1. SNAP-Ed: Past, Present, & Future
NOPREN Hunger Safety Net Workgroup
June 4, 2018
Ken Hecht
Gail Woodward-Lopez, MPH, RD
Wendi Gosliner, DrPH, RD

2. Agenda Brief History and Context SNAP-Ed Evaluation in California
The Future: Opportunities and Challenges
Q&A

3. SNAP-Ed History and Context

4. Underlying Themes Growth of Food Stamp Program/SNAP
Importance of entitlement status
Change of purpose of SNAP
Introduction of SNAP-Ed and change of purpose
Change of SNAP-Ed methods and target population

5. Brief History of SNAP Brief History of SNAP
1930s: early, temporary efforts, during the depression and later, to help farmers and low-income people
Low-income households could purchase coupons
$1 purchase earned 50 cents in surplus foods
1930s-1964: various temporary, state-based programs

6. Brief History of SNAP, continued
1964 Food Stamp Program launched
Part of Great Society and War on Poverty
Problem was undernutrition
Two major goals: strengthen agricultural economy and provide improved levels of nutrition among low-income households
Also provides income supplement — safety net program
Countercyclical economic role with many community benefits
1974 National program
1977 Purchase requirement was eliminated

7. SNAP Today
Currently serves just under 42 million people at a cost of $62 billion/year = $ per month per person $1.43 per meal

8. Brief History of SNAP-Ed
1981 Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE)
Direct nutrition education
1990s Social marketing pilots
2010 HHFKA: Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Program
Focused on obesity prevention
Embraced comprehensive community-based and public health approaches
Eligibility expanded to 185% FPL (not SNAP participants)

9. SNAP-Ed Currently
USDA spends over $1 billion per year on nutrition education and promotion across SNAP, WIC, Cooperative Extension and CNPs vs. $13.5 billion industry spends annually on marketing
SNAP-Ed is the largest: over $400 million per year
SNAP-Ed supports evidence-based nutrition education and obesity prevention strategies and interventions for low-income individuals, families (185% FPL), and their communities

10. SNAP-Ed Currently, continued
SNAP-Ed operates through direct education, multilevel interventions and policy, systems and environmental (PSE) approaches
The land-grant universities and Cooperative Extension Service play a big role
Still quite a bit of state autonomy
CES gets about ½ the SNAP-Ed funding
CES also gets $67 million for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)

11. Current Challenges
Despite such USDA generated resources as the Plan Guidance, Toolkit, Framework, Interpretive Guide, and other documents,
There is considerable variation from state to state
There is considerable variation within a state
Little coordination between SNAP-Ed, EFNEP, etc.
There is little USDA TA
There are few data to prove the program’s successes

12. SNAP-Ed in California Today

13. California SNAP-Ed Model
Five State Implementing Agencies (SIAs)
Local autonomy: self selected interventions
CDPH: health department model
Largest source of funding for nutrition and PA-related education and PSE work
$65 million/year to 61 LHDs in CA

14. UC Nutrition Policy Institute (NPI)
Evaluation contractor for CDPH
Evaluation
Consultation on evidence-based strategies
Evaluation TA and training

15. Strategic Planning

16. California SNAP-Ed Theory of Change Model
Ultimate Outcomes: health & well being
Dietary intake
Physical Activity
Food resource management
Access to healthy food
Access to physical activity
Skills, attitudes, knowledge
Education
PSEs
Mass media, communications
Shop
Learn
Eat
Live
Work
Play
So how does this relate to our the model of change?
**Well, our model of change shows how what we do in SNAP-Ed relates to the outcomes we expect.
The yellow indicates the items measured by the PSE reporting system and the white indicates the items addressed by other our other methods
In this way our results will make the case to congress and other stakeholders about how SNAP-Ed is making the right combination of sustainable quality changes over time that will lead to improvements in population level health.**
Quality
Scalability
Reach
Sustainability
Partnerships
Training
Community engagement
Local Champions
Funding

17. Assess the new LHD program delivery model and current evaluation strategies

18. LHD funding model study: select recommendations
More prescribed interventions--common focus
Step by step guidance for PSEs
Leverage state leadership to enhance coordination across state
Reduce reporting burden: one reporting system with effective feedback loops

