A LOOK FROM THE INSIDE: MARKET PERSPECTIVES ON THE EXPANSION OF FOOD
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AT MICHIGAN FARMERS MARKETS
By
Rebecca Ann Mino

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
2012

ABSTRACT
A LOOK FROM THE INSIDE: MARKET PERSPECTIVES ON THE EXPANSION OF FOOD
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AT MICHIGAN FARMERS MARKETS
By
Rebecca Ann Mino
Recently there has been a strong push to offer more food assistance programs at farmers
markets. The U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as regional non-profits argue that
expanding the redemption of food assistance benefits at farmers market will improve access to
healthy foods by low-income populations and support the livelihoods of small-scale farmers who
sell at farmers market. Yet, as more programs are developed or adapted for delivery in farmers
markets, little input has been sought from those who are ultimately responsible for their
implementation.
This study uses a qualitative approach to explore the experience of farmers markets that
have been on the leading edge of adopting food assistance programs. Participant observation and
in-depth interviews were conducted in six urban farmers markets to understand staff perspectives
on the challenges and benefits of administering multiple new and evolving food assistance
programs.
The results show that even farmers markets with high organizational capacity
experienced significant administrative burdens operating food assistance programs. In addition,
most worried about the sustainability of these programs due to the high levels of labor that are
needed for their support. The findings suggest that recent calls to expand food assistance
programs to all farmers markets are not likely to be successful, as many will not have the
capacity needed to operate such programs. Instead, targeting farmers markets that exhibit strong
organizational capacity may increase the probability of successful adoption.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many individuals that I would like to thank who made this thesis possible and
without whose support I wouldn’t have made it. First, I would like to express my sincere
appreciation to my advisor Dr. Kimberly Chung. Her guidance and patience throughout this
whole process was invaluable to the final product and to everything I learned along the way. I
would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Phil Howard and Dr. George Rowan for
their feedback and support throughout my thesis. Thank you also to Dr. John Kerr for stepping
in last minute as a committee member to ensure that I could complete my degree as planned.
To the market managers, staff, and vendors I talked to over the course of this project I
greatly appreciate you sharing your insights and experiences with me. You are the reason this
project exists and I hope this research can make a difference to farmers markets all over the U.S.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to the staff at the Michigan Farmers Market
Association, especially Dru Montri and Amanda Segar. The information and input they provided
about food assistance programs and Michigan farmers markets contributed to and shaped the
final product of this thesis in many very beneficial ways.
Thank you to the CARRS Department GACC for providing funding to help make this
project possible and Dr. Kimberly Chung for financially supporting my graduate assistantship.
Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement
throughout the research process. To my family who is always there for me I love you and
couldn’t have done it without you. My friends helped keep me sane throughout this entire
process, making sure I stopped working and took a break for some fun every once and awhile,
reading drafts and offering feedback when I need it, and so much more. Thank you all!

	
  

iii	
  

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
Overview of Food Assistance Programs

1
4
8

CHAPTER 2
METHODS
Study Site
Sampling
Data Collection
Data Analysis

12
12
13
14
16

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Research Question 1- What are the experiences of farmers markets that are
operating multiple food assistance programs?
Heavy Administrative Burdens
Factors Affecting Market Experience with Administrative Burdens
Research Question 2- How are farmers markets able to successfully create and
maintain food assistance programs?
The Ability to Obtain Resources
Individual Leadership
Alignment with Market Mission
Involvement in Networks

18
19
19
24
29
29
31
34
37

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations for Practice
Limitations and Future Study

40
43
45

APPENDIX- INTERVIEW GUIDES

48

REFERENCES

69

	
  

iv	
  

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1- Sampling Decision on Markets Chosen for Case Study

13

TABLE 2- Changes in Food Assistance Programs at Case Study Farmers Markets

18

	
  

v	
  

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CAA- community action agency
CDC- community development corporation
DUFB- Double Up Food Bucks
EBT- electronic benefits transfer
FMNP- Farmers Market Nutrition Program
FNS- Food and Nutrition Services
MDCH- Michigan Department of Community Health
MIFMA- Michigan Farmers Market Association
POSD- point of sale device
SFMNP- Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program
SNAP- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
USDA- United States Department of Agriculture
WIC- Women, Infants, and Children

	
  

vi	
  

	
  

I. Introduction

Despite an abundant supply of food in the United States 14.5% of U.S. households
struggled to provide their families with the food needed for a healthy life in 2010 (ColemanJensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2011). In the same year, the USDA estimates that 59% of
food insecure households, the majority of which are located in metropolitan areas, used one of
three major federal food assistance programs in the previous month (Coleman-Jensen et al.,
2011). Other studies have shown that lower-income neighborhoods in metropolitan areas have
fewer full-scale supermarkets, chain stores, and fruit and vegetable markets (Chung & Myers,
1999; Moore & Diez Roux, 2006). This can result in higher food prices and more difficulty for
low-income shoppers to obtain healthy food (Chung & Myers, 1999; Moore & Diez Roux,
2006).
In recent years there has been a growing interest in using farmers markets as venues to
address food insecurity. Farmers markets are able to set up in any open space and can provide a
regular source of fresh produce to nearby residents (Briggs, Fisher, Lott, Miller, & Tessman,
2010). The popularity of farmers markets is also growing. In 2010 there were 6,132 farmers
markets in the United States, compared with just 1,755 in 1994 (USDA Agricultural Marketing
Service, 2010). Michigan is experiencing a similar trend of growth in farmers markets (Montri,
Segar, Chung, & Mino, 2011).
Accompanying this growth is an increase in the number of food assistance programs
offered at farmers markets for low-income individuals. Among these is the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps, which is the primary
food assistance program of the federal government. Like traditional food retailers farmers
markets can accept SNAP benefits once they have gain authorization from the USDA Food and
	
  

1	
  

	
  

Nutrition Services (FNS). The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition
Program (FMNP) and Senior FMNP are two other federally funded food assistance programs
(USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 2011). The latter two programs are only available through
farmers markets and are administered by participating states.
In addition, regional non-profit organizations have begun to create their own food
assistance programs for farmers markets. An example is the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB)
program administered by the Fair Food Network in Michigan. DUFB operates at select farmers
markets in Michigan in conjunction with SNAP. With DUFB SNAP beneficiaries can double
the value of their farmers markets purchases when they use their SNAP benefits (Fair Food
Network, 2012). The doubled benefits can be used to purchase Michigan-grown produce at the
farmers market. Other similar programs exist such as Wholesome Waves’ Double Value
Coupon Program that doubles FMNP, SFMNP, and SNAP benefits and currently operates at
farmers markets in 25 states (Wholesome Wave, 2012).
While the number of farmers markets offering food assistance programs is still relatively
small it is increasing at a rapid rate. In 2006, only 444 U.S. farmers markets could accept SNAP
benefits, while in 2010 that number had increased to 1,611 (USDA Food and Nutrition Service
Benefit Redemption Division, 2011). In recent years the USDA has become a major supporter
of the expansion of SNAP at farmers markets. This year, for example, it announced $4 million
in new funding aimed at expanding the reach of SNAP to more farmers market across the United
States (USDA SNAP Benefit Redemption Division, 2012).
The push to expand the delivery of food assistance programs at farmers markets is seen
as an important commitment to improving food access for low-income individuals. As
government and non-profits seek to expand these programs it becomes important to assess the

	
  

2	
  

	
  

potential for more widespread adoption.
However, to do so, it is necessary to understand the consequences for markets currently
operating food assistance programs. The rollout for new and adapted food assistance programs
in farmers markets has been rapid and decisions have been made with little input from the
markets or the staff that will implement these programs. It is clear, however, that the perspective
of these professionals can be invaluable to determining how to go about growing these programs
and expanding into more farmers markets.
This study, therefore, sets out to examine the experiences of the market managers and staff
who have been responsible for implementing food assistance programs at farmers markets. In
particular, it aims to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the experiences of farmers markets that are operating multiple food assistance
programs?
2. How are farmers markets able to successfully create and maintain food assistance
programs?
By understanding the perspective of market managers and staff, this work aims to
identify the implications for further expansion of these programs into more farmers markets.
To accomplish this, a qualitative, case-study approach was used. Michigan provides an
excellent setting for this study as it is a leader at implementing new food assistance programs at
farmers markets. A large number of Michigan farmers markets operate food assistance programs
and generate a high volume of sales from these programs (USDA SNAP Benefit Redemption
Division, 2012). In addition, the Double Up Food Bucks incentive program has recently been
launched in select Michigan farmers markets. A case study of early adopting markets provides

	
  

3	
  

	
  

the opportunity to understand their experiences with these programs and to draw conclusions
about what factors are important for expansion.
A qualitative approach was chosen to highlight the experiences and perspectives of
market staff and managers in this study. Qualitative work allows for an in-depth understanding
of program operation from the perspective insiders, while taking into account the context and
circumstances of the case study markets. Finally, the use of case studies facilitated a comparison
of six farmers markets and enabled the development of a practical theory about what is necessary
for successful program operation.
1.1 Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
To understand the experiences of farmers markets with food assistance programs it is first
necessary to understand the circumstances under which these markets often operate. According
to Ragland and Tropp (2006) less than half the farmers markets in the U.S. are financially selfsustaining from vendor fees; instead many markets rely heavily on additional external funding
from city and county government and nonprofits. Newer markets are less likely to be selfsustaining and rely more heavily on external funding than older markets (Ragland & Tropp,
2006). In addition, only 39% of farmers markets nationwide have a paid market manager and
even fewer have additional paid staff (Ragland & Tropp, 2006). A study of Oregon farmers
markets found that markets suffer from high staff turnover (Stephenson, 2008). These conditions
are challenging for running any successful market; adding the responsibility of implementing a
food assistance program can exacerbate these difficulties (Montri et al., 2011).
The arrangement of food assistance program operation at farmers markets is similar to
that of other organizations who are part of what researchers term the “hallow state” (Milward,
1996, p. 193). The hallow state refers to “any joint production situation where a governmental

	
  

4	
  

	
  

agency relies on others (firms, nonprofits, or other government agencies) to jointly deliver public
services.” Nonprofit organizations that provide services under these circumstances are typically
assumed to have the capacity necessary to deliver services (McPhee & Bare, 2001; Fredericksen
& London, 2000). However, Fredericksen and London (2000) demonstrated that in practice
community-based development organizations often did not have the capacity needed. They
acknowledged that this may result in the inability to meet the requirements of government
funding entities and the needs of service recipients. They also maintain that it can limit the
flexibility of organizations to be responsive to community priorities (Fredericksen & London,
2000).
A large number of studies have examined the elements that contribute to capacity in
organizations such as community development corporations (CDCs), community action agencies
(CAAs), community-based development organizations, health promotion agencies, among others
(Glickman & Servon, 1998; Chaskin, 2001; Goodman et al., 1998; Fredericksen & London,
2000; Watson Bishop, 2007; Plotnikoff et al., 2009). However, to my knowledge organizational
capacity has not been used as a framework for studying farmers markets despite its usefulness in
studies of organizations operating under similar circumstances.
Previous definitions of capacity vary but many focus on the inputs needed for
organizational operations and the outcomes obtained (Plotnikoff et al., 2009; Joffres et al., 2004;
Eisinger, 2002; Chaskin, 2001). For the purpose of this study organizational capacity is defined
as the ability to obtain and utilize resources in order to create and carry out programs that fulfill
the goal(s) of the organization.
The conceptual framework of this research is based on important themes found in the
organizational capacity literature, particularly the work of De Vita, Fleming, and Twombly

	
  

5	
  

	
  

(2001) on nonprofit capacity. They provide a framework based on five elements of capacity:
vision and mission, leadership, resources, outreach and networking, and products and services
(De Vita et al., 2001). The primary themes identified in this study coincide with four factors of
organizational capacity that are put forward by De Vita and colleagues (2001).
Resources are an important element of organizational capacity and can include financial,
human, and physical resources. They are a critical part of organizational capacity because
resources enable the operation of programs and services (De Vita et al., 2001). However, it isn’t
just the existence of resources that is important but also how they are used that affects the
abilities of an organization. Thus leadership within an organization can also affect the
acquisition and use of resources (De Vita et al., 2001).
Second, capable organizations seek resources and provide support for programs and
services based on their alignment with the organization’s mission (De Vita et al., 2001). The
mission affects many aspects of an organization’s capacity. In particular it can be a way to
attract leaders that have a common mission (De Vita et al., 2001).
Third, leadership is an essential element of organizational capacity. It is also perhaps the
element most consistently addressed in existing literature (see Chaskin, 2001; Joffres et al., 2004,
Smith, 2001; Eisinger, 2002; Anderson et al., 2004; Dressendorfer et al., 2005; De Vita et al.,
2001) and has been described as the foundation for the other elements of capacity (Plotnikoff et
al., 2009; Faulkner et al., 2009p).
Two aspects of leadership as described by De Vita, Fleming, and Twombly (2001) are
most relevant for this research. The first is the ability of leaders to implement programs and
effectively generate action within an organization that address the organizational goals. Part of
the ability of leaders to do this comes from their authority to make decisions within an

	
  

6	
  

	
  

organization because of a lack of a top-down hierarchy in an organization’s structure. DiLiello
and Houghton (2006) also assert that when individuals have more autonomy and feel supported
in their organization they are more likely and able to be innovative, a highly beneficial trait for
organization leaders.
A second important aspect of leadership is willingness of individuals to work to fulfill the
organization’s mission (De Vita et al., 2001). Leaders set standards for performance and show
ownership within the organization that helps drive success (De Vita et al., 2001). Chaskin
(2001) describes this element of capacity as the level of individuals’ commitment to take
responsibility and actively participate in the work of the organization. Organization leaders are
also important for their involvement with networks (De Vita et al., 2001).
Outreach is the final element of organizational capacity identified in the literature used in
this study. A major part of outreach is involvement in and creation of networks. Networking
can help build relationships and draw a base of external community support, as well as to
improve awareness of an organization and its programs (De Vita et al., 2001). This support can
be particularly important with resource-limited organizations such as farmers markets to gain
financial and informational assistance that contributes to organization stability (De Vita et al.,
2001).
The literature maintains that these elements of capacity are highly interdependent
(Glickman & Servon, 1998; Fredericksen & London, 2000, De Vita et al., 2001). While the
work of De Vita, Fleming, and Twombly (2001) is theoretical, other empirical studies have also
identified these elements as important factors in determining an organization’s capacity for
action (Watson Bishop, 2007; Chaskin 2001; Joffres et al., 2004, Smith, 2001; Plotnikoff et al.,
2009; Faulkner et al., 2009; Eisinger, 2002; Glickman, & Servon, 1998).

	
  

7	
  

	
  

While the elements of capacity identified in this study have been addressed in
previous research, not all previously identified elements were useful for this study. The products
and services element of capacity described by DeVita and colleagues (2001) was of limited use
in this study and therefore not included. The primary reason is because the food assistance
programs are not a service, such as healthcare, and therefore could not be evaluated as such.
Other elements of capacity found in the literature, particularly mission and networking,
were discussed often but using a variety of terms and with different emphasis than what was
found in this study. The term “will” has been used as a different way to describe the reasons for
creating and supporting programs and priorities (Joffres et al., 2004, Faulkner et al., 2009;
Anderson et al., 2004). This term, which focuses on motivations and beliefs within an
organization, has the potential for placing the focus on short-term choices for program
implementation instead of the long-term mission that many organizations use as basis for
decision-making (Joffres et al., 2004, Faulkner et al., 2009; Anderson et al., 2004).
Finally, much of the organizational capacity literature addressing the use of networks and
external resources focused more on formal partnerships as a means of support for an organization
and its programs (Joffres et al., 2004; Faulkner et al., 2009). For this study we anticipated that
informal relationships and participation in networks would be just as important as formal
relationships.
1.2 Overview of Food Assistance Programs
This research focuses on the experience of six case study farmers markets operating four
food assistance programs. Three of these programs were created by the U.S. Federal
Government and are funded through Federal legislation: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

	
  

8	
  

	
  

Program (SNAP), the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and the Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP).
SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is the U.S. Government’s primary
anti-hunger program. This program provides low-income individuals and families with
resources to purchase food. The program is administered exclusively by the Federal
government. Retailers, including farmers markets, must be authorized through the USDA Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) to accept SNAP benefits. Reimbursement for any purchases made
by customers with SNAP benefits is paid using Federal funds directly into the bank account of
the authorized retailer where the purchase was made.
SNAP has a long history of use at farmers markets. However, in 1996 there was a
dramatic decrease in the amount of food stamps redeemed at farmers markets due to the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The PRWORA began
the transition from a paper voucher-based system to an electronic benefits system known as EBT
(or electronic benefits transfer) (H.R.3734, 2006). This switch effectively precluded farmers
markets from accepting food stamps, as they were not equipped to accept electronic benefits
(Grace, Grace, Becker, & Lyden, 2007). Accordingly, food stamps sales dropped from $6.4
million in 1994 to $3.8 million in 1996 upon implementation of the PRWORA (Grace et al.,
2007). Recent efforts to re-institute the acceptance of SNAP benefits at farmers markets have
been successful in some states, such as Michigan. In 2007, only 11 Michigan farmers markets
accepted SNAP, but by 2011 that number had increased to 82 (Montri et al., 2011).
The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)
was created by Congress in 1992 to 1) improve access to fresh locally-grown produce for lowincome mothers and their children and 2) to increase awareness of farmers markets (USDA FNS,

	
  

9	
  

	
  

2011a). The Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was created in 2000 to offer
similar benefits for low-income seniors (USDA FNS, 2012). Both programs are Federally
funded through grants given to individual states (USDA FNS, 2011a; USDA FNS, 2011b). As a
result each state creates its own system for operating the program within Federal guidelines and
only farmers markets in states receiving grants can participate in the programs.
In Michigan FMNP is administered by the Department of Community Health (MDCH)
and is called ProjectFRESH. SFMNP is administered by the Michigan Office of Services to the
Aging and is called MarketFRESH. Until 2011 these programs were administered jointly as
ProjectFRESH by MDCH. In 2011, the administration of these programs was split across two
different state entities. The split meant that participating farmers markets needed to adjust to the
administrative requirements of two different administering agencies.
The Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program is a new incentive-based food assistance
program for farmers markets in Michigan. Unlike the three previous programs, DUFB is a
program of the Fair Food Network, a regional non-profit organization located in Michigan. The
program, which began in 2010, operates at farmers markets within the state of Michigan (Fair
Food Network, 2012). The goal of DUFB is to help food insecure individuals consume more
fruits and vegetables as well as to support small-scale Michigan farmers that sell at farmers
markets. DUFB works by matching (or “doubling”) the value of SNAP purchases made at
farmers markets. DUFB purchases are limited to Michigan-grown produce and are capped at
$20 per market visit per customer (Fair Food Network, 2012).
The systems used to accept food assistance benefits at Michigan farmers markets vary by
market and program. In Michigan, a common way for markets to accept SNAP benefits is to
operate a central booth or office at which SNAP customers can redeem benefits from a state-

	
  

10	
  

	
  

issued electronic benefits card. In this system customers go to the market’s central booth and
inform the market staff of the amount of benefits they would like to redeem at the market. The
customers’ electronic benefits card is then swiped through the point of sale device (POSD) and
customers enter a pin number just as they would with a debit card transaction. Market staff
collect required information from the customers and give them the appropriate amount in market
currency (usually in the form of paper script, tokens, or receipts) that can be “spent” at the
market for qualifying purchases (Montri et al., 2011). In Michigan many markets, including all
the markets in this study, rely on a system that uses tokens, usually wooden or metal, as currency
for SNAP purchases. At markets that also participate in DUFB, customers are also given a
matching amount, up to $20 per visit, of Double Up Food Bucks tokens. Customers spend
SNAP and Double Up Food Bucks tokens on eligible products at the market as they would cash.
By contrast, ProjectFRESH and MarketFRESH are both voucher-based systems in which
eligible vendors accept vouchers directly as a form of payment for eligible products. Vendors
collect these vouchers from customers, as well as SNAP and DUFB tokens, and turn them in to
market staff on a predetermined schedule, often daily or weekly. For ProjectFRESH and
MarketFRESH market managers must fill out the appropriate vendor number and market number
on each voucher and then “batch” all of the vouchers collected at the market. To receive
reimbursement from the state, they complete a cumulative batch form that includes market
information and the total number and value of the submitted vouchers. All of this is sent via
certified mail to the state agency that administers each program. Market staff later reimburse
vendors for their sales from all four of these food assistance programs based on the value of
tokens and vouchers collected from each. This is typically done by check written by market staff
on a predetermined schedule, usually weekly or monthly.

	
  

11	
  

	
  

II. METHODS

Among policymakers, the interest in using farmers markets as a venue for redeeming
food assistance benefits is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Michigan, early adopting farmers
markets are experimenting with programs that are either new or have been adapted for delivery
in the digital age. Not surprisingly, little research exists on the experience of farmers markets
that have adopted these programs. To address this gap, this work takes a qualitative approach
and explores the perspectives of individuals who have operated these food assistance programs at
farmers markets. A qualitative approach is appropriate as it highlights the knowledge and
insights of insiders, facilitates an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon, and allows for the
emergence of important relationships and themes that cannot be known a priori (Patton, 2002;
Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2006). Furthermore, the iterative process of data collection and analysis
allows researchers to reconcile multiple perspectives and to build theory that is sensitive the
interpretation of context.
2.1 Study Site
Michigan provides an excellent opportunity to study the operation of food assistance
programs at farmers markets. Michigan is a leading state in the Midwest and the nation in terms
of implementing food assistance programs at farmers markets. Michigan ranks third in the
number of farmers markets participating in SNAP, with only California and New York
registering greater numbers of participating markets (USDA SNAP Benefit Redemption
Division, 2012). In addition, in 2011 Michigan surpassed $1 million in SNAP sales at farmers
markets, outpacing all other Midwestern states and ranking fourth in the country (USDA SNAP
	
  

12	
  

	
  

Benefit Redemption Division, 2012). Finally, Michigan is at the forefront in terms of
experimenting with incentive programs for SNAP participants. Michigan’s incentive program,
Double Up Food Bucks, began with five markets in its first year of operation and has grown to
over 75 farmers markets in 2012 (Fair Food Network, 2012).
2.2 Sampling
Six farmers markets were selected as case studies for this study. The six market sites
were stratified by city and by level of market development. At the first level, the three
metropolitan areas with highest numbers of SNAP participants in the state were chosen for the
study. Within each metro area, markets were divided into two categories: well-established
farmers markets and markets that were only recently founded. The aim was to capture the
variability in stability and experience among older and newer markets. As such, this contrast
could be described as a contrast between new or developing markets and older, more established
markets. In general, the older, more established markets were also larger and achieved a higher
volume of overall sales.
Table 1
Sampling Decision on Markets Chosen for Case Study (n=6)
City
New or Developing Farmers Market
Established Farmers Market
Waverly
1
2
Pella
3
4
Owatonna
5
6
Finally, to choose among remaining markets that fulfilled these criteria, we chose
markets that had adopted at least three of the four major food assistance programs offered in the
state. Two of these programs were developed relatively recently for farmers markets. The other
two had been available to farmers markets for some time, but were undergoing important
administrative changes at the time of study. Each of the four programs was administered by a
different agency or private foundation, and set its own rules for accountability, record-keeping
	
  

13	
  

	
  

and reporting. Selecting markets that operated multiple programs was important as it allowed us
to observe the ability of markets to implement multiple programs and comply with the
requirements of four different administrative bodies.
2.3 Data Collection
Two methods of data collection were used in this study: participant observation and indepth interviews. Methods were chosen for their ability to facilitate the researchers’
understanding of the perspectives of the market managers and staff involved with the operation
of the food assistance programs.
The first phase of data collection consisted of conducting participant observation at each
of the six farmers market locations. Participant observation allows “learning through the
exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the research
setting” (Schensul, Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999, p. 91). Market visits were arranged in advance
with market managers and took place during market hours. Market managers were present at
four of the farmers markets during the observation; other market staff were present at the two
remaining markets. During each market visit operation of food assistance programs was
observed including customer transactions and vendor token redemption. This allowed the
researchers to understand the processes used at each market, as well as how these processes fit
into the overall market operation. Market managers or staff explained processes as they occurred
and also answered the researcher’s questions. In some cases other individuals involved with
operation of the programs such as other staff, volunteers, and vendors were also present and
shared their experiences with the food assistance programs. Minimal notes were taken during
the actual market visits, but extensive field notes were written up immediately after.

