**Background:** Disparities in access to fresh fruits and vegetables contribute to inequitable health outcomes among historically marginalized groups. In Washington D.C., Ward 8 (population 80,000, 92% Black) had one full-service grocery store in 2021, while Ward 3 (population 84,000, 81% White) had 13. Previous research has shown that social capital—trust, reciprocity, and social networks—can mitigate food insecurity at household and community levels. However, the mechanisms by which social capital operates as a collective resource in food access programs remain underexplored. This study examines how social solidarity, conceptualized as a flow of shared energy characterized by trust, reciprocity, mutuality, care, advocacy, and accountability, was mobilized within the Produce Plus program to improve food access.
**Methods:** This analysis is part of a larger mixed-methods project. Six university-based researchers partnered with paid Market Champions (program participants hired as staff) to recruit returning customers of the Produce Plus Direct program. Market Champions recruited 68 individuals at pickup sites; 28 agreed to phone interviews. Snowball sampling yielded 11 additional contacts, of whom 8 were interviewed. In total, 35 interviews with 36 participants (one interview included a mother and son) were conducted in September and October 2020. Of the 36, 31 were returning customers, 3 were new in 2020, and 2 had participated previously but could not register in 2020. About half were seniors and about one-fifth lived with at least one child. Five participants also served as program volunteers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Analysis proceeded in two stages: open coding of a subset of 10 interviews by two teams, followed by focused coding of all 35 transcripts using Dedoose software with a consensus coding model. Themes of social solidarity and social infrastructure emerged inductively from the initial descriptive codes.
**Key Results:** Four forms of social solidarity were identified. (1) Empowering community members to access program resources: Volunteers conducted outreach in apartment complexes and on buses, offered to accompany prospective participants to sign-up locations, and worked to reduce stigma. Volunteers also served as conduits of information between the program and participants, attending feedback meetings and sharing updates word-of-mouth. (2) Enhancing social bonds: Volunteers welcomed new participants as 'neighbors,' and regular market interactions helped counteract social isolation, particularly for seniors. One volunteer described checking in on elders; seniors reciprocated by baking for volunteers with market-purchased ingredients. (3) Community development through advocacy and accountability: At least three participants engaged in monitoring activities, comparing produce quality and quantity across vendors. One participant noted differences in large box sizes between vendors in different communities. Participants drew on knowledge of seasonality to argue that some vendors distributed less desirable produce ('rubbish plants'). (4) Food and resource sharing: Over 60% of interviewees reported participating in resource or food exchanges, including picking up vouchers or boxes for neighbors, gifting extra vouchers, and sharing produce. Sharing occurred despite no participant reporting having surplus food; several described freezing items for winter. The program facilitated social solidarity through formal structures: volunteering (over 200 community volunteers in the pre-pandemic program), employment as Market Champions, and regular community feedback meetings where participants could advocate for program changes.
**Clinical Implications:** While this is not a clinical study, the findings have implications for public health and nutrition programming. Food access programs that create formal opportunities for participant leadership—through volunteering, paid positions, and feedback mechanisms—can better mobilize existing community cultural resources like social solidarity to improve program reach, accountability, and equity. The study suggests that investing in social infrastructure alongside physical infrastructure (e.g., market locations, food distribution) may enhance the effectiveness of food access interventions in historically marginalized communities. Policy and organizational planning should actively incorporate community members into program leadership and governance to create more inclusive and just food environments.