Best Practices in Nutrition Education 

for Low-Income Audiences Program Design

• Content Areas

• Evidence 

Based

•	Goal Setting

• Appropriate 

for Audience

• Literacy 

Considerations

•	Theoretical

Basis

• Goals and 

Objectives

• Social 

Ecological

Model

Program Delivery

•	Learning

Styles

•	Experiential

Activities

• Contacts

• Fidelity

• Enhancement 

Items

•	Collaboration

Educator Characteristics

• Relate to 

the Target

Audience

•	Expertise in

Content

•	Expertise

in Teaching

Methods

• Performance 

Expectations

Educator Training

•	Initial

Training

•	Ongoing

Training

•	Observation

of Educators

Evaluation

•	Formative

Evaluation

• Process 

Evaluation

• Outcome 

Evaluation

• Impact 

Assessment

• Sustained 

Behavior 

Change

• Goals and 

Objectives

• Social 

Ecological

Model

1
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences

Principal Investigator: Susan Baker, EdD 

Co-Principal Investigator: Garry Auld, PhD, RD

Project Manager: Chloe MacKinnon, MS

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

Colorado State University

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235

Preferred Citation for this Document: Baker, S; Auld, G; MacKinnon, C; Ammerman, A; Hanula, G; Lohse, B; Scott, M; Serrano, E;

Tucker, E; and Wardlaw, M. Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences (2014).

United States Department of Agriculture

Food and Nutrition Service

United States Department of Agriculture

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

NIFA Contact:

Helen Chipman, PhD, RD

National Program Leader, Food and Nutrition Education

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Expert Panel

Alice Ammerman, DrPH, RD

Director, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

Professor

Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health

and School of Medicine

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Gail Hanula, PhD, RD, LD

Senior Public Service Associate Emerita

Department of Foods and Nutrition

The University of Georgia

Barbara Lohse, PhD, RD, LDN

Associate Professor, Nutritional Sciences

Director, NEEDs Center

Pennsylvania State University

Marci Scott, PhD, RD

Vice President of Health Programs

Michigan Fitness Foundation

Elena Serrano, PhD

Associate Professor/Extension Specialist

Department of Nutrition, Foods, & Exercise

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Easter Tucker, MS

1890 EFNEP Coordinator

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

Mary Kay Wardlaw, PhD

Director, Cent$ible Nutrition Program

University of Wyoming Extension

http://snap.nal.usda.gov/snap/CSUBestPractices.pdf

2
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an agency within the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, identified a need for a comprehensive set

of best practices in nutrition education for low-income audiences for

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program educational projects,

including SNAP-Ed. Best practices are elements and/or strategies,

supported by evidence, that have been shown to be effective in achieving

programmatic outcomes. A comprehensive list of best practices would

promote consistency and efficacy in program planning, implementation,

and evaluation. In addition, the use of best practices increases confidence

that education efforts will result in positive nutrition and health-related

behavior changes. FNS provided funds for this project to the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), who then awarded the task to

researchers at Colorado State University (CSU).

CSU researchers were charged with identifying best practices, and

then involved an expert panel. Seven panel members were chosen

based on their experience with nutrition education of low-income

populations as program leaders, program implementers, and researchers

at universities and public health organizations. Experience with program

evaluation, both youth and adult audiences and content expertise in

nutrition, physical activity, food resource management, food safety,

and educational methodologies was considered. Using a representative

expert panel served to validate the best practices for face and content

validity. Best practices were also substantiated from a review of the

research literature.

Introduction

Twenty-eight best practices within five domains were identified,

recognizing that nutrition education is most effective when delivered

through multiple levels of the Social-Ecological Model. These best

practices are appropriate for both direct and indirect delivery of nutrition

education to both adult and youth audiences. The expert panel also

identified potential data sources to be used by nutrition educators

to determine if and to what extent their programs are including best

practices. In the following pages, these data sources, or indicators, are

listed below each best practice described within the colored bars. These

indicators are examples and are not intended to be comprehensive.

Links to resources are also included for additional information and

self-study. In addition to resources, case studies of selected low-income

nutrition education programs are included as real-world examples of

planning, implementing, and evaluating specific best practices.

This resource can be used as a self-assessment tool to identify both

program strengths and areas for improvement to better align programs

with best practices. Additionally, this resource may serve as a guide for

future educator training topics, or as a tool for strategic and long-term

program planning. As more programs successfully implement and use

these best practices, fidelity and efficacy of nutrition education improves.

Best practices are not limited for use by program leaders, but may also

be used by managers and outside evaluators at local, state, and national

levels, state SNAP agencies, FNS at a regional and national level, and

other low-income nutrition education programs.

3
To increase the use of best practices in SNAP-Ed programming, it is

recommended that program leaders:

1.	 Use best practices to self-assess program strengths and limitations;

2.	 Include behavior change theory and research-based content in

program design;

3.	 Deliver evidence-based curricula, messages, and materials

appropriate for the specific target audience;

4.	 Ensure fidelity in program delivery, educator training, data collection,

and evaluation; and

5.	 Link evaluation to program design, program delivery, educator

training, and appropriate levels of the Social-Ecological Model.

Use best practices to self-assess program strengths and limitations

Program leaders might use best practices to self-assess program

strengths and identify areas for improvement. It is unlikely that

any program exhibits all best practices; however, making program

improvements based on each of the best practices could lead to especially

strong programs. For example, a program may include strong elements

of program design but could enhance programming by developing and

delivering a consistent training protocol for nutrition educators.

Indicators provided with the best practices, while not comprehensive,

can serve as a guide for program leaders to determine if and how

well the best practice is being utilized. For example, an expert review

may substantiate the correct use of behavior change theory within a

curriculum. In addition to indicators, case studies from current SNAP-Ed

programs and resources might help guide program leaders on ways to

implement specific best practices.

Recommendations for Practitioners

Include behavior change theory and research based content in 

program design

Behavior change theory should drive the delivery of nutrition

education. Theory can help program planners, such as SNAP-Ed

implementers, to define both a target audience and methods for

producing behavior change in the audience and set appropriate goals and

outcomes. Some theories are more appropriate with respect to specific

learning objectives and/or target audiences.

The design of a nutrition education program should be based on

accurate, reliable, and current research. A review of the curriculum in

a peer-reviewed journal, list of references used in the development

of a curriculum, or an expert review of the program or curriculum can

help ensure that it is research-based. Using the most current Dietary

Guidelines for Americans is an example of using evidence-based content.

While many published curricula include a theoretical basis and deliver

research-based content, it is more appropriate for programs to use a

single curriculum in its entirety rather than piece together multiple

resources. 

Deliver evidence-based curricula, messages, and materials appropriate 

for the specific target audience 

Curricula, messages, and materials should be developed and

delivered specific to the target audience, including consideration of

participants’ ages and cultural background. Age-appropriate visuals and

activities should be used to engage the target audience, while literacy

considerations should be made for print materials, like handouts and

recipes. Recipes and food preparation strategies should be consistent

4
with program goals, appeal to the target audience, and be appropriate

for the financial needs and culture of the population. Many low-income

nutrition education programs develop and publish recipes via cookbooks,

handouts, or web media. The SNAP-Ed Connection website also houses a

collection of low-cost recipes for use in programming. This website, found

at http://recipefinder.nal.usda.gov, is a worthwhile starting point for

finding recipes suitable for low-income audiences.

Ensure fidelity in program delivery, educator training, data collection, 

and evaluation

Fidelity refers to the implementation of an intervention consistently

and as intended. Implementing an intervention with high fidelity to

the original design increases the likelihood that the efficacy of the

intervention will be replicated in the new setting. When multiple program

sites implement the same intervention with fidelity, the aggregation

of intervention outcomes is feasible. It is imperative for educators – or

whoever is delivering the intervention in the field – to understand the

importance of and how to maintain fidelity. This is a topic that may be

introduced in the initial training, and – ideally – reviewed throughout

employment.

