13.07.2015 Views

Framework-08-25-14_web

Framework-08-25-14_web

Framework-08-25-14_web

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CHAPTER #: NAME OF CHAPTERIEvaluation forTransformation:A Cross-SectoralEvaluation <strong>Framework</strong>for Farm to SchoolNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


IICover: Students at PS 29 in Brooklyn, NY, learn aboutseed saving in their school garden. (Credit: ChelseySimpson)


IIITable of ContentsVVI010717<strong>25</strong>2835486073851051<strong>25</strong>127131134138139<strong>14</strong>3ForewordAcknowledgments1. Introduction2. Background3. <strong>Framework</strong> Development Process4. Priority Outcomes, Indicators and Measures4.1 Program Articulation4.2 Public Health4.3 Community Economic Development4.4 Education4.5 Environmental Quality5. Conclusion and Next StepsReferencesAppendices1. Evaluation Resources2. Implementation Resources3. Farm to School Menu of Options4. Sample Logic Model5. Sample Evaluation Tools6. Ideas for Exploration


IVNational Farm to School Network: GrowingStronger Togetherwww.farmtoschool.orgThis publication was developed and launchedby the National Farm to School Network,August 20<strong>14</strong>. The National Farm to SchoolNetwork (NFSN) is an information, advocacyand networking hub for communities workingto bring local food sourcing and food andagriculture education into schools andpreschools. Our network includes national staff,eight Regional Lead Agencies, 51 State Leads,a 17-member advisory board and thousands offarm to school supporters. NFSN is a project ofthe Tides Center.


VForewordDespite the investments made over the past two decades to mitigate the impact of fooddeserts, disparities persist as evidenced by the higher rates of malnutrition and hunger invulnerable communities. In order to address these disparities, efforts must be anchored incommunity-driven solutions that are focused on fostering equity. Farm to school programs aresymbolic of these solutions.These programs are inherently multi-sectoral in design and function and are built on thefoundation of intersectoral policies anchored in sectors such as education, transportation andagriculture among others. They encompass the facilitating policies across multiple sectors thatpromote equitable access to local, fresh foods, as well as the protective factors that sustainfavorable conditions at the local level.Sustaining these programs to best benefit children and their families requires an understandingof what makes them work well within the environmental context of school and community.This understanding can be captured within user-friendly evaluation frameworks thatencompass the intersectoral policy opportunities that support farm to school programs, aswell as embody approaches that respect the voices and needs of the most vulnerable at alllevels.It is our hope that this evaluation framework report provides a deeper understanding offarm to school programs and their potential contribution to achieving equity, as well as anappreciation of what it takes to sustain them to meet the needs of children, their families andtheir communities.Gillian R. Barclay, DDS, DrPHVice President, Aetna FoundationAlyse B. Sabina, MPHProgram Officer, Aetna Foundation


VIAcknowledgmentsThe project team consisted of Anupama Joshi, National Farm to School Network (project lead),and Tia Henderson, Upstream Public Health (project coordinator). We are thankful to the manyexperts who provided their input for the development of this document. Thank you to SteveRidini and Lisa Wolff of Health Resources in Action for facilitation services. We recognize thefollowing persons for their contributions:* Author ° Contributor ®Reviewer + September 2013Meeting ParticipantNameAffiliationGillian Barclay+Aetna FoundationJudy Belue°Delta Fresh Foods InitiativeJim Bender°+®National Education AssociationMatt Benson°+®USDA Farm to SchoolDeb Bentzel®The Food Trust, Mid-Atlantic Regional Lead for NationalFarm to School NetworkJoAnne Berkenkamp®Tomorrow’s Table, LLCSheri Brady+ConsultantAndrew Carberry®Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research InstituteRachelle Johnsson Chiang®National Association of Chronic Disease DirectorsAnnelise Cohon°®National Education AssociationKyle Cornforth®The Edible Schoolyard ProjectHelen Dombalis°®National Farm to School NetworkJessica Donze-Black°The Pew Charitable Trust Kids’ Safe and Healthful FoodsProjectSarah Elliott®Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and ConsumerProtection; Wisconsin State Lead for National Farm toSchool NetworkGail Feenstra*°+®Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program(SAREP), Agricultural Sustainability Institute (ASI)E. Grace Friedberger® Office of the D.C. State Superintendent of Education,Washington, D.C.Deborah Green-Moore°Delta Fresh Foods InitiativeKasandra Griffin®Upstream Public HealthDiane Harris°+®Centers for Disease Control and PreventionMartin Heller®School of Natural Resources and Environment, Universityof MichiganTia Henderson*°+®Upstream Public HealthJohanna Herron®Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and MarketsKimberley Hodgson®Cultivating Healthy PlacesGail Imig°+ConsultantBetty Izumi®School of Community Health, Portland State UniversityAnupama Joshi*°+®National Farm to School NetworkDeborah Kane ®USDA Farm to SchoolEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


VIILyn Kathlene®°Megan Kemple®°Toni Liquori®Lance Loethen+Hayley Lofink°+®Norman Lownds®Edwin Marty°Colleen Matts+Dawn Thilmany McFadden®Ken Meter®Ricardo Millett+Amelia Moore°®Jeffrey O’Hara°®Rich Pirog®Stephanie Laporte Potts®Andrew Powers®Michelle Markestyn Ratcliffe*°+®Jasmine Hall Ratliff+®Eva Ringstrom®Erin Roche®Alyse Sabina+Dale A. Schoeller®Brooke Smith°Erica Steinhart®Denise Stevens+Angie Tagtow®Rodney K. Taylor®Sandra Voytovich+®Arlin Wasserman®Terri Wright°+Amy Yaroch+Andrea Bontrager Yoder®Spark Policy InstituteWillamette Farm and Food Coalition; Oregon State Leadfor National Farm to School NetworkSchool Food FOCUSThe Reinvestment FundNational Assembly of School Based Health CareMichigan State UniversityCity of AustinMichigan State University, Center for Regional FoodSystems; Michigan State Lead for National Farm to SchoolNetworkColorado State University, Dept. of Agriculture andResource EconomicsCrossroads Resource CenterMillett & AssociatesUnion of Concerned ScientistsUnion of Concerned ScientistsMichigan State University, Center for Regional FoodSystemsNational Center for Appropriate TechnologyPEER AssociatesOregon Dept. of AgricultureRobert Wood Johnson FoundationFoodCorpsUniversity of Vermont, Center for Rural StudiesAetna FoundationNutrition Sciences, University of Wisconsin-MadisonWhyHungerOffice of the D.C. State Superintendent of Education,Washington, D.C.MATRIX Public Health SolutionsEnvironmental Nutrition Solutions, LLCRiverside Unified School District, Nutrition Services Dept.Headwaters Group Philanthropic ServicesChanging TastesAmerican Public Health AssociationGretchen Swanson CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonThis project was funded in part by the Aetna Foundation, through a grant to the National Farm to SchoolNetwork, a project of Tides Center.Layout and design by Elizabeth Stone Brown.Suggested citation: Joshi, A., Henderson, T., Ratcliffe, M.M., Feenstra, G. (20<strong>14</strong>). Evaluation for Transformation:A Cross-Sectoral Evaluation <strong>Framework</strong> for Farm to School, National Farm to School Network.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


VIIICHAPTER #: NAME OF CHAPTER


101IntroductionImage created by attendees of the 6th National Farmto Cafeteria Conference under the supervision of artistBonnie Acker.


2CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTIONIntroductionWhat is Farm to School?Farm to school enriches the connection communitieshave with local, healthy food and food producers bychanging food purchasing and educational activitiesat schools and preschools. Farm to school activitiesand policies are unique to location, and can bedefined in a multitude of ways. For the purposes ofthis evaluation framework, the core elements of farmto school activities are:1. Procurement of local and regional food products;2. Gardening, based at schools and preschools; and3. Education, food and farm related.What Does an Evaluation <strong>Framework</strong> Do?First and foremost, an evaluation framework aimsto move our collective work forward by identifyingpractices and policies that have demonstratedbenefits and by recommending areas for additionalexploration. Secondly, an evaluation frameworkgrounded in a strong theoretical basis guides howsites consistently articulate and implement programelements, evaluate efforts and report on outcomes.An evaluation framework is useful not only topractitioners, but also external evaluators, researchers,policymakers and funders, who can make betterdecisions in response to an improved understandingof how and why program activities are operationalizedon the ground.An Evaluation <strong>Framework</strong> for Farm to SchoolContextIn nearly a decade, farm to school has expandedfrom a handful of programs to a full-fledged, thriving,grassroots-led movement in all 50 states, oftensupported and institutionalized by local, state andfederal agencies and policies. The farm to schoolmovement is at a critical turning point, with thepotential for enabling significant transformations inhow students eat and learn about food in the future.As interest in farm to school has grown, a frameworkto continue guiding this practice is needed. Farm toschool has been recognized as a potential strategyto significantly improve or enhance public health andeconomic development outcomes 1–4 . Researchersalso hypothesize and are beginning to documentassociations with positive outcomes in the educationand environmental quality sectors 2,5–7. Farm to schoolactivities have been identified as chronic diseaseprevention strategies 8–12 because of their potentialpositive influences on encouraging healthy eatingbehaviors in children. Farm to school activities andpolicies also have been embedded in efforts toincrease community food security, reduce hungerand develop robust local or regional food systemsthat result in economic benefits for local and regionalfood producers and processors 13–17 . As farm to schoolsites have proliferated from just a handful in the 1990sto more than 40,000 in 20<strong>14</strong>, there is also a betterunderstanding of how farm to school is adaptedin different community conditions and in differentagricultural growing regions 18–23 . Finally, fundersare showing increasing interest in farm to schoolactivities. Farm to school activities are increasinglybeing supported by existing community resources;funding by federal, state and local governments; or bylocal, regional or national private foundations.Why Do We Need an Evaluation <strong>Framework</strong>?To date, however, no evaluation framework exists toguide practice, research and policy development forthe growing field of farm to school. Farm to school isa relatively new approach and hence literature on thetopic is limited, as compared to some other childhoodobesity prevention or food system developmentEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION3approaches. Farm to school efforts over the last decade havefocused on developing and institutionalizing programs, and notso much on research. As a result, baseline data are scarce andexisting research protocols are inconsistent.Several articles and reports discuss the broader context inwhich farm to school exists 16,24–30 . Since the late 1990s, severalreviews of school site-level evaluations 1,2,18 , school-basednutrition programs’ 31–40 economic impacts of local foodpurchasing 3,13,<strong>14</strong>,17,41–44 , and impacts of school garden programshave been published 1,2,38,45,46 . Recent literature on the potentialand real benefits of farm to school is more robust related to thepublic health and nutrition outcomes 6,22,45–54 as compared to theeconomic, educational or environmental outcomes 2–4,7,41,55–57 .Because of the cross-sectoral nature of farm to schoolspanning public health, economic development, education andenvironmental quality, it is difficult for academic programs tofocus their research efforts on this topic in a multidisciplinaryway. To fully understand and realize the potential the modelholds, a cross-sectoral and broad, collaborative approach toevaluation and research is necessary.Farm to school activities at sites differ and draw strength fromeach unique local context. An evaluation framework is neededto provide guidance on how to consistently track and monitorprogram activities, along with local, state and national policiesthat influence farm to school. The field also needs agreed-uponpriority outcomes worthy of consistent measurement, andvalidated instruments to measure those outcomes.Community“A group of people with diversecharacteristics who are linked by social ties,share common perspectives, and engagein joint action in geographical locations orsettings (p. 1929)” 58 .Community Health“A healthy community is one that iscontinually creating and improving thosephysical and social environments andexpanding those community resourceswhich enable people to mutually supporteach other in performing all the functionsof life and in developing to their maximumpotential (p. 24)” 59 .This evaluation framework is a first step in that direction — it hasbeen developed collaboratively, to ensure that it is relevant forall program types and sizes, as well as a broad range of users.For anyone involved in farm to school activities, this frameworkprovides a starting point for using common language on farmto school elements, touch points, measurable outcomes,indicators and tools.Aims and ScopeThe primary aim of the farm to school evaluation framework isto guide future farm to school research and evaluation efforts,while maintaining a view of the full farm to school picture— the core program elements and their linkages, the policyconnections, and the potential cross-sectoral outcomes in fourkey sectors: public health, comunity economic development,education and environmental quality. Beyond the four sectors,the framework is structured around three levels of action:NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


4CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTIONprogram, research and policy. This will enable allusers to identify the parts of the framework mostrelevant for their interest. The framework recognizesthat policy is a critical component of robust programdevelopment, evaluation and research.For each of the four sectors, the framework providesa compilation of existing peer-reviewed researchliterature, program reports and white papers, andincludes stories from on-the-ground activitiesdemonstrating outcomes in that sector. Furthermore,the framework highlights priority outcomes vettedby the contributors, examples of existing measures,sample evaluation or assessment strategies, andrecommended resources where available.This evaluation framework is not a “how to” manualproviding step-by-step guidance on programdevelopment, program planning, evaluation orpolicy analysis. Appendix 1 and 2 provide a list ofexisting program planning and implementationguides, and farm to school evaluation toolkits, whichserve this purpose.How to Use this <strong>Framework</strong>The content of this evaluation framework has beenstructured to provide something for everyoneinvolved in the farm to school movement. Eachlevel of user, whether at the program site level,the research level or the policy level, will gain keymessages and recommendations about farm toschool evaluation priorities, outcomes, indicators,measures and tools. Priority outcomes, indicators andmeasures in Chapter 4 are categorized by programlevel (for use by program practitioners and evaluators),research level (for use by researchers) and policylevel (for use by school boards, state, city and countydecision makers, policymakers and policy advocates).Program Site-Level users• food service professionals• teachers• administrators• farmers, processors• distributors• community supporters• nonprofit staff• internal and external evaluatorsProgram site-level users can use the framework fordrafting, revising and expanding existing programdesign and implementation strategies. For example,they can compare their existing program goalsand the methods to measure program outputs andoutcomes with those listed in the different sectorsof this document. For measures that a program isnot yet tracking, they can determine which one(s)are most reasonable to include. The implementationand evaluation resources, and tools highlightedin the Appendices will be helpful for individuals atthe program level. The framework is also useful fordeveloping and modifying evaluation plans, includingthe types of prioritized outcomes, relevant measuresthat align with a program’s unique goals, identifyingpossible evaluation tools, and existing data collectionstrategies. Additionally, users at the program sitelevel can refer to cross-sectoral suggestions to buildconnections in their program model and activities,use literature cited in the framework for resources,consider new ways to communicate their programto their communities, and develop proposals to seeksupport for farm to school activities.Research-Level users• researchers and professors at colleges• land grant universities or state and federal agenciesResearch-level users can use this framework to get aquick snapshot of existing literature, and the existinggaps in farm to school research to guide their futureresearch endeavors. They can use information onconsistent program implementation to structureresearch protocols, build on program evaluationefforts for cross-site program studies, and take thelead on developing tools for data collection wherenone exist. Researchers can team up with externalevaluators to support program site-level users inunderstanding how current activities can lead toshort, intermediate, and long-term outcomes.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION5Policy-Level users• school board members• city and county level elected officials• local, state and federal agencies• policy advocates• policy staff• policymakersPolicy-level users can use this framework todetermine which outcomes align with their prioritiesand develop policy initiatives to support these goals.The framework also can help people at this levelexplore how to remove barriers that hinder farm toschool activities. The framework identifies possiblepolicy levers in each sector for furthering farm toschool activities at the local, state and national levels.Funders• foundations• local, state and federal granting agenciesFunders can use the framework to guide granteestoward consistent program articulation andrecommend common reporting requirements to buildon the body of knowledge. They can also identifypriorities for funding farm to school activities orresearch and evaluation to meet the needs ofthe movement.<strong>Framework</strong> Organizing Theme:Farm to School Supports Community HealthThis evaluation framework is grounded in the beliefthat farm to school activities support communityhealth through outcomes spanning multiple sectors,including public health, community economicdevelopment, education and environmental quality.These four sectors have been presented as subsections in this evaluation framework to guide thereader, but with the understanding that there areoverlaps and connections to some degree withinthe sectors. Further, contributors to this frameworkagreed that the shared values of economic prosperity,equitable distribution of resources, individual wellbeing,education about food’s relationship to personalhealth, and the quality of our natural environmentsare central to farm to school.Farm to school supports public health goals throughthe development of healthy eating habits in children,such as preferences for and consumption of fruitsand vegetables, while addressing family foodsecurity through boosting the quality of school mealprograms 8–11 . Some programs also have targetedfamily-specific activities such as cooking classes, orafter-school gardening activities to reinforce lessonschildren learn at schools. With diet-related chronicdiseases such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressureand obesity 60–69 on the rise and childhood povertya continuing challenge 70,71, farm to school activitiescan be a public health strategy that improves dietaryhabits and changes cultural norms of school foodenvironments.Farm to school supports community economicdevelopment goals by creating new jobs in schoolfood service, agriculture and food processing andmarketing-related industries, thereby keeping localdollars recirculating in the local economy. With31 million children eating school lunch every daythrough the National School Lunch program, schoolsrepresent a burgeoning market for food producers,processors and distributors 72 .Farm to school supports the educational goals ofschools and preschools, by engaging students inhands-on stimulating activities 73 and setting themup for educational success. Experiential activitiesthat connect kids with the source of their food andprovide nutrition likely support student learning ofscience, math and language arts.Farm to school supports environmental quality goals:Communities benefit from healthy ecosystems thatprovide water, soil, air and other resources neededto live. Farm to school supports an increasingconsumer demand for foods grown using alternativeagriculture methods that do not harm the naturalenvironment 74,75 . For example, some school districtsparticipating in farm to school aim to purchase foodsproduced and processed with methods that conservenatural resources and reduce the use of inputssuch as antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides andchemical fertilizers 76 .NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUND702BackgroundThis chapter provides background on farm to school in order to set the context forthis evaluation framework. It includes a brief history of farm to school efforts in thecountry, consistent definitions for farm to school’s core and supplemental elements,touch points and actors, and its relationship with policy development.Image created by attendees of the 6th National Farmto Cafeteria Conference under the supervision of artistBonnie Acker.


8CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDThe Evolution of Farm to School 1Efforts to connect products grown on local andregional farms with school lunches have existedfor decades, albeit happening informally andindependently through the early 1970s. Schoolfoodservice directors would purchase a crate ortwo of oranges or apples, peaches or plums fromnearby farms when in season. However, as laborcosts escalated and processed produce and entreesbecame more available, many of these practicesbegan to disappear 1 . By the 1980s and 1990s,especially among larger school districts, theseconnections with farmers were almost nonexistent.The farm crisis of the 1980s, which crippled sales formany small- and mid-scale growers, coupled witha growing recognition of obesity among youngerand younger children, created a set of conditionsthat were ripe for reinvigorating the farm to schoolconnection 1 . In the late 1990s, school foodservicedirectors across the country began to buy, tentativelyat first, produce directly from local growers.Motivations were twofold: to introduce healthy, fresh,seasonal produce to children in school lunches andto support struggling regional farmers. In many ofthese schools, children were also exposed to thesoil-to-table cycle through working in their schoolgardens, and cooking and nutrition education in theirclassrooms 1 .These pioneering programs immediatelybecame popular and began to spread fromcommunity to community. Almost 20 years later,farm to school programs have flourished and evolvedinto programs as diverse and vibrant as the schooldistricts and communities that support them.Today, farm to school is being implementednationally, operational in 44 percent of schoolsacross the country; that’s a total of 40,328 schoolsand more than 21 million children in all 50 states 2 .Local, state and national policies have been passed tosupport farm to school, creating basic infrastructure,and establishing publicly funded grant programs.More recently, organizations involved in farm toschool have been exploring the expansion of similarconcepts to the preschool or early care arena, servingthe 0-5 years age group. Farm to preschool is arapidly growing area of interest, and a 2012 snapshotsurvey of farm to preschool activities reports 500sites across the country 3 . In 20<strong>14</strong>, farm to schoolis part of the broader farm to table movementwhere organizations such as hospitals, colleges andrestaurants work more closely with local producersto bring “local food” to consumers. Producers,processors and distributors who sell products thatmeet school foodservice requirements can moreeasily tap into other institutional markets such ashospitals, restaurants, colleges, juvenile detentioncenters and correctional facilities, thereby increasingtheir income potential.Although the concepts behind farm to schoolprograms are sound and the idea has grown inpopularity from coast to coast, the implementationhas not always been easy or consistent. Local, stateand national food and farm policies, as well as theeconomics of school food, driven in part by the foodindustry, has made local procurement difficult formany school districts. One of the key lessons thathas emerged from the evolution of farm to schoolprograms is that to make these programs successful,support is needed from multiple sectors within theschool community (parents, teachers, administrators)and outside it, including distributors, economicdevelopers, health advocates and practitioners,policymakers, farmers and farm agencies, banks,media, community arts and others. Partnershipsare the cornerstone of successful farm to schoolimplementation.Another key lesson is the important connection thatschool food needs to forge with community foodsystems, particularly those systems that are strivingto build regional food system infrastructures anddistribution systems that will not only help schooldistricts procure more local, healthy food, butcontribute to building sustainable food procurementfor the entire community as well.Finally, as the benefits of farm to school becomemore visible, the more advocates can focus on someof the more difficult social justice issues that farm toschool programs allow communities to address 1 . Forexample, farm to school programs lift up foodserviceEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUND9labor by providing opportunities for professionaldevelopment, empowerment through foodserviceemployment and recognize our “lunch ladies” asthe professional chefs that they are. Farm to schoolprograms also allow us to address the challengesfaced in underserved and rural communitieswhere amenities and partnership present in urbansettings may be scarce. On the food production andprocessing end, farm to school provides opportunitiesto small- and medium-sized farmers to engage inthe institutional food market, and has the potentialto bring attention to food justice issues, such as theconditions faced by farm workers and the labor forcein the food processing and packing industries 1 .Defining Farm to SchoolFarm to school activities tend to be place- and sitespecificwith one or more stated goals. Interests fromfunders, support organizations and policy advocatescan often influence how farm to school activitiesare framed and defined for a specific site. As a result,currently there are multiple definitions that describewhat farm to school is, who participates, what they dowhen and where, and how they do it.In the process of drafting this farm to schoolevaluation framework, it became evident that toconsistently describe and measure outcomes relatedto farm to school programs and policies, there needsto be a clearer sense of “what is a farm to schoolactivity?” There is general agreement that farm toschool initiatives: connect schools (K-12) and earlychildhood education settings (subcategorized as farmto preschool) with local food producers; aim to servehealthy and local food; improve student nutrition;provide agriculture, health and nutrition educationopportunities; and support local and regionalfarmers 4 .In this framework, project team members and authorsscanned the most current terms used to describethe “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” “why” and “how”of farm to school and it revealed that practitionersin different fields use different words to representthe same farm to school activity or goal. Taking intoaccount the variety and scope of definitions andterms gathered through this process, the NationalFarm to School Network recommends the use of thefollowing concepts as a starting point for consistentlyarticulating farm to school activities.Core Elements of Farm to School:Procurement, Gardening and EducationThe three core elements of farm to school activitiesinclude: local food procurement, school gardeningand food-based education as described in Table 1.These core elements serve as a guide for beginningand building a robust farm to school program, andfor exploring how the three elements interrelateto support outcomes in four different sectors –public health, community economic development,education and environmental quality.Due to differences in interest, assets and resourcesavailable to sites, any one of these core elements canserve as the starting point for establishing farm toschool activities. Program sites will develop specificgoals and outcomes that may result from resourcesand activities in the three core elements. Researchindicates that multiple component approaches aremore powerful in encouraging learning and behaviorchanges than any one element alone 8–10 , and this istrue of farm to school. When implemented alone ortogether, the three core elements are what makesfarm to school unique for its potential cross-sectoraloutcomes. Further, each core element catalyzesthe other, enabling greater impact. For example,educational activities such as taste tests, farm tours orfarmer in the classroom sessions conducted a weekprior to when local products are introduced in thecafeteria can build student awareness and interest,and encourage students to choose those localproducts from the cafeteria line. As farm to school ata given site progresses, implementation of one coreelement can also lead to the other, and enable lastingchange in the community.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


10CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDFigure 1EducationSchool GardensProcurementTable 1: Core Elements of Farm to School (see additional details Appendix 3)Core ElementDescriptionProcurement(of local andregional foodproducts)The buying, preparing, serving and promoting of local foods and food products in schools orearly childhood education centers. “Local” is defined uniquely at each site, and can range froma radius of miles around a school district, to state boundaries, to regional distances based ongeography 5–7 .Gardening(school-basedgardens)The planting, tending, harvesting and eating of foods that takes place in outdoor garden spacesor indoors (such as through vertical gardening). Includes experiential or hands-on learning,direct food experiences, healthy food promotion, classroom curriculum and environmentaleducation activities. It may also include garden-based food production to sell foods to the cafeteriaor give to families and community members. Gardening is an active, experiential methodof education that involves learning skills related to food production.Education(food and farmrelated)Education for children and families inside and outside the classroom may include the following:• Classroom curriculum aligned to local, state and national standards in math, science, health,nutrition, language arts and social studies.• Activities and lessons about food, food production, food systems, agriculture, how foodcontributes to human health, how the food system affects natural ecosystems, etc.• Experiential learning such as farm tours, farmers’ market trips, visits from chefs, ranchers,farmers, producers and distributors, taste tests, recipe development, food preparationand cooking.• Skill development related to food production, food preparation, nutrition and cooking.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUND11Supplemental Elements of Farm to SchoolActivities described in the core elements of farm toschool significantly benefit from and are supported byadditional inputs, such as:• Training and professional development: developingschool foodservice staff capacity to prepareand serve local foods, understand food safetyrequirements for handling fresh produce grownin school gardens, and embracing their role inencouraging children to try new foods. Educatorsmay need training and support to teach subjectsusing hands-on activities with foods. Volunteersand visiting community members such as farmersmay benefit from training on how to presentfarming, ranching, processing and cookinginformation to different age groups in classroomsor on field trips 11–13 .• Promotion and media: increasing communityawareness and reinforcing the farm to schoolmessages. Regular promotion and marketing offarm to school activities in the school environmentensures continued support and excitement.• Planning, coordination and evaluation: monitoringand assessing progress toward program goals andoutcomes. Volunteers or site staff can play thisrole.• Outreach and community engagement: buildingrelationships in the community is a cornerstone offarm to school. These can be with and betweenfarmers, parents or community volunteers andleaders.• Policy alignment: removing barriers for localfarmers to supply school districts and to accelerateprogress towards institutionalization. Policies canbe at the local, state and national level.• Funding: supporting additional staff time,infrastructure, or specific program activity costs.Many of these also have a catalytic impact on eachother and on the core elements, and create a positivefeedback loop for program improvement. Forexample, the more foodservice workers are trained,the better they align with the program model andare buy into the farm to school approach, seeingthemselves as the gatekeepers of health in theschool <strong>14</strong> . Media and marketing efforts create a buzzabout farm to school in the community, which bringsattention to the farm to school activities conducted atschool, creates a demand for program expansion,and garners interest in policies to institutionalizefarm to school.Farm to School Touch PointsActivities within the three core elements of farm toschool can occur in various locations and includeone or more of the following intervention sites or“touch points,” where a program activity may “touch”participants. (see Figure 3). The description of eachtouch point includes just a sample of possibleactivities.1. Farms and other food production and processingfacilities: local food is produced or processed fordistribution to schools or early care centers. Thisis where farmers, processors and distributors canengage with students about local foods.2. Cafeterias: where local foods are served andpromoted to students, foodservice staff, teachersand other adults.3. Classrooms: where educators or early careproviders help students make curricularconnections with food, health, agriculture andnutrition.4. Outdoor learning spaces and school gardens:where teachers, volunteers and other adultsengage children in hands-on learning to reinforceclassroom lessons.5. Home and family: where children share materials,such as seeds and plant starts, and lessons fromschool. Children can try new recipes with familymembers and encourage healthier eating habits.6. Community: where schools or early care centersconnect with farmers, ranchers, processors,grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and chefs inactivities that engage students and families andpromote local foods.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


12CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDFigure 2Figure 3: Farm to School Actors and Touch PointsEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUND13Farm to School ActorsAt any of the touch points there are multiple actorsand participants involved in the development andimplementation of farm to school activities.1. Food producers, processors and distributorssupply the local foods featured in the cafeteria orclassroom for taste tests, and serve as resourcesfor experiential learning opportunities via toursto a farm or processing facility and farmerin the classroom sessions. In turn, they reapthe monetary benefits via expanded businessopportunities and connections with the schoolcommunity.2. Foodservice staff directly engages in the activitiesneeded to serve healthy foods procured fromlocal and regional farmers in the cafeteria, butalso play a role in educational activities in thecafeteria, such as taste tests.3. Teachers conduct curricular activities to connectthe core elements of farm to school in all subjectareas. Teachers also serve as role models forhealthy behaviors.4. Teachers, volunteers, community members andgarden coordinators plan and conduct learningopportunities for children in outdoor spacesincluding gardens.5. Families, parents and caregivers reinforce thefarm to school message to children in the homeenvironment.6. Community organizations and individuals (i.e.chefs, farmers’ market managers and mastergardeners) volunteer to support implementationof activities in the school. Decision makers atthe local level (i.e. school district board and citymayors), and policymakers at the state and federallevel set the guidelines for supporting or hinderingfarm to school activities.Farm to School’s Relationship to PoliciesA central rationale for structuring the evaluationframework at the program, research and policylevels is to highlight the way the three levels interact.Programs influence and feed into policy developmentand vice versa (see Figure 4) 15 . Research supportsimprovement toward societal goals in both policyand programs. It is important to monitor the extentto which policy is being used as a tool to develop,expand and support farm to school programmaticactivities. It is also important to explore how on-thegroundpractices, such as creating bids for local foodprocurement, may benefit from changes in existingpolicies.Policy development can contribute to transformativeinstitutional changes with improved access toresources and benefits for farm to school. Forexample, legislation passed in 2006 in Oklahomacreated a paid farm to school coordinator positionat the state Deptartment of Agriculture, was animpetus for expanding farm to school activities inthe state. The Department of Agriculture’s farm toschool coordinator has connected producers andschools, conducted educational sessions, trainingsand workshops to build capacity and awareness, andcreated materials to promote the agency’s interestand commitment to farm to school. This dedicatedstaffing to support farm to school activities within astate department is not unique to Oklahoma; a totalof eight states have created positions in either thestate agriculture, education or health departments, ormore than one position in multiple state agencies 16 .Alternatively, learning from on-the-ground programscan be utilized to champion policy changes. Thesecould be in the realm of removing barriers tosuccessful farm to school implementation or towardgeneral support and encouragement for farm toschool activities. For example, as more schoolsin the nation prioritized and sought locally grownproduce, they lacked clarity on the administrativerules. This lack of clarity was proving to be a barrierfor farm to school implementation. The 20<strong>08</strong> FarmBill included the “geographic preference” provisionto make it easier for schools to buy locally 6,7 . Sincethen, USDA has provided trainings and <strong>web</strong>inars onthis topic to assist school districts’ understanding ofthe geographic preference rule and how it can beused for farm to school procurement. Additionally,the 20<strong>14</strong> Agricultural Act (P.L. 113-79) establisheda new farm to school pilot program for procuringNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


<strong>14</strong>CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDFigure 4: The Policy Process: The Chicken or the Egg? 15EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUND15local fruits and vegetables and a food and agricultureservice-learning program in section 4201 and 4202 17 .As described in the examples above, the demand forfarm to school activities in schools and communitiescan drive policy change.Some policies affect farm to school activities directly,such as dedicated state positions, or the geographicpreference procurement rule; others may have amore indirect impact. Below are a few examples offederal, state and local policies that can support farmto school.Federal Policy• The Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization (CNR):In 2004, for the first time ever, the CNR establisheda federal farm to school program, though it wasunfunded. With increased demand and supportfrom communities and Congress alike, the HealthyHunger-Free Kids Act (or CNR 2010), provided$5 million per year in mandatory funding for theFarm to School Grant Program. The USDA’s Foodand Nutrition Service now administers this grantprogram. This act also required school districts toadopt local wellness policies.State Policy• State legislation, agency programs andinstitutional policies: Farm to school programsare more likely to occur in states with supportivelegislation 18 . In 2013, 38 states and Washington,D.C., have passed policies supporting farm toschool. In 2012 and 2013 alone, 20 states passedfarm to school legislation and 17 others introducedlegislation supportive of farm to school 16 .• The Common Core State Standards Initiative: Astate-led initiative in the education sector set forthlearning goals to help prepare students for college,career and life 19 . Farm to school education andschool gardening activities will be most impactfulif they align to these standards in support ofeducation goals.Local Policy• Local school district and school wellness policieswere supported through the 2004 Child NutritionReauthorization that required that all schooldistricts receiving federal funds for school mealprograms adopt a local wellness policy. Manyschool districts have included language in theirwellness policies to encourage farm to school.Schools may develop and adopt their own wellnesspolicies that expand on the district’s template 20 .• School district procurement policies: Schoolshave significant purchasing power and throughpolicy can encourage the production of and accessto healthy, local foods in their communities. Forexample, the Los Angeles Unified School Districtsigned on to the city’s “Good Food PurchasingPledge” in October 2012 21 .• School district fundraising policies: Smart policiescan support a wide variety of farm to schoolrelatedfundraising endeavors, such as allowinga farm stand on the school campus or creatingcriteria for products included in fundraising efforts.• Cities are beginning to explore their role in farm toschool. Here are some specific examples:• Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) CitiesInitiative: The campaign suggests policiescities can use to support and align with farm toschool program activities 22 .• Good Food Purchasing Program Los Angeles:A comprehensive and metric-based foodpurchasing policy, developed by the LAFood Policy Council. Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District became the first schooldistrict in the country to sign the Good FoodPurchasing Pledge 21 .• Food policy councils (FPCs): FPCs can bestatewide, regional or at the city level. ManyFPCs have made farm to school a priority,working to remove barriers for communities toimplement farm to school core elements, suchas local procurement. Of the 270 FPCs listed inthe Directory of Food Policy Councils in NorthAmerica, 33 specifically list food access orgardening in schools as a top priority 23 .NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS1703<strong>Framework</strong>Development ProcessThis chapter describes the methodology used for development of this farm to schoolevaluation framework. It outlines the collaborative processes undertaken to engagemultiple tiers of stakeholder groups, the theoretical basis of the framework, and theprioritization of farm to school outcomes, indicators and measures across the four sectors.Image created by attendees of the 6th National Farmto Cafeteria Conference under the supervision of artistBonnie Acker.


