Environmental Scan Report

Environmental Scan Report March 211 The Future of the Good Food Box Project Thinking Inside the Box: Shaping and Strengthening Good Food Box Programs in Ontario 1

This report was prepared by Community Voices Consulting Group for the Future of the Good Food Box Project We are grateful to the many people who provided their support and guidance to this effort especially our Steering Committee Members Lorna McCue, (Ontario Health Communities Coalition) Mark-Jan Daalderop (Food Share, Toronto) Joëlle Favreau (YWCA Peterborough) Brenda Moher, (Halton Fresh Food Box) Susan Hubay (Peterborough County-City Health Unit) Bridget King (Sudbury District Health Unit) Catherine Schwartz (Thunder Bay District Health Unit) We would also like to thank all of the Good Food Box programs that contributed their time and expertise to the information that the Future of the Good Food Box Project was able to generate. You are truly inspiring in your creativity and dedication. This project was funded by the Healthy Communities Fund, Provincial Stream of the Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion and The Heart and Stroke Foundation Spark Community Advocacy Grant Program. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction... 4 2. Methods... 4 3. Findings... 6 3.1. About Your GFB Program... 6 3.2. Program Mandate... 6 3.3. Program Operations... 8 3.4. Program Funding/Support... 12 3.5. Program Partnerships/Collaborations... 14 3.6. Program Challenges... 17 3.7. Program Evaluation... 19 4. Concluding Thoughts... 2 3

1. INTRODUCTION Good Food Box (GFB) programs have been active in Ontario for many years ensuring that individuals and families have access to fresh vegetables and fruits through a program framework that offers opportunities for community partnerships and capacity building. Within the parameters of the Future of the Good Food Box project, queries were sent out far and wide across the province to learn more about Good Food Box programs in Ontario: who they serve, how they function and what supports their continuation. This work supported the development of this Environmental Scan Report. 2. METHODS Information gathering was completed through a) initial outreach by Community Food Animators (Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition) to update general information on Ontario based Good Food Box (GFB) programs including, contact coordinates for existing GFB programs program resources available from GFB programs in hard copy or on associated webpages and identification of GFB programs not yet listed in a central circulation list. b) the circulation of an online questionnaire c) semi structured telephone interviews d) network meetings and e) informal contact with programs 4

Program literature was gathered and preliminary information was used to design the questionnaire and to inform the development of the semi-structured telephone interview template. Steering Committee feedback assisted in refining both the questionnaire and interview templates. The questionnaire was designed to capture GFB Program contact information, mandates, operations, funding/support, partnerships/ collaborations and program challenges. The questionnaire was circulated using the online tool, SurveyMonkey, through icontact, a communication tool, to 45 GFB Program group subscribers, and an additional 9 contacts that were not subscribers. Some of the contacts further circulated the questionnaire link through GFB relevant networks that they were associated with. An initial environmental scan was completed to analyze and discuss the information received at the mid-point of the project. After review of initial data it was decided that further information needed to be collected on program resourcing (funding and in kind support information), and on business planning and evaluation activities. Semistructured telephone interviews were completed with a self-selected group of GFB programs (n=19) There were a small number of responses that proved to be duplications and some that were from programs that did not fit the criteria (e.g. from respondents not who had not provided a GFB Program). Confirmed duplications and unqualified completions were removed from the summary data. Awareness Awareness of the Future of the Good Food Box Project was facilitated through ongoing communications with GFB programs. Project coordinators (Community Voices Consulting Group) were continually outreaching to GFB programs and contacts and were thus able to increase awareness of newly created, defunct and/or changing programs. This also assisted in continued identification of gaps and inaccuracies. Articles promoting awareness of the project have been written and circulated through the Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA), Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition (OHCC), FoodNet newsletters and icontact bulletins. Limitations The Environmental Scan is intended to provide a provincial overview of Good Food Box program activity. The ever changing landscape of individual programs, funding opportunities, successes and challenges provides us with a provincial picture of GFB programs now. 5

