2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey · levels of experience in managing a food business of...
96
1 2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey Delivered by Queensland Association of School Tuckshops Written by Christine Stewart and Aimee Johnston (QAST project officers)
Transcript of 2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey · levels of experience in managing a food business of...
1
2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey
Delivered by Queensland Association of School Tuckshops
Written by Christine Stewart and Aimee Johnston (QAST project officers)
2
Foreword Schools are a valuable setting to encourage, support and promote healthy, life long
eating behaviours. Improving the nutritional quality of foods offered at the tuckshop
benefits both students’ health and wellbeing and contributes funds back into schools. I
know this from my work with QAST and personally as Catering Manager at Ipswich
Girls Grammar School.
The 2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey highlights some of the successes
and challenges faced by Queensland tuckshops. It also recognises areas in need of
improvement and makes recommendations for positive changes in the future.
I would like to give gratitude to the Department of Health for their ongoing support and
enthusiasm regarding the health and wellbeing of Queensland school students.
Lorie Robinson President Queensland Association of School Tuckshops
Acknowledgements The Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) wishes to thank all
stakeholders involved with this research project, including but not limited to, the QAST
project team, Department of Health, the Department of Education (DoE) and the
Queensland University of Technology (QUT). QAST also recognises the expert input
from the project advisory group (Charlotte Morrison (Department of Health), Barbara
Radcliffe (Department of Health), Samantha Thorning (Department of Education) and
Carolyn Keogh (QUT)) for their unwavering support and guidance throughout the
project period. A special mention goes to Andrew Ross and Bonnie Lowes at Ipsos for
their assistance and professionalism with regards to data collection.
Financial support: The 2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey is proudly funded
by the Queensland Government.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
3
Table of Contents Section Heading Page Foreword 2 Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 5 1.0 Introduction 11 2.0 Methodology
2.1 Project advisory group 2.2 Definition of a tuckshop 2.3 Verification of schools with an operating tuckshop 2.4 Selection of survey method 2.5 Approval to approach schools 2.6 Ethics application 2.7 Development of survey tool 2.8 Recruitment phase 2.9 Computer Assisted Telephone Interview 2.10 Data comparison with prior surveys 2.11 Menu and financial analysis 2.12 eMenu analysis
13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 18 18 20
3.0 Results and Discussion
3.1 Survey response rate 3.2 Demographics of tuckshops in Queensland
3.2.1 Schools operating a tuckshop 3.2.2 Type of school 3.2.3 Schools by Department of Education region 3.2.4 Schools by Hospital and Health Service region 3.2.5 QAST membership status 3.2.6 Total trading days 3.2.7 Days of the week that the tuckshop is open
3.3 Provision of food before and after school 3.3.1 Breakfast service 3.3.2 Vending machines 3.3.3 School gardens
3.4 Food and drink in the tuckshop 3.4.1 Top factors when designing the menu 3.4.2 Best selling items 3.4.3 Provision of salad and cooked vegetables on the menu 3.4.4 Barriers in implementing healthy food and drinks 3.4.5 Promotion of food and drink items 3.4.6 Smart Choices Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy 3.4.7 Menu self assessment
22 22 22 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 32
34 34 35
36
4
3.4.8 Facilitators for implementing Smart Choices 3.4.9 Professional menu analysis
3.5 Support for the tuckshop 3.5.1 Sources of information and support
3.6 Tuckshop resources 3.6.1 Computer and internet usage in tuckshops 3.6.2 Tuckshop equipment 3.6.3 Grants
3.7 Tuckshop staff 3.7.1 Number of staff and hours worked 3.7.2 Employment conditions 3.7.3 Convenor experience 3.7.4 Food Safety Supervisors 3.7.5 Volunteer support 3.7.6 Training 3.7.7 Policies and procedures 3.7.8 Communication
3.8 Tuckshop finances 3.9 QAST Membership 3.10 QAST Financial analysis 3.11 eMenu
3.11.1 Growth of eMenu users 3.11.2 Usefulness of eMenu and eMenu functions 3.11.3 Strengths, Weaknesses Opportunities, Threats analysis
38 39 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 52 53 55 55 56 58
4.0 Limitations
4.1 Changes to study methodology 4.2 Skewed data 4.3 Inherent biases 4.4 Menu assessment protocol 4.5 Reduced data submissions
59 59 59 60 60 60
5.0 Conclusion 61 6.0 Recommendations
6.1 Tuckshops 6.2 QAST 6.3 Stakeholders 6.4 Future surveys
63 63 64 66 67
7.0 References 69 8.0 Appendices A: 2018 Tuckshop Survey questions
B: Survey information pack C: Menu assessment protocol D: 2008 Tuckshop Survey questions
71 81 86 87
5
Background Childhood obesity remains an issue in Queensland and few children are meeting the
recommended intake of vegetables. The school tuckshop is an ideal setting to
encourage and promote healthy eating amongst students. Previous surveys of
Queensland tuckshops have been conducted in 1998 and 2008 to assess the barriers
and enablers faced by tuckshop staff and management in providing food to students.
Tuckshops are most commonly managed by a team of volunteer parents, with variable
levels of experience in managing a food business of this kind.
The 1998 Queensland Tuckshop Survey found that tuckshops were largely profitable
and the convenor role spanned beyond provision of food to the community, to also
include people and money management responsibilities. The 2008 Tuckshop Survey
established that tuckshop menus had become healthier than in previous years,
tuckshops were better resourced with equipment and most tuckshops were again
profitable. The improvement in menus was related to the introduction of the Smart
Choices Healthy Food & Drink Supply Strategy (Smart Choices) in 2007 by the
Department of Education. Almost all schools reported that energy dense, nutrient poor
foods (RED items) had been eliminated from their tuckshop menus.
The Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) was funded by the
Queensland Department of Health to conduct a statewide survey of tuckshop
convenors in 2018 to assess the ongoing improvements and challenges faced by
Queensland tuckshops.
Methods All Queensland schools (n= 1760) were assessed to determine if they were currently
operating a tuckshop. This was verified either via current QAST membership, response
Executive Summary
6
to email to the school administration or manual verification by the project team
(completed via website review or phone call to school administration).
All schools that were identified as operating a tuckshop in March 2018 were invited to
participate in a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI), with the aim to survey
500 tuckshop convenors. This method was selected as an economical means with
higher response rates than paper surveys.
An external research agency, Ipsos, conducted the 500 interviews over a three week
period in June 2018.
All tuckshops were initially posted a research information pack. Schools who agreed to
participate were requested to return a signed consent form along with tuckshop
financial data and a current tuckshop menu. Due to a low response rate to the posted
research information pack, state school tuckshops were randomly contacted to
participate, with consent provided verbally before survey commencement. Catholic and
Independent school principals were required to provide consent (written or verbal) to
the project team, prior to the CATI team contacting the tuckshop convenor to complete
the survey. This was due to requirements of each Catholic Diocese and the
Independent Schools Association, and resulted in lower participation of these schools
in the survey.
The project team completed 200 menu assessments and 51 financial analyses to
provide additional information on a sub-sample of participating tuckshops. As only 43
menus were submitted for assessment by participants, the remaining 157 menus were
sourced in a pseudorandom order from a list of CATI participants. These menus were
assessed by the project team using an established protocol. There were also only 9
usable submissions of profit and loss information by participants, so an additional 42
profit and loss statements were sourced by QAST. This was a convenient sample of
schools that had previously requested profit and loss statement analysis as part of
their QAST membership.
7
School demographic and menu assessment data was provided to Ipsos and cross-
matched to survey responses. All data was then de-identified by Ipsos before file
transfer to QAST for analysis.
Key Findings As of March 2018, there are 1458 Queensland schools with a tuckshop operating. The
500 schools participating in the tuckshop survey were representative of all tuckshops
across Queensland, with similar quotas of primary, secondary and P-12 school
participants. State schools were over-represented in the sample due to challenges in
seeking principal consent for Catholic and Independent schools.
The majority of surveyed tuckshops (60%) were open 5 days per week, with Friday
being the most popular day of trading. Secondary schools were more likely to open on
more days per week, likely due to higher enrolment numbers than primary schools.
Tuckshop menus have improved in nutritional quality since 2008. Pasta dishes, wraps
and burgers were identified as the best selling items, with fresh fruit the most popular
snack sold. The number of menus with greater than 50% GREEN when professionally
assessed has increased significantly, from 13% in 2008 to 73% in 2018. Nutrition also
remains the leading factor when designing a menu, according to 65% of participating
convenors. Additionally, almost all convenors (98%) reported serving salad or cooked
vegetables with main meals.
On average, participants reported that 65% of the food and drink on their tuckshop
menu was GREEN within the Smart Choices strategy. However, when compared with
professional menu assessments, convenors had usually overestimated the percentage
GREEN. The main barrier identified to implementing healthy food and drinks was
student preferences.
8
Smart Choices was reported to have been implemented in the tuckshop by 81% of
participants, whilst 7% were not aware of Smart Choices. The majority of menu
assessments (90%) completed by the project team (n=200) also identified RED
options available on the menu. Most commonly these referred to items that have
recently been identified as RED options in an update to the Smart Choices strategy,
announced in 2016. The continued presence of these RED items on menus is likely
linked to the fact that there has been no mandatory timeline established for schools to
implement these changes.
Access to the Smart Choices website or other links to the strategy documents, and
QAST support were identified as facilitators for implementing Smart Choices.
Most participants (68%) identified that their tuckshop was “well” or “very well”
resourced, with increased access to commercial grade equipment than in previous
surveys. Those who identified areas for improvement highlighted that ovens, cold
storage and general tuckshop renovations were required. A small number of schools
(n=82) had accessed grants in the previous 3 years, most commonly via the
Community Gambling Benefit Fund, which may have been used to improve facilities.
Inadequate staffing and volunteer support remains a significant challenge for
Queensland tuckshops, with the average number of volunteers dropping by a third
over the last 10 years. A broad ‘lack of support’ from the wider school community was
also recognised as a leading challenge for tuckshop convenors. Most tuckshops have
a Food Safety Supervisor available (70%). The average number of hours tuckshop
convenors are paid each week has increased, to 28 hours per week. On average
convenors are also contributing 7 additional hours every week in a volunteer capacity.
A lack of orientation also remains a challenge, with 46% of convenors not receiving
orientation when they started in their role.
The majority of tuckshops (70%) reported that they were making a profit. However
most participants were not able to provide specific figures. Of those who were aware of
9
net profit/loss, this ranged significantly from $86,000 profit to $31,000 loss. Almost half
of tuckshops reported that they were not using a standard mark up to price their menu.
Amongst the QAST financial analysis (n=51), schools with a higher percentage of
GREEN on their menu were more likely to make a profit than those with lower
percentage of GREEN. Schools with more GREEN on their menu also experienced a
higher mark up on costs and greater value of sales, suggesting that students do
consume healthier menu options.
Whilst QAST members value their membership, the cost of membership is the greatest
barrier for why other tuckshops have not joined the association.
QAST’s online recipe and menu tool, eMenu has grown in users since its launch in
2014. Most convenors find the online tool easy to use, with recipe ideas the most
popular function.
Limitations There were a higher percentage of state schools participating in the survey, so results
are not reflective of practices in all Queensland tuckshops. The sample is also biased,
including a larger proportion of QAST members (60%) compared with all Queensland
tuckshops (40% QAST members).
It is also likely that social desirability bias was introduced in questions relating to
quality of tuckshop menu, best selling items, importance of nutrition and financial
status of the tuckshop.
The menu assessment protocol used to assess 200 menus was also prone to
limitations, as assumptions were made about ingredients and products used. The
financial data was also biased, as a convenient sample of only 51 schools who have
previously sought financial advice from QAST.
10
Recommendations Tuckshop operators are recommended to improve orientation of new convenors to
ensure policies and procedures are followed and Smart Choices knowledge is
maintained. Financial management training is also required to ensure tuckshops are
run as food businesses that can, as a minimum, cover costs and ideally contribute
small profits towards school improvement projects. Student preferences are frequently
reported as a barrier to introducing healthy options, yet tuckshops with healthy menus
experienced higher sales than other tuckshops. Tuckshops are recommended to
survey students to assess preferences prior to implementing menu changes. Closed
questions with suggested options that align with Smart Choices are recommended.
Similarly, as the leading tuckshop support organisation, QAST is recommended to
increase financial management, nutrition resources and orientation services to
tuckshops. To increase reach of services, QAST should continue to utilise virtual
methods and develop on-line training methods like webinars where possible.
Other stakeholders should offer support to tuckshops through communications and
case studies of effective operations, which reflect the diversity of tuckshop operations
in Queensland. Communications of Smart Choices should clarify the status of the 2016
strategy update and encourage schools to implement the strategy both within the
tuckshop and the wider school environment.
Future surveys are recommended to monitor changes in the status of Queensland
tuckshops, including barriers and facilitators to a healthy menu and viable operation.
Future surveys would benefit from a greater lead-time to ensure research approvals
and adequate participation from all school sectors, including Catholic and Independent
schools. As submission of menu and financial data is poor, collaboration with online
ordering providers in future would allow assessment of trends relating to finances and
menu quality.
11
Childhood obesity remains an issue in Queensland. Approximately 26% of Queensland
children aged 5-17 years are reported to be overweight or obese (19% and 7%
respectively) (1). Overweight and obesity can track strongly from early childhood
through to middle childhood (2) and into adulthood (3-5), which may increase the risk
of chronic metabolic diseases (3,6-9) and psychosocial problems (10). Alarmingly, only
3.7% of Queensland children aged 5-17 consume the recommended daily intake of
vegetables, with 61% consuming discretionary foods on a daily basis (1). This higher
intake of Energy-Dense, Nutrient Poor (EDNP) foods and beverages may be a driving
force behind current obesity rates.
The school environment is an opportune setting for youth health promotion (11, 12).
Students spend a large proportion of their time at school and this unique setting
provides regular and dependable access to students (12). This environment also
encompasses the people who may have some influence over them such as school
staff, parents and peers (11). Therefore, it can be argued that school tuckshops
provide an ideal setting for the provision of healthy food and drinks to students and
also provide exposure to new foods they would not usually encounter.
