may support more healthful food purchases compared to no incentives or restrictions. Clinical trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02643576 .

Disparities in healthy food access and consumption are a major public health concern. This study reports the findings from a two-year randomized control trial conducted at 77 farmers’ markets (FMs) in 13 states and the District of Columbia that sought to understand the impact of fruit and vegetable (FV) incentive vouchers, randomly issued at varied incentive levels to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, for use at FMs. Measures included FV and overall household food purchasing; FV consumption; food insecurity; health status; market expenditure; and demographics. A repeated-measures mixed-effects analysis and the Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) were used to examine outcomes. Despite 82% reporting food insecurity in the prior year, the findings showed that financial incentives at FMs had statistically significant, positive effects on FV consumption; market expenditures increased with added incentives. SNAP recipients receiving an incentive of USD 0.40 for every USD 1.00 in SNAP spent an average of USD 19.03 per transaction, while those receiving USD 2 for every USD 1 (2:1) spent an average of USD 36.28 per transaction. The data showed that the incentive program at the highest level (2:1) maximally increased SNAP FM expenditure and FV consumption, increasing the latter by 0.31 daily cups among those who used their incentive (CACE model).

Objective: This study focuses on barriers to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) enrollment and retention for Latine immigrant families in New York City and the value of facilitated access to SNAP provided by community-based organizations (CBOs). Methods: Between 2021 and 2023, we conducted surveys and interviews with Latine parents of children under 18 who received SNAP-related assistance from a CBO in the past year (250 surveys, 15 interviews). We also conducted interviews with staff from this same CBO (3 interviews with 6 participants). Results: Findings underscore the importance of SNAP to immigrant families with low incomes, the specific challenges immigrant families face in accessing the program, and the value of CBOs in facilitating access to SNAP for these families - by providing information, instilling trust, and addressing administrative burdens. Conclusions: Current SNAP enrollment and recertification processes create access barriers for eligible immigrants. Potential policy approaches to increase access include adjustments to documentation requirements, including reducing reliance on third parties; coordinated enrollment across benefit programs; improving language services; clarifying eligibility requirements that may cause fear among immigrants; and providing consistent and sufficient funding to CBOs facilitating access.

The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) is a federally funded grant program that provides nutrition incentives—subsidies for purchasing fruits and vegetables (FV)—to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. GusNIP currently advances nutrition equity by improving FV access for people with low incomes, yet inequities exist within GusNIP. We sought to identify inequities in GusNIP at the community, organization, partner, and individual levels and develop recommendations for farm bill provisions to make the program more equitable. In Spring 2021, a group of nutrition incentive experts (n = 11) from across the country convened to discuss opportunities to enhance equity in GusNIP. The iterative recommendation development process included feedback from key stakeholders (n = 15) and focus group participants with GusNIP lived experience (n = 12). Eleven recommendations to advance equity in GusNIP in the farm bill emerged across six categories: (1) increase total GusNIP funding, (2) increase funding and support to lower-resourced organizations and impacted communities, (3) eliminate the match requirement, (4) support statewide expansion, (5) expand and diversify retailer participation, and (6) expand program marketing. Including these recommendations in the upcoming and future farm bills would equitably expand GusNIP for SNAP participants, program grantees, and communities across the country.