Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 

 

 

 

Nutrition Assistance Program Report March 2014

Food and Nutrition Service Office of Policy Support

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex 

(including gender identity and expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, 

religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 

9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-

8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federalrelay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study

 

Authors:

Melissa King

Sujata Dixit-Joshi

Keith MacAllum

Michael Steketee

Stephen Leard

Submitted by:

Westat

1600 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

Project Director:

Melissa King

Submitted to:

Office of Policy Support

Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500

Project Officer:

Eric Sean Williams

This study was conducted under Contract number AG-3198-B-10-0029 with the Food and 

Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Suggested Citation: 

King, Melissa, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Keith MacAllum, Michael Steketee, and Stephen Leard. 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study. Prepared by Westat, Inc. For the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, March 2014.

Available online at www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support March 2014 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study i 

Acknowledgments 

There are many individuals from the broad 

community associated with SNAP-based

incentive programs (SBIPs) at farmers 

markets (FMs) that contributed to the USDA 

FNS Farmers Market Incentive Program 

Study (FMIPS). Just after contract award, a 

Technical Working Group (TWG) 

consisting of four well-versed 

representatives of organizations associated 

with SBIPs at FMs was convened to review 

and provide input on the final FMIPS 

Research Plan. Westat then held an inperson meeting to discuss the feedback more 

thoroughly with the TWG members, FNS, 

and representatives of the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS). Concepts that 

resulted from discussions with the TWG 

members during this final phase of the 

planning were significant and it was in no 

small part due to the thoughtful insight of 

these members: Alyson Abrami - NY City 

Health Department, Healthy Bucks 

Program; Rachel Chadderdon Bair - Fair 

Food Network, Michigan; Anna Curtin -

Portland Farmers’ Market, Oregon; and 

Jezra Thompson – who at the time of her 

work on the TWG was with Roots of 

Change, California. Stacy Miller of the 

Farmers Market Coalition served as a 

consultant to Westat. In addition to 

participation in these early meetings and 

discussions, Ms. Miller assisted with 

phrasing of specific interview questions, and 

in identifying individuals for pretesting.

The study team would like to thank the 

generous organizations that took the time 

out of their demanding schedules to 

participate in the FMIPS. Through the 

interviews that were conducted with key 

organizational representatives, these 

organizations provided the opportunity for 

the FMIPS to develop a better understanding 

of how each organization contributes to the 

functioning of SBIPs, and individually 

contributes to the SBIP network of 

partnerships that are currently needed for 

implementing, operating, and maintaining 

SBIPs for FMs. Extra appreciation is 

extended to those organizations that were 

willing to share market-level self-evaluation 

data to help better understand the types of 

tracking data currently available and 

compiled on SBIP programs in FMs for the 

purposes of assessing their programs.

The study team would also like to 

acknowledge Ted Macaluso for his 

thoughtful review of the findings draft 

report, and his input during the drafting of 

the final report. Finally, thank you to the 

many other staff at Westat who contributed 

to the completion of this work: Mary 

Butler, Earlayna Batch, Holly Bozeman, 

Allison Roeser, Sara Woodruff, John 

Burke, and Hongsheng Hao.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study ii 

Thank you to these organizations 

Access of West Michigan

Agricultural Institute of Marin

Alchemist Community Development 

Corporation

Allen Street Farmers Market

Baltimore Food Policy Initiative

Beans & Greens

Benton County Health Department

Better Health through Better Food Project

Blue Cross Blue Shield Minnesota

Boston Collaborative for Food and Fitness

Boston Public Health Commission

Bowdoin Street Health Center

Bristol, Tennessee, Parks and Recreation

Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas

Catholic Charities Spokane

Catholic Charities USA

Central New York Food Bank

Church Health Center Farmers Market

Citizens Planning and Housing Association, 

Inc.

City Market

City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and 

the Environment

CityCenter Danbury (Danbury Farmer’s 

Market)

Cleveland Foundation

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

Community Farmers Markets

Community Foundation of Greater Memphis

Community Health Works

Community Involved in Sustaining 

Agriculture

Connecticut Community Foundation

Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago 

Children

Cooper-Young Community Farmers Market

Corvallis/Albany Farmers Markets

Downeast Business Alliance/Washington 

Hancock Community Agency

Downtown Saginaw Farmers’ Market/MSU 

Extension Service

Ecology Center

Essential Needs Task Force - Food and 

Nutrition Coalition

Fair Food Network

Fair Food Philly

Fairfield County Community Foundation

Farm Fresh Rhode Island

Farmers Market Federation of New York

Federation of Massachusetts Farmer’s 

Markets

Food for People

Food Gatherers 

Food Trust

Forsyth Farmers’ Market

Fresno County Economic Opportunities 

Commission

Friends of Wagner Farms

Grassland Farmers

Greater Somerset Health Collaborative

Greenmarket/GrowNYC

Growing Hope

GrowMemphis

Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Foundation

Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas 

City

Health Trust

Hunger Action Los Angeles

Illinois Farmers Market Association

Independence Market

Just Food

Kaiser Permanente of the Mid-Atlantic,

Community Benefits

Kansas State Extension Office

Kent County Health Department
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study iii 

Maine Federation of Farmer’s Market

Maryland Hunger Solutions

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Maryland Department of Human Resources

Memphis Farmers Market downtown

Menorah Legacy Foundation

Michigan Department of Human Services

Michigan Farmers Market Association

Minnesota Department of Human Services

Monterey Park Farmers Market

Neighborhood Farmers Markets

New Mexico Farmers Market Association

New York City Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene

Newport Farmers Market/Lincoln County 

Small Farmers Association

Nob Hill Grower’s Market

North Coast Growers’ Association

Northeast Organic Farmers Association 

Vermont

Northfield Township Food Pantry

Norwalk Community Health Center

Oak Park Farmers’ Market

Ohio State University Extension

Packard Health

Philadelphia Department of Public Health

Overland Park

Pacific Coast Farmers Market Association

Regional YMCA of Western Connecticut

Roots of Change

Santa Fe Farmers Market Institute

Skowhegan Farmers Market

South Memphis Farmers Market/The 

Works, Inc.

Swoon Atlanta Farmers Market

Ten Rivers Food Web

The George Gund Foundation

Townshend Common Farmers Market

United Way of Western Connecticut

Volunteers of East LA

Washington State Farmers Market 

Association

Washtenaw County Public Health 

Department

Waverly 32nd Street Farmers Market

Wholesome Wave

Wholesome Wave Georgia

YMCA of Greater Grand Rapids

Ypsilanti Depot Town Farmers Market

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study iv 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page

Acknowledgments.................................................................................. i

Executive Summary............................................................................... ix

I. Methodology.............................................................................. xi

II. Results........................................................................................ xii

1 Introduction............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Overview.................................................................................... 1

1.2 SNAP at Farmers Markets......................................................... 2

1.3 SNAP-Based Incentive Programs (SBIPs) at Farmers 

Markets ...................................................................................... 5

1.4 Research Objectives................................................................... 6

1.5 Report Organization................................................................... 6

2 Methodology and Representative Characteristics.................................. 8

2.1 Overview.................................................................................... 8

2.2 Sampling .................................................................................... 8

2.3 Data Collection .......................................................................... 10

2.4 Analytic Methods....................................................................... 13

2.4.1 Organizational Typology and Classification ............... 13

2.4.2 Analyzing Data from the Organizational 

Interviews.................................................................... 15

2.4.3 Analyzing SBIP Self-Evaluation Data ........................ 16

2.4.4 Social Network Mapping of SBIP 

Organizations............................................................... 16

2.5 Characteristics of Responding Organizations............................ 17

3 The Design of SNAP Based Incentive Programs (SBIPs): 

Organizational Influences on Their Characteristics.............................. 20

3.1 Overview and Key Findings ...................................................... 20

3.2 Characteristics and Missions of Organizations Involved 

with SBIPs ................................................................................. 22
Contents (continued) 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study v 

Chapter Page

3.2.1 Organizational History with SBIPs and SNAP ........... 22

3.2.2 Mission of Organizations ............................................ 22

3.2.3 Organizational Motivations for Forming or 

Participating in an SBIP .............................................. 23

3.3 Organization Budgets for SBIPs and Funding Sources............. 23

3.3.1 Organizational Program Structure and Budgets 

for SBIP....................................................................... 24

3.3.2 Sources of Funding...................................................... 24

3.3.3 Challenges of Funding SBIPs...................................... 25

3.3.4 Managing SBIPs in a Funding-Challenged 

Environment ................................................................ 28

3.4 Organizational Partnerships and Their Roles with 

SBIPs.......................................................................................... 31

3.5 Long-Term Goals of SBIP Organizations.................................. 31

3.6 SBIP Organizations’ Processes and Procedures for 

Awards....................................................................................... 33

3.6.1 Eligibility Criteria for Awarding Funding or 

Allocating Support Services........................................ 33

3.6.2 Application Process..................................................... 35

4 Social Network Analysis........................................................................ 37

4.1 Overview and Key Findings ...................................................... 37

4.2 Analytic Categories.................................................................... 39

4.3 Clusters and Networks of SBIP Organizations: A Look 

at the Relationships of FMIPS Organizations to Each 

Other .......................................................................................... 41

4.4 Organizational Composition of a SBIP Network....................... 41

4.5 Nature of Relationships Between SBIP Organizations 

as Funders, Coordinators, Supporters, and Operators................ 50

5 How Organizations Implement SBIPs................................................... 53

5.1 Overview and Key Findings ...................................................... 53

5.2 Organization Role in SBIP Implementation .............................. 55

5.3 Challenges in SBIP Implementation.......................................... 61

5.4 Definition of a Successful SBIP and Factors 

Contributing to Program Success............................................... 64
Contents (continued) 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study vi 

Chapter Page

5.4.1 Definition of a Successful SBIP.................................. 64

5.4.2 Factors Contributing to Successful SBIPs................... 67

6 How Organizations Evaluate SBIPs ...................................................... 69

6.1 Overview and Key Findings ...................................................... 69

6.2 Organizations Engaged in Collecting Data on SBIP 

Performance and Impact ............................................................ 71

6.3 SBIP Performance and Impact Measures Collected by 

Organizations............................................................................. 74

6.4 Dissemination and/or Use of Performance Data........................ 77

6.5 Support or Participation in Formal Evaluations......................... 82

6.6 Program Monitoring and Evaluation of SBIPs: A Closer 

Look ........................................................................................... 84

7 Market-Level Performance Measures for SBIPs................................... 88

7.1 Overview and Key Findings ...................................................... 88

7.2 Characteristics of Farmers Markets Operating a SBIP............. 91

7.3 SNAP Transactions and Redemptions at Farmers 

Markets with SBIP..................................................................... 92

7.4 Monthly Change in SNAP Redemptions at Farmers 

Markets Derived from ALERT Extract ..................................... 94

7.5 Perceptions of SNAP and SBIP Growth at Farmers 

Markets ...................................................................................... 96

8 SNAP Misuse and Prevention................................................................ 98

8.1 Overview and Key Findings ...................................................... 98

8.2 Stakeholder Perspectives on the SNAP Misuse in the 

Context of FMs.......................................................................... 100

8.3 Measures Implemented to Prevent SNAP Misuse..................... 102

8.4 Measures Recommended to Prevent SNAP Misuse .................. 104

9 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 106
Contents (continued) 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study vii 

Appendix Page

A Email Flyer for FMIPS Sample ............................................................. A-1

B Email Invitation to Participate ............................................................... B-1

C Final Interview Protocols....................................................................... C-1

D Partnerships Diagrams........................................................................... D-1

Table

2-1 Organizational typology based on SBIP function and 

supporting verbatim quotes.................................................................... 14

2-2 Proportion of organization’s total budget allocated to SBIPs................ 117

2-3 Distribution of responding organizations by FNS geographic 

region ..................................................................................................... 18

2-4 Service area of responding organizations.............................................. 18

4-1 Connection matrix: Organizations by FNS geographic region.............. 42

4-2 Connection matrix: Organizations by SBIP function ............................ 44

4-3 Support type provided by partner type................................................... 48

6-1 Number of markets for whom quantitative data were provided 

by organization function ........................................................................ 84

6-2 Types of products purchase permitted using incentives at 

farmers markets...................................................................................... 85

6-3 Type of change and reason for change in incentive evaluation 

by organization type............................................................................... 86

7-1 Market-level quantitative monitoring and evaluation data .................... 90

7-2 Characteristics of farmers markets operating the SBIP by 

organization type.................................................................................... 91

7-3 SBIP Self-Evaluation Data: Self-Reported Market Level SNAP 

transactions, SNAP redemptions, and incentive redemptions in 

CY2012 by organization type ................................................................ 93
Contents (continued) 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study viii 

Table Page

7-4 SBIP Self-Evaluation Data: Self-Reported Market Level 

Median SNAP transactions and SNAP redemptions by SNAP 

authorization year................................................................................... 93

7-5 Percentage change in month-to-month SNAP redemptions at a 

sample of farmers markets in 2011 and 2012 based on ALERT 

extract..................................................................................................... 94

7-6 Perceived change in performance measures from CY 2011 to 

CY 2012................................................................................................. 96

8-1 Hypothetical and experienced SNAP misuse reported by 

representatives........................................................................................ 101

Figure

1-1 USDA AMS National Count FM Directory Listing Graph: 

1994-2013 .............................................................................................. 2

4-1 FMIPS collaborative network................................................................ 38

4-2 Collaborative partnerships by FNS geographic region.......................... 43

4-3 Collaborative partnerships by organizational function, 

including nonspecific partners............................................................... 45

4-4 Collaborative partnerships by organizational function, 

excluding nonspecific partners .............................................................. 46

4-5 Collaborative partnerships by partner types .......................................... 49

4-6 Partnerships by support type.................................................................. 51

4-7 Partnerships by formality, based on representative description............. 52

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study ix 

Executive Summary 

 

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is committed to expanding Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients’ access to fresh fruits and vegetables through farmers 

markets (FMs).1 To reduce fraud, in October 2002 the program began to transition from a paper 

voucher system to an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) system to issue benefits to SNAP 

participant. However, this transition resulted in a steep decline in the number of SNAP 

redemptions at FMs due to lack of infrastructure and qualified staff to implement the EBT 

technology. To address the infrastructure and staffing barriers, FNS and the USDA Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) implemented Farmers Market Promotion Program grants and 

educational/training materials for EBT implementation.

2 Several private organizations operating 

FMs sought or provided funding to equip markets with EBT terminals.3,4

As early as 2005 in New York, to attract SNAP participants to their markets, organizations that 

operated several FMs launched conditional cash transfer programs or incentive programs. At 

their most basic level, SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIPs) at FMs provide SNAP 

participants with matching funds to purchase SNAP-eligible food items. SBIPs vary in the 

matching funds they provide; for example, some programs provide a dollar-to-dollar match while

others may provide a dollar for every $5 spent at the market on a given market day. Markets that 

offer a dollar-to-dollar match typically set a limit for such a match (i.e., the match is provided up 

to $10 or $20 per day). Since these SBIPs were explicitly directed at SNAP participants, 

participating programs are required to inform FNS about the program and comply with the FNS 

rules and regulations to participate in SNAP. However, USDA does not provide any support 

(funding or resources) to implement these SBIPs; they are funded and managed entirely by 

private foundations, nonprofit organizations, and local governments.

 

1 FNS Communications. (2013). USDA expands support for farmers markets to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. 

FNS-0008.13.Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2013/fns-000813.

2 U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing, Farmers Market Promotion Program. Available at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&leftNav=Wholes

aleandFarmersMarkets&page=FMPP&description=Farmers%20Market%20Promotion%20Program&acct=fmpp. 

3 Mercier S. (2012). Review of U.S. Nutrition Assistance Policy: Programs and issues. Available at 

http://foodandagpolicy.org/sites/default/files/AGree%20Review%20of%20US%20Nutrition%20Assistance%20Policy.pdf.

4 Wasserman, W., Tropp, D., Lakins, V., Foley, C., DeNinno, M., Thompson, J., Owens, N., and Williams, K. (2010). Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) at farmers markets: A how-to handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, June

2010. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS039.06-2010.
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study x 

For example, in Minnesota the City of Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support, 

Blue Cross (a private health insurance company), and other community-based organizations 

collaborated to bring EBT to FMs. Within a year, the partnership had resulted in an increase in 

the number of markets with EBT technology and an increase in the number of FMs accepting 

SNAP benefits.

5 This partnership subsequently led to the implementation of their first SBIP, 

Market Bucks.

SBIPs attract SNAP recipients and farmers to the market, resulting in a favorable impact on 

increasing SNAP redemptions and overall FM sales. As documented in several evaluations,

6, 

7,8,9,10 however, little information is available on why organizations support SBIP, funding 

streams for incentives, implementation approaches, specific roles performed within and across 

collaborating organizations, perspectives regarding long-term goals for SBIP, and the data 

collection and evaluation systems in place to monitor the use and impact of incentives at various 

markets. To address these gaps in knowledge, the FNS Farmers Market Incentive Program Study 

(FMIPS) focused on:

1. Understanding the characteristics of organizations involved with SBIPs, their SBIP 

objectives, role in SBIP implementation, and involvement in SBIP monitoring and 

evaluations.

2. Exploring the relationships among SBIP organizations and between these 

organizations and FMs.

3. Examining and assessing SBIP organization self-evaluation data to measure the 

impacts of SBIPs on the individual FMs.

 

5 Fee, R., and Meléndez, M.L. (2013).2011 Electronic Benefit Transfer and Farmers Market Initiative Evaluation Report. Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield of Minnesota. Available at http://www.preventionminnesota.com/objects/pdfs/2011EBT_FarmersMarketEvaluationReport.pdf.

6 Fair Food Network. (2012). Double Up Food Bucks Program 2011 evaluation report. Available at 

http://www.doubleupfoodbucks.org/sites/default/files/files/FFN_DUFB_Evaluation_2011_04_10_12.pdf.

7 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., and Schumacher, G. (2012). Linking farmers, healthy foods, and underserved communities: exploring the impact of 

nutrition incentive programs on farmers and farmers markets. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. July 2012. 

Available at http://www.agdevjournal.com/volume-2-issue-4/271-linking-farmers-healthy-foods-and-underservedconsumers.html?catid=111%3Aopen-call-papers.

8 Abrami, A. (2011). Healthy Bucks Program. Presentation March 4, 2011. Available at 

www.nyfarmersmarket.com/powerpoint2011/NYCHealthBucks.pptx.

9 MarketMatch (for EBT cardholder) starts July 16th. July 2011. 

http://www.npnnola.com/associations/organizations/sub/114/marketumbrellaorg/news-archive/.

10 Kramer, M., and Zakaras, M. (2011). Improving nutrition for SNAP recipients: A roadmap for the Double Value Coupon Program. Prepared 

for WholeSome Wave. March 2011. Available at www.innovations.harvard.edu/download-doc.html?id=1714473.
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study xi 

I. Methodology 

 Sample 

The sampling frame was developed using FM managers’ responses to a question in the first FNS 

FM study, Nutrition Assistance at Farmers Markets: Understanding Current Operations11 which 

asked for names of organizations that provided or administered SNAP incentives at their 

markets. A referral-based sampling strategy was used to ensure representation from three types 

of organizations, based on funding and size. These included Type I organizations – large 

umbrella organizations that provide grants for SBIPs and technical assistance to smaller 

organizations; Type II organizations – smaller organizations that distribute the grant money to 

FMs and administer the programs; and Type III organizations – local organizations that provide 

grant money for SBIPs. Seventeen Type I organizations were purposefully selected with 

attention to FNS geographic region; their general descriptive category for the organization (e.g., 

nonprofit, foundation, insurance company, city government); and the communities they serve. 

Upon agreement to participate, these organizations were then asked to name other organizations 

that they partnered with on SBIPs and, through this referral process, other categories of 

organizations were identified and interviewed (e.g., Type II and Type III) and, in turn, they 

reported collaborations and/or referred other organizations with whom they work.

Analysis of qualitative responses provided by representatives from all organizations led to the 

development of a function-based typology that emphasized the organizations’ primary roles and 

functions in supporting the SBIP. Specifically, SBIP organizations were categorized as:

 Funders – organizations whose primary role is to provide funding to SBIPs;

 Coordinators – organizations that are the main proponents behind designing, 

supporting, and implementing an SBIP. They establish the SBIP, coordinate 

participation (including the decision process to support other organizations/markets), 

and are the principal fundraisers;

 Supporters – organizations that are key partners, providing various support services 

for the implementation or support of SBIPs; and

 Operators – organizations that implement SBIPs at the market level.

 

11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. (2013). Nutrition assistance in farmers markets: 

Understanding current operations by Sujata Dixit-Joshi et al. Project Officer: Eric Sean Williams, Alexandria, VA: April 2013. Available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis.
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study xii 

 Data Collection and Analysis 

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 141 representatives from 103 

organizations (see Appendices A, B, and C). Detailed responses were collected on the primary 

mission of the organizations and their history with SNAP; source of the financial support for 

SBIPs; the relationship to FMs; and characteristics of successful SBIPs. Qualitative data analysis 

techniques were used to analyze interview responses regarding their mission and goal, their role 

in SBIP implementation, and evaluation activities they participated in. Responses were compared 

to identify similarities and differences across organization types.

Social network analysis was used to examine the relationships among the organizations. In 

particular, the four-fold analysis assessed (a) the relationship between organizations and FMs 

where the SBIP was implemented; (b) whether organizations that provide or administer SNAP 

incentives have relationships with other organizations, and if so, which organizations; (c) the 

similarity of the types of organizations that have relationships with one another; and (d) whether 

specific patterns or models of relationships between organizations exist.

Of the 103 participating organizations, 56 indicated that their organization collected or tracked 

program performance data to assess various aspects of their SBIP at the market level. Fourteen 

organizations provided market-level tracking measures for the FMIPS, which represented 222 

FMs. Of the 14 SBIP organizations that provided data, with the exception of one Operator 

organization, all were Coordinator organizations. Descriptive quantitative analysis was used to 

assess the general market characteristics.

II. Results 

 SBIP Organizational Characteristics 

For a majority of organizations, involvement with SBIPs at FMs is not their sole activity.

Representatives from participating organizations cited a range of missions that included 

alleviating social inequities, supporting farmers, and addressing economic and community 

development. Typically, Funder organizations focused on improving health and community 

development, while Coordinator and Operator organizations focused on alleviating social 

inequities and supporting farmers.
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study xiii 

Organizations perceive SBIPs as one approach to achieving their organizational mission of 

increasing access to healthy food, increasing business for farmers, and/or addressing health 

disparities. The long-term goals of SBIPs were also closely tied to the organization’s overall 

mission, with almost one-half of the representatives from all organization types indicating one

long-term goal for their organization was to expand the SBIP at more markets and find ways to 

make the program sustainable.

The budget allocation for the SBIPs within each organization was generally 25 percent or less of 

the overall operating budget. Across all four organization types, SBIP activities were typically 

absorbed into the existing organizational structure, with existing staff members taking on SBIP 

activities (i.e., dedicated staff members were not hired for SBIP activities). Organizations relied 

on multiple funding sources to implement the activities necessary to achieve their mission. The 

most frequently cited funding streams included philanthropic donations, foundations, grants 

(public and private), and vendor fees. Funder organizations relied more on philanthropic 

donations and private foundations; Coordinator and Support organizations relied more on grants; 

and Operator organizations relied more on vendor fees.

Application and Selection Process for SBIP Support. SBIPs are seldom operated by a single 

organization; partnerships and collaborations are critical to SBIP success. Almost all SBIPs 

represent partnerships between an Operator organization and Supporter, Coordinator, or Funder 

organizations. In many instances, SBIPs include collaboration of all four organization types. The 

decisions for the SBIPs to partner and collaborate are often driven by geography, mission 

alignment, history with SNAP programs, and applicants’ capacity to implement SNAP. 

Generally, organizations partner to serve a given community and view the collaboration with the 

SBIP as one approach to achieve their individual organization’s goals. Funder and Coordinator

organizations, in particular, prefer established partner organizations that have experience with 

implementing EBT at farmers markets.

Some organizations used an application process to select partner organizations, but the rigor of 

the process often varied. Most representatives from Funder organizations indicated they had a 

formal application process but, for some organizations, the process was more invitational and 

informal because of a limited applicant pool in the geographic area of interest. A few Funder 

organizations said they supported a market or collaborated with a partner organization because 

there were no other players in that geographic area. On the other hand, a majority of the 

representatives from Coordinator organizations indicated that their organization employed a mix 
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study xiv 

of application and informal processes, and representatives from the Support organizations 

reported using an informal process to select partners.

SBIP Implementation Activities. The function-based typology to classify organizations depicts 

the primary role performed by organization types (i.e., Funder organizations provided funds, 

Coordinator and Support organizations provided resources and staff to support various activities, 

and Operator organizations provided the platform [staff, vendors, and participants]). However, 

organizations’ involvement in the implementation of SBIPs was not limited solely to their 

primary function; with the exception of Funder organizations, all other organization types 

engaged in identifying funding sources, marketing and outreach, providing technical assistance 

and training, and program operations. Funder organizations typically participated in identifying 

financial resources, and marketing and outreach. Each of these activities was considered 

necessary for a SBIP to succeed.

SBIP Implementation Challenges. Representatives from all four SBIP organization types 

expressed funding as a challenge in the context of earmarked funding, excess demand for limited 

resources, and funder fatigue. Representatives from Funder, Coordinator, and Support 

organizations explained that funds were often earmarked for the incentive itself and additional 

sources were required for administrative activities. Further, they reported that donations and 

grants were typically limited to fund start the program but not to maintain the SBIP. 

Representatives also experienced Funder fatigue, wherein donors and Funders were willing to 

provide initial funding to test the concept but were reticent to fund ongoing subsidies. In the face 

of these challenges, representatives indicated they were always in fundraising mode and stated 

that public funding would be necessary to sustain SBIPs. Some representatives made program 

modifications in response to funding challenges they experienced, which included changes to

their staffing structure such as an increased dependency on volunteers, reducing the incentive 

amount per customer, shortening the incentive duration (from entire market season to a few 

months), and expanding the fundraising capability and efforts. A few representatives said the 

role of SBIPs was to draw customers to the market, and once they were at the market, they would 

continue shopping there even if the incentive was not offered. However, this view was not 

universal, with a few representatives indicating that if incentives were not offered, shopping 

behaviors would not persist.

Staffing and accounting were cited as major challenges encountered in SBIP implementation. 

These representatives articulated the need to have dedicated staff with time and expertise to track 

the SBIP and reconcile the accounts at the end of each market day. Coordinator and Support 
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study xv 

organizations mentioned difficulties in training the market staff and getting the most out of a 

volunteer-run market. Funder representatives captured the essence of accounting challenges, 

stating that while bookkeeping was not a challenge, the use of multiple forms of currency and the 

use of token systems to implement the SBIP added to accounting tasks.

Data Used for Self-Evaluation of SBIP. A majority of the representatives indicated that their 

organization participated in collecting, analyzing, or disseminating program data to assess the 

reach of the program and to guide future implementation. Fewer than 10 percent of the 

organizations conducted formal evaluations. For the most part, organizations relied on the value 

of SNAP and incentive redemptions to assess impact. However, considerable variability was 

noted in the tracking of redemptions. Some representatives tracked the amount of SNAP benefits 

deducted from EBT cards while others tracked the reimbursements provided to vendors in 

exchange for tokens redeemed at the market.

In addition to quantitative data, representatives from all four organization types engaged in 

informal discussions with SNAP participants and vendors to gather input on their experience 

with the program. A small number of Coordinator and Support organizations conducted formal 

evaluations to assess shopping behaviors and fruit and vegetable consumption.

Operator organizations indicated that they collected redemption data primarily for reporting 

purposes and used qualitative input from SNAP customers and vendors to increase community 

support. Funder, Coordinator, and Support organizations used evaluation data to assess progress 

towards their goal and to secure additional funding for program improvement and expansion. 

Coordinator and Support organizations also used these data for advocacy and policy discussions.