18 CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESSStakeholder Engagement:Informal Engagement:Informal discussions about the need for an evaluationframework and what it would take to create one havebeen occurring for a number of years. Conversationson the need for a nationally coordinated effort forfarm to school research and evaluation began tocoalesce in 2007 1 . Since 20<strong>08</strong>, the National Farm toSchool Network has convened three short courses atthe 2009, 2010 and 2011 National Farm to CafeteriaConferences, and at the 2011 Community FoodSecurity Coalition’s Annual Conference, engaging atotal of <strong>25</strong>0 people. All these events have informedthe rationale and content for this evaluationframework. Discussions at these gatherings revealedthat on-the-ground farm to school implementerswere seeking guidance on common tools andmetrics; researchers were seeking consistent programarticulation, a theory of change and validatedindicators in the four sectors; and policymakers wereworking to identify barriers or seeking opportunitiesto support farm to school.Simultaneously, efforts were undertaken to reviewand compile informal reports and peer-reviewedliterature on the topic 2–4 and evaluation tools used 5 .Data collection through state and federal governmentsurveys where there were opportunities to insertquestions related to farm to school were identifiedand recommended.Formal Engagement:Progress toward creation of this evaluation frameworkdocument was initiated in late 2012. In addition to ascan of recent literature on farm to school practice,evaluation and research, a stakeholder analysis 6was conducted to identify different perspectivesneeded to inform the development of the framework.Using a participatory process, several experts infarm to school and related sectors — evaluators,researchers, policy experts and on-the-groundpractitioners were engaged in the development ofthis framework (see the Acknowledgements section).This formal stakeholder engagement forms the basisof the process described below for developing theevaluation framework:Phase 1: Identification of broad areas to guide theframework development processIn-person meeting in Hartford, Conneticut,September 10-11, 2013: Using a purposive samplingmethod 7,8 the project team identified and invitedindividuals or organizations to participate in themeeting. Participants had either produced a body ofwritten and/or programmatic work related to farmto school, or had a strong understanding of farm toschool programming, policy or systems interactions,or had experience in one of the four sectors alignedto farm to school. The project team also selectedindividuals who would be able to apply an equityperspective to farm to school practice. The twodayin-person meeting served as the kick-off to theframework development and drafting process, with21 persons in attendance (listed as attendees in theAcknowledgments section). This group determinedthe need to use a social-ecological model to guidethe framework, and agreed upon four sectors thatinfluence potential outcomes of farm to schooldiscussed in the literature, identified key principles andvalues to support the framework, identified potentialaudiences and how they may use the framework, andbegan outlining cross-sectoral connections.At this meeting, the group agreed on theseoverarching principles to guide the development ofthe farm to school evaluation framework:• Farm to school can support community health(described in Chapter 1).• Farm to school interactions are complex, and itis important to understand the cross-sectorallinkages.• The socio-ecological model is a useful tool tounderstand behavior change across sectorsresulting from farm to school activities.• The equity approach of farm to school should beemphasized.• The framework should not be prescriptive, andshould provide room for specific program sites tointerpret the recommendations.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS19Phase 2: <strong>Framework</strong> content developmentSectoral workgroups (September 2013 to March 20<strong>14</strong>): Afterthe in-person meeting, participants self-selected how theywould continue to be involved in developing content forthe framework. In September 2013, participants broke intoworkgroups. The project team developed two working groupsof participants: (1) public health and education, and(2) community economic development and environmentalquality, to take advantage of the knowledge and experience ofthe participants.From November 2013 through March 20<strong>14</strong>, the workgroupscompleted the following activities through conference calls andindividual assignments:• Provided definitions for each sector as it relates to farm toschool;• Explored how various farm to school program elementsinfluence short-term, intermediate and long-termoutcomes;• Identified priority farm to school outcomes using a set ofagreed upon criteria and rationale for prioritization;• Identified potential indicators and related measures tomeasure priority outcomes;• Identified existing data sources and data collection methods;• Identified cross-sectoral connections, and• Developed recommendations for evaluators, researchers,policymakers and other users of the framework.EquityEquity means all people have full and equalaccess to opportunities that enable themto attain their full potential (King County,Washington Ordinance 2010-0509)Just and Fair Food SystemWhole Food Measures for Community FoodSecurity notes that a food system is just andfair when it:1. Provides food for all2. Reveals, challenges, and dismantlesinjustice in the food system3. Creates just food system structures andcares for food system workers4. Ensures that public institutions andlocal businesses support a just communityfood systemPhase 3: Content expansion and feedback from externalreviewersInternal and external framework review (March to April20<strong>14</strong>): Workgroup participants in February 20<strong>14</strong> revieweda first draft of the framework. They contributed further tocontent elements, such as additional measurement tools ordata sources, and confirmed prioritization of the proposedoutcomes and indicators. In March 20<strong>14</strong> the project team sentout a draft to reviewers selected based on their expertise ineach sector area, and experience with farm to school and policydevelopment. Through a systematized online form, reviewersprovided feedback on usability of the document, content,prioritized outcomes, indicators, measures and sample tools.The project team and authors addressed reviewer suggestionsNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


20 CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESSand concerns by expanding possible measures orproviding explanatory text about why the frameworkprioritizes specific outcomes, indicators or measures.In April 20<strong>14</strong>, the framework underwent a secondexternal review process by additional reviewers,including those who gave input at the National Farmto Cafeteria Conference. Approximately 43 individualsfrom 35 different organizations reviewed and providedfeedback on the document.Phase 4: Working draft release at the 7th NationalFarm to Cafeteria Conference in Austin, TexasPublic review of the draft framework (April 20<strong>14</strong>):“Evaluation for Transformation” (a short course atthe 7th National Farm to Cafeteria Conference, April15, 20<strong>14</strong>) served as a limited release of a workingdraft of the framework, as well as an opportunityto get additional feedback, revisions and contentsuggestions from those in the farm to schoolpractitioner, evaluation and research fields. Sixty-twoindividuals attended this short course. This exercisewas crucial to meeting the overarching project goalto build capacity in the farm to school field for usingexisting evaluation methods and tools. The shortcourse provided the opportunity for attendees (farmto school practitioners) to begin thinking about andworking with the framework. The framework refers tomany resources that are located on the National Farmto School Network’s searchable database of resourcesand literature. The framework should be used inconjunction with those online resources.Phase 5: Ground testing<strong>Framework</strong> launch and testing (July 20<strong>14</strong>): The finalframework document was launched online in July20<strong>14</strong>. An online form collects practitioner feedback,which could be incorporated in future editions of thedocument.Theoretical Basis of the <strong>Framework</strong>:Farm to school activities at sites across the countryvary widely and are largely determined by communityneeds and assets. In order to clearly articulate andunderstand what outcomes are feasible, the projectteam and contributors needed to ground farm toschool core elements in a theoretical framework toguide practices across specific sites. The project teamand contributors chose to use a socio-ecologicalmodel from health promotion to guide this evaluationframework, because it highlights the role of socialrelationships, cultural norms, physical environmentsand institutional policies in influencing individualbehaviors 9–13 . Social ecological models are usedextensively in the public health field 9 , including bythe Institute of Medicine to address diet-relatedissues <strong>14</strong> , such as how environmental conditions affectchildren’s behaviors related to chronic conditions likeobesity 11–13,15 .Additional theoretical perspectives that guide farmto school efforts include social cognitive theory 16 ,the social-ecological transactional model 17 , and theexperiential learning model, along with others inschool gardening 18 . The poly-theoretical model usesmany of these same theories to understand howfood- and garden-based education in school settingsaffects a school’s learning environments in ways thatdirectly and indirectly affect student characteristicsand behaviors for outcomes related to public healthand education 19 . The framework also applied asystems perspective in situating farm to school withinexisting contexts, such as the education system andthe economy, as these larger systems affect what isfeasible in farm to school 20 .The project team reviewed multiple socioecologicalmodels to find a good fit for groundingthe evaluation framework and used elements ofseveral models 9,19,21–24 . The hybrid model retainscharacteristics of other social ecological modelswhile using descriptions that relate to farm toschool activities. For example, the categories inthe diagram describe different settings where themodel can be used to predict how intrapersonal(such as knowledge), interpersonal (such as peerrelationships), organizational environments (such asavailability of healthy foods at school), community(such as expectations about access to healthy foods)and public policy factors interact to affect individualand institutional behaviors related to farm to school.Policy is typically built into social ecological models asEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS21the outer-most ring that affects all environments andrelationship settings within, the hybrid model used inthis framework emphasizes it as a common threadacross all the various environments (i.e. individual,family, community, region, country and state, andculture and society) and levels of influence. Thishybrid model was used to outline outcomes in eachsector, and across sectors (see Figure 5).Figure 5: Socio-Ecological Hybrid Model Applied to Farm to SchoolPublic HealthOutcomesCommunity EconomicDevelopment OutcomesEducation OutcomesNational, State and Local PoliciesEnvironmental QualityOutcomesCultural and Society CharacteristicsCountry and StateRegionCommunityFamily, Tribe and ClanIndividualNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


22CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESSPriority Outcomes, Indicators and MeasuresFigure 6: Criteria for Selecting MeasuresAligned to Priority Outcomes 21• Should be reliable and consistentover space and time• Verifiable and replicable• Make use of available data/be easilymeasured• Measure what is important tostakeholders• Be diverse enough to meet therequirements of different users• Be limited in numberBased on their field of expertise in the four sectors, workgroupparticipants identified an initial list of at least three outcomesfor each sector, which was further edited and prioritized. Usingan agreed-upon criteria, the groups identified indicators ormeasures for at least three priority outcomes (where feasible) ineach sector for the following levels:• Program-level outcomes• Research-level outcomes• Policy outcomesThe framework focuses on these three levels to 1) provideguidance for program sites who want to expand their programevaluation efforts, 2) build capacity in the field for developingcommon language and outcomes at each level, 3) supportgrowth in the research field connecting program activitiesto researching associations, and causality between programactivities and outcomes in the sectors, and 4) suggest areas forpolicy development that will support programs.The differences between where program evaluation leaves offand research begins can be hard to distinguish. In general:Program evaluation - uses systematic methods to collect,analyze, and report information about activities undertaken inorder to improve, or further develop implementation. It servesas a feedback loop for program coordinators, partners, andparticipants. The program level outcomes prioritized in thisframework are intended to be easiest to measure, requiring theleast amount of resources to measure, and are site-specific. Theproject team, in scanning the literature and discussing currentfarm to school practice determined that long term outcomeevaluation, surveillance, and monitoring to examine systemicchanges is beyond the scope of evaluation efforts undertakenby an individual farm to school site – these practices needadditional support from researchers.Research - While researchers use similar methods as evaluatorsfor conducting interviews, surveys, or quantitative datacollection, unlike evaluation, the focus of research is to advancetheory or what is known about a specific topic. The researchlevel outcomes prioritized are intended to build on evaluationefforts at the program level. The project team learned fromreviewers that some schools and districts are partnering withexternal evaluators or support organizations to examine manyEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS23measures in the four sectors at the research level. Theevaluation framework is not intended to limit programactivities, rather it sets realistic expectations aboutwhat is needed to do evaluative work at the program,research, and policy levels. Research-level outcomesare anticipated to require significantly more resources,are to be measured over longer time periods, andwill likely need to use sophisticated data collectionand analysis methods. Researchers can build on theefforts of program evaluators by conducting crosssitestudies and examining multiple outcomes acrosssectors from similar program activities.The group used the criteria in Figure 6 for selectingmeasures to ensure that the outcomes, indicators andmeasures could be measurable by practitioners atprogram sites. The project team selected research andpolicy measures by first applying the criteria in Figure5 and further identifying those that have the mostdirect relationship to program activities and programarticulation as described in Chapter 4.1. Based onfeedback received from workgroups and reviewers,measures were modified or added to differentsectors across the program, research and policylevels. The project team made final decisions on theselected measures based on feedback received, theirunderstanding of the literature, current farm to schoolpractice and vision for the field. Each working groupdiscussed and addressed gaps in priority outcomes,indicators and measures; identified additionalmeasures, if needed; and confirmed existing datacollection mechanisms. While all members of theworking groups did not always reach consensus onthe prioritized outcomes, indicators and measures,there was general agreement on how any concernsor challenges raised should be addressed in theframework document.Priority outcomes, indicators and measures arelisted in Chapter 4 for each of the four sectorsof public health, community economic development,education and environmental quality. A templateis provided with descriptions and instructionson interpretation.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


24CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESSTable 2: Template for Interpreting Prioritized Outcomes, Indicators and MeasuresLevelProgram Research PolicyPriority OutcomeChanges or benefits that result from activities and outputs. Short-term outcomes are the most closely associated toprogram activities. Intermediate outcomes result from short-term outcomes. Long-term outcomes evolve from theprevious two outcomes. Most of the outcomes listed are considered intermediate to long-term outcomes.IndicatorState of a particular subsystem to help understand causes of problems and work to address them. A “systemperformance” indicator is one that reflects how the system is working and can help the community see how the systemis working and anticipate potential breakdowns or changes in direction 22 .Measure 1, 2, etc.Measures are different aspects that can help people explore how an indicator is changing over time.Associated Core ElementsProcurement, gardening or education activities required to result in the related outcome.Data SourcesRecommended methods to gather, track or monitor information identified as a prioritized measure where relevant.Sample ToolsRefers the reader to existing tools, data collection organizations or surveys at the program level.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


26 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESSector descriptions in the contextof farm to school:Public HealthLocal and nutritious foods, including those that aresustainably produced and processed, should beavailable in all schools and early childhood educationcenters to nourish every child, regardless of raceand ethnicity, economic standing, or geographiclocation. Farm to school activities aim to providehealthy food options and nutrition and food-basededucation to influence healthy eating behaviors andhealthy lifestyles in children. These activities also aimto educate and engage parents, thereby reinforcinghealthy family eating and food purchasing behaviors.Farm to school has the potential to connect peopleto the land to the source of food. Through the useof school and community gardens, farm to schoolcan contribute to healthy neighborhoods wherecommunities have a better understanding of howfood is grown and how food affects their healthand wellness. Farm to school activities encouragerelationship building among community memberssuch as farmers and educators, who might nototherwise collaborate.Community Economic DevelopmentFarm to school provides economic developmentopportunities to producers, (i.e. farmers, ranchers,fishers) laborers, distributors, processors, cooks andfoodservice staff, as well as others who support thelocal food system. Beyond this, farm to school mayalso specifically benefit those who have historicallylacked equal access to the traditional food system,such as small or mid-sized operations, lower incomeindividuals, women and people of color, and those inrural areas. Farm to school activities can support thesegroups by building long-term economic vitality withinthe local food system through creating a demandfor local food products. Further, the value of equityapplied to the community economic developmentsector implies living wages, safe working conditions,and equal opportunities for marketing, value-addition,and distribution for vulnerable populations.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES27EducationA child’s readiness to learn while they are at schoolis impacted by their health. School environments,which support learning about making healthy eatingdecisions at school and at home, are needed forchildren to develop to their full potential. Farmto school can support educational outcomes forstudents by increasing student access to healthyfoods in the physical school environment, andpromoting educational activities that engage childrenand families in learning about, and developingskills related to eating healthfully. Farm to schoolcurriculum and experiential activities are also aplatform to teach core content areas such as science,math and language arts through lessons on food andthe food system.Environmental QualityAs an essential part of creating healthy communities,farm to school activities can support environmentallysound, sustainable and socially just approachesto food production, processing, packaging,transportation and marketing. Farm to schoolactivities can support practices that build healthy soil,clean air, clean water and ecosystem processes inurban, suburban and rural environments. Activitiesmay promote an ecological ethic among participants,develop infrastructure that supports healthyenvironments, and promote agriculture and fooddistribution practices that mitigate climate change.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


28 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES4.1 Program ArticulationThis section describes the need for consistentprogram articulation as a basis for effective evaluation,and provides templates that can be used to describethe farm to school core and supporting elementsimplemented at school and early care sites.The Need for Consistent Program ArticulationConsistency in describing farm to school activitiesis needed to distinguish the most effective elementsand components, as well as inform how relatedoutcomes are measured. Program evaluators needan understanding of which people are exposed towhich type of activities, for what duration of time, inorder to discern how they are meeting the targetedshort-term outcomes for the selected activities, andto compare changes from year to year. Researcherswho undertake cross-site studies need to understandwhich sites are using similar activities and are beingimplemented in similar ways in order to determinehow specific activities and their combinations resultin specific outcomes. For example, while every farmto school site may currently define “local” in their ownway, if every site were to consistently communicateits geographic definition of “local,” then researcherswould have a way to understand how different farmto school sites around the country relate to oneanother in terms of outcomes related to the farm toschool core element of procurement.Further, consistent program articulation providesthe context for understanding which activities workin which settings and why. For example, farm toschool education and gardening activities overlapwith other forms of instruction or curriculum, andcan be merged with multiple core content areasin a school setting. The reporting on design andimplementation of activities, such as information onthe frequency, dosage and time children are engagedin these activities is a crucial factor for understandingthe outcomes associated with farm to schooleducation and garden activities (described in Chapter4.4). Documenting which activities are specific tofarm to school — beyond normal classroom orlearning activities — will help program evaluators andresearchers understand their unique contributions toeducational outcomes beyond what children wouldotherwise experience in a classroom. Comparing theimplementation and scope of various farm to schoolactivities at sites will provide a better understandingof what combination of activities are linked to thedesired outcomes.Finally, with consistent program articulation,practitioners can easily share stories, data, successesand lessons learned from their experience with avariety of audiences. Practitioners should considerEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES29Simca Horwitz, Massachusetts State Lead for the National Farm to School Network, tends a bed of strawberries at acommunity garden. (Credit: Chelsey Simpson)writing quarterly or semi-annual descriptions of theirfarm to school activities; this can be used to reportto the school board or funder, promote efforts in thelocal media and to elected officials, and celebratesuccess with participants and collaborators.Communities want to hear about farm to schoolefforts and successes! Tell them about:• Did farm to school activities help children learnnew skills for preparing food?• Did the school site purchase and serve a newproduct children had not tried before?• Did chefs do a cook-off with local ingredients toraise funds for farmer visits?• Did the school nutrition program start a cateringbusiness that serves other institutions?A Guide for Consistently Describing Farm toSchool ActivitiesIt is critical for sites to have systems in place fortracking and communicating how farm to school coreand supplemental elements are being implemented.This is important because from year to year,participants may forget why one set of activities led toa specific outcome. For example, supporting elementssuch as training, promotion, volunteers hours anddonations may make a difference in the number ofchildren who are able to participate in the farm toschool activities, or what combination of activitiesare possible.Table 3 provides a recommended structure forconsistently describing farm to school activities acrossthe three core elements, and the six supplementalelements. These activities are aligned with the priorityoutcomes listed in Chapters 4.2-4.5, and havebeen informed by existing tracking tools used byorganizations and grantors 1–5 .NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


30 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESTable 3: A Guide for Describing Farm to School ActivitiesFarm to SchoolCore ElementProcurement(of local and regionalfood products)Recommended Activities and DescriptionsVariety and amount of local and sustainably produced products purchased (fruits,vegetables, meats, seafood or poultry, plant-based proteins, fluid milk, baked goods,grains/flour, herbs, eggs)Ways in which local foods and their producers are promoted to whom and how oftenTotal dollar amount and percentage of school food budget spent on locally grown andprocessed foodsFood preparation strategies used to increase local foods availability, accessibility orappealServing strategies used to increase line of site and reach of healthy local foodsNumber of local and regional producers/processors from where product is purchasedWays procuring local foods is connected to garden and/or educational activities in theschool, home and communityNumber of students with access to local productsGardening(school-based gardens)The number and type of participants including students, parents, staff and communitymembers (for students, include grades and ages)The number of times and duration participants engaged in various types of gardeningactivities of planting, tending, harvesting, preparing and consuming and over what timeperiodCurriculum used in the garden, which content area(s) and standards it aligns with, if anyKinds and types of educational activities (i.e. taking measurements for math, projectbasedlearning or other) used with participantsTypes, frequency and duration of garden activity engaged with the school cafeteria,farmers, food processors, community and the broader communityWays gardening activities are connected to procuring local foods in the cafeteria and/oreducational activities in the school, home and communityEducation(food and farm related)The number and type of participants including students, parents, staff (for students,include grades and ages)Subjects, grade levels, number of classes where farm to school activities and ifcurriculum is aligned to core content standardsWays educational activities are connected to procuring local foods in the cafeteria and /or gardening activities in the school, home and communityEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES31Table 3 Cont.: A Guide for Describing Farm to School ActivitiesFarm to SchoolSupplemental ElementTraining and professionaldevelopmentRecommended Activities and DescriptionsThe number and type of participants including students, parents and staff who receivetraining and professional developmentWhat types of training and professional development is providedThe learning objectives and skill development through trainings providedThe specific goal area this training helps support. Is this cooking demonstrationfor a new seasonal product? Are farmers learning how to present to children inthe classroom?Promotion and mediaIn what ways and how often are the core farm to school elements promoted and towhom?In what ways and how often are farm to school outcomes promoted and to whom? Forexample, does your chamber of commerce realize that <strong>25</strong>0 children grew vegetablestarts for a very successful fundraiser this spring?Planning, coordination andevaluationWho helps plan, implement, and evaluate the farm to school activities? Are they withinschool (teachers, students, nutrition services staff), or outside of school (parents,community members, farmers, external evaluators)? What is everyone’s role andresponsibility? How are evaluation findings shared within the site, with the community,and the media?Outreach and communityengagementIn what ways and how often are family and community members engaged?How frequently do volunteers participate? Consider keeping a volunteer log.Policy alignmentList applicable local school district and school policies that support farm to school coreelements, such as wellness policies. See Appendix 2 Implementation Resources forsample model wellness policy language that incorporates farm to schoolFundingTypes and amounts of internal (within school district) or external funds or in-kindsupport secured for implementing farm to school core elementsNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


32 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESStudents in Riverside, CA show their approval for local salad greens. (Credit: Emily Hart Roth)In addition to describing the core and supporting farmto school elements, it is useful to track how activitieswere implemented over the course of a school year.Table 4 provides a sample table shell that can be usedfor this purpose. This tool can be used for planningat the beginning of each year for those sites withmultiple teachers and nutrition service staff workingin a team. It provides a quick snapshot description ofhow and when the different core and supplementalelements are being implemented at a site.Logic ModelsA logic model can strengthen consistent programarticulation, help practitioners easily describe themultiple components of farm to school, and supportprogram planning and evaluation. It can assistprogram coordinators in identifying strategies andactivities that most align with their goals, identifypotential outputs and consider how those outputs canlead to outcomes 6 . It can help practitioners examineprogram strengths and weaknesses, identify whichelements of a program are working, and identifyareas that need improvement. See Table 5 for atemplate and Appendix 4 for an example of a programlogic model.Theory of Change ModelsEspecially for sites that seek to support family andcommunity level changes, the articulation of atheory of change may serve as a useful tool to guideefforts. This version of a logic model has communitymembers and program designers identify thecommunity problem, assess a community’s needs,note assumptions and take stock of other influentialfactors that may contribute to how the programcould work 7 .EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES33Table 4: Table Shell for Tracking Farm to School Activities Over a School YearProcurementGardenEducationSpecific SupportingElementAug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar. April May June Julystrawberriestraining forkitchen staffTable 5: Table Shell for a Program Logic ModelInputs or ResourcesActivitiesOutputsOutcomes: short termOutcomes:Things we buy or havedonated:What we do:Because of ouractivities, we hadthese results:And because of ourresults, these changesoccurred:intermediate andlong termFigure 7: Theory of Change Template 7NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


34 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESProgram Articulation’s Relationship with Evaluationand ResearchThis framework suggests farm to school sites beginconsistently describing and documenting theiractivities in a way that makes sense in their contextto support program evaluation. In this framework theintention is for program-level outcomes to be easiestto measure, connected to a specific program’s goalsand program plan, and require the least amount ofresources to conduct. Similar to starting farm toschool programs in one core element and buildingon success, it is unrealistic for external evaluators orresearchers to expect program participants begindocumenting every core and supporting elementright away. The number of participants at a schooland in a school district varies widely based on theprogram elements and who receives which activities.For example, it is often the case that one grade, orone class will receive more hours of garden activitiesthat may be connected to a public health goal,while all students eating school meals potentiallybenefit from procurement activities. The purpose ofTables 3 is to propose that programs and researchersdocument and report what is needed to help describeoutcomes, and the suggestions are aligned withpriority outcomes and measures discussed in the restof Chapter 4.similar program activity inputs. Consistent programarticulation is crucial at the program level becauseevaluators and researchers need this information. Theresearch level outcomes, indicators and measureswill need a strong theoretical basis, often requiresophisticated data collection and analysis, and requiremore resources and longer time periods in orderto answer research questions. Long-term outcomeevaluation, surveillance and monitoring to examinechanges in systems or people’s health status isbeyond the scope of an individual farm to schoolsite evaluation, and needs additional support fromresearchers and funders.Program evaluation uses systematic methods tocollect, analyze and report information about aprogram in order to improve, or further develop it. Itcan be simple or complex; for example, one action, ifit is intended to improve outcomes, can be evaluated.Program evaluation serves as a feedback loop forprogram coordinators, partners or participants. Thedifferences between where evaluation leaves off andresearch begins can be hard to distinguish. Whileresearchers use similar methods as evaluators forconducting interviews, surveys or quantitative datacollection, unlike evaluation, the focus of research isto advance theory or what is known about a specifictopic.Researchers can build on the efforts of programevaluators by conducting cross-site studies andexamining multiple outcomes across sectors fromEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES354.2 Public HealthThere are well-developed lines of inquiry andconceptual frameworks hypothesizing how and whyfarm to school core and supplemental elements maylead to gains in knowledge, attitudes and behaviorsrelated to public health outcomes 1–5 . Interest in farmto school from the public health sector has beenspurred by the increased public attention toward,and funding for research and implementation of,innovative childhood obesity prevention programs(such as farm to school) over the past decade 6,7–12. Inturn, the field of farm to school has benefited due tothe involvement of the public health sector in definingand evaluating the connections with the three coreelements of procurement, gardening and education.School meals are a critical point of access to healthyfood for most children in the United States, with morethan 5 billion school lunches and more than 2.2 billionschool breakfasts served in 2013 17 . For many children,the meal(s) they consume at school are the onlymeal they will eat throughout the day 18 . School mealprograms must meet the federally required nutritionstandards 19 , which are based on current DietaryGuidelines for Americans. With the incorporationof farm to school, school meals further serve as anaccess point for eating local and regional foods,education about local foods for children and theirfamilies, and sometimes the opportunity for engagingin preparation of local foods through cookingdemonstration and food safety handling trainings.Farm to school is one component in a suite of schoolfood improvement strategies to promote health andwellness by expanding access to healthy and localfoods, while potentially encouraging skill buildingrelated to handling and using local foods 10,20–22 . Farmto school activities support children’s developmentof healthy eating habits, such as preferences for, andconsumption of, fruits and vegetables 7,23–<strong>25</strong> . At thesame time, farm to school activities can bolster theschool nutrition program’s efforts to address child andfamily food insecurity through boosting the interestin school meal programs, as well as potentiallyencouraging families to grow, safely prepare andcook healthy foods 26–32 . Key outcomes related topublic health for farm to school listed in the literatureinclude:• Children’s participation in school meals 33–40 and itsrelation to child food security• Child knowledge and awareness about gardening,agriculture, healthy eating, local foods andseasonality in early care and K-12 settings 35,36,41–44• Students’ willingness to try new foods and healthieroptions 35,45–47NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


36 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESPublic HealthFor the purposes of this framework, “publichealth” is defined as “the combination ofsciences, skills and beliefs that is directed tothe maintenance and improvement of thehealth of all the people through collectiveor social actions. The programs, servicesand institutions involved emphasizethe prevention of disease and [the]promot [ion] [of] good health … of … thepopulation as a whole 13 .” This includes “…policy development and population healthsurveillance <strong>14</strong> .”Sustainable Food SystemA sustainable food system is one thatprovides healthy food to meet currentfood needs, while maintaining healthyecosystems that also can provide foodfor generations to come with minimalnegative impact to the environment. Asustainable food system also encourageslocal production and distributioninfrastructures and makes nutritious foodavailable, accessible and affordable to all.Further, it is humane and just, protectingfarmers and other workers, consumers andcommunities 15 .Health InequityDifferences in health that are not onlyunnecessary and avoidable, but in addition,are considered unfair and unjust 16 .Health EquityEquity in health implies that everyoneshould have a fair opportunity to attaintheir full health potential and thatno one should be disadvantaged fromachieving this potential, regardless fromsocial standing, ability, gender, economicfactors, race, culture or ethnicity. Healthequity is concerned with creating equalopportunities for health and with bringinghealth differences down to the lowestpossible level, often through distribution ofresources so that services and supports areavailable where they are most needed 16 .• Students’ attitudes toward, preferences for, and consumptionof, fruits and vegetables 45,47–58 .• Students’ consumption of less unhealthy foods 45,50,51• Students’ participation in physical activity in gardens 58,59A Public Health Lens for Farm to SchoolWith a public health lens, farm to school activities aim toprovide all preschool and school-age children and their familiesequitable access to healthy, local food and food educationthat empowers them to maintain and improve their health andwell-being. It is important to note that the two words — localand healthy — are not synonymous and are not meant to bein the context of farm to school. The entire spectrum of farmto school activities provides opportunities for local foods thatare healthy (such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, leanproteins, etc.) to be introduced and incorporated into theschool food environment, along with experiential nutritionand agricultural education activities for children. Schools andearly childhood educators can use farm to school activities tobuild healthy cultural norms about food. This is crucial becausea healthy diet and good nutrition are major factors, along“It’s really important to bring the message that the kidsare learning at school back to the home so they canget it again,” Ashley Ponshok said. “If their parents feelstrongly about the same things their teachers are tellingthem, kids are more likely to develop those lifelongeating habits 60 .”—Ashley Ponshok is with Live 54218, a nonprofit that aims topromote healthier lifestyles in Brown County, Wisconsin, throughfarm to school activities.with physical activity, in preventing chronic diseases such astype 2 diabetes and high blood pressure 61–66 . With the recentupdates to the nutrition standards for school meals, basedin part on recommendations of the Institute of Medicine 67,68 ,schools are serving healthier meal options to children thanthey were before. The addition of local foods to the mix offersunique educational opportunities that support the provision ofhealthier food options. Sensory activities with locally sourcedfoods — such as taste tests before new foods are introducedin the cafeteria, engagement in the school garden, cookingEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES37demonstrations and parent education, and creationof culturally relevant recipes — can bolster children’swillingness to try new foods, thereby ensuring thatschool meals are eaten and enjoyed by children.Further, the purchase of local foods by schoolscan support local producers and processors, andin turn bolster individual or family health throughemployment and income generation, as discussedfurther in Chapter 4.3. Farm to school providesopportunities for public health agencies to collaboratewith related agencies such as agriculture, educationand child care licensing. Specifically from a publichealth lens, farm to school activities may:• Respond to rising public health and nutritionconcerns about childhood chronic diseases andobesity by providing opportunities for childrento consume local, healthy food products such asfruits and vegetables 47–49,52,69–79 , whole grains, andlean proteins.• Provide schools opportunities for incorporatingmore fruits and vegetables in school meals, asrequired by the updated nutritional standards forschool meal programs, 2010 19 .• Have the potential to change the school foodenvironment through educational activities thatemphasize healthy eating and the promotion ofhealthy lifestyles 10,12 .• Change a school’s social and physicalenvironments, including the curriculum and how itis taught 10,20,22,80,81 .• Positively reinforce how children learn about, theirattitudes toward, and relationship with healthyfood through health-promoting messages inschools and sent home to parents, hands-onactivities, introduction of new foods at schoolmeals and adult role-modeling 10,57 .• Inform early food preferences, especially for theyoungest children (0–5 years) 44,82,83 .• Can encourage food-production and foodpreparationskill building, self-sufficiency and selfefficacythrough experience in school gardening orcooking classes 32,85–89 .Using food as an educational tool is an avenue forincreasing awareness and familiarity of healthy foodsand local foods. For example, visits to regional farmscan help children understand where and how foodis produced, perhaps creating a personal connectionwith the farmer who grew the tomatoes served inthe cafeteria. This is not possible when foods arepurchased from much farther away. Emerging reportsindicate that farm to school has been effective instrengthening children’s and communities’ knowledgeabout, and attitudes toward, agriculture, food,nutrition and the environment. Key social connectionoutcomes related to farm to school include:• New connections between learning in classroomsand food eaten in cafeterias• Improved school and community relationships 90• New relationships between producers and schooldistricts 91–93 .Promotion of local and healthy foods can contributeto health promoting messages in our social andphysical environments. At the local and state levels,promotional campaigns such as “Buy Fresh Buy Local”reinforce positive messages about local, healthyfoods.Farm to school activities can support public healthoutcomes at multiple levels of the socio-ecologicalmodel. Figure 8 provides examples of what this canlook like using the SEM. Farm to school activitiescan impact physical environments, such as schoolsettings, and social relationships at each level of thismodel because activities can influence institutionaland individual behaviors.• Provide opportunities for family engagement,thereby ensuring that the healthy eating messageis carried into homes 1,45,51,84 .NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


38 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESFigure 8: Socio-Ecological Model Relating Farm to School Activities to Public HealthCommunity EconomicDevelopment OutcomesEducation OutcomesPublic HealthOutcomesNational, State and Local PoliciesEnvironmentalQuality OutcomesCultural and Society CharacteristicsCountry and StateRegionCommunityFamily, Tribe and ClanIndividual• Individual: Children are aware of and have positiveattitudes toward healthy, local fruits and vegetablesin their school lunches, and demonstrate neweating behaviors.• Family, Tribe and Clan: Children bring homesamples and recipes of local, seasonally availablefoods served in schools to try at home.• Community: Families visit local farmers’ marketsand connect with farmers that produced the foodstheir children consumed in school and purchaseproducts for home use.• Region, Country and State: Land-use laws supportdevelopment of gardens and urban agriculture toproduce foods for communities.• Cultural and Society Characteristics: Preference forlocal and healthy foods becomes the social norm.• National, State and Local Policies: Legislationsupports farm to school, such as state policies thatencourage gardening in schools.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES39Public Health: Priority Outcomes, Indicators andMeasuresThe priority outcomes, indicators and measures forpublic health are presented in this section. They arecategorized by program, research and policy levels. Atall levels, program coordinators, external evaluators,researchers and policy developers will also needto consider collecting stories of changes related tohealth outcomes that are difficult to measure. Forexample, families sharing how students asked totry a new food at home, or are motivated to makenutritional changes through buying local items, ordecided to garden in a local community plot. Storiesare important to communicate beyond any datacollected to help various audiences — includingparticipants — relate to farm to school programmingpotential.Program Outcome: Students and their familiesaccess locally produced, healthy food throughschoolsSchool meals play a critical role in ameliorating childhunger, and by extension family food insecurity,since for many students the school meal is likelythe only meal they consume during the day 31,81,94 .Farm to school activities can increase the ability ofschool meal programs to support children of familiesexperiencing hunger and food security, by improvingthe quality of school meals through introducinglocally grown, healthy foods.The first prioritized outcome for farm to school at theprogram level in relation to public health is focusedon increasing access to local and healthy foods forstudents and their families at school. This is a meansto help develop life-long positive eating behaviorsand address food insecurity. Children can learnthrough educational activities to identify a varietyof local and healthy foods that might be unfamiliarto them. Parents may accompany their children onfield trips, take care of school gardens, participatein cooking classes, and help plan farm to schoolactivities. These experiences can encourage childand adult understanding of where food comes from,how it is grown, which foods are healthy, and howfoods affect their health. Schools may also become acenter of community activity related to food, such ashosting farmers’ markets on school grounds, hostinga drop-off site for a community supported agricultureprogram where families can buy local and healthyfoods, and establishing small-scale farms wherestudents and families can directly experience growingtheir own foods.Measures Related to Indicator 1:• Measures 1.1–1.4: These involve assessing farmto school program activity inputs and participantsto ensure that program coordinators can trackwhich activities, or combination of activities, arebeing experienced by which students. Tracking thiscan help program coordinators understand howactivities can affect the degree to which studentshave access to healthy and local foods.• Measure 1.5: This focuses on meal participation ofstudents eligible for free and reduced-price mealsto connect to food security as a health challenge.This measure will not be relevant to schools anddistricts where nearly all students are alreadyeligible and participating in school meals based oneconomic circumstances before beginning farmto school program activities. Meal participation asa measure has many limitations discussed in theeconomic development section of this framework.Some contributors to this framework prioritizedthis aspect of meal participation as a measuredespite these limitations because, 1) these studentsmay be the least likely to have access to healthy,local foods in their communities; 2) farm to schoolprocurement and education activities may connectthese most vulnerable students with healthy, localfoods; and 3) previous program evaluation resultsreporting general meal participation increases 26,51have not focused on this more vulnerable group.• Measure 1.6: This measure looks at whether local,healthy foods are incorporated into various schoolmeal programs because these are key food accesspoints beyond breakfast and lunch.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


40 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESTable 6Program Outcome: Students and their families access locally produced, healthy foodthrough schoolsIndicator 1: Student access to local, healthy foods in schoolsMeasure 1.1: Number of students participating in, or exposed to, farm to school activities such as school gardening,cooking, nutrition and food-based lessonsMeasure 1.2: Food preparation strategies used to increase local food availability, accessibility or appeal of local, healthyfoods, including use of culturally appropriate foods in schoolsMeasure 1.3: Food-serving strategies used to increase line of sight, accessibility and appeal of healthy, local foods,including use of culturally appropriate foodsMeasure 1.4:The number of ways procuring local foods is connected to garden and/or educational activities inthe schoolMeasure 1.5: Increase in the percentage of total free and reduced-meal eligible children participating in school mealprograms when farm to school activities are presentMeasure 1.6: Increase in use of local, healthy foods in school and outside of school meal programs, including breakfast,lunch, snacks, Department of Defense fresh produce program, summer and after school programsMeasure 1.7: Number of students directly engaged in the design and implementation of the food preparation and foodserving strategies in Measures 1.2 and 1.3Measure 1.8: Number of children directly involved in farm to school (students, teachers, administrators, farmers, foodservice) engaged in the design and implementation of farm to school activitiesMeasure 1.9: Number of students trained and participating in youth action research to help evaluate or assess impact offarm to school programs in public health measures such as food access, food literacy, etc.Indicator 2: Family and adult access to local, healthy foods from farm to school program activitiesMeasure 2.1: Number of parent or caregiver participants participating in farm to school activities such as after-schoolprograms, garden volunteers, field trips, nutrition and food-based learning, etc.Measure 2.2: Number and type of nutrition, food- or agriculture-based learning materials sent home or shared withother community adultsMeasure 2.3: Number and types of ways procuring local foods is connected to garden and/or educational activities inthe home and communityMeasure 2.4: Number and types of adults (i.e. teachers, parents or care givers, community partners, staff) engaged in thedesign and implementation of food preparation and serving strategiesMeasure 2.5: Number of adults directly involved in farm to school (students, teachers, administrators, farmers, foodservice) engaged in the design and implementation of farm to school activitiesMeasure 2.6: Increased support and technical assistance for students and their families to grow and prepare theirown foodRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurement, education and gardeningData Sources: USDA Farm to School Census (Measure 1.1,1.2), school district meal participation tracking (measure 1.3),school district procurement records (measure 1.4)EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES41• Measure 1.7–1.8: These examine the role studentscan play in developing activities they directlybenefit from, and their involvement in evaluation ofthose efforts. This is connected to building studentskills, empowerment and capacity.• Measure 1.9: This measure examines the roleschools may play in supporting family’s skill andknowledge development in the use of growingwhole, affordable, culturally appropriate foods andpreparation techniques.Measures related to Indicator 2:• Measure 2.1–2.3: Parent involvement in farmto school activities can influence families’understanding of local and healthy food. Beyondthis, it can motivate them to try new foods andincrease access to local, healthy foods. Trackingthe parental participation can help identify effectivestrategies schools can use to influence familyaccess to local, healthy foods.• Measures 2.4–2.5: Beyond involving parentsas participants and learners, these measuresencourage programs to engage families, schooladults and other community adults as designersof activities and having a direct role (via theeducators) in encouraging healthy, local foodaccess.• Measure 2.6: This measure examines the levelof support adults in the community receive ingrowing or preparing food.The framework does not prioritize a programleveloutcome to directly measure student eatingbehaviors and related chronic diseases such as foodconsumption or changes in student body mass index(BMI); these can be found in the research sectionon the following pages. The authors classified theseunder the realm of research because of significantlimitations in the ease of conducting consistentdata collection at the program level. BMI remains acontested measure, and there are not clear ways tocontrol for variables that affect student weight beyondfarm to school activities in the school and communityenvironments 95–99 . As a result, the frameworkrecommends a focus on an outcome related toaccess to local and healthy foods that can supportchildren being a healthy weight — in combinationwith educational activities for children and theirfamilies — as a plausible first step for developing longtermhealthy food habits. Additionally, while it did notrise to a priority among contributors and reviewers,researchers should explore how student involvementin farm to school gardening activities may contributeto overall physical activity levels, given the relationshipbetween being active and preventing chronic diseaseand a few emerging studies indicating that gardeningincreases physical activity levels 11,59,100 .Research Outcome: Farm to school activitiesinfluence awareness of local and healthy foodavailability in the communityResearch-level outcomes, indicators and measuresare those that the framework developers expect willrequire more resources, time or staff than is availableat the program level. From a research perspective,one recommended outcome is focused on exploringhow farm to school activities can increase familyawareness of, and access to healthy, locally grownfoods in their community. From a public health lens,this outcome is particularly important for familiesexperiencing hunger or food insecurity. Many farmerswho sell directly to schools may also engage indirect market sales to farmers’ markets and connectwith families in the community through this avenue.Additionally, when schools promote local and healthyfoods through posters, newsletters and other media, itis likely that there is an increase in parental awarenessabout the availability and benefit of healthy, localfoods.This first research outcome focuses on access tolocal and healthy foods in farmers’ markets andgrocery stores to address the overarching goal ofreaching vulnerable families. The indicator is centeredon awareness because family and communityactivities may connect participants to local foods.The measures move from documenting programintervention elements specific to this outcometo exploring how these program inputs affectintermediate outcomes beyond the school.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


