Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010: 21(3) 183
Process evaluation of Community Kitchens:
Results from two Victorian local government areas
Abstract
Issue addressed: This paper describes a process evaluation of the participants and organisations involved in
Community Kitchens in the Local Government Areas of Frankston City and Mornington Peninsula Shire in
Victoria, Australia.
Methods: Participants, facilitators and project partners from 17 Community Kitchens were invited to participate
in the evaluation via a written survey and focus group discussion (participants) or structured telephone
interview (facilitators and project partners). Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
Results: Ninety-three individuals (63 participants, 20 facilitators, and 10 project partners) participated in the
evaluation. Data showed that Community Kitchens reached population sub-groups that face the greatest
health inequalities. Project partners were generally satisfed with the project and were able to identify
enablers (e.g. support from the project team and running of other concurrent programs) and barriers
(e.g. size of the kitchen and transportation) to setting up and sustaining a Community Kitchen. The themes
that emerged from participants’ and facilitators’ experience of participating in the project concerned food and
cooking skills, social skills and community participation.
Conclusions: The project enabled the development of food knowledge and cooking skills, as well as social
skills and support networks among participants and facilitators. There is a need to determine what impact
Community Kitchens may have on participants’ nutritional status, as well as the effect of Community Kitchens
on food security at an individual, household and community level. Further longitudinal studies are needed to
affrm the fndings of this study.
Key words: Community Kitchens, process evaluation, cooking, social inclusion, community participation.
Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010; 21:183-8
So What
Community Kitchens can reach vulnerable groups and are generally well-accepted by key stakeholders. They
could be considered as part of strategies to address food insecurity and social isolation in other communities.
Reaching Diverse Groups
Jia Hwa Lee, Julia McCartan, Claire Palermo and Andrea Bryce
Introduction
Community Kitchens have been loosely defned in Canada as
“community-based cooking programs in which small groups
of people meet regularly to prepare one or more meals
together”.1(p13) They have also been described as “participatory,
community-based programs designed to enhance individuals’
knowledge and skills in food selection, shopping and
preparation and to improve their access to food”.2(p489)
A review of the literature available on Collective Kitchens in
Canada (a type of Community Kitchen in which small groups
prepare large quantities of food) demonstrates that these
kitchens foster friendship development and “the theme of
breaking social isolation emerged strongly for those in particularly
socially isolating circumstances”.3(p7) The literature also shows that
participation can be empowering for individuals (through skill
development and improved food security) and is considered less
stigmatising than accessing emergency food relief.3
On the most part, published literature relating to Community
Kitchens in Canada has focused on impact rather than process
measures, largely relating to cooking skills, nutrition and food
security4 although these claims are questionable given the
study designs. While there have been several published articles
about Community Kitchens in Canada,1-9 to date there has
been little published evidence about Community Kitchens
or similar food-based community development initiatives
operating in Australia.
Frankston Mornington Peninsula Community
Kitchens Project
The Community Kitchens model has been implemented in
the Victorian Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Frankston
City and Mornington Peninsula Shire by Peninsula Health
Community Health since September 2004 with funding from
the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The three-fold
184 Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010: 21(3)
goal of the Frankston Mornington Peninsula Community
Kitchens Project relates to promoting healthy eating, social
inclusion and community strength by creating volunteering
opportunities for local residents and facilitating participation
in community life.10
The Community Kitchens project has sparked the interest of,
and commitment from, a broad range of partnering groups
and organisations both within and outside of the traditional
health sector. Community Kitchens has been embedded
within community-based organisations that have functioning
kitchen facilities. Examples of partnering organisations include
church and welfare organisations, Neighbourhood Houses
and community centres, disability and community support
organisations, schools and Registered Training Organisations,
Men’s Sheds, caravan parks and private businesses. Project
partners oversee the implementation of the project in their
respective organisations.
