From Farm to table · 2 From Farm to Table: The Use of Federally-Funded Food Programs at New York...

From Farm to table:the Use oF Federally-FUnded

Food Programs at new york City Farmers’ markets

From Farm to table:the Use oF Federally-FUnded

Food Programs at new york City Farmers’ markets

may 2013

2 FromFarmtoTable:TheUseofFederally-FundedFoodProgramsatNewYorkCityFarmers’Markets

aCknowledgements

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. (“CCC”) would like to thank staff of the following agencies and organizations for their feedback and insight during the course of this project: the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets; the New York State Department of Health; Empire State Development; the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; the Office of New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn; the Office of the Mayor’s Food Policy Coordinator; Public Health Solutions; GrowNYC; Just Food; and the Morrisania Diagnostic and Treatment Center WIC Clinic.

CCC is also deeply grateful to the 35 regional farmers and farms’ market operations managers who took time out of their incredibly demanding schedules to participate in our survey. These survey respondents shared invaluable wisdom and opinions based on their experiences selling produce to New Yorkers in our City’s treasured farmers’ markets. CCC cannot overstate our appreciation for these farmers and their employees, as their hard work and dedication bring needed healthy, fresh foods to New York City’s residents, children in particular.

Finally, CCC wishes to thank the following CCC Task Force members, without whose time and energy this project could not have been completed: Leah Alani, Carol Hill Albert, Karen Baynard, Priscilla Bijur, Terry Cohen, Judith Garson, Chris Stern Hyman, Rebecca Kaplan, Elaine Kessel, Rachel Foster Kodsi, Linda Lennon, Frances Levenson, Nancy Locker, Marilyn Lubell, Maryann Marston, Lisa Melmed, Pamela Reis, Marcy Sandler, Nancy Solomon, Heidi Stamas, and Chris Wasserstein. Our data could not have been collected without their eagerness to learn about and address issues of food access and insecurity in New York City.

Jennifer March-Joly Louise FeldExecutive Director Senior Policy Associate Food and Economic Security

Chris Stern Hyman Jessica AaronBoard Chairman Board President

Frances Levenson Rachel Foster KodsiTask Force Chair Task Force Chair

Citizens’CommitteeforChildrenofNewYork,Inc. 3

exeCUtive sUmmary

Over a half a million New York City children live in poverty, and many of their parents do not have the resources to provide them with nutritious meals on a consistent basis. Government benefits and programs play a critical role in helping these food insecure families purchase healthy foods. Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York (“CCC”) has long been a supporter of such programs. CCC has also strongly advocated for the expansion of the use of these programs at innovative and non-traditional businesses and retail sites that bring fresh, affordable foods into underserved New York City neighborhoods, where access to healthy foods is often limited. We therefore embarked on a project exploring the use of federal programs – the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (“WIC”); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”); and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (“FMNP”) – in New York City’s farmers’ markets. Of particular interest to CCC was the WIC program, which several years ago began to provide WIC recipients with a Fruit and Vegetable check (“WIC F&V”) specifically for the purchase of produce.

During the spring and summer of 2011, CCC surveyed regional farmers about their experiences with, and opinions of, the use of food programs in New York City’s farmers’ markets. What emerged from our study was clear evidence that these programs have had a significant positive impact on low-income New York City families’ access to fresh, local foods, as well as on regional farmers’ sales and the viability of local farmers’ markets. Also apparent, however, is that there exists room to increase program usage in New York City’s farmers’ markets, particularly of the WIC F&V check program. In fact, our research showed that several challenges dissuaded some farmers from enrolling in, and ultimately accepting, the WIC F&V check at their New York City farmers’ markets booths.

Key findings from this survey include:

• New York City farmers’ market customers’ use of FMNP, SNAP and the WIC F&V check had a positive impact on farmers’ sales in farmers’ markets throughout New York City.

• All three programs were sources of income for those survey respondents who sold at farmers’ markets in

high-poverty neighborhoods. However, use of these programs was not limited to markets in high-poverty neighborhoods.

• The surveyed farmers and farms’ market operations managers found the FMNP check program easier to participate in than the WIC F&V check program. Also, those surveyed shared positive opinions about the enrollment, sales, and redemption processes associated with the SNAP program.

• Among the WIC F&V check challenges that farmers and farms’ market operations managers identified were federal regulations that control their interactions with their farmers’ market customers, including prohibitions about what produce WIC participants could purchase, requirements that WIC customers sign the WIC F&V check and show identification at the time of purchase, and regulations about the dates during which the WIC F&V check can be used.

Along with a presentation of our survey analysis and results, CCC offers recommendations based on our findings. We believe these recommendations would improve program usage in general, and address some of the barriers identified as hindrances to farmers’ participation as vendors in the WIC F&V check program.

CCC’s recommendations include:

• New York State should create a universal application form that permits farmers to apply to participate in the WIC F&V check program and the FMNP at the same time.

• The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Department of Health should continue exploration of and support for innovative methods to provide WIC F&V check training, and should increase the number of trainings conducted via the web throughout the year, so that interested farmers can participate in the mandatory training at a convenient time and location.

• New York State should expedite the inclusion of the WIC F&V check on the Electronic Benefit Transfer card.


• New York State and City should explore ways to expand the use of SNAP and the WIC F&V check in new and emerging venues where New York State produce is sold, such as Mobile Markets, Green Carts, and Community Supported Agriculture programs, and should engage in a dialogue with federal decision-makers about the need for this expansion.

• New York City should expand the Health Bucks program to include a targeted match for WIC F&V check purchases.

• New York State and City should engage all stakeholders in order to coordinate federal advocacy for the protection of, and increases in funding for, all three federal programs that can be used in New York City farmers’ markets.

CCC believes that implementation of our recommendations could increase the number of farmers who accept all three programs at their booths in New York City farmers’ markets, thereby ultimately improving access to fresh produce for New York City’s children and families.


introdUCtion

A staggering number of New York City residents live in poverty. According to U.S. Census data, in 2011 one in every five New York City residents lived below the federal poverty level.1 Also that year, almost one in three New York City children – over half a million children – lived in poverty.2 Even bleaker, the child poverty rate exceeded 50 percent in a number of New York City neighborhoods.3

Hunger and food insecurity accompany these shocking poverty rates. Low-income New Yorkers often lack adequate resources to regularly purchase healthy food, and may live in high-poverty neighborhoods where there is a dearth of food retail options at which to shop.4 It is therefore not surprising that in 2011 almost three million New Yorkers had trouble affording the food that they needed.5 Further, a report in which the Food Research and Action Center (“FRAC”) ranked United States Congressional Districts according to their level of “food hardship”6 – or percentage of residents who reported difficulty affording food – showed that half of the Congressional Districts located in New York City were among the top 100 districts with the highest level of food

1 Citizens’ Committee for Children 2012 analysis of United States Census Bureau’s 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

2 Id.

3 For example, in 2011 in the Bronx neighborhoods of Morrisania and East Tremont the child poverty rate was 52 percent. Also in 2011, the child poverty rate in Brownsville, Brooklyn, was 52 percent. Id.

4 Treuhaft, Sarah, and Allison Karpyn. Collaboration of Policy Link and the Food Trust, “The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food and Why It Matters.” http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf. Accessed August 6, 2012; Graham, R., L. Kaufman, Z. Novoa, and A. Karpati. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, “Eating In, Eating Out, Eating Well: Access to Healthy Food in North and Central Brooklyn.” 2006. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/dpho/dpho-brooklyn-report2006.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2012.

5 Quets, Gail, and Astrid Spota. Food Bank for New York City, “NYC Hunger Experience 2011: Sacrifice and Support.” http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_2011_report.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2012.

6 The Food Research and Action Center (“FRAC”) determined its food hardship rankings through analysis of survey responses that had been provided to the Gallup organization. Specifically examined were answers to the question, “Have there been times in the last twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” Cooper, Rachel, and Michael Burke. Food Research and Action Center, “Food Hardship in America 2011: Data for the Nation, States, 100 MSAs, and Every Congressional District.” February 2012. http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_2011_report.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2012.

Hunger means the painful feeling that lack of food causes. Hunger is a social problem when lack of resources results in food being unavailable.

Foodinsecurity means irregular access to sufficient amounts of nutritious food for a healthy diet and life.7

hardship in 2011.8 One Congressional District – District 16 in the Bronx – had the second highest rate of food hardship in the country that year.9

For low-income New Yorkers unable to easily purchase food, accessing produce can be particularly challenging.10 Fruits and vegetables may cost more or be less available in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.11 For example, data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) 2010 Community Health Study show that over 35 percent of Bronx and Queens residents, and about 33 percent of Brooklyn residents, had to walk 10 minutes or longer in order to purchase fruits

7 Murphy, Carolyn, Stephanie Ettinger de Cuba, John Cook, Rachel Cooper, and James Weill. Partnership for America’s Success, “Reading, Writing and Hungry: The consequences of food insecurity on children, and on our nation’s economic success.” Issue Paper #8. 2008.

8 In 2011, these Districts were: District 6 (part of Queens); District 7 (parts of the Bronx and Queens); District 10 (part of Brooklyn); District 11 (part of Brooklyn); District 12 (parts of Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan); District 15 (parts of Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx); and District 16 (part of the Bronx). Cooper and Burke, supra note 6.

9 In 2010, FRAC ranked District 16 as the district with the most food hardship in the United States. Cooper, Rachel, and Katie Vinopal. Food Research and Action Center, “Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger; Data for the Nation, States, 100 MSAs, and Every Congressional District.” January 2012. http://frac.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/food_hardship_report_2010.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2012.

10 Weill, Jim, Rachel Cooper, Heather Hartline-Grafton, and Michael Burke. Food Research and Action Center, “A Half-Empty Plate: Fruit and Vegetable Affordability and Access Challenges in America.” December 2011. http://frac.org/pdf/half_empty_plate_dec2011.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2012; Gordon, C., N. Ghai, M. Purciel, A. Talwaker, and A. Goodman. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, “Eating Well in Harlem: How Available Is Healthy Food?” 2007. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/dpho/dpho-harlem-report2007.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2012.

11 Weill et al., supra note 10.


or vegetables.12 Further, according to a 2011 FRAC study, five New York City Congressional Districts ranked among the top 35 districts in which households had the most difficulty accessing fresh, affordable fruits and vegetables.13

The overall well-being of New York City’s low-income children suffers when their families do not have the resources to consistently buy and feed their children nutritious foods. In the short-term, a lack of reliable access to healthy food can result in childhood obesity.14 As a consequence, a large percentage of New York City public school students are obese or overweight. During the 2010-2011 school year, 18.1 percent of New York City public school students in kindergarten through eighth grade were classified as “overweight” and 20.7 percent were considered “obese.”15 Also in 2011, 15.5 percent of all New York City public school students in grades 9 through 12 were “overweight” and 11.6 percent were “obese.”16 The high levels of food insecurity that exist in New York City have contributed, in part, to these alarming childhood obesity and overweight rates.

Childhood food insecurity and hunger can produce a slew of other negative outcomes beyond childhood obesity.17 For example, studies show that childhood food insecurity and hunger can contribute to poor academic performance, as well as impaired cognitive and social development.18

12 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, “Community Health Survey 2010.” https://a816-healthpsi.nyc.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest?_PROGRAM=/EpiQuery/CHS/chsinde&xyear=2010. Accessed August 7, 2012.

13 These Districts were District 14 (part of Manhattan, ranked 11th); District 15 (part of Manhattan, ranked 16th); District 16 (part of the Bronx, ranked 23rd); District 10 (part of Brooklyn, ranked 31st); and District 6 (part of Queens, ranked 35th). Weill et al., supra note 10.

14 Murphy et al., supra note 7; Jyoti, Diana, Edward Frongillo, and Sonya Jones, “Food Insecurity Affects School Children’s Academic Performance, Weight Gain, and Social Skills.” The Journal of Nutrition. 135 (2005): 2831-2839. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/12/2831.full.pdf html. Accessed August 7, 2012

15 NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Epidemiology Services, FITNESSGRAM Data 2010-2011.

16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Youth Risk Behavior Survey 2011.” http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/Default.aspx. Accessed August 7, 2012.

17 Murphy et al., supra note 7; Sell, Katherine, Sarah Zlotnik, Kathleen Noonan, and David Rubin, “The Effect of Recession on Child Well-Being.” The Recession and Food Security. November 2010. http://www.annarbor.com/Recession_ChildWellBeing_0-1.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2012.

18 Murphy et al., supra note 7; Jyoti et al., supra note 14; Kleinman, Ronald, J. Michael Murphy, Michelle Little, Maria Pagano, Cheryl Wehler, Kenneth Regal, and Michael Jellinek, “Hunger in Children in the United States: Potential Behavioral and Emotional Correlates.” Pediatrics. 101, no. 1. (1998). http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/1/e3.full.pdf html. Accessed August 7, 2012.

Childhood food insecurity and hunger also place children’s overall physical health at risk. In the immediate, children who have not eaten enough or who lack adequate nutrients are more likely to experience stomachaches, headaches, colds, and increased dental problems.19 Further, it is widely acknowledged that in the long-term a poor diet can have lifelong health consequences, such as increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.20

In sum, an overwhelming number of New York City children and their families face poverty, hunger, and food insecurity, which can all have a devastating impact on their health and well-being. It is therefore essential to support and expand programs that fight hunger and enable families to access healthy foods. Federally-funded food programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (“WIC”), and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (“FMNP”) are programs critical to achieving these goals. CCC appreciates that these three programs provide their recipients, many of whom are low-income families with children, with a means of purchasing healthy, fresh foods that they may not otherwise be able to buy.

Each of the three federally-funded food programs listed above can be used in New York City’s farmers markets. Information about their usage in New York City farmers’ markets is discussed in detail in the “Background” section of this report, which begins on page seven. Following these descriptions is the “Methodology” section, which begins on page 14, and provides further information about the administration of CCC’s survey, the survey sample, and data limitations. Detailed discussions of our findings begin on page 17, and resulting recommendations follow on page 30.

19 Murphy et al., supra note 7; Jyoti et al., supra note 14; Alaimo, Katherine, Christine Olson, Edward Frongillo, and Ronette Briefel, “Food Insufficiency, Family Income, and Health in US Preschool and School-Aged Children.” American Journal of Public Health. 91, no. 5 (2001): 781-786. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446676/pdf/11344887.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2012.