In 2007, the Department of Health and the Department of Education (DoE)
collaborated to produce Smart Choices – Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for
Queensland Schools (Smart Choices) to address rising childhood obesity rates. An
evaluation was conducted in 2009 (13). Smart Choices provides guidelines for the
provision of nutritious foods and drinks in schools and reflects the Australian Guide to
Healthy Eating. School food policies have been shown to positively influence the
provision of food and drinks to students (14), however implementation and monitoring
of such strategies can vary and can impact on their effectiveness (15). The Smart
Choices strategy is mandatory for all state schools in Queensland and is strongly
encouraged for private and independent schools.
1.0 Introduction
12
It is common in Queensland for a school’s volunteer parent body to operate the
tuckshop. Some tuckshops are run by the school administration or outsourced to a
third party. When tuckshops are managed by volunteer parents, there is often frequent
turnover of parents in these bodies and variable expertise or experience in managing a
food business of this kind. This can create challenges in sustaining a healthy and
profitable business. There may also be an incorrect perception that making healthy
food is more time consuming and less profitable in these settings.
The Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) obtained funding from the
Queensland Department of Health to conduct a detailed survey of Queensland School
Tuckshops in 2018. Two similar surveys have previously been conducted in 1998 and
2008. The 1998 survey found that almost all schools had a tuckshop that serviced the
school community; these tuckshops were largely profitable and profits made were
contributed back into the school. The 1998 survey also revealed that the role of the
convenor spanned across people management, money management and provision of
food to the school community.
The second Queensland Tuckshop Survey, in 2008, established that since 1998
tuckshops had become healthier and better resourced with equipment. Findings also
revealed that the implementation of Smart Choices (introduced since the prior survey)
had nearly eliminated EDNP food and drinks (RED items) from tuckshop menus.
However, the study also indicated that tuckshop convenors believed their menus to be
healthier than when they were professionally assessed against Smart Choices. The
majority of participating tuckshops also reported making a profit in 2007.
The findings of the 2018 Queensland Tuckshop Survey will be compared to that of
previous surveys (where applicable) in order to track changes over time. The
knowledge gained from this project will assist QAST, DoE and Department of Health to
better understand the needs of tuckshops to provide healthy options for students while
remaining viable.
13
2.1 Project advisory group A project advisory group (PAG) was established to assist with project governance plus
planning arrangements and processes to ensure the project deliverables and survey
development met the needs of stakeholders. The QAST project team invited the below
professionals to form the PAG;
• Charlotte Morrison Senior Public Health Nutritionist, Preventive Health Branch, Department of
Health
• Barbara Radcliffe Advanced Community Nutritionist, Equity and Access Team, Metro South
Health, Department of Health and QAST Executive Committee Member
• Samantha Thorning Acting Principal Policy Officer, Department of Education
• Carolyn Keogh Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, Queensland University of Technology
The PAG met on three occasions throughout the project and provided expert input on
areas such as;
• Definition of a tuckshop
• Sample selection
• Review and feedback on survey questions
• Guidance on survey information pack
• Guidance on ethics application
• Feedback on project plan
• Survey promotion and recruitment
• Data matching / trends
2.0 Methodology
14
2.2 Definition of a tuckshop
For the purposes of this project a Tuckshop was defined as ‘a food service providing
food for sale to students on more than one occasion per school term’. 2.3 Verification of schools with an operating tuckshop
The DoE database of Queensland schools was used to identify the total number of
schools in Queensland. The DoE database recorded 1751 Queensland schools. QAST
also included Distance Education & Training Centres in the sample, as a number of
these are known to run tuckshops. This created a total sample of 1760 schools that
required verification of an operating tuckshop.
An initial email was sent to 1102 schools asking ‘Does your school have a tuckshop?’.
As QAST had 597 current members already operating tuckshops at the time, these
were not included in the initial email. Sixty-one schools had unsubscribed from the
QAST mailing list and were unable to be contacted in this manner, requiring manual
verification. A second reminder email was sent 6 days later. In total, only 124 schools
responded to this method of tuckshop verification, leaving 1039 schools needing
confirmation of operating a tuckshop. QAST manually verified the remaining schools
via phone or website confirmation. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.
15
Figure 1: Method of verification of tuckshop status
2.4 Selection of survey method The inaugural 1998 Queensland tuckshop survey was posted to all primary and
secondary schools in Queensland, with the principals forwarding a paper based survey
to their school’s tuckshop convenor. The 2008 tuckshop survey utilised a computer
assisted telephone survey (CATI) via an independent data collection agency. This
method was selected due to its efficient nature, fast, economical and for the ability to
have direct data entry into a database. For these reasons, the same method of data
collection was selected for the 2018 Queensland Tuckshop Snapshot Survey.
2.5 Approval to approach schools To conduct research in Queensland schools, the QAST project team completed
research applications for DoE and the five Catholic Dioceses. Independent Schools
Queensland indicated that no application was required to their association, the
decision to participate in the research rested with each school’s principal.
1760 Schools
597 QAST Members
1102 Non-Members
124 verified via email
No email response
Do not have a tuckshop
n=302
1039 manually verified
Have a tuckshop n=1458
16
2.6 Ethics application The QAST Senior Project Officer submitted a Low Risk Research ethics application to
a University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) with support from the PAG.
The application was initially approved. However QAST later withdrew this application
due to major changes in study methodology (see below). The timeline for ethics review
processes to be completed on this revised methodology would have delayed the
project significantly, beyond the due date for completion and budget.
2.7 Development of survey tool The 2018 survey questions were developed by the QAST project team with input from
the PAG. The 2008 survey questions (Appendix D) were used as a foundation for the
2018 survey tool. A number of questions remained unchanged for tracking purposes,
with others revised and rewritten. Additional questions were generated by QAST or as
requested by the funding body, to address any current issues pertaining to tuckshops.
The final survey questions concerned tuckshop demographics, policies and
procedures, food in the tuckshop, facilities, financial issues and pricing, staffing and
feedback on QAST membership (Appendix A).
2.8 Recruitment phase
All schools identified as operating a tuckshop were posted a survey information pack,
which included a study information sheet, consent form and marketing brochure
(Appendix B). The survey information pack advised schools that QAST intended to
survey Queensland tuckshop convenors using a CATI via a third party market research
company, Ipsos. Schools were informed that participation was entirely voluntary and all
answers provided would remain confidential.
Schools wishing to participate were requested to return a signed consent form along
with any additional information such as tuckshop financial data (2017 profit and loss
statements and/or weekly tally sheets) plus a current 2018 tuckshop menu. Survey
promotions calling for schools to participate were advertised through various
community avenues and networks. These included the State Schools Update, P&Cs
Qld eNewsletter, QAST eNewsletter, NAQ Nutrition Food Smart Schools update,
17
Independent Schools Queensland newsletter, the Queensland Nutrition Collaborative
network, Preventive Health Branch Update, Dietitian Connection newsletter and QAST
social media promotions.
Due to a very low response rate to the initial posting of survey information packs
(n=43), a change in methodology was implemented. QAST partnered with Nisbets (a
catering and equipment company) and gained four $100 Nisbets vouchers to use as
prize incentives, to be drawn randomly at the end of the data collection period. Nisbets
also offered all participating schools a 10% discount code to spend online. This
incentive strategy was advertised through QAST social media avenues and
eNewsletters.
In order to optimize the survey’s response rate, a change in recruitment methodology
was proposed whereby school tuckshop convenors were to be contacted directly and
verbal consent to participate gained over the phone. The QAST Executive Committee
approved the change, which was then communicated to the DoE Research Services
team, the five Queensland Catholic Dioceses and Independent Schools Queensland.
The DoE Research Services approved this new approach for all state schools. The
existing methodology for Catholic and Independent schools, of gaining individual
Principal consent, remained unchanged. However, a QAST Executive Management
Committee member and member of the Catholic Education Committee consented to
Catholic school convenors who were QAST members being contacted directly.
A total sample of schools to be contacted (1136 schools) was provided to Ipsos for
commencement of the CATI and data collection.
2.9 Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) To commence the 2018 data collection phase, Ipsos completed a pilot study to test the
survey tool. This provided an opportunity to test survey functionality and responses to
determine if any questions required modification. Ipsos was provided with contact
details for eight convenors willing to participate in the pilot study. The results of the
pilot study yielded that the survey was running over the intended 15 minutes, with the
average time taken to complete a CATI at 27 minutes. Two script changes were
18
implemented for questions relating to volunteer hours and tuckshop profit and loss for
clarity, before rolling the survey out to the larger sample. Ipsos anticipated that the
average survey time might reduce as interviewers became more familiar with the
survey tool and questions. However, a reduction of only three minutes was observed,
by the end of the CATI with the average CATI time as 24 minutes.
This impacted on the ability to complete a total of 500 interviews, and Ipsos advised
that only 425 interviews could be conducted within the current budget. QAST sought
additional funding from Department of Health, but this was unsuccessful. The QAST
Executive Committee approved an additional $5,252.50 from QAST funds to complete
the additional 75 interviews in order to meet the project goals.
Ipsos completed the data collection over a three week period from 6th – 25th June
2018. Completed CATI data (n=500) was de-identified prior to transfer to QAST for
analysis.
The QAST project team analysed and interpreted the results using Frequencies for
categorical variables and Descriptives for continuous variables.
2.10 Data comparison with prior surveys Where possible or deemed appropriate, results from the 2018 data set were compared
to the reported results from the 1998 and 2008 surveys. The 1998 and 2008 final hard
copy reports were used for comparison, as digital data could not be located. Any
significant or relevant trends over time are documented in this report.
2.11 Menu and financial analysis
QAST attempted to improve the number of menu and financial data submitted through
multiple advertisements aimed at schools. These include, Term 2 and 3 eNewsletters,
three Facebook posts and survey promotion on the QAST website. Participants were
also reminded at the end of the CATI to submit this data for analysis.
At the completion of the CATI (June 30th), QAST had received only 43 tuckshop menu
submissions for analysis. Since 200 menus were required, QAST sourced 157
19
additional tuckshop menus from participating school websites. The additional menus
were sourced using a pseudorandom process whereby school websites were searched
systematically using alphabetical order (starting at A) from a list of participating schools
supplied by Ipsos. To maintain confidentiality, this list provided school names only and
no information on survey responses. However, it was found that several schools did
not display a current 2018 tuckshop menu on their website. Therefore, the final list of
menus sourced for analysis emerged in a pseudorandom order.
Nutrition professionals within the QAST project team assessed all submitted and
sourced menus (n=200). The Smart Choices Ready Reckoner criteria formed the
foundation for these assessments. A protocol was developed to ensure consistency
amongst the two menu assessors (Appendix C). This protocol was based on QAST
experience in the tuckshop industry and knowledge of the Smart Choices strategy
including regular menu assessments. The QAST project team performed inter-rater
reliability tests, with 100% inter-rater reliability achieved. This ensured consistency
across all menu assessments. The percentage of GREEN, AMBER or RED items on
each menu was recorded, rounded to the nearest 5% and provided to Ipsos for data
matching to CATI responses.
At the completion of the CATI, QAST had only received 15 financial submissions, 6 of
these submissions were unable to be used for analysis. Reasons for this include (but
not limited to) missing profit and loss statements, unidentified dates on documents,
profit and loss reports not specific to the tuckshop and incorrect data files (not able to
be viewed by QAST). Therefore, due to the very low response rate, the QAST project
team utilized existing financial data (n=42) from 2017 internal records from all schools
that had engaged in QAST financial services.
The key financial markers assessed for survey purposes were percentage mark up
(increase on cost price to selling price) and percentage net profit as a percentage of
sales turnover. Percentage of profit is used as fairer comparison across school sizes
and types rather than the dollar value.
As a convenient sample of financial data, this data was significantly biased. It includes
20
mainly QAST members and as a very small sample should not be considered
representative of different tuckshop types and sizes across Queensland.
A collated sample of 51 schools with paired menu and financial data was analysed to
assess relationships between financial markers and menu quality. This is below the
project target of 100 paired menus and financials. There was no capacity within the
project team to source additional financial data in a suitable timeframe for the project,
due to survey poor response rates. These include;
• Unbudgeted staff time spent on manual verification of tuckshop status in 1039
schools;
• Unbudgeted staff time spent in survey promotions due to very low response
rates;
• Unbudgeted staff time spent in sourcing 157 menus manually due to very low
response rates.
All submitted and sourced menus and financial records were cross matched to survey
responses by Ipsos and de-identified prior to file transfer to QAST, to maintain
participant confidentiality.
2.12 eMenu analysis eMenu is an online recipe tool that tuckshop convenors can utilise to find, store and
share their recipes and menus. Convenors can also use the pricing calculator to
estimate the cost of each recipe and include any markups desired. Users are also able
to submit a recipe through eMenu for rating by a QAST staff member. eMenu also
allows users to create their own menu using menu templates, browse sample menus
and self assess their own menus. Convenors that are QAST members are also
welcome to submit their tuckshop menu for a QAST Menu Health Check, which
provides feedback on rating of menu items against Smart Choices.
The CATI included three questions pertaining to the use of, ease of use and the main
functions of eMenu.
21
The QAST project team also performed an internal assessment of eMenu. A
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was used.
Google analytics was also used to calculate the total traffic to the website, including
the number of users and page views between July 2014 and July 2018. The eMenu
internal website database provided the QAST project team with the number of
registered users.
22
3.1 Survey response rate
The target of 500 completed CATI’s was achieved from a total sample of 1136 schools.
Low menu and financial data submissions were seen, with 43 menus and 15 sets
financial data submitted. Only 9 sets of financial data were appropriate for analysis.
This is severely reduced from the 2008 survey where 223 schools submitted menus
and 266 schools provided financial data.
The significant drop in data submission could be a result of tuckshops being aware that
they are making a loss and/or not wanting their menu to be analysed if they are known
to not comply with Smart Choices. QAST staff have observed an increase in convenor
hours and hence increased wage costs, potentially contributing to financial strain.
3.2 Demographics of tuckshops in Queensland
3.2.1 Schools operating a tuckshop As at March 2018, QAST found that 1458 schools were currently operating a tuckshop. Figure 2 shows the number of schools with a tuckshop in 1998, 2008 and 2018.
Year
of S
urve
y
1998
2008
2018
Number of Schools operating a tuckshop
0 395 790 1,185 1,580
1,458
1,454
1,550
Schools operating a tuckshop
Figure 2. Schools operating a tuckshop in 1998, 2008 and 2018.
3.0 Results and Discussion
23
The number of operating tuckshops in 2018 is very similar to that found in 2008.
