UBC Undergraduate Research

UBC Food Security : Interventions & Evaluation Scan Clarke, Megan; Kao, Mimi; Ma, Kathy; Zefanya, Levania; Quinlan, Alison; Tang, Ian 2019-04-08

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-Clarke_M_et_al_FNH_473_Campus_food_insecurity_interventions_scan_final_report.pdf [ 1.19MB ]
18861-Clarke_M_et_al_FNH_473_Campus_food_insecurity_interventions_scan_final_presentation.pdf [ 661.16kB ]
18861-Clarke_M_et_al_FNH_473_Campus_food_insecurity_interventions_scan_summary.pdf [ 86.18kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0387030.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0387030-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0387030-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0387030-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0387030-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0387030-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0387030-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0387030-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0387030.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report UBC Food Security: Interventions & Evaluation ScanMegan Clarke, Mimi Kao, Kathy Ma, Levania Zefanya, Alison Quinlan & Ian TangUniversity of British Columbia FNH 473 Themes: Food, Climate, Procurement April 8, 2019 Disclaimer: “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”.  Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Situational Assessment and Planning Framework 4 Problems 4 Behaviours 5 Mediating & Moderating Factors 6 Health Behaviour Theory 7 Limitations of Situational Assessment 8 Project Goals and Objectives 9 Description of Project Outputs 10 Creation of Resources 10 Results 10 SWOC Analysis 13 Evaluation Plan 14 Conclusion 16 Author’s Contribution 17 References 19 Appendix A 22 Logic Model 22 Appendix B 23 Newsletter Report 23 Appendix C 24 Link & Screenshot of Spreadsheet 24 Appendix D 25 SWOC Analysis 25 1  Executive Summary Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting 821 million people globally             (FAO, 2018). However, only recently have university students been gaining more attention as a              population that is vulnerable to food insecurity. A 2016 survey administered to undergraduate             students in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia (UBC)                found 45% of the students who completed the survey were food insecure (Rideout et al., 2017).                Despite this high number, food insecurity initiatives at UBC are limited. In order for our               community partner, Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS), to proceed with           discussions on potential larger-scale food insecurity programs to be implemented at UBC,            evidence from other universities of similar scale needs to be gathered. Therefore, our overall              project goal was to research and evaluate campus-run initiatives aimed at reducing food             insecurity at other university campuses to inform UBC's strategic plan on implementing future             initiatives. For our project, we compiled information on 42 food insecurity initiatives at various             English speaking universities and framed our findings according to the Socio-Ecological Model            (SEM). The compiled information from our environmental scan was one of the main outputs of               our project and was used as a tool to communicate our findings to our community partner. We                 presented our findings and conducted an evaluation with our community partner to determine             whether the information was useful and whether it helped to increase their knowledge on the               topic. We also evaluated the appropriateness of using the SEM to frame our findings. We               transcribed our community partner’s responses to the evaluation questions and discussed this            information verbally as a group to debrief and identify key lessons learned. 2  Introduction Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting 821 million people globally             (FAO, 2018). However, only recently have university students been gaining more attention as a              population that is vulnerable to food insecurity. In Canada, one study found that nearly 2 out of                 5 students experienced food insecurity, with 30.7% experiencing moderate food insecurity and            8.3% experiencing severe food insecurity (Silverthorn, 2016). UBC students are not immune to             these statistics. In a 2016 UBC survey on undergraduate students from the Faculty of Land and                Food Systems (LFS), 45% of the students who responded reported being food insecure (Rideout              et al., 2017). Food insecurity among university students can have detrimental impacts such as              reduced self-reported health and academic performance, higher prevalence of depression and           anxiety, as well as sleep difficulties and headaches (Lee et al., 2018).  With increasing tuition fees, high living expenses, and numerous other financial           responsibilities that students face, it is paramount that post-secondary institutions take steps to             reduce campus food insecurity. Currently, there are limited food insecurity initiatives at UBC,             with the primary resource being a food bank. Our community partner, along with many others,               recognize the need to implement additional programs. However, the first step in this process is               to gain an understanding of what other programs exist by conducting an environmental scan.              This requires considerable time, of which our partner does not have. Therefore, the purpose of               this project was to conduct an environmental scan and evaluation of food insecurity initiatives              at post-secondary institutions. This will support our community partner in the decision-making            regarding the implementation of food insecurity initiatives at UBC.  3  Situational Assessment and Planning Framework Our situational assessment included a review of food insecurity initiatives in the            literature and at universities within and outside of Canada. We also conducted discussions with              our other community partner, SEEDS, and the teaching team to guide our research. Though              limited data, UBC’s food security prevalence aligns with research conducted at other            institutions that indicate levels of food insecurity is between 35-45% (Bruening, Argo,            Payne-Sturges, & Laska, 2017). Using this information, collaboration between our community           partner and teaching team, we decided what is the best approach to execute this project in                order to obtain relevant, accurate, and specific information on university food security            programs. In addition to conducting research, we created a spreadsheet with different            university food security programs, allowing us to analyze and gain a deeper understanding of              existing initiatives (see Appendix C).  Problems  The food security problems UBC students face is based on how accessibility,            affordability, and availability factors directly influence the daily decisions students make about            food consumption. However, the problem this project highlights is the lack of innovative             initiatives at UBC that address food insecurity. Currently, the main resources available are the              AMS Food Bank, Sprouts, and Agora Cafe, which all fall in the common categories of food banks                 and community kitchens. At UBC, accessibility refers to the food or grocery options that are               accessible on or near the campus. ​The affordability of food on or near campus can also impact                 students’ accessibility to food. Availability refers to whether healthy, culturally-appropriate, and           dietary-restriction appropriate food options are available. These three factors come together to            4  influence food consumption which impacts student life. In the long run, this may also affect a                student’s physical health, mental health, and academic performance (Lee et al,. 2018). The             focus of this project will be on the limited food insecurity initiatives on campus to alleviate                issues with accessibility, affordability, and availability, and this project will explore which            program type will be most suitable and beneficial for UBC.  Behaviours  The aim of our project is to investigate what other universities’ interventions look like              and the various food-related behaviours that their programs are targeting. Food insecurity            interventions target food-related behaviours which may include behaviours such as          compromises on nutritional intake (Entz, Slater, & Desmarais, 2017) and the lack of food              literacy (Sustain Ontario, 2013). These food-related behaviours contribute towards the food           insecurity problems experienced by students but these behaviours are not exclusive to            post-secondary students. On the other hand, student specific food-related behaviours may           include the preference for convenience and unfamiliarity with the post-secondary environment           after transitioning from high school. Ultimately, these food-related behaviours contribute          towards the accessibility, affordability, and availability problems of food insecurity.          Food-related behaviours are relevant to our project because food insecurity interventions and            programs target different food-related behaviours of students. Through our investigation and           compilation of other universities’ food security interventions, we aim to link their intervention             strategies with specific food-related behaviours.  To overcome our community partner’s knowledge gap regarding on-campus food          insecurity initiatives, our team conducted a comprehensive environmental scan and evaluation.           5  By performing this environmental scan, we compiled information on interventions and           initiatives at other universities that could lead to potential program ideas that could be              implemented at UBC in the future.  Mediating & Moderating Factors  Through discussions with our community partner and group, we concluded that there            are multiple mediating factors at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and           public policy level regarding the lack of food security programs at UBC. At the individual level                there is food knowledge, food values, perceptions of food security programs, and other             commitments that impact a student’s ability to participate in any food security programs. In              relation to our community partner, their open attitude to helping students and knowledge of              the UBC campus results in the creation of this project to support their research. At the                interpersonal level, a student’s living arrangements, social support network and social influence            from peers can impact a student’s choice to participate in food security programs. At the               organizational level, the university’s availability of foods, food costs, low-cost food options, and             on-campus support impact food availability and accessibility for students. For our community            partner, the support from faculty, upper-level management, and other units such as SEEDS on              campus has provided an opportunity to gather information to inform future food security             programs at UBC. At the community level, there is a lack of food security programs within                Canadian universities resulting in us researching those outside of Canada. This can contribute to              less generalizable interventions that UBC may adopt and lack of best practices within the              Canadian context. At the public policy level, there is a lack of an overall food security policy for                  university students. Additionally, there is a lack of programs beyond food banks with unclear              6  evaluation measures (Maynard, 2016). This can make our research difficult and           implementations of food security programs from our community partner lengthy as more            protocols and processes must occur before a program may be approved. Some moderating             factors that impact our community partner’s increase in knowledge is the change in work              positions and potential lack of time and resources to dedicate to this project. Overall, there are                intersecting factors at multiple levels that will impact the success of the project outcomes to               eradicating food insecurity at UBC.  Our community partner has multiple strengths that will increase the success of our project              and beyond. UBC is increasingly interested in food insecurity experienced by UBC students so              there is support from upper-level administration and collaboration between staff, faculty, and            students to solve this problem. Our community partner’s support, positive attitude, and strong             belief towards using our project to inform decision-making for food security programs at UBC              increase the likelihood of program implementation in the future. Health Behaviour Theory  Our mediating and moderating factors originated from our use of the SEM and they              include the intrapersonal (ie. individual), interpersonal, institutional (ie. organizational),         community, and public policy levels (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005). ​We              chose the SEM for the level of complexity it encompasses. This model also acknowledges the               connections of influence between the individual and others underscoring the complex           interactions between gathering information, translation of knowledge to our community          partner and its feasibility in the UBC context. A systematic review concluded that within the               SEM, post-secondary institution food insecurity interventions mainly focused on the          7  interpersonal (e.g. education, food donations among students, staff and faculty) and           organizational levels (e.g. food pantries) but found recent interventions at all levels in the grey               literature (Bruening et al., 2017). The authors also emphasized the need for more research on               the effectiveness of food security programs long-term for post-secondary students (Bruening et            al., 2017). By analyzing our intervention scan, we hope to discover what level programs address               food insecurity and evaluate each program’s effectiveness. Limitations of Situational Assessment  As institutions have more recently come to address food insecurity directly, there is             limited literature on outcomes or impacts of interventions addressing the issue. Additionally,            there is literature regarding the prevalence of food insecurity in post-secondary institutions, yet             a lack of literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions addressing this issue. There is              also a lack of information regarding any previous interventions proposed by UBC, so our              evaluation scan will pave the way to inform future food insecurity programs at UBC. Our               community partner’s knowledge extends from their work at SHHS and analysis of the             Undergraduate Experience Survey (UES) that has a few food-related questions (e.g. cost & food              insecurity). Thus, our situational assessment is limited to our community partner’s knowledge,            guidance from SEEDS, and discussion with the FNH 473 teaching team.   8  Project Goals and Objectives Our overall project goal was to research and evaluate campus-run initiatives aimed at reducing food insecurity on various university campuses (similar to UBC in size and in amenities) to inform UBC's strategic plan on implementing a program to reduce food insecurity. Short-term Objectives ● The FNH 473 team will compile information on food insecurity strategies and            interventions at other universities and present this information as a verbal presentation            and report by April 2019 ● Our team will inform Melissa Baker, our on-campus dietitian and Student Housing and             Hospitality (SHHS) employee, of programs aimed at reducing food insecurity at other            universities around the world by the end of term (April 2019). Mid-term Objectives ● Inform the Director of SHHS and UBC Alumni Services of programs on other university              campuses and start preliminary discussion about possible policies that are feasible for            UBC to implement by the end of 2019. ● We will create a resource of program information used to help inform production of a               program aimed at reducing student food insecurity at UBC by the end of 2019. Long-term Objectives ● Our community partner will use our research to reduce overall student food insecurity             prevalence at UBC. 9  Description of Project Outputs Creation of Resources  Our main project output includes a final report detailing our findings of our landscape              analysis that is housed in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet recorded the university, food security              program name, description of the program, program goals, number of students served,            program evaluation methods, success of the program and eligibility requirements (see           Appendix C). The spreadsheet also incorporated the SEM model by classifying which level each              program’s implementation would fall under. The analysis of the spreadsheet is described in the              report where both will be disseminated to our community partner and through SEEDS.  