Online Grocery Shopping and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Electronic Benefit Transfer Card (EBT): Perceptions of Head Start Caregivers

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to explore perceptions of online grocery shopping and the online United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Electronic Benefit Transfer card (EBT) program among Head Start caregivers. Three focus groups were conducted between December 2019 and January 2020. Most participants hadn’t tried online grocery shopping. Concerns included others choosing perishables, receiving wrong items, and inappropriate substitutes. Perceived benefits included saving time, preventing impulse buys, and eating healthier. Results have broad applicability in the current COVID-19 pandemic where online grocery shopping and the online SNAP EBT program have rapidly expanded across the United States.

KEYWORDS:

• Head start caregivers
• online grocery shopping
• online SNAP EBT

Introduction

Online grocery shopping among the United States (U.S.) consumers markedly increased in popularity at the beginning of twenty-first century and is attributed to multiple factors such as saving time and not requiring transportation (Research Department 2020). There is also potential for nutritional benefits when shopping for groceries online, for example, decreasing impulse purchases of unhealthy foods (Pitts et al. 2018; Zatz et al. 2021). In response to this growing consumer trend, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) launched a two-year pilot of the online Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program in April 2019, which was authorized in the 2014 U.S. Farm Bill (USDA 2019). Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue (term: 2017–2021) stated: “People who receive SNAP benefits should have the opportunity to shop for food the same way more and more Americans shop for food – by ordering and paying for groceries online. As technology advances, it is important for SNAP to advance too, so we can ensure the same shopping options are available for both non-SNAP and SNAP recipients.”

The original plan for the USDA pilot was to expand to other areas of New York (where it was being tested at the time), as well as Alabama, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. Participating retailers were limited and included Amazon, Walmart, and ShopRite (USDA 2019). When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the U.S. in early 2020, the need and demand for online grocery shopping increased dramatically due to new quarantine and social distancing practices to reduce disease transmission (Jasper, Skevas, and Segovia 2020; Rigby 2020). USDA responded by authorizing a rapid rollout of the online SNAP EBT program (USDA 2020a). Today, the program is active in 47 states, and the number of participating retailers has substantially increased.

As the online SNAP EBT program continues to grow, it will be imperative to understand perceptions of the program from potential participants (i.e., qualifying individuals and families from low-income households) in order to optimize its usage and impact (Rogus et al. 2020). From a behavioral theoretical perspective – specifically Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura 1986) – it will be important to know the personal (facilitators/benefits) and environmental (barriers) factors to participate in the program. This will be especially important information for those of the U.S. population who have experienced the greatest hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic – for example, income restricted caregivers with young children, such as families enrolled in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Head Start program (a school-readiness program for families with preschool-aged children facing low-income) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services n.d.), and those faced with job loss and unreliable childcare (Gassman-Pines, Oltmans Ananat, and Fitz-Henley 2020; Niles et al. 2020). The objective of this qualitative study was to fill this gap in knowledge by exploring perceptions of online grocery shopping and the online SNAP EBT program among Head Start caregivers.

Materials and methods

Participants and recruitment

Study participants were a convenience sample of caregivers of children enrolled in Head Start on the South Side of Columbus who were participating in a site-based family meals program. The Southside neighborhood is an area of urban Columbus where documented rates of poverty, drug abuse, and crime are relatively high.¹¹ There were three Head Starts located in Southside Columbus with 89 families enrolled across the three sites. Participants were presumably SNAP-eligible based on the income eligibility criteria for Head Start locations where approximately 90% of families’ household income are at 100% of the Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG) and 130% of the FPG for SNAP.¹² Recruitment occurred via fliers and announcements at programming.

Study procedures

Three separate focus groups (n = 19 participants) were conducted between December 2019 and January 2020. At the time of the focus groups, study procedures were explained to each caregiver, and written consent was obtained. A brief questionnaire of demographics, grocery shopping habits, food assistance participation, and internet access information was administered. The focus groups were held at a Head Start location in the morning after caregivers dropped off their child(ren). Each focus group discussion lasted an average of 60 min and had the same primary moderator and notetaker. The first part of the focus group was dedicated to learning about family mealtime routines (data not reported here), the second part focused on online grocery shopping and SNAP EBT. Interview questions were rooted in the theoretical framework of the study, SCT, whereby personal (facilitators/benefits) and environmental (barriers) factors are in constant reciprocal relationship with behavior (online grocery shopping) (Bandura 1986). Questions were reviewed by researchers (n = 3) and are presented in table 1 (online grocery shopping and SNAP EBT questions only). Conversations were audio-recorded. Participants received a $40 gift card. The moderator and notetaker were formally trained in conducting focus groups by a researcher on the team with qualitative data collection expertise. All study procedures were approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board.