The 1998 survey estimated the total number of schools operating a tuckshop based on
the percentage of schools that responded to the posted survey and reported running a
tuckshop (94%). It is likely that the 1998 survey response rate was lower amongst
schools without tuckshops, who may not have felt the need to respond to the survey.
Therefore this figure is likely to be less accurate.
Alternatively, the introduction of Smart Choices in 2007 and/or a gradual reduction in
volunteer contributions may explain the reduction in operating tuckshops over the last
20 years.
3.2.2 Type of school The different school classifications are displayed in Table 1. There is an over-
representation of state schools participating in the survey, meaning that results reflect
current practice, barriers and enablers in these schools rather than all Queensland
school tuckshops. This is a reflection of challenges in the methodology with additional
time taken for approval processes for each Catholic Diocese and the need for
individual catholic school Principal consent.
Table 1: Classifications of participating schools
School Sector Queensland Schools with
Tuckshops (n=1458) Participating Schools
(n=500)
State School 1035 71% 463 93%
Non-State School 423 29% 67 7%
Total 1458 100% 500 100%
Table 2 describes the breakdown of school types for participating schools. The survey
can be considered to be representative of school types across the State, given the
similar percentages. This means that primary schools (Prep - Year 6) make up the
largest portion of the study sample at 67% (335 schools). Trends in the survey results
that compare answers between school types will be less reliable for secondary and P-
12 schools due to the smaller number of participants.
24
Table 2: Participating schools by school type
School Type Queensland Schools with
Tuckshops (n=1458) Participating schools
(n=500)
Primary 1027 70% 335 67%
Secondary 285 20% 126 25%
P-12 146 10% 39 8%
Total 1458 100% 500 100%
3.2.3 Schools by Department of Education region Table 3 shows the breakdown of all participating schools by DoE Region. Metropolitan
schools had the highest rate of participation at 23% (115 schools) followed by North
Coast at 20% (100 schools) and South East Queensland with 18% (92 schools). This
reflects the large number of schools in these regions. The region with the least
participating schools was Far North Queensland at only 5% (26 schools)(Table 3).
Table 3: Participating schools by Department of Education region
Department of Education Region
Number of Participating Schools
%*
Metropolitan 115 23
North Coast 100 20
South East
Queensland
92 18
Central Queensland 71 14
Darling Downs South
West
51 10
North Queensland 45 9
Far North Queensland 26 5
Total 500 100 * All participating schools (n=500)
25
3.2.4 Schools by Hospital and Health Service region
Table 4 shows participation by Hospital and Health Service (HHS) Regions. Metro
South and Metro North had the two largest proportions of participating schools at
17.8% and 17.6% respectfully.
Table 4: Participating schools by Hospital and Health Service
Hospital and Health Service
Number of Participating Schools
%*
Metro South 89 17.8
Metro North 88 17.6
Gold Coast 41 8.2
Darling Downs 40 8.0
Central Queensland 39 7.8
Sunshine Coast 35 7.0
Townsville 35 7.0
Wide Bay 34 6.8
West Moreton 31 6.2
Mackay 29 5.8
Cairns and Hinterland 25 5.0
North West 7 1.4
South West 5 1.0
Central West 2 0.4 * All participating schools (n=500)
3.2.5 QAST membership status
Table 5 presents QAST membership status of participating schools at the time of
surveying. Sixty one percent (304 schools) were current members of QAST. This is
higher than the percentage of QAST members amongst all tuckshops (approx. 40% of
tuckshops chose to join QAST, which varies slightly each year).
26
As the majority of survey participants were current QAST members, the findings of this
survey are skewed towards understanding the issues affecting QAST members. The
1998 and 2008 surveys did not report on QAST membership status of survey
participants. Therefore, it’s unclear if findings from previous surveys were also skewed.
Table 5: QAST member status for participating schools
Membership Status Number of Participating
Schools %*
QAST Member 304 61
QAST Non-member 196 39
Total 500 100 * All participating schools (n=500)
3.2.6 Total trading days The number of days that participating tuckshops were open ranged from 0-5 days per
week, with the majority of schools (60%) open five days per week (see Table 6). As the
definition for a ‘tuckshop’ was a food service providing food and drinks for sale to
students on more than one occasion per school term, this may explain why one school
reported they were open 0 days per week.
The 1998 tuckshop survey did not report how many tuckshops were open every day.
The 2008 tuckshop survey reported a similar finding to the 2018 survey with 58% of
schools reporting they were open every school day (5 days).
27
Table 6: Operating days of participating schools
Days per week open Number of Schools %*
Per term 1 0
1 49 10
2 34 7
3 69 14
4 47 9
5 300 60
Total 500 100 * All participating schools (n=500)
3.2.7 Days of the week that the tuckshop is open Table 7 presents the days tuckshops are open. Friday was the most popular day with
92% of tuckshops open.
The percentage of tuckshops that are open on each individual day has increased from
2008 survey results, excluding Monday, which has reduced from 75% to 68%. This
highlights that tuckshops are on average open more days per week than previously.
Comparison to the 1998 survey is difficult as the question was worded differently,
however Friday was reported as the busiest day of the week in 1998.
Table 7: Operating days of participating schools
Day of the Week Number of Schools %*
Monday 338 68%
Tuesday 354 71%
Wednesday 431 86%
Thursday 427 85%
Friday 462 92% * All participating schools (n=500)
28
Schools that are open 1 day per week were less likely to be QAST members. Only
37% of schools open one day per week (n=49) were QAST members, much lower than
the overall percentage of QAST members participating in the survey (61%). Tuckshops
that only operate on one day per week may perceive that they require less support
and/or cannot afford the cost of QAST membership. It should be noted that QAST
membership is significantly discounted for schools with under 100 students (to $30 per
financial year), who are likely to only open on one day per week. Promotion of this
discount to smaller schools may be mutually advantageous.
There were no non-state schools open less than 2 days per week that participated in
the survey.
All participating state high schools were open a minimum of 3 days per week. This may
reflect that high schools generally have much larger enrolment numbers, and therefore
can sustain trading over more days per week than primary schools.
There were no other trends in days per week open related to QAST membership or
between state and non-state schools.
It is recommended that this question is worded differently in future surveys, as the
specific days that the tuckshop is open is less important and it takes some time to
gather information on each day of the week in a time limited survey. In future it is
recommended that convenors are asked how many days per week they are open only.
29
3.3 Provision of food before and after school
3.3.1 Breakfast program
Table 8 presents reported breakfast programs. Only a small number of tuckshops
offered a breakfast service (27%, n=134). This is similar to 2008 figures, when 30% of
schools reported that the tuckshop operated a breakfast service.
Breakfast programs were frequently provided by other services within the school, at
295 schools. Information on who provides this program was not captured in this
survey, but these programs may be run by school chaplains, student councils and local
service clubs.
Breakfast programs from other providers were not captured in 2008.
It was noted that 71 schools reported both the tuckshop and other providers offering
breakfast. Most breakfast programs from other providers include free breakfast for
students, so these tuckshops are likely to experience decreased sales at breakfast
service periods.
There was no breakfast program offered at 118 schools.
Table 8: Breakfast in schools as reported by tuckshop convenors
Breakfast Tuckshop service Other providers program
Yes 134 295
No 353 176
Don’t know 13 29
Total 500 500
There were a total of 219 primary schools (66% of participating primary schools), 32 P-
12 schools (82% of participating P-12 schools) and 107 secondary schools (85% of
participating secondary schools) with a breakfast service from one or more providers.
30
A breakfast service provided by the tuckshop was more common amongst participating
P-12 (n=15, 38%) and secondary schools (n=44, 35%) than primary schools (n=66
20%). This result may highlight that primary school students are more likely to have a
family breakfast routine at home, whereas secondary students independently prepare
breakfast at home or purchase on the way to or at school. However, questions
pertaining to this are outside the scope of this survey, further investigation may be
warranted.
This data was captured over two different questions, which made collation and
analysis of data difficult, particularly if participants answered one question and not the
other. It is recommended that future surveys ask about breakfast service in the
tuckshop or other areas of the school within one question.
3.3.2 Vending machines
Five percent of schools (24 schools), reported having vending machines at their
school. Of this, 88% were state schools (15 state primary schools and 6 state high
schools) and 12% were non-state schools (3 schools).
Overall, the number of vending machines in schools has decreased, from 19% of
schools in 1998 to only 5% in 2018. The 2008 survey did not gather data on vending
machines in schools.
No data was collected regarding the food and drinks sold in vending machines.
3.3.3 School gardens
More than half of schools (53%) were recorded as having a school garden.
It should be noted that the wording of this question did not include “kitchen/produce
garden” and participants may have misinterpreted as a landscaped garden, so this
data is unlikely to be accurate.
31
3.4 Food & drink in the tuckshop
3.4.1 Top factors when designing the menu Participating convenors were asked to nominate the top 3 factors they consider when
designing the tuckshop menu (see Table 9). Interviewers did not prompt participants.
Nutrition / Healthy options was reported as having the most influence (65%), followed
by affordability (58%) and what sells best/what the students like (54%).
In both 1998 and 2008, nutrition was the leading consideration for menu planning at
44% and 97% respectively. Consumer demand was the second most common
consideration in both 1998 and 2008.
Table 9. Top factors influencing menu design as reported by convenors
Response Number %*
Nutrition / Healthy Options 327 65
Affordability 288 58
What sells best / what the
students like 269 54
Smart Choices 141 28
Easy to prepare 114 23
Availability of produce 38 8 * All participating schools (n=500)
3.4.2 Best selling items To assess consumer demand, convenors were asked to identify their three best selling
main meals, snacks and drinks. The best selling options were identified as;
• Main meals o Pasta dishes (34%) o Burgers (32%) o Wraps (26%)
32
• Snacks o Fresh fruit (35%) o Cakes/biscuits (33%) o Muffins (33%) o Popcorn (25%)
• Drinks o Flavoured milk (89%) o 100% Juice (59%) o Plain Water (48%)
In 2008, the best selling main meals were burgers, wraps and pies. Chips and potato
gems were the top-selling snack followed by ice blocks and cakes/biscuits. The top
selling drinks have remained constant with flavoured milk and 100% fruit juice as the
best selling drinks.
The 2018 survey results highlight positive changes being made to tuckshop sales, with
lower nutrition foods like pies, chips and potato gems no longer being identified as best
selling menu items. It should be noted that a change to Smart Choices has been
announced since the 2008 survey was completed, which has resulted in chips and
potato gems both now being classified as RED items. These changes to Smart
Choices were announced in 2016, but there has been no mandatory timeline for their
implementation from the Department of Education.
This data may also be biased due to the larger percentage of QAST members
participating in the survey.
3.4.3 Provision of salad and cooked vegetables on the menu The vast majority (98%) of convenors indicated that salad or cooked vegetables were
included in main meal choices. Convenors were also asked to identify any barriers in
providing salad or cooked vegetables in the tuckshop. Interviewers were instructed not
to prompt and leave the question open ended. The main perceived barrier to providing
salad or cooked vegetables is that ‘students don’t eat them’ (34%). This indicates that
consumer demand for other foods potentially impacts on the provision of healthier
33
options. It was positive to note a similar number of convenors also reported ‘no
barriers’ (33%) in providing salad or cooked vegetables on the menu (See Figure 3).
Interestingly, when convenors were asked to rate how important healthy eating is, the
majority (94%) rated healthy eating as ‘important’ or ‘very important’. Although it should
be noted that this opinion-seeking question is subject to social desirability bias and
may not be reflective of participants true opinion. Convenors may also have a wide
variety of definitions of what is considered to be ‘healthy eating’ which may or may not
align with Smart Choices. In addition, a conflict may exist between convenors beliefs
regarding the importance of healthy eating and meeting consumer or tuckshop
management demands to supply less healthy foods.
The inclusion of salad or cooked vegetables in main meals has been reported as a
common practice in prior surveys. Almost all convenors (96%) in the 2008 survey
reporting they intentionally included salad or cooked vegetables in main meal choices.
The 1998 survey did not collect any data on inclusion of salad or cooked vegetables.
Iden
tified
bar
riers
by
parti
cipa
ting
conv
enor
s
Staffing
Availability / Seasonality
Too expensive
Storage
Too long to prepare
Short shelf life
Students don't like them
No barriers
Percentage of all participating convenors
0 10 20 30 40
34
31
10
10
6
6
2
3
%
Figure 3. Factors effecting the provision of salad or cooked vegetable on the menu.
34
3.4.4 Barriers in implementing healthy food and drinks The main barriers identified in implementing healthy food and drinks in tuckshops were
identified as student preferences (39%) and parents (14%).
A large variety of other issues identified by small number of schools highlights that
each school is unique and a tailored approach is often required to address issues.
Such issues included;
• Number of staff or volunteers available (5%)
• Affordability (9%)
• Loss in profit (6%)
• Ease of preparation (8%)
• Availability from suppliers (5%)
• Tuckshop is a treat (3%)
• Support from school or parent body (7%)
• Knowledge/understanding of Smart Choices (5%)
Some of these responses indicate that there are misconceptions about whether
healthy foods can maintain a profit and be prepared with limited staff and resources.
3.4.5 Promotion of food and drink items Tuckshops reported different strategies to promote sales of selected item/s, like freshly
made meals, healthier choices or specials/event days. Table 10 lists the most common
marketing methods. Each participant could select multiple methods. Other methods
were advertising on the schools website, taste tests and via online ordering providers.
Table 10. Marketing strategies to promote food and drink items in the tuckshop
Marketing Strategy Count %*
Facebook page 232 46
eNewsletter 227 45
Menu 204 41
Blackboards 104 21
Posters 101 20 * All participating schools (n=500)
35
3.5.6 Smart Choices Healthy Food & Drink Supply Strategy Table 11 highlights the implementation of Smart Choices amongst participating
schools, as reported by tuckshop convenors. Almost all convenors (93%) reported they
are aware of the Smart Choices strategy. Thirty five state schools and 1 non-state
school were not aware of Smart Choices.
The majority of convenors reported that Smart Choices had been implemented in the
tuckshop (81%). Non-state schools were less likely to have implemented Smart
Choices in the tuckshop, with 64% of non-state schools reporting they had
implemented Smart Choices in the tuckshop versus 82% of state schools.
