1. Farmers for all Families:
A program to fund CSA memberships for low-income families
in Rutland County, Vermont
Prepared for the Vermont Farm to Plate Network, the Vermont
Sustainable Jobs Fund and Gov. Peter Shumlin
By Jeannine Guttman
October 30, 2015
Contemporary Food Systems, MSFS (5010), Green Mountain College

2. 1
Executive
Summary
Rutland
County,
Vermont,
is
the
state’s
2nd
most
populous
county.
It
is
a
rural
area
rich
in
its
growing
civic
commitment
to
sustainable
agriculture
and
local
small
farmers.
It
also
is
home
to
poverty
and
increasing
food
insecurity
among
low-­‐income
families
and
their
children.
Farmers
for
All
Families
is
a
proposed
three-­‐year
pilot
project
to
address
the
county’s
food
insecurity
by
providing
fresh,
local,
nutritious
foods
to
low-­‐income
families
through
publicly
funded
community-­‐assisted
agriculture
(CSA)
memberships.
The
county
is
a
government
designation
but
it
also
carries
the
attributes
of
a
regional
foodshed.
Residents
identify
with
Rutland
County
as
home
to
prominent
players
and
innovators
in
the
state’s
sustainable
agriculture
efforts.
The
Rutland
Area
Food
to
Farm
Link
(RAFFL),
begun
in
2004,
is
a
recognized
food
hub
(Vermont
Agency
of
Agriculture,
Food
and
Markets
2014).
Strengthening
sustainable
agriculture
in
local
communities
can
be
the
catalyst
for
“the
promises
or
possibilities
of
creating
sustainable
economies,”
which
clearly
is
needed
in
Rutland
County
(Ikerd
2010).
The
plan
would
represent
an
informal
“community
food
security
coalition,”
bringing
more
resilience
to
the
regional
food
system
by
creating
deeper
networks
for
community
supported
and
sustainable
agriculture
(McMichael
2000).
Under
the
plan,
all
Rutland
County
recipients
of
state
food
assistance,
such
as
ReachUp
and
3SquaresVT,
would
receive
free
CSA
memberships,
a
benefit
in
addition
to
monthly
and
annual
food
allotments.
RAFFL
and
Rutland
City’s
Vermont
Farmers
Market
would
play
pivotal
roles
in
distributing
the
fresh
food.
All
CSA
recipients
would
attend
monthly
cooking
and
food
classes
now
offered
by
RAFFL.
The
program
also
would
bolster
income
for
the
county’s
small
farmers,
who
increasingly
are
relying
on
federal
farm
payments
(USDA
Census
of
Agriculture
2012).
Local
farmers
would
be
paid
CSA
monies
by
the
state
of
Vermont
through
a
special
fund
to
support
this
initiative.
The
fund
would
be
comprised
of
grant
monies
from
the
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture
and
the
Vermont
Farm
to
Plate
Initiative.
Additionally,
Rutland
City
recipients
would
be
enrolled
in
the
city
community
garden
project,
taught
and
encouraged
to
grow
produce.
The
$20-­‐
to
$40-­‐per-­‐plot
fees
would
be
funded
by
the
Vermont
Farm
to
Plate
Program
(Rutland
Community
Garden
2015).
Through
fresh
food
availability
and
food
education,
this
initiative
provides
low-­‐income
families
and
their
children
healthier
food
choices,
increased
food
preparation
skills,
broader
connections
to
the
community,
opportunities
for
networking
and
inclusion,
and
food
equity.
It
also
provides
targeted
financial
incentives
to
small
farmers
who
participate
in
these
CSAs,
and
helps
support
the
region’s
growing
sustainable
agriculture
efforts.
The
program
will
be
tracked
and
reported
on
annually
to
determine
its
impact
on
state
food
assistance
rolls,
small
farmers’
financial
health,
and
overall
food
resilience
in
Rutland
County.
The
goals
of
Farmers
for
All
Families
are
to:
• Increase
food
security
among
low-­‐income
families
and
their
children;
• Provide
more
access
to
healthy,
fresh
local
foods;
• Develop
civic
connections
between
low-­‐income
families
and
the
local
community;
• Increase
the
level
of
food
information
and
cooking
skills;
• Bolster
local
farmers’
incomes
through
funded
CSA
memberships;
• Bring
more
inclusion
to
a
marginalized
population;
• Create
a
more
resilient,
equitable
and
uniform
foodshed
for
Rutland
County.

