Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

UBC Food Services : Increasing Food Skills in Residence Cvoric, Stefan; Fan, Jenna; Gibbard, Marissa; Lentz, Britney; Moore, Kelsey; Nguyen, Lan 2018-04-09

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Cvoric_S_et_al_FNH_473_UBC_Food_Services_Report.pdf [ 2.75MB ]
18861-Cvoric_S_et_al_FNH_473_UBC_Food_Services_Manual.pdf [ 4.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0374130.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0374130-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0374130-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0374130-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0374130-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0374130-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0374130-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0374130-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0374130.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report UBC Food Services: Increasing Food Skills in ResidenceStefan Cvoric, Jenna Fan, Marissa Gibbard, Britney Lentz, Kelsey Moore, Lan NguyenUniversity of British ColumbiaFNH 473Themes: Community, Food, HealthApril 9, 2018Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. 1 Table of Contents: Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situational Assessment and Planning Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Goal and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors’ Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 4 10 11 15 17 18 20 24 2 Executive Summary This intervention aimed to improve nutritional well being among students at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The target population was upper year students living in Walter Gage Residence (Gage) at UBC in Vancouver. The intervention was originally proposed by Melissa Baker, Manager, Nutrition and Wellbeing for UBC’s Student Housing & Hospitality Services and Katherine MacGregor, Residence Life Manager (RLM) of Gage. This project used Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to assist in achieving the main objective of this intervention which was to create an instructional manual for residence advisors (RAs) to facilitate community kitchens (CKs) in Gage that improved attendees’ cooking capability, while building community.  Prior to beginning work on the project, a literature review was conducted to assess levels of food insecurity amongst university students, and to gain insight into effective interventions and programs of interest to the target population. Primary research (interviews) was conducted to assess the current level of food skills and knowledge of Gage residents. We found a combination of environmental, interpersonal and individual aspects that facilitate and mediate students’ food choices, and despite limited research, food insecurity among university students is present, and there is a need for increased food knowledge and skills in this population (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018).  Project outputs consisted of a CK manual to aid RAs in running CK programs in Gage and a post-intervention survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in increasing cooking confidence. The manual and survey will be passed along to community stakeholders for further analysis and used for expansion of this intervention to other residences.   3 Introduction Over the past decade, there has been an increasing focus on food insecurity and nutrition across Canadian university campuses (Silverthorn, 2016). Among other variables, students have identified food knowledge and cooking skills as important barriers to healthy cooking at home (Silverthorn, 2016). This is an urgent problem, as students’ current food behaviours affects their health in the future, and immediate intervention is necessary to improve their nutrition (Fisher, Erasmus & Viljoen, 2016). This project focuses on improving cooking skills among the primary audience, university students living in Gage at the UBC Vancouver campus. Gage houses over 1100 upper-year students aged 19 and older (Student Housing Hospitality Services [SHHS], 2018). Students in Gage live in groups of six with shared kitchen and living facilities, and they do not have direct access to a meal plan so they must cook and shop for themselves (SHHS, 2018). Students in Gage are overseen by an RA, a fellow student who is responsible for running social programs that enrich life on campus (SHHS, 2018). This project will help RAs to run cooking programs for residents, with the aim of improving students’ cooking abilities and social networks to encourage cooking at home. Secondary audiences of this intervention include RAs and students living in other UBC residences (as the project increases in scale and expands beyond Gage). Also included are UBC SHHS and Melissa Baker, who may have future funding to continue facilitating similar interventions for a wider audience of students across campus.     4 Situational Assessment & Planning Framework Existing problems for university students:  Currently, little evidence exists regarding the prevalence of food insecurity across Canadian university campuses, but those working in close proximity to the student population are aware that it is an important issue (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018). Food security refers to the availability of and access to food, and includes food utilization and cooking skills (World Food Programme, 2018). In student populations, time is limited, finances are tight, and food knowledge may be low, so it is pertinent to identify and address barriers to better nutrition and cooking practices, in order to improve health outcomes (Murray et al., 2016).   According to Silverthorn (2016, p.1), nearly 39% of university students face some degree of food insecurity. Common barriers for preparing healthy meals at home are limited finances, time, and a lack of food and nutrition knowledge (Garcia, Sykes, Matthews, Martin, & Leipert, 2010; Meldrum & Willows, 2006). Additionally, busy students have little time to cook, let alone improve their methods or learn a new food skill (Murray et al., 2016). University students are surrounded by fast food outlets, which provide an easy alternative to cooking, but are much higher in salt, sugar, and fat when compared to meals cooked at home (Cohen & Bhatia, 2012).   There are 3 grocery stores near Gage, but there are over 20 restaurants and food trucks within walking distance, which impacts student attitudes about the ease and accessibility of cooking compared to eating out (UBC Food Services, 2018). During unit visits, Gage residents indicated that they cook <30% of the food that they consume, purchasing approximately 70% of their meals outside of their home (Lan Nguyen &  5 Kelsey Moore, personal communication, January 25, 2018). Since eating outside the home can significantly decrease diet quality, the limited number of home-cooked meals consumed by Gage residents is a major problem that needs addressing (Cohen & Bhatia, 2012). RAs have expressed interest in running cooking classes in residence to address this problem, but they currently do not have the time or knowledge to plan these programs alone (Lan Nguyen, personal communication, January 25, 2018). Behaviours that contribute to students’ food choices:  Recent studies indicate that a lack of culinary skills and reliance on fast food may be attributed to students feeling like they lack control (Murray et al., 2016). Upper-year students believe that cooking is difficult due to the commitment and planning it requires in comparison to eating out, and other university students have identified lack of nutrition and food knowledge as factors that lead to purchasing fast or convenience foods instead of cooking at home (Garcia et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2016). This lack of self-efficacy in cooking and nutrition knowledge only fuels the perceptions around the ease and accessibility of fast food. Perceptions of high cost of groceries and managing a budget also influence the amount of fresh meals that students prepare at home (Murray et al., 2016). Evidently, students lack self-efficacy when it comes to healthy cooking at home. Therefore self-efficacy and behavioural capability may be important factors in improving food behaviours. Since the current behaviours contribute to unhealthy eating habits, intervention is greatly needed. Factors that mediate students’ food choices: Environmental: The environment that people live in is one of the principal determinants of their health (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2010). Access to cookbooks and  6 clearly labeled nutrition facts on menus are environmental factors known to facilitate student’s healthy eating behaviours (Garcia et al., 2010). In addition, the availability of CK programs, which involve groups of people cooking a meal together and sharing food skills can mediate many nutrition and food related needs (Iacovou, Pattieson, Truby, & Palermo, 2012). These programs can decrease participant’s fast food consumption and increase cooking confidence, thus improving participants’ overall dietary intake (Garcia, Reardon, McDonald, & Vargas-Garcia, 2016; Iacovou et al., 2012; Reicks, Trofholz, Stang, & Laska, 2014). To be most effective, Murray et al. (2016) found programs on campus should offer simple, budget-friendly recipes that students are interested in cooking, while providing take-home recipes. Existing university interventions include Cooking on Campus at the University of Arizona, the Cooking Workshop initiative at Simon Fraser University, Varsity Athlete Cooking Workshops at UBC, and Community Kitchen Program at UBC Farm (Katherine Hastie, personal communication, January 30, 2018; Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018) (Appendix A). There are many existing attributes at Gage which can help facilitate nutritional wellbeing for students. Gage has a demo kitchen containing 6 workspaces stocked with utensils and cookware; this is an underused asset with incredible potential (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018). Gage is also home to 18 RAs who run programs on health and wellness for residents (Katherine MacGregor, personal communication, January 24 2018). RAs are allotted $80/semester to run these programs, and can apply for more funding, averaging at 100$/session (Katherine MacGregor, personal communication, January 24 2018). The identified needs of the  7 students, the assets at Gage residence, and the proven efficacy of CKs and cooking classes will help guide the focus of this intervention. Interpersonal: The interpersonal factors social connectivity and sense of community within a population are vital to facilitating healthy behaviours (Iacovou et al., 2012). A common strategy used in cooking programs is the opportunity to taste food or share a meal at the end of the session (Garcia et al., 2016). This promotes social bonding and discussion around food and nutrition, and encourages participants to try new foods (Garcia et al., 2016). Consequently, CK programs have been shown to increase participants’ social connections and support, which increases their enjoyment of cooking on their own (Iacovou et al., 2012). Therefore, programs like CKs should incorporate social connectivity components to increase their effectiveness. Individual: Several individual factors mediate nutritional health; at UBC, residents have exclusive access to the campus Registered Dietitian who is available for individual questions and counselling- a significant asset for students looking to increase nutritional knowledge on their own (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018). However, increasing nutritional knowledge alone is not enough to improve food choices, but may work when paired with hands-on initiatives that improve cooking confidence and skills, such as CKs (Clifford, Anderson, Auld, & Champ, 2009). Canadian university students have also identified that access to simple cookbooks and recipes encourages healthy food choices and improves confidence in the kitchen (Garcia et al., 2010).  Health Behavior Theory relevant to this intervention: This project will be guided by SCT to address complex interactions between mediating factors that affect the food skills and nutrition knowledge of Gage residents.  8 SCT is a theory that describes the interconnected personal, environmental, and behavioural factors that influence an individuals’ health behaviours (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). According to SCT, the three main factors that affect the probability of an individual modifying a health behaviour are: self-efficacy, goals, and outcome expectancies (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). SCT can be used to assess effectiveness of programs that promote health behaviour changes; most studies on cooking classes assess self-efficacy and expectations to determine how likely individuals are to adapt the learned food behaviours (Clifford et al., 2009). All three constructs of SCT will guide this program to ensure the most impactful aspects of behaviour change are targeted. Self-efficacy is defined as “a person’s confidence in exhibiting a particular behaviour at a given moment” (Xu et al., 2017, p.2). Evidence suggests that self-efficacy is increased through improved confidence, achieving small goals, and behavioural contracting that involves setting rules for one to follow (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). As discussed, university students lack confidence and knowledge to prepare healthy meals on their own, and CKs are an effective way of improving these skills and confidence in these skills (Clifford et al., 2009). This intervention will target self-efficacy and behavioural capacity, improving students’ cooking confidence through participation in a CK, followed by a brief facilitated goal setting session at the end of the workshop. This program will also target outcome expectations, defined as “the anticipation of the outcome of a particular behaviour and the value that one places on these outcomes” (Xu et al., 2017, p.2). As outlined, university students expect to encounter time, money, and convenience barriers when preparing meals on their own (Murray et al., 2016). This intervention will provide information and skills needed to follow recipes that are time and  9 budget friendly, thus challenging current expectations. Unfortunately, this intervention will not address the SCT concepts of reciprocal determinism and reinforcement because it will not occur frequently enough to impact these factors. Limitations of Situational Analysis: Information was gathered through database searches (Appendix B), interviews with Gage residents and RAs, and personal communication with key stakeholders. Data was summarized and sorted in a communal document where salient details were evaluated for relevance, following the Hierarchy of Evidence outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2009). Our analysis was limited by minimal peer reviewed data on food security and food habits of Canadian university students. To address the lack of data, we conducted interviews among Gage residents at UBC, but further scientific investigation is needed. Similarly, most studies evaluating CKs are observational and lack rigorous methods for assessing impact on participants’ food security and eating habits, so experimental studies are needed to accurately determine how these programs can be used in public health nutrition interventions (Iacovou et al., 2012; Reicks et al., 2014). Specifically, the cited literature lacked consistent, validated measures to assess improvements in food skills, confidence, and knowledge after cooking interventions. Common practice involves use of a five point Likert scale to address SCT constructs, but the variation in assessment methods makes it difficult to draw comparisons across studies cited in this analysis (Clifford et al., 2009).    