executive summary - windows web viewon average, the survey participants attended the lunch three...

PORT FAIRY COMMUNITY LUNCH PILOT – EVALUATION REPORT MAY 2017

Port Fairy Community Lunch Pilot Program Evaluation report

ContentsI. Executive Summary........................................4II. Introduction.....................................................6

Management of the pilot program..............................................................................................6

Funding......................................................................................................................................7

Recruitment of volunteers..........................................................................................................7

Attendance.................................................................................................................................7

III. Survey Methodology.......................................8DINERS’ SURVEY.....................................................................................................................8

Demographics............................................................................................................................9

Survey Results...........................................................................................................................9

Frequency and reasons for attending the Community Lunch.................................................................................................................................9

Importance of the Community Lunch.................................................................................9

Participants expectations of the Community Lunch.........................................................10

Volunteers........................................................................................................................10

Quality and variety of meals............................................................................................11

What did the participants enjoy?......................................................................................11

What can be improved?...................................................................................................11

VOLUNTEERS’ SURVEY........................................................................................................12

Demographics..................................................................................................................12

Survey results..........................................................................................................................13

Training............................................................................................................................13

Volunteers expectations..................................................................................................14

Volunteers’ satisfaction with the Community Lunch........................................................14

Community Lunch as a useful exercise for volunteers....................................................15

What worked well?...........................................................................................................16

How can the Community Lunch be improved?................................................................17


What other equipment or resources would make it easier to prepare or serve the lunches?..........................................................................17

IV. Discussion.....................................................18Current status...........................................................................................................................20

Future management........................................................................................................20

Recruitment of volunteers................................................................................................20

Attendance.......................................................................................................................21

V. Conclusions...................................................21VI. Recommendations........................................21


Author: Dr. Wendy Hunter

On behalf of the Port Fairy Community Lunch Management Committee

Executive SummaryDiscussions between the Port Fairy Community House, the Port Fairy-Belfast Lions Club, the Port Fairy Rotary Club and the Uniting Church, Moyne Shire and Moyne Health resulted in informal partnerships to develop a pilot Community Lunch program.

In September 2016, the pilot program was instigated to be delivered on a weekly basis, with each partner responsible one month at a time. Because of the convenience of location and facilities, it was agreed that the Port Fairy Community House would be the initial venue for the pilot program. However, alternative venues were to be considered should the Community Lunch continue after the pilot.

The Community Lunch was available for anyone to attend, but there was an emphasis for people who for various reasons are unable to engage in various community activities and facilities. A range of marketing strategies were use and FoodShare in Warrnambool agreed to provide food as possible if the meals were provided free of charge, although donations from the diners was acceptable. Additional funding was sought for equipment and any additional food required. It was agreed that where possible a three-course meal would be provided, especially during the colder months, consisting of a soup, main course and dessert.

After running for 13 weeks, Port Fairy Community Lunch diners and volunteers were asked to participate in an anonymous survey to help evaluate the effectiveness of the lunch program and identify areas for improvement. The survey included questions about the client’s most recent experience. Diners were asked questions about their interaction with staff, the quality of the meals, the social experience and to give an overall summary of their experience. Volunteers were asked questions on operational issues and to provide suggestions for improvements.

A total of 15 responses were received from the diners and a total of 16 responses were received from the volunteers, representing 19% of diners. The results of the diners’ survey supported the aim of the pilot Community Lunch program, they reported key benefit of attending was the opportunity to socialize with other people. Diners suggested improvements including providing some entertainment and reconfiguring the tables to enable diners to speak with more people. Thirty-eight members of partner organisations volunteered to work for the Community Lunch. Of these 42% completed the volunteer survey. Volunteer respondents reported a high level of satisfaction from being involved with the pilot Community Lunch program, especially mixing with other volunteers and the diners. Some frustrations were experienced because of the limitations of the venue and equipment available.

There was confusion among volunteers, partner organisations and the community in general over who should be able to attend the lunches. This is a difficult matter to address as people have diverse beliefs on who should be able to attend. There was also confusion among partner organisations on who was responsible for leading the pilot program, with some believing the


responsibility was equally shared among the partners while others had a different understanding.

To meet commitments made through the various sources of marketing the pilot program continued to May 2017. However, some of the changes identified from the surveys were adopted in 2017, including reducing the number of courses from three to two and reducing the frequency from weekly to fortnightly. Throughout term 1 2017 (February to May), the average attendance has been 10 diners, with a core group of six to seven regulars. Whether the change in frequency has resulted in the reduction of diners is unknown at this stage. However, it is cause for concern for the future of the program.

