Healthy Food in a Dash
-
Upload
nicole-wainwright-mph -
Category
Documents
-
view
18 -
download
0
Transcript of Healthy Food in a Dash
HEALTHY FOOD IN A DASH
UCLA School of Public Health CHS 211B Assignment 8: Final Proposal with Evaluation Plan
June 1, 2015
Group 14: Nicole Garcia, Priscilla Schaper, Shayla Spilker, Nicole Wainwright
Group 14, Assignment 8
ii
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................. iii I. Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv II. Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................1 The Issue: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 What is Known? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 What is Being Done? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Population Description: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Needs Assessment: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 III. Program Description .....................................................................................................................4 Program Goal: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Program Objectives and Rationale: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Theoretical Framework: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Strategies and Activities: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Phase I Implementation Plan: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Phase II Implementation Plan: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 IV. Formative and Process Evaluation Plans ...................................................................................... 12 V. Impact/Outcome/Summative Evaluation Plan .............................................................................. 14 Research Question: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Research Strategy: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Research Design: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Sample Description:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Hypotheses and Variables: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Unit of Analysis and Sampling:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 Data Collection: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 VI. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 23 References ....................................................................................................................................... 26 VIII. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Area Map ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 Appendix B: Logic Model -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 Appendix C: Gantt Chart--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 Appendix D: Research Design -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 Appendix F: Budget -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 Appendix G: Budget Justification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
Group 14, Assignment 8
iii
Glossary of Terms
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CFL Community Food Leader
DV Dependent Variable
EET Empowerment Education Theory
FFQ Food Frequency Questionnaire
FFV Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
GIS Geographic Information System
HBM Health Belief Model
HFD Healthy Food in a Dash
IV Independent Variable
LA Los Angeles
LAC Los Angeles County
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MM Market Match
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NCG Non-Equivalent Control Group
OCT Organizational Change Theory
PA Physical Activity
PC Program Coordinator
PD Program Director
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SPA Service Planning Area
URA Undergraduate Research Assistant
Group 14, Assignment 8
iv
I. Abstract
Food access is an issue of health equity and chronic disease prevention. Limited food access can
result in chronic disease conditions such as: obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and many
other diseases. Los Angeles County’s Service Planning Area 6 leads the County in multiple
health disparity indicators, particularly those related to access to healthy foods. Due to the
inequitable distribution of food resources in SPA 6, and absence of healthful food vendors in
census tracts 2352.01 and 2352.02, Healthy Food in a Dash aims to increase access to fresh
produce and improve affordability. Constructs from the Health Belief Model, Empowerment
Education Theory, and Organizational Change Theory will be applied at all levels of the
Ecological Model to improve knowledge and attitudes among the target population, empower
them to advocate for change in the food environment, and to make comprehensive infrastructural
changes to a corner store. A two-phase intervention will facilitate a corner store conversion in
Hank’s Mini Market and pilot Market Match to double CalFresh beneficiaries’ purchases.
Program staff will monitor the success of the intervention through a detailed process and
outcome evaluation for both phases. Quantitative methods will be utilized to properly assess the
increase in fresh produce consumption and purchases, as well as community and storeowner
experience with the program. Program success will be assessed using a quasi-experimental, pre-
post test design with a non-equivalent control group during the outcome evaluation. Data will be
collected from intervention participants and the comparison group during Phase I, and from the
intervention group alone in Phase II using a nationally validated food frequency questionnaire.
This program may provide a better mechanism for increasing access to healthful foods in low-
income, low access areas. Furthermore, it may inform future policy implementation related to
expanding Market Match beyond farmers’ markets in order to reduce health disparities.
Group 14, Assignment 8
1
II. Problem Statement
The Issue: Food insecurity and inaccessibility are associated with higher rates of a host of
chronic conditions, including obesity and heart disease, because they limit healthful food
consumption.1 Residents of food insecure communities tend to rely on corner stores for basic
food needs.2 The abundance of energy-dense, low-nutritive foods offered at these retailers has
contributed to increasing obesity rates among children and adults.3,4 In 2011-2012, 69% of
American adults aged twenty and over were overweight or obese.5 The skyrocketing costs of the
largely preventable diseases associated with obesity on the United States’ healthcare system are
also of societal concern as rates of chronic disease continue to rise.6,7 Obesity has become so
prevalent in the United States that Healthy People 2020 identified the following objectives in
order to combat it: increasing the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV) and
increasing the proportion of Americans who have access to healthful food retailers.8
What is Known? Communities of color rely heavily on local corner stores for their food needs
as a result of institutional racism and disinvestment that pushed large-scale grocers away.9–11
Black and Latino neighborhoods are half as likely to have an accessible grocery store compared
to white neighborhoods, contributing to racial health disparities and increased rates of obesity-
related diseases.2 Consequently, those living one or more miles from a grocery store are 46% less
likely to have a healthy diet than those with a grocery store in their neighborhood.1 The
inequitable distribution of food resources has resulted in people of color consuming less FFV and
more nutritionally devoid foods.12 Changing the food environment in low-income communities
of color by implementing interventions in corner stores can reduce health disparities by
increasing access to healthful foods.12–14
Group 14, Assignment 8
2
What is Being Done? Many efforts have sought to change the food environment in food
insecure communities in order to improve access to healthful foods.1,15,16 Corner store
conversions, which have primarily focused on urban, low-income communities of color, are one
such effort.17,18 A systematic review of sixteen corner store conversions found that the most
impactful strategies included a combination of healthy food provision, health communication,
and infrastructure changes.15 Price reductions for healthful foods and moving unhealthful foods
to the back of the stores also had positive results.15 Storeowner motivation and the skill set to
manage a store with perishables were identified as necessary elements of an effective corner
store conversion.19
Sixty-seven percent of storeowners cited lack of customer demand as the number one
obstacle to selling FFV, followed by conversion cost and insufficient infrastructure.12,14,20 The
idea that customers do not want FFV has been refuted by many studies.14,21 Low-income
consumers prefer some FFV over energy-dense foods and are willing to buy them from local
corner stores.14 Additionally, greater variety of FFV items increases purchase.21 Previous
research suggests that subsidizing the cost of refrigeration and shelving would improve store
infrastructure and eliminate many of the start-up costs associated with corner store conversions.1
Population Description: Target area: Home to over one million people, South Los Angeles
(LA) has one of the poorest food retail environments in Los Angeles County (LAC).22 One of the
most striking disparities is the distribution of liquor and corner stores.23 There are approximately
8.5 liquor stores per square mile in South LA compared to only 1.97 in West LA.23 This
inequitable distribution highlights the need for interventions that target both the quality of
products sold and access to fresh food in these stores. South LA, which includes Service
Planning Area (SPA) 6, leads LAC in various health disparity indicators, including obesity (see
Group 14, Assignment 8
3
Appendix A for Area Map). Thirty-five percent of adults in SPA 6 self-identified as obese and
28.9% of children in grades 5, 7, and 9 were identified as obese by a parent or guardian.24
SPA 6 is a low-income area with limited access to healthful, affordable foods.25 Roughly
60% of the 7,300 residents of census tracts 2352.01 and 2352.02 are Black, 30% are Latino, and
30-35% of residents live below the 100% federal poverty level.25 The California Department of
Public Health’s (CDPH) geographic information system (GIS) mapping tool identified both
tracts as having dual “low income and access” issues, and as having a large proportion of
CalFresh beneficiaries, who qualify for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP).25–27
The primary direct target of this intervention is Black and Latina women, aged 18+, living
within the two identified census tracts located in SPA 6. Women were selected as a direct target
as they are often the principle shopper for a household, and their purchasing influences other
household members, including men and children.28 In addition to targeting women, this
intervention will also directly target Hank’s Mini Market’s (Hank’s) storeowner by providing
coaching on the store conversion and maintenance process; changing attitudes around product
sales; and encouraging the owner to value community health. The remaining census tract
residents who make purchases at Hank’s are all indirect targets of the intervention.
Needs Assessment: In order to select the direct and indirect target populations, we conducted a
comprehensive literature review looking at corner store conversion interventions in urban areas.
SPA 6 is an area with little attention in peer-reviewed literature regarding corner store
conversions. To further assess the community’s need we searched CDPH GIS census tract data
and visited the census tracts to select potential store conversion sites. The site visit confirmed
Group 14, Assignment 8
4
CDPH data identifying the two census tracts of focus as low access—there are no grocery stores
and not one of the corner stores offered FFV.