10 Project Goals & Objectives  Overall Goal for the Increasing Food Skills in Residence Project: To improve the nutritional health and well-being of UBC students living in Gage residence.  Project Objectives: Short term: ● One community kitchen pilot program is run for 15 students by May 2018 ● At the end of each community kitchen program, 85% of attendees report an increase in food skills confidence ● At the end of each community kitchen program, 90% of attendees report making a new social connection Medium term: ● UBC Food Services, in partnership with UBC Student Housing & Hospitality Services increases the frequency of community kitchen programs executed in Gage Residence to once per month by the 2021 Winter Term (September 2021). ● Amount of home cooked meals consumed monthly by CK attendees increases by 15% by the 2021 Winter Term (September 2021). Long term: ● UBC Food Services, in partnership with UBC Student Housing & Hospitality Services, expands the community kitchen program to one other student residence on UBC campus by the 2024 Winter Term (September 2024). An overview of how these objectives integrate with the project inputs and outputs can be found in the Logic Model (Appendix C).  11 Project Outputs   Our intervention will provide RAs with the knowledge and tools to facilitate CK events in Gage and increase food skills in residents through two main outputs:  1) A manual of CK lesson plans and complete workshop guide 2) A post-intervention survey for residents to complete after CK participation. These outputs will be used by RAs in Gage to plan, implement, and evaluate the CK, and results will be reported to key stakeholders post-workshop for intervention monitoring. In the future, this intervention may expand to other residences within the UBC community, impacting a larger number of RAs and students. The logic model created for this intervention (Appendix C) displays project inputs and outputs, clearly linking aspects of SCT to project objectives.    The CK manual (attached) is our main output and a necessary component of this project. Due to the lack of time, knowledge, and confidence of RAs to create and facilitate these workshops on their own, this manual will be an invaluable resource, equipping RAs with the tools to effectively facilitate a cooking program while promoting improvements in their own cooking skills and knowledge, as well as those of the students attending (Lan Nguyen, personal communication, January 25, 2018). The tips and resources provided in the manual will also build on the existing leadership and communication skills that RAs already possess, using these skills to build connection and camaraderie between students.  The manual will act as a complete guide for RAs to run CK programs, and will include workshop preparation instructions, shopping and kitchen equipment lists, workshop outlines, nutrition and food safety information, and tips for building community  12 and social connectedness among workshop participants. The manual and recipe handouts (included within it) address concepts of SCT to try and increase the nutritional well being of residents in Gage (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). This manual is necessary to increase the self-efficacy of RAs, in order to facilitate CK programs for their residents. The manual provides the RAs with resources to carry out an effective program, and through the skills training provided in the manual, both RAs and students will discover that they have the capability and knowledge to perform a given behaviour - in this case, cooking a healthy meal from scratch.  The manual sets up RAs to run a successful workshop, modelling healthy meal preparation for the residents attending. In this way, the RAs will challenge student expectations for the better - seeing the RAs model positive outcomes will encourage them to change their own behaviour. The cooking workshops (a result of following the manual), will serve to increase self-efficacy of students, as well as increase their behavioural capability, encouraging healthy behaviour change even when faced with obstacles (Warmin, Sharp & Condrasky, 2012). In this particular case, students will practice preparing a recipe, and then have the opportunity to take that recipe handout home to make again, as the recipe handouts are pre-prepared for the RAs within the manual. Knowing that they have already made this recipe successfully once, students will have an increase in their confidence in making it again, providing more perceived control even when they are in the kitchen by themselves. Completion of the manual required time and knowledge from group members to organize ideas, conduct research, compile information, and design the layout. In addition, Melissa Baker and Katherine MacGregor contributed time and feedback  13 regarding the contents of the manual, it’s layout, and usefulness of the information included. Gage residence cooking facilities are required for actual use of the manual when implementing a CK event, and funding from The Gage Residence Association (GRA) is required to provide food to cook with during the programs. These funds are available pending approval by GRA at the time of implementation. Our second output, the post-intervention survey (Appendix D), is vital for timely and thorough evaluation of the CK programs implemented in Gage. The survey was constructed specifically for the CKs in the workshop guide, and will assess changes in participant’s self-reported confidence in cooking skills, their food knowledge, and social connectivity. This survey is designed to collect participant and RA feedback, facilitate goal setting, and collect measurable changes in participant health behaviors (see Evaluation for details). The constructs assessed in the survey are heavily informed by SCT, with a specific focus on self-efficacy and behavioural capability. There is an identifiable gap in self-efficacy in university residents regarding cooking for themselves (Murray et al., 2016), and confidence is a foundational component of self-efficacy (Glanz & Rimer, 2005), so the survey will directly assess cooking confidence through targeted questions and rating scales (see Evaluation for details). Creation of the post-intervention survey required time of group members to conduct literature reviews, compile information, and design a questionnaire based on valid, SCT assessment measures for cooking programs. Use of the surveys will require the RA’s time to distribute and collect them, as well as their time to compile results. Our community partners, Melissa and Katherine, have committed to keeping track of compiled data for use or analysis in subsequent years of the program. This data will be  14 used to evaluate the immediate usefulness of the CK programs in Gage, and may be used to determine potential funding for program expansion in the future.     15 Evaluation At the end of the CK, attendees will be asked to complete a brief 6 question survey (Appendix D) that will be used to asses if the CK is achieving its short term objectives. Increases in cooking skill confidence will be assessed by comparing attendees self-perceived ability to cook the meal prepared in the CK workshop before and after completing the CK session. The scale used asks attendees if they could prepare the meal all by themselves, with a little help, with a lot of help, or not at all. Anderson, Bell, Adamson, and Moynihan (2002) found this scale to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing perceived confidence in cooking skills. Assessing cooking skill confidence is an indirect measure of self-efficacy (Clifford et al., 2009). The objective was to impact 85% of attendees, with the intervention impacting as many students as possible.It may not be realistic to impact every single student, as some students may be familiar with recipes already or may only attend one CK workshop.     Making a social connection was set as a short term objective since developing community support helps promote sustained improvements to diet quality after community kitchen interventions (Iacovou et al., 2012). Building friendships at CK events helps increase enjoyment of both cooking and eating (Iacovou et al., 2012). Based on the SFU community kitchen program where 93% of attendees made a new social connection, aiming for 90% of attendees making a new social connection is a realistic value among university students in Vancouver (Melissa Baker, personal communication, Jan 24, 2018). This will be assessed through a yes/no question included on the survey. The short-term objective to run a pilot CK program for 15 students in April 2018 will be completed by May 1st by Kelsey Moore, an RA in Gage  16 who is also part of the group planning this intervention and has volunteered to test the CK intervention among the target population (Gage residents). Increasing cooking competence is an effective way of decreasing convenience food consumption,which includes frozen meals and fast food (Ternier, 2010). CK programs are an effective way of increasing cooking confidence and increasing home cooked meal consumption, but there is currently not enough quantitative data to show how significant these changes are (Ternier, 2010). This intervention set a conservative objective of a 15% increase in home cooked meal consumption among workshop participants. As survey data is submitted to Melissa Baker for her records, she will be be in charge of assessing this objective. Melissa will have access to all of the post CK survey results and can contact attendees after the workshop to inquire about how many home cooked meals they consume weekly, if desired. Since Melissa has the ability to expand the program further, s it is crucial that she has access to all data collected to evaluate the efficacy of the CK intervention if desired.  The evaluation plan has been discussed with community partners in order to monitor the medium and long term objectives regarding the frequency of CKs run and the number of residences that offer CK programs. Ultimately, the projects’ community stakeholders are responsible for assessing whether the community kitchen program is growing, checking if it is run once a month by 2021 winter term, and monitoring expansion to other residences on campus by the 2024 winter term. One way this can be assessed is through monitoring records of RAs who have applied for funding required to run a CK session.    17 Conclusion  The key contributions of this project were the completion of a ready-to-use guide for RAs to implement CKs in Gage residence at UBC, and the creation of post-intervention surveys for CK participants, to ensure timely and thorough evaluation of the program. The guide and evaluation tool are necessary resources for implementing workshops that effectively translate cooking and nutrition knowledge to students in order to improve their nutritional well being.  Completion of this project involved critical learning for all group members. The group learned that reliance on literature to understand the needs of a population may not disclose all complexities or details of a circumstance, and consultation with key stakeholders and members of the primary audience is vital to understand the needs and assets of a population prior to designing and implementing interventions. In addition, the group learned how the use of a logic model served to simplify program planning. Drafting the model together allowed everyone to reach the same level of understanding regarding project scope, clarified objectives, helped plan for timely evaluation, and focused the project to help properly apply constructs of SCT, resulting in the most effective interventions.   Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better characterize the circumstances of university students in Canada. However, this program addresses an identified gap in the resources of UBC residents living in Gage, and should be continued and built upon in following years of FNH 473 to allow for proper program implementation and long-term evaluation. Continuation of this project should involve analysis of evaluation data and expansion to additional UBC residences.    18 Author’s Contributions  All group members were involved in project development through weekly investigation of learning issues, creation of project goals, objectives, outputs, and drafting of the logic model. Individual contributions are as follows: Stefan Cvoric took primary responsibility for drafting part of the situational assessment, project goal and objectives, evaluation plan, part of the authors contributions, references, and the logic model. He also helped in editing all sections of the report. During the literature review Stefan found research supporting the use of SCT when planning a CK intervention. Stefan actively contributed at all group work sessions and meetings with community stakeholders. He created the PowerPoint slides for the logic model and final presentations. He was a presenter during the logic model presentation. Jenna Fan helped write and edit the CK Manual, appendices and author’s contributions. She wrote several food safety tips and one of the recipes for the manual. Jenna contacted the coordinator of community kitchen program at UBC farm for information regarding their CK program, and summarized the other CK programs for the appendices. Jenna also met deadlines every week, and helped research and review supporting literature articles. Jenna also presented during the final presentation. Marissa Gibbard helped write and edit the introduction, situational assessment, outputs, evaluation plan and conclusion sections of the report, and the authors contributions and appendices. She was also responsible for drafting the vegetarian chili recipe in the manual, and for speaking during in class presentations. During data collection, Marissa completed a literature review involving collection/summarization of  19 key articles included in the report, and took notes for the group at the meeting with Melissa and Katherine. Britney Lentz assisted in the writing and editing of the final paper, including the situational assessment, goals & objectives, outputs and authors contributions sections and appendices. She was one of the speakers in the Logic Model presentation and spoke during the final presentation. Britney acted as a liaison between the project group and key stakeholders, managing all communication and making sure that it was timely and professional. She actively contributed to each group meeting and held team members accountable to deadlines, moving the project forward to its timely completion.  Kelsey Moore contributed mainly to writing and editing the CK manual. Specifically, she wrote the introduction as well as several tips on safe food handling practices, edited comments from community partner, added a recipe and footnotes. Additionally, she gathered secondary and primary research for the situational assessment. In regards to the final report, Kelsey helped to write the executive summary and helped to edit. Kelsey will also be co-leading the pilot of this intervention.  Lan Nguyen helped write and edit the CK Manual. She created additional resources for the manual as seen needed by Melissa. To ensure that the project delivers valuable outcomes, she helped conduct primary research to determine the needs and desire of the target audience. Lan contributed in conducting literature reviews to justify the project’s goals and objectives. She presented the logic model alongside with groups members and will be speaking during the final class presentation. Lan will be co-leading the pilot of this intervention.    