3. FINDINGS 3.1. ABOUT YOUR GFB PROGRAM Questionnaire responses were received from across the province with the highest percentage of responses coming from the Central East and East regions and a comparatively lower response rate from the West, and greater Toronto area regions. Of the 37 respondent GFB programs approximately 57% report serving an urban/rural split in populations served, with an additional 27% serving a mostly rural population and 16% serving a mostly urban population. Although program responses appear low for Toronto and surrounding area, further investigation suggests a higher urban population served than is indicated in the scan. This appears to be largely the result of FoodShare acting as a centralized umbrella organization having multiple sites operating as host sites for the FoodShare GFB program. The West region does not appear to have as many GFB programs operating within their communities as other regions within the province. 3.2. PROGRAM MANDATE Questionnaire responses suggest that the majority of programs (56.8%) are promoted to the general population. 37.8% of GFB program respondents indicate they do promote specifically to individuals and families on lower incomes but allow access to the program by all. Only two respondents reported that their GFB Programs targeted individuals/families living on low incomes only. Information gathered through meetings, telephone interviews and a scan of program materials indicate that some programs, although making themselves available to all, offer subsidies to assist customers on lower income as a way to ensure access. generate funding to provide subsidy through program revenue and fundraising activities. 6

# of Responses receive subsidy assistance through other organizations providing purchase vouchers/arrangements for Boxes (such as Ontario Works or churches). Questionnaire responses suggest that GFB programs in Ontario are targeting specific populations and that those targeted are predominantly families, seniors and persons with a chronic health condition. 25 2 15 1 5 Are GFB programs targeting sprecific populations? Yes No Don't know The specifically targeted populations question generated a answered question = 37 high number of other responses with 12 of 15 responses being persons living on low incomes. An additional 2 responses specifically identified persons 14 GFB programs are specifically targeting... # of Responses 12 1 8 6 4 2 answered question =21 7

with a mental health illness as being a target population for the GFB program. Telephone interviews and meetings with GFB programs identified tension between setting low income based targets for GFB programs and attracting customers from across income groups. A common concern of close to 25% of GFB program representatives is that there is a stigma associated with GFB programs as low income programs which keeps others from choosing to participate in the program. Some programs expressed concern that the population as a whole are not consuming adequate amounts of fresh produce and that their programs want to identify that issue as the primary reason to offer the GFB program in their communities. Other programs suggested that ensuring expanded access to all in the community required a focus on making the program accessible to those living on low incomes but further suggested that marketing resources were required to ensure that the entire community understood the goals of the program in making fresh produce available to all in the community in a sustainable manner. Reportedly, priority populations are targeted based both on demonstrated need in the community (66.7%) and on the lack of access in communities to affordable produce options (66.7%). While this was not asked in terms of individuals/families living on low incomes, based on the entire response set the connection is clear. Available funding seems to have some impact on how priority populations are set but appears to be considered in unison with other factors (such as demonstrated need). 3.3 PROGRAM OPERATIONS 86% of the programs that responded serve less than 5 households with the majority of that total serving under 25 households. Two programs report serving over 1 households per month. FoodShare is the largest program running in Ontario distributing over 4 boxes monthly (based on 23 statistics). 1 Grey-Bruce is the second largest program identified distributing on average 122 Boxes/month. 1 http://www.foodshare.net/goodfoodbox1.htm 8

# of Sites operating per each GFB program # of GFBoxes distributed Good Food Boxes Distributed (grouped by category) Over 1 51-1 25-5 less than 25.% 2.% 4.% 6.% % of GFBox Programs distributing GFBoxes answered question = 37 The majority of respondents (32%) report operating out of less than 3 sites. Only FoodShare GFB, the largest GFB program in terms of volume, is operating at over 5 sites. Telephone interview results suggest that smaller programs distribute a range of 75-25 Boxes/month. Most programs suggest that Box purchase numbers are lower in the summer months. Sites operating per each GFB Program over 5 11-2 21-5 4-1 1-3.% 1.% 2.% 3.% 4.% # and % of GFB Programs answered question = 37 9

# of Responses Program Coordination Staffing for GFBs 12 1 8 6 4 2 answered question = 37 54% of GFB programs responded that Program Coordination is provided on a part-time basis. An Other category not shown above indicates that the numbers related to parttime paid Program Coordinator are actually significantly higher than depicted. Program Coordination is most often provided as a paid position rather than volunteer position and is provided predominantly through sponsoring/supporting organizations. Telephone interviews clarified that the response GFB committee/group provides coordination is indicated, this coordination is specific to host site coordination and coordination assistance alongside a designated Program Coordinator staff position and not instead of. 1

# of Responses Other positions used to support GFB programs 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 answered question = 37 Responses illustrate the considerable level of support that volunteers provide to GFB programs with 89% of programs identifying volunteers as significant contributors in providing support to their programs. Also evident is the level of staff support on top of program coordination that supporting organizations contribute to GFB programs. Interviews indicate that administrative and book-keeping support are frequently contributed by sponsoring/supporting organizations. 11

