Authorized food retailer characteristics study technical report IV : authorized food retailers' characteristics and access study

              m itm 061<t-4-ol Aqr.i '1?s«/2i
USDA
D#ponm#oi of
Agricuftm
Food and
Comumw
OMMOf
Evopjanon
Authorized Food Retailer
Characteristics Study:
Technical Report IV
Authorized Food Retailers' Characteristics
and Access Study
February 1997
^1-09-|H* (V
I IQHA United States
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Consumer
Service
Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics
Study
Office of
Analysis
and Evaluation
Technical Report IV:
Authorized Food Retailers' Characteristics
and Access Study
February 1997
Authors:
Richard E. Mantovani
Lynn Daft
Theodore F. Macaluso
James Welsh
Katherine Hoffman
Submitted by:
Macro International Inc.
11785 Beltsville Drive
Calverton, MD 20705-3119
Project Director: Richard Mantovani
Submitted to:
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
USDA Food and Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Project Officer: Ken Offerman
This study was conducted under Contract No. 53-3198-3-007 with the Food and Consumer Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, under the authority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended.
/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge all those who contributed to this study. We would like to
acknowledge Ken Offerman, the Food and Consumer Service (FCS) project officer. In addition to
providing critical input into the various components of the study, his ability to bring together the
various stakeholders in a productive fashion was instrumental in developing this study. Additional
important contributions to this effort from the Office of Analysis and Evaluation were made by
Steven Carlson and Margaret Andrews, both of whom provided valuable insights and direction
throughout the study and during the development of the final reports. Others from FCS who made
significant contributions include Suzanne Fecteau, Lynn Jordan, Jill Hemdon and Judy Love from
the Benefit Redemption Division, Food Stamp Program, and Debbie Mclntosh, Laurie Hickerson
and Chris Casey with the Supplemental Food Program Division (W1C). A special thanks to Mark
Denbaly and Phil Kaufman with the Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS) who formally
reviewed a key early draft final report providing valuable comments and for their insights on the
retailer food industry at critical points during the study. We also wish to acknowledge the valuable
input provided by Zy Weinberg (Director Inner-City Food Access Program, Public Voice), Celia
Slater (Manager, Community Relations, Food Marketing Institute, FMI) & her staff, and Jean
Kinsey (Professor and Director, The Retail Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota), all of
whom participated in the formal review of the first draft final report.
In addition to the authors, other staff critical to this effort include: Lisa Hammer, whose management
of the retailer survey was critical to the success of this study. Ms. Hammer also conducted the site
visits that provided valuable insight on food availability and access in several communities. Sara
Sullivan is also to be commended for her role in both the survey effort and the site visits. Finally,
wc would like to thank both Pedro Saavedra and Joseph Steinberg for their valuable contributions
to the sample design.
1
Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Purpose i
Methods i
Findings i
Conclusion iii
Chapter I. Introduction
Store Type: Supermarkets, Groceries, and Other Stores I-1
Retailer Availability 1-2
Findings from Earlier Research 1-4
Purposes and Approach of This Study 1-6
Chapter II. Data and Methods
Survey of Authorized Retailers II-1
Variety 11-5
Cost/Price II-6
Quality and Quantity II-7
Intensive Site Analyses II-8
Data Sources II-8
Methods II-9
National ZIP Code Area Analysis II-10
Data Sources and File Construction 11-10
Methods II-11
Analytic Decisions Relating to Store Type and Location II-11
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Variety III-l
Availability and Quantity III-6
Quality III-I3
Cost 111-16
Full Service Departments and Non-Food Product Lines 111-24
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
3
Contents
—
Table of Contents
Chapter IV. Retailer Availability and Mix: A National Perspective
Food Retailer Availability IV-2
Retailer Availability and Level of Urbanization IV-6
Retailer Availability in High Poverty Areas IV-20
Chapter V. Accessibility and Availability of Retailers in Highly Urbanized Areas
Retailer Characteristics V-1
Accessibility in Urban Areas V-9
Underserved Areas V-10
Chapter VI. Retailer Characteristics and Access Outside of Highly Urbanized Areas
Sparsely Populated Areas VI-2
Retailer Characteristics VI-2
Accessibility to Stores in Sparsely Populated Areas VI-9
Underserved Sparsely Populated Areas VI-10
Populated Mixed Areas Outside of Highly Urbanized Areas VI-16
Retailer Characteristics VI-16
Accessibility VI-22
Appendix A Sampling Procedures
Appendix B Technical Memorandum
Deriving Price Indices for the Market Basket B-l
Assessment of Variety and Availability B-11
Assessment of Quantity and Quality B-l 8
Appendix C Detailed Tables
Appendix D Questionnaire
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
1
Contents
List of Exhibits
Chapter I. Introduction
Table 1-1. Profile of Retailers Authorized for The Food Stamp Program,
by Major Store Type 1-3
Chapter II. Data and Methods
Figure II-1 Location of Counties Comprising the 40 Primary Sampling Units for the
Retailer Survey II-2
Figure II-2 Full Market Basket Used for Data Collection II-3
Figure 11-3 The Core Market Basket II-4
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Table III-1 Food Groups Represented in the Market Basket Ill 3
Figure III— 1 Index of Variety, by Store Type and Attributes of Variety III-5
Figure 111-2 Percent of Stores Providing at Least SO Percent of the Market Basket
Across Major Food Groups, by Store Type III-5
Figure III-3 Index of Product Availability Within the Market Basket, by Store Type ... III-8
Figure III-4 Availability of Market Basket Foods Within Specified Food Categories,
by Store Type III-9
Table III-2 Percentage of Stores by Sales of Staple Foods, by Store Type Ill-10
Figure 111-5 Average Number of Households Served by Inventory Available in Stores,
by Store Type III-I2
Figure HI-6 Percent of Stores Using a Particular Stocking Pattern, by Store Type .... Ill-12
Figure 111-7 Average Percent of Fresh Produce Found to be of Acceptable Quality,
by Store Type 111-14
Figure III-8 Percent of Stores With Given Quality Levels, by Store Type Ill-14
Table 111-3 Percentage of Fresh Produce Items Found to be of Unacceptable Quality,
by Store Type 111-15
Figure 111-9 Average Indexed Cost of the Market Basket, by Store Type 111-18
Figure HI-10 Costs for Specified Food Groups, by Store Type Ill-19
Table 111-4 Average Indexed Cost of Selected Products Relation to Average Cost
in Supermarkets, by Store Type 111-22
Figure III-11 Costs for Specified Food Items, by Store Type 111-23
Figure 111-12 Average Number of Full-Service Departments and Non-Food
Product Lines, by Store Type 111-25
Figure 111-13 Comparison of Cost and Availability, by Store Type 111-27
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study S
Contents
List of Exhibits
Chapter IV. Retailer Availability and Mix: A National Perspective
Table IV-I Number of ZIP Code Areas by Number of Authorized Stores in Area .... IV-2
Table IV-2 Supermarket Availability, and Retailer Mix in the
Presence of Supermarkets IV-3
Table IV-3 Retailer Mix in the Presence of a Large Store IV-3
Table IV-4 Areas with Retailer Presence by Type of Store IV-4
Table IV-5 Characteristics and Retailers in Baltimore and Southeast Los Angeles
Study Areas IV-5
Table IV-6 Retailer Distribution in the South Carolina Study Area IV-5
Table IV-7 Distribution of Geographic Area, Total U.S. Population
and Population in Poverty, by Urbanization Level IV-7
Table 1V-8 Number and Percent of Stores, by Store Type and
Urbanization Level of Store's Location IV-8
Table IV-9 Distribution of ZIP Code Areas, Total Population and
Population Living in Poverty, by Urbanization Level
and Availability of Retailers IV-9
Table 1V-10 Number and Percent of Stores in Urban Areas, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-11
Table IV-I 1 Number and Percent of Stores in Mixed Areas, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-11
Table IV-12 Number and Percent of Stores in Rural Areas, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-12
Table IV-13 Geographic, Population and Retailer Characteristics of ZIP Code Areas,
by Urbanization Level and Poverty Quintile IV-14
Table IV-14 Amount and Percent of Redemptions, by Store Type
and Urbanization Level IV-15
Table IV-15 Amount and Percent of Redemptions, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-16
Table IV-16 Amount and Percent of Redemptions in Urban Areas, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-17
Table IV-17 Amount and Percent of Redemptions in Mixed Areas, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-18
Table IV-18 Amount and Percent of Redemptions in Rural Areas, by Store Type
and Poverty Level of Store's Location IV-19
Figure IV-1 Market Factors Relating to Predicting Store Location IV-21
Figure IV-2 The Average Number of Stores in Area Controlling for Demographics
By Store Type, Urbanization, and Poverty Level IV-22
Table IV-19 Regression Coefficients Demonstrating the Effects of Selected
Demographic and Housing Measures on Store Location IV-23
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study f
Contents
List of Exhibits
Chapter V. Accessibility and Availability of Retailers in Highly Urbanized Areas
Table V-l Variety in Brands, Packaging, and Assortment of Market Basket Items
in Highly Urbanized Areas, by Store Type and Poverty Level V-2
Table V-2 Percent of Stores Carrying At Least 50 Percent of the Market Basket
Across Major Food Groups in Highly Urbanized Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level V-2
Figure V-l Percentage of Market Basket Available in Highly Urbanized Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level V-3
Table V-3 Percentage of Product Grouping Availability in Highly Urbanized Areas,
by Food Group and Poverty Level V-4
Table V-4 Percentage of Stores in Which Foods Were Not Available in
Highly Urbanized Areas, by Food Group, Store Type and Poverty Level . V-5
Table V-S Share of Food Stores in Highly Urbanized Areas Selling Foods in
All Four Staple Food Categories, by Store Type and Poverty Level V-6
Table V-6 Average Number of Households Whose Market Basket Needs
Are Met from Shelf Stocks in Highly Urbanized Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level V-6
Table V-7 Percentage of Selected Food Items in Highly Urbanized Areas Found
to be of Unacceptable Freshness, by Store Type and Poverty Level V-7
Table V-8 Store- and Redemption Based Cost Index of Market Basket in
Highly Urbanized Stores, by Store Type and by Area Income V-8
Table V-9 Average Number of Full-Service Departments and Types ofNon-Food
Products Sold in Highly Urbanized Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level V-8
Table V-10 Proximity of Authorized Food Stamp Retailers to Food Stamp Program
Participants in Three Highly Urbanized Areas V-10
Table V-l 1 Number and Percentage of Urban Unserved Areas by Poverty Level .... V-11
Table V-12 Distance of Underscrved Areas to Areas with a Supermarket or
Large Grocery, by Poverty Level V-12
Chapter VI. Retailer Characteristics and Access Outside of Highly Urbanized Areas
Table VI-1 Variety in Brands, Packaging, and Assortment of Market Basket Items
in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas, by Store Type and Poverty Level .... VI-3
Table VI-2 Percentage of Stores Providing at Least 50 Percent of the Market Basket
Across Major Food Groups in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-3
Figure VI-1 Market Basket Availability in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas,
By Store Type and Poverty Level VI-4
Table VI-3 Availability of Foods in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas, by Food Group,
Store Type and Poverty Level VI-5
Table VI-4 Percentage of Food Stores in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas
Selling Foods in All Four Staple Food Categories, by Store Type
and Poverty Level VI-6
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 7
Contents
List of Exhibits
Table VI-5 Average Number of Households Whose Market Basket Requirements
Are Met from Shelf Stocks in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-7
Table VI-6 Percentage of Selected Food Items Of Unacceptable Quality in
Sparsely Populated Rural Areas, by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-7
Table VI-7 Store-Based and Redemption-Based Cost Indices in Sparsely
Populated Rural Stores, by Type of Store and by Poverty Level VI-8
Table VI-8 Average Number of Full-Service Departments and Types of Non-Food
Products Sold in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-9
Figure VI-2 West Virginia Study Area VI-11
Figure VI-3 South Carolina Study Area VI-I2
Figure VI-4 Lincoln & Otero Counties New Mexico Study Area VI-13
Table VI-9 Number and Percentage of Underserved Sparsely Populated Rural Areas
by Poverty Level of Area VI-14
Table VI-10 Variety in Brands, Packaging, and Assortment of Market Basket Items
in Mixed Areas, by Store Type and Poverty Level of Area VI-17
Table VI-11 Percentage of Stores Providing at Least 50 Percent of the Market Basket
Across Major Food Groups in Mixed Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-17
Figure Vl-5 Market Basket Availability in Mixed Areas,
By Store Type and Poverty Level VI-18
Table VI-12 Availability of Foods in Mixed Area Food Stores, by Food Group,
By Food Group and Poverty Level, for All Store Types VI-19
Table VI-13 Average Number of Households Whose Market Basket Requirements
Are Met in Mixed Areas, by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-19
Table VI-14 Percentage of Selected Food Items in Mixed Area Stores Found
to be of Unacceptable Freshness, by Store Type and Poverty Level .... VI-20
Table VI-15 Store and Redemption Based Cost Indices for Stores in Mixed Areas,
by Store Type and by Poverty Level VI-21
Table VI-16 Average Number of Full-Service Departments and Average Number
of Non-Food Product Lines Sold in Mixed Areas,
by Store Type and Poverty Level VI-21
Table VI-17 Proximity of Authorized Food Stamp Retailers to Food Stamp Program
Participants in Three Mixed Areas VI-23
Table VI-18 Distance to Next Nearest Large Store From Areas Underserved
By Authorized Retailers, in MSA Mixed Areas, by Poverty Level VI-24
Table VI-19 Distance to Next Nearest Large Store in Mixed Small-City Areas,
by Poverty Level VI-25
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study r
Executive Summary
f
Executive Summary
PURPOSE
This study presents a national assessment of the variety, quality and cost of food available at food
retailers authorized by the Food Stamp Program (FSP). For over 20 years the FSP has been the
cornerstone of the national commitment to protect the nutrition, health, and well being of America's
low-income families. By design and law, the program seeks to achieve its nutritional goals by
working through "normal channels of trade" - food retailers. It is therefore critical to know whether
food stamp families are in fact able to purchase a variety of quality food at a reasonable price from
food retailers authorized to accept food stamps.
