Health Literacy is an individual’s ability to access, understand, and use information to achieve good health. LA County has a vital interest in health literacy because poor health literacy is a stronger predictor of a person's health than age, income, employment status, education level, and race. In LA County, 53% of working-age adults have low literacy levels that affect their ability to search for and use health information, adopt healthy behaviors, and act on important public health alerts. Improving health literacy skills requires a comprehensive strategy, including the use of plain language techniques. One of the ways Health Education Administration (HEA) is addressing the challenges posed by low health literacy is by empowering and training DPH staff to incorporate Plain Language in their everyday communication. Effectiveness of Plain Language Training on LA County Department of Public Health Workforce Fred Dominguez, MPH; Susan Srabian, MPH; Jacqueline Valenzuela, MPH, MCHES To examine whether the Plain Language training developed by HEA was effective in teaching DPH employees Plain Language communication skills. Plain Language training is effective in teaching DPH employees Plain Language techniques. Note: HEA is conducting three and six month evaluations on 2012 results to assess the intermediate and long term effects of HEAs Plain Language training on the DPH workforce. HEA conducted 8 plain language trainings between during 2011 Plain Language Evaluation Summary 2011 % Average (A) Strongly agree or agree that training objectives were fully met 96% (B) Strongly agree or agree that they were satisfied with the training 97% (C) Would recommend the training to colleagues97% (D) Will apply information in the next year98% (E) Average % difference in self-reported knowledge28% (F) Weighted Average % difference in self-reported confidence* 31.7% Total # of participants N=176 Plain Language Evaluation: An evaluation was administered after each 2-hour training session to capture participants’ response to presentation format (A – C), their intent to use the information (D), and their knowledge and confidence before and after the training (E, F). Results were entered into Microsoft Excel worksheets where descriptive statistics (A–D) and Paired t-Test (E,F) were performed to analyze data. Increase in knowledge about the topics presented today (E) Pre-test 2011 Post-test 2011 Mean Variance Observations 140 Pearson Correlation 0.56 P(T<=t) two-tail1.49E-34*significant Increase in confidence in applying knowledge or skills presented today (F) Pre-test 2011Post-test 2011 Mean Variance Observations144 Pearson Correlation 0.53 P(T<=t) two-tail2.15E-30*significant Analyses shows a significant increase (P<.001) in knowledge (E) and confidence (F) between pre and post test for 2011 Pearson Correlation shows a positive correlation for 2011 (P = 0.56) (E & F) Fred Dominguez, MPH (213) Susan Srabian, MPH (213) Jacqueline Valenzuela, MPH, MCHES (213) *Weighted % Average distribution shown in graph below 73.9 % Weighted Average % Difference Pre/Post Response