20 References Anderson, A., Bell, A., Adamson, A., & Moynihan, P. (2002). A questionnaire assessment of nutrition knowledge – validity and reliability issues. Public Health Nutrition, 5(3), 497-503. doi:10.1079/PHN2001307 Center for sustainable food systems at UBC farm. (n.d.) Community Kitchen at UBC Farm. (2018, February 10). Retrieved from University of British Columbia: http://ubcfarm.ubc.ca/events/community-kitchen-at-ubc-farm/ Clifford, D., Anderson, J., Auld, G., & Champ, J. (2009). Good grubbin’: Impact of a TV cooking show for college students living off campus. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 194-200. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.01.006 Cohen, D. A., & Bhatia, R. (2012). Nutrition standards for away‐ from‐ home foods in the USA. Obesity Reviews, 13(7), 618-629. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.00983.x Community Food Centers Canada. (2014, April 11). Tips to making community kitchen programs open and inclusive. Retrieved from http://thepod.cfccanada.ca/blog/tips-making-community-kitchen-programs-o pen-and-inclusive Fisher, H., Erasmus, A. C., & Viljoen, A. T. (2016). Young adults’ consideration of their food choices a propos consequences for their future health. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(4), 475-483. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12273 Garcia, A. C., Sykes, L., Matthews, J., Martin, N., & Leipert, B. (2010). Perceived facilitators of and barriers to healthful eating among university students.  21 Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 71(2), 28-33. doi:10.3148/71.2.2010.XX Garcia, A. L., Reardon, R., McDonald, M., & Vargas-Garcia, E. J. (2016). Community interventions to improve cooking skills and their effects on confidence and eating behaviour. Current nutrition reports, 5(4), 315-322. doi:10.1007/s13668-016-0185 -3 Glanz, K., & Rimer, B. (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice (second edition). United States: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved From: https://www.sbccimple mentationkits.org/demandrmnch/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Theory-at-a-Glance-A-Guide-For-Health-Promotion-Practice.pdf Health Canada. (2014, January 24). Food safety and you. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/f ood-safety-you.html Iacovou, M., Pattieson, D. C., Truby, H., & Palermo, C. (2012). Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: A systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 16(3), 1-9. doi:10.1017/S1368980012002753 McCrudden, E. (2017). Varsity athlete cooking workshops mid-year assessment. Vancouver: UBC Thunderbirds. Meldrum, L. A., & Willows, N. D. (2006). Food insecurity in university students receiving financial aid. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 67(1), 43-46. doi:10.3148/67.1.2006.43  22 Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D., (2010) Social determinants of health: The Canadian facts. Toronto, ON: York University School of Health Policy and Management. Retrieved from http://thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf Murray, D. W., Mahadevan, M., Gatto, K., O’Connor, K., Fissinger, A., Bailey, D., & Cassara, E. (2016). Culinary efficacy: An exploratory study of skills, confidence, and healthy cooking competencies among university students. Perspectives in Public Health, 136(3), 143-151. doi:10.1177/1757913915600195 National Health and Medical Research Council. (2009). NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of clinical practice guidelines. Retrieved from: https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p= 4149721 Reicks, M., Trofholz, A., Stang, J., & Laska, M. (2014). Impact of cooking and home food preparation interventions among adults: Outcomes and implications for future programs. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(4), 259-276. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.001 Silverthorn, D. (2016). Hungry for knowledge: Assessing the prevalence of student food insecurity on five Canadian campuses. Toronto: Meal Exchange. Retrieved from http://mealexchange.com Soneff, R., & Worboys, J. (2013). Kitchen connections, a facilitator's manual cooking program for mental health clients. Retrieved from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourHealth/HealthyLiving/FoodSecurity/Documents/Kitchen%20Connections%20-%20Facilitators%20Manual.pdf Student Housing and Hospitality Services. (2018). Walter Gage. Retrieved from http://vancouver.housing.ubc.ca/residences/walter-gage/  23 Ternier, S. (2010). Understanding and measuring cooking skills and knowledge as factors influencing convenience food purchases and consumption. Studies by Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph, 3(2), 69-76. The University of Arizona (2018) Cooking on Campus. (2018, February 10). Retrieved from The University of Arizona: http://cookingoncampus.arizona.edu/ UBC Food Services. (2018). Places to eat. Retrieved from http://www.food.ubc.ca/pl aces-to-eat/ Warmin, A., Sharp, J., & Condrasky, M. D. (2012). Cooking with a chef: A culinary nutrition program for college aged students. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 27(2), 164-173. doi:10.1097/TIN.0b013e3182542417 World Food Programme. (2018). What is food security?. Retrieved from https://www.wfp.org/node/359289 Xu, X., Pu, Y., Sharma, M., Rao, Y., Cai, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Predicting physical activity and healthy nutrition behaviours using social cognitive theory: Cross-sectional survey among undergraduate students in Chongquing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1346-1359. doi:10.3390/ijerph14111346   24 Appendix A: Existing Interventions for University Students  The Cooking Workshops of University of Arizona (The University of Arizona, 2018):      The Cooking Workshops at University of Arizona had partnerships with Campus Recreation, Campus Health Services, Culinary Services, Associated Students of University of Arizona and the Student Health Advocacy Committee (SHAC). The goal of the program was to guide students to shop and choose healthy foods on a budget, improve cooking skills, and cook healthy recipes. The program also taught students basics on cooking, and answered nutrition-related questions from students. The program was limited to 18 people and recipes used included brunch (avocado egg boats and zucchini sweet potato hash) and healthy alternatives to fast food (veggie burgers and sweet potato fries). There is no information available regarding evaluation of the outcomes of this program.   The Community Cooking Workshop of Simon Fraser University (SFU) (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018)      The community cooking workshop at SFU was conducted 2-4 times a month from January to March. The goal of the program was to help students cook healthy recipes, meet new friends, and improve health behaviors. A handout referred students to websites and apps where they could find easy and healthy recipes, and it introduced daily food and activity tracking software to help students better support their health. Students were also encouraged to personalize their own food plan according to lifestyles, while sticking to the Canadian Food Guide. Sample recipes included curry lentils and salads. 93% of the participants reported that they have made new friends and developed their social networks after the workshop.    The Varsity Athletic Cooking Workshop of UBC (McCrudden, 2017):     The Varsity Athletic Cooking Workshop at UBC was designed to improve the students’ nutrition during their athletic life and beyond by enhancing their cooking skills and food preparation skills with consideration of limited time and budget. The workshop also educated athletes on nutritional practices with specific nutrients, such as iron, protein, omega 3 fatty acids etc., and some food hygiene skills. The athletes would eventually get familiar with cooking equipment and the recipes they learned to cook. The maximum class size was 22 and each workshop lasted 1.5-2 hours. Athletes learned to cook 8-12 meals in assigned small teams, and they would provide feedbacks after. The program did positively influence the wider UBC community by promoting a healthy and fun environment for athletes, and students are encouraged to develop their cooking skills and support their health. Most of the attendees found that the recipes and cooking skills taught were helpful for them as an athlete, and they had increased confidence on food preparation skills after the workshop.      25 The Community Kitchen Program at UBC Farm (Katherine Hastie, personal communication, January 30, 2018):   The community kitchen program by UBC Farm was organized once a month from November 2017 to February 2018. The goal of the program was to increase students’ interests of cooking and improve student’s cooking skills and nutritional knowledge (Center for sustainable food systems at UBC farm, n.d.). Participants could register online, and each session could fit 15 people. The farm provided seasonal ingredients they that could harvest or buy fresh near the university. Costs differed depending on what recipe was used, varying between $64-$140 for 10-15 people. The recipes they chose for each month were vegan and gluten free, and were easy for students to cook on their own and had them involved in cooking throughout the duration of each session, such as sushi, samosas, and tacos. The program also accepted donations. There is no information available regarding evaluation of the outcomes of this program.      26 Appendix B: Methodology  Literature review and situational assessment:   The situational assessment began with a meeting with our community partners to discuss aims and expectations for the project, exchange important resources, and to clarify our role in project development and implementation. From there, we conducted a literature review using key word searches in EBSCO, CAB Direct, and UBC Summon databases. Group members also conducted in-person interviews with students living in the Gage residence to determine the priorities and interests of the primary audience regarding cooking classes in residence.  Development of the cooking manual:   The cooking manual was based on existing programs created by the University of Arizona, SFU, UBC Varsity, and the UBC Farm (Appendix A), and a guide by Soneff & Worboys (2013). The manual was tailored to meet the specifications of our community partners. Information regarding food safety was adopted from Health Canada (2014). Community building and workshop information was adapted from RAs’ existing knowledge, and from Community Food Centers Canada (2014). Recipes were found from various online recipe websites, and were adapted to include necessary components (nutrition or food safety tips, storage considerations) based on group members’ existing cooking knowledge and the information gathered from Health Canada (2014). The manual was designed to be used as a tool by RAs who have basic cooking abilities. It incorporates simple, cost effective recipes as well as nutrition information and food handling tips. It also incorporates tips and a “how-to guide” for RAs who want to introduce a new recipe that is not in the manual.    27 Appendix C: The Logic Model  28 Appendix D: Evaluation Tool Post workshop questionnaire: 1. Before attending this community kitchen I felt like I would have been able toprepare toady’s meal:a) All by myself b) With a little help   c) With a lot of help d) Not at all2. After attending this community kitchen I feel like I would be able to preparetoday’s meal:a) All by myself b) With a little help   c) With a lot of help d) Not at all3. I made a new friend as a result of attending this community kitchena) Agree b) Disagree4. Set a goal for how many meals you’d like to prepare at home per week(includes breakfast/lunch/dinner/snacks).5. Please provide your email if you feel comfortable being contacted as a followup and see how often you prepare meals for yourself at home. (optional)6. Do you have any suggestions for improving community kitchen nights such asthis in the future? (optional)Online version of the questionnaire can be found at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/collect/?sm=FvchYW_2BRFGojJBEn0Isvi1ArZJyyhJpvO_2FBJ0yjgAO53mOrnbuAJKUIjvfgSXSp6  29    Appendix E: Newsletter  UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report UBC Food Services: Increasing Food Skills in ResidenceStefan Cvoric, Jenna Fan, Marissa Gibbard, Britney Lentz, Kelsey Moore, Lan NguyenUniversity of British ColumbiaFNH 473Themes: Community, Food, HealthApril 9, 2018Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. 1 Table of Contents: Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situational Assessment and Planning Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Goal and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors’ Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 4 10 11 15 17 18 20 24 2 Executive Summary This intervention aimed to improve nutritional well being among students at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The target population was upper year students living in Walter Gage Residence (Gage) at UBC in Vancouver. The intervention was originally proposed by Melissa Baker, Manager, Nutrition and Wellbeing for UBC’s Student Housing & Hospitality Services and Katherine MacGregor, Residence Life Manager (RLM) of Gage. This project used Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to assist in achieving the main objective of this intervention which was to create an instructional manual for residence advisors (RAs) to facilitate community kitchens (CKs) in Gage that improved attendees’ cooking capability, while building community.  Prior to beginning work on the project, a literature review was conducted to assess levels of food insecurity amongst university students, and to gain insight into effective interventions and programs of interest to the target population. Primary research (interviews) was conducted to assess the current level of food skills and knowledge of Gage residents. We found a combination of environmental, interpersonal and individual aspects that facilitate and mediate students’ food choices, and despite limited research, food insecurity among university students is present, and there is a need for increased food knowledge and skills in this population (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018).  Project outputs consisted of a CK manual to aid RAs in running CK programs in Gage and a post-intervention survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in increasing cooking confidence. The manual and survey will be passed along to community stakeholders for further analysis and used for expansion of this intervention to other residences.   3 Introduction Over the past decade, there has been an increasing focus on food insecurity and nutrition across Canadian university campuses (Silverthorn, 2016). Among other variables, students have identified food knowledge and cooking skills as important barriers to healthy cooking at home (Silverthorn, 2016). This is an urgent problem, as students’ current food behaviours affects their health in the future, and immediate intervention is necessary to improve their nutrition (Fisher, Erasmus & Viljoen, 2016). This project focuses on improving cooking skills among the primary audience, university students living in Gage at the UBC Vancouver campus. Gage houses over 1100 upper-year students aged 19 and older (Student Housing Hospitality Services [SHHS], 2018). Students in Gage live in groups of six with shared kitchen and living facilities, and they do not have direct access to a meal plan so they must cook and shop for themselves (SHHS, 2018). Students in Gage are overseen by an RA, a fellow student who is responsible for running social programs that enrich life on campus (SHHS, 2018). This project will help RAs to run cooking programs for residents, with the aim of improving students’ cooking abilities and social networks to encourage cooking at home. Secondary audiences of this intervention include RAs and students living in other UBC residences (as the project increases in scale and expands beyond Gage). Also included are UBC SHHS and Melissa Baker, who may have future funding to continue facilitating similar interventions for a wider audience of students across campus.     