Progress 08/01/23 to 07/31/24
Outputs
Target Audience: The project consisted of the implementation of a program director meeting in New Orleans, LA on Dec 4-6, 2023. The target audience for this project were the program directors and additional staff from current CFPCGP, GusNIP, and FASLP grantees. A secondary audience was NIFA staff associated with these programs. Approximately 390 persons, including our staff, attended this event. Attendees came from 46 states plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico. 390 attendees came to the meeting. Unfortunately, a number of attendees canceled because of illness or other commitments. In some cases, multiple attendees came from the same project, and in a few cases, one organization held grants from two different programs. With regards to specific NIFA programs, the breakdown of attendees was as follows: · 126 from CFPCGP · 35 from FASLP · 211 from GUSNIP · 6 staff and TA providers · 12 USDA staff Changes/Problems:Planning We were able to organize the recent PD meeting on very short notice, but there were some less than ideal implications of doing so. Multiple attendees noted that they would have liked more advance communication: of the agenda, of their presentations, and of the event itself. We should provide at least seven to eight months advance notice of the event, as well as a detailed agenda and requests of the attendees a few months before the meeting. This will require substantive agenda planning five to six months before the meeting. Revisit Agenda As one attendee astutely noted in their survey response, different types of meetings are best suited for different purposes. Virtual meetings are well suited for information dissemination, while in-person meetings work best for networking. The survey results clearly showed that attendees liked the networking and wanted more of it. They preferred interaction to listening to numerous presentations, although they did find the post-award management information very helpful. We suggest that NIFA re-visit and articulate to the attendees the underlying purpose of the meeting, and consider how to restructure it to meet attendees' needs for problem solving and discussion. We also suggest that NIFA consider inviting a small advisory committee of grantees to provide input on the agenda. Attendance The New Orleans meeting was negatively impacted by over-attendance and overcrowding. We had about 30% more attendees than projected. In the future, to arrange for the right amount of meeting space, we would benefit from knowing the number of grantees and project directors that will be invited. Similarly, USDA should clarify the number of persons per funded project that are allowed to attend. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?* Networking opportunities abounded during the program director meeting, including at tabletops during the plenary session, where attendees were able to address specific questions about their projects; * NIFA led various sessions on reporting, auditing, food loss and waste, and the three programs in attendance at the meeting. These sessions enabled attendees to improve their performance as program directors as well as to learn about new initiatives. * Attendees also participated in sessions in which they learned about each other's projects through brief presentations. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? The primary community of interest for this project is the set of grantees for these three programs as well as NIFA staff. We have disseminated the results as follows: • Each grantee prepared five slides about their programs. These slides- converted into pdfs- were made available to other grantees of the same grant program. (e.g. FASLP grantees have access to other FASLP grantees' slides) through a google drive folder. Similarly, the slides that presenters prepared for their talks about their programs during the event were made available to their colleagues. • Detailed post-event participant survey results were sent to NIFA staff. • A report was submitted to NIFA staff outlining results and our analysis. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? There is no firther reporting period. This was a one-year agreement. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The primary community of interest for this project is the set of grantees for these three programs as well as NIFA staff. We have disseminated the results as follows: • Each grantee prepared five slides about their programs. These slides- converted into pdfs- were made available to other grantees of the same grant program. (e.g. FASLP grantees have access to other FASLP grantees' slides) through a google drive folder. Similarly, the slides that presenters prepared for their talks about their programs during the event were made available to their colleagues. • Detailed post-event participant survey results were sent to NIFA staff. • A report was submitted to NIFA staff outlining results and our analysis. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?There is no further reporting period. This was a one-year agreement.?
