ONTARIO STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAMS · Ontario Student Nutrition Program Network. GPOs are group...

ONTARIO STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAMSExploring Local Food Group- Purchasing FrameworksHayley LapalmePrepared for MEALsource with funding from the Local Food Fund

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis project was born of MEALsource’s initiative and was generously funded by the Local Food Fund. The project was made possible through the support from the Ontario Student Nutrition Program co-chairs, Nicola Lyle and Carolyn Hunter, and the four participating SNP regions: the Southwest, Central East, Ottawa, and Timmins. The active contributions of Indra Noyes of the Peterborough Family Resource Centre, Jillian McCallum and Christine Brush of the Victorian Order of Nurses, Stephanie Craze of the Ottawa Network for Education, and Sylvie Dicaire and Renata Keenan Buhler of the Timmins Red Cross were instrumental in this research. We are grateful for the sixty plus SNP stakeholders in each of the four studied regions who informed the direction and insights of this project. The support of the design team was appreciated throughout the iterative process of designing and engaging a complex network of stakeholders around the province and interpreting hours of interviews ; thanks to Brendan Wylie-Toal, Wendy Smith, Ricardo Ramirez, Caitlin Colson, Annie Lambla, and Amanda Jekums, whose support was especially constructive during the data collection and final layout. Additional thanks to Cheryl Hsu for her research and communications insights, to Scott Baker and Ross Curtner for sharing their research, and to Michael Schaus for his insights around currency exchange. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the thousands of volunteers across the province who contribute their time to Student Nutrition Programs.

Layout and design by Amanda Jekums. Photos by Hayley Lapalme.

CONTACT DETAILS

Hayley Lapalme (B.A., M.Ed.) is a systems strategist and facilitator based out of the Centre for Social Innovation, 720 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2R4. Phone: 647-470-5389. Email: [email protected].

Wendy Smith is with St. Joseph’s Health System, Group Purchasing Organization (MEALsource), 99 Wayne Gretzky Parkway, Brantford, ON, N3S 6T6. Phone: 519.751.7096 x3045. Email: [email protected]

ONTARIO STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAMSExploring Local Food Group- Purchasing FrameworksBy Hayley LapalmePrepared for MEALsource with funding from the Local Food Fund

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

REPORT AUDIENCE This report is for stakeholders who may have a hand in shaping the future of food purchasing and logistics in Student Nutrition Programs, including the Ontario Student Nutrition Program Network; MEALsource; government ministries including but not limited to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; industry and community partners collaborating with SNPs; and the Food and Logistics Coordinators who are tackling logistics questions in their regions.

THE PROJECTThe 7-month research project was designed to understand the SNP system and context; to assess the opportunities and risks associated with group purchasing; and to explore what models of group purchasing would serve each context, including a hypothetical partnership with MEALsource. An emergent research approach included more than sixty informal stakeholder interviews, design jams as participatory sense-making processes, and the engagement of a design team in the analysis. A group purchasing pilot in one of the four studied regions emerged as an additional site of learning.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSISNine primary research findings emerged from the research into Student Nutrition Programs:

1. The network is decentralized.

2. Program delivery is complex and depends on interconnected elements.

3. Quality is inconsistent across programs.

4. The system depends on volunteers.

5. Purchasing is opportunistic.

6. Cash is not the only currency.

7. There is a conditional appetite for efficiency.

8. SNPs pursue tacit objectives beyond their mandate.

9. There is a gap between programs’ needs and supply chain capacity.

Insights were generated from each of these findings, as they related to the plausibility of group purchasing models in SNPs. Through further exploration, regional design jams, and a MEALsource group purchasing pilot with the Victorian Order of Nurses in the Southwest region, the research revealed a clear opportunity for group purchasing to enhance the delivery of SNPs.

The findings highlight the appetite for group purchasing models that find purchasing efficiencies that are regionally differentiated and build on the local context. Early evidence from the group purchasing pilot in the Southwest region shows signs of success that group purchasing increases access to more competitive pricing, program rebates, and delivery. Group purchasing is also a plausible strategy to leverage the collective voice and buying power of SNPs.

RECOMMENDATIONSGroup purchasing models provide a viable strategy to optimize both the efficiency and resilience of Ontario’s decentralized network of SNPS. Six recommendations are proposed to help navigate the complexity within SNPs when answering the question:

“How might we leverage the potential of group purchasing to enhance service delivery to SNPs, without compromising on their mandate or values?”

1. Enable the network to flourish.

2. Draw on the collective buying power of the network.

3. Prioritize network-wide learning to enhance consistency and quality of program delivery.

4. Take a holistic view: recognize the interconnection between student and community health.

5. Build on community assets first.

6. Recognize food as a site of learning.

Each recommendation is accompanied by a paradigm, the mental framework from which the recommendation emerged, such as valuing a systems approach over a siloed one; considering value in terms of nourishment rather than in terms of calories; or prioritizing local over global solutions. The recommendations are also accompanied by a set of actions and implications to be supported by policy-makers, SNP committees, staff, and volunteers.

CONCLUSIONThere is a strong case for group purchasing in SNPs. The findings and analysis from this research suggest that there will be no one size fits all model for SNP group purchasing, and that a networked approach to collaborative purchasing would enhance the capacity of this decentralized network of programs to meet the needs of the populations they serve. MEALsource will continue to support group purchasing efforts in the Southwest and wherever there is an appetite for them across SNPs. Policy-makers can play a critical role in refining and resourcing the vision for SNPs to build a more robust, resilient network of programs that empowers its staff, volunteers, partners, and eater-learners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Project rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Exploring analagous spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Findings and insights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A working group purchasing model in the southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Potential for group purchasing in other SNPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION 7

Ontario’s Student Nutrition Programs (SNPs) are a network of meal and snack programs with a mandate from the Ministry of Youth and Children’s Services (MCYS) to provide nutrition that supports learning. The SNP mandate is accompanied with funding intended to cover 15% of the cost of any program; other funders, schools, and community committees fundraising provide the balance. In 2013, MCYS provided funding for each Lead Agency to hire a Food and Logistics Coordinator (FLC), whose responsibilities centered on finding efficiencies in food purchasing and logistics.

Many pilot projects are underway across SNPs to explore more efficient purchasing practices. These include efforts to partner with local food hubs or community agencies, to bulk purchase through a food portal, or to secure opportunity agreements with manufacturers.However, none of these programs use existing group purchasing organizations, and none of them leverage the purchasing power of other public sectors. Group purchasing is a procurement model used in other public sectors, but to date few SNPs have taken advantage of the cost and time savings that come with buying food in bulk through negotiation and contracting. MEALsource is a non-profit group purchasing organization serving health care. The volumes of food purchased in the healthcare sector allow hospitals and long-term care homes to negotiate food prices that SNPs could not achieve on their own. They recognized a possible opportunity to support the mandate of SNPs to more efficiently source local food.

SNPs refers to the thousands of individual Student Nutrition Programs around the province.

OSNPN refers to the formal Ontario Student Nutrition Program Network.

GPOs are group purchasing organizations, specifically in reference to MEALsource.

MCYS is the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

FLCs are the 14 Food and Logistics Coordinators embedded in the 14 Lead Agencies serving each SNP jurisdiction in the province.

Program coordinators are the paid or volunteer SNP leads in each school.

CDCs are Community Development Coordinators that support program coordinators at the regional level.

KEY TERMS

MEALsourceMEALsource is a non-profit group purchasing organization serving health care. They are an established leader in sourcing local food through the contracting process. They serve thirty-three health care members in contracting manufacturers and distributors in a two-step Request for Proposal (RFP) process. MEALsource has leveraged the buying power and interest of its members to focus on sourcing more local foods. In 2011, MEALsource developed Ontario’s first foodservice RFP that requires vendors to identify local foods in their bids. This not only allowed MEALsource to increase their member’s spend on local foods, it also allows them to track local purchases.

SNP HISTORYThe history of school-based nutrition programs long precedes MCYS’s involvement. Networks of school staff and volunteers have provided snacks and meals for decades. When MCYS became a partner, it divided the province into fourteen administrative regions, contracting a Lead Agency in each to manage the funding to SNPs. Three principles guide the network: universal access to programs; provision of safe and nutritious food; and community involvement. Sourcing Ontario food first, when possible, was also part of the mandate.

PROJECT RATIONALE

PROJECT RATIONALE 9

PROJECT RATIONALEThere is potential for SNPs to utilize group purchasing to stretch their food dollars and help them improve their access to local foods. In the context of the Local Food Act, which may require public institutions like schools to set and report on local food purchasing targets, and their growing capacity in connecting Ontario institutions with Ontario vendors, MEALsource set out to explore how group purchasing models might enhance the delivery of SNPs. This research project would allow SNPs, which are typically grassroots initiatives with limited capacity for coordinating procurement logistics, to explore and possibly pilot group purchasing models.

The timing of the project coincides with a high degree of interest from MCYS in the future of SNPs. They have committed considerable resources to SNPs through funding for the role of regional Food and Logistics Coordinators and by contracting an independent assessment of the current service delivery model.

With funding from the Local Food Fund, this study set out to explore the feasibility of group purchasing frameworks for SNPs. The working hypothesis was that group purchasing could enable SNPs to access the industry’s most competitive food costs for commonly purchased items, stretching limited budgets further, and enable SNPs to put the savings toward sourcing unique, regional foods that could not access through the GPO.

