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

Review of Farm to School Evaluation Literature►►►At the RSD-CA program, in the peak growing seasons nearly all of the fruitsand vegetables served were from local sources. In off-peak months the salad barofferings were still about 50% local, owing to the year-round growing season inSouthern California. 47Th e VEN-CA program purchased 43% of its total produce needs from localfarmers in 2003-04, up from 15% in 2002-03. 49CLP-CA’s spent more than $75,000 on locally grown, farm fresh produce from2000-06. This represented more than 50% of salad bar or elementary schoollunch produce on average and more than one-third of all produce procured bythe district. Distributor-bought produce (from non-local sources) for the elementaryschools, by comparison, amounted to about $72,000 over the same sixyear period (about 49% of elementary produce purchases on average). Overallexpenditures for fresh, organic produce (almost $30,000 over 6 years) represented20% of elementary produce and 14% of all district produce. 80 Overall producepurchasing trends for the school district are represented in chart below.►►►Th e CSA-CA program paid $33,513 to Tierra Miguel, the local organic farm thatgrew produce for the Los Angeles Unified School District’s CSA in the classroomprogram. 52Th e SMM-CA program purchased produce worth $25,978 from local farmersin 1999-2000. 83In 2004-05, one high school in WSD-CA purchased from three local farmers, alocal farm stand, and sourced directly from an organic school garden. 1946 Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Evaluation Resources and Recommendations