Summer Meals Research - No Kid Hungry | The Center for Best

Summer Meals Research:
From National Data to Local Opportunity
March 26, 2015
2:00pm ET
About Share Our Strength
Share Our Strength employs an innovative three-pronged approach to ending childhood hunger.
1. INCREASING ACCESS to and participation in
federal nutrition programs currently available to
children In-need, including school breakfast, summer
meals and afterschool meals/snacks.
2. EMPOWERING FAMILIES through Cooking
Matters courses and grocery tours with skills to
stretch their food budgets and prepare nutritious
meals on a limited budget for over 20 years.
3. DRIVING AWARENESS OF CHILD HUNGER and
No Kid Hungry at the national, state and local levels
by engaging the public around this critical issue.
1
No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices
Tools
Training
Connections
Research
Consultation
2
This webinar was made possible through the generous support
of the Arby’s Foundation.
3
Agenda
• No Kid Hungry National Summer Research
• Feed the Children: Applying Barrier Analysis to Summer
Meals
• Q&A
Kim Caldwell
No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices
kcaldwell@strength.org
4
Speakers
Thomas Philip Davis Jr, MPH
Chief Program Officer, Feed the Children
Director, Center for Children & Social Engagement
Tom.Davis@feedthechildren.org
Jayme Cloninger
Manager of Public Policy,
Government Relations,
Feed the Children
jayme.cloninger@feedthechildren.org
5
No Kid Hunger National Summer Research
6
Summer for Low-Income Families
Two Studies
2012 Focus
Groups
Parent’s
Perception
of Programs
Marketing
Insights
2013 National Survey
Current
Behavior
Impact on
Family
Criteria for
Programs
7
Current state of Summer
80% of Kids
at Home
62% Spend
More $
17%
Participated
8
Low Awareness – High Opportunity
40% Aware
68%
Interested
9
Looking for the Right Program
Reasons to Attend
Safe, Trusted
Location
Healthy
Meals
Free Meals
Desirable
Meals
Physical
Activity
Enrichment
Activity
Reasons Not to Attend
No Relationship to
Staff or Site
10
Messaging
Words that Work
Free
Activities
Fun
Learning
opportunities
Words to Avoid
Vulnerable
Hungry
Helps stretch
tight budgets
Helps families
save money
Healthy
Safe
No paperwork
or enrollment
required
11
Messengers
Locations
Mediums
My Child’s
School
Online/Website
In the Mail
Flyers
Church/Place of
Worship
Grocery Store
Online/Website
Email
Local Library
WIC or SNAP
Office
Community
Paper
Local News
12
Available Online
13
Feed the Children: Applying Barrier Analysis to
Summer Meals
14
Barrier Analysis
Tom Davis
Chief Program Officer
Jayme Cloninger
Manager of Public Policy, Gov’t
Relations
Create a world where
no child goes to bed hungry.
feedthechildren.org
Objectives of this presentation
• #1: To share our findings on barrier and enablers to
participation in summer meals in Oklahoma.
• #2: To share the Barrier Analysis method with you, so
you can use it in your area.
feedthechildren.org
Feed the Children’s Summer Meals Model
feedthechildren.org
•
Public-private model
•
Provide meals through 11 site sponsors [publicly-funded] AND
•
Provide food to families via site sponsors [privately funded; GIK].
Number of Summer Meals Served vs. Goal
(Feed the Children and Site Sponsors)
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
Goal
Actual
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
SFSP-sponsored meals
feedthechildren.org
Privately-sponsored meals
All Meals
Barrier Analysis: Background and Purpose
• Barrier Analysis developed in 1990 (Davis) to better understand why
some people do behaviors and other people do not.
• Key feature is comparing people who do and do not do a particular
action/behavior (called “Doers with “Non-doers”).
• Now in use around the world and the US.
• Has been used to study many behaviors.
• Recent survey: Over half of international Food Security staff have
used BA, and 100% said it was somewhat or very effective.
feedthechildren.org
19
Main Questions Asked
• What makes it easier (e.g., to send your child to the
nearby summer meals site)?
• What makes it difficult?
• What are the advantages?
• What are the disadvantages?
• Who approves?
• Who disapproves?
• Other questions related to perceived susceptibility to
hunger, severity of missing meals, access, etc.
feedthechildren.org
Parents, 2-6 YO
Parents, 2-6 YO
It's easy to remember to feed a
child 3+ veggies/day
Husband approves of giving
child 3+ veggies/day
It's easy to get my child to eat
3+ veggies/day
The Problem??
Any child can become obese
0%
20%
40%
60%
Behavior: Parents of children 2-6 YO give 3+ servings of vegetables/day
80%
100%
Doers
Non-doers
It's easy to remember to feed a
child 3+ veggies/day
Husband approves of giving child
3+ veggies/day
It's easy to get my child to eat 3+
veggies/day
Any child can become obese
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The Problem
• SFSP participation by qualified students is low (15%),
and lowest in in Oklahoma (4%).
• Not enough sites, but also some children qualify for the
program, and have nearby site, but do not attend.
• Why do some parents who live nearby summer meals
(<5 miles) sites not send their children?
