The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

 

Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

Systems Review 

 

Final Report 

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

September 2006

The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

Systems Review 

Final Report 

September 2006

Loren Bell 

Fumiyo Tao 

Jodi Anthony 

Chris Logan 

Rebecca Ledsky 

Marisa Ferreira 

Amy Brown 

Submitted to: 

Ms. Kristen Dowling Hyatt, Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Submitted by: 

Abt Associates Inc. 

4550 Montgomery Avenue 

Suite 800 North 

Bethesda, MD 20814

301.634.1700 

Contract No. 43-3198-3-3715 

This study is available on the Food and Nutrition Service web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE) Systems Review, which required numerous 

demanding tasks, owes its successful completion to contributions by many people – each playing 

a crucial role at critical points in the course of this project. First and foremost, we acknowledge 

the contribution of all State food stamp agency FSNE directors and their staff along with the 

FSNE implementing agency directors and staff. Their willingness to devote hours of their time 

with lengthy surveys and interviews provided the volume of data which now exist to inform the 

FSNE policies and operations at the national, State, and local levels. Additionally, we would like 

to thank the directors and staff of local FSNE projects, their program partners, and the numerous 

nutrition educators that participated in the site visits. Their support for this study and cooperation 

with our data collection activities made this project possible. 

The staff at the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) not only initiated this important study but also 

maintained close involvement in the project by providing valuable guidance and support all along 

the way. In addition to the continual assistance from Kristen Dowling Hyatt, Project Officer, and 

contractual support from Joseph Rainey, Contract Officer, Steven Carlson and Carol Olander 

provided highly informed and insightful technical advice throughout the course of this project. 

We thank Alicia White, Charlie Okal, Alice Lockett, Barbara Hallman, Maura McCormick and 

Colleen Bray for their helpful comments on collection instruments and reports, and all the 

Regional FSNE coordinators for their efforts to inform and recruit State food stamp agencies and 

implementing agencies for participation in the study. 

One of the strengths of this project was the close working relationship between the two firms, Abt 

Associates Inc. and Health Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) that formed the research team. To 

begin with, Loren Bell of HSR and John Kirlin of Abt Associates set the conceptual and technical 

framework that guided the entire study. Throughout the project, staff from both firms worked as 

a seamless team on all tasks to get the job done. A special recognition is due to the following 

staff who conducted the site visit interviews at FSNE State and local agencies in 28 states for 

their professionalism and stamina to complete this intensely demanding task: From Abt 

Associates: Caity Baxter, Patty Connor, Elizabeth Harrison, Karen Johnston, Marjorie Levin, 

Chris Logan, Diane Porcari, and Gerrie Stewart. From HSR: Jodi Anthony, Loren Bell, Rebecca 

Ledsky, Marisa Ferreira, Laura Sternesky, Roxanne Jensen, and Stacy Gleason. 

Last, but not least, to be recognized are the essential contributions of staffers who provided the 

behind-the-scenes expert technical and support work, often under extreme time pressure. Key 

staff involved in online surveys, data processing, analysis, document preparation, and/or product 

quality control were: From Abt Associates: Susan Bartlett, Caity Baxter, Nancy Cole, Maggie 

English, Julie Fritts, Melissa Marsh, Joan McLaughlin, Jan Nicholson, Denise Young, and 

Natasha Zotov. From HSR: Chris Weaver, Amy Brown, Darmandra Ramcharran, Ritu Tuteja and 

Holly Dogget. 

Abt Associates Inc. Contents i 

Contents 

Key Word Definitions for the Food Stamp Nutrition Education System Review................................ ix 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ E-1 

Chapter I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1-1 

 Overview of Nutrition Education in the Food Stamp Program........................................1-1 

 Key Stakeholders in FSNE Administration and Delivery.........................................1-2 

 Types of Organizations That Serve as Implementing Agencies................................1-3 

 State Plans, Budgets, and Waivers ............................................................................1-4 

 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................1-5 

 Rapid Expansion in Food Stamp Nutrition Education ..............................................1-5 

 Limited Information on Diversity of FSNE Activities..............................................1-5 

 Incorporation of Innovative Approaches to FSNE....................................................1-5 

 Lack of Information about Integration of FSNE with Other Federal 

 Nutrition Programs................................................................................................... 1-6 

 Concern About the Effectiveness of FSNE and the Quality of Service Delivery .....1-6 

 Targeting Nutrition Education to Address Issues Important to FNS.........................1-6 

 Research Questions..........................................................................................................1-7 

Chapter II. Study Methodology.............................................................................................................2-1 

 Data Abstraction for States’ FSNE Plans for FY 2004....................................................2-2 

 Web-Based Surveys.........................................................................................................2-2 

 On-Site FSNE Staff Interviews........................................................................................2-2 

 Sampling of Implementing Agencies for Site Visit Data Collection ........................2-3 

 Method of Sampling Implementing Agencies...........................................................2-4 

 Sampling State Food Stamp Agencies for Site Visits ...............................................2-5 

 Sampling Local Projects for Site Visits.....................................................................2-6 

 Sampling Partner Organizations for Site Visits.........................................................2-7 

 Final Survey and Site Visit Interview Samples ...............................................................2-7 

 Site Visit Interview Instruments and Schedule .........................................................2-7 

 Limitations of Study Data................................................................................................2-8 

 Data Analysis and Reporting ...........................................................................................2-9 

 Extent of Sub-group Analysis ...................................................................................2-9 

 Integration of Survey and Interview Data Analysis ................................................2-10 

 Time References for the Description of FSNE........................................................2-10 

Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities ..................................................3-1 

 State Food Stamp Agency................................................................................................3-2 

 Structure of State Food Stamp Agencies in FSNE....................................................3-2 

 Role of State Food Stamp Agencies..........................................................................3-3 

 Implementing Agency......................................................................................................3-5 

 Structure of Implementing Agencies in FSNE..........................................................3-5 

 Role of Implementing Agency ..................................................................................3-6 

 Nutrition Networks....................................................................................................3-7 

 Local Projects and Subcontractors.................................................................................3-10 

 Structure of Local Projects and Subcontractors in FSNE........................................3-10 

 Role of Local Projects and Subcontractors .............................................................3-13 

 
Abt Associates Inc. Contents ii 

 Nutrition Educators........................................................................................................3-14 

 FSNE Partners................................................................................................................3-14 

 Local Food Stamp Offices .............................................................................................3-16 

 Summary........................................................................................................................3-17 

Chapter IV. FSNE Planning ..................................................................................................................4-1 

 Overview of FSNE Planning Process ..............................................................................4-2 

 Needs Assessment Process ..............................................................................................4-3 

 Needs Assessment Conducted in FY 2004................................................................4-3 

 Decisions about Geographic Coverage .....................................................................4-4 

 Involvement of State Agencies and Local Food Stamp Offices in 

 Needs Assessment..................................................................................................4-4 

 Defining Target Audiences..............................................................................................4-4 

 Additional Issues Considered in Selecting a Target Audience..................................4-7 

 Challenges to Targeting Food Stamp Recipients ......................................................4-7 

 Selection of Nutrition Education Curriculum and Topics ...............................................4-7 

 Agencies Involved in Curriculum Selection..............................................................4-8 

 Message and Curriculum Selection...........................................................................4-8 

 Budge Development ........................................................................................................4-9 

 Approval of Local Project Plans....................................................................................4-11 

 Approval of Implementing Agency Plans by State Agencies........................................4-11 

 Implementation of the FSNE Plan .................................................................................4-13 

Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE.................................................................................................................5-1 

 Purpose of Activities........................................................................................................5-2 

 Scope of Services.............................................................................................................5-5 

 Participant Demographics .........................................................................................5-5 

 Geographical Coverage of FSNE ..............................................................................5-7 

 Coordination of Food Stamp Nutrition Education...........................................................5-8 

 Partnering with Other Implementing Agencies.........................................................5-9 

 Partnering with Other USDA-Funded Programs.......................................................5-9 

 Partnering with Non-USDA Programs....................................................................5-11 

 Methods of Delivery ......................................................................................................5-11 

 Direct Education .....................................................................................................5-13 

 Indirect Education ...................................................................................................5-15 

 Social Marketing .....................................................................................................5-16 

 FSNE Materials and Curricula.......................................................................................5-18 

 Languages Used in FSNE Activities .......................................................................5-22 

 FSNE as a Benefit of the Food Stamp Program.............................................................5-22 

 Gaps in Service ..............................................................................................................5-23 

 Insufficient Non-Federal Funds...............................................................................5-23 

 Difficulties in Serving Target Populations..............................................................5-23 

Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation.............................................................6-1 

 Staff Qualifications and Training.....................................................................................6-2 

 Education and Qualifications of FSNE Staff.............................................................6-2 

 Staff Training ............................................................................................................6-3 

 Monitoring and Reporting of FSNE Services..................................................................6-4 

 Monitoring the Implementation of FSNE Activities .................................................6-4 

 Reporting of FSNE Activities and Spending by Local Agencies 

 and Subcontractors.................................................................................................6-6 
Abt Associates Inc. Contents iii 

 State Agency Role in Monitoring FSNE Activities ..................................................6-7 

 Financial Management.....................................................................................................6-8 

 Monitoring of Local Project FSNE Spending ...........................................................6-8 

 Financial Monitoring at Implementing Agencies......................................................6-9 

 Financial Monitoring of Implementing Agencies by State Agencies......................6-10 

 Strengths and Challenges of Monitoring Process....................................................6-11 

 Evaluations of FSNE Services.......................................................................................6-11 

 Formative Evaluation ..............................................................................................6-12 

 Implementation Process Evaluations.......................................................................6-12 

 Outcome Evaluations ..............................................................................................6-13 

 FSNE Staff’s Assessment of Evaluations ...............................................................6-15 

Chapter VII. Budgets and Outlays........................................................................................................7-1 

 FSNE Funding Rules and Processes................................................................................7-2 

 Sources and Limitations of the FSNE Expenditure Data.................................................7-2 

 FSNE Budgets for FY 2004.............................................................................................7-4 

 National and Statewide FSNE FY 2004 Outlays.............................................................7-4 

 National FSNE Outlays.............................................................................................7-4 

 Statewide FSNE Outlays...........................................................................................7-5 

 Per-Capita Measures of FSNE Outlays .....................................................................7-6 

 State Agency Outlays for FSNE................................................................................7-9 

 Implementing Agency Outlays and Sources of Non-Federal Funds................................7-9 

 Patterns of Implementing Agency FSNE FY 2004 Outlays....................................7-10 

 Sources of Non-Federal Funds................................................................................7-10 

 In-Kind and Cash Outlays of Non-Federal Funds...................................................7-13 

 Uses of Funds by Type of Expenditure ...................................................................7-13 

 Nonreimbursed Implementing Agency Outlays......................................................7-14 

 Unspent Funds for FSNE at the Implementing Agency Level................................7-16 

 Unspent Funds for FSNE at the State Level............................................................7-18 

Chapter VIII. Comparison of FY 2004 FSNE Study Findings to the 

 2005 Guiding Principles....................................................................................................................8-1 

Appendix A: Additional Exhibits Chapters III through VII ..............................................................A-1 

Appendix B: Methodological Appendix................................................................................................ B-1 

 
Abt Associates Inc. Contents iv 
Abt Associates Inc. Exhibits v 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 2-1 Data Collection Methods Used for the FSNE System Review........................................2-1 

Exhibit 2-2 Counts of Implementing Agencies, by Type ...................................................................2-3 

Exhibit 2-3 Summary of Sampling Plan for Implementing Agencies ................................................2-5 

Exhibit 2-4 Sample of Implementing Agencies for Site Visits...........................................................2-6 

Exhibit 3-1 Map of Number of Food Stamp Nutrition Education Implementing 

 Agencies per State.....................................................................................................3-2 

Exhibit 3-2 Number of Implementing Agencies per Region ..............................................................3-3 

Exhibit 3-3 State Agencies’ Level of Involvement in Various FSNE Activities................................3-3 

Exhibit 3-4 Type of Organization that Best Describes the FSNE Implementing Agency..................3-6 

Exhibit 3-5 Types of Nutrition Network Members.............................................................................3-9 

Exhibit 3-6 Percent of Implementing Agencies that Deliver Services Through the 

 Use of Local Projects or Subcontractors ....................................................................3-11 

Exhibit 3-7 Use of Local Projects and Subcontractors for FSNE Delivery by 

 Type of Implementing Agency................................................................................3-12 

Exhibit 3-8 Percent of Implementing Agencies by Number of Local Projects.................................3-12 

Exhibit 3-9 Percent of Implementing Agencies by Number of Subcontractors................................3-13 

Exhibit 3-10 Local Food Stamp Office Participation from the Perspective of Local 

Projects/Subcontractors...........................................................................................3-17 

Exhibit 3-11 Likelihood of Stakeholder Involvement in FSNE Activities .........................................3-18 

Exhibit 4-1 General Audience Targeted for FSNE in FY 2004..........................................................4-5 

Exhibit 4-2 Additional Demographic Factors Considered in Determining Target Audience 

 for FY 2004 ...............................................................................................................4-6

Exhibit 4-3 Methods Used by Implementing Agencies to Test Messages..........................................4-8 

Exhibit 4-4 State Agency’s Reasons for Selecting Implementing Agencies to Include 

 in the State FSNE Plan in FY 2004.........................................................................4-12 

Exhibit 5-1 Implementing Agencies’ Use of Dietary Guidelines .......................................................5-2 

Exhibit 5-2a FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics ...................................................................5-6 

Exhibit 5-2b FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics ...................................................................5-6 

Exhibit 5-2c FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics ...................................................................5-7 

Exhibit 5-2d FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics ...................................................................5-7 

Exhibit 5-2e FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics ...................................................................5-7 

Exhibit 5-2f FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics ...................................................................5-7 

Exhibit 5-3 Percent of Counties in a State Served by FSNE ..............................................................5-8 

Exhibit 5-4 Level of Coordination Among Implementing Agencies..................................................5-9 

Exhibit 5-5 Perception of Implementing Agencies on Extent of Coordination with 

 Other USDA Initiatives...........................................................................................5-10 

Exhibit 5-6 Delivery Methods Used Singularly or in Combination .................................................5-12 

Exhibit 5-7 Settings and Instructional Format Used for Direct Education by 

 Implementing Agencies...........................................................................................5-14 

Exhibit 5-8 Social Marketing Channels............................................................................................5-17 

Exhibit 5-9 Number of Social Marketing Channels Used ................................................................5-18 

Exhibit 5-10 Sources of FSNE Materials and Products......................................................................5-19 

Exhibit 5-11 Types of Materials Used for FSNE................................................................................5-20 

Exhibit 5-12 Most Commonly Reported Curricula Used by Implementing Agencies .......................5-20 
Abt Associates Inc. Exhibits vi 

Exhibit 6-1 FSNE Program Management Functions Performed by State Agencies, 

 Implementing Agencies, and Local Projects/Subcontractors....................................6-5 

Exhibit 6-2 Information Collected Regarding Social Marketing Campaigns.....................................6-6 

Exhibit 6-3 Types of Data Required by Implementing Agencies in Reports Submitted by 

 Local Projects............................................................................................................6-7

Exhibit 6-4 State Food Stamp Agency Monitoring of Implementing Agencies.................................6-8 

Exhibit 6-5 Additional Methods of Fiscal Monitoring by Implementing Agencies .........................6-10 

Exhibit 6-6 Descriptions of Outcome Evaluations Based on Implementing Agency Interviews .....6-14 

Exhibit 7-1 National and Statewide FY 2004 FSNE Outlays.............................................................7-5 

Exhibit 7-2 States by Quartile of Total FY 2004 FSNE Outlays (in Dollars) ....................................7-5 

Exhibit 7-3 Top 10 States in Total FY 2004 FSNE Outlays (Federal and Non-Federal) ...................7-6 

Exhibit 7-4 Total FSNE Outlays per FSP Participant and per Low-Income Person by 

 Extent of FSNE Availability (in Dollars)..................................................................7-8 

Exhibit 7-5 Distribution of Total FSNE Outlays per FSP Participant and per Low-Income 

 Person (in Dollars) ....................................................................................................7-8 

Exhibit 7-6 States by Quartile of FY 2004 FSNE Outlays ($) per FSP Participant............................7-9 

Exhibit 7-7 Mean Percent of Non-Federal Funds Expended, by Source: University-Based 

Implementing Agencies and Others ........................................................................7-10 

Exhibit 7-8 Implementing Agency Sources of Non-Federal Funds: Interview Data.......................7-12 

Exhibit 7-9 Composition of FSNE Outlays by Type of Expenditure ...............................................7-13 

Exhibit 7-10 Implementing Agencies Spending Less than Budgeted Amount: 

 FY 2002 through FY 2004 ......................................................................................7-17 

Exhibit 7-11 Problems Resulting in Unspent Funds: Implementing Agencies with 

 High and Low Percent of Budget Unspent..............................................................7-18 

Appendix A 

Chapter III Additional Exhibits

Exhibit A3-1 Number of Implementing Agencies per State.................................................................A-1 

Exhibit A3-2 Number of Implementing Agencies by State..................................................................A-1 

Exhibit A3-3 State Agency Perception of Their Involvement by Type of Implementing 

Agency .....................................................................................................................A-2 

Exhibit A3-4 Implementing Agencies Who Responded to Survey by State, Region and 

Type..........................................................................................................................A-3 

Exhibit A3-5 Nutrition Network Characteristics ..................................................................................A-6 

Exhibit A3-6 Nutrition Network Members...........................................................................................A-6 

Exhibit A3-7 Organizations or Agencies Members of the Outside Advisory Committee....................A-8 

Exhibit A3-8 Quality of Coordination by Type of Implementing Agency...........................................A-8 

Exhibit A3-9 Percent of Implementing Agencies—by Type— That Are Moderately or 

Well-Coordinated with USDA Initiatives ................................................................A-9 

Chapter IV Additional Exhibits

Exhibit A4-1 Organizational Levels Where Most Key FSNE Planning and Implementation 

Decisions Were Made for FY 2004 ..............................................................................A-11 

Exhibit A4-2 Local Project Involvement in FSNE Planning Process.................................................A-11 

Exhibit A4-3 Role of State Agency in Coordinating the Planning of FSNE Services Across 

Implementing Agencies..........................................................................................A-11 

Exhibit A4-4 Implementing Agency View of State Agency Effectiveness in Planning 

FSNE Goals, Objectives and Activities for FY 2004.............................................A-12 
Abt Associates Inc. Exhibits vii 

Exhibit A4-5 Types of Data the Implementing Agency Requested the State Agency to 

Provide in Order to Support the Needs Assessment or Selection of a 

Target Audience .....................................................................................................A-12 

Exhibit A4-6 Role of State Agency Staff in FSNE Needs Assessment for FY 2004 .........................A-12 

Exhibit A4-7 State Agency Policy on Priority of Serving Food Stamp Recipients and 

Applicants .....................................................................................................................A-13 

Exhibit A4-8 Percent of Implementing Agencies Conducting Message Testing ...............................A-13 

Exhibit A4-9 Primary Reason(s) for Implementing Agencies Denying Funding to Local 

Projects...................................................................................................................A-13

Exhibit A4-10 Plan Implementation as Intended..................................................................................A-14 

Exhibit A4-11 Reasons for Not Implementing the FSNE Plan as Intended .........................................A-14 

Chapter V Additional Exhibits

Exhibit A5-1 Primary Goals of Local Project/Subcontractor .............................................................A-15 

Exhibit A5-2 Percent of Counties in a State Served by Implementing Agencies...............................A-15 

Exhibit A5-3 Change in Geographic Coverage of FSNE Provided by the Implementing 

Agency in FY 2003 and FY 2004 ..........................................................................A-15 

Exhibit A5-4 FSNE Activities that Are Coordinated Among Implementing Agencies and 

USDA-Funded Initiatives .............................................................................................A-16 

Exhibit A5-5 Implementing Agency Reported Coordination with Other Types of 

Organizations .........................................................................................................A-17 

Exhibit A5-6 Role Played by State Food Stamp Agency in Social Marketing Campaign .................A-17 

Exhibit A5-7 Additional FNS Curricula Used....................................................................................A-18 

Exhibit A5-8 Number of Curricula Used............................................................................................A-18 

Exhibit A5-9 Languages Used in Materials or Activities in Addition to English ..............................A-18 

Exhibit A5-10 FSNE as a Food Stamp Benefit ....................................................................................A-19 

Exhibit A5-11 Implementing Agency View and Identification of FSNE as a Benefit of FSP.............A-19 

Exhibit A5-12 Belief by State Agency that FSNE Participants see FSNE as a Food Stamp 

Program Benefit .....................................................................................................A-19 

Chapter VI Additional Exhibits

Exhibit A6-1 Highest Level of Formal Education for Staff Delivering FSNE...................................A-21 

Exhibit A6-2 Staff Receiving Training...............................................................................................A-21 

Exhibit A6-3 Information Collected Regarding Participation in Direct Education Services .............A-21 

Exhibit A6-4 Information Collected Regarding Participation in Indirect Education Services...........A-22 

Exhibit A6-5 Methods of Fiscal Reviews of Local Projects or Subcontractors .................................A-22 

Exhibit A6-6 Frequency of Invoices to State Food Stamp Agency for FSNE ...................................A-22 

Exhibit A6-7 Financial Data Reported to State Food Stamp Agency.................................................A-23 

Exhibit A6-8 Methods Used by State Agencies to Monitor Implementing Agency FSNE 

Spending.................................................................................................................A-23 

Exhibit A6-9 Audits or Fiscal Reviews of Implementing Agency FSNE Spending Required 

by State Agencies ...................................................................................................A-24 

Exhibit A6-10 Types of Data Collected by Local Projects on Participation and/or Reach of 

Message in FY 2004...............................................................................................A-24 

Exhibit A6-11 Extent of Implementing Agency Involvement in Evaluations at Local Level..............A-24 

Exhibit A6-12 Factors that Affected which FSNE Services to Be Evaluated in FY 2004 ...................A-25 
Abt Associates Inc. Exhibits viii 

Exhibit A6-13 Key Findings of Implementing Agency Evaluations (Outcome or Impact) 

Based on Self-Reported Data .................................................................................A-25 

Chapter VII Additional Exhibits

Exhibit A7-1 Average Implementing Agency FY 2004 FSNE Budget: Non-Federal, 

Federal, and Total...................................................................................................A-27 

Exhibit A7-2 Distribution of Implementing Agency FY 2004 FSNE Budgets: Non-Federal, 

Federal, and Total...................................................................................................A-27 

Exhibit A7-3 FY 2004 FSP Participants, FSNE Outlays, and Outlays per Participant in Top 

10 States for Total Outlays.....................................................................................A-27 

Exhibit A7-4 Total Implementing Agency Outlays: Federal, Non-Federal and Sum of 

Federal and Non-Federal (in Dollars).....................................................................A-28 

Exhibit A7-5 Total Implementing Agency Outlays: Federal, Non-Federal and Sum of 

Federal and Non-Federal (in Dollars).....................................................................A-28 

Exhibit A7-6 Average and Distribution of Adjusted Total Implementing Agency Outlays 

(Includes Federal Outlays and Non-Federal Outlays Up to Amount of 

Federal Outlays) .....................................................................................................A-28 

Exhibit A7-7 Average Percent of FY 2004 Implementing Agency FSNE Budget Spent: 

Non-Federal, Federal, and Total.............................................................................A-28 
Abt Associates Inc. Key Word Definitions ix 

KEY WORD DEFINITIONS FOR THE FOOD STAMP NUTRITION 

EDUCATION SYSTEMS REVIEW

APPLICANTS: 

Persons who have applied to the Food Stamp Program (FSP). 

DIRECT EDUCATION: 

Nutrition education interventions where participants are actively engaged in the learning process, either 

with an educator or through interactive media, such as kiosks or interactive web sites. The most common 

form of direct education is classroom lessons provided to FSNE participants. 

EFNEP: 

USDA’s Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, designed to provide nutrition education to 

low-income youth and families with young children through Cooperative Extension Services operated by 

State land-grant universities. 

ELIGIBLES: 

Persons who are income-eligible for the Food Stamp Program, generally with household incomes under 

130 percent of the Federal poverty guideline. Eligibles may or may not be food stamp recipients. 

ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT: 

Outlays for approved FSNE activities that meet the Federal requirements for allowable costs, as specified 

in regulations and program guidance are eligible. 

FOR-PROFIT: 

Organization or company established or operated with the intention of making a profit. 

FORMATIVE RESEARCH: 

Research used to ensure that messages, strategies, and materials used in the provision of FSNE services 

are understandable, relevant, credible, and acceptable to the target audience. 

FTES (FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS): 

FTE is a measure of staff-work-year effort. One FTE is equivalent to 2,080 hours of work which could 

reflect, for example, one employee on a full-time schedule of 40 hours per week each year, or two parttime employees for 20 hours per week each year. An employee working 30 hours per week for a year is 

counted as .75 FTE. FTEs are not employee head counts. 

FSNE: 

Food Stamp Nutrition Education. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY (IA): 

An organization that has a contract or agreement with the State food stamp agency to deliver food stamp 

nutrition education. The IA is the primary unit of FSNE program planning, operations, and financial 

management. In FSNE Plan Guidance, implementing agencies are also known as “sub-grantees” since the 

primary grantee is the State food stamp agency. 

INDIAN TRIBAL ORGANIZATION (ITO): 

A recognized governing body of an Indian tribe on a reservation, or a recognized intertribal organization 

acting on behalf of two or more Indian tribes on a reservation. An ITO may serve as an implementing 

agency, subcontractor, or partner for FSNE. 
Abt Associates Inc. Key Word Definitions x 

INDIRECT EDUCATION: 

Distribution of information and resources that are primarily designed to increase public awareness of 

FSNE and/or that reflect FSNE Plan Guidance for key FSNE core elements. Indirect education includes 

any mass communications, public events, or materials distribution that are not part of social marketing or 

direct education efforts. 

IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION: 

A non-cash donation or contribution of goods or services by an organization or individual. Examples 

include volunteer services, loaned staff, donated supplies or equipment, or free use of space. Use of an inkind contribution by a public agency for approved FSNE activities is a reimbursable outlay. A shared 

resource is not considered an in-kind contribution to the FSP if it is funded through another Federal 

program. 

LOCAL PROJECTS: 

Most implementing agencies divide their operations into local projects, which are local subdivision of the 

implementing agency, such as a local Cooperative Extension office. In FSNE Plan Guidance, local 

projects and subcontractors that are operated under agreement with the implementing agencies are known 

as sub-sub-grantees. 

LOW-INCOME PERSONS: 

Persons with household incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty guideline, including 

persons participating in the Food Stamp Program. 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: 

The process of identifying and describing the extent and type of nutrition education needs of individuals 

and/or target populations, and the methods to best address those needs. 

NUTRITION NETWORK: 

A consortium of agencies providing or involved in FSNE activities. The network may include 

representatives from government agencies, universities, nonprofit organizations, and private industry. The 

purpose of the nutrition network is to coordinate the delivery of FSNE with other nutrition education 

activities being conducted in the State. The nutrition network activities may include delivery of FSNE 

through social marketing techniques, coordination of FSNE activities with other public and private 

agencies, and conducting formative research to better integrate FSNE activities among multiple agencies. 

NON-PROFIT: 

An organization or company established for charitable, educational, or humanitarian purposes and not for 

making a profit. Holds a 501(c) 3 charitable status. 

NON-REIMBURSABLE: 

An outlay or expenditure is non-reimbursable if it does not qualify for Food and Nutrition Service 

reimbursement (matching funds) under FSP rules. 

OUTCOME EVALUATION: 

Research that assesses the impact of FSNE services on changes in client behavior, system operations, or 

other performance measures. 

PARAPROFESSIONAL: 

A trained worker who is not a professional nutritionist or dietician but is qualified to provide nutrition 

education under the supervision of a nutrition education professional. 
Abt Associates Inc. Key Word Definitions xi 

PRIVATE CASH DONATIONS: 

A donation of cash by a private organization or individual. FSNE rules permit Federal reimbursement 

(matching funds) of private donations used for FSNE under an approved waiver. 

PROCESS EVALUATION: 

Research that involves documenting and analyzing the operations of the FSNE service delivery system. 

This includes tracking the number of materials distributed, number of clients reached, and investigations 

of service delivery processes, technologies used, and alternative delivery procedures. 

PROGRAM PARTNER: 

An agency or entity that enters into a partnership arrangement with an implementing agency, 

subcontractor, or a local project to inform, coordinate, and/or share FSNE activities. 

RECIPIENTS: 

Persons participating in the Food Stamp Program and receiving program benefits. 

SFSA: 

State food stamp agency. 

SOCIAL MARKETING: 

A disciplined, consumer-focused, research-based process to plan, develop, implement, and evaluate 

interventions, programs, and multiple channels of communications that are designed to influence the 

voluntary behavior of a large number of the target audience. A social marketing campaign must include 

the following three features: 

• The campaign targets a specific segment of the food stamp recipient, low-income population. 

• The campaign addresses the specific nutrition needs of the target audience, associated 

behaviors, and their perceptions about reasons for and against changing behavior. 

• The campaign includes interacting with the target audience to determine whether the 

message, materials, and delivery channel(s) are understood and meaningful and, thus, have 

the potential to lead to behavior change. 

SUBCONTRACTORS: 

Independent organizations with which an implementing agency has a contract or formal agreement for the 

provision of FSNE services. In FSNE Plan Guidance, subcontractors and local projects that are operated 

under agreement with the implementing agencies are known as sub-sub-grantees. 

TARGET AUDIENCE: 

The specific population identified to receive food stamp nutrition education services. The target audience 

may consist of a specific group or subset of the entire food stamp population, for example based on race, 

ethnicity, age, gender, income, occupation, health status, behavior, or a combination of these or other 

factors. 
Abt Associates Inc. Key Word Definitions xii 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. Introduction 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides nutrition 

assistance as a food security safety net for eligible low-income households and individuals. Through 

these food assistance programs, FNS has also provided significant funding to States and local programs to 

provide nutrition education designed to help program participants and potential participants to choose 

healthy foods and active lifestyles. 

In the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the largest of the nutrition assistance programs, States have the option 

to include nutrition education activities for food stamp participants and eligible non-participants as part of 

their administrative operations. The scope of food stamp nutrition education (FSNE) has expanded 

greatly since its inception. In 1992, only seven States offered USDA-funded food stamp nutrition 

education with Federal expenditures of $661,000. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, Federal expenditures for 

FSNE were approximately $147 million.1

 As with other FSP administrative costs, FSNE expenditures 

may be reimbursed at 50 percent. 

Overview of Nutrition Education in the Food Stamp Program 

The goal of food stamp nutrition education is to provide educational programs that increase, within a 

limited budget, the likelihood of recipients making healthy food choices and choosing active lifestyles. 

While the FSP has always had an option to conduct nutrition education, food stamp agencies are primarily 

designed to perform the administrative functions associated with food stamp benefits; typically, State and 

local food stamp offices do not have the staff or expertise to design and implement comprehensive 

nutrition education programs. Thus, “State food stamp agencies” or “State agencies” delegate this 

function, through formal contracts, to other providers of nutrition education within the State—the “FSNE 

implementing agencies.” 

The State Cooperative Extension Service is the predominant type of implementing agency, but public 

health departments, public assistance agencies, university academic centers, and other types of 

organizations also provide FSNE. Implementing agencies, in turn, usually deliver nutrition education to 

food stamp recipients through local organizations, or “local projects or subcontractors.” Typically, local 

projects are local-level subdivisions of the implementing agency organizations such as a local cooperative 

extension office. Subcontractors are local-level entities, such as county health departments, that are 

independent of the implementing agency organizations and deliver FSNE services under contracts or 

agreements. 

Implementing agencies may also develop collaborative relationships with community and private 

agencies, and other FNS-funded programs, referred to as “program partners” such as the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). 

To provide FSNE, State agencies submit an annual plan to FNS that describes the nutrition education 

activities to be conducted during the upcoming fiscal year along with a budget for those activities. In FY 

 

1

 Federal expenditures totaled $147 million as of November 2005 and were subject to change. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-2 

2004, all FSNE activities had to be compatible with the dietary advice provided in the Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans and USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid. Approved plans are reimbursed at the level of 50 

percent of the allowable costs expended, the same rate provided for other State FSP administrative 

functions. 

Research Questions 

This study examined FSNE operations in FY 2004 to address two objectives: 1) to provide a 

comprehensive and systematic description of nutrition education activities in the FSP, and 2) to identify 

patterns of program implementation with relevance for future FSNE planning. The key issues and 

questions addressed by this study are listed below. 

1. Organizational Structure and Planning Process: What is the organizational structure of FSNE 

within States? To what extent and in what ways is FSNE coordinated with other FNS or other 

Federal and State nutrition education initiatives? How are State FSNE plans developed? To what 

extent are State plans implemented as intended? 

2. FSNE Delivery: Who is/are the target audience(s) and what are their primary needs? What is the 

nutrition content focus of FSNE? To what degree do States rely on different educational delivery 

methods, and why? In what settings were nutrition education activities conducted? To what 

extent do State FSNE activities focus on providing information, promoting different attitudes, 

teaching specific skills, and trying out or practicing new behaviors? To what extent do FSNE 

participants recognize the link between FSNE activities and the Food Stamp Program? 

3. Staff: What qualifications must FSNE providers meet? What amount of services is delivered by 

professional versus paraprofessional staff without formal nutrition credentials? 

4. Monitoring and Evaluation: What kinds of records on FSNE participants and services are kept 

routinely? To what extent and how do States rely on research to make decisions about their 

FSNE target audience(s), content, and approach? 

5. Funding: What is the total dollar value of resources directed to FSNE? How do the per-capita 

(recipient and FSP-eligible) costs vary across States? How many States spend more or less than 

the amount in their FSNE budget and why? 

II. Study Methodology 

Several data collection methods were used in this study to generate a comprehensive description of FSNE 

services along with in-depth, qualitative explanations of key issues of interest to FNS. 

Data from States’ FSNE Plan Documents and Expenditure Reports for FY 2004 

The study team abstracted information from each State’s approved FY 2004 plan and used the data to: 1) 

identify implementing agencies for the site visit sampling; and 2) familiarize the site visit interviewers 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-3 

with the characteristics of the sampled agencies before the site visits. In addition, FNS provided Statelevel data on approved FSNE budgets and total expenditures for FY 2004. 

National Web-Based Surveys of FSNE Agencies 

Two web-based surveys were conducted, one involving all State agencies offering FSNE and the other 

involving all FSNE implementing agencies in FY 2004. Respondents included the State food stamp 

agency staff responsible for coordination of the State FSNE plan and budget, and persons involved in 

FSNE administration and fiscal management from the implementing agency. The final survey response 

rates were: 90 percent for implementing agencies (84 of 93 agencies), and 96 percent for State agencies 

(50 of 52 agencies). 

On-Site Interviews with FSNE Representatives 

Project staff conducted open-ended, in-depth interviews with FSNE officials at the State food stamp 

agencies, implementing agencies and their program partners, local project staff, and local program 

partners (if applicable). A systematic random sampling method was used to select implementing agencies 

for the on-site interviews—to ensure appropriate representation of agencies by organizational type, FSNE 

budget, and geographic distribution. Based on this sample of implementing agencies, the researchers 

purposively (not randomly) selected their associated State food stamp agencies, local projects, and 

partners for interviews during the site visits. The final number of interviews conducted were: 31 

implementing agency interviews, 24 State-level partner interviews, 27 State agency interviews, 67 local 

project interviews, 43 local partner interviews, and 32 nutrition educator interviews. 

Data Analysis 

 

Data collected for this study were analyzed by: 1) quantitative analysis (e.g., frequencies, means, and 

percentages) of web-based survey data and financial data; and 2) qualitative analysis of interview data. 

This final report incorporates findings from the web-based surveys with narrative descriptions of the 

qualitative interview data. The interview data were used to flesh out the general profiles obtained from 

the survey data analysis with qualitative information on “how” and “why” certain decisions were made 

and with specific examples of FSNE operations. 

III. FSNE Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 

The FSNE structure is multi-layered and includes the State food stamp agency, implementing agency, 

local projects, subcontractors, nutrition educators, and partners both at the State and local levels. 

State Food Stamp Agency 

Most States had either one implementing agency (60 percent) or two implementing agencies (28 

percent). The number of implementing agencies by region ranged from a high of 16 agencies in the 

Southeast to a low of 7 agencies in the Mid-Atlantic. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-4 

The role of State agencies varied widely, depending on the activity and on the type of implementing 

agency. Results from the self-reported surveys show that although 28 percent were very involved in the 

selection of the target audience, and funding decisions related to implementing agencies, far fewer were 

very involved in message development (13 percent), identification of delivery methods or materials (11 

percent), funding decisions related to local projects (15 percent), or selection of local projects (15 

percent). While on average, 63 percent of State agencies characterized their involvement as “very 

active,” they were more likely to be very active with the local public health departments, emergency food 

providers, or tribal programs, and less active when the implementing agency was a university or a State or 

Territorial health department. 

Implementing Agency 

In FY 2004, 88 percent of implementing agencies described themselves as public organizations. The 

majority of all implementing agencies (55 percent) were Cooperative Extension Services (CES) of 

land grant universities. The remaining 45 percent represented a wide range of organizations, including a 

division of a State or Territorial health department (9 percent), an emergency food provider such as a food 

bank or pantry (8 percent), and a nutrition or public health school/department/college within a university 

(7 percent). 

The implementing agency was the lead decision-maker in almost all FSNE activities. Implementing 

agencies developed the goals and objectives for FSNE, made funding decisions related to local projects 

and overall allocation of resources, trained nutrition educators, and conducted monitoring and evaluation 

to ensure that FSNE was implemented as intended. While most implementing agencies had local projects 

and/or subcontractors to provide direct and indirect education, they themselves implemented social 

marketing campaigns. If affiliated with a university, the implementing agency was more likely to conduct 

research projects that supplemented the work of the local projects or subcontractors. 

Nutrition Networks 

In FY 2004, 27 implementing agencies (33 percent) reported using a nutrition network to provide 

FSNE and coordinate it with other nutrition education. Of these, 67 percent (18 agencies) stated that 

the network was a part of a larger FSNE initiative. Only five agencies indicated that they had contracts 

with the State food stamp agency as a nutrition network independent of other FSNE activities.

The nutrition networks included a variety of State government, local government, and nonprofit 

agencies. The State agencies most often represented in these networks were the Cooperative Extension 

Service (89 percent), State food stamp agency (81 percent), emergency food providers (73 percent), and 

WIC program within the State health department (67 percent). 

Local Projects, Subcontractors, and Nutrition Educators 

Approximately 73 percent of implementing agencies used local projects (40 percent), 

subcontractors (19 percent), or both (14 percent) to deliver some or all of FSNE services. The 

choice to use local projects or subcontractors was associated with the type of implementing agency. Most 

of the Cooperative Extension Services used their county (local) extension offices to deliver FSNE; State 

or Territorial health departments tended to use subcontractors to deliver FSNE (87 percent). 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-5 

Local projects and subcontractors typically felt that they were centrally involved in decisionmaking about the local implementation of FSNE services. Seventy-one percent of local projects and 

subcontractors reported that they made the decisions; 29 percent indicated that implementing agencies 

were responsible for decision-making. Key areas for local decision-making were: recruiting and 

selecting local partners, identifying the target audience, and developing content of nutrition education 

services. Based on guidance they received from the implementing agency about target populations, core 

nutritional messages, and acceptable methods of delivery, local projects felt they had the autonomy to 

make decisions that would be most beneficial to their community. 

Implementing agencies relied on nutrition educators to provide direct education to clients, 

regardless of whether the educators were staff of the local project/subcontractor or the central 

implementing agency office. 

FSNE Partners 

The partnerships in FSNE were very diverse and extensive, at both the implementing agency and 

local levels. One-third of implementing agencies used an advisory committee or working group that 

provided input on policy decisions or helped establish coordinating mechanisms as part of FSNE planning 

and implementation. Among these agencies, the most commonly cited organizations were State 

Cooperative Extension Service offices and State and/or local health departments (73 percent and 69 

percent, respectively). Three-quarters (73 percent) of implementing agencies coordinated FSNE activities 

with at least one U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), FNS food and nutrition assistance program, 

such as WIC, the National School Lunch Program, or Team Nutrition. The nutrition network partners 

provided another mechanism for coordination. 

At the local level, partners typically provided access at their sites to low-income audiences for 

nutrition education. Local partners either operated independently in the community (e.g., a school 

district, a local food bank), were a local office of a larger State initiative (e.g., a local WIC office, a Head 

Start site), or associated with job training related to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 

family education, or self-sufficiency projects. 

Local Food Stamp Offices 

Nineteen percent of the local projects and subcontractors reported food stamp office involvement in 

FSNE planning or implementation. Food stamp office involvement usually consisted of distributing 

nutrition education brochures and materials. The primary barrier to their involvement in FSNE was 

limited personnel resources or physical space to direct towards nutrition education. 

IV. FSNE Planning 

FSNE plan development involves the following steps: 1) the implementing agency develops a plan, 

independently or together with local projects or subcontractors; 2) the State agency reviews the plan and 

works with the implementing agency to refine it; and 3) the State agency submits a single State FSNE 

plan to the FNS Regional Office for approval, as requested in the FSNE Plan Guidance. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-6 

Needs Assessment and Identification of Target Audience 

Most implementing agencies (72 percent) reported that they conducted needs assessments for 

FSNE, but most of these assessments focused on identifying and locating low-income audiences, not 

their nutrition education needs. As recommended by the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, a majority of 

implementing agencies used existing data as the primary basis for needs assessment. They requested that 

State food stamp agencies provide FSP data, including participation data for all areas of the State and at 

the county level, or data on the demographic characteristics of participants (61 percent, 55 percent, and 45 

percent, respectively). 

In FY 2004, nearly three-quarters of State agencies asked implementing agencies to make food 

stamp recipients and applicants a high priority but allowed implementing agencies to target 

broader low-income populations. Only one State agency required implementing agencies to serve only 

food stamp recipients and applicants. The majority (52 percent) of implementing agencies targeted the 

low-income population with household income up to 185 percent of poverty as their primary audience in 

FY 2004. Slightly less than one-third of the agencies targeted FSP recipients and eligibles. Just 8 percent 

targeted only FSP recipients and applicants. The majority of implementing agencies used other 

demographic factors along with income in defining the target audience for FSNE, most commonly age 

(used by 65 percent of all implementing agencies), race and ethnicity (50 percent), and family status (39 

percent). The demographics of the actual audience for FSNE are described in Section V. 

Selection of Nutrition Education Curriculum and Topics 

According to the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, the content of FSNE services must be science-based 

nutrition education intervention that is focused on health promotion and primary prevention of diseases 

through healthy diets and physical activities. 

Selection of educational messages and curricula was based on past experience and on testing. A 

common practice was to use the messages and curricula that had been used for FSNE in the past. 

In FY 2004, 71 percent of implementing agencies indicated that they tested some or all of their 

educational messages, commonly through methods such as focus groups with food stamp recipients or 

with other low-income audiences (43 and 52 percent, respectively). 

Implementing agencies and local projects typically sought to increase participants’ knowledge and 

to promote behavior change. The most commonly cited topics in local projects’ nutrition education 

plans were: the importance of eating fruits and vegetables; nutritional quality of diets, food safety, the 

importance of physical activity, and food resource management. 

Budget Development 

In order to obtain FNS approval, proposed budgets were required to include detailed information to show 

that planned activities were allowable, planned expenditures were reasonable and necessary, and 

allowable non-Federal funding for 50 percent of expenses would be provided. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-7 

FSNE budget development activities in FY 2004 were conducted primarily by the implementing 

agencies and their local projects/subcontractors. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of implementing 

agencies with local projects or subcontractors provided a budget format for the local projects or 

subcontractors to prepare their own budgets. Implementing agencies also provided training and assistance 

to local projects on issues such as: how to interpret FSNE Plan Guidance, allowable costs, what qualifies 

for non-Federal FSNE funds, and how to develop partners. 

 

About half of the local projects interviewed reported encountering problems during the process of 

budget development. The problems cited included: securing sufficient non-Federal funds, determining 

how to include private contributions, definitions of allowable costs, and finding adequate program space. 

In some of these cases, projects settled for less money than they had hoped for or eliminated some 

planned activities. 

Approval of Local Project and Implementing Agency Plans 

During the review of implementing agency and State plans, most implementing agencies and local 

projects experienced no problems. One in five implementing agencies with local projects or 

subcontractors denied funding for FY 2004 to a local project or subcontractor. The main reasons for these 

decisions were: local projects’ inability to provide qualifying non-Federal contributions, insufficient plan 

documentation, and inconsistency between the selected target audience and implementing agency 

priorities. Only 8 percent of State agencies (four States) denied an implementing agency’s request for 

FSNE funding. The reasons for denial included: the proposed FSNE activities were not consistent with 

priorities of the State agency, or the proposed activities duplicated services already underway or planned 

by another organization. Other reasons related to inconsistencies with the Federal FSNE Plan Guidance, 

such as: inclusion of an inappropriate target audience in the proposal, lack of appropriate non-Federal 

funds, and inclusion of non-allowable costs. 

Conformance to the FSNE Plan Guidance and prior experience in FSNE were the most common 

criteria for States’ approval of implementing agencies to be included in the State FSNE plan in FY 

2004. Two-thirds of State agencies chose implementing agencies based on their prior experience. About 

one-third (34 percent) of the State agencies approved any potential implementing agency that submitted 

plans meeting the FSNE Plan Guidance requirements. 

 

The majority of implementing agencies surveyed (88 percent) stated their FY 2004 FSNE plan was 

fully or mostly implemented as approved. Staffing shortages, shortfalls in non-Federal funding, and 

problems with partnerships were main reasons for the deviations in plan implementation. When there 

were deviations from the plan, the changes generally involved offering fewer classes or changing class 

locations, so changes rarely affected their service goals, messages, or delivery model. 

V. Delivery of FSNE 

In FY 2004 the four core areas of Improved Dietary Quality, Food Security, Food Resource 

Management, and Food Safety formed the conceptual framework on which implementing agencies 

based their activities. Within the context of the four core areas, implementing agencies typically 

emphasized multiple guidelines for their target populations: 98 percent of implementing agencies used 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-8 

“Be physically active each day,” 99 percent used “Let the Pyramid guide your food choices,” and 99 

percent used “Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables daily.” 

Scope of Services 

FSNE services were provided in most counties (82 percent) across States in FY 2004. Forty-two 

percent of State agencies reported that every county in their State was served. 

In FY 2004, FSNE agencies did not collect or report participant demographic data using a standardized 

format or data management system. The implementing agency survey obtained these types of data, but 

the reporting was not consistent. While 89 percent of implementing agencies reported at least one 

demographic category, only one-third of agencies reported on all the demographic characteristics listed 

below. 

According to the survey, FSNE served the following groups of participants in FY 2004: 

Age. School-aged children (5–17 years) and adults (18–59 years) comprised the largest cohorts 

(42 percent and 36 percent, respectively) of FSNE participants, the remainder being elderly, 

young children, and infants. 

Gender. Females constituted the majority of the FY 2004 FSNE participants; there were more 

than twice as many females as males (70 and 30 percent, respectively). 

Race/Ethnicity. By race, 59 percent of participants were white, 23 percent were black/AfricanAmerican, and 8 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native. Approximately 20 percent of 

FSNE participants were identified as Hispanic or Latino (regardless of race). 

Food Stamp Recipients. Just over half (51 percent) of FSNE participants were food stamp 

recipients or applicants, while 23 percent were income-eligible non-participants. 

Coordination of Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

Implementing agencies were most likely to coordinate with other agencies regarding information 

and data sharing (96 percent), plan development (88 percent), and message delivery (87 percent). 

Development of FSNE budgets, program evaluation, and program monitoring were less likely to be 

coordinated. WIC and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) were most often 

coordinated with FSNE; they were most likely to be reported as “well” or “moderately” coordinated. 

In FY 2004, 38 percent of implementing agencies had formal collaborative relationships with other 

nutrition education initiatives in their State to provide FSNE. Most common collaborators were State 

Departments of Education (45 percent) and other university or academic centers (39 percent). 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-9 

Methods of Delivery 

For purposes of this study, three FSNE delivery methods were defined: direct education, indirect 

education, and social marketing. (The reader should refer to the Key Word Definitions for these terms.) 

The vast majority (98 percent) of implementing agencies provided direct education. The settings 

used for direct education included: public schools (81 percent), WIC clinics (75 percent), elderly 

services sites (73 percent), emergency food assistance sites (68 percent), and youth education sites 

such as YMCAs and preschools (66 percent). Multiple group sessions were the most commonly used 

mode for direct education in these settings. 

Most (87 percent) implementing agencies also offered indirect education. These activities included 

distribution of print materials and public events such as health fairs (96 percent and 85 percent, 

respectively, of agencies using indirect education). 

About one-third of implementing agencies conducted social marketing campaigns in FY 2004. Of 

those agencies, 48 percent conducted a Statewide campaign. 

One of the key elements in a successful Statewide social marketing campaign was to involve 

multiple programs in reinforcing the message, and social marketing was strongly associated with 

nutrition networks. Of the 27 implementing agencies with a nutrition network, 17 employed social 

marketing. Only nine implementing agencies that did not have a nutrition network conducted social 

marketing. The most frequent channel of social marketing delivery was radio (62 percent), followed by 

television (46 percent), newspapers, and posters (each 42 percent). About a quarter of implementing 

agencies used mass distribution of materials through local food stamp offices for social marketing (27 

percent). Almost half of the implementing agencies used four or more channels to deliver their social 

marketing. 

Instructional Materials, Curricula, and Languages Used 

Implementing agencies drew upon many different sources to obtain nutrition education curricula 

and materials. FNS was cited most often as the source for FSNE materials (77 percent). Other 

commonly reported sources included the implementing agency itself (75 percent), another implementing 

agency (74 percent), another USDA agency (71 percent), and another Federal organization (70 percent). 

While almost all implementing agencies used some research-based curricula, there was wide 

variation in the specific curricula chosen. The most commonly used were Fight BAC (81 percent), Eat 

Smart, Play Hard (73 percent), and Nibbles for Health (47 percent). In addition, the FNS curriculum 

Power of Choice was used by 39 percent of implementing agencies; 27 percent reported using Changing 

the Scene, and 19 percent reported using YourSELF. 

Almost all implementing agencies used two or more languages in FSNE service delivery; 28 percent 

used three or more languages other than English. Ninety percent of implementing agencies used 

materials or conducted activities in Spanish. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-10 

FSNE as a Benefit of the Food Stamp Program 

While almost all State agencies (94 percent) viewed FSNE as one of the benefits of a Food Stamp 

Program, a smaller group (66 percent) actively promoted FSNE as a Food Stamp Program benefit.

Similarly, 88 percent of implementing agencies viewed FSNE as one of the benefits of FSP, but 

somewhat fewer identified it to clients as a FSP benefit (78 percent). During interviews, implementing 

agencies and local projects described their hesitancy to “over-promote” FSNE as a part of the FSP. There 

were fears that associating with the FSP would be a barrier to client participation. In fact, many 

implementing agencies did not discuss the link with the FSP except on printed materials, because they 

perceived that members of the FSNE audience were sensitive to being associated with the FSP, whether 

they were recipients or not. 

All stakeholders—implementing agencies, local projects, State agency, and partners—were quick to note 

that FSNE participants saw the local project or subcontractor as the provider of nutrition education rather 

than the FSP and that they may not have understood the link between FSNE and the Food Stamp 

Program. 