42 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESTable 7Research Outcome: Family access to local, healthy foods in the communityIndicator 1: Farm to school activities increase awareness of local food availability in the community.Measure 1.1: Number of people who received local, healthy food through participation in farm to school programactivities; for example, garden harvest basketsMeasure 1.2: Number of people who receive resources about accessing local, healthy foods in farm to school familyoutreach eventsMeasure 1.3: Number of families that begin gardening at home or in a community garden after participation in farm toschool activitiesMeasure 1.4: Number of coupons given and redeemed by farm to school program for farmers’ markets, farm stands orother access point for local, healthy foodsMeasure 1.5: Self report of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) users who report using SNAP benefits tobuy local, healthy foods, whole foods, edible plants and seeds and/or use at farmers’ markets, food standsor other access pointsMeasure 1.6: The number of farmers’ markets accepting SNAP electronic benefits transfer cards (EBT), Women Infantand Children (WIC) and Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) vouchers participating in farmto school family activity programsMeasure 1.7: The percentage of direct sales to SNAP EBT clients participating in farm to school family activities atfarmers’ markets, including WIC and SFMNP vouchersMeasure 1.8: The number of local products that are SFMNP and WIC eligible sold by grocery markets in communityparticipating in farm to school community activitiesMeasure 1.9: Number of farm to school sites that provide opportunities for students or families to engage in participatoryresearch, service learning or action-based learning with family-related activities on food accessRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurement, education and gardeningData Sources: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service data sets on SNAP, EBT, WIC and SFMNP at farmers’ markets (measure1), the Fair Food Network and the Farmer’s Market Coalition and state farmers market <strong>web</strong>sites may have data related toMeasures 1, 5 and 6, What We Eat in America survey, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance SurveyEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES43• Measures 1.1–1.4: Program activities and outputsare specifically connected to family engagementand promotion of local, healthy foods.• Measures 1.5–1.9: Program activities ensure thatfamily members have access to local, healthyfoods and are reporting using them.Research Outcome: Increased consumption of localand healthy foodsAn exploration of the variables and strength of therelationship between farm to school activities andstudent dietary behavior is critical. Student eatingpreferences are connected to food exposures,sensory taste experiences, food quality, foodattractiveness, role modeling and peer modeling,among many other factors that farm to school mayinfluence 101–1<strong>08</strong> .An exploration of the variables and strength of therelationship between farm to school activities andstudent dietary behavior is critical. Student eatingpreferences are connected to food exposures,sensory taste experiences, food quality, foodattractiveness, role modeling and peer modeling,among many other factors that farm to school mayinfluence 101–1<strong>08</strong> . Farm to school activities may increasestudent knowledge of agriculture, food, health andnutrition, and life skills needed to select, prepare,serve and consume healthy snacks. It may alsoinfluence social and emotional development, suchas motivation and self-efficacy to prioritize healthyeating behaviors, and attitudes and preferences suchas the ability to grow their own food 1,49,109 . Emergingstudies also indicate that farm to school can increasefruit and vegetable consumption, as mentionedearlier.Broad associations between farm to school activitiesand population-level public health outcomes canbe considered. For example, the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention’s Youth Risk BehaviorSurveillance System (YRBSS) is conducted in moststates in the US every two years to better understandadolescent health-related behaviors. This data sourceis limited to children in middle and high school.Combined with data sets from the USDA Farm toSchool Census (currently slated to be repeated everytwo years), researchers could determine associationsbetween school districts involved in farm to schoolactivities and student-reported dietary measures,such as fruit and vegetable consumption. With thisapproach for comparing data sets across states,challenges related to sampling methods in each statewill need to be addressed.The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study(SNDA) conducted every five years examines thefoods and nutrients provided to students throughthe National School Lunch Program and the SchoolBreakfast Program, as well as other issues related toschool food environments, such as school wellnesspolicies, food safety and food availability. The SNDAincludes data from a sample of students in grades1–12 and their parents or caregivers, and could helpresearchers further understand the relationshipbetween farm to school activities and student dietarybehaviors.Additionally, the National Collaborative on ChildhoodObesity Research has an online catalogue of existingsurveillance systems that researchers could use toexplore prioritized outcomes for farm to school.The second research outcome aligns with the publichealth field’s increasing interest in encouragingpeople to eat healthy foods. Local food access can bea method of encouraging healthy eating behaviors.Indicator 1 relates to student changes; indicator 2relates to adult changes.• Measures 2.1–2.4: Focuses on self-reportedinformation used in studies or through plate wastestudies 110,111 where student plates are weighed orphotographed before and after meals as a proxyfor food consumption.• Measure 2.5: This is an extension of the programlevel priority of increasing access to local, healthyfoods among families.• Measure 3.1: Involves parents or care-givers buyinglocal foods. This can be a challenge in some areaswhere local foods are not affordable to somefamilies. Program coordinators should consideralternative measures that are most relevant to theirNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


46 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESTable 10Policy Outcome: Students and their families access locally produced, healthy foodthrough schoolsIndicator 1: School district and school policy environment supports student access to local, healthy foods in school mealsMeasure 1.1: Increase in number of local school district wellness policies that include language on farm to schoolactivities as part of addressing nutrition and wellness effortsMeasure 1.2: Increase in the number of school-level wellness policies that include language on farm to school activitiesas part of addressing nutrition and wellness effortsMeasure 1.3: Increase in number of schools with policies that schedule recess before school lunchMeasure 1.4: Increase in number of schools with policies that support adequate time for student mealsMeasure 1.5: Increase in number of times school boards review progress on implementation of school and districtnutrition or wellness policiesMeasure 1.6:Increase in the number of students, family and community members engaged in the development ofschool food policy, including representation on food policy councils, municipal councils, state legislativehearings, etc.Measure 1.7: Increase in training farm to school stakeholders on policy and advocacy efforts, and follow ups conductedto engage youth, parents, growers and foodservice workersIndicator 2: Federal, tribal, state and local government program and policy environments support local, healthy foodaccess for schools and familiesMeasure 2.1: Increase in number of federal, state and tribal policies, initiatives or programs that support farm to school inrelation to public health priorities (i.e., food policy councils)Measure 2.2: Increase in number of city policies, initiatives or programs that support farm to school in relation topublic health prioritiesMeasure 2.3: Increase in number of food policy councils or taskforces at the state, city, county or regional level thatidentify farm to school as a major priority and include representation of farm to school stakeholders suchas youth, local producers and members of socially disadvantaged groupsMeasure 2.4: Increase in number of state and tribal institutions with local, healthy food procurement policiesMeasure 2.5: Increase in the number of state, tribal, county or city local food pilot programs that help establish neededdistribution or other forms of infrastructure for farm to school activitiesMeasure 2.6: Increase in the number of times a review of the progress on implementation of policies is conducted orrequested by the approving authoritiesMeasure 2.7: Increase in the number of training and support mechanisms for all farm to school stakeholders to engagein school or other food policy development efforts, including youth, parents or care givers, producers,laborers, foodservice workers, etc.Recommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurement, education and gardeningData sources: CLASS, SHPPS, National Council of State Legislature’s online database, Growing Food Connections Policydatabase, Johns Hopkins Food Policy Council DirectoryEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES47Offering samples of local products can be a great way for schools to introduce new vegetables and farm to school concepts.(Credit: Emily Hart Roth)With EducationIf students are eating fruits and vegetables, they havea greater likelihood of being and feeling healthy,which will affect their ability to concentrate andlearn. Eating school breakfast is linked with positiveoutcomes in academic achievement.With Environmental QualityWhen school meals have healthier (or higher quality)food options, it is expected that students will improvetheir nutritional intake, enjoy eating school food, andas a result reduce food waste from the cafeteria.Students who are healthy have higher attendanceat school, and thereby have more consistent mealparticipation rates. In turn, student participation inschool meal programs positively affects their ability tolearn in class.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES49A Community Economic Development Lens for Farmto SchoolThrough a community economic development lens, theprocurement of local and regional products by schools, andthe education of children and communities about local andregional products, thereby creating a demand, are the criticalgoals of farm to school activities. In addition to small and midsizedproducers, farm to school may specifically benefit thosewho have historically lacked equal access to the traditional foodsystem, such as lower income individuals, women and peopleof color, and those in rural areas. Farm to school in the contextof community economic development provides opportunitiesto explore equity-related considerations in the food system,such as living wages, professional development, safe workingconditions and equal marketing opportunities.Jan Tusick of the Mission Mountain Food EnterpriseCenter, a division of Lake County CommunityDevelopment Corporation in Montana, says, “Farm toschool has resulted in a 40 percent increase in revenuefor the center, and created two new jobs needed forprocessing additional product.” She adds, “The WesternMontana Growers Cooperative has seen their sales growby $40,000 in the last quarter through farm to schoolalone. It is a win-win for everyone. I don’t know why anyschool district board would not approve farm to schoolto be at their schools.” 39—Local Farms, Local Kids: A Montana Farm to School MovieFarm to school activities emphasize “local” in relation tocommunity economies because of the “import substitution”concept 40,41 . Economies grow and are sustained by exportinggoods and by producing goods they would normally importto avoid “leaking” dollars into external economies. Local foodcan potentially “plug the leak” of dollars that would normallybe used to buy items from external economies and keeplocal dollars recirculating in a community’s economy 40,41 . Anemerging challenge in farm to school procurement is that assome programs “scale up” and incorporate more local productin school meals, their demand surpasses the local capacity tomeet that need 42 .Farm to school activities may influence community economicdevelopment outcomes at multiple levels of the socioecologicalmodel. Examples are illustrated in Figure 9.Economic Development:The World Bank describes local economicdevelopment as offering local government,the private and nonprofit sectors and localcommunities the opportunity to worktogether to improve the local economy 12 . Itfocuses on helping businesses become morecompetitive, increasing sustainable growthand ensuring that growth is inclusive.The purpose of local community economicdevelopment is to build up economiccapacity of a local area to improve itseconomic future and the quality of lifefor all. It is a process by which the public,businesses and nongovernmental sectorspartner to create better conditions foreconomic growth and employmentgeneration 12 . Community economicdevelopment in relation to farm to schoolsupports organizations working together tosupport the local community food system.Local:What is “local” in farm to schoolprocurement? “Local” is based onunique circumstances of the schoolsite. Considerations include geography,climate, growing season and availabilityof agricultural products for use in schools.Schools may define “local” as within acertain number of miles from the school,within the county or within the state.Alternatively, definitions might includemore than one state (i.e., Georgia, Alabamaand Florida) or discrete parts of severalstates (i.e., specific counties in southwestWashington, northeast Oregon andIdaho) 13–15 . For example, the 20<strong>08</strong> Food,Conservation and Energy Act of 20<strong>08</strong>defined local and regionally produced foodproducts as those that are “raised, producedor distributed so that the total distance thatthe product is transported is less than 400miles from the origin of the product or thestate in which the product is produced.”NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


50 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESFigure 9: Socio-Ecological Model Relating Farm to School Programs to Community Economic DevelopmentCommunity EconomicDevelopment OutcomesEducation OutcomesPublic HealthOutcomesNational, State and Local PoliciesEnvironmental QualityOutcomesCultural and Society CharacteristicsCountry and StateRegionCommunityFamily, Tribe and ClanIndividual• Individual: People buy local food and know whereit comes from, due to farm to school activities.• Family, Tribe and Clan: Families visit farmers’markets and purchase from producers whosupply their schools.• Community: There are strong relationshipsbetween local producers, schools and thecommunity. Parents request local foods at grocerystores; grocery stores increase the percentage oflocal foods available.to all growers who want it. Institutional fooddistributors carry more local products.• Cultural and Society Characteristics: It is anexpectation that local foods are readily available inschool meals and communities.• National, State and Local Policies: Lenders makeloans for producers to meet local food demand.State procurement policies allow school districtsand other public institutions to prioritize local foodpurchases.• Region, Country and State: Training for GoodAgriculture Practices (GAP) certification is availableEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES51Community Economic Development: PriorityOutcomes and IndicatorsThe priority outcomes, indicators and measures forcommunity economic development are presentedin this section. They are categorized by program,research and policy levels. Besides the outcomesand indicators listed here, we encourage readers tocollect stories of changes related to local and regionaleconomic outcomes. Stories are important tools thatcan be used to communicate real-life examples of thedata that emerges from farm to school evaluation andresearch.Program Outcome: Local and regional economicimpactThe scope of economic development outcomesassociated with farm to school procurement is relatedto the amount and types of products purchased byschools, and associated income generation (actualdollars or potential) for local and regional producers,processors and distributors. As indicated earlier in thischapter, “local” is defined by the site. Note that theterm “impact” in this chapter is borrowed from how itis used in economic impact analysis — or the effect ofan event on an economy. This is unique from how theterm “impact” might be used in a program evaluationlogic model where it means long-term changes thatresult from program outcomes 43 .Table 11Program Outcome: Local and regional economic impactIndicator 1: Increase in market opportunities/income generation for local producers, processors and distributorsthrough sales to school districts and potentially to other institutions through procurement activity.Measure 1.1: Total dollar amount of all local products purchased by school districts and schoolsMeasure 1.2: Percentage of total food budget spent on local foods by school districts and schoolsMeasure 1.3: Type, quantity and monetary value of specific local products (i.e., fruits, vegetables, dairy, meats andprocessed foods) purchased by school districts and schoolsMeasure 1.4: Percentage of sales to local socially disadvantaged producers (i.e., growers, ranchers, processors).Recommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurementData sources: USDA Farm to School Census, school district purchasing records, state farm to school grant reportingdocuments, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service data products on wholesale and direct marketsSee Appendix 5 for lists of example tools for these measures.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


52 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESMultiple measures and data sources on this indicatorhave been suggested. It is important to note that thereare limitations to the use of these measures:• Measure 1.2: There are many ways to calculatethe percentage of a total food budget spent onlocal foods. These include total food budget; atotal budget with or without commodity foods;a total budget with or without U.S. Departmentof Defense foods; and some school districts maychoose to exclude one product from the “totalbudget” calculation that is nearly always local(fluid milk). The Oregon Department of Educationrequires that its farm to school and schoolgarden program grantees omit fluid milk fromthe calculation for this reason 44. The frameworkrecommends that the measure represent thepercentage of local product compared to thetotal food budget (including all products). For thisprogram level measure to be useful, districts willneed to establish and use consistent protocols toenable cross-program comparisons and for it to beadditive.<strong>Framework</strong> developers considered several othermeasures for the program site level that ultimatelywere not included as priorities because they fellshort when evaluated by the selection criteria, ormore discussion was needed to determine the bestmeasures:• School meal participation: School mealparticipation was not included as a prioritymeasure for economic development (either atthe program level or the research level), becauseoverall school meal participation is influenced bymany variables beyond farm to school activities,such as availability of seasonal foods, studentfood preferences and changes in the economy.Additionally, school districts may lose revenuefrom decreased meal participation attributed toweather-related school closures. School mealparticipation is a crucial factor for the financialsolvency of the school nutrition program andthereby its ability to buy local foods, and invest inlabor or equipment required for farm to school.Participation of free and reduced meal eligiblestudents in the meal program is retained as apriority in the public health sector as a measureof childhood food security; similarly breakfastmeal participation has been retained under theeducation sector, due to linkages with breakfastconsumption and educational outcomes.• Change in frequency with which local products areserved (monthly, weekly or multiple times a week):This measure is difficult to track at the school sitelevel, especially when multiple local products areserved, and may vary amongst schools in the samedistrict.• Recording the name, quantity and type of localproducers the schools buy products from: Thisis easier to track for smaller school districts whopurchase directly from farmers, but more difficultfor larger districts, or districts who work withdistributors to purchase local products. Unless thedistrict requires the distributor to report on this,distributors may combine two local sources ofcarrots into one bushel, thereby being unable toidentify the source.• Changes in product diversification or infrastructurethat supports food availability, local food storagecapacity, food safety, market access, distribution,processing capacity and other programimplementation requirements that support farm toschool within the food system.• Changes to early child education or school mealprovider’s skills, such as meeting existing foodregulations, food safety, recipe development andother training topics.Program Outcome: Social capital built in schooldistricts and the communityThe definitions of “social capital” vary 45 . “Socialcapital” refers to features of social organization,such as networks, norms and social trust, whichfacilitate coordination and cooperation for mutualbenefit. These relationships may provide peopleor organizations access to resources, services orgoods 45–47 . Collaboration is fundamental to thesuccess of community economic development, andEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES53farm to school activities can support that throughthe seven capitals: built capital, financial capital,physical capital, social capital, human capital, culturalcapital and natural capital 48,49 . Researchers examiningcommunity capacity and resiliency, or the ability of acommunity to meet their needs through creating andresponding to opportunities, note that social capital isa fundamental asset 50 .Farm to school exists within the community foodsystem due to the strong connections betweenfarmers, farm workers, processors, distributors,packers, technical assistance providers, policymakers,researchers, funders, foodservice staff, farm toschool educators, parents, teachers, administrators,garden educators and many more people. Schooldistricts interested in participating in farm to schoolprocurement need relationships with producers andother players in the food system. Producers, in turn,reflect that in addition to the financial incentive forsupplying product to schools, another motivatingfactor for their involvement is the ability to helpschools and contribute to the community 51–56 . Severalvolunteers and community members contributingto farm to school activities also state that supportingthe local community is an important benefit of theiractivities 41 . Food service, school administration andgrowers need multiple strategies to build and supportongoing relationships and dialogue in order tostrengthen and increase market opportunities throughfarm to school.Table 12Program Outcome: Social capital built in school districts and the communityIndicator 2: Mutually supportive relationships result in access to resources shared between community and schooldistricts.Measure 2.1: Number and type of promotional and training activities related to local foods in the school environmentand in the communityMeasure 2.2: Number and type of sales producer has to chef, retailer or other wholesale accounts resulting from farm toschool promotion and training effortsMeasure 2.3: Number and type of food-related businesses (i.e., farmers, ranchers, distributors, retailers) partnering withthe school district to support farm to school through education, gardening and procurement efforts (i.e.,field trips, site visits)Measure 2.4: Financial value estimation of in-kind support provided by community volunteers, food donations, guestspeakers, site visits, field trips, equipment donations provided to school or district in support of the farm toschool activitiesMeasure 2.5: Amount of money generated at the school site through farm to school related activities, such asfundraisers with sales of plants grown by students in gardens, revenue from local governments or otherinstitutions, grants and other sources of funding receivedRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurement, gardening, and educationData sources: Market Maker National Network linking agricultural markets (available in 20 states), state grant programreporting documents and foundation grant program reporting documentsSee Appendix 5 for example data tracking tools for recording measures.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


56 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES• Measures 1.1–1.7: These are variations of marketopportunities or impacts that could provide astable income to food producers and other foodbusinesses. The number of new jobs, addedincome or jobs maintained, in relation to schoolfood markets, as well as the frequency of sales canhelp researchers understand over time the stabilityof the school food market.• Measure 1.5: Businesses that hire a part- orfull-time position to manage school accountsis included as a research level measure (butnot at the program level), because this data isdifficult for a school site to collect and measureconsistently. Researchers, on the other hand,may have additional time and resources availableto analyze data received from the school siteusing tools such as input-output models, impactanalysis for planning (IMPLAN), economic impactsof studies of direct marketing to consumers andfarm level studies modeling potential impacts fromhypothetical changes in food consumption 4–6,9,40 .However, there isn’t consensus in the fieldon a preferred methodology for any of thesestudies and there are challenges in interpretingthe findings from one study to the next 5 . Whilethe field of economic impact analysis evolves,researchers can continue to explore how farm toschool activities lead to market opportunities andnew revenue sources for local food system actorsthrough sales to schools and to other markets.These measures form a plausible link betweenschools and other market opportunities 61 , whichcan include community supported agriculturesales to families, farmers’ markets, and sales torestaurants, juvenile detention centers, detentioncenters, grocery stores, universities, hospitals andother institutions.• Measures 1.7–1.11: These measures reflectmarket opportunities that may develop as aresult of working with schools, such as foodhubs (organizations combine products fromdifferent producers, market and distribute theseproducts on behalf of farmers and ranchers) 62,63 .A related research question worth exploring isthe relationships between producers who sellto schools (for example, are there collaborativestructures being formed to meet the demand) andhow that affects their potential to sell to othermarkets such as hospitals, universities, etc.The project team explored three other areas ofresearch that are needed in the long term, but didTable <strong>14</strong>Community Economic Development: Long-Term Outcomes Needing Further ResearchIndicator 1: School district nutrition service program financial stabilityMeasure: Net balance stays in the black over time with increased local purchasesIndicator 2: Farm to school market profitabilityMeasure: Producer, processor and distributor’s revenue is higher than expenses for invested time and resources to bringlocal products to school marketsIndicator 3: Infrastructure is in place to support local food production, processing and distributionMeasure: Access to financial capital for small and mid-sized businessesMeasure: Access to material capital such as micro-processing, refrigeration units, trucks, etc.Measure: Access to aggregators and distributors to connect producers to wholesale marketsEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES57not prioritize them (Table <strong>14</strong>). The first includespossible connections between the financial solvencyof a school district’s nutrition program (to supportlong-term purchase of local foods) and communityeconomic development. A school nutrition program’sability to stay in the black is dependent on a varietyof factors, including school meal participation, whichis commonly referenced in existing literature as ashort-term outcome of newly introduced farm toschool activities, as it may result in added revenuecontributing to the school nutrition program’sbottom line 21,64 . Anecdotally, many school districtsuse existing resources to buy more local foods; atthe same time, there are others who assert the needfor initial start-up funds to develop relationshipswith vendors, provide training to work with morelocal food items and purchase new equipment toprocess local foods 65 . Researchers seek a deeperunderstanding of how farm to school activities affectschool nutrition program finances over time, and ifthere are consistent inputs needed across sites to runa financially viable site with farm to school activities.The second is the long-term profitability any foodoragriculture-related business experiences throughfarm to school involvement. This document puts fortha variety of measures related to the short- and midtermoutcomes of market opportunities and incomegeneration, but more research is needed over thelong term to determine how profitable these effortscan be for those involved.The third longer-term outcome is related to theinfrastructure needed to scale-up local or regionalfood production. Various local and regional foodreports indicate the need for changes in distributioninfrastructure and additional access to financial andmaterial capital to help producers and processorspurchase equipment or other resources in order tomeet a growing demand for local foods 42,65–68 .Policy Outcome: Institutional support for local andregional foodsTracking institutional support for farm to schoolactivities through school district procurementpolicies, state and federal policies, and state agencyprograms and positions is a significant outcomeinfluencing community economic development. Theestablishment of a supportive policy is a first step, itsimplementation is critical to ensure that its intent ismet. This policy outcome aligns closely with policyoutcomes in the environmental quality and publichealth sectors. For example, school wellness policiesare identified as a public health policy outcome, dueto their influence on nutrition and physical activityat schools.• Measures 1.1 and 1.2: These focus on institutionaland state agency local procurement policies.Institutional policies such as school wellnesspolicies or early care center procurementpolicies can include language to support farmto school activities, such as a preference forlocal products, when feasible, or establishmentof school gardens. “Supportive language” inthis context refers to procurement policies thatallow purchasing preferences for state-producedagricultural products 69 . As of October 2013, only22 states had one or more state policies thatencourage state organizations, agencies andschools to use local foods by allowing purchasingpreferences for state-produced agriculturalproducts 69 . If institutions are applying a preferencefor local products, this supports farm to schoolprocurement activities, and can be part of creatinga cultural norm related to expectations of buyinglocal foods.For example, one type of supportive policy at thefederal level is the geographic preference optionauthorized in Section 4302 of Public Law 110-246of the 20<strong>08</strong> Farm Bill. It allows participating schoolsto apply an optional geographic preference in theprocurement of unprocessed locally grown or locallyraised agricultural products. Here “unprocessed”means those products that retain their inherentcharacter, such as fruits, vegetables, meats, fish,poultry, dairy, eggs and grains <strong>14</strong>,70 . It is in this finalrule that the USDA gave discretion to the procuringinstitution to define their “local” area. Policiesspecifying the ability to purchase local foods ensurethat institutions beyond school districts, such as earlychildhood education centers, juvenile rehabilitationcenters and others can easily access local foods.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


58 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESTable 15Policy Outcome: Institutional support for local and regional foodsIndicator 1: Institutional procurement policies supporting local and regional foods.Measure 1.1: The number of institutional procurement policies with supportive languageMeasure 1.2: The number of state and local procurement policies with supportive languageMeasure 1.3: Government agency allocation of resources and creation of programs, grants and positions for farm toschoolMeasure 1.4: Government programs that provide community food project grants to support local and regional foods,including farm to school effortsMeasure 1.5: Number of state agencies that identify local food systems as a priorityMeasure 1.6: Number of states with “buy local” food programs that include farm to schoolIndicator 2: Institutional programs supporting local and regional foodsMeasure 2.1: Government agency allocation of resources and creation of programs, grants and positions for farmto schoolMeasure 2.2: Government programs that provide community food project grants to support local and regional foods,including farm to school effortsMeasure 2.3: Number of training opportunities created for local producers and producers owned by sociallydisadvantaged individualsMeasure 2.4: Number of farm to school stakeholders sitting on economic and community development councils ordecision-making bodies within the communityRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurementData sources: NASBE policy matrix, NFSN policy scan, CLASS, SHPPS, National Council of State Legislature’s online databaseEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


60 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES4.4 EducationSchool gardening, plant-based education andagricultural studies have enjoyed a long history in theUS 1 . Over the past fifteen years, food and gardenbasedactivities have proliferated nationwide. Theyseek to improve students’ academic achievement,environmental literacy, health and wellness, andcivic participation. Farm to school includes foodandgarden-based education as a way to bringsubjects like math, health, language arts, scienceand geography to life. These activities may enhancelearning environments through encouraging inquirythat appeals to different learning styles 2–4 . Hands-on,place-based and project-based methods used in farmto school through gardening or other food-basedactivities engage students and reinforce learningthrough visual, written and experiential strategies 5–7 .With respect to farm to school outcomes, theeducation sector overlaps with content in theenvironmental quality sector because food educationand garden-based activities may support knowledgeand skill development in environmentally friendlybehaviors, such as composting or recycling 6,9–12 .An Education Lens for Farm to SchoolIn K–12 environments, farm to school activitiescan align with the “whole child” concept of acomprehensive education that supports studentknowledge and emotional and physical health.Engaging children in their learning and alongsidetheir larger community, prepares them for workand economic self-sufficiency, and establishes anunderstanding about the world 13 . An extensive reviewof education research indicates that student academicbehaviors such as attending and participating inclass, academic perseverance such as self-disciplineand tenacity, academic mindsets such as a feelingof being able to succeed in learning, and learningstrategies such as goal setting and study skills directlyimpact student grades and academic performance <strong>14</strong> .Researchers argue that teaching youth to becomelearners involves transforming classrooms with ideasthat engage students’ natural curiosity, a desire tolearn, and building a sense of what is possible for theirfuture <strong>14</strong> .In pre-K and early child education centers, farm topre-school activities align with the eleven domainsset forth in the Head Start Child Development andEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES61Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>. For example, early child educationenvironments can incorporate food-related activities thatsupport a child developing health knowledge, knowledgeof family and community, and the growth cycle of plants asan entry point for learning the scientific method. They canlearn patterns and relationships as plants grow in a garden— examples that fit within four example domains of the EarlyLearning <strong>Framework</strong>. The linkages between farm to schoolactivities focused on education and gardening and studentskill development and academic success need to be exploredfurther.Food, nutrition and agriculture related educational activitiesand school gardening provide opportunities for childrento learn about food and agriculture to prepare them tomake responsible choices that benefit their bodies andtheir community. A school’s primary mission is to educatechildren and encourage academic achievement; metricsfor success emphasize test scores, school attendance,classroom management and graduation rates. As a result, tobe incorporated and institutionalized within the educationalsystem, farm to school activities need to align with theseschool priorities.Farm to school outcomes in the educational sector fall in thefollowing key themes:• Enhance schools’ curricular, physical and social learningenvironments 15–17 .• Increase students’ knowledge of specific content areasand promote academic and cognitive skills such as inquiry,critical thinking, ordering and communication 2 .• Support student social and emotional development such asmotivation and improve students’ attitudes toward schooland learning 15,16,18,19 . Increase student engagement andreduce absenteeism 16,20 .• Potentially increase test scores and generalachievement 1,6,18,21,9,22–<strong>25</strong> .• Increase achievement in science, math, botany, ecology,nutrition or food systems content areas 6,17,9,22,26–31 .• Improved student and teacher knowledge and attitudesabout foods 18,31–40 Garden learning environments andoutdoor greenspaces could provide temporary reduction inbehavioral disorder symptoms 41–43 .LearningMerriam-Webster’s definition of learningis “the acquisition of knowledge or skillsthrough experience, study or by beingtaught.” Education in relation to farmto school means the opportunity tointerweave concepts about science, math,health, language arts, history and nutritioninto a framework that has the potential toengage and motivate students.Common Core State StandardsA state-led initiative to develop a set ofstate education standards that measureproficiency by grade level in mathematicsand English language arts.Food LiteracyA collection of inter-related knowledge,skills and behaviors required to plan,manage, select, prepare and eat foodsto meet needs and determine foodintake. Food literacy is the scaffoldingthat empowers individuals, households,communities or nations to protect dietquality through change and support dietaryresilience over time 8 .Head Start Child Development and EarlyLearning <strong>Framework</strong>The Office of Head Start updated thisframework, which was first publishedin 2000. The second edition, released in2011, guides curriculum and assessmentdecisions and assessment data and programdesign for programs for 3–5-year-olds. Itincludes eleven domains for childhooddevelopment and early learning essentialfor success in school and the long-term. Thedomains include: physical development andhealth, social and emotional development,approaches to learning, literacy knowledgeand skills, mathematics knowledge andskills, science knowledge and skills, creativearts expression, logic and reasoning, socialstudies knowledge and skills, and Englishlanguage development.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


62 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESA student in Riverside, CA receives a sample of salad greens during a taste-test activity. (Credit: Emily Hart Roth)• Support improvements to children’s self-efficacy,social skills, self-esteem and work ethic 6,17,26–28,44serve as an entry point encouraging parentengagement with schools through field trips,food preparation homework or visits to theschool garden to assist with planting, tending orharvesting foods 38 .Schools can adapt farm to school activities toalign with the Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>, CommonCore State Standards or state adopted standards— ensuring that lessons on food, nutrition andenvironment align with other content areas. As of2013, 44 states, four territories and the Departmentof Defense Education Activity have adopted theCommon Core standards 45 . Other states have theirown adopted standards. Farm to school can supportschools in reaching the goal of educating the wholechild through promotion of health, learning about ahealthy lifestyle, and student engagement in handsonstimulating activities 46 .From an education lens, the socio-ecological modelcan be used to explore the outcomes of farm toschool activities at the various levels of influence.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES63Figure 10: Socio-Ecological Model Relating Farm to School Programs to EducationPublic HealthOutcomesCommunity EconomicDevelopment OutcomesEducation OutcomesNational, State and Local PoliciesEnvironmentalQuality OutcomesCultural and Society CharacteristicsCountry and StateRegionCommunityFamily, Tribe and ClanIndividual• Individual: Student forms positive attitudes andself-efficacy about learning through farm to schoolactivities.• Family, Tribe and Clan: The family incorporateshands-on experiences such as cooking orgardening to support student learning about foodat home.• Community: Hands-on activities included atfarmers’ markets and community centers toengage children and families.• Country and State: Farm to school curriculum isreadily available and aligned to Common Corestandards.• Cultural and Society Characteristics: Farm toschool is one part of supporting the whole child ineducational settings.• National, State and Local Policies: Legislationprioritizes a whole-child approach, supportshands-on learning and gardening at schools.• Region: School district policies support schoolgardens.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


64 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESEducation: Priority Outcomes and IndicatorsFarm to school activities reinforce what and howstudents learn, but to establish any significantinfluences on academic achievement, their alignmentwith core content standards needs to be established.For example, if farm to school educational activitiessupport middle school science curriculum, andthe site is interested in determining educationaloutcomes, then it is desirable to align activities tocore content standards. This can be done using anexternal reference tool such as the Next GenerationScience Standards 47 . Once this alignment hasbeen established, changes in student learning andengagement as a result of farm to school activitiescan be assessed.Program Outcome: Farm to school activities arealigned to core content standards to supportstudent engagement and learningAs the field has matured, farm to school educationalactivities (usually food-system education andgardening education) are beginning to be alignedwith content standards and taught across differentsubjects. Rather than attempt to focus directly onestablishing association with the desired long-termoutcomes such as academic achievement, schoolattendance and classroom behavior management,it may be more realistic to focus current efforts onshort-term and intermediate outcomes that leadto the long-term outcomes. Beyond the outcomesand indicators listed here, the framework developersencourage readers to collect stories of changesrelated to education outcomes. Stories are importanttools that can be used to communicate real-lifeexamples of the data that emerges from farm toschool evaluation and research.The measures selected for this indicator areopportunities for sites to document the status oftheir farm to school activities in conjunction withcore content standards. The measures provide usefulinformation needed for planning, coordinationand evaluation, and are listed in order of increaseddifficulty:teachers to incorporate farm to school activitiesthat are in alignment with Common Corestandards.• Measure 1.2: provides data on how many andwhich students are benefiting from activities.• Measure 1.3: highlights the extent to whichcurriculum is aligned with school gardening efforts.• Measure 1.4: helps ascertain how farm to schoollessons are supporting and reinforcing existingeducational requirements.• Measure 1.5: assesses the depth (low, medium orhigh implementation) of farm to school activities inrelation to a specific subject/core content area.• Measure 1.6: determines changes in attitudesor learning due to farm to school educationalactivities. This measure is the most time-intensiveas it would require pre- and post-testing. Thereare numerous validated instruments that measureaspects of engagement in children 48 . Thisinformation can feed into the development of farmto school activities.Achievement scores are not selected as a prioritymeasure at the program level, as it will require greateralignment between farm to school educationalactivities and Common Core standards. Sites acrossthe country may need a national curriculum for farmschool aligned with Common Core standards and aversion for early child education settings aligned withthe Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong> so they can adapt it.Use of curriculum aligned with content standards orearly learning development is not assessed currentlybut could be in the future, as farm to school activitiesat sites across the country mature and become moreinstitutionalized.• Measure 1.1: provides information for trainingEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES65Table 16Program Outcome: Farm to school activities are aligned to Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>, theCommon Core, or state content standards to support student engagement and learning.Indicator 1: Sites offers a range of learning opportunities aligned to support learning skills, and content areas such asservice learning, community connections, inquiry-based learning, experiential learning and hands-on fieldexperiences related to food.Measure 1.1: Number of teachers using food system or gardening curriculum aligned to Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>,Common Core or state-adopted content standardsMeasure 1.2: Number of students participating in farm to school activities aligned to Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>, CommonCore or state adopted content standardsMeasure 1.3: Number of school-based gardens with curriculum components aligned to Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>,Common Core or state adopted content standardsMeasure 1.4: The subjects (i.e., nutrition, science), grade levels, number of classes and type of activities (i.e., taste tests,hands-on learning, gardening) where farm to school activities and curriculum are aligned to Early Learning<strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core or state-adopted content standardsMeasure 1.5: Number of hours, frequency and type of learning opportunities in each subject area that are aligned withEarly Learning <strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core or state-adopted content areasMeasure 1.6: Student attitudes about specific content taught through farm to school learning opportunitiesMeasure 1.7: Family, youth, community member and producer input and engagement in design of activities, curriculumand learning opportunities (i.e., on food literacy, nutrition, local foods, agriculture) connected to EarlyLearning <strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core or state-adopted content standardsRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: food-based education and/or school gardeningData Sources: Youth Risk Behavior SurveySee Appendix 5 for a list of possible evaluation toolsNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


66 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESProgram Outcome: Increase food literacy instudents and staffFood literacy is a content area that can enrichunderstanding of science, health and language arts.This outcome supports other prioritized outcomesin public health and aligns with outcomes inenvironmental quality. While teaching food literacyis not unique to farm to school activities, food- andfarm-based education and gardening activities aredesigned to help students, staff and even families learnabout local foods, where food comes from, and howit is grown. Documenting the extent to which differenttypes and combinations of farm to school educationand gardening activities result in food literacy can helpprogram coordinators and evaluators fine-tune theirapproach.The indicators and measures at the program level thatsupport increases in student and adult food literacy arecentered on documenting levels of participation andways individuals are engaged.• Measures 2.1–2.5: Ways a program coordinator,or educator, can document what they are doing inrelation to food literacy for students.• Measures 3.1–3.2: Ways the site involves adults infarm to school activities related to food literacy.Research Outcome: Farm to school activitiessupport student educational successThe farm to school field needs a better understandingof how farm to school activities can enhance theschool learning environment and related measuresof educational success, and hence it has beenincluded as a research level outcome. This outcomeis intended to align with multiple concepts thatthe Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment (ASCD) set forth in their “whole child”platform to support healthy school communities 46 .Table 17Program Outcome: Increase food literacy in students and adults in schoolsIndicator 1: Increase in student and staff knowledge about food and its impact on their health.Measure 1.1: Number of teachers integrating curriculum designed to improve food literacyMeasure 1.2: Number of teachers using culturally appropriate curriculum, including recipes that align with diversestudent ethnic or cultural heritageMeasure 1.3: Number of students participating in farm to school activities designed to improve food literacyMeasure 1.4: Number of hours, frequency, sequence of curriculum (i.e., grade level) and type of learning opportunitiesstudents receive in each subject area focused on food literacy in the classrooms, outdoor learningenvironments and eating areasMeasure 1.5: Number and types of ways that food literacy lessons or activities are occurring across the schoolenvironment, such as in gardens, classrooms and cafeteriasIndicator 2: Increase in school adult knowledge about food and its impact on healthMeasure 2.1: Number and types of ways adults in the schools are involved in training, activities or other learningexperiences related to food literacyMeasure 2.2: Number and methods of incorporating farm to school activities in school employee wellness policy effortsrelated to a healthy dietEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES67Table 18Research Outcome: Farm to school activities support student educational successIndicator 1: Student readiness to learnMeasure 1.1: Student participation in school breakfast programs when farm to school activities are conducted withbreakfastIndicator 2: Student engagement and academic behaviorsMeasure 2.1: Changes in classroom attendance numbers or consistency during farm to school activity days or modulesMeasure 2.2: Student participation during farm to school activity days or modulesMeasure 2.3: Student classroom disturbances while participating in farm to school activitiesMeasure 2.4: Increased demonstration of leadership and initiative in students who have access to training and supportthrough farm to school activities and opportunitiesIndicator 3: Student academic mindsetMeasure 3.1: Feeling of success at completing farm to school activitiesMeasure 3.2: The degree to which students value the work undertaken to complete farm to school related assignmentsMeasure 3.3: Belief in self-ability and competence to complete and demonstrate leadership in farm to schoolrelated assignmentsMeasure 3.4: Sense of belonging in the classroom/outdoor learning environmentMeasure 3.5: Self-esteem while completing farm to school activitiesIndicator 4: Student academic competency gainsMeasure 4.1: Student content area test scores in relation to farm to school activities used to teach those subjects (i.e.,math, science, language arts)Measure 4.2: Student course grades in relation to farm to school activities used to teach those subjects (i.e., math, science,language arts)Measure 4.3: Students’ ability to identify and claim ownership of practical experience, including planning, organizing,implementation and evaluation of farm to school initiativesAbove: Recommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurement, food-based education and/or schoolgardeningPrevious Page: Recommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: food-based education and/or school gardeningSee Appendix 5 for a listing of evaluation tools.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


