The purpose of this study is to describe the programmatic characteristics of current nutrition incentive projects supported by the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). Specifically, implementation characteristics of nutrition incentive projects that were funded in 2019 were compared across brick and mortar (B&M) and farm direct (FD) sites in the United States. Across 10 nutrition incentive (NI) grantees, there were 621 sites that reported data from B&M (n = 156) and FD (n = 465) locations. Among B&M sites, the common food retail types included: large chain traditional supermarket (n = 49) and independent traditional supermarket (n = 46). Among FD sites, the most frequently reported food retail types were farmers markets (n = 371). For B&M sites, the most common financial instruments were loyalty cards (n = 67, 43.5%), followed by an automatic discount at the register (n = 41, 26.6%), and coupons (n = 29, 18.8%). FD sites frequently reported physical financial instruments including tokens (n = 272, 61.1%), followed by paper vouchers (n = 131, 29.4%). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases that were eligible to trigger incentives included mainly “all fresh FVs” at B&M sites (n = 98, 48.5%) and “all SNAP eligible items” at FD sites (n = 417, 85.8%). FVs eligible for incentive redemption included mainly “all fresh FVs” for both B&M sites (n = 110, 65.5%) and FD sites (n = 370, 67.6%). In terms of incentive-to-SNAP level ratio, both B&M sites and FD sites reported that they commonly utilized a 1:1 incentive-to-SNAP level ratio (n = 106, 68.8% and n = 261, 94.9% respectively). This paper will provide foundational understanding of the heterogeneity of GusNIP NI projects—specifically between B&M and FD settings—in order to inform future national work and ultimately demonstrate the impact of NI projects on food security status and dietary quality.

1. Bishop, NJ, Ullevig, SL, Wang, K, Zuniga, KE. Dietary quality modifies the association between multimorbidity and change in mobility limitations among older Americans. Prev Med 2021;153:106721. doi:10.1016/J.YPMED.2021.106721.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Lee-Kwan, S. H., Moore, L. V., Blanck, H. M., Harris, D. M., Galuska, D.. Disparities in state-specific adult fruit and vegetable consumption - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Nov 17;66(45):1241-1247.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. Leung, CW, Ding, EL, Catalano, PJ, Villamor, E, Rimm, EB, Willett, WC. Dietary intake and dietary quality of low-income adults in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96(5):977-988. doi:10.3945/AJCN.112.040014.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI4. Pitt, E, Gallegos, D, Comans, T, Cameron, C, Thornton, L. Exploring the influence of local food environments on food behaviours: A systematic review of qualitative literature. Publ Health Nutr 2017;20(13):2393-2405. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001069.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Ma, X, Liese, AD, Bell, BA, Martini, L, Hibbert, J, Draper, C, . Perceived and geographic food access and food security status among households with children. Publ Health Nutr 2016;19(15):2781-2788. doi:10.1017/S1368980016000859.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Ghosh-Dastidar, B, Cohen, D, Hunter, G, Zenk, SN, Huang, C, Beckman, R, . Distance to store, food prices, and obesity in urban food deserts. Am J Prev Med 2014;47(5):587-595. doi:10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2014.07.005.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. An, R. . Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: A review of field experiments. Publ Health Nutr. 2013;16(7):1215-1228.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI8. Mozaffarian, D, Fleischhacker, S, Andrés, JR. Prioritizing nutrition security in the US. JAMA 2021;325(16):1605-1606. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1915.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Karpyn, A, Grajeda, S, Wang, R, Tara Tracy, M. Ladder for Growth: A National Network to Build Capacity and Test Innovative Strategies for Healthy Food Initiatives Final Grant Report. University of Delaware; 2020.
Google Scholar10. Vericker, T, Dixit-Joshi, S, Taylor, J. The Evaluation of Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives (FINI) Interim Report. Prepared by Westat for the US Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. 2019.
Google Scholar11. Budd Nugent, N, Byker Shanks, C, Seligman, H, Fricke, H, Stotz, S, Yaroch, A. Accelerating evaluation of financial incentives for fruits and vegetables: A case for shared measures. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18(22):12140. doi:10.3390/ijerph182212140.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Engel, K, Ruder, EH. Fruit and vegetable incentive programs for supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) participants: A scoping review of program structure. Nutrients 2020;12(6):1676. doi:10.3390/NU12061676.
Google Scholar | Crossref13. Parks, CA, Jaskiewicz, LJ, Dombrowski, RD, Fricke, HE, Hortman, SB, Trumbull, E, . What characteristics define participants of michigan’s healthy food incentive program? J Plann Educ Res 2020;40(10):18772081.
Google Scholar14. Hingle, MD, Shanks, CB, Parks, C, Prickitt, J, Rhee, K, Wright, J, . Examining equitable online federal food assistance during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A case study in 2 regions. Curr Deve Nutr 2020;4(10):nzaa154. doi:10.1093/cdn/nzaa154.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Parks, CA, Stern, KL, Fricke, HE, Clausen, W, Fox, TA, Yaroch, AL. Food insecurity nutrition incentive grant program: Implications for the 2018 farm bill and future directions. J Acad Nutr Diet 2019;119(3):395-399.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline