Food StampNutritionEducation in the 1890Community

Funded by USDA:CSREESFunded by USDA:CSREESFamilyFamily, 4-H and Nutrition Unit, 4-H and Nutrition Unit

Food StampNutritionEducation in the 1890Community

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAlthough the title page carries a single author listing, this report represents the combined efforts ofnumerous individuals whose dedication to the cause of nutrition education, institutional equity andimproved health status of all Americans are reflected in the document. The report was the vision ofthree former CSREES/USDA employees – Dr. K. Jane Coulter, former deputy administrator forFamilies, 4-H and Nutrition; and Mrs. Karen Konzelmann and Dr. Larry Jones, former national coordinators for FSNE.

The financial and moral support of Dr. Anna Mae Kobbe, acting deputy administrator, Families, 4-Hand Nutrition, transformed this vision into reality. Preparation of the report was enhanced by the contri-butions of Dr. Helen Chipman, national coordinator for FSNE CSREES/USDA, who gave numeroushours in reviewing various drafts and offering invaluable editorial assistance and encouragement. Threeemployees at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff supported the project in various capacities – Dr. Bihu Huang, data analysis; Mrs. Beverly Cotledge, typing and computer support; and Mrs. DebbieArcher, document formatting and production. Each contributed much to the final product.

Finally, the effort of all 1890 Extension administrators in responding to both questionnaires is acknowl-edged. Without their dedication and commitment to improving the lives of limited resource and hard-to-reach audiences throughout the 1890 service area FSNE would not be available for tens of thou-sands of food stamp recipients.

PrefacePrefaceThe Families, 4-H and Nutrition unit of the Cooperative State Research, Education and ExtensionService (CSREES) is pleased to have commissioned this important report. Documenting the many contributions and the unique opportunities of the 1890 Land-Grant institutions to deliver Food StampNutrition Education (FSNE) as an Extension program highlights the rich history of the 1890 communi-ty to address critical issues facing limited resource families. This report can serve as an importantspringboard for exploring new opportunities for the 1890 institutions to deliver community nutritioneducation. The 1890 institutions continue to be leaders in delivering educational programs to individu-als who face poor nutrition and inadequate diets that result in a myriad of health problems includingdiabetes, hypertension and childhood/adult obesity.

In the Cooperative Extension System, FSNE is available to food stamp eligible individuals and familiesthrough contracts between Land-Grant institutions and state governments for administrative food stampdollars, working in cooperation with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), a USDA partner agency.These cooperative ventures have allowed millions of America’s most at-risk to gain skills for morenutritious meals and adoption of healthier lifestyles.

The findings of this report are being shared with CSREES and FNS administrators and national program staff, 1890 and 1862 institution administrators and faculty, as well as, other key stakeholders.This report will also be posted electronically at www.csrees-fsnep.org.

Anna-Mae Kobbe, Ph.D.Acting Deputy Administrator, Families, 4-H and Nutrition UnitCooperative State Research, Education and Extension ServiceUnited States Department of Agriculture

FOOD STFOOD STAMPAMP NUTRITION EDUCANUTRITION EDUCATIONTIONIN THE 1890 COMMUNITYIN THE 1890 COMMUNITY

REPORT

Prepared by:

Jacquelyn W. McCrayDean/Director, 1890 Research and Extension

School of Agriculture, Fisheries and Human SciencesUniversity of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

for

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service:USDAFamilies, 4-H and Nutrition Program

Washington, D.C.

September 2003

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Study Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

The Current Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4USDA Supported Nutrition Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4FSNE and the 1890 System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5The 1890 Approach to Nutrition Education . . . . . .5

Study Methods and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Findings and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Appendix 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Appendix 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Appendix 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

TTable of Contentsable of Contents

WWith the recent escalation of obesity

aand nutrition-related diseases —notably higher among population sub-

groups with lower education and lower incomes,and racial and ethnic minorities — increasedattention has been given to nutrition educationand it’s potential to improve food choices andfood behaviors of the nation’s most vulnerablecitizenry. In FY 2003, nearly $400 million weredirected toward Food Stamp Nutrition Education(FSNE); half of which came from Food Stampadministrative funds and half of which camefrom state and local cost share (match) contribu-tions. FSNE is delivered primarily through theCooperative Extension Service/Land-GrantUniversity System in partnership with stateFood Stamp Program offices.

The 1890 institutions, a unique segmentwithing the Land-Grant University System,began FSNE later than other universities, gener-ally contract for fewer program funds and aredecreasing in FSNE participation. This studywas commissioned by the Family, 4-H andNutrition unit of USDA: CSREES to exploreboth challenges and opportunities for greaterinvolvement of 1890 institutions in the deliveryof FSNE. As 1890 institutions have a historicaltie to limited resource families and 14 of the 181890 Land-Grant institutions are located in theSouth — home to a higher proportion of minori-ty, elderly and poverty-stricken individuals andfamilies — limited participation of these institu-tions reduces the potential reach of FSNE to eligible households.

Two surveys were presented to administra-tors of 1890 Extension programs betweenFebruary and June 2003. The first, distributed atthe administrators’ winter meeting, was designedto identify major barriers to the delivery ofnutrition education within the 1890 system. Thesecond, distributed electronically, eliciteddetailed information on the type of nutritioneducation programs being conducted, institu-tional histories with FSNE funding, barriers toparticipation in FSNE and perceived opportuni-

ties for growth in FSNE program delivery by1890 institutions. All 18 institutions completedboth surveys, although some respondents did notanswer all questions.

