what stands out for participants for 2007-08 · web viewsowing the seeds and nurturing the...

Sowing the Seeds and Nurturing the Growth: Strengthening Capacity for Sustained Action on Food Security Across Alberta

EVALUATION REPORT 2007-08

Tammy HorneWellQuest Consulting Ltd.

(Edmonton)(780) 451-6145

[email protected]

Prepared for Growing Food Security in Alberta and Dietitians of Canada (Alberta)

June 10, 2008

mailto:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7

METHODS.....................................................................................................................................8

KEY LESSONS............................................................................................................................10

DETAILED FINDINGS..............................................................................................................14

WHAT DID GFSA DO IN 2007-08..............................................................................14WHAT STOOD OUT FOR PARTICIPANTS FOR 2007-08........................................14

Workshop Highlights and Proudest Accomplishments for 2007-08......................................15Food Security is an All-Encompassing Issue.........................................................15Addressing Food Security on a Larger Scale.........................................................16Food Security Specific Actions.................................................................................16Building Relationships................................................................................................17Policy Development/Systems Change.....................................................................18Local Leadership Development.................................................................................18

Key Suggestions for Change from 2007-08...........................................................................18Building Relationships................................................................................................18Communication to Participants.................................................................................18Focus on More Than Just One Area of Food Security........................................19Raise Awareness...........................................................................................................19Still in the Planning Stages.........................................................................................19

Summary................................................................................................................................19PARTICIPANTS’ UNDERSTAND CONTINUUM OF WAYS TO INCREASE FOOD SECURITY...............................................................................................................................20

Policy/Systems Change...............................................................................................20Broad Community Engagement................................................................................21Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................22Plan and Organize for Action....................................................................................23

Summary................................................................................................................................24GFSA SEEN AS FOOD SECURITY RESOURCE.........................................................25

Inquiries by Phone.................................................................................................................25Workshop Participants.................................................................................................26Media...............................................................................................................................26Decision Makers............................................................................................................26People Experiencing Food Insecurity......................................................................26Other Organizations or Networks That Address Health Disparity Issues......27

Inquiries by E-mail..............................................................................................................27Website...................................................................................................................................28Listserv...................................................................................................................................28

2

Summary................................................................................................................................28PARTICIPANTS BUILD UPON AND FURTHER DEVELOP THEIR SKILLS.........28

Skills of Participants Prior to the Project.............................................................................29Group Process/Relationships.....................................................................................29Previous Experience Related to Food Security.....................................................29Broad Life Skills/Experiences...................................................................................30Planning Skills...............................................................................................................30Communication Skills.................................................................................................31

Skills Developed through Participation in the 2008 Project.................................................31Awareness Raising.......................................................................................................31Relationship Building..................................................................................................31Program Planning/Facilitation...................................................................................33Further Knowledge Development.............................................................................34Create Interest in Community....................................................................................34

Summary................................................................................................................................35PARTICIPANTS’ PLANS TO GET INVOLVED IN FOOD SECURITY......................36

Roles......................................................................................................................................36Relationship Building..................................................................................................36Action-Specific Roles (Focused on Food Security).............................................37Policy Change................................................................................................................38Unsure of Role...............................................................................................................38

Collaborators.........................................................................................................................38Action Group..................................................................................................................39Broad Community........................................................................................................39Media...............................................................................................................................39Health/Social Agencies...............................................................................................40Education Institutions..................................................................................................40Church Groups...............................................................................................................40Political Level................................................................................................................40Private Sector.................................................................................................................41

Summary................................................................................................................................41COMMUNITY ACTION PLANS..........................................................................................42

Blood First Nation.................................................................................................................42Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................42Being Culturally Relevant..........................................................................................42Promoting Local Food.................................................................................................42Developing Partnerships.............................................................................................42Working with Policy Makers.....................................................................................43Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................43Doing Research.............................................................................................................43Leveraging GFSA Resources.....................................................................................43

3

Brooks....................................................................................................................................44Engaging Community..................................................................................................44Building Relationships................................................................................................44Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................44Promoting Local Food.................................................................................................44Being Culturally Relevant..........................................................................................44Developing Partnerships.............................................................................................45Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................45Creating Policy Resources..........................................................................................45Leveraging GFSA Resources.....................................................................................45

Cold Lake...............................................................................................................................45Engaging Community..................................................................................................45Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................45Building Relationships................................................................................................46Developing Partnerships.............................................................................................46Doing Research.............................................................................................................46Leveraging GFSA Resources.....................................................................................46

Grande Prairie.......................................................................................................................46Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................46Working with Policy Makers.....................................................................................47Engaging Community..................................................................................................47Building Relationships................................................................................................47Leveraging GFSA Resources.....................................................................................47

High Level..............................................................................................................................47Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................47Engaging Community..................................................................................................48Building Relationships................................................................................................48Developing Partnerships.............................................................................................48Working with Policy Makers.....................................................................................48Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................48Leveraging GFSA Resources.....................................................................................49

Lacombe.................................................................................................................................49Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................49Promoting Local Food.................................................................................................49Doing Research.............................................................................................................49Building Relationships................................................................................................50Developing Partnerships.............................................................................................50Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................50Addressing Hunger Relief..........................................................................................50

Medicine Hat.........................................................................................................................50Doing Research.............................................................................................................50

4

Promoting Local Produce...........................................................................................50Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................51Working with Policy Makers.....................................................................................51

Lloydminster..........................................................................................................................51Engaging Community..................................................................................................51Building Relationships................................................................................................51Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................51Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................51

Sylvan Lake............................................................................................................................52Engaging Community..................................................................................................52Building Relationships................................................................................................52Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security..................................52Developing Partnerships.............................................................................................52Raising Awareness.......................................................................................................52

Summary................................................................................................................................52LOCAL FOOD SECURITY PROJECTS HAVE PUBLIC PROFILE...........................53

Present Year Requests...........................................................................................................54Broad Community Groups (Informal).....................................................................54Media...............................................................................................................................54Health/Social Agencies...............................................................................................54Education Institutions..................................................................................................54Church Groups...............................................................................................................55Political Level................................................................................................................55Local Growers/Vendors..............................................................................................55Private Sector.................................................................................................................55

Future Promotional Ideas......................................................................................................55Make Links Between Food Security and Other Issues........................................55Have People Experiencing Food Insecurity as Spokespersons.........................55Develop Additional Promotional Material.............................................................55

Summary................................................................................................................................56PARTICIPANTS COLLABORATE ON ACTIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY................56

Present Collaborations..........................................................................................................56Health/Social Agencies...............................................................................................57Education Institutions..................................................................................................57Nearby Communities...................................................................................................58Church Groups...............................................................................................................58Private Sector.................................................................................................................58

Collaborations Needing Development...................................................................................58Health/Social Agencies...............................................................................................58Education Institutions..................................................................................................59Political Level................................................................................................................59

5

Private Sector.................................................................................................................59Collaboration Challenges......................................................................................................59

Not Recognizing the Importance of Food Security..............................................59Limited Funds................................................................................................................59Recognize Lived Experience with Food Security................................................60Build Relationships Before Focusing on Food Security.....................................60

Summary................................................................................................................................60BROADER COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR LOCAL FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVES............................................................................................................................61DECISION MAKERS ADOPT POLICIES THAT SUPPORT FOOD SECURITY.....61REFLECTIONS ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AND GFSA....61

What Is Going Well................................................................................................................61Suggestions for What Could be Improved.............................................................................61

Permanent Funding.......................................................................................................62Realistic Timelines.......................................................................................................62Provincial Movement...................................................................................................62Connecting in Person...................................................................................................62Addressing Inconsistent Participation.....................................................................62Support with Policy Change Efforts........................................................................62

Summary................................................................................................................................63

6

INTRODUCTION

Growing Food Security in Alberta was launched in 2003, and has been sustained through Dietitians of Canada with funding from Public Health Agency of Canada. The following vision, mission and description of GFSA are taken from www.foodsecurityalberta.ca (with slight adaptation).

Our VisionAll children and families in Alberta have healthy food.

Our MissionEngaging Albertans – groups, organizations, business, governments and individuals - in strategies to ensure secure access to adequate amounts of safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate food for everyone, produced in an environmentally sustainable way and provided in a manner that promotes human dignity (adapted from OPHA Food Security Workgroup 2002).

Description In 2006-2007 GFSA facilitated a process called Community Building for Food Security, to help seven rural communities (a) understand and talk about the social and economic determinants of health, and (b) develop and follow through on action plans to address these issues. The official project name is “Sowing the Seeds from the Provincial Food Security Network – Community Asset Mapping, Capacity Building, and Action Planning for Food Security”. The seven participating communities were High Level (HL), Grande Prairie (GP), Cold Lake (CL), Lacombe (L), the Blood First Nation (BFN), Brooks (B) and Medicine Hat (MH). GFSA assisted these rural Alberta communities to build capacity by facilitating a participatory community-conversation process to help community citizens:

have a mutual understanding of what food security is, address the underlying root causes and the relationship to good health, find local solutions through the identification of resources, local alliances and partnership to

enhance any existing food security initiatives and encourage new initiatives, and to develop plans of action specific to their community.

The Community-Building for Food Security (CBFS) workshops were based on two main resources – Community Capacity Building and Asset Mapping (Community Building Resources, 2005) and Thought About Food: A Workbook on Food Security and Influencing Policy (Food Security Projects of the Nova Scotia Nutrition Council and Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre (2005). The first resource focuses primarily on capacity-building and related issues like how to build relationships and how to identify community assets. The second one emphasizes policy analysis and actions to influence policy – with some emphasis on community capacity-building as well. More information on the content of workshops is available at http://www.foodsecurityalberta.ca/content.asp?catid=36&rootid=3.

Following the workshops, GFSA provided seed funding to each community group to help them develop their action plan. GFSA also assisted these groups through teleconferences, an in-person community facilitators’ meeting, and e-mail and telephone support as needed.

In 2007-08, GFSA supported two new communities to participate in the workshops and develop action plans. The seven communities from 2006-07 were offered a second workshop - Advanced Community-Building for Food Security (CBFS). The aim of the advanced workshops is to assist these communities as they continue to build on and develop their food security efforts while encouraging policy approaches.

7

http://www.foodsecurityalberta.ca/content.asp?catid=36&rootid=3

http://www.foodsecurityalberta.ca/content.asp?contentid=67&catid=2&rootid=2

http://www.foodsecurityalberta.ca/

Because of the very short time frame for 2007-08 (January to March), GFSA focused mainly on workshops. Funding has now been extended through 2008-09, so GFSA will be able to offer ongoing support to both new and advanced communities as needed over the next year.

METHODS

Evaluation was based on a framework developed collectively by GFSA’s Evaluation Committee. This committee includes GFSA staff, Steering Committee members, community facilitators, and the external evaluation consultant. The logic model is on the next page, and the remainder of the framework (indicators and methods) are in Appendix A.

There were four main evaluation methods:

a brief open-ended survey done at the end of each community’s workshop(in February or March); a teleconference with community facilitators in April; examination of each community’s action plans (for 2006-07 communities, ongoing work they

have done since April 2007 was also included); administrative data collected by GFSA throughout the project.

We adapted the survey questionnaire was adapted from one that is included in the Thought About Food workbook (see Appendix B). Questions correspond to evaluation framework indicators. Fifty-seven people completed the post-workshop survey, out of 81 participants, for a response rate of 70%.

As the evaluator, I worked with GFSA staff to develop guiding questions for the teleconference. Content was consistent with the evaluation framework (see Appendix C). Six community facilitators and a research assistant took part in this call, which I facilitated.

Some indicators were revised since 2006-07. For example, instead of focusing on number of individual participants who made particular comments about what they learned in the workshops, we focused on how many communities as a whole made those comments. This better reflected how participants responded last year, when several participants from each community workshop often described factors that were important to their work as part of the group. As well, numbers of participants varied widely across communities and in some communities not all community participants attended both workshop days, making it impossible to accurately compare individual numbers across communities.

Much data analysis for outcomes was qualitative, in order to go into more depth than a simple count of types of comments. Qualitative analysis was done by coding comments into categories, then rolling up related categories into broader themes. Categories evolved throughout the coding process, through use of constant comparison whereby earlier categories are revised as new data is brought into the analysis .1,2 In order to satisfy different readers’ interests in qualitative and quantitative data, this report presents counts as well as themes and related categories. We also included quantitative process indicator data (outputs) collected by GFSA staff.

1 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative analysis: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

2 Bryson, A. (2004). Social research methods. New York, NY: Oxford.

8

“Community-building for Food Security” and “Advanced Community-building for Food Security” Workshops by GFSA Network

Workshop participants understand ways to increase food security across the food security continuum

GFSA is seen as a resource to contact about emerging food security issues by (a) workshop participants, (b) media, (c) decision makers, (d) people experiencing food insecurity, and (e) other organizations or networks that address health disparities issues (e.g., AHLN, ASHEN, APHA)

Workshop participants plan to get involved in community initiatives that contribute to food security

Decision-makers adopt policies that support food security (e.g., local or provincial govt, schools, food producers)

Food security at the community level is increased

Growing Food Security in Alberta – Logic Model for Community Workshop Participants – 2007/08

Workshop participants collaborate with others in their community to take action on food security issues

Food security issues raised by workshop participants or GFSA have a media profile

Activity Short-term Outcome Long-term OutcomeIntermediate OutcomeUltimate Goal

Inputs

Funding, project staff, Steering Committee , Network members, volunteer time, resource materials

Broader community support for local food security initiatives

Media messages about food security by GFSA Network members

Workshop participants develop skills to build upon community capacity for increased food security

Workshop participants develop skills to advocate for policies that contribute to increased food security

VideoWeb site and listservPublic events (e.g., fairs)

Tool Kit

Documents for decision-makersJoint events with compatible org’s (AHLN, ASHEN, APHA)

9

KEY LESSONS

This section contains the conclusions, or key lessons, from the project evaluation. The details of findings related to project outcomes and processes are discussed extensively throughout this report.