In recent years, researchers and advocates for the poor have argued that access to food of reasonable
quality and price through normal channels of trade may be problematic in low-income urban areas
and sparsely populated rural areas. The concerns have been that the poor pay more for less, that
chain supermarkets have left the inner city, and that food stamp families living in high-poverty urban
and rural areas must buy their food from small stores with limited selection and high prices. The
primary question addressed in this report is: do food stamp families have ihe same degree of
access—not only in terms of proximity to food stores but also in terms of the quality, variety and
price of food available in nearby stores—as families with higher incomes?
METHODS
We collected information on a market basket of foods from a nationally representative sample of
almost 2,400 retailers authorized by the FSP. A market basket was analyzed to calculate three
measures pertaining to the foods offered within each store: the percent of the market basket
available for purchase (a measure of variety), an index of the quality of the items available for sale,
and the annual ized cost of purchasing the market basket at the store. In addition, we obtained the
complete national listing of all 200,000 food retailers authorized by the FSP and analyzed it to show
how the major types of food stores are distributed geographically1. We linked census demographic
data by ZIP Code to the street address for each store in both the market basket survey and the
national listing in order to explore how store characteristics and service to food stamp participants
vary by location in urban or rural ZIP Codes as well as by location in ZIP Codes where the percent
of the population in poverty is high or low.
FINDINGS
The type of store at which food stamp customers buy food is critical, for store type determines
the selection of food available and exerts a large influence on the cost of food. Quality of food
does not vary by type of store. Our results confirm the common belief that supermarkets supply,
on average, nearly all food items in a market basket and have the lowest cost of any store type.
1 We use six categories: supermarkets, large groceries, small groceries, convenience stores and/or grocery/gas
combinations, specialty stores (such as meat or produce markets) and "other" (such as general stores, co-ops, route
vendors).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access SUidy ,
lu
Executive Summary
Large grocery stores have an important role in food access. While a step down from supermarkets,
they are closer to supermarkets than to other types of food retailers on both selection and cost. This
is especially true in rural areas where large groceries provide the same level of selection and cost as
supermarkets.
People and food stores appear to be located together. As a result few people lack access to
supermarkets or large groceries. The population in poverty has about the same access to
supermarkets as the general population. We sorted every ZIP Code into mutually exclusive
categories: one or more supermarkets present; no supermarket but one or more large groceries
present; small stores but no supermarket or large grocery; and no authorized store of any type
present. Nationally, only 2 percent of the total population and 2 percent of the population under the
poverty line live in ZIP Codes with no authorized food stores; 90 percent of the total population and
90 percent of the population under the poverty line live in ZIP Codes with at least one supermarket
or large grocery present.
Store presence in high-poverty areas
The preceding analysis (which sorts ZIP Codes by the type of stores present within them) suggests
that on the whole the food retailing system serves poor and non-poor alike. But this finding leaves
open the possibility that specific communities may still have inadequate access. We therefore looked
specifically at areas with high concentrations of people in poverty.
The average number of supermarkets in high-poverty urban areas is slightly less than in other
urban areas, even when controlling for many of the market factors that influence store
placement. We examined whether population, geographic size of the area, and supply and demand
factors that influence food retailing can account for the number of supermarkets observed in an area
(our analysis could not include the effect of zoning regulations or difficulties in assembling parcels
of land). The estimated average number of supermarkets in high-poverty urban areas (0.9
supermarkets) is lower than the average number in lower-poverty urban areas (1.14 supermarkets).
In rural high-poverty areas, market factors are sufficient to explain the number of supermarkets and
large groceries that exist.
Availability and cost of food in high-povertv urban areas
Food stamp families shopping in high-poverty urban areas do not need to spend significantly
more for food than those shopping in other areas. The cost of our market basket in supermarkets
in urban high-poverty areas is nearly equivalent to stores in lower-poverty areas. When we examine
where food stamp households actually shop, we find that they save money by selecting the stores
that they visit. For those frequenting supermarkets in high-poverty areas, shoppers save
approximately 4 cents on the dollar.
Food shoppers are able to find nearly the same percentage of our market basket available
among supermarkets in high-poverty urban areas as in other urban areas. Some differences
on specific fresh items were found. Only 33 percent of supermarkets in high-poverty areas carry
fresh seafood compared to 83 percent in other urban areas. Among large groceries, fresh meat is
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
Executive Summary
more available in high-poverty areas than elsewhere; fresh produce slightly less available in high-poverty
areas. Fresh produce and meat, however, are available in almost all supermarkets in urban
areas regardless of location. Shoppers can find a high level of acceptable quality food in urban
authorized stores, regardless of store type or location.
Although the cost, availability, and quality of food do not vary between urban supermarkets
in high-poverty and other areas, the total shopping experience does. Supermarkets in high-poverty
urban areas offer substantially fewer full-service departments and non-food product lines
than supermarkets in other urban areas. In addition, supermarkets in high-poverty urban areas offer
5 to 10 percent less variety in brands and package types than those in other areas.
Availability and cost of food in high-poverty rural areas
Among stores in rural areas, prices were always close to the same in high-poverty areas as in
other areas. This was true both when calculated on a store basis or when adjusted for where
participants actually shop.
Food stamp participants are able to find a slightly higher percentage of our market basket
available among supermarkets in high-poverty rural areas as in other rural areas. Large
groceries in rural areas provide the same level of selection as supermarkets. There is very little
difference between high-poverty and other areas in level of selection. Moreover, in rural areas,
shoppers can find acceptable quality food at virtually every authorized store: quality levels were
identical across different store types and poverty levels.
CONCLUSION
Overall, these findings confirm that the design of the Food Stamp Program—to work through normal
channels of retail trade—effectively reaches low-income populations and provides them with high
quality food at reasonable prices. In most parts of the country, the low-income population can find
supermarkets and large groceries that stock a wide selection of food that meets quality standards at
reasonable prices. Other kinds of stores fill market niches when needed.
About forty percent of the rural population reside in localities without supermarkets or large
groceries. However, this appears to reflect the economics of food retailing. Moreover, the absence
of such stores does not fall disproportionately on the poor: proximity to stores is identical for both
the population in poverty and the total population.2 Finally, in rural areas, the price of the market
basket was about the same among stores in high-poverty and lower-poverty areas.
In urban areas, the number of supermarkets and large grocery stores is lower in high-poverty areas
than in other areas and the shopping experience in supermarkets (as measured by the number of full-service
departments, non-food lines, availability of fresh seafood and variety of package types) is
1 Many observers point out that access to transportation may be problematic for low-income families and it is
possible that the transportation burden of living in rural areas falls more on the poor than the non-poor.
•
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
II ■
Executive Summary
more restricted. However, there appears to be little effect on the cost of food. The price of our
market basket was either about the same or lower among supermarkets and large groceries in high-poverty
areas as among those in lower-poverty areas. The mix of stores in high-poverty urban areas
is characterized by an extraordinarily high abundance of small groceries with less variety and higher
prices than supermarkets. However, supermarkets exist in those same high-poverty urban areas and,
based on actual food stamp redemption data, food stamp participants shop heavily at those
supermarkets and appear to save about four cents on the dollar compared to supermarkets in other
urban areas
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
Chapter I
Introduction
H
Chapter I. Introduction
The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the nation's principal means of providing nutritional assistance
to low-income people. In 1995, 26 million Americans received FSP assistance, the equivalent of
one out of 10 Americans. Eligible individuals and households used the assistance to purchase food
through "normal channels of distribution," as specified by the 1977 Food Stamp Act, as amended.
For the FSP, the nation's commercial food system—in which food retailers are a critical compo-nent—
constitutes "normal channels." Food retailers that meet specified eligibility criteria are
authorized to redeem food stamp coupons for the purchase of eligible foods.1 Of consequence is
the ability of the authorized food retailer system to provide FSP participant households access to
high-quality, reasonably priced food of sufficient variety to meet their dietary needs. The degree to
which food retailers are available and accessible determines the ability of the FSP to meet its goals.
Two questions, therefore, are central to these availability and access issues. First, what types of
stores can provide shoppers with a basic set of foods that meet nutritional requirements? Second,
are retailers that can provide those foods located in sufficient concentration to ensure that individu-als
and households are close to a store?
Of particular concern to FSP is whether low-income populations face difficulties in finding stores
that can provide high-quality foods at reasonable prices. If so, issues relating to food security are
raised along with whether the FSP is achieving the maximum benefit from its current approach
using "normal channels." In anticipation of the report's findings, it seems that low-income
populations do have the same level of access to food retailers authorized by the program as the
general public does. This generalization, however, does not point to a uniformity of access—there
are pockets in which access to larger stores is limited.
Store Type: Supermarkets, Groceries, and Other Stores
Food retailers are clearly essential to the delivery of FSP benefits. Retail food establishments are
commonly divided into two broad categories:
• Grocery stores
• Specialty food stores.
Grocery stores sell a variety of types of foods, while specialty food stores (as the name implies)
specialize in a single food category, such as bakery products or seafood. Grocery stores are further
subdivided, generally by the dollar sales volume and breadth of product line. Although there is no
one uniform system used to classify grocery stores, among the categories conventionally used are
supermarkets, superettes, and convenience stores.
1 Examples of foods that are not eligible are hot foods prepared for away-from-home consumption, alcoholic
beverages, tobacco products, vitamins, and paper goods and household supplies.
_
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study tf 1-1
Chapter I. Introduction
In addition to the retailers described above, the FSP authorizes other establishments and alternative
vendors that sell food for preparation at home. Included are produce stands, combination stores
such as restaurants or bars that sell food, services that deliver food customers on a preestablished
route, and rolling stores, which sell food from a truck or wagon at different places during the day.
The FSP recognizes 20 different types of stores. Almost 90 percent of the stores, however, are
identified as one of five types:
• Supermarkets
• Groceries
• Convenience stores
• Grocery/gas combination outlets
• Specialty stores.
Table 1-1 provides the store type definitions used in this study, the approximate number of each
type as estimated by national trade organizations, and the number of stores authorized by the FSP.
The statistics show that the FSP has authorized a broad range of stores, covering virtually every
category of food retailing.
Such a wide range of retailers in the FSP is to give food stamp participants a range of options, thus
in effect enhancing access. However, it is widely recognized, and substantiated by the flow of
food stamp redemptions, that supermarkets play the dominant role in providing food to
FSP participants.
Retailer Availability
Availability and accessibility can be viewed either from the shopper's perspective or from the
retailer's. Economists would explain those perspectives in terms of demand and supply factors.
On the demand side, shoppers make decisions about the kinds of stores they choose to shop in and
the foods they buy. The kinds and variety of foods supplied by area stores, as well as the prices,
are important considerations in consumers' decisions to shop at one place instead of another.
Proximity and convenience are key factors, too, although other concerns—such as personal
safety—may overrule those considerations. Personal shopping preferences—for ethnic foods, for
freshness provided in farmers' or produce stands or specialty stores, or for retailers who treat
customers well—also enter the picture.
On the supply side, food retailers decide what foods they will offer customers and at what price.
Other decisions—where to place the store, what size it will be, what hours it will operate, and what
services to offer—reflect the retailers' assessment of the local market and the costs of operating.
Together, such decisions affect the capability of stores to meet the food needs of certain popula-tions.
