|
|
|
|
Bringing Sustainable Food into Youth Outdoor EducationOutcome Evaluationby Jennifer E. Farley November 30, 2006 Purpose of Evaluation: The purpose of this evaluation is to measure whether or not the UI McCall Field Campus farm-to-school plan reached project objectives and clearly lays out a plan for reaching the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program (CFPCGP) objectives. Figure 1 (pdf format) illustrates the outcome evaluation planning logic model. Evaluation Objectives: 1) Were goals and objectives met? Project Goals & Objectives The following goals of the program would be achieved with completion of this project. These goals served as useful guidance for the project’s objectives and actions (Bond, Boyd, & Montgomery, 1997). These goals were developed from current farm-to-school resources and, more specifically, are designed to address the needs outlined in the conceptual model (Figure 2) and the overall purpose for establishing a farm-to-school program at the UI McCall Field Campus. Objectives are more specific and help achieve the program’s broad goals. Goal 1. Initiate the implementation of a farm-to-school program that will be sustainable in the long-term. Once implemented, we hope that the program will increase the profitability of low-income small acreage producers in central Idaho and increase access to local and nutritious food for Idaho fifth and sixth grade students; particularly students from low income groups with less access to healthy, sustainable, and local food. Objective 1.1. Evaluate the potential barriers, strategies to overcome barriers, opportunities, and benefits for developing a farm-to-school program. Objective 1.2. Identify future steps to be taken for implementing a farm-to-school program. Goal 1 Outcome: Implementation for a farm-to-school program has not yet begun, but the UI McCall Field Campus kitchen manager has started discussions with a family farm in Horseshoe Bend, ID (80 miles south of McCall) that is interested in providing a portion of the Field Campus’ 2007 produce. Barriers, strategies, opportunities, and benefits for developing a farm-to-school program are discussed in my thesis, and future steps and research opportunities are outlined in the thesis conclusion. Goal 2. Lay the groundwork for curricula that educate visitors of the University of Idaho (UI) Field Campus and the McCall Outdoor Science School (MOSS) about the importance of local food systems and nutritional knowledge. Students and visitors are taught that food choices matter to the environment, their health, and the farmers who grow their food. Objective 2.1. Begin the process of developing ideas for incorporating food systems education into the MOSS curriculum and educating campus visitors about the importance and value of eating healthy, local, and sustainable food. Objective 2.2. Display a poster in the UI McCall Field Campus dining hall that illustrates the food system cycle (i.e., production, distribution, consumption, and disposal). Goal 2 Outcome: Recommendations for tying in food systems and agriculture lessons into the MOSS curriculum are outlined in the thesis’ Appendix F. A poster displaying the food system cycle was ordered from Cornell University Cooperative Extension: Genesee County, and was given to the Field Campus kitchen manager for display in the dining hall. A copy of the poster is available in Appendix G. Goal 3. Conduct a food systems analysis (specifically production and distribution) of the UI McCall Field Campus and McCall area. Objective 3.1. Identify how food is currently purchased and distributed through the current UI McCall Field Campus food distributor, SYSCO Food Service of Idaho. Objective 3.2. Identify the availability of local or sustainable food in the McCall area and steps or requirements needed to purchase local food for meals at the UI McCall Field Campus. Goal 3 Outcome: Both the UI McCall Field Campus and the McCall area’s food production and distribution systems were analyzed and discussed. Future steps and requirements for incorporating more local and sustainable food into the Field Campus’ meals are outlined in the thesis’ conclusion. Goal 4. Research the feasibility for developing an on-site food system (specifically production, consumption, and waste disposal). Objective 4.1. Develop a plan for a composting unit at the UI McCall Field Campus that helps minimize food waste and increases soil health in the greenhouse. Objective 4.2. Develop a plan for a greenhouse to be used with the students for onsite educational programs and production of local and sustainable produce (i.e., salad greens and herbs). Objective 4.3. Assess government rules and regulations and UI policies that may impact developing a school greenhouse or composting unit. Objective 4.4. Identify risk management issues that impact establishment of a greenhouse or composting unit. These issues may include managing for wildlife, the seasonal operation of the campus, maintenance, and health issues. Goal 4 Outcome: Recommendations for a Field Campus composting system and greenhouse are discussed in Appendices D and