The local food security action groups (coalitions, networks, committees)are all involved in multiple actions in their communities. Most of these are focused at the level of capacity-building for food security, such as community kitchens, gardens, good food boxes and farmers’ markets. This is similar to last year’s emphasis. The food security continuum begins with hunger relief (such as food banks), progresses through capacity-building initiatives like the ones above, and then to policy/system change such as in the examples below.

Community action groups are doing more work with policy makers than they were doing a year ago. For example, they are developing municipal food charters, preparing presentations for their local councils, and working with decision makers responsible for regulations related to markets and gardens. Most of the action groups see a need to focus more on policy in the future. Some also pointed out the challenges of policy work. For example, the ‘big picture’ focus is harder for many people to take than more tangible actions like hunger relief and capacity building.

The community action groups have a broad view of food security and its connection to other issues: “I think the thing that caught my attention the most is the number of ways food security affects the population, ie. Transport, money, childcare, knowledge base, cooking skills”.They also believe food security needs to be addressed on a broad scale – using a combination of raising awareness of food security issues, drawing on the strengths of people and organizations in the community to take action, and promoting local food.

Building relationships is highly valued by the action groups. They speak of relationship building as a key to collaborative initiatives and the development of partnerships, as well as essential to community members staying connected beyond their initial engagement with the project. Some communities would like to see an even stronger focus on relationships in future.

The action groups are committed to broad community engagement. This means getting and keeping people involved, and broadening the diversity of who is involved: “Instead of just a few people talking, we need to get as many different people as possible involved and start doing.” There is some overlap between engagement and relationship building, though the latter is more about how people connect with each other once they are involved.

Building awareness is important to the community action groups. They talked about public awareness (through media and public events) as well as awareness for organizations and policy makers.

Community action groups were committed to implementing their action plans, and finding (new) and strengthening (existing) collaborations with whom to work.

GFSA is seen as a resource to many different types of people and organizations, ranging from local, provincial and nationally based groups. There were more media inquiries this year than last year, despite a shorter funding period, suggesting a growing credibility of GFSA as a source of food security expertise. Other types of inquiries (from workshop participants, organizations) were down this year because of the short time lines.

10

Members of the action groups bring a variety of existing skills and experiences to their local. They identified skills in the following areas (examples in parentheses): group process/relationships (making connections), previous experience related to food security (such as cooking, gardening, teaching), broad life skills/experience (volunteering, parenting), planning skills (organizing), and communication skills (writing).

Action group members also identified several types of skills developed through their involvement in the action group (including the Community Building for Food Security workshop). These are: awareness raising, relationship building, program planning/facilitation, own personal capacities for action (including learning that one’s actions make a difference), and further knowledge development (about food security).

Of the skill development themes above, relationship building received the most attention. Action group members referred to developing relationships on a personal level, learning more about their communities through interactions, and keeping people involved over time. They later discussed making their groups broader and more inclusive:“We have lots of new members in our food security group which allows relationships with other/different people in the community. We want to start working with the collective kitchen people. We are trying to reach more people to join the food security group.” Some groups were focusing more specifically on including people who are experiencing food insecurity, and recognized the challenges of doing this.

The relationship building theme included relationships with decision makers as well as with organizations and individuals:“We have further strengthened the advocacy piece to decision makers by having a city councilor on the Choose Well committee. We did this by having conversations with the right people and wrote a letter to the mayor.”

Skill related themes were similar to those that emerged in last year’s evaluation. However, the focus on their own personal capacities and further knowledge development were new this year, and may reflect the further development of action group members as leaders in their communities.

Action group members identified their main roles as building relationships, being involved in food security initiatives, and working toward policy/system change. Roles regarding food security involvement included creating awareness (through both personal interactions and resource materials), leadership (broad and project-specific), participation in events/activities, and making links with other organizations.

The action plans for each of the nine communities have many commonalities. The most common action themes, included by at least half the communities, are: raising awareness, creating capacity building initiatives for food security, building relationships, engaging community, developing partnerships, focusing on policy (includes both working with policy makers and developing policy resources), and leveraging GFSA resources (though seeking additional funding from other sources).

Types of potential collaborators in the local food security projects were numerous and diverse, similar to last year. Most commonly mentioned were broad community, health/social agencies, education institutions, church groups, political level and private sector. Community or collective kitchens is the most common example of actual collaboration so far, involving health/social agencies, education institutions, and/or church groups. Some local action groups have started working with groups who want to do similar work in nearby communities. The groups would

11

likely to build more collaborative links, particularly with policy makers and education institutions.

The most common challenge to collaboration is that not all organizations and decision makers within a community recognize the importance of food security as an issue. Action groups also stressed the need to build relationships before working on specific issues.

Local food security action groups are developing a higher profile among organizations in their communities. They are getting more requests for information and presentations than a year ago. The types of organizations making requests were the same types that are viewed as collaborators by the local groups. There was less media coverage this year than last, likely due to the very short funding period for 2007-08.

The time frame of this evaluation was too short to examine long-term changes in public support for local food security initiatives, or in public or private sector policies.

Community facilitators were generally positive about the support from GFSA, particularly the opportunities to connect with the other community action groups. For suggested improvements, they would like to see more realistic timelines, a provincial food security movement led by GFSA, and more opportunities to connect face-to-face including a provincial food security conference.

Generally, the action groups were more specific this year than last when sharing examples that fit within the themes that came up in this evaluation – such as policy, awareness and partnerships. They focused less on issues this year, and more on concrete actions. The two new communities (Lloydminster and Sylvan Lake) were more specific than the seven original communities were in their early stages, likely because the were able to learn from the experience of those communities over the last year, as well as from GFSA staff who had been working with all the communities.

There were not substantial differences between the new communities and the original ones, except that the new communities were spending more time on planning and had not yet had the opportunity to implement those plans. The new communities were also just beginning their processes or community engagement, relationship building and partnership development. However, most of the themes that emerged over the course of the evaluation were similar for new and original communities.

The logic model for this year’s initiative generally fit. People attended workshops and were able to describe how to work across the food security continuum. They were also able to identify their skills and how they could use those for action, though they focused less on advocacy skills than community capacity building skills. Workshop participants were able to develop an action plan, and were updating it and/or starting to implement it by March 2008 (depending on the timing of their workshop). They were developing collaborative relationships for implementing their action plans, and a few of these were already in place. As noted earlier, there was not enough time to adequately evaluate the long-term outcomes. Because of the compressed timeline, there was little distinction this year between short and intermediate outcomes. There was also no time for GFSA to implement the additional activities in the logical model to reach out to broader audiences beyond workshop participants this year, so requests to GFSA as well as media coverage was down from 2006-07.

Many of the evaluation findings were consistent with the indicators in the evaluation framework. However, some were not. Indicators need to be revisited periodically to ensure that they reflect

12

the types of changes that are important to and feasible for the action groups in their communities. As was the case this year, representatives of the action groups need to be involved in the ongoing evolution of the evaluation framework as this GFSA initiative continues to grow and change over time.

13

DETAILED FINDINGS

What Did GFSA Do in 2007-08

GFSA facilitated six two-day advanced CBFS workshops, with six of the seven original communities. One community declined the advanced CBFS workshop, because this community had previously received a two-day Community Building and Asset Mapping workshop in spring 2006 and has ongoing food security initiatives. Therefore, the GFSA project coordinator and assistant attended one of this community’s meetings to observe progress and provide input and suggestions.

Each community also updated their action plans from 2006-07. These included both the work each community did between April 2007 and January 2008 before GFSA funding was renewed, and their plans to go forward with the new funding in 2008.

Two new rural communities also received an introductory two-day CBFS workshop and developed action plans. They followed the same format as the original seven communities had used in 2006-07.

Workshop participation varied by community and often by day within the same community (see Table 1). However, those who could not attend the whole workshop could still be involved in local food security initiatives. Eighty-one participants in total attended at least part of the workshop.

Table 1. Workshop Participation by Community

Community Both days One day Part of a dayBlood First Nation (Standoff)

4 2 3

Brooks 8Cold Lake 3Grande Prairie 8High Level 6 6Lacombe 7 7Lloydminster 14 2Sylvan Lake 6 3 2

For both new and advanced communities, completion of the workshops was the main focus during the 2007-08 funding period, because of the tight time frame. Communities summarized and updated their action plans at monthly teleconferences with local facilitators in each community. The GFSA website was also updated regularly during 2007-08. This included the addition of the CBFS workshop binders to the website.

What Stood Out for Participants for 2007-08Right after each CBFS workshop, participants in each community were asked what they heard that really caught their attention (in other words, the highlights). This wording was intended as a way of getting at new knowledge without making the survey feel like a “test”. In the follow-up teleconference, community facilitators shared their food security project’s proudest accomplishment was for the 2007-2008 year, as

14

well as the one thing they would change from 2007-08. All three of these questions were designed to bring out what was most ‘top of mind’ for the participants.

There were five main themes around what caught participants’ attention in the workshop:

Food Security is an All-Encompassing Issue Addressing Food Security Issues on a Larger Scale Food Security-Specific Actions Building Relationships Policy Development/Systems Change

Three themes emerged during the follow-up teleconference discussion of each action groups’ proudest accomplishment.

Food Security Specific Actions Building Relationships Local Leadership Development

Five themes were identified for the one thing that communities would change:

Collaboration/Building Relationships Communication with Participants Focus on More Than Just One Area of Food Security Raise Awareness Still in the Planning Stages

The following sections present the above themes and the related categories that make up each theme. Each section also notes whether the theme emerged in the post-workshop survey, the follow-up teleconference, or both. Themes related to suggestions for change, because they have a more critical focus, are presented separately from themes of workshop highlights and proudest accomplishments.

Workshop Highlights and Proudest Accomplishments for 2007-08

Food Security is an All-Encompassing Issue

Post-Workshop Survey

Three categories made up this theme, which was reflected in the survey responses of seven communities. The categories are: Food Security has Relevance for Everyone, Complexity of Food Security and the Need for Action. Six communities made comments reflecting Food Security has Relevance for Everyone; Lloydminster (new) and five advanced communities (Lacombe, Cold Lake, High Level, Brooks, Grande Prairie). Most comments were from High Level and Lloydminster. For example:

“Common issues in all communities and realization that it (food security) affects all people” (LM)

“During the story session, it was apparent that food security/insecurity touches us all a some point in out lives” (L)

15

One new community (Sylvan Lake) and four advanced communities (Lacombe, Grande Prairie, High Level, Cold Lake) offered feedback consistent with Complexity of Food Security. Most comments were from Lacombe and Grande Prairie. An example:

“I think the thing that caught my attention the most is the number of ways food security affects the population, ie. Transport, money, childcare, knowledge base, cooking skills” (CL)

Issues related to Need for Action was mentioned less often and only by the two new communities, with most of the comments coming from Lloydminster. For example:

“The need of CBFS in our community and ways to help” (LM)

“Necessary to address the issue now” (SL)

It is likely that this issue arose for the new communities because they were just beginning to develop their community action plans, whereas the advanced communities were a year into implementing their plans.

Addressing Food Security on a Larger Scale


This theme emerged for seven communities Three categories fell out of this broader theme: Increase Awareness of Food Security, Potential of Community and its Members, and Support for Local Growing.

Increase Awareness of Food Security fit with comments made in three advanced communities (Grande Prairie, Brooks, Blood First Nation) and one new one (Sylvan Lake). These comments were general and focused on raising awareness in the community and educating people on food security issues.

Comments consistent with Potential of Community and its Members arose in two advanced communities (Lacombe, Blood First Nation) and Lloydminster as the new community. Most comments were from Lloydminster. Examples:

“Tap into gifts/talents local folks have and use them” (L)

“The amount of groups/organizations in Lloydminster involved/interested in food security” (LM)

The category Support for Local Growing came up in three advanced communities (Grande Prairie, Brooks, Cold Lake). For example:

“Discussed all of the foods that could be grown/raised in Alberta – very refreshing and encouraging – reminder we do need to support local foods” (B)

Food Security Specific Actions


Food security specific actions were mentioned by seven of the eight communities. There were four categories within this broader theme: Planning/Organizing, Community Gardens, Community Supported Agriculture, and Community/Collective Kitchens. One new community (Lloydminster) and four advanced communities (Lacombe, Blood First Nation, Grande Prairie, High Level) mentioned

16

Planning/Organizing. Comments were general and ranged from the action plan to community committees to partnering.

Community Gardens was mentioned by one new community (Sylvan Lake) and one advanced community (High Level). For example:

“…it takes the whole community to be involved in community gardening to be a success” (HL)

Community Supported Agriculture, and Community/Collective Kitchens were each mentioned by two communities. Sylvan Lake and Grande Prairie mentioned Community Supported Agriculture and Lloydminster and Brooks mentioned Community/Collective Kitchens. An example of a comment for Community/Collective Kitchens is:

“Having a community collective kitchen or cooking class for everyone” (LM)

“The power of the land, buying a little piece of land to have vegetables” (GP)

Follow-up Teleconference

During the follow-up teleconference, one category, Growth and/or Sustainability of Programs from the Previous Year, arose under the broader theme of Food Security Specific Actions. Three advanced communities (Lacombe, High Level, Brooks) offered comments under this category as their proudest accomplishment of 2007-2008. For example:

“The sustainability of monthly suppers. Financially, attendance, committed volunteer base and the community has come to expect and anticipate the dinners.” (L)

“Classroom presentations that aim to introduce gardening to younger children and some community building with the older children. The schools are interested in these presentations again this year.” (HL)

Building Relationships


Five communities reflected this theme, both of the new communities (Lloydminster, Sylvan Lake) and three advanced communities (Lacombe, High Level, Brooks). This theme did not break out into more specific categories. Most comments came from the two new communities. For instance:

“Need to get people talking and connecting” (SL)

“Build community, change our lives” (B)

New communities may have made more comments right after the workshop because they were just beginning to develop relationships around food security.