In Calendar Year 2012, the total median value of SNAP and incentive redemptions at FMs was 

$1,122 and $565, respectively. Newly SNAP-authorized FMs had lower median SNAP and 

incentive redemptions than those that were authorized for more than 3 years. Market maturation 

and the amount of incentive matched at the market may have jointly influenced SNAP 

redemptions.

The value of self-reported SNAP redemptions was lower than the value derived from an extract

of the FNS Anti-Fraud Locator for EBT Redemption Transactions (ALERT), a system which 

records every SNAP transaction. ALERT data and SBIP organization self-evaluation data 

differed with regard to the value of SNAP redemptions at the FMs. The value of SNAP 

redemptions recorded in ALERT always represents the exact amount of SNAP benefits deducted 
Executive Summary 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study xvi 

from the participant’s account based on the individual point-of-sale transaction. However, the 

self-reported data may not always be reporting the participant transaction amount but, instead, 

are reporting amounts reimbursed to FM vendors. Thus, the difference may be attributable to the 

different way SBIPs may record or operationalize SNAP redemption data.

SNAP Misuse and Fraud. At outlets that accept SNAP, SNAP benefits are deducted from the 

EBT card for the amount of the purchases made. However, due to the availability of only one 

EBT machine at each market, SNAP benefits are exchanged for tokens to be used at the market.

Despite the use of a model to redeem SNAP benefits not viewed as ideal, about 80 percent of the 

representatives indicated that SNAP misuse was not a major issue at FMs. Among those that 

perceived it to be an issue, representatives cited unintentional misuse (e.g., vendor ignorance on 

what can be purchased) more than intentional misuse (e.g., participants sharing tokens). While 

education for market managers and vendors to review SNAP allowable food purchase was cited 

as an approach to reducing unintentional misuse, use of technology (instead of token system) 

was cited as an approach to reducing intentional misuse.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 1 

1.1 Overview 

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food and nutrition assistance programs 

reach 1 in 4 people in the US; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the 

largest of the nutrition assistance programs designed to provide a nutrition safety net and reduce 

food insecurity to low-income households. USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 

pursuing several initiatives to improve access to healthy foods for SNAP participants; one such 

initiative is to support the availability of farmers markets (FMs) and direct access to farm 

products.12

In 2011, the Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study (FMIPS) was initiated as part of a 

portfolio of studies funded to support access to fresh fruits and vegetables through FMs for 

individuals participating in SNAP. The FNS Farmers Market research portfolio includes studies 

regarding SNAP participation in three major parts of the industry: FMs, SNAP participants who 

shop at FMs, and organizations supporting SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIPs) for SNAP 

participants shopping at FMs. The first of these studies, the Nutrition Assistance in Farmers 

Markets: Understanding Current Operations explored characteristics and logistical processes, 

and the motivation and challenges of accepting SNAP benefits.13 The second study, Nutrition 

Assistance in Farmers Markets: Understanding the Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants is 

currently underway and will evaluate the characteristics and motivations of SNAP participants

who use and do not use FMs. This report presents findings from the third study, the Farmers 

Market Incentive Provider Study or FMIPS. This study assessed how organizations design, 

operate, and evaluate SBIPs; the collaborative partnerships that exist between organizations; and 

the impact of SBIPs at individual markets.

 

12 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Services. (2013). Farmers markets and local food marketing. Available at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/farmersmarkets.

13U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. (2013). Nutrition assistance in farmers markets: 

Understanding current operations by Sujata Dixit-Joshi et al. Project Officer: Eric Sean Williams, Alexandria, VA: April 2013. Available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis.

Introduction 1 
Introduction 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 2 

1.2 SNAP at Farmers Markets 

The food and nutrition assistance programs administered by the USDA are intended to reduce 

hunger and improve the health and well-being of Americans. In recent years, the number of FMs 

has increased rapidly, thereby potentially increasing access to farm products for nutrition 

assistance program participants.

Since 2009, the number of FMs listed in the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

directory has increased by 74 percent, with an annual increase of 3.6 percent from 2012 to 2013 

(see Figure 1-1).

14 Multiple factors have contributed to the growth of FMs across the nation, 

including efforts to connect farmers to consumers. Besides the USDA, not-for-profit and private 

organizations have been involved in promoting FMs among consumers.

Figure 1-1. USDA AMS National Count FM Directory Listing Graph: 1994-2013

In 1994, 27.5 percent of FMs accepted food stamps or SNAP. At that time, food stamp 

participants received their benefits in the form of paper coupons; these coupons could be 

 14 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service. (2013). National count of farmers market directory listings graph: 1994-2013. 

Available at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&leftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFa

rmersMarketGrowth&description=Farmers%2520Market%2520Growth.

 
Introduction 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 3 

redeemed at food stamp authorized retailers to purchase eligible food items. The Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 mandated a shift from paper 

coupons to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems so as to increase SNAP efficiency, reduce 

participation stigma, and reduce fraud. By 2004, food stamp coupons were replaced with EBT 

cards in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. With EBT, benefits 

are added to eligible participants’ SNAP accounts. To use access and shop for food using their 

benefits, participants swipe their EBT card at the SNAP authorized vendors’ point-of-sale (POS) 

machines and enter their personal identification number (PIN) to pay for their food purchases.

15

However, the high cost of EBT equipment and logistical requirements needed to implement the 

EBT system (e.g., POS machines, electricity, telephone lines, trained staff)16 had a drastic effect 

on the number of SNAP participants shopping for SNAP-eligible food items at FMs. FMs could 

not afford the EBT system infrastructure and thus, at its lowest point in 2004, only 8 percent of 

authorized FMs redeemed SNAP benefits.17

In 2006, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) first awarded Farmers Market Promotion 

Program (FMPP) grants to assist farmers in reaching consumers and to aid in the development 

and promotion of FMs. The FMPP was authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill to improve, expand, and 

develop direct marketing opportunities for farmers. At the market level, these grants enable

farmers to expand their staff, increase advertising, outreach and engagement activities, and 

expand the hours and days of operation. Since FMPP began launching its activities, specifically 

as it relates to EBT activities, there has been a four-fold increase in SNAP sales at FMs, from 

$4,173,323 in fiscal year 2009 to $16,598,255 in fiscal year 2012.18

Independent of the FMPP grants funding mechanism, USDA provided states with funding to 

expand the use of wireless technology at FMs. Over the past 5 years, the FNS has provided 

information on alternative ways to process SNAP-related sales, guidance on the SNAP 

authorization process, and marketing materials that can be distributed to SNAP participants at 

FMs. The introduction of affordable EBT machines and the ongoing development of new 

technologies that allows farmers and FMs to use mobile devices rather than traditional EBT POS 

 15 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, (2011). Benefit redemption patterns in the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by Laura Castner and Juliette Henke. Project officer: Anita Singh, Alexandria, VA: February 2011.

16 Wasserman, W., Tropp, D., Lakins, V., Foley, C., DeNinno, M., Thompson, J., Owens, N., and Williams, K. (2010). Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) at farmers markets: A how-to handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, June

2010. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS039.06-2010.

17 Briggs, S., Fisher, A., Lott, M., Miller, S., and Tessman, N. (2010). Real food, real choice: Connecting SNAP recipients with farmers markets. 

Community Food Security Coalition and Farmers Market Coalition, June 2010.

18 Miller, S., and Roper, N. (2013). Farmers Market Promotion Program: Grant activities and impacts 2006-2011. Farmers Market Coalition in 

Partnership with Market Umbrella. June 2013.
Introduction 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 4 

machines have resulted in a steady increase in the number of FMs that redeem SNAP benefits. In 

2009, nearly 18 percent of FMs accepted SNAP and, by 2011, the share had grown to 

approximately 35 percent.19

The successful implementation of SNAP at FMs can also be attributed to the model used to 

redeem SNAP benefits. In the model used at most SNAP-authorized retailers, an exact amount of 

SNAP benefits is deducted from the SNAP participants’ account based on the point-of-sale 

(POS) transaction with the vendor. However, in many FM models, the FM obtains a SNAP

license and allows eligible farmers in the market to accept SNAP benefits typically using one of

two scrip systems. More commonly the system used adopts the use of paper scrip or tokens as

the accepted FM currency for SNAP participants to use for shopping with the vendors. In this

system, market staff use a centralized POS device to provide SNAP participants with the system 

currency in use, paper scrip or tokens, by swiping the participants EBT card to debit the amount 

requested by the participant and, in exchange, provide the participant with the equivalent amount 

in the scrip currency. The participant can use this to shop at all eligible food booths in the 

market. The scrip currency is then redeemed at participating farm vendors to purchase SNAP 

eligible products; farmers trade the currency with market staff for payment. Unspent FM 

currency may be redeemed at subsequent visits to the FM. The additional step of converting the 

benefits to FM currency allows a FM to use a single EBT machine for the entire market and 

SNAP benefits to be redeemed by multiple participating vendors within a market (or at 

participating markets).

Another scrip system in place at FMs relies on receipts. In this FM model, SNAP participants do 

not need to use a market currency such as paper scrip or tokens and actually pay for the exact 

purchase using their EBT card and thus their account is debited for an exact amount rather than 

an anticipated amount. In this model, the SNAP participant shops at the market and sets aside 

selected food at a farmer’s booth. The farmer gives the customer a list of the selected items. The 

customer then takes the list to the centralized POS device, uses their EBT card to pay for the 

items, and receives a receipt of payment. The SNAP participant gives the farmer the receipt in 

exchange for the selected food items. The market staff keeps track of the receipts and reimburses 

the farmers based on the day's purchases, which are reconciled with the farmers’ receipts.20

 

19 Fee, R., and Meléndez, M.L. (2013).2011 Electronic Benefit Transfer and Farmers Market Initiative Evaluation Report. Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield of Minnesota. Available at http://www.preventionminnesota.com/objects/pdfs/2011EBT_FarmersMarketEvaluationReport.pdf.

20 EBT: Scrip System-paper scrip, token, or receipts. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2013, from USDA Food and Nutrition Service: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/scrip-system-paper-scrip-token-or-receipts
Introduction 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 5 

1.3 SNAP-Based Incentive Programs at Farmers Markets 

Recent emergence of FM SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIPs) that are funded by private, 

public, and nonprofit organizations are intended to address access and affordability issues for 

SNAP participants.21 New York City Health Bucks, the Double Up Food Bucks in Michigan, 

and the nationwide Wholesome Wave Double Value Coupon Program (DVCP) are examples of 

SBIPs that provide SNAP customers additional funds to spend on SNAP-eligible farm products

at FMs.

Since these programs are relatively young, however, research on the impact of these incentives 

on consumer behavior is limited. Available evidence suggests that incentives are effective in

bringing SNAP consumers to the markets. The Health Bucks program found that markets in the 

New York City area that offered the SBIP ($2 for every $5 spent) had more than twice as many

EBT sales as those that did not offer the program.22 An analysis of the Minnesota MarketMatch 

program (with matches up to $25 per visit) showed a 91 percent increase in the number of 

transactions in 2010 compared to 2009 when the program was initiated.23

Further, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources reported that SNAP 

redemption at FMs using Boston Bounty Bucks (a DVCP) increased by 500 percent in the 2010 

season compared to 2009.24 In addition to these encouraging reports, there is also evidence that

once low-income families enrolled in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program are 

exposed to FMs through incentive programs, they increase their purchase and consumption of

fruits and vegetables at those markets.

25,26 Data from the Double Up Food Bucks program in 

 

21 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., and Schumacher, G. (2012). Linking farmers, healthy foods, and underserved communities: exploring the impact 

of nutrition incentive programs on farmers and farmers markets. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. July 

2012. Available at http://www.agdevjournal.com/volume-2-issue-4/271-linking-farmers-healthy-foods-and-underservedconsumers.html?catid=111%3Aopen-call-papers.

22 Abrami, A. (2011). Healthy Bucks Program. Presentation March 4, 2011. Available at 

www.nyfarmersmarket.com/powerpoint2011/NYCHealthBucks.pptx.

23 MarketMatch (for EBT cardholder) starts July 16th. July 2011. 

http://www.npnnola.com/associations/organizations/sub/114/marketumbrellaorg/news-archive/.

24 Kramer, M., and Zakaras, M. (2011). Improving nutrition for SNAP recipients: A roadmap for the Double Value Coupon Program. Prepared 

for WholeSome Wave. March 2011. Available at www.innovations.harvard.edu/download-doc.html?id=1714473. 

25 Herman, D.R., Harrison, G.G., Afifi, A.A., and Jenks, E. (2008). Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among lowincome women in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Am J Public Health, 98(1).

26 Racine, E.F., Smith Vaughn, A., and Laditka, S.B. (2010). Farmers' market use among African-American women participating in the special 

supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(3), 441-6. Accessed on 

August 26, 2013.
Introduction 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 6 

Michigan indicate that the average number of SNAP participant visits per market tripled between 

2009 and 2012, from 299 SNAP participant visits per market to 1,192, respectively.27

1.4 Research Objectives 

The purpose of this study was to gather data to develop a better understanding and picture of 

how SBIPs at FMs are designed, implemented, and evaluated by a variety of non-government 

organizations that fund or administer funds for SBIPs at SNAP authorized FMs. The broad 

research objectives were to:

1. Understand the characteristics of organizations involved with SBIPs, their SBIP 

objectives, role in SBIP implementation, and involvement in SBIP monitoring and 

evaluations;

2. Characterize relationships between SBIP organizations and between SBIP 

organizations and FMs; and

3. Examine the outcomes, performance, and/or the impacts of SBIP operations at the 

market-level based on self-evaluation information of programs that organizations 

have in place.

FMs play a role in carrying out FNS strategic initiatives to improve access and nutrition in the 

populations the FNS serves. This study further defines that role, which has not been well 

documented to date.

1.5 Report Organization 

This report presents the findings from qualitative interviews conducted with organization 

representatives and self-reported quantitative market level evaluation measures provided by them. 

Chapter 2 presents an overview of the methodology used to conduct the study, including the 

sampling approach, data collection, and analysis procedures. Chapters 3 through 8 present the 

findings distilled from the qualitative interviews and market level evaluation data. Each finding 

chapter starts with an overview of the specific research question addressed followed by key 

findings and detailed results. Gaps in the data and current processes for evaluating SBIPs are 

presented, as well as potential study limitations that could be addressed by future research. Given 

 

27 Donovan, J., Madore, A., Randall, M., and Vickery, K. (2013). Farmers Market Incentive Programs: Vehicles for increasing local food access 

among nutrition assistance beneficiaries, Policy recommendations for Austin, Texas. May 21, 2013.
Introduction 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 7 

the exploratory and qualitative approach used in this study, numbers and percentages are not 

presented; rather, the emphasis is on the themes that emerged. In addition, findings are presented to 

highlight the continuum of activities represented across the four organization types and, when 

appropriate, similarities and differences in activities by organization type. Finally, Chapter 9 

presents the conclusions from the Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study. Direct quotes from 

various organization representatives interviewed are provided throughout the report to illustrate the 

findings.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 8 

2.1 Overview 

This chapter presents the methodology for conducting the Farmers Market Incentive Provider 

Study (FMIPS). It describes the critical aspects of the study design, including sample selection, 

data collection, and analytic methods. Characteristics of responding organizations are also 

presented.

To address the FMIPS research objectives, data were collected between February and June 2013 

from organizations involved in administering, supporting, and funding SNAP-based incentive 

programs (SBIPs) at farmers markets (FMs). Semi-structured telephone interviews were 

conducted with representatives from these organizations. Extant data regarding FMs funded by 

SBIP organizations were collected when available. Data were also extracted from the FNS SNAP 

Anti-Fraud Locator for EBT Redemption Transaction (ALERT) system for a subset of markets 

for calendar years 2011 and 2012.

2.2 Sampling 

 Goals for the Sample 

The primary objective of the sampling strategy was to ensure representation from three 

categories of organizations that were identified a priori, based on their size and relative 

responsibility associated with funding and administration of SBIPs at FMs. These included:

 Type I organizations – large umbrella organizations that provide grants for SBIPs

and technical assistance to smaller organizations;

 Type II organizations – smaller organizations that distribute the grant money to 

FMs and administer the programs; and

 Type III organizations – local organizations that provide grant money for SBIPs.

Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 9 

However, sampling based on this strict organizational classification was limited because the type 

of organizations involved in providing or administering funds for SBIPs varies significantly

within and between communities and in different parts of the country. There was also significant 

overlap between categories, and the classification scheme also excluded the role of FMs 

themselves and other organizations that serve as program operators. Thus, a revised sampling 

strategy was developed to help ensure representation of the full variety of organizations involved 

in the FMIPS (See Section 2.4.1).

 Primary Sampling Frame of SBIP Organizations 

The Nutrition Assistance at Farmers Markets: Understand Current Operations28 served as the 

sampling frame for the FMIPS. This study, which surveyed market managers about farmers 

market operations, included a specific question about whether they received financial support to 

administer SNAP incentives at their markets and, if they did, to list the names of organizations 

that provided or administered SNAP incentives at their markets. Many FM managers provided 

names of more than one organization and, thus, duplicated organizations were removed from the 

frame. Federal and State entities were excluded from the primary sample because the objectives 

of the FMIPS were to assess the influence of non-Federal funds used for the purposes of SBIPs 

at SNAP authorized FMs. However, city governments were retained, leaving a final pool of 172 

organizations. Seventeen Type I organizations, approximately half of those identified in the 

Nutrition Assistance at Farmers Markets: Understand Current Operations survey, were selected 

from this final pool of organizations, based on the frequency of reporting by managers on the 

survey. These 17 selected organizations comprised approximately half of the Type I 

organizations identified in the FMIPS sampling frame and were purposely chosen selected to 

ensure geographic representation and a mix of organizational categories (e.g., nonprofit, 

foundation, insurance company, city government, etc.).

 FMIPS Sampling Plan 

A referral-based sampling strategy was employed for the FMIPS. This strategy allowed for direct 

exploration and study of partnerships and organizational clusters that work together on SBIPs at 

 

28U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. (2013). Nutrition assistance in farmers markets: 

Understanding current operations – National Survey of Farmers Market Managers and Direct Marketing Farmers. Sujata Dixit-Joshi, John Burke, Barnali Das, 

Michael Steketee. Project Officer: Eric Sean Williams. February 2013.
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 10 

FMs. At the conclusion of each telephone interview, organizations were asked to name other 

organizations with whom they partnered on SBIPs. Through this referral process, additional 

organizations were identified, interviewed and, in turn, asked to report on collaborations and/or 

to refer other organizations with whom they worked. The goal was to enroll approximately 100 

organizations and conduct approximately 210 telephone interviews with representatives from

these organizations. Interviews were conducted with one to three individuals in leadership roles 

at each organization, including the executive directors and/or SBIP program managers. It should 

be noted that although excluded from the primary sampling frame, through the referral process 

Federal- and State- funded entities initially excluded were named as collaborators in SBIPs.

2.3 Data Collection 

Data collection was conducted between February and June 2013. This included conducting the

qualitative interviews described above and obtaining any available self-evaluation data that

organizations were willing to provide.

 Semi-Structured Interviews with Organizations 

Organizations selected or referred to participate in the study were emailed an invitation to 

participate. The email outlined FMIPS objectives, described the consent procedures, and 

estimated the time burden required to complete the interview. Telephone interviews were 

scheduled based on participant availability and conducted by qualitative interviewers.

Semi-structured interview guides were developed with input from experts knowledgeable about 

SBIPs, and reviewed by FNS. A telephone pretest was conducted with a panel of seven 

representatives who previously worked with SBIP organizations. The final interview guides were

reviewed and approved by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and used for 

interviewing representatives of SBIP organizations participating in the FMIPS (Appendix C).
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 11 

The interview guides were developed to capture information about participating organizations

and SBIP characteristics. The interviews gathered information to better understand:

 The primary mission of the organizations and their history with SNAP;

 The source of financial support for the organization’s SBIP;

 The relationship of organizations to FMs that receive incentive funds for SNAP 

customers and the selection process and requirements for participating FMs;

 The number of FMs a specific organization supported in 2012;

 Whether other financial and nonfinancial types of support are provided or offered by 

the organization to the FMs;

 Factors that make it difficult to implement and manage SBIPs; and

 Characteristics of successful SBIPs.

At the close of data collection, 144 interviews were completed with representatives from 106 

organizations. Data in this report represent 141 interviews from 103 organizations.29 For most 

organizations (N=70), interviews were conducted with only one representative. Typically, two or 

more interviews were conducted with key organizational representatives for the purposes of 

obtaining data from the person most knowledgeable about the topic being discussed.

 Collection of SBIP Self-Evaluation Data from Organizations 

Of the 103 organizations interviewed, 56 reported collecting data to conduct some form of selfevaluation for the purpose of assessing various aspects of their SBIP at the market level. These 

organizations were asked to share any market-level data that they maintained on their SBIPs to 

assist in identifying differences across SBIPs that might impact fruit and vegetable sales at 

SNAP authorized FMs. The market-level data requested for the FMIPS included:

For each market where the organization supported the SBIP:

 SNAP authorization date for the market; and

 SBIP start date at the market.

 

29The audio file from one interview was unavailable for transcription and two of the interviewed organizations were [later determined to not be]

eligible for participation.
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 12 

Calendar Year (CY) 2012 data:

 The specific food items that could be purchased with the incentives (fruits, 

vegetables, meat/fish/poultry, dairy products, seeds and plants that produce foods for 

the household to eat, and other food items);

 Duration of market season;

 Duration of incentive season;

 Number of vendors;

 Number of vendors accepting SNAP;

 Total number of SNAP shoppers;

 Average number of visits per SNAP shopper;

 Number of SNAP customers who received incentives;

 Dollar value of incentives redeemed;

 Dollar value of SNAP benefits spent;

 Dollar value of food sales; and

 Proportion of SNAP shoppers who paid cash to make purchases.

Change measures from 2011 to 2012 (more, less, or the same):

 Total number of SNAP customers at the market;

 Total sales of SNAP-eligible foods at the market;

 Total sales of all goods at the market; and

 Total value of incentives redeemed at the market.

Of the 56 organizations who reported collecting self-evaluation data, 14 provided data. These 14 

organizations provided data for 222 FMs that were part of their SBIPs. Four other organizations 

agreed to provide data but did not have any. Only one organization refused outright. The 

remainder did not respond to repeated requests.
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 13 

 FNS ALERT Data 

To conduct market-level analysis, an extract of the SNAP ALERT data for CY 2011 and CY 

2012 was requested from FNS to supplement quantitative data from the FMIPS and the 

Understanding Nutrition Assistance at Farmers Markets: Understanding Current Operations

survey. This analysis was conducted to assess change in SNAP redemptions at these FMs

between CYs and across months to examine the impact SBIPs had on redemptions for the subset 

of markets (n=82) that participated in both the FMIPS and the Understanding Nutrition 

Assistance at Farmers Markets: Understanding Current Operations survey.

2.4 Analytic Methods 

This section presents the approach to analyzing the qualitative interview transcripts and the 

market level quantitative measures. The function-based organizational typology that emerged 

from the interviews was utilized to examine the themes. This function-based typology is 

reflective of the organization’s primary role in SBIPs.

2.4.1 Organizational Typology and Classification 

As stated in Section 2.2, the original classification scheme was deemed limited and did not 

reflect the true nature of responding organizations. A revised organizational typology was 

developed, which consists of four categories emphasizing the organization’s primary function: 

Funders, Coordinators, Supporters, and Operators. As described further in Chapter 4, almost all 

organizations performed two or more of these functions. However, each organization tended to 

focus its resources and energies in fulfillment of one of these primary functions. Table 2-1 

presents the definitions of these function-based organizational categories along with verbatim 

excerpts from interviews that illustrate the rationale for placing organizations in the selected 

category based on organizational typology.
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 14 

Table 2-1. Organizational typology based on SBIP function and supporting verbatim quotes

 Organizational function 

classification SBIP role 

1 FUNDERS Provide funding to SBIPs. 

 ...we are a funder. We aren’t in the day-to-day operations of anything that we fund.

 The [Primary SBIP Coordinator has] been relying on us for funding every year...We are a funder.

 We had really been primarily a funder. We have a fairly strong partnership with [Primary SBIP 

Coordinator]. They have been our primary partner in really looking at increasing SNAP redemption at 

farmer’s markets.

 [Our decision to become involved] was more a funder coming to us with an idea, and wanted a 

collaboration with us as another funder. It was something we saw value in.

 However, I’d say day-to-day with the [SBIP], the way that we mostly work with it is in terms of our 

grants. 

2 COORDINATORS 

Design, support, and implement SBIPs. They establish the 

SBIPs, coordinate participation (including the decision process 

to support other organizations/markets), and fundraise. 

 Our local Farmers Markets are not connected under any single umbrella and so any sort of program 

that’s going to be run through multiple markets needs an agency that’s willing to coordinate, because 

the markets haven’t been able to do that on their own in the past – because of them not being 

connected. Our role is to coordinate between the markets. We’re the chief fundraiser for the program. 

We’re the ones going after grants and doing grass roots fundraising for the program. Also, we’re the 

connection between the data that comes out from the markets and our primary funder, that’s 

our biggest role. So, we’re responsible for ensuring that the markets have the appropriate funding to 

implement the program...We do all of the advertising and outreach for the program that needs to be 

coordinated in conjunction with the markets. Other than that, the markets handle the day-to-day 

running of the program at the markets, we’re not there. Essentially we ensure that all the data is being 

collected properly, that the program’s being implemented properly, that sort of stuff.

 ...consistent coordination, consistent funding, and a very dedicated resource that’s worked out all of 

the kinks in the whole process. From communication about the availability of the funds, to training at 

market. They have a good system in place at [Primary SBIP Coordinator] to make sure that the 

program runs smoothly. It takes a lot of effort on the part one of their staff members to track down all 

of that information, because it is coordinated.

 [Interviewer]: ...in addressing the multi-organizational aspect, it sounds like one organization has to 

take the lead in a coordinating capacity, sort of the umbrella organization. [Coordinator] “Absolutely.”
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 15 

Table 2-1. Organizational typology based on SBIP function and supporting verbatim quotes 

(continued)

3 SUPPORTERS 

Provide support services for the implementation or support of 

SBIPs ranging from critical (technical assistance, logistical support, 

financial assistance, evaluation) to auxiliary (marketing/outreach, 

SNAP education, additional training). 

 Probably the most important role that we provide is technical assistance to markets who are past 

participants in the program, and technical assistance to those who are newly implementing EBT at 

farmers’ markets.

 With the one in [city], our role was helping, over a course of numerous meetings, developing the 

concept of how the [SBIP] would work, what the match would be, what the eligible foods would be, and 

then identifying an appropriate farmers market organization that would be a good one to pilot a 

program like this that the city wanted to do. It was an advisory and design role.

 Our role, it’s really promoting the program out in the community, introducing the clients for the 

program as much as we can. It’s also having an infrastructure in which the customers are used to 

coming to our information booths.

 ...the [Coordinator] is doing the administrative work for the [SBIP] itself. Our on-the-ground role is in 

helping to create marketing materials and distribute them.

4 OPERATORS Implement SBIPs at the local or market level. 

 The market is authorized as the SNAP provider, so we actually operate the machines, hand out the 

tokens.

 we accept [SBIP] and SNAP benefits in addition to [Project name] at our market and on our veggie 

van...We try to collaborate with [the SBIP Coordinator] whenever possible on marketing efforts 

directed toward the low income community in particular

 We’re the ones who administer it every week and monitor it and try to educate the farmers about how 

and why we do it -- and the community...we’re the ones actually swiping the cards at the market and 

handing out the tokens.

2.4.2 Analyzing Data from the Organizational Interviews 

Coding and analysis of the interviews conducted with SBIP organizational representatives 

enabled the development of major themes by the type of organization. Emergent issues from 

organizational representatives across all organizations and organization types were assessed and 

compared on specific measures for the broadest possible data summary. For example, the issues 

amongst Funders were assessed and compared, and amongst Coordinators, and so on.