Results Through our environmental scan, we found the most common university-based food           insecurity initiatives are food banks and their implementation fell into the organizational level             of the SEM. We looked at 32 food programs across English speaking universities. Out of the 32                 programs, 18 programs are student-run, 3 of the programs are funded by the university, 2               programs are funded by non-profit and 1 program is funded by the government. The remaining               programs did not have a specific description of the program lead(s).  We found that most universities in Canada and the United States that were included in               the environmental scan offer food bank services to students with financial needs and food              security support. Food banks are a short-term and temporary intervention on a student’s food              insecurity so the focus for our intervention environmental scan was geared away from them.              Universities also offered other programs including cooking classes or emergency food skills            classes, redistribution of leftover foods, free/low-cost food program and food vouchers. 10  1. Cooking classes  One of the food insecurity intervention types included cooking classes or food skills             classes that are available two universities in our environmental scan (University of Alberta and              Ryerson University). At the University of Alberta, their food bank cooking program is run by               student volunteers and aims to provide cooking classes to expand food education as a part of                their initiative to reduce food insecurity on their campus. Similarly, the “Eat up, Meet up”               program at Ryerson University focuses on reducing the impacts of food insecurity by providing              cooking classes to build cooking skills, food knowledge, and introduce recipes. The recipes in              these programs are tailored towards managing time-constraints and on-the-go lifestyles of           students. The aim of this program is to expand food education and skill building as a part of                  reducing food insecurity so the students are able to cook with food items from the food bank                 with different ingredients and recipes. Hence, this program can reduce campus food insecurity             in the long run. This program’s implementation lies in the organizational level of the SEM               because it works with the community groups and organizations. 2. Redistribution of food  Another intervention type is the redistribution of leftover foods that is operated in two               universities in our environmental scan (Simon Fraser University (SFU) and the University of             Victoria). At SFU, the “Food Rescue” program gathers and redistributes imperfect looking            produce to the university community. On the other hand, an on-campus general store at the               University of Victoria sells leftover soups and pasta at reduced prices. There is also an               application that tells the user if there is leftover food after a banquet or event. The overarching                 goal of these programs is to not only reduce food insecurity on campus but also reduce food                 11  waste and create a dialogue around food systems. Hence, this puts the program’s             implementation into the organizational level of the SEM.  3. Free/low cost food program  Some universities have programs that offer free or low cost foods for students. There is               a total of six programs in this category, five of which are student-led. For example, the                University of Melbourne runs a free breakfast program, and at Ryerson University, their             Student Union runs a pay what you can program for soups. In addition, the University of Alberta                 campus food bank in partnership with a not-for profit organization, runs a WECAN program              where the organization purchases bulk orders of meat and produce which their members can              pay a small fee to pre-order and purchase (Campus Food Bank, 2018). Most of the programs in                 this category are run by student organizations and operate as nonprofits. Additionally, all             California State Universities have implemented food pantries or food distribution programs for            their students to increase food security among their student population (Western Center,            2018). On the whole, the implementation of free or low cost food programs at universities               occurs on the organizational level within the SEM.  4. Food Vouchers Some universities operate food security initiatives that give students financial support           through vouchers, food stamps, or other food subsidies. In California State Universities, the             CalFresh initiative provides students with financial needs with an electronic benefits transfer            (EBT) card. This EBT card acts like as a debit card as it is reloaded monthly with money and the                    students can use it to purchase food at participating grocery stores (Uclahci, 2018). The              CalFresh program receives government funding and is funded by the United States Department             12  of Agriculture under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The           general implementation of food voucher or food stamp programs acts in the organizational             level of the SEM but the scale of CalFresh extends its implementation beyond the organization               level. The wide scale of CalFresh across multiple California State Universities, emphasis from             the federal SNAP, and its government funding would place its implementation at a public policy               level within the SEM.  SWOC Analysis To analyze the findings from our environmental scan, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities            and Challenges (adapted from SWOT) analysis was performed (see Appendix D).   13  Evaluation Plan  Creating an evaluation plan is an essential component of health promotion programs            because they allow us to assess the impact of our project and whether our project achieved the                 desired targeted outcomes (DiClemente et al., 2013). As identified above in our objectives, our              short term objectives include collecting and presenting information to our community partner            and our mid-term objectives include using this information to start preliminary discussions            about possible programs that could be implemented at UBC. Our evaluation will assess these              objectives. According to DiClemente et al. (2013), there are two methods for evaluating programs.             One is to conduct a formative evaluation, which occurs before the program begins or while in                progress, and the other is a summative evaluation, which occurs after the program ends              (DiClemente et al., 2013). We conducted our evaluation after completing our environmental            scan and after presenting our findings to our community partner thus, we conducted a              summative evaluation. We assessed the process, impact and outcomes of our environmental            scan. The process evaluation examined the inputs to conducting our environmental scan            including the amount of time and resources we put in as a group. The impact was assessed by                  debriefing our findings to our community partner and evaluating whether it increased their             knowledge. The impact evaluation was conducted after presenting the information to our            community partner in the form of verbal questions at the end of our presentation. We recorded                the responses on a computer and discussed this information afterwards as a group. Since the               project was restricted to the length of the semester, we will not be present to assess any                 changes in future health outcomes that come from the research we conducted. However, we              14  assessed whether our community partner believes they now have enough information to begin             preliminary discussions for future programs at UBC.  The following questions helped guide our process evaluation. We answered question 1            as a group after completing our environmental scan and questions 2-5 were for our community               partner after presenting our findings. 1) Did we invest the appropriate amount of time and resources to compile a             comprehensive report for our community partner? 2) Did we present the findings in a way that increased the knowledge of our community               partner and was easy to understand? 3) Was this information valuable to our community partner? 4) Did our findings inform our community partner of information on food insecurity            programs at other post-secondary institutions that could be used for future UBC food             insecurity initiatives? 5) Does our community partner have enough information to move forward with           discussions with the director of SHHS on food insecurity initiatives at UBC? To evaluate the appropriateness of using the SEM to frame the findings of our environmental               scan, we also asked the following additional question to our community partner: 1) Was the social-ecological model appropriate and useful for organizing the programs? As identified by DiClemente and colleagues, “evaluation is theory driven” (DiClemente et al.,             2013, p. 284) and thus it was important for us to include an evaluation of the usefulness of our                   chosen theory.   15  Conclusion Recently, more focus is put on university students as a population vulnerable to food              insecurity. However, the UBC Vancouver campus still lacks significant food security initiatives            that support students. This project used the SEM to frame and organize the information found               on 42 food security programs at various English-speaking universities. Out of the 42 programs              we examined, half are student-run while 15 programs have unknown program leads. This             demonstrates the strong student interest for initiatives that address food insecurity. Since food             banks are a common food security intervention across many universities, our focus was on              other intervention strategies. The four types of interventions we found were cooking classes,             redistribution of food, free or low cost food programs, and food vouchers. For our mid-term               objectives, we have the opportunity to attend and present our project findings at a Food               Insecurity dialogue session hosted by UBC Wellbeing, where other similar projects and key             stakeholders will be present. This is an opportunity for students and decision-makers to             exchange research findings, collaborate, and start the discussion about potential interventions           that UBC can implement. We also recommend future students to use a different health              behaviour model within the SEM levels to analyze the efficacy of food security initiatives.              Through this project, we learned how to be receptive to the needs of our community partner                and be flexible during the change in our community partner. We also learned how to capitalize                on each team member’s strengths and delegate tasks accordingly to ensure timely completion             of this project.     16  Author’s Contribution Megan Clarke​: Contributed to the conducting of the literature search, contributed to the             environmental scan of food insecurity programs for our community partner, drafted and            completed project goals and helped draft the evaluation plan components of the paper,             created the logic model and newsletter, and contributed to overall editing and revising of              the paper. Mimi Kao​: Contributed to the initial literature search, contributed to the environmental allof             food security initiatives at different universities, drafted and completed the problems           section and conclusion, contributed to overall editing of report Kathy Ma​: Conducted literature search; participated in environmental scan; drafted and revised            health behaviour theory, introduction to section 3 and mediating/moderating factors          section; drafted resource creation section in description of project outputs; edited entire            paper; worked on SWOC analysis; input sections into powerpoint health behaviour theory Levania Zefanya: ​Contributed to the literature search, contributed to the environmental scan of             food insecurity programs, drafted and completed the introduction and description of           project output component of the paper, contributed to overall editing and revising of the              paper  Alison Quinlan​: Contributed to the conducting of the literature search, contributed to the             environmental scan of food insecurity programs for our community partner, drafted and            revised the introduction, executive summary and evaluation plan components of the paper            and contributed to overall paper reading, editing and revising.  17  Ian Tang​: Contributed to literature search, contributed to the environmental scan of food             insecurity programs for our community partner, contributed to problems section, drafted           and completed behaviours, drafted and completed description of projects outputs, drafted           an completed SWOC analysis, editing and revising of the paper.   18  References Brodie, H. (2017). 15 Things you might not know about the campus food bank. ​The Quad, Retrieved from https://blog.ualberta.ca/15-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-campus-food-bank-167a071b9e40 Bruening, M., Argo, K., Payne-Sturges, D., & Laska, M. N. (2017). The Struggle Is Real: A Systematic Review of Food Insecurity on Postsecondary Education Campuses. ​Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics​, 117(11), 1767–1791. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.05.022 Campus Food Bank. (2018). ​We Can Food Basket Society​. Retrieved from https://campusfoodbank.com/wecan DiClemente, Crosy & Salazar. (2013). Evaluating Theory-based Public Health Programs: Linking Principles to Practice, in DiClemente, Salazar & Crosby (Eds). Health Behavior Theory for Public Health: Principles, Foundations and Applications.  Entz, M., Slater, J., & Desmarais, A. A. (2017). Student Food Insecurity at the University of Manitoba. ​Canadian Food Studies​. doi: https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v4i1.204  FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. (2018). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO.Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.  Retrieved from ​http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf Ferguson, M (2004). Campus HungerCount 2004 - Struggling to Feed Hope to Canada's Students: Food Banks Emerge in Response to Student Hunger. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Food Banks and The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. 19  Lee, S.,  Hanbazaza, M., Ball, G., Farmer, A., Maximova, K., & Willows, N. (2018). Food insecurity among postsecondary students in developed countries: A narrative review. ​British Food Journal​, Vol. 120 Issue: 11, 2660-2680.​ ​https://doi.org/10.1108/ BFJ-08-2017-0450 Maynard, M. (2016). Experiences of Food Insecurity Among Undergraduate Students at the University of Waterloo: Barriers , Coping Strategies, and Perceived Health and Academic Outcomes by. Retrieved from https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/10669/Maynard_Merryn.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y Rideout, C., & James, C. (2017). Sociodemographic Predictors of University Students’ Food Insecurity: Insights from a Large University in Canada. ​UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report​. Retrieved from https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/seedslibrary/LFSFS_0.pdf Silverthorn, D. (2016). Hungry for knowledge: Assessing the prevalence of student food insecurity on five Canadian campuses. ​Meal Exchange​, Retrieved from http://mealexchange.com Sustain Ontario. (2013). ​Backgrounder on Food Literacy, Food Security, and Local Food Procurement in Ontario’s Schools​. Retrieved from https://sustainontario.com/custom/uploads/2011/02/SustainOntario_EducationBackgrounder_Oct20131.pdf Uclahci. (2018). The CalFresh Initiative at UCLA Aims to End Food Insecurity for College Students [Web blog post]. Retrieved from 20  https://eatwell.healthy.ucla.edu/2018/03/02/the-calfresh-initiative-at-ucla-aims-to-end-food-insecurity-for-college-students/ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, N. I. of H. (2005). ​Theory at a Glance: Application to Health Promotion and Health Behaviour​ (Vol. 39). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2008.08.002 Western Center. (2018). ​College Hunger Free Campus Initiative​. Retrieved from https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/HungerFreeCampus_2018_Summary_Final.pdf  21  Appendix A Logic Model   22  Appendix B Newsletter Report  23   Appendix C Link & Screenshot of Spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIm7gLffWvcZAanlpx-9mu6ti9BLW6tHZNtLPnBwYP8/edit?usp=sharing          24  Appendix D SWOC Analysis A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (adapted from SWOT) analysis was           performed to analyze findings from our environmental scan. 1. Strengths  The strength of this environmental scan is that it covered multiple universities of various              sizes and compositions across different English-speaking countries. Through this mixture of           Canadian and international perspectives, we collected information from a variety of universities            with different settings and social context. We found that a majority of the programs that we                encountered were lead by students, thus showing the increasing student interest and            student-led discussions in the areas of food insecurity within their university communities. In             other words, food insecurity is shown to be a current and emerging field with growing interest                among students at different universities.  2. Weaknesses  Due to the nature of how initiatives are implemented in the university setting, most of               the interventions found from the scan ended up being at the organizational level of the SEM.                From this limitation, we were unable to explore program implementation at a variety of levels               within the SEM. Additionally, many universities are still in the early stages of program              implementation so not all universities had well-established institution-wide goals and          objectives to address campus food insecurity. As a result, many initiatives were operated by              student organizations and volunteers where limited resources and funding for programs can            impact longevity and efficacy. In addition, many of the existing initiatives lacked monitoring and              25  evaluation for their programs along with eligibility requirements, which made it difficult for our              environmental scan to analyze the success of the programs.  3. Opportunities for UBC  From our environmental scan, UBC can look into implementing the innovative ideas that             were found in other universities. Specifically, gaining insight into potential program ideas,            eligibility criterias, and partnership opportunities. An example of an innovative idea that UBC             can potentially incorporate is developing a mobile app to alert users about banquets or events               on-campus that have leftover food. UBC can also look towards universities that have             established partnerships with neighbouring grocery stores to develop new food security           initiatives for students. Lastly, some of the programs, such as CalFresh, are government funded              underscoring the potential for UBC to explore funding opportunities from the federal or             provincial governments to support food security initiatives.  4. Challenges  The challenges with our environmental scan is that food security initiatives within a             university context is a relatively new topic of research, so there is a lack of literature on specific                  interventions that have been previously conducted. The lack of literature makes it difficult to              refer to what kind of theoretical model previous studies have used and what kind of outcomes                were yielded from these studies. In addition, the data collection for our environmental scan              was dependent on and limited by the responses from the universities and student organizations              that we contacted. For example, it was difficult to obtain information on program success rate,               evaluation data, and eligibility requirements for majority of the initiatives that we researched.             This ultimately makes it difficult for UBC discern which type of intervention initiative to adopt. 26  UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report UBC Food Security: Interventions & Evaluation ScanMegan Clarke, Mimi Kao, Kathy Ma, Levania Zefanya, Alison Quinlan & Ian TangUniversity of British Columbia FNH 473 Themes: Food, Climate, Procurement April 8, 2019 Disclaimer: “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”.  Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Situational Assessment and Planning Framework 4 Problems 4 Behaviours 5 Mediating & Moderating Factors 6 Health Behaviour Theory 7 Limitations of Situational Assessment 8 Project Goals and Objectives 9 Description of Project Outputs 10 Creation of Resources 10 Results 10 SWOC Analysis 13 Evaluation Plan 14 Conclusion 16 Author’s Contribution 17 References 19 Appendix A 22 Logic Model 22 Appendix B 23 Newsletter Report 23 Appendix C 24 Link & Screenshot of Spreadsheet 24 Appendix D 25 SWOC Analysis 25 1  Executive Summary Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting 821 million people globally             (FAO, 2018). However, only recently have university students been gaining more attention as a              population that is vulnerable to food insecurity. A 2016 survey administered to undergraduate             students in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia (UBC)                found 45% of the students who completed the survey were food insecure (Rideout et al., 2017).                Despite this high number, food insecurity initiatives at UBC are limited. In order for our               community partner, Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS), to proceed with           discussions on potential larger-scale food insecurity programs to be implemented at UBC,            evidence from other universities of similar scale needs to be gathered. Therefore, our overall              project goal was to research and evaluate campus-run initiatives aimed at reducing food             insecurity at other university campuses to inform UBC's strategic plan on implementing future             initiatives. For our project, we compiled information on 42 food insecurity initiatives at various             English speaking universities and framed our findings according to the Socio-Ecological Model            (SEM). The compiled information from our environmental scan was one of the main outputs of               our project and was used as a tool to communicate our findings to our community partner. We                 presented our findings and conducted an evaluation with our community partner to determine             whether the information was useful and whether it helped to increase their knowledge on the               topic. We also evaluated the appropriateness of using the SEM to frame our findings. We               transcribed our community partner’s responses to the evaluation questions and discussed this            information verbally as a group to debrief and identify key lessons learned. 2  Introduction Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting 821 million people globally             (FAO, 2018). However, only recently have university students been gaining more attention as a              population that is vulnerable to food insecurity. In Canada, one study found that nearly 2 out of                 5 students experienced food insecurity, with 30.7% experiencing moderate food insecurity and            8.3% experiencing severe food insecurity (Silverthorn, 2016). UBC students are not immune to             these statistics. In a 2016 UBC survey on undergraduate students from the Faculty of Land and                Food Systems (LFS), 45% of the students who responded reported being food insecure (Rideout              et al., 2017). Food insecurity among university students can have detrimental impacts such as              reduced self-reported health and academic performance, higher prevalence of depression and           anxiety, as well as sleep difficulties and headaches (Lee et al., 2018).  With increasing tuition fees, high living expenses, and numerous other financial           responsibilities that students face, it is paramount that post-secondary institutions take steps to             reduce campus food insecurity. Currently, there are limited food insecurity initiatives at UBC,             with the primary resource being a food bank. Our community partner, along with many others,               recognize the need to implement additional programs. However, the first step in this process is               to gain an understanding of what other programs exist by conducting an environmental scan.              This requires considerable time, of which our partner does not have. Therefore, the purpose of               this project was to conduct an environmental scan and evaluation of food insecurity initiatives              at post-secondary institutions. This will support our community partner in the decision-making            regarding the implementation of food insecurity initiatives at UBC.  3  Situational Assessment and Planning Framework Our situational assessment included a review of food insecurity initiatives in the            literature and at universities within and outside of Canada. We also conducted discussions with              our other community partner, SEEDS, and the teaching team to guide our research. Though              limited data, UBC’s food security prevalence aligns with research conducted at other            institutions that indicate levels of food insecurity is between 35-45% (Bruening, Argo,            Payne-Sturges, & Laska, 2017). Using this information, collaboration between our community           partner and teaching team, we decided what is the best approach to execute this project in                order to obtain relevant, accurate, and specific information on university food security            programs. In addition to conducting research, we created a spreadsheet with different            university food security programs, allowing us to analyze and gain a deeper understanding of              existing initiatives (see Appendix C).  Problems  The food security problems UBC students face is based on how accessibility,            affordability, and availability factors directly influence the daily decisions students make about            food consumption. However, the problem this project highlights is the lack of innovative             initiatives at UBC that address food insecurity. Currently, the main resources available are the              AMS Food Bank, Sprouts, and Agora Cafe, which all fall in the common categories of food banks                 and community kitchens. At UBC, accessibility refers to the food or grocery options that are               accessible on or near the campus. ​The affordability of food on or near campus can also impact                 students’ accessibility to food. Availability refers to whether healthy, culturally-appropriate, and           dietary-restriction appropriate food options are available. These three factors come together to            4  influence food consumption which impacts student life. In the long run, this may also affect a                student’s physical health, mental health, and academic performance (Lee et al,. 2018). The             focus of this project will be on the limited food insecurity initiatives on campus to alleviate                issues with accessibility, affordability, and availability, and this project will explore which            program type will be most suitable and beneficial for UBC.  Behaviours  The aim of our project is to investigate what other universities’ interventions look like              and the various food-related behaviours that their programs are targeting. Food insecurity            interventions target food-related behaviours which may include behaviours such as          compromises on nutritional intake (Entz, Slater, & Desmarais, 2017) and the lack of food              literacy (Sustain Ontario, 2013). These food-related behaviours contribute towards the food           insecurity problems experienced by students but these behaviours are not exclusive to            post-secondary students. On the other hand, student specific food-related behaviours may           include the preference for convenience and unfamiliarity with the post-secondary environment           after transitioning from high school. Ultimately, these food-related behaviours contribute          towards the accessibility, affordability, and availability problems of food insecurity.          