This theme came up through three of the six communities on the conference call, when communities were asked to identify their proudest accomplishment of 2007-2008. Two categories emerged under this theme:

17

With Community Members and With Partners. Under the theme With Community Members two communities (Lloydminster and Cold Lake) identified that they were building a a wide range of relationships. For instance:

“CBFS meeting and workshop with a wide range of people, even if people were not able to make it to the workshop they still attended the second meeting. There was good attendance for the follow up meeting in general.” (LM)

The second category, With Partners, was reflected by Grande Prairie. Their comments focused on their collaboration with Power of the Land, a group that supports and promotes local farmers. Power of the Land has a presentation, created by local artists, that includes music and a video with a focus on land, farming and where food comes from. The video has been used in Dawson Creek, BC, and has the potential to be used in other communities.

Policy Development/Systems Change

Three communities mentioned policy development right after the workshop: one new community (Sylvan Lake) and two advanced communities (High Level, Brooks). Policy was mentioned in a broad sense by all three communities, so there were no specific categories within this theme. Example comments include:

“Importance of working towards policy” (GP)

“Need to assess key players within the community and get buy-in and build excitement and hopefully work towards a community food policy” (HL)

Local Leadership Development


This was mentioned by Lloydminster, a new community. The comment acknowledged the fact that people in the action group are feeling that they can take a leadership role and everyone is feeling ownership of the group.

Key Suggestions for Change from 2007-08


Within this theme, there were comments from Lloydminster and Grande Prairie. The fact that relationship building was mentioned as both a proudest accomplishment and a suggested key change shows the importance of relationships for influencing food security. These communities also recognized how difficult and time consuming it can be to get and keep people involved. For example:

“Keeping people consistently at the table. People change position and move on; they should stay in the loop of food security.” (GP)

Communication to Participants

18

Lloydminster mentioned this theme, and focused on the importance of registering participants in the workshop and making sure that all workshop participants have the correct address to ensure attendance. (This had been an issue with their CBFS workshop.)

Focus on More Than Just One Area of Food Security

Two communities offered comments that fit with this theme, High Level and Brooks:

“Working towards moving beyond the community garden. I.e. a collective kitchen.” (HL)

”Expand the scope. Be sustainable and focus on determinants of health. Expand focus to more than just food security, think about interacting issues.” (B)

Raise Awareness

Lacombe mentioned this theme. The teleconference participant person spoke of how they initially worked solely on their action plan, but now they want to build public awareness. Because of the action plan, they now have something to promote.

Still in the Planning Stages

This theme involved one comment from Cold Lake. Because they are still in the planning stages, their teleconference participant did not have specific suggestions for change.

Summary

The themes discussed above reflect the complexity of food security and the need for a comprehensive approach (awareness, collaboration, action across a range of initiatives). Comments reflected primarily the capacity level of the food security continuum, but some spoke to hunger relief and policy as well.

Table 1 shows the themes mentioned most often by communities, both right after the workshop and during the follow-up teleconference. Overall, a higher proportion of the communities raised a particular theme post-workshop, and fewer did so during the teleconference. However, this is likely because the teleconference discussion of what stood out asked each community for one accomplishment and one suggested change, while there were no limits on reporting what stood out from the workshop. Only themes mentioned by more than once community are included in the table.

Food Security is an All Encompassing Issue, Addressing Food Security Issues on a Larger Scale and Food Security Specific Actions came up the most in the post-workshop survey, with only one community not mentioning each theme. Two themes, concerning actions and relationships, from the follow-up teleconference were consistent with those workshop themes. Table 2 shows the most common themes from the post-workshop evaluation and the follow-up teleconference.3

Table 2. Top Themes Mentioned by Communities Regarding What Stood Out: After Workshop and Follow-Up TeleconferenceRight After Workshop Number of Follow Up Number of

3 Only themes that emerged for at least half the communities are counted as common themes.

19

Communities Teleconference CommunitiesFood Security is an All Encompassing Issue

7/8 Food Security Specific Actions

3/6

Addressing Food Security Issues on a Larger Scale

7/8 Building Relationships(mentioned as both an accomplishment and a suggestion for change)

3

Food Security Specific Actions

7/8

Building Relationships 5/8

Within the themes and related categories, communities mentioned a variety of initiatives (such as community gardens). Each community has its own focus and not all communities are doing or planning all types of food security initiatives.

The post-workshop and follow-up teleconference questions about what stood out were broad and not tied to any specific indicators in the evaluation framework. Nevertheless, some of the themes that emerged were consistent with indicators for outcomes ST1 (understanding of food security continuum), I1 (relationship-building skills) and I3 (plans for action on food security) in the logic model. These and other more specific outcomes and indicators will be addressed in the remaining sections of this report.

Participants’ Understand Continuum of Ways to Increase Food Security

Immediately post-workshop, participants responded to a survey question concerning what needs to happen next in their community to address food security. During the follow-up teleconference, community facilitators discussed their satisfaction with their action group’s work along the food security continuum – from relief of hunger through community capacity building through policy/system redesign – as well as what other work they want their group to do. These questions address outcome ST1, regarding participants’ understanding of was to increase food security.

Four main themes emerged from analysis of comments that participants shared right after the workshop and in the follow-up teleconference:

Policy/Systems Change Broad Community Engagement Raising Awareness Plan and Organize for Action

Policy/Systems Change


Six of the eight communities shared responses that reflected this theme, which was comprised of three categories: General Policy Concerns, Food-specific Policy and Connections of Food Policy and Other Sectors. Under General Policy Concerns, two advanced communities (Grande Prairie, Brooks) and one

20

new community (Sylvan Lake) had comments. These were mainly about policy change and need for policy-related knowledge. One community made a link between the capacity building and policy levels:

“Capacity building is needed to drive policy development, once this is defined by the community” (SL)

Comments reflecting Food-specific Policy came from Sylvan Lake and three advanced communities (Brooks, Grande Prairie, Blood First Nation). Focus varied from policy about availability of local food to addressing municipal governments. For example:

“Policy/system change – city-wide policies (or organizational policies) that mandate use and availability of healthy and local foods” (B)

“Research into regulations around food gatherings” (HL)

Cold Lake offered comments reflecting Connections of Food Policy and Other Sectors. They mentioned the issues of social assistance, transportation and childcare as interconnected with food, and also noted the role of schools in food-related policy.

Follow-Up Teleconference

During the follow-up teleconference, this theme came up for four of the six communities on the call. Two categories make up the overall theme: Challenges of Working on Policy Change and Food Charters. There were comments from three communities regarding Challenges of Working on Policy Change. Because of the potentially sensitive nature of some comments within these categories, quotes do not identify communities. Examples:

“Policy change is challenging because getting started is difficult and narrowing down a specific policy to focus on. We need the courage to approach the policy side.”

“Policy change is the most difficult because people need to think differently. Teaching people to cook is a tangible action; policy change requires strategic thinking and needs people who are interested in policy. The group wants to keep the current actions happening, and cannot focus on the big picture. We have no plans to change direction at this time. When doing a different action, a whole different volunteer base needs to be mobilized.”

Two communities discussed Food Charters. Policy actions here were more specific and included:

“Our focus on policy is through a presentation to (municipal) council. We want to develop a food charter that would address issues such as putting healthy food choices in vending machines in (municipally) run facilities. We need to educate and build awareness in (municipal) council because there are a lot of nay-sayers.”

“(Our community) is ready to move towards healthy policy, with a broad policy statement and working with one agency at a time and developing a Food Charter.”

Broad Community Engagement


Three categories made up this broad theme, reflected by seven of eight communities. They were: Recruit More People to the Food Security Group, Encourage General Engagement and Find Specific Ways for People to Engage.

21

Four communities mentioned recruiting more people: Grande Prairie, Blood First Nation, Lacombe and Cold Lake. Comments included getting more volunteers, attracting more members to their local food security committee, and having a committee that represents all aspects of their area.

Under Encourage General Engagement comments focused on keeping connections that have already been developed, having community gatherings and connecting with the community to get more people involved. Five communities had comments under this category (Sylvan Lake, Grande Prairie, High Level, Blood First Nation, Cold Lake). High Level made most of the general comments. There were also more specific examples:

“Work and fun changes peoples minds, making them more open for changes” (BFN)

“Instead of just a few people talking, we need to get as many different people as possible involved and start doing” (CL)

Four communities offered responses reflecting the category Find Specific Ways for People to Engage (Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Lacombe, Grande Prairie). Examples include:

“We need to broaden the circle further and include others participation in all aspects of the initiative, the most help is needed at the suppers” (L)

Purchases need to be done to support local area farmers and province (GP)

Bring people together and asking to use our health center kitchen or whenever, empower them to become involved (SL)


During the follow-up teleconference, Lloydminster shared a comment reflecting Encourage General Engagement. Their community facilitator on the call mentioned wanting to stay in the relationship building stage as their food security group starts to work together.

Raising Awareness


This broad theme was reflected by all eight communities that had workshops. It is made up of two categories, General Need for Awareness and Awareness Raising Strategies. Under General Need for Awareness, there were comments from six communities (Lacombe, Cold Lake, Grande Prairie, High Level, Lloydminster, Sylvan Lake). These focused broadly on creating awareness and getting the word out to the community.

Under Awareness Raising Strategies, comments were more specific and diverse. Suggestions came from four communities (Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Lacombe, Blood First Nation). Examples include:

“Email/memo/letter with information/contact lists about these issues from the workshop and future events/info” (LM)

“We needed to get the message out there about food insecurity and how it affects all of us. We need to have examples of how we can provide better food security for all” (BFN)

“Greater communication through radio, priest, work of mouth” (L)

22


One community (Grande Prairie) offered a comment that fit within the broad theme of Raising Awareness. The community facilitator on the call said the group has gone through capacity building and that they now they want to get the word out and build awareness.

Plan and Organize for Action


Four categories fit within this broader theme, as mentioned by six of the eight communties: Community Action Plans, Establish Partnerships for Action, More Workshops and Initiatives to Share Food Production/Preparation. Under Community Action Plans, comments were mainly from the two new communities (Lloydminster, Sylvan Lake), and one was from Cold Lake. It is not surprising that the new communities would be most likely to mention their action plans post-workshop, they had just developed them and plan to implement them soon. In contrast, the advanced communities had been working on and adapting their plans for over a year.

Within the category Establish Partnerships for Action, Lloydminster shared the majority of comments, referring to specific partners with whom they would talk. Blood First Nation and High Level made more general remarks about partnerships. For example:

“Offer our action plan to several business/agencies (Chamber of Commerce)” (LM)

“Talk to key stakeholders and invite them to the table” (BFN)

“Find willing partners to help share this info with others, build a team” (HL)

The More Workshops category contained responses from Lloydminster, Blood First Nation and High Level. Comments included references to free nutrition workshops, skill developing workshops, and general education/workshops in the community.

The final category is Initiatives to Share Food Production/Preparation. Five communities mentioned such initiatives (Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Lacombe, High Level, Cold Lake). These included collective kitchens, community gardens and other food security actions. Some examples:

“More community kitchens, soup kitchens, educating young mothers on how important it is” (LM)

“Become active in our plans, i.e. Good Food Box, Little Green Thumbs, mentoring” (CL)


Lloydminster and Cold Lake mentioned partnerships (Establish Partnerships for Action). For example, Cold Lake specifically mentioned the Native Friendship Center and the local food bank. Lloydminster shared more general comments about wanting to collaborate with community groups.

When we asked communities how satisfied they were with where their action group’s projects are working on the food security continuum, an additional category emerged --Community Action Plans

23

Mostly Capacity-Focused. Five of the six communities participating in the teleconference shared comments reflecting this category: Lloydminster, Cold Lake, Lacombe, Brooks and High Level. Examples include:

“We are satisfied with the community capacity building programs we are working on, as we are a culturally diverse group.” (B)

“Focused on community capacity building with the community garden and collective kitchen plans.” (HL)

This finding fits with the earlier discussion of the challenges of policy work and the successes communities are having at the capacity level of the continuum. There is also some attention to hunger relief as well, though that appears to be integrated with a broader capacity focus (e.g., dinners, kitchens, gardens).

Summary

Participants’ understanding of ways to increase food security focused mainly on capacity building, including specific examples of initiatives. Some of the capacity building activities also overlapped with hunger relief. For example, community dinners fed people while also providing those involved with further skill-building opportunities (e.g., organizing, food preparation).

There was more focus on policy/systems change in 2008, with food charters being the most common example. However, communities were finding it challenging to move beyond capacity building to focus on policy change.

In general, the 2008 themes were similar to those from 2007.4 However, the participants were able to discuss issues related to each theme in more depth this year. For the advanced communities, participants could reflect on what they had already done as part of their discussion of what needs to happen to move forward. Examples of policy work and awareness activities were more specific this year. There was more focus on partnerships rather than relationships in general, and less focus on identifying food security issues (likely because the latter was done over the previous year).

The two new communities were at a more advanced level of being able to propose specific solutions than the seven advanced communities were when they started in 2007 (especially evident from the evaluation teleconference discussion). This is likely a function of GFSA staff being able to share success stories/actions of the advanced communities when doing workshops in the new communities, as well as the new communities’ participation in teleconferences with the advanced communities. Overall, there was more of a balance of general process issues with specific food security content, whereas in 2007 the comments were more general process-oriented. There was also more spontaneous mention of the GFSA workshops and resulting action plans this year.

Table 3 shows most commonly mentioned themes right after the workshop and during the follow-up teleconference. (Themes are only listed as common if more than one community made comments reflecting them.)

4 There were some variations in the wording of similar themes from the two years. This is in part a result of the inductive coding method and constant comparative process being done independently in each year (i.e., rather than simply using 2007 codes as a template for 2008 data analysis). Because participant comments were not identical each year, slightly different labels seemed to better fit each set of comments each year. As well, there were two coders in 2008 and only one in 2007 (though one of the coder was involved both years). The interplay between coders may have led to some different label preferences than had a single coder worked alone in both years.

