The document discusses SNAP programs and farmers' markets in Monroe County, Indiana. Monroe County has high poverty and obesity rates. The Market Bucks program allows SNAP beneficiaries to use their benefits at local farmers' markets, increasing access to healthy foods. Over 10,000 residents use SNAP benefits and 76% of vendors saw increased sales due to Market Bucks. However, the program only operates at one farmers' market and does not provide nutrition education. Increased access to healthy foods alone may not impact diet choices for those with low incomes.

1. SNAP PROGRAMS AND FARMERS’ MARKETS IN MONROE
COUNTY Issue Brief
SNAP
Programs
and
Farmers’
Markets in
Monroe
County
An
SNAP, Farmers’ Markets, and
Their Effect on Health
IN THIS ISSUE BRIEF:
An Issue Brief by Claire Tousley
 Monroe County is a county located in southern Indiana
and is home to Indiana University.
 Average income for Monroe County is $40,052, which
is less than the state average.
 It has the highest poverty rate in the state at 24%,
which towers over the state’s 14.8% average.
 Residents rated cost of healthcare as a major barrier to
health.
The Social Problem:
Low Income
Health Dimension
of Low Income
 Low income areas tend to “have poorer health
outcomes in general”.
 Low income residents “may be limited to shopping at
small neighborhood convenience and corner stores,
where fresh produce and low-fat items are limited”.
 Those with less access to grocery stores have poorer
diets and higher rates of obesity.
 23% of Monroe County residents are obese.
Fundamental Social Causes:
Low Income
(Story, Kaphingst, Robinson-O'brien, Glanz, 2008)
Health Behaviors:
 Buying cheap and unhealthy foods
 Not going to see doctor
 Not exercising
 Unhealthy coping (stress eating,
not eating)
Health Outcomes:
 Obesity
 Heart Disease
 Stress
 Increased rates of chronic
disease
The Relationship Between Low Income and Health
 An overview of hoe low income has on the
health of Monroe County
 An overview of the Market Bucks and
SNAP-Farmers’ Market Programs
 A critique of the Market Bucks Program
 Take-away messages

2. SNAP PROGRAMS AND FARMERS’ MARKETS IN MONROE COUNTY
|
2
The Program:
Market Bucks SNAP Farmers’
Market Program
The use of SNAP benefits at
nationwide farmers’ markets has
topped $11.7 million in just one year.
For every $5 spent in SNAP programs,
$9 goes back in to local businesses.
Local businesses accepting SNAP
ensures residents shop local, keeping
around $1,120 they would spend
elsewhere in the local economy.
It’s also estimated that a nationwide
increase in SNAP acceptance by
just 5% would generate $2.5 billion
in economic activity.
The farmers’ market in
Bloomington, IN allows shoppers to
use their SNAP (food stamps) card
to purchase goods there that they
otherwise may not have access to
under the Market Bucks program.
Over 10,000 residents of Monroe
County utilize SNAP benefits.
76% of vendors had an increase in
sales due to Market Bucks and 68%
of patrons wouldn’t have attended
without it. Market Bucks allows
vendors to strengthen relationships
with customers and decrease food
insecurity for the impoverished
in the city.
Policy Intervention:
Accepting SNAP Benefits
Increased Access to Healthier Foods
Health Behavior
Change:
Buying inexpensive
healthy foods
Decrease in Poor Health Risk Factors
Health Consequences:
Decreased rates of
obesity, heart disease,
high blood pressure, etc
A Critique of the Market Bucks
Program
The Bloomington Farmers’
Market is the only one in Monroe
County to accept SNAP benefits,
allowing only a small population
access to local produce.
Studies have suggested that
increased access to grocery stores
have no effect on the diet of those
with low income. Is it the same
for increased access to farmers’
markets?
Market Bucks does not focus on
nutrition education. If people do not
know how to eat well, they
may not buy as much healthy food.
Take-Away Messages
 Monroe County, IN has the
highest poverty rate in the state
 Those living in impoverished
areas may make poor food
choices, negatively affecting
health
 The Market Bucks program
at the Bloomington, IN farmers’
market has had drastic
increases in produce sales
 Increasing access to healthy
foods via SNAP program
may not affect diet choices

3. SNAP PROGRAMS AND FARMERS’ MARKETS IN MONROE COUNTY
|
3
References
+
Bell, J., Mora, G., Rubin, V., & Karpyn, A. (2013). PolicyLink (Publication). Retrieved
https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/GROCERYGAP_FINAL_NOV2013.pdf
Boone-Heinonen, J., Gordon-Larsen, P., Kiefe, C. I., Shikany, J. M., Lewis, C. E., & Popkin, B. M. (2011).
Fast Food Restaurants and Food Stores. Arch Intern Med Archives of Internal Medicine,
171(13), 1162. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.283
Gilligan, H. T. (2014, February 10). Getting Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Into Poor Neighborhoods Doesn’t
Make Poor People Healthier. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2014/02/
food_deserts_and_fresh_food_access_aren_t_the_problem_poverty_not_obesity.html
Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital Community Health Needs Assessment (Tech.). (2015). Retrieved
from Indiana University Health Bloomington website: http://iuhealth.org/images/blo-doc-upl/
Bloomington_CHNA_Final.12.4.15_.pdf
Information For Indiana. InDepth Profile: STATS Indiana. Retrieved from https://www.stats.indiana.edu/profiles/
profiles.asp?scope_choice=a
Larson, N. I., Story, M. T., & Nelson, M. C. (2009). Neighborhood Environments Disparities in Access to Healthy
Foods in the U.S. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 36(1), 74-81.
Retrieved from http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00838-6/abstract
SNAP Authorized Farmers Markets as of 02/07/16 [XCL]. (n.d.). Washington, D.C.: US Department of Agriculture.
Starr, K., & Indiana Daily Student. (2014, April 17). Farmer's market continues SNAP program. Retrieved April 19, 2016, f
continues-snap-program
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-O'brien, R., & Glanz, K. (2008). Creating Healthy Food and Eating
Environments: Policy and Environmental Approaches. Annu. Rev. Public. Health. Annual Review of
Public Health, 29(1), 253-272. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090926