1

Executive

Philly Fo

D

Fi

Fi

T

Fi

Get Heal

P

Fi

Fi

Customer

Conclusio

Appendix

T

T

TAuthored B

e Summary

od Bucks

Distribution, R

igure 1: 2014

igure 2: Total

Table 1: SNAP

igure 3: Total

thy Philly

Philly Food B

igure 4: Get H

igure 5: Get H

r Survey

on

x

Table A1: Profi

Table A2: Farm

Table A3: CustBy: Meghan Filo

Redemption

Food Buck D

SNAP Sales a

P Sales and Fo

l Sales at Food

ucks Use at

Healthy Philly

Healthy Philly

file of 2014 Ge

mers’ Market P

tomer Responoromo, Yi-Ming

and SNAP S

Distribution Ch

at Food Trust

ood Bucks Red

d Trust Farme

Get Healthy

Food Bucks R

EBT Sales Co

et Healthy Phi

Profiles

nses by Groupg Law, Nicky Uy

Sales

hannels

t Farmers’ Mar

demptions at

ers’ Markets in

Philly Farme

Redemption C

omparison, 20

illy Farmers’ M

ing Factor y, Candace R. Y

rkets in Philad

Food Trust M

n Philadelphia

ers’ Markets

Comparison, 2

012 – 2014

Markets

Young, MS., Ste

delphia 2005-2

Markets, 2010-

a, 2010 - 2014

2012 – 2014

ephanie Weiss,

3

4

2014

-2014

4

8

9

14

15

Jennifer Weissb

2

bourd

Key Find1) P

prfrT

2) PloFveco

3) Ptocucumin

4) CFloparediP

Key Chall1) R

PFmSN

Goals for 1) Im

mdithin

2) Ccusu

1 Pennsylva

dings: Philly Food B

rogram continruits and vege

Trust farmers’ Philly Food Bow-income mood Bucks uegetables” (60oming to mark

Programmingo reach shopustomers (54ustomers repo

markets. Particncome areas anCooking demFood Bucks. ocations. Apparticipant wasedemption ratistribution mehilly Food Bulenge in 2014

Reduction of hiladelphians unding for SN

million. These mNAP sales at T2015:

mplement strmarked 29% in

istribution andhe farmers’ mntroduced duriConduct farmustomers to thuch as cookin

ania Departmen

Bucks increasnued to reachtables. The prmarkets, $67,9

Bucks use ismarkets. Comusers at low-i0% vs. 50%) aket.

g at market suppers at low%) reported

orted observincipation in mnd among Phionstrations aIn June 2014

proximately 2s given a packte for these ethods. Cookiucks. These co4: SNAP benefireceiving SNA

NAP benefits macro-level chThe Food Tru

reamlined tencrease in reded redemption

market staff iing the 2015 s

mers’ market he farmers’ mg demonstrati

nt of Human Se

sed reach to h low-incomerogram saw a 998 Philly Foo associated

mpared to noincome mark

and “trying new

uccessfully rew-income ma

receiving heng or participa

market programilly Food Buckat Get Health, The Food T2,200 peopleket of Philly FPhilly Food ng demonstra

ooking lessons

fits on the staAP benefits drrose in 2014 ahanges in the ust’s farmers’

echnology to emptions sincof the Philly

s shifting towseason.

tours to incmarkets, explaiions, nutrition

ervices, Medical

low-incomee customers a

29% increaseod Bucks werewith improvn-Philly Food

kets were mow or unfamili

eached farmearkets and Pealthy eating ating in a cookmming was hk users. hy Philly ma

Trust launchede participatedFood Bucks w

Bucks (72%)ations are an es successfully c

ate and federaropped from $and by late fallSNAP programarkets in 20

manage growce 2013, more Food Bucks p

ward new tec

crease trafficin the various

n lessons, and

l Assistance, Food

e customers iand to increase in redemptioe redeemed in

ved eating bed Bucks userore likely to iar fruits and v

ers’ market cPhilly Food

information king demonstrhigher among

arkets fuel incd cooking demd in these cworth $6 to sp) was the higexcellent and combine food

al levels. In N$66.5 million l, the total benam likely cont013 and 2014.

wth of Phillydedicated sta

program. To hchnology. A n

c to marketss benefits acc

d scavenger hu

d Stamps and Cas

in 2014. The se access to aons from 2013n 2014. ehaviors ams at low-incoreport “eatinvegetables” (4

customers anBucks usersand over o

ration, a new g customers a

crease in redmonstrations acooking dem

pend at the faghest of all Peffective meth

d access with n

November 201to $61.9 millionefits were batributed to the

y Food Buckaff time was rehelp with the new database

s. The tours cepted and incunts that enco

sh Assistance stat

Philly Food Band affordabil3 to 2014. At

ong customeome markets, ng more fruit48% vs. 33% )

nd was more s. Over half one-fifth (21%feature in 201at markets in

demption of Pat 7 farmers’ mmonstrations. armers’ marketPhilly Food hod for distribnutrition educ

13, funding toon, a 7% decl

ack up to $66.5e general declin

ks program. Wequired to tracsubstantial gr

e will be buil

will welcomeclude program

ourage custom

tistics reports.

