Farm To School Programs Research Articles

From program to classroom: a photo elicitation study to understand educators’ experiences implementing garden-based learning following professional development

Garden-based learning, a key component of Farm to School (FTS), continues to grow in popularity as a tool for engaging students in hands-on learning. Recent literature calls for professional development to help educators overcome barriers—including a lack of horticulture skills, curricular connections, and time—that often hinder program success and sustainability. This study sought to understand the role of professional development and its ability to support resilient FTS programs in the classroom. Following participation in a multiday FTS professional development program, seven educators participated in an 11-month photo elicitation study to capture their experience implementing FTS in their classrooms. We find that educators drew on FTS professional development to expand their self-efficacy by successfully implementing what they learned, observing effective models, being affirmed by colleagues and others, and growing their overall confidence to engage in the work. Results also identified persistent barriers that professional development alone cannot reduce.

More than procurement: Examination of a farm-to-early-care and education pilot

Although there is a wealth of research on farm-to-school programs (FTS), less has been published about farm to early care and education programs (ECE). This paper examines the results of partici­pating in a farm-to-ECE procurement pilot pro­gram on provider practices across the three core elements of farm to ECE: (1) purchasing, (2) gar­dening, and (3) nutrition and education activities. In order to address the geographic and funding constraints of an existing procurement pilot, Michigan offered an expansion of this model so that ECE sites could take part in a learning collab­orative. They did this by examining the effective­ness of evidence-based practices in obtaining locally grown foods from a variety of sources among ECE sites, for statewide replication. Partici­pation included self-assessment of learning envi­ronments using a nationally available, validated instrument to determine pre- to post-test changes in farm-to-ECE practices and what, if any, changes in practices might have occurred for those partici­pating in the procurement pilot, with the goal of sharing what was learned statewide. Key findings include improvements of statistical significance from pre-test to post-test and changes in best prac­tices among participants using Go NAPSACC, with the top three most improved practices involv­ing garden-based practices. The role of self-assess­ment, funding, and limitations are discussed, along with implications for practice and further research.

Impact of introducing a farm to school program on the number of school lunches served

Farm to school (FTS) programs are becoming more prevalent throughout the United States. Yet, their impacts on students' behaviors are still not well understood. This study analyzes the impacts of introducing the local procurement aspect of a FTS program in a Florida school district on the number of National School Lunch Program (NSLP) meals served and the selection of salad meals prepared with FTS products using daily school-level point of sale (POS) data, product procurement records, NSLP menu data and linear panel regression analyses. The study district implemented the FTS program in 15 of its 22 elementary schools between mid-October of 2015 and mid-January of 2016. Weighted difference in differences regressions that account for the non-random assignment of the district's elementary schools into the FTS program and variation in the timing of implementation across schools indicate that the introduction of the FTS program did not affect the number of NSLP meals served or type of meals served at schools with FTS programs. We find some evidence that students selected more NSLP salad offerings on days when these meals were prepared with FTS products; however, these findings were no longer significant when school-level fixed effects were included in the model.

P46 Farm to School Program Prevalence: Do School Characteristics Matter?

<h3>Background</h3> Farm to School programs (FTSP) have been promoted as part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) to improve school children's access of nutritious, local food. <h3>Objective</h3> We investigate the prevalence of FTSP in K-12 schools before and after the implementation of the HHFKA. We also examine differences in prevalence of FTSP by school-level (elementary vs middle/high school), proportion of students enrolled from various race/ethnicity groups and proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals (FRPM). <h3>Study Design, Setting, Participants</h3> A secondary analysis of data collected between 2010–2017 from 148 schools participating in the New Jersey Child Health Study (NJCHS) was analyzed. Schools were located in 4 low-income high minority cities in NJ: Camden, New Brunswick, Newark, and Trenton. <h3>Measurable Outcome/Analysis</h3> Schools' personnel answered surveys at 3 time points between 2010-2017 and reported on their schools' participation in the FTSP for the year of the survey and the previous year. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine FTSP prevalence rates for each year of data collection and for time periods categorized as before and after the implementation of the HHFKA. Differences in prevalence rates were compared by school characteristics. <h3>Results</h3> Across all years, on average significantly (<i>P</i> < 0.001) more elementary schools (21%) participated in the FTSP compared to middle/high schools (8%). Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, compared to 2010, the odds of FTSP participation were 4-5 times higher in 2016 (<i>P</i> = 0.008) and 2017 (<i>P</i> = 0.003). Adjusted estimates show that across K-12 schools, participation increased from 7% in 2010 to 26% and 27% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. No differences were observed in FTSP participation by other school demographics. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Elementary schools are more likely to participate in FTSP and rates of participation in the program across K-12 schools have increased significantly in recent years.