E. Possible rules and regulations that may impact developing a greenhouse and composting system are addressed and provide a general baseline of information for beginning greenhouse and composting plans. Implementing a composting unit seems to be more feasible than a greenhouse since there is very little direct sunlight at the field campus, but risk management issues (e.g., wildlife safety) will need to be addressed in each design. Specific designs will need to be completed, cost estimates, and funding for implementation and maintenance will need to be secured. Community Food Project Objectives USDA-CSREES Community Food Projects should meet the following three statutory objectives. The project should: 1) meet the food needs of low-income people; 2) increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and 3) promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues (Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program, 2005). This study met the needs of low-income farmers and students in multiple ways. First, this plan provides a clear foundation and guide for the University of Idaho to begin purchasing food from local and sustainable producers that wish to increase their direct marketing potential. The majority of small and mid-size farmers in central Idaho who do not make enough money through farming alone to sustain their rural lifestyles are constantly looking for new ways to market their products. For the many small and mid-size farmers in central Idaho, farming is not profitable (C. DePhelps, personal communication, March 1, 2005). Outside sources of income are necessary. Over 400 students visit MOSS every year, with nearly half the students coming from low-income, rural areas. Some of these students do not have access to local and fresh food at school or home. Educating these students about good food choices and giving them access to fresh and local food at MOSS could be an important outcome for farm-to-school programs in Idaho. Visitors bringing this knowledge back with them to their communities could promote other farm-to-school projects that will be developed as a result. This study can increase the self-reliance of the UI McCall Field Campus and central Idaho communities in providing for their own food needs since an analysis of both the University of Idaho and central Idaho community food system (specifically in the McCall area) was conducted and will be shared with the public. Producers have easy access to the results on the Rural Roots Web site, which provides a clearer understanding of their food system and marketing opportunities and challenges. The site explores the many ways that food is connected to the community and the possible implications of these connections on the quality of life and the sustainability of the community. This study promotes a comprehensive set of responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues—ones that also can promote Idaho agriculture, given that providing local and sustainable food is not a priority in Idaho school meals. Yet, in recent years, Idaho parents, educators, and students are requesting more local and sustainable food to be served during school meals. Visitors and students of the UI McCall Field Campus will be shown how a farm-to-school program can bring awareness and action to the issue of food insecurity and sustainable food systems. Improved access to local food can improve student health and nutrition, help stimulate the economy of Idaho, and provide long-term benefits for sustainable agriculture in Idaho. This project is closely aligned with CSREES Community Food Projects goals in that: 1) it brings together people from diverse backgrounds (e.g., farmers, University faculty and staff, non-profit advocates and educators, and students); 2) it focuses on an analysis of two food systems and communities (UI McCall Field Campus food system and McCall area food system) and how they are connected; 3) it is one of the first Idaho farm-to-school program models; 4) it is a collaborative effort between two well-respected and successful non-profits and the University of Idaho and links these groups to local and sustainable producers who want to direct market the food they grow; 5) it also encourages other organizations to develop their own farm-to-school projects by serving as an educational and planning resource; and 6) it helps lay the foundation for a self-sustaining farm-to-school program, identifying opportunities and challenges for implementing local food into UI McCall Field Campus meals, and providing guidelines for Rural Roots, the University of Idaho, and agriculture producers throughout Idaho. 