the derbyshire school holiday food programme · evaluation report summer 2016. | 8 project delivery...

The Derbyshire

School Holiday

Food Programme

Evaluation Report

Summer 2016

This report presents information gathered from

individuals and organisations involved in the

planning and delivery of the School Holiday Food

Projects, together with feedback from children,

young people and families benefiting, to help

evaluate the programme across Derbyshire.

Jane Hicken Public Health Manager [email protected]

Richard Flint Public Health Research Analyst [email protected]

Ashley King Principal Public Health Analyst [email protected]

Derbyshire School Holiday Food Programme

Evaluation Report Summer 2016 | 2

Acknowledgement

This report presents information gathered on the 19 School Holiday Food Projects that took place across Derbyshire during the 2016 school summer holidays. All 19 individual projects were delivered through a strong collaboration of many partners, organisations and volunteers. In total over 60 different partners and organisations and 127 volunteers committed their time to join together and enable children, young people and families to access a range of organised activities and a selection of prepared food. Each partner, organisation and volunteer played an equal and important part. Thank you to everyone that was part of the programme and contributed to each projects’ success. As you will know this commitment has continued with activities during the October and December 2016 school holidays. Thank you!



Table of contents

1. Summary 4

2. Background and context 5

3. Delivery model 6

4. Questionnaire and survey findings 23

5. Recommendations 34

6. Conclusion 35

7. Appendices 36



1. Summary

In the UK, over one in four children are living in poverty once housing costs have been deducted from their income.

Children who regularly miss out on meals and arrive at school hungry and thirsty are at a significant disadvantage, lacking concentration and the ability to learn.

19 projects were established across eight local authority areas.

6,266 children and young people were fed during the six week holidays (this ranged from breakfasts, packed lunches and snacks).

FareShare provided the equivalent of 4,461 meals (breakfasts and lunches) and 2,850 snacks.

127 volunteers gave their time to support the projects. A number of the volunteers also achieved Level 2 Food Safety & Hygiene for Catering.

8 projects recorded a total of 686 adults (parents and carers) who attended. This data was not requested hence numbers across all 19 projects is not recorded.

Venues where food was provided included 3 schools, 5 children’s centres, 4 church communities, 5 community centres, 1 sports centre, and 1 green space.

Over 60 partners and organisations worked collaboratively to prepare food and deliver a range of activities.

Outdoor and indoor activities ranged from play and sport, arts and crafts, storytelling, Summer Reading Challenge, den building, gardening, board games, cook and eat, canal trip, pond dipping, picnics, KMX Racing, dance, bowling day trips, meet the neighbour’s day, support groups.

66 validated responses were received to the online survey (Appendix 1).

869 validated responses were received to the food questionnaire (Appendix 2).

333 validated responses were received to the activity questionnaire (Appendix 3). A number of key recommendations have been identified to develop the overall programme, these include:

More time to plan activities.

Links with appropriate services to ensure the most vulnerable are reached and stigmatisation is avoided.

Maximising on the opportunity to signpost vulnerable families into other services.

Improved communications, timely delivery and the range of food supplied by FareShare.

Explore long term sustainability of food projects across Derbyshire.

Improve promotion and adverting to reach target families. Avoid use of the term ‘Holiday Hunger’ at the risk of stigmatisation.

Explore appropriate recycling of food packaging waste and food waste.



2. Background and context

This evaluation report presents information and feedback on the 19 School Holiday Food Projects delivered across Derbyshire during the summer period 24th July to 1st September 2016 as part of the Derbyshire School Holiday Food Programme. During this six week period each project offered a varying range of food, beverages and activity provision across different settings including schools, children’s centres, church communities, green spaces, leisure and community centres, primarily targeting children and young people, and in some cases families. The programme is in response to national evidence which indicates that school holiday periods can be a time when some families experience difficulties associated with the additional costs of looking after their children. This is particularly prevalent amongst vulnerable and low income families.

Why is there a need in Derbyshire?

In the UK, over one in four children are living in poverty once housing costs have

been deducted from their income1. Table 1 shows the percentage of children in

poverty by Local Authority area in Derbyshire.

Table 1 (Source: End Child Poverty. November 2016)

1 End Child Poverty (2016). Child poverty map of the UK November 2016. [Accessed 24/11/16]

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/poverty-in-your-area-2016/

“School holiday periods are an incredibly difficult time for

parents on low incomes as limited household budgets are

squeezed. Holiday meal programmes that provide a safe

environment and fun activities need to be recognised and

supported by government policy. No child should be hungry at

any time in this country.”

Lindsay Graham, Chair of the Holiday Hunger Task Group

Percentage of children in poverty

Oct-Dec 2015 Before housing costs After housing costs

Amber Valley 16.09% 25.87%

Bolsover 16.83% 27.03%

Chesterfield 15.80% 25.44%

Derbyshire Dales 10.31% 16.62%

Erewash 15.00% 24.33%

High Peak 11.26% 18.34%

North East Derbyshire 13.60% 21.96%

South Derbyshire 11.10% 18.03%

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/poverty-in-your-area-2016/



In Derbyshire 15%, over 9,000 children are eligible for free school meals (FSMs)2.

When you consider that school holidays and weekends equate to around 170 days

per year, these are periods when children can miss out on meals and lack social

enrichment such as trips, holidays away, cultural and learning experiences.

In a recent survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers3 it found that over

half (52%) of education staff believe they have pupils in their school who should

receive FSM but aren't entitled to them because they are from a low income working

family, and are just above the income threshold for eligibility.

Research also shows that children who regularly miss out on meals and arrive at

school hungry and thirsty are at a significant disadvantage, lacking concentration

and the ability to learn. During protracted school holiday periods such as the

summer holidays the impact can be even greater with evidence of children returning

undernourished and underweight.

3. Delivery Model

At the heart of the programme is an ambition to provide free food and activities

during school holiday periods to children, focussing on areas of high multiple

deprivation and utilising FareShare to deliver nutritious food to agreed venues.

To ensure the summer programme reached the communities that would most

benefit, a number of approaches were adopted to identify communities across

Derbyshire. This included contact with the schools currently supported by the council

to deliver breakfast provision; the support of Public Health Locality Teams who

maintain strong local partnership links; and responding to organisations who

expressed an interest in supporting the programme who were located in areas of

high need. This approach culminated in 19 individual projects establishing across all

eight local authority areas.

