This document summarizes a presentation on research, evaluation, and visioning for farm to school programs. It discusses the development of a farm to school activity tracker tool to quantify and compare programs. Presenters described how the tool evaluates programs across four domains: variety, frequency, minutes, and engagement activities. Analysis found domain scores from the tool correlated with expert scores, providing validity. Evaluation results also linked stronger scores in some domains like procurement and classroom education with improved student nutrition knowledge and vegetable consumption. The presentation aimed to advance evaluation priorities in Wisconsin farm to school programs.

1. Research,
Evaluation,
&
Visioning
Claire
Berezowitz,
University
of
Wisconsin-­‐Madison
Andrea
Bontrager
Yoder,
University
of
Wisconsin-­‐Madison
Beth
Hanna,
Community
GroundWorks
Wisconsin
Farm
to
School
Summit
Thursday,
January
29,
2015
Wisconsin
Rapids,
WI

2. Who
is
here
today?

3. JEOPARDY
GAME!
jeopardylabs.com/play/wisconsin-­‐farm-­‐to-­‐school

4. FARM
TO
SCHOOL
ACTIVITY
TRACKER

5. Project
History

6. Why
track
program
activity?
• Common
language
• Common
quanOficaOon
• Compare
between
schools
• Track
development
within
school
across
Ome

7. What
is
“Comprehensive”
F2S?
• Describe
tool:
• Four
domains:
• Variety
• Frequency
• Minutes
Engagement
acOviOes
School
gardens
NutriOon,
agriculture
educaOon
Local
foods
in
school
meals

8. FARM
TO
SCHOOL
ACTIVITY
TRACKER
Audience
parOcipaOon!

9. Does
it
work?
• Monthly
acOvity
reports,
2010-­‐2011
• Enter
into
AcOvity
Tracker
• Program
managers
score
(1-­‐10)
each
site
• Correlate
domain
scores
with
expert
scores
• Three
months
of
acOvity
data,
Fall
2013
• 5
raters
enter
into
AcOvity
Tracker
–
assess
for
inter-­‐rater
reliability
according
to:
• Same
entries?
• Same
domain-­‐level
scores?

10. Domain
Scores
correlate
with
Expert
Scores
Predictor
Spearman
Rank
Correla=on
Coefficient
(r)
Procurement:
Variety
0.63***
Procurement:
Frequency
0.71***
Classroom:
Number
of
lessons
0.45**
Classroom:
Number
of
minutes
0.23
Engagement:
Number
of
ac=vi=es
0.71***
Garden:
Number
of
visits
0.42**
Garden:
Number
of
minutes
data
not
collected
***
p<.0001
**
p<.001
*
p<.05

11. BeneTits
of
tracking
F2S
activity
• Common
language
• Common
quanOficaOon
• Compare
between
schools
• Track
development
within
school
across
Ome

12. EVALUATION
FRAMEWORK
ACTIVITY
Let’s
move
around!

13. Wrap
up
• QuesOons/comments?
• How
can
we
move
F2S
evaluaOon
prioriOes
forward
in
Wisconsin?
• Other
evaluaOon
tools:
• See
Wisconsin
F2S
Toolkit:
hip://www.cias.wisc.edu/toolkits/

14. Contact
information
• Claire
Berezowitz
• ckberezowitz@wisc.edu
• Andrea
Bontrager
Yoder
• ayoder@wisc.edu,
abontrageryoder@gmail.com
• Beth
Hanna
• beth@communitygroundworks.org

16. Student
Outcomes
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
1
≥2
%
of
Trays
Percent
of
Trays
with
no
FV
disappearance
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
1
≥2
%
of
Trays
Percent
of
Trays
with
no
FV
items
Fall
2010
May
2011
***
***
***
***
*

17. 0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Percent
of
trays
with
no
FV
items,
2010-­‐2011
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Percent
of
trays
with
no
FV
consumed,
2010-­‐2011
Fall
2010
Spring
2011

18. Domain
Scores
correlate
with
Student
Outcomes
***
p<.0001
**
p<.001
*
p<.05
• Correlates
with
improvements
in
Knowledge
scores:
• School
Meals:
Source,
Frequency
• Correlates
with
improvements
in
percent
of
students
with
no
FV
consumed:
• School
Meals:
Source,
Variety
• Classroom
Educa<on:
Number
of
lessons
• Engagement
Ac<vi<es:
Number
of
ac<vi<es
• Garden
Ac<vi<es:
Number
of
ac<vi<es