Proximity of shoppers to stores that can provide a full range of foods at acceptable prices
expands the options available to them. Decisions on where to locate new stores and to close old
ones may expand access for some consumers and reduce it for others.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study /L 1-2
Chapter I. Introduction
Table 1-1
Profile of Retailers Authorized for the Food Stamp Program, by Major Store Type
Store Type Definition Number Listed With
Major Trade
Organizations1
Number Authorized by
FSP'
Supermarkets Food stores able to provide a full range of foods
with $2 million or more in annual sales.
30.450 30,400
Groceries Food stores that can provide a full range of foods
with less than $2 million in annual gross sales. In
this study, large groceries (stores with annual
gross sales between $500,000 and S2 million)
are differentiated from small groceries (stores
with annual gross sales of less than $500,000).
42.550 Large Groceries: 13,541
Small Groceries: 38,042
Convenience
Stores and
Grocery/Gas
Combinations
Stores providing a limited range of foods, usually
excluding fresh foods. These stores are
generally aimed at supplementing larger stores
and providing convenience in terms of proximity
to shoppers and hours.
84.000 76,185
Specialty Stores Stores specializing in one or two product lines
such as produce, meats, or baked goods.
18.500 17,352
Other Retailers Includes health food stores, co-op food stores,
routes, multistall and produce stands, general
stores, and combination stores that sell food in
addition to other goods
23,881
1. Sources for industry estimates are Supermarkets and Groceries: Progressive Grocer Annual Report, April 1995;
Convenience Stores and Grocery/Gas Retailers: Food Institute. Food Retailing Review, 1995; Specialty Stores: Food
Marketing Review, 1993-94 (AER-678) Economic Research Service, USDA, April 1994
2. Source for Authorized Retailer Figures is Store Tracking and Redemption Subsystem (STARS). December 1993 Total
number of stores equals 199,401 This number excludes authorized stores in Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories as well as
those identifying themselves as wholesalers or military commissaries.
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997.
Issues of location and proximity are reducible to two related concerns. First, are there commu-nities
with a very low concentration of retailers? Second, even in communities with adequate
levels of retailer concentration, are the retailers close to most of the population? In the last
decade, discussion and research have focused on the lack of chain store or supermarket presence in
low-income urban "inner city" areas and sparsely populated rural areas. Retailers view inner-city
areas as difficult places to operate businesses because of the high operating costs and entry
barriers—such as scarcity of land and financing, zoning restrictions and other ordinances, and high
risks of crime.2 Sparsely populated rural areas, on the other hand, provide too small a customer
base to allow a sizable store to survive.
J A recent issue paper published by the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy has addressed many of these issues,
as they apply to the inner city, in a comprehensive fashion. Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, No Place to
Shop: An Issue Paper . . Public Voice for Food and Health Policy (Washington, DC: February 1996).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study n 1-3
Chapter I. Introduction
Findings from Earlier Research
Over a number of years, varied research studies have addressed questions of availability and access
to food sources for low-income households. The studies have been framed largely in terms of the
density of supermarkets or chain stores, price differences, and conditions in stores in different
kinds of areas defined by income level and degree of urbanization. In a study of stores
participating in the FSP in 1978, the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture found that food chains (firms with 11 or more stores) were under-representea
and independent food outlets prevailed in poorer "trade" areas.3 The implication was
that the inherent advantages and efficiencies of chains were not as available to individuals living in
low-income areas as they were to individuals living in higher-income areas. In particular, it was
thought that chains could confer price advantages on shoppers.
Other studies have considered access in "inner city" areas and rural areas. Studies of access within
the inner city have usually focused on comparisons with other highly urbanized areas. The results
of those studies have been mixed.
In one study of four communities in Rochester, New York—including inner-city areas—it was
estimated that 30 to 40 percent of low-income families did their shopping at independent stores
rather than chain stores, and paid a 10 percent premium for doing so.4 Similar findings were
reported in a 1991 study of New York City stores,5 in which individuals from poor communities
paid 9 percent more for the same foods than individuals from middle-class communities. A 1993
study of Los Angeles found the cost of food to be three to 6 percent higher in the two-square-mile
inner-city area studied than in comparative suburban areas.6
In a 1988 study of prices in 322 supermarkets in 10 metropolitan areas, the USDA found that
although central-city supermarkets had higher prices than supermarkets in other parts of the
metropolitan area, the higher prices were not associated with low-income neighborhoods.7 Instead,
stores in higher-income areas had higher prices for food.
1 P. E. Nelson,, Analysis ofthe Impacts ofFood Stamp Redemptions on Food Stores and Regions. Fiscal Year 1978,
Technical Bulletin No. 1946. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service (Washington, D.C. April
1981).
4 M. Alexi, G. H. Hanes Jr., and L.S. Simon, Black Consumer Profiles: Food Purchasing in the Inner City.
University of Michigan Press (Ann Arbor: 1980).
5 M. Green, The Poor Pay More for Less, New York Department of Consumer Affairs. (New York, N.Y., April
1991).
* L. Ashman, et al.. Seeds ofChange: Strategiesfor Food Securityfor the Inner City. Southern California Interfaith
Hunger Coalition. (Los Angeles, 1993).
' P. E. Nelson and J. M. McDonald, Food Cost Variations: Implicationsfor the Food Stamp Program, by, Technical
Bulletin No. 1737 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service (Washington, D.C, April 1981).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study T// 1-4
Chapter I. Introduction
A more recent study examined supermarket presence in 21 metropolitan areas and found the
existence of an urban grocery store gap.* The study viewed the concentration of supermarkets
compared to the proportion of households receiving public assistance across ZIP Codes in the
metropolitan areas. It was found that low-income households tend to live in areas with lower
levels of supermarket concentration and tend not to have automobiles—thus limiting their ability
to access other areas within the community.
Various studies have compared food prices and access across urban, suburban, and rural areas. A
1979 study of 14 food stores in Omaha, Nebraska, and surrounding areas found that the food prices
in inner city stores were 3 to 6 percent lower than food prices in suburban and rural areas.9 A
1988 study of food retailing in rural areas found that though the ratio of supermarkets to population
size was similar in urban and rural areas, rural households had fewer stores to choose from and had
to travel further to reach them than people living in urban areas.10 In their study of rural areas,
Morris et. al. concluded that smaller stores had higher prices than supermarkets." They also found
that the quantity and quality of food offered in smaller stores were not as good as that offered in
supermarkets. More recently, a study done in 1992 of three areas in the State of New York found
prices in urban areas to be higher than those in rural or suburban areas.12
Those studies and others suggest that rural populations generally have less access to stores offering
extensive choices in high-quality food. The studies have not, however, been clear as to whether
inner-city populations have greater or lesser access to acceptably priced food than other
populations. Nevertheless, as the contradictions in their findings suggest, the studies also suffer
some major limitations. Many were based on very small samples or on case studies of particular
markets or neighborhoods. Most focused on supermarkets or large grocery stores to the exclusion
of smaller or more specialized food stores. Findings related to food prices are particularly hard to
interpret in view of the small sample sizes in many cases and due to the wide variation in the size
and composition of the market baskets that were used, as well as in the approaches to weighting
individual items to derive an overall market basket measure.
* R.W. Cotterill and A.W. Franklin, "The Urban Grocery Store Gap," report for the Food Marketing Policy Center,
University of Connecticut. (Storrs, Connecticut, May 1995).
* D. A. Ambrose, "Retail Grocery Pricing: Inner City, Suburban, and Rural Comparisons," Journal of Business,
1979, vol. 52 no. I, p. 993.
10 P. M. Morris, et al., "Food Security in Rural America: A Study of the Availability and Costs of Food," Journal of
Nutrition Education, vol 24, no. I, Jan/Feb. supplement, 1992, p. 525.
" Ibid. Morris etal.
12 E. G. Crockett, et al. "Comparing the Cost of a Thrifty Food Plan Market Basket in Three Areas of New York
State," Journal ofNutrition Education. Vol 24. No. I Jan/Feb. Supplement. 1992, p. 765.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1ICt 1-5
Chapter I. Introduction
Purposes and Approach of This Study
Collectively, the results of past studies help frame the issues addressed in this study. With regard
to the research and initiatives cited above, there remains a number of issues about accessibility and
availability. These issues can be condensed into the following two questions:
Do retail food stores in low-income areas offer the same level of variety, quality,
quantity, and prices as outlets in other locations do?
• Are low-income households near food retailers that can provide high-quality food at
comparably low prices?
In Chapter II, we present an overview of the data sources and methods used in this report. The
chapter provides a basis for understanding results described in the ensuing chapters. Appendices
present aspects of the methodology in greater detail.
In Chapter III, we present an analysis that demonstrates how supermarkets and other types of stores
differ in the variety of high-quality and reasonably priced foods. Since the universe of stores
considered in the analysis includes grocery stores, convenience stores, specialty stores, and other
types of food retailers, this analysis provides a benchmark for determining which stores can satisfy
the market basket demands of shoppers.
In Chapter IV, data on retailer mix and availability are presented. This analysis is oriented toward
describing both the distribution of various types of food retailers within market areas and the
characteristics of the communities that are most closely associated with the presence of different
types of retailers. The chapter, in particular, examines retailer availability in areas characterized by
varying levels of urbanization and income.
Chapter V elaborates on the information presented in Chapter IV, by describing food retailers and
accessibility in highly urbanized areas. In this chapter, the ability of food retailers to provide the
variety of high-quality and reasonably priced food in high-poverty areas as in other urban areas.
The proximity of FSP participants in these areas to stores that can fill the market basket is
explored. Finally, we examine areas that lack a retailer presence.
Chapter VI parallels the analysis presented in Chapter V, but for rural areas. The analysis is pre-sented
in two parts. First, we present information on the sufficiency and accessibility of stores in
sparsely populated rural areas. Again the analysis compares high-poverty to other areas. Second,
we evaluate the sufficiency of food stocks and accessibility in small hamlets, towns, and cities that
are likely to be used by shoppers in sparsely populated rural areas. Therefore, we address whether
or not rural areas have access outside the population centers, and whether the population centers
are sufficient for providing retailer food services within the area and for people living in adjacent
sparsely populated areas.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study JA 1-6
Chapter I. Introduction
As the following chapters will make clear, the research data and Findings reported in this study go
far beyond those of earlier efforts. In terms of geographic extent, the study provides a long-needed
national perspective on the contributions of a wide range of food retailers in meeting the needs of
low-income populations. This study, in short, carries analysis of FSP accessibility and consumer
services further than preceding ones and is an important new resource for evaluation of a program
that directly affects the lives of millions of U.S. citizens.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study £ I 1-7
//
Chapter II
Data and Methods
n
Chapter II. Data and Methods
This study is based on extant and newly collected data that provide both national and local-level
perspectives on Food Stamp Program (FSP) authorized food retailers, their accessibility, and on the
cost, quality, and availability ofthe foods they provide. It represents the most comprehensive data
collection effort on this topic. This chapter introduces, with the aim of providing a background for
interpreting the results in the following chapters, the major data sources and methods used to collect
and analyze these data. It is organized into three sections:
• Food Stamp Authorized Retailers Characteristics
• Intensive Site Analyses
• National ZIP Code Analysis
A detailed discussion of some aspects of technical details is provided in the Appendices A and B of
this report.
Survey of Authorized Retailers
In the spring and summer of 1994, data were collected from a nationally representative sample of
retailers through:
• a manager interview
• a detailed inspection of store facilities
• an assessment of the cost, quality, quantity, and variety of foods available in the store
The various analyses presented in this report concentrate primarily on data collected via the
assessment.
All stores that were both authorized by the FSP as of December 1993 and located in the contiguous
48 States provided the universe for the study. Military commissaries and wholesalers were
eliminated from the frame, as were stores that served food on the premises. Included among the
approximately 200,000 stores that met the conditions were:
supermarkets
grocery stores
specialty stores
convenience stores
combination grocery/gas stations
produce stands
health food stores
routes
stores that sold food in addition to other items (for example, general stores and
restaurants).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study <^3 M-1
Chapter II. Data and Methods
A nationally representative sample of 2,520 stores was selected from the frame. (Appendix A
provides more details on the sampling approach.) A three-stage sampling approach with 40 Primary
Sampling Units (PSUs) was used. (Exhibit II-1 presents the locations of the PSUs.) Efforts were
made to contact all stores drawn for the sample; however, only 2,381 were willing to participate in
the study, and usable data were collected from 2,378 of those.1 Except where indicated, the entire
dataset was used for the analysis. A table showing subcategories used in the analysis is provided in
Appendix A.
