Healthy Incentives Pilot | Apply Online

Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) Grant Opportunity FAQs

What is the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP)?

The Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) was a USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) grant opportunity created under Public Law 110-246 (the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008). It was designed to test whether offering financial incentives through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could improve the diet quality and health of SNAP households.

What problem was HIP trying to solve?

HIP was intended to generate credible evidence about whether a financial incentive inside SNAP can shift purchasing behavior toward healthier foods, especially fruits and vegetables, and whether that shift measurably improves diet quality.

What was the central idea behind the pilot?

The pilot idea was to provide an incentive at the point of purchase (point of sale) to encourage SNAP participants to buy more fruits and vegetables (and potentially other healthful foods), and then measure whether the incentive changes purchasing behavior and improves diet quality.

Which federal agency offered the HIP grant?

The opportunity was offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

What law authorized the HIP grant opportunity?

HIP was created under Public Law 110-246, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.

What type of funding mechanism was used?

The opportunity was structured as a competitive, discretionary cooperative agreement.

What does it mean that HIP was a "cooperative agreement"?

A cooperative agreement means the selected applicant would work closely with USDA/FNS rather than operating completely independently. The state running the pilot would also be expected to coordinate with and support an independent USDA-sponsored evaluation.

How many awards did USDA expect to make?

USDA intended to fund one State SNAP agency to plan, implement, and run the pilot program.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to state governments, specifically State SNAP agencies, because the pilot depended on state-level SNAP administration and the ability to integrate incentives into real retail transactions.

Could local governments, nonprofits, universities, or private organizations apply directly?

Based on the eligibility described, the intended eligible applicants were State SNAP agencies (state governments). No other eligible applicant types were listed in the information provided.

What was the total funding amount for the award?

USDA anticipated one award with an estimated total funding amount of $6.3 million. That amount also served as the award ceiling.

Was there a cost-sharing or matching requirement?

No. There was no cost sharing or matching requirement, meaning the state was not required to contribute non-federal funds to be eligible.

What was the funding activity category?

The funding activity category was food and nutrition.

What CFDA number was associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity was associated with CFDA number 10.580, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Process and Technology Improvement Grants.

Why was the opportunity associated with CFDA 10.580?

It reflected the pilot's connection to SNAP operations and the systems or process changes likely needed to deliver incentives at checkout.

How were incentives expected to be delivered to SNAP participants?

The announcement emphasized that incentives would be delivered at the point of sale, implying immediate and visible incentives during purchase and coordination with retailers and payment systems such as EBT.

What kinds of implementation partners or systems were implied by the point-of-sale design?

The point-of-sale approach implied coordination with retailers and SNAP payment systems (such as EBT) to make the incentive work in real retail transactions.

What was the evaluation requirement for the pilot?

A key requirement was that the evaluation use rigorous scientific methods, especially random assignment, to produce credible evidence about the impact of the incentives.

What does "random assignment" imply for program operations?

In practical terms, the pilot needed to be implemented in a way that allowed researchers to compare outcomes between households (or groups) receiving the incentive and similar households not receiving it.

Who would run the evaluation?

The state would be expected to coordinate with and support an independent USDA-sponsored evaluation.

What were the main responsibilities of the selected State SNAP agency?

The selected state would be expected to plan, implement, and run the pilot program day-to-day, and coordinate with and support the independent USDA-sponsored evaluation.

What outcomes was HIP intended to measure?

The purpose was to measure whether the incentives change purchasing behavior and whether those changes improve diet quality, producing policy-relevant evidence about impacts within SNAP.

When was the funding notice posted?

The notice was posted on December 18, 2009.

What was the application deadline?

The application deadline was May 21, 2010.

When did USDA anticipate making the award?

The anticipated award timeframe was late summer 2010.

What does it mean that the opportunity was archived?

The archived date was June 20, 2010, indicating the opportunity window had closed and the program moved into selection and award phases after that point.

Is this opportunity still open based on the dates provided?

No. Based on the application deadline (May 21, 2010) and the archived date (June 20, 2010), the opportunity was closed.

Who was the contact person listed for help accessing the full announcement?

The listed contact was Gregory Walton, Grants Officer at FNS.

What contact information was provided?

Gregory Walton could be reached by phone at 703-305-1575.