Does School Size Affect Interest for Purchasing Local Foods in the Midwest?

Abstract

Background:

Due to the recent surge in environmental consciousness and the need to address childhood obesity, Farm to School programs have gained momentum. Even though Farm to School programs have increased in popularity, many schools still fail to take advantage of the benefits from such programs. School food service employees’ lack of familiarity with the benefits of Farm to School programs or the means to overcome obstacles to implement such programs, along with school size, may represent key variables that serve to explain why more schools do not purchase more local foods for their schools.

Methods:

This study used a convenience sampling methodology to gather information regarding food service employees' perceptions of the benefits and obstacles and their attitudes to purchasing and serving local foods in their schools. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from school food service employees in southern Illinois. Data (n=151) were collected from 60 schools, representing 16 counties during the month of December, 2009.

Results:

Purchasers from large- and medium-size schools perceived the “ability to know product sources” as a greater benefit to purchasing local food and perceived “cost of food,” “adequate volume,” “reliable supply of food quantity,” “payment arrangement,” and “packing material” as greater obstacles (p<0.05) compared to small schools. In addition, results indicated that food service employees were interested in receiving training to prepare and serve more local foods.

Conclusions:

Findings from this study indicate a need for continued education, development, and training to better prepare school food service purchasers in southern Illinois for how to buy more local foods to meet the 2020 legislation requiring schools to purchase at least 10% locally.

Introduction

Habitual consumption of energy-dense foods instead of nutrient-dense foods, even in school meals, is a cause for concern and has attracted the attention of prominent people. First Lady Michelle Obama began a national initiative called “Let's Move!” to improve the health of school-aged children. One of the aims of Let's Move! is to improve the health of children by improving the quality and nutritional content of school meals and reducing the amount of processed foods children consume.

The Child Nutrition and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Local School Wellness Policy) (CNWICRA) mandated all schools to develop and implement a comprehensive health and nutrition-related policy aimed at improving health-related issues within specific policy guidelines.¹ Schools were expected to develop, initiate, and maintain a local school wellness policy by July 1, 2006. This legislation, plus current environmental, economic, and childhood health concerns have given rise to interest in Farm to School programs among school employees, administrators, and community members. Farm to School programs aim to combat childhood obesity, poor school nutrition environments, and other negative environmental and farmer-related economic trends associated with Americans' increased access to and consumption of highly processed, energy-dense foods.^2–4 Farm to School programs have positively influenced changes in school food service environments by: (1) Increasing the amount and variety of fresh produce in school food service programs; (2) increasing students' fruit and vegetable consumption; (3) increasing school meal participation; (4) improving students' understanding of nutrition education concepts related to Farm to School programs; and (5) decreasing school meal waste.^5–7 These findings indicate students may be receptive to Farm to School programs and benefit from their implementation. Farm to School program successes can be linked to education components that encourage school meal participation, improve classroom learning experiences related to Farm to School topics, and meet school curricula guidelines. Specifically, Farm to School programs that included the following components have proven successful: (1) Food and nutrition-focused educational and interactive learning activities such as school gardens, farm field trips, farmer visits, and lectures, (2) classroom learning experiences, and (3) marketing techniques and activities related to local food items in the school cafeteria.^1,7,8

Even though Farm to School programs have increased in popularity, many schools still fail to take advantage of the benefits that they might confer.^2,4 The perceived benefits and obstacles of such programs are influenced by the school system and how food service operates within that system. The perceived obstacles of Farm to School may explain why more schools do not implement such programs. School food service staff's lack of familiarity with the benefits of Farm to School programs and/or means to overcome obstacles to implement such programs are important variables that serve to explain why more schools do not participate. Obstacles concerning purchasing and serving more local food when implementing Farm to School programs may be due to: (1) Increased food preparation time; (2) food service workers' skill level, labor, and training; (3) food safety monitoring procedures; (4) food deliveries and storage space; and (5) inconvenience.^9,10