Figure III
Location of Counties Comprising the 40 Primary Sampling Units
for the Retailer Survey*
* Counties comprising Brooklyn, New York; Baltimore City, Maryland; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are not visible on map
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997
1 In a few cases, we could not complete the portion of the data collection involving pricing, quality and shelf stock
assessments. These were cases in which food was present but could not be evaluated since they were stored in boxes
for delivery. In these cases, however, we did complete the manager interviews.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study *f 11-2
Chapter Data and Methods
Within each store, data collectors gathered information on the variety and availability of products
specified by a 142-item market basket designed to include foods from all the major food groups. In
assembling the market basket, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Thrifty Food
and Low Cost Food Plans were used to guide the selection of items within categories. Items were
selected on the basis of their importance in the expenditures of low-income households. The
resulting market basket of foods was analyzed by a nutritionist to ensure that the items provided a
diverse and nutritious diet. A list of items in this market-basket is presented in Exhibit 11.2.
Figure 11-2
Full Market Basket Used for Data Collection
Fresh/Perishables
Apples
Bananas
Green Beans
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cantaloupe
Celery
Com
Cucumbers
Orange Juice
Lettuce
Onions
Oranges
Peaches
Potatoes. White
Squash
Tomatoes
Bacon
Roast Beef
Ground Beef
Cold Cuts
Chicken Parts
Chicken Whole
Fish Filets
Frankfurters
Ham, Not Canned
Pork Chops
Pork Sausage
Fresh Turkey
Butter
Cheddar Cheese
Cottage Cheese
Eggs
Soft Tub Margarine
Skimmed Milk
Yogurt
Oonuts/Pasliy
White Bread
Other Bread
Fresh Meal Pol Pic
Fresh Pizza
Frozen
Green Beans
Broccoli
Carrots
Com
Fruit
Orange Juice
Onions
Peas
Potatoes
Ground Beef
Chicken
Fish Filets
Breaded Fish
Ham
Pork Sausage
Turkey
Yogurt
Bread, Any Type
Grain Based Breakfast Foods
Sweet Baked Goods
Chicken /Beef Dinner
Meat Pot Pie
Ice Cream
Macaroni and Cheese
Macaroni & Meat
Frozen Pizza
Canned/Bottled
Applesauce
Green Beans
Cabbage or Sauerkraut
Carrots
Com
Apple Juice
Orange Juice
Tomato Juice
Onions
Oranges
Peas
Peaches
Potatoes, White
Squash
Tomatoes
Fun
Frankfurters
Ham
Poultry
Pork Sausage
Tuna
Baked Beans
Canned Beans
Catsup
Macaroni and Sauce
Dry Roasted Peanuts
Peanut Butter
Soup, with Meat
Soup, Non-Meat
Soup Chick) i Noodle
Spaghetti Sauce, Meatless
Hydrogcnated Vegetable Fat
Jelly
Mayonnaise
Canned Whole Milk
Milk(Skim/Lowfat/Evaporat
ed
Salad Dressing
Diet Soft Drinks
Non Diet Soft Drinks
Maple or Com Syrup
Vinegar
Dried
Fruits
Peas, Beans
Potato Chips
White Potatoes
Fish
Eggs
Skim/Lowfat Milk
Bran/Wheat Cereal
Rich/Com Cereal
Presweetened Cereal
Unsweetened Com Flakes
Cookies
Commeal
Soda Crackers
All Purpose Flour
Whole Wheat Flours
MAM Type Candy
Oatmeal
Macaroni
Popcorn
Salt
Spaghetti Dry
White Sugar
White Rice
Macaroni and Cheese Dinner
Pizza Mixes
Soup Mixes
Coffee Regular
Coffee Instant
Peeper/Spices
Powdered Ades
Salad Dressing Mixes
Tea
Scarce AuHtonied Food Retailer Charictenmci Study: Technical Report I. February IW7.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 4 /f 1-3
Chapter II. Data and Methods
A second core market basket, containing 42 items selected from the larger food basket, was used to
collect information on prices, and on the quality and quantity of the foods available in the store. The
food items were selected on the basis of their relative sales volume within each of nine food
categories. A list of items used in this core market basket is provided in Exhibit II1-3.
Figure 11-3 |
The Core Market Basket I
Fresh Ground Beef Fresh Lettuce Ice Cream Canned Macaroni
Fresh Pork Chops Fresh Tomatoes Eggs Catsup
Fresh Chicken Frozen Orange Juice Whole Wheat Flour Peanut Butter
Fresh Fish Fillets Frozen Potatoes Dry Spaghetti Canned Chicken Soup
Packaged Bacon Canned Applesauce White Rice Canned Spaghetti Sauce
Frankfurters Canned Corn Corn Flakes Soft Drinks, Cola
Canned Tuna Canned Apple Juice Bread M&Ms type candy
Fresh Apples Potato Chips Crackers Sugar
Fresh Bananas Cheddar Cheese Frozen Pot Pie Coffee
Fresh Oranges Stick Margarine Frozen Pizza
Fresh Potatoes Whole White Milk Dry Macaroni & Cheese
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997.
Both market baskets were selected so as to maximize the ability to collect consistent information
across all stores in the sample. Although they cannot be characterized as representing the full range
and breadth of the foods the stores carry, the items do represent all major categories of household
food purchases and the leading types of foods in each category. Our efforts were oriented not toward
describing retailers in terms of the total range and breadth of the goods they carried, but toward
reporting whether or not the retailers could satisfy the basic food requirements of a typical shopper.
More information on our approach is provided in the Technical Memorandum that appears in
Appendix B.
The data collectors were instructed to act like knowledgeable consumers trying to fill a market
basket. Training was provided to standardize data collection procedures.
The approach used in the survey was "store-based." That is, we viewed the store as the primary unit
of analysis and collected information on the entire market basket from each store in the sample. If
a store could not provide a specific item in the market basket, we noted the absence of the item and
continued to the next item. At each store, we collected data that would allow characterization of the
store on the basis of the variety of food products offered, the quantity and quality of food, and the
overall cost of the market basket.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study j-fc 11-4
Chapter II. Data and Methods
Variety
As a basis for determining the variety of foods offered, certain information was collected for
a market basket of 142 commonly purchased food items. Data were collected on four
dimensions of variety.
• Brands—the number of different labels available to the consumer
• Packaging—the number of different package sizes and types represented in the
product category
• Assortment—the number of di fferent variations—outside of brand, packaging and
form—in which a product was available
• Form—whether the product was provided fresh, canned or bottled, frozen, or
dried
The above aspects all play a part in consumers' purchasing decisions. The third dimension,
assortment, is a catchall category that reflects the availability of the product across different
"varieties" (for example, Winesap versus Delicious apples), grades (chuck versus choice), cuts
(chops versus steaks), flavors (chocolate ice cream versus vanilla), treatments (tuna packed
in oil or in water), or nutritional alternatives (skim milk versus whole milk). Although we
recognize the importance of those distinctions (particularly those related to varieties
considered to be more healthful), we did not attempt to address variety for each of the
components of the assortment dimension.
For each aspect of variety, we determined whether or not a store could provide at least three
options for shoppers, and if it could not, how many options it did provide. Unavailable
products were identified as providing no choice at all. Thus, for any single item in the market
basket, the "particular variety" measure ranged from zero to three.
Because our focus was on variety across all food groups or—at the least, variety across items
within a particular food group—measures of variety on individual items were combined to
provide an overall store measure. To allow for differences in the relative importance of the
foods in household purchases, weights were assigned to food groups on the basis of
consumption by households in the low-income sample of the 1987/88 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey.2 Weights for individual items within food groups were assigned (where
necessary) on the basis of the value of total food store sales in 1992. Thus, we were able to
derive a variety measure over the entire market basket for all four aspects. This within-store
2 This is the most current source ofcomprehensive information on food consumption and expenditures of low-income
households. The 1983 Thrifty Food Plan, which was the most recent version available at the time of this analysis, is
based on data gathered in 1977-78 and is outdated.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study j n 11-5 *1
Chapter II. Data and Methods
measure ranged from zero if a store could provide none of the items specified in the market
basket to 100 if a store provided at least three options for every item in the market basket.
Cost/Price
In pricing food items, sed a lowest-cost strategy. That is, for each item priced, data
collectors were instructed to identify the product among those meeting the indicated market
basket specification that was lowest in price per pound and to record the price of that product.
As a result, different brands, sizes, and types were priced in different stores (for example,
perhaps Red Delicious ar oles might have been priced in one store and Winesap apples in
another, assuming that each was the lowest-priced in its respective store). In effect, data
collectors obtained information on the lowest-cost market basket satisfying the required
product specifications in each store they visited.
This "lowest-cost" strategy was used by Morris et. al. in a study of rural supermarkets
sponsored by Public Voice.3 It assumes that shoppers are minimizing their expenditures on
food, and therefore holds consumer preferences constant. The major advantage of the "lowest-cost"
approach over other measures is that it provides a base for comparing stores, since all
stores, if they carry an item, will have a "lowest-cost" version. The approach reduces
problems of data collection and missing data that occur when data collection attempts to price
similar brands. The major disadvantage is that the "lowest cost" approach does not account
for consumer preferences in terms of differences in brand, grade, cut, variety, and size, all of
which have important implications for price.
Although the "lowest cost" approach reduces problems of missing data, it does not eliminate
them. Therefore, strategies for coping with missing items are needed. For each analytic
category or combination of categories of interest, we computed a mean expenditure for stores
that stocked the item. The mean was used as an estimate of expenditures for stores in that
category. For example, the average cost of fresh ground beef as priced in nine low-income
supermarkets in urban areas was $67.31 per person/year. That represents the
"supermarket/low-income area/urban" store category. It was calculated by multiplying the
price per pound of ground beef, in each of the nine low-income urban supermarkets in the
sample, by the average number of pounds consumed per capita per annum, and then deriving
a simple average of the results. Stores within the category that are missing an item are
implicitly assigned the average price charged by stores that stock the item.
If no quotes were available for a particular cell, we did not use the value for computing the
total market basket compariscn. To facilitate our comparison, however, we adopted an
approach that used an index based on supermarket expenditures for comparisons. Therefore,
1 Patricia M. Morris et al., "Food Security in Rural America: A Study of the Availability and Costs of Food," Journal
ofNutrition Education, sol 24. No. I. (JanTFeb. Supplement), 1992, p. 525.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study n$ 11-6
Chapter II. Data and Methods
the price of the items priced at a convenience store is stated as a percentage of the price of the
same items priced at a supermarket.4
Prices were collected on 42 food items for each of the 2,378 retailers surveyed. Prices are first
aggregated by a weight representing the importance of the food product in the diets of low-income
households. The result is the annual cost representing the per capita amount a family
of four would spend on that item if it filled the market basket from a particular store. A final
step was to calculate national averages on the basis of sample weights.
Quality and Quantity
Since the collection of information on both quality and quantity placed a heavy burden on data
collectors, we restricted the collection of information to the 42 items in the smaller market
basket. For each item in that market basket, data collectors attempted to determine how many
items meeting standards of quality were available from shelf stocks. The procedure specified
the number of items to be collected. With a few exceptions, the specification was based on
collecting information on as many items as would be necessary to supply the weekly needs of
10 households from current stocks.5 Although this limitation might seem conservative,
satisfying even that requirement can be demanding, particularly for smaller food stores.
However, it gave a range for determining the quantity of stock that different types of retailers
kept on the shelves and for determining its availability to customers.6
Data collectors were provided specific guidelines for determining quality. Fresh or perishable
items were evaluated for conformance with guidelines on quality specified by the USDA.7
Date-stamped foods were judged on whether the expiration date had been reached. Other
items, such as canned and packaged foods, were examined for damage such as dents or tears
in the packaging.
4 For more information on this methodology, please consult Appendix B. A caution is in order in interpreting the
results of this analysis. For some store types, some items could not be priced in many stores, and thus provided a
tenuous basis for inferring the retailer population. That is particularly true for certain combinations of food items and
store types. Very few convenience stores in low-income areas sell fresh produce, for example.
5 The requirements generally corresponded to the weekly at-home needs of 10 four-person households, as determined
by the results of the 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. A poor response rate for that survey raised
concerns over many of the estimates. Although subsequent work has alleviated some of the concerns, care must be
exercised in the use of the data. More information on the approach is provided in in Appendix B.
* Another measure of the depth of inventory for which information was collected is the store manager's estimate of
the number of days of inventory the store commonly maintained for nonperishable food items. The measure offers
insight into the volume of store inventory (on-shelf and back room) in relation to sales volume. It is therefore an
indication of immediate availability in relation to sales. But the need for inventories that are immediately available is
dependent on a store's access to its principal suppliers. A store that receives supplies from its warehouse on a daily basis
requires a far smaller inventory than a store that is supplied weekly. Therefore, measures of shelf stock and restocking
practices should not be interpreted in isolation, but in combination with other measures of store performance.