Key informant interviews with local organizations provided background on past efforts to
address food access in the community, highlighted strategies for engaging the community, and
pinpointed challenges and gaps in the resources available. Community focus groups and an
interview with Hank’s storeowner helped explain challenges to purchasing healthful foods,
barriers to corner store conversion, and feedback on what is needed to sustain the intervention.
III. Program Description
Program Goal: Increase the availability of and access to fresh, healthful foods in a low-income,
low-access community in SPA 6. A long-term outcome of increased access to healthful food is
that it can reduce the incidence of new chronic diseases and improve quality of life for those
currently living with chronic diseases.13,29 The logic model for this project links strategies,
activities, and outcomes and can be found in Appendix B.
Program Objectives and Rationale: Healthy Food in a Dash (HFD) is a two-phase program
aiming to increase access to, and affordability of, FFV in SPA 6. Phase I involves a corner store
conversion and collaboration with Hank’s storeowner and trained Community Food Leaders
(CFLs). Phase II involves a pilot Market Match (MM) program. California’s MM program is a
CalFresh benefit-matching program that matches the amount a beneficiary spends (up to $10) on
state-grown FFV at farmers’ markets.30 HFD will pilot MM for the first time in Hank’s corner
store. HFD operates at every level of the Ecological Model and will run from Dec 2015 through
Nov 2017 (see Appendix C for Gantt Chart).
Community Capacity Objective: By Mar 2016, HFD will recruit and train ten paid CFLs in
SPA 6. CFLs will be trained on the importance of food access issues and how to conduct simple
Group 14, Assignment 8
5
surveys, as they will support staff in the implementation and evaluation portions of HFD. CFLs
will also learn how to conduct community forums, a method for engaging fellow residents in
food justice issues which also helps to ensure program sustainability. Previous community health
worker initiatives have shown community peers to be ideal messengers for health information
and critical for program sustainability because they are invested in program success.31,32 The
CFLs allow us to equitably integrate individuals in the community into the program in order to
improve SPA 6’s food environment.16,33–35
Environmental Objective: By Mar 2016, Hank’s Mini Market will have increased the
number of FFV available from zero items to 15 items. Currently, 51.1% of residents in South
LA report ease in accessing FFV, and only 6.1% report eating the recommended five servings
daily.36 For comparison, West LA resident responses show 95.8% and 22.1%, respectively.36
Since census tracts 2352.01 and 2352.02 have no grocery stores, providing FFV at Hank’s
increases access so that residents are able to easily find and consume FFV. Based on data from
similar store conversions, an increase of 15 items at Hank’s is both realistic and feasible.12 A
similar community intervention found that a core stock of 15 FFV items was in high demand,
and that those items resulted in an average of 575 pounds sold per week.12
Behavior Change Objective: FFV consumption will increase among HFD participants,
from approximately 6% of individuals currently consuming the recommended servings of
FFV to 18%, by Nov 2016. Food availability, including access and variety, are useful measures
that predict food consumption.1,14,20 As highlighted above, 22.1% of West LA residents eat the
recommended serving of FFV daily whereas only 6% do in SPA 6, largely as a result of
inequitable access. By increasing access to FFV in Hank’s, HFD anticipates an increase in the
percentage of individuals in tracts 2352.01 and 2352.02 eating the recommended servings of
Group 14, Assignment 8
6
FFV. Because Hank’s is only one store, we do not think it would be realistic to match the West
LA rate of FFV consumption; however, an increase of 12% is realistic and attainable.
Policy Objective: In Phase II, HFD will pilot MM in Hank’s in order to increase total FFV
revenue from CalFresh spending. Incoming revenue will be $5,377.58 per week, assuming
each match is at the $10 max, with 268 available matches per week ($2,688.79 from Match
dollars and $2,688.79 from residents’ CalFresh accounts). Given the increase in FFV
revenue at Hank’s, HFD expects at least a 15% increase in CalFresh spending by Aug
2017. Based on CDPH GIS data, we know that residents (N=809 in one block; N=82-214 in
three blocks; and N=1-81 in two blocks) in the intervention tracts are currently enrolled in
CalFresh and thus eligible for the program.25,27 From 2012 to 2013, MM reported that CalFresh
spending increased from 15% to 40% at various MM locations.37 In Phase II, HFD expects to see
at least a 15% increase in CalFresh spending for FFV, which is consistent with current MM
outcomes in LAC, and is realistic with the addition of 15 FFV items. Expecting a 40% increase
is not realistic since farmers’ markets have greater variety than Hank’s will initially support. (See
Appendix G for full Budget Justification).
Theoretical Framework: HFD will increase the access to and availability of FFV for the target
population by employing elements of the Health Belief Model (HBM), Empowerment Education
Theory (EET), and Organizational Change Theory (OCT). Linking multiple constructs from
various theories allows the program to interact effectively with multiple stakeholders at different
levels of influence within the community.
HBM functions at the individual level to change attitudes and beliefs related to improving
food access.38 HFD addresses perceived barriers (under HBM) by increasing access to
affordable FFV, as well as by addressing residents’ attitudes toward advocating for community
Group 14, Assignment 8
7
change.39 Cues to action encourage customers to purchase FFV, and increasing CFL and
storeowner self-efficacy results in program sustainability within Hank’s and the community.38,40
EET functions at the interpersonal and community levels. Listening, dialogue, and action
(constructs), facilitate knowledge generation and help to foster relationships among community
institutions to promote change.41,42 EET’s goal, as applied to education and public health, is to
engage participants in a participatory learning process that motivates them to action, rather than
simply educating them didactically.42,43 This approach increases community power and
willingness to engage in advocacy and policy change.41,44 OCT operates at the institutional and
policy levels and is applied in the context of creating organizational change for health
promotion.45 OCT facilitates the infrastructural changes necessary for Hank’s to function as an
FFV purveyor and helps to sustain the MM policy over time. HFD will apply three constructs
from OCT (adapted from the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model): initiation of action
(preparation for change), implementation of change (action steps have been taken for change),
and maintenance of change (maintenance of the change).46,47
Strategies and Activities: CFL Training: Develop CFL training curriculum; develop survey
instruments; recruit ten CFLs to conduct community forums; conduct training. Rationale: HFD
will recruit ten CFLs to deliver a curriculum in community forums during Phases I and II. CFL
delivery of the curriculum is an effective empowerment model since peer-learning and
promotora models are successful public health education tools.31,48 The CFL curriculum will be
pilot tested before the training with ten adult women who live in the target census tracts (not
program participants) to ensure that all materials are culturally relevant and appropriate. During
the initial training, through a process of listening and dialogue, HFD staff and CFLs will work
together to develop CFL capacity and ownership of community issues, driving them to take
Group 14, Assignment 8
8
action in their community.41,42 Trained CFLs will possess the knowledge and skills to educate
other members of the direct target population; to involve them in supporting the initial
conversion and MM pilot; and to engage them in policy advocacy beyond the program timeline.
This strategy is necessary to achieve the Community Capacity Objective.
Storeowner Training: Understand storeowner needs; develop storeowner-training curriculum;
develop pre- and post-tests; conduct training. Rationale: Storeowner training is necessary to
engage the storeowner in the conversion and to build capacity to ensure program
sustainability.1,33 HFD will have conversations with the storeowner and use the information
gathered to develop a storeowner training curriculum focused on effective management of
perishable items, vendor relationships, and sales tracking. The storeowner will receive a $200
incentive upon completion of both trainings (see Appendix F & G for Budget and Justification).
OCT is operationalized to create the necessary stages of organizational change. The storeowner
curriculum is a critical resource for the initiation of action stage to prepare the storeowner for the
organizational change. Tailoring the curriculum to address the storeowner’s perceived barriers to
change and including the storeowner in the planning process ensures readiness for change.45
Building capacity is an important aspect of OCT. It allows the storeowner to understand links
between the change and his own business interests, and increases the likelihood that he will
engage in organizational problem solving in order to succeed with the implementation and
maintenance of change.45 This strategy is necessary to achieve the Environmental Objective.
