MBA dissertation范文
 

人們看電視時看到世界各地的孩子們挨餓的一些廣告，覺得這是不常見的。當一個人想到饑餓，他們認為這發生在世界上三分之一國家。奇爾頓，布萊克，伯克維茨，凱西，庫克，卡茨等人在2009年指出，沒有來自正常成長環境的孩子有百分之57的機會有營養不良。這些學生與他們的同齡人相比通常不得到適當的食物來源。大多數的學生依賴于學校的午餐計劃來得到他們需要的能量和耐力從而在一天內順利得到營養并在他們的班級出類拔萃。
 

首先讓我們看一下美國的食品項目，這將有助于我們更好地了解有關管理學校午餐計劃的法律。政府的補充營養援助計劃（SNAP）提供每月的津貼，幫助符合條件的中低收入家庭購買他們需要良好的健康食品。

 

Bougherara，Grolleau與mzoughi（2010）說，SNAP是一個國家的最重要的食品提供商。SNAP連同超過40000000助手已為美國許多戶人家提供了食物。
 

It is not uncommon for a person to be watching television and see a few commercials about children starving all over the world. When a person thinks of hunger they think it something that happens in a third world country. Chilton, Black, Berkowitz, Casey, Cook, Cutts, et al. (2009) states that children who do not come from normal surroundings are at a 57 percent chance of having malnutrition. These students generally do not get the proper food source as their other peers. Most of these students depend on the lunch program at school to get the proper nutrition they need to have the energy and stamina to succeed throughout the day to become successful in their class.

 

First let us look at the food program in the United States and this will help us to get a better understanding of the laws that govern the food lunch program in the school. The government has the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which provides monthly benefits that help eligible low-income households buy the food they need for good health. For most households, SNAP funds account for only a portion of their food budgets; they must also use their own money to buy enough food to last throughout the month.

 

Bougherara, Grolleau, & Mzoughi (2010) says that SNAP is one of the nation's most important food providing programs. SNAP has assisted more than 40 million individuals with assistant to provide food for many households in the United States. This is important because more than 70 percent of individuals who benefit from SNAP have children that benefit from this program. SNAP also helps out households who have individuals who are disable and use disability to provide income for their households. This reflects the population in school who are on reduced or free lunch programs.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

SNAP is a federal program that provides additional assistance for households who do not provide enough income to properly feed their family especially those who have school aged children. The SNAP program is completely funded by the federal government. The free and reduced lunch program is available to all low income households. This is in addition to the SNAP program which provides assistance to many of these same low income households. In order to qualify for the SNAP program a family must meet certain eligibility requirements.

 

First is the income portion. Families must make well below the poverty line. This generally is about $2,000 a month for a household of three or more people. The household who has an elderly or disabled member are allowed to make no more than $3,000 a month due to the fact it takes more money for that family to even have the bare minimum. SNAP makes an illegal immigrant, some college students, workers on strike, and some unemployed childless adults ineligible to receive assistance even if they meet the monetary requirement to receive the assistance (Reed & Levedahl 2010).

 

The federal government spends over $60 billion a year on this program. A great majority of the money, about 90 percent, is used purchase goods for the family. The remaining 10 percent is used to help cover administrative costs which goes into salaries that help make the program run and redesign it where there are areas of opportunities. Some money is allocated to help other countries develop their food assistance programs and to run it for their citizens (Le 2012; Skinner 2012).

 

SNAP is a program that is continuing to grow. With recent economic developments SNAP has seen a significant increase with more and more families qualifying for the program but the increase in funding has not increased. With the economy lagging and the economic recovery dragging along more and more low-income households are putting a huge strain on the program to where many families who qualify are not receiving funds or they are not receiving the same amount of funds as they were before. This strain is dominant that SNAP funding is expected to hit an all time low which will cause more strain on the government; however it is going to affect the funding schools receive for their food program. This means that the quality of food will change and so will the personnel that goes into making the lunch time at school effective (Weill 2011).

 

SNAP is doing a great job to help families make up for the temporary time between unemployment within the family. It is such a great benefit to know that if someone in the household that is a main contributor to the family income lose their job or does not make income to properly provide food for the family SNAP can help the family to fill in that gap.

