Transcription

SupplementalNutrition AssistanceProgram Educationthrough theLand-Grant University System forFY 2010:A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEWPREPARED BYJulie S. Sexton, Ph.D.Mississippi State UniversityPROJECT DIRECTORHelen Chipman, Ph.D., R.D.National Program Leader, National Institute of Food and Agriculture;Member, Executive Committee, SNAP-Ed through the Land-Grant University SystemFUNDED BYCooperative Extension Service Directors/Administratorsthrough National Land-Grant University SNAP-Ed AssessmentPUBLISHED January 2013

SupplementalNutrition AssistanceProgram Educationthrough theLand-Grant University System forFY 2010:A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW

Acknowledgements .iiiLetter from Executive Committee.ivAcronyms .vExecutive Summary.viiREPORT .1Situation .2Opportunities.5METHODOLOGYData Analysis . 9FINDINGSProgram Inputs.11Funding .11Curricula and Other Educational Resources .12People with a Shared Focus.13Employees and Volunteers.13Reporting Accountability .15State-Level Relationships.15Program Outputs and Outcomes .17Outputs.18Outcomes.22Environmental Settings Level l Marketing Campaigns.35Strengthening SNAP-Ed .35Trends between 2002, 2005 and 2010 National LGU SNAP-Ed Reports.36CONCLUSIONS .39E D U C A T I O NSectors of Influence Level .32P R O G R A MIndividual, Family and Household Level.18A S S I S T A N C EPlanning Processes and Needs Assessment.11ContentsData Collection.9N U T R I T I O NCNE Logic Model.7S U P P L E M E N T A LI ContentsReferences.41 AppendicesF YAppendix A – Online Resources for FY 2010 National Report.432 0 1 0Appendix B – CNE Logic Model, Version 2 (updated).44

Acknowledgements2 0 1 0F YE D U C A T I O NMany individuals contributed to this report. From Mississippi State University, Dr. Ned Browningserved as reviewer for qualitative data and for the final report. Daniel Smith (graduate student) wasalso an immense help with this report. Special thanks are extended to Sandra Jensen, office managerfor SNAP-Ed through the LGU system, located at South Dakota State University, who diligently soughtstate input, checked, revised, and proofed the survey and report, and provided resources and otherassistance as needed. I am forever indebted to Dr. Helen Chipman, NIFA/USDA, for her leadership,guidance, suggestions, support, reviews and tolerance. Thanks are also extended to Dr. MichaelNewman, Mississippi State University, who supported and encouraged this important endeavor.P R O G R A MThis is the third national report for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Education(SNAP-Ed), formerly known as Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE), within the Land-GrantUniversity (LGU) system. The first national report included data from FY 2002. The second reportincluded data from FY 2005. This report includes data from FY 2010, along with a look at trends andcomparisons with prior findings.This report would not have been possible without the LGU representatives who voluntarily submittedtheir FY 2010 Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS) and SNAP-Ed Narrative Reports,and provided data to an online SNAP-Ed questionnaire. Appreciation is extended for their commitmentto reporting and to programming excellence.A S S I S T A N C E I AcknowledgementsSincerely,Finally, I wish to thank the LGU and Cooperative Extension Directors and Administrators who fundedthis project as part of their SNAP-Ed assessment.Julie S. Sexton, Ph.D.S U P P L E M E N T A LN U T R I T I O NExtension ProfessorMississippi State UniversityGraphic DesignPhillip SmithOffice of Agricultural CommunicationsMississippi State UniversitySuggested CitationSexton, J. S. (2013). Supplemental nutrition assistance program-education (SNAP-Ed)through the land-grant university system for FY 2010: A retrospective review. Starkville, MS.iii