20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Surgeon General, “Overweight and Obesity: Health Consequences.” http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/obesity/fact_consequences.html. Accessed August 7, 2012.


baCkgroUnd

FederalPrograMsINNewYorkCITY’sFarMers’MarkeTs

There are three federally-funded programs that help recipients purchase produce in New York City farmers’ markets: the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (“WIC”); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP” or “Food Stamps”); and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (“FMNP”). Each program can be used only at the farmers’ market booths21 of those farmers who have chosen to participate22 in the particular program in question. Below find a description of the characteristics of the three programs, including what farmers must do to enroll and participate as vendors in each. Figure 1, found on page 12, provides a summary and comparison of the three programs’ characteristics.

specialsupplementalNutritionProgramforwomen,Infants,andChildren(“wIC”)

The Program

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (“WIC”) was established in 1974,23 in order to protect and improve the health status of low-income pregnant or post-partum women, infants, and children under age five. To achieve this goal, WIC provides recipients with checks (also called “vouchers”) or Electronic Benefit Transfer (“EBT”) cards24 to purchase foods that

21 In this report, the term “farmers’ market booth” is used to describe the kiosk space that each farm occupies in the farmers’ markets at which it sells.

22 In this context, “participation” is used to describe survey respondents’ roles as vendors in each of the discussed programs. Throughout this report, unless specifically noted otherwise, a “participant” does not mean one who uses these programs in order to purchase food.

23 The WIC program, originally called the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, was first piloted in 1972, and made permanent two years later. In 1994 the program’s name was changed to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, in order to better reflect the program’s role as a nutrition program. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “About WIC, WIC’s Mission.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/mission.htm. Accessed June 8, 2012. (Hereinafter WIC’s Mission.)

24 Whether a WIC recipient is given vouchers or an EBT card depends on the state in which she resides, and that state’s WIC distribution method.

supply needed dietary nutrients.25 WIC also provides recipients with nutrition education and counseling, medical screenings, breastfeeding support, and social service referrals.26

WIC is a federal grant program. Each year, Congress authorizes a specific amount of funding for the program. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (“USDA”), which administers WIC on the federal level, distributes the funds to the state agencies that administer the program on the state level.27 The administering agency in New York State is the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”), which contracts with local agencies for the provision of WIC services.28

In New York, as well as across the country, pregnant, post-partum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age five are eligible to participate in WIC if they meet several requirements. First, an applicant’s gross income must be at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line,29 or the applicant must already participate in another benefit program, such as SNAP, Medicaid, or Temporary Aid for Needy Families (“TANF,” also called “Public Assistance”). Applicants must also be residents of the state in which they are applying for WIC. Finally, a medical professional must determine that the applicant is at “nutritional risk.” An applicant may be considered at nutritional risk if he or she presents medically-based risks, such as anemia, or diet-based risks, such as an inadequate diet.30

25 Charts detailing the contents of the WIC food packages for each of WIC’s targeted populations are available at United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Benefits & Services, WIC Food Packages – Maximum Monthly Allowances.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM. Accessed June 8, 2012.

26 WIC’s Mission, supra note 23; United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Fact Sheet.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2012.

27 In New York State there is also State funding allotted to the WIC program.

28 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “About WIC, WIC at a Glance.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/wicataglance.htm. Accessed June 8, 2012.

29 In June 2012, 185 percent of the federal poverty line was $34,281 for a family of three.

30 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Women, Infants, and Children, Frequently Asked Questions About WIC.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FAQs/faq.htm. Accessed June 8, 2012.


New York State currently uses paper checks, rather than EBT cards, to distribute WIC to recipients. However, as a result of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, all states will be mandated to implement an EBT system for the distribution of WIC by October 1, 2020.31

Notably, New York was among the first states in the nation to provide WIC recipients with vouchers for the purchase of produce. In 2006, the New York State WIC program participated in a pilot project designed to increase provision of fruits and vegetables to WIC recipients. In addition to their regular WIC benefits, pilot participants received three monthly $5.00 vouchers for each child (between the ages of two and five), to be used for the purchase of certain fresh, frozen or canned vegetables and fruits from supermarkets and bodegas.32

Checks specifically for the purchase of fruits and vegetables have since been made a permanent part of the WIC food package on the federal level, and therefore are now distributed in all states.33 Currently in New York State, the cash value of the WIC Fruit and Vegetable check (“WIC F&V”) is $10 for breastfeeding mothers, $8 for mothers who formula feed, and $6 for children over the age of two.34 Each WIC F&V check is good for a month-long

31 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Public Law 111-296, 111th Cong. (December 13, 2010), §352(d).

32 This pilot was tested prior to a federal revision of the food package that resulted in the creation of the WIC F&V check. The pilot was conducted using New York State funds. New York State Department of Health, Division of Nutrition, “New York State WIC Program 2006 Vegetable and Fruit Demonstration Project.” 2007. http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/nutrition/wic/docs/vegetable_fruit_demo_project.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2012.

33 In 2003, at the request of the USDA, the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) began a review of the WIC food package. After conducting this comprehensive review, the IOM suggested changes to the WIC food package, such as the inclusion of fresh fruits and vegetables for women and children. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages, Food and Nutrition Board, “WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change.” 2006. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/WIC/FILES/Time4AChange%28mainrpt%29.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2012. In 2007, the USDA revised the WIC food package. Among the revisions was the inclusion of a fruit and vegetable voucher, which State agencies were required to implement by October 2009. Leibtag, Ephraim, and Aylin Kumcu. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying Power?” May 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/127579/eib75.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2012

34 New York State Department of Health, “WIC Foods for Mom and Baby, Breastfeeding.” http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/3975aa.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2012; New York State Department of Health, “WIC Foods for Mom and Baby, Formula Feeding.” http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/3981aa.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2012. Note that the federal maximum monthly allowance for the WIC F&V is $10 for all post-partum women and $6 for children over the age of two. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Benefits and Services: WIC Food Package Maximum Monthly Allowances.” Last modified June 26, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM. Accessed October 15, 2012.

period, the “not good before” and “not good after” dates of which are noted on the check’s face. While the WIC F&V check can be used at participating supermarkets, bodegas, and farmers’ market booths for the purchase of most fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables, it cannot be used to buy white potatoes, herbs, nuts, or items from salad bars.35 A customer making a purchase with the WIC F&V check must, at the time of purchase, both present her WIC identification card and sign the face of the check. The vendor accepting the check must also sign it and note the monetary value of what the WIC recipient purchased.

In Fiscal Year 2012, New York State’s WIC program received about $466 million of federal funding.36 That year, federal WIC funding was about $7.07 billion overall.37 In recent years there has been a range of proposals to decrease the amount of funding appropriated for WIC. A substantial cut to the number of women and children who receive WIC would result from adoption of these proposals.38

The WIC F&V Check in New York City Farmers’ Markets

The WIC F&V check is a newcomer to New York City farmers’ markets. The check has only been in existence for a few years, and was not available for use in New York State farmers’ markets until June 2009.39

In order to accept the WIC F&V check at their booths in New York City farmers’ markets, farmers must sign an agreement to adhere to the terms of the program, provide a list of the crops they grow and sell, and fill out an application form that is several pages long. The completed application must be notarized, and requires the farmers

35 For a list of all acceptable foods that can be bought with WIC vouchers, including produce, see New York State Department of Health, “WIC Acceptable Food Card, June 2010.” http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/nutrition/wic/docs/wic_acceptable_foods_card.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2012.

36 United States Department of Agriculture, “Women, Infants and Children: Summary of FY 2012 Grants.” Last modified July 17, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/fundingandprogramdata/grants2012.htm. Accessed August 8, 2012.

37 Id.

38 For example, the National WIC Association estimated that, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, over 750,000 WIC recipients nationally could be cut from the program in Fiscal Year 2013, if Congress fails to take appropriate action. National WIC Association, “WIC Funding: What Does Sequestration Mean for WIC’s Future.” November 2011. http://www.nwica.org/sites/default/files/WIC_Funding_&_Sequestration.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2012.

39 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, “Governor Paterson Announces WIC Checks Now Accepted for Fresh Produce.” June 13, 2009 (press release). http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AD/release.asp?ReleaseID=1825. Accessed June 8, 2012.


to include bank account information for the purposes of direct deposit from the State. Farmers must participate in both an initial and then annual interactive training, and reapply to the program every three years.40

Year-round, WIC recipients can use the WIC F&V checks at participating farms’ market booths in New York City farmers’ markets. Customers use the WIC F&V check as they would cash, trading it for the produce they wish to purchase. At the time of purchase, farmers (or their farmers’ market employees) must, like all other WIC vendors, see the customers’ WIC identification cards and ask customers to sign their WIC F&V checks. The farmer must note on the check’s face the exact monetary value of the produce that customers have purchased and cannot provide change to customers who do not buy produce worth the check’s full monetary amount. If a customer wishes to purchase produce that costs more than the value of her WIC F&V check, the customer is allowed to use the check and pay the remainder of the balance with cash or another benefit.41

Farmers must deposit WIC F&V checks in the bank accounts that they had specified on their application forms, in order to redeem them for direct deposit payment from the State. Payment will not be issued unless the WIC F&V checks are properly filled out (as described above), stamped with a rubber stamp that the farmer uses for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (described below), and deposited no later than 60 days after the “not good before” date noted on the check’s face. The State may also deny or delay a farmer’s payment, or may terminate a farmer’s participation in the program, if he or she fails to comply with the WIC F&V check’s program rules, or discriminates against a customer who wishes to make purchases with the WIC F&V check.42

supplementalNutritionassistanceProgram(“sNaP”or“Foodstamps”)

The Program

Created to help fight hunger, the Food Stamp Program was established in 1964, and renamed the Supplemental

40 Application materials and the agreement specifying the WIC F&V check program’s rules are available on the State Department of Agriculture and Markets website, at New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, “WIC Vegetables and Fruits Checks at Farmers’ Markets.” http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/fmnp-wic-vf.html. Accessed June 8, 2012.

41 Id.

42 Id.

Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) in 2008.43 The program enables eligible, low-income households to purchase the foods needed for a “nutritionally adequate diet.”44 Each month, program participants receive SNAP benefits to buy food from participating food retail locations, including many New York City farmers’ markets. The benefits are provided on EBT cards, which function like debit cards.45 In 2011, the average SNAP participant received about $133.85 a month, which amounts to less than $5 a day.46

SNAP is a federal program that the USDA administers on the federal level. In New York, the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA”) administers the program on the State level, while the New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) operates it on the local level.47 SNAP is an entitlement program, rather than a grant program. This means that the program expands or contracts according to need, and therefore all who qualify can receive SNAP benefits.48

As is the case in other states, New York applicants’ SNAP eligibility and benefit levels are based on several factors, including household size, income, and expenses.49 To qualify, a household’s total monthly income50 must fall at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level.51 Unlike some other states, New York State does not consider a household’s assets, such as savings or retirement accounts, when determining whether a household is SNAP-eligible.52

43 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “From Food Stamps to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Legislative Timeline.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/timeline.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2012.

44 Id.

45 New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).” http://otda.ny.gov/programs/snap/. Accessed August 6, 2012. (Hereinafter OTDA SNAP.)

46 This is a nation-wide average, and not New York City or State specific. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Policy Basics: Introduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).” http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226. Accessed June 8, 2012. (Hereinafter CBPP.)

47 In New York State, the benefit was officially called “Food Stamps” until the end of August, 2012. OTDA SNAP, supra note 45.

48 CBPP, supra note 46.

49 OTDA SNAP, supra note 45.

50 “Income” includes earned income, as well as benefits received through other programs, such as Public Assistance or Social Security. Some household expenses, such as child support, may be subtracted from the household’s gross income when determining eligibility. Different income guidelines exist for households that contain an elderly or disabled household member. Id.

51 In 2012, 130 percent of the federal poverty level was $24,817 for a family of three.

52 OTDA SNAP, supra note 45.


In Fiscal Year 2011, New York State’s SNAP program received about $5 billion of federal funding.53 That year, the federal government spent about $71.8 billion on SNAP.54 Cuts to SNAP benefits were included in the 2010 Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill and are scheduled to take place in 2013 if the President’s budget proposal to restore these cuts is not enacted.55 SNAP funding is also at risk in future Farm Bill negotiations. SNAP is authorized and funded through this bill, which has been extended through September 2013. However, 2012 negotiations saw attempts to cut millions of dollars in SNAP funding.56 For example, the House Agriculture Committee-approved version of the 2012 Farm Bill would have cut SNAP funding by $16.5 billion over the next 10 years, thereby eliminating assistance to between two and three million Americans.57

SNAP in New York City Farmers’ Markets

SNAP usage in New York City farmers’ markets has been permitted for quite some time, but became difficult to effectuate in 2001, when Congress required that the benefit be provided on an EBT card, rather than through paper coupons.58 Prior to this mandate, many farmers conducted a substantial number of sales to customers who brought paper Food Stamp coupons to the markets. These same farmers, however, found that after the Congressionally-mandated conversion took effect they and/or the markets in which they operated were technologically unequipped to accept EBT cards. The wireless terminals needed to conduct an EBT sales transaction were expensive, and many farmers’ market locations lacked the electricity and/or phone lines needed for these devices to function.59

53 Food Research and Action Center, “State of the States – State Data Profiles.” Accessed August 8, 2012. http://frac.org/map/.

54 Id.

55 Food Research and Action Center, “FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations Update.” http://frac.org/leg-act-center/budget-and-appropriations/appropriations-2/. Accessed August 8, 2012.

56 Food Research and Action Center, “Farm Bill FAQ.” http://frac.org/leg-act-center/farm-bill-2012/farm-bill-faq/. Accessed August 8, 2012.

57 Rosenbaum, Dorothy, and Stacy Dean. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “House Agriculture Committee Farm Bill Would Throw 2 to 3 Million People Off of SNAP.” Last modified September 5, 2012. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3800. Accessed September 27, 2012.

58 GrowNYC, “Greenmarket 2010 EBT Report.” http://www.grownyc.org/files/gmkt/EBT/2010.EBT.Report.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2012. (Hereinafter GrowNYC 2010 EBT Report.)