4 Situational Assessment & Planning Framework Existing problems for university students:  Currently, little evidence exists regarding the prevalence of food insecurity across Canadian university campuses, but those working in close proximity to the student population are aware that it is an important issue (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018). Food security refers to the availability of and access to food, and includes food utilization and cooking skills (World Food Programme, 2018). In student populations, time is limited, finances are tight, and food knowledge may be low, so it is pertinent to identify and address barriers to better nutrition and cooking practices, in order to improve health outcomes (Murray et al., 2016).   According to Silverthorn (2016, p.1), nearly 39% of university students face some degree of food insecurity. Common barriers for preparing healthy meals at home are limited finances, time, and a lack of food and nutrition knowledge (Garcia, Sykes, Matthews, Martin, & Leipert, 2010; Meldrum & Willows, 2006). Additionally, busy students have little time to cook, let alone improve their methods or learn a new food skill (Murray et al., 2016). University students are surrounded by fast food outlets, which provide an easy alternative to cooking, but are much higher in salt, sugar, and fat when compared to meals cooked at home (Cohen & Bhatia, 2012).   There are 3 grocery stores near Gage, but there are over 20 restaurants and food trucks within walking distance, which impacts student attitudes about the ease and accessibility of cooking compared to eating out (UBC Food Services, 2018). During unit visits, Gage residents indicated that they cook <30% of the food that they consume, purchasing approximately 70% of their meals outside of their home (Lan Nguyen &  5 Kelsey Moore, personal communication, January 25, 2018). Since eating outside the home can significantly decrease diet quality, the limited number of home-cooked meals consumed by Gage residents is a major problem that needs addressing (Cohen & Bhatia, 2012). RAs have expressed interest in running cooking classes in residence to address this problem, but they currently do not have the time or knowledge to plan these programs alone (Lan Nguyen, personal communication, January 25, 2018). Behaviours that contribute to students’ food choices:  Recent studies indicate that a lack of culinary skills and reliance on fast food may be attributed to students feeling like they lack control (Murray et al., 2016). Upper-year students believe that cooking is difficult due to the commitment and planning it requires in comparison to eating out, and other university students have identified lack of nutrition and food knowledge as factors that lead to purchasing fast or convenience foods instead of cooking at home (Garcia et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2016). This lack of self-efficacy in cooking and nutrition knowledge only fuels the perceptions around the ease and accessibility of fast food. Perceptions of high cost of groceries and managing a budget also influence the amount of fresh meals that students prepare at home (Murray et al., 2016). Evidently, students lack self-efficacy when it comes to healthy cooking at home. Therefore self-efficacy and behavioural capability may be important factors in improving food behaviours. Since the current behaviours contribute to unhealthy eating habits, intervention is greatly needed. Factors that mediate students’ food choices: Environmental: The environment that people live in is one of the principal determinants of their health (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2010). Access to cookbooks and  6 clearly labeled nutrition facts on menus are environmental factors known to facilitate student’s healthy eating behaviours (Garcia et al., 2010). In addition, the availability of CK programs, which involve groups of people cooking a meal together and sharing food skills can mediate many nutrition and food related needs (Iacovou, Pattieson, Truby, & Palermo, 2012). These programs can decrease participant’s fast food consumption and increase cooking confidence, thus improving participants’ overall dietary intake (Garcia, Reardon, McDonald, & Vargas-Garcia, 2016; Iacovou et al., 2012; Reicks, Trofholz, Stang, & Laska, 2014). To be most effective, Murray et al. (2016) found programs on campus should offer simple, budget-friendly recipes that students are interested in cooking, while providing take-home recipes. Existing university interventions include Cooking on Campus at the University of Arizona, the Cooking Workshop initiative at Simon Fraser University, Varsity Athlete Cooking Workshops at UBC, and Community Kitchen Program at UBC Farm (Katherine Hastie, personal communication, January 30, 2018; Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018) (Appendix A). There are many existing attributes at Gage which can help facilitate nutritional wellbeing for students. Gage has a demo kitchen containing 6 workspaces stocked with utensils and cookware; this is an underused asset with incredible potential (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018). Gage is also home to 18 RAs who run programs on health and wellness for residents (Katherine MacGregor, personal communication, January 24 2018). RAs are allotted $80/semester to run these programs, and can apply for more funding, averaging at 100$/session (Katherine MacGregor, personal communication, January 24 2018). The identified needs of the  7 students, the assets at Gage residence, and the proven efficacy of CKs and cooking classes will help guide the focus of this intervention. Interpersonal: The interpersonal factors social connectivity and sense of community within a population are vital to facilitating healthy behaviours (Iacovou et al., 2012). A common strategy used in cooking programs is the opportunity to taste food or share a meal at the end of the session (Garcia et al., 2016). This promotes social bonding and discussion around food and nutrition, and encourages participants to try new foods (Garcia et al., 2016). Consequently, CK programs have been shown to increase participants’ social connections and support, which increases their enjoyment of cooking on their own (Iacovou et al., 2012). Therefore, programs like CKs should incorporate social connectivity components to increase their effectiveness. Individual: Several individual factors mediate nutritional health; at UBC, residents have exclusive access to the campus Registered Dietitian who is available for individual questions and counselling- a significant asset for students looking to increase nutritional knowledge on their own (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018). However, increasing nutritional knowledge alone is not enough to improve food choices, but may work when paired with hands-on initiatives that improve cooking confidence and skills, such as CKs (Clifford, Anderson, Auld, & Champ, 2009). Canadian university students have also identified that access to simple cookbooks and recipes encourages healthy food choices and improves confidence in the kitchen (Garcia et al., 2010).  Health Behavior Theory relevant to this intervention: This project will be guided by SCT to address complex interactions between mediating factors that affect the food skills and nutrition knowledge of Gage residents.  8 SCT is a theory that describes the interconnected personal, environmental, and behavioural factors that influence an individuals’ health behaviours (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). According to SCT, the three main factors that affect the probability of an individual modifying a health behaviour are: self-efficacy, goals, and outcome expectancies (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). SCT can be used to assess effectiveness of programs that promote health behaviour changes; most studies on cooking classes assess self-efficacy and expectations to determine how likely individuals are to adapt the learned food behaviours (Clifford et al., 2009). All three constructs of SCT will guide this program to ensure the most impactful aspects of behaviour change are targeted. Self-efficacy is defined as “a person’s confidence in exhibiting a particular behaviour at a given moment” (Xu et al., 2017, p.2). Evidence suggests that self-efficacy is increased through improved confidence, achieving small goals, and behavioural contracting that involves setting rules for one to follow (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). As discussed, university students lack confidence and knowledge to prepare healthy meals on their own, and CKs are an effective way of improving these skills and confidence in these skills (Clifford et al., 2009). This intervention will target self-efficacy and behavioural capacity, improving students’ cooking confidence through participation in a CK, followed by a brief facilitated goal setting session at the end of the workshop. This program will also target outcome expectations, defined as “the anticipation of the outcome of a particular behaviour and the value that one places on these outcomes” (Xu et al., 2017, p.2). As outlined, university students expect to encounter time, money, and convenience barriers when preparing meals on their own (Murray et al., 2016). This intervention will provide information and skills needed to follow recipes that are time and  9 budget friendly, thus challenging current expectations. Unfortunately, this intervention will not address the SCT concepts of reciprocal determinism and reinforcement because it will not occur frequently enough to impact these factors. Limitations of Situational Analysis: Information was gathered through database searches (Appendix B), interviews with Gage residents and RAs, and personal communication with key stakeholders. Data was summarized and sorted in a communal document where salient details were evaluated for relevance, following the Hierarchy of Evidence outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2009). Our analysis was limited by minimal peer reviewed data on food security and food habits of Canadian university students. To address the lack of data, we conducted interviews among Gage residents at UBC, but further scientific investigation is needed. Similarly, most studies evaluating CKs are observational and lack rigorous methods for assessing impact on participants’ food security and eating habits, so experimental studies are needed to accurately determine how these programs can be used in public health nutrition interventions (Iacovou et al., 2012; Reicks et al., 2014). Specifically, the cited literature lacked consistent, validated measures to assess improvements in food skills, confidence, and knowledge after cooking interventions. Common practice involves use of a five point Likert scale to address SCT constructs, but the variation in assessment methods makes it difficult to draw comparisons across studies cited in this analysis (Clifford et al., 2009).    10 Project Goals & Objectives  Overall Goal for the Increasing Food Skills in Residence Project: To improve the nutritional health and well-being of UBC students living in Gage residence.  Project Objectives: Short term: ● One community kitchen pilot program is run for 15 students by May 2018 ● At the end of each community kitchen program, 85% of attendees report an increase in food skills confidence ● At the end of each community kitchen program, 90% of attendees report making a new social connection Medium term: ● UBC Food Services, in partnership with UBC Student Housing & Hospitality Services increases the frequency of community kitchen programs executed in Gage Residence to once per month by the 2021 Winter Term (September 2021). ● Amount of home cooked meals consumed monthly by CK attendees increases by 15% by the 2021 Winter Term (September 2021). Long term: ● UBC Food Services, in partnership with UBC Student Housing & Hospitality Services, expands the community kitchen program to one other student residence on UBC campus by the 2024 Winter Term (September 2024). An overview of how these objectives integrate with the project inputs and outputs can be found in the Logic Model (Appendix C).  11 Project Outputs   Our intervention will provide RAs with the knowledge and tools to facilitate CK events in Gage and increase food skills in residents through two main outputs:  1) A manual of CK lesson plans and complete workshop guide 2) A post-intervention survey for residents to complete after CK participation. These outputs will be used by RAs in Gage to plan, implement, and evaluate the CK, and results will be reported to key stakeholders post-workshop for intervention monitoring. In the future, this intervention may expand to other residences within the UBC community, impacting a larger number of RAs and students. The logic model created for this intervention (Appendix C) displays project inputs and outputs, clearly linking aspects of SCT to project objectives.    The CK manual (attached) is our main output and a necessary component of this project. Due to the lack of time, knowledge, and confidence of RAs to create and facilitate these workshops on their own, this manual will be an invaluable resource, equipping RAs with the tools to effectively facilitate a cooking program while promoting improvements in their own cooking skills and knowledge, as well as those of the students attending (Lan Nguyen, personal communication, January 25, 2018). The tips and resources provided in the manual will also build on the existing leadership and communication skills that RAs already possess, using these skills to build connection and camaraderie between students.  The manual will act as a complete guide for RAs to run CK programs, and will include workshop preparation instructions, shopping and kitchen equipment lists, workshop outlines, nutrition and food safety information, and tips for building community  12 and social connectedness among workshop participants. The manual and recipe handouts (included within it) address concepts of SCT to try and increase the nutritional well being of residents in Gage (Glanz & Rimer, 2005). This manual is necessary to increase the self-efficacy of RAs, in order to facilitate CK programs for their residents. The manual provides the RAs with resources to carry out an effective program, and through the skills training provided in the manual, both RAs and students will discover that they have the capability and knowledge to perform a given behaviour - in this case, cooking a healthy meal from scratch.  