• This is probably the low-hanging fruit.
feedthechildren.org
Barrier Analysis on Regular Attendance at
Feed the Children sponsored SFSP sites
Who? Interviewed parents of 68 children 5-12 YO whose children participated in
free/reduced lunch in past year:
•
35 parents who sent at least one of their children to the nearby summer meals
site regularly. (“Doers”)
•
33 parents who did not send any of their children to the nearby site at any time.
(“Non-doers”)
Where? Parents who lived in 5 mile radius of FEED sponsored SFSP sites.
What? Interviewed parents using a questionnaire that looked at 12 different
behavioral determinants.
Behavioral determinant = A category of reasons why people do and do not do
something. Compared Doers and Non-doers.
feedthechildren.org
* Catchment area = 5 mile radius of site
Main Barriers/Enablers to Regular Attendance
at the SFSP sites (among those who live in
catchment area)
• What makes it easier to send your child to
the nearby summer meals site?
• What are the advantages of sending your
child to the nearby summer meals site?
feedthechildren.org
Perceived Self-efficacy
• What makes it easier? 14% of parents who did not send their
children to summer meals (the Non-doers) vs. 0% of those
who did (the Doers) said that having knowledge of — or
more information on — the summer meal program would
make it easier to attend the SFSP (p=0.049)
• What’s needed: Provide parents with better and more
accessible information on the program. Possible strategies:
Banners, fliers at different times (not one-time only), radio
announcements, enlisting children in promoting the program.
feedthechildren.org
Advantages
• Doers were more likely than Non-doers to say extra food
for the family was an advantage of having their child
regularly attend the nearby Summer Meals program.
(18% of Doers vs. 0% of Non-doers, p=0.02)
• What’s needed: Frame summer meals as a summer
enrichment program (to avoid stigma) that also helps
families to stretch their food dollars.
feedthechildren.org
Non-differences between Doers and Non-doers
The following were not found to be different between Doers and Non-doers (so
probably did not influence their decision to send the child):
•
No differences in perceived disadvantages of sending the child.
•
Social Norms: Doers were no more likely than Non-doers to say that most
of the people that they know approve of having their child regularly attend
the nearby Summer Meals program. While only 63%/64% said that most
people approve, this does not appear to affect the decision.
•
Access (in the 5-mile radius): Doers were MORE likely to say that it was
“very difficult” to bring their child than Non-Doers (59% vs. 31%, p=0.02).
So a difference, but not one driving participation.
•
Reminders: Doers were no more likely than Non-doers to say that it was
difficult to remember to bring their children to (or sign up for) summer meals.
(74% D vs. 56% ND; p= 0.097)
feedthechildren.org
Non-differences between Doers and Non-doers
(continued…)
No difference:
• in belief that child is not getting enough to eat;
• in belief that it’s serious/very serious if child doesn’t get enough to
eat;
• in belief that the site helps their child to get enough to eat;
• in belief that God approves of taking child to the summer meals site
(of those responding); and
• in belief that there are people in their neighborhood/community that
look down on parents who have their children regularly attend.
feedthechildren.org
Universal Motivators
The top three motivators that both Doers and Non-doers
mentioned — things that they want most in life — were:
• Having good health or healthy children (52% of all
respondents),
• providing for family (36%, also expressed as wealth, paying
bills, putting food on the table, and children having what they
need), and
• Having a good or better job (15% of all respondents).
• (Other motivators were mentioned by less than 20% of the
interviewees.)
What’s needed: More focus on connecting the program and
framing it in terms of these motivations.
feedthechildren.org
Challenges
• Parents did not like answering the standard food security
questions saying that it made them feel bad about
themselves. We omitted these early in the interviewing
process.
• Sometimes difficult to get people to take the time to
answer a survey.
feedthechildren.org
Limitations of the Study
• Only interviewed parents of 5-12 year olds in a 5-mile
radius of sites.
• Only takes into account barriers and enablers in the 10
sites studied in Oklahoma.
• BA training was shorter than usual, and interviewers did
not have daily supervision.
• Sample size was smaller than desired (35/33 vs. 45/45).
feedthechildren.org
Next Steps
• Will test out application of findings in half of summer
meals sites, and measure participation.
• Will conduct an “organizational Barrier Analysis” on why
some sites continue year after year to participate in the
SFSP and other sites drop out after a year.
• May offer a training in how to conduct Barrier Analysis in
other geographical areas if there is interest.
feedthechildren.org
The Center for Children
& Social Engagement
center4children.org
•
Purpose: The Center will identify,
document, and encourage the successful
scale-up of highly cost-effective, replicable
program models and policies for improving
food security and child nutrition in the
United States and around the world.
•
Bright Spot Scouting
•
Awarding of “Bright Spot Awards” ($10K$100K)
•
Grants for documenting, testing, and
scaling up promising models.
•
Sign up for the Center’s newsletter!
http://center4children.org
feedthechildren.org
Resources
• Barrier Analysis narrated overview for computer:
http://caregroupinfo.org/vids/bavid/player.html
• BA narrated presentation for tablet or smartphone
• Additional presentation with several examples of Barrier
Analysis effectiveness
• (2013) Practical (Training) Guide to Barrier
Analysis (PDF or MS Word format)
• Barrier Analysis Tabulation Table and instructions
• We have other survey tools.
feedthechildren.org
Questions?
36
Thank You!
37