2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.03.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of a mixed-method approach to evaluate the implementation of retention promotion strategies in the New York State WIC program

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Prior to the pandemic, WIC participants recertified during an in-person meeting with WIC staff wherein they provided proof of income and address or proof of enrollment in other public assistance programs. However, this imposed many barriers to WIC participation, such as the need for transportation, potentially long wait times, and the need to take time away from work [7,8]. Slightly over one-third of study participants recalled providing documentation of income and address after pandemic-related shut-downs; the research team verified via WIC administrate data that all study participants who reported their infant still received WIC benefits provided documentation of eligibility virtually, but the majority did so via adjunctive eligibility, or the ability of WIC participants to establish income eligibility by showing proof of enrollment in other public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, TANF, or SNAP [9,10].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to the pandemic, WIC participants recertified during an in-person meeting with WIC staff wherein they provided proof of income and address or proof of enrollment in other public assistance programs. However, this imposed many barriers to WIC participation, such as the need for transportation, potentially long wait times, and the need to take time away from work [7,8]. Slightly over one-third of study participants recalled providing documentation of income and address after pandemic-related shut-downs; the research team verified via WIC administrate data that all study participants who reported their infant still received WIC benefits provided documentation of eligibility virtually, but the majority did so via adjunctive eligibility, or the ability of WIC participants to establish income eligibility by showing proof of enrollment in other public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, TANF, or SNAP [9,10].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous researchers have attributed suboptimal engagement to dissatisfaction with the WIC food package 16,17 ; lack of time, 18,19 transportation, 20 and/or childcare for appointments 18,21 ; increased income 19,22 ; linguistic barriers 23 ; and misinformation. 24,25 However, most studies on early termination and low redemption were conducted before the 2009 food package update, 26 which, among many changes, added F&V and whole grains to better align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was approximately an 8% change in both studies between online and offline states. The various educational initiatives, including WIC Fresh Start, CRUNCH, and shopping orientation all resulted in increased participation, though CRUNCH was the only program to report statistical significance [ 17 – 20 ]. While the non-participants only redeemed 39% of Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program checks, those receiving the intervention redeemed 46.5% of their checks (P < 0.001) [ 17 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%