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Howto Buy Food for Economy and Quality: Recommendations ofthe UnitedStates
Department ofAgriculture (New York: Dover, 1975).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study k Q, 11-7 IS\
Chapter II. Data and Methods
To summarize the procedure at each store, data collectors selected an item based on lowest-price
considerations. They would then attempt to collect enough units (meeting quality
standards) of that item from shelf stocks to satisfy the demands of 10 households. The number
of units would represent the quantity available. The proportion of units that met quality
standards provided a measure of quality. It must be noted that the quality measure reflects a
purposeful selection process, in which the data collector attempted to avoid poor quality.
Thus, the measure reflects whether there was sufficient high-quality food available, and not
the extent of poor-quality food in the store.
When aggregated across products, those measures of quality and quantity were weighted to
indicate their relative importance in the diets of low-income households. The resulting
measures ranged from zero (that is, no availability or no quality) to ten (that is, enough
availability to supply 10 households, all items of sufficient quality).
Intensive Site Analyses
Access to FSP retail stores is such a crucial issue that it was decided to focus on it closely by means
of an intensive analysis in several market areas. The areas were selected on the basis of differences
in such characteristics as level of urbanization, income level, cultural and ethnic context, and
geography. The intensive site analyses were undertaken to provide a detailed perspective on access
in selected communities ranging from highly urbanized areas to sparsely populated rural areas.
Five intensive sites were selected from the 40 areas serving as PSUs (Primary Sampling Units) for
the retailer survey. The sites were selected to provide variety in level of urbanization, income, access
to transportation, and demographics. Within the sites, we identified specific communities of interest.
In Baltimore, Maryland, we focused on describing access within the inner city. Marion County and
Dillon County, South Carolina, represent a rural area lying outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA). Kanawha County and Boone County represent two adjacent counties in the Appalachian
Mountains—the former being part of the Charleston MSA, while the latter is a rural area outside the
Charleston MSA. In New Mexico, Dona Ana County was selected as a small-city MSA, and Otero
County and Lincoln County were selected as a sparsely populated non-MSA area. Finally, Los
Angeles County provided three sites for the analysis. Southeast Los Angeles and Pasadena were
selected as examples of urbanized communities, Palmdale was selected as an example of a small
city surrounded by a rural area.
Data Sources
Data sources for this analysis include the Store Tracking and Redemption Subsystem (STARS)
database, the 1990 Census, files on food stamp participants provided by the States or local
social service departments, and information collected in a series of site visits.
• STARS—Data on authorized retailers were provided by the Food and Consumer Service
(FCS) for 1988 through 1993. Those data reflect information provided by the retailers
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study J>() 11-8
Chapter II. Data and Methods
during FSP authorization or reauthorization, including details on store type, location,
and gross annual sales. Information on the monthly food stamp redemptions of all
authorized stores during the period was also supplied.
1990 Census—Demographic information was extracted mom a file provided by CACI.1
Those data provided a variety of population-based estimates for describing specific
locations (as defined by ZIP Code area) within each site.
Participant Files—State and local agencies administering the Food Stamp Program
provided information on all households in the study area that were receiving benefits in
February 1994. Information included the location of the participant household, benefits
and issuances received, and characteristics of the household members.
Intensive Site Visits—Each site was visited to obtain an understanding of problems with
access to food in the area. At each site, information was colle ted in interviews with
persons involved in food access issues and from documents, reports, newspapers, and
other sources.
Methods
Analysis ofretailer access in the five intensive areas involved two distinct approaches. First,
addresses provided by STARS and from participant files were used to map retailers and
participant households within the intensive areas by means ofGeographic Information System
(GIS) technology. Although most participants and retailers were mapped in all five areas,
locating some participants was problematic (for example, when the only address available was
a rural delivery route). The geocoding resulted in a set of maps that displayed the locations
ofretailers and recipients each ofthe areas. The geocoded data set was also used to calculate
distances between FSP recipient households and retailers in the area.
The second approach, which complemented the geocoding, provided a more detailed statistical
view ofeach ofthe sites. Combining the retailer database with Census demographics allowed
ZIP Code areas within each site to be compared with respect to retailer density, redemptions,
and food stamp issuances to participants. Comparing redemptions and issuances within an
area produces a rough measure of whether the area is underserved or well served. In other
words, under the assumption that shoppers will purchase food from a local retailer—provided
its foods are attractively priced, meet a certain standard ofquality, and offer the variety needed
for a nutritious diet—redemptions in an area will be roughly comparable to issuances. The
need to travel outside one's community to shop is likely to reflect shoppers' inability to satisfy
their food shopping needs locally and thus leads to a lower ratio of redemption issuances.
' CACI, The Sourcebook ofZIP Code Demographics: Census Edition fArlington, Virginia, 1992).
Authorizeo Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study x , 11-9
Chapter II. Data and Methods
National ZIP Code Area Analysis
The third component in this study entailed an analysis of all retailers authorized to redeem food
stamps. They were geographically coded by ZIP Code and linked to information on demographics
and other community characteristics so as to reveal differences in retailer service levels between
communities.
Data Sources and File Construction
Data used for this analysis include STARS and the 1990 Census. FCS provided STARS data
on authorized retailers in the program during 1993. Information on retailers' ZIP Code area,
store type (or format), gross sales, and redemptions was provided for 201,831 retailers. This
dataset was processed so as to eliminate military commissaries, because they serve a particular
population and an: generally closed to the public. Retailers located in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and the territories were also eliminated, because they are viewed as representing unusual
problems of access. The remaining 199,401 retailers were used for this analysis. Those data
were summarized to provide the number of stores and redemptions for each of the seven store
types by ZIP Code area.
Data collected by the 1990 Census (STF3A) were obtained from CAC1 via its ZIP Code
Sourcebook.9 The Sourcebook provides an extensive collection of demographics on data
provided by the Census files useful for describing communities in the analyses. In total, there
were 29,073 ZIP Codes identified from the CACI materials. Those ZIP Code areas included
only locations classified as residential by CACI.
The two files were matched on the basis of ZIP Code information. Approximately 7,000
retailers could not be matched. Retailers were unmatched for a variety of reasons, including
the retailer's specification of a nonresidential ZIP Code (for example, a shopping mall that has
its own ZIP Code), and errors of transcription or typing. Each of the unmatched retailers was
identified with an existing CACI ZIP Code by means of a "nearest ZIP Code" matching
algorithm. Retailers still not matched to CACI ZIP Codes, because latitude or longitude of
the retailer or the CACI-provided ZIP Code could not be determined identified, were manually
matched to existing areas. The ZIP Code directories and supplemental materials provided by
CACI were used to resolve problems of non-matching. All of the retailers' locations were
successfully associated with some residential ZIP Code.
The resulting data file consisted of 29,073 records containing information about the
distribution of retailers and demographics within CACI-identified residential areas. In the
aggregate, the data file provides a basis for addressing questions concerning access.
* CACI, The Sourcebook ofZIP Code Demographics: Census Edition ("Arlington, Virginia, 1992).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study - * 11-10
Chapter II. Data and Methods
Methods
We used ZIP Code area as the unit of analysis, to enable us to focus on the number of stores
within an area, and its demographics. Since the distribution of stores is dependent on many
factors—including population, the size ofthe geographic area, urbanization, poverty level, and
supply and demand factors—we used regression analysis to address questions related to
retailers' location and distribution.
The distribution of retailers is very much skewed toward the lower range of the distribution.
Ofthe 29,073 ZIP Codes used in the analysis, approximately 16 percent had no retailers at all,
and almost two-thirds had no supermarkets. To adjust for that problem, we utilized Poisson
regression procedures to provide the estimates in the multivariate analyses. To control for
differences in ZIP Code areas, we used population and the geographic size of the area
throughout the analysis.
Analytic Decisions Concerning Store Type and Location
Throughout the rest of this study, store type and location are critical elements in the analysis. The
FSP officially recognizes 20 types of retail outlets. FSP-authorized retailers, when applying or
reapplying for reauthorization, self-declare their store type. In general, industry definitions provide
a basis for those self-declarations. Data from the retailers characteristics survey indicated that self-declarations
are consistent with information supplied on site by the retailers and with the
independent judgments of data collectors as they assessed the store.10
We introduced one change to the FSP store type categories; stores identifying themselves as
groceries with gross sales of $2 million or more we reclassified as supermarkets, and supermarkets
with gross sales of less than $2 million were reclassified as groceries. In the analysis, we reduced
the set of store types to be investigated to seven:
supermarkets—groceries with gross sales of over $2 million
large groceries—groceries with sales of between $500,000 and $2 million
• small groceries—groceries with sales of less than $500,000
• convenience stores—limited-line >od stores
• grocery/gas outlets—limited-line tbod stores selling gasoline
• specialty stores—retailers specializing in one or two types of products
• other stores—any other store eligible for FSP authorization.
10 For instance, about 90 percent of stores that defined themselves as being convenience stores were identified as such
by our data collectors or by the stc.c managers they interviewed. Another 6 percent were identified as grocery stores.
About 83 percent of the self-identified supermarkets were identified as either a supermarket or a grocery store by data
collectors and 81 percent were so identified by store managers
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study A a 11-11
3j»
Chapter II. Data and Methods
A second factor relates to location—as specified by the urbanization and poverty level of the area.
Urbanization level is a measure derived from the ratio of population identified as living in an urban
area to the total population of the ZIP Code area. The measure ranges from zero to 100 percent.
In our analyses, we defined three urbanization levels: (1) urban, which is defined as containing an
urban population of 90 percent or more, (2) mixed, which is defined as having an urban population
ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent of the total population, and (3) rural, which was defined as
having an urban population of less than 10 percent of the total population.
Poverty level was generally subdivided into the following areas:
• High poverty—20 percent or more of die households were below the poverty line
• Other areas— less than 20 percent of households were below the poverty line.
That categorization identifies high-poverty areas as the top quantile of ZIP Code areas on the basis
of poverty level, and is consistent w|th the definitions used by HUD in identifying economically
distressed areas for inclusion in its Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Program."
11 Enterprise Zones, in order to be eligible for inclusion in the HUD Enterprise Zone/Empowerment Community
program, must have a poverty rate of 20 percent in each Census tract, or 25 percent in at least 90 percent of the Census
tracts, or 35 percent in at least 50 percent of the Census tracts. The 20 percent threshold is consistent with the level used
for this analysis. It must be pointed out, however, that the units of geography differ. Over the wider area of a ZIP Code,
it is more difficult to achieve as high a poverty rate as in Census tracts.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study A ,, 11-12
S>7
Chapter III
Store Type and Access to Food
3/
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Grocery retailing has undergone a revolution over the last few decades. Economies of scale have
led to fewer—and larger—full-line grocery stores. At the same time, opportunities have arisen for
smaller, more specialized stores for satisfying consumers' demands for greater convenience or more
specialized selections of foods. Thus we see how a food retailing industry of extreme diversity has
evolved.
The implications of those changes for low-income households, however, are not clear. The
conflicting evidence of research findings fails to establish whether low-income households have
been disadvantaged by reduced access, reduced variety, diminished quality, and higher prices.
In the analysis that follows, a nationally representative sample of retailers authorized by the Food
Stamp Program (FSP) is examined on the basis of the variety, availability, quality and cost of the
foods they sell and on the extent to which retailers offer full-service departments and provide
nonfood products. For each of those characteristics, we made comparisons between seven store
types: supermarkets, large groceries, small groceries, specialty food stores, convenience stores,
combination grocery/gas stations, and "other tores.'"
A basic assumption is that supermarkets are viewed as attractive places to shop for variety,
availability, quality, and price. Therefore, in the analyses that follow, our key question is this: How
well do nonsupermarket retailers approximate supermarkets on each of the measures?
Variety
Variety in the foods offered for sale by a retailer can have important implications for the consumer.
For example, stores that offer a full range of foods may save shoppers time and costs by offering
them the convenience of filling their household food needs in one stop.
Since stores that offer a wide variety of foods usually operate on a larger scale, they can take
advantage of economies of scale to sell at lower prices. However, there are tradeoffs between
offering variety and maintaining efficiency. There is evidence that stores (such as food warehouses)
operating on a large scale and offering a more limited variety of foods operate at the lowest per-unit
cost. We therefore expect to find that supermarkets will provide the highest level of variety of all
the stores we examine. An important focus of this analysis is whether any of the nonsupermarket
store types can provide consumers with a range of shopping options over a wide variety of food
categories.
These seven categories were constructed from store type information supplied by retailers when they applied
or reapplied for authorization. The store types represent the major categories of retailers participating in the FSP.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study x, 111-1
*
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Measures of Variety
In this analysis, variety is measured according to four characteristics:
• Brands. Variety in brands has significant implications for price and product quality.