Food-related behaviours are relevant to our project because food insecurity interventions and            programs target different food-related behaviours of students. Through our investigation and           compilation of other universities’ food security interventions, we aim to link their intervention             strategies with specific food-related behaviours.  To overcome our community partner’s knowledge gap regarding on-campus food          insecurity initiatives, our team conducted a comprehensive environmental scan and evaluation.           5  By performing this environmental scan, we compiled information on interventions and           initiatives at other universities that could lead to potential program ideas that could be              implemented at UBC in the future.  Mediating & Moderating Factors  Through discussions with our community partner and group, we concluded that there            are multiple mediating factors at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and           public policy level regarding the lack of food security programs at UBC. At the individual level                there is food knowledge, food values, perceptions of food security programs, and other             commitments that impact a student’s ability to participate in any food security programs. In              relation to our community partner, their open attitude to helping students and knowledge of              the UBC campus results in the creation of this project to support their research. At the                interpersonal level, a student’s living arrangements, social support network and social influence            from peers can impact a student’s choice to participate in food security programs. At the               organizational level, the university’s availability of foods, food costs, low-cost food options, and             on-campus support impact food availability and accessibility for students. For our community            partner, the support from faculty, upper-level management, and other units such as SEEDS on              campus has provided an opportunity to gather information to inform future food security             programs at UBC. At the community level, there is a lack of food security programs within                Canadian universities resulting in us researching those outside of Canada. This can contribute to              less generalizable interventions that UBC may adopt and lack of best practices within the              Canadian context. At the public policy level, there is a lack of an overall food security policy for                  university students. Additionally, there is a lack of programs beyond food banks with unclear              6  evaluation measures (Maynard, 2016). This can make our research difficult and           implementations of food security programs from our community partner lengthy as more            protocols and processes must occur before a program may be approved. Some moderating             factors that impact our community partner’s increase in knowledge is the change in work              positions and potential lack of time and resources to dedicate to this project. Overall, there are                intersecting factors at multiple levels that will impact the success of the project outcomes to               eradicating food insecurity at UBC.  Our community partner has multiple strengths that will increase the success of our project              and beyond. UBC is increasingly interested in food insecurity experienced by UBC students so              there is support from upper-level administration and collaboration between staff, faculty, and            students to solve this problem. Our community partner’s support, positive attitude, and strong             belief towards using our project to inform decision-making for food security programs at UBC              increase the likelihood of program implementation in the future. Health Behaviour Theory  Our mediating and moderating factors originated from our use of the SEM and they              include the intrapersonal (ie. individual), interpersonal, institutional (ie. organizational),         community, and public policy levels (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005). ​We              chose the SEM for the level of complexity it encompasses. This model also acknowledges the               connections of influence between the individual and others underscoring the complex           interactions between gathering information, translation of knowledge to our community          partner and its feasibility in the UBC context. A systematic review concluded that within the               SEM, post-secondary institution food insecurity interventions mainly focused on the          7  interpersonal (e.g. education, food donations among students, staff and faculty) and           organizational levels (e.g. food pantries) but found recent interventions at all levels in the grey               literature (Bruening et al., 2017). The authors also emphasized the need for more research on               the effectiveness of food security programs long-term for post-secondary students (Bruening et            al., 2017). By analyzing our intervention scan, we hope to discover what level programs address               food insecurity and evaluate each program’s effectiveness. Limitations of Situational Assessment  As institutions have more recently come to address food insecurity directly, there is             limited literature on outcomes or impacts of interventions addressing the issue. Additionally,            there is literature regarding the prevalence of food insecurity in post-secondary institutions, yet             a lack of literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions addressing this issue. There is              also a lack of information regarding any previous interventions proposed by UBC, so our              evaluation scan will pave the way to inform future food insecurity programs at UBC. Our               community partner’s knowledge extends from their work at SHHS and analysis of the             Undergraduate Experience Survey (UES) that has a few food-related questions (e.g. cost & food              insecurity). Thus, our situational assessment is limited to our community partner’s knowledge,            guidance from SEEDS, and discussion with the FNH 473 teaching team.   8  Project Goals and Objectives Our overall project goal was to research and evaluate campus-run initiatives aimed at reducing food insecurity on various university campuses (similar to UBC in size and in amenities) to inform UBC's strategic plan on implementing a program to reduce food insecurity. Short-term Objectives ● The FNH 473 team will compile information on food insecurity strategies and            interventions at other universities and present this information as a verbal presentation            and report by April 2019 ● Our team will inform Melissa Baker, our on-campus dietitian and Student Housing and             Hospitality (SHHS) employee, of programs aimed at reducing food insecurity at other            universities around the world by the end of term (April 2019). Mid-term Objectives ● Inform the Director of SHHS and UBC Alumni Services of programs on other university              campuses and start preliminary discussion about possible policies that are feasible for            UBC to implement by the end of 2019. ● We will create a resource of program information used to help inform production of a               program aimed at reducing student food insecurity at UBC by the end of 2019. Long-term Objectives ● Our community partner will use our research to reduce overall student food insecurity             prevalence at UBC. 9  Description of Project Outputs Creation of Resources  Our main project output includes a final report detailing our findings of our landscape              analysis that is housed in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet recorded the university, food security              program name, description of the program, program goals, number of students served,            program evaluation methods, success of the program and eligibility requirements (see           Appendix C). The spreadsheet also incorporated the SEM model by classifying which level each              program’s implementation would fall under. The analysis of the spreadsheet is described in the              report where both will be disseminated to our community partner and through SEEDS.  Results Through our environmental scan, we found the most common university-based food           insecurity initiatives are food banks and their implementation fell into the organizational level             of the SEM. We looked at 32 food programs across English speaking universities. Out of the 32                 programs, 18 programs are student-run, 3 of the programs are funded by the university, 2               programs are funded by non-profit and 1 program is funded by the government. The remaining               programs did not have a specific description of the program lead(s).  We found that most universities in Canada and the United States that were included in               the environmental scan offer food bank services to students with financial needs and food              security support. Food banks are a short-term and temporary intervention on a student’s food              insecurity so the focus for our intervention environmental scan was geared away from them.              Universities also offered other programs including cooking classes or emergency food skills            classes, redistribution of leftover foods, free/low-cost food program and food vouchers. 10  1. Cooking classes  One of the food insecurity intervention types included cooking classes or food skills             classes that are available two universities in our environmental scan (University of Alberta and              Ryerson University). At the University of Alberta, their food bank cooking program is run by               student volunteers and aims to provide cooking classes to expand food education as a part of                their initiative to reduce food insecurity on their campus. Similarly, the “Eat up, Meet up”               program at Ryerson University focuses on reducing the impacts of food insecurity by providing              cooking classes to build cooking skills, food knowledge, and introduce recipes. The recipes in              these programs are tailored towards managing time-constraints and on-the-go lifestyles of           students. The aim of this program is to expand food education and skill building as a part of                  reducing food insecurity so the students are able to cook with food items from the food bank                 with different ingredients and recipes. Hence, this program can reduce campus food insecurity             in the long run. This program’s implementation lies in the organizational level of the SEM               because it works with the community groups and organizations. 2. Redistribution of food  Another intervention type is the redistribution of leftover foods that is operated in two               universities in our environmental scan (Simon Fraser University (SFU) and the University of             Victoria). At SFU, the “Food Rescue” program gathers and redistributes imperfect looking            produce to the university community. On the other hand, an on-campus general store at the               University of Victoria sells leftover soups and pasta at reduced prices. There is also an               application that tells the user if there is leftover food after a banquet or event. The overarching                 goal of these programs is to not only reduce food insecurity on campus but also reduce food                 11  waste and create a dialogue around food systems. Hence, this puts the program’s             implementation into the organizational level of the SEM.  3. Free/low cost food program  Some universities have programs that offer free or low cost foods for students. There is               a total of six programs in this category, five of which are student-led. For example, the                University of Melbourne runs a free breakfast program, and at Ryerson University, their             Student Union runs a pay what you can program for soups. In addition, the University of Alberta                 campus food bank in partnership with a not-for profit organization, runs a WECAN program              where the organization purchases bulk orders of meat and produce which their members can              pay a small fee to pre-order and purchase (Campus Food Bank, 2018). Most of the programs in                 this category are run by student organizations and operate as nonprofits. Additionally, all             California State Universities have implemented food pantries or food distribution programs for            their students to increase food security among their student population (Western Center,            2018). On the whole, the implementation of free or low cost food programs at universities               occurs on the organizational level within the SEM.  4. Food Vouchers Some universities operate food security initiatives that give students financial support           through vouchers, food stamps, or other food subsidies. In California State Universities, the             CalFresh initiative provides students with financial needs with an electronic benefits transfer            (EBT) card. This EBT card acts like as a debit card as it is reloaded monthly with money and the                    students can use it to purchase food at participating grocery stores (Uclahci, 2018). The              CalFresh program receives government funding and is funded by the United States Department             12  of Agriculture under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The           general implementation of food voucher or food stamp programs acts in the organizational             level of the SEM but the scale of CalFresh extends its implementation beyond the organization               level. The wide scale of CalFresh across multiple California State Universities, emphasis from             the federal SNAP, and its government funding would place its implementation at a public policy               level within the SEM.  SWOC Analysis To analyze the findings from our environmental scan, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities            and Challenges (adapted from SWOT) analysis was performed (see Appendix D).   13  Evaluation Plan  Creating an evaluation plan is an essential component of health promotion programs            because they allow us to assess the impact of our project and whether our project achieved the                 desired targeted outcomes (DiClemente et al., 2013). As identified above in our objectives, our              short term objectives include collecting and presenting information to our community partner            and our mid-term objectives include using this information to start preliminary discussions            about possible programs that could be implemented at UBC. Our evaluation will assess these              objectives. According to DiClemente et al. (2013), there are two methods for evaluating programs.             One is to conduct a formative evaluation, which occurs before the program begins or while in                progress, and the other is a summative evaluation, which occurs after the program ends              (DiClemente et al., 2013). We conducted our evaluation after completing our environmental            scan and after presenting our findings to our community partner thus, we conducted a              summative evaluation. We assessed the process, impact and outcomes of our environmental            scan. The process evaluation examined the inputs to conducting our environmental scan            including the amount of time and resources we put in as a group. The impact was assessed by                  debriefing our findings to our community partner and evaluating whether it increased their             knowledge. The impact evaluation was conducted after presenting the information to our            community partner in the form of verbal questions at the end of our presentation. We recorded                the responses on a computer and discussed this information afterwards as a group. Since the               project was restricted to the length of the semester, we will not be present to assess any                 changes in future health outcomes that come from the research we conducted. However, we              14  assessed whether our community partner believes they now have enough information to begin             preliminary discussions for future programs at UBC.  