This hesitancy towards closely tying FSNE to the FSP resulted in the perception by State agencies that 

participants were probably not aware of the link. Only 4 percent of State agencies believed that FSNE 

participants “very much recognized FSNE as a FSP benefit” (Exhibit A5-12). Instead they were more 

likely to think that FSNE participants “somewhat recognized” FSNE as a benefit (45 percent), had little 

recognition of FSNE as a benefit (35 percent), or had no recognition of FSNE as a FSP benefit (10 

percent). 

VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 

Successful management of FSNE services requires adequate staffing, monitoring of educational activities, 

and financial management. Another key to success for FSNE is evaluating the extent of program 

implementation and impact. 

Staff Qualifications and Staff Training 

In FY 2004, a majority (70 percent) of FSNE staff involved in direct service delivery had a 

Bachelor’s degree or higher. However, in general, nutritionists/dietitians and staff with a Master’s 

degree (totaling 40 percent) typically supervised nutrition educators rather than conducting educational 

activities, and the minimum educational requirement for nutrition educators was a high school diploma or 

GED. This suggests that nutrition educators were mostly staff with a Bachelor’s degree or less, 

constituting 59 percent of FSNE service delivery staff. 

Most implementing agencies (83 percent) offered training to their staff and/or local project staff on 

a regular basis. Local project staff were uniformly satisfied with the amount of training their staff 

received. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-11 

Monitoring the Implementation of FSNE Activities 

In FY 2004, all States collected some data on the number of clients served by FSNE, but the type of 

FSNE activity data collected varied across different service delivery methods—direct education, indirect 

education, and social marketing. 

For direct education initiatives, most implementing agencies kept records in a way that allowed 

reporting of the number of individual participants, rather than the contact counts that were 

requested by the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance. The most common way of reporting participation was 

to count the number of individuals who received FSNE service at least once during a reporting period 

regardless of how many times or classes the person participated (three-quarters of implementing agencies 

in 46 States). 

The indirect education activities were most commonly tracked by counting the number of items 

(flyers, newsletters, etc.) distributed (73 percent of implementing agencies in 42 States). 

Overall, 73 percent of the 26 implementing agencies using social marketing collected some type of 

data—usually multiple types—on the reach of the marketing campaign. For example, 58 percent of 

these agencies (in 15 States) tracked the number of times social marketing messages were delivered; 50 

percent (in 12 States) recorded demographics of populations exposed to social marketing messages 

through media estimates of reach and placement. 

Some State agencies have expanded their involvement in the monitoring of FSNE activities beyond 

the review of annual FSNE reports. Additional activities include: conducting on-site reviews of local 

FSNE projects (reported by 48 percent of implementing agencies in 21 States); interviewing the 

implementing agency staff (48 percent, 21 States); and holding regular meetings with the implementing 

agency (46 percent, 25 States). Overall, most implementing agencies felt that their monitoring system 

allowed them to meet State agency requirements. 

Financial Management 

Over one-half of States received audit reports on their implementing agencies’ FSNE spending in 

FY 2004. Nineteen percent of States audited their implementing agency’s FSNE financial records; while 

23 percent received reports from internal audits conducted by implementing agencies, and one State 

commissioned an independent audit of its implementing agency. 

Financial audits or reviews of FSNE spending were conducted for a large majority of local projects 

in FY 2004. Fifty-three percent of implementing agencies (in 28 States) used their staff to audit or 

review their local projects’ finances. Ten percent of implementing agencies commissioned an 

independent audit (in six States); and another 10 percent reported that their local projects or 

subcontractors commissioned independent audits of their FSNE spending (in six States). 

Evaluation 

Overall, information collected in this study regarding FSNE evaluation was limited and ambiguous. 

In terms of formative evaluations, 71 percent of implementing agencies reported that they tested their 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-12 

educational messages, using methods such as focus groups and interviews of food stamp recipients and 

other low-income groups. Nutrition educators further explained that, even when no formal method for 

assessing materials' effectiveness was in place, anecdotal feedback from participants provided them with 

useful information on the materials being used for FSNE. 

Evaluation regarding implementation of nutrition education services consisted mainly of collecting 

monitoring data on social marketing and direct and indirect education services such as: the number 

and frequency of message delivery, and counts of participants in educational activities. Implementing 

agencies used these data primarily to satisfy their State agency’s reporting requirements. 

The majority of implementing agencies (74 percent) reported that they conducted outcome 

evaluations on at least some aspects of FSNE services in FY 2004. However, their explanations 

often did not distinguish between FSNE activity monitoring and outcome evaluations. Of the 

implementing agencies that were interviewed, staff from 17 agencies described their outcome evaluations. 

They suggested that these evaluations focused on behavior change among participants (outcome) and the 

extent of program utilization (process monitoring, e.g., the number of participants, the number of repeat 

contacts, and the number of events held). Seventy-seven percent of the implementing agencies 

interviewed indicated that their outcome evaluations were not conducted by an outside evaluator, raising 

questions regarding the reliability of findings from these studies. Implementing agency and local project 

staff described various factors as impediments for conducting outcome evaluations, such as difficulty in 

designing evaluation instruments and a lack of resources (either money or time). 

Nonetheless, 50 percent of the implementing agencies interviewed believed that their outcome 

evaluations found positive behavior change among clients, and 66 percent felt that their data were 

reliable. 

VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 

Limitations of Data for the Financial Analysis 

Although the survey requested financial data that all implementing agencies are expected to maintain, in 

the budget categories specified by the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, there were frequent gaps and 

inconsistencies in the data provided by the implementing agencies. Study staff resolved most of these 

problems, and total budget and outlay data were analyzed for 72 of the 84 implementing agencies that 

responded to the survey. (These 72 agencies formed the “final analysis sample.”) There were, however, 

only 42 implementing agencies with usable data on the composition of FSNE outlays by type of expense, 

and 39 with usable data on the composition of outlays by source of funds, due to missing and inconsistent 

data. These more detailed outlay data are presented with more caution but they are nonetheless 

informative. 

FY 2004 FSNE Budgets and Outlays 

FNS approved FSNE plans totaling $228 million in Federal funds for FY 2004. Based on 

implementing agency data collected for the study, State budgets for FY 2004 totaled $242 million in 

non-Federal funds. Thus, the grand total budgeted from the implementing agencies’ perspective was 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-13 

$470 million. Implementing agencies often obtain commitments from providers of non-Federal funds 

that exceed the requested amount of Federal funds, but they are entitled to claim reimbursement for 50 

percent of allowable outlays. 

Outlays for FSNE totaled $295 million in FY 2004, including $147 million in Federal outlays and 

$148 million in non-Federal outlays. Among the States, the range was from $20,000 to $65 million, 

while the median total outlay of Federal and non-Federal funds was $3.5 million. 

On average across the Nation, total FSNE spending was $12.39 per FSP participant, or $3.62 per 

low-income person (with income below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level). States varied 

considerably in the level of FSNE spending relative to the size of the target population. The median 

FSNE outlay—the best descriptor of the “typical” State— was $11.21 per FSP participant, with 25 

percent of States spending less than $5.83 per FSP participant and another 25 percent spending between 

$19.40 and $106.29. 

Most State food stamp agencies did not view their internal FSNE outlays as large enough to justify 

the effort to separate them from general FSP administrative expenses. Only four State agencies 

reported their own staff time or other internal costs as a FSNE outlay. Two State agencies indicated plans 

to hire staff to oversee FSNE and claim these positions as FSNE expenses. 

Half of the implementing agencies spent 90 percent or more of their budgets, according to the 

survey data. Most implementing agencies (81 percent) did not spend their entire budgets, but the 

percentage remaining tended to be relatively small. A few large implementing agencies had large 

amounts of unspent funds, skewing the relationship of budgeted funds ($470 million) to outlays ($295 

million) at the national level. 

When implementing agencies were unable to spend substantial portions of their budgets, common 

problems were cooperation of partners, staff turnover, and delayed start-up. A few implementing 

agencies indicated that they intentionally underspent their budgets, as a way to make sure they did not 

overspend. 

Non-Federal Funds 

Approximately one-third of non-Federal funds reportedly came from the implementing agency 

itself, and another one-third from State land-grant universities (according to data from the 39 

implementing agencies providing complete and valid data on the sources of FSNE funds in FY 2004). 

Other sources of non-Federal funds included local public education agencies (10 percent in this sample), 

other public agencies (13 percent), private non-profit organizations (4 percent), and Indian Tribal 

Organizations (3 percent). State food stamp agencies provided 4 percent of reported non-Federal funds 

spent by implementing agencies on FSNE. 

Several factors affected the amount of non-Federal contributions that were actually received from 

partners, including: partners’ interest; ability to prove that they served the target low-income or food 

stamp eligible population, availability of allowable funds, willingness to complete paperwork, budget cuts 

or changes in priorities at partner agencies, delays in startup leading to partners being unable to fit FSNE 

into their schedules (most often involving schools), and availability of space to provide FSNE. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-14 

Implementing agencies usually received non-Federal funds in the form of partners’ contributions of 

staff time and other expenses in support of FSNE, not in the form of outright grants. Implementing 

agencies were eligible to claim Federal reimbursement for these expenses, but they did not pass on the 

reimbursement to the partners. Instead, they used these funds for other expenses that did not have nonFederal sources of funds. This approach is quite different from the way that most FSP administrative 

expenses are funded, with staff positions and other expenses supported jointly by Federal funds and by 

State and local revenue appropriated specifically for this purpose. 

The amount of non-Federal outlays reported to FNS in some States may understate the full value of 

the contributions of non-Federal funds by implementing agencies and partners for approved FSNE 

activities. Although implementing agencies were allowed to claim Federal reimbursement for 50 percent 

of approved outlays, on average they reported spending more non-Federal funds than the amount of 

Federal funds claimed on their behalf. Constraints in financial processes at the State and implementing 

agencies affected the balance of Federal and non-Federal outlays. A key constraint was the implementing 

agencies’ uncertainty about the actual amount of non-Federal funds that would be contributed by partners. 

VIII. Comparison of FY 2004 FSNE Study Findings to the 2005 

Guiding Principles 

Implications for the FSNE Guiding Principles 

On September 15, 2005, FNS released the “FSNE Guiding Principles,” a policy document containing six 

overarching principles designed to provide the big picture and future direction for food stamp nutrition 

education. The document identifies standards of excellence towards which FSNE efforts should strive 

and delineates the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, including FNS, State food stamp 

agencies, implementing agencies, local offices/subcontractors and local food stamp offices. The Guiding 

Principles were first incorporated in the annual FSNE Plan Guidance issued by FNS for FY 2007 for 

operational implementation. 

Although FSNE stakeholders did not operate under the Guiding Principles in FY 2004, a comparison of 

the study findings to the standards of excellence outlined in the Guiding Principles is useful. The 

comparison offers a baseline measure of how close FSNE operations in FY 2004 were to reaching the 

ideals of the Guiding Principles, recognizing that some programmatic changes may have occurred in the 

interim. The study data also identify some successful practices and potential barriers facing FSNE 

providers as they strive to meet these ideals in future years. 

Guiding Principle 1: Food Stamp Nutrition Education is intended for Food Stamp Program recipients 

and individuals eligible for the Food Stamp Program.

Federal law and FNS regulations require that Food Stamp Program recipients and eligibles be the primary 

target of FSNE. Overall, the study findings indicate that FSNE providers make strong efforts to find and 

serve food stamp recipients. Nearly three-quarters of State food stamp agencies reported that they asked 

implementing agencies to make food stamp recipients and applicants a high priority. Implementing 

agencies estimate that just over half of FSNE participants are food stamp recipients, with an additional 23 

percent being income eligible but not participating. 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-15 

One of the challenges noted by State and local FSNE providers was that they have not been effective in 

identifying which FSNE participants are actually food stamp recipients. Where services were provided in 

sites such as a TANF work incentive program, a food bank, or in low-income housing centers, it was 

much easier to determine whether potential FSNE participants were eligible for food stamp benefits. 

Identifying food stamp recipients was not as easy, however, when services were provided in schools, at 

community events, or in general gathering places such as health fairs or in grocery stores. 

Guiding Principle 2: FSNE is a set of learning experiences designed to facilitate the voluntary 

adoption of eating and other nutrition behaviors conducive to the health and well–being of individuals 

on a limited budget. 

Most of the implementing agencies indicated that they use multiple elements of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, and that they focus on both providing information and trying to promote behavioral changes. 

Interview data suggest that nutrition education was provided within the context of a client’s limited 

budget. This study did not collect data on FSNE outcomes, but it did examine the efforts of 

implementing agencies to evaluate FSNE. Of implementing agencies that conducted outcome 

evaluations, a majority reported using in-person client interviews or surveys to collect data—typically 

self-report, pre-post data, including dietary recalls; and 50 percent found positive behavioral change. 

However, it is important to note that the quality of efforts designed to measure behavioral change was not 

examined. 

Guiding Principle 3: FSNE has the greatest potential impact on the nutrition-related behaviors of the 

overall food stamp population when it targets women and children in food stamp-eligible households. 

Agencies reported that most FSNE activities were directed at women and children. Implementing 

agencies indicated that 42 percent of FSNE participants were children and 25 percent were adult women. 

In addition, 81 percent of implementing agencies provided direct education to children in public schools, 

and 75 percent provided direct education in youth education sites such as YMCAs and preschools. 

Guiding Principle 4: FSNE uses science-based behaviorally focused interventions and can maximize 

its national impact by concentrating on a small set of key outcomes. 

There was considerable variation among implementing agencies in regard to use of science-based 

interventions. While most implementing agencies used tested materials, they often had not tested their 

messages with new target audiences. Implementing agencies using the social marketing approach were 

most likely to test their messages. Other implementing agencies conducted direct delivery with curricula 

that had either been tested in the past by their agency or by other FSNE providers. 

Guiding Principle 5: FSNE can maximize its reach when coordination and collaboration take place 

among a variety of stakeholders at the local, State, regional, and national levels. 

There were mixed results with regard to the coordination of nutrition education and collaboration among 

stakeholders. With regard to USDA-funded programs, as expected, almost all implementing agencies (84 

percent) reported coordination of FSNE with WIC, and 81 percent reported coordination with EFNEP. 

Coordination with non-FNS funded entities was significantly less prevalent, with only 38 percent of 

implementing agencies reporting coordination efforts. About one-third (32 percent) used a nutrition 
Abt Associates Inc. Executive Summary E-16 

network as a formal coordinating mechanism. Most often, coordination was prevented by either a lack of 

interest on the part of either or both parties, or a lack of resources to promote coordination. 

Levels of coordination also varied at the local level. Most local partnerships involved a partner agency 

that had access or provided services to the FSNE target population, such as a TANF job training program 

or a school located in a low-income area. Many local projects relied on their partners to provide the 

audience for FSNE and considered this arrangement to fall within the definition of local coordination. 

Guiding Principle 6: FSNE is enhanced when the specific roles and responsibilities of local, State, 

regional, and national food stamp agencies and nutrition education providers are defined and put into 

practice. 

The explanation of this Guiding Principle clearly identifies the expected roles and responsibilities of 

various constituents involved in FSNE. Implementing agencies, local projects and subcontractors, and 

program partners all played an active role in conducting FSNE in FY 2004, and were close to meeting the 

roles laid out under this Guiding Principle. 

With regard to State food stamp agencies, there were mixed results. Since its inception, FSNE has been 

planned and delivered by agencies not affiliated with the State food stamp agency. Several State agencies 

had taken steps to expand their role from prior years in relationship to their implementing agencies, the 

FNS Regional Offices, and program partners. These State agencies were becoming more involved in the 

areas of FSNE program planning, administration, and monitoring. On the other hand, there were still 

some State food stamp agencies that saw FSNE as a pass-through and did not want to be involved. 

Local food stamp office involvement also varied, with 46 percent of implementing agencies reporting 

having delivered FSNE at local food stamp offices in FY 2004. The primary uses of local food stamp 

offices were for one-time classes and distribution of educational materials. Most local FSNE providers 

reported that local food stamp offices lacked the resources, interest, or motivation to participate in FSNE. 

Even in some States where the State food stamp officials were highly involved in FSNE planning and 

implementation, there were challenges to convincing local food stamp offices to become involved in 

FSNE. 

In summary, study findings indicated that striving to achieve the standards of excellence in the FSNE 

Guiding Principles will be relatively easy in some areas, while others will require a great deal of work. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-1 

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has taken a 

leadership role in promoting nutrition education for low-income Americans. Through its food assistance 

programs, FNS has provided significant funding to State and local programs to provide nutrition 

education to food assistance program participants, as well as potential participants. USDA is in a unique 

position to support nutrition education efforts directed at low-income individuals. According to FNS, one 

in five Americans are touched by one or more of the FNS nutrition assistance programs.2

 Over the past 

ten years, the nutrition education efforts in all of these programs have expanded greatly, but it is through 

the Food Stamp Program (FSP) that FNS has the potential to reach the largest number of low-income 

Americans. 

Under the FSP regulations, States have the option to include nutrition education activities to food stamp 

participants and applicants as part of their administrative operations. Nutrition education in the FSP is 

considered by FNS to be a critical element in supporting the Department’s goal of facilitating the 

voluntary adoption of healthy eating and other positive nutrition-related behaviors conducive to the health 

and well-being of low-income Americans. As a result, Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE) has 

expanded greatly, in terms of the number of States that provide nutrition education, as well as in the 

amount of Federal funds expended. In 1992, only seven States had USDA-funded food stamp nutrition 

education programs with a total budget of $661,000. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, the Federal budget for 

FSP nutrition education was approximately $228 million. As with other FSP administrative costs, FSNE 

expenditures may be reimbursed at 50 percent. 

The primary goals of this study were to provide a comprehensive description of the status of FSP nutrition 

education programs around the country in FY 2004, and to identify patterns of program implementation 

with relevance for future FSNE planning. 

Overview of Nutrition Education in the Food Stamp Program 

USDA promotes optimal health and well-being through improved nutrition, and USDA encourages welldesigned nutrition education efforts within the nutrition assistance programs as a critical component to 

attaining this goal. For the Food Stamp Program, the goal of nutrition education is to provide educational 

programs that increase, within a limited budget, the likelihood of recipients making healthy food choices 

and choosing active lifestyles. In particular, nutrition education in the FSP is intended to: 

 Assist food stamp households to adopt healthy eating and active lifestyles that are consistent with 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and USDA’s MyPyramid;3

 Ensure that food stamp households have an adequate supply of food and that people eligible for 

the FSP (but not participating) are made aware of the program benefits and how to apply for them 

as part of the FSP outreach activities; 

 

2

 Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006. “Nutrition Assistance Programs,” 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/default.htm, accessed June 15, 2006. 3

 In FY 2004, FSNE used the Food Guide Pyramid. In FY 2005, this document was updated and entitled 

MyPyramid. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans were updated in 2005 as well. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-2 

 Improve food stamp households’ safe handling, preparation, and storage of food; and 

 Enhance practices related to thrifty shopping and preparation of nutritious foods by food stamp 

households. 

As the largest of the Federal nutrition assistance programs, the FSP has a significant stake in ensuring that 

nutrition education works to meet these objectives. 

Key Stakeholders in FSNE Administration and Delivery 

The FSNE services are administered within an organizational structure that includes the following 

stakeholders: 

 State food stamp agency: The State agency responsible for administration of the Food Stamp 

Program and FSNE. As specified by law, the State agency is the primary FNS grantee for FSNE. 

State food stamp agencies do not directly deliver nutrition education, however, because they do 

not have this capability in-house. 

 Implementing agency: An organization that has a contract or agreement with the State food 

stamp agency to deliver food stamp nutrition education. The implementing agency is the primary 

unit of FSNE program planning, operations, and financial management. In the FY 2004 FSNE 

Plan Guidance, implementing agencies are also referred to as “subgrantees,” since the primary 

grantee is the State food stamp agency.4

 Local projects: Many implementing agencies have subdivisions at the level of implementation, 

e.g., a local Cooperative Extension office and the county health department. These local-level 

entities are components of the organization serving as FSNE implementing agency. In the FY 

2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, local projects and subcontractors that are operated under agreement 

with the implementing agencies are known as sub-subgrantees. 

 Subcontractors: Independent organizations that are contracted or have a formal agreement with 

an implementing agency to provide FSNE services. Subcontractors are not local-level units of 

the implementing agencies and thus operate more independently of implementing agencies in 

FSNE service delivery, compared to local projects. For example, an implementing agency, such 

as a State health department, might contract with county health departments that have their own 

governance structure.

 Partners: An agency or entity that has a formal or informal partnership with an implementing 

agency, a subcontractor, or a local project to inform, coordinate, support, and/or share FSNE 

activities. 

 Nutrition educators: FSNE staff who are responsible for providing direct nutrition education to 

the target population. 

 

4

 The Food Stamp Nutrition Education Plan Guidance, Federal Fiscal Year 2004 was published in March 2003. 

This document is updated each year. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-3 

Types of Organizations That Serve as Implementing Agencies 

State agencies have contracted with many different types of agencies and organizations to design and 

implement nutrition education services in their states. 

State Cooperative Extension Services 

The most prevalent type of organization with which State food stamp agencies have contracted for 

nutrition education services is the Federal/State Cooperative Extension system. In 1968, USDA began 

the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), a program designed to provide nutrition 

education to low-income youth and families with young children through Cooperative Extension Services 

operated by State land-grant universities. In these programs, county extension agents train and supervise 

paraprofessionals and volunteers, who teach a prescribed nutrition education curriculum to individuals. 

The EFNEP programs measure participants’ nutrition-related behaviors, attitudes, and intentions at 

program entry and exit on common instruments and report the data to USDA through a common reporting 

system. 

Many State agencies found the EFNEP model to be the ideal vehicle for the provision of FSNE activities. 

The Cooperative Extension agencies have utilized FSNE to expand the scope of traditional EFNEP-type 

activities (primarily one-on-one counseling and group classes) and to target nutrition education to food 

stamp participants and eligibles whom the EFNEP does not reach. The FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance 

specifies that the FSNE audience be food stamp recipients or eligibles, and that FSNE does not duplicate 

EFNEP activities. 

Nutrition Networks 

In 1995, FNS provided seed money to establish nutrition support networks in 22 States. The networks 

brought together State and local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and representatives of 

private industry to coordinate the delivery of nutrition education designed specifically for families and 

individuals participating in the Food Stamp Program. The networks were designed to support the 

planning and development of a collaborative nutrition education/promotion campaign for FSP 

participants. They were also designed to promote the Dietary Guidelines for Americans by incorporating 

key messages into all Statewide nutrition education/promotion activities for the target audience and 

expanding the reach and approach of current State nutrition education efforts by the use of social 

marketing methods in planning activities. The current participation of nutrition networks in FSNE is 

described in Chapter III. 

Other Providers 

Other providers of nutrition education have been included in the States’ nutrition education efforts. These 

programs may operate along with the traditional Cooperative Extension programs or a nutrition network, 

but address a specific target population or administrative need. Examples of such organizations are State 

Departments of Social Services or Public Health and university nutrition education programs not 

affiliated with the Cooperative Extension. 

Some “local-level” organizations, such as food banks, also are contracted by State food stamp agencies to 

provide nutrition education. Contractually, they are equivalent to other types of implementing agencies 

(such as the Cooperative Extension Services at land-grant universities) but operationally they only have 

local-level services. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-4 

State Plans, Budgets, and Waivers 

The basis of the State agency administrative responsibility for the FSP is the Federal-State agreement in 

the State Plan of Operation. This Plan of Operation, submitted annually, contains the required planning 

document regarding all of the State’s administrative functions, including the State’s proposed budget and 

sources of State contributions. All administrative functions described in the State Plan of Operations, if 

approved by FNS, are funded jointly by State and Federal governments with a 50 percent Federal 

reimbursement. The FSNE Plan is an optional section of the FSP Plan of Operation. 

It is important to note that FSP nutrition education funds are not awarded as grants, in which a fixed 

dollar amount is provided for specific activities or in which funds may be carried over from one fiscal 

year to the next. Rather, States receive Federal administrative funds through a provision of the food 

stamp law that authorizes the Federal government to reimburse States for allowable administrative costs. 

If a State receives approval from FNS for its State FSNE plan, FNS will reimburse the State for 50 

percent of its actual, allowable expenditures, the same rate provided for most State FSP administrative 

functions. A State, therefore, defines the scope of its FSP nutrition education services in a given fiscal 

year by the amount of State and local expenditures that support the approved nutrition education 

activities. 

State agencies wishing to include nutrition education in their programs contract with other providers of 

nutrition education within the State—the FSNE implementing agencies. Once agreements are 

established between the State food stamp agency and the agency(ies) implementing FSNE, the State must 

consolidate all of the activities into a single State plan. An individual State’s plan may have a number of 

implementing agencies providing FSNE, each administering the programs separately. For example, a 

State may have both a Cooperative Extension Service and a nutrition network providing nutrition 

education, with each implementing agency operating separately with its own sources of non-Federal 

funds. These programs, in turn, may fund local programs, which are administered separately from the 

State-level programs. However, when the State agency prepares the annual plan for submission to FNS, 

the programs must be consolidated into a single State plan. 

FNS provides States with guidance to assist them with the plan preparation process. A key element 

among FSNE requirements is that all FSP nutrition education activities must be consistent with the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPyramid. States are allowed flexibility in determining how to 

conduct such activities as needs assessment, materials development, message development and delivery, 

and program evaluation. 

States must submit detailed budgets and program narratives to have their plan approved by FNS. The 

budget must provide details on how the money will be spent and the resources that comprise the State 

share of the budget. In these budgets, States delineate their program and administrative costs. Program 

costs are defined by FNS as the costs of salary and benefits, supplies, materials, and travel for the 

nutrition education. Administrative expenses are defined as the building/space costs, maintenance costs, 

equipment and other capital expenditures, and indirect costs. For all projects, the State must identify total 

allowable project costs that the Federal Food Stamp Program can reimburse at the 50 percent 

administrative reimbursement rate. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-5 

As part of the FSNE Plans, States are required to submit final reports that detail the activities from the 

prior year. These reports provide counts of contacts with individuals and families who participated in 

FSNE, and, to the extent possible, provide evidence related to changes in behaviors. 

Waivers of Federal food stamp regulations are sometimes permitted to implement FSNE plans. Two 

waivers in particular are important. First, FSNE is intended to target current food stamp recipients and 

potential recipients. However, FNS allows waivers of this requirement based upon a satisfactory 

assurance that the sponsoring agencies target primarily low-income FSP eligibles. As was noted earlier, 

FSNE is designed to provide reimbursement to States for nutrition education expenses. However, State 

programs often rely on local contributions to support FSP nutrition education activities. A second type of 

waiver allows State agencies to count cash contributions from private organizations as a part of the States’ 

expenditures for which FNS will reimburse 50 percent. 

Purpose of the Study 

The last descriptive study of FSNE operations, the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Study, was conducted 

in FY 1997.5

 A number of factors led FNS to seek an update and develop a more systematic, in-depth 

understanding of FSNE services. In this section, we discuss some of the important reasons for conducting 

this study. 

Rapid Expansion in Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

Since 1992, FNS has witnessed the rapid proliferation of FSNE and exponential growth in Federal 

reimbursement for nutrition education activities targeting food stamp-eligible households. In FY 1992, 

only seven States had utilized the food stamp nutrition education option, with the total Federal cost for 

this portion of the program at just over $661,000. By FY 2004, FSNE was provided in 49 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, and the Federal budget was $228 million. The rapid 

expansion of FSNE has also increased the need for policymakers within the Administration and Congress 

to gain information about how public monies are being spent on nutrition education services for the food 

stamp population and the extent to which important target populations are being reached. 

Limited Information on Diversity of FSNE Activities 

States have a great deal of discretion in planning and implementing FSNE, resulting in considerable 

diversity in FSNE services and operations. The breadth of detail that might be of interest to Federal 

policymakers is not available through existing reporting systems. 

Incorporation of Innovative Approaches to FSNE 

An evaluation of FSNE was also needed to provide FNS with information about the many new nutrition 

education approaches that are being used by States. For example, after commissioning a review of 

 

5

 Anliker, J., Bell, L., Miller, C., Harkins, M., Gabor, V., & Bartlett, L. (2000). Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

Study, Final Report. Washington, DC: Health Systems Research, Inc. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-6 

nutrition education research6 in 1995, FNS was intrigued by the use of social marketing, a relatively new 

strategy implemented by the nutrition networks that started in 1995 to deliver nutrition education to food 

stamp-eligible individuals. FNS also encouraged State agencies to consider other innovative approaches 

to providing FSNE that used more research-based methods for identifying target populations and 

delivering messages, while offering ways to reach larger groups of clients. 

Lack of Information about Integration of FSNE with Other Federal Nutrition Programs 

One of the key components of FNS nutrition education policy is the strong commitment to the 

coordination of nutrition education messages with other efforts within USDA. Ideally, programs and 

initiatives such as WIC, EFNEP, and Team Nutrition should be coordinated with the State’s effort to 

deliver nutrition information and messages to the food stamp population. It is also desirable to 

collaborate with efforts outside USDA, such as programs supported by the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control. Increased collaboration and joint planning reduce 

duplication of efforts and maximize personnel and fiscal resources. FNS needed a national picture of the 

extent to which collaboration takes place between FSNE and other Federal and State nutrition programs. 

Concern About the Effectiveness of FSNE and the Quality of Service Delivery 

While FNS is committed to improving the health and well-being of low-income individuals through the 

provision of quality nutrition education services, available information is limited regarding the overall 

effectiveness of the program. Increased understanding of FSNE program operations and factors that 

facilitate or impede service delivery would contribute to the development of measures and tools to assess 

program outcomes and effectiveness. This study sought to document the extent of evaluation activity, not 

to measure the effectiveness of FSNE efforts. 

Targeting Nutrition Education to Address Issues Important to FNS 

Finally, one of the key reasons for conducting a review of FSNE services at the State level is to determine 

the extent to which current policy-relevant issues are addressed. For example, in response to the obesity 

epidemic in the United States, FNS has promoted nutrition education efforts directed at obesity 

prevention in low-income families with children. To assess the extent to which the FY 2004 FSNE Plan 

Guidance is being implemented, and to promote successful models, FNS needed more detailed 

information regarding target audiences and educational priorities than was available through the existing 

reporting system. 

 

6

 Hersey, J., Matheson, J., Shiveley, L., Bell, L., Harkins, M., & Anderson, S. (1999). Evaluation of Statewide 

Nutrition Education Networks. Alexandra, VA: Health Systems Research, Inc. and The Research Triangle 

Institute. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-7 

Research Questions 

The key issues and questions addressed by this study are listed below. 

1. Organizational Structure and Planning Process 

• What is the organizational structure of FSNE within States? 

• To what extent and in what ways is FSNE coordinated, monitored, or otherwise linked to 

State agencies? 

• To what extent and in what ways is FSNE coordinated with other FNS or other Federal and 

State nutrition education initiatives (e.g., Team Nutrition, Eat Smart/Play Hard, Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, EFNEP, 5 A Day)? 

• To what extent are State FSNE plans implemented as intended? 

2. FSNE Delivery 

• Who is/are the target audience(s) and what are their primary needs? Who receives FSNE 

services? 

• What is the nutrition content focus of FSNE? What curricula and materials are used in the 

States? 

• To what degree do States rely on different educational delivery strategies or methods? What 

is the basis for choosing some strategies or methods but not others? 

• In what settings are nutrition education activities conducted? 

• To what extent do State activities focus on providing information, promoting different 

attitudes, teaching specific skills, trying out or practicing new behaviors? 

• What is the scope of services in terms of the geographic areas covered and demographics of 

service areas? 

• To what extent do FSNE participants recognize the link between nutrition education and the 

Food Stamp Program? 

3. Staff 

• What qualifications must FSNE providers meet? What is the nature of training and 

supervision given to providers? 

• What amount of educational services is delivered by professional versus paraprofessional 

staff without formal nutrition credentials? 

4. Record-Keeping, Evaluation, and Assessment 

• What kinds of records on FSNE participants and services are kept routinely? 

• To what extent and how do States rely on research to make decisions about their FSNE target 

audience(s), content, and approach? 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter I. Introduction 1-8 

• Under what circumstances and how often is research typically conducted? 

• Do the impact evaluations of State FSNE activity incorporate research designs that support 

conclusions about cause and effect? 

5. Funding 

• What is the total dollar value of resources and staff hours directed to FSNE? What is the 

dollar value of in-kind, cash, and private cash donations that are reimbursable by USDA? 

• How are resources allocated across various cost categories? 

• How does the value of State resources vary across different sources? 

• Based on total FSNE funds, how do the per-capita (recipient and FSNE-eligible) costs vary 

across States? 

• How many States spend more or less than the amount in their FSNE budget, and why? 

As the study team developed instruments to collect data for this study, these questions were expanded 

substantially both in breadth and depth. The responses we received from program staff allowed us to 

answer many of the key questions. This report presents the answers we obtained as well as the challenges 

we encountered in addressing some of the questions, which also reflect the current operational 

characteristics of FSNE. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-1 

CHAPTER II. STUDY METHODOLOGY 

Multiple data collection methods were used in this study to generate a comprehensive national description 

of FSNE services along with in-depth, qualitative explanations of key issues of interest to FNS: 

 A baseline data abstraction from States’ FSNE plan documents for FY 2004, 

 A national web-based survey of FSNE representatives from all State agencies with FSNE in FY 

2004, 

 A national web-based survey of representatives from all implementing agencies that had contracts 

to provide FSNE in FY 2004, and 

 On-site interviews with representatives from a sample of State agencies, implementing agencies, 

local projects, implementing agency and local project partners, and nutrition educators. 

Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the purpose, data sources, and dates of each of these data collection activities. 

Exhibit 2-1. Data Collection Methods Used for the FSNE System Review 

Data Collection 

Method Purpose Data Sources Data Collection Dates 

FSNE State plan 

abstraction 

To compile baseline information on 

each State’s FSNE plans for FY 

2004; to identify site visit sample; to 

provide background information for 

site visit data collectors 

FY 2004 FSNE State plans 

from each State 

Nov. 2003 – Feb. 2004 

Web-based 

survey 

To collect uniform data on FSNE 

regarding: 

− Organizational structure, staff 

− FSNE administration 

− Partnerships/coordination 

− Target audience, needs 

assessment 

− FSNE delivery methods 

− Monitoring and evaluation 

− Budget and financial 

management 

− All 93 FY 2004 

implementing agencies 

(84 completed the survey) 

− 52 State food stamp 

agencies (50 States 

completed the survey) 

Feb. 2005 – June 2005 

Site visits and 

staff interviews 

To collect in-depth explanations of 

FSNE activities and practices to 

extend the survey data 

Samples of: 

− 31 implementing agencies 

− 27 State agencies 

− 24 State-level partners 

− 67 local projects 

− 43 local partners 

− 32 local nutrition educators 

April 2005 – July 2005 

This chapter provides an overview of the study methodology and data collection activities. Detailed 

descriptions of these data collection activities are provided in Appendix B. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-2 

Data Abstraction from States’ FSNE Plans for FY 2004 

The study team abstracted information from each approved FY 2004 State FSNE plan. The abstracted 

data were used to: 1) identify implementing agencies for the site visit sampling, and 2) familiarize the 

site visit data collectors with the characteristics of the sampled agencies before the recruiting process 

began. In addition, FNS provided State-level data on approved FSNE budget totals for FY 2004 and 

previous years, and State-level FSNE costs for FY 1997–2004. 

Web-Based Surveys 

Two web-based, online surveys were conducted for this study, one involving all FSNE implementing 

agencies and the other involving all State agencies offering FSNE. The following sets of stakeholders 

were asked to respond to the surveys: 

 The State food stamp agency staff person with responsibility for coordination of the single State 

plan describing FSNE activities and costs, 

 Staff from the implementing agencies responsible for the administration of the FSNE plan, and 

 Persons involved in the budget development and financial accountability process, from both the 

State agency and implementing agency. 

These stakeholders were asked to provide information that is not obtainable through documents and other 

publicly available sources, including details about program activities, program management, and 

expenditure data not typically reported to FNS for FY 2004. The State agency survey consisted of three 

sections: 1) the State’s FSNE organizational structure; 2) FSNE planning, approval, and management 

processes at the State level; and 3) FSNE financial management at the Stat level. The implementing 

agency survey consisted of the following sections: 1) FSNE organizational structure and decision-making 

process, 2) partnerships and coordination of FSNE, 3) FSNE plan development, 4) target audience and 

needs assessment, 5) FSNE messages and materials used, 6) FSNE delivery methods, 7) program 

monitoring and outcome evaluations, 8) FSNE staff descriptions, and 9) FSNE budget and fiscal 

management. To maximize uniformity in survey administration, the online surveys provided efficient 

access to definitions of key terms from any location of the survey. Copies of the instruments are included 

in the Food Stamp Nutrition Education System Review: Documentation for Public Use Files. 

On-Site FSNE Staff Interviews 

The study staff conducted open-ended, in-depth interviews with FSNE officials at the sampled 

implementing agencies and their State food stamp agency, program partners, local project staff, and local 

program partners (if applicable). These interviews were conducted to better understand the dynamics of 

FSNE: why FSNE operates as described in the web-based surveys, how participating agencies plan, 

implement and manage the program, how they interact with program partners, and how basic program 

features vary within an implementing agency. Included in the site visits was an examination of how 

implementing agencies communicate priorities and program instructions to the local projects, the extent to 

which local projects have flexibility in creating their own programs, the costs associated with local 

delivery of FSNE, and the relationship between local FSNE providers and other nutrition education 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-3 

providers. In addition, the site visits provided the opportunity to examine documentation of FSNE 

staffing, costs, and funding to obtain detailed information that cannot be reliably obtained without face-toface dialogue. 

Sampling of Implementing Agencies for Site Visit Data Collection 

The site visit data collection was based on a systematic random sample of implementing agencies 

designed to represent the diversity of organizational structure, region, and budget nationally. For 

purposes of this study, an implementing agency was defined as an organization that (1) has an agreement 

or contract with the State agency (or is the State agency) for the provision of FSNE services; (2) has a 

separate set of goals, objectives, and outcomes describing how FSNE will be conducted by the 

implementing agency; and (3) has a separate budget that is approved by the State agency. Implementing 

agencies may be direct providers of FSNE, may subcontract with local programs or projects for 

conducting FSNE, or may use a combination of both approaches. The review of State FSNE plans for FY 

2004 identified a total of 93 implementing agencies. For the site visit data collection, a sample of these 

agencies was selected in such a way to appropriately represent the diversity across all implementing 

agencies. 

The review of State nutrition education plans identified three main types of organizations that entered into 

contracts with a State agency to provide FSNE services: Cooperative Extension Services (CES), nutrition 

networks, and “other” organizations. Other organizations included State agencies other than the State 

food stamp agency (e.g., a State department of health), universities, and food banks. 

Within the group of CES, two subgroups were identified. One subgroup included agencies that primarily 

use the traditional CES approach to providing nutrition education, that of providing classes at local 

locations that follow a prescribed curriculum. The second subgroup combined the traditional approach 

with nutrition network functions such as Statewide social marketing campaigns and program 

coordination. We also identified two main subgroups of agencies within the “other” category. One 

subgroup included agencies that provide their FSNE services themselves, without local projects or 

subcontracts with other entities. The other subgroup had local projects and/or subcontractors. 

Thus, we developed a classification system with five categories of implementing agencies. Exhibit 2-2 

shows the number of implementing agencies identified for each category during the review of State FSNE 

plans. 

Exhibit 2-2. Counts of Implementing Agencies, by Type 

Type of Implementing Agency Number of IAs 

Cooperative extension without network 39 

Cooperative extension with network 10 

Independent nutrition network 8 

Other independent provider without local projects 22 

Other independent provider with local projects 14 

Total 93 

Note: “IAs” refers to implementing agencies. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-4 

The following criteria were used to classify each implementing agency into one of the five categories: 

(1) Cooperative Extension without a Nutrition Network. The Cooperative Extension Service has a 

contract with the State to provide FSNE. This category includes all implementing agencies that use the 

traditional group instruction approach for nutrition education, although they may also do marketing, 

public education outreach activities, and other activities. These implementing agencies have local 

projects. 

(2) Cooperative Extension with a Nutrition Network. The Cooperative Extension Service has a 

contract with the State to provide FSNE. In addition to the use of the traditional approach, the CES also 

performs nutrition network functions such as Statewide social marketing and program coordination. The 

network may serve as a subcontractor of the CES with a separate budget. These implementing agencies 

have local projects. 

(3) Independent Nutrition Network. The implementing agency is an independent nutrition network 

that has a contract with the State to provide FSNE. The CES may be a member of the network but is not 

the lead organization that is contracted by the State to implement FSNE. The approach to providing 

FSNE emphasizes strategies that capitalize on the network structure such as social marketing and program 

coordination. These implementing agencies have local projects. 

(4) Other Independent Providers without Local Projects. These implementing agencies have 

contracts with the State, either to provide direct FSNE services or to perform some sort of coordination or 

recruitment effort. Most deliver services directly, without the use of local projects. In addition, most 

serve a limited geographic area, such as a city, county, or region. Some of these projects may have 

multiple sites, such as a county health department, but FSNE is provided in a uniform and consistent 

manner at each site, and the sites are not independent of the implementing agency. Finally, the State 

agency itself may be in this category, such as a half-time person who serves in a recruitment and 

coordination role for FSNE. 

(5) Other Independent Providers with Local Projects. This category includes implementing agencies, 

other than CES and networks, which have contracts with the State to provide FSNE services, such as 

universities. These implementing agencies have local projects. Most often these projects are designed to 

address the needs of special populations (such as the elderly) or serve a limited geographic area not 

served by other nutrition education programs. They may be sponsored by State agencies or universities. 

Method of Sampling Implementing Agencies 

In order to capture the diversity of FSNE nationally based on a sample of implementing agencies, it was 

important to use a sampling method that ensured selection of appropriate numbers of implementing 

agencies from each of the five groups. We used a systematic random sample in which implementing 

agencies were first grouped according to type (the five categories). All implementing agencies within a 

type were then sorted by FNS region, and within region they were sorted by size of budget (by ascending 

and descending order in alternate regions).7

 

 

7

 Sorting by size of budget in this approach helped ensure that the sample exhibited diversity in budget size as 

well as region and type. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-5 

A sampling interval was computed from the number of implementing agencies in the type stratum and the 

number to be sampled, and a random starting point was selected. Implementing agencies corresponding 

to the random starting point and every nth implementing agency thereafter (where n was equal to the 

sampling interval) were selected. 

We had the option of sampling implementing agencies of the five types with equal or unequal probability. 

We sampled with unequal probability for two reasons. First, FNS was interested in capturing as much 

diversity in FSNE operations as possible within a fixed resource budget. Second, we believed that there 

is likely to be less diversity in FSNE operations in some implementing agency types than others. For 

instance, we expected that, as a group, FSNE operations in “Cooperative Extension without Network” 

implementing agencies would show less diversity than operations within “Cooperative Extension with 

Network” or “Independent Nutrition Network” implementing agencies. Thus, to maximize the diversity 

of FSNE operations in our total sample of implementing agencies, we chose lower sampling rates in strata 

expected to exhibit less diversity. With an overall sampling rate of 37 percent, the plan oversampled

implementing agencies in the “Cooperative Extension with Network,” “Independent Nutrition Network” 

and “Other Independent Provider with Local Projects” types, whereas it undersampled implementing 

agencies in the remaining types. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the sampling approach. 

Exhibit 2-3. Summary of Sampling Plan for Implementing Agencies 

Cooperative 

Extension 

without 

Network 

Cooperative 

Extension 

with Network 

Independent 

Nutrition 

Network 

Other 

Independent 

Provider 

without 

Local 

Projects 

Other 

Independent 

Provider with 

Local 

Projects Totala

Number 39 10 8 22 14 93 

Sampling rate .30 .60 .60 .15 .60 .37 

Number of 

sampled 

agencies 

12 6 5 3 8 34 

a

 The total sampling rate of 0.37 is calculated as the ratio of sampled agencies to total agencies, 34/93. 

We selected 34 implementing agencies in our sample. The implementing agencies selected are listed in 

Exhibit 2-4. 

Sampling State Food Stamp Agencies for Site Visits 

For State agencies to be included in the site visit interviews, we selected the State agencies of the sampled 

implementing agencies. Because more than one implementing agency was sampled in five states, our site 

visit sample included 28 State agencies. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-6 

Exhibit 2-4. Sample of Implementing Agencies for Site Visits 

Name of Implementing Agency 

Type of 

Agencya State Region 

Arizona Department of Health Services 3 Arizona Western 

Family and Consumer Sciences, CES, University of Arkansas 1 Arkansas Southwest 

California Department of Health Services 3 California Western 

Colorado State University 2 Colorado Mountain Plains 

District of Columbia Department of Health 5 District of 

Columbia 

Mid-Atlantic 

University of Florida 1 Florida Southeast 

University of Georgia Older Adults 5 Georgia Southeast 

University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human 

Resources, CES 

1 Hawaii Western 

University of Idaho Extension Nutrition Program 1 Idaho Western 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Division of Community Health 5 Illinois Midwest 

Iowa Nutrition Network; Iowa Department of Public Health 3 Iowa Mountain Plains 

University of Massachusetts 1 Massachusetts Northeast 

Michigan State University Extension 2 Michigan Midwest 

University of Minnesota College of Human Ecology 2 Minnesota Midwest 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 5 Minnesota Midwest 

Mississippi Department of Human Services 4 Mississippi Southeast 

Alcorn State University 1 Mississippi Southeast 

Montana State University 1 Montana Mountain Plains 

Department of Nutrition, University of Nevada, Reno 5 Nevada Western 

UNH Cooperative Extension 1 New Hampshire Northeast 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 2 New Jersey Mid-Atlantic 

NY Department of Health 5 New York Northeast 

North Carolina A and T State University 5 North Carolina Southeast 

North Carolina CES 2 North Carolina Southeast 

Ohio State University Extension 1 Ohio Midwest 

University of Oklahoma-Department of Nutrition Sciences in the 

College of Allied Health 

3 Oklahoma Southwest 

Oklahoma State University CES 1 Oklahoma Southwest 

South Dakota State University CES; South Dakota Department of 

Social Services 

2 South Dakota Mountain Plains 

University of Tennessee Health Science Center 3 Tennessee Southeast 

South Plains Food Bank 4 Texas Southwest 

Permian Basin Food Bank 4 Texas Southwest 

West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (through 

West Virginia University) 

1 West Virginia Mid-Atlantic 

Ho-Chunk Nation 5 Wisconsin Midwest 

University of Wyoming 1 Wyoming Mountain Plains 

a

 Type of agency: 

1 = Cooperative Extension without Network 

2 = Cooperative Extension with Network 

3 = Independent Nutrition Network 

4 = Other Independent Provider without Local Projects 

5 = Other Independent Provider with Local Projects 

n/a = not available based on the review of FY 2004 State FSNE plans.

Sampling Local Projects for Site Visits 

Local projects were purposively selected to reflect the diversity of nutrition education efforts being 

carried out at the local level. The most important dimension of diversity depended on the type of 

implementing agency and other features of the FSNE plan. For traditional CES agencies, we expected 

that the most diversity was in whether the local project serves an urban, rural, or mixed area. Other 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-7 

relevant dimensions included method of delivery (e.g., direct education, indirect education, and social 

marketing), demographics of the target audience, and FSNE goals and objectives. 

Prior to recruiting each of the sampled implementing agencies, the study team reviewed the abstracted 

State plan data from each sampled implementing agency and prepared a list of three to seven local 

projects that exhibited diversity in nutrition education efforts. Then, in consultation with the 

implementing agency director, we selected two to seven local projects for site visit interviews that would 

capture the full range of projects within that agency. 

Sampling Partner Organizations for Site Visits 

Implementing agency partners were selected for interviews based upon information contained in the 

State’s FSNE plan. The principle criterion for selection of the program partner was the expected level of 

involvement of the partner as described in the State plan and the relative proximity in distance to where 

the implementing agency was located for site visit logistical efficiency. 

Local project partners were identified when we recruited the selected local projects and scheduled their 

site visits. At that time we ascertained whether they had any partnering agencies for provision of FSNE 

and, if so, who those partnering agencies were. If the local project had more than one partnering agency, 

we selected one for an interview based on the level of involvement of the partners in providing FSNE, as 

reported by the local project. 

Final Survey and Site Visit Interview Samples 

Survey Response Rates. For the web-based survey, the final response rates were as follows: 84 (90 

percent) of 93 implementing agencies and 50 (96 percent) of 52 State agencies responded to the survey. 

Site Visit Interview Samples. Altogether, the following numbers of FSNE agencies and partners 

participated in site visit interviews: 31 implementing agencies, 27 State agencies, 24 State-level partners, 

67 local agencies, 43 local partners, and 32 nutrition educators.8

 

Site Visit Interview Instruments and Schedule 

Six interview protocols were used during the on-site data collection: 

 Interview Guide for State Agency 

 Interview Guide for FSNE Implementing Agency 

 Interview Guide for Implementing Agency Partner 

 Interview Guide for Local Project or Subcontractor 

 Interview Guide for Local Project/Subcontractor Partner 

 

8

 Although the original study sample consisted of 34 implementing agencies and 29 State food stamp agencies, 

the final site visit sample included 31 implementing agencies and 27 State agencies. The reasons for these 

changes are described in Appendix B: Methodological Appendix. Some of the 32 nutrition educator interviews 

involved two or more persons collectively providing information to complete an interview protocol. Thus, 32 

protocols were completed by approximately 50 nutrition educators. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-8 

 Interview with Nutrition Educators at Local Agencies 

Copies of these instruments are included in the Food Stamp Nutrition Education System Review: 

Documentation for Public Use Files. 

The site visits began one month after the implementation of the web-based surveys so that the site visit 

interviews could explore in greater detail the FSNE operational issues based on information obtained 

from the survey. The interviewers were instructed in the data collector training regarding specific survey 

data to extract and review for the States and implementing agencies that they visited as part of the 

preparation for each site visit. 

Multiple State-level staff were interviewed, along with multiple staff at local projects. In addition, 

because coordination with other nutrition education efforts directed at low-income families is so 

important to FNS, the project team interviewed a sample of public and private partners, State FSP 

officials, directors of other FNS-sponsored nutrition education programs (such as WIC or Team 

Nutrition), and representatives of nutrition education projects funded by the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Generally, when only one implementing agency within a State was sampled, a two-person team spent 

three days on-site. In states with two implementing agencies sampled, the site visits could take as many 

as five days. 

Limitations of Study Data 

In presenting the findings from this study, it is important to describe several challenges that we 

encountered in data collection and analysis that may have influenced the quality of data and that 

constrained the scope of data analysis. The main issues regarding the quality of data are summarized 

below and also discussed further in Appendix B: Methodological Appendix. 

Self-Report Data. Except for data abstracted from State FSNE plans or obtained from FNS reports, all 

data collected for this study were reported by staff in agencies and organizations providing FSNE 

services. There was no way to assess the extent of possible bias in the data provided by study 

respondents. 

Response Rates. The overall survey response rates were quite high. At the individual item level, both 

surveys had very low levels of missing data, except for the financial data sections. However, the itemlevel response rates for interview question were lower largely due to the great diversity among FSNE 

organizations and staff, resulting in many questions that were not applicable. 

Definitions of Key Terms. In reviewing the survey responses and interviewing FSNE program staff, it 

became clear that respondents used varying definitions of several terms used in this study. For example, 

what some implementing agencies described as “needs assessment” did not fit the standard definition, 

based on FSNE Plan Guidance, as a method to determine both the target population for FSNE and their 

specific nutritional needs. Varying definitions presented challenges even though we included easy access 

to an online glossary for the web-based surveys and the site visit data collectors were thoroughly trained 

to help the interview respondents understand the meaning of our questions. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-9 

Different Interpretations and Applicability of Questions Depending on Respondents. Beyond 

the varying definition of terms, respondents also interpreted our questions and issues being addressed in 

somewhat different ways. For example, in identifying sources of funds, there was some confusion among 

implementing agencies that were part of a Cooperative Extension Service based in a State university. 