July 20, 2012Dear Colleagues:This is the third national report on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed; formerly known as FSNE- Food Stamp Nutrition Education) as conducted by the Cooperative Extension/Land-Grant University System. The impetusfor commissioning this report came from passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which marked a shift fromstates universally covering at least half of programmatic costs, to a federally supported formula grant with capped funding, andthe potential for competitive or cooperative funding within states. The purpose of this report is to showcase the achievementsof SNAP-Ed in the Land-Grant University (LGU) System during this final year before legislative changes were implementedand to provide a baseline for future work.During FY 2010, LGUs in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia provided SNAP-Ed programming to low-incomeindividuals and families. All of these institutions contributed to this report making this a representative picture of what theLGUs have accomplished as well as showing their dedication to this vital work.This report, which uses data from FY 2010, takes a socio-ecological approach to communicate the scope and impact of SNAPEd in a national context through community-based nutrition education. Program investments, audience-directed actions, andresults achieved are described. Additionally, a comparison of findings across states and across the three reporting periods (2002,2005, and 2010) is given.As shown in this report, the success of SNAP-Ed through the LGU System depends not only on a financial commitment by thefederal government but on a similar commitment from multiple partners at the state and local level as well. In FY 2010, fundscommitted and leveraged by the universities exceeded the federal financial investment. Perhaps the significance of this financialinvestment is best shown in the collaborative efforts that also were seen through shared curricula and processes, involvementof local volunteers and staff from multiple agencies, and a focus on increasing opportunities and reducing barriers to education,nutritious and affordable food, and state and local policies to sustain these efforts. This commitment and the correspondingresults reported herein, show why LGUs continue as an essential and invaluable partner in this work.We want to recognize the extraordinary effort of the team at Mississippi State University, headed by Dr. Julie Sexton, the SNAPEd Program Coordinators that responded to the retrospective request for data and all individuals who edited and reviewed thisreport. Additionally, appreciation is given to the Extension Directors/Administrators for their financial support of this reportthrough a SNAP-Ed assessment. Without each of these supporting individuals and institutions this report would not have beenpossible.We anticipate that land-grant universities and others will find this report useful for conducting successful nutrition educationprograms and for strengthening research and evaluation on nutrition education to low-income populations. This report mayalso prove useful for decision-makers and other stakeholders interested in strengthening community-based low-incomenutrition education efforts. We welcome continued collaboration with federal, state, and local partners to improve reportingand evaluation of nutrition education programming with low-income individuals, families and communities.Respectfully, the Executive Committee for SNAP-Ed through the Land-Grant University System:Paula Peters, Ph.D.C.Y. Wang, Ph.D.Associate Dean of Research and Extension, College of Education and Human SciencesAssistant Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, SDSUAssistant Director, K-State Research and ExtensionSandra A. JensenHelen Chipman, Ph.D., R.D.Office Manager, LGU SNAP-Ed OfficeNational Program Leader, Food and Nutrition Education, NIFA/USDAiv

Common Acronyms2 0 1 0CDCThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a U.S. federal agency under theDepartment of Health and Human Services that works to protect public health and safety andpromote health.CESThe Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is a nationwide, non-credit educational network. EachU.S. state and territory has a state office at its Land-Grant University (or Universities) and anetwork of local or regional offices staffed by experts who provide useful, practical, andresearch-based information to individuals, businesses and communities.CNECommunity Nutrition Education (CNE) Logic Model identifies program investments (Inputs),audience-directed actions (Outputs), and results achieved (Outcomes) in a socio-ecologicalcontext.EARSThe Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS) is an ongoing reporting system forthe nutrition education component of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).It provides uniform data and information about the nutrition education activities of all statesparticipating in SNAP-Ed activities, including participant demographic characteristics,educational strategies and content, and resource use.EFNEPThe Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is a federally funded nutritioneducation program that uses a peer educator model to assist limited-resource audiences inacquiring the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and changed behaviors necessary for nutritionallysound diets, and to contribute to their personal development and the improvement of the totalfamily diet and nutritional well-being.FNSThe Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) agency administers the nutrition assistance programs ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including SNAP. The agency was formerly calledFood and Consumer Service (FCS).LGULand-Grant Universities (LGUs) are institutions of higher education that are designated by eachstate to receive specific federal benefits in support of agriculture, science, engineering andchanging social class. Data used for this report were collected from 1862 and 1890 land-grantinstitutions – so designated because of the date of legislation that granted them land-grant status.NIFAThe National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is an agency within the USDA that fundsresearch, education and extension programs and provides program leadership to the LGU Systemand other partner organizations to advance knowledge on agriculture, the environment, humanhealth and well-being, and communities. The agency was formerly called the Cooperative StateResearch, Education and Extension Service (CSREES).SNAPThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a food assistance and nutritioneducation program (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). The name change wasmandated by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.S U P P L E M E N T A LN U T R I T I O NA S S I S T A N C EP R O G R A ME D U C A T I O N F YI Common Acronyms USED IN REPORTSNAP-Ed SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed) represents nutrition education conducted through the SNAPprogram. Initially termed the Family Nutrition Program (FNP) and then Food Stamp NutritionEducation (FSNE) Program, SNAP-Ed was re-termed in October 2008 to be consistent with therenaming of the Food Stamp Program in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.USDAThe United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the U.S. federal executive departmentresponsible for developing and executing policy on farming, agriculture, and food.WICThe Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) providesfederal grants to states for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education forlow-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infantsand children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.v

