marilyn townsend - ##dec 14 evaluation12.13.11efnep.ucanr.edu/files/134619.pdf · ind#1 %imp ind#2...
TRANSCRIPT
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