Framework-08-25-14_web

Recommendations

Info

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 2014, 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 2014):“Evaluation for Transformation” (a short course atthe 7th National Farm to Cafeteria Conference, April15, 2014) 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 testingFramework launch and testing (July 2014): The finalframework document was launched online in July2014. An online form collects practitioner feedback,which could be incorporated in future editions of thedocument.Theoretical Basis of the Framework: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 14 , 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
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: 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 57 and 58: CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
Page 61: CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, INDI
Page 78 and 79:
70 CHAPTER 04: PRIORITY OUTCOMES, I
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:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
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 and 148:
APPENDICES139Appendix 5Sample Evalu
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?