Link evaluation to program design, program delivery, educator training, 

and appropriate levels of the Social-Ecological Model

Appropriate evaluation will determine if participants are gaining

skills from experiential learning, goal setting, and other kinesthetic

learning activities. Initial and ongoing training for nutrition educators

should include program evaluation purposes and protocols. Educators

should understand the importance of evaluation and how the design and

delivery of programming can affect the accuracy of evaluation results. If

educators are also involved in evaluation, training should include data

collection protocols.

In addition, an evaluation component should be included for all

levels of the Socio-Ecological Model in which programming is delivered.

Traditional nutrition education has been delivered at the individual level;

therefore, many – if not most – evaluation activities assess behavior

change of the individual. With the passage of the Healthy Hunger-Free

Kids Act of 2010, more policy and environmental-based activities are

allowable in SNAP-Ed; thus, it is imperative that these new multi-level

initiatives are also evaluated.

Conclusion

Use of best practices would promote consistency and efficacy

among low-income nutrition education programs, including SNAP-Ed.

Recommendations relate to using best practices as a guide throughout

program planning, implementation, and evaluation.

5
Twenty-eight best practices are included in the following pages. The five domains are denoted by color, as noted below:

Program Design: Red

Program Delivery: Blue

Educator Characteristics: Purple

Educator Training: Teal

Evaluation: Green

How to Use This Document

The best practices are included within colored horizontal bars. Additional explanations for the best practices are also included in the colored bar, if

applicable. Indicators are located below the best practices. These indicators can guide program leaders in determining if and to what extent the best

practice is achieved within a specific program. To the right of the indicators are resources (citations or links to current resources) and case studies.

Text in blue is a live link and can be accessed by the Internet. Case studies are included as examples of programs that exemplify one of these best

practices but may also represent others. Researchers are not suggesting the programs these case studies represent are exemplary in terms of their

use of all best practices, rather they have executed at least one of these identified best practices well. Program Design

• Content Areas

• Evidence 

Based

•	Goal Setting

• Appropriate 

for Audience

• Literacy 

Considerations

•	Theoretical

Basis

• Goals and 

Objectives

• Social 

Ecological

Model

Program Delivery

•	Learning

Styles

•	Experiential

Activities

• Contacts

• Fidelity

• Enhancement 

Items

•	Collaboration

Educator Characteristics

• Relate to 

the Target

Audience

•	Expertise in

Content

•	Expertise

in Teaching

Methods

• Performance 

Expectations

Educator Training

•	Initial

Training

•	Ongoing

Training

•	Observation

of Educators

Evaluation

•	Formative

Evaluation

• Process 

Evaluation

• Outcome 

Evaluation

• Impact 

Assessment

• Sustained 

Behavior 

Change

• Goals and 

Objectives

• Social 

Ecological

Model

6
Program Design

Content Areas Curriculum includes accurate nutrition content and may also include current information 

related to physical activity, food resource management, food safety, eating behaviors, parent/child 

feeding relationship.

Evidence Based Core topics and content in curriculum are based on accurate, reliable, and current research

Intervention includes the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Goal Setting Curriculum includes participant behavior change goal setting.

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Citations and sources used in curriculum

•	Curriculum review by professional organization or peerreviewed journal

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Feedback from participants

•	Documented observation of educator while teaching

To learn more:

•	Core Nutrition Messages

http://www.fns.usda.gov/core-nutrition/core-nutrition-messages

• Food Safety Resources

http://www.fns.usda.gov/food-safety/food-safety-resources

To learn more:

• Dietary Guidelines for Americans

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/

• Case Study: Evidence-Based Content

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Page 276

7
Appropriate for Audience Curriculum is appropriate for the target audience.

Available in languages appropriate for the target audience, visuals and activities are appropriate for the 

target audience, and recipes are consistent with program goals and appeal to the target audience. 

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Feedback from participants

•	Documented observation of educator while teaching

Program

Literacy Considerations Curriculum considers literacy level of the target audience.

Design

Theoretical Basis Curriculum is based on behavior change theories that are used appropriately for the 

content and target audience. Theories may address knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors (physical, 

cognitive, and/or affective).

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Feedback from participants

•	Computer analysis of reading level

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Published review or evaluation of curriculum

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Chapter 2

Chapter 17

Page 368

• Case Study: Appropriate for Target Audience

•	SNAP-Ed Connection Recipe Finder

http://recipefinder.nal.usda.gov/

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Page 410

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

8
Goals and Objectives Program has clearly stated goals and objectives that drive both the intervention and 

the evaluation.

Objectives are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely (SMART).

Social Ecological Model Programs are strengthened by the inclusion of multiple levels of the SocialEcological Model (SEM) and enhanced by the inclusion of policy, systems, and environmental supports.

Indicated by:

• Key performance indicators

•	Evaluation tools

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Feedback from participants

Program Design

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 10

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 3

Chapter 6

• Case Study: Social-Ecological Model (MD)

• Case Study: Social-Ecological Model (MN)

9
Program Delivery

Learning Styles Program delivery accommodates visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (hands-on) learning styles.

Experiential Activities Program delivery incorporates research- and/or practice-based learner-centered 

methodologies for the sharing of new information and includes experiential activities with minimal lecture.

Contacts Program delivery includes contacts of appropriate frequency and duration to achieve 

learning objectives.

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Feedback from participants

•	Program evaluation

•	Documented observation of educators while teaching

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Documented observation of educators while teaching

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Educational and Reporting System (EARS) for SNAP-Ed

•	Nutrition Education Evaluation and Reporting System

(WebNEERS), an EFNEP reporting system appropriate for

many SNAP-Ed programs

•	Other reporting systems used by nutrition education

programs

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Page 353

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Page 353

To learn more:

• Case Study: Contacts 

10
Fidelity Program is implemented as designed to maintain the theoretical basis and is delivered in its entirety.

Indicated by:

•	Documented observation of educator while teaching

• Educator requests of curriculum supplies

•	Documentation of implementation by educator

•	Consistent outcomes program-wide

Enhancement Items Program utilizes enhancement items and other strategies to reinforce learning 

at home.

Enhancement items may include food preparation and storage items (such as measuring cups), physical 

activity tools (such as pedometers), and other skill-building items (such as grocery lists).

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

•	Documentation of educator while teaching

•	Feedback from participants

•	Program evaluation

Collaboration Collaboration exists within and among national, state, and local nutrition education and 

health promotion initiatives, including organizations serving the target audience, to coordinate delivery of the 

intervention and reach participants in multiple settings.

Program Delivery

To learn more:

• Case Study: Fidelity

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Page 422

Page 302

• Case Study: Collaboration (SAFB)

• Case Study: Collaboration (WI)

Indicated by:

• Cross referral systems in place

•	Formal and informal collaborative agreements

(i.e., signed MOUs)

•	Feedback from collaborative agency personnel

•	Program evaluation

•	Systems changes reflecting collaboration

11
Educator Characteristics

Relate to the Target Audience Community-based educators possess the ability to relate well to the 

target audience.

Expertise in Content Community-based educators have expertise in content prior to delivering intervention.

Indicated by:

•	Feedback from target audience

•	Job description

•	Feedback from program leaders

Indicated by:

•	Documented observation of educators while teaching

•	Review of training materials

•	Training evaluations completed by educators

•	Outcomes of intervention

•	Position announcements and/or hiring criteria

•	Assessment of content knowledge before and after

training

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Page 38

•	Development of Core Competencies for Paraprofessional

Nutrition Educators Who Deliver Food Stamp Nutrition

Education

	 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/fsne/pdfs/paraprof_

core_comp.pdf

12
Performance Expectations Clearly defined performance expectations are shared with the communitybased educator upon hire and/or initial training.

