Change Justification Memo - eSFSP Demonstration Evaluation - final 1-17-2012

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Food and

Nutrition

Service

3101 Park

Center Drive

Alexandria, VA

22302-1500

DATE: January 26, 2012

TO: Julie Wise

OMB Desk Office

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Office of Management and Budget

THROUGH: Rachelle Ragland-Greene

Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch

Food and Nutrition Service

FROM: Chan Chanhatasilpa

Project Officer

Office of Research and Analysis

Food and Nutrition Service

SUBJECT: Justification for a Change to the 2012 Round 3 Questionnaire, Enhanced

SFSP Demonstration Evaluation, OMB# 0584-0560

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in the US Department of Agriculture is implementing enhancement and household-based demonstration projects to increase participation in the Summer Food Services Program (SFSP) and improve food security among children. The purpose of this project is to evaluate four types of enhancement demonstration projects sponsored by FNS. One component of this evaluation consists of computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) with a sample of parents or caregivers of Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project participants. During the summer and fall, 2011, the contractor, Westat collected data on household food security; meal targeting accuracy; participant, respondent, and household characteristics; and participation in other nutrition assistance programs by telephone. Westat is currently making plans for the collection of data for Rounds 3 and 4 of telephone interview data. We now find we will need to make changes to the Round 3 telephone interview, based on our experience in 2011 and analytic requirements in 2012.

In addition to a change to the title of the questionnaire and changes in numbering, we recommend the following changes for the Meal Delivery questionnaire (see Appendix A; changes are highlighted in yellow):

• For analytic purposes, it is necessary to calculate the frequency in which meals were delivered. Since sponsors and sites vary in the number of times they deliver each week, we revised the question so interviewers could fill in the number of days per week meals are delivered (question 3) and the number of weeks each person received a meal from the program (question 4).

• In the Round 1 questionnaire, we were only able to calculate frequency in which meals were delivered when the meal was home delivered. A comparable question for Meal Delivery at a drop-off site (the more common situation) was not included in the questionnaire. To be able to calculate the frequency in which meals were delivered to a drop-off site, as well as to a home, we added in new questions 8 and 9, which are repeats of questions 3 and 4.

• When we asked how the respondent found out about the meal delivery program in Round 1, there were many “Other, specify” responses that enabled us to examine how the respondent found out about the program (e.g., flyer, brochure, newsletter) and where (e.g., at child’s school, at summer food program, at church). Thus, we added in a question on where the respondent found out about the meal delivery program (question 16).

• The original question on why the respondent enrolled children to receive a meal delivery was open-ended. We created codes based on the responses we received in Round 1 data collection (question 17).

• The question on where the food was stored (originally question 16) was an indirect way of understanding whether any of the food was stored inappropriately and, thus, may have spoiled. We re-worded the question to more directly focus on food spoilage and deleted the original storage question. We also changed the order of the question so it is now question 22.

• The question on why the food was not eaten was left open-ended. Based on the responses we received in Round 1, we were able to provide codes (question 24).

• To better understand the level of food security in a household, we asked about participation in other nutrition assistance programs. We added new questions 50 and 51 to this section to ascertain participation in other summer food programs where meals are eaten on site. The question is asked for the current and previous summer.

• The original question 57 (now question 62) was revised to clarify which summer food program is being addressed (the Meal Delivery demonstration project).

In addition to changes to the title of the questionnaire and question numbering, the following changes are recommended for the Backpack questionnaire (see Appendix B; changes are highlighted in yellow).

• In a de-briefing of telephone interviewers, we were told that some respondents were confused when we asked about “backpacks” since their children received food in bags or sacks. Thus, in all questions that use the term “backpack,” we changed it to “bags/backpacks” or “bag or backpack.”

• We revised question 2 to apply to the SFSP that distributes bags/backpacks to children. Later in the questionnaire we ask about other summer food programs the children may have been attending (see below).

• Since bags/backpacks were distributed on other days besides Fridays (e.g., Thursdays and Saturdays), we changed one of the responses for how often the bags/backpacks are distributed to “Only on (days program distributes bags/backpacks)” (question 3).

• To be consistent with meal delivery in calculating the frequency that meals were received (and not the number of meals or bags/backpacks), we changed question 5 to ask for the number of “times” each project participant brought home a bag or backpack in each month in which the project was in operation.

• To be consistent with Meal Delivery, we added a question on where the respondent found out about the Backpack program (question 8).

• Like the Meal Delivery question on where the food was stored, the original question 11 in the Backpack questionnaire was an indirect way of understanding whether any of the food was stored inappropriately and, thus, may have spoiled. We re-worded the question to focus more directly on food spoilage and deleted the original storage question. We also changed the order of the question so it is now question 15.

• Like the Meal Delivery questionnaire, the question on why the food was not eaten was left open-ended. Based on the responses we received in Round 1, we were able to provide codes (question 17).

• To better understand the level of food security in a household, we asked about participation in other nutrition assistance programs. We added new questions 43 and 44 to this section to ascertain participation in other summer food programs where meals are eaten on site. The questions determine whether or not children in the household participated in any other summer food program where they ate the meals on-site (question 43) and the number of children who did so (question 44).

• The question that is now question 55 was revised to clarify which summer food program is being addressed (the Backpack demonstration project).

In summary, we request approval to add five questions and revise six questions in the Meal Delivery questionnaire. In addition, we request approval to add three questions and revise six questions in the Backpack questionnaire (excluding the ones that are re-numbered or were changed to “Bags/Backpacks”). We are confident that these changes will not increase the number of burden hours in any substantial way. Moreover, these changes will better assist in meeting the analytical objectives of this evaluation.

Sincerely,

Attachments