The following questions helped guide our process evaluation. We answered question 1            as a group after completing our environmental scan and questions 2-5 were for our community               partner after presenting our findings. 1) Did we invest the appropriate amount of time and resources to compile a             comprehensive report for our community partner? 2) Did we present the findings in a way that increased the knowledge of our community               partner and was easy to understand? 3) Was this information valuable to our community partner? 4) Did our findings inform our community partner of information on food insecurity            programs at other post-secondary institutions that could be used for future UBC food             insecurity initiatives? 5) Does our community partner have enough information to move forward with           discussions with the director of SHHS on food insecurity initiatives at UBC? To evaluate the appropriateness of using the SEM to frame the findings of our environmental               scan, we also asked the following additional question to our community partner: 1) Was the social-ecological model appropriate and useful for organizing the programs? As identified by DiClemente and colleagues, “evaluation is theory driven” (DiClemente et al.,             2013, p. 284) and thus it was important for us to include an evaluation of the usefulness of our                   chosen theory.   15  Conclusion Recently, more focus is put on university students as a population vulnerable to food              insecurity. However, the UBC Vancouver campus still lacks significant food security initiatives            that support students. This project used the SEM to frame and organize the information found               on 42 food security programs at various English-speaking universities. Out of the 42 programs              we examined, half are student-run while 15 programs have unknown program leads. This             demonstrates the strong student interest for initiatives that address food insecurity. Since food             banks are a common food security intervention across many universities, our focus was on              other intervention strategies. The four types of interventions we found were cooking classes,             redistribution of food, free or low cost food programs, and food vouchers. For our mid-term               objectives, we have the opportunity to attend and present our project findings at a Food               Insecurity dialogue session hosted by UBC Wellbeing, where other similar projects and key             stakeholders will be present. This is an opportunity for students and decision-makers to             exchange research findings, collaborate, and start the discussion about potential interventions           that UBC can implement. We also recommend future students to use a different health              behaviour model within the SEM levels to analyze the efficacy of food security initiatives.              Through this project, we learned how to be receptive to the needs of our community partner                and be flexible during the change in our community partner. We also learned how to capitalize                on each team member’s strengths and delegate tasks accordingly to ensure timely completion             of this project.     16  Author’s Contribution Megan Clarke​: Contributed to the conducting of the literature search, contributed to the             environmental scan of food insecurity programs for our community partner, drafted and            completed project goals and helped draft the evaluation plan components of the paper,             created the logic model and newsletter, and contributed to overall editing and revising of              the paper. Mimi Kao​: Contributed to the initial literature search, contributed to the environmental allof             food security initiatives at different universities, drafted and completed the problems           section and conclusion, contributed to overall editing of report Kathy Ma​: Conducted literature search; participated in environmental scan; drafted and revised            health behaviour theory, introduction to section 3 and mediating/moderating factors          section; drafted resource creation section in description of project outputs; edited entire            paper; worked on SWOC analysis; input sections into powerpoint health behaviour theory Levania Zefanya: ​Contributed to the literature search, contributed to the environmental scan of             food insecurity programs, drafted and completed the introduction and description of           project output component of the paper, contributed to overall editing and revising of the              paper  Alison Quinlan​: Contributed to the conducting of the literature search, contributed to the             environmental scan of food insecurity programs for our community partner, drafted and            revised the introduction, executive summary and evaluation plan components of the paper            and contributed to overall paper reading, editing and revising.  17  Ian Tang​: Contributed to literature search, contributed to the environmental scan of food             insecurity programs for our community partner, contributed to problems section, drafted           and completed behaviours, drafted and completed description of projects outputs, drafted           an completed SWOC analysis, editing and revising of the paper.   18  References Brodie, H. (2017). 15 Things you might not know about the campus food bank. ​The Quad, Retrieved from https://blog.ualberta.ca/15-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-campus-food-bank-167a071b9e40 Bruening, M., Argo, K., Payne-Sturges, D., & Laska, M. N. (2017). The Struggle Is Real: A Systematic Review of Food Insecurity on Postsecondary Education Campuses. ​Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics​, 117(11), 1767–1791. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.05.022 Campus Food Bank. (2018). ​We Can Food Basket Society​. Retrieved from https://campusfoodbank.com/wecan DiClemente, Crosy & Salazar. (2013). Evaluating Theory-based Public Health Programs: Linking Principles to Practice, in DiClemente, Salazar & Crosby (Eds). Health Behavior Theory for Public Health: Principles, Foundations and Applications.  Entz, M., Slater, J., & Desmarais, A. A. (2017). Student Food Insecurity at the University of Manitoba. ​Canadian Food Studies​. doi: https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v4i1.204  FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. (2018). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO.Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.  Retrieved from ​http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf Ferguson, M (2004). Campus HungerCount 2004 - Struggling to Feed Hope to Canada's Students: Food Banks Emerge in Response to Student Hunger. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Food Banks and The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. 19  Lee, S.,  Hanbazaza, M., Ball, G., Farmer, A., Maximova, K., & Willows, N. (2018). Food insecurity among postsecondary students in developed countries: A narrative review. ​British Food Journal​, Vol. 120 Issue: 11, 2660-2680.​ ​https://doi.org/10.1108/ BFJ-08-2017-0450 Maynard, M. (2016). Experiences of Food Insecurity Among Undergraduate Students at the University of Waterloo: Barriers , Coping Strategies, and Perceived Health and Academic Outcomes by. Retrieved from https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/10669/Maynard_Merryn.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y Rideout, C., & James, C. (2017). Sociodemographic Predictors of University Students’ Food Insecurity: Insights from a Large University in Canada. ​UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report​. Retrieved from https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/seedslibrary/LFSFS_0.pdf Silverthorn, D. (2016). Hungry for knowledge: Assessing the prevalence of student food insecurity on five Canadian campuses. ​Meal Exchange​, Retrieved from http://mealexchange.com Sustain Ontario. (2013). ​Backgrounder on Food Literacy, Food Security, and Local Food Procurement in Ontario’s Schools​. Retrieved from https://sustainontario.com/custom/uploads/2011/02/SustainOntario_EducationBackgrounder_Oct20131.pdf Uclahci. (2018). The CalFresh Initiative at UCLA Aims to End Food Insecurity for College Students [Web blog post]. Retrieved from 20  https://eatwell.healthy.ucla.edu/2018/03/02/the-calfresh-initiative-at-ucla-aims-to-end-food-insecurity-for-college-students/ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, N. I. of H. (2005). ​Theory at a Glance: Application to Health Promotion and Health Behaviour​ (Vol. 39). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2008.08.002 Western Center. (2018). ​College Hunger Free Campus Initiative​. Retrieved from https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/HungerFreeCampus_2018_Summary_Final.pdf  21  Appendix A Logic Model   22  Appendix B Newsletter Report  23   Appendix C Link & Screenshot of Spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIm7gLffWvcZAanlpx-9mu6ti9BLW6tHZNtLPnBwYP8/edit?usp=sharing          24  Appendix D SWOC Analysis A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (adapted from SWOT) analysis was           performed to analyze findings from our environmental scan. 1. Strengths  The strength of this environmental scan is that it covered multiple universities of various              sizes and compositions across different English-speaking countries. Through this mixture of           Canadian and international perspectives, we collected information from a variety of universities            with different settings and social context. We found that a majority of the programs that we                encountered were lead by students, thus showing the increasing student interest and            student-led discussions in the areas of food insecurity within their university communities. In             other words, food insecurity is shown to be a current and emerging field with growing interest                among students at different universities.  2. Weaknesses  Due to the nature of how initiatives are implemented in the university setting, most of               the interventions found from the scan ended up being at the organizational level of the SEM.                From this limitation, we were unable to explore program implementation at a variety of levels               within the SEM. Additionally, many universities are still in the early stages of program              implementation so not all universities had well-established institution-wide goals and          objectives to address campus food insecurity. As a result, many initiatives were operated by              student organizations and volunteers where limited resources and funding for programs can            impact longevity and efficacy. In addition, many of the existing initiatives lacked monitoring and              25  evaluation for their programs along with eligibility requirements, which made it difficult for our              environmental scan to analyze the success of the programs.  3. Opportunities for UBC  From our environmental scan, UBC can look into implementing the innovative ideas that             were found in other universities. Specifically, gaining insight into potential program ideas,            eligibility criterias, and partnership opportunities. An example of an innovative idea that UBC             can potentially incorporate is developing a mobile app to alert users about banquets or events               on-campus that have leftover food. UBC can also look towards universities that have             established partnerships with neighbouring grocery stores to develop new food security           initiatives for students. Lastly, some of the programs, such as CalFresh, are government funded              underscoring the potential for UBC to explore funding opportunities from the federal or             provincial governments to support food security initiatives.  4. Challenges  The challenges with our environmental scan is that food security initiatives within a             university context is a relatively new topic of research, so there is a lack of literature on specific                  interventions that have been previously conducted. The lack of literature makes it difficult to              refer to what kind of theoretical model previous studies have used and what kind of outcomes                were yielded from these studies. In addition, the data collection for our environmental scan              was dependent on and limited by the responses from the universities and student organizations              that we contacted. For example, it was difficult to obtain information on program success rate,               evaluation data, and eligibility requirements for majority of the initiatives that we researched.             This ultimately makes it difficult for UBC discern which type of intervention initiative to adopt. 26  Megan Clarke, Mimi Kao, Kathy Ma, Levania Zefanya, Alison Quinlan & Ian Tang1UBC Food Security: Interventions and ScanIntroduction and Background2▪ Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting over 281 million people (FAO, 2018)▪ In Canada, 2 out of 5 university students experience food insecurity (Silverthorn, 2016)▪ Food insecurity among university students is linked to lower self-reported health, reduced academic performance and higher prevalence of depression (Lee et al., 2018)Purpose of the project3▪ Over 40% of UBC students have reported some form of food insecurity (Nguyen, 2018)▪ Currently, there are limited initiatives addressing food insecurity at UBC▪ To conduct an environmental scan on food insecurity initiatives at post-secondary institutions▪ Provide relevant information to our community partner to inform future program development at UBC 1.Program Goals and Objectives4Goals & Objectives5Short-term Objectives● April 2019: Compile information, share our report and presentation of strategies and interventions● April 2019: Inform our community partner of our findingsMid-term Objectives● End of 2019: Create a knowledge base to help inform program planning aimed at reducing student food insecurity at UBC ● End of 2019: Inform key stakeholders to start preliminary discussion about possible policies that are feasible for UBC to implement ● Our community partner will use our research to reduce overall student food insecurity prevalence at UBC.Long-term Objectives2.Health Behavior Framework6Socio-Ecological Model▪ It allows us to classify the level of impact of our intervention scan▪ It provides the complexity necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions ▪ If we chose other theories that are specific to a certain level, the lens can become narrow 73.Programs8Outputs &Applications9Spreadsheet of environmental scan Evaluation meeting with community partner Final Report Final Presentation Outputs and Application of health behaviour theories Programs10Cooking classes Goal: To expand education on how to cook with food items as part of the overarching goal to reduce food insecurity Redistribution of food Goal: Reduce waste on campus and to contribute to overarching goal of reducing campus food insecurity Free/low cost food programs Goal: Provide affordable food to students, reduce campus food insecurity Food vouchers/stamps Goal: To provide students with subsidized food vouchers to reduce campus food insecurity 4.Evaluation11● Evaluation conducted after we presented out findings to our community partner (DiClemente et al., 2013) Was our approach and resources appropriate to conduct our scan?Did the information increase our community partner’s knowledge?Not feasible. Will not be around to assess changes in health outcomes Evaluation12ProcessImpactOutcomeQuestions we included:133. Was this information valuable to our community partner?4. Did our findings inform our community partner of information on food insecurity programs at other post-secondary institutions that could be used for future UBC food insecurity initiatives?1. Did we invest the appropriate amount of time and resources to compile a comprehensive report for our community partner?5. Does our community partner have enough information to move forward with discussions with the director of SHHS on food insecurity initiatives at UBC?2. Did we present the findings in a way that increased the knowledge of our community partner and was easy to understand?5.What did we learn?14Lessons Learned● Open and receptive to needs of community partner, additional information needed halfway through the project● Learned about the importance of building on people’s strengths; capitalizing on what people are good at ● Experienced working with multiple community partners (SEEDS, SHHS); having a middle person was a new experience15What would we change?