eval report cover.indd - New Jersey Farm to School Network Wiki

More documents

Recommendations

Info

►►►salad bar started. 50 The total grams of fruit and vegetable servings consumed bystudents also increased signifi c antly from 344.1 gm to 415.8 gm daily (p = 0.07).Th e researchers attributed the 84% increase in fruit and vegetable consumptionalmost entirely to the farm to school salad bar program. Children eating lunchat the farmers’ market salad bar also reported eating reduced amounts of totalcalories, cholesterol, and total fat in their daily diets.ESY-CA students who made gains in their overall understanding of ecologicalprinciples showed a significant improvement in the numbers of servings of fruitsand vegetables they reported eating. 28In the FFF-IL schools, 42% of students self-reported eating 3 to 4 servings offruits and vegetables per day before the farm to school curriculum was implemented.43,44 This percentage increased to 53.6% during the post-test. Studentsalso self-reported healthier eating behaviors as a result of the curriculum. (Seepage 36).Over half of the students (60%) surveyed in the BTV-VT schools reported eatingfruit more often as compared to a previous year when the farm to schoolprogram was not in place. 14,46 Further, 59% reported eating new foods and 57%reported eating healthy snacks more often; many students also said that they ateless healthy foods less often, such as fast food (56% less) and desserts and sweets(31% less).Parents report healthier eating patterns in children►Th e FTK-PA study administered a dietary survey to parents in both interventionand control schools. Results showed that children who received the farm toschool intervention were opting for more healthy foods. 26,27,51 Specifically therewas an increase in their mean weekly consumption of healthy foods such aswhole grain bread and a decrease in consumption of foods high in fat and salt.Comparative Research: Environmental Interventions in SchoolsEnvironmental interventions for eating and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial inmiddle schools. Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Conway TL, Elder JP, Prochaska JJ, Brown M, Zive MM,Marshall SJ, Alcaraz JE. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2003, 24(3): 209-217.Review of Farm to School Evaluation LiteratureResearchers conducted a randomized controlled trial with aims to increase physical activity and reducefat intake among students in San Diego middle schools. The interventions consisted of physical activitycomponents (including increased physical activity in daily PE classes, increased physical activityoutside PE class, purchase of equipment, promotions in newsletters and bulletin boards) and nutritioncomponents (increased offerings of low-fat choices in the cafeteria, food service stafftrainings onhealthy food preparation, and promotional materials). Environmental and physical components ofthe project increased school-based physical activity among boys, but the low-fat intervention had nosignificant effect on fat consumption. The researchers identified fi n ancial and structural barriers toimplementing the interventions, including food services’ requirement to be self-supporting and smallmarketing efforts for low-fat foods compared to the barrage of marketing for popular snack foods.www.farmtoschool.org 35
Students Report Changes in Eating Behaviors,Examples from FFF-IL Program: 43,44Review of Farm to School Evaluation Literature36 Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Evaluation Resources and Recommendations
Page 1 and 2: Bearing Fruit:Farm to School Progra
Page 3 and 4: BEARING FRUITFarm to School Program
Page 5 and 6: Table of ContentsAcknowledgements..
Page 7: Executive Summaryincorporate nutrit
Page 10 and 11: I. Introduction to Farmto School Ev
Page 12 and 13: I. Introduction toFarm to School Ev
Page 14 and 15: Teacher ImpactsChanges in knowledge
Page 16 and 17: Previous Page: 3rd grade students f
Page 20 and 21: Resources and Tools for Measuring F
Page 22: Resources and Tools for Measuring F
Page 25 and 26: c) Farming and marketing operations