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY 11

METHODOLOGYThis research project started as an initiative of MEALsource to explore the feasibility of group purchasing in Ontario Student Nutrition Programs. Funding was awarded from the Local Food Fund and an independent research manager was hired to lead the project in May 2015. A participatory and emergent research approach was taken to invite and engage interested members of Ontario’s fourteen Student Nutrition Program Lead Agencies. Four of fourteen regions accepted an invitation to participate: Southwest, Central East, Ottawa, and Timmins. The goal of the project was to understand the SNP system and context; to assess the opportunities and risks associated with group purchasing; and to explore what models of group purchasing would serve each context, including a hypothetical partnership with MEALsource.

The guiding research questions were:

• What are the current realities and priorities for SNPs? (What can we learn?)

• How might group purchasing enhance service delivery in SNPs? (What can we offer?)

• What would group purchasing models look like? (What could we co-create?)

A variety of qualitative data collection methods were used during research. Informal interviews were conducted with Lead Agency managers, FLCs, and key local stakeholders in each region, which included Community Development Coordinators (CDCs), school-level program coordinators, SNP committee members, and a limited number of industry supply-chain partners of SNPs. The anonymity of key informants was protected, with identifying features removed except with permission to discuss findings specific to a given region. Regional reports, survey results, and case studies were also used to develop the research team’s understanding of the local context.

Members of a five person design team supporting the research manager acted as key listeners on two to three interviews each. Interviews from each region were synthesized and the design team discussed the early findings. The research manager led the team through a series of activities to develop the group’s understanding of the local context. These included making empathy maps for key stakeholders in SNPs; exploring trends using the STEEPV framework (identifying social, technological, economic, environmental, political, and values trends); generating insights about the SNP context; and exploring possible future scenarios within which SNPs might operate. Health care foodservice was also explored as an analogous space from which to generate insights that might carry-over to school nutrition. Following initial interviews, the Southwest region expressed interest in piloting a group purchasing partnership with MEALsource. A pilot design that linked into the region’s existing purchasing portal and local distribution capacity was prototyped. Testing started in October 2015 and is underway. This pilot was an emergent outcome of the research and became an additional research site. In the other three participating regions, design jams were used as a participatory analysis process following the interviews. These were co-hosted by the FLC and research manager, with participants from the local SNPs and MEALsource. The purpose was to validate and expand upon findings emerging from the research; to explore questions around group purchasing; and to generate possible group purchasing models that would suit the context of the local region. Design principles were proposed by the research manager, discussed by the group, and guided conversation to draw out various purchasing models that included various configurations of stakeholders. The participatory approach enabled SNP stakeholders to participate in sense-making and analysis, and to draw from the experience of the research team in an exploration of models that would serve their region. Next steps were co-defined by the participants.

Finally, research findings were distilled from analysis of the questionnaire, document review, informal interviews, design team activities, conversations with the FLCs and MEALsource, validation at the regional design jams, and early insights from the Southwest pilot. Read more about the participatory and emergent research approach in the full-length methodology included in Appendix A.

EXPLORING ANALAGOUS SPACES

EXPLORING ANALAGOUS SPACES 13

FOOD IN HEALTH CAREHealth care, much like student nutrition programs, lies within the public sector and serves some of the most vulnerable populations. Health care uses a number of group purchasing strategies to meet the nutritional needs of its patients, and provides an analogous space within which to explore some of the opportunities and risks of emulating group purchasing in SNPs. Throughout the research process, we held the question, “What can we learn from health care’s experience delivering nutrition programs in a resource strained environment?” See Appendix B for a table of insights generated from lessons from healthcare.

FOOD IN SCHOOLS: CURRENT STATE OF GROUP PURCHASING EFFORTS IN SNPSThe efforts of the Food and Logistic Coordinators (FLCs) vary across the studied regions, as do the capacities and competencies around the provision of food in each region. Schools offer an array of meal and snack programs, such as hot/cold sit down breakfast, grab ‘n’ go, backpack, lunch, and classroom bin programs. Schools rely on a blended approach to purchasing that typically includes a mix of retail, wholesale, and delivery. Program delivery happens in concert with program staff, volunteers, teachers, principals, and community partners. Common limiting factors across the programs were challenges associated with shortages or variability to one or more of the essential elements of a well-rounded program:

• volunteer/staff engagement;

• program budgets;

• cold and dry storage;

• food preparation infrastructure in schools;

• affordable local distribution networks; and

• training and engagement.

To varying degrees across programs, the idea of group purchasing (pooling food volumes across many schools) has been accepted as a plausible route to achieving purchasing efficiencies and to addressing these challenges. Many SNPs have already undertaken projects or pilots that have characteristics of group purchasing. See Appendix C for a summary table of highlights from current efforts toward group purchasing in the studied regions. Many SNP regions outside this project also have their own group purchasing pilots underway.

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 15

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS

Across the studied regions, nine major thematic findings and insights emerged, for consideration in the design of new purchasing models for SNPs.

1. The network is decentralized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2. Program delivery is complex and depends on interconnected elements . .18

3. Quality is inconsistent across programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

4. The system depends on volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

5. Purchasing is opportunistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

6. Cash is not the only currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

7. There is a conditional appetite for efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

8. SNPs pursue tacit objectives beyond their mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

9. There is a gap between programs’ needs and supply chain capacity. . . . . .32


Program delivery and food procurement decisions are decentralized across SNPs. Decentralized decision making contributes to a strong sense of local ownership, pride, and dedication to programs. Programs are the product of a unique local combination of resources, creativity, and partnerships. SNPs have a strong local character, and no two programs are the same. Decentralized decision-making within SNPs allows programs to be responsive to local needs, opportunities, and challenges. Program volunteers and staff have specialized knowledge about their schools and communities and have a high degree of ownership over their school food programs. They use their discretion to determine how to allocate resources, plan menus, shop for food, and build community partnerships to serve their schools and communities. They are familiar with the culture and preference profile at their schools, and are able to purchase, prepare, and serve foods that are appropriate for their students, and that their students will try and enjoy. Schools vary in the rate of adoption of new pilots or partnerships offered to them by FLCs. Within the context of decentralized decision-making there are opportunities for increased network-wide efficiencies.

1.THE NETWORK IS DECENTRALIZED

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 17‘‘ ALLOWING FOR REGIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN DECISION-MAKING IN ALL SUB-SYSTEMS IS CENTRAL TO OUR NETWORK.”

“We deal with a lot of ages, backgrounds, parts of town…It’s important we keep the individuality of the menu, that it not be a cookie cutter approach.”

Insights>> The decentralized, autonomous nature of SNPs contributes to their

resilience. Through flexible program designs, local partnerships, built-in redundancies, and high degree of local ownership of programs, SNPs have cultivated a network of resilient and adaptive programs that are uniquely positioned to respond to local needs and opportunities.

>> The SNP skill set is localized, experience-based and opportunistic, with a culture of frontline ownership over programs. The design of new purchasing models should reflect the culture of these programs, and engage frontline stakeholders across the change-making process, where there is capacity and willingness. Though there is some resistance to change at the local level, there is also an appetite for pilot experiments that would improve programs.

>> Menus are a key point of leverage wrapped up in the identity and culture of programs. Centralizing menus is disempowering, but encouraging their use at the school level helped schools to manage their budgets and meal planning across the year.

>> There will be no one size fits all model to enhance service delivery in SNPs due to structural and capacity differences across programs.

>> There are more opportunities for knowledge sharing to strengthen the network. There are redundancies across the network in menu-planning, sourcing, fundraising, program delivery, and partnership building. These redundancies are essential and allow for regional differentiation across the network. However, stakeholders often pursue similar objectives in isolation from one another without sharing lessons and practices. More work can be done to identify shared objectives and differences within and across regional nodes of the network to enable more learning and collaboration.

SNP STAKEHOLDERS SAID:


The interplay of five key resources determines the nature of each program: program budgets, staff/volunteers, storage capacity, food preparation infrastructure, and local distribution capacity. The unique combination of these five resources determines which foods are offered and how they are served. Additionally, community partnerships and program geography affect the character and success of programs. Depending on the resources available, programs fulfill their mandate to provide a universal program to support learning in an array of configurations. Schools abundant with financial resources have the most flexibility in designing their programs. Schools abundant with volunteers are the most versatile and can survive on smaller program budgets because volunteers can take on duties such as shopping and preparation of nutritious meals using low-cost, high-prep ingredients. Schools abundant with storage have reduced financial pressure because they can accept food donations, stock up when grocers offer deals, and take advantage of discounts from bulk purchasing. Schools abundant with food preparation infrastructure can rely less on costly processed or ready-to-eat foods. Schools in regions abundant with local distribution capacity can access delivery and rely less on volunteers to do the shopping.

2.PROGRAM DELIVERY IS COMPLEX AND DEPENDS ON INTERCONNECTED ELEMENTS

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 19‘‘EVERY PROGRAM MAKES DO WITH WHAT THEY HAVE. WE HAVE ONLY EVER CLOSED A PROGRAM ONCE. IT CLOSED FOR SIX MONTHS AND THEN THE SECRETARY TOOK IT ON TO MAKE IT RUN AGAIN. THESE ARE SOME DIE-HARD LOVING PEOPLE.”

“You can tell the difference with schools that do and don’t have volunteers. Menus get more repetitive with the low-prep things if they don’t have volunteers.”

‘‘We turn down donations because we have no way to store them.”

Insights>> No single stakeholder can re-invent the system, due to its complexity.

There is no single actor with sufficient legitimacy, urgency or power to shift the system.

>> The resourcefulness of program coordinators allows under-resourced programs to survive - and even thrive. Decentralized decision-making allows coordinators to self-organize and creatively harness available resources in a configuration that suits the local context.

