ccoommmmuunniittyy kkiittcchheenn ppiilloott
TRANSCRIPT
CCoommmmuunniittyy
KKiittcchheenn PPiilloott
PPrroojjeecctt EEvvaalluuaattiioonn::
RReeppoorrtt April 2016
2
Acknowledgements
For further information, please contact Amanda Mongeon, Program Evaluator, Timiskaming Health
Unit at 705-647-4305 x2264 or [email protected].
Citation:
Timiskaming Health Unit (2015). Community Kitchen Pilot Project Evaluation, prepared by Katie
Kozak, Caroline McBride, Kerry Schubert-Mackey and Amanda Mongeon. Temiskaming Shores, ON.
3
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Method .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Limitations............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Results ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Part 1: Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Part 2: Implementation ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
Appendix: Evaluation Tools ......................................................................................................................................... 19
4
Summary
Background
This report presents findings from an
evaluation of a community kitchen project
planned and implemented in partnership
between the Cobalt, Coleman, Latchford and
area food bank, the Centre de santé
communautaire du Temiskaming (CSCT) and
Timiskaming Health Unit (THU) as well as the
Temiskaming Native Women`s Support Group
(TNWSG).
Two kitchen series were piloted, one in
English and one in French. TNWSG hosted the
English series, while CSCT hosted the French
series.
The program was targeted primarily to
individuals who are living with low income
and secondarily to indigenous adults. The
stated objectives of the program were to:
Increase participant knowledge of
meal preparation
Expand participant awareness of how
to prepare a broad range of healthy
foods
Build a sense of community and
belonging
Establish a program that can be
replicated in other locations or
agencies
Expand participant awareness of
healthy cooking methods
Increase participant use of food bank
staples in healthy recipes
Enhance menu planning
Participants know how to stretch
their food dollar
Participants know food safety basics
Participants increase vegetable
consumption
The evaluation was implemented to
determine:
To what extent were the outcomes
achieved?
How can we improve the
implementation of a community
kitchen?
Are we reaching our target
population?
Method
The evaluation project used five tools at each
of the two community kitchen sites:
attendance tracking, participant survey,
participant telephone interview and
community kitchen facilitator interviews.
Limitations
Six out of thirty participants completed
surveys and ten participants completed
interviews. Hearing from a small number of
respondents, in a program that is already
quite small limits our ability to fully
understand perspectives on this program. We
do not know the characteristics of those who
responded and how they may or may not
share perspectives with those who did not
respond.
Results: Outcomes
More than half of survey respondents
gained knowledge of meal preparation.
Some participants expanded their
awareness of how to prepare a broad
range of healthy foods.
Most felt a sense of belonging.
Participants would like the community
kitchen to keep going.
It is uncertain whether participants’
awareness of healthy cooking methods
increased.
5
Survey responses indicate participants
may not have increased use of food bank
staples such as meatless proteins in their
cooking.
More than half of survey respondents
increased their frequency of planning
meals. More than half felt they were able
to make a grocery list before they
participated in the community kitchen.
More than half of survey respondents
already felt they knew how to buy healthy
food on a budget, before the community
kitchen began.
Most already had good handwashing
habits before the community kitchen
began, but only a couple used a
thermometer when cooking meat.
Most survey respondents did not report
an increase in eating a variety of
vegetables.
All respondents intend to cook more
healthy meals at home.
Results: Implementation
The two community kitchen series had a
total of 30 participants: 26 with the
TNWSG and 4 at CSCT. Of these, 11 missed
two or more sessions.
Enablers were cost (there was none to
participants), free transportation and free
child care.
There was general positive impression of
facilitators and unanimous willingness to
recommend participating in a community
kitchen to a friend.
Other lessons learned are reported in
more detail below, to facilitate planning of
future community kitchen series.
It is difficult to determine the extent to
which the target population was reached.