Interviews were scheduled to allow for adequate discussion time with each representative, and 

follow-up calls were arranged when an interview could not be completed in one telephone call. 
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 16 

Qualitative interviews were generally conducted with one to three representatives from each 

organization; thus, multiple responses may exist for organizations where more than one 

representative was interviewed. When analyzing qualitative interview data, it is anticipated that 

responses on a particular topic may not be mutually exclusive but instead actually highlight 

important issues among multiple related themes. Throughout the FMIPS, frequent team meetings 

were conducted during the coding an analysis phase to manage interpretations of the data 

appropriately to ensure these themes were accounted for and a high level of inter-rater reliability.

2.4.3 Analyzing SBIP Self-Evaluation Data 

Market-level self-evaluation data were provided by 14 organizations on 222 markets. 

Organizations varied in the market-level measures they collected and provided to the research 

team; therefore, some analyses were undertaken with fewer than 222 markets. Descriptive 

analyses were performed to assess general market characteristics, specific items related to SNAP 

sales, and the value of incentives redeemed.

2.4.4 Social Network Mapping of SBIP Organizations 

Social network analysis was used to study relationships among organizations that fund, 

coordinate, support, and implement SBIPs at FMs. These analyses assessed:

 Relationships between organizations and FMs where SBIP was implemented;

 Whether organizations that fund or administer SBIPs had relationships with other 

organizations, and if so, which organizations;

 The similarity, or homogeneity of the types of organizations that had relationships 

with one another;

 Relationships between various types of organizations that provided financial and 

nonfinancial support to FMs themselves; and

 Whether specific patterns or models of relationships between organizations existed.

The analysis was driven by responses to questions during the interviews with the SBIP 

organizations regarding their formal or informal partnerships with other organizations or entities 

funding, administering, or supporting SBIPs at FMs. The social network data was analyzed in 
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 17 

aggregate and focused on characteristics of the organizations and the characteristics of 

partnerships. 

2.5 Characteristics of Responding Organizations 

The analysis utilized data from a total of 141 interviews conducted with representatives from 103 

organizations. Using the function-based organization typology, 13 organizations were classified 

as Funders, 34 as Coordinators, 29 as Supporters, and 27 as Operators.

 Number of Employees and SBIP Budget Allocation 

The responding organizations were generally not very large and allocated a relatively small 

proportion of their budget to SBIPs. Only 14 organizations had more than 75 employees and 

about one-half of the organizations had fewer than 10 employees.

30 Funder and Coordinator 

organizations tended to have more employees than Support or Operator organizations. The 

majority of organizations (82 of 103) allocated less than 25 percent of their budget to the 

implementation of SBIPs (Table 2-2). Thus, for most of the responding organizations, funding, 

support and/or operation of SBIPs represented only a small part of the organization’s overall 

activities.

Table 2-2. Proportion of organization’s total budget allocated to SBIPs

Proportion of Total Budget Allocated to SBIP 

 <25% 25-50% 51-75% >75% NA/DK* Total 

Funder 11 0 0 1 1 13

Coordinator 25 7 0 1 1 34

Supporter 25 3 0 0 1 29

Operator 21 4 0 1 1 27

TOTAL 82 14 0 3 4 103

*NA/DK = Not Applicable/Don’t Know

 

30Operators (i.e., FMs) often rely on volunteer staff not counted as employees. Nevertheless, the number of these volunteers is almost always limited 

to one or two individuals.
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 18 

 Geographic Location and Coverage 

Organizations from all FNS regions were included in the sample (see Table 2-3). The majority of 

participating organizations involved in SBIPs in this sample were located in the Midwest, 

Northeast, and Western regions of the United States.

Table 2-3. Distribution of responding organizations by FNS geographic region

FNS Geographic Region # Organizations 

Mid-Atlantic 11

Midwest 22

Mountain Plains 8

Northeast 26

Southeast 12

Southwest 2

Western 22

Total 103

Organizations varied in their service area with some serving a local city to some others serving 

several states, with most organizations funding or supporting SBIP operations within their home 

state. Only two organizations indicated that they provided supports at the national level. The 

majority of participating organizations were focused on providing services and supports to SBIPs

at the local level, either within a particular city, several cities, or one of several counties within a 

state (Table 2-4). An additional 23 organizations provided support throughout their home state.

Table 2-4. Service area of responding organizations

Geographic service area Organizations 

Local (City/County/Multicity) 75

State 23

Regional 3

National 2

Total 103

 
Methodology and 

Representative Characteristics 2 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 19 

 Characteristics of Organizational Representatives Interviewed – Title and Time 

in Position 

Interviews were conducted with individuals who were in executive or managerial positions 

within each organization, and a small number of representatives in varying positions. Executive

positions included executive directors, chairpersons of advisory boards or coalitions, presidents, 

CEOs, vice presidents, and similar executive positions. Managerial positions included program 

managers, coordinators, and market managers. The roles and responsibilities often overlapped 

for the representatives in the executive and managerial categories. The smaller the organization, 

the more likely a representative was to have multiple roles within the context of their official 

position. Representatives in non-managerial and non-executive positions included community 

food organizers, resource developers, data analysts, and nutrition and health educators. These 

roles were generally analogous to managerial positions, with a more specific focus on an area 

such as health education or data collection and evaluation.

Representatives in executive positions had served in their current role for a longer period than 

those in managerial positions. Most representatives had been in their current position with the 

organization between 1 and 3 years, with increasing rates of turnover after 4 years.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 20 

3.1 Overview and Key Findings 

 Overview 

To explore how organizations design SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIPs), it was important 

to become better acquainted with the types of organizations that are active participants in SBIPs, 

what their organizations’ missions, and corresponding motivations and goals are for being 

involved with SBIPs. This was considered important because, fundamentally, an organization’s 

role and involvement with SBIPs is influenced by its perspectives and initial motivations for 

establishing, administering, implementing or operating a SBIP at a SNAP-authorized farmers 

market (FM). This is the information that provides the context for the design of the programs in 

terms of how they are funded; the mechanisms for identifying and/or awarding partners (i.e., the 

application process); the administrative and operating activities required for implementing and 

maintaining the programs; and issues surrounding program sustainability.

This chapter presents and describes the FMIPS findings regarding SBIP organizations:

 Missions and characteristics – overall and in terms of roles and functions with 

SBIPs, and involvement with SNAP;

 Sources of financial support, for the organization as a whole and for the SBIP 

specifically;

 Strategic partnerships for the SBIP; and

 Application and decision-making process for obtaining and awarding support and/or 

funding to organizations participating in SBIPs.

 

The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 21 

 Key Findings 

Key themes of the specific areas addressed in this chapter are highlighted here. Additional detail 

on these themes and others are presented in subsequent sections.

 For a majority of participating organizations, involvement in SNAP and SBIPs was 

relatively recent.

 SBIP activities undertaken by the organizations tended to align well with one or 

more of the organizations’ missions of increasing access to healthy foods, improving 

health outcomes, addressing social inequity, and/or improving the local economy.

Thus, SBIPs benefit multiple stakeholders, including SBIP organizations, SNAP 

participants, farmers who participate in the program, and the communities in which 

the participating markets are located.

 SBIPs were funded through multiple public and private sources. Overall funding 

streams were similar for all types of organization involved with SBIPs; however, 

more Funder organizations relied on private funding and more Operator 

organizations relied on vendor fees.

 Funder organizations tended to utilize an application process to select and award 

partnering organizations, but consistency with regard to the rigor of the process and 

the guidelines varied. Coordinators employed a mix of application and informal 

processes while Support organizations tended to report informal processes to select 

partners.

 The following factors were considered most frequently when making decisions about 

funding and partnership development: geography, mission alignment, history with 

SNAP programs, and organizational capacity to implement the SBIPs.

 Excess demand for the program, earmarked funding, and a limited desire by Funders 

to provide multiple years of funding were common challenges faced by 

organizations. Sustainability of funding for SBIPs was a major issue reported by 

many of the organizational representatives. Coping strategies to address funding and 

support challenges included changes to the program structure or delivery, staffing 

structure, reducing the incentive amount, and building fundraising capacity.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 22 

3.2 Characteristics and Missions of Organizations Involved with 

SBIPs 

3.2.1 Organizational History with SBIPs and SNAP 

For the vast majority of organizations, involvement in the implementation and support of SBIPs 

was relatively recent (i.e., starting in 2009 or after). The earliest that organizations in the FMIPS 

reported that they became involved with SBIPs was 2005. Very few organizational 

representatives reported involvement with SNAP or SBIPs prior to 2008.

It should also be noted that the FMIPS referral-based sampling technique employed to identify 

organizations for participation likely skewed the sample towards organizations most actively 

engaged in SBIP work. Based on this, the actual national average tenure of organizations 

involved in SBIPs may be even younger than what is reported here.

3.2.2 Mission of Organizations 

The FMIPS assessed the mission of the organizations in an effort to better understand the reasons 

or motivations for their involvement with SBIPs at FMs. Responses from organizational 

representatives indicated that their missions encompassed several objectives. Coordinator and 

Operator organizational representatives more frequently cited their mission as alleviating social 

inequity followed by supporting farmers. In contrast, Funders cited improving health followed by 

addressing economic and community development. Of all organization types, only 

representatives from Funder organizations did not cite supporting farmers as a mission.

However, a pervading theme of all organizations was that SBIPs benefit multiple parties: SNAP 

participants, farmers, and the broader community. In this sense, SBIPs were viewed as providing 

compounding returns. They reach beyond the direct and immediate benefit for the SNAP 

participant in the form of increased spending power, but are also indirectly benefiting the 

authorized farmers whose sales are increasing and the community by putting money back into 

the local economy and building one-on-one community relationships between farmers and 

shoppers. Organizational representatives often spoke of SBIPs as “win-win-win.”
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 23 

3.2.3 Organizational Motivations for Forming or Participating in an SBIP 

Regardless of organizational type, the most frequently cited reason reported for organizations to 

become involved with SBIPs was to increase access to healthy food, followed by increasing 

business for farmers. Addressing health disparities was also a goal shared across the full range of 

all organizational types. However, while all representatives indicated that improving health and 

reducing health disparities was an ongoing concern for their organizations, only a quarter of 

them indicated this was the reason or motivation for their involvement with SBIPs. A few 

representatives cited other reasons for their organizations to become involved in SBIPs. These 

included augmenting an underlying objective to enroll more participants in SNAP and the 

opportunity to contribute to a SBIP had become available when an appropriate partner had 

presented itself.

With the exception of one, none of the

organizations participating in the FMIPS were 

formed for the sole purpose of funding, 

administering, or supporting SBIPs. Instead, 

overall motivations for organizational 

involvement with SBIPS aligned closely with 

the overall missions of the organization.

A number of representatives of Operator 

organizations revealed that they were 

motivated to simply improve market access for 

SNAP participants. 

“...to improve the health and wellness of the 

communities where we work and play.” [Funder]

“...to work in partnership with the community to 

allow each resident of [our service area] to achieve 

their optimal state of health.” [Supporter]

“...to increase access to fresh, locally grown foods in 

historically excluded or low income communities.” 

[Coordinator]

“...to provide a means for small, local farmers to sell 

directly to the public without any middlemen, and to 

make available, a variety of quality, fresh food, 

produce basically, to an urban area of the city that 

does contain a rather large, what we call, 

underserved community.” [Operator]

3.3 Organization Budgets for SBIPs and Funding Sources 

The FMIPS sought to better understand what financial resources were available to organizations 

involved with funding, administering, supporting, and operating SBIPs at FMs. This section 

describes findings on the commonalities and differences across organizational types with regards 

to the size of organizational SBIP budgets and the funding sources of their money.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 24 

3.3.1 Organizational Program Structure and Budgets for SBIP 

For the majority of organizations, representatives reported that SBIP activities were absorbed 

into the organizations’ existing structure. About a third of Coordinator representatives reported a 

new component of the organization was designated or tasked specifically for SBIPs at FMs. 

Depending on the organization, representatives reported that it may have been managed by the 

hiring of one or two additional staff or by creating an entirely new unit within the organization. 

Regardless, the budgetary allocation for the majority of organizational SBIP budgets was 

relatively small, typically amounting to a quarter or less of the organizations’ overall operating 

budgets and in many cases “a whole lot less.”

3.3.2 Sources of Funding 

The main themes regarding the source of funds for SBIPs were that multiple sources of financial 

resources are required from a variety of different types of Funders. While all SBIP organizational 

representatives reported the need for “multiple sources of funding,” Funder organizations were 

most likely to provide an explicit number of sources required for funding at any one time and also 

to report the greatest number of sources required, which is intuitive given that their role in the 

SBIP framework is to provide the financial support for SBIPs. Funder organizations were more 

likely to report having anywhere between four and seven funding sources at any one time 

compared to two or three sources typically cited by the other organizational types.

Across all types, the most common sources of funding cited by representatives for both their 

SBIPs and the organizations in which they reside were philanthropic donations, public funding, 

and grants. Philanthropic donations encompassed donations from individual donors, communitybased organizations, and the private sector. It was this latter group of philanthropic donations, 

those from the private sector, that were the most important sources of funding across all 

organizational types. These included support from major foundations, corporate foundations, as 

well as the individual donors, and local nonprofits. The other two frequently cited sources of 

funding for the SBIPs were public funding and grants. Public funding included money from one 

or more local, State or Federal agency, and grants were funds reported as being obtained 

explicitly by a grant mechanism as reported by the organizational representative. It should be 

noted, however, that some public grants included support from municipal agencies as well as 

State and Federal level grants, including the Specialty Crop Block Grant, thus there is some 

overlap with the public funding category.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 25 

Operators were the most likely to rely on other sources of funding that were revealed such as 

vendor fees, fees for service, or subcontractor fees. For example, Operator organizational 

representatives collected fees generated from payments collected from vendors for the use of the 

market stall, from membership fees for associations and member organizations, as well as fees

for service and contractual work.

Coordinator and Supporter organizations frequently cited public funding as an important source 

of support. For these types of organizations, fundraising, typically conducted at the local level 

consumed a large amount of their time, year round, as needed to generate new streams of funding 

support in order to be able to sustain the program. It included planning of special types of events, 

sales of merchandise, or direct solicitations to individuals or organizations to raise awareness of 

the program and the need for money. Coordinator, Support, and Operator organizations also relied 

on grants much more than Funder organizations. This was characterized as required since seed 

money was often provided to begin a SBIP, and the stream of funds was not permanent. Even 

funding organizations were continually looking for new sources of funds. To this end, while 

private funding was commonly reported as a source of support for Funder organizations, and there 

is currently a great dependence upon private sector funders, some representatives expressed that 

only public funding will be able to sustain SBIP efforts for the long term. The FMIPS found that 

no Funder organizations rely solely on public funding currently for their SBIPs.

3.3.3 Challenges of Funding SBIPs 

Organizational representatives involved with funding SBIPs expressed three clear themes 

regarding challenges and obstacles for organizations trying to fund SBIPs:

 Excess Demand/Insufficient Funding: There is an excess demand for SBIPs but 

there are limited financial resources to meet the needs of SBIPS.

 Constraining Awards: Sources of SBIP funding, whether they be philanthropists, 

public or private funders, or grants, often earmark the money, which defines exactly 

how the money must be used and leaves little flexibility for SBIP budgeting.

 Funder-Fatigue: Sources suffered from “funder fatigue,” meaning they provided

initial funds or seed money to get an initiative up and running but had less of a desire 

to maintain even successful programs; must spread the wealth and could not make 

repeated awards to the same organization; or the Board of Directors may have made

a decision that they were no longer interested in SBIPs.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 26 

The pervasive challenge of insufficient funding 

was expressed repeatedly by Funder, 

Coordinator, and Operator organizations. 

Many felt that limited and uncertain funding 

dampened the ability of the programs to 

expand and reach more customers. Inadequate 

levels of funding, combined with a lack of 

dependability on even the current streams of 

funding, generated numerous concerns about 

growth, the ability of the markets to 

consistently deliver incentives, and effectively 

plan how to communicate with and support 

their communities and farmer vendors. Only 

representatives from Supporter organizations 

reported that they were unaware of or had no 

experience with specific challenges that their 

organization faced with respect to obtaining 

funding. However, these representatives and 

their respective Operator organizations were

likely to be the furthest removed from the 

financial support and fundraising aspects of 

program operations.

Organizational representatives articulated that

while the actual incentives represent the most 

visible need for funding, they account for only 

a portion of program and administrative costs. 

This theme was heavily threaded throughout 

the interviews, for example, with 

representatives from Coordinator organizations 

explicitly stating that the available funding did

not always cover administrative costs, which 

made it difficult to secure the critical resources 

to staff program operations.

“As we continue to grow, our needs for fundraising 

continue to grow as well. And we’re not the only 

player in this game. There are a lot of other farmers’ 

markets and local food organizations. They’re all 

typically going after the same funding sources.” 

[Coordinator]

“At this point, we have about $175,000.00 in match 

and we could easily use three or four or five hundred 

thousand dollars ... [Interviewer: So, your reach is 

limited by the amount of money that can be allocated 

towards the match?] Absolutely, and that is our 

major bottleneck today.” [Coordinator]

“In our area here, and I don’t know if you’ve spoken 

to anyone else, but there’s a lot of markets that want 

to take on the program. But there’s not enough 

funding to go around.” [Operator]

“I wish there was more funding for it because we 

could definitely go the whole year. We’re open all 

year, even in the winter months. The customers get a 

little discouraged.” [Operator]

“I do think multiple sources are necessary for the 

market operations, because the vendor fees alone are 

not enough to cover our yearly operational budget, 

much less any type of expansion or growth, or new 

programs that we would want to do.” [Operator]
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 27 

Funder and Coordinator representatives 

indicated that insufficient funding was further 

exacerbated by the tendency of philanthropic 

organizations to tie funding to specific 

program activities that are exclusive of other 

activities. For example, awards may have been

provided for the actual financial incentive but 

it was contingent that the money may not be 

used for any of the program’s other costs such 

as staffing, accounting, marketing and 

outreach, or other costs considered important 

to operating a successful SBIP. 

Representatives articulated that while the 

actual incentives are the most visible need for 

funding, they represented only a portion of 

program and administrative costs. This theme 

was heavily threaded throughout the interviews 

with representatives from Coordinator 

organizations who explicitly stated that the 

available funding did not always cover 

administrative costs, which made it difficult to 

secure the critical resources to staff program 

operations. 

“The funding that’s provided doesn’t cover our 

administrative costs. We’ve been able to, supplement 

that historically. At this point, that’s the way our 

funding looks [we are not going to be able to 

supplement it beyond 2013. In terms of a long-term 

solution, that is our biggest [problem].” 

[Coordinator]

“A lot of it circles around capacity and then tied to 

that is fundraising. Like I said before, it’s much more 

challenging for markets and our program partners to 

raise funds to cover staff capacity than it is for direct 

incentives, so those two kind of go hand in hand.” 

[Funder]

“It’s the reality of grant funding. I mean some 

funders will only fund you one time for one part of 

one project. We just try to diversify and get several 

funders in on the game and then we always know that 

we’ll cover our bases one way or another.” 

[Operator]

Funder fatigue reflects the desire among some Funders to provide initial funds to get an initiative

or program up and running but less of a desire to maintain funding for it even if it is successful. 

While not unique to SBIPs, the effect was particularly acute given the tension inherent in the 

very definition of the word “incentive”. The term “incentive” was often interpreted to mean an 

encouragement or intervention mechanism designed to incite action or cause change. It was

typically considered temporary in contrast to ongoing or permanent subsidies that may also be 

designed to achieve similar goals. SBIP organizational representatives suggested that Funders

may be more willing to test the concept and therefore provide initial funding for a SBIP; 

however, they were reticent to fund ongoing “subsidies.”
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 28 

These responses highlighted the uncertainty of 

philanthropic funding and the concerns among 

SBIP organizations regarding the sustainability 

of funds for these programs. They also 

revealed the differences in philosophy 

concerning the use of ongoing incentives to 

promote the purchase of fruits and vegetables 

at FMs among SNAP participants.

On the one hand, some SBIP Funder 

organizations saw the role of incentives as a 

mechanism to initially attract new SNAP 

shoppers to FMs for the purpose of having 

them continue to shop at the market even after 

the financial incentive is removed. At the same 

time, these same Funder organizations 

downplayed the likelihood that they would 

withhold funding in the near future, 

acknowledging instead that positive shopping 

behaviors observed would not likely persist if 

the financial incentives were to disappear.

“I know that the need is extremely high. The positive 

behavior of, now, utilizing the fresh foods in their 

meals has been established. I would think that would 

continue. But, whether it would be able to continue 

without the incentives at that level, I don't know. 

From what I've seen, it's been, for the most part, a 

very high needs population. I'm sure it would 

certainly impact their ability to do that.” [Funder]

“Even if they wanted to shop there, I don't think they 

could. That's the whole thing. They want to eat 

healthy food now but they can't afford it, and there's 

nothing they can do to make that money go further 

unless the prices are more affordable. I don't know 

what the right answer is...I don't know how you 

ultimately make fresh produce more affordable 

without the incentive.” [Funder]

“I think you'd have a really hard time creating that 

new behavior change for low-income communities. I 

think that the incentive programs give individuals 

that push to try something new. I think it's a push and 

incentive that needs to be there for low-income 

communities.” [Funder]

Nevertheless, most Funder organizations were faced with managing a limited amount of 

resources and directing them across multiple and competing entities. Therefore, SBIP 

organizations that have experienced funder fatigue were taking steps to prepare for the 

contingency that financial support from current funding streams could stop at any time.

3.3.4 Managing SBIPs in a Funding-Challenged Environment 

Coordinator, Supporter, and Operator organizations that already experienced or were anticipating 

upcoming challenges with sustaining their SBIP funding levels shared their experiences and 

strategies for managing and mitigating potential consequences. Representatives of Funder 

organizations were not asked about this during their interviews.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 29 

Representatives from Coordinator, Operator, and Support organizations indicated that in the face 

of funding challenges, changes had been made to their SBIPs. The majority of these cases were 

reported by representatives of Coordinator and Operator organizations since many Supporter 

organizations are less likely to be directly impacted by changes in funding. The main themes that 

emerged with regard to changes made to the SBIP, included:

 Change in SBIP structure or delivery;

 Change in the staffing structure;

 Reduction in incentive amount; and

 Development of a fundraising capability and/or expansion of existing fundraising 

efforts.

Well over half of Operator organizations reported that the impact of inadequate funding resulted 

in a counterproductive change to the SBIP structure or delivery. This coincided with over half of 

organizational representatives most frequently characterizing the change as delayed or reduced 

program implementation and the majority of these responses were from Coordinator 

representatives.

In other words, representatives of Operator 

organizations and Coordinator organizations 

were generally in agreement about the impact 

of inadequate funding, which was delayed or 

cancelled delivery or implementation of the 

program at the FM.

“We are actually offering the incentive for a slightly 

shorter period. Last year, when we started it, we 

promised to maintain it through the end of the 

calendar year. This year we’re promising only to 

maintain it through October 31.” [Coordinator]

Some organizations’ representatives indicated that funding challenges had a noticeable effect on 

the organization’s staffing structure. For example, it was mentioned that key staff, such as 

market managers, had to move from full to part time or hiring for a full-time position had to be 

postponed. Operator organizational representatives at the market-level appeared to take these 

challenges in stride without allowing changes to have a significant impact on program delivery.

A representative from a Supporter organization 

stated that they had lost their funding in 2009 

but carried on through volunteerism, literally 

without the benefit of resources to cover the 

time of their personnel.

“We were funded through the ____ Foundation. That 

funding ended in 2009. We really have not been with 

funding since then. We’ve just been a volunteer, 

collaboration of agencies, that’s really worked 

without funding. The last two years, we’ve gathered 

some small amount of money just from our member 

agencies...” [Supporter]
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 30 

A small portion of the organizational representatives indicated their incentive amounts had to be 

reduced due to a lack of funding. In these cases, the Coordinator and Operator organizations 

chose to decrease the amount of incentives each customer received in favor of extending 

incentives to as large a pool of SNAP participants as possible.

The vast majority of organizational representatives facing funding challenges reported that their 

processes for fundraising had changed significantly over time. These changes could be 

categorized as a development of the capability to conduct fundraising in and of itself or an 

expansion of current efforts. Regarding the latter types of changes, representatives recognized 

that to sustain their SBIPs, much less grow them, they needed to reach beyond traditional funders 

and those that had already given in the past.

Representatives from some Coordinator 

organizations suggested the need to diversify 

funding to create a financially healthy 

organization, again with the idea that there was 

not an abundance of dependence on any one 

Funder organization. In doing this, SBIPs 

develop broad and deep networks of support.

Respondent comments inferred that such 

investments lead to deeper community buy-in 

and organizational commitment, which in turn 

demonstrate to other potential funders the 

priority the local community has placed on the 

SBIP initiative.

Further, representatives discussed a trend that 

placed an increased emphasis on identifying 

and securing resources more locally, which 

shifts more and more responsibility for 

fundraising on the local program Operator 

organizations. This appeared to be in response 

to recent decreases in major funding from State 

and regional entities. 

“The [funders are] putting more of the fundraising 

efforts onto the markets. That makes perfect sense 

because it’s not sustainable for them either to be 

growing exponentially, and continue to look for 

funding sources.” [Operator]

“As we’ve matured as an organization, we’ve been 

able to tap into some of the private funding, 

particularly from local family foundations that a new 

organization without a track record necessarily 

couldn’t have had access to. So, I think early on, a lot 

of the public grant funds were a bigger portion of our 

budget than they are now, simply because of that.” 

[Operator]

“I would say we began operation of the program with 

grant funding exclusively, to kind of kick it off and get 

started with the mindset that we would [add] more 

sustainable methods that are kind of community 

driven for each market, and so, some were quicker to 

that than others. So that has sort of been how it’s 

changed. We’re trying to push to have all markets be 

driven by themselves that kind of fundraising 

mechanism, and also be tapping into the 

community.” [Coordinator]

“I’d say fundraising has definitely grown, and we 

have a really generous community in those respects, 

and we’ve really developed our fundraising plans 

into a really creative and robust program.”

[Supporter]
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 31 

3.4 Organizational Partnerships and Their Roles with SBIPs 

Almost all organizational representatives from the SBIP organizations reported strategic 

partnerships and alliances for the purposes of not only funding the SBIPs but also for providing 

nonfinancial in-kind support, as well. SBIP representatives indicated that their organizations’ 

missions could not be accomplished without the critical support of other organizations that share 

mutual or complementary objectives. The partnerships were with a range of entities from private 

business to city and state governments. Of the partnerships reported, six main types of entities 

with whom SBIP organizations collaborated were:

 Nonprofit organizations: included additional funders, however, references to 

community-based organizations tended to be the most frequent.

 Association-based organizations: included state or regional FM associations.

 Educational organizations: primarily consisted of extension services and 

universities conducting program evaluation.

 Health-based organizations: encompassed health centers, health care providers, 

and hospitals.

 Municipal agencies: included local and state departments of health, human services, 

and social services, as well as city governments.

 Business organizations: included banks and a variety of other local businesses.

Regardless of the entity with which they were partnering, the most frequently cited partner role 

was outreach and marketing support followed by funding support. Other roles included logistical 

support (e.g., token distribution at local food banks), advisory support from larger organizations 

coordinating more established SBIPs, collaboration with food policy councils to establish best 

practices, and technical assistance from FM associations. The full analysis of these relationships 

and partnerships are presented in Chapter 4.

3.5 Long-Term Goals of SBIP Organizations 

To understand the full picture of the organizations involved with SBIPs the FMIPS assessed the 

long-term goals for these organizations regarding their role with SBIPs. Over half of all SBIP 

organizational representatives reported goals that fell into two overarching categories, including 

meaningfully impacting individuals and refining and/or enhancing SBIP procedures and supports.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 32 

SBIP organizational representatives shared a variety of intentions that was fairly evenly echoed 

across organizational types with regard to meaningfully impacting individuals. However, the 

definition of what it meant to meaningfully impact individuals varied by SBIP organizational 

function. For Funder organizations, the majority of representatives most frequently mentioned 

increasing access to healthy foods as a long-term goal for their organizations. For Operators, 

representatives most often discussed the desire to increase the number of shoppers at the markets 

by reaching out to new customers and enticing more repeat visits by existing customers. Among 

Coordinator organizations, representatives mentioned increasing farmer sales just slightly more 

frequently than increasing access to healthy foods, followed by easing the implementation at 

FMs as their most important long-term goals.