The manual sets up RAs to run a successful workshop, modelling healthy meal preparation for the residents attending. In this way, the RAs will challenge student expectations for the better - seeing the RAs model positive outcomes will encourage them to change their own behaviour. The cooking workshops (a result of following the manual), will serve to increase self-efficacy of students, as well as increase their behavioural capability, encouraging healthy behaviour change even when faced with obstacles (Warmin, Sharp & Condrasky, 2012). In this particular case, students will practice preparing a recipe, and then have the opportunity to take that recipe handout home to make again, as the recipe handouts are pre-prepared for the RAs within the manual. Knowing that they have already made this recipe successfully once, students will have an increase in their confidence in making it again, providing more perceived control even when they are in the kitchen by themselves. Completion of the manual required time and knowledge from group members to organize ideas, conduct research, compile information, and design the layout. In addition, Melissa Baker and Katherine MacGregor contributed time and feedback  13 regarding the contents of the manual, it’s layout, and usefulness of the information included. Gage residence cooking facilities are required for actual use of the manual when implementing a CK event, and funding from The Gage Residence Association (GRA) is required to provide food to cook with during the programs. These funds are available pending approval by GRA at the time of implementation. Our second output, the post-intervention survey (Appendix D), is vital for timely and thorough evaluation of the CK programs implemented in Gage. The survey was constructed specifically for the CKs in the workshop guide, and will assess changes in participant’s self-reported confidence in cooking skills, their food knowledge, and social connectivity. This survey is designed to collect participant and RA feedback, facilitate goal setting, and collect measurable changes in participant health behaviors (see Evaluation for details). The constructs assessed in the survey are heavily informed by SCT, with a specific focus on self-efficacy and behavioural capability. There is an identifiable gap in self-efficacy in university residents regarding cooking for themselves (Murray et al., 2016), and confidence is a foundational component of self-efficacy (Glanz & Rimer, 2005), so the survey will directly assess cooking confidence through targeted questions and rating scales (see Evaluation for details). Creation of the post-intervention survey required time of group members to conduct literature reviews, compile information, and design a questionnaire based on valid, SCT assessment measures for cooking programs. Use of the surveys will require the RA’s time to distribute and collect them, as well as their time to compile results. Our community partners, Melissa and Katherine, have committed to keeping track of compiled data for use or analysis in subsequent years of the program. This data will be  14 used to evaluate the immediate usefulness of the CK programs in Gage, and may be used to determine potential funding for program expansion in the future.     15 Evaluation At the end of the CK, attendees will be asked to complete a brief 6 question survey (Appendix D) that will be used to asses if the CK is achieving its short term objectives. Increases in cooking skill confidence will be assessed by comparing attendees self-perceived ability to cook the meal prepared in the CK workshop before and after completing the CK session. The scale used asks attendees if they could prepare the meal all by themselves, with a little help, with a lot of help, or not at all. Anderson, Bell, Adamson, and Moynihan (2002) found this scale to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing perceived confidence in cooking skills. Assessing cooking skill confidence is an indirect measure of self-efficacy (Clifford et al., 2009). The objective was to impact 85% of attendees, with the intervention impacting as many students as possible.It may not be realistic to impact every single student, as some students may be familiar with recipes already or may only attend one CK workshop.     Making a social connection was set as a short term objective since developing community support helps promote sustained improvements to diet quality after community kitchen interventions (Iacovou et al., 2012). Building friendships at CK events helps increase enjoyment of both cooking and eating (Iacovou et al., 2012). Based on the SFU community kitchen program where 93% of attendees made a new social connection, aiming for 90% of attendees making a new social connection is a realistic value among university students in Vancouver (Melissa Baker, personal communication, Jan 24, 2018). This will be assessed through a yes/no question included on the survey. The short-term objective to run a pilot CK program for 15 students in April 2018 will be completed by May 1st by Kelsey Moore, an RA in Gage  16 who is also part of the group planning this intervention and has volunteered to test the CK intervention among the target population (Gage residents). Increasing cooking competence is an effective way of decreasing convenience food consumption,which includes frozen meals and fast food (Ternier, 2010). CK programs are an effective way of increasing cooking confidence and increasing home cooked meal consumption, but there is currently not enough quantitative data to show how significant these changes are (Ternier, 2010). This intervention set a conservative objective of a 15% increase in home cooked meal consumption among workshop participants. As survey data is submitted to Melissa Baker for her records, she will be be in charge of assessing this objective. Melissa will have access to all of the post CK survey results and can contact attendees after the workshop to inquire about how many home cooked meals they consume weekly, if desired. Since Melissa has the ability to expand the program further, s it is crucial that she has access to all data collected to evaluate the efficacy of the CK intervention if desired.  The evaluation plan has been discussed with community partners in order to monitor the medium and long term objectives regarding the frequency of CKs run and the number of residences that offer CK programs. Ultimately, the projects’ community stakeholders are responsible for assessing whether the community kitchen program is growing, checking if it is run once a month by 2021 winter term, and monitoring expansion to other residences on campus by the 2024 winter term. One way this can be assessed is through monitoring records of RAs who have applied for funding required to run a CK session.    17 Conclusion  The key contributions of this project were the completion of a ready-to-use guide for RAs to implement CKs in Gage residence at UBC, and the creation of post-intervention surveys for CK participants, to ensure timely and thorough evaluation of the program. The guide and evaluation tool are necessary resources for implementing workshops that effectively translate cooking and nutrition knowledge to students in order to improve their nutritional well being.  Completion of this project involved critical learning for all group members. The group learned that reliance on literature to understand the needs of a population may not disclose all complexities or details of a circumstance, and consultation with key stakeholders and members of the primary audience is vital to understand the needs and assets of a population prior to designing and implementing interventions. In addition, the group learned how the use of a logic model served to simplify program planning. Drafting the model together allowed everyone to reach the same level of understanding regarding project scope, clarified objectives, helped plan for timely evaluation, and focused the project to help properly apply constructs of SCT, resulting in the most effective interventions.   Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better characterize the circumstances of university students in Canada. However, this program addresses an identified gap in the resources of UBC residents living in Gage, and should be continued and built upon in following years of FNH 473 to allow for proper program implementation and long-term evaluation. Continuation of this project should involve analysis of evaluation data and expansion to additional UBC residences.    18 Author’s Contributions  All group members were involved in project development through weekly investigation of learning issues, creation of project goals, objectives, outputs, and drafting of the logic model. Individual contributions are as follows: Stefan Cvoric took primary responsibility for drafting part of the situational assessment, project goal and objectives, evaluation plan, part of the authors contributions, references, and the logic model. He also helped in editing all sections of the report. During the literature review Stefan found research supporting the use of SCT when planning a CK intervention. Stefan actively contributed at all group work sessions and meetings with community stakeholders. He created the PowerPoint slides for the logic model and final presentations. He was a presenter during the logic model presentation. Jenna Fan helped write and edit the CK Manual, appendices and author’s contributions. She wrote several food safety tips and one of the recipes for the manual. Jenna contacted the coordinator of community kitchen program at UBC farm for information regarding their CK program, and summarized the other CK programs for the appendices. Jenna also met deadlines every week, and helped research and review supporting literature articles. Jenna also presented during the final presentation. Marissa Gibbard helped write and edit the introduction, situational assessment, outputs, evaluation plan and conclusion sections of the report, and the authors contributions and appendices. She was also responsible for drafting the vegetarian chili recipe in the manual, and for speaking during in class presentations. During data collection, Marissa completed a literature review involving collection/summarization of  19 key articles included in the report, and took notes for the group at the meeting with Melissa and Katherine. Britney Lentz assisted in the writing and editing of the final paper, including the situational assessment, goals & objectives, outputs and authors contributions sections and appendices. She was one of the speakers in the Logic Model presentation and spoke during the final presentation. Britney acted as a liaison between the project group and key stakeholders, managing all communication and making sure that it was timely and professional. She actively contributed to each group meeting and held team members accountable to deadlines, moving the project forward to its timely completion.  Kelsey Moore contributed mainly to writing and editing the CK manual. Specifically, she wrote the introduction as well as several tips on safe food handling practices, edited comments from community partner, added a recipe and footnotes. Additionally, she gathered secondary and primary research for the situational assessment. In regards to the final report, Kelsey helped to write the executive summary and helped to edit. Kelsey will also be co-leading the pilot of this intervention.  Lan Nguyen helped write and edit the CK Manual. She created additional resources for the manual as seen needed by Melissa. To ensure that the project delivers valuable outcomes, she helped conduct primary research to determine the needs and desire of the target audience. Lan contributed in conducting literature reviews to justify the project’s goals and objectives. She presented the logic model alongside with groups members and will be speaking during the final class presentation. Lan will be co-leading the pilot of this intervention.    20 References Anderson, A., Bell, A., Adamson, A., & Moynihan, P. (2002). A questionnaire assessment of nutrition knowledge – validity and reliability issues. Public Health Nutrition, 5(3), 497-503. doi:10.1079/PHN2001307 Center for sustainable food systems at UBC farm. (n.d.) Community Kitchen at UBC Farm. (2018, February 10). Retrieved from University of British Columbia: http://ubcfarm.ubc.ca/events/community-kitchen-at-ubc-farm/ Clifford, D., Anderson, J., Auld, G., & Champ, J. (2009). Good grubbin’: Impact of a TV cooking show for college students living off campus. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 194-200. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.01.006 Cohen, D. A., & Bhatia, R. (2012). Nutrition standards for away‐ from‐ home foods in the USA. Obesity Reviews, 13(7), 618-629. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.00983.x Community Food Centers Canada. (2014, April 11). Tips to making community kitchen programs open and inclusive. Retrieved from http://thepod.cfccanada.ca/blog/tips-making-community-kitchen-programs-o pen-and-inclusive Fisher, H., Erasmus, A. C., & Viljoen, A. T. (2016). Young adults’ consideration of their food choices a propos consequences for their future health. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(4), 475-483. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12273 Garcia, A. C., Sykes, L., Matthews, J., Martin, N., & Leipert, B. (2010). Perceived facilitators of and barriers to healthful eating among university students.  21 Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 71(2), 28-33. doi:10.3148/71.2.2010.XX Garcia, A. L., Reardon, R., McDonald, M., & Vargas-Garcia, E. J. (2016). Community interventions to improve cooking skills and their effects on confidence and eating behaviour. Current nutrition reports, 5(4), 315-322. doi:10.1007/s13668-016-0185 -3 Glanz, K., & Rimer, B. (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice (second edition). United States: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved From: https://www.sbccimple mentationkits.org/demandrmnch/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Theory-at-a-Glance-A-Guide-For-Health-Promotion-Practice.pdf Health Canada. (2014, January 24). Food safety and you. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/f ood-safety-you.html Iacovou, M., Pattieson, D. C., Truby, H., & Palermo, C. (2012). Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: A systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 16(3), 1-9. doi:10.1017/S1368980012002753 McCrudden, E. (2017). Varsity athlete cooking workshops mid-year assessment. Vancouver: UBC Thunderbirds. Meldrum, L. A., & Willows, N. D. (2006). Food insecurity in university students receiving financial aid. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 67(1), 43-46. doi:10.3148/67.1.2006.43  22 Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D., (2010) Social determinants of health: The Canadian facts. Toronto, ON: York University School of Health Policy and Management. Retrieved from http://thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf Murray, D. W., Mahadevan, M., Gatto, K., O’Connor, K., Fissinger, A., Bailey, D., & Cassara, E. (2016). Culinary efficacy: An exploratory study of skills, confidence, and healthy cooking competencies among university students. Perspectives in Public Health, 136(3), 143-151. doi:10.1177/1757913915600195 National Health and Medical Research Council. (2009). NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of clinical practice guidelines. Retrieved from: https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p= 4149721 Reicks, M., Trofholz, A., Stang, J., & Laska, M. (2014). Impact of cooking and home food preparation interventions among adults: Outcomes and implications for future programs. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(4), 259-276. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.001 Silverthorn, D. (2016). Hungry for knowledge: Assessing the prevalence of student food insecurity on five Canadian campuses. Toronto: Meal Exchange. Retrieved from http://mealexchange.com Soneff, R., & Worboys, J. (2013). Kitchen connections, a facilitator's manual cooking program for mental health clients. Retrieved from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourHealth/HealthyLiving/FoodSecurity/Documents/Kitchen%20Connections%20-%20Facilitators%20Manual.pdf Student Housing and Hospitality Services. (2018). Walter Gage. Retrieved from http://vancouver.housing.ubc.ca/residences/walter-gage/  23 Ternier, S. (2010). Understanding and measuring cooking skills and knowledge as factors influencing convenience food purchases and consumption. Studies by Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph, 3(2), 69-76. The University of Arizona (2018) Cooking on Campus. (2018, February 10). Retrieved from The University of Arizona: http://cookingoncampus.arizona.edu/ UBC Food Services. (2018). Places to eat. Retrieved from http://www.food.ubc.ca/pl aces-to-eat/ Warmin, A., Sharp, J., & Condrasky, M. D. (2012). Cooking with a chef: A culinary nutrition program for college aged students. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 27(2), 164-173. doi:10.1097/TIN.0b013e3182542417 World Food Programme. (2018). What is food security?. Retrieved from https://www.wfp.org/node/359289 Xu, X., Pu, Y., Sharma, M., Rao, Y., Cai, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Predicting physical activity and healthy nutrition behaviours using social cognitive theory: Cross-sectional survey among undergraduate students in Chongquing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1346-1359. doi:10.3390/ijerph14111346   24 Appendix A: Existing Interventions for University Students  The Cooking Workshops of University of Arizona (The University of Arizona, 2018):      The Cooking Workshops at University of Arizona had partnerships with Campus Recreation, Campus Health Services, Culinary Services, Associated Students of University of Arizona and the Student Health Advocacy Committee (SHAC). The goal of the program was to guide students to shop and choose healthy foods on a budget, improve cooking skills, and cook healthy recipes. The program also taught students basics on cooking, and answered nutrition-related questions from students. The program was limited to 18 people and recipes used included brunch (avocado egg boats and zucchini sweet potato hash) and healthy alternatives to fast food (veggie burgers and sweet potato fries). There is no information available regarding evaluation of the outcomes of this program.   The Community Cooking Workshop of Simon Fraser University (SFU) (Melissa Baker, personal communication, January 24, 2018)      The community cooking workshop at SFU was conducted 2-4 times a month from January to March. The goal of the program was to help students cook healthy recipes, meet new friends, and improve health behaviors. A handout referred students to websites and apps where they could find easy and healthy recipes, and it introduced daily food and activity tracking software to help students better support their health. Students were also encouraged to personalize their own food plan according to lifestyles, while sticking to the Canadian Food Guide. Sample recipes included curry lentils and salads. 93% of the participants reported that they have made new friends and developed their social networks after the workshop.    The Varsity Athletic Cooking Workshop of UBC (McCrudden, 2017):     The Varsity Athletic Cooking Workshop at UBC was designed to improve the students’ nutrition during their athletic life and beyond by enhancing their cooking skills and food preparation skills with consideration of limited time and budget. The workshop also educated athletes on nutritional practices with specific nutrients, such as iron, protein, omega 3 fatty acids etc., and some food hygiene skills. The athletes would eventually get familiar with cooking equipment and the recipes they learned to cook. The maximum class size was 22 and each workshop lasted 1.5-2 hours. Athletes learned to cook 8-12 meals in assigned small teams, and they would provide feedbacks after. The program did positively influence the wider UBC community by promoting a healthy and fun environment for athletes, and students are encouraged to develop their cooking skills and support their health. Most of the attendees found that the recipes and cooking skills taught were helpful for them as an athlete, and they had increased confidence on food preparation skills after the workshop.      25 The Community Kitchen Program at UBC Farm (Katherine Hastie, personal communication, January 30, 2018):   The community kitchen program by UBC Farm was organized once a month from November 2017 to February 2018. The goal of the program was to increase students’ interests of cooking and improve student’s cooking skills and nutritional knowledge (Center for sustainable food systems at UBC farm, n.d.). Participants could register online, and each session could fit 15 people. The farm provided seasonal ingredients they that could harvest or buy fresh near the university. Costs differed depending on what recipe was used, varying between $64-$140 for 10-15 people. The recipes they chose for each month were vegan and gluten free, and were easy for students to cook on their own and had them involved in cooking throughout the duration of each session, such as sushi, samosas, and tacos. The program also accepted donations. There is no information available regarding evaluation of the outcomes of this program.      26 Appendix B: Methodology  Literature review and situational assessment:   The situational assessment began with a meeting with our community partners to discuss aims and expectations for the project, exchange important resources, and to clarify our role in project development and implementation. From there, we conducted a literature review using key word searches in EBSCO, CAB Direct, and UBC Summon databases. Group members also conducted in-person interviews with students living in the Gage residence to determine the priorities and interests of the primary audience regarding cooking classes in residence.  Development of the cooking manual:   The cooking manual was based on existing programs created by the University of Arizona, SFU, UBC Varsity, and the UBC Farm (Appendix A), and a guide by Soneff & Worboys (2013). The manual was tailored to meet the specifications of our community partners. Information regarding food safety was adopted from Health Canada (2014). Community building and workshop information was adapted from RAs’ existing knowledge, and from Community Food Centers Canada (2014). Recipes were found from various online recipe websites, and were adapted to include necessary components (nutrition or food safety tips, storage considerations) based on group members’ existing cooking knowledge and the information gathered from Health Canada (2014). The manual was designed to be used as a tool by RAs who have basic cooking abilities. It incorporates simple, cost effective recipes as well as nutrition information and food handling tips. It also incorporates tips and a “how-to guide” for RAs who want to introduce a new recipe that is not in the manual.    27 Appendix C: The Logic Model  28 Appendix D: Evaluation Tool Post workshop questionnaire: 1. Before attending this community kitchen I felt like I would have been able toprepare toady’s meal:a) All by myself b) With a little help   c) With a lot of help d) Not at all2. After attending this community kitchen I feel like I would be able to preparetoday’s meal:a) All by myself b) With a little help   c) With a lot of help d) Not at all3. I made a new friend as a result of attending this community kitchena) Agree b) Disagree4. Set a goal for how many meals you’d like to prepare at home per week(includes breakfast/lunch/dinner/snacks).5. Please provide your email if you feel comfortable being contacted as a followup and see how often you prepare meals for yourself at home. (optional)6. Do you have any suggestions for improving community kitchen nights such asthis in the future? (optional)Online version of the questionnaire can be found at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/collect/?sm=FvchYW_2BRFGojJBEn0Isvi1ArZJyyhJpvO_2FBJ0yjgAO53mOrnbuAJKUIjvfgSXSp6  29    Appendix E: Newsletter  Cooking Class Manual1 Community Cooking Class Manual Table of Contents:  Intro and Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Creating Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Food Safety  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Tips for planning an effective workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .  Things to know about Gage kitchen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Inventory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Recipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Recipes Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10 Tips on how to choose additional recipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10 Tips on How to shop on a budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Example Proposal for GRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Prior to CK checklist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .  Post CK checklist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5 10 12 13 14 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30   2 Intro & Overview This facilitator’s manual is designed for Resident Advisors to aid in planning a community kitchen workshop that aims to make healthy cooking fun and easy for residents. Learning to cook in residence will provide a safe environment where residents can explore or further develop their cooking abilities. Cooking is an essential skill that will enable one to make nutritious foods to nourish one’s body. Making food from scratch is likely to be healthier and more economical. This manual includes 4 sample recipes, with ingredient, equipment used and other specifications such as food safety and storage tips. This manual also highlights other food skills info such as food safety knowledge, shopping tips, program planning tips and more.      3 Creating Community Creating Community (for Resident Advisors) ● Quick “Get to know one another” games  Examples  1) Name and food association  List a food that you like that starts with the first letter of your first name  2) Famous People and Cities Write a bunch of famous people and names of cities on the back of index cards. When someone enters the room, tape a card to their back. The goal is to ask questions to figure out what’s on your back. 3) Paired Strangers Tell every resident to pair up with someone in the room they’ve never met before. Once pairs are formed, instruct them to discuss a topic. 4) Say Your Name Backward Have each member of the group introduce themselves by saying their name backward. Everyone else has to try to figure out what their name is.  5) Would You Rather? Divide the kitchen in half. Rattle off a bunch of questions — e.g., would you rather travel to Italy or Australia? — and have residents hop on either side of the line depending on their answer. It’s an easy way to figure out who has something in common with someone else. 6.) Movie Ball Throw a ball around a circle. Whenever someone catches it, they have to say the name of a movie within five seconds. You can’t repeat any movies or you’re out of the circle. ● Background music to create an upbeat environment ● For other community building ideas check out previous program evaluations from eRez.  ○ Search for advisor names in the search bar  ○ Click on the “forms” tab under their name to select the program of interest   Ground Rules (for Participants)  ● Respect for kitchen space and equipment  Ensure proper use of equipment (ask facilitator if you are unsure as to how to use any of the equipment used throughout the session  Proper cleaning of equipment is required by every participant at the end of the cooking session ● Respect for individual food preferences is required, this is a no judgement zone as this is a safe space for learning and exploring cooking skills and food preferences  4 ● Following proper food safety practices (See below)  Tips For Resident Advisors ● Run program with 2-3 RAs (strongly encouraged) ● Divide the tasks appropriately among RAs  RA #1: Advertisement. Promote your event at least 1 week in advance via posters, social media and personal invites (works best). Create an excel spreadsheet to sign up residents. Confirm attendance by emailing residents day of or night before. Print recipes for residents to follow along during the session and extra to take home with them. Print surveys forms for residents to complete at the end of the session (see table of contents).   RA#2 & 3: Write a grocery list for chosen recipe and shop for ingredients together as it will likely be too much for 1 person to carry back if access to a vehicle is not possible.   All RAs: Prep the kitchen in advance (about 1 hr. depending on the recipe).  Create 4-5 stations for residents (2-3 people per station, no more than 16 residents due to spacing concerns). Provide all equipment necessary for each station to avoid too much movement about the kitchen as it will be crowded. Have an ingredient station (one specific area in the kitchen that residents can find all of the ingredients).  ● Encourage residents to help with cleaning throughout the session (i.e. when food is in the oven) so that there is little clean up at the end. ● Encourage residents to bring own plates and utensils to cut down on dishes as well as avoid the use of paper plates and plastic utensils (help save the environment!).  ● Ensure proper handwashing at the beginning of the session as food will be passed around and shared. ● Go over quick safety tips at the beginning of the session, especially in regards to knives and have a first aid kit on hand should any injuries occur (i.e. superficial cut from a knife).      5 Food Safety Handling food safely is important to prevent food-borne illness and cross-contamination. Below are some simple tips and tricks for proper hygiene and food handling.  Keep Surfaces Clean (including your hands!):  ● Have all kitchen surfaces, cutting boards and utensils sanitized before and after handling foods, with directly using of a kitchen sanitizer or a bleach solution (5 milliliters of bleach to 750 mL of water). Carefully rinse them with hot water.   ● Use separate cutting boards for produce and raw meat.  ● Avoid using dirty dish cloths or sponges to clean utensils and surfaces to prevent cross-contamination and the growth and spread of bacteria. ● Wash your hands before and after handling all food!  ○ Use regular soap to wash your hands.  An alcohol-based hand rub could also be used if soap and water are not available.  ○ Wash with soap under warm water for at least 20 seconds. ○ It is important to wash your hands before and after preparing foods, especially handling raw meat, poultry, fish or seafood. Always wash your hands after touching pets, changing diapers and using the bathroom.  Washing Fresh Produce: ● Wash your fresh fruits and vegetables under water before use. For vegetables with firm skins, such as carrots and melons, use a vegetable brush.  ○ Do not wash your fresh produce with soap. ○ Do not soak your produce in the sink, which could transfer the bacteria from the sink to your foods. Instead, wash under running water.   Keep Cold Foods Cold:  Always keep cold foods cold to avoid the food from reaching the "temperature danger zone"(between 4°C(40°F) to 60°C(140°F)), where bacteria can grow quickly and may cause food poisoning.  ● Have the refrigerator set at 4°C (40°F) or lower and the freezer at -18°C (0°F) or lower to avoid the “temperature danger zone”. ● Store meat products separately from other foods in the refrigerator to keep them cold, especially for raw meat, poultry, fish and seafood. Refrigerate or freeze them as soon as possible or leave them no more than two hours at room temperature. 6 ● Washed, cut and sliced fruits or vegetables can be stored in containers with a paper towel in the refrigerator, to absorb excess moisture so that they can stay fresh longer. ● Make sure to cook refrigerated raw meat, poultry, fish, and seafood within two to three days after purchase, or freeze it if you cannot or do not intend to cook it within this time.   