6
Background
In 2014 the Cobalt, Coleman, Latchford and area food bank received funding from Unilever’s 2013
Food Banks Canada Community Kitchen Fund to plan, implement and evaluate a community
kitchen in partnership with the Centre de santé communautaire du Temiskaming (CSCT) and
Timiskaming Health Unit (THU).
These three organizations also partnered with the Temiskaming Native Women`s Support Group
(TNWSG); CSCT and TNWSG provided space and facilitators to offer two series of community
kitchens in New Liskeard. As host for the Diabetes Prevention Project Timiskaming, THU provided
project coordination, evaluation and facilitation as well as funding for food, promotional items and
a few additional supplies. The food bank managed the grant funds (which paid for most supplies),
provided volunteer assistance and promoted the kitchen to clients.
From this, the Community Kitchen network of Timiskaming was created whose main purpose was
creation, implementation and replication of community kitchens, as well as to have members
working together in food skills programming.
Two community kitchen series were piloted, one in English hosted by TNWSG and one in French,
hosted by CSCT. The English series of six sessions from late September-December 2014 was
facilitated by a health promoter from TNWSG as well as a Registered Dietitian from the
Timiskaming Diabetes Program. The French series with eight sessions was facilitated by a
Registered Nurse and Registered Dietitian from the CSCT from January-April 2015. There was a
total of 30 participants in both groups. The Diabetes Prevention Project Timiskaming lead assisted
as a co-facilitator during times of need.
Childcare and transportation were provided to those who indicated it was a barrier to participating.
For the English series, sessions were structured based on what participants wanted to cook and
learn. For the French series, participants were able to specify which foods they wanted to eat and
then educational components were provided based on the types of food that were being made. In
the English series, participants prepared and then enjoyed a meal together. In the French series,
participants prepared and left with 2-3 meals each to enjoy at home. Facilitators emphasized
selecting a format that met participant wishes. Meal composition in one series varied, usually with
two items prepared. The other series prepared full meals including a main, side and healthy
dessert.
The program was targeted primarily to individuals who are living below the low income cut-off and
secondarily to indigenous adults. The stated objectives of the program were to:
Increase food bank clients’ knowledge of meal preparation
Expand clients’ awareness of how to prepare a broad range of healthy foods
Build a sense of community and belonging
Establish a program that can be replicated in other locations or agencies
Expand clients’ awareness of healthy cooking methods
Increase food bank clients’ use of food bank staples in healthy recipes
Enhance menu planning
7
Clients know how to stretch their food dollar
Clients know food safety basics
Clients increase vegetable consumption
The basic logic of the community kitchen project is that by preparing meals together, participants
will increase food skills which will in turn lead to an increased number of healthy meals prepared at
home by the family. Ultimately, it is hoped that families will eat more healthy meals as a result of an
individual’s participation in a community kitchen and that this behavior would be sustained over
time.
The purpose of this evaluation is to inform decisions related to possible duplication and replication
of the community kitchen to other parts of the district and to determine the extent to which stated
outcomes were met.
Evaluation questions
To what extent were the outcomes achieved?
How can we improve the implementation of a community kitchen?
Are we reaching our target population?
Method
The evaluation project used five tools at each of the two community kitchen sites to answer the
above questions. All are included in the appendix.
What Why When
1. Tracking attendance To track number of participants, number who stopped
coming, average number per session
Every session
2. Survey with participants To track outcomes of the project Last session
3. Telephone interview with participants who stop coming
To understand barriers to participating Following last session
4. Interview with community kitchen facilitators
To document lessons learned and ways to improve
future sessions from the facilitator`s perspective
Following last session
5. Follow-up phone call with all participants
To learn whether the community kitchen series had a
sustained impact
6 months following
conclusion of series
Both sites tracked attendance and both administered a paper survey at or following the last session.
Six surveys were returned by participants in the community kitchens who were at the last session.
Of the 30 total community kitchen participants, 24 had provided contact information. The
interviews initially planned to take place immediately following and then six months after each
series were combined into a single interview approximately 6-9 months following the conclusion of
both series. Fourteen participants were not reached and the remaining ten all agreed to participate
in a follow-up interview (two by email, eight by telephone). All four community kitchen facilitators
(two per series) participated in interviews.
