Abstract
The market-matching program offers Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients a monetary incentive when they purchase fruits and vegetables at participating farmers’ markets. The 2014 Farm Bill contains additional funding for the program and presents an opportunity for the program to be sustained and grow with a guaranteed funding amount for at least the proposed term of the funding, four years. Currently, non-profit organizations have been administering the program in local communities, using funds from private organizations and a small amount of state and local funding, which has not always been sustainable. With the substantial amount of federal funding coming to the program, one may expect the public sector to take greater control of the program – perhaps even taking over the administration of the program. However, it is unknown if would be more sustainable for non-profit organizations to continue administering the program or if would be more sustainable for the public sector to administer the program. As such, this study seeks to answer the following research question: would the program be more sustainable if it was run by the public sector rather than the non-profit sector? In this thesis, I analyzed two alternatives for the program: non-profit run or federally run. I analyzed each of these alternatives for their sustainability, focusing on financial self-reliance, political environment, and organizational flexibility. Through a review of the literature and interviews with two researchers, four non-profit directors, two advocates, two researchers, and one policymaker, I found that the non-profit sector would be the more sustainable operator of the program. Keeping the program with the non-profit sector allows the program to reach a local audience and provide the service with more efficiency. However, this program should be reevaluated in four years when the funding is up for renewal to determine if the non-profit sector is still the most sustainable place for the program.