Is in-kind kinder than cash? The impact of money vs. food aid on social emotions and aid take-up.

Over the past decade, there has been a shift in the way charities deliver humanitarian aid. Historically, the most prevalent way to help the global poor was by providing in-kind asset transfers. Recently, alternatives to in-kind aid, such as cash aid, have been increasing in prevalence. Although there has been widespread endorsement from the academic community and the public on the popularizing model of giving cash aid, one perspective remains untouched: the recipient's perspective. Thus, the present research explores how food-insecure individuals feel when receiving money vs. in-kind food aid to help meet their hunger and nutrition needs. Specifically, we explore the degree of positive (e.g., feeling cared for) and negative (e.g., feeling ashamed) social emotions felt when receiving the aid opportunity and how willing recipients are to accept monetary (vs. food) aid. Results from five preregistered experiments (N = 3,110)-a field experiment in Kenya and four online experiments in the United States-find that monetary (vs. food) aid elicits comparatively more of a market-pricing relationship and less of a communal sharing relationship and, hence, makes people feel less positive and more negative social emotions when receiving the help. Subsequently, recipients are less likely to take up monetary (vs. food) aid from a charity. However, we find that this effect does not persist when receiving government aid: Recipients are similarly willing to accept money and in-kind food aid from the government. This research suggests that future scholarship ought to examine ways to improve psychological experiences when receiving money from charity.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program healthy eating incentives and fruit and vegetable spending across the month.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate how incentives that encourage healthy eating among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants impact intra-monthly variation in fruit and vegetable spending. DESIGN: We used transaction data from three Alabama grocery stores participating in a programme that offered dollar-matching coupons for fresh produce. For each store, we calculated daily spending on fresh produce out of SNAP benefits and daily incentive coupon redemptions. We compared total daily spending on fresh produce and daily coupon redemptions on days over which SNAP benefits are distributed in Alabama with spending and redemption on days at the end of the month with no SNAP distribution. SETTING: SNAP and incentive transactions in three Alabama grocery stores. PARTICIPANTS: SNAP participants purchasing fruit and vegetables April 2023-July 2023. RESULTS: Daily spending with SNAP on produce dropped by 38% at the end of the month. Incentive coupon redemption did not significantly drop at the end of the month. The share of total SNAP spending going to fresh fruits and vegetables increased by two percentage points and the share of fresh fruits and vegetables spending coming from redemptions increased by ten percentage points at the end of the month. CONCLUSIONS: SNAP households may use incentive coupons to smooth drops in produce consumption at the end of the month. These findings also highlight trade-offs inherent in different delivery mechanisms for SNAP incentives.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Health Care Use in Older Adults : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid have particularly high food insecurity prevalence and health care use. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which reduces food insecurity, is associated with lower health care use and cost for older adults dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. DESIGN: An incident user retrospective cohort study design was used. The association between participation in SNAP and health care use and cost using outcome regression was assessed and supplemented by entropy balancing, matching, and instrumental variable analyses. SETTING: North Carolina, September 2016 through July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (aged ≥65 years) dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid but not initially enrolled in SNAP. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient admissions (primary outcome), emergency department visits, long-term care admissions, and Medicaid expenditures. RESULTS: Of 115 868 persons included, 5093 (4.4%) enrolled in SNAP. Mean follow-up was approximately 22 months. In outcome regression analyses, SNAP enrollment was associated with fewer inpatient hospitalizations (-24.6 [95% CI, -40.6 to -8.7]), emergency department visits (-192.7 [CI, -231.1 to -154.4]), and long-term care admissions (-65.2 [CI, -77.5 to -52.9]) per 1000 person-years as well as fewer dollars in Medicaid payments per person per year (-$2360 [CI, -$2649 to -$2071]). Results were similar in entropy balancing, matching, and instrumental variable analyses. LIMITATION: Single state, no Medicare claims data available, and possible residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Participation in SNAP was associated with fewer inpatient admissions and lower health care costs for older adults dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