>> Community partnerships and volunteer training are key points of leverage to develop the capacities of SNPs and increase value from existing resources. Thoughtful community partnerships and well trained volunteers are the most versatile assets of SNPs. Leadership from highly food literate volunteers or community partners appears to be a determining factor in the quality of food served in programs. As the backbone of programs, volunteers and partners - and their training - should be measured and tracked by MCYS and relevant government ministries.



Programs meet a baseline need for access to food, but quality varies with capacity across programs. Most SNPs are running near or at capacity. Quality varies across programs and regions in terms of the types of foods offered to students and the amount of attention given during snacks or meal-time. Inconsistent food dollars translate to inconsistent access to fresh, whole foods and a greater reliance on processed foods. Inconsistent volunteer capacity can affect attention and programming around meal-time, and can lead to a greater reliance on processed foods. Schools reliant on donations have little leverage to determine the types of foods entering their school, and are less likely to offer fresh, whole foods in their programs. Northern, rural, and remote areas appeared the most strained. They reported the fewest pilot projects and partnerships and were the most vocal about their need for better purchasing and logistics models. Some regions reported running programs on as little as $0.18 per meal. Conversely, schools in urban centres and more economically prosperous regions reported more partnerships, superior ability to fundraise and to seek contributions from parents and community partners.

3.QUALITY IS INCONSISTENT ACROSS PROGRAMS

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 21‘‘ WE SERVE A VERY BIG GEOGRAPHY. IT’S AN UNDERSERVICED REGION WITH A HIGHER RATE OF POVERTY. OUR POPULATION IS DECLINING. FUNDRAISING HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE. THE POWER OF THE DOLLAR IS MAXIMIZED TO A HIGH DEGREE HERE.”

“Some of the foods that meet the Nutrition Guidelines, we wouldn’t want to have around. But they’re free or cheap – and they’re easy.”

‘‘I wish we weren’t using these [granola bars], but you can’t say no to food that comes in free.”

Insights>> The Nutrition Guidelines are contested and do not meet the

expectations of all program staff and volunteers. Strained programs are forced to meet the demand for programs with foods of contested nutritional and educational value.

>> SNPs excel when they are integrated with a local food network. Where available, integration with local food networks appears to increase a program’s options and the quality of foods served. Programs that do not have access to a local network may benefit from developing stronger interconnections among and between surrounding food stakeholders.

>> Regional SNP committees are a point of leverage to address inequity in program offerings. These committees are familiar with the local context and are well-poised to advocate for the interests of their schools both within the OSNPN and outside, to partners.

>> Reliance on donations compromises the quality of foods schools serve. The more autonomy programs have through funding or partnerships, the greater the degree of self-determination around acceptable foods.

>> The role of food in learning is not recognized and contributes to inconsistent program offerings. The MCYS mandate to SNPs allows food to be decoupled food learning. The focus on providing a universal program within the context of strained, inconsistent access to resources creates tiered program offerings.

>> Prioritizing local solutions could help to overcome the disparity between SNP regions by contributing to the development of local capacity, particularly in the most stressed programs that are typically in rural, remote, or more economically depressed regions.



Parents, community members, and school staff volunteer their time to deliver all aspects of programs, from menu-planning and shopping to program delivery.At the core of SNPs are the volunteers. Volunteers plan, shop, prepare, and serve program meals and snacks. Their gas mileage and time are often unremunerated. On the balance-sheet, volunteers are the invisible workforce behind SNPs. Often they pre-date Ministerial involvement in school food programs. Volunteers express a high degree of ownership over programs. They are savvy shoppers who stretch available dollars and resourcefully plan meals. They are on the ground, connecting with students. Volunteers are familiar with the local context and the needs of the populations they serve. Not all volunteers are equal, however. Volunteers vary in their skill level, consistency, and knowledge of nutritious meal planning. There can be a lot of turnover among volunteers, resistance to change, or difficulty complying with Nutrition Guidelines.

4.THE SYSTEM DEPENDS ON VOLUNTEERS

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 23‘‘ IF WE DISRUPT THE MODEL WE’VE BUILT ON VOLUNTEERS FOR 25 YEARS, IT BETTER WORK… WE CAN’T TAKE PURCHASING AWAY FROM SCHOOLS, TRY SOMETHING THAT TURNS OUT TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE, THEN GO AND ASK THEM TO TAKE IT BACK.”

“The volunteer hours are astronomical, but it varies school by school; some are great, some are difficult, and it’s difficult to get consistency. We need more training, and often, more parent engagement. But everyone is overstretched.”

‘‘We tried a central menu, but it didn’t work for the volunteers - without them, there’s not a program.”

Insights>> Volunteers are the backbone of SNPs. With the exception of schools

who have paid staff like educational assistants, guidance counsellors, or secretaries supporting programs, the implementation of most programs relies on volunteers. Even in these schools, the human hours contributed to programs tends to exceed the responsibilities of staff. In the current configuration of SNPs, most programs would not run without volunteers.

>> The culture of volunteerism in SNPs is strong and localized. Volunteers have a relationship with the schools they serve and have a high degree of ownership over local processes and outcomes. As frontline decision makers, volunteers have considerable leverage at the local level in SNPs. Programs could benefit from recruitment and training strategies that ensure volunteer roles are regarded as meaningful commitments within the community.

>> There is a mismatch between volunteers’ roles with their interests and skills. Volunteers often manage food procurement and logistics, even when this is not a core competency or interest of theirs. If alternative strategies could be found for procurement and logistics, volunteer roles could be better aligned with their skills. Training could enhance the contributions volunteers make in these roles.



Programs chase deals to make sure there is enough food to go around.The cost-effective provision of safe food is the first priority of programs. Programs take a blended, opportunistic approach to purchasing that almost always includes volunteers going grocery shopping. Volunteers frequently price shop for deals and coupon-clip, where there is the option. Schools seek out the most cost effective mix of purchasing strategies to procure food. Typically, volunteers visit one or more retailer on average once a week to procure food. At some schools, this is supplemented with delivery. Many schools benefit from partnerships with farmers, organizations like Breakfast Club of Canada, or local service organizations to enhance their access to food. Most schools rely on shopping at one or more retailers and may benefit from some preferential treatment from these retailers, such as a 5% discount or pre-packed orders that are ready for pickup. This price-sensitive, opportunistic approach to purchasing enables schools to deliver programs on small budgets, consistently across the year. Socially conscious sourcing practices are secondary to meeting students’ demand in programs.

5.PURCHASING IS OPPORTUNISTIC

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 25‘‘ WE USUALLY USE THE PURCHASING PORTAL FOR CHEESE, BUT WHEN IT’S ON SALE IN STORES WE WILL GET IT THERE INSTEAD.”

“The money issue is so big that unless you can beat the prices given by the local retailers [No Frills], it’s going to be a hard sell to any of our schools.” “We don’t just want to be trucking cheaper food up from Southern Ontario. It’s not always the freshest when it gets here and it take business away from our retailers.”

‘‘We want affordable pricing, but we don’t want more pressure for food to be cheap.”

Insights>> Schools are scrambling to meet the need. SNP programs pride

themselves on being able to offer a universal program to students; but they have to stretch their resources to meet the need. Creative and price sensitive sourcing strategies undertaken at the school-level are near capacity.

>> Collaborative purchasing, as a thoughtful and proactive strategy, may have many benefits. Collaborative purchasing efforts could enable SNPs to access better pricing, delivery, consistent supply, and greater influence over the types and qualities of foods available to them. Schools are experimenting with the potential of collaborative purchasing, but more education could be done to raise awareness around the extensive potential of coordinated demand to influence access to nourishing food for all programs.

>> A culture of cheap purchasing dominates schools, rather than of empowered purchasing. Without a clear mandate that links food and education, SNPs encourage a race to the bottom for cheap food. Schools do not have the resources or incentives to enable them to prioritize whole fresh, local, and sustainable foods.

>> Measures of the social impact of school food purchases should be tracked. Programs reported an interest in having a positive social impact through their purchasing. However, few distinctions were made between a relationship with a local discount grocer versus with a local farmer. To harness the potential of school spending as a secondary priority of SNPs, an evaluation of school spending would allow more strategic spending to invest in the development of local food security.



Programs’ blended approach to purchasing draws on multiple currencies.Cash is only one of many currencies used in SNPs. Major sources of funding come from MCYS, fundraising, and grants. These dollars allow programs to use cash or credit to buy food from retail and distributor channels. But alternative forms of tied currency are bountiful in SNPS. Gift cards, coupons, loyalty point cards, grocery vouchers, and gifted credits on portals are common forms of currency used to purchase food. These are tied to the issuer, restricting where they can be used. Partnerships with local agencies, farmers, and associations are additional sources of in-kind donations and support. They may contribute farm fresh product, donated food, access to food baskets, or staff time to help in programs. These are often long-standing relationships and offer a social safety net for programs to lean into when cash is short.

6.CASH IS NOT THE ONLY CURRENCY

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 27‘‘ GROCERY FOUNDATION VOUCHERS ARE AMAZING. THEY DOUBLE OUR MONEY.”

“We have one volunteer who knows the coupons so well, when she shows up at the till with a cart of cheese, the cashier is handing her money.” “When I asked people if they’d take part of the purchasing pilot they said ‘No’ because they already had relationships set up, and those meant more to them than the pilot.”

‘‘We can’t use our gift cards on the online purchasing portal.”

Insights>> The various currencies of SNPs are a key consideration in designing a

collaborative purchasing intervention. The design of new collaborative purchasing arrangement must account for the fact that a significant proportion of school’s purchasing resources are not liquid and cannot be easily transferred.