Store Conversion: Procure FFV for Hank’s; rearrange store inventory; beautify store;
disseminate information about the conversion. Rationale: Procuring FFV for Hank’s increases
access for SPA 6 residents, enabling them to purchase and consume more FFV daily.14,21
Availability of FFV is correlated with increased sales and consumption,20 making it beneficial
Group 14, Assignment 8
9
for both the storeowner and customers. Increased access also removes barriers associated with
having to travel to obtain FFV, which increases the likelihood than an individual will adopt a
new health behavior.21,38 Procuring FFV, rearranging store inventory, and store beautification are
steps that ensure organizational change (initiation of action) and serve as a cue to action,
influencing customers to make healthier purchases.1,15,45 Promotional materials support
implementation and maintenance of change by alerting community members to the new
organizational change at Hank’s and encouraging them to support it through their FFV
purchases.45 These activities support the Environmental Objective.
Pilot MM Development: Develop and implement a reloadable card system; disseminate
information about MM pilot. Rationale: Following the store conversion, the pilot MM program
will allow HFD to further increase sales of FFV in Hank’s. Offsetting the cost for CalFresh
beneficiaries with MM reduces barriers for the target population by matching the funds spent on
FFV. CFL distribution of promotional materials raises awareness of the pilot MM program in the
community in order to influence purchasing behaviors (cue to action). HFD will also develop a
reloadable card system as part of the implementation of change stage as a means to distribute the
funds for the MM component to CalFresh beneficiaries.46 Program sustainability will be built
into the maintenance stage by training the storeowner and CFLs to continue the progress of the
intervention. These activities support the Policy Objective.
Phase I Implementation Plan: Hiring/MOU: HFD will hire and train a Program Director (PD),
a Program Coordinator (PC) and two unpaid Undergraduate Research Assistants (URAs) from
Dec 2015-Jan 2016. URAs will receive class credit while enrolled in a research-oriented course
as compensation for time. The PD and PC will create an MOU with Hank’s by late Jan 2016.
Group 14, Assignment 8
10
Details will include: HFD program objectives, Hank’s responsibilities, and HFD’s timeline.
Monthly HFD meetings with Hank’s will allow for updates and facilitate open communication.
Storeowner Training: HFD staff will develop the storeowner training curriculum in Jan 2016.
Training will begin Feb 2016 to establish best practices for managing a store with perishables.
One training will cover the following topics: maintaining perishable items; vendor relationships
and ordering; using a computerized register; monitoring sales; and general business practices.
The owner will receive a $100 incentive after the training. The storeowner will also be
responsible for collecting in-store satisfaction surveys from customers.
Community Food Leaders: HFD staff will develop and pilot the CFL training curriculum from
Jan-Feb 2016. In Feb 2016, CFL materials will be pilot tested and amended if needed.
Concurrently, the PC will recruit and supervise the CFLs, who will be hired under a contractual
basis and reimbursed per forum held. They will also be paid for contributions during the outcome
evaluation. The incentive for attending the initial 6-hour CFL training in Mar 2016 is a $100
stipend. CFLs will have a final launch meeting with HFD staff and Hank’s storeowner prior to
the grand re-opening on Apr 4, 2016. From Mar-Nov 2016, individual CFLs will receive $75
reimbursements for each forum held that meets the following requirements: at least ten attendees
(must live in 2352.01/2352.02), completed sign-in sheet, and evaluations from all participants.
CFLs will choose forum locations. The PC will hold monthly meetings with CFLs to discuss
progress and potential issues, and to provide them professional development. The success of
HFD program implementation relies heavily on the active participation of CFLs. In the event that
CFL retention becomes problematic, HFD will hold a second call for applications.
Store Beautification: The store renovation and beautification will take place in Mar 2016
following the completion of the CFL training. HFD staff, CFLs, the storeowner and volunteers
Group 14, Assignment 8
11
will paint, remove advertisements of unhealthful products, install a computerized cash register,
stock the FFV, and conduct general repairs. Store inventory will also be rearranged making the
store ready for the program launch and store reveal on Apr 4th, 2016. The PD will review sales
metrics with the storeowner on a weekly basis from Apr-Oct 2016. During this time HFD staff
will measure any changes in sales history, track CalFresh spending, and identify best selling
items. The PC will evaluate customer surveys and storeowner satisfaction at these times. The
Phase I program evaluation will run from Oct-Dec 2016.
Store Conversion: In early Jan 2016, HFD will work with Hank’s storeowner to procure a
contract with a local FFV vendor. With the help of a graphic designer, HFD staff will develop
and pilot test promotional materials to advertise the store conversion from Jan-Feb 2016. All
flyers, door hangers, and recipe cards will be printed at a local copy shop. HFD staff will
distribute flyers (5,000) within the census tracts beginning Feb 2016 until CFLs take
responsibility for promotional activities following their completed training in March. CFLs will
distribute door hangers the week prior to the store opening. These will include a coupon for three
free pounds of FFV to encourage patronage at Hank’s to help address a common storeowner
concern of low demand for FFV.12,14,20 The storeowner will incentivize patrons to fill out
satisfaction surveys by offering a free weekly recipe card that incorporates the available FFV.
Phase II Implementation Plan: Market Match: From Nov-Dec 2016, HFD staff will
implement a reloadable card system as a means to distribute the MM funds to participating
CalFresh beneficiaries. This system will add a match of up to $10 to the cards of customers who
use CalFresh on FFV purchases at Hank’s. During Dec 2016-Jan 2017, HFD staff will create and
print materials (5,000 door hangers and 5,000 flyers) promoting the MM program. HFD staff
will pilot test the promotional materials with the CFLs to ensure messages are appropriate. CFLs
Group 14, Assignment 8
12
will distribute the MM promotional materials Jan-Feb 2017. HFD will train the storeowner on
MM in Jan 2017 to prepare for the launch in Feb 2017. The owner will receive another $100
incentive after the training. The PD will track all FFV sales and frequency of CalFresh match
utilization. Recording the sales of FFV will allow HFD to look at trends in CalFresh spending
from Phase I to Phase II. Recording the frequency of matches will enable the PD to accurately
track the budget for MM funds. The MM pilot will run from Feb-Aug 2017, with evaluation
from Sept-Nov 2017.
IV. Formative and Process Evaluation Plans
HFD will closely monitor program implementation in order to assess program success. The
process evaluation will provide information regarding program integrity, coverage, reach, service
delivery, service utilization, and cost-effectiveness.
CFL Training: HFD will assess the preparedness of the CFLs by conducting an evaluation
during the CFL training workshops. CFLs will take a pre-test to determine baseline knowledge
prior to training. Upon completion of training, a post-test will be administered in order to assess
curriculum effectiveness and CFL knowledge of training content; a post-test score of 80% is
passing. Those who fail will be required to repeat the training and post-test. HFD staff will hold
monthly check-in meetings with the CFLs in order to provide feedback and disseminate
materials to refresh the knowledge and skills delivered in the training.
Community Forums: CFLs are required to deliver a completed sign-in sheet and participant
evaluations after each forum. The PD will monitor attendance to assess community participation
(fidelity). Community forum participants will complete a post-forum evaluation using a 5-point
Likert scale, which will include rating CFL information delivery, individual participant
knowledge of forum content (nutrition and food access issues), how they heard about the forum,
Group 14, Assignment 8
13
and satisfaction. Additionally, HFD staff will observe community forums on a monthly basis and
complete a checklist of topics and activities covered in order to evaluate CFL effectiveness.
FFV Inventory: HFD will determine if customers are buying FFV items based on the sales logs
and itemized receipts from CalFresh purchases. The PD will use sales logs to track FFV sales
and discuss outcomes with the storeowner. The storeowner and PD will monitor product
inventory and compare the items delivered with the items remaining at the store (accounting for
spoilage). This information will be used to ensure cost-effectiveness, minimize FFV spoilage,
and maximize the amount of weekly FFV purchases at Hank’s.
CalFresh Spending: The PD will collect data on matching funds, which will be tracked through
sales logs and the frequency of card reloads. This will allow HFD staff to assess how often
CalFresh beneficiaries utilize the program. All data will be collected and reviewed to ensure
appropriate funds are in place for the MM program.
Satisfaction: Customer satisfaction: will be evaluated through in-store surveys located at the
cash register. Customers will rate their experiences on a 5-point Likert scale and have space for
additional feedback. During Phase I, these surveys will ask about satisfaction with the store
conversion, FFV selection, and the CalFresh capabilities at Hank’s. Additionally, the surveys
will ask customers how they heard about the store conversion to directly assess material reach.
During Phase II, customer surveys will ask about satisfaction with the MM program regarding
ease and frequency of use, as well as satisfaction related to the adoption of MM in a corner store.