2 0 1 0The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers food assistance programs, throughthe Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) agency that provides access to food for the disadvantagedthrough the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The 70.4 billion SNAP dollarsdispersed in FY 2010 enabled recipients to purchase food to sustain their families (USDA, 2012a).S U P P L E M E N T A LN U T R I T I O NA S S I S T A N C EP R O G R A ME D U C A T I O N F YExecutive SummaryI Executive SummaryWith the rising obesity epidemic, there is growing concern that Americans are often making poorchoices about what they eat and how physically active they are. Further, the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC) describe American society as obesogenic, where people live in environmentsthat promote over-eating, unhealthy food, and physical inactivity (2010a). Many studies havedocumented the correlation between obesity and low socioeconomic status (Kim & Leigh, 2010;McLaren, 2007; Truong & Sturm, 2005). This correlation points to the need for educational effortswith SNAP recipients in order to increase their knowledge and skills, change their behaviors, andencourage the adoption of healthy policies and practices.SNAP-Ed is available to SNAP eligible individuals and families through contracts between state andfederal governments and land-grant universities (LGUs). These cooperative ventures provide a wayfor America’s most at-risk individuals to learn how to prepare more nutritious meals and adopthealthier lifestyles. While not the only SNAP-Ed implementers, LGUs have deep educational roots incommunities across the United States. This infrastructure, coupled with the LGU mission of providingpractical, hands-on education, has provided an ideal partnership between SNAP and LGUs.This report represents the third national effort to capture the impacts of SNAP-Ed conducted by theLGUs. This report is significant as it represents the last year that programming was conducted priorto a major change in funding and implementation resulting from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Actof 2010. It represents the last year that LGUs and others involved in SNAP-Ed universally paid for atleast half the cost of the program through federal cost-share requirements, and that the federal fundswere uncapped (USDA, 2012b).Similar to previous reports, this report used the Community Nutrition Education (CNE) Logic Model,Version 2 as a frame of reference to identify investments (Inputs), audience-directed actions(Outputs), and results achieved (Outcomes). For this report, 54 LGUs within 49 states providedinformation on their FY 2010 SNAP-Ed programs from their Education and Administrative ReportingSystem (EARS) Reports and SNAP-Ed Narrative Reports (100 percent response rate). Representativesfrom 50 LGUs in 46 states (93 percent response rate) also completed an online questionnaire designedto collect additional information from the CNE Logic Model framework.The success of SNAP-Ed depends not only on a financial commitment by the federal government butalso a similar commitment from multiple partners at the state and local level. In FY 2010, fundscommitted and leveraged by the LGUs exceeded the federal financial investment. Perhaps thesignificance of this financial investment is best shown in the collaborative efforts that were seenthrough shared curricula and processes, involvement of local volunteers and staff from multipleagencies, and a focus on increasing opportunities and reducing barriers to education, nutritious andaffordable food, and state and local policies to sustain these efforts.Collectively, LGU SNAP-Ed providers reported the direct delivery of nutrition education to 4.5 millionpeople in FY 2010. LGU SNAP-Ed providers also indicated that 54.6 million additional directeducation “contacts” were made, where participation as individuals was unknown. In FY 2010, 58vii