>> The use of many currencies affects programs’ resilience and flexibility in spending. Where programs have a high degree of interconnection with their local community, for example through agreements with local producers or retailers, they may be more resilient to changes in cash flow. Where programs are isolated from the community or local food networks, a shortage of cash could increase food insecurity.

>> A currency exchange may allow programs to capture more value from their assets. Where multiple currencies are used (such as vouchers, points, or gift cards), value may be left on the table. It may be worthwhile to set up an exchange. For example, schools that will not use up certain vouchers could trade another school for their gift cards.



There is a tension between school’s desire for efficiency and for autonomy in developing a context-specific response.

SNPs have an appetite for more consistent delivery that better manages risk, volunteer time, and food spending. However, this appetite for efficiency and consistency is conditional on maintaining ownership over decision-making at the regional level. There are multiple FLC-led purchasing and logistics pilot projects in almost every region studied. Existing pilot projects and opportunity agreements across programs ubiquitously center on making delivery possible and on relying less on volunteers. Volunteer purchasing can be inconsistent, difficult to track, and often includes volunteers transporting large volumes of heavy groceries in the backseat of their cars. Meeting minimum orders and delivery fees are barriers to working with distributors.

7.THERE IS A CONDITIONAL APPETITE FOR EFFICIENCY

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 29‘‘ RELYING ON TEACHERS AND VOLUNTEERS [TO SHOP FOR AND RUN PROGRAMS] IS BECOMING UNMANAGEABLE. THE MODELS WE’RE EXPLORING WON’T SAVE US MONEY, THEY WILL LIFT THE LOAD OFF VOLUNTEERS.”

“Our local dairy distributor brings our orders right to the fridge!” “One program coordinator was lugging in 4L milk bags for 100 kids… she had to take time off from a sore back.”

‘‘Only large schools were able to take advantage of the bulk purchasing pilot because of the minimum orders. Most Northern schools are small and can’t meet the minimums…. It can be cheaper to buy at the store because things go on sale. But we need volunteer power to do this.”

Insights>> Any group purchasing efforts should build on the local context, drawing

on local infrastructure and capacity. New procurement logistics models should optimize the trade-off between SNPs’ decentralized, regionally responsive structure and seek efficiencies that leverage the capacity of the network.

>> New procurement logistics models requires volunteers’ reimagination of their roles. Much of the resistance to new models of procurement come from volunteers, who feel a high degree of ownership over programs. Engaging volunteers and frontline staff in the re-imagination of their roles will provide insights to enable the successful development and implementation of new models of procurement.



Mandated or not, food (il)literacy is being taught through SNPs.

The role of food in education is not explicitly recognized in the mandate of SNPs. However, nearly every program revealed the connection between food and learning. Nearly all programs are adding value beyond their mandate by delivering programs through the tacit pursuit of food literacy in the populations they serve - and sometimes, even of the volunteers. But schools are weary of acknowledging their formal and informal efforts to develop food literacy since it is not resourced or mandated.

8.SNPS PURSUE TACIT OBJECTIVES BEYOND THEIR MANDATE

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 31‘‘ OUR HANDS ARE TIED. IT’S NOT IN OUR MANDATE TO DO FOOD LITERACY, BUT WE KNOW WHEN OUR STUDENTS ARE BETTER EDUCATED TO MAKE GOOD CHOICES, THEY DO BETTER.”

“Food knowledge is the key to food security. We want the kids to build some knowledge – try avocado on toast instead of butter - the programming piece is very important.”

‘‘It would help our programs to see that they are not just doing their programs in isolation… to see it as a bigger movement for nutritious food for learning – and sharing the resources around that.”

Insights>> SNPs are a bridge between school and students’ needs, government,

and private sector interests. In addition to supporting student learning, SNPs are an opportunity to address population level health outcomes, to support thoughtful community development, and to build community food security. Acknowledgement from all stakeholders of the role that school food plays in modelling healthy eating and living for students could enhance the outcomes from SNPs.

>> The purchasing structure behind SNPs affects learning in SNPs. Food sourcing models affects the types of foods available in schools. Group purchasing models could enhance access to sustainable local food through collaborative purchasing, or it could centralize purchasing that reinforces the distance between producer and eater.

>> Food literacy outcomes can be increased through SNPs. More resources for SNPs to enhance access to food, variety, and coordinator training could increase food literacy outcomes seen in SNPs.



Local, scale-appropriate supply chain solutions for SNPs are underdeveloped.

There is a mismatch of scale and language between schools and industry. Schools use small volumes of food that do not meet food service industry order minimums. They often lack the budgets or storage to make larger orders, meaning delivery is out of reach. When it comes to ordering, industry terminology and processes must often be translated into plain-languages for staff and volunteers, often by FLCs or community partners. FLCs play a critical role in aggregating school volumes and translating their orders into industry terms. Where this has been successful, SNP group purchasing pilots have shown early signs of success that aggregated volumes make delivery possible and a greater variety of foods available to schools.

9.THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN PROGRAMS’ NEEDS AND SUPPLY CHAIN CAPACITY

FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS 33‘‘ IN FOOD SUPPLY, PEOPLE EXPECT CERTAIN SCHEDULES AND SPEAK A CERTAIN LANGUAGE. THERE’S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF LANGUAGE AND PRIORITIES. THAT’S PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIG CHALLENGES WHY DIRECT SUPPLY [OPPORTUNITY AGREEMENTS] HAVEN’T BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL AS WE’D HOPED.”

“The orders are translated by [the FLC], and placed by the health unit, to save schools the hassle of dealing directly with Canada Bread.”

‘‘Many volunteers don’t have food sourcing expertise, so learning how to deal with a distributor is a challenge.”

Insights>> FLCs and community agencies act as translators between SNP demand

and supply. Without training, SNP staff and volunteers may lack the training to effectively manage relationships with industry partners. Some capacity within SNPs, for example among FLCs, enables better communication with industry.

>> Volume incentives may encourage industry partners to develop the capacity to respond to SNP demand. Through aggregated volumes, SNPs are more likely to attract the interest of industry in their business. These industry partners would need to develop an understanding of schools’ needs and capacity.

>> Existing distribution capacity can be leveraged and developed. Local distributors, warehouses, manufacturers, and other community partners may have under-utilized resources or undeveloped business potential they can position to serve schools.


ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS 35

OPPORTUNITIES RISKS

OPPORTUNITIES RISKSOPPORTUNITIES RISKS

OPPORTUNITIES RISKS

ANALYSISThere is a clear opportunity for group purchasing to enhance the delivery of SNPs. Group purchasing is a way of leveraging the collective voice and buying power of a group of institutions with similar values, such as SNPs. The findings highlight the appetite for group purchasing models that find purchasing efficiencies that are regionally differentiated and build on the local context. There is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all model or a single actor that will satisfy the needs of SNPs without compromising the resilience of the network. Group purchasing models that involve collaborations with local partners offer possibilities for SNPs to find efficiencies in logistics and savings around commonly purchased items. The best-suited regions for a group purchasing pilot program are those that have not yet found strategies to capitalize on the collective buying power of SNPs in the region.

There are many plausible models for SNPs to aggregate volumes for efficiencies, as evidenced by the early success of the MEALsource group purchasing pilot in the Southwest and a number of additional pilots ongoing across the OSNPN, notably the FoodReach pilot in Toronto (outside the scope of this research) and the Ontario Student Nutrition Services pilot in Simcoe. In a group purchasing model with MEALsource, SNPs could aggregate volumes with health care member volumes to achieve preferable pricing, benefit from the same rebate programs, and expand on the existing broadline distribution network through partnership with a local distributor that would carry the product the last mile. In addition to purchasing efficiencies and delivery, group purchasing enables SNPs to be more proactive with purchasing, by seeking greater influence over the choices available to them. See the table Unpacking the Benefits of Group Purchasing (in Appendix F). For more details on MEALsource’s group purchasing model see Appendix D Conversation with MEALsource’s Wendy Smith.

UNPACKING THE BENEFITS OF GROUP PURCHASINGOpportunities and risks of the four primary benefits of group purchasing.

> “Best value” may be conflated with “low cost” if values are not clear in purchasing criteria; otherwise a risk it may reinforce a culture of cheap food.

> May displace demand for local producers, processors, and retailers.

> May displace local fundraising or partnership efforts.

> Savings from group purchasing may not be spent in the local economy, as hypothesized.

> Savings and rebates can be spent on local foods and specialty items.

> Rebates go back to programs to enhance food choices or service.

> Access to existing infrastructure and capacity around contracted purchasing.

> Increased ability to deliver a universal program from September to June.

BETTER PRICING AND REBATES

> May affect diversity in sourcing options.

> May decrease flexibility for ad-hoc offerings from local partners.

> Food safety from established, vetted supply chains.

> Increased ability to plan menus and manage budgets.

> More predictability and better allocation of time to meaningful tasks.

MORE CONSISTANT SUPPLY

> Reliance on mainstream distribution networks.

> Better allocation of volunteer time, i.e. more time in-schools, less in stores.

> Better management of cold chain on perishables.

> Investment in regional distribution networks.

ACCESS TO DELIVERY

> None of the possible abilities are used.

> Illusion of choice is actually access to generic, mainstream brands.

> Ability to demand local foods.

> Ability to production plan with farmers.

> Ability to influence production practices and sourcing.

> Ability to secure competitive pricing and distribution even for the smallest and most remote schools.

> Ability to more thoughtfully plan menus for students.