3

Bucks lity of Food

ers at Philly

ts and ) since

likely of all

%) of 14 at 7 n low-

Philly market

Each t. The Bucks buting cation.

o line.1 5 ne in

With a ck the rowth, lt and

e new mming mers to

4

interact with the farmers. When distribution partners were surveyed, 29% indicated that the tours would be useful to their clients.

3) Identify strategies to increase Philly Food Buck distribution in connection with SNAP sales at market. In times of decreasing SNAP benefit levels, there are less SNAP dollars in the marketplace. Although redemption of Philly Food Bucks increased over the past year, SNAP sales at market declined. In 2014, approximately 0.1% of SNAP dollars in Philly were spent at farmers’ markets. SNAP sales accounted for approximately 2.5% of all sales at The Food Trust farmers’ markets, with Philly Food Bucks adding an additional 2.5% in sales. Distribution of Philly Food Bucks through community partners is an effective tool to get new customers to market. This approach will continue in 2015 to increase awareness of farmers’ markets. We will also pursue renewed efforts to tie Philly Food Bucks distribution to use of SNAP benefits at market, which is the foundation of the program: to increase purchasing power for fresh fruits and vegetables among SNAP households. Strategies will include efforts such as improving signage and promotional brochures and editing the cooking demonstration script to highlight Philly Food Bucks as an incentive for SNAP customers, as well as redoubling training efforts with farmers to promote the program among customers.

Philly Foopurchasingtheir beneprogram isites that sincrease Sof fruits an

Distribu From Junewas distribsites, whedistributioBucks weoffices, foeligible poresidents t

od Bucks is ag power for Sefits at a parts available to sell local fruitNAP sales at nd vegetables,

tion, Redem

e 2010 througbuted during tere Philly Fooon partners (7ere distributedood pantries, opulations anto shop at farm

a healthy fooSNAP customicipating markall SNAP recits and vegetabfarmers’ mark, and bolster t

mption and

gh December the 2014 seasood Bucks are 5% in 2014).

d in 2014. Thhouses of wo

nd distribute mers’ markets

od incentive pmers at farmers

ket site, they ipients, and inbles across Phkets, increase the sales of loc

SNAP Sales

2014, $534,94on. Philly Foo

directly connSee Figure 1

hese partnersorship and coPhilly Food for fresh pro

Launchat 7 Foothe topstep insfarmersparticipFood Bpeople were di Resultscookingan ingr(48%) gexperienew waparticipand intrespecti

program deves’ markets. Foreceive a $2

n 2014, Philly Fhiladelphia. Th

the affordabilcal farmers.

s

44 in Philly Food Bucks coupnected to SNon page 6 fo

s—which inclmmunity-baseBucks as a

oduce. After re

hed in June 2od Trust farm of every hostructions ofs vending at pants tasted tBucks to spe

participatedistributed.

s from the cog demo exporedient or prgained exponce, and ovays to prep

pants reportetent to purcively).

eloped and lauor every $5 th

coupon for Food Bucks chrough the prolity of produc

ood Bucks wapons are main

NAP sales (17or a complete lude recreatioed organizatiopromotional

eceiving this o

2014, the seriemers’ marketour, nutritionf recipes usi

the market.the finished

end at the fad, and over $

ooking demosed most shreparation m

osure to newver three-quaare familiar

ed increased chase and p

unched in 20hat SNAP custfresh fruits a

coupons couldogram, The F

ce to encourag

as distributed;nly distributed7% in 2014),

breakdown oon centers, heons—all servetool to enco

one-time prom

es of cookingt locations wen educators wing fresh fru. After watchproduct and

armers’ mark$10,000 worth

monstration suhoppers to smethod. Almw fruits and arters of par

ingredientsconfidence

prepare ingre

010 to increastomers spend

and vegetablesd be redeemedFood Trust sege the consum

; $135,400 of d at farmers’ m

and throughof how Philly ealth centers, e SNAP or Sourage low-in

motion of Phil

g demonstratere a rousingwould illustr

uits and vegehing the demd were given ket. Approximh of Philly F

urveys indicsomething ne

most half of vegetables t

rticipants (78s. The vast

in cooking edients (85% 5

se the using s. The d at 29 eks to

mption

which market h local

Food WIC

NAP-ncome lly

tions hosted g success. At rate step-by-etables from monstration,

$6 in Philly mately 2,200 Food Bucks

ate that the ew, whether participants through the 8%) learned majority of skills (96%)

% and 82%,

6

Food Bucks, customers can continue to benefit from this incentive program by using their ACCESS card to make purchases at the farmers’ markets.