Table 11: Tuckshop Convenor reporting of Smart Choices implementation in surveyed
schools
Smart Choices Implementation Total schools (%*) State Schools
Implemented across the whole school
with only two red occasions per term
234 (47%) 231
Implemented in the tuckshop but not
elsewhere in the school
171 (34%) 151
Total implemented in the tuckshop 405 (81%) 381
Not implemented fully – RED foods are
frequently available at school events
and in the tuckshop
43 (9%) 33
Not implemented Smart Choices 5 (1%) 4
Not aware of Smart Choices 37 (7%) 35
Don’t know 10 (2%) 9
Total 500 463
*Represents the percentage amongst surveyed schools (n=500)
The number of tuckshop convenors who report that Smart Choices has been
implemented is decreasing. In 2008, the Queensland Tuckshop survey found 93% of
convenors reported Smart Choices had been implemented. Additionally, the 2009
evaluation of Smart Choices found that 97% of tuckshop convenors reported Smart
Choices had been implemented (13). This is similar to other recent research in
36
Australia, where policy compliance has decreased in follow up evaluations, compared
with initial evaluation (14).
Another factor affecting this reduction in implementation could be due to the impact of
the 2016 changes to Smart Choices announced by the Department of Education.
There has been no mandatory timeline for implementation of these changes, so some
tuckshop convenors have expressed confusion about whether they are considered to
have “implemented” Smart Choices if they have not made the changes announced in
2016. There is also some confusion as to whether the entire strategy remains
mandatory. Eighteen schools made comments with regards to ‘local discretion’ in
implementing 2016 changes to Smart Choices.
3.4.7 Menu self assessment
Almost 80% of convenors reported they felt ‘confident’ or ‘very confident’ in rating
menu items as GREEN, AMBER or RED against Smart Choices.
Ninety one percent of participating convenors (453 convenors) were able to estimate
the proportion of GREEN items on their tuckshop’s menu, with only 2% (10 convenors)
reporting they didn’t know the percentage of GREEN items on their menu. Seven
percent of values (37 values) were missing as convenors reported that they were not
aware of Smart Choices.
On average, 65% of the food and drink on tuckshop menus was GREEN (range 15 –
100%), as reported by convenors that participated in this question (n= 453).
Figure 4 shows participant’s self-assessment on the percentage of GREEN items on
their menu. The majority of convenors (84%) reported their menu contained 50% or
more GREEN menu items.
This self-assessment of GREEN on tuckshop menus will be compared with QAST
menu assessments later in this report.
37
These finding are similar to those of the 2008 Tuckshop Survey, where 83% of
convenors reported their menu contained 50% or more GREEN menu items. However
a variation is noted for those reporting 75-89% green with 30% for 2018 opposed to
2008 finding of 20% (See Figure 5). Fewer convenors in the 2018 survey reported their
menu to contain 50-75% GREEN menu items than the 2008 survey, 42% vs 48%
respectively (See Figure 5).
It is positive to see that the number of convenors rating their menus as higher than
75% green has increased since 2008.
Perc
enta
ge o
f con
veno
rs (n
=453
)
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
Percentage of GREEN menu items
<50 50-64 65-74 75-89 90 or more
12
30
18
24
16
% of Schools
Figure 4. The percentage of GREEN items on the menu as assessed by convenors
38
3.4.8 Facilitators for implementing Smart Choices Convenors were asked if there was anything that has made implementing Smart
Choices easier. This question was left unprompted and answers categorized into key
themes. Convenors were able to identify multiple answers. Interviewers recorded a
very low number of responses to all categories. However, the leading facilitators were
identified as the Smart Choices/DoE website/guidelines (n=54), QAST (n=45) and
P&C/parent support (n=19). The response was biased due to the sample including a
high proportion of QAST members, with 82% of those who identified QAST as a
facilitator being current QAST members.
Perc
enta
ge o
f par
ticip
atin
g co
nven
ors
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
Percentage of GREEN menu items
<50% 50-74% 75-89% 90% or more
12
30
42
1614
20
48
17
2008 2018
Figure 5. A comparison of percentage GREEN items on the menu as assessed by convenors in 2008 and 2018
39
3.4.9 Professional menu analysis
Amongst the 200 menus assessed by QAST, the average tuckshop menu included
56% GREEN items, 30% AMBER and 14% RED items. Seventy three percent of
assessed menus contained more than 50% GREEN items on the menu. This is a vast
improvement from the 2008 tuckshop survey, where only 13% of menus were
assessed as having more than 50% of GREEN items.
A large portion of assessed menus (90%) contained RED menu item/s. Most RED food
items for sale were drinks and snacks with a smaller proportion coming from main
meals. Common RED items can be seen below in Table 12. Many of these RED items
are part of a recent update to Smart Choices, announced in 2016. There has been no
mandatory timeline for the implementation of 2016 changes to Smart Choices, and
these results highlight that many schools have not implemented these changes at the
time of this survey.
This data is limited by the fact that many assumptions were made about tuckshop
menus. Future projects with larger budgets would allow more thorough assessments of
menus. A similar list of assumptions and protocol was used in 2008 survey.
Table 12. Most common RED items found in assessed menus
Main meals Snacks Drinks
Crumbed/battered chicken/fish products*
Cookies/Anzac biscuits/iced gingerbread
Carbonated waters/juices*
Commercial potato wedges* Chocolate muffins/cakes* Fruit drinks with less than 99% fruit juice*
Hot dogs/cheerios Chips/pretzels and other extruded snacks*
Iced coffee with >375mLs (secondary only)*
Nachos/corn chips* Jelly* Formulated beverages
Homemade sausage rolls (high saturated fat pastry)
Ice creams with chocolate/confectionary
Flavoured water*
Commercial garlic bread
*Denotes items classed as RED as part of 2016 Smart Choices Ready Reckoner update
40
Of the 200 professionally assessed menus, 183 could be matched with a convenor
menu self-assessment from the CATI (the remaining 17 convenors had responded that
they could not estimate the percentage GREEN on their menu). Figure 6 presents the
difference between the percentage GREEN for menu assessments by convenors
versus the QAST project team. On average, convenors overestimated the percentage
GREEN on their menu by 8%. However this varied widely, with a small number of
convenors underestimating the GREEN on their menu (by up to 40%) and some
overestimating GREEN (by up to 50%).
Perc
enta
ge o
f par
ticip
atin
g co
nven
ors
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
Percentage of GREEN menu items
<50% 50-64% 65-74% 75-89% 90% or more
2
10
17
45
27
12
30
18
24
16
Convenors QAST
Figure 6. The percentage of GREEN menu items as estimated by convenors versus QAST assessment (n=183)
41
3.5 Support for the tuckshop
3.5.1 Sources of information and support Tuckshop convenors were requested to advise what organisations or associations they
rely on for information and support with running a tuckshop. Figure 7 highlights that
QAST is the leading organization, identified by 69% of convenors. This is similar to the
2008 Tuckshop Survey where 67% of the participating convenors reported QAST as a
source of information and support. A large proportion of participating schools (61%) in
the 2018 Survey were current QAST members and this may have biased the results.
QAST membership status was not captured in previous surveys.
In the 2008 Tuckshop Survey, sales representatives from food suppliers were reported
as the leading source of support for convenors at 77%. Whilst this number has
reduced in 2018 (to 63%), sales representatives remain a highly trusted source. This is
a cause for concern as sales representatives are focused on increasing product sales
for their company, creating a risk of providing misleading information to convenors.
Org
anisa
tions
or a
ssoc
iatio
ns s
uppo
rting
tuck
shop
s Private consultant / dietitian
School Health Nurse
Community Health / Public Health Nutritionist
Nutrition Australia
Tuckshop Network Meetings
Department of Education
Sales representatives from food suppliers
QAST
Percentage of convenors (n=500)0 17.5 35 52.5 70
69
63
46
31
27
15
9
7
%
Figure 7. Organisations or associations convenors rely on for information and support. * Figures do not equal 100%, multiple sources could be identified by each participant.
42
3.6 Tuckshop Resources
3.6.1 Computer and Internet usage in tuckshops With the rise of technology and in particular the internet, convenors were asked if
these tools were available for use in their tuckshop. More than 60% of convenors
reported they have a computer with internet access in the tuckshop. When prompted,
participants identified Smart Choices and QAST as the most used websites (Table 13).
Table 13. Websites used by convenors for tuckshop purposes
Website Number of convenors
%*
Smart Choices 340 68%
QAST 327 65%
P&Cs Qld 257 51%
Food and Drink Suppliers 216 43%
Facebook 203 40%
eMenu 184 37%
Happier Healthier / Department of
Health
67 13%
Nutrition Australia Queensland 57 11% * All participating schools (n=500)
43
3.6.2 Tuckshop equipment Table 14 details the equipment available in tuckshops. Almost all tuckshops had
microwaves and sandwich presses (99% each).
Table 14. Common equipment found in tuckshops
Equipment available Number of Schools %*
Microwave 493 99
Sandwich Press 493 99
Pie Warmer 483 97
Thermometer 454 91
Hot Plates 447 89
Electric Frypan 408 82
Toaster 351 70
Food Processor 343 67
Blender 338 67
Domestic Oven 312 62
Commercial Oven 284 57
Bain-marie 208 42
Slushie Machine 206 41 * All participating schools (n=500)
Sixty eight percent of participants reported their tuckshop was “well” or “very well”
resourced. This is similar to 2008 results, where 71% of convenors reported their
facilities as ‘good' or 'excellent’.
44
Table 15 highlights the equipment required in schools who reported their tuckshop is
under resourced (159 schools)
Table 15. Equipment required in under resourced tuckshops
Equipment Required Number of Schools %*
Oven 53 33
Cold Storage 41 27
Bigger Tuckshop / General
Renovation
37 23
Cooking appliances (grill,
mixer, slow cooker etc)
34 21
* Under resourced tuckshops only (n=159)
3.6.3 Grants A small proportion of tuckshops (n=82, 16%) were successful in receiving grant
funding in the previous three years. These grants were awarded from;
• Community Gambling Benefit Fund – 22 schools (4%)
• Department of Education – 5 schools (1%)
• Local Council – 4 schools (1%)
A number of schools also identified support from specific local businesses.
Many tuckshop convenors were unsure where these grants had been sourced, or were
unaware if grant applications had been submitted and/or successful. A small number of
schools referred to grants from QAST or Smart Choices. These are likely to refer to a
2016/2017 project where QAST completed menu assessments and site visits for 30
schools through funding from the DoE, or travel grants that have been provided to
Tuckshop of the Year award winners in previous years to support awards night
attendance (provided through sponsorship from Queensland Government).
45
3.7 Tuckshop Staff 3.7.1 Number of staff and hours worked
Queensland tuckshops have an average of 1.2 convenors per tuckshop. Seventy six
percent have one convenor, with 17% reported having two convenors. The average
number of paid convenor hours per week was 28, with an additional seven hours of
unpaid (volunteer) hours per week. Typically, tuckshops also have an additional staff
member working 15 paid hours and 1.5 unpaid hours each week.
Figure 8 shows how the number of paid convenor hours has steadily increased over
the past 20 years, while unpaid hours have remained the same. The increase in paid
hours is likely to reflect reduced volunteer support and that most tuckshops are open
more days per week than previous years. This may place financial strain on tuckshops,
if there is not enough revenue to cover these additional wages.
Hou
rs w
orke
d by
con
veno
rs
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
Year of survey
1998 2008 2018
777
28
24
20
Paid Hours Unpaid Hours
Figure 8. A comparison of paid and unpaid convenor hours in 1998, 2008 and 2018
46
3.7.2 Employment conditions
A large proportion (85%) of participating convenors described their employment
conditions as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Only 3% rate their employment conditions as ‘poor’
or ‘very poor’. Convenors who rated their employment conditions as ‘very poor’, ‘poor’
or ‘neutral’ (76 convenors) were asked to identify the main issues affecting their
employment conditions. Figure 9 shows the employment issues as reported by
convenors
Empl
oym
ent i
ssue
s
Facilites need upgrading
Lack of adequate volunteers / staff
Poor pay / conditions
Lack of support
Percentage of convenors (n = 76)
0 17.5 35 52.5 70
64
39
39
16
% of Convenors
Figure 9. Prevalence of employment issues as reported by convenors (n = 76)
47
Table 16 illustrates the main findings of this question and compares this to the 2008
results. It should be noted however, that the 2008 survey asked all participating
convenors whereas the 2018 survey only asked those rating their conditions as poor or
average (a sample of 76 convenors).
Table 16. Comparison of issues effecting employment conditions in 2008 and 2018
Employment issue 2008 (n=500)
2018 (n=76)
Lack of support 6% 64%
Facilities need upgrading 8% 16%
Poor pay / conditions 15% 39%
Lack of adequate volunteers / staff 20% 39%
3.7.3 Convenor experience The average number of years convenors had remained in their current position was six
years, with 30% working in their position two years and under, 50% in their position for
3-9 years and 20% in their position for 10 years or more. The 2008 tuckshop survey
revealed that 42% of convenors have been employed for two years or under, much
higher than the 2018 survey findings. This suggests that staff turnover may have
reduced over the past 10 years. The findings may also highlight bias in participation,
with less experienced convenors feeling less qualified to participate in the survey.
3.7.4 Food Safety Supervisors The primary role of a Food Safety Supervisor is to ensure the provision of safe food
from a business and/or work place. In particular, this involves understanding how foods
are contaminated, identifying and controlling hazards and implementing safe
processes for other staff and volunteers to follow. Seventy nine percent of the
participating tuckshops (n=396) confirmed the qualification of a Food Safety
Supervisor in their tuckshop. Eighty one percent also reported the use of a
thermometer to test prepared food.
48
3.7.5 Volunteer support The average number of volunteers reported by participating tuckshops was five,
contributing an average of 15 hours of unpaid work each week. This has reduced
significantly from the 2008 survey, where the average number of volunteers was 15,
providing 25 hours of unpaid work each week. The 1998 survey findings reveal that
tuckshops averaged 10 volunteers working an average of 15 hours each week.
It should be noted that the wording of this question may have been misinterpreted. It
would appear that some schools reported hours contributed per volunteer whilst others
reported total hours contributed by all volunteers. Further clarification around this
question is recommended for future surveys.
3.7.6 Training Effective staff orientation lays down the foundation for employment and helps to
improve workplace relations and productivity. However, only 54% of participating
convenors reported they received orientation or training when they first started as a
convenor. Convenors were also asked if they need training and support in providing
healthy food and drink choices in the tuckshop, 22% (111 convenors) reported they
did. Of this sample, 51% indicated they need training on menu planning, followed by
29% who reported they needed training on Smart Choices.