Planning for participation in FSNE by the1890 community began in FY 1997, as fourinstitutions in the USDA:FNS Southwest Regionformed a consortium to collectively exploreoptions for generating cost-share funds and todesign a program that met FSNE requirements.The “Families First-Nutrition Education andWellness System” (FF-NEWS) which promotesimproved dietary habits within the context offamilial and cultural values became the corner-stone of FSNE delivery by the consortium.

Five 1890 institutions received FSNE con-tracts in FY 1998, at an average of $283,256 perinstitution. Participation among 1890 institutionspeaked in FY 2002 when FSNE contracts wereawarded to 11 institutions for a total of$3,014,130 (an average of $274,012 per institu-tion). Nine institutions were awarded contractsin FY 2003, but only seven are expected to seekfunding in FY 2004.

Both surveys clearly identify inability tomeet cost-share requirements as the majorimpediment to FSNE participation. Initially theabsence of state funds for cost share was adeterring factor for most 1890 institutions.Passage of the Agricultural, Research, Extensionand Education Reform Act (AREERA) in 1998and the 2002 Farm Bill compounded this prob-lem. As most institutions now must direct allnon-federal resources to meeting matchingrequirements for federal formula funds, it ismore difficult, and often impossible, to generateadditional cost-share support for FSNE.

USDA’s expectation that institutions andstates invest in federally funded programs isconsistent with the federal-state partnership cre-ated for the Land-Grant University System. Thatsaid, the current economic climate in manystates — revenue shortfalls and budget reces-sions, crises in K-12 education and numerousother demands on dwindling state resources —

EXECUTIVE SUMMAREXECUTIVE SUMMARYY

1

and increases in state matching requirementsresult in near crises situations for some institu-tions and a concomitant void in the delivery ofFSNE to hundreds of thousands of Food Stamprecipients.

The second greatest barrier identified by1890 institutions was the evolving nature ofFNS guidance for fiscal accountability and pro-gram delivery, and the interpretation of FSNEguidance by various state agencies. Achievingmutual understanding of the requirements of different federal circulars that establish fiscalaccountability standards for different federalagencies and their university partners has beenespecially challenging. Additionally, institutionalcontacts have been hindered by tightened inter-pretation of FNS guidance relating to eligibleprogram activities, participants and deliverymethods and locations. Time spent respondingto these interpretations has reduced time spent in

program delivery and resulted in reduced audi-ence participation in at least one state. As part-nerships become established, the complexities ofnutrition education are recognized, and all part-ners show a willingness to address agency andinstitutional differences, FSNE should experi-ence greater stability within the 1890 community.

If existing barriers to funding and deliveryare removed, survey respondents suggest thatthe 1890 community has the capacity to serve anadditional 151 counties and 1,273,058 FoodStamp recipients. With its legislative mandateand historical ties to low-income and minorityhouseholds and its experience and competencein providing education to limited income andhard to reach audiences in a comprehensive andculturally sensitive manner, the 1890 system iswell-positioned to make a significant differencein the fight to improve the health status ofAmerican households.

2

3

IntroductionIntroduction

Study BackgroundStudy Background

DDiet-related health problems (obesity, typeII diabetics, cardiovascular disease andhypertension) have increased dramati-

cally in the United States. Obesity among theadult population increased from 12 to 20 percentin the last decade and the percentage of obesechildren (13 percent) more than doubled in thelast 30 years (Fierro, 2002). Population sub-groups with lower education and lower incomesas well as racial and ethnic minorities are athigher risks of obesity and chronic health prob-lems, and have higher mortality rates than theircounterparts in the general population(Feinstein, 1993). For African-American andHispanic populations, the adult obesity rate is 30percent and 23 percent, respectively, while therate of childhood obesity is 20 percent in bothpopulations (Fierro, 2002). Although multipleapproaches are required to reverse the obesityproblem, improved diets and access to nutritiousfoods are central to the prevention and treatmentof obesity and other diet-related health problems.

Through Food Assistance and NutritionPrograms (FANPs), the USDA:Food andNutrition Service (FNS) provides low-incomecitizens with food or the means to purchasefoods “as a food safety net.” Currently, 15FANPs are funded at tens of billions of dollarseach year (ERS:USDA, 2002).

Of these FANPs, the Food Stamp Programreaches the greatest number of people, morethan 21.5 million persons (Food Research andAction Center, 2003). Interest in nutrition educa-tion within the Food Stamp Program increasedover the past decade, as many Food Stamp

recipients continue to purchase food items basedon family preferences, cultural practices andother factors often unrelated to health status andUSDA dietary guidelines.

In most states, the Cooperative ExtensionService/Land-Grant University System has part-nered with state Food Stamp Program offices toimplement Food Stamp Nutrition Education(FSNE). Comprehensive nutrition education forrecipients of the Food Stamp Program isrequired to insure optimal utilization of the mas-sive financial investment made by the federalgovernment and to maximize the health benefitsof this program to recipient households. Theneed for nutrition education is essential to help-ing families achieve optimal value from theFood Stamps received.