Storeowner satisfaction: HFD staff will collect a completed survey from the storeowner on a
monthly basis to assess the sustainability of the conversion and the self-efficacy of the
storeowner. Items will be formatted on a 5-point Likert scale and include: HFD has provided
Group 14, Assignment 8
14
adequate support during the store conversion; I am capable of successfully maintaining
perishable items in my store; I am satisfied with the newly added items and their sales.
V. Impact/Outcome/Summative Evaluation Plan
Research Question:
Does the introduction of HFD increase the availability and consumption of FFV in a low-
income, low-access community?
Research Strategy: We will evaluate HFD using an explanatory research design. Explanatory
strategies aim to determine whether there is a relationship between an independent variable and
any dependent variables.49 An explanatory research strategy allows us to determine whether we
can infer an association between each phase of HFD and increased FFV consumption. A
descriptive design is not suitable because manipulation of variables (i.e. the intervention and its
various components) is a core component of HFD.50 Exploratory design would also be
inappropriate, as ample data already exists related to food access, poverty rates, and CalFresh
enrollment.22,25
Research Design: We will evaluate HFD under a quasi-experimental design to determine
whether program implementation is associated with an increase in the outcome variable of
interest, FFV consumption.50,51 Although ‘true’ experimental design is regarded as the gold
standard in research, random assignment and limitations on multiple variable measures make it
challenging to utilize in a health promotion setting.50,52 Since we cannot randomly assign
participants to shop at specific stores or prevent individuals who are not part of the study sample
from shopping at Hank’s, a true experimental design is not feasible.
HFD will be evaluated using a two-phase pre-post design with a nonequivalent control group
(NCG).50 The intervention group will be residents of census tracts 2352.01 and 2352.02 and the
Group 14, Assignment 8
15
NCG will be residents of census tract 6002.02. During Phase I, HFD will compare the
intervention participants to the NCG to determine how access to a converted corner store impacts
FFV consumption. At baseline, both groups will receive a pre-test to determine FFV
consumption habits without access to a converted corner store. The intervention group will
receive six months of access to the conversion at Hank’s while the NCG will receive a
comparison intervention (two in-person physical activity [PA] modules, one at pre-test and one
at month five). After six months, both groups will receive a post-test to measure potential
changes in FFV consumption. Phase II of the study will be a within-subject comparison also
using pre-post design. It will compare FFV consumption among the intervention participants
before and after access to MM. The post-test from Phase I will serve as the pre-test for Phase II.
There will be a second post-test after
the six months of MM in Hank’s (see
Appendix D for Research Design).
Justification: Pre-post design with an NCG is appropriate to study HFD due to the fact that
randomization of communities is not possible.50 The pre-test component strengthens the design
by allowing us to see if there are any differences between the two groups at baseline and to
determine changes in FFV consumption over time.50
Sample Description: The intervention group will consist of female CalFresh beneficiaries, aged
18+, residing in census tracts 2352.01 or 2352.02. The NCG will consist of female CalFresh
beneficiaries, aged 18+, residing in census tract 6002.02.
Sample Appropriateness: Census tract 6002.02 was selected as the comparison tract due to
geographic and demographic similarities. Both groups are located in SPA 6, have a comparable
Table 1: Two-Phase Pre-Post Design
Phase I
O X (store conversion) O
O O
Phase II
O X (conv. + Market Match) O
Group 14, Assignment 8
16
number of corner stores, and qualify as having “low income and access” issues, meaning that
there is no full-service grocery store within one mile of the tracts.26,27
The intervention and comparison census tracts are similar demographically. Both have large
Black and Latino populations (2352.02 - 96% combined / 2352.01 – 91% combined / 6002.02 –
96% combined).25,53 Both groups also have a comparable percentage of the population living at
or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line (2352.02 – 92% / 2352.01 – 84% / 6002.02 – 94%)
and eligible for CalFresh benefits (2352.02 – 15%-25% [FY 2014] / 2352.01 –25%-50% [FY
2013] / 6002.02 – >50% [FY 2014]).27 CalFresh enrollment similarity is necessary because
Phase II of HFD requires matching CalFresh funds for FFV purchases at Hank’s.
Sample Strengths: By selecting a highly similar comparison group, there is a greater likelihood
that potential changes in FFV consumption measured among the intervention group can be
attributed to HFD. A major strength of using an NCG with pre-post design is that researchers can
assess any potential difference in the two groups prior to the start of a study. This makes it
possible to control for differences during the statistical analysis phase,50 while also allowing for
the establishment of temporal precedence.54
Sample Weaknesses: Contamination is a potential threat to this study because both samples are
located in SPA 6, so individuals in the NCG may travel to the intervention tracts and shop at
Hank’s. However, previous research shows that even one to two miles of travel is a barrier to
accessing healthful food. Thus, a 12-mile distance should be sufficient to ensure limited
contamination.1,55 Nonetheless, we will include a question on both the pre- and post-tests about
travel to Hank’s in order to assess and potentially control for any contamination during analysis.
Hypotheses and Variables: Overarching Constructs and Working Definitions: HFD refers to
the implementation of a two-phase intervention with the goal of increasing access to affordable
Group 14, Assignment 8
17
FFV. Phase I involves a corner store conversion and Phase II involves implementation of a pilot
MM program. HFD participants refers to the intervention group described above (see Sample
Description). HFD participants will receive the intervention in two phases, over two years. The
NCG is equivalent to the intervention group aside from census tract and that they do not receive
the intervention (see Appendix D for Research Design).
Descriptive Hypothesis 1: HFD’s introduction of 15 FFV is associated with a higher reported
frequency of FFV consumption among participants. The independent variable (IV) is the
introduction of 15 FFV and the dependent variable (DV) is the reported frequency of FFV
consumed by participants in each group. Higher frequency of FFV consumption is defined as an
increase of at least one additional FFV consumed per day as compared to baseline.56,57 FFV
consumption will be assessed using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Food
Frequency Questionnaire (NHANES FFQ), available in English and Spanish.58 The NHANES
FFQ assesses FFV intake by summing the reported frequency of consumption over the previous
12 months (see Appendix E for Sample NHANES Questions). This sum is then averaged to
obtain daily intake. Frequency of FFV consumed will be rounded to the closest whole number in
order to measure it as a discrete, ratio variable. A ratio variable is appropriate because the
number of servings consumed has an absolute zero point (e.g. 0 servings is equal to no FFV
consumption).59 The introduction of 15 FFV will be measured as a discrete, nominal variable
where the categories are either Yes (15 FFV introduced) or No (0 FFV introduced).
Descriptive Hypothesis 2: Participation in Phase II is associated with higher frequency of FFV
consumption compared to participation in Phase I among intervention participants. The IV is
program phase and the DV is reported frequency of FFV consumed among HFD participants
during participation in Phase I and II. Higher frequency of FFV consumption is defined as an
Group 14, Assignment 8
18
increase of at least one additional FFV consumed per day after Phase II as compared to Phase I.
Using the same NHANES FFQ questions, we will compare the frequency of FFV consumed per
day within the intervention group over time. Frequency of FFV consumed will be measured as a
discrete, ratio variable, which will allow us to compare the number of FFV consumed (e.g. 2:1
FFV consumption).59 Program phase will be measured as a discrete, nominal variable where the
distinct categories are Phase I or Phase II.
Control Variables: We will control for the following in order to prevent potential confounding
and mediation. We will collect race/ethnicity data as a discrete, nominal variable to control for
potential differences in purchasing based on race. We will collect income data as a continuous,
interval variable to control for potential differences in purchasing based on amount of disposable
income. We will also collect data on household size as a discrete, interval variable to control for
potential differences in frequency of consumption as a result of differential distribution of FFV
purchased within differently sized households.
Unit of Analysis and Sampling: The sampling frame is composed of 198,000 CalFresh
beneficiaries living in SPA 6.60 The unit of analysis is at the individual level; we are targeting
adult women and evaluating data on CalFresh eligibility, race/ethnicity, income, and FFV
consumption.
Sample Type: HFD will narrow the sampling frame in order to identify beneficiaries who reside
in the intervention census tracts (2352.01/2352.02) or the comparison tract (6002.02).60
Participants will be selected from this purposive sample using simple random sampling, with
replacement, making the probability of being selected the same for all CalFresh beneficiaries.