Page 27 and 28: ADD IMAGE HERE...ADD CAPTIONS FORBO
Page 29 and 30: Table 2: Program profiles and evalu
Page 31 and 32: Review of Farm to School Evaluation
Page 35 and 36: Comparative Research:Nutrition Educ
Page 37 and 38: Comparative Research: Nutrition Edu
Page 39: Comparative Research: Salad Bars an
Page 43 and 44: Teacher ImpactsReview of Farm to Sc
Page 45 and 46: Comparative Research: Verbal Prompt
Page 59 and 60: Previous page: Students pick lettuc
Page 61 and 62: Conclusions and Recommendations►
Page 63 and 64: EndnotesEndnotes1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.1
Page 65 and 66: Endnotes31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.
Page 67 and 68: Endnotes79.80.81.82.83.84.85.86.87.
Page 69 and 70: Previous page: A student from the K
Page 71 and 72: ASA-NC: APPALACHIAN SUSTAINABLE AGR
Page 73 and 74: BTV-VT: BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Page 75 and 76: COM-CA: COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOLDISTR
Page 77 and 78: CSA-CA: CSA IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRA
Page 79 and 80: ESY-CA: THE EDIBLE SCHOOLYARD AT MA
Page 81 and 82: FTK-PA: FARM TO KINDERGARTEN INITIA
Page 83 and 84: LSB-CA: LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
Page 85 and 86: MLS-MT: MISSOULA COUNTY FARM TO SCH
Page 87 and 88: RHM-CA: RIVERSIDE HARVEST OF THEMON
Page 89 and 90: SFP-NY: SCHOOL FOOD PLUS PROGRAM,NE
Page 91 and 92:
VEN-CA: VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
Page 93 and 94:
Notes
Page 95 and 96:
NY Survey of K-12 Food Service Dire
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
OK Survey of Institutional Food Ser
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Survey of K-12 Food Service Provide
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
National Farm to School Web Survey
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
K-12 Food Service Directors Needs A
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Survey of Fruit, Vegetable, and Nut
Page 133 and 134:
Survey of Institutional Food Servic
Page 135 and 136:
Survey of Institutional Food Servic
Page 137 and 138:
Student Knowledge Survey (Page 1 of
Page 139 and 140:
Outcome Expectations for Eating Fru
Page 141 and 142:
Outcome Expectations for Eating Fru
Page 143 and 144:
General Knowledge of Healthy Eating
Page 145 and 146:
Student Dining Evaluation (Page 1 o
Page 147 and 148:
Fresh From the Farm Student Survey
Page 149 and 150:
Fresh From the Farm Student Survey
Page 151 and 152:
Harvest of the Month Student Evalua
Page 153 and 154:
Harvest of the Month Student Evalua
Page 155 and 156:
Student Survey (Page 1 of 5)Farm to
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Self Efficacy Survey - Eating Fruit
Page 163 and 164:
Diet History Questionnaire (Page 1
Page 165 and 166:
Estimating Fruit & Vegetable Consum
Page 167 and 168:
Food Recognition Form (Page 2 of 3)
Page 169 and 170:
Kids Questionnaire (Page 1 of 1)Far
Page 171 and 172:
Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Sur
Page 173 and 174:
Teacher Focus Group Questions and G
Page 175 and 176:
Sample School Wellness Policy (Page
Page 177 and 178:
Sample School Wellness Policy (Page
Page 179 and 180:
Sample State Policy (Page 1 of 3)HO
Page 181 and 182:
Sample State Policy (Page 3 of 3)Fa
Page 183 and 184:
Rethinking School Lunch Calculator
Page 185 and 186:
Rethinking School Lunch Calculator
Page 187 and 188:
Seasonal Use of Locally Grown Fruit
Page 189 and 190:
Local Food Purchases Record (Page 1
Page 191 and 192:
Classroom/School Waste Audit (Page
Page 193 and 194:
Salad Bar Coordinator Interview (Pa
Page 195 and 196:
Farmer Survey (Page 1 of 3)Name:Dat
Page 197 and 198:
Farmer Survey (Page 3 of 3)PricingF
Page 199 and 200:
Healthy City Parent Survey (Page 2
Page 201 and 202:
Citizen Interview (Page 2 of 2)Farm
Page 203 and 204:
Project Partner Interview (Page 1 o
Page 205 and 206:
Volunteer Interview (Page 1 of 1)Fa
Page 207 and 208:
Notes
Page 209 and 210:
Notes
Page 211:
The national farm to school communi
show all

eval report cover.indd - New Jersey Farm to School Network Wiki

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?