3. 2
Rutland
County
Trends
A
state
of
only
626,526
people,
Vermont
plays
an
outsized
role
in
national
sustainable
agriculture,
environmentalism
and
conservation
leadership
(U.S.
Census
2015).
The
state
is
a
national
leader
in
organic
farming,
direct
sales
and
development
of
value-­‐added
produce
such
as
artisan
cheeses
and
specialty
maple
syrups.
Vermont’s
political
structure
and
its
citizens
actively
support,
and
fund,
agricultural
initiatives
that
promote
sustainability
and
resilience.
Rutland
County,
however,
is
one
of
the
most
impoverished
in
the
state
and
has
been
in
decline.
It
has
seen
an
increase
in
food
insecurity
among
its
low-­‐income
population,
an
outrageous
reality
in
a
wealthy
nation
where
food
is
notably
more
affordable
and
more
available
than
in
many
other
countries.
In
fact,
it
takes
only
40
days
of
earnings
for
the
average
American
to
pay
for
her
family’s
entire
annual
food
bill
(Heller
and
Keoleian
2000).
Yet
growing
food
insecurity
continues
to
plague
the
nation
and
rural
states
in
particular.
Rutland
County
is
Vermont’s
2nd
largest
most
populous
county,
with
60,086
residents
in
2014,
a
2.5
percent
drop
from
2010
(U.S.
Census
2015).
Between
the
Census
periods
of
2000
and
2010,
Rutland
County
experienced
the
greatest
population
loss
of
all
Vermont
counties.
And
the
county’s
only
urban
area,
Rutland
City,
reported
the
greatest
population
loss
among
20
Vermont
cities
and
towns
catalogued
in
the
2010
U.S.
Census.
In
fact,
since
1970,
Rutland
City
has
been
in
a
population
slump,
with
almost
all
of
the
positive
population
change
occurring
beyond
the
city
limits
(Head
Start
2015).
Rutland
County
is
made
up
of
28
towns
(See
Chart
1),
ranging
in
population
from
less
than
300
to
more
than
16,000.
Demographically,
Rutland
County’s
population
is
51
percent
female
and
49
percent
male.
The
median
age
is
44.3
years,
one
of
the
highest
in
New
England.
Age
demographics
form
bookends:
18.4
percent
of
the
population
is
under
18
years;
19.4
percent
is
65
years
and
older
(U.S.
Census
2015).
Looking
to
2020,
Vermont
projects
Rutland
County
will
have
the
second
slowest
growth
rate
in
the
state.
The
reason:
A
high
percentage
of
young
adults
are
leaving,
giving
Rutland
County
limited
population
growth
and
an
aging
population
(Head
Start
2015).
The
median
household
income
was
$49,271,
far
below
the
state
average
of
$54,267.
Moreover,
13
percent
of
people
in
Rutland
County
live
below
the
poverty
level,
higher
than
the
state
average
of
11.8
percent
(U.S.
Census
2015).
The
more
urban
area
of
Rutland
City
has
a
poverty
rate
of
16
percent
(Head
Start
2015).

4. 3
Chart
1:
A
map
of
Rutland
County,
Vermont,
noted
in
yellow.

5. 4
In
Vermont,
the
federal
food
stamp
program,
or
Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance
Program
(SNAP),
is
known
as
3SquaresVT
and
ReachUp.
The
federal
funds
form
“the
largest
program
in
the
domestic
hunger
safety
net”
(USDA
2015). Data
show
Rutland
County
food
stamp
redemptions
at
area
stores
rose
41.2
percent
from
2008
to
2012
(USDA
Food
Atlas
2015).
Of
the
11,809
Rutland
County
residents
receiving
food
assistance,
4,489
were
children.
The
number
of
households
receiving
food
assistance
numbered
6,370.
(See
Chart
2)
Chart
2:
Rutland
County
residents
accounted
for
13
percent
of
total
ReachUp
state
benefits
and
12
percent
of
total
3Squares
VT
benefits.
More
than
half
the
total
6,370
households
receiving
assistance
had
children
at
home.
