Investing in Oregon's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP): Documenting Costs and Benefits

• Published in: Journal of nutrition education and behavior Vol. 35; no. 4; pp. 200 - 206
• Main Authors: Schuster, Ellen, Zimmerman, Zelda L., Engle, Molly, Smiley, Janice, Syversen, Ellen, Murray, Jill
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2003; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adult; adults; chronic diseases; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Costs; Costs and Cost Analysis; economics; Education; Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program; Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP); Extension Education; Female; Food; Health Education; Health Education - economics; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Initiatives; low income; Male; Models, Economic; Nutrition; nutrition education; Nutrition Instruction; Nutritional Sciences; Nutritional Sciences - education; optimal nutrition; Oregon; Outcome Measures; Program Costs; Resource Allocation; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Virginia; Oregon; Virginia; United States > US; nutrition education; Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP); low income; cost-benefit analysis
• ISSN: 1499-4046; 1878-2620; 1708-8259
• DOI: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60334-5

To apply Virginia's cost-benefit analysis (CBA) model developed for a large Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) to Oregon's small EFNEP. To estimate a cost-benefit ratio for Oregon's EFNEP based on retrospective analysis of program costs and optimal nutrition behaviors (ONBs) in relation to potential health-related savings for diet-related chronic diseases/conditions. Standard components of a CBA. 368 adult graduates of Oregon State University's Extension Service EFNEP during the 1999–2000 program year. Prior participation in the EFNEP with a mean of 10.4 lessons. Cost-benefit ratio and several sensitivity analyses. EFNEP program graduates practicing ONBs related to prevention/delay of diet-related chronic diseases/conditions were determined using SPSS (Base 10 computer program). Cost-benefit ratios were computed using Microsoft Excel. CBA determined a 1:3.63 cost-benefit ratio (in 1999 dollars). Virginia's CBA model was useful in the retrospective evaluation of Oregon's small EFNEP. With Oregon's benefits exceeding costs, CBA provides evidence for resource allocation and justification for program continuation.