2 Derbyshire Partnership Forum (2014). Derbyshire’s Anti-Poverty Strategy 2014-2017 Working together to tackle poverty in

Derbyshire. 3 Association of Teachers and Lecturers. Hungry pupils mean we risk returning to a Victorian era rife with inequality. [Accessed

5/4/16] https://www.atl.org.uk/media-office/2016/hungry-pupils-mean-we-risk-returning-to-a-victorian-era-rife-with-inequality.asp

Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being

cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For

example, 60 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like,

but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.

Department for Work and Pensions, 2015

https://www.atl.org.uk/media-office/2016/hungry-pupils-mean-we-risk-returning-to-a-victorian-era-rife-with-inequality.asp



The key to success was a strong partnership approach linking together partners

with suitable facilities to receive, prepare and hand out food, and existing partner

organisations that had in place established holiday activities – thus collectively

enabling children to access a planned programme of different activities, social

events, food and beverages.

Aims and objectives

Ultimately the holiday programme model aims to provide food, nurturing, caring and

support to the most vulnerable, by bringing together different partner organisations

that typically support vulnerable children and are committed to coordinating and

facilitating a range of holiday provision within a given community. The offer will

extend to:

A cold packed lunch/breakfast/snacks/cooking workshops.

Social enrichment such as games, reading, outdoor pursuits, arts and crafts.

Opportunities to socialise with similar aged children.

Opportunities to experience new pursuits and learn new skills.

A safe and supportive environment.

FareShare

The role of FareShare was to provide and deliver foodi, free of charge as part of its

commitment to redistribute surplus in date food; reach communities facing poverty;

and reduce food waste. FareShare played a key role in the programme, working

directly with the individual organisations who had agreed to receive and prepare

food, to ensure their facilities were suitable and the right policies, procedures and

practice were in place, and at least one staff member/volunteer was qualified to

Level 2 Food Hygiene standards.

i Typical packaged food supplied by FareShare included: Cold lunch: fresh sliced bread (not white); cereal bars;

margarine/butter; cheese; pack cooked meats; fruit yoghurt; bottled water; fresh fruit and salad products. Breakfast: cereals (low sugar), fresh sliced bread (not white), butter/margarine; fruit yoghurts, fruit, fresh fruit juice, bottled water, UHT milk (subject to availability). Snacks: fruit, cereal bars, water, fruit drinks.

Safeguarding and Health and Safety

Having the correct safeguarding, health and safety and child protection policies and

procedures in place is paramount. The delivery model aimed to work with existing

organisations and services whose primary role is working with children and young

people and as such have all the appropriate policies and practices in place when

delivering an activity as part of the holiday programme. This included:

Suitable risk assessments, safeguarding and child protection procedures.

Qualified, suitable and competent staff.

Emergency procedures (e.g. first aid, missing children, child not collected by

parent, fire emergency procedures, etc.)

Insurance cover.


Evaluation Report summer 2016. | 8

Project delivery outputs and outcomes

Table 2 summarises the throughput of children, the type of food they received, the

numbers of volunteers and numbers of adults (mainly parents or carers).

This is followed by a summary of each project, which is listed by the main venue at

which the food was prepared, and outlines each projects:

Delivery model.

Number of sessions/weeks.

Total number of children, volunteers, adults.

Partner involvement.

Food offer (by type: breakfast, lunch, snacks).

Type and range of activities offered.

Any additional information.

In the majority of cases the partners listed under each project are already

established and had in place pre-planned activities. The model of linking in with

established partner organisations allowed FareShare to capture the same children

and enhance the local offer by providing food and beverages.

Table 2

Ttl no.

children

Ttl no.

breakfasts

Ttl no. packed

lunches

Ttl no.

snacks

Ttl no.

volunteers

Recorded

adults

185 185 185 0 2 101

174 174 174 0 11 45

84 0 84 0 0 70

67 0 67 0 1 0

376 0 376 0 10 182

248 0 248 0 0 0

28 0 28 0 1 0

449 449 449 0 36 207

256 256 256 0 12 0

2184 0 0 2184 8 0

121 0 121 0 8 0

320 0 320 0 3 12

20 0 0 20 5 0

167 0 167 0 6 0

710 0 710 0 5 0

48 0 48 0 7 30

298 0 0 298 8 0

348 0 0 348 0 0

183 0 164 0 4 39

6266 1064 3397 2850 127 686

Area/project

Total

Amber Valley

Bolsover

Chesterfield

Derbyshire Dales

Erewash

High Peak

Heanor children's centre

Marlpool United Reform Church

Ironville children's centre

Bolsover children's centre

Brockley Primary

Clowne Sports Centre

Doe Lea Ctr/BDC Leisure Service

St Mary Magdalene Church

Barrow Hill Methodist Church

Eastwood Park (Hasland)

St Augustines Church

Big Local/Grassmoor Primary

Sharley Park Community Primary

Woodville children's centre

Hurst Farm Community Centre

Hurst Farm CC Youth Club

Cotmanhay children's centre

Gamesley G52

Grassmoor Community Centre

North East Derbyshire

South Derbyshire



Heanor Childrens Centre

Delivery model - The holiday project was facilitated by the children’s centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families. Number of sessions/weeks - 5 sessions over 6 weeks. Total number of children – 185 Total number of volunteers – 2 Total number of adults – 101 Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Derby County Community Trust. Food - Packed lunch and drinks. Activities - Come and Play; Water Play; Picnic in the Park; Outdoor physical activity/sport. Additional information – Food parcels were distributed by MATs and schools to families that would benefit (39 adults and 52 children), and surplus food was sent to the woman’s refuge via their family support worker.

Ironville Childrens Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by Ironville Children’s Centre in partnership with others for children and families. Number of sessions/weeks – 6 sessions over 6 weeks. Total number of children - 84 Total number of volunteers – 0 Total number of adults – 70 Partners – Public Health, FareShare. Food – Packed lunch. Activities – The project was delivered through Messy Play, Bumps and Babies and a one off picnic. Additional information – Food parcels were distributed by Multi Agency Teams to families that would benefit to avoid surplus.

Amber Valley



Bolsover

Bolsover

Marlpool United Reform Church

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the church in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.

Number of sessions/weeks – 6 sessions over 6 weeks.

Total number of children – 174 Total number of volunteers – 11 Total number of adults – 45

Partners – Public Health, FareShare.

Food – Breakfast, packed lunch and drinks.

Activities – Crafts; Story telling; Outdoor activities; Music/dance sessions; Quiet area with tent and comfy cushions.