Indicated by:

• Performance appraisal of educator 

•	Performance expectations in program policy manual

•	Staffing organizational chart

•	Personnel activity reports

•	Reports documenting progress toward achievement

of objectives and/or expectations

•	Feedback from participants, including success stories

Educator Characteristics

Expertise in Teaching Methods Community-based educators have expertise in teaching methods 

appropriate for the target audience prior to delivering intervention.

Indicated by:

•	Documented observation of educators while teaching

•	Review of training materials	

•	Training evaluations completed by educators

•	Outcomes of intervention

•	Teaching experience and/or credentials, if applicable

•	Assessment of knowledge of teaching methods before

and after training

13
Educator Training

Initial Training Initial training, conducted prior to program delivery, accommodates visual, auditory, and 

kinesthetic (hands-on) learning styles and provides an opportunity to learn:

Content, andragogy (how adults learn)/pedagogy (how children learn), cultural sensitivity and diversity, 

program evaluation, and program protocols and processes.

Ongoing Training Ongoing training accommodates visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (hands-on) learning 

styles, allows for shadowing, mentoring, and sharing of successes among educators, and provides an 

opportunity to learn:

Content, andragogy (how adults learn)/pedagogy (how children learn), cultural sensitivity and diversity, 

program evaluation, and program protocols and processes.

Indicated by:

•	Training evaluations completed by educators

•	Observation of training

•	Review of training materials

•	Documented observation of educators while teaching

Indicated by:

•	Training evaluations completed by educators

•	Observation of training

•	Review of training materials

•	Documented observation of educators while

teaching

To learn more:

•	Development of Core Competencies for Paraprofessional

Nutrition Educators Who Deliver Food Stamp Nutrition

Education

	 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/fsne/pdfs/paraprof_

core_comp.pdf

•	EFNEP and SNAP-Ed Initial Paraprofessional Training Materials

and Methods 

	 http://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/tt6.php

• Case Study: Initial Educator Training

To learn more:

•	Development of Core Competencies for Paraprofessional

Nutrition Educators Who Deliver Food Stamp Nutrition

Education

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/fsne/pdfs/paraprof_

core_comp.pdf

14
Observation of Educators Observation of community-based educator teaching occurs at least annually 

(more often for new hires) to determine:

Fidelity to intervention, quality of lesson delivery (including the use of dialogue-based, hands-on teaching 

methods), accuracy of content shared, and performance management/contractual fulfillment.

*Results of observation may be shared with the educator and/or used by program leaders to identify trends and training needs.

Indicated by:

•	Documented observation of educator while teaching

Educator Training

To learn more:

•	Development of Core Competencies for Paraprofessional

Nutrition Educators Who Deliver Food Stamp Nutrition

Education

	 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/fsne/pdfs/paraprof_

core_comp.pdf

15
Evaluation

Formative Evaluation Use of formative evaluation in the development of the intervention.

Process Evaluation Use of process evaluation in monitoring and decision making.

To assure intervention is implemented as designed and that intervention is continually reviewed to ensure 

fidelity and adapted as needed.

Indicated by:

•	Expert review

• Published results of pilot studies

•	Curriculum description/overview

•	Published research about the development of the curriculum

or intervention

Indicated by:

•	Program documentation

•	Interviews with program developers

•	Annual program reports

•	Feedback from participants on usefulness and

acceptability of program

• Feedback from educators on usefulness and 

acceptability of program

•	Documented observation of educator while teaching

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 14

Page 322

•	Challenges of Conducting Effective SNAP-Ed Evaluations: A Stepby-Step Guide

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAPEDWaveII_

Guide.pdf

• Case Study: Formative Evaluation

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 14

Pages 323, 324

•	Challenges of Conducting Effective SNAP-Ed Evaluations: A Stepby-Step Guide

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAPEDWaveII_

Guide.pdf

• Case Study: Process Evaluation

16
Impact Assessment Impact assessment measured by comparison group if intervention has not yet been 

formally tested.

Indicated by:

•	Published research about evaluation of the curriculum or

intervention

•	Annual program reports

•	Pre- and post-intervention measures

Outcome Evaluation Use of outcome evaluation for program assessment, reporting, and revisions.

Indicated by:

•	Pre- and post-intervention measures

• Case studies 

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 14

Pages 322, 325

•	Challenges of Conducting Effective SNAP-Ed Evaluations: A Stepby-Step Guide

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAPEDWaveII_

Guide.pdf

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 14

Pages 322, 325

•	Challenges of Conducting Effective SNAP-Ed Evaluations: A Stepby-Step Guide

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAPEDWaveII_

Guide.pdf

• Case Study: Impact Assessment 

Evaluation

17
Sustained Behavior Change Evidence that participants maintain behavior change into the future.

Indicated by:

•	Delayed post-intervention measures

•	Feedback from participants

•	Feedback from program partners

To learn more:

• Case Study: Sustained Behavior Change

Goals and Objectives Evaluation is designed to measure achievement of program goals and objectives.

Social Ecological Model Evaluation is designed to address each level of the Social-Ecological Model 

included within program.

An evaluation plan should be included for each level of SEM addressed in program design.

Indicated by:

•	Comparison of program-wide goals and objectives with

evaluation tools

Indicated by:

•	Policy changes as a result of the intervention

•	Environmental changes as a result of the intervention

•	Refer to outcome, impact, and sustained behavior change

indicators for individual-level

Evaluation

To learn more:

•	Contento, I.R. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research,

theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.

Chapter 14

Page 323

To learn more:

•	Challenges of Conducting Effective SNAP-Ed Evaluations:

A Step-by-Step Guide

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAPEDWaveII_

Guide.pdf

18
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Process Evaluation 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Until recently, state and local SNAP-Ed programs relied on a match system of funding. It was 

under this system that the Iowa Nutrition Network collaborated with the Iowa Area Agencies on Aging 

to bring the Chef Charles program to older Iowans at congregate meal sites. The program served a third 

of eligible meal sites. Iowa Nutrition Network (INN) used experienced nutrition educators to implement 

the Chef Charles program. Educators traveled to multiple congregate meal sites to provide direct, smallgroup nutrition education to older adult participants before their midday meal. The nutrition educator 

used a newsletter and leader’s teaching guide that were published monthly by state staff to lead the 

small-group lessons. 

Utilizing an experienced nutrition educator provided confidence that evidenced-based 

information was being delivered to participants in an appropriate manner. While successful in its design, 

implementation of this model was time-intensive and inefficient. The nutrition educator in some rural 

areas often had to drive a significant distance to get to any given congregate meal site. In addition, 

because lessons were typically provided before mealtime, the number of presentations was inherently 

limited.

The elimination of matched funding, coupled with the desire to create a more resource-efficient 

intervention, prompted the process evaluation of Chef Charles. Conducted in large part by Dr. Sarah 

Francis of Iowa State University with funds from a Wellmark grant, the purpose of the evaluation was to 

solidify the theoretical framework and create a more efficient program model that could be scaled up 

and implemented by all of Iowa’s Area Agencies on Aging. 

Program leaders recognized the importance of and need for a strong, consistent theoretical 

basis for the newsletter. The Health Belief Model was chosen as the theoretical basis as it aims to 

reduce real and perceived barriers to health-related behaviors. A small, six-month evaluation of the 

program materials utilized a comparison group; the intervention group received the modified 

newsletters/leader guides – those with a strong theoretical basis and core health content framed for 

Program Design

Best Practice: Curriculum is appropriate for the target audience. 

Also: Evaluation – Process Evaluation 

Iowa Nutrition Network, Iowa Department of Public Health 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Process Evaluation 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

maintaining independence – while the comparison group received the pre-existing Chef Charles 

newsletters/guides. The modified newsletters and focused activities were well received by the 

intervention group, who showed improvements in dietary intake. 