Table 1. Caregiver focus group interview questions.

How do you typically shop for food? Has anyone shopped for food online? What was your experience with it? What are your thoughts about shopping for food online? What are the benefits to buying food online? Are there an negatives or disadvantages? What if the online stores accepted EBT cards for food? Would you be willing to buy your food online with your EBT card?

Data analysis

Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic (i.e., template) analysis. Guided by prior research and theory (SCT), a tentative codebook was initially drafted by researchers (n = 2) with operational definitions of codes and example quotations based on questions asked during the focus group. Coders (n = 3) reviewed the transcripts to familiarize themselves with the data set before independently coding one transcript, which occurred in Microsoft Word using the comments feature. The coders then collectively examined the coded transcript, discussed coding procedures, and made minor changes to the codebook. The coders then independently coded the remaining transcripts, convened to reconcile discrepancies in codes, and added emergent codes to the codebook. When new codes emerged, previously coded transcripts were revisited to assure all content was uniformly coded. One coder independently reviewed and clustered all codes into meaningful groups. This led to the generation of key themes and subthemes. All coders reviewed identified key themes and subthemes and discussed collectively until reaching a consensus. Template analysis was used to summarize and interpret key themes and subthemes, and the number of supporting comments counted and representative quotes selected. All researchers involved in the qualitative data analysis had prior training and experience in conducting template analyses.

For annual household income, data were collected categorically. Response options were <$25,000; $25,000–44999; $45,000–64,999; $65,000–84,999; >$85,000; and prefer not to answer. Participants were assigned an income level based on the midpoint of the selected income range. The annual household income level was compared with the 2020 FPG (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2020) and based on the reported number of individuals living in the household participants were classified into income categories according to the FPG – <100% FPG; <130% FPG; <185% FPG; and >185% FPG – and coded according. Those with an income level of: <100% FPG are eligible for the Head Start program; <130% FPG are eligible for SNAP; and <185% are eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Summary statistics (frequencies and percentages) were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2019. Two of the 19 participants did not complete the demographics survey.

Results

Demographic characteristics of participants are presented in table 2. All participants were female, 71% were Black, 35% between the ages of 19 and 29. Sixty-seven percent of households were at or below 130% FPG (i.e., SNAP-eligible) and 18% received the SNAP benefit.

Table 2. Participant characteristics (n = 19).

Demographic		n (%)
Race^a	White	4 (23)
	Black	12 (71)
	Alaska Native/American Indian	1 (6)
Ethnicity^a	Latinx	0 (0)
	Not Latinx	17 (100)
Sex^a	Male	0 (0)
	Female	17 (100)
Age^a	<18	0 (0)
	19–29	6 (35)
	30–39	2 (11)
	40–49	3 (18)
	50–59	3 (18)
	60–69	3 (18)
	>70	0 (0)
Number of Children in the Home^a	1	9 (53)
	2	3 (17)
	3	2 (12)
	4	2 (12)
	5	0 (0)
	6	1 (6)
Married^a	Yes	7 (41)
	No	10 (59)
Income according to Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG)^a,b	<100%	7 (47)
	<130%	3 (20)
	<185%	2 (13)
	>185%	3 (20)
	Preferred not to answer	2 (13)
Demographic		n (%)
Level of Education^a	Did not complete HS	1 (6)
	HS diploma or GED	7 (41)
	Some college/tech school	8 (47)
	College or advanced degree	1 (6)
Student Status^a	Yes	5 (29)
	No	12 (71)
Employment^a	Homemaker	4 (23)
	Not employed	3 (18)
	Employed part time	3 (18)
	Employed full time	6 (35)
	Retired	1 (6)
Grocery Shopping and Food Assistance
Food Sources^c	Grocery store	19 (100)
	Food bank/Food pantry	4 (21)
	A group or community meal site	2 (11)
	From a friend or family member	3 (16)
Food Payment^c	Cash	13 (68)
	EBT card	7 (37)
	Credit/debit card	9 (47)
	WIC vouchers	6 (32)
Participation in WIC^a	Use WIC	8 (47)
	Do not use WIC	9 (53)
Participation in SNAP^a	Receive SNAP	3 (18)
	Do not receive SNAP	14 (82)
Receive Free or Reduced Lunch^a	Receive free/reduced lunch	3 (18)
	Do not receive free/reduced lunch	14 (82)
Demographic		n (%)
Internet Access
Computer with Internet Access in the Home	Yes	16 (84)
	No	3 (16)
Phone or Tablet with Internet Access in the Home	Yes	19 (100)
	No	0 (0)

HS = High School.