Themes and ideas shared during participant and facilitator interviews are presented in the results
section.
8
3
4
2
1
I know how to cook a wide variety of foods
I prepare meals from scratch
Number of people
More than half of participants gained knowledge of meal preparation.
Increase No increase
Limitations
Six out of thirty participants completed surveys and ten participants completed interviews.
Hearing from a small number of respondents, in a program that is already quite small limits our
ability to fully understand perspectives on this program. We do not know the characteristics of
those who responded and how they may or may not share perspectives with those who did not
respond.
Results
Results are presented below according to the goals of the evaluation. They incorporate information
from attendance tracking, surveys, participant interviews and those with facilitators.
Part 1: Outcomes
Outcome 1: Increase participant knowledge of meal preparation
When asked for their perception of the most significant impact of the community kitchen series in their interviews, facilitators listed:
People were introduced to healthy tricks and new affordable foods Proud of cooking skills and new foods Food safety Being respectful and open to each other’s ideas and learning from one another Learned to eat healthier and cheaper Learned ways to manage diabetes Learned new cooking techniques More willing to buy new foods or use new cooking techniques Able to try ingredients they may not try outside of community kitchen
9
3 2I know how to cook a wide
variety of foods
Number of people
Increase No increase
Some participants expanded their awareness of how to prepare a broad range of healthy foods.
5 1I felt like an accepted member of
the community kitchen.
Number of people
Yes No
Most felt a sense of belonging.
Outcome 2: Expands participant awareness of how to prepare a broad range of healthy foods
Among the participants who were interviewed, the emphasis on healthy foods was one of the most
popular aspects of the community kitchen. Participants appreciated the nutritious recipes shared
and the emphasis on incorporating vegetables into their cooking. Moving forward, suggestions to
further enhance this aspect included eliminating canned and boxed food, prepare more whole foods
and offer tips to help children eat more vegetables.
Outcome 3: Builds a sense of community and belonging
Interview participants shared that being around people and getting out of the house were aspects
of the community kitchen that they very much liked, and for several this was the main reason for
attending. The “friendly,” “casual,” “accommodating,” “open to everyone” approach where
“everyone chipped in” as a “small friendly group” also recurred through interviews as positive
characteristics of the community kitchens.
10
2 3
I know how to eat healthy to reduce my risk of chronic
diseases
Number of people
Increase No increase
6
I would like to be part of this community kitchen for a long
time.
Number of people
Yes
Participants would like to keep it going.
Outcome 4: Establishes a program that can be replicated in other locations or agencies
All ten community kitchen participants who were interviewed expressed an interest in
participating in future community kitchen series. Some wanted to enhance their basic kitchen skills,
others to be with other people, others still to learn new information and enhance their repertoire
with new healthy recipes and new ingredients.
In their interviews, community kitchen facilitators expressed an interest in facilitating future events
and shared suggestions for consideration should the series be replicated. They are quite consistent
with participant suggestions and include:
Provide resources: healthy recipes, access to a Registered Dietitian
Ensure infrastructure is in place: equipment, budget, role definition
Continue to build in participant preferences
Offer child care and transportation
Host in a geographically accessible location and at appropriately accessible times
Continue to build discussion about recipe selection and other learning topics into each
session
All facilitators agreed that two hours was appropriate for each session, again remembering to
consult participants before deciding. Interview participants were mixed—some wanted a longer
session whereas others found waiting for food to cook took too long.
Outcome 5: Expand clients’ awareness of healthy cooking methods
11
1 4I know how to buy healthy food
on a budget.
Number of people
Increase No increase
More than half already felt they knew how to buy healthy food on a budget before the community kitchenbegan.
1 5I cook meatless meals using beans, lentils, soy or tofu.
Number of people
Rarely Never
3
1
2
4
I plan meals ahead of time.
I know how to make a grocery list.
Number of people
More than half increased their frequency of planning meals. More than half felt they were able to make a grocery list before the community kitchen.