The Community Kitchens project has provided regular
opportunities for groups of six to ten people to participate
in planning, cooking and sharing nutritious and affordable
meals together in community-based settings. Each group is
led by a trained facilitator who can be either a volunteer or a
paid worker within the organisation in which the Community
Kitchen is based. The project follows a “train-the-trainer”
model11 whereby facilitators are trained by project staff and
are expected to pass on knowledge and skills to participants.
Facilitators are also expected to attend training workshops,
covering the topics of group facilitation, budgeting for food,
healthy eating, kitchen safety and food safety, and pass on
their new knowledge to participants.
The three features that differentiate the Community Kitchens
model from other cooking initiatives such as soup kitchens
and cooking classes are:
• active participation of all group members in the planning
and cooking processes;
• financial contribution of group members towards
ingredients; and
• meals prepared are only for participants and members of
their household; they are not given away or sold.
The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation
of 17 Community Kitchens in the LGAs of Frankston City
and Mornington Peninsula Shire. The process evaluation
aimed to determine the reach of the project, satisfaction
of key stakeholders, quality of project components and
key stakeholders’ experiences of participating in the
project based on a modifed version Hawe et al’s process
evaluation framework.12
Methods
Data collection
All 17 Community Kitchens operating across the two LGAs
at the time of the study were targeted for this evaluation.
A convenience sampling approach was taken where
stakeholders who were available and willing to participate
were included in the evaluation.13(p20) Community Kitchen
participants, facilitators and project partners were recognised
as the key stakeholders of the project and were invited to
participate in the process evaluation. Tools that were used
to collect the evaluation data included written surveys, focus
groups and telephone interviews. These tools were developed
to assist in addressing the process evaluation questions as
displayed in Table 1. Data were collected during May 2009
by one research assistant to ensure consistency.
Facilitators and project partners were contacted by phone,
provided an explanation of the study and invited to participate
in a structured telephone interview. Active listening techniques
were adopted to obtain responses from the telephone
interview.13 Community Kitchen participants were invited to
participate in a written survey and a focus group discussion
before or after their cooking sessions. Participants were given
both verbal and written explanation statement of the evaluation
project, informed consent was sought and participants’
confdentiality was maintained throughout the process. The
written surveys were developed to determine the reach of the
Community Kitchens project while the focus group discussions
were designed to elicit participant satisfaction and allow for
focused discussion around their experiences.13 While facilitators
were often present at focus groups, their participation in
discussions was discouraged. Interviews and focus groups were
audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and compared with
interviewer’s notes to aid interpretation.
Data analysis
Data from written surveys was analysed using Microsoft Excel
(version 2003). Written notes from interviews and focus
Lee et al. Article
Table 1: Framework of the Process Evaluation of Community Kitchens.
Process evaluation questions Stakeholders Evaluation methods
What population groups are Community Kitchens reaching? Participants Written surveys
Were the project partners and facilitators satisfed with the Community
Kitchens project design? Were the components of good quality? Project partners and facilitators Telephone interviews
What are the participants’ and facilitators’ experiences of participating in the
Community Kitchens project? Participants and facilitators Focus groups and telephone interviews
Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010: 21(3) 185
Reaching Diverse Groups Process evaluation of Community Kitchens
groups were analysed manually by all authors using a thematic
analysis approach as described by Liamputtong and Ezzy
(2009).13(p382-384) Data analysis included triangulation of data
sources (participants, facilitators and project partners) and tools
(written surveys, focus groups and telephone interviews) which
aimed to improve legitimacy of the data.13 Initially data were
coded and grouped together into categories. Categories were
then discussed amongst all authors and agreed themes derived.
Results were grouped under reach, quality and experience.
Results and Discussion
Written surveys were conducted with 63 participants from 13
Community Kitchens. Four of the 17 Community Kitchens did
not participate; two were not running at that time, and the
other two due to time constraints. In addition, 11 focus groups
were facilitated with 52 participants from 11 Community
Kitchens (number of participants in each focus group mean
4.7 (SD 1.7)). The exact response rate was unknown but it is
estimated that this captured 90% of the participants at that
time. Structured telephone interviews were also conducted
with 17 facilitators, three past facilitators and 10 project
partners from 15 Community Kitchens. It is estimated that
the interviews captured 95% of the facilitators and project
partners at that time. The thematic analysis of data from all
stakeholders using different tools revealed consistent fndings.