The American Rescue Plan Act Is a Great Start but More Increases in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits Are Likely Needed Due to Implicit Hidden Reductions.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is intended to help low-income individuals reach the cost of a nutritious diet. In response to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, SNAP benefits have been increased by 20.3% since October 2020. Given the intended goal of the program, is the 20.3% increase enough? Even prior to COVID-19, the literature had identified 3 separate shortcomings in the current formula that had not been addressed. Here, these shortcomings are integrated into a unifying framework that allows for a comparison between an adjusted formula, that accounts for all these shortcomings, and the current unadjusted formula, that does not account for these shortcomings. Using some average data from the literature, the current unadjusted formula gives the misleading impression that the government will provide 71% of the cost of a nutritious diet with households responsible for 29%. However, working with the adjusted formula, that takes into account the shortcomings, reveals the government actually only provides 41% of the adjusted cost of a nutritious diet and households are responsible for 59%. Some actual and recommended adjustments are shown to fall far short of the full adjustment required to reach a nutritious diet, on average. In particular, the 20.3% increase is less than half of the amount needed to fully correct for these omissions.

Philadelphia's Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefit Redemption.

Objectives. To assess the effect of a 2017 excise tax on sugar and artificially sweetened beverages in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the shopping patterns of low-income populations using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data. Methods. I used a synthetic controls approach to estimate the effect of the tax on Philadelphia and neighboring Pennsylvania counties (Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery) as measured by total SNAP sales ("SNAP redemption") and SNAP redemption per SNAP participant. I assembled biannual data (2005-2019) from all US counties for SNAP redemption and relevant predictors. I performed placebo tests to estimate statistically significant effects and conducted robustness checks. Results. Detectable increases in SNAP spending occurred in all 3 Philadelphia neighboring counties. Per-participant SNAP spending increased in 2 of the neighboring counties and decreased in Philadelphia. These effects were robust across multiple specifications and placebo tests. Conclusions. The tax contributed to increased SNAP shopping in Philadelphia's neighboring counties across both outcome measures, and decreased spending in Philadelphia (at least by 1 measure). This raises questions about retailer behavior, the effectiveness of the tax's public health aim of reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, and policy aims of investing in low-income communities. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):1986-1996. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306464).

A Safety Net Unraveling: Feeding Young Children During COVID-19.

The emergence of COVID-19 in the United States led most states to close or severely limit the capacity of their early child-care and education (ECE) programs. This loss affected millions of young children, including many of the 4.6 million low-income children who are provided free meals and snacks by their ECE programs through support from the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).Although Congress swiftly authorized waivers that would allow CACFP-participating ECE programs to continue distributing food to children, early evidence suggests that most ECE programs did not have the capacity to do so, leaving a fragmented system of federal, state, and local food programs to fill the gaps created by this loss.Critical steps are needed to repair our nation's fragile ECE system, including greater investment in CACFP, to ensure the nutrition, health, and development of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

The effect of women, infant, and children (WIC) services on birth weight before and during the 2007-2009 great recession in Washington state and Florida: a pooled cross-sectional time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been shown to have positive effects in promoting healthy birth outcomes in the United States. We explored whether such effects held prior to and during the most recent Great Recession to improve birth outcomes and reduce differences among key socio-demographic groups. METHODS: We used a pooled cross-sectional time series design to study pregnant women and their infants with birth certificate data. We included Medicaid and uninsured births from Washington State and Florida (n = 226,835) before (01/2005-03/2007) and during (12/2007-06/2009) the Great Recession. Interactions between WIC enrollment and key socio-demographic groupings were analyzed for binary and continuous birth weight outcomes. RESULTS: Our study found beneficial WIC interaction effects on birth weight. For race, prenatal care, and maternal age we found significantly better birth weight outcomes in the presence of WIC compared to those without WIC. For example, being Black with WIC was associated with an increase in infant birth weight of 53.5 g (baseline) (95% CI = 32.4, 74.5) and 58.0 g (recession) (95% CI = 27.8, 88.3). For most groups this beneficial relationship was stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: This paper supports previous research linking maternal utilization of WIC services during pregnancy to improved birth weight (both reducing LBW and increasing infant birth weight in grams) among some high-disadvantage groups. WIC appears to have been beneficial at decreasing disparity gaps in infant birth weight among the very young, Black, and late/no prenatal care enrollees in this high-need population, both before and during the Great Recession. Gaps are still present among other social and demographic characteristic groups (e.g., for unmarried mothers) for whom we did not find WIC to be associated with any detectable value in promoting better birth weight outcomes. Future research needs to examine how WIC (and/or other maternal and child health programs) could be made to work better and reach farther to address persistent disparities in birth weight outcomes. Additionally, in preparation for future economic downturns it will be important to determine how to preserve and, if possible, expand WIC services during times of increased need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable, this article reports only on secondary retrospective data (no health interventions with human participants were carried out).