A Note on Thawing: The refrigerator method is the safest way to defrost food, especially for raw meat, poultry, fish and seafood. The other two ways to defrost meat are in cold water and in the microwave - never at room temperature. Thawed food should be cooked right away, especially for thawed meat from the microwave method, and never refreeze thawed food. Remember to always wash your hands, clean and sanitize the sink, utensils, surfaces and dishes used for thawing the food.  3 ways to defrost meat:  1. Defrosting in the refrigerator  ● Put the meat in a clean container, and place it on the bottom or separate shelf in the refrigerator. ● Takes 24 hours for every 5 pounds (2.5 kg) of poultry to defrost; 24 hours should be enough to thaw completely for other kinds of meat. 2. Defrosting in the microwave ● Meat should be put in microwave-safe containers or on plates and covered with a lid (place lid loosely) or paper towel. Do not microwave meats that are in packages that aren’t labeled as microwave-safe.  ● When defrosting meats, use the defrost setting on the microwave. 3. Defrosting in water ● Wrap the meat inside leak-proof plastic to decrease risk of cross-contamination. Place meat under cold tap water in a sanitized sink, make sure meat is fully covered by water. Leave in water until meat is fully thawed, make sure to change water every 30 minutes.  Adapted from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/defrosting-safety.html  Keep Hot Foods Hot: Cook food in a proper way so that bacteria like E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria can be kills by heat under the right temperatures, and the food would be safe to eat. ● Use a clean thermometer to make sure that the food reaches its safe cooking temperature and it is cooked completely.   7 ● Check and make sure that inside of meat also reaches its safe cooking temperature and the whole pieces are evenly cooked, especially for thick pieces of meat, poultry, fish or seafood. ○ The internal temperature of meat can be measured with the digital thermometer inserted all the way inside, without contacting with bones. ○ The internal temperature of hamburgers can be measured by inserting the digital thermometer through the side of the patty, and all the way to inside. ● Remove any bruise or damaged areas in fruits or vegetables before cooking them, because large number of harmful bacteria can grow in these areas. ● Always separate cooked foods with uncooked or raw foods. And also use separate utensils. ● Cook hot foods at or above 60ºC (140°F) to avoid the temperature danger zone of food.  A Note on Leftovers  Storing leftovers properly keeps them fresh for longer time: ● Place the leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer as soon as possible or within two hours to avoid quickly growing of bacteria. ● Do not leave perishable foods more than 2 hours at room temperature or more than 1 hour above 32.2 ºC (90 °F). ● Do not store too much foods and leave some free spaces in the refrigerator to keep the cool air circulating.  ● Consume the refrigerated leftovers within two to four days. ● The temperature must reach 74°C (165°F) to reheat foods, and avoid reheating the same leftover more than once.   A Note on Food allergies: Nine common food allergens in Canada: ● Peanuts ● Tree nuts ● Sesame seeds ● Milk ● Eggs ● Fish (including shellfish and crustaceans) ● Soy ● Wheat ● Sulphites ● Mustard   8 Health risks Allergic reactions can occur immediately following intake of food (including cross contaminated foods). Be aware of the following symptoms that may occur after an allergic reaction:   ● Difficulties swallowing, speaking or breathing ● Sudden drop in blood pressure,  rapid increase in heart rate, and/or potentially loss of consciousness ● Flushed skin, hives, rash, or itchy skin ● Swelling of the face, throat, eyes, lips, or tongue ● Anxiety, dizziness, distress, pale skin, faintness, and/or weakness ● Diarrhea, cramps, and/or vomiting  In order to minimize your risk ● Clearly know the types of foods or other factors that may trigger a reaction and completely avoid them. When eating out or in a restaurant, always tell the host/server about your food allergy, and ask specific questions about the food to be served.  ● Pay attention to the nutritional/ingredient labels and precautionary labels on food products to avoid any contact with even few amounts of your food allergens. Call food manufacturers if you have doubts or questions about a particular food. Be very careful about bulk foods that may not carry a label or that have cross-contamination. ● Always carry an epinephrine auto-injector with you and learn to use it. Use the epinephrine auto-injector as soon as the earliest sign of a reaction/symptom.  ● Always wear a MedicAlert identifier, so that others will know about your allergies and reactions from the identifier if any accident occurs. ● If you are having a severe allergic reaction, go to the nearest Emergency Department from you, or call 911 for instructions or help as soon as possible.  Safe Meat Storing and Cooking Temperatures   9  Type of meat Safe storage time in refrigerator at 4 °C (40 °F) or lower Safe storage time in freezer  18 °C (0 °F) or lower  Safe internal cooking temperatures Beef 2-4 days 10-12 months medium rare: 63°C (145°F) medium: 71°C (160°F) well done: 77°C (170°F) Pork 2-4 days 8-12 months 71°C (160°F) Lamb 2-4 days 8-12 months medium rare: 63°C (145°F) medium: 71°C (160°F) well done: 77°C (170°F) Ground meat 1-2 days 2-3 months beef/lamb/pork: 71°C (160°F) poultry: 74°C (165°F) Chicken/Turkey 2-3 days 6 months (pieces) to 1 year (whole) pieces: 74°C (165°F) whole: 82°C (180°F) Ham 3-4 days (cooked) and 6-9 months (canned)o 2-3 months (cooked) and do not freeze for canned 71°C (160°F) Hot dogs 1 week (opened) to 2 weeks (un-opened) 1-2 months 74°C (165°F) Raw sausage 1-2 days 1-2 months 74°C (165°F) Lunch meat 3-5 days (opened) to 2 weeks (un-opened) 1-2 months 74°C (165°F)  Adapted from Health Canada: Safe storage temperature and safe internal cooking temperature of meat  10 Tips for Planning an Effective Cooking Workshop  Understand the layout of the kitchen, safety & resources available ● Group size: how many residents can comfortably and safely fit in the space → suggested group size: 2-3 resident per station (~ 12 residents total)  ● Work space accommodations: some residents will need to sit to work, or need devices that might not fit in the kitchen easily ● Health and safety: understand safe food handling, hand washing, use of equipment, and make sure to have a first aid kit in reach   ● Resources: equipment, spices, basic staple ingredients, budget for the community kitchen   Consider the environment you’d like to create ● Welcoming, safe, calm, non-competitive ● Safe storage for residents’ coats and belongings ● Name tags for everyone to make ● Facilitate icebreakers to help residents mix and learn each other’s names ● Choose recipes that are low-fat, low sugar, low salt, and affordable to reproduce at home ● Consider plant-based meals – they are more inclusive, and everyone needs to eat more fruit and vegetables ● Staff and volunteers should be compassionate, kind, welcoming, patient    Outreach ● Posters in the community (Gage commonsblock) ● Promote events on social media to create excitement ● Connect with residents directly via personal invites, community meetings   ● Advertise what type of food you will be serving (common allergens, if any) when you promote the event ● Include how attendees will benefit from attending the workshops   → Learn basic cooking skills to allow you to cook the foods that you enjoy   → Learn how to cook fish, meat, legumes, and plant based meals   → Learn how to use spices and how to flavour foods with less salt   → Learn how to cook your guilty pleasure in a healthier manner             → Learn and practice some food preparation and food safety skills  → Make a friend!   11 During the Program Session ● Do a demo at the start of the session. Demonstrate any technical skills to residents such as chopping vegetables, or meats.  ● Plan for a few recipes each session; be prepared to drop one or two if you don’t have enough people or time to finish them all; have quick options if you need more food for an unexpected turn-out ● Encourage residents to work in pairs or small groups ● Have a chill-out space if residents need to take breaks ● Eat together, family style, and enjoy conversations; have a few open questions in mind to stimulate conversation ● Encourage everyone to take turns with cleaning dishes ● Ask residents to bring their own Tupperware containers to take home leftovers, if there are any ● Provide recipes for residents to take home – encourage modifications! ● Give positive feedback on each recipe, compliment residents on their efforts and encourage them to talk to one another directly about their process and results ● HAVE FUN!   Troubleshoot ● Be flexible, things may not work out exactly as you planned, but they will work out ● Consider serving everyone an equal first portion. Consider having staff and/or volunteers portion out leftovers to make sure that everyone gets an equal share. ● Encourage a calm, non-competitive environment. It important to establish a sense of security regarding taking risks, meeting new people, trying new activities and foods, and most of all, sharing food with unfamiliar or new people.  Adapted from http://thepod.cfccanada.ca/blog/tips-making-community-kitchen-programs-open-and-inclusive   12 Things to know about the Gage kitchen  Gage kitchen layout  Island workstation in the middle: Have drawers and cupboards underneath  Counter space workstation surrounding the island: Have drawers below the workstation and cupboards above and below the workstation  Island:  -Cutlery and napkins are stores in the drawers  -Non-perishable ingredients are stored in the cupboards  NOTE: Check available ingredients before shopping    spices, sauces, rice, crackers, flour, oils, sugar   Work station surrounding the island: -Baking utensils and cooking utensils are stored in drawers  -Mixing bowls, and large appliances (blenders, food processor, waffle machine) are stored in the cupboards above the workstation  -Pots and pans are stored in the cupboards below the workstation   Baking pans and trays are stores in the drawers underneath the 2 ovens   Other things to note  ● The kitchen will be cold when you enter, but it will become warm once you start cooking (do not touch the thermostat)  ● Preheat the oven during setup if needed as the oven can take a while to preheat  ● The floor can be quite slippery, (especially when there are spills) encourage residents to wear non-slip shoes     13 Inventory  ● Blender (2) ● Dinner plates (25) ● Side plates (25)  ● Glasses (25) ● Cutlery set (25 each) ● 6 knife sets/blocks  ● 3 wooden spoons  ● 5 big serving spoon ● 5 big serving spoon with holes ● 5 ladles  ● 4 strainers  ● 5 large aluminum mixing bowls ● 6 medium aluminum mixing bowls ● 2 can openers ● 6 large cutting boards ● 6 smaller cutting boards ● 5 box graters  ● 5 Potato mashers ● 4 rubber spatulas  ● 2 large roasting pans  ● 3 wire whisks ● 2 kettles  ● 6 sets of measuring cups ● 6 sets of Measuring spoons ● 6 sets Pots and pans ● 2 Toasters ● 2 coffee makers ● Waffle maker ● Popcorn machine ● Rolling pin ● 4 griddles ● Blender ● 2 kettles ● Rice cooker ● Fondue pot   14 Sample Recipes **Please review Food Safety section prior to cooking/baking/preparing food items  ***Time does not include kitchen set up or clean up ● Easy Vegetarian Chili  ○ Difficulty level: Very Easy ○ Time: 30 mins.  ● Oven “Fried” Fish with Oven Baked Fries and Tartar Sauce ○ Difficulty level: Medium  ○ Time: 50 mins. ● Stir-fry beef and broccoli  ○ Difficulty level: Easy ○ Time: 40 mins. ● Easy Homemade Wheat Bread  ○ Difficulty level: Very easy ○ Time: 150 mins.    15 Easy Vegetarian Chili  Serves 4-6 Prep time: 5-10 mins Cook time: 20 mins  Food safety considerations: 1. Store in an airtight container in the fridge for up to 1 week 2. Leftover vegetable broth should be stored in the fridge  Ingredients:                                                                                                       1 15 oz.  Can black beans, drained 1 15 oz.  Can kidney beans, drained 1 15 oz.  Can diced tomatoes (do not drain) ½   Onion, diced 3 cloves  Garlic, minced 1   Bell pepper, diced (any color) 2 tbsp.  Olive oil ¼ cup   Vegetable broth 2 tbsp.  Chili powder ½ tsp.   Salt (or to taste) ½ tsp.   Pepper (or to taste) Dash   Cayenne pepper ½ tsp   Red pepper flakes (for extra spice) *optional ½ cup   Textured vegetable protein plus ½ cup water (for extra protein) *optional  Equipment Needed: ● Cutting board ●  Knives ●  Measuring spoons ● Cup measures ●  Large pot ●  Cooking spoon ● Ladle for serving ● Bowls and utensils for eating                                                                           16 Instructions:        1.  In a medium or large soup pot, sauté the onion, bell pepper and garlic in the olive oil for 3 to 5 minutes, until the onions are soft, stirring occasionally 2.  Next, add in the whole can of tomatoes, the vegetable broth, and the chili powder and stir 3.  Reduce heat to medium low and add beans. 4.   Stir occasionally and cook for at least 20 minutes.                                                                                           Variations:  1. To make it spicier, add ½ tsp red pepper flakes while sautéing the onion 2. To add extra vegetarian protein, add ½ cup textured vegetable protein plus ½ cup water 10   mins before done cooking, simmer for 10 more mins                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Serving tips: 1. Package into individual portions and store in the refrigerator for a quick and easy meal prep 2. Serving this chili over rice is a great way increase the number of servings that one recipe will make  Nutrition Tips: ● Beans are an excellent source of fiber and protein  ● Choosing canned foods with low/no salt is an easy way to reduce the amount of sodium in your diet  Nutrition Information (per serving): Calories: 330 calories Total fat: 6.0 g  Saturated fat: 0.9 g Carbohydrates: 55.0 g Sodium: 260 mg Fiber: 15.5 g Sugar: 5.9 g Protein: 18.7 g  Recipe adapted from www.thespruce.com    17 Oven “Fried” Fish with Oven Baked Fries and Tartar Sauce Serves: 4 Prep time: 20 mins. Cook time: 40 mins. (40 mins. for “fries”, 10 mins. for fish)  Food safety considerations: 1. When choosing fish at the grocery store ensure that fish does not have a “fishy” smell, this likely means the fish has gone bad. 2. Do not store uncooked fish in fridge for more than 24 hours. 3. Never thaw then refreeze fish.  Oven “Fried” Fish  Ingredients:                                                                                                       4              180g Inexpensive white fish                   fillets (eg. tilapia, sole, cod)            1               Large egg white                                ½ cup          Buttermilk                                       ½ cup          All-purpose flour ½ cup          Fine dry bread crumbs                     2 tsp            Paprika                                             ½ tsp           Cayenne pepper                               1 tsp            Salt                                                   1 tbsp.         Vegetable oil      Equipment Needed: ● Oven ● Baking pan/rack ● Bowl (M) ● Spoon ● Plate                                                                                                                      Instructions:        1.   Position rack on top shelf of oven. Preheat oven to 500F. Line a rimmed baking sheet with foil and set a wire rack on top. Brush rack with vegetable oil. 2.   Pat fish dry with paper towels. Slice fillets in half lengthwise to form long pieces. 3.   Whisk egg whites with buttermilk in a bowl. 4.   In another dish, stir flour with bread crumbs, paprika, cayenne pepper and salt, until mixture is uniform. 5.   Working with one piece of fish at a time, lightly coat with buttermilk mixture. Turn to evenly coat. Shake off excess liquid and coat fish with flour. Shake of excess coating then place on rack. Discard any remaining buttermilk or flour mixture. 6.    Lightly, spray fish with vegetable oil or, using a brush, lightly dab 15 ml vegetable oil as evenly as possible over coating. Do not skip this step as it is essential for crispy fish. Bake until coating is crisp and golden. 