Sources:
Vermont
Economic
Services
Division,
Recipients
and
Benefits;
Rutland
County
Head
Start
2015-­‐2016
Community
Assessment.
Growing
Food
Insecurity
Rutland
County
schools
are
addressing
the
food
security
issue
largely
through
the
federal
school
lunch
program
and
the
statewide
“farm-­‐to-­‐school”
programs,
which
add
fresh
produce
to
student
meals
(Vermont
Agency
of
Agriculture,
Food
and
Markets
2014).
From
2006
to
2010,
the
number
of
Rutland
County
students
eligible
for
the
federal
school
lunch
program
rose
from
22.30
percent
to
almost
36
percent,
with
another
6.1
percent
eligible
for
reduced-­‐price
lunch
and
3.65
percent
participating
in
the
school
breakfast
program
(USDA
Food
Atlas
2015).
In
Vermont,
90,311
students
are
enrolled
in
the
school
lunch
program
and
36,728
are
eligible
for
free
and
reduced
price
meals.
The
statewide
average
eligibility
is
40.6
percent
(Vermont
Agency
of
Education
2015).
Among
Rutland
County’s
seven
school
districts,
however,
the
average
is
higher
at
44
percent
(Head
Start
2015).
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Rutland
County
ReachUp
3SquaresVT
(food
stamps)

6. 5
In
addition
to
a
growing
low-­‐income
population,
Rutland
County’s
general
food
security
decreased
after
grocery
stores
closed
and
left
many
residents
with
“low
access”
to
food
outlets,
as
defined
by
the
2015
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture’s
Food
Environment
Atlas.
In
2010,
10.3
percent
of
county
residents,
or
6,358,
had
“low
access”
to
food
stores;
among
that
figure,
the
number
of
low-­‐income
households
with
“low
access”
to
food
stores
was
2,137,
an
increase
of
3.5
percent.
From
2007
to
2012,
the
number
of
grocery
stores
in
the
county
decreased
by
almost
21
percent,
dropping
from
24
stores
to
19.
Grocery
stores
per
1,000
population
declined
by
17.6
percent.
Even
so,
the
number
of
stores
and
outlets,
including
local
farmers’
markets,
authorized
to
take
food
assistance
or
SNAP
benefits
grew
by
45
percent
between
2008
and
2012.
There
were
zero
superstores
or
supercenters
in
the
region.
The
number
of
convenience
stores
stayed
flat
in
that
period,
at
61.
Fast-­‐food
restaurants,
however,
grew
4
percent
as
a
percentage
of
population
(USDA
Food
Atlas
2015).
The
result:
Almost
13
percent
of
households
in
Rutland
County
were
classified
as
food
insecure,
an
increase
from
9
percent
in
2000
to
2002
data.
Within
the
13
percent
of
food
insecure
households,
nearly
half
were
classified
as
having
“very
low”
food
security.
(See
Chart
3).
Additionally,
8
percent
of
food
insecure
households
reported
child
food
insecurity
in
a
multi-­‐
year
average
from
2003
to
2011
(USDA
Food
Atlas
2015).
The
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture
ranks
food
security
on
four
levels.
It
defines
low
food
security
as
reduced
food
quality,
variety
or
desirability
of
diet.
Very
low
food
security
is
reduced
food
intake
and
multiple
reports
of
disrupted
eating
patterns
(USDA
Food
Security
2015).
Chart
3:
Total
food
insecure
population,
percentage
averaged
from
2010-­‐12,
was
nearly
13
percent
–
or
12.7
percent.
Child
food
insecurity,
percentage
averaged
from
2003-­‐2011,
was
8
percent.
USDA
Food
Environment
Atlas,
2015.
87%
7%
6%
6%
RUTLAND,COUNTY,FOOD,INSECURITY,NEARS,13%,,
201092012
Food$secure*households*(87.3%)
Total*household*food*isecurity*(12.7%,*three$year*average,*2010$2012)
Household*Very*Low*food*security*(5.6%,*three$year*average,* 2010$2012)

7. 6
A
Bifurcated
Foodshed
Rutland
County
is
a
regional
foodshed,
identified
by
its
small
but
thriving
sustainable
agriculture
movement,
involved
citizenry
and
two
key,
non-­‐profit
initiatives
that
form
its
center
–
the
Rutland
Area
Farm
to
Food
Link
(RAFFL)
and
the
year-­‐round
Vermont
Farmers
Market.