The Cooperative Extension Service/Land-Grant University System has a long histo-ry of providing nutrition education throughanother program, the Expanded Food andNutrition Education Program (EFNEP). Cost-benefit studies of the Expanded Food andNutrition Education Program in three states(Tennessee, Virginia and Iowa) document thecost savings to families and society of nutritioneducation (Iowa State University Extension,2000; Lumbar, 1999; and Burney, 1998). TheVirginia study (Lambur, 1999) found that bene-fits from reduced health care costs may range ashigh as $10.75 for every dollar invested in nutri-tion education. Consequently, every dollarinvested in nutrition education is an investmentin improved health status of low-income house-holds and in reducing federal medical care andtreatment expenditures. With these documentedbenefits to families and society, the country isbetter served when federally funded nutritioneducation is available to as many eligible families as possible.

FOOD STFOOD STAMPAMP NUTRITION EDUCANUTRITION EDUCATIONTIONIN THE 1890 SYSTEM:IN THE 1890 SYSTEM:

Historical OverviewHistorical Overview, Challenges, , Challenges, and Opportunities for Expansionand Opportunities for Expansion

4

Despite the natural connection between themission and legislative mandate of 1890Cooperative Extension Programs (CEPs) and theeducational needs of vulnerable populations, anddespite increasing federal investments in FoodStamp Nutrition Education (FSNE), 1890 insti-tutions struggle to secure and maintain contractsto deliver FSNE to its primary audience. Since1998, 12 of the 18 1890 institutions receivedFSNE funds at some time to deliver nutritioneducation, but the number of institutions and thelevel of funding is decreasing. Eleven institu-tions received FSNE funds in FY 2002, nineinstitutions were awarded contracts in FY 2003,(Appendix 1), and only seven institutions areexpected to seek funding in FY 2004, resultingin the second lowest level of participation by the1890 community since the institutions were ini-tially funded for FSNE in FY 1998.

This decreasing pattern of institutional par-ticipation signals underlying challenges to theeffective and continuous participation of 1890institutions in FSNE. This brief study exploredboth challenges to and opportunities for greaterinvolvement in FSNE by the 1890 communityand, consequently, broader delivery of nutritioneducation to Food Stamp recipients. Data collec-tion occurred between February and June, 2003.All 1890 institutions responded to the surveyinstruments.

The Current EnvironmentThe Current Environment

USDAUSDA Supported NutritionSupported NutritionEducation ProgramsEducation Programs

Two major USDA nutrition education pro-grams – Expanded Food and NutritionEducation Program (EFNEP) administered byCSREES:USDA and Food Stamp NutritionEducation (FSNE), a component of the FoodStamp Program administered via FNS:USDAare delivered exclusively (EFNEP) or primarily(FSNE) through Cooperative Extension at stateLand-Grant institutions. Team Nutrition andWomen Infants and Children (WIC) are otherFNS:USDA programs that have a nutrition edu-cation component, but Cooperative Extension is

not the major source of program delivery. Thus,EFNEP and FSNE are major vechicles availableto Cooperative Extension at both 1862 and 1890institutions to deliver nutrition education to low-income and hard-to-reach audiences.

EFNEP was created in 1969 to assist low-income families and youth in acquiring knowl-edge, skills, attitudes and changed behaviorsnecessary to achieve nutritionally sound dietsand to contribute to personal development andimprovement in nutritional welfare. EFNEP iscurrently funded at $58.5 million, more than$2.6 million less than its funding level in themid-1990s.

FSNE, by contrast, is relatively new. In1992, $661,000 Food Stamp administrativefunds were distributed among seven land-grantinstitutions to provide nutrition education. Fromthese humble beginnings, FSNE Food Stampadministrative expenditures grew to more than$198 million distributed across 49 states and territories by FY 2003. FSNE funding variesacross states, from $70,000 for a relatively newprogram to over $62 million for an establishedprogram with a large state nutrition network.The average state award in FY 2003 was $3.9million. FSNE is designed to provide educationin nutrition, food safety, shopping and budget-ing, food security and healthy lifestyles to FoodStamp eligible people. Participants include FoodStamp recipients and applicants. Waivers canalso be requested where at least 50 percent ofthe population targeted has a household incomeat or below 185 percent of poverty (FNS FY2003 Guidance, March 2002). For example, thewaivers would include children participating infree and reduced price school lunch programs.

Prior to FY 1998, 1890 institutions were leg-islatively prohibited from participating inEFNEP and no 1890 institution had a contract todeliver FSNE despite the historical connectionbetween these institutions and low-income andhard-to-reach audiences. A major barrier toEFNEP funding was eliminated with theAgricultural, Research, Extension and EducationReform Act (AREERA) of 1998. The actremoved a legislative prohibition to 1890 participation in EFNEP by stipulating that 1890institutions could participate in new EFNEP

5

appropriations. Since that time there has been noincrease in appropriations; thus the only USDAfunded nutrition education program that current-ly allows 1890 participation is FSNE.Additionally, because the funding level of FSNEgreatly exceeds that of EFNEP, FSNE offersgreater opportunity to deliver nutrition educationto the target audience.

