How to Use This Guide

“Evaluation is important. It can help us understand the effects of our work, improve our programs, and share our stories of impact. But it can also be complex and tough to know where to start.” – Farm to Cafeteria Canada

This guide is designed to help you evaluate different aspects of your school food program. Start by identifying what you want to measure—consider what is most important to you and your community. All communities are different and may have different priorities, so it’s essential to tailor your evaluation to reflect the unique needs and values of your school and its stakeholders.

Since school food programs operate at many interconnected levels, this guide offers tools to support evaluation across a range of perspectives—from individuals and relationships to broader community and policy contexts.

Once you’ve determined your focus, explore the sections below* to find ready-to-use tools:

* These are based on the levels of the socio-ecological model*

Outcome and process evaluation: We have separated tools into two categories: outcome evaluation and process evaluation (Issel, Wells & Williams, 2021). Outcome evaluation assesses how effective a program is by identifying whether its objectives were achieved. Process evaluation determines whether program activities have been implemented as intended and informs us how or why an outcome was achieved. Both types of evaluation can be used at different levels of the social-ecological framework.

Resource structure: The Overview Table summarizes the evaluation indicators we have collected (so far) for each level of influence. Each entry in the table is hyperlinked to chapters that organize indicators by type of evaluation (outcome or process). From these chapters, further hyperlinks allow readers to access evidence tables (research articles) that provide more information and research that has been done on the tools. It is important to note that we have identified key areas for evaluation, but have not yet found existing research or tools in all of these areas.

Indicators within this table are organized alphabetically by levels of influence. The evidence tables specify how each tool can be accessed, with some tools being more readily available than others.

This resource is evolving. This table may not cover every potential area of interest –  this project is designed to be dynamic and updatable to incorporate new findings and feedback. Please refer to teh contact information above (page 1) to provide feedback.

This resource aims to be a living document that evolves with the advancements in research and the valuable contributions of its users.

Considerations to reduce unintended consequences: Food choice can be a sensitive topic and it is important to be mindful that evaluating food programs could have unintended negative consequences if not handled thoughtfully. It is essential to respect people’s choices, avoid categorizing foods as “good” or “bad,” and understand that people eat the way they do for various reasons. Students’ food choices are influenced by factors outside of the school context, including their home environment.

This Toolkit focuses on the school context but does include some indicators relating to family and community. However, family activities at home are not an emphasis because they’re difficult to measure and could unintentionally shame families for factors beyond their control. Similarly, schools may face criticism for the food they serve when economic constraints limit their ability to provide preferred choices, such as a lack of funding or staff capacity. Being aware of these broader systemic issues is crucial to avoid creating harm or assigning blame unfairly.

If you have concerns about the unintended negative consequences of evaluation, Registered Dietitians affiliated with Public Health Departments may be a valuable resource for guidance and support.

References

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2023). A standardized terminology to ensure optimal nutrition care. Electronic Nutrition Care Process Terminology. https://www.ncpro.org/

Issel, L. M., Wells, R., & Williams, M. (2021). Health program planning and evaluation: A practical systematic approach to community health. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351-377

Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson, O., Brien, R., & Glanz, K. (2008). Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches. 29, 253-272. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090926