<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
- 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:
CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT P
- Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT P
- Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 03: FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT P
- Page 34 and 35:
26 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 36 and 37:
28 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 38 and 39:
30 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 40 and 41:
32 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 42 and 43:
34 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 44 and 45:
36 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 46 and 47:
38 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 48 and 49:
40 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 50 and 51:
42 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 54 and 55:
46 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 57 and 58:
CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
- Page 59 and 60:
CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
- Page 61:
CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
- Page 65 and 66:
CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
- Page 68 and 69:
60 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 70 and 71:
62 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 72 and 73:
64 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 74 and 75:
66 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 76 and 77:
68 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 78 and 79:
70 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 80 and 81:
72 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 82 and 83:
74 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 84 and 85:
76 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 86 and 87:
78 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 88 and 89:
80 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 90 and 91:
82 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
- Page 93 and 94:
CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 95 and 96:
CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 97 and 98: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 99 and 100: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 101 and 102: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 103 and 104: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 107 and 108: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 109 and 110: CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STE
- Page 111 and 112: 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 and 146: APPENDICES137Appendix 3 References1
- Page 147: APPENDICES139Appendix 5Sample Evalu
- Page 151 and 152: APPENDICES143Appendix 6Ideas for Fu
- Page 153: APPENDICES145• Amount of acres se