Increase No increase
Outcome 6: Increase food bank clients’ use of food bank staples in healthy recipes
All 5 respondents indicated “Rarely” or “Never” to this question, both before and after the
community kitchen. Interview responses indicated an appreciation for the use of new ingredients,
but none mentioned the use of food bank staples or other general kitchen staples nor did they
mention meatless meals.
Outcome 7: Menu planning
Outcome 8: Participants know how to stretch their food dollar
12
1 4I eat a variety of vegetables.
Number of people
Increase No increase
The number of people who reported eating a variety of vegetablesincreased from 2 to 3.
6I will cook more healthy meals at
home.
Number of people
Yes
2
1
3
4
I use a thermometer to check the temperature of cooked meat.
I wash hands before preparing food.
Number of people
Most already had good handwashing habits before the community kitchen began, but only 2 use a thermometer when cooking meat.
Increase No increase
Outcome 9: Participants know food safety basics
Five registrants indicated on their registration having already completed a food handler`s safety
course. All respondents reported that they could handle and prepare food safely both before and
after the community kitchen.
Despite what was reported above, a few interview participants noted that there was insufficient
attention to food handling and food safety and suggested more instruction be included in future
sessions.
Outcome 10: Participants Increase vegetable consumption
Sustainability of Impact
All community kitchen participants who were interviewed reported that they had cooked a healthy
meal at home for nearly all of their meals over the past two weeks, and some reported having
purchased a meal outside the home up to two times over the past two weeks. Unfortunately, we do
not have a baseline measure to which we can compare.
13
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
3 1
Session time of day
Number of meals prepared
Recipes used
Length of each session
Number of participants
Liked Neutral Disliked
2
4
5
6
5
6
3
1
1
The free child care made it possible for me to come.
The free transportation made it possible for me to come.
I was able to come because it was free.
I will cook more healthy meals at home.
I felt like an accepted member of the community kitchen.
I would like to be part of this community kitchen for a long time.
Yes No
Program can be replicated in other locations or agencies
Builds a sense of community and belonging
Sustainability of Impact
Barriers and facilitators to participation
Part 2: Implementation
A. Recruitment, Retention, Participation
The two community kitchen series had a total of 30 participants: 26 with the TNWSG and 4 at CSCT.
Of these, 11 missed two or more sessions.
For the TNWSG series, the number of participants ranged from 5 to 14 participants. For CSCT,
attendance ranged from 1-4 participants per session.
Reflecting on the series they supported, facilitators noted that evenings were good for people who
work, but acknowledged they may be challenging in the winter. They suggest planning time of
sessions based on time of year and especially on participant preference.
Attendance tracking showed a drop-off in participation during the most wintry weather, and this
was supported by the comments of participants—that it was more difficult to attend in the winter
and when they had to travel home after dark.
Interview participants suggested seeking additional participants by contacting postsecondary
institutions or families with children aged ten and over.
B. Barriers and facilitators to participation
According to registration form, only one participant required child care and thirteen needed
transportation. In the interviews, facilitators mentioned the informal discussion-style teaching
approach to be more successful for participant engagement. They also speculated that lack of
interest, time of year and geography are possible barriers to participant involvement in the
community kitchens.
14
C. Shopping and prep reasonable for staff/ ways to improve prep and procurement
Facilitators reported grocery shopping taking more time than expected, especially for the larger
group. This was eased among those who were able to take time during the work day to prepare for
the evening session.
Not knowing how many people would attend any given session made it difficult to purchase
appropriate quantities of food.
Suggestions included seeking help from volunteers for the procurement and preparation of food
and there was acknowledgement about benefits and disadvantages of asking community kitchen
participants to commit in advance to attending that week’s session.
Participants would have liked more opportunities to take food home with them. Suggestions to this
end included holding a pre-kitchen meeting where interested participants do the shopping and are
then reimbursed. The kitchen could take place once a month and involve cooking a larger quantity
of food which participants can then take home, possibly for a nominal fee.
