1. Evaluating Partnerships
Prior to 2016, University of Wisconsin-Extension (UWEX) FoodWIse had only loosely articulated measurements in the areas of developing partnerships and multi-sector collaborations. (We had goals in these areas without specific ways to measure them in ways that were consistent across counties.)
With the release of the IG in 2016, UWEX’s FoodWIse program was able to retrospectively engage in developing measurement tools and guidance for all of our county colleagues. As a result we could report on progress toward these measures in in our FY16 state report.
Using the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Toolkit to report on partnerships and the changes to nutrition- related supports in sites and organizations

2. What did we do in FY16?
Identified priority Indicators that fit our existing program delivery model.
Developed an IG-indicator-based logic model to guide evaluation processes and reporting.
Identified strengths and weaknesses in existing metrics and tools. Developed statewide metrics, standardized evaluation tools and reporting procedures that would allow us to report more consistently.
Used the IG to created new guidance and forms for county colleagues to report on PSE efforts.
Identified and began to develop training for county colleagues to support transition.

3. Supporting community partners (ST7):
Duration of partnership
Purpose
Stage and depth of partnership
Partner contributions
Sectors represented
Role of SNAP-Ed
Link to direct education programming
Documenting adoption and implementation of PSE changes that support nutrition (MT5):
Type of change
Domain of setting
Number of changes
Estimated reach
Evidence of change
UWEX FoodWIse used the IG to create statewide measures for three key indicators – ST7 (Partnerships), ST8 (Multi-sector), and MT5 (Nutrition supports).
We developed a new reporting form (PSE and Collaborative Activities Reporting form) that was based on metrics in the IG. This form helped us capture results from a broad range of PSE programming we have in our state – safe and healthy food pantry projects, school gardening, EBT at the farmers market, and others in a simple, easy to digest format for county colleagues.
The new form built upon on our existing reporting structures, making it easier for colleagues to report in consistent ways.
In addition to the raw numbers reported on the new forms, we added several open-ended qualitative questions to bolster the quantitative evidence of change. By doing so, we added context to the numbers, which helped us bridge the outcome evaluation with strategies that impact community nutrition education.

4. Benefits of the FoodWIse PSE and Collaborative Activities Tracking Tool / Reporting Form
Based on IG Recommendations for Measures
Simple to use tool for colleagues to record inputs and outputs of work with partners.
Helps identify & understand characteristics of effective partnerships
Integrates quantitative and qualitative Data
Can be used to monitor multi-year partnerships and inform program improvement
Adaptable to any type of PSE project targeting any domain.
The form, while seemingly simple, was an important first step in our effort toward full alignment with the framework.

5. UW-Extension FoodWIse Program Outcomes FY16 – Partnership and Nutrition Supports
Change
Support to local organizations (capacity building, networking, content area expertise, facilitation:
59 Projects with 317 Local Partners
86 Food Pantries
13 School Districts
104 Individual Schools
26 Health Care Providers
18 Food Producers and Retailers
5 Farmers Markets
65 Other community organizations (senior meal sites, after school centers)
Adoption and Implementation:
260 Documented PSE Changes at:
48 Schools
17 Farmers Markets
18 Retail Establishments
86 Food Pantries
Changes included:
Prioritization of farm to school/table
Procurement and food handling policies at food pantries
Promotion of EBT at farmers markets
Reach
>150,000 Individuals
>85,000 SNAP-Eligible

6. Lessons Learned Made our SMART objectives smarter
Colleagues appreciate simple strategies and tools to understand the reach, outcomes, and effective practices associated with PSE efforts
Tools that can be easily adapted to evaluate diverse types of projects in diverse settings are ideal
Newly adopted indicators and metrics are helping colleagues to understand the how their PSE work supports direct education.
Systems thinking is challenging for county colleagues who have not previously planned their programming (or evaluation) to impact multiple levels of the SEM.
Need for ongoing training and technical assistance for colleagues
Addressing Challenges and Additional changes in 2017:
*The need to put limits on PSE project scope (or at least provide very clear, ready to implement, PSE efforts, etc.) – To ease colleagues into systems thinking, programming, and evaluation.
*Identifying ways to show how direct education supports PSE and vice versa.
**Integrating terminology from the new EARS form into measurement tools for to ensure easy reporting and consistency across counties. This is especially the case with PSE efforts.
**Need to articulate SMART objectives using the same terminology as the SNAP-Ed Framework. We made progress toward this by aligning our program logic model with framework indicators. (and do this in counties)

7. Thank you! Josset Gauley Program Development & Evaluation Specialist
FoodWIse (a SNAP-Ed and EFNEP funded program)
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension
Phone: (608)
Thank you!