Redemption sites—locations where Philly Food Bucks can be used to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables—are listed on a Philly Food Buck brochure, online and via the Philadelphia non-emergency contact center 311. Sites for 2014 included farmers’ markets managed by The Food Trust and partnering redemption sites. Partnering redemption sites are farmers’ markets or farm stands in Philadelphia run by community partners of The Food Trust. These locations were chosen to distribute and redeem Philly Food Bucks because they sell fresh local food, reach communities that are primarily mixed- or low-income, and serve regions not currently reached Food Trust farmers’ markets. In 2014, these partnering redemption sites were Greensgrow Farm and its mobile market locations, SHARE Nice Roots Farm and the Fair Food Farmstand.

For the second year in a row, SNAP sales continued to decline (see Figure 2). However, total sales reported by vendors, which includes cash, Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program Senior and WIC vouchers, SNAP and Philly Food Bucks, increased from 2013 to 2014 (see Figure 3). As SNAP funding to Philadelphia began to steadily rise near the end of 2014, The Food Trust outlined plans to increase sales by SNAP customers. With approximately 0.1% of SNAP benefits in Philadelphia spent at The Food Trust farmers’ markets, there is room for growth. Both the cooking demonstration script and the Philly Food Buck brochure were edited to encourage SNAP customers and to highlight the Philly Food Bucks program as an incentive in 2015.

Over the course of the Philly Food Bucks program, from 2010 to 2014, total monetary redemption of Philly Food Bucks was $241,457, with an overall redemption rate of 45%. $81,576 Philly Food Bucks were redeemed during the 2014 season at The Food Trust farmers’ markets and partner redemption sites. At Food Trust farmers’ markets alone, $67,998 in Philly Food Bucks were redeemed (see Table 1). In 2014, Philly Food Bucks distributed during cooking demonstrations at farmers’ markets had the highest redemption rate (72%); followed by Philly Food Bucks distributed at market (69% redemption rate) and Philly Food Bucks distributed by partners (39% redemption rate).

As in previous years, only partners with a redemption rate of 15% or higher were invited to continue participating in the program. All new and returning distribution partners received formal training on how to distribute Philly Food Bucks to their program’s participants as a promotion. There were 44 direct distribution partners in 2014, with some partners distributing Food Bucks at more than one location. Additionally, The Food Trust distributed Philly Food Bucks through complementary outreach at community events in low-income neighborhoods, health centers, WIC offices, Philabundance Fresh for All distributions, recreation centers, and Philadelphia Housing Authority sites.

Figure 1: 2014 Food Buck Distribution Channels

Markets

Partnersand Events

CookingDemos

75%

17% 8%

PARTICIPMARK

TOTAL

AVERAGMARK

2

PATING KETS

SALES $25

GE PER KET $1,

Note: SN

*Does not in

$

$20,00

$40,00

$60,00

$80,00

$1,700,00$1,800,00$1,900,00$2,000,00$2,100,00$2,200,00$2,300,00

Table 1: S

2010 2

21

5,597.51 $56

,218.93 $2,

NAP and Phil

nclude winter sal

$0

00

00

00

00

2005(14)

Figure

00000000000000

201(2

Figure 3

SNAP Saat Food

SN

2011 2

26

6,496.40 $63

,172.94 $2,

lly Food Buck

les.

2006(14)

2(

2: Total Marke

10*1)

3: Total Sin

ales andd Trust M

NAP

2012 2

26

3,281.71 $60,

,433.91 $2,

ks totals abo

007(19)

2008(21)

SNAP Sets in Ph

2011(26)

Sales at n Philad

Year (Numb

Year (Num

d Food BMarkets

2013 2

23

,907.27 $50,

648.14 $2,0

ove encompas

2009(19)

Sales at hiladelph

20(2

Food Trdelphia,

ber of Marke

mber of Mark

Bucks Rs, 2010 -

2014 201

25 20

,166.17 $11,4

006.65 $57

ss Food Trus

2010(21)

201(26

Food Trhia, 2005

01226)

rust Far2010 - 2

ets Operated)

kets Operated

Redempt2014

FOO

10 2011

0 26

488 $28,396

74 $1,092

st markets on

116)

2012(26)

rust Far5 – 2014

2013(23)

rmers' M014

)

d)

tions

OD BUC

2012

26

$43,854

$1,687

nly.

