Growing Food Security in Alberta

Growing Food Security in Alberta

Report of Online-Survey of Network Participants

Prepared For: Community Building Resources Edmonton and Dieticians of Canada

Prepared by:

Tammy Horne, Ph.D1.

Lorraine Jonasi, PhD Candidate2

April 2007

1. WellQuest Consulting Ltd

Telephone: (780) 451-6145

Email:

2. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta

Telephone: (780) 707-8517

Email:

Table of contents

1. METHODS......

1.1 Procedures

1.2 Analyses

2. Network Participation......

2.1 Extent of Network Participation

2.2 Diversity of Network Participation

2.3 Steering Committee Activity

3. Network Participant Knowledge of Key GFSA Concepts

3.1 Explaining the GFSA Vision

3.2 Stages on the Food Security Continuum......

3.3 5 A’s of Food Security

3.3.1 Application of 5 A’s of Food Security

3.4 Key Messages of GFSA Project

4. Participation in GFSA Network Sub Groups

4.1. Additional Subgroup Information

4.1.1 Workshop and Evaluation/Research

5. Sharing GFSA Messages......

5.1 Types of Information Shared about GFSA

5.2 GFSA Message Audiences

5.3 Information Channels for Sharing GFSA Messages

5.4 Groups for Sharing

6. Network Participant Activities on the Food Security Continuum

6.1 Network Participants’ Hunger Relief Activities

6.2 Network Participants’ Capacity Building Activities

6.3 Network Participants’ Involvement in Advocacy

7. Sustaining the Network: Participants Collaborative Activities

7.1 Network Participants’ Planned Activities for Future Collaboration

8. GFSA as Food Security Resource

8.1 Inquiries to GFSA

8.1.1 Web Site Statistics

9. Conclusions

9.1 Comparing the Short and Long Network Survey

Appendix A – Outcomes and Indicators for Network Evaluation Framework

Short-term

Intermediate

Network participants intend to align their work with the overall vision

Long-term

Very Long-term

Appendix B – Network Participant Questionnaire –Long Version

Appendix C – Network Participant Questionnaire –Short Version

List of Tables

Table 1. Network Expansion by Location......

Table 2. Network Participation by Organization or Group......

Table 3. Explanation of the Vision of GFSA......

Table 4. Explanation of Steps on the Food Security Continuum......

Table 5. 5A's of Food Security......

Table 6. Application of 5A's of Food Security......

Table 7. Key Messages of the GFSA Project......

Table 8. Participation in GFSA Network Subgroups......

Table 8.1. Types of Sub Groups......

Table 9. Network Subgroup Activities......

Table 10. Sharing GFSA Messages......

Table 11. Types of Information Shared About GFSA......

Table 12. GFSA Message Audiences Outside Own Sector......

Table 13. GFSA Information Channels......

Table 14. Intermediary Groups Used to Deliver Messages......

Table 15. Network Participants Hunger Relief Activities......

Table 16. Network Participants Capacity Building Activities......

Table 17. Network Participants Participation in Advocacy......

Table 18. Network Participants Collaborative Activities......

Table 19. Network Participants Planned Future Collaborative Activities......

Table 20. Types of Information sought from GFSA and Communities*

Introduction

Growing Food Security in Alberta (GFSA) began with the Provincial Nutritionists of Alberta and Dietitians of Canada. Their goal was to "alleviate hunger and improve the nutritional health, overall well being and food security of Albertans and Canadians." The project received Health Canada project funding through the Population Health Fund, and contracted Community Building Resources to co-ordinate the project. The GFSA Steering Committee was formed in April 2003, and the project has been working since then to develop a GFSA network across the province.[1]

The project goals are:

To enhance the health of impoverished children in Alberta through the creation of a sustainable provincial food security network. The network would be comprised of inter-sectoral partners:

whose roles and interests emphasize food security for children
who will take action to influence the determinants of health
who are willing to participate in collaborative interventions directed at improving the health of children and reducing the inequities in health status that exist between different populations of children in Alberta.

The project objectives are:

To facilitate the creation of a sustainable province-wide food security network built on a broad base of inter-sectoral partnerships and public participation to promote and support policies and initiatives that reduce the prevalence of food insecurity in children and their families.
To establish a common vision and establish a base of evidence collected from a range of sources, including quantitative research, qualitative data, and public input that will help develop effective food security programs.
To target strategies that address the determinants of health that influence the nutrition of children affected by food insecurity.
To foster awareness of food security as a health issue and its impact on the health of children among members of the public, community organizations, health care workers, government departments and the business community.
To build capacity within the community by sharing tools and resources that enable community groups to identify and address factors that both cause and are caused by food insecurity.

The above objectives are broad and strategic. The GFSA Steering Committee has created logic models to illustrate the links between more specific outcome objectives and project activities. These more specific outcomes and activities were intended to contribute to achievement of the broader objectives and overall project goals.

In addition, the committee developed indicators to correspond to the specific outcome objectives in the models. These indicators guided the development of evaluation questions and tools intended to measure progress toward the objectives. Together with the logic model, the indicators and corresponding methods form the evaluation frameworks for the Steering Committee, the GFSA Network and broader community changes. Evaluation regarding the Steering Committee logic model was the focus of the first reports. A subsequent report will focus on community changes.

In 2005, baseline data for evaluation of the GFSA Network was gathered. The report resulting from that data gathering process summarized Network participants’ survey data and linked these to the relevant outcomes and indicators from the GFSA Network Logic Model evaluation framework. The Network Logic model is shown in Figure 1. A chart of corresponding indicators and methods is in Appendix A.

The focus for the 2005 evaluation was the formation of the Network and capacity building that occurred within it. The Year 2007 Network evaluation is a follow-up assessment of the Network’s progress over the last two years. The present data were collected between January and February, and are compared with 2005 data. This report also summarizes and compares Network members’ data for members who joined before February 2005 (when the baseline survey was done) and those joining after February 2005. Furthermore, the report summarizes information tracked through meeting minutes and tracking forms. Finally, in interpreting the findings, the report makes linkages to the relevant outcomes and indicators from the GFSA evaluation framework for the Network. Both progress on the outcome indicators and tracking of processes and outputs (from an administrative database) will be discussed.

1.METHODS

1.1Procedures

In 2005, 43 of 190 Network participants took part in a telephone survey (22.6%). This survey was labour-intensive, but also served the purpose of welcoming participants to the Network. In 2007, a similar telephone interview process was not feasible within project resources, as the Network has now grown to 248 participants. As well, there were many Network participants with whom Growing Food Security in Alberta (GFSA) were not able to connect during the time frame of the 2005 interviews.

Therefore, the GFSA Evaluation Committee made a decision to shift to an on-line survey for the 2007 follow-up, using a similar survey open-ended survey tool that was located on the GFSA Internet server. (see Appendix B for the survey tool). Network participants could respond at their convenience. Invitations to take part in the survey were sent out via email to all Network participants except GFSA staff and theevaluators (244 members), with links to the survey attached. GFSA received few responses between January and February 2007, despite offering numerous incentives such as aDietitians of Canada Cookbook and the Thought about Food workbook and DVD set. GFSA then sent out the survey tool directly to Network participants via e-mail. This yielded two additional responses (one by fax). In all, only 28 people responded to the survey (11.5% of Network participant).

Following this low response, GFSA decided to hire two Masters students and one recent graduate to conduct an 8-10 minute telephone survey with a shorter version of the questionnaire (see Appendix C). A further 46 brief-format surveys were administered via telephone interviews to network members who had not responded to the longer version. (See Appendix C)

Questions on both tools corresponded to the logic model and corresponding indicators, though the shorter-version had more focus on actions as well as on process feedback that might help to enhance survey participants’ engagement with the Network.

1.2 Analyses

Responses to the open-ended questions for the long-format survey were coded into categories and entered into an SPSS database. For most questions, multiple responses were permitted, so number of responses exceed number of survey participants.

Analyses are primarily quantitative in order to obtain data for quantitative indicators. Most responses to the brief survey responses (15-20 minutes) were not sufficiently detailed to allow for additional qualitative analysis for themes. However, this report will include survey participants’ narrative elaborations on the quantitative categories for some questions where participants went into some detail.

This report contains the results for the long-format on-line survey. Results for the short telephone survey format are presented in a separate report (Jonasi & Horne, 2007).[2]

2. Network Participation

2.1 Extent of Network Participation

Outcome:Expand Network participation (ST1).

Indicator:Number of participants

The number of Network participants has increased by close to six times between April 2004 (42 members) and March 2007 (248 members). Numbers for each year were as follows:

April 2004 – 42 participants

March 2005 – 131 participants

March 2006 – 194 participants

March 2007 – 248 participants

Network participation almost tripled from April 2004 to March 2005. Growth was less in the following two years. The Network grew by almost half between April 2005 and March 2006, and by a little more than a quarter between April 2006 and March 2007. It should be noted that GFSA was without funding from April to December 2005 so was not able to actively recruit and engage members, though they could still sign up on-line.

2.2 Diversity of Network Participation

Outcome:Diversify of Network participation (ST2).

Indicator:Numbers of people from different groups with different focuses (e.g., agriculture, adult education, schools, RHAs)

GFSA is also interested in tracking the different types of Network participants based on where they are located and the types of organizations from which they come. This information was not available for the 2004-05 year. So Table 1 below reflects only participants who joined April 2005 or later.

The location of the highest numbers of new participants is similar for both years. Table 1 shows that Edmonton had the highest number of new members each year, followed by Calgary. There has been an increase in the diversity of locations for Network participants over the March 2006 to March 2007 compared to the previous year. That is, more Alberta communities in Table 1 show at least one Network participant compared to 2005-06. However, there were fewer new participants from outside Alberta in 2006-07.