68 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESThe rationale and limitations of selected indicators,outcomes and measures at the research level areoutlined below:• Indicator 1 and related outcomes and measures:Eating breakfast has long been associated withimproved ability for students to concentrate inclass 49–57 . Because student nutrition is one aspectof a child’s readiness to learn, an exploration offarm to school activities’ influence on participationin school breakfast programs is suggested. Existingliterature on farm to school has not yet examinedthe inclusion of activities during breakfast, or theirability to influence breakfast participation. This maybe worth examining further. It could prove mostuseful in determining the educational outcomesfor farm to school activities in children fromvulnerable families who may participate in schoolbreakfast on a regular basis. It should be notedthat this measure is limited by the fact that studentparticipation in any meal program is influencedby factors beyond the influence of farm to schoolactivities.• Indicator 2 and related outcomes and measures:Student engagement and active participation inactivities is an important indicator for academicsuccess. After building on the evidence for thisindicator, further research can be explored onrelated longer-term outcomes such as averagedaily attendance and chronic absenteeism. Farmto school “activity days” are a first step schoolsor early child learning settings can with farm toschool activities to establish success before theybecome more commonplace.• Indicator 3 and related outcomes and measures:Mindset is argued as a basis for the developmentof different learning strategies, supportingtenacity with challenging tasks, and is reinforcedor impeded by academic performance <strong>14</strong> . This isrelated to social and emotional learning that needsto be studied further in relation to farm to schoolactivities.• Indicator 4 and related outcomes and measures:Course grades predict future college successbetter than standardized achievement tests <strong>14</strong> .Academic mindset, engagement and learningbehaviors are precursors to general achievement,and thus research is needed to better understandwhich farm to school activities, or combinationof activities, influence student academicperformance.Research Outcome: Increase food literacy instudents and staffBuilding on efforts at the program level, this outcomeencourages external evaluators and researchers todetermine how farm to school activity affects studentand adult knowledge and skill attainment related togrowing, preparing, cooking and eating healthy, localfoods.• Indicator 5 and related measures 5.1-5.5: Representa spectrum of ways to measure food literacythrough knowledge and skills. Programs focusedon staff professional development, in addition tostudent learning, can apply these measures to bothstudents and adults. Changes in student or adultknowledge can be assessed through pre- andpost-testing in the classroom, or as part of existingtests for nutrition, health or science content. Itis suggested that program practitioners limit thenumber of surveys and tests given to students, andhence framework developers recommend thatwherever possible, questions on these topics bealigned with existing survey efforts to minimizethe burden. Data collection on these measuresmay require the services of an external evaluator,with additional financial resources and technicalsupport for sites.• Measure 5.1: Is focused on the basics of wherefood comes from and how it is grown. This contentis in the Next Generation Science Standards 47 andeducators may be able to use existing tests andhomework assignments to determine how wellstudents are learning this information. See exampleattitude survey from Wisconsin.• Measure 5.2: Extends into how food impactshealth. It can encompass nutrition or other aspectsof food.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES69Table 19Research Outcome: Increase food literacy in students and adultsIndicator : Increase in student and school adult knowledge about food and its impact on healthMeasure 1.1: Knowledge of local foods, where food comes from and how it is grownMeasure 1.2: Knowledge of food impact on healthMeasure 1.3: Knowledge of at least one element of food heritage, such as foods unique to different cultures, andincluding food histories native to the region/community/their own familyMeasure 1.4: Increased awareness and knowledge of food and nutrition issues facing communityMeasure 1.5: Attainment of food-related skills, such as recipe development, food-preparation, gardening and cookingMeasure 1.6: Number of students communicating and promoting information about local foods, where food comesfrom, how it is grown and physical and mental impacts of healthy eating to families and communitymembersMeasure 1.7: Number of leadership development opportunities for students and adults to share and demonstrate theirknowledge of food literacyMeasure 1.8: Knowledge of how purchasing local food affects the local economyMeasure 1.9: Knowledge and understanding of potential for local food procurement to affect systemic changes forsocial and economic equityRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: food-based education and/or school gardeningSee Appendix 5 for listing of tools.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


70 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES• Measure 5.3: Food heritage explores the origins offood that include native plants, culture, seasonalityand rationality of food.• Measures 5.4–5.7: These measures help studentsand adults apply their knowledge of food-relatedskills.• Measures 5.7–5.8: Students and adults understandwhat “buying local” means; this measure bridgeswith community economic development andenvironmental quality sector outcomes.It should be noted that numerous other outcomes inthe educational sector are possible. The outcomesprioritized above are the most direct and addressshort-term impacts of farm to school educationalactivities, when aligned to core content standards.Additional research is needed to understand how farmto school activities can influence student classroombehaviors, attendance and academic performance.Student referrals were not listed due to limitedexisting associations between farm to school activitiesand classroom behavior.Long-term indicators and measures in the educationsector needing further research are listed belowin Table 20. Several contributing factors mayinfluence these indicators and measures, and henceextensive resources will be required to undertake acomprehensive study on them.Table 20Education: Long-Term Outcomes Needing Further ResearchIndicator 1: Student classroom behaviorMeasure 1.1: Student classroom referrals by age level compared to the implementation and expansion of farm to schoolactivities over timeIndicator 2: Student attendanceMeasure 2.1: Average daily attendance in schools implementing different levels of farm to school activitiesMeasure 2.2: Chronic absenteeism (missing 10 percent or more school days in an academic year) in schools implementingdifferent levels of farm to school activitiesIndicator 3: Student academic performanceMeasure 3.1: Overall grade point average in schools with different levels of farm to school activitiesMeasure 3.2: State academic achievement test scores in schools implementing different levels of farm to schoolactivitiesEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES71Table 21Policy Outcome: Education policy and programs support farm to school activitiesIndicator 1: Education agencies allocate resources to support farm to school programmingMeasure 1.1: State legislatures provide funding to create farm to school positions, programs, grants or other resources tosupport farm to school activitiesIndicator 2: Teachers, child care educators, foodservice workers, students and producers are trained in farm to schooleducation and gardening activitiesMeasure 2.1: Increase in professional development programs for teachers, foodservice workers and growers that includefarm to school curriculum, project-based and hands-on learning activities, procurement requirements andprocedures, food safety requirements, budgeting best practices and innovations, safe growing standards,socio-cultural aspects of food and gardening educationMeasure 2.2: State education departments and school district policies encourage professional development byproviding funding or technical assistance for programs in state agricultural departments for producers andprocessorsIndicator 3: Teachers, child care educators, school administrators, nutrition service directors, foodservice workers andproducers have resources they need to implement farm to school activities as a collaborative teamMeasure 3.1: School district policies support school gardens and hands-on learning approachesMeasure 3.2: Farm to school activities aligned to Common Core or state adopted standards are readily available forteachers as they are updatedMeasure 3.3: School district policies, teacher/foodservice worker union contracts and early child educationorganizations provide adequate time for planning farm to school activities, such as through planningperiods or other preparation timeMeasure 3.4: Increase in number of training and technical assistance opportunities available for incorporating farm toschool strategies into the buying, preparing, serving and recycling of school foodRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurement, food-based education and/or school gardening.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


72 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESFarm to school practices can help ensure that students actually eat the healthy, local food on their school lunch trays.(Credit: Emily Heart Roth)According to a recent policy scan 58 , farm to schoolpolicies are not fully integrated in the educationsector. For example, less than one-third of US states,territories or tribal nations include positions orprograms specific to farm to school in departments ofeducation 58 .• Indicator 1 and its related measure focus onresource allocation, such as government bodiescreating farm to school positions or programs.• Indicators 2 and 3 and related measures areintended to ensure that school or early childeducation educators have resources such ascurriculum, training, materials and time to preparefor integrating farm to school activities into existingeducation efforts.Cross-Sector Connections for Prioritized OutcomesWith Public HealthFarm to school education activities teach core subjectareas. Through hands-on, experiential learning,students may become more excited and engaged.Further, if they are more excited about healthy foods,this could result in better attitudes toward healthyeating.With Economic DevelopmentFarm to school activities such as using produce froma school garden in school meals can increase thedemand to have these foods at home, encouragingparents to purchase them. This can lead to economicdevelopment outcomes when retailers carry localfoods familiar to students.With Environmental QualityFarm to school activities such as composting,recycling or reducing food waste can have an impacton environmental quality outcomes. These behaviorscan translate to new practices at home if parents orcare givers are involved in farm to school activities.See Chapter 4.5 for more information.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES734.5 Environmental QualityThe potential influence of farm to school activitieson environmental quality is mostly in the exploratoryphase, focused along three lines of inquiry related tothe core elements of farm to school. For example,school food procurement practices can promoteagriculture and food distribution methods thatreduce negative environmental impacts. Foodbasededucation and school gardens may result ininfrastructure that supports healthy environments asstudents and teachers may engage in environmentallyfriendly practices to build healthy soil and participantsmay learn an ecological ethic. Students also may learnhow individual behaviors affect environmental quality.The relationship between food systems, climatechange and environmental quality has gained publicattention in recent years 1–4 . This evaluation frameworkdefines “environmental quality” as including boththe natural environment and the built environment,where landscapes support healthy ecosystems inrelation to farm to school. This framework alsoconsiders farm to school activities as being a smallpart of the food system. Environmental quality is onecomponent of a sustainable food system where foodproduction methods maintain healthy ecosystems,while also protecting farmers and other workers,consumers and communities — a connection to thepublic health sector in Chapter 4.2 (see definitions).“Environmental quality” can refer to a variety ofaspects of environments — indoor or outdoor — thataffect human mental and physical health or maintainnatural resources. This framework focuses on thenatural and built environments affected by farm toschool activities. As mentioned in the public healthsector (distinctions between local foods and healthyfoods), the project team recognizes that for thissector, “environmentally sustainable” and “local” aredistinct.Evaluating the true environmental impact of foodfrom farm to table is challenging to assess. Theevaluation and research literature related to farmto school impacts on environmental quality is thin,with most studies available from the perspectiveof the school garden, garden-based curriculumor environmental education. Garden curriculumand hands-on, project-based learning activitiescan support student awareness and practice inenvironmental activities such as composting 11–<strong>14</strong>and there is anecdotal evidence that school gardenscan enhance students’ learning in academic, social,and health-related domains. There has been littlerigorous research, however, on the effects ofschool gardens or on the factors that promotethe sustainability of these program activities. Thisreview draws on ecological theory to conceptualizeschool gardens as systemic interventions with thepotential for promoting the health and well-being ofNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


74 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESLearningMerriam Webster’s definition of learningis “the acquisition of knowledge or skillsthrough experience, study or by beingtaught.” Education in relation to farmto school means the opportunity tointerweave concepts about science, math,health, language arts, history and nutritioninto a framework that has the potential toengage and motivate students.Sustainable AgricultureCongress addressed sustainable agriculturein the 1990 Farm Bill 5 . Under the law, theterm “sustainable agriculture” is defined as“an integrated system of plant and animalproduction practices having a site-specificapplication that will, over the long term:• satisfy human food and fiber needs• enhance environmental quality and thenatural resource base upon which theagricultural economy depends• make the most efficient use ofnonrenewable resources and onfarmresources and integrate, whereappropriate, natural biological cyclesand controls• sustain the economic viability of farmoperations• enhance the quality of life for farmersand society as a whole 5 .”Environmental QualityThe USDA’s Natural ResourcesConservation Services EnvironmentalQuality Incentives Program defines“environmental quality” as practices thataddress natural resource concerns andhave opportunities to improve soil, water,plant, animal, air and related resources onagricultural land and non-industrialprivate forestland.individual students in multiple interdependent domains and forstrengthening the school environment as a setting for positiveyouth development. Key outcomes of environmental qualityassociated with individual knowledge, attitudes and behaviors infarm to school actors (especially students) include:• Students’ knowledge of specific content areas, includingecological principals 15 .• Students’ knowledge and development of life skills, includingthose needed for environmentally responsible behaviors,including skills related to composting and recycling 15–17 .• Students’ learning environmental attitudes, including theirconcern, awareness and appreciation of the environment, aswell as their environmental ethics 18–22 .The farm to school practice and research literature does notcurrently document the degree to which children learn aboutthe effect of their food and diet choices; or about how foodproduction, processing, distribution, preparation and disposalimpacts natural resources such as water, land, or biodiversity.Schools tend to be major landholders, particularly in urbanareas, with the ability to create gardens and greenspacesfor community use. The ability of school gardens andnaturalized school yards to improve physical living conditionsin communities is being explored. The hypothesis beingthat added greenspace makes the school surroundings andsetting more attractive and hospitable, while improving theenvironmental quality of urban areas. Research indicates thaturban area greenspace may filter pollutants, cool temperatures,replenish groundwater, provide food and reduce noise 23–28 . Notall children and communities have equal access to greenspace—access often differs by income, ethnicity and race, age,gender and ability 29,30 . Emerging research links physical activityin greenspaces with a reduction in attention deficit disordersymptoms and promotion of well-being 31–34 . Key outcomesrelated to environmental quality include those associated withphysical environments, such as:• Gardens and naturalized school grounds may increase thediversity of vegetation, providing more diverse habitats forwildlife 35–38 .• Green school yards may improve the environmental qualityof urban areas by increasing shade, decreasing storm run-offand improving air quality 35,36 .EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES75• Gardens provide youth and adults with places of refuge, saferafter-school environments and a physical location wherethey can connect with nature and nurture living things 39–42 .The environmental implications of agriculture and foodproduction, transportation, packaging and waste, opens uppotential linkages with school food procurement practices.Producers who use fertilizers efficiently, rely less on fertilizersand pesticides, restore degraded lands, or cultivate soil healthsupport environmental quality. With practices such as organicamendments, composting, wetland set-asides, crop rotationwith legumes, providing food for pollinators, optimizingmanagement of manure, increased productivity relative tolower resources used (i.e., fertilizer, fuel, water, land), and useof erosion control mechanisms, producers can contribute toreducing greenhouse gases as well 43–46 .As an essential part of creating healthy communities, farm toschool activities are hypothesized to support environmentallysound, sustainable and just approaches to food production,processing, packaging, transportation and marketing. Keyoutcomes related to environmental implications include:• Purchase of food products that use more sustainablemethods, such as poultry raised without antibiotics 47 .• Students’ performance of environmentally responsiblebehaviors including composting, recycling and startinggardens at home 40,48 .• Reduction in food waste 38,49 .There are other potential sustainable food production methodssuch as pasture-raised animals, organic foods and integratedplant-animal production systems used in permaculture (seedefinitions on this page) that farm to school program activitiescould support butt have not yet been fully examined in practiceand in research 9,10,50 .An Environmental Quality Lens for Farm to SchoolWhen applying the environmental quality lens to the socioecologicalmodel for farm to school, all three core elements offarm to school — procurement, gardening and education — arerelevant and contribute to various levels of behavior change.There are numerous ways that environmental quality goalscould be met through farm to school activities at the variouslevels; see examples in Figure 11.Sustainable Food SystemA sustainable food system is one thatprovides healthy food to meet currentfood needs while maintaining healthyecosystems that also can provide foodfor generations to come with minimalnegative impact to the environment. Asustainable food system also encourageslocal production and distributioninfrastructures and makes nutritious foodavailable, accessible and affordable to all.Further, it is humane and just, protectingfarmers and other workers, consumers andcommunities 6 .Ecosystem ServicesEcosystem services are the benefitspeople obtain from ecosystems. Theseinclude provisioning services such as food,clean water, timber and fiber; regulatingservices that affect climate, floods, disease,pollination, wastes and water filtration;cultural services that provide recreational,aesthetic and spiritual benefits; andsupporting services such as building soil,photosynthesis and nutrient cycling 7 .BiodiversityBiodiversity is the totality of genes, speciesand ecosystems in a region. It can bedivided into three hierarchical categories— genes, species and ecosystems — thatdescribe different living systems thatscientists measure in different ways 7,8 .PermaculturePermaculture involves the design ofsustainable agricultural systems andhuman habitats that mimic the patternsand relationships found in naturalecologies. The term refers to permanentagriculture and permanent culture 9 . Theethical foundation of the approach isto care for people, care for the Earth’senvironments, and redistribute resourcessurplus to one’s own needs 10 .NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


76 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESFigure 11: Socio-Ecological Model Relating Farm to School Programs to EducationCommunity EconomicDevelopment OutcomesEducation OutcomesPublic HealthOutcomesNational, State and Local PoliciesEnvironmental QualityOutcomesCultural and Society CharacteristicsCountry and StateRegionCommunityFamily, Tribe and ClanIndividual• Individual: Students learn to grow food in a gardenusing environmentally supportive methods such ascomposting• Family, Tribe and Clan: Increase purchase of foodsproduced with less chemicals• Community: School districts use integrated pestmanagement policies to maintain their schoolgrounds with less chemicals• Region, Country and State: Producers increaseagricultural innovations to reduce environmentalimpact• Cultural and Society Characteristics:Increased demand for local foods that are alsosustainably produced• National, State and Local Policies: Policies supportgardens at every school in the stateEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES77School gardens can have a variety of academic applications including art, as demonstrated at this garden in New Jersey.(Credit: Chelsey Simpson)Environmental Quality: Priority Outcomes andIndicatorsProgram Outcomes: Students are environmentallyliterate through engagement in farm to schoolactivities.Program level outcomes, indicators and relatedmeasures encourage program sites to documentthe types of activities used in education and schoolgardening to promote student understandingof environmental literacy and environmentallyresponsible behaviors. Besides the outcomes andindicators listed here, we encourage readers to collectstories of changes related to environmental qualityoutcomes. Stories are important tools that can beused to communicate real-life examples of thedata that emerges from farm to school evaluationand research.The limitations of using these measures:• Measure 1.1–1.2: Require program coordinators toidentify aspects of the curriculum and educationactivities that align with environmental quality.• Measure 1.5: Requires that students be testedbefore and after instruction. Currently, there isn’t anational environmental literacy assessment relatedto farm to school that occurs at regular intervals.• Measure 1.6: This measure can help studentslearn about different agricultural methods, andreveal information on how producers are usingsustainable methods that are not necessarilycertified by a third-party label.• Measure 1.7: Environmental literacy plans toincorporate, or align with, farm to school programactivities.• Measures 1.8-1.9: Students can build on theirknowledge and skills through teaching or leadingothers about their efforts• Measure 1.10: This measure may require supportfrom anecdotal evidence or elaboration to showthat an analysis of justice issues is embedded in theteaching or curriculum.Research Outcome: School supportsenvironmentally friendly practicesIn this sector, schools already may be collecting manyof the measures at the research level.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


78 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESTable 22Program Outcome: Students are environmentally literate through engagement in farm to schoolactivities.Indicator 1: Increase in student knowledge about the relationship between the environment and food systems,including environmental impacts of food production, processing, distribution, and waste or composting.Measure 1.1: Number of children, at what grades, for what length of time, are receiving what type of lessons onenvironmental concepts connected to food systems and/or school gardeningMeasure 1.2: Types of curriculum aligned with Common Core standards used to teach environmental literacy connectedto food systemsMeasure 1.3: Number of children, at what grades, for what length of time, are participating in what types ofenvironmentally responsible behaviors in schools, such as composting, waste reduction, energyconservation or recyclingMeasure 1.4: Number of ways procuring local foods is connected to garden and/or educational activities in the school,home and communityMeasure 1.5: Student knowledge of specific environmental concepts that align with science, such as biodiversity, waterconservation, pest control, pollination, natural resources and ecosystem servicesMeasure 1.6: Number of children, at what grades, for what length of time, visit local farmers to learn about sustainableproduction methods such as integrated pest managementMeasure 1.7: Number of schools with environmental literacy plans connected to farm to school activities, food systemsor some other connection to food productionMeasure 1.8: Number of leadership development opportunities for students to share and demonstrate their knowledgeand passion for, and experience with, environmental practices, such as the benefits of eating sustainable,local foodsMeasure 1.9: Number of students monitoring, evaluating or innovating the school’s environmental sustainabilitypracticesMeasure 1.10: Student capacity to analyze environmental quality issues related to the food system through a justice lensRecommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: Education and GardeningData Sources: 20<strong>08</strong> and 2011 National Environmental Literacy Assessment of 6th and 8th gradersEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES79Table 23Research Outcome: School supports environmentally friendly practicesIndicator 1: School district purchase of sustainably produced foodsMeasure 1.1: Quantity purchased and amount spent on local foods that are also third-party eco-label certified foodsMeasure 1.2: Producers track and provide measures to school or district about other environmental production practicesfor foods schools buy that are not third party certified, such as integrated pest management, multicroppingor aquifer restoration plantingsIndicator 2: Reduction in cafeteria wasteMeasure 2.1: Number of school-based composting programs that are part of existing waste reduction programs or arestand-aloneMeasure 2.2: Documented use of school curriculum connecting food waste, composting and hands-on learningMeasure 2.3: Number and types of promotion activities to decrease food wasteMeasure 2.4: Measure the proportion of food waste to total waste over time after using curriculum and other methodsaimed at reducing food wasteMeasure 2.5: School engagement with the community (including growers) regarding alternative uses for wasteIndicator 3: School, school garden, naturescape and landscape practices support diverse natural food environmentsMeasure 3.1: Number and size of school yards and gardens that grow and teach about foodMeasure 3.2: Number of schools that use integrated pest management practices on school grounds and gardensMeasure 3.3: Number of schools that use water conservation practices on school grounds and gardensMeasure 3.4: Number of schools where food gardens are combined with naturescaping to promote biodiversityMeasure 3.5: Number of school gardens that recycle, repurpose or reuse building materials for structuresMeasure 3.6: Improvement in soil quality in school garden over timeRecommended program elements needed for this outcome: procurement for Indicator 1; promotion activities for Indicator2; school gardening for Indicator 3Data Sources: State garden surveys and inventories for Indicator 3; environmental programs such as Green School surveysand inventories for Indicator 2See Appendix 5 for a procurement resource related to Indicator 1NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


80 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESThe limitations of using these measures are:• Measure 1.1 and 1.2: This involves trackingschool food purchases of items produced usingsustainable practices. These procurement choicesalign with trends in the Greenhealth HealthierHospitals Initiative that has a sample data trackingsheet that could be adapted for school use 51,52 .This data can be difficult to collect, as third-partycertifications are not always clearly labeled andthe different labels may result in varying degreesof environmental quality outcomes in relation toecosystem services. For example, one eco-labelmay focus on social sustainability efforts, such asfair wages or treatment of workers, while anothermay emphasize lower chemical inputs, such asfertilizers or pesticides. Measure 1.2 has beenincluded because many producers, processors ordistributors may engage in sustainable practicessuch as integrated pest management, waterconservation or reduced packaging that aredifficult to measure and won’t be captured in athird-party label.• Measures 2.2–2.5: Food waste has its own impacton the environment 53–55 . Solid waste as an indicatoris volatile and subject to shifts based on wastefrom school activities not connected to farm toschool, changes in seasonal foods, consistentprogramming emphasizing reducing waste, tastetests to develop foods acceptable to student tastesand other factors. Schools may find collaboratingwith innovators, such as city recycling programsoutside of schools, helpful for finding alternativeuses for food waste. This is an area where moreresearch is needed, such as plate waste studies,monitoring of solid waste changes over timeacross farm to school sites, and comparisonstudies of schools implementing different farm toschool activities connected to these measures 56 .• Measure 3.1–3.4: There is very limited existingresearch on this indicator, hence there are no toolsrecommended for these measures.<strong>Framework</strong> developers discussed other areas thatneed research in this sector. For instance: Is thereis a reduction in greenhouse gases due to schoolspurchasing local products? Existing research showsreductions are not guaranteed by local procurement.Greenhouse gases released in transportation dependon the method of transport 57 , (ship, train, semi-truck,light duty truck, etc.) distance traveled and fuel used.The literature on the impact of food transportationand distribution is inconclusive, tending to indicatelocal food purchase does not have a significantimpact and needs further examination 58–63 : Generally,if producers are driving small volumes of food in lessefficient light-duty trucks, they will produce moregreenhouse gases than more efficient transportationoptions. For this reason, the framework does notinclude this as a priority indicator, but is mentioned inTable 24 as needing further exploration.Table 24Environmental Quality: Long-Term Outcomes Needing Further ResearchIndicator 1: Dietary food intakeMeasure 1.1: Increase in school food purchases of legumes, alternative protein sources and lean meatsIndicator 2: Environmental impact of local food milesMeasure 2.1: Food miles traveled by different food items (i.e., fruits, vegetables, herbs, meats, grains) compared todistance they otherwise would have traveled if not purchased locallyEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES81Table <strong>25</strong>Policy Outcome: Institutional support for local, environmentally sustainable foodsIndicator 1: Institutional procurement policies and programs that encourage purchase of, allocate resources todeveloping, or create infrastructure that encourages the markets for sustainable products that are also local.Measure 1.1: The number of school district procurement policies that set goals or other support for purchase of localproducts that are sustainableMeasure 1.2: Reporting on progress the school district makes on implementing and attaining goals related to local andsustainable product purchasesMeasure 1.3: The number of state or tribal procurement policies with goals or other support for purchase of sustainable,local productsMeasure 1.4: The number of comprehensive plans (in local jurisdictions, agricultural economic development, agritourismor smart growth) that include zoning, resource allocation or other programs to encourage moresustainable food production locallyIndicator 2: Institutional policies and programs support healthy ecosystems related to food production (i.e.,maintaining ecosystem services)Measure 2.1: School districts create joint-use agreements with local communities when communities use schoolgardensMeasure 2.2: State agencies and public universities support sustainable agricultural practices through technicalassistance and researchMeasure 2.3: Number of producers, including socially disadvantaged and small-scale growers trained or assisted toaccess farm to school market and engagement opportunitiesMeasure 2.4: State agricultural agencies and university extension agents develop and implement no-cost or low-costmethods to promote use of sustainable practices (by producers), such as integrated pest management,wetland set-asides and other efforts included in USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation ServicesEnvironmental Quality Incentives ProgramMeasure 2.5: Regulations and incentive programs support resource stewardship for producers, such as setbackrequirements, agricultural uses, agricultural zoning or incentive zoningMeasure 2.6: State agencies and university extension agents provide technical assistance and information about theincentive programs in measure 2.5Measure 2.7: Government positions (i.e., rural planning, agricultural planning) or programs at the state, tribal and locallevels act to maintain the agricultural land base through programs such as transferable development rights,lease or purchase of development rightsMeasure 2.8: The number of comprehensive plans (county or city, agricultural economic development and smartgrowth) that include farmland protection policiesIndicator 3: Risk from chemicals or other hazards used in food production is minimized for farmworkers and laborersMeasure 3.1: Number of institutional policies encouraging safe living and working conditions for farmworkers andlaborersMinimum recommended program element(s) needed for this outcome: procurementSee Appendix 5 for a listing of tools.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


82 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURESThe farm to school field needs further explorationof how farm to school procurement activities cansupport reducing a school’s environmental impactthrough changes in food production for schools, foodtransport, packaging and food consumption — alsocalled “life-cycle analysis” of food products. Thereare extensive research reviews documenting thepotential that food production, processing, packaging,distribution, consumption and waste or recovery hason the environment 43,64–67 . It can be hypothesized that:1) Local foods may come in less packaging; 2) Localfood processors may choose to use energy- or waterefficientmethods; 3) There may be efficiencies gainedthrough transporting local food; and 4) Changingschool meal protein composition over time throughschool purchase of foods such as local legumes,alternative protein sources and lean meats couldsupport reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 67–69 .Nearly all life-cycle analysis studies indicate thatsome of the largest greenhouse gas reduction resultscome from reducing red meat consumption 4,53,66–69 .Such procurement and dietary choices align with therecommended Dietary Guidelines for Americans 69,70 .A model for estimating and monitoring the potentialcarbon footprint of a school lunch will be available in20<strong>14</strong> through the Journal of Industrial Ecology 69 .A reduction in the “ecological footprint” of schoolswas considered as a priority outcome, but notprioritized. This complex concept measures thehuman demand on global biological resources.Originally developed as an indicator to help nations,communities or individuals understand their impacton the environment, the footprint is increasinglyused as an indicator of product sustainability oran organization’s values. Calculating an ecologicalfootprint of a school or school district will involveexamining practices beyond the scope of farm toschool activities, such as building size, efficiency of aschool bus fleet, energy use, energy efficient heatingand cooling systems, and purchases beyond food 71 .Policy Outcome: Institutional support for local,environmentally sustainable foodsSimilar to policy outcomes suggested in communityeconomic development, institutional policiessupporting local, sustainable foods is also an outcomerelated to environmental quality. Other policysuggestions are in the area of land stewardship relatedto food production.The policies in this sector involve institutions beyondschool districts to take action in order for schools tohave a sufficient supply of local, sustainable productsto purchase (Indicator 1), to support the local, regionalagricultural land base (Indicator 2), and to support theworkers who help provide those foods (Indicator 3).Limitations and explanations to the measures are:• Measure 1.1–1.3: Requires more transparency infood labeling and documentation of efforts byproducers and processors who are not certified orlabeled.• Measure 1.4: Policymakers may not think aboutlocal food supply as supporting environmentalquality in agriculture-related plans.• Measure 2.1: Joint-use agreements, also “goodneighbor” agreements, can be used by institutionssuch as a county government and a school districtto set terms for shared use of public property, suchas gardens or school yards.• Measures 2.2–2.6: These are limited by financialresources to pay for research, training andtechnical assistance.• Measures 2.7–2.8: These were includedbecause maintaining a local agricultural base isfundamental to farm to school activities. Moreresearch is needed on the success of transferabledevelopment rights (TDR) to keep agricultural orranch lands from being developed 72 . TDR allowsprivate property owners to transfer developmentrights to separate their ownership status fromthe piece of property. The ownership rightscan then be transferred to another piece ofproperty in a different location. When ownershiphas been transferred to another location, theoriginal property owner is restricted from furtherdeveloping the land, meaning that a piece of farmor ranch land possibly can stay undeveloped, whileanother location in the city or a suburb will beEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDICATORS AND MEASURES83further developed 72 . To date, approximately <strong>14</strong>0TDR programs are in place in the U.S. with varyingdegrees of success in preserving existing rurallands 72 .• Measure 3.1: This indicator and related measureis included because similar to maintaining anagricultural base, food production requirescontinued healthy workers.Cross-Sector Connections from EnvironmentalQuality OutcomesWith Community Economic DevelopmentWhen a school district purchases sustainablyproduced foods, it supports economic viability forthose growers or ranchers in the region who maynot have as many market opportunities. If the farmto school activities are successful at reducing foodand total solid waste collected at schools, this isgood for the environment and economical. Thesesaved dollars can be used in other ways that supportthe program, such as purchasing more local foods.In Davis, California, the saved revenues throughrecycling and composting programs were used tohire recycling coordinators in the schools to keepup the momentum and keep educating children andteachers about how they can reduce waste 73,74 .members to learn how to grow, tend, harvest andprepare their own food. This additional local foodaccess can support healthy eating behaviors outlinedin the public health section. School gardens also canhelp participants be physically active during someperiods of the year, such as harvesting or turningcover crops into the soil.With EducationEducational activities link with environmental qualityoutcomes through awareness and an increasein knowledge facilitated through environmentaleducation topics covered as part of farm to schoolcurriculum and gardening.With Public HealthReducing the use of antibiotics in meats procured forschool meals can reduce related human health issuesof antibiotic-resistant infections. There has been arise in the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animalproduction, which may be a contributing factor toincreases in antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria thatcontribute to illness in human populations 75,76 .Reducing the use of pesticides or herbicides usedin food production can reduce the potential offarmers, farm workers and their families’ exposureto chemicals and thereby their risk for developingrespiratory illness, skin conditions or other relatedillness 77–84School yards that include gardens may provideanother access point for families and communityNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS8505Conclusion andNext StepsThis chapter provides a discussion of the major conclusions emerging fromthe evaluation framework, describes lessons learned during the frameworkdevelopment process, and identifies limitations of both the framework andof the process used to develop it. Also presented are implications of theframework content for practitioners, researchers, policymakers and funders.This chapter concludes with recommendations for next steps.


86 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSDiscussion and Lessons LearnedResearchers, funders and practitioners have expressedthe need for a comprehensive evaluation frameworkfor farm to school for several years. This documentis a first step at meeting this felt need for the field offarm to school.This evaluation framework fulfills two significantneeds to guide and proliferate relevant farm toschool research and evaluation. First, the frameworkdescribes a common language for consistentlyarticulating farm to school activities through coreand supporting elements, touch points and actors.Secondly, it identifies priority outcomes, indicatorsand measures for the four sectors of public health,community economic development, education andenvironmental quality, along with an exploration ofcross-sectoral connections among outcomes in thefour sectors.Through the process of engaging stakeholders inthe drafting of this framework, multiple outcomesthat have been studied or hypothesized withindifferent sectors were explored, and the strength ofthose outcomes related to farm to school elementsassessed. These rich discussions revealed that thereis much more agreement from practitioners andresearchers about possible relationships betweenfarm to school activities and outcomes within thesectors of public health and economic developmentas compared to those within the education andenvironmental quality. This may be attributable tothe relatively higher volume of available data, peerreviewedliterature, media attention and the numberof school sites with stated goals related to healthand the economy. Within all four sectors, there wasa relative lack of longitudinal, multifaceted studies.Further, the discussions regarding cross-sectoralconnections are still very much in their infancy, andmuch more work needs to be done in this area.In practice, farm to school activities look surprisinglysimilar on the ground, regardless of whether thedesired goals are related to health, economy,education or the environment. This suggests thepromise of farm to school programs and policiesas a lever to systemically address multiple societalissues related to health, economy, education andthe environment. Actualizing that promise will takeidentifying the commonalities between elementsand outcomes between sectors. For example, atthe confluence of improved behavioral outcomeswithin the sectors of public health, education andthe environment are common mediating variablesrelated to social and emotional development, suchas motivation, self-efficacy and engagement. Thusthe gaps this framework fills in both consistentprogram articulation and identifying priority outcomesfor multiple sectors are critical first steps towardunderstanding the collective impact potential of farmto school activities nationwide.Another major finding of the participatory approachused for developing this framework revealed thereisn’t “one right answer” for prioritizing outcomes,indicators and measures. Rather, the outcomes,indicators and measures identified in this frameworkare based on levels of agreement among participantsand existing information in the literature base.Several of the priority outcomes presented inthe framework do not have readily available datafrom existing data sources, nor are validatedinstruments available for documentation. This isa short-term problem that can be resolved withprioritized efforts in the future to further the field offarm to school. Appendix 5 provides a list of sampledata collection tools appropriate at the program levelfor many of the identified outcomes, indicators andmeasures. This list is not prioritized in any way, ortested by framework developers. It is intended as astarting point for users to consider developing theirown customized tools, if needed.A fuller repository of additional evaluation andtracking tools has been gathered and is availableonline at www.farmtoschool.org.It is anticipated that different stakeholders will usethis framework as a guide to develop, describe,implement and conduct farm to school evaluationand research. Readers are encouraged to work withthe proposed templates for consistent programarticulation, priority outcomes and measures offeredin the evaluation framework and provide feedback onEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS87its applicability and use (access the feedback form atwww.farmtoschool.org/resources-main/evaluationframework).LimitationsThere are several inherent challenges to developinga cross-sectoral evaluation framework for a field ofpractice that is rapidly evolving and gaining tractionin communities all across the country. The farm toschool outcomes and indicators prioritized in eachsector are influenced by the realities that there are:(1) few institutionalized, publically available, datacollection and analysis mechanisms for farm toschool; (2) few validated instruments for researchersand evaluators for identified priority outcomes; and(3) few systems for regular tracking and monitoring offarm to school activities and related state and nationalpolicies that influence farm to school.Further, there are a handful of hypothesized andobserved outcomes regularly identified with farmto school activities that were not included in thepriority outcomes and measures in this framework.For example, outcomes such as improvementsin academic achievement and body mass indexwere extensively debated during the frameworkdevelopment process, but ultimately not included aspriority outcomes. Chapter 4 includes rationale forexclusion of such outcomes within each sector.There were also limitations to the frameworkdevelopment and review processes. During thedevelopment phase, participants were intentionallyasked to first apply a specific sector’s lens to farm toschool activities, to then predict plausible ways thefarm to school core elements might have impactsin that sector, and then look at the same outcomeswith a cross-sectoral lens. The purpose was topush thinking beyond participants’ specific area ofexpertise. It was a challenge, however, to come toagreement from individuals approaching farm toschool from different vantage points with limitedexperience from the other perspectives.During the review process, extensive feedbackwas sought from both on-the-ground andresearch perspectives. Reviewers were limited byinternet-based interactions and thus feedbackthat was incorporated may have missed nuancesin explanation. Additionally, the content of thisframework reflects the combined expertise andexperience of all those who formally and informallycontributed to its development. Despite the highnumber of individuals involved, their perspectives maynot have contributed the full spectrum of diversityin socio-economic background, race, age, abilityand cultural perspective that farm to school does orcould encompass. This limitation may be addressedin the future through field testing, new understandingof specific needs and conditions, and increasedavailability and institutionalization of data collectionand analysis systems.Implications of The <strong>Framework</strong>The framework was written by and for various groups,including farm to school practitioners, researchers,policymakers, decision makers and funders.For practitionersIn tandem with consistently articulating the core andsupplemental farm to school program elements, sitesalso need to consistently measure farm to schooloutcomes using suggested tools and templates.Practitioners can use the table templates presentedin Section 4.1 to consistently talk about how eachsite implements farm to school core and supportingelements. Farm to school practitioners can groundtruththe articulation templates, outcomes andindicators identified in the framework, and suggestalternatives from their learning. As more practitionerscommit to following a farm to school programarticulation template, more evaluation and researchstudies will be feasible to support the field.New program sites can begin establishing evaluationplans and strategies in early planning stages, andthen build from there using this framework. Similar tostarting farm to school activities, it can be easiest tofocus on one area — such as buying local and tellingeveryone about it — and as success builds in thatarea, the program can expand to include changes incurriculum, gardening and community involvement.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