2013(23)

2

rmers’

20(2

Markets

7

CKS

2013 20

23 2

$52,870 $67

$2,298 $2,

2014(27)

01427)

014

25

,998

,720

In partnerTrust opelaunched t2014, threChristian Get Healtand the Phwhich pro

Ge

$$50

$1,00$1,50$2,00$2,50$3,00$3,50$4,00$4,50

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

rship with thened 10 new fthe Philly Fooee new Get HFarmers’ Marthy Philly marhilly Food Bu

omote healthy

Food B

et Healt

$0000000000000000000

May

May

e Philadelphia farmers’ markod Bucks progHealthy Phillyrket, and Comrkets (one Getucks program eating and ac

Figu

Buck Re

thy Phill

June

June

Department kets in low-incgram in 2010 (y markets wer

mmon Groundt Healthy Philcontribute totive living.

ure 4: Getdemptio

F

ly EBT

July

July

of Public Hecome neighbo(a profile of thre opened: 26d Market at Blly market, No

o the Get Hea

t Healthon Com

Figure 5:

Sales Co

August Sept

August Sep

ealth’s Get Heorhoods over hese markets c6th and Allegh

Broad and Mt.orris Square F

althy Philly go

hy Phillymparison

omparis

tember Octo

ptember Oct

ealthy Philly inthe 2010 and

can be seen inheny Farmers. Vernon StreFarmers’ Markoals of establis

y n, 2012 –

son, 2012

ober Novemb

tober Novem

nitiative, The d 2011 seasonn the Appendis’ Market, 18ets. The curreket, closed in shing environ

2014

2 – 2014

ber

2012

2013

2014

mber

201

201

201

8

Food ns and x). In th and ent 12 2013) ments

12

13

14

METHDATA CA total offarmers’ mshopping F&V consmarket; wuse of SNat all mark

ANALYSCustomer tables, andgrouping f

1) G2) L3) P

HODOLOCOLLECTIONf 1011 custommarkets in Phfrequency; tr

sumption; recwhere they moNAP and Phillykets during the

SIS survey data,

d the χ2 test factors:

Get Healthy Phow-income mFB users vs. n

OGY N

mer surveys wehiladelphia in ansport and d

ceiving informst often purchy Food Buckse same time fr

categorical inof independe

hilly (GHP) mmarkets vs. nonnon-PFB user

ere administer2014. The su

distance to mmation about hhase F&V; hos (PFB) at marame, from Se

n nature, werence. We exam

markets vs. nonn low-income s at markets in

At the CPower ocould jofruit or

Withou20 childAs a rew$2 Phillto their

Additiowith chdecoratnearby

red and collecurvey, consist

market; trying healthy eating w prices of F

arket; and demeptember to N

re analyzed wmined how c

n-GHP markemarkets

n low-income

Clark Park Tof Produce poin the Two-vegetable.

ut requiring mdren participward, particily Food Buckbackpacks i

onal activitiehildren and ting, the Powstudents, pre

cted by marketing of 25 qunew fruits an

g at market; paF&V at marketmographic infoNovember 201

with descriptivcustomer resp

ets

areas

Thursday marproject in Oc-Bite Club by

much parentaated each weipants were gk. Several kidimmediately.

s at the weetheir famili

wer of Produeschoolers an

et managers anuestions, askednd vegetablesarticipation int compare to ormation. Sur14.

ve frequencieponses differe

rket, Food Tctober 2014. Ey taking two

al encourageeek in this mgiven a Two-ds proudly af.

ekly farmersies. From couce providednd toddlers.

nd volunteersd customers as (F&V); chann cooking demnearby food s

rveys were col

s, 2x2 contined by the foll

Trust staff piloEach week, cbites of the f

ement, an avmonth-long p-Bite Club piffixed their n

’ market weoloring to pd after-schoo

9

s at 27 about: nge in mos at stores; llected

ngency owing

oted the children featured

erage of program. in and a

new pins

ere a hit pumpkin ol fun to

10

Low-income markets were determined by the criteria of either >70% of students in nearby schools receiving free or reduced-price lunches or > 70% of residents living under the federal poverty line. To determine statistical significance of results, we set an alpha-level of 0.05. All analyses were conducted using R version 3.1.1 (R Foundation for Statistical computing, Vienna, Austria).