Reach of Community Kitchens
Data from participants’ written surveys showed that, at the
time of the survey: 36% of respondents had attended more
than 20 Community Kitchens sessions; 46% indicated that
they had a disability; 6% identifed as an Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander (ATSI) or Australian South Sea Islander (ASSI);
and 27% of the respondents spoke English as a second
language. In addition more than half (62%) received a pension
or other government benefts as their sole source of income.
One in fve participants (21%) reported being affected by food
insecurity, by reporting that they had run out of food in the
last 12 months and could not afford to buy more.
These findings indicate that the Frankston Mornington
Peninsula Community Kitchens project has demonstrated
the ability to engage vulnerable population groups who
face the greatest health inequities. Population groups such
as Indigenous people, newly arrived migrants and refugees,
people with disabilities and people with low socioeconomic
backgrounds have been identifed as the most vulnerable
to food insecurity.14,15 This project provides preliminary
evidence of the ability of multidisciplinary and intersectoral
health promotion strategies to meet the needs of vulnerable
population groups. However, more research is needed
to determine what attracts and retains participants in
Community Kitchens.
Quality of program delivery
Factors that were identifed as vital for participants to be
able to participate fully in Community Kitchens included
accessibility of the kitchen site and equipment and a socially
comfortable environment. The running of other concurrent
programs also proved useful in retaining participant interest
and attendance. Methods to minimise fnancial cost such as
food donations and linking with Community Gardens assisted
with ensuring the sustainability of a Community Kitchen, as
many participants relied fnancially on government benefts
(see Table 2).
In addition, participants’ enthusiasm and willingness to
participate were reported to be one of the factors influencing
the success of Community Kitchen’s set up and sustainability.
A thorough project plan and needs-based support from
Community Kitchens project staff were also reported to be
crucial in ensuring the development of strong infrastructure
and sustainability of a Community Kitchen.
“I think the model just lends itself to be an enabler given its
flexibility. The model can just be adjusted to suit the needs
if there is a barrier for participants around something, the
project can be adjusted to make sure that that barrier can be
removed. So I think it is an easy project.” (Project Partner 7)
A number of barriers to establishing and sustaining a
Community Kitchen were identifed, as shown in Table 2.
The size of the kitchen, which was also cited as a barrier
in Canadian research,7 can limit the number of additional
participants a Community Kitchen can accommodate as
the group grows larger. In addition, fnding volunteers and
facilitators who are willing to devote their time and energy to
a Community Kitchen was highlighted by almost half of the
project partners as being a barrier that needs to be overcome
for a Community Kitchen to be sustained.
“…fnding people who can cook and teach and deal with
the clientele [who have mental and social issues] – they are
rare.” (Project Partner 3)
One of the project partners also commented on the barriers
relating to shopping and cooking as an impediment to the
establishment and sustainability of a Community Kitchen.
These included: accessibility to shops, wide availability of
takeaway food outlets and cultural beliefs that cooking is
Table 2: Barriers and enablers to setting up and sustaining
a Community Kitchen.
Enablers Barriers
• Accessibility of kitchen and equipment
• Running of concurrent programs
• Methods to minimise fnancial costs
• Participants’ willingness to participate
• Well set-out project
• Support from Community Kitchens
project team
• Size of the kitchen
• Finding facilitators/volunteers
• Barriers to shopping and
cooking
• Transportation
186 Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010: 21(3)
something only women should or can do. In addition, access
to transport was also recognised as a potential hurdle for
some participants.
Almost all the facilitators reported that they felt very confdent
and supported in the running of a Kitchen. They commented
that Community Kitchens project staff were readily available
whenever there were queries or help needed.