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Subgoal 1: Support networking amongst and between GUSNIP, CFPCGP and FASLP grantees • An off-site reception on the first night of the meeting at an off-site gallery and event space, co-hosted by the CFPCGP grantee, Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans. This event provided food and drink and an attractive venue for grantees to mingle. • A second line musical parade through the French Quarter, enabling attendees to dance together. • Project pitch sessions, in which attendees gathered together to answer questions about their projects. • Adequate breaks and on-site meals • A list of attendees' contact information to facilitate future communication • Slides of each project, completed by the program directors, available on a google drive, to enable attendees to learn about each others' projects Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. With a 57% response rate, the results are discussed below. Summary statistics and discussion of results Some key findings related to networking include: • When asked what worked well for you in the meeting, the most common response was related to networking and meeting other attendees, with 112 people. • Conversely when asked what didn't work well, attendees lamented the lack of networking opportunities, with an overabundance of programmed sessions. 85 persons referenced this missed opportunity. • Attendees suggested that future meetings be improved by increasing networking opportunities. This was the most commonly cited way to improve the event, with 68 persons asking for more networking or geographically-oriented networking. • 193 people mentioned that networking/connnecting with others was what they gained from the meeting. Key outcomes and accomplishments realized The event resulted in attendees making connections with each other within the three individual programs, as well as across programs. Through the various strategies mentioned above, attendees were able to meet their colleagues and gain a greater understanding of their programming. Similarly, the meeting enabled them to connect with NIFA staff, and while not documented, enabled NIFA staff to gain a better understanding of the various projects. Subgoal 2: Support the efficient and engaging transfer of information from USDA staff to grantees about core issues related to civil rights, equity, evaluation, program management, and reporting Major activities completed · Sessions were led by NIFA staff on post-award management (Elizabeth Kerling); overview of Community Nutrition program areas (Carinthia Cherry, Lydia Kaume and Mallory Koenings); Reporting Overview with a panel of grantees (Kristopher Grimes and Elizabeth Kerling); Communicating Impacts (Andy Thigpen); and Emerging Issues (Lydia Kaume). · USDA also hosted a special announcement on Food Loss and Waste by Jean Buzby of the Office of the ChiefEconomist, NIFA Deputy Director Suzanne Stluka, with a video message by USDA Secretary Vilsack (.5 hours) Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. With a 57% response rate, the results are discussed below. Summary statistics and discussion of results • The second most frequently benefit of attending the event was greater understanding of USDA award management or initiatives (116 people). • Participants were asked to rank the various USDA-led sessions from one to five, with five being the best. Reporting overview, communicating impacts and award management were most appreciated, with the majority ranking these 4 or 5. Two grantee comments are relevant here: "Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the NIFA team, for listening to our thoughts, suggestions and frustrations and for giving ample time to ask questions. You all are amazing and very much appreciated. Will this be an annual event that we should budget for annually?" "A deeper dive on reporting (helpful to walk-thru the REE-port tool and see what's required maybe for year 1 only); I would like to see alumni projects showcased with a NIFA-funded video and a before and after presentation focused on best practice for impact." • Participants were asked to rank the various USDA-led sessions from one to five, with five being the best. Reporting overview, communicating impacts and award management were most appreciated, with the majority ranking these 4 or 5. Outcomes and accomplishments realized While we did not capture any specific data in this matter, it is reasonable to assume that the event resulted in a greatly increased knowledge of NIFA policies, procedures, and best practices related to post award management, communicating impacts, audits, and reporting. As NIFA was responsible for the content of these sessions, they deserve credit for any successes and omissions related to attendee knowledge. Subgoal 3: Improve the quality of grant projects through peer to peer learning and troubleshooting 1. Major activities completed • Each grant program recipients met separately to present on their projects, to ask questions of each other, and informally to problem solve. 1. Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey, with a 57% response rate: 1. Summary statistics and discussion of results • 20 individuals requested that future meetings include more on innovative oe best practices from other grantees • 107 persons responded that they gained from the meeting information on new practices, research or ideas. 60 persons responded that they learned how to better implement their project. 1. Key outcomes and accomplishments realized We can infer that the knowledge gained at the meeting through peer to peer connections and through networking has and will continue to positively influence program directors' abilities to create successful projects. Subgoal 4: Increase synergies across program areas to advance science, resolve real-world problems, and effectively manage constrained resources 1. Major activities completed The meeting brought together staff and grantees from three different NIFA Community Nutrition programs together. NIFA Program leaders presented to the attendees about each of their programs, creating the opportunity for grantees to learn about each others' work and the different grant programs. The intention of doing so was to foster connections between grantees across grant programs given the overlapping nature of FASLP, GusNIP and CFPCGP. 1. Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. No questions were asked of program participants relevant to thisquestion. 1. Summary statistics and discussion of results N/A 1. Key outcomes and accomplishments realized It can be inferred that program participants gained increased knowledge about the other grant programs, apart from the one under which they are funded. Whether this resulted in increased synergies or in problem solving is beyond the scope of our evaluation capacity.