F Y2 0 1 0viiiE D U C A T I O NThis report, which provides a snapshot of SNAP-Ed conducted through the LGU system in FY 2010, reflects the influenceof nutrition education from a community-based, systems approach that involves individuals, organizations andcommunity leaders. The ability to identify common outcomes in terms of food and physical activity decisions across thesocio-ecological spectrum and to tag them to the cost of programming, audiences reached, and methods used isimportant. The potential influence of SNAP-Ed in improving lives and changing behaviors for long-term positiveoutcomes in a complex, ever-changing environment is more critical now than ever. There remains a strong need forlocalized, targeted and relevant nutrition education for low-income audiences. Given their teaching, research and outreachmission and success in achieving desired changes among individuals, families and communities, LGUs remain a keyimplementer for SNAP-Ed program delivery and evaluation.P R O G R A MStates reported outcomes (indicators of change) within four core topic areas. Forty-eight percent of these outcomeswere short-term (knowledge, skill and attitude), 44 percent were medium-term (behaviors), and eight percent werelong-term (conditions). Further, 58 percent of the reported changes were seen at the individual, family and householdlevel (for example, participants learned to adjust recipes and menus), 28 percent were seen at the environmental settingslevel (for example, an increased number of referrals among organizations and agencies) and the remaining 14 percentwere seen at the sectors of influence level (for example, a change in law, structure, policy and/or practice).A S S I S T A N C EWhile the majority of work reportedsuggested a continued focus on direct andindirect education with individuals,families and households, an increase inwork conducted and change observed atother socio-ecological levels of influencewas also observed – both withincommunities (environmental settings) andin reaching and working with keyinfluencers and decision-makers (sectorsof influence). This focus on helpingindividuals and families make nutritiouschoices, while also helping influencepositive change at the environmental andsectors of influence levels is in line withrecommendations from the 2010 DietaryGuidelines for Americans (USDA, 2010b).N U T R I T I O NUse of a community-based, logic model approach to gather and analyze data presented some unique challenges andopportunities for providing insights about SNAP-Ed in a national context. The substantial number of people reportingchange for specific behaviors are encouraging glimpses into the impact that the SNAP-Ed program is having overall.Patterns of change are indicating progress towards desired national outcomes, such as eating closer to MyPyramid (nowMyPlate) recommendations and improving personal hygiene habits as they relate to food safety.S U P P L E M E N T A Lpercent of SNAP recipients were female, 45 percent were non-elderly adults, 34 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22percent were African-American (non-Hispanic) and 20 percent were of unknown race (USDA, 2011). In comparison,58 percent of LGU SNAP-Ed participants were female, 61 percent were between the ages of 5 and 17 years, 72 percentwere white (non-Hispanic) and 22 percent were African-American (non-Hispanic). The direct delivery of nutritioneducation took place at 48,633 delivery sites in communities across the United States, with 48 percent of those sites formixed audiences (such as homes and community centers) and another 42 percent for youth audiences (such as publicschools and Head Start centers).