The Department of Public Health then contracted with Pam McCarthy to conduct multiple focus 

groups to glean information from both program participants and program educators on preferred 

content, design, and delivery of the newsletters and program. Program participants desired that the 

program educator value participants’ previous life experiences and recognize their prior knowledge. As 

older adults, the target audience no longer wanted to prepare meals for themselves; however, they did 

express a desire to be self-sufficient. Therefore, program leaders decided to frame core health content – 

such as consumption of fruits and vegetables, physical activity, and consumption of calcium-rich foods 

and beverages – in terms of helping participants maintain their health and independence for as long as 

possible. 

The process evaluation yielded data that led to plans to change the delivery of programming and 

the educator-training model. Six part-time program coordinators will be hired through the Area 

Agencies on Aging. These coordinators will recruit local volunteers and meal site staff to deliver 

programming and will prepare their local staff using a video, training manual and individual training as 

needed. This collaboration will provide access to older adults across the entire state. To ensure that 

volunteers and staff are implementing the program as designed, coordinators will use a fidelity checklist. 

While the modification of newsletters and facilitation guides is underway, the Area Agencies on Aging 

are preparing to hire their coordinators. The Network plans to report on the outcomes of the new 

educator model at a later date. Chef Charles will be re-named “Fresh Conversations” beginning January 

2014 coinciding with the new program delivery model. Fresh Conversations will initially be piloted to a 

sample of congregate meal sites – perhaps those with a larger percentage of participants qualifying for 

SNAP or other federal assistance programs. After this first year, Iowa Nutrition Network will seek

approval to conduct a more rigorous evaluation of the design and delivery of Fresh Conversations. 

Program leaders believe this model is more realistic for achieving statewide reach. The program 

evaluation of Chef Charles (now Fresh Conversations) fulfills multiple best practices including utilizing a 

strong theoretical basis, ensuring fidelity of delivery, and gathering and applying feedback from the 

target audience for evaluating the intervention. In addition, the Iowa Nutrition Network focused their 

training materials on the importance of selecting educators who are likeable and relate well to the 

target audience, which is another best practice.
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Impact Assessment

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337;

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Body Quest: Food of the Warrior (BQ) is a nutrition education and obesity prevention 

intervention for elementary-aged youth. Program leaders sought to create a novel and meaningful 

intervention for youth and did so by developing and testing the utility of a technology-based pedagogy 

to supplement direct education. 

Direct education and content delivered by SNAP-Ed educators are primary, and iPad apps are 

used to reinforce lesson content. In total, BQ is a seventeen-week curriculum; each of the six lessons is 

taught by the educator and then reinforced the following week (for a total of twelve lessons). Additional 

introductory and follow-up lessons round out the seventeen weeks. Classroom and app content focus on 

delivering a fun and interactive message about increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables. In 

addition to these activities, youth participate in weekly taste tests of various fruits and vegetables. 

Because fruit is often well-received and consumed by the youth, taste tests now focus solely on 

vegetables. 

BQ apps utilize six animé warrior characters – three male and three female. A pilot test 

determined that this type of character was meaningful to the youth audience. Both male and female 

students identified with the characters and consider the warriors to be role models for healthy eating. 

Initially, BQ was going to employ laptop computers. The first generation of iPads was released during 

the intervention development period, and program leaders found iPads were more manageable in terms 

of convenience and size for both the educators and youth. Each SNAP-Ed educator is considered a 

“rolling [computer] laboratory,” carrying twenty-five iPads into each classroom. In its first year, children 

shared an iPad in a group of two or four children. Now, each child is provided with a tablet. 

A significant amount of data is collected from participants before, during, and after the 

intervention. Behavior change is the desired outcome for BQ, although knowledge change is measured, 

too. The evaluation strategy has shifted year-to-year based on the evaluation results. In the first year of 

BQ, participants completed an assessment during each of the seventeen classes. Now, in its third year, 

Program Delivery 

Best Practice: Program delivery includes contacts of appropriate frequency and 

duration to achieve learning objectives.

Also: Evaluation – Impact Assessment

Alabama - Auburn University 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Impact Assessment

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337;

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

participants complete an assessment before and after the intervention, as well as weekly during weeks 

eight through twelve (mid-intervention) as significant knowledge change is found around the tenth 

week. These mid-intervention assessments may allow program leaders to better understand an ideal 

dosage for the intervention delivery. 

Participants complete evaluations of the taste tests live in the classroom via clicker; all answers 

are immediately sent from the classroom to the central office location. The What’s For Lunch? (W4L) 

tally sheet has also been used consistently throughout BQ; each day, after lunch, students report their 

lunch consumption using tally marks. The tally sheet is updated each week to reflect foods served in the 

school lunch program. These tools allow program leaders to glean taste preferences, ideal program 

dosage, efficacy of iPad pedagogy, dietary intakes at lunchtime, and knowledge gain of the youth 

participants. 

Constant communication and support from the state office was critical to the success of BQ. The 

initial purchase of iPads was a shared expense; however, with the elimination of matched funding, BQ is 

now 100% federally funded. This initial cost share may have contributed to getting federal approval. The 

inclusion of a comprehensive, logical evaluation plans for the four-year impact evaluation may have 

contributed to approval, as well. 

BQ is currently being pilot tested in Louisiana and may soon be implemented in other states, as 

well. iPad apps provide a novel, interactive pedagogy to accompany direct nutrition education. A 

comprehensive impact evaluation plan allowed program leaders to evaluate the effects of BQ on 

elementary-aged youth; results of this impact evaluation provide confidence of intervention success as it 

is implemented in other settings. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Delivery: Fidelity

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337;

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

All 4 Kids is an intervention for preschool-aged children. The teachers and parents are the

secondary target audiences. The intervention lasts twenty-four weeks, primarily in Head Start and other 

SNAP-Ed eligible preschools, and is divided into three units. Units one and two are each eight weeks and 

unit three is five weeks. An open-house event for families occurs after each unit in which parents can 

learn what the child has learned. The intervention also engages parents by sending home newsletters 

and other materials with the children. 

The first unit of All 4 Kids focuses on physical activity and whole body movement. Nutrition 

concepts comprise the second unit and preschoolers learn about “go, slow, whoa” foods. However, as 

preschoolers often are dichotomous in their thinking, educators primarily focus on the “go” and “whoa”

foods addressing two opposite categories. In addition, this unit also emphasizes hunger and fullness 

cues and choosing healthy snack options The third and final unit focuses on healthy living at any shape 

and size. This unit emphasizes that children– regardless of shape and size – can live healthy, eat smart, 

and be active. The curriculum itself is extremely methodical and designed with program objectives and 

prekindergarten education standards in mind. 

All 4 Kids was developed by three field experts in exercise science, nutrition, and early childhood 

development. “When you take the time to develop a program that is very specific to that audience, with 

expertise in those areas applied to that audience, fidelity is key,” says Anne Lindsay, program leader. 

Therefore, educators are provided with the tools and resources needed to deliver the intervention with 

fidelity to the intended design. These tools and resources are provided via Moodle, an online training 

program. This online training protocol began in 2007 and includes both written content and videos. 

Program leaders expect to update the text and videos periodically to keep the online training up-to-date 

with technology and required content. Training is also provided to the classroom teachers, where they 

learn about the content, design, and delivery of the intervention. In addition, suggestions are given for 

how teachers can be supportive of the intervention both during and between unit lessons.

Program Delivery

Best Practice: Program is implemented as designed to maintain the theoretical 

basis and is delivered in its entirety.

Nevada - University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Delivery: Fidelity

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337;

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Educators are observed periodically, and program managers use an in-house form during the 

observation; this form tracks progress through the lesson according to how the lesson should be taught. 

Program leaders found 90% inter-rater reliability for these educator observations. Educator 

observations can be used to ensure that all lessons are being taught according to the outline provided in 

the curriculum; if all educators are delivering the intervention as designed, program leaders can be 

confident that statewide data can be aggregated and outcomes will be achieved. 