	
  

14	
  

	
  

The second phase of data collection consisted of conducting in-depth interviews with
market managers at each of the six farmers markets, as well as other market staff directly
involved with daily operation of the food assistance programs. Sampling for this phase could be
described as purposeful as we sought interviews from individuals who were found to have direct
experience with the phenomenon with which we were interested (Patton, 2002).
In-depth interviews enabled the researchers to gain a thorough understanding of food
assistance programs at the market from the perspective of market managers and staff, and gave
interviewees the opportunity to describe their experiences in their own words (Hesse-Biber &
Leavey, 2006). A total of eight interviews were conducted for this study. All the interviews
followed interview guides consisting of primarily open-ended questions. All interviews were
audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. In addition some follow-up was done
with interviewees via phone, email or in person to clarify information and ask additional
questions. Interviews and the majority of participant observation took place over the course of
five months from August to December of 2011.
Finally, throughout the process of this study, the researchers were engaged as active
members of the Michigan Farmers Market Association (MIFMA) and the Food Assistance
Partnership, a statewide network of market managers and staff who are engaged in implementing
food assistance programs at their markets. The researchers took part in meetings, conferences,
and webinars sponsored by these groups that were aimed at facilitating the sharing of
information, resources, and experience among its members. Participation began prior to the
development of this study and continues at this time. Participation in this network allowed the
researchers to learn of the challenges faced by farmers markets that were not included in this
study and provided a standard against which the experience of the case study markets could be

	
  

15	
  

	
  

compared. It also facilitated our understanding of the environment in which farmers markets
operate and the networks utilized by market managers. Detailed field notes and, where
appropriate, audio recordings were taken during these events.
2.4 Data Analysis
Detailed field notes and interview transcriptions were the basis for data analysis in this
study. Memos were written after each observation and interview about important themes and
concepts that emerged, to make note of topics that should be explored further and to record
important ideas (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Emergent themes were regularly discussed between
the researchers and were revised throughout the data collection process as more data was
collected. Validity of the emergent themes was cross-checked by participant observation at
MIFMA events to determine if the themes were also discussed during networking and
information sharing of a larger group of Michigan farmers markets.
Memos and emergent themes were used to create a code that was the basis for data
extraction and analysis. This form of inductive creation of a unique coding scheme is
appropriate for relatively unknown topics like this study (Natasi, 1999). Each code was
associated with one of the two research questions addressed and included a name, definition, and
an example to guide coding and enable consistency (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This coding
scheme was used to code field notes and transcriptions as part of an iterative process in which
codes were edited and tested multiple times before they were finalized. After codes were
finalized all the data was coded a final time and this was the data used for extraction and further
analysis.
Extracted data were compiled by hand for each data collection, by code. Each set of
extracted data was reviewed and a summary statement was written to summarize the content

	
  

16	
  

	
  

relevant to the two main research questions. Summary statements were put into display matrices
by research question (Miles & Huberman, 1994). One matrix was created for research question
one and multiple matrices were created for research question two to further focus the data
analysis. Matrices were used to facilitate comparison of summary statements between data
collections and to identify patterns and themes among data collections (Miles & Huberman,
1994). This also helped to provide balance to the interpretation of the results because it allowed
the researchers to check for consistency of a particular concept or theme across all data collected
at each farmers market (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

	
  

17	
  

	
  

III. RESULTS
During the study period, food assistance programs at all case study farmers markets
underwent significant change. Markets either implemented a new food assistance program or
were required to comply with administrative changes in an existing food assistance program;
some did both (Table 2). As a result of these changes, all markets saw a substantial increase in
food assistance program sales (MIFMA, unpublished data, 2011). SNAP sales accounted for the
vast majority of these sales. Among the five markets that previously accepted SNAP benefits,
SNAP sales increased 33% to 325% during the study period, with four markets experiencing
more than a doubling of SNAP sales over the previous year (MIFMA, unpublished data, 2011).
All markets reported being pleased with their participation in these programs, although some
remained unsure how support for them could be sustained. In addition, all ended the season in
good standing with the associated administrative agencies after operating for the duration of the
season. None of the markets failed to meet program requirements or were in danger of
disqualification from hosting any of the food assistance programs.
Table 2
Changes in Food Assistance Programs at Case Study Farmers Markets
Farmers Market Implemented New Program
Experienced Program Changes
1
X
2
X
3
X
X
4
X
X
5
X
6
X
X
All markets, however, cited significant challenges with adapting to the administrative
burdens of these programs. Interviews with market managers and staff indicated that changes in

	
  

18	
  

	
  

volume brought about by the introduction of new programs, particularly DUFB, as well as the
need to adapt to new administrative responsibilities led to a series of challenges for each market.
The results of this research details the experiences of the study markets with the food assistance
programs and highlights the challenges they faced, as well as the means by which they overcame
these challenges.
3.1 Research Question 1- What are the experiences of farmers markets that are operating
multiple food assistance programs?
3.1.1 Heavy Administrative Burden
Interviews with staff from each of the markets indicated that there were challenges
common to all study markets in implementing the new and adapted food assistance programs. In
particular, market managers frequently cited the heavy administrative demands as well as the
time-consuming nature of interacting with vendors and consumers to meet program
requirements. Many remarked that the procedures were not particularly difficult, but that the
sum total of actions to implement the program resulted in significant burdens for the market.
Said one market manager:
It takes extra time … everything by itself. And I think that’s one of the more frustrating
things. Everything by itself is only like a ten minute thing, or five minutes, or fifteen
minutes. Nothing is really time-consuming. But then you add it all up and that’s what
takes so much time. It’s every little thing.
Another from a small market added, “They aren’t difficult. They are just time consuming. I can’t
imagine how a market that has way more transactions than us can keep up with that.”
The cumulative burden of managing these programs was perhaps the strongest theme that
emerged from interviews with market managers. This burden, however, was multi-faceted.
First, market managers often referred to the difficulty of determining how to actually operate the
	
  

19	
  

	
  

programs in their market when they lacked experience with the new or adapted programs. Each
food assistance program had different rules regarding the redemption of benefits and
accountability to the overseeing agencies. As a result, learning-by-doing became a necessity for
each of the markets that took on new or adapted programs. One market manager explained:
In the end you don’t really figure out how it works until you’re actually doing it. Like I
looked at this [form] at the beginning of the season and was like ‘Oh, that’s not hard.’
But then there are these quirky situations that would come up. How do I document that
on here? All of those one-time things, like, how do I note that?
In addition, the uniqueness of each market’s circumstances meant that approaches that
were used in one market could not be applied directly to another. As a result markets had to
develop systems to comply with each set of program requirements, often making changes after
operation had already begun. One market manager described how the physical set-up of her
market presented logistical challenges because she did not want food assistance program
consumers to be stigmatized in the process of redeeming benefits:
…figuring out the terminal part was a really hard part. Because you get a free one from
the state, and actually [the] FMPP [Farmers Market Promotion Program grant] won’t pay
for a wireless terminal... But we were a parking lot market. So, as you know, the one
from the state you need a phone line and an outlet. An outlet we can probably make
happen in the parking lot. But a phone line? …It would be a lot of money to put that in.
You could have [food assistance program clients] go inside the building [for the
redemption], but I really didn’t want to do that. Because it’s like a lot of extra effort for
people and it kind of stigmatizes it...
Market managers therefore had to be persistent at troubleshooting their systems so that
they could conform to the requirements of the program, the circumstances of their particular
market, as well as their own principles about food access. This was often a time-consuming
process that market managers felt was taxing and bothersome.
Even for markets that had working systems in place, the addition of a new program or
change in a program often necessitated a revision of existing systems. One market manager

	
  

20	
  

	
  

described how her vendor reimbursement system had to be modified with the addition of the
Double Up Food Bucks program:
Until the end of last year we were …reimbursing [vendors] on-demand with cash. So this
year, we knew with Double Up Food Bucks…we’d be going through a lot more
money…Already it was ridiculous; we’d have three or four grand on a Saturday to pay
out. We didn’t want an armored truck to pull up every Saturday just so we could pay
vendors cash.
The market decided to reimburse by check to reduce the risk of holding excessive amounts of
cash. This switch, however, necessitated new software for record-keeping that had to be
purchased and configured for their needs.
The use of tokens as market currency in exchange for customers’ electronic food
assistance benefits could also be challenging. One market manager described the headaches
associated with something as trivial as knowing how many tokens the market needed:
I was expecting to buy some [new tokens] but not as many as I actually bought. I think I
bought 4 times the amount that I was expecting to. So, I was expecting to buy $500 in $1
tokens and I ended up buying 1000 tokens of both my $1 and my $5. Yeah, and I’m still
running short on my $1. So it’s one of those things that I’m like [saying] to myself ‘I
should have bought 1500. I should have bought 2000.’ It was one of those things that at
the time you just don’t know.
Thus, in each case, market managers had to resort to a time-consuming process of learning-bydoing to develop systems that fit their circumstances.
Second, market managers were also burdened by the responsibility of ensuring that food
assistance program sales proceeded as required by each program. Each program mandated that
one individual take legal responsibility for the program, going as far as requiring an individual to
provide their social security number on the market’s application to be an authorized SNAP
retailer. Since market managers were ultimately responsible for the fidelity of the redemption
process most did not take this responsibility lightly. All reported that they devoted significant
time to educating vendors and customer about the rules for each program. One manager

	
  

21	
  

	
  

described the difficulties of ensuring that vendors and customers understood the various
programs and could comply with the associated rules:
…another challenge is always getting both vendors and customers to understand all of the
different programs because there are so many different ones. For the vendors Senior
ProjectFRESH can be spent on honey, but WIC ProjectFRESH can’t. And Double Up
Food Bucks is [for] Michigan fruits and vegetables and SNAP is any food at all.
Each manager interviewed considered this to be a significant challenge, especially early
in the season when there were more customers and vendors who were not yet familiar with the
rules of the various programs. Two market managers explained:
If you get someone vendor-wise that comes in…that’s gone to a market that didn’t do any
of these [programs] before, and they’re brand new at my market… ‘Well, here are our
three different kinds of tokens. Oh and by the way, you might see these two different
kinds of coupons.’ I mean, it really gets crazy after a while. So not only does it take a lot
of time to explain, it’s confusing for the vendors.
A lot of the times [customers] come in thinking they can only buy fruits and vegetables
with their Bridge Card and I tell them, ‘yes you can buy fruits and vegetables but you can
also buy, eggs, milk, cheese, chicken.’
Thus, working with vendors and customers to ensure that programs were implemented
correctly was a constant and time-consuming challenge. Monitoring these transactions and
correcting problems when they occurred added additional stress for market managers and staff
who often felt that they were already pulled in multiple directions.
Third, market managers reported being challenged by the high levels of reporting and
accountability necessary for each of these programs. The administering agencies, many of them
Federal agencies who have oversight over the use of taxpayer’s monies, require very specific
documentation of the food assistance transactions at each market. Interviews with each of the
market managers described a copious amount of data collection, record-keeping and reporting
that was required for each program, sometimes referring to it as “a big pain,” “tedious,”
“frustrating,” and “crazy.” Aside from the information required by overseeing agencies, markets