Many
residents
have
deep
family
roots
here,
strong
ties
to
the
land
and
its
farmers,
and
sturdy
community
connections.
Over
the
years,
a
growing
partnership
of
citizens,
small
farmers
and
food
activists
have
made
use
of
the
county’s
unique
“sense
of
place”
to
successfully
build
a
regional
food
movement
that
today
espouses
a
“sense
of
taste,”
thanks
to
the
bounty
of
locally
grown
seasonal
foods
it
dependably
offers
consumers
(Ackerman-­‐Leist
2013,
9).
Bolstered
by
community
support,
the
rural
county
is
witnessing
a
boom
in
local
farmers’
markets,
community-­‐assisted
agriculture
and
farm
stands
(Census,
2014).
Steadily,
it
is
working
to
improve
its
local
food
resilience
through
successful
grassroots
initiatives
and
through
Vermont’s
statewide
food
system
programs
such
as
farm-­‐to-­‐schools
and
Farm
to
Plate
(Farm
to
Plate
2015).
Rutland
County’s
“relocalizing”
food
system
efforts
underscore
the
increasingly
fungible
nature
of
food
in
today’s
globalized
world.
The
ability
to
access
dependable
fresh
food
supplies
is
an
ever-­‐increasing
value;
indeed,
“one
might
venture
to
suggest
that
food
is
as
much
a
force
to
be
reckoned
with
as
is
money”
(McMichael
2000).
At
the
same
time,
however,
local
farmers
in
Rutland
County
continue
to
weather
financially
difficult
times.
Despite
the
growing
popularity
of
local
organic
agriculture
and
the
various
state
efforts,
Rutland
County
is
losing
farms
and
the
acreage
of
farms
is
declining.
Further,
the
farmers
who
do
remain
in
operation
are
struggling
and
are
receiving
more
federal
farm
assistance
program
payments.
(See
Charts
4
and
5).
Chart
4:
Rutland
County
lost
3
percent
of
its
farms
from
2007-­‐2012,
going
from
658
farms
to
640
farms.
USDA
2012
Census
of
Agriculture,
County
Profile,
Rutland
County,
Vermont.
658
640
2007 2012
Number,of,Rutland,County,farms

8. 7
Chart
5:
From
2007
to
2012,
government
farm
payments
increased
98
percent,
while
the
average
payment
per
farm
rose
61
percent,
from
$4,232
to
$6,816.
USDA
2012
Census
of
Agriculture,
County
Profile,
Rutland
County,
Vermont.
Beyond
local
agricultural
difficulties,
traditional
grocery
stores
have
declined
in
number
and
more
residents
are
experiencing
food
insecurity,
as
evidenced
through
growth
in
food
assistance
programs
(USDA
Food
Environment
Atlas
2015).
Although
the
state’s
farm-­‐to-­‐school
programs
and
federal
school
breakfast
and
lunch
programs
sufficiently
address
the
issue
of
child
hunger
at
schools,
there
is
a
gap
in
addressing
low-­‐income
household
hunger
and
food
insecurity
at
children’s
homes.
$571,000
$4,232
$1,131,000
$6,816
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Government4farm4payments Average4per4farm
Government4Farm4Payments,4Rutland4County
2007 2012

9. 8
The
result
is
a
growing
fracture
in
Rutland
County
food
system
that
is
making
the
overall
foodshed
less
resilient,
increasingly
fragile
and
more
vulnerable.
Even
as
the
sustainable
agriculture
movement
grows
in
portions
of
the
region,
more
people
are
living
in
poverty
elsewhere
and
receiving
inequitable
food
options.
And
this
low-­‐income
population,
highly
marginalized,
is
not
part
of
the
food
security
conversation.
The
pressures
in
the
Rutland
County
foodshed
have
unintentionally
created
a
bifurcated
food
system
that
at
one
extreme
shows
stable
fragility,
resilience
and
even
a
local
food
renaissance,
but
at
the
other
end
shows
a
broken
foodshed
with
negative
resilience,
increasing
food
insecurity
and
a
disconnected
population.