> Ability to plan for and manage social impact of purchasing.

GREATER INFLUENCE IN PURCHASING/VALUE CHAIN

A WORKING GROUP PURCHASING MODEL IN THE SOUTHWEST

A WORKING GROUP PURCHASING MODEL IN THE SOUTHWEST 37

A WORKING GROUP PURCHASING MODEL IN THE SOUTHWESTMEALsource’s group purchasing pilot with the Southwest provides early signs of success of such a model. In the Southwest, SNPs are accessing MEALsource pricing and delivery through a partnership with Evan’s Wholesale, a local partner with existing distribution capacity. SNPs place orders through a pre-existing purchasing portal run by the Lead Agency, which lists a different weekly product mix to ensure variety and that minimum order sizes are met. Evan’s Wholesale sends the order to MEALsource’s mainline distribution partner, and sources the balance of non-MEALsource products through pre-existing channels. The mainline distributor delivers the order to Evan’s Wholesale, who picks and packs it, then carries it “the last mile” to schools. The schools pay Evan’s Wholesale, who then pays the distributor. Velocity reports are sent to the FLC, along with the financial rebates from contract programs, which are paid by the manufacturer when contracts complete. These financial rebates can be allocated by the FLC at her discretion. For more details on the first MEALsource-VON partnership in the Southwest, see the next page.

EARLY RESULTS FROM THE MEALSOURCE-VON GROUP PURCHASING PILOT, FALL 2015

The Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) SNP lead agency in the Southwest initiated a pilot with MEALsource as part of this research project. The VON expanded upon a pre-existing pilot in place in the Southwest: the Ontario Student Nutrition Bulk Food Purchasing and delivery program, started in September 2014. The initial pilot led by the VON demonstrated the capacity of Evan’s Wholesale to act as a strong local distribution partner, able to provide a high level of customer service that was responsive to the needs of schools. Evan’s Wholesale drew on many channels to source the dairy, produce, and shelf-stable items, including making their own trips to grocery stores to complete an order. Stacey Evans of Evan’s Wholesale reflected that, “Last year it was hard for me to get enough volume. Sometimes I was running to the grocery store. Whatever we had to do to get the volume to schools, we would do. It was a pilot and we were willing to make it work.”

Starting in October 2015 with the MEALsource pilot, Evan’s Wholesale’s distribution role continues, with a greater proportion of the foods delivered arriving at their warehouse through MEALsource’s distribution partner. “Cost savings to our SNP schools are greater with the availability of MEALSource,” reported Jillian McCallum of the VON Lead Agency. Cost savings for commonly purchased items, like yogurt tubes, range between $0.23-$2.62 per tube. “It’s been a huge savings internally, even time-wise… I loved the model with MEALsource. We don’t have the capacity to build those relationships with all the groups they are working with – we don’t have the time or capacity. Evan’s Wholesale is also happy with the arrangement. “We sorted out a few bumps getting started related to school volumes, but it’s very exciting, there is so much potential here. All in all I think it is a fantastic program,” said Stacey Evans.

The percentage of schools participating in the purchasing pilot has increased from 71% to 83% in Erie St. Clair Schools (Windsor, Chatham, Sarnia) between the 2014 and 2015

school years, and from 84% to 92% in Thames Valley schools (London, Oxford, Elgin) for the same period. Food volumes purchased through the portal has also been increasing during the 2015 MEALsource pilot. From the first to second month of the MEALsource pilot, dairy purchases increased from $7,900 in October to $11,700 in November. For the same period, the value of pantry products increased from $10,300 to $11,100. The pilot with MEALsource has also expanded the product offering to schools by four items, though to date, none of them are local foods.

“The savings will decrease pressure on us, but there won’t be anything left over. If there is a product schools can’t usually purchase, like pineapple, now they could splurge and integrate more of those higher priced, higher prep items more often.” The integration of higher prep items still depends on having a solid volunteer base, something that is not consistent across the Southwest.

“Volunteers have expressed that with time saved shopping, they can devote more time to plan menus and prepare meals. The product offering is posted online two weeks in advance; therefore careful meal/snack planning is needed to support the intended items available for purchasing and delivery. Our hopes are that with time saved through using the system, they are also able to focus their time on fundraising to help offset the funding shortfall, and to address the role of food education.”

The Chatham-Kent region of the Southwest was identified as having one of the lowest rates of consumption of fruit and vegetables across Ontario, and it has been a priority region for the Lead Agency. “This year is Phase 3 of Farm to School in Chatham Kent – we are focusing on food literacy - we are not sure what it looks like yet but we are trying to figure it out.” When asked about the five-year vision for the pilot, McCallum said, “A marriage between our Farm to School program, the MEALsource portal, and food literacy would be awesome.”

A WORKING GROUP PURCHASING MODEL IN THE SOUTHWEST 39

KEY ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS IN THE SOUTHWESTGroup purchasing requires an appetite for collaboration and experimen-tation. These were present in the Southwest, along with three elements that were key for the implementation of the MEALsource pilot: an ordering system, a local distributor able to go “the last mile,” and a central facilitator.

Ordering System: The VON Lead Agency had experience aggregating demand from its SNPs, and was able to use their pre-existing online purchasing portal. The portal simplifies the task for the network facilitator to communicate orders to the distributor. The VON’s internal portal is seen as a critical advantage for the SNPs, giving them autonomy to manage product offerings, supplier relationships, and reporting. For example, the VON listed products available from multiple channels, not just from one distributor – all of which were delivered by Evan’s. The alternative to portal ownership by the lead agency is a distributor- or broker-owned portal, but this may limit the functionality of the portal for SNPs.Without an online portal, possible options to aggregate demand are through email or faxed orders, or to creatively use online surveys tools such as Google Forms, Eventbrite, or Liquid Surveys.

Local Distributor: Evan’s Wholesale, acting as the local distributor, had pre-existing knowledge of SNPs and had an appetite to expand their service offering to meet the needs of schools. They offered a tailored service, receiving orders from MEALsource’s broadline distributors and repacking it for multiple drops to schools. A local distributor may also have the capacity to receive and deliver food from additional suppliers from the local food network, such as from local producers.

Central Facilitator: The VON, as the facilitator of this network, acted as a translator between schools and industry. The VON has further potential to leverage the online ordering platform as a communication and organizing tool for SNPs, enabling knowledge sharing between members to leverage the potential of the network. As the facilitator, the VON also receives the program rebates from MEALsource, and can decide to redistribute them across the network or use them centrally to subsidize future orders or build network capacity. Ultimately, the central facilitator is the hub of information for the local network. They play a critical role in ensuring information flows are enabling for the network.

POTENTIAL FOR GROUP PURCHASING IN OTHER SNPS

POTENTIAL FOR GROUP PURCHASING IN OTHER SNPS 41

POTENTIAL FOR GROUP PURCHASING IN OTHER SNPSIn each of the four regions studied, group purchasing models were discussed. Interviews with stakeholders in the Central East, Southwest, and Timmins regions revealed an appetite to investigate what group purchasing models might look like. Design Jams were held to explore various configurations of resources and partners that would best suit the needs of the region. A pilot with MEALsource was discussed as part of a strategy to optimize the unique mix of local capacity and demand in each region; an array of partnership configurations emerged and are being discussed in these three regions where group purchasing could meet a local need for better pricing, logistical support, delivery, or diversity in supplier relationships. The Southwest pilot with MEALsource launched in September, with discussion in the Central East and Timmins regions circling around the need for a local distribution partner to carry product the “last mile.”

Interviews with stakeholders in Ottawa revealed existing efforts with a local food hub, Just Food, were underway. Given the principles that emerged during research to guide new models of collaborative procurement (see Appendix E), the proposed partnership with Just Food was given precedence and no additional models of group purchasing were explored. The proposed model with Just Food would give SNPs in the Ottawa region a desired, high degree of integration with the local food network, and would not preclude future potential to build a partnership with an organization like MEALsource, in order to access competitive pricing on common, generic brands that may not be locally available.

In general, group purchasing was seen as offering four primary benefits to SNPs: better pricing and rebates; more consistent supply; access to affordable delivery services; and a potential greater ability to leverage the power and voice of the network in the supply chain (see Appendix F, Unpacking the Benefits of Group Purchasing). Group purchasing models are suitable in regions where there is a gap in these needs, and where the opportunities outweigh the associated risks. The table below provides a summary analysis of some of the frequently discussed risks and opportunities associated with the benefits of group purchasing for SNPs. It is important to note that while individual school purchases do not hit the $100,000 purchasing threshold that triggers the Broader Public Sector Procurement Directive, aggregating future purchases might.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS 43

RECOMMENDATIONS

Group purchasing models are suitable for mission-aligned purchasers like SNPs. They provide a viable strategy to optimize both the efficiency and resilience of Ontario’s decentralized network of SNPS. The following six recommendations build from the insights and findings in the previous section. They are intended to help navigate the complexity within SNPs when answering the question: “How might we leverage the potential of group purchasing to enhance service delivery to SNPs, without compromising on their mandate or values?” Each recommendation is accompanied by a paradigm, the mental framework from which the recommendation emerged. The recommendations are also accompanied by a set of actions and implications to be supported by policy-makers, SNP committees, staff, and volunteers.