The preferred delivery of training was face-to-face and online with 68% and 59%
respectfully.
Over the past 10 years it seems little improvement has been made in relation to staff
orientation rates. Only a 6% increase in orientation rates was seen from 2008 to 2018.
However, convenors participating in the 1998 survey reported an even lower
orientation rate of 11%.
49
3.7.7 Polices and procedures Policies and procedures can assist new and existing staff and volunteers to
understand what is expected in the work place. Eighty five percent (424 schools) of
participating convenors reported their tuckshop has written policies or procedures.
Table 17 displays the top policies and procedures reported, and the associated
percentage against all participating schools for separate policies.
Table 17. Types of policies and procedures in tuckshops as reported by convenors
Policy Count %*
Food Safety 407 81
Workplace Health & Safety 390 78
Volunteering 353 71
Providing Healthy Food 323 65
Money Handling and Banking 324 65
Nuts / Allergies 290 58
Staff Training 269 54
Grievance or Complaints 249 50
Pricing 236 47 * All participating schools (n=500)
Schools with a healthy eating policy (n=323) had a higher average percentage GREEN
(self-rated at 67%) compared to schools with no healthy eating policy (self rated at
62%). Similarly schools with a healthy eating policy had a higher average percentage
green when assessed by QAST (57% GREEN) than schools without a healthy eating
policy (53% GREEN). The existence of a healthy eating policy made no difference to
the presence of RED items on the menu, as assessed by QAST. This is likely due to
the high frequency of RED items on all menus.
3.7.8 Communication The preferred method of contact for the majority of tuckshop convenors was email
(65%), followed by phone (29%). A very small number of tuckshops nominated regular
mail (5%).
50
3.8 Tuckshop Finances A small number of tuckshop convenors (23%) were aware of the overall sales volume
of their tuckshop. Amongst these tuckshops, the average turnover was $145,000.
There was a large range amongst the data, from $900 to $1m per year. This is
reflective of the different sizes of tuckshops servicing Queensland schools. This data is
likely to be biased, with convenors in larger tuckshops more likely to be aware of the
financial situation of their tuckshop, and thus able to share information.
However if the average turnover figure is extrapolated to all tuckshops operating in
Queensland, this represents total sales of $211m per year.
Fifty eight percent of tuckshops reported that it was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for
the tuckshop to make a profit. When asked about the financial status of the tuckshop,
the majority of respondents reported making a profit (70%). Ten percent of schools
reported that they break even, 13% made a loss and 5% did not know.
When asked to provide further information on approximate amounts of profit or loss in
2017, the majority of participants did not know (59%). Twenty six percent reported a
specific amount of profit, which averaged $15,782. However there was a large
variation in the data, ranging from $100 to $86,000. Six percent of tuckshops reported
making a loss, ranging from $362 to $31,000.
Fifty three percent of tuckshop convenors reported that there is a standard mark up
that is applied to the cost of goods. Of the schools who use a standard mark up
(n=266), the average reported was 61% (range 9% to 250%)
This data highlights a number of concerning points – that almost half of tuckshops are
not using a standard method of costing out their menu and applying a mark up, and
even amongst those who are, they are not using an appropriate mark up figure. (From
QAST experience, a 100% mark up is required in most tuckshop business models to
cover food, packaging, wages and other costs). It is clear that some tuckshop
51
convenors did not understand the term mark up, as they reported very small
percentages of 10%, which are not realistic.
There were no trends in self reported profit or loss related to self-reported % GREEN
on the menu. When % GREEN was rated by QAST, there was a small but not
statistically significant increase in those reporting a profit with over 65% GREEN,
compared with those that had less than 65% GREEN. The benchmark of 65% GREEN
was selected based on recent research from other areas of Australia, where it has
been noted that 65% GREEN on a tuckshop menu corresponds to 65% GREEN in
sales. The established benchmark for 4 star menus from QAST has also been 65%
GREEN for many years.
The majority of convenors (79%) also felt it was possible to make a profit from healthy
food.
52
3.9 QAST Membership As QAST is a membership organisation, a quality improvement question was included
to highlight what current members (n=304) value from their membership and the
reasons behind why non-members (n=196) have not joined QAST. Table 18 shows the
top three reasons why convenors reported they value their membership. Likewise,
Table 19 illustrates the top 3 reasons non-members have not joined QAST.
Interestingly, 9% (n=27) of current members voiced that access to information (not an
existing category) was also valuable. In terms of non-members opinions, the cost of
membership was the leading reason why these schools have not become members of
QAST.
Table 18. Enablers to QAST membership as identified by current members (n=304) Count %* General Support 162 53 Recipes 39 13 Menu Planning 39 13 *Participants with current QAST membership (n=304)
Table 19. Barriers to QAST membership as identified by non-member participants (n=196) Count %* Cost of membership 53 27 Don’t need the services 43 22 Value for money 34 17 * Participants without QAST membership (n=196)
53
Figure 9. A comparison of financial status of tuckshops with high and low %GREEN
3.10 QAST Financial Analysis
A total of 51 schools were included in the QAST financial analysis (43 state schools
and three non-state schools). There were two P-12 schools (4%), 38 (75%) primary
schools and 11 (22%) secondary schools included in the financial assessment. By
sector, state schools were over-represented, at 94% of the sample (48 schools),
leaving only 6% (three) non-state schools. Schools ranged from 1 to 5 days per week
open, and from 250 to 2500 students.
Schools who had a large percentage of GREEN on their menu (>65%) were compared
against those with a lower percentage GREEN on the menu (<65%) to determine any
links with profitability and other financial markers.
As shown in Figure 9, schools with a higher percentage of GREEN on the menu were
more likely to make a profit. This result is similar to research from Western Australia,
where tuckshop profitability was not adversely impacted by healthy eating policies (14).
Num
ber o
f tuc
ksho
ps (n
=51)
0
4
8
12
16
Financial Status (QAST assessed)
Profit Break Even Loss
<65% GREEN >65% GREEN
54
As shown in Table 20, schools with a higher percentage of GREEN on the menu had a
higher average mark up, at 103%, versus 84% for schools with a lower percentage
GREEN. This reinforces that items freshly made in the tuckshop, which are GREEN,
attract a higher mark up for the tuckshop than commercially produced items.
Sales were also higher in tuckshops with a higher percentage GREEN, at $1.06 per
student per day open compared with $0.94 per student per day open in tuckshops with
lower percentage GREEN. Whilst this is only a $0.12 difference, this could contribute a
significant amount of income across a year of trading. This highlights that healthier
options are popular amongst students and can result in increased sales and profit.
However, this is in contrast to other survey results, where convenors suggest student
preferences are a barrier to healthy options on the menu.
Table 20: Mark-up and sales per student amongst tuckshops with high and low
percentage GREEN on menus
>65% green <65% green Average Range Average Range
Mark up (%) 103 42-193 84 -34 – 127 Sales per student per day open ($)
1.06 0.44 – 3.64 0.94 0.37 – 2.12
Care should be taken in generalising these results to all Queensland tuckshops, as this
data is from a very small sample of 51 schools and may not be representative of all
Queensland school tuckshops.
55
3.11 eMenu
3.11.1 Growth of eMenu users eMenu was first launched in July 2014. The number of users who have registered an
eMenu account has grown significantly from 74 in 2014 to 631 in 2018 (Figure 10).
The activity of users cannot currently be assessed by internal website reports.
Website traffic data highlights that the total number of eMenu users since launch is
36265. There have also been over 500000 unique page reviews. The 10 most viewed
recipes and menus can be seen in Table 21 and Table 22 respectively.
Num
ber o
f reg
iste
red
acco
unts
0
175
350
525
700
Year
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018*
631
534
398
218
74
Cumulative
Figure 10. Growth of eMenu registered accounts from 2014-2018 * Data only available up until June, 2018
56
Table 21. Top 10 most viewed recipes and menus as per Google analytics
Page Views
Yoghurt Berry Crunch 3773
Oven Fried Rice 3308
Cheese and crackers 2199
Ham & Cheese Toastie 1781
Lucky Dip Home Bake 1328
Table 22. Top 10 most viewed menus as per Google analytics
Page Views
Sample 2 Day Primary 3500
Sample 3 Day Primary 2684
Sample 5 Day Primary 1557
Sample 5 Day Secondary 1355
Sample 1.5 Day Primary 1226
3.11.2 Usefulness of eMenu and eMenu functions Thirty seven percent of surveyed tuckshops (n=184), reported using eMenu. Most of
those using eMenu were QAST members (78%). Of those tuckshop convenors using
eMenu, 7% expressed that eMenu was the most helpful website (when compared with
all other websites). Seventy six percent (n=140) of convenors rated eMenu as ‘easy’ or
‘very easy’ to use.
In terms of eMenu functions, 94% (n=173) of users stated recipe ideas was the
principle function followed by the Smart Choices calculator (57%) and the recipe
costing function (54%) (see Figure 11).
57
eMen
u fu
nctio
ns
Suppliers Directory
Menu Design
Recipe Costing
Smart Choices Calculator
Recipe Ideas
Percentage of participants using eMenu (n=173)
0 25 50 75 100
94
57
54
40
30
% of emenu users
Figure 11. Most useful eMenu functions as reported by convenors
58
3.11.3 eMenu Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats analysis The QAST project team conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT) analysis of eMenu website as a strategic planning exercise. This
method allows for identification of significant internal factors (Strengths and
Weaknesses) plus external factors (Opportunities and Threats).
Strengths • Easy to use • Easy to search for recipes • Filing cabinet of recipes • Online, readily accessible • Easy to submit a recipe or menu for
rating • Generates reports that are easy to
interpret • Costing of recipes • Large amount of website traffic • QAST analysis shows that with
%GREEN increases, fruit & vegetable content of menu also increases, so a valid tool
Weaknesses • Barrier for engagement if Smart Choices
is not a key motivator for tuckshops • Duplicate recipes • More time needed for adequate auditing
and management of the site (Check recipe ratings, complete recipe costing, ensure quality of recipe photos and highlight recipes requiring a photo)
• Costing of recipes (difficult for some to use accurately)
• Drag and drop option not as user friendly • Low conversion of website traffic into
registered users (2%) • Incorrect self-assessments completed by
users (users are able to self-rate menu but may select ‘submit to QAST’ for verification)
• Limited QAST budget to trial submitted recipes
Opportunities • General promotion to public • More sample menu templates • Ideas from convenors for menu
templates • Promotion to school management as
more schools are managing the tuckshop
• Addition of dietary requirements in search functions
Threats • One of many online recipe websites,
small fish in a big pond • Misuse of site (user upload of recipes
that are non compliant with Smart Choices)
• Changes to Smart Choices ratings criteria, leading to incorrect classification of menu items
• Recipe books and websites from suppliers (e.g. ASCA)
59
This study was subject to a number of limitations; these are discussed in detail below. 4.1 Changes to study methodology
The project experienced several delays due to challenges in acquiring permission to
conduct research in Queensland Catholic schools. The resultant decision requiring
Principal consent to participate in the survey for all Catholic schools impacted on
QAST’s ability to formulate a final sample of schools to be contacted. QAST attempted
to contact the Principal of all Queensland Catholic schools, but this process was labour
intensive and time consuming. As this process was already impacting CATI
commencement, it was deemed not feasible. Consequently, the number of convenors
interviewed from Catholic schools was restricted.
Additionally, the ‘opt in’ response rate to posted study invitations was extremely low.
This resulted in further project time delays and subsequent changes in study
methodology. Despite every effort from the QAST project team to ensure all schools
had an equal chance to participate in the study, it is likely that the above limitations
introduced sampling bias, reflected by the imbalance of state and non-state schools
included in the final sample.
4.2 Skewed data A major limitation of the data is the demographics of schools participating in the survey
are not reflective of those across the State. A higher number of state schools
participated in the survey than non-state schools. The reduced participation of non-
state schools means any comparisons made between state and non-state schools are
less reliable.
Another significant limitation is that the survey data is skewed towards QAST
members, with a larger proportion of participants (61%) identified as current QAST
members than in the total Queensland tuckshop population (41%).
4.0 Limitations
60
4.3 Inherent biases Due to the self-reported nature of all surveys, caution is warranted when interpreting
results for some survey questions that are prone to social desirability bias. This type of
bias is where participants provide answers deemed socially acceptable over their true
response. Examples include questions pertaining to the importance of nutrition,
adoption of / compliance with Smart Choices, tuckshop staffing, working conditions
and finances. Moreover, some participant’s responses may be subject to acquiescence
bias as in general, people are more likely to be agreeable and less likely to disagree
with certain questions.
4.4 Menu assessment protocol The menu analysis process may also be subject to limitations. Due to the
abovementioned time delays, QAST nutrition professionals were unable to contact
each school’s convenor individually to discuss their menu. This limited information on
how some food was prepared and the types of ingredients used in recipes. A protocol
was created with a list of assumptions to aid the analysis process (Appendix C).
However these assumptions may restrict the possibility of alternative results and
consequently impact overall analysis. However it should be noted that this may also
have the reverse effect. Assumptions such as the use of low fat dairy and wholemeal
flour in recipes may not be true for all tuckshop menus and consequent ratings.
4.5 Reduced data submissions Furthermore, only 43 menus, 14 sets of financial data and no usable tally sheets were
submitted for analysis. In order to meet the desired number required for the study, the
QAST project team self sourced the additional profit and loss and menu data. An
additional 157 menus were gathered using a pseudorandom process from information
publically available on school websites. Similarly, supplementary financial data was
derived from a small set of internal QAST data. As the number of schools was below
the required amount, a random selection for financial data could not be drawn. This
should be noted as a weakness in the data and subsequent findings.
61
School tuckshops play an important role in the provision of healthy food and drink
options to students. A positive finding from this survey was that tuckshop menus have
improved over the past ten years. This was observed in the difference of best selling
menu items between 2008 and 2018. Additionally, the vast majority of convenors also
reported they serve salad or cooked vegetables with main dishes. A marked enabler to
offering healthier food and drinks to students was the presence of a healthy eating
policy which was associated with a higher percentage of GREEN items on the menu.
Convenor perceptions that healthy foods and drink are not popular with students
remain consistent since 2008. This is despite the fact that tuckshops with healthier
menus experience higher sales volume and profitability than tuckshops with less
healthy menus.