With the advent of FSNE, enthusiasmabounded within the 1890 community. Thefunds were viewed as additional resources tosupport and/or expand nutrition education topopulations in greatest need. However, uponreview of program guidelines, institutions werediscouraged to seek funding because of the cost-share requirement which is, that “the federalgovernment reimburses states for 50 percent ofallowable costs incurred by the state” (FNS FY2004 Guidance, March 2003). Prior to the 1998AREERA, 1890 institutions were exempt from a cost-share requirement for federal formulafunds (The cost-share requirement for 1890Extension formula funds are typically referred toas state-matching funds). Very few 1890 institu-tions received any state funds for Extensionwork and most had no identifiable resourcesfrom which to meet the FSNE cost-sharerequirement. Even though state funds were lim-ited or unavailable, some 1890 institutionsestablished partnerships with other programswithin their institutions or with their 1862 coun-terparts to garner some matching funds to securesmall-initial contracts. All of the 18 institutionsreport that their participation in FSNE is limitedby their ability to secure the required non-feder-al cost share; two also report that FSNE is alower priority than other educational programsbased on system needs and resources available(Appendix 1).

FSNE and the 1890 SystemFSNE and the 1890 System

The first FSNE contracts to 1890 institutionswere awarded in FY 1998 to Kentucky StateUniversity, The University of Arkansas at PineBluff, Prairie View A&M University, SouthCarolina State University and LangstonUniversity. These contracts ranged from a high

of $700,000 at Langston University to a low of$71,794 at South Carolina State University(Appendix 2). These five contracts totaled$1,416,278. In FY 1999, three additional institu-tions — Southern University, Lincoln Universityand North Carolina A&T State University —received contracts bringing the total FSNE fund-ing to 1890s to $1,776,444 for the eight con-tracting institutions.

Since that time, the number and dollar valueof annual FSNE contracts have varied from yearto year as additional 1890 institutions have beenawarded contracts and others have chosen not toseek continued funding. The largest number anddollar value of FSNE contracts to the 1890 community were awarded to 11 institutions inFY 2002 for a total of $3,014,130. Of the 18institutions, nine have contracts for FY 2003, sixhave never received funding, two are formercontracting institutions who did not requestfunding in FY 2003 and one institution receiveslimited funding under a subcontract with anothergrantee. The map on page 6 stratifies FSNEparticipation across the 1890 communitybetween FY 1998 and FY 2003.

The 1890 The 1890 Approach Approach to Nutrition Education to Nutrition Education

During FY 1997, four 1890 institutions inthe FNS Southwest region (Southern University– LA; Langston University – OK; Prairie ViewA&M University – TX; and The University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff) formed a consortium tocollectively explore options for generating cost-share funds and to design a Food StampNutrition Education Program meeting FSNErequirements.

With its historical and legislative ties to low-income and minority individuals and families,the consortium developed an innovativeresponse to FSNE based on its unique under-standing of the constituent population. From thiscollaboration several strategies for generatingmatching funds were identified and a family-centered nutrition education program —“Families First-Nutrition Education andWellness System” (FF-NEWS) — was created.

6

The core of the program is a 56-lesson curricu-lum that promotes improved dietary habits with-in the context of familial and cultural values.The lessons are organized into four instructional modules — Balancing Food Preferences withKnowledge of Nutrition, Health Status and Age-Related Nutritional Needs, Enhancing FoodManagement Skills and Food Quality andSafety. A research-based conceptual frameworkguided the development of the curriculum (seePage 7) and a three-tiered audience participationmatrix (see Page 8) directs the use of the cur-riculum in responding to the level of interest andtime constraints of varying food stamp recipi-ents. Program delivery sites vary across thestates, but multiple delivery sites are used bymost institutions to increase audience participation.

No Participation: Virginia State University, University of Maryland - Eastern Shore, Florida A&M University,Fort Valley State University, Delaware State University and Tuskegee University

Current Grantee: Alabama A& M University, Alcorn State University, South Carolina State University,University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Southern University and A&M College, Kentucky State University,North Carolina A&T State University, Tennessee State University and Langston University

Former Grantee: Lincoln University and Prairie View A&M University

Sub-contract with other Grantee: West Virginia State College

Numbers of 1890 Institutions usingdifferent delivery sites:

12 Faith-Based Community12 Senior Citizens/Community Centers11 County Food Stamp Office/

Food Distribution Centers9 Local Housing Projects7 1862 Extension Offices5 School Settings

7

Conceptual Framework for FF-NEWS Curriculum

8

The Families First-Nutrition Education andWellness System (FF-NEWS) is approved bythe Association of 1890 ExtensionAdministrators as the model Nutrition EducationGuide for the 1890 System. FF-NEWS is cultur-ally sensitive and incorporates elements ofSocial Learning Theory (SLT) in the design ofthe teaching strategies and activities recom-mended. The value of the curriculum is its appli-cation of instructional approaches that move“knowledge learned” to “behavioral change.”