The majority of new participants came from organizations within the health sector during both years. Students and family/children’s programs were next most likely to join. Other food security projects were among those most likely to become Network participants in 2005-06, though few new ones joined in 2006-07. The extent of diversity in organizations/groups represented by new Network participants is more or less similar between the two periods – 11 groups during March 2006 to March 2007 compared to 12 groups earlier during March 2005 to march 2006. However, the composition differs each year, in that some organizations/groups were most likely to join in 2005-06, and other types in 2006-07.

Table 2. Network Participation by Organization or Group

/ Number in 2005-2006 / Number in 2006-2007
Health Regions, Health Units, Health Businesses, Health programs / 40(25) / 35(19)
Students / 14(9) / 19(10)
Family and/or Children’s Programs / 8(5) / 11(6)
Unclassified / 11(7) / 11(6)
Government / 2(1) / 7(4)
Agricultural groups / 0 / 4(2)
Food banks / 3(2) / 4(2)
Food Box Program/Community Kitchens/Community Gardens / 13(8) / 2(1)
First nation tribe / 0 / 2(1)
Media / 0 / 2(1)
FCSS / 0 / 2(1)
Alberta Human Economics and Home Economics Association / 0 / 2(1)
Food security network / 2(1) / 0
Social Workers / 2(1) / 0
Meals on Wheels / 2(1) / 0
Pesticide Free Edmonton / 2(1) / 0
Churches / 2(1) / 0
Literacy Society / 2(1) / 0
Total New Participants / 63 / 54

2.3 Steering Committee Activity

The Steering Committee from March 2004 to February 2006 consisted of 15 people. Throughout that time period four people resigned. Two of these members cited time conflicts and/or personal reasons. The Steering Committee (SC) gained two new members between March 2006 and March 15, 2007 for a total of 13 members. From April 2003 to March 2004 the SC met by teleconference nine times and twice in person, for a total of 11 meetings. From April 2004 to March 2005 the SC met by teleconference 11 times and once in-person for a total of 12 meetings. Between April 2005 and March 2006 the committee met five times by teleconference. GFSA did not have funding at this time so the teleconferences were funded by various organizations connected to the GFSA Steering Committee. Between 2006 and March 2007, the Steering Committee met by teleconference 10 times and once in-person for a total of 11 meetings.

3. Network Participant Knowledge of Key GFSA Concepts

Outcome: Network participants expand their knowledge (a) the GFSA vision, (b) the links between food security and health, and (c) key GFSA messages. (ST3)

Indicator: Network participants can describe: (a) the GFSA vision, (b) the Food Security Continuum, (c) the 5 A’s (available, accessible, acceptable, appropriate, agency), (d) the population health cube, (e) GFSA key messages from the Social Marketing plan. (The 2007survey did not ask about the population health cube – as many participants in 2005 had not seen that graphic specifically.)

3.1 Explaining the GFSA Vision

The vision of GFSA is “All children and families in Alberta have healthy food”.

The information from two sets of survey responses identifies the diversity among Network members about their understanding of the vision. In 2005, of the 43 Network participants who took part in the survey, 12% articulated the vision as “Regular access to nutritious food for children and families in Alberta” (see Table 3). This category is closest to the original vision, but adds the qualifier “regular access”.

Over a third of Network survey participants in 2005 responded “Don’t know” to this question. Additional comments pertained more to processes related to the vision. For instance, “building a network across Alberta” was mentioned most consistently. Other definitions included creating awareness of food security issues, describing the vision as information gathering and an educational tool for the province to decrease food security. Other comments reflected some of the issues that are related to food security.

Overall, more 2007 of the Network survey participants could articulate a network vision. More 2007 participants mentioned the “All Albertans” aspect of the GFSA vision, though the percentage including “children and families’ were similar both years. As well, more 2007 participants mentioned strategies that appear to be closely aligned with the vision (see Table 3).

None of the respondents in the two 2007 survey groups responded “Don’t know”. Responses in 2005 comprised of 37 definition statements spanning 16 categories (“Don’t know” responses excluded). In 2007, responses comprised of 41 definition statements spanning 17 categories.

In 2007, the most common vision mentioned by survey participants who joined the Network before February 2005 was “Healthy food for all Albertans”, followed by “All people in Alberta have food”, which is close to the first but without the ‘healthy’ qualifier. The rest of the comments pertained more to processes related to the vision (such as “create awareness of food security issues”).

Among the survey participants who joined the Network after February 2005, the most common vision expressed was actually a process by which the vision might be achieved: “Building a network across Alberta”. Another process offered as a vision was “Create awareness of food security issues. The most common statement given, that is closest to the GFSA vision itself, was “Regular access to nutritious food for children and families in Alberta” (see Table 3).

The above findings show that although both longer-term and shorter-term Network participants are more able to articulate a vision than the 2005 participants, they have somewhat different understandings of it. Those who joined the Network later were more likely to see the process of building the Network as part of the vision, whereas the earlier participants more often gave statements closer to the original vision.