Course:LFS350/Projects/2014W1/T11/Proposal
Version Control
| Version | Author | Role | Changes | Date |
| 1.0 | Group 11 | Began our rough draft for Team Charter / Proposal on Google Docs! | Sept 17 | |
| 2.0 | Group 11 and Colin | Discussed details of charter, and confirmed research questions! | Sept 24 | |
| 3.0 | Group 11 | Updated our written proposal | Oct 3 | |
| 4.0 | Group 11 | Updated written proposal with guidance from Community Partner and TA | Nov 1 |
Project Background (__ / 10)
This project will focus on investigating food security for families within social housing units at Rosewood Tower, in the city of Richmond, BC. We will be collaborating with the Richmond Food Security Society (RFSS), a non-profit organization and member of the Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee (Richmond Food Security Society, n.d.). The RFSS ensures the safety, security and availability of food in the community of Richmond. Their mandate states that "all people in the community, at all times, have access to nutritious, safe, personally acceptable and culturally appropriate foods, produced in ways that are environmentally sound and socially just" (Richmond Food Security Society, n.d.). Within the community food system, the RFSS represents a community support system which collaborates with educators and researchers, and provides for the community food system by improving access, equity, land use, and education. See our analysis of how the RFSS fits into the Richmond food system here.
Richmond is a municipality with a population of approximately 200,000 people (City of Richmond, 2014a). In 2012, the average price of a detached home in Richmond was listed at $996,000 CAD, which sits about $60,000-80,000 higher than the Greater Vancouver average (Real Estate Board of Great Vancouver, 2012). According to Statistics Canada, in 2006, the number of households and families with incomes below the Low Income Cut-off (LICO) rates were about 20% (City of Richmond, 2014b). Research links low incomes with increased demands for community services and reduced health status (City of Richmond, 2014b).
The high cost of living in Richmond can be a barrier to food security, which is evident in that fact that the Richmond Food Bank is used by over 1,500 individuals per week (Richmond Food Bank Society, 2014). Families receiving social assistance are known to face a higher risk of living in poverty (Raphael, 2012), and in Canada, at least half of these families reported relying on food banks for support (Pegg & Stapleton, 2013).
While a food bank is an excellent community food resource, social housing infrastructure is also an efficient place to provide support and to increase the level of food security for tenants through localized food programming. However, it seems social housing providers are unclear as to their role in addressing food security, and are limited in their capacity. A greater understanding of social housing tenants' food security issues is needed in order to implement positive community food system change. A report which will generate awareness of current food security issues and limitations will communicate the information necessary for social housing providers and their community partners in advancing towards more efficient and resilient food security in Richmond.
Stakeholder Summary (__ /5)
List and describe the responsibilities of the student team, community partner(s), and other key stakeholder groups and their associated teams and roles.
| Name, Role & Organization | Responsibilities |
| Student Team Members:
Paige Courtice |
|
| Community Partner: Richmond Food Security Society (Colin Dring) |
|
Purpose and Research Question (__ / 20)
Project Purpose
Having access to nutritious food and the knowledge to most effectively sustain good nutrition are universal human rights (United Nations, 1948). However, factors such as socioeconomics, transportation, and education limit one's ability to embrace these rights. Research by the BC Non-Profit Housing Association (BCNPHA) has shown that "low-income, food insecurity, and poor health and well-being are all strongly linked [in social housing communities]" (2012a). BCNPHA also found that food programs are most likely to benefit those living in low income housing, and that this is the demographic most likely to use food programming (2012b).
We will work with our project partners, the Richmond Food Security Society and Rosewood Tower, to collect data that will illuminate current food security issues that families in social housing units are facing. Our primary goal is to identify how food insecurity impacts the lives of families at Rosewood Tower, in both quantitative aspects (such as number of meals consumed per day) and qualitative aspects (such as impacts on health, employment and social well-being).
Once we have established the main food insecurity concerns, our secondary goal is to assess these problems and present our findings to RFSS so they might generate improvements that will best fit the local circumstances. We recognize that data collected from our specific community at Rosewood Tower will reflect that specific demographic, and is not necessarily applicable to all social housing communities in Richmond. Further case studies would be necessary to clearly identify a broader plan of action that is appropriate to combat general social housing food insecurity in Richmond. Our purpose in collecting this data is to provide residents, policy-makers, community partners and stakeholders with information that will clarify the level of food security or insecurity these families experience, and to piece together the 'missing links' of food security for families living at Rosewood Tower.