A principal reason food retailers offer more than one brand is to provide the
consumer with options in price and quality. When a house brand is among those
offered—as it frequently is when a store stocks two or more brands of a given
product—the consumer is effectively being given an opportunity to pay a lower price
for an unadvertised product that is less dependent on brand for its reputation and
future sales. Recent years have seen an ever-increasing percentage of food sales
accounted for by house brands among all consumers.2
Packaging. Foods are increasingly offered in a wide assortment of packages and
sizes. Differences in packaging and size range from individual-serving sizes to large,
economy-size containers that are now found in larger food stores, especially in the
"warehouse-type" outlets. Packaging also affects ways in which products are sold
and priced (for example, six-packs of soft drinks versus single bottles) and on user-friendly
packaging (for example, the use of handles on bottles). Variety in the size
of packaging provides larger households the opportunity to save money by buying
larger-size containers, while giving 1- and 2-person households a chance to buy
smaller containers and avoid waste from buying more than they can use.
Convenience of use and ease of transport are other considerations related to package
size.
Assortment. Foods as they are offered to the consumer may be differentiated by
factors unique to a given food or category of foods, such as different varieties of
apples or pears, or a range of cuts (and/or grades) of beef or other fresh meat
products. Such differences are commonly found among perishable products that are
sold unbranded (e.g., fresh meats, poultry, seafood, and produce). Differences in
kinds of canned peaches (e.g., sliced or halves) or ice cream flavors also contribute
to variety. To a large extent this measure reflects a "catchall" category for expressing
the extent of product diversity, outside of brand and packaging, within a particular
product line. While it does not describe the specific characteristics of this diversity,
it does at the very least show that alternatives are available in the store.
2 "Shoot Out at the Check-Out," The Economist (June 5, 1993), pp. 69-70; "Shoppers Bagging More Store
Brands," Food Institute Report (April 19. 1993), p. 2; "Private Label Cereal Growth Continues," Food Institute
Report (July 26, 1993). p. 6; "Supermarket Private Label Growth Continues," Food Institute Report (September
27, 1993), p. 7; "Private Label on the Rise as Consumers Cut Spending," Milling and Baking News (May 4,
1993). p. 1.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 4A7O 111-2
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
• Forms. The form in which food is sold affects the method of storage in the
household, the costs of storage, the possibility of perishability and potential waste,
and the extent of labor and skill required for preparation. For example, foods
available in fresh form require greater care in storage and more time and skill for
preparation compared to the same foods sold in processed or prepared forms. Frozen
foods require adequate freezer capacity. Thus, a wider variety of product forms
provides consumers with greater flexibility in adapting food purchases to their
individual needs and circumstances.
For this analysis, four forms of food were considered: fresh/refrigerated, frozen,
dried, and canned/bottled. Most foods are available in food stores in at least two
forms, and frequently in three or four. For example, meats and poultry are generally
found in fresh, frozen, canned, and (sometimes) dried forms, depending on the
particular item. The consumer can generally buy fruits and vegetables in four
different forms—fresh, canned, frozen, and dried. Milk is generally available in
fresh, canned, and dried (powdered) forms.
Besides these measures, we are also interested in the extent to which retailers offer foods
across the food groups listed in Table III-l, as well as the extent to which they offer
individual items within each group. Since food items were selected for the study on the basis
of their sales volume within each food group, it was considered likely that conventional
supermarkets would offer all or nearly all the items, smaller stores would offer something
less than the entire market basket, and most specialized food stores would offer only a
portion of the entire market basket.
Table HH
Food Groups Represented In the Market Basket
Fresh meat Dairy products
Processed meats Eggs
Fresh poultry Cereals and grains
Fresh seafood Bakery products
Packaged meat Dinner mixtures
Fresh produce Other foods
Packaged produce
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical
Report IV, February 1997.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 31 III-3
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Findings With Regard to Variety
Within the extensive body of information collected about the variety of foods offered by FSP
retailers, there are many potential themes that could be examined. For the purposes of this
analysis, we will limit our attention to themes running throughout the data that have
particular relevance to FSP operations. A full set of tables relating to variety measures is
presented in Appendix C.
Variety in brands, package types, assortment, and form indicate the existence of four distinct
categories of stores (Figure III-l). Of the seven store types examined, supermarkets
consistently offer the greatest variety of foods by a wide margin, regardless of the measure
used. A second category of stores includes large groceries (grocery stores with $500,000 to
$2 million in sales). Those stores provide about 75 percent of the brands, package types, and
assortment, and 90 percent of the forms that supermarkets supply. A third tier consists of
small groceries, convenience stores, and grocery/gas stations. Those stores supply only
40 percent of the variety in brands, package types, and assortment, and approximately
70 percent of the forms found in supermarkets. Finally, specialty stores and the catchall
"other" category, as expected, have very limited variety.
Supermarkets and large groceries are the only store types to provide a full line of foods
consistently. In examining variety, it is also critical to assess the extent to which stores can
provide foods across the major food groups. Some stores, such as supermarkets, are
expected to provide foods across all food categories. Other stores, by design, do not provide
foods spanning all the major food groups and thus will do poorly on this measure. Figure
III-2 shows the percentage of stores that can meet at least 50 percent of the total market
needs in each of the major food groups, with the exception of fish. (Fish, as we will see, is
offered to a significantly lower degree than other products and thus was not included in this
measure.)
Among supermarkets, 91 percent of the stores met this requirement. Thus, about 9 percent
of the supermarkets cannot meet this requirement. When examined more closely, the
inability of most of these supermarkets to meet the requirement reflects the lack of fresh
poultry products. Seven percent of these stores cannot provide 50 percent of the fresh
poultry products specified in the market basket. In contrast to supermarkets, approximately
60 percent of the large groceries visited could supply at least 50 percent of the market basket
across all product category groupings. That compares with 4 percent of small groceries, and
less than 1 percent of the remaining types of stores with the exception of those in the "other"
category.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study ,, Q III—4 31
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Figure III-l
Index of Variety, by Store Type and Attributes of Variety
100
• p««l»Hy Stor*«
SmaN Or*««r**« Or«««rv/Oii itiUoni Otha>r «tor«
A»«»r1m»n(
N=2,378
Sourca: Authorized Food Rataaar Characteristics Study: Technical Raport IV. February 1997. Appandix C: Table*
C.2-C.5.
Figure III-2
Percent of Stores Providing at Least 50 Percent of the Market Basket
Across Major Food Groups, by Store Type
100
so
so
"o
2 AO
a.
20
N=2.378
Source Authorized Ford Rataaar Characteristics Study : Technical Raport IV. February 1997. Appandix C: Table C.I.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study I-5
Ho
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
■■■,—■.—,... ■ , . ■■ , -. , .-^■■■,— ,. , ——-
Availability and Quantity
The fact that some foods are often unavailable at authorized stores underscores the importance of
availability. If food items are either not stocked or are temporarily out of stock, consumers' choices
are limited. If no acceptable substitutes are available, return visits or trips to other stores might be
necessary.
Measures of Availability and Quantity
Information was collected for four general indicators of food item availability:
• Product availability. Product availability was determined by the extent to which the
market basket, weighted to reflect household expenditure patterns, was available within
the store. The measure reflects the ability of the store to provide all the items in the
market basket. This measure of availability is based on the more extensive market
basket of 142 items, thus providing a greater opportunity for stores to demonstrate
availability across product groupings.
• Comparison with the "staple foods" requirement. To qualify as a food store that is
eligible to redeem food stamps, stores must meet certain requirements regarding the sale
of "staple foods." Staple foods are foods that fall into one of four categories: meat,
poultry, or fish; bread or cereals; vegetables or fruits; and dairy products. As of
March 25, 1994, to qualify as a food stamp retailer, a store has to have at least half of
gross sales in staple foods, or if less than half of gross sales are accounted for by staple
foods, the store has to offer for sale, on a continuous basis, a wide variety of foods in
each of the four staple food categories, including fresh (perishable) foods in at least two
of those categories. Some foods, while eligible for food stamp purchases, are excluded
from the staple foods category.3
Thus, to provide another indicator of availability, information was collected on the
number of staple food categories offered (in both perishable and nonperishable forms),
the percentage of total gross sales accounted for by the staple food categories, and the
availability of certain specific staple food items. As in the case of product availability,
the market basket of 142 items is used.
• Shelf inventory. Shelf inventory is measured by identifying the number of four-person
households that could be served from shelf stocks. This measure provides an indication
of the degree to which items are readily available to shoppers. This measure is based
on the number of items passing standards of quality in the smaller, 42-item core market
basket.
3 Coffee, tea, soft drinks, condiments, and spices are examples of foods excluded from the "staple food" category.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study ^// 111-6
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
• Frequency of restocking. Food store managers were asked to indicate the frequency
with which they restock their shelves, using the following categories:
- All day, as needed
- Certain items, as needed
- Once a day
- Less than daily, more than weekly
- Once a week
- Less than once a week.
Responses to this question, reported in the findings below, are indicative of the general
volume of product turnover, and indirectly the frequency with which stores receive
shipments from their suppliers.
Measures of shelf inventory should be interpreted with care. An inability to obtain a set
number of items from shelf stock ignores shelf stocking practices. A retailer's shelf
inventory is a function of several elements including (a) the volume of store sales, (b)
the amount of shelf space available, and (c) the utilization of shelf space. The
effectiveness with which stores utilize shelf space is often a key determinant of store
profitability. Retailers can compensate for limited shelf inventory by frequent
restocking. Thus, shelf inventory and frequency of restocking should be considered in
combination.
Findings With Regard to Availability
Consistent with the findings on variety, the data show four levels ofproduct availability. Not
surprisingly, supermarkets rank higher in product availability than any of the other store types.
On average, 95 percent of all foods included in the market basket are available in
supermarkets. Large grocery stores follow closely behind supermarkets. They average 86
percent of the market basket available in supermarkets (Figure III.3).
Some distance behind, in terms of the product availability they offer, are combination
grocery/gas stations, small grocery stores, and convenience stores. Overall, those store types
offer about 58 percent of what supermarkets offer in relation to the market basket. As
discussed below, those types of stores are far more likely to offer a limited set of food groups
than other store types.
The types of stores that offer the least variety are the catchall "other" category and specialty
stores, which, as their name suggests, offer specialized food lines. "Other" is a residual
category that includes milk routes, bread routes, produce routes, drug stores, and other types
of nonfood retail outlets that also sell some foods. On average, stores in this fourth group
offer 23 to 32 percent of the foods offered by supermarkets.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study jj * 1-7
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Figure III 3
Index of Product Availability Within the Market Basket,
by Store Type
(Supermarkets = 100)
100
Large Grocsrlea I Convtnltnci Stores I Specially Stores
Supermarkets Small Orocarlea Orocery/Oas Stations Other Storet
N-2.371
Seam: Auihonzed Kood Relailer Charactenslics Sludy Technical Rcporl IV. February 1997, Appendix C: Tabled.
There are substantial variations in availability of different types offood. Some foods are
typically available mostly in supermarkets and large groceries (Figure III.4). Fresh fish is
generally not available at all in a large majority of the "other" stores. Fresh meat is
unavailable in about half of the small groceries, and in three-fifths of specialty, convenience
and grocery/gasoline outlets. Even large groceries cannot provide some products. For
instance, fresh seafood of the type in our market basket is unavailable in 87 percent of the
large groceries, and fresh poultry is unavailable in a quarter of the large groceries.4 With
respect to supermarkets, fresh fish is available in only two-thirds of the stores. On the other
hand, dairy and bakery products are widely available across most types of stores.
4 The market basket specified that any type of fresh fish (but not shellfish) could be counted as contributing toward
variety.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study //i 1-8
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Figure III-4
Availability of Market Basket Foods Within Specified Food Categories,
by Store Type
Fresh Meat Fresh Produce
100
a 80
a eo
S 40
100
100
80
60
3 40
g 20
c
Bakery Products
r
n
Dairy Products
I
I
I I
ImwiMll anal Onc*ry OiHMyfOH
H»2.37»
Sourca AUhonzed Food Rttoitof Chantcbwta»ci Study: T«c*«c»l Report IV. February 1997. Appandai C Table C.I.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-9
vy
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
When availability is measured in terms of access to staplefoods, most store types rank high.
Though all supermarkets offer all four staple food categories, so too, do at least 95 percent
of all large and small grocery stores, combination grocery/gasoline stations, and
convenience stores. Only in the case of specialty stores and "other" stores do a significant
percentage fail to offer all four staple food categories—30 percent and 53 percent,
respectively (Table III-2). And although a slightly smaller share of stores offers foods from
at least three staple food categories in perishable form, the same general relationship holds.
In other words, most staple foods (whether in perishable or nonperishable forms) are
available from the vast majority of FSP authorized supermarkets, grocery stores,
grocery/gasoline outlets, and convenience stores.
It is only when we ask whether all four staple food categories are available in perishable or
fresh form that significant differences among the major store types become apparent. The
percentage of convenience stores that can meet this more stringent test drops below half, and
the percentage of both small grocery stores and grocery/gasoline outlets drops to less than
two-thirds.
