COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) Participant demographics and experiences 2012.

COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA)Participant demographics and experiences 2012

What is the CSA?

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs allow consumers to buy produce directly from local farmers

Consumers commit to buying a specific amount of produce throughout the growing season, traditionally paying upfront for the full season

EBNHC and LGM partnered with Farmer Dave’s CSA in Dracut

History of the CSA at LGM

Began with 10 households in 2008 Originally fully subsidized by EBNHC and

contributions from other CSA members 2012 saw expansion of program

(average of 38 households per week, vs 15 in 2011)

Starting in 2012 participants were responsible for paying for shares Weekly payment option SNAP/EBT option

2012 Participation

50 total participants 16 enrolled online and paid upfront; 34 paid

weekly Average of 38 households received produce

each week Focus on weekly payers

Remove barrier of high one-time cost Able to pay with cash, check or SNAP/EBT Some individuals shared boxes Additional subsidy for LGM households

2012 Participation

Community (11) 33%

EBNHC staff (11) 32% *

LGM participants, (12) 35%

* 6 of 11 EBNHC staff worked directly for Let’s Get Movin’

2012 Participation

30 people purchased 24 Small Vegetable shares 20 individuals purchased a full share 3 pairs of participants shared Small

Vegetable boxes 1 group of four shared a Small Vegetable

box 2 participants purchased Large

Vegetable shares 8 participants purchased Fruit shares

6 had also purchased small vegetable shares

2 only purchased fruit shares

Payment methods

24 participants paid weekly with cash/check (71%)

8 participants used EBT weekly (24%) 2 participants used a mix of EBT and

cash (6%)

EBT use was similar among all groups 33% of LGM participants used EBT or

EBT/cash 27% of EBNHC employees used EBT 27% of unaffiliated community members

used EBT

Length of Participation

Participants were allowed to enroll after the first week

Participants had the option to discontinue at any point

one

two

thre

efo

ur five six

seve

neig

htnin

ete

n

eleve

n

twelv

e

thirt

een

four

teen

fifte

en

sixte

en

seve

ntee

n

eight

een

ninet

een

twen

ty0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Total Weeks Participated in CSA: Weekly Payers Only

Number of Weeks

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le

Length of Participation

one to five six to ten eleven to fifteen sixteen to twenty0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

11

3 3

17

Weeks Participated in CSA: Weekly Payers Only (n=34)

Number of Weeks Participated

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le

Length of Participation – by group

LGM EBNHC Community0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11-20 weeks

10 weeks or less

# o

f P

art

icip

ants

82%

18%

36%

64%58%

42%

Differences not statistically significant at 5% level of significance; X2=4.693, df=2, p=0.096

Length of Participation – by payment type

Cash/check EBT or mix of EBT/cash0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

11-20 weeks

10 weeks or less

# o

f P

art

icip

ants

58%

42%

60%

40%

Follow-up Survey

Sent to all participants in January 2013 Follow-up phone calls 2+ weeks after

mailing Incentive - $25 gift card drawing Overall response rate: 76%

Response rate for 11-20 week participants: 89%

Response rate for 1-10 week participants: 57%

Follow-up Survey – Demographics

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participants who participated for 11-20 weeks vs participants who stopped after 1-10 weeks

2-tailed t-tests for continuous variables2-proportion z-tests for dichotomous variables

Follow-up Survey – Reasons for Joining

1) Freshness/quality of produce (11)

2) Health/nutrition (6)

3) Education (5)

4) Support local agriculture (3)

5) Convenience (2)

6) Cost (2)

Organic?

Follow-up Survey – Benefits of Participating

1) Improve your diet – 100%1) Support local farms – 100%3) Try new foods– 82%4) Better tasting food – 77%5) Less time shopping for food – 59%6) Cook more meals at home – 53%7) Reduce food costs – 41%7) Eat less fast food – 41%9) Introduce my children to new foods – 29%

Follow-up Survey – Primary Benefit

1) Improve your diet – 29%2) Try new foods – 24%3) Support local farms – 18%4) Better tasting food – 6%4) Less time shopping for food – 6%4) Cook more meals at home – 6%4) Reduce food costs – 6%4) Eat less fast food – 6%

Follow-up Survey – Effect on diet

Decrease Decrease Slightly

No Change Increase Slightly Increase0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

# o

f R

espondents

During the months that you were receiving the CSA, did the amount of vegetables you and your family ate:


During the months that you were receiving the CSA, did the variety of vegetables you and your family ate:


No Change Increase Slightly Increase0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

# o

f R

espondents


During the months that you were receiving the CSA, did the amount of money you spent on food:


No Change Increase Slightly

Increase0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

# o

f R

espondents

Follow-up Survey – Participant Satisfaction

How happy were you with the cost of the program?

Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

# o

f R

espondents


How happy were you with the quality of the produce?


2

4

6

8

10

12

# o

f R

espondents


How happy were you with the variety of the produce?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

# o

f R

espondents

*Siempre habia las mismas tipas de frutas con muy poca variedad

*


How happy were you with the convenience of pickup?

Very Unsatis-fied

Unsatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

# o

f R

espondents


Did you feel that the amount of produce you received each week was:

Too Much Just Right Too Little0

2

4

6

8

10

12

# o

f R

espondents

Follow-up Survey – Reasons for Stopping

1) Not enough value for the money – 63%2) Too expensive – 50%3) Too much food/had to throw some away – 38%3) Didn’t like types of produce – 38%5) Didn’t know how to cook some vegetables – 25%5) Prefer to get produce somewhere else – 25%

Not chosen: Inconvenient pickup times/location, didn’t like quality/freshness of produce, transportation issues, scheduling issues, no place to store produce at home

Follow-up Survey – Reasons for Stopping

“I have very little money because I don’t have much work. And it seemed to me very little variety and quantity”

“Cost and the amount of produce. It didn’t seem like you’re getting enough for what you paid”

“When I heard about the program, I thought it was a program for low income families like mine. To me it seemed very expensive and it provided very few fruits and vegetables”

Follow-up Survey – Suggestion from Participants

“I calculated the price that I paid in comparison to shopping at Market Basket, and it came out more expensive”

“Too many unfamiliar vegetables”

“I prefer to make my own choices at the supermarket”

“I would rather be able to pick and choose what I want rather than have it picked for me”

Participant Satisfaction: 1-10 week participants

How happy were you with the cost of the program?

Very Unsatis-fied


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

# o

f R

espondents


How happy were you with the quality of the produce?

Very Unsatis-fied


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

# o

f R

espondents


How happy were you with the variety of the produce?

Very Unsatis-fied


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

# o

f R

espondents


How happy were you with the convenience of pickup?


1

2

3

4

5

6

# o

f R

espondents


Did you feel that the amount of produce you received each week was:

Too Much Just Right Too Little0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

# o

f R

espondents

Participant Satisfaction: Cross-group comparison

Table 2: Rates of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the CSA program: A comparison of participants who participated for 11-20 weeks vs participants who stopped after 1-10 weeks

Planning for the Future

Do you plan to participate in the CSA again this coming year?

Yes No Maybe0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

# o

f R

espondents


If you do participate, would you be interested in free monthly cooking classes that focus on using foods found in the CSA boxes?

Yes No Maybe0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

# o

f R

espondents


Data Collection-New survey questions incorporated into 2013 application

-Will quantify F&V servings both for applicant and for children

-Will quantify current household food expenditures

-Questions will be repeated at end of CSA season

Follow-up Survey – Suggestion from Participants

- More variety- Less unfamiliar vegetables- Instructions/information about

unfamiliar items- Option to choose your own items- Option to buy 1 box with both F&V- Option to buy 1 box every other

week- Home delivery

Follow-up Survey – My suggestions

1) More information about unfamiliar items- Cooking classes, recipes, labels, etc

2) Consider adding option to choose some items- Some of Farmer Dave’s pickup sites

currently offer “choose your own” model

3) Additional financial support for very low income families?4) Consider limiting program to families with children

- Only 8/17 participants who completed 11-20weeks reported having children in household

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions

Both the garden and CSA program are serving populations that are demographically representative of the East Boston community

Both the garden and CSA program are primarily serving families with low income/at risk for food insecurity

The great majority of participants in both programs reported an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption

Conclusions

Nearly all garden participants reported a decrease in food expenditures; a sizable minority of CSA participants reported a decrease in food costs

Demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with participants’ decision to continue or stop participating in the CSA

Dissatisfaction with the cost of the program and/or the variety of produce were significantly higher in participants who dropped out of the CSA early

THANKS!

COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) Participant demographics and experiences 2012.

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) Participant demographics and experiences 2012.