10-15 minutes (Check doneness early!) Serve with Light Tartar Sauce (recipe below).     18 Oven-Baked “Fries”Ingredients:   4                  Large Yukon Gold potatoes              1 tbsp.         Canola oil (or light flavoured oil)          Equipment Needed: ● Oven ● Baking pan ● Knife ● FlipperInstructions:  1.   Preheat oven to 450 F. 2.   Scrub potatoes in cool water. Dry with paper/cloth towel. 3.   Slice into wedges (Cut potatoes lengthwise in half and then cut lengthwise slices from each half). 4.   Place potato wedges into a bowl and add the oil. Toss until well-coated. 5.   Placed oil potato wedges on a large baking sheet. Do not crowd. Place in oven. 6.   Bake for about 30 minutes, turning occasionally. Start checking doneness at 20 minutes and 5 minutes intervals thereafter. *Serves 4  Greek yogurt “Tartar Sauce”  Ingredients:  1/3 cup         0% fat plain Greek yogurt 1/3 cup         Light mayo 1 tbsp.          Lemon juice 1 tsp.            Dried dill 1 tsp.            Capers (optional) Dash             Salt *Serves 4    Instructions:      1. Add all ingredients to a bowl, stir and serve.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Nutrition Information (per serving; includes Fried fish, Oven-Baked Fries and Tartar) sauce): Calories: 478 kcal Total fat: 14 g  Saturated fat: 2 g Carbohydrates: 46 g Fiber: 3 g Sugar: 4 g Protein: 44 g Sodium: 422 mg   19 Stir-fry beef and broccoli  Serves: 4 Prep time: 15 mins Cook time: 25 mins  Food safety considerations: 1. Wash hands with soap before and after handling the meat following proper hand washing procedure.  2. Use separate cutting boards for meat and vegetables, clean all cooking utensils after they touch raw meat, and use different utensils to serve foods after preparing. 3. Never refreeze the thaw meat.  Ingredients:                                                                                                       3 tbsp.  Cornstarch, divided 1/2 cup  Water, plus 1/2 tbsp. water, divided 1 lb   Boneless round steak or 1 lb charcoal chuck steak, cut into thin 2-inch strips 2 tbsp.  Vegetable oil, divided 4 cups   Broccoli florets 1 small Onion, diced 1/3 cup Reduced sodium soy sauce 2 tbsp.  Brown sugar 1 tsp.   Ground ginger 640 g  Egg noodles to serve for 4  Equipment Needed: ● Measuring spoons ● Heatproof bowl or plate for quickly microwave thawing the beef if needed ● Bowls  ● Wok or large frying pan/skillet ● Knives, for slicing ● Cutting boards ● Utensils                                                                         20  Instructions:        1. In a bowl, combine 2 tablespoons cornstarch, 2 tablespoons water and garlic powder until smooth 2. Add beef and toss 3. In a large skillet or wok over medium high heat, stir-fry beef in 1 tablespoon oil until beef reaches desired doneness; remove and keep warm.  4. Stir-fry broccoli and onion in remaining oil for 4-5 minutes 5. Return beef to pan. 6. Combine soy sauce, brown sugar, ginger and remaining cornstarch and water until smooth; add to the pan 7. Cook and stir for 2 minutes 8. Serve over egg noodles.                                                                                                                                                                                                  Variations: ● Replace broccoli with your choice of vegetables (for example, bok-choy or spinach) ● You can choose either egg noodles or steamed rice to serve with ● Vegetarian can replace the beef with tofu  Storage/Serving tips: ● Storage: safe storage time for beef in the refrigerator is 3-4 days,  or 4-12 months in the freezer depending on the item ● Beef needs to be defrosted when it is removed from the freezer before cooking  Nutrition Tips: ● Try using low sodium soy sauce when possible    Nutrition Information (per serving with 1 cup (160g) of egg noodles) Calories: 371.1 kcal Total fat: 10.4 g Saturated fat: 1.6 g Cholesterol: 46.4 mg Carbohydrates: 60 g Sodium: 739.4 mg Fiber: 2.5 g Sugar: 8.4g  Protein: 10.5 g  Recipe adapted from www.geniuskitchen.com  21 Easy Homemade Wheat Bread  Serves: 10  Prep time: 10 mins Cook time: 1 hr 50 mins. *Could let residents leave during the dough rising process, then come back and resume afterwards Ingredients:                                                                                                       2 cups   Whole wheat flour                                                                                                                                                                                                          1 1/4 cups Unbleached all-purpose flour                                                            1/2 tsp  Salt                                                                                                          3/4 tbsp. Instant yeast                                                                      1 1/2 cups  Warm water                                                                                      1/4 cup Millet                                                                                                     1/4 cup  Rolled oats                                                                                              Equipment Needed: ● Oven ● Measuring cups ● Measuring spoons ● Large mixing bowl ● Wooden spoon ● Metal pan ● Knife ● Baking tray ● Oven mitts  ● Cooling rack                                                                         Instructions: 1. Combine warm water (about 110 degrees F/43 C) with yeast in a large mixing bowl and let set for 5 minutes to get foamy. 2. Add salt and flours and stir with a wooden spoon 3. Lift the dough out of the bowl and lightly grease the bowl with oil 4. Cover with plastic wrap and let rise in the refrigerator for two hours or in a warm place for one hour 5. Once doubled in size, lightly sprinkle the dough with flour & transfer to a generously floured work surface 6.    Knead a few times adding flour as needed, then add oats and millet 7.    Knead until grains are incorporated and the dough is no longer sticky 8.    Place on lightly greased baking sheet. 22 9.    Sift a light coating of flour over the top to help keep the dough moist   & let rest for 45-60 minutes. 10.   Preheat oven to 450 degrees F (232 C) 11.   Place a metal pan on the lowest oven rack & prepare 1 cup of hot water 12.   When ready to bake, slash the bread 2 or 3 times with a knife making a cut about ½ inch deep. 13.   Place bread in oven and carefully pour hot water into the shallow pan on the rack beneath. Close oven door quickly. 14.   Bake the bread for 25 to 35 minutes or until golden brown and crusty 15.   Remove the bread from the oven and cool on a rack.                                   ***Once fully cooled, store leftovers in a plastic bag at room temperature                                                                                                                                                                                                           Variations: ● Millet and rolled oats can be substitute with other grains or seeds  (ex. Sunflower seeds, uncooked quinoa, flaxseeds) or omit ● Can use all whole wheat flour ● Maple syrup or honey can be added as sweeteners (~ 1-2 Tbsp.) ● Can toast small pieces to make croutons for soups  Storage/Serving tips: ● Bread can be pre-sliced, wrapped and frozen for up to 3 months (best consumed within 1 month)  ● Bread can be wrapped and refrigerated for up to 2 weeks ● Wrap bread well or store in an airtight bag to prevent moisture loss   Nutrition Information Calories: 177 kcal Total fat: 0.8 g Saturated fat: 0.2g Carbohydrates: 36 g Sodium: 118 mg Fiber: 2 g Sugar: 0g Protein: 5 g    Recipe adapted from www.minimalistbaker.com               23 Sample Recipe Plan: TITLE OF RECIPE  Food safety considerations (if any): 1. 2. 3.  Ingredients:                                                                                                       Prep time:                                                                                                                               Cooking time:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Equipment :                                                                                          Instructions:                                                                                                 1.                  2.                    3.    4.  5. 6. 7.                                                                                                               Servings:                                                                                                                           Serving size :    Variations: 1. 2. 3.   24 10 Tips on how to choose additional recipes Choose recipes that...   1. Are budget friendly  2. Are easy to replicate in the student’s population & have a quick cooking time  3. Includes ingredients that can be easily sourced by the target audience  4. Do not have too many ingredients  5. Are popular among the target audience  6. Are high in fruits and or vegetables  7. Are low in fats, sugar and salt  8. Promotes use of herbs and spices for flavour  9. Can be altered to a vegetarian dish if necessary  10. Introduces underused ingredients that are health promoting (ex. lentils)    25 10 Tips on how to shop on a budget (to be shared with residents)    1. Shop on a full stomach to avoid purchasing food items that you otherwise might not buy (ex. Sugary snacks, chips, etc.)  2. Make a shopping list and only buy what is on the list 3. Check the expiry date to make sure  that you can consume the food in time  4. Shop in budget friendly stores (ex. No frills instead of whole foods)   5. Buy staple ingredients in bulk (ex. Flour, rice, spices)  6. Buy no name brand - they are cheaper because they save money on advertising  7. Buy in season produce  8. Buy frozen fruits and vegetables (choose the ones with no additional ingredients added)  9. Buy fewer “ready to use ingredients” (ex. Buy a head of lettuce instead of chopped lettuce, buy a block of cheese versus shredded cheese) 10. Stock up non-perishable products when they are on sale (within reason)   *** Note: average cost per person should be no more than $10/person. Aim for $5-7/person    26 Example of a proposal to Gage Residence Association (GRA) for additional funding  Let’s make sushi RA(s) proposing: Katie  Anticipated Date: January 21st 2018 Expected attendance: 20 people     Why run such an event?  To teach residents how to make sushi. To facilitate cultural exchange. To promote inter-residence interactions.   How will the event run?  -I will shop for the ingredients  -I will provide guidance to residents on how to make sushi rolls   Financing Section  Option 1: Salmon rolls, fake crab rolls, smoked tofu rolls  Sushi rice: $20 Protein: $70  Veggies (avocadoes, cucumber): $20 Others (Nori sheets, rice vinegar, soy sauce, ginger): $15 Equipment: sushi mat/ sushi Bazooka: $25   Total cost = $150 ($6.25/person - food cost only)  Asking $150 from the GRA  Option 2: Salmon rolls, smoked tofu rolls  Sushi rice: $15 Protein: $65 Veggies (avocadoes, cucumber): $15 Others (Nori sheets, rice vinegar, soy sauce, ginger): $15 Equipment: sushi mat/sushi Bazooka: $25   Total cost = $135 ($5.50/person - food cost only) Asking $135 from the GRA  Option 3: Salmon rolls, smoked tofu rolls (less of both)  Sushi rice: $15 Protein: $55 Veggies (avocadoes, cucumber): $10 Others (Nori sheets, rice vinegar, soy sauce, ginger): 15 Equipment: sushi mat/sushi Bazooka: $25   Total cost = $120 ($4.75/person - food cost only) Asking $120 from the GRA     27 Prior to Cooking workshop (please print)  Ensure that …  ❏ kitchen is booked for the full duration of the workshop (+30 minutes before and after)  ❏ email residents the day before to confirm attendance  ❏ all ingredients are purchased in appropriate quantities & stored properly ❏ all equipment needed is available  ❏ icebreaker is planned  ❏ recipes are printed  ❏ all residents have washed their hands  ❏ long hair is tied up ❏ residents know about the survey and why their input is important  ❏ an overview of how the session is given ❏ an overview of potential safety concerns is given (recipe specific)     28 After cooking workshop (please print)  Ensure that …  ❏ all questions from participants are answered ❏ all equipment is washed and placed back in their respective locations  ❏ no equipment is missing (check inventory)  ❏ non-perishable leftover ingredients are placed in the island cupboards  ❏ counters are wiped ❏ all counters are sanitized ❏ floor is swept  ❏ ovens and stoves are turned off  ❏ all surveys are collected  ❏ lights are turn off     29 Surveys (to be evaluated by RAs): Post workshop questionnaire: 1. Before attending this community kitchen I felt like I would have been able to prepare toady’s meal:  a) All by myself     b) With a little help     c) With a lot of help     d) Not at all   2. After attending this community kitchen I feel like I would be able to prepare today’s meal:  a) All by myself     b) With a little help     c) With a lot of help     d) Not at all   3. I made a new friend as a result of attending this community kitchen  a) Agree    b) Disagree   4. Set a goal for how many meals you’d like to prepare at home per week (includes breakfast/lunch/dinner/snacks).    5. Please provide your email if you feel comfortable being contacted as a follow up and see how often you prepare meals for yourself at home. (optional)    6. Do you have any suggestions for improving community kitchen nights such as this in the future? (optional)  Online version of the questionnaire can be found at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/collect/?sm=FvchYW_2BRFGojJBEn0Isvi1ArZJyyhJpvO_2FBJ0yjgAO53mOrnbuAJKUIjvfgSXSp6     30 References: Community Food Centers Canada. (2014). Tips to making community kitchen programs open and inclusive. Retrieved from: http://thepod.cfccanada.ca/blog/tips-making-community-kitchen-programs-o pen-and-inclusive  Genius Kitchen (2009). The Best Easy Beef and Broccoli Stir-Fry. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://www.geniuskitchen.com/recipe/the-best-easy-beef-and-broccoli-stir-fry-99476  Health Canada. (2009). Food allergies. Retrieved from March 16, 2018, from  https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/your-health/food-nutrition/food-allergies.html  Health Canada. (2014). Food safety and you. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from  https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/food-safety-you.html  Health Canada. (2014). Safe food storage. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/safe-food-storage.html  Health Canada. (2015). Safe internal cooking temperatures chart. Retrieved March 16, 2018, from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/safe -internal-cooking-temperatures-chart.html  Health Canada. (2017). Safely defrosting foods. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from  https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/defrosting-safety.html  Kasten, G. (2017). FNH 341 Food Theory Applications “Oven Fried Fish & Oven-baked Fries”. [Course Text]. UBC, Vancouver.  Minimalist Baker. (2015). The easiest whole grain seeded bread. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from https://minimalistbaker.com/the-easiest-whole-grain-seeded-bread/  Soneff, R., & Worboys, J. (2013). Kitchen connections, a facilitator's manual cooking program for mental health clients. Retrieved from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourHealth/HealthyLiving/FoodSecurity/Documents/Kitchen%20Connections%20-%20Facilitators%20Manual.pdf  The Spruce. (2017). Super easy vegetarian and vegan chili recipe. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from https://www.thespruce.com/vegetarian-and-vegan-chili-recipe-3377016 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0374130/manifest

Comment

Related Items