More than half of CSA managers surveyed said that it is because affluent people are more able to afford produce. This result can be taken as an explicit recognition that the fundamental issue has to do with cost relative to income. Farmers’ market managers had somewhat different responses to the question about the reasons for the participation of low-income people, in part because we posed the question differently. Since it is not necessarily the case that primarily affluent people seem to participate in farmers’ markets, we asked, “If people of a particular income category make up the largest percentage of your market customers, why do you think that is the case?” By far the largest percentage of managers highlighted the demographics of the surrounding community as the key factor in shaping market participation . Given that most neighborhoods in the United States are segregated by income, this is essentially saying that ability to afford farmers’ market produce is a determining factor in participation. Not all respondents saw lack of low-income participation as a cost issue. Indeed, some denied that cost was a factor. One form this took was the perspective that “if people only knew” more about food, they would certainly seek organic, healthy, and local food regardless of cost. For example, one CSA manager wrote that increased diversity in these institutions “can only happen when people understand the true costs, not the costs they pay for the food they eat.” Likewise, in a study of California AFI leaders several made the claim that if people knew more about food,30 litre pots they would be willing to pay its “true price,” thus enabling small-scale farmers to be more economically viable .
These ideas also surfaced in our study when several CSA managers seemed to reject the idea that income could be a limiting factor in CSA participation. One CSA manager wrote, “Targeting those in our communities that are ethnic or low income would show a prejudice we don’t work within. We do outreach programs to reach everyone interested in eating locally, healthily, and organically,” implying that CSA participation is a choice for those with certain values, regardless of income. Another CSA manager wrote, “I believe that the food is affordable to all; it’s just a matter of different values and priorities.”Regardless of intentions, however, it turns out that the primary factors in the ability to address the needs of low-income consumers are less related to will than to structural factors. These include the scale of the enterprise, whether the enterprise is not-for-profit, and the extent to which it can work with public food assistance programs. Scale For farmers’ markets there were significant correlations between the number of years markets had been operating, money spent daily at market, the number of farmers, and the number of strategies employed to increase access for low-income people . This is likely because larger, more established markets with more revenue have the cushion to experiment with such ventures. We also found significant positive correlations between operational scale and strategies employed for CSAs. There were positive correlations between the number of discount strategies used and the number of years CSAs had been operating, as well as between the number of food recovery strategies used and gross CSA income. In addition, CSA managers who indicated that they believe improving access is important reported an average gross income of $113,706, while those who do not consider it important reported an average gross income of $24,321, suggesting that larger operations may place higher priority than smaller ones on serving low-income customers, if only because it is more possible for them to do s.
We also found significant differences in the use of strategies to address low-income access and affordability among the different types of institutions that run farmers’ markets.* Non-profit farmers’ markets and those run by government institutions used more strategies to reach low-income consumers than did chambers of commerce or private businesses .Since non-profit organizations have access to tax-exempt donations from private donors, foundation grants, and public funding, they can subsidize some of their costs. In addition, as organizations with charitable and educational purposes, non-profits are guided by missions that must have broad public benefit. For example, Harbor Area Farmers’ Markets, an association of five markets sponsored largely by the South Coast Interfaith Council, states that they exist to “encourage cross-section interaction of the population, support low-income and oppressed populations, and offer a venue particularly focused on maintaining small family farms” . The fact that markets run by non-profits employ more food security practices than other types of organizations is significant. As we have seen thus far, farmers’ markets seem to have better rates of participation among low-income people than do CSAs, and some of this can be attributed to the use of federal entitlements in such markets. Indeed, we saw a significant correlation between the use of at least one of several entitlement strategies and the percentage of low-income customers in farmers’ markets. Two federal food programs designed to assist low-income consumers can be used at farmers’ markets: food stamps and the farmers’ market nutrition program . The federal food stamp program is the most substantial food-related entitlement program in the U.S., and food stamps can be used at farmers’ markets. The FMNP program, initiated in 1992, was designed explicitly as a dual purpose program intended both to provide fresh produce to WIC participants and to “expand awareness and use of farmers’ markets” and “increase sales at such markets” . WIC participants and seniors whose household income is up to 185 percent of poverty level are eligible for FMNP vouchers. In 2004, over 2.5 million WIC recipients received such benefits nationally .