24

Table 3. Top Themes Mentioned by Communities for Understanding Ways to Increase Food Security: Workshop and Follow-Up Teleconference

Right after Workshop Number of Communities

Follow Up Teleconference

Number of Communities

Raising Awareness 8/8 Plan and Organize for Action

5/6

Building Community Engagement

7/8 Policy/System Change 4/6

Policy/System Change 6/8Plan and Organize for Action

6/8

During the follow-up teleconference, the communities were able to expand the reasons why policy change is challenging and addressed some solutions. Communities also mentioned that they are satisfied where their local group is working on the food security continuum. They are aware that community capacity building is not the end of the continuum and do want to focus on policy, but need time and interested individuals to make that happen.

In the evaluation framework, the indicators for the outcome of understanding ways to increase food security (ST1) were the number of community groups that identified each level of the food security continuum, and shared examples of each. Participants went beyond just explaining these levels to sharing examples of actions in their own communities. These actions assume understanding of the three levels.

Three communities gave specific examples of hunger relief (e.g., dinners, soup kitchens). All eight communities shared community capacity initiatives they were either doing or planning (e.g., gardens, kitchens). Six communities mentioned policy changes. However, communities were just starting to move into policy work. They were in the planning stages (e.g., food charters) or intending to communicate with decision-makers around policy concerns (e.g., local governments). Given the complexity of policy change, it is important to recognize these small steps as successes. It is more difficult to change policies than it is to offer hunger relief or build community capacity for food security, as policy decisions are influenced by many ‘players’ beyond the local food security coaltions/networks.

GFSA Seen as Food Security Resource

GFSA promotes itself as a source of expertise on food security issues, and responds to requests for food security information, workshops, and involvement as a representative to other food security initiatives. GFSA also has a website for both its members and the broader community. The GFSA staff kept track of data related to who contacted them between January 1 and March 31, 2008. This is related to outcome ST2 in the evaluation framework. In the sections below, data are classified by type of person who made contact:

Workshop Participants Media Decision Makers People Experiencing Food Insecurity Other Organizations or Networks that Address Health Disparity

25

Inquiries by Phone

Workshop Participants

There were two inquiries from participants who had previously attended a workshop in their community. Inquiries were from participants in the Blood First Nation and High Level. Both were made in April-June, 2007, regarding the rural secretariat application. In 2006-07, there were 45 inquiries from workshop participants. These higher numbers that year were likely a function of there being seven new communities (compared to two in 2007-08, who could learn from the other seven), plus the abbreviated funding period this year.

Media

There were six inquiries from members of the media in 2007-08, compared to one in 2006-07. These were requests for information to include in articles in See Magazine, the Calgary Herald, Alberta Views and CJSR Radio.

Decision Makers

GFSA was contacted by five decision makers or groups representing decision makers in 2007-08.5 (In this context, the term “decision makers” refers to various levels of government, as well as health regions and other bodies with which GFSA may work for policy change.) These include Alberta Health and Wellness, with a request for GFSA to have a display at their Alberta Social Forum in February 2008. The Capital Health Region HIV/AIDS department contacted GFSA in April 2007 for information on local food and where to get it. A University of Alberta researcher invited GFSA to attend a local food systems meeting in March 2008. GFSA is also involved in a university research project on the link between policy and capacity building for food security. The Aspen Health Region requested a presentation by GFSA in October 2007. A representative from the Stony Plain Multicultural Centre wanted to connect with GFSA, this individual was also running for town council, in August 2007.

Note that three of these inquiries was for GFSA to be involved in a presentation or meeting hosted by the decision makers.

In 2006-07, there were eight decision maker inquiries, four each for general information and to be involved in consultations and meetings.

Overall, it is difficult to split out information inquiries from requests for more ‘hands on’ involvement, as some inquiries could be for both.

People Experiencing Food Insecurity

There was no direct contact from individuals experiencing food insecurity. However, GFSA did have requests from organizations that work with such people, as discussed in the next section. In

5 Most of these were during the funding period between January and March 2008, though any earlier requests that were documented are also included.

26

2006-07, there were seven direct contacts from people experiencing food insecurity, with six requesting GFSA’s DVD.

Other Organizations or Networks That Address Health Disparity Issues

There were seven inquires from a variety of organizations that address health disparities. These included the Alberta Social Health Equities Network, a University of Alberta professor, Epicurean, First Nation and Inuit Health department in Health Canada and the Alberta Community Economic Development Network Cooperative. The content ranged from requests for CBFS Workshops, presentations, funding and a GFSA representative for sub-committees. These requests were received between January and March 2008.

GFSA received inquires from Alberta organizations that work directly with food insecure individuals. These were Parkland Food Network and Sylvan Lake Family and Community Support Services. These inquires included looking for connections to GFSA and requesting a workshop.

GFSA also had requests from other food security networks in Canada, including the Nova Scotia Nutrition Council and Food Secure Canada. For example, Food Secure Canada asked to have a GFSA representative on their steering committee.

Overall, most of the above organizations wanted GFSA involved in some “hands on” role – such as workshops, presentations, and/or meetings. Some of these also wanted general information about GFSA at the same time.

In 2006-07, there were 15 inquiries from diverse organizations for information, and five requests for involvement in consultations and meetings and (in one case, a research project). The number of inquiries and invitations are down somewhat for 2007-08, likely due to the abbreviated funding period and the fact that GFSA responded to last year’s requests for involvement and is still involved in those same initiatives. Therefore, there have been fewer inquiries about new resources and opportunities in 2007-08.

As with decision-makers, it is difficult to split out information inquiries from requests for more ‘hands on’ involvement from other organizations/networks, as some inquiries could be for both.

Inquiries by E-mail

From January through March 2008, GFSA received 13 emails at the [email protected] email account. Five were direct inquiries with information being requested regarding nutrition in a social service agency, the CBFS workshop participation requirements, community kitchen setup, CBFS initiative in general and GFSA employment opportunities. Two emails were sharing information with GFSA such as a funding opportunity and a meeting invitation. Two others were about surveys, results and an invitation to participate. One email was inviting GFSA to be listed on a resource list. Another one was providing a correction on the GFSA website. Two emails were unrelated to what GFSA does. In general, the e-mail inquiries were more focused on information gathering or sharing, compared to the more ‘hands on’ requests to GFSA that came by phone (though two of the e-mail inquiries were invitations for GFSA involvement).

E-mail inquiries were much higher in 2006-07, when there were 57 messages. The decrease in 2007-08 was likely due to the short funding period, as well as a lower need for information if people had most of their information needs address in 2006-07. For e-mail inquiries, it was not possible to subdivide the

27

mailto:[email protected]

requests into the same categories as for phone inquiries. This was because people do not always identify the type of organization they are from.

Website

There were 14, 305 sessions on the GFSA website between January and March 2008, for an average of 157 sessions per day. A session is initiated when a visitor arrives at the site and ends when the browser is closed or there is a period of inactivity. The calendar and site map were the most requested pages on the website with 55% and 22% of the page views, respectively. “Your Local Food Connections” received 1239 page views between January and March 2008. This is 2.5% of the total page views. The items downloaded from the website most often were the Dietitians of Canada Position Paper on Food Security 2007 (16%), “Your Local Food Connections” (11%) and Cost of Eating in Alberta (5%). In the same time period, GFSA had 19 new participants join the network, seven of which were from outside Alberta.

Listserv

Between January and March 2008, there were 23 new postings on the GFSA Listserv. Of these, 18 were information sharing, three shared job opportunities, one was an inquiry seeking to connect with others regarding a new idea and one posting shared a funding opportunity. From these postings, three inquires came to GFSA staff: one was looking for a specific source, one was looking for more information on a presentation that was posted and one was looking for more information regarding a funding opportunity.

Summary

GFSA is seen as a resource to many different types of people and organizations, ranging from local, provincial and nationally based groups. There were more media inquiries this year. Media coverage is positive for continuing to build GFSA’s public profile and credibility. These contacts were in Edmonton and Calgary. In the rural areas, media are more likely to contact the local community food security coalitions/networks. (This local media contact will be discussed later under community action plans.)

Numbers of inquiries from workshop participants and were lower for 2008 than for 2007, particularly from workshop participants and other agencies/networks that address health disparities. This is most likely due to the fact that GFSA was without funding from April through December 2007 and the local community food security networks and other agencies/networks were aware of that. Also, many 2007 inquiries were for specific food security resources, in particular a DVD. These resources were distributed in 2007, so there were no 2008 inquiries for these.

The statistics in the above sections generally fit with the indicators that correspond to outcome ST2 in the evaluation framework. However, the first indicator (# and types* of think tanks, government consults, and school boards/trustee meetings to which GFSA is invited) appears to be too specific to capture the types of invitations GFSA receives from decision makers. In future it may be more feasible to have an indicator specific to involvement with decision makers that does not define such specific channels of involvement. Also, GFSA staff have found that it is not possible in many cases to classify e-mail inquiries by source, as people do not always identify their organization. Given the use of the GFSA listserv to gather and share information, it would also be useful to add an indicator specific to listserv participation.

28

Participants Build Upon and Further Develop Their Skills

Immediately after the workshop, participants identified skills from their past experiences that they could bring to their role in their community action plans. They also identified any new skills they learned at the workshop that they could bring to their role. While the post-workshop questions focused on skills of individual participants, the follow-up teleconference with community facilitators addressed capacities of the local action groups (food security coalitions/network). We asked facilitators in what ways (if any) the capacities reported in the 2006-07 evaluation have been strengthened by their local action group, and if there were other types of capacities that still need to be developed in the communities. For the new community facilitator on the call, examples were relevant to capacities that have been developing since the workshop. The workshop questions were designed to bring out discussion of a range of skills important to participants, without being ‘leading’ and directing people to focus on some types of skills over others. The follow-up teleconference was more specific as we referred back to skills reported in 2006-07 and discussed further development of these. However, this discussion was also open to other types of skills, including ones that were still needed. These questions fit with Outcomes I1 (skills for building on community capacity) and I2 (skills for advocacy) in the evaluation framework.

Skills of Participants Prior to the Project

The themes that emerged for skills from participants’ past experiences, prior to their workshop participation, are:

Group Process/Relationships Previous Experience Related to Food Security Broad Life Skills/Experience Planning Skills Communication Skills

Some of their prior experiences were related to their local action group work (for the advanced communities) and some was longer-term experience beyond GFSA involvement.

Group Process/Relationships

Post-workshop Survey

Six of the eight communities that had workshops mentioned this theme. These were new community Lloydminster and advanced communities Lacombe, Cold Lake, Grande Prairie, High Level and Brooks Interestingly, Lloydminster offered more comments than any of the advanced communities, perhaps because they were just starting out and had to draw from their existing skills more than new ones at this point. Some example comments:

“I have links with local food producers, I like to have fun and make new connections with people” (LM)

“I have already existing community connections” (GP)

29

Previous Experience Related to Food Security


All eight communities shared responses reflecting this broad theme. Three categories emerged:

Work with Local Action Group Other Formal Experiences Life Skills

In Work with Local Action Group, the only comments were from two advanced communities, Lacombe and Blood First Nation. This is expected, as new communities’ local action groups had just developed the day of the workshop. For instance:

“Have gone a long way from when we began; still have a lot ahead of us (planning and patience)” (BFN)

“Work with (community facilitator) and her group of volunteers (L)”

In the category Other Formal Experiences, there were comments from five communities. Sylvan Lake (new), plus the advanced communities of Cold Lake, Grande Prairie, High Level and Brooks. The focus was on formal education training and experience outside the local food security group. Some examples:

“Have toolkits that could help the gardens” (SL)

“As an RN – The health aspect, prevention for chronic diseases” (B)

“Teach food safety, have done lots of canning, know how to prepare safe and nutritious food inexpensively – I am by diploma a ‘Food Science Administrator’ (HL)”

In the last category Life Skills, there were comments from both the new communities (Lloydminster and Sylvan Lake) and two of the advanced communities (High Level and Brooks). Most of the life skills comments were from Lloydminster. Examples are:

“Living on a farm, working in a garden; I could assist in helping in the garden” (SL)

“Being a mother, gardener, cook, farmer, knowing customer service, being persistent!” (LM)

“Experience living in involved communities, passion for healthy foods (HL)”

Broad Life Skills/Experiences


Five communities had comments under this theme: Lloydminster, Grande Prairie, Brooks, Lacombe and Cold Lake. Comments were varied but general and included previous involvement in community associations, volunteering and parenting.

30

Planning Skills


Five of the eight communities had comments here: Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, High Level, Lacombe and Grande Prairie. Comments were general and focused mainly on planning events, organizing and using resources.

Communication Skills


This theme included comments only from two advanced communities (Blood First Nation and Brooks). These broad comments focused on writing, research and teaching skills.

Skills Developed through Participation in the 2008 Project

The main themes reflecting new skills that participants learned through their participation (either in the workshop or their experience with their action group since the workshop) are:

Awareness Raising Relationship Building Program Planning/Facilitation Own Personal Capacities for Action Further Knowledge Development

Awareness Raising


This theme had comments from three communities: Sylvan Lake, High Level and Blood First Nation. Comments were general concerning promotion and telling others about food security issues.

Relationship Building


Three categories emerged within this broader theme, reflected by six of eight communities:

Connecting with Others Who Share Food Security Interest Learning the Needs/Wants of the Community Maintaining Connections Over Time

Under Connecting with Others Who Share Food Security Interest there were comments from five communities: Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Grande Prairie, Lacombe, and High Level. For example:

“How to connect with people on a personal basis” (HL)

31

“People who I could contact or build a professional relationship with that could contribute positively to all the effects we talked about during the workshop” (LM)

The two new communities (Sylvan Lake and Lloydminster) as well as Lacombe shared responses related to Learning the Needs/Wants of the Community. Comments were broad, about asking questions, identifying gifts/talents, and sharing ideas. This is especially important for the two new communities as they lay groundwork for further action. However, some advanced communities (in this case, Lacombe) may revisit this learning as they build upon their past work.