 

SNAP also protects the economy from the slow period of money when families cannot afford to properly feed their children. SNAP focuses on the poor. More than 90 percent of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line. The greatest benefit is that SNAP has proven to be fast and efficient. This program makes sure that families are given the best benefits as possible. This makes SNAP an efficient powerful tool in fighting poverty. An analysis of this program has proved that SNAP has kept well over 1 million people from going hungry. This program has proved to be beneficial for school aged children (Just, Mancino, & Wansink 2010).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

SNAP is a great tool to reducing extreme poverty. SNAP provides benefits to many households with school aged children to reduce the number of extremely poor families who cannot truthfully afford to feed their children. If these children do not attend school then many of them will miss out on a meal. What is more important is that the economy is not looking to good for families who are living below poverty and are out of work; SNAP has tremendously increased the value of long-term unemployment to become a more tolerable. More than 20 percent of people unemployed for more a period of six months have received SNAP benefits at a higher rate than other adults. SNAP has become one of the few resources available for individuals who no longer have unemployment benefits. This means that over 25 percent of households where unemployment benefits have ended have used SNAP as a way to full the grocery gap in their household (Lee, Johnson, & Brown 2011).

 

The program has helped many households who once received the benefits to start back working again. It is reported that in many states, especially Alabama, more than three times as many SNAP households worked as relied solely on welfare benefits for their income. The program has helped them to focus on other things besides feeding their school aged children that they were able to get back on task (Gaines, Lonis-Shumate, & Gropper 2011).

 

Even though unemployment has become higher, the share of SNAP families with children has remained somewhat the same. SNAP benefits help these low-wage working families feed their children so they do not have to go to school starving. In addition, SNAP offers incentives for families who get back to working faster. SNAP recipient can continue to receive benefits for up to six months after the family starts working again. This allows them to save money and get a firm foundation on their own before being taken completely off. Families that receive SNAP are more likely not to get back on the program than families who do not take the program seriously, but uses it as a crutch (Gaines, Lonis-Shumate, & Gropper (2011).

 

One thing about the SNAP program that many people do not realize is that when disaster hit this program can be extended to victims within a short period of time; usually two to three day maximum. This is very helpful to school children who may not use free or reduced lunch, but their parents provide money for the program through their taxes. There are many examples of SNAP assisting schools and communities. For example, Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 and SNAP was able to provide close to $1 billion in assistance to many in that area. Another example is that SNAP assisted with were the April 27, 2011 tornados that hit in Alabama. This assistance was very critical to many communities especially schools (Gaines, Lonis-Shumate, & Gropper 2011).

 

Another thing that SNAP does is that it allows low-income households to afford a lot more healthier foods and make better nutrition decisions for their family. Healthy foods cost more than generic brand foods. This is because they do not use generic preservatives to keep foods lasting longer; in fact many healthier foods do not use preservatives. It has been found that close to 90 percent of foods purchased with the food assistance programs are fruits and vegetables, grain products, meats, and dairy products that come from reputable companies. SNAP has recently taken the intuitive to provide programs in neighborhoods and schools where a great majority of people use the program to discuss how to make healthier food choices and stretch their dollar amount (Barnhill 2011).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

SNAP has partnered with schools to reduce the number of school children that go hungry everyday. The federal government has recognized that many of its citizens in low-income neighborhoods have school aged children that go to bed hungry and go to school hungry. The precipitants of SNAP are very thankful that they are able to have one less worry for their school children (Freedman 2010).

 

In order for a program to be successful and to have longevity the program must be efficient. SNAP has serious check and balance systems that allow it to have less than a two percent error rating of people who do not qualify for the program. This allows SNAP to reach a heavy percentage of the communities that are rally struggling to provide food for its participants and their children. However, SNAP does have some room for improvement because less than half of eligible seniors and individual working families actually receive SNAP. Even families who receive SNAP benefits do not get enough funds to cover the high rising cost of food products going up (Lin, Yen, Dong, & Smallwood 2010).

 

One reason SNAP has become successful is that the program recognizes that each state is different and have different needs. The federal government allows the states to tailor their program to their needs as long as it stays within federal guidelines. Another reason that SNAP has become successful is that over 80 percent of their recipients walk into their office and fill out the application which allows the people to have a close relationship with the applicant and ask critical questions that would otherwise go unnoticed. This also allows the applicants to participate in the eligibility interview where all of the documents can be processed on site (Reed & Levedahl 2010).