The majority (82%) of the facilitators indicated that they had
received training on at least half the Community Kitchens
training topics. A large proportion (75%) of facilitators felt that
they did not require further training as they had a nutrition
background or qualifcation in cooking. Nevertheless, many
commented that the training provided was suffcient, helpful
and had given them many ideas. Similar results were found in
a Canadian study where facilitators reported training sessions
as the most helpful form of support from project staff.7
In a published study of Collective Kitchens in three Canadian
cities, it was found that knowledge transfer occurred both
formally and informally. Group leaders offered formal learning
opportunities both during and outside Kitchen sessions. In
addition, informal learning occurred when participants and
leaders shared information and cooking skills during a Kitchen
session, with leaders playing a more facilitative role.4 These
fndings demonstrate the importance of training facilitators as
a key component of Community Kitchens.
Stakeholders’ experience
The experiences of participants and facilitators involved in
the Community Kitchens were captured via focus groups and
telephone interviews. Three major sub-themes in relation
to the experience of participation emerged from the data:
food and cooking skills, development of social skills, and
community participation.
The majority of participants reported that the most rewarding
aspect of their participation in Community Kitchens was
developing food and cooking skills. Participants and facilitators
reported to have learnt new recipes, recipe modifcation,
quick and easy cooking, as well as budgeting for food.
Participants highlighted that it was gratifying for them to not
only to discover new recipes and learn how to cook, but also
to cook and eat nutritious foods, foods from other cultures,
as well as foods that are not normally cooked at home. Since
joining, participants reported learning how to use certain
ingredients, such as herbs and spices, as well as substitute
ingredients, to modify dishes or remedy mistakes in cooking.
“Sometimes when I do it wrong at home I know … how I
can change it, how I can make it better. I made a meat pie
a few weeks ago. It was really runny and I think I forgot to
add more cornflour into it. And yes I learnt that from the
Kitchen.” (Participant 45)
Participants also reported that involvement in a Community
Kitchen had led to improvements in kitchen skills, and
therefore a reduction in incidents relating to burning or cutting
oneself while preparing or cooking food.
More than half the project partners thought Community
Kitchens had had a benefcial effect on their clients and
improved their cooking and budgeting skills. Project partners
identifed that their clients had been given the opportunity
to learn and improve their cooking skills, which had led to
increased confdence in trying different recipes. Besides being
able to cook, enjoy and eat the food together, project partners
also felt that their clients had learnt how to cook on a budget.
“…being able to follow a recipe, work through from beginning
to end, identifying ingredients… and the tasting at the end,
so they are seeing the whole process.” (Project Partner 6)
Similar fndings have been reported elsewhere,2,3,6-8 reinforcing
the fact that Community Kitchens are perceived by many as
a setting that can be utilised to provide informal, experiential
learning opportunities for participants to improve their
nutritional knowledge and food preparation skills. In turn, this
could influence their eating behaviour and overall long-term
health. However, there is a gap in the published literature on
whether Community Kitchens actually do change or improve
nutritional intake. This project evaluation is limited in its design
to elicit changes in food intake as a result of participating in a
Community Kitchen. This area warrants further investigation.
Development of social skills was reported to be a beneft
of participating in the Community Kitchens by almost all
participants interviewed. They reported positively about being
given the opportunity to establish friendships that would not
have occurred without the avenue of a Community Kitchen.
They explained that Community Kitchens provided them an
outlet to socialise and enjoy the companionship of others
from the community.
“[Community Kitchens] get[s] me out of the house, because
I live by myself. I like coming here. I look forward to
Wednesdays.” (Participant 43)
Participants explained that they found it enjoyable to help
each other in the kitchen and share information with others,
as well as learning and being part of a team. Some also
commented on improved confdence and interpersonal skills
since joining a Community Kitchen. Similarly, one of the
facilitators commented that Community Kitchens had helped
him improve his organisational skills, enabling him to better
manage his time and be more assertive.
More than half of the facilitators also indicated that the
social side of being a Community Kitchen facilitator was very
rewarding. They said that Community Kitchens had provided
them an opportunity to meet and work with new people.