Grocery/gasoline stations are more likely to offer all four staple food categories than any
other store type except supermarkets. A relatively high percentage of grocery/gasoline
outlets also offer all four staple foods in fresh form—substantially higher than convenience
stores, for example. That is probably because proportionately more of the grocery/gasoline
stores are found in rural areas and therefore carry broad product lines. Because those stores
tend to have broad product lines (including gasoline), staple foods account for a much
smaller percentage of total sales in those stores than for any other store type.
Porcentsgs of Store*) by Sale* of Staple Foods, by Store Typo
*gfe» Pare********
oftsrtng a* tour staple
^^•^We/ ejieBSwBB^s^f^e^Basr ■
Percent ot store* w*,
staple foods at least ha*/
of total sale*
Percent of store*
offering aM foursta*e
food* in perishable form
Supermarkets 100% 94% 99%
Large Groceries oes 85% 91%
Small Groceries 95% 81% 60%
Convenience Stores 96% 47% 46%
Grocery/Gasoline
Stations
100% 28% 64%
Specialty Stores 30% 95% 18%
Other Stores 53% 72.5 30%
AN Stores S7% 684 58%
N=2.378
Source Authorized Food R«itaear Cfaradenstics Study. February 1997. Appendix C Tables C 13 and C 14
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-10
¥S
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
When depth ofshelfstock is examined, the superior availability of foods in supermarkets
and—to a lesser extent—in large grocery stores, is more evident. The results presented in
Figure 111-5 indicate the average number of household market baskets that can be satisfied by
each store type. Supermarkets are able, on average, to meet the needs of almost eight
households through shelf stock only, and large groceries can meet the needs ofsix households.
In comparison, small groceries, grocery/gasoline stores, and convenience stores are only able
to meet the needs of about three households.
Specialty and other stores are restricted in the number of household market baskets they can
fill because of the limited types of food they sell. For other store types, however, the low
averages piobably result more from limited shelf inventories and the relatively small volume
ofcertain types of foods that are sold. To the extent that consumers buy relatively low-volume
items from those stores, they usually do it for convenience rather than to fill the household's
weekly at-home food needs. Whatever the reason, it is evident that small food stores do not
fill the overall market basket needs of most consumers.
Restocking practices, in some cases, do not replenish shelf stock frequently. The frequency
with which shelves are restocked appears to be largely a function of the volume of sales; the
type of organization the store belongs to; and the availability of shelf space. Supermarkets
restock most frequently, generally "all day, as needed" (Figure III-6). They are followed by
large and small grocery stores, convenience stores, and grocery/gasoline combinations that
most commonly restock weekly. Specialty and other stores, in contrast, tend to restock
throughout the day, probably due to limited display space.
Fifty-nine percent of all stores surveyed could not meet the shelf availability test described
above (enough items to satisfy the weekly needs of 10 households) on as many as one-third
ofthe 42 items included in the market basket. Ofthis number, 46 percent restock their shelves
no more often than every week. From another perspective, more than one quarter (27 percent)
of all stores surveyed not only have limited shelf inventory availability at the time of the
survey, but replenish their shelf inventory on a relatively infrequent basis. This pattern does
not vary substantially by specific food item.
For instance, of stores that could supply less than 25 percent of the fresh dairy products
specified (and eliminating those that could not supply any), only 21 percent stock more than
once a day. The equivalent percentages for bakery and fresh meat products are 25 percent and
17 percent, respectively. Thus, in cases where lack of stock is apparent, many stores do not
tend to refresh the supplies throughout the day. So shoppers using those stores may face
shortages of specific items.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-11
%
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Figure III 5
Average Number of Households Served by Inventory Available in Stores,
by Store Type
Lkfga QrooarMi ICon«anknc* ttottt1 Sptclilly Storti
Suparmarkata InU Orooairtaa Groc.ry/Q.. Stations Om.i Storai
N*2.378
Source Authorized Food Retaiir8—letlatal Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997,
Appendix C:Tabk»C.17.
Figure III-6
Percent of Stores Using a Particular Stocking Pattern,
by Store Type
I
100-1
ao -
ao -
40 -
1 i 1 1
20 -
- ■ UM■ 1 91ill
m
I ...
upirmafki Ora)*»ry/Oa)« Olhor
L•gand
□
!_•■• lt%«n weakly
One* ■ waok
< DaHy and P w»e»ki/
One* • day
Cartailn llama •• natdad
AH day, at ne>a«Je>cJ
N-2.378
Source: Authorized Food Retaaer Charac«sn*»cs Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997,
Append* CTeoteC 7
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-12
fl
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
The existing staple food requirement does not appear to be exclusionary. Of the food stores
for which information on staple foods was collected, only 1.6 percent are reported to have
staple food sales that are less than half of total gross sales and to offer fewer than two staple
foods in fresh form. This is a very small number, within the range of probable reporting error.
Changing the requirement to at least three staple foods in perishable form when staple foods
account for less than half of gross sales would eliminate only another 4.5 percent of the stores
surveyed.
Quality
It is important that food items included in the measures of availability and variety discussed above
meet or exceed minimum standards of acceptability. That is, for foods to be considered "available"
to the consumer, they should be of acceptable quality. In a sense, this is a check on the relevance
of the measures described in the previous sections. If a high incidence of foods of inferior quality
is found among certain stores, it will affect the other findings on availability and variety.
Measures of Quality
Quality was measured by assessing the percentage of items within a product specification that
met criteria of quality. It should be noted that because the data collectors attempted to select
acceptable items, they did not focus on unacceptable items except when they could not meet
their market basket needs. Therefore, the quality estimator does not measure the degree to
which there is food of poor quality present, but the degree to which the typical consumer can
avoid poor-quality food.
Findings With Regard to Quality
A high level of product acceptability is found throughout the sample. Overall, only about 2
percent of the foods examined are found to be of unacceptable quality. No consistent
differences in quality are found to be related to store types. Overall, the findings suggest that
shoppers can generally avoid poor-quality food (Figure 111-7).
Although the mean level of quality is high, many stores fail to completely fill the market
basket with high-quality items, and sometimes were dramatically short of doing so (Figure III-
8). It must be noted that quality was measured over enough items to constitute a market basket
for 10 households, or if this quantity was not available, on the totality of items available.
Thus, for some stores, data collectors were "scraping the bottom" of the barrel to meet quantity
requirements and might be expected to encounter items not meeting the quality standard.
Therefore, when we find that about a two-thirds of the supermarkets could not fill the entire
market basket with items of acceptable quality, it may be because it is difficult for those stores
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-13
W
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
100
I
so
eo
-40
20
Figure III-7
Average Percent of Fresh Produce
Found to be of Acceptable Quality,
by Store Type
I I I I I
I I I I I
luptrmiiKiU
*artaa < C*nv*nl«noa Stores I Specialty tlofai
amaH OreoarMi Orooary/Qae Sfatlana Othar Slara
N«2,378
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristic* Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997, Appendix C: Table
C.6
Figure III-8
Percent of Stores With Given Quality Levels, by Store Type
100
Laraa Orocarlas Corwar.iar.ca Bloraa < tptf'My etoraa
SmaH OroesMI Orocary/Oaa Stations Olh»f Storaa
P*rMHI af i"«aa Fauna la !■ af Aaasalaaia QuiMv
| «ao»k B2B eo-ss»» t^ 100 »*
N«2,378
Source Authorized Food Retailer Characteristic* Study: Technical Report IV. February 1997.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-14
V
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
to fill the market basket of 10 households without encountering some items that do not meet
quality standards. In fact, nearly all of the supermarkets (99.75 percent) can fill the 90 percent
of the market baskets of 10 households with foods meeting standards of quality. On the other
hand, small groceries and stores in the "other" category are most notable in not being able to
fill the market basket with quality foods. For small groceries, 7 percent of the stores are
unable to fill 90 percent of the market basket with quality foods. The comparative figure for
"other" stores is 10 percent. Thus, there are relatively few stores that cannot provide quality
foods and those stores are likely to be smaller stores.
To the extent that foods of inferior quality are found, they are primarily among fresh produce,
meats, and poultry. Ofthe 12 food categories examined, fresh produce has the highest overall
incidence of poor quality, with 8 percent of that product considered to be of unacceptable
quality (Table 1II-3). The incidence of inferior quality among produce items is found to be
relatively uniform across most store types, although slightly higher among small groceries and
grocery/gas combinations and less in supermarkets. Again, on a product-by- product basis,
we find that some stores fail to provide enough items of sufficient quality to satisfy the
requirements of 10 households. In a minority of cases, for instance, it was found that some
stores could not provide any items that met standards ofquality for fresh meat (4 percent of
the large groceries), or fresh produce (3 percent of small groceries and specialty stores).
TaMeHI-3
PuraMitae* of Frosh Produce torn
FoundToB* ofUrmcctpUblBQu»aiy,
by Store Type
stowrytM' Mo. of Cases .::';-;■" Percent
Supermarkets 367 3%
l-aroe Groceries 142 8%
Smal Groceries 300 14%
Convenience Stores 229 9%
ORMMUMM Outlets 123 12%
Specialty Stores 40 8%
Other Stores 135 6%
AH Store* 1.336 6%
-". Since some stores do not sell fresh produce, the sample size tor thrs
MWs»H is smaller than the overall sample sue
N=2.378
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study. February 1997.
Append* C Table C 6
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-15
Jt)
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Cost
Since food stamp coupons are provided to program participants in the form of a monthly lump-sum
dollar amount, the amount of food that can be purchased with these coupons is ultimately
determined by the price of the foods that are purchased. The purpose of the analysis reported in
this section is to compare the cost of a standardized market basket across different types of stores.
Measures of Cost
A market basket of 42 items representing all major food categories was used for collecting
price information. Within each category, individual food items were selected on the basis
of the item's prominence in consumer food purchases, as reported by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and trade publications such as Supermarket Business. For example, fresh
beef is represented in the market basket by ground beef; fresh fruits are represented by
apples, bananas, and oranges. Although the number of items in the market basket is
relatively small, collectively those foods represent approximately one-third of the total value
of consumer food purchases.
Each individual food item in the market basket is assigned a weight based on the average
annual per capita pounds of the item consumed by individuals in the lowest income quintile
of the household portion of the 1987/88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. By
applying the per pound price of each item included in the market basket to the number of
pounds of the item consumed annually, it is possible to calculate the annual cost of each
item in the market basket.5
In the exhibits relating to price, information is presented on the annual market basket cost
in relation to the cost in supermarkets and on the overall percentage of stores contributing
to the cost estimate. Thus, we establish a cost index with supermarkets equaling 100. Costs
in other store types are relative to those found in supermarkets and can be expressed as a
percentage of costs in supermarkets. We call this measure "store-based cost," since it
assumes that shoppers are equally likely to use any store in the sample.
Another measure that we present is a redemption-based cost. This cost is weighted by food
stamp redemptions and therefore incorporates the purchase patterns of food stamp
recipients. Whereas the store-based costs reflect what is offered in stores authorized by the
5 The use of annual costs are a matter of convenience. Since the weights are provided in terms of the annual per
capita consumption for a family of four, costs are maintained in this form. It should be noted, however, that the
annual costs cannot be used for establishing an actual market basket cost, since the items contained in the market
basket are a very selective set of items that normally constitute a family's purchase.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-16
/7
Chaptei III. Store Type and Access to Food
Food Stamp Program, redemption-based costs reflect the expenditures of food stamp
recipients in the stores in which they shop.
With the exception of fresh seafood, which was frequently not available across all store
types, product categories were priced in 80 percent or more of all the supermarkets and
large grocery stores surveyed. Each of the remaining store types was poorly represented
in one or more product categories. Nearly 80 percent of the small grocery stores in the
sample did not have fresh meat and poultry items that could be priced. The majority of
convenience stores and grocery/gasoline combination stores did not offer fresh produce,
fresh meats, or poultry. Not surprisingly, the majority of specialty stores could not be
priced for most product categories, since that store type represents a collection of
specialized outlets. For example, the 20 percent of the specialty stores for which prices of
fresh produce were collected most likely represents the fruit-and-vegetable stores and
produce stands in the sample, while the 33 percent of the specialty stores for which fresh
meats and poultry were priced are probably butcher shops and meat markets.
Findings With Regard to Cost
The average market basket cost, across all stores, is $1,133. This average ranged from a
low of $871 in supermarkets to a high of almost $ 1,200 in convenience stores. Aggregating
across all product categories, the average store-based cost of market baskets purchased in
supermarkets was found to be far lower than the average cost in any other store type (Figure
III-9).6 Large grocery stores came closest, with an average cost for the entire market basket
15 percent above that of supermarkets. The average cost for other store types ranged from
33 to 54 percent above the average cost in supermarkets.