The cost of improving nutritional outcomes through food-assisted maternal and child health and nutrition programmes in Burundi and Guatemala.

Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of multisectoral maternal and child health and nutrition programmes is scarce. We conducted a prospective costing study of two food-assisted maternal and child health and nutrition programmes targeted to pregnant women and children during the first 1,000 days (pregnancy to 2 years). Each was paired with a cluster-randomized controlled trial to evaluate impact and compare the optimal quantity and composition of food rations (Guatemala, five treatment arms) and their optimal timing and duration (Burundi, three treatment arms). We calculated the total and per beneficiary cost, conducted cost consequence analyses, and estimated the cost savings from extending the programme for 2 years. In Guatemala, the programme model with the lowest cost per percentage point reduction in stunting provided the full-size family ration with an individual ration of corn-soy blend or micronutrient powder. Reducing family ration size lowered costs but failed to reduce stunting. In Burundi, providing food assistance for the full 1,000 days led to the lowest cost per percentage point reduction in stunting. Reducing the duration of ration eligibility reduced per beneficiary costs but was less effective. A 2-year extension could have saved 11% per beneficiary in Guatemala and 18% in Burundi. We found that investments in multisectoral nutrition programmes do not scale linearly. Programmes providing smaller rations or rations for shorter durations, although less expensive per beneficiary, may not provide the necessary dose to improve (biological) outcomes. Lastly, delivering effective programmes for longer periods can generate cost savings by dispersing start-up costs and lengthening peak operating capacity.

Cash and voucher assistance and children's nutrition status in Somalia.

To address ongoing food insecurity and acute malnutrition in Somalia, a broad range of assistance modalities are used, including in-kind food, food vouchers, and cash transfers. Evidence of the impact of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) on prevention of acute malnutrition is limited in humanitarian and development settings. This study examined the impact of CVA on prevention of child acute malnutrition in 2017/2018 in the context of the Somalia food crisis. Changes in diet and acute malnutrition were measured over a 4-month period among children age 6-59 months from households receiving household transfers of approximately US$450 delivered either as food vouchers or a mix of in-kind food, vouchers, and cash. Baseline to endline change in children's dietary diversity, meal frequency, minimum acceptable diet (MAD), mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), and acute malnutrition (MUAC < 12.5 cm) were compared using difference-in-difference analysis with inverse probability weighting. There were no statistically significant changes in dietary diversity, meal frequency, or the proportion of children with MAD for either intervention group. Adjusted change in mean MUAC showed increases of 0.5 cm (confidence interval [CI; 0.0, 0.7 cm]) in the food voucher group and 0.1 cm (CI [-0.1, 0.4]) in the mixed transfer group. In adjusted analysis, prevalence of acute malnutrition among children under 5 years increased by 0.7% (CI [-13.4, 14.4%]) among food voucher recipients and decreased by 4.8% (CI [-9.9, 8.1%]) in mixed transfer recipients. The change over time in both mean MUAC and acute malnutrition prevalence was similar for both interventions, suggesting that cash and vouchers had similar effects on child nutrition status.

Conditional Cash Transfers in the Amazon: From the Nutrition Transition to Complex Dietary Behavior Change.

Nutrition transition theory describes a progressive substitution of local staples for industrialized processed foods in local diets, a process documented diversely across world regions, and increasingly observed in rural areas of the global south. Here we examine the role of conditional cash transfer programs, in particular the emblematic Brazilian Bolsa Família (BFP), in driving nutritional transition in rural areas of the Amazon. Based on ethnographic research with both participating and nonparticipating women in the Amanã Sustainable Development Reserve (SDR), our analysis integrates Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQ), seasonal 24-hour food intake recalls, and stable isotope ratios in fingernails to examine dietary behavioral change. Contrary to dietary changes observed elsewhere in the Amazon, participation in the BFP is not associated with a significant substitution of local staples for industrialized processed foods in Amanã. While an increase in the consumption of some industrialized foods was observed, it has been selective and it has not changed the structure of diets. Factors such as social and cultural value of local staples, resident's involvement with the SDR, their relationship with lake and upland forest and agricultural environments, and limited market access have buffered the expansion of industrialized processed foods as observed elsewhere.

