Banco Solidário de Dona Inês-PB: uma análise da percepção dos beneficiários do Programa Comida na Mesa

Abstract

This study analyzes the Solidarity Bank of Dona Inês, Paraíba, Brazil, from the perspectives of social technology and social innovation, based on the perceptions of beneficiaries of the Comida na Mesa Program. The research used a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional survey design, supported by documentary sources for institutional contextualization. The electronic questionnaire was pretested for clarity with five beneficiaries. During the definitive data collection, conducted from August 3 to 9, 2026, 82 submissions were recorded; one was excluded because consent was not granted, resulting in 81 valid responses. The effective sample was non-probabilistic and based on voluntary participation. To avoid interpretations inconsistent with declared experience, question-specific denominators were adopted: 77 participants who reported having used the card for use-dependent items and 76 participants with previous experience of food-basket delivery for the comparison between modalities. Among card users, 90.9% positively evaluated ease of use, 89.6% perceived greater freedom of choice, and 97.4% reported a positive contribution of the benefit to family food access. Among the 76 participants who had experienced direct food or food-basket delivery, 94.7% rated the card as better or much better. Considering all 81 respondents, 97.5% perceived that the card encourages purchases in Dona Inês and the same proportion perceived a contribution to strengthening local commerce and the local economy; these perceptions do not constitute a measurement of economic impact. Mean satisfaction among users was 9.65 on a 0-to-10 scale. In the openended question, 26 of the 44 participants who answered (59.1%; equivalent to 32.1% of the valid sample) mentioned increasing the benefit amount or credit as an improvement. The findings identify dimensions of appropriation and sociotechnical adequacy and perceived effects consistent with characteristics associated with social technology and social innovation, but they do not support statistical generalization or causal inference for the entire beneficiary population.