Partner organisations will be discussing with their management and/or membership their continued involvement in the Community Lunch once the pilot has finished in May. From there a meeting of the Community Lunch committee will be held to determine its future.


IntroductionThe concept for the Port Fairy Community Lunch developed from discussions held between the Port Fairy Community House, the Port Fairy-Belfast Lions Club, the Port Fairy Rotary Club and the Uniting Church, Moyne Shire and Moyne Health. From these discussions, an informal partnership was agreed on. This involved some partner organisations committing to running the lunch in turns, providing volunteers to source food, prepare and serve the meals, while others would promote the lunch to members of the community with whom they would have contact.

In June 2016, a volunteer from the Port Fairy Community House was appointed to help coordinate establishing the Community Lunch program, working on funding applications, risk managed, volunteer training and procedures. The Port Fairy Community Lunch commenced in September 2016 as a pilot program and was delivered on a weekly basis, with each partner responsible one month at a time. Because of the convenience of location and facilities, it was agreed that the Port Fairy Community House would be the initial venue for the pilot program. However, alternative venues were to be considered should the Community Lunch continue after the pilot.

Whilst the Community Lunch was available for anyone to attend, there was a specific attempt to encourage people who for various reasons are unable to engage in various community activities and facilities. Marketing of the program included media releases, flyers, the Visitors Information email, and word of mouth. FoodShare in Warrnambool agreed to provide us with as much food as possible if the meals were provided free of charge, although they considered donations from the diners was acceptable. Any additional items required were purchased from the limited funding available. It was agreed that where possible a three-course meal would be provided, especially during the colder months, consisting of a soup, main course and dessert.

After running for 13 weeks, Port Fairy Community Lunch diners and volunteers were asked to participate in an anonymous survey to help evaluate the effectiveness of the lunch program and identify areas for improvement. The survey included questions about the client’s most recent experience. Diners were asked questions about their interaction with staff, the quality of the meals, the social experience and to give an overall summary of their experience. Volunteers were asked questions on operational issues and to provide suggestions for improvements. A total of 15 responses were received from the diners and a total of 16 responses were received from the volunteers.

Management of the pilot programAs mentioned, there was informal agreement between partners that each partner should be responsible for their turn in running the pilot program, providing volunteers and assisting with the recruitment of diners. Because the Community House was used as the initial venue for the pilot program, they also provided support through management of funds and resources. This


has led to some confusion over the role of ‘lead agency’ with some partners believing this was the Community House while other partners thought they were leading the program.

FundingStart-up funding for the pilot program was received from the Port Fairy-Belfast Lions Club, the Port Fairy Rotary Club, the Men’s’ Shed and Port Fairy IGA. This enable kitchen equipment to be purchased to meet the requirements for the registration of the kitchen with Moyne Shire. Additional funding was provided through diners’ donations, the Uniting Church and Port Fairy Folk Festival.

Recruitment of volunteersAll partner organisations were responsible for recruiting volunteers for the month they were rostered on duty. Some of the partner organisations experienced difficulties with this and there seems to be a resistance in some sectors of the community for people to get involved. Some of the barriers include:

Existing demands on people’s time Lack of clarity about the aims and reach of the program Operational requirements (i.e. food safety training) Regulation compliance – for potential partnerships

These difficulties have a considerable effect on the efficiency of the running of the Community Lunch and places an extra burden on all those involved.

AttendanceOver the 13-week period, 80 people attended the lunches as diners. Of these six (7.5%) attended 9 or more times, while the average attendance was 2.3 times. This resulted in 164 meals being served during this period1

On a week by week basis the number of diners varied between 8 and 18 and over the 13 weeks there was an average of 13 diners attending. Attendance was limited by the size of the venue, which could seat a maximum of 20.

Some partners experienced difficulties in attracting people to attend the Community Lunch as diners because of the reservation system, which was perceived as a barrier especially for those who were frail and may not know whether they can attend an event three or four days in advance. However, volunteers considered having a reservation system important for stock control and menu planning in order to minimize food waste.

1 Week 1 was a trial meal for the pilot program to determine how the procedures would work in practice and included members from Moyne Shire and partner organisations was well as the general public.


Wendy Hunter, 04/12/17,

Tatiana is this correct? – I will check on Monday.