Some respondents viewed funds from other parts of the university as being “implementation agency” 

funds, while others made a distinction between their own funds and other university funds. Reasons for 

these varying interpretations seemed to reflect the variations in FSNE organizational types and structures, 

service delivery contexts, and prior experience with FSNE. 

Variations in Program Record Keeping Systems. Many of the questions in the web-based surveys 

and the site visits required program staff to provide a wide range of descriptive data such as 

characteristics of program participants, participation rates, staffing, and expenditures. In FY 2004, State 

and local FSNE agencies did not collect, manage, nor report these types of data using a standardized 

format, data management system, or schedule. Agencies varied greatly in how these data were organized 

and reported for their purposes, and some agencies’ data were not compatible with the way we intended to 

collect the data. As we explain in more detail in Chapter VII, this problem became a major constraint in 

conducting financial analysis of FSNE operations. 

Data Analysis and Reporting 

Data collected for this study were analyzed by: 1) quantitative analysis (e.g., frequencies and 

percentages) of web-based survey data, 2) qualitative analysis of interview data, and 3) integrative, 

interpretive analysis of results from all types of analysis to address this study’s research questions. The 

following set of guidelines were applied in our data analysis and reporting to make the maximal use of the 

data collected while ensuring the accuracy of the findings and conclusions we report. 

Extent of Subgroup Analysis 

With the data collected by the survey and on-site interviews, we had planned to examine key aspects of 

FSNE implementation according to various subgroups of FSNE agencies (e.g., different types of 

organizations that serve as implementing agencies, various characteristics of these organizations, target 

audience characteristics, presence or absence of local projects or subcontractors, types of educational 

services implemented). However, in our quantitative and qualitative analyses, we discovered that the 

possibility of subgroup analyses was extremely limited for the following reasons: 

1. Potential subgrouping factors often overlapped (e.g., Cooperative Extension agencies with a 

network, Cooperative Extension agencies without a network, and non-Cooperative Extension 

Service agencies that have a network). While the categories of implementing agencies used for 

sampling served that purpose, they did not represent operationally distinct subgroups of FSNE 

agencies. 

2. Further, even with the census survey of implementing agencies, the number of respondents was 

small. In analyses of the implementing agency survey data with a total of 84 records, the number 

of agencies in each of the five types of agencies was relatively small, making the comparisons of 

responses across these subgroups unreliable. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-10 

3. Another strategy was to combine the implementing agencies into fewer, larger groups (e.g., all 

Cooperative Extension Services vs. non-CES). If we combined all Cooperative Extension 

agencies regardless of presence or absence of nutrition network, we may have masked potential 

differences due to networks. If we combined all implementing agencies that had a nutrition 

network, we may have grouped agencies that are quite different in attributes other than having a 

network. When we attempted such combinations, analyses did not reveal clear differences, likely 

due to the substantial diversity among agencies that were grouped together for the analysis. 

4. For some measures that could have been used for creating subgroups (e.g., dominant types of 

educational services implemented, dominant target groups), we were concerned about the 

reliability, given the definitional issues that may have affected the accuracy of these data. 

Thus, we report only the subgroup analyses that were based on clearly definable grouping variables, with 

a reasonable number of respondents in each subgroup. 

Integration of Survey and Interview Data Analysis 

For each major topic of analysis, we began by examining quantitative analysis results of survey data. 

While these analyses provided percentages of various response categories, conceptually they represented 

a broad-brush profile of an aspect of FSNE implementation. We then went to the open-ended interview 

data to flesh out in greater detail the general profile obtained from the survey data analysis. The interview 

data, for example, informed us about “how” and “why” certain decisions were made. Thus, the focus of 

our interview data analysis was to capture qualitative, descriptive information as “examples” of 

interesting or innovative practices, rather than to present nationally generalizable frequencies of specific 

types of responses. This report is structured to incorporate the quantitative and qualitative analysis results 

into an integrated presentation. 

Findings from the survey data analyses are presented in terms of percentages of State agencies and 

implementing agencies associated with specific responses. Based on the survey response rates of 96 and 

90 percent, respectively, the survey results can be interpreted as close representation of all State agencies 

and implementing agencies. 

For the interview data, the original intent in conducting a systematic sampling of implementing agencies 

was to capture information as representative as possible of the diversity among implementing agencies 

nationwide. However, largely due to the very lengthy interview protocol, and possibly reflecting the great 

diversity, there were substantial levels of nonresponse for many interview questions. While the 

implementing agency sample included 31 systematically sampled agencies, the number of respondents for 

many questions was 20 or fewer, a marked deviation from the systematic sample frame. Further, the 

interview samples of State agencies and local stakeholders were not based on systematic sampling. These 

interviews also involved substantial levels of nonresponse. Thus, while in some cases, we report 

percentages for interview analysis results, these percentages should not be interpreted as representing the 

entire FSNE nationally. 

Time Reference for the Description of FSNE 

The objective of the study was to generate a national description of FSNE services. To ensure the 

consistency of responses and to capture the FSNE activities for a complete annual cycle, the entire data 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-11 

collection was framed by asking respondents to describe their FSNE plans, services, and outcomes for FY 

2004. To maintain consistency in reporting, we describe our findings in the past tense, referring to FSNE 

in FY 2004. However, in some programs, major changes took place between FY 2004 and FY 2005, and 

such changes are noted in this report. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter II. Study Methodology 2-12 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-1 

CHAPTER III. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, ROLES, AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

This chapter describes the structure of food stamp nutrition education, and briefly highlights the roles and 

responsibilities of its primary stakeholders, namely: 

 

 State food stamp agencies (State agencies), 

 Implementing agencies, including nutrition networks, 

 Local projects, subcontractors, and nutrition educators, 

 FSNE partners at the State and local level, and 

 Local food stamp offices. 

The subsequent chapters present more detailed information on roles and responsibilities of each 

stakeholder in FSNE activities, including plan development, selection of target audience, needs 

assessments, message selection, funding decisions, FSNE delivery, staff training, and FSNE monitoring. 

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS 

3⁄4 The FSNE structure is multilayered and includes the State food stamp agency, implementing 

agency, local projects, subcontractors, nutrition educators, and partners at both the State and 

local levels. 

3⁄4 Sixty percent of State food stamp agencies contracted with one and 28 percent contracted with 

two implementing agencies to deliver nutrition education. 

3⁄4 Just over half of the implementing agencies are Cooperative Extension Services of a land 

grant university (55 percent). 

3⁄4 Approximately one-third of implementing agencies reported using a nutrition network as part 

of their FSNE management structure. 

3⁄4 Seventy-seven percent of implementing agencies delivered FSNE through local projects or 

subcontractors. 

3⁄4 Approximately one-third of implementing agencies reported having established an outside 

advisory committee as part of their administrative structure (see Appendix A, Chapter III 

Additional Exhibits, Exhibit A3-7). 

3⁄4 Where State food stamp agencies were actively involved in FSNE, they were most likely to be 

involved in the selection of the target audience and funding decisions (28 percent) related to 

the implementing agencies. 

3⁄4 Local partners were typically programs that provided access to a low-income audience for 

nutrition education. 

3⁄4 Local food stamp office involvement primarily focused on distribution of materials and 

providing referrals. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-2 

State Food Stamp Agency 

Structure of State Food Stamp Agencies in FSNE 

The State food stamp agency has the option of providing nutrition education to food stamp recipients as 

part of their Food Stamp Program operations. It is responsible for all Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

(FSNE) activities that occur within a State as outlined in an approved State FSNE plan. 

As described in Chapter I, all State agencies contract with other organizations to deliver all or part of 

FSNE, and for purposes of this review are named “implementing agencies.” In FY 2004, most State 

agencies contracted with either one implementing agency (60 percent) or two implementing agencies (28 

percent) (Exhibit 3-1 and A3-19

). Three States (Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Washington State) had three 

implementing agencies, Vermont had five implementing agencies, and North Carolina and Texas each 

had six implementing agencies (Exhibit A3-2). 

Exhibit 3-1. Map of Number of Food Stamp Nutrition Education Implementing 

Agencies per State 

AK

HI

WA

OR

CA KS

NV

NM

TX

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

TN

MS AL GA

FL

SC

NC

KY

IL IN

MI

OH

PA

NY

VT

NH

ME

MA

CT

RI

NJ

MD

DE

DC

NE

WV VA

OK

MT ND

SD

WY

ID

AZ

UT

CO

1

2

3

More

than 3

Number of

Implementing

Agencies

Source: State Agency Survey 

 

9

 Exhibits numbered with the letter A are located in the Appendix of this report. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-3 

There was variation in the number of implementing agencies by region, with a high of 16 agencies in the 

Southeast to a low of seven agencies in the Mid-Atlantic (Exhibit 3-2). 

Exhibit 3-2. Number of Implementing Agencies per Region 

Region 

Number of Implementing 

Agencies 

Percent of Implementing 

Agencies 

Mid-Atlantic 7 9% 

Midwest 10 13 

Mt. Plains 12 15 

Northeast 10 13 

Southeast 16 20 

Southwest 13 16 

Western 12 15 

Number of Respondents: 80

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Role of State Food Stamp Agencies 

The role of State agencies varied widely depending on the activity. Although 28 percent were very 

involved in the selection of the target audience and in funding decisions related to implementing agencies, 

far fewer were very involved in message development (13 percent), identification of delivery methods or 

materials (11 percent), funding decisions related to local projects (15 percent), or selection of local 

projects (15 percent) (Exhibit 3-3). 

Exhibit 3-3. State Agencies’ Level of Involvement in Various FSNE Activities 

34%

66% 70%

79%

46%

72%

38%

21% 19% 6%

26%

13%

28%

13% 11% 15%

28%

15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Selection of the

target audience

Development of

FSNE messages

Identification of

message delivery

methods and

materials

Selection of local

FSNE providers

(local projects

and/or

subcontractors) 

Funding decisions

related to

implementing

agency(s)

Funding decisions

related to local

projects and/or

subcontractors

Activity

Very Involved

Moderately

Involved

Little to No

Involvement

Number of Respondents: 47

Source: State Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-4 

Examples of funding decisions in which the State food stamp agency was involved include decisions on 

allowability of costs, appropriateness of expenditures,10 and, in some cases, local project funding. In 

interviews with officials in State agencies that were very involved in funding decisions, most of the 

involvement came in the form of reviewing budgets and expenditures in the context of FNS allowability 

guidelines. In a few cases, State officials reported denying funding to an implementing agency for some 

FSNE activity that they did not believe would be allowed by FNS. In other cases, funds were not 

approved for activities that might have involved expenditures in an area not allowed by the State, such as 

out-of-State travel. In one State where interviews were conducted, the State food stamp agency denied 

ongoing funding to a local project with a history of not providing adequate documentation for 

expenditures. 

The State agency was also usually involved in discussions between the FNS Regional Office and the 

implementing agencies. The State agency often helped resolve issues related to plan approval, and was 

regularly included in communication between the regional office and the implementing agency. 

State agencies’ activity level varied depending on the type of implementing agency. While on average, 

63 percent of State agencies characterized their involvement with the FNS Regional Office with regard to 

FSNE plan approval as “very active,” they were more likely to be very active with the local public health 

departments, emergency food providers, or tribal programs. They seemed to be somewhat less active 

when the implementing agency was a university (such as a Cooperative Extension agency) or State 

agency (such as a State Department of Aging) (Exhibit A3-3). 

The States included in the site visits provided further insight into the role of the State agency. While this 

was only a sample of 28 State agencies in FY 2004, involvement could be broadly categorized into four 

main areas: 

1. The State agency had very little involvement. It reviewed and approved the budget and plan, and 

then passed it to the FNS Regional Office. It was included in any issues that may have arisen 

during plan approval, but mainly as a pass-through. Forty-four percent of State agencies visited 

were included in this category. 

2. The State agency was involved in the planning process, but once the plan was approved, it was 

the responsibility of the subcontractor to fulfill its obligations. The State agency was actively 

engaged in resolving problems with the plan. Thirty-three percent of State agencies visited were 

included in this category. 

3. The State agency was very involved in the planning of goals and activities, monitoring, and 

financial management. Decision-making took place in a collaborative manner, with the State 

agency actively participating. Eighteen percent of State agencies visited were included in this 

category.

4. The State agency made FSNE decisions at the State and local levels. Five percent of State 

agencies visited were included in this category.

 

10 Allowable costs are distinguished from appropriate expenditures by the level of discretion FNS officials have in 

approving their inclusion in a budget. Allowable costs are a specific list of those cost elements that can be 

included in any FSNE budget (such as salaries and wages) and those which are specifically prohibited (such as 

client transportation); while appropriate costs are based on the judgment of FNS officials as to whether or not 

the costs are necessary for a particular project or activity. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-5 

State agencies expressed an interest in becoming more involved with FSNE, but felt challenged by the 

additional time required to do so. They also believed that FSNE needed to be implemented by experts in 

nutrition, and they did not feel that they had the expertise to be involved in message development or 

delivery. Typically, State agencies reported that if they had additional resources, they would want an 

expanded role in monitoring to ensure that the program was meeting its intended goals. Some State 

agencies, such as Vermont, Nevada, Florida, and Mississippi, have dedicated more resources to FSNE 

over the last few years, and are more active in its planning, implementation, and monitoring than years 

prior. Nevada provides a good example of the changing role of the State food stamp office. At the end of 

2004, the State hired a nutritionist to take the lead in FSNE development for the State. The nutritionist 

will now take the lead in conducting all needs assessment activities in the State, conduct outreach 

campaigns, work to identify additional resources, and participate in implementing agency monitoring 

activities. 

Implementing Agency 

Structure of Implementing Agencies in FSNE 

State food stamp agencies contracted with various types of organizations to deliver nutrition education. 

Just over half (55 percent) of implementing agencies were a Cooperative Extension Service (CES) of a 

land-grant university. However, the remaining 45 percent represented a wide range of organizations, 

including divisions of a State or Territorial health department (10 percent), a nutrition or public health 

school/department/college within a university (7 percent), and emergency food providers such as a food 

bank or pantry (7 percent) (Exhibit 3-4). The appendix lists all implementing agencies, their State, region 

and type (Exhibit A3-3). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-6 

Exhibit 3-4. Type of Organization that Best Describes the FSNE Implementing 

Agency 

A local public health 

department, 4%

A State Department of 

Aging or Elderly Services, 

2%

Other, 4%

A department or college, 

other than public health, 

within a university, 5%

The Cooperative Extension 

Service of a land-grant 

university, 55%

A division of a State or 

Territorial health 

department, 10%

A nutrition or public health 

school/department/college 

within a university, 7%

An emergency food 

provider, such as a food

bank or pantry, 7%

A Tribal council or Tribal

health program, 5%

Number of Respondents: 83 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Role of Implementing Agency 

The implementing agency was the lead decision maker in almost all activities. It specified interventions 

in keeping with the goals and objectives for FSNE, made funding decisions related to local projects and 

overall allocation of resources, trained nutrition educators, and conducted monitoring and evaluation to 

ensure that FSNE was implemented as intended. While most implementing agencies had local projects 

and/or subcontractors provide direct and indirect education, they themselves implemented social 

marketing campaigns. If affiliated with a university, the implementing agency was more likely to conduct 

research projects that supplemented the work of the local projects/subcontractors such as in the case of the 

Michigan State University Cooperative Extension or the University of Minnesota, College of Human 

Ecology. 

For implementing agencies without local projects or subcontractors, the implementing agency took on the 

added responsibility of providing direct and indirect education. 

While later chapters will discuss how implementing agencies made their decisions regarding planning, 

implementation and evaluation, it is important to note that there were few significant associations 

between type of implementing agency and how FSNE was delivered including methods, messages, and 

target audience. When there were such associations based on type of implementing agency, they were 

duly noted throughout this report. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-7 

Nutrition Networks 

The nutrition network is a specific coordinating mechanism of the FSNE implementing agency. At times 

the network is an independent subcontractor, or “implementing agency,” to the State agency, and at other 

times it is a mechanism used within the structure of another implementing agency. 

The structure of the nutrition networks has changed somewhat since being established by FNS in 1995–96 

through a series of cooperative agreements to States. Initially, 21 States submitted applications and were 

funded to develop nutrition networks. The purpose of the nutrition networks was to: 

 Better coordinate the delivery of FSNE among public and private nutrition education providers 

within their State, 

 Develop a new approach to the delivery of FSNE through using social marketing techniques, and 

 Develop ongoing systems to reinforce nutrition education messages across multiple FNS-funded 

programs. 

The initial nutrition networks differed from traditional FSNE implementing agencies in that they were 

encouraged to develop a strong governance feature using individuals from multiple nutrition education 

providers as “network partners.” Network partners differed from traditional advisory committees in that 

they were encouraged to participate in the network’s governance and decision-making process with 

regard to the planning and implementation of FSNE. 

After the initial funding of nutrition networks, it was expected by FNS that the networks would sustain 

their existence through normal FSNE funding. Beyond the initial requirements set forth in the 

cooperative agreements, there was no specific long-term guidance provided for the structure, 

organization, and functioning of nutrition networks, so this study examined what had become of the 

original networks and which, if any, other States had developed a nutrition network. 

In FY 2004, 27 implementing agencies (33 percent) reported either being a nutrition network or having a 

nutrition network as part of their organizational structure.11 Of these, however, most were not the 

independent entities that were initially funded through the cooperative agreements. Of the States 

reporting having a nutrition network, 67 percent stated that the network was a part of a larger FSNE 

initiative. Only five agencies indicated that they were contracted by the State food stamp agency as a 

nutrition network independent of other FSNE activities similar to the ones initially funded through the 

cooperative agreements (Exhibit A3-5). However, when it comes to the budgetary impact of nutrition 

networks, including the California network, on FSNE, these same five agencies (which were built around 

the initial FNS cooperative agreement funding) represent over half of the FSNE expenditures in the 

country. The diversity in structure and roles is illustrated in the examples below: 

 

11 Agencies were asked to self-report if their organization included a nutrition network. In some cases, the 

implementing agency itself was a nutrition network, such as in California, while in other cases an implementing 

agency such as a Cooperative Extension had a nutrition network as a part of its organization, but was treated 

organizationally in a manner similar to that of a local project (e.g., Washington State). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-8 

Structure Role 

Arizona. The Arizona nutrition network is an 

initiative of the State Dept. of Public Health. It 

is contracted directly by the State food stamp 

agency to provide FSNE. It is the only 

implementing agency in the State. It 

subcontracts with a variety of organizations to 

provide direct education. It also leads in the 

development and implementation of a 

Statewide social marketing campaign. The 

subcontractors are responsible for identifying 

their non-Federal contribution. 

The Arizona nutrition network developed a 

Statewide social marketing campaign. They 

regularly held focus groups with the target 

population and forums with the network 

members to get feedback on message 

development. The subcontractors provided direct 

nutrition education and supplemented their 

activities with the network’s campaign materials 

and curricula. 

Michigan. The Michigan nutrition network is a 

part of Michigan State University, Cooperative 

Extension Service’s contract with the State food 

stamp agency. Michigan State also implements 

direct nutrition education through its local 

cooperative extension offices. They are the 

only implementing agency in Michigan. 

The Michigan nutrition network members serve 

as proposal reviewers for subcontractors who 

want to participate in FSNE. The network 

provided nine subcontractors with “enhancement 

grants” that built upon their existing nutrition 

activities. The network held yearly meetings 

where each subcontractor presented their 

program and the evaluation results of their 

program. No Statewide social marketing 

campaign existed. 

North Carolina. In FY 2004, the State food 

stamp agency held contracts with six 

implementing agencies. The North Carolina 

nutrition network was responsible for 

coordinating the development of all FSNE 

activities conducted by all of the other 

implementing agencies in the State, as well as 

conducting its own social marketing campaign. 

The North Carolina nutrition network was given 

the responsibility to conduct trainings for all 

other potential implementing agencies, develop 

standards and criteria for planning guidance, 

review all plans being submitted to the State 

agency, and help with monitoring the progress of 

other implementing agencies. In addition, the 

nutrition network carried out its own social 

marketing project to reinforce a common 

message in targeted counties, and subcontracted 

with two local providers for direct nutrition 

education delivery. 

The nutrition networks developed partnership agreements with various State government, local 

government, and nonprofit agencies. The State agencies most often represented in these networks were 

the State food stamp agency, CES, and the WIC program within the State Health Department (Exhibit 3-

5). The local agencies most often represented in nutrition networks were food banks, local public health 

departments, and local school districts. Forty-six percent of nutrition networks reported that local food 

stamp offices were members of their network. The local TANF or welfare office was a member of 15 

percent of the networks. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-9 

Exhibit 3-5. Types of Nutrition Network Members 

Number of Respondents ranged from 23–27. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Statewide nonprofit, trade, and advocacy organizations also participated in the networks. Among these 

categories, the Dairy Council was most often a member (60 percent); the Meat Industry Trade Association 

(32 percent) and the State or local dietetic association (30 percent) were the next most frequently reported 

members. In general, fewer networks reported advocacy organizations as members. Of those that did 

include advocacy organizations, the most frequently reported were the State WIC association (30 percent) 

and food stamp outreach (30 percent) or other types of hunger prevention alliances (Exhibit A3-6). 

Among the eleven nutrition networks selected for site visits, the number of network members ranged from 

15 members in New Jersey to more than 200 network members in California. 

89%

81%

73%

67%

62% 60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CES at a State

land-grant

university

State food 

stamp 

agency

Emergency

food providers,

such as food

banks and/or

soup kitchens

State Health

Department –

WIC program

Local public

health

department(s)

or district(s)

Dairy 

Council

Types of Network Members 

Percent of FSNE Networks 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-10 

The California Nutrition Network: A Significant Contributor to the National Picture of 

FSNE 

In order to put the national picture of FSNE into perspective, it is important to note the role of 

the California nutrition network and its unique contribution to FSNE. The California nutrition 

network, which is sponsored by the California Department of Health, is the largest 

implementing agency in the country with an approved budget over ten times the size of the 

next largest implementing agency. Approximately 40 percent of all FSNE funds for State food 

stamp nutrition education go towards nutrition network activities. In FY 2004 the California 

nutrition network funded over 200 subcontractors, as well as large-scale social marketing 

campaigns and a network of eleven regional nutrition networks. The network also coordinates 

activities with other Statewide projects, including 5-A-Day and California Project Lean. 

The California nutrition network supported a diverse group of FSNE providers, among which 

were local public health departments, county social service agencies, food security 

organizations, faith-based organizations, tribal programs, parks and recreation districts, 

Healthy Cities and Communities, Cooperative Extension offices, universities and colleges, and 

cancer research centers. In addition, the network supports social marketing activities using 

both paid and unpaid media to promote healthy eating in major media markets throughout 

California. 

The large number of local projects, Statewide activities, and regional initiatives require a 

significant amount of program coordination. California nutrition network central and regional 

office staff were responsible for examining funding proposals and ensuring that coordination 

between appropriate programs and agencies was built into the project prior to it receiving 

approval. As a result, programs were funded that were both unique and innovative in 

approach and yet well coordinated with other Statewide nutrition education efforts. 

In addition, the California nutrition network had a strong evaluation team that both conducted 

needs assessment activities as well as examined process and outcome measures. The 

evaluation team used a variety of methods to collect data with the goal of ensuring that 

initiatives were consistent with the needs of the State, were well coordinated, and were 

administered effectively. 

Local Projects and Subcontractors 

Structure of Local Projects and Subcontractors in FSNE 

Chapter I described the distinction between local projects and subcontractors, namely that local projects 

are essentially an arm of the implementing agency, providing FSNE in a specific community. 

Subcontractors, on the other hand, are independent entities with a formal agreement to implement FSNE 

within the context of their existing initiatives such as a county health department or community action 

agency that is implementing a specific project funded by the implementing agency. This difference has 

implications in delivery and monitoring. 

Approximately 77 percent of implementing agencies used local projects (41 percent), subcontractors (22 

percent), or both (14 percent) to deliver some or all of FSNE services (Exhibit 3-6). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-11 

Exhibit 3-6. Percent of Implementing Agencies that Deliver Services Through the 

Use of Local Projects or Subcontractors 

41%

22%

14%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Local projects but not

subcontractors

Subcontractors but not

local projects

Both subcontractors

and local projects

Neither subcontractors

nor local projects

Service Delivery

Percent of Implementing Agencies

Number of Respondents: 83 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

The choice to use local projects, subcontractors or neither was associated with the type of implementing 

agency. In the case of CES, most used the county extension offices to deliver FSNE (Exhibit 3-7). 

During site visits, CES agencies described that they utilized this system because the county offices were 

familiar with the needs of their community and could work in tandem with other initiatives in the office or 

with local partnering agencies. Because the local offices were a part of the CES, the infrastructure was 

similar throughout the implementing agency, and administrative and staff requirements as well as training 

were relatively uniform across the implementing agency’s FSNE initiative. 

State or Territorial health departments, on the other hand, were more likely to use subcontractors to 

deliver FSNE (88 percent). Those who did not use local projects or subcontractors delivered services 

themselves and were usually serving a small number of communities, such as the Corpus Christi Food 

Bank, or had nutrition educators based at the central office that traveled throughout the State, such as the 

University of Georgia – Older Adults Program. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-12 

Exhibit 3-7. Use of Local Projects and Subcontractors for FSNE Delivery by Type of 

Implementing Agency 

Used Only 

Local 

Projects 

Used Only 

Subcontractors 

Used 

Both 

Used 

Neither 

Local 

Projects 

nor Subcontractors 

Type of Implementing Agency: N Percent 

The CES of a land-grant university 46 65% 7% 13% 15% 

A division of a State or Territorial health 

department 8 12 88 0 012

A nutrition or public health 

school/department/college within a 

university 6 0 50 17 33 

An emergency food provider, such as a 

food bank or pantry 7 14 14 0 71 

A Tribal council or Tribal health program 4 25 25 25 25 

A department or college, other than public 

health, within a university 4 0 25 75 0 

A local public health department 3 33 33 0 33 

A State Department of Aging or Elderly 

Services 2 0 50 0 50 

Other 3 0 0 33 67 

 

Number of Respondents 83 34 18 12 19 

Note: Percents total 100 in each row.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

If implementing agencies used local projects, the average number used was 30, with over 50 percent using 

more than 13 local projects (Exhibit 3-8). There was a wide range on the number of local projects, from 

one to 223. 

Exhibit 3-8. Percent of Implementing Agencies by Number of Local Projects 

Number of Local Projects 

Percent of Implementing 

Agencies 

1–6 Local Projects 27% 

7–12 Local Projects 22 

13–36 Local Projects 24 

37+ Local Projects 27 

Number of Respondents: 45

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

In total, 28 implementing agencies reported using subcontractors. The average number used was 18.5, 

much lower than the average number of local projects used. There also was a wide range in the number 

 

12 All activities are conducted at the implementing agency level 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-13 

of subcontractors used; from one subcontractor to a maximum of 204. Over half used four or fewer 

subcontractors (Exhibit 3-9). 

While the number of local projects and subcontractors per implementing agency are of interest to give a 

general sense of the structure at the local level, its magnitude does not necessarily equate to the proportion 

of budget or workload. 

Exhibit 3-9. Percent of Implementing Agencies by Number of Subcontractors 

Percent of Implementing 

Agencies 

1–6 Subcontractors 66% 

7–12 Subcontractors 7 

13–36 Subcontractors 17 

37+ Subcontractors 10 

Number of Respondents: 29

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Subcontractors also varied in type. While detailed information on all types of subcontractors used by 

each implementing agency is not available, there is information on the subcontractors used in the 28 

States visited—recognizing that that the selection of subcontractors to visit was not random. County 

health departments were the type of subcontractor most often visited (30 percent). There were almost 

equal visits made to Native American Tribes, school systems, universities, food banks, and other 

community and health and social services. 

At the level of the local project/subcontractor, there was usually a director or coordinator who was 

responsible for FSNE and other nutrition-related activities in their agency. For the county extension 

offices, this meant that the local FSNE Director may also be the local Expanded Food and Nutrition 

Education Program (EFNEP) Director, or report to the extension agent responsible for other nutrition and 

food programs. For the county health departments, the FSNE Director often oversaw programs such as 

WIC, diabetes programs, and cardiovascular health.13 

Role of Local Projects and Subcontractors 

Seventy-one percent of local projects and subcontractors interviewed believed that they and their staff 

made most of the decisions about the local implementation and delivery of FSNE services, while onethird of local projects indicated that their implementing agencies were responsible for decision-making, 

(these responses were not mutually exclusive). The majority of local projects and subcontractors received 

guidance from the implementing agency based on the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance regarding target 

population, core nutritional messages, and acceptable methods of delivery. They then felt they had the 

autonomy to make decisions that would be most beneficial to their community. 

 

13 FSNE directors were often not full-time positions, and the salaries for these individuals usually were composed 

of funding from multiple programs for which they had responsibility. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-14 

Local projects contributed to recruiting and selecting local partners, identifying the target audience, and 

developing content of nutrition education services. According to local project interviews, they talked with 

local nutrition education collaborators about the number of sites where FSNE services would be offered, 

the number of participants to plan for, and the number of staff and other resources available for FSNE. 

Local projects also conducted marketing campaigns and outreach to secure new partner agencies and new 

sources of FSNE matching funds. 

In general, the choice of whom to subcontract with was determined by two primary factors. The first was 

whether the subcontractor was well-equipped to provide nutrition education in their community, including 

understanding the needs of their target audience. The second was whether the subcontractor could 

provide the non-Federal contribution. 

The level of autonomy varied depending on whether the agency was a local project and therefore an 

office of the implementing agency, or a subcontractor. The local project was much more likely to follow 

a specific set of goals and curricula identified by the implementing agency and based on FSNE plan 

guidance regarding key topic areas listed above. Subcontractors, on the other hand, while provided 

guidance by the implementing agency, had more flexibility to identify messages and methods. Regardless 

of the structure, materials and techniques had to be approved by the implementing agency. 

Nutrition Educators 

Nutrition educators are an important stakeholder in the delivery of direct education. Without exception, 

implementing agencies relied on nutrition educators to provide direct education to clients. This was 

regardless of whether the educators were staff of the local project/subcontractor or the implementing 

agency office. 

Nutrition educators were often the face of FSNE in the community. In the planning stage, they usually 

found, or helped to find, partner agencies. They also maintained partnerships from the previous year. 

During implementation, they worked with the partners and FSNE clients to decide what nutritional topics 

to cover and then adapt curricula and materials to meet the needs of their clients. They also were the 

primary deliverers of nutrition education, especially teaching nutrition education classes. Nutrition 

educators were responsible for keeping their own records, reporting pre/post tests and the number of 

participants served, and documenting non-Federal contributions from partner agencies. 

FSNE Partners 

The nature of partnerships in FSNE was very diverse. For purposes of discussion, we describe 

partnerships both at the implementing agency and local levels. At the implementing agency level there 

were often “advisory partners,” who provided input on policy decisions or helped establish coordinating 

mechanisms. These partners provided input through a formal agreement, or as a part of a working group 

or committee, both of which are described below. The nutrition network partners provided another 

mechanism for coordination. 

The use of a committee or working group as part of FSNE planning and implementation was reported by 

one-third of implementing agencies. Among the 26 implementing agencies with an outside advisory 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-15 

committee, the most commonly cited organizations were State CES and State and/or local health 

departments (73 percent and 69 percent, respectively) (Exhibit A3-7). The State WIC Agency, State 

Department of Education, Agency on Aging or Bureau of the Elderly, and emergency food providers each 

were cited in this role by close to half of the respondents with outside advisory committees. Faith-based 

service providers and food industry and distribution organizations were less commonly reported as 

outside advisory committee members. 

Three-quarters (73 percent) of implementing agencies either had a formal partnership(s) or reported that 

FSNE was “well-coordinated” with at least one USDA initiative or program, such as WIC, the National 

School Lunch Program, or Team Nutrition. Almost 40 percent of implementing agencies had formal 

partnerships with other nutrition education efforts in their State for coordinating FSNE activities. 

The extent of collaboration with partners did not vary across different types of implementing agencies. 

Similarly, the type of implementing agency did not seem to influence the type of USDA initiatives with 

which they collaborated (Exhibit A3-8 and A3-9). 

There were a few instances where the members of the outside committee varied between nutrition 

networks and other implementing agencies, namely that networks seemed slightly more likely to have 

food banks, soup kitchens, food pantries (p=.07), faith-based service provider(s) (p=.06), and nonprofit 

health-related organization(s) (e.g., American Cancer Society, American Heart-Association) (p=.02). 

There were no significant differences in the types of agencies that nutrition networks had as formal 

partners versus other implementing agencies. 

At the local level, partners were somewhat different from implementing agency level partnerships. Local 

partners typically provided access at their sites to low-income audiences for nutrition education. Local 

partners either operated independently in the community (e.g., a school district, a local food bank) or were 

a local office of a larger State initiative (e.g., a local WIC office, a Head Start site). In other cases, local 

partners were associated with TANF-related job training, family education, or self-sufficiency projects, 

which provided space and clients for a local FSNE project. 

Here, as at the implementing agency level, the roles of the local partners varied widely. In some locations, the 

nutrition educator used the office space of a partnering agency, like a county health department, and then 

conducted FSNE entirely independently of the partnering agency. In other locations, the partner was 

intimately involved in making decisions such as which nutrition education topics were to be covered with their 

audience, which times were most convenient to hold FSNE classes, and even whether to co-teach classes. 

At the implementing agency level, the partners often provided guidance or shared information through 

coordination attempts, while at the local level, partners were more instrumental in funding decisions, 

because they were likely to be one of the sources of non-Federal funds. For example, a local partner 

might be contributing a certain amount of in-kind contributions to the local project, such as space or staff, 

and were hence more likely to be involved in the local project’s overall development of funding priorities. 

For example, a local project, such as a local Cooperative Extension office, might conduct FSNE activities 

at a site that provides job training to TANF recipients. In this case, the agency providing the job training 

is a local partner, and the in-kind cost of space, materials, and even some staffing may be used by the 

local project as a non-Federal in-kind contribution. In this case, the partner would also likely be involved 

in the overall decision-making process of the local project as to funding priorities and how the total 

budget for the project might be implemented. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-16 

Local Food Stamp Offices 

Local food stamp offices are the primary providers of benefits under the Food Stamp Program. However, 

until the release of the FSNE Guiding Principles by FNS in September 2005, there was not a clearly 

defined role for local food stamp offices in the provision of nutrition education. 

According to interviews with State food stamp agency officials in States where local food stamp offices 

were involved in FSNE, these offices played an important role. Local food stamp offices helped with 

FSNE implementation through providing data for needs assessment, assisting implementing agencies with 

identifying food stamp participants, distributing materials, and providing referrals. However, even in 

States where local food stamp offices participated in FSNE, there was little evidence that any formally 

defined role had been developed either by the State food stamp agency or by the implementing agency. 

According to local projects and subcontractors interviewed, only 19 percent of the local food stamp 

offices were involved in FSNE planning or implementation. They were much more likely to be involved 

in distributing nutrition education brochures and materials (Exhibit 3-10). 

From the perspective of the local FSNE project or subcontractor, there were multiple reasons for the local 

food stamp offices’ lack of involvement in planning or implementation. The most significant barrier was 

that local food stamp offices were usually understaffed and had little or no personnel resources or 

physical space to direct towards nutrition education. Another barrier to providing nutrition education at 

the food stamp office, or providing information and referrals to where one could participate in a nutrition 

education class, was the nature of the food stamp office activities. In some States, such as Florida, local 

food stamp offices were gradually closing as they moved to using more Internet-based application. Even 

where local offices were not closing, the client was spending less time in the office, and the nature of the 

benefits did not require regular office visits. Local projects also reported that local food stamp offices felt 

that clients were coming to the office to receive their benefit, rather than receive nutrition education, and 

were most likely not interested in participating in education at that point in time. 

The relatively low level of involvement in planning and implementation of nutrition education by food 

stamp offices was consistent across types of local projects/subcontractors and implementing agencies. 

However, in some States, there were strong efforts made by both the implementing agency and the State 

food stamp agency to involve local food stamp offices. For example, the Arizona nutrition network and 

the State food stamp agency piloted an “Adopt a Food Stamp Office” project. The purpose was for 

subcontractors to make a concerted effort to recruit food stamp recipients by providing education within 

the food stamp office along with materials and training. As is typical with pilot projects, they met with 

mixed success. The network feels that the subcontractors probably needed more specific guidance on 

activities to conduct within the food stamp office, which they will be doing in the coming year. In 

Mississippi, officials reported a very strong overall relationship with their local food stamp offices – they 

received lists of FSP participants and conducted a variety of classes at the local food stamp offices, 

including food and nutrition, budgeting, and parenting. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-17 

Exhibit 3-10. Local Food Stamp Office Participation from the Perspective of Local 

Projects/Subcontractors 

19%

53%

22%

54%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Local food stamp

offices participated in

planning or

development of FSNE

Local project provided

information about the

availability of FSNE to

any local food stamp

offices

Local project held

FSNE sessions or

conducted any FSNE

activities at any local

food stamp office

Local food stamp

offices identified

participants for FSNE

Local project provided

indirect food stamp

nutrition education at

any local food stamp

offices during FY2004,

such as distributing

printed materials or

show ing informational

Level of Participation videos 

Percent of Local Projects 

Number of Respondents: 68 

Source: Local Projects/Subcontractors Interviews 

Summary 

There are numerous stakeholders in the implementation of food stamp nutrition education and the role of 

these stakeholders varied depending on the activity. 

In summary, the exhibit below provides a snapshot of the level of involvement of the various stakeholders 

(Exhibit 3-11). In general, the implementing agencies and local projects and subcontractors were highly 

involved in the selection of the target audience and the conduct of the needs assessment. The State 

agency played a more minor role, and for the most part local food stamp agencies played little to no role. 

Partners at the implementing agency level played a somewhat different role than partners at the local 

level. At the implementing agency level, the partners often provided guidance or shared information 

through coordination attempts, while at the local level, partners were more instrumental in funding 

decisions, because they were likely to be one of the sources of non-Federal funding. 

Finally, it must be understood that FNSE organizational structures and provider/partner relationships can 

be multilayered and complex. Minnesota provides an example of the multilayered, multistakeholder 

FSNE structure and the level of organizational complexity that can be developed in FSNE planning and 

delivery. The Minnesota Human Services agency contracted with two FSNE implementing agencies: the 

University of Minnesota, College of Human Ecology (U of M) and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

(MCT). While U of M worked through their local extension offices (i.e., local projects) to deliver FSNE, 

the MCT subcontracted with five Bands of the Chippewa Tribe, including the Fond du Lac Band. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-18 

Exhibit 3-11. Likelihood of Stakeholder Involvement in FSNE Activities 

 Coordinate 

with FNS 

and/or 

Regional 

Office 

Select Target 

Audience, 

Needs 

Assessment 

FSNE 

Message 

Selection 

and/or 

Development

FSNE 

Funding 

Decisions

FSNE 

Education 

Delivery 

FSNE 

Staff 

Training Monitoring

State Agency High Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate 

Implementing 

Agency High High High High High High High 

Local Projects/ 

Subcontractors Low High Moderate High High High High 

Implementing 

Agency Partners Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low 

Local Partners Low Moderate ModerateLow Low-High ModerateLow Low ModerateLow 

Local FS 

Agencies Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 

Source: Implementing Agency and State Food Stamp Agency Web-based Surveys 

The Public Health Unit in the Fond du Lac Band of the Chippewa Tribe hired a part-time Nutrition 

Educator Assistant (NEA) to educate food bank recipients and other low-income tribal members about 

nutritional health. The NEA employed various educational techniques, including classes, one-on-one 

meetings, presentations, and cooking demonstrations. The NEA received guidance from registered 

dietitians, nutritionists in the tribal health clinic, and the WIC program to ensure that the information she 

provided was science-based and met the needs of her target population. Public health nurses, WIC, and 

food distribution sites all referred clients to the NEA for one-on-one intensive counseling. The NEA also 

partnered with schools on reservations where she conducted classes with youth. The Public Health 

Director saw the role of the NEA as providing additional nutritional support and specifically helping the 

Native population learn how to stretch their dollars and increase their food security. 

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, acting as the FSNE implementing agency, was responsible for overall 

coordination, financial reporting to the State agency, training, and plan development. They relied upon U 

of M in the development of their FSNE model. U of M identified four core nutritional areas and 26 

corresponding messages and approved curricula. It was then the choice of the local nutrition educators 

and the director to tailor the curricula to meet the specific needs of the community. U of M provided 

technical assistance, training, curricula, and monitoring forms to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. The 

implementing agencies worked together to ensure consistent messages and coordination of services. 

Both implementing agencies collaborated with partners on the local level to deliver FSNE to 

organizations such as Head Start, food distribution sites, and schools that serve economically challenged 

populations. At Fond du Lac, FSNE was an integrated part of the nutrition and health education system 

for Tribal members. The program partners were, in essence, a part of the program management. 

The State agency had somewhat limited involvement in FSNE. There was neither sufficient time nor 

enough staff members to allow extensive involvement. However, the State agency was readily available 

to assist the implementing agencies in addressing budget issues. For example, in FY 2004, there were 

significant issues with calculating State cost share. The State agency was proactive in working with the 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-19 

FNS Regional Office to get the issues resolved. The State agency believed that the implementing agencies 

were the experts in nutrition programs and trusted them to deliver high-quality, effective programs. 

At the end of FY 2004 and the beginning of FY 2005, the State legislature required the State food stamp 

agency’s Public Health and Children’s Division to create a Health and Nutrition Committee to identify 

ways to improve coordination and collaboration. The State agency decided it wanted to take a larger role 

in FSNE and the committee assisted them in doing so. As a result, the complexity of the overall system 

continues to grow. This example demonstrates how successful collaboration can be accomplished 

through well-structured and cooperative arrangements among multiple stakeholders. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III. Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities 3-20 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-1 

CHAPTER IV. FSNE PLANNING 

State agencies are required to submit a “FSNE plan” to receive Federal reimbursement for 50 percent of 

the cost of nutrition education activities that they provide to FSP recipients and eligibles. Each State plan 

must describe: 

 The FSNE goals and objectives, 

 Target audience and needs assessment to identify the target audiences’ nutritional needs, 

 Services and activities to be implemented, 

 Planned interagency coordination to maximize the efficiency of service delivery, 

 Plans to conduct implementation process and outcome/impact evaluations of FSNE services, 

 Staffing plans to support the delivery of nutrition education, and 

 The budget to carry out the planned services. 

This chapter describes the FSNE planning process for FY 2004 focusing on the following key issues: 

 Overview of FSNE planning process, 

 Needs assessment, 

 Identification of target audience, 

 Development or selection of nutrition education message and curriculum, and 

 Budget planning. 

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS 

3⁄4 A majority (72 percent) of the implementing agencies conducted needs assessments to 

determine the target populations that they would serve, primarily using existing data provided 

by the State food stamp agencies. Needs assessment focused primarily on identifying target 

audiences, and less on determining their nutritional needs. 

3⁄4 Nearly three-quarters of State agencies indicated that they asked implementing agencies to make 

food stamp recipients and applicants a high priority but allowed implementing agencies to target 

broader low-income populations. The majority (52 percent) of implementing agencies targeted 

the low-income population at or below 185 percent of the poverty level. 

3⁄4 In FY 2004, 71 percent of implementing agencies indicated that they tested some or all of their 

educational messages through methods such as focus groups and interviews with food stamp 

recipients or other low-income audiences. Another common practice in selecting educational 

messages and curricula was to use the materials that were useful in previous years. 

3⁄4 FSNE budget development in FY 2004 was conducted primarily by the implementing agencies 

and their local projects/subcontractors. About half of the local projects reported encountering 

problems during budget development and receiving assistance from their implementing agencies 

on issues such as allowable costs and what qualifies for non-Federal FSNE funds. About onequarter of implementing agencies denied funding to local projects or subcontractors, commonly 

due to insufficient non-Federal funds. 

3⁄4 Only 8 percent of State agencies denied funding to an organization that applied to be an 

implementing agency. 

3⁄4 Most implementing agencies (88 percent) implemented their FSNE plans fully or mostly as 

intended. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-2 

Overview of FSNE Planning Process 

The basic steps involved in FSNE plan development are: 1) the implementing agency develops a plan, 

independently or together with local projects or subcontractors; 2) the State agency reviews the plan and 

works with the implementing agency to refine it; and 3) the State agency submits a single State FSNE 

plan to the FNS Regional Office for approval, as requested in the FSNE Plan Guidance. 

Implementing agencies are at the center of the planning process. State agency interviews indicated that 

participation in FSNE was usually initiated by the implementing agencies submitting plans to the State 

agency. Only 14 percent of the State agencies interviewed indicated that they issued a request for 

proposals in FY 2004, and only 27 percent had a policy limiting the number of implementing agencies in 

the State. 

Among the implementing agencies that had local projects or subcontractors (roughly three-quarters of all 

implementing agencies), at least 62 percent conducted the FSNE planning process in collaboration with 

their local agencies (Exhibit A4-1). The implementing agencies defined the goals and objectives of the 

program, translated FNS guidelines into the context of their organization’s mission and services, trained 

local projects on how to develop their plan, reviewed local projects’ budgets and plans, and compiled the 

overall budget for the agency. 

About two-thirds of local projects interviewed received technical assistance from their implementing 

agencies regarding issues such as: FSNE plan requirements, budget development, how to set up an 

accounting system, FSNE staffing decisions, needs assessment, and selecting or developing educational 

materials. Almost all local projects interviewed reported that this type of assistance was helpful. 

Local projects took an active role in recruiting local partners, identifying the target audience, and 

developing nutrition education activities (Exhibit A4-2). Local projects worked with local partners to 

determine locations where nutrition education activities would take place, staff and other resources that 

would be available for FSNE, and potential sources of non-Federal funds for FSNE. For about 60 percent 

of local projects interviewed, their input in FSNE plan development ended with submission of their plans 

to implementing agencies. But, the remaining 40 percent stated that they participated in State-level FSNE 

steering committee meetings and provided review and feedback on the development of a Statewide 

program. 

In implementing agencies with no local projects, and in 38 percent of implementing agencies with local 

projects, the agency staff executed the entire planning process. In over half of the implementing agencies, 

an internal steering committee of implementing agency staff was involved in planning. However, outside 

advisory committees did not have much input in the FSNE plan development at the implementing agency 

level. 

At the State agency, the program director (e.g., the Director of the Office of Human Services, the Director 

of the Department of Family Services, the State food stamp agency director) or FSNE coordinator 

generally handled the tasks related to the FSNE plan. Typically, when implementing agencies submitted 

their plans, the State agency reviewed the plan against the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance (e.g., checking 

whether the budget items were allowable). If the implementing agency plan needed clarification or 

changes, the State agency requested meetings and conference calls to obtain additional information from 

implementing agencies. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-3 

In states with multiple implementing agencies, the State agency is responsible for consolidating separate 

plans into one State plan. Among 24 State agencies that had multiple implementing agencies in FY 

2004, half reported some involvement in coordinating FSNE planning among the implementing agencies 

(Exhibit A4-3). However, the interviews with State agency staff indicated that the extent of consolidation 

varied across States. In some States with more than one implementing agency, one of the implementing 

agencies was tasked to consolidate separate plans into a State plan. One State that had two implementing 

agencies submitted separate implementing agency plans as Part A and Part B of the State plan without 

any integration. 

Overall, a majority (77 percent) of the implementing agencies interviewed characterized the State agency 

as being “effective” in their role in FSNE planning and none thought the State agency was “not effective” 

(Exhibit A4-4). 

Needs Assessment Process 

The State FSNE plan should be based on a needs assessment to identify the nutrition needs of the FSP 

recipients and eligible population in the targeted community. Specifically, the FY 2004 FSNE Plan 

Guidance states that a needs assessment is used to: (a) identify target audience (based on factors such as 

food stamp status, other demographic characteristics, and geography); (b) identify the nutrition needs of 

the target audience; and (c) identify any language/education level needs of the target audience. A 

complete needs assessment includes formative research to select promising nutrition education methods 

and messages for the specific target audience identified and is intended to increase the likelihood that 

FSNE services reach the target audience who are in need of the services and whose dietary practices can 

be expected to improve as a result of the educational intervention. 

One of the incongruities of this study was how implementing agencies and local projects treated the 

notion of needs assessment. In the survey, many implementing agencies reported that they conducted 

needs assessments to identify the populations with the greatest nutritional needs and the specific 

nutritional needs of the clients. However, when asked to describe their needs assessment process during 

site visits, most agencies described processes that were used for identifying and locating low-income 

audiences, but not actually assessing the nutritional needs of specific target groups. More often than not, 

a curriculum was in place that covered a multitude of nutrition topics, and was used with all of the target 

audience members. Even in agencies with more targeted messages, such as promotion of fresh fruits and 

vegetables, there was often an assumption that all low-income audiences needed to increase consumption, 

and a FSNE-specific needs assessment in this area was not conducted. One reason cited for the lack of indepth nutritional needs assessment was the limited resources for FSNE planning and research. 

Needs Assessment Conducted in FY 2004 

Most implementing agencies surveyed (72 percent) reported that they conducted needs assessments to 

identify the populations with the greatest nutritional needs and the specific nutritional needs of the clients. 

Such assessments were conducted primarily by the implementing agencies (37 percent) or jointly by 

implementing agencies and local projects (17 percent). However, given that a majority of implementing 

agencies (69 percent) reported that their FY 2004 plans changed little or none from the previous year, 

these agencies’ plans may have been based on previous years’ needs assessment. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-4 

As recommended by the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, a majority of implementing agencies used 

existing data as the primary basis for needs assessment. The implementing agencies surveyed reported 

that they requested State food stamp agencies to provide Food Stamp Program data, including Statewide 

participation data, county-level data on the number of participants and/or participation rates, or data on 

the demographic characteristics of participants (61 percent, 55 percent, and 45 percent, respectively) 

(Exhibit A4-5). In addition, State agencies provided information on locations of Food Stamp Program 

offices and diversity of languages in various Food Stamp Program areas. 

In the interviews, implementing agency staff described additional types of data sources they used for the 

FY 2004 needs analysis such as: Ohio Hunger Report from Children’s Hunger Alliance in Ohio; data and 

reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Resources, U.S. Department of Labor, State health departments, and 

State education departments; and information from local nutrition networks and county cooperative 

agents. 

Decisions about Geographic Coverage 

To determine the geographic areas where FSNE services would be provided, implementing agencies used 

existing data such as census, unemployment, and health indicator data in addition to the FSP participant 

demographic data. In addition to identifying areas with high concentrations of FSP recipients or lowincome populations, availability of resources needed to implement the planned services was another 

major consideration (e.g., local project personnel who would write grant applications and run the 

program; partner organizations with appropriate expertise, facilities, or funding potential). Decisions 

regarding FSNE service areas also reflected the local projects’ existing service areas. 

Some potential service areas were restricted, even though local agencies were interested and local 

populations needed nutrition education. In these cases, the decisions to limit the scope of service 

coverage were due to scarcity of staff resources, bilingual staff, and organizational capacity; lack of 

available local funds; or remoteness of the areas. Ways in which budget and financial issues have 

affected the scope of FSNE programs and services are discussed in Chapter V. 