Facilitators overwhelmingly reported that being involved in
Community Kitchens was a gratifying experience.
Lee et al. Article
Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010: 21(3) 187
“I think cooking with them, meeting them, has been a really
lovely experience for me.” (Facilitator 21)
The majority of the project partners also indicated that their
clients’ participation in Community Kitchens had led to
their clients’ improved social wellbeing. They reported that
Community Kitchens enabled their clients to develop social
skills and share their ideas and knowledge with friends they
made in the Kitchen. In addition, they claimed that their
clients had learnt how to work as part of a team through
sharing responsibilities in relation to cooking. Apart from giving
their clients a greater sense of achievement, project partners
also thought Community Kitchens has provided their clients
with a purpose in life.
“We have one lady who suffered badly from depression and
she now has a reason to get out of bed.” (Project Partner 1)
The social benefts of participating in Community Kitchens
have been affrmed by previous research.2,3,6-8 The potential
of fostering ongoing social support by establishing friendships
and breaking social isolation is one of Community Kitchen’s
distinguishing features when compared to other food assistance
programs.2,3 Increased self-esteem has also been found to
be associated with Community Kitchens participation.6,8
Participating in Community Kitchens provides a mechanism
of social interaction and reduces social exclusion.
Increased community participation was mentioned by half the
project partners interviewed as one of the benefts they have
seen as a result of their clients’ involvement in Community
Kitchens. The development of social skills appeared to be
a precursor for increased community involvement. They
reported that their clients’ participation in Community
Kitchens had not only given them a sense of identity, place
and belonging, but had also made them more active within
the community.
“You can see it just grow from people who were not leaving
their homes to now working on all sorts of committees – just
much more connected.” (Project Partner 7)
Their comments were further supported by approximately
half the participants who reported that their community
involvement had improved as a result of participating in
Community Kitchens. Approximately three quarters of the
facilitators agreed that their participation in Community
Kitchens had resulted in them being more actively involved
within the community. They commented on how they know
more people and get more involved in activities associated
with Community Kitchens.
“It has made me more active and more involved in other
things that are happening within the community. So it has
opened up different networks for me to actually tap into.”
(Facilitator 15)
Both participants and facilitators reported venturing into other
local community activities such as community gardens since
being involved in a Community Kitchen. Similar fndings were
identifed in earlier studies,5,16 in which increased community
engagement was considered an indicator of individual
empowerment. Community Kitchens were also claimed to
help ‘build a stronger community’,3 by connecting people
and increasing their motivation to be involved in public life.5,16
Participants from Kitchens with a greater focus on skill
development reported that Community Kitchens had inspired
them to either work at a café, look for a job as a waitress or
a cook or open their own catering business.
Half the facilitators interviewed acknowledged that
involvement had inspired them to further their studies or seek
future employment. A number of facilitators reported that they
had sought further education in hospitality or nutrition in order
to equip themselves for their role in Community Kitchens.
The opportunity to volunteer and see how participants had
benefted was reported by half of the facilitators to be the
most rewarding aspect.
“You could tell at the end of the session how much worth
it was for the participants. Social interaction for them and
what they learnt about food preparation. You could really
see that was helping them – and that was rewarding.”
(Past Facilitator 2)
These fndings suggest Community Kitchens have the potential
to facilitate employment opportunities and enhance social
connectedness for both facilitators and participants. Other
studies have also identifed the role they play in promoting
health by addressing employment as one of the social
determinants of health.3 Involvement as a volunteer in
community activities has also been identifed as promoting
social capital and thus improving health.17
Limitations
The evaluation methodology was limited to process measures,
and thus the impact of Community Kitchens on nutritional
intake and food security could not be reported. Furthermore,
little demographic information was collected on facilitators
and project partners. While the sample included a range of
stakeholders of Community Kitchens in the Frankston and
Mornington Peninsula LGAs, care needs to be taken when
extrapolating the fndings of this study to other geographical
areas. There is a need to evaluate the impact that initiatives
such as Community Kitchens have on food insecurity at an
individual, household and community level.