Goats in Schools: Parental Attitudes and Perceived Benefits

ABSTRACT Animal interactions can provide numerous benefits for child development and education. In the United States, goats are increasingly used in urban farm to school (FTS) programs to enhance children's learning and outdoor experiences. This study examined parents’ attitudes toward the presence of goats in a middle school FTS program and in their residential community, and the perceived effects of goat experiences for their children. Parents’ observations and reflections afford insights into the beneficial impacts that animals have on children and may also serve as a means to gauge parents’ willingness to support animal care and thus enhance the sustainability of FTS programming. Using a retrospective pretest design, we surveyed 112 parents and guardians of students at an urban middle school in the Southeast USA, posing questions about their evolving attitudes toward goats and other animals at the school, their children's experiences with goats and other FTS program elements, and their views regarding the presence, benefits, and drawbacks of goats in the community more broadly. We found that parents generally had very positive attitudes toward goats (and other FTS elements) prior to their students’ attendance, and that these became more positive with time. Over 90% of respondents believed goats positively influenced their children’s interest or enthusiasm for school. Parents also reported broad acceptance of the presence of goats throughout their community. We conclude that goats can be valuable assets in FTS programs, and use insights afforded by parents’ perceptions to draw recommendations for building collaborative support to provide more opportunities for child–goat engagement at schools and in urban communities.

How the collaborative work of farm to school can disrupt neoliberalism in public schools

Farm to school (FTS) is a popular approach to food systems education in K-12 schools across the United States. FTS programs are highly heterogeneous, but generally include serving locally grown fruits and vegetables in school nutrition programs, planting and maintaining school gardens, and engaging students in garden and food-based learning across the school curriculum. While FTS has been promoted as a “win–win–win” for children, farmers, and communities, it has also been critiqued for reinscribing neoliberal trends (i.e., individualism, private funding, and volunteerism) that exacerbate social inequalities. Through a year-long, ethnographic study of FTS within one public middle school in the Southeast US, this paper contributes to these debates. Drawing upon theoretical frameworks of materiality and affective labor, we investigate how engagement with FTS activities can transform the social practice of everyday life in school for students, staff, and teachers. We find that FTS can reframe success in collaborative terms, engage the school around collective responsibility, and foster relationships across socioeconomic and racial difference. Although there is continued need to expand policies to ensure equitable funding for FTS, our research demonstrates that the hands-on work and collective subjectivities produced through FTS can mitigate the harms of neoliberalism and be a force for positive social change within a school.

Understanding participation in farm to school programs: Results integrating school and supply-side factors

Despite their status as the largest and most systematic of government programs to promote local foods in the US, few studies identify the factors that are associated with the school district decision to participate in farm to school (FTS) programs. We are the first to leverage the USDA’s Farm to School Census to analyze factors associated with FTS participation, the types of FTS activities implemented, and the challenges faced by participating school districts. Because a school’s participation is circumscribed by access to local foods, we control for the supply of local foods. We use spatially articulate data to estimate the spatial spillover effects of FTS participation. The results demonstrate that both school characteristics and local farm production factors are associated with FTS participation. The estimated spatial spillover effect is positive suggesting that areas with a high penetration of FTS activities have lower barriers associated with implementing FTS programs.

School districts and their local food supply chains

AbstractThe 2015 Farm to School Census reports that during the 2013–2014 school year there were over 5200 farm to school (FTS) programs in the USA that involved 39,000 schools and 24.1 million children. These FTS programs are intended, in part, to increase market access and therefore the viability of farms and ranches. Accordingly, the majority of FTS programs involve local food procurement directly from farmers, from non-traditional suppliers that market locally branded food products such as ‘food hubs’, or from traditional suppliers such distributors and food service management companies. Yet, there is reason to believe that transaction costs vary based on the supply chain that schools use to procure local food. Moreover, that the supply chain that schools use to procure local food has a relationship with school's expenditures on local food. We use the 2015 Farm to School Census to estimate the relationship between school district's local food expenditures per student and supply chain structure. We analyzed data using ordinary least squares regressions, controlling for the region of the USA, the type of local food products purchased, and other school-specific characteristics. Importantly, we find a negative and significant relationship between school district's non-milk local food expenditure per student, and purchases directly from the farm and from non-traditional suppliers. This implies that schools that purchase local food from traditional distributors are likely to have higher on average expenditures per student compared with schools that purchase local food directly from farmers or non-traditional distributors. Results point to the need for additional research in determining the efficacy of policies to support direct and non-traditional FTS marketing arrangements.

