Do State Farm-to-School–Related Laws Increase Participation in Farm-to-School Programs?

McCarthy, Andy; Steiner, Abigail; Houser, Robert F.

doi:10.1080/19320248.2017.1284026

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 2013 and 2015 USDA-FNS F2S Censuses have enabled national-level studies of F2S programs. Several studies use F2S Census data to examine the determinants of F2S adoption (Lyson 2016; McCarthy, Steiner, and Houser 2017; Ralston et al 2017; Botkins and Roe 2018; O'Hara and Benson 2019) but do not investigate the market channels that SFAs use. One exception is Christensen, Jablonski, and O'Hara (2019), who find a negative correlation between the local food expenditures of SFAs and whether they made local purchases directly from farmers and other nontraditional suppliers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Channel Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs in Farm-to-School Programs

Fitzsimmons¹,

O’Hara²

2019

Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farm-to-school (F2S) local food procurement must be cost-effective to be financially sustainable without policy support. We test, among schools participating in F2S programs, whether market channel procurement strategies for local foods affect schools’ perceptions of whether meal costs decline as a result of F2S participation. Schools that buy local foods exclusively from intermediaries are 7 percentage points less likely to report lower costs from undertaking F2S initiatives. We further demonstrate that the probability that schools source local foods exclusively from intermediaries is influenced by the number of direct marketing farmers in their county.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Channel Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs in Farm-to-School Programs

Fitzsimmons¹,

O’Hara²

2019

Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our literature review revealed five research articles/USDA reports that use either the 2013 or 2015 Farm to School Census (Botkins and Roe, 2015; Lyson, 2016; McCarthy et al , 2017; O'Hara and Benson, 2017; Ralston et al , 2017). The current research can be classified into two broad categories 1 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second group of studies examines the relationship between state FTS legislation and FTS implementation (Lyson, 2016; McCarthy et al , 2017). The authors in this line of research use the state as the unit of analysis in an effort to better understand how policy impacts the propensity of state public school districts to implement FTS programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using the 2013 Census, the 2013 Economic Census, the USDA Food Atlas food hub locations, and a binary variable representing statewide legislation supporting FTS, Lyson (2016) shows that, although not statistically significant, federal FTS grant funding, state-level FTS legislation and accessibility to food hubs have a positive effect on FTS participation rates within the state, including but not limited to local food procurement. McCarthy et al (2017) investigate the role of state FTS legislation and find a positive relationship between state policies and FTS participation rates. None of the studies identified in our literature review examine the relationship between supply chain structure and local school food procurement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

School districts and their local food supply chains

Christensen

Jablonski

O’Hara

2017

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 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.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have indicated that school districts with lower per capita income have the lowest probability of serving local food (Ralston, Beaulieu, Hyman, Benson, Smith 2017). McCarthy, Steiner, and Houser (2017) similarly found that as the percentage of students eligible for free and reducedprice lunch at a school increased, the odds of having a farm-to-school program decreased. The optin feature of the Oregon policy in question is relevant because all districts (irrespective of free or reduced-price meal eligibility) could opt-in to receive grant funds.…”

Section: Introduction and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 91%

Farm-to-School Grant Funding Increases Children’s Access to Local Fruits and Vegetables in Oregon

Giombi

Joshi²,

Rains

et al. 2020

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We undertook this study to measure the reach of Oregon's legislated farm-to-school grant program among school districts and children, particularly low income, and examine changes in local purchasing, particularly fruit and vegetables, and the use of produce from school gardens in school meals. We conducted descriptive analyses to examine the reach and paired two-sample t-tests to examine average purchases of local products between school year 2014-2015 (baseline) and 2015-2016 (intervention). The study results indicate that the number of nonwhite students attending a district participating in farm-to-school nearly doubled in the intervention, and 89% of children eligible for free and reduced-price meals attended schools in participating districts compared with 39% of eligible children at baseline. Eighty-one percent of participating districts were low income, which is much higher than the percentage of districts characterized as low income statewide (65%). The policy also increased the average total local food purchases for low-income districts, particularly fruits and vegetables. The results suggest that the opt-in approach to the grant program facilitated greater

show abstract

Do State Farm-to-School–Related Laws Increase Participation in Farm-to-School Programs?

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Market Channel Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs in Farm-to-School Programs

Market Channel Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs in Farm-to-School Programs

School districts and their local food supply chains

Farm-to-School Grant Funding Increases Children’s Access to Local Fruits and Vegetables in Oregon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About