 

SNAP has also set in place the ability for households to receive their funds quicker by issuing them an EBT (electronic benefit transfer) card where the money is uploaded monthly or bi-weekly depending on the state. The great thing about having an EBT card is that there are over 100,00 retailers that are on the authorized list to participate in the program and accept the funds from the government. A great majority of these benefits have been used at supermarkets like Wal-Mart, Publix, Big Lot, or other hometown grocery store places. SNAP recognizes that the program can be abused and individuals may try to support a non-food habit therefore the funds cannot be used to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, or anything of the sort (Bougherara, Grolleau, & Mzoughi, 2010).

 

This is important because the average amount dispersed is about $130 a month. This is important that these regulations are put in place because the families who are living close or are well below the poverty line need to be able to provide food substance for their children and themselves. The formula for benefits is according to the need of the family. SNAP also provides families who do not have any money coming in to receive the full benefit of the monthly allowance which varies by state (Just, Mancino, & Wansink 2010).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

The effect of high rising food costs puts many families in a tough situation; do I eat or do I pay rent. This decision is one that will affect their health and the health of their children. The effect of this is that many people are becoming obese because of the foods they choice to eat. Many of the foods that lead to obesity are cheap and inexpensive. Obesity has a negative effect on the body and the brain causing children to do poorly in school. This is not to say that all obese children will have a hard becoming successful; it has been proven that many students who have a difficult time in school are obese or eat obese type foods (Pati, Mohamad, Cnaan, & Kavanagh, 2010).

 

One of the great benefits of the SNAP program is that the school system replicates this program. Many of the clients of SNAP have children that participate in the free or reduced lunch program. These students need the food to be able to function properly in the classroom. Now that we have a great understanding of the federal program to help low-income families now let us now consider how this program and its policies are replicated in the school system to help students have a good diet and be able to afford to eat at school, even if it is the only time they eat.

 

School Policy on Healthy Food

 

What a lot schools do not realize is that eating healthy helps students stay alert during class and remembers the material. This is so important because half of the food that students get each day come from the school. The school nutrition policy should be closely monitored so that they prove a healthy diet for their students. Each school provides complete meals for its students for breakfast and lunch. It is federal law that meals are healthy, safely served and nutritious. This is why it is very imperative that schools make sure their students have healthy choices (Chutani 2012; Ratcliffe, McKeman, & Zhang 2011).

 

As a part of the school food policy educational institutions must monitor their entire food process besides the cafeteria. They must buy food products for vending machines that will help to students to snack healthy. These are foods that should be complimentary to the overall menu and nutrition program that the educational institution uses to balance the diet. It is important to adopt policies that will give students healthier food. Schools should also be aware of other situations where food will eaten such as fund raisers and marketing opportunities (Lopez-Class & Hosler 2010; Madaus, Pivarnik, Patnoad, Scarpati, Richard, et al. 2010).

 

Accessing Healthier Foods that are More Affordable

 

One of the biggest challenges for schools is to find affordable healthy food for their students to eat. The main reason to eat healthy in school is not only the fact it keeps the students alert, but it helps to fit off many diseases like cancer, colds, and other things that can negatively affect people. This is important because many school aged students do not have access to healthy foods in their neighborhoods. Many of these foods are high in calories and lead to unhealthy results for students later in life. The only time that many of these students will know what it is like to eat healthy is at school. This is the main reason for having healthy choices for these students (Freedman 2010).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Schools are under the jurisdiction of the town that they are zoned in. Many times schools try to mimic what is normal to their student population group. This presents a problem because if that part of town does not have access to healthy foods then trying to mimic that part of town may increase the problem of unhealthy eating and obesity. It is a great thing when that part of the city has access to great nutritional foods that promote longevity of life. The problem lies when we try to balance the two and create a menu of healthy choices for our students. Therefore it is up to the local entities to create zones where access to healthy and safe foods are abounded (Chutani 2012).

 

This is a huge balance problem in thriving countries. The United States, for example, has such a large territory and so many resources that they may overlook the correct choice to properly feed its population. This is very important when it comes to snacks and desert that students are exposed to in school, in the community, and at home. Deserts can have a greater effect on the health of a person more than anything else because they generally have more fats in them. This tends to be prominent to amongst low-economic students who generally are at a higher risk of being depressed and choosing to eat more to fight off their depression. Educational institutions have make sure that policies are in place for healthy snacks that taste great for students and encourages them to want healthier food choices in between meals. These snacks can help to balance the students diet and give them the energy and confidence to become more alert in school which will lead to better grades (Barnhill 2011).