Supporter organizations' representatives 

reported a fairly even split on a desire to 

impact shopping behavior by increasing 

customers to the FMs, increasing the purchases 

of fresh produce, thereby effecting change on 

eating habits; increasing the utilization of 

SNAP benefits at the markets; and changing 

perceptions about FMs in regard to what is 

offered for purchase, the affordability of what 

is offered, and the diversity of food selections

and customers.

“This is a really important way for them to make that 

connection. They get some nutrition education. 

They’re doing behavior change because they’re 

coming to the farmers’ market and they’re not just 

getting exposed to being able to purchase different 

foods, but they’re learning about different recipes 

that they can use and that these foods are available, 

and they can buy them from their local farmer.” 

[Coordinator]

More than half of organizational 

representatives indicated the need to refine or 

enhance how they implement their SBIP and/or 

the supports needed to do so effectively. In 

some cases this was in defined in terms of 

identifying better ways to scale up or expand 

the SBIP to more FMs while in a smaller 

portion of cases it meant development of 

transition plans to hand the SBIP over to 

organizations better equipped to continue 

operating the SBIP long-term over time.

“Long-term, we would like to see that the incentive is 

something that we could find a way to incorporate 

into our standard operating procedure. Either as 

something that always happens consistently for a 

number of months, or perhaps it’s the second week of 

every month is our incentive. Some way of 

consistently providing that type of incentive, because 

of the commitment that it shows to our communities 

that we serve. I don’t know what shape that’s going 

to take, but I think that’s our goal, to integrate it in a 

way so that it’s something that we anticipate doing 

every year.” [Coordinator]
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 33 

A number of organizational representatives 

expressed the need to refine the program’s 

procedures to make it more automated and 

sustainable. A considerable number also 

expressed the need to generate increased 

federal support through funding, operational 

support, and standardization of processes. 

“Our current program is, of course, to increase the 

fruit and vegetable consumption, but eventually to 

help steer the Farm Bill to larger benefit. To make 

sure that we have the benefit first because there’s a 

lot talk about discontinuing or reducing benefits. To 

help change the Farm Bill policy to ensure that SNAP 

benefits are a benefit to our community. That right 

now, like I said, they’ve been working on how to get 

the incentive into select grocery stores to measure 

that impact- if it’s larger than farmers’ markets 

going forward.” [Supporter]

“Well, at some point in time that is the hope, is that 

there is a third party that will take over [the SBIP]. 

I’m already starting to work on it. So it is a future for 

us, there is going to be someone else to own this. I do 

have to let it go.” [Funder]

3.6 SBIP Organizations’ Processes and Procedures for Awards 

The organizations that provide or administer funds for SBIPs routinely make decisions about 

which FMs or organizations to support. To make these decisions, the FMIPS ascertained the 

processes and procedures established and implemented among SBIP organizations for making 

choices about which potential partnering organizations to fund, in terms of the incentive and all 

other aspects of the operation. These processes and procedures were also assessed in the context 

of non-financial support, or technical support that is the training, administrative, logistical, and 

methodological support that informs and contributes to successful SBIP operation.

3.6.1 Eligibility Criteria for Awarding Funding or Allocating Support 

Services 

Not surprisingly, the eligibility criteria to allocate funding and support services varied across the 

four SBIP organization types. For SBIP Funder organizations, geographic location emerged as a 

frequent eligibility criterion for allocating funds. Representatives explained that they were 

committed to providing the program in areas where residents did not have many other food 

options. Funder organizations also wanted to avoid saturation, or clustering of several markets 

near each other, and were interested in spreading them out and increasing geographic access.
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 34 

This intention held true in both rural and urban 

environments and seemed to be driven by the 

tenets of their organizations’ missions, which 

indirectly addressed social justice and access to 

food by eliminating food desserts. Only one of 

the Funder organizations had a national scope 

of activities; the rest were regional, state or 

local in their service areas. Hence, geography 

was often a driving factor determining 

eligibility. On the other hand, geography can 

limit the eligibility pool of potential awardees 

for funds if the Funder’s emphasis is too 

focused on serving a certain geographical area. 

In one case, a Funder representative reported

that given his organization’s focus on a 

specific geographic area, there was only a 

single choice for whom to allocate the funds.

“Of course, geographical location has to fit into this. 

They have to be in our service area.” [Funder]

“The Department of Health set up district public 

health offices, in three areas of [the city], where 

studies showed that there was...we’re calling them 

fresh food deserts. There’s a huge lack of access to 

fresh produce, locally grown but even just fresh 

produce in general in those communities....The 

[SBIP] was created by the Department of Health for 

markets that are based in those communities 

supporting markets there and incentivizing people to 

use their SNAP dollars at the markets.” [Funder]

“I think [the organization administering the local 

program] are pretty much the only game in town. 

...They’ve used the term “food desert” here and I 

think that was pretty much the case. They really 

spearheaded the initial farmer’s market and some of 

these matching benefits programs to build on that, 

but before that there was really nothing.” [Funder]

For Coordinator organizations, organizational 

capacity emerged as the important criterion for 

selection and allocation of resources. These 

organizations sought to gauge capacity with 

respect to the market’s ability to conduct EBT 

transactions, prior experience with SNAP 

procedures, and organizational staff capacity.

“When the market manager is the treasurer, the 

market manager, the vendor, the everything, it 

becomes very difficult for them to have the capacity 

to run a SNAP program. That was a consideration 

that we would look at in terms of it seemed like a 

viable route.” [Coordinator]

In terms of organizational capacity, 

representatives from all SBIP organization 

types indicated that the capacity to conduct 

EBT transactions and experience with SNAP 

was an important factor in considering which 

organization to support.

“They had to demonstrate clarity on how they could 

actually increase SNAP utilization at the markets if 

there was incentives provided. They also had to 

demonstrate how they were going to do outreach to 

bring more eligible folks into the SNAP and WIC 

systems as beneficiaries. There were definite criteria 

that we utilized to assess who could become a partner 

in the consortium or not.” [Coordinator]

“... they have to be EBT-capable. And that means 

having an FNS number, getting setup with either a 

wired or wireless terminal, and having the capability 

to accept the EBT card with that alternative 

currency.” [Funder]
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 35 

For Funder and Coordinator organizations, capacity included the ability to track incentives and 

submit evaluation measures. Some Coordinator organizations also mentioned that a 

consideration for them in terms of eligibility criteria for award was whether the applicant had 

community-based matching funds. Representatives explained that they wanted to ensure that 

these organizations had thought through what it actually took to implement an SBIP and had 

made a realistic appraisal to determine if the amount of the potential award would be sufficient 

for a successful program.

Supporter organizations were the least 

discriminating regarding eligibility criteria. 

About half the Supporter representatives 

reported that their intention was to provide 

support to as many organizations that they 

could help whose programmatic goals aligned 

with their mission.

“We don't really discriminate, so we support all 

programs that advance farmers' markets and 

farmers.” [Supporter]

“I think that there are no eligibility requirements, 

with respect to the provision of technical assistance.”

[Supporter]

3.6.2 Application Process 

The criterion for the selection of award recipients appears to be purposefully planned for most 

SBIP organizations as presented in Section 3.6.1. However, the actual application process 

appears to be somewhat less consistent across SBIP organizations. For example, representatives 

from Funder and Coordinator organizations indicated that the application process was rather 

informal but in many instances went on to explain that over time the application process has 

evolved. Historically, representatives explained that organizations began with an informal 

process, often based on word of mouth, existing relationships, or limited partnership options in 

the service area of interest. Representatives from Funder organizations went on to explain, 

however, that they adjusted their application process to fit the changing needs and communities 

they served and to account for the entry of new players in the market.

Currently, most representatives from Funder organizations reported a formal application process 

was in place for awarding funds to SBIP applicants. Depending on the situation, the rigor of the 

competitive process itself once the application was received varied though depending on the 

number of applicants. As explained, this was driven by whether criteria such as geographic 

eligibility limits the pool of applicants, which in more cases than not, resulted in Funder 
The Design of SBIPs: Organizational 

Influences on Their Characteristics 3 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 36 

organizations seeking applicants rather than being directly approached by them. This made the 

application process less competitive and at times more informal.

More rigorous review and decision making was reported by representatives from Funder 

organizations that have provided multiple years of funding to specific applicants. These 

representatives reported that as community interest in the SBIP grew and more players entered 

the arena, the application and review process became more formal. Specifically, a domino effect 

occurred with increased community interest comes an increased awareness of the SBIP and an 

increase in stakeholders and collaborations. This resulted in an increased competition for the 

limited funds available; hence, a natural need for a more rigorous and competitive application 

process. Coordinator organizations tended to report the use of a more balanced mix of informal 

and formal application processes. Over half of the representatives from Support organizations 

reported no application process; they made their mission known and allowed markets to 

approach them and seek their support. Operator organization representatives, on the other hand, 

tended identify partners informally and rarely cited any process at all for identifying partners.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 37 

4.1 Overview and Key Findings 

Social network analysis was used to assess relationships between organizations involved in 

designing, implementing, and evaluating SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIPs). This analysis 

explored multiple aspects of network structures using maps to depict relationships and 

collaborative partnerships among groups of organizations and entities in a quantifiable way,31,32

and enabling the identification of emergent properties and characteristics within a network, or 

cluster, of SBIP organizations.33 As presented in Chapter 3, collaborations and partnerships were 

identified as necessary to obtain and sustain funding for SBIPs. These partnerships were also 

characterized as necessary for other critical aspects of SBIP design and implementation, as 

described later in this report. Through social network analysis, SBIP organizations and cited 

partners or referrals were studied to:

 Assess whether organizations that provide or administer SBIPs have collaborative 

relationships with other organizations;

 Characterize these relationships in terms of how similar or different the organizations 

are from one another;

 Characterize the relationships between organizations that provide financial and nonfinancial support to farmers markets (FMs); and

 Identify specific patterns or models of relationships between organizations.

Representatives from the FMIPS sample of 103 organizations described over 300 collaborative 

partnerships with other organizations related to work with FMs and SBIPs, including 

descriptions of partnering organizations’ missions, objectives, and roles. These numerous 

collaborations among the 103 SBIP organizations participating in the FMIPS and the additional 

organizations discussed by them were analyzed to examine the characteristics of the 

 

31Smith, Marc A., et al. (2009). Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on 

Communities and Technologies. ACM, 2009.

32Hanneman, R.A., and Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published 

in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/ ).

33Easley, D., and Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. New York: Cambridge 

University Press.

Social Network Analysis 4 
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 38 

organizations (e.g., function, partner type, FNS geographic region) and their collaborations (e.g., 

formality, support type). An aggregate display of the complete FMIPS collaborative network is 

displayed in Figure 4-1. Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative 

partnership and each line represents a description of that collaborative partnership. Sphere size 

represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Sphere color denotes Organizational Function, and 

Line Color denotes support type. The layout of spheres and lines is determined by the

Fruchterman-Reingold algorithm.

34

Figure 4-1. FMIPS collaborative network

 

 

34Fruchterman, T.M.J., and Reingold, E.M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw: Pract. Exper., 21, 1129–1164. doi: 

10.1002/spe.4380211102.

Spheres represent organizational function: Blue – Funders; Red – Coordinators; Orange – Supporters; Green – Operators; Black – unspecified 

Lines represent Support Type: Dark blue - financial support; Light blue - design/general business support; Dark green - logistical support
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 39 

Key Findings 

 FMIPS social network analysis revealed a complex, localized, and synergistic 

structure of organizational partnerships for SBIP networks. SBIP partnership 

networks tended to be complementary and collaborative structures, with a high 

degree of interfunctional partnerships across all four types of organizations: Funder, 

Coordinator, Supporter, and Operator organizations.

 The vast majority of partnerships occurred within FNS geographic regions, rather 

than across regions (Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Mountain Plains, Northeast, Southeast, 

Southwest, and Western).

 A common SBIP network structure included one organization that served as a 

primary SBIP Coordinator, typically a nonprofit organization embedded within a 

network of Supporter organizations working within a local service area in 

collaboration with other local partners.

 Formal relationships were often established with Funders and participating markets, 

but large informal networks of partnerships often propagated best practices and 

knowledge sharing.

 While there were multiple funding streams for SBIPs, foundations, nonprofits, and 

governmental agencies emerged as the primary funders. Local educational 

institutions and university extension services often provided consumer education and 

program evaluation support, while food banks, local health departments, and local 

social service agencies supported outreach and marketing efforts. State FM

associations’ provided guidance in program design, technical assistance, training, 

and additional networking with markets.

4.2 Analytic Categories 

Organizational networks were analyzed based on organizational characteristics and partnership

characteristics. Organizational characteristics included each organization’s primary function, the 

type of partnership they had with the SBIP, and their geographic region. The partnership 

characteristics included the nature of the partnerships and the type of support provided. 

 Primary Function 

Primary functions, as described earlier, include supporting or administering a SBIP as a Funder,

Coordinator, Supporter, or Operator. For the purposes of the social network analysis additional 
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 40 

organizations named by the 103 SBIP organizations that participated in the FMIPS interviews 

that could not be categorized into this SBIP functional typology, an “unspecified partner” 

category was created.

 Type of Partnerships 

The organizations were classified also into one of 18 types of partnerships based on descriptions 

provided during the FMIPS interviews. These were created to facilitate identification of 

common patterns or models for SBIP support.

In certain instances, SBIP organizational representatives used the terms “formal” and “informal” 

when characterizing relationships with collaborating organizations. Based on this, collaborative 

partnerships were coded as formal, informal, both, or unspecified. 

 Geographic Regions 

The USDA FNS geographic regions include Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Mountain Plains, Northeast, 

Southeast, Southwest, and Western. The geographic location of SBIP organizations and

partnerships by these regions were analyzed to assess the geographic coverage of the 

organizational networks. 

 Support Type 

To understand partnerships between organizations providing support to FMs and SBIPs, 

partnerships were further classified by support type -- financial support, nonfinancial support, 

and unspecified support. Financial support included not only providing funds but also support 

with writing grants; nonfinancial support included assistance with SBIP design and general 

business support, logistical support, and network support; and unspecified support was where 

key partnerships were 
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 41 

4.3 Clusters and Networks of SBIP Organizations: A Look at the 

Relationships of FMIPS Organizations to Each Other 

Virtually all participating organizations (96 percent) described collaborative partnerships. 

Although there was considerable variation, with a range of 0-2235 organizations and a mode of 3 

(20.4 percent of participating organizations described 3 partnerships), the average number of 

partnerships was 2.2, including organizations described without a specified SBIP function. Of 

the 18 types of organizations with whom partnerships could be formed, the most common were 

with nonprofit organizations, followed by state governmental agencies (10.4 percent), city 

governmental agencies (9.8 percent), and foundations (9 percent). The average number of 

collaborative partnerships also varied by SBIP organization type; representatives from 

Coordinator organizations mentioned collaborative relationships with an average of five 

organizations and those from Supporter organizations mentioned collaborative relationships with 

an average of four organizations. Representatives from both Funder and Operator organizations

mentioned collaborative relationships with an average of three organizations.

4.4 Organizational Composition of a SBIP Network 

 Partner Types within the Network 

Collaborative partnerships usually involved a network or cluster of multiple partner types. The 

majority of collaborative partnerships (90.5 percent) were between organizations classified into 

different partner types, e.g., nonprofits collaborating with state governments or FM associations 

collaborating with extension services. Collaborative partnerships between organizations of the 

same partner type (e.g., food banks with other food banks) comprised 9.5 percent of 

collaborative relationships.

 Geographic Coverage of SBIP Network 

The majority of collaborative partnerships within SBIP networks occur within a shared FNS 

Geographic Region. Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 below illustrate the high degree of intraregional 

partnerships between organizations (i.e., partnerships within regions). The vast majority (94.4

 

35Nine organizations did not describe specific collaborative partnerships in response to this question in the FMIPS interview.
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 42 

percent) of collaborative partnerships occurred between organizations in the same geographic 

region. This may be explained by the observation that 72.8 percent of participating organizations 

maintain a local focus at the city or county level and an additional 22.3 percent operate at the 

state level. On average, there was one interregional partnership per region, with the Northeast 

region demonstrating the highest prevalence of interregional collaborations—15 of 105 

collaborative partnerships involving organizations in the Northeast were with organizations 

outside the Northeast.

Table 4-1 presents a symmetric matrix of inter- and intra-regional ties between organizations by 

FNS geographic region. Cells summarize collaborative partnerships between each region in the 

corresponding row and column. The table shows the vast majority of partnerships occur within 

geographic regions. Figure 4-2 displays collaborative partnerships sorted by labeled FNS 

geographic region. Relationships within each region are depicted by connections across the 

circle’s diameter.36 Figures displaying individual collaborative partnerships between

organizations, grouped by FNS geographic regions, are available in Appendix D.

Table 4-1. Connection matrix: Organizations by FNS geographic region

Region 

(n = 342) Northeast Western Midwest Southeast Mid-Atlantic Mountain Plains Southwest 

Northeast

(n = 91) 90 2 4 3 6 0 0

Western

(n = 80) - 72 3 1 0 0 0

Midwest

(n = 63) - - 59 1 0 0 0

Southeast

(n = 38) - - - 36 0 0 0

Mid-Atlantic

(n = 36) - - - - 41 0 0

Mountain Plains

(n = 25) - - - - - 33 0

Southwest

(n = 9) - - - - - - 5

Note: Table 4-3 is a symmetric matrix—dashes (-) in the lower-left portion reflect equivalent values in corresponding cells of the upperright portion. Values within rows represent number of connections, while n-values represent the number of organizations in each region. 

Having more or fewer connections than the n-values are both possible.

 

36Smith, M., Milic-Frayling, N., Shneiderman, B., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Leskovec, J., and Dunne, C. (2010). NodeXL: A free and open network 

overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 2007/2010, http://nodexl.codeplex.com/ from the Social Media Research Foundation, 

http://www.smrfoundation.org.
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 43 

Figure 4-2. Collaborative partnerships by FNS geographic region

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership, and each line represents a description of that 

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a FNS geographic region. Connections between FNS 

geographic regions (intergroup) are combined and sized based on number of connections. See Appendix for figures with individual 

intergroup connections displayed.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – unspecified Partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support

 
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 44 

 Composition of SBIP Network by Function of SBIP Organization 

Overall, representatives described more collaborative partnerships between SBIP functional 

types (interfunctional) than within SBIP functional types (intrafunctional). This is exhibited in 

Table 4-2. Coordinator organizations were at the “hub” of SBIP networks, and most

collaborative partnerships exist between SBIP Coordinators and Supporters (37.7 percent of 

interfunctional collaborations). Coordinator organizations also had the greatest number of 

intrafunctional collaborative partnerships, with 20 partnerships between 34 organizations (58.8

percent). It should be noted that Coordinator and Supporter organizations are the two largest 

functional groups represented, increasing the likelihood of these groups having many 

partnerships.

Table 4-2 presents a symmetric matrix of partnerships between organizations by SBIP functional 

type. Cells summarize collaborative partnerships between each functional group in the 

corresponding row and column. The column titled “Partners” refers to partner organizations with 

an unspecified SBIP function. Partnerships by organizational function are illustrated in Figure 4-

3 and Figure 4-4. Figure 4-3 includes nonspecific Partners, and Figure 4-4 excludes nonspecific 

Partners. Together this table and figure illustrate a high degree of intergroup partnerships across 

all organizational functions, suggesting highly synergistic, rather than hierarchical, collaboration. 

Figures displaying individual collaborative partnerships between organizations, grouped by 

organizational function, are available in Appendix D.

Table 4-2. Connection matrix: Organizations by SBIP function

Function Funder Coordinator Supporter Operator Partner 

 Number of partnerships 

Funder 2 8 5 6 25

Coordinator - 20 37 28 88

Supporter - - 7 14 60

Operator - - - 4 52

Note: Table 4-2 is a symmetric matrix. Dashes (-) in the lower-left portion of the table reflect equivalent values in corresponding cells of 

the upper-right portion. Values within rows represent number of connections, while n-values represent the number of organizations by 

each function. Having more or fewer connections than the n-values are both possible.
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 45 

Figure 4-3. Collaborative partnerships by organizational function, including nonspecific partners

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Function. Connections between functional groups 

(intergroup) are combined and sized based on number of connections. See Appendix D for figures with individual intergroup connections 

displayed.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – unspecified Partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 46 

Figure 4-4. Collaborative partnerships by organizational function, excluding nonspecific 

partners

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Function. Connections between functional groups 

(intergroup) are combined and sized based on number of connections. See Appendix D for figures with individual intergroup connections 

displayed.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – unspecified Partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 47 

 Patterns and Models of Relationships Between SBIP Organizations 

Partner types most involved in collaborative partnerships are nonprofits, governmental agencies, 

FM associations, foundations, health organizations, market organizations, coalitions, educational 

organizations, extension services, and food banks (Table 4-3 and Figure 4-5). The principal roles 

of these organizations and the types of support they provide are outlined in Table 4-3. For 

example, foundations mainly provide financial support, educational organizations/extension 

services mainly provide logistical support, and coalitions mainly provide networking support. 

Partner types comprising fewer than 3 percent of collaborative partnerships are not displayed in 

Table 4-3. These include faith-based organizations, businesses, banks, food producers, and the 

Federal government.

Figure 4-6 presents the FMIPS collaborative network, grouped by partner type. Few individual 

connections are displayed within each partner type, demonstrating a high degree of collaboration 

between partner types—all partner types exhibited a high degree of intergroup partnerships. 

Figures displaying individual collaborative partnerships between organizations, grouped by 

partner type, are available in Appendix D.
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 48 

Table 4-3. Support type provided by partner type

Partner Type 

% Collaborative 

Partnerships 

Support types provided 

 

Nonprofits 27.5

State 

government 

agencies

10.4

City 

government 

agencies

9.8

Foundations 9.0

Farmers 

market 

associations

7.3

County 

government 

agencies

6.5

Health 

organizations 5.9

Educational 

organizations/

extension 

services

5.9

Coalitions 4.2

Market 

organizations 3.4

Food banks 3.1

 

 

Financial Logistical Networking Design/ Business Unspecified

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Financial Logistical Networking Design/ Business Unspecified

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 49 

Figure 4-5. Collaborative partnerships by partner types

 

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Partner type. Connections between partner types 

(intergroup) are combined and sized based on number of connections. See Appendix for figures with individual intergroup connections 

displayed.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – unspecified partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 50 

4.5 Nature of Relationships Between SBIP Organizations as 

Funders, Coordinators, Supporters, and Operators 

 Common Relationships 

Figure 4-6 presents the FMIPS collaborative network disaggregated by support type. Each 

subfigure represents a subset of the total network, displaying a specific support type. The largest 

groups of collaborative partnerships were financial supports (31.2 percent), followed by 

logistical supports (27.8 percent), and network supports (21.1 percent). Financial support was 

most often provided by nonprofit organizations (34.2 percent of coded funding partnerships) and 

foundations (21.6 percent), followed by city (9 percent), county (6.3 percent), and state 

governmental agencies (6.3 percent).

Logistical support was most often provided by nonprofits, state governments, city governments 

(9.1 percent), and/or educational institutions (8.1 percent) and extension services (7.1 percent). 

Primary forms of logistical partnerships include communication and customer education, 

program implementation, and data collection and program evaluation. Network support was most 

often provided and received by nonprofit organizations and included networking collaborations 

to establish partnerships (53.3 percent), outreach support (38.7 percent), policy collaboration (5.3

percent), and advisory support (2.7 percent). These data are not presented graphically.

Figure 4-7 disaggregates the FMIPS collaborative network based on partnership formality. 

Collaborations were described by representatives as formal, informal, or a combination of both. 

Each subfigure represents a subset of the total network by formality. In the majority of cases, 

relationship formality was unspecified (62.9 percent of coded collaborations). The majority of 

formal partnerships involved funding support (66.7 percent of formal partnerships), and informal 

partnerships generally involved outreach partners (32 percent of informal partnerships) or 

networking collaborations to establish partnerships (26 percent). Formal partnerships most often 

existed between market organizations, nonprofits, and foundations. Informal partnerships most 

often existed between nonprofits, FM associations, and county or city governmental agencies.
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 51 

Figure 4-6. Partnerships by support type

(a) Financial Support (31.2%) (d) Network supports (21.1%) 

(b) Design/General Business Support (11.2%) (e) Unspecified (8.7%) 

(c) Logistical supports (27.8%) 

Note: Connection color reflects support type—dark blue 

connections are financial supports, light blue connections are 

design/general business supports, dark green connections are 

logistical supports, red connections are network supports, and 

light green connections are relationships with core partners for 

which specific support was unspecified.
Social Network Analysis 4 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 52 

Figure 4-7. Partnerships by formality, based on representative description

(a) Formal (20.2%) (b) Informal (14.4%) 

 

(c) Both formal and informal (2.8%) 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Connection color reflects support type—dark blue connections are financial supports, light blue connections are design/general 

business supports, dark green connections are logistical supports, red connections are network supports, and light green connections 

are relationships with core partners for which specific support was unspecified. Formality was not specified for the majority of 

collaborative partnerships (62.9%).
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 53 

5.1 Overview and Key Findings 

Organizations involved in funding, supporting, or operating SNAP-based incentive programs

(SBIPs) do so because of their belief that SBIPs represent a viable approach to achieving the 

organization’s mission – to increase access to healthy foods, support farmers, or strengthen local 

communities. Organizations may venture into SBIPs either by themselves (e.g., operators) or 

forge partnerships and collaborations to implement the SBIP. Some organizations may be the 

primary source of funding while others may provide assistance with staffing, technical 

assistance, marketing, and monitoring or evaluation activities. 

The findings reported in this chapter are based on organization type (i.e., their primary role in 

SBIP implementation). As indicated in Chapter 2, the organizational typology used in this report 

was based on their primary role in supporting SBIPS. For each organization, the role that 

emerged was used to classify them as a Funder, Coordinator, Supporter, or Operator 

organization. Thus, Funder organizations provide financial support; Coordinator organizations 

are the principal fundraisers and establish, design, and coordinate the market’s participation in 

SBIPs; Supporter organizations provide support services for implementation, and Operator

organizations implement SBIPs.

However, organizations typically participate in several SBIP activities and for organizations 

seeking a role with the farmers markets (FMs), this chapter captures the spectrum of activities 

necessary for SBIP implementation. The findings reported in this chapter provide a framework 

for organizations interested in participating in SBIPs. Interested organizations may find it useful 

to review these activities and consider their resources without consideration to organizational 

typology. 

This chapter presents and describes the FMIPS findings regarding the: 

 Organization’s role in implementation of SBIPs;

 Factors that contribute to successful SBIP implementation;

How Organizations Implement SNAP-Based 

Incentive Programs 5 
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 54 

 Challenges faced in SBIP implementation; and

 Long-term goals for SBIP.

 Key Findings 

Key themes of the specific areas addressed in this chapter are highlighted here. Additional detail 

on these themes and others are presented in the sections that follow.

 Organizations participated in multiple activities to implement the SBIP, ranging from 

fundraising to data collection and evaluation. Within each domain (e.g., funding), 

organizations provided staff or financial support to administer the program. 

 All four organization types indicated that a major challenge to implement the SBIP 

was inadequate funding, followed by staffing and market capacity, and marketing 

and outreach. 

 Funding challenges were reported more frequently by representatives from Funder 

organizations than any other organization type; they indicated that funding was 

provided for the incentive itself, the funds were insufficient for program 

administration. 

 A similar proportion of representatives from the Coordinator, Operator, and 

Supporter organizations to Funder organizations reported accounting challenges. 