Our hypotheses were:

1) Use of PFB at low-income markets would be associated with improved self-reported intake of F&V and with trying new F&V; and

2) Customers at low-income markets would be more likely to receive market programming (receiving information about healthy eating at market, or observing a cooking demonstration at market), compared to customers at non-low-income markets.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A total of 435 customer surveys were collected from 12 GHP market locations, and 576 surveys were collected at 15 non-GHP farmers’ market locations. 653 customer surveys were collected from 18 low-income markets, and 358 surveys were collected at 9 non-low-income markets. Overall, nearly a quarter of customers surveyed (23%) reported using PFB and more than a quarter of customers (28%) reported receiving SNAP in the past 12 months. Among low-income markets, 42% of customers reported using PFB.

Table A3 in the Appendix compares frequencies and percentages for survey questions by several grouping factors -- GHP market shoppers vs. non-GHP market shoppers; low-income market shoppers vs. non-low-income market shoppers; and PFB users vs. non-PFB users (among low-income markets only). To examine the impact of PFB on low-income shoppers’ self-reported eating behaviors, we analyzed the proportions and p-values (χ2 test) between PFB users vs. non-PFB users among low-income markets.

DEMOGRAPHICSAcross all markets, shoppers were more likely to be female (66%), White (47%) or African American (40%), between 41 and 65 (39%), and to have an annual household income <$30,000 (48%). Race/ethnicity, annual income level, and age group of customers differed significantly by grouping factors of interest (i.e., GHP vs. non-GHP market, low-income market vs. non-low-income market, and PFB users vs. non-PFB users at markets in low-income areas). Respondents were more likely to be African American or Hispanic at GHP markets and low-income markets. PFB users at low-income markets were also more likely to be African American or Hispanic, compared to non-PFB users.

SHOPPINGFREQUENCYPFB users at low-income markets are more likely to be return customers that shop at market more frequently than their non-PFB counterparts. Within low-income markets, PFB users were less likely to report being a first-time shopper at market compared to non-PFB users (15% vs. 34%, p = 0.000). Furthermore, PFB users were statistically more likely to report visiting the market either “once a week” or “more than once a week” compared to non-PFB users (67% vs. 41%, p = 0.000).

in coPhillyThe Phillyconnfinish

FundLankhosppassahospNeedsurrothese

Key

•

•

•

onjunction wity Food Bucksprogram is tay Food Buck

necting to othehed their first

ding for Lankkenau is requirpitals have meage of the Aff

pitals to provids Assessmenounding comme new requirem

Findings:

• LankenauAmong pexplain thcoupons a

• Farmers’ communiscreeningshospital’s over 50,00

• Farmers’ with Lankdates, Lanthe commhealth infblood pre

th its outpaties that they ca

argeted to patiks, patients rer communityfull year of th

kenau’s Phillyred to provideet this requirefordable Care de other comnts and subsmunities. Progments. This pa

u patients whoatients who rhe coupon prat a rate of 43markets provty. On 48 mas and wellnespresence at t

00 online follomarket shopp

kenau health enkenau health

munity. Amonformation andessure; many r

Lankeoutpaunderof LMfactorthe wo

To houtcoof Pub

ent practice. Ban redeem forients with bodreceive nutritiy resources to he program in

y Food Buckse benefits to iment by provAct, the numb

mmunity benefsequent Comgrams like theartnership serv

o received nuteceived Phillyrogram and s% (compared vided an effecarket dates in ss activities atthe market waowers. pers--includingeducators, inclh educators cong those screend connectionseturned to the

enau Medicalatient practice rinsured indiviMA’s patients rs like diet andorst in the sta

elp address mes, Lankenablic Health’s GBegun in 2012r fresh fruits ady mass indiceion educationhelp address 2014.

s Program coits communityviding “charityber of un- andfits. Additionmunity Healte Philly Foodves as a mode

trition counsely Food Bucks,stress the impto 31.5% for

ctive setting t2013-2014, Lt three Food as also promo

g underservedluding particip

onducted 764ned, 50% werto follow-up

e markets for

l Associates that provide

iduals. While reside in We

d exercise, eduate.

some of theau partnered wGet Healthy P2, the programand vegetableses over thirty n, informationeeds like ho

omes from Lay in order to my care,” or cad underinsurenally, hospitalsth ImprovemBucks allow

el that can be r

ling were mor, 31% were pportance of gall patients).