GED = Test of General Educational Development.

EBT = Electronic Benefit Transfer.

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

^an = 17.

^bAnnual household income data were collected categorically. Response options were: <$25,000; $25,000–44999; $45,000–64,999; $65,000–84,999; >$85,000; prefer not to answer). Participants were then assigned an income-level based on the midpoint of the selected income range. This annual household income level was compared with the 2020 Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG) and based on the reported number of individuals living in the household participants were classified into income categories according to the FPG: <100% (0–100) (eligible for Head Start); <130% (101–130) (SNAP-eligible); <185% (131–185) (WIC-eligible); >185% (186 and above) and coded according.

^cParticipants could select more than one option.

Three main themes were identified from the focus group discussions: shopping for food, perceived barriers and benefits of online grocery shopping, and using SNAP EBT when ordering groceries online. Subthemes were identified under the shopping for food theme. Presented here are the identified themes, subthemes, summaries, and representative quotes with key identifiers:

Theme 1: shopping for food

Subtheme 1: Preferences. Many caregivers reported not liking grocery shopping due to lack of comfort/anxiety, being time and energy intensive, and uncertainty about what to buy.

“I don’t like grocery shopping … I think because to me, you need to plan out your meals and what you’re gonna get at the store. And that takes time and then you gotta go to the store. And then don’t forget, you gotta take the kids with you. And then, you gotta unpack. And by that time, I’m tired.” Sixty-nine-year-old Black female

“I just try to go when there’s not a crowd and I can take my time and make sure I get what I plan to get. I try to get away from getting stuff that I didn’t plan to get. And that’s hard to do. But I try to make my menus. Like if I get my spaghetti, I always make my sauce separate so I can use the sauce for something else too.” Sixty-seven-year-old Black female

The remaining caregivers reported that they liked or felt comfortable grocery shopping:

“I’m very comfortable.” Forty-six-year-old Black female

Subtheme 2: Caregiver Strategies. All caregivers who provided a response under this subtheme reported using one or a combination of the following strategies to ease grocery shopping: purchasing foods in bulk and freezing, shopping when it’s less crowded, reducing cost by couponing, and shopping at big box stores (e.g., Costco, Sam’s Club).

“I find that anything you can see frozen in the store, you can freeze buy it and freeze it at home … buying in bulk … it’s easier to do that, you know, when you buy a whole lot of them when it’s on sale like that.” Sixty-seven-year-old Black female

“I mean, we both look at the ads and see the meats and what’s on sale. We have a deep freeze that we put downstairs so we watch the sales on different things like that.” Demographic data not available.

Subtheme 3: Purchases. Most caregivers stated they regularly make repeat purchases of items. The remaining caregivers stated they sometimes make repeat purchases.

“I very seldom try anything new. And we need to do that.” Thirty-two-year-old White female

Subtheme 4: Source. All caregivers who provided a response under this subtheme reported obtaining food at one or a combination of the following: big box stores, small local markets, charitable food groups, and neighbors’ personal gardens.

“… the farmer’s market too on Parsons. And through the Health Department. You can go, like, if you get WIC, you know what I mean? I think you can use like food stamps, vouchers, and stuff like that.” Thirty-two-year-old White female

“The day care has a lot of, like, produce giveaways.” Twenty-six-year-old Black female

Theme 2: online grocery shopping

Perceived Barriers and Benefits. Most caregivers reported that they had not tried grocery shopping online before. Reported hesitations included receiving the wrong item, not being able to interact with people. Other caregivers reported that they either liked online grocery shopping or that they were interested in trying it in the future; perceived benefits included saving time, preventing impulse buys, and eating healthier.