Bolsover Childrens Centre

Delivery model - The holiday project was facilitated by the children’s centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.

Number of sessions/weeks – 5 sessions over 6 weeks

Total number of children - 67 Total number of volunteers – 1 Total number of adults – not recorded.

Continued over



Brockley Primary School – ‘A Slice Of Summer Fun Club’

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the school in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.

Number of sessions/weeks – 15 session over 5 weeks.

Total number of children – 376 Total number of volunteers – 10 Total number of adults – 182

Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Bolsover District Council Leisure Service, MATs (FSW), DACE, DCC Library Services, Food Truck, Shuttlewood Link, parents, volunteers.

Food – Packed lunch, snacks and drinks, Food Truck.

Activities – Physical activities for families, nutritional advice; arts and crafts, family board games (national play day), puppet making, Summer Reading Challenge (Roald Dahl), Story corner, opportunities to join the library, information about Bolsover Wellness programme, gardening, den building and forest school craft activities, food truck – healthy lunch and celebrating ‘A Slice Of Summer Fun Club’.

Additional information - During the holiday project Public Health Development Workers conducted an informal parents and carer consultation to gain feedback, some of the comments are below.

Continued over

Partners – Public Health, FareShare, MATs.

Food – Snacks and drinks.

Activities – Arts and craft activities around sun safety: making sunglasses; Sun safety quiz and giving away free sun cream etc.; structured games developing life skills e.g. decision making, asking for help, co-operating with other people.

Additional information – The group generally targeted children who need opportunities for developing social skills. Snacks were also given out at targeted group sessions and to children’s centre outreach in the homes.

Supports families that are normally isolated. It will build our confidence e.g. it’s more than the school run, I hope to make new friendships and

social circles.

It helps parents out for the whole

6 weeks.

Great to keep kids entertained

especially the physical activity as

otherwise there is no physical activity

stuff to do around here.

It supports families who can’t afford to eat and are sometimes in crisis.



Feedback

A parent who lives locally attended the sessions with her family, which includes young children and volunteered with some of the activities.

Parent comments ‘The reason I offered to volunteer is that they are doing something for us . . . so it’s nice for us to do something to give something back’.

‘Without these activities there would not be a lot to do here. We have no transport, as we can’t drive. It’s too far to walk to activities and the bus service is very limited’.

‘The food has been fantastic. It is lovely and fresh. We have even had soup made from the leftover peppers, which would have gone to waste. The children have tried new food which we cannot afford and also eaten lots of fruit which is good for them. We have saved money’.

‘Every day my child asks if it is today that we are going to the club… He loves it!’

‘It’s good to see other parents who are in the same situation as ourselves: we can have a chat and share ideas or advice. It gives us motivation to want to get up in a morning!’

‘The children have seen their friends, as well as making new ones. They have done new activities which is good. Also I have had the opportunity to volunteer: this feels good and has got me out of the house…which has kept me sane!’

‘We would suggest using the field next time, maybe to do baking/cookery and encourage more people to come so it’s busier’.

‘This has made a huge difference and we would like to thank everyone that has made it happen’.

‘Child Comment: (Aged 8 years): ‘I really like it and the table tennis is the best’.

Clowne Sports Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities to children.

Number of sessions/weeks - 20 sessions over 5 weeks.

Total number of children - 248 Total number of volunteers - 0 Total number of adults – not recorded.

Partners – Public Health, FareShare. Food – Packed lunch and drinks.

Activities – Programme of sports based games - capture the flag, dodge ball, etc.

Additional information – Surplus food was distributed to parents and participants.



St Mary Magdalene Church (Creswell Breakfast Club)

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the church in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.


Total number of children – 449 Total number of volunteers – 36 Total number of adults – 207 Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Creswell CE Infant and Nursery School, Creswell Big Local, Cllr Duncan Mc Gregor (funded equipment). Food – Breakfast, packed lunch and drinks. Activities – Colouring, Lego. Additional information – Some children were given food and did not stay. Additional surplus food was given out to children and elderly via social care, nursery etc. this totalled 241 lunches. Additional food was also donated from other sources including pre packed sandwiches, milk etc.

Feedback

The Breakfast Club held in the local church was led jointly by the local Vicar and a Big Local member, supported by a large number of church volunteers, linking in with the local school.

Continued over

Doe Lea Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the Bolsover District Council Leisure Services and Doe Lea Centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities to children. Number of sessions/weeks – 4 sessions over 4 weeks Total number of children - 28 Total number of volunteers - 1 Total number of adults – not recorded. Partners – Public Health, FareShare. Food – Packed lunch and drinks. Activities – Outdoor sport based healthy activities – football, hockey, basketball. Additional information – Surplus food was distributed to local families by staff at the Doe Lea Centre.



Chesterfield

Warm and cold breakfast was available, alongside activities such as colouring and Lego. Additional packed lunch items/snacks were available to take away and surplus food was passed to agencies to distribute to local people. Local suppliers and supermarkets provided food in addition to FareShare. Parent comments ‘It’s a Brilliant experience’. ‘It’s good for us both to socialise and for my child to be with different aged children, in preparation for school’. ‘I don’t know many people here, as my family are not nearby. I am on my own during the day with my little one, so coming here is a great way to meet new people. I have met a friend that I see each time I come now. Everyone here is really friendly. It’s great to have somewhere to go (to get out and about) and I now come to the church’. My child is starting to eat. This is good for him to try new foods. We love the food and the children have enjoyed colouring pictures and building with the Lego. ‘I would come to the club again for the social side of things. The only suggestion I have would be to make the club/food earlier as my child has already had breakfast at this time, but I understand other children that are older may not have, so it’s not a problem I just enjoy coming’.

Barrow Hill Methodist Church ‘Holiday Six Fun!’

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the church in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families. Number of sessions/weeks – 12 sessions over 6 weeks. Total number of children – 256 Total number of volunteers – 12 Total number of adults – not recorded. Partners – Public Health, FareShare, DCC Library Service, Village Games, Chesterfield Borough Council, Derbyshire Environmental Studies, Chesterfield Canal Trust, Sporting Futures – multi-sport activities, Barrow Hill Primary School. Food – Breakfast, packed lunch and drinks. Activities – Crafts; Reading (theme: Roald Dahl), Board games, Sports (Boccia,

Rounder’s, etc.), Cooking, Canal Trip, Pond Dipping, 8+ multi-sport activities.