	
  

22	
  

	
  

also had to keep records on food assistance program sales by vendor and day, so that they could
reimburse vendors and reconcile accounts with the funding agencies.
The process of collecting and reporting data was problematic for market administrators
for a number of reasons. First, as with many other aspects of the food assistance programs these
processes required the cooperation of multiple parties. Market managers needed to collect
information from both consumers and vendors. In addition, for some programs, managers had to
obtain materials from the administering agency to fulfill requirements for reporting or
implementation. One market manager described how a delay in receiving the correct set of
forms from the state agency prevented her from filing for reimbursement until the third month of
operations:
… I didn’t have the “WIC ProjectFRESH Welcome Here” signs. …[Vendors] were all
accepting WIC ProjectFRESH though because we had been approved. But I didn’t have
the … batch slips that they use. …so I just didn’t send in the reimbursements until I got
those. So I was just holding on to these big ProjectFRESH coupons for awhile. I was
still reimbursing the vendors and we were fronting the money.
While much of the record-keeping could be routinized and completed outside of market
hours, some tasks became burdensome because they required liaising with partners that were
only available during market hours. Market staff, for example, had to collect and record the
number of tokens that each vendor received at the end of each market day or week so that they
could be reimbursed for sales made to customers redeeming their food assistance benefits.
Similarly, at the beginning of each season, vendors were required to sign contracts for each
different food assistance program they planned to participate in. Vendors, however, were
typically available to managers only during market hours and were focused on the work of
selling their products. Thus market managers had to painstakingly pursue vendors to get each
contract signed. This was time-consuming and distracting for market managers as it required

	
  

23	
  

	
  

keeping track of who had turned in each contract and remembering to pursue those who were not
in compliance. One market manager explained his frustration:
I mean, same thing with ProjectFRESH and our EBT [SNAP] agreements. There’s just
so much paperwork and it’s so hard to make sure that every single person has signed
every single document.
Another market manager elaborated, “I feel bad for the vendors when I say here’s another thing
that you have to sign that looks exactly like the other thing.”
As such, much of the data collection and reporting processes were perceived to be
repetitive and unnecessary since the various programs had similar reporting requirements, but
asked for information in slightly different formats. This added a layer of redundancy to the
process and was regarded as a waste of time by market staff who thought the process should be
streamlined.
In total, the cumulative demands of administering the food assistance programs frustrated
market managers as they felt pulled in multiple directions, particularly during the busy hours of
the market. At these times they felt conflicted over the challenge of keeping up with food
assistance program administration while attending to the rest of their duties as market manager.
It’s time consuming because you have to go to each vendor individually, while you still
have shoppers coming who want tokens and need things administered. It’s a lot to
juggle.
There are so many things going on that having to make sure that…I was close to that
EBT machine all the time so I could issue someone tokens. But if one of my vendors
needed change and needed me to run into Rite Aid I couldn’t do that. Or if I needed to
go back to the storage bin and grab something. But I needed to be at that table [to operate
the EBT machine]. It was a huge ball and chain almost….Having to constantly be right
there when there are so many other things to pull you in a million different directions.
3.1.2 Factors Affecting Market Experience with Administrative Burdens
The previous section details the common challenges that markets faced while
implementing multiple, new and adapted food assistance programs. Although all of the study
	
  

24	
  

	
  

markets reported these challenges, the data reveal that they varied in how they weathered these
challenges. Two factors appear to determine how onerous these challenges were to each market.
First, the total number of food assistance program transactions handled by any market
was very important. Markets that processed a small volume of transactions had to make fewer
adjustments to ensure programs ran smoothly. In this study, three markets processed a relatively
small number of food assistance transactions throughout the season. Although they shared the
challenges reported in the previous section, the overall burden was not as great as for markets
with high volumes of food assistance program transactions. Overall, these smaller markets
explained that they were challenged by the process, but that they were able to manage if staff
took on extra work and/or enlisted the help of volunteers. The very small amount of food
assistance program transactions at these markets made it manageable, although challenging, to
keep up with the administrative aspects of the program. Among these markets, the greatest
challenges seemed to be learning how to operate the programs and developing effective systems
for redemption, reimbursement and record-keeping. As one market staff described:
It felt a little daunting at first because I felt the record-keeping was scattered … and a
little unwieldy. But once we had the system going, it was still a little unwieldy and I felt
like I had to really take time to walk [other staff] through some things because otherwise
it wasn’t totally obvious…
By contrast, markets that processed a larger volume of food assistance transactions faced
greater challenges in absorbing the large amount of work associated with running a popular
program. In short, the more food assistance transactions occurring at a market the more work
was generated for managers during market hours, as well as “behind the scenes” to perform the
necessary reporting and vendor reimbursement processes.
Three case study markets were larger markets, with more vendors, more customers, and
hence, more food assistance transactions. During the study period, two experienced more than

	
  

25	
  

	
  

100% increase in the volume of SNAP transactions alone following the introduction of a new
food assistance program. A third market recorded an increase of over $80,000 in food assistance
sales during the same season, despite having offered this program previously. It was in these
high volume markets that the additional administrative requirements demanded real adjustment.
The data indicate, however, that the experience among these three markets differed substantially.
One market, for example, struggled mightily under the new program, while at the other extreme,
another market deftly raised funds and extra resources to cover the additional obligations.
Overall, the principal challenge faced by high volume markets was the added labor
required to support the administration and implementation obligations of the new or adapted
programs. For example, in one market the market manager explained that the popularity of a
single food assistance program, DUFB, required that they hire an extra person just to help
consumers redeem their food assistance benefits at the market’s office. For this, they were able
to obtain a grant from the foundation sponsoring the new program. The market manager
explained:
…It adds more work for us…So we have to hire a second person. So Fair Food Network
gives admin money, right? … Well the admin money’s not enough to cover [our costs].
Most markets, I don’t think any other market has to hire a second person…So maybe
instead of $100 they do $400, $500 a day [under the new program]. But the numbers are
so large [in our market], and we gather all that information, there is no way we could.
We’d be horrible [at] customer service, right? And that’s the last thing you want.
In addition, because this market is a large, established organization with over 10 paid
employees it was also able to divide the remaining administrative responsibilities among the time
of existing employees. Still, even though it was able to call on a number of internal and external
resources to support the growing program, the primary challenges cited by this manager was
concern for the sustainability of the programs and the ability to meet the increasing labor
demands of the programs.

	
  

26	
  

	
  

Other high volume markets in this study were not as fortunate. The market with the
second highest grossing food assistance program had a much more difficult time absorbing the
obligations brought about by the adoption of the new programs. In contrast to the previous
market, which was both well established and had several full-time employees, this market and
the food assistance programs were run as a one-person show. The market manager was
responsible for the market’s vendors and finances, as well as promotion of the market. As a
result, adoption of a new food assistance program had a huge effect on this market and the
manager’s life. During interviews she described how a new program had taken over her work at
the market, and how the market in turn had taken over much of her life:
The first year I was here all we had was ProjectFRESH and I could actually sit in the
office …on a slower day waiting for people to pack up, and [I could] stamp and batch
things. But now this is all done at home on an off day. ... Home becomes a makeshift
work space for me. Especially with Double Up Food Bucks. I don’t get anything done
here at all during the day anymore. Any daily bookkeeping or anything else; it all gets
done at home. Yeah. Answering emails, returning phone calls? I can’t do any until the
market day is over. Yeah, yeah [that’s because of Double Up.] That’s because of the
sheer volume of people here, and mainly…I’m the only staff.
As the only staff member at her market, this manager became responsible for helping
vendors and customers conduct food assistance transactions at the market as well as all other
aspects of running the market. She was able to get an assistant to help her on the busiest days by
cutting back on her advertising budget, but even then she needed more help than she could
afford:
I way overshot the budget for our part-time staff. …I’d have to have somebody come in
just so I could go and collect stall fees. I don’t get the chance to go and walk the
market….I’m tethered to this office unless I have somebody else to relieve me.
To meet the labor needs of the food assistance programs without overspending in her
budget even further this market manager also sought assistance from the foundation that oversees
this new food assistance program:

	
  

27	
  

	
  

…we had asked the Fair Food Network for more administration money because I was
getting very frustrated with only have one person. You know, being a market manager
and doing everything else. So they loaned us the community outreach person. She was
just here from 10 to 12:30 so I could collect stall fees and go walk the market once at
least for the day.
Even with a small amount of additional support this market manager still struggled to
meet the competing demands of the food assistance programs and the farmers market. To meet
these demands she drafted the assistance of her spouse. Without payment, he regularly
reconciled the number of market tokens, completed required paperwork, and helped customers.
The third high-volume market illustrates yet another experience in coping with the
volume of food assistance transactions. This market benefited from a strong parent organization
with paid staff that took responsibility for much of the “behind the scenes” accounting work. As
a result, a substantial amount of the administrative burden was minimized. However, as
mentioned above, a high volume of consumers using food assistance benefits at a market means
that someone must be available at all times to greet customers, help them extract the desired
amount of benefits from their benefits card and exchange them for market currency, in this case,
tokens. They must also be ready to explain the program and how the new tokens may be used in
the market. The time commitment to interact with consumers can be immense, especially when
customers are new to the process. One market manager explained:
…the more [food assistance program] customers I have, the more time it takes out of my
day. Or the interruptions that it causes while I’m working with a vendor on a certain
issue or trying to clean up a situation. I’m one of those all-in-one managers so I can’t just
be sitting in my office at all times.
The demands of working with consumers left this manager feeling frustrated and severely
constrained on market days because he could not be on the market floor since he had to be at the
redemption office. As with other market managers, he felt as if the needs of the food assistance

	
  

28	
  

	
  

program were often in competition with the needs of the market itself. Thus, finding adequate
labor to do both jobs was a continual preoccupation for most market managers interviewed.
These findings show that market experiences with the food assistance programs are
highly dependent on the volume of food assistance transactions occurring at the market and the
amount of labor available to support the programs. To the extent that these factors varied across
markets, market staff experienced different levels of challenges in operating the new food
assistance programs.
3.2 Research Question 2- How are farmers markets able to successfully create and maintain food
assistance programs?
Despite the challenges described in the previous section, each case study market
implemented the new and adapted food assistance programs and finished the season in good
standing with the respective administrative bodies. Their experiences implementing these
programs provide important clues as to what is necessary for the successful creation and
maintenance of these programs at farmers markets. Interviews and observation suggest that four
factors related to aspects of organizational capacity appear to be crucial: 1) the ability to obtain
resources to support the food assistance programs; 2) strong leadership that is willing to take
risks and assume responsibility for the new programs; 3) alignment of the organization’s mission
and goals with that of the program; and 4) participation in professional networks that can support
experimentation with the new programs. None of these characteristics alone was enough to be
successful. Instead, findings suggest a combination of these aspects of capacity were important
for implementing the multiple food assistance programs. In addition, to the extent that markets
varied in their command over each attribute, so varied their experiences in undertaking these new
and adapted programs.