Because they are provided in paper form, they are relatively easy for farmers and farmers’ market managers to process. Unlike food stamps, moreover, these FMNP coupons can only be used at farmers’ markets. The FMNP, which is relatively simple and profitable for farmers’ markets to use, is not available to CSAs at all. In addition, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service does not allow some CSAs to process food stamps. CSAs that require an entire season’s payment in advance and do not guarantee a certain amount of produce in return are considered too speculative for food stamp purchases. Many other CSAs may be eligible to accept food stamps, but may not be aware that they can be authorized to accept food stamp benefits. Nor is it clear that consumers have tried to use food stamps at CSAs in California. One manager of a very well known CSA told us that the only people who have asked if they take food stamps are other researchers like ourselves. At the very least,40l plant pot this does suggest that means to address food security through these institutions have not fully been explored. The situation, then, is that low income people need access to fresh, healthy food, and farmers’ market and CSA managers would like to provide them with access to this food. What stands in the way of this convergence are the limitations of public programs designed to meet this need. For example, food stamp redemptions at farmers’ markets have declined during the last 10 years, having dropped precipitously from $6.4 million to $3.8 between 1994 and 1998 . This decline owes much to the transition from the use of paper food stamps to electronic benefit transfer cards. Paper food stamps were replaced with ATM-like EBT cards between 1996 and 2002 in order to reduce both fraud and the administrative costs of processing paper coupons. This transition has made it much more difficult for many farmers’ markets to accept food stamps, since EBT systems require both phone lines and electricity, neither of which is available at many outdoor farmers’ market sites. One of the farmers’ market managers in our study noted that “the new EBT program didn’t consider farmers’ markets when it was put together. Additional costs are involved and markets are dropping the program.” According to Penny Leff, the coordinator for the California Farmers’ Market EBT Implementation and Promotion Project, nearly 50 percent of California farmers’ markets—at least 150 markets—previously accepted paper food stamps, but now only about 65 markets in the state accept EBT.
To remedy this situation, some farmers’ markets are setting up central point-of-sale devices and issuing farmers’ market scrip or tokens. These systems allow EBT participants to use their benefits to buy farmers’ market currency at a central location, which they can then use to buy approved foods from farmers. However, this is not typical. According to Leff, “usually only farmers’ markets that have a lot of low income customers or social consciousness where it’s part of their mission” will make the effort to accept EBT. Institutional scale matters too. Those markets with more vendors, for example, may have an easier time collecting sufficient fees to pay for POS machines. According to Patty Blomberg, coordinator for FMNP in California, approximately 52 percent of FMNP coupons issued in California were redeemed in 2004. Yet, they are limited in both season and amount. Their dollar value is only $10 to $20 per year, and they are issued by local WIC offices only from May to November. While FMNP vouchers may serve to introduce low-income families and seniors to farmers’ markets, they do not constitute a substantial or consistent source of subsidy. And, if markets do not or cannot accept EBT benefits, introducing low-income customers to farmers’ markets through the FMNP is unlikely to result in sustained participation.The use of discount and entitlement strategies by AFI managers points to recognition that serving low-income consumers through farmers’ markets and CSAs requires redistribution. This leads us, then, to the question of who should pay the difference between the cost of produce and a person’s ability to pay. We posed this as an open-ended question to farmers’ market and CSA managers and coded the responses. Similar percentages of farmers’ market and CSA managers pointed to the government and entitlement programs as appropriate sources of subsidy . CSA managers were much more likely to mention an internal source in addition—their members. Twenty-two percent of CSA managers mentioned that higher-income customers should subsidize share costs for lower-income participants, while only one farmers’ market manager mentioned that higher-income market customers should subsidize lower-income market customers.It seems self-evident that the greatest barrier to the participation of low-income people in farmers’ markets and CSAs is that they have low incomes. This obvious, yet somehow politically obscured, point was reinforced by farmers’ market and CSA managers. Thus, closing the gap between cost and price was the solution favored by survey respondents. At the same time, respondents were clear that providing access to low-income consumers should not and cannot be at the expense of small-scale growers. While many CSA and farmers’ market managers expressed conceptual support for the role of AFIs in increasing food security, they expressed at least equivalent concern with farmer income. As one CSA manager said, “although I want low income families to participate, our costs and labor are also high, keeping us on the balancing edge of low-income ourselves!”Another CSA manager emphasized that “we are by far the lowest income people in our CSA.” Farmers also reported that farming itself is a big enough job, without farmers also trying to provide special programs. As stated by one CSA manager, “Until we can run our farm and pay bills it is very challenging to put the extra effort required for these programs, although we wish we could.” According to another manager, “A program like the WIC FMNP would be great. Small family farmers need to get a good price for their produce. We are not in the position to pick up the difference. If we can make enough money, we also need and want to pay our field workers a good wage.” Since the role of the CSA manager is to ensure the viability of the CSA business, it makes sense that they are reluctant to try new programs that could put the CSA at economic risk. Even farmers’ market managers, who have to balance the needs of both producers and consumers, tended to prioritize the needs of farmers.