Premium
An Average Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the EFNEP Effects
Author(s) -
Baral Ranju,
Davis George,
Serrano Elena
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.25.1_supplement.330.6
Subject(s) - index (typography) , average cost , scale (ratio) , total cost , environmental health , medicine , geography , demography , business , statistics , operations management , mathematics , economics , computer science , neoclassical economics , cartography , accounting , sociology , world wide web
The USDA spends about $66 million per year on the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). Previous research shows the EFNEP changes behavior in its participants in small scale studies. However, there is no information on the cost effectiveness of this federal level appropriation. In this paper we use a simple average cost analysis to look at the cost effectiveness of the EFNEP across states and territories. We use the three standard outcome indices reported by USDA: food resource management practices (FRMP), nutritional practices (NP) and food safety practices (FSP). These indexes measure improvement in these outcome areas and each index exist for each person participating in the EFENP. This outcome and the annual budget allocation data by state and territory from 2000–2006 were collected from USDA. From this data, we calculated the average cost per person improving in each outcome index by state, territory, and year. On average across years, the average costs per person of improvement for FRMP, NP and FSP are $602, $484 and $1407, respectively. Micronesia had the smallest average cost for ($89) FRMP and ($75)NP and Texas had smallest average cost for ($245)FSP. Minnesota had highest average cost for ($1950) FRMP and Michigan had highest average cost for ($1498) NP and ($5208) for FSP. These numbers help policy makers identify areas where the EFNEP is relatively more efficient in meeting its goals. Research Supported by USDA.