86 CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPSDiscussion and Lessons LearnedResearchers, funders and practitioners have expressedthe need for a comprehensive evaluation frameworkfor farm to school for several years. This documentis a first step at meeting this felt need for the field offarm to school.This evaluation framework fulfills two significantneeds to guide and proliferate relevant farm toschool research and evaluation. First, the frameworkdescribes a common language for consistentlyarticulating farm to school activities through coreand supporting elements, touch points and actors.Secondly, it identifies priority outcomes, indicatorsand measures for the four sectors of public health,community economic development, education andenvironmental quality, along with an exploration ofcross-sectoral connections among outcomes in thefour sectors.Through the process of engaging stakeholders inthe drafting of this framework, multiple outcomesthat have been studied or hypothesized withindifferent sectors were explored, and the strength ofthose outcomes related to farm to school elementsassessed. These rich discussions revealed that thereis much more agreement from practitioners andresearchers about possible relationships betweenfarm to school activities and outcomes within thesectors of public health and economic developmentas compared to those within the education andenvironmental quality. This may be attributable tothe relatively higher volume of available data, peerreviewedliterature, media attention and the numberof school sites with stated goals related to healthand the economy. Within all four sectors, there wasa relative lack of longitudinal, multifaceted studies.Further, the discussions regarding cross-sectoralconnections are still very much in their infancy, andmuch more work needs to be done in this area.In practice, farm to school activities look surprisinglysimilar on the ground, regardless of whether thedesired goals are related to health, economy,education or the environment. This suggests thepromise of farm to school programs and policiesas a lever to systemically address multiple societalissues related to health, economy, education andthe environment. Actualizing that promise will takeidentifying the commonalities between elementsand outcomes between sectors. For example, atthe confluence of improved behavioral outcomeswithin the sectors of public health, education andthe environment are common mediating variablesrelated to social and emotional development, suchas motivation, self-efficacy and engagement. Thusthe gaps this framework fills in both consistentprogram articulation and identifying priority outcomesfor multiple sectors are critical first steps towardunderstanding the collective impact potential of farmto school activities nationwide.Another major finding of the participatory approachused for developing this framework revealed thereisn’t “one right answer” for prioritizing outcomes,indicators and measures. Rather, the outcomes,indicators and measures identified in this frameworkare based on levels of agreement among participantsand existing information in the literature base.Several of the priority outcomes presented inthe framework do not have readily available datafrom existing data sources, nor are validatedinstruments available for documentation. This isa short-term problem that can be resolved withprioritized efforts in the future to further the field offarm to school. Appendix 5 provides a list of sampledata collection tools appropriate at the program levelfor many of the identified outcomes, indicators andmeasures. This list is not prioritized in any way, ortested by framework developers. It is intended as astarting point for users to consider developing theirown customized tools, if needed.A fuller repository of additional evaluation andtracking tools has been gathered and is availableonline at www.farmtoschool.org.It is anticipated that different stakeholders will usethis framework as a guide to develop, describe,implement and conduct farm to school evaluationand research. Readers are encouraged to work withthe proposed templates for consistent programarticulation, priority outcomes and measures offeredin the evaluation framework and provide feedback onEVALUATION FOR TRANSFORMATION
CHAPTER 05: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS87its applicability and use (access the feedback form atwww.farmtoschool.org/resources-main/evaluationframework).LimitationsThere are several inherent challenges to developinga cross-sectoral evaluation framework for a field ofpractice that is rapidly evolving and gaining tractionin communities all across the country. The farm toschool outcomes and indicators prioritized in eachsector are influenced by the realities that there are:(1) few institutionalized, publically available, datacollection and analysis mechanisms for farm toschool; (2) few validated instruments for researchersand evaluators for identified priority outcomes; and(3) few systems for regular tracking and monitoring offarm to school activities and related state and nationalpolicies that influence farm to school.Further, there are a handful of hypothesized andobserved outcomes regularly identified with farmto school activities that were not included in thepriority outcomes and measures in this framework.For example, outcomes such as improvementsin academic achievement and body mass indexwere extensively debated during the frameworkdevelopment process, but ultimately not included aspriority outcomes. Chapter 4 includes rationale forexclusion of such outcomes within each sector.There were also limitations to the frameworkdevelopment and review processes. During thedevelopment phase, participants were intentionallyasked to first apply a specific sector’s lens to farm toschool activities, to then predict plausible ways thefarm to school core elements might have impactsin that sector, and then look at the same outcomeswith a cross-sectoral lens. The purpose was topush thinking beyond participants’ specific area ofexpertise. It was a challenge, however, to come toagreement from individuals approaching farm toschool from different vantage points with limitedexperience from the other perspectives.During the review process, extensive feedbackwas sought from both on-the-ground andresearch perspectives. Reviewers were limited byinternet-based interactions and thus feedbackthat was incorporated may have missed nuancesin explanation. Additionally, the content of thisframework reflects the combined expertise andexperience of all those who formally and informallycontributed to its development. Despite the highnumber of individuals involved, their perspectives maynot have contributed the full spectrum of diversityin socio-economic background, race, age, abilityand cultural perspective that farm to school does orcould encompass. This limitation may be addressedin the future through field testing, new understandingof specific needs and conditions, and increasedavailability and institutionalization of data collectionand analysis systems.Implications of The <strong>Framework</strong>The framework was written by and for various groups,including farm to school practitioners, researchers,policymakers, decision makers and funders.For practitionersIn tandem with consistently articulating the core andsupplemental farm to school program elements, sitesalso need to consistently measure farm to schooloutcomes using suggested tools and templates.Practitioners can use the table templates presentedin Section 4.1 to consistently talk about how eachsite implements farm to school core and supportingelements. Farm to school practitioners can groundtruththe articulation templates, outcomes andindicators identified in the framework, and suggestalternatives from their learning. As more practitionerscommit to following a farm to school programarticulation template, more evaluation and researchstudies will be feasible to support the field.New program sites can begin establishing evaluationplans and strategies in early planning stages, andthen build from there using this framework. Similar tostarting farm to school activities, it can be easiest tofocus on one area — such as buying local and tellingeveryone about it — and as success builds in thatarea, the program can expand to include changes incurriculum, gardening and community involvement.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: 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 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