Involvement of State Agencies and Local Food Stamp Offices in Needs Assessment 

Only 16 percent of State agencies surveyed reported that they were actively involved in FSNE needs 

assessment beyond the provision of FSP participant data (Exhibit A4-6). Most State agencies interviewed 

reported that they felt that needs assessment conducted by the implementing agencies was effective in 

identifying the needs of food stamp recipients. A few examples of greater State involvement included the 

following: one State agency encouraged its implementing agencies to include the homeless population as 

a target audience. Another State agency provided information about the types of nutrition education 

services that were appropriate for various groups of food stamp recipients. A small proportion of the 

implementing agencies (20 percent) reported that local food stamp offices were also involved in the 

design or implementation of the needs assessment process. 

Defining Target Audiences 

Information about needs assessment collected in this study focused on identifying a specific target 

audience for FSNE services (rather than their nutritional needs), and the “target” commonly described 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-5 

generally extended beyond the FSP recipients or eligibles. The majority (52 percent) of implementing 

agencies surveyed targeted the low-income population with household income up to 185 percent of 

poverty as their primary audience in FY 2004 (Exhibit 4-1). Slightly less than one-third of the agencies 

targeted FSP recipients and eligibles (household income at or below 130 percent of poverty). Just 8 

percent targeted only FSP recipients and applicants.14

Exhibit 4-1. General Audience Targeted for FSNE in FY 2004 

Number of Respondents: 79

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Nearly three-quarters of State agencies surveyed indicated that they asked implementing agencies to make 

food stamp recipients and applicants a high priority but allowed implementing agencies to target broader 

low-income populations (Exhibit A4-7). Only one State agency required implementing agencies to serve 

only food stamp recipients and applicants. 

The majority of implementing agencies used demographic factors other than income in defining the target 

audience for FSNE. Age was the most common factor (65 percent of implementing agencies), followed 

by race and ethnicity (50 percent) and family status (i.e., whether households have children, 39 percent) 

(Exhibit 4-2). 

 

14 The implementing agencies targeting “other” income groups generally reported a variation of the targeting of 

low-income households with income below 185 percent of poverty, such as targeting schools with 50 percent or 

more of students approved for free or reduced-price school meals. Some of these agencies reported targeting 

groups with at least 50 percent food stamp recipients or eligibles. 

52%

32%

8%

8%

Low-income

population

FSP recipients and

eligibles only

FSP recipients and

applicants only

Other
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-6 

Exhibit 4-2. Additional Demographic Factors Considered in Determining Target 

Audience for FY 2004 

65%

50%

39%

31%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Age Race/ethnicity Family status Gender No additional

demographic

factors

considered Factor

Percent of IAs

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

The local projects interviewed planned to target: low-income families (31 percent of local projects), 

elementary school children (24 percent), elderly individuals (16 percent), and children in preschools and 

middle schools (15 percent each). Only 14 percent of local projects interviewed said they targeted only 

food stamp recipients or food stamp eligible individuals. 

Reasons for Selecting Specific Target Audiences 

In interviews, implementing agency directors were asked why the agencies selected 

each of the target audiences in their plans. Most of the implementing agencies could 

describe the sources of needs assessment data but were less clear on explaining why

they selected specific target audiences. A director in Georgia explained that they 

based their decision to target the elderly on data from the Department of Human 

Resources, Division on Aging, showing that over 50 percent of their clients were lowincome (below 185 percent of poverty). They also chose to target senior centers 

because of the availability and needs of this population; the University of Georgia’s 

existing relationship with senior centers and regional agencies, which assured access 

and the availability of matching funds; and the University’s ongoing research on 

nutritional needs of the elderly. This agency also consulted with nutrition educators, 

senior center directors, and regional Wellness Coordinators; and used the USDA/HHS 

Dietary Guidelines, Healthy People 2010 guidelines, and the National Institute on 

Aging guidelines to determine the elderly individuals’ need for physical activity. 

In North Carolina, the implementing agency’s Network/Social Marketing campaign 

involved an in-depth needs assessment in 1995 and identified low-income women 

between 35-55 years of age as their FSNE target population because they were most 

likely to make behavior changes and generally make food decisions for their family. 

Arizona’s implementing agency decided to target school children because they felt 

that children would be an effective way to reach adults. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-7 

Additional Issues Considered in Selecting a Target Audience 

Identification of specific cultural/ethnic groups as a planned target audience was based on Census data, 

language spoken by food stamp recipients, demographic data from partner agencies, and local staff input. 

In addition, factors such as accessibility and expected responsiveness of potential target groups were 

considered as well as groups who are the focus of ongoing research or existing services of the 

implementing agencies. 

Some implementing agencies interviewed (e.g., Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, 

Montana, West Virginia, and Wyoming) explained that they coordinated the selection of their target 

audience with other programs such as EFNEP, WIC, Head Start, Team Nutrition, and nutritional 

programs for the elderly.15 They stated that the goals of such coordination were to provide consistent 

messages to shared target populations, to complement respective roles such as provision of educational 

materials and direct education delivery, and to receive FSNE participant referrals from other nutrition 

education agencies. 

Challenges to Targeting Food Stamp Recipients 

The implementing agencies interviewed explained the challenges of targeting food stamp recipients for 

FSNE, including perceived barriers and stigma about receiving food stamps and the difficulty of getting 

people to reveal their food stamp status. In Texas, the inability to definitively identify food stamp 

recipients led the State food stamp agency to drop many food banks from its FSNE plan for FY 2005. In 

sparsely populated rural areas, such as in Minnesota, food stamp recipients are scattered geographically, 

and coupled with a lack of public transportation, programs had a hard time collecting a critical mass of 

participants. 

Selection of Nutrition Education Curriculum and Topics 

According to the FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, the content of FSNE services must be science-based 

nutrition education intervention that is focused on: 1) health promotion for participants by increasing 

healthy eating habits and physically active lifestyles, and 2) primary prevention of diseases through 

healthy diets and physical activities. The FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance points to the Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans as the foundation of educational services in all FNS nutrition assistance programs.16 

Within this basic framework, the FSNE plans need to articulate specific educational messages and 

delivery methods that stress the importance of dietary quality and are appropriate for the target audience 

selected. 

The survey and interview responses referred to the process of “message development” broadly, typically 

referring to “selection” and “use” of certain educational topics and curricula, rather than the 

“development” of educational messages in a strict sense. Thus, the discussion in this section generally 

describes the “message selection” process, beginning with who is responsible for the selection. 

 

15 The primary program is the Elderly Nutrition Program of the Administration on Aging, Department of Health 

and Human Services. USDA provides commodity assistance to this program. 16 For FY 2004, the FSNE Plan Guidance referenced Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, Fifth Edition, U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2000. The 

Sixth Edition was published in 2005. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-8 

Agencies Involved in Curriculum Selection 

The State agency’s role in message and curriculum selection was generally limited to the approval of the 

proposed educational materials and approach. Two exceptions identified in interviews were: the New 

York State agency formed a work group to generate ideas for message development for the State’s “Eat 

Smart New York!” campaign, and the New Hampshire State agency helped the implementing agency to 

design a brochure targeted to homeless families. 

There was considerable variation in the relative contribution of implementing agencies and local projects 

in the curriculum and message selection. Some implementing agencies interviewed indicated that they 

counted on local projects to play a major role in the plan process because their local projects “know” who 

the target audience should be, where they are, and how to present the nutrition education messages to 

them most effectively. These agencies held frequent discussions (e.g., bi-monthly conference calls) with 

local projects to discuss the local input as they shaped the FSNE plans together. Other implementing 

agencies, on the other hand, controlled most of the planning decisions regarding the curriculum selection 

and targeted messages with little or no input from the local projects. 

Message and Curriculum Selection 

In FY 2004, 71 percent of implementing agencies surveyed indicated that they tested some or all of their 

educational messages (Exhibit A4-8). In message testing, focus groups with food stamp recipients or 

with other low-income audiences were the most often-reported type of formative research used (43 and 52 

percent, respectively) (Exhibit 4-3). Other methods, such as interviews or surveys with food stamp 

recipients, review of other formative research, or reviews by peer nutrition educators were each conducted 

by approximately one-third of implementing agencies. 

Exhibit 4-3. Methods Used by Implementing Agencies to Test Messages 

Type of Message Testing Percent of IAs 

Focus groups with other low-income audiences 52% 

Focus groups with food stamp recipients 43 

Survey of food stamp recipients 39 

Pilot study of curriculum 37 

Peer educator review 37 

Review of other State agency formative research with similar populations 35 

Interviews with food stamp recipients 33 

Testing the quality of translations of materials in a language other than English 24 

Other 17 

Number of Respondents: 54 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Web-based Survey 

In addition to these formative research activities, methods used for message and curriculum selection 

were diverse. A common practice was to use the messages and curricula that had been used in the past. 

For example, the staff might have mastered a curriculum focused on increasing consumption of fruits and 

vegetables and other dietary messages. Such implementing agencies tended not to deviate from the 

messages included in that curriculum. In terms of matching the education message to a specific target 

audience, some agencies identified a menu of “approved” messages (26 in New Jersey for example) with 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-9 

corresponding curricula that local projects and subcontractors could use. It was the responsibility of the 

local projects and nutrition educators to choose from the menu of messages the ones most appropriate for 

any given class or student. 

Examples of Diversity in Message Development 

In Arizona, the implementing agency (State health department) used the four core 

elements of FSNE as the foundation for message development, focusing on dietary 

quality and food safety. The agency first developed a logic model, adding the 

outcomes emphasized by FNS, then mapped the results of a qualitative needs 

assessment onto the logic model to shape the overall content and message of the 

program. The messages were basically the same regardless of target audience, while 

the delivery approach was tailored to accommodate different target audiences. 

In Minnesota, the local projects worked with local partner agencies to determine 

what participants need to know and what they are ready to learn about food and 

nutrition. In Illinois, an implementing agency used research findings from Center for 

Disease Control and NIH studies to determine the nutrition education needs of their 

target audiences and educational services appropriate for them. In Idaho, the 

implementing agency asked their clients what they would like to learn about and built 

lessons around those topics. 

In Georgia’s implementing agency targeting the elderly, nutrition educators identified 

whole grains as a priority because they had not been addressed before, and because 

of the impact on medical problems of the elderly. In addition, information from 

research-based sources, including the Dietary Guidelines, led to the program’s 

emphasis on food safety and physical activity promotion. These messages were 

developed in previous years through input from State, regional, and local agencies 

serving seniors. Interventions were designed to address gaps in nutrition knowledge 

and behavior identified through assessments of seniors when they enrolled at senior 

centers. 

Budget Development

In order to obtain FNS approval, proposed FSNE budgets were required to include detailed information to 

show that planned activities were allowable, planned expenditures were reasonable and necessary, and 

that allowable non-Federal funding for 50 percent of expenses would be provided. In the budget 

development, implementing agencies and local projects juggled multiple, interrelated issues, including the 

FSNE requirement regarding target audience, coordination with partners to recruit participants 

appropriate for FSNE, and securing sufficient and acceptable sources of non-Federal funds. 

If the implementing agency proposed to serve audiences that were not just food stamp recipients and 

applicants, they had to obtain a waiver from this requirement. This had to be considered if the projects or 

their potential partners that served low-income populations did not have data on the incomes or food 

stamp receipt of the population to be served. Further, any sources of non-Federal funds could not be 

designated concurrently as the non-Federal funds required for another Federal program. Implementing 

agencies, and local projects working with local offices of other agencies, reported that it was sometimes 

difficult to determine whether a particular combination met these requirements. Some implementing 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-10 

agencies incorporated nonpublic sources of funds, while others believed that potential partnerships would 

not be allowed because they involved use of private funds (e.g., churches). 

FSNE budget development activities in FY 2004 were conducted primarily by the implementing agencies 

and their local projects/subcontractors. Nearly two-thirds of implementing agencies that had local 

projects or subcontractors provided a budget format that was used by the local projects or subcontractors 

to prepare their own budgets (63 percent). The remaining one-third indicated that the implementing 

agency prepared budgets for local projects/subcontractors (36 percent). 

In general, the budget development process at the local level involved decisions regarding staff salaries, 

project hours, sources and amount of Federal funds needed, and selection of partners. About half of the 

local projects interviewed reported encountering problems during the process of budget development. 

The problems cited included: securing sufficient non-Federal funds, determining how to include private 

contributions, definitions of allowable costs, and finding adequate program space. In some of these cases, 

projects settled for less money than they hoped for or eliminated some planned activities. 

Examples of FSNE Budget Development Process at the Local Level 

Arkansas: The Montgomery County Cooperative Extension agent began the budget development 

by working with the Associate District Director to determine the percentage of time the Family and 

Consumer Services (FCS) would devote to FSNE. The next step was securing local-source funds 

from the schools and letters from principals committing a certain number of teacher hours to FSNE 

classes. The FCS agent obtained a waiver for the Senior Adult Center, on the basis that its clients 

were at 185 percent of the poverty level or below. The agent then determined the funds needed 

for curriculum materials, printing newsletters, travel, supplies, and equipment. The agent and the 

Associate District Director reviewed the total budget before submitting it to the implementing 

agency. 

Colorado: The Jefferson County Cooperative Extension office developed their budget in consort 

with guidance provided by the implementing agency, the Cooperative Extension Service at 

Colorado State University. The implementing agency provided a format for completing the FSNE 

budget, along with detailed instructions. Three Statewide conference calls were held between the 

local projects and the implementing agency director and budget director. The first call provided 

an overview of the budget planning process. The second call reviewed areas that were common 

trouble spots for many programs, and the third call answered questions. The FSNE agents at the 

local office talked with local partners and completed the cost-share paperwork. They then 

compiled information on the costs of office supplies, and time contributed by extension office staff. 

The FSNE agents worked with the county extension director to determine how much funds the 

county would contribute. 

Iowa: The Decatur County nutrition education program is a member of the Iowa Nutrition 

Network sponsored by Iowa Department of Public Health. For this project, the budget planning 

differed depending on the school. In one school, the county worked one-on-one with the home 

economics teacher to plan 12 educational sessions and get the teachers’ buy-in. In another 

school, the county worked with the grants coordinator, while in the third school, they worked with 

the school nurse. For each of these cases, the county left it up to the school as to which classes 

would participate in FSNE. Once the schools decided, the county gave them guidance about how 

much time to budget for the teacher, and asked for their salary rates. The Decatur County staff 

consolidated information from all school districts into a local budget. This then defined how much 

funding the county would get from the implementing agency. The county’s objective was to 

ensure that funding was sufficient to provide enough supplies for each classroom and to cover the 

registered dietitian’s salary. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-11 

Local projects received assistance from their implementing agencies on budget development. The focus 

of such assistance included how to interpret FSNE Plan Guidance, allowable costs, what qualifies for 

non-Federal FSNE funds, how to develop partners, and how to fill out the budget template provided by 

the implementing agencies. Methods used for such assistance typically included conducting annual 

training on FSNE budgeting and providing frequent or as-requested assistance “back and forth” by phone 

and written communications. Less frequently mentioned methods were site visits and Statewide 

conference calls. 

Approval of Local Project Plans 

Nearly four out of five respondents of the implementing agency survey indicated that the initial approval 

of local project and/or subcontractor plans was made by the implementing agency alone. In general, the 

implementing agencies interviewed indicated that State agencies had no input in the decisions to fund 

local projects and/or subcontractors. During the implementing agency and FNS review of the FSNE 

budget, the majority of local projects experienced no problems. Those who encountered issues reported 

that they had to document their space allowance, explain sources of non-Federal funds, and justify 

allowability of expenses. Local projects resolved these issues by reducing the budget, staff, and/or 

services, and/or by providing more clarification and justification. 

About one in five implementing agencies with local projects or subcontractors reported denying funding 

for FY 2004 to a local project or subcontractor. The main reasons cited for denial of funds were: 

inability to provide qualifying non-Federal contributions (62 percent of implementing agencies that 

denied funds), insufficient local plan (46 percent), and inconsistency between the selected target audience 

and implementing agency priorities (46 percent) (Exhibit A4-9). 

Approval of Implementing Agency Plans by State Agencies 

Prior to becoming a formal implementing agency, the agencies desiring to be included in the State plan 

were normally required to submit a plan for providing FSNE services. The State agency’s primary role in 

FSNE plan development was to review the plans that potential implementing agencies submitted and 

either approve their inclusion in the overall State plan, or reject the agency’s application to become an 

implementing agency. About one-third (34 percent) of the State agencies surveyed approved any 

potential implementing agency that submitted plans meeting the FSNE Plan Guidance requirements. 

However, prior experience as an implementing agency providing FSNE appears to have been a dominant 

criterion for approval of FSNE plans submitted from implementing agency applicants. While 33 percent 

of State agencies reported that they selected only the implementing agencies with prior FSNE experience, 

most of the State agencies that checked “Other” also explained that they simply continued to work with 

the implementing agencies that started FSNE in previous years (Exhibit 4-4). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-12 

Exhibit 4-4. State Agency’s Reasons for Selecting Implementing Agencies to 

Include in the State FSNE Plan in FY 2004 

Reason for Inclusion 

Percent of 

SFSAs 

Any potential implementing agency that met the requirements of the guidance was included 34% 

Only those implementing agencies with prior FSNE experience were included 33 

Agency used a competitive bidding system, and only implementing agencies with plans that 

met our competitive criteria were included 

6 

Agency established State-level goals and objectives for funding, and only those that fit within 

our funding priorities were included 

4 

Agency used a committee of nutrition education experts who reviewed and approved any 

implementing agency included in the plan 

4 

Other (mostly “continuing to work with the same implementing agencies from prior years”) 39 

Number of Respondents: 49 

Note: “SFSAs” refers to State food stamp agencies. One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: State Agency Survey 

State food stamp budget officers or program directors commonly reviewed the budget submitted by 

implementing agencies. A large majority of State agencies surveyed reported using the following criteria 

for reviewing implementing agency budgets: 

 Proposed expenses were reasonable and necessary as defined by FSNE Plan Guidance, for 

nutrition education activities (82 percent), 

 Calculations were free of errors (80 percent), 

 Adequate documentation was provided as basis for estimates (70 percent), and 

 Adequate assurances were included that non-Federal in-kind or cash contributions were allowable 

and provided as budgeted (70 percent). 

Among 23 State agencies interviewed, 83 percent indicated that their review criteria worked well. None 

of the implementing agencies interviewed reported that they needed to defend or justify their share of the 

State FSNE plan to the State agency. 

Sixty-five percent of implementing agencies interviewed said they encountered no problems in the plan 

development or approval process. However, about one-third of implementing agencies interviewed 

described various types of problems they encountered in the budget development and approval process. 

The issues included (in the order of prevalence): length of time for the approval process, staff salary and 

hiring freezes, agency budget freeze, changing fringe rates, discrepancies between the State and the 

Federal fiscal years, definition of in-kind program space, and requirement for prior approval of equipment 

purchases. Some of these problems occurred after the budget submission to FNS but before the final 

approval. Resolution of these problems involved removing an item from the budget or cutting back or 

eliminating some of the planned services in their plans. 

Only 8 percent of State agencies surveyed (four States) reported that they had denied FSNE funding to 

any organization that applied to be an implementing agency in FY 2004. Among these few States, some 

States denied funding on the basis that the proposed FSNE activities were not consistent with priorities of 

the State agencies or the activities duplicated services that were already underway or planned by another 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-13 

organization. Other reasons for denial of funding related to inconsistencies with the FSNE Plan 

Guidance, such as: inclusion of an inappropriate target audience in the proposal, lack of appropriate nonFederal funds, inclusion of nonallowable costs, and assessment by the State agency that the activities 

proposed are not approvable. 

Implementation of the FSNE Plan 

Once the FSNE Plan was approved, it was usually implemented as intended. The majority of 

implementing agencies surveyed (88 percent) stated their FY 2004 FSNE plan was fully or mostly 

implemented as approved (Exhibit A4-10). Only 7 percent reported that their plan was not at all 

implemented as approved. 

When there was deviation from the plan, it rarely impacted the goals, messages, or service delivery 

model. Instead, changes involved the number of classes or location. Among the 12 percent that had 

major deviations from the plan, reasons reported were: staffing shortages and/or an inability to hire 

qualified staff (62 percent) and a shortfall of non-Federal contributions that required adjustments in the 

number and type of FSNE activities (29 percent) (Exhibit A4-11). During site visits, both of these issues 

were repeated regularly, however, the interview responses suggested that the consequences of plan 

changes were generally minor. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV. FSNE Planning 4-14 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-1 

CHAPTER V. DELIVERY OF FSNE 

The purpose of FSNE is to achieve and sustain positive changes in eating and nutrition-related behaviors 

for those on a limited budget. To achieve these behavior changes requires multiple, coordinated channels 

of education tailored to the needs of individuals within their families, communities, and social structures. 

This chapter describes FSNE’s efforts to make these critical changes, including specific goals chosen, 

scope of services, methods of delivery, and how delivery was coordinated with other nutrition-related 

agencies. 

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS 

Purpose of Activities 

3⁄4 Implementing agencies emphasized multiple Dietary Guidelines for their target populations. 

3⁄4 The greatest proportion of implementing agencies placed a high emphasis on “Choose a variety of 

fruits and vegetables daily” (96 percent), and on “Let the Pyramid guide your food choices” (81 

percent). 

Scope of Services 

3⁄4 Participants were most likely to be school-aged children (42 percent), adults (36 percent), women 

(70 percent of adults), food stamp recipients (51 percent). 

3⁄4 The majority of local projects targeted food stamp participants or applicants. 

3⁄4 State food stamp agencies reported on average that 82 percent of counties were being served by 

some level of FSNE, with 42 percent reporting that every county in their State was served. 

Coordination of Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

3⁄4 The most frequently coordinated components of FSNE among implementing agencies were 

information and data sharing (96 percent), plan development (88 percent), and message delivery 

(87 percent). 

3⁄4 WIC and EFNEP were most often coordinated with FSNE, and most likely to be well-coordinated. 

Methods of Delivery 

3⁄4 The vast majority of implementing agencies used direct (98 percent) and indirect education (87 

percent) as delivery methods, while a third (33 percent) of implementing agencies used social 

marketing. 

3⁄4 Multiple group sessions were the most common direct education delivery mode across various 

participant groups and service delivery settings. 

Materials and Curricula 

3⁄4 Most implementing agencies (77 percent) relied on existing education materials or curricula rather 

than creating their own. 

3⁄4 While all implementing agencies used some sort of curricula, there was wide variation in the 

specific curricula chosen. The most commonly used were Fight BAC (81 percent), Eat Smart, 

Play Hard (73 percent), and Nibbles for Health (47 percent). 

FSNE as a Benefit of the Food Stamp Program 

3⁄4 While 94 percent of State food stamp agencies and 88 percent of implementing agencies viewed 

FSNE as a Food Stamp Program benefit, only 66 percent of State agencies, and 78 percent of 

implementing agencies specifically promoted FSNE as such.

Gaps in Service 

3⁄4 Reasons for gaps in service include inability to document income of participants, general lack of 

resources, and inherent issues in reaching the target population. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-2 

Purpose of Activities 

In FY 2004 the four core areas of Improved Dietary Quality, Food Security, Food Resource Management, 

and Food Safety identified in the FSNE Plan Guidance formed the conceptual framework from which 

implementing agencies based their activities. Within the context of the four core areas, implementing 

agencies typically emphasized multiple components of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for their 

target populations: 98 percent of implementing agencies used “Be physically active each day,” 99 percent 

used “Let the Pyramid guide your food choices,” and 99 percent used “Choose a variety of fruits and 

vegetables daily” (Exhibit 5-1). The least-used dietary guideline was “If you drink alcoholic beverages, do 

so in moderation,” used by only 49 percent of implementing agencies. Of those who used that guideline, 

76 percent reported a low level of emphasis. 

The level of emphasis placed on each of these guidelines differed by implementing agency. The greatest 

proportion of implementing agencies placed a high emphasis on the messages “Choose a variety of fruits 

and vegetables daily” (96 percent), and 81 percent of implementing agencies placed a high emphasis on 

“Let the Pyramid guide your food choices.” In addition, a majority of implementing agencies placed a high 

emphasis on “Keep food safe to eat” (62 percent). In comparison, only 31 percent placed a high emphasis 

on “Aim for a healthy weight,” 15 percent on “Choose and prepare foods with less salt,” and 33 percent on 

“Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugars.” There are no significant differences on 

which dietary guidelines were used by the types of implementing agencies. 

Exhibit 5-1. Implementing Agencies’ Use of Dietary Guidelines 

Of Those Who Used Guideline, the 

Level of Emphasis (%) 

Dietary Guidelines 

Percent 

that Used 

Guideline Low Moderate High 

Don’t 

Know 

Let the Pyramid guide your food choices 99% 4% 13% 81% 3% 

Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables daily 99 1 3 96 0 

Be physically active each day 98 24 38 36 3 

Keep food safe to eat 95 8 27 62 3 

Choose a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol and 

moderate in total fat 92 21 38 42 0 

Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake 

of sugars 90 20 46 33 1 

Choose a variety of grains daily, especially whole 

grains 89 19 3 44 2 

Aim for a healthy weight 86 21 47 31 2 

Choose and prepare foods with less salt 84 45 37 15 3 

If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation 49 76 20 2 2 

Number of Respondents: 79 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Web-based Survey 

The interview data suggested that nutrition education was provided within the context of a client’s limited 

budget. Making food dollars stretch while still eating nutritious meals was cited as an educational goal by 

various stakeholders at the implementing agency and local levels. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-3 

Many implementing agencies, such as in Nevada, operated on the premise that nutrition education helped 

to build life skills and should be a vital part of the K-12 school curriculum. The messages to students were 

to eat a variety of food and to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables. In Idaho, the “Got 

Calcium” youth curriculum was composed of four lessons aimed at instilling knowledge and changing 

behavior to increase the consumption of calcium-rich foods. This tested curriculum was intricately linked 

to the Idaho Teaching Standards, which made it very popular among teachers and principals. 

Including Environmental Change in FSNE: Nevada’s Approach to Changes in 

the Schools 

In Nevada, one of the university-based FSNE project’s key goals is to change the school 

environment to both put in place healthier food alternatives for children making food 

selections at vending machines, but also to encourage teachers and administrators to 

incorporate nutrition education into various aspects of classroom learning. Working in 

schools with large low-income populations, the nutrition educators coordinated with 

teachers and administrators to identify opportunities to integrate nutrition education 

into regular classroom activities. For example, one teacher conducted a spelling bee 

using the names of fruits and vegetables as the target words. Additionally, school-wide 

nutrition education activities were used to promote and reinforce information taught in 

the classroom. The goal of integrating FSNE with regular education was to assure that 

nutrition education would continue even if FSNE were no longer able to provide direct 

education at the schools. 

At the local level, FSNE goals were defined by the FNS four core areas. Most often, local projects/ 

subcontractors reported the following goals: increasing fruit and vegetable intake (62 percent), improving 

dietary quality (52 percent), and improving food safety (34 percent) (Exhibit A5-1). There were few local 

projects that described a message outside of the four core areas, except for addressing the importance of 

physical activity. One local project mentioned addressing money management and budgeting as a primary 

goal. Many of their clients did not have basic budgeting knowledge, which is vital when trying to stretch 

food dollars. 

The basic objectives of FSNE at the local level were consistent with implementing agencies’ objectives, 

i.e., about 65 percent of local projects focused on both knowledge and behavior change, although some 

projects focused primarily on increased knowledge or behavior change. The local projects interviewed 

described a wide range of topics that were the focus of their plans for nutrition education. The most 

commonly cited topics were: the importance of eating fruits and vegetables, nutritional quality of diets, 

food safety, the importance of physical activity, and food resource management (this issue is discussed 

further in Chapter V). 

Local projects’ reasons for targeting certain topics included the following: there was a good match 

between the educational message and the local project’s overall program mission; the message and 

curricula addressed the nutritional needs of the target audience (e.g., vegetable consumption being too low 

among the target population); culturally appropriate messages for the target audience; an approach to 

promote a healthy diet that is economically feasible; and an effort to prevent diabetes and obesity. Some 

reasons were based on feasibility of service delivery, such as the ease of working with fruits and 

vegetables in a classroom setting. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-4 

Many Cooperative Extension implementing agencies providing nutrition education tended to provide a 

choice to locals of numerous messages and approved curricula within the four core areas. Messages were 

selected after consulting with the local partner and class participants. Local projects and subcontractors 

reported that the messages chosen varied according to the age of the target audiences. Messages to youth 

were more likely to focus on increasing calcium intake, picking healthy snacks such as fruits and 

vegetables, and engaging in physical activity. Adults were exposed to all of those topics and, in addition, 

were taught about food resource management and menu planning. 

Targeting Children as Family Caregivers: The Flagler County Experience 

In Flagler County, Florida, the local FSNE project identified the fact that many of the 

older children with whom they were working were often responsible for shopping and 

cooking for their families. In many cases, these children came from single parent 

homes, where the parent worked all day and expected the children to help with cooking 

and shopping. While primarily using a State-level curriculum for their direct education 

project, the local staff incorporated several additional lessons and activities to promote 

smart food choices, food safety, and healthy eating. Children developed a school 

garden, where they could go and select fresh fruits and vegetables to take home. In 

addition, they made field trips to supermarkets, where they learned how to stretch food 

dollars and make smart selections. They also participated in cooking classes and 

demonstrations, and later were able to combine all of these skills by adopting a senior 

center and preparing a special meal for their adopted seniors. The children planned the 

menus, developed promotional posters supporting the nutritional value of the food they 

selected, purchased the food (with donated funds), and prepared and served the meals. 

These skills were then transferred to their home shopping and cooking experiences.

Cultural Adaptation of Messages. Most implementing agencies and local projects/subcontractors did 

not adapt messages to accommodate cultural influences on dietary practices. Instead, cultural influences 

were addressed through educational materials, culturally acceptable foods, bilingual educators, and 

curricula. A few modifications, however, were made to messages and are listed below: 

 In Minnesota, a Tribe subcontractor stated that there was a great focus on wild rice, food 

preservation, and community gardens. 

 In Arizona, a subcontractor reported that it was challenging to teach Tribal people the benefits of 

nonfat milk. Lactose intolerance was a concern, so other forms of calcium were emphasized. 

Another message was “Fry bread in moderation.” 

 In Oklahoma, one local project worked with Spanish-speaking young adults in an English class to 

teach them about nutritious foods outside of their typical diet. Exposing these students to new 

foods offered an opportunity to learn new English words, as well as helping them to improve their 

dietary quality. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-5 

Targeting Latinos in California: The Fresno County Latino 5-A-Day Campaign 

The Fresno County Cooperative Extension office was somewhat unusual, in that it 

received funds from two separate implementing agencies to conduct a number of 

diverse FSNE projects. The project funded by the California nutrition network was to 

conduct a version of the popular 5-A-Day program specifically addressing the needs of 

Latino audiences in three rural counties. The top three FSNE activities for the Latino 5-

a-day project included conducting a social marketing campaign through local television 

and radio, conducting promotional activities at retailers, farmers’ markets, Latino 

festivals and community organizations, and local agricultural fairs. Services were 

delivered through social marketing, including media promotions, printed materials, and 

outreach activities. Through this campaign, they delivered over one million media 

impressions.

Scope of Services 

Participant Demographics17

Implementing agencies were asked to estimate the demographic characteristics of the population served by 

FSNE. While 89 percent of implementing agencies made this estimate for at least one demographic 

category, only 33 percent of agencies were able to provide an estimate for every demographic category. 

Because the distribution was estimated, agencies tended to list round numbers (such as 25, 30, or 35 

percent). Through site visits, it became more apparent that some agencies did not systematically collect an 

unduplicated demographic count of participants. Despite these limitations the data provide the best 

available national description of the demographics of nutrition education participants. This description is 

presented below and in Exhibit 5-2. The demographic statistics represent the population served by the 

average implementing agency, not the FSNE participant population as a whole (i.e., data are not weighted 

by implementing agency size). 

Age. School-aged children (5–17 years) and adults (18–59 years) comprised the largest cohorts (42 

percent and 36 percent, respectively) of FSNE participants (Exhibit 5-2). Elderly and young children, 

including infants, jointly accounted for about 21 percent of all participants. A total of 68 implementing 

agencies (81 percent) were able to report on this measure. 

Race/Ethnicity. For race, 59 percent of participants were white, 23 percent were black/AfricanAmerican, 8 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native, 2 percent were Asian, 1 percent were Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 6 percent were some other race or a combination of two or more races 

(n=63). For ethnicity (n=62), approximately 20 percent of FSNE participants were identified as Hispanic 

or Latino (Exhibit 5-2). 

 

17 The study did not collect information on the number of clients served by FSNE. These data were not collected 

because at the time of the study data collection, implementing agencies and States had no standardized method of 

collecting client information. Some agencies counted client encounters, while others maintained an unduplicated 

count of individuals who attended FNSE activities. It was also not possible to obtain accurate counts of 

individuals receiving information through social marketing campaigns. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-6 

Gender. Females constituted the majority of the FY 2004 FSNE participants. In fact, implementing 

agencies reported serving more than twice as many females as males (70 and 30 percent of all adults, 

respectively). A total of 64 implementing agencies (76 percent) estimated this demographic category. 

Family Status. Respondents indicated that individuals, rather than families, constituted the majority (58 

percent) of their participants (Exhibit 5-2). 

Food Stamp Recipients. Just over half (51 percent) of FSNE participants were food stamp recipients or 

applicants, while 23 percent were income-eligible nonparticipants (Exhibit 5-2). A total of 54 

implementing agencies (64 percent) were able to report on this measure. 

Only 40 percent of local projects reported that they specifically targeted or served food stamp recipients. 

They typically had a broader low-income target population, but the majority were FSP participants or 

applicants. 

Many FSNE entities reported specific challenges in collecting information to document the income 

eligibility for food stamps. In one community the Council on Aging asked FSNE to provide workshops, 

but the local project could not demonstrate the exact income levels of that population. Similarly, day care 

centers frequently called requesting FSNE, but were not able to collect adequate income information. In 

most of these instances, implementing agencies and local projects tried to collect income information 

directly from individuals. Potential partners often did not feel comfortable asking their clients for this 

personal information. These FSNE entities did not report using alternative means, such as communitybased measures to approximate the average income of individuals from specific neighborhoods. 

Exhibit 5-2a. FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics

Of Those Able to Provide Data, the Mean Percent of Participants 

Demographic 

Category 

Number 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Percent 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

School-aged 

Children 

 (5-17 years) 

Adults (18-59 

years) 

Elderly Persons 

(60+) 

Infants and 

Young Children 

(Under 5 years) 

Participants’ 

Age 68 81% 42% 36% 14% 7% 

Exhibit 5-2b. FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics

Of Those Able to Provide Data, the Mean Percent of Participants 

Demographic 

Category 

Number 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Percent 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Not Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino 

Participants’ 

Hispanic or 

Latino Status 

62 73% 79% 18%*
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-7 

Exhibit 5-2c. FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics

Of Those Able to Provide Data, the Mean Percent of Participants 

Demographic 

Category 

Number 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Percent 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

White 

Black or 

African 

American 

American 

Indian or 

Alaskan 

Native 

Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian 

or other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Other 

(including 

two or 

more 

races) 

Participants’ 

Race 63 75% 59% 23% 8% 2% 1% 6% 

Exhibit 5-2d. FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics

Of Those Able to Provide Data, the Mean Percent of Participants 

Demographic 

Category 

Number 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Percent 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Female Male 

Participants’ 

Gender 64 76% 70% 30%

Exhibit 5-2e. FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics

Of Those Able to Provide Data, the Mean Percent of Participants 

Demographic 

Category 

Number 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Percent 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Individuals Families 

Participants’ 

Family Status 53 63% 58% 42%

Exhibit 5-2f. FY 2004 FSNE Participants’ Demographics

Of Those Able to Provide Data, the Mean Percent of Participants 

Demographic 

Category 

Number 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Percent 

Able to 

Provide 

Data 

Food Stamp 

Recipients or 

Applicants 

Food Stamp 

Eligible 

Nonparticipants 

(incoming up to 

130% of poverty) 

Other Low 

Income Persons 

(income up to 

185% of poverty) 

Other Persons 

(≥185% of 

poverty) 

Income and 

FSP Status of 

FSNE 

Participants 

54 64% 51% 23% 19% 6% 

* We included respondents whose percentages for demographic categories added up to 90 percent or more, 

therefore the averages within each category may not add up to 100 percent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Web-based Survey

Geographical Coverage of FSNE 

State food stamp agencies reported that 82 percent of counties on average were served by FSNE in FY 

2004, with 42 percent reporting that every county in their State was served (Exhibit 5-3). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-8 

Exhibit 5-3. Percent of Counties in a State Served by FSNE 

Percent of Counties Served Percent of States 

100% 42% 

75-99.99% 30 

50-74.99% 22 

25-49.99% 4 

0-24.99% 2 

Number of Respondents: 50 

Source: State Agency Survey 

The geographic coverage of implementing agencies within States varied substantially. While 45 percent of 

implementing agencies delivered some level of FSNE service within 75 to 100 percent of all counties in 

their State in FY 2004, 29 percent delivered some level of FSNE service within fewer than 25 percent of 

counties in their States (Exhibit A5-2). Because there are multiple implementing agencies in 20 States, 

some counties may be served by more than one implementing agency, possibly targeting different 

participant groups, while other counties may not be served at all. 

More than one-half (58 percent) of the implementing agencies reported that there was no change in the 

overall geographic coverage of their service area between FY 2003 and FY 2004 (Exhibit A5-3). About 

one-third of the agencies (32 percent) reported increasing such coverage, and 10 percent indicated reducing 

it. While implementing agencies were not asked in the survey why such changes occurred, interviews 

conducted during the site visits seemed to indicate that growth or contraction was mostly a function of the 

availability of non-Federal funds to support projects. 

A large proportion of local projects interviewed felt that there were areas or populations that needed FSNE 

services but were not reached. Such areas were usually in remote or rural regions of the State. One 

implementing agency stated, “There are counties that aren't being served because there is no one to take 

this task on and the implementing agency doesn't have funds to hire someone to start it up.” Also, given 

that in rural areas the population is spread out throughout a large area, the long distance necessary to travel 

to a class means that very few attend. In such circumstances, home visits become a likely, but costly, 

option. Finally, serving rural areas often requires more travel and increases costs. Some local projects 

pointed out that local partners provide staff time as a source of non-Federal funds while FSNE is being 

delivered, but this contribution does not cover the non-Federal share of travel time. This poses a constraint 

for local projects that count on partner contributions for their non-Federal funds. 

Coordination of Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

The delivery of nutrition education is coordinated with multiple partners at the State and local levels. For 

purposes of discussion we have categorized these partners as 1) other implementing agencies within the 

State, 2) other USDA-funded agencies in the State, and 3) non-USDA funded organizations. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-9 

Partnering with Other Implementing Agencies 

In States with more than one implementing agency, a potential “partner” could be another FSNE 

implementing agency. The most frequently coordinated components of FSNE among implementing 

agencies were information and data sharing (96 percent), plan development (88 percent), and message 

delivery (87 percent). Development of FSNE budgets, program evaluation and program monitoring were 

less likely to be coordinated (Exhibit 5-4). 

One issue observed in interviews, however, was related to the availability of local non-Federal funds, 

which are limited. As implementing agencies grow, they may begin to compete for local contributions and 

FSNE audience. While this did not seem to be a big issue at the moment, two implementing agencies 

stated they could see it as a potential problem in the future. 

Exhibit 5-4. Level of Coordination Among Implementing Agencies 

27%

38%

39%

31% 30% 36% 42%

36%

29%

33%

27%

28% 30% 24% 18% 3%

30% 18%

27%

15%

22% 24%

15% 9%

9%

27% 30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Information

and/or data

sharing

Plan

development*

Message

delivery

Referral of

clients

between

programs

Needs

assessment**

Message

development

Program

monitoring

Program

evaluation

Development

of FSNE

budgets

Activity

Percent Reporting Coordination

Well

Coordinated

Moderately

Coordinated

Little

Coordination

Don't Know

Number of Respondents: 33, *Number of Respondents for Plan Development is 34, **Number of 

Respondents for Needs Assessment is 32. 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Partnering with Other USDA-Funded Programs 

WIC and EFNEP were the USDA-funded programs most often coordinated with FSNE, and the success of 

the coordination was most likely to be reported as “well” (WIC, 27 percent and EFNEP, 50 percent). In 

comparison, the National School Lunch, Summer Food Service, Team Nutrition, Child and Adult Care 

Food Program, and School Breakfast were not as often, or as well, coordinated with FSNE. (Exhibit 5-5). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-10 

Strong Partnerships: The Michigan Breast Feeding Initiative 

In Michigan the Breast Feeding Initiative has been a long-standing partnership between 

WIC and the Michigan State University (MSU) implementing agency. At the local level, 

WIC referred its clients to “peer counselors” at the county extension FSNE program for 

more intensive breastfeeding support, including a visit to the hospital, at least one 

home visit, and weekly calls. The peer counselors were supported by certified lactation 

counselors. In FY 2004, WIC gave $500K to MSU for the Breast Feeding Initiative. As 

the WIC Nutrition Director stated, “The collaboration makes a lot of sense. WIC doesn’t 

have the capacity to provide intensive in-home support but does have access to lowincome pregnant women, while MSU has the experience and know-how of providing 

home-based services.” WIC also received data regularly from MSU to monitor the peer 

counseling. Data indicated that those who received peer counseling from MSU FSNE 

breastfed longer than those who did not. 

Exhibit 5-5. Perception of Implementing Agencies on Extent of Coordination with 

Other USDA Initiatives 

22% 17%

28% 23% 27% 28%

34%

13%

23%

22% 14% 10%

15%

27%

50% 9%

14%

13%

8%

4%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WIC EFNEP National

School

Lunch

Program

Summer

Food

Service

Team

Nutrition

Child and

Adult Care

Food

Program

School

Breakfast

USDA Initiatives

Percent Coordinated

Well

Coordinated

Moderately

Coordinated

Little

Coordination

Note: Exact number of respondents varied by USDA Initiative ranging from 76 to 79 respondents for each initiative. 

Additionally, one or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Information and/or data sharing, referral of clients, and delivery of nutrition education are the components 

of FSNE most likely coordinated among implementing agencies and other USDA-funded initiatives. The 

components reported to be the least coordinated include program monitoring, program evaluation, and 

budget development (Exhibit A5-4). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-11 

Coordination of FNS-Funded Programs: The Hawaii Experience 

One of the most innovative approaches to coordination of FNS programs occurred in 

Hawaii, where representatives from all FNS-funded programs worked together on a 

coordinating council to promote nutrition education in a consistent manner. This group 

was started by the local FNS Federal representative in Hawaii, and became a successful 

vehicle for program coordination. This group met quarterly, and developed common 

themes and messages that were reinforced throughout all of their programs. In FY 

2004, all agreed that promotion of fruits and vegetables would be their theme, and 

common and coordinated messages regarding this topic were used in WIC, the National 

School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, Summer Food Service, and FSNE. The 

group often discussed how to share and coordinate resources, including space, staff, 

and materials. 

Partnering with Non-USDA Programs 

In FY 2004, 38 percent of implementing agencies reported having formal collaborative relationships for 

the purpose of coordinating FSNE activities with other nutrition education initiatives in their State. Of 

those implementing agencies that reported a formal partnership, the most frequently cited collaborations 

occurred between State Departments of Education (45 percent) and other university or academic centers 

(39 percent) (Exhibit A5-5). 

Georgia Partnerships 

In one of the implementing agencies in Georgia, FSNE was provided in partnering senior 

centers through nutrition education classes, cooking demonstrations, and educational 

materials. Classes focused on nutritional needs, budgeting, food safety, and cooking 

techniques. The FSNE implementing agency also conducted evaluations of selected 

interventions, including baseline intake data collection (in-person interview) and followup. The local partners provided information to clients about classes, set up classes, 

assisted in teaching, and delivered nutrition education materials for indirect education to 

homebound Meals on Wheels customers. The local partners also took seniors shopping, 

using pointers from the FSNE local project to promote economical and nutritious choices. 

Both the local partner staff and the FSNE educator provided phone follow-up to 

homebound elders. 

Methods of Delivery 

For purposes of this study, three FSNE delivery methods were defined: direct education, indirect 

education, and social marketing. The definitions of these terms given to survey and interview respondents 

are provided below: 

 Direct education – Nutrition education interventions where participants were actively engaged in 

the learning process, either with an educator or through interactive media, such as kiosks or 

interactive web sites. The most common form of direct education was group lessons provided to 

FSNE participants. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-12 

 Indirect education – Distribution of information and resources that were primarily designed to 

increase public awareness of FSNE and/or that reflected FSNE Plan Guidance for key FSNE core 

elements. Indirect education included any mass communications, public events and materials 

distribution that were not part of social marketing or direct education efforts. 

 Social marketing – A disciplined, consumer-focused, research-based process to plan, develop, 

implement, and evaluate interventions, programs, and multiple channels of communications that 

were designed to influence the voluntary behavior of a large number of the target audience. A 

social marketing campaign had to include the following three features: 

− The campaign targeted a specific segment of the food stamp-recipient, low-income population. 

− The campaign addressed the specific nutrition needs of the target audience, associated 

behaviors, and their perceptions about reasons for and against changing behavior. 

− The campaign included interacting with the target audience to determine whether the message, 

materials, and delivery channel(s) were understood and meaningful and, thus, whether they 

had the potential to lead to behavior change. 

The vast majority of implementing agencies used direct education as a delivery method (98 percent). Most 

also used indirect education (87 percent), while one-third of implementing agencies used social marketing 

(33 percent). No implementing agency reported only using social marketing or indirect education, and only 

12 percent reported using only direct education. Instead, the majority of implementing agencies used a 

combination of methods, with 55 percent using direct and indirect education, and 31 percent using all three 

(Exhibit 5-6). 

Exhibit 5-6. Delivery Methods Used Singularly or in Combination 

Combinations of Delivery Methods 

Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies 

Direct and Indirect Education 55% 

Social Marketing, Direct and Indirect Education 31 

Social Marketing and Direct Education 1 

Social Marketing and Indirect Education 1 

Only Direct Education 12 

Only Social Marketing 0 

Only Indirect Education 0 

Number of Respondents: 77 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

The type of delivery method (i.e., direct or indirect education, social marketing) and format varied by the 

resources available at a particular local project/subcontractor, the partnerships created, and most 

importantly on the needs of the local population. Local projects and nutrition educators reported adapting 

classes to the needs of their population by having flexible schedules with night and weekend classes. They 

also reported conducting classes in Spanish or using the services of a translator. Regardless of how they 

might be tailored to specific audiences, the content of nutrition education was fairly standardized. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-13 

Direct Education 

During interviews, implementing agencies stated that, from time to time, they held one-time educational 

events, or encouraged one-on-one contacts, but most reported that direct education usually took the form 

of a series of classes. Almost every implementing agency reported the use of a series of classes to drive 

the message home. The classes allowed them to reach the most people using the resources available. 

“One to one is probably more effective [than group classes] but not very cost-effective,” noted one 

implementing agency. Other implementing agencies noted the educational benefits of interactions among 

participants, making nutrition education more engaging and empowering. 

Class series were typically between two and eight classes long. In site visits, local projects reported that 

the proportion completing the series varied widely, although they did not clarify the reason for this 

variation. 

The locations used for direct education indicate the particular importance placed on reaching youth 

compared to other populations: 81 percent of implementing agencies provided direct education in public 

schools, and 75 percent provided direct education in youth education sites such as YMCAs and preschools 

(Exhibit 5-7). Seventy-three percent of implementing agencies conducted direct education in elderly 

services sites, and 68 percent did so in emergency food assistance sites. Additionally, a high percentage 

(66 percent) of implementing agencies reported providing services at WIC clinics. Forty-six percent of 

implementing agencies provided direct education in food stamp offices and 49 percent in homes of FSNE 

clients. 

The mode of direct education delivery varied by type of setting. Some delivery methods were more likely 

to favor just one type of setting. Multiple group sessions comprised the largest proportion of direct 

education delivery modes in public schools (90 percent), other youth education sites (79 percent), and 

elderly service sites (67 percent) (Exhibit 5-7). However, 51 percent of food stamp offices used single 

group sessions to deliver direct education. The remaining settings including emergency food assistance 

sites, WIC clinics, and food stamp offices, were more likely to use a variety of direct education delivery 

modes. 

When asked why direct education was the most prevalent, implementing agencies described how direct 

education provided the opportunity for interactive teaching, the ability to tailor messages to specific needs, 

and the ability to get feedback from clients. Direct education also yielded reliable statistics about the 

number of clients reached. 

Interviews with nutrition educators indicated that for classes to be effective and encourage participation, 

use of visual aids and hands-on activities, such as cooking demonstrations, needed to be built into the 

lesson plan. Discussions and continuity also helped make classes more effective. Assigning homework 

and discussing topics such as “who ate new foods” at the next class helped promote this continuity. 

Nutrition educators reported that lectures without visual aids or hands-on demonstrations were more likely 

to occur when the classes were large. Almost half of the nutrition educators interviewed reported that their 

classes averaged more than 20 people. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-14 

Exhibit 5-7. Settings and Instructional Format Used for Direct Education by 

Implementing Agencies 

Of those who used setting, the percent citing as most frequent 

mode of delivery in setting 

Setting 

Percent 

using this 

setting 

One-onone single 

session 

with 

educator 

One-on-one 

multiple 

sessions with 

educator 

Group 

single 

session with 

educator 

Group 

multiple 

sessions 

with 

educator 

Other - 

Individual 

(selftaught) 

Public schools (K-12) 81 0 0 8 90 2 

Youth education sites, such as 

preschools, day care, YMCA, etc. 75 2 2 16 79 2 

Elderly services sites 73 4 4 22 67 4 

Emergency food assistance sites 68 31 4 25 37 4 

WIC clinics 66 18 14 22 35 12 

Churches/faith-based organization 

sites 64 6 2 23 69 0 

Adult education and training sites 62 2 2 15 81 0 

Homes of FSNE clients 49 26 56 3 15 0 

Food stamp offices 46 20 9 51 14 6 

Local Cooperative Extension 

offices 46 3 3 14 80 0 

Health care sites 42 16 13 26 42 3 

Food stores or other retail outlets 26 48 0 33 14 5 

Other 20 0 0 13 73 13 

Work sites 13 10 0 30 60 0 

Number of Respondents 77 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Various implementing agencies offered in-depth lessons on nutritious, affordable shopping beyond 

classroom lessons. For example, in Minnesota, supermarket tours were provided, while shopping 

assistance was provided to seniors in Georgia. Massachusetts used several creative forms of interactive 

delivery, offering demonstrations at farmers’ markets, heavily emphasizing visual aids, and including 

cooking demonstrations, food tastings, movement, and music in their classes. 

Direct Education in Food Stamp Offices. Forty-six percent of implementing agencies surveyed 

reported the direct delivery of FSNE in local food stamp offices. The most common mode of direct 

education delivery in this setting was to conduct one-time sessions, either to individuals (20 percent) or 

groups (51 percent). Only 14 percent of implementing agencies conducted multiple sessions within the 

local food stamp offices. 

Among the implementing agencies interviewed, about half stated that they provide FSNE in some food 

stamp offices. These results are similar to the survey response data. Among the implementing agencies 

that did provide FSNE in food stamp offices, only seven reported that they hold direct education classes, 

which is less than what was indicated on the responses to the survey. Four of these seven implementing 

agencies reported that their efforts in direct education were probably not very effective because the classes 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-15 

were one-time sessions, and it is difficult to prompt behavior change in the allotted amount of time. The 

most common reason for not conducting direct education at all was due to a lack of separate space in the 

food stamp office for conducting nutrition education; the implementing agencies believed that the waiting 

room of the food stamp office is a poor venue for the classes due to myriad activities occurring in the 

waiting room (i.e., many people passing through, and participants’ focus on their name and/or number 

being called). 

