States’ Capacity for Comprehensive Nutrition and Physical Activity Programming

1. States’ Capacity for Comprehensive Nutrition and Physical Activity Programming Nutrition and Physical Activity Workgroup (NUPAWG)

2. Presentation Outline • Describe the following related to states comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming • The purpose, partners, process and context of the assessment • Results: • capacity needs • barriers for comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming • major successes • Implications for professional organizations and states

3. Purpose • To better understand states' capacity needs, barriers and successes in accomplishing comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming.

4. Assessment Questions • What are the reported capacity needs of states for comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming? • What are the major state reported barriers for comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming? • What major successes have states experienced with comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming?

5. Partners • The Nutrition and Physical Activity Working Group (NUPAWG), partnering with: • National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), • Association of State & Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors (ASTPHND), • Directors of Health Promotion and Education (DHPE), and the • National Society of Physical Activity Practitioners in Public Health (NSPAPPH)

6. Process • Working with our partners: • Developed and tested an online assessment • Identified target audience • Distributed assessment via existing infrastructure • Provided follow up and reminder support

7. Target Audience • Three (3) individuals from every state • Obesity funded states • Program coordinator • Nutrition coordinator • Physical Activity coordinator • Non-obesity funded states • ASTPHND rep. • NACDD rep. • DHPE or NSPAPPH rep.

8. Context • The responses to the questions are from the perspective of the state health departments’ nutrition/physical activity programming, not local programming.

9. Results • 50 of the 51 states represented (98%) • Percent reported being members of: • 34% NACDD, • 50% of ASTPHND, • 16% of DHPE, and • 46% of NSPAPPH. • Only 2% reported having no membership to any of these organizations. • 104 total respondents • 60% are coordinators, 12% are managers, and 24% are directors. • The majority (70%) possess a Master’s degree, while 4% possess a doctoral degree.

10. State Proxy Determination • Step 1: Intrastate ‘objective’ responses were compared—no differences were found • Step 2: The most complete response, for that state, was utilized as the state’s response • The unit of analysis is at the state/district level • 49 states and 1 district = population

11. Assessment Question #1 • What are the reported capacity needs of states for comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming?

12. Leadership • 41 states (82%) reported having dedicated FTE’s for nutrition and/or physical activity programming • 4 = the average number of FTE’s within these states • 28 states reported both nutrition and physical activity FTE’s

13. Importance of staff for effective programming

14. Of those that reported NOT having dedicated nutrition and physical activity programming FTE’s:

15. Needed Resources for More Funding

16. Planning / Purpose 31 (62%) states reported having a written state strategic plan for comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming

17. Self reported capacity level of states

18. Assessment Question #2 • What are the major state reported barriers for comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming?

19. Capacity Barriers

20. Program Funding Sources

21. State Allocation • 17 (34%) states reported that state funds are allocated and/or used specifically for nutrition and physical activity programming

22. Barriers for Comprehensive Nutrition and Physical Activity Program Coordination/Integration

23. Partnerships % of states reporting having experienced the following in forming or sustaining partnerships

24. Assessment Question #3 • What major successes have states experienced with comprehensive nutrition and physical activity programming?

25. Leveraging Funds

26. Assistance to Local Health Departments

27. Partnering Efforts

28. Importance of Partnerships • 92% of the states reported that partnerships are “very or extremely important” for the success of the nutrition and physical activity programming.

29. Sharing of Assets/Resources • What states receive from partners • Materials • Technical Assistance • Expertise* • What partners receive from states • Technical Assistance* • Expertise • Funding * Reported as “most important”

30. Take away messages for States • Keep doing the following: • Partnering • Resource management and leveraging • Management/Leadership support • Need to improve the following: • Develop written plan • Market written plan

31. Take away messages for Professional Orgs. • Physical Activity appears to be advancing: • Nutrition paved the way • Nutrition can potentially learn and grow with PA • Discuss and determine what can be done to help increase states’ capacity as it fits within the orgs. strategic plan • Ideas: • Case studies of states that have successfully leveraged federal and other funding sources • Documenting successful partnerships

32. Questions and (hopefully) Answers

33. Contact Information David Dennison Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, MS K-24 Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 Work: (770) 488-5390 Email: ddennison@cdc.gov