88 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSSimilarly, it may be easiest for practitioners to beginevaluating efforts in one area of farm to school, ratherthan attempting to analyze all of them right away. Astracking of measures becomes more mainstream andregularized, sites can expand their evaluation effortsto cover more activities in other core and supportingelements.For researchersResearchers can utilize the recommendations inthis framework to explore theoretically groundedavenues for farm to school studies where gaps havebeen identified. The evaluation framework has putforward a set of prioritized outcomes and indicatorsfor research in each of the sectors; these will need tobe tested, explored further, validated and amended,if needed. Testing the strength, directionality andcausality between farm to school core elements andintended outcomes is another critical research areathat needs attention.Researchers can further explore and work on thelimited number of experimental or quasi-experimentalstudies, particularly in the domains of educationand environmental quality, and on longitudinal,multifaceted experimental and quasi-experimentalstudies in all four sectors.In terms of methods and tools for data collection,researchers can help develop additional resourcesor formats for priority outcomes; as well as facilitatethe institutionalization of data collection and analysisby connecting with and informing existing datacollection schemes at the federal and state level.Finally, researchers can push the needle on the futureof farm to school activities across the country byengaging in studies that approach the cross-sectorconnections within and among the four sectorsoutlined in this framework.Researchers may find that some outcomes oftenhypothesized to be influenced by farm to schoolactivities are not prioritized in the framework.Samples include student attendance, disciplinethrough referrals and academic achievement throughstandardized tests in the education sector. Since inthe current understanding of farm to school, theassociations between these outcomes may be indirector limited, they are listed as long-term outcomes forpossible exploration in the future. The field wouldgreatly benefit from researchers digging into theselong-term outcomes that have been prioritized bypractitioners and funders. A summary list of theseoutcomes presented in Table 26 is at the end ofthis chapter.For policymakers and decision makersLocal, state and national policymakers shouldtest, expand and amend the policy outcomes andindicators prioritized in the framework. A deeperunderstanding of policy levers for addressing barriersto farm to school is needed to be able to advocate forsupportive policies that institutionalize this innovativemodel. Decision makers are encouraged to connectwith researchers and practitioners to understandthe reality of farm to school implementation, andassociated policy implications across the four sectors:public health, community economic development,education and environmental quality. Finally, policysupport for farm to school is imperative to scaleup and fully institutionalize the model. Dedicatedattention from policymakers will enable this change.For fundersFarm to school activities can be supported byexternal funds from private and public foundations, orlocal, state and federal grants. Funders are uniquelypositioned to drive widespread adoption of therecommendations in this framework — for bothprogram articulation, and priorities for evaluationand research. By guiding grantees and researchers tofocus on the appropriate-level outcomes presentedin this framework, funders can accelerate the growthof farm to school knowledge, and support theimplementation of programs and policies that result inthe intended goals.Specifically, funders can readily incorporate theprogram articulation descriptions provided in Chapter4.1 into their grant applications and reportingrequirements. Proposal submission forms can guideapplicants to describe their proposed farm to schoolEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS89activities in relation to the three core elements of: (1)procurement, (2) gardening, and/or (3) education. Anadditional consideration is to request grantees provideinformation on supplemental elements that supportfarm to school activities at the site. This would providethe fullest picture of the exposure and engagementof farm to school of each site and would significantlyincrease the reliability and interpretation of datacollected through grantee reports.Further, with regard to grant reporting guidelines,grantees may be requested to report based on theidentified priority outcomes and indicators. This wouldfast-track the adoption of evaluation efforts focusedon the priority outcomes among practitioners. Asmore funding entities require reporting on similaroutcomes, it will be more likely to discern theeffectiveness of specific activities or combinations ofactivities, and in the long-run the collective impactof farm to school activities across multiple grantees.Funders should recognize that grantees likely willneed technical assistance evaluating prioritizedoutcomes, and support for documenting crosssectoralconnections where applicable.Another important consideration for funders is if,how and where to make publicly available the dataaggregated from multiple sites). An ideal scenariofor quickly building the evidence-base would be formultiple public funders to collect and make availableprogram components and outcomes data as it hasbeen done with the USDA Farm to School Census andthe Food Environment Atlas data. Finally, funders canplay a critical role in enabling grantees to tell theirfarm to school story: activities, outcomes, learningand evaluation findings related to a wider audiencethrough strategic media and communicationssupport.Recommendations and next stepsA central goal of this framework is to catalyzeimplementation of farm to school activities, researchand policy initiatives that align with the four sectorsof public health, community economic development,education and environmental quality. An intermediatestep toward that goal is to develop nationwidecapacity to conduct evaluation and research onfarm to school, and build the field of scholars whofocus on farm to school. This framework guidesthe increased capacity for evaluation and research.However, the new findings emerging from theseefforts will need to be translated and disseminated topractitioners, funders, policymakers and the media, inorder to fully support the field. Presented below aresome recommendations for facilitating this process.CommunicationsTo be adopted and used in the field, this evaluationframework needs to be disseminated widely.Multiple communication strategies should beused to inform and engage the primary audiences:program practitioners, evaluators and researchers,policymakers and funders. Examples of specificopportunities to communicate the need for, anddirection of, relevant research in the prioritiesidentified in the framework includes: letters to theeditor, viewpoints, opinion pieces and articles inpeer-reviewed journals for scholarly audiences. Thesecommunications should outline the cross-sectoralconnections farm to school can potentially influence,and the need for focusing on priority outcomeareas. Further, as additional research is conductedor policies implemented, the findings must becontextualized for different audiences, framed in easyto understand language and disseminated widely.Systematic tracking of program outcomesThis document suggests a variety of priority measuresto be tracked for outcomes in the four sectors. Thereare unanswered questions related to who shouldtrack this information, where the data should behoused, who updates, maintains, cleans and analyzesit, and who has access to the data. One possiblesolution that has emerged in several discussions isan online tool that facilitates consistent programarticulation through a series of check-off boxes, andthen provides users the preferred evaluation toolsand methods for administering, along with the abilityto enter data and receive analysis. The result wouldbe a national repository of data different from whatis currently collected and would significantly aidNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


90 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSpractitioners in evaluation.In practice, there are many challenges to establishingbaseline program evaluation efforts, attainingconsistency across these efforts, and connectingprogram evaluation with research. Several nationalorganizations engaged in farm to school activities, aswell as states with farm to school grant programs aretackling these challenges. Consistent and commonlanguage and methodology used across all theseefforts will build and support each other, and thefarm to school field. Program practitioners wouldadditionally benefit from, and overall data collectionwill consistently improve, with a generic logic modelor theory of change for farm to school core andsupporting elements.ConclusionFarm to school is rapidly evolving andinstitutionalizing at local, county, state and federallevels. It is likely that the outcomes and indicatorsidentified in this framework will not remain static,but rather evolve, as our shared understanding offarm to school activities and policies advances.This evaluation framework should be viewed as aliving document, which charts the course for thefuture of farm to school implementation, evaluationand research. To remain relevant to the variousstakeholders it seeks to benefit, the content of theevaluation framework will need to be periodicallyfield-tested and amended to reflect new knowledgein farm to school theory, practice and policy.Until the development of these models, program sitesare encouraged to use the provided templates andtools in this framework to consistently articulate andevaluate farm to school activities across the country.Additional resources for evaluating farm to schoolactivities are listed in Appendix 1, as well as availableonline through the National Farm to School Networkrepository of evaluation tools and resources.Capacity building for farm to school research andevaluationBecause farm to school outcomes span across thesectors of public health, community economicdevelopment, education and environmental quality,there are few academic programs or agencies thatfocus their efforts exclusively on this topic. Strategicactivities that would build national capacity toconduct research and evaluation in this field include:regular national meetings bringing together keyresearchers that are engaged in farm to school;focused <strong>web</strong>inars to share recommended tools,findings and emerging research topics; matchmakingbetween program sites that seek evaluation andresearchers looking for study sites; mentoring ofearly career entrants in farm to school research;and fellowships and monetary awards to stimulatedoctoral-level studies in the field of farm to school.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS91Table 26: Summary of Priority Outcomes, Indicators and MeasuresProgram LevelSector Public HealthPriorityOutcomeStudents and their families access locally produced, healthy food through schoolsIndicator(s)Measures1: Student access to local, healthy foods inschools1.1 Number of students participating in, orexposed to, farm to school activities, such asschool gardening, cooking, nutrition and foodbasedlessons1.2 Food preparation strategies used to increaselocal food availability, accessibility or appeal oflocal, healthy foods, including use of culturallyappropriate foods in schools1.3 Food serving strategies used to increase line ofsight, accessibility and appeal of healthy, localfoods, including use of culturally appropriatefoods2: Family and adult access to local, healthy foods fromfarm to school program activities2.1Number of parent or care-giver participantsparticipating in farm to school activities, such asafter-school programs, garden volunteers, field trips,nutrition and food-based learning, etc.2.2 Number and type of nutrition, food-based oragriculture-based learning materials sent home orshared with other community adults2.3 Number and types of ways procuring local foods isconnected to garden and/or educational activities inthe home and community1.4 The number of ways procuring local foodsis connected to garden and/or educationalactivities in the school2.4 Number and types of adults (i.e., teachers, parents orcare givers, community partners, staff) engaged in thedesign and implementation of food preparation andserving strategies1.5 Increase in the percentage of total free andreduced-meal eligible children participating inschool meal programs when farm to schoolactivities are present1.6 Increase in use of local, healthy foods inschool and outside of school meal programs,including breakfast, lunch, snacks, Departmentof Defense fresh produce program, summerand after school programs1.7 Number of students directly engaged inthe design and implementation of the foodpreparation and food-serving strategies inMeasures 1.2 and 1.31.8 Number of children directly involved in farmto school (students, teachers, administrators,farmers, food service) engaged in the designand implementation of farm to schoolactivities1.9 Number of students trained and participatingin youth action research to help evaluate orassess impact of farm to school programs inpublic health measures such as food access,food literacy, etc.2.5 Number of adults directly involved in farm to school(students, teachers, administrators, farmers, foodservice) engaged in the design and implementation offarm to school activities2.6 Increased support and technical assistance forstudents and their families to grow and prepare theirown foodNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


92 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSProgram Level Cont.SectorCommunity Economic DevelopmentPriorityOutcomeIndicator(s)MeasuresLocal and regional economic impact1: Increase in market opportunities/income generation for local producers,processors and distributors through salesto school districts and potentially to otherinstitutions through procurement activity1.1 Total dollar amount of all local productspurchased by school districts and schools1.2 Percentage of total food budget spent onlocal foods by school districts and schools1.3 Type, quantity and monetary valueof specific local products (i.e., fruits,vegetables, dairy, meats and processedfoods) purchased by school districts andschools1.4 Percentage of sales to local sociallydisadvantaged producers (i.e., growers,ranchers, processors)Social capital built in school districts and thecommunity2: Mutually supportive relationships result in accessto resources shared between community andschool districts2.1 Number and type of promotional and trainingactivities related to local foods in the schoolenvironment and in the community2.2 Number and type of sales producer has to chef,retailer or other wholesale accounts resulting fromfarm to school promotion and training efforts2.3 Number and type of food-related businesses (i.e.,farmers, ranchers, distributors, retailers) partneringwith the school district to support farm to schoolthrough education, gardening and procurementefforts (i.e., field trips, site visits)2.4 Estimate of financial value of in-kind supportprovided by community volunteers, fooddonations, guest speakers, site visits, field trips,equipment donations provided to school or districtin support of the farm to school activities2.5 Amount of money generated at the school sitethrough farm to school related activities, such asfundraisers with sales of plants grown by studentsin gardens, revenue from local governments orother institutions, grants and other sources offunding receivedEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS93Program Level Cont.SectorEducationPriorityOutcomeFarm to school activities are aligned to EarlyLearning <strong>Framework</strong>, the Common Core, orstate content standards to support studentengagement and learningIncrease food literacy in students and adults inschoolsIndicator(s)Measures1: Sites offers a range of learning opportunitiesaligned to support learning skills and contentareas such as service learning, communityconnections, inquiry-based learning,experiential learning and hands-on fieldexperiences related to food1.1 Number of teachers using food system orgardening curriculum aligned to Early Learning<strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core or state-adoptedcontent standards1.2 Number of students participating in farm toschool activities aligned to Early Learning<strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core or state-adoptedcontent standards1.3 Number of school-based gardens withcurriculum components aligned to EarlyLearning <strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core or stateadopted content standards1.4 The subjects (i.e., nutrition, science), gradelevels, number of classes and type of activities(i.e., taste tests, hands-on learning, gardening)where farm to school activities and curriculumare aligned to Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>,Common Core or state-adopted contentstandards1.5 Number of hours, frequency and type oflearning opportunities in each subject area thatare aligned with Early Learning <strong>Framework</strong>,Common Core or state-adopted content areas1: Increase in student and staff knowledge aboutfood and its impact on health1.1 Number of teachers integrating curriculumdesigned to improve food literacy1.2 Number of teachers using culturally appropriatecurriculum, including recipes that align withdiverse student ethnic or cultural heritage1.3 Number of students participating in farm toschool activities designed to improve foodliteracy1.4 Number of hours, frequency, sequence ofcurriculum (i.e., grade level) and type of learningopportunities students receive in each subjectarea focused on food literacy in classrooms,outdoor learning environments and eating areas1.5 Number and types of ways that food literacylessons or activities are occurring acrossthe school environment, such as in gardens,classrooms and cafeterias1.6 Student attitudes about specific content taughtthrough farm to school learning opportunities1.7 Family, youth, community member andproducer input and engagement in design ofactivities, curriculum and learning opportunities(i.e., on food literacy, nutrition, local foods,agriculture) connected to Early Learning<strong>Framework</strong>, Common Core, or state-adoptedcontent standardsNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


94 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSProgram Level Cont.Sector Education Environmental QualityPriorityOutcomeIndicator(s)MeasuresIncrease food literacy in students andadults in schools.2: Increase in school adult knowledgeabout food and its impact onhealth.2.1: Number and types of ways adultsin the schools are involved intraining, activities or other learningexperiences related to foodliteracy.2.2 Number and methods ofincorporating farm to schoolactivities in school employeewellness policy efforts related to ahealthy diet.Students are environmentally literate through engagementin farm to school activities1: Increase in student knowledge about the relationshipbetween the environment and food systems, includingenvironmental impacts of food production, processing,distribution and waste or composting1.1 Number of children, at what grades, for what length oftime, are receiving what type of lessons on environmentalconcepts connected to food systems and/or schoolgardening1.2 Types of curriculum aligned with Common Corestandards used to teach environmental literacy connectedto food systems1.3 Number of children, at what grades, for what length oftime, are participating in what types of environmentallyresponsible behaviors in schools, such as composting,waste reduction, energy conservation or recycling1.4 Number of ways procuring local foods is connected togarden and/or educational activities in the school, homeand community1.5 Student knowledge of specific environmental conceptsthat align with science, such as biodiversity, waterconservation, pest control, pollination, natural resourcesand ecosystem services1.6 Number of children, at what grades, for what lengthof time, visit local farmers to learn about sustainableproduction methods such as integrated pest management1.7 Number of schools with environmental literacy plansconnected to farm to school activities, food systems orsome other connection to food production1.8 Number of leadership development opportunities forstudents to share and demonstrate their knowledge andpassion for, and experience with, environmental practices,such as the benefits of eating sustainable, local foods1.9 Number of students monitoring, evaluating or innovatingthe school’s environmental sustainability practices1.10 Student capacity to analyze environmental quality issuesrelated to the food system through a justice lensEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS95Research LevelSectorPublic HealthPriorityOutcomeIndicator(s)MeasuresFamily access to local, healthy foods in thecommunity1: Farm to school activities increaseawareness of local food availability in thecommunity1.1 Number of people who received local,healthy food through participation in farmto school program activities, for examplegarden harvest baskets1.2 Number of people who receive resourcesabout accessing local, healthy foods infarm to school family outreach events1.3 Number of families that begin gardeningat home or in a community garden afterparticipation in farm to school activities1.4 Number of coupons given and redeemedby farm to school program for farmers’markets, farm stands or other access pointfor local, healthy foods1.5 Self-reporting of Supplemental NutritionAssistance Program (SNAP) users whoreport using SNAP benefits to buy local,healthy foods, whole foods, edible plantsand seeds and/or use at a farmers’ market,food stands or other access points1.6 The number of farmers’ markets acceptingSNAP electronic benefits transfer cards(EBT), Women Infant and Children (WIC)and Senior Farmers’ Market NutritionProgram (SFMNP) vouchers participatingin farm to school family activity programs1.7 The percentage of direct sales to SNAPEBT clients participating in farm to schoolfamily activities at farmers’ markets,including WIC and SFMNP vouchers1.8 The number of local products that areSFMNP and WIC eligible sold by grocerymarkets in community participating infarm to school community activities1.9 Number of farm to school sites thatprovide opportunities for studentsor families to engage in participatoryresearch, service learning or action-basedlearning with family-related activities onfood accessIncreased consumption of local and healthy foods2: Student preferences for local,healthy foods2.1 Increase in student awarenessand knowledge about food andnutrition’s impact on health2.2 Increase in student willingness totry new local, healthy foods2.3 Increase in amount of local fruitsand vegetables students reporteating2.4 Increase in the number of studentsin schools and districts with farmto school (including procurement,gardening and education activities)consuming the daily recommendedamount of fruits or vegetables2.5 Decrease in fruit and vegetablesor other healthy foods studentsdiscard after lunch2.6 Decrease in amount of unhealthyfoods students report eating3: Adult preferences forlocal, healthy foods3.1 Increase in adult (i.e., familymembers, school staffor community partnersif involved in learningactivities) awareness andknowledge about food andnutrition’s impact on health3.2 Increase in the numberof families who reportpurchasing local foodsafter involvement in farmto school activities3.3 Increase in amount oflocal fruits and vegetablesparents or care giversreport eatingNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


96 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSResearch Level Cont.SectorCommunity Economic DevelopmentPriorityOutcomeIndicator(s)MeasuresLocal and regional economic impact1: Increase in market opportunities and income generation for local producers, processors anddistributors through sales to schools and possibly other institutions1.1 Number, demographics (i.e., gender, ethnicity, age) and type of local producers, processors anddistributors supplying local products to school districts1.2 Number and type of local products distributors offer to schools1.3 Number and demographics of food producers, processors and distributors that change businessplans due to farm to school market demand (i.e., new products, change in number of acres grown)1.4 Number and demographics of locally owned businesses created to meet farm to school demand1.5 Number of new product development opportunities created through farm to school training,technical assistance, or dialogue between school food procurers, foodservice workers, students andfarmers1.6 Number of new jobs created by food producer, processor or distributor due to farm to school marketdemand1.7 Amount of new income generated from local farm to school sales1.8 Frequency of producer sales to schools (i.e., year round, one-time sales) including breakout ofsocially disadvantaged producers1.9 Number, demographics and type of producers selling local products to other farm to table markets,or newly established marketing relationships1.10 Number of school districts purchasing from regional and local food hubs1.11 Number and type of local/regional food hubs, buyers served and products sold1.12 Increase in use of pre-season/forward contracting or “producer acres under contract” to grow foodfor a school districtEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS97Research Level Cont.SectorEducationPriorityOutcomeFarm to school activities support student educational successIndicator(s)1: Student readinessto learn2: Student engagementand academicbehaviors3: Student academicmindset4: Student academiccompetency gainsMeasure s1.1 Studentparticipation inschool breakfastprograms whenfarm to schoolactivities areconducted withbreakfast2.1 Changes inclassroomattendance numbersor consistencyduring farm toschool activity daysor modules3.1 Feeling of success atcompleting farm toschool activities4.1 Student content area testscores in relation to farmto school activities usedto teach those subjects(i.e., math, science,language arts)2.2 Student participationduring farm toschool activity daysor modules3.2 The degree to whichstudents value thework undertakento complete farmto school relatedassignments.4.2 Student course grades inrelation to farm to schoolactivities used to teachthose subjects (i.e., math,science, language arts)2.3 Student classroomdisturbances whileparticipating in farmto school activities3.3: Belief in self-abilityand competenceto complete anddemonstrateleadership in farmto school relatedassignments.4.3 Students’ ability toidentify and claimownership of practicalexperience includingplanning, organizing,implementation andevaluation of farm toschool initiatives2.4 Increaseddemonstrationof leadership andinitiative in studentswho have access totraining and supportthrough farm toschool activities andopportunities3.4: Sense of belongingin the classroom/outdoor learningenvironment3.5 Self-esteem whilecompleting farm toschool activitiesNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


98 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSResearch Level Cont.SectorEducationPriority OutcomeIndicator(s)MeasuresIncrease food literacy in students and adults1: Increase in student and school adult knowledge about food and its impact on health.1.1 Knowledge of local foods, where food comes from and how it is grown1.2 Knowledge of food impact on health1.3 Knowledge of at least one element of food heritage, such as foods unique to different cultures,and including food histories native to the region/community/their own family1.4 Increased awareness and knowledge of food and nutrition issues facing community1.5 Attainment of food-related skills, such as recipe development, food-preparation, gardening andcooking1.6 Number of students communicating and promoting information about local foods, where foodcomes from, how it is grown and physical and mental impacts of healthy eating to families andcommunity members1.7 Number of leadership development opportunities for students and adults to share anddemonstrate their knowledge of food literacy1.8 Knowledge of how purchasing local food affects the local economy1.9 Knowledge and understanding of potential for local food procurement to affect systemic changesfor social and economic equityEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS99Research Level Cont.SectorEnvironmental QualityPriorityOutcomeSchool supports environmentally friendly practicesIndicator(s)1: School district purchase ofsustainably produced foods2: Reduction in cafeteria waste 3: School, school garden,naturescape and landscapepractices support diversenatural food environmentsMeasures1.1 Quantity purchased andamount spent on local foodsthat are also third-party ecolabelcertified foods2.1 Number of school-basedcomposting programs that arepart of existing waste reductionprograms or are stand-alone3.1 Number and size of schoolyards and gardens that growand teach about food1.2 Producers track and providemeasures to school or districtabout other environmentalproduction practices forfoods schools buy that are notthird-party certified, such asintegrated pest management,multi-cropping or aquiferrestoration plantings2.2 Documented use of schoolcurriculum connecting foodwaste, composting and handsonlearning3.2 Number of schools that useintegrated pest managementpractices on school groundsand gardens2.3 Number and types ofpromotion activities todecrease food waste3.3 Number of schools that usewater conservation practiceson school grounds andgardens2.4 Measure the proportion offood waste to total waste overtime after using curriculumand other methods aimed atreducing food waste3.4 Number of schools wherefood gardens are combinedwith naturescaping topromote biodiversity2.5 School engagement withthe community (includinggrowers) regarding alternativeuses for waste3.5 Number of school gardensthat recycle, repurpose orreuse building materials forstructures3.6 Improvement in soil quality inschool garden over timeNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


100 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSPolicy LevelSectorPublic HealthPriorityOutcomeStudents and their families access locally produced, healthy food through schoolsIndicator(s)Measures1: School district and school policy environmentsupports student access to local, healthyfoods in school meals1.1 Increase in number of local school districtwellness policies that include language onfarm to school activities as part of addressingnutrition and wellness efforts1.2 Increase in the number of school-levelwellness policies that include language onfarm to school activities as part of addressingnutrition and wellness efforts2: Federal, tribal, state and local governmentprogram and policy environments support local,healthy food access for schools and families2.1 Increase in number of federal, state and tribalpolicies, initiatives or programs that support farmto school in relation to public health priorities (i.e.,food policy councils)2.2 Increase in number of city policies, initiatives orprograms that support farm to school in relationto public health priorities1.3 Increase in number of schools with policiesthat schedule recess before school lunch1.4 Increase in number of schools with policiesthat support adequate time for student meals1.5 Increase in number of times school boardsreview progress on implementation of schooland district nutrition or wellness policies1.6 Increase in the number of students, familyand community members engaged in thedevelopment of school food policy, includingrepresentation on food policy councils,municipal councils, state legislative hearings,etc.2.3 Increase in number of food policy councils ortaskforces at the state, city, county or regionallevel that identify farm to school as a majorpriority and include representation of farmto school stakeholders, such as youth,local producers and members of sociallydisadvantaged groups2.4 Increase in number of state and tribal institutionswith local, healthy food procurement policies2.5 Increase in the number of state, tribal, countyor city local food pilot programs that helpestablish needed distribution or other forms ofinfrastructure for farm to school activities2.6 Increase in the number of times a review ofthe progress on implementation of policiesis conducted or requested by the approvingauthorities1.7 Increase in trainings to farm to schoolstakeholders provided on policy and advocacyefforts, and follow ups conducted to engageyouth, parents, growers, foodservice workers2.7 Increase in the number of training and supportmechanisms for all farm to school stakeholdersto engage in school or other food policydevelopment efforts, including youth, parentsor care givers, producers, laborers, foodserviceworkers, etc.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS101Policy Level Cont.SectorCommunity Economic DevelopmentPriorityOutcomeInstitutional support for local and regional foodsIndicator(s)Measures1: Institutional procurement policiessupporting local and regional foods1.1 The number of institutional procurementpolicies with supportive language1.2 The number of state local procurementpolicies with supportive language1.3 Government agency allocation of resourcesand creation of programs, grants andpositions for farm to school1.4 Government programs that providecommunity food project grants to supportlocal and regional foods, including farm toschool efforts2: Institutional programs supporting local andregional foods2.1 Government agency allocation of resources andcreation of programs, grants and positions for farmto school2.2 Government programs that provide communityfood project grants to support local and regionalfoods, including farm to school efforts2.3 Number of training opportunities created forlocal producers and producers owned by sociallydisadvantaged individuals2.4 Number of farm to school stakeholders sitting oneconomic and community development councilsor decision-making bodies within the community1.5 Number of state agencies that identify localfood systems as a priority1.6 Number of states with “buy local” foodprograms that include farm to schoolNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


102 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSPolicy Level Cont.SectorEducationPriorityOutcomeIndicator(s)Education policy and programs support farm to school activities1: Education agenciesallocate resources tosupport farm to schoolprogramming2: Teachers, child care educators,foodservice workers, students andproducers are trained in farm toschool education and gardeningactivities3: Teachers, child care educators,school administrators, nutritionservice directors, foodserviceworkers and producershave resources they need toimplement farm to schoolactivities as a collaborative teamMeasures1.1 State legislaturesprovide funding tocreate farm to schoolpositions, programs,grants or otherresources to supportfarm to school activities2.1 Increase in professional developmentprograms for teachers, foodserviceworkers and growers that include farmto school curriculum, project-basedand hands-on learning activities,procurement requirements andprocedures, food safety requirements,budgeting best practices andinnovations, safe growing standards,socio-cultural aspects of food andgardening education3.1 School district policies supportschool gardens and hands-onlearning approaches2.2 State education departments andschool district policies encourageprofessional development byproviding funding or technicalassistance for programs in stateagricultural departments for producersand processors3.2 Farm to school activitiesaligned to Common Core orstate-adopted standards arereadily available for teachers asthey are updated3.3 School district policies,teacher/foodservice workerunion contracts and earlychild education organizationsprovide adequate time forplanning farm to schoolactivities, such as throughplanning periods or otherpreparation time3.4 Increase in number of trainingand technical assistanceopportunities available forincorporating farm to schoolstrategies into the buying,preparing, serving andrecycling of school foodEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS103Policy Level Cont.SectorPriorityOutcomeIndicator(s)MeasuresEnvironmental QualityInstitutional support for local, environmentally sustainable foods1: Institutional procurementpolicies and programs thatencourage purchase of, allocateresources to developing, orcreate infrastructure thatencourages the markets forsustainable products that arealso local1.1 The number of school districtprocurement policies thatset goals or other support forpurchase of local products thatare sustainable1.2 Reporting on progress theschool district makes onimplementing and attaininggoals related to local andsustainable product purchases1.3 The number of state or tribalprocurement policies with goalsor other support for purchase ofsustainable, local products1.4 The number of comprehensiveplans (in local jurisdictions,agricultural economicdevelopment, agritourism orsmart growth) that includezoning, resource allocation orother programs to encouragelocal sustainable food production2: Institutional policies and programs supporthealthy ecosystems related to food production(i.e., maintaining ecosystem services)2.1 School districts create joint-use agreementswith local communities when communitiesuse school gardens2.2 State agencies and public universities supportsustainable agricultural practices throughtechnical assistance and research2.3 Number of producers, including sociallydisadvantaged and small-scale growers trainedor assisted to access farm to school marketand engagement opportunities2.4 State agricultural agencies and universityextension agents develop and implementno-cost or low-cost methods to promoteuse of sustainable practices (by producers),such as integrated pest management, wetlandset-asides and other efforts included in USDA’sNatural Resources Conservation ServicesEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program2.5 Regulations and incentive programs supportresource stewardship for producers, suchas setback requirements, agricultural uses,agricultural zoning or incentive zoning2.6 State agencies and university extension agentsprovide technical assistance and informationabout the incentive programs in previousmeasure2.7 Government positions (i.e., rural planning,agricultural planning) or programs at thestate, tribal and local levels act to maintain theagricultural land base through programs suchas transferable development rights, lease orpurchase of development rights2.8 The number of comprehensive plans (countyor city, agricultural economic developmentand smart growth) that include farmlandprotection policies3: Risk from chemicalsor other hazards usedin food productionis minimized forfarmworkers andlaborers3.1 Number of institutionalpolicies encouragingsafe living andworking conditionsfor farmworkers andlaborersNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


104 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSTable 27: Summary of Long-Term Outcomes Needing Further ResearchSector Public Health Community EconomicDevelopmentIndicatorMeasuresIndicatorMeasuresIndicatorMeasures1: Chronic diseasereduction1.1 Reductions in theprevalence of Type2 diabetes, obesity,high blood pressureamong children andadult farm to schoolparticipants2: Participants meetingphysical activityguidelines2.1 Number of childrenand adults meetingthe physical activityguidelines forAmericans3: Participants meetingdietary guidelines3.1 Number of childrenand adults meeting theDietary Guidelines forAmericans1: School district nutritionservice programfinancial stability1.1 Net balance stays inthe black over timewith increased localpurchases2: Farm to school marketprofitability2.1 Producer, processorand distributor’srevenue is higher thanexpenses for investedtime and resources tobring local productsto school markets3: Infrastructure is inplace to support localfood production,processing anddistribution3.1 Access to financialcapital for small andmid-sized businessesEducation1: Student classroombehavior1.1 Student classroomreferrals by age levelas schools beginimplementing andexpanding farm to schoolactivities over timeEnvironmental Quality1: Dietary food intake1.1 Increase in school foodpurchases of legumes,alternative protein sourcesand lean meats2: Student attendance 2: Environmental impact oflocal food miles2.1 Average daily attendancein schools implementingdifferent levels of farm toschool activities2.2 Chronic absenteeism(missing 10 percent ormore school days in anacademic year) in schoolsimplementing differentlevels of farm to schoolactivities3: Student academicperformance3.1 Overall grade pointaverage in schools withdifferent levels of farm toschool activities2.1 Food miles traveled bydifferent food items (i.e.,fruits, vegetables, herbs,meats, grains) comparedto distance they otherwisewould have traveled if notpurchased locallyIndicatorMeasures4: Reduction in child andfamily food insecurity4.1 Number of childrenand families whoreport being foodsecure3.2 Access to materialcapital such asmicro-processing,refrigeration units,trucks, etc.3.3 Access to aggregatorsand distributors toconnect producers towholesale markets3.2 State academicachievement test scoresin schools implementingdifferent levels of farm toschool activities


105ReferencesChapter 11. Joshi, A., Azuma, A.M., Feenstra, G. Do Farm-to-SchoolPrograms Make a Difference? Findings and FutureResearch Needs. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 20<strong>08</strong>;3.2. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M., Heim, S. Impact ofgarden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: areview. J Am Dietitic Assoc. 2009 Feb;109(2):273–80.3. Tuck, B., Haynes, M., King, R., Pesch, R. The EconomicImpact of Farm-to-School Lunch Programs: A CentralMinnesota Example. University of Minnesota ExtensionCenter for Community Vitality and University ofMinnesota Department of Applied Economics; 2010.4. Kane, D., Kruse, S., Ratcliffe, M.M., Sobell, S.A., Tessman, N.The Impact of Seven Cents. Ecotrust; 2011.5. Ratcliffe, M. Garden-based education in school settings:The effects on children’s vegetable consumption,vegetable preferences and ecoliteracy. Tufts University;2007.6. Ratcliffe, M. A sample theory-based logic model toimprove program development, implementation, andsustainability of Farm to School programs. Child Obes.2012;8(4):315–22.7. Blair, D. The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative Review ofthe Benefits of School Gardening. J Environ Educ. 2009Winter;40(2):15–38.8. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report tothe President. Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesitywithin a Generation. 2010.9. United States Department of Agriculture. Know YourFarmer, Know Your Food Initiative [Internet]. 2010.Available from: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER10. Turner, L., Chaloupka, F.J. School Policies and Practicesto Improve Health and Prevent Obesity: NationalElementary School Survey Results Executive Summary.Bridging the Gap, Chicago: University of Illinois; 2010.11. Keener, D., Goodman, K., Lowry, A., Kettle, K.L.Recommended community strategies andmeasurements to prevent obesity in the United States:Implementation and measurement guide. 2009.12. Green, L.W., Sim, L., Breiner, H. Evaluating ObesityPrevention Efforts: A Plan for Measuring Progress. TheNational Academies Press, Washington D.C.: Committeeon Evaluating Progress of Obesity Prevention Efforts;Food and Nutrition Board; Institute of Medicine; 2013.13. Bendfeldt, E.S., Walker, M., Bunn, T., Martin, L., Barrow,M. A Community-based Food System: Building Health,Wealth, Connection and Capacity as the Foundation ofOur Economic Future [Internet]. Blacksburg, VA: VirginiaCooperative Extension; 2011. Available from: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/3306/3306-9029/3306-9029-PDF.pdf<strong>14</strong>. Bregendahl, C., Enderton, A. 2012 Economic Impacts ofIowa’s Regional Food Systems Working Group. LeopoldCenter, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach;2013 Oct.15. Campbell, M.C. Building a Common Table: The Role forPlanning in Community Food Systems. J Plan Educ Res.2004;23:341–54.16. Carlsson, L., Williams, P.L. New approaches to healthpromoting school: Participation in sustainable foodsystems. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 20<strong>08</strong>;3(4):400–17.17. Conner, D.S., Knudson, W.A., Hamm, M.W., Peterson,C. The food system as economic driver: Strategiesand applications for Michigan. J Hunger Environ Nutr.20<strong>08</strong>;3(4):371–83.18. Joshi, A., Azuma, A. Bearing Fruit: Farm to SchoolProgram Evaluation Resources and Recommendation.National Farm to School Program; 2009.19. Berkenkamp, J. Making the Farm/School Connection:Opportunities and Barriers to Greater Use of LocallygrownProduce in Public Schools. Department ofApplied Economics, University of Minnesota; 2006 Jan.20. Izumi B., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. Marketdiversification and social benefits: Motivations of farmersparticipating in farm to school programs. J Rural Stud.2010;26:374–82.21. Conner, D.S., King, B., Koliba, C., Kolodinsky, J., Trubek,A. Mapping Farm-to-School networks implicationsfor research and practice. J Hunger Environ Nutr.2011;6(2):133–52.22. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. The evolution of the schoolfood and farm to school movement in the United States:Connecting childhood health, farms, and communities.Child Obes. 2012;8(4):280–9.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


10623. Markley, K., Kalb, M., Gustafson, L. Delivering More:Scaling up Farm to School Programs. Community FoodSecurity Coalition; 2010 Mar.24. Strohbehn, C., Gregoire, M. Innovations in school foodpurchasing: Connecting to local food. J Child NutrManag. 2001;<strong>25</strong>(2):62–5.<strong>25</strong>. Vallianatos, M., Gottlieb, R., Haase, M. Farm-to-School:Strategies for Urban Health, Combating Sprawl, andEstablishing a Community Food Systems Approach. JPlan Educ Res. 2004;23:4<strong>14</strong>–23.26. Allen, P., Guthman, J. From “old school” to “farm-toschool”;Neoliberalization from the ground up. AgricHum Values. 2006;23:401–15.27. Kloppenburg, J., Hassanein, N. From old school toreform school? Agric Hum Values. 2006;23(4):417–21.28. Izumi, B.T., Rostant, O.L., Moss, M.J., Hamm, M.W.Results From the 2004 Michigan Farm-to-SchoolSurvey. J Sch Health. 2006;76(5).29. Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., Hamm, M.W. Farm to Schoolprograms and their potential for meeting schoolfoodservice goals. J Nutr Educ Behav. 20<strong>08</strong>;40(4,Supplement 1):S37.30. Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. Farm to schoolprograms: Exploring the role of regionally-based fooddistributors in alternative agrifood networks. Agric HumValues. 2009;27:335–50.31. Slusser, W.M., Cumberland, W.G., Browdy, B.L., Lange,L., Neumann, C. A school salad bar increases frequencyof fruit and vegetable consumption among childrenliving in low-income households. Public Health Nutr.2007;10(12):<strong>14</strong>90–6.32. Berlin, L., Norris, K., Kolodinsky, J., Nelson, A. Farm-to-School: Implications for Child Nutrition. Opportunitiesfor Agriculture Working Paper Series Vol. 1, No. 1; 2010.33. Powers, A., Berlin, L., Buckwalter, E. Connectingclassrooms, cafeterias and communities: promisingpractices of farm to school [Internet]. 2011. Availablefrom: http://www.vtfeed.org/sites/default/files/stafffiles/site-downloads/Farm%20to%20School%20evaluation%202011.pdf34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluationof a fruit and vegetable distribution program—Mississippi, 2004-05 school year. MMWR Morb MortalWkly Rep. 2006 Sep 8;55(35):957–61.35. Chomitz, V.R., McGowan, R.J., Wendel, J.M., Williams,S.A., Cabral, H.J., King, S.E. et al. Healthy LivingCambridge Kids: a community-based participatoryeffort to promote healthy weight and fitness. Obes SilverSpring. 2010 Feb;18(S1):S45–53.36. Cullen, K.W., Watson, K.B., Konarik, M. Differences infruit and vegetable exposure and preferences amongadolescents receiving free fruit and vegetable snacks atschool. Appetite. 2009 Jun;52(3):740–4.37. French, S.A., Wechsler, H. School-based research andinitiatives: fruit and vegetable environment, policy, andpricing workshop. Prev Med. 2004;39:S101–S107.38. Howerton, M.W., Bell, B.S., Dodd, K.W., Berrigan, D.,Stolzenberg-Solomon, R., Nebelling, L. School-basedNutrition Programs Produced a Moderate Increasein Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Meta andPooling Analyses from 7 Studies. J Nutr Educ Behav.2007;39(4):186–96.39. Knai, C., Pomerleau, J., Lock, K., McKee, M. Gettingchildren to eat more fruit and vegetables: A systematicreview. Prev Med. 2006;42(2):85–95.40. Wojcicki, J.M., Heyman, M.B. Healthier Choices andIncreased Participation in a MIddle School LunchProgram: Effects of Nutrition Policy Changes in SanFrancisco. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(9):1542–7.41. O’Hara, J.K., Pirog, R. Economic impacts of localfood systems: Future research priorities. J Agric FoodSyst Community Dev [Internet]. 2013;Advance onlinepublication. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.034.00342. Swenson, D. Economic Impact Summaries. Iowa: IowaState University; 20<strong>08</strong> Mar.43. Eisner, R., Foster, S., Hansen, M.H., Palmer, M., Simon,N.J., Wolf, L. Comprehensive Farm to School Programsin Wisconsin: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Universityof Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center: WisconsinComprehensive Cancer Control Program; 2012.44. Haynes, M. Farm-to-School in Central Minnesota -Applied Economic Analysis. Region Five DevelopmentCommission, CURA Community-Based ResearchPrograms, U of M Central REgional SustainableDevelopment Partnership, University of Minnesota TwinCities Applied Economics Department; 2010.45. Henderson, T., Rader, M., Sorte, B., Ratcliffe, M.M.,Lawrence, A., Lucky, J. et al. Health Impact Assessment:Farm to School and School Garden Policy, HB 2800.Portland, Oregon: Upstream Public Health; 2011.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


