California Agriculture Online
California Agriculture Home  >   Volume 60   >   Number 4  >   Viewing Expanded Abstract

peer-reviewed research article

Cost-benefit analysis conducted for nutrition education in California

authors

Amy B. Joy, Department of Nutrition, UC Davis
Vijay Pradhan, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley
George E. Goldman, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley

publication information

California Agriculture 60(4):185-191. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v060n04p185. October-December 2006.

NALT Keywords

California, Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, nutrition education

abstract

Documenting the cost-effectiveness of nutrition education programs is important to justify and determine expenditures and ensure continued funding. A cost-benefit analysis was conducted using the program demographics and food-related dietary behavior of participants enrolled in California's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), based on methodology developed by Virginia Cooperative Extension. The initial benefit-cost ratio for nutrition education in California was 14.67 to 1.00. Several sensitivity analyses were done to estimate the effect of changes in key variables. The resulting benefit-cost ratios ranged from 3.67 to 1.00, to 8.34 to 1.00, meaning that for every $1.00 spent on nutrition education in California, between $3.67 and $8.34 is saved in health care costs. These results bolster the argument that nutrition education programs are a good investment and funding them is sound public policy.

author affiliations

A. Block Joy is Specialist and Director of the UC Food Stamp Nutrition Education program in California, Department of Nutrition, UC Davis; V. Pradhan (deceased) was Senior Statistician is Economist, Emeritus, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley. G. Goldman is Economist, Emeritus, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.

author notes

The authors thank Ruby Cox, Specialist, Virginia Cooperative Extension, who consulted on the methodology of the analysis, and whose insight, enthusiastic support and guidance were invaluable. We also acknowledge Barbara Sutherland, EFNEP Director, and the EFNEP Advisors who managed adult EFNEP in their respective counties and collected the data used in this study: Mary Blackburn (Alameda), Gloria Brown (San Francisco/San Mateo), Ann Cotter (Orange), Susan Donahue (Butte), Nancy Feldman (Stanislaus), Mary Fujii (Contra Costa), Chutima Gavanthor (Riverside), Margaret Johns (Kern), Cathi Lamp (Tulare), Connie Lexion (San Bernardino), Anna Martin (San Joaquin), Yvonne Nicholson (Sacramento), Gwendolyn Stanford (San Diego), Jeanette Sutherlin (Fresno), Barbara Turner (Los Angeles) and Estella West (Santa Clara). In addition, we thank William Benford, Chris Hanson, Karrie Heneman and Karl Schroeder. This study was funded by a competitive grant from the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

References

Blackburn ML, et al. Townsend MS, et al. Kaiser LL, et al. Food behavior checklist effectively evaluates nutrition education. Cal Ag. 2006. 60:20-4.

Contento I, et al. Balch GI, et al. Bronner YL, et al. Nutrition education for adults. J Nutr Ed. 1995. 27(6):312-28.

Del Tredici AM. Joy AB. Omelich C. Laughlin SG. Evaluation study of the California Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program: 24-hour food-recall data. J Amer Dietetic Assoc. 1988. 88:185-90.

[DHHS] US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. 1990. Washington, DC.: Public Health Service,. Pub #91–50212.

Joy AB. Diet, shopping and food-safety skills of food stamp clients improve with nutrition education. Cal Ag. 2004. 58:204-8.

Lambur M, et al. Rajgopal R, et al. Lewis E, et al. Applying cost-benefit analysis to nutrition education programs: Focus on the Virginia Expanded Food and Nutrition Education programs: Virginia Cooperative Extension. 1999. Blacksberg, VA.: Virginia Tech.

Merrill EO. Willis W. EFNEP Evaluation/Reporting System User's Guide, Version 3.01 (ERS-3) 1993. ERS National Committee, Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA, Washington, DC.

Murphy SP. Kaiser LL. Townsend MS. Allen LH. Evaluation of validity of items for a food behavior checklist. J Amer Dietetic Assoc. 2001. 101:751-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00189-4 [CrossRef]

Nierman LG. A Longitudinal Study of the Retention of Foods and Nutrition Knowledge and Practices of Participants from Michigan Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program 1986. Doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Rajgopal R. Cox RH. Lambur M. Lewis E. Cost-benefit analysis indicates the positive economic benefits of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program related to chronic disease prevention. J Nutr Educ Behavior. 2002. 34:26-37. DOI: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60225-X [CrossRef]

Sassone PG. Schaeffer WA. Cost-benefit Analysis: A Handbook. 1978. New York: Acad Pr. 182p.

[USDA/DHHS] US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 1995. 4th ed. Washington, DC.: Pub no. IHG232.


  • Search Article Text 1946 to Present
Advanced Search