More representatives from Coordinator and Supporter organizations than Operator 

organizations reported staffing and market capacity as a challenge; these 

representatives indicated that they needed dedicated staff to track the SBIP and 

reconcile the accounts at the end of each market day. 

 The indicators of success reported by SBIP organizational representatives aligned 

well with the organization mission. All four organization types indicated that 

utilization by the community was a key indicator to assess SBIP success. 

 While increasing sales and EBT transactions was the second most important 

indicator of success, fewer representatives from Funder organizations than 

Coordinator, Supporter, and Operator organizations reported its use. It is possible 

that increasing sales and EBT transactions are considered an aspect of utilization by 

representatives of Funder organizations. 

 All four organization types indicated that for SBIPs to succeed, critical areas to be 

addressed included marketing and outreach, followed by staffing capacity, and 

funding. Representatives emphasized that getting the word out and promoting the 

SBIPs are a critical factor for their success.
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 55 

5.2 Organization Role in SBIP Implementation 

SBIPs are perceived to have the ability to increase SNAP participant access to high quality farm 

products by addressing cost barriers to shopping at FMs. However, information on 

implementation of SBIPs is limited. To this end, the FMIPs assessed the roles and support 

provided by organizations that are involved with SBIPs through the qualitative interviews. As 

indicated in Chapter 2, the organizational typology used in this report was based on their primary 

role in supporting the SBIP. For each organization, the role that emerged as the most prominent

was used to classify them as a Funder, Coordinator, Supporter, or Operator organizations. Thus, 

Funder organizations provide financial support; Coordinator organizations establish, design, and 

coordinate the market’s participation in the SBIP; Supporter organizations provide support 

services for implementation; and Operator organizations implement the SBIP.

It is worth noting, however, that organizations were multidimensional in the services they 

provide and, in many cases, performed overlapping functions. For any given implementation 

activity (e.g., financing or marketing and communication), different organization types may 

make unique staff or resource contributions or pool their staff and resources for program 

delivery. The specific services and support provided by each organization type fall within a 

continuum of broadly defined support or service activities. Given the various categories of 

support, activities undertaken by each organization type can also be considered complementary 

in nature. It was evident that the support provided by each organization type was situational,

hinging on the unique circumstances of the program, the network within which the program is 

embedded, and the distinctive capabilities of the participating organization. 

The role and support activities reported by representatives were pooled across the four 

organization types to generate a comprehensive list of activities undertaken to implement SBIPs. 

These activities included financial support, communication and marketing, technical assistance 

and training, program operations, and data collection and evaluation. As evident from the list, the 

emerging activities encompass the end-to-end aspects of program implementation. Based on the 

available staff and resources within an organization, additional partnerships may need to be 

formed to support necessary activities that they are unable to undertake.
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 56 

 Financial Support 

Implementing SBIPs requires funding for the incentive itself, distribution of the incentives, and 

administration of the overall program. While smaller Operator organizations levied vendor fees 

to support the incentive and the administration, larger FMs networked with other organizations to 

receive financial support for the incentive itself, administration, or both. In this study, Funder 

organizations were most engaged in providing financial support for the incentive and sometimes 

for the administration of the SBIP.

While a few Funder representatives indicated 

that their organization was the major or sole 

funder for the SBIP, some others indicated that 

they funded a specific component of the 

program such as development or management 

of financial tracking systems. In contrast, a 

substantial number of representatives from 

Coordinator organizations indicated that they 

were the primary fundraisers and assisted with 

grant writing activities undertaken by Operator 

organizations. Coordinator organizations 

provided financial support to SBIPs both 

through direct funding and through indirect 

fundraising efforts by brokering relationships 

with donors and funding agencies and 

soliciting resources. To a much lesser degree, 

Supporter organizations also provided some 

financial support, by serving as a pass-through, 

assisting with proposals and fundraising, and 

also by covering the costs of specific program 

elements such as the cost of EBT machines or 

wireless access fees for one or more FM. 

We work with them not only to fund it, but also to 

help build those partnerships in the community, to 

identify locations for new farmer’s markets in 

communities where there’s a need for them. Then 

we’ve also addressed it from a policies perspective. 

We’ve worked within the city to change policies 

around how farmer’s markets open in the city. 

[Funder] 

“So, we are a funder. We aren’t in the day to day 

operations of anything that we fund.” [Funder]

We provide financial support for whatever the needs 

might be, whether it be the purchase of machine, 

staffing, marketing and communications. We’ve even 

helped build a little shed for one of our farmers 

markets to protect the tokens from getting wet in the 

rain. [Funder]

Our organization raises the funds that are used to 

pay for the vouchers, the reimbursements to the 

farmers. We sign an MOU, with each of the markets 

that we’re working with. At some markets, they’re 

doing the distribution, and some of them have also 

contributed with some of the fundraising efforts, 

which we’ll probably talk about later on. We’re 

disbursing the money to the market operators, and 

they disburse it to the individual vendors. 

[Coordinator]

In terms of day-to-day operations, [we’re] the 

operator, the fund raiser, the grant reporter, the 

promoter. I feel like, within our association, we pretty 

much do it all. [Coordinator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 57 

 Communications and Marketing 

Communication and marketing of SBIP is necessary to inform, influence, and motivate SNAP 

participants to attend the market and avail themselves of the SBIP. Developing effective multilevel 

communication and marketing strategies involves tailoring messages at the individual level, 

targeted messages at the group level, social marketing at the community level, media advocacy at 

the policy level, and media campaigns at the population level.37 Well-conceived and implemented 

communication and marketing efforts have the capacity to influence behavior changes of the target 

audience. In the context of SBIP, communication and marketing activities that were mentioned 

included statewide marketing campaigns; presentations at venues such as schools, community 

meetings, and FMs; outreach using signage, brochures, flier distribution and posting at various 

locations including social service agencies, food pantries, and local businesses; and 

communication with vendors on the alternative currencies used at the market. 

In general, Funder organizations play a critical role in communicating the program need to 

potential donors, but they are the least engaged in communications and marketing aspects of 

SBIP described in the preceding paragraph. While one representative from Funder organization 

indicated that marketing and communications was one of the many ways its funds were utilized 

by the market, another indicated that “they tried a whole host of different marketing techniques, 

and one of the most important was getting the county to mail to SNAP participants a flyer.” 

Coordinator organizations are instrumental in developing a system or a structure and working 

with the market managers and vendors to promote the program. 

Coordinator organizations serve as messengers 

to broadcast market success stories and 

challenges to the broader community including 

the media and other organizations so as to 

increase the reach of the program through 

additional funding for a given market or for 

additional markets. 

Representatives from Coordinator 

organizations were engaged in writing press 

releases and discussing the program with other 

We also tried a whole host of different marketing 

techniques, and one of the most important was 

getting our county to mail to SNAP recipients a flyer. 

They mailed everybody who was within a mile of one 

of these markets a flyer saying that they were 

accepting SNAP benefits at the markets and that the 

incentive existed. I think that was really helpful in 

getting the word out. [Funder] 

We attended that [meeting], as did our local senator, 

to talk about some the work they’ve done locally with 

the farmer’s market and the greenhouses and other 

stuff, and to show our support for the organization, to 

help them get additional funds. [Funder]

It’s a lot of stuff like that, just kind of trying to create 

 

37Bernhardt, J.M. (2004). Communication at the core of effective public health. American Journal of Public Health, 94(12): 2051–2053. PMCID: 

PMC1448586. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448586/. 
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 58 

agencies and organizations; developing and 

posting signage, brochures, fliers at various 

locations including translations in local 

languages, discussing healthy eating habits 

with SNAP participants, and encouraging them 

to shop at local FMs.

a system that’s easy to replicate, so that when we 

have meetings with managers or farmers we have 

tools in place to explain the process and, you know, 

signage and little cheat sheets and handy, you know, 

little messaging that we can all share and use and 

our employees can understand and communicate to 

our customers. [Coordinator]

Responses from representatives from 

Coordinator, Supporter, and Operator 

organizations suggest that FMs and SBIPs at 

FMs were discussed in the context of 

developing healthy eating behaviors. Cooking 

classes and demonstrations at different 

locations including the market were often used 

as a vehicle to communicate the availability of 

different produce at the market, along with the 

message that these markets offer an SBIP for 

SNAP participants. Supporter organizations 

also promoted the program to the community 

and provided on the ground support to develop 

and distribute marketing materials. 

Interestingly, one representative from the 

Supporter organization highlighted the 

collaboration across different organizations in 

marketing campaigns and outreach. 

Though not as prevalent as Coordinator, 

Supporter, or Funder organizations, Operators 

did mention posting fliers at local businesses 

(e.g., coffee shops, barber shops, etc.) and 

leaving postcards at community centers. The 

representatives from Operator organizations 

discussed communication and marketing in the 

context of promoting different currency 

options and seeking buy-in from more vendors 

at the market. 

We provide the actual signs for Market Match for the 

thirteen markets with which we work. [Coordinator]

Our role is, it’s really promoting the program out in 

the community introducing the clients for the 

program as much as we can. It’s also having an 

infrastructure in which the customers are used to 

coming to our information booths. We facilitate the 

information booths so that the customers can redeem 

these vouchers. [Supporter]

Our on-the-ground role is in helping to create 

marketing materials and distribute them. We’ve 

worked recently with the ____ Grower’s Association 

to create some packets that go out to WIC and Senior 

Farmers Market voucher recipients. That includes 

this whole packet of information about [the SBIP]. 

Also, we’ve created a schedule this summer of special 

Cal Fresh clinics that will be included in these 

packets. I will be doing Cal Fresh application clinics 

at a variety of sites throughout the county.” 

[Supporter]

We’ve been doing a lot of work with them to figure 

out ways to target SNAP recipients to try to increase 

education about the program to make sure that 

everyone with SNAP benefits knows that they can use 

them at the Farmer’s Market and that there is that 

benefit of the ...coupons. [Operator]

We have a whole communications department and 

they've just made a point to put information about 

[the incentive program] in all of our Farmers' 

Market flyers, anything we're distributing, and any 

kinds of postcards we're sending out. We're trying to 

get it known that way as well. [Operator]

“The training is really a matter of communicating 

with our vendors at the beginning of the season as to 

what the different types of alternative currencies are 

that will be coming in, what they can do with them, 

making sure that they have that information, and then 

just checking in periodically to make sure that 

nobody has any questions on it. I don't think there's 

any formal training that we provide” [Operator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 59 

 Technical Assistance and Training 

FMs with a long history of SNAP authorization and seasoned vendors and market managers may 

be well versed with the process to setup EBT machines, convert SNAP funds to tokens or scrip, 

and redeem SNAP and incentive benefits. However, markets considering SNAP authorization 

and SBIPs require guidance in establishing the needed infrastructure and the processes for 

implementing SNAP and SBIPs. This technical assistance and training is critical to 

inexperienced vendors and an important component of preventing the misuse of SNAP funds and 

fraud. 

In this study, Supporter organizations were the 

most engaged and Funder as well as Operator 

organizations were the least engaged in 

providing training and technical assistance to 

implement the SBIP. Since Operator 

organizations implement the EBT and SBIPs, 

training and technical assistance is targeted at 

staff in their organization. One representative 

from the Funder organization mentioned that 

they provided training to the market managers 

to process invoices and setup e-fund accounts. 

Probably the most important role is that we provide 

technical assistance to markets who are past 

participants in the program, and technical assistance 

to those who are newly implementing EBT at 

farmers’ markets. That’s things like helping markets 

get through the FNS SNAP Retailer Authorization 

Application and figuring out their accounting 

programs, helping them order supplies, helping them 

get set up with a card services provider or merchant 

services provider, generally holding their hand with 

that kind of thing. [Supporter]

I’m still providing technical assistance to the 

farmers’ market manager. I updated the training 

guide, the vendor agreement, and all of the 

supporting documentation that’s needed to train the 

vendors. [Supporter]

Representatives from both Coordinator and 

Supporter organizations discussed providing: 

the technology (EBT machines) and the 

training to use the EBT machines; guidance 

and assistance in setting up the infrastructure 

for the incentives; and help troubleshooting 

when problems arise. 

We’ve created an Accepting Federal Nutrition 

Assistance Benefits at Farmer’s Markets Guide, a 

guide for markets. We’ve shared that statewide so 

markets in other parts of the state, whether it’s ____ 

county or ____ county. They’ll often call us, and we 

do provide some technical assistance. Then we also 

refer them to either the State Department of 

Agriculture .... [Coordinator]

At the market level, we made sure that the group had 

clarity on what they were trying to do. We worked 

with each member of the consortium to clarify the 

mission which was to increase the market place for 

specialty crops, while insuring that low-income folks 

had access to those specialty crops, within the 

farmers' markets, and an incentive to do that. 

[Coordinator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 60 

Representatives who stated that their organization provided technical assistance and training 

indicated that their audience included program staff (e.g., administrative support or establishing 

partnerships) and their approach was face-to-face interactions. Those who indicated providing 

technical support reported also interacted with market managers but they were not necessarily 

directly involved with program delivery and therefore interacted by telephone with the managers.

 Program Operations 

Operating the SNAP and SBIPs at FMs involves setting up the infrastructure (i.e., design), 

obtaining the EBT machine and tokens, handling SNAP transactions, and distributing the SNAP 

and incentive tokens. Representatives from all Operator organizations were engaged in every 

aspect of program operation. Funding organizations were the farthest removed from program 

operations with only one Funder representative indicating that organization’s involvement in 

purchasing tokens and distributing these across their grantee markets. 

Representatives from Coordinator and Supporter

organizations were involved with program 

management; they indicated staffing the 

program to EBT machine and manage the FM 

token system being used (see Section 1.2). In 

addition to their coordinator role, 

representatives from Coordinator organizations 

provided on-the-ground operational support, 

often in the form of supplemental staffing; the

level and scope of support they provided was 

extensive and encompassed several aspects of

program operation. A few representatives from 

Coordinator and Supporter organizations also 

indicated support of data collection, record 

keeping, sharing of best practices, and data

reporting to other stakeholders. One 

Coordinating organization representative stated 

that they created tools and forms to assist 

market managers with program implementation 

and another from a Supporter organization 

indicated they developed online manuals for 

FMs and farmers.

[We] were not provided a lot of, you know, templates 

or instructions on best practices of how to run the 

program day-to-day when it first started, because 

everyone was so new to the concept within the group 

exchange consortium. So we created tracking forms 

and reporting structures and tokens, the systems that 

our managers could keep up with [Coordinator].

[We] want to make sure that we get the program out, 

and sometimes the requirements per market, per 

market manager, are so different, and for one I have 

to man a machine, I have to be there, present, all the 

time, and if this market is three times a day, three 

times a week, that takes up a huge chunk of my time. 

After that you also have to do the reporting for the 

week, for the month, just so you can keep on top of 

things, for when the reports are due... everything is 

where it needs to be. And then also meeting with the 

farmer market managers, talking with the vendors, 

with the farmer’s, everything, it just takes a very long 

time. You need to supplement it with something else, 

or else it would be impossible. [Coordinator]

Then we’re responsible for formatting what sort of 

data is being collected, providing support for how 

bookkeeping was being done by the three markets, 

and ultimately aggregating all of the data that was 

collected over the course of the pilot. That will 

continue to be done as we move forward with our 

summer season, aggregating that, assessing it, and 

reporting on it. [Coordinator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 61 

5.3 Challenges in SBIP Implementation 

SBIP implementation can present unique challenges ranging from marketing and outreach to 

management of incentive tokens. Anticipating challenges and developing strategies to mitigate 

issues or problems are important when considering best practices for SBIP implementation. To 

this end, the FMIPS interviews included discussions with the organizational representatives on 

challenges their organizations had experienced when implementing SBIPs.

The four commonly cited challenges across all organization types were marketing and outreach, 

funding, staffing and market capacity, and accounting. Market culture and growing pains were 

also reported as challenges by some representatives. Coordinator organization representatives 

cited multiple challenges; this can be attributed to the comprehensive and diverse role of 

Coordinator organizations in program implementation. In contrast, representatives from Funder 

organizations reported marketing and outreach as a definite challenge, with some also citing 

challenges with accounting, staffing, or market capacity. Many representatives from Supporter

organizations discussed concerns about sustainability of the program’s funding and/or fluctuating 

availability and sources of funding to support the program. Representatives from Operator

organizations reported that having to constantly fundraise in addition to operating the market was

challenging and burdensome. When these challenges are considered together, it is apparent that 

SBIP implementation represents collaboration from several organizations, with no single 

organization having the capacity to perform all activities or tasks. 

 Marketing and Outreach 

Marketing and Outreach emerged as one of the 

top challenges for all four organization types.

Representatives from each organization type 

reported different aspects of the challenges to 

marketing and outreach; Funder organizations 

described the challenge as identifying 

populations to serve; Coordinator 

organizations described challenges with 

program branding and recognition; Supporter

organizations described it in the context of 

Folks that live in underserved communities and are 

dealing with lower incomes and are physically the ones 

that are hardest to get to in terms of getting your 

message out there and finding them where they are and 

in their place and appealing to them with what we do. 

[Funder]

...providing clear communication and branding of the 

program, something that will make sense both to the 

market but especially to our SNAP participants. 

Something that they’ll understand, especially that people 

from one county will understand as much as the people 

in another county will understand. That’s something 

that’s a challenge that we’ve encountered. 

[Coordinator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 62 

limited outreach due to financial limits; and 

Operators defined the challenge as “getting the 

word out” due to staffing issues.

The challenge is in marketing and getting the word out 

and farmers markets not having enough budget to do a 

proper job of getting the word out that this program 

exists. [Supporter]

A lot of people in our area aren’t even aware that we 

have a farmers’ market. They’re especially not aware 

that we accept EBT, and have even more incentives 

beyond just EBT. It’s an issue of getting the word out. 

Also, staffing is an issue because our staffing is limited, 

being a nonprofit. It’s basically one person in charge of 

running all of that. [Operator]

 Funding 

Funding challenges were cited more frequently 

by representatives from Funder and 

Coordinator organizations than by 

representatives from Supporter and Operator 

organizations. Representatives from Funder 

organizations discussed funding challenges in 

the context of lack of funding for program 

administration; representatives from 

Coordinator organizations discussed funding as 

a supply and demand issue with high demand 

and insufficient funding supply; those from the 

Supporter organizations discussed 

sustainability in funding as a challenge; 

Operators discussed funding from a staffing 

perspective (i.e., staff time to undertake 

fundraising activities).

One of the things I think is important is that people

who fund the incentive program also need to fund the 

administration of the incentive program. [Funder]

Our biggest market, we’ve always run out of 

incentive funds halfway through the Summer. That’s 

a present challenge. [Coordinator]

There are some private foundations that are involved 

in funding, and there might be some corporate 

support going on. I think that’s the biggest challenge, 

how to increase the funding base. [Supporter] 

The hard part is having an eye toward all the things 

we have to do to run and have a successful market. 

Adding fund-raising on top of that is another set of 

skills and another focus area for us. So that is 

challenging but I think we’re growing in our capacity 

to do that over time. [Operators]

 
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 63 

 Staffing and Market Capacity 

Staffing and market capacity was mentioned 

more frequently by representatives from 

Coordinators and Supporter organization than 

from those in the Funder and Operator

organizations. Representatives from 

Coordinator organizations clearly articulated 

staffing needs, stating “what is needed is a 

person with the time and expertise to manage 

this program.” Both Coordinators and 

Supporters mentioned the difficulties of 

training the market staff and getting the most 

out of a completely volunteer-run market.

It really became obvious that we needed to have 

somebody dedicated who could accurately keep track 

and also reconcile the books at the end of every day 

so that we didn’t have vendors not being paid back 

correct amount, et cetera. It just was a lot of 

accounting needing to happen there. [Coordinator]

And then we have new farmers and vendors that we 

sign on to season and then having to, particularly in 

the low income neighborhoods you have to kind of 

train them on how to sell to residents in those areas 

and they might need to change their product mix 

depending on ethnicity and what the cultural 

preferences are. So that’s a big fun challenge. 

[Supporter]

 Accounting 

Accounting challenges including tracking the 

number and volume of transactions relating to 

the SBIP and these challenges were reported 

primarily by representatives from Operator 

organizations. Accounting challenges cited by 

representatives from Operator organizations 

ranged from being very general, “all the 

accountability measures have been some 

challenges,” to very specific (e.g., tracking of 

paper coupons), with the most of accounting 

concerns revolving around reporting or 

bookkeeping issues. Most Operator 

organizations clearly stated that accounting 

was necessary since they had to report their 

transaction sales and numbers to the Funders. 

Responses from Coordinator organization 

representatives suggested that that these 

organizations had to bear the brunt of the 

We want to know exactly what each vendor’s getting, 

what’s getting turned in, and we document 

everything. It’s very time-consuming. I often wonder 

what I did before the match. [laughs] I don’t know. 

When you deal with an outside agency like the ___

Foundation, they need special documentation also. 

We deal with the city and our accounting company 

that deals with the market, they have to have special 

documentation. The paperwork inside of it was the 

hardest part of implementing everything. [Operator] 

There were some very real transactional issues early 

on. Do we use wooden coins? What do we do? 

What’s the proper way to do this? How do we 

distribute it, how do people get reimbursed? All those 

issues around just creating systems, were figured out 

[by Coordinator staff]. That was really her expertise 

and her job to do that. It took a while to make sure 

everything was running smoothly. [Funder]

Accounting and bookkeeping of the incentives, added 

a lot of volume to the already [laughs] tedious nature 

of our system. [Coordinator]

One of the big things has been, particularly when we 

brought in a new partner, particularly if they were a 

small association in a low-income community, 
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 64 

reporting and bookkeeping, primarily because 

they supported the market managers by 

providing administrative support for SBIP 

implementation. 

Representatives from Funder organizations 

provided some insight into the factors 

contributing to the accounting challenges, they 

stated that while bookkeeping was not a 

challenge by itself, the use of multiple forms of 

currency and the use of token systems to 

implement the SBIP added to the accounting 

tasks.

helping them build the capacity to do the paperwork 

to be involved with a government agency. Specialty 

crop money requires a ton of paperwork in terms of 

documenting all of your invoices. Our first year we 

were audited and we’re being audited again this 

year, for the third year of operation. For the two of 

the four years that we’re going to run this program 

we’re being audited. That requires, and keeps our 

minds clearly focused on, the need for good 

documentation. We have spent a tremendous amount 

of time helping our smallest partners, least-capacity 

partners, to provide the documentation that we need. 

[Coordinator]

5.4 Definition of a Successful SBIP and Factors Contributing to 

Program Success 

5.4.1 Definition of a Successful SBIP 

Organizational representatives presented multiple indicators in their definition of success. Three 

different indicators of success emerged and these were in keeping with the organizational 

missions or roles. The most frequently cited definitions of success were utilization by the 

community, followed by increased sales and EBT transactions, and increased access to healthy 

foods. Representatives from Operator organizations defined success by the ability to increase the 

FM audience, increase SNAP transactions, and increase access to healthy foods. Coordinators 

organizations generally agreed with Operator representatives, however more of these agree with 

Funders and deemed an increase of sales for farmers or vendors as a strong measure of success.

Finally, Supporter organizations provided the most diverse collection of definitions for SBIP 

success, much of which overlaps with the other three organization types. However, Supporter 

organizations considered producing repeat customers or a consistent market audience as 

important to measuring the success of the SBIP as the other prominent indicators of success (e.g.,

increase access to healthy foods, increase sales for farmers or vendors) mentioned by other 

organizations.

 
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 65 

 Utilization by the Community 

Increasing the local economy, increasing the customer base or audience, increasing the vendor 

pool, and producing repeat customers or a consistent market audience were considered elements 

to define utilization of the FM and SBIP by the community. The term “community” was used as 

a catch-all term to include the city or town, in which the FM resided, the farmers who sold their 

produce at the markets, and both repeat and unique customers. 

The majority of representatives indicated that 

being utilized and by extension being valued 

by the community is what defines a successful 

SBIP. Commonly cited indicators of a 

successful SBIP included continued increase in 

its audience pool, repeat customers, and a 

strong customer base, and increase in the 

vendor pool. Some representatives stated that 

being able to meet the community needs (e.g., 

offer needed products, impact the community’s 

local economy) is also an indicator of success.

I would say that pieces of success for a program at a 

farmer’s market would be getting to every eligible 

participant that currently uses SNAP in our county 

[Supporter]

People becoming repeat customers meaning people who 

make us a part of their daily lives and their family’s 

lives, that is a measure of success. [Coordinator]

From an economic perspective that helps you 

understand that every one dollar sold from farm order, 

the financial impact in the local economy. Ultimately, 

over the course of years the SNAP incentives that we’ve 

offered have had over a million dollars of impact in the 

local economic system. [Coordinator]

 Increased Sales and EBT Transactions 

Increased sales and EBT transactions included 

responses such as more sales for farmers or 

vendors, and a greater number of SNAP 

transactions at the market. Defining success by 

an increase in sales and EBT transaction was 

mentioned by approximately a half of the 

representatives from all four organization 

types. For Coordinator organizations increased 

redemptions and transactions at the market was 

the largest measure of success.

The more money the farmers make, the more farmers 

want to come to the market. I only make money if I 

have farmers. The more farmers I have the more 

money I make, because my costs are pretty much 

fixed. I’ve got _ number of parking spaces. If I fill a 

parking spot up every day, I generate more income 

than if I have half of them. Mine’s all based on the 

more farmers I get, the more money I make. 

[Operator]

One that is providing additional sales for the farmers 

to help make them and the farmers market more 

viable. [Coordinator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 66 

About a quarter of the representatives indicated 

that impacting FM revenue positively was an 

indicator of success. Increasing sales make the 

markets more viable and attractive to other 

potential vendors.

More specifically, about a quarter of the 

representatives indicated that the increase of 

SNAP transactions (not sales overall), both 

within and across FMs, is a valid measure of 

the success of SBIPs at FMs.

Lots of people come to use their SNAP benefit at the 

market. People are eating more fresh fruits and 

vegetables locally grown, that the vendors are happy, 

that it’s profitable for the vendors, which it is, that 

the system works smoothly so they can move through 

the system easily. [Coordinator]

If we look at last year, or if we look at 2011 versus 

2012, you can see an increase in participation. 

Certainly, from 2012 going in to the season this year, 

2013, I’m pretty certain there’s going to be an 

increase in markets accepting SNAP dollars. But in 

terms of the incentives, that’s an area that still is 

slowly building up. [Supporter]

This indicator of success lends itself to being measured in two different ways—the value of 

SNAP transactions or the value of reimbursements provided to the vendors. While not explicitly 

discussed, organizations with a mission to serve farmers may be more inclined to define success 

based on the value of reimbursements provided to the farmers. If SNAP participants exchange 

their benefits for a scrip based market currency, whether paper or tokens, the market gets 

reimbursed for the entire value provided but the SNAP participant may have unused scrip 

currency. Thus, unused scrip currency may benefit the market but not necessarily the vendors or 

SNAP participants.

 Increase Access to Healthy Food 

Responses such as providing access to fresh, 

healthy, and or organic food options at the 

market were considered indicative of 

increasing access to healthy foods. Thirty 

percent of representatives indicated that being 

able to increase access to healthy foods is an 

indicator of success. 

Encourage more customers to use their SNAP 

benefits at farmers markets, and to purchase fresh 

fruits and vegetables to stretch their benefits dollars 

so that they can purchase healthier foods. 

[Coordinator]

My definition of a successful program...I would think 

just enabling low income folks to access healthy 

produce and doing outreach to get them to this 

market, the fact that they're also being educated on 

how to go about eating healthy. [Operator]
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 67 

Other less frequently cited indicators of 

success included influencing public policy; 

impacting health outcomes of customers; and 

gaining financial sustainability.

Increase access to healthy food in underserved areas 

for persons receiving food assistance. If you can do 

that and you can show you've done that, you've pretty 

much done 50 percent of the job. [Funder]

5.4.2 Factors Contributing to Successful SBIPs 

Organizational representatives shared their opinions regarding several facets of the concept of 

SBIP success. These discussions were important for the development of a comprehensive 

understanding of factors and types of support most important to ensuring a successful SBIP.