10746. Langellotto, G.A., Gupta, A. Gardening increasesvegetable consumption in school-aged children:a meta-analytical synthesis. HortTechnology.2012;22(4):430–45.47. Joshi, A., Ratcliffe, M.M. Causal pathways linking farmto school to childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes.2012;8(4):305–<strong>14</strong>.48. Ratcliffe, M.M., Merrigan, K.A., Rogers, B.L., Goldberg,J.P. The effects of school garden experiences onmiddle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes,and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption.2011;12(1):36–43.49. Lawrence, K., Liquori, T. School food: Point of viewmatters. Child Obes. 2012;8(4):327–30.50. Roche, E., Conner, D., Kolodinsky, J.M., Buckwalter,E., Berlin, L., Powers, A. Social cognitive theoryas a framework for considering Farm to Schoolprogramming. Child Obes. 2012;8(4):357–63.51. Nowak, A.J., Kolouch, G., Schneyer, L., Roberts, K.H.Building food literacy and positive relationships withhealthy food in children through school gardens. ChildObes. 2012;8(4):392–5.52. Marshall, C., Feenstra, G., Zajfen, V. Increasing accessto fresh, local produce: Building values-based supplychains in San Diego Unified School District. Child Obes.2012;8(4):388–91.53. Bagdonis, J.M., Hinrichs, C.C., Schafft, K.A. Theemergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives:civic engagement, health and local agriculture. AgricHum Values. 2009;26:107–19.54. LaRowe, T.L., Bontrager Yoder, A.B., Knitter, A., Meinen,A., Liebhart, J.L., Schoeller, D. Wisconsin Farm to School:One year evaluation Report. Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin-Madison: Wiscconsin Prevention of Obesityand Diabetes; Department of Family and NutritionalSciences; Wisconsin Department of Health Services;2011.55. Graham, H., Beall, D.L., Lussier, M., McLaughlin, P.,Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Use of school gardens in academicinstruction. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(3):<strong>14</strong>7–51.56. Rauzon, S., Wang, M., Studer, N., Crawford, P. AnEvaluation of the School Lunch Initiative: Final Report.2010 Sep.57. Robinson, C.W., Zajicek, J.M. Growing minds: Theeffects of a one-year school garden program on sixconstructs of life skills of elementary school children.HortTechnology. 15(3):453–7.58. MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D.S., Kegeles,S., Strauss, R.P., Scotti, R. et al. What is community? Anevidence-based definition for participatory public health.Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):1929–38.59. Hancock, T., Duhl, L. Healthy Cities: Promoting Health inan Urban Context. Copenhagen, Denmark: World HealthOrganization Europe; 1986.60. Singh, A.S., Mulder, C., Twisk, J.W.R., Van Mechelen, W.,Chinapaw, M.J.M. Tracking of childhood overweight intoadulthood: a systematic review of the literature. ObesRev. 20<strong>08</strong>;9(5):474–88.61. Singh, G.K., Kogan, M.D., Van Dyck, P.C. Changes inState-Specific Childhood Obesity and OverweightPrevalence in the United States From 2003 to 2007. ArchPediatr Adolesc Med. 2010 Jul 1;164(7):598–607.62. Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, L.R., Lamb, M.M.,Flegal, K.M. Prevalence of High Body Mass Index in USChildren and Adolescents, 2007-20<strong>08</strong>. J Am Med Assoc.2010 Jan 20;303(3):242–9.63. Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, L.R., McDowell, M.A.,Tabak, C.J., Flegal, K.M. Prevalence of Overweight andObesity in the United States, 1999-2004. J Am MedAssoc. 2006;295(13):1549–55.64. Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Flegal, K.M. Highbody mass index for age among US children andadolescents, 2003-2006. JAMA J Am Med Assoc.20<strong>08</strong>;299(20):2401–5.65. Ogden, C.L., Flegal, K.M., Carroll, M.D., Johnson,C.L. Prevalence and Tends in Overweight Among USChildren and Adolescents, 1999-2000. J Am Med Assoc.2002;288(<strong>14</strong>):1728–32.66. Din-Dzietham, R., Liu, Y., Bielo, M.V., Shamsa, F. HighBlood Pressure Trends in Children and Adolescentsin National Surveys, 1963 to 2002. Circulation.2007;116(13):<strong>14</strong>88 –<strong>14</strong>96.67. Fagot-Campagna, A., Pettitt, D.J., Engelgau, M.M.,Burrows, N.R., Geiss, L.S., Valdez, R. et al. Type 2 diabetesamong North American children and adolescents: anepidemiologic review and a public health perspective. JPediatr. 2000 May;136(5):664–72.68. Fletcher, J.M., Richards, M.R. Diabetes’s “Health Shock”To Schooling And Earnings: Increased Dropout RatesAnd Lower Wages And Employment In Young Adults.Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(1):27034.69. Liese, A.D., D’Agostino, R.B., Jr., Hamman R.F., Kilgo, P.D.,Lawrence, J.M., Liu, L.L. et al. The burden of diabetesmellitus among US youth: prevalence estimates fromthe SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Pediatrics.2006 Oct;118(4):1510–8.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


1<strong>08</strong>70. Cook, J., Jeng, K. Child Food Insecurity: The EconomicImpact on our Nation. Feeding America; 2009.71. Cook, J.T., Frank, D.A. Food Security, Poverty, andHuman Development in the United States. Annals of theNew York Academy of Science; 20<strong>08</strong> p. 11–4. ReportNo.: 1136.72. National School Lunch Program Fact Sheet [Internet].Alexandia, VA: United States Department of Agriculture;2012 Aug. Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/slp73. Making the Case for Educating the Whole Child[Internet]. Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelpment; 2012. Available from: http://www.wholechildeducation.org/74. Organic Industry Survey [Internet]. Organic TradeAssociation; 2011. Available from: http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html75. Hunt, A.R. Consumer interactions and influenceson farmers market vendors. Renew Agric Food Syst.2007;22(1):54–66.76. School Food Learning Lab in Saint Paul, Minnesota: ACase Study of Procurement Change in Action. SchoolFood FOCUS; 2011.Chapter 21. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. The evolution of the schoolfood and farm to school movement in the United States:Connecting childhood health, farms, and communities.Child Obes. 2012;8(4):280–9.2. United States Department of Agriculture. Farm to SchoolCensus | Food and Nutrition Service [Internet]. [cited20<strong>14</strong> Mar 5]. Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/3. Farm to Preschool Snapshot [Internet]. National Farmto School Network; 2012. Available from: http://farmtopreschool.org/documents/SurveyFlyer_LowRes_FINAL.pdf4. National Farm to School Network. The Benefits of Farmto School [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://www.farmtoschool.org/files/publications_5<strong>14</strong>.pdf5. ]Geographic Preference: What It Is and How to UseIt Factsheet [Internet]. The Farm to School Program:United States Department of Agriculture; 20<strong>14</strong>. Availablefrom: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/F2S_GeographicPreference_March20<strong>14</strong>.pdf6. Procurement Geographic Preferences Q & As Part 1[Internet]. United States Department of Agriculture, Foodand Nutrition Service; 2011. Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SP18-2011_os.pdf7. United States Department of Agriulcture, Food andNutrition Service. Geographic Preference for theProcurement of Unprocessed Agricultural Products inthe Child Nutrition Programs; Memo Code SP <strong>08</strong>-2010,CACFP 05-2010, SFSP 06-2010. 2009.8. Morgan, P.J., Warren, J.M., Lubans, D.R., Saunders,K.L., Quick, G.I., Collins, C.E. The impact of nutritioneducation with and without a school garden onknowledge, vegetable intake and preferences and qualityof school life among primary-school students. PublicHealth Nutr. 2010 May 5;13(11):1931–40.9. Evans, A., Ranjit, N., Rutledge, R., Medina, J., Jennings,R., Smiley, A. et al. Exposure to multiple components ofa garden-based intervention for middle school studentsincreases fruit and vegetable consumption. HealthPromot Pract. 2012;13(5):6<strong>08</strong>–16.10. Townsend, N., Murphy, S., Moore, L. The more schoolsdo to promote healthy eating, the healthier the dietarychoices by students. J Epidemiol Community Health.2010;65(10):889–95.11. Brillinger, R., Ohmart, J., Feenstra, G. The Crunch LunchManual: A case study of the Davis Joint Unified SchoolDistrict Farmers Market Salad Bar Pilot Program anda fiscal analysis model. UC Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education Program; 2003.12. Berkenkamp, J. Making the farm-school connection:Opportunities and barriers to greater use of locallygrownproduce in public schools. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics; 2006.13. Markley, K., Kalb, M., Gustafson, L. Delivering More:Scaling up Farm to School Programs. Community FoodSecurity Coalition; 2010 Mar.<strong>14</strong>. Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. Marketdiversification and social benefits: Motivations of farmersparticipating in farm to school programs. J Rural Stud.2010;26:374–82.15. EcoInformatics [Internet]. Policy Mapping, PolicyCycle. [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Mar 5]. Available from: http://www.geostrategis.com/p_policy.htm16. Vermont Law School, Center for Agriculture and FoodSystems, National Farm to School Network. State Farmto School Legislative Survey: 2002-2013. 20<strong>14</strong> Jan.17. Lucas, F.D. Agricultural Act of 20<strong>14</strong>. P.L. 113-79, H.R. 264220<strong>14</strong>.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


10918. Schneider, L., Chriqui, J., Nicholson, L., Turner, L.,Gourdet, C., Chaloupka, F. Are Farm-to-Schoolprograms more commone in states with Farm-to-School related laws? J Sch Health. 2012;82(5):210–6.19. National Governors Association Center for BestPractices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Common Core State Standards Initiative [Internet].[cited 2013 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.corestandards.org/20. Local School Wellness Policy ImplementationUnder the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010[Internet]. Federal Register The Daily Journal of theUnited States Government; 20<strong>14</strong> Feb. Report No.:79 FR 10693. Available from: https://federalregister.gov/a/20<strong>14</strong>-0410021. Los Angeles Food Policy Council: Good FoodPurchasing Program [Internet]. [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Apr 1].Available from: http://goodfoodla.org/policymaking/good-food-procurement/22. Be a City with Healthy Food Options: Farm to School,Boat to School & School Gardens Factsheet [Internet].Oregon Public Health Institute, Healthy Eating ActiveLiving Cities Campaign; 2013. Available from: www.healcitiesnw.org23. CLF Food Policy Network Directory of Food PolicyCouncils in North America. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins Center for a Livable Future; 20<strong>14</strong> Jan.Chapter 31. Ratcliffe, M.M., Joshi, A., Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J.,Fleming, P. Farm to School National Research: Howto Identify and Address Research Priorities For Farmto School and School Garden (FTS/SG) Programs[Internet]. Ecotrust, National Farm to School Network,University of California at UC Davis, University of NorthCarolina; 2009. Available from: www.datadorksunite.ning.com/2. Collective School Garden Network Research Database[Internet]. [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Apr 4]. Available from: http://www.csgn.org/research3. Ritchie, S.M., Chen, W. Farm to School: A Selected andAnnotated Bibliography. United States Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Research Service, NationalAgricultural Library, Alternative Farming SystemsInformation Center, John Hopkins Center for a LivableFuture; 2011. Report No.: SRB 2011-02.4. Gupta, A. Farm to School Literature Bank. Availalbe fromguptaab@onid.orst.edu; 2013.5. Joshi, A., Azuma, A. Bearing Fruit: Farm to SchoolProgram Evaluation Resources and Recommendation.National Farm to School Program; 2009.6. Campbell, M.C. Building a Common Table: The Role forPlanning in Community Food Systems. J Plan Educ Res.2004;23:341–54.7. Allen, H.B. Principles of informant selection. AmSpeech. 1971;46:47–51.8. Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications; 1998.9. Stokols, D. Establishing and maintaining healthyenvironments. Toward a social ecology of healthpromotion. Am Psychol. 1992;47:6–22.10. Sallis, J.F., Owen, N. Ecological models of healthbehavior. Health Behav Health Educ. 2002;462–84.11. Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Public’s Healthin the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2003.12. Institute of Medicine. Accelerating Progress inObesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation.Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2012.13. Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood Obesity:Health in the Balance. Washington, D.C.: Institute ofMedicine, National Academies Press; 2005.<strong>14</strong>. Nelson, M., Abrahms, S., Adams-Campbell, L., Story, M.Work Group 1: Environmental Determinants of Food,Diet, and Health [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-binder/2015/docs/workGroupPresentations/workgroup1.pdf15. IOM (Institute of Medicine). School Meals: BuildingBlocks for Healthy Children. Washington, D.C.: TheNational Academies Press;16. Roche, E., Conner, D., Kolodinsky, J.M., Buckwalter,E., Berlin, L., Powers, A. Social cognitive theoryas a framework for considering Farm to Schoolprogramming. Child Obes. 2012;8(4):357–63.17. Ozer, E. J. The Effects of School Gardens on Studentsand Schools: Conceptualization and Considerations forMaximizing Healthy Development. Health Educ Behav.2007;34:846–63.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


11018. Subramaniam, A. Garden-based Learning in BasicEducation: A Historical Review. Monograph.2002;Summer.19. Ratcliffe, M.M. A sample theory-based logic model toimprove program development, implementation, andsustainability of Farm to School programs. Child Obes.2012;8(4):315–22.20. Hargreaves, M.B. Evaluating System Change: A PlanningGuide. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research,Inc.; 2010.21. Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J. An adaptivelearning process for developing and applyingsustainability indicators with local communities. EcolEcon. 2006;59:406–18.22. Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E. Indicators for sustainablecommunities: A strategy building on complexitytheory and distributed intelligence. Plan Theory Pract.2000;1(2):173–86.Chapter 4.11. Joshi, A., Ratcliffe, M.M. Causal pathways linking farmto school to childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes.2012;8(4):305–<strong>14</strong>.2. Draft Farm to School Vermont Growth Chart Workbook.Vermont FEED Partnership, Shelburne Farms, and otherpartners; 20<strong>14</strong>.3. USDA Farm to School Grant Program Prosposal ScoreSheet Template, Activity Checklist, Implementation andPlanning Grants FY 20<strong>14</strong>. United States Department ofAgriculture Farm to School Program; 2013.4. Request for Applications: 2012 Oregon Farm toSchool & School Garden Grants. Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, contact Rick Sherman for a copy rick.sherman@state.or.us; 2012.5. Request for Applications: 2013 Farm to School & SchoolGarden Grants. Oregon Department of Agriculture,contact Rick Sherman for a copy rick.sherman@state.or.us; 2013.6. Knowlton, L.W., Phillips, C.C. The Logic ModelGuidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results. 2ndEdition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.;2013.7. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model DevelopmentGuide [Internet]. Battle Creek, Michigan: W.K. KelloggFoundation; 2004. Available from: http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2010/w-k-kelloggfoundation-evaluation-handbookChapter 4.21. Ozer, E.J. The Effects of School Gardens on Studentsand Schools: Conceptualization and Considerations forMaximizing Healthy Development. Health Educ Behav.2007;34:846–63.2. Joshi, A., Ratcliffe, M.M. Causal pathways linking farmto school to childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes.2012;8(4):305–<strong>14</strong>.3. Berlin, L., Norris, K., Kolodinsky, J., Nelson, A. The roleof Social Cognitive Theory in Farm-to-School-relatedactivities: Implications for child nutrition. J Sch Health.2013;83(8):589–95.4. Reynolds, K.D., Hinton, A.W. Social cognitive model offruit and vegetable consumption in elementary schoolchildren. J Nutr Educ. 1999 Jan;31(1):23.5. Roche, E., Conner, D., Kolodinsky, J.M., Buckwalter,E., Berlin, L., Powers A. Social cognitive theoryas a framework for considering Farm to Schoolprogramming. Child Obes. 2012;8(4):357–63.6. Healthy Schools | Let’s Move! [Internet]. [cited 2011 Dec19]. Available from: http://www.letsmove.gov/healthyschools.7. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Reportto the President. Solving the Problem of ChildhoodObesity within a Generation. 2010.8. Pyle, S.A., Sharkey, J., Yetter, G., Felix, E., Furlong,M.J., Poston, W.S.C. Fighting an epidemic: The role ofschools in reducing childhood obesity. Psychol Sch.2006 Mar 1;43(3):361–76.9. Koplan, J., Liverman, C.T., Kraak, V.I. PreventingChildhood Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington,D.C.: National Academies Press; 2005.10. Story, M., Kaphingst, K.M., Robinson-O’Brien, R., Glanz,K. Creating healthy food and eating environments:Policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev PublicHealth. 20<strong>08</strong>;29:<strong>25</strong>3–72.11. Story, M., Nanney, M.S., Schwartz, M.B. Schools andobesity prevention: creating school environments andpolicies to promote healthy eating and physical activity.Milbank Q. 2009 Mar;87(1):71–100.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


11112. Mary, P.D.S., Karen, M., Kaphingst, S.F. The Role ofSchools in Obesity Prevention. Future Child Proj Muse.2006 Mar 3;16(1):109–42.13. Rowan, M.S., Hogg, W., Hutson, P. Integratingpublic health and primary care. Healthc Policy.2007;3(1):e160–e181.<strong>14</strong>. What is Public Health? Our Commitment to Safe,Healthy Communities. American Public HealthAssociation.15. Toward a Healthy, Sustainable Food System [Internet].American Public Health Association; 2007 Nov.Available from: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1361.16. Whitehead, M. The concepts and principles of equityand health. Health Promot Int. 1991;6(3):217–28.17. Child Nutrition Tables, National School Lunch Programand School Breakfast Program, National Level AnnualSummary [Internet]. United States Department ofAgriculture Food and Nutrition Service; 20<strong>14</strong>. Availablefrom: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/child-nutritiontables.18. Ralston, K., Newman, C., Clauson, A., Guthrie, J., Buzby,J. The National School Lunch Program: Background,Trends, and Issues. United States Department ofAgriculture; 20<strong>08</strong>. Report No.: 61.19. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, Child NutritionReauthorization. 111-296 Dec 13, 2010.20. Green, L.W., Sim, L., Breiner, H. Evaluating ObesityPrevention Efforts: A Plan for Measuring Progress. TheNational Academies Press, Washington D.C.: Committeeon Evaluating Progress of Obesity Prevention Efforts;Food and Nutrition Board; Institute of Medicine; 2013.21. Khan, L.K., Sobush, K., Keener, D., Goodman, K., Lowry,A., Kakietek, J., et al. Recommended communitystrategies and measurements to prevent obesity in theUnited States. MMWR. 2009;58(RR07):-26.22. Kumanyika, S.K., Parker, L., Sim, L.J. Bridging theEvidence Gap in Obesity Prevention: A <strong>Framework</strong> toInform Decision Making. Committee on an Evidence<strong>Framework</strong> for Obesity Prevention Decision Making;Institute of Medicine; 2010.23. United States Department of Agriculture. Know YourFarmer, Know Your Food Initiative [Internet]. 2010.Available from: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER.24. Turner L, Chaloupka, F.J. School Policies and Practicesto Improve Health and Prevent Obesity: NationalElementary School Survey Results Executive Summary.Bridging the Gap, Chicago: University of Illinois; 2010.<strong>25</strong>. Keener, D., Goodman, K., Lowry, A., Kettle, K.L.Recommended community strategies andmeasurements to prevent obesity in the United States:Implementation and measurement guide. 2009.26. Henderson, T., Rader, M., Sorte, B., Ratcliffe, M.M.,Lawrence, A., Lucky, J., et al. Health Impact Assessment:Farm to School and School Garden Policy, HB 2800.Portland, Oregon: Upstream Public Health; 2011.27. Cook, J., Jeng, K. Child Food Insecurity: The EconomicImpact on our Nation. Feeding America; 2009.28. Cook, J.T., Black, M., Casey, P., Frank, D., Berkowitz, C.,Cutts, D., et al. Food insecurity associated with healthrisks among young children and their caregivers. FASEBJ. 2001 Mar 7;15(4):A<strong>25</strong>3.29. \Winne, M. Community Food Security: Promoting FoodSecurity and Building Healthy Food Systems. Santa Fe,NM: Food Security; 2011.30. Flanigan, S., Varma, R. Promoting community gardeningto low-income urban participants in the Women,Infants and Children Program (WIC) in New Mexico.Community Work Fam. 2006 Feb 1;9(1):69–74.31. Potamites, E., Gordon, A. Children’s Food Security andIntakes from School Meals Final Report. MathematicaPolicy Research, Inc.; 2010 May.32. Sullivan, A.F., Tufts Univ. M. Community Gardening inRural Regions: Enhancing Food Security and Nutrition.[Internet]. 1999 Dec. Available from: http://stats.lib.pdx.edu/proxy.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED439862&site=ehostlive(requires account login).33. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. Yolo County Farm toSchool Evaluation Report. Davis, CA: A Report of UCSustainable Agriculuture Research & Education Program(Davis Joint Unified School District data); 2005.34. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. Yolo County Farm to SchoolEvaluation Report for the California Farm to SchoolProgram. Davis, CA: A Report by UC SustainableAgriculture Research and Education Program; 2004.35. Joshi, A., Kalb, M., Beery, M. Going Local: Pathsto Success for Farm to School Programs. CaseStudy “Massachusetts: Sowing Seeds in Farms andSchools.”Los Angeles, CA: Center for Food & Justice,UEPI, Occidental College; 2006.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


11236. Abernethy Elementary, Portland Public SchoolsNutrition Services, Injury Free Coalition for Kids,Ecotrust. New on the Menu: District wide Changesto School Food Start in the Kitcehn at Portland’sAbernethy Elementary. Portland, OR: AbernathyElementary, Portland Public Schools Nutrition Services,Injury Free Coalition for Kids and Ecotrust; 2006.37. Center for Food & Justice, UEPI, Occidental College.Riverside Farm to School Demonstration Project:Final Grant Report to the California Endowment. LosAngeles, CA: A Report of the Center for Food & Justice,UEPI, Occidental College; December 2006; 2004.38. Flock, P., Petra, C., Ruddy, V., Peterangelo, J. A SaladBar Featuring Organic Choices: Revitalizing the SchoolLunch Program. Olympia, WA; 2003.39. Christensen, H. Juanamaria Healthy Schools ProjectFinal Evaluation Report. Ventura, CA: Ventura CountySuperintendent’s Office; 2003.40. Gottlieb, R., et al. Evaluation of the Santa MonicaFarmers’ Market Salad Bar Program. Los Angeles, CA:Center for Food & Justice, Occidental College; 2001.41. Schmidt, M.C., Kolodinsky, J., Symans, C. TheBurlington School Food Project, Final Evaluation Report.Burlington, VT: A Report of the Center for Rural Studies;2006.42. Croom, E., et al. Growing Farms, Growing Minds: TheBurlington School Food Project, Year One Evaluation2003-04. Center for Rural Studies; 2004.43. Triant, S.L., Ryan, A. City of Wyoming Parks andRecreation Summer 2005 Programming Evaluation.Wyoming, MI: A Report of Mixed Greens; 2005.44. Phillips, Z., Romero, R., Smith, K., Reddy, R. Farm toPreschool, Strategies for Growing Healthy Children andCommunities. CACFP Roundtable Conference; 2011Oct 18.45. Joshi, A., Azuma, A.M., Feenstra, G. Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference? Findings andFuture Research Needs. J Hunger Environ Nutr.20<strong>08</strong>;3(2/3):229–46.46. Farm to Preschool, Strategies for Growing HealthyChildren and Communities. CACFP RoundtableConference; 2011 Oct 18.47. Evans, A., Ranjit, N., Rutledge, R., Medina, J., Jennings,R., Smiley, A., et al. Exposure to multiple components ofa garden-based intervention for middle school studentsincreases fruit and vegetable consumption. HealthPromot Pract. 2012;13(5):6<strong>08</strong>–16.48. Howerton, M.W., Bell, B.S., Dodd, K.W., Berrigan, D.,Stolzenberg-Solomon, R., Nebelling, L. School-basedNutrition Programs Produced a Moderate Increasein Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Meta andPooling Analyses from 7 Studies. J Nutr Educ Behav.2007;39(4):186–96.49. Ratcliffe, M.M., Merrigan, K.A., Rogers, B.L., Goldberg,J.P. The effects of school garden experiences onmiddle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes,and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption.2011;12(1):36–43.50. LaRowe, T.L., Bontrager Yoder, A.B., Knitter, A.,Meinen, A., Liebhart, J.L., Schoeller, D. WisconsinFarm to School: One year evaluation Report. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison: WiscconsinPrevention of Obesity and Diabetes; Department ofFamily and Nutritional Sciences; Wisconsin Departmentof Health Services; 2011.51. Joshi, A., Azuma, A. Bearing Fruit: Farm to SchoolProgram Evaluation Resources and Recommendation.National Farm to School Program; 2009.52. Knai, C., Pomerleau, J., Lock, K., McKee, M. Gettingchildren to eat more fruit and vegetables: A systematicreview. Prev Med. 2006;42(2):85–95.53. Blair, D. The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative reviewof the Benefits of School Gardens. J Environ Educ.2009;40(2):15–38.54. French, S.A., Stables, G. Environmental interventions topromote vegetable and fruit consumption among youthin school settings. Prev Med. 2003;37:593–610.55. French, S.A., Wechsler, H. School-based research andinitiatives: fruit and vegetable environment, policy, andpricing workshop. Prev Med. 2004;39:S101–S107.56. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M., Heim, S. Impact ofgarden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: areview. J Am Dietitic Assoc. 2009 Feb;109(2):273–80.57. Townsend, N., Murphy, S., Moore, L. The more schoolsdo to promote healthy eating, the healthier the dietarychoices by students. J Epidemiol Community Health.2010;65(10):889–95.58. Hermann, J.R., Parker, S.P., Brown, B.J., Siewe, Y.J.,Denney, B.A., Walker, S.J. After-School GardeningImproves Children’s Reported Vegetable Intake andPhysical Activity. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006;38:201–2.59. Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Keinman, T., Paulsen,H., Rilveria, L. Community gardens: Lessons learnedfrom California Healthy Cities and Communities. Am JPublic Health. 2003;93(9):<strong>14</strong>35–8.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


11360. Zarling, P. When farm-to-school hits home: Organizershope healthier diets reach families. Green Bay PressGazette [Internet]. 20<strong>14</strong> Feb 19 [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Mar 8];Available from: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20<strong>14</strong>0218/GPG0101/302180172/When-farmschool-hits-home-Organizers-hope-healthier-dietsreach-families?nclick_check=1.61. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Report of theDietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the DietaryGuidelines for Americans, 2010, to the Secretary ofAgriculture and the Secretary of Health and HumanServices. Washington, D.C.: Agricultural ResearchService; 2010.62. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 [Internet]. U.S.Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services; 2011. Available from: www.dietaryguidelines.gov63. Reedy, J., Drebs-Smith, S.M. Dietary Sources of Energy,Solid Fats, and Added Sugars among Children andAdolescents in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc.2010;110:<strong>14</strong>77–84.64. Freedman, D.S., Zuguo, M., Srinivasan, S.R., Berenson,G.S., Dietz, W.H. Cardiovascular risk factors and excessadiposity among overweight children and adolescents:the Bogalusa Heart Study. J Pediatr. 2007;150(1):12–7.65. Whitlock, E., Williams, S.B., Gold, R., Smith, P.R.,Shipman, SA. Screening and interventions forchildhood overweight: a summary of evidence forthe US Preventive Services Task Force. Pediatrics.2005;116(1):e1<strong>25</strong>–<strong>14</strong>4.66. Gidding, S.S., Dennison, B.A., Birch, L.L., Daniels,S.R., Gilman, M.W., Lichtenstein, A.H., et al. DietaryRecommendations for Children and Adolescents:A Guide for Practitioners. Am Acad Pediatr.2006;117(2):544–59.67. National Academy of Sciences. School Meals: BuildingBlocks for Healthy Children. Consensus Report by theInstitute of Medicine of the National Academies, Foodand Nutrition Board, Committee on Nutrition Standardsfor National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs,Washington D.C.; 2009.68. Committee on Nutrition Standards for Foods inSchools, Virginia A. Stallings and Ann L. Yaktine, editors.Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading theWay Toward Healthier Youth. Washington, D.C.: TheNational Academies Press; 2007. 296 p.69. Slusser, W.M., Cumberland, W.G., Browdy, B.L., Lange,L., Neumann, C. A school salad bar increases frequencyof fruit and vegetable consumption among childrenliving in low-income households. Public Health Nutr.2007;10(12):<strong>14</strong>90–6.70. Taylor, J.C., Johnson, R.K. Farm to School as a strategyto increase children’s fruit and vegetable consumptionin the United States: Research and recommendations.Nutr Bull. 2013;38:70–9.71. Morris, J.L., Neustadter, A., Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Firstgradegardeners more likely to taste vegetables. CalifAgric. 2001;55(1):53–46.72. Ratcliffe, M.M. Garden-based education in schoolsettings: The effects on children’s vegetableconsumption, vegetable preferences and ecoliteracy.Tufts University; 2007.73. Morris, J.L., Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Garden-enhancednutrition curriculum improves fourth-grade schoolchildren’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences forsome vegetables. J Am Dietitic Assoc. 2002;102(1):91–3.74. McAleese, J., Rankin, L.L. Garden-Based NutritionEducation Affects Fruit and Vegetable Consumptionin Sixth-Grade Adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007Apr;107:662–5.75. Langellotto, G.A., Gupta, A. Gardening increasesvegetable consumption in school-aged children:a meta-analytical synthesis. HortTechnology.2012;22(4):430–45.76. Reinaerts, E., de Nooijer, J., Candel, M., de Vries, N.Increasing children’s fruit and vegetable consumption:distribution or a multicomponent programme? PublicHealth Nutr. 2007 Sep;10(9):939–47.77. Somerset, S., Markwell, K. Impact of a school-basedfood garden on attitudes and identification skillsregarding vegetables and fruit: a 12-month interventiontrial. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Feb;12(2):2<strong>14</strong>–21.78. Parmer, S.M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D.,Struempler, B. School Gardens: An Experiential LearningApproach for a Nutrition Education Program toIncrease Fruit and Vegetable Knowledge, Preference,and Consumption among Second-grade Students. JNutr Educ Behav. 2009;41:212–7.79. Morgan, P.J., Warren, J.M., Lubans, D.R., Saunders,K.L., Quick, G.I., Collins, C.E. The impact of nutritioneducation with and without a school garden onknowledge, vegetable intake and preferences andquality of school life among primary-school students.Public Health Nutr. 2010 May 5;13(11):1931–40.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


1<strong>14</strong>80. Ratcliffe, M.M. A sample theory-based logic model toimprove program development, implementation, andsustainability of Farm to School programs. Child Obes.2012;8(4):315–22.81. IOM (Institute of Medicine). School Meals: BuildingBlocks for Healthy Children. Washington, D.C.: TheNational Academies Press;82. Kandiah, J., Jones, C. Nutrition Knowledge and FoodChoices of Elementary School Children. Early Child DevCare. 2002 Jun 1;172(3):269–73.83. Farm to Preschool Snapshot [Internet]. National Farmto School Network; 2012. Available from: http://farmtopreschool.org/documents/SurveyFlyer_LowRes_FINAL.pdf84. Schafft, K., Hinrichs, C.C., Bloom, D.J. PennsylvaniaFarm-to-School programs and the articulation of localcontext. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2010;5(1):23–40.85. 85. Waters, A. Edible Schoolyard: A Universal Idea. SanFrancisco, CA: Chronicle Books; 20<strong>08</strong>.86. Carney, P., Hamada, J., Rdesinski, R., Sprager, L.,Nichols, K., Liu, B., et al. Impact of a communitygardening project on vegetable intake, food securityand family relationships: A community-basedparticipatory research study. J Community Health.2012;37(4):874–81.87. Beckman, L.L., Smith, C. An evaluation of inner-cityyouth garden program participants’ dietary behaviorand garden and nutrition knowledge. J Agric Educ.20<strong>08</strong>;49(4):11–24.88. Lautenschlager, L., Smith, C. Beliefs, knowledge, andvalues held by inner-city youth about gardening,nutrition, and cooking. Agric Hum Values. 2007 Jun1;24(2):245–58.89. Nowak, A.J., Kolouch, G., Schneyer, L., Roberts, K.H.Building food literacy and positive relationships withhealthy food in children through school gardens. ChildObes. 2012;8(4):392–5.90. Ng, S., Bednar, C., Longley, C. Challenges, benefits andstrategies of implementing a farm-to-cafeteria programin college and university foodservice operations. JFoodserv Mangement Educ. 2010;4(1):22–7.91. Market Ventures, Inc., Karp Resources, Center forHealth & Public Service Research, New York University.SchoolFood Plus Evaluation Interim Report Phase 3School Year 2005-2006. Market Ventures, Inc.; 2007.92. SchoolFood Plus Evaluation, Interim Evaluation, Phase2 Report. New York, NY: A Report of SchoolFood Plus;2005.93. Izumi, B.T., Wynne, W.D., Hamm, M.W. Marketdiversification and social benefits: Motivations offarmers participating in farm to school programs. JRural Stud. 2010 Oct;26(4):374–82.94. Gleason, P., Briefel, R., Wilson, A., Dodd, A.H.,Mathematica Policy Research I. School Meal ProgramParticipation and Its Association with Dietary Patternsand Childhood Obesity. Final Report [Internet].Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; 2009 Jul. Availablefrom: http://stats.lib.pdx.edu/proxy.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED507478&site=ehost-live (requires accountlogin)95. Rothman, K.J. BMI-related errors in the measurementof obesity. Int J Obes. 20<strong>08</strong>;32:S56–S59.96. Schmalz, D.L. “I feel fat”: Weight-related stigma,body esteem, and BMI as predictors of perceivedcompetence in physical activity. Obes Facts. 15-21;2010(3):1.97. MacLean, L.M., Meyer, M., Walsh, A., Clinton, K., Ashley,L., Donovan, S., et al. Stigma and BMI screeningin schools, or “Mom, I hate it when they weighme.”Childhood Obesity Prevention: InternationalResearch, Controversies and Interventions. OxfordScholarship Online; 2010.98. Puhl, R.M., Latner, J.D. Stigma, obesity, and the health ofthe nation’s children. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(4):557–80.99. Daniels, S.R., Khoury, P.R., Morrison, J.A. The utilityof Body Mass Index as a measure of body fatness inchildren and adolescents: Differences by race andgender. Pediatrics. 1997;99(6):804–7.100. Dietz, W.H. Benefits of Farm-to-School Projects,Healthy Eating and Physical Activity for School Children.Testimony before the Committee on Agriculture,Nutrition & Forestry United States Senate, Washington,DC. [Internet]. CDC Congressional Testimony. 2010[cited 2010 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/washington/testimony/2009/t20090515.htm101. French, S.A., Story, M., Hannan, P., Breitlow, K.K., Jeffery,R.W., Baxter, J.S., et al. Cognitive and demographiccorrelates of low-fat vending snack choices amongadolescents and adults. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999Apr;99(4):471–5.102. Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Perry, C., Casey, M.A.Factors influencing food choices of adolescents:findings from focus-group discussions withadolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999 Aug;99(8):929–37.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