The significant challenges found to be affecting Queensland tuckshops include; the
need for more paid convenors, a reduction in volunteer contributions, and lack of
support from the wider school community plus a shortfall of financial literacy amongst
tuckshop convenors.
Smart Choices was reported by almost all convenors as being implemented in some
way. This is inconsistent when tuckshop convenors perception of compliance with
Smart Choices is compared with nutrition professionals analysis. Generally, convenors
report a higher percentage GREEN items on menus than that assessed by QAST. The
number of menus with more than 50% GREEN has vastly improved since 2008.
However, a large proportion of assessed menus also contained RED items.
Furthermore, one third of convenors report that Smart Choices is not implemented
throughout the whole school.
5.0 Conclusion
62
A larger proportion of participating convenors held QAST membership at the time of
surveying. It was apparent that QAST members value their membership, with general
tuckshop support the most helpful aspect. The cost of QAST membership was the
greatest influence on why non-members have not joined the association.
QAST’s eMenu website has grown significantly since the launch in 2014. Convenors
find it easy to use, with recipe ideas the most popular function. Future communications
should focus on users creating a registered account to save favourite recipes, devise
recipe costing’s and design menus, rather than simply view recipe ideas.
Overall, the participating Queensland tuckshops are operating well within the
resources available. Most convenors indicate that healthy food is important, but the
support to provide it is sometimes inadequate. Tuckshops are not only significant
businesses contributing profits to schools, but also act as an important health
promotion setting for daily food provision and establishing healthy eating habits
amongst students. Therefore ongoing support is required to ensure healthy and
sustainable tuckshops can continue to exist.
63
6.1 Tuckshops
• Conduct Student Surveys. Student preferences are frequently reported as a
barrier to introducing healthier menu options. This appears to be an incorrect
perception, as it contradicts the finding that tuckshops with healthier menus
experience a higher sales volume and profitability than tuckshops with less
healthy menus. It is recommended that tuckshops complete more student
surveys around food preferences. A student survey template is available on the
QAST website.
• Improve Convenor Orientation Rates. A large proportion of tuckshop convenors
are not receiving any workplace orientation. QAST has recently developed a
Convenor Course, ideally placed to deliver general tuckshop orientation to new
staff. QAST will perform ongoing evaluation of this course. This will provide
valuable information on the impact the course has made on convenor and
tuckshop practices plus improve courses for future participants. The impact of
this course could also be evaluated in future surveys.
• Financial Training for Tuckshop Management. The number of tuckshop
convenors and management who were unable to provide profit and loss
information, or who were not aware of basic financial terms, like mark up, is a
concern. These are fundamental financial considerations that need to be
addressed if tuckshops are to run as food businesses that cover costs or have a
small profit to invest into tuckshop or wider school improvements. The number
of tuckshops running at a loss is also unsettling. Tuckshop convenors and
management would benefit from basic financial training demonstrating how to
access and interpret financial information and ensuring appropriate financial
goals are developed and met. Working with stakeholders such as P&Cs Qld is
recommended.
6.0 Recommendations
64
6.2 QAST
• Increase Financial Support to Tuckshops. Regardless of the limitations
surrounding the financial analysis, it was clear that only a small number of
convenors were aware of the overall sales volume for their tuckshop.
Additionally, less than half of participating convenors reported their tuckshop
had a policy on pricing. Educating and supporting convenors on business and
finance matters is highly recommended. QAST currently has a financial service
and Tuckshop Tuneup service that assist convenors and tuckshop management
with financial issues. These services are currently working at capacity. It is
suggested that QAST seek additional funding to grow these services in order to
meet the needs of Queensland tuckshops, and collaborate with organisations
such as P&Cs Qld to encourage communication and reporting of tuckshop
finances amongst the tuckshop management and staff.
• Review Pricing for QAST Membership. The most identifiable barrier to QAST
membership was the cost of membership. Reviewing membership costs for
current and future members is recommended. Alternatively subsidised
memberships could provide viable membership choices for tuckshops in various
financial positions, while providing stability and reoccurring revenue for QAST.
• Promotion of Phone Consultations. General support was by far the biggest
enabler for QAST membership. Therefore, the promotion of QAST’s existing
phone consultation service is highly recommended. This is an existing service
where tuckshop staff can book in an appointment online and receive support
and coaching over the phone. Due to the vast geographical areas serviced by
QAST, it is not possible to have face-to-face support for all members. Therefore
promoting and optimising phone consultations could prove mutually beneficial.
• Nutrition Resource Development. Nutrition was the top factor reported by
convenors when designing the tuckshop menu. However, the average
percentage of GREEN menu items as assessed by QAST nutrition
65
professionals was only 56%. Additionally, a large proportion (90%) of menus
contained RED items. Therefore consideration of targeted nutrition articles /
blogs targeting tuckshop staff can be an effective way of sharing valuable
nutrition information whilst promoting QAST’s services.
• Webinar Development. Face-to-face and online training was identified as the
preferred methods for receiving training. As QAST is unable to provide face-to-
face training for all members due to the need for long journeys, travel time and
costs, online training webinars are recommended. This method of
communication and training could answer the needs of convenors by providing
face-to-face training online.
• Expansion and Promotion of eMenu. A number of convenors reported eMenu as
an effective tool for researching recipe ideas. Promotion of eMenu by QAST and
other stakeholders is highly recommended. Recipe sharing in conjunction with
other agencies producing healthy recipes (including due acknowledgements) is
also encouraged. This would ensure convenors are able to rely on eMenu for
healthy, tuckshop friendly recipes that are compliant with any associated
strategies pertaining to tuckshops and not solely rely on QAST to develop all
recipes and appealing images.
• Marketing of All eMenu Functions. The recipe costing and menu planning
functions are currently underutilised. It is recommended a future focus should
be on the promotion of these functions. Communications should also focus on
converting recipe viewers into registered users, who can then use a variety of
eMenu functions.
66
6.3 Stakeholders
• Educating Suppliers. Convenors have consistently reported suppliers as a
trusted support for tuckshops. Training suppliers who regularly communicate
with schools is highly recommended. This will ensure any communication
regarding healthy food and drink strategies pertaining to schools is consistent.
• Supporting Tuckshops through Communications and Case Studies.
Stakeholders with available insights on the relationship between perceived
student preferences and profitability of tuckshops are encouraged to share
these communications with QAST or tuckshops directly. This could be achieved
through school case studies. Future projects could also investigate this
relationship further.
• Clarify status of Smart Choices in communications. The number of schools who
report that they have implemented Smart Choices has reduced from previous
surveys. There was also a large discrepancy between reported and assessed
compliance with Smart Choices on tuckshop menus. This may be due to the
lack of timeframe for implementation of changes to the Smart Choices strategy
announced in 2016. Communications should reinforce that the overall Smart
Choices is mandatory, even if revisions are to be implemented when schools
are able. Reinforcement that Smart Choices applies to other areas of the school
is also required, as a large number of schools were only implementing Smart
Choices in the tuckshop.
• Investment and Support for Existing Policies. To continue to improve the
healthiness of food services in Queensland schools, a greater investment in
Smart Choices resources and tuckshop infrastructure is recommended. This
may aid implementation and remove any uncertainties regarding the policy.
Establishing a monitoring and continued support system is also recommended.
67
6.4 Future surveys • Survey Repetition. In order to accurately measure changes over time, survey
repetition at regular intervals is highly recommended. The Queensland
Tuckshop Survey has been performed every 10 years since 1998. This same
interval is recommended for future surveys to maintain consistency. Information
collected from existing and future surveys is useful for planning and evaluating
programs and may assist to inform policy.
• Increased Survey Planning Phase. The process to obtain approval to conduct
research from DoE and in each of the five Catholic Diocese of Queensland was
a lengthy and more complicated process than anticipated. These lengthy
approval processes placed pressure on timeframes for CATI commencement,
subsequent data analysis and report writing. Future projects should have a
three month lead-time to ensure all appropriate approvals are obtained prior to
research commencement. This would ensure a good representation of state
and non-state schools and project completion on time and budget.
• Review of Survey Design and Consent Process. Future projects should
consider best methodologies to maximise convenor participation. A learning
from this survey is that a verbal consent process, online survey consent form or
an ‘opt out’ method is preferred. This would improve the burden of written
consent and improve overall response rates. Determining a clear method for the
consent process will also assist in maintaining ethics approval with Human
Research Ethics Committees.
• Collaboration with Online Ordering Suppliers. Future projects that aim to assess
the correlation between menu items and sales data would benefit from co-
operation with an online ordering supplier, who can provide sales data on behalf
of schools (with their consent), rather than relying on schools to collate and
submit this information.
68
• Extensive Testing of Survey Question Wording. Despite piloting the survey prior
to commencement, it appears several questions may have been misinterpreted,
as highlighted throughout this report. Clarification on wording and associated
meaning/s is highly recommended. This will ensure the data gathered is highly
relevant and reduce any wording bias.
69
1. Queensland Health. The health of Queenslanders 2016. Report of the Chief
Health Officer Queensland. Queensland Government. Brisbane 2016.
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/537101/cho-report-
complete.pdf
2. Wheaton N, Millar L, Allender S, Nichols M. The stability of weight status
through the early to middle childhood years in Australia: a longitudinal study.
BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006963
3. Maffeis C, Moghetti P, Grezzani A, Clementi M, Gaudino R, Tato L. Insulin
Resistance and the Persistence of Obesity from Childhood into Adulthood. J
Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87:71-6.
4. Serdula MK, Ivery D, Coates RJ, Freedman DS, Williamson DF, Byers T: Do
obese children become obese adults? A review of the literature. Prev Med
2005;22:167–177.
5. Deshmukh-Taskar P, Nicklas TA, Morales M, Yang SJ, Zakeri I, Berenson GS.
Tracking of overweight status from childhood to oaring adulthood: The Bogalusa
Heart Study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2006;60:48-57
6. Freedman DS, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS: The relation of
overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children and adolescents: the
Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics 1999;103:1175–1182.
7. Srinivasan SR, Bao W, Wattigney WA, Berenson GS: Adolescent overweight is
associated with adult overweight and related multiple cardiovascular risk
factors: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Metabolism 1996;45: 235–240
8. Reilly JJ, Kelly J (2011) Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in
childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood:
systematic review. Int J Obes 35:891–898
9. Denny-Wilson E, Hardy LL, Dobbins T, Okely AD, Baur L. Body mass index,
waist circumference and chronic disease risk factors in Australian adolescents.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(6):566-73
10. Gibson LY, Allen KL, Davis E, Blair E, Zubrick SR, Byrne. The psychosocial
7.0 References
70
burden of childhood overweight and obesity: evidence for persisting difficulties
in boys and girls. Our J Pediatr. 2017;176:925-933
11. Poland BD, Green LW, Rootman I, Setting for Health Promotion: Linking Theory
and Practice, 2000, Sage Publications, Inc. USA Chapter 3 (Parcel GS, Kelder
SH, Basen-Engquist K) accessed on 27 August, 2018 via
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rbh1AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=
PP1&dq=school+setting+and+health+promotion&ots=I4N5NpYNeb&sig=kSqpC
QgxlPF7KzxJFjI3yqLTfJ4#v=onepage&q=school%20setting%20and%20health
%20promotion&f=false
12. Wolfenden L, Nathan N, Williams CM, Delaney T, Reily KL, Freund M, et al. A
randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase the implementation of
a healthy canteen policy in Australian primary schools: study protocol.
Imprementation Science. 2014;9:147.
13. Dick M, Rarquharson R, Bright M, Turner K, Lee AJ. Smart Choices – Healthy
Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland Schools: Evaluation Report.
Queensland Health and Department of Education and Training, Brisbane, 2009
14. Pettigrew S, Talati Z, Sauzier M, Ferguson A. Stakeholder perceptions of a
school food policy ten years on. Public Health Nutrition. 2018;21(7):1370-74
15. de Silva-Sanigorski A, Breheny T, Jones L, Lacy K, Kremer P, Carpenter L,
Bolton K, Prosser L, Gibbs L, Waters E, Swinburn B. Government food service
policies and guidelines do not create healthy school canteens. ANZJPH.
2011;35(2):117-21
1
Appendix A: 2018 Tuckshop Snapshot Survey Questions Introduction & consent process completed Section A: Information about the school tuckshop 1. What days are your tuckshop open?
□ All school days □ Monday □ Tuesday □ Wednesday □ Thursday □ Friday
2. Does the tuckshop offer either of the following? Read out one by one. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each
□ Breakfast club □ After school service
3. Which of the following is available in your school? Read out one by one. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each
□ Breakfast club by another provider (not tuckshop) □ Vending machines □ School garden
4. When designing the tuckshop menu, what are the top three things you consider? Do not read out Probe fully Multiple responses allowed □ Nutrition, healthy options □ Smart Choices strategy □ Number of volunteers or staff
available □ Equipment, facilities or storage
available □ What sells best, what students like
□ Affordability □ The amount of profit that it makes □ Food safety/hygiene □ Ease of preparation □ What food we can get from
suppliers □ Don’t know / Can’t say
□ Other (please state)________________________________________ 5. Who do you rely on for information and support regarding the tuckshop? I will now read out a list of organisations or support people. Read out one by one. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each □ Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) □ Local tuckshop network meetings □ Nutrition Australia □ School health nurses □ Department of Education □ Community Health and/or Public Health Nutritionist (Queensland Health) □ Private consultant or dietitian □ Sales reps from food suppliers □ Anyone else? If yes, who?________________________
2
6. Do you have a computer with internet access available in your tuckshop?
□ Yes □ No
7. Do you use any of the following websites for tuckshop purposes? Read out one by one. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each
□ QAST □ Smart Choices □ eMenu □ Happier Healthier/Queensland Health □ NAQ Nutrition (Nutrition Australia Queensland) □ Food and drink suppliers □ Facebook □ P&Cs Qld □ Other please state)________________________________________
If yes to two or more, ask 7a 7a. Which is the most useful website? _____________________________________ If yes for eMenu in question 7, ask 8 and 9 If no to eMenu in question, skip to 10 8. Which eMenu functions do you find useful? Read out. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each
□ Recipe ideas □ Menu design □ Recipe costing □ Smart choices calculator □ Suppliers directory □ Other please state)________________________________________
9. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not very easy to use’ and 5 being ‘very easy to use how easy is eMenu to use? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not very easy to use Very easy to use
3
Section B: Policies and procedures 10. Does your tuckshop have written policies or procedures?