	
  

29	
  

	
  

3.2.1 The Ability to Obtain Resources
Each of the farmers markets in this study, either independently or through a parent
organization, demonstrated an ability to obtain resources that were important to the operation of
the food assistance programs. All six farmers markets, for example, showed an ability to write
grants in support of the food assistance programs or to obtain resources from external donors.
Markets varied in their abilities, but these forms of support were important. External resources
were obtained to support start-up and one-time investments, such as for point of sale devices
(POSD) or tokens. In rare cases, extra labor to support program operation was obtained, but this
was always partial, and did not substitute for a market’s own effort to solve any labor shortfalls.
Important support was also provided by the parent organizations of many markets. One
market was a particularly large, well-established farmers market that was very capable at fundraising and was able to leverage its existing staff to support the programs. The other five
markets in this study were leaner organizations, but had strong relationships with wellestablished parent organizations. Given the importance of having sufficient labor to implement
the new programs and the general lack of excess labor at the markets themselves, the ability of
the markets to access resources through their parent organization became paramount. Resources
were provided to the programs in two main forms; first, by offering parent organization staff to
directly support the new food assistance programs; and second, by seeking and obtaining
external support for the programs on behalf of the market. These resources were essential to
support the new programs and had a significant impact on the ease of food assistance operation.
Among these five markets, the support provided by parent organizations varied. Three
relied heavily on labor contributions from their parent organizations. In these markets, the parent
organizations were similarly committed to the food assistance programs and provided staff time

	
  

30	
  

	
  

to assume key administrative roles, such as taking charge of vendor reimbursement for food
assistance sales, working with consumers during market hours to exchange program benefits for
market currency, and promoting the programs in the community.
By contrast, the remaining two markets did not receive much support from their parent
organizations, despite excellent relationships. One parent organization was unable to provide
additional support, while the other was less involved in the mission of the market and did not
share the same commitment to the food assistance programs. As a result the managers at each
market were forced to shoulder the brunt of the responsibility for the new and adapted programs.
One struggled substantially as the market received a high volume of food assistance sales.
The findings from this study suggest that the ability of each market to access resources
was vital to their ability to implement these new programs. In some cases they were able to
raise resources externally, in other cases they relied on the strength and commitment of their
parent organizations. However, in many cases even when resources were obtained they were
still insufficient for meeting the full needs of the markets to operate the food assistance
programs. The ability to acquire resources is an important aspect of organizational capacity (De
Vita et al., 2001, Faulkner et al., 2009). DeVita and colleagues (2001) have also noted that
resources can enable organizations to attract and maintain leadership.
3.2.2 Individual Leadership
The interview and observation data repeatedly illustrated individual leadership was an
important aspect that contributed to the markets’ capacity to undertake these new programs.
Individual leaders, referred to as “champions” in previous research, have been shown to be
crucial to the capacity of organizations (Joffres et al., 2004; Faulkner et al., 2009). In this study,
as in previous research, leaders were important for establishing and prioritizing new programs

	
  

31	
  

	
  

within an organization (Joffres et al., 2004) and for taking ownership in their work and ensuring
programs sustainability (Faulkner et al., 2009).
In this study, several market managers took the initiative to start the food assistance
programs at their markets and spoke of their decision in interviews. With this decision they
knowingly took on a responsibility that was not required of them and that added to their own
workload. At one market the manager decided to start ProjectFRESH and MarketFRESH
programs despite advice against it:
…People had talked about it and I think they had said ‘Let’s not do it our first year. Let’s
get everything else established.” I had even talked to other market managers and they
said their volume wasn’t that high, so this seems like a lot of work for not much money.
Maybe we shouldn’t do it?
Another market manager described how she took leadership for all aspects of this program:
… I do all the bookkeeping, there is no treasury department. Same with advertising.
There is no marketing department here. …So that’s kind of my role in the food
assistance. It’s up to me to sign up for all these things and manage all of them. There’s
no handing off.
Throughout the interviews, one of the strongest themes was of market managers going
above and beyond their job responsibilities to meet the demands of the food assistance programs.
The three managers at high volume markets, for example, would regularly take work home or
use their days off to fulfill the reporting requirements of the program. Individual dedication to
the food assistance programs was most evident and necessary at farmers markets that had limited
labor support from a parent organization. The market manager at the high volume market
without additional labor support relied on her spouse to help her meet the administrative burdens
of the new food assistance programs:
My husband has hand-counted all of what’s been reimbursed so far, like $80,000
altogether…Then he adds up all my customer sheets for the days. He adds that all up for
me so it cuts down on my time for bookwork. He does a lot. [Q: Does he get paid?] No,
he’s already done a lot for the market in general, but no, he doesn’t get paid.

	
  

32	
  

	
  

In interviews it was clear that market staff actively weighed the requirements of the food
assistance programs against the benefits received as a result of participating in the program. In
each case market managers and staff said food assistance programs were worth the work and
therefore continued to provide support, set standards for work, and take ownership in the
programs. As one market staff stated:
…We make it really easy for people to use their benefits at our markets. We take a lot of
payments. Any new forms of payment that we can use, I think we’ll do it. At the end of
the day it does take up a lot of time but the whole market is kind of like a service that we
are providing. It’s a community service in a way. That’s why we are there.
Thus, the commitment of the market staff to the operation of the food assistance
programs was a distinguishing feature of the case markets in this study. Previous studies support
the importance of these characteristics for successful organizations and program delivery
(DeVita et al., 2001). Faulkner and colleagues (2009) have suggested that leadership of skilled
program champions helps minimize challenges in program operation due to limited resources
and labor. The commitment shown by market staff and their willingness to take on added
responsibility suggests that similar circumstances were present at the farmers markets in this
study.
Finally, interviews indicate that champions were able to start food assistance programs
because the structure and culture of the market or its parent organizations promoted autonomy
and leadership among its employees. All the managers in this study acknowledged they had
considerable power and autonomy over decisions made about their markets including the food
assistance programs. Decision-making authority was distributed throughout the organization
instead of being held primarily by leaders of the organization. Previous research has shown that
this type of autonomy promotes innovation among employees, which was evident in this study as

	
  

33	
  

	
  

managers took advantage of autonomy to start the food assistance programs (DiLiello &
Houghton, 2006). One market manager described her role:
I would have made that decision [to start Double Up Food Bucks]. … Our president…is
pretty much hands off. It has really given me an opportunity to bring life to the project
and bring my own ideas and things like that to the project. So unless it’s something really
major, I would have been the point person and the decision maker.
Even when hierarchies of authority did exist the culture of the parent organizations
prevented them from being rigid. Four of the markets had either a board of directors or an
executive director that held the power to make the ultimate decision about the food assistance
programs. However, market managers described this process as more of a formality than an
actual barrier to the programs’ development:
It was a decision I made [to do Double Up Food Bucks]. I don’t even know if we got
board approval necessarily or not. I told them that we were doing it. They are kind of
hands-off like that. But no, George signed our grant agreement, the board president, so
I’m the one who filled out the grant.
Both the structures and cultures of the parent organizations in this study created
conditions that allowed market managers to take on a leadership role and start food assistance
programs at their market. The existence of leadership at multiple levels has been shown in other
organizations to reduce barriers of top-down management and promote all individuals within the
organization to take an active role in decision-making (DeVita et al., 2001). This result was also
seen in the farmers markets in this study.
3.2.3 Alignment with Market Mission
The data revealed that case markets and their managers were willing to commit time and
resources to the food assistance programs because the goals of the programs aligned with those
of the market and with market managers themselves. DeVita and colleagues (2001) suggest that
commitment to an organization’s mission can strengthen the capacity of the organization.

	
  

34	
  

	
  

Staff at the six case markets spoke of the food assistance programs in relation to the
mission or goals of their market and the market’s parent organization. Each of these markets
aimed to serve the neighborhoods and communities where they were located. At each market
individuals stated that they chose to start the food assistance programs because they believed it
would enable them to make the farmers market accessible to more area residents. In particular
many were interested in improving access to healthy foods for their low-income neighbors. As
one market manager explained her organization’s decision:
[Offering SNAP] was just at the very beginning something that they wanted to do.
Because why they put the market here, it was deemed to be a food desert, and there
wasn’t walkable markets near to the vicinity…because it was a lower income
neighborhood they thought that [SNAP] would be a really good fit.
Market managers also indicated that they were committed to the food assistance
programs because of personal and professional beliefs in the benefits of the programs. This
supports previous research that the mission and goals of an organization are important to attract
individual leaders who share and will work to support these missions (DeVita et al., 2001). Said
one market manager:
On a personal level, [accepting EBT] was just an important thing for me. …the advocacy
and the social justice aspect of farmers markets and increasing access was just important
to me.
Finally, markets also chose to operate food assistance programs because leaders believed
that adopting these programs would also improve the viability of the market as a whole. The
most frequently cited benefit was the ability of the food assistance programs to improve
awareness of the market in the community. Market managers felt the Double Up Food Bucks
program had been important to improving the markets’ visibility and that the sizeable advertising
and outreach campaign for the program had been a direct benefit to participating farmers markets
since the markets’ names and locations were included on promotional materials. They felt that

	
  

35	
  

	
  

the extensive outreach helped to increase the total number of customers visiting their farmers
markets. One market manager described the impact it had on his market:
The advertising and promotion that Double Up Food Bucks threw into the program was
so huge for us this summer. As of right now we have had 700, over 700, new EBT users
since June 1st. …which is huge. When you are talking on our busy days we are only
getting in 500 or 600 customers, maybe. 700 new customers total. That’s more than a
day’s worth of new customers. So that really helps us.
Thus, the food assistance programs were important to the viability of the market because
additional customers resulted in increased sales for market vendors. Every market manager
reported that vendor sales had increased at their market as a result of the programs. Discussions
with vendors revealed that some received over half of their total sales from food assistance
benefits. Double Up Food Bucks was particularly important to improving vendor sales because
it gave customers additional money to spend at the market.
Thus, despite the challenges that market managers and staff faced each of the individuals
interviewed spoke favorably about the decision to offer the food assistance programs. Each
identified the benefits these programs had for their parent organization, the market, customers,
and vendors. One market manager summed up the situation well when she said, “It’s been really
hard work but it’s been really, really rewarding. So I guess it’s been worth it.” Similar
sentiments were common throughout interviews. Previous research has suggested that
organizational support for a program is often based on the benefits of the programs and
alignment with the mission of an organization and this was found to be true in this study
(Plotnikoff et al., 2009). In addition, serving the surrounding community by increasing food
access and increasing vendors’ sales have been previously identified as reasons for farmers
markets operating food assistance programs (Briggs et al., 2010; Montri et al., 2011).

	
  

36	
  

	
  

Furthermore, the alignment of these goals with that of the market encouraged market staff and
market organizations to commit the necessary time and resources to these programs.
3.2.4 Involvement in Networks
The final key characteristic that was exhibited by all of the farmers markets in this study
was active involvement in professional and community networks. This involvement
complemented the resources, individual leadership, and motivating mission of the markets and
helped to expand the capacity of the organizations that undertook new and adapted food
assistance programs. Interviews indicated that market managers frequently relied on both formal
and informal networks within their community, state, and the country to support program
operation at their market. These networks played three important roles. First, they provided
resources that facilitated the creation of new food assistance programs; second, they helped ease
the transition for new market managers; and finally, they were used to gain additional financial
and other resources to support the new food assistance programs.
The majority of the market managers interviewed for this study mentioned or talked at
length about using the state farmers market association as a resource when they had questions,
needed information, or were experiencing difficulties with some aspect of a food assistance
programs. Market managers also frequently mentioned reaching out to other area market
managers, the National Farmers Market Coalition, staff at the USDA, and staff at the Fair Food
Network when they were in need of information or assistance.
All market managers reported that they used these networks when starting a new food
assistance program. Through these networks they were able to learn from peers who had direct
experience with a program and to adapt systems that others had developed. This use of networks
helped them avoid repeating efforts and maximized time and effort, a benefit previously noted by

	
  

37	
  

	
  