Conclusion
The results of this process evaluation provide evidence that
Community Kitchens have the ability to reach vulnerable
population groups and are generally well-received by
Reaching Diverse Groups Process evaluation of Community Kitchens
188 Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2010: 21(3)
key stakeholders. Feedback from stakeholders indicated
that Community Kitchens have the potential to enhance
participants’ food knowledge and cooking skills and create
an avenue for the development of social skills and support
networks among participants and facilitators. There is a need
to determine any impact that Community Kitchens may
have on participants’ nutritional intake and status, as well as
the effect of Community Kitchens on various levels of food
insecurity. Further longitudinal studies are needed to affrm
the fndings of this study.
Acknowledgements
The project evaluation was undertaken by Monash University,
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics on behalf of Peninsula
Health with funding from the Australian Government
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs.
References
1. Tarasuk V, Reynolds R. A qualitative study of community kitchens as a response
to income-related food insecurity. Can J Diet Pract Res. 1999;60(1):11-6.
2. Tarasuk V. A critical examination of community-based responses to household
food insecurity in Canada. Health Educ Behav. 2001;28(4):487-99.
3. Engler-Stringer R. Collective Kitchens in Three Canadian Cities: Impacts on
the Lives of Participants. Saskatoon (CAN): University of Saskatchewan; 2005.
4. Engler-Stringer R, Berenbaum S. Food and nutrition-related learning in collective
kitchens in three Canadian cities. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2006;67(4):178-83.
5. Crawford S, Kalina L. Building food security through health promotion:
community kitchens. J Can Diet Assoc. 1997; 58(4): 197-201.
6. Engler-Stringer R, Berenbaum S. Collective kitchens in Canada: a review of the
literature. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2005;66(4):246-51.
7. Fano TJ, Tyminski SM, Flynn MA. Evaluation of a collective kitchens program:
using the population health promotion model. Can J Diet Pract Res.
2004;65(2):72-80.
8. Marquis S, Thomson C, Murray A. Assisting people with a low income to start and
maintain their own community kitchens. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2001;62(3):130-2.
9. Kirkpatrick SI, Tarasuk V. Food insecurity and participation in community
food programs among low-income Toronto families. Can J Public Health.
2009;100(2):135-9.
10. Gunnion T. Frankston Community Kitchens Pilot Project Report. Melbourne
(AUST): Peninsula Health; 2008.
11. Orfaly RA, Frances JC, Campbell P, Whittemore B, Joly B, Koh H. Train-thetrainer as an educational model in public health preparedness. J Public Health
Manag Pract. 2005;11(6):S123-7.
12. Hawe P, Degeling D, Hall J, Brierley A. Evaluating Health Promotion: A Health
Worker’s Guide. Sydney (AUST): McLennan & Petty; 1990.
13. Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative Research Methods. 2nd ed. Melbourne
(AUST): Oxford University; 2005.
14. Boyd M. People, Places, Processes: Reducing Health Inequalities through
Balanced Health Approaches. Melbourne (AUST): Victorian Health Promotion
Foundation; 2008.
15. Booth S, Smith A. Food security and poverty in Australia– challenges for
dietitians. Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2001;58(3):150-6.
16. Ripat G. Community Kitchens in Winnipeg: People Cooking Together, Building
Community Together. Winnipeg (CAN): University of Manitoba; 1998.
17. Wilkinson R, Mamut M, editors. Social Determinant of Health: The Solid Facts.
2nd ed. Copenhagen (DNK): World Health Organisation; 2003.
Authors
Jia Hwa Lee, Claire Palermo and Andrea Bryce,
Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash University, Victoria
Julia McCartan, Peninsula Health, Victoria
Correspondence
Jia Hwa Lee, Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash University,
Level 5 Block E, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road,
Clayton Victoria, 3168. Fax: 03 9594 6509;
e-mail: [email protected]
Lee et al. Article
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.