(PO04-13-22) SNAP Healthy Food Pricing Incentive Programs: State Comparison & Evaluation

The ePoster content is available to NUTRITION 2022 LIVE ONLINE attendees who are logged in.<br><br>If you are registered, log in and then come back here to use this button.

Presenting Author(s)

Katrina M. Callahan, B.A. Political Science
– Law Student, Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement, Des Moines, Iowa, United States

Co-Author(s)

KO

Katherine Owens
– Iowa State
LB

Lyndi Buckingham-Schutt, Ph.D. Interdisciplinary Nutrition Sciences
– Harkin Institute
KW

Kevin Wyatt, B.A. Journalism
– Drake University

Disclosure(s):

Katrina M. Callahan, B.A. Political Science: No relevant financial relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Objectives: To provide state policy recommendations to support Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) healthy food pricing incentive programs.

Methods: The researchers analyzed SNAP healthy food pricing incentive programs across the U.S., specifically double Up Food Bucks, deployed surveys to gather information on success of incentive programs in states with active programs, compared SNAP incentive appropriations across states and over time, evaluated the available data on program outcomes and success and created specific policy recommendations, and identified ways to support incentive funding.

Results: Non-state funded programs impacted an average of 50.5% of counties in any given state compared to an average of 65% of counties in states with state-funded programs. Non-state funded programs generate on average $1.40 in local economic activity compared to $1.79 generated in state-funded programs. State-funded organizations host more farmers markets and CSAs within their state than non-state-funded organizations, and while some state-funded programs only have one grocery store retailer within their state, they present a higher average of grocery store retailers who take part in their program than non-state-funded programs. Contrary, non-state-funded programs partner with more mobile markets in each state than state-funded programs. 25% of non-state funded organizations reported that their programs definitely had a positive influence on diet-related chronic diseases compared to 66.7% of state-funded organizations response (emphasis added).

Conclusions: State-funded programs have a greater economic impact and have more positive health outcomes than non-state funded programs. State-funded programs suggest that focusing on the political parties of legislators may result in the most successful outcomes of receiving state funding by communicating specific variables to individuals in each specific party.

Funding Sources: Funding was provided through The Harkin Institute of Public Policy & Citizen Engagement at Drake University.