1. ASNNA Justin Fast, Social Initiatives Specialist, Michigan Fitness Foundation Helen Idzorek, SNAP-Ed & EFNEP Coordinator, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska Fairbanks Shailja Mathur, Senior Project Administrator, NJ SNAP-ED/EFNEP, NJ SNAP-Ed Support Networks, New Jersey Agriculture Experiment Station-RCE, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Ana Claudia Zubieta, Ohio SNAP-Ed Director, Departments of Human Sciences and Extension, The Ohio State University One Time Interventions

2. ASNNA What is a “One Time Intervention” (OTI)? Formal or informal messages targeting participants who are not accessible beyond the initial intervention Administered to meet very specific needs of a community or in association with another event Face to face or using technology

3. ASNNA Great way to increase reach of people Reach people in non-traditional setting Reach people who lack motivation or face other barriers to attend a formal class Motivate participants to participate in more formal nutrition education Why “One Time Interventions”?

4. ASNNA USDA FNS stresses the need to: – Increase reach – Increase use of practice-tested and evidence-based interventions – Improve outcome evaluation of all interventions SNAP-Ed implements direct or indirect OTI out of necessity No evidence base of community of best practices exists The introduction of PSE in the FY13 SNAP-Ed guidance has set the stage for expanded use of OTI What Do We Know?

5. ASNNA OTI are suitable with large and diverse groups (higher reach) OTI are problematic to implement with fidelity and evaluate with rigor There is a lack of “best practices” on OTI Why a Survey?

6. ASNNA A workgroup to address these questions was formed after the annual ASNNA conference in February 2014 Justin Fast (Chair) Helen Idzorek Shailja Mathur Ana Claudia Zubieta We met via conference call several times Developed a survey to distribute among SNAP-Ed and EFNEP list serves Analyzed and discussed results How We Did It?

7. ASNNA Survey Results

8. ASNNA What is your role as it relates to nutrition education?

9. ASNNA Do you implement any interventions which are one-time only?

10. ASNNA Which situation best describes your intervention?

11. ASNNA How long are these interventions?

12. ASNNA How are participants recruited?

13. ASNNA OTI Reach

14. ASNNA Type of Evaluation

15. ASNNA Which outcome indicators are evaluated?

16. ASNNA What types of data are collected?

17. ASNNA What is the evaluation design?

18. ASNNA Is demographic information collected?

19. ASNNA How is demographic information collected?

20. ASNNA Are OTI reported to EARS as “Direct” or “Indirect”?

21. ASNNA 1.Provide information for future planning 2.Assessing needs of the population 3.Parents are more engaged and eager to participate when food tasting with their kids 4.Engaging participants in experiential and relevant learning Successes of OTI

22. ASNNA 5. Recommendations for more classes 6. Often the last booth to close 7. Participants indicate intention to use resources Successes of OTI

23. ASNNA 1.Lack of top-down support to enable evaluation plan for multi-faceted interventions 2.Difficulties administering evaluation tools 1.Time 2.Setting 3.Lack of motivation 3.Inability to measure behavior change 4.Incapacity to comply with FNS Challenges

24. ASNNA OTI are widely used and are an important part of SNAP-Ed programming. A proportion of OTI programs implement one or more “best practices” in program implementation or evaluation. Establish the evidence base for OTIs required of SNAP-Ed programmers nationwide. Some common practices do need to be addressed. To ensure comparability between programs, it would be helpful to identify or establish a consistent “inventory” of potential SNAP-Ed outcome indicators from which practitioners could choose. Implications for Practitioners

25. ASNNA Validated tools to evaluate very concrete, individual, learning objectives often taught in OTI settings are needed. More process evaluations specifically aimed at identifying best practices for performing onsite evaluations in difficult settings are needed. Broad program outcome evaluations with internal comparison groups, i.e. “with” and “without” the addition of a OTI component. Implications for Practitioners

26. ASNNA T HANK Y OU !