● More initial in-depth meeting with community partner to discuss specific needs● Designing the excel template with Melissa + discussing each category16Thanks!!Any questions?17 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report UBC Food Security: Interventions & Evaluation ScanMegan Clarke, Mimi Kao, Kathy Ma, Levania Zefanya, Alison Quinlan & Ian TangUniversity of British Columbia FNH 473 Themes: Food, Climate, Procurement April 8, 2019 Disclaimer: “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”.  Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Situational Assessment and Planning Framework 4 Problems 4 Behaviours 5 Mediating & Moderating Factors 6 Health Behaviour Theory 7 Limitations of Situational Assessment 8 Project Goals and Objectives 9 Description of Project Outputs 10 Creation of Resources 10 Results 10 SWOC Analysis 13 Evaluation Plan 14 Conclusion 16 Author’s Contribution 17 References 19 Appendix A 22 Logic Model 22 Appendix B 23 Newsletter Report 23 Appendix C 24 Link & Screenshot of Spreadsheet 24 Appendix D 25 SWOC Analysis 25 1  Executive Summary Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting 821 million people globally             (FAO, 2018). However, only recently have university students been gaining more attention as a              population that is vulnerable to food insecurity. A 2016 survey administered to undergraduate             students in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia (UBC)                found 45% of the students who completed the survey were food insecure (Rideout et al., 2017).                Despite this high number, food insecurity initiatives at UBC are limited. In order for our               community partner, Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS), to proceed with           discussions on potential larger-scale food insecurity programs to be implemented at UBC,            evidence from other universities of similar scale needs to be gathered. Therefore, our overall              project goal was to research and evaluate campus-run initiatives aimed at reducing food             insecurity at other university campuses to inform UBC's strategic plan on implementing future             initiatives. For our project, we compiled information on 42 food insecurity initiatives at various             English speaking universities and framed our findings according to the Socio-Ecological Model            (SEM). The compiled information from our environmental scan was one of the main outputs of               our project and was used as a tool to communicate our findings to our community partner. We                 presented our findings and conducted an evaluation with our community partner to determine             whether the information was useful and whether it helped to increase their knowledge on the               topic. We also evaluated the appropriateness of using the SEM to frame our findings. We               transcribed our community partner’s responses to the evaluation questions and discussed this            information verbally as a group to debrief and identify key lessons learned. 2  Introduction Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting 821 million people globally             (FAO, 2018). However, only recently have university students been gaining more attention as a              population that is vulnerable to food insecurity. In Canada, one study found that nearly 2 out of                 5 students experienced food insecurity, with 30.7% experiencing moderate food insecurity and            8.3% experiencing severe food insecurity (Silverthorn, 2016). UBC students are not immune to             these statistics. In a 2016 UBC survey on undergraduate students from the Faculty of Land and                Food Systems (LFS), 45% of the students who responded reported being food insecure (Rideout              et al., 2017). Food insecurity among university students can have detrimental impacts such as              reduced self-reported health and academic performance, higher prevalence of depression and           anxiety, as well as sleep difficulties and headaches (Lee et al., 2018).  With increasing tuition fees, high living expenses, and numerous other financial           responsibilities that students face, it is paramount that post-secondary institutions take steps to             reduce campus food insecurity. Currently, there are limited food insecurity initiatives at UBC,             with the primary resource being a food bank. Our community partner, along with many others,               recognize the need to implement additional programs. However, the first step in this process is               to gain an understanding of what other programs exist by conducting an environmental scan.              This requires considerable time, of which our partner does not have. Therefore, the purpose of               this project was to conduct an environmental scan and evaluation of food insecurity initiatives              at post-secondary institutions. This will support our community partner in the decision-making            regarding the implementation of food insecurity initiatives at UBC.  3  Situational Assessment and Planning Framework Our situational assessment included a review of food insecurity initiatives in the            literature and at universities within and outside of Canada. We also conducted discussions with              our other community partner, SEEDS, and the teaching team to guide our research. Though              limited data, UBC’s food security prevalence aligns with research conducted at other            institutions that indicate levels of food insecurity is between 35-45% (Bruening, Argo,            Payne-Sturges, & Laska, 2017). Using this information, collaboration between our community           partner and teaching team, we decided what is the best approach to execute this project in                order to obtain relevant, accurate, and specific information on university food security            programs. In addition to conducting research, we created a spreadsheet with different            university food security programs, allowing us to analyze and gain a deeper understanding of              existing initiatives (see Appendix C).  Problems  The food security problems UBC students face is based on how accessibility,            affordability, and availability factors directly influence the daily decisions students make about            food consumption. However, the problem this project highlights is the lack of innovative             initiatives at UBC that address food insecurity. Currently, the main resources available are the              AMS Food Bank, Sprouts, and Agora Cafe, which all fall in the common categories of food banks                 and community kitchens. At UBC, accessibility refers to the food or grocery options that are               accessible on or near the campus. ​The affordability of food on or near campus can also impact                 students’ accessibility to food. Availability refers to whether healthy, culturally-appropriate, and           dietary-restriction appropriate food options are available. These three factors come together to            4  influence food consumption which impacts student life. In the long run, this may also affect a                student’s physical health, mental health, and academic performance (Lee et al,. 2018). The             focus of this project will be on the limited food insecurity initiatives on campus to alleviate                issues with accessibility, affordability, and availability, and this project will explore which            program type will be most suitable and beneficial for UBC.  Behaviours  The aim of our project is to investigate what other universities’ interventions look like              and the various food-related behaviours that their programs are targeting. Food insecurity            interventions target food-related behaviours which may include behaviours such as          compromises on nutritional intake (Entz, Slater, & Desmarais, 2017) and the lack of food              literacy (Sustain Ontario, 2013). These food-related behaviours contribute towards the food           insecurity problems experienced by students but these behaviours are not exclusive to            post-secondary students. On the other hand, student specific food-related behaviours may           include the preference for convenience and unfamiliarity with the post-secondary environment           after transitioning from high school. Ultimately, these food-related behaviours contribute          towards the accessibility, affordability, and availability problems of food insecurity.          Food-related behaviours are relevant to our project because food insecurity interventions and            programs target different food-related behaviours of students. Through our investigation and           compilation of other universities’ food security interventions, we aim to link their intervention             strategies with specific food-related behaviours.  To overcome our community partner’s knowledge gap regarding on-campus food          insecurity initiatives, our team conducted a comprehensive environmental scan and evaluation.           5  By performing this environmental scan, we compiled information on interventions and           initiatives at other universities that could lead to potential program ideas that could be              implemented at UBC in the future.  Mediating & Moderating Factors  Through discussions with our community partner and group, we concluded that there            are multiple mediating factors at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and           public policy level regarding the lack of food security programs at UBC. At the individual level                there is food knowledge, food values, perceptions of food security programs, and other             commitments that impact a student’s ability to participate in any food security programs. In              relation to our community partner, their open attitude to helping students and knowledge of              the UBC campus results in the creation of this project to support their research. At the                interpersonal level, a student’s living arrangements, social support network and social influence            from peers can impact a student’s choice to participate in food security programs. At the               organizational level, the university’s availability of foods, food costs, low-cost food options, and             on-campus support impact food availability and accessibility for students. For our community            partner, the support from faculty, upper-level management, and other units such as SEEDS on              campus has provided an opportunity to gather information to inform future food security             programs at UBC. At the community level, there is a lack of food security programs within                Canadian universities resulting in us researching those outside of Canada. This can contribute to              less generalizable interventions that UBC may adopt and lack of best practices within the              Canadian context. At the public policy level, there is a lack of an overall food security policy for                  university students. Additionally, there is a lack of programs beyond food banks with unclear              6  evaluation measures (Maynard, 2016). This can make our research difficult and           implementations of food security programs from our community partner lengthy as more            protocols and processes must occur before a program may be approved. Some moderating             factors that impact our community partner’s increase in knowledge is the change in work              positions and potential lack of time and resources to dedicate to this project. Overall, there are                intersecting factors at multiple levels that will impact the success of the project outcomes to               eradicating food insecurity at UBC.  Our community partner has multiple strengths that will increase the success of our project              and beyond. UBC is increasingly interested in food insecurity experienced by UBC students so              there is support from upper-level administration and collaboration between staff, faculty, and            students to solve this problem. Our community partner’s support, positive attitude, and strong             belief towards using our project to inform decision-making for food security programs at UBC              increase the likelihood of program implementation in the future. Health Behaviour Theory  Our mediating and moderating factors originated from our use of the SEM and they              include the intrapersonal (ie. individual), interpersonal, institutional (ie. organizational),         community, and public policy levels (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005). ​We              chose the SEM for the level of complexity it encompasses. This model also acknowledges the               connections of influence between the individual and others underscoring the complex           interactions between gathering information, translation of knowledge to our community          partner and its feasibility in the UBC context. A systematic review concluded that within the               SEM, post-secondary institution food insecurity interventions mainly focused on the          7  interpersonal (e.g. education, food donations among students, staff and faculty) and           organizational levels (e.g. food pantries) but found recent interventions at all levels in the grey               literature (Bruening et al., 2017). The authors also emphasized the need for more research on               the effectiveness of food security programs long-term for post-secondary students (Bruening et            al., 2017). By analyzing our intervention scan, we hope to discover what level programs address               food insecurity and evaluate each program’s effectiveness. Limitations of Situational Assessment  As institutions have more recently come to address food insecurity directly, there is             limited literature on outcomes or impacts of interventions addressing the issue. Additionally,            there is literature regarding the prevalence of food insecurity in post-secondary institutions, yet             a lack of literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions addressing this issue. There is              also a lack of information regarding any previous interventions proposed by UBC, so