Table 2 Summary of cases
Case | Full adopter | Semi-adopter | Non-adopter |
|---|---|---|---|
Facility type | Large modern multipurpose facility | Large modern multipurpose facility | Four small aging, single purpose facilities |
Funding | Publicly funded | Publicly funded | Publicly funded |
Food service management | General manager | General manager | Dedicated concession services manager |
Food service: concession(s) | An international franchise that had adopted the ANGCY in schools and in the full adopter facility. Popular for its fries and poutine. | 1) An international franchise that had adopted the ANGCY in schools and was willing to adopt them in the semi-adopter facility. The company had a healthy brand image. | 4 municipally-operated concessions that were not associated with schools and were not willing to adopt the ANGCY in non-adopter facilities. The study focussed on concessions in 2 facilities: |
2) A small local company that had no school-based operations and was not willing to adopt the ANGCY in the semi-adopter facility. Popular for its fries and poutine. | 1) Pool café popular for its sandwiches, wraps, and baked goods. | ||
2) Arena concession with a fast-food style menu. | |||
Food service: vending machines | 12 machines serviced by a company that had adopted the ANGCY in schools and in the full adopter facility. | 21 machines serviced by a company that had adopted the ANGCY in schools and in the semi-adopter facility. | 3 machines serviced by a company that had not adopted the ANGCY in schools or in non-adopter facilities. |
Relationship with schools | Shared a field with 2 high schools. Students came to the facility at lunch primarily to purchase the unhealthy items they could not purchase on their campuses. | No schools within close proximity. | High school students came to the pool café at lunch, presumably to avoid long line-ups and because they preferred the café-style menu to their school’s cafeteria. |
Clients | > 50% children1 | > 50% children1 | > 50% children1 |