| A
Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Tennessee Expanded Food and
Nutrition
Education Program
| For
every dollar spent to implement the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program
(EFNEP), $2.48 is saved on food expenditures. This can reduce the need for
emergency food assistance and save money for other necessities. |
This
study applied cost-benefit analysis to determine:
1) if participation in
EFNEP helps households use their food resources wisely,
2) if participation
in EFNEP helps households improve their nutrient intake, and
3) what it costs
to improve these behaviors.
METHODS
Subjects
Subjects were
low-income females, 18 years of age or older, living in 16 Tennessee counties
served by EFNEP. Design
This study used
a quasi-experimental Nonequivalent Control Group Design with three groups: 1)
experimental group A (group receiving nutrition education from EFNEP that collected
cash register receipts for food), 2) experimental group B (group receiving nutrition
education from EFNEP that estimated food expenditures from recall), and 3) group
C (group that qualified for EFNEP, but delayed participation until subjects in
groups A and B completed their EFNEP education). Measuring
Costs
•Direct
costs.
Most direct costs were obtained from a Grant and Contract Budget and Expenditure
Report from the University Office of the Treasurer. All costs were collected over
a 6-month time horizon and multiplied by 2 to determine yearly expenditures.
•Indirect costs.
Indirect costs were estimated using the rate of 21.79% of directs costs for expenses
on campus and a rate of 10.79% for expenses off campus. Measuring
Benefits
•Food
expenditure data.
Food expenditures were obtained from the item, "money spent on food last month,"
on the 24-hour food recall. Changes in food expenditures were determined by subtracting
the amount of money spent on food at program entry from the amount at program
exit. •Food
and nutrient data. Food and nutrient intakes and practices related to food
resource management, and food selection and preparation, were obtained from pre
and post 24-hour recalls and the EFNEP Survey. •Comparing
costs to program benefits. The Net Present Value (NPV) of EFNEP was calculated
using the difference in monthly food expenditures at program entry and exit over
5 years at a discount rate of 7%. A benefit-cost ratio was calculated by taking
the present value (PV) of future net benefits (using the 7% discount rate) over
the one-time investment cost. RESULTS
Sample
Three
hundred seventy-one subjects completed the study: 121 in group A, 129 in group
B, and 121 in group C. Cost Per Participant
Total program
cost was $388.26 per family (total cost divided by the number of graduates).
Food Expenditures
•Subjects
in group A saved an average of $10.36 per month. •Subjects
in group B saved an average of $19.53 per month. •Subjects
in the control group C spent $5.52 more per month. Net
Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio
The
NPV of EFNEP related to food expenditures was $600.52 over a 5-year time frame
at a discount rate of 7%. Sensitivity analysis showed that NPV varied from -$36.60
to $699.10 and depended on how long benefits were maintained (three or five years),
whether food expenditures were estimated or collected from records, and the discount
rate (3%, 5%, or 7%). The benefit-cost ratio was 2.48/1 (i.e., $2.48 saved for
every $1 spent). Food and Nutrient
Intakes and Behaviors
At
the same time participants saved money of food expenditures, they consumed more
iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, and fiber. They also improved resource management
and food selection and preparation practices.
CONCLUSIONS
•EFNEP
families realized a savings of $600.52 in food expenditures. For every dollar
spent to implement EFNEP, $2.48 was saved in food expenditures. Society benefits
from EFNEP because money saved can be used to purchase other goods and services
and may reduce the need for emergency food resources. •At
the same time families saved on food expenditures, they improved nutrient intakes
and behaviors related to food selection, preparation, and resource management.
•The longer
benefits are retained, the greater the NPV and benefit-cost ratio. Therefore,
longevity studies are needed to document how long changed behaviors are sustained.
•The single
measure of effectiveness reported in this study could be combined with other benefits
to further document the cost-benefit of EFNEP.
Prepared
by: Janie Burney, PhD, RD, The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension
Service. This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of a doctoral degree
from The University of Tennessee in 1998. | 