Research Questions
We have three research questions we would like to address:
1) What is the level of Food Security (or Insecurity) within the social housing unit?
- This will be identified through adapting the USDA food security survey, distributing it to family units within Rosewood Tower. We have generated a criteria for survey responses that will classify a household as either "food secure" or "food insecure".
2) What kind of “lived experience” food issues do families face in these households?
- In other words, we want to know what the survey respondents’ specific, qualitative food access and consumption issues are. What economic and social barriers have potentially led them to a place of food insecurity? Expected answers include inadequate access, lack of transportation, insufficient income, language barriers, physical disabilities, cultural inappropriateness, etc.
3) What are the common coping strategies that residents use to deal with food insecurity?
- What have the survey respondents personally done to address the food issues that their individual households are facing? What additional programming would they like to see at Rosewood Tower that would help them attain food security? For example, designated cooking space, increased food storage, bi-weekly grocery store shuttles, group dinners, etc.
Methods (__ / 20)
According to the BC Non-Profit Housing Association and Metro Vancouver (2012), food security poses a major concern for families with low income. Many low-income families are unable to access healthy food due to their financial status, and this affects their health.
Research design
In order to successfully evaluate the issues of food security within a social housing residence in Richmond, as well as the effectiveness of social programming initiatives, we have decided to conduct a survey followed by personal interviews (upon approval of the residents). A survey will allow us to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, which in turn will help us to assess any potential concerns regarding food security issues for low-income families in Rosewood Tower.
We have used the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Security Survey and Heath Canada's Household Food Security Survey Module (Health Canada, 2012) as examples, and have created a questionnaire to be distributed to residents. The questionnaire is our selected method of data collection because we found that: respondent burden is minimized, our survey encompasses household food security, not just individual food security, and our survey respects the privacy of respondents
Within the next week, will be distributing our survey to individual households in Rosewood Tower. Surveys will be collected 5-7 days later, after they have been returned to a housing manager at Rosewood Tower. The data will then be sorted and analyzed based question responses. Respondents' may consent to an interview by affirmatively answering a question included in the last section of our survey, and by leaving their first name and a contact phone number. The interview will be held in a public space or a meeting room at Rosewood Tower. It will consist of qualitative data collection and narrative responses, and will last approximately 15-30 minutes. Again, the personal information of the subject will be kept confidential.
We will also use statistical analysis to evaluate our quantitative data results. We expect to draw a relationship between factors such as average household income and food security issues, and compile our data into graphs as visual representations. As for analysis of qualitative questions, such as coping methods and personal experiences gathered from interviews, we have decided to compile similar responses and sort them accordingly into groups. With these strategies, we are able to draw conclusions based on the common responses given, and come out with a series of results which allow us to answer our research questions.
Sampling methods
Since the purpose of our study revolves around families, it is crucial establish both criteria and parameters in order to effectively conduct our research and to analyze the resulting data.
Parameters of our survey:
- Venue: Rosewood Tower, Richmond BC
- Research participants: Families living in Rosewood Tower residences
- Total number of residents: 173
- Sample size: TBD upon receipt of completed surveys (*)
- Size of family: Consists of at least 1 independent and 1 dependent
- Survey distribution: 1 survey per household
(*) We have sent correspondence to the representative of Rosewood Tower, inquiring about the number of families residing there. However, we have not yet received any response and therefore, we are not yet able to justify our sample size.
Once the sample size is determined, group members will hand out the surveys in person to the families residing in Rosewood Tower. Instructions on the cover page of the survey will provide guidance about where to return the surveys upon completion (the reception counter). We will return to Rosewood Tower again in 5-7 days to collect the surveys that have been completed.
Instrumentation
Our group will first distribute questionnaires, and then conduct follow-up interviews with residents' approval. The questionnaire can be found here.
Given the fact that our research time is quite limited, administering questionnaires is a good way to conduct the study as it can help us collect large amounts of information from residents of Rosewood Tower within a short time. Secondly, the results of our questionnaire can be easily quantified using Microsoft Excel, as the survey contains mostly multiple-choice questions and the response choices tend to be measurable. Questionnaires can also be analyzed more scientifically and objectively than other research methods. Example questions are listed below:
- Please list the number of people currently living in your household.
- What is the rough annual income of your household after taxes?
- About how much does your family spend on total food costs every month (including take out meals and eating at restaurants)?
