How to Develop and Implement Farm to School Policy: Learning Best Practices from Alaska and Washington, D.C.

1. Developing and
Implementing
Farm to School
Policy:
Learning Best
Practices from
Alaska,
Washington,
D.C., and States
In-between

2. Workshop Presenters
 Matt Benson
PhD Candidate, Virginia Tech
 Johanna Herron
Alaska Farm to School Program Coordinator
 Andrea Northup
Founder & Former Director of D.C. Farm to School Network
National Farm to School Network

3. Workshop Outline & Format
1. Policy Presentations
1. National Overview
2. Washington, D.C. Case Study
3. Alaska Case Study
2. Breakout Activity
3. Discussion & Questions

4. Farm to School Legislation
 In 2001, states started to develop
and implement legislation
supporting Farm to School (National
Farm to School Network, 2010).
 California (SB19) and New Mexico
(HJM34) were first two states
(National Farm to School Network,
2010).
 Currently, 38 states have passed at
least 80 locality-based policies. Whitehouse.gov
President Obama signing
Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act.

5. Types of State-based Farm to School Legislation
Number of Policies
Category of Legislation
(Thru Sept. 2011)
Project implementation 15
Local preference 15
Promotional event or program 12
Grant money allocation 11
Budget appropriations/ official state fund 10
Creating a task force/council/ working group 10
Resolutions 9
Creating a directory or database 8
Additional reimbursements 4
Wellness policies 4
Pilot program implementation 3

6. Recent State-based Farm to School
Legislation (Post September 2011)
State Legislation Summary Status
The Farm to School
Alabama HB670 (2012) Passed
Procurement Act
Nutritional Alaskan Foods for
Alaska SB 160 (2012) Passed
Schools
Governor
Connecticut Grown for
Connecticut Proclamation Passed
Connecticut Kids Week
(2011)
Taskforce to encourage the
Connecticut HB5326 (2012) Passed
purchase of CT Grown foods.
Governor
May 2012 as Michigan
Michigan Proclamation Passed
Asparagus Month
(2012)
Mississippi Farm to School
Mississippi HC112 (2012) Passed
Week

7. Growth of State-based Farm to School Legislation (To Date)
90
80 80
74
70
65
60
50 50
40 40
38
36
33
30 30
27
20 22
20
17
12 13
10 9 9
8
4 4
0 2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Number of Jurisdictions with Farm to School Legislation Total Number of Farm to School Policies

8. Recent State-based Farm to School Legislation (Failed)
State Legislation Summary Status
Additional $0.05
reimbursement for every meal
California AB909 (2012) Failed
served with California
produce.
Hawaii HB1718 (2012) The Farm to School Bill Failed
Development of “Farm to
Indiana HB1089 (2012) Failed
School" plans in schools
Creation of an interagency
Mississippi HB828 (2012) Failed
Farm to School Council

9. Five Recommendations for
State-based Farm to School Legislation

10. 1. Legislation that provides incentives and allows for
Food Service Directors and/or School Nutrition Directors
to purchase more local, regional, and in-state food.
Such as legislation that:
 Increases the small purchase threshold for school districts.
 Provides greater emphasis and incentives to purchase in-state
products over out of state products.
 Provides tax credits for in-state producers selling to schools.
 Establishes a minimum percent of commodity funds that must
be used to purchase local and regional food.
 Mandates a minimum percent of local food purchases.
 States new school construction projects must consider kitchen
facilities.
 Asks school food officials to report types and amounts of in-
state farm products purchased.

11. 2. Legislation that brings together diverse individuals and
organizations from agriculture, public health, education, and
community development to form a Farm to School network,
advisory board, task force, or working group. Often times the
focus of this legislation is to:
 Assess or implement Farm to School programs and make
recommendations for future actions.
 Explore ways Farm to School related activities can be
incorporated into existing positions.
 Explore external funding sources to support and strengthen Farm
to School.
 Examples states and legislation include:
 Colorado (SB 10-081),
 Maine (HP 784), or
 Texas (SB 1027).
 In Missouri and North Carolina, Farm to School has been written
into legislation that creates a state food policy council.

12. 3. Legislation that establishes a designated Farm to School
day or week within the National Farm to School Month taking
place each October. Often times this legislation:
 Gives farmers, schools, state agencies, and communities an
extra incentive to develop and promote local Farm to
School programs.
 Allows for those individuals involved with Farm to School to
share in celebrating local, healthy food and better child
health and nutrition.
 Can come from a variety of decision makers including the
state legislature, governor, and secretary or commissioner
of agriculture or education.
 Examples states and legislation include:
 Maryland (SB 158/ HB 696),
 New York (2002 Laws), or
 Virginia (HJR 95).

13. 4. Legislation that establishes an official state Farm to School
program in a state department of agriculture, education,
public health, or cooperative extension service.
 State agencies are often tasked with matching up farms,
distributors, and schools that are looking to buy, sell, or
distribute local and regional foods.
 One example is the Oklahoma Farm to School Program Act
(2006).
 Formally establishes the Oklahoma Farm to School
Program and designates the Oklahoma Department of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry as the lead agency.
 Other excellent examples include:
 Alaska (HB 70),
 Oregon (HB 3601), or
 Washington (SB 6483).