In the category, Maintaining Connections Over Time, there were comments from two communities (Cold Lake and High Level). Neither of the two new communities did not have any comments here, as they were just starting to make these connections around food security. An example comment:

“How to keep bringing people together to work on a common goal” (CL)


The relationship building theme also emerged strongly during the follow-up teleconference, as a capacity further strengthened in their action groups. All six communities on the call raised issues that reflected this theme, which consisted of five categories:

Connecting with Others Who Share Food Security Interest – Broadening the Circle Including People Who Are Experiencing Food Insecurity Being Inclusive and Welcoming of People Experiencing Food Insecurity Relationships with Decision Makers Enhancing Connections Over Time

The category Connecting with Others Who Share Food Security Interest – Broadening the Circle was mentioned by four communities: Lloydminster, Lacombe, Cold Lake and Grande Prairie. Comments included:

“We started a food buying club which reaches a different group of people, such as day home providers and families with lots of children.” (L)

“We have lots of new members in our food security group which allows relationships with other/different people in the community. We want to start working with the collective kitchen people. We are trying to reach more people to join the food security group.” (CL)

“Building relationships, we have new people at the table.” (GP)

As mentioned earlier, facilitators from new communities could discuss building on capacities following the 2007-08 workshop, as they began their action plan work. This quote from Lloydminster illustrates not only relationship building both during and after their workshop, but also shows their capacity to find language that includes people not yet familiar with food security terminology:

“We have focused on building relationships, with the 2 day workshop and the follow up meeting. Our group’s name is ‘Beyond Borders Food Connections’ because no one ‘got’ food security. No one had an agenda, so sharing creative ideas and energy was easy (LM)”

There was one response from High Level about Including People Who Are Experiencing Food Insecurity. This comment focused on the difficulty in building relationships with people experiencing food insecurity and other “hard to reach” people who are not always at events.

32

A related category, which came up during discussion of future capacities needed, was Being Inclusive and Welcoming of People Experiencing Food Insecurity. Four communities offered comments and suggestions here. These quotes are presented anonymously because some are of a sensitive nature.

“With the very diverse group of people that were at the CBFS workshop (people experiencing food insecurity, agency professionals, etc) during the brainstorming the people experiencing food insecurity were not confident and were often shut down by the professionals, they often did not see why the people experiencing food insecurity were at the table. How can we address this in the future?”

“It is hard to keep people experiencing food insecurity at the table; they often leave by their own accord. They live this on a daily basis, and do not want to talk about it.”

“We invite people who are experiencing food insecurity at our suppers to other food security activities; some of them have taken on the role of setting up before the suppers”

“At our CBFS, there was an individual there who is experiencing food insecurity and she really opened up and enjoyed her time. These people need to feel comfortable, with a non-meeting atmosphere and laid back approach. It is hard sharing your personal life with people you are not comfortable with.”

Brooks was the only community sharing comments in both Relationships with Decision Makers and Enhancing Connections Over Time. The comment in Relationships with Decision Makers was:

“We have further strengthened the advocacy piece to decision makers by having a city councilor on the Choose Well committee. We did this by having conversations with the right people and wrote a letter to the mayor.” (B)

This quote shows a connection between capacity building and advocacy at the policy level.

Brooks’ comment under Enhancing Connections Over Time focused on the members of the action group gaining confidence in their knowledge of food security and being able to talk about food security confidently and knowing where they fit in the group.

Program Planning/Facilitation


Five of the eight communities had responses reflecting this theme. These were Lloydminster, Lacombe, Cold Lake, High Level and Grande Prairie. Most comments were from High Level and Lloydminster. The focus was on facilitation strategies that were used during the CBFS workshop and how participants can use them in their community. For instance:

“Reminded to talk to people before planning” (HL)

“Action plan, task and goals on how to get people involved in community gardening” (HL)

“Ways to keep participants interested” (LM)

“Use of creativity and story telling” (GP)

33

Own Personal Capacities for Action


Two categories emerged within this broader theme:

Food Security-related Recognition of Broader Capacity to Make a Difference

Under Food Security-related, there were comments from three communities: Lloydminster, Grande Prairie and Blood First Nation Examples:

“Buying from the farmers market” (GP)

“I learned today the skills to help the community and grow our garden” (BFN)

In the category Recognition of Broader Capacity to Make a Difference, there were comments from two advanced communities (Grande Prairie and Blood First Nation). For instance:

“More the reminder that positive actions can be achieved through individuals affecting those within their realm of influence” (BFN)

I am a doer, hands on (GP)

Further Knowledge Development


Within this overall theme, reflected in the comments of six of the communities, there were two categories:

More Knowledge of Community More Knowledge of Food Security

Under More Knowledge of Community there were comments about knowledge gained about types of programs available in the community, from Sylvan Lake and Cold Lake. An example is:

“Learned more about the community in general, what agencies are providing, how agencies/people can work with (and help) each other” (CL)

Five of the eight communities had comments related to More Knowledge of Food Security. These came from Lloydminster, Cold Lake, Grande Prairie, High Level and Blood First Nation. Most responses were from High Level and Blood First Nation. Comments ranged from understanding of what food security is, to whom it affects and the need for action. Some example comments are:

“Gained a new perspective on the issue of food security and how it affects everyone” (HL)

“The ideas of CBFS and how important it is for every community to get involved and helping everyone get involved in the action plan” (LM)

“Understanding all the aspects/people/organizations associated with food security” (GP)

34

“When sharing about Good Food Box, be prepared and know more about the overall organization (Food Coalition) so people will understand it’s not a one person mission (BFN)”

Create Interest in Community


This additional theme emerged from the follow-up discussion. Lacombe had the only comment here, and it focused mainly on building an identity in the community and creating interest around Back Yard Friends.

Summary

Participants were able to identify personal capacities that they had coming into the workshop, and were how those would help them with their role in their action group. Some examples were prior experiences with relationship building and experiences related to food security (e.g., gardening, cooking). Capacities participants developed through the workshop were based on the key lessons of the workshop. These included relationship building, knowledge development (including a further understanding of food security), and planning and facilitation skills. Table 4 summarizes the number of communities that commented on capacity development both post-workshop and during the follow-up teleconference. There are fewer capacities discussed under the teleconference because community facilitators were more likely to tie these directly into actions, roles and collaborations, which will be discussed later.

Table 4. Top Themes Mentioned by Communities for Capacities: Workshop and Follow-Up Teleconference

Right after Workshop Number of Communities Follow Up Teleconference Number of

CommunitiesPrior Capacities Brought into

Project N/A

Previous Experience Related to Food Security

8/8

Group Process/Relationships 6/8Broad Life Skills/Experience 5/8Planning Skills 5/8Capacities Developed Through

ProjectRelationship Building 6/8 Relationship Building 6/6Further Knowledge Development 6/8Program Planning/Facilitation 5/8

Themes concerning past skills were similar in 2007-08 than in 2006-07. However, this year’s participants did not mention their own experience with food insecurity, as four out of six of last year’s communities did. As well, participants did not mention prior policy-related skills, as two communities mentioned in general terms in 2006-07. However, these differences may be due to differences in the individuals who attended the workshops each year.

35

Themes for skills developed through the project from 2007-08 were similar to those from 2006-07. However, this year’s participants also focused in their own personal capacities and further knowledge development. This may be because many of them were recognizing the value of ongoing development of themselves as leaders and members of action groups, and making a connection between their own capacity development and enhanced community capacity. This would be worth exploring in more depth in future evaluations.

When comparing the above findings to the indicators for Outcomes I1 and I2, there was a good fit for the I1 indicators corresponding to developing skills that build upon community capacity. The types of skills emphasized the most were relationship building among people with food security interests and planning local initiatives -- two of the examples included in the indicator. Communication skills (another example in the indicator) were also mentioned, though to a lesser extent. And additional skills not explicit in the examples for the indicator (but relevant to it) were included in the content of the responses participants shared.

The fit between the findings and the I2 indicators was not strong, as participants did not mention decision makers when they discussed relationship building, planning, and other themes. However, they make have been including decision makers in some of their more general comments. Future evaluations could ask more specific questions about decision makers and related advocacy skills, rather than only focusing on what participants deem most important in an open-ended survey or discussion. This will require a careful balance. We do not want to lead participants to over-report some skills of interest to the evaluation, while focusing away from other skills that may be more important to them. However, if some skills are not yet ‘top of mind’, perhaps because of the timing of evaluation methods in a brief funding cycle, it may be worthwhile to probe those to encourage people to consider them. In later sections, we will see that participants in the various communities have made contact with and involved decision makers in some of their initiatives, which presupposes some degree of advocacy skills. However, as in 2006-07, there is still much more focus on community capacity building than policy. Participants’ Plans to Get Involved in Food Security

In the post-workshop survey, participants answered two questions about the roles they saw for themselves in their community action plan and with whom they could collaborate. We also examined action plans for content related to roles and collaborations on local food security initiatives. The survey questions and a action plan analyses (in the next major section if this report) are related to Outcome I3 concerning the community groups’ plans to get involved in local initiatives related to food security.

In the follow-up teleconference, community facilitators discussed with whom they were collaborating and with whom they could collaborate in future. We also asked them a process-oriented question about challenges to collaboration. This will be discussed in a later section on actual collaboration.

The next two sub-sections on intended roles and collaboration are based on the post workshop survey. Action plan themes will follow in the next major report section.

Roles

Roles of participants fell into four main themes:

Relationship Building Action-Specific Roles (Focused on Food Security)

36

Policy Change Unsure of Role

Relationship Building


Relationship-building divided further into two categories: Bringing People Together and Connecting with Partners/Agencies. The first category contained comments from five communities: Lloydminster, Lacombe, Cold Lake, Grande Prairie and Brooks. This category (a type of relationship building) focused on networking both to help other meet food security needs and to bringing more people into the local action group. Examples include:

“I will network more to meet the needs of individuals in acquiring proper (ie. Acceptable, nutritious, timely, respectful) food” (CL)

“Encourage others to get ‘on board’ to make these changes happen” (B)

“Sharing with others, bring people into the action by doing” (GP)

“Asking people to bring people together, communicating with each other, making food and help us eat better” (LM)

The second category, Connecting with Partners/Agencies, had comments from four communities: Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Blood First Nation and High Level. For example:

“To facilitate the school communities’ involvement in CBFS action plan” (SL)

“Linking with partners off reserve and in communities (i.e. Gardening volunteers)” (BFN)

Action-Specific Roles (Focused on Food Security)


Within this broad theme, seven categories emerged. These were:

Developing Communication Materials Participating in Events/Activities Broad Leadership Roles Supportive Roles Leadership Roles in Specific Capacity Building Projects Raising Awareness through Interaction Working with Other Organizations

The first category, Developing Communication Materials, had comments from five of the six advanced communities (all except Blood First Nation). There were no comments from the two new communities as they were just developing their action plans and likely had not had time to plan communication materials for a broader audience. Examples included brochures and toolkits.

37

The next category, Participating in Events/Activities, was mentioned by two communities, Lloydminster and Lacombe. These comments were about participation in community gardens, suppers and other programs.

The category of Broad Leadership Roles contained responses from five of the eight communities, the two new communities (Sylvan Lake and Lloydminster), plus Lacombe, Cold Lake and High Level. For example:

“I am taking a lead in organizing meeting with the food security group” (CL)

“Facilitating discussions with community” (SL)

“I see my role as a supportive leader, helping to keep the vision alive” (L)

Six of the communities mentioned, Leadership Roles in Specific Capacity Building Projects, (more specific than the above broad roles). There were responses from Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Cold Lake, Grande Prairie, Brooks and High Level. For example:

“Starting up a youth garden, teach youth skills, mentoring, employment, food for YC etc” (SL)

“I see my role as offering cooking as team building in all the work I do” (LM)

“Creation of our own community programs regarding food security. For example, big batch cooking club for families” (HL)

“Starting programs from work: Fresh food box, community kitchen” (GP)

The category of Supportive Role reflects participants’ commitment to action, but not in a leadership role as above. There were comments from six of the eight communities: Lacombe, Brooks, Blood First Nation, Grande Prairie, Lloydminster and Sylvan Lake.). Example responses are:

“Continue working on sustaining the Growing Food Security in Alberta movement” (BFN)

“I want to be part of making changes” (B)

Raising Awareness through Interaction was mentioned by six communities: Brooks, Grande Prairie, High Level, Blood First Nation, Sylvan Lake and Lloydminster). Most of the comments about raising awareness came from Sylvan Lake, Brooks and Grande Prairie. Some examples:

“Promotion, networking, connecting and sharing the good news” (SL)

“Give presentations to numerous organizations in Brooks” (B)

“Being more vocal, bringing it back to community” (BFN)

The last category was Working with Other Organizations, which had comments from four communities; Lloydminster, Lacombe, Grande Prairie and High Level. For example, one participant said she could link with nursing students and another suggested linking with the local food bank.

38

Policy Change


This theme was mentioned by four of the eight communities: Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Lacombe and Brooks. The comments were general ones about advocacy and systems change.

Unsure of Role


There was only one comment under this theme from a participant in Brooks. This person did not give reason for his/her uncertainty.

Collaborators

All eight communities were able to suggest a wide variety of organizations and individuals with whom they could work on their community action plans. These fell into six main themes:

Action Group Broad Community Media Health/Social Agencies Education Institutions Church Groups Political Level Private Sector

Action Group


Participants in all eight communities mentioned their local food security action group (coalition, network, committee). In other words, they see each other as collaborators.

Broad Community


Five categories emerged under this theme:

Informal Community Groups Interested Individuals in the Community Professional Connections Personal Connections

39

Included in Informal Community Groups were youth and other community-based groups (e.g., Communities in Bloom, youth groups, event planning committees). Five communities mentioned informal groups (Grande Prairie, High Level, Brooks, Blood First Nation, Sylvan Lake).

Seven of the eight communities mentioned, Interested Individuals in the Community (the exception was Blood First Nation). Comments were mainly from Lloydminster and High Level. Examples of types of individuals were farmers, parents, seniors, elders, youth and families.