Additional information – Barrow Hill Primary School donated their fridge to the church for the 6 week period to store food.

Continued over



Barrow Hill Primary School held a competition to decide on the name and logo of the holiday project – ‘Holiday Six Fun!’

Surplus food was taken out by the church into the community for families.

Eastwood Park, Hasland (Grassland Hasmoor Big Local)

Delivery model - The holiday project was facilitated by Grassland Hasmoor Big Local’s Children and Young People’s Working Group in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families and offered a range of activities for children and families. Number of sessions/weeks – 16 sessions over 6 weeks. Total number of children – 2,184 Total number of volunteers – 8 Total number of adults – not recorded.

Continued over

Left to right: Childrens cooking activity; Barrow Hill volunteers; Narrow boat trip; Holiday Six Fun!

Logo designed by Barrow Hill children for the 6 week holiday project.



Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Friends of Eastwood Park, Chesterfield Borough Council (various departments), Asian Association, Grassland Hasmoor Big Local, Chesterfield College, Community Growth CIC, Village Games, Youthinc Derbyshire, High Sheriffs fund, Nathan Geering - Yorkshire Dance/Hip Hop artist. Food – Snacks and drinks. Activities – Multi-sports, Laser Tag, KMX Racing, Circus Skills, Super Hero picnic, Asian Dance Workshop, National Play Day, Grow Wild eco week (different sessions in the garden), Hasland parade celebration and pollination event, Kite making, Xplorer sessions, Music day, Street dance, steel drums and a band, Beach day various organisations attended. Additional information – Multi-sports activities were provided by Chesterfield College, additional activities which included KMX Racing and Laser tag were also offered, funded by Youthinc Derbyshire and the High Sheriffs fund alongside Grassland Hasmoor Big Local. (Source: Grassland Hasmoor...Big Locals Summer Newsletter 2016).

St Augustine’s Church - ‘SHAKER’ holiday programme (Summer

Holiday Activities Keeping Enjoyment in Rother)

Delivery model – A multi-partnership group of organisations and volunteers planned the holiday programme titled the ‘SHAKER’ programme. ‘Summer Holiday Activities Keeping Enjoyment in Rother’. Regular meetings took place to establish a range of activities for children and their families over the summer holiday 6 week period. Number of sessions/weeks – 11 sessions over 6 weeks. Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Chesterfield Borough Council, Sporting

Futures, Rother Sports Action Group, Police/PCSO’s/community safety

partnership, Gussies Kitchen volunteers, County Councillors, Borough

Councillors, Eudemonia, DCC Youth Service, St Augustine’s Church, Life Church,

Hunloke Community Garden.

Total number of children – 121 Total number of volunteers - 8 Total number of adults – not recorded. Food - Packed lunch and drinks. Activities – multi sports, dance, bowling.

Continued over



Derbyshire Dales

Additional information – The programme ended with an additional large family event called ‘SHAKER Showtime’ that had a variety of entertainment. There was the smoothie bike, a film, bouncy castle, ice cream van and the food truck which served 70 meals. This was held tea time/early evening and finished at 8pm and was additional to the holiday programme in the summer. We used Langer Lane multi games area, St Augustine’s Church, Hunloke Garden and the Life Church.

Note: there was a period that we were unable to hold the sessions at Langer Lane as travellers occupied the site so the programme had to be suspended.

Hurst Farm Community Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the Friends of Hurst Farm in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.


Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Friends of Hurst Farm, Derbyshire Dales Leisure Services.

Total number of children – 320 Total number of volunteers – 3 Total number of adults - 12

Food – Packed lunch and drinks.

Activities – Sports, e.g. football skills dodge ball, mixture of sports, party games, indoor games and crafts.

Hurst Farm Community Centre (Youth Club)

Delivery model - The holiday project was facilitated by the Friends of Hurst Farm in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.

Number of sessions/weeks – 12 session over 6 weeks.

Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Friends of Hurst Farm.

Total number of children – 20 Total number of volunteers – 5 Total numbers of adults - parents don’t stay at youth club sessions Food – Snacks and drinks.

Activities – Arts & crafts, computers, pool, dance, board games, movie nights



Gamesley G52

Delivery model - The holiday project was facilitated by the centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.


Total number of children – 710 Total number of volunteers - 5 Total number of adults - 0

Partners – Public Health, FareShare (Manchester), High Peak Council (Democratic and Community Services), DCC Thriving Communities, Gamesley Early Excellence Centre.


Activities - Family craft days, day trip (Blackpool), meet the neighbour’s day

Erewash

High Peak

Cotmanhay Childrens Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the centre in partnership with others and offered a packed lunch for children and families.


Partners – Public Health, FareShare.

Total number of children – 167 Total number of volunteers – 6 Total number of adults – not recorded.


Activities - No structured activities offered.



Grassmoor Community Centre (Cook & Eat sessions)

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families.


Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Grassmoor Community Centre, Grassland Hasmoor Big Local volunteers, Rykneld Homes.

Total number of children – 48 Total number of volunteers – 7 Total number of adults - 30

Food – Ingredients for cooking and baking.

Activities – Cookery/baking, craft activities. Meals cooked and eaten at the Cook

& Eat session – themed cooking sessions, e.g. Jamaican.

Feedback

Feedback gained from parent attending the Cook & Eat session, with a small child after seeing it advertised on social media. Mum stated they had a gap in routine and wanted to participate in a social activity as her child has no siblings. Dad works and child usually attends pre-school twice weekly in term time. The family live in another village and were looking for activities to attend due to limited activities in local area and changes in local Children’s Centre Groups. The parent and child participated in baking, cooking and physical activity. Parent comments: ‘The staff are friendly and welcoming’. ‘The food is amazing and good quality: excellent value for money. It is healthy and water is offered rather than juice. They even offered to make me a drink. We have made three types of healthy puddings together and have one to take home …which is great’. ‘It is great to have a social element for my child to see other children and also good for me to meet others too. It’s good to go somewhere different’. ‘We have also done something different and enjoyed a new activity (Curling) today’. ‘We bake at home but have really enjoyed baking as a group which has been a new experience’.