to raise awarLankenau heal

Trust farmeroted via The F

d populations pating in on-sscreenings. Sc

re at pre-hypep care. All parrepeat screeni

(LMA) is as primary andLankenau is

est Philadelphucation, emplo

ese health facwith The Foo

Philly Initiativem provides els at any particor those diagnn on the Ph

ousing and chi

ankenau Medimaintain its taare to uninsurd patients is es are now req

ment Plans toLankenau to

replicated in o

re likely to redrovided with good nutritio

reness of Lanlth educators rs’ markets thFood Trust’s w

with significaite blood prescreenings idenertension or erticipants wereings, using the

a Lankenau d specialty calocated in Mo

hia, where heaoyment and h

ctors and ultod Trust and e to pilot a Phligible LMA pcipating Philanosed with dihilly Food Build care. Lanke

ical Center. ax exempt statred or underinexpected to dequired to deveo address th serve their cother nonprof

deem their Phhealth educat

on, and these

nkenau’s serviprovided nutr

hat served ovweb and socia

ant health neessure screeninntified a poten

elevated levelse also given aeir cards to m

Medical Cenare to many uontgomery Coalth outcomeshousing quality

timately imprPhiladelphia D

hilly Food Bucpatients with adelphia Farmiabetes. In adducks programenau and The

As a nonprotus. In the pasnsured patienecline, requirinelop Commune health nee

community whfit hospitals.

hilly Food Bution counselin

patients rede

ices and engarition informa

ver 70,000 shoal media outle

eds--were eagengs. During thntial at-risk p, and were pra wallet-size conitor progre

11

nter owned uninsured or ounty, many s and health y are ranked

rove patient Department cks project $6 worth of

mers’ Market. dition to the

m, and help Food Trust

ofit hospital, st, nonprofit ts. With the ng nonprofit nity Healthy eds of their hile meeting

ck coupons. ng to further eemed their

age with the ation, health oppers. The ets, reaching

er to engage he 48 market opulation in rovided with card to track ss.

12

SHOPPERS’PERCEPTIONSOFPRICESATFARMERS’MARKETS There are often concerns that prices at farmers’ markets are not affordable for low-income customers. However, one-third (32%) of all customers reported that farmers’ market prices are less expensive than prices at other food stores in the neighborhood. This factor did not differ significantly by whether the market is in a low-income area or not, or by PFB use. Customers at GHP markets, however, were more likely to report that F&V are less expensive at market than at food stores in the neighborhood (43% vs. 24% at non-GHP markets, p = 0.000). These data indicate that GHP market prices are perceived as more affordable, possibly due to increased programming and cooking demonstrations at GHP markets.

F&VINTAKE

Results suggest that participation in PFB improves customers’ eating behaviors. PFB users were more likely to report increases in F&V intake (60% vs. 50% of non-PFB customers, p = 0.013) and trying new F&Vs since coming to market (48% vs. 33% of non-PFB customers, p = 0.000). Customers at markets in low-income communities were not significantly more likely to report “trying new fruits or vegetables since visiting market” than customers at markets in non-low-income areas. However, customers at low-income markets were more likely to report “increased fruit and vegetable intake since visiting market,” (54% vs. 45%, p = 0.000), compared to customers at markets in non-low-income areas.

MARKETPROGRAMMINGMarket programming, which consists of providing brochures and recipe cards or hosting cooking demonstrations, has been successful at reaching farmers’ market customers. Across all markets, over half of respondents (54%) reported receiving healthy eating information and over one-fifth of all respondents (21%) reported participating in cooking demonstrations (a new feature at 7 select markets in 2014). Customers at low-income markets were nearly twice as likely to report receiving healthy eating or nutrition information at market (64% vs. 36% at non-low-income markets; p = 0.000). The likelihood of receiving healthy eating or nutrition information at market was higher among PFB users (vs. non PFB users) at low-income markets (78% vs. 53%; p = 0.000).

Customers at markets in low-income areas are also more likely to report observing a cooking demonstration (28% vs. 6% of customers in non-low-income areas; p = 0.000). Among low-income markets, observing a cooking demonstration was highly associated with PFB use at low-income markets. The proportion of PFB users at low-income markets that reported observing a cooking demonstration was more than twice that of the non-PFB users (41% vs. 19%, p = 0.000).

These results indicate that customers at farmers’ markets in low-income areas and those who participate in PFB at markets in low-income areas have more exposure to and participation in nutrition education opportunities. These findings may reflect higher levels of program delivery at low-income market locations, which are given priority for these services, and the fact that cooking demonstration participants at low-income markets receive PFB as an incentive for participation.

