390 likes | 465 Views
Implementing a Nutrition Quality Rating System . Elizabeth Campbell, MA, RD Associate Specialist University of California at Berkeley The Dr. Robert C and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health. Presentation Overview. Why is this important? Health implications versus customer service
E N D
Implementing a Nutrition Quality Rating System Elizabeth Campbell, MA, RD Associate Specialist University of California at Berkeley The Dr. Robert C and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health
Presentation Overview • Why is this important? • Health implications versus customer service • Results from CNY study • Method to improve nutrition quality • Define CHOP • A Case Study: Los Angeles Regional Foodbank • What do stakeholders think? • Example of quantitative data • Hear from those implementing nutrition rating systems
Background • Demand for emergency food has changed over the past 20 years • Simultaneously, the United States is facing an obesity epidemic • Demand for emergency food has increased in light of the economic recession • Food Banks have seen an increase in the amount of energy-dense, nutrient-poor food donations
Health Implications vs. Customer Service Approach • Documentation that nutritious food is better for food insecure individuals • Emergency food recipients may prefer or want foods of minimal nutritional value • No data exists to measure food preferences of low income individuals
Evaluation of “No Soda and No Candy Policy” • Objective 1: Evaluate the impact of the FBCNY’s “No Soda and No Candy” policy on the types of donated foods and beverages accepted • Objective 2: Assess Emergency Food Program (EFP) recipients’ preferences for foods and beverages • Objective 3: Assess the EFP directors’ perceptions of recipients’ food and beverage preferences and their own decisions about what foods and beverages to stock
Methods • Instruments: • Interviewer administered questionnaire (Directors and Guests) • Food pantry inventory assessment • Food bag checklists • 15 random food pantries from the FBCNY service area • A 20-guest pilot study was conducted in 2008
Characteristics of Respondents • The majority of guests were white females between the ages of 35 and 64 • Only 64% of guests indicated that they or a member of their household received food stamps • 28% reported that someone in their household participated in the SLP • Only 9% participated in the SFSP • 75% of guests interviewed were unemployed
Considerations for Food Selection by Emergency Food Guests • 98% indicated having nutritious food available for them at theFPwas very important/important • However, 94% reported that taste was also a very important/important consideration when choosing food for their households • Approximately 70% of guests did not place a priority on receiving snacks at the food pantry by reporting it was somewhat or not important to them • Guests (94% very important/important) placed a high priority on the availability of staple items
Discussion • To what extent can the emergency food system change nutrition and procurement policies to meet demand of guests? • Introduction of nutritional rating systems
Choose Healthy Options Program (CHOP) A comprehensive program developed by the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank to promote the acquisition, distribution, and consumption of healthier food.
1 Choose frequently Choose moderately 2 3 Choose sparingly MC Minimal contribution NR Not rated Food Ratings
Case Study:Los Angeles Regional Foodbank • Qualitative Data • Interviews with 7 staff members • Interviews with 3 emergency food programs • Interview with BOD • Quantitative Data • Example of a quarterly report • Suggestions on how to use data
Staff Interviews Selection Process: Why Choose CHOP? • Evaluated 3 existing rating systems • CHOP was the most developed and easiest to use • CHOP relies on the food label • Easy to train non-nutrition professional to read the label and rate the product
Staff Interviews Implementation: Greatest Challenges? • Changing the mind set of staff, etc • Monumental change in FB operations • Determining which food categories to label • Determining if initial calculation of ranking was appropriate • i.e. peanut butter and whole raw chicken • Development of excel worksheet for calculations
Staff Interviews Implementation: Key to Success? • Important to have a “champion” • Supportive Executive Director • Education of staff and board members
Staff Interviews Implementation: Resources Needed? • Excel expertise • Small change in Navision process • Potential for additional need for transportation and storage of healthier foods • i.e. refrigerated trucks, freezer space, etc…
Staff Interviews Implementation: Communication Methods? • Strategic plan • Internal staff meetings • Agency conference • Newsletter/memo • Monitoring staff/word of mouth
Staff Interviews Follow-Up: What kind of feedback exists? • Originally there was pushback from staff • Staff have embraced new mind set • Internal strategic changes • i.e. donor solicitor actively seeking better ranked foods • i.e. addition of delivery programs • i.e. set nutrition policy; target nutrition education needs • No negative response from agencies • Some agencies have thankedthemfor creating a “buying guide” for them
Staff Interviews Follow-Up: Recommendations • Be sure to spend the time up front educating staff • Need staff buy-in • It’s much easier than you think • Be creative with ways to deliver new products • May work best at food bank level • Treat it like a customer service opportunity • Be sure to review items after ranking; determine what works best for your agency
Agency Interviews Attitude Towards Nutrition Quality: • Generally, nutrition was important • Mixed opinions on what is priority • Quantity vs. Quality • Mixed opinion on types of foods that clients want
Agency Interviews Barriers to Improvement: • Quality vs. Quantity • Not enough funding • Storage • Delivery • Client preference
Agency Interviews Possible Solutions to Improvement: • Find more funding • Talk to USDA about improving subsidies • General sense of “doing their best”
Agency Interviews Perception of Policy Communication Method: • Two of the agencies said the agency conference was a great way to communicate • Two agencies remember receiving memo • One agency was not familiar with the rating system
Agency Interviews Perception of CHOP: • Mixed reviews • Very helpful • Aware of system; not helpful or applicable • Not aware of system
BOD Interview Key Concerns: • Potential decrease in shared maintenance fees • More costs and less revenue • Loss of donations • Upsetting donors
BOD Interview Rationale for Change in Mission Objectives: • Perfect storm for change • Research overwhelming in regards to need for improvement in nutrition quality of low income clients • Bad economy==PR opportunity and free advertising • Financially situated to “take a risk”
BOD Interview Recommendations: • You have to make a change; it’s the right thing to do • Leads to increased funding • Any change is a step in the right direction
Quantitative Data Example: Third Quarter Report
Quantitative Data Ways to Utilize Data: • Measurement of overall success • Strategic planning for food solicitation • Goal setting for education and outreach
Panel/Group Discussion • Briefly explain your organization’s reason for implementing a rating system? • Briefly explain your rating system? • Briefly explain how your organization uses its rating system. • What are the greatest challenges? • What are the greatest benefits?