Improvement in movement skills, conceptualization of “healthy” and “unhealthy,” and 

consumption of healthy snacks by the preschool-aged youth are an example of items measured in the 

evaluation. This intervention has been evaluated with a control group and has shown improvements in 

participant knowledge and behavior. Therefore, if data suggests that the children are not improving as a 

result of the intervention, then the intervention is likely not being delivered according to the curriculum. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Delivery: Collaboration 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337;

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235. 

The San Antonio Food Bank (SAFB) provides food to 535 different non-profits within a sixteen 

county area. This food feeds approximately fifty-eight thousand individuals each week. The food bank 

wanted to provide the raw food ingredients as well as educate individuals on how to prepare, cook, and 

store food safely and economically. To do this, the SAFB offers a variety of classes and works to 

collaborate with multiple community partners. 

SAFB delivers about three hundred classes per month to varying populations. The diversity of 

the populations – including youth and seniors, homeless or disabled – forces program leaders and SNAPEd educators to stay flexible with their curricula and delivery strategies. For example, one of the 

programs at the food bank helps families apply for federal food assistance programs such as SNAP or 

WIC. About one hundred individuals come to the food bank each day to apply, and clients may wait 

twenty to thirty minutes for their appointment. SNAP-Ed educators use a portable demonstration 

kitchen in the lobby of the food bank to provide information on nutrition and physical activity, in 

addition to taste-testing recipes, to the individuals waiting for an appointment. 

Collaborators from the community include senior centers, after-school programs, schools 

(elementary, middle, and high school), shelters, emergency food pantries, and churches. Classes may be 

offered at a shelter for young mothers, where they learn about nutrition for themselves and their 

children. At a different shelter, teenagers about to transition into adulthood and independence receive 

classes on grocery shopping and cooking. 

Each individual or organization in the collaboration brings something to the ‘toolkit,’ and – if 

there is a funding or programming gap – the collaborators strategize how to address the identified gap. 

There is generally no expense incurred as a result of the partnership, unless program leaders decide to 

collectively pursue resources. For example, funding may be sought so each participant can receive an 

apron or cooking utensils while participating in the class. A recent collaboration with the local 

Program Delivery

Best Practice: Collaboration exists within and among national, state, and local 

nutrition education and health promotion initiatives, including organizations 

serving the target audience, to coordinate delivery of the intervention and reach 

participants in multiple settings.

Texas - San Antonio Food Bank
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Delivery: Collaboration 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337;

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235. 

RadioDisney station resulted in an in-school, hour-long presentation about nutrition and physical 

activity. Participants were also given Disney-themed items for their participation.

The San Antonio Food Bank reports collaboration in their SNAP-Ed Year End Report. In addition, 

outcome data is made available to the community partners. Funding organizations can also use these 

data in programmatic and investment decision-making. While the Program Director and her staff 

nourish the many and diverse relationships with collaborators, all staff members within the organization 

participate in initiating, building, and maintaining community collaborations. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Process Evaluation 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Until recently, state and local SNAP-Ed programs relied on a match system of funding. It was 

under this system that the Iowa Nutrition Network collaborated with the Iowa Area Agencies on Aging 

to bring the Chef Charles program to older Iowans at congregate meal sites. The program served a third 

of eligible meal sites. Iowa Nutrition Network (INN) used experienced nutrition educators to implement 

the Chef Charles program. Educators traveled to multiple congregate meal sites to provide direct, smallgroup nutrition education to older adult participants before their midday meal. The nutrition educator 

used a newsletter and leader’s teaching guide that were published monthly by state staff to lead the 

small-group lessons. 

Utilizing an experienced nutrition educator provided confidence that evidenced-based 

information was being delivered to participants in an appropriate manner. While successful in its design, 

implementation of this model was time-intensive and inefficient. The nutrition educator in some rural 

areas often had to drive a significant distance to get to any given congregate meal site. In addition, 

because lessons were typically provided before mealtime, the number of presentations was inherently 

limited.

The elimination of matched funding, coupled with the desire to create a more resource-efficient 

intervention, prompted the process evaluation of Chef Charles. Conducted in large part by Dr. Sarah 

Francis of Iowa State University with funds from a Wellmark grant, the purpose of the evaluation was to 

solidify the theoretical framework and create a more efficient program model that could be scaled up 

and implemented by all of Iowa’s Area Agencies on Aging. 

Program leaders recognized the importance of and need for a strong, consistent theoretical 

basis for the newsletter. The Health Belief Model was chosen as the theoretical basis as it aims to 

reduce real and perceived barriers to health-related behaviors. A small, six-month evaluation of the 

program materials utilized a comparison group; the intervention group received the modified 

newsletters/leader guides – those with a strong theoretical basis and core health content framed for 

Program Design

Best Practice: Curriculum is appropriate for the target audience. 

Also: Evaluation – Process Evaluation 

Iowa Nutrition Network, Iowa Department of Public Health 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Process Evaluation 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

maintaining independence – while the comparison group received the pre-existing Chef Charles 

newsletters/guides. The modified newsletters and focused activities were well received by the 

intervention group, who showed improvements in dietary intake. 

The Department of Public Health then contracted with Pam McCarthy to conduct multiple focus 

groups to glean information from both program participants and program educators on preferred 

content, design, and delivery of the newsletters and program. Program participants desired that the 

program educator value participants’ previous life experiences and recognize their prior knowledge. As 

older adults, the target audience no longer wanted to prepare meals for themselves; however, they did 

express a desire to be self-sufficient. Therefore, program leaders decided to frame core health content – 

such as consumption of fruits and vegetables, physical activity, and consumption of calcium-rich foods 

and beverages – in terms of helping participants maintain their health and independence for as long as 

possible. 

The process evaluation yielded data that led to plans to change the delivery of programming and 

the educator-training model. Six part-time program coordinators will be hired through the Area 

Agencies on Aging. These coordinators will recruit local volunteers and meal site staff to deliver 

programming and will prepare their local staff using a video, training manual and individual training as 

needed. This collaboration will provide access to older adults across the entire state. To ensure that 

volunteers and staff are implementing the program as designed, coordinators will use a fidelity checklist. 

While the modification of newsletters and facilitation guides is underway, the Area Agencies on Aging 

are preparing to hire their coordinators. The Network plans to report on the outcomes of the new 

educator model at a later date. Chef Charles will be re-named “Fresh Conversations” beginning January 

2014 coinciding with the new program delivery model. Fresh Conversations will initially be piloted to a 

sample of congregate meal sites – perhaps those with a larger percentage of participants qualifying for 

SNAP or other federal assistance programs. After this first year, Iowa Nutrition Network will seek

approval to conduct a more rigorous evaluation of the design and delivery of Fresh Conversations. 

Program leaders believe this model is more realistic for achieving statewide reach. The program 

evaluation of Chef Charles (now Fresh Conversations) fulfills multiple best practices including utilizing a 

strong theoretical basis, ensuring fidelity of delivery, and gathering and applying feedback from the 

target audience for evaluating the intervention. In addition, the Iowa Nutrition Network focused their 

training materials on the importance of selecting educators who are likeable and relate well to the 

target audience, which is another best practice.
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Design: Social-Ecological Model

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Three years ago, program leaders ran an “implementation study” to determine which strategies 

are most effective for SNAP-Ed educators whose work yields positive evaluation results. This study 

included surveys and interviews with paraprofessional nutrition educators, feedback from agencies, and 

observations of the educators teaching lessons. 

Program leaders found that the most effective educators were employing what they termed the 

“optimal learning model,” a combination of delivering lessons based on a very significant and strategic 

environmental scan of their participants. The most effective educators learned about their participants

before setting foot in a classroom: where they shop and do physical activities and what agencies they 

use. This allowed the educators to make appropriate adaptations for program delivery. This “optimal 

learning model” makes use of extensive interaction between the educator and participants in the 

classroom and educator familiarity with the community. For example, when an educator is teaching 

about whole grains in the classroom, he or she may ask the grocery store to put whole grain products on 

sale. They may ask one of the local agencies to serve oatmeal for breakfast. Thus, participants are 

receiving the same messages from multiple avenues within the community.