D. Sufficiency of equipment, recommendations for future purchases.
Facilitators would have appreciated having a list of available equipment to help with their menu
planning.
Knives and cutting boards would be a useful future purchase. Food processor, blender and pie
plates were also mentioned as useful future purchases.
E. Facilitator training
Facilitators reported being unsure in advance of the program of their roles and budgets . They
reported varied confidence in teaching some topics or answering some questions.
15
4
5
5
1The leader was well organized
The leader knows the subject matter well
The leader was open to questions and discussion
Number of participants
Yes/Sort of Not really/No
6
I would recommend participating in a community
kitchen to a friend.
Number of people
Yes
F. Participants’ impression of the facilitator.
Participants repeatedly mentioned the value of having knowledgeable Registered Dietitians to
answer questions and provide credible advice for healthy eating.
G. The process of deciding on time, length, # of meals, recipe selection.
Facilitators in this round were not involved in decision-making prior to the start of the kitchen. For
the English series, time of day and length of session had been decided before the series began.
Number of meals was decided upon as a group at the first session. Recipes were selected by the
facilitators.
For the French series, the number of sessions was set by the advisory committee but facilitators
asked participants’ availability before selecting day of the week and time.
Recipes selected were healthy and considered cost while balancing new ingredients with familiar
ones.
H. Overall approval by participants.
16
2
1
3
Very comfortable and secure
Able to make ends meet
without
much trouble
Sometimes difficult
making ends
meet
Often difficult to make ends
meet but keeping head above water
Can't afford basic needs
Did not answer
I. How can we improve the process for establishing a new community kitchen?
The community kitchen facilitators noted support from THU, being partnered with another
facilitator, small group size and having the kitchen within their own individual workplace helped
with their facilitation of the series. These could be considered when planning a subsequent series.
J. Are we reaching our target population?
The target population for this project was initially defined as food bank clients. For the purpose of
the evaluation, the team preferred to define the target population as primarily people with low
income and secondarily to indigenous adults.
The team decided not to track whether they met their secondary target, and based only on the
information below, it is difficult to know whether they successfully reached people with low
income.
17
Recommendations
It is important to note that there is not a standard template or curriculum for planning and
implementing community kitchens. Each community kitchen is slightly different, and different
models work well for different groups and agencies. The following feedback from our evaluation is
based on the model used in the pilot project and may not be relevant for all community kitchen
projects.
To what extent were the outcomes achieved?
Several of the outcome objectives for the community kitchen were achieved. Many participants
gained and/or expanded knowledge of food and meal preparation, increased their meal planning
frequency, felt a sense of belonging and intend to cook more healthy meals at home.
Based on the evaluation, most participants did not report an increase in eating a variety of
vegetables and it is uncertain whether participants’ awareness of healthy cooking methods and
their use of food bank food staples increased.
The evaluation also shows that the community kitchen reinforced skills that many participants in
the group felt they had such as making a grocery list, buying healthy food on a budget and hand
washing habits.
How can we improve the implementation of a community kitchen?
During the evaluation, facilitators and participants made suggestions about how the
implementation of community kitchens could be improved in future sessions.
Organization
Role clarification, a list of available equipment and knowing how many participants were
going to attend each session would have been helpful for the facilitators
Consider recruiting volunteers, such as community kitchen participants, to assist with
preparation of the sessions. These duties could also enhance educational components of
healthy eating (i.e. label reading, grocery shopping, learning where the healthiest
ingredients are located in the grocery store, practice creating and using a grocery list, etc.)
Include partner agency mandates when planning the community kitchen
Working in partners seemed to be a preference among all kitchen facilitators, as this
allowed some role sharing and peer-support
Participant engagement
Include participants in decision making (i.e. time and length of session, structure of the
sessions including community meal, take meals home, etc.) Also consider including
participants’ feedback when deciding on objectives for the kitchen
Some participants already had knowledge in certain areas, such as knowing how to make a
grocery list and buy healthy foods on a budget; it would be beneficial to have their input as
18
to what they are hoping to take away from the program rather than basing it upon
assumptions made by the facilitators and program planners
Are we reaching our target population?