When redemptions are considered, overall costs are lower, regardless of store category.
In Figure III-9. we find that redemption-based costs are 4 percent lower in the supermarkets
that participants actually shop in than in all supermarkets authorized for the program. The
reduction varies from store to store but is largest in the case of specialty and "other" stores.
6 The figure includes estimates from stores that provide any item in the product category. Figure 111-13, presented
as an addendum to this chapter, presents estimates reflecting prices in those stores that provide all items in a product
category.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-17
/*-
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Figure III-9
Average Indexed Cost of the Market Basket,
by Store Type
1.5
>x
CO 0.5
-0.5
Larga Orocarlaa I Corwanlanca Stora* ■ Specially Stora*
Supermarkats Small Orocarlaa Orocary/Oaa Station* Othar Stora
8tor*-B***d *tadamptten-lla*ad Dlffaranea
N -2.378
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study, February 1997, Appendix C: Table CIO.
A comparison of the cost of individual food categories (e.g., fresh produce or bakery
products) shows that the cost is consistently lower for supermarkets across all categories,
although the magnitude varies.7 Market basket costs and availability by product category
and store type are compared in Figure HI-10. It is important to note that when store-based
costs are considered, the smallest cost differentials between supermarkets and other store
types tend to be for fresh meat, fresh produce, and dairy products; the largest differentials
tend to be for packaged or processed products. This finding tends to become more
pronounced when redemption-based costs are examined. In fact, some categories show little
or no difference in costs between supermarkets and some other types of stores. To
illustrate, the redemption-based cost in large groceries, specialty stores, and other stores for
fresh produce is the same or lower than that in supermarkets.
7 Fresh seafood is an exception, although the small sample size for most store types casts doubt on the statistical
reliability of the estimates.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-18
S3
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Figure 111-10
Costs for Specified Food Groups, by Store Type
(Darker Bars Represent Costs and
Lighter Bars Represent Percent of Stores)
Fresh Meat
250
200
ISO
100
90 i mil
I I IM I
100
•0
-o
to
•o g
2.
20
Lars* <*'•••'»•• ' CMVMllMl 8l*r»B ' ••••tally lurti I
">tli »m.l4 OnMltol 0..c.r,/0.. ■!.■>•»• OW..C •!....
Fresh Produce
2»o -r
200
150
1O0
N- 2.378
Source: Authorized Food Relailcr Characteristic* Sludy: Technical Report IV, February 1997.
100
c/>
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-19
0
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Figure 111-10
Costs for Specified Food Groups, by Store Type
(Darker Bars are Costs and
Lighter Bars Represent Percent of Stores)
Processed Meat
250
200
160
©
100
so
100
BO
SO
■rr
1 L«rg* Qiac«rl«i I Convsnlcnct Storas ' SpaolaKy Sloraa ■
Supermarket* SmiN QrMtrtot Qrooery/Qaa Ktstlon* Othar Sloraa
20
Dairy Products
2S0
200
1S0
©
100
100
■■■■■■ Large Oroctfktt ■ Convenience Stores ■ Specialty Store* '
Buparmifkim 8miM Orocerlee Oroctry/On Stallone Other Stores
N-2,371
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV, February 1997.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study I-20
^5^
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Figure 111-10
Costs for Specified Food Groups,
by Store Type
(Darker Bars are Costs and
Lighter Bars Represent Percent of Stores)
Bakery Products
2SO
200
150
1O0
100
-o
cp
c/>
Larg* Qr.o.rl.. ' Conv.nMno. >Mw ' ap.oi.tty ator.a '
•up.rm.fk... Bm.H QfM«Mt Oroo.ry/Oa. ItadMl Otti.r Slots*
N- 2.378
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV. February 1997.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-21
4
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Comparisons of the cost of individual products within product categories indicate that the
magnitude of the cost advantage of supermarkets and large grocery stores varies somewhat
among products (Table III 4). To some extent, the phenomenon appears to be dependent
on the degree to which the product is commonly differentiated through the use of brands,
although differences in the typical unit of sale (e.g., soft drinks sold by the can or bottle
versus by the six-pack or the case) are probably also important.
A comparison of the average cost of a few products selected from the market basket
illustrates the magnitude of the variation. The products listed in Table III-4 are selected for
their relative uniformity. A supplementary graph is presented in Figure III-11. which
provides cost information on items representing particular product groupings. Each item
selected is the most frequently found product within that product grouping across all stores.
For each of those products, supermarkets are lowest in cost, followed by large grocery
stores. Three of the products—fresh whole milk, large fresh eggs, and granulated
sugar—are highly standardized. Although they are often sold under a brand name, their
respective standards of identity and/or grade do not permit much variation in the nature of
the product.
For fresh whole milk, the difference in cost between supermarkets and the highest-cost store
type ("other" stores) is only 12 percent. However, for the overall market basket, there is
a difference of 48 percent between supermarkets and the highest-cost store type
(convenience stores). For large fresh eggs, the difference (21 percent) between the two
types of store is somewhat larger, although still less than half that for the overall market
basket. For sugar, however, another product for which there is a high degree of product
uniformity, there was a wide range in average cost among store types. The cost of sugar
in convenience stores is 67 percent above the cost in supermarkets.
Table UM
Average Indexed Coot of. elected Products In Retortion to Average Cost
In Supermarkets, by Store Type
Prtxtectgnfflory «upennsr«et» It- tare* ■«
Groceries '<
<.■'■ Sme8
Orwerlei
CwrVeflfenceA
ttore.
Qrocery*
■ ■v^^^*^^ ^F^*^e ^^v
Specially other
Store*
Fresh whole milk 100 103 108 108 105 111 112
Freeh bread 100 119 102 138 142 135 142
Large fresh eggs 100 105 116 121 116 116 121
Cola/soft drinks 100 129 158 154 146 246 183
fcUM-type candy 100 129 171 164 164. 179 143
Ground coWee 100 12S 167 175 167 225 158
Granulated togar 100 106 142 167 158 142 158
Total 100 113 134 133 129 148 136
N-2,378
Source Authored Food Retaear Characteristics Sludy. February 1997. Appendix C: Table CIO
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
S7
1-22
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
i
120
100
80
60
40
20
O
Figure 111-11
Costs for Specified Food Items,
by Store Type
Gound Beef
■■ 111111 m i
L •*■• Of—fy* CMWHIIMI I
•nntrkcl Imil Ownry Oitiity'Oii
100
•o
eo
40
-20
5. a
I
Frankfurter*
120
100
80
j 60
40
20
O
ii \^
i i II
100
80
.o II
40
t- 20
lyftrmttktl
I CIHWMIMI '■ • ■•••tsttty '
mall Oratory Or*«*ry/Oa« OmH»r
Fresh Milk Potatoes
120
100
80
i 60
40
20
0
r !1
lOO
80
— 60
40
20
■ up«rmar**i Small fluMWJ) OwMiy4n OSM# u^
100
so
- 60
40
- 20
Ormmmnri ConvonMnc* I tas-ciaWy
I >WH Of>16«V ar*c«ry(Qn O•*•(
Co.t(Y1)
Outlet. (Y2)
N-2.37B
Sourer Authorized Food
Appendix C Table C 10
120
Breed
pr rrr r
i i i i i i i M
0 '
limmm
Ciwecterisia Study Technical Report IV. February 1t97.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study
Y
1-23
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
1
Although supermarkets are the lowest-cost store type for all seven products compared in Table
III-4, and large grocery stores are the next lowest, costs vary among the remaining store types
depending on the product. For example, excluding supermarkets and large grocery stores, fresh
milk was cheapest in grocery/gasoline stores, although fresh bread was cheapest when
purchased from specialty stores.
If shoppers were to selectively purchase this abbreviated market basket from the store types
that were lowest in cost for the particular food, the cost advantage of the larger stores would
decline marginally. Compared to a cost advantage for supermarkets of 29 to 48 percent if all
seven items were to be purchased in one of the other store types, outside of large groceries,
the advantage would drop to 25 percent. In other words, if consumers were willing to shop
among several store types in search of the lowest price for each item, they could narrow the
cost advantage of supermarkets, but not eliminate it. Of course, that would require the
additional time and expense on the part of shoppers willing to do this.
Full Service Departments and Nonfood Product Lines
Many food stores offer their customers a range of services beyond those offered as part of a
conventional self-serve grocery store. Though a service meat counter has been part of the traditional
configuration of a grocery store for many years, other types of services have now become
commonplace, particularly among larger food stores. As the term implies, a service department is
staffed for purposes of assisting the customer in filling individual orders. Besides service meat
departments, there are now service delicatessens, service bakeries, service seafood departments,
service pharmacies, and so on.
Food stores have also become outlets for a broad range of nonfood products. While general stores
in sparsely populated areas have sold a broad combination of food and nonfood merchandise for
many years, this format is relatively recent in urban areas. Increasingly, stores that sell food also sell
such products as gasoline, automotive products, housewares, stationery, pharmaceuticals, and
clothing.
At the same time that some food stores have begun expanding their product lines into nonfood items,
nonfood stores have begun moving in the opposite direction. Drug stores, gasoline stations, and
discount stores are prominent examples of nonfood stores that now look to food sales for a portion
of their sales volume.
The number of full-service departments is determined by size and store service orientation.
Supermarkets offer the largest average number of full-service departments (3.0), followed by large
grocery stores (1.3), and specialty stores (1.0). The reduced incidence of full-service departments
according to size, from supermarkets, to large grocery stores, to small grocery stores, is evident in
Figure 111-12. Specialty stores are usually designed to provide full service for a particular type of
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-24
41
Chapter Store Type and Access to Food
Figure 111-12
Average Number of Full-Service Departments and
Nonfood Product Lines, by Store Type
I Larga Grocarla* I Conv«ni«nc« Storaa I Specialty Storaa
SuparmarkaU Small Grocerlam Orocary/Oam Station* Othar Storaa
Full-Service Departments
Nonfood Product Lines
N=2.376
Sourca: Authorized Food Rataaer Character*** Study. February 1997, Appendix C Tables C15-C IB
food, as indicated by the fact that these stores provide a single full service. Convenience
stores and grocery/gasoline combinations, on the other hand, are usually designed around the
labor efficiencies of a small staff and maximum self-service by store customers. This is
reflected in the limited extent to which they offer full service.
The forms of full service provided is determined largely by type of store. Among
supermarkets and large grocery stores, full-service meat departments are most prominent,
followed by delicatessens. Full-service deli departments are most prominent among small
grocery stores, convenience stores, grocery/gas combinations, and the "other" category.
Pharmacies are nearly nonexistent outside supermarkets and certain other stores (almost
always, drugstores).
A broad range of nonfood items is offered in most types of stores. Although supermarkets
offer more lines of nonfood products than any other store type, they are followed closely by
grocery/gasoline combinations, convenience stores, and large grocery stores (Figure III-12).
Ofcourse the variety of merchandise that is offered within those nonfood product lines could
be expected to vary substantially by store type. The nonfood items most likely to be found in
food stores were: housewares products (82 percent of all food stores), tobacco products (81
percent), pet foods (77 percent), pharmaceutical items (70 percent), and motor oil (65 percent).
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-25
(pO
Additional Cost Estimates Based on Stores
Having All Items in a Product Category
d
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
The following exhibit presents cost information if only all of the items were available in the
market basket. This is a very restrictive definition of cost since few stores could provide the
entire market basket. These data should provide some additional perspective on cost presented
in this and subsequent chapters.
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 111-26
U
Chapter ill. Store Type and Access to Food
Figures 111-13
Comparison of Cost (Dark) and Availability (Light)
by Store Type
(Includes only stores having all items within a p- xluct category)
All Product*
1
Fraah Maat Procaaaad Maat
Fraah Produca Olhar Produca
Source: Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV. February 1997 Appacdix C: Table 10.
N-2371
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-27
to
Chapter III. Store Type and Access to Food
Figures III-13
Comparison of Cost (Dark) and Availability (Light)
by Store Type
(Includes only stores having all items within a product category)
Dairy Product*
Bakary Products Caraala and Grains
Olnnar Mlxturaa Othar Producta
3.
v>
\
■*•«« •»«•
Source Authorized Food Retailer Characteristics Study: Technical Report IV. February 1997 Appnedix C: Table 10.
N-2.37S
Authorized Retailers' Characteristics and Access Study 1-28
#
Chapter IV
Retailer Availability and Mix:
A National Perspective
6/
Chapter IV. Retailer Availability and Mix
In recent years, a number ofcommunity-based initiatives have sought to increase the availability and
lower the cost of foods by creating opportunities for chain supermarkets to locate near urban, low-income
populations. The assumption underlying these efforts is that supermarket chains—by
offering economies of scale—provide opportunities for shoppers living in the nearby communities
to make be