(See
Chart
6).
The
broken
aspect
of
the
foodshed
must
be
repaired
in
order
for
the
system
overall
to
be
sustainable
and
healthy.
Chart
6:
The
food
security
of
the
Rutland
County
food
system
is
split,
with
strong
and
growing
resilience
at
one
end,
and
extreme
fragility,
to
the
point
of
dysfunction,
and
growing
negative
resilience
for
its
low-­‐income
population.

10. 9
A
Holistic
Solution:
Farmers
for
All
Families
Strategically,
Farmers
for
all
Families
increases
regional
food
security
by
aggressively
addressing
the
plight
of
low-­‐income
families
and
by
providing
small
farmers
with
a
new
and
dependable
revenue
stream.
Aiding
farmers
generates
long-­‐term
and
long-­‐lasting
benefits
to
the
food
system.
Increasing
local
farm
production
and
bringing
more
local
food
to
area
markets
will
create
“a
stronger
and
more
diverse
customer
base”
(Ackerman-­‐Leist
2013).
And
that,
in
turn,
gives
the
community
more
economically
viable
farmers.
Further,
farmers’
markets
have
been
linked
directly
to
food
security
programs
because
more
of
these
local
outlets,
including
those
in
Rutland
County,
accept
food
assistance
benefits
like
SNAP.
Still,
farmers’
markets
haven’t
been
asked
to
play
a
lead
role
in
food
security
efforts
because
of
possible
seasonal
disruptions
in
growing
food
and
the
fact
that
some
farm-­‐fresh
foods
are
priced
too
high
for
low-­‐income
families
(Martinez
2010).
This
reality
underscores
the
argument
for
creating
a
mechanism
to
provide
publicly
funding
CSA
memberships
for
low-­‐income
families.
The
Farmers
for
All
Families
initiative
will
help
create
a
“more
diversified
and
localized
agriculture
that
diminishes
the
food
system’s
vulnerability”
to
disruption,
whether
from
national
supply
chain
interruptions,
accidents
or
global
terrorism
(Hinrichs
2013).
Chart
7
shows
the
evolving
organic
linkages
that
will
be
created
by
Farmers
for
All
Families.
Chart
7.
The
organic
regional
impact
of
infusing
publicly
funded
CSA
memberships
for
low-­‐income
families
into
Rutland
County
will
be
enormously
positive
for
all
players
in
the
program,
including
the
community
at
large.
Federal
monies
fund
low-­‐income
CSA
memberships
between
small
farmers
and
low-­‐
income
families
Rutland
County
Low-­‐Income
and
Food
Insecure
Families
More
inclusion
&
civic
support
RAFFL
cooking
classes
Rutland
County
Food
Hubs:
Food
collection
and
distribution
Farmers
for
All
Families:
New
CSA
funds
give
farmers
additional
revenue
stream
to
grow
more
fresh
foods,
and
innovate

11. 10
The
Reimagined
Food
System
Hunger
is
not
a
problem
of
individuals
but
rather
a
problem
of
dysfunction
within
a
community’s
organization
and
structure
of
its
food
system
(Gottlief
and
Joshi
2013).
The
good
news
is
that
a
community
such
as
Rutland
County
has
the
power
to
reimagine
and
rebuild
its
broken
food
system,
providing
all
constituents
with
equitable
access
to
fresh,
local
and
healthy
foods.
The
cost
of
Farmers
for
All
Families
is
proposed
at
$600
per
year
for
the
6,370
households
currently
receiving
assistance,
totaling
$3.8
million
per
year.
The
cost
of
CSA
membership
varies
widely
in
Rutland
County,
from
$2,285
for
a
full-­‐year
share
to
$20
voucher
programs
(NOFA-­‐VT
2013).
Also,
differences
in
the
vast
array
of
products
offered
by
farmers
make
it
“difficult
to
compare
share
costs
across
farms”
(NOFA-­‐VT
2013).
It
is
reasonable,
then,
for
the
program
to
offer
$50
per
month
allotments
per
household,
for
annual
shares
of
$600.
This
assumes
one
to
two
adults
and
one
child,
per
household.
A
sliding
scale
would
be
used
in
the
program’s
implementation
to
account
for
varying
numbers
of
children
per
household,
allowing
families
with
more
children
to
receive
additional
CSA
shares.