Youth are also receiving complimentary messages outside the classroom. Minnesota has 

developed and implemented a curriculum that teaches about fruits and vegetables, dairy, and whole 

grains. Educators attempt to coordinate the delivery of these lessons with the foods served by the 

school lunch or snack program. In addition, newsletters are sent home to parents that provide food 

group-specific recipes. 

In addition to the adult and youth curricula, Minnesota utilizes the “Simply Good Eating for 

English Language Learners” curriculum. This curriculum is mostly oral (rather than written) and uses 

more graphics than text; therefore, it is useful for SNAP-Ed participants with low literacy levels or those 

who are learning the English language. Minnesota SNAP-Ed also employs educators who speak 

languages respective to the learners and can interact with various ethnic audiences. 

Program Design

Best Practice: Programs are strengthened by the inclusion of multiple levels of the 

Social-Ecological Model (SEM) and enhanced by the inclusion of policy, systems, 

and environmental supports.

Minnesota – The University of Minnesota 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Design: Social-Ecological Model

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Educators are trained on implementing this “optimal delivery model.” During training, educators 

are also provided with resources for learning about the developmental stages of youth. This delivery 

model requires relationships with multiple agencies across counties and regions. Due to this shift, in 

addition to recent budget cuts, Minnesota has also moved to a new staffing model. Key elements of this 

optimal learning model are included in the position description. The “SNAP-Ed Regional Educator” title 

has now replaced a county-based educator title. The regional educators are responsible for a larger 

region, however all counties in Minnesota will still be served by SNAP-Ed. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Design: (YLGHQFH-Based Content 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

New Hampshire has a relatively limited budget for providing SNAP-Ed programming to eligible 

participants. In fiscal year 2012, New Hampshire educated SNAP-eligible adults using the “Adult SNAP-Ed 

Toolkit.” Educators could use this toolkit for single lessons or series of lessons; each lesson focuses on a 

specific message, such as MyPlate, food resource management, food safety, food groups, and 

parent/child feeding relationships. Each educator was given a lesson outline, and each lesson had 

corresponding handout(s). Program leaders expected that the educators followed the outline. If the 

Adult SNAP-Ed Toolkit was delivered as a series of lessons, participants needed to participate in a 

minimum of six lessons to graduate. In addition, the series participants also completed pre- and postintervention food recalls and behavior checklists. 

In the middle of fiscal year 2013, SNAP-Ed federal funding was cut. Funding was cut by about 

one fourth, or $250,000, for New Hampshire. Program leaders were determined, however, to avoid 

staffing cuts as a result of the budget and therefore took the opportunity to evaluate which 

characteristics of their programming they wanted to keep and which could be eliminated. A newsletter, 

once sent out to all SNAP recipients in New Hampshire, and a telephone survey of SNAP recipients were 

eliminated. These projects were “relatively big” for New Hampshire’s budget, said Debbie Luppold. The 

content and design of the program was tightened and refocused, while also retaining experienced 

educators and, thus, keeping the program accessible for participants. 

Around this same time, the federal SNAP-Ed Guidance urged SNAP-Ed program leaders to utilize 

evidence-based curricula. In late fiscal year 2012, New Hampshire had just implemented a “learn-athome” series for certain SNAP-eligible seniors and families with children; however, with a limited budget 

to test the intervention’s effectiveness, these materials were not included in New Hampshire’s SNAP-Ed 

plan. 

Program leaders valued the direct education component that is delivered to adults and youth in 

New Hampshire. The Adult SNAP-Ed Toolkit was a collection of lessons, content, and handouts from a 

variety of sources and curricula. The change in the federal SNAP-Ed guidance, coupled with the (1) time, 

Program Design

Best Practice: Core topics and content are based on 

accurate, reliable, and current research.

New Hampshire – University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Design: Research-Based Content 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

effort, and money needed to update the Toolkit and (2) the federal push to use evidence-based curricula 

prompted program leaders to purchase the Families Eating Smart and Moving More curriculum from 

North Carolina State University. Choosing this program allowed program leaders to continue providing 

direct education for adults, utilizing a curriculum that was designed using research-based content and

behavior change theory. New Hampshire opted to utilize this previously-tested curriculum rather than 

allocate resources into content development; thus, the program was able to focus on the delivery of the 

education to participants.
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Sustained Behavior Change

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

In Wyoming, SNAP-Ed programming is delivered to low-income families, adults, and children. 

SNAP-Ed is administered through University of Wyoming Extension; therefore, educators are primarily 

located in the county Extension offices. As Wyoming tends to have a more stable population – that is, 

individuals tend to be less transient– it was an appropriate location to implement a long-term evaluation 

on the behavior change of SNAP-Ed participants. 

Wyoming has implemented the Cent$ible Nutrition curriculum for at least ten years, and it has 

been updated several times. The curriculum contains hands-on cooking in each lesson, and the lessons 

are delivered using a dialogue-based, learner-centered approach. While there are seventeen lessons in 

the Cent$ible Nutrition curriculum, most adults participate in eight lessons. 

Evaluation data is collected for both one-time and series lessons. For one-time lessons, 

demographic data and intent-to-change variables are collected. For adults completing a series of lessons, 

the participants complete both a behavior checklist and a 24-hour recall before and after the series of 

lessons. Demographic data is also collected for these participants. Local educators enter the data into 

the WebNEERS system. Program leaders at the state level can then aggregate data and prepare 

quarterly and annual reports. 

The sustained behavior change study had IRB approval, as well as approval from the EFNEP 

National Program Leader (in order to enter the WebNEERS system to find past graduates) and approval 

from the FNS Regional Nutritionist. The evaluation project was written into the SNAP-Ed State Plan and 

a small portion was funded with SNAP-Ed monies. The total cost of this project – excluding labor – was 

around $13,000.

Program leaders desired to find participants who had completed the Cent$ible Nutrition 

Program at least one year and up to four years prior to the follow-up assessment. Past graduates who 

completed both pre- and post-behavior checklists and 24-hour recalls were identified from the 

WebNEERS System. Local educators reviewed the participant lists to identify participants who had 

perhaps moved or passed away. 

Evaluation

Best Practice: Evidence that participants maintain behavior change into the future.

Wyoming - Cent$ible Nutrition Program
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Sustained Behavior Change

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

The study included quantitative and qualitative assessments. The quantitative portion of the 

study followed survey methodology by Don Dillman. Once participants were identified, they were sent a 

postcard introducing them to the project. A follow-up behavior checklist was then mailed, along with an 

informed consent and a reinforcement item (calculator). In the case of no response, a follow-up contact 

and reminder postcard were also sent. In all, nearly 500 participants (46.4% response rate) responded to 

the survey. The second part of the study was qualitative in nature. Mary Kay Wardlaw interviewed 

twenty randomly selected individuals about the behavior and lifestyle changes they had made as a result 

of the program. 

Many participants maintained food resource management behaviors, such as making a grocery

list, buying items on sale, cooking from scratch, and reducing use of convenience items. Related to 

nutrition, participants continued to select and cook foods lower in fat, sugar, and salt and increase fruit 

and vegetable intake. 

This project was a way of systematically collecting data to assess if program participants make or 

sustain behavior changes beyond the post-class assessment. It was expected that participants would

decline slightly in behavior change over time, but reported behavior change regression was minimal. In 

fact, the study found that if a participant maintained his or her behavior change to one-year postcompletion of his or her direct education class, the behavior change was also sustained into the future. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Delivery: Collaboration 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

In Wisconsin, SNAP-Ed is administered by the Division of Public Health (DPH), which also administers 

many other FNS nutrition programs. This administrative structure enhances coordination of nutrition 

education for the SNAP-Ed target audience at the state and local levels. Funding for implementation is 

provided to five partners: The University of Wisconsin-Extension, Hunger Task Force, Fit Families Program, 

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, and Ho-Chunk Nation.

