Fns 885 Snap-ed Toolkit Intervention Scoring Tool

OMB APPROVED NO. 0584-0639
Expiration Date: xx/xx/20xx

Print

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service
SNAP-ED TOOLKIT INTERVENTION SCORING TOOL
Instructions
- Please enter your score next to each question in the "Score" column.
- The Intervention Submission Tool Questions or Materials to Review are suggestions, please feel free to use all information provided about the intervention to determine a score for each question.
- Please feel free to make comments for each question, these will only be shared with other reviewers if scores need to be aligned.
- If an intervention is not chosen to be included in the SNAP-Ed Intervention Toolkit, intervention developers will be provided the reasons it was not included, and the additional information or actions to
be taken for inclusion. This feedback will be de-identified.
- Mandatory questions on the Intervention Submission Tool are indicated with an asterisk (*).
- For more information about the RE-AIM Framework, please visithttps://snapedtoolkit.org/training/online-training/
Review Question

Score

Intervention Submission Maximum
Tool Questions or
Possible
Materials to Review
Points

Reach
How many people are exposed or served and are they representative?
Did the intervention reach the
intended target audience?

Questions 21*, 25*,
& supporting
documents

Is the intervention
appropriate for the audience
for which it was intended?

Questions 21*, 22*,
23*, supporting
documents &
intervention materials

Factors for High Score

Reviewer Comments

12

5

7

- Total persons/institutions reached
- High proportion of eligible persons/institutions reached
- Persons/institutions reached are representative of target
audience
- Cultural needs and preferences were thoughtfully
considered and integrated
- Language level and availability (e.g. translation, format)
- Resource commitment (time, space, capital, human
resources)

Reach Total:
Effectiveness
What is the impact of your intervention on the intended outcomes?

35

Was the target audience (or
community partner) involved in
the development of the
intervention?

Questions 22*, 23*,
23a, & supporting
documents

3

If applicable, does participant or
partner feedback indicate
acceptability of the intervention?

Questions 23*, 23a,
& supporting
documents

1

Do the intended outcomes
indicate that objectives were
appropriately addressed?

Questions 25*, 26, &
supporting
documents

10

- -Depth and quality of involvement (true
- partnership versus consultation)
- -Demonstrated integration of target audience or
community partner feedback
- Reports from participants, stakeholders, and partners
indicating acceptability
- Number of outcomes achieved
- Extent of achievement (proportion of participants/
organizations reporting positive results, statistical
significance, difference from baseline)
- Who conducted the evaluation (external versus
internal evaluators)

Form Approved OMB No. 0584-NEW | According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is [0584-xxxx]. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average
6 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Services, Office of Policy Support, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314, ATTN: PRA (0584-0639). Do not return the completed form to this address. Expiration date: XX/XX/XXXX
FORM FNS-885 Version 2 (04-21) Previous Editions
Obsolete

SBU

Electronic Form Version Designed in Adobe 11 Version

Review Question

Does the intervention address
multiple levels of the SNAP-Ed
Evaluation Framework (or multiple
levels of the Socio-Ecological
Model)?

Score

Intervention Submission Maximum
Possible
Tool Questions or
Points
Materials to Review
Questions 27*,30*,
31*, supporting
documents &
intervention materials

5

Factors for High Score

- Type of intervention
- Intervention setting(s)
- Outcomes and the extent to which they occurred
- Evaluation methods used
- Evaluation type for lifespan of intervention
- Quality of the supporting materials and
conclusions as appropriate for a low-income
audience

Does the supporting
documentation indicate that the
intervention is evidence-based at
a level that is appropriate for the
intervention's stage of
development (Research-tested,
Practice-tested, Emerging)?

Questions 15*, 16*,
27*, supporting
documents, &
intervention materials

Does the evidence provided
support that the intervention
would be effective if adopted by
other SNAP-Ed agencies? Is it
reasonable to expect that this
intervention will be effective in
the field?

Questions 15*, 16*,
27*, supporting
documents,
intervention
materials, & possible
outside research by
reviewer

6

- Theory of behavior change
- Extent to which behavior change theory is
addressed through intervention methods
- Extent to which intervention has been
implemented and evaluated by other
SNAP-Ed agencies
-

Are process evaluation materials
provided?

Questions 28*, 28a,
28b, & intervention
materials

2

- Yes/No

8

Effectiveness Total:

Adoption
How many settings/sectors are involved and are they representative?
Has the intervention
previously been been used
with a low-income
audience?implemented with
people eligible for SNAP-Ed
(on limited incomes or
earning low wages)?

Question 332*

14

1

- Yes/No

Page 2

Reviewer Comments

Review Question

How appropriate is the
intervention for the setting for
which it was intended?

Did most of the sites/settings/
partners engaged complete the
intervention?

Does the intervention
collaboratively engage partners
who can affect change in multiple
levels of the SNAP-Ed Evaluation
Framework (or multiple levels of
the Socio-Ecological Model)?

