EvaluationMarilyn TownsendDecember 14, 2011

1

Who…• Has evaluation outcomes?• Has shared outcomes with community partners?• Has shared outcomes with Board of Supervisors• Has shared outcomes with legislator (state or federal)

What was the response?Why evaluation?

US

US 

CA

Your county**

Other counties

Other states Counties

EFNEP Outcomes**Your data makes a difference

SRSCRS

WhyisEFNEPdifferent?• EFNEP has a standardized evaluation methods/protocol. Why?

• Advantages?• Disadvantages?• Your dream evaluation system?

2010‐2011DataComparison….ImpactIndicators

#1 #2 #3 #4

CA FY 11 55% 64% 56%

CA FY 10 54% 60% 55%

EFNEP has 4 impact indicators. Based on FBC.#1 = Eat a variety of foods#2 = increased knowledge of nutrition#3 = increased ability to select low cost, nutrition foods#4 = improved practices in food preparation and safety

2010‐2011DataComparison#  Agreements 

CA FY 11 660CA FY 10 105

Much improvement! We have not focused on Interagency Cooperation. An agreement does not need to be a MOU.

ProgramPriorities‐ Progress

1. Increase adult milk group intake using recall dataBaseline 0.2        2015 Goal: 0.5FY 11 = 0.3 – we are getting there! 

2. Improve fruit intakeBaseline 0.3         2015 Goal: 0.5FY 11 = 0.4 

ProgramPriorities3. Improve % of Families with food security

[ Not running out of food at the end of the month]Baseline 46%       2015 Goal: 52%FY 11: 46% ‐ we maintained. 

FY2010– 2011NEERSData

Increasedourreachby12%!

# (%) 

2008‐2009 2009‐2010

2010‐2011

Program families 7,983 8,065 9,034

Graduated 6,591  83%

6,504 81%

7,219 80%468 

continuingTerminated 958 

(12%)1,295 (16 %)

1,347(15%)

Doweknowthatwearereachingourtargetaudience?

2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2009‐2010

Families without children

10% 9% 9%

<=50% poverty 16% 26% 30%

> 186% 1% 2% 2%

Income not specified

47% 27% 15%

AdultEducationLevels

2008‐2009

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

Grade 6 9% 17% 16%

Grade 7‐11 21% 27% 19%

Grade 12 or GED 23% 27% 28%

Some college 11% 12% 13%

Graduated college/post

4% 4% 4%

Education not specified

32% 12% 8%

Youth2008‐2009

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

Groups 960 1,047 1,195

Total Youth 27,317 37,026 40,512

• Slight increase in 3 & 4 yrolds, but we did not know. We had a greater increase in other grades. 

• 1,195 groups with 10,279 meetings = 8.6 meetings/group.

• 9,194 contact hrs/10,279 meetings = 10,279 = 54 minutes per meeting. 

• Improvement in race information given, only 19% race missing  vs 43% last year!

17% increase in total youth receiving nutrition 

education

2010‐2011DataComparison% impFRM 

% imp NP  % imp FS 1 % Pos PA Change

CA FY 11 85% 91% 72% 42.7%

CA FY 10 86% 90% 73% 41%

2010‐2011DataComparisonrecalls

OilChange

Ave HEI ScoreEntry

Ave HEI ScoreExit

%  Pos Food Group Change

CA FY 11 0 0 0 70.2%CA FY 10 0 0 0 65.1%

Entry to exit Grain Change

FruitChange

VegChange

MilkChange

MeatChange

CA FY 11 1 0.4 0.4 0.3 ‐0.1CA FY 10 0 0.3 0.4 0.2 ‐0.1

2010‐2011DataComparison% ImpInd #1

% ImpInd #2

% ImpInd #3

% ImpInd #4

CA FY 11 55% 64% 56%

CA FY 10 54% 60% 55%

#1 = Eat a variety of foods#2 = increased knowledge of nutrition#3 = increased ability to select low cost, nutrition foods#4 = improved practices in food preparation and safety

2009‐2010DataComparison

Cost/ part

Total Para FTE

Adult % Grad Total other family mem

CA $82.66 31.7 8,065 81% 26,237

Tier 1 $88.16 236.1 47,437 64% 142,603

National $113.21 973.1 137,737 65% 378,535

• EFNEP divides EFNEP land grant universities into seven tiers, based upon state funding allocation.

• CA is in Tier 1 and receives the second highest allocation.• FY 09‐10 EFNEP’s federal allocation: $68,070,000.• Tier 1 Univ (5): TX A & M, UC, Cornell, PennState, N Carolina

2009‐2010DataComparison% Pregnant

% w/ochildren

Ave # months

Ave # Lessons

% Urban

CA 6% 8% 2.2 8 70%Tier 1 10% 5% 3.1 7.8 63%National 11% 10% 3.4 8.4 54%

%Poverty> 50

%Poverty101‐185

%Poverty> 185+

% Poverty Unspecified

PublicAsst.Entry

CA 29.9% 10.5% 1.7% 23.2% 81%Tier 1 38.4% 10.6% 2.0% 20.7% 83%National 40% 7.9% 1.6% 27.0% 77%

2009‐2010DataComparison% impFRM 

% impNP

% impFS 

% Pos PA Change

Ave cost savings

CA 86% 90% 73% 41% $47.32

Tier 1 84% 89% 68% 35.5% $ 22.12

National 84% 89% 67% 29.6% $17.39

2009‐2010DataComparison

OilChange

Ave HEI ScoreEntry

Ave HEI Score Exit

%  Pos Food Group Change

CA 0 0 0 65.1%Tier 1 ‐3.5 46.2 50.2 88.6%National ‐2.6 47.8 52.5 93.1%

Grain Change

FruitChange

VegChange

MilkChange

MeatChange

CA 0 0.3 0.4 0.2 ‐0.1Tier 1 ‐0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0National 0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2

2009‐2010DataComparisonTotal Youth

Ave Y/Group

Ave # Months

% school % afterschool

CA 37,026 35 10.1 82% 14%Tier 1 143,711 34 3.5 70% 9%National 463,560 27 5 65% 4%

% Club % SpecInt. Group

% Urban % Town % City

CA 1% 3% 67% 13% 11%Tier 1 1% 19% 58% 13% 14%National 11% 19% 43% 29% 19%

2009‐2010DataComparison% P3yr % P4yr % K % Gr 1 %  Gr2

CA 7% 25% 10% 7% 8%Tier 1 2% 7% 8% 13% 14%National 2% 7% 9% 11% 12%

% Gr 3 %  Gr4 % Gr 5 % Gr 6 %  Gr7CA 7% 8% 8% 6% 6%Tier 1 14% 14% 12% 6% 3%National 16% 14% 11% 5% 3%

2009‐2010DataComparison

% Spec Ed

% ImpInd #1

% ImpInd #2

% ImpInd #3

% ImpInd #4

CA 2% 54% 60% 55%Tier 1 1% 73% 75% 79% 65%National 1% 61% 62% 57% 54%

% Gr 8 %  Gr9 % Gr 10 % Gr 11 %  Gr12CA 4% 1% 1% 1% 0%Tier 1 3% 1% 1% 1% 0%National 3% 1% 1% 1% 1%

2009‐2010DataComparison

% WIC Offices served

% SNAPOffices served

#  Agreements 

CA 6% 16% 105

Tier 1 34% 30% 1,875

National 47% 49% 5,135

2011‐2013• Expectations high with new data collection tools