Benefits of and obstacles to implementing Farm to School programs are based on many factors. Some of these issues may specifically be associated with the size and geographical location of the schools.¹⁰ For example, larger schools tend to have centralized kitchens with streamlined and efficient procurement and production practices. Schools with centralized kitchens are not as susceptible to an increase in cost when implementing a Farm to School program; however, changes in preparation to implement such a program have been shown to interrupt operational flow of the food service system. In contrast, smaller schools tend to have more flexibility with meal production and preparation methods and may have a stronger link with agriculture.^10,11 A study comparing the food environment in small and large rural schools found that students in small schools consumed fewer fat and energy calories compared with those in large schools. Large rural schools were defined as serving 350 lunches or more.¹²

In 2006, Izumi, Alaimo, and Hamm conducted qualitative interviews with school food service purchasers in the Northeast and upper Midwest region of the United States to understand why they participated in Farm to School strategies. School size and districts of the participants ranged from 2500 to more than 40,000 students. Three of seven purchased food directly from the farmer, whereas the remaining four purchasers used a combination of methods to purchase local food (distributor, wholesaler, farmer).¹³ Three major themes emerged regarding why school food service purchasers participated in Farm to School programs: Students liked it, price was right, and helping local farmers.¹³

A 2010 study conducted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) surveyed members of the Minnesota School Nutrition Association on their perceptions of and experiences with Farm to School after 3 years of implementation. Results were encouraging, with a 75% participation rate where school size varied from 100 to 39,000 enrolled students. The greatest barriers were time, labor, price, and local farm supply access.¹⁴

Differences in school food service employees' perceptions of benefits to purchasing and serving more local foods in schools may be linked to school or community size.¹⁰ Purchasers located in rural regions may value fresh, local foods more because of their close connection with agriculture.

The current investigation is important because it explores existing information about benefits and obstacles that food service purchasers and employees perceive while implementing Farm to School programs. Information concerning benefits, as well as obstacles, will help school administrators, food service directors, as well as food service employees, encourage participation in Farm to School programs. In addition, knowledge and identification of food service purchasers' perceptions of benefits and obstacles to purchasing and serving more local foods as it is related to school size needs to be investigated. Ultimately, as more schools participate in Farm to School programs, the nutritional quality of children's diets will improve, and, it is hoped, the rate of childhood obesity will begin to decline and small- and medium-sized farmers' incomes will begin to rise.

Research Methods

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the influence that school size has on elementary and secondary school food service employees' perceptions of the benefits and obstacles, and their attitudes to purchasing local foods. A self-administered survey was used to collect data from school food service employees in 16 counties of the rural Midwest. The following research questions were asked:

1. “What do school food service purchasers perceive as benefits and obstacles to purchasing local food for their school cafeterias?”

2. “Are there differences in purchasers' perceptions of the benefits and obstacles to purchasing local foods based on school size?”

3. “Are school food service employees interested in receiving training to prepare and serve more local foods in their food service program?”

4. “Are school food service purchasers interested in assistance in order to train their staff on preparing more local foods within their school food service program?”

Sample Population

The sample population under study was school food service directors (who purchase food) and employees from schools in 16 counties of southern Illinois. Food service directors and employees completed surveys describing their perceptions and opinions regarding the benefits and obstacles to purchasing and serving more local foods in their schools and information about their food service program. Southern Illinois University's Human Subjects Committee approved the research design.

Data Collection

Three data collection methods were used in the study: (1) Self-administered surveys distributed by research assistants at a school food service workshop; (2) research assistants visited one elementary and one high school in each county distributing the self-administered survey; and (3) a survey was mailed to the remaining 68 school food service directors and employees unable to attend the school food service workshop and schools that research assistants were unable to visit. A cover letter explaining the study and survey completion procedures was included with all surveys. On-site completed surveys were collected by two research assistants. Mailed surveys included directions and self-addressed return stamped envelopes for completion. Participants were asked to complete questions to the best of their ability and given a deadline date to return completed surveys.