Survey MethodologyThe diners and volunteers’ surveys were developed by the Volunteer Port Fairy Community Lunch (PFCL) Coordinator and sent to some committee members for comments and review.

In December 2016, the diners were provided with a hard copy survey (as many do not have access to a computer) which they completed in their own time and placed in a box in the dining room. The volunteers were sent a link to an online survey (SurveyMonkey). Hard copies of the survey were available for those who preferred to complete the survey in writing.

DINERS’ SURVEYItems on the diner survey included closed and open ended questions, and comprised the following topics:

Frequency of attendance Reasons for attending the lunch Their views of the quality and variety of meals What they like about the Community Lunch What could be improved?

The survey for the volunteers also included both open and closed questions on the following topics:

Attendance at induction and online training Whether volunteering in the Community Lunch met their expectations What worked well What could be improved Their satisfaction with management, training and opportunities to have an input Whether the volunteers learnt gained new knowledge or skills from their involvement in the

PFCL, and Whether the knowledge and/or skills will be useful for their involvement in other groups or

activities.

After being checked for missing or incomplete data, the surveys were coded and data was entered onto an Excel spreadsheet. The data from closed questions (i.e. rating, ranking type questions) was analysed using basic frequency statistics, while the qualitative data from the open questions was analysed for similarity of content. A total of 15 surveys were completed.

Note: The results reported can only be considered the opinions of the survey participants. They cannot be generalized to represent the entire diner population as a whole.


DemographicsDemographic categories included age and gender (Table 1).

Age was broken down into three groups: Under 40 years 40-65 years Over 65 years

Gender

Table 1: Diners' demographics

Demographic Number of dinersMale 11

Female 3

<40 years 1

40-65 years 4

>65 years 9

Survey Results

Frequency and reasons for attending the Community Lunch

On average, the survey participants attended the lunch three times during the 13 weeks. The most common reason for attending the lunches was to meet people. Several participants commented that they lived alone and did not go out very often. Three people attended because they were invited and one because he was homeless and without food.

Importance of the Community Lunch

Participants were asked to rate the importance (Not important, Important or Very important) of the Community Lunch program based on the following factors:

It offers an opportunity to meet new people It provides an opportunity to get out of the house It provides a free meal It provides an opportunity to try different foods

Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses. More than half of the surveyed participants (53%) identified the opportunity to meet new people as very important. Only one person rated it as not important to them. This very much aligns with the overall goal of the program, to provide opportunities for social interaction between people.


Getting out of the house was considered the next key factor with 20% rating it as very important, and 60% rating it as important.

While 47% of the participants thought that trying different foods was important to them, of least importance to the survey participants were the opportunities to have a free meal. Only three participants (20%) considered a free meal to be important or very important.

Figure 1: Important of Community Lunch

Opportunity to meet new

people

Opportunity to get out of

house

Free meal Try different foods

0

2

4

6

8

10

Not important ImportantVery important Not specified

Participants expectations of the Community Lunch

Participants were asked whether the Community Lunch was:

Less than they expected As they expected More than they expected.

All participants indicated that the Community Lunch met their expectations with 60% (9 participants) saying that it exceeded their expectations.

Volunteers

Participants were asked to rate the helpfulness of the volunteers. All participants found the volunteers helpful, with 87% (13 participants) regarding the volunteers as very helpful.

Quality and variety of meals

Participants were asked to rate the quality and variety of the meals (Figure 2). All gave a positive rating for the meals and overall the quality and variety of the meals was considered very good. This is a immense achievement as the cooks were not able to plan meals in advance due to having to rely on whatever was available at FoodShare in Warrnambool a day or two prior to the meal.


Figure 2: Quality and Variety of meals

Quality of meals Variety of meals0

2

4

6

8

10

Average GoodVery good Not specified

What did the participants enjoy?

Most people identified meeting new people and socializing as the main thing they enjoyed about the Community Lunches. One person commented that it gave them an opportunity for:

Another said it was the:

What can be improved?

Most participants were happy with the Community Lunch and the way it was run. However, a few made the following suggestions.

Consider the configuration of tables to promote conversation among all diners Provide some entertainment, e.g. music Consider different portion sizes for different age groups Allowing people to attend without booking

Some of these issues have already been discussed by the Community Lunch committee. However, addressing some of them requires more resources than we currently have available.