In Professional Connections there were comments from three communities: Lloydminster, Grande Prairie and Brooks. Types of people mentioned were co-workers or individuals with whom participants interacted with through their work (such as families and volunteers).

Grande Prairie and Brooks mentioned Personal Connections. These individuals were mainly friends and family.

Media

Media was mentioned by Sylvan Lake and Lacombe. One comment focused on a media consultant and the other more generally on media coverage of food security.

Health/Social Agencies


Two categories emerged within this theme, Broad Focus and Food Security Focus. Under Broad Focus, many agencies were mentioned either by name or type of service. Six communities mentioned a broad health/social agency (all except Sylvan Lake and Grande Prairie). Lloydminster and High Level most often mentioned these broadly-focused agencies. Examples included health regions, FCSS, Native Friendship Centre, Healthy Babies, ParentLINK, Metis housing group, youth groups and Headstart/daycare. Participants also mentioned types of professionals such as nurses and dietitians.

Three communities (Lloydminster, Grande Prairie and the Blood First Nation) mentioned agencies with a Food Security Focus. Comments referred specifically to hunger relief (food bank, soup kitchen). This is interesting because the communities were mainly focused at the capacity-building level of the food security continuum. Plans to collaborate with relief-oriented agencies suggests a desire to connect the two levels more closely together.

Education Institutions


Seven of the eight communities mentioned schools (all except Blood First Nation). Examples were mainly about schools in general, though there were also mentions of adult education/lifelong learning and post-secondary education.

40

Church Groups


Church Groups were mentioned by six communities (all except Blood First Nation and High Level). Participants mainly just said “church”, though the Salvation Army was also included in this category as a church-affiliated organization.

Political Level


The Political Level was mentioned by five communities: Blood First Nation, Lacombe, High Level, Brooks and Grand Prairie. The most mentions of political level collaboration came from High Level and Blood First Nation. Comments were mainly focused at the municipal (High Level) or chief/council level. (Blood First Nation). One of the key members of High Level’s action group is also a town councilor, and the Blood First Nation action group has strong connection to their tribal council.

The two new communities (Sylvan Lake and Lloydminster) did not mention political level collaborators. This might be because they have not yet had opportunities to connect with political decision makers to plan work at the policy/systems change level on the food security continuum.

Private Sector

Post-workshop Survey Five of the eight communities mentioned the Private Sector as a collaborator: Sylvan Lake, Lloydminster, Grande Prairie, High Level and Brooks. Some specific examples shared were grocery stores, a fitness centre, a mall, a meat packing plant and a local Chamber of Commerce.

Summary

Key roles participants saw for themselves were heavily focused on relationship building and actions specific to food security. These were mentioned by all the communities – not surprising given that these were also areas where participants in each community were using existing skills and developing new ones. There was also a wide range of collaborators mentioned, as shown in Table 5. Though most of the discussion was around the capacity level on the food security continuum, some of the roles and collaborations mentioned in participants’ plans were policy-focused.

Table 5. Top Themes Mentioned by Communities for Roles and Collaborations for Action: Workshop

Right after Workshop Number of Communities

RolesRelationship Building 8/8Action-Specific Roles (Focused on Food Security)

8/8

Policy Change 4/8

41

CollaboratorsBroad Community 8/8Health/Social Agencies 7/8Education Institutions 7/8Church Groups 6/8Political Level 5/8Private Sector 5/8

Roles and collaborators for 2007-08 were similar to those for 2006-07. However, last year some people mentioned planning as a role, in very general terms. This year, people were more specific around placing planning-type roles more specifically within food security actions (such as leadership on a particular project, teaching, facilitating, promoting). They also were more likely than last year to specifically mention leadership roles. So areas that fell into a broad and general planning theme in 2006-07 were part of the more specific theme (and related categories) around action specific roles focused on food security.

Similarly, collaborators were similar in both years, though service clubs did not come up this year. A new theme of broad community collaborators encompassed informal personal and workplace connections (mentioned last year) as well as other community groups that are not formal organizations.

These findings fit with the first two indicators for outcome I3 in the evaluation framework. Participants from all the community groups that had workshops were able to describe at least one role and collaborator, and most were able to describe several. The next section will address the actual content of the communities’ action plans.

Community Action Plans

All nine communities submitted action plans. Seven of these were updates from the year before, and two were new. Because the action plans are diverse in both content and style, only broad themes are presented for each community, rather than more specific categories. It is easier to compare the proposed actions across communities at that broad level. Some example content for each theme will be included for each community. Please note that the content discussed within each theme is based on what was actually included in each community’s action plan for 2007-08 as well as any final updates to the plans beyond March 2008 that were included. For example, all the community projects had partnerships with various organizations. However, not all of their action plans specifically mentioned partnerships when presenting project activities.

Blood First Nation

Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security

The Blood First Nation’s Blood Tribe Food Security Committee is planning community kitchens, a community garden and a farmer’s market. The garden was in the planning stages in 2006-07. As well, the Committee is continuing to support the Good Food Box program they were involved in last year. They are also planning to support people develop home gardens, purchase a food truck to distribute healthy produce, and work with local decision makers to develop a grocery store on the reserve (planning for the

42

store has continued from 2006-07). The Committee is looking for ways to link these capacity building initiatives. For example, vegetables harvested from the community garden were sold at a local farmer’s market in the summer of 2007. As of March 2008, the Committee planned to continue its involvement in and support for these initiatives.

Being Culturally Relevant

The action mentions incorporating the value of traditional foods and methods into their awareness building strategies. As noted earlier, the Committee is working closely with chief and council. This link will ensure that strategies are culturally relevant and acceptable to the reserve community.

Promoting Local Food

As mentioned earlier, vegetables harvested from the community garden were sold at a local farmer’s market in the summer of 2007.6

Developing Partnerships

The Blood Tribe Food Security Committee has already developed numerous partnerships over the last year. For example, they have been involved in three community kitchens, with Young Chefs, Alternative Academy, and FCSS. They also are trying to get the food bank involved with the Committee. Some planned partnerships involve policy work, such as working with the Chamber of Commerce to plan an ongoing farmers’ market and get the required permits. The Committee also has experienced some challenges to getting at least one organization involved in their work. Though most partnerships have involved developing and implementing strategies to enhance food security, the Committee also is developing a research partnership with the Alberta Public Health Association. Interestingly, the content of the Committee’s action plan did not reflect a theme of broader relationship building, perhaps because the relationships they mentioned already existed in 2006-07 and had become (or were becoming) formalized into partnerships on specific capacity building or policy initiatives.

Working with Policy Makers

The Committee is planning to work with the Chamber of Commerce on securing a farmers’ market permit. They also are working to get a land use designation for a grocery store. (The policy makers were not specified, but from other information in the action plan, Chief and Council are the policy makers involved in decisions about land use on the reserve.)

The Committee is planning to incorporate some broader advocacy into their connections with policy makers. They will invite Chief and Council and Directors of Blood First Nations to their various capacity initiatives as a way of raising their awareness of food security issues during the upcoming election year on the reserve.

Finally, the Committee intends to prepare a plan to take to the new Chief and Council (after the November 2008 election) – the election of Blood First Nation Chief and Council. This plan will consist of (a) a needs analysis, (b) a food security vision, mission and mandate based on the advanced CBFS workshop, and (c) a budget. Though not explicit in the action plan, it is reasonable to assume that the plan would

6 NOTE: This theme pertains to local food promotion that goes further than the community gardens that are common capacity building strategy.

43

also include strategies, given that these were the focus of the advanced CBFS workshop and the resulting action plan.

Raising Awareness

The Committee is making specific plans to promote food security through other community programs and events (such as diabetes and cancer programs, community bingos). They plan to incorporate traditional foods into their messages. The Committee emphasizes the importance of fun, and some of their activities seemed geared to enjoyment (food at events, contests such as a cooking challenge). As noted above, some of awareness raising efforts targeted policy makers, by inviting them to participate in activities.

In addition to the more formal partnerships the Blood Tribe Food Security Committee has established in Standoff, they plan to meet with other communities on the reserve to raise awareness of food security.

Doing Research

By March 8, the Blood Tribe Food Security Committee had begun a research proposal to the Alberta Cancer Board, to continue their food security work as well as study its effectiveness. (This was submitted May 22). The Committee is also planning a cost of eating study, to inform the food security plan they will present to Chief and Council in November.

Leveraging GFSA Resources

The Committee plans to seek additional types of funding. The above-discussed research proposal is related to this theme. The action plan also mentions program funding options. So do plans to see program funding to enhance the Committee’s work. Possibilities mentioned were Health Canada funding programs (First Nations and Inuit Health and Canadian Prenatal Nutrition Program).

Brooks

Engaging Community

Right after their original CFBS workshop in 2006-07, the Food Coalition Society of Brooks committed to involving more of their target population when planning programs/events. The second part of the workshop in Brooks was delayed until January 2007, so the Coalition was just getting underway with planning at the end of last year’s project in March 2007. However, the focus on community engagement has continued into 2007-08. They plan to include information in their brochures about who is involved in the Coalition, when they meet, how to join and how to be involved. The action plan includes mention of a coupon from a local business for something “cool”, as an incentive to get involved. The Coalition views the Good Food Box program as a ‘Third Place’ for people to meet, cook and share recipes.


The Food Coalition Society of Brooks is starting to initiate relationships with organizations and individuals with whom they do not yet have formal partnerships. They are identifying additional stakeholders who can be involved in setting the direction of the Coalition. These include the City of

44

Brooks, Schools (e.g., a teacher, a school board member, a school Wellness Committee), the Community Health Council, the local Farmer’s Market Coordinator, the Choose Well group, and another church group (in addition to the church already involved in the community kitchen). The action plan has already tasked individuals within the Coalition to start making those connections (e.g., meeting with people and showing them the Good Food Box.


The Coalition is planning three community kitchens (Cook Up Time). The Good Food Box that began in 2007 is continuing, and the existing community garden will be expanded. These capacity initiatives also connect to themes of local food and cultural relevance, as discussed below.


The Coalition is committed to improving access to local foods. They are using local foods in the Good Food Box in summer, supplied by Medicine Hat Wholesaler. At the farmers’ market, Coalition members have set up a booth to thank people for buying local. The booth offers local food demos, and food skills (i.e. preservation - freezing berries and options for using frozen berries). Awareness building strategies include a focus on local foods, and cross-cultural activities include local product ideas.

Being Culturally Relevant

The coalition plans to include a cultural component, and share recipes to show people in the community how to use cultural foods. This will include local foods, and local producers will be invited to events. The Coalition plans to include multicultural foods in community dinners. Brooks is a multicultural community, with workers from diverse countries moving into the area to work. The Coalition plans to organize “Taste of Brooks” or “Brooks Expo” to showcase foods from a variety of cultures.


The three community kitchens will be organized in partnership with a women’s shelter, a church and a community group. The Coalition is also building relationships with other organizations and individuals, as discussed in the next section. Raising Awareness

The Coalition does this through several channels. The coalition already has brochures about specific projects (Good Food Box, Cook Up Time, local food). A subcommittee will soon develop another brochure on the Coalition more broadly. Members have also staffed booths at the farmers market and a local trade show. The outreach to various stakeholders and community members provides another avenue for raising awareness of the Coalition and food security issues.

Creating Policy Resources

The Coalition’s action plan did not include direct work with policy makers. However, there are plans to include information about how to incorporate healthy local food policy in the new brochure. If this stimulates is interest in policy development within some organizations, they can they come to the Coalition for more information or assistance in developing policy or related advocacy skills.

45


The Coalition has recently obtained FCSS funding to hire a Coordinator and train community leaders.

Cold Lake

Engaging Community

The Cold Lake Food Security Coalition is planning to engage more people who are experiencing food insecurity, building on this focus in the 2006-07 action plan. This will involve existing coalition members broadening the scope of their work (the “how” is not yet specified). The Coalition also plans to pair inexperienced and experienced gardeners (summer 2008) and cooks (fall 2008).


The Coalition has a goal to start summer 2008 with 20 Good Food Boxes. They also are passing on kits for Little Green Thumbs that they were not able to use – to several organizations that work more closely with children and youth (such as ParentLink centre, two youth centres, schools, churches and a friendship centre). Sharing these resources will facilitate relationship building, as discussed below. The plan to matching up cooks and gardeners with different experience levels is designed to build capacity as well as to increase the numbers of people engaging with the Coalition.


The passing on of the Little Green Thumbs resource to child and youth-oriented organizations was mentioned earlier. It appears from the action plan description that these relationships are less formal than partnerships.

The Coalition also is planning to set up a system to connect people in the community to assist each other with transportation to places like grocery and garden stores. They also are considering setting up a home or on-line delivery system.


The Coalition has identified a number of potential partners for connecting experienced cooks and gardeners with inexperienced ones. Examples mentioned in the action plan are a seniors’ organization, a friendship centre, a church group, and several individuals in the community – as well as the collective kitchen and the community garden. Doing Research

The Coalition plans to do some more research into Little Green Thumbs, both on-line and through discussions with High Level. Also, FCSS is going to work with the Coalition to investigate options to improve transportation to retail outlets and any food security initiatives, as Cold Lake is very spread out (geographically). Workshop participants suggested a volunteer registry and call-in number, and mentioned several food-related locations such as grocery stores and gardens. They also suggested a

46

delivery system. Cold Lake was planning a school survey a year ago, but this appears to be on hold for now due to some changes in people within the Coalition.


The Coalition is waiting for a response to a recent funding application from Aspen Health Region for the Good Food Box.

Grande Prairie

Raising Awareness

Raising awareness has the major focus of the Grande Prairie and Area Food Security Network, as it was in 2006-07. That year, the Network developed statistics and stories about food security, developed a marketing plan, presented at a conference, and facilitated interagency workshops.

Over the past year, the Network participated in the Power of the Land Festival in late 2007. That well-attended event included local farmers, other local people, music, and stories about local food. The Network had a display there. Because this event was held right before GFSA received its 2007-08 funding and began doing workshops for this year, it was a good way to pull people back together from the previous year.