19. Evaluation Challenges and Opportunities
Not just monitoring and counting
Strength
Impact: what works? why and why not?
Integration of evaluation components => cohesive evaluation
Timely dissemination to key stakeholders esp. LHDs

20. Response More prescribed approach will launch in 2020
Streamlining reporting systems
Increasing emphasis of evaluation on identifying best approaches and “what works”
Increase integration of state and local evaluation

21. PEARS: On line reporting system
User friendly, single point of entry
Improved our ability to
track over time,
assess reach and strength

22. PSE reach 54 counties 902 sites - 1.5 million people - 17 sites/county
settings/county
(range 1-16)
Nearly 10% of total; nearly 20% of school age
11.9 million total SNAP-Ed
2.5 million 6-17
58 counties
13 counties did only 1 setting

23. Where are PSE changes being made?
Eat
Congregate meal sites/senior nutrition centers
Fast food chains
Mobile vending / food trucks
Restaurants
Learn
Before/Afterschool programs
Colleges & Universities
Cooperative extension sites
Early care and education
Libraries
Schools
Live
Community organizations
Faith / places of worship
Family resource centers
Group living arrangements
Low-income health clinics
Public housing
Residential treatment centers
Shelters
Play
Bicycle and walking paths
Community centers
Fairgrounds
Gardens (community or school)*
Parks and open spaces
Youth Organizations (e.g. Boys or Girls Clubs, YMCA)
Shop
Farmers markets
Food banks and pantries
Food distribution program on Indian reservations (FDPIR) distribution sites
Large food stores (4+ registers)
Small food stores (<= 3 registers)
Work
Job training programs / temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) worksites
SNAP offices
Worksites with low-wage workers
Before/After School 12%
Early childhood15%
Schools 33%
Stores 13%
Faith-based 9%
Lot of settings to choose from—6 settings accounted for 90%
Learn = 60%
Top 6 = 89%
All the others combined add up to 11%
At the county level use to determine if reaching same population in different settings
Work & related 6%

24. Most frequent types of PSE changes in stores

25. Stores summary Strength of changes: room for improvement
Reliance on marketing and promotion
Low use of some high impact strategies like pricing
Few potentially higher impact combinations

26. Coming Up Assessment tools: schools, stores, ECE, afterschool
strength change over time surveillance of environments
Common tools
leverage local efforts
Impact evaluation of select strategies
Started with RYD and HOTM
State level outcomes
Behaviors BMI and health

27. Putting the pieces together
What are LIAs doing?
PEARS
How well are they doing it?
PEARS PSE, assessment tools, participant voices
What is the impact of SNAP-Ed on behaviors and health?
Evaluate specific strategies, local evaluation
Link PEARS and assessment tools data with state level outcome data
How are SNAP-Ed eligible communities changing overtime?
Environments: PEARS, assessment tools,
Health and behavior: state wide surveys

28. What’s Next for SNAP-Ed?

29. Proposed Changes to SNAP-Ed
Bipartisan Policy Center Report, released in March 2018, recommends strengthening SNAP-Ed by:
Changing EFNEP’s mission to include:
(1) training SNAP-Ed administrators and staff; (2) evaluating obesity-prevention interventions
Increasing USDA support for SNAP-Ed
Adding $5 million for research & evaluation

30. Proposed Changes to SNAP-Ed
2018 House Farm Bill, HR2:
Moves SNAP-Ed funding from FNS to NIFA
Changes funding flow to “eligible institutions,” defined as land-grant universities, instead of “state agencies”
Limits administration to 10% of funds
Encourages EFNEP model for direct education (hiring members of target population); obesity prevention direction less clear
NIFA = National Institute of Food and Agriculture– House moves to NIFA but says in consultation with FNS

31. NPI report recommends bolstering PSE approaches in SNAP-Ed and beyond
Current investments to improve community food and activity environments are critical, though inadequate
SNAP-Ed is the largest annual investment, but better integration with other efforts is needed
Promising directions for SNAP-Ed and other efforts include:
Enhancing coordination
Creating a shared set of platforms for local implementers
Developing a communications strategy for policy makers and the public
Employing rigorous research and evaluation methods to capture outcomes

32. Questions? Ken Hecht Gail Woodward-Lopez Wendi Gosliner
Gail Woodward-Lopez
Wendi Gosliner
Questions?