# of GFB Programs 3.4 PROGRAM FUNDING/SUPPORT 86.5 % of respondents report receiving some form of funding. Telephone interviews suggest that the number is higher (95%) when it is understood that in-kind contributions are also considered funding. The majority of funding support is identified as ongoing in-kind support from a sponsoring organization and from service club and community donations. GFB Program funding sources 2 15 1 5 Funding Source answered question = 37 73% of programs report that funding is received from a sponsoring organization. Although 19% of respondents indicated their program operated on GFB revenue only, further investigation clarifies that only 1 program is operating without any additional funding they operate on GFB revenue only. 12

Ongoing / Limited funding sources for GFB Programs Neither time limited/one-time or Ongoing Report no funding received Time limited or one-time only Ongoing only Both time limited/one-time and Ongoing 5 1 15 # of GFB Programs Answers related to program model sustainability reflect high levels of uncertainty. 32% indicated they thought maybe their program model was sustainable. Telephone interviews revealed that many programs feel that their present program model is sustainable at current funding levels, maintaining current staffing/volunteer resources and current Box numbers. A common concern points toward subsidies increasing for individuals and families to assist with affordability, and the capacity to accommodate subsidy needs of clients may diminish. 43.2% of respondents believe their program model is sustainable and this group also reports having ongoing program funding support, largely, in kind and through a supporting organization. # of Responses Do you feel your present GFB program model is sustainable on an ongoing basis? 2 15 1 5 13

3.5 PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS/COLLABORATIONS Primary sponsoring/supporting organizations included Public Health Units and Community Health Centres. It should be noted that FoodShare partners with a significant number of Community Health Centres and other organizations who act as program host sites and as active food security network partners in the Toronto area. These partnerships are not reflected in questionnaire responses however interview follow-up and a review of FoodShare partnered organizations suggest that CHC participation in GFB programs is significantly higher than the questionnaire data indicates. Supporting organizations most closely affiliated with GFB Programs 6 # of Responses 5 4 3 2 1 An Other category not shown above indicates that the numbers related to Public Health, CHC and other community organization/agency are actually higher than depicted. Noteworthy - One of the 3 respondents that indicated that their program stands alone (Clover Valley) appears to be providing the program based on box 14

Program coordination Other program staffing Administrative costs Space rental Program supplies (e.g. Subsidies on the box Transportation Volunteer support Other revenue alone (which covers all program associated costs except marketing support). Upon further investigation, the other 2 programs do receive in kind supports and/or donations and are not actually stand alone programs. One program (Halton Fresh Food Box) identified as an incorporated not-for-profit organization. GFB program activities that funding received supports 2 # of Responses 15 1 5 Activities supported are reported to include staffing, more specifically program coordination, book-keeping accounting, drivers and packing site coordination. When the question focuses on non-funding related partnerships/collaborations, community-based organizations have considerable involvement in GFB programs. Community Health Centres and Public Health Units (categorized as separate from other community based organizations to promote clarity in this scan), also factor in significantly. 15

4 Community based/partnership/collaboration contributions to GFB program # of Responses 2 answered question = 36 Faith groups/churches also seem to play a significant partnering role in GFBs with regards to non-funding supports yet are not identified by any GFB Program respondent as being a primary sponsor. Informal information gathering suggests that faith based organizations provide a considerable volunteers and space (packing and site). Business partnerships are largely related to product (produce and transportation) with farmers, grocers and wholesalers being identified most often as program partners. The extent to which these relationships contribute in non-monetary and in-kind ways to programs and how much is provided through financial exchange varies. Some relationships include discounts on produce, supplies/transportation although purchases are being made within the partnerships. Telephone interviews verified that business relationship contributions varied significantly across programs and that it is likely that the majority of relationships identified were related to purchaser/purchase activities/relationships. # of Responses Business partnerships/collaborations (non-funding) involved in your GFB Program 3 2 1 answered question = 36 16

Business partnership/collaboration contributions to the program 4 # of Responses 2 answered question = 34 3.6 PROGRAM CHALLENGES An overwhelming majority of respondents identified funding/sustainability as being their greatest challenge with 83% of respondents ranking this challenge in their top three and 27 of those 3 (9%) placing it first. Catchment size, not enough volunteers and a lack of connections with other GFB programs receiving the next highest ranking values scores, albeit well below the funding/sustainability category. In telephone interviews funding sustainability challenges were most often relayed as being related to, cuts or potential cuts in funding available to the program with a small number of interviewees sharing that time-limited funding was coming to an end, and a larger number suggesting that their ongoing (rollover) funds may not be directed at their program or that the amount directed would be cut significantly - without a correlating decrease in program related needs increased program costs with a hesitance to increase the price of the Box (less margin) and a greater number of customers requiring subsidy to get the Box). Interviewees suggested in close half of the interviews that many of their customers are becoming less able to afford the Box. 17