 

One thing that students and the educational institution have to be aware of is that they are responsible for the choices that they make. These choices of healthy snacks lie in their hands and if they do not make the proper choice then it will not balance out the choices that they have already made. Keeping an open mind and being truthfully honest with oneself is what is needed to have a great healthy diet.

 

Having a Variety of Choices

 

Now the question that has to be considered is how people buy food and when presented with healthier choices will they accept these choices. What will determine the choices that people have for healthy foods? Three things go into this choice location, time to access, and methods of transportation. Lopez-Class and & Hosler (2010) noticed that limited access to a venues that have healthy food choices were negatively affected and many of these individuals choose to purchase fatty foods instead of fruits and vegetables. This means that the amount of food from different food groups purchased have an effect on what type of foods are being used in the school community which means that educational institutions need to be wiser in the choices they make. Educational facilities need to extend the choices they give students. First, fruits and vegetables need to be prepared and the fresher the better. Next they have to limit access to fatty foods and provide more suitable alternatives. Last they have to make sure that the bread that they choice for the school is healthy. It has been found that bread is one of the factors that schools do not choice wisely when it comes to this selection.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food

 

Schools have recognize that the vendors they select their food from will have a major affect on the health of their students both short term and long term. Three components need to be considered when choosing a venue for the school. First, does the vendor consider cost a variable in the selection that they provide the school? Second, does using the vendor allow for more discounted costs which will save the school money on food cost? Third does the extension of the program allow for the cost that is going to occur to have this program to run successfully (Bougherara, Grolleau, & Mzoughi, 2010)?

 

On any given week, some food stamp households did not purchase a particular food group. Therefore, a cluster of zero consumption values for a particular food group is observed in the data?making it necessary to estimate a censored regression model. Any statistical procedure that does not account for zero observations produces inconsistent parameter estimates.

 

Another important consequence of limited access to food stores is that consumers may face higher prices for food at the retail outlets that are available. As Chapter 5 noted, higher prices in some stores or areas may be due to lower volume of sales, higher fi xed costs, or other reasons. This section compares prices of three selected goods?milk, ready-to-eat cereal, and bread?which are sold in almost all types of food retail outlets. There is not enough detailed information to compare prices in areas with limited access with those with better access. Instead, price variation is examined across store type?grocery, convenient, discount, and other stores.

 

Many studies have examined price disparities across income class, store format, and accessibility (Andreyeva et al., 2008; Block and Kouba, 2006; Broda et al., 2009; Chung and Myers, 1999; Hayes, 2000; Hendrickson et al., 2006; Latham and Moffat, 2007; Talukdar, 2008). A limitation of these studies is their use of observed prices in a regional setting rather than actual prices paid on a national level. Kaufman et al. (1997) provides a review of literature on food price disparity dating back to the 1960s and identifies the complexities of undertaking such research.

 

Andreyeva et al. (2008) replicated a 1971 study of food availability and price in New Haven, Connecticut. Their fi ndings show improvement in availability and price since 1971. Findings indicate differences across store types?grocery stores were approximately 4 percent cheaper than convenience stores for a basket of goods. The study also found that high income

 

areas faced higher prices than low-income areas. Block and Kuoba (2006) compared prices for a market basket of goods in different types of stores in the Austin and Oak Park sections of Chicago.

 #p#分頁標題#e#

Austin is a lower-middle-class African-American community that borders Oak Park, an upper-middle-income suburb. They find mixed results.

 

Discount supermarkets showed the lowest prices. Independent grocery stores had higher prices for packaged goods than chain supermarkets, but lower prices for fresh items. Broda et. al (2009) analyzed actual consumer purchases and found that poor households pay less for food items they purchase than households with higher incomes?a 10-percent increase in income roughly induces a modest 0.1-percent increase in prices paid per food item. They also found that poor households tend to shop more frequently at discount stores and supercenters. Even after controlling for household characteristics and product fi xed effects, the study found that poorer households pay a lower price even in stores of the same retail chain.

 

Chung and Myers (1999) conducted a survey in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to determine how store type (nonchain/convenience store versus chain/supermarket) and neighborhood quality (measured by percent of households under the poverty level within a zip code) affects price of a food market basket. They conclude that store type is more important in driving price disparities than the geographic location of a household?the premium for shopping at a convenience and/or nonchain store outweighs the premium for shopping in a poor neighborhood. Limitations to their methodology include the way missing price values were treated. When price for a selected item is missing, the least expensive brand/size product (e.g., an in-store brand in its largest package size) was used. When a selected item was not available in the store, the sample mean price was used. Additionally, the use of regional data based on ?sticker prices? (those listed on the shelf) as opposed to actual transaction prices at the national level do not control for promotional purchases (e.g., on-sale and coupon use).