Publications
|
Progress 08/01/23 to 07/31/24
Outputs
Target Audience:The project consisted of the implementation of a program director meeting in New Orleans, LA on Dec 4-6, 2023. The target audience for this project were the program directors and additional staff from current CFPCGP, GusNIP, and FASLP grantees. A secondary audience was NIFA staff associated with these programs. Approximately 390 persons, including our staff, attended this event.Attendees came from 46 states plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico. 390 attendees came to the meeting. Unfortunately, a number of attendees canceled because of illness or other commitments. In some cases, multiple attendees came from the same project, and in a few cases, one organization held grants from two different programs.With regards to specific NIFA programs, the breakdown of attendees was as follows: ·126 from CFPCGP ·35 from FASLP ·211 from GUSNIP ·6 staff and TA providers ·12 USDA staff Changes/Problems:Planning We were able to organize the recent PD meeting on very short notice, but there were some less than ideal implications of doing so. Multiple attendees noted that they would have liked more advance communication: of the agenda, of their presentations, and of the event itself. We should provide at least seven to eight months advance notice of the event, as well as a detailed agenda and requests of the attendees a few months before the meeting. This will require substantive agenda planning five to six months before the meeting. Revisit Agenda As one attendee astutely noted in their survey response, different types of meetings are best suited for different purposes. Virtual meetings are well suited for information dissemination, while in-person meetings work best for networking. The survey results clearly showed that attendees liked the networking and wanted more of it.They preferred interaction to listening to numerous presentations, although they did find the post-award management information very helpful. We suggest that NIFA re-visit and articulate to the attendees the underlying purpose of the meeting, and consider how to restructure it to meet attendees' needs for problem solving and discussion.We also suggest that NIFA consider inviting a small advisory committee of grantees to provide input on the agenda. Attendance The New Orleans meeting was negatively impacted by over-attendance and overcrowding.We had about 30% more attendees than projected. In the future, to arrange for the right amount of meeting space, we would benefit from knowing the number of grantees and project directors that will be invited. Similarly, USDA should clarify the number of persons per funded project that are allowed to attend. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?* Networking opportunities abounded during the program director meeting, including at tabletops during the plenary session, where attendees were able to address specific questions about their projects; * NIFA led various sessions on reporting, auditing, food loss and waste, and the three programs in attendance at the meeting. These sessions enabled attendees to improve their performance as program directors as well as to learn about new initiatives. * Attendees also participated in sessions in which they learned about each other's projects through brief presentations. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The primary community of interest for this project is the set of grantees for these three programs as well as NIFA staff. We have disseminated the results as follows: Each grantee prepared five slides about their programs. These slides- converted into pdfs- were made available to other grantees of the same grant program. (e.g. FASLP grantees have access to other FASLP grantees' slides) through a google drive folder. Similarly, the slides that presenters prepared for their talks about their programs during the event were made available to their colleagues. Detailed post-event participant survey results were sent to NIFA staff. A report was submitted to NIFA staff outlining results and our analysis. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?There isno firther reporting period. This was a one-year agreement.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Subgoal 1:Support networking amongst and between GUSNIP, CFPCGP and FASLP grantees Major activities completed We completed the following activities to enhance networking opportunities: An off-site reception on the first night of the meeting at an off-site gallery and event space, co-hosted by the CFPCGP grantee, Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans. This event provided food and drink and an attractive venue for grantees to mingle. A second line musical parade through the French Quarter, enabling attendees to dance together. Project pitch sessions, in which attendees gathered together to answer questions about their projects. Adequate breaks and on-site meals A list of attendees' contact information to facilitate future communication Slides of each project, completed by the program directors, available on a google drive, to enable attendees to learn about each others' projects Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. With a 57% response rate, the results are discussed below. Summary statistics and discussion of results Some key findings related to networking include: When asked what worked well for you in the meeting, the most common response was related to networking and meeting other attendees, with 112 people. Conversely when asked what didn't work well, attendees lamented the lack of networking opportunities, with an over-abundance of programmed sessions. 85 persons referenced this missed opportunity. Attendees suggested that future meetings be improved by increasing networking opportunities. This was the most commonly cited way to improve the event, with 68 persons asking for more networking or geographically-oriented networking. 