Framework-08-25-14_web

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.Framework 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