Recommendations From SNAP Participants to Improve Wages and End Stigma.

We present views of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from the perspective of participants. We are SNAP participants and academic researchers who have worked together for 11 years to understand, explain, and address food insecurity.SNAP is ensnared in much larger problems in US society related to the stigmatization of people who are poor and a lack of appreciation for the value and skills of their work. We encourage the public health community to think beyond SNAP, focus more assertively on wages and work supports, and replace our means-tested safety net with a new system of universal income that promotes equity, inclusion, and health for all.Although we offer recommendations to improve SNAP, the goal of most SNAP recipients has always been to move beyond the need for this program. The public health community can take the lead in finding more egalitarian, dignified, and effective ways to address poverty and food insecurity.

SNAP at the Community Scale: How Neighborhood Characteristics Affect Participation and Food Access.

Cities are spatially diverse, with enclaves of particular demographic groups, clusters of businesses, and pockets of low-income individuals living amid affluence.This essay presents data from New York City to illustrate the importance of measuring and addressing neighborhood characteristics that affect Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and the purchasing power of SNAP benefits: pockets of "eligible-but-not-enrolled" individuals, proximity between SNAP participants and jobs, and variations in food prices across neighborhoods.It concludes with 5 examples of how addressing these community-scale issues can increase SNAP participation and food access.

Importance of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Rural America.

There is great interest in reshaping the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) so that it better supports family nutrition, and an array of program changes have been proposed.We note the importance of considering the unique needs of rural SNAP participants when considering and implementing these changes. We also describe the SNAP-related needs and challenges unique to rural SNAP participants, and through this lens we discuss changes to SNAP that have been proposed and special considerations related to each. The special considerations we identified include allowing canned, frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables as eligible items in financial incentive programs in rural areas; changing direct education programming to address transportation-related barriers many rural families face in attending in-person classes; and supporting rigorous research to evaluate the potential benefits and unintended consequences of proposed program changes for which scant high-quality evaluation data exist.Evaluation studies should include rural SNAP participants so that effects in this important population group are known.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications.

This commentary introduces a special section of AJPH on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the US government's largest antihunger program and third-largest antipoverty program. SNAP demonstrably lifts adults, children, and families out of poverty, thereby constituting a vital component of this nation's public health safety net.Despite its well-documented benefits, SNAP is under political and budgetary siege, mainly from congressional representatives and lobbying groups opposed to a federal role in welfare. In part, SNAP is protected from total annihilation by its unusual authorizing legislation-the Farm Bill.This commentary provides a brief overview of the political history of SNAP and its Farm Bill location as background to the deeper analyses provided in this series of articles.

Interventions targeting diet quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants: A scoping review.

The national Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP) has been successful in reducing food insecurity among low-income Americans. However, the program has also been criticized as unhealthy food choices, and rates of diet-related chronic diseases remain high among SNAP beneficiaries. Recently, several multi-component interventions have targeted SNAP beneficiaries, aiming to improve how benefits are utilized to support a healthful diet. The aim of this scoping review is to examine the breadth of published interventions that have targeted SNAP beneficiaries, and their reported impact on diet and nutrition related outcomes. Using key search terms, a literature search of government and peer review databases was conducted. Twelve unique interventions were identified and categorized based on the type of intervention delivered: 1) monetary incentives 2) nutrition education, and 3) combined nutrition education plus monetary incentives. Across all interventions, monetary interventions showed modest improvements in reported fruit and vegetable intake among SNAP beneficiaries. While nutrition education interventions showed improvement in psychosocial correlates of diet, changes in dietary intake were inconsistent. Combination programs demonstrated the strongest improvements in dietary change among beneficiaries. Variability in types of outcomes measured limits comparability of findings across studies, and our findings calls for further evaluation in this area. This scoping review suggests using financial incentives combined with nutrition education may be effective in improving dietary intake among SNAP beneficiaries. Future research should integrate more robust study designs and consider multiple levels of intervention to effectively change beneficiary habits and in turn, reduce diet related disease in this population.

