1. Alabama Made the Evaluation Framework Work
Association of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators
Winter 2017 Conference
Arlington, Virginia
Sondra M. Parmer, PhD
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
Auburn University

2. Alabama Department of Public Health
Alabama SNAP-Ed
Alabama has 1 Implementing Agencies Auburn University, and 2 sub-contractors, Alabama A&M University and Alabama Department of Public Health
Three of my colleagues from Alabama SNAP-Ed are at this conference.
It is important to note that each Implementing Agency is autonomous in implementation and, to some extent, reporting. However, we work collaboratively as a state to identify needs in the state and plan SNAP-Ed efforts.
In 2015, we worked together to plan and write a multi-year plan for FY16-FY18.
I highly recommend a multi-year plan. It is certainly more time consuming in the beginning, but it helps you set a vision, rather than simply objectives.
Auburn University
Alabama A&M University
Alabama Department of Public Health
This project has been funded with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3. Plan Objectives Matched to Framework Indicators
During the planning process, each agency matched plan objectives to framework indicators.
This particular project is Body Quest, a childhood obesity prevention initiative.
Because this was written in FY15, the indicators here are from the Western Framework before the change to the SNAP-Ed Framework, so some numbers are different.
Each SMART objective for this project is matched to a framework indicator.
The table at the top outlines what level of the Social Ecological Model would be used and whether the indicators were short term or medium term.

4. Plan Performance Measures Matched to Framework Indicators
Each agency also matched key performance measures to framework indicators.

5. Plan Evaluation Measures Matched to Framework Indicators
Also from the FY16 plan, each agency also matched evaluation measures to framework indicators, including specific evaluation tools.

6. With all of this planning and collaboration, Alabama SNAP-Ed had an easy-to-follow roadmap.
Once a roadmap is in place, implementing and evaluation become quite seamless.

7. Implementation Direct Education Social Marketing ALProHealth
Switching from the planning process to implementation, Alabama had 4 focus areas in FY16:
Direct Education
Social Marketing
Policy, systems and environmental strategies
ALProHealth – CDDC obesity-prevention grant, AU Only
PSE Efforts

8. Data Collection Direct Education Social Marketing
Pre/Post Assessments and Delayed Post-assessments
EARS: monthly reporting; shared network drive with linked Excel spreadsheets
Social Marketing
Random digit dialing phone survey
Impressions
Billboard recall
Everything we do is evaluated. We are very focused. By keeping to this philosophy, we don’t dilute our mission and every task has a purpose.
Here you can see the data collection tools for each of our 4 focus areas.

9. Data Collection Policy, Systems and Environmental Strategies
PSE Change Efforts Form
County Action Plans
Pounds of Produce Harvested
Good Choice Checklist
NEMS
ALProHealth (CDC Obesity Prevention Grant)
County Needs Assessment with GIS Mapping
Recreational Use Survey
Multi-state Coalition Effectiveness Survey

10. FY16 Results Direct Education MT1, MT2, MT3
Because of our efforts in planning, implementation and data collection, Alabama SNAP-Ed has many positive results.
These are shared in more detail in our FY16 annual reports, so I will quickly share a few highlights here from Auburn University and Alabama A&M University.
Highlighted on this slide are results from Auburn University SNAP-Ed’s flagship youth program, Body Quest. These results correspond with MT1, MT2 and MT3 and follow the planned objectives, performance and evaluation measures. They include:
Increased f/v consumption and
Decreased sugar sweetened beverages

11. FY16 Results Direct Education MT1, MT2, MT3, MT4
A few Alabama A&M University results paired with objectives, performance and evaluation measures include:
Improved dietary quality
Improved food resource management
Improved food safety
Improved physical activity

12. FY16 Results Social Marketing MT12
Statewide campaign with all 3 agencies
Increase f/v consumption
Over 47 million impressions or views

13. FY16 Results PSE Efforts MT5, ST6, ST7
For PSE efforts, Alabama A&M University highlighted having community gardens with 889 pounds of produce harvested from 24 raised bed gardens.

14. FY16 Results PSE Efforts MT5, MT6, ST6, ST7
Auburn University PSE results focused on
Healthy retail
Community and school gardens
Farmers markets
Emergency food assistance sites
Faith communities

15. Results Dissemination
Annual Report shared at community level
Also, reduced to a one-page report for stakeholders
Presentations of findings
Publications

16. Lessons Learned
The SNAP-Ed Framework and Interpretive Guide are excellent tools to use in planning, implementation and evaluation.
Putting time and effort into planning creates a seamless flow for implementation and evaluation.
It is important to be nimble throughout the process; balance community needs with federal needs.
SNAP-Ed must be able to tell our story in a way that is clear and impactful. These tools and resources should help in accomplishing this goal.