‘Meeting newcomers to town and having the chance to catch up with others I seldom see’

‘Good food and fun company’

VOLUNTEERS’ SURVEYA total of 38 people from four of the partner organisations volunteered to procure, prepare, cook and serve meals as well setting up and cleaning2. In December 2016. volunteers were asked if they would complete an online survey (SurveyMonkey) about their experiences of working on the Community Lunch Program. Sixteen volunteers completed the survey (response rate 42%).

Items on the volunteers’ survey included closed and open ended questions, and comprised the following topics:

Attending induction training Whether volunteering for the Community Lunch met the person’s expectations Satisfaction with the management of the Community Lunch Satisfaction with the induction training Satisfaction that their ideas and suggestions were adequately considered Whether the induction training was useful Whether volunteering for the Community Lunch was a useful experience Whether volunteering for the Community Lunch was useful to meet other people What worked well What could be improved What equipment or resources are needed to make it easier to prepare and serve

lunches

Demographics

There were similar proportions of males and females who volunteered for the Community Lunch, but more than half (56%) were aged over 65 years (Table 1).

Table 2: Volunteer demographics

Demographic Number of volunteer respondents

Males 7Females 9<40 years 140-65 years 4>65 years 9

2 This numbers apply up to December 13, 2016. Up to 11 April 2017, another three people have volunteered for the community lunches, however these have not yet completed an evaluation survey as the extended pilot is ongoing to end of May 2017.


Note: Because of the small sample size, the results reported can only be considered the opinions of the survey participants. They cannot be generalized to represent all volunteers.

Survey results

Training

Volunteers were required to undertake induction training if they had any involvement in the preparation or serving of food (Figure 1). Three people indicated that did not participate in the training. This may have been due to the duties they were assigned such as acting as host in the dining room, which did not require specific training.

Figure 3: Attendance at induction training

Yes No0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

13

3

Volunteers expectations

Fourteen survey respondents (88%) indicated that volunteering in the Community Lunch program met their expectations. Of the two who felt that the experience had not met their expectations, neither provided further explanation as to why they selected this response.

Volunteers’ satisfaction with the Community Lunch

Survey respondents were asked three questions relating to how satisfied they were with various aspects of the Community Lunch, including the management, training and opportunities to have an input. Most were either ‘satisfied’ or very ‘satisfied’ with the management (Figure 4), although suggestions for improving operations were provided and will be discussed later in the report.

Figure 4: How satisfied were you with the management of the Community Lunch?


Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

1

2

3

10

Fourteen volunteers indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the induction training (Figure 5), which is one more person than the number who reported undertaking the training. However, this may be due to the volunteers being confused over what constituted induction training, for example whether it was attending the training session at the Community House or whether it included the Department of Health’s online food safety training.

Figure 5: How satisfied were you with the induction training?


Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

7

7

Most volunteers reported some degree of satisfaction that their ideas and suggestions were taken into consideration (Figure 6). Because the management of the Community Lunch is shared among all partner organisations it may be necessary to review reporting procedures so that all volunteers feel they are able to contribute ideas.

Figure 6: How satisfied were you that your ideas and suggestions were taken into consideration?

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

2

1

10

3

Community Lunch as a useful exercise for volunteers

Volunteers were asked to rate how useful the induction training was in providing them with the necessary information they needed to undertake their tasks in a safe manner; how useful the experience of working on the Community Lunch program was likely to be for other activities they


may be involved with and how useful it was for meeting other people (Table 3: How useful was participating in the Community Lunch for you?).

Table 3: How useful was participating in the Community Lunch for you?

Not at all useful

Somewhat useful

Very useful

Usefulness of training 1 9 6Usefulness of experience 2 9 5Usefulness of meeting others 1 10 5

It is possible that many of the volunteers only found the training somewhat useful because they had had significant experience in catering for events and large numbers previously and in some cases, had already completed formal food safety training.

While many of the volunteers are well connected in the town and belong to various organisations, the opportunity to interact with volunteers from other organisations was appreciated.

What worked well?

Overwhelmingly when asked what worked well for the Community Lunch, volunteers responded that it was the people involved in volunteering. Comments included the good comradery, team, the confidence of the ‘chefs’, and the opportunity to meet new and interesting people.

Others positive comments were that within the restrictions of the venue, the organisation worked well, with FoodShare mainly able to provide most food.


‘We worked as a team in kitchen. Our quantity planned was spot on’

‘The cooks worked well together in the kitchen and produced a soup, main and dessert on time and hot!’