 

Hayes (2000) analyzed prices in New York City to establish if prices in low-income neighborhoods were indeed higher than those in more affluent neighborhoods. The study concludes that the mean price for a market food basket is 2 percent higher in more affluent neighborhoods although the means are not significantly different. Even after controlling for the price of on-sale items and generic branding, the prices in low-income neighborhoods were not significantly different than in more affluent neighborhoods. The author does acknowledge that it is possible that the quality of food items purchased by the poor is below that of the items purchased by the more affluent.

 

Hendrickson et al. (2006) studied prices of selected Thrifty Food Plan foods in four Minnesota communities with higher than average poverty (two rural and two urban). The study examined prices offered in grocery stores in these communities for the TFP foods and compared their prices with those of the TFP Market Basket Price (MBP). If a food was found in the grocery store, the price of the lowest price version of the food (price per pound) was recorded. The study found that in the two urban areas, 6 and 9 out of the 19 foods studied were more expensive than the TFP MBP. In the two rural areas, 2 and 4 of the 19 foods studied were more expensive than the TFP MBP. Over all of these communities, the prices per pound of fresh produce were equal or less expensive than the TFP MBP price. Although this study uses the lowest price per pound product in the store for a selected food, it still only uses the available price instead of the actual paid price. Further, the TFP MBP is a national price average so it is not clear if the prices in the Minnesota communities studied are different from the TFP MBP because prices in the neighborhoods are different or because the State or region has different prices.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Mantovani et al. (1997) examined information on MBP for each store in a national sample of stores authorized to redeem SNAP benefits. Market basket quality was measured in terms of the availability of acceptable items as guided by a USDA publication on buying quality food (1975). This analysis focused on product availability and cost in areas with different concentrations of poverty. In urban areas, market basket costs in supermarkets and large grocers were nearly equivalent across levels of poverty. Prices were less at ?other? stores located in high-poverty areas than those in lower poverty areas. In rural areas, market basket costs were consistently similar in higher and lower poverty areas.

 

Latham and Moffat (2007) study prices of a market basket of goods across store types in low and higher income neighborhoods of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. They fi nd that prices at supermarkets in low income areas were similar to prices at areas that were not low income. Prices were higher, however, at variety stores, which offer fewer groceries but more nonprescription drugs, tobacco products, and other products, operating in low-income areas.

 

Talukdar (2008) investigated prices faced by the poor for both food and nonfood items in Buffalo, New York, and surrounding suburban neighborhoods. The study found that the inner-city neighborhoods experience a weakened competitive market leading to cost-inefficient ?corner stores? which have a 6-7 percent premium over regional or national chain grocery stores. Even after controlling for economies of scale and competitive environments, prices were 2 to 5 percent higher in the poorest neighborhoods.

 

Incentive Programs To Entice New Stores or Improve Existing Stores

 

The discussion at the end of Chapter 6 described broad trends in supermarket and foodstore markets. These trends have had major impacts on where supermarkets of different types locate and the prices that consumers face. The trends also exhibit the market forces that drive food retailers to adjust their store formats, production costs, and location decisions. For example, the rise of nontraditional retailers in food retail (supercenters and large discount stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, or Super Target), which offer foods at prices that are 8 to 27 percent lower than at large supermarket chains, has changed the competitive environment and has likely led to decreases in the average prices of foods for consumers (Leibtag, 2006). These stores

 

are not typically located in urban areas and may not be accessible in all rural areas either. Thus, those outside of the reach of these large stores may be less affected by the price benefits of the stores. On the other hand, several major supermarkets have subsidiaries tailored specifically to cater to low-income and bargain shoppers, for example, Save-A-Lot, ALDI, and Food-4-Less stores. Often these stores locate in low-income neighborhoods or underserved rural areas. They serve as examples of market-driven alternatives--meaning that the retailers sees a gap in a market where they can profi tably operate and adjust their business models to fit the needs of the consumers, in this case, low-income consumers and discount shoppers.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Some traditional grocers have opened stores in more densely populated areas (although not necessarily low-income areas), adapting their store models to fit into smaller spaces. Further, many other nontraditional retailers, such as pharmacies and dollar stores, have expanded into food retail as well (Sharkey and Horel, 2009). Smaller corner stores and convenience stores that already serve areas without access to a supermarket have also expressed interest in offering more nutritious foods in their stores (Gittelsohn, 2009). These stores are sometimes unwilling to take the risk of offering these foods when there is uncertainty about whether they can sell enough of them (Gittelsohn, 2009).