After the evaluation, it is uncertain if the target population was met. However, there was feedback
related to interest in expanding the target audience to include children over the age of 10.
Future evaluation considerations
The lack of participation in the evaluation of the project is one of the key lessons learned during this
project. A large number of participants were not accessible to complete a follow up interview, nor
the initial survey. It was suggested that being more culturally appropriate in evaluation methods
would have been an asset to the evaluation of this project.
Another reflection following this evaluation is to continue to monitor any future community
kitchens even if not fully evaluated.
19
Appendix: Evaluation Tools
Consent Form for Evaluation
To learn more about what made the community kitchen work well
and how we can make it even better, we would like your permission
to ask a few questions over the phone.
If you are willing to share your thoughts, please write your name
and phone number below.
Name Phone Number
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
If you have any questions about this, ask the facilitator or call the
health unit: 647-4300 x2264.
Thank you!
Consent form for follow-up interview
20
Formulaire de consentement à des fins
d’évaluation
Pour en savoir plus long sur le succès de la cuisine communautaire
et sur la façon d’améliorer son fonctionnement, nous aimerions
obtenir votre autorisation pour vous poser quelques questions au
téléphone.
Si vous voulez nous faire part de vos commentaires, veuillez écrire
votre nom et votre numéro de téléphone dans l’espace ci-dessous.
Nom Numéro de téléphone
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Pour toute question à ce sujet, communiquez avec l’animateur ou le
Bureau de santé au 647-4300, poste 2264.
Merci!
21
22
Survey with Participants (long version)
Community Kitchen Evaluation
Please take a moment to share your feedback about the community kitchen. Your answers
are completely anonymous. We will use your feedback to improve our community kitchen
program.
1. Please give two responses for each statement below. In the column labeled “Now, after
the community kitchen” circle the answer that describes your viewpoint NOW that we
have finished the first few months of the program. Then, in the shaded section labeled
“Before the community kitchen” circle the answer that describes your opinion BEFORE
you joined the kitchen.
NOW, after the community kitchen BEFORE the community kitchen
a. I prepare meals from
scratch
Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
b. I plan meals ahead of time Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
c. I cook meatless meals
using beans, lentils, soy or
tofu.
Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
d. I eat a variety of
vegetables
Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
e. I choose whole grain
breads, pastas, crackers or
rice.
Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
f. I wash hands before
preparing food
Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
g. I use a thermometer to
check the temperature of
cooked meat
Always Often Rarely Never Always Often Rarely Never
2. Please answer No, Maybe or Yes to each of the following:
NOW, after the community
kitchen
BEFORE the community
kitchen
a. I know how to create a healthy meal No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes
b. I know how to cook a wide variety of foods No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes
c. I know how to make a grocery list No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes
d. I know how to buy healthy food on a budget No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes
23
e. I can handle and prepare food safely No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes
f. I know how to eat healthy to reduce my risk
of chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease
etc.)
No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes
3. Please answer No, Maybe or Yes to each of the following:
a. The leader knows the subject matter well. No Maybe Yes N/A
b. The leader was well organized. No Maybe Yes N/A
c. The leader was open to questions and discussion. No Maybe Yes N/A
d. The free transportation made it possible for me to come. No Maybe Yes N/A
e. The free childcare made it possible for me to come. No Maybe Yes N/A
f. I was able to come because it was free. No Maybe Yes N/A
4. How much did you like or dislike each of the following?
Disliked
Neutral
Liked
Comments
a. Session time of day
b. Length of each session
c. Number of meals
prepared
d. Recipes we used
5. Please answer No, Maybe or Yes to each of the following:
a. I will cook more healthy meals at home. No Maybe Yes
b. I felt like an accepted member of the community kitchen. No Maybe Yes
c. I would like to be a part of this community kitchen for a
long time. No Maybe Yes
d. I would recommend participating in a Community Kitchen
to a friend. No Maybe Yes
The next question will help us better understand the participants in the community
kitchen.