Development of Questionnaire

The instrument used in this study was a self-administered questionnaire based on survey questions developed from previous related research from Iowa and Michigan.^10,13 To develop the questionnaire for the present investigation, research assistants conducted two 30-minute phone interviews with food service directors to gain general information about southern Illinois food service directors' perceptions and opinions concerning benefits and obstacles to purchasing and serving more local foods in their schools.

The survey was reviewed by a panel of experts. The expert panel included statewide stakeholders who attended an Illinois Farm to School meeting sponsored by the National Farm to School Network. Subsequent changes were made based on expert opinion and feedback.

Survey Questionnaire

The questionnaire addressed four areas of perceptions and attitudes about local food purchasing and serving practices: (1) Benefits to purchasing local food; (2) obstacles to purchasing local food; (3) attitudes about purchasing more local foods; and (4) school food service program information. In sections I and II, food service directors and employees were asked to respond to items perceived as benefits or obstacles to purchasing and serving local foods. Items were evaluated using a Likert scale of 1–5 in agreement (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree). Sections III and IV were exploratory in nature. In section III of the questionnaire, food service employees were asked to indicate their interest in local food purchasing, preparing, serving, and training practices. Section IV asked food service directors about their interest in buying and receiving resources to purchase more local foods. Responses to sections III and IV ranged from a yes/no format to a Likert scale of 1–5 in agreement (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree) concerning their interest in local food purchasing, preparing, serving, and training practices. In addition, participants were requested to respond to questions concerning demographic information about their food service programs in general.

Data Analysis

A total of 151 surveys were completed and analyzed using SPSS version 16.0 (Chicago, IL). Schools were divided into three categories—small, medium, or large—based on response to total meals served at lunch. For the present study, cutoff ranges for school size were determined by ranking participants' responses into one of three categories using the 33.33 and 66.66 percentiles. Specifically, small schools (n=14) served less than 200 student lunches daily, medium schools (n=26) served between 201 and 400 lunches daily, and large schools (n=20) served 400+ student lunches daily. The number of lunches served daily in schools ranged from 58 to 1684.

Data were analyzed with the aid of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare school food service directors' perceptions of benefits and obstacles according to their school's sizes.

Results

Surveys were distributed to school food service directors and employees to gain an understanding of their perceptions regarding the benefits and obstacles, and their attitudes to purchasing local food and to evaluate if perceptions were distinct to school size. A total of 151 surveys from 60 schools were collected for use in this study. This resulted in a school response rate of 57% for the region. Of the 151 surveys received, 78 respondents identified themselves as food service purchasers and 62 were self-identified as school food service employees. Of the 151 surveys, 11 did not indicate if they purchased food or not and therefore they were not included in the statistical analysis.

Responses from the 78 purchaser surveys were divided into three school categories, small (0–200 meals), medium (201–400 meals), and large (>400 meals), based on the number of meals served at lunch. Data were entered and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 16 (Chicago, IL). Statistical significance was determined at p≤0.05.

“What do school food service purchasers perceive as the benefits and obstacles to purchasing local food for their school cafeterias?“

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of food service purchasers' responses to the 13 benefit variables for purchasing more local foods analyzed in the study. Overall, school food service purchasers perceived all of the variables as benefits to purchasing local food as mean scores were higher than the neutral point of 3.00. The top three perceived benefits were “support local Illinois farms and communities,” “good public relations,” and “access to fresher foods.” The benefit with the lowest mean score (3.78) was “less expensive foods.” These findings indicate that food service purchasers perceived many benefits to purchasing local foods. Specifically, food service purchasers viewed opportunities to support their community and economy, along with opportunities to obtain fresh, high-quality, nutritious foods, as the most important advantages to purchasing local food.

Table 1.