 

Many localities and some States have utilized a number of methods to entice new stores to open in these areas or to improve existing stores. These efforts range from fi nancing for new large-scale supermarkets, to small incentives offered to existing stores to stock healthier foods, such as gift cards at fruit and vegetable wholesalers. This section highlights a few of these efforts. Previously published studies provide very good detail about the potential benefits and the hurdles of different approaches and the strategies that can be used to ensure successful store development (Policy Link, 2007; Food Marketing Institute, 1998). Less has been published about the potential drawbacks of these approaches. Two examples of potential drawbacks that have not been explored are the use of tax revenues to encourage grocery stores when other uses of the revenues could be more beneficial to low-income areas or the degree to which changes in competition faced by existing stores could affect the local market.

 

One program to encourage development of new supermarkets or other grocery stores in underserved areas is the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative. This program provides grants of up to $250,000 or loans of up to $2.5 million per store when the infrastructure costs or credit needed to develop a new store in an underserved market are not available. The initiative is a public-private partnership involving the State of Pennsylvania, The Food Trust, the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, and the Reinvestment Fund (TRF). The State appropriated $30 million and TRF gave $90 million for the program. Thus far, $41.8 million in grants and loans have funded 58 stores and 1.4 million square feet of retail space (Weidman, 2009). Figure 8.1 shows the location of new or planned food stores in Philadelphia funded through this partnership. A study to evaluate the impact of the opening of a large supermarket in one underserved area in Pennsylvania is underway. Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, and New York are also currently considering similar funding programs.

 

A number of Federal fi nancing and incentive programs have been used to encourage new store development. These programs exist primarily to spur community development (not just supermarket development) in areas that lack mainstream investment (Federal Reserve System and Brookings Institution, 2008). The services provided through these programs include grants and low-interest fi nancing, tax incentives, and training or technical assistance in community development. The programs have varying goals, including improving labor market opportunities and housing options and spurring development in low-income areas. Often, they include financing or cooperation with State and local governments. Examples of these programs include New Market Tax Credits, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the Empowerment Zone Program, the Environmental Protection Agency?s Brownfield program, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development?s Section 108 Loan program.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

For examples of how these programs have been leveraged to improve food availability in communities, see Policy Link (2007).45 Improvements to already existing stores have also been used to address food accessibility in underserved areas. Modifications to such existing stores include increasing the availability of nutritious food, decreasing the availability of less healthy food, changing the relative prices of both of these types of foods, or changing the physical layout of foods within stores (Gittelsohn, 2009). These improvements are at a smaller scale than new store development, and, thus, can be less time consuming and much less expensive. Store improvements such as these have been applied in a number of settings (e.g., Baltimore Healthy Stores, Apache Healthy Stores, tiendas in North Carolina and California).

 

New York City has recently implemented a program to improve food offerings within small stores or bodegas throughout the city, which are Marketing Institute, 1998). Less has been published about the potential drawbacks of these approaches. Two examples of potential drawbacks that have not been explored are the use of tax revenues to encourage grocery stores when other uses of the revenues could be more beneficial to low-income areas or the degree to which changes in competition faced by existing stores could affect the local market.

 

One program to encourage development of new supermarkets or other grocery stores in underserved areas is the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative. This program provides grants of up to $250,000 or loans of up to $2.5 million per store when the infrastructure costs or credit needed to develop a new store in an underserved market are not available. The initiative is a public-private partnership involving the State of Pennsylvania, The Food Trust, the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, and the Reinvestment Fund (TRF). The State appropriated $30 million and TRF gave $90 million for the program. Thus far, $41.8 million in grants and loans have funded 58 stores and 1.4 million square feet of retail space (Weidman, 2009). Figure 8.1 shows the location of new or planned foodstores in Philadelphia funded through this partnership. A study to evaluate the impact of the opening of a large supermarket in one underserved area in Pennsylvania is underway. Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, and New York are also currently considering similar funding programs.