Grassland Hasmoor Big Local and Grassmoor Primary School

Delivery model - The holiday project was facilitated by Grassland Hasmoor Big Local’s Children and Young People’s Working Group and Grassmoor Primary School in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families. Continued over

North East Derbyshire



Number of sessions/weeks – 10 sessions over 5 weeks. Partners – Public Health, FareShare, volunteers from Grassland Hasmoor Big Local at Grassmoor Community Centre., Grassmoor Primary School, Chesterfield College, NEDCC, Chesterfield Borough Council, Rykneld Homes, Extreme Wheels, Youthinc Derbyshire; High Sheriffs fund; Grassmoor Community Centre, Total number of children – 298 Total number of volunteers – 8 Total number of adults – not recorded. Food – Packed lunch, snacks and drinks. Activities – Multi-sports, Laser Tag, KMX Racing, Circus Skills, BMX/Skate Jam. Additional information – Surplus food was given to families in the community. Multi-sports activities were provided by Chesterfield College, additional activities which included KMX Racing and Laser tag were also offered, funded by Youthinc Derbyshire and the High Sheriffs fund alongside Grassland Hasmoor Big Local. (Source: Grassland Hasmoor...Big Locals Summer Newsletter 2016). During the holiday project Public Health Development Workers conducted an informal survey on Barnes Park Grassmoor to gain feedback, some of the comments are below.

Feedback

Various physical activities were provided by the College and Extreme Wheels funded by the Big Local. A packed lunch, snacks and drinks were provided by FareShare. A local childminder attended some of the sessions, and has been childminding for over 30 years and also has grandchildren. Childminder comments: ‘The local toddler groups are no longer running in the village and Sure start groups were set up outside the village, so people don’t seem to meet like they did before… until now. It’s good that the new park equipment is getting used, from having the sessions here and it’s great to bring new groups/activity to the area’. ‘The children are seeing their school friends as a group, and keeping friendships over the summer in preparation for school. All different generations are attending, including parents and grandparent: it’s lovely to see people sitting out with picnic blankets and chatting. I have not seen one person on their phone here, which people are always doing instead of communicating socially’.

Continued over

Thank you this is lovely.

I have planned my holiday activities and trips around this.

Brilliant.

Good to get children out doing something physical.



South Derbyshire

‘All ages of children are interacting well together, with no falling out! They are in a safe environment with positive role models and it is building community spirit. It unites everyone and attracts them to want to carry out positive activity. The families are out in the fresh air instead of spending time inside on computers which is good for their health and wellbeing. The older ones are looking after the little ones and getting to know each other, learning new skills. This helps them have a sense of belonging and if any safeguarding issues arise they tend to be more open and find people more approachable’. ‘It also makes it easier for parents and saves on cost during the holidays’.

Sharley Park Community Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the school in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children. Number of sessions/weeks – 29 sessions over 4 weeks. Partners – Public Health, FareShare, Qualitas. Total number of children – 348 Total number of volunteers – 0 Total number of adults – not recorded. Food – Snacks and drinks. Activities - Physical activity sessions.

Woodville Children’s Centre

Delivery model – The holiday project was facilitated by the centre in partnership with others and offered a range of activities for children and families. Number of sessions/weeks – 20 sessions over 4 weeks. Partners – Public Health, FareShare, South Derbyshire CVS. Total number of children – 183 Total number of volunteers – 4 Total number of adults – 39 Food - Packed lunch, snacks and drinks.

Continued over



Activities - Transition Group – a focus group for children transitioning from pre-school to infant school who require additional support through the summer. Girls Group – just for girls age 13-19 years to promote self-confidence, self-esteem and self-respect. In Club – youth club for young people with additional needs, each session has a particular focus, the food was used to promote independent living skills and healthy eating awareness. The Positive Play Support Programme – provided fruit tasting sessions and 1:1 cookery sessions. SDCVS Food Hub - promoted healthy eating, social inclusion, food-waste reduction and food education through community-based meal events including volunteers. Little Acorns. LGBT Plus. Additional information - Surplus food was used in other projects so that the food wasn’t wasted. Comments from young people at the In Club:

Enjoying the social interaction whilst cooking a meal together.

Cook a meal together more often



4. Questionnaires and survey findings

Results of the pupil/parent questionnaire

Two short questionnaires (Appendix 2 and 3) were handed out to children, young

people and parent/carers attending the projects across Derbyshire to assess their

views on the food and the activities offered. Below is an overview of each

questionnaire, showing the responses against each question.

Food questionnaire

Responses

Derbyshire County Council received 869 completed and valid food questionnaires from children, young people and adults attending one of the 19 projects during the summer 2016.

The table below shows the number of responses received from the participating projects followed by the overall responses to each question.

AV- Amber Valley, Bols- Bolsover, Ches- Chesterfield, DD- Derbyshire Dales, Ere-Erewash, HP-

High Peak, NED- North East Derbyshire, SD- South Derbyshire.

Q: First of all can you tell us, are you a:

Responses Proportion Number

AV- HeanorCC/Coppice 20.7% 69

AV-Marlpool United Reform Church 4.2% 14

AV-Ironville Children’s Centre 5.1% 17

Bols-Bolsover Children’s Centre 3.6% 12

Bols-Brockley Primary School 20.4% 68

Bols-Doe Lea Centre 0.9% 3

Bols-St Mary Magdalene Church 26.4% 88

Bols-Clown Sports Centre 27.0% 90

Ches-Barrow Hill Methodist Church 11.7% 39

Ches-Eastwood Park 49.8% 166

Ches-St Augustine’s Church/Hunloke gardens 0.9% 3

DD-Hurst Farm Community Centre 4.8% 16

Ere-CotmanhayChildren’s Centre 6.0% 20

HP-Gamesley G52 14.4% 48

NED-Sharley Park Community School 6.9% 23

NED-Grassmoor Community Centre 38.4% 128

SD-Woodville Children’s Centre 19.2% 64

null 0.3% 1

Respondent Proportion Number

Child 61.9% 538

Young Person 6.2% 54

Adult 30.0% 261

- 1.8% 16



Q: What did you eat with us here today?

862 responded to this question.

Additional options included lunch/packed boxes, specific foods and drinks.

Q: How was the food you’ve eaten here today?

Q: Why did you think this?

Of those that responded ‘poor’ 11 gave a reason why they thought this, 10 respondents having a specific dislike to a food and one person commented that there was no consideration for food allergies.

Respondents that said the food they had eaten was ‘OK’ commented with specific likes and dislikes, there were also comments that more food and more variety were needed.

Respondents that said the food was ‘good’ provided 591comments for why they thought the food was good, the table below shows a summary of the key themes:

Other comments included comments about timings, food types, eating all the food, hygiene, social, catering for allergies. Some comments included recommendations that have been captured in the next question.