1. Enable the network to flourish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2. Draw on the collective buying power of the network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3. Prioritize network-wide learning to enhance consistency and quality of program delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4. Take a holistic view; recognize the interconnection between student health and community health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5. Build on community assets first. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6. Recognize food as a site of learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

RECOMMENDATIONS 44

Paradigm: NETWORKED OVER CENTRALIZEDThe decentralized SNP network is resilient, with empowered nodes that respond to their local context. Future purchasing and logistics models should reinforce a strong network structure, that allows for flexible program designs, local partnerships, and high degree of local ownership of programs. Purchasing models can enable communication and collaboration across the nodes of the network, without attempting to centralize or homogenize the nature and delivery of programs.

1.ENABLE THE NETWORK TO FLOURISH

Actions and Implications:• Frontline stakeholders engaged in designing new

models.

• Decentralized decision-making and flexible regional program design.

• Strengthen partnerships and communication across the network.

• Identify shared purchasing values and objectives for the network.

• Empowered menu planning and budgeting at the regional level.

• Regionally defined partnerships and community ownership of programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS 45

Paradigms: TOGETHER OVER ALONE; EFFICIENCY WITH RESILIENCESNPs have yet to realize the potential of their collective purchasing power. Group purchasing and logistics models would allow SNPs to collaboratively set priorities, build partnerships, and become more savvy buyers and advocates in the market – and in their local food systems. Collaborative purchasing allows SNPs to access multiple benefits: competitive pricing; purchasing logistics efficiencies such as delivery; affordable access to fruits and vegetables; a wider range of products, brands, and serving sizes; and an ability to speak with a collective voice about program needs. New procurement logistics models should optimize the trade-off between SNPs’ decentralized, regionally-responsive structure and seek efficiencies that leverage the capacity of the network.

2.DRAW ON THE COLLECTIVE BUYING POWER OF THE NETWORK

Actions and Implications:• Identify shared purchasing values and objectives

in the network.

• Identify commonly purchased foods across SNPs.

• Adopt or develop technology, such as an online portal, that enables communication and collaboration around purchasing and learning in the network.

• Design for inclusion of isolated or under-resourced nodes of SNPs to ensure universal delivery.

• Train staff and volunteers for meaningful roles, to develop their food literacy, and increase the impact of programs in students’ learning and development.

• Empower the network facilitators.

RECOMMENDATIONS 46

Actions and Implications:• Training to develop food literacy and safe food

handling skills of staff and volunteers.

• Creative local problem solving that suits the context.

• Decentralized menu planning and purchasing decisions.

• Better alignment of volunteers’ roles with their skills, abilities, and experience.

• Assess the potential social impact of SNP purchasing on community food security.

• SNPs as leaders of progressive purchasing practices and builders of local food security.

• Revisit the Nutrition Guidelines for better alignment of values and to identify training gaps.

Paradigm: RESOURCES AND REGULATION THAT EMPOWEROptimize the trade-off between regulating and empowering smart purchasing decisions at the regional level. Prioritize learning within and across regions to empower SNPs to safely define which foods, menus, sources, and collaborations serve their populations. Empower volunteers to get engaged in creative problem solving when planning menus and sourcing, for example through partnerships with farmers or making low-cost nutritious meals from scratch rather than relying on processed foods.

3.PRIORITIZE NETWORK-WIDE LEARNING TO ENHANCE CONSISTENCY AND QUALITY OF PROGRAM DELIVERY

RECOMMENDATIONS 47

Actions and Implications:• Inter-ministerial collaboration to re-envision,

mandate, and resource SNPs.

• View SNPs as a bridge between student development and the development of community food security.

• Regionally differentiated group purchasing strategies.

• Revisit the values behind the Nutrition Guidelines.

• Training to develop food literacy of staff and volunteers.

• Direct additional resources to priority regions for more equitable programs.

Paradigm: SYSTEM OVER SILOTake a holistic view to optimize the trade-off between program efficiency and increasing community resilience. Many useful redundancies exist in the number and array of volunteers, currencies, and partnerships within SNPs. When designing new group purchasing models, understand the community context and the current configuration of resources in order to preserve the resilience and self-organizing nature of programs. Seek efficiencies within programs, such as securing delivery, without compromising on community development.

4.TAKE A HOLISTIC VIEW; RECOGNIZE THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN STUDENT HEALTH AND COMMUNITY HEALTH

RECOMMENDATIONS 48

Actions and Implications:• Build on the culture of volunteerism and local

partnering.

• Training to develop food literacy of staff and volunteers.

• Track indicators of community food security.

• Map assets of region to inform new purchasing models.

• Engage SNP regional committees and frontline staff and volunteers in developing new purchasing models.

• Train staff and volunteers for meaningful roles, to develop their food literacy, and increase the impact of programs in students’ learning and development.

Paradigm: LOCAL OVER GLOBALSNPs excel when they are integrated in a vibrant community and local food network. Therefore, build on the capacity of existing community assets first. Future group purchasing efforts should build out from community capacity to increase prosperity in the region. Rather than hauling in food from distant parts of the province – or globe – seek out the (hidden) network of local distributors, warehouses, manufacturers, and other community partners that may have under-utilized resources or undeveloped business potential to serve schools. Similarly, source seasonal food from the local community first to strengthen the local food network.

5.BUILD ON COMMUNITY ASSETS FIRST

RECOMMENDATIONS 49

Actions and Implications:• Food literacy mandated and resourced for SNPs.

• Emphasis on sourcing fresh, local, whole foods rather than packaged and processed foods.

• Training for program staff and volunteers.

• Partnerships with mission-aligned suppliers and distributors.

Paradigm: NOURISHMENT OVER CALORIES Food does not just enable learning; food is a site of learning and this role should be recognized with a mandate for food literacy in SNPs. Pressure to deliver a program on cheap or convenient calories is short on vision and fails to consider the impact of SNP food choices on students in critical stages of development. Prioritize efforts that will allow schools to affordably access more wholesome nutritious foods, and source locally as much as possible, especially those that provide learning and skill development opportunities for students. This approach is consistent with the mandate to provide a universal program. With the explicit intent to nourish students’ bodies - and minds - through SNPs, lingering stigma around these programs is likely to fade, as its broader mandate is embraced.

6.RECOGNIZE FOOD AS A SITE OF LEARNING

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION 51

CONCLUSIONThere is a strong case for group purchasing in SNPs. The findings and analysis from this research suggest that there will be no one size fits all model for SNP group purchasing, and that a networked approach to collaborative purchasing would enhance the capacity of this decentralized network of programs to meet the needs of the populations they serve. Group purchasing models provides SNPs with the savings and logistical efficiencies they seek to ensure they can fulfill their mandate to deliver universal programs. They also foster a collaborative approach to sourcing and purchasing that empowers buyers with information and influence in the value chain. These advantages, however, would be undermined if group purchasing were adopted in a strongly centralized model that homogenizes sourcing and delivery across the province, compromising the resilience of SNPs. To preserve the current networked, resilient character of SNPs, group purchasing models should be regionally differentiated, build upon local assets, and respond to the local context.

In the short term, group purchasing will enable more equitable service delivery across SNPs, provide access to rebates and more competitive pricing, and help to make distribution accessible. In the medium to long term, group purchasing invites a broader conversation among SNP stakeholders about the role of food in education, and the role of schools in building sustainable food systems and community health. Group purchasing may be a catalyst for schools to take on a greater leadership role in their communities and local food networks to shape the future of food in Ontario.

Going forward, MEALsource will continue to test their group purchasing model with the Southwest for the duration of the school year and has plans to share the outcomes of the pilot when the year concludes. Early signs of success from this pilot suggest that individual SNP regions could benefit from this approach. Conversations in two of the three other studied regions continue to establish the appropriate configuration of partnerships that would optimize for both the resilience and efficiency of programs. MEALsource has extended an open invitation to explore pilots with SNPs where there is interest, and have committed to waiving any fees for SNPs interested in piloting group purchasing as a follow-up to this research. This research did not explore the potential for multiple adjacent SNP regions to collaborate on group purchasing models, though the possibility was discussed.

Government partners, funders, and policy-makers face important questions regarding the mandate, success measures, and resourcing of SNPs going forward. Program parameters will affect the structure and capacity of programs, which will influence the behaviours and norms passed on to students through programs. Policy-makers can play a critical role in refining and resourcing the vision for SNPs to build a more robust, resilient network of programs that empowers its staff, volunteers, partners, and the next generation of eater-learners.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 53

This research project started as an initiative of MEALsource to explore the feasibility of group purchasing in Ontario Student Nutrition Programs. MEALsource assessed preliminary interest among SNPs to explore the potential of group purchasing. Funding was awarded from the Local Food Fund and an independent research manager was hired to lead the project in May 2015. The research manager recruited a design team to support her in the design and execution of the project. Three primary research questions and a proposed methodology were initially set out then were re-visited during the SNP engagement process at the launch of the project.

A questionnaire and proposed project outline was drafted to share with Lead Agency Managers and Food and Logistics Coordinators (FLCs) for the purpose of engaging SNP partners.

Participatory and emergent research approachThe project offering was re-framed to invite co-design in the regional approach. The OSNPN co-chairs facilitated the connection with Ontario’s fourteen Student Nutrition Program Lead Agencies, who were invited to participate in the project. Four of fourteen regions accepted an invitation to participate: Southwest, Central East, Ottawa, and Timmins. The nature of the project was emergent and the design was iterative, taking cues from the interests and capacity of SNPs. The re-framed project focused not only on an assessment of the feasibility of group purchasing for SNPs, but on a participatory process that included an exploration of various models that suited the specific context of participating regions.

The goal of the project was to understand the SNP system and context; to assess the opportunities and risks associated with group purchasing; and to explore what models of group purchasing would serve each context, including a hypothetical partnership with MEALsource.

The guiding research questions were:

• What are the current realities and priorities for SNPs? (What can we learn?)