White and Maloney (1990) explored thevalue of applying SLT to dietary behaviors andconfirmed the relationship between three medi-ating variables (locus of control, reinforcementvalues and social context) and changes in foodconsumption. Strategies used relied heavilyupon a major premise of SLT which suggeststhat behavior results from a person’s belief thathe/she can or cannot influence the desired out-come in a given situation. This belief is an indi-vidual’s locus of control. A person’s locus ofcontrol is either internal or external. The personwith an internal locus of control believes thatthe desired outcome is within his/her capacity tocontrol. While a person with an external locus ofcontrol believes that the outcome is not inhis/her hands but, rather, is controlled by somepowerful other factor (e.g., fate, chance, luck,God’s will, etc.). This concept is relevantbecause approaches for affecting behavior

change are likely to be very different for the twotypes of individuals. The following findingsfrom the White and Maloney (1990) researchwere incorporated into the design of the FF-NEWS program:

Locus of Control — In their study, personswith an internal locus of control scored higheron use of nutritious foods. In application, sub-jects were less likely to select nutritious foods ifthey believed they had no control over theirhealth status.

Reinforcement Values — The salience andstrength of values reinforcement led to differ-ences in food selection behaviors for the sub-jects. In this context, subjects were more likelyto cook more nutritious meals if they had tocook, had time to cook, desired to be healthyand were encouraged to cook.

Social Context — The behavior of subjectswas negatively affected in adverse social con-texts (i.e., behavioral change was less likely tooccur if the family disliked the nutritious foodprepared).

Knowledge of these relationships was incor-porated into the FF-NEWS program in the fol-lowing ways:1. Lessons stress modifications in preferred

diets vs. the addition of new foods.2. Lessons focus on the needs of the entire

families.

Level of Participation

Level 1 Single contacts made through staffed exhibits, on-site demonstrations and other short-term, direct contacts plus mass-media activities.

Level 2 Special-interest programs, including instructional sessions for groups desiring specific training in prescribed content areas.

Lessons may come from a single module or curriculum, or a combination of modules/curricula depending on the interests of the audience.

Level 3 Short courses, delivered to participants who participate in a planned, scheduled, educational series of lessons from one or more curriculum modules.

Three-tiered Audience Participation Matrix

9

3. Lessons present what to do, rather than whatnot to do.

4. Learning communities among participants are created to promote reinforcement of concepts learned and to create a reinforcing social environment that encourages healthy food selection and continued participation inthe program.

5. Learning strategies and activities affirm self-determination and encourage participants to be in charge of their lives.

In summary, FF-NEWS promotes goodnutrition in a social and cultural context that hasmeaning and application to program partici-pants. FF-NEWS resources include activities,recipes and instructional strategies appropriatefor use in both urban and rural settings, and withlow-income Hispanic and Anglo-, African- andNative-American families. Modifications torecipes from traditional Native-American, Tex-Mex and soul-food diets are central to the pro-gram’s success. Additionally, program resourcesand the curriculum are available in Spanish fromPrairie View A&M University.

The FF-NEWS Consortium is open to all1890 institutions regardless of source of fundsfor nutrition education. Currently 11 of the 18institutions are members of the consortium andtwo additional institutions have received trainingon the use of the curriculum. Faculty from six1862 institutions attended the national FF-NEWStraining conference in 2001, and one 1862 insti-tution adopted FF-NEWS as the primary pro-gram resource for FSNE in its state.

Study Methods Study Methods and Findingsand Findings

Study MethodsStudy Methods

Two surveys were presented to administra-tors of 1890 Extension programs. The initial survey administered in February 2003 during theAssociation’s winter meeting was designed toidentify institutional involvement in FSNE, FF-NEWS, and/or nutrition education in general;

and to identify major barriers to the delivery ofnutrition education within the 1890 system. All18 institutions responded. A second survey, distributed in May 2003, was e-mailed to 1890administrators and project directors or coordina-tors of nutrition education at each institution.Data collection continued through June 2003.This survey elicited more detailed informationregarding the type of nutrition education pro-gram, institutional histories with FSNE funding,barriers to FSNE participation and perceivedopportunities for growth in FSNE programdelivery. All 18 institutions completed the sec-ond survey, although some respondents did notanswer all questions.

Findings and ImplicationsFindings and Implications

Status and Funding of 1890 NutritionEducation Programs. Fifteen of the 18 institu-tions provided nutrition education in FY 2003 –nine via FSNE contracts and six with institution-al or other funds. One has a FSNE subcontractwith the 1862 institution, and eleven are partici-pants in the FF-NEWS Consortium (Appendix1). Florida A&M University, the University ofMaryland-Eastern Shore and Lincoln Universitydid not offer nutrition education during FY2003. Of those three, Lincoln University is aformer FSNE grantee. It did not seek funding inFY 2003 because it could not generate adequatecost-share funds. The university continues toseek ways to overcome the cost-share situation.Florida A&M University expressed interest indeveloping a program if cost-share resourcescan be acquired. In total, 17 of the 18 institu-tions either have an ongoing nutrition educationprogram or are interested in securing FSNEfunds to begin nutrition education. Of theseinstitutions currently providing nutrition educa-tion, the scope and reach of the programs arevery small and need expansion to meet the vastprogram delivery needs of the target audience.Additionally, programs not supported by FSNEfunds are not limited to food stamp audiencesand must serve the general population.