193 people mentioned that networking/connnecting with others was what they gained from the meeting. Two quotes from survey respondents highlight their appreciation for networking as well as their desire for more connections. "The fact that you folks put this on in such a short time is amazing, and the location, special events, and networking opportunities were incredible. Loved getting to know program staff personally, have real conversations face to face, and the approachability of staff. Great overall experience." "If the main reason for this meeting is networking, this was done poorly. We spent the majority of time in huge rooms listening to lectures, and very little time in conversation. Make more opportunities for this. Try some more innovative networking techniques. Split folks up in rooms where it's easy to move around. I think we managed pretty well, and were able to chat with other grantees and I guess since we all work in programs focused on food, it was hard not to meet a kindred spirit! But it would have been nice for this to have been curated a little more." Key outcomes and accomplishments realized The event resulted in attendees making connections with each other within the three individual programs, as well as across programs. Through the various strategies mentioned above, attendees were able to meet their colleagues and gain a greater understanding of their programming. Similarly, the meeting enabled them to connect with NIFA staff, and while not documented, enabled NIFA staff to gain a better understanding of the various projects. Subgoal 2: Support the efficient and engaging transfer of information from USDA staff to grantees about core issues related to civil rights, equity, evaluation, program management, and reporting Major activities completed ·Sessions were led by NIFA staff on post-award management (Elizabeth Kerling); overview of Community Nutrition program areas (Carinthia Cherry, Lydia Kaume and Mallory Koenings); Reporting Overview with a panel of grantees (Kristopher Grimes and Elizabeth Kerling); Communicating Impacts (Andy Thigpen); and Emerging Issues (Lydia Kaume). ·USDA also hosted a special announcement on Food Loss and Waste by Jean Buzby of the Office of the Chief Economist, NIFA Deputy Director Suzanne Stluka, with a video message by USDA Secretary Vilsack (.5 hours) Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. With a 57% response rate, the results are discussed below. Summary statistics and discussion of results The second most frequently benefit of attending the event wasgreater understanding of USDA award management or initiatives (116 people). Participants were asked to rank the various USDA-led sessions from one to five, with five being the best.Reporting overview, communicating impacts and award management were most appreciated, with the majority ranking these 4 or 5. Two grantee comments are relevant here: "Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the NIFA team, for listening to our thoughts, suggestions and frustrations and for giving ample time to ask questions. You all are amazing and very much appreciated. Will this be an annual event that we should budget for annually?" "A deeper dive on reporting (helpful to walk-thru the REE-port tool and see what's required maybe for year 1 only); I would like to see alumni projects showcased with a NIFA-funded video and a before and after presentation focused on best practice for impact." Key outcomes and accomplishments realized While we did not capture any specific data in this matter, it is reasonable to assume that the event resulted in a greatly increased knowledge of NIFA policies, procedures, and best practices related to post award management, communicating impacts, audits, and reporting. As NIFA was responsible for the content of these sessions, they deserve credit for any successes and omissions related to attendee knowledge. Subgoal 3: Improve the quality of grant projects through peer to peer learning and troubleshooting Major activities completed The following activity was completed: Each grant program recipients met separately to present on their projects, to ask questions of each other, and informally to problem solve. Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. With a 57% response rate, the results are discussed below. Summary statistics and discussion of results The survey revealed the following answers: 20 individuals requested that future meetings include more on innovative oe best practices from other grantees 107 persons responded that they gained from the meeting information on new practices, research or ideas. 60 persons responded that they learned how to better implement their project. Key outcomes and accomplishments realized While it is beyond our capacity to evaluate how the PD meeting impacted the quality of the grant projects, we can infer that the knowledge gained at the meeting through peer to peer connections and through networking has and will continue to positively influence program directors' abilities to create successful projects. Subgoal 4: Increase synergies across program areas to advance science, resolve real-world problems, and effectively manage constrained resources Major activities completed The meeting brought together staff and grantees from three different NIFA Community Nutrition programs together. NIFA Program leaders presented to the attendees about each of their programs, creating the opportunity for grantees to learn about each others' work and the different grant programs. The intention of doing so was to foster connections between grantees across grant programs given the overlapping nature of FASLP, GusNIP and CFPCGP. Data collected We polled the attendees via a follow-up on-line survey. No questions were asked of program participants relevant to this question. Summary statistics and discussion of results N/A Key outcomes and accomplishments realized It can be inferred that program participants gained increased knowledge about the other grant programs, apart from the one under which they are funded. Whether this resulted in increased synergies or in problem solving is beyond the scope of our evaluation capacity.
Publications
|