• How might group purchasing enhance service delivery in SNPs? (What can we offer?)

• What would group purchasing models look like? (What could we co-create?)

Data collection methodsThe research questions were used to create both a questionnaire and an informal interview protocol, which were administered to personnel at SNPs. The questionnaire was administered first with the four pairs of Lead Agency managers and FLCs in each region to collect general data about the region. This approach was adapted where existing regional data was more effective than the questionnaire in providing an overview of the local context. Regional reports, survey results, and case studies were used to develop the research team’s understanding of the local context. Subsequently, FLCs made introductions to key local informants with whom the informal interview protocol was used. The informal interview protocol asked respondents to reflect on the current successes and weaknesses of their programs, along with the future potential of purchasing strategies in their region. Between five and twenty-five informal interviews were conducted in each of the four regions, for a total of roughly sixty interviews. These stakeholders were identified by FLCs as key informants with knowledge of their specific context. Interviews were conducted with Community Development Coordinators (CDCs), school-level program coordinators, SNP committee members, and a limited number of industry supply-chain partners of SNPs.

Design team members led or sat in for two to three of these interviews each, acting as a key listener. This was done for the purpose of grounding their perspective with first-hand conversations with SNPs. Interviews were primarily conducted by telephone, with notes or a recording made by the research manager or design team member. Once interviews were underway, interviews from each region were synthesized and the design team discussed the early findings. During the design team meet-up, the research manager led the team through a series of activities to develop the group’s understanding of the local context. These included making Empathy Maps for key stakeholders in SNPs (one each for students, program volunteers, FLCs, MCYS, and community members); exploring trends using the STEEPV framework (identifying social, technological, economic, environmental, political, and values trends); generating insights about the SNP context; and exploring possible future scenarios within which SNPs might operate. A series of activities were undertaken to create a broad framework from which to consider the role group purchasing might play in SNPs. MEALsource’s current operating domain in health care foodservice also provided an analogous space for learning, and was explored to generate insights that might carry-over to school nutrition. Throughout the data collection, the research manager tracked findings and insights and shared them at intervals with SNP participants and design team members for validation or as a provocation.

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX 54

The anonymity of key informants was protected, with identifying features removed except with permission to discuss findings specific to a given region. The design team members and FLCs in participating regions were invited to review the report to ensure accuracy.

Southwest pilot: an emergent outcome for testingFollowing initial interviews, the Southwest region expressed interest in piloting a group purchasing partnership with MEALsource. A pilot design that linked into the region’s existing purchasing portal and local distribution capacity was prototyped. Testing started in October 2015 and is underway. Measures of success were established and being tracked, including the number of schools participating, cost savings, and the food volume moving through the pilot project. This pilot was an emergent outcome of the research and became an additional research site. The research manager and MEALsource were hosted by the FLC and a CDC for site visits in December 2015 to observe the pilot.

Design jams for collaborative analysisDesign jams were used as a participatory analysis procedure. In three participating regions beyond the Southwest, data collection culminated in a design jam co-hosted by the FLC and research manager, with participants from the local SNPs and MEALsource. These half-day sessions were hosted in New Liskeard in November and Peterborough in December; the Ottawa design jam was cancelled due to personal circumstances in the local SNP community, however the research manager and Lead Agency Manager met. The purpose of these design jams was to validate and expand upon findings emerging from the research (develop empathy and understanding of the local context); to explore questions around group purchasing (introduce concepts); and to generate possible group purchasing models that would suit the context of the local region (prototype models). Design principles were proposed by the research manager, discussed by the group, and guided conversation to draw out various purchasing models that included various configurations of stakeholders. Next steps were co-defined by the participants.

Finally, research findings were distilled from analysis of the questionnaire, document review, informal interviews, design team activities, conversations with the FLCs and MEALsource, validation at the regional design jams, and early insights from the Southwest pilot.

Reflection on the processThe participatory and emergent research approach was instrumental in the engagement process for this project. The approach allowed the design team to focus on regions where interest in an exploration of group purchasing models was high. The participatory approach enabled SNP stakeholders to participate in sense-making and analysis, and to draw from the experience of the research team in an exploration of models that would serve their region. The approach also allowed the research team to engage with regions with different capacities and levels of readiness around group purchasing.

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY (CONTINUED)

APPENDIX 55

MEALsource is a mission-driven non-profit that operates with the conviction that “non-profit group purchasing keeps public dollars in the public sector,” according to Materiels Management Analyst, Wendy Smith. Members pay a nominal annual fee proportional to their size, with operating costs covered by the contracted manufacturers “who pay for the pleasure of doing business with our members all at once,” says Smith. Rebates from manufacturers and producers flow directly back to members, whereas for-profit group purchasing organizations would keep these as profit.

MEALsource’s group purchasing model contracts roughly 75% of members’ purchasing, leaving the preparation and balance of purchasing up to the institution. They leverage the collective buying power of their members to achieve competitive pricing, distribution, and program rebates through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. These group contracts give members access to an array of competitively priced foods, reliable supply and delivery, and representation of their interests in the value chain.

Networked approaches to purchasing enable collaborators to learn from each other and to “stay current” in the industry. Group purchasing has enabled MEALsource’s small, remote, and rural health care facilities to benefit from the same cost savings and access to distribution as its large, urban member facilities. In their two-step RFP process, distributors must be willing to distribute the desired product to all members who have committed volume in order to win the contract.

MEALsource uses a two-step RFP process to first contract food manufacturers, then to contract distributors. This process gives members greater influence over the provenance of their foods, by enabling them to determine the origin of the foods they contract, rather than leaving this to the distributor’s discretion. In a 2011 project with My Sustainable Canada, MEALsource leveraged their procurement process to increase their purchases of local food by more than 15%, or $670,000/year. Since the project concluded, MEALsource has continued to push the envelope on local food procurement, and have grown their local food purchases to over three million dollars a year. MEALsource now contracts local foods including fresh produce, yogurts, cheeses, deli meats, and frozen products. They have used their buying power to help Ontario vendors, like VG Meats, to become market-ready and break into foodservice supply chains.

The driver behind group purchasing is often cost savings. Group purchasing can feed the reward circuit that comes from cheap food, and overshadow the negative, long-term externalities of reinforcing the race to the bottom for low-cost food. A clear vision for the role of group purchasing within the broader nutrition program strategy can avoid this.

Food is often regarded as an ancillary service in health care, relegated to the final lines of the budget. This diminished perception of the role of food means its quality may be affected. Instead, advocate for a holistic view on the role of food in schools. Students are at a formative age, developing eating habits for life. Food is a powerful teaching tool, and there is a nationwide movement in Canada looking to embed food in learning.

Hundreds of health care facilities outsourced their foodservice to for-profit corporations who profit from rebate programs born of public spending. Consider whether the fees (or loss of savings) associated with purchasing partners are proportional to the value they add.

APPENDIX B: EXPLORING ANALAGOUS SPACES: FOOD IN HEALTH CARE Table of Insights from Health Care Group Purchasing

Learning from Health Care Group PurchasingCOLLABORATIVE APPROACHES SUPPORT LEARNING AND MORE EQUITABLE SERVICE DELIVERY

DRAWING ON THE COLLECTIVE BUYING POWER OF BUYERS INCREASES THEIR INFLUENCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN

BEWARE THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR CHEAP FOOD

BEWARE SEEING FOOD AS ANCILLARY

BEWARE OUTSOURCING “EFFICIENCIES” THAT EAT THE PUBLIC BUDGET

NON-PROFIT GROUP PURCHASING KEEPS PUBLIC DOLLARS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

AGGREGATING VOLUMES RESULTS IN COST SAVINGS, CONSISTENCY, AND FOOD SAFETY

APPENDIX 56

FLC-FACILITATED BULK PURCHASING PORTAL

INDUSTRY OPPORTUNITY AGREEMENTS

COMMUNITY FOOD HUB MODEL

BULK PURCHASING THROUGH COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

DISTRIBUTION BY A PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNER

HOW IT WORKSLocal distributor warehouses dairy and non-dairy products from various manufacturers, and delivers to schools. Schools order from and pay the distributor directly. The distributor owns the assets like the delivery vehicle, ordering technology, and relationships with suppliers.

BENEFITS> Delivery.

> Better pricing with rebate structure.

> Business given to local distributor.

> Nutrition Guideline-approved foods.

EXAMPLECentral East (see Ontario Student Nutrition Services in Simcoe Region)

HOW IT WORKSFLC lists products on an internal portal that allows programs to order centrally. Listed foods rotate to ensure options vary but meet industry order minimums. Options are vetted to meet nutrition and food safety guidelines. Orders are delivered to schools by local distributor; delivery fee embedded in food cost.

BENEFITS> Delivery.

> Better pricing on a selection of foods.

> Nutrition Guideline-approved foods.

EXAMPLESouthwest

HOW IT WORKSWholesale agreements with local or global manufacturers, coordinated by the FLC who aggregates school orders to meet minimums. Either dropped centrally for program/partner pick-up or if delivered, fee is embedded into food cost.

BENEFITS> Bulk discount on

manufacturer-specific foods.

> Some distribution.

EXAMPLETimmins (with Thornloe Cheese); Central East (with Canada Bread)

HOW IT WORKSFood hub aggregates food from local producers and sells direct to schools. Food is available for pick-up, dropped off at central point, or delivered to schools.

The community partners own the assets like the delivery vehicle, ordering technology, and relationships with suppliers.

BENEFITS> Access to purchased and

donated food.

> Relationships with local producers and processors.