59 Id.

In 2005, GrowNYC, which administers over 50 Greenmarkets60 in New York City, partnered with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (“Ag & Markets”) to pilot a program that centralized each market’s SNAP/EBT operations. Instead of using EBT cards at individual farmers’ market booths, EBT customers were directed to swipe their cards at a central terminal in the market, staffed by the Greenmarket manager or other market employees. The customer specified how much he or she would like to spend at the market, and received that amount in wooden coins worth either $1 or $5.61,62 These coins could then be used in the same manner as cash for the purchase of products available in farmers’ markets, including: fruits, vegetables, breads, meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, maple syrup and honey products, baked goods, jams, and plants and seeds that produce food. The coins could not be used to buy alcohol or tobacco products, nonfood items, or prepared foods.63 This coin system is still employed at those New York City farmers’ markets that accept SNAP benefits, the number of which continues to grow each year, in large part due to investments from City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the New York City Council, and the USDA.64

Customers who use their EBT cards at New York City farmers’ markets do not receive change when they make a purchase that does not cost the entire amount of the coins used. However, the coins do not expire, and can be used at any point in the future at the same market at which they were issued.65

60 “Greenmarket” refers to the GrowNYC-administered farmers’ markets, which not only provide a venue for regional farmers to sell fresh foods, but also host a variety of other initiatives, such as composting and textile recycling. GrowNYC, “Greenmarket Farmers Markets.” http://www.grownyc.org/greenmarket. Accessed September 13, 2012. (Hereinafter GrowNYC Greenmarket.)

61 Id.

62 During the course of conducting this project, CCC also visited a farmers’ market that did not use the coin system, but rather provided shoppers with receipts that functioned in the same manner as the coins.

63 New York Farmers’ Market Federation, “New York Farmers’ Market EBT/Food Stamp/SNAP Program, Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.snaptomarket.com/faq.php. Accessed June 8, 2012.

64 GrowNYC 2010 EBT Report, supra note 58.

65 Id.


Farmers’MarketNutritionProgram(“FMNP”)

The Program

The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (“FMNP”) was established in 1992,66 in order to provide locally-grown, seasonal produce to both WIC recipients and low-income senior citizens, and to support farmers’ market development and sales.67 FMNP participants receive paper checks that they can use at farmers’ markets, farm booths, and participating Community Supported Agriculture (“CSA”) arrangements between June 1st and November 15th of each year.68 Through the provision of these checks, the program enables families and seniors who are low-income and at nutritional risk to purchase healthy fruits and vegetables, and encourages the development and support of local farmers and new farmers’ markets.69

The USDA administers the FMNP on the federal level and awards state agencies grants for the program.70 The administering agency in New York State is Ag & Markets. Ag & Markets collaborates on the program with the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Office for the Aging, and the Cornell Cooperative Extension.71

In New York, WIC recipients automatically receive six $4 FMNP checks if their local WIC center participates in the program.72 Seniors who wish to receive FMNP checks must demonstrate their eligibility by showing that they are at least 60 years old and live in households at or below 185 percent

66 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Overview.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FMNP/FMNPfaqs.htm. Accessed June 6, 2012. (Hereinafter USDA WIC FMNP Overview.)

67 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, “Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.” http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/marketing.html. Accessed June 6, 2012. (Hereinafter Ag & Markets FMNP.)

68 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, “2012 FMNP Farmers’ Market Application Package.” http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/fmnp/2012/Attachment-A-2012-FMNP-Market-Application-Package.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2012. (Hereinafter Ag & Markets FMNP Application Package.) Note that in 2012 customers could begin to use FMNP on June 1st, whereas in previous years checks could not be used until July 1st. Also in 2012, and in response to Hurricane Sandy, Ag & Markets extended FMNP use through the end of November.

69 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Overview.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/SeniorFMNPoverview.htm. Accessed June 6, 2012.

70 USDA WIC FMNP Overview, supra note 66.

71 Ag & Markets FMNP, supra note 67.

72 Hunger Action Network of New York State, “Federal Nutrition Programs.” http://www.hungeractionnys.org/fed_farm.htm. Accessed June 6, 2012.

of the federal poverty level.73 New York seniors can prove their income-eligible status through proof of their participation in any one of several means-tested programs, such as Social Security, Public Assistance, SNAP, the Home Energy Assistance Program (“HEAP”), or Section Eight Housing.74 Qualifying seniors receive a booklet containing $20 worth of $4 FMNP checks.75

In Fiscal Year 2012, the federal government appropriated about $16.5 million for the WIC FMNP nationally,76 and New York State received a grant of over $3 million.77 Also that year, total federal funding for the Senior FMNP was over $20 million, and New York State received a grant of just under $2 million.78 The WIC FMNP funding level for Fiscal Year 2012 is the result of a 30 percent cut to that program, which has been estimated to reduce the WIC FMNP benefits of about 300,000 families.79

The FMNP in New York City Farmers’ Markets

The FMNP has a long-standing history in New York City farmers’ markets, where it has supported local agriculture and farmers since its creation in 1992.80 Farmers who wish to enroll to accept the FMNP check must fill out a one-page application form, as well as provide a plan detailing their crops for the upcoming season. Farmers must submit an updated FMNP application every year.81

73 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program Fact Sheet.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SFMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2012.

74 Ag & Markets FMNP, supra note 67. Note that in New York State, most seniors receive their FMNP checks from local senior centers. However, New York City checks are issued from congregate meal sites or the DOH’s Food and Nutrition sites. Id.

75 New York State Office for the Aging, “Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.” http://www.aging.ny.gov/NYSOFA/Programs/CommunityBased/FarmersMarket.cfm. Accessed June 6, 2012.

76 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.” April 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-FMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2012.

77 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program: Grant Levels by State, FY 2008-2012.” Last modified July 16, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FMNP/FMNPgrantlevels.htm. Accessed August 8, 2012.

78 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program: SFMNP Grant Levels FY 2008-2012.” Last modified July 16, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/SFMNPgrantlevels.htm. Accessed August 8, 2012.

79 Bittman, Mark. “WIC’s Fresh Produce Program Cut 30 Percent.” The New York Times (The Opinion Pages blog). March 27, 2012. http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/wics-fresh-produce-program-cut-30-percent. Accessed August 8, 2012.

80 Ag & Markets FMNP, supra note 67.

81 Ag & Markets FMNP Application Package, supra note 68.


Starting June 1st through November 15th,82 customers use the FMNP check as they would use cash, simply trading the check for any item of produce. Customers cannot use the FMNP check to purchase non-produce items, such as prepared foods. Customers who use the $4 checks but purchase less than $4 worth of produce do not receive change.

Once farmers have collected FMNP checks from their customers, they must stamp the checks with their FMNP

82 When CCC designed and conducted our surveys in 2011 the FMNP check was not available for use until July of that year. However, in 2012, Ag & Markets made the check available for use in June and through the end of November.

identification numbers, using an Ag & Markets-provided rubber stamp. The checks can then be deposited into a farmer’s own bank account or cashed at a Key Bank branch. Farmers must either deposit or cash the FMNP checks between June 1st and November 30th in order to receive payment.83

The State may issue a violation to or disqualify from the program those farmers who do not comply with the program’s rules, or who discriminate against FMNP customers.84

83 Ag & Markets FMNP Application Package, supra note 68.

84 Id.

FIgUre1: Comparison of the Federal Programs That Can Be Used in New York City Farmers’ Markets

FMNP SNAP WIC F&V Check

State agency? Ag & Markets OTDA DOH

For whom?

Low-income senior citizens and WIC recipients

All eligible applicants at 130% of FPL

Specified WIC recipients (pregnant or post-natal mothers, children between 2 and 5; 185% of FPL)*

When used? June - Nov. 15** Year-round Year-round

How used? Paper check EBT card Paper check

How much?

Six $4 checks a season (WIC); five $4 checks a season (seniors)

Shopper can decide how much of her EBT benefit to use

Each month: $6 for children over age 2$8 for formula feeding mothers $10 for breastfeeding mothers

Restrictions?

Produce, only; no other food products

None re: produce

Produce, only; no other food products, white potatoes, herbs

Used in other retail locations?

No Yes Yes

* Infants and children under the age of two do not receive the WIC F&V check, but do receive other WIC benefits.** These dates varied in 2012. Supra note 82.


THeTHreePrograMs’UsageraTesINNewYorkCITYFarMers’MarkeTs

Although FMNP checks, SNAP/EBT cards, and the WIC F&V checks can now all be used in New York City farmers’ markets, the rates at which customers purchase foods with these vehicles vary greatly. For example, in 2010, $5.5 million in FMNP checks were distributed throughout New York State, $2.504 million of which were redeemed by farmers from GrowNYC’s 51 Greenmarkets alone.85 Further, that same year, over $500,000 worth of EBT sales were conducted in the then-40 Greenmarkets that had wireless EBT terminals. In comparison, in 2010 only $13,000 worth of WIC F&V checks were redeemed in farmers’ markets statewide, even though New York State distributed about $33 million worth of these checks.86

Moreover, not all farmers who sell at New York City farmers’ markets accept all, or any, of these programs at their farmers’ market booths, thereby potentially limiting the number of markets and booths at which customers can shop. This is especially true for the WIC F&V check.

85 There were 51 GrowNYC Greenmarkets in 2010. In 2012, the number of GrowNYC Greenmarkets rose to 54. GrowNYC Greenmarket, supra note 60.

86 GrowNYC 2010 EBT Report, supra note 58. Note that this does not reflect total redemption rates for SNAP or the WIC F&V check in New York State that year, as those two programs can be used in many retail venues besides farmers’ markets.

While there were about 130 New York City farmers’ markets in 2011, as of February that year there were 76 markets in which at least one farmer who accepted the WIC F&V check sold produce.87 To be clear, the WIC F&V checks could not be used at all of the booths in these 76 markets, but rather only at the booths of those farmers who were participating in the WIC F&V check program.88 Further, most of the markets in which the WIC F&V check could be used were located in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and therefore may have been inaccessible or inconvenient for WIC recipients who resided in other boroughs.89

87 CCC determined these numbers in late February 2011, from a New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets-provided list of farmers who accepted the WIC F&V check, and the New York City farmers’ market locations in which they sold.

88 Just because there were farmers in 76 markets who accepted the WIC F&V check, it does not mean that 76 farms participated in the program. Farms often sell their produce at more than one farmers’ market location in New York City, as is the case with many of the farmers who accepted the WIC F&V check. From the Ag & Markets-provided list referenced supra in note 87, CCC determined that in February of 2011 there were 23 farmers who sold produce in New York City farmers’ markets and who were enrolled to accept the WIC F&V check. These 23 farmers sold at a total of 76 markets. Note that 23 represents a small number of participating farmers, as in 2011 there were over 230 farmers selling at Greenmarkets, and even more selling at all of New York City’s farmers’ markets. GrowNYC Greenmarket, supra note 60.

89 From the Ag & Markets-provided list referenced supra in note 87, CCC determined that most markets containing at least one farmer who accepted the WIC F&V check were located in Manhattan and Brooklyn (26 and 24 markets with WIC-accepting farmers, respectively), while the Bronx had 17 markets with WIC F&V check-accepting farmers. In contrast, Queens had eight such markets, and SI had only one.


methodology

PrelIMINarYresearCH

CCC conducted preliminary research for this project in late 2010 and early 2011. In addition to obtaining and reading written materials about WIC, SNAP, and FMNP, CCC held a series of meetings to gather background information and inform our data collection. The organizations and agencies with whom CCC met included Public Health Solutions, Ag & Markets, GrowNYC, and Morrisania Diagnostic and Treatment Center’s WIC Program. CCC staff also attended a Public Health Solutions training for WIC vendors, and an Ag & Markets training for farmers interested in accepting, or already enrolled to accept, the WIC F&V check, SNAP, and/or the FMNP check.

After concluding preliminary research, CCC convened a task force of CCC volunteers who were interested in food security issues, and shared the gathered background information. Staff then drafted a survey (attached as Appendix One), and sought feedback from stakeholders and volunteers about the survey’s questions. The survey was designed to elicit farmers’ opinions about the three federal food programs that can be used at their New York City farmers’ market booths and to probe what factors influenced farmers’ decisions about whether to accept any or all of these programs. CCC hoped that the data gathered would provide information about the use of all three programs, and about why fewer farmers accepted the WIC F&V check. When a final draft of the survey was completed, staff trained volunteers on both the survey’s substance and its proper administration. sUrveYadMINIsTraTIoNaNdresUlTINgsaMPle

Identificationofsurveyrespondents

During the spring of 2011, CCC received permission from two organizations that operate and support New York City farmers’ markets to survey farmers who sold fruits and vegetables at their markets. Staff from both of the consenting organizations suggested that in order to

identify potential survey respondents, survey conductors should approach farmers while they were at market and ask them to participate. In addition, staff from one of the two consenting organizations provided contact information for a number of the farmers who sold at its markets.

That spring, CCC staff and volunteers began their efforts to reach out to potential survey respondents. Prior to the opening of most seasonal New York City farmers’ markets, CCC staff attempted to contact potential survey respondents via email or phone. While this tactic yielded a few responses, it alone was insufficient to reach a large number of survey respondents. CCC therefore also followed the two consenting market organizations’ suggestions and approached farmers or their employees at their farmers’ market booths. In both scenarios, CCC survey conductors introduced potential survey respondents to CCC and explained the purpose of this project. Survey conductors informed potential survey respondents that the survey would take at least a half an hour, and assured them that their participation and responses would be confidential. Finally, in an effort to accommodate the potential survey respondents’ demanding schedules, survey conductors asked the respondents to pick a convenient date and time at which they would like to take the survey, either over the phone or in person.

To participate, survey respondents had to meet several criteria. First, survey respondents had to work for a farm that sold fruits and/or vegetables at a New York City farmers’ market. Second, survey respondents had to have enough knowledge to answer questions about the following subjects: their farms’ enrollment and participation (or choice not to enroll or participate) in federal programs (specifically WIC, FMNP, and SNAP); how sales were conducted at their farms’ booths in the New York City farmers’ markets at which they sold; and how cash and sales to customers who used the above-identified federal programs contributed to their farms’ overall sales at New York City farmers’ markets. Given these criteria, the resulting survey sample included both farmers and farmers’ market operations managers (from a few of the larger farms) who had sufficient knowledge to answer the survey questions.


CCC’ssurveysample

CCC surveyed 35 farmers/farms’ operations managers90 between May 2011 and August 2011. These 35 survey respondents represented many more than just 35 booths at New York City farmers’ markets, as almost all of the survey respondents reported that they sold their produce at more than one market.91 For example, when asked at how many New York City farmers’ markets they sold their produce, 11 of the 35 survey respondents named six or more markets.

In all, the 35 survey respondents represented a total of 210 New York City farmers’ markets booths.92 These 210 farmers’ market booths were located in markets across all five New York City boroughs, with the most – 88 – in Manhattan markets, and the least – four – in Staten Island markets. In the remaining boroughs the breakdown was as follows: 60 of the survey respondents’ booths were in Brooklyn farmers’ markets, 39 were in the Bronx, and 19 were in Queens. These numbers are depicted in Figure 2.