115103. Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., French, S. Individualand environmental influences on adolescenteating behaviors. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002 Mar;102(3Suppl):S40–51.104. Grimm, G.C., Harnack, L., Story, M. Factors associatedwith soft drink consumption in school-aged children. JAm Diet Assoc. 2004 Aug;104(8):1244–9.105. Skinner, J.D., Carruth, B.R., Bounds, W., Ziegler, P.J.Children’s Food Preferences: A Longitudinal Analysis. JAm Diet Assoc. 2002;102(11):1638–47.106. Blanchette, L., Brug, J. Determinants of fruit andvegetable consumption among 6-12-year-old childrenand effective interventions to increase consumption. JHum Nutr Diet. 2005;18(6):431–43.107. Neumark-Sztainer, D., Wall, M., Perry, C., Story, M.Correlates of fruit and vegetable intake amongadolescents: Findings from Project EAT. Prev Med.2003;37(3):198–2<strong>08</strong>.1<strong>08</strong>. Larson, N.I., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Harnack, L.J., Wall,M.M., Story, M.T., Eisenberg, M.E. Fruit and vegetableintake correlates during the transition to youngadulthood. Am J Prev Med. 20<strong>08</strong> May <strong>14</strong>;35(1):33–7.109. Subramaniam, A. Garden-based Learning in BasicEducation: A Historical Review. Monograph.2002;Summer.110. Kirks, B.A., Wolff, H.K. A comparison of methodsfor plate waste determinations. J Am Diet Assoc.1985;85(3):328–31.111. Adams, M.A., Pelletier, R.L., Zive, M.M., Sallis, J.F. Saladbars and fruit and vegetable consumption in elementaryschools: A plate waste study. J Am Diet Assoc.2005;105(11):1789–92.112. Barriers to Recess Placement Prior to Lunch inElementary Schools. Hattiesburg, MS: National FoodService Management Institute, The University ofMississippi; 2005.113. Bergman, E.A., Buergel, N.S., Femrite, A., Englund, T.F.Relationships of meal and recess schedules to platewaste in elementary schools. Insight Publ Child NutrProf Natl Food Serv Manag Inst. 2004;Spring.Chapter 4.31. Lyson, T.A., Stevenson, G.W., Welsh, R., editors. Foodand the Mid-Level Farm. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress; 20<strong>08</strong>.2. Stevenson, G.W., Clancy, K., King, R., Lev, L., Ostrom, M.,Smith, S. Midscale food value chains: An introduction. JAgric Food Syst Community Dev. 2011;1(4):27–34.3. Stevenson, G.W., Pirog, R. Values-Based Supply Chains:Strategies for Agrifood Enterprises-of-the-Middle. Foodand the Mid-Level Farm: Renewing an Agriculture of theMiddle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;4. Economic Impacts of Local and Regional FoodSystems: Response to Questions from May 20, 2013Webinar. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan State UniversityCenter for Regional Food Systems; 2013.5. O’Hara, J.K., Pirog, R. Economic impacts of local foodsystems: Future research priorities. J Agric Food SystCommunity Dev [Internet]. 2013; Advance onlinepublication. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.034.0036. Gunter, A., Thilmany, D. Rural Connections: EconomicImplications of Farm to School for a Rural ColoradoCommunity. Logan, UT: Western Rural DevelopmentCenter; 2012.7. Conner, D.S., Knudson, W.A., Hamm, M.W., Peterson,C. The food system as economic driver: Strategiesand applications for Michigan. J Hunger Environ Nutr.20<strong>08</strong>;3(4):371–83.8. Tuck, B., Haynes, M., King, R., Pesch, R. The EconomicImpact of Farm-to-School Lunch Programs: A CentralMinnesota Example. University of Minnesota ExtensionCenter for Community Vitality and University ofMinnesota Department of Applied Economics; 2010.9. Martinez, S., Hand, M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K.,Smith, T., et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts,and Issues. United States Department of AgricultureEconomic Research Service; 2010. Report No.: 97.10. Kane, S.P., Wolfe, K., Jones, M., McKissick, J. The LocalFood Impact: What if Georgians Ate Georgia Meat andDiary? The University of Georgia; 2010. Report No.:Cr-10-07.11. Kane, S.P., Wolfe, K., Jones, M., McKissick, J. The LocalFood Impact: What if Georgians Ate Georgia Produce?The University of Georgia; 2010. Report No.: Cr-10-03.12. The World Bank. What is Local Economic Development(LED)? [Internet]. [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Mar 5]. Available from:http://go.worldbank.org/EA784ZB3F013. Geographic Preference: What It Is and How to UseIt Factsheet [Internet]. The Farm to School Program:United States Department of Agriculture; 20<strong>14</strong>. Availablefrom: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/F2S_GeographicPreference_March20<strong>14</strong>.pdfNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


116<strong>14</strong>. Procurement Geographic Preferences Q & As Part 1[Internet]. United States Department of Agriculture,Food and Nutrition Service; 2011. Available from: www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP18-2011_os.pdf15. United States Department of Agriulcture, Food andNutrition Service. Geographic Preference for theProcurement of Unprocessed Agricultural Products inthe Child Nutrition Programs; Memo Code SP <strong>08</strong>-2010,CACFP 05-2010, SFSP 06-2010. 2009.16. United States Department of Agriculture. Farm toSchool Census | Food and Nutrition Service [Internet].[cited 20<strong>14</strong> Mar 5]. Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/17. Limited Resource Farmer and Rancher — SociallyDisadvantaged Farmer Definition [Internet]. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture Natural ResourcesConservation Service. 2010 [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Jun 16].Available from: http://www.lrftool.sc.egov.usda.gov/SDFP_Definition.aspx18. Bregendahl, C., Enderton, A. 2012 Economic Impactsof Iowa’s Regional Food Systems Working Group[Internet]. Leopold Center, Iowa State UniversityExtension and Outreach; 2013 Oct. Available from:http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubsand-papers/2013-11-2012-economic-impacts-iowasregional-food-systems-working-group.pdf19. Swenson, D. Economic Impact Summaries. Iowa: IowaState University; 20<strong>08</strong> Mar.20. Kane, D., Kruse, S., Ratcliffe, M.M., Sobell, S.A., Tessman,N. The Impact of Seven Cents. Ecotrust; 2011.21. Henderson, T., Rader, M., Sorte, B., Ratcliffe, M.M.,Lawrence, A., Lucky, J., et al. Health Impact Assessment:Farm to School and School Garden Policy, HB 2800.Portland, Oregon: Upstream Public Health; 2011.22. Haynes, M. Farm-to-School in Central Minnesota —Applied Economic Analysis. Region Five DevelopmentCommission, CURA Community-Based ResearchPrograms, U of M Central REgional SustainableDevelopment Partnership, University of Minnesota TwinCities Applied Economics Department; 2010.23. Bendfeldt, E.S., Walker, M., Bunn, T., Martin, L., Barrow,M. A Community-based Food System: Building Health,Wealth, Connection and Capacity as the Foundation ofOur Economic Future [Internet]. Blacksburg, VA: VirginiaCooperative Extension; 2011. Available from: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/3306/3306-9029/3306-9029-PDF.pdf24. Bagdonis, J.M., Hinrichs, C., Schafft, K.A. Theemergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives:civic engagement, health and local agriculture. AgricHum Values. 2009 Mar 1;26(1):107–19.<strong>25</strong>. Ng, S., Bednar, C., Longley, C. Challenges, benefits andstrategies of implementing a farm-to-cafeteria programin college and university foodservice operations. JFoodserv Mangement Educ. 2010;4(1):22–7.26. Schmidt, M.C., Kolodinsky, J., Symans, C. TheBurlington School Food Project, Final Evaluation Report.Burlington, VT: A Report of the Center for Rural Studies;2006.27. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. Yolo County Farm toSchool Evaluation Report. Davis, CA: A Report of UCSustainable Agriculuture Research & Education Program(Davis Joint Unified School District data); 2005.28. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. Yolo County Farm to SchoolEvaluation Report for the California Farm to SchoolProgram. Davis, CA: A Report by UC SustainableAgriculture Research and Education Program; 2004.29. Croom, E., et al. Growing Farms, Growing Minds: TheBurlington School Food Project, Year One Evaluation2003-04. Center for Rural Studies; 2004.30. Center for Food & Justice, UEPI, Occidental College.Riverside Farm to School Demonstration Project:Final Grant Report to the California Endowment. LosAngeles, CA: A Report of the Center for Food & Justice,UEPI, Occidental College; December 2006; 2004.31. Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.Evaluation of Four Farm to School Programs, SpringfieldSchool District, OR and Riverside Unified SchoolDistrict, CA. Unpublished, Used with Permission, ChapelHill, NC: University of North Carolina; 2010.32. Market Ventures, Inc., Karp Resources, Center forHealth & Public Service Research, New York University.SchoolFood Plus Evaluation Interim Report Phase 3School Year 2005-2006. Market Ventures, Inc.; 2007.33. SchoolFood Plus Evaluation, Interim Evaluation, Phase2 Report. New York, NY: A Report of SchoolFood Plus;2005.34. Gottlieb, R., et al. Evaluation of the Santa MonicaFarmers’ Market Salad Bar Program. Los Angeles, CA:Center for Food & Justice, Occidental College; 2001.35. Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. Marketdiversification and social benefits: Motivations offarmers participating in farm to school programs. JRural Stud. 2010 Oct;26(4):374–82.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


11736. Eisner, R., Foster, S., Hansen, M.H., Palmer, M., SimonN-J, Wolf, L. Comprehensive Farm to School Programsin Wisconsin: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Universityof Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center: WisconsinComprehensive Cancer Control Program; 2012.37. John, Ryan. Impact Assessment of VermontFarm2School Program. Vermont FEED Partnership;2006.38. Lawson, L., McNally, M. Putting teens at the center:Maximizing public utility of urban space throughinvolvement in planning and employment. ChildEnviron. 1995;12(2):209–21.39. King, D.D. Local Farms, Local Kids: A Montana Farmto School Story [Internet]. Lake County Development,Western Montana Growers Cooperative, FoodCORPSMontana, Mission Mountain Food Enterprise Center;2013. Available from: http://www.lakecountycdc.org/Local_Farms%2C_Local_Kids%3A_Our_Farm_to_School_Movie40. Swenson, D. Investigating the Potential EconomicImpacts of Local Foods for Southeast Iowa. Ames, Iowa:Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture; 2009.41. Sorte, B. Local Foods to Schools An Economic Analysis,Appendix 5: Economic Analysis of HB 2800, in HealthImpact Assessment of HB 2800: Oregon Farm toSchool And School Garden Policy. Corvallis, OR:Agricultural Resource Economics Department, RuralStudies Program, Oregon State University; 2011 p.118–<strong>25</strong>.42. Markley, K., Kalb, M., Gustafson, L. Delivering More:Scaling up Farm to School Programs. Community FoodSecurity Coalition; 2010 Mar.43. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model DevelopmentGuide [Internet]. Battle Creek, Michigan: W.K. KelloggFoundation; 2004. Available from: http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2010/w-k-kelloggfoundation-evaluation-handbook44. Request for Applications: 2012 Oregon Farm toSchool & School Garden Grants. Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, contact Rick Sherman for a copy rick.sherman@state.or.us; 2012.45. Portes, A. Social capital: Its origins and applications inmodern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol. 1998;24:1–24.46. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revivalof American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster;2000.47. Bourdieu, P. The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theoryand Research for the Sociology of Education. New York:Greenwood; 1985. p. 241–58.48. Fey, S.C., Bregendahl, C., Flora, C.B. The measurementof community capitals through research: A studyconducted for the Claude Worthington BenedumFoundation by the North Central Regional Center forRural Development. Online J Rural Res Policy [Internet].2006;1. Available from: http://newprairiepress.org/ojrrp/vol1/iss1/1/49. Flora, J.L., Flora, C.B., Campana, F., Garcia Bravo,M., Fernandez-Baca, E. Social Capital and AdvocacyCoalitions: Examples of Environmental Issues fromEcuador. In: Rhoades, R.E., editor. Development withIdentity: Community, Culture and Sustainabiltiy in theAndes. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing; 2006.50. Donoghue, E.M., Sturtevant, V.E. Social scienceconstructs in ecosystem assessments: revisitingcommunity capacity and community resiliency. Soc NatResour. 2007;20(10):899–912.51. Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. Marketdiversification and social benefits: Motivations offarmers participating in farm to school programs. JRural Stud. 2010;26:374–82.52. Izumi, B.T., Rostant, O.S., Moss, M.J., Hamm, M.W.Results From the 2004 Michigan Farm-to-SchoolSurvey. J Sch Health. 2006;76(5).53. Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., Hamm, M.W. Farm-to-SchoolPrograms: Perspectives of School Food ServiceProfessionals. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2010;42(2):83–91.54. Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. Farm to schoolprograms: Exploring the role of regionally based fooddistributors in alternative agrifood networks. Agric HumValues. 2009;27:335–50.55. Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., Hamm, M.W. O35: Farm toSchool Programs and Their Potential for MeetingSchool Food Service Goals. J Nutr Educ Behav.July;40(4, Supplement 1):S37.56. Conner, D., King, B., Kolodinsky, J., Roche, E., Koliba, C.,Trubek, A. You can know your school and feed it too:Vermont farmers’ motivations and distribution practicesin direct sales to school food services. Agric HumValues. 2012;29:321–32.57. Harvest of the Month: Network for a HealthyCalifornia [Internet]. 20<strong>14</strong>. Available from: http://www.harvestofthemonth.cdph.ca.gov/58. Central Coast Grown Farmer Trading Cards [Internet].20<strong>14</strong>. Available from: http://centralcoastgrown.org/resources/farmer-trading-card/59. Farm to School Resources [Internet]. 20<strong>14</strong>. Availablefrom: http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/farmschool-resourcesNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


11860. Meter, K. Learning how to multiply. J Agric Food SystCommunity Dev. 2010;1(2):9–12.61. Meter, K., Goldenberg, M.P. Making Small Farms into BigBusiness. Crossroads Resource Center; 2013.62. Barham, J., Tropp, D., Enterline, K., Farbman, J., Fisk,J., Kiraly, S. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide.Washington, D.C.: United States Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service; 2012.63. Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing [Internet].Food Hubs: Building Stronger Infrastructure for Small orMid-Size Producers. 20<strong>14</strong> [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Apr 4]. Availablefrom: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/foodhubs64. Joshi, A., Azuma, A.M., Feenstra, G. Do Farm-to-SchoolPrograms Make a Difference? Findings and FutureResearch Needs. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 20<strong>08</strong>;3.65. Berkenkamp, J. Making the farm-school connection:Opportunities and barriers to greater use of locallygrown produce in public schools. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota, Department of AppliedEconomics; 2006.66. Christie, M. Scaling Up Local Food: Investing in Farm& Food Systems Infrastructure in the Pioneer Valley.Community Invovled in Sustaining Agriculture; 2011.67. Day-Farnsworth, L., McCown, B., Miller, M., Pfeiffer, A.Scaling Up: Meeting the Demand for Local Food. UW-Extension Ag Innovation Center, UW-Madison Centerfor Integrated Agricultural Systems; 2009.68. Berkenkamp, J. Eating Our Peas & Carrots: Strategiesfor Expanding K-12 Access to Fruits and VegetablesThrough Supply Chain Innovation and Investment.School Food FOCUS; 20<strong>14</strong>.69. Vermont Law School, Center for Agriculture and FoodSystems, National Farm to School Network. State Farmto School Legislative Survey: 2002-2013. 20<strong>14</strong> Jan.70. Procurement Geographic Preference Q & A’s - Part II[Internet]. Alexandria, VA: United States Department ofAgriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; 2012. ReportNo.: SP 03-2013, CACFP 02-2013, SFSP 02-2013.Available from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SP03-2013os.pdf71. Sobell, S., Pelissier, K., Griffin, K. A Working Historyof Farm to School Legislation in Oregon [Internet].Portland, OR: Ecotrust Farm to School Program andUpstream Public Health; 2013. Available from: http://www.ecotrust.org/farmtoschool/72. Ahern, M., Brown, C., Dukas, S. A national study of theassociation between food environments and countylevelhealth outcomes. J Rural Health. 2011;27(4):267–379.73. Salois, M.J. Obesity and Diabetes, the Built Environment,and the “Local” Food Economy. UK: University ofReading; 2011.Chapter 4.41. Desmond, D., Grieshop, J., Subramaniam, A.Revisiting Garden Based Learning in Basic Education:Philosophical Roots, Historical Foundations, BestPractices and Products, Impacts, Outcomes and FutureDirections. Food and Agriculture Organization. UnitedNations: International Institute for Educational Planning;2004. p. 59.2. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning Experience As a Sourceof Learning and Development. New Jersey: PrenticeHall; 1984.3. Kolb, A.Y., Kolb, D.A. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory- Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications. ExperienceBased Learning Systems, Inc., Case Western ReserveUniversity; 2005.4. Beckman, L.L., Smith, C. An evaluation of inner-cityyouth garden program participants’ dietary behaviorand garden and nutrition knowledge. J Agric Educ.20<strong>08</strong>;49(4):11–24.5. Skelton, P., Seevers, B., Dormody, T., Hodnett, F. Aconceptual process model for improving youth sciencecomprehension. J Ext. 2012;50(3):<strong>14</strong>.6. Blair, D. The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative reviewof the Benefits of School Gardens. J Environ Educ.2009;40(2):15–38.7. Ozer, E.J. The Effects of School Gardens on Studentsand Schools: Conceptualization and Considerations forMaximizing Healthy Development. Health Educ Behav.2007;34:846–63.8. Vidgen, H., Gallegos, D. Defining food literacy, itscomponents, development and relationship to foodintake: A case study of young people and disadvantage[Internet]. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Universityof Technology; 2012. Available from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53786/1/Food_literacy_and_young_people_report.pdf.9. Klemmer, C.D., Waliczek, T.M., Zajicek, J.M. Growingminds: The effect of a school gardening programon the science achievement of elementary students.HortTechnology. 2005;15(3):448–52.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


11910. Fusco, D. Creating relevant science throughurban planning and gardening. J Res Sci Teach.2001;38(8):860–77.11. Sullivan, A.F., Tufts Univ. M. Community Gardening inRural Regions: Enhancing Food Security and Nutrition.[Internet]. 1999 Dec. Available from: http://stats.lib.pdx.edu/proxy.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED439862&site=ehostlive(requires account login).12. Tagtow, A.M., Richey, E.J.D. Growing Solutions:Cultivating Health and Food Security Through FoodGardening in Iowa. Food Access & Health Work Groupof the Iowa Food Systems Council; 2012.13. ASCD Positions [Internet]. 20<strong>14</strong>. Available from: http://www.ascd.org/news-media/ASCD-Policy-Positions/ASCD-Positions.aspx#wholechild.<strong>14</strong>. Farrington, C,A,, Roderick, M., Allensworth, E.,Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., et al. TeachingAdolescents to Become Learners The Role ofNoncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance:A Critical Literature Review. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Consortium on Chicago School Research;2012.15. Joshi, A., Ratcliffe, M.M. Causal pathways linking farmto school to childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes.2012;8(4):305–<strong>14</strong>.16. Ratcliffe, M.M. A sample theory-based logic model toimprove program development, implementation, andsustainability of Farm to School programs. Child Obes.2012;8(4):315–22.17. Lieberman, G.A., Hoody, L. Closing the AchievementGap: Using the Environment as an Integrating Contextfor Learning. San Diego, CA; 1998.18. Ratcliffe, M.M., Merrigan, K.A., Rogers, B.L., Goldberg,J.P. The effects of school garden experiences onmiddle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes,and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption.2011;12(1):36–43.19. Ratcliffe, M.M. Garden-based education in schoolsettings: The effects on children’s vegetableconsumption, vegetable preferences and ecoliteracy.Tufts University; 2007.20. Henderson, T., Rader, M., Sorte, B., Ratcliffe, M.M.,Lawrence, A., Lucky, J., et al. Health Impact Assessment:Farm to School and School Garden Policy, HB 2800.Portland, Oregon: Upstream Public Health; 2011.21. DeMarco, L., Relf, D., McDaniel, A. Extension MasterGardeners valued by teachers in school gardeningprograms. J Ext. 1998;36(5):<strong>25</strong>0–5.22. Murphy, J.M. Education for Sustainability: Findingsfrom the Evaluation Study of the Edible Schoolyard.Massachusetts, MA: Massachusetts General Hospital;2003 Apr.23. Smith, L.L., Motsenbocker, C.E. Impact of Hands-onScience through School Gardening in Louisiana PublicElementary Schools. HortTechnology. 2005;15(3):439–43.24. Robison, S., Paxton-Aiken, A., Marques, B., Jackson,E. Farm to school education project: Innovativepartnerhsip to support student achievement of coreknowledge and competencies and provide servicelearningopportunity through farm to school. J AcadNutr Diet. 2013;113(Supplement):pA50–A50.<strong>25</strong>. Subramaniam, A. Garden-based Learning in BasicEducation: A Historical Review. Monograph.2002;Summer.26. Joshi, A., Azuma, A.M. Year One Evaluation Report:Fresh from the Farm Program Implementation atLozano Bilingual and International Center School. LosAngeles, CA: A Report of the Center for Food & Justiceto Seven Generations Ahead; 2006.27. Dirks, A.E., Orvis, K. An Evaluation of the JuniorMaster Gardener Program in Third Grade Classrooms.HortTechnology. 2005;15(3):443–7.28. Waliczek, T.M., Bradley, J.C., Zajicek, J.M. The effect ofschool gardens on children’s interpersonal relationshipsand attitudes toward school. HortTechnology. 2011Sep;11(3):466–8.29. Williamson, R., Smoak, E. Creating a down-to-eartyapproach to teaching science, math and technology. JExt. 1999;37(3).30. Canaris, I. Growing foods for growing minds:Integrating gardening and nutrition education into thetotal curriculum. Child Environ. 1995;12(2):264–70.31. Morris, J.L., Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Garden-enhancednutrition curriculum improves fourth-grade schoolchildren’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences forsome vegetables. J Am Dietitic Assoc. 2002;102(1):91–3.32. Joshi, A., Ratcliffe, M.M. Causal pathways linking Farmto Schol to Childhood Obesity Prevention. Child Obes.2012;8(4):305–15.33. Lineberger, S.E., Zajicek, J.M. School gardens: Cana hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudesand behaviors regarding fruit and vegetables?HortTechnology. 2000;10(3):593–7.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


12034. Somerset, S., Markwell, K. Impact of a school-basedfood garden on attitudes and identification skillsregarding vegetables and fruit: a 12-month interventiontrial. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Feb;12(2):2<strong>14</strong>–21.35. Harmon, A.H. Food System Knowledge, Attitudes andExperiences [PhD.]. Pennsylvania State University; 1999.36. Morris, J.L., Neustadter, A., Zidenberg-Cherr S. Firstgradegardeners more likely to taste vegetables. CalifAgric. 2001;55(1):53–46.37. Tuuri, G., Zanovec, M., Silverman, L., Geaghan, J.,Solmon, M., Holston, D., et al. “Smart Bodies” schoolwellness program increased children’s knowledge ofhealthy nutrition practices and self-efficacy to consumefruit and vegetables. Appetite. 2009;52(2):445–51.38. Joshi, A., Azuma, A. Bearing Fruit: Farm to SchoolProgram Evaluation Resources and Recommendation.National Farm to School Program; 2009.39. Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., Hamm, M.W. Farm-to-SchoolPrograms: Perspectives of School Food ServiceProfessionals. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2010;42(2):83–91.40. Joshi, A., Azuma, A.M., Feenstra, G. Do Farm-to-SchoolPrograms Make a Difference? Findings and FutureResearch Needs. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 20<strong>08</strong>;3.41. Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. Coping withADD: The surprising connection to green play settings.Environ Behav. 2001;33(1):54–77.42. Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E. Children with AttentionDeficits Concentrate Better After Walk in the Park. JAtten Disord. 2009;12(5):402–9.43. Kuo, F.E., Faber Taylor, A. A potential natural treatmentfor Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder:Evidence from a national study. Am J Public Health.2004;94(9):1580–6.44. Morgan, P.J., Warren, J.M., Lubans, D.R., Saunders,K.L., Quick, G.I., Collins, C.E. The impact of nutritioneducation with and without a school garden onknowledge, vegetable intake and preferences andquality of school life among primary-school students.Public Health Nutr. 2010 May 5;13(11):1931–40.45. Closing the Expectations Gap [Internet]. Achieve;2013. Available from: http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2013.46. Making the Case for Educating the Whole Child[Internet]. Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelpment; 2012. Available from: http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2013.47. Next Generation Science Standards For States, By States[Internet]. 20<strong>14</strong> [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Apr 4]. Available from:http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards.48. Fredericks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B.,Mordica, J., Mooney, K. Measuring Student Engagementin Upper Elementary Through High School: ADescription of 21 Instruments [Internet]. Washington,D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences National Centerfor Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance; 2011.Report No.: REL 2011 No. 098. Available from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/.49. Devaney, B., Stuart, E., Mathematica Policy ResearchP. Eating Breakfast: Effects of the School BreakfastProgram. [Internet]. 1998. Available from: http://stats.lib.pdx.edu/proxy.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED427860&site=ehost-live (requires account login).50. Devaney, B., Fraker, T. The Dietary Impacts of theSchool Breakfast Program. Am J Agric Econ. 1989Nov;71(4):932–48.51. Murphy, J.M., Pagano, M.E., Nachmani, J., Sperling,P., Kane, S., Kleinman, R.E. The Relationship of SchoolBreakfast to Psychosocial and Academic Functioning:Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Observations in anInner-city School Sample. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.1998 Sep 1;152(9):899–907.52. Merten, M.J., Williams, A.L., Shriver, L.H. BreakfastConsumption in Adolescence and Young Adulthood:Parental Presence, Community Context, and Obesity. JAm Diet Assoc. 2009 Aug;109(8):1384–91.53. Powell, C., Walker, S., Chang, S., Grantham-McGregor,S. Nutrition and education: a randomized trial of theeffects of breakfast in rural primary school children. AmJ Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct 1;68(4):873 –879.54. Rampersaud, G.C. Breakfast habits, nutritional status,body weight, and academic performance in childrenand adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(5):743–60.55. Reddan, J., Wahlstrom, K., Reicks, M. Children’sPerceived Benefits and Barriers in Relation to EatingBreakfast in Schools With or Without Universal SchoolBreakfast. J Nutr Educ Behav. January;34(1):47–52.56. Richter, L.M., Rose, C., Griesel, R.D. Cognitive andbehavioral effects of a school breakfast. S Afr Med J.1997;87(1 Suppl):93–100.57. Worobey, J., Worobey, H.S. The impact of a two-yearschool breakfast program for preschool-aged childrenon their nutrient intake and pre-academic performance.Child Study J. 1999 Jun;29(2):113.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


12158. Vermont Law School, Center for Agriculture and FoodSystems, National Farm to School Network. State Farmto School Legislative Survey: 2002-2013. 20<strong>14</strong> Jan.Chapter 4.51. Longstreth, J. Public health consequences of globalclimate change in the United States: Some regionsmay suffer disproportionately. Environ Health Perspect.1999;107(1S):169–79.2. Dunlap, R.E. Trends in public opinon towardenvironmental issues: 1965-1990. Soc Nat Resour.1991;4(3).3. Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N.F. Public views on climatechange: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change.2006;77(1-2):73–95.4. Hertwich, E.G. Life-cycle aproaches to sustainableconsumption: A critical review. Environ Sci Technol.2005;39(13):4673–84.5. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Food,Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990(FACTA). Sect. Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603, PublicLaw 101-24 1990.6. Toward a Healthy, Sustainable Food System [Internet].American Public Health Association; 2007 Nov.Available from: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=13617. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems andHuman Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington,D.C.: World Resources Institute; 2005.8. Global Biodiversity Strategy. World Resources Institute,World Conservation Union, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme; 1992.9. McManus, B. An Integral <strong>Framework</strong> for Permaculture.J Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2010;3(3). Available from:http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/648110. Mollison, B. Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual.Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari Publications; 1996.11. Ozer, Emily J. The Effects of School Gardens onStudents and Schools: Conceptualization andConsiderations for Maximizing Healthy Development.Health Educ Behav. 2007;34:846–63.12. Ratcliffe, M.M., Merrigan, K.A., Rogers, B.L., Goldberg,J.P. The effects of school garden experiences onMiddle School-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes,and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption.Health Promot Pract. 2009;12(1):36–43.13. Joshi, A., Azuma, A.M., Feenstra, G. Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference? Findings andFuture Research Needs. J Hunger Environ Nutr.20<strong>08</strong>;3(2/3):229–46.<strong>14</strong>. Langellotto, G.A., Gupta, A. Gardening increasesvegetable consumption in school-aged children:A meta-analytical synthesis. HortiTechnology.2012;22(4):430–45.15. Murphy, M. Findings from the Evaluation Study of theEdible Schoolyard [Internet]. Writings online: Educationfor Sustainablity. 2003. Available from: http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/index.html16. Robinson, C.W., Zajicek, J.M. Growing minds: Theeffects of a one-year school garden program on sixconstructs of life skills of elementary school children.HortTechnology. 15(3):453–7.17. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M., Heim, S. Impact ofgarden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: areview. J Am Dietitic Assoc. 2009 Feb;109(2):273–80.18. Dirks, A.E., Orvis, K. An Evaluation of the JuniorMaster Gardener Program in Third Grade Classrooms.HortTechnology. 2005;15(3):443–7.19. Harvey, M. The relationship between children’sexperiences with vegetaion on school groundsand their environmental attitudes. Environ Educ.1990;21(2):9–15.20. Harvey, M. Children’s experiences with vegetation. ChildEnviron Q. 1989;8(1):36–43.21. Skelly, S.M. The effect of Project GREEN, aninterdisciplinary garden program, on environmentalattitudes of elementary school students [MA]. Texas A &M University, College Station; 1997.22. Skelly, S.M. The Growing Phenomenon of SchoolGardens: Cultivating Positive Youth Development[Ph.D.]. University of Florida; 2000.23. Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J.E. Urban forestsand pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem servicesand disservices. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(8):2078–87.24. De Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P.,Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments -- healthyenvironments? An exploratory analysis of therelationship between greenspace and health. EnvironPlan A. 2003;35(10):1717–31.<strong>25</strong>. Groenewegen, P., van den Berg, A., de Vries, S.,Verheij, R. Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health,well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health.2006;6(1):<strong>14</strong>9.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


12226. Cummins, S.K., Jackson, R.J. The built environmentand children’s health. Pediatr Clin North Am.2001;48(5):1241–52.27. Nowak, A.J., Kolouch, G., Schneyer, L., Roberts, K.H.Building food literacy and positive relationships withhealthy food in children through school gardens. ChildObes. 2012;8(4):392–5.28. Nowak, D.J., Dwyer, J.F. Understanding the Benefits andCosts of Urban Forest Ecosystems. In: Kuser JE, editor.Urban and Commuity Forestry in the Northeast. 2nd ed.Springer; 2007.29. Byrne, J., Wolch, J. Nature, race, and parks: Pastresearch and future directions for geographic research.Prog Hum Geogr. 2009;33(6):743–65.30. Strife, S., Downey, L. Childhood development andaccess to nature: A new direction for environmentalinequality research. Organ Environ. 2009;22(1):99–122.31. Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. Coping withADD: The surprising connection to green play settings.Environ Behav. 2001;33(1):54–77.32. Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E. Children with AttentionDeficits Concentrate Better After Walk in the Park. JAtten Disord. 2009;12(5):402–9.33. Kuo, F.E., Faber Taylor, A. A potential natural treatmentfor Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder:Evidence from a national study. Am J Public Health.2004;94(9):1580–6.34. Kahn, P.H., Kellert, S.R., editors. Children and nature:Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionaryinvestigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002.35. Bradley, L.K. Tierra Buena: The creation of an urbanwildlife habitat in an elementary school in the inner city.Child Environ. 1995;12(2):245–9.36. Barrs, R., Lees, E.E., Philippe, D. School GroundGreening: A Policy and Planning Guidebook. Canada:Evergreen; 2002. 19-29, 38-43 p.37. Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., Skinner,A. Growing urban health: Community gardening inSouth-East Toronto. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(2):92–101.38. Vallianatos, M., Gottlieb, R., Haase, M. Farm-to-School:Strategies for Urban Health, Combating Sprawl, andEstablishing a Community Food Systems Approach. JPlan Educ Res. 2004;23:4<strong>14</strong>–23.39. Lawson, L., McNally, M. Putting teens at the center:Maximizing public utility of urban space throughinvolvement in planning and employment. ChildEnviron. 1995;12(2):209–21.40. Alexander, J., North, M.W., Hendren, D.K. Mastergardener classroom garden project: An evaluation ofthe benefits to children. Child Environ. 1995;12(2):<strong>25</strong>6–63.41. Blair, D. The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative reviewof the Benefits of School Gardens. J Environ Educ.2009;40(2):15–38.42. Thorp, L.G. The Pull of the Earth: An EthnographicStudy of an Elementary School Garden [PhD]. TexasA&M University; 2001.43. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S., Walker, P. How sustainableagriculture can address the environmental and humanhealth harms of industrial agriculture. Environ HealthPerspect. 2002;110(5).44. Earles, R., Williams, P. Sustainable Agriculture: AnIntroduction IP043 [Internet]. National SustainableAgriculture Information Service; 2005. Available from:http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/sustagintro.html45. Sivakumar, M.V.K., Stefanski, R.. Climate changemitigation, adaptation and sustainability in agriculture.World Meteorological Organization.46. Fultz, L.M., Moore-Kucera, J., Zobeck, T.M., Acosta-Martinez, V., Allen, V.G. Aggregate carbon pools after18 years of integrated crop-livestock management insemiarid soils. Soil Sci Soc Am. 2013;77(5):1659–66.47. Purchasing Guidelines That Minimize the Use ofAntibiotics in Poultry Production: Recommendationsfor Schools and Other Institutional Food Service Buyers[Internet]. School food FOCUS; 2011. Available from:www.schoolfoodFOCUS.org.48. Kids Cook Farm-Fresh Food: Seasonal Recipes,Activities and Farm Profiles that Teach EcologicalResponsibility. Sacramento, CA: California Departmentof Education; 2002.49. Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., Hamm, M.W. Farm-to-SchoolPrograms: Perspectives of School Food ServiceProfessionals. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2010;42(2):83–91.50. Ferguson, R.S., Lovell, S.T. Permaculture foragroecology: design, movement, practice,and worldview. A review. Agron Sustain Dev.20<strong>14</strong>;34(2):<strong>25</strong>1–74.51. Food and Food Purchasing A Role for Health Care.Arlington, VA: Health Care Without Harm;EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


12352. Physicians for Social Responsibility [Internet]. TheHealthy Food in Health Care Initiative. [cited 20<strong>14</strong>Mar 10]. Available from: http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/enviro-health/healthy-food-initiative.html.53. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A. Life Cycle-BasedSustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. FoodSystem. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable SystemsUniversity of Michigan; 2000. Report No.: CSS00-04.54. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural ResourcesSummary Report [Internet]. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations; 2013. Availablefrom: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf.55. Sustainability Assessment of Food and AgricultureSystems Guidelines, Indicators and Tool [Internet]. [cited20<strong>14</strong> Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-assessments-safa/en/.56. Adams, M.A., Pelletier, R.L., Zive, M.M., Sallis, J.F. Saladbars and fruit and vegetable consumption in elementaryschools: A plate waste study. J Am Diet Assoc.2005;105(11):1789–92.57. Pirog, R., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., Cook, E. Food, Fuel,and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far foodtravels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions.Ames, Iowa: Leopold Center, Iowa State UniversityExtension and Outreach; 2001.58. Mariola, M.J. The local industrial complex? Questioningthe link between local foods and energy use. Agric HumValues. 20<strong>08</strong>;<strong>25</strong>:193–6.59. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S. Food-miles and the relativeclimate impacts of food choices in the United States.Environ Sci Technol. 20<strong>08</strong> May 1;42(10):35<strong>08</strong>–13.60. Edwards-Jones, G., Mila’i Canals, L., Hounsome, N.,Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., et al. Testingthe assertion that “local food is best”: The challenges ofan evidence-based approach. Trends Food Sci Technol.20<strong>08</strong> May;19(5):265–74.61. Coley, D., Howard, M., Winter, M. Local food, food milesand carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shopand mass distribution approaches. Food Policy. 2009Apr;34(2):150–5.62. Martinez, S., Hand, M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K.,Smith, T., et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts,and Issues. United States Department of AgricultureEconomic Research Service; 2010. Report No.: 97.63. Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen,H., Kumar, P., et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation inagriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 20<strong>08</strong> Feb27;363(<strong>14</strong>92):789 –813.64. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor,R., Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability andintensive production practices. Nature. 2002print;418(6898):671–7.65. Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., Ingram, J.S. Climatechange and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour.2012;37:195–222.66. De Vries, M., de Boer, I.J.M. Comparing environmentalimpacts for livestock products: A review of life cycleassessments. Livest Sci. 2010 Mar;128(1-3):1–11.67. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H.,Nakamura, N., et al. A review of life cycle assessment(LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng.2009;90(1):1–10.68. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., Willett, W.C. Towarda life-cycle based, diet-level framework for foodenvironmental impact and nutritional qualityassessment: A critical review. Environ Sci Technol.2013;47:12632–47.69. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A. Greenhouse gas emissionestimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss. J IndEcol. 20<strong>14</strong> accepted, in press.70. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 [Internet]. U.S.Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services; 2011. Available from: www.dietaryguidelines.gov.71. Wiedman, T., Barrett, J. A review of the EcologicalFootprint indicator - perceptions and methods.Sustainability. 2010;2:1645–93.72. Walls, M., McConnell, V. Transfer of DevelopmentRights in U.S. Communities: Evaluating Program Design,Implementation, and Outcomes. Washington, D.C.:Resources for the Future; 2007.73. Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J. Davis Joint Unified SchoolDistrict’s Efforts to Increase Farm Fresh Food in SchoolMeals Evaluation of Measure Q School Year 2009-2010 Report. UC Sustainable Agriculture Research andEducation Program; 2010 Oct.74. Brillinger, R., Ohmart, J., Feenstra, G. The Crunch LunchManual: A case study of the Davis Joint Unified SchoolDistrict Farmers Market Salad Bar Pilot Program anda fiscal analysis model. UC Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education Program; 2003.75. Alanis, A.J. Resistance to antibiotics: Are we in the postantibioticera? Arch Med Res. 2005;36(6):697–705.76. Marshall, B.M., Levy, S.B. Food animals andantimicrobials: Impacts on human health. Clin MicrobiolRev. 2011;24(4):718–33.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


12477. Bradman, A., Whitaker, D., Quirós, L., Castorina, R.,Claus Henn, B., Nishioka, M., Morgan, J., Barr, D.B.,Harnly, M., Brisbin, J.A., Sheldon, L.S., McKone, T.E.,Eskenazi, B. Pesticides and their metabolites in thehomes and urine of farmworker children living in theSalinas Valley, CA. J Expo Sci Env Epidemiol. 2007Jul;17(4):331–49.78. Kachaiyaphum, P., Howteerakul, N., Sujirarat, D., Siri, S.,Suwannapong, N. Serum cholinesterase levels of Thaichilli-farm workers exposed to chemical pesticides:prevalence estimates and associated factors. J OccupHealth. 2009 Dec 16;52(1):89–98.79. Simcox, N.J., Fenske, R.A., Wolz, S.A., Lee, I., Kalman,D.A. Pesticides in household dust and soil: Exposurepathways for children of agricultural families. EnvironHealth Perspect. 1995;103(12):1126–34.80. Sanborn, M., Kerr, K.J., Sanin, L.H., Cole, D.C., Bassil,K.L., Vakil, C. Non-cancer health effects of pesticides:systematic review and implications for family doctors.Can Fam Physician. 2007 Oct;53(10):1712–20.81. Luo, Y., Zhang, M. Multimedia transport and riskassessment of organophosphate pesticides and a casestudy in the northern San Joaquin Valley of California.Chemosphere. 2009 May;75(7):969–78.82. Maroni, M., Fait, A. Health effects in man from longtermexposure to pesticides. A review of 1975-1991literature. Toxicology. 1993;78(1-3):1–180.83. Bassil, K.L., Vakil, C., Sanborn, M., Cole, D.C., Kaur, J.S.,Kerr, K.J. Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematicreview. Can Fam Physician. 2007 Oct;53(10):1704–11.84. Bouchard, M.F., Bellinger, D.C., Wright, R.O., Weisskopf,M.G. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder andUrinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides.Pediatrics. 2010 Jun 1;1<strong>25</strong>(6):e1270–1277.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


