Presentation on key deliverables of the PGP Evaluation Project during More Resources, More Impact webinar on April 14, 2016

1. More Resources, More Impact: PGP
Evaluation Project
Presenters:
Sustain Ontario – Phil Groff
Eco-Ethonomics Inc. – Ryan Turnbull, Devon Gregory, Trevor Benson
FoodShare Toronto – Angela ElzingaCheng, Debbie Field, Yara Janes

2. Some opening remarks from:
Phil Groff, Executive Director
WELCOME

3. “
”
I practice and write about evaluation because I
believe that evaluative thinking can make more
effective those who are deeply committed to and
authentically engaged in making the world a better
place. Evaluation, at its best, distinguishes what
works from what doesn’t, and helps separate
effective change makers from resource wasters,
boastful charlatans, incompetent meddlers, and
corrupt self-servers.
Michael Quinn Patton
Utilization Focused Evaluation
Evaluation has at its root, the word
value

4. “
”
Utilization-focused evaluation is evaluation done
for and with specific intended primary users for
specific, intended uses. Utilization-focused
evaluation begins with the premise that evaluations
should be judged by their utility and actual use;
therefore, evaluators should facilitate the
evaluation process and design any evaluation with
careful consideration for how everything that is
done, from beginning to end, will affect use.
Michael Quinn Patton
Utilization Focused Evaluation
Useful evaluation requires
stakeholder direction

5. AGENDA, OBJECTIVES, AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
Presenter: RYAN TURNBULL

6. Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Agenda and Objectives
3. Provincial Partnership Evaluation Project
Overview
4. Financial Mobilization Scan
5. Resource Sharing Library
6. Collective Impact Map
7. Cross Program Tracking Tool
8. Concluding Remarks and Next Steps

7. Webinar Objectives
1. To present each of the deliverables of the
PGP Evaluation Project
2. To discuss how each of the deliverables can
be utilized by other organizations
3. To reflect on the process thus far, and how
the work will move forward

8. Provincial Partnership
Evaluation Project Overview
• Project objective: develop replicable and
accessible tools for food organizations in Ontario
to undertake their own evaluations
• What was developed:
– Financial mobilization scan
– Resource sharing library
– Collective Impact Map
– Cross program tracking tool

9. Provincial Partnership
Evaluation Project Overview
How it was developed:
•26 in-depth key informant interviews
– 9 with funders
– 17 grant recipients
•3 online surveys
– 1 for the financial mobilization scan
– 2 for the Collective Impact Map
•2 in-person sessions
– Sharpening the Tools for Change: Mobilizing Food System
Stakeholders Around Creating Greater Collective Impact
– Choosing The Tools for Change: Mobilizing Food System Stakeholders
Around Creating Greater Collective Impact
•3 webinars
– From Bland to Delicious: Spicing Up Evaluation
– Mapping Collective Impact for Ontario’s Food Movement
– More Resources, More Impact: PGP Evaluation Project

10. Project Process Diagram
Choosing
the Tools
for Change
Choosing
the Tools
for Change
Financial
Mobilization
Report
Financial
Mobilization
Report
Online
Survey
Online
Survey
Evaluation
Tool Review
Evaluation
Tool Review
InterviewsInterviews
Start-upStart-up
Tool
Harvesting
Tool
Harvesting
Sharpening
the Tools
for Change
Sharpening
the Tools
for Change
Tool
Development
Tool
DevelopmentWebinarWebinar
Financial Mobilization Scan and Impact Mapping
Food System Evaluation and Tool Development
Annotated
Tool
Inventory
Annotated
Tool
Inventory
Community
Partner Beta
Testing
Community
Partner Beta
Testing
Both

11. FINANCIAL MOBILIZATION SCAN
Presenter: Devon Gregory

12. Online Survey Demographics
• Eligibility: Organizations engaged in food system
work in Ontario who had applied and/or received
funding for food projects within the province
• 32 organizations completed the survey
– 15 non-profits, 14 non-profits with charitable status, 1
grass roots committee, 1 unincorporated
• Organizations varied considerably in size
– Range from 0 to 80 full-time employees (average of 5)
– Annual budget ranged from $5,000 – $4,300,000
(average of $487,518)

13. 13
Applying for a Grant
• Grants applied for on an annual basis = 9
– Food grants applied for on an annual basis = 6
• Considerable time spent on applying and
receiving a grant
– 10 days spent applying
– 100 days spent waiting to hear back
– 69 days spent waiting for the money
• On average, 90 days are spent applying for
grants (that’s three months of the year!)

14. Applying for Food Funding
14
Success rates when applying for food funding varied considerably amongst
those who were surveyed. A large portion were rarely successful and
another large portion were very successful.

15. Receiving Food Funding
• Average value of grants received ranged from
$3,500 to $600,000 (average of all
respondents was $174,524)
• Maximum amount of a food grant ranged
from $4,000 to $989,000 (average of
$162,747)
• Most prominent target populations:
– Children and youth (52%)
– Families (52%)
– Low-income or marginally employed (48%)

16. Length of Food Grant Period

17. Areas of Food System Work
Organizations worked mostly in the following
areas of the food system:
•Food education (54.2%)
•Food marketing (45.8%)
•Food production (41.7%)
•Social enterprise development (41.7%).

18. Funded Areas of Food System Work
Most of the work being done in the following areas is funded (>85% of
projects in these areas are funded):
•Food processing and manufacturing
•Food marketing
•Food education
•Workforce development
•Retail food outlets
Lack of funding being allocated towards other areas of the food
system including:
•Regulation and policy (only 22.2% of projects are funded)
•Health and nutritional quality of food (only 57.1% of projects are
funded)
•Food access and nutrition (only 60% of projects are funded)

19. DISCUSSION

20. Resource sharing library
Presenter: phil grofF

21. Scan of Evaluation Tools and
Resources
Purpose:
To identify, collect, and organize for review, a breadth of
evaluation tools and resources that are relevant to
community food initiatives in Ontario.
Steps:
1.Website and Open Source Data Collection (online scan)
2.Direct Data Collection (phone and survey)
3.Website and Open Source Round Two (snowballing
from survey contacts)

22. Results
• More than 200 resources were collected,
scanned and 167 resources selected as a
useful tools/resources
• Classification Scheme Developed
(18 Categories)
• Abstraction of Outcomes for the Collective
Impact Map
• Consent received from resource owners to
share these publicly (with 6 still pending)

23. Where will these resources live?
• Working with Hypenotic to develop a resource
sharing library as part of our Municipal Regional
Food Policy Network project
• Evaluation Project will be one initiative on this
library site
• Mix of display / offering based on different levels
of consent:
– Some hosted on Sustain Ontario’s site / FoodShare’s site
– Some abstracts with links to originating organization’s
site
– Some abstracts without links
• Current plan is to launch for Local Food Week
(June 6-12)

24. DISCUSSION

25. Collective impact map
Presenter: trevor benson

26. DISCUSSION

27. CROSS PROGRAM TRACKING TOOL
Presenters: Angela elzingacheng and yara janes

28. Updated
FoodShare
Tracking Tool

29. Updated
FoodShare
Tracking Tool

30. Updated
FoodShare
Tracking Tool

31. Why this tool?
1. Provide clarity and consistency
2. It will align our data
3. Deeper understanding of the intensity of a
particular program activity (depth of impact).
4. Strengthen our evaluation processes
5. Inform which projects should be prioritized.

32. DISCUSSION

33. CONCLUDING remarks AND NEXT STEPS
Presenter: debbie field

34. Thank you for joining us today!