TRANSPORTATION Overall, almost one-third of farmers’ market customers (31%) traveled 3 blocks or less to get to market, and over half of customers (61%) reported walking or biking to market. Distance traveled to market did not significantly differ between low-income and non-low-income market customers or between PFB and non-PFB users among low-income markets but there were differences in mode of transportation with PFB users

13

more likely to walk/bike to market than non-PFB users (67% vs. 56%, p = 0.0062). While this potential synergy needs to be further researched, it indicates the PFB program may support community-level physical activity goals as well as improvements in eating behaviors. It is also possible that PFB are more likely to be distributed to community partners and residents that are within walking distance to market. Future research could explore this potential synergy of the PFB program to promote improvements in multiple health behaviors.

The Foodneed of afprogram hPhiladelphSNAP ben

The Phillyoperation program hlow-incomsignificant

Although that Phillydistributiomarkets, p

The Foodremain. SNcontinues take on adsuccess anstreamlininincentive t

Philly FooFood Trusin increasi

d Trust continuffordable, healhas provided ahia, 33.8% ($8nefits at marke

y Food Bucks of farmers’ m

has been assocme markets. Cutly more likely

• More a• Walkin• Particip• Receiv• Eating• Trying

these associaty Food Bucks on and marketparticularly low

d Trust has refNAP benefits to be time-int

dditional distrind strives to imng data managto distribution

od Bucks contst’s network oing the intake

ues to boost thlthy foods throan additional $81,576) of whiet.

program is anmarkets in low-ciated with imustomer surve

y to report:

affordable pricng or biking topating in a co

ving healthy eag more fruits ag new or unfam

tions do not ncontinues to c

t programmingw-income mar

fined the Phillycontinue to btensive and reibution and remprove its farmgement, updatn partners and

tinues to bolstof farmers’ maof fresh, healt

he accessibilitough its farme$241,457 wortch was redeem

n integral part -income Phila

mproved healthey data show t

ces among lowo market; oking demonsating informatand vegetablesmiliar fruits an

necessarily procomplement tg and encourarkets most affe

y Food Bucksbe reduced on equires mainteedemption sitemers’ market ting its techno

d partnering re

ter the nutritioarkets in low-inthy food for h

ty of fresh, locers’ markets ath of fresh, locmed in 2014, a

of outreach eadelphia neighh behaviors anthat Philly Foo

w-income mar

stration; tion; s since comingnd vegetables

ovide evidencethe goals of thaging healthy efected by healt

s program ovestate and fede

enance. There es. Nonethelesprogram by p

ology, and claredemption site

onal health of ncome neighb

high-need Phil

cal fruits and vand Philly Foocal produce toand likely has

efforts and inshborhoods. Fund perceptionsod Bucks user

rkets;

g to market; ansince coming

e of a causal rehe Get Healthyeating patternth disparities.

er the past foueral levels. Daare limits to t

ss, the organizproviding morrifying Philly Fes.

families and cborhoods, theladelphians.

vegetables to cod Bucks progo low-income helped spur g

strumental to turther, the Phis of price amors in low-inco

nd to market.

elationship, thy Philly initiat

ns among shop

ur seasons, butata entry and mthe organizatiozation foreseere market captFood Bucks a

communities. e program rem

communities igram. To date,

residents of growth in usag

the successfulilly Food Buckong customersme markets ar

he results indictive by combinppers at farme

t challenges management on’s capacity ts continued tain training, s a SNAP-bas

In hand with mains instrume

14

in , the

ge of

l ks s in re

cate ning ers’

to

sed

The ental

T

Table A1. Profilee of 2014 Get Hea

29t

29t

BrBro22n

22n

4th 4th HuWe33r

33r

FraBu58t

58t

OlBro18t

18t

26t

26t

CoBro

althy Philly Farm

th and Wharton th Street and Wharoad and Snyderoad Street and Snynd and Tasker nd Street and Taskand Lehigh Street and Lehigh

unting Park est Hunting Park Ard and Diamondrd Street and Diamankford Transpo

ustleton Avenue anth and Chester th Street and Chesney Transportatoad Street and Weh and Christianth Street and Christh and Alleghenyth Street and West

ommon Groundoad Street and Mt

mers’ Markets

MARKET

rton Street, 19146

yder Avenue, 191

ker Street, 19146

h Avenue, 19133

Avenue and Old Y

mond Street, 19121ortation Center nd Frankford Ave

ter Avenue, 19143ion Center est Olney Avenue

stian Street, 19146y t Allegheny Avenu

t. Vernon Street, 1

6

48

York Rd, 19140

1

enue, 19124

3

, 19141

6

ue, 19129

19130

OPEMay 2010

June 2010

June 2010

June 2011

June 2011

June 2011

July 2011

July 2011

July 2011

June 2014

July 2014

July 2014

ENED

15

16

Table A2. Farmers’ Market Profiles

FARMERS’ MARKET DISTRIBUTES

PHILLY FOOD BUCKS

REDEEMS PHILLY

FOOD BUCKS

ACCEPTS SNAP

OPERATED BY THE

FOOD TRUST

18th and Christian Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

22nd and Tasker Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

26th and Allegheny Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

29th and Wharton Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

33rd and Diamond Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

4th and Lehigh Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

52nd and Haverford Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

58th and Chester Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Broad and Snyder Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Broad and South Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Cecil B. Moore Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Chew and E. Pleasant Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Clark Park Thursday Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Clark Park Saturday Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Common Ground Marketplace ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Fairmount Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Fair Food Farmstand ✔ ✔

