P140 The University of Arizona's SNAP-Ed Used the Health Food Pantry Assessment Tool to Identify Policy, Systems, and Environmental Changes in Food Pantries

Abstract

Objective To use the Health Food Pantry Assessment Tool (HFPAT) to identify policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) changes in Arizona's food pantries. Use of Theory or Research The HFPAT was selected as an observational survey that measured the healthfulness of food pantry environments and provided PSE resources to guide food pantries and the University of Arizona Supplemental Nutrition Education - Program (UA SNAP-Ed) programming. Target Audience Four food pantries (Apache-2, Maricopa-2 Counties) that participated in SNAP-Ed completed the HFPAT. Program Description The SNAP-Ed sent the HFPAT in advance of site visits. Two Arizona SNAP-Ed staff independently completed the observational portions of the survey and results were compared. The survey was completed by interviewing the food pantry staff. Reports were generated using Qualtrics® and given to the food pantries. The HFPAT Resource Guide, which provides a resource for each section, was included. Evaluation Methods The HFPAT contained 69 questions divided into five sections: pantry location and entrance, food available to clients, policies of the food pantry, frozen chilled, dry storage and food safety, and services for clients. It provided a numeric score on a scale of 0-100; with a score of 100 signifying the healthiest food pantry environment. Results Four food pantries were assessed. The total scores ranged from 41 to 50 (mean: 46.25 out of 100). The food pantries’ mean scores for each section were: a) 9.25 out of 15 possible points; b) 19.25 out of 57 possible points; c) 6 out of 12 possible points; d) 6.25 out of 10 possible points; and e) 4.5 out of 6 possible points. Conclusions The UA SNAP-Ed used the HFPAT to assist food pantries in identifying potential PSE interventions. This evaluation tool provided direction to the UA SNAP-Ed to give specified technical assistance to the food pantries, and resources to improve their low-scoring areas. Funding None.