This study adds to the literature around food access in rural communities, and can inform future implementation strategies to work with storeowners to improve healthy food access.

Diet-related chronic disease remains a public health concern, and low intake of fruits and vegetables disproportionately affects low-income populations. Healthy food incentive (HFI) projects can help close the nutrition gap among low-income populations by increasing purchasing power and access to fruits and vegetables. This study aimed to qualitatively explore lessons learned and best practices from Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grant Program (FINI) grantees across the United States. Thirty semistructured interviews were conducted with FINI grantees and stakeholders in 2018, eliciting best practices and promising findings, policy implications, and knowledge gaps and opportunities to pursue that inform program refinement and sustainability. Telephone and in-person interviews were conducted with FINI grant recipients from 2015 to 2016, specifically, recipients of FINI-funded multiyear community-based projects and large-scale projects. Our results highlighted (1) range of projects and scope, (2) program promotion and awareness, (3) community-based partnerships, (4) technical assistance and peer interactions, (5) measurement and evaluation, (6) program challenges, and (7) future directions and recommendations. Grantees reported a “trifecta of benefits” that affects low-income consumers, farmers, and food retailers. Our findings contribute to understanding how to implement HFI programs in a variety of settings and highlight the variations that can exist between programs, as well as the need for increased technical assistance and synergy between programs (communities of practice). Overall, these findings can help to inform implementation and practice of healthy food incentive programs and the Farm Bill and other policy discussions.

The objective of this paper is to describe the development and preliminary testing of new scales to assess hunger-coping behaviors in a very low-income population. Very low-income adults (≥ 19 years), caregivers to at least one child (n = 306) completed a survey in a community setting (e.g., libraries). The survey included novel items assessing hunger-coping behaviors (e.g., trade-offs to purchase food, strategies to stretch and obtain food), food insecurity status, and physiological hunger. Internal consistency of hunger-coping scales, one-way ANOVAs, post-hoc analyses, Spearman's correlations among variables. Respondents were 75% female, 51% African American, 34% White, and 15% Hispanic, and 73% earned <$20,000/year. Four scales emerged: hunger-coping trade-offs, financial coping strategies, rationing coping strategies, and physiological adult hunger symptoms. All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α/KR-20 = 0.70–0.90). Predictive, construct, and content validity were demonstrated by correlations between hunger-coping scales and food insecurity (FI), measured with the USDA 6-item HFSSM (rs = 0.42–0.68, ps < 0.001). Higher levels of hunger-coping trade-offs (F(2,297) = 42.54, p < 0.001), financial coping strategies (F(2,287) = 70.77, p < 0.001), and rationing coping strategies (F(2,284) = 69.19, p < 0.001), corresponded with increasing levels of FI. These preliminary results support use of newly developed hunger-coping scales in a very low-income population and can compliment traditional food security measures to inform hunger prevention policy and programming.

Food insecurity, or lack of consistent access to enough food, is associated with low intakes of fruits and vegetables (FVs) and higher risk of chronic diseases and disproportionately affects populations with low income. Financial incentives for FVs are supported by the 2018 Farm Bill and United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and aim to increase dietary quality and food security among households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and with low income. Currently, there is no shared evaluation model for the hundreds of financial incentive projects across the U.S. Despite the fact that a majority of these projects are federally funded and united as a cohort of grantees through GusNIP, it is unclear which models and attributes have the greatest public health impact. We explore the evaluation of financial incentives in the U.S. to demonstrate the need for shared measurement in the future. We describe the process of the GusNIP NTAE, a federally supported initiative, to identify and develop shared measurement to be able to determine the potential impact of financial incentives in the U.S. This commentary discusses the rationale, considerations, and next steps for establishing shared evaluation measures for financial incentives for FVs, to accelerate our understanding of impact, and support evidence-based policymaking.

No abstract

Structural inequities contribute to food systems in which tribal communities in the U.S. are more likely to experience barriers to healthy food access, including financial barriers, lack of geographic proximity, or both. Food sovereignty movements improve food access by shifting power to local people to build food systems that support cultural, social, economic, and environmental needs. Finan­cial incentive programs, including produce pre­scription programs, have emerged as a promising intervention to improve food access and support food sovereignty. This case study describes the implementation of two federally funded produce prescription programs (Produce Prescription Pro­jects or PPR) under the U.S. Department of Agri­culture (USDA) Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incen­tive Program (GusNIP) in two rural tribal communities: the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta region in Alaska, and the Navajo Nation, which spans parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. We illus­trate how PPR can be tailored to accommodate local and diverse cultures, strengthen community power, and be uniquely suited for the challenges of increasing access to nutritious food in rural tribal communities. We also highlight recommendations and future areas of research that may be useful for other rural tribal communities implementing PPR.

No abstract

No abstract