Representatives cited several important factors

necessary for a successful SBIP; these factors 

involved activities in funding, marketing and 

outreach, program operations, and data 

collection and evaluation activities. 

Approximately a third of the representatives 

cited funding or financial support (direct or 

indirect) and community buy-in (from farmers, 

customers, and the local community) as factors 

most important to a successful SBIP.

Nearly two-thirds of the representatives stated 

that activities undertaken for marketing, 

outreach, promotion, “getting the word out,”

advertising or education are critical to succeed 

in the SBIP implementation. More 

representatives from Funder, Coordinator, and 

Supporter organizations than Operator 

organizations considered marketing and 

communications activities as critical factors for 

program success.

I do think funding is important, I can’t say that 

enough. Funding would be important because you 

can do the marketing, you can also guarantee that 

there is the personnel there that’s needed to do that, 

and to carry it out as it grows. [Operator]

I think other successes involve really having a lot of 

farmer buy-in. It’s important that the producers in 

the market understand the benefit of the program, so 

that they can help to promote it and to be a part of 

the success as well. [Coordinator]

The challenge with market associations sometimes is 

that they are very much seen as an outsider from a 

community. When you’re bringing a market into a 

low-income community, there very much needs to be 

a sense of ownership and the market meeting the 

demands of the consumer. [Funder]

I think finding ways to be creative in promoting the 

awareness of the incentive outside of the market, to 

places that the low-income families may already be 

gathering and shopping or seeking information, so 

that you can encourage to give farmers market a try. 

[Operator]

I would say the ability to outreach and promote on a 

statewide, centralized level, to have good connections 

with both state and county offices that can help to 

promote the SNAP-based incentives at farmers’ 

markets. We’re finding that they’re most successful in 

communities that have good relationships and 

champions in their Department of Social Services 

that can help create outreach materials or distribute 
How Organizations Implement SBIPs 5 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 68 

outreach materials to the community, the target 

community specifically.[Coordinator]

In the context of program operations, slightly 

less than a half of the representatives indicated 

that staff capacity was critical to success and 

this included having the right people in the 

right positions, to be able to hire individuals 

with the necessary skills sets (e.g., 

accountants), providing training and technical 

assistance to staff as needed, and simply 

utilizing and enhancing a market’s human 

capital. Fewer representative from Funder 

organizations than from Operator, Supporter, 

and Coordinator organizations emphasized 

these factors as critical to success. 

Slightly more than a third of the 

representatives indicated partnerships are 

crucial to the success of a SBIP. These 

representatives articulated that successful SBIP 

implementation depended on action of many 

kinds of groups with different capabilities in 

implementing and sustaining the program. An 

agreement alone was not enough. Partners 

must act together to produce something that 

would not exist without them.

It would be really helpful to have funding for staff. 

They’re barely able to do everything that they need to 

do at the market, let alone have time to do outreach 

stuff. It would be wonderful if they had the time to do 

that but, like I said, most of them are volunteers, they 

have full-time jobs doing other things. There’s just 

not enough time. [Coordinator]

That adds considerable burden to markets, if they 

don’t have a market manager or somebody to run the 

EBT machine and keep track of all that. Lastly, I 

think you need somebody there on site -- at least 

initially, when you’re getting a new group of people 

coming in -- to really coax them through the process 

of how the market works, of how the point of 

purchase setup is. So that people aren’t coming into 

that and intimidated by not knowing. And dealing 

with the embarrassment that comes along with that, 

where you see everybody else coming in and out, 

doing their own thing.[Supporter]

For example, the organization that runs one of our 

local Farmer’s Markets also does a lot of 

community education around community 

gardening. [Supporter]

I will say the foundation has an interesting role in 

the community. Sometimes we can convene 

people...people return my calls because I’m 

connected to money. It’s just the way this job 

works. So sometimes if there’s an issue at a 

particular market or we’re having a problem, I 

can convene a meeting and get people to come to 

the meeting and we can really address that 

immediately and work on it. [Funder]
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 69 

6.1 Overview and Key Findings 

Performance data provide a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the efficiency and 

effectiveness of almost any program. Findings from program evaluation can help planners and 

implementers identify the aspects of the program that are working well and the components that 

require improvement. As indicated in Chapter 1, SNAP-based incentive program (SBIP) 

evaluations conducted to date have mainly reported program impact in terms of the dollar value 

of SNAP and incentive redemptions. Some evaluation reports have also noted challenges to SBIP 

implementation. To develop a complete understanding of the organizations involved in 

conducting and utilizing performance and impact evaluation data, the organizational 

representative interviews inquired about whether their respective SBIPs participated in selfevaluation and if so, whether their organization was involved in the process. If their 

organizations were involved with the process, further discussion with organizational 

representatives was conducted to establish:

 What, if any program performance and evaluation data were collected (e.g., SNAP 

benefits and incentives redeemed, vendor satisfaction, customer satisfaction, etc.);

 How the data was were used;

 What if any data were collected regarding the impact of the SBIP on sales and SNAP 

redemptions at the market level; and

 Whether the organization would provide the FMIPS access to these data.

This chapter focuses on how organizations evaluate SBIPs and addresses the following 

evaluation activities:

 Collection of program performance data;

 Types of program performance data collected;

 Dissemination and use of evaluation data; and

 Support or participation in formal evaluations. 

How Organizations Evaluate SBIPS 6 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 70 

 Key Findings 

Key themes for the specific areas addressed in this chapter are highlighted here. Additional detail 

on these themes and others are presented in the sections that follow.

 Of the 75 representatives responding to the question on collection of performance 

data, most indicated that their organization was involved in collecting SBIP 

performance data. At the organizations that collected performance data, about a third 

of the representatives indicated that their organization was involved in the annual 

evaluation conducted by a large national funding and coordinating organization. 

These representatives were from Coordinator, Supporter, and Operator organizations. 

Supporter organizations engaged in more formal evaluations comprised of university 

faculty and/or students, whereas Funder organizations often engaged in informal 

evaluations involving anecdotal feedback from SNAP participants. Some Funders 

expressed interest in obtaining more rigorous metrics of program performance.

 The degree to which organizations collect data, the dimensions examined, and the

rigor applied to the data collection and examination process varied widely. 

Quantitative electronic benefit transfer (EBT) and incentive sales and transactions 

data were collected routinely by Operator organizations and disseminated to Funder, 

Coordinator, and Supporter organizations and other stakeholders. A majority of the 

organizations indicated that EBT transaction data were tracked to represent the 

amount of SNAP benefits deducted from the participant’s account, but a small 

number tracked the reimbursements provided to the vendors in lieu of purchases 

made using SNAP benefits. In some instances, organizations indicated tracking 

both, the EBT benefits deducted and the reimbursements provided to the vendors. 

 About two-thirds of representatives indicated that their organization collected 

information on customer participation or satisfaction. Most of these representatives 

indicated that their organizations collected anecdotal qualitative data to understand 

program implementation and reach. Some Coordinator and Funder organizations 

conducted customer surveys to assess their FM purchases and fruit and vegetable 

consumption behavior. These surveys were done infrequently and varied in the rigor 

with which they were conducted. 

 The performance data were used to improve program delivery, obtain additional 

funding, and enable regulatory reporting. Operator organizations viewed quantitative 

measures (i.e., EBT and incentive redemption values) as a reporting requirement and 

relied on qualitative assessments to increase community buy-in to shop at farmers 

markets (FMs). Coordinator, Supporter, and Funder organizations used quantitative 

and qualitative performance measures (i.e., EBT and incentive redemption values 

and customer feedback) to assess progress in relation to their goals, to make program 

improvements, and to secure additional funding for program improvement and 

expansion. Coordinator and Supporter organizations also indicated that performance 

data were used for SBIP policy discussions and advocacy.
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 71 

6.2 Organizations Engaged in Collecting Data on SBIP 

Performance and Impact 

A total of 74 representatives answered the question as to whether or not their organization 

collected program performance data and 58 indicated that their organization did collect some 

type of performance data. Among the organizations that collected SBIP performance and/or 

impact data, the types of measures utilized and the approaches to collecting and analyzing these 

data differed. Organizations worked together as well as relied on each other to collect evaluation 

measures. While Funder organizations relied on Operator and Supporter organizations for routine 

(e.g., number and dollar value of SNAP and incentive redemptions) quantitative program 

performance data, they also conducted their own quantitative and quantitative surveys to obtain 

non-routine performance data (e.g., consumer or vendor surveys).

Representatives from Funder organizations indicated that their organization set expectations or 

established reporting requirements. Those from Coordinating organizations reported that they 

managed the assessment process, collated the data from across multiple markets, and were often 

responsible for reporting data to Funders. The Operators, who implement the SBIP and manage 

SNAP EBT and incentive transactions, emerged as the front-line managers of data collection. 

Representatives from Supporter organizations, particularly those based within educational 

institutions indicated that they were occasionally tasked with the role of gathering and analyzing 

data not captured through EBT transactions (i.e., customer surveys). A few representatives from 

Supporter organizations indicated that they served as external evaluators and conducted formal 

evaluations.

Virtually all representatives from Funder 

organizations indicated that they expected the 

participants of their funding to report how 

resources were used and to what effect (i.e., 

performance data). However, a few 

representatives from Funder organizations 

expressed disappointment with the reporting 

they received and expressed an interest in 

obtaining more rigorous metrics of program 

performance, with some exploring the value of 

underwriting future external evaluations. 

We track market-level data. It’s like new customers 

per market, where the dollars are being spent, how 

many farmers we’re reaching, that sort of stuff. 

We’re also looking at partnering with the 

University’s Food and Nutrition service on analyzing 

our individual customer’s data, which is provided to 

us by the state EBT office. They want to look at zip 

codes and benefit allotment and dates of birth and 

purchasing trends and habits based on individual 

card numbers. That’s something we’re really exciting 

about looking at. We’ve never had the opportunity to 

do that, so if that comes to fruition that some more 

evaluation that we can take a look at. [Funder] 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 72 

Representatives indicated that the importance 

of such data were not simply to fulfill an 

administrative requirement but were useful to 

identify strategies for program expansion or to 

inform future funding decisions.

Approximately two-thirds of the 

representatives from Funder organizations 

reported that they “received” such data from 

their grantees, and more specifically, from the 

Program Coordinator. Although most Funders 

are not explicitly engaged in collecting the data 

directly, about two-thirds of the representatives 

from Funder organizations reported that they 

were actively involved in collecting 

performance data for the SBIP programs that 

they fund. But in most cases, these measures 

were informal, amounting to little more than 

the gathering of anecdotal feedback from 

customers.

I always try to talk to folks at the market and just get 

an understanding. Some of my best conversations are 

with folks about this, because you realize how 

important it is. I think we need a formal interview 

process, just to understand. The surveys have been 

incredibly helpful in helping us understand where 

people first learned about the program, and where 

they’re coming from. [Funder] 

Slightly less than one-half of the Supporter

organization representatives interviewed 

indicated that they were involved in data 

collection and/or analysis of performance data.

Among the Supporter organizations that 

reported this activity, a handful of 

representatives indicated that such data 

collection was actually their primary role or 

responsibility. Supporter organizations, 

typically educational institutions or extension 

offices, indicated that they were sometimes 

approached specifically to conduct an external 

third party evaluation.

We have a lot of data that gets collected about [the 

incentive program]. What we’re going to be 

specifically involved in this year are the sales 

records, both tracking customer transactions as well 

as vendor redemptions. As far as customer 

transactions they’ll track first-time SNAP customers 

at the market, whether or not they came to the market 

specifically because of [the incentive program], and 

then obviously the amount of SNAP used and the 

amount of [incentives] used. [Supporter]

We feel like the incentives are probably contributing 

to that increase in SNAP in farmers’ markets. We try 

to support that assumption, through participant 

interviews and other data collection methods 

involving participant interviews, meaning SNAP 

users at the farmers’ markets, vendors that are 

participating in the program at the farmers’ markets, 

and market managers. So we try to support that 

conclusion with information that we gather through 

those types of interviews and surveys. [Supporter]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 73 

All but two Operator organizations

representatives reported that their organization 

did not collect performance data. Given that 

virtually all Operator organizations are directly 

involved in the administration and 

management of SNAP transaction data (i.e., 

the number of transactions and SNAP sales, 

both of which are considered critical 

performance measures), it is possible that these 

two representatives did not consider routinely 

collected sales and transaction data to be 

“performance” measures. For program 

Supporters and Coordinators, collecting 

performance data was an integral part of 

program operations.

We keep track of which farms get which amount of 

dollars. Every transaction gets entered into Excel. 

We also keep track of how much gets swiped on their 

card versus how much comes out of our incentive 

grant money. It’s just all hard numbers. [Operator]

We record every check that’s given out to those 

vendors, we even know we’re even able to tell where 

our SNAP customers are spending their money. 

Because one vendor will be all produce, another will 

be all fruits. Some of them will be meats, some of 

them will be baked goods and things like that. 

[Operator]

Because we were asked by our incentive funders what 

the percentages were, and we found out that 78 

percent of our SNAP customers are spending their 

money on fresh fruit and vegetables, and smaller 

percentages on meat and baked goods. [Operator]

Well we track the data of how much EBT was spent, 

how much [incentive] is spent, how many [incentive] 

customers were there, how many new customers were 

there. Then occasionally, we’ve done surveys to ask 

people if it’s impacted their diet, if the incentive 

program has caused them to buy it, purchase more 

fruits and vegetables, and some of their general 

comments about the program. [Coordinator]

 Perceived Impact on Shopping Behavior if Incentive was Eliminated 

Representatives were asked to reflect on their 

SBIP and provide their perceptions on how this 

program impacted shopping behaviors and 

whether or not these behaviors will persist if 

the incentive was eliminated. Although a wide 

range of responses were provided such as “yes, 

it will persist but not for everyone” or “no, it 

will not persist for the majority of people,” the 

modal response was that shopping behavior 

would be curtailed if the incentive were 

eliminated. Disaggregating these responses by 

organization type suggested that 

representatives from a given organization type 

From what we’ve seen, they actually are. We have 

kept track of some SNAP transactions at some of the 

markets. From what I’ve seen, there’s a slight dip in 

the amount of people...they need certain changes, 

that largely persist. You see people stop going to the 

market, but the people who continue largely spend 

more money, making up, basically compensating for 

the money that they’re no longer getting from the 

SNAP incentive program. [Coordinator]

The question is what happens to an individual’s 

behavior if the incentives go away, it depends on how 

long they’ve been shopping at Market. If they were 

previously a shopper and they became EBT eligible 

and they started getting the benefit, they’re going to 

continue being a Market shopper. [Coordinator]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 74 

responded similarly. For example, Funders 

and Coordinators tend to be more cautious by 

indicating that there is not enough data or 

information to determine an outcome if the 

incentive was eliminated. Both Operators and 

Supporters tended to lean more on the 

optimistic side with half respectively indicating 

that SNAP participants will indeed continue to 

shop at FMs despite the lack of incentive. 

While representatives from all four 

organization types ultimately appeared to be in 

agreement that there would be a decline in 

SNAP use at FMs if the incentive was 

eliminated, there was a difference in the 

perceived significance of the decline across 

representatives.

6.3 SBIP Performance and Impact Measures Collected by 

Organizations 

Among the organizations that collected performance measures/performance data, representatives 

indicated that multiple measures or indicators were collected to assess the performance and 

impact of the SBIP programs. The four measures that were commonly gathered included: EBT 

sales or transactions; customer participation and/or satisfaction; incentives distributed; and 

incentives redeemed.

Of the 75 organizations that responded to the 

question on collection of SBIP performance 

and impact measures, nearly 80 percent of 

reported that they collect EBT redemptions or 

transaction data; these are the most 

fundamental measures that are also a part of 

standard operating procedure. These EBT sales 

or transaction data provide a quantitative 

We have tracked usage all along the way, so we can 

show that there's a significant increase over time and 

we've also been able to track people who come back. 

We know if we're getting repeat customers at these 

markets, and we are, and we're really excited about 

that. [Funder]

We tracked growth and spending per market but that 

was about all we did [Coordinator]

The evaluation has been done by the [Coordinator]. 

There's probably a couple levels of evaluation. Part 

of is looking at the financial evaluation of it. Like, 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 75 

assessment concerning the use of incentives 

(e.g., by how many and how much). More 

Operator and Coordinator organizations than 

Funder or Supporter organizations collected 

information on EBT sales and SBIP 

transactions. A small number of Operator 

organization representatives indicated that their 

organization tracked redemptions at the vendor 

level by tracking reimbursements provided to 

each vendor.

are people using it? Are they spending more? 

[Supporter]

In addition to tracking the redemption of the coupons 

and tokens from our vendors, we also track sales by 

category. We look at what was the total of Ag 

products sold at the market on a given day? What 

was the total of craft products that were sold and 

what was the total of prepared food items that were 

sold. That enables us to see and understand that the 

Ag products are really the driving force in our 

market. That’s what our customers are coming for. 

Having been able to see the increase in farmers and 

have that mapped to the increase in sales that we’ve 

seen, tells us that our market is still growing and is 

healthy, and probably can continue to grow at a 

more modest rate. [Operator]

Nearly two-thirds of all organizations actively 

collected data from the users’ perspective as 

key dimensions of performance. Customer 

participation and satisfaction surveys were the 

second most commonly cited performance 

measures. These measures were collected using 

a variety of data collection procedures, ranging 

from carefully administered surveys to 

informal collection of anecdotal data. Informal 

assessments ranged from casual discussions to 

unsolicited feedback provided by customers. 

Sometimes Supporter partners assisted with 

these activities (e.g., from education-based 

organizations) and more in-depth surveys were 

administered to gather qualitative and 

quantitative measures. 

We’ve done occasional market assessments, where 

we’re getting four questions answered with a dot 

survey by the customers that happen to come through 

the market that day. [Operator] 

...we haven’t done any formalized, quantitative data 

gathering. We haven’t surveyed customers, but we 

have gathered qualitative voluntary statements kinds 

of things. Anecdotes from individuals. We’ve just had 

grateful customers. We’ve had people who were so 

appreciative of the program, from the customer’s 

side. Those add to the stories that we can tell about 

the incentive program. We have people who were 

coming to the market even late in the season last year 

saying, “Wish I had known about this sooner. It 

would have really made a big difference for me.” 

[Operator]

We have done interviews, and the [university’s] 

School of Health was interested in our program, and 

last year as SNAP customers would come to the 

wireless machine, there was a grad student from the 

school, who would conduct a survey, “How far did 

you travel? Why did you come here? How many times 

do you come to the market, now?” [Operator]

A few Coordinator and Funder organizations 

conducted customer surveys to assess the 

dietary, health, or lifestyle effects of SBIP 

participants. 

We’ve done consumer surveys in the past and, of 

course, it’s validated questions around purchasing 

habits, that type of thing. Of course, people are going 

to respond positively in those surveys. One of the 

things, as an organization, we’re looking at -- it’s a 

no-brainer that if you double people’s dollars they’re 

going to come to you so it makes sense the amount of 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 76 

distribution of benefits we’re giving out is rising --

but what we’re really interested in are we truly 

impacting health measures and health outcomes? 

[Coordinator]

We also survey our program participants, the actual 

shoppers. We do a round of consumer surveys every 

year that kind of gives us a really good picture on the 

kind of effects we’re having on people’s diets and 

eating behaviors that ask questions like ““How many 

times do you shop at the Farmers Market? How much 

money do you spend each time? Have you seen your 

food and vegetable consumption increase since 

you’ve shopped at the Farmers Market?” so on and 

so on. [Funder]

Approximately one-third of all representatives 

from all organization types indicated that they 

collected SBIP participation and satisfaction 

data from vendors or farmers. Representatives 

from Operator organizations indicated that 

such data collection was integral to evaluating 

the market procedures and operations and to 

assess and improve program implementation. 

Representatives from Coordinator 

organizations indicated that such data was 

helpful to plan technical support and assistance 

activities. 

Usually, once a year, we’ll survey the vendors. 

They’re basically very happy with the program. It’s 

brought them a great deal of money. It’s brought 

them more income. [Operator]

We did have a vendor survey where we asked how 

they felt about the program. There was a significant 

amount of support. Obviously the fresh fruit and 

vegetable producers felt the program the most, but 

because SNAP was up in general, other vendors also 

found an increase in sales from the program, and 

really appreciated it. [Operator] 

We also do surveys at one point or another with a 

farmer that pertains to what they feel is helping them 

in the program, what part of the program is very 

helpful to them. [Supporter]

Then we also do an in-depth vendor survey for all of 

our market vendors. We, among the things related to 

SNAP and that incentive, we ask them their 

perception of how that has impacted their business. 

[Coordinator]

We also use it as an opportunity to check-in with our 

[farmer] partners, and hear how their seasons went, 

what their primary challenges were, so that we can 

continue to keep a pulse on the national network and 

identify areas that we should be focusing our 

technical support on for the coming year, and for the 

national convening that we hold each spring. 

[Coordinator]

We survey the farmers who participate, and we 

survey the markets, to get their input on what they're 

seeing happen, how we can make improvements, or 

adjustments, or what's going right there. [Funder]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 77 

The third and fourth most frequently gathered 

performance measures were the value of 

incentives redeemed and the value of 

incentives distributed to SNAP customers. 

These quantitative measures may be tracked 

more frequently since they can be integrated in 

the system used to track SNAP transactions 

and redemptions. 

Demographic characteristics and SNAP card 

numbers of SNAP customers were gathered by 

Supporter organizations. These measures were 

gathered to assess utilization of FMs by unique 

and repeat customers.

We track how much each market has swiped and 

distributed, we also track, of course, how much they 

were reimbursed because that's what we base our 

reimbursements to them upon. We can see the 

difference between what's been swiped and what's 

been reimbursed. [Funder]

We provide each farmers market with these tracking 

sheets, and we require them to fill the tracking sheets 

out every market day, and submit them to us monthly, 

or regularly...With that data, we calculate the 

number of individual users who come to the farmers 

market...well, the number of individual SNAP 

participants listed under a SNAP incentive program 

monthly and for the whole season. We also just 

essentially add up the monetary value of both the 

SNAP benefits fund, and SNAP incentives funds. 

[Coordinator]

As part of the requirements for the grant, every 

partner submits an evaluation form each month and 

that tracks the number of [incentives] distributed and 

redeemed. Those are the core numbers. 

[Coordinator]

We track the outgoing tokens. We have a spreadsheet 

where we track how many transactions we do each 

market and how many of those use the incentive, just 

once a week, per consumer. That's how much goes 

out in SNAP tokens themselves, then how many SNAP 

incentive tokens are distributed each 

week.[Operator]

We know exactly how many people were involved in

the program and how many coupons were given and 

how many redeemed and then also cashed in at the 

market. [Supporter]

6.4 Dissemination and/or Use of Performance Data 

Organizations used performance data to be compliant with reporting requirements, for program 

improvement, to secure funding, and for advocacy and policy. Often, these measures were also 

used to assess progress in relation to their organization’s goals related to SBIP.
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 78 

Compliance with Reporting Requirements 

Almost two-thirds of the representatives from 

Supporter organizations and one-half of the 

representatives from Coordinator and Operator 

organizations indicated that they collected 

performance measures to report progress to 

stakeholders and funders – including 

governmental organizations, with many 

representatives identifying it as a regulatory or 

Funder/stakeholder requirement.

Then really what our Finance Department requires 

are the reports from the machine from you guys 

wanting to know how much revenue was there in 

transaction versus how much are we paying out for 

vendors. That’s what finance likes to see. Because if 

we’re paying out a hundred-thousand dollars but we 

only had $80,000 worth of transaction, there are 

some red flags there. [Operator]

We used to have to turn it into the state. We reported 

to them. Now we do it for us and because it helps 

when we go to try to get more donors or grants. 

[Operator]

We collect what’s called a cert. It’s a selfcertification form. What it does, it allows us to prove 

to the Federal Government that we’re doing our job. 

[Supporter]

[for the Health Department] we record all of the 

Health Bucks and the amount that are distributed 

every day. [Supporter]

[That information goes to] the community and any 

agency that’s helping to support it. Of course it’s 

shared with funders. It shared with agencies like 

DHS so that they can look at how the incentive 

program is working as well. [Supporter]

Every year we report back to the Human Resources 

Administration, how the program did the prior year 

with our redemption numbers, and the reach and 

impact we’ve had with the evaluation mechanisms 

that we’re able to do. [Coordinator]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 79 

 Program Improvement 

Over one-half of the representatives from 

Funder, Coordinator, and Operator 

organizations indicated that they used 

performance data to guide program 

improvement and/or modify program delivery. 

Specifically, organizational representatives 

mentioned that such data were used to identify 

barriers in to attaining their goals, activities 

that worked or did not work in the context of 

their daily operations, outreach strategies for 

recruitment of additional vendors and 

shoppers, ways to reach their target audience 

and engage the community, and to improve 

their program delivery.

I think the data is so that we can obviously make the 

program run better. We want to do that. It’s to 

understand who’s using it and when. [Funder]

We generate reports about how well we’re doing and 

whether we’re meeting our goals, and share that with 

farmers to try to help them to change what they’re 

bringing in response to different things that we see 

happening in the numbers. This year, for example, we 

scheduled our special events based on the attendance 

numbers at certain weeks last year to try to be 

responsive to what we see happening on the ground 

as we go forward with planning. [Coordinator]

One big piece of it is to inform program 

improvement. Let me give you a good example. When 

we learned about how negatively the lack of public 

transportation was impacting people’s ability to go to 

the market, through the [Coalition], the group started 

working with the local public transportation 

authority to see if routes could be added. 

[Coordinator]

At our outreach sites, we survey and primarily it’s 

questions like “will you try this recipe at home? What 

skills did you learn today?” Mostly, we use that 

information internally to improve our programs and 

tweak how we’re serving our community. Which 

recipes are the most effective for reaching children 

versus teenagers? Which programs have the highest 

level of engagement and enthusiasm? [Operator]

Basically, we have compared it. We use it see the 

success of the program and to report the success or 

not. Obviously, keeping track to make sure we have 

funds to still do the incentive. Mostly, we’re 

collecting the data to see how it’s impacted the 

market, and be able report that to the board, and to 

our members, as far as how things are working. 

[Operator]

 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 80 

 Secure Funding 

Representatives from Coordinator and Supporter organizations also utilized performance data to 

obtain ongoing funding for the incentive itself and for program implementation. A few 

representatives from Operator organizations elaborated that collecting and disseminating the data 

to stakeholders helped them realize the value of using performance data and improve their 

understanding of how it can help them to monitor the program or secure additional funding. 

These data enabled them to assess how long 

they could continue with the program. As a 

result of this realization, representatives from 

Operator organizations indicated that they no 

longer perceived these reporting requirements 

as a regulatory burden. Representatives from 

Support, Coordinator, and Funder 

organizations clearly stated that performance 

data enabled them to secure additional funding 

to refine, continue, or expand the SBIP. These 

data were also used to make decisions to 

expand or scale back the program.

Pretty much what we used it for was we used it to try 

to get additional funding, to show how effective the 

incentive was. [Coordinator]

We use it in fundraising and, because of that, I know 

that our SNAP match has increased steadily over the 

last three years. [Coordinator]

It’s also a helpful fundraising tool. I can’t stress that 

enough. If you can show people that we’ve seen an 

increase in the usage, of staff. There’s just a lot that 

you can show and, depending on the foundation, 

philanthropy really likes data. That’s very helpful. 

[Funder]

It can’t be understated, the value of having really 

good tracking systems for what you’re doing, 

otherwise, you can’t look back and say, “Well, look 

how awesome we are,” and pass that on to the people 

that might be interested in supporting your program 

and helping it grow. [Funder]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 81 

 Program Advocacy and Policy Debate 

About one-half of the representatives from 

Supporter organization and one-third of the 

representatives from the Coordinator 

organizations interviewed used the 

performance data to promote and advance 

policy debate concerning SBIPs, particularly in 

the context of program expansion and 

sustainability.