Interviews with local projects/subcontractors revealed similar issues. Only a quarter of respondents 

reported ever holding activities at food stamp offices, which again is somewhat contradictory to the survey 

where almost half reported direct education activities. Besides the reasons described above, one local 

project described how it was extremely difficult to get people to come to the food stamp office for four to 

six weeks in a row (which was the length of their FSNE class series). While some local projects had held 

activities at food stamp offices at least once, most were not currently doing so. 

Local Food Stamp Office Involvement in Durham County 

The Durham County Health Department in North Carolina reported a very strong 

partnership with the local food stamp offices. This relationship developed because 

North Carolina uses a county-administered approach to delivering Food Stamp Program 

benefits. The health department and the local food stamp agency were located within 

the same area of county government. As a result, the FSNE project received full 

cooperation from the local food stamp office, including the use of space for delivering 

classes, distribution of materials, participation of local food stamp officials on advisory 

groups, and coordination of activities. 

Indirect Education 

 

As stated above, 87 percent of implementing agencies reported delivering FSNE messages through indirect 

education in FY 2004. Among those using indirect education, the most common methods of delivery were 

print materials (96 percent) and public events such as health fairs (85 percent). Other types of methods 

described included displays, websites, and videos. 

During interviews, almost half of local projects reported that they provided FSNE materials to local food 

stamp offices. Promotional flyers/brochures were the most common form of indirect education provided 

to food stamp offices. However, several local projects/subcontractors wondered if their indirect education 

efforts were effective in reaching and teaching the intended audience. One local project played a FSNE 

outreach video at the food stamp office, but it did not generate any referrals. Another local project 

provided local food stamp offices with materials, but the local project was unsure whether the materials 

were distributed or used. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-16 

Getting Everyone Involved: Oklahoma’s Experience Incorporating Indirect 

Education into FSNE 

One of the key issues of concern to the Oklahoma State food stamp agency was how to 

best support the direct delivery of a Statewide nutrition education message to food 

stamp recipients. It was decided by the State agency that a calendar promoting 

healthy eating, which had been developed by the University of Oklahoma implementing 

agency, would be the best vehicle for delivering this message. The State food stamp 

agency decided that the calendar should receive wide distribution to as many food 

stamp recipients as possible. The State agency then required that the three other 

implementing agencies distribute the calendar to their FSNE clients and that all local 

food stamp offices distribute the calendar as well. As a result, Oklahoma officials 

estimate that over 50,000 food stamp recipients received the calendar. 

Social Marketing 

Social marketing as a strategy for FSNE delivery is predicated on the fact that individual behavior change 

takes place within the larger community and societal context, and that change must be made in these outer 

spheres of influence as well as at the individual level through the use of multiple channels. This important 

concept was the driving force behind many of the decisions made by implementing agencies employing 

this delivery method. Another key concept to those conducting social marketing was to develop a 

campaign based on research that described the needs of the target population, how they make nutritionrelated behavior decisions, and what may motivate them to make healthier decisions. 

Scope of Campaign. Social marketing campaigns that were conducted Statewide were likely to differ in 

approach from those that were concentrated more in specific geographic or regional areas. Geographic 

limitations were usually associated with the use of paid mass media. For example, in North Carolina, the 

social marketing campaign was designed to support and reinforce direct education activities. Since the 

direct education activities were focused in a limited number of counties, the social marketing campaign 

was only conducted in six of the counties where most of the FSNE participants were located. In 

California, messages were aired using media outlets in the six largest media markets in the State. These 

messages were reinforced through the use of bus and transit ads, distribution of printed materials, and 

outdoor billboard ads. 

As presented above, about one-third of implementing agencies conducted social marketing campaigns in 

FY 2004. Of these agencies, just over half conducted one campaign, 25 percent conducted two campaigns, 

and 22 percent conducted three or four campaigns. Of those conducting social marketing campaigns, 48 

percent of implementing agencies conducted a Statewide campaign. There were no significant differences 

on the number of campaigns by type of implementing agency nor whether the campaign was Statewide. 

From the perspective of the implementing agencies, one of the key elements in conducting a successful 

Statewide social marketing campaign is to involve multiple programs in reinforcing the message. 

Although there are some exceptions, social marketing was strongly associated with nutrition networks. Of 

the 27 implementing agencies with a nutrition network, 17 employed social marketing. Only nine of the 

implementing agencies that did not have a nutrition network conducted social marketing. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-17 

There was marked variation in social marketing campaigns. Arizona, Mississippi, and North Carolina 

focused their activities on large-scale coordinated campaigns, using media outlets like television and radio 

to promote tested messages. In contrast, Michigan relied more on efforts that were locale-specific. There 

was no significant association between type of audience and use of social marketing, whereas dietary 

quality messages were more likely to be chosen for a social marketing campaign than other types of 

messages such as food resource management, food security, and food safety. 

Arizona’s Social Marketing Campaign 

The Arizona nutrition network produced comprehensive materials based around the 

character of Bobby B-Well (and friends). Materials were developed after extensive 

formative research with the low-income target audience, and messages were 

subsequently tested in food stamp offices. Bobby B-Well and the supporting materials 

seemed to be used by all nutrition activities in the State, from elder health to summer 

feeding programs. This consistency of message was seen as one of the great strengths of 

FSNE from the perspective of the implementing agency, the State agency, nutrition 

educators, locals, and partners. An evaluation of the campaign indicated that a large 

proportion of food stamp recipients were reached by it, and of those reached, they were 

more likely to have knowledge on specific targeted nutrition topics than those who did 

not remember the campaign. 

Social Marketing Channels. Social marketing campaigns tended to use materials distribution, newsletters, 

and other printed materials as the key approach, or to supplement mass media. The most frequent channel of 

social marketing delivery was radio (62 percent), followed by television (46 percent), newspapers, and posters 

(both 42 percent). About a quarter of implementing agencies utilized mass distribution of materials through 

local food stamp offices (27 percent). The least used channel was mass mailings to individuals (15 percent) 

(Exhibit 5-8). Almost half of the implementing agencies used four or more channels to deliver social marketing 

(Exhibit 5-9). The Iowa nutrition network’s campaign Pick a Better Snack, for example, utilized TV, radio, 

billboards, and bus wrap advertisements. In addition, there were items such as displays used at grocery stores, 

newsletters for parents, and bingo cards to be used in schools. 

There was no particular combination of marketing channels that were used most frequently. 

Exhibit 5-8. Social Marketing Channels 

Channel Percent of IAs 

Radio 62% 

Television 46 

Newspapers 42 

Posters 42 

Videos/DVDs/Audiotapes 27 

Mass distribution through local food stamp offices 27 

Billboards 19 

Bus signs or placards 19 

Mass mailings to individuals 15 

Number of Respondents: 26 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-18 

Exhibit 5-9. Number of Social Marketing Channels Used 

Number of Channels Used Percent of IAs 

Used 1 channels for Social Marketing 16% 

Used 2 or 3 channels for Social Marketing 40 

Used 4 or 5 channels for Social Marketing 32 

Used 6 -8 channels for Social Marketing 12 

Number of Respondents: 25 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Message Development. Social marketing campaigns were developed in a variety of ways. According 

to interviews with implementing agencies, the most common methods were first to identify the specific 

target population, and then through formative research, such as focus groups, partner input, and pre/posttest of draft campaign materials, develop a targeted message and campaign. 

Fifteen implementing agencies – just over half of the implementing agencies that conducted social 

marketing in FY 2004 – reported State agency involvement in the development or implementation of the 

social marketing campaign. The State agency activities reported most often were the provision of 

information to facilitate reaching food stamp clients, and consultation on message delivery (73 percent for 

each, Exhibit A5-6). Fewer of these agencies reported State agency involvement in message development 

(40 percent) or evaluation (33 percent) of the social marketing campaign. 

Social Marketing Challenges. Two main challenges arose in the delivery of social marketing. One was 

that implementing agencies delivering social marketing found it challenging to document the income level 

of their audience, which is required for complying with the FSNE Plan Guidance. While most tried to use 

media outlets that could provide the implementing agency with documentation of audience reach, there 

were cases where the message was distributed to a broader audience that included persons not necessarily 

eligible for food stamps. The second major challenge was the limited ability of implementing agencies to 

document the impact of their mass media campaigns. It was much easier to measure an individual’s 

knowledge change after a series of eight classes, for example, than to measure the effect of a TV 

commercial on the low-income population in the State. It should be noted, however, that implementing 

agencies conducting social marketing strongly believed that the combination of direct education and a 

solid media campaign produced the best likelihood for behavior change. 

FSNE Materials and Curricula 

Implementing agencies drew upon many different sources to obtain nutrition education curricula and 

materials. FNS was cited most often as the source for FSNE materials and products (77 percent). Other 

commonly reported sources included the implementing agency itself (75 percent), another implementing 

agency (74 percent), another USDA agency (71 percent), and another Federal organization (70 percent) 

(Exhibit 5-10). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-19 

Exhibit 5-10. Sources of FSNE Materials and Products 

Source of Materials/Products 

Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies Reporting 

this Source 

Developed or provided by FNS 77% 

Developed by this implementing agency 75 

Developed or provided by another FSNE implementing agency 74 

Developed or provided by another USDA agency 71 

Developed or provided by another Federal organization, such as Department of Health 

and Human Services or National Cancer Institute 70 

Developed or provided by a private nonprofit organization 51 

Developed or provided by some other organization 31 

Developed or provided by a county- or regional-level affiliate of agency 30 

Developed or provided by a private for-profit organization 27 

Don’t know, local projects or subcontractors select their own materials 8 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Web-based Survey 

Implementing agencies used a variety of types of materials to deliver nutrition education. Brochures, 

booklets, fact sheets, or other informational handouts were used by 99 percent of implementing agencies 

(Exhibit 5-11). Such materials were typically used to augment approved curricula. Of those agencies, 69 

percent developed the materials used. Almost all of the implementing agencies also used nutrition 

education curricula (97 percent), cookbooks or recipes (92 percent) and posters, displays, and billboards 

(92 percent). Kiosks and computer work stations were least often used by implementing agencies (16 

percent and 30 percent, respectively). Implementing agencies were most likely to create their own staff 

training/manuals and newsletters, if they used such materials. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-20 

Exhibit 5-11. Types of Materials Used for FSNE 

Material, Product or Activity 

Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies That 

Used the Material 

Of Those That Used 

Material, Percent 

Developed by 

Implementing 

Agency

Brochures, booklets, fact sheets, or other informational handout 99% 69% 

Nutrition education curricula (e.g., lesson plans, curriculum kits) 97 65 

Recipes or cookbooks 92 56 

Posters, displays, billboards, or models 92 57 

Games 84 32 

Staff training manuals/guides 84 89 

Newsletter series 78 82 

Videos, DVDs, or audiotapes 74 29 

Electronic presentations or transparences 65 78 

Calendars 62 24 

Television and/or radio advertisements or PSAs 48 61 

Self-instructional workbooks or home study 33 33 

Computer-based or Internet learning modules 30 53 

Kiosks/Information tables 16 80 

 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Web-based Survey

In general, implementing agencies had different curricula depending on the age group. Important 

considerations when choosing a curriculum were whether it was flexible enough to cover a variety of 

topics and whether it could be tailored to meet the needs of a particular class or individual. On average, 

implementing agencies used six curricula with a maximum of 15 curricula used. Only about 10 percent 

used one curriculum only (Exhibit A5-8). 

Exhibit 5-12. Most Commonly Reported Curricula Used by Implementing Agencies 

Curricula Percent of IAs 

Fight BAC! – The Partnership for Food Safety Education 81% 

Eat Smart. Play Hard. – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 73 

Nibbles for Health – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 47 

Community Nutrition Action Kit – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 42 

Eating Right is Basic-Enhanced – Michigan State University Cooperative Extension 41 

Other 34 

Number of Respondents: 74 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Interviewed implementing agencies felt strongly that they should not “reinvent the wheel,” and that they 

should use what had been shown to be effective by other States or recommended by FNS. When new 

materials were created, they were often used to supplement the approved curricula or as part of a 

comprehensive social marketing campaign. Some States did create new curricula, usually because nothing 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-21 

existed that met their needs. Most often, however, implementing agencies modified existing materials to 

meet the needs of a particular audience, such as the elderly, people with low literacy, or people with 

developmental disabilities. 

Recent Materials Created by Implementing Agencies

Arizona: As part of the comprehensive campaign, created ten 30-minute video episodes based on 

the Bobby B-Well character, mascots, and display boards. Network partners could order materials 

on-line. 

Idaho: Created a “Got Calcium” youth curricula composed of four lessons intended to increase 

consumption of calcium-rich foods, aimed at both increasing knowledge and behavior change. The 

curricula also included a physical activity component and a pre-post knowledge and behavior 

change survey. Evaluation tools were also included. Funds from the University of Idaho (College of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences) were used to develop and test the materials with 250 school children. 

Teachers also evaluated the lessons. The curricula included overheads and PowerPoint slides. 

In FY 2004, 67 percent of implementing agencies required their subcontractors or local projects to obtain 

approval for specific nutrition education materials prior to use, especially when the materials were being 

used for the first time. 

Most local projects interviewed cited FNS as being a good source to find approved curricula if necessary. 

Often the regional offices knew of curricula that had been used and approved in other States, and could 

direct implementing agencies and local projects to the source of these curricula. Typically, local projects 

used approved curricula and were required to identify supplementary materials prior to receiving funding. 

If any new materials were requested during the program year, they would be reviewed and approved by the 

implementing agency before being used. 

In FY 2004, 84 percent of implementing agencies used the Food Stamp Nutrition Connection Website. 

Implementing agencies used the website to identify or obtain nutrition education materials produced by 

other FSNE implementing agencies or FNS (98 percent), to view or download information from FNS on 

FSNE policy (95 percent), and to view information on nutrition topics relevant to FSNE (76 percent). 

Although the majority of implementing agencies found the website useful, a few found that the site was 

difficult to navigate. 

Occasionally, nutrition educators and local projects made modifications to materials for reasons similar to 

those cited by the implementing agencies. Most educators said that the materials needed to be more 

culturally appropriate, more geared towards low-literacy populations, and more interactive. An additional 

motivation for tailoring materials included the varying availability of foods in certain locales. 

While most of these minor modifications or supplements were reviewed by the implementing agency, 

some local projects had their own local review process. In one community in Arizona, materials were 

modified to make them more culturally appropriate. A patient education committee at a hospital approved 

all nutrition education materials after testing the materials with patients. Evaluation tools were used to get 

feedback and assess effectiveness of the material. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-22 

Materials Developed by Nutrition Educators 

Sarasota County Extension Nutrition Educators developed the “Go with the Grain” 

campaign, which was a Sarasota County Extension original. The educators won the ‘Go with 

the Grain' Distinction Award through General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition. The 

curriculum was used with all age groups. 

University of Massachusetts Extension Nutrition Educators created the ‘Fantastic 

Food Adventures’ curriculum for preschoolers. The curriculum incorporated music, 

movement, arts and crafts, teaching, and discussion. It was developed by adding graphics 

and recipes and changing the layouts of standard Creative Packets materials.

Languages Used in FSNE Activities 

Only three implementing agencies reported using only English in their materials or activities. Almost all 

agencies reported using two or more languages, with 28 percent of implementing agencies reporting three 

or more languages other than English, and one implementing agency reporting 12 languages. 

 

Ninety percent of implementing agencies used materials or conducted activities in Spanish. 

Approximately 13 percent of agencies used materials or conducted activities in Vietnamese, and 10 

percent in Hmong. Other languages were much less frequently used (Exhibit A5-9). 

FSNE as a Benefit of the Food Stamp Program 

There is a clear guidance from FNS that FSNE providers should identify FSNE as a benefit of participating 

in the Food Stamp Program. At a minimum, FNS requires FSNE implementing agencies to use standard 

language on program materials to acknowledge the FSP as a source of funds. During interviews, 

implementing agencies described how the standard language required by FNS was included on all 

materials, and how they felt that they had met the requirement of promoting FSNE as a part of the FSP. 

While almost all State agencies (94 percent) viewed FSNE as one of the benefits of a Food Stamp 

Program, a smaller percent (66 percent) actively promoted FSNE as a Food Stamp Program benefit 

(Exhibit A5-10). Similarly, 88 percent of implementing agencies viewed FSNE as one of the benefits of 

FSP, but somewhat fewer identified it to clients as a FSP benefit (78 percent) (Exhibit A5-11). During 

interviews, some implementing agencies and local projects described their hesitancy to promote FSNE as a 

part of the FSP. There were fears that associating nutrition education with the FSP would be a barrier to 

client participation, because in their mind the association might be a negative one to clients. In fact, many 

implementing agencies did not discuss the link with the FSP except on printed materials because the 

perception was that the FSNE audience might be sensitive to being associated with the FSP, whether they 

were recipients or not. 

All stakeholders—implementing agencies, local projects, State agency, and partners—were quick to note 

that FSNE participants saw the local project or subcontractor as the provider of nutrition education rather 

than FSP within the larger implementing agency and that they may not have understood the link between 

FSNE and the Food Stamp Program. In Hawaii, the implementing agency affirmed that “while we use the 

standard language, the participants believe that the nutrition education is being provided by the University 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-23 

and not the Food Stamp Program.” Similarly, respondents in California suggested that “while all the 

materials and videos have the food stamp tag line, the clients do not see this program as part of the Food 

Stamp Program; they see it as a Department of Health or a University of California, Davis program.” 

This hesitancy towards closely tying FSNE to the FSP resulted in the perception by State agencies that 

participants were probably not aware of the link. Only 4 percent of State agencies believed that FSNE 

participants “very much recognized FSNE as a FSP benefit” (Exhibit A5-12). Instead they were more 

likely to think that FSNE participants “somewhat recognized” FSNE as a benefit (45 percent), had little 

recognition of FSNE as a benefit (35 percent), or had no recognition of FSNE as a FSP benefit (10 

percent). 

Gaps in Service 

In general, implementing agencies, local projects, nutrition educators, and FSNE partners felt that they 

were targeting populations most in need of services, and, for the most part, reaching them. However, 

during site visits, implementing agencies and local projects/subcontractors reported gaps in services. The 

reasons for the gaps they identified are described below. 

Insufficient Non-Federal Funds 

In some instances, gaps in service occurred when FSNE entities encountered difficulty in obtaining nonFederal funds. Potential partnerships were rejected because the partner agency was already using its funds 

to reimburse costs for another Federal program. In addition, an implementing agency or local project was 

sometimes under the impression that the type of private organization was not acceptable within the FSNE 

guidelines. Implementing agencies cited faith-based organizations, private shelters, and food pantries as 

organizations that were considered unacceptable within the FSNE guidelines. Local projects described 

that at times they would work with these partners and not claim reimbursement; however, the number of 

classes, or extent of nutrition education provided, was usually limited due to budget constraints. They 

described the careful balance of focusing on finding sources for non-Federal funds and reaching the target 

audience. 

Difficulties in Serving Target Populations 

There were also inherent challenges of serving segments of the target population, namely working adults, 

school children, older adults, and certain cultural groups. The reasons for the difficulties varied. However, 

respondents reported that meeting the audience in their natural, or convenient environment was most 

effective in addressing the barriers. 

Respondents reported it was difficult to recruit working adults into a class series. Balancing work and 

home often meant that nutrition education classes fell low on the list of priorities. Local projects that were 

successful in serving difficult to reach populations partnered with an agency that already had an available 

audience, such as parent meetings in Head Start. Parents seemed to value the Head Start learning 

opportunities and were likely to participate in the special series on nutrition education provided by FSNE 

staff. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V. Delivery of FSNE 5-24 

Similarly, reaching seniors was a challenge. Seniors with limited income often depended on congregate 

meal sites. This is an opportunity for FSNE nutrition educators to provide a series of classes. However, 

seniors who did not access such sites were more challenging to serve. 

The challenges in reaching school aged children were somewhat different. Finding predominantly lowincome children in schools was easy; engaging teachers and principals was the challenge. The pressure to 

meet teaching performance standards and to have students test well often meant that nutrition education 

was hard to fit into school schedules, as it was considered “nice but not necessary.” Furthermore, local 

projects explained that many teachers found the paperwork associated with documenting costs reimbursed 

by non-Federal funds too burdensome. FSNE projects that were most successful were the ones that made 

the paperwork as short as possible or integrated nutrition education with the existing curricula. Perhaps as 

important are the reports by local projects that the long-standing, positive relationship built between 

schools and FSNE staff was critical to implementation. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-1 

CHAPTER VI. FSNE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION 

Successful implementation of FSNE services requires a wide range of management and monitoring 

activities including: provision of an adequate number of personnel with appropriate qualifications as well 

as educational facilities and materials, securing needed funds and monitoring expenditures, tracking the 

educational activities conducted and the participation rates, and collecting and analyzing data to evaluate 

the quality of program implementation and impact. This chapter presents the study findings related to 

topics of FSNE management with a special focus on: 

 FSNE staff qualifications and training, 

 Educational services monitoring and reporting, 

 Financial management, and 

 Program evaluation. 

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS 

3⁄4 The majority (70 percent) of FSNE staff in FY 2004 had a Bachelor’s degree or higher. 

However, in general, nutritionists/dietitians and staff with a Master’s degree (totaling 40 

percent) typically supervised nutrition educators rather than conducting educational 

activities, and the minimum educational requirement for nutrition educators was a high 

school diploma or GED. This suggests that the majority of nutrition education activities 

were conducted by staff with a Bachelor’s degree or less (constituting 59 percent of FSNE 

service delivery staff). 

3⁄4 To monitor implementing agencies’ nutrition education activities, State agencies relied on 

annual FSNE reports and other quantitative data. In addition, 21 State agencies reported 

conducting on-site reviews of local projects, and 21 State agencies (not necessarily the 

same 21 agencies) reported interviewing the implementing agency staff as a way of 

monitoring. 

3⁄4 About half of implementing agencies with local projects or subcontractors conducted 

internal reviews or audits of FSNE spending by their local projects or subcontractors, 

mainly to ensure that nonallowable expenditures were not included in claims for 

reimbursement. 

3⁄4 Three-quarters (74 percent) of implementing agencies reported that they conducted some 

type of outcome evaluation of FSNE services, although the respondents did not clearly 

differentiate between program process monitoring and outcome evaluation. 

3⁄4 Of implementing agencies that conducted outcome evaluations, a majority reported using 

in-person client interviews or surveys to collect data – typically self-reported, pre-post 

data, including dietary recalls. Fifty percent of those agencies reported positive behavior 

changes. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-2 

Staff Qualifications and Training 

Education and Qualifications of FSNE Staff 

The fundamental goal of FSNE is to design and deliver learning experiences that facilitate the voluntary 

adoption of healthy eating and other nutrition-related behaviors among low-income individuals with 

limited resources. Essential for achieving this goal are personnel with appropriate skills and expertise to 

deliver and manage the planned educational services. The survey data indicated that, in FY 2004, a large 

proportion of FSNE staff possessed a Bachelor’s or graduate degree. 

On average, 19 percent of service delivery staff 18 were registered dietitians (RDs) and another 21 percent 

held a Master’s degree or higher (but not RD certification) (Exhibit A6-1). Thus, at least 40 percent of 

staff had education beyond the Bachelor’s degree or were RDs. Another 29 percent held a Bachelor’s 

degree but were not RDs; although some of these staff may have had some formal nutrition training (e.g., 

graduate courses in nutrition).19 At the other end of the educational spectrum, 30 percent of service 

delivery staff had a high school diploma, GED, or some college education but not a Bachelor’s degree. 

Generally, the implementing agencies interviewed indicated that nutrition educator supervisors and 

program directors were required to have a graduate degree, but the minimum requirement for nutrition 

educators was a high school degree or GED, although most implementing agencies required nutrition 

educators to complete some kind of training (examples are discussed in the next section). The agency 

staff explained that experience working with the public and a basic understanding of nutrition principles 

were the most important qualifications for FSNE service delivery staff. 

Most of the local projects interviewed also reported that they used nutritionists/dietitians for providing 

general program oversight and supervising paraprofessionals (defined as staff with less than a Bachelor’s 

degree). Paraprofessionals, who constituted 30 percent of FSNE service delivery staff, were mostly 

assigned to conduct nutrition education activities. Information from all these sources suggests that, while 

some of the nutrition educators may be registered dietitians or have a Master’s degree, most nutrition 

educators are paraprofessionals or college graduates with some training related to nutrition (these groups 

constitute 59 percent of the service delivery staff). They are supervised by registered dietitians and/or 

staff with a Master’s degree or higher. 

One of the reasons cited for the local projects’ reliance on using paraprofessionals as nutrition educators 

was that professionals are hard to recruit in remote areas and hard to retain in areas with more alternative 

job opportunities. Another rationale for specifically assigning paraprofessionals was to implement a peercounseling model of nutrition education. For example, the University of Minnesota FSNE staff strongly 

believed that this is the most effective way to work with FSNE participants to achieve behavior change. 

In terms of specialized instructional skills, 65 percent (of 26 implementing agencies interviewed) reported 

using bilingual staff in providing nutrition education. However, about one-half of these implementing 

 

18 “Service delivery staff” refers to personnel responsible for tasks such as education of participants, program 

planning and evaluation, and material development, but excluding personnel who performed only administrative 

tasks. 

19 Data are not available regarding whether the staff with a Master’s degree or a Bachelor’s degree (but not RDs) 

had any nutrition-related education or training. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-3 

agencies explained that recruitment of bilingual staff with nutrition education qualifications was 

challenging – mostly due to the scarcity of bilingual applicants with an advanced degree or relevant 

training in nutrition. 

Of the 62 local projects interviewed, they were evenly split on whether or not they used volunteers. 

Those that used volunteers generally assigned them to assist nutrition educators (48 percent of projects 

using volunteers) and/or to perform administrative support tasks (42 percent). Among these local 

projects, the most common sources for recruiting volunteers were local colleges and university health 

programs, which sometimes placed students as interns. Volunteers were also recruited through general 

word of mouth in the community. 

In general, implementing agencies reported that staff turnover among their FSNE staff or at the local 

project level was not a major problem. However, about one-third of 17 implementing agencies 

responding to this interview question reported high staff turnover at the local level. Further, about onehalf of these responding agencies cited budget constraints, low salary rates, or hiring freezes as barriers to 

recruiting and hiring needed staff. 

Staff Training 

Training opportunities for FSNE delivery staff were widespread. Of all implementing agencies surveyed, 

83 percent reported that they routinely provided training. These agencies reported high rates of training 

offered to new professional staff (75 percent of those offering training routinely), current professional 

staff (86 percent), and current paraprofessional staff (81 percent) (Exhibit A6-2). The training was 

provided to staff at the implementing agencies as well as local projects and subcontractors. 

Most local projects interviewed Stated that mandatory training was provided to their staff on a regular 

schedule (annual, biannual, quarterly, or monthly). Typically, training was conducted by the 

implementing agency and covered a wide range of topics including general nutrition education topics, 

how to use a specific curriculum, and/or program administrative procedures. Training topics were 

selected based on decisions by the implementing agency, requests and suggestions from the local staff, or 

results of the local project’s annual evaluations. 

Among the 21 local projects interviewed that hired new staff in FY 2004, the majority (57 percent) 

provided mandatory training for the new staff. Training for new local staff was primarily conducted by 

the local project director, and it focused on educational curriculum and program administrative 

procedures. Local project staff were uniformly satisfied with the amount of training their staff received. 

Most local agencies interviewed (81 percent) did not have certification programs available for their 

paraprofessional staff. 

Nearly half of the implementing agencies (45 percent) surveyed reported training staff of agencies other 

than their local projects and subcontractors. Among the agencies that trained external organization staff, 

the most common recipients of such training were staff at public schools (69 percent) and childcare or 

preschool programs (63 percent) serving as local FSNE partners, and the training focused on FSNE 

administrative procedures. In general, local partners interviewed said that they did not receive training 

from the local project or the implementing agency. This may be due to the fact that most local projects 

had trained their own staff to conduct nutrition education, rather than using their partner organizations to 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-4 

deliver nutrition education. The partners who received training (mostly addressing administrative issues) 

were unanimously satisfied with the training. 

Monitoring and Reporting of FSNE Services 

Successful implementation of FSNE services requires that State agencies and implementing agencies 

monitor and ensure the appropriate and effective execution of the approved plans. This monitoring needs 

to address the following types of issues through periodic reports and other communications: 

 Is FSNE being delivered in compliance with Federal and State requirements and FY 2004 FSNE 

Plan Guidance regarding target audiences and the content of educational services? 

 Do educational activities delivered focus on high-priority health and nutrition issues? 

 Do FSNE providers have sufficient and qualified staff and appropriate educational facilities? 

 To what extent are the planned services implemented? 

 What are the impacts of services on participants? 

In addition, as part of the administrative requirements to receive reimbursement for FSNE activities, State 

food stamp agencies are required to report their allowable nutrition education expenditures to FNS on a 

quarterly basis. The State agencies prepare these reports using information from implementing agencies, 

three-quarters of which rely on data from local projects or subcontractors. Financial reporting includes 

both the amounts of expenditures and the supporting documentation that establishes that the expenditures 

are allowable and reasonable. Data collected in this study suggest general areas of responsibility for State 

agencies, implementing agencies, and local projects in the overall FSNE management structure as shown 

in Exhibit 6-1. While highly simplified, this schematic portrays in a broad sweep, the respective roles that 

key FSNE organizations play in the overall FSNE management and program monitoring efforts. 

Monitoring the Implementation of FSNE Activities 

In FY 2004, the only FNS reporting requirements in place were the required elements for the annual 

FSNE Year End Report, which included: name of project or campaign, geographical areas reached, type 

and number of delivery sites, duration of social marketing campaigns, description of the target audience, 

primary nutrition education methods, core elements covered and key messages, type of evaluation 

(formative, process or impact), and number of direct and indirect contacts with FSP 

participants/households and with all persons/households, by project and State total.20

In FY 2004, all States collected some data on the number of clients served by FSNE, but the methods by 

which they tracked, recorded, and reported this information varied. Further, the type of FSNE activity 

data collected varied across different service delivery methods—direct education, indirect education, and 

social marketing. There was also considerable variability within each delivery method. 

 

20 These were the required elements for the FY 2004 final report specified in the FY 2005 FSNE Plan Guidance 

(March 2004). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-5 

Exhibit 6-1. FSNE Program Management Functions Performed by State Agencies, 

Implementing Agencies, and Local Projects/Subcontractors 

For direct education initiatives, the most common way of reporting participation was to count the number 

of individuals who received FSNE service at least once during a reporting period regardless of how many 

times or classes the person participated (unduplicated counting). Three-quarters of implementing 

agencies responding to the survey (representing 46 States) counted the unduplicated number of persons 

attending classes or participating in one-on-one educational activities. Sixty-one percent (in 38 States) 

counted the number of persons completing a course or series of lessons (Exhibit A6-3). Only 43 percent 

of implementing agencies in 28 States provided the number of contacts or duplicate counts of persons 

attending multiple classes or sessions. These responses suggest that most, but not all, implementing 

agencies kept records in a way that allowed reporting of number of individual participants, rather than the 

contact counts that were requested by the FNS Plan Guidance for the FY 2004 FSNE final report. 

Implementing agencies also used a variety of ways of quantifying the delivery of indirect education, and 

tended to report their indirect education activities using multiple measures. The most common method 

was counting the number of items (flyers, newsletters, etc.) distributed (73 percent of implementing 

agencies in 42 States, Exhibit A6-4). For reporting FSNE events, such as one-time distribution of 

nutrition education materials at a health fair or a community event, counting the number of events was 

more common (61 percent of agencies in 40 States) than assessing the number of participants at those 

events (45 percent of agencies in 32 States). Other commonly used methods associated with indirect 

education services were: counting mailings (46 percent), counting the number of times messages were 

delivered through methods such as distribution of flyers in food stamp offices (39 percent), and assessing 

the number of exposures to posters or placards (31 percent). 

Local Projects and 

Subcontractors 

• Train staff 

• Monitor services 

• Report program 

monitoring data to 

implementing agency 

Implementing Agencies with 

Local Projects 

• Train staff 

• Monitor local projects’ service 

delivery/collect program process 

data 

• Evaluate service outcomes 

• Conduct financial monitoring and 

audits of local projects 

• Report program monitoring data 

to State agency 

Implementing Agencies 

without Local Projects 

• Train staff 

• Monitor services/collect program 

process data 

• Evaluate service outcomes 

• Report program monitoring data 

to State agency 

State Food Stamp 

Agencies 

• Review monitoring 

reports 

• Review financial 

reports 

• Review evaluation 

results 

• Conduct site visits 

• Compile annual 

reports to FNS 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-6 

Among the implementing agencies using social marketing, 73 percent (in 16 States) collected some type 

of data on the reach of the marketing campaign, while 27 percent (in 6 States) did not (Exhibit 6-2). 

Implementing agencies with social marketing campaigns measured their reach in various ways, and 68 

percent (in 12 States) used more than method in various combinations. Fifty-eight percent (in 15 States) 

tracked the number of times social marketing messages were delivered; 50 percent (in 12 States) recorded 

demographics of populations exposed to social marketing messages through media estimates of reach and 

placement. A substantial minority (42 percent in 10 States) collected data from individuals to estimate 

the number who were aware of the social marketing messages. 

Exhibit 6-2. Information Collected Regarding Social Marketing Campaigns 

Type of Information Percent of IAs 

Tracked the number of times social marketing messages were delivered 58% 

Assessed demographics of populations exposed to social marketing messages through media 

estimates of reach and placement 50 

Collected data from individuals to estimate the number who were aware of the social 

marketing message(s) 42 

Assessed the percentage of the target population reached by media used to deliver social 

marketing messages 38 

Assessed geographic reach of social marketing messages 35 

Tracked the number of individuals who responded to a specific social marketing message 31 

No information on FSNE implementation was collected 27 

Number of Respondents: 26 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Reporting of FSNE Activities and Spending by Local Agencies and Subcontractors 

The majority (80 percent) of local projects interviewed indicated that their program monitoring 

requirements were specified by their implementing agency, most commonly in the form of quarterly 

written reports (one-half of local projects interviewed). One-third of local projects said that they 

submitted monthly monitoring reports to implementing agencies. In addition to these reports, 40 percent 

of local projects received site visits from their implementing agencies. 

Reports submitted by local agencies to implementing agencies commonly included participation data (69 

percent of local projects interviewed) as well as expenditures (24 percent), program narratives (24 

percent), and evaluation results (23 percent) (Exhibit 6-3). Fifty-two percent of local projects interviewed 

indicated that their implementing agencies specified certain performance criteria such as certain levels of 

direct and indirect participant contacts. Implementing agencies also required linking financial reporting 

of staff hours and travel costs for educational activities (e.g., number of classes held). Most local projects 

reported that they had no problems meeting the reporting requirements set by the implementing agency. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-7 

Exhibit 6-3. Types of Data Required by Implementing Agencies in Reports 

Submitted by Local Projects 

69%

24% 24% 23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Participation data Expenditures Program narratives Program

outcomes/evaluation

results

Data Types Required

Percent of Local Projects

Number of Respondents: 62 

 Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

 Source: Local Project Interviews 

In addition, about one-third of local projects interviewed reported that they had some type of performance 

review or evaluation of FSNE service delivery staff. Most of these were through a formal performance 

review process, though some used a combination of formal and informal processes, including teaching 

observations and feedback from partner agencies. 

State Agency Role in Monitoring FSNE Activities 

There is a general requirement for State agencies to monitor implementing agencies, and FNS requires a 

final Year End report on an annual basis in a specific format. Many State agencies have expanded their 

monitoring of FSNE activities by requiring implementing agencies to submit quarterly progress reports 

and conducting site visits. The progress reports describe activities directed at meeting the State-specific 

FSNE goals and objectives as well as expenses to assure that FSNE activities are being conducted in 

accordance with the approved plan. These reports are prepared using a format agreed to by the State 

agency and the implementing agency. 

Most (85 percent, 41 States) of the implementing agencies surveyed reported that State agencies reviewed 

their final FSNE reports. A similar percentage (80 percent, 36 States) indicated that State agencies 

reviewed quantitative data from the implementing agency (e.g., interim progress indicators) in addition to 

the final FSNE reports on FSNE operations (Exhibit 6-4). In addition, some implementing agencies 

reported receiving active oversight by the State agency during the course of the year. The oversight 

involved State agencies conducting on-site reviews of local FSNE projects (48 percent, 21 States) and/or 

State agencies interviewing the implementing agency staff (48 percent, 21 States). A similar percentage 

of implementing agencies reported State agency holding regular meetings with the implementing agency 

(46 percent, 25 States) and reviewing qualitative data from the implementing agency (40 percent, 22 

States). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-8 

Exhibit 6-4. State Food Stamp Agency Monitoring of Implementing Agencies 

Monitoring Methods Percent of IAs 

Review of final FSNE reports prepared by the implementing agency for FNS 85% 

Review of quantitative data supplied by FSNE implementing agency 80 

On-site reviews of local FSNE projects 48 

Conducted interviews with the implementing agency coordinator or other project staff 48 

Held regular meetings with implementing agency staff 46 

Review of qualitative data supplied by FSNE implementing agency 40 

Review of results or outcomes of social marketing campaigns 29 

Other 23 

Not applicable (SFSA did not monitor implementing agency activities) 9 

Number of Respondents: 80 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

On the other hand, State agency interview data suggested that, in as many as half of the States, monitoring 

of FSNE activities is mostly based on reviewing the financial reports sent by implementing agencies. Site 

visits were noted as being the most effective monitoring tool, and some State agencies that did not 

conduct site visits expressed that they would like to do so in the future. On the other hand, State agencies 

interviewed generally reported that they were satisfied with the information received from implementing 

agencies. 

Interview responses based on a sample of 28 implementing agencies also suggested that the extent of 

ongoing monitoring by State agencies varied across States. Over half of these implementing agencies 

indicated some State agency monitoring via progress reports. Some State agencies were proactive in 

working with implementing agencies, using informal contacts by phone and e-mail as a tool for staying in 

touch with implementing agencies. On the other hand, 11 percent of implementing agencies did not know 

what monitoring the State agency did. 

Financial Management 

The implementing agencies were at the center of the FSNE financial management process. Commonly, 

implementing agency staff responsible for monitoring FSNE spending were project directors/principal 

investigators and finance managers, contracts and grants administrators, or accountants. Most 

implementing agencies monitored FSNE expenditures through regular reporting from their local projects 

and submitting invoices to the State agency where the information was further monitored. 

Monitoring of Local Project FSNE Spending 

Financial audits of FSNE spending were conducted for a large majority of local projects in FY 2004. In 

the survey, 53 percent of implementing agencies with local projects or subcontractors reported that FSNE 

spending at the local level was reviewed or audited by the implementing agency staff (these agencies 

represented 28 States) (Exhibit A6-5). Ten percent of implementing agencies commissioned an 

independent auditor (in six States), and another 10 percent of agencies reported that their local projects or 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-9 

subcontractors commissioned independent audits of the local FSNE spending (in six States). Thus, 20 

percent of implementing agencies reported that their local projects had independent audits. These figures 

may underestimate the actual proportion of local projects and subcontractors with audits, because 

implementing agencies may not have been aware of all such audits. 

Based on interviews of 12 implementing agencies that conducted local project audits, these audits were 

initiated by implementing agencies or required by the State agency and focused primarily on ensuring that 

unallowable expenditures were not included in claims for reimbursement. Seven out of ten implementing 

agencies that described their local audits in FY 2004 reported that they found few or no problems. 

Local project managers interviewed said that implementing agencies generally did not require local 

projects to obtain prior review and approval for FSNE expenditures. Projects that were subject to prior 

review of spending were required to get approval for expenditures over a specified amount, and/or 

specific items in their budget.21 However, local projects subject to this kind of review reported that it was 

easy to provide the requested information. 

Seventy percent of local projects interviewed said that expenses for items such as travel, materials, and 

salary, and non-Federal funds contributed by partners were monitored monthly either by local projects 

themselves (63 percent) and/or by their implementing agencies (40 percent). While 35 percent of local 

projects interviewed reported no problems with the financial monitoring process, 25 percent said getting 

the information needed (e.g., from local partners) to report in a timely manner was an ongoing challenge. 

Financial Monitoring at Implementing Agencies 

Nearly two-thirds of the implementing agencies (63 percent) had internal reports of agency-wide 

expenses in addition to their invoices to State agencies. At least one-third of the implementing agencies 

also reported using one or more of the following additional methods to monitor FSNE expenditures and 

funds remaining in their budgets: internal reports of local project/subcontractor expenses, meetings of 

implementing agency personnel, prior approval of financial commitments (contracts, equipment 

purchases, etc.), agency-wide spending forecasts, and meetings with local project/subcontractor managers 

(Exhibit 6-5). Only 10 percent of the implementing agencies reported relying solely on invoices, audits, 

or fiscal reviews to monitor spending and manage budgets. 

 

21 We did not obtain data on the specific level of spending that requires prior review and approval by the 

implementing agencies. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-10 

Exhibit 6-5. Additional Methods of Fiscal Monitoring by Implementing Agencies 

Method Percent of IAs 

Internal reports of agency-wide expenses 63% 

Internal reports of local project/subcontractor expenses 45 

Meetings of central implementing agency personnel 43 

Prior approval of financial commitments of local projects/subcontractors 40 

Agency-wide forecasts of actual spending 35 

Meetings with local project or subcontractor managers 35 

Local project or subcontractor forecast of actual spending 27 

None of the above (relied only on invoices and audits/reviews) 10 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Financial Monitoring of Implementing Agencies by State Agencies 

Fifty percent of implementing agencies submitted invoices or similar requests for reimbursement to the 

State agency at least quarterly, and about one-third (32 percent) invoiced monthly. The remainder 

invoiced less frequently (Exhibit A6-6). Over half of the implementing agencies reported providing 

information on each of the following types of expenditures in their invoices to the State agency: total 

personnel compensation, travel expenses, indirect costs, equipment and supplies, nutrition education 

materials, and purchased services (Exhibit A6-7). Non-Federal contributions were less commonly 

reported in invoices, with 45 percent reporting in-kind contributions and 20 percent reporting cash 

contributions. About one-third (35 percent) reported providing information on building or space 

expenses. Fewer than 20 percent of the implementing agencies reported including narrative information 

or staff hours as part of their invoices. 

Data from the State agency survey also indicated that almost all State agencies reviewed implementing 

agencies’ invoices as a tool for financial monitoring. Further, in FY 2004, about half of the States 

reviewed other financial reports submitted by implementing agencies, and a third of the States met with 

implementing agency staff to discuss FSNE spending (Exhibit A6-8). In addition, 19 percent of States 

conducted a review or audit of implementing agency’s FSNE financial records; while 23 percent received 

reports from internal audits conducted by implementing agencies, and one State commissioned an 

independent audit of its implementing agency. Many States (31 percent) described other methods through 

which they received formal review or audit information on FSNE spending including general State audits 

and general audits by implementing agencies’ parent organization (e.g., universities) (Exhibit A6-9). 

Forty-four percent of State agencies reported that they collected no formal financial review or audit 

reports from their implementing agencies in FY 2004. 

Almost every State agency interviewed reported receiving all information on expenditures that it 

requested from the implementing agency. Most State agencies requested progress reports and invoices at 

least quarterly from implementing agencies and felt that implementing agencies were timely in getting 

these data to the State agency. Almost every State agency reported that implementing agency operations 

and financial management seemed to be running smoothly. State agencies also seemed to indicate that 

the procedures they used for monitoring implementing agency expenditures worked well. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-11 

Financial Oversight Required by the Implementing Agency’s “Parent” 

Organization 

An interesting challenge encountered by implementing agencies in land grant 

universities was the financial oversight required by the university administration. In 

particular, implementing agencies reported having problems buying food to use in 

FSNE activities and having to explain and justify food purchases, as State universities 

restrict food purchases for hospitality purposes. For example, one implementing 

agency wanted to buy large quantities of shortening to make “fat tubes” in order to 

visually represent the amount of fat in different types of food. The university 

repeatedly denied the purchase of shortening, saying that food was not allowed for 

hospitality. Eventually the purchase was approved, but the implementing agency 

noted that it was a major obstacle reflecting a lack of understanding among the 

university financial authorities about FSNE and nutrition education in general. Other 

land grant university-based implementing agencies reported similar experiences. 

Strengths and Challenges of Monitoring Process 

Overall, most implementing agencies felt that their monitoring system allowed them to meet State agency 

requirements. Strengths of the monitoring process cited by implementing agencies included the use of an 

online monitoring and reporting system and the ability to produce multiple types of reports on 

participation rates and program operations. A few Cooperative Extension Service projects used electronic 

financial systems put in place by the university. Weaknesses cited were: significant time and/or staff 

investment required in the monitoring process, lack of an automated or electronic monitoring system, 

monitoring tools that produced inadequate or confusing reports, and lengthy internal approval processes. 

For example, some Cooperative Extension implementing agencies felt that complying with the approval 

processes imposed by the university was cumbersome and ineffective. Implementing agency directors 

described problems stemming from the fact that university administrative staff did not understand the 

goals of FSNE and therefore would reject spending for FSNE that should have been approved. 

Evaluations of FSNE Services 

Well-designed, systematic evaluations are needed to assure the accountability of FSNE and inform future 

planning and policy refinement. The FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance stressed the importance of evaluating 

the effectiveness of nutrition education, referring to three types of research activities that are appropriate 

for achieving these evaluation objectives: 1) formative evaluations, such as pilot testing of educational 

materials and curricula, to ensure the best fit between the services offered and the educational needs of the 

target audience; 2) implementation process evaluations to ensure that educational services are 

implemented as planned; and 3) outcome or impact evaluations to assess the changes in participant 

knowledge and behaviors after receiving nutrition education services (outcome) and to determine the 

extent to which such changes can be attributed to the services received (impact). 

The surveys and interviews for this study collected data on the nature, extent, and results of evaluations 

performed in FY 2004. The survey questions focused on the implementation process and outcome 

evaluations, and asked respondents to describe in general terms the implementing agencies’ involvement 

in FSNE evaluations in FY 2004. The interview questions were intended to collect more in-depth data 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-12 

regarding research designs and measures used, study findings, and how the findings were applied to 

ongoing educational services. In this section, we present the data as they were reported by FSNE 

agencies, beginning with some caveats. 

In the interviews, detailed information about outcome evaluations of FSNE services was scarce and at 

times seemed at odds with data obtained from the surveys. Many implementing agencies and local 

projects Stated that they conducted outcome evaluations, though most respondents did not seem to 

differentiate between program process monitoring and outcome evaluation data collection. For example, 

projects used data on frequency of attendance in FSNE activities as the primary participant outcome 

measure with little further evidence of behavior and/or knowledge change to show that their program was 

successful. Measures of “participant outcomes” mostly consisted of program participants’ self-reported 

data on behavior change (e.g., dietary practices), and/or satisfaction with the program. Some respondents 

at both the implementing agency and local project levels acknowledged the scarcity of outcome and 

impact evaluation data. They explained that they did not have enough resources (including staff time, 

money, and training) to adequately evaluate program outcomes. 

Formative Evaluation 

Seventy-one percent of implementing agencies surveyed reported that they tested some or all of their 

educational messages, using methods such as focus groups and interviews of food stamp recipients and 

other low-income groups. Additionally, focus groups were frequently used to test comprehension and 

language of materials. An example from interviews with the Arizona implementing agency is presented 

below. 

Example of Formative Evaluations 

Arizona: In a project that served a large number of participants representing many 

different dialects of Spanish, materials were modified by a bilingual nutrition educator 

to make them more culturally appropriate. A local project (a hospital) had a Patient 

Education Committee that tested all the materials with patients before approving each 

nutrition education material used for FSNE. In addition, evaluation tools were used to 

get participant feedback and assess effectiveness of the materials. 

Nutrition educators further explained that, even when no formal method for assessing materials' 

effectiveness was in place, anecdotal feedback from participants provided them with useful information 

on the materials being used for FSNE. 

Implementation Process Evaluations 

Data from process evaluations were limited to basic frequency counts of activities, educational materials, 

and participants. How these data are collected and reported are discussed in earlier section of this 

chapter, under “Monitoring and Reporting of FSNE Services.” 

Descriptions of evaluation activities conducted by local projects made references to various activities 

without clear distinction about the type of evaluation. Most local projects collected data on the extent of 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-13 

participation, participant demographics, reach of message, participants’ behavior change (generally 

measured with a pre- and post-test), and participant feedback (e.g., satisfaction) on lessons taught (Exhibit 

A6-10). Local projects reported collecting some type of data during every class, which may represent 

mostly implementation process data. 

Outcome Evaluations 

On the web survey, the majority of implementing agencies surveyed reported that they were involved in 

outcome evaluations of many (45 percent) or some (29 percent) FSNE services. These were delivered 

either at the implementing agency or the local project level in FY 2004.22 The remainder (26 percent) did 

not report conducting any outcome evaluations. Over half (67 percent) of implementing agencies 

indicated that they were involved substantially in outcome evaluations, either providing significant 

support and technical assistance (37 percent) to local projects or conducting the outcome evaluations 

themselves (30 percent) (Exhibit A6-11). 

Implementing agencies indicated that the availability of resources, including adequate time and expertise 

of staff (49 percent) and funds (34 percent), affected decisions about which services were evaluated 

(Exhibit A6-12). Only a few agencies mentioned aspects of the delivery and policies, such as new target 

audiences and initiatives introduced, as the impetus and focus for outcome evaluations. 

Based on interviews of 17 implementing agencies that described their outcome evaluations, it appears that 

participant outcome evaluations typically focused on both behavior change and knowledge change 

(Exhibit 6-6). Across various types of services (or methods of service delivery) conducted, the majority 

of implementing agencies (67 percent) indicated that education classes were evaluated. The most useful 

study results, according to the interview respondents, were data on behavior change (outcomes) and 

program utilization (e.g., process measures of the number of clients participating, the number of repeat 

contacts, and the number of FSNE events held). 

Of 26 implementing agencies that described their outcome evaluations in interviews, 77 percent indicated 

that their outcome evaluations of FSNE services were not conducted by an outside evaluator. It is 

possible that some of the internal evaluations may have been conducted by a faculty member who is not 

directing the nutrition education, thus assuring a degree of objectivity. Further, information provided by 

interview respondents was also scanty regarding the data collection measures, timing, and procedures. 

Seventy-six percent of implementing agencies reported using in-person client interviews or surveys to 

collect data for outcome evaluations – typically self-report, and pre-post data, including dietary recalls. 

For example, the University of Georgia implementing agency developed a questionnaire to measure 

participants’ knowledge, behavior, and attitude change as a result of their whole grain promotion 

campaign. Similarly, an implementing agency in Massachusetts collected data on clients’ readiness for 

change focusing on physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and consumption of high-fat 

foods. Another measure of educational outcomes was to document “plate waste” in school cafeterias and 

collecting anecdotal evidence from teachers regarding their students’ eating habits. 

 

22 In the survey instrument, outcome evaluations were defined as “assessment of changes in client behavior, 

environmental changes, or other effects of FSNE.” 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-14 

Exhibit 6-6. Descriptions of Outcome Evaluations Based on Implementing Agency 

Interviews 

 Percent of IAs

Focus of Outcome Evaluations 

Behavior change 65% 

Knowledge change 30 

Awareness of messages 10 

Attitude change 10 

Diet recall 10 

Client reading level 5 

Staff performance 5 

Appropriateness of materials 5 

Number of Respondents: 21 

What services were evaluated? 

Education classes 67% 

All services 17 

Train the trainer 11 

Community-based programs 11 

School-based programs 6 

Senior programs 6 

Other 11 

Number of Respondents: 18 

What methods were used? 