Sample Size: Phase I: HFD aims to detect an increase of 12% in the number of residents in
tracts 2352.01/2352.02 who report eating the recommended daily servings of FFV (an increase
Group 14, Assignment 8
19
from 6% to 18%).36 Using Stata 13.1, we determined that the necessary sample size (alpha=.05
and power=.8) for Phase I is 212 participants total (106 participants from the intervention group
and 106 from the NCG). In LAC, CalFresh attrition is about 18% annually because individuals
can be un-enrolled from the program if their financial situation improves or if they fail to provide
appropriate renewal documentation.61 HFD will oversample 24 participants for each group at the
start of Phase I to account for the 18% attrition rate, as well as any other loss to follow-up over
the 6-month period. This will require a grand total of 260 participants for Phase I with 130 in
each group. Phase II: Phase II will follow only the 130 participants living in the intervention
census tracts (excluding those who have been lost to follow-up) to see how the addition of MM
impacts consumption of FFV beyond providing FFV in Hank’s alone.
Obtaining the Sample: This is a purposive sample since we are using predefined criteria (sex,
age, address, CalFresh beneficiary status, etc.) to narrow our pool of potential participants. Based
on these inclusion criteria, HFD will use Stata to generate a random number for each
beneficiary’s CalFresh number. Stata will randomly select, with replacement, from the pool of
eligible individuals in the intervention and NCG tracts until the required sample size (N=260) is
reached. Program staff will contact individuals in-person to explain the study’s purpose and
obtain informed consent. In the event that not everyone selected in the first wave agrees to join
the intervention, we will return to Stata to generate the remaining participants needed.
Potential Sampling Issues: Due to design, an important consideration for recruitment is
CalFresh attrition over the length of the two-phase intervention. HFD will provide incentives
upon completion of each pre- and post-test during Phases I and II. The intervention group and
NCG participants will receive a $5 Target gift card for each completed test. Furthermore, HFD
will attempt to offset potential attrition in the NCG via the in-person PA modules. These will be
Group 14, Assignment 8
20
delivered in a group setting one week after pre-test and during month five of the program to
motivate continued participation and provide an additional benefit to the NCG.
Data Collection: Data will be collected using the NHANES FFQ, a nationally recognized and
validated questionnaire that assesses FFV consumption, which has been adapted to fit multiple
community settings.38,62,63 The FFQ will be administered as the pre- and post-test for each phase
and is a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire.
Measurement of constructs: FFV Consumption among CalFresh beneficiaries will be
measured using the NHANES FFQ. We will adapt the questionnaire to include 35 discrete
response questions related to consumption of specific FFV items that are culturally appropriate
for Blacks and Latinos and have been sold in Hank’s over the course of the intervention. The
estimated time for completion is 30 minutes per survey. Demographic data, including age,
income, race/ethnicity, and number of household members, will be collected from the CalFresh
database. These variables will be used as control variables during data analysis.
For two weeks, prior to Phase I, each CFL will go door-to-door to deliver the pre-test FFQ to
26 individuals total (13 from the intervention group and 13 from the NCG). This will assess
baseline FFV consumption among participants. Six months following the store conversion,
participants from both groups will complete the post-test FFQ. The post-test from Phase I will
serve as the pre-test for Phase II for the intervention group. This will assess FFV consumption
after store conversion (Phase I), but prior to MM implementation (Phase II). A second post-test
will be administered by CFLs to intervention participants six months after MM implementation.
The NCG will not receive a second post-test as their data will only be used to compare
consumption between individuals with access to a corner store with FFV, and those without.
Group 14, Assignment 8
21
The NHANES FFQ is the most appropriate tool to measure the dependent variable, FFV
consumption, due to its validity in English and Spanish and wide utilization.58 The questionnaire
assesses usual dietary intake and the food items will be adjusted for cultural appropriateness.64
The NHANES FFQ has been assessed via validation studies, and its reliability has been
established through cognitive testing that examines questionnaire content.65 Since the full
NHANES questionnaire includes information on dietary intake that is beyond the scope of this
evaluation, we will administer a modified version related to consumption of FFV only. We have
chosen to modify the questionnaire in order to (1) lower participant burden, (2) omit unnecessary
data collection on other food groups, and (3) ensure we are measuring consumption of the most
culturally appropriate FFV (see Appendix E for the Sample NHANES Questions).
Potential Data Collection Issues: One potential issue associated with using any self-reported
questionnaire is response bias.66 Individuals may be inclined to answer with more socially
desirable responses, for example responding that they eat more FFV than they actually do. We
are using a self-administered survey to address this since they are often used with sensitive
topics, such as sexual behaviors and eating habits,67 because they increase the likelihood of more
accurate response.66 Having the CFLs available while participants complete the FFQ can help
reduce the number of missed questions and minimize non-response bias, and they can clarify the
questionnaire and purpose of the study should participants have any questions.66
Analysis Plan: HFD staff will analyze all data in order to test descriptive hypotheses 1 and 2 to
determine if the intervention resulted in any significant changes in FFV consumption. Statistical
significance will be defined as p-value ≤ .05. The plan will incorporate data cleaning and
management, as well as generalized linear models to determine associations between variables of
interest. The first evaluation will be conducted for Phase I and completed after post-test
Group 14, Assignment 8
22
assessment for the intervention group and NCG is complete. Evaluation for Phase II will occur
after the final post-test assessment for the intervention group is complete.
Data Cleaning and Management: URAs will be responsible for entering all NHANES FFQ data
into a centralized database. CalFresh beneficiary information and demographic data will be
matched to individual participant FFQ responses in the same database to complete the data set.
The PD and PC will be responsible for checking the quality of the data to ensure that everything
was entered accurately and is ready for analysis.
The data will be cleaned and analyzed using Stata, and incomplete or missing observations
will be discarded to prevent potential bias in the analysis. Staff will perform univariate analyses
in order to detect visual trends (from histograms and box plots), and will assess descriptive
statistics (means, ranges, and standard deviations). Descriptive statistics will help with assessing
correlation, identifying potential outliers and other influential observations, and confirming
assumptions of normality and independence.
Hypothesis Testing: HFD will assess potential associations between variables using t-tests,
multiple linear regression, logistic regression, and multiple imputations. T-tests will assess
changes related to FFV consumption between the two groups during Phase I, and to assess
differences in FFV consumption among intervention participants after completion of Phase II.
Regression models will determine if any of the control variables (i.e. race, income, household
size) contribute significantly to the primary outcome variable of interest. Data will be run with
multiple imputations at the end of analysis to see whether excluding missing observations
significantly impacted findings or not. All analyses will help staff understand how participation
in Phase I of HFD relates to FFV consumption in the intervention group as compared to the
Group 14, Assignment 8
23
NCG, and how participation in Phase II impacts FFV consumption as compared to participation
in Phase I alone.
Ethical Considerations: The PD will obtain approval to conduct the study from an Institutional
Review Board. When participants complete informed consent forms, they will receive
informational documents detailing: the study, participant expectations, their right to withdraw,
and implications for the community. HFD will collect sensitive information, such as race, age,
household size, and food consumption. Thus, all electronic data will be password protected and
identifying information will be removed from questionnaires and stored in a separate, locked
location. This will alleviate potential privacy issues since individuals living in the community
(CFLs) will be assisting with data collection. Furthermore, all HFD staff and CFLs will sign
confidentiality agreements.
VI. Discussion
Implications: The beneficial effects that a store conversion has on healthful eating are widely
recognized;12,14 however, the benefits of allowing CalFresh beneficiaries to use funds to purchase
FFV in corner stores has yet to be documented. HFD’s program seeks to fill this research gap by
implementing both a corner store conversion and MM at the same store, with the same
population, to compare levels of FFV consumption during each phase. If HFD succeeds in
increasing FFV consumption following the MM pilot, the program may inform the development
of similar interventions in other low-income, low-access communities in LA. Additionally, CFLs
may be incorporated into other corner store interventions in order to incite more community
involvement around such projects.
HFD will be considered successful if analyses demonstrate a statistically significant increase
in FFV consumption during each phase of the program. Assessing FFV consumption at each
Group 14, Assignment 8
24
phase will indicate whether both a store conversion and MM implementation are necessary to
increase FFV consumption, or if a store conversion alone is sufficient to drive behavior change.
Furthermore, an evaluation of the CFLs is crucial as they are an essential component to HFD. If
the program is successful, it is likely that much of the success could be attributed to their
community engagement, outreach and education efforts.
A direct benefit of program success would be increased FFV consumption, which is linked to
a decrease in obesity-related chronic diseases such as heart disease.1 Reducing obesity-related
chronic disease could help alleviate constraints on and reduce spending within the healthcare
system. Indirect benefits of HFD may include more knowledge on nutrition and food access
issues among community members as well as increased business for Hank’s storeowner.