□ Yes □ No
If yes, ask 11 If no, skip to 12 11. What topics are included? Do you have a written policy for: Read out one by one – probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each:
□ Providing healthy food □ Nuts/allergy □ Food Safety □ Volunteer □ Pricing □ Staff training □ Workplace health and safety □ Grievance or complaints □ Money handling and banking □ Other - If yes – what topic?____________________
Section C: Tuckshop facilities 12. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘not well resourced’ and 5 being ‘very well resourced’ how equipped do your feel your tuckshop is? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not well resourced Very well resourced If rate 1,2 or 3 ask 13 If rate 4 or 5, skip to 14 13. What equipment do you feel you need to be well resourced?________________ 14. Please tell me the food preparation and cooking equipment that is available in the tuckshop. Read out each one.
□ Blender □ Commercial oven □ Domestic oven □ Food processor □ Hotplates □ Microwave □ Bain Maree
□ Thermometers □ Pie warmer □ Sandwich press □ Toaster □ Electric fry pan/wok □ Slushee machine
15. Does your tuckshop have a qualified food safety supervisor?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
16. Do you use a thermometer to test prepared food?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
4
17. Do you have a budget for maintenance or replacement of equipment?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
18. Has your tuckshop been successful in applying for a grant in the last three years?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
If yes ask 19 If no or don’t know, skip to 20 19. If so, who was the grant from? Do not read out
□ Community gambling benefit fund / Gaming fund □ Department of Education □ Local council □ Other (Please state) ____________________
Section D: Food in the tuckshop 20. Are you aware of the Department of Educations’ Smart Choices Healthy food and Drink Supply Strategy?
□ Yes □ No
If yes, ask 21 - 24 If no, skip to ask 25 21. Which of the following describes how your school has implemented Smart Choices? Please remember that all information provided is strictly confidential. I am going to read out four options. Please tell me which one applies.
□ Smart Choices is implemented fully – across the whole school with only two RED occasions per term
□ Smart Choices is implemented in the tuckshop but not elsewhere at the school
□ RED foods are available at school events and frequently in the tuckshop
□ We have not implemented Smart Choices at all Other: please do not read out as an option, but record schools who comment about using ‘local discretion’ in implementing changes 22. Is there anything that has made implementing Smart Choices easier for you? Do not read out or prompt.
□ Volunteers □ Training □ QAST
5
□ Students □ Network meetings □ eMenu □ Facebook □ Other (please state) ________________________
23. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘not very confident’ and 5 being ‘very confident’, how confident are you in rating menu items as green, amber or red? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not very confident Very confident 24. Approximately what proportion of the food and drink on the tuckshop menu is GREEN?
______________% □ Don’t know
25. Can you describe any challenges you have found in implementing healthy food and drinks at your school? Do not read out, probe fully There may be more than one answer □ Number of volunteers or staff
available □ Equipment, facilities or storage
available □ What sells best, what students like □ Affordability □ Cooking skills □ Tuckshop is a treat □ Loss in profit □ Food safety/hygiene
□ Ease of preparation □ What food we can get from
suppliers □ Lack of support from school
management or parent body □ Don’t understand what is and isn’t
allowed □ Parents □ Don’t know / Can’t say □ Other (please state)____________
26. Do you need training and support in providing healthy food and drink choices in the tuckshop?
□ Yes □ No
If yes ask 27 and 28 If no, skip to 29 27. What topics do you need training on? Do not read out, probe fully Multiple responses
□ Food Safety □ Menu planning □ Menu pricing □ Smart Choices □ General nutrition □ Allergies and special diets □ Volunteers □ New convenor / orientation package □ Other (please state)_____________________________________
6
28. How would you prefer to receive training? Read out all the options and ask which they prefer
□ Face to face □ Online □ Newsletters □ Printed information
I’m now going to ask three questions to find out what are the best selling food and drinks at the tuckshop. Do not prompt further, unless they have trouble coming up with three foods in each category 29. What are your three best selling main meals
□ Sandwiches □ Toasted sandwiches □ Roll eg salad/chicken □ Wraps □ Pies □ Chicken nuggets □ Sausage rolls □ Sushi □ Burgers □ Lasagne □ Pasta dishes
□ Rice dishes □ Quiche □ Pizza □ Kebabs □ Salad □ Hot dog □ Soup □ Hot chips □ Other fried foods □ Other ______________
30. What are your three best selling snacks?
□ Muffins □ Cakes/biscuits/iced
cakes □ Fruit bars □ Cob of corn □ Fresh fruit □ Ice blocks
□ Energy balls □ Yoghurt □ Chips □ Cracker biscuits with
dip □ Sultanas □ Popcorn □ Other ______________
31. What are your three best selling drinks?
□ 100% fruit juice □ fruit drinks (less than
100%) □ Soft drinks □ Plain milk □ Breakfast drinks (up &
go) □ Flavoured milk □ Energy drinks
□ Sports drinks □ Carbonated fruit drink □ Iced tea □ Coffee □ Plain water □ Flavoured water □ Slushee □ Other ______________
32. How do you promote food and drink items to your school community? Do not prompt – there may be more than one answer
□ eNewsletter □ emails to parents □ Facebook page □ Notes home
7
□ Assembly □ Online ordering system □ Blackboards □ Posters □ Menu □ Point of sale □ None
Other (please state) ________________________________ 33. Does the tuckshop menu include salad or cooked vegetables in main meal choices?
□ Yes □ No
34. What are the main barriers to providing salad or cooked vegetables in the tuckshop? Do not prompt – there may be more than one answer
□ Too expensive □ Short shelf life □ Kids don’t eat them □ Take too long to prepare □ Staffing □ Storage □ Can’t get them □ No barriers □ Other (please state)___________________________________
Section E: Financial issues and pricing 35. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘not important’ and 5 being ‘very important’ how important is it for the tuckshop to make a profit for the school? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not important at all Very important The following two questions are about the turnover and the profit or loss the tuckshop makes. Many schools report that they have been doing it tough over the past few years. Therefore it would be useful to find out more about this to better support tuckshops in the future. Do you know: 36. If your tuckshop is making a profit or a loss?
□ Profit □ Break even □ Loss □ Don’t know
37. Do you know the total sales figure (turnover) for the tuckshop (income received from sales before any costs) in 2017? $_____________ 38. Also, what was the net profit or loss for the tuckshop ($ after expenses have been deducted) in 2017?
8
38a) Profit $_________________________ 38b) Loss $________________________ 39. Is there a standard mark-up that your add to the cost price of your menu items?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
If yes, ask 40 If no, skip to 41 40. What is the approximate percentage? _________________% Section F: Tuckshop staff 41. For the following questions, can you please tell me the number of staff in each position, the average paid and unpaid hours they work each week Read out each staff category and then the headings of each column – one by one. Staff Number of
staff in this position
Average hours per week Paid hours Unpaid hours
Convenor
Other paid staff (not convenor)
Volunteers
42. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘very poor’ and 5 being ‘very good’ how would you rate your employment conditions? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Very poor Very good If rate 1,2 or 3, ask 43 If rate 4 or 5, skip to 44 43. What are the main issues? _________________________________________ Do not prompt, categorize into below options There may be more than one answer
□ Lack of support □ Facilities need upgrading □ Poor pay / conditions □ Lack of adequate volunteers / staff □ Other (please state)
44. How long have you been the tuckshop convenor in this school?
9
____ Years ____ Months
45. Did you receive orientation and/or training when you first started as a convenor? □ Yes □ No
Your school is / is not a member of QAST…. (list of members will be provided to third party administering survey) If member, ask 46 If not a member, ask 47 46. What do you value about being a QAST member? Do not prompt, categorize into below options There may be more than one answer
□ Smart Choices support □ Menu planning □ Food safety □ Recipes □ Financial advice □ Policy and procedures □ Network meetings □ General support □ eMenu □ Menu health check □ Facebook □ Consultancy □ Workshops / expos □ Tuckshop of the year □ Training courses □ Other (Please state) _________________________ □ Did not know we were a member
47. What are the reasons for not being a member? Do not prompt, categorize into below options There may be more than one answer
□ Cost of membership □ We don’t want to comply with Smart choices □ Value for money □ Don’t need the services □ Didn’t know they existed □ Other (please state) _________________________
Other information 48. What is the best way to contact you? Do not read out
□ Email □ Mail
□ Phone □ Facebook
□ Other ___________________________________
10
49. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘not very important’ and 5 is ‘very important’, how important is healthy eating to you personally?____________________________ 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not very important Very important 50. Do you think it is possible to make a profit from selling healthy food?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
This survey is proudly funded by the Queensland Government, Department of Health. Thank very much you for your time
HAVE YOUR SAY!
What's in it for you?
We want to ask what is and isn't working in ourschool tuckshops?
To do this, we need information from you, the experts!
What's required?
Contact our team at QAST on [email protected] for more info.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Tuckshop Management –
QAST Tuckshop Snapshot Survey 2018
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1800000233
RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researchers: Ms Aimee Johnston Senior Project Officer Ms Christine Stewart Project Officer Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) Associate Researcher: Mrs Carolyn Keogh Associate Supervisor Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology (QUT) DESCRIPTION The purpose of this research project is to determine factors that impact on the successful promotion of healthy foods and drinks to students at school. This research will assist QAST and other agencies better understand the needs of tuckshops to provide healthy options for students while remaining viable. You are invited to participate in this research project because you are the managing body of a school tuckshop where food is provided to students PARTICIPATION Participation will involve your permission for information about the menu, sales data and financial information of the tuckshop to be shared with QAST. Your tuckshop convenor may also be randomly selected to be contacted by a research company to answer a 15 minute telephone interview. Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate, your tuckshop convenors do not have to complete any question(s) they are uncomfortable answering. The decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon current or future relationships with QUT or QAST. If you do agree to the tuckshop convenor participating you and/or the tuckshop convenor can withdraw from the research project during participation without comment or penalty. Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. However as the survey is anonymous once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this research project will not directly benefit you. However, it may benefit the students that are enrolled in your school as QAST and other agencies will be better informed as to how to assist Queensland tuckshops to remain viable. Participating tuckshops will also go in the draw to win one of four Nisbets kitchen equipment vouchers, each valued at $100. Tuckshops who receive these prizes will be drawn randomly amongst participants by the research company, with answers to survey questions in no way linked to chance of winning. The prize draw will be completed by 22nd June 2018 and winners notified in Term 3. The Terms and Conditions can be located at: https://survey.qut.edu.au/survey-data/67/67667/media/62/6254.pdf RISKS There are minimal risks associated with participation in this research project. These include inconvenience for tuckshop convenors in the time taken to complete the 15 minutes phone interview (if chosen) and collate documents for email/fax to the QAST office. There may be some anxiety in completing the interview or sharing data about their school tuckshop,
particularly financial data, however all information statements clearly identify that the individual data will be kept confidential and will be de-identified. Schools are also free to participate in the CATI element of the survey only, with a smaller quota of schools to provide financial and menu data. Schools who are seeking individualised feedback can contact QAST separately. Lifeline provides access to online, phone or face-to-face support, call 13 11 14 for 24 hour telephone crisis support. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially unless required by law, or regulatory or monitoring bodies, such as the ethics committee. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this research project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Please note that non-identifiable data from this research project may be used as comparative data in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis. The research project is funded by Queensland Health and they will only have access to de-identified data obtained during the project. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Please return the attached consent form with the signature of the person authorised on behalf of the tuckshops management (i.e. P&C president for P&C managed tuckshops or Business Services Manager/Principal for school managed tuckshops). Please pass on information about the survey to the tuckshop and request they submit 2017 profit and loss statements and current menu if they would like to participate. Tuckshop convenors will provide verbal consent at the start of the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview process. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the listed researchers: Aimee Johnston [email protected] 07 3324 1511 Christine Stewart [email protected] 07 3324 1511 CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the research project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Tuckshop Convenor –
QAST Tuckshop Snapshot Survey 2018
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1800000233
RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researchers: Ms Aimee Johnston Senior Project Officer Ms Christine Stewart Project Officer Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) Associate Researcher: Mrs Carolyn Keogh Associate Supervisor Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology (QUT) DESCRIPTION The purpose of this research project is to determine factors that impact on the successful promotion of healthy foods and drinks to students at school. This research will assist QAST and other agencies better understand the needs of tuckshops to provide healthy options for students while remaining viable. You are invited to participate in this research project because you are the tuckshop convenor of a school where food is provided to students through a school tuckshop. PARTICIPATION Participation will involve your permission in providing information about the menu, sales data and financial information. You may also be randomly selected to be contacted by a research company to answer a 15 minute telephone interview. Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not have to complete any question(s) they are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or QAST. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the research project during your participation without comment or penalty. Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. However as the survey is anonymous once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this research project will not directly benefit you. However, it may benefit the students that are enrolled in your school as QAST and other agencies will be better informed as to how to assist Queensland tuckshops to remain viable. Participating tuckshops will also go in the draw to win one of four Nisbets kitchen equipment vouchers, each valued at $100. Tuckshops who receive these prizes will be drawn randomly amongst participants, with answers to survey questions in no way linked to chance of winning. The prize draw will be completed by 22nd of June and winners notified in Term 3. The Terms and Conditions can be located at: https://survey.qut.edu.au/survey-data/67/67667/media/62/6254.pdf RISKS There are minimal risks associated with your participation in this research project. These include inconvenience for the time taken to complete the 15 minutes phone interview (if chosen) and collate documents for email/fax to the QAST office.