A Mixed-Methods Case Study of 4 Rural Schools before Initiating Local Farm-to School-Programs

A Mixed-Methods Case Study of 4 Rural Schools before Initiating Local Farm-to School-Programs

Increasing Local Procurement in Farm to School Programs: An Exploratory Investigation

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs have become more widely adopted in recent years because of their potential to mitigate childhood obesity, as well as their economic development and educational benefits. As a result of FTS programs' diverse purposes and grassroots nature, the types of activities they encompass vary considerably from program to program and no systematic measures of impact have emerged. Furthermore, FTS programs launched in colder climate regions may be particularly challenging due to a shorter growing season and narrower range and volume of available products. In this exploratory study, we set out to learn more about the factors that lead to increased procurement of local food in FTS programs. To do this we analyze the results of three recent studies of the impact of FTS programming on school purchases of locally produced foods in Vermont, conducted in 2012 and 2013. The results of a census of FTS programs in Vermont and an evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snacks program indicate that price subsidies do not necessarily increase local food procurement in Vermont, while a study of FTS programs working with food hubs in Vermont suggests that social capital in the form of viable partnerships and relationship-building holds promise for increasing the procurement of local food. Implications for FTS programming and future research are discussed.

State Farm‐to‐School Laws Influence the Availability of Fruits and Vegetables in School Lunches at US Public Elementary Schools

State laws and farm-to-school programs (FTSPs) have the potential to increase fruit and vegetable (FV) availability in school meals. This study examined whether FV were more available in public elementary school lunches in states with a law requiring/encouraging FTSPs or with a locally grown-related law, and whether the relationship between state laws and FV availability could be explained by schools opting for FTSPs. A pooled, cross-sectional analysis linked a nationally representative sample of public elementary schools with state laws. A series of multivariate logistic regressions, controlling for school-level demographics were performed according to mediation analysis procedures for dichotomous outcomes. Roughly 50% of schools reported FV availability in school lunches on most days of the week. Schools with the highest FV availability (70.6%) were in states with laws and schools with FTSPs. State laws requiring/encouraging FTSPs were significantly associated with increased FV availability in schools and a significant percentage (13%) of this relationship was mediated by schools having FTSPs. Because state farm-to-school laws are associated with significantly higher FV availability in schools-through FTSPs, as well as independently-enacting more state legislation may facilitate increased FTSP participation by schools and increased FV availability in school meals.

The Role of Social Cognitive Theory in Farm‐to‐School‐Related Activities: Implications for Child Nutrition

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs are gaining attention for many reasons, one of which is the recognition that they could help stem the increase in childhood overweight and obesity. Most FTS programs that have been evaluated have increased students' selection or intake of fruits and vegetables following the incorporation of FTS components. However, the wide range of activities that are typically part of FTS programs make it difficult to pinpoint which components have the greatest potential to improve students' health behaviors. Within the field of nutrition education, theory-based interventions that target the key underlying factors influencing health behavior offer the most promise. We review existing research on dietary health impacts and implications of 3 key FTS-related activities and explore the component activities of FTS in terms of their potential to address the key constructs of social cognitive theory (SCT)--which is a current best practice in the field of nutrition--suggesting that FTS programs incorporating a diverse set of activities appear to be most promising. We find that components of FTS programs incorporate many of the key theoretical constructs in SCT, and show that FTS programs have great potential to facilitate movement toward desired dietary changes. However, it is unlikely that a set of activities in any one current FTS program addresses multiple constructs of the theory in a systematic manner. More intentional inclusion of diverse activities would likely be beneficial. Future research can test these assertions.

Are Farm‐to‐School Programs More Common in States With Farm‐to‐School‐Related Laws?

Farm-to-School programs (FTSPs) connect schools with locally grown food. This article examines whether FTSPs are more common in public elementary schools (ESs) in states with a formal, FTSP law or with a related, locally grown procurement law. A pooled, cross-sectional analysis linked nationally representative samples of 1872 public ESs (across 47 states) for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years with state laws effective as of the beginning of September of each year that were collected and analyzed for all states. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the impact of state law on school FTSP participation, controlling for year and school-level race/ethnicity, region, locale, free-reduced lunch participation, and school size. The percentage of schools located in a state with a FTSP-specific law increased from 7.3% to 20.4% over the 3-year period, while the percentage of schools located in a state with a locally grown procurement law was approximately 30% across all years. The percentage of schools with FTSPs has more than tripled over the last 3 years (from 4.9% to 17.7%). After adjusting for all covariates except year, FTSPs were significantly more likely in states with a FTSP-specific law (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.28-4.67); once adjusting for year, the results were marginally significant (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = .91-3.25). School-level FTSPs were not related to state locally grown procurement laws. Although the percentage of schools with FTSPs is relatively small, these programs are becoming more common, particularly in states with FTSP-specific laws.