The
overall
cost
of
the
three-­‐year
pilot
program
is
projected
to
be
$11.46
million.
Infusing
this
new
funding
into
the
region
will
create
a
positive
economic
multiplier
effect
in
Rutland
County
while
providing
local
farmers
with
a
much-­‐needed
dependable
source
of
new
revenue.
It
ultimately
may
decrease
area
farmers’
dependency
on
federal
farm
programs
and
bring
more
foundational
economic
stability
to
both
regional
farms
and
the
regional
economy.
Minimal
overhead
costs
are
anticipated
in
implementing
the
three-­‐year
program.
Annual
reports
will
track
all
expenditures;
reflect
findings
of
yearly
surveys
of
both
recipient
households
and
participating
local
farmers;
and
analyze
the
economic
impacts
on
the
sustainable
agriculture
community
and
the
regional
foodshed’s
overall
health.
As
noted
earlier,
all
adults
in
low-­‐income
households
receiving
publicly
funded
CSAs
must
attend
food
preparation
and
cooking
classes,
which
currently
are
hosted
by
RAFFL.
Failure
to
attend
these
classes
will
result
in
termination
of
the
CSA
membership.
Each
December
30,
the
program’s
annual
reports
will
be
presented
to
the
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
the
Vermont
Farm
to
Plate
Initiative,
the
Vermont
Sustainable
Jobs
Fund
and
the
Governor’s
Office
for
review
and
approval,
in
addition
to
operational
tweaks
to
improve
outcomes.
Once
the
Farmers
for
All
Families
program
is
under
way,
the
reimagined
food
system
in
Rutland
County
will
become
a
sustainable,
viable
organism.
It
no
longer
will
be
fractured
and
its
various
segments
no
longer
will
be
working
at
cross-­‐purposes.
(See
Chart
8).
Rather,
each
sector’s
operation
will
build
upon
and
support
the
other,
creating
a
more
resilient
and
far
less
fragile
food
system.
The
status
of
food
hubs
and
sustainable
agriculture
organizations
in
the
county,
as
well
as
key
roles
played
by
activist
citizens
and
involved
consumers,
also
will
be
enhanced
through
additional
responsibilities
and
community
expectations.
Importantly,
the
program
will
bridge
the
food
security
gap
that
now
exists
between
school-­‐
centric
food
assistance
programs
and
families
living
in
low-­‐income
situations.
By
enrolling
low-­‐
income
families
in
CSA
memberships
and
providing
cooking
and
food
information
classes,
these
households
will
become
more
food
secure
and
food
savvy.

12. 11
Welcoming
into
the
community-­‐at-­‐large
a
whole
segment
of
the
population
that
currently
is
being
marginalized
is
a
core
principle
of
Farmers
for
All
Families.
Through
such
inclusion,
the
program
will
secure
more
equity
within
the
foodshed
and
further
the
goals
of
food
justice,
which
is
advocacy
for
“those
who
lack
access
to
healthy,
fresh,
local
and
just
food”
(Gottlieb
and
Joshi
2013).
Farmers
for
All
Families
is
an
aggressive
effort
to
affirmatively
confront
and
resolve
the
mounting
food
insecurity
crisis
that
plagues
one
of
Vermont’s
poorest
counties.
With
its
prospects
for
increasing
household
food
security,
improving
health
profiles,
and
providing
more
economic
stability
–
in
addition
to
rejuvenating
the
county’s
struggling
local
farming
community
–
the
program
has
the
potential
to
be
a
model
for
tackling
issues
of
hunger
and
fair
food
access
throughout
Vermont.
Chart
8.
The
reimagined
regional
foodshed
of
Rutland
County
will
be
resilient
and
sustainable,
with
positive
effects
that
extend
beyond
the
participants
and
which
benefit
the
community
as
a
whole.
References
Vermont
Agency
of
Agriculture,
Food
and
Markets.
2014.
“Using
Food
Hubs
to
Create
Sustainable
Farm-­‐to-­‐School
Programs.”