The responses to the questionnaire will give us a rough understanding about the survey respondents' living conditions. By questions such as those listed above, we can calculate the Engel’s coefficient (Houthakker, 1957) (which is used as a measure of the misery of the working class by communist thinkers) of each family to get a general knowledge of their well-being.
Although the responses to the questionnaire give us a general understanding of the food security conditions in Rosewood Tower's social housing community, the use of a survey alone to carry out our study would prove to be inadequate. This is because when we were structuring the questionnaire, researcher imposition (which means that the researchers are making their own decisions and assumptions as to what is and is not important) might happen. In addition, we have no way to judge whether the respondents are being totally truthful. To supplement our survey we will conduct in-person interviews with consenting residents, to investigate the issues in an in-depth manner. Interviews can add a human dimension to impersonal data, and help to further explain the statistical data from the questionnaire.
Through interviews, we can ask more detailed questions to obtain their personal opinions without being limited to the provided choices in the questionnaires.
Data collection and analysis procedures
To avoid making our respondents feel uncomfortable, we will cover the questionnaires with a letter of consent to introduce ourselves, the purpose of the study and provide ethical considerations.
The questionnaires, along with the cover letters, will be distributed in person by our group members to the residents in the Rosewood Tower social housing community on a per-family basis. They will be collected by the reception at Rosewood Tower after several days. Completed responses will be sorted into several data groups according to the family size and average income, so that we can analyse the data more easily and the results will be more clear.
Analysis of quantitative data will involve inputting data, for example the number of families with different average annual income, from the questionnaire into Microsoft Excel in a table format to establish a statistical bar graph. A bar graph is a good visual representative for comparing data from different groups. Coding will be used after textural data are available as it helps to reduce them into meaningful segments for interpretation (Kodish & Gittelsohn, 2011). Qualitative data analysis will employ some prefigured coding pools, which is popular in health sciences, derived from a theoretical model or existing literature on the food security topic to analyse their responses and try to sort the responses into different groups based on the codes (Kodish & Gittelsohn, 2011).
At the end of our questionnaire, we ask our respondents if they would like to participate in further interviews. With their approvals, we will first tell them about the detailed procedure and then meet them at a café or a common area at Rosewood for a 5- to 10-minute interview, offering them with food as incentives. The interview will include more elaborate questions than the questionnaire, in order to get a more in-depth understanding of the food security issues being faced within the Rosewood Tower social housing community. During the interview, it is ideal to get permission from the interviewees for voice recording so that we can interpret data more accurately afterwards.
Ethical aspect of the survey
It is extremely important for us as researchers to understand the ethical responsibilities towards the community. There are a few considerations that we are adopting to protect the identity and confidentiality of our subjects:
- A letter of consent will be handed out along with the survey to ensure that our subjects are fully aware of the purpose of the study and have given out their consent before completing the survey
- All the responses from the surveys are to be kept confidential. This can be done by not including any request for personal information in our survey and interview
- The questions contained in our survey and interview have no relation with any sensitive topics such as personal identifiers or family history, to avoid personal offence. This is ensured by letting our community partner and course TA evaluate the content of our survey before distribution
After further interpretation of the results, we are going to prepare a brief summary report letter regarding the results of study and a short appreciation note to be handed out to the participants of our study.
Deliverables (__ / 5)
Intermediate Deliverables
- Project Proposal Presentation (October 1)
- First pass Proposal (October 4)
- Second pass revised Proposal (November 1)
Final Deliverables
Final Presentation (November 26)
- Present our journey and findings
Final Report (December 3)
- Quantitative data gathered from our distributed questionnaire (percentage numbers of those suffering from food insecurity)
- Qualitative data outlining the gaps potentially preventing families living in social housing from achieving food security
Success Factors/Criteria (__ / 10)
Group Success and Criteria
Richmond Food Security Society (RFSS) hopes to gain insight into the needs and struggles of Richmond families living in social housing. The intent of our research is to gather enough information to allow the RFSS to understand the needs and concerns of families within Rosewood Tower. With the data we collect, a formal report will be written, presenting the main factors creating food security/insecurity among those we surveyed. The research we conduct will be beneficial to our community partner if we can acknowledge our demographics actual and perceived needs for food programming. Success for our group will be seen if the data we collect identifies specific food security issues our population desires to see changed.