“The main thing, too, like, it does steer you from buying stuff you got no business buying in the grocery store, for one. And like I said, if I have a super busy day at work, I gotta take somebody to piano, pick up from basketball, by the time I get home, the groceries will be there 15 minutes later. And I don’t have to worry about it.” Thirty-eight-year-old White female

“Yeah. That’s about it. Saving time. And then you have the aspect that you can’t go in and get more than what’s on your list. So, you save money ….” Twenty-seven-year-old White female

“I wanna eat healthy! But if I go to the grocery store and I do my shopping after a long day of work, maybe just having something quick for lunch. When I get in that grocery store, I might see a bag of chips while I’m checking out or a Snickers bar and almond too. I might go ahead and grab that almond bar! Like I’m grabbing that! It’s not a question – I’m going to grab that. Whereas, if I ordered online and it’s meeting me at the house, I don’t have to order that without me seeing the almond bar.” Thirty-eight-year-old White female

Theme 3: using snap ebt when ordering groceries online

Almost all caregivers were in favor of online EBT use stating it will improve food accessibility. The few remaining caregivers were indifferent or not in favor.

“They say about putting more stores in poverty-stricken areas and letting people get, you know, access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And doing things like that. But if you’re not offering delivery for these people who can use their primary source of grocery income, then you’re obviously just excluding them, you know?” Thirty-two-year-old White female

“… there’s other people that could benefit … like, some people don’t have cars. Not because they can’t drive. Some people just – I mean, not because they don’t – you know, some people are just afraid to drive ….” Twenty-six-year-old Black female

Discussion

The objective of this qualitative study was to obtain perceptions of online grocery shopping and the online SNAP EBT program from caregivers participating in Head Start. This topic has become of importance in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which reached the U.S. in early 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020), and is affecting low-income and racial and ethnic minority populations disproportionately (Alcendor 2020). Across the globe, there have been newly instituted public health guidance to reduce the spread of the disease (e.g., quarantining and social distancing) requiring alternative methods of shopping for food, such as online grocery shopping (Jasper, Skevas, and Segovia 2020). Compounding the problem, there has been pandemic-associated job loss in the U.S., which has led to record rates of unemployment, and increased the need for and reliance on federal food assistance programs, specifically SNAP (Saloner et al. 2020). It is predicted that the economic recovery will take years, and that following the COVID-19 pandemic, we will be living in a ‘new normal,’ so to speak (Munnoli, Nabapure, and Yeshavanth 2020). Thus, online grocery shopping and the online SNAP EBT program are only expected to grow.

In the current study, most participants reported not having tried online grocery shopping. This is similar to results from a recent qualitative study among SNAP participants in New Mexico, where few individuals reported grocery shopping online (Rogus et al. 2020). However, in contrast to the New Mexico study, many participants in this study were generally open to the idea of grocery shopping online. A primary motivation and advantage to online grocery shopping was saving time, which parallels results from a 2018 review of 24 peer-reviewed papers in the U.S. and Europe (Pitts et al. 2018) and a recent study among WIC participants in North Carolina (Pitts et al. 2020).

Another motivation for online grocery shopping was preventing impulse purchases. This finding aligns with the broader literature (Pitts et al. 2018; Zatz et al. 2021), and in particular a 2020 study in North Carolina among those enrolled in WIC in which participants reported via in-depth interviews that they were more likely to make impulse purchases while shopping in-store versus online (Pitts et al. 2020). Nutritionally, this may be of importance given that impulse purchases are often ‘unhealthy’ (i.e., energy dense, nutrient poor foods and beverages) (Almy and Wootan 2015). Though, it may not be of significance based on a recent finding that the Nutrition Facts label is not uniformly available on foods for consumers to view while online grocery shopping (Kelly et al. 2020).

Participants also reported barriers to online grocery shopping, specifically relating to the idea of someone else picking out their food. They were concerned about someone choosing their perishable items – meat and fresh produce – that were not fresh to their standard, someone selecting the wrong item, or an undesirable substitution. This is similar to other studies in which participants report feelings of being out of control when shopping for groceries online (Martinez et al. 2018) and risking freshness (Pitts et al. 2018; Rogus et al. 2020) or the right item being selected (Pitts et al. 2020). It will be imperative for the companion SNAP-Education (SNAP-Ed) program (United States Department of Agriculture 2017) and other nutrition education programs to educate SNAP participants on ways to mitigate their concerns and feel empowered to make healthy purchases with their SNAP EBT card online.

Online versus in-store grocery shopping increases accessibility to healthy and culturally appropriate foods, thus the online SNAP EBT program has been proposed as a solution to achieving nutrition equity in marginalized populations (Trude et al. 2022). Unfortunately, a reported barrier to online grocery shopping – and curbside pick-up or delivery – reported in low-income households is the associated fees, which are not currently covered by the EBT card (Pitts et al. 2018). While online grocery shopping fees were mentioned in the current study, it was not specifically reported as a barrier to online shopping. According to the Social Cognitive Theory of Behavior (Bandura 1986), removal of external barriers is critical for the facilitation of behavior change, thus addressing this barrier (i.e., additional fees) to online grocery shopping among families with low-income will be imperative in order to realize the maximal benefits of the program.