How can the Community Lunch be improved?

Marketing and promotions was identified as a key factor for improving the Community Lunch. There was concern among some volunteers that we were not targeting the right people to receive the lunch and that there needed to be greater liaison with care groups.

Other factors raised were the limitations with the venue. Cooking and serving the meals at times was difficulty because of the restricted space available, clashes of timetable with other Community House activities, sharing the kitchen space with staff and other Community House activities and having to transport food from the kitchen to the serving area via outside the building as the internal layout was not suitable.

Comments were made about the impact the weather had on the dining room, as it gets very hot in there on sunny days and lets in rain and wind when the weather is bad. This reduced the space available to set out dining tables and lessened the comfort of the diners.

What other equipment or resources would make it easier to prepare or serve the lunches?

Respondents listed several items such as a mandolin, better cooks’ knives and other kitchen utensils that they felt were needed. While many of these could be purchased by obtaining small amounts of funding there were a few items that would be quite costly, such as a new fridge-freezer and a bain-marie.

However, some also commented on the need to consider alternative venues that had better access between the kitchen and the dining room.


‘Better liaison with care groups - I know privacy is an issue but it doesn't appear to be reaching’.

‘Get to the people who need it’.

‘Greater awareness around town of its availability. More groups involved in it’.

‘…need to reach out to a broader base of guests rather than having just the core group that attended regularly. We need to promote it more’.

DiscussionThe Community Lunch pilot has gone some way towards achieving its primary goal of providing an opportunity for people to become involved in the local community and decrease the risk of social isolation for some. However, the success has been limited to a small group and the lunch has not achieved the broad appeal that was initially hoped for.

The results of the diners’ survey supported the aim of the pilot Community Lunch program, they reported key benefit of attending was the opportunity to socialize with other people. However, the respondents to the survey only represented 19% of the diners.

One reason for the low response rate may be that many diners only attended the Community Lunch once or twice and therefore were not present when the surveys were conducted.

Should the Community Lunch program continue in the future, more consideration needs to be given on how we can improve our evaluation of the program. For example, surveying those who only attended the lunch on one or two occasions may provide an insight into the barriers that prevented them attending more often. However, as we did not have contact details for many of the diners, we could not get their input for this evaluation.

Most of the respondents to the diners’ survey were males aged 65 years and over and this reflected the general demographics of the lunches, especially for the core group of six people who attend 9 or more times. For these people the Community Lunch was an important opportunity to meet with others and socialize in a safe environment.

Whilst these respondents indicated that the meal itself was of lesser important than socializing, diners were satisfied with the food they received. This is very gratifying as most of

the food was obtained free of charge from FoodShare in Warrnambool. The variety of meals provided by the volunteer cooks and kitchen assistants was impressive and no two weeks were the same.


Figure 8: Some of the regular diners enjoying lunch

Figure 7: Diners tucking into Christmas lunch 2016

Even though diners were positive about the Community Lunch program, they did suggest some improvements including providing some entertainment and reconfiguring the tables to enable diners to speak with more people. However, there are several restrictions with the venue that limits the opportunity to reconfigure tables as raised by volunteers. The outdoor room at the Community House can seat a maximum of 20 people but this does tend to feel crowded. In addition, if the weather is too hot or wet and windy, only the centre of the room can be utilized, reducing the number to 10 or 12 that can be seated in there.

Thirty-eight members of partner organisations volunteered to work for the Community Lunch. Of these 42% completed the volunteer survey. There was a similar gender distribution of volunteers, but the majority were aged 65 years and over. Due to the requirements set out by the Moyne Shire Environmental Health Officer, all volunteers who were involved in preparing and serving food had to undergo the Department of Health online food safety course. This course was free and took approximately one hour to complete, however it did prove to be a deterrent for some potential volunteers.

Volunteer respondents reported a high level of satisfaction from being involved with the pilot Community Lunch program, especially mixing with other volunteers and the diners. Some frustrations were experienced because of the limitations of the venue and equipment available.

Some volunteers commented that trying to provide a three-course meal from what was available at FoodShare could be difficult at times as they did not know what food they could source until a day or two before the Community Lunch, which did not leave them with a lot of time to develop a menu. In addition, the equipment and layout of the kitchen made the provision of three courses demanding.