> Some distribution.

> Influence on local food production.

EXAMPLEOttawa (with Just Food); Southwest (with SCOR)

HOW IT WORKSCommunity committee assists SNPs to access bulk purchasing of local food. The FLC and community partner (i.e. Health Unit) manage the purchasing relationship. The community committee pays the invoice from a grant or budget allocation. Food is available for pick-up, dropped off at central point, or delivered to schools. In another configuration, a community partner aggregates SNP specific Good Food Boxes to regional drop off locations (Karma Project), and the community committee incentivises financially.

BENEFITS> Access to purchased and

donated local, nutritious food.

> Delivery.

> Relationship with community partner.

EXAMPLECentral East

APPENDIX C: EXISTING GROUP PURCHASING EFFORTS Highlights from current efforts toward group purchasing in the studied regions

Current Efforts Toward Group Purchasing in SNPS

Many of these purchasing initiatives are undertaken in a sub-region of the FLC’s jurisdiction, and may be scaled if the strategy proves successful and replicable across the region. The array of activities and partners reflect the varying capacity and partnerships across the regions.

APPENDIX 57

What can SNPs learn from successes in health care group purchasing?We have 23 years of collaboration under our belts here and believe me, it wasn’t easy. The example I have used time and again is “every facility is special, but they all buy Shephard’s Pie”. While it is difficult to assist partners in understanding that some compromise creates the means to do so much more, it becomes clear when they give it a try. Our first initiative in healthcare was a tea contract. The collective annual savings for the group was $40,000. That’s a lot of tea! Since that first contract, we have 15 contract categories with approximately 16 million dollars of volume. This gives our members much more power to make demands with vendors for quality and service than if they were to pursue procurement on their own.

What can SNPs learn from failures/shortcomings in health care group purchasing?When you use a group purchasing model, there is a challenge to procurement within your region. We have devoted considerable time and thought into how to rectify this. Vendor education is one way. While it’s nice to support the farmer/producer/distributor in your area, wouldn’t it be amazing if they could win a contract for the whole group? As well, when you use a committed volume model (unusual in current market), you can refrain from participating. For example, in the North, if there was a process and an agreement is in place for cheese, that member wouldn’t commit volume for those products in the dairy contract. One needs to be careful with this that their regional procurement was fair, open and transparent.

What does group purchasing offer SNPs? Our opinion is that SNPs should collaborate where it makes sense and use the savings to bring more value, whole foods and local produce to their programs. On the items that are national brands, or that all are buying, a process makes sense. The reporting available is also a benefit to this model. Members would have the tools at their disposal to track purchasing, spends, analyze costs, see what others are committing volume to and identify and track all Product of Ontario. As well, many vendors offer rebate programs to incentivize purchase, reward commitment or hide pricing from distribution channels. That money can be reinvested in the programs and 100% goes back. MEALsource in no way benefits from vendor programs.

How is a non-profit group purchasing organization different from other group purchasing models? A non-profit GPO works at the pleasure of its membership. All processes are analyzed based on a net cost per unit. Whether a vendor commits rebates (program money) or not has no bearing on their ability to win an award. We feel that the result is mission driven. When you are working for the end user, be that a patient in healthcare or a child in school, you are careful to bring the best value for dollar possible. There is no pressure to turn a profit for the organization and there is no reluctance to bring a new, local vendor on board at the expense of the program money that a multi-national would offer. We do not make decisions on behalf of our membership. Each member makes their own choices in the analysis of a process based on what works best for their facility. We do not use a vetted vendor list

when running a process. All are welcome to investigate and bid on our business. Open, Fair and Transparent. We welcome all vendors to meet and present to our members and all vendors are entitled to and receive a debrief after a process upon request. A considerable part of our role is vendor education. If a quality vendor understands the business of our members, they are better equipped to provide solutions rather than pitch products that don’t necessarily meet any need. Finally, there is a willingness to network and collaborate with other organizations.

What are the potential risks or drawbacks of group purchasing for SNPs? One of the potential barriers that I see is the inability to process an invoice. There would need to be the means to receive, process and pay an invoice in a timely fashion. Some of the programs I have seen are not there yet and Boards do not want to assume this role. That aside, SNPs could rest assured that they would be using a model of procurement that is fair and compliant to all provincial procurement regulations.

What main challenges would SNPs have to overcome to purchase through a GPO?There would definitely be some push back from the current system of shopping the sales and selecting the snack/breakfast menu based on availability. The move to a more streamlined approach would be challenged. Many fear that this model would result in a loss of autonomy. This was seen in the healthcare model as well, but at the end of the day, the fact is that these programs would naturally gravitate to the same product mix and while we cannot facilitate loss-

leader pricing on product that is typically found in Walmart and Grocery chains, we can provide safe food, with low pricing and consistent supply delivered to the door which would enable the volunteers currently in place to devote their time to food preparation and food literacy which would benefit the end user much more.

Can group purchasing enable schools to work with regional producers and processors?While we can facilitate a process that includes regional providers through education and time investment, our thought is that the GPO model would work best if we left those relationships aside and dealt with the product mix that makes sense for all first. In other words, if there is an exceptional arrangement with an apple farmer in a particular region, we certainly wouldn’t want to muddy the water trying to fit them into a provincial process. That said, if any member or combination of all is procuring more than 100 cases per year of anything, we can demand that it move through the awarded distributor for ease of logistics.

How can GPOs support SNP’s objective “to support the healthy development of children and youth arriving at school ready to learn?”We would propose to support the central objective of the SNPs in the same manner that we support that of healthcare “It is an honour to serve the sick”. Our role is to make theirs easier. Only SNPs know what is best for their children and what kind of time and skillset the providers of the program offer. Our role would be one of support and advice. Tell us where you wish to go and we will do everything in our power to help you get there.

APPENDIX D: GROUP PURCHASING Q&A WITH MEALSOURCE A conversation with MEALsource’s Wendy Smith

APPENDIX 58

> Make good nutrition affordable. Enhance school’s ability to affordably source nutritious food to address hunger and foster learning.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Build from the culture of volunteerism and partnering. Design programs to leverage the skills, experience, and passion of volunteers and community in the most meaningful ways.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Create mission-aligned collaborations. Seek partnerships that understand our needs and enhance our missions.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Focus on whole, fresh, local foods. Prioritize efforts that will allow schools to affordably access more whole, fresh, local foods, especially those that provide learning and skill

development opportunities for students.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Support autonomy and self-organizing. Empower SNPs to safely define what foods, menus, sources, and collaborations serve their populations.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Foster a culture of learning. Encourage knowledge translation through SNP networks, including practical purchasing practices and critical engagement with food systems issues.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Take a whole systems view. Address hunger with a systems-orientation and long-view that acknowledges the root causes of hunger and builds food literacy and local food sovereignty.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Optimize the efficiency-resilience tradeoff. Purchase and program with a long view of program resilience and community resilience. Seek efficiencies within service delivery

(pricing, delivery) that enable SNPs to fulfill their mission without compromising on community development (resilience).

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Design for future flourishing. Understand the context of the region. Consider the region’s history, its present challenges and opportunities, and plan for its future flourishing.

(See ecosystem health model.)

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

> Draw from underutilized community-based assets first. Engage community producers, processors, and partners first to leverage underutilized local assets. When external

partners or suppliers are considered, explore collaborations that build the capacity of local partners and food systems.

Disagree | - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - | Agree

APPENDIX E: COLLABORATIVE PURCHASING DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR DISCUSSION AT DESIGN JAMS Collaborative Purchasing Design Principles

APPENDIX 59APPENDIX F: UNPACKING THE BENEFITS OF GROUP PURCHASING Risks and opportunities associated with the four primary benefits of group purchasing

> “Best value” may be conflated with “low cost” if values are not clear in purchasing criteria; otherwise a risk it may reinforce a culture of cheap food.

> May displace demand for local producers, processors, and retailers.

> May displace local fundraising or partnership efforts.

> Savings from group purchasing may not be spent in the local economy, as hypothesized.

> May affect diversity in sourcing options.

> May decrease flexibility for ad-hoc offerings from local partners.

> Reliance on mainstream distribution networks.

> None of the possible abilities are used.

> Illusion of choice is actually access to generic, mainstream brands.

> Savings and rebates can be spent on local foods and specialty items.

> Rebates go back to programs to enhance food choices or service.

> Access to existing infrastructure and capacity around contracted purchasing.

> Increased ability to deliver a universal program from September to June.

> Food safety from established, vetted supply chains.

> Increased ability to plan menus and manage budgets.

> More predictability and better allocation of time to meaningful tasks.

> Better allocation of volunteer time, i.e. more time in-schools, less in stores.

> Better management of cold chain on perishables.

> Investment in regional distribution networks.

> Ability to demand local foods.

> Ability to production plan with farmers.

> Ability to influence production practices and sourcing.

> Ability to secure competitive pricing and distribution even for the smallest and most remote schools.

> Ability to more thoughtfully plan menus for students.

> Ability to plan for and manage social impact of purchasing.

OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES

BETTER PRICING AND REBATES MORE CONSISTANT SUPPLY ACCESS TO DELIVERYGREATER INFLUENCE IN

PURCHASING/VALUE CHAIN

RISKS RISKS RISKS RISKS

Ontario Student Nutrition Programs: A Feasibility Study for Local Food Group-Purchasing Frameworks

February 2016

ONTARIO STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAMS · Ontario Student Nutrition Program Network. GPOs are group...

Documents

Transcript of ONTARIO STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAMS · Ontario Student Nutrition Program Network. GPOs are group...