Background and Context
This indicator is intended to demonstrate in fiscal terms that SNAP-Ed funding and staff stimulate other agencies, nonprofits, businesses, and foundations to co-fund evidence-based interventions benefitting low-income people in SNAP-Ed qualified settings. Using the RE-AIM model, co-investment may occur in association with any phase: Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness, and Maintenance. Ultimately, it is expected that the provision of SNAP-Ed services and funding will lead other stakeholders to help out with their own resources. Eventually, this should result in the organizational changes being institutionalized within the partner organizations and requiring little or no ongoing SNAP-Ed support.
|LT9a.||Staff (number of full-time equivalents [# FTE])|
|LT9b.||Funding (total dollars spent)|
|LT9c.||In-kind support including the value of:
What to Measure
- Personnel, consultants providing direct assistance to the partners
- Out-of-pocket costs for materials, training, travel to this project
- Grant award to partner organization
- Other costs
- Personnel: The dollar-value equivalent of employee time for those who spend a significant amount of their on-the-job time (>10%) to help plan, conduct, report on, or evaluate the SNAP-Ed intervention, paid by a partner institution or organization. Estimated using the value of salary and benefits times the percent time spend on SNAP-Ed work.
- Volunteers: Calculated using conventional Federal calculations for volunteer time
- Physical space, equipment, or services that are redirected for dedication for SNAP-Ed purposes and provided by the institution or organization for SNAP-Ed use. Includes space only when it could otherwise be rented out.
Baseline and annual change in the amount of these resources should be monitored. An annual comparison may determine whether there is maintenance-of-effort or an increase in resources contributed by partners.
Surveys and Data Collection Tools
On-site assessments and inventories can provide information about personnel, space, physical conditions, and the equipment available to conduct ongoing programmatic activities. Alternatively, any documentation of facility size, conditions, and equipment could be reviewed.
On-site interviews with staff, partners, and champions about the nature and value of their organization’s engagement.
Staffing: The dollar-value of personnel whose job is dedicated to help plan, conduct, report on, or evaluate the SNAP-Ed intervention and not paid by SNAP-Ed. They may be paid through a partner’s budget, from grants, or from donations.
Funding: The total dollars in out-of-pocket costs paid to co-fund the SNAP-Ed intervention like rented facilities, transportation, media, consultants or contractors. Dollars may come from a partner’s budget, from grants, or from donations.
The Community Tool Box includes a checklist to assist in assessing in-kind support
Additional evaluation tools to measure LT9 can be found in the SNAP-Ed Library.
Key Glossary Terms
Additional Resources or Supporting Citations
Akerlund KM (2000). Prevention program sustainability: The state’s perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 353–362.
Foster-Fishman PG, Berkowitz SL, Lounsbury DW, Jacobson S, Allen N. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: a review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261.
Goodman RM. (2000). Bridging the gap in effective program implementation: from concept to application. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 309–321.
Goodman RM, McLeroy KR, Steckler AB, Hoyle R. (1993). Development of level of institutionalization scales for health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 20(2), 161–179.
Goodman RM, Speers MA, McLeroy K, Fawcett S, Kegler M, Parker E, Smith S, Sterling TD, Wallerstein N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education and Behavior, 25(3), 256–278.
O’Loughlin J, Renaud L, Richard L, Gomez L, Paradis G. (1998).Correlates of the sustainability of community-based heart health promotion interventions. Preventive Medicine, 27, 702–712.
Rudd RE, Goldberg J, Dietz W. (1999). A five-stage model for sustaining a community campaign. Journal of Health Communication, 4, 37–48.
Schwartz R, Smith C, Speers MA, Dusenbury LJ, Bright F, Hedlund S, et al. (1993). Capacity building and resource needs of state health agencies to implement community-based cardiovascular disease programs. Journal of Public Health Policy, 480–493.
Steckler A, Goodman RM. (1989). How to institutionalize health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 3(4), 34–44.
Zins JE, Elias MJ, Greenberg MT, Pruett MK. (2000). Promoting quality implementation in prevention programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(2), 173–174.