FSNE Funding to 1890 Institutions (FY1998 – FY 2003). In total, more than $13.7

10

million in FSNE funds have been awarded to1890 institutions since FY 1998 (Appendix 2).These funds allowed many institutions to offernew or expanded nutrition education programs,and they allowed the 1890 community to createa model multi-state program initiative that isbeing replicated in other 1890 program areas.The funds also created the incentive for devel-oping a valuable educational resource for nutri-tion education with low-income audiences.Although the availability of FSNE funds was thecatalyst for the previous accomplishments, thesefunds did not provide the only means of supportfor education to Food Stamp recipients. Allinstitutions receiving FSNE funds contributedadditional federal formula or state matchingfunds to enhance program development anddelivery and audience contacts.

Over the six-year period, LangstonUniversity received the largest amount of totalfunds ($4,283,000) and West Virginia StateCollege received the least amount ($34,180).The average composite annual award rangedfrom a high of $3,014,130 in FY 2002 to a lowof $1,416,278 during FY 1998, the initial yearof 1890 funding.

Barriers to FSNE Participation. In surveyI, each administrator was asked if his/her institu-tion had a nutrition education program and, ifno, why? Of the six institutions that had no his-tory of FSNE funding, three responded lack ofmatching funds (cost-share), two stated lack ofmatching funds and lower priority than othereducational needs for their constituency and oneindicated lack of matching funds and support by1862. All current grantees reported that theavailability of matching funds for FSNS limitsthe scope and outreach potential of ongoing pro-grams. One former grantee (Lincoln University)

reported that inability to match was the primaryreason it did not reapply for funding in FY 03.

In the second survey, respondents were askedto rank from (1 – most important to 3 – leastimportant) factors that limit their institution’sinvolvement in FSNE. Four of the six never-funded institutions did not answer this question.

Eleven of the 14 (78.5 percent) respondinginstitutions ranked “ability to match” as themost important barrier to participating in FSNE.Two additional respondents ranked “ability tomatch” as second in importance and one respon-dent ranked it third. The evolving nature andinterpretation of FNS and state guidelines wasranked most important by two institutions, sec-ond in importance by two institutions and thirdin importance by another institution. Otherresponses were ranked first and second by onerespondent each and third by five respondents.Other barriers included location of suitableoffices, competition with 1862 for match, per-ceived ownership of program by 1862, turnoverrate of state Food Stamp officials, unstable fund-ing across all 1890 CEPs, lack of humanresources and reimbursement methodologyrequired by state agency. Inadequate staff orhuman resources was the most frequently cited“other” response and evolving guidelines wasthe second most frequently cited “other”response.

While the evolving nature and interpretationof FNS and state guidelines and requirementsare problematic for some institutions, the inabil-ity to match is clearly the major impediment to1890 participation in FSNE. The absence ofstate funds for most 1890 institutions prior tothe passage of AREERA in 1998 was a deterringfactor to securing the FSNE cost share. However,the passage of the AREERA in 1998 and the

Ability to Match Evolving Guidelines Other

Rank 1 11 2 1Rank 2 2 2 1Rank 3 1 1 5

Ranking of Perceived Barriers to FSNE Participation

11

2002 Farm Bill compounded the problem. Priorto 1998, most 1890 Extension programs operat-ed exclusively on federal formula or grant fundswhich make the garnering of nonfederalresources to meet the FSNE match requirementvery difficult. Nonetheless some institutionswere able to garner institutional support as wellas some limited support from their 1862 counterparts to provide the required nonfederalcost share.

The 1998 AREERA legislation established amatching requirement for 1890 federal formulafunds of 30 percent in 2000, 45 percent in 2001,and 50 percent in 2002 and beyond. The passageof the 2002 Farm Bill increased the nonfederalmatching requirement to 60 percent for FY 2003with annual increases of 10 percent per yearuntil the requirement reaches 100 percent in FY2007. The current economic climate of thenation and most states leave 1890 institutionsvulnerable to losses in federal formula funds ifstates are unwilling or unable to provide offsetfunds to match federal appropriations. As mostinstitutions must direct all available nonfederalresources to meeting the match for formulafunds, it becomes more difficult, and oftenimpossible, to generate additional matching support for FSNE.

USDA’s expectation that institutions andstates invest in federally funded programs isconsistent with the federal-state partnership created for the Land-Grant University System.But not all institutions are equally served whenthe expectation is applied in the context of differing relationships and participation in thesystem. Revenue shortfalls, budget recisions,crises in K-12 education and numerous otherdemands on dwindling state resources with concomitant increases in state matching require-ments result in near crises situations for someinstitutions and a concomitant void in the delivery of FSNE to hundreds of thousands ofFood Stamp recipients. Fourteen of the 18 1890Land-Grant institutions are located in the South– home to a higher proportion of minority, elder-ly, and poverty-stricken individuals and families.When 1890 institutions are limited in their abili-ty to serve this population, disproportionate

negative consequences are borne by some of thenation’s most vulnerable populations.

The evolving nature of FNS guidance forprogram delivery and/or the interpretation ofFSNE guidance by various state agencies wascited as a barrier by five respondents. FSNEfunding provides opportunity to enhance thepartnership between the federal government,state governments and the land-grant universi-ties. CSREES is the primary federal partnerengaged with Land-Grant universities. This part-nership is well-established and operating princi-ples and structures that support the partnershiparrangement are understood by all partners. ForFSNE, FNS and state Food Stamp Programoffices are new partners with whom Land-Grantuniversities have had to develop new agree-ments and working relationships. One challengehas been understanding the requirements of dif-ferent federal circulars that establish fiscalaccountability standards for different federalagencies and their university partners. As theprogram matures, the partnerships are becomingmore established. There is broadening under-standing of the associated complexities, andthere is a willingness from all partners toaddress these agency and institutional differ-ences. This broadening understanding shouldprovide stability to program delivery in thefuture and reduce many of the challenges institutions face in the delivery of FSNE.