Q: How can we make the food better?

There were 497 comments provided on how the food could be made better, below is a table with comments coded to themes:

Meal Proportion Number

Breakfast 16.8% 145

Lunch 49.7% 428

Snack 32.3% 278

picnic 8.2% 71

Other 3.8% 33

Response Proportion Number

Good 83.9% 729

OK 13.6% 118

Poor 1.4% 12

Comment Proportion Number

Good Food 61.3% 362

Specific like 18.4% 109

Good variety 16.9% 100

Healthy/ nutritional 16.2% 96

Free 1.9% 11

Other 7.6% 45



The majority of responses (40.2%) commented that no change was needed.

Specific dislikes included comments about the type of yoghurt and the water.

Specific requests included requests for sweet foods, fruit, sausages and specific drinks.

Other comments included comments on prepping prior to the event, discussing body shape, presenting food differently, using organic produce, reducing sugar and providing wipes.

Activities Questionnaire

Responses

Derbyshire County Council received 333 completed and valid activities questionnaires from children, young people and adults attending one of the 19 projects during the summer 2016.


Q: First of all can you tell us, are you a:


No change 40.2% 200

Specific requests 29.6% 147

More variety 10.1% 50

Change the bread type 9.9% 49

More food 3.6% 18

Specific dislikes 3.0% 15

Healthier 2.4% 12

Allergy related 1.0% 5

Other 3.2% 16


AV- HeanorCC/Coppice 20.7% 69

AV-Marlpool United Reform Church 4.8% 16

AV-Ironville Children’s Centre 0.9% 3

Bols-Bolsover Children’s Centre 3.3% 11

Bols-Brockley Primary School 19.2% 64

Bols-St Mary Magdalene Church 4.8% 16

Ches-Barrow Hill Methodist Church 11.4% 38

DD-Hurst Farm Community Centre 4.2% 14

NED-Grassmoor Community Centre 27.3% 91

SD-Woodville Children’s Centre 3.0% 10

null 0.3% 1

Respondent Proportion Number

Child 61.6% 205

Young Person 4.5% 15

Adult 30.0% 100

- 3.9% 13



Q: What activities did you take part in with us here today?

317 people responded to this question.

Other activities included a canal boat trip, water play, face painting and a tour of Bolsover Castle.

Q: Generally, how were the activities you took part in here today?

Q: Why did you think this?

Only one person responded that the activities were poor, the comments they gave for this related to a lack of adult involvement.

Respondents that responded the activities were ‘OK’ made comments that they enjoyed or didn’t enjoy specific activities.

The majority of respondents enjoyed the activities (n=297), the comments for why they thought this were categorised into themes and are shown in the table below:

Most commenting that they enjoyed the activities (n=160), that there was a good variety of activities to do or liked a specific activity.

Other comments included the friendliness of the staff, organisation, the fact it was local, being able to try new things, value and comments related to food.

Q: How can we make the activities better?

138 comments were given on how activities could be made better, above is a table with comments coded to specific themes. The majority of respondents said they were happy with the activities saying no change is needed. Other

Activity Proportion Number

Outdoor games 52.4% 166

Indoor games 31.2% 99

Sport 30.6% 97

Craft workshop 20.8% 66

Cooking workshop 13.9% 44

Reading 9.5% 30

Other 17.7% 56


Good 89.2% 297

OK 8.7% 29

Poor 0.3% 1


Enjoyed the activity 71.4% 160

Specific likes 14.3% 32

Good varierty/selection 14.3% 32

Social/inclusive 4.0% 9

Other 9.8% 22


No change 47.8% 66

More activities 26.1% 36

Specific requests 21.7% 30

Age related activities 8.7% 12

Adult involvment 2.9% 4

Other 8.7% 12



comments suggested more activities (n=36), activities relevant to different age groups (n=12) and requests for specific activities, including sports, crafts, and games. Other comments included making activities more difficult and competitive, more structure, advertising the event having more people and personal experiences of activities.

Staff/Stakeholder Survey

An online survey was circulated to staff and stakeholders who were involved in the development and implementation of the 19 projects.

66 people involved in the planning or delivery of the projects responded to the survey.


Q: Which programme were you part of?

Q: What was your role in the programme?

District of programme Proportion Number

Amber Valley 7.6% 5

Bolsover 21.2% 14

Chesterfield 27.3% 18

Derbyshire Dales 10.6% 7

Erewash 3.0% 2

High peak 6.1% 4

North East Derbyshire 18.2% 12

South Derbyshire 6.1% 4

Location of programme Proportion Number

Heanor Children’s Centre/Coppice Primary School 1.5% 1

Marlpool United Reform Church 4.5% 3

Ironville Children’s Centre 1.5% 1

Bolsover Children’s Centre 3.0% 2

Brockley Primary School 7.6% 5

Clown Sports Centre 3.0% 2

Doe Lea Centre 1.5% 1

St Mary Magdalene Church (Creswell Breakfast Club) 6.1% 4

Barrow Hill Methodist Church 15.2% 10

Eastwood Park (Hasland Summer of Fun - Hasland Big Local) 3.0% 2

St Augustine’s Church/Hunloke Community Garden 9.1% 6

Hurst Farm Community Centre 6.1% 4

Hurst Farm Community Centre (Youth Club) 4.5% 3

Cotmanhay Children’s Centre 3.0% 2

Gamesley G52 6.1% 4

Grassmoor Community Centre 6.1% 4

Grassmoor Primary 9.1% 6

Sharley Park Community School 3.0% 2

Woodville Children’s Centre 6.1% 4

Roles Proportion Number

Council Staff 51.5% 34

Volunteer 25.8% 17

School Staff 6.1% 4

Other 16.7% 11



Respondents that stated ‘other’ included church leaders and local co-ordinators.

Q: What was your involvement in the programme?


Other involvement included helping to facilitate the setup and logistics of the event.

Q: How successful was the planning process in delivering an

effective programme?

Of those that completed the questionnaire 41 people responded to the

question.

Q: Do you have any comments about the planning process that

would help us to shape future programmes?

There were 18 comments made regarding the planning process. 10 of which commented on more time to plan and organise the event, other comments related to the lack of staff, better delivery of foods, requirement of procedures and less questionnaires.

Q: Why did you become involved in the programme?

There were 59 comments made on why respondents became involved in the project.

Other comments included being a local volunteer and have previously run sessions.