A behavioural economics approach to improving healthy food selection among food pantry clients.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of a behavioural economics intervention in two food pantries on the nutritional quality of foods available at the pantries and the foods selected by adults visiting food pantries. DESIGN: An intervention (SuperShelf) was implemented in two food pantries (Sites A and B), with two other pantries (Sites C and D) serving as a control for pantry outcomes. The intervention aimed to increase the amount and variety of healthy foods (supply), as well as the appeal of healthy foods (demand) using behavioural economics strategies. Assessments included baseline and 4-month follow-up client surveys, client cart inventories, pantry inventories and environmental assessments. A fidelity score (range 0-100) was assigned to each intervention pantry to measure the degree of implementation. A Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010) score (range 0-100) was generated for each client cart and pantry. SETTING: Four Minnesota food pantries, USA.ParticipantsClients visiting intervention pantries before (n 71) and after (n 70) the intervention. RESULTS: Fidelity scores differed by intervention site (Site A=82, Site B=51). At Site A, in adjusted models, client cart HEI-2010 scores increased on average by 11·8 points (P<0·0001), whereas there was no change at Site B. HEI-2010 pantry environment scores increased in intervention pantries (Site A=8 points, Site B=19 points) and decreased slightly in control pantries (Site C=-4 points, Site D=-3 points). CONCLUSIONS: When implemented as intended, SuperShelf has the potential to improve the nutritional quality of foods available to and selected by pantry clients.

Chronic disease self-management within the monthly benefit cycle of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

OBJECTIVE: The present study explored chronic disease management over the monthly benefit cycle among primary food shoppers from households receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in Philadelphia, PA, USA. DESIGN: In-depth interviews, participant observation and surveys were conducted with the primary food shopper of SNAP households. SETTING: Interviews and surveys were conducted in a clinical setting at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, at participants' homes, and in food procurement settings including grocery stores, food pantries and soup kitchens. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen adults who received SNAP; five with a diet-related chronic condition, five managing the chronic condition of a family member and thirteen with overweight or obesity. RESULTS: All households had at least one member with a chronic disease or condition. Households reported that the dietary demands of managing chronic illnesses were expensive and mentally taxing. Food and financial shortfalls at the end of the benefit cycle, as well as reliance on charitable food assistance programmes, often had negative impacts on chronic disease self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Drawing from nearly 50 h of in-depth qualitative interviews with SNAP participants, the study highlights the dual cognitive burden of poverty and chronic disease and elucidates the particular challenges of food procurement and maintenance of diet quality throughout the benefit month faced by SNAP households with diet-related chronic diseases. Interventions targeted at reducing the cost of medically appropriate, healthy foods may help to improve chronic disease self-management within SNAP populations.

Do nutrition and cash-based interventions and policies aimed at reducing stunting have an impact on economic development of low-and-middle-income countries? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Childhood stunting is the most common manifestation of chronic malnutrition. A growing body of literature indicates that stunting can have negative repercussions on physical and cognitive development. There are increasing concerns that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are particularly susceptible to adverse consequences of stunting on economic development. The aim of this review is to synthesize current evidence on interventions and policies that have had success in reducing stunting and explore the impact of successes on economic indicators. METHODS: This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles were searched through MEDLINE via PubMed and Ovid, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ProQuest. Only articles that addressed the effects of nutrition and cash-based interventions and/or policies on stunting and reported effects on childhood mortality and/or human capital indicators were included. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality. RESULTS: Seventeen studies from Africa (47%), South America (41%), and South Asia (12%) met the eligibility criteria: 8 cohort studies, 4 case studies, 4 Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) and 1 quasi-trial. Three types of interventions/policies were evaluated: multisectoral policies, nutritional supplementations and cash-based interventions (CCT). Overall, 76% of the included studies were successful in reducing stunting and 65% of interventions/policies reported successes on stunting reductions and economic successes. Five of the 11 successful studies reported on nutritional supplementation, 4 reported on multisectoral policies, and 2 reported on CCT interventions. Average Annual Rate of Reduction (AARR) was calculated to assess the impact of multisectoral policies on childhood mortality. AARR for under 5 mortality ranged from 5.2 to 6.2% and all countries aligned with the global target of 4.4% AARR. Quality assessment yielded positive results, with the biggest concerns being attrition bias for cohort studies, blinding for trials and generalizability of results for case studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that investment in fighting chronic malnutrition through multisectoral policies, multi-year nutritional supplementation (protein or multiple micronutrient supplementation) and possibly CCTs can have a long-term impact on economic development of LMICs. More evidence is needed to inform practices in non-represented regions while prioritizing standardization of economic indicators in the literature.