Joffres and colleagues (2004). DeVita, Fleming, and Twombly (2001) have also maintained that
networking can improve capacity because organizations can learn from one another and share
resources and information. Both of these were evident in the experiences of the farmers markets
in this study.
Although this support was beneficial for facilitating the creation of new food assistance
programs it is important to note that it did not eliminate the need for each market to develop a
system that would work in their circumstances. Market managers spoke of using information
from other markets as a place to start for developing their market’s systems and making
modifications as needed.
The data also indicate that professional networks were important sources of information
when market managers were new to their position. Two new market managers in this study said
they relied heavily on networks of support to understand how to operate food assistance
programs and to make improvements in their programs. Networks were particularly important in
situations where there was no one with knowledge or experience with the programs at their
market. One new market manager said the state farmers market association “is a great resource
for any questions” and gave examples of how she learned from other farmers market managers in
the state:
We started a market managers group…We met about once a month and we kind of just
like talked about [what] we were all going through at the market. How Double Up Food
Bucks was working for us, what we were finding to be the most useful. Just like sharing
stories.
Finally, networks were also useful for gaining access to financial and other forms of
support for the food assistance programs. One market’s parent organization used its networks to
build relationships within the community. These relationships later resulted in collaborations
that provided funding for food assistance program operation. Another market received financial

	
  

38	
  

	
  

resources to cover the costs of implementing SNAP as a result of their connections to the state’s
farmers market association. In a third case, a market manager well-connected within donor
circles was able to leverage enough resources from the community to not only support his own
food assistance programs but to also provide financial assistance to other area markets. The
relationships maintained by parent organizations and market staff were beneficial in obtaining
resources needed for food assistance program operation.
These findings support the results of other research that show that sharing resources and
knowledge with other organizations helps minimize challenges due to staff turnover and inability
to retain expertise (Faulkner et al., 2009). In addition, DeVita and colleagues (2001) suggest that
relationships with other organizations are important to the overall stability of an organization.
Findings from this study suggest that the networks formed and utilized by market managers and
other leaders played an important role in the ability of the farmers markets to operate food
assistance programs successfully.
In summary, the four characteristics demonstrated in varying degree by all the farmers
markets in this study were necessary for the successful implementation and operation of the food
assistance programs. In previous research existence of resources, strong leadership, a motivating
mission, and an involvement in networks have all been attributed to organizations exhibiting
capacity (Faulkner et al., 2009; DeVita et al., 2001; Glickman & Servon, 1998; Chaskin, 2001;
Goodman et al., 1998). The results of this study indicate that these farmers markets and their
parent organizations are organizations with fairly high capacity and these attributes contributed
their success in implementing multiple new, and somewhat complicated, food assistance
programs.

	
  

39	
  

	
  

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The literature on food assistance programs at farmers markets is sparse and is generally
aimed at the practitioner population. Recent publications serve as guides for the operation of
food assistance programs at farmers market and acknowledged the challenges that surround these
programs (Briggs et al., 2010; Montri et al., 2011; Wasserman et al., 2010). This study adds to
the current literature by providing insight into the daily operation of these programs from the
perspective of individuals who run them. It focuses on identifying the challenges involved in
implementing these programs and analyzing the implications for further expansion of these
programs into more farmers markets. To our knowledge, it is the first study to explore the
capacity needed by farmers markets to be successful in this endeavor. Its purpose is to bridge the
gap in knowledge between those intimately involved with these programs and policymakers who
hope to expand the reach of the food assistance programs to farmers markets nationwide.
The results of this study suggest a number of concerns with the operation as well as the
continued expansion of food assistance programs to new farmers markets. First, it is clear that
despite their success farmers markets in this study found the administrative requirements of the
programs to be a significant burden. In particular, all markets had to make significant
adjustments to accommodate the new programs, and some were severely challenged. This
suggests that the thinness of labor in farmers markets may be a major challenge for the expansion
of programs into more farmers markets.
Second, these administrative burdens are experienced differently by each market.
Markets that conduct a high volume of food assistance program sales appear to face the most
immediate challenges with these programs. The high volume of food assistance transactions
results in a need for significant increases in labor to support the new programs. In the absence of
	
  

40	
  

	
  

additional labor, the immediate demands of the food assistance programs compete with day-today responsibilities that are important for the overall functioning of the market.
Two high volume markets in this study struggled because they did not have the resources
to command extra labor. Rather, market managers struggled to do more themselves and cut back
on necessary functions that serve the market as a whole. A third high profile market fared better
as it was able to draw labor from its own large staff and received funding to cover costs of labor
dedicated to a specific food assistance program. This particular market is unusual, however, and
does not necessarily represent the possibilities for farmers markets yet to adopt these programs.
Few farmers markets will have this ability.
Even farmers markets conducting a small volume of food assistance program sales must
be prepared for the additional burden of these programs. In this study, smaller markets also
struggled, but were able to cope due to a lower volume of transactions. The trend in these
programs, however, showed significant sales increases with new programs, thus, smaller markets
should consider how they will staff these programs should food assistance transactions continue
to grow.
Third, this research suggests that the case study markets were able to carry out these
programs as a result of the underlying organizational capacity at each market. Specifically, four
characteristics that are important to the capacity of an organization were identified in each
market: 1) the ability to obtain resources to support programs; 2) strong leadership that is willing
to take risks and assume responsibility for the new programs; 3) alignment of the organization’s
mission and goals with that of the program; and 4) participation in professional networks that can
support experimentation with the new programs. DeVita and colleagues (2001) have cited these

	
  

41	
  

	
  

highly interdependent characteristics as important to an organization’s ability to carry out its
work.
Taken together, these findings have important policy implications for the expansion of
food assistance programs at farmers markets. At present, the USDA is currently pushing for the
expansion of federal food assistance programs to all farmers markets in the U.S. Recently, it has
announcement of the availability of $4 million to support the expansion SNAP to farmers
markets not currently participating (USDA SNAP Benefit Redemption Division, 2012). In
addition, regional non-profits, such as the Michigan Farmers Market Association and GrowNYC
in New York, continue to encourage and assist farmers markets in their area to offer food
assistance programs to improve food access for low-income populations.
The results of this research suggest that broad expansion of food assistance programs at
farmers markets may not be feasible or at least not as easy as some may anticipate. Not all
farmers markets currently have the capacity needed to successfully operate food assistance
programs because of the high level of administrative burdens placed on participating markets and
the resources needed to be successful. The case study farmers markets all demonstrated a
significant amount of capacity to operate the food assistance programs yet still struggled to meet
the administrative demands of the programs.
The fact that all of the case markets had paid market managers, the majority of whom
were full-time, is significant. Nationwide only 39% of farmers markets have a paid market
manager and over half are not self-supporting (Ragland & Tropp, 2006). The ability of these
markets to meet the administrative demands of the food assistance programs is likely to be
limited because many are already struggling to gain stability as a market. They will likely find it
very difficult, if not impossible, to add the administrative demands of these food assistance

	
  

42	
  

	
  

programs although exceptions are bound to exist. The current situation where the majority of
U.S. farmers markets depend on volunteer labor and short-term external support could severely
limit the ability to expand food assistance programs to all farmers markets as the USDA intends.
Even for markets that are capable, the ability to sustain the amount of labor needed to
support these programs is of great concern, particularly since market managers in this study were
spread very thin and at times appeared overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Case study
markets relied on labor provided by parent organizations or short-term grants to finance extra
labor. They also asked more of their staff and/or made difficult cuts in their budgets. It is
notable that less than a year after this study began, four of the market managers in the study
markets had left their positions. Two had only been employed for one market season, another for
less than a year and a half. These findings are consistent with those reported by Stephenson
(2008) who found that 21-44% of farmers markets in Oregon experience a turnover in market
managers annually, depending on the market size. The thinness of labor at farmers markets
coupled with the rapid turnover of market managers raises concerns about the difficulty of
sustaining these programs at highly capable farmers markets.
4.1 Recommendations for Practice
After completing this research we recommend a course of action for the expansion of
food assistance programs that begins by targeting farmers markets with the capacity needed to be
successful without putting a large strain on the markets’ abilities and resources and negatively
impacting overall market operation. Good candidates for market expansion should demonstrate
the same characteristics shown by case study markets or be small volume markets that
experience a more manageable burden. Markets should be highly capable independently or
should have strong support for programs either from a parent organization or another capable

	
  

43	
  

	
  

community partner. These organizations are important to help provide and obtain the additional
resources needed to operate food assistance programs, especially labor. It is also important that
the goals or a mission of the market reflect the aims of food assistance programs that it
implements; this will maximize a market’s natural interest and commitment to the food
assistance programs. Farmers markets with committed leaders and connections to networks to
acquire information and support will also be in a better position to successfully operate food
assistance programs. Each of these characteristics alone is likely not enough to be successful.
Based on our findings farmers markets that have a combination of all four of these characteristics
of capacity are in the best position to implement multiple food assistance programs.
Targeting capable markets with a track record of innovation and experimentation will
provide additional knowledge and experience with program implementation that will be
beneficial when working with remaining markets. Remaining markets with less capacity will
likely need greater outside support to obtain the information and resources necessary to
successfully operate food assistance programs. This assistance should not be limited to initial
program operation due to the large continued burden these programs place on farmers markets.
Instead lower capacity markets should receive ongoing support through training, staff
development, and facilitating network involvement.
As the current push to expand food assistance programs to more farmers markets
continues it is important for market administrators and donor organizations to be knowledgeable
about the unique circumstances of each potential market. To determine a market’s likelihood of
success and to help provide a realistic picture of the market’s strengths and weaknesses an
understanding of the market’s characteristics, how it operates, staff availability, and overall

	
  

44	
  

	
  

capacity of the market is important. These steps may also help facilitate preparation for food
assistance program implementation and increase the likelihood of program success.
Finally, given the challenges faced by farmers markets in this research to successfully
operate food assistance programs it is recommend that policy makers and program developers
make efforts to become more informed about the operation of these programs. They should seek
the counsel of farmers market administrators who are involved with the programs when making
modifications to current programs, creating new programs, or enacting legislation that affects
them. This can help create mutually beneficial relationships among these groups, as well as
facilitate program operation and expansion by reducing the administrative burdens of these
programs. In the state of Michigan some efforts to share information between market
administrators and program developers already exist and have been beneficial for both parties
and the programs’ operation. These efforts should be lauded and expanded to include more
programs, more markets, and more partners.
4.2 Limitations and Future Study
The results of this study suggest further research that will be beneficial for learning more
about the operation of food assistance programs at farmers markets. Some of these
recommendations come from the limitations of the present study. This study focused on a few
successful farmers markets to get a valuable, in-depth look at the experience of markets
administrators involved with the operation of food assistance programs. In order to check that
the results were realistic among the larger population of farmers markets triangulation occurred
through researchers’ active participation in networking, meetings, and other opportunities for the
state’s farmers markets facilitated by MIFMA and the Food Assistance Partnership.

	
  

45	
  

	
  

However, due to the inclusion of only farmers markets located in Michigan it would be
beneficial to conduct a similar study that includes wider geographic variability. This is in part
due to the importance of networks for market managers in this study and the existence of
Michigan’s very strong statewide farmers market association. Expanding this study
geographically will enable an understanding of how other market managers operate in areas
where such strong support is not readily available and explore other differences that may exist by
area.
The importance of the parent organizations in this study also suggests another
opportunity for future research. Learning more about how farmers markets that are independent
entities are able to successfully operate food assistance programs and what challenges they face
in the process is equally important. This could provide information to policy makers, program
developers, and interested market administrators about a more diverse group of farmers markets.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, further research that focuses exclusively on
farmers markets that are not operating food assistance programs or that have tried to implement a
program but were unable to do so successfully would be informative. Such research would
facilitate an understanding of how farmers markets make decisions about program
implementation and the obstacles to implementation, and further our knowledge of what is
necessary to make food assistance programs work. All of this would be beneficial in the efforts
to expand programs to additional markets.
As a growing number of Americans, over 46 million as of March 2012 (USDA, 2012),
rely on SNAP benefits from the federal government it is important to increase the opportunities
these individuals have to purchase healthy food. By understanding the capacity farmers markets
need to successfully implement food assistance programs and working to improve that capacity

	
  

46	
  

	
  

we can increase opportunities for program expansion and help increase access to healthy, locally
grown food for more low-income Americans.