Figures 9 and 10: Volunteers busy serving the meals

One of the main concerns raised by respondents to the volunteer survey was the marketing and promotion of the Community Lunch. Some volunteers felt it was not aimed at those who needed it most. This is a difficult matter to address as people have diverse beliefs on who should be able to attend. The fact that this point was not only raised by the respondents to the volunteer survey but among some of the partner organisations, suggests that should the Community Lunch continue more community consultation is required and clearer guidelines established on who may attend the Community Lunch, especially if it is to remain a free meal.

Current statusTo meet the timeframe and commitment set by the current Community Lunch advertising material, the Community Lunch Management Committee agreed that that the pilot program should continue until the end of May 2017, after which it should be re-examined to determine its effectiveness and whether it is suitable to continue in its current form.

Since the completion of the diners’ and volunteers’ surveys, some of the issues raised have been addressed, for example the Port Fairy Community Lunch Management Committee agreed to reduce the number of courses from three to two – a main course and a dessert.

Future management

Port Fairy-Belfast Lions Club have advised the Port Fairy Community Lunch Management Committee that they will not be participating in the Community Lunch in the future, and other partner organisations are also reviewing their future involvement.

Some partners have voiced concerns regarding the future management of the program and the lack of a leading agency in the current structure. If the program continues in the future, there will need to be clarification about its management, including who is responsible for its legal and regulatory status.

Recruitment of volunteers

To help with recruitment of volunteers, the Community Lunch was reduced from a weekly basis to a fortnightly basis.

These changes have not really influenced the recruitment of volunteers as hoped as some partner organisation are still experiencing significant difficulties in trying to get sufficient numbers for their rosters. In addition, the numbers attending each fortnight are averaging 10 and seven of these are the same group who regularly attended in 2016. While this indicates that the program is meeting a need for this small group of people, it is not attracting the broader community as expected.


Attendance

Supporting concerns from volunteers, partner organisation have reported that within the Port Fairy community there is concern that the Community Lunch is not targeting the right cohort of people and that there is stigma surrounding a free lunch. If the program is to continue, it will be important to address these misgivings.

Another issue raised by volunteers and partner organisations was the provision of transport for people who may want to attend the lunch but are unable to get there. The provision of transport was discussed during the inception of the pilot program but there were difficulties with arranging it. If the program should continue this issue will need to be revisited.

ConclusionsWhile the pilot Community Lunch program has to some extent met its goal of provided a valuable experience and opportunity for people in the community to socialize together, this has been limited to a small number of diners, with diner participation plateauing at between 7-10 people on a regular basis. There has been difficulty in both increasing the number of new people attending the Community Lunch and accessing a diverse range of participation throughout the pilot.

This report has highlighted several factors that may have influence diner participation and community acceptance of the Community Lunch. There appears to be a lack of awareness of the program among some of the local community, while others have put their own construction on the aims and reach of the program, creating a stigma that appears to have led to difficulties in recruiting volunteers and encouraging people to attend as diners.

Furthermore, the withdrawal of participation from the Port Fairy-Belfast Lions Club and the potential withdrawal of participation from other partners places the future of the Community Lunch in doubt.

At the completion of the pilot project (May 2017), the Community Lunch Management Committee will need to determine the future of the Community Lunch, after consultation with their organizations’ members and management. If it is decided not to continue as a lunch time activity, it will be important to identify how we may address social inclusion in the future. It may be that a different format is required, for example an activity that includes a morning or afternoon tea, or alternatively a monthly ‘fish and chip’ lunch. However, alternatives should be fully investigated and put to community consultation for support and suggestions.

RecommendationsIf partner organisations agree to continue to support the program it is recommended that the following steps be adopted:


1. Prior to determining any future set-up for the program all committee members to participate in a community consultation process, which emphasizes the goal of social interaction within the community. This will include reviewing how the program is structured and operated

2. If it is agreed to proceed with the program, formalize partnerships, clarifying legal and regulatory responsibilities for each partner

3. Explore opportunities for development of additional partnerships4. Have more in depth community consultations with key stakeholders, this may include

endeavoring to survey diners who only attended the program once or twice where possible to determine why they did not return

5. Determine whether there is a need for a ‘lead agency’6. Set guidelines, timeframes, targets and goals for implementation and reporting7. Determine a financial support (funding model) from partner organisation to ensure

sustainable financial viability8. Explore suitable venues depending on the future set-up for the program9. Review and enhance the marketing and promotion of any future program


executive summary - windows web viewon average, the survey participants attended the lunch three...

Documents