Learning from 2007 grant recipients
Introduction
210 groups and agencies applied to the CFHS small grant scheme in 2007, of which 56 were successful. A total of around £90,000 was awarded.
Successful applicants showed that their planned work would make a positive difference to the diets of people in the low-income communities and vulnerable groups that they work with. All the successful applicants also showed additional strengths, such as: evidence that their work was needed and wanted by those they planned to work with; work that fitted in with local or national priorities; ideas for sustaining the work after CFHS funding had been spent; and value for money.
Successful applicants showed that their planned work would make a positive difference to the diets of people in the low-income communities and vulnerable groups that they work with. All the successful applicants also showed additional strengths, such as: evidence that their work was needed and wanted by those they planned to work with; work that fitted in with local or national priorities; ideas for sustaining the work after CFHS funding had been spent; and value for money.
Successful applicants came from all over Scotland, with at least one from each NHS Board area.
Grant recipients were expected to spend the grant and complete their activities by September 2008. Fifty of the grant recipients sent written reports by, or shortly after, September 2008.
Grant recipients were expected to spend the grant and complete their activities by September 2008. Fifty of the grant recipients sent written reports by, or shortly after, September 2008.
How we found out what grant recipients got up to
The 56 grant recipients were asked to complete an evaluation form (132 kb PDF) or to send a report six months after receiving their grant.
Reminders were sent to some applicants (both by letter and email). Just over a year after funding was awarded evaluation forms were emailed to six projects that had little to report in the earlier evaluation because their planned activities had only just started or not started at all. Five of these completed their second reports.
Six projects did not send written evaluation reports. One of these projects had closed down, and three had staff changes. Two others also had staff changes and had asked for approval to develop their work over an extra year.
Grant recipients who do not keep CFHS adequately informed of their grant funded activities are less likely to receive any CFHS funding in the near future.
Grant recipients who do not keep CFHS adequately informed of their grant funded activities are less likely to receive any CFHS funding in the near future.
Did grant recipients do what they said they would do?
All of the grant recipients, except one, delivered most of the activities that they had outlined in their application forms. There were some minor changes, such as delivering cooking sessions slightly differently to suit the needs of the group. This included delivering one-to-one cooking sessions instead of in a group, and adding on cookery sessions to a larger group activity.
One project received approval to change its activities quite significantly. It had planned to set-up a food co-op for its groups, but had been unable to do so because a cut in funding to its supplier had resulted in a reduced service. However, it then used CFHS funding to introduce a range of healthier food activities to the groups.
One project received approval to change its activities quite significantly. It had planned to set-up a food co-op for its groups, but had been unable to do so because a cut in funding to its supplier had resulted in a reduced service. However, it then used CFHS funding to introduce a range of healthier food activities to the groups.
Did they get help to deliver activities?
Forty-five out of 49 projects said that they received help in kind or funding from other people or agencies. Types of help included use of venues; minibuses; staff time; cookery tutors; and financial help. Frequently mentioned helpers included community food workers; healthy living initiatives; health visitors; NHS health improvement or health promotion staff; community learning and development; schools; and local authority departments. Volunteers were mentioned as helpers in nine projects, particularly food co-ops. However, volunteers are likely to have been involved in other projects, some will have applied for the small grant and others will be committee members for projects.
Who did they work with?
Grant recipients worked with a wide range of groups. Many of these groups fall into the priority groups that were highlighted by the government in 2008, in the ‘Healthy Eating, Active Living’ (HEAL) action plan. These priority groups are: communities, early years, school-age children, older people and adults and workplaces. Almost half the groups fell into at least one of these categories, although most of these projects could also be placed into the ‘communities’ category. However, many projects reported on the work they undertook with families, parents or young mums, rather than the government’s priority groups. As most also gave an indication of the age of the children of these families, this made it possible to sort these groups into the government target group of 'early years'.
Groups that were under-represented included ‘adults and workplaces’, but the workplace is not priority area for CFHS. However, the lack of grant recipients working with older people (defined as aged over 50) is a concern. Community projects tell us that food co-ops are often used (and operated) by older people, however, this still only accounts for 4% of grant recipients (two projects). 21% of grant recipients can be put into the ‘early years’ group.
What did they do?
Over half (60%) of grant recipients delivered food preparation or cooking skills sessions, including two that offered help with weaning skills. Many of the cookery or food preparation sessions included hands-on practical sessions and most focused on affordable healthy meals.
Grant recipients that deliver cooking skills sessions have increased each year for the last three years. This reflects the increased popularity of this type of work, rather than these applications being more likely to succeed.
Grant recipients that deliver cooking skills sessions have increased each year for the last three years. This reflects the increased popularity of this type of work, rather than these applications being more likely to succeed.
16% of grant recipients’ work did not fit neatly into any other category. This work included training people to deliver food and health courses or cookery courses, peer education, and refurbishing a training kitchen. The next most popular activity was growing fruit or vegetables. The remaining grant recipients bought equipment for food co-ops, or delivered a range of food activities.
What happened?
All the grant recipients reported some successes.
Nine out of the 29 cookery skills projects reported that participants tried recipes again at home, changed their shopping habits or are eating more fruit and vegetables. Eight others reported positive effects on the participants, such as supporting each other in food activities, taking responsibility for some of the food activities, getting involved in putting together recipe books, or gaining more confidence around preparing meals.