If the program is unsuccessful, HFD will evaluate the amount of time dedicated to
community outreach, community perceptions of healthful eating, and the effectiveness of each
program phase. Should the data not demonstrate significant changes in FFV consumption after
Phase II, that would confirm that implementing MM in corner stores is not an efficient use of
funding. Program failure would indicate that further research is necessary to identify ways to
increase FFV consumption in low-income, low-access communities.
Dissemination: HFD will disseminate program findings, regardless of the program outcome, so
that interested parties can learn from the experience. Findings will be shared with stakeholders,
community members, and policy makers. At the program’s conclusion, HFD will invite
stakeholders and community members to gather for a presentation on program findings.
Furthermore, HFD will prepare a detailed report for publication in peer-reviewed journals, such
as the American Journal of Public Health, and for presentation at professional conferences.
Group 14, Assignment 8
25
Lastly, to build empirically based knowledge of food access issues, HFD will publish all tools,
methods, and findings on the CalFresh website.
Potential Limitations: One major limitation of the MM component of the study is the inability
to make an unlimited number of matches each week. The program runs on a first-come, first-
served basis due to budget limitations. If weekly pre-allotted funds run out, people will have to
wait until the following week to use their CalFresh benefits at Hank’s. Securing funding would
allow HFD to increase the reach of the matching component, but due to the expensive nature of
MM it is necessary to demonstrate effectiveness before requesting funding from outside
organizations (see Appendix G for Budget Justification). Another limitation is generalizability
of the findings. Since the intervention population only examines female CalFresh beneficiaries,
18+ and the chosen population only covers SPA 6, it is possible that the findings may not be
generalizable to other regions or groups of people.
Sustainability: Previous community health worker initiatives have shown that community
members are critical for program sustainability because they are invested in program success and
able to incite participation from other community members.34,35 Proper training and education of
CFLs and Hank’s storeowner will lead to the continuation of the HFD program. Without their
participation, involvement and support, the program changes will not be sustainable after the
researchers depart.20
Group 14, Assignment 8
26
References
1. Dannefer R, Williams DA, Baronberg S, Silver L. Healthy Bodegas: Increasing and Promoting Healthy Foods at Corner Stores in New York City. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(10):e27-e31. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300615.
2. Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood Environments: Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74-81.e10. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.025.
3. Borradaile KE, Sherman S, Veur SSV, et al. Snacking in Children: The Role of Urban Corner Stores. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1293-1298. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0964.
4. Lucan SC, Karpyn A, Sherman S. Storing Empty Calories and Chronic Disease Risk: Snack-Food Products, Nutritive Content, and Manufacturers in Philadelphia Corner Stores. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9453-5.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Obesity Prevalence Among Low-Income, Preschool-Aged Children — New York City and Los Angeles County, 2003–2011. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6202a1.htm. Accessed April 28, 2015.
6. Wang YC, McPherson K, Marsh T, Gortmaker SL, Brown M. Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. The Lancet. 2011;378(9793):815-825. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60814-3.
7. American Diabetes Association. Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):1033-1046. doi:10.2337/dc12-2625.
8. Healthypeople.gov. Topics & Objectives: Nutrition and Weight Status 2020. January 2015. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/nutrition-and-weight-status/objectives. Accessed January 21, 2015.
9. Kwate NOA. Fried chicken and fresh apples: Racial segregation as a fundamental cause of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health Place. 2008;14(1):32-44. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.04.001.
10. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Israel BA, James SA, Bao S, Wilson ML. Neighborhood Racial Composition, Neighborhood Poverty, and the Spatial Accessibility of Supermarkets in Metropolitan Detroit. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(4):660-667. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.042150.
11. Cavanaugh E, Mallya G, Brensinger C, Tierney A, Glanz K. Nutrition environments in corner stores in Philadelphia. Prev Med. 2013;56(2):149-151. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.12.007.
12. Jetter KM, Cassady DL. Increasing Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Availability in a Low-Income Neighborhood Convenience Store: A Pilot Study. Health Promot Pract. February 2009. doi:10.1177/1524839908330808.
13. Cannuscio CC, Weiss EE, Asch DA. The Contribution of Urban Foodways to Health Disparities. J Urban Health. 2010;87(3):381-393. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9441-9.
Group 14, Assignment 8
27
14. Bodor JN, Ulmer VM, Dunaway LF, Farley TA, Rose D. The Rationale behind Small Food Store Interventions in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods: Insights from New Orleans. J Nutr. 2010;140(6):1185-1188. doi:10.3945/jn.109.113266.
15. Gittelsohn J, Rowan M, Gadhoke P. Interventions in Small Food Stores to Change the Food Environment, Improve Diet, and Reduce Risk of Chronic Disease. Prev Chronic Dis. February 2012. doi:10.5888/pcd9.110015.
16. Hoffman JA, Morris V, Cook J. The Boston Middle School-Corner Store Initiative: Development, implementation, and initial evaluation of a program designed to improve adolescents’ beverage-purchasing behaviors. Psychol Sch. 2009;46(8):756-766. doi:10.1002/pits.20414.
17. Gordon C, Purciel-Hill M, Ghai NR, Kaufman L, Graham R, Van Wye G. Measuring food deserts in New York City’s low-income neighborhoods. Health Place. 2011;17(2):696-700. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.012.
18. Laska MN, Borradaile KE, Tester J, Foster GD, Gittelsohn J. Healthy food availability in small urban food stores: a comparison of four US cities. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(07):1031-1035. doi:10.1017/S1368980009992771.
19. Song H-J, Gittelsohn J, Kim M, Suratkar S, Sharma S, Anliker J. A corner store intervention in a low-income urban community is associated with increased availability and sales of some healthy foods. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(11):2060-2067. doi:10.1017/S1368980009005242.
20. O’Malley K, Gustat J, Rice J, Johnson CC. Feasibility of Increasing Access to Healthy Foods in Neighborhood Corner Stores. J Community Health. 2013;38(4):741-749. doi:10.1007/s10900-013-9673-1.
21. Martin KS, Havens E, Boyle KE, et al. If you stock it, will they buy it? Healthy food availability and customer purchasing behaviour within corner stores in Hartford, CT, USA. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(10):1973-1978. doi:10.1017/S1368980011003387.
22. City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Health Atlas for the City of Los Angeles. http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Cwd/framwk/healthwellness/text/HealthAtlas.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2015.
23. Park A, Watson N, Galloway-Gilliam L. South Los Angeles Health Equity Scorecard. http://chc-inc.org/downloads/South%20LA%20Scorecard.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2015.
24. County of Los Angeles Public Health: Community Health Services. Service Planning Area 6. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/CHS/SPA6/index.htm. Accessed January 21, 2015.
25. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Healthcare Atlas: Census tract-Details 2352.02. http://gis.oshpd.ca.gov/atlas/places/tract/06037235202#. Accessed January 21, 2015.
26. USDA Economic Research Service - Documentation. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/documentation.aspx#lowincome. Accessed April 14, 2015.
Group 14, Assignment 8
28
27. California Department of Public Health. GIS mapping tool. http://gis.cdph.ca.gov/cnn2.0/. Accessed April 12, 2015.
28. Glanz K, Bader MDM, Iyer S. Retail Grocery Store Marketing Strategies and Obesity: An Integrative Review. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(5):503-512. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.013.
29. Chen SE, Florax RJGM. Zoning for Health: The Obesity Epidemic and Opportunities for Local Policy Intervention. J Nutr. 2010;140(6):1181S - 1184S. doi:10.3945/jn.109.111336.
30. The Ecology Center. Market Match. http://ecologycenter.org/marketmatch/. Accessed May 1, 2015.
31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources and Services Administration. Community Health Workers Evidence-Based Models Toolbox. http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/pdf/chwtoolkit.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2015.
32. Shah MK, Kieffer EC, Choi H, Schumann C, Heisler M. Mediators and Moderators of the Effectiveness of a Community Health Worker Intervention That Improved Dietary Outcomes in Pregnant Latino Women. Health Educ Behav. January 2015:1090198114568307. doi:10.1177/1090198114568307.
33. Ortega AN, Albert SL, Sharif MZ, et al. Proyecto MercadoFRESCO: A Multi-level, Community-Engaged Corner Store Intervention in East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights. J Community Health. 2014;40(2):347-356. doi:10.1007/s10900-014-9941-8.
