Examining the Washington State Breastfeeding-Friendly Policy Development Process Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework.

Objectives Breastfeeding promotion is increasingly recognized as a key public health strategy. Policies can promote breastfeeding by creating supportive environments and addressing challenges. In 2014, the Washington State legislature considered bills to create a voluntary recognition system for breastfeeding-friendly hospitals, clinics, worksites and childcare settings. These Breastfeeding-Friendly Washington (BFW) bills (SB 6298 and HB 2329) did not pass. Methods The purpose of this case study was to analyze the policy development process for the BFW bills using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the state policy process, and document review. We used thematic analysis to identify deductive and inductive themes. Results Though all policy actors indicated general support for breastfeeding, two main coalitions (proponents and opponents) diverged in their support of the BFW bills as policy solutions to address barriers to breastfeeding. We conducted 29 interviews with mainly bill proponents, and 54 documents confirmed data about bill opponents. Proponents supported the bills given increasingly strong evidence of breastfeeding's benefits and that public policy could address environmental challenges to breastfeeding. Opponents saw the bills as government overreach into the private matter of choosing to breastfeed. Opposition to the bills came late in the session, and proponents felt opponents' messaging misconstrued the intent of the legislation. Conclusions for Practice Key learnings for developing breastfeeding-friendly state policies include analyzing differences between proponents' and opponents' beliefs, framing advocacy messages beyond individuals and health, expanding the coalition outside of traditional health entities, and anticipating the opposition.

Creating Environments to Support Breastfeeding: The Challenges and Facilitators of Policy Development in Hospitals, Clinics, Early Care and Education, and Worksites.

Objectives Supportive organizational breastfeeding policies can establish enabling environments for breastfeeding. In this qualitative study we identify facilitators and barriers to the development, adoption, and implementation of supportive breastfeeding policies and practices in four influential sectors for breastfeeding women: hospitals, clinics, early care and education settings, and worksites. Methods We interviewed 125 individuals representing 110 organizations in Washington State about their breastfeeding policy development and implementation process between August 2014 and February 2015. Greenhalgh's diffusion of innovations framework guided the interviews and qualitative analysis. Results Breastfeeding policy facilitators across the sectors include national and state laws and regulations, performance tracking requirements, and an increasingly supportive sociopolitical climate; barriers include limited resources and appreciation about the need for breastfeeding policies, and certain organizational characteristics such as workforce age. Despite broad support for breastfeeding, organizations differed on perceptions about the usefulness of written breastfeeding policies. Personal breastfeeding experiences of policy makers and staff affect organizational breastfeeding policies and practices. Conclusions for Practice Supportive organizational systems and environments are built through effective policy development processes; public health can support breastfeeding policy development and assure a coordinated continuum of care by leveraging federal health care policy requirements, building networks to support training and collaboration, and disseminating strategies that reflect the personal nature of breastfeeding.

Increasing access to farmers markets for beneficiaries of nutrition assistance: evaluation of the farmers market access project.

INTRODUCTION: Increased acceptance of nutrition benefits at farmers markets could improve access to nutritious foods for low-income shoppers. The objective of this study was to evaluate a pilot project to increase participation by farmers markets and their vendors in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). METHODS: The intervention targeted 9 markets in lower-income regions of King County, Washington. Markets and vendors were offered subsidized electronic benefits transfer (EBT) terminals for processing SNAP, and vendors could apply to accept WIC cash value vouchers. WIC staff received information on using SNAP and vouchers at farmers markets. We used mixed methods post-implementation to measure participation, describe factors in acceptance of benefits, and assess information needs for WIC staff to conduct effective outreach. RESULTS: Of approximately 88 WIC-eligible vendors, 38 agreed to accept vouchers. Ten of 125 vendors installed an EBT terminal, and 6 markets installed a central market terminal. The number of market stalls accepting SNAP increased from 80 to 143, an increase of 79%. Participating vendors wanted to provide access to SNAP and WIC shoppers, although redemption rates were low. Some WIC staff members were unfamiliar with markets, which hindered outreach. CONCLUSION: Vendors and markets value low-income shoppers and, when offered support, will take on some inconvenience to serve them. To improve participation and sustainability, we recommend ongoing subsidies and streamlined procedures better suited to meet markets' capabilities. Low EBT redemption rates at farmers markets suggest a need for more outreach to low-income shoppers and relationship building with WIC staff.