THURS-014 - Policy in Action: Using Evaluation to Improve Nutrition Incentives for Low-income Texans

Brief Abstract Summary: In 2023, Texas had the highest rate of food insecurity in the nation (17.6%), with Austin at 16.2%. To address this, a local food advocacy organization used USDA GusNIP funding to expand the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program, which doubles Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits when spent on fruits and vegetables. A six-month evaluation involved surveys completed by DUFB participants (n = 107), site audits, and staff conversations at 29 farmers’ markets. Findings identified six areas for improvement: expanding awareness, integrating with other programs, continuing point-of-sale promotions, addressing DUFB limitations such as payment delays to farmers’ market vendors, clarifying the differences between food assistance programs, and creating a vendor map. The evaluation offers key strategies to strengthen DUFB’s impact on food insecurity in Central Texas and guide future policy development.

Detailed abstract description:

Introduction: In Austin, 16.2% of residents faced food insecurity, highlighting a community concern.1 One strategy to address food insecurity is federal food assistance programs and policies. One such program is the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program, a nutrition incentive program that complements the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by providing matching funds spent on fruits and vegetables at participating retailers in eligible states.2 To address food insecurity, a local food advocacy organization received USDA GusNIP funding to expand DUFB across Texas farmers’ markets and identify policy priorities. This project evaluates the DUFB program’s impact at farmers’ markets, focusing on its effectiveness in increasing access to fresh produce for SNAP participants and identifying opportunities for future policy and program expansion.

Methods: Through a collaborative partnership, the program evaluation team conducted a six-month project utilizing a quantitative approach to collect and analyze survey data. Survey data included food insecurity, satisfaction, dietary behaviors, and other factors (presented in a formal evaluation report) (n = 107 across 29 farmers' market sites). The evaluation team staff also conducted observational audits of the participating sites regarding promotional materials and held brief conversations with site staff. Based on the participants’ survey data and interview data with vendors, the program evaluation team developed and returned recommendations to a local food advocacy organization to guide program improvement.

Results: Based upon evaluation results, 6 key areas for improvement were identified to enhance the effectiveness of the DUFB program. Participants and vendors expressed a need to (1) expand awareness strategies (2) integrate DUFB with other food access programs (3) continue point-of-sale promotion (4) address DUFB limitations such as payment delays to vendors (5) clarify food assistance program differences, and (6) develop vendor-participating maps at farmers’ markets. DUFB participant survey data demonstrated that when participants were aware of and actively participated in the program, they had high satisfaction (95% satisfaction). Expanded outreach through trusted community channels, such as clinics, schools, and peer referrals, was recommended to increase participation (as these were underutilized in spreading DUFB program awareness).

Conclusion: This evaluation identified key strategies to improve DUFB’s effectiveness in reducing food insecurity in Central Texas. Given the findings, future policy must prioritize enhancing program education, vendor support, and community outreach to increase DUFB participation and impact.