ccoommmmuunniittyy kkiittcchheenn ppiilloott

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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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!

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.


d. I eat a variety of

vegetables


e. I choose whole grain

breads, pastas, crackers or

rice.


f. I wash hands before

preparing food


g. I use a thermometer to

check the temperature of

cooked meat


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


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


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!

ccoommmmuunniittyy kkiittcchheenn ppiilloott

Documents