Jeff Olson West Virginia University Extension Service Family - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jeff Olson West Virginia University Extension Service Family Nutrition Programs March 10, 2009

Brooke Hancock Ohio Marshall Berkeley G t Hampshire Harrison Marion Mineral Monongalia Morgan Preston Ri hi Taylor Tyler Wetzel

Wood

Dodd- ridge Jeff- erson Pleas- ants Barbour Braxton Gilmer Grant Hardy Jackson Lewis Mason Pendleton Randolph Ritchie Roane Tucker Upshur Wirt Cal- houn ridge Cabell Clay Kanawha Lincoln Nicholas Pocahontas Putnam Wayne Webster

Nutrition Outreach Instructors by Target Audience

Boone Fayette Greenbrier Logan Mingo Monroe Raleigh Wyoming Sum- mers

Youth and Adult Youth Adult

51 I t t i 43 C ti

McDowell Mercer mers

51 Instructors serving 43 Counties

Family Nutrition Nut t o Programs PROJECTS

Adult Projects Summer Food WV Nutrition Research Projects Youth Projects Service Program Network

Family Nutrition Programs g BUDGETS

EFNEP Summer Food Service Fees F&A (Indirects) CBI Grant WVU Foundation SNAP-Ed Program

Family Nutrition Programs Annual Dollars

Expanded Food & Nutrition Summer Food Service Fees Food Stamp Nutrition CBI Grant WVU Foundation F&A (Indirects) Education Program (EFNEP) ($960,000) Program ($120,000) ($1000) Education (FSNE) ($5.2 Million) ($20,000) ($10,000) ($60,000)

Why not work together?

1.

Competition for participants

2.

Competition for state/local investments

2.

Competition for state/local investments

3.

“THEY” do it “their” way.

4.

Interpretation of policies limit opportunities to work

4.

te p etat o o po c es t oppo tu t es to wo together.

5.

Programmatic limitations.

Why work together? (Budget)

EFNEP

Con: Funding is limited Pro: Funds can carryover

SNAP Ed SNAP‐Ed

Con: Funds expire September 31st Pro: Funds can increase (depending on state/local share) Pro: Funds can increase (depending on state/local share)

Why work together? (Program)

EFNEP

Significant results at individual and interpersonal level

f i fl (SE M d l)

• f influence (SE Model)

SNAP Ed SNAP‐Ed

Flexibility to engage in partnerships and target multiple

levels of SE Model

CDC’s Social‐Ecological Model

Why work together? (Needs)

EFNEP EFNEP

Assets:

Formula Funding

Formula Funding

Model of Success Model of advocacy

SNAP‐Ed

A t

Assets:

Size of budgets History of networking

y g

Leverage interest

RESULTS

• Seamless operation at local/county level between

ENFEP & SNAP‐Ed

• Opportunity to expand programming and sustain

growth growth

• Increased administrative burden to maintain
• Increased administrative burden to maintain

integrity and accountability

FINDINGS

• Change takes a generation
• Collaboration enhances the results (Outcome

Evaluation) of direct delivery Evaluation) of direct delivery

• Developed model of collaboration
• Developed model of collaboration

Association of State Nutrition Association of State Nutrition Network Administrators

The purposes of the Association are:

To strengthen leadership skills and competencies of state

administrators and SNAP‐Ed Implementing Agency coordinators. p g g y

To assist states with developing, implementing and evaluating

approaches to social marketing within SNAP.

To assist states with implementing unique approaches to developing

state/local partnerships and collaborations within SNAP‐Ed, including: state/local partnerships and collaborations within SNAP Ed, including:

Public and private Agencies. Government and non‐government Offices. Non profits and for profits Organizations.

• d. To share information broadly with the SNAP community.
• e. To provide a forum for state Nutrition Network leaders to identify

and share best practices of nutrition education for low‐income families and youth. y

Mi i S Mission Statement

ASNNA is a group of nutrition education leaders who ASNNA is a group of nutrition education leaders who

work together to promote communication between federal and state agencies; promote social marketing g g within nutrition education; serve as a nation‐wide resource for nutrition education, networking expertise and partnership development within SNAP expertise, and partnership development within SNAP‐ Ed; and advance successful practices that lead to the incorporation of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, p y f specifically among SNAP‐Ed eligible individuals and communities.

Vision

ASNNA is an actively involved group of SNAP‐Ed

administrators that:

D l l d hi f h f f i i d i

Develops leadership for the future of nutrition education. Recognizes and promotes excellence in SNAP‐Ed Advocates and promotes best practices for SNAP Ed Advocates and promotes best practices for SNAP‐Ed,

including social marketing.

Promotes collaboration building and partnering efforts to

support the nutrition education mission of the USDA and

• ther agencies and organizations as appropriate.