FIgUre2:Survey Respondents’ Farmers’ Market Locations

Number of booths Percentage

Bronx 39 18.6%

Brooklyn 60 28.6%

Manhattan 88 41.9%

Queens 19 9.0%

Staten Island 4 1.9%

Citywide 210 100.0%

Notably, the breakdown of booths per borough was roughly proportionate to the number of farmers’ markets in each borough during the time that CCC conducted this survey. Out of the approximately 130 New York City

90 Of those surveyed, 31 were farmers and four were farms’ operations managers.

91 Five survey respondents reported that they sold at a single New York City farmers’ market.

92 This does not, however, mean that survey respondents represented 210 farmers’ markets, as this number of farmers’ markets does not exist in New York City. Rather, several survey respondents sold their produce at different booths within the same markets.

farmers’ markets in operation during 2011, Manhattan had the most markets, followed by Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and finally Staten Island.93

The following summarizes additional key characteristics of the 35 survey respondents:

• The survey respondents hailed from three different states. The most – 27 – were from New York State, including two urban farmers from New York City, while six were from New Jersey and two were from Pennsylvania.

• When asked, “Which days a week do you, or someone who works for you, come to NYC to sell at farmers’ markets?” over half of the survey respondents – 19, or 54.3 percent – provided answers that fell in the range of three to five days a week. However, some came to market more, while others did so less. Specifically, seven survey respondents, or 20 percent, provided answers that fell in the range between six to seven days a week, while nine, or 25.7 percent, attended either one or two days per week.

• Thirty-three of the 35 survey respondents sold in New York City farmers’ markets during at least July through November. The two exceptions sold during August through October, because of the special nature of their crops. Fifteen survey respondents sold in New York City farmers’ markets year-round.

• Of the 35 survey respondents, eight (22.9 percent) said that they sold different items at different markets. Three survey respondents said that they sold different items at different markets as a result of the farmers’ market operators’ rules, which required a diversity of products be sold at each market. The other five stated that they tailored the products they sold at each market to meet customer demands. For example, one survey respondent explained, “I don’t sell callaloo in Union Square, but I do in other markets...[where I] have Caribbean families as customers.”

• Some survey respondents sold their produce at retail outlets besides farmers’ markets. For example, several survey respondents also sold their produce to bodegas and Community Supported Agriculture (“CSA”) arrangements, while others sold directly to restaurants.

93 This distribution of farmers’ markets throughout the boroughs remained the same in 2012.


In sum, the survey respondents were a diverse group. They represented farm businesses of varying sizes, and sold their products on different days at 210 market booths in farmers’ markets throughout all five boroughs.

daTalIMITaTIoNs

It is important to note the existence of a few conditions that may have influenced survey respondents’ answers to the survey questions. The dates during which the surveys were conducted are one such factor. CCC administered the bulk of its surveys from mid-June through the first 10 days of August 2011. Therefore, except for the few surveys conducted in the month of June 2011, the majority of the surveys were administered during a time period in which farmers could potentially accept all three programs. This factor may have had some bearing on how survey respondents answered survey questions, given that they were asked about the impact of food programs’ on their overall earnings from New York City farmers’ markets.

Second, the availability and use of “Health Bucks”94 was another condition that may have affected survey respondents’ answers to survey questions. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s (“DOHMH”) Health Bucks program provides SNAP recipients with a financial incentive to shop at

94 There were 65 farmers’ markets participating in the Health Bucks program when CCC conducted this survey during the summer of 2011. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, “NYC Department of Health & Human Resources Administration Launch 2011 Health Bucks Season at City’s Farmers Markets.” June 30, 2011 (Press Release). http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2011/pr015-11.shtml. Accessed June 11, 2012. The following July, the Mayor and the City Council Speaker announced that Health Bucks would be accepted at all New York City farmers’ markets. Office of the Mayor of New York City, “Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn Announce that, for First Time Ever, All of City’s Farmers’ Markets Will Make Fresh Fruit and Vegetables More Affordable for Low-Income New Yorkers.” July 2, 2012 (Press Release). http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2012b%2Fpr252-12.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1. Accessed July 2, 2012.

participating farmers’ markets.95 Specifically, SNAP customers receive a $2 Health Bucks coupon for every $5 in SNAP benefits that they spend on fresh produce in farmers’ markets. While it has been documented that the Health Bucks program has significantly increased SNAP/EBT spending in farmers’ markets,96 it is difficult to gauge what, if any, impact Health Bucks had on how survey respondents answered questions about their New York City farmers’ market sales and experiences, given that many of the survey respondents sold at a variety of markets that may or may not have distributed Health Bucks during the 2011 season.97

Finally, it is important to remember when reviewing our findings that the FMNP can be used solely in farmers’ markets, while customers can use both the WIC F&V check and SNAP in other retail venues. Because this survey explored the usage of the three programs in New York City farmers’ markets only, the resulting data yield no findings about WIC F&V check and SNAP redemption outside of farmers’ markets. Further, when reviewing the findings one should consider that customers may choose to make WIC F&V check and SNAP purchases in other retail locations, such as participating supermarkets and bodegas.

95 Id.

96 GrowNYC 2010 EBT Report, supra note 58.

97 Two additional incentive programs began in a limited number of markets during the summer of 2011, but after CCC concluded our surveys. One, the “Fresh Connect Check,” was included in New York State Governor Cuomo’s Fresh Connect Farmers’ Market program. This program provided $2 for every $5 in SNAP that a customer spent in one of seven participating markets throughout the State. New York State Governor’s Press Office, “Governor Cuomo Launches ‘Fresh Connect Farmers’ Markets to Benefit Farmers and Communities Statewide.” August 9, 2011 (Press Release). http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/08092011FreshConnect. Accessed October 17, 2012. The second, Wholesome Wave’s Double Value Coupon Program, incentivized WIC F&V check use in seven New York City farmers’ markets. Wholesome Wave, a national organization concerned with access to healthy, local food, provided customers with a coupon that was worth the same amount as the WIC F&V checks, and therefore served to double the amount that customers were able to spend with each WIC F&V check. Wholesome Wave, “Double Value Coupon Program.” http://wholesomewave.org/dvcp/. Accessed September 27, 2012. It is unlikely that the existence of these incentives impacted how survey respondents answered questions about these programs’ effects on their New York City farmers’ market sales, given the limited number of New York City markets in which these incentives were distributed and the fact that they became available after CCC finished conducting our surveys.


all three programs were sources of income for those survey respondents who sold in low-income neighborhoods.

FindingsrelatedtosalesUsingFoodPrograms

FINdINg1: Many survey respondents reported that all three programs had a positive impact on their New York City sales.

Two areas in the survey addressed food programs’ impact on sales. First, whenever a survey respondent confirmed that he or she accepted one of the three food programs, he or she was then asked, “What effect has accepting [this program] had on your New York City sales?” Survey respondents could choose from among the following possible answers to this question: “increased sales a lot,” “increased sales a little,” sales “did not change,” or “don’t know.” Figure 3 illustrates the survey respondents’ answers to this question.

FIgUre3:Effect of Food Programs on Survey Respondents’ Sales in New York City Farmers’ Markets

As Figure 398 shows, SNAP was the program most likely to increase sales in some way, with almost 95 percent of survey respondents noting an impact, and 34.3 percent stating that it had “increased sales a lot.” The percentage

98 When examining Figure 3 it is necessary to keep in mind the number of survey respondents who accepted each of the three programs. Not all survey respondents accepted all three programs. Only those who accepted a program were asked about that program’s effect on their sales. Consequently, a different number of survey respondents were asked about each program’s effects on sales. These numbers are noted in the Figure as “N=.”

Findings

CCC sought to learn more about the usage of the WIC F&V check, SNAP, and the FMNP in the City’s farmers’ markets through surveying the farmers who sell produce in these venues. We aimed to explore whether and how the use of these programs contributed to families’ food security and to the sustainability of farmers’ markets in New York City, especially in low-income neighborhoods. Analysis of CCC’s survey responses yielded findings that shed light on two themes: 1) the impacts that the use of federal food programs in New York City’s farmers’ markets had on sales and 2) the barriers that surveyed farmers believed existed to their participation as vendors in these programs.

With regard to the first theme, almost all survey respondents reported that the use of FMNP checks, EBT cards, and WIC F&V checks in New York City farmers’ markets had positive effects on their sales. The amount of impact each of these three programs had on the income of survey respondents who sold produce at farmers’ markets throughout New York City varied. However, it is clear that use of these programs was especially critical for those survey respondents who sold produce at farmers’ markets in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, several survey respondents stated that there were certain low-income neighborhoods in which they would be unable to continue to conduct business if customers could not use food programs to make purchases.

As to the second theme, survey respondents identified challenges to their participation as vendors in each of the three programs. Survey respondents reported that the WIC F&V check program presented more barriers to participation than the FMNP or SNAP programs.

The following is a detailed analysis of our findings.

BeNeFICIalsalesIMPaCTsoFFederalFoodPrograMUseINNewYorkCITYFarMers’MarkeTs

CCC’s survey instrument included questions probing if and how each of the three above-described food programs (the WIC F&V check, FMNP, and SNAP) contributed to farmers’ sales at New York City farmers’ markets. Overall, many survey respondents reported that all three programs had a positive impact on their New York City farmers’ market sales. Further, many survey responses showed that

44.1%

34.3%

4.3%

44.1%

60.0%

26.1%

5.9% 5.7%

69.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

FMNP (N=34) SNAP/EBT (N=35) WIC F&V (N=23)

Increased sales a lot Increased sales a little Sales did not change

44.1%

34.3%

4.3%

44.1%

60.0%

26.1%

5.9% 5.7%

69.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

FMNP (N=34) SNAP/EBT (N=35) WIC F&V (N=23)

Increased sales a lot Increased sales a little Sales did not change


of survey respondents who experienced a sales increase from FMNP use was also extremely high, reaching almost 90 percent.99 In addition, FMNP was the program most reported to have had a large impact on survey respondents’ farmers’ market sales, as 44.1 percent of those who accepted the FMNP check stated that doing so had “increased sales a lot.” This outcome is especially striking given that FMNP checks can be used only during a few months of the year and that they are provided in smaller denominations ($4 amounts) than the WIC F&V check ($6, $8, and $10 amounts) and the SNAP benefit (the amount of which the customer can specify).

Figure 3 also shows that just over 30 percent of survey respondents who accepted the WIC F&V check reported an increase in their New York City farmers’ market sales as a result of the check’s usage. While this is clearly a much smaller impact than that of either of the other two programs, the fact that the check has contributed in some way to an increase in the survey respondents’ sales must not be discounted. Further, as detailed above, not only is the ability to use the WIC F&V check in New York City farmers’ markets a recent development, but the check itself has only been in existence for a few years. The lower

99 For the FMNP column in Figure 3, the percentage of survey respondents who chose each provided answer, when combined, does not add up to 100 percent. This is because two survey respondents who accepted FMNP chose “don’t know” when asked about FMNP’s effect on his New York City farmers’ market sales.

usage of the WIC F&V check in farmers’ markets may therefore be attributed, in part, to its newness, and is perhaps a reflection of both farmers’ and customers’ lack of familiarity with the program. Moreover, the larger impact that the better-established SNAP and FMNP have had on survey respondents’ sales in New York City farmers’ markets suggests that there is great potential for WIC F&V check usage to also grow in these venues.

Besides asking the above-described, more generally-phrased questions about the three food programs’ impacts, the survey also asked respondents to approximate the percent of all of their New York City farmers’ market sales that came from the individual food programs, as well as from cash and credit. In other words, survey respondents had to estimate, out of 100 percent, what percent FMNP, SNAP, the WIC F&V check, cash, and/or credit card sales each contributed to their overall New York City farmers’ market sales.100 Figure 4 shows how those surveyed responded to this question. In Figure 4, survey respondents’ answers are divided into quintile ranges. Included in the chart is the number of survey respondents whose answers fell within each quintile.101

100 All survey respondents were asked to complete this question, even if they did not accept all three programs.

101 Even though all survey respondents were asked to answer this question, the analysis about the impact of each program includes only those survey respondents who actually accepted the program.

FIgUre4:Survey Respondents’ Approximations: How Much Each Food Program Contributed to Their Total New York City Farmers’ Market Sales

1

17

9

4 3

1

27

6

1

9

13

1 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0% 20% to39.9%

40% to59.9%

60% to79.9%

80% orMore

Num

ber

of S

urve

y Re

spon

den

ts

� From FMNP (N=34)

� From SNAP/EBT (N=35)

� From WIC F&V (N=23)

Less than 20%

Percent Each Food Program Contributed to Sales


As illustrated in Figure 4, survey respondents’ answers to this set of questions continued to demonstrate that all three programs had a positive impact on most survey respondents’ New York City farmers’ market sales. The amount that each food program contributed to each of the survey respondents’ overall sales did, however, differ. All but one survey respondent who accepted FMNP and one survey respondent who accepted SNAP/EBT stated that sales from these programs comprised some portion of their income from New York City farmers’ markets. FMNP sales contributed the largest amount, with almost half of all survey respondents who accepted FMNP (16 of 34) reporting that their sales to customers using FMNP comprised 20 percent or more of their earnings from the New York City farmers’ markets in which they sold. Further, one-fifth of survey respondents who accepted SNAP/EBT (7 of 35) stated that it comprised 20 percent or more of their New York City farmers’ market sales, and almost four-fifths (27 of 35) stated that it contributed up to 20 percent. Finally, the WIC F&V check was less profitable for survey respondents, but did reportedly add to the earnings of about 60 percent of those who accepted the program (14 of 23).

Even more striking is the cumulative effect that the survey respondents reported the three programs to have had on their New York City farmers’ market sales. As demonstrated in Figure 5, survey respondents provided information that showed the use of all three programs

combined had a significant positive impact on their earnings in New York City farmers’ markets. The survey respondents who accepted all three programs reported that the use of these food programs at their New York City farmers’ market booths contributed to some percentage of their income. Moreover, just over half of the survey respondents who accepted all three programs (12 of 23) stated that their sales from these programs, when combined, contributed to 40 percent or more of their income from New York City farmers’ markets.

FINdINg2:All three programs were critical sources of income for those survey respondents who sold at farmers’ markets in high-poverty neighborhoods. However, use of these programs was not limited to markets in high-poverty neighborhoods.