FSNE Contacts. Contact data were reportedby eight institutions. Seven institutions havenever received FSNE funds and could notrespond to this item. For the eight respondinginstitutions, the highest number of total contacts(420,708) occurred in FY 02 (Appendix 3).Alcorn State University and Tennessee StateUniversity reported the largest (357,120) andsmallest (600) number of institutional contacts,respectively. FY 2002 was the initial contractyear for Tennessee State University. Eventhough not all institutions reported annual contact data for some years, the data presentedprovide useful information. Fluctuations in thenumber of audience contacts per annum general-ly resulted from tightening interpretation of FNSguidance relating to eligible program activities,

12

participants and methods of program delivery.Program staff required intensive in-service train-ing to adapt to state interpretations of the guidance. Time spent responding to thesechanges reduced time spent in program delivery.Differences in the approaches to working withlow-income audiences by 1890 institutions andstate Food Stamp agencies created additionalchallenges and resulted in declining audienceparticipating in one state.

For the past few years, contractors havebeen encouraged to conduct educational deliveryin county Food Stamp offices or food distribu-tion sites to catch recipients as they come to cer-tify or receive commodity foods. Because certi-fication is a periodic occurrence, the type oflong-term engagement with recipients requiredfor social reinforcement and behavioral changeis difficult to accomplish. The FF-NEWS pro-gram is designed to engage the household mem-ber principally responsible for selecting andpreparing the family’s meals in sustained andcontinuous nutrition education while focusingless on one-time awareness type educationalactivities. Recent interpretations of FSNE guid-ance make it more difficult to deliver nutritioneducation in this way.

Current and Potential Audience Reach.Respondents were asked to indicate the totalnumber of counties in their state, the number ofcounties served by FSNE contractors and thenumber of counties not served by a FSNE con-tractor. Ten institutions reported data for allthree questions and two institutions, NorthCarolina A&T University and Fort Valley StateUniversity, only provided the total number ofcounties in the state (Appendix 4). Based onresponding institutions, FSNE is available in allcounties in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi andTennessee. Of the six additional institutionsreporting number of counties not served byFSNE, the number of counties not served rangesfrom a low of three in Delaware to a high of 31in Virginia while the percentage of counties notserved was highest in Delaware (100 percent)and lowest in Texas (11 percent). Delaware isthe only state that does not contract for FSNE.It must be noted that the presence of FSNE in a

county does not guarantee that all eligiblehouseholds receive FSNE. When the size of theprogram and the size of the target audience doesnot match, there is a strong likelihood that anunmet service need exists even in countieswhere FSNE is available.

Respondents were also asked to estimate thenumber of additional counties and people theycould serve if existing barriers to participationwere removed. Twelve institutions responded(Appendix 5). The responding institutions esti-mated that the 1890 community has the capacityto serve an additional 151 counties and1,273,058 food stamp recipients if institutionsare not required to contend with the major chal-lenges to program funding and delivery.

These data, though incomplete, documentthe service gap in FSNE in many states thathave an 1890 Land-Grant institution.Identification of the number of Food Stamprecipients lacking access to FSNE across allcounties (those served and not served by aFSNE contractor) would yield a more compre-hensive view of the service gap in programdelivery to the target audience that could be metby expanded programming in 1890 institutions.The magnitude of the task and the limited timeframe for preparing this report prevented thatdepth of analysis. Even so, this study suggeststhat there is a program delivery gap in the 17states with 1890 institutions, and that there isthe potential for reaching hundreds of thousandsof new FSNE participants if new and expandedcontracts are made available to the 1890 community.

Summary Summary and Conclusionsand Conclusions

The increasing incidence of diet-relatedhealth problems (obesity, type II diabetics, car-diovascular disease and hypertension) signal anapproaching crisis in the health status ofAmerican households. When these problems arestratified by region, race and ethnicity, incomeand place of residence (urban vs. rural) – low-income, racial minorities living in the ruralSouth – are more likely than other Americans to

13

be affected. Although the American public sup-ports massive investments in food assistanceprograms to vulnerable populations and to alesser degree, an investment in nutrition educa-tion, many eligible households lack access tonutrition education and, more specifically, nutri-tion education that is sensitive to the culturalcontext in which family meals are prepared.

The 1890 Extension System has at its dis-posal a unique Nutrition Education Program thatis sensitive to the cultural context and socialenvironment of low-income families in the 1890service area. Food Stamp Nutrition Educationfunding is the major vehicle through whichthese institutions provide nutrition education tothis audience. With its legislative mandate andhistorical ties to low-income and minorityhouseholds, the 1890 system is a valuableresource and can make a significant differencein the fight to improve the health status ofAmerican households. But, maximum utilizationof this resource has not occurred.

This study explored both challenges to andopportunities for greater involvement in FSNEby the 1890 community and, consequently,broader delivery of nutrition education to FoodStamp recipients. Data collection occurredbetween February and May 2003.