There may be some anxiety in completing the interview or sharing data about your school tuckshop, particularly financial data, however all information statements clearly identify that the individual data will be kept confidential and will be de-identified. Schools are also free to participate in the CATI element of the survey only, with a smaller quota of schools to provide financial and menu data. Schools who are seeking individualised feedback are directed to contact QAST separately for services. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially unless required by law, or regulatory or monitoring bodies, such as the ethics committee. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this research project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Please note that non-identifiable data from this research project may be used as comparative data in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis. The research project is proudly funded by Queensland Government and they will have access to the de-identified data obtained during the project. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE The return of the completed survey and data is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this research project. Verbal consent will be confirmed at the start of the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview if you are randomly selected to participate in this element of the research. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the listed researchers: Aimee Johnston [email protected] 07 3324 1511 Christine Stewart [email protected] 07 3324 1511 Carolyn Keogh [email protected] 07 3138 0338 CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the research project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Tuckshop Management –
QAST Tuckshop Snapshot Survey 2018
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1800000233
RESEARCH TEAM Aimee Johnston [email protected] 07 3324 1511 Christine Stewart [email protected] 07 3324 1511 Carolyn Keogh [email protected] 07 3138 0338
STATEMENT OF CONSENT By signing below, you are indicating that you: • Have read and understood the information document regarding this research project. • Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction. • Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team. • Understand that participation is voluntary and that you are free to withdraw without comment or
penalty. • Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the research project you can
contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. • Understand that the results of this research may be presented in project reports and professional
publications, but the school will not be identifiable in any way. • Understand that non-identifiable data from this project may be used as comparative data in future
research projects. • Understand that the tuckshop will be provided with a summary of the findings from this research
upon its completion. • Agree to participate in the research project. Name of school: Organisation managing tuckshop (i.e. P&C, P&F, school or third party) Person providing consent on behalf of tuckshop management to complete below: (i.e. P&C/P&F President, Principal or business owner) Name: Role: Signature: Name of tuckshop convenor: Preferred convenor contact number: Preferred convenor contact day/s and time/s:
PLEASE RETURN THE SIGNED CONSENT FORM TO QAST VIA FAX (3847 8655) OR EMAIL [email protected]
Please attach any additional information you are happy to share about your tuckshop operation (current menu, 2017 profit and loss statements and a week of sales/tally sheets)
Appendix C: Menu assessment protocol General
• Rate all menu items listed once • Meal deals are generally rated as per the rating of the main meal item. If only
one green item and a number of amber items, then rate as amber. If a red item is included, the whole meal deal is rated red
• Complementary items are rated • Use QAST internal database for specific product information and ratings
Hot meals
• Assess hot meals as made on site if listed on menu as such or rated in recent QAST assessment as green. Otherwise assume all are commercial meals
• Assume foods made on site include lean meats and reduced fat cheese (green)
Cold meals
• Menus with ‘Build your own sandwich’ or ‘build your own salad’ section. Add one menu item rating per protein source listed
• Toasted sandwiches rated as hot meals if listed separately - if option only as added on to sandwiches rate under cold meal
• Full and half wraps/rolls rated only once Snacks
• For “various” ice creams, assume 5 items are available (unless otherwise known via recent QAST menu assessment)
• For “various” chips, assume 3 items are available (unless otherwise known via recent QAST menu assessment)
• For muffins- if listed as fruit based and un-iced then amber. Otherwise red or request recipe to be checked
Drinks
• Different flavours of milks are rated only once. If different sizes/brands available then repeat rating as appropriate
• Assume plain milks are reduced fat • Assume ‘Poppers’ or ‘Pop tops’ are fruit drinks unless listed as 100% juice on
menu or otherwise known via recent QAST menu assessment • For ease of assessment formulated supplementary foods were rated as red in
menu assessments, although these are ‘not to be sold or supplied’ in Smart Choices. Currently there is no tool in the eMenu Menu Health Check to signify items that are ‘not to be sold or supplied’ as this was not an available category when eMenu was created
42
Tuckshop Snapshot 2008 - - CATI This survey is directed to the Tuckshop convenor at each school If any school does not have a canteen, they do not need to complete the survey. Introduction to telephone interview Call to general school number A. Hello, my name is ……………… I’m calling on behalf QAST. I would like to speak
to the tuckshop convenor. Could you please put me through to the tuckshop?
1 Put through to the tuckshop convenor – Go to B 2 Tuckshop convenor is not in today – go to call back screen 3 The school does not have a tuckshop/ or the tuckshop is now closed – record as … 4 Put through to tuckshop but no answer or answer machine – call school number back: Hello, I just called and was put through to the tuckshop, however, there was no answer. Do you know if the tuckshop convenor is in today? 1 Yes – Could you please put me through to the tuckshop again, thank you 2 No – ask for next day the convenor will be in and log as call back
Some campuses may ask which tuckshop convenor you want to speak to if more than
one tuckshop on the campus. In theses cases, request to speak with the secondary school campus tuckshop convenor.
B. Hello, my name is ……………… I’m calling on behalf of QAST. Am I speaking
with the tuckshop convenor? If yes, skip to C (INTERVIEWER: If no, ask “Could I please speak with the tuckshop convenor”) 1 Tuckshop convenor is not in today [get details about when to call back] 2 Tuckshop convenor is busy/not able to come to the phone/not in at the moment/wants to call back - (INTERVIEWER: ask for a suitable time to call back)
C. As I said, my name is [INSERT NAME]. QAST is speaking to a number of tuckshop convenors throughout Queensland to find out more about their tuckshops.
Your tuckshop has been selected at random to take part in this survey. Information about this survey was sent to the canteen managers. a couple of weeks ago All responses will be confidential and any information provided is protected by strict Commonwealth and State privacy laws. You are free to not answer any questions or to end the interview at any time. This interview should take around 15 minutes depending on your answers. I’ll try and make it as quick as I can. Are you happy to continue?
43
(INTERVIEWER: If respondent says no, ask “Is that because the time is inconvenient? I would be happy to call you back at a suitable time” 1 Agreed to interview 2 Agreed to interview but suggested a call-back 3 No, refused interview If (ans = 1) skip to If (ans = 2) skip to appointment log screen If (ans = 3) skip to refusal log screen (details why refused?)
Information about the school tuckshop 1. What days are your tuckshop open?
□ All school days □ Monday □ Tuesday □ Wednesday □ Thursday □ Friday □ Saturday □ Sunday
2. Does the tuckshop serve breakfast/? □ Yes □ No
3. Is the tuckshop open when school finishes?
□ Yes □ No
4. When designing the canteen menu, what are the top three things you consider? Do not read out Probe fully Multiple response
□ Nutrition, Smart Choices, healthy options
□ Number of volunteers or staff available
□ Equipment, facilities or storage available
□ What sells best, what students like
□ Affordability □ The amount of profit that it makes □ Food safety/hygiene □ Ease of preparation □ What food we can get from
suppliers
□ Don’t know / Can’t say □ Other (please state)________________________________________ 5. I will now read out a list of organisations or support people. Can you tell me who you rely on for information and support regarding the tuckshop? Read out one by one. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each Firstly, for information and support regarding the tuckshop, do you rely on…
44
□ Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) □ Local tuckshop network meetings □ Nutrition Australia □ School health nurses □ Education Queensland (eg Community Participation Officer) □ Community Health and/or Public Health Nutritionist (Queensland Health) □ Private consultant or dietitian □ Sales reps from food suppliers □ Anyone else? If yes, who?________________________ Policies and procedures 6. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘not important at all’ and 5 being ‘very important’ how important is it for the tuckshop to make a profit for the school? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not important at all Very important 7a. Does your tuckshop have written policies or procedures?
□ Yes □ No
If yes in 7a ask 7b 7b. Which topics are included in the policies and procedures? Firstly, do you have a written policy for…? Read out one by one – probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to each:
□ Providing healthy food □ Nuts/allergy □ Food Safety □ Volunteers □ Pricing □ Orientation □ Staff training □ Workplace health and safety □ Grievance or complaints □ Other - If yes – what topic?____________________
Tuckshop facilities 8. I will now read out a list of facilities that you might have in your tuckshop. Please tell me if you have these in your tuckshop or not Read out one by one. Probe for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response
□ Thermometers and/or temperature gauges
□ Aprons □ Gloves □ A displayed evacuation
plan □ Adequate storage for dry
goods □ A double sink □ Air conditioning □ Adequate fridge space □ Glass display cabinets
□ Fire extinguishing equipment
□ A first aid kit □ Water access □ Adequate freezer space □ A separate hand washing
sink □ Fly screens □ An office area □ A computer with internet
access □ A cold room
45
□ Ceiling or wall mounted fans
□ Lockers for personal belongings
□ Hats/caps
□ Suitable surfaces for food preparation
□ Suitable floor surfaces □ A dishwasher
9. Please tell me the food preparation and cooking equipment that is available in the tuckshop. Read out each one. Does your tuckshop have…?
□ A blender □ An oven □ A deep fryer □ A food processor □ Hotplates □ A microwave
□ A pie warmer □ A sandwich press □ A toaster □ An electric fry pan/wok □ A shaved ice machine □ Coloured chopping boards
10. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not adequate’ and 5 being ‘excellent’ how would you rate your tuckshop facilities? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Not adequate Excellent 11. Do you have a budget for maintenance or replacement of equipment?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
12a. Has your tuckshop applied for a grant for facilities or equipment in the last three years?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
If yes in 12a ask 12b 12b. Were you successful?
□ Yes □ No □ Pending
Food in the tuckshop 13. Which of the following describes how your school has implemented Smart Choices? Please remember that this isn’t a government survey and the information provided is strictly confidential. I am going to read out four options. Please tell me which one applies.
□ RED foods are available at school events and frequently in the tuckshop
□ Smart Choices is in the tuckshop only but not elsewhere □ Smart Choices is implemented fully – across the whole school with
only two RED occasions per term □ We have not implemented Smart Choices at all
46
14a. Do you think you need more training in providing healthy food choices in the tuckshop?
□ Yes □ No
If yes ask 14b 14b. If yes, which one of the following would suit you best? Read out all the options and ask which they prefer
□ Information in regular newsletters □ Workshops/seminars/presentations □ On line/web based training □ Printed training manuals and fact sheets
I’m now going to ask three questions to find out what are the best selling food and drinks at the tuckshop. This will be about main meals, snacks and drinks, including slushees. Do not prompt further, unless they have trouble coming up with three foods in each category 15a. What are your three best selling main meals in the tuckshop
□ Sandwiches □ Toasted sandwiches □ Roll eg salad/chicken
and gravy □ Wraps □ Pies □ Chicken nuggets □ Sausage rolls □ Sushi □ Burgers □ Lasagne
□ Pasta dishes □ Rice dishes □ Quiche □ Pizza □ Kebabs □ Salad □ Hot dog □ Soup □ Hot chips □ Other fried foods □ Other ______________
15b. What are your three best selling snacks?
□ Muffins □ Cakes/biscuits/iced
cakes □ Fruit bars □ Cob of corn □ Fresh fruit
□ Iceblocks □ Yoghurt □ Chips □ Cracker biscuits with
dip □ Sultanas
□ Popcorn □ Other ______________
47
15c. What are your three best selling drinks?
□ 100% fruit juice □ Soft drinks □ Plain milk □ Flavoured milk
□ Carbonated fruit drink □ Iced tea □ Plain water □ Flavoured water □ Shaved ice drinks □ Other __________
16. Does the tuckshop menu intentionally include salad or cooked vegetables in main meal choices?
□ Yes □ No
17. What do you perceive to be the main barriers to providing salad or cooked vegetables in the tuckshop? Do not prompt – there may be more than one answer
□ Too expensive □ Short shelf life □ Kids don’t eat them □ Take too long to prepare □ Can’t get them □ Other ________________________________________ □ None
18. Approximately what proportion of the food and drink on the menu in the tuckshop is in the GREEN category, using Smart Choices?
______________% □ Don’t know
Tuckshop staff 19. For the following questions, can you please tell me the number of staff in each position , the total number of paid and unpaid hours they work each week. Read out each staff category and then the headings of each column – one by one. Staff Number of
staff in this position
Total hours per week Paid hours Unpaid hours
Convenor
Paid staff (not convenor)
Volunteers
20. In the tuckshop, do you have access to the award that covers your working conditions and pay?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
48
21a. Do the convenor and other paid staff at your tuckshop have a written letter of appointment or employment agreement?
□ Yes □ No
If yes ask 21b. Does it include a job description?
□ Yes □ No
22. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘very poor’ and 5 being ‘very good’ how would you rate the employment conditions of the tuckshop convenor at your school? 1_______________2_______________3_______________4______________5 Very poor Very good 23. What are the main issues? _________________________________________ 24. How long have you been the tuckshop convenor in this school? ____ Years ____ Months 25. Altogether, how long have you been a convenor in any school? ____ Years ____ Months 26. Do you have any relevant experience that has helped with your work as a tuckshop convenor? For example, previously volunteered in tuckshop. Do not prompt
□ No □ Previous volunteer in the tuckshop □ Hospitality training □ Catering experience □ Food operations □ Home Economics □ Small business experience □ Sales/marketing experience □ Other (please state) ____________________________
27. In which of the following have you participated in the last three years? Read out one by one
□ Food safety groups/training □ Workplace health and safety training □ Nutrition seminars □ Workplace conditions/industrial relations seminars/training □ Food/trade expo □ Tuckshop network groups □ P&C meetings □ Orientation/induction training
49
28. Did you receive orientation and/or training when you first started as a convenor? □ Yes □ No
29a. Is there any training that you feel you and/or the staff need but have not been able to attend?
□ Yes □ No
If yes ask 32b. 29b. What would you and the other staff like training in? ___________________________________ Other information 30. What is the best way to communicate with you in your role as tuckshop convenor? Single response
□ Email to the tuckshop □ Email to personal
account □ Email to P&C □ Mail to P&C
□ Mail to school □ Phone to the tuckshop □ Phone to the school □ Other ____________
Financial issues and pricing 31. Do you feel confident in setting prices for your menu?
□ Yes □ No
You have been asked some questions about financial matters in the letter that told you about this survey, along with a fax back form. Have you sent it back?
1. Sent back both financial information and current menu (skips to thank you & close) 2. Sent back financial information only (skips to reminder re faxing current menu, then
thank you & close) 3. Sent back current menu only (continues on to text and Q32) 4. Have not sent back any information (continues on to text and Q32) 5. Did not receive any information about this study (skips to send fax & arrange
convenient call back time) The following two questions are about the turnover and the profit or loss the tuckshop makes. We are asking these questions so we understand the financial contribution tuckshops makes to schools. In a similar survey to this one, conducted in 1998, the average net profit was 14.3% and we would like to see if this has changed.. Do you know: 32. The total sales figure (turnover) for the tuckshop (income received from sales before any costs) in 2007? $_____________
50
33. Also, what was the net profit or loss for the tuckshop ($ after expenses have been deducted) in 2007? Profit $_________________________ Loss $________________________ If you don’t know this now, could you please fill in and fax back the form or could we ring you back at another time? (If necessary: If you didn’t receive the letter from QAST about the survey and also asking for this information, I can fax it to you now.) Thank very much you for your time.