Accessed
October
25,
2015.
http://agriculture.vermont.gov/sites/ag/files/FoodHubs_FTSProgram%20Guide.pdf
• Fills
family
gap
in
Vermont's
farm-­‐to-­‐
school
programs,
complements
Farm-­‐
to-­‐Plate
initiative
• Provides
food
education
to
needy
families,
building
networks
with
farmers
and
the
community
• BeneAits
farmers
and
strengthens
stability
of
Rutland
County
food
system
• Addresses
household
poverty
by
targeting
family
food
inseurity
Increased
food
security
for
familiies
Expanded
markets
for
local
farmers
Added
resilience
in
food
system
Enhanced
connections
to
community

13. 12
Ikerd,
John.
2010.
“Rethinking
Sustainability:
Food
as
a
Metaphor.”
Prepared
for
presentation
at
the
Global
Think-­‐In
Conference
on
the
Environment,
Economics
and
Equity.
Central
Michigan
University.
April
20.
p
5.
McMichael,
Philip.
2000.
“The
Power
of
Food.”
Agriculture
and
Human
Values.
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers.
The
Netherlands.
pp
21-­‐22.
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
2012.
Census
of
Agriculture.
County
Profile.
Rutland
County,
Vermont.
Accessed
October
29,
2015.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Vermont/cp50021.pdf
Rutland
Community
Garden.
2015.
Rutland
City
Recreation
and
Parks
Department.
Accessed
October
27,
2015.
https://communitygarden.org/find-­‐a-­‐garden/gardens/rutland-­‐community-­‐garden/
U.S.
Census
Bureau.
2015.
“State
&
County
QuickFacts.”
Vermont
and
Rutland
County,
Vermont.
Accessed
October
20,
2015.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50/50021.html
Heller,
Martin
C.,
and
Keoleian,
Gregory
A.
2000.
“Life
Cycle-­‐Based
Sustainability
Indicators
for
Assessment
of
the
U.S.
Food
System.”
Center
for
Sustainable
Systems.
University
of
Michigan.
December
6.
pp
30-­‐31.
Rutland
County
Head
Start.
2015.
“2015-­‐2016
Community
Assessment.”
August
2015.
Accessed
October
29,
2015.
file:///Users/jeannineguttman/Downloads/RCHS_2015-­‐2016_Community_Assessment.pdf
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
2015.
Food
and
Nutrition
Service.
“Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance
Program
(SNAP).”
Accessed
October
29,
2015.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-­‐nutrition-­‐assistance-­‐program-­‐
snap
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
2015.
“Environmental
Food
Atlas.”
Rutland,
Vermont
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-­‐
products/food-­‐environment-­‐atlas/go-­‐to-­‐the-­‐atlas.aspx
Vermont
Agency
of
Education.
2015.
“Child
Nutrition
Programs:
Annual
Statistical
Report.”
School
Year
2013-­‐2014.
pp
4,
16-­‐18.
Accessed
October
29,
2015.
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-­‐
Child_Nutrition_Eligibility_Report.pdf
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
2015.
“Definitions
of
Food
Security.”
Economic
Research
Service.
Accessed
October
29,
2015.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-­‐nutrition-­‐assistance/food-­‐security-­‐in-­‐the-­‐us/definitions-­‐of-­‐food-­‐security.aspx
Ackerman-­‐Leist,
Philip.
2013.
Rebuilding
the
Foodshed:
How
to
Create
Local,
Sustainable
and
Secure
Food
Systems.
Vermont:
Chelsea
Green.
Martinez,
Steve,
et
al.
2010.
“Local
Food
Systems:
Concepts,
Impacts
and
Issues.”
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
Economic
Research
Service.
ERS
Report
No.
97.
May.
Hinrichs,
Clare
C.
2013.
“Regionalizing
food
security?
Imperatives,
intersections
and
contestations
in
a
post-­‐9/11
world.”
Journal
of
Rural
Studies.
Food
Security.
Elsevier:
Volume
29.
January.
Gottlieb,
Robert
and
Joshi,
Anupama.
2013.
Food
Justice.
Massachusetts:
The
MIT
Press.
pp
229,
149.
Northeast
Organic
Farming
Association
of
Vermont
(NOFA-­‐VT).
2013.
“Vermont
CSA
Report
-­‐
2013.”
Accessed
October
30,
2015.
http://nofavt.org/sites/default/files/CSA%20Report%202013.pdf