In-person client interviews/surveys 76% 

In-person partner interviews/surveys 18 

Staff observations 12 

Field observations 12 

Interactive computer kiosks 0 

Other 12 

Number of Respondents: 17 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Interviews 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-15 

Example of a Systematic Outcome Evaluation 

The University of Georgia, Department of Food and Nutrition conducted an evaluation 

of its curriculum on whole-grain foods for senior citizens in FY 2004. The goal of the 

curriculum was to improve intakes of whole-grain foods and related behaviors. The 

intervention and evaluation were conducted with 84 congregate meal participants in 

several senior centers. Pre-test and post-test questionnaires were developed 

specifically for this project and administered face-to-face by trained interviewers. The 

evaluation found that, after the intervention, participants were significantly more likely 

to demonstrate knowledge of how to identify whole-grain foods, and that their 

reported intakes of certain whole-grain foods increased significantly, from 5.8 to 6.9 

servings per week. The results were published in the Journal of Nutrition for the 

Elderly.23

FSNE Staff’s Assessment of Evaluations 

Forty-three percent of implementing agencies surveyed described factors, such as difficulty in designing 

evaluation instruments and accessing existing data that can be used as outcome indicators, that were 

impediments for conducting outcome evaluations. The largest barrier to data collection cited by local 

projects was a lack of resources (either money or time). Areas for improvement were noted including: 

better trained data collectors and more comprehensive data collection (either collecting more data, or 

collecting more demographic data that would allow for more stratification). Interview respondents Stated 

that they needed effective instruments that they could use to better prove the success of their program. 

Nonetheless, 50 percent of implementing agencies interviewed believed that their outcome evaluations 

found positive behavior change among clients, such as improvements in dietary practices (Exhibit A6-

13), and 66 percent felt that their data were reliable. Implementing agencies used these data primarily to 

satisfy their State agency’s program monitoring reporting requirements. A majority of implementing 

agencies interviewed also reported that they used the results of outcome evaluations to improve the 

quality and delivery of nutrition education and FSNE-related policies and planning. 

 

23 Ellis, J., M.A. Johnson, J.G. Fischer, and J.L. Hargrove (2005). Nutrition and Health Education Intervention for 

Whole Grain Foods in the Georgia Older Americans Nutrition Program. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 

Vol. 24(3) 2005, pp. 67-83. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI. FSNE Program Management and Evaluation 6-16 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-1 

CHAPTER VII. BUDGETS AND OUTLAYS

This chapter presents information on FY 2004 FSNE budgets and outlays of funds, both at the 

implementing agency level and by States. Financial data provide a perspective on the scale of FSNE and 

a “common denominator” for comparing the level of activity across States. For this study, State-level 

budget and outlay information were obtained from existing FNS databases, but States do not report detail 

for their implementing agencies to FNS. To fill this gap, the implementing agency survey collected data 

on the sources and uses of funds in FY 2004. The interviews provided further insights into how FSNE 

was funded and what factors affected levels of spending at the local and implementing agency level. 

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS 

3⁄4 Federal outlays for FSNE totaled $147 million in FY 2004, while non-Federal outlays 

totaled $148 million. 

3⁄4 Total FSNE outlays ranged from about $20,000 in Hawaii to $65 million in California, with 

a median State total of $3.5 million. The ten States with the most FSNE outlays spent 62 

percent of the total. 

3⁄4 On average across the Nation, total FSNE spending was $12.35 per FSP participant. 

3⁄4 States varied considerably in the level of FSNE spending relative to the size of the target 

population. Among the States, the median FSNE outlay was $11.21 per FSP participant, 

with the middle 50 percent of States spending between $5.83 and $19.40 per FSP 

participant. 

3⁄4 The largest sources of non-Federal funds for FSNE were the implementing agencies 

themselves, State land-grant universities or Cooperative Extension Services, and local 

public schools. 

3⁄4 The largest components of implementing agency outlays were for staff salaries and benefits 

(64 percent), indirect costs (13 percent), and contracts, grants and agreements (10 percent). 

3⁄4 Although implementing agencies were allowed to claim Federal reimbursement for 50 

percent of approved outlays, they reported spending more non-Federal funds than Federal 

funds. Constraints in financial processes at the State and implementing agencies affected 

the balance of Federal and non-Federal outlays. A key constraint was the implementing 

agencies’ uncertainty about the actual amount of non-Federal funds that would be 

contributed by partners. 

3⁄4 Three-quarters of implementing agencies spent at least 75 percent of their budgets. When 

implementing agencies were unable to spend substantial portions of their budgets, the 

reasons included: problems with cooperation of partners, staff turnover, and delayed startup. 

3⁄4 The study was constrained by the limited extent of standardized data on FSNE outlays. 

Extensive documentation of FSNE outlays existed at all levels, but this documentation often 

did not use the standard categories for sources of funds and types of outlays in the FSNE 

Plan Guidance. Data on outlays by type of service or target audience were not available. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-2 

The following topics are presented in this section: 

 Background on FSNE funding rules and processes, 

 Sources and limitations of the FSNE budget and expenditure data, 

 FSNE budgets for FY 2004, 

 National and Statewide FSNE FY 2004 outlays, 

 Per-capita measures of FSNE outlays, 

 State agency FSNE outlays for internal expenses in FY 2004, 

 Implementing agency FSNE outlays for FY 2004, 

 Sources of non-Federal funds, 

 Uses of funds, 

 Nonreimbursed implementing agency outlays, and 

 Unspent funds for FSNE at the implementing agency and State levels. 

FSNE Funding Rules and Processes 

As discussed in Chapter III, States and implementing agencies must obtain approval from FNS for FSNE 

plans in order to claim Federal reimbursement for FSNE outlays. FNS provides Federal funds for 50 

percent of outlays for approved activities, subject to availability of funds. (For expenditures on Indian 

reservations, FNS reimburses 75 percent of allowable costs.) The FSNE plans include budgets for the 

sources of non-Federal funds and for the use of funds. Thus, the approved FSNE plan defines the 

activities for which Federal reimbursement may be claimed and specifies the maximum amount of 

Federal reimbursement for each implementing agency. States may submit amended FSNE plans to 

request additional funds. 

States submit quarterly reports to document the Federal share of reimbursable FSP administrative 

expenses, including FSNE outlays. States prepare these reports using documentation submitted by 

implementing agencies, including outlays of non-Federal funds and outlays for which Federal 

reimbursement is requested. Documentation of non-Federal outlays identifies the organization providing 

the funds and whether the contribution was in cash or in-kind. All organizations reporting FSNE outlays 

must maintain records to substantiate their outlays, including time records for personnel. Cash 

contributions from private sources are reimbursable if FNS has approved a waiver for their use. In-kind 

contributions from private sources can be used by implementing agencies but are not reimbursable. 

Nonreimbursable outlays are not considered FSNE outlays under FNS rules. 

 

Sources and Limitations of the FSNE Expenditure Data

Before examining the findings regarding FSNE budgets and expenditures, readers should be aware of the 

sources and limitations of the financial data obtained for this study. The data sources included FNS 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-3 

records of approved FY 2004 FSNE budgets for all States, an FNS database of FY 2004 Federal and nonFederal FSNE outlays for all States,24 and the surveys and interviews described in Chapter II. 

 

Although the implementing agency survey referenced budget and expenditure data that all implementing 

agencies are expected to maintain, and although the categories were taken from budget instructions in the 

FY 2004 FSNE Plan Guidance, there were frequent gaps and inconsistencies in the data provided by the 

implementing agencies. States and implementing agencies establish their own categories for tracking and 

reporting detailed expenditures, as they are not required to report them in the same format as the FSNE 

budget. Where possible, study staff attempted to follow up and resolve these problems, either during site 

visits or through telephone and e-mail contacts. Study staff conducted a detailed review of the 

implementing agency survey data, State agency survey data, and FNS administrative data on State-level 

FSNE budgets and outlays to resolve discrepancies and impute missing data. This review focused 

primarily on obtaining the best possible estimates of total outlays for each implementing agency. These 

efforts resulted in the availability of total budget and outlay data for 72 of the 84 implementing agencies 

that responded to the survey. These 72 implementing agencies are referenced as the “financial analysis 

sample.” There were, however, only 42 implementing agencies with usable data on the composition of 

FSNE outlays by type of expense (personnel, grants and contracts, supplies, etc.), and 39 with usable data 

on the composition of outlays by source of funds. The analysis in this chapter also uses the FNS 

administrative data on State-level FSNE budgets and outlays to provide a description of FSNE finances in 

the 49 States that had FSNE outlays in FY 2004, plus the District of Columbia. 

The study plans included collection of additional details of the implementing agencies’ expenses, 

including the following: 

 Implementing agency staff hours and costs by level of staff (professional, paraprofessional, 

other), separately for the implementing agency central office and local projects/subcontractors; 

and 

 Expense detail (compensation and benefits, materials, travel, etc.) for sampled local projects or 

subcontractors. 

The additional implementing agency data were collected from 16 of the 33 implementing agencies that 

were visited. This subset of the site visit sample was not sufficiently representative to serve as a basis for 

analysis. It was not feasible to collect these data in all of the implementing agency site visits due to time 

constraints and limitations of implementing agency records. This part of the interview protocol had been 

included on an exploratory basis, and the study confirmed that substantial changes to record keeping 

would be required to support routine reporting of this information. 

The same factors of burden and record structure affected the effort to collect expenses from local projects 

in the interview sample. In addition, expenses were often not tracked at the local project level in a way 

that would permit compiling a complete report of the project’s expenses. Often local projects could only 

identify expenses for line items that they controlled (such as travel and purchases of food), and the types 

 

24 These data include all States, except Delaware and the District of Columbia. Delaware and the Virgin Islands 

did not report any FSNE outlays for FY 2004. Guam reported outlays but was excluded from the analysis due 

to the small size of the program and the lack of implementing agency data. States may have revised their 

reported outlays since the data were provided by FNS in November 2005. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-4 

of expenses under local control varied. For these reasons, we did not attempt to analyze the composition 

of local project expenses. 

FSNE Budgets for FY 2004

Budgets provide a measure of the planned scale of FSNE and the commitment of resources. Based on 

FNS data for all approved FSNE plans and implementing agency data collected for the study, State 

budgets for FY 2004 totaled $228 million in Federal funds and $242 million in non-Federal funds. Thus, 

the grand total budgeted from the implementing agencies’ perspective was $470 million. From FNS’ 

perspective, the $228 million in approved Federal funds represented 50 percent of the approved budgets, 

so the grand total of approved budgets was $456 million. (Exhibits A7-1 and A7-2 present summary data 

on the budgets of the implementing agencies in the financial analysis sample.) 

In the implementing agency sample, the average budget for non-Federal funds exceeded the average 

budget for Federal funds by 6 percent. Although States can claim Federal reimbursements (and pass them 

on to the implementing agencies) for 50 percent of total allowable FSNE expenses, interview data suggest 

one explanation for why implementing agencies reported that the non-Federal share of approved budgets 

exceeded the Federal share. When implementing agencies prepare their budgets, they often have 

uncertainty about the amount of non-Federal funds that will be available from other agencies that agree to 

provide these funds for FSNE. For this reason, implementing agencies often obtain commitments from 

providers of non-Federal funds that exceed the requested amount of Federal funds, in case some agencies 

do not provide the full amount committed during FSNE planning. It is also possible that the budgets 

reported by some implementing agencies were not final, even though the survey was conducted after the 

end of FY 2004 and requested approved budget data. 

National and Statewide FSNE FY 2004 Outlays 

Before examining FSNE outlays in detail at the implementing agency level, we begin with the national 

and State perspectives. 

National FSNE Outlays 

Nationwide outlays for FSNE totaled $295 million in FY 2004, as shown in Exhibit 7-1. These data 

include the Federal total of $147 million and the non-Federal total of $148 million for all States, not just 

those represented by the financial analysis sample.25 

 

25 The FSNE outlay total for the 72 implementing agencies in the analysis sample was $260 million, 88 percent of 

the national total. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-5 

Exhibit 7-1. National and Statewide FY 2004 FSNE Outlays 

Outlays in Dollars 

(rounded to nearest $1,000)

 National Total Outlays $294,533,000 

Federal 146,688,000 

Non-Federal 147,845,000 

Statewide Total Outlays 

Mean $5,891,000 

Minimum 20,000 

25th percentile 1,558,000 

Median 3,537,000 

75th percentile 5,479,000 

Maximum 65,084,000 

Source: FNS National Data Bank, claims submitted by States on FNS-269 reports. Excludes Delaware, Guam and 

the Virgin Islands. Data extracted in November 2005 and subject to revision. 

Statewide FSNE Outlays 

Among the States, the mean total outlay was $5.9 million and the median was $3.5 million. Half of the 

States spent between $1.6 million (the 25th percentile) and $5.5 million (the 75th percentile). The range 

was from about $20,000 in Hawaii to $65 million in California. As shown in Exhibit 7-2, each region had 

a mix of States in different quartiles for total outlays, but there were notable clusters of States with similar 

levels of outlays. For example, the neighboring States of Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana fell in the 

lowest quartile, while the top quartile included Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, and Michigan. 

Exhibit 7-2. States by Quartile of Total FY 2004 FSNE Outlays (in Dollars) 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-6 

The top ten States, in terms of FSNE outlays, spent between $9.7 million and $65.1 million (Exhibit 7-3). 

These States accounted for 37 percent of all food stamp participants and 62 percent of all reported FSNE 

outlays. (Federal and non-Federal outlays, number of FSP participants, and outlays per participant in FY 

2004 for the top 10 States are presented in Exhibit A7-3.) 

Exhibit 7-3. Top 10 States in Total FY 2004 FSNE Outlays 

(Federal and Non-Federal) 

State Total Outlays 

(rounded to nearest $1,000) Percent of National Total Outlays

California $65,084,000 22% 

Pennsylvania 19,901,000 7 

New York 15,839,000 5 

Michigan 13,218,000 5 

Missouri 13,013,000 4 

Illinois 11,771,000 4 

Wisconsin 11,470,000 4 

Minnesota 11,311,000 4 

Alabama 10,041,000 3 

Arizona 9,700,000 3 

 

Total for top 10 States 181,349,000 62 

 Source: FNS National Data Bank, claims submitted by States on FNS-269 reports. Data extracted in November 2005 

and subject to revision.

Per-Capita Measures of FSNE Outlays 

The study sought to measure the relationship of FSNE outlays to the size of the population of FSNE 

participants – i.e., FSNE outlays per capita – and to compare this relationship among States of different 

sizes. There are no data on actual FSNE participants that would allow computation of outlays per FSNE 

participant. Therefore, the study created two “second-best” measures of per-capita outlays that relate 

spending to the number of potential participants. Using total Federal and non-Federal FSNE outlays for 

49 States and the District of Columbia,26 we created two measures of per-capita outlays for FSNE in FY 

2004: 

 Total outlays per FSP participant, using average monthly FSP participation in FY 2004; and 

 Total outlays per low-income person, using the number of persons with income below 185 of the 

Federal poverty level as estimated by the 2004 Current Population Survey, Annual Demographic 

Supplement. 

The first measure reflects the amount of spending relative to the size of the primary target population for 

FSNE as specified by FNS regulations and guidance. The second measure reflects the spending relative 

to the larger low-income population (below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level) that many 

implementing agencies included in their target populations in FY 2004. 

 

26 Delaware had no reported FSNE outlays in FY 2004. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-7 

The outlay per FSP participant and the outlay per low-income person can be used to compare the relative 

level of FSNE activity across States. In theory, the per-capita outlay is a function of the proportion of the 

average number of contacts per eligible person, the mix of services provided, and the unit cost of each 

service. Thus, one would expect higher than average per-capita outlays in States that provide FSNE 

services to a higher proportion of eligible persons or more intensive services to FSNE participants 

(holding other factors equal, such as the degree of urbanization). 

The per-capita outlay measures must be viewed with care for three reasons. First, they do not indicate 

how much FSNE funding was spent on the average member of the actual target population, because the 

degree of targeting varied on both geographic and demographic dimensions. Second, differences in the 

cost of living, population density, and efficiency presumably affect the cost of delivering FSNE, so two 

States could have different costs for these reasons and actually operate similar programs. Last, this study 

did not examine the impacts of FSNE and provides no guide as to the optimal level of outlays per FSP 

participant. 

For the United States as a whole, the FY 2004 total of reported outlays was $12.39 per FSP participant, or 

$3.62 per low-income person. These are equivalent to averages weighted by total participants or lowincome persons. The unweighted mean FSNE outlay per FSP participant among the States was $16.15, 

and the unweighted mean outlay per low-income person was $4.51. The medians – the best descriptor of 

the “typical” State – were $11.21 per FSP participant and $3.13 per low-income person. 

One reason for variation in the two measures of per-capita FSNE outlays was that the geographic scope of 

FSNE differed among the States. For both measures, the FY 2004 mean for States where FSNE was 

available in 90 percent of counties or more was about twice the mean for States with partial availability 

(in less than 90 percent of counties), as shown in Exhibit 7-4.27 For the outlay per FSP participant, the 

means were $21.68 in States with Statewide FSNE and $21.16 in States with almost Statewide FSNE, 

whereas the mean was $11.12 per FSP participant in States with partial FSNE availability. Thus, part of 

the variation in these measures among the States is due to differences in the scope of FSNE. However, 

there was substantial variation in per-capita outlays among States with similar scope of FSNE availability. 

For example, among States where FSNE was available Statewide, the outlay per FSP participant ranged 

from $0.21 to $106.30. Neither the size of the low-income population nor the FSP participation rate (as a 

percentage of low-income households) appeared to be strongly related to the outlay per FSP participant. 

For interpreting the per-capita measures, an important unknown was the scope of FSNE services within 

the counties served by FSNE, i.e., the proportion of the target audience with access to FSNE. 

 

27 The average State had 82 percent of its counties served by FSNE. The median was 91 percent, and only 25 

percent of States had less than two-thirds of their counties served by FSNE. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-8 

Exhibit 7-4. Total FSNE Outlays per FSP Participant and per Low-Income Person 

(Below 185% of Poverty Level) by Extent of FSNE Availability (in 

Dollars) 

Extent of FSNE Availability 

Mean Outlay per 

FSP Participant 

(Std) 

Mean Outlay per 

Low-income Person 

(Std) 

Statewide (all counties, n=21) $21.68 (25.04) $6.08 (5.86) 

Almost Statewide (between 90 and 100 percent of counties, n=4) 21.16 (16.82) 5.86 (4.20) 

Partial (less than 90 percent of counties, n=26) 11.12 (8.32) 3.09 (2.12) 

 

All States (n=50) 16.15 (18.00) 4.51 (4.35) 

United States (weighted average) 12.39 3.62 

Source: Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Data (outlays and FSP participant counts); 2004 Current 

Population Survey Annual Demographic Survey (estimated number of persons with income below 185 percent of 

Federal poverty level). Study universe included 50 States and District of Columbia. One State (Delaware) had no 

FSNE outlays in FY 2004. Std=standard deviation. Data extracted in November 2005 and subject to revision. 

The ranges of these measures were quite large. The FSNE outlay per FSP participant ranged from $0.21 

to $106.29 (Exhibit 7-5). Similarly, the FSNE outlay per low-income person ranged from $0.07 to $21.81 

per person. Thus, there was a great deal of variation in the quantity of funds spent relative to the 

population of potential FSNE participants. 

Exhibit 7-5. Distribution of Total FSNE Outlays per FSP Participant and per LowIncome Person (in Dollars) 

Percentiles of States 

Funds Minimum 25% 

50% 

(Median) 75% Maximum 

State Outlay per FSP 

Participant 

$0.21 $5.83 $11.21 $19.40 $106.30 

State Outlay per Low-income 

Person 

0.07 1.87 3.13 5.21 21.81 

 

Number of Respondents: 50 

Source: Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Data (outlays and FSP participant counts); 2004 Current 

Population Survey Annual Demographic Survey (estimated number of persons with income below 185 percent of 

Federal poverty level). Study universe included 50 States and District of Columbia. One State (Delaware) had no 

FSNE outlays in FY 2004. Data extracted in November 2005 and subject to revision. 

Most regions of the U.S. had substantial variation among States in FSNE outlays per FSP participant. 

This variation is illustrated by Exhibit 7-6, which categorizes States in quartiles on this measure. For 

example, the West included one State in the top quartile (California), three in the second-highest quartile 

(Washington, Idaho, and Arizona), one in the second-lowest quartile (Oregon), and three in the lowest 

quartile (Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii). Similar variation was apparent in the Southeast, Southwest, and 

Midwest regions, while there was more similarity in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-9 

Exhibit 7-6. States by Quartile of FY 2004 FSNE Outlays ($) per FSP Participant 

Source: Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Data (outlays and FSP participant counts). Study 

universe included 50 States and District of Columbia. One State (Delaware) had no FSNE outlays in FY 

2004. Data extracted in November 2005 and subject to revision. 

Clearly, there was much variation in the level of FSNE spending among the States, even after controlling 

for the size of the eligible population. Given the magnitude of the variation in per-capita outlays, it is 

clear that States vary considerably in the intensity of FSNE activity, even taking into consideration the 

other factors that may affect these measures. One can reasonably infer, therefore, that there is also 

substantial variation in the potential for impact on the population of FSP participants and eligibles as a 

whole. 

State Agency Outlays for FSNE 

State agencies do not deliver FSNE, but they expend staff time and other resources on program 

administration. In the State agency survey, only four agencies provided data on internal expenses for 

FSNE administration that were included in FSNE outlays as reported to FNS. Interview data confirmed 

that few State agencies budgeted for or reported their own staff time as a FSNE expense. Two agencies 

(Nevada and North Carolina) indicated that they created staff positions to administer FSNE, and they 

expected to claim these positions as FSNE expenses in the future. A common theme from discussion was 

that the effort to track FSNE expenses at the State agency was not worthwhile to separate from general 

FSP administrative expense. The States saw their internal FSNE expenses as small, and FNS provides the 

same 50 percent rate of reimbursement for general FSP administrative expenses as for FSNE expenses. 

 

Implementing Agency Outlays and Sources of Non-Federal Funds 

Because the description of FSNE in this report highlights the importance and diversity of implementing 

agencies, this section presents an analysis of FSNE outlays at the implementing agency level. Existing 

national data sources do not have outlays at this level of detail, so the implementing agency survey 

collected data on each agency’s total outlays, the sources of funds for outlays, and the breakdown of 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-10 

outlays between labor and other types of expenditures. The following results are based on the financial 

analysis sample of 72 implementing agencies with usable data on total FSNE outlays in FY 2004, 

representing 77 percent of the 93 implementing agencies asked to complete the survey. 

Patterns of Implementing Agency FSNE FY 2004 Outlays 

The average implementing agency in the financial analysis sample reported total FSNE outlays of $3.61 

million for FY 2004. This average included $1.84 million in non-Federal funds and $1.77 million in 

Federal funds (Exhibit A7-4).28 

As with States, there was a wide range of reported FSNE outlays among implementing agencies. The 

median total expenditure was $1.7 million (Exhibit A7-5). Thus, the average was influenced by the 

agencies with very large outlays. One-quarter of implementing agencies had total outlays of less than 

$300,000, while another quarter had total expenditures of $4.0 million or more. Total outlays ranged 

from $8,524 to $55.3 million. 

Sources of Non-Federal Funds 

An important topic for the study was to describe the sources of non-Federal funds.29 On average, 

implementing agencies reported that approximately one-third (33 percent) of non-Federal funds came 

from the implementing agency itself and another one-third (33 percent) came from a State land-grant 

university (Exhibit 7-7). Other notable sources of non-Federal funds were: local public education 

agencies (10 percent), miscellaneous other public agencies (13 percent), and private nonprofit 

organizations (4 percent). State agencies provided only 3 percent of non-Federal funds for FSNE, and no 

implementing agencies reported spending funds from private for-profit organizations. 

Exhibit 7-7. Mean Percent of Non-Federal Funds Expended, by Source: UniversityBased Implementing Agencies and Others 

Source of Funds 

All 

Implementing 

Agencies 

UniversityBased 

Implementing 

Agencies 

Other 

Implementing 

Agencies 

Implementing agency 33% 74% 32% 

State land grant universities 33 [incl. above] 11 

Other public agencies 13 16 3 

Local public education agencies 10 9 14 

Private nonprofit organizations 4 2 11 

Indian Tribal Organizations 3 0 17 

State food stamp agencies 4 0 11 

 

Number of Respondents 39 30 9 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey. Items may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 

 

28 See Appendix B: Methodological Appendix for description of methods and assumptions used to impute or 

revise the total FSNE outlays for implementing agencies in the sample. 

29 Among the financial analysis sample, 39 implementing agencies provided complete and valid data on the 

sources of funds expended on FSNE in FY 2004. The analysis in this section is thus based on a smaller and 

possibly biased sample. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-11 

Exhibit 7-7 presents the average percentages of non-Federal funding by source for two categories of 

implementing agencies: those that were based in a State university or Cooperative Extension Service of a 

State university, and all others.30 (Among the 39 agencies in this analysis, 30 were university-based, and 

9 were not.)31 For university-based implementing agencies, 74 percent of non-Federal outlays were from 

implementing agency funds or other State university funds. The other major sources of non-Federal 

funding for university-based implementing agencies were local public education agencies (9 percent of 

non-Federal outlays) and other public agencies (16 percent). 

Interview data confirm that implementing agencies were a major source of non-Federal funds but usually 

not the primary source. Overall, three-quarters (75 percent) of the implementing agencies in the interview 

sample indicated that they provided some of the non-Federal funds for FSNE, with 29 percent providing 

all or most of these funds. 32

The interview data suggest that there were three basic approaches to the implementing agency’s role in 

providing non-Federal funds: full implementing agency funding, partial implementing agency funding, 

and no implementing agency funding (Exhibit 7-8). A minority of implementing agencies interviewed 

(18 percent) provided all of the non-Federal funds. The majority of implementing agencies (between 57 

percent and 61 percent) provided some but not all of the non-Federal funds. In this group, the 

implementing agency usually provided funds to cover the non-Federal share of its central staff and their 

expenses, and some implementing agencies also provided non-Federal funds to support local projects. 

Between 21 and 25 percent of implementing agencies interviewed relied solely on funds from outside the 

implementing agency. Under this approach, non-Federal funds from partners supported not only the 

delivery of FSNE by local projects or subcontractors, but also the central administrative and support 

functions of the implementing agency. Some implementing agencies indicated that this transfer of funds 

was well accepted by the local project staff and partners, while others found this to be a source of tension. 

 

30 The university-based implementing agencies included: Cooperative Extension Services; nutrition/public health 

schools, departments, or colleges of a university; and other departments or colleges of universities. All of these 

agencies were based in State universities. Among all survey respondents, there were 56 university-based 

implementing agencies, representing 67 percent of the sample. 

31 Among the university-based implementing agencies, there appeared to be some inconsistency in how reported 

outlays were divided between the “implementing agency” and “State land grant university” categories, and it is 

likely that most or all of the reported State land grant university funds were actually implementing agency 

funds. Therefore, these categories are combined in the exhibit. We did not attempt to compare the sources of 

non-Federal funds between other groups of implementing agencies, such as those with or without nutrition 

networks, because of the data limitations: the small number of responses with usable data and the ambiguity of 

sources for university-based implementing agencies. 32 In the interview data analysis, if the implementing agency was part of the university, funds coming from the 

school that served as the implementing agency were treated as implementing agency funds, and funds coming 

from other parts of the university (including general administration or indirect) were treated as “university/CESother.” For 4 percent of the interview sample, it was apparent that the university-based implementing agency 

provided some funds, but it was uncertain whether other university/CES funds were used. In the survey, it 

appears that some university-based implementing agencies, particularly Cooperative Extension Services, treated 

any funds outside their immediate department as nonimplementing agency university funds. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-12 

Exhibit 7-8. Implementing Agency Sources of Non-Federal Funds: Interview Data 

Role in NonFederal Funding 

Implementing 

Agency 

University/ 

CES (not IA)

Other 

State 

Local 

schools 

Other 

local pub. 

agencies

Indian 

Tribal 

Org. 

Private 

nonprofit Other 

All 18% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 

Most 11 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 

Other 46 11 7 43 39 14 29 4 

 

Total (Any funds 

from source) 

75 11 7 50 50 14 29 4 

No funds from 

source 

21 46 86 39 43 86 64 96 

Not sure 4 43 7 11 7 0 7 0 

Number of Respondents: 28 

Notes: 

“University/CES (not IA)” refers to funds from sources other than the implementing agency itself. 

“Other State” refers to funds from State agencies that are not the implementing agency, a State university, or a 

Cooperative Extension Service. 

“Other local pub. agencies” refers local public agencies other than the implementing agency. 

Source: Implementing Agency Interviews. 

The interviews confirmed the significant role of local public school districts as a source of funds. At least 

half of the interview sample received some funds from local schools, typically in the form of teachers’ 

salaries for time spent providing or assisting FSNE. In four of the 28 implementing agencies that 

addressed this topic (14 percent), local schools were the sole source of non-Federal funds, other than the 

implementing agency and its parent organization. More commonly, implementing agencies used a mix of 

funds from local schools and other local government health or human service agencies (other local public 

agencies provided funding to 50 percent or more of the implementing agencies). Nonprofit agencies were 

identified as a funding source by 29 percent of the implementing agencies, although in some cases the 

nonprofit agencies may have used State or local government funds.33 The implementing agencies that 

identified Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) as a source of funds were non-Indian implementing 

agencies that partnered with ITOs. 

Interview respondents described several factors affecting the amount of non-Federal contributions that 

were actually received from partners, including: partners’ interest, ability to prove that they served the 

target low-income or food stamp eligible population, availability of allowable funds, willingness to 

complete paperwork, budget cuts or changes in priorities at partner agencies, delays in FSNE startup 

leading to partners being unable to fit FSNE into their schedules (most often involving schools), and 

availability of space to provide FSNE. 

 

33 When local or private nonprofit agencies provided funds, the implementing agency reported the type of agency 

providing the funds, not the original source. For example, local child care programs were identified as 

nonprofit organizations, but some of the funds that they provided may have come from State appropriations. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-13 

In-Kind and Cash Outlays of Non-Federal Funds 

The FSNE Plan Guidance identifies two types of allowable sources of non-Federal funds: cash and inkind. The definition of in-kind contributions is “volunteer time or other nonbillable goods or services 

(e.g., there is no cash transfer between parties).” An in-kind contribution is an allowable cost if: the 

donation is made by to a public agency, it is not claimed as match in non-Federal funds for another 

Federal program, it is allowable, reasonable and necessary for the delivery of FSNE, and it is valued 

according to the applicable OMB Circulars. Non-Federal funds spent on salaries for FSNE personnel, 

supplies, or other payments are cash contributions, whether the funds are spent by the implementing 

agency or by a partner. 

The surveys and interviews indicated some differences in understanding regarding the distinction between 

in-kind contributions and cash outlays. In the interviews, some implementing agencies used “in-kind” 

broadly to include some or all of the non-Federal outlays for salaries and purchased goods and services. 

Some implementing agencies characterized both their own expenditures of non-Federal funds and those 

of partners as “in-kind,” while others used “in-kind” only in referring to the expenditures of partners that 

were not reimbursed by the implementing agency. Due to the uncertainty about the distinction between 

in-kind donations and cash outlays, this study did not attempt to analyze the proportions of expenditures 

in these categories. 

Uses of Funds by Type of Expenditure 

In FY 2004, the largest component (64 percent) of implementing agency outlays was for staff salaries and 

benefits.34 The second-largest type of expense was for indirect costs (13 percent), followed by contracts, 

grants and agreements (10 percent). No other category represented more than 3 percent of implementing 

agency expenses (Exhibit 7-9). 

Exhibit 7-9. Composition of FSNE Outlays by Type of Expenditure 

Type of Expenditure Mean Percent 

Salaries and benefits 63.5% 

Indirect costs 12.9 

Contracts, grants, agreements 9.9 

Other services (not listed elsewhere) 2.8 

Nutrition education materials 2.6 

Noncapital equipment & supplies 2.4 

Travel 2.0 

Building/space 1.9 

Administrative 1.4 

Maintenance 0.2 

Equipment/other capital expenditures 0.5 

Number of Respondents: 41 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey. Std=standard deviation. 

 

34 This analysis used data for the breakdown of outlays by type of expense from 41 implementing agencies. The 

other 31 implementing agencies in the full analysis sample did not provide usable data on this breakdown. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-14 

Nonreimbursed Implementing Agency Outlays 

Under FNS rules, FSNE outlays are reimbursable only if FNS has approved the activities, the outlays are 

within the approved budget levels, and non-Federal funds are not claimed as outlays for any other Federal 

program. For cash contributions from private sources, the State must obtain a waiver by affirming that 

the contributor has not restricted the use of the funds and does not receive a benefit in return for the 

contribution. To obtain reimbursement for approved activities, an implementing agency must submit 

adequate documentation to the State agency. If a partner contributes funds by paying the salaries and 

benefits of personnel who help deliver FSNE, the partner must document the time spent by these 

personnel and their pay rates. 

According to the implementing agencies, Federal reimbursement often represented less than half of their 

allowable outlays related to FSNE. In the survey, just over half of implementing agencies (51 percent) 

reported allowable non-Federal outlays exceeding their Federal outlays. If these agencies with “excess” 

non-Federal outlays had claimed Federal funds for the full 50 percent of their outlays (as reported in the 

survey), the total Federal outlays for the analysis sample would have increased by $7.6 million.35 

To understand these findings, it is important to take into account the implementing agencies’ approach to 

obtaining non-Federal funds for FSNE when their own funds were insufficient to accomplish their plans. 

Implementing agencies rarely reported receiving outright grants of cash from partners. Instead, 

implementing agencies usually planned for partners to provide funds in the form of staff salaries and other 

expenses in support of FSNE. The Federal reimbursement that the implementing agency was eligible to 

claim for these expenses was used for expenses that did not have non-Federal sources of funds. For 

example, if an implementing agency received a non-Federal contribution of $100,000 in teacher time for 

FSNE from public schools, the agency could spend $100,000 of Federal funds on its own staff and 

expenses without providing any of its own funds. This approach is quite different from the way that most 

FSP administrative expenses are funded, with staff positions and other expenses supported jointly by 

Federal funds and by State and local revenue appropriated specifically for this purpose. 

In the interviews, implementing agencies often reported uncertainty about how much non-Federal funds 

their partners would provide. The actual amount depends on whether partners provide the planned level 

of staffing or other support, and on whether they provide the necessary documentation. As a result, 

implementing agencies often budget their spending assuming that partners will contribute less than the 

amounts committed in the FSNE plan. Implementing agencies may cut back on their own spending to 

avoid overspending their internal funds if documented contributions from partners are less than expected. 

When partners’ contributions of non-Federal funds exceed implementing agencies’ spending, it is not 

 

35 Of the agencies with “excess” non-Federal outlays, 16 percent had spent their entire Federal budget. In 

principle, these agencies could have submitted revised FSNE plans to request approval to spend additional 

Federal funds. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-15 

always possible for implementing agencies to “catch up” and use all of the Federal funds earned through 

partners’ contributions.36 

Several implementing agencies also indicated that they claimed less non-Federal funds than the amount of 

documented contributions, because they were not always certain that the contributions were allowable, 

and they were concerned about the financial problems that would arise if contributions were later 

disallowed by FNS. For example, the California nutrition network explicitly maintained a reserve of 

millions of dollars in unclaimed contributions, because of past experience that some contributions were 

determined later by FNS to be unallowable. Local officials of partner agencies sometimes promise in 

good faith contributions that turn out to be Federal in origin or are claimed as a non-Federal contribution 

to another program. In other instances, implementing agencies have claimed expenses that FNS 

determines are not necessary and reasonable, such as charging professional salary rates for 

paraprofessional services (e.g., doctors delivering basic nutrition education). In such instances, the 

implementing agency must offset the loss of Federal funds with non-Federal funds, which therefore 

cannot be used for other purposes. 

In their cost reports to FNS, States generally exclude any non-Federal outlays that exceed the Federal 

outlays. For FY 2004, only six States (12 percent) reported more non-Federal outlays than Federal 

outlays. Thus, some non-Federal outlays are excluded when implementing agencies report to States, and 

additional non-Federal outlays are excluded when States report to FNS.37

The preceding pattern of handling non-Federal funds has three implications for FSNE. First, the amount 

of non-Federal outlays reported to FNS in some States understates the full value of the contributions of 

non-Federal funds by implementing agencies and partners for approved activities – i.e., the real cost of 

FSNE, at least in the economic meaning of the term. It is true, however, that some non-Federal 

contributions are not actually allowable, so the gap between “real” and reported costs may not be as great 

as the survey data imply. Second, greater certainty about the amount of allowable non-Federal 

contributions would enable implementing agencies to utilize more of the budgeted Federal funds to 

provide FSNE. Third, the processes of budgeting and managing funds for FSNE constrain the extent to 

which implementing agencies draw down available Federal funds. One such constraint is the 

implementing agencies’ approach to funding FSNE; another is the time and burden of revising the FSNE 

plan to increase the budget. 

Over two-thirds of implementing agencies (70 percent) reported that all of their FY 2004 FSNE outlays 

qualified for reimbursement. Only 11 percent of implementing agencies surveyed reported that they had 

nonreimbursable FSNE-related outlays in FY 2004, and 19 percent did not respond “yes” or “no” to this 

question. As noted above, nonreimbursable outlays are not part of FSNE, even if State or local agencies 

 

36 An implementing agency may not have sufficient time before the end of the fiscal year to determine that 

additional funds are available and spend those funds (by reallocating staff or making purchase). Legal or 

institutional rules may prevent the implementing agency from claiming Federal reimbursement and passing it on 

to a partner that has contributed non-Federal funds. If an implementing agency wishes to claim more than the 

full amount of approved Federal funds, it must request an amendment to the FSNE plan, and time or other 

factors may preclude this option. 

37 In some States, the difference in non-Federal outlays between implementing agency and State data may be due 

to a determination by the State that some outlays are not allowable. We did not attempt to reconcile these data 

or determine the reasons for differences. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-16 

might think of them this way. Of the implementing agencies that reported having nonreimbursable 

outlays, all but one indicated that the nonreimbursable outlays were not included in their final report of 

expenses or invoice to the State agency. 

In the implementing agency interviews, two reasons were cited for having nonreimbursable outlays: use 

of nonreimbursable sources of funds, and use of public funds for activities not approved for Federal 

funding by FNS. The Cooperative Extension Service in New Jersey received a grant from the Dairy 

Council, but the agency did not obtain a waiver to claim this as reimbursable non-Federal funds. North 

Carolina State University, which sponsored three implementing agencies in FY 2003, advanced funds to 

one of the implementing agencies for an activity that it conducted in FY 2003 and proposed again for FY 

2004, based on the assumption that it would be approved as it had in the past. However, the University 

learned that the activity would not be approved and therefore was not included as part of the North 

Carolina's FSNE plan. Instead, North Carolina State University incurred costs for an unapproved activity 

and, therefore, could not receive Federal reimbursement for those costs. 

Unspent Funds for FSNE at the Implementing Agency Level

Another important question for the study was whether implementing agencies spend all of their budgets 

for FSNE, and if not, why. About four-fifths (81 percent) of implementing agencies reported that they 

spent less than the budgeted amount on FSNE in FY 2004 (Exhibit 7-10). The comparable figures were 

70 percent in FY 2003 and 58 percent in FY 2002. Thus, there appears to be a trend of more 

implementing agencies underspending. 

The analysis of implementing agency budgets and outlays provides a perspective on the magnitude of 

underspending. In the financial analysis sample, half of implementing agencies spent 90 percent or more 

of their budgets, and three-quarters spent more than 75 percent of their budgets. Thus, while most 

implementing agencies did not spend their entire budgets, the percentage remaining tended to be 

relatively small. The average total outlay was 84 percent of the total budget (Exhibit A7-7). 

Implementing agencies spent, on average, 85 percent of budgeted non-Federal funds and 82 percent of 

budgeted Federal funds. These averages were influenced by implementing agencies with very low 

spending percentages. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-17 

Exhibit 7-10. Implementing Agencies Spending Less than Budgeted Amount: 

FY 2002 through FY 2004 

58%

70%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY2002 FY2003 FY2004

Fiscal Year

Percent of IAs

Number of Respondents: 78 

 Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Implementing agencies that spent smaller percentages of their budgets more often reported several types 

of problems that were likely to result in unspent funds. To examine this relationship, implementing 

agencies were divided into two groups: those with 0 to 10 percent of their budget unspent, and those with 

more than 10 percent unspent. As shown in Exhibit 7-11, the implementing agencies with more unspent 

funds were more likely to report each of the following reasons for not implementing FSNE as planned in 

FY 2004: 

 Shortfall of non-Federal contributions (28 percent vs. 16 percent), 

 Staffing shortages or inability to hire qualified staff (55 percent vs. 44 percent), 

 High staff turnover (21 percent vs. 16 percent), 

 Lack of cooperation from key partners (24 percent vs. 14 percent), and 

 Problems with local projects or subcontractors (38 percent vs. 12 percent). 

Shortfalls of non-Federal contributions were an important challenge to spending available Federal funds 

and implementing FSNE as planned. Among the local project respondents that provided information on 

the challenges of obtaining non-Federal funds, 50 percent (14 of 28) indicated that it was more difficult to 

obtain these funds in FY 2004 than in the two previous years. These respondents indicated that 

challenges such as those listed above had grown, such as more emphasis on “high-stakes” testing in the 

schools and more budget cuts affecting partners. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII. FSNE Budgets and Outlays 7-18 

Exhibit 7-11. Problems Resulting in Unspent Funds: Implementing Agencies with 

High and Low Percent of Budget Unspent 

28%

55%

21% 24%

38%

14% 12% 16% 16%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Shortfall of nonfederal

contributions

Staffing shortages

or inability to hire

qualified staff

High staff turnover Lack of cooperation

from key partners

Problems with local

projects or

subcontractors

Percent of Implementing Agency

Implementing agencies with 10% of budget or more unspent

Implementing agencies with less than 10% of budget unspent

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

To the extent that funding from partners was less than anticipated, the implementing agencies had to 

either cut back programs, find other non-Federal funding, or use their own funds, since Federal funds 

could not be used to fill these gaps. The interviews confirmed that the ability of implementing agencies 

to spend their own funds was in some cases constrained by problems with the FSNE plan leading to 

delayed approval and start-up, partners not being able to participate in FSNE as planned, and staff 

turnover. In addition, a few implementing agencies indicated that they intentionally underspent their 

budgets, as a way to make sure they did not overspend. 

Unspent Funds for FSNE at the State Level 

Most States spent more than 80 percent of their Federal FY 2004 budgets for FSNE, while one-quarter of 

States spent 66 percent or less. (States’ non-Federal budgets were not available, so the analysis focused 

on spending of Federal funds.) The median was 82 percent spent and the average was 76 percent. The 

unspent Federal funds in California, estimated to be about $54 million, represented two-thirds of the 

national total of $81 million in unspent Federal funds in FY 2004. Excluding California, the percentage 

of the Federal budget spent tended to increase with the size of the Federal budget for the State 

(correlation=.24). 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VIII. Comparison of Study Findings to Guiding Principles 8-1 

CHAPTER VIII. COMPARISON OF FY 2004 FSNE STUDY FINDINGS 

TO THE 2005 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

On September 15, 2005, FNS released the “FSNE Guiding Principles,” a policy document containing six 

overarching principles designed to provide the big picture and future direction for food stamp nutrition 

education. The document identifies standards of excellence towards which FSNE efforts should strive 

and delineates the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, including FNS, State food stamp 

agencies, implementing agencies, local offices/subcontractors and local food stamp offices. The Guiding 

Principles were first incorporated in the annual FSNE Plan Guidance issued by FNS for FY 2007 for 

operational implementation. 

Although FSNE stakeholders did not operate under the Guiding Principles in FY 2004, a comparison of 

the study findings to the standards of excellence outlined in the Guiding Principles is useful. The 

comparison offers a baseline measure of how close FSNE operations in FY 2004 were to reaching the 

ideals of the Guiding Principles, recognizing that some programmatic changes may have occurred in the 

interim. The study data also identify some successful practices and potential barriers facing FSNE 

providers as they strive to meet these ideals in future years. 

Guiding Principle 1: Food Stamp Nutrition Education is intended for Food Stamp Program 

recipients and individuals eligible for the Food Stamp Program. 

Overall, the study findings indicate that FSNE providers make strong efforts to find and serve food stamp 

recipients and applicants. Nearly three-quarters of State food stamp agencies indicated that they asked 

implementing agencies to make food stamp recipients and applicants a high priority, but they allowed 

implementing agencies to target broader populations. In addition, data regarding participation in FSNE 

by food stamp recipients paint a generally positive picture. Implementing agencies estimate that just over 

half of FSNE participants are food stamp recipients, with an additional 23 percent being income eligible 

but not participating. Thus, FSNE is primarily provided to the intended audience, even though 

implementing agencies generally target a broader income range of individuals, with 40 percent of 

implementing agencies targeting at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. 

While one could assume that the logical location for reaching food stamp recipients would be local food 

stamp offices, findings show that the success of providing FSNE at food stamp offices is mixed, with 46 

percent of implementing agencies reporting having delivered FSNE at local food stamp offices in FY 

2004. The primary uses of local food stamp offices were for one-time classes and distribution of 

educational materials. In addition, during site visits, State food stamp officials expressed concerns that 

trends towards web-based systems and call centers for customer service make it unlikely that local food 

stamp offices will be utilized as much for FSNE delivery in the future. As a result, implementing 

agencies will need to focus on recruiting food stamp recipients at locations and agencies where services 

are being provided to more general low-income audiences. 

Another of the challenges noted by FSNE providers, both at the State and local level, was the fact that 

FSNE providers have not been effective in identifying which FSNE participants are actually food stamp 

recipients. Where services are provided in sites such as a TANF work incentive program, a food bank, or 

in low-income housing centers, data on the Food Stamp Program eligibility of the population are readily 

available. This task is not as easy, however, when services are provided in schools, at community events, 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VIII. Comparison of Study Findings to Guiding Principles 8-2 

or in general gathering places such as health fairs or grocery stores. For schools, implementing agencies 

require 50 percent of enrolled children be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. For other sites, there is 

no such standard. 

Much concern was expressed by State and implementing agency officials about how this Guiding 

Principle would be implemented. Most of the implementing agencies targeted clients at a higher income 

level and requested waivers, but actually served a lower income audience (where such information was 

reported). Many State officials and implementing agency staff that were interviewed believed that if a 

screening tool to determine FSP eligibility becomes a requirement, the scope and nature of FSNE will 

significantly change to serving fewer clients in fewer locations. 

Guiding Principle 2: FSNE is a set of learning experiences designed to facilitate the 

voluntary adoption of eating and other nutrition behaviors conducive to the health and wellbeing of individuals on a limited budget. 

This Guiding Principle focuses on certain behavioral outcomes to encourage individuals to: 

 Eat fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat milk products every day; 

 Be physically active every day; and 

 Balance calorie intake from foods and beverages with calories expended. 

Virtually all of the implementing agencies focused on the three behavioral outcomes set forth in the 

Guiding Principles. Additionally, most of the implementing agencies delivered FSNE through the use of 

multiple components of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and they focused on both providing 

information and trying to promote behavioral changes, as reported in the survey. Of implementing 

agencies that conducted outcome evaluations, a majority reported using in-person client interviews or 

surveys to collect data (typically self-report, pre-post data, including dietary recalls), and 50 percent 

found positive behavior change. 

As was noted in Chapter V, interview data suggest that nutrition education was provided within the 

context of a client’s limited budget. Making healthy food choices on a limited budget was cited by most 

implementing agency and local officials as the top educational goal for FSNE. 

Guiding Principle 3: FSNE has the greatest potential impact on the nutrition–related 

behaviors of the overall food stamp populations when it targets women and children in food 

stamp eligible households. 

Findings indicate that most FSNE activities are directed at women and children. Implementing agencies 

indicated that 42 percent of FSNE participants were children and 25 percent were adult women. 

(Nonelderly adults were 36 percent of participants, and 70 percent of adults were women). In addition, 81 

percent of implementing agencies provided direct education to children in public schools, and 75 percent 

provided direct education in youth education sites such as YMCAs and preschools. 

It is important to note that of the implementing agencies visited that target children in schools, most 

hoped to be able to influence decisions made at home. While limited evaluation of this effort was 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VIII. Comparison of Study Findings to Guiding Principles 8-3 

conducted, there were no methodologically strong studies or evaluation efforts found during the site visits 

that examined behavioral change at home. 

In addition, some implementing agencies noted during the site visits that it was becoming harder to reach 

women because of work requirements set up for social programs. While it was relatively easy to capture 

women in their target audience while they attended training or education programs, once these women 

started working, it became more difficult to find a time that was convenient for including them in FSNE.

Guiding Principle 4: FSNE uses science-based behaviorally-focused interventions and can 

maximize its national impact by concentrating on a small set of key outcomes. 

This Guiding Principle focuses on three major areas: 

 Interventions should be tested and be science-based; 

 The focus of messages should be towards motivation of behavioral change and include active 

personal engagement and multiple exposures to the messages; and 

 States are encouraged to use a variety of approaches to message delivery. 

Findings from the study indicate that there was variance among implementing agencies with regard to 

science-based interventions. It was found that most implementing agencies (71 percent) used tested 

materials, and that implementing agencies using social marketing used messages in the campaign that had 

been tested with target audience groups. Other implementing agencies conducting direct delivery used 

curricula that had either been tested in the past by their agency or by other FSNE providers. However, 

most implementing agencies had not tested their curricula with new target audiences. This means that the 

nutrition educator may have been presenting information to clients that might not have been as relevant to 

their nutritional needs. For example, one implementing agency noted that they had discovered a flaw in 

the application of their curriculum when delivered to newly arrived Eastern Europeans. The curriculum 

emphasized consumption of a variety of fruits and vegetables, and it was later discovered that this 

population already had a much greater consumption of fruits and vegetables than the FSNE audience with 

which the curriculum was tested. 

Almost all implementing agencies focused on behavioral change, and many included additional topics and 

behavioral focuses beyond the three noted above. However, it is important to note that this study did not 

examine the quality of efforts designed to measure behavioral outcomes. During the interviews many of 

the implementing agencies indicated that they tried to measure behavioral change, but often were not in a 

good position to do ongoing evaluation of behaviors. For example, a person may complete a postintervention questionnaire or survey indicating that they have changed behaviors, but there are very few 

implementing agencies that conduct follow-up to measure if these behavior changes are, in fact, real 

(rather than a programmed response to having received FSNE) or if they are long-term in nature. 

One of the issues of concern to implementing agencies was the limitations placed on including physical 

activity in their FSNE activities. While promotion of physical activity was allowed as part of promoting 

the dietary guidelines, the methods by which it was promoted were sometimes questioned as an allowable 

activity. Activities directly related to engaging in physical activity, such as conducting exercise classes, 

were generally not allowed by FNS as an approved activity. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VIII. Comparison of Study Findings to Guiding Principles 8-4 

Implementing agency and local project directors felt that just providing information about physical 

activity would not motivate clients to actually engage in physical activities. Many noted that promoting 

the guiding principle of “Be physically active every day” and the principle of “focus of messages should 

include active personal engagement and multiple exposures to message delivery” would seem to call for a 

more engaged approach to including physical activity in FSNE. They also noted that cooking classes 

were seen as an appropriate method for promotion of healthy eating, and felt that including some sort of 

physical activity in promoting that principle would be logical. 

 

Guiding Principle 5: FSNE can maximize its reach when coordination and collaboration take 

place among a variety of stakeholders at the local, State, regional, and national levels. 