2) What were the project’s strengths and limitations? The project has had widespread support from the Rural Roots community and the MOSS teaching/administrative staff. As discussed in my thesis, new Field Campus kitchen staff are supportive of the concept of a farm-to-school program, and have taken first steps towards serving locally produced food in campus meals by initiating contact with a family farm in the nearby community of Horseshoe Bend. This project has also increased awareness of local and sustainable food choices at the Field Campus, which may help another graduate student, AmeriCorps volunteer, or other interested individual in implementing a farm-to-school program. An inherent limitation of the project was that this study was limited to a relatively short period of time (one year), and a more detailed study would have been more readily accomplished with fewer goals and objectives, and/or more time and personnel devoted to working on the project. There were also limitations of the research methods. First, data collected from the fifth and sixth grade students and teachers and chaperones who attended the MOSS program were gathered during a four-week time period and only represent visitors at MOSS during that time. This data cannot be generalized to the larger population of the 2005 MOSS visitors. Nonetheless, a census was attempted to represent the surveyed visitors as accurately as possible. Also, the flexibility of the second phase meant that this research was fairly unconstrained, as is often the case with case-study design, which makes replication of the research more difficult (Graziano & Raulin, 2004). Interview responses may have varied if different individuals had been interviewed—this makes it difficult to generalize to the larger groups that the individuals were representing. In addition, interviews were often informal, so it is difficult to document exactly what procedures were followed and why. However, Graziano and Raulin (2004) state that the greatest strength of low-constraint, qualitative research is flexibility. Responses to questions and insights were also recorded during or immediately following each conversation to increase the reliability of documentation. Analysis of the open-ended questions in each of the questionnaires and evaluation of interviews also pose possible limitations since the validity of coding depends on the researcher’s clarity of thought. To help minimize bias, I tried to control my reactivity and explicitly exposed the inherent assumptions and biases influencing this study. Biases and assumptions potentially arise from me (the researcher), the funding agency (CSREES), and this study’s advisory committee. These include the following: First, the funding source and researcher both believe that local food tastes better (due to freshness) than food that is from distant sources, and that local food is nutritionally better and important for the local economy. Also, MOSS has a history of parents and students that return to their communities and tell others about the benefits that children gain while attending the school. This assumption was directly assessed in the questionnaires. A second assumption that the University of Idaho and the community will provide ongoing support since UI is a Talloires Declaration signee; consequently, with careful planning, a farm-to-school program will be affordable. Some ways to overcome biases were through the process evaluations and consultation with the researcher’s graduate committee and advisory board. The researcher journal also helped expose and keep track of biases and assumptions. Finally, multiple data collection techniques helped increase the accuracy of research findings. 3) Were sufficient efforts taken to reach objectives? Sufficient efforts were taken to reach objectives; however, it was difficult to estimate the amount of time it would take to complete each objective. Overall, survey efforts were successful, yet the timing of sending out the farmer and rancher questionnaire should have been completed earlier than it did (questionnaires were sent in March, and some Idaho farmers begin to work their fields in March), and the mailed questionnaires solicited a low response rate (~20%). In retrospect, these questionnaires should have been mailed out in January. Also, a telephone questionnaire may have increased the response rate, but was not done due to time and funding constraints. 4) What challenges did we face? Were these overcome and how did we overcome them? The timing for achieving all of the objectives was the greatest challenge since there were many objectives. The delayed start of the project (due to delays in funding and UI human assurances committee approval) confined the data collection for the 5th and 6th graders and teachers and chaperones who attended the MOSS program. This made it impossible to survey all the 2005 MOSS attendees or to take a random sample. However, a census of the 5th and 6th graders and teachers and chaperones was attempted during the last four weeks of the MOSS program. Timing challenges were overcome by following the suggested timeline outlined in the project’s proposal and continually evaluating the success of the project through the process evaluations. 5) What have we learned? Detailed research results are presented and discussed in the thesis; yet overall, we learned that a pragmatic approach to implementing a farm-to-school program should be taken. Due to financial and bureaucratic conditions at the Field Campus and UI institution, implementation of a farm-to-school program is likely to succeed if implemented initially on a small-scale. Purchasing and contracting rules and guidelines need to be researched further if local purchases directly from a producer exceed $5,000. 