“As a youth team we have been able to report in the success of the project to other youth leaders ... who have been sceptical about the idea of replacing sweets and biscuits at tuck shops with a healthy snack ... the youngsters prefer to have healthy snacks!” Youth worker
Eleven reported that they received positive feedback or that sessions were popular. One grant recipient working with people experiencing homelessness had difficulties recruiting participants to group cookery sessions. However, they had a little more success after they tried different venues and moved onto one-to-one work.
Six grant recipients received funding to develop fruit and vegetable gardens. Another recipient developed a garden in addition to other activities. Not surprisingly, the development of gardens took longer than other projects, although all recipients had completed their gardens by the end of September, despite many of them requiring some construction work. Bad weather and problems with contractors or planning permission delayed some of these projects. One garden had a problem with vandalism, but did receive a great deal of support from the local community afterwards. All the garden projects reported that groups of participants or volunteers were regularly involved in development and maintenance. Most also reported that participants or their organisations had enjoyed the fresh vegetables grown in the garden.
"The gardening group have maintained interest and enthusiasm and the work has helped members to increase their physical activity...the healthy lunches and special food events have been popular and discussions about food, members sharing recipes, etc are now commonplace.” Staff from a mental health support service.
Grant recipients delivering ‘Other’ types of work also reported positive feedback. Two had delivered ‘train the trainer’ courses, with one group reporting that preparing the group to deliver their own courses took longer than anticipated. The other added food and health courses to their staff training progamme, which were well-received. Nearly all the ‘Other’ projects reported successful results, such as a refurbished kitchen that is regularly used for classes, and an on-line recipe resource for people with sensory impairment which has been developed. A peer-education project that started well did have some difficulties developing its work further, as the potential peer educators had other commitments such as exam revision.
One of the reasons CFHS continues to run the small grant scheme is to learn from what community projects are doing. As well as this summary and the grants special edition newsletter, 12 of these grant recipients have been involved in other CFHS activities. Six of these presented or exhibited their CFHS funded (or their general food and health work) at one of the last two CFHS conferences, 2007 and 2008. Another has co-presented with CFHS at a different conference. Four others have contributed to CFHS publications (other than our quaterly newsletter) since late 2007.
“As a youth team we have been able to report in the success of the project to other youth leaders ... who have been sceptical about the idea of replacing sweets and biscuits at tuck shops with a healthy snack ... the youngsters prefer to have healthy snacks!” Youth worker
Eleven reported that they received positive feedback or that sessions were popular. One grant recipient working with people experiencing homelessness had difficulties recruiting participants to group cookery sessions. However, they had a little more success after they tried different venues and moved onto one-to-one work.
Six grant recipients received funding to develop fruit and vegetable gardens. Another recipient developed a garden in addition to other activities. Not surprisingly, the development of gardens took longer than other projects, although all recipients had completed their gardens by the end of September, despite many of them requiring some construction work. Bad weather and problems with contractors or planning permission delayed some of these projects. One garden had a problem with vandalism, but did receive a great deal of support from the local community afterwards. All the garden projects reported that groups of participants or volunteers were regularly involved in development and maintenance. Most also reported that participants or their organisations had enjoyed the fresh vegetables grown in the garden.
"The gardening group have maintained interest and enthusiasm and the work has helped members to increase their physical activity...the healthy lunches and special food events have been popular and discussions about food, members sharing recipes, etc are now commonplace.” Staff from a mental health support service.
Grant recipients delivering ‘Other’ types of work also reported positive feedback. Two had delivered ‘train the trainer’ courses, with one group reporting that preparing the group to deliver their own courses took longer than anticipated. The other added food and health courses to their staff training progamme, which were well-received. Nearly all the ‘Other’ projects reported successful results, such as a refurbished kitchen that is regularly used for classes, and an on-line recipe resource for people with sensory impairment which has been developed. A peer-education project that started well did have some difficulties developing its work further, as the potential peer educators had other commitments such as exam revision.
One of the reasons CFHS continues to run the small grant scheme is to learn from what community projects are doing. As well as this summary and the grants special edition newsletter, 12 of these grant recipients have been involved in other CFHS activities. Six of these presented or exhibited their CFHS funded (or their general food and health work) at one of the last two CFHS conferences, 2007 and 2008. Another has co-presented with CFHS at a different conference. Four others have contributed to CFHS publications (other than our quaterly newsletter) since late 2007.
What evaluation did they do?
Seventeen grant recipients relied on informal feedback alone. Nineteen projects used evaluation forms, four of which also carried out baseline evaluations. Baseline evaluations included the use of shopping receipts, conducting quizzes, or asking for scores on confidence levels. Other methods of evaluation included focus groups or meetings, menu plans, facilitator’s notes, till receipts, photos, individual reviews and a video.
Only four projects did not report on how they had evaluated their project. Two of these were still in the process of developing work, including one of the gardening projects.
Plans for the future?
All the grant recipients reported their thoughts about the future of their work. Twenty-nine had firm plans to continue at least part of the work that they had received the grant for. Sometimes this was by incorporating activities into their other work, or because the grant had been used to kick-start projects, such as gardens, ongoing training or equipment for food co-ops or kitchens. The remaining 18 hoped to continue their activities, but this was not always confirmed. Seven of these said they would be dependent on receiving further funding; others depended on participant groups who had said they would like to continue to meet up. One of these was unable to continue to support the group as its own funding was about to end.
Further information
For further information on 2007 grant recipients download 2008 grants special edition Fare Choice (1213 kb PDF). A list of all 2007 grant recipients (90 kb PDF) is also available.
For details on what 2006 grant recipients got up to download 2007 grants special edition Fare Choice (912 kb PDF).