What workplace food support people actually use

The problem isn’t just hunger

If you’re trying to help people eat well at work, the first thing to know is that a paycheck does not always cover groceries. A recent temporary disruption to SNAP was a reminder of that, according to HR Brew. It also noted that more than half of US households classified as food-insecure had at least one adult working full-time between 2017 and 2023, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

That matters because workplace food support is often aimed at people who are already working. The question is not whether need exists. It’s which kinds of support people will actually use, and what each approach gives up.

Cash helps people buy food, but it can be hard to target

One approach is to build food support into total rewards and give people more money to spend on groceries. HR Brew says some employers are exploring ways to make up the difference through their total rewards programs.

This is the simplest fit for people who need help buying food wherever they shop. It also avoids telling people what counts as a meal or where they should get it. The trade-off is that it depends on how the employer chooses to target support. If the goal is to reach workers with the biggest gap, the company has to decide who qualifies and how much to give. If it makes the rules too tight, people miss out. If it makes the rules too broad, costs rise fast.

In-kind food support can be more direct, but it reaches fewer people

Another approach is to give food or grocery help directly instead of extra cash. According to NEJM Catalyst, Elevance Health tested a custom social benefit program for low-income employees that combined access to a narrow network of providers with in-kind nutritional support, with the goal of improving food security, diet quality, and self-reported health.

That kind of support can be easier for workers to use in the moment because it is tied to the need itself. It does not ask them to sort through a bigger benefits menu and figure out where food fits. The trade-off is reach. A program built for a narrow eligible group will leave many workers outside it, even when they are still struggling with food costs.

There is also a design choice inside this approach: if the employer wants more control over how support is used, it usually narrows the group of people who can get it. That can make the program more focused, but it can also make it less available.

Food support works better when people help shape it

A third approach is to ask workers what gets in the way of eating well, then build around those barriers. In a pilot study published by MDPI, a brief participatory workplace intervention looked at dietary barriers and healthy eating intentions among employees.

That matters because some food programs fail for a simple reason: they solve the problem the employer sees, not the one workers have. A participatory approach can surface practical barriers that a policy or benefit design would miss. It can also show whether people would actually use the support before the company spends more on it.

The trade-off is that this takes more listening up front. It is slower than rolling out a standard benefit, and it does not produce the neat feel of a single companywide fix. But if a program is built without that step, the risk is that it looks thoughtful on paper and sits unused in practice.

The hardest choice is between reach, control, and ease of use

The sources point to three different ways employers are trying to address food insecurity: add money to total rewards, offer direct nutritional support, or design programs with employee input.

Each one solves a different part of the problem.

Cash support gives people the most freedom. Direct food support can be more specific and easier to connect to nutrition goals. Participatory design makes it more likely the program matches real barriers.

But no option wins on every measure. Cash is flexible, but the employer has to decide who gets it and how to keep it affordable. Direct food support is targeted, but it tends to reach a smaller group. Participatory programs may fit better, but they take more work before anyone sees the benefit.

If you are choosing among them, the real question is what you want the program to do. If you want broad help for grocery costs, cash or cash-like support is the clearest fit. If you want a more focused benefit for lower-income workers, a nutritional support program can make sense. If you are unsure people will use what you build, start by asking them what would get used.

What to decide next

If you work on benefits, start with a simple check: who is the program for, what problem is it meant to solve, and what will make people actually use it?

Then pick the smallest version that fits that answer. Use cash support when flexibility matters most. Use direct nutritional support when you are targeting a defined group. Use worker input before you lock in a program that might miss the barrier you are trying to fix.

If the support is for families as well as workers, a planner like Platter can help with the home side of the problem. But the first decision is still the same: build something people can use, not something that only sounds helpful on a benefits page.