BACKGROUND:

Why Was the Cooking for Crowds Curriculum Developed?

The Cooking for Crowds (CFC) curriculum was developed to educate nonprofit organizations who prepare food for the public as part of food fund-raisers.

How Is the Cooking for Crowds Curriculum Different from Other Food Safety Curricula?

1. The CFC curriculum is not intended for commercial foodservice audiences but for nonprofit groups that cook food for the public as part of food fundraisers.

2. The target audience traditionally consists of volunteers that have little or no professional training in cooking large volumes of food for the public or access to commercial foodservice equipment. The CFC curriculum was designed to show nonprofit groups the food safety risks that develop when cooking large volumes of food and how to reduce those risks so that the food the group prepares is both safe and delicious.

Although many of the food safety strategies recommended are similar to those recommended to commercial food establishments, the strategies have been translated into practical methods to meet the specific needs of nonprofit audiences.

How was the Cooking for Crowds curriculum developed?

Development of the CFC curriculum began in December 2000. Dana McElroy, food safety specialist in the Department of Food Science at Penn State organized a committee consisting of Cooperative Extension agents and members of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to determine objectives for a nonprofit food safety curriculum and outline an initial draft of a participant manual. Throughout 2001, Dana wrote the curriculum with editing assistance from the committee. In spring and summer of 2002, 13 Cooperative Extension agents piloted the curriculum, teaching 22 workshops with over 300 participants. Based on results from the pilot, the committee spent time during fall 2002 reconfiguring the curriculum. The curriculum was completed in early 2003.

Members of the committee include:

Dr. Catherine Cutter, Department of Food Science, Penn State University

Penn State Cooperative Extension agents:
Dori Donough, R.D.;
Cathy Guffey, M.Ed.;
Lynn James, M.S, R.D.;
Richard Kralj, R.D.;
Marg Malehorn, M.Ed. CFCS;
Sharon McDonald, R.D.;
Janice Ronan;
Karen Thomas, M.S., CFCS;
Nancy Wiker, M.Ed.,

with assistance from members of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture:

Bobby McLean, Director of the Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services;
Lenchen Radle, Chief, Division of Food Safety;
Joseph Claycomb, Food Sanitarian

Results from the Cooking for Crowds pilot:

The program was evaluated using four different evaluation tools. Participants completed a pre/post test to measure knowledge gain and intention to make changes to reduce the risk of food borne illness.

Post workshop surveys (N=297) revealed the following highest knowledge gains for (percentage learning a lot/great deal):

· 88% (n= 275) learned to store ready to eat foods above raw potentially hazardous foods
· 80% (n=284) learned food may spend no more than 2 hours in the temperature danger zone
· 71% (n=260) learned to hold hot foods at 140 degrees F or higher
· 66% (n=260) learned to hold cold foods at 40 degrees F or lower
· 67% (n=270) learned to check food temperatures with a calibrated food thermometer

A follow-up evaluation was mailed to participants three to six months following the workshop to determine behavior change. Results of the follow-up evaluations (N=96) indicated:

90% of participants shared information from the workshop with 512 members of their organizations (N=94).
94% of participants (N=96) now practicing safe food handling techniques in their organization’s kitchen compared to
44% before the workshop.

The top three changes in practicing safe food handling techniques were:

1. Using thermometers to check food temperatures- 21% before workshop, 63% after
2. Calibrating thermometers- 16% before workshop, 61% after workshop
3. Using ice water bath for cooling- 34% before workshop, 48% after workshop

83% of participants (N=96) feel confident identifying unsafe food practices in their organization’s kitchen, compared to 14% before the workshop. 139 pieces of equipment were purchased to improve food safety of fundraisers (N=96).

Results from the follow-up evaluation indicated that participants facing challenges in implementing new food safety strategies reported that lack of money for new equipment and volunteer resistance to change were the primary deterrents to safer food practices. In response to this issue, the course was modified to include a section on strategies to overcome volunteer resistance to making changes for improved food safety and provided a variety of low-cost food safety equipment resources.