You can know your school and feed it too: Vermont farmers’ motivations and distribution practices in direct sales to school food services

Farm to School (FTS) programs are increasingly popular as methods to teach students about food, nutrition, and agriculture by connecting students with the sources of the food that they eat. They may also provide opportunity for farmers seeking to diversify market channels. Food service buyers in FTS programs often choose to procure food for school meals directly from farmers. The distribution practices required for such direct procurement often bring significant transaction costs for both school food service professionals and farmers. Analysis of data from a survey of Vermont farmers who sell directly to school food services explores farmers’ motivations and distribution practices in these partnerships. A two-step cluster analysis procedure characterizes farmers’ motivations along a continuum between market-based and socially embedded values. Further bivariate analysis shows that farmers who are motivated most by market-based values are significantly associated with distribution practices that facilitate sales to school food services. Implications for technical assistance to facilitate these sales are discussed.

The emergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives: civic engagement, health and local agriculture

Interest in and initiation of farm-to-school (FTS) programs have increased in recent years, spurred on by converging public concerns about child obesity trends and risks associated with industrialization and distancing in the modern food system. A civic agriculture framework that more specifically considers civic engagement and problem solving offers insights about variations in the development and prospects for FTS programs. Drawing on comparative case studies of two emerging FTS initiatives in Pennsylvania—one in a rural setting and one in an urban setting—this article examines the role of internal and external “champions” in launching FTS programs and fostering civic engagement. Farm-to-school community stakeholders across the two cases framed FTS in broadly similar terms of (1) redressing poor food environments; (2) improving student nutrition, health and well-being; and (3) revitalizing rural community through support of local agriculture. However, specific concerns and emphases differed across the rural and urban cases, illustrating the significance of local context for such programs. The article concludes by discussing the importance of frame bridging and frame extension as strategies for expanding the FTS movement, and also ensuring programs that correspond to the specific circumstances and possibilities of their social and geographic settings.

From old school to reform school?

We hope that the work that we have undertaken over the past 5 years in farm-to-school (FTS) and farm-tocollege initiatives in Wisconsin and Montana has indeed contributed to the development of emancipatory possibilities. In their essay, Allen and Guthman suggest that not only are those of us engaged in FTS programs not making nonreformist reforms, we aren t even making reforms! Instead of building alternatives, we are actually strengthening the system we purport to oppose: ‘‘FTS advocates are essentially producing neoliberal forms and practices de novo’’ (Allen and Guthman, this issue). Over the past decade, Patricia Allen and Julie Guthman have produced a substantial body of work that has provided a useful counterpoint to those of us who have enthusiastically embraced the wide range of initiatives and projects, often local in orientation, that comprise the alternative agrifood movement (e.g., Allen and Kovach, 2000; Guthman, 2002, 2004; Allen et al., 2003; Allen, 2004). Still, we have felt that their skepticism has not always been informed by an adequate recognition of the achievements and potentials of such approaches. In the present piece, their analysis of the FTS movement often departs significantly from our own experiences with and understanding of the initiatives in which we have been engaged. We welcome the opportunity to provide another perspective. Where s the beef?

From “old school” to “farm-to-school”: Neoliberalization from the ground up

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs have garnered the attentions and energies of people in a diverse array of social locations in the food system and are serving as a sort of touchstone for many in the alternative agrifood movement. Yet, unlike other alternative agrifood initiatives, FTS programs intersect directly with the long-estab- lished institution of the welfare state, including its vestiges of New Deal farm programs and public entitlement. This paper explores how FTS is navigating the liminal terrain of public and private initiative, particularly the ways in which it interfaces with neoliberalism as both a material and discursive project. It examines the political emergence of school food programs and finds that FTS is strikingly similar to traditional school programs in objectives, but differs in approach. Yet, in their efforts to fill in the gaps created by political and economic neoliberalization, FTS advocates are in essence producing neoliberal forms and practices afresh. These include those associated with contingent labor relationships, private funding sources, and the devolution of responsibility to the local, all of which have serious consequences for social equity. The paper also discusses how FTS programs are employing the rhetoric of neoliberal governmentality, including personal responsibility and individual success, consumerism, and choice. While these may be tactical choices used to secure funding in a competitive environment, they may also contribute to the normalization of neoliberalism, further circumscribing the possibilities of what can be imagined and created to solve social problems.