	
  

47	
  

	
  

APPENDIX

	
  

48	
  

	
  

Interview Guide, Market Managers #1-5
Interview Goals: 1) to learn the market’s challenges running the food assistance programs at the
farmers markets including the inputs and resources needed, 2) to learn what advantages or
benefits the market receives from operating these programs, and 3) to explore the impacts of
running multiple programs simultaneously.
1. How long have you been involved with the market?
•

What are your specific responsibilities for the food assistance programs?

SNAP
2. I am really interested in understanding how each of the programs operates on a daily basis
at the farmers market. I would like to talk about each one of them individually, starting with the
SNAP program. How was the decision made to start accepting SNAP benefits at the market?
•
•

Who was involved with this decision?
Was there an approval process that was needed?

Visiting the market I was able to see how SNAP works during market hours. I would like to
learn more about the step-by-step process for preparing for the market and after the market day is
over. If you are getting ready for the SNAP program at the market tomorrow what needs to be
done to prepare for the market day?

After the market is over for the day, what must be done to ensure vendors get paid for their
SNAP sales?
•
	
  

What records is the market required to keep?
49	
  

	
  

2a. Now that I understand how SNAP works can you tell me about the challenges you face
with this program?
•

What do you think leads to these challenges and have attempts been made to address
these challenges?

2b. What parts of the SNAP program seem to work well or run smoothly? What parts are easy
to take care of?
•
•

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
How long did it take to get to this point where the program works well?

2c.

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

3d.

Have you seen any differences in the SNAP program since DUFB started?

	
  

50	
  

	
  

2e. On average what would you estimate is the amount of SNAP sales the market does in a
month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required on the part of the market?

DUFB
3. We have been talking about the SNAP program. Now I’d like to switch over to talking
about the Double Up Food Bucks program. How did DUFB start at the market?
•
•

Who was involved?
Was there an approval process that was needed?

To run the program, if you are getting ready for the market tomorrow what needs to be done to
prepare for Double Up Food Bucks?

After the market is over for the day, what must happen for vendors to get paid for their Double
Up Food Bucks sales?

3a. Now that I understand how the Double Up Food Bucks program works can you tell me
about the challenges you face with this program?
•

	
  

What do you think leads to these challenges and have attempts been made to address
these challenges?

51	
  

	
  

3b. What parts of the Double Up Food Bucks program seem to work well? Or run smoothly?
What parts are easy to take care
•
•
3c.

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
Do you feel like the market is at a point where the program works well? Explain.
What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

3d. What responsibilities do you have as a market manager and as a market to Fair Food
Network?
•

3e.

Do they offer you any support for the program?

Can you estimate the amount of DUFB sales the market does in a month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required on the part of the market?

ProjectFRESH
4. Can we now talk about ProjectFRESH? How long has the market been a part of this
program? How did the program start?
•
•

Who was involved?
Was there an approval process that was needed?

If you are getting ready for the market tomorrow what needs to be done to prepare for the
program?

After the market is over for the day, what must happen for vendors to get paid for their
ProjectFRESH sales?

4a. Now that I understand how ProjectFRESH works can you tell me about the challenges you
face with the program?
•
•

	
  

What do you think leads to these challenges and have attempts been made to address
them?
Have the changes in the program affected the market?

52	
  

	
  

4b. What parts of the ProjectFRESH program seem to work well or run smoothly? What parts
are easy to take care of?
•
•

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
Do you feel like the market is at a point where the program works well?

4c.

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

4d.

Have you seen any differences in the ProjectFRESH program since DUFB started?

4e.

Can you estimate the amount of ProjectFRESH sales the market does in a month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required on the part of the market?

MarketFRESH
5. Moving on to MarketFRESH or Senior ProjectFRESH- how long has the market been a part
of this program? How did the program start?
•

Who was involved? Was there an approval process that was needed?

If you are getting ready for the market tomorrow what needs to be done to prepare for this
program?

After the market is over for the day, what must the market do for vendors to get paid for their
MarketFRESH sales?

	
  

53	
  

	
  

5a. Now that I understand how MarketFRESH works can you tell me about the challenges you
face with the program?
•
•

What do you think leads to these challenges and have attempts been made to address
them?
Have the changes in the program affected the market?

5b. What parts of the MarketFRESH program seem to work well or run smoothly? What parts
are easy to take care of?
•
•
•

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
Are there positive impacts of the program’s changes?
Do you feel like the market is at a point where the program works well?

5c.

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

5d.

Have you seen any differences in the ProjectFRESH program since DUFB started?

5e.

Can you estimate the amount of ProjectFRESH sales the market does in a month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required by the market?

Overall
6. Do you think it helps to run multiple programs at the same time, like you get some economies
of scale, or do you think it makes it harder running multiple programs? [explain, and give an
example ]

7. How do you balance your work for the food assistance programs with your other
responsibilities (both market and non-market, if applicable)?
	
  

54	
  

	
  

8. What other individuals are directly involved with the food assistance programs at the
market?
•
•

What are their roles?
Are these people paid staff or volunteers?

If there is time questions
9.
Are there costs associated with any of the food assistance programs that operate at your
market? (Use this to follow up if subject hasn’t already been addressed and there is time)
•
•

How does the market cover these costs?
Where does the funding for your time come from?

10.
What other support or resources are needed to operate these food assistance programs?
(i.e. info from MIFMA, USDA; technical support; training; grants) (use this to follow up if
subject hasn’t already been addressed and there is time )
•
•
•

Which of the programs require these resources?
How are these resources obtained? Who was involved?
Does the market’s parent organization play a role in providing or obtaining resources?

11.
Besides these 4 main food assistance programs what other food assistance programs does
your market offer?
•

What impact do these programs have on the market?

12.
Are there other aspects of the food assistance programs or your experience working with
them that we didn’t talk about that we should have?

	
  

55	
  

	
  

Interview Guide, Market Master #1
Interview Goals: 1) To learn more about the paperwork process that happens at OFM, especially
the end of the year paperwork for FFN because that’s the last piece of the whole paperwork
process I don’t know about, 2) to learn Stephanie’s perspective of the work involved,
challenges, and benefits of the FAPs at OFM, and 3) to understand the division of labor within
the market staff.

1.

How long have you been involved with the market?

2.

What are your specific responsibilities at the market?
•

3.

Is your position paid or volunteer?
o If paid, where does the funding for your pay come from?

Which of the food assistance programs are you involved with at the market?
•
•
•

What different tasks do you perform?
How many hours a week do you work on food assistance programs?
How did you learn how to do these tasks?
o Did you have training? Learn by doing?

4. What challenges do you see with working on the food assistance programs? Could give me
an example?

5. So we’ve talked about the challenges involved with your work. What parts of the FAPs
work seem to work well?
•
	
  

Can you give me an example?
56	
  

	
  

•

Have the systems changed over time or have they always operated this way?

6. Samantha told me that you were working on the end of the year reporting for FFN,
including the binder that must be turned in. It includes the daily customer records and all the
vendor records, correct? What else?
•
•
•
•

7.

Have you completed it? How long did it take?
Was it easy? Difficult? Straightforward?
Beside the binder what else must you do at the end of the year for DUFB?
Did the market use all of the funds or do you have to return some to FFN?
o How do you go about that process?

You also have other responsibilities within the organization. So how do you balance them?

8. Owatonna Farmers Market has a market manager and two market masters. How did you
divide the labor for the market, in particular the food assistance programs?

9.

How much support for the market, specifically the FAPs, comes from Warren Conner?
•

Is this support necessary for the FAPs to operate?

10. Samantha mentioned PFM’s association with Main Street Market. Can you tell me more
about that relationship?
	
  

57	
  

	
  

•
•

11.

Is it a formal relationship (i.e. there is a documented contract, etc)?
Does any of that support assist with the food assistance programs?

In what ways do the FAPs affect the market, positively or negatively?

12. So currently your market runs 4 food assistance programs at the market. Do you think it is
easier to run multiple programs at the same time or harder? Why?

If there are time questions:
13. Do you or the market have any relationships with people, organizations, or agencies that
are not a part of the market that impact the food assistance programs?
•
•

What role does this play in the food assistance programs?
How important are these relationships to the food assistance programs operation?

14. Are there other sources of support or resources that are needed to operate these food
assistance programs we haven’t talked about yet? (i.e. info from MIFMA, USDA; technical
support; training)
•
•

How are these resources obtained?
Who was involved with obtaining these resources?

15. Are there other aspects of the food assistance programs or your experience working with
them that we didn’t talk about that we should have?

	
  

58	
  

	
  

Interview Guide, Market Master #2
Interview Goals: 1) To learn about the recordkeeping system David developed/updated 2) to
learn David’s perspective of the work involved, challenges, and benefits of the FAPs at OFM,
and 3) to learn more about the vendors’ interactions with market staff surrounding FAPs.
What we know:
•
•

•

having three staff people reduced the amount of work that each person had to do and
made it easier; when David left Stephanie was overwhelmed with all the work
Samantha did a significant amount of work prior to market season in order to prepare and
reduce the workload during the season; David was part of this upfront prep because he
designed the recordkeeping system which Stephanie said saved a lot of time in the end
David’s responsibility was working with the market’s vendors

What do we not know:
•
•
•

What was the recordkeeping system like before David got there? Were the changes he
made small or significant?
What was the time and energy needed to make these improvements? Small? Significant?
There were many reasons mentioned for doing these programs at OFM, so I would like to
see if there is a single idea that was the most important

1.

So you were an AmeriCorps member at Warren Conner. When did you start that position?

2.

What were your specific responsibilities at the market?
•
•

How is your AmeriCorps cost shared funded?
Did you have experience working with farmers markets in the past?

3. What about the market worked well? What where the strengths of the market?

4. What were some of the challenges faced by the market?
5. Which of the food assistance programs are you involved with at the market?
•
•
•

	
  

What different tasks do you perform?
How many hours a week do you work on food assistance programs?
How did you learn how to do these tasks?

59	
  

	
  

6. What challenges do you see with working on the food assistance programs? Could give me
an example?

7. So we’ve talked about the challenges involved with your work. What parts of the FAPs
work seem to work well?
•
•

Can you give me an example?
Have the systems changed over time or have they always operated this way?

8. Stephanie told me that you created or made changes to the recordkeeping system used for
the market. Can you describe what was in place when you came?

9.

What you did to improve the system?
•
•
•

How long did it take?
Was it easy? Difficult? Straightforward?
How did this impact your work throughout the rest of the season?

10. Was there additional preparation before the market season that you or Stephanie did for the
FAPs?
•

How much time did you have to prepare for the programs?

11. Stephanie also said that one of your main market responsibilities was working with
vendors. How well did vendors work with you on the parts of the FAPs they were involved
with?
•

	
  

Did you see a difference as it got later in the season?

60	
  

	
  

•

Now that everyone has a season of experience how do you think it will be difference next
year?

12.

You also have other responsibilities within the organization. So how do you balance them?

13.

In what ways do the FAPs affect the market, positively or negatively?

14. So currently your market runs 4 food assistance programs at the market. Do you think it is
easier to run multiple programs at the same time or harder? Why?

15.

To you personally what is the most important reason for offering the FAPs at OFM?

16. If I was a market manager thinking about adding these programs to my market what advice
would you give me or what do you think it’s important that I know?

	
  

61	
  

	
  

Interview Guide, Market Manager #6
Interview Goals: 1) to learn the market’s challenges running the food assistance programs at the
farmers markets including the inputs and resources needed, 3) to learn what advantages or
benefits the market receives from operating these programs, and 3) to explore the impacts of
running multiple programs simultaneously, especially when starting with all at the same time.
2. You started working for the market early this year correct?
• How long after the market was decided on where you hired?

2.

What are your specific responsibilities for the food assistance programs?
•

What is the governance structure of the market?