The University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW-EX) SNAP-Ed is the major portion of what is named the 

Wisconsin Nutrition Education Program (WNEP) within the Cooperative Extension Family Living Programs. 

WNEP/SNAP-Ed offers nutrition education in collaboration with over 900 local agency partners in 68 out of the 

72 Wisconsin counties. County-based program emphasis and structure are based on local needs and 

opportunities. UW-EX has twelve “educational projects;” each county determines what needs exist in that area 

and then chooses which educational project(s) to focus on during the fiscal year. In addition to direct 

education, UW-EX SNAP-Ed colleagues are active in local and statewide collaborative projects at the local 

systems and environmental levels, which contributes to effective nutrition education and obesity prevention.

Hunger Task Force (HTF) is a non-profit organization located within the Milwaukee metropolitan area 

that works primarily with issues related to hunger. Funding for this program is allocated toward a nutrition 

education and obesity prevention program for 3rd and 4th graders attending five SNAP-Ed eligible schools and 

summer meal sites. This program includes a school garden education, nutrition education during the school 

day, and other components that create a larger public health impact at the community level. Because of their 

focus on hunger, HTF has strong collaboration with many community partners, including food pantries and 

agencies that administer The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and other FNS programs.

In fiscal year 2013, the Fit Families SNAP-Ed Program included seventeen WIC agencies across 

Wisconsin. The Wisconsin SNAP-Ed Coordinator coordinates Fit Families with representatives from four Fit 

Families agencies and a Program Evaluator from the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. 

Families with toddlers are selected for a guided coaching program that empowers families and supports efforts 

Program Delivery

Best Practice: Collaboration exists within and among national, state, and local 

nutrition education and health promotion initiatives, including organizations 

serving the target audience, to coordinate delivery of the intervention and reach 

participants in multiple settings.

Wisconsin – Five Implementing Agencies
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Delivery: Collaboration 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

to adopt healthy eating and physical activity behaviors, such as increasing physical activity, decreasing screen 

time, increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, and increasing intake of water or decreasing sugarsweetened beverage consumption. Counselors encourage parents to model these behaviors for their children. 

Community partnerships are developed to reinforce Fit Families health messages and promote the health of all 

children in participating communities. As the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program is administered at 

the state-level by the DPH, Fit Families achieves strong collaboration and coordination of services with WIC 

agencies.

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (GLITC) and Ho-Chunk Nation (HCN) SNAP-Ed agencies provide 

nutrition education in tribal communities to high-risk and hard-to-reach population groups. Nutrition 

educators for these agencies are knowledgeable about tribal culture and connect with populations serviced. 

GLITC works in tribal clinics and community settings in rural areas of northern Wisconsin. The program 

administers SNAP-Ed on behalf of a consortium of five smaller tribes in Wisconsin. HCN nutrition education is 

primarily delivered out of two tribal clinics and is also offered in settings where tribal community members 

frequently congregate. Tribal SNAP-Ed nutrition educators, in addition to other SNAP-Ed providers in the state 

who work with tribal members, interact and share resources and best practices via Tribal Nutrition Educator 

Group (TNEG) meetings, which occur four times per year. 

The five partners within Wisconsin share (1) a mission statement and (2) state-wide goals and 

objectives. Tony Zech, SNAP-Ed Coordinator at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, facilitated 

mission statement development and continually monitors progress toward goals and objectives. This 

collaboration was “an opportunity for us to have a long term vision of where we’re going and how we’re going 

to get there and have everyone give their buy-in,” says Beverly Phillips, program leader for the UW-EX; the 

collaboration also facilitates the sharing of common resources and limits a duplication of efforts. In addition, 

the partners have jointly participated in an evaluation workshop where an evaluation specialist discussed 

strategies to be utilized in the state projects.

Beverly Phillips says programming is often “deliberately reinforcing” rather than “accidentally 

redundant,” especially between the Fit Families and UW-EX educators who both conduct programming at WIC 

agencies. Local relationships between these two SNAP-Ed partners are often reported in county-based plans 

and reports; relationships include sharing of information, sitting on the same coalitions, and coordinating 

activities for participants. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Design: Social-Ecological Model 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

 Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235. 

In the past, the University of Maryland Extension relied on newsletters, family classes, and special 

school events to get parents involved in nutrition education. However, barriers – such as job schedules and 

lack of childcare – exist for many parents wishing to attend these events. Program leaders sought to create a 

program that would consistently reach and educate parents. Text2BHealthy is a text-message-based program 

that reaches the parents whose children receive SNAP-Ed education in the classroom. Text2BHealthy is the 

first text-message-based program approved by USDA FNS for use in SNAP-Ed programs. This program is not 

available as stand-alone education. Rather, it has been designed to link text messages to the direct nutrition 

education received in the classroom. 

An “opt-in” code, such as kiwi or apple, allows for messages to be tailored to the participants’ location 

and school. When the parent texts the opt-in code to a web-based platform (housed in the program’s state 

office), they are enrolled to receive those geographic- and school-specific targeted text messages. Parents may 

also enroll in the program on surveys or at select face-to-face events; program leaders mentioned that face-toface interaction has been helpful in marketing to and recruiting participants. Text messages may relate to a 

food item, sales flyer from the local grocery store, classroom content, or local programs or events. Examples 

include: “Second and third graders tried apples in class today. Ask your child if they liked tasting the apples and 

look for apple recipes in the newsletter in your child’s backpack”, “It’s a beautiful day outside. Try going to XYZ 

park and play tag as a family,” or “Free Zumba class at the XYZ YMCA at 6:30PM Tuesday. Bring the whole 

family!” Messages are sent from the web-based platform in the program’s state office. State office staff 

follows protocols for staying abreast of local sales flyers, farmers markets, health fairs, and community events.

The program’s state office also relies on local educators to inform them of local and school events. This 

process has been refined over time. Initially, educators were unsure of their role in Text2BHealthy; educators 

now see their input as relevant and critical to the success of the program. For example: the state of Maryland 

initiated “produce drops” at local food banks. When a produce drop is scheduled to take place near one of the 

“texting” schools, they text parents where and when this event occurs. On the day of the produce drop, local 

Program Design

Best Practice: Programs are strengthened by the inclusion of multiple levels of the 

Social-Ecological Model (SEM) and enhanced by the inclusion of policy, systems, 

and environmental supports. 

Maryland - The University of Maryland Extension
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Program Design: Social-Ecological Model 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

 Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235. 

SNAP-Ed educators deliver short presentations and distribute produce-based recipes at the event. The link 

between the program’s state office, schools, local events, and organizations enables Text2BHealthy to reach 

participants at multiple levels of the Socio-Ecological Model. 

Substantial evaluation – formative, process, and outcome – has been completed on this project 

because of its significance as the first text-message-based program implemented in SNAP-Ed. Focus groups in 

the formative stage allowed program leaders to gain insight on the perceptions of the program name, cell 

phone usage, “text-isms,” and desired messages. In addition, considerable effort was made by program leaders 

to ensure that participants are not burdened with any additional costs as a result of receiving the text 

messages. This was imperative in order for the University of Maryland Extension to receive federal approval 

and funding. 

In the first and second years of Text2BHealthy, all parents received an eight-page pre and post survey, 

given to students in their backpacks. Spanish surveys were given to all Spanish-speaking schools. The survey 

asked questions related to fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity behaviors, health behaviors, 

income level, and family demographics. It also tried to glean who is responsible for the grocery shopping in the 

household; program leaders want this person to receive the text messages. Pre and post-survey data can be 

linked to enrollment (or no enrollment) in the Text2BHealthy program. In school year 2013-2014, some 

participants received an abbreviated, two-page survey. Printing and distributing eight-page surveys in both 

English and Spanish was costly for the implementing agency, however selected schools still receive this longer 

version. 