Involvment Proportion Number

Helping to plan the programme 63.6% 42

Helping to deliver the programme 57.6% 38

Supporting activities for children 40.9% 27

Setting up on the day 39.4% 26

Preparing food 28.8% 19

Other 9.1% 6


1- most successful 28.8% 19

2 16.7% 11

3 13.6% 9

4 1.5% 1

5- least successful 1.5% 1


Part of job role 27.1% 16

Support the initiative 22.0% 13

Invited 20.3% 12

Extrension of another project/local networks 16.9% 10

Community need 5.1% 3

Other 8.5% 5



Q: What impact has being involved in the programme had on you

personally?

There were 54 comments provided to the personal impact the programme had.

Other Impacts included confidence in working with young people and more work/being busier.

Of the 16 volunteers that answered this question, 3 said it had no impact on them personally, 3 said it connected them with local families.

Q: How many weeks did the project run?

Q: How many days per week did the project run?

Q: Where did the project operate from?

Of those that completed the questionnaire 65 people responded to the question.

Other locations included mixed use centres.

Impact Proportion Number

Positive impact 31.5% 17

Connecting with families, communtiy links 27.8% 15

Rewarding 11.1% 6

Realisation of food wastage 9.3% 5

No impact 7.4% 4

Recognising the value of the holiday hunger 5.6% 3

Other 7.4% 4

Weeks Proportion Number

1 week 3.0% 2

2 weeks 4.5% 3

3 weeks 7.6% 5

4 weeks 7.6% 5

5 weeks 34.8% 23

6 weeks 42.4% 28

Days Proportion Number

1 day 15.2% 10

2 days 48.5% 32

3 days 16.7% 11

4 days 12.1% 8

5 days 6.1% 4

Location Proportion Number

Church 30.3% 20

Community Centre 18.2% 12

School 15.2% 10

Children's Centre 13.6% 9

Green Space 10.6% 7

Sports facility 3.0% 2

Other 7.6% 5



Q: What food was offered?


question.

Other foods offered included lunch bags and food available on a regular basis.

Q: Were the food choices provided by FareShare appropriate?


question.

The majority of respondents (86.4%) thought that the food choice provided were very appropriate or appropriate.

Q: Were the food choices provided by FareShare appropriate?

Please tell us why you thought this?

There were 44 responses to this question.

Other comments included the food met the need of the programme, needed no preparation and comments that there was a lack of fruit.

Q: What activities were offered?


Other activities included circus skills, pond dipping and canal boat trips.

Foods Proportion Number

Breakfast 31.8% 21

Lunch 84.8% 56

Snacks 25.8% 17

Other 6.1% 4


Very appropriate 30.2% 19

Appropriate 60.3% 38

Neither appropriate nor inappropriate 7.9% 5

Inappropriate 1.6% 1

Very Inappropriate 0.0% 0


Positive comments regarding food 24.4% 10

Food was healthy 14.6% 6

Good quality selection of food 14.6% 6

Food was child friendly 7.3% 3

Dislikes to food provided 22.0% 9

More variation needed 9.8% 4

Deliveries missing 7.3% 3

Other 12.2% 5

Activity Proportion Number

Indoor activities 60.6% 40

Sport 59.1% 39

Outdoor activities 53.0% 35

Crafts 50.0% 33

Reading 22.7% 15

Cookery workshops 21.2% 14

None of the above 7.6% 5

Other 7.6% 5



Q: How appropriate were the activities provided?


The majority of respondents (86.4%) thought that the activities provided were very appropriate or appropriate; no one responded that the activities were inappropriate.

Q: How appropriate were the activities provided?

Please tell us why you thought this?

When asked why they thought it was appropriate 38 comments were given, themes for these responses are in the table above.

Other comments including more variety of activities, comments regarding limited space and logistics, the need to consult with parents and children.

Q: Do you feel that the project offered any of the following?


Other comments included that it offered a free lunch to children at an existing holiday programme, opportunity for families to connect during the holidays, food for those that needed it and one comment that the project did not reach the children it was aimed at.

Q: Do you have any suggestions for other activities that could be

offered by the programme in the future?

There were 30 suggestions given for other activities that could be offer by the programme in the future, these included suggestion of various activities such as cookery sessions(4), crafts(4), theatre(2), outdoor activities(4) and unstructured(1) play. Suggestions also included tying in with existing projects (3), offer more activities (7), and using qualified sports leadership.


Very appropriate 53.2% 33

Appropriate 38.7% 24

Neither appropriate nor inappropriate 8.1% 5

Inappropriate 0.0% 0

Very Inappropriate 0.0% 0


Positive, engaging, enjoyed by the children 23.7% 9

Good variation 18.4% 7

Staff had preious experience 15.8% 6

Appropriate activites for children 13.2% 5

Healthy Activites 10.5% 4

Other 18.4% 7


Opportunities to socialise with similar aged children 84.6% 55

A safe and supportive environment 83.1% 54

Social enrichment 73.8% 48

Opportunitites to experience new pursuits and learn new skills 64.6% 42

Other 16.9% 11



Q: Have you observed any impact on the volunteers through their

involvement in the project?

There were 62 responses to this question, the majority of respondents (64.5%) reported that they had observed an impact on volunteers through their involvement in the project.

Q: If you answered 'Yes', please tell us what type of impact you

observed on the volunteers?

When asked what impacts had been observed in the volunteers 38 comments were given by respondents, the above table shows the impacts they observed, increased confidence was the most noted impact.

Q: How effective or ineffective was the project in reaching the

children the programme was targeting?


Q: How effective or ineffective was the project in reaching the

children the programme was targeting – Please tell us why you

thought this?

There were 42 responses to this question.

32 respondents that thought the project was very effective or effective gave a comment and commented that it reached the target groups (10), commented that a large number of people attended (7), a lot/all the lunches were given out (4).

Respondents that said the project was neither effective nor ineffective commented it was difficult to determine whether the children were from the target groups (2), thought better advertising was needed (2) and commented about the location (2).

Those that said the project was very ineffective or ineffective at reaching target children (4) commented that attending families were those that already


Yes 64.5% 40

No 35.5% 22


Confidence 52.6% 20

Increased social interation 15.8% 6

Rewarding/Satisfaction 13.2% 5

Enjoyment 10.5% 4

Team work/ communication skills 7.9% 3

Additional work/ pressure 7.9% 3


Very effective 25.8% 16 Effective 61.3% 38

Neither effective nor in effective 9.7% 6

Ineffective 4.8% 3

Very Ineffective 1.6% 1



engage that there were limited numbers from targeted groups and the families did not attend.