24
Which of the following best describes your household’s financial state? very comfortable and secure
able to make ends meet without much trouble sometimes difficult making ends meet often difficult to make ends meet but keeping your head above water
can’t afford basic needs prefer not to answer
Please share any other comments or feedback to help us improve the community kitchen.
Thank you! If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Amanda Mongeon,
Timiskaming Health Unit Program Evaluator at 705-647-4300 x2264.
Focus group questions, to be used if shorter questionnaire is selected.
Ask at last session, take notes.
o What made it helped make it easier for you to participate? o How useful do you think a community kitchen like this would be for others in
Timiskaming?”
Interview with participants
Telephone interview with those who provided consent and missed 4 or more sessions including the
last session. Katie or Amanda, taking notes.
May I speak to Ms. or Mr. ________________?
My name is Katie Kozak, a Registered Dietitian from the Timiskaming Health Unit. I am calling to
follow-up about the community kitchen program you were part of this fall.
May I take 15 minutes of your time to ask you a few questions on your experience in the community
kitchen? __________ (YES or NO)
IF YES Great, during our conversation I’ll be taking notes so there may be a few seconds of silence
once you’re finished answering a question while I’m writing down your answer.
IF NO Is there a better time for me to call? ____________ IF NO END
1. We want to do what we can to make it easy for people to participate. Can you tell me a little
about why you stopped coming?
25
2. What would have made it easier to participate?
3. Tell me about your experience with the community kitchen. What did you like, what didn’t you
like?
4. How can we make the community kitchen better?
5. If another session were offered and was able to better meet your needs, do you think you would
like to participate?
a. Why or why not?
6. Those are all the questions I have for you. Is there anything else we have not touched upon that
you would like to add?
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me and for helping us improve our community kitchen
program.
26
Facilitator interview
Co-Facilitators together, Katie interviewer
1. Obtain informed consent. Before beginning audio recording, obtain four blank copies of the
letter of informed consent and provide one to each participant. Read out loud the study question
and objectives and review all sections of the letter of informed consent with the participants. If the
participants agree to the interview, obtain their signatures on both copies of their consent forms.
You may also sign and date the forms, as the person obtaining consent. Give one of the signed
copies to the participant to keep for their files. Keep the second copy and return to Amanda. Answer
any questions they may have.
2. If the participants have agreed to be audio recorded, turn on the voice recorder.
3. Conduct the interview. Thank the participant for their time and contribution to this evaluation.
During the interview, probe for additional information where you find it necessary. Ask follow-up
questions or reiterate the participant`s answer to show your understanding. Display interest with
positive body language and appropriate verbal cues.
4. Once you have completed the interview, turn off the recording device.
5. Complete any notes (what were participants’ demeanours? Were they engaged or passive? How
would you describe the atmosphere in the interview room? Were there any distractions? Etc.)
6. Return the recorder to Amanda.
Interview Questions
1. Can you tell me about yourselves and your roles with this community kitchen?
2. How did you find the process of making decisions about the program?
a. In general
b. Specifically: time of day, length of session, # meals, recipes
3. How have you found:
a. the time of day for the session?
b. the length of the session?
c. the number of meals?
d. the recipes chosen?
4. How did you find the experience of preparing for each session? Prompt: grocery shopping,
amount of time
27
5. Tell me about your experience with the kitchen equipment. Prompt: was there enough? Was
anything missing? Should we buy anything for future kitchens?
6. What do you think was the most significant impact of the program?
7. What was the most significant change for the participants as a result of this program?
8. What made facilitating this program easier for you?
9. Tell me about any barriers you may have faced in acting as facilitator. Were there any supports
that could have been beneficial?
10. Knowing that we hope to replicate this in other communities, what suggestions do you have?
a. What supports do you suggest we provide to future facilitators?
11. Those are all the questions I have for you. Is there anything else we have not touched upon that
you would like to add?
Thanks again!