# of Responses margin) and a greater number of customers requiring subsidy to get the Box). Interviewees suggested in close half of the interviews that many of their customers are becoming less able to afford the Box. Pressure from the organization that they were working within to move the program into the community (further explained as cuts to staff from the organization due to moves in the organizational mandate away from direct service delivery to a more support to community/community organizations role) o Public Health units were identified as the organizations within which mandate changes were occurring. 3 Top three GFB program challenges identified 25 2 15 1 5 3rd 2nd 1st answered question = 36 18

# of Responses 3.7 PROGRAM EVALUATION Within the questionnaire, information was gathered on programs that have completed evaluations and areas within which evaluation has been completed. Telephone interviews helped to clarify what information was collected through evaluation. Areas that have been evaluated 25 2 15 1 5 answered question = 23 Half of the 36 respondents to this question have evaluated their entire program. Evaluation seems to be largely process and product related with customer satisfaction and preference being the primary reason for enquiry. Evaluation is most often reported as being an informal and ongoing process, often involving verbal feedback from customers and volunteers. Of those respondents who do evaluate their programs fewer than half (9/19) report completing evaluations within the last year. Respondent feedback suggests that GFB programs are beginning to put increased efforts into evaluating their programs in a more formal manner (in part in response to funder reporting requirements). It was suggested by GFB program representatives that having evaluation tools/templates to use or build on for their own programs may increase their capacity to undertake more thorough evaluations. 19

A small number of programs reported completing formal evaluations across varied areas of the their GFB Programs including impact evaluations considering individual changes in behaviours such as consumption of vegetables/fruits and skills development in cooking and food handling (based on participant reporting), and to a lesser degree, changes in participation rates (customer and volunteer). Evaluations considering measured changes in health status of individuals or populations/neighbourhoods as a result of changes in consumption of fresh produce or as a result of changes in social activity were not identified. This said, 58.8% reported evaluating progress towards program goals and objectives. Program evaluations and evaluation processes that were reported include, Halton Fresh Food Box program evaluation framework, customer profile, assessment tools, growers assessment/interview process, program/expansion planning documents that included some evaluation components Centretown CHC nutritional impact/increase in consumption of fresh produce and in process of evaluating barriers to participation for Aboriginal populations, planning document including assessments related to program change (centralized/governance change and program expansion) Georgian GFB consumption of fresh produce/ participant perception/ accessibility and affordability FoodShare GFB population/location/cost and sourcing assessments as part of FoodShare Good Food Program Evaluation Kingston and Area GFB - business planning/program expansion and related program capacity/evaluation/assessment Grey-Bruce GFB Inclusion of local food in GFB program report and associated assessments 4. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS This environmental scan provides a snap shot of GFB program activity at this point in time in Ontario. Similar information gathering across the province does not appear to have taken place within the past 5 years. This initial information gathering exercise identified the scope of GFB activity and provides a portal into the specific learning, practices and innovations that GFB programs have to offer. GFB program representatives expressed enthusiasm towards the continued gathering of program information and a desire to connect with others to discover and share 2

program processes and tools. Interest in strengthening the network of GFB programs, and expanding / enhancing the volume, reach and capacity building opportunities of their programs, was impressive. Opportunities for mutually beneficial funding or collaborative funding strategy development are highly sought out by all GFB programs. GFB Programs in Ontario will benefit from the development of evaluation tools to facilitate the kinds of information gathering and analysis that will showcase the impact of their programs within their communities and will further establish GFB programs as a viable component of a community s comprehensive food security continuum. People who are food insecure eat less fruits, vegetables and dairy products, have low fibre intake, and have increased consumption of energy-dense foods. Being food insecure is a risk factor for diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular diseases. 2 Good Food Box programs provide fresh vegetables and fruits to individuals and families living in Ontario, which in turn affects the bottom line of our health and the health of our children now and in the years to come. 2 Letter to Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Minister of Community and Social Services; Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario; Hon. Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care; Hon. Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance; Members of the Social Assistance Review Advisory Council. March 21. 21