The Network had produced a display, postcards and bookmarks as of March 2008, and had the display at two health region sites plus Grande Prairie College. They plan to create a “blurb”, a website, and tools that can be used at gatherings and other activities. These tools will be fun and attention catching. One example is ideas for table tops (place mats, napkins, table tents, Quiz with stats, a story). The resources will be at Network gatherings and other activities. GFSA seed funding is supporting these resources.


The Network is planning a presentation to City Council. They want to get on the agenda, create a blurb of key points and develop a presentation and other materials to take with them to the meeting. They also would like input into menus served at other types of organizations (service clubs, schools, college, church gatherings), using a food security lens.Engaging Community

The Network will continue to expand by hosting an event with food and fun in spring 2008, where each person who attends is invited to bring along two friends.


The Network has identified types of community groups they would like to attend. These include service clubs (e.g., Lions), student councils (including college level) and “church ladies”.

47


The Network found funding for and assisted with planning of the Power of the Land Festival. As noted earlier, this festival was held right before GFSA re-connected with the Network for the Advanced CBFS workshops. So it was an important food security event during the funding gap that reconvened Network members.

High Level


FEED High Level (Feed Everyone Everywhere Daily) developed a community garden in 2006-07, which has continued over the past year. The group also created elementary school lesson plans and involved students in seeding, transplanting and naming the garden (Samesoil). They have recently started two more gardens, in the nearby communities of Paddle Prairie and Vermillion. FEED High Level plans to assist Paddle Prairie to develop their garden (e.g., get them seeds).

All three gardens will continue in 2008. FEED High Level is also looking into container gardening, small plots, and home gardening. For students, the group plans to go and teach in elementary classes again, and to continue school plantings like the year before. They will also distribute an indoor gardening kit (Little Green Thumbs) for the local Youth Activity Centre. These are all initiatives that FEED High Level will implement with their GFSA funds.

As well, FEED High Level is planning to start a collective kitchen, which will include Big Batch Cooking for families. The kitchen will offer a cookbook library as well as teaching cooking skills. High Level has kitchen facilities available (Spirit of North Kitchen, Youth Centre Kitchen).

Engaging Community

The action plan notes that the Samesoil garden became a “third place” where people in the community came together. There were barbeques once a month over the spring and summer of 2007. The garden will remain a place for people to come together. This is consistent with the 2006-07 to engage people experiencing food insecurity.

FEED High Level is planning to have regular food gatherings in 2008. They suggest structuring each gathering so that there is activity that encourages people to help with the next one, as well as using some of their GFSA funds to purchase door prizes as incentives to attend. FEED High Level will take advantage of whatever activities are happening in the community in order to invite more community people to activities.


Regular food gatherings will help people meet one another and connect. As well, the FEED High Level team will itself do more connecting with other community organizations and their clients. For example, they are planning a Stone Soup activity at a youth forum, and will also give a five- minute talk on food security and project activities. They also hope to learn from Paddle Prairie’s experiences with food gatherings.

48

More generally, FEED High Level intends to have conversations with a broad range of organizations and individuals (such as Home Hardware, Rona, garden suppliers, True Valley, Bargain store, individuals at health fairs and meetings). They emphasized the importance of making connections in-person.


FEED High Level plans to involve key partners in the regular food gatherings they are planning. These gatherings involve people involved with gardens and/or collective kitchens, and anyone is welcome. The action plan did not mention particular partners, other than the providers of kitchen facilities and (more generally) schools.

FEED High Level is also partnering with the Paddle Prairie and Vermillion groups around sharing experiences and knowledge related to community gardens and food gatherings. These two communities are also involved in creating resource materials to build awareness.


FEED High Level plans to connect with public health inspectors to address rules about giving out food (from the garden) and soil testing. They will also get information about Farmer’s Market regulations.

In terms of their own policies, FEED High Level wants to make the collective kitchen accessible, and to provide childcare and transportation as needed.

Raising Awareness

In 2006-07, FEED High Level developed a brochure and a cost of living game to raise awarness around food security issues. The group plans to update the brochure and related displays. A sub team within the group will use some of the GFSA funds to develop these resources., and will include people from Paddle Prairie and Vermillion.


Alberta Recreation and Parks Association provided the funds for community gardens in Fort Vermilion and Paddle Prairie in 2008. FEED High Level has also applied for funding through Epicure for a collective kitchen. In addition, the group will approach community members for cuttings for the garden.

Lacombe


Lacombe’s food security action group is called Backyard Friends. Their major regular event is a monthly community supper, which includes a food sharing table from which people can take home food that is left over. Vegetables from the community garden are used in every meal and this continued through the winter with root vegetables (i.e. potatoes and carrots). These suppers, which started during the 2006-07 year, will continue as part of Backyard Friends’ action plan for the upcoming year. The group’s action

49

plan points out that the suppers are organized through shared leadership. They have a Fun Team that uses RAFF to get people involved in planning the next supper.

Three other capacity building activities that were in the planning stages in 2006-07 have been implemented in 2007-08. These are the Good Food Box program, a community garden, and collective kitchens. The Backyard Friends purchased two garden shares and supplied volunteers throughout the growing season, continuing into 2008. They also started four collective kitchens prior to February 2008, giving each one $75 in start up funds from GFSA for supplies.

Backyard Friends is now planning to create a Food Buying Club, to bring more value for the dollar to community members so they will save money on food and have accessible groceries. The group is also planning cooking literacy activities for youth and families in the upcoming year.


Backyard Friends has been promoting local food in the Good Food Box program throughout 2007-08. The action plan pointed out that a new marketing plan is needed for 2008 so people understand that local food is more costly. As noted earlier, food from the community garden is used for the community suppers.

Doing Research

Backyard Friends conducted an environmental scan with local gardeners and farmers to see what foods were available, and when. This information is being used for organizing the Good Food Box program.

The group also did a community supper survey in December 2007, with 28 participants. Results were generally positive. Most participants said they knew more about healthy eating, their food supply, and other food programs involving Backyard Friends. What stood out most strongly from the survey is that participants felt connected to their community because of Backyard Friends. This sense of community connection was most highly rated in the survey, and many of the open-ended responses were about seeing friends, meeting new people, and being in good company. Many survey participants also said they liked the food, and not having to cook. Some expressed appreciation that the suppers helped them make their food budget go further, and/or that it was an opportunity to get a good meal.


As noted within the research theme as well as the capacity building initiatives above, the community suppers have a heavy focus on building relationships. The new capacity initiatives now underway also involve activities that promote relationships. The separate theme of community engagement did not come out for Lacombe, likely because Backyard Friends had already achieved extensive engagement in the suppers last year and this had continued and evolved into relationships among participants.


Wolfcreek Community Church is a partner of Backyard Friends and will receive food shipments for the food buying club. Backyard Friends is continuing their involvement with existing partners as well. For example, the four collective kitchens involve the Parent Link Centre, United Church, Adventist Church, and Adult Learning Council.

50

Raising Awareness

The Lacombe Globe newspaper included an article about Backyard Friends in fall 2007. The group is now planning to develop a communication plan for the upcoming year.

Addressing Hunger Relief

Though most of Backyard Friends’ focus is on capacity building activities for food security, the group is also planning to be involved with Meals on Wheels.

Medicine Hat

Doing Research

The Medicine Hat action group, Food Talk, conducted community focus groups in 2006-07, for the purpose of gauging knowledge of food security and insecurity and how people may like to contribute to the project. The focus groups involved both agencies and individuals within Medicine Hat. In March 2008, Food Talk completed an asset map of Medicine Hat.

In March 2008, Food Talk developed a food waste survey to send to local farmers, producers and stores. Results will be used to determine how food could be shared that would otherwise be wasted.

Promoting Local Produce

Food Talk plans to reduce food waste by making excess produce available to everyone. The action plan section on local food also mentions producing re-usable bags or back packs and distribute to those who walk or use public transportation to make grocery purchases.

Raising Awareness

Food Talk has just created place mats that illustrate the asset map that they developed through their focus group research in 2006-07. They also are planning to develop a local food directory.


As of March 2008, Food Talk had developed a draft Food Charter for Medicine Hat. The Charter will be circulated to Food Talk committee members and others for feedback, using a feedback form developed for that purpose.

Lloydminster

Engaging Community

51

Community engagement is a major theme for the Lloydminster action group, called Beyond Borders Food Connections. The group’s overall focus is on re-engaging the community with food-related skills, like cooking and gardening, that they believe have become devalued by society. They acknowledge that these skills were once valued as women’s role, and now need to include men as well. Beyond Borders Food Connections wants to plan ways to include “everyone” in project, not only those who are struggling with food insecurity. The group suggests hosting guided lunch time conversation, during the Fresh Food Box packing day. Those discussions would help volunteers see what they could contribute – their gifts around the goal of valuing cooking and gardening. They also suggest that everyone bring something to contribute to a snack, such as a piece of fruit or vegetable.


The action plan mentions cooking together at meetings. An example offered is making Stone Soup at a spring meeting (March), an activity that would involve the community and be intergenerational. The group also plans to do team building through food workshops, which they are calling “Recipe for Success”.


At this point, Beyond Borders Food Connections is just beginning to plan their activities in this area. From the action plan, it appears that the focus will be on creating opportunities for people in the area to cook and garden together. As mentioned under the community engagement theme, the group is already asking people to share their own personal gifts that can contribute to these broader community capacity initiatives.

Raising Awareness

Beyond Borders Food Connections is planning to develop a one-page description or blurb of what the group wants to do.

Sylvan Lake

Engaging Community

As the Sylvan Lake action group is a new community for 2007-08, one of their key actions to get a diverse group people “to the table”. These will include supporters of the project (e.g., schools), partners with whom to work and people impacted by food security issues. The group has not fleshed out these details yet, but will do so over the next year.


This is a key area of focus for the project as a whole. The introduction to the action plan uses words like “relationships”, “connectedness”, and “belonging”. The overall goals also reflect a relationship theme, as well as community engagement and a sharing of people’s gifts. A specific example is a plan to connect experienced gardeners with new gardeners.

52


The Sylvan Lake group plans to support and build two community gardens located at Our Lady of the Rosary School and one other site in the community. Garden activities will include supplying vegetables from the garden to food bank, the farmer’s market, and a senior’s lodge. People will also be able to do container gardening. As noted earlier under the relationship theme, new and experienced gardeners will be matched up.


The action plan notes that the group will hold a meeting of partners and other interested people, including farmers. There is not yet a list of partners in the action plan, so it appears that partnering organizations and key individuals are still to be identified. Supporters and partners could be some of the same organizations. For example, schools are mentioned in the plan as supporters, and also inferred as partners as one of the community gardens is located at a school.

Raising Awareness

The group has identified the need for an awareness group or sub-committee to develop a “blurb” or one-page description of the project. They also are planning to get a local media interview to promote the project to the wider public.

Summary

Overall, there were many similarities among the community action plans. Almost all community action groups are doing activities to raise awareness of food security issues and their projects, as shown in Table 6. Most are working at the capacity level on the food security continuum. Most communities are focused on creating connections among people – through initial engagement of people and groups, building relationships among those who become engaged with the project, and creating formal partnerships for action. Just over half the communities have some degree of policy focus. (Four of the five communities are actually working with policy makers on various issues, and the fifth is developing policy-related resources.). More than half the communities have been able to gain additional funding external to GFSA (or are in the process of doing so). Almost half the communities are promoting local in food in ways that go beyond their usual capacity strategies like gardens. (Examples include using garden produce at community dinners and selling it at farmers’ markets.) As well, almost half were doing research or some sort. The two communities that addressed cultural issues were those having either a strong cultural identify (Blood First Nation) or a large multicultural population of newcomers to Alberta (Brooks).

As mentioned earlier, the community action groups may not have spelled out all their activities in detail in their action plans. That is why this evaluation considers the action plans in conjunction with the follow-up teleconference among community facilitators to get a more rounded picture of what actions the communities are taking on food security.

Table 6. Themes from Community Action Plans

Action Plan Theme Number of Communities

53

Raising Awareness 8/9Creating Capacity Building Initiatives for Food Security 7/9

Building Relationships 7/9Engaging Community 6/9Developing Partnerships 6/9Policy Focus (Working with Policy Makers/Developing Policy Resources)

5/9

Leveraging GFSA Resources 5/9Promoting Local Resources 4/9Doing Research 4/9Being Culturally Relevant 2/9Addressing Hunger Relief 1/9

As noted earlier, the analysis of the action plans is related to Outcome I3 in the evaluation framework. The main indicator pertains to collaborations and roles as well as local initiatives. However, the action plan content emphasized initiatives much more than collaboration (though this was covered to some extent within the themes of building relationships and developing partnerships. Roles were not elaborated upon the action plans other than stating which individuals are responsible for which tasks. In future, the action plan content could more accurately framed as one of the key indicators of local initiatives, and a secondary indicator of collaboration.

Local Food Security Projects Have Public Profile

Last year, assessment of GFSA’s public profile was specific to media requests and coverage of the community action groups (committees, coalitions, networks). This year, we included other types of requests. This is because the groups have been getting a range of requests about collaboration, presentations, information or meetings. Media actually played a very small role in this year’s requests.

All of these requests reflect a growing public profile of the local community food security groups. Because of this, outcome L4 in the evaluation framework, which has been focused on media, will need to be broadened in the future. We also asked the community food security groups how they could promote the food security message more broadly in the future.

Present Year Requests

One question that was asked during the follow-up teleconference was in regards to any groups or individuals that have approached the action group. Eight themes emerged from this question, reflecting a variety of sectors:

Broad Community Groups (Informal) Media Health/Social Agencies Education Institutions Church Groups Political Level Local Growers/Vendors Private Sector

54

Broad Community Groups (Informal)

Within this theme, two categories were identified: Community Groups/Organizations, Interested Individuals in Community. Three communities (Grande Prairie, Lloydminster, and Lacombe) had comments under Community Groups/Organizations. These three communities specifically identified Power of the Land, Welcome Wagon, and a woman’s group, respectively. It appears that these were general information requests or (in the case of Power of the Land) a request to collaborate on that presentation.