We shared it with all of the partners who were 

involved. We’ve shared it with our state health 

department. We’ve shared it at conferences, like the 

Public Health Association, the State’s premiere 

Public Health Conference, with Health care 

organizations and various coalitions of folks that are 

interested in doing a similar type of program. We 

have shared it with some of our local elected 

officials. We are starting to share it a little more now 

with some civic organizations. With entities within 

the health care system that are making their plans for 

implementation of the Affordable Care Act. 

[Supporter]

We give a lot of presentations to groups throughout 

the city. I had to speak before the [State] Public 

Health Association, at their annual meeting. It’s the 

region public health associations, health 

departments, groups of physicians or clinicians 

interested in what we’re doing, funders obviously. I 

sent some data to a lobbyist in Washington who was 

working on advocating for a nutrition incentive 

funding piece of the Farm Bill, which I don’t think 

was approved. She wanted as much information as 

she could get from us on how to support nutrition 

incentive programs across the country. I get calls 

from other cities who are interested in doing this, I 

talk at conferences. [Supporter] 

It’s also used for policy education, in order to inform 

the movement and the eventual goal of having an 

incentive like this, become more a permanent part of 

food assistance programs. [Coordinator]

I love to have data that I can share with media to 

help sell the story, to get them to realize how 

important this is, and to help get them to help build 

some momentum for this. [Coordinator]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 82 

6.5 Support or Participation in Formal Evaluations 

Less than 10 percent of all organizations 

reported involvement in a formal program 

evaluation. It is likely, however, that Operator 

and Supporter organizations may not be fully 

aware of their contribution to evaluation (i.e., 

the provision of routine data) conducted by 

Funder and Coordinator organizations. 

Representatives from Operator and 

Coordinator organizations participating in 

formal evaluations specified that that these 

evaluations tended to gather data from multiple 

markets. Typically these data included: weekly 

federal nutrition benefit usage; incentive 

dollars distributed and redeemed by 

corresponding program; total incentive dollars 

redeemed at all FMs they supported; the 

number of farmers redeeming federal benefits; 

and vendors unable to redeem federal benefits 

for each market. Representatives reported 

sharing these data and subsequent analyses 

with the lead Coordinators, Funders, and other 

stakeholders including the government. 

Representatives from Operator and 

Coordinator organizations discussed three 

models for data exchange across organization 

types. Under the first model, market managers 

and coordinators provided data to the Funders; 

in the second model, individual vendors 

uploaded or shared their sales directly to with 

the Funder organization and in the third model, 

local universities and academicians were 

engaged in collecting and analyzing the data.

Through [our Coordinator Organization] we receive 

funding from the [National Funder Organization]. 

We provide them with data about usage at the 

market. For general markets, they specifically look at 

token distribution versus redemption and the 

amounts, and how that changes over time in a 

market. [Operator]

We’re collecting data. We are reporting that back to 

[the National Funder Organization]. [Operator]

Actually, we probably don’t do as good a job of that 

as [FNS] would like. We collect what we need to 

make our funders happy. [National Funder 

Organization] has an online portal where the farmers 

actually enter all their information themselves, as far 

as their sales and things like that. We don’t track a 

lot extra. [Coordinator]

At the end of the season getting the farmers to submit 

their data to [the National Funder Organization] 

which they do directly, not through us. I think that 

took some time, as well. Kind of nagging and 

reminding them that even though they’re busy with 

harvest, [Funder] wants to know how much they’ve 

sold. That was a bit of a harder piece, too, 

administratively. [Coordinator] 

We’ve done some work with [our] State University. I 

think I mentioned them earlier. They did 400 surveys 

at our market over about four or five months, trying 

to get some customer feedback for us. It helped us 

evaluate some of those things that we’re interested in. 

Who’s coming, how far they are coming from, do they 

feel welcome, and what would they like to see there. 

[Operator]

Then we have a part-time Ph.D. on staff that does all 

of our evaluations, so I’m kind of the outsider on 

that. We have an extensive data collection process 

and evaluation process to evaluate these things. 

[Coordinator]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 83 

In addition to these evaluations, approximately nine Operator, seven Coordinator, and two 

Supporter organization representatives indicated that their organization participated in the 

relatively standardized data collection that was conducted by a large national organization. This 

national organization provided funding, coordination, and technical assistance for SBIP 

implementation and required or expected the funded participants to participate in ongoing data 

collection activity. Given its reach and resources, this national funder organization is able to 

manage an annual data collection and analysis summarizing the findings across scores of SBIPs 

nationwide.

Most representatives characterized participation in this national evaluation as fairly 

straightforward with minimal data collection effort, yet a few commented on the difficulties 

associated with data collection, especially the considerable need for follow-up with vendors. 

These different perspectives on participation probably reflect differences in organizational 

capacity and the clarity with which expectations concerning data collection are conveyed.

Coordinator organizations tended to serve as the link between the national funder organization 

and the local markets. While some representatives from Supporter organizations recognized the 

value of performance data, Supporter organizations within most SBIP networks were not directly 

involved in the data collection process, and Supporter organizations directly involved in data 

collection were of a specific partner type, either educational institutions or extension services. 

(Stratification by partner type is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7).

In keeping with the general tendency to be 

distanced from data collection, only two 

representatives from Supporter organizations 

mentioned any involvement with the national 

evaluation conducted by a National Funder 

Organization. And as the accompanying quote 

indicates, for non-academic Supporter

organizations, the support role did not include 

actual data collection; in this case these 

activities were conducted by a partner from an 

educational institution.

[Our educational institution partner] is gathering 

data for [National Funder Organization]. I think we 

all know that you need to count transactions. You 

need to show results. The important thing is to 

capture that information. [Supporter]
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 84 

6.6 Program Monitoring and Evaluation of SBIPs: A Closer Look 

Representatives affirming that their organization collected program performance data were asked 

whether their organization was able to provide the study team with market level performance 

data for all markets where they supported the SBIP. The purpose of securing these market level 

data was to develop a comprehensive list of the performance measures that are available and to 

examine program impact using the most commonly available measures.

Performance measures data were provided by 14 organizations representing a total of 222 

markets. Specifically, 10 Coordinators provided data for 217 markets and four Operators 

provided data for five markets. Some organizations were not agreeable to sharing self-evaluation 

data for a variety of reasons. The most commonly cited reasons were that they did not have 

authority to share the data and/or these data were not available to be shared with the public; they 

were collected for use by their funding or coordinating organization.

Of the 14 responding organizations, Coordinators varied considerably in the number of markets 

in which they supported SBIPs, ranging from one to 71 markets. In contrast, Operators 

organizations typically administered incentives in a single market. Only one Operator

organization administered incentives in two markets (Table 6-1).

Table 6-1. Number of markets for whom quantitative data were provided by organization 

function

 Overall Coordinator Operator 

Number of organizations 14 10 4

Number of markets where incentive was supported in 2012 222 217 5

Number of organizations supporting incentives at: 

Only 1 market 4 1 3

2 to 10 markets 3 3 1

11 to 20 markets 3 3 -

20 to 80 markets 4 3 -

Product purchases permitted using incentives
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 85 

SNAP participants can use their benefits to purchase a wide range of food products including 

breads, cereals, vegetables, meat, and dairy. Edible plants (such as herbs) and seeds are also 

allowed. Organizations were asked which of the following food items could be purchased with 

incentives provided to SNAP customers – fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, breads, and seeds.

All Coordinator and Operator representatives reported that incentives could be used for purchase 

of fruits and vegetables. However, only two Coordinators and one Operator organizational 

representative indicated that purchases were limited exclusively to fruits and vegetables. Four 

Coordinators and three Operators did not pose any restrictions on use of incentive funds (i.e., the 

incentives could be used towards purchase of all SNAP-eligible products sold at the market 

[Table 6-2]). For any given organization, the types of product purchases permitted did not vary 

across markets (i.e., organizations had a set of standard allowable purchase policies that were 

implemented across all markets).

While incentive providers were not asked about their approach to developing a list of allowable 

product purchases using incentive funds, a small number of representatives indicated that they 

allowed incentive funds to be used for all SNAP eligible food products sold at the market since 

they did not have the resources to monitor the use of incentive funds if allowable products were 

limited to only fruits and vegetables (Table 6-2).

Table 6-2. Types of products purchase permitted using incentives at farmers markets

Types of Products* 

Overall 

(N=14) 

Coordinator 

(N=10) 

Operator 

(N=4) 

Fruits and vegetables only 3 2 1

Fruits, vegetables, and seeds 2 2 -

Fruits, vegetables, seeds, other 1 1 -

Fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, bread, seeds, and other 7 4 3

Fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, bread, seeds, other – No seeds 1 1 -

*Other products purchases permitted using with incentives included jams, jellies, honey, nuts, and baked goods other than bread. The 

other products permitted varied by incentive provider, some permitted nuts only whereas some others permitted only honey, jams, and 

jellies. One organization permitted purchase of baked goods.

 Organizations Making Changes to Evaluation and Additional Measures Collected 

To understand the scope and depth of monitoring and evaluations undertaken by the incentive 

providers, representatives from participating organizations were asked if and how their 

organization’s evaluation process of SBIPs at FMs changed over time. A total of six 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 86 

Coordinators and two Operator organizations reported that they had made changes to their 

evaluation (Table 6-3) so as to understand the characteristics of incentive users and to improve 

data accuracy (Table 6-3). One representative from the Coordinator organization indicated that 

that the new evaluation (i.e., the change that was made) would provide them with the information 

necessary to obtain additional funding and to refine their outreach efforts. Similarly, a 

representative from one Operator organization indicated that the change in evaluation would 

enable them to plan community outreach efforts. While six Coordinator organizations collected 

additional quantitative performance data to evaluate their incentives, none of the Operator 

organizations did so. Three Coordinators conducted customer surveys to assess changes in their 

shopping and/or consumption patterns and three tracked the number of unique, new, and/or 

repeat customers at the market. The number of unique and repeat customers was tracked using 

the SNAP card numbers collected by these organizations.

Table 6-3. Type of change and reason for change in incentive evaluation by organization type

Organization Type of Change Reason for change 

Coordinators 

1 Started tracking unique customers at one of the 

markets, and new vs. repeat customers for few 

months at one market

Details on new/unique customers 

and to get a sense of where the 

study team is drawing new 

customers, how many new 

customers were coming back. These 

data would allow a tailored

approach to outreach and soliciting

funding.

2 Began creating database of individual EBT 

transactions

To track how often the study team 

sees same shoppers, new shoppers, 

and average spending per shopper.

3 Originally were following partner template, 

changed definition of new customer

Change in reporting parameters 

from partner collaborator

4 Number of SNAP customers NOT PROVIDED

5 Complete and accurate data, individual customer 

information; recording last 4 digits of their EBT 

card number

To accurately record information 

and eliminate duplicates

6 To understand if they have really visited a farmers’ 

market as we define one, ask customers what 

other farmers’ markets they have visited.

Improve data accuracy; understand 

how the study team’s definition of 

FM corresponds with public 

perception of a FM; help 

marketing/promotion efforts; and 

understanding customers’ other 

food sources. 
How Organizations Evaluate 

SNAP-based Incentive Programs 6 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 87 

Table 6-3. Type of change and reason for change in incentive evaluation by organization

type (continued)

Organization Type of Change Reason for change 

Operators 

7 Started counting the number of SBIP transactions 

and used it to come up with the number of unique 

customers.

To gather more specific information. 

It’s good to know if you are helping 

same people over and over again. 

Would like to use it for outreach 

plans.

8 None given. Began accepting [EBT cards] in 

2005. Began accepting debit/credit 

cards, WIC coupons in 2006.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 88 

7.1 Overview and Key Findings 

One major aspect of this Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) research initiative study was to 

describe and compare the performance, outcomes and/or impacts of SNAP-Based Incentive 

Programs (SBIPs) operating during Calendar Year (CY) 2012 using FNS’ Anti-Fraud Locator 

for EBT Redemption Transactions (ALERT) data and, if possible, available the self-evaluation 

data provided by the organizations participating in this study. This chapter presents findings from 

the analysis of the ALERT data and the self-evaluation data. 

As indicated in Chapter 5, representatives were asked if their organizations maintained 

performance data on their SBIP. If representatives confirmed that such market-level performance 

indicators or measures were available within their organization, the study team asked them to 

share these data for all markets that supported the SBIP. 

Fifty-six organizations indicated that they tracked market-level performance data; 14 

organizations provided one or more performance measures for CY 2012 on 222 markets. Ten of 

these 14 were Coordinator organizations and represented 217 farmers markets (FMs). The 

remaining four were Operator organizations that provided one or more measures for five 

markets. While most representatives provided market-level data verbally or in a spreadsheet, a 

few representatives referred the study team to relevant web reports and publications containing 

market-level data. This chapter presents tables stratified by organization type, but the discussion 

of the findings is limited solely to markets supported by Coordinator organizations, because only 

five markets were supported by Operator organizations. 

The market-level measures most frequently provided by organization representatives were the 

total dollar value of incentive and SNAP redemptions—two measures commonly tracked for the 

purpose of reimbursement to vendors. Typically, FM managers process the EBT card and 

provide SNAP participants with tokens that can be used to purchase SNAP-eligible products. At 

the end of each market day, the vendors return all redeemed tokens to the market manager for 

reimbursement. Given that measures of the total amount of SBIP and SNAP benefits redeemed 

are integral to vendor reimbursement, it is not surprising that these transaction measures are the 

Market-Level Performance Measures for SBIPs 7 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 89 

most frequently provided market-level measures. Published evaluations that assess the impact of 

FMs on SNAP participants typically report these two quantitative measures, with a few 

evaluations including client surveys or vendor surveys.38,39,40,41,42

Of the 10 Coordinator organizations, only three provided information on the average number of 

visits per SNAP customer or the dollar value of food sales (i.e., sale of SNAP and non-SNAP 

food items) at the market. Nine Coordinator organizations provided market-level data on the 

change in total sale of SNAP eligible foods between CY 2011 and 2012.

Fewer Coordinator organizations provided data on the number of SNAP transactions than the 

dollar value of SNAP benefits redeemed. This is likely due to limited staffing or required 

administrative activities that interfere with managers’ ability to track the number of SNAP 

transactions. The individual markets may also choose not to track the total number of SNAP 

transactions based on a philosophy that not all SNAP tokens may be redeemed on a given day 

and, therefore, the number of daily SNAP transactions may not accurately reflect the number of 

SNAP shoppers at the market (i.e., not all incentive funds may be utilized on the day they were 

obtained and these SNAP participants may spend their SNAP and incentive funds at a later date. 

Counting the number of SNAP transactions may, therefore, be an undercount of the number of 

SNAP shoppers at the market). 

Finally, some organizations started implementing the programs at FMs in 2012. Therefore, data 

on changes in specific measures between 2011 and 2012 were provided only for markets that had 

the SBIP in both 2011 and 2012 (Table 7-1). 

 

38Donovan, J., Madore, A., Randall, M., and Vickery, K. (2013). Farmers Market Incentive Programs. Vehicles for increasing local food access 

among nutrition assistance beneficiaries. Policy recommendation for Austin, Texas. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. May 2013.

39Fair Food Network. Healthy Food Incentives. Cluster Evaluation. 2011 Final Report.

http://www.fairfoodnetwork.org/sites/default/files/HealthyFoodIncentives_ClusterEvaluationReport_2011_sm.pdf

40Amuda, A. (2011). Boston Farmers Market Incentive Programs: Increasing access to fresh and local produce. The Food Project. February 

2011.

41New York City Health Department Farmers Market Programs.

42Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., and Schumacher, G. (2012). Linking farmers, healthy foods, and underserved consumers: Exploring the impact of 

nutrition incentive programs on farmers and farmers markets. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development,

http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.024.002, pp. 63–77.
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 90 

Table 7-1. Market-level quantitative monitoring and evaluation data

 

Number of organizations 

providing market level data 

(N=14) 

Number of markets 

with data 

(N=222) 

CY2012 market-level measures: 

Dollar value of incentives redeemed 13 183

Dollar value of SNAP benefits redeemed 12 195

Total number of SNAP shoppers 9 170

Number of SNAP customers who received incentives 7 62

Number of SNAP transactions 7 71

Average number of visits per SNAP shopper 3 8

Dollar value of food sales 3 31

Measures to assess change from 2011 to 2012: 

Total number of SNAP customers at the market 9 106

Total sales of SNAP eligible foods at the market 9 81

Total value of incentives redeemed at the market 8 68

Total number of customers at the market 5 45

Total sales of all goods at the market 3 26

 Key Findings 

 Newly SNAP-authorized FMs implemented the SBIP in the same year they received 

SNAP authorization. As noted in Chapter 3, organizations prefer to partner with 

markets that have experience with SNAP. This suggests that for Coordinator 

organizations, geography and mission alignment may be more important 

considerations than experience with SNAP implementation.

 Newly SNAP-authorized FMs had lower median value of SNAP and incentive 

redemptions than those who had been authorized for 3 or more years; market 

maturation may influence SNAP redemptions comparison of self-reported data with 

ALERT extract data on SNAP redemptions indicated that self-reported values were 

lower than those from ALERT extract. The difference in SNAP redemption 

estimates derived from ALERT and self-report may be due to the approach used by 

market managers to track SNAP redemptions or the limitations in disentangling 

individual market schedules and extracting market-level data for a cluster of markets 

with a common FNS number. 

 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 91 

7.2 Characteristics of Farmers Markets Operating a SBIP 

Representatives from responding organizations provided data on the characteristics of FMs, 

along with the self-evaluation data. As stated earlier, organizations varied in the completeness of 

data for a given market and across markets. 

For the subset of markets with these data, it is evident that incentives are offered at markets with 

varying duration of market season and number of vendors. Over 70 percent of FMs that offered 

an SBIP were open for 3 to 8 months per season; about 9 percent were open for less than 3 

months, and nearly 20 percent were open for 9 months or more in 2012. Similarly, FMs varied in 

the number of vendors attending the market with approximately one-fourth hosting less than five 

vendors and one-fourth hosting 40 or more (Table 7-2). In 2012, nearly 75 percent of the vendors 

at these SNAP-authorized FMs accepted SNAP. 43

Table 7-2. Characteristics of farmers markets operating the SBIP by organization type

Market characteristic 

Coordinator 

supported markets 

Operator supported 

markets 

(%) (%) 

Market season (N=187) (N=4)

Less than 3 months 9.1 0.0

3 to less than 6 months 50.8 25.0

6 to less than 9 months 19.8 75.0

9 to 12 months 20.3 0.0

Vendor size (N=144) (N=5)

Less than 5 24.3 0.0

5 to 19 25.0 20.0

20 to 39 27.1 0.0

40 or more 23.6 80.0

Year market received SNAP authorization (N=55) (N=5)

2010 or prior 63.6 100.0

2011 23.6 0.0

2012 12.8 0.0

Year organization began supporting Incentives at the market (N=148) (N=5)

2005 to 2010 26.4 60.0

2011 14.9 20.0

2012 58.8 20.0

Incentive period in relation to market season (N=166) (N=3)

Incentive offered for entire market season 64.5 100.0

Incentive offered for fewer months than market season 35.5 0.0

 

43 Note, not all individual vendors participate in SNAP even if the FM is SNAP-authorized. 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 92 

Data for a subset of markets (N=20) suggests that organizations support SBIPs at markets in the 

same year they receive SNAP authorization. All seven markets that received SNAP authorization 

in 2012 and more than 75 percent (10 out of 13) of markets that received SNAP authorization in 

2011 implemented a SBIP in the same year. These data are in keeping with the qualitative 

interview responses indicating that newly SNAP-authorized FMs implement SBIPs but may not 

have experience in implementing SNAP. 

Slightly more than one-third of the FMs did not offer incentives for the entire market season.

While the study team did not ask the reasons for shorter incentive periods at these markets, the 

responses from qualitative interviews (Chapter 3) suggest that limited funding hinders the ability 

of the organizations to expand the program and reach more customers. Representatives from 

Coordinator organizations often reported that inability to receive funding reduced program 

implementation; FMs reduced the size of the incentive at first and then ended the incentive when 

funds were no longer available.

7.3 SNAP Transactions and Redemptions at Farmers Markets 

with SBIP 

Analysis of the market level data on SNAP transactions and annual SNAP and SBIP redemptions 

indicate that, in CY 2012, the median number of transactions at each market was approximately 

140 and the annual median values of SNAP and incentive redemptions were $1,112 and $565,

respectively (Table 7-3).

Data from a subset of markets suggests that recently authorized markets (SNAP authorization 

dates after CY 2010) had fewer SNAP transactions and lower annual SNAP and incentive 

redemptions than markets with 2 or more years since SNAP authorization (SNAP authorization 

dates of 2010 or prior). Markets within each SNAP authorization year category differed 

considerably in the number of transactions and value of SNAP and incentive redemptions, as 

reflected in the wide ranges for these measures (Table 7-4). Due to the small number of markets 

and the lack of variability in the amount of incentives offered at each market (e.g., $1 for every

$5 spent or $2 for every $5 spent, etc.), the study team could not examine the role of the 

incentive amount on transactions and redemptions. 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 93 

Table 7-3. SBIP Self-Evaluation Data: Self-Reported Market Level SNAP transactions, SNAP 

redemptions, and incentive redemptions in CY2012 by organization type

Market characteristic 

Coordinator supported markets Operator supported markets 

(%) (%) 

Number of SNAP transactions at the 

market in CY 2012 (N=68) (N=3)

Median 140 725

Range 1 to 4,809 645 to 918

Value of SNAP redemptions at the 

market in CY 2012 (N=179) (N=4)

Median $1,122 $29,722

Range $14 to $82,178 $8,742 to $36,908

Value of incentives redeemed at the 

market in CY 2012 (N=191) (N=3)

Median $565 $5,508

Range $6 to $55,412 $3,870 to $21,622

Table 7-4. SBIP Self-Evaluation Data: Self-Reported Market Level Median SNAP transactions 

and SNAP redemptions by SNAP authorization year

SNAP authorization year 

Overall 

Median (IQR*) Range 

Number SNAP transactions at the

market in CY 2012

2010 or prior (N=21) 354 (441) 22 – 3916

2011 (N=1) 164 (164) 164 – 164

2012 (N=4) 107 (125) 19 – 256

Value of SNAP redemptions at the

market in CY 2012

2010 or prior (N=39) $1,913 (1,066-5,316) $178 – $36,908

2011 (N=12) $2,027 (1,281-2,604) $159 – $28,775

2012 (N=7) $1,113 (321-3,619) $52 – $4,880

Value of incentives redemptions

at the market in CY 2012

2010 or prior (N=42) $1,708 (3,294) $129 – $31,917

2011 (N=12) $1,145 (1,759) $38 – $3,971

2012 (N=7) $678 (717) $114 – $1,452

*Interquartile range (difference between value of 1st and 3rd quartile) provides a measure of statistical dispersion around the median.

 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 94 

7.4 Monthly Change in SNAP Redemptions at Farmers Markets 

Derived from ALERT Extract 

The study team asked organizations that provided quantitative self-evaluation data to provide 

FNS numbers for all markets where they supported the SBIP. Of the 222 markets for which selfevaluation data were received, FNS numbers were provided for only 33 markets. As indicated in 

Chapter 2 (methodology section), the study team used the ALERT extract containing the value of 

SNAP redemptions at these 33 markets in CY 2011 and 2012 to compute annual SNAP 

redemptions and percentage of monthly changes in SNAP redemptions for each market in 2012. 

The study team also compared the ALERT and self-reported market-level annual SNAP 

redemptions in 2012.

The analysis of the ALERT extract indicates that most FMs were seasonal, with less than onethird of the 33 markets open year-round (based upon the number of markets with monthly 

ALERT data). The overall value of SNAP redemptions was higher in 2012 than 2011 as reflected 

in the positive percentage change value of about 78 percent in SNAP redemptions. In both CY 

2011 and 2012, compared with SNAP redemptions in each preceding month, markets 

experienced a positive monthly change in the percentage of SNAP redemptions (mean) in all 

months from February to September, and a negative monthly change in the percentage of SNAP 

redemptions in October, November, and December. In other words, SNAP redemptions at 

markets were higher in each subsequent month during the period January to September (Table 7-

5). However, it is likely that this increase is due the larger number of markets that are open as the 

year progresses while the decline is due to the smaller number of markets that stay open during 

the winter months. It is also likely that the total number of vendors (and SNAP accepting 

vendors) may decline during winter and early spring months.

Table 7-5. Percentage change in month-to-month SNAP redemptions at a sample of farmers 

markets in 2011 and 2012 based on ALERT extract

Percent change overall n Mean SD Median 

Annual Change (2011 to 2012) 33 77.8 137.1 32.1

2011 Monthly Change

January to February 2011 7 18.1 53.6 34.9

February to March 2011 7 88.8 94.2 94.1

March to April 2011 7 89.5 141.5 1.7

April to May 2011 8 235.9 628.0 10.9

May to June 2011 18 128.8 213.6 53.4

June to July 2011 26 172.4 317.9 41.0

July to August 2011 32 32.1 73.5 6.1

August to September 2011 33 14.5 87.3 -1.8
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 95 

Table 7-5. Percentage change in month-to-month SNAP redemptions at a sample of farmers 

markets in 2011 and 2012 based on ALERT extract (continued)

Percent change overall n Mean SD Median 

September to October 2011 27 -11.4 68.6 -29.0

October to November 2011 15 -21.3 57.1 -38.8

November to December 2011 9 -13.0 68.3 -36.1

2012 Monthly Change

January to February 2012 8 13.5 61.8 15.2

February to March 2012 7 71.0 108.8 17.1

March to April 2012 6 22.3 104.8 -6.4

April to May 2012 8 846.3 1,874.1 86.9

May to June 2012* 18 2,016.6 8,145.2 67.3

June to July 2012 28 121.1 426.1 13.8

July to August 2012 33 70.5 173.7 17.2

August to September 2012 33 1.0 44.1 -2.6

September to October 2012 29 -21.5 37.5 -29.8

October to November 2012 17 -35.9 37.8 -37.8

November to December 2012 9 -33.7 35.5 -28.8

*One market reported SNAP sales of $10 and $3,475 in May and June respectively, affecting the mean change in SNAP sales from May 

to June. 

For 29 FMs, CY 2012 SNAP redemption data were available from both, ALERT and selfreports; SNAP redemptions were $2,648 and $1,364 respectively from ALERT and self-reported 

data, respectively. The difference in SNAP redemption estimates derived from ALERT and selfreport may be due to the approach used by market managers to track SNAP redemptions or the 

limitations in disentangling individual market schedules and extracting market-level data for a 

cluster of markets with a common FNS number. 

The SNAP redemption data from ALERT reflects the funds redeemed at the market while the 

self-reported data may reflect SNAP reimbursements provided to vendors. Thus, the estimate of 

SNAP redemptions based on reimbursement to vendors (self-report) may be less than the 

computation using the value of tokens provided to the customers (ALERT data). This study did 

not ascertain if the self-reported SNAP redemptions were based on the dollar value of tokens 

provided to SNAP participants or the dollar value of SNAP reimbursements provided to the 

vendors. 

The process of extracting SNAP redemptions for individual markets from a cluster of markets 

with a common FNS number requires information on the market’s operating schedule (months, 

days, and hours of operation). The market’s operating schedule is necessary to identify and 

assign individual transactions to a specific market. For example, if Market A operates on 

Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and Market B operates on Thursday 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 96 

and Saturday from 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., transactions made on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday 

will be attributed to Market A and those on Thursday and Saturday to Market B. Since this study 

was conducted in 2013 and detailed market schedules were needed for CY 2012, researchers 

relied on web searches to obtain the CY 2012 schedule. It is very likely that the market schedules 

obtained from the web searchers may not be accurate. While FNS is requiring that FMs seeking 

SNAP authorization should obtain their own EBT machine, prior authorized markets that are a 

part of a cluster still continue to use one EBT machine. 