Score

Intervention Submission Maximum
Possible
Tool Questions or
Points
Materials to Review
Questions 29*, 30*,
supporting
documents, &
intervention materials

Questions 30*,
31*, &
supporting
documents

Questions 30*, 31*,
32*, supporting
documents,
implementation
materials, & possible
outside research by
reviewer

5

2

6

Factors for High Score

- Resources needed for adoption (materials, staff, time,
space)
- Ability of setting to reach SNAP-Ed target audience
- Availability of setting in communities of need
- Number of sites/settings/partners approached that
- completed all components of the intervention
- Sites/settings/partners who expressed desire to
continue but were unable to complete due to reasons
beyond the scope of the intervention (such as closure
of business)

- Mix of partners across the sectors of influence
- Ability of setting to reach SNAP-Ed target audience
- Availability of setting in communities of need

Adoption Total:
Implementation
Were the required activities of your intervention successfully implemented?

20

Are training materials available
for staff, partners, and/or
volunteers?

2

- Yes/No

5

- Language level
- Logical flow of implementation steps
- Materials are provided to support successful
implementation with fidelity
- Materials are appropriate for knowledge and
experience level of intended user (for example,
materials for lay persons avoid technical jargon)

Questions 36*, 36a,
& intervention
materials

Are implementation directions
and materials clear and easy to
follow?

Intervention materials

Are the intervention's main
components (critical features)
reasonably feasible to replicate
with fidelity?

Questions 35*,36*,
36a, 37*, &
intervention materials

8

- Resources needed for implementation (including cost)
- Availability and feasibility of methods for ensuring
intervention fidelity
- Ability of organizations with limited resources to
implement the intervention

Are the methods described to
ensure program fidelity
appropriate for the interventions?

Questions 35*, 36*,
36a, 37* &
intervention materials

5

- Data collection methods
- Resources needed to ensure intervention is
completed with fidelity (such as staff time for
observations or physical materials)

Implementation Total:
Page 3

Reviewer Comments

Review Question

Score

Intervention Submission Maximum
Possible
Tool Questions or
Points
Materials to Review

Maintenance
What are the long-term effects of your intervention? Is the intervention
sustainable?

Any evidence of maintenance of
outcomes? (After 6 months for
individuals)

Questions 25*, 26 &
supporting
documents

Are resources or materials
reusable or available to
participants/partners at no/low
cost on an ongoing basis to
facilitate outcome maintenance?

Questions 10*, 11, 25*,
40*, 43
& intervention
materials

Factors for High Score

18

2

- Feasibility of maintaining outcomes
- Are maintenance outcomes expected at this point in
the lifespan of the intervention (esp. if emerging)

3

- Feasibility of maintaining outcomes
- Comparison of outcome maintenance to similar
interventions
- Are maintenance outcomes expected at this point in
the lifespan of the intervention (esp. if emerging)

Are the core components of the
intervention clearly described and
realistic for the audience and
setting for which it is intended?
Can components of the
intervention be adapted to be
used in settings or communities
other than those explicitly
described in the submission
criteria?

Questions 35*,
40*, 41, 42,
supporting
documents &
intervention materials

5

- Resources needed for implementation (including cost)
- Appropriateness of the intervention for multiple
audiences/settings

Has the intervention been adopted
by partners/in settings not directly
supported by SNAP-Ed?

Question 39*

1

- Yes/No

7

- Number and extent of sustainability concerns
- Total resources needed for intervention adoption,
implementation, and maintenance
- Diversity of potential partners or funding streams
- Number of potential partners or funding streams

Are sustainability concerns
reasonable and able to be
addressed through routine
operation, including expressed
or expected partnerships or
diversified funding mechanisms?
Consider both expressed and
intuited concerns.
Maintenance Total:

BONUS: Does the intervention
reach an underrepresented
audience in the toolkit?

Questions 40*, 43
supporting
documents &
intervention materials

Questions 19*, 20*
supporting
documents &
intervention materials

5

Less than 30% of interventions currently
represented in the Toolkit address this population:
Middle School
High School
Pregnant/Breastfeeding Women
Homeless/Food Pantry Clients
African Americans
Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders
Native Americans/Alaskan Natives
Page 4

Reviewer Comments

-

Language other than English or Spanish

Page 5

Review Question

Score

BONUS: Does the intervention
reach an underrepresented
setting in the toolkit?

Intervention Submission Maximum
Possible
Tool Questions or
Points
Materials to Review

Questions 29* & 32*

5

Factors for High Score

Less than 30% of interventions currently
represented in the Toolkit address this setting:
Community Gardens
Farmers Markets
School Gardens
Faith-based community
Food pantries
Health Care
Indian Tribal Organizations
Food Retail
USDA Program Sites
Worksites

Less than 30% of interventions currently
represented in the Toolkit address this
implementation strategy:

BONUS: Does the intervention
use an approach/strategy that is
currently underutilized in the
toolkit?

Question 14*

5

5

BONUS: How would you rate the
overall quality of the intervention
responses and materials?

- Social marketing
**Consider if this intervention is appropriate for the
target audience and settings, would reach the SNAPEd target audience, and if it is feasible for
organizations to adopt and implement

-

Responses that are comprehensive and use
specific, concise language
Materials that provide relevant supporting
information and are clearly referenced

Bonus Total:
Total Score (No Bonus):

Based on the score above and your expert review, do you recommend this intervention for inclusion in the SNAP-Ed Toolkit?

Yes

No

Page 6

Reviewer Comments

If no to above, please describe your reasoning for exclusion from the Toolkit:

If no to above, please describe what additional information or actions would be needed to recommend this intervention for inclusion in the Toolkit:

If yes to above, please describe your reasoning for inclusion in the Toolkit:

Page 7