Q: If your answer was ‘ineffective’ or ‘very ineffective’ please tell us

how this can be improved?

There were 4 responses to why respondents thought the project was ineffective, these included the need for better promotion, more council input and more time, and there are some groups that will never engage.

Q: Is there anything else you want to say about the project in your

area?

There were 38 comments given to this question, the majority were positive comments about the success, organisation of the event (n=23), comments also included the need for more involvement from local organisations, more volunteers, more advertising, clearer aims and opportunity to expand.

Q: In a short sentence, how would you describe the impact of your

project?

54 respondents provided a short sentence describing the impact of their project, many described it as positive (30), engaging (4), building relationships/community socialising (10), can be built on (4), other responses included confidence building, adding to current workloads, sustainability of the programme, community reaching.

Q: Are there any ways that the overall Programme could be

improved in the future?

30 respondents gave comments regarding how the programme can be improved in the future, comments included themes on better communication/timing with delivers (8), funds/resources (8), more staff/volunteers (4), more variety of food (3), links with other services (3), other comments included using less questionnaires, planning further in advance, consulting with families, better publicity/different targeting and better central support.

Q: Are you interested in offering a similar project in the school

holidays in the future?

All respondents answered this question; the majority of respondents (77.3%) responded that they were interested in offering a similar project.

Successes

Successful outcomes that emerged from the completed survey included:

Working with vulnerable families and linking them into other services and skills training.

Reaching isolated communities and breaking down barriers.


Yes 77.3% 51

Maybe 22.7% 15

No -



Making new contacts.

Volunteer support, skills and social interaction.

Training in Level 2 Food Safety & Hygiene for Catering.

Families enjoying time together.

Prevented some children from going hungry.

Increased awareness and greater understanding of problems facing families.

Broad partnership working.

Distribution of surplus food.

Good quality food.

Good range of activities and opportunities to try new activities and go to new locations.

Considered as very positive in local communities.

Challenges

The main challenges that emerged from the completed surveys included:

Lack of staff and volunteers.

Additional stresses on some volunteers.

Limited time frame to plan and execute.

Reaching most vulnerable families.

Uncertainty on numbers of children attending.

Striking a balance between nutritious food and food children expect (e.g. white bread vs brown bread).

FareShare communication, timely delivery and appropriate food.

Food issues, e.g. large juice cartons, age appropriate food, lack of fruit and vegetables, lack of variety, quantity of food.

Disposing of waste packaging and food waste.

Completing questionnaires.

Poor/limited promotion and advertising meant that not all families were reached.

5. Recommendations

More time to plan activities, involve partners and pre-book services, e.g. Library services.

Consider methods to target children/families that avoids stigmatisation: Links via Schools (e.g. known vulnerable families, breakfast clubs),

MATs, early year’s settings, Family Services, Social Care, and others who work directly with vulnerable families to identify and link into projects.

Explore the ‘Pay It Forward’ model – access to existing cafes businesses, sandwich shops, etc. where families at risk of food deprivation can eat a meal without fear of stigmatisation.

Provision of hand hygiene/hand gel, gloves, aprons and sun cream.

Maximising on the opportunity to engage with vulnerable families and signpost into other support services, during the projects and beyond.



FareShare – further discussions to improve communication, timely delivery,

range of food supplied and ensuring projects get suitable food to make up

lunches. Some projects had to use own funds to supply bread, etc.

Explore long term sustainability of food projects across Derbyshire. Currently FareShare is funded by the Derbyshire County Council up to July 2018.

Providing children/family Cook & Eat sessions; ‘make your own picnic’ and ‘build your own sandwich’ will enable families to learn how to prepare meals and eat together. (Note: this provision was available in a few areas).

Develop activities for the whole family.

Improve promotion and adverting to reach target families.

Sharing good practice across the different projects.

Do not use the term ‘Holiday Hunger’ – risks stigmatising children and families and putting some families off attending who would benefit.

Explore appropriate recycling of waste, some areas accumulated excessive waste from food packaging and left over food.

Clarity on the aims and objectives of the overall programme – is it feeding, educating . . . etc.?

Greater collaboration to increase the engagement of young volunteers, e.g. possible links with local colleges.

6. Conclusion

The report appears to show an overall success with the aims and objectives set out

under section 3 in essence being achieved across the projects. The challenges and

recommendations highlighted above show that there are common issues and

concerns that need to be addressed as the programme continues to develop.

However, given that the summer programme was the first initiative to be delivered

and over the longest holiday period – 6 weeks, this is to be expected.

The primary focus now needs to be to act on the feedback contained within the

report and the recommendations set out above; to continue to nurture a collaborative

approach to tackle the broader issues associated with school holidays; and extend

the collaboration by working with those services that can support families to tackle

the root causes of poverty and seek solutions.

The Derbyshire School Holiday Food Programme is one of a number of programmes

under the Feeding Derbyshire umbrella which seeks to tackle poverty and whilst the

aim is to deal with the immediate concerns facing vulnerable people, the aspiration

ultimately is to support individuals and families to get onto a sustainable route out of

poverty.



7. Appendices

Appendix 1 Online Survey



Appendix 2 Food Questionnaire

Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name of venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hello, what do you think about the food you have eaten here today?

Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below:

First of all can you tell us, are you: (please tick one box)

a child (up to 12 years) a young person (13-17 years) an adult (18+ years)

What did you eat with us here today? (please tick the boxes that show what you’ve

eaten here today)

Breakfast Lunch Snack Picnic Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How was the food you’ve eaten here today? (circle how you felt about the food)

Good OK Poor

Why did you think this? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How can we make the food better? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thank you



Appendix 3 Activities Questionnaires

Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name of venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Hello, what do you think about the activities you have taken part in here today?

Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below:

First of all can you tell us, are you: (please tick one box)

a child (up to 12 years) a young person (13-17 years) an adult (18+ years)

What activities did you take part in with us here today? (please tick the boxes to

show what activities you took part in)

Sport Outdoor games Indoor games Reading Craft workshop Cooking workshop Other (please state) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Generally, how were the activities you took part in here today? (circle how you

felt about the activities)

Good OK Poor Why did you think this? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How can we make the activities better? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thank you

the derbyshire school holiday food programme · evaluation report summer 2016. | 8 project delivery...

Documents