There were mixed results in regard to the coordination of nutrition education and collaboration among 

stakeholders. With regard to coordination among FNS-funded programs, almost all implementing 

agencies (84 percent) reported coordination of FSNE with WIC, and 81 percent reported coordination 

with EFNEP. In addition, most agencies that coordinated with these programs described FSNE as 

“moderately” or “well” coordinated. However, there was general agreement that the quality of 

coordination could be improved upon, and many implementing agencies looked to FNS to provide 

leadership and guidance in this area. As noted earlier in this report, for those USDA-funded programs 

where coordination did not appear as strong, such as the school meals programs and Team Nutrition, State 

food stamp agencies described how the reduced coordination could be due to the lack of adequate 

resources, namely staff, time, and money. However, when asked for suggestions on improving the 

coordination between FSNE and other USDA-funded programs, one State food stamp agency official 

noted, “it must come from the top down. FNS must bring all USDA partners together to discuss their 

programs, enable people to meet, thereby enhancing collaboration and avoiding reinvention of the wheel.” 

The promotion of State Nutrition Action Plans (SNAP) represents a move in this direction. 

Coordination with non-FNS funded entities was significantly less prevalent, with only 38 percent of 

implementing agencies reporting efforts to coordination nutrition education across agencies. About onethird (32 percent) used a nutrition network as a formal coordinating mechanism. Most often, coordination 

was prevented by either a lack of interest on the part of either or both parties, or a lack of resources to 

promote coordination. 

Levels of coordination also vary at the local level. Many local projects relied on their partners to provide 

the audience for FSNE, and consider this arrangement to be local coordination. However, simply 

providing a site for conducting FSNE may not be true coordination. For example, there is considerable 

variation in the level of participation in the planning and implementation of FSNE on the part of partners. 

Some of the local projects visited fully involve their partners in the planning process, while other local 

projects had partners that were only vaguely aware of the FSNE activities. For example, when FSNE is 

provided in a WIC clinic, there is usually more involvement on the part of the WIC clinic staff in FSNE 

activities than when FSNE is presented in a TANF job training program or other non-health-related class. 

One of the strong points of the current FSNE delivery system is that there are well-coordinated programs 

within several the States. Excellent examples identified by this study include Hawaii, where 

representatives from all FNS-funded programs worked together on a coordinating council to promote 

nutrition education in a consistent manner (see Chapter V). FNS is in a good position to promote these 

examples to other States through information-sharing and technology transfer. Coordination efforts 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VIII. Comparison of Study Findings to Guiding Principles 8-5 

highlighted in this report can be used as a starting point, but there are likely other high-quality efforts 

being conducted in States that were not visited by the study team. 

Guiding Principle 6: FSNE is enhanced when the specific roles and responsibilities of local, 

State, regional and national food stamp agencies and nutrition education providers are 

defined and put into practice. 

This Guiding Principle clearly lays out the expected roles and responsibilities of various constituents 

involved in FSNE. The study found that implementing agencies, local projects and subcontractors, and 

program partners all play an active role in conducting FSNE, and are close to meeting the roles laid out in 

the Guiding Principle. With regard to State food stamp agencies, there were mixed results. Several State 

agencies had taken steps to expand their role from prior years in relationship to their implementing 

agencies, the FNS Regional Offices, and with program partners. These agencies were becoming more 

involved in the areas of FSNE program planning, administration, and monitoring. On the other hand, 

there were still some State food stamp agencies that saw FSNE as a pass-through and did not want to be 

involved, or did not have the resources to be involved, in major FSNE decisions. There are strong views 

on both sides of this issue, and FNS will have a challenge to move all State food stamp agencies to 

become more involved and meet the Guiding Principle roles and responsibilities. 

One of the major challenges facing States with regard to implementing this Guiding Principle is the 

promotion of local food stamp office involvement in FSNE. The study found that local food stamp 

offices often had little time or interest in adding a FSNE component to food stamp certification and other 

administrative activities. Unlike other FNS programs (such as WIC), the FSP has not placed the primary 

responsibility for nutrition education in the local offices where most customer interactions take place. 

Since its inception, FSNE has been planned and delivered by agencies not affiliated with the State food 

stamp agency, and only in recent years have efforts been made to better involve State and local food 

stamp officials in FSNE planning and implementation. As noted previously, the trend toward using the 

internet and call centers for customer service is reducing the number of recipient visits to local food stamp 

offices, and this trend poses an additional challenge for local food stamp office involvement in FSNE. 

During the site visits, most local FSNE providers reported that local food stamp offices lacked the 

resources, interest, or motivation to participate in FSNE. Even in some States where the State food stamp 

officials were highly involved in FSNE planning and implementation, there were challenges to 

convincing local food stamp offices to become involved in FSNE. Increasing local food stamp office 

involvement is likely to remain a major challenge for States and FNS to meet this portion of the Guiding 

Principles. 

In summary, study findings indicated that striving to achieve the standards of excellence for FSNE 

Guiding Principles will be relatively easy in some areas, while others will require a great deal of work. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VIII. Comparison of Study Findings to Guiding Principles 8-6 
Appendix A 

Additional Exhibits 

Chapters III through VII 

Abt Associates Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-1 

CHAPTER III ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit A3-1. Number of Implementing Agencies per State 

Number of Implementing Agencies Number of States Percent of States 

One Implementing Agency 30 60% 

Two Implementing Agencies 14 28 

Three Implementing Agencies 3 6 

Four Implementing Agencies 0 0 

Five Implementing Agencies 1 2 

Six Implementing Agencies 2 4 

Number of Respondents: 50 

Source: State Agency Survey 

Exhibit A3-2. Number of Implementing Agencies by State 

State 

Number of 

 Implementing Agencies State 

Number of 

 Implementing Agencies 

Alaska 1 Montana 1 

Arizona 1 Nebraska 1 

Arkansas 2 Nevada 2 

California 2 New Hampshire 1 

Colorado 1 New Jersey 1 

Connecticut 2 New Mexico 1 

Delaware 1 New York 2 

District of Columbia 1 North Carolina 6 

Florida 1 North Dakota 1 

Georgia 2 Ohio 1 

Hawaii 1 Oklahoma 3 

Idaho 1 Oregon 1 

Illinois 2 Pennsylvania 1 

Indiana 1 Rhode Island 1 

Iowa 2 South Carolina 2 

Kansas 1 South Dakota 1 

Kentucky 1 Tennessee 2 

Louisiana 1 Texas 6 

Maine 2 Utah 1 

Maryland 1 Vermont 5 

Massachusetts 1 Virginia 1 

Michigan 1 Washington 3 

Minnesota 2 West Virginia 1 

Mississippi 2 Wisconsin 3 

Missouri 2 Wyoming 1 

Number of Respondents: 50 

Source: State Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-2 

Exhibit A3-3. State Agency Perception of Their Involvement by Type of 

Implementing Agency 

Type of Implementing Agency 

Percent Very Active SFSA 

Involvement 

A local public health department 100% 

An emergency food provider, such as a food bank or pantry 100 

Other 100 

A Tribal council or Tribal health program 75 

A nutrition or public health school/department/college within a university 60 

The CES of a land-grant university 57 

A department or college, other than public health, within a university 50 

A division of a State or territorial health department 50 

A State Department of Aging or Elderly Services 50 

Total 63 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: State Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Chapter III Additional Exh

Exhibit A3-4. Implementing Agencies Who Responded to Survey by State, Region and Type Name of Implementing Agency State Region* Type as per Response of Survey University of Alaska Fairbanks, Cooperative Extension Service Alaska 2 The Cooperative Extension Service oArizona Department of Health Services Arizona 2 A division of a State or territorial healtFamily and Consumer Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas Arkansas 5 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Arkansas 5 The Cooperative Extension Service of California Department of Health Services/California Nutrition Network California 2 A division of a State or territorial healtUniversity of California, Davis California 2 A department or college, other than p

university 

Colorado State University Colorado 3 Other CT Department of Public Health Connecticut 7 A division of a State or territorial healtUniversity of Connecticut, Family Nutrition Program Connecticut 7 A nutrition or public health school/dep

university 

University of Delaware Delaware 6 DC Department of Health District of Columbia 6 A division of a State or territorial healtUniversity of Florida Florida 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Georgia 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Georgia Older Adults Georgia 1 A nutrition or public health school/dep

university 

University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Cooperative Extension Service Hawaii 2 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Idaho Extension Nutrition Program Idaho 2 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, Division of Community Health Illinois 4 A department or college, other than p

university 

University of Illinois Extension at Urbana-Champaign Illinois 4 The Cooperative Extension Service oPurdue University Cooperative Extension Service Indiana 4 The Cooperative Extension Service oIowa Nutrition Network; Iowa Department of Public Health Iowa 3 A local public health department Iowa State University Extension Iowa 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oKansas State University/State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Kansas 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Kentucky Kentucky 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oLouisiana State University Louisiana 5 The Cooperative Extension Service oMaine Nutrition Network, University of Southern Maine Maine 7 A nutrition or public health school/dep

university 

University of Maine Cooperative Extension Maine 7 The Cooperative Extension Service of 
Abt Associates Chapter III Additional Exh

Name of Implementing Agency State Region* Type as per Response of Survey Maryland Cooperative Extension Maryland 6 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Massachusetts Massachusetts 7 The Cooperative Extension Service oMichigan State University Extension Michigan 4 The Cooperative Extension Service oMinnesota Chippewa Tribe Minnesota 4 A Tribal Council or Tribal Health progUniversity of Minnesota College of Human Ecology Minnesota 4 A department or college, other than p

university 

Alcorn State University Mississippi 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oMississippi State University Mississippi 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oMissouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Bureau of Nutrition Policy and Education (Missouri Nutrition Network) Missouri 3 A division of a State or territorial healtUniversity of Missouri-Columbia Missouri 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oMontana State University Montana 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Nebraska Nebraska 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oDepartment of Nutrition, University of Nevada, Reno Nevada 2 A nutrition or public health school/dep

university 

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Nevada 2 The Cooperative Extension Service of UNH Cooperative Extension New Hampshire 7 The Cooperative Extension Service oRutgers, The State University of New Jersey New Jersey 6 The Cooperative Extension Service oNew Mexico State University, Cooperative Extension Service New Mexico 5 The Cooperative Extension Service oCornell Cooperative Extension New York 7 The Cooperative Extension Service oNY Department of Health New York 7 A division of a State or territorial healtForsyth County Health Department North Carolina 1 A local public health department Macon County Public Health Center North Carolina 1 A local public health department North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina 1 The Cooperative Extension Service of North Carolina Cooperative Extension - NC Nutrition Network North Carolina 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oNorth Carolina Cooperative Extension - Partners In Wellness North Carolina 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oNorth Carolina Division of Aging North Carolina 1 A State Department of Aging or ElderNorth Dakota State University Extension Service North Dakota 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oOhio State University Extension Ohio 4 The Cooperative Extension Service oChickasaw Nation Oklahoma 5 A Tribal Council or Tribal Health progOklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Oklahoma 5 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Oklahoma-Department of Nutrition Sciences in the College of Allied Health Oklahoma 5 A nutrition or public health school/dep

university 

Oregon State University, Extension Family and Community Development Oregon 2 The Cooperative Extension Service o
Abt Associates Chapter III Additional Exh

Name of Implementing Agency State Region* Type as per Response of Survey Pennsylvania Nutrition Education Program Pennsylvania 6 A department or college, other than p

university 

University of Rhode Island Rhode Island 7 A nutrition or public health school/dep

university 

Clemson University South Carolina 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oSouth Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Public Health Nutrition South Carolina 1 A division of a State or territorial healtSouth Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service South Dakota 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oTennessee State University, Nutrition Education Program (NEP) Tennessee 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Tennessee, Agricultural Extension Service Tennessee Nutrition & Consumer Education Program (TNCEP) Tennessee 1 The Cooperative Extension Service oCorpus Christi Food Bank Texas 5 An emergency food provider, such as Houston Food Bank Texas 5 Other San Antonio Food Bank Texas 5 An emergency food provider, such as South Plains Food Bank Texas 5 An emergency food provider, such as Tarrant Area Food Bank Texas 5 An emergency food provider, such as Texas A&M Cooperative Extension Texas 5 The Cooperative Extension Service oUtah State University Utah 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oBennington Rutland Opportunity Council (BROC) Vermont 7 An emergency food provider, such as Central Vermont Community Action Council (CVCAC) Vermont 7 An emergency food provider, such as Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO) Vermont 7 Other University of Vermont Vermont 7 The Cooperative Extension Service oVermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger Vermont 7 Other Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Virginia 6 The Cooperative Extension Service oDepartment of Social and Health Services, Aging and Disability Services Administration Washington 2 A State Department of Aging or ElderWashington State Department of Health Washington 2 A division of a State or territorial healtWashington State University Washington 2 The Cooperative Extension Service oWest Virginia University West Virginia 6 The Cooperative Extension Service oGreat Lakes Inter-Tribal Council Wisconsin 4 A Tribal Council or Tribal Health progHo-Chunk Nation Wisconsin 4 A Tribal Council or Tribal Health progUniversity of Wisconsin-Extension Wisconsin 4 The Cooperative Extension Service oUniversity of Wyoming Wyoming 3 The Cooperative Extension Service oSource: Implementing Agency Survey *Regional Codes: 1, Southeast; 2, Western; 3, Mt. Plains; 4, Midwest; 5, Southwest; 6, Mid-Atlantic; 7, Northeast.
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-6 

Exhibit A3-5. Nutrition Network Characteristics 

Network Characteristics 

Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies with a 

Nutrition Network 

The nutrition education network is organizationally located within implementing agency 

structure, and the network activities are a part of a larger FSNE program 

67% 

Implementing Agency is solely a nutrition education network. Activities of the network are 

conducted independently of any other FSNE conducted in the State 

19 

Other 15 

Number of Respondents: 27 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A3-6. Nutrition Network Members 

Type of Memberships 

Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies 

State Government Organizations 

State Agency 81% 

State Health Department – WIC program 67 

State Health Department – Chronic disease section 33 

State Health Department – Other 33 

CES at a State land-grant university 89 

Other State-funded university or college 52 

State Department of Education 56 

State Department of Aging or Adult Services 52 

State Department of Agriculture 30 

Other State agency 15 

No State government organizations were members of the network* 7 

Number of Respondents: 26 

Local Health and Social Service Providers 

Local FSO(s) 46% 

Local public health department(s) or district(s) 62 

Community action agency(ies) 38 

Emergency food providers, such as food banks and/or soup kitchens 73 

Local TANF or welfare office(s) 15 

Local school district(s) 54 

Faith-based social service provider(s) 42 

Local hospital(s) 23 

Local WIC agency(ies) 35 

Private university or college(s) 15 

Other 15 

No local health or social service providers were members of the network 8 

Number of Respondents: 26
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-7 

Type of Memberships 

Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies 

Statewide Nonprofit Organizations 

American Cancer Society 17% 

American Heart Association 22 

State or local dietetic association 30 

March of Dimes 0 

5 A Day program 17 

Other 39 

No nonprofit organizations were members of the network 30 

Number of Respondents: 23 

Industry or Associations

Dairy council 60% 

Fruit and/or vegetable trade association 24 

Infant formula company 4 

Meat industry trade association 32 

Cereal manufacturers 8 

Other 24 

No industry or trade associations were members of the network 28 

Number of Respondents: 25 

Advocacy Organizations

State WIC association 30% 

Food Stamps outreach or client advocacy organization 30 

Welfare rights organization 0 

Health care advocacy organization 4 

Education advocacy organization 13 

Disability rights organization 0 

Other 22 

No advocacy organizations were members of the network 39 

Number of Respondents: 23

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Note: 33 percent of implementing agencies reported using a Nutrition Network 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-8 

Exhibit A3-7. Organizations or Agencies Members of the Outside Advisory 

Committee 

Organizations Percent of IAs 

State Cooperative Extension Service 73% 

State and/or local health department 69 

State WIC Agency 58 

State Department of Education 50 

Agency on Aging or Bureau of the Elderly 46 

Emergency food provider(s) (e.g., food banks, soup kitchens, food pantries) 46 

Local food stamp office(s) 42 

Local school district(s) 42 

Nonprofit health-related organization(s) (e.g., American Cancer Society, American 

Heart Association) 38 

Other university/academic center (other than Cooperative Extension Service) 35 

TANF or Welfare Agency 35 

Food industry (e.g., Dairy Council, Egg Commission) 27 

Food distribution organization(s) 27 

Faith-based service provider(s) 23 

Hospital(s) (public or private) 0 

Other 35 

Number of Respondents: 26 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A3-8. Quality of Coordination by Type of Implementing Agency 

Implementing Agency Type 

Formal or “WellCoordinated” USDA 

Partnerships

N

The CES of a land-grant university 46 

A division of a State or Territorial health department 8 

A nutrition or public health school/department/college within a university 6 

An emergency food provider, such as a food bank or pantry 7 

A Tribal council or Tribal health program 4 

A department or college, other than public health and CES, within a university 4 

A local public health department 3 

Other 3 

 

Number of respondents: 81 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-9 

Exhibit A3-9. Percent of Implementing Agencies—by Type–That Are Moderately or 

Well-Coordinated with USDA Initiatives 

USDA Initiatives with Whom Implementing Agencies Coordinate, Either 

“Moderately” or “Well” 

WIC NSLP SBP 

Team 

Nutrition 

Summer 

Food 

Service 

Program 

Child & 

Adult 

Care 

Food 

Program EFNEP Implementing Agency 

Type Percent 

CES of a Land-grant 

University (n = 46) 67% 35% 20% 24% 41% 15% 72% 

A Division of a State or 

Territorial Health 

Department (n = 8) 63 25 0 38 25 13 38 

A Nutrition or Public Health 

School/Department/College 

(n = 6) 33 50 50 50 33 0 67 

Other Department or 

College (n = 4) 50 50 25 50 25 50 50 

A State Department of Aging 

or Elderly Services (n = 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

An Emergency Food 

Provider (n = 7) 29 0 0 0 29 0 43 

A Local Health Department 

(n = 3) 33 33 33 33 0 33 0 

A Tribal Council or Tribal 

Health Program (n = 4) 100 0 0 25 25 25 25 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter III Additional Exhibits A-10 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV Additional Exhibits A-11 

CHAPTER IV ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit A4-1. Organizational Levels Where Most Key FSNE Planning and 

Implementation Decisions Were Made for FY 2004 

Percent of IAs 

Jointly between the implementing agency and local projects and/or subcontractors 35% 

At the implementing agency level exclusively 23 

Jointly between the implementing agency, local projects and/or subcontractors, and regional 

offices 

11 

At different levels, depending on issue 15 

Jointly between the implementing agency and its regional offices 3 

Other 14 

Number of Respondents: 80 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A4-2. Local Project Involvement in FSNE Planning Process 

Process 

Percent of Local 

Projects/ 

Subcontractors 

Involved 

Identify target audience 32% 

Identify partners 31 

Identify curriculum content, topics to teach 26 

Identify funding sources 25 

Identify goals and objectives 18 

Use plan template provided by implementing agency and/or State agency 18 

Update previous year(s)’ plans 16 

Conduct needs assessment 10 

Identify method of service delivery 10 

Number of Respondents: 64 local projects 

Note: One or more responses were coded per respondent. 

Source: Local Project Interview

Exhibit A4-3. Role of State Agency in Coordinating the Planning of FSNE Services 

Across Implementing Agencies 

State Agency Role Percent of SFSAs 

State agency did not coordinate planning activities for any implementing agency 46% 

State agency coordinated FSNE planning activities of ALL implementing agencies in the 

State 

29 

State agency coordinated planning FSNE activities of SOME but not all implementing 

agencies 

21 

Don’t know 4 

Number of Respondents: 24 

Source: State Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV Additional Exhibits A-12 

Exhibit A4-4. Implementing Agency View of State Agency Effectiveness in 

Planning FSNE Goals, Objectives, and Activities for FY 2004 

Rating Percent of IAs 

Effective 77% 

Somewhat effective 18 

Not effective 0 

Don’t know 6 

Number of Respondents: 17 

Source: Implementing Agency Interviews 

Exhibit A4-5. Types of Data the Implementing Agency Requested the State 

Agency to Provide in Order to Support the Needs Assessment or 

Selection of a Target Audience 

Types of Data Percent of IAs 

Statewide FSP participation data 61% 

County-level data on the number of FSP participants and/or participation rates 55 

Data on the demographic characteristics of FSP participants 45 

Information on the location of local FSP offices 35 

Contact information (such as names and addresses) for FSP participants 27 

Poverty data collected by the State food stamp agency for its own planning purposes 25 

Data from evaluations conducted by the State food stamp agency 4 

Other 10 

No data requested 30 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A4-6. Role of State Agency Staff in FSNE Needs Assessment for FY 2004 

State Agency Staff Role Percent of SFSAs 

Provided food stamp recipient participation and demographic data for specific counties or 

regions within the State 

68% 

Provided data on the location of local FSP offices 54 

Provided implementing agency(ies) with statewide participation or demographic data on 

food stamp recipients 

46 

Provided information on the diversity of languages spoken among food stamp recipients 27 

Actively involved in conducting needs assessment planning or formative research 16 

Agency was not involved in any of these activities 14 

Other 8 

Number of Respondents: 37 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: State Agency Survey
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV Additional Exhibits A-13 

Exhibit A4-7. State Agency Policy on Priority of Serving Food Stamp Recipients 

and Applicants 

State Agency Policy Percent of SFSAs 

Implementing agencies were asked to make food stamp recipients and applicants a high 

priority, but were allowed to serve other low-income populations as well 48% 

Implementing agencies were asked to make food stamp recipients and applicants a high 

priority for FSNE, but were allowed to serve food stamp eligibles as well 24 

Implementing agencies were encouraged to make food stamp recipients and applicants a 

priority, but were not restricted by our Agency as to the audience served 10 

Implementing agencies were required to provide FSNE services only to food stamp 

recipients and applicants 2 

Other 10 

Our Agency did not provide any specific instructions or guidance to implementing agencies 

regarding serving food stamp recipients and applicants 6 

Number of Respondents: 50 

Source: State Agency Survey 

Exhibit A4-8. Percent of Implementing Agencies Conducting Message Testing 

Message Testing Percent of IAs 

Some messages were tested 51% 

No messages were tested 29 

All messages were tested 20 

Number of Respondents: 79 

Source: Implementing Agency Web-based Survey 

Exhibit A4-9. Primary Reason(s) for Implementing Agencies Denying Funding to 

Local Projects 

Reason Percent of IAs 

 Unable to provide qualifying non-Federal contributions 62% 

 Choice of target audience that was inconsistent with implementing agency priorities 46 

 Did not develop sufficient planning document 46 

 Proposed staff were insufficient with respect to time available or qualifications 15 

 Proposed services would have duplicated other proposed or existing activities 8 

 Other 23 

Number of Respondents: 13 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter IV Additional Exhibits A-14 

Exhibit A4-10. Plan Implementation as Intended 

Percent of IAs 

Plan was mostly implemented as intended 64% 

Plan was fully implemented as intended 24 

Plan was partly implemented as intended 5 

Plan was not at all implemented as intended 7 

Number of Respondents: 75 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A4-11. Reasons for Not Implementing the FSNE Plan as Intended 

Reason Percent of IAs 

General staffing shortages and/or an inability to hire qualified staff 62% 

Shortfall of non-Federal contributions requiring adjustments in the number and type of 

FSNE activities 

29 

Problems with local projects and/or subcontractors 28 

High staff turnover rate/constantly changing staff 26 

Lack of cooperation from key partners 21 

Change in needs of the selected target audience requiring a revised approach 16 

FSNE client recruitment efforts fell short of expectations 12 

Lack of bilingual staff 11 

Higher than expected cost of implementing certain FSNE components 5 

Other 18 

Number of Respondents: 57 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V Additional Exhibits A-15 

CHAPTER V ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit A5-1. Primary Goals of Local Project/Subcontractor 

Primary FSNE Goals Percent of Local Projects 

Fruit/vegetable consumption 62 

Dietary quality 52 

Food safety 34 

Physical activity 28 

Food resource management 18 

Number of Respondents: 65 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent 

Source: Local Project Interview 

Exhibit A5-2. Percent of Counties in a State Served by Implementing Agencies 

Percent of Counties Served by Implementing Agencies 

Percent of Implementing 

Agencies 

75-100% 45% 

50-74.99% 14 

25-49.99% 12 

0-24.99% 29 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A5-3. Change in Geographic Coverage of FSNE Provided by the 

Implementing Agency in FY2003 and FY 2004 

Geographic Coverage Change 

Percent of Implementing 

Agencies 

No change in overall geographic coverage of FSNE 58% 

Increased overall geographic coverage of FSNE 32 

Reduced overall geographic coverage of FSNE 10 

Number of Respondents: 81 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V Additional Exhibits A-16 

Exhibit A5-4. FSNE Activities that Are Coordinated Among Implementing Agencies and USDA-F

Coordinated Component 

Needs 

Assessment 

Plan 

Development 

Message 

Development 

Message 

Delivery 

Program 

Monitoring 

Program 

Evaluation 

Budget 

Development 

Referral 

of Client 

Information and/or Data 

Sharing 

USDA Initiative Percent EFNEP 69% 69% 71% 86% 69% 65% 43% 65% 90% SBP 53 40 40 53 27 27 13 33 40 Child and Adult Care Food Program 

50 43 36 86 29 29 14 50 50 

NSLP 44 28 36 64 16 20 8 24 72 Team Nutrition 43 38 48 67 10 14 5 29 48 WIC 40 33 42 79 23 15 6 65 65 Summer Food Service Program 25 43 29 71 25 25 11 54 54 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. EFNEP (Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program); SBP (Schoo

NSLP (National School Lunch Program)Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V Additional Exhibits A-17 

Exhibit A5-5. Implementing Agency Reported Coordination with Other Types of 

Organizations 

Organization/Agency 

Percent with Formal 

Contract or 

Agreement in FY 2004 

State WIC Agency 58% 

State Department of Education 45 

Other university/academic center 39 

State or local health department 35 

Local school district 35 

State Cooperative Extension Service 32 

Emergency food provider (e.g., food banks, soup kitchens, food pantries, etc.) 23 

Agency on aging 16 

TANF or welfare agency 10 

Nonprofit health-related organization (e.g., American Cancer Society, American Heart 

Association, etc.) 

10 

Hospital (public or private) 6 

Food industry (e.g., Dairy Council, Egg Commission) 0 

Other public organization, please describe 26 

Other private organization, please describe 6 

 

Number of Respondents: 31 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A5-6. Role Played by State Food Stamp Agency in Social Marketing 

Campaign 

Role Played by State Food Stamp Agency

Percent of Implementing 

Agencies 

Provided information to facilitate reaching food stamp clients 73% 

Consulted on message delivery or approach 73 

Participated in message development 40 

Participated in evaluation of social marketing campaign 33 

Other 7 

Number of Respondents: 15 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V Additional Exhibits A-18 

Exhibit A5-7. Additional FNS Curricula Used 

Curricula 

 Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies 

Power of Choice: Helping Youth Make Healthy Eating and Fitness Decisions – U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Team Nutrition 39% 

Changing the Scene: Improving the School Nutrition Environment – U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Team Nutrition 27 

YourSELF Middle School Nutrition Education Kit – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service, Team Nutrition 19 

Number of Respondents: 74 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A5-8. Number of Curricula Used 

Number of Curricula Percent of Implementing Agencies 

Used 1 Curriculum 10% 

Used 2-3 Curricula 15 

Used 4-5 Curricula 22 

Used 6-7 Curricula 25 

Used 8-9 15 

Used 10-11 Curricula 8 

Used 12 or More 5 

Number of Respondents: 74

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A5-9. Languages Used in Materials or Activities in Addition to English 

Language Percent of Implementing Agencies 

Spanish 90% 

Vietnamese 13 

Hmong 10 

Cambodian 8 

Russian 8 

Chinese 7 

Arabic 3 

Thai 3 

French 2 

Hindi 2 

Korean 2 

Portuguese 2 

Other 26 

Number of Respondents: 62 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V Additional Exhibits A-19 

Exhibit A5-10. FSNE as a Food Stamp Benefit 

Percent of State 

Agencies 

State Agency views FSNE as a Food Stamp Program benefit 94% 

State Agency promotes FSNE as a Food Stamp Program benefit 66 

Number of Respondents: 50 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: State Food Stamp Agency Survey

Exhibit A5-11. Implementing Agency View and Identification of FSNE as a Benefit 

of FSP 

 Percent of 

Implementing 

Agencies 

View FSNE as a benefit of FSP 88% 

Identify FSNE as a benefit 78 

Number of Respondents*: 77 

* Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent.

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A5-12. Belief by State Agency that FSNE Participants see FSNE as a Food 

Stamp Program Benefit 

Percent of State 

Agencies 

FSNE participants somewhat recognize FSNE as a FSP benefit 45% 

FSNE participants have little recognition of FSNE as a FSP benefit 35 

FSNE participants do not recognize FSNE as a FSP benefit 10 

FSNE participants very much recognize FSNE as a FSP benefit 4 

Don’t know 6 

Number of Respondents: 49 

Source: State Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter V Additional Exhibits A-20 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI Additional Exhibits A-21 

CHAPTER VI ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit A6-1. Highest Level of Formal Education for Staff Delivering FSNE 

Education Level Mean Percent 

Bachelors degree (without RD) 29% 

Masters degree or higher (without RD) 21 

High school diploma or GED 20 

RD with Bachelors degree or higher 19 

Some college but no degree 10 

Less than high school diploma 1 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Note: RD = Registered dietitian 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A6-2. Staff Receiving Training 

Staff Group Percent of IAs 

Current professional staff at implementing agency/ subcontractor/ or local project 86% 

Current paraprofessional staff at the implementing agency/ subcontractor or local project 81 

New professional level staff at implementing agency/ subcontractor/ or local project 75 

Number of Respondents: 63 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A6-3. Information Collected Regarding Participation in Direct Education 

Services 

Type of Information Percent of IAs 

Counted number of different persons attending classes or participating in individual nutrition 

education sessions with educator 75% 

Counted number of persons completing a FSNE course or series of lessons 61 

Provided a duplicate count of persons attending classes or participating in individual nutrition 

education sessions with educator 43 

Other 11 

Not applicable (Used direct education but did not collect participation information) 1 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI Additional Exhibits A-22 

Exhibit A6-4. Information Collected Regarding Participation in Indirect Education 

Services 

Type of Information Percent of IAs 

 Counted number of items distributed through various locations 73% 

 Counted number of different FSNE events 61 

 Counted number of persons to whom mailings were sent 46 

 Assessed participation at FSNE events 45 

 Counted number of different messages or number of times messages delivered 39 

 Assessed number of exposures to posters and/or placards 31 

 Other 11 

 Not applicable (Did not use indirect education) 8 

 No participant information was collected 0 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A6-5. Methods of Fiscal Reviews of Local Projects or Subcontractors 

Method Percent of IAs 

Internal review/audit conducted by implementing agency 53% 

Independent audit commissioned by implementing agency 10 

Independent audit commissioned by local project or subcontractor 10 

Other 19 

None 31 

Number of Respondents: 58 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A6-6. Frequency of Invoices to State Food Stamp Agency for FSNE 

Frequency Percent of IAs 

Bimonthly or quarterly 50%

Monthly 32

Twice a year 8

Once for entire year 6

Other 3

Did not submit invoices to the State food stamp agency 1

Number of Respondents: 78

Source: Implementing Agency Survey
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI Additional Exhibits A-23 

Exhibit A6-7. Financial Data Reported to State Food Stamp Agency 

Type of Data Percent of IAs 

Total compensation (salaries and benefits) 81% 

Travel expenses 81 

Indirect costs incurred by implementing agency 73 

Non-capital equipment and supplies expenses 69 

Nutrition education materials expenses 62 

Other services expenses 58 

Dollar value of in-kind non-Federal contributions 45 

Equipment and other capital expenses 43 

Total non-labor costs 42 

Building/space expenses 35 

Maintenance expenses 26 

Dollar value of cash non-Federal contributions 20 

Total staff hours or number of full-time equivalents 19 

Administrative expenses charged by other agencies under a central services cost 

allocation plan or other similar method 15 

Narrative report as to how funds were used 13 

Detail of staff hours or full-time equivalents by job title or qualifications 12 

Unliquidated obligations 5 

Other 5 

Number of Respondents: 84 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A6-8. Methods Used by State Agencies to Monitor Implementing Agency 

FSNE Spending 

Monitoring Methods Mean Percent 

Review of invoices for reimbursement 92% 

Review of other financial reports from the implementing agency 51 

Meeting(s) with implementing agency to review expenditures 33 

Other 18 

Number of Respondents: 49 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: State Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI Additional Exhibits A-24 

Exhibit A6-9. Audits or Fiscal Reviews of Implementing Agency FSNE Spending 

Required by State Agencies 

Type of Audits or Reviews Required Percent of States 

Internal audit by implementing agency 23% 

Review/audit conducted by the State Agency 19 

Independent audit commissioned by the State Agency 2 

Other 31 

None 44 

Number of Respondents: 48 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: State Agency Survey 

Exhibit A6-10. Types of Data Collected by Local Projects on Participation and/or 

Reach of Message in FY 2004 

Type of Data Percent of Local Projects 

Participation data 54% 

Behavior change 46 

Demographic data 35 

Feedback on materials and/or activities used 18 

Number of Respondents: 65 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Local Project Interviews 

Exhibit A6-11. Extent of Implementing Agency Involvement in Evaluations at 

Local Level 

Extent of Involvement Percent of IAs 

Implementing agency provided significant support and technical assistance to local projects 

and/or subcontractors 37% 

Implementing agency conducted outcome evaluations 30 

Implementing agency provided some support and technical assistance 22 

Implementing agency did not provide any support or technical assistance 4 

Other 7 

Number of Respondents: 54 that were involved in local evaluations 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI Additional Exhibits A-25 

Exhibit A6-12. Factors that Affected which FSNE Services to Be Evaluated in 

FY 2004 

Factors Percent of IAs 

Availability of adequate staff resources 49% 

Availability of funds for outcome evaluation 34 

Voluntary on part of local projects/subcontractors 23 

New initiatives introduced 16 

New target audience included 7 

Other 43 

Number of Respondents: 74 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A6-13. Key Findings of Implementing Agency Evaluations (Outcome or 

Impact) Based on Self-Reported Data 

Percent of IAs

Key Findings of the Evaluation

Positive behavior change 50% 

Positive knowledge change 18 

Unreliable data, i.e., inconclusive findings 18 

Message delivery needs improvement 9 

Positive attitude change 5 

Successfully identified client needs and message gaps 5 

Other 9 

Number of Respondents: 22 

Use of the Evaluation Results 

Modify/improve quality and delivery of nutrition education 35% 

Modify/improve FSNE-related policies & planning 30 

Complete reports/disseminate findings 26 

Improve program/performance goals 13 

Help partner with other agencies/organizations 4 

Unreliable data, i.e., inconclusive findings 4 

Improve staff/partner training 4 

Support ongoing/future funding 4 

Don’t know 4 

Other 4 

Number of Respondents: 23 

Note: One or more responses were given by each respondent. 

Source: Implementing Agency Interviews
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VI Additional Exhibits A-26 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII Additional Exhibits A-27 

CHAPTER VII ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit A7-1. Average Implementing Agency FY 2004 FSNE Budget: NonFederal, Federal, and Total 

Mean (Std) 

Non-Federal 2,975,201 

(11,073,181) 

Federal 2,801,323 

(9,762,474) 

Total 5,776,524 

(20,833,639) 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey. Std=standard deviation. 

Exhibit A7-2. Distribution of Implementing Agency FY 2004 FSNE Budgets: 

Non-Federal, Federal, and Total 

Percentiles 

Minimum 25% 

50% 

(Median) 75% Maximum 

Non-Federal 4,262 164,846 1,090,927 2,584,480 93,764,903 

Federal 4,262 200,903 1,090,122 2,397,257 82,400,213 

Total 8,524 322,371 2,181,049 4,862,949 176,165,116 

 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A7-3. FY 2004 FSP Participants, FSNE Outlays, and Outlays per 

Participant in Top 10 States for Total Outlays 

State 

FSP 

Participants in 

thousands 

Non-Federal 

outlays in 

thousands 

Federal outlays 

in thousands 

Total outlays in 

thousands 

Percent of 

National Total

Outlays per 

participant 

 California 1,859 32,542 32,542 65,084 22% 35.00 

 Pennsylvania 961 9,951 9,951 19,901 7% 20.71 

 New York 1,598 7,920 7,920 15,839 5% 9.91 

 Michigan 944 6,802 6,416 13,218 4% 14.01 

 Missouri 700 6,506 6,506 13,013 4% 18.60 

 Illinois 1,070 5,886 5,886 11,771 4% 11.01 

 Wisconsin 324 5,648 5,822 11,470 4% 35.40 

 Minnesota 247 5,978 5,334 11,311 4% 45.71 

 Alabama 498 5,020 5,020 10,041 3% 20.18 

 Arizona 530 4,850 4,850 9,700 3% 18.32 

 

 Total for top 10 8,731 91,103 90,247 181,348 62% 20.77 

 Number of Respondents 10 

Source: Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Data (outlays and FSP participant counts); 2004 Current 

Population Survey Annual Demographic Survey (estimated number of persons with income below 185% of 

Federal Poverty Level). Study universe included 50 States and District of Columbia. One State (Delaware) 

had no FSNE outlays in FY 2004. 
Abt Associates Inc. Chapter VII Additional Exhibits A-28 

Exhibit A7-4. Total Implementing Agency Outlays: Federal, Non-Federal and 

Sum of Federal and Non-Federal (in Dollars) 

Funds Mean Std 

Non-Federal funds 1,843,163 3,642,659 

Federal funds 1,766,830 3,573,824 

Federal & Non-Federal funds 3,609,993 7,213,853 

 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey. Std=standard deviation.

Exhibit A7-5. Total Implementing Agency Outlays: Federal, Non-Federal and 

Sum of Federal and Non-Federal (in Dollars) 

Percentile 

Funds Minimum 25% 

(Median) 

50% 75% Maximum 

Non-Federal funds 4,262 135,064 867,476 1,995,090 27,633,838 

Federal funds 4,262 171,455 821,243 1,995,090 27,633,838 

Federal & Non-Federal funds 8,524 298,286 1,688,719 3,990,179 55,267,676 

 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey

Exhibit A7-6. Average and Distribution of Adjusted Total Implementing Agency 

Outlays (Includes Federal Outlays and Non-Federal Outlays Up to 

Amount of Federal Outlays) 

Statistic Value 

Minimum 8,524 

25th Percentile 298,286 

Median 1,642,486 

75th Percentile 3,990,179 

Maximum 55,267,676 

Average 3,522,678 

Standard deviation 7,148,886 

 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey 

Exhibit A7-7. Average Percent of FY 2004 Implementing Agency FSNE 

Budget Spent: Non-Federal, Federal, and Total 

Source of Funds 

Mean 

(Std)

Non-Federal 

85 

(20.2) 

Federal 

82 

 (18.4) 

Total 

84 

(19.0) 

Number of Respondents: 72 

Source: Implementing Agency Survey. Std=standard deviation. 
Appendix B 

Methodological Appendix 

Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B b-i

APPENDIX B 

FOOD STAMP NUTRITION EDUCATION SYSTEMS REVIEW: 

METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX 

CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... B-1

Key Components of Data Collection..............................................................................................B-1

Abstraction of States’ FSNE Plans for FY 2004 ............................................................................ B-1

Instrument Development ................................................................................................................ B-1

Web-Based Survey Instruments........................................................................................... B-2

On-Site Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................... B-3

Testing Web-Based Surveys and Site Visit Interview Protocols ......................................... B-4

Data Collection Instrument Clearance ................................................................................. B-5

Sampling Implementing Agencies and Local Projects for Site Visits............................................ B-6

Classification of Implementing Agencies ............................................................................ B-6

Stratification......................................................................................................................... B-7

Sampling Rates and Intervals............................................................................................... B-7

Sample Selection.................................................................................................................. B-8

Sampling Local Projects for Site Visits ............................................................................. B-10

Sampling Partner Organizations for Site Visits ................................................................. B-11

Web-Based Survey Data Collection............................................................................................. B-11

Recruitment of State Agencies and Implementing Agencies for On-Site Data Collection .......... B-13

Recruitment of Sampled State Agencies............................................................................ B-13

Recruitment of Implementing Agencies ............................................................................ B-13

Recruitment of Local Projects and Partnering Agencies ................................................... B-14

On-Site Data Collection ............................................................................................................... B-14

Site Visit Data Collector Training...................................................................................... B-14

On-Site Data Collection Teams and Schedules.................................................................. B-14

Site Visit Reports.......................................................................................................................... B-16

Final Survey and Interview Response Rates ................................................................................ B-16

Obtaining State-Level Data on FSNE Budgets and Spending...................................................... B-17

Development of Project Databases...............................................................................................B-17

Quantitative Database ........................................................................................................ B-17

Cleaning the Financial Data in Surveys............................................................................. B-17

Qualitative Database .......................................................................................................... B-19

Public Use Data Files ................................................................................................................... B-19

Limitations of Study Data ............................................................................................................ B-20

Attachment A. Data Abstraction Document – 2004 FSNE State Plans........................................... B-23

Attachment B. Web-Based Survey Notification Letter to All State Agencies and Implementing 

Agencies...................................................................................................................... B-27

Attachment C. Recruitment Letter to State Agencies Sampled for Site Visits .............................. B-29
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B b-ii

EXHIBITS

Exhibit B-1 Number of Implementing Agencies, by Type, and States Represented in 

Each Category.......................................................................................................... B-7 

Exhibit B-2 Summary of Sampling Plan for Implementing Agencies ........................................ B-8 

Exhibit B-3 Sampled Implementing Agencies (Reflecting Data Abstracted from 

FY 2004 State Plans) ............................................................................................... B-9 

Exhibit B-4 State Agencies Selected for the Site Visit Sample, Based on Implementing 

Agencies Selected, by Type of Implementing Agency and FNS Region .............. B-10 

Exhibit B-5 Number of Days and Interviews Completed in Each State for On-Site 

Data Collection ...................................................................................................... B-12 

Exhibit B-6 Summary of Data Collected for FSNE System Review ........................................ B-16 

Exhibit B-7 Public Use Datasets Containing FSNE System Review Data................................ B-20 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-1

Introduction 

This appendix describes the methodological approach used for the Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

(FSNE) System Review, elaborating on the overview provided in Chapter II of the Final Report. 

Key Components of Data Collection 

The data collection for the FSNE System Review consisted of the following components: 

 A baseline data abstraction from States’ FSNE plan documents for FY 2004; 

 A national web-based survey of FSNE representatives from all State agencies; 

 A national web-based survey of representatives of all FSNE implementing agencies; 

 On-site interviews with representatives of a sample of State agencies, implementing agencies, 

local projects, implementing agency and local project partners, and nutrition educators; and 

 Collection of data from FNS on State FSNE budgets and spending over the past several years. 

These data sources and the procedures used to collect the data from each of these sources are described in 

this appendix. 

Abstraction of States’ FSNE Plans for FY 2004 

In late 2003 to early 2004, FNS’ Regional Offices submitted copies of State plans to FNS as they were 

approved. Using a data abstraction form (Attachment A), the study team staff abstracted information 

from each approved State plan regarding each implementing agency. The data abstracted included: the 

type of organization sponsoring FSNE, the planned budget, number of full time equivalents (FTEs), 

number of local projects, planned number of participants, geographic distribution of services, and the 

nature of planned services. Information from the plan abstraction was structured into a State profile, 

listing number and type of implementing agencies, final approved budget amounts, geographic coverage, 

and other information descriptive of the States’ FSNE. The final database included data for 93 FSNEoperating organizations that were identified as meeting the study’s definition of implementing agencies. 

The abstracted data were used in two ways. First, the data were used to identify implementing agencies 

for the site visit sampling. Second, project staff used the abstracted data to familiarize themselves with 

the characteristics of the sampled agencies before the recruiting process began, as did data collectors 

before conducting any site visits. In addition, data from the plan abstraction were incorporated into the 

State agency web-based survey for verification by survey respondents. 

Instrument Development 

The project staff developed and tested a set of survey instruments for the web-based survey of State 

agencies and implementing agencies and a set of interview protocols to be used in on-site data collection. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-2

Web-Based Survey Instruments 

Two web-based surveys were conducted for this study. In order to gain a full picture of the nutrition 

education provided to recipients of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) nationally, the web-based survey 

included all State agencies and implementing agencies administering FSNE in FY 2004. In States with 

multiple implementing agencies, all implementing agencies were surveyed. 

Both web-based surveys focused on relatively specific and closed-ended questions designed to provide 

categorical data to describe FSNE operations and standard quantitative data on FSNE funding and costs. 

The surveys were designed to collect information that went beyond what was routinely provided in State 

plans and the final reports of FSNE activity, including details about program activities and costs not 

typically reported to FNS for FY 2004. 

The State Agency Survey addressed FSNE organizational structure in each State and the States’ 

perspectives on FSNE plan development and financial management. The Implementing Agency Survey 

addressed: organizational structure and decision-making process, partnerships and coordination, the 

FSNE plan development and approval process, needs assessment and target audience, nutrition education 

message and curricula, service delivery methods, service monitoring and evaluation, staffing, budget, and 

outlays. (Copies of the survey instruments are included in the FSNE System Review Database 

Documentation.) 

We used the surveys to capture data from each of the following sets of stakeholders: 

 The State FSP staff person with responsibility for coordination of the single State plan describing 

FSNE activities and costs, 

 Staff from the implementing agencies responsible for the administration of the FSNE plan, and 

 Persons involved in the budget development and financial accountability process, from both the 

State agency and implementing agency. 

Questions developed for the web-based surveys were based on the study’s research questions and were 

formatted in several different configurations. The question formats included: 

1. Questions with multiple-choice answers where only one answer is appropriate. 

2. Questions with multiple-choice answers that may have more than one appropriate response. 

3. Verification tables where information from the FSNE plans was pre-entered, and respondents 

were asked to verify the accuracy of the information. 

4. Repeat questions for multiple implementing agencies: The State agency web-based survey 

contained a series of questions related to the relationship between the State agency and 

implementing agencies. The initial question asked if the State had more than one implementing 

agency. If the State agency official checked “yes,” then the questions were asked of the two 

largest implementing agencies, with size measured in terms of the implementing agencies’ 

approved FSNE budgets in FY 2004. Follow-up questions to the State agency asked if the 

response would differ for any other implementing agencies in the State and, if so, how. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-3

Skip patterns were developed to assure that respondents were directed to proper sections. For example, 

an implementing agency with no local projects (a direct provider or an agency performing a coordination 

function only) did not see questions related to local programs. 

Because FSNE is administered by many different types of organizations, we anticipated that terms used in 

the survey questions might not have the same meaning to all respondents. To ensure consistency in 

survey response, we developed a list of definitions for the survey, in consultation with FNS staff, that was 

included in the programming of the online survey. A respondent could click on the “help” icon and go to 

the definitions page and read all the definitions prior to beginning the survey. The respondent could also 

see on each page of the survey, at the first mention of words included in the key words definitions list, the 

words highlighted in blue, underlined, and a popup window displaying the definition. 

The web-based surveys were designed so that respondents could complete part of the survey, check their 

records or research answers to questions if they were not sure, and then complete the survey at a later 

time. This also allowed multiple, authorized respondents (e.g., the FSNE project director and a fiscal 

officer) access to the survey. An agency-specific username and password were required each time the 

survey was accessed. No persons other than those selected to receive usernames and passwords could 

access the website. The survey included worksheets that could be printed, completed by hand, and then 

entered at the respondent’s convenience. 

The web-based surveys included no tracking of respondents’ Internet use. The surveys used session 

cookies (as opposed to persistent cookies) to allow the user to navigate among the pages of the survey 

without having to re-connect with the server on every page. These session cookies had a designated 

session timeout of approximately 30 minutes, at which point they expired if the individual remained 

inactive. Otherwise, a session cookie expired upon the browser closing and/or the user exiting the survey. 

Upon entry into the website, the user was told that session cookies would be in use, but that no persistent 

cookies were contained in the website. Appropriate privacy assurance was provided. The session cookies 

were consistent with OMB guidelines for use of cookies in federally sponsored websites. No end-user 

browser information was tracked, nor did the cookies remain on the end-user hard drive. Upon 

completion of the surveys by all parties, the website was dismantled. 

On-Site Data Collection Instruments 

Project staff conducted open-ended, in-depth interviews with FSNE coordinators and budget officers at 

the State agencies and implementing agencies, key staff involved in FSNE services at the State- and locallevel partner organizations, local project staff, and nutrition educators. Multiple “State-level” staff were 

interviewed, along with multiple staff at local projects. Because coordination with other nutrition 

education efforts directed at low-income families is so important to FNS, the project team interviewed a 

sample of public and private partners, State FSP officials, directors of other FNS-sponsored nutrition 

education programs (such as WIC or Team Nutrition), and selected directors of nutrition education 

projects funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) where they had a relationship with the implementing agency’s or local 

project’s FSNE activities. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-4

These interviews were conducted to understand better the dynamics of FSNE: why FSNE operates as 

described in the web-based surveys, how participating agencies plan, implement and manage the program, 

how they interact with program partners, and how basic program features vary within an implementing 

agency. Included in the site visits was an examination of how implementing agencies communicate 

priorities and program instructions to the local projects, the extent to which local projects have flexibility 

in creating their own programs, the costs associated with local delivery of FSNE, and the relationship 

between local FSNE providers and other nutrition education providers. In addition, the site visits 

provided the opportunity to examine documentation of FSNE staffing, costs and funding to obtain 

detailed information that cannot be reliably obtained without face-to-face dialogue. 

Six instruments were developed for use during the on-site data collection: 

 Interview Guide for State Agency 

 Interview Guide for FSNE Implementing Agency 

 Interview Guide for Implementing Agency Partner 

 Interview Guide for Local Project or Subcontractor 

 Interview Guide for Local Project/Subcontractor Partner 

 Interview with Nutrition Educators at Local Agencies 

Copies of the interview instruments are included in the FSNE System Review Database Documentation. 

Testing Web-Based Surveys and Site Visit Interview Protocols 

Both web-based survey instruments and the six interview guides were pilot tested during the summer of 

2004. FSNE staff in three States (Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington State) that were not selected 

for the site visit sample were asked to complete paper versions of the web-based survey and participate in 

interviews with project team members. 

During the on-site portion of the pilot test, the test respondents were interviewed after they had completed 

the survey to find out if all questions were clear, and to determine if any questions and/or their response 

categories needed to be altered. The study team also collected data on: 

 How long it took respondents to complete the surveys and interviews, 

 Whether each question was clear, relevant, and understandable to the respondents, 

 Whether the structure and flow of the instruments were appropriate for the data collection 

process, 

 Whether all of the questions could be answered in a manner consistent with the data collection 

needs of this study, and 

 Whether any questions that needed to be asked were missing. 

The pilot test provided valuable data and respondent feedback that informed further revision and 

refinement of the study instruments. A memo containing detailed description of the pilot test methods, 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-5

procedures, and findings was submitted to FNS. Some of the key findings from the pilot test are 

summarized below: 

 Length of response time. The time required for the web-based surveys was similar in all test sites 

and within our time estimates. Similarly, most of the interview guides were completed within a 

reasonable amount of time. However, the implementing agency interview guide required much 

longer time than anticipated. The project team identified several strategies to shorten this 

instrument without sacrificing the content coverage. These strategies were implemented in 

subsequent revisions of all instruments. 

 Structure and organization of the instruments. The overall organization of the web-based survey 

was effective. However, the pilot test identified potential problems with the skip patterns in the 

survey as well as ways to reorganize questions to avoid these problems. 