Fitler Square Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔

17

Frankford Transportation Center Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Germantown Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Greensgrow Farm ✔ ✔ ✔

Headhouse Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Hunting Park Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Liberty Lands Park ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Olney Transportation Center Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Overbrook Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Oxford Circle Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

SHARE Nice Roots Farm ✔ ✔ ✔

Schuylkill River Park Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔

West Oak Lane Farmers’ Market ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

18

< $30,000 60% 41% *** 56% 35% *** 77% 43% *** 48% Shopping Frequency First visit to market

34% 19% *** 26% 24% (n.s.) 15% 34% *** 26%

Visit market every week or more

53% 54% *** 53% 56% (n.s.) 67% 41% *** 53%

Transportation Walk/bike to market

58% 63% (n.s.) 60% 63% (n.s.) 67% 56% ** 61%

Travel 3 blocks or less to market

33% 30% (n.s.) 31% 33% (n.s.) 33% 30% (n.s.) 31%

Table A3. Customer Responses by Grouping Factor (GHP vs. Non-GHP Markets; Low-Income vs. Non-Low-Income Markets; PFB Users vs. Non-PFB Users at Markets in Low-Income Areas; and All Markets)

Characteristics GHP Markets

Non-GHP Markets

Low Income

Non Low Income

PFB User within Low Income

Non-PFB User within Low Income

All Markets

Gender Female 65% 67% (n.s.) 67% 65% (n.s.) 74% 62% ** 66% Race/Ethnicity African-American 52% 30%

***

45% 29%

***

56% 39%

***

40% White 29% 61% 37% 64% 25% 48% 47% Hispanic 15% 3% 11% 2% 15% 8% 8% Asian 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% 3% Other 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Age 18-25 13% 18%

*

13% 21%

***

12% 13%

*

16% 26-40 27% 32% 32% 26% 26% 36% 30% 41-65 45% 35% 38% 42% 46% 33% 39% Over 65 13% 15% 16% 10% 16% 17% 14% Annual Household Income

19

Characteristics GHP Markets

Non-GHP Markets

Low Income

Non Low Income

PFB User within Low Income

Non-PFB User within Low Income

All Markets

Shopping Habits Tried new fruits or vegetables since visiting market

33% 43% *** 40% 38% (n.s.) 48% 33% *** 39%

Increased fruit and vegetable intake since visiting market

51% 51% (n.s.) 54% 45% *** 60% 50% * 51%

Average reported dollars spent at market

$12.09 $17.01 *** $14.24 $16.53 * $14.09 $14.29 (n.s.) $15.11

Usually shop at supermarkets for fruits and vegetables

77% 55% *** 63% 67% ** 58% 68% * 65%

Report that prices at market are less expensive than food stores in neighborhood

43% 24% *** 33% 30% (n.s.) 34% 34% (n.s.) 32%

Visited other nearby stores or businesses on day of survey

34% 39% (n.s.) 36% 39% (n.s.) 35% 38% (n.s.) 37%

Market Programming Received information about healthy eating while at market

64% 47% *** 64% 36% *** 78% 53% *** 54%

Observed a cooking demo at market

28% 15% *** 28% 6% *** 41% 19% *** 21%

20

Characteristics GHP Markets

Non-GHP Markets

Low Income

Non Low Income

PFB User within Low Income

Non-PFB User within Low Income

All Markets

Use of Food Assistance Programs

Received SNAP in past year

45% 16% 26% 33% 29% 24% 28%

Received PFB in past year

34% 15% 23% 23% 23% 24% 23%

Received WIC in past year

11% 2% 5% 7% 5% 6% 6%

Received FMNP in past year

11% 4% 5% 8% 4% 8% 7%

Received Senior FMNP in past year

8% 7% 8% 6% 7% 8% 7%

Participated in at least one food assistance program (i.e., SNAP, PFB, WIC or FMNP) in past year

66% 31% 45% 49% 45% 43% 46%

Ever used SNAP at market

38% 16% *** 33% 13% *** 57% 15% *** 26%

Ever used PFB at market

47% 23% *** 42% 17% *** 100% 0% *** 33%

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001