This research poster was presented during the 2015 ACE Conference in Charleston, SC. Check out what an undergraduate student and professor are studying about SNAP benefits accepted at farmers' markets in Utah. We suggest looking at the poster in full screen mode.

1. DISCOVERING BARRIERS & BENEFITS OF ACCEPTING SNAP BENEFITS AT
UTAH FARMERS’ MARKETS
DR. KELSEY HALL & KENNA MCMURRAY
• Low-income residents use Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to purchase food items at 2,916
farmers’ markets in the United States (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015).
• Using EBT cards creates benefits & barriers to accepting SNAP at farmers’
markets
(Babiak, 2013).
• Poster compares managers’ perceptions of benefits that encourage & barriers
that deter acceptance of SNAP EBT cards at Utah farmers’ markets.
• Utahns Against Hunger & county nutrition assistance programs use this
information in community-based social marketing plan to encourage more
farmers’ markets to accept SNAP EBT cards.
INTRODUCTION/NEED FOR RESEARCH
• Administered survey to 20 managers of farmers’ markets accepting SNAP EBT
cards & 20 managers of farmers’ markets not accepting SNAP EBT cards.
• Researcher-developed online survey included barriers and benefits to accepting
SNAP at farmers’ markets.
• Questionnaires reviewed by panel of experts.
• Used Dillman’s Tailored Design Method to contact farmers’ market managers.
• Reported post-hoc Cronbach’s alpha of .77 for barriers scale & .91 for benefits
scale.
• Compiled results in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 19.
METHODOLOGY
FINDINGS
Study conducted with funding from a 2014 USU Summer Undergraduate Research and Creative Opportunity Grant and Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Project UTAO-1112.
• Costs of an EBT processing machine and staff needed to run the transactions were barriers to accepting SNAP EBT cards by Utah farmers
markets, as well as 1,682 markets nationwide, 3 markets in Minneapolis & 8 markets in Wisconsin (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2011; Krokowski, 2013,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013).
• Suggest managers work with Cooperative Extension Services & county aid offices to keep records & operate EBT card machine.
• Recommend managers apply for USDA Farmers’ Market Promotion Program grants to fund SNAP/EBT card machine & monthly fees.
• Utah managers accepting SNAP at their farmers’ markets agreed with 1,682 farmers’ market managers that SNAP acceptance supports the
local economy, attract different types of customers, and responds to customer interest
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013).
• Future research will report social and economic impact of accepting SNAP benefits at these farmers’ markets.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Community-based social marketing (CBSM)
(McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 2011)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Table 1
Managers’ Perceptions of Barriers to Accepting SNAP EBT Cards at their
Farmers’ Market
Barrier
Farmers’ Markets
Accepting SNAP
(n = 11)
Farmers’ Markets
Not Accepting
SNAP (n = 5)
M SD M SD
Additional bookkeeping 2.27 0.79 1.20 0.45
Extra work to accept SNAP 2.27 1.01 1.40 0.55
Ongoing transaction fee costs
associated with EBT
2.45 0.82 1.20 0.45
Low number of SNAP customers 2.55 1.04 2.40 1.67
Start-up cost 2.64 1.03 3.60 1.95
Knowledge of accepting SNAP 3.00 0.89 2.60 1.52
Staffing for at market operation
of EBT machine
3.09 0.95 2.80 2.05
EBT machine maintenance 3.18 0.87 1.40 0.55
Too many requirements to
become SNAP authorized
3.27 0.79 3.40 1.52
Hard to get information about
program from agencies
3.27 1.10 3.40 1.82
Knowledge of the vendors
accepting SNAP
3.36 0.67 2.60 1.52
Lack of interest from vendors 3.73 0.47 1.80 1.30
Scale: 1 = extreme barrier, 2 = moderate barrier, 3 = somewhat a barrier, 4 = not a barrier.
Table 2
Managers’ Perceptions of Benefits to Accepting SNAP EBT Cards at
their Farmers’ Market
Benefit
Farmers’ Markets
Accepting SNAP
(n = 11)
Farmers’ Markets
Not Accepting
SNAP (n = 5)
M SD M SD
Promotes access to healthy
food in the community
4.82 0.41 3.80 1.64
Supports the local economy 4.82 0.41 3.20 1.48
Improves the market’s public
image
4.45 0.52 3.20 1.48
Responds to customer interest 4.00 1.00 2.80 1.48
Increases sales for vendors 3.91 1.04 3.40 1.52
Responds to interest from
other organizations
3.91 1.22 3.80 1.64
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
Step 1
• Select sustainable behavior to promote: Farmers’ markets accept SNAP
benefits, offering low-income residents access to fresh produce.
Step 2
• Identify benefits and barriers to the behavior.
Step 3
• Design strategies that use behavior change tools (social norms,
prompts, communication, incentives, & making behavior convenient).
Step 4
• Pilot strategies with a small segment of farmers’ market managers.
Step 5
• Evaluate impact of the pilot after implementation.
NEXT STEPS
Develop CBSM plan to encourage
farmers’ market managers not accepting
SNAP to begin in 2016 season.
Pilot test CBSM plan.
Measure impact of CBSM
plan by number of managers
who accept SNAP in 2016.
•
EBT card machines use electricity &
telephone service.
• 1 farmers’ market not accepting SNAP
EBT cards (20%) has electrical hookups.
• No farmers’ markets not accepting SNAP EBT
cards have telephone hookup or strong cellular
signal to use wireless EBT card machine.
• Additional bookkeeping was a moderate barrier for farmers’ markets accepting SNAP & an extreme barrier for markets not accepting SNAP
(see Table 1).
• Reasons Utah farmers’ markets did not accept SNAP EBT cards: (1) small-sized market, (2) no business bank account, (3) lack of revenue
gained from accepting SNAP benefits, (4) lack time to learn how to use EBT card machine, & (5) lack of vendor interest.
• Managers of farmers’ markets not accepting SNAP EBT cards did not think customers were interested (M = 2.80, SD = 1.48) (see Table 2).