14. 5. Legislation that creates a Farm to School grant program to
fund Farm to School pilot projects, needed infrastructure,
school gardens, experiential education programs, or the
purchasing of more local and regional healthy foods.
 Seed money to help grow Farm to School Programs.
 Funds can support purchasing school food equipment such
as salad bars, stovetops, ovens, extra pots, pans, and
utensils.
 Funds can compensate for school staff members’ time
when preparing local food or planting and maintaining a
school garden.
 Some examples include:
 Alaska (HB 70),
 Illinois (HB 78), or
 Michigan (W.K. Kellogg Foundation).

15. Recommendation Conclusions
 Recommendations 1-4:
 Best suited for states or localities that are in the process of
developing Farm to School programs.
 Recommendation 5:
 Better suited for states or localities that have already
researched best Farm to School practices, developed
programs, and are looking to further strengthen Farm to School.
 Passage of legislation is often best done through:
 Partnership building and collaboration between individuals and
organizations.
 Working closely with a key representative.
 Including a mix of education and advocacy.
 Connecting Farm to School to pressing social issues.

16. Case Studies Exploring Farm to School Policy
Five case studies exploring the development and
implementation of primarily state-based Farm to School
legislation.
1. Alaska
2. Texas
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Washington State
5. Wisconsin

17. Acknowledgements
 CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work Program Grant
 Special thank you to the many individuals and organizations who
provided contributions and significantly improved the case studies
including individuals at the:
 Community Food Security Coalition,
 National Farm to School Network, and
 W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

18. Washington, D.C. Farm to School
Policy Case Study

19. Mission
To improve the health and well-being of
schoolchildren in the District of Columbia, and of our
local environment and food economy, by increasing
access to healthy, local, sustainable foods in all
Washington, DC schools; and to connect D.C.
schoolchildren with where their food comes from.
Housed at:

20. Activities
 Direct assistance
 Tools/resources
 Website, e-newsletter
 Trainings/workshops
 Advocacy
 Local committees/coalitions
 National farm to school efforts
 D.C. Farm to School Week
 Strawberries & Salad Greens

21. Washington, DC
 Approx. 100,000 school-aged children
 3 in 10 live in poverty
 5 in 10 at risk of hunger
 4 in 10 in DCPS overweight/obese
 8 in 10 NOT getting enough fruits & veggies

22. School Food Landscape
 Approx. 100,000 school-aged kids in DC
 46,000 students in D.C. public schools (126 schools)
 32,000 students in public charter schools (96 schools)
 49,000/day participate in school lunch (NSLP)
 30,000/day participate in school breakfast (SBP)
 Approx. 72% eligible for free/reduced price meals

23. School Food Pre-HSA
 Primarily “vended” school food through food
service management companies
 Huge variety in school kitchen facilities
 Both dry and cold storage space very limited
 School food an “afterthought”
 Mainly pre-packaged airplane-food style meals

24. Key Developments
D.C. Farm to Michelle Obama
School Network Tales from a DC launches
Founded School Kitchen Let’s Move
Oct. 2008 Jan. 2009 Feb. 2009
Email from
Healthy Schools Councilmember First D.C. Farm to
Act introduced Mary Cheh’s School Week
Dec. 2009 office Sept. 2009
Nov. 2009

25. Formulated Policy “Ask”
 Gathered stakeholder input
 notices, emails, calls and meetings to identify common issues
 Researched state-level farm to school policies
 Talked with experts across the country
 Collaborated with other local organizations
 Formulated policy recommendations
 Drafted one-pager of recommendations
 Drafted sample policy language

27. Advocacy
 Educated stakeholders
 Meetings with councilmembers
 Call-ins
 Sign-ons
 Formal letters from organizational partners
 Advocacy trainings
 Participated in working group meetings
 Testified at hearings

28. Healthy Schools Act Passed May 2010,
Effective August 2010
 Extra five cents/meal with a fresh, local fruit or
vegetable component
 Schools must participate in at least one farm to
school educational event each year
 Higher nutrition standards (whole grains, fruits &
veggies) tied to extra ten cents/meal
reimbursement
 School garden FTE
 Central kitchen/warehouse
 Environmental Literacy Plan

30. Funding Battles
 Initially, proposed excise tax on soda in April 2010
 Coke/Pepsi lobbied Council
 Petitions, signatures, meetings with
councilmembers, organizational sign-ons
 Council approved extending sales tax to include
soda May 2010
 Huge budget shortfall ($188 million) – Mayor
proposes cutting HSA in December 2010
 More testimony, meetings with councilmembers,
sign-ons
 HSA funding restored in FY2010 budget (even
amidst huge cuts)

32. Implementation

35. Lessons Learned
 Think through your position – from policy language
through implementation
 Make sure your law has measurable outcomes
 Make friends in the Council to win the inside game
(especially with funding)
 Be creative and touchy-feely with your advocacy
 Broad based partnerships are hard to get in the way of –
draw upon farm to school’s diversity
 Make it easy for folks to show their support
 Break policy into easy-to-remember sound bites
 Identify specific, dedicated funding source
 Get to know your local fiscal policy watchdog
organization