 

A number of Federal fi nancing and incentive programs have been used to encourage new store development. These programs exist primarily to spur community development (not just supermarket development) in areas that lack mainstream investment (Federal Reserve System and Brookings Institution, 2008). The services provided through these programs include grants and low-interest financing, tax incentives, and training or technical assistance in community development. The programs have varying goals, including improving labor market opportunities and housing options and spurring development in low-income areas. Often, they include financing or cooperation with State and local governments. Examples of these programs include New Market Tax Credits, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the Empowerment Zone Program, the Environmental Protection Agency?s Brownfi eld program, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development?s Section 108 Loan program. For examples of how these programs have been leveraged to improve food availability in communities, see Policy Link (2007).45#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Improvements to already existing stores have also been used to address food accessibility in underserved areas. Modifications to such existing stores include increasing the availability of nutritious food, decreasing the availability of less healthy food, changing the relative prices of both of these types of foods, or changing the physical layout of foods within stores (Gittelsohn, 2009). These improvements are at a smaller scale than new store development, and, thus, can be less time consuming and much less expensive. Store improvements such as these have been applied in a number of settings (e.g., Baltimore Healthy Stores, Apache Healthy Stores, tiendas in North Carolina and California).

 

New York City has recently implemented a program to improve food offerings within small stores or bodegas throughout the city, which are 45This chapter also discusses the CDBG program in considering housing policy options. Often much more plentiful and convenient in underserved communities than large grocery stores or supermarkets. The Healthy Bodega Initiative recruited bodegas to increase their offerings of low-fat milk and, eventually, fruits and vegetables. The city also provided promotional and educational materials to entice consumers to purchase the new offerings and to encourage bodegas to participate. About 1,000 bodegas were recruited for the low-fat milk campaign, and 450 bodegas were recruited for the fruit and vegetable campaign. Participating bodegas experienced increases in sales of low-fat

 

milk and of fruits and vegetables (Nonas, 2009).

 

The changes in the WIC food packages currently being implemented in States may have an impact on the feasibility of increasing nutritious food options in small grocery stores and corner stores. The new food packages include greater incentives to purchase low-fat milk and whole grains, and vouchers for purchasing fruits and vegetables. Each State is required to adopt the new food packages by October 2009. The new food packages may provide increased and steady demand for these foods in stores in neighborhoods with high concentrations of WIC participants and may encourage operators of small stores to offer healthier food options. A pilot

 

program implemented in New York State showed that the vegetable and fruit vouchers were popular among stores that accepted the WIC vouchers (New York State Department of Health, 2007).

 

During the 1990s, USDA?s Food and Nutrition Service pursued a research agenda to address questions about food access among SNAP participants and other low-income households (see Chapter 5). The agency concurrently implemented three projects to identify strategies for improving access in underserved areas. Activities included a conference with experts who shared their ideas for increasing food access among low-income Americans (Koralek, 1996), along with two studies. The studies examined successful supermarkets in low-income, inner-city communities (O?Connor and Abell, 1992) and identifi ed widely used means to improve consumer food access in underserved neighborhoods (CRP, 1998).#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Two key themes emerged from the conference and were reinforced by the two descriptive studies: Proximity to a supermarket is generally regarded as critical to ensuring access to a variety of reasonably priced foods. There are desirable alternatives to traditional supermarkets as a means of ensuring food access.

 

The conference focused on bringing supermarkets to low-income communities through careful, cooperative planning and troubleshooting that starts with sound market research (Koralek, 1996). Adequate funding was identified as a key issue, and several private and public sources of support were discussed. These sources ranged from commercial banks with community development subsidiaries to grant and loan programs sponsored by Federal agencies. Participants in the conference, as well as findings from an FNS study (O?Connor & Abell, 1992), emphasized the importance of community buy-in for supermarket development. Introduction of a

 

supermarket not only provides new products and services but also creates jobs and helps to keep money in the community. These points can be used to obtain support from a mayor or city council when it comes to handling zoning, tax, and other issues. Buy-in from consumers will affect the ultimate success of the business, so matters of location, preferred store type, and other

 

consumer interests should be addressed up front.

 

Desirable alternatives to traditional supermarkets include food cooperatives, urban agriculture, farmers? markets, public markets, smaller independent stores, and transportation hubs. Each has its own challenges but can contribute to a community?s capacity to provide its own food.