our              evaluation scan will pave the way to inform future food insecurity programs at UBC. Our               community partner’s knowledge extends from their work at SHHS and analysis of the             Undergraduate Experience Survey (UES) that has a few food-related questions (e.g. cost & food              insecurity). Thus, our situational assessment is limited to our community partner’s knowledge,            guidance from SEEDS, and discussion with the FNH 473 teaching team.   8  Project Goals and Objectives Our overall project goal was to research and evaluate campus-run initiatives aimed at reducing food insecurity on various university campuses (similar to UBC in size and in amenities) to inform UBC's strategic plan on implementing a program to reduce food insecurity. Short-term Objectives ● The FNH 473 team will compile information on food insecurity strategies and            interventions at other universities and present this information as a verbal presentation            and report by April 2019 ● Our team will inform Melissa Baker, our on-campus dietitian and Student Housing and             Hospitality (SHHS) employee, of programs aimed at reducing food insecurity at other            universities around the world by the end of term (April 2019). Mid-term Objectives ● Inform the Director of SHHS and UBC Alumni Services of programs on other university              campuses and start preliminary discussion about possible policies that are feasible for            UBC to implement by the end of 2019. ● We will create a resource of program information used to help inform production of a               program aimed at reducing student food insecurity at UBC by the end of 2019. Long-term Objectives ● Our community partner will use our research to reduce overall student food insecurity             prevalence at UBC. 9  Description of Project Outputs Creation of Resources  Our main project output includes a final report detailing our findings of our landscape              analysis that is housed in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet recorded the university, food security              program name, description of the program, program goals, number of students served,            program evaluation methods, success of the program and eligibility requirements (see           Appendix C). The spreadsheet also incorporated the SEM model by classifying which level each              program’s implementation would fall under. The analysis of the spreadsheet is described in the              report where both will be disseminated to our community partner and through SEEDS.  Results Through our environmental scan, we found the most common university-based food           insecurity initiatives are food banks and their implementation fell into the organizational level             of the SEM. We looked at 32 food programs across English speaking universities. Out of the 32                 programs, 18 programs are student-run, 3 of the programs are funded by the university, 2               programs are funded by non-profit and 1 program is funded by the government. The remaining               programs did not have a specific description of the program lead(s).  We found that most universities in Canada and the United States that were included in               the environmental scan offer food bank services to students with financial needs and food              security support. Food banks are a short-term and temporary intervention on a student’s food              insecurity so the focus for our intervention environmental scan was geared away from them.              Universities also offered other programs including cooking classes or emergency food skills            classes, redistribution of leftover foods, free/low-cost food program and food vouchers. 10  1. Cooking classes  One of the food insecurity intervention types included cooking classes or food skills             classes that are available two universities in our environmental scan (University of Alberta and              Ryerson University). At the University of Alberta, their food bank cooking program is run by               student volunteers and aims to provide cooking classes to expand food education as a part of                their initiative to reduce food insecurity on their campus. Similarly, the “Eat up, Meet up”               program at Ryerson University focuses on reducing the impacts of food insecurity by providing              cooking classes to build cooking skills, food knowledge, and introduce recipes. The recipes in              these programs are tailored towards managing time-constraints and on-the-go lifestyles of           students. The aim of this program is to expand food education and skill building as a part of                  reducing food insecurity so the students are able to cook with food items from the food bank                 with different ingredients and recipes. Hence, this program can reduce campus food insecurity             in the long run. This program’s implementation lies in the organizational level of the SEM               because it works with the community groups and organizations. 2. Redistribution of food  Another intervention type is the redistribution of leftover foods that is operated in two               universities in our environmental scan (Simon Fraser University (SFU) and the University of             Victoria). At SFU, the “Food Rescue” program gathers and redistributes imperfect looking            produce to the university community. On the other hand, an on-campus general store at the               University of Victoria sells leftover soups and pasta at reduced prices. There is also an               application that tells the user if there is leftover food after a banquet or event. The overarching                 goal of these programs is to not only reduce food insecurity on campus but also reduce food                 11  waste and create a dialogue around food systems. Hence, this puts the program’s             implementation into the organizational level of the SEM.  3. Free/low cost food program  Some universities have programs that offer free or low cost foods for students. There is               a total of six programs in this category, five of which are student-led. For example, the                University of Melbourne runs a free breakfast program, and at Ryerson University, their             Student Union runs a pay what you can program for soups. In addition, the University of Alberta                 campus food bank in partnership with a not-for profit organization, runs a WECAN program              where the organization purchases bulk orders of meat and produce which their members can              pay a small fee to pre-order and purchase (Campus Food Bank, 2018). Most of the programs in                 this category are run by student organizations and operate as nonprofits. Additionally, all             California State Universities have implemented food pantries or food distribution programs for            their students to increase food security among their student population (Western Center,            2018). On the whole, the implementation of free or low cost food programs at universities               occurs on the organizational level within the SEM.  4. Food Vouchers Some universities operate food security initiatives that give students financial support           through vouchers, food stamps, or other food subsidies. In California State Universities, the             CalFresh initiative provides students with financial needs with an electronic benefits transfer            (EBT) card. This EBT card acts like as a debit card as it is reloaded monthly with money and the                    students can use it to purchase food at participating grocery stores (Uclahci, 2018). The              CalFresh program receives government funding and is funded by the United States Department             12  of Agriculture under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The           general implementation of food voucher or food stamp programs acts in the organizational             level of the SEM but the scale of CalFresh extends its implementation beyond the organization               level. The wide scale of CalFresh across multiple California State Universities, emphasis from             the federal SNAP, and its government funding would place its implementation at a public policy               level within the SEM.  SWOC Analysis To analyze the findings from our environmental scan, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities            and Challenges (adapted from SWOT) analysis was performed (see Appendix D).   13  Evaluation Plan  Creating an evaluation plan is an essential component of health promotion programs            because they allow us to assess the impact of our project and whether our project achieved the                 desired targeted outcomes (DiClemente et al., 2013). As identified above in our objectives, our              short term objectives include collecting and presenting information to our community partner            and our mid-term objectives include using this information to start preliminary discussions            about possible programs that could be implemented at UBC. Our evaluation will assess these              objectives. According to DiClemente et al. (2013), there are two methods for evaluating programs.             One is to conduct a formative evaluation, which occurs before the program begins or while in                progress, and the other is a summative evaluation, which occurs after the program ends              (DiClemente et al., 2013). We conducted our evaluation after completing our environmental            scan and after presenting our findings to our community partner thus, we conducted a              summative evaluation. We assessed the process, impact and outcomes of our environmental            scan. The process evaluation examined the inputs to conducting our environmental scan            including the amount of time and resources we put in as a group. The impact was assessed by                  debriefing our findings to our community partner and evaluating whether it increased their             knowledge. The impact evaluation was conducted after presenting the information to our            community partner in the form of verbal questions at the end of our presentation. We recorded                the responses on a computer and discussed this information afterwards as a group. Since the               project was restricted to the length of the semester, we will not be present to assess any                 changes in future health outcomes that come from the research we conducted. However, we              14  assessed whether our community partner believes they now have enough information to begin             preliminary discussions for future programs at UBC.  The following questions helped guide our process evaluation. We answered question 1            as a group after completing our environmental scan and questions 2-5 were for our community               partner after presenting our findings. 1) Did we invest the appropriate amount of time and resources to compile a             comprehensive report for our community partner? 2) Did we present the findings in a way that increased the knowledge of our community               partner and was easy to understand? 3) Was this information valuable to our community partner? 4) Did our findings inform our community partner of information on food insecurity            programs at other post-secondary institutions that could be used for future UBC food             insecurity initiatives? 5) Does our community partner have enough information to move forward with           discussions with the director of SHHS on food insecurity initiatives at UBC? To evaluate the appropriateness of using the SEM to frame the findings of our environmental               scan, we also asked the following additional question to our community partner: 1) Was the social-ecological model appropriate and useful for organizing the programs? As identified by DiClemente and colleagues, “evaluation is theory driven” (DiClemente et al.,             2013, p. 284) and thus it was important for us to include an evaluation of the usefulness of our                   chosen theory.   15  Conclusion Recently, more focus is put on university students as a population vulnerable to food              insecurity. However, the UBC Vancouver campus still lacks significant food security initiatives            that support students. This project used the SEM to frame and organize the information found               on 42 food security programs at various English-speaking universities. Out of the 42 programs              we examined, half are student-run while 15 programs have unknown program leads. This             demonstrates the strong student interest for initiatives that address food insecurity. Since food             banks are a common food security intervention across many universities, our focus was on              other intervention strategies. The four types of interventions we found were cooking classes,             redistribution of food, free or low cost food programs, and food vouchers. For our mid-term               objectives, we have the opportunity to attend and present our project findings at a Food               Insecurity dialogue session hosted by UBC Wellbeing, where other similar projects and key             stakeholders will be present. This is an opportunity for students and decision-makers to             exchange research findings, collaborate, and start the discussion about potential interventions           that UBC can implement. We also recommend future students to use a different health              behaviour model within the SEM levels to analyze the efficacy of food security initiatives.              Through this project, we learned how to be receptive to the needs of our community partner                and be flexible during the change in our community partner. We also learned how to capitalize                on each team member’s strengths and delegate tasks accordingly to ensure timely completion             of this project.     16  Author’s Contribution Megan Clarke​: Contributed to the conducting of the literature search, contributed to the             environmental scan of food insecurity programs for our community partner, drafted and            completed project goals and helped draft the evaluation plan components of the paper,             created the logic model and newsletter, and contributed to overall editing and revising of              the paper. Mimi Kao​: Contributed to the initial literature search, contributed to the environmental allof             food security initiatives at different universities, drafted and completed the problems           section and conclusion, contributed to overall editing of report Kathy Ma​: Conducted literature search; participated in environmental scan; drafted and revised            health behaviour theory, introduction to section 3 and mediating/moderating factors          section; drafted resource creation section in description of project outputs; edited entire            paper; worked on SWOC analysis; input sections into powerpoint health behaviour theory Levania Zefanya: ​Contributed to the literature search, contributed to the environmental scan of             food insecurity programs, drafted and completed the introduction and description of           project output component of the paper, contributed to overall editing and revising of the              paper  Alison Quinlan​: Contributed to the conducting of the literature search, contributed to the             environmental scan of food insecurity programs for our community partner, drafted and            revised the introduction, executive summary and evaluation plan components of the paper            and contributed to overall paper reading, editing and revising.  