36. Thank you!
Andrea Northup
(Formerly) D.C. Farm to School
Network Director
andrea.northup@gmail.com
www.dcfarmtoschool.org
www.dcfarmtoschoolweek.org
Karissa McCarthy
karissa@dcfarmtoschool.org

37. Alaska Farm to School Policy
Case Study
Johanna Herron
Farm to School Program Coordinator
Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Agriculture
www.dnr.alaska.gov/ag/ag_FTS.htm
www.facebook.com/AlaskaFarmToSchool

38. Background
• Sunset
May 2010 – date,
House Bill 70
Signed into
end of
Law June
2013
Top priority:
Local
procurement
in schools
Sustain
Action
Plan
Interest

39. Implementation
Tracking
Engaging • Resources
• Strategic plan
• Feasibility • Media • Process
studies • Grants & • Listserv Evaluation
scholarships • Newsletters
• Product • Data
development • Contests
tracking
• Resources • Tours
• Reports
Planning Communicating

40. Identify Stakeholders
Middlemen Other
• Processors • Co-ops
• Distributors • Policy makers
• Community
members
• Parents
Schools
Food
Producers • Food Service
Professionals
• Farmers • Cooks
• Fishermen
• Ranchers
Farm to • Youth
• Administrators
School

41. Involve Stakeholders in Strategic Planning
House Bill 70 legislation
Goals – Objectives – (Tasks)
Professional planner
Advisory group input
Public input
Program purpose
A state-wide program that will offer expertise and support to all
areas of the state to pursue farm to school activities and interests.

42. Goal #2: Resource
Development and Sharing
School gardens Outreach about
available resources
2 gardens / year
Distribute AK resource book
Create toolkit
New users of resources
Resource guide for using local or school
garden produce
Distribute to interested stakeholders
‘Seasonal Harvest’ pilot On Farm Food Safety
Workshop
Create toolkit
Participation rates 2 workshops / year
Agriculture statistics 3 farms and 3 school districts
represented

43. Goal #3: Strengthen Relationships between Food
Producers and School Food Services
• 5 farmer
tours
Product
• 5 schools availability • Communicati
kitchen tours and use ng projects
• Discussion,
• 20 product input, and
availability forms questions
from farms
• 20 product use
School / forms from schools
Farm Tours Tri-annual farm
to school
summits

44. Goal #4: Networking, Education, and Marketing
- Connect
stakeholders
- Serve as a
resource and
information
center
- Resource distribution
- FTS monthly newsletter
- 20 FTS presentations
Create a
resource - 200 people in contact
database Create fact
guide sheets and
adapted from - Reach 1000 students promotional
Vermont FEED with Alaska Agriculture in materials
publication the Classroom

45. Reminder – Background
• Sunset
May 2010 – date,
House Bill 70
Signed into
end of
Law June
2013
Top priority:
Local
procurement
in schools
Sustain
Action
Plan
Interest

46. Revisit: Implementation
Tracking
Engaging • Resources
• Strategic plan
• Feasibility • Media • Process
studies • Grants & • Listserv Evaluation
scholarships • Newsletters
• Product • Data
development • Contests
tracking
• Resources • Tours
• Reports
Planning Communicating

47. Farm to School Grant
 34 funded state farm to school mini-grant projects
 16 urban
Sample Projects
 18 rural
Bison farm visit and
meat purchase
Fish to school effort
Taste testing Alaska
grown product
School gardens
Growing potatoes
and cabbage for
school kitchen
use

48. Alaska Farm to School Challenge
• Opened October 3rd, 8am
When • Ends November 4th, 5pm
• Anyone in Alaska who plans to engage in a farm to school
activity during the 2011-2012 school year
Who • Idea’s and examples at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/ag/ag_challengeFTS.htm
• Quick and easy!
• Electronic application:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FTS_challenge2011
How
• Paper applications available
• Change the way we think about food
• Support local economy
Why • And much much more!

49. Resource Development

50. Product Development

51. Cabbage Project
1. Alaska Gateway School District
 Calculated the cabbage purchase was ½ the cost of
what they purchase commercially
 Cooks were surprised and thrilled to find the kids
noticed the difference and really liked it!
2. Fairbanks School District – 1 batch comparison
Yield Labor Total cost
including
labor
Local ~75% (Need 12 hours $1150
[$1/pound] 850 pounds to ($1.79/pound)
get 640 pounds
shredded)
Pre-cut 100% 3 hours $1558
[$2.32/pound] (2.43/pound)

52. Into the Schools

53. Recent Policy Update
Legislation passed Quick Solutions
Housed in a
different Producers Food
state and food Policy Agency collaboration
agency service not Council
than farm to prepared
school
Provide
suggestions Conference
Webinar
for future presentations
success

54. Lessons Learned
Not everything works
Make your program visible
Utilize your collaborations
Breathe; you can’t do
everything!