Two surveys were presented to administra-tors of 1890 Extension programs. The first sur-vey was designed to identify institutionalinvolvement in FSNE, FF-NEWS, and/or nutri-tion education in general; and to identify majorbarriers to the delivery of nutrition educationwithin the 1890 system. A second survey, dis-tributed in May 2003, elicited more detailedinformation regarding the type of nutrition edu-cation program, institutional histories withFSNE funding, barriers to FSNE participationand perceived opportunities for growth in FSNEprogram delivery. All 18 institutions completedboth surveys, although some respondents did notanswer all questions.

The participation of 1890 institutions inFSNE has been approached cautiously. The firstFSNE funds contracted to 1890 institutions wereawarded to five institutions in 1998. The percentof total 1890s receiving FSNE funds in a given

year ranged from 61 percent in FY 2002 to 28 percent during the initial year of funding.Currently, the percentage of institutions fundedis 50 percent and is likely to decrease further inFY 2004. The greatest challenge for these insti-tutions is acquiring the nonfederal cost sharerequired to receive federal funding. Recentchanges in federal legislation requiring addition-al matching funds for 1890 Extension formulafunds and economic crises in most states arefunding challenges for all 1890 institutions.With this tenable matching situation for federalformula funds, identification of additional cost-share resources for FSNE contracts will be limited.

The emerging nature of the partnershipbetween FNS, state Food Stamp agencies andLand-Grant universities has been challenging foreach partner. The 1890 community has workedhard to embrace the challenges and to anticipateopportunities to strengthen relationships withFNS and state Food Stamp agencies. Challengesrelated to partnership development and under-standing are likely to diminish as FSNEmatures, and all partners grow in understandingand appreciation of the environment withinwhich each partner must work.

Broader and more sustained participation bythe 1890 community in FSNE is sorely neededto meet the program delivery gap between thenumber of eligible households and the numberof households currently served. Yet, limitedcost-share resources for matching reduces thesize of contracts secured and, consequently, out-reach to the target audience. If challenges to par-ticipation of 1890 institutions in FSNE remain,many food stamp eligible households will bedenied access to nutrition education and itspotential to change lives and significantlyreduce federal expenditures on medical care andtreatment of the target population.

Although frustrating to the institutions, theirlimited participation in FSNE has not dimin-ished their commitment, which is evident in thenumber of institutions that support nutrition edu-cation to low-income households from existingprogram budgets and the number of other insti-tutions that augment FSNE funds with programresources above the cost-share requirement.

14

Such expenditures are directed to nutrition edu-cation to the target audience in an extremelycompetitive resource environment.

The 1890 institutions bring unique strengthsto FSNE – a legislative and historical connec-tion to a large percentage of the FSNE targetaudience, experience and competence in educa-tional delivery to limited income and hard-to-reach audiences, and a comprehensive and cul-turally sensitive nutrition education curriculumthat places high priority on reducing diet-relatedhealth problems by promoting long-term behav-ioral change. These strengths can have a positiveimpact on USDA’s ability to meet the legislativemandate of food stamp legislation and on thehealth status of low-income households. The1890 community looks forward to expanding itspartnership with FNS and state Food Stampagencies to this end.

ReferencesReferences

Burney. 1998. A Brief Analysis of the Tennessee Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service. Knoxville, TN.

Centers for Disease Control. 1991-2000. Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System.www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/diversity/trend/ prevchar.html.

ERS:USDA. 2002. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health: Volume 1, Research Design. www.ers.usdagov/publication/fanrra-y.

Feinstein, J.S. 1993. The Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Health: A Review of the Literature. Milbank Quarterly. 71:279-322.

Fierro, M. 2002. The Obesity Epidemic – How States Can Trim the “Fat.” NGA Center for Best Practices: Health Policies Division. Washington, DC.

Food Research and Action Center. 2003. Food Stamp Participation Increases in May 2003 to More Than 21.5 Million Persons; Is More Than 4.66 Million Persons Higher than in July2000. www.frac.org/html/news/fsp/03may l yr.html.

Iowa State University Extension. 2000. Nutrition Education Pays. www.extension.iastate.edu/efnef.

Lambur, Michael, et al. 1999. Applying Cost Benefit to Nutrition Education Programs: Focus on the Virginia Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. CSREES:USDA Special Report Publication 490-403.

Smith, J., Lensing, S., and Hortor, J.A. 1999. Prevalence of self-reported nutrition-related health problems in the Lower Mississippi Delta. American Journal of Public Health. 89:1418-1421.

USDA:FNS. 2003. Food Stamp Nutrition Education Plan Guidance, FY 2004. Washington, DC.

USDA:FNS. 2002. Food Stamp Nutrition Education Plan Guidance, FY 2003. Washington, DC.

White, S.L. and Maloney, S.K. 1990. Promoting Healthy Diets and Active Lives in Hard-to-Reach Groups: Market Research Study Public Health Reports, Volume 3, May-June, 224-231.

15

16

17

18

19

Accredited ByNorth Central Association of Colleges & SchoolsCommission on Institutions of Higher Education

30 N. LaSalle, Suite 2400Chicago, Illinois 60602-2504

1-800-621-7440/FAX: 312-263-7462

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action University