Framework-08-25-14_web

Recommendations

Info

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 website.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 2008EVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION
APPENDICES139Appendix 5Sample Evaluation ToolsTo find tools that are not hyperlinked, please visitthe National Farm to School Network’s searchablewebsite 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, 2013–2014• 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 website. 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
Page 1 and 2:
CHAPTER #: NAME OF CHAPTERIEvaluati
Page 3 and 4:
IIITable of ContentsVVI010717252835
Page 5 and 6:
VForewordDespite the investments ma
Page 7 and 8:
VIILyn Kathlene®°Megan Kemple®°
Page 9 and 10:
101IntroductionImage created by att
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION3approaches
Page 13:
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION5Policy-Lev
Page 16 and 17:
8CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDThe Evolutio
Page 18 and 19:
10CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDFigure 1Edu
Page 20 and 21:
12CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDFigure 2Fig
Page 22 and 23:
14CHAPTER 02: BACKGROUNDFigure 4: T
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT P
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 34 and 35:
26 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 57 and 58:
CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 93 and 94:
CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
Page 113 and 114: 105ReferencesChapter 11. Joshi, A.,
Page 115 and 116: 10746. Langellotto, G.A., Gupta, A.
Page 117 and 118: 10918. Schneider, L., Chriqui, J.,
Page 119 and 120: 11112. Mary, P.D.S., Karen, M., Kap
Page 121 and 122: 11360. Zarling, P. When farm-to-sch
Page 123 and 124: 115103. Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer
Page 125 and 126: 11736. Eisner, R., Foster, S., Hans
Page 127 and 128: 11910. Fusco, D. Creating relevant
Page 129 and 130: 12158. Vermont Law School, Center f
Page 131 and 132: 12352. Physicians for Social Respon
Page 133 and 134: 12506Appendices
Page 135 and 136: APPENDICES127Appendix 1Evaluation R
Page 137 and 138: APPENDICES129• Evaluation Plannin
Page 139 and 140: APPENDICES131Appendix 2Farm to Scho
Page 141 and 142: APPENDICES133procurement and a guid
Page 143 and 144: APPENDICES135Farm to School Core El
Page 145: APPENDICES137Appendix 3 References1
Page 149 and 150: APPENDICES141• Healthy Eating, Ac
Page 151 and 152: APPENDICES143Appendix 6Ideas for Fu
Page 153: APPENDICES145• Amount of acres se
show all

Framework-08-25-14_web

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?