Food Insecurity in the Rural United States: An Examination of Struggles and Coping Mechanisms to Feed a Family among Households with a Low-Income.

Households with a low-income in rural places experience disproportionate levels of food insecurity. Further research is needed about the nuances in strategies that households with a low-income in rural areas apply to support food security nationally. This study aimed to understand the barriers and strategies that households with a low-income in rural areas experience to obtain a meal and support food security in the United States. We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews among 153 primary grocery shoppers with a low-income residing in rural counties. A majority of family's ideal meals included animal-based protein, grains, and vegetables. Main themes included struggles to secure food and coping mechanisms. Ten categories included affordability, adequacy, accommodation, appetite, time, food source coordinating, food resource management, reduced quality, rationing for food, and exceptional desperation. These results can inform public health professionals' efforts when partnering to alleviate food insecurity in rural areas.

Examining Rural Food-Insecure Families' Perceptions of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: A Qualitative Study.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical program that helps reduce the risk of food insecurity, yet little is known about how SNAP addresses the needs of rural, food-insecure residents in the United States (U.S.). This study examines how rural, food-insecure residents perceive SNAP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 153 individuals living in six diverse rural regions of Arkansas, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia. SNAP was described as a crucial stop-gap program, keeping families from experiencing persistent food insecurity, making food dollars stretch when the family budget is tight, and helping them purchase healthier foods. For many rural residents interviewed, SNAP was viewed in a largely positive light. In efforts to continue improving SNAP, particularly in light of its relevance during and post-coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, policymakers must be aware of rural families' perceptions of SNAP. Specific improvements may include increased transparency regarding funding formulas, budgeting and nutrition education for recipients, effective training to improve customer service, connections among social service agencies within a community, and increased availability of automation to streamline application processes.

Examining Barriers and Facilitators to Delivering SNAP-Ed Direct Nutrition Education in Rural Communities.

PURPOSE: To better understand the barriers to implementing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) direct education programming in rural communities, as well as strategies to overcome these barriers. This includes (1) barriers to implementing direct education in rural communities, and (2) facilitators to overcoming direct-education barriers in rural communities. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study that included in-depth interviews. SETTING: Fifteen states across all 7 SNAP-Ed regions. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were eligible if they (1) were SNAP-Ed staff who were involved with implementing programs; (2) implemented at least 50% of their programming in rural communities, and (3) worked in their role for at least 12 months. Twenty-seven (n = 27) staff participated in interviews. MEASURES: Online surveys ascertained if participants were interested in participating in a 60-minute interview about implementing SNAP-Ed in rural communities. Interviews were semistructured and focused on the barriers and facilitators to implementing SNAP-Ed direct-education nutrition programming in rural areas. ANALYSIS: Qualitative interviews were analyzed using content analysis in Atlas.ti. RESULTS: Barriers to implementing direct education in rural communities included lack of healthy food and physical activity infrastructure to reinforce messages taught in class, funding restrictions, transportation for SNAP-Ed staff and the perception that this was also a problem for participants, and SNAP-Ed staff being seen as "outsiders" (not from the community). Facilitators included partnering with other organizations to increase recruitment and retention of SNAP-Ed participants, buy-in from local leaders, and SNAP-Ed staff being from the community. CONCLUSION: Partnerships between SNAP-Ed programs and non-SNAP-Ed organizations were essential in helping to recruit and retain participants. The SNAP-Ed staff should get buy-in from local leaders before starting direct-education programming. The SNAP-Ed programs should explore innovative delivery modalities including online and text messaging due to transportation issues in widespread rural geographies. Lastly, more work should be done to complement SNAP-Ed direct education with policy, systems, and environmental change initiatives.

Best Practices and Innovative Solutions to Overcome Barriers to Delivering Policy, Systems and Environmental Changes in Rural Communities.

To better understand the barriers to implementing policy; systems; and environmental (PSE) change initiatives within Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) programming in U.S. rural communities; as well as strategies to overcome these barriers, this study identifies: (1) the types of nutrition-related PSE SNAP-Ed programming currently being implemented in rural communities; (2) barriers to implementing PSE in rural communities; and (3) common best practices and innovative solutions to overcoming SNAP-Ed PSE implementation barriers. This mixed-methods study included online surveys and interviews across fifteen states. Participants were eligible if they: (1) were SNAP-Ed staff that were intimately aware of facilitators and barriers to implementing programs, (2) implemented at least 50% of their programming in rural communities, and (3) worked in their role for at least 12 months. Sixty-five staff completed the online survey and 27 participated in interviews. Barriers to PSE included obtaining community buy-in, the need for relationship building, and PSE education. Facilitators included finding community champions; identifying early "wins" so that community members could easily see PSE benefits. Partnerships between SNAP-Ed programs and non-SNAP-Ed organizations are essential to implementing PSE. SNAP-Ed staff should get buy-in from local leaders before implementing PSE. Technical assistance for rural SNAP-Ed programs would be helpful in promoting PSE.

Arguments Used in Public Comments to Support or Oppose the US Department of Agriculture's Minimum Stocking Requirements: A Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Retailer Rule proposed several changes for SNAP-authorized retailers, including: requiring retailers to have at least 85% of their food sales come from items that are not cooked or heated on site before or after purchase; requiring stores to stock seven varieties of qualifying foods from four staple food groups; requiring stores to carry perishable foods in three of the four staple groups; requiring stores to carry six units of qualifying foods at all times (depth of stock); disqualifying multiple ingredient foods and accessory foods from counting toward depth of stock requirements. OBJECTIVES: To better understand arguments used to support or oppose the USDA's proposed rule that all SNAP-authorized retailers carry more nutritious foods. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of a random sample of public comments posted to the US Federal Register (a publicly available database) in response to the USDA's proposed rule. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: A random sample of 20% of all public comments submitted by individuals and organizations to the US Federal Register were analyzed (n=303) for this study. RESULTS: Three main themes were discussed: 1) arguments used in opposition to the rule; 2) arguments used in support of the rule; and 3) facilitators to assist stores in implementing the rule. Some of the subthemes included focusing on definitions used in the rule, reduced food access caused by stores leaving the SNAP program, lack of space and equipment for healthy foods, and the potential for increasing healthy food access. CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition and dietetics practitioners may be tasked with working with stores to implement healthy changes. Nutrition and dietetics practitioners must understand the role that the USDA has in food policy. In addition, understanding how federal food policy influences the environments in which dietetics professionals' clients are making food choices is important.