There was one comment from Brooks under Individuals in Community, described generally as

“…people wanting to know more about the Good Food Box program”.

Media

Lloydminster was the only community to mention the media. For example:

“Media coverage of the healthy eating challenge and a camera at the CBFS workshop” (LM)


Four communities shared examples of these types of requests, which were for information. Grande Prairie, Lloydminster, Brooks and Lacombe. Agencies mentioned included: Peace Country Health Region, Cancer Society, ParentLink Centre and a day home agency. Teleconference participants were not specific about these requests. They sounded like requests for information (e.g., preparing vegetarian meals for children) or inquiries about food-security related programs for families.


Three communities specified particular institutions or programs connected to education institutions: Grande Prairie Regional College (Grande Prairie), Grasslands School Division and the Medicine Hat College (Brooks), and ESL (Lloydminster). All requests were for presentations.

Church Groups

Two communities had contacts from church groups. Lacombe was invited to speak at a Social Justice evening series and Cold Lake was approached for information by a local church.

Political Level

Two communities were contacted political decision makers. An Alberta Agriculture representative approached the Grande Prairie group, and the local immigration office contacted the group in Brooks. Requests were for information.

Local Growers/Vendors

55

Food growers/vendors contacting community food security groups were a local farmers market in Grande Prairie and local growers in Lloyminster. The Lloydminster request was specifically about selling fresh food. The Grand Prairie requests appeared to be more for general information.

Private Sector

Lloydminster was approached by their local Chamber of Commerce for a food security display.

Future Promotional Ideas

Three themes emerged around future ways to get out the food security message more broadly:

Make Links Between Food Security and Other Issues Have People Experiencing Food Insecurity as Spokespersons Develop Additional Promotional Material

These are presented below, though they did not generate much discussion during the teleconference.

Make Links Between Food Security and Other Issues

Lloydminster said there are links between food security and other social issues like housing and transportation. The community facilitator further pointed out that all these issues link with each other around poverty..

Have People Experiencing Food Insecurity as Spokespersons

Lloydminster further suggested that groups give the opportunity for people experiencing food insecurity to become spokespeople.

Develop Additional Promotional Material

Lacombe suggested the use of promotional material in the form of a banner and display materials.

Summary

There was not a lot of discussion during the follow-up teleconference about requests from various sectors. Table 7 shows those sectors from which at least half the six community facilitators on the teleconference received requests. The majority of requests were for general information, though there were a few examples of invites for presentations, and one instance of media coverage of a CBFS workshop. Teleconference participants offered few ideas for future promotion, perhaps because most the overall teleconference discussion was a reflection on 2007-08 and participants had not yet had a chance to think about future promotions.

Table 7. Top Themes Mentioned by Communities for Sources of Requests: Follow-up Teleconference

Follow-up Teleconference Number of Communities

56

Broad Community 4/6Health/Social Agencies 4/6Education Institutions 3/6

As noted earlier, the outcome and indicators related to public profile were media focused and need to be update to reflect the other types of local attention that the food security groups are now receiving. There was little mention of media, in either the teleconference or the 2007-08 action plans. The communities mentioned more media contacts and coverage in 2006-07. Perhaps media was less of priority this year because the groups were building their profile through relationships with organizations in their communities that are potential or actual collaborators. Also, the very short funding period may have worked against getting media coverage, as there was little time to organize any media friendly events or develop relationships with media contacts.

However, in order to reach a broad cross-section of the public who are not engaged with food security or related health/social issues, more outreach to the media would be beneficial. In future, GFSA might wish to ask the communities more specifically about their media connections.

Participants Collaborate on Actions for Food SecurityThis section links closely with the post-workshop survey question asking the participants to identify potential partners that could help them in their role within the action group. However, it is longer-term, corresponding to Outcome L1 in the evaluation framework. Given the very short time frame for this project, there is little distinction between short, intermediate and long-term outcomes. However, for the advanced communities, we can include a look at collaborations that were planned in 2006-07 and see if they were implemented in 2008.

Present Collaborations

Community facilitators on the follow-up teleconference were asked to reflect on the partnerships that have been the most key to their success. Three themes emerged:

Health/Social Agencies Education Institutions Nearby Communities

The 2006-07 and 2007-08 action plans were then assessed for any further evidence that planned collaborations were implemented, as a way of evaluating long-term change. The 2007-08 action plan analysis theme around developing partnerships is also revisited to illustrate collaborative initiatives already in progress. The three above themes are confirmed when the action plans are examined for types of collaborative relationships. Additional themes of church groups and private sector also emerged from the action plans.



57

Health or social agencies were identified by three of the communities. In Brooks, examples included Palliser Health Region as well as Family and Community Support Services (provided resources, money and awareness to decision makers). In Cold Lake, Healthy Babies and the Crisis Centre helped the Coalition to connect with people experiencing food insecurity, through the collective kitchens. In Lacombe, Family and Community Support Services (supplied materials and resources), the Neighborhood Place and Alberta Child Services.

Action Plans

Cold Lake’s action plan from 2006-07 covered collective kitchens as a way to reach out to those experiencing food security. Healthy Babies was the first collective kitchen to be established. Brooks and Lacombe did not mention specific collaborations with the above-mentioned agencies in either their 2006-07 or 2007-08 action plans, though did mention some of them as partners in general.

The action plans of all the communities tended to mix present and planned collaborations, as some of the planned initiatives are also in progress in the initial stages. Collective kitchens were mentioned by Blood First Nation and Lacombe in their 2007-08 action plans, as collaborative initiatives that have already begun and will continue. Each of these communities has one social agency as a partner (FCSS in Blood First Nation and ParentLink in Lacombe). Blood First Nation has also begun a collaborative research project that involved several health and social organizations.



High Level and Lloydminster identified schools as collaborators. High Level further explained that schools: “help to raise awareness and take ownership.”

Action Plans

The community kitchens in Blood First Nation and Lacombe both involve educational institutions or programs of various types. The Blood First Nation is working with the Alternative Academy as well as the Young Chefs educational program. Lacombe is working with the Adult Learning Council.

Nearby Communities


Lloydminster mentioned other communities in the area as important collaborators for them. For example:

“Onion Lake First Nation, Vermillion – We all created the action plan together.” (LM)

This collaboration included health agencies as part of all the community groups.

Action Plans

FEED High Level is already working with the Paddle Prairie and Vermillion groups around sharing experiences and knowledge related to community gardens, food gatherings and resource materials to build awareness of food security.

58

Church Groups

Two of the four collective kitchens in Lacombe are run by churches – United and Adventist.

Private Sector

Blood First Nation has been working with the Chamber of Commerce on starting a farmers’ market on the reserve.

Collaborations Needing Development


In the 2007-08 action plans, communities mentioned numerous collaborators with whom they wanted to build relationships over the next year. During the follow-up teleconference, community facilitators were more specific about which collaborative relationships they need to develop in order to move forward with food security in their community. In some cases, they thought of relationships that were not yet in their action plans. Four themes were identified for types of collaborative relationships needing development:

Health/Social Agencies Education Institutions Political Level Private Sector


Two communities (Brooks and Cold Lake) identified collaborations with health and social agencies These included several agencies with a broad focus: site managers at the health region’s hospital and community facilities, Palliser Health Region in Brooks, and the Native Friendship Centre in Cold Lake. Cold Lake also mentioned collaborating with on organizing having a food security focus -- the Food Bank.


These were mentioned by three communities (Brooks, Cold Lake and Lacombe). Comments included the school division, schools in general, as well as an adult learning center for basic cooking lessons.

Political Level

Four communities (Brooks, High Level, Lacombe and Lloydminster) identified the political level as being an important collaborator in the future. Most of the comments pertained to the municipal level. For example:

“City council (more relationships), have someone at the table – they do not see food security as an issue right now” (LM)

59

Private Sector

Lloydminster identified local growers as an important future partnership, emphasizing access to local food as well as the local Chamber of Commerce.

Collaboration Challenges

Four themes emerged from the follow-up teleconference concerning challenges with collaborating, and some related suggestions:

Some People Not Recognizing the Importance of Food Security Limited Funds Recognize Lived Experience with Food Security Build Relationships Before Focusing on Food Security

Communities are presented anonymously in this section.

Not Recognizing the Importance of Food Security

Three communities had comments reflecting this theme. For example:

“Need a broad understanding of food security, it’s not just hunger.”

“(There is an) affordable housing project, (there was) potential for a community garden to be built (there). However, they did not see the importance.”

Limited Funds

One community mentioned that limited funds cause competition, rather than collaboration, among non-profit groups.

Recognize Lived Experience with Food Security

One community stated the importance of recognizing this experience, and the credibility that goes with it:

“People experiencing food insecurity know what would solve the problem. Professionals have less clout than people experiencing food insecurity when talking to city council.”

As mentioned in earlier sections, there were a number of suggestions throughout the teleconference about ways to involve people experiencing food security.

Build Relationships Before Focusing on Food Security

Two communities discussed that it is important to spend the time building relationships first, then focus on the issues. For instance:

“You need to speak the language of partners. Build relationships, then talk about food security.” (B)

60

Summary

The most common collaborations were between the local food security action groups and health/social agencies, particularly around collective kitchens. These were mentioned by four communities, during the teleconference and/or in their action plans. Two communities each mentioned education institutions or church groups.

In terms of future collaborations that are needed, the political level was mentioned by four communities during the teleconference. Three communities said education institutions and two suggested health/social agencies.

The most common challenge was that not all organizations and decision makers within a community recognize the importance of food security as an issue. This was mentioned by three of the six community facilitators on the teleconference. Two communities pointed out that relationships need building before issues can be discussed.

The indicator for Outcome L1 on collaboration specifies that communities will follow through on collaborative initiatives from their action plans. However, very little of the teleconference discussion referred back to action plans. The 2007-08 action plans only occasionally referred back to activities from 2006-07 to present progress. Sometimes it was easy to infer that the 2007-08 activities were guided by the 2006-07 plans, but in other cases the 2007-08 activities were new ones just getting underway or about to start over the next few months. The community groups may need flexibility from year to year to change direction and focus as new opportunities arise, especially if planned actions are proving difficult to implement.

The indicators may need to be more flexible to reflect this. In future evaluation, it would be useful to have more specific conversations about long-term collaborative actions, either during a GFSA meeting or teleconference designated for this purpose, on in one-to-one teleconferences with the action group in each community. This year, the broad questions about collaboration came at the end of a teleconference that covered several other issues, and there was not enough time to probe on collaborations in detail with the facilitators.

Broader Community Support for Local Food Security Initiatives

A challenge in evaluating this outcome (L2 in the evaluation framework) was the short time frame. Though short-term support has been addressed earlier through initial community engagement, there was little discussion on broad community support over the long-term. However, Lacombe commented (during the teleconference) on the increasing attendance at their community dinners as well as their expanding volunteer base for those. Their facilitator also has been asked to speak at local events. These findings are consistent with the indicators for L2). Over time, it will be important to determine broad support in the other communities. At present, this support is defined as recognition of expertise, plus new people getting involved. GFSA will need to decide if these indicators sufficiently capture broad support, or if others are needed.

61

Decision Makers Adopt Policies that Support Food Security

At this point, several of communities were working with policy makers (as described in the action plans and follow-up teleconference findings presented in previous sections). However, none of the communities gave examples of actual policy adoption, either in the action plans or during the teleconference. Policy change is a complex process, and future GFSA evaluations can continue to track how this year’s work with policy makers leads (or not) to changes over time. Policy change corresponds to outcome L3 in the evaluation framework. The indicators are examples of changes, and may need revision to reflect the types of changes that have become priority for the community action groups.

Reflections on Relationship Between Communities and GFSA

The final part of the follow-up teleconference with community facilitators provided an opportunity to gather their feedback, to share with GFSA. This section will present communities anonymously, as promised to the facilitators.

What Is Going Well

During the follow-up teleconference, we asked community facilitators about their relationship with GFSA. The main theme that emerged regarding what is going well is Links with Other Communities. Four communities offered comments. Some examples are:

“Opportunity to share with other communities; helps build confidence”

“Connections with other communities”

“Know what may/may not work by listening to communities with experience”

“Connecting with other communities, support from GFSA, we are no longer working in isolation”

Suggestions for What Could be Improved

When asked what aspects of their relationship with GFSA could be improved, five themes emerged from the community facilitators as suggestions:

Permanent Funding Realistic Time Lines Provincial Movement Connecting in Person Address Inconsistent Participation Support with Policy Change Efforts

Permanent Funding

Two communities offered a general suggestion for permanent funding.

62

Realistic Timelines

Four communities shared comments about the timelines for 2007-08. Two of the comments made an explicit link between the very short timeline and developing stable relationships and project participation:

“Timeline of the funding made relationship building difficult. Relationships had to be established or else people were not included.”

Therefore, you couldn’t build on knowledge base. The original workshop was put together in a hurry; the ‘true players’ were not identified.”

Provincial Movement

Four communities made a consistent suggestion for a provincial campaign about food security, led by GFSA.

Connecting in Person

Three communities made the consistent connection to have face-to-face meetings, and one specifically mentioned a provincial conference.

Addressing Inconsistent Participation

Two communities pointed out inconsistent participation:

“There was a… different group of people in the advanced CBFS workshop compared to the first”

“People dropped out right before the workshop…”

They also had concerns about commitment as well as how to build on the group’s knowledge base when the same people do not stay involved over time.

Support with Policy Change Efforts

One community offered a comment reflecting this theme. The person expressed a need for help with getting started with policy change in the community.

Summary

Community facilitators were generally positive about the support from GFSA, particularly the opportunities to connect with the other community action groups. For suggested improvements, they would like to see more realistic timelines, a provincial food security movement led by GFSA, and more opportunities to connect face-to-face including a provincial food security conference.

63