7.5 Perceptions of SNAP and SBIP Growth at Farmers Markets 

Since the extent to which market-level measures would be provided to the FMIPS was not known, 

we asked representatives about their perceptions on the impact of the incentives. Specifically, 

perception of change in specific market-level characteristics from CY2011 to CY2012 were 

assessed using graded responses options (less, more, or the same). Perceptions of change responses 

were available in 49 markets that implemented a SBIP in both 2011 and 2012; more markets had 

data on change in total sales of SNAP eligible foods and value of incentives redeemed than data on 

the change in total number of customers or the total number of SNAP customers. Compared to CY 

2011, most Coordinator organization supported markets experienced an increase in the value of 

SNAP eligible food sales, and the value of incentives redeemed in CY 2012 (Table 7-6). The 

perception of increase in total sales of SNAP eligible foods is consistent with the analysis of the 

ALERT data; for the subset of markets with SNAP redemption data in 2011 and 2012, the annual 

median SNAP redemptions were $1,791 and $3,543 respectively.

44

Table 7-6. Perceived change in performance measures from CY 2011 to CY 2012

Market characteristic 

Number of Coordinator 

supported markets 

(N=45) 

Number of Operator 

supported markets 

(N=4) 

Change in total number of customers 2011 to 2012

Less in 2012 than 2011 11 -

More in 2012 than 2011 29 1

Same in 2012 and 2011 1 -

Not reported 4 3

Change in total number of SNAP customers 2011 to 2012

Less in 2012 than 2011 - 1

More in 2012 than 2011 22 3

Same in 2012 and 2011 - -

Not reported 23 -

 

44Source: ALERT extract. Data on SNAP redemptions in CY2011 and CY2012 were available for 34 and 33 markets respectively. 
Market-Level Performance Measures for 

SNAP-Based Incentive Programs 7 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 97 

Table 7-6. Perceived change in performance measures from CY 2011 to CY 2012

Market characteristic 

Number of Coordinator 

supported markets 

(N=45) 

Number of Operator 

supported markets 

(N=4) 

Change in total sales of SNAP eligible foods 2011 to 2012

Less in 2012 than 2011 7 -

More in 2012 than 2011 38 3

Same in 2012 and 2011 - -

Not reported 0 1

Change in value of incentives redeemed at the market 

2011 to 2012

Less in 2012 than 2011 7 -

More in 2012 than 2011 38 3

Same in 2012 and 2011

Not reported 0 1
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 98 

8.1 Overview and Key Findings 

SNAP authorized farmers markets (FMs) are required to have a card reader in place to accept 

electronic benefit transfer (EBT) benefits. SNAP misuse is a concern at FMs because the model 

of SNAP redemptions is different at FMs than at other store types. While the EBT card is swiped 

to debit the exact amount of SNAP purchase at other stores, FMs typically have a central card 

reader and a token or scrip system that enables SNAP recipients to use their benefits to purchase 

SNAP authorized products. SNAP recipients who shop at FMs first arrive at the central location 

and inform the market manager the dollar value of SNAP benefits they would like to use at the 

market. The manager then swipes the EBT card for the specified amount and the SNAP recipient 

is given tokens for the amount withdrawn from the EBT card. At markets that offer an incentive, 

the manager also gives incentives in the form of paper coupons or tokens. The SNAP recipient 

then uses the SNAP and incentive tokens to make purchases at participating vendor booths. 

Vendors are not permitted to give change for the SNAP or incentive tokens; in addition, any 

unused SNAP or incentive tokens may be used at the market on a later date. At the end of each 

market day, vendors return the SNAP and incentive tokens/vouchers to the market manager who 

may reimburse them on the same day or at the next market day.

SNAP trafficking or fraud at FMs may occur when SNAP benefits are bought, sold, or traded for 

cash and when benefits are used to pay for products that are not SNAP eligible. In 2011, SNAP 

redemptions at FMs totaled $11,725,316 and represented 0.02 percent of total SNAP 

redemptions.45 Data from 2009 to 2011 indicate that approximately 10.5 percent of all authorized 

SNAP stores engaged in trafficking and approximately 1.3 percent of total SNAP benefits were 

trafficked.46 USDA classifies FMs into other store types; while trafficking estimates are not 

 

45 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2012). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, USDA Food and Nutrition 

Service, Benefit Redemption Division,2011 Annual Report. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP/retailers/pdfs/2011-annual-reportrevised.pdf.

46 http://origin.drupaluat.fns.usda.gov/extent-trafficking-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-2009-2011-august-2013 

SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 99 

available for FMs, the estimated trafficking rate in 2009-2011 for other store types was 2.72 

percent.

47

To assess awareness, perceived prevalence, and experience with SNAP misuse in the context of 

SBIPs, interviews with organization representatives explored measures that organizations have in 

place to prevent misuse of SNAP at farmers markets. The interviews captured their thoughts 

about this issue in the context of the markets or organizations that they support, which parts of 

the SBIP was potentially the most vulnerable to misuse, and the steps that can be taken to reduce 

the risk of SNAP misuse within FMs and SBIPs.

This chapter focuses on how organizations evaluate SBIPs and addresses the following 

evaluation activities:

 Perspectives on SNAP misuse in the context of SBIPs with attention to intentional 

vs. unintentional misuse;

 Measures implemented to prevent SNAP misuse; and

 Measures recommended for preventing SNAP misuse.

 Key Findings 

 The majority of the representatives indicated that SNAP misuse within the SBIP 

context was not a problem or that they had never experienced it. A few 

representatives cited incidents of misuse and characterized these as isolated events 

rather than indicative of an ongoing pattern.

 Most representatives distinguished between intentional and unintentional misuse 

(i.e., incidents where an error in procedure occurred due to lack of knowledge or 

inadvertent oversight). Representatives indicated that sharing benefits or tokens were 

the most common example of intentional misuse. Representatives indicated that lack 

of knowledge or inadvertent oversight led to the vendors at point of sale being the 

most vulnerable to misuse. Training for market managers and vendor education were 

mentioned most frequently as recommended steps to reduce the already low risk of 

misuse include followed by development of specialized redemption systems and the 

increased use of technology.

 

47 U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing, Farmers Market Promotion Program. Available at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&leftNav=Whole

saleandFarmersMarkets&page=FMPP&description=Farmers%20Market%20Promotion%20Program&acct=fmpp.
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 100 

 Among the factors cited to account for such low rates of SNAP misuse was the very 

nature of FMs as tight knit communities that reinforce a culture of self-policing.

 Recommended strategies to prevent SNAP misuse mirrored those being implemented 

to prevent SNAP misuse. These included vendor and market manager 

education/training tracking mechanisms for incentives and counterfeit prevention 

systems.

8.2 Stakeholder Perspectives on the SNAP Misuse in the 

Context of FMs 

While the potential misuse of SNAP benefits was taken very seriously by organizational 

representatives, it was regarded more as a topic of conceptual concern rather than a practical 

problem. Almost 80 percent of the representatives stated that SNAP misuse was not a problem or 

that they had never experienced it; these representatives discussed hypothetical scenarios, 

indicating that certain types of misuse may certainly be possible, and provided anecdotes on 

possible misuse scenarios.

For example, a representative from the 

Supporter organization described how selling 

tokens may work though there are obstacles 

which make this type of misuse very difficult.

“I’ve heard, maybe, a couple of rumors -- and I’ve 

been here for five years -- about people trying to 

trade. It’s not people going around a corner, it’s 

more people trying to trade the farmers the tokens 

for cash. But, of course, our farmers’ livelihood is 

connected to their ability to sell at the farmers’ 

markets. So, they...refuse, because the jeopardy is 

too great. Why wouldn’t they just sell them product? 

There’s no reason to do that. I’ve heard a couple of 

rumors once about tokens being sold, but only a 

couple rumors twice in my five years about that 

happening.” [Supporter]

About 20 percent of the representatives characterized their experiences with SNAP misuse as 

“minor” problems that were considered isolated events rather than indicative of an ongoing 

pattern. To underscore this point, none of the representatives classified their experience with the 

misuse of SNAP benefits as moderate or major.48

 

48 Representatives to this question were given a forced choice set of three responses to characterize the degree of misuse experienced: “Minor,” 

“Moderate,” and “Major.”
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 101 

In understanding representatives’ perspectives on the topic of SNAP misuse, representatives 

discussed and distinguished intentional misuse (which can be considered fraud) and 

unintentional misuse. Representatives that characterized misuse as “minor,” attributed these 

incidents to errors in practice or procedure due to lack of knowledge or inadvertent oversight.

Five representatives described unintentional misuse as “not following the proper process,” using 

tokens for ineligible items and accounting errors when dealing with tokens mentioned. In 

contrast, examples to illustrate intentional SNAP misuse included “sharing benefits or tokens” 

followed by “misrepresenting identity” and selling benefits or tokens (Table 8-1).

Table 8-1. Hypothetical and experienced SNAP misuse reported by representatives

SNAP misuse reported by representatives * 

Type of misuse Number of representatives 

/Total number of 

representatives (%)** 

N=53 

Number of representatives /Total 

number of representatives 

experiencing misuse (%) 

N=35 

Intentional Misuse

Sharing benefits or tokens 13 7 

Selling benefits or tokens 8 3 

Misrepresenting identity 7 4 

Counterfeiting tokens or vouchers 3 2 

Customers reselling produce 2 1 

Excess EBT funds 1 1 

Stealing of vouchers 1 1 

Holding onto unused vouchersnot turning in benefits5 1 

Unintentional Misuse

Not following proper process (due 

to lack of education or 

understanding)

6 6 

Using tokens for ineligible 

products

16 7 

Inaccurate accounting of tokens 2 2 

Notes: * Representatives may report more than one type of misuse.

** Displayed responses reflect described misuse, including hypothetical or experienced.

When asked to identify aspects of SBIPs that were perceived to be most vulnerable to misuse, 

vendors at point-of-sale was most frequently cited, followed by the SNAP participants

themselves. A small number of representatives indicated that the large size of the FMs made it 

difficult to monitor SNAP misuse (Table 8-2).
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 102 

Table 8-2. Aspects of SBIPs most vulnerable to misuse

Aspect most vulnerable to misuse Number of representatives that mentioned item/Total 

number of representatives from this section (%) N=50 

Vendors at point of sale 25

SNAP participants inside program 14 

Vendors at point of accounting and redemption 6 

Token system 6 

Unknown or not sure 5 

Large markets 3 

8.3 Measures Implemented to Prevent SNAP Misuse 

A total of 117 representatives responded to this question with almost all of them indicating that 

their SBIP had measures in place to prevent SNAP misuse.

These representatives attributed the low 

prevalence of SNAP misuse to several factors 

including a tight knit community of FMs, small 

market size that created an environment of 

trust, and a culture of self-policing by vendors 

and market managers. The physical space, 

layout, and having a small number of vendors 

enabled managers and vendors to see each 

other’s work along with customer interactions. 

Such a setting also resulted in addressing 

vendor questions “on the spot,” thereby 

reducing confusion around token exchange or 

appropriate use of incentive fund.

I know FNS understands that and I think they’ve 

accurately hit on it. The market is a consortium of 

individuals who are independent. Therefore, looking 

over each other’s shoulders is not the right word, but 

there’s enough people there to observe, and monitor 

each other and not only point out inadvertent misuse 

and correct the situation right then and there on the 

spot so it doesn’t happen again, but also to point out 

potential fraud. [Supporter]

Most of the farmers, or most of the vendors, that is 

the community of farmers’ markets, is a highlyethical community. We’re all interested in these 

programs and interested that they’re done right. 

Vendors will point out to market managers and to 

each other, “Hey, this customer, there’s something 

shady going on here.” That type of thing. [Supporter]

We don’t have lot of issues... There a sort of selfgoverning body within the market, where there is a 

membership that understands what the rules are, and 

checks other members. [Operator]

Vendor education was cited as the number one strategy by all organization types other than 

Funder. Several representatives from Operator and Coordinator organizations stated they worked 

hard to train vendors and customers to understand what is eligible through use of SNAP and the 

SBIPs.
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 103 

More representatives from Funder organizations than the Operator, Supporter, or Coordinator 

organizations emphasized the need to have tracking mechanisms. While representatives from 

Coordinator organizations discussed their use of counterfeit prevention systems, those from 

Operator organizations emphasized their use of specialized incentive systems to prevent SNAP 

misuse.

The majority of Operators attributed the low 

percentage experiencing misuse to having 

counterfeit reduction measures in place. Using 

paper instead of wood tokens; number, stamp, 

apply a barcode, hologram, or emboss them; 

employ different color tokens for debit, credit, 

bonus and SNAP –Tokens; label them clearly 

as eligible for “fresh fruits and vegetables 

only” were considered specialized tracking 

systems by Operator organizations and 

counterfeit prevention measures by 

Coordinator organizations. Approximately six 

representatives recommended the development 

of a specialized redemption system as a 

strategy to reduce SNAP misuse.

We provide [tokens] to the markets here and I see 

them in operation. It’s cumbersome. The best of all 

worlds would be some sort of electronic card that 

provided incentives when people purchase fresh 

fruits and vegetables. There would be some way of 

coding a vendor, who’s only a specialty crop farmer, 

and giving them some sort of a cube on their phone, 

because I’m buying now more and more of my stuff at 

farmers’ markets from farmers who have the cube on 

their iPhones. I eventually see that as the best way to 

really avoid all this human error and any potential 

types of graft and corruption people are afraid of. 

That would be a great way to do it. [Operator]

The easiest thing I think would be to get away from 

having to do the whole coupon system. If there was a 

system or a process for it at the state level, and you 

weren’t essentially dealing with Monopoly money, for 

lack of a better example, then I think that that would 

reduce it. My understanding for part of the reason for 

moving to an electronic EBT card for SNAP 

redemption was the same thing, that there was misuse 

in how it was previously administered. [Funder]

A few representatives indicated that to prevent 

and reduce SNAP misuse, they warned the 

vendor for their first offense of accepting 

tokens for items that were not SNAP eligible; 

market managers withheld reimbursements for 

subsequent violations.

One thing that we are cautious of is persons buying 

non-SNAP eligible products in the market. The way 

that we impart that is once a producer accepts the 

token, the only way they can get reimbursed for those 

is through our market manager. If, for instance, a 

bakery were to accept our green tokens which are 

marked for fruits and vegetables only, our general 

rule is that we will accept them one time, educate the 

producer or the employee. Also warn them that the 

next time if you take them, they can turn the tokens 

over to us but they’re not going to be paid for them. 

That ticket becomes a lost sale. You can make the 

sale but you’re ending up with pieces of plastic that 

you don’t get paid for. [Coordinator]
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 104 

Other less frequently cited measures included 

provision of administrative support for market 

managers, legal agreements with markets and 

vendors, market observations, monitoring 

customer purchases, planting secret shoppers, 

posting signage, and customer education. The 

following quotes illustrate the prevention 

measures reported by representatives from 

Operator and Coordinator organizations.

Vendors have a lot of curiosity or concern about 

whether their products are SNAP eligible or not. So 

we’re constantly working, both with individuals and 

vendors as well, discussing specific products to make 

sure that the vendors are clear on that, and the 

market staff is clear on that. [Operator]

We provide signage and tips for farmers to make sure 

they understand the rules, reminders about what’s 

eligible, what’s not, about giving change, all that 

kind of thing. [Coordinator]

I think that we worked out a lot of the kinks and some 

of that has to do with having uniform education for 

producers in the market and market managers so that 

everyone involved understands the parameters of the 

program and how it works and what the restrictions 

are. [Coordinator]

Finally, many representatives perceived a relatively small reward or potential gain from 

customer or vendor misuse. Along these lines, representatives explained that using SNAP 

benefits in FMs can be stigmatizing for customers. Representatives felt that the issue was not 

SNAP misuse as much as it was to get SNAP-eligible customers to the market and creating an 

environment that was warm and friendly to foster continued use.

8.4 Measures Recommended to Prevent SNAP Misuse 

Representatives from Coordinator, Funder, and Operator organizations had several 

recommendations that were in keeping with the strategies currently in use to prevent SNAP

misuse. These included forming a tight-knit community, vendor and market manager 

education/training, and a specialized redemption system.

Representatives recommended the need to forge partnerships between vendors and market 

managers. One representative stated that “good partnerships create open lines of communication 

that help personnel to identify any issues and make processes more efficient.” Finally, a few 

representatives recommended the use of secret shoppers to observe processes and make 

improvements to create a process that is simple and seamless for customers was also identified as 

a potential strategy.

Several organizational representatives recommended vendor education as an important strategy 

to reduce SNAP misuse. Specific training topics that were suggested such as providing verbal 
SNAP Misuse and Prevention 8 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 105 

and written documentation, having vendor agreements signed after a training, signage for 

vendors and managers to keep on hand in addition to a guide, offered in multiple languages. A 

few representatives also recommended ongoing training that would allow for continued feedback 

to vendors and market managers and allow them to address issues in a “hands-on” manner as 

they arise. A few representatives recommended customer education through brochures, signage 

displaying eligible food items at each vendor stall, and on-site staff to answer to answer 

questions about token use and redemption.

These strategies were also recommended by several representatives who stated that, “the 

increased use of technology would provide helpful solutions to more accurately measure 

transactions, such as a ‘cube’ on an iPhone to replace the use of tokens” and “the use of 

technology would streamline the incentive process and reduce error” that resulted due to the use 

of (cumbersome) wooden tokens or vouchers. When comparing current measures in place to 

suggestions for the future, representatives recommended a uniform specialized redemption 

system with use of technology to streamline processes. The experiences with use of tokens was 

mixed; many representatives said it was very simple and an easy way to record and distribute 

incentives, while others found it unwieldy (particularly when coupled with other government 

programs at the same market) and would like to see the incentives distributed electronically, 

similar to how EBT funds are disbursed.
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 106 

SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIPs) connect SNAP recipients with farmers markets (FMs) 

and benefit these recipients, farmers selling at these markets, and the community at large. In 

recent years, the number of markets with SBIPs has risen steadily, along with publications 

documenting the positive impact on purchase behaviors of participants. These evaluations have 

ranged in scope from assessment of the program at a single market to pooled data across markets 

with differing amount of incentives.

This study was undertaken to develop a more complete picture of SBIPs starting with the 

characteristics of organizations involved in SBIPs, their roles in SBIP implementation, and their

approach to collecting and tracking performance indicators to evaluate the success of the SBIP. 

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 141 representatives from 103 organizations 

involved with SBIPs. The primary role performed by organizations was used to develop a 

function-based organization typology and responses provided by representatives were examined 

by organization typology. Quantitative market-level measures were requested from organizations 

that indicated these measures were available; 14 organizations provided market-level measures 

for a total of 222 markets. Descriptive statistics were employed to examine the market-level data.

Data gathered from this study indicate considerable variability in how SBIPs are implemented 

and evaluated. This variability may be attributable to the mix of organizations engaged in the 

program, the roles performed by them, and the capital and human resources available. The key 

findings are as follows:

 Organizations engage in SBIP to achieve their mission. While the partnering of 

organizations involved in the SBIP serve the entire community or specific 

community segments (e.g., low-income residents, farmers, local businesses, etc.), 

SBIPs provide a common ground to achieve each of the individual organization’s 

own goals. Organizations seek partners familiar with electronic benefits transfer 

(EBT) and SBIPs, but new programs are sometimes funded and initiated by 

organizations with no prior experience. Partnerships are typically formed based on 

geography, and the process to allocate funding varies considerably from a formal 

application process to an informal process.

 A majority of the organizations allocate 25 percent or less of their total budget 

to the SBIP. Partnering organizations contribute financial and nonfinancial support 

to implement the SBIP. The sources of financial support include philanthropic 

Conclusion 9 
Conclusion 9 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 107 

donations, foundations, grants, and vendor fees. Financial support is provided to 

purchase the equipment, tokens, and development of a tracking system. Nonfinancial 

support is provided to manage the distribution and tracking of incentives, as well as 

the expertise necessary to develop the tracking system.

 Organizations perform multiple roles in SBIP implementation and no single 

organization implements the SBIP alone. For most organizations, the SBIP 

activities are absorbed within the existing program structure and allocated to existing 

staff. Besides providing financial support, Funder organizations assist in marketing 

and outreach activities as well as impact evaluation. Coordinator and Supporter

organizations assist with grant applications, setting up and implementing the 

program, marketing and outreach, data collection and evaluation. Finally, Operator 

organizations are engaged in all aspects of program implementation and evaluation.

 Funding and staffing challenges affect program delivery. While some funding 

may be earmarked for the incentive itself, funder fatigue adversely impacts program 

sustainability. The high rate of staff turnover and the volunteer-based operation of 

the FM are considered as impediments to implementing an effective SNAP and 

incentive tracking system. The Funder representatives indicated that the difficulties 

in tracking arise due to the use of multiple currencies and token systems used to 

deliver the program.

 Consequences of funding challenges lead to program alterations including the 

amount of incentive offered per SNAP recipient and the duration of the 

incentive season. Some representatives perceived that SNAP customers would 

discontinue shopping at the market while some others expressed the opinion that 

incentives help to draw the SNAP customers to the market and, once they start 

shopping at the market, they would do so even if the incentives were discontinued.

 About 80 percent of the organizations are involved in data collection and 

evaluation activities. For the most part, data collection and evaluation revolve 

around tracking the volume of EBT and incentive redemptions with some 

organizations also tracking the number of redemptions. However, the approach to 

tracking redemptions varies across organizations. While some organizations track the 

value of SNAP benefits debited from EBT cards, others track the value of 

reimbursements provided to vendors. A few organizations did track the value of 

incentives distributed and redeemed. All these quantitative measures provide 

different dimensions of program effectiveness. The USDA’s Anti-Fraud Locator for 

EBT Redemption Transactions (ALERT) system tracks the value of SNAP benefits 

debited from the EBT cards. To measure the agreement in sales at the market with 

the ALERT system, tracking the amount debited from EBT cards will be the best 

indicator. However, to understand the difference between the amounts debited and 

the amount redeemed (i.e., vendor reimbursements), both of these measures are 

needed. In this study, the difference in the ALERT and self-reported measures of 

EBT redemptions may be due to unspent benefits. Since unspent benefits are not 

added back to the EBT account, it is difficult to estimate the extent to which the 

difference is attributable to these two scenarios.
Conclusion 9 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study 108 

 A few organizations do engage in vendor and customer surveys to capture 

different dimensions such as purchase and consumption behavior, satisfaction with 

the products at the market, and so forth. While these data are not collected routinely, 

when collected they are used to inform program implementation decisions.

 SNAP fraud is not considered a major issue. The model of implementing SNAP at 

FMs is unlike that at other stores; at non-FM venues, SNAP benefits are deducted 

from the EBT card after purchases are made and the recipient is not left with unspent 

currency. The implementation model at FMs includes use of tokens, and unused 

tokens may be redeemed at a later time or left unutilized. While this model may 

increase the likelihood of fraud, approximately 80 percent of representatives 

indicated that SNAP misuse was not a major issue at FMs. Among those that 

reported SNAP misuse, a clear distinction was made between intentional and 

unintentional fraud, with more instances of unintentional fraud. Unintentional fraud 

was defined as vendor ignorance wherein the vendors accepted SNAP for purchase 

of non-SNAP products. Vendor education and use of technology instead of the token 

system were perceived to be potential strategies to reduce fraud.
Appendix A

Email Flyer for FMIPS Sample

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study A-1 

Appendix B

Email Invitation to Participate

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study B-1 

Appendix C

Final Interview Protocols

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-1 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-2 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-3 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-4 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-5 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-6 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-7 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-8 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-9 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-10 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-11 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-12 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-13 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-14 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-15 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-16 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-17 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-18 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-19 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-20 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-21 
Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study C-22 
Appendix D

Collaborative Partnership Diagrams

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study D-1 

Appendix D 

Additional SBIP Network Diagrams 

Appendix D provides the results of the more detailed social network analysis presented in 

Chapter 4. Representatives from the FMIPS sample of 103 organizations described 356 

collaborative partnerships among 342 organizations related to work with FMs and SBIPs, 

including descriptions of partnering organizations’ missions, objectives, and roles. These 

numerous collaborations among the 342 organizations were analyzed to examine the 

characteristics of the organizations (e.g., function, partner type, FNS geographic region) and 

their collaborations (e.g., formality, support type). For the purposes of the social network 

analysis additional organizations named by the 103 SBIP organizations that participated in the 

FMIPS interviews that could not be categorized into this SBIP functional typology, an 

“unspecified partner” category was created. In addition, as shown in Table D-1 below, partnering 

and collaborating organizations were further classified into 18 “Partner Types” using a 

classification schema developed from the Nutrition Assistance at Farmers Markets: 

Understanding Current Operations survey,49 to facilitate identification of common patterns or 

models for SBIP support. While most representatives specified their nonprofit partners were 

foundations, food banks, coalitions, etc., some representatives simply referred to these partners 

as “nonprofits.” Each organization involved in a collaborative partnership was classified into one 

functional type and one partner type. Other aspects of organizational partnerships were also 

assessed and analyzed; such as the formality of the partnerships; partner types; and a more 

granular look at the support provided through these partnerships. 

 

49U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. (2013). Nutrition assistance in farmers markets: 

Understanding current operations by Sujata Dixit-Joshi et al. Project Officer: Eric Sean Williams, Alexandria, VA: April 2013. Available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis.
Appendix D 

Collaborative Partnership Diagrams 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study D-2 

Table D-1. Analytic categories used in FMIPS social network analysis

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (n=342) 

SBIP organizational function 

 

Partner types* 

 

FNS geographic regions 

(based on organization location) 

 Funders

 Coordinators

 Supporters

 Operators

 Unspecified Partners

 Bank

 Business

 Coalition

 Education

 Extension Service

 Faith-Based

 Farmers Market 

Association

 City Government

 County Government

 Local Government

 State Government

 Federal Government

 Food Bank

 Food Producer

 Foundation

 Health

 Market Organization

 Nonprofit

 Mid-Atlantic

 Midwest

 Mountain Plains

 Northeast

 Southeast

 Southwest

 Western

PARTNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS (n=356) 

Formality Support type 

 Formal

 Informal

 Both

 Unspecified

 Financial support

– Funding

– Grant-writing support

 Nonfinancial support

– Design/general business support – administrative 

support, management, program design, and 

strategic improvement

– Logistical support – communication, consumer 

education, data collection and evaluation, incentive 

distribution, advertising, program implementation, 

and technical assistance and training

– Network support – outreach, policy/advocacy, 

networking to establish partnerships, and 

advisory/mentoring support

 Unspecified support – organizations were described as 

key partners without any additional information

*Partner types were developed using classifications from the FM Ops social network analysis. Partner types were assigned based on 

representative descriptions. Nonprofit partner type subsets (e.g., foundations, food banks, coalitions) were maintained to provide 

additional information about SBIP network patterns.
Appendix D 

Collaborative Partnership Diagrams 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study D-3 

Representation of SBIP Networks 

Partnerships between geographic regions 

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Function.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – uspecified partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support
Appendix D 

Collaborative Partnership Diagrams 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study D-4 

Partnerships between organizational functions, including nonspecific partners

 

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that 

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Function.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black sphere – unspecified partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support
Appendix D 

Collaborative Partnership Diagrams 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study D-5 

Partnerships between organizational function, excluding nonspecific partners 

 

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Function.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – unspecified partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support
Appendix D 

Collaborative Partnership Diagrams 

Farmers Market Incentive Provider Study D-6 

Partnerships between partner types 

 

Key: Each sphere represents an organization involved in a collaborative partnership and each line represents a description of that

collaborative partnership. Sphere size represents the number of connections involving that organization, with the most connected 

organization represented by a solid diamond. Each labeled circle of spheres denotes a Partner type. Connections between partner types 

(intergroup) are combined and sized based on number of connections.

Sphere color denotes Organizational Function:

• Blue spheres – Funders

• Red spheres – Coordinators

• Orange spheres – Supporters

• Green spheres – Operators

• Black spheres – unspecified partners

Line color denotes Support Type:

• Dark blue lines – financial support

• Light blue lines – design/general business support

• Dark green lines – logistical support

• Red lines – networking support

• Light green lines – unspecified support