17  Ian Tang​: Contributed to literature search, contributed to the environmental scan of food             insecurity programs for our community partner, contributed to problems section, drafted           and completed behaviours, drafted and completed description of projects outputs, drafted           an completed SWOC analysis, editing and revising of the paper.   18  References Brodie, H. (2017). 15 Things you might not know about the campus food bank. ​The Quad, Retrieved from https://blog.ualberta.ca/15-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-campus-food-bank-167a071b9e40 Bruening, M., Argo, K., Payne-Sturges, D., & Laska, M. N. (2017). The Struggle Is Real: A Systematic Review of Food Insecurity on Postsecondary Education Campuses. ​Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics​, 117(11), 1767–1791. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.05.022 Campus Food Bank. (2018). ​We Can Food Basket Society​. Retrieved from https://campusfoodbank.com/wecan DiClemente, Crosy & Salazar. (2013). Evaluating Theory-based Public Health Programs: Linking Principles to Practice, in DiClemente, Salazar & Crosby (Eds). Health Behavior Theory for Public Health: Principles, Foundations and Applications.  Entz, M., Slater, J., & Desmarais, A. A. (2017). Student Food Insecurity at the University of Manitoba. ​Canadian Food Studies​. doi: https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v4i1.204  FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. (2018). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO.Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.  Retrieved from ​http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf Ferguson, M (2004). Campus HungerCount 2004 - Struggling to Feed Hope to Canada's Students: Food Banks Emerge in Response to Student Hunger. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Food Banks and The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. 19  Lee, S.,  Hanbazaza, M., Ball, G., Farmer, A., Maximova, K., & Willows, N. (2018). Food insecurity among postsecondary students in developed countries: A narrative review. ​British Food Journal​, Vol. 120 Issue: 11, 2660-2680.​ ​https://doi.org/10.1108/ BFJ-08-2017-0450 Maynard, M. (2016). Experiences of Food Insecurity Among Undergraduate Students at the University of Waterloo: Barriers , Coping Strategies, and Perceived Health and Academic Outcomes by. Retrieved from https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/10669/Maynard_Merryn.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y Rideout, C., & James, C. (2017). Sociodemographic Predictors of University Students’ Food Insecurity: Insights from a Large University in Canada. ​UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report​. Retrieved from https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/seedslibrary/LFSFS_0.pdf Silverthorn, D. (2016). Hungry for knowledge: Assessing the prevalence of student food insecurity on five Canadian campuses. ​Meal Exchange​, Retrieved from http://mealexchange.com Sustain Ontario. (2013). ​Backgrounder on Food Literacy, Food Security, and Local Food Procurement in Ontario’s Schools​. Retrieved from https://sustainontario.com/custom/uploads/2011/02/SustainOntario_EducationBackgrounder_Oct20131.pdf Uclahci. (2018). The CalFresh Initiative at UCLA Aims to End Food Insecurity for College Students [Web blog post]. Retrieved from 20  https://eatwell.healthy.ucla.edu/2018/03/02/the-calfresh-initiative-at-ucla-aims-to-end-food-insecurity-for-college-students/ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, N. I. of H. (2005). ​Theory at a Glance: Application to Health Promotion and Health Behaviour​ (Vol. 39). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2008.08.002 Western Center. (2018). ​College Hunger Free Campus Initiative​. Retrieved from https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/HungerFreeCampus_2018_Summary_Final.pdf  21  Appendix A Logic Model   22  Appendix B Newsletter Report  23   Appendix C Link & Screenshot of Spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIm7gLffWvcZAanlpx-9mu6ti9BLW6tHZNtLPnBwYP8/edit?usp=sharing          24  Appendix D SWOC Analysis A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (adapted from SWOT) analysis was           performed to analyze findings from our environmental scan. 1. Strengths  The strength of this environmental scan is that it covered multiple universities of various              sizes and compositions across different English-speaking countries. Through this mixture of           Canadian and international perspectives, we collected information from a variety of universities            with different settings and social context. We found that a majority of the programs that we                encountered were lead by students, thus showing the increasing student interest and            student-led discussions in the areas of food insecurity within their university communities. In             other words, food insecurity is shown to be a current and emerging field with growing interest                among students at different universities.  2. Weaknesses  Due to the nature of how initiatives are implemented in the university setting, most of               the interventions found from the scan ended up being at the organizational level of the SEM.                From this limitation, we were unable to explore program implementation at a variety of levels               within the SEM. Additionally, many universities are still in the early stages of program              implementation so not all universities had well-established institution-wide goals and          objectives to address campus food insecurity. As a result, many initiatives were operated by              student organizations and volunteers where limited resources and funding for programs can            impact longevity and efficacy. In addition, many of the existing initiatives lacked monitoring and              25  evaluation for their programs along with eligibility requirements, which made it difficult for our              environmental scan to analyze the success of the programs.  3. Opportunities for UBC  From our environmental scan, UBC can look into implementing the innovative ideas that             were found in other universities. Specifically, gaining insight into potential program ideas,            eligibility criterias, and partnership opportunities. An example of an innovative idea that UBC             can potentially incorporate is developing a mobile app to alert users about banquets or events               on-campus that have leftover food. UBC can also look towards universities that have             established partnerships with neighbouring grocery stores to develop new food security           initiatives for students. Lastly, some of the programs, such as CalFresh, are government funded              underscoring the potential for UBC to explore funding opportunities from the federal or             provincial governments to support food security initiatives.  4. Challenges  The challenges with our environmental scan is that food security initiatives within a             university context is a relatively new topic of research, so there is a lack of literature on specific                  interventions that have been previously conducted. The lack of literature makes it difficult to              refer to what kind of theoretical model previous studies have used and what kind of outcomes                were yielded from these studies. In addition, the data collection for our environmental scan              was dependent on and limited by the responses from the universities and student organizations              that we contacted. For example, it was difficult to obtain information on program success rate,               evaluation data, and eligibility requirements for majority of the initiatives that we researched.             This ultimately makes it difficult for UBC discern which type of intervention initiative to adopt. 26  Megan Clarke, Mimi Kao, Kathy Ma, Levania Zefanya, Alison Quinlan & Ian Tang1UBC Food Security: Interventions and ScanIntroduction and Background2▪ Food insecurity is a major public health concern affecting over 281 million people (FAO, 2018)▪ In Canada, 2 out of 5 university students experience food insecurity (Silverthorn, 2016)▪ Food insecurity among university students is linked to lower self-reported health, reduced academic performance and higher prevalence of depression (Lee et al., 2018)Purpose of the project3▪ Over 40% of UBC students have reported some form of food insecurity (Nguyen, 2018)▪ Currently, there are limited initiatives addressing food insecurity at UBC▪ To conduct an environmental scan on food insecurity initiatives at post-secondary institutions▪ Provide relevant information to our community partner to inform future program development at UBC 1.Program Goals and Objectives4Goals & Objectives5Short-term Objectives● April 2019: Compile information, share our report and presentation of strategies and interventions● April 2019: Inform our community partner of our findingsMid-term Objectives● End of 2019: Create a knowledge base to help inform program planning aimed at reducing student food insecurity at UBC ● End of 2019: Inform key stakeholders to start preliminary discussion about possible policies that are feasible for UBC to implement ● Our community partner will use our research to reduce overall student food insecurity prevalence at UBC.Long-term Objectives2.Health Behavior Framework6Socio-Ecological Model▪ It allows us to classify the level of impact of our intervention scan▪ It provides the complexity necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions ▪ If we chose other theories that are specific to a certain level, the lens can become narrow 73.Programs8Outputs &Applications9Spreadsheet of environmental scan Evaluation meeting with community partner Final Report Final Presentation Outputs and Application of health behaviour theories Programs10Cooking classes Goal: To expand education on how to cook with food items as part of the overarching goal to reduce food insecurity Redistribution of food Goal: Reduce waste on campus and to contribute to overarching goal of reducing campus food insecurity Free/low cost food programs Goal: Provide affordable food to students, reduce campus food insecurity Food vouchers/stamps Goal: To provide students with subsidized food vouchers to reduce campus food insecurity 4.Evaluation11● Evaluation conducted after we presented out findings to our community partner (DiClemente et al., 2013) Was our approach and resources appropriate to conduct our scan?Did the information increase our community partner’s knowledge?Not feasible. Will not be around to assess changes in health outcomes Evaluation12ProcessImpactOutcomeQuestions we included:133. Was this information valuable to our community partner?4. Did our findings inform our community partner of information on food insecurity programs at other post-secondary institutions that could be used for future UBC food insecurity initiatives?1. Did we invest the appropriate amount of time and resources to compile a comprehensive report for our community partner?5. Does our community partner have enough information to move forward with discussions with the director of SHHS on food insecurity initiatives at UBC?2. Did we present the findings in a way that increased the knowledge of our community partner and was easy to understand?5.What did we learn?14Lessons Learned● Open and receptive to needs of community partner, additional information needed halfway through the project● Learned about the importance of building on people’s strengths; capitalizing on what people are good at ● Experienced working with multiple community partners (SEEDS, SHHS); having a middle person was a new experience15What would we change?● More initial in-depth meeting with community partner to discuss specific needs● Designing the excel template with Melissa + discussing each category16Thanks!!Any questions?17 Summary of Food Insecurity Interventions  Additional Key Points   How did we conduct the search? Canada: ● We first looked up the size of all universities in Canada noting those that were similar in size to UBC or had other similarities (outside of city, diverse student population, primarily English speaking) ● Universities smaller than 15,000 students were excluded from our scan ● Split up remaining universities according to province and assigned to team member  Key search terms include: [University name] AND “food insecurity” OR “food security” Additional searching sometimes conducted by going through website on various faculty sites  Outside of Canada: Key search terms include: Country or city AND “university*” OR “Post-secondary” AND “food insecurity” OR “food security” Additional searching sometimes conducted by going through website on various faculty sites   Identify initiatives that were different or stood out: ● Titan Bites, phone app that alerts students when there is leftover food from banquets and events ● Cooking classes that use only foods found at the food banks ● Driving services to take students to wholesale stores such as Costco ● Electronic benefits card that loads funds and can be used at participating grocery stores ● Meal Exchange; was present in many universities we talked with, and had a meal-swipe dollar donation program run by their club at University of Guelph   Summarize what programs were ​primarily run by students​:  Program Category Number student run (total number of programs) Universities With the Program and Program Name Food Banks 12 (13) ● University of Toronto ● Queen’s University ● University of Victoria ● University of Alberta ● University of Calgary ● University of Manitoba ● Western University ● University of Waterloo ● Simon Fraser University ● Ryerson University ● McMaster University ● University of Melbourne (Parville campus) Cooking Classes 2 (2) ● University of Alberta: Food Bank Cooking Classes ● Ryerson University: Eat Up Meet Up Food Redistribution Program 2 (2) ● Simon Fraser University: Food Rescue ● University of Calgary: Good Food Box Free/Low Cost Community Kitchen Meals 5 (6) ● University of Victoria: Leftover soup/pasta sold in general store ● University of Alberta: Campus food bank WECAN program ● University of Calgary: Breakfast program  ● University of Ottawa: ​various programs (e.g. People’s Republic of Delicious, SFUO Food Bank Help) ● University of Melbourne: Free Breakfast Bar Other 3 (3) ● California State University: Titan Bites ● California State University: Meal Sharing & Recovery Program ● University of Alberta: Grocery Bus  Summarize what programs (if any) were primarily run by institution ●  ​Calfresh ○ Money put towards CalFresh Access for university students- provides money onto a card (looks like a debit card) and can be used at most places that sell foods such as supermarkets and farmers markets. Must show eligibility, Swipes at UCLA allocates a certain amount of the swipes donated by students to be converted to meal vouchers after every quarter’s swipes drive. With the assistance of both the dining administration and the head of Economic Crisis Response Team (ECRT ) at UCLA, these meal vouchers are then distributed to the students of UCLA   Was there more being done in any particular province compared to others? Any provinces stand out?  We would say that Ontario seems to have more initiatives being done compared to all other provinces.In addition to many food banks and community kitchens in Ontario schools, the University of Toronto has tax free meals, the University of Guelph has a student-run club that takes meal dollar donations, and Queen’s University has a Swipe it Forward program. These programs are all the only ones of their kind that we could find across Canada.   We also obtained more responses from universities based in Ontario compared to the other provinces and countries, and therefore see more initiatives being implemented in this region.   

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.18861.1-0387030/manifest

Comment

Related Items