 Organization of key concepts and topics. Several important content organization changes were 

prompted by the pilot test results, including: better integrating the financial and programmatic 

questions in the planning section; varying presentation of questions depending on the number of 

implementing agencies that a State has (single or multiple). 

 Refining terms used in the instruments. The pilot test identified terms that were interpreted 

differently by different groups of respondents. The project team developed user-friendly methods 

of showing common definitions to survey respondents as well as plans to stress definitions of 

certain terms in interview data collector training. 

All study instruments were revised extensively incorporating the findings and experiences from the pilot 

tests. After the paper-based versions of the instruments were revised, the computer-based versions of the 

surveys were developed and tested by the study team. After the internal testing process was completed, 

the two web-based surveys were pilot tested by FSNE staff in the same three States that had tested the 

paper-based surveys to ensure that they were without bugs and that the conversion from paper to webbased format did not cause any loss of meaning. This testing was conducted in January 2005. 

Data Collection Instrument Clearance 

As part of the survey instrument development, FNS published an announcement in the Federal Register

(April 27, 2004, Volume 69, Number 81, pp. 22758-22759) describing the purpose and the need for this 

study. The announcement specified a 60-day period for receiving public comments. The Federal 

Register announcement generated comments from two State health departments expressing concerns that: 

the proposed study was of limited use given USDA’s other, similar initiatives underway; the study would 

duplicate data already provided to FNS through FSNE plans and reports; and the level of respondent 

burden estimates published in the announcement might be incorrect. 

After the draft survey and interview instruments were developed, refined, and tested, FNS prepared a 

request for the OMB review of the instruments. The request package submitted to OMB in November 

2004 included responses to the three issues raised in the public comments to the Federal Register

announcement. The OMB granted approval of the FSNE System Review study plan and instruments in 

March 2005. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-6

Sampling Implementing Agencies and Local Projects for Site Visits 

The project’s review of State FSNE plans for FY 2004 identified 93 implementing agencies. A sample of 

these implementing agencies was selected for on-site data collection. This section describes the sampling 

process, identifies the implementing agencies that were sampled, and describes how local projects were 

selected. 

Classification of Implementing Agencies 

For purposes of this study, an implementing agency was defined as a organization that (1) had an 

agreement or contract with the State agency (or is the State agency) for the provision of FSNE services; 

(2) had a separate set of goals, objectives, and outcomes describing how FSNE would be conducted by 

the agency, and (3) had a separate budget that was approved by the State agency. Implementing agencies 

could be direct providers of FSNE; they could deliver services through local programs or could use a 

combination of both approaches. The review of State nutrition education plans identified three main 

types of organizations that entered into contracts with a State agency to provide FSNE services: 

Cooperative Extension Services (CES), nutrition networks, and “other” organizations. Other 

organizations included State agencies other than the State food stamp agency (e.g., a State health 

department), universities, and food banks. 

Based on the State plan review, a classification system with five categories of implementing agencies was 

developed. As described in Chapter II of the Final Report, the five categories were as follows: 

(1) Cooperative Extension without Network 

(2) Cooperative Extension with Network 

(3) Independent Nutrition Network 

(4) Other Independent Providers without Local Projects 

(5) Other Independent Providers with Local Projects 

Exhibit B-1 shows the five types of implementing agencies defined for this study, and the number of each 

type identified during the review of State FSNE plans. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-7

Exhibit B-1. Number of Implementing Agencies, by Type, and States Represented 

in Each Category 

Type of Implementing 

Agency 

Number 

of IAs 

States with the Type of Implementing Agencies in FY 2004 

Cooperative extension without 

network 

39 Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming 

Cooperative extension with 

network 

10 Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin 

Independent nutrition network 8 Arizona, California, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Washington 

Other independent provider 

without local projects 

22 Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

Texas, US Virgin Islands 

Other independent provider 

with local projects 

14 District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin 

Total 93 

Note: The classification of implementing agencies (IAs) into the five categories was based on the review of State FY 2004 plans. In 

the site visits, we learned one agency visited had been mis-classified. 

Stratification 

In order to capture the diversity of FSNE nationally, it was important to use a sampling plan that ensured 

selection of the appropriate number of implementing agencies from each of the five categories. We 

stratified the population of implementing agencies by type (the five categories) and FNS region. This 

stratification scheme ensured that the sample exhibited diversity of both implementing agency 

organizational structure and geography. With five implementing agency types and seven FNS regions, 

however, the number of stratification cells was 35, and not all implementing agency types were 

represented in each region.26 For this reason we used a systematic random sample in which 

implementing agencies were first stratified according to type. All implementing agencies within a type 

were then sorted by FNS region, and within region they were sorted by size of budget (by ascending and 

descending order in alternate regions).27 A sampling interval was computed from the number of 

implementing agencies in the type stratum and the number to be sampled, and a random starting point was 

selected. Implementing agencies corresponding to the random starting point and every nth implementing 

agency thereafter (where n was equal to the sampling interval, not necessarily an integer) were selected. 

Sampling Rates and Intervals 

We had the option of sampling implementing agencies of the five types with equal or unequal probability. 

We sampled with unequal probability for two reasons. First, FNS was interested in capturing as much 

diversity in FSNE operations as possible within a fixed resource budget. Second, we believed that there 

was likely to be less diversity in FSNE operations in some implementing agency types than others. For 

 

26 For example, in FY 2004, the Western Region did not include any implementing agencies in the “Cooperative 

Extension with Network” or “Other Independent Provider without Local Projects” categories. The Mountain 

Plains Region did not include any implementing agencies in the “Other Independent Provider without Local 

Projects” or “Other Independent Provider with Local Projects” categories. 27 Sorting by size of budget in this approach helped ensure that the sample exhibited diversity in budget size as 

well as region and type. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-8

instance, we expected that, as a group, FSNE operations in “Cooperative Extension without Network” 

implementing agencies would show less diversity than operations within “Cooperative Extension with 

Network” or “Independent Nutrition Network” implementing agencies. Thus, to maximize the diversity 

of FSNE operations in our total sample of implementing agencies, we chose lower sampling rates in strata 

expected to exhibit less diversity. Exhibit B-2 shows the selected sampling rates. 

Exhibit B-2. Summary of Sampling Plan for Implementing Agencies 

Cooperative 

Extension 

without 

Network 

Cooperative 

Extension 

with Network 

Independent 

Nutrition 

Network 

Other 

Independent 

Provider 

without Local 

Projects 

Other 

Independent 

Provider with 

Local 

Projects Totala

Number 39 10 8 22 14 93 

Sampling rate .30 .60 .60 .15 .60 .37 

Number of 

sampled 

agencies 

12 6 5 3 8 34 

a The total sampling rate of 0.37 is calculated as the ratio of sampled agencies to total agencies, 34/93. 

With an overall sampling rate of 0.37, or 37 percent, the above plan oversampled implementing agencies 

in the “Cooperative Extension with Network,” “Independent Nutrition Network” and “Other Independent 

Provider with Local Projects” types, whereas it undersampled implementing agencies in the remaining 

types. Finally, because one implementing agency dwarfs all remaining implementing agencies in terms of 

budget, we sampled the California Department of Health Services (an “Independent Nutrition Network” 

agency) with certainty. It had a FY 2004 total FSNE budget of $177 million, compared to a budget of 

$28 million for the next largest implementing agency. The sampling rate for the remaining implementing 

agencies in this category was adjusted downward so that four implementing agencies were selected from 

the remaining seven. 

Sample Selection 

With the proposed stratification and sampling rates, we selected 34 implementing agencies in our sample. 

These implementing agencies are shown in Exhibit B-3, where the codes for Type of Agency are: 1 = 

Cooperative Extension without Network, 2 = Cooperative Extension with Network, 3 = Independent 

Nutrition Network, 4 = Other Independent Provider without Local Projects, and 5 = Other Independent 

Provider with Local Projects. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-9

Exhibit B-3. Sampled Implementing Agencies (Reflecting Data Abstracted from FY 

2004 State Plans) 

Name of Implementing Agency 

Type of 

Agencya State Region 

Total FY 2004 

Project 

Budget 

Arizona Department of Health Services 3 Arizona Western $13,628,586

Family and Consumer Sciences, CES , University of 

Arkansas 

1 Arkansas Southwest 4,535,360

California Department of Health Services 3 California Western 177,271,526

Colorado State University 2 Colorado Mountain 

Plains 

6,293,554

District of Columbia Department of Health 5 District of 

Columbia 

MidAtlantic 1,000,000

University of Florida 1 Florida Southeast 6,573,282

University of Georgia Older Adults 5 Georgia Southeast 715,794

University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and 

Human Resources, CES 

1 Hawaii Western 320,000

University of Idaho Extension Nutrition Program 1 Idaho Western 1,559,038

University of Illinois at Chicago, Division of Community 

Health 

5 Illinois Midwest 3,135,855

Iowa Nutrition Network; Iowa Department of Public 

Health 

3 Iowa Mountain 

Plains 

3,040,018

University of Massachusetts 1 Massachusetts Northeast 4,988,628

Michigan State University Extension 2 Michigan Midwest n/a 

University of Minnesota College of Human Ecology 2 Minnesota Midwest 13,102,018

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 5 Minnesota Midwest n/a 

Mississippi Department of Human Services 4 Mississippi Southeast 49,686

Alcorn State University 1 Mississippi Southeast 1,315,765

Montana State University 1 Montana Mountain 

Plains 

1,191,736

Department of Nutrition, University of Nevada, Reno 5 Nevada Western 322,334

UNH Cooperative Extension 1 New Hampshire Northeast 1,558,729

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 2 New Jersey MidAtlantic 5,227,310

NY Department of Health 5 New York Northeast 1,155,160

North Carolina A and T State University 5 North Carolina Southeast 272,310

North Carolina CES 2 North Carolina Southeast 5,263,073

Ohio State University Extension 1 Ohio Midwest 5,168,918

University of Oklahoma-Department of Nutrition 

Sciences in the College of Allied Health 

3 Oklahoma Southwest 119,518

Oklahoma State University CES 1 Oklahoma Southwest 2,140,648

South Dakota State University CES; South Dakota 

Department of Social Services 

2 South Dakota Mountain 

Plains 

756,966

University of Tennessee Health Science Center 3 Tennessee Southeast 1,087,175

South Plains Food Bank 4 Texas Southwest 28,794

Permian Basin Food Bank 4 Texas Southwest 189,954

West Virginia Department of Health and Human 

Services (through West Virginia University) 

1 West Virginia MidAtlantic 2,304,783

Ho-Chunk Nation 5 Wisconsin Midwest n/a 

University of Wyoming 1 Wyoming Mountain 

Plains 

2,902,211

a

 Type of agency: 

1 = Cooperative Extension without Network 

2 = Cooperative Extension with Network 

3 = Independent Nutrition Network 

4 = Other Independent Provider without Local Projects 

5 = Other Independent Provider with Local Projects 

n/a = not available through the FY 2004 State Plan abstraction.
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-10

Exhibit B-4 shows the States that were represented in the sample of 34 implementing agencies, grouped 

by type of agency and FNS region.28

Exhibit B-4. State Agencies Selected for the Site Visit Sample, Based on 

Implementing Agencies Selected, by Type of Implementing Agency 

and FNS Region* 

FNS Region 

Cooperative 

Extension 

without 

Network 

Cooperative 

Extension 

with 

Network 

Independent 

Nutrition 

Network 

Other 

Independent 

Provider 

without Local 

Projects 

Other 

Independent 

Provider with 

Local 

Projects Total 

Northeast MA, NH NY 3 

Mid-Atlantic WV NJ DC 3 

Southeast FL, MS NC TN* MS GA, NC 5 

Midwest OH MI, MN IL, MN, WI 5 

Mountain Plains MT, WY CO, SD IA 5 

Southwest AR, OK OK TX, TX 3 

Western HI, ID AZ, CA NV 5 

Total* 12 6 5 3 8 29 

* The implementing agency and the State agency in Tennessee were dropped from the sample after the site visit data collection 

 began. This reduced the final State agency sample to 28, of which 27 completed the interview. 

Sampling Local Projects for Site Visits 

Local projects were purposively selected to reflect the diversity of nutrition education efforts being 

carried out at the local level. The most important dimension of diversity varied, depending on the type of 

implementing agency and other features of the FSNE plan. For traditional CES agencies, we expected 

that the most diversity was in whether the local project served an urban, rural, or mixed area. Other 

relevant dimensions included method of delivery (e.g., direct education, indirect education, and social 

marketing), demographics of the target audience, and FSNE goals and objectives. The final selection of 

local projects also took into account the availability of staff and logistical efficiencies for the site visit 

itinerary. 

Prior to the recruiting effort, senior project staff reviewed the abstracted data from each sampled 

implementing agency and prepared a list of three to seven local projects that exhibited diversity in 

nutrition education efforts. When the study team recruited an implementing agency into the study, the 

study team member discussed with the implementing agency staff about which local projects to visit. 

Selecting, in general, two to four local projects per implementing agency allowed us to capture as much 

diversity in FSNE operations within that agency, while staying within the constraints of the study 

resources. However, for some implementing agencies more than four local projects were visited because 

 

28 One modification was made to this sample design late in the site visit data collection period due to unforeseen 

developments. We discovered that the sampled implementing agency in Tennessee had been defunded early in 

FY 2004 and no one who had been associated with the implementing agency could be contacted for an 

interview. Thus, a decision was made to drop this implementing agency, and thereby the Tennessee State 

agency from the site visit sample. However, also late in the site visit period, it was decided to add another 

implementing agency in New York, to better reflect the State’s relatively large FSNE budget. Thus, the final 

site visit sample retained 34 implementing agencies, but dropped the number of State agencies to 28. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-11

of their diversity. The sampled implementing agencies in Texas had no local projects in their FSNE 

service organization. 

Exhibit B-5 presents a summary of agencies visited in each sampled State for the on-site data collection. 

Sampling Partner Organizations for Site Visits 

Implementing Agency Partners 

For each sampled implementing agency, the project team used data from the State plan data abstraction to 

determine the program partner for interview. The principal criterion for selection of the program partner 

was the nature and extent of involvement by the partner in FSNE services as described in the State plan. 

Local Project Partners 

We contacted local projects directly when we recruited them into the study and scheduled their site visits. 

At that time we ascertained whether they had any partnering agencies for provision of FSNE and, if so, 

who those partnering agencies were. If there was only one partnering agency, we sought to include an 

interview with that agency’s representative during the site visit. If the local project had more than one 

partnering agency, we selected one for an interview based on the level of involvement of the partner in 

providing FSNE, as reported by the local project. 

Web-Based Survey Data Collection 

Access to the Website was controlled by a unique password assigned to each State agency and 

implementing agency. Notification about the survey and the instructions for participating in the survey 

was sent to all State agencies and implementing agencies using the following steps: 

1. FNS notified all State agencies and implementing agencies through the regional offices that the 

study was being conducted and to inform them that they would be contacted by the Abt/HSR 

team regarding the survey. (See the notification letter at Attachment B.) An e-mail and/or phone 

call was then sent from HSR to all State agencies and implementing agencies with instructions on 

accessing the web-based surveys and the schedule for the surveys to be completed. The FNS 

letter instructed agency staff to direct questions to appropriate study team staff. 

2. The study team monitored the responses to surveys, sent out reminders, and responded to 

questions. The web-based survey contained a “contact us” feature that allowed the respondent to 

access the e-mail address of the survey director, or to phone the survey team staff via an 800 

phone line to ask questions. 

3. Respondents were able to save their responses to survey questions at any time using the “save this 

document” feature. Once the survey was complete, however, we asked the respondent to click on 

the “survey complete” feature, which locked out all further access to the survey. The completed 

survey form was then be moved to the database, where it was reviewed by HSR survey staff for 

completeness. If there were questions regarding the completeness or accuracy of survey 

responses, a staff person contacted the respondent and resolved the data issues. 

The status of survey completion was updated daily. Weekly conference calls were held within the project 

team to assess the response rate and to determine if any additional steps were necessary to obtain the 

target response rate. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-12

Exhibit B-5. Number of Days and Interviews Completed in Each State for On-Site 

Data Collection 

State 

Number of 

Days 

State 

Agency 

Implement

-ing 

Agencies 

State-level 

Partners 

Local 

Projects 

Local 

Partners 

Nutrition 

Educators 

Arizona 5 1 1 3 7 2 2 

Arkansas 3 1 1 3 3 

California 7 1 1 1 5 

Colorado 3 1 1 1 2 3 

District of Columbia 1 0 a 1 0a 

Florida 3 1 1 2 3 1 

Georgia 5 1 1 1 0b 3 

Hawaii 3 1 1 3 0c 

Idaho 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 

Illinois 3 1 1 1 1 2 

Iowa 5 1 1 6 6 3 

Massachusetts 3 1 1 3 3 3 

Michigan 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 

Minnesota 5 1 2 1 4 2 2 

Mississippi 3 1 1d 0d 3 3 

Montana 3 1 1 3 2 3 

Nevada 3 1 1 0e 

New Hampshire 3 1 1 1 3 2 

New Jersey 5 1 1 1 5 1 

New York 5 1 2 2 3 

North Carolina 5 1 1f 3 

Ohio 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 

Oklahoma 5 1 1g 1 1 1 2 

South Dakota 3 1 1 2 1 

Texas 3 1 2 0h 

West Virginia 3 1 1 1 3 3 

Wisconsin 3 1 1 1 0i 1 

Wyoming 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 

TOTAL 27 31 24 67 43 32 

Note: In many sites, nutrition educators who played a key role in their local project nutrition education activities were interviewed together with local 

project staff, using the local project interview protocol. 

a The State agency staff was not available for interviews. The local projects were schools where staff were not available for interviews during the 

summer break when the site visit was scheduled. 

b

 The University of Georgia, College of Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Department of Foods and Nutrition, used centrally-based faculty and 

graduate students in nutrition to deliver nutrition education classes at senior centers. There were local partners but no local offices or subcontractors 

who functioned as local projects. The implementing agency director and nutrition educator interview were combined, because the only nutrition 

educator currently on staff was also a member of the implementing agency central staff. c The sampled implementing agency used no local project or subcontractor for FSNE. 

d

 One of the two implementing agencies sampled in Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS), was misclassified as an 

implementing agency. Instead, a representative from MDHS was interviewed as a local project partner. The second implementing agency had no 

local projects. 

e

 Three local projects that had been selected in Nevada were school districts and staff were not available for interviews during the summer break when 

the site visits were scheduled. 

f

 Two implementing agencies were sampled in North Carolina, but only one site visit was conducted. Due to the contracting system in North Carolina 

there appeared to be multiple implementing agencies, but in fact there was only one, the North Carolina CES. g

 Two implementing agencies were sampled in Oklahoma, but only one site visit was conducted. The sampled University of Oklahoma implementing 

agency is also a partner agency to the Cooperative Extension and was therefore interviewed as an implementing agency partner. They provided no 

direct nutrition education.

h

 The selected implementing agencies in Texas had no local projects. i

 Three local projects contacted for site visits in Wisconsin were schools where staff were not available for interviews during the summer break when 

the site visit was scheduled. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-13

When the time to complete the web-based survey collection approached, we sent these agencies a 

reminder letter. Repeated reminder emails and telephone calls were made to slow responders during 

April through July 2005 on a bi-weekly schedule to reach the targeted response rates of 95 to 100 percent. 

The final response rates (of usable survey forms) were 96 percent for State agencies (50 out of 52 total) 

and 90 percent for implementing agencies (84 out of 93 total). 

Recruitment of State Agencies and Implementing Agencies for OnSite Data Collection 

Recruitment of Sampled State Agencies 

A few days after FNS sent a notification letter to all State agencies and implementing agencies regarding 

the web-based survey, another letter was sent by the FNS project officer to the principal contact person in 

each sampled State, requesting their cooperation in participating in the site visit interviews (Attachment 

C). This letter requested State agency’s cooperation in encouraging the sampled implementing agencies 

to participate in the site visits. Similar letters were subsequently sent to sampled implementing agency, 

local projects, and local partners asking them to participate in interviews. 

Following the receipt of the advance letter, each respondent received a call from a member of the 

recruitment team to schedule the interview. The recruitment team leader answered any questions the 

State agency director had about the planned data collection, confirmed the State agency’s willingness to 

participate in the on-site data collection activities, and collected contact information about who at the 

State agency would be most appropriate to respond to the in-depth interviews. 

The respondent was asked to identify several possible upcoming dates and times for the visit. The 

recruitment team leader then sent a reminder letter to the agency contact, indicating the general topics to 

be discussed. Throughout this process, all efforts were made to accommodate the agencies’ schedules, 

and the study participants were given a realistic appraisal of the amount of contributions in time, 

information, and human resources that would be expected. 

Recruitment of Implementing Agencies 

Recruiting of a State’s sampled implementing agency(ies) started as soon as its State agency indicated its 

willingness to cooperate in the study. We e-mailed a recruitment letter to the FSNE director at the 

implementing agency describing the study, detailing the purpose of and plans for on-site data collection, 

and seeking the implementing agency’s cooperation with our on-site interviews. 

Shortly afterwards, a study member called the implementing agency’s FSNE director to answer any 

questions about the study and seek their willingness to participate in the on-site interviews. Once 

agreement was reached, the study member discussed our tentative selection of local projects and 

partnering agencies for on-site data collection. We asked the FSNE director for contact information for 

the local projects (and partnering agencies, if available). 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-14

Recruitment of Local Projects and Partnering Agencies 

Once an implementing agency was recruited into the study and confirmed the selection of local projects, 

we sent letters to the selected local projects. Again, the letter described the study, detailed plans for onsite data collection, explained that the State agency and implementing agency had agreed to participate in 

the study, and sought the local project’s willingness to participate. If the FSNE director preferred to first 

contact the local project to let them know about the study, we waited a few days before sending letters 

and contacting the local project ourselves. 

When we called the local projects we also asked about partnering agencies at the local level and to 

identify nutrition educators. If there were any partnering agencies, we selected one for an interview and 

asked the local project for contact information. We then sent a recruiting letter to the local partner and 

followed up with a phone call to confirm their willingness to participate and to schedule a time for the site 

visit. As with the implementing agencies, if the local project director wished to contact the partnering 

agency first, we provided time for that before sending the recruiting letter. 

On-Site Data Collection 

The on-site data collection was conducted during April through June of 2005. The site visits began one 

month after the implementation of the web-based surveys so that the site visit interviews could explore in 

greater detail the FSNE operational issues based on information obtained from the survey. 

Site Visit Data Collector Training 

Once the OMB approval was received, the project team began the training of data collectors. We 

conducted a 2.5-day training in early April 2005. Training materials were designed to ensure quality data 

collection, including appropriate protocols for contacting and working with implementing agencies. 

During the training, senior project staff provided background information on FSNE and reviewed the 

challenges encountered during a previous study of FSNE. The training prepared project staff to anticipate 

a variety of issues when conducting the on-site interviews. 

Materials for the site visits consisted of briefing books for each sampled State with information about its 

implementing agencies based on data abstracted from the State plans and the State agency and 

implementing agency web-based surveys. Training materials were designed to accommodate the 

diversity of implementing agency approaches, and yet maintain consistency in data collection. The 

interviewers were instructed in the training regarding specific web-based survey data to extract and 

review for the States and implementing agencies that they were assigned to visit as part of the preparation 

for each site visit. The training included instructions for preparing site visit reports, with a general 

overview of how the qualitative data would be coded for data entry. 

On-Site Data Collection Teams and Schedules 

Our sample of implementing agencies (Exhibit B-5) included 24 instances in which only one 

implementing agency in a State had been sampled (in most cases, the selected implementing agency was 

the only implementing agency in the State). In five instances (Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-15

Oklahoma, Texas, and New York), two implementing agencies within a State were selected, yielding a 

total of 34 sampled. Generally, when only one implementing agency within a State was sampled, a twoperson team spent three days on-site, for a total of six person-days of data collection. On the first day, 

both team members visited the implementing agency and jointly conducted the following interviews: 

 Director of nutrition education: 4 hours 

 Budget administrator: 2 hours 

We did not visit any regional staff that may be organizationally located between the implementing agency 

and local projects. During the interview with the implementing agency, however, we ascertained whether 

such a regional structure existed and the roles they played in FSNE activities. 

For the remaining two days of the site visit, the two-person team split up. One member went to the State 

capital to meet with the State agency administrator (1.25 hours), a budget director (.75 hours), and a 

representative of a partnering agency, such as the State WIC director (1 hour).29 That person visited a 

local project on the third day of the trip. The second team member visited two local projects, generally 

over two days. Thus, our usual plan was to interview a total of three local projects affiliated with the 

sampled implementing agency. For all interviews conducted by one interviewer, data collectors asked 

permission to audio record the interview to facilitate preparation of the interview report. 

The interview schedule at each local project was: 

 Local project director: 2 hours 

 Budget administrator: .75 hours 

 Nutrition educators (If more than one, in a group interview): 1.33 hours 

 Local partner (if applicable): 1 hour 

An exception to the above data collection schedule was for California, where we selected the California 

Department of Health Services as the sampled implementing agency. Because of the size of this 

implementing agency in terms of both local projects (over 200), local partners (over 200) and budget 

(over $177 million), the two-person team spent a full five days (ten person-days) on site. The additional 

four person-days were spent visiting four additional local projects and partnering agencies. Modified 

schedules were also implemented for visits to Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, 

and New York to accommodate data collection from two implementing agencies and their local projects 

and partners. 

 

29 Partnering agencies were sampled purposively, based on their importance to the implementing agency’s plans 

and the need to have a diverse sample. If the sampled partnering agency could not be visited on the same day as 

the State agency, a team member visited the partnering agency on the day of a local project visit. If logistics did 

not permit an in-person interview, the partnering agency interview was conducted by telephone. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-16

Site Visit Reports 

After each site visit, data collectors prepared a report on each interview conducted, including responses to 

all interview questions. The interview reports followed a standardized format to facilitate coding and 

entry of the information into a qualitative database. 

After the interview reports were written, blocks of text within the report were coded using a preestablished hierarchical structure. Data quality supervisors reviewed the coded interview reports to 

ensure consistency in coding. Once complete, the coded information contained in the reports was entered 

into the study’s qualitative database by trained coders. 

Final Survey and Interview Response Rates 

The response rates for the web-based surveys were 96 percent for the State Agency Survey and 90 percent 

for the Implementing Agency Survey. For the on-site interviews, staff from all organizations we 

contacted for this component of data collection agreed to participate, except for a few cases that are noted 

below Exhibit B-5.30 The number of respondents and response rates for all data collection activities are 

summarized in Exhibit B-6. 

Exhibit B-6. Summary of Data Collected for FSNE System Review 

Instrument 

Web-Based Surveys Total Number Contacted Number of Respondents Response Rate 

Survey of State Agencies 52 agencies 50 agencies 96% 

Survey of Implementing Agencies 93 agencies 84 agencies 90 

 

Interview Protocols Total Number Contacted Number of Interviews 

Completed 

Response Rate 

State food stamp agencies 28 agencies 27a 96% 

Implementing agencies 31 agencies 31 100 b

State-level partners 24 organizations 24 100 

Local projects 76 organizations 67 88 

Local partners 43 organizations 43 100 

Nutrition educators 32 nutrition educators 32 100 

a No SFSA staff were available for the interviews in one sampled State. 

b Of the 31 implementing agencies that were contacted for implementing agency interviews, all responded. See explanations in 

Exhibit B-5 notes.

Except for the financial data, the level of missing data across survey questions was very low at 5 percent 

or less. For interview data, the item-level response rates varied greatly across instruments and items. For 

many questions, only about half of the respondents provided responses. These “low response rates” were 

due to the great diversity among organizations, staff, and services involved in FSNE. Many of the 

interview questions did not apply to many respondents. However, there were no cases of refusals to 

respond, except for the local agencies in Wisconsin that cancelled the scheduled site visit appointments. 

 

30 The only changes to the original site visit samples involved: 1) exclusion of one FY 2004 implementing agency 

in Tennessee that no longer existed in spring 2005, 2) exclusion of the Tennessee State agency, and 3) addition 

of a second implementing agency in New York. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-17

Obtaining State-Level Data on FSNE Budgets and Spending 

The web-based survey and the on-site data collection instruments were designed to collect more 

disaggregated fiscal data on FSNE operations and spending than those available from existing sources. 

However, as discussed in the final report, collecting complete, uniform fiscal data from all implementing 

agencies was not possible, largely due to different ways in which data were maintained and reported 

across different agencies. Thus, FNS provided the following State-level data: 

 Approved FSNE budget based on approved, final State plans for FY 2004 (Source: Food Stamp 

Program); and 

 Federal outlays and nonfederal outlays for FY 2004, as reported to FNS by States on the SF-269 

Financial Status Report. 

These data were used in the editing of the financial data from the surveys, and for the analysis of total and 

per-capita FSNE spending for all States. 

Development of Project Databases 

The data collected for this study were organized into two types of databases. A “quantitative” database 

was created from numerical and categorical data collected with the two web-based surveys. The 

interview data were organized and placed in “qualitative” analysis databases. 

Quantitative Database 

Data from the two web-based surveys were uploaded from the Internet into multiple SQL databases (one 

for State agencies and one for implementing agencies). We trained the data quality control (QC) staff on 

the web-based surveys and the data collected in these surveys. Prior to entry into the database, each 

survey was checked for completeness and consistency in response. If there were omissions or unclear 

responses, a QC team member phoned the respondent to resolve the data problem. 

Cleaning the Financial Data in Surveys 

The implementing agency survey requested detailed financial data that were not available from extant 

FNS databases and reports: a breakdown of the agency’s budget by source of funds, a breakdown of 

outlays by type of expenditure and source of funds, and a breakdown of outlays by type of agency 

providing funds. The survey provided instructions, enabled respondents to compile information on a 

hard-copy of the worksheet before entering the data, and listed a toll-free number to call with questions. 

Despite these efforts to assure data quality, the initial analysis found that 40 of the 84 implementing 

agency surveys had problems with budget data, 39 had problems with outlays by type of expenditure, and 

45 had problems with outlays by agency providing funds. Problems included completely missing 

responses, incomplete responses (e.g., missing totals or major items), internally inconsistent responses 

(items not summing to total), and inconsistencies between budget and outlays. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-18

The budget and outlays data from the implementing agency survey were edited and revised according to 

the following basic rules: 

1. Implementing agency totals could not exceed State totals for the available variables (from FNS): 

Federal budget, Federal outlays, and nonfederal outlays. 

2. The Federal share of the implementing agency’s budget and outlays could not exceed the 

nonfederal share, unless this was true in the State totals. 

3. The Federal share of the implementing agency’s outlays could not exceed the agency’s Federal 

budget. 

4. Questions involving nonfederal outlays should have matching totals. 

5. Absent other valid information, nonfederal outlays were assumed to be equal to Federal outlays. 

Based on these rules, 43 of 84 completed surveys were flagged as having problematic data on budgets, 

outlays, or both. Of these, 31 were edited by applying these rules, yielding 72 usable observations for 

analysis of total budgets, outlays, and percent of budget spent. Missing implementing agency budget data 

were filled from the State Agency survey and the State FSNE Plan abstractions. When the totals 

suggested the likelihood of an entry error in the detail of a question, the detail was reviewed and, if 

possible, corrected (e.g., obvious instances of decimal slip or double entry). 

Readers are cautioned that the edited data for any individual implementing agency represent the most 

credible estimate with the available data, but actual audited costs may differ. Another limitation of the 

data is that the State-level outlays were provided by FNS in November 2005, when States still had 10 

months to claim additional Federal reimbursement for FSP administrative outlays. Therefore, the State 

totals used to impute implementing agency outlays may understate the final totals, which will not be 

available until October 2006. 

The financial data from California posed a special problem. The largest implementing agency reported 

$82.8 million in nonfederal outlays. On the other hand, the State totals in the FNS data were $32.5 

million each in nonfederal and Federal outlays (as of November 2006), and the other implementing 

agency in California reported $5.5 million in nonfederal outlays and $4.9 million in Federal outlays. 

Thus, the FNS data implied that the largest implementing agency had $27.6 million in Federal outlays, or 

$55.2 million less than the survey figure. Therefore, if we had used the survey data and assumed an equal 

amount of Federal outlays, we would have increased the national totals of nonfederal and Federal FSNE 

outlays by $55.2 million apiece, or 18 percent. Inspection of the FNS data revealed that the State had 

$54 million in unliquidated obligations. Thus, it appeared that the implementing agency included 

unliquidated obligations in its reported outlays. This implementing agency did not report the amount of 

Federal outlays. In keeping with our general rule #1, we imputed the Federal outlays for this agency as 

equal to the State total less the total for other implementing agencies (i.e., $27.6 million), and we imputed 

the nonfederal outlays as equal to the Federal outlays (rule #5). Thus, our estimates may understate the 

nonfederal outlays for this agency and, by extension, for FSNE as a whole, particularly if the State 

subsequently liquidated some of the $54 million in unliquidated obligations. Review of past years’ FNS 

data indicate a history of substantial unliquidated obligations for this State and several others. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-19

Qualitative Database 

The process for constructing the site visit database involved the coding of interview responses, using the 

Center for Disease Control’s qualitative data analysis software— Analysis Software for Word-Based 

Records (AnSWR). 31 This software allows for coordinating and conducting large-scale, multisite data 

analyses that integrate qualitative and quantitative techniques, developing a data codebook, and the 

systematic application of codes to textual data. 

After the first round of site visits, data collectors wrote their interview reports. A subset of site visit data 

collectors served as coders for all of the interview reports. To ensure inter-rater reliability, we trained a 

small team of coders who were experienced field research staff. 

Data from all interview forms were coded and organized into AnSWR data files as: 1) coded categorical 

data, and 2) narrative text data. The AnSWR program was used to compute frequencies and percentages 

of the coded interview data. However, the high levels of item-level “missing data” led us to focus 

primarily on descriptions of typical narrative information from the interviews to provide contextual, 

qualitative information to accompany the frequencies and percentages generated from the web-based 

survey data. 

The method used to select the implementing agencies for site visits was designed to provide a sample that 

systematically captured the diversity across all implementing agencies based on type of organization, 

geographic distribution, and size of FY 2004 budget. Thus, for the implementing agency interview 

questions, the assumption was that we could weight the sample-based percentages and generate 

reasonable estimates of responses that would be obtained from the census of implementing agencies. 

However, in the analysis of the interview data, we discovered that there were substantial levels of 

“nonresponse” and “not apply” responses, which the site visitors attributed to the great diversity among 

responding organizations. Given the high rates of “missing data,” weighting of implementing agency 

interview data was not appropriate analytically. The samples of other organizational groups (e.g., the 

State agencies and local projects) were based on the implementing agency sample, not on a systematic 

random sample method. Thus, frequencies and percentages based on these interviews should not be 

interpreted as representing these organizational groups nationally. 

Public Use Data Files 

A set of electronic files has been constructed to permit FNS and its designees to further explore the data 

collected as part of the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Systems Review. Survey data collected from 

State agencies and implementing agencies are housed in SAS (Statistical Analysis Software) datasets. 

Because a great deal of cleaning and additional work was necessary to make the financial data captured 

through the surveys usable, separate files for these modified financial data were created. 

Site visits conducted for this study required the use of six different interview protocols. Each interview 

protocol is associated with an AnSWR file in which each interview is a record. The narrative text data 

from the interviews were coded into response categories that were generated from the data. Databases 

with these binary codes have been exported from AnSWR into SAS. They can be merged with the survey 

 

31 AnSWR can be downloaded from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/software/answr.htm. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-20

data by using the implementing agency identification number and/or State identifier. Exhibit B-7 lists the 

final public use datasets created from the data collected for this study. 

Exhibit B-7. Public Use Datasets Containing FSNE System Review Data 

Dataset Name Type of Database Number of Records 

State Food Stamp Agency Survey 

(SFSA_survey.sas7bdat) 

SAS 50 

Implementing Agency Survey (IA_survey.sas7bdat) SAS 84 

State Food Stamp Agency Financial Data 

(State_clean.sas7bdat) 

SAS 50 

Implementing Agency Financial Data 

(ia_clean.sas7bdat) 

SAS 84 

State Food Stamp Agency Interview Coded Data 

(SFSA_codedtxt.sas7bdat) 

SAS 27 

Implementing Agency Interview Coded Data 

(IA_codedtxt.sas7bdat) 

SAS 31 

Implementing Agency Partner Interview Coded Data 

(IAP_codedtxt.sas7bdat) 

SAS 24 

Local Agency Interview Coded Data 

(LA_codedtxt.sas7bdat) 

SAS 67 

Local Agency Partner Interview Coded Data 

(LAP_codedtxt.sas7bdat) 

SAS 43 

Nutrition Educator Interview Coded Data 

(NE_codedtxt.sas7bdat) 

SAS 32 

State Food Stamp Agency Interview Textual Data 

(project3.mdb) 

AnSWR 27 

Implementing Agency Interview Textual Data 

(project3.mdb) 

AnSWR 31 

Implementing Agency Partner Interview Textual Data 

(project3.mdb) 

AnSWR 23 

Local Agency Interview Textual Data (project3.mdb) AnSWR 67 

Local Agency Partner Interview Textual Data 

(project3.mdb) 

AnSWR 43 

Nutrition Educator Interview Textual Data 

(project3.mdb) 

AnSWR 32 

Limitations of Study Data 

Several issues related to the design of the study and/or the nature of FSNE may have affected the quality 

of survey and interview data with regard to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, and validity of data. 

The key issues are summarized below. 

Self-Report Data. All data collected for this study were reported by staff in agencies and organizations 

providing FSNE services. Except for the budget and fiscal outlay data provided by FNS (which were also 

originally reported by FSNE agencies), none of the study data came from sources independent of FSNE 

agencies. There was no way to assess the extent of possible bias in the data provided by study 

respondents. 

Response Rates. As mentioned earlier, the survey response rates were quite high – 96 percent for the 

State Agency Survey and 90 percent for the Implementing Agency Survey. At the individual item level, 

both web-based surveys had very low levels of missing data, except for the financial data sections. The 

problems with the financial data likely reflected a number of issues including variations in record-keeping 

systems, definitions of terms, and budget categories. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-21

The item-level response rates for on-site interviews were lower largely due to the great diversity among 

FSNE organizations and staff resulting in many questions that were not applicable. 

Definitions of Key Terms. In reviewing the survey responses and interviewing FSNE program staff, it 

became clear that respondents used varying definitions of several terms used in this study. Examples are: 

the meanings of “needs assessment” and “outcome and impact evaluations.” Varying definitions 

presented challenges even though we included easy access to an online glossary for the web-based 

surveys and the site visit data collectors were thoroughly trained to help the interview respondents 

understand the meaning of our questions. 

Different Interpretations and Applicability of Questions Depending on Respondents. Some 

of the survey and interview questions were interpreted differently by respondents, which seemed to reflect 

the variations in FSNE organizational types and structures, contexts for FSNE program, and prior 

experience with FSNE. An example was: whether or not to consider non-Federal funds contributed from 

universities as “implementing agency funds” for implementing agencies that were part of a Cooperative 

Extension Service based in a State university. When asked to break out FTEs by type of staff 

(paraprofessional vs. professional) some FSNE staff responded in terms of job categories regardless of 

educational and professional backgrounds. 

Variations in Program Record Keeping Systems. Implementing agencies varied greatly in how 

they organized and reported program operations and participant data, and some agencies’ data were not 

compatible with the way we intended to collect the data for this study. As we explain in more detail in 

Chapter VII, this problem became a major constraint in conducting financial analysis of FSNE operations. 

Absence of Data Representing the FNS Perspective. In order to generate in-depth descriptions of 

the complex, multilayered FSNE structure and operations, this study was designed to focus all data 

collection efforts on the State and local stakeholders involved in FSNE administration and service 

delivery. No data were collected from FNS representatives such as Regional Office staff. For the 

aspects of FSNE operations that relate to interactions between FSNE agencies and FNS, the data reflect 

only the State agency and implementing agency perspectives. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-22
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-23

ATTACHMENT A. DATA ABSTRACTION DOCUMENT – 2004 FSNE 

STATE PLANS 

SECTION I: STATE DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. State: 

2. Number of Implementing Agencies: 

 

3. Type of Implementing Agency: 

_____ A. Cooperative Extension, Traditional 

_____ B. Cooperative Extension, Network 

_____ C. Nutrition Network, Other 

_____ D. Other: 

4. Name of Implementing Agency: 

5. Address of Implementing Agency: 

6. Contact person for this Abstraction:

7. Phone Number: 

8. Fax Number: 

9. E-mail Address: 

10. Total Project Budget: $

A. State Share: $

B. Federal Share: $

11. Total Number of FTEs: 

A. State-level: 

B. Local-level: 

12. Total number of Counties and/or Local Programs Providing FSNE: 

Counties: 

Local Programs: 

13. Waivers Approved 

Exclusivity Waiver YES NO

Private Cash Donation Waiver YES NO

Other _________________________ 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-24

SECTION II: TARGET AUDIENCE

 

1. Number of Clients (or contacts) Anticipated to be Served: 

2. Target Audience(s) Identified in Plan: 

3. Has Implementing Agency Conducted a Needs Assessment? Yes No 

If yes, what type of needs assessment? 

____ A. Review of Secondary Data 

____ B. Conduct original qualitative research 

____ C. Conduct original quantitative research 

____ D. Use needs assessment produced by other agency 

____ E. Other 

4. Geographic distribution of Services: 

Statewide: _____ Regional: ____ 

SECTION III GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS

1. Categories of behavioral goals and objectives of 2004 nutrition education effort: 

 

_____ A. Dietary Quality 

SPECIFIC GOAL OBJECTIVE

_____ B. Food Resource Management 

SPECIFIC GOAL OBJECTIVE

 

_____ C. Food Safety 

SPECIFIC GOAL OBJECTIVE

 

_____ D. Food Security 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-25

SPECIFIC GOAL OBJECTIVE

 

______ E. Other: 

SPECIFIC GOAL OBJECTIVE

 

2. Dietary guidelines to be addressed: 

_____ A. Healthy weight 

_____ B. Physical activity 

_____ C. Use pyramid guide for food choices 

_____ D. Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables 

_____ E. Food safety 

_____ F. Low fat and cholesterol 

_____ G. Moderate sugar intake 

_____ H. Use less salt 

_____ I. Alcohol in moderation 

_____ J. Choose a variety of whole grains 

3. Methods to be used in reaching goals and objectives: 

____ A. One-on-one nutrition education 

____ B. Nutrition education classes to groups 

____ C. Social marketing efforts 

____ D. Other 

4. What types of interventions have been designed to implement methods? 

 ____ A. State-level Interventions 

 ____ B. Local-level Intervention 

5. Education Materials to be used: 

_____ A. Materials developed by project 

Justification for Development 

_____ B. Materials developed by FNS 

_____ C. Materials developed by other State FSNE programs 

_____ D. Materials developed by other public nutrition education programs 

_____ E. Materials developed by private agencies 

_____ F. Other 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-26

SECTION IV. PROGRAM COORDINATION

1. List programs with which program coordination is planned: 

_____ A. Team Nutrition or other school-based programs 

_____ B. WIC 

_____ C. 5-a-day 

_____ D. Commodity food programs 

_____ E Head Start 

_____ F. Food banks/pantries 

_____ G. Other public health nutrition education programs 

_____ H. Local Food Stamp Offices 

_____ I. Other private nutrition education efforts (list) 

2. Describe program coordination efforts: 

Coordination Efforts Description 

 A. Shared materials 

 B. Common message development 

 C. Services provide on other program site 

 D. Program planning 

 E. Joint funding of local projects 

 F. Client Recruitment 

 G. Joint Training 

 H. Other 

3. Extent of coordination: 

_____ A. State-level only 

_____ B. Local-level only 

_____ C. Both State and local level 

SECTION V. PROGRAM EVALUATION

1. How are objectives to be measured? 

Objectives How Measured 

 

2. Will the implementing agency be conducting any evaluation efforts? 

 If so, what type: 

_____ A. Process evaluation efforts 

_____ B. Outcome evaluation efforts 

3. Anticipated use of evaluation results: 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-27

ATTACHMENT B. WEB-BASED SURVEY NOTIFICATION LETTER TO ALL 

STATE AGENCIES AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES

March 2005 

Dear State Agency Director [FSNE Implementing Agency Director]: 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, has contracted with Abt Associates 

Inc. and Health Systems Research, Inc. to conduct the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Systems Review. The 

purpose of this national study is to develop comprehensive, up-to-date description of food stamp nutrition 

education (FSNE) services and operations that will inform the Federal and State policy makers as well as local 

service providers in their efforts to enhance the FSNE program. 

This study will involve two data collection activities: (1) web-based surveys of all State agency directors and 

FSNE Implementing Agency directors, and (2) site visits to a sample of implementing agencies, their State 

agencies, local projects, and FSNE partners to conduct in-depth interviews with selected FSNE staff. The 

purpose of this letter is to introduce the web-based State Agency Survey [FSNE Implementing Agency Survey] 

to you and ask your cooperation in completing the survey. 

Topics Addressed in the Survey 

The survey will focus on FSNE services provided during Federal Fiscal Year 2004 (FY 2004), which ran from 

October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004, and address topics such as: organizational structure and 

decision-making process in FSNE agencies; partnerships and coordination of FSNE activities; FSNE plan 

development; needs assessment and identification of target audiences; FSNE message development and 

delivery methods; agencies’ assessment of FSNE performance and outcomes; budgeting and financial 

management processes; and FSNE funding and expenses. 

Use of Survey Data 

This survey is not an audit or a management review. The information you provide will be used to develop a 

profile of FSNE program in each State and an integrated national description of FSNE implementing agency 

activities. 

Voluntary Participation and Protection of Data Privacy 

Your participation in the survey is completely voluntary. Failure to complete the survey will not affect your 

employment or your agency’s receipt of Federal funds for FSNE in any way. However, your contribution to 

this study is of great importance. A high rate of participation by State agency and implementing agency 

directors is essential to providing a comprehensive picture of FSNE that cannot be obtained from State FSNE 

plans. 

If you agree to participate, your agency’s name and location, and your general job title (e.g., State FSNE 

director, budget director) will be identified in reports prepared for the study and in data files provided to FNS. 

However, none of your responses to the survey will be released in a form that identifies you or any other State 

FSP agency [implementing agency] staff member by name. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-28

Convenient Survey Completion 

You may access the web-based survey by logging into the Internet and following the steps indicated below: 

Step One: Go to http://www.hsrnet.net/xxxxxx

Step Two: Click on the ‘xxxxxxxxxxxx’ link on the left side of the page. 

Step Three: Scroll to the bottom of that page and click on 

 ‘Click Here to begin the State Agency Survey for the FSNE 

System Review.’ 

Step Four: Enter User Name and Password (listed below). Please note they are 

both case-sensitive. 

username: xxxxx 

password: yyyyy 

The average total time to complete the State Agency Survey is 85 minutes [FSNE Implementing Agency 

Survey is 300 minutes], but it is designed so that you can respond at your convenience and over multiple 

sessions. In addition, you may not have all the information needed to respond to all questions immediately at 

hand. You may save and quit the survey at any time while you gather the necessary information. You also 

may ask other staff members to fill out sections of the survey for which they have the needed information. 

We ask that you complete the survey by [DATE]. After you have completed the survey, the survey staff 

from the Health Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) may contact you to clarify your response to particular 

questions. 

Contacts for Additional Information 

For questions regarding specific survey questions and how to complete the survey: Contact Dr. Loren 

Bell of HSR at (207) 772-1410 or lbell@hsrnet.com, or Ms. Jodi Anthony of HSR at 1-800-xxx-xxxx or 

janthony@hsrnet.com. 

For questions regarding this research: Contact the study director, Dr. Fumiyo Tao, of Abt Associates Inc. at 

301-634-1855 or fumiyo_tao@abtassoc.com. 

For questions about your rights as a research subjects: Contact Ms. Marianne Beauregard at Abt 

Associates Inc. at 617-349-2852 or marianne_beauregard@abtassoc.com. 

(Calls to all of the telephone numbers listed above, except the 1-800 technical assistance number, will be 

regular long-distance toll calls.) 

We thank you in advance for your full cooperation in contributing to this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Fumiyo Tao Kristen Dowling Hyatt 

Project Director Project Officer 

Abt Associates Inc. USDA Food and Nutrition Service
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-29 

ATTACHMENT C. RECRUITMENT LETTER TO STATE AGENCIES SAMPLED 

FOR SITE VISITS

March 2005 

Dear [State Agency Director]: 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has selected Abt Associates Inc. and its subcontractor, Health 

Systems Research, to conduct a national study of food stamp nutrition education (FSNE) activities in 

Federal Fiscal Year (FY)2004. The goal of the study is to provide FNS with a comprehensive description 

of current FSNE activities and decision making at the State, implementing agency (subgrantee), and local 

project (sub-subgrantee) levels. 

To meet this goal, the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Systems Review includes two surveys to be 

conducted in February 2005—one to be completed by all State agencies and another by all implementing 

agencies. Both surveys will be administered via the Internet. In addition, to learn more about FSNE 

decision-making processes at all levels, the Abt and HSR researchers will visit selected implementing 

agencies, their State agencies, and their local projects/subcontractors and partnering agencies in MarchMay 2005 to conduct in-person interviews with representatives of these agencies and organizations. 

Your State agency and [sampled implementing agency name(s) in this State], have been selected for the 

in-person interview component of the study. The purpose of the interviews is to learn more about the 

roles of the State agency, the implementing agency, the local projects/subcontractors, and partnering 

agencies in FSNE planning, coordination, and supervision. Topics for the interviews include: agency 

organization and administration related to the provision of FSNE, development of the State’s annual 

nutrition education plan, budgeting, needs assessment and identification of target audiences, message 

development, development and use of nutrition education materials, coordination of FSNE activities 

across implementing agencies, evaluation of nutrition education process and outcomes, staffing, 

supervision and monitoring activities, and sources and uses of funds. 

We look forward to your Agency’s participation in the in-depth interview component of the Food Stamp 

Nutrition Education Systems Review. We also request your assistance in strongly encouraging the 

implementing agencies in your State that have been selected for site visits to participate. During the site 

visit, we will need to meet with you and the State FSP budget official most knowledgeable about FSNE 

finances, either separately or jointly, for a total of approximately 2 hours. At each sampled implementing 

agency, we will interview the agency FSNE director and the budget official who is most familiar with 

FSNE budgeting and expenses. These interviews will take a total of approximately 6 hours. 

I assure you that all these interviews are part of a research study and not an audit or management review 

of your Agency’s or implementing agencies’ FSNE activities. Information such as Agency name and 

location, and respondents’ general job titles (e.g., FSNE director, budget director) will be identified in 

reports prepared for this study and in data files provided to FNS. However, no interview responses will 

be released in a form that identifies individual respondent by name. Completion of the surveys and 

participation in the interviews is completely voluntary. Failure to complete a study component will not 

affect respondents’ employment or their agency’s receipt of Federal funds for FSNE in any way. 
Abt Associates Inc. Appendix B B-30 

A member of the study team will call you in a few days to answer any questions you may have about the 

study, to confirm your Agency’s participation in the study, and to further describe our data collection 

plans. At that time we would also like to discuss possible dates for the on-site visit. We will need to 

coordinate interview dates among all the agencies, partners and local projects so that we may collect all 

the data in a single visit to [State]. 

The success of this important study depends on what we can learn about FSNE activities in [State], and 

we look forward to your cooperation. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the study, please 

feel free to call me at 703-305-2135. You may also contact me at kristen.hyatt@fns.usda.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Kristen Dowling Hyatt 

Project Director 

USDA Food and Nutrition Service