Community Partner Success and Criteria
Our report should meet our community partner's intended expectations and provide them with the information and tools to move forward to implement a plan to address the food security problems we identify. The next step for this may include proposing and implementing new programming in social housing or providing background information for further study. Success in this category will be in the form of providing our community partner with enough information to move forward to address the food security of families living in Rosewood Tower.
Scope Change
Scope changes requested by any stakeholder of the project must be agreed upon, approved and signed by all stakeholders. The agreed format is to revise this charter with version controls. Because this is critical to keep track of, the version control is displayed at the beginning of the charter.
Communication Plan (__ / 5)
| Action Item | Deliverable | Dates | Accountable |
| Bimonthly Updates | Progress Report, any general non-urgent concerns. | Every other Wednesday, either by e-mail or phone. | Us as a group, and our community partner. |
| Technical Meeting Attendance (in person where possible) | Miscellaneous | When necessary, coordinate over e-mail. | Us as a group, and our community partner. |
| Information sharing as it becomes available | Project Specific Information, or general concerns | Ongoing, by text or phone call if urgent, by e-mail if not urgent. | Stakeholders provide all relevant information, and identify whether information is urgent or not urgent. |
Milestones (__ / 5)
| Milestone | Event or Deliverable | Target Date | Responsibility |
| Milestone 1 | Team Charter and Proposal ROUGH | September 17th | |
| Milestone 2 | Meet with community partner | September 24th | |
| Milestone 3 | Present Team Charter and Proposal | October 1st | |
| Milestone 4 | Participate in CBEL at Terra Nova and Gilbert farms in Richmond | October 25th | |
| Milestone 5 | Revised Charter and Proposal | November 1st | |
| Milestone 6 | Distribute Surveys | November 2nd | |
| Milestone 7 | Survey Collection | November 9th | |
| Milestone 8 | Analyzing, Compiling and Assessing Data | November 10th-25th | |
| Milestone 9 | Final Presentation | November 26th | |
| Milestone 10 | Final Report and Submission to Community Partner | December 3rd |
Approvals (__ / 5)
The following individuals hereby approve this Project Charter:
| Role or Title | Name and Signature | Date |
| Community Partner | Colin Dring | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Nellie Bly | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Yi Chen Teh | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Thea Rodgers | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Kelsey Moore | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Hugo Wong | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Paige Courtice | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Yao Wang | November 1, 2014 |
| Team Member | Mankirat Grewal | November 1, 2014 |
References (__ / 5)
BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2012a). A Study of Food Security Programs at Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Executive summary, i-ii. Retrieved October 4, 2014 from http://www.bcnpha.ca/media/Research/FinalReport_FoodSecurity_120822.pdf
BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2012b). A Study of Food Security Programs at Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 2.2: Impacts of Food Programs, 2. Retrieved October 4, 2014 from http://www.bcnpha.ca/media/Research/FinalReport_FoodSecurity_120822.pdf
City of Richmond. (2014a). "Population & Demographics". Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://www.richmond.ca/discover/about/demographics.htm
City of Richmond. (2014b). "Social Profile of Richmond". Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.richmond.ca/sustainability/social/profile.htm
Health Canada. (2012). Determining food security status. Retrieved October 26, 2014 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/status-situation-eng.php#as
Houthakker, H. S. (1957). An international comparison of household expenditure patterns, commemorating the centenary of engel's law. Econometrica, 25(4), 532-551.
Kodish, S., & Gittelsohn, J. (2011). Systematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Health Research: Building Credible and Clear Findings. Sight and Life, 25(2), 52–56.
Pegg, S., & Stapleton, D. (2013). HungerCount 2013: a comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in Canada, and recommendations for change. Toronto, Ont.: Food Banks Canada.
Raphael, D. (2011). Poverty in Canada: Implications for health and quality of life (2nd ed.). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. (2012). Home Price Index for Greater Vancouver, Jan 2012. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.rebgv.org/home-price-index?region=all&type=all&date=2012-01-01
Richmond Food Bank Society. (2014). Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://richmondfoodbank.org/
Richmond Food Security Society. (n.d.). "About Us". Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://www.richmondfoodsecurity.org/about/
Statistics Canada. (2014). "Tables by subjects: Income, pensions, spending and wealth." Retrieved October 29, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/ind01/l3_3868-eng.htm?hili_none
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Writing Quality (__ / 10)
For a proposal report to receive full writing quality marks, it should be well organized and easy to read. It should address all of the topics articulated in the assignment details above, and it should be free of grammar, punctuation, and spelling mistakes.