In the current study, there was a gap between study participants receiving the SNAP benefit (18%) and the number eligible for SNAP (67%). This finding aligns with national data indicating persistent mismatches between SNAP participation and eligibility rates (Cunnyngham 2019; Keith-Jennings, Llobrera, and Dean 2019); negative stigma is a factor contributing to this mismatch and could potentially be negated in an online vs in-store (in-person) platform (Hahn et al. 2020). Regardless of the low SNAP enrollment rates in this study, participants still shared their perceptions of using SNAP EBT for online shopping, and reported being open to individuals enrolled in SNAP being able to use it. This finding is similar to a study conducted in Baltimore, Maryland, where customers reported that they liked being able to use SNAP EBT toward the purchase of online groceries (Lagisetty et al. 2017).

There was also a lower proportion (67% vs. 100%) of study participants who were SNAP-eligible than anticipated; this was an unexpected finding based on the income eligibility criteria for Head Start being lower (100% of FPG) than SNAP (130% of FPG). It is possible that participants were SNAP eligible when they completed the Head Start enrollment process (prior to the start of the new academic year), and after this point they became ineligible due, for example, to a job change. Also, according to the study’s community partner, Head Start, 10% of enrollment is allocated to be “over income,” or any amount above the 100% FPG; it is possible that some of these families were enrolled in the current study. It is worth noting that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic the percent of individuals participating in SNAP in the U.S. has increased since the time this study was conducted – from 37,100,836 in January 2020 to 41,010,820 in May 2022, a 10.5% increase (USDA 2020b). It is likely that the continued pandemic-related financial strain on household resources has increased the number of individuals and families who qualify for SNAP are now utilizing the benefit.

There are several limitations to the current study, primarily the limited number of SNAP recipients and limited number of participants who had tried online grocery shopping. In addition, use of Head Start caregivers participating in a family meals program somewhat limits the generalizability of the findings. Also, participants’ responses could have been affected by the bandwagon effect in which people in a group conform to another’s opinion to achieve a unified result. Finally, three group discussions were conducted as this threshold has been demonstrated to be sufficient in identifying all of the most critical themes. However, it is possible that saturation was not reached.

Conclusions, future research, and policy recommendations

Results from the current study have broad applicability in the current COVID-19 pandemic and beyond where online grocery shopping and the online SNAP EBT program have rapidly expanded across the U.S. Future research is needed to confirm these findings with a larger, more diverse SNAP-eligible population. It will also be important to examine differences among similar populations in other regions where access to food may vary. There is also a need to understand the potential barriers to online SNAP EBT participation, such as delivery fees not covered by the program (Pitts et al. 2018). Additional barriers among consumers to online grocery shopping and curbside pick-up that should be explored include transportation to the grocery store.^26,30 Research should continue to explore why SNAP eligible individuals do not enroll in SNAP and how barriers (e.g., stigma, which could be reduced in online versus in-person shopping (Hahn et al. 2020)) may be alleviated or removed. Finally, it will be imperative for future research to determine if and to what extent there are differences in the overall nutritional impact of online versus in-person grocery shopping.

In order to maximize the online SNAP EBT program, it will be imperative for policymakers to incorporate research findings from this and other similar studies. Specific recommendations include investment in (1) strategic advertisement of the benefits of online grocery shopping (i.e., saving time, preventing impulse purchases, eating healthier) to SNAP participants; (2) educating SNAP-participants via SNAP-Ed on the benefits of online SNAP EBT and strategies to overcome concerns (i.e., someone choosing their perishable items, or choosing a wrong item or incorrect substitution); and (3) identifying solutions to offset associated fees with online grocery shopping (e.g., innovative partnerships with food retailers).

Author contributions

SG and CG conceptualized the study. SG, EH, and SS conducted the focus groups and analyzed the data. CG and SG wrote the original draft of the paper. EH, SS, MW, HS, AS, and CP reviewed and edited the paper. CG, MW, HS, AS, and CP had roles in project supervision or administration. CG was responsible for funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional review board statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of The Ohio State University.

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

We thank the study participants for their time and insights. We also thank our community partner Columbus Urban League.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, SG, upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by USDA NIFA, Children Youth and Families At-Risk (CYFAR), [grant number 2018-41520-28897].