1<strong>25</strong>06Appendices


126 APPENDICESIndex of Appendices1271. Evaluation Resources1312. Implementation Resources1343. Farm to School Menu of Options1384. Sample Logic Model1395. Sample Evaluation Tools<strong>14</strong>36. Ideas for Exploration


APPENDICES127Appendix 1Evaluation ResourcesEvaluation, in the context of this framework, includes a suiteof tools that can be used to examine and understand theeffectiveness of farm to school activities. This appendix providesa curated list of program evaluation guides that may be helpfulfor program sites and for researchers who aim to build onprogram evaluation. This list is organized by program sitesand by goal area. For a list of case studies, program evaluationreports and research articles presenting evaluation results,search “evaluation reports” in the National Farm to SchoolNetwork online searchable <strong>web</strong>site.There are various ways to describe the different stages ofprogram evaluation; below are helpful definitions to navigatethe related terms. The project team gathered definitions fromreviewer suggestions; some terms have emerged in the last10 years and have not been vetted for comprehensiveness,potential applicability to farm to school sector outcomes orease of use.Cross-Sector Evaluation Resources:These resources are helpful for supporting measurement ofnearly any outcomes described at the program level acrossthe four sectors.• Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Program Evaluation Resourcesand Recommendations, 20<strong>08</strong>National Farm to School Network and the Urban andEnvironmental Policy Institute at Occidental College. Thiscomprehensive resource provides a series of case studies infarm to school evaluations, as well as tools and resourcesavailable for measuring impact.• Colorado Farm to School Evaluation Toolkit, 2013Colorado Farm to School Task Force and Spark PolicyInstitute. This toolkit guides practitioners through programevaluation by different groups, such as parents and teachers.Formative or Process EvaluationThis phase of evaluation measures the“what” of the program: What is it settingout to do? How is it being implemented?How well is it meeting its goals? Thisphase of evaluation may use a logic modelto lay out a road map about how theprogram’s resources can potentially arriveat the program’s destination: the desiredoutcomes.Logic ModelIn a logic model you can identify programinputs, activities and outputs that leadto short-term and direct outcomes aspart of developing feedback for programimprovement. It can examine programstrengths and weaknesses, identify whichelements of a program are working, andidentify areas that need improvement. See“cross-sector resources” in this appendix fora great guide on logic model development.“Theory of Change” Logic ModelA theory of change process can influenceprogram planning and design, such asidentifying other inputs or activities neededto address community needs 1 .• Farm to School Evaluation Toolkit, 2011National Farm to School Network and the University ofNorth Carolina Center for Health Promotion and DiseasePrevention. This collection of survey instruments and otherevaluation tools can help practitioners assess farm to schooloutcomes with different participants including students,foodservice staff, foodservice directors, farmers, educatorsand other stakeholders.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


128APPENDICESSummative or Outcome EvaluationThis stage of evaluation identifies the “sowhat?” of programs in terms of short-termand intermediate-term outcomes. Outcomeevaluations, also called “impact evaluation,”determine if the effects can be attributedto the program and may examine variousshort-term impacts, such as changes inparticipant knowledge, attitudes, beliefs orbehaviors.MonitoringThis form of evaluation examines theimplementation of planned interventions.This can include ongoing data trackingrelated to programs or policies. Forexample, environmental monitoringinvolves systematic collection of measuresto characterize system changes in thequality of the environment such as air, soilor water quality indicators 2 . Public healthlaw and policy monitoring involves the“ongoing, systematic collection, analysis,interpretation and dissemination ofinformation about a given body of publichealth laws and policy.” 3SurveillanceThis involves the ongoing, systematiccollection, analysis and interpretationof health outcome-specific data in orderto plan, implement and evaluate publichealth interventions 4 . Community healthassessments may involve collectingbaseline data that is then repeated insurveillance, such as the Youth RiskBehavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Infarm to school, surveillance can includeongoing data on different outcomes to plancross-site approaches.• Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit, 2002USDA’s Economic Research Service. This report providesa toolkit of standardized measurement tools for assessingvarious aspects of community food security, including foodavailability and affordability, food resource accessibility andcommunity food production resources.• Whole Measures for Community Food Systems, 2009 —Community Food Security Coalition’s guide to values-basedplanning and evaluation.• Program Evaluation Strategic Planning Kit for School HealthPrograms, 20<strong>08</strong>Developed by the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention’s Division of Adolescent and School Health(DASH), this toolkit provides evaluation technical assistanceon developing a strategic plan that includes evaluation forschool-based health promotion programs.• The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for GreatResults (2 nd Edition), 2013Lisa Wyatt Knowlton and Cynthia C. Phillips examine logicmodels in relation to programs and organizational initiatives.Sage Publications. See Chapters 1-4 here: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/50363_ch_1.pdf.• Community Schools Evaluation Toolkit, 2009The Coalition for Community Schools designed this toolkitto help community schools evaluate their success and planfuture efforts.• Impact Evaluation Handbook, 2010–2011Network for a Healthy California. A guidebook thatincludes multiple data entry templates, planning templatesand surveys.• Evaluating Community Programs and Initiatives and theEvaluating the Initiative Toolkit, updated 2013Community Toolbox, a service of the Work Group forCommunity Health and Development at the University ofKansas. This toolkit provides guidance on evaluating schoolsites with a community-level approach.• A Guidebook to Strategy Evaluation —Evaluating YourCity’s Approach to Community Safety and Youth ViolencePrevention, 20<strong>08</strong>This guide, while focused on youth violence prevention,offers a different perspective called “strategy evaluation,”which emphasizes evaluating an overall strategy toward agiven outcome, rather than specific program elements.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES129• Evaluation Planning Matrix Template, 20<strong>08</strong>Evaluators may find developing an evaluation planin addition to using logic models helpful. This isone sample from the New York State Departmentof Health.• Spectrum of Prevention frameworkThis framework is useful for programs usingcommunity-wide approaches.Farm to School Surveillance Resources:These resources are useful for external evaluators orresearchers who want to build on evaluation effortsfor cross-site studies at the research level across thefour sectors.• The State of Farm to School in San Diego County, 2013San Diego County Farm to School Taskforce.An example of a comprehensive, county-widebaseline assessment.• The Farm to School Census, 2013The United States Department of Agriculture, Foodand Nutrition Service surveyed the prevalenceof farm to school in the U.S. and will repeat thecensus in spring 2015.Public Health: School and Community ProgramEvaluation Resources• Sample farm to school grant reporting documentsin states that have grant money allocations and/or additional reimbursements includes examplesof tracking the number of students exposed tofarm to school activities, the number of parentparticipants, and the increase in the use of localfoods in school meal programs. See California,Illinois, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, New York,Ohio, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington,D.C., Wisconsin, West Virginia, Oregon, Vermontand Alaska for examples 5 .• Measurement resources from Cornell University’sOffice for Research on EvaluationThis compendium of resources includesmeasurements of fruit and vegetable consumption,food knowledge and food preparation skills.• Case study evaluation reports of farm to schoolprograms often include appendices of studentfood attitude surveys, such as the 2012 WisconsinYear One Report or Washington’s farm to schoolsurvey for students.• The Spectrum of PreventionA framework that the public health field has appliedto change social norms, such as creating healthyeating and active living environments.Community Economic Development EvaluationResources• Sample farm to school program grant reportingdocuments in states that have grant moneyallocations and/or additional reimbursements;includes examples of tracking the type of products,number of products and changes in local vendorsin school meal programs. See California, Illinois,Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, New York, Ohio,Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, D.C.,Wisconsin, West Virginia, Oregon, Vermont andAlaska 5 .Education: Food, Garden and Food SystemEducation Evaluation Resources• The Center for Ecoliteracy resources page has alist of books and journals for educators interestedin environmental literacy, place-based education,teaching the food system and other farm to schoolrelevant literature.Environmental Quality: Environmental EducationProgram Evaluation Resources• Measuring Environmental Education Outcomes, 20<strong>14</strong>The Environmental Education Capacity educationtraining program sponsored by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, led by Cornell University CivicEcology Lab, the North American Association forEnvironmental Education and other partners. Thisguidebook walks through the basics of programevaluation within an environmental educationcontext, including examples of different shortandlong-term outcomes and ways to measurethem. NAAEE <strong>web</strong>site: http://www.naaee.net/publications.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


130 APPENDICESAppendix 1 References1. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model DevelopmentGuide [Internet]. Battle Creek, Michigan: W.K. KelloggFoundation; 2004. Available from: http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2010/w-k-kelloggfoundation-evaluation-handbook.2. Artiola, J.F., Pepper, I.L., Brusseau, M., editors.Environmental Monitoring and Characterization.Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.3. Chirqui, J.F., O’Connor, J.C., Chaloupka, F.J. Whatgets measured, gets changed: Evaluating law andpolicy for maximum impact. J Law Med Ethics.2011;39(Supplement 1):21–6.4. Green, L.W., Sim, L., Breiner, H. Evaluating ObesityPrevention Efforts: A Plan for Measuring Progress.The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.:Committee on Evaluating Progress of ObesityPrevention Efforts; Food and Nutrition Board; Instituteof Medicine; 2013.5. Vermont Law School, Center for Agriculture and FoodSystems, National Farm to School Network. State Farmto School Legislative Survey: 2002–2013. 20<strong>14</strong> Jan.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES131Appendix 2Farm to School Program Implementation ResourcesThe National Farm to School Network maintainsan extensive database of farm to school resources,including publications included on other <strong>web</strong>siteslisted in this appendix. Please visit the <strong>web</strong>site forresources. The definitions were gathered fromreviewer suggestions; some terms have emergedin the last 10 years and have not been vetted forcomprehensiveness, potential applicability to farm toschool sector outcomes or ease of use.Farm to School Program Development Resources• Establishing a Farm to School Program: A modelschool board resolution — ChangeLab Solutions.• Food Hub Knowledge Base: Farm to SchoolThis Ecotrust-curated library includes instructionsfor getting started, resources, evaluations andmuch more.• Wisconsin Farm to School ToolkitsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Center forIntegrated Agricultural Systems.• Vermont farm to school resources.• USDA Farm to SchoolA series of resources for implementing farmto school activities — from procurement, foodsafety, distribution and processing, and makingconnections with producers.• Center for Disease Control and Prevention SchoolFood Environment Resources This list includesfarm to school programs, district wellness policiesand others.• Delivering More: Scaling Up Farm to SchoolProgramsThis booklet helps programs considerprocurement and distribution issues.• The Preschool Initiative: Building a HealthyFoundation for LifeThis toolkit includes farm to school procurementguidance.• Harvest for Healthy KidsCurriculum and resources for early childhoodeducation.Public Health: Wellness Policy and NutritionEducation ResourcesSee the education section in this appendix for otherrelated resources• Sample School Wellness Policy: Farm to SchoolFrom the Public Health Law Center.• Promoting Local Purchasing and Farm to SchoolActivities: Model Wellness Policy Language forSchoolsUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison Center forIntegrated Agricultural Systems.• Proposed Federal Rules on Local Wellness PolicyImplementation Under the Healthy, Hunger-FreeKids Act of 2010, February 20<strong>14</strong>.• The USDA has an extensive list of various educationresources, including nutrition education on its<strong>web</strong>site.• Nourish Curriculum GuideThis curriculum and companion DVD can be usedin social studies, science, health or English classes.Activity themes include the story of food; seasonal,local food; food traditions; food and ecosystems;analyzing food ads; school lunch survey; andaction projects.• Healthy Foods for Healthy KidsA kindergarten–5th grade garden-based program.• Visit your state program’s farm to school <strong>web</strong>site,as many have toolkits relevant to your local area.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


132 APPENDICESCommunity Economic Development: Procurement,Promotion and Food Preparation Resources• Visit your state’s Buy Fresh Buy Local <strong>web</strong>site.• Many states have basic how-to guides for schoolswho want to buy local, for example Washington,D.C.’s, Guide to Purchasing and Serving LocalFoods in Schools, Vermont’s Guide for Using LocalFoods in Schools, Washington state’s guide, orColorado’s farm to school resource.• Many states have institutional food purchasingreports to help schools or other institutionsincrease their local purchases, such as theMichigan Good Food Charter. Check withyour NFSN.• Public Health Law Center’s Compilation of GeneralProcurement Regulations and Resources.• Check with your state department of agriculture oreducation to see if there are Harvest of the Monthor other state-specific promotion resources (seeOregon’s Harvest for Schools) to help students andparents identify local foods.Education: Food, Garden and Food SystemEducation Resources• Common Core in the GardenThis site has a Growing Classroom StandardsDatabase where anyone can sign in and findlessons on math and language arts using the NextGeneral Science Standards.• Farm-Based Education NetworkProvides a list of curriculum resources for farm andfood based education.• Life Lab’s School Garden Resources.• Edible Schoolyard’s extensive set of resources foreducating children and adults about healthy foodsin the kitchen, the garden or the classroom.• The Food Project has a toolbox of curriculum,books, manuals and activities for incorporatingfarm- and food-based education.• Washington State University Extension ThePeople’s Garden Education Toolkit includeslessons, <strong>web</strong>inars, training and support. You canaccess the resources by contacting your stateextension lead for login information.• Virginia Technology Horticulture DepartmentSchool Garden Resources• Junior Master Gardener Curriculum and ResourcesEnvironmental Quality: Environmental EducationResourcesSee the education section in this appendix foradditional environmental education tools• The Center for Ecoliteracy has instructionaltools and strategies to help children learn aboutsustainability and environmental issues in schools.• Some states in the U.S. have a sustainable schoolsprogram, such as one in Vermont throughShelburne Farms or the Green Schools model inCalifornia, which includes curriculum or otherguidance that may be relevant to a farm to schoolprogram.• The National Gardening Association’s kidsgardening <strong>web</strong>site has information specifically forschool gardens and incorporates environmentallessons.• Land grant university extension offices may havenutrition, environmental education and food-basedcurriculum, such as Illinois’ School Gardens: Dig it!• Green Schools Initiative Environmental FootprintCalculatorTraining and Professional DevelopmentTraining and professional development can meandifferent things to various participants in farm toschool. This list is only a brief sample of resources.• The Farm to School Toolkit by the GretchenSwanson Center for Nutrition includes detailedinformation for school nutrition services staff,including recipes, menus, food safety, localEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES133procurement and a guide to using the geographicpreference option.• Land grant universities with extension offices mayoffer training and professional development forfarmers, ranchers and processors interested inconducting outreach to local schools or otherlocal markets. For example, Utah’s Farm-Chef-Forkprogram helps farmers connect with restaurants orMichigan State University’s Farm to School Training.• Producers interested in using sustainable oralternative agriculture methods can visit the list ofeducational and training opportunities through theUSDA.• Farm School NYC helps train NYC residents inurban agriculture.• Regional farm to school leads provide technicalassistance or training to different groups, such asthe Massachusetts training for local fishermen.• Farm to School Showcase Toolkit: A Guide forConnecting Local Food Suppliers with School FoodBuyers at School Nutrition Trade Shows.• Food Safety, Colorado Farm to SchoolPlanning, Coordination and EvaluationSee the Appendix 1 for these resourcesOutreach and Community Engagement• How to Develop a Logic Model for DistrictwideFamily Engagement Strategies• Farm to School Field Guide for Parents andCommunity Members• Los Angeles Food Policy Council’s Good FoodPurchasing Program includes policy language for aGood Food Purchasing Pledge.• The National Farm to School Network listing ofstate policies that support farm to school.Funding• Grants, loans and support, USDA Know YourFarmer Know Your Food Initiative — This <strong>web</strong>pagelists over two dozen programs at USDA that canhelp build local and regional food systems.• Online Grant-Writing Training Courses, FoundationCenter — Several free, online training courses andtutorials meant to help users enjoy better successin approaching foundations.• Farm to School Fundraising, National Farm toSchool Network — Tips for acquiring funds for yourfarm to school program through grants, donationsand special events.• A+ Fundraisers for High Schools: A guide tohaving a successful fundraiser while keeping yourcommunity healthy, New York City Healthy HighSchools Initiative — This thorough guide presentslots of ideas for healthy fundraisers, such asfamily dinner events, flea markets, fitness-basedfundraisers, plant sales and more! Resources,pricing and profit information, tips and steps areprovided for each idea.• School Fundraiser, REAP Food Group — Oneexample of a fundraiser based on selling local andfairly traded goods.Policy AlignmentSee the public health section in this appendix forresources related to wellness policies• The Healthy Eating Active Living Cities Campaignin Oregon developed a factsheet on how cities canalign their policy efforts with farm to school.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


134 APPENDICESAppendix 3Menu of Options for Farm to School ActivitiesThis appendix provides a menu of options for farm to school activities possible under each core andsupplemental element. This is not an exhaustive list of the types of activities that can be conducted at schoolor early care sites; it is intended to serve as a starting point for exploration by specific sites. This list has beencompiled from other sources 1-4 .Farm to School Core ElementsProcurement (of local and regional food products)• Serving and promotion of foods during meal times.• Tasting of new foods and recipes using local products, such as in-class taste-tests and cooking demonstrations.• Student and adult participation in menu planning and school meal preparation to incorporate local products.• Adult participation in the school lunch program or other meals (role modeling for children).• Cooking at home using local and regional food products.• School or early care site specifies local foods (as defined by site) for procurement from producers and distributors.• School or early care site documents local food purchases at least annually (i.e. product type, product volume, amountof budget spent on local foods).• School or early care site engages in innovative local food procurement methods, such as a buying cooperative orforward contracting.Gardening (school-based gardens)• Hands-on, place-based, project-based and interdisciplinary food, agriculture and nutrition education provided acrossgrades and subjects through gardening activities such as:o planting, tending, harvesting and tasting of foods grown in the school garden;o planting, tending, harvesting and tasting of foods grown in the community garden. (Sometimes schools that lackgarden space may utilize a community garden plot; other schools may host a community garden; and in otherinstances youth may provide labor to support community garden projects.)• Adults participate in food-growing area development, planting, harvesting and tending (role modeling for children).EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES135Farm to School Core Elements Cont.Education (food and farm related)• Tasting of new foods and recipes using local products, such as in-class taste-tests and cooking demonstrations.• Culinary education and programs where students prepare foods.• Recipe development with new foods to support child learning.• Hands-on, place-based, project-based and interdisciplinary food, agriculture and nutrition education provided acrossgrades and subjects about:o food origins, nutrition, math, language arts, science and culture;o food’s impact on their health, on the community and the environment;o food across multiple subjects in connection to food served at meal times.• All children receive at least 10 hours of food, garden-based or agriculture activities in a school year or across threeseasons of early child care participation.• Farmers, fishers, processors, distributors, chefs and ranchers visit classrooms as guest speakers• New food learning experiences through field trips to:o destination, educational or demonstration farms where students participate in hands-on nutrition educationexperiences;o production farms such as row crops, orchards, ranches and fisheries (including aquaponics facilities);o farmers’ markets, grocery stores and other food retail outlets;o food processing and packaging facilities; food distribution facilities or food hubs;o composting facilities where food waste is sustainably managed to support soil quality.• College students serve as instructors for farm to school educational activities in school.• Older students teach younger students about foods or participate in menu planning, food growing space, cookingdemonstrations, etc.• Teaching of integrated topics across ages and subjects:o educators connect lessons across subject areas and “team teach”;o educators connect lessons across ages on agriculture, food and garden-based topics.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


136 APPENDICESFarm to School Supplemental ElementsTraining and professional development• Trainings for foodservice staff on: how to procure, prepare, serve and promote local foods; nutrition education; farmtours and other training opportunities for school food services and staff to learn about food production and on-farmfood safety and make potential market connections.• Trainings for teachers on: nutrition education; food and garden-enhanced nutrition education.Promotion and media• Hold celebration events related to the farm to school activities or efforts.• Developing and displaying farm to school or local food promotion materials, such as signs for community gardens,public buses, community events, bulletins, before/after school programs, food pantries, etc.• Promoting local foods seasonally, monthly, weekly or daily through newsletters, <strong>web</strong>sites, posters, menus or otherinnovative method.• Developing promotion materials for the farm to school program and/or local foods, such as signs in the lunch line orsalad bar, table tents, garden signs, handouts or bulletin board signs.• Farm to school participants and community members get engaged in and gain recognition by telling the story of thefarm to school program to the school community and press, and through social media, videos, films, etc.Planning, coordination and evaluation• Planning committee to plan program changes over time, such as setting goals, promoting successes, coordinatingefforts, conducting training and developing external partnerships.• Parents or care givers, students, producers, community members and foodservice staff have opportunities to volunteerin creating, coordinating, developing, planning and revising farm to school activities, such as developing a food growingarea, ensuring volunteer recruitment, and sufficient training for staff and management.• Staff and volunteers plan for school gardens, greenhouses and naturalized school yard space• Planning for evaluation to document program outputs and outcomes.Outreach, family, and community engagement• Collect information on recipes, menus and meals using local foods from community members and families.• Provide information to families and community members about:o Community events related to local foods, nutrition and health;o Promotions at local grocery stores, convenience stores and bodegas that have been encouraged to procure andpromote local foods featured in schools;o Nutrition education, information about farm to school activities, healthy eating and active living through eventsat school, including Parent Teacher Association night, and materials such as newsletters sent home.• Hosting tours of food production, processing or distribution facilities or with chefs at restaurants; training on how toteach youth about their role in food system.• Expanding local food market connections for farmers through:o Speed dating, tradeshows, showcases and online market platforms;o Trainings and technical assistance about: unique needs and requirements of the school food market, food safetyand good agricultural practices;o Tours to learn about school food needs and make market connections; ando Participation in community-wide events, such as garden work parties or harvest celebrations for youth and theirfamilies.Policy alignment• School wellness policies include or reference farm to school.Funding• Seeking and securing funding and in-kind support for farm to school activities.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES137Appendix 3 References1. Joshi, A., Ratcliffe, M.M. Causal pathways linking farmto school to childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes.2012;8(4):305–<strong>14</strong>.2. Grant Reporting Tool, 2013 Oregon Farm to Schooland School Garden Grants. Oregon Department ofEducation, contact Rick Sherman for a copy rick.sherman@state.or.us; 2013.3. Request for Applications: 2013 Farm to Schooland School Garden Grants. Oregon Department ofAgriculture, contact Rick Sherman for a copy rick.sherman@state.or.us; 2013.4. USDA Farm to School Grant Program Prosposal ScoreSheet Template, Activity Checklist, Implementation andPlanning Grants FY 20<strong>14</strong>. United States Department ofAgriculture Farm to School Program; 2013.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


138 APPENDICESAppendix 4Sample Logic ModelProgram coordinators will need to develop logicmodels that are specific to their program, site andunique context. This is only one example amongmany.Farm to School Program Evaluation: Riverside UnifiedSchool District, California.The evaluation was conducted as part of acoordinated program evaluation at four sites,supported by the National Farm to School Networkand conducted by the Center for Health Promotionand Disease Prevention, University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill. This logic model and others areavailable on the NFSN <strong>web</strong>site.Logic ModelInputsActivitiesOutputsShort-termOutcomesIntermediateOutcomesLong-termOutcomesBusiness ModelPartnerships• Kaiser Permanente• California Dairy Council• American Cancer Society• Farmers/ Farm organizations• Occidental College• Riverside Dept. of PublicHealth• University of CaliforniaExtension• Loma Linda University• Desert Sierra HealthNetwork• California NutritionalAccountability Program ofRiversideSupport from RUSD• Principals• Teachers• Board of Education• Administration• ParentsSupport from parents• Trust, acceptance,perceptionsCooking Carts*Classroom*• Chefs• Farmers• Step to Health• HOTMProjects*• Gardening• RecyclingField trips*• Farms• Farmers’ MarketsFarmers’ Market Salad Bar• Activities needed to create andmaintain salad barStudents trynew foodsAdults modelhealthy eatingSalad BarDaily offering of freshfruits, vegetables,meat, and proteinKnowledge• Food production• Nutrition• Local farms• Portion control• Food waste• SanitationParticipationIn school lunch(students andteachers)Increasedconsumption offruits andvegetablesHealthy eatinghabitsRevenueRom school lunch forRUSD NutritionServicesIncome forsmall farmersLife-longhealth habitsHealthierschoollunchesSupport forlocal economyFarmers• Produce• Education activities*These were not evaluatedApril 20<strong>08</strong>EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES139Appendix 5Sample Evaluation ToolsTo find tools that are not hyperlinked, please visitthe National Farm to School Network’s searchable<strong>web</strong>site for resources. This is a sampling; practitionersdevelop more every year and the NFSN addssubmissions to its repository as they becomeavailable.The “V” notation after some listings indicates toolshave gone through a validation process that alsowas published in a peer-reviewed journal. Othertools listed here may have been validated, but notpublished, or were reviewed and pilot tested —these do not have the “V” designation. Validation is aprocess where researchers test and evaluate how wella specific measurement instrument (i.e. a survey, aphysical assessment, an observation tool) consistentlycaptures the information it seeks to measure,regardless of who uses it and with what group ofpeople it is used (i.e. elementary-aged children fromresource-limited homes versus a survey that is onlypiloted with school nutrition service directors). Whenusing any tool, it is the responsibility of the user toensure that the tool is available for public use; to ourknowledge these tools do not require fees.Sample Evaluation Planning and ProgramArticulation Tools• A Guide for Farm to School Community ActionPlanningIncludes multiple tools, such as Farm to SchoolInstitute Action Planning Template and thePlanning Rubric, Vermont FEED, 2013–20<strong>14</strong>• The Wisconsin Farm to School Toolkit MonthlyActivity WorksheetHelps evaluate changes in school food purchasesover time; available in conjunction with other toolson the University of Wisconsin-Madison Centerfor Integrated Agricultural Systems <strong>web</strong>site. Thetool includes multiple documents in an Excelfile format, including a user guide, school mealstracking sheet, classroom education trackingsheet, engagement activities tracking sheet, gardendescription document, and a garden activitiestracking sheet.• Oregon Farm to School Grant ReportingDocumentThis document is required by the OregonDepartment of Education from its farm to schoolprogram grantees.• D.C. Farm to School Approved Field Trip Rubric• Arkansas Farm to School Program Evaluation,University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, DeltaGarden Study, Arkansas Garden CORPS, TheArkansas Grow Healthy Study.Sample Evaluation Tools Related to Public HealthSector Outcomes• NCCOR Measures RegistryList of validated tools and measures for schoolfood environment and healthy eating (V).• USDA National Agricultural Library ResearchTools on dietary assessment instruments.• Go! Austin/Vamos! Austin (GAVAParent survey in English or Spanish on accessto food, attitudes, food around the house,eating habits, physical activity, physical activityopportunity, community participation, questionsabout your kindergarten child, University of TexasSchool of Public Health (V).• Go! Austin/Vamos! Austin (GAVA)Adult survey on access to healthy foods,motivation and social norms, food intake, physicalactivity, access and utilization of physical activityfacilities, University of Texas School of PublicHealth (V).NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


<strong>14</strong>0 APPENDICES• Go! Austin/Vamos! Austin (GAVA)Student survey in English or Spanish on physicalactivity opportunities, physical activity, foodconsumption, University of Texas School of PublicHealth (V).• Community Readiness Assessment for SchoolFoodservice and Administration Personnel,University of Texas School of Public Health (V).• Washington State University Extension, ThePeople’s Garden Research Materials (some arevalidated, some are not)Resources are password protected, contact yourstate extension educator for necessary logininformation.• Student fruit and vegetable consumption at homeand schoolKindergarten–6 th grade survey, inquire with author.• Alliance for a Healthier Generation ResourcesThis site has resources such as a Healthy SchoolAssessment Tool; users have to create a login toaccess it.• School Physical Activity and Nutrition EnvironmentTool (SPAN-ET), Oregon State UniversityContact the GROW Healthy Kids and Communitiesresearch team.• Child Care Nutrition and Physical ActivityAssessment Survey,Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.• Wellness School Assessment Tool (WellSAT), YaleRudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity (V).• School Wellness Policy Evaluation Tool, RobertWood Johnson Foundation Healthy EatingResearch Program (V).• Piloted survey, plate waste protocol and groupinterview guide for farm to school program.• Food diary, semi-structured interview questionsand other tools used in the evaluation of theschool lunch Initiative.• Fruit and Vegetable Neophobia Instrument (3 rd –5 thgraders) (V), Hollar, D., et al., 2012.• Personal, Social and Environmental Correlates ofFruit and Vegetable Intake Survey for 10–11 yearolds (V), De Bourdeaudhuij, I., et al., 2004.• School Lunch Recall, University of North CarolinaChapel Hill Center for Health Promotion andDisease Prevention (V).• 10-Item QuestionnaireMeasuring fruit and vegetable consumption in9–11-year-old children living in low-incomehouseholds.• Parent Survey, Community Alliance with FamilyFarmers.• Farm to School Program Parent Survey, GeorgiaOrganics.• USDA Farm to School Parent Survey, GrowingMinds of Appalachian Sustainable AgricultureProject (ASAP).• Farm to School Education Project, ParentSurvey, Western Carolina University, AppalachianSustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP).• Adult Taste Test Tool and Teacher Taste TestingProcessing Guide (TTT), University of CaliforniaCalFresh (V).• Teacher Observation Tool (TOT), University ofCalifornia CalFresh (V).• Taste testing resources and evaluation tools, OhioAction for Healthy Kids.• Farm to School Student Survey (7 th , 10 th , 11 th grade),Kent School District.• Harvest of the Month Pre- and Post-StudentSurvey, Community Alliance with Family Farmers.• Healthy Eating, Active Communities (HEAC)Student Nutrition and Physical Activity StudentSurvey.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES<strong>14</strong>1• Healthy Eating, Active Living (HEAL) Youth Nutritionand Physical Activity Student Survey.• Knowledge, Attitudes, and Consumption BehaviorSurvey, Wisconsin Farm to School Evaluation.Sample Evaluation Tools Related to CommunityEconomic Development Sector Outcomes• Farm to School Census, USDAPiloted and reviewed survey for public use onprocurement.• Foodservice Professional MEALS SurveyMeasures interest, perceived benefits, perceivedusefulness of foods, perceived barriers for servingand purchasing local foods. Hyperlink takes youto dissertation that references adapted surveysand validation process. See also Herron, J., Izumi,B., Lopez, E. and Mersamin, A. (in preparation).Feasibility of implementation of farm to schoolin Alaska: School foodservice professional’sperspective, Journal of Nutrition Education andBehavior (V).• Alaska foodservice professional survey on farm toschool, 2013.• Alaska farm to school evaluation interviews withfarmers, producers, school foodservice personnel.• Local food purchasing survey of schoolfoodservice staff and survey of food marketingfor farmers, Michigan State University Center forRegional Food SystemsNote: This tools is not yet available online.• Assessing Alternative Food Distribution Models forImproving Small Scale Producer Direct Marketing,Interview Protocols for Distributors, Buyers, andProducers.• Roanoke Valley Farm to School Questionnaire forSchools.• Roanoke Valley Farm to School Questionnaire forFarmers.• Buyer, Distributor and Farmer Interviews, Universityof California Sustainable Agriculture and EducationProgram.• Washington State Department of Agriculture Farmto School Farmers and Producers Survey, 2012.• Washington State Department of AgricultureProcessing Survey, 2012.• Central Minnesota Potential Local Grower Survey.• Central Minnesota Restaurant Interview Questions.• Minnesota School Foodservice Director Survey:Farm to School.• Survey of Cooperative Extension Offices inWestern North Carolina, Appalachian SustainableAgriculture Product.• Survey of Hospital Foodservice Directors,Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Product.• Farm to School in New York State: A Survey ofFoodservice Directors.• Oregon Farm to School Director/Provider Surveys,2007 and 2009.• Farm to School Kansas Survey for FoodserviceDirectors.• South Dakota School Food Survey for FoodserviceDirectors.• Washington State Department of AgricultureSchool Survey on Farm to School for FoodserviceDirectors.• Farm to School in Minnesota Survey of Schoolfoodservice leaders.• Food Vendor Assessment Survey, Healthy Kids,Healthy Communities Grant County, New Mexico.• Food Hub Background Information Survey forFood Hubs.• Food Hub Phone Interview Questionnaire.NATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


<strong>14</strong>2 APPENDICES• National Food Hub Survey and Report.• South Dakota Local Food Producer Survey 2013.• Western North Carolina Camp Foodservice Survey.Sample Evaluation Tools Related to EducationSector Outcomes• Student Achievement-Relevant Actions in theClassroom (SARAC)A teacher report and self-report measure ofstudent engagement vs. disaffection in schools.• Washington State University Extension, ThePeople’s Garden Research Materials (some arevalidated, some are not), resources are passwordprotected, contact your state extension educatorfor necessary login information.• Penn State Extension On-Demand Lessons forChild Assessment.• Science Achievement Evaluation Instrument (V)(contact author).• Compendium of Surveys for Nutrition Educationand Obesity Prevention, compiled by the Researchand Evaluation Section, the Network for a HealthyCalifornia.• Pre- and post-assessments of food literacy, E.A.T.South.• Farm to School for Educators Workshop EvaluationSurvey, Georgia Organics.• Annual New Jersey School Garden of the YearContest and Survey.• Know Your Farmer Kentucky Pre- and Post-studentSurvey.• Pre- and Post-test, Edible School Yard.• Pre- and Post-test, Willamette Farm and FoodCoalition.• The Instructional Practices Inventory: A Processfor Profiling Student Engaged Learning for SchoolImprovement (V).• The Classroom Engagement Inventory (contactauthors) (V).• Student Engagement Instrument (V).• National Survey of Student Engagement (V).Sample Evaluation Tools Related to EnvironmentalQuality Sector Outcomes• Children’s Environmental Response Inventory(CERI) (V), requires access to online peer-reviewedjournals.• Environmental Attitude Inventory (V), requiresaccess to online peer-reviewed journals.• Revised Perceived Environmental Control Measure(V), requires access to online peer-reviewedjournals.• School Garden Assessment ToolThe D.C. School Garden Program listed at theEdible Schoolyard Project <strong>web</strong>site; availablethrough a Creative Commons license.• Assessment of Sustainability Knowledge (ASK),Ohio State University Environmental and SocialSustainability Lab for adults and undergraduatestudents (V).• Parent survey, Community Alliance with FamilyFarmers.• Farming the College Market: Food SystemIssues Survey, The Center for Agroecology andSustainable Food Systems, University of California,Santa Cruz.• Sustainable Food Choices: Supply and DemandQuestions for Group Purchasing Organizations andFood Distributor Representatives.• Youth Garden Best Practices Checklist.EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES<strong>14</strong>3Appendix 6Ideas for Further ExplorationThis rough listing of additional outcomes, indicatorsor measures is included to provide researcherssome ideas for further exploration. These items arenot presented in the prioritized lists included in thisframework. They have emerged through informaland formal engagement by and with authors andcontributors to the framework, or through previousdiscussions regarding farm to school research andevaluation conducted through National Farm toSchool Network or its partners.Public Health• Student preferences for:• Unhealthy foods• Water consumption• Soda consumption• Student snacking behaviors• Measurement of student physical activity andcalories spent during gardening or other relevantfarm to school activity• Changes in student physical activity levels inrelation to participation in farm to school activities• Changes in screen time in relation to participationin gardening or other outdoor activities related tofarm to school• Intergenerational mentoring through increasedparental and community involvement at farm toschool sites• Families exercise with their children at home• Parents/caregivers understand importance ofbuying school lunch• Food producers know about local food system andthe specific needs of school food market• School foodservice staff morale and motivationtoward their school and job improves• Increased workplace satisfaction for teachers,foodservice providers, etc.• Profitable foodservice nutrition programs• Increase in number of staff, staff wage or staffbenefits• Increase in number of fresh-from-scratch mealsprepared• Increase in net profits• Increase in number of full-pay studentsparticipating in all meal programs• Increase in number of adults buying schoollunch• Improved quality of the school and schoolcommunity environment• Visual and sensory aesthetics• Opportunities for visual reinforcement oflearning, consuming vegetables, nurturing livingthings• Health promotional messages in classroom• Visual reinforcement of learning in messaging/posters in cafeteria• Improved school culture and identity• Strong youth-adult and youth-youthrelationships in the schoolCommunity Economic Development• Increase in wages in local/regional food sectors• Increased wages for school nutrition services• Influence of school gardens or farm to schoolactivities on property values• Number of cooperative purchasing agreementsestablished between schools and farmers• Increased variety (diversification) and quantity ofcrops grown by local farmers selling to schoolsNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK


<strong>14</strong>4 APPENDICES• Development of value chains for the school foodmarketEducation• School (or school district) employs garden- or agspecificemployee to work with classrooms (like amusic or arts teacher)• Safe places available for students and adults inschools — before, during and after school• Developmentally appropriate learning and playopportunities• Diversity of environments in which students playand learn• Opportunities for visual reinforcement of learning,consuming vegetables, nurturing living things• Improved quality of the school and schoolcommunity environment, including:• Visual and sensory aesthetics• Promotional messages in classroom• Visual reinforcement of learning in messaging/posters in cafeteria• Student willingness to stay on task• Student adaptability to various learning styles• Students improve processing and inquiry skills,such as:• Observing• Communicating• Comparing• Relating• Ordering• Inferring• Student development in social competence, suchas:• Citizenship skills• Cooperation• Gentleness• Patience• Respect• Responsibility• Democracy• Student development in problem solving skills,such as:• Behavioral capacity• Decision making• Focus• Mastery of skills and knowledge• Multicultural cooperation• Teamwork• Work Ethic• Student development in autonomy, such as:• Happiness• Self-awareness• Self-efficacy• Student development in sense of purpose, such as:• Cultural identity• Ownership• Pride• Sense of accomplishmentEnvironmental QualityProducer conversion of acres of land to innovativeproduction methods that maintain soil and waterquality, i.e., integrated pest management, no-tillagriculture and drip irrigation• Producer involvement in USDA conservationprograms• Amount of shade contributed by school gardens• Change in urban heat island effect as a result ofschool yards/school gardens• Number of community gardens in use by schoolsEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION


APPENDICES<strong>14</strong>5• Amount of acres set aside for agriculture (measureof land use)• Sustainable distributor practices such as total foodmiles during transportation process• Use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides or herbicidesby producers selling to schools• Walkability (as a measure of “livability”)• School facilities are in alignment with Food SafetyModernization Act• Changes in school menus over time to reflectany decreases in purchase of beef or meat-basedprotein sources• Inclusion of edible plants and native plants inschool gardens• Families of children participating in farm to schoolstart or maintain gardens at home• Families of children participating in farm to schoolstart or maintain community gardensNATIONAL FARM TO SCHOOL NETWORK

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!