6) What was successful or enlightening? All of the project objectives were completed, although the goals of the project will not be met until a farm-to-school plan is implemented. Since this was my first “research project,” it was enlightening to realize the time and organizational commitments required to complete this scale of a project. UI purchasing and contract rules and regulations are also unclear for many UI employees, and it was unclear what the current UI and SYSCO contract for the Field Campus says. Often, decisions are made because “that is the way it has always been;” however, there is a desire from the majority of respondents for more healthy, local, and sustainably produced food at the UI McCall Field Campus. Also, the UI purchasing administrators are verbally supportive of a farm-to-school plan, as long and rules and regulations are followed. Furthermore, the role of relationship building and a champion to organize implementation are important factors for a future farm-to-school program. 7) What are some opportunities for improving future farm-to-school plans? Since a UI McCall Field Campus farm-to-school program has not been implemented, key opportunities for implementing a farm-to-school program will be briefly discussed. First, a few interviewed McCall businesses expressed interest in selling more local and organic food items. This is an opportunity for farmers and ranchers that already sell their food items to the McCall Farmers’ Market and health food stores in McCall and at Tamarack Ski Resort. Second, the Field Campus has developed relationships with other McCall camps by purchasing bulk produce orders from Paul’s Market and discussing the benefits (e.g., possible cost savings, helping the McCall economy, and increased quality) of purchasing fresh produce. Third, a handful of farmers and ranchers within approximately 200 miles of McCall are interested in being contacted about selling their food items to the Field Campus. Fourth, the new Field Campus kitchen manager is interested in cooking with more local, seasonal, and sustainably produced food items and has developed a relationship with a family farm in Horseshoe Bend, ID in the hopes of purchasing fresh produce from them in the summer and fall of 2007. Finally, this project is building on the momentum for sustainability initiatives at the UI and has presented future research possibilities discussed in the thesis’ concluding chapter. 8) What factors influenced our ability to do the work? Time to complete the project was the greatest challenge. The delayed start of the project confined the amount of time to distribute the questionnaires for the 5th and 6th graders and chaperones and teachers visiting MOSS in 2005, and other factors outside of the project (e.g., computer problems, other work commitments, course work, etc.) limited my time towards working on the project. Having a timeline, consultations with my graduate committee and members of the project advisory team, as well as the process evaluations helped keep the project on track. In addition, consultations with multiple people from the UI, Rural Roots, and MOSS helped to keep stakeholders informed and energetic about making this project a success. 9) What does audience think or suggest for future improvement? Recruiting a “champion” (e.g., another graduate student, AmeriCrops volunteer, UI staff member) to help implement a UI McCall Field Campus farm-to-school program will help continue the goals of this project. Future research opportunities from this study will also help to increase awareness about local and sustainable food systems. Building relationships between stakeholders is also incredibly important for improving the adoption and development of this and other farm-to-school programs. Also, questionnaire respondents suggested that educating the Field Campus cooks to increase their support of local food systems, involving the community, finding funding to help implement the program, and creating new menus and meals that school children like would help with implementation. Similarly, farmers and rancher respondents suggested that those working on the farm-to-school program should meet administrators, school boards, cooks, and others working on agriculture and education programs. Other suggestions included making political contacts, working with government agencies, and conducting an assessment of distribution, pick-up, and transportation of food to the Field Campus. 10) Was audience excited about the project? Yes, the audience was excited about the project, and there is an observable increased interest and enthusiasm in bringing in more local and sustainably produced food to not just the Field Campus, but also the UI Moscow main campus. This project suggests that a UI McCall farm-to-school program is possible now on a small-scale, and that implementation of a farm-to-school program can build more momentum to make UI and the Idaho community more sustainable.
|