There was a broad range in what survey respondents stated about how much they earned from their customers’ use of food programs at New York City farmers’ markets, with some asserting they made a great deal from these programs, and others reporting earnings that were noticeable, but not large. Although this survey was not designed to determine what caused such a span, survey results indicate that it was, in part, attributable to the fact that survey respondents sold their produce at a wide variety of farmers’ market locations

FIgUre5:Survey Respondents’ Approximations: How Much All Three Programs, Combined, Contributed to Their Total New York City Farmers’ Market Sales

2

4

6

3

8 9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

00% 20% to

39.9%40% to59.9%

60% to79.9%

80% ormore

Num

ber o

f Sur

vey R

espo

nden

ts

Less than 20%

Percent All Three Programs Contributed to Sales


in New York City. More specifically, survey respondents whose market locations included markets in higher-poverty neighborhoods, as compared to survey respondents who sold in lower-poverty neighborhoods, reported that sales to customers using food programs had greater positive impact on their New York City farmers’ market income. It should be noted, though, that usage of these programs was not exclusive to markets in higher-poverty neighborhoods.

The analyses of two areas of questioning have led CCC to these conclusions. First, all survey respondents were asked whether there were markets in which they had observed food program use to have a positive impact on their sales. Second, for each program that they accepted, survey respondents were asked whether there were particular markets in which they would stop selling if they could no longer accept the program in question.

With regard to the former area of questioning, all survey respondents were asked, “Are there any specific markets where you observe the three programs we’ve talked about to have a positive impact on your sales?” Of the 35 survey respondents, 28 – or 80 percent – responded “yes.” Those who answered “yes” were then asked to name the markets in which they had experienced this positive effect. Listed in Figure 6 are the New York City Community Districts that house the markets that survey respondents named.102

102 Survey respondents did specify neighborhoods and/or market names in response to the question about markets where food program usage had a positive impact. The discussion herein about survey respondents’ answers to this and related questions, however, identifies the New York City Community Districts in which the named markets are situated. CCC has chosen not to provide specific market names or locations in this report, as doing so could identify particular survey respondents, all of whom were promised confidentiality when they agreed to take CCC’s survey.

FIgUre6: Survey Respondents Stated That Food Programs had a Positive Impact on their Sales in the Following Community Districts

Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens and Staten Island

Mott Haven/Melrose (B01)

Greenpoint/Williamsburg (K01)

Battery Park/Tribeca (M01)

Astoria (Q01)

Hunts Point/Longwood (B02)

Fort Greene/Brooklyn Heights (K02)

Midtown (M05) Jackson Heights (Q03)

Highbridge/Concourse (B04)

Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) Upper West Side (M07) Elmhurst/Corona (Q04)

Belmont/East Tremont (B06)

Bushwick (K04) Morningside Heights/Hamilton (M09)

Flushing/Whitestone (Q07)

Kingsbridge Heights/Bedford (B07)

East New York/ Starrett City (K05)

Central Harlem (M10) Jamaica/Hollis (Q12)

Parkchester/Soundview (B09)

Park Slope/Carroll Gardens (K06)

East Harlem (M11) St. George (S1)

Morris Park/Bronxdale (B11)

Sunset Park (K07) Washington Heights/Inwood (M12)

Williamsbridge/Baychester (B12)

Crown Heights/ Prospect Heights (K08)

Borough Park (K12)

Coney Island (K13)

Flatbush/Midwood (K14)

Brownsville (K16)


According to survey respondents, the programs in question had a positive impact on markets located in more than half of the City’s 59 Community Districts. Many of these districts include communities with high poverty rates. For example, in 2011, 40.6 percent of residents and 49 percent of children in Bronx Community Districts 1 and 2 (Mott Haven/Hunts Point) lived below the federal poverty level, as did 38.2 percent of residents and 52 percent of children in Brooklyn Community District 16 (Brownsville). However, also included are a few Community Districts with much lower rates of poverty, such as Manhattan Community District 1 (Battery Park/Tribeca) (11.5 percent of residents and 5.1 percent of children below the federal poverty level). Overall, this list demonstrates that survey respondents reported customer use of food programs at New York City’s farmers’ markets to have a positive impact on a large number of markets in areas with high poverty rates, but also that the use of these programs was not limited to only higher-poverty neighborhoods.

Further, not only did most survey respondents state that there were markets in which food programs had a positive impact on their sales, but some also asserted that there were certain locations in which they could not conduct business without the existence of these programs. This finding was especially true for the FMNP. When asked, “Can you think of any markets where you would stop selling if you could not collect the FMNP voucher?,” 11 survey respondents said “yes,” and listed a combined total of 19 Community Districts in which this would be the case (five in the Bronx, eight in Brooklyn, three in Manhattan, and three in Queens).103 Also, three survey respondents identified markets in six community districts in which they would no longer sell if EBT terminals were not available for customers to use (three in the Bronx, one in Brooklyn, one in Manhattan, and one in Queens), while one survey respondent identified two Bronx markets when asked this question about the WIC F&V check.104

Unfortunately, more precise conclusions about how these programs impacted survey respondents’ sales at New York City farmers’ markets in specific neighborhoods cannot

103 Every market cited as one in which a survey respondent could no longer sell if the FMNP was not available is also included in the list of market locations at which survey respondents witnessed the use of all three food programs to have had a positive effect on their sales (Figure 6).

104 Every market cited as one in which a survey respondent could no longer sell if EBT and/or the WIC F&V were not available is also included in the list of market locations at which survey respondents witnessed the use of all three programs to have had a positive effect on their sales (Figure 6).

be drawn from the survey respondents’ approximations about how much of their New York City earnings came from each of the food programs, cash and credit card use. This survey question required respondents to approximate their total New York City farmers’ market income earned from each source for all of the markets in which they sold, thereby providing an average across the totality of their markets. Therefore, potentially obscured in the answers of those who sold in both lower-income and higher-income neighborhoods is just how much usage of food programs contributed to earnings at markets in the lower-income areas. The statements of one survey respondent serve to illustrate this point. This survey respondent, who sold at markets in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan, explained that the breakdown of his sales would look very different if he had been asked to individually approximate sales from food programs for each of the three markets in which he sold. He reported that overall, FMNP contributed to 30 percent and SNAP/EBT contributed to 10 percent of his sales, but in the Bronx market in which he sold, 70 percent of his sales came from FMNP, and 25 percent from SNAP/EBT. Thus, while the food programs contributed to his sales at all of the markets in which he sold, his approximation understates the true impact of these programs on his sales at a market in a higher-poverty neighborhood.

In the context of this discussion, it is worth noting that many survey respondents chose to enroll to accept food programs at their New York City farmers’ market booths because they were invested in selling produce to low-income customers. Survey respondents who were enrolled to accept FMNP checks and/or WIC F&V checks were asked why they decided to enroll in these programs. The survey presented respondents with several potential answers to these questions, from which they could choose all that applied. For both programs, survey respondents’ top two responses were “I thought enrolling in [this program] would increase my sales” and “I wanted to be able to sell produce to low-income customers.” More specifically, 64.7 percent of survey respondents who were enrolled to accept the FMNP were interested in increasing sales, while 73.5 percent wanted to sell to low-income customers. Meanwhile, 87 percent of survey respondents who were enrolled to accept the WIC F&V check did so hoping to increase their sales, and 60.9 percent stated a desire to sell to low-income customers. These responses demonstrate that survey respondents, when deciding whether or not to enroll to accept food programs, considered not just the impact these programs would have on sales, but also the communities and individuals they wished to serve.


surveyrespondents’statementsabouttheImportanceofFoodProgramsforFarmers’Marketsales

Finally, when survey respondents were asked if they had anything additional to share about each of the programs discussed, or about all three, several survey respondents took the opportunity to explain how important they thought the programs were to their sales, and to the existence of certain markets. The following are examples of such statements:

• “FMNP is requisite for many markets to survive, especially…uptown Manhattan, Brooklyn, and in the Bronx.”

• “I would be out of business [in Queens and the Bronx] without FMNP.”

• “I wouldn’t stop selling at markets if there was no EBT terminal, but some markets just wouldn’t be that profitable.”

• “If you cut back these programs there are markets that won’t survive. These programs have become an integral part of market – several will not survive on cash alone.”

• “The [federally-funded] programs are positive. Good that there is a link between local producers and low-income families. Both groups need help.”

• “To the farmers’ market community if a program was cancelled, a lot of farmers’ markets would have to close [because there would not be] enough income coming in. Programs are the lifeblood of some farms, especially mine. If cancelled, close the door of the farm…”

Overall, these statements, and the responses to questions about markets in which survey respondents could no longer sell if food programs were unavailable, show that food programs not only increased survey respondents’ New York City market sales, but also enabled markets, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods, to exist. Further, these findings indicate that low-income New Yorkers and residents of high-poverty neighborhoods are using food programs to purchase fruits and vegetables for themselves and their families. Therefore, for both New York City families and regional farmers, the value of all three programs, especially when used together, cannot be overstated.

BarrIersTosUrveYresPoNdeNTs’eNrollMeNTIN,aNdaCCePTaNCeoF,FoodPrograMs

At the time CCC drafted and began to conduct outreach for our survey, a limited number of farmers who sold in New York City farmers’ markets (23) accepted the WIC F&V check, and these farmers sold at a total of 76 markets.105 As a result, families who received WIC did not have a large number of New York City farmers’ market locations, and farmers’ market booths within markets, at which they could spend their WIC F&V checks. This may have served to discourage New York City WIC recipients from bringing their WIC F&V checks to farmers’ markets in order to purchase healthy, fresh farmers’ market produce. It is therefore important to determine whether any characteristics of the WIC F&V check program present obstacles that dissuade farmers from becoming vendors in this program.

In order to examine these potential WIC F&V check barriers, it is necessary to not just look at the characteristics of the WIC F&V check itself, but also to compare survey respondents’ opinions about the WIC F&V check and the FMNP check, because the two checks share many similarities. Among the programs’ common characteristics are their:

• Provision to mothers and children receiving WIC;106

• Use for purchase of specified produce;

• Requirement that farmers wishing to become vendors in each program submit an application form;

• Requirement that farmers reapply or recertify after set amounts of time in order to remain enrolled;

• Employment of paper checks for the sales transaction, instead of cash or EBT cards;

• Specification of dates during which the paper checks can be used and by when they expire;

• Specification of deadlines by when the paper checks must be redeemed for payment;

• Prescription of the exact amount each paper check is worth on the face of the check;

105 See supra notes 87-88 for information about how CCC determined these numbers.

106 As noted above, FMNP is also provided to senior citizens.


• Prohibition against check users receiving change when they purchase food that costs less than the value on the face of the check; and

• Imposition of sanctions on those farmers who fail to comply with program rules.

FindingsrelatedtoBarriersandthewICF&vCheckProgram

Despite the WIC F&V and FMNP checks’ many similarities, survey respondents found the WIC F&V check program a more difficult program in which to participate than the FMNP. The following discussion explores the challenges that survey respondents thought each of these programs presented, and highlights barriers that survey respondents identified as existing only for, or in a more pronounced manner for, the WIC F&V check. Identification and addressing of these obstacles and differences can help suggest policy or practice changes, which in turn can help increase the number of farmers who accept the WIC F&V check, and ultimately the number of customers who use the WIC F&V check at New York City’s farmers’ markets.

CCC’s survey asked a series of questions about potential barriers to farmers’ participation in both the WIC F&V check program and the FMNP. With regard to the former, all survey respondents were asked, “Have you heard of the WIC F&V check?” Of the 35 total survey respondents, 33 had heard about the program. Only the 33 who responded that they had heard of the WIC F&V check were presented with a list of 15 possible obstacles to their participation as vendors in the program.107 For each of the 15 items on the list, the survey respondents were asked whether that item was a “challenge/barrier” to their participation in the WIC F&V check program. Those surveyed had the option to respond that the presented item was not a barrier. If a survey respondent asserted that he or she thought an identified aspect on the list was a barrier, he or she was asked to characterize whether that aspect represented a “minimal,” “moderate,” or “significant” barrier. Survey respondents also had the option to respond “I don’t know.”

Figure 7 shows the number (and corresponding percent) of survey respondents who found the presented characteristics posed potential barriers to their participation in the WIC F&V check program.

107 We emphasize that in order to answer these particular questions, survey respondents did not have to be among the 23 surveyed who were enrolled to accept the WIC F&V check. Instead, a survey respondent only had to have heard of the WIC F&V check program.


FIgUre7:*

Survey Respondents’ Opinions about Potential Barriers to Their Participation as Vendors in the WIC F&V Program

Potential barrier to WIC F&V enrollment Significant Moderate Minimal None

Length of the application form (N=23) 4 17.4% 6 26.1% 2 8.7% 11 47.8%

Amount of personal information farmer required to disclose (N=23)

3 13.0% 3 13.0% 5 21.7% 12 52.2%

Wait time for application to be processed (N=21)

2 9.5% 4 19.0% 3 14.3% 12 57.1%

Requirement that farmer has to get recertified for the program every 3 years (N=29)

2 6.9% 3 10.3% 5 17.2% 19 65.5%

Training in which a farmer has to participate every 18 months (N=30)

7 23.3% 6 20.0% 6 20.0% 11 36.7%

$6 and $10 amounts that WIC F&V check is worth (N=27)

0 0.0% 3 11.1% 3 11.1% 21 77.8%

Requirement that WIC F&V check users need to show WIC ID to make a purchase (N=29)

3 10.3% 12 41.4% 4 13.8% 10 34.5%

Requirement that WIC participant sign WIC F&V check in front of the farmer to make a purchase (N=28)

8 28.6% 5 17.9% 6 21.4% 9 32.1%

The fact that the WIC F&V check is good for a one-month period, after which it expires (N=28)

8 28.6% 7 25.0% 5 17.9% 8 28.6%

The amount of time a farmer has to redeem the WIC F&V checks in order to be paid (N=30)

5 16.7% 11 36.7% 3 10.0% 11 36.7%

Process a farmer has to go through to redeem WIC F&V checks (N=26)

3 11.5% 8 30.8% 4 15.4% 11 42.3%

Sanctions for farmer failure to comply with WIC rules (N=28)

6 21.4% 4 14.3% 0 0.0% 18 64.3%

Prohibition against customer’s use of the WIC F&V checks for white potatoes (N=30)

15 50.0% 4 13.3% 1 3.3% 10 33.3%

Prohibition against customer’s use of the WIC F&V checks for herbs (N=32)

12 37.5% 4 12.5% 4 12.5% 12 37.5%

Prohibition against customers’ use of WIC F&V check for non-produce products (e.g. pies, breads, etc.) (N=31)

2 6.5% 2 6.5% 2 6.5% 25 80.6%

* When reviewing Figure 7, it is important to note that although survey respondents could assert “I don’t know” as an answer to each question about these possible obstacles, the total number of survey respondents from which the percentages included in this Figure were calculated did not include the “I don’t know” responses. Instead, only included in the base from which the percentage was calculated were the responses of those surveyed who had knowledge of the particular characteristic about which they were being asked, and the ability to share an opinion. As a result, the number of survey respondents differs for each question, and is noted next to each characteristic as “N=.”