2 0 1 0F Y E D U C A T I O NReportP R O G R A MA S S I S T A N C EN U T R I T I O NS U P P L E M E N T A LI R E POR TThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides millions of Americans the capabilityto purchase food for a nutritious diet. Eighty-five percent of all SNAP households lived in poverty in2010, as measured by the federal poverty guidelines. In an average month in 2010, SNAP providedbenefits to 40.3 million people in the United States; this number reflects an increase of 20 percent fromthe number of people depending on SNAP in FY 2009 (USDA, 2011). SNAP-Ed is an optionaleducation component within SNAP and is focused on the needs of the SNAP population.The goal of SNAP-Ed is to provide educational programs that increase the likelihood that people eligiblefor SNAP will make healthy food choices within a limited budget and choose physically active lifestylesconsistent with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Land-grant universities (LGUs) are wellpositioned to provide SNAP-Ed, given their deep reach into communities, ongoing commitment tonutrition education for low-income populations, and federal, state and local partnership infrastructures.To provide nutrition education for SNAP participants, state SNAP offices contract with state and localimplementers to conduct the educational programming. More than half of these implementers are partof the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) of each state’s LGUs (Guthrie, Frazão, Andrews, &Smallwood, 2007).Nutrition education has been one of the core CES programs almost since its inception in 1914. Themission of CES has been to improve the lives of people of all ages through education, in other words“to take the university to the people.” This mission of enabling people to improve their lives andcommunities through learning partnerships is an ideal match with the goals of SNAP-Ed. Buildingupon a rich history of community-based education and working in partnership with state governmentsand with USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), CES has been able to provide nutrition educationto even more individuals and families.SNAP-Ed is administered by FNS, an agency within the USDA. Through FY 2010, SNAP-Ed through theLGU system was funded with federal administrative SNAP dollars, which were effectively doubled bynon-federal public money through contracts between state governments and LGUs. This report issignificant as it represents the last year such programming was conducted prior to major changesresulting from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. It represents the last year that LGUs andothers involved in SNAP-Ed universally paid for at least half of theprogram through a federally required cost-share, and the last year thatthe federal funds were uncapped.In FY 2010, LGUs in 49 states (including the District of Columbia,hereafter included as a state for the purpose of this report) held contractswith their state SNAP agencies to deliver nutrition education. While theLGU system is the primary implementer for SNAP-Ed across the country,there are other implementers as well, including public health agencies,food banks, and others. LGU SNAP-Ed programming complements theefforts of other implementers by working at other locations, having adifferent focus, and using other methods to reach the SNAP audience.This report is the third of three national reports on SNAP-Ed through theLGU system. It contains background information about low-incomenutrition education programming by the LGUs, and highlights actions taken and results achieved forSNAP-Ed in federal fiscal year (FY) 2010. It also provides some comparison of findings from FY 2010and the first national report, which included data from FY 2002 (Little & Newman, 2003) and thesecond national report, which included data from FY 2005 (Fink, 2010).1

For this report, 54 LGUs in 49 states voluntarily provided information on their FY 2010 SNAP-Edprograms from their Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS) Reports and SNAP-EdNarrative Reports. This reflects 100 percent participation and is an indicator of the universities’willingness to cooperate and share information. Additionally, 50 LGUs in 46 states voluntarily completedan online questionnaire designed to collect additional information regarding their programs in thecontext of the Community Nutrition Education (CNE) Logic Model. This represents a 93 percentparticipation rate for the online questionnaire, which was collected during the months of December 2011and January 2012, a busy time of year for other reporting obligations. Figure 1 highlights theparticipating states that submitted information for this report.States With Land-Grant Universities that Submitted FY2010 Datafor National WV FLAKSubmitted FY10 DataFY10 Data not available – No LGU ProgramFigure 1. States that submitted Data for FY 2010 National ReportI The SituationThe 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines (USDA, 2010b) and Food Guidance System (including MyPlate) (USDA,2012b) are built on the premise that a healthy diet along with physical activity can help people maintain ahealthy body weight, enhance general well-being, and reduce morbidity and mortality in the UnitedStates. When the Food Stamp Program (now called SNAP) began in 1939, its primary purpose was toenable low-income Americans to get enough to eat. Over time, there has been a shift from focusing onquantity of food available to SNAP participants, to an emphasis on choosing healthful foods with highnutritional quality (Mancino & Andrews, 2007).Approximately 85 percent of all SNAP households lived in poverty during FY 2010 (USDA, 2011). Toparticipate in SNAP-Ed, at least 50 percent of the target participant population must have gross incomes ator below 185 percent of poverty. Like others, SNAP participants face many challenges including thosedescribed below under four core topic areas: dietary quality/physical activity, food security, food safety,and shopping behavior/food resource management.2

I Dietary Quality/Physical ActivityThe percentage of Americans who are overweight or obese continues to rise. According to the CDC, morethan a third of all U.S. adults are now obese (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2012). In 2000, no state had anobesity prevalence of more than 30 percent. In FY 2010, 12 states had an obesity prevalence of more than 30percent. Poor diets, obesity, and related health problems are exerting heavy costs in terms of medicalexpenditures and decreased productivity (CDC, 2012b).Consumption data have shown that SNAP participants do not follow the recommended dietary guidelines,most notably in the area of fruit and vegetable consumption (Guthrie, Lin, Ver Ploeg, & Frazao, 2007). This

NIFA The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is an agency within the USDA that funds research, education and extension programs and provides program leadership to the LGU System and other partner organizations to advance knowledge on agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities.