Framework-08-25-14_web

11614. 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 08-2010,CACFP 05-2010, SFSP 06-2010. 2009.16. United States Department of Agriculture. Farm toSchool Census | Food and Nutrition Service [Internet].[cited 2014 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 2014 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; 2008 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):107–19.25. 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