SNAP
3. I am really interested in understanding how each of the programs operates on a daily basis
at the farmers market. I would like to talk about each one of them individually, starting with the
SNAP program. How was the decision made to start accepting SNAP benefits at the market?
•
•
•

Why was the program started?
Who was involved with this decision?
Was there an approval process that was needed?

Visiting the market I was able to see how SNAP works during market hours. I would like to
learn more about the step-by-step process for preparing for the market and after the market day is
over. If you are getting ready for the SNAP program at the market tomorrow what needs to be
done to prepare for the market day?

	
  

62	
  

	
  

After the market is over for the day, what must be done to ensure vendors get paid for their
SNAP sales?

3a. Now that I understand how SNAP works can you tell me about the challenges you face
with this program?

3b. What parts of the SNAP program seem to work well or run smoothly? What parts are easy
to take care of?
•
•

3c.

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
How long did it take to get to this point where the program works well?

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

3d. On average what would you estimate is the amount of SNAP sales the market does in a
month?
Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required on the part of the market?

	
  

63	
  

	
  

DUFB
4. We have been talking about the SNAP program. Now I’d like to switch over to talking
about the Double Up Food Bucks program. How did DUFB start at the market?
•
•
•

Who was involved?
Was there an approval process that was needed?
How much time did you have to prepare for the program once you knew were accepted?

To run the program, if you are getting ready for the market tomorrow what needs to be done to
prepare for Double Up Food Bucks?

After the market is over for the day, what must happen for vendors to get paid for their Double
Up Food Bucks sales?

4a. Now that I understand how the Double Up Food Bucks program works can you tell me
about the challenges you face with this program?

4b. What parts of the Double Up Food Bucks program seem to work well? Or run smoothly?
What parts are easy to take care of?
•
•

4c.

	
  

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
Do you feel like the market is at a point where the program works well? Explain.

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

64	
  

	
  

4d.

Can you estimate the amount of DUFB sales the market does in a month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required on the part of the market?

ProjectFRESH
5.

Can we now talk about ProjectFRESH? How did the program start?
•
•
•

Why was the decision made to offer this program?
Who was involved?
Was there an approval process that was needed?

If you are getting ready for the market tomorrow what needs to be done to prepare for the
program?

After the market is over for the day, what must happen for vendors to get paid for their
ProjectFRESH sales?

5a. Now that I understand how ProjectFRESH works can you tell me about the challenges you
face with the program?

5b. What parts of the ProjectFRESH program seem to work well or run smoothly? What parts
are easy to take care of?
•
•

	
  

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
Do you feel like the market is at a point where the program works well?

65	
  

	
  

5c.

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

5f.

Can you estimate the amount of ProjectFRESH sales the market does in a month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required on the part of the market?

MarketFRESH
6. Moving on to MarketFRESH or Senior ProjectFRESH- how long has the market been a part
of this program? How did the program start?
•
•
•

Why was the decision made to offer this program?
Who was involved?
Was there an approval process that was needed

If you are getting ready for the market tomorrow what needs to be done to prepare for this
program?

After the market is over for the day, what must the market do for vendors to get paid for their
MarketFRESH sales?

6a. Now that I understand how MarketFRESH works can you tell me about the challenges you
face with the program?

6b. What parts of the MarketFRESH program seem to work well or run smoothly? What parts
are easy to take care of?

	
  

66	
  

	
  

•
•

What makes it possible to keep things running smoothly?
Do you feel like the market is at a point where the program works well?

6c.

What kind of benefits or advantages does offering this program provide to your market?

6f.

Can you estimate the amount of ProjectFRESH sales the market does in a month?
•

Does the volume of sales affect the amount of work required by the market?

Overall
7. Do you think it helps to run multiple programs at the same time, like you get some
economies of scale, or do you think it makes it harder running multiple programs? [explain, and
give an example ]
8.

You started with all of these programs at the same time. What was that process like?

9. As a new market and a new market manager how did you know or learn what you needed
to do for all of these FAPs?

10. How do you balance your work for the food assistance programs with your other market
responsibilities?

11. To you personally what is the most important reason for offering the FAPs at your
market?

	
  

67	
  

	
  

12. What other individuals are directly involved with the food assistance programs at the
market?
13. If I were a market manager thinking about adding FAPs to my market what would be
important for me to know?

If there is time questions
14.
Are there costs associated with any of the food assistance programs that operate at your
market? (Use this to follow up if subject hasn’t already been addressed and there is time)
•
•

How does the market cover these costs?
Where does the funding for your time come from?

15.
What other support or resources are needed to operate these food assistance programs?
(i.e. info from MIFMA, USDA; technical support; training; grants) (use this to follow up if
subject hasn’t already been addressed and there is time )

16. Are there other aspects of the food assistance programs or your experience working with
them that we didn’t talk about that we should have?

	
  

68	
  

	
  

REFERENCES

	
  

69	
  

	
  

REFERENCES
Anderson, D., Plotnikoff, R.C., Raine, K., Cook, K., Smith, C, & Barrett, L. (2004). Towards the
development of scales to measure ‘will’ to promote heart health within health organizations
in Canada. Health Promotion International. 19(4).
Briggs, S., Fisher, A., Lott, M., Miller, S., & Tessman, N. (2010, June). REAL FOOD, REAL
CHOICE: Connecting SNAP Recipients with Farmers Markets Community Food. Security
Coalition, Farmers Market Coalition. Accessed on April 24, 2012, from
http://www.foodsecurity.org/pub/RealFoodRealChoice_SNAP_FarmersMarkets.pdf
Chaskin, R.J. (2001). Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case
Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 291.
Chung C. &, Myers S.L. (1999). Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery store
availability and food price disparities. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 33(2): 276-296.
Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2011, September). Household
Food Security in the United States, 2010. Economic Research Report No. (ERR-125).
Retrieved on April 14, 2012 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err125/
De Vita, C.J. Fleming, C., & Twombly, E.C. (2001). Building Nonprofit Capacity: A Framework
for Addressing the Problem. In C.J. De Vita & C. Fleming (Eds.), Building Capacity in
Nonprofit Organizations. Urban Institute. Retrieved on April 12, 2012, from
http://www.urban.org/publications/410093.html
DiLiello, T.C. & Houghton, J.D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the
future: Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(4), 319-337.
Dressendorfer, R.H., Raine, K., Dyck, R.J., Plotnikoff, R.C., Collins-Nakai, R.L., McLaughlin,
W.K., et al. (2005). A Conceptual Model of Community Capacity Development for Health
Promotion in the Alberta Heart Health Project. Health Promotion Practice, 6, 31-36.
Eisinger, P. (March, 2002). Organizational Capacity and Organizational Effectiveness Among
Street-Level Food Assistance Programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1),
115-130.
Fair Food Network (2012). Double Up Food Bucks Markets. Retrieved on July 26, 2011, from
http://www.doubleupfoodbucks.org/markets
Faulkner, G., McCloy, C., Plotnikoff, R.C., Bauman, A., Brawley, L.R., Chad, K., Gauvin, L.,
Spence, J.C., Tremblay, M.S. (2009). ParticipACTION: Baseline assessment of the capacity
available to the 'New ParticipACTION': A qualitative study of Canadian organizations.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 87-101.

	
  

70	
  

	
  

Fredericksen, P. & London, R. (2000). Disconnect in the Hollow State: The Pivotal Role of
Organizational Capacity in Community-Based Development Organizations. Public
Administration Review, 60(3): 230-239.
Glickman, N., & Servon, L. (1998). More than bricks and sticks: Five components of CDC
capacity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., et al. (1998).
Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for
measurement. Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258-278.
Grace, C., Grace, T., Becker, N., & Lyden, J. (2007). Barriers to Using Urban Farmers’
Markets: An Investigation of Food Stamp Clients’ Perceptions. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 2(1), 55-75.
Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Leavey, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
H.R.3734. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 104th
Congress of the United States of America. (1996).
Joffres, C. Heath, S., Farquharson, J., Barkhouse, K., Hood, R., Latter, C., et al. (2004). Defining
and operationalizing capacity for heart health promotion in Nova Scotia, Canada. Health
Promotion International, 19(1), 39-49.
McPhee, P. & Bare, J. (2001). Introduction. In C.J. De Vita & C. Fleming (Eds.), Building
Capacity in Nonprofit Organizations. Urban Institute. Retrieved on April 12, 2012, from
http://www.urban.org/publications/410093.html
Miles, M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Milward, H.B. (1996). Introduction to the Symposium on the Hollow State: Capacity, Control,
and Performance in Interorganizational Settings. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 6(2), 193-195.
Montri, D., Segar, A., Chung, K., & Mino, R. (2011, December). Accepting Bridge Cards at
Michigan Farmers Markets (3rd ed.). Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E3163
Moore, L.V. & Diez Roux, A.V. (2006). Associations of Neighborhood Characteristics With the
Location and Type of Food Stores. American Journal of Public Health. 2006 February;
96(2): 325–331.
Natasi, B. (1999). Audiovisual Methods in Ethnography. In: Enhanced Ethnographic Methods,
Schensul J. et al. (eds). Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press, 16-25.

	
  

71	
  

	
  

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd Edition. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Plotnikoff, R.C, Todosijczuk, I., Faulkner, G., Pickering, M.A., Cragg, S., Chad, K., et al.
(2009). ParticipACTION: Baseline assessment of the 'new ParticipACTION': A quantitative
survey of Canadian organizational awareness and capacity. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 86-98.
Ragland, E. & Tropp, D. (2009, May). USDA National Farmers Market Manager Survey 2006.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Accessed on June 2, 2012, from
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5077203&acct=wdmge
ninfo
Schensul, S.L., Schensul J.J., & LeCompte, M.D. (1999). Exploratory or Open-Ended
Observation. In Essential Ethnographic Methods. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press.
Smith, C. (2001). A preliminary examination of organizational capacity for Heart health
Promotion in Alberta’s Regional Health Authorities. Promotion & Education, Supplement 1,
40-43.
Stephenson, G. (2008). Farmers’ Markets: Success, Failure, and Management Ecology. Cambria
Press: New York.
USDA. (2012, May). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Number of Persons
Participating. Retrieved June 17, 2012, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. (2010, August). Farmers Market Growth: 1994-2010.
Retrieved on July 26, 2011, from
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&leftN
av=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&description=Farmer
s%20Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt
USDA Food and Nutrition Service. (2011, July). Nutrition Assistance Programs. Retrieved on
July 26, 2011, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/
USDA Food and Nutrition Service Benefit Redemption Division. (2011, May). We Welcome
SNAP: Putting Healthy Food Within Reach Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's
Benefit Redemption Division (BRD) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2010. Retrieved on July
26, 2011, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/pdfs/2010-annual-report.pdf
USDA FNS (2011a, May). WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Retrieved on October 12,
2011, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-FMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf
USDA FNS (2011b, May). Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Retrieved on October 12,
2011, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SFMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf

	
  

72	
  

	
  

USDA FNS (2012, April). Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 State Plan Guidance. Retrieved on July 19,
2012, from www.fns.usda.gov/wic/policyandguidance/spg/FY12SFMNPSPG-GenInfo.doc
USDA SNAP Benefit Redemption Division, (2012, May 2). Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Funding To
Increase Farmers’ Market Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP). Retrieved July 3, 2012 from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/2012/FM_051112.pdf
Wasserman, W., Tropp, D., Lakins, V., Foley, C., DeNinno, M., Thompson, J., et al. (2010,
June). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at Farmers Markets: A How-To
Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Market Service. Retrieved
April 17, 2012, from
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5085298&acct=wdmge
ninfo
Watson Bishop, S. (2007). Linking Nonprofit Capacity to Effectiveness in the New Public
Management Era: The Case of Community Action Agencies. State and Local Government
Review, 39, 144-152.
Wholesome Wave. (2012). Double Value Coupon Program. Retrieved on July 22, 2012, from
http://wholesomewave.org/dvcp/

	
  

73