34. Samuels SE, Craypo L, Boyle M, Crawford PB, Yancey A, Flores G. The California Endowment’s Healthy Eating, Active Communities program: a midpoint review. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2114-2123. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.192781.
35. Azuma AM, Gililand S, Vallianatos M, Gottlieb R. Food Access, Availability, and Affordability in 3 Los Angeles Communities, Project CAFE, 2004-2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7(2):A27.
36. Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. 2011 Los Angeles County Health Survey. http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/LACHSBackMeth2011.htm. Accessed January 15, 2015.
37. Hunger Action Los Angeles. Market Match. http://www.hungeractionla.org/marketmatch. Accessed January 30, 2015.
38. Glanz K, Rimer BK. Theory at a Glance. A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997.
39. James D. Factors influencing food choices, dietary intake, and nutrition-related attitudes among African Americans: Application of a culturally sensitive model. Ethn Health. 2004;9(4):349-367. doi:10.1080/1355785042000285375.
40. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Behav. 1988;15(2):175-183. doi:10.1177/109019818801500203.
Group 14, Assignment 8
29
41. Wallerstein N, Sanchez-Merki V. Freirian praxis in health education: research results from an adolescent prevention program. Health Educ Res. 1994;9(1):105-118. doi:10.1093/her/9.1.105.
42. Freire P. Education for Critical Consciousness. Vol Reprint edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2013.
43. Rindner EC. Using Freirean Empowerment for Health Education With Adolescents in Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Psychiatric Settings. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;17(2):78-84. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2004.00078.x.
44. Freire P, Macedo D. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition. Vol 30th Anniversary edition. New York: Bloomsbury Academic; 2000.
45. Heward S, Hutchins C, Keleher H. Organizational change—key to capacity building and effective health promotion. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(2):170-178.
46. Steckler A, Goodman R, Kegler MC. Mobilizing organizations for health enhancement: theories of organizational change. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. Vol 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002:335-360.
47. Ontario Health Promotion Resource System. Health Promotion On-Line Course. http://www.ohprs.ca/hp101/mod4/module4c15.htm. Accessed February 15, 2015.
48. Spencer MS, Rosland A-M, Kieffer EC, et al. Effectiveness of a Community Health Worker Intervention Among African American and Latino Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(12):2253-2260. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300106.
49. Salazar LF, Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ. Chapter 11: Principles of Sampling. In: Research Methods in Health Promotion. Vol John Wiley & Sons; 2015:289-316.
50. Salazar LF, Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ. Chapter 4: Choosing a Research Design. In: Research Methods in Health Promotion. Vol John Wiley & Sons; 2015:75-106.
51. Campbell D, Stanley J. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching. American Educational Research Association; 1963.
52. Judd C, Smith E, Kiddler L. Research Methods in Social Science. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Wanston; 1991.
53. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Healthcare Atlas: Census tract-Details 6002.02. http://gis.oshpd.ca.gov/atlas/places/tract/06037600202#. Accessed April 8, 2015.
54. Judd C, Smith E, Kiddler L. Quasi-Experimental Design. In: Research Methods in Health Promotion. Vol 6th ed. Harcourt College Publishers; 1991:100-123.
Group 14, Assignment 8
30
55. Ghosh-Dastidar B, Cohen D, Hunter G, et al. Distance to Store, Food Prices, and Obesity in Urban Food Deserts. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(5):587-595. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.005.
56. Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Peterson K, et al. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption through worksites and families in the treatwell 5-a-day study. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(1):54-60. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.1.54.
57. United States Department of Agriculture. Vegetables: How many vegetables are needed daily or weekly? http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/vegetables-amount.html. Accessed May 26, 2015.
58. National Cancer Institute. NHANES Food Questionnaire. http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/archive/usualintakes/FFQ.English.June0304.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2015.
59. Salazar LF, Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ. Chapter 9: Measurement in Health Promotion. In: Research Methods in Health Promotion. Vol John Wiley & Sons; 2015:229-259.
60. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. AskCHIS Query: Currently Receiving Food Stamps - South LA. http://ask.chis.ucla.edu/main/DQ3/output.asp. Accessed May 8, 2015.
61. Zero Churn in CalFresh: Providing Food and Stability to Californians in Need. Alliance Transform CalFresh. September 2014. http://www.sfmfoodbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/Advocacy/churn_-_fact_sheet.pdf.
62. Tucker KL, Bianchi LA, Maras J, Bermudez OI. Adaptation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Diets of Puerto Rican and Non-Hispanic Adults. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148(5):507-518.
63. Kumanyika SK, Grier S. Targeting Interventions for Ethnic Minority and Low-Income Populations. Future Child. 2006;16(1):187-207. doi:10.1353/foc.2006.0005.
64. NHANES 2003 - 2004: Food Frequency Questionnaire – Raw Questionnaire Responses Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/FFQRAW_C.htm. Accessed May 9, 2015.
65. Subar AF, Dodd KW, Guenther PM, et al. The Food Propensity Questionnaire: Concept, Development, and Validation for Use as a Covariate in a Model to Estimate Usual Food Intake. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(10):1556-1563. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.07.002.
66. Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ, Salazar LF. Chapter 10: Improving Validity of Self-Reports for Sensitive Behaviors. In: Research Methods in Health Promotion. Vol John Wiley & Sons; 2015:260-288.
67. Boutelle K, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Resnick M. Weight Control Behaviors Among Obese, Overweight, and Nonoverweight Adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. 2002;27(6):531-540. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.6.531.
Group 14, Assignment 8
31
VIII. Appendices
Appendix A: Area Map
Group 14, Assignment 8
32
Appendix B: Logic Model
Group 14, Assignment 8
33
Appendix C: Gantt Chart
Group 14, Assignment 8
34
Group 14, Assignment 8
35
Appendix D: Research Design
Phase I: Pre-Post with a non-equivalent control group
Phase II: Pre-Post on Group 1 only, within-subject comparison to Phase I outcomes
Phase I
O X (store conversion) O
O O
Phase II
O X (store conversion + Market Match) O
Timeline for Pre-Post Test Administration to Assess FFV Consumption (using NHANES FFQ as Pre and Post Test Instrument)
Group 14, Assignment 8
36
Appendix E: Sample NHANES Questions
Group 14, Assignment 8
37
Appendix F: Budget
Group 14, Assignment 8
38
Appendix G: Budget Justification
Personnel Expenses
Full-Time Employees:
1. Program Director (PD) $38,812.50/year
Initiate, maintain, and act as point contact person between HFD and partners. Supervise
and meet monthly with PC. Oversee budget, hiring of HFD personnel/staff and any
logistical issues that may arise. Participate in data collection, management and cleaning,
analysis, and dissemination activities. This is a two-year part-time position (0.25 FTE)
with an annual salary of $115,000. PD benefits will be 35% of salary ($10,062.50/year).
Qualifications: Must have a MPH or MSPH with at least 3 years of public-health work
experience working with underserved communities. Ideal candidate has experience in
program development, implementation and data analysis. Must be bilingual (fluent in
Spanish and English).
2. Program Coordinator (PC) $60, 750/year
Work closely with the URAs and oversee all activities with CFLs. The PC will meet hold
two-hour meetings for project updates the PD (monthly) and the URAs (bimonthly).
Participate in data collection, management and cleaning, analysis, and dissemination
activities. This is a full-time position (1 FTE) at $45,000/year. All expenses for PC will
be the same for both years. PC Benefits will be 35% of salary ($15,750/year).
Qualifications: Must have a MPH or MSPH with at least one year of public health work
experience or any related field and program evaluation experience. Ideal candidate has a
passion for working with underserved communities and experience implementing
programs that improve health in these communities. Must be bilingual (fluent in Spanish
and English).
Part-time Employees:
3. Undergraduate Research Assistants (URAs) Receive class credit
Two URAs will work closely with PC and CFLs to assist in all aspects of HFD. There
will be two positions available at 5 to 10 hours/week depending on the amount of class
credit dedicated to HFD. All expenses for URAs will be the same for both years. The PD
will sign a “Term of Agreement” with the students’ respective institution to secure class
credit positions, in which the students will receive a grade based on the work conducted
in the field rather than being compensated monetarily.
Qualifications: Full-time student at an accredited university with Junior or Senior
standing. Student must have a strong interest in community health and working with
underserved populations. Student must be enrolled in a class with research credit at their
respective institution.