FINdINg3: A number of survey respondents found the federal WIC program regulations that control their interactions with their farmers’ market customers to be challenging. These included prohibitions regulating what produce WIC participants could purchase, requirements that WIC customers sign the WIC F&V check and show identification at the time of purchase, and regulations about the dates during which the WIC F&V check can be used.

As Figure 7 demonstrates, for 10 of the 15 potential barriers about which they were asked, survey respondents’ most popular answer was that those characteristics did not pose any challenges. However, there were several characteristics that more than 40 percent of survey respondents reported to be “moderate” or “significant” barriers to their participation. These challenging characteristics concerned either the sales transaction between farmers and their customers in the marketplace or the farmers’ administrative responsibilities as vendors in the WIC F&V check program.

Prohibitions regulating what produce customers can purchase when using the WIC F&V check at the farmers’ market were among the most identified WIC F&V check program barriers.108 According to many survey respondents, the prohibition against using this check to purchase white potatoes was especially problematic. Of the 30 survey respondents who stated an opinion about the white potato rule, 50 percent said it was a “significant” challenge, and 13.3 percent called it a “moderate” challenge. Words that survey respondents used to describe the white potato prohibition included “strange,” “stupid,” and a “real problem.” Note that also unpopular was the prohibition preventing the use of the WIC F&V check to purchase herbs. Half of the 32 survey respondents who were able to state an opinion about the herb rule reported it to be either a “moderate” or “significant” barrier.

A few survey respondents elaborated on why they found these prohibitions so challenging. Some asserted that the

108 Note that these opinions stand in sharp contrast with those that survey respondents expressed about prohibitions on the use of the WIC F&V check for non-produce items. Fewer than 20 percent of survey respondents viewed restrictions forbidding the WIC F&V check’s use for non-produce items to be any level of challenge. Further, just over six percent – or only two survey respondents who answered this question – called this particular prohibition “significant.” These outcomes could be attributed in part to the fact that several (but certainly not all) survey respondents sold produce only, and not other items, in New York City farmers’ markets.

prohibitions prevented customers from buying foods that were not only healthy, but also enabled them to cook their cultures’ traditional meals. For example, one survey respondent explained that he thought the prohibition on the use of the WIC F&V check to purchase herbs was especially taxing to those who shopped in the two markets in which he sold that were often frequented by members of New York City’s African and Caribbean immigrant communities. According to this survey respondent, these customers used many herbs, such as cilantro, in their cooking. The prohibition therefore prevented him from selling to these customers some of the produce items that enabled them to make traditional meals. Further, at least one survey respondent stated that the prohibitions created situations that could be uncomfortable for those of his staff members who conducted the marketplace sales transactions. That survey respondent explained that the rule “put the sales staff [for his farm’s booth in the market] in an awkward position because they had to explain [to customers] why they couldn’t accept” the check.

Other sales transaction aspects that many survey respondents found burdensome were the requirements that WIC F&V check customers had to sign their checks and show their WIC identification cards in order to complete their purchases. Of the survey respondents that stated an opinion about these requirements, 51.7 percent found the identification requirement to be either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier, while 46.5 percent stated that the signature requirement was either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier. Survey respondents who elaborated on these points cited several reasons for characterizing these aspects of the program as difficulties. One survey respondent stated that “the signing requirement is a real problem – it takes too long.” Another worried that “all that scrutiny [of a customer’s ID, signature, and the check’s expiration date] is hard…lots of people are watching the process in the farmers’ market and looking down at people using [this program].” Finally, a third survey respondent asserted that it was “difficult to train employees about the ID and the signing…[because] it’s confusing that it’s not always the person signing whose name is on the check.”

Further, the 30-day period during which the WIC F&V checks must be used resulted in a challenge for some survey respondents when dealing with their customers in the marketplace. When asked about the 30-day period, with precisely fixed “not good before” and “not good after” dates noted on the check, 53.6 percent of the 28 respondents that stated an opinion about this characteristic


found it posed either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier. A few survey respondents explained that it was hard to remember to look for and locate the check’s expiration date while conducting a sale in a crowded market when one is “selling so much, so quickly,” and it was difficult to train staff to complete this task.

FINdINg4: Some survey respondents found that farmers’ administrative responsibilities as vendors in the WIC F&V check program, such as paperwork and keeping track of deadlines, created barriers to their participation.

The other areas that some of the survey respondents reported to be challenging involved administrative responsibilities that were required of participating farmers, such as paperwork and keeping track of program deadlines. For example, many survey respondents found the mandatory training for WIC vendors, which farmers must attend once a year either in-person or via interactive webcast, to be an obstacle.109 Of the 30 survey respondents that stated an opinion about the training requirement, 43.3 percent reported that they thought the training session presented either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier to their participation in the program. It is important to note that, of the 10 survey respondents who had heard of the WIC F&V check but did not accept it, three cited the training requirement as a basis for their decision when asked why they chose not to enroll. Two said that they did not have time to engage in the training, and the third simply stated that he “didn’t want to do the training.”110

Several survey respondents also said that the redemption process, including the amount of time in which farmers had to redeem the WIC F&V check for payment, was a barrier. A vendor has 60 days from the “not good

109 The Ag & Markets website states that there were four trainings held via webcast in 2012; two were in April, and two were in May. An additional four webinars were held in January and February 2013. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, “WIC Vegetables and Fruits Checks at Farmers’ Markets.” http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/fmnp-wic-vf.html. Accessed February 14, 2013. In addition, according to information Ag & Markets provided to CCC, the Department held seven in-person trainings during March through May 2012. Each of these trainings was conducted in different New York State counties, including one April training conducted in New York City.

110 Also identified as reasons survey respondents decided not to participate in the WIC F&V check program were the difficulties involved with training staff, the lack of customers using the WIC F&V check, a lack of personal time in which to get the application form notarized, and the perception that it was not worth one’s while to engage in this program when a significant amount of income was already derived from the other two programs.

before” date printed on the WIC F&V check in which to redeem the check. This is done by depositing the check and awaiting electronic payment from the State. Of the 30 survey respondents who stated an opinion about the redemption period, 53.4 percent called this timeline either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier. Survey respondents found the redemption process itself less difficult than the redemption period, although 42.3 percent called it either a “significant” or “moderate” obstacle.

Finally, 43.5 percent of the 23 survey respondents who stated an opinion about the length of the application form said that it presented either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier.

surveyrespondent-suggestedBarrierstoTheirParticipationinthewICF&vCheckProgram

Besides presenting survey respondents with a list of potential “challenges/barriers,” survey administrators also asked respondents whether there were additional obstacles to their WIC F&V check participation that had not already been identified within the survey, and what, if anything, they would change about the WIC F&V program. Most survey respondents took this opportunity to underscore and/or elaborate on the issues described above. At least six survey respondents added their concerns that not enough promotion and outreach about the WIC F&V check had been conducted. Further, they explained that customers needed education both about the availability of the F&V check and about how to conduct a transaction using the WIC F&V check in the marketplace. At least two survey respondents added that they feared cuts, which they strongly opposed, to the FMNP, but hoped that if such reductions materialized then outreach about the WIC F&V check would increase that program’s use, thereby offsetting a portion of anticipated losses.

FindingsrelatedtoBarriersandtheFMNPProgram

A similar list of potential barriers to FMNP participation was presented to survey respondents. However, because some of the WIC F&V check characteristics identified as potential barriers are specific to that program and do not exist for the FMNP, survey respondents were asked about only 10, rather than 15, FMNP characteristics. For example, there are no rules prohibiting FMNP use for purchase of herbs or white potatoes, no mandatory FMNP trainings, and no requirements that a customer

FINdINg3: A number of survey respondents found the federal WIC program regulations that control their interactions with their farmers’ market customers to be challenging. These included prohibitions regulating what produce WIC participants could purchase, requirements that WIC customers sign the WIC F&V check and show identification at the time of purchase, and regulations about the dates during which the WIC F&V check can be used.


using FMNP has to show an identification card or sign the FMNP check at the time of purchase. These differences resulted in a shorter list of potential challenges/barriers for the FMNP than for the WIC F&V check.

FINdINg5:Survey respondents found the FMNP check program easier to participate in than the WIC F&V check program. The few areas that survey respondents identified as barriers to FMNP participation concerned administrative processes and the amount of time during which the FMNP check can be used.

Overall, survey respondents reported that the FMNP presented fewer obstacles than did the WIC F&V check, leading one survey respondent to comment that he wished

the WIC F&V check was “done like FMNP” and had less “red tape.” Figure 8 details survey respondents’ opinions about potential barriers to their enrollment in the FMNP. As Figure 8 shows, out of the 10 potential “challenge/barrier” categories, there were only two in which more than a quarter of survey respondents stated that the category in question presented either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier to their participation.111 Further, in not a single one of the identified categories did more than 17.1 percent of survey respondents state that the characteristic in question presented a “significant” barrier.

111 As was the case with Figure 7, although survey respondents were permitted to answer “I don’t know,” the total number from which the percentages included in Figure 8 were calculated did not include the “I don’t know” responses.

FIgUre8: Survey Respondents’ Opinions about Potential Barriers to Their Enrollment in the FMNP Program

Potential barrier to FMNP enrollment: Significant Moderate Minimal None

Length of the application form (N=32) 0 0.0% 4 12.5% 6 18.8% 22 68.8%

Amount of personal information farmer required to disclose (N=30)

0 0.0% 1 3.3% 4 13.3% 25 83.3%

Wait time for application to be processed (N=30)

1 3.3% 3 10.0% 5 16.7% 21 70.0%

Requirement that farmer has to reapply to program every year (N=35)

3 8.6% 7 20.0% 9 25.7% 16 45.7%

$4 amount that FMNP check is worth (N=35) 1 2.9% 3 8.6% 2 5.7% 29 82.9%

FMNP recipients can only use the checks between July 1st and November 15th each year* (N=35)

4 11.4% 4 11.4% 6 17.1% 21 60.0%

Redemption process (N=35) 6 17.1% 7 20.0% 8 22.9% 14 40.0%

November 30th deadline each year by which to redeem collected FMNP checks (N=35)

0 0.0% 6 17.1% 5 14.3% 24 68.6%

Sanctions for farmer failure to comply with FMNP rules (N=34)

2 5.9% 4 11.8% 5 14.7% 23 67.6%

Prohibition against customers’ use of FMNP check for non-produce products (e.g. pies, breads, etc.)(N=34)

2 5.9% 1 2.9% 5 14.7% 26 76.5%

* As previously noted, this was the rule when the survey was conducted during the summer of 2011. However, in 2012, the FMNP check could also be used in June and throughout the end of November.


Some survey respondents found the FMNP redemption process to be the most “significant” or “moderate” barrier to their participation in the program. The redemption process requires that FMNP checks be individually stamped with a rubber stamp, and then deposited or cashed. Of the 35 survey respondents with enough knowledge to answer questions about FMNP check redemption, 37.1 percent said that this process presented a “significant” or “moderate” challenge. Some survey respondents described further the difficulties that they had with the redemption process, critiquing both the stamping requirement and their banks’ rules. For example, two survey respondents explained that they needed to get a new stamp each year, while a third stated that “there’s got to be a better way to redeem the FMNP than the stamp. The stamp is an ink stamp - it’s ridiculous.” Also, at least two survey respondents expressed concerns about what occurred upon their depositing or cashing the FMNP check at the bank. One asserted that the “worst thing is the deposit problem. It depends on the bank. Some banks charge a fee for each check.” Another stated that the “program needs to articulate the procedure for handling to banks; some banks don’t know how to handle [the check].” Finally, one farmer simply called the redemption process “painful.”

In addition to their statements about the redemption process, 28.6 percent of the 35 survey respondents who expressed an opinion about the mandated yearly reapplication process stated that this requirement was either a “significant” or “moderate” barrier to their participation in the program.

Many survey respondents also made statements about the fact that FMNP recipients could only use the FMNP check between July 1st and November 15th (the specific time frame for FMNP use during the summer of 2011 and in preceding years), although fewer than a quarter identified this to be “significant” or “moderate” obstacles to their participation in the program. While some survey respondents simply said that the time period for FMNP use should be “extended,” several others specified for how long. A few respondents supported a year-round FMNP. One such survey respondent stated he “would make FMNP checks available year-round to keep people eating healthy throughout the year,” and because “lots of farmers have year-round produce.” Another asserted that “changing the FMNP to make it year-round will change people’s lives.” Other survey respondents, however, suggested

prolonging the period for FMNP use by just a few weeks. For example, one survey respondent recommended that FMNP “should extend until the week after Thanksgiving [because] it’s a big market week,” while another proposed a May start-date, given that he had “good things to sell in May.” Finally, a few survey respondents suggested that customers should be able to begin using the FMNP check in June, a practice that was implemented during 2012.

surveyrespondent-suggestedBarrierstoTheirParticipationintheFMNPProgram

In addition to asking survey respondents to react to a list of potential “challenges/barriers,” CCC’s instrument also provided survey respondents the chance to identify any obstacles they found prevented FMNP participation, as well as the opportunity to state what, if anything, they would change about the FMNP program. In response, four survey respondents stressed the need for more customer education about how to use the FMNP check. For example, one survey respondent explained that “transactions get unwieldy because participants don’t have the knowledge about how to use the voucher,” while a second asserted that participants “all want to buy more with [the check]…$4.25 worth, when [they’re] permitted four dollars.” Further, two survey respondents said that FMNP customers did not become regular, weekly shoppers, but instead “wait[ed] and use[d the FMNP] all at once late in the season.”

Another four survey respondents found that the restriction against providing customers with change for purchases that amounted to less than the value of the FMNP check created difficulties. One of these respondents explained that it was “complex” to train employees to understand this rule, while another stated that certain customers “demand” change, especially if they had mistakenly received it from another vendor.

FindingsrelatedtoBarriersandsNaP SNAP, as it is administered and used in New York City farmers’ markets, differs in several striking ways from the WIC F&V check and the FMNP. For example, unlike the other two programs, SNAP does not involve paper checks marked with set expiration dates, nor prohibitions against its use for the purchase of non-produce food items. Also, while farmers’ participation as vendors in the WIC F&V


check and FMNP programs is voluntary, some market operation organizations require that farmers must accept SNAP/EBT coins if they wish to sell at those organizations’ New York City markets in which EBT cards can be used. Finally, SNAP use in farmers’ markets is not limited to the purchase of produce. In light of these notable differences, the section of CCC’s survey that explored survey respondents’ opinions about obstacles to their participation in SNAP did not have the same structure as the previously described sections about the WIC F&V check and the FMNP.

FINdINg6: Survey respondents’ opinions about the enrollment, sales, and redemption processes associated with the SNAP/EBT program were overwhelmingly positive.

Survey respondents who had heard about SNAP/EBT were asked to share their opinions about several of that program’s characteristics. Specifically, the survey asked

about the ease of the following processes: enrolling to accept EBT tokens from New York City farmers’ market customers; conducting a sales transaction that involves the use of SNAP/EBT tokens; and redeeming EBT tokens for payment. Survey respondents had to state whether they thought each process was “easy,” “somewhat difficult,” or “difficult.”

Almost every survey respondent (31 of the 33 who were able to answer this question) said that enrolling to accept SNAP/EBT from customers was “easy,” while only one found it “difficult.” Similarly, 32 survey respondents (91.4 percent) reported that accepting SNAP/EBT at market was “easy,” whereas the remaining three survey respondents called this process “somewhat difficult.” Finally, 29 survey respondents (82.9 percent) said SNAP/EBT redemption was “easy,” and five called it “somewhat difficult.” To sum up his feelings about the SNAP/EBT program, one survey respondent stated, “The best administered [program] is EBT…[it’s] easy to understand, and no inconvenience to the farmer.”


reCommendations

CCC’s findings show that federally-funded food programs positively impact the food security of New York City’s low-income families and children, and the incomes of the regional farmers who sell in New York City’s farmers’ markets. Both groups stand to benefit a great deal from policies that encourage and enable even more farmers to enroll in and accept the WIC F&V check, SNAP/EBT tokens, and the FMNP check at their New York City farmers’ market booths. The institution of such policies and practices would increase the number of farmers who choose to accept all three programs and support the establishment of farmers’ markets in more New York City neighborhoods, including food deserts. A growth in the number of participating farmers and markets would provide low-income families with more farmers’ market locations and booths from which to buy produce, and a greater diversity of fresh fruits and vegetables to purchase, thereby further improving their access to needed healthy foods. These improved options may, in turn, increase low-income customers’ interest in buying fresh produce from New York City’s farmers’ markets, an outcome that would ultimately have a positive effect on the diets and health of these New Yorkers and their children, as well as on regional farmers’ earnings.

CCC recognizes that helping families access produce at farmers’ markets is not, on its own, sufficient to address the enormous amounts of food insecurity and hunger that exist in New York City. We are also well aware – and so pleased – that many New Yorkers receive SNAP and WIC benefits, and use them to buy nutritious foods from supermarkets and bodegas across New York City. We do, however, believe that farmers’ markets are an excellent way to bring needed fresh produce and nutrition education into communities throughout the five boroughs, especially into neighborhoods lacking food retail resources. Thus, with an eye to improving low-income New York City children and families’ access to fresh produce from New York City’s farmers’ markets, CCC offers the following recommendations, based on our findings:

1. New York State should create a universal application form that permits farmers to apply to participate in the WIC F&V check program and the FMNP at the same time.

Many survey respondents found the application form for the WIC F&V check difficult, both because of its length and the amount of personal information that farmers were required to disclose on the application. Conversely, survey respondents were, for the most part, satisfied with the application processes for the FMNP. To address this issue, CCC suggests that New York State develop a universal application form for these two programs.112,113 A streamlined application and enrollment process will ease the burden on farmers, especially small farmers who cannot afford to hire a staff person to handle paperwork and other office issues. Further, presenting farmers with a universal application may introduce farmers unfamiliar with the WIC F&V check to that program or entice uninterested farmers to participate.

2. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Department of Health should continue exploration of and support for innovative methods to provide WIC F&V check training and should increase the number of trainings conducted via the web throughout the year, so that interested farmers can participate in the mandatory training at a time and location they find convenient.

According to a large number of survey respondents, the mandatory WIC F&V check training, which farmers must attend once a year either in-person or via interactive webcast, was a challenge. This is unsurprising, given farmers’ busy and unpredictable harvesting schedules and the extremely long days that farmers work, both on the farm and when they come to market in New York City. These conditions are further exacerbated for many small farmers, who must handle all of their own accounting, finances, and paperwork without an office staff.

112 New York can look to Iowa, which has created a single farmers’ application for the FMNP and WIC F&V check program.

113 We did not include SNAP in this recommendation because the application process for farmers who wish to accept SNAP differs greatly from the processes for FMNP and the WIC F&V check. Therefore, attempting to include it on a universal application may increase application processing difficulties.


CCC commends Ag & Markets and DOH for acknowledging these hardships and subsequently establishing training via webcast, so that farmers can participate in the training without having to travel far from home. CCC recommends continuing the Departments’ successful efforts to present trainings in a manner that recognizes and respects farmers’ hectic and sometimes erratic schedules and needs, and urges further examination of how technology can be utilized to overcome these issues. We also suggest holding Spanish-language trainings and training sessions in additional languages, in light of the growing number of immigrant farmers in New York State. Supporting and supplementing existing efforts, both through technological advances and increased language options, will permit even more farmers to participate in the mandatory WIC F&V check training, and ultimately as vendors in the program.

3. New York State’s Department of Agriculture and Markets should permanently increase the number of weeks each year that the FMNP check is available for use in farmers’ markets, so that the check is usable at least from the beginning of June through the end of November.

Many survey respondents lamented the fact that FMNP recipients could only use the FMNP check between July 1st and November 15th (the specific time frame for FMNP use during the summer of 2011). Survey respondents asserted that they wanted to see the time period for FMNP use expanded, not only because they thought it would increase sales, but also because they brought excellent produce to market, both before and after the specified dates. CCC is pleased that, starting in 2012, Ag & Markets began distributing FMNP checks for use beginning in June, rather than July, and extended FMNP use through November. If these changes are not made permanent, customers may find themselves unable to afford the quality produce that will be available in the spring and later in the fall. CCC understands that Ag & Markets is contemplating making these changes permanent. CCC supports these changes, which will permit farmers to continue to increase their FMNP earnings and customers to continue to access available healthy produce for a longer period of time, including through the Thanksgiving holiday.

4. New York State should expedite the inclusion of the WIC F&V check on the EBT card.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 mandates that all states implement an EBT system for the distribution of WIC no later than October 1, 2020. Customers using EBT cards to buy food with SNAP benefits are required to provide a personal identification number at the time of purchase, but, unlike WIC recipients, do not have to show a program identification card or sign anything. Once WIC is distributed on an EBT card, rather than via paper checks, these requirements, which a significant percent of CCC’s survey respondents found burdensome, may no longer be necessary. Also likely to be changed will be the process farmers have to go through to redeem the WIC F&V check for payment, which many farmers found to be a challenge. Farmers, their employees, and their customers may therefore find using the WIC F&V check easier when SNAP and WIC transactions are both included on the same EBT card. Thus, CCC recommends that New York State include the WIC F&V check on the EBT card as soon as possible.

5. New York State and City should continue to explore ways to expand the use of EBT and the WIC F&V check in new and emerging venues that sell New York State produce, such as Mobile Markets, Green Carts, and Community Supported Agriculture (“CSA”) programs, and should engage in a dialogue with federal decision-makers about the need for this expansion.

CCC’s findings showed that low-income consumers were willing to use food program benefits to buy fresh produce. It is important to ensure that these consumers can patronize farmers’ markets and also have a sufficient number of other easily accessible locations at which to use their benefits in order to purchase fruits and vegetables. Several programs and proposals emphasize the importance of these goals, and take steps to effectuate them. An example is Governor Cuomo’s Fresh Connect program, which was launched in August 2011. Fresh Connect improves underserved communities’ access to fresh, locally-grown food, including through an increase in the number of farmers’ markets in food desert neighborhoods


throughout the State, as well as through assistance for use of food programs at these markets and additional community outreach.114 Another example is New York City Council Speaker Quinn’s Food Works program that has, among its many innovative ideas and practices, supported the expansion of New York City farmers’ markets and EBT usage there.115 CCC applauds and embraces these initiatives.

In addition, we recommend the continuation of and an increase in State and City funding and support for wireless EBT terminals at farmers’ markets and in the non-traditional venues in which EBT machines are not yet widespread, but have already been shown to be valuable. Examples of such venues include: Green Carts, which are food carts licensed to sell fresh produce in New York City neighborhoods where residents have low rates of fruit and vegetable consumption; CSAs, through which participants pay at the start of a season to receive shares of a farm’s harvest; and mobile markets, which are vehicles that function as grocery stores on wheels, bringing food (including produce) into neighborhoods that are food deserts. We also hope that WIC F&V check use will be permitted in these non-traditional venues. Further, we urge the exploration of ways in which technology can be used to make it possible for customers to locate farmers’ markets and other retail outlets where these programs can be used. Finally, we would like to see an increase in the number of mobile markets that visit areas in which WIC centers are located.

All of the above will serve to promote the sale and consumption of fresh produce, especially in those retail

114 Fresh Connect Press Release, supra note 97; New York State Governor’s Press Office, “Governor Cuomo Expands Successful ‘Freshconnect’ Program to Benefit Farmers and Communities Statewide.” March 6, 2012 (Press Release). http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/03062012Freshconnect. Accessed October 17, 2012.

115 The New York City Council, Office of the Speaker Christine C. Quinn, “Food Works: A Vision to Improve NYC’s Food System.” November 2010. http://council.nyc.gov/html/food/files/foodworks_fullreport_11_22_10.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2012; The New York City Council, Office of the Speaker Christine C. Quinn, “FoodWorks: A Vision to Improve NYC’s Food System, One Year Later.” December 2011. http://council.nyc.gov/html/action_center/pdf/foodworks1.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2012.

venues that serve low-income communities. In further support of this goal, we ask the State and the City to encourage and engage federal decision-makers, given that federal regulations and funding decisions control the programs’ authorization and funding at the national level.

6. New York City should expand the Health Bucks program to include a targeted match for WIC F&V check purchases.

Existing policies and initiatives that encourage the use of food programs at New York City farmers’ markets, such as DOHMH’s Health Bucks program, should be supported and expanded. The Health Bucks program provides SNAP recipients with a financial incentive to shop at participating farmers’ markets. This incentive creates a “win-win” scenario, in that it enables low-income consumers to buy more produce than their benefit alone would supply, and permits farmers to make larger sales to customers who make purchases with their SNAP benefits. Fortunately, in 2012 the City announced that Health Bucks were, for the first time, to be accepted at every New York City farmers’ market. DOHMH should consider issuing a Health Bucks coupon for use with the WIC F&V check, in order to raise that check’s value in farmers’ markets, and ultimately increase its use.

7. WIC service providers should explore ways to more effectively educate and communicate with WIC recipients about federal food programs and how to properly use them in New York City farmers’ markets.

A few survey respondents stated that some of their customers who use food programs to buy produce in New York City’s farmers’ markets do not know or understand all of the rules governing these transactions. Ag & Markets developed an instructional video about how to use these programs in farmers’ markets, which is played in the waiting rooms of those WIC Centers that have a copy, and GrowNYC has instructional videos available on its website. Further, WIC Center staff also provide recipients


with written informational materials about produce116 and counsel program participants about how to properly conduct FMNP and WIC F&V check transactions, and about the benefits of using these programs.

Individual providers and community-based advocates can, however, explore additional, more localized ways to educate WIC recipients in their communities about the existence and proper use of these programs, and should receive additional funding to do so. The staff members at these centers are in a unique position to answer program recipients’ questions and determine whether their community members fully understand the provided materials. They may partner with other non-profits or seek funding for trips to nearby farmers’ markets. During these trips, WIC recipients can be shown and receive assistance with sales transactions, and may view food preparation demonstrations that can instruct them about how to prepare healthy foods with which they may be unfamiliar. Also, WIC Centers that have seen a substantial number of their clients use these programs in farmers’ markets can share their successful strategies with staff and leadership at other WIC Centers. Finally, local WIC Center staff and Ag & Markets can, before the start of the season, hold a briefing at which a list of farmers’ market booths that accept the WIC F&V check is shared, so that WIC Center staff can ensure that WIC recipients know at which locations the check can be used.

116 Some WIC Centers may run out of these materials, and may wish to seek funding to ensure they can print or secure enough copies to distribute prior to and throughout the farmers’ market season.

8. New York State and City should engage all stakeholders in order to coordinate federal advocacy for the protection of, and increases in, funding for all three federal programs that can be used in New York City farmers’ markets.

In light of how much the three discussed programs contribute to low-income children and families’ access to healthy foods and regional farmers’ overall sales, it is imperative that these programs, and the initiatives that support and encourage their use, be protected. The WIC FMNP budget was already cut significantly in Fiscal Year 2012, despite the program’s success, its contribution to regional economies, and its relatively small overall cost. SNAP stands to lose billions of dollars during the Farm Bill reauthorization, even though it lifts families out of poverty and brings large amounts of federal dollars into neighborhoods. Further, sequestration is impacting WIC at a time when funding is needed to not only implement the transfer of WIC benefits to the EBT card, but also to maintain the revised food packages that furnish needed nutrition-dense foods to low-income families, thereby producing better long- and short-term outcomes for vulnerable babies and young children. In short, devastating cuts to these programs have been proposed, and in some cases adopted, even though the programs help to ensure families’ food security and the stability of local economies. Continued funding cuts would damage the health and well-being of the low-income New Yorkers who rely on these programs to purchase the healthy foods they and their children need from farmers’ markets and all other food retails venues. Many stakeholders, such as WIC providers, farmers’ market organizations, farmers, and anti-hunger advocates, are interested in protecting these programs. The Governor and the Mayor, along with appropriate State and local agencies, should therefore engage these stakeholders in strategic conversations about how to advocate together to protect and expand all three federal programs.


ConClUsion

The use of federally-funded food programs in New York City farmers’ markets has had a significant positive impact on both low-income New Yorkers’ abilities to access fresh, local foods and regional farmers’ economic security. There is, however, room to continue to increase the utilization of these programs, especially the WIC F&V check, in New York City’s farmers’ markets. Actions can be taken on the New York State and City levels to improve already existing supports for initiatives and policies that encourage the

use of food programs at New York City farmers’ markets and in other venues that sell local, fresh produce. Further, efforts should be undertaken to make it is easier for farmers to enroll in the WIC F&V program and to encourage their enrollment in all three programs. This opportunity to increase food access and economic stability through the use of federally-funded food programs, which have proven so critical in New York’s fight against childhood and family food insecurity, should not be missed.


aPPendix one

written sUrvey


For internal CCC use only:

Farm ________________________________________

Interviewee’s first name/title _______________________

FarMers–writtensurvey

Citizens’ Committee for Children is a private, non-profit organization that advocates to increase children and families’ access to healthy, fresh produce. With this confidential survey, we would like to explore what factors influence farmers to participate in the WIC Fruit & Vegetable check program (F&V), Farmers’ Market Nutrition program (FMNP), and EBT/SNAP (food stamps). Please know that CCC keeps all survey results confidential. No farmer, market manager, state employee, program staff, or employee is ever identified by name in any CCC publication or advocacy effort.

This survey should take about twenty minutes. We appreciate your taking the time to speak with us!

Note to interviewer: If farmer whom you are interviewing needs to conduct a sale or attend to a customer, halt interview until he or she is available to continue speaking with you.

1. In what county and state is your farm located? _______________________________________________________

2. At how many NYC farmers’ markets do you sell your produce? __________________________________________

3. Where are these farmers’ markets located? Please choose all that apply: q Bronx q Brooklyn q Manhattan q Queens q Staten Island

4. Are there other NYC venues to which you sell your produce? q Y q N If yes, what are they? q Wholesalers/distributors q Retailers q Schools q Restaurants q Wholesale farmers’ market q Other ___________________________________________________________

5. Which days a week do you, or someone who works for you, come to NYC to sell at farmers’ markets? (Circle all that apply) Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.

6. During what months do you, or someone who works for you, come to NYC to sell at farmers’ markets? (Circle all that apply) Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

7. Do you sell different items at different markets? q Y q N If yes, why? _________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Now we are going to talk about the Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)

FMNP provides WIC participants and senior citizens with checks worth $4 each for use, during July through November, in New York State farmers’ markets.

8. Have you heard of the FMNP check? q Y q N If the answer is “no,” please skip to question #15, which begins the section about the WIC Fruit & Vegetable check.

9. If yes, from whom did you hear that farmers could accept the FMNP check at NYC farmers’ markets? Please check all that apply. q Farmers’ Market Operator or Manager q Another farmer q Farmers’ market customer q New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets q Farmers Market Federation of NY q I do not remember q Other ___________________________________________________________________________________

10. Do you accept the FMNP check? q Y q N If the answer is “no,” please skip to question #12.

11. The following questions (a-d) are for farmers who DO accept FMNP

a. What effect has accepting the FMNP check had on your NYC sales? q Increased sales a lot q Increased sales a little q Sales did not change q Don’t know

b. Why did you enroll in FMNP? Please check all that apply. q I thought enrolling in FMNP would increase my sales q Other farmers in the markets at which I sell accepted FMNP q Customers asked if they could use their FMNP check at my stand q I wanted to be able to sell produce to low-income customers q Other ________________________________________________________________________________

c. Will you continue to accept the FMNP check in the future? q Y q N q Not sure/still deciding

d. Can you think of any markets where you would stop selling if you could not collect the FMNP voucher? q Y q N If yes, which ones? _______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

From here, please go to question 13.


12. The following questions (a-b) are only for farmers who DO NOT accept FMNP:

a. Are you interested in accepting the FMNP check? q Y q N

b. Which of the following describes why you do not participate in the FMNP program? Please check all that apply. q I was never informed about the program q I obtained an application to participate from the market, but did not submit it q I no longer participate because I did not have many customers who used FMNP checks q I no longer participate because I was not satisfied with the check redemption process q I am not interested in the program q Other _________________________________________________________________________________

From here, please continue to the next question.

13. Challenges/barriers to participating in the FMNP program (every farmer interviewed answers these questions) 1 = significant challenge/barrier 2 = moderate challenge/barrier 3 = minimal challenge/barrier 4 = none (no challenge/barrier) 5 = don’t know whether this is a challenge/barrier to participation

Notes to Interviewers: You may say “We are now going to look at potential challenges or barriers to your participation in FMNP. Was the following factor significant, moderate, minimal or not a challenge/barrier to participating in the FMNP program, or you do not know how much of a challenge/barrier this is?” Check ONE appropriate box.

(1) Significant

(2) Moderate

(3) Minimal

(4) None

(5) Don’t know

a) Length of the application form

b) Amount of personal information the application requires you to disclose

c) Length of time you have to wait for application to be processed

d) Requirement that you have to reapply every year to accept FMNP

e) Dollar amount that each FMNP check is worth ($4 per check)

f) The fact that a participant can only use the FMNP check between July 1 – November 15

g) Process you go through to redeem FMNP checks (depositing or cashing FMNP check)

h) The fact that you have until November 30th to redeem the FMNP checks

i) Sanctions that can be imposed if you don’t comply with rules for FMNP participation

j) Prohibition against using the FMNP checks for food products that are not produce (such as pies or breads)

k) Other (Specify)


14. What, if anything, would you change about the FMNP check program? __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Now we are going to talk about the WIC Fruit &Vegetable (F&V) checkWIC F&V checks are $6 (child) and $10(pregnant or post-partum mom) checks that WIC participants can use year-round to purchase produce (except white potatoes) in farmers’ markets.

15. Have you heard of the WIC F&V check? q Y q N If the answer is “no,” please skip to question #22, which begins the section about EBT (food stamp) tokens.

16. If yes, from whom did you hear that farmers could accept the WIC F&V check at NYC farmers’ markets? (Please check all that apply) q Farmers’ Market Operator or Manager q Another farmer q Farmers’ market customer q New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets q Farmers Market Federation of NY q I do not remember q Other ___________________________________________________________________________________

17. Do you accept the WIC F&V check? q Y q N If the answer is “no,” please skip to question #19.

18. The following questions (a-d) are for farmers who DO accept the WIC F&V checks:

a. What effect has accepting the WIC F&V check had on your NYC sales? q Increased sales a lot q Increased sales a little q Sales did not change q Don’t know

b. Why did you enroll in the WIC program? (Please check all that apply) q I thought enrolling in WIC would increase my sales q Other farmers in the markets at which I sell accepted WIC q Customers asked if they could use their WIC F&V check at my stand q I wanted to be able to sell produce to low-income customers q Other _________________________________________________________________________________

c. Will you continue to accept the WIC F&V check in the future? q Y q N q Not sure/still deciding

d. Can you think of any markets where you would stop selling if you could not accept the WIC F&V check? q Y q N q If yes, which ones? _______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

From here, please skip to question 20.


19. The following questions (a-b) are only for farmers who do NOT accept the WIC F&V check:

a. Are you interested in accepting the WIC F&V check? q Y q N

b. Which of the following describes why you do not participate in the WIC F&V program (please check all that apply):

q I was never informed about the program q I obtained an application to participate from the market, but did not submit it q After attending a WIC farmer training to learn about the program, I decided I was not interested in taking

further steps to enroll q I no longer participate because I did not have many customers who used WIC F&V checks q I no longer participate because I was not satisfied with the check redemption process q I am not interested in the program q Other _________________________________________________________________________________

From here, please continue to the next question.

20. Challenges/barriers to participating in the WIC F&V check program (every farmer interviewed answers these questions) 1 = significant challenge/barrier 2 = moderate challenge/barrier 3 = minimal challenge/barrier 4 = none (no challenge/barrier) 5 = don’t know whether this is a challenge/barrier to participation

Notes to Interviewers: You may say “We are now going to look at potential challenges or barriers to your participation in WIC. Was the following factor significant, moderate, minimal or not a challenge/barrier to participating in the WIC program, or you do not know how much of a challenge/barrier this is?” Check ONE appropriate box.


(1) Significant

(2) Moderate

(3) Minimal

(4) None

(5)Don’t know

a) Length of the application form

b) Amount of personal information the application requires you to disclose

c) Length of time you have to wait for application to be processed

d) Requirement that you get recertified to accept WIC F&V check (every 3 years)

e) Training in which you have to participate to accept WIC F&V check (every 18 months)

f) Dollar amount that each WIC F&V check is worth ($6/child and $10/mother)

g) The requirement that WIC F&V check users need to show WIC ID to make a purchase

h) The fact that the WIC participant has to sign the WIC F&V check in front of you to make a purchase

i) The fact that the WIC F&V check has an expiration date by when participant has to use it (good for a 1-month period)

j) The amount of time you have to redeem the WIC F&V checks in order to be paid (within 60 days of “Not good before” date noted on check)

k) Process you have to go through to redeem WIC F&V checks (deposit checks and await electronic payment from the State into your bank account)

l) Sanctions that can be imposed if you don’t comply with rules for WIC F&V check participation

m) Prohibition against using the WIC F&V checks for white potatoes

n) Prohibition against using the WIC F&V checks for herbs

o) Prohibition against using the WIC F&V checks for other food products that are not produce (such as pies or breads)

p) Other (Specify)

21. What, if anything, would you change about the WIC F&V check program? __________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Next we are going to talk about are EBT tokens for SNAP (food stamps) In farmers’ markets with EBT terminals, food stamp recipients receive tokens after swiping their EBT cards at the market’s EBT terminal. The recipients can use the tokens to buy food from participating stands.

22. Have you heard of food stamps/EBT and the Farmers’ Market EBT tokens? q Y q N If the answer is “no,” please skip to question #28.

23. Do you accept Farmers’ Market EBT tokens? q Y q N If the answer is “yes,” please skip to question #25. If “no,” please continue.

24. Are you aware that customers can use EBT tokens to purchase food from farmers in those NYC farmers’ markets that have EBT terminals operated by the markets’ management? q Y q N If the answer is “yes,” please continue to next question; if the answer is“no,” please skip to question #27.

25. If yes, from whom did you hear that farmers could accept EBT tokens at NYC farmers’ markets with EBT terminals? Please check all that apply. q Farmers’ Market Operator or Manager q Another farmer q Farmers’ market customer q New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets q Farmers Market Federation of NY q I do not remember q Other ____________________________________________________________________________________

If farmer accepts EBT, please continue to the next question. If the farmer does not accept EBT, skip to question #27.

26. If you DO accept EBT tokens, please answer a-e:

a. In your opinion, how easy was it to enroll so that you could accept EBT tokens? q Easy q Somewhat difficult q Difficult

b. In your opinion, how easy is it to accept EBT tokens from your NYC customers? q Easy q Somewhat difficult q Difficult

c. In your opinion, how easy is it to redeem EBT tokens for payment by NYC farmers’ markets? q Easy q Somewhat difficult q Difficult

d. What effect has accepting EBT tokens had on your NYC sales? q Increased sales a lot q Increased sales a little q My sales did not change q Don’t know

e. Can you think of any markets where you would stop selling if there was no EBT terminal? q Y q N If yes, which ones?

f. Did you decide to sell at certain NYC markets because of an expected increase in sales as a result of customer usage of EBT tokens at those markets? q Y q N Which markets? ___________________________________________________________________________

From here, please skip to question #28


27. If you DO NOT accept EBT tokens, please answer questions a-b:

a. Are you interested in accepting the EBT tokens? q Y q N

b. Which of the following describes why you do not to accept EBT tokens (please check all that apply):

q I do not sell at a NYC farmers’ market that has a central EBT terminal/tokens

q I was never informed about the program

q After attending an EBT farmer training to learn about the program, I decided I was not interested in taking further steps to enroll

q I no longer participate in the program because I did not have many customers who used EBT tokens

q I no longer participate in the program because I was not satisfied with the token redemption process

q I am not interested in the program

q Other _________________________________________________________________________________

We are almost done. This is the last section.

28. Please estimate the percent of all your farmers’ market sales (all markets) that come from food programs and cash sales (total should equal 100%): _______% FMNP checks _______% WIC Fruit & Vegetable checks _______% SNAP/food stamps EBT tokens _______% Cash _______% Credit/debit card __________ 100%

29. Are there any specific markets where you observe the three programs we’ve talked about to have a positive impact on your sales? q Y q N q Don’t know If the answer is “no” or “don’t know,” please skip to question #30. If yes, which markets are they? __________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

30. Would you like to share any more comments about any of these programs? (Every farmer interviewed answers this question) __________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________


board oF direCtors

aboUt CCC

Since 1944, Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. (CCC) has convened, informed and mobilized New Yorkers to make the city a better place for children. CCC’s approach to child advocacy is fact-based and combines the best features of public policy advocacy with a tradition of citizen activism. Our focus is on identifying the causes and effects of vulnerability and disadvantage, recommending solutions to problems children face and working to make public policies, budgets, services and benefits more responsive to children. Our mission is to ensure that every New York City child is healthy, housed, educated and safe.

CCC is a non-profit organization supported entirely by individuals, foundations and corporations.

ChairmanChris Stern Hyman, Esq.

PresidentJessica B. Aaron

Vice PresidentsDiana ElghanayanJudith A. Garson, Esq.Nancy LockerArlette Ferguson MathisMarcy SandlerNancy F. SolomonHeidi Stamas

TreasurerJohn Sanchez

SecretaryDr. Janice Weinman

Executive DirectorJennifer March-Joly, Ph.D.

Board of DirectorsJennifer Jones Austin, Esq.Priscilla BijurConstance ChristensenMarna DannJoan DavidsonVeronica DillonRuth M. FederCarol J. FeinbergTrudy Festinger, D.S.W.Linda GenereuxRicki Tigert HelferJulia Jean-Francois, LCSW, Ph.D.Katherine KahanSheila Kamerman, D.S.W.Elaine KesselJonathan A. KneeJames KrauskopfDaniel KronenfeldHildemarie LadouceurFrances Levenson, Esq.Lee A. LinkKatherine S. Lobach, M.D.

Ernesto LoperenaMarilyn LubellRuth Seiger MaiselMaryann MarstonHeather McRaySally MendelRhonda MimsMartha J. Olson, Esq.Mahsa PeloskyJean SchragElizabeth SheehanJoan SteinbergChristine WassersteinSusan WassersteinHee Sun Yu

Honorary DirectorsNancy HovingAnne K. JonesHamilton F. Kean, Esq.Samuel P. PeabodyMarge ScheuerElizabeth H. Wolff

CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK, INC. 105 East 22nd Street, New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-673-1800 Fax: 212-673-1800

Email: [email protected] web: www.cccnewyork.org

From Farm to table · 2 From Farm to Table: The Use of Federally-Funded Food Programs at New York...

Documents

Transcript of From Farm to table · 2 From Farm to Table: The Use of Federally-Funded Food Programs at New York...