Characteristics of Current Teaching Kitchens: Findings from Recent Surveys of the Teaching Kitchen Collaborative

Abstract

Teaching kitchens are physical and virtual forums that foster practical life skills through participation in experiential education. Given the well-supported connection between healthy eating patterns and the prevention and management of chronic diseases, both private and public organizations are building teaching kitchens (TKs) to enhance the health and wellness of patients, staff, youth, and the general community. Although implementation of TKs is becoming more common, best practices for starting and operating programs are limited. The present study aims to describe key components and professionals required for TK operations. Surveys were administered to Teaching Kitchen Collaborative (TKC) members and questions reflected seven primary areas of inquiry: (1) TK setting(s), (2) audiences served, (3) TK model(s), (4) key lines of operations, (5) team member who manages or directs the TK, (6) team member(s) who performs key operations and other professionals or partnerships that may be needed, and (7) the primary funding source(s) to build and operate the TK (among various other topics). Findings were used to articulate recommendations for organizations seeking to establish a successful TK as well as for TKs to expand their collective reach, research capacity, and impact.

Keywords: culinary medicine; interdisciplinary collaboration; teaching kitchens.

Figure 1

Landscape of TK programs.

Figure 2

Number of participants served through TKC member organizations. (Number of members responding to surveys: N = 27 in 2019; N = 37 in 2023.)

Figure 3

Percent of TKC member organizations that operated TKs in each practice setting in 2023. (Number of members responding to survey: N = 40.) Examples of “Other” responses included specific examples of healthcare, corporate, or community settings.

Figure 4

Percent of TKC member organizations that served each type of participant audience. (Number of members responding to surveys: N = 36 in 2019; N = 40 in 2023.) “Other” responses included formerly incarcerated/foster care/homeless youth, general community, and food-related media, grocery store, and food service buyers in 2019; and cancer survivors (×2), botanical garden members, and community members (×2) in 2023.

Figure 5

Percent of TKC member organizations that used each TK model. (Number of members responding to surveys: N = 31 in 2019; N = 40 in 2023.) Examples of “other” responses included community venues, dining halls, and outdoor kitchens in gardens.

Figure 6

Key operations of TKC members’ programs in 2023. (Number of members responding to survey: N = 40.) Examples of “other” responses included gardening, instruction about collecting dietary histories, and engagement with employees.

Figure 7

Type of professional who managed or directed the TK in 2023. (Number of member responding to survey: N = 40). The two “other” responses were chef/RDNs and the educator was described as having a Master of Food Service. Note that the percentages sum to slightly more than 100% due to rounding error.

Figure 8

Percent of TKC member organizations whose instruction teams included each type of professional. (Number of members responding to surveys: N = 32 in 2019; N = 40 in 2023.) Examples of “Other Professionals” included Master of Library and Innovation Science, food scientists, health science graduate students, and physician assistants.

Figure 9

Percent of TKC member organizations that relied on each funding source in 2023. (Number of members responding to surveys: N = 40.) “Other” responses included licensing and training fees, operational revenue, institutional grants, and other internal funding mechanisms.