Throughout the school year, program leaders conduct focus groups and interviews with parents 

enrolled and parents not enrolled in the Text2BHealthy program. These focus groups and interviews aim to 

discern why a parent decided to enroll or not and, for those enrolled, program strengths and weaknesses. In 

addition, focus groups helped to increase the willingness of participants to fill out the survey. When focus 

groups were not feasible due to space or timing, program leaders and graduate students conducted short faceto-face interviews to gather the same information. Evaluation questions were also sent to program 

participants via text message. A unique response system allows program leaders at the state level to send a 

follow-up question based on the participant’s answer. 

Considerable effort has been made by the implementing agency to lay the groundwork for this type of 

program. Evaluation – both before and during the intervention – has been critical to developing and 

implementing a program that is feasible, allowable, and effective for the federal funding agency, the 

implementing agency, schools, educators, and participants. 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Formative Evaluation 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Evaluation 

Best Practice: Use of formative evaluation in the development of the intervention.

New Mexico - The University of New Mexico Prevention Research Center

 

A social marketing campaign – based on the FNS Core Nutrition Messages and targeted to 

Spanish-speaking mothers of young children in New Mexico – was developed in three phases. Project 

leaders at the University of New Mexico (UNM) Prevention Research Center (PRC) did not want to 

“reinvent the wheel” with the social marketing campaign; rather, they envisioned an extension of the 

work already completed by FNS. In addition, the SNAP-Ed state agency desired a social marketing 

campaign that would reinforce the messages in the direct education delivered around the state of New 

Mexico by other implementing agencies. The best way to do this, in their opinion, was to use the FNS 

Core Nutrition Messages. 

Many program participants are native Spanish speakers of New Mexico or recent immigrants 

from Mexico. Any educational material is always translated into Spanish before use in the UNM 

program. Therefore, UNM focused on the translation of the core messages into Spanish for this social 

marketing campaign. The FNS Core Nutrition Messages fall into several categories: low-fat milk, whole 

grains, fruits and vegetables, and child feeding. In phase one, focus groups – comprised of Spanishspeaking mothers of young children – identified whether these categories resonated with the target 

audience. Phase one resulted in the preferred categories – low-fat milk and fruits and vegetables – and, 

in addition, some mothers contributed preferred messages or “slogans” for the campaign. 

Additional focus groups were conducted in phase two to refine the language in the messages. 

Program leaders wanted to use both the correct translations and the words and phrases preferred by 

the target audience. Participants were also asked about delivery preference. This audience preferred to 

receive information in a poster or banner format; they also mentioned videos. Participants mentioned 

trusting almost anything from teachers and school representatives; if a poster was hung at school, they 

would stop and read it. Focus group leaders went on to probe about location within the school (office, 

classroom door, and cafeteria) and about poster design. Participants wanted pictures of families, and, 

specifically, wanted pictures including a father figure – regardless of the mother being the target 
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Evaluation: Formative Evaluation 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

audience for the campaign. Pictures should also depict smaller families, as the participants relayed that 

families rarely have more than two or three kids. The focus groups suggested the use of billboards, 

television, and radio, but the project budget prohibited them from exploring those options. Posters and 

banners were feasible within the budget. Project leaders also created four videos in Spanish that are 

similar to Core Nutrition Messages videos produced by FNS.

A pilot study was conducted in a rural community. Based on focus group results, program 

leaders placed posters and banners at grocery stores, elementary schools, and Head Start centers. Prior 

to placement, these posters and banners were also tested for the pictures, font, messages, and 

placement. Posters and banners were based on two topics: consumption of fruits and vegetables and 

consumption of low-fat dairy.

Program leaders at UNM worked both with regional and federal representatives throughout the 

campaign development. This project was written into New Mexico’s SNAP-Ed Plan and program leaders 

presented the results of two of the phases to the regional SNAP-Ed coordinator in 2012. Program 

leaders mentioned that their regional nutritionist was delighted with their use of the FNS Core Messages 

and also their use of social marketing to reach multiple levels of the Social-Ecological Model. 

The research team hopes to develop a toolkit that other SNAP-Ed programs could use. Other 

program leaders could download the videos, banners, and other promotional materials in a variety of 

sizes and would also allow personalization of the items with logos, contact information of local SNAP 

and WIC offices and local healthcare providers. Program leaders envision this toolkit enhancing the 

consistency of messaging within programming but not being stand-alone education; this idea aligns well 

with the assumption that social marketing campaigns can enhance direct delivery and other forms of 

education.

Results from the focus groups and pilot study are included in UNM’s Year-End Report. However, 

program leaders reported limited space for the variety of data they wanted to share. Therefore, in 

addition to the Year-End Report, program leaders compose and publish results from campaign 

development. Phase one and phase two results are available and program leaders intend to publish the 

results of phase three soon.
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Educator Training: Initial Training 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

Navigating for Success is a nineteen-unit training program for paraprofessional educators. This 

training program was designed based on a needs assessment, literature review, and the publication 

“Development of Core Competencies for Paraprofessional Nutrition Educators Who Deliver Food Stamp 

Nutrition Education.” For the needs assessment, educators and supervisors provided feedback on the 

knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the position. 

Each of the nineteen training units lasts approximately one day; the educators – in a group of at 

least six educators – complete one unit per week in a face-to-face, in-person manner. The Navigating for 

Success educator training lasts approximately nineteen weeks and covers a variety of topics, including 

food preparation, physical activity, and nutrition. Units are designed to incorporate hands-on activities 

with didactic content delivery. Training facilitators model the kind of interactions that they’d like 

educators to have with participants. Navigating for Success emphasizes the principles of adult learning

in training to engage learners and maximize potential. In New York, the Navigating for Success training 

program is required of paraprofessional educators who work for the Expanded Food and Nutrition 

Education Program (EFNEP) or SNAP-Ed. However, various state and community groups have requested 

seminars relating to one or more units covered in Navigating for Success; these units are often 

applicable to the knowledge or skills surrounding adult education.

SNAP-Ed and EFNEP program counties are grouped into five regions within the state of New 

York. Hiring and training cycles differ across regions; however, the training of new educators with 

Navigating for Success must be started within six months of hire. New paraprofessional educators also 

receive extensive on-the-job orientation from their county managers; topics include how to fill out time 

sheets, working in the office, and state and regional protocols. 

It is an expectation that a knowledge and/or content assessment will be completed for newly 

hired and trained educators; however this responsibility is delegated to the county managers. The 

Educator Training

Best Practice: Initial training, conducted prior to program delivery, accommodates 

visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (hands-on) learning styles and provides an 

opportunity to learn: content, andragogy/pedagogy, cultural sensitivity and 

diversity, program evaluation, and program protocols and processes. 

New York - Cornell University Cooperative Extension
Best Practices in Nutrition Education for Low-Income Audiences Educator Training: Initial Training 

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA, through Award 2012-48757-20337; 

Funded by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, through Interagency Agreement No. 12-IA-22-20-235.

assessment may include an on-site observation of the educator teaching a lesson. An observation tool is 

utilized for this assessment to track whether the lessons are being delivered appropriately. 

Paraprofessionals are formally observed quarterly to track performance and progress toward goals. A 

state office team completes a formal site visit once every two years, which includes observations and

also encompasses a review of program documentation, materials, and fiscal procedures. 

Each region is required to conduct an ongoing training once per quarter. Topics vary and may be 

developed by individuals in the state office, however most topics are developed at the regional level and 

based on region-specific needs. Training topics may include nutrition-related issues, such as 

breastfeeding, alternative sweeteners, or food allergens, or may be a refresher on programmatic 

processes and protocols, such as entering data into a reporting system. Each of these regional trainings 

is planned for one, six-hour training day.