Research Data Sheet

Impact of Alternative Practices such as Collective Kitchens on Individuals, Families and Groups

Summary of Section 4 of the Report entitled “Rapport synthèse, De la sécurité alimentaire au développement
social-Les effets des pratiques alternatives dans les régions du Québec 1999-2000”, Joël Rouffignat, Lise Dubois, Jean-Panet Raymond, Patricia Lamontagne, Sylvie Cameron and Manon Girard, November 2001.
Interaction communautaire, Fall 2001.

We often hear food security talked about by the media, public health departments, regional boards, Centraide, collective kitchens and other community organizations. More and more, community sector actors are called upon to address this problem, which is one of the many issues related to poverty.

There have been some important findings concerning groups that offer more than food banks in the fight against poverty, including collective kitchens. The following are the results of research begun in 1999 on alternative groups that emphasized the empowerment of individuals and communities, and that were committed to sustainable social development.

The Effects of Practical Alternatives Such as Collective Kitchens on Individuals and Families

It was found that individuals and families that are involved in alternative practices such as collective kitchens experience reduced food insecurity, especially in terms of anxiety and stress, but also in terms of a better diet. This practice alone, however, does not provide the solution to all of their needs. Alternative practices like collective kitchens are part of a more general use of community assistance resources (food-related and other). Higher self-esteem and improvements to skills, knowledge and physical and psychological health are concrete outcomes.

The groups also have a noticeable effect on social reintegration. Rebuilding a personal social network that has been seriously disrupted by personal and family events is the very first benefit. Individuals regain their self-confidence and their trust in others. They acquire a greater level of self-sufficiency and ability to take care of their families. They are better able to participate in a group and take part in community life.

Some Supporting Figures

Effects on the Physical and Psychological Health of the Participants

52% feel healthier since they started attending an alternative group.
28% experience fewer sleep problems.
23% report a reduction in back problems.
14% report a reduction in digestive problems.
67% say they find the day goes by faster.
59% report feeling less anxious.
56% say they feel like they have more energy.
54% say they are more relaxed.
42% report being less irritable.

Empowerment

76% say they are now able to:
- Buy the food they need.
- rResolve family problems.
- Manage their family life.

72% report now knowing:
- Who to contact when they don’t have enough food.
- How to manage the situation when they don’t have enough food.
- How to ask for help to resolve family problems.

84% say they now know:
- What to do when problems occur at home.
- New ways of eating at home that are healthier.

Effects of Alternative Practices Such as Collective Kitchens on Community Groups

The research then looked at community groups to better understand their internal dynamics when they introduced new social practices into their food-related activities. In collective kitchens, personal empowerment was key to impacting participants and their involvement in other social settings, as well as in community activities and projects.

Effects of Alternative Practices Such as Collective Kitchens on Communities

Last, the researchers examined the communities where the individuals and groups in question evolved. They found that alternative practices such as community kitchens had an impact due to their place in the local and regional food assistance network and the relationships they established with the various community, public and private partners. Their impact was also due to their presence on the many coordination tables dealing with poverty, hunger, and all other actions designed to support low-income individuals.

Alternative practices were reinforced by their ability to create awareness on the part of and bring together various actors in the health and social services sector, as well as the employment, development, education and municipal sectors around projects that went beyond only providing food-related services.

Obstacles that were encountered in these joint efforts to increase food security and reduce poverty were a lack of both human and financial resources. Other obstacles were the low level of involvement by public and private sectors (education, employment and social solidarity, local and regional development, agriculture, etc.) - sectors that did not feel directly concerned by the target populations. Efforts were also hampered by high turnover rates in community organizations and the public service sector. This disrupts the interpersonal relations that take time to build and that are critical to developing and maintaining this kind of joint effort.

Better Understanding the Limits and Requirements

The forth part of the report gave an overview of the analyses that were done. Developing integrative, sustainable food security projects does not mean duplicating alternative services. A major awareness effort directed at public administrations in a position to promote and reinforce the implementation of these kinds of social experiments is needed.