Group 14, Assignment 8
39
Contractor
Graphic Designer $30.00/hour
The Graphic Designer will be utilized to help HFD design advertisements, including
design of flyers. The graphic designer will work a total of 10 hours for the entire program
(five hours for Phase I and five hours for Phase II). The total paid to the designer will be
$300.
Non-Personnel Costs
1. Facility Costs $12,000
Rent: HFD staff will rent a small office space at a flat rate of $500 per month for the total
two-year period. This office space will include two desks, two chairs, one office
telephone, and will include the cost of all utilities and Internet usage.
2. Operational Costs $16,145.23
Computers $1,299.98
HFD staff will purchase two Lenovo - Edge 15 inch laptops ($649.99/ea). One will be for
the full-time Coordinator, and the other will remain in the rented office space for use by
both the Program Director and the URA when in the office.
Office Supplies $2,400
Office supplies have been calculated at $100 per month and include standard desktop
supplies such as pens, paper, paper clips, etc.
CFL Field Supplies $374.25
HFD will purchase 25 shirts ($307 for 25 total, which is cheaper than ordering 14 shirts)
for staff and CFLs to wear in the field. HFD will also purchase 25 clipboards ($2.69/ea)
for CFLs for keeping track of materials during community forums and door-to-door
surveying.
Local Travel $4,071
The current local travel reimbursement rate is $.575 per mile. It is estimated that CFLs
will drive a total of 30 miles per month after April 2016 (meetings, delivering FFQs for
evaluation purposes, and community forums). This totals 6,000 miles (30 miles X 10
CFLs X 20 months) for a total of $3,450 (6000 miles X $.575). The PC will drive a total
of 45 miles per month for any necessary site visits at Hank’s or to attend CFL
Community Forums. This totals 1,080 miles (45 miles X 24 months) for a total of $621
(1080 miles X $.575).
Non-Local Travel $8,000
The HFD Program Director, Program Coordinator, and two CFLs will attend the
American Public Health Association annual meeting during Phase II of the program to
present program findings. This includes registration, airfare, hotel, and meals at a per
diem rate for a total cost of $8,000 ($2,000 per person X 4 people).
Group 14, Assignment 8
40
3. Printing Costs $1455.90
CFL Training Materials $370
Phase I: Includes ten binders ($3/ea), curriculum pages ($10/set), and ten flash drives
($5.50/ea) with electronic version of the curriculum. Phase II: Includes ten binders
($3/ea), curriculum pages ($10/set), and ten flash drives ($5.50/ea) with electronic
version of the curriculum.
Store Owner Training Materials $8.50
Includes one binder ($3/ea), curriculum pages (see above), and one flash drive ($5.50/ea)
with electronic version of the curriculum.
Promotional Items, Surveys and Recipe Cards $9,487
Includes costs related to printing 10,000 door hangers ($444) and flyers ($200), 5,000
recipe cards ($133) and 5,000 in-store customer surveys ($150). Half of these items will
be used in each year of the program. For Phase I, the door hangers will include a coupon
for three pounds of fresh produce for a customer’s first FFV purchase at Hank’s totaling
$8,550 (0.57/lb * 3lbs * 5000 door hangers).
Printing will also include the pages for the storeowner curriculum ($10). These items will
be obtained from a local printer.
FFQ Questionnaires $12
For a 6-page long 35 question FFQ for 260 participants in Phase I and 130 participants in
Phase II, the total cost will be $12.
4. Conversion Costs $18,548
Fresh Produce $16,800
Based on the agreement formed between Hank’s and the contracted vendor, the vendor
will sell 700 lbs of a variety of 15 seasonal produce items per week for $402 at a fixed
rate for two years.
Cash Register with Card Reader and Computer Screen $1,748
The cash register is equipped with: a touchscreen monitor, card reader, laser scanner,
receipt printer, logic control and pole display (for customer to see each item price as it is
scanned/entered), cash register, software, and EBT swipe machine. These features of the
cash register will ensure proper data collection for Phase I and Phase 2. With the
provided software, HFD staff and Hank’s storeowner can add store specific items and
prices, coupon values, and reward card loading capabilities. Once programmed the
storeowner can easily navigate the touchscreen monitor to track sales, redeem coupons,
and reload reward cards for the MM.
General Repairs: $1,352
General repairs may include removing bars from windows, repairing cracks in stucco,
tightening loose shelving, changing locks, etc. In order to do such repairs, we will need
one 67-piece tool kit ($40) and one electric screwdriver ($22). Given the high cost of
consultation and labor for appliance repairs, and the age of the refrigerators, it is more
cost effective for HFD to provide a new refrigerator in the case of a malfunction. The
Group 14, Assignment 8
41
average cost of a single door refrigerator with 23 cubic feet is $1,290, which HFD will
hold a retainer of $1,290 should a refrigerator malfunction.
5. Beautification Materials $5,148
Painting (Exterior, Interior, Supplies): $1,621
Includes the purchase of 40 gallons of exterior paint ($20/ea) and 50 gallons of interior
paint ($13/ea). Gallons needed were calculated using a paint calculator for a 4,900 sqft.
space. We will also need the following painting supplies: two sets of three different size
brushes ($9/ea), two sets of four paint rollers and handles ($12/ea), two paint roller
extenders ($10/ea), 10 paint trays ($1.50/ea) one large painter’s tarp ($20, three rolls of
painter’s tape ($2/ea), two gallons of paint thinner ($9/ea) and one multi-size ladder
($50).
Replacing Floors: $2,401
Floors will be replaced with self-install, non-glue laminate flooring at $.49/sqft. We will
need flooring to cover 4,900 sqft.
Cleaning Supplies: $164
Includes two brooms ($5/ea), two mops ($5/ea), two buckets ($3/ea), one 12-roll pack of
paper towels ($18), two 100-oz containers of multi-purpose cleaner ($7/ea), two 26-oz
containers of glass cleaner ($3.50/ea) and one pressure washer to clean the exterior walls
prior to painting ($99).
6. MM Costs
Rewards Cards $1,140
The reward cards are reloadable gift cards that will be designed specifically for spending
at Hank’s. HFD will order 3000 reloadable reward cards in full color ($0.38 per unit)
totaling $1,140. HFD ordered 3000 cards as a means to provide reward cards to all
eligible CalFresh recipients in our census tracts and additional indirect targets from the
surrounding community.
Matching Cost $75,289
The MM Program will run for 7 months for a total Phase II cost of $75,289. HFD will
distribute these total funds equally for the 28 weeks of implementation ($2,688.79 per
week). HFD will match up to $10 per CalFresh recipient per week to be consistent with
the current MM program implemented in LA farmers’ markets. By matching up to $10
(assuming each recipient receives the maximum matching of $10), 268 CalFresh
recipients per week will receive matching funds from the HFD budget.
Other Costs
Community Food Leaders $13,650
Training Incentives $1,400
Ten CFLs will be trained during Phase I as well as Phase II. Incentives for each of the ten
CFLs include $100 per person for completion of the initial 6-hour training session for a
total of $1000 over the course of the full program ($100 X 10 CFLs). The total $100
Group 14, Assignment 8
42
reimbursement will consist of a $50 cash reimbursement and a $50 gift card
reimbursement for Hank’s that can be spent on the newly stocked fresh produce. HFD
will also provide food for the CFLs during the trainings. The budget allotment for food to
feed 12 people (10 CFLs + HFD staff) will be $200 ($170 for lunch and $30 for snacks)
per training.
Community Forums $7,500
CFLs will be responsible for conducting small community forums during Phase I and
Phase II of the HFD program. There will be a maximum of 100 allowable forums
reimbursable at $75 each that meet the necessary requirements over the course of both
phases. This cost will not exceed $7500.
Storeowner $200
Incentives for the storeowner include $100 at the completion of two training segments,
one for Phase I and one for Phase II, which results in $200 total.
Pilot testing $50
We will have 10 community volunteers (who are not participating in the program) review
CFL curriculum and HFD promotional items to ensure cultural appropriateness and
message effectiveness. We will compensate with a $5 Target gift card for each participant
totaling $50.
FFQ Questionnaire Completion Incentive (Pre- and Post-tests) $1,950
For Phase I, the intervention group (N=130) and the NCG (N=130) will receive a $5
Target gift card upon completion of the pre- and post-test FFQ Questionnaire. For Phase
II, the intervention group (N=130) will receive a $5 Target gift card for completion of the
post-test FFQ questionnaire. This is a grand total of $1,950 over the course of both
phases.