Mean Scores for School Food Service Purchasers' Perceptions of Benefits to Purchasing Local Foods

Variables	N	Mean	SD
Benefits
Support local Illinois farms and communities	76	4.67	0.74
Good public relations	78	4.49	0.82
Access to fresher food	77	4.48	0.87
Higher quality foods	78	4.31	0.87
Higher nutritional value	77	4.31	0.87
Higher consumption of fruits and vegetables	78	4.27	0.92
Lower transportation cost	78	4.26	0.95
Ability to purchase smaller quantities	77	4.26	1.01
Higher nutritional value	77	4.17	0.99
Buyer knows product sources	77	4.09	1.08
Less use of pesticides	76	3.97	1.05
Ability to purchase special varieties of produce	78	3.96	1.09
Less expensive foods	77	3.78	1.12

Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

SD, standard deviation.

A total of 17 obstacle variables were analyzed (see Table 2). Overall, school food service purchasers perceived all of the variables as slight or strong obstacles to purchasing local food as all mean scores were above the neutral point, again. Out of the variables, purchasers considered the greatest obstacles to purchasing local foods to be “seasonality of Illinois fruits and vegetables,” “reliable supply of food quantity,” and “cost of food.” Purchasers believed the least greatest obstacle was “lack of trained staff to prepare fresh produce/raw bulk meat, etc.” These results indicate that food service purchasers view items related to seasonal availability, volume, quality, and safety of food as the most challenging obstacles to purchasing more local food. Results also indicate that purchasers were in slightly less agreement with their school food service internal issues concerning local food procurement such as staff training needs and lack of equipment.

Table 2.

Mean Scores for School Food Service Purchasers' Perceptions of Obstacles to Purchasing Local Foods

Variables	N	Mean	SD
Obstacles
Seasonality of Illinois fruits and vegetables	78	3.92	1.13
Reliable supply of food quantity	75	3.75	1.02
Cost of food	78	3.69	1.04
Delivery considerations	78	3.67	1.20
Food Safety Issues	78	3.65	1.13
Quality of food	78	3.63	1.31
Adequate volume	75	3.61	1.08
Local and state regulations	78	3.60	1.06
Ordering methods	76	3.58	1.11
Payment arrangement	77	3.52	1.13
Prime vendor considerations	73	3.49	1.02
Institutional purchasing policies	77	3.48	1.08
Buying food from additional vendors	77	3.48	1.08
Packaging material	78	3.42	1.16
Lack of equipment to prepare fresh produce or raw bulk meat, etc.	77	3.29	1.39
Lack of convenience	78	3.27	1.21
Lack of trained staff to prepare fresh produce/raw meat, etc.	78	3.21	1.28

Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

SD, standard deviation.

“Are there differences in purchasers' perceptions of the benefits and obstacles to purchasing local foods based on school size?”

An ANOVA test was used to determine if differences existed in perceived benefits to purchasing local foods among school food service purchasers based on small, medium, and large schools. Within the three food service purchaser groups, 14 schools were classified as small (Group 1), 26 as medium (Group 2), and 20 as large (Group 3). School size categories were determined by the number of lunch meals served daily. The ANOVA revealed statistically significant (p≤0.05) group effects for school size for the following benefit: “Buyer knows product sources.”

Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) test revealed that statistically significant (p≤0.05) differences existed between Group 1 (small schools) and 3 (large schools) for the benefit “buyer knows product sources.” All small school benefit mean values were lower than medium and large schools benefit mean values, and all large school benefit mean values were higher than medium school size mean values except for the benefit, “ability to purchase smaller quantities of food.” Overall, these results indicate there are some differences in food service purchasers' perceptions regarding the benefits to purchasing local food based on school size. In addition, these results indicate food service purchasers in large schools perceived greater benefits to purchasing local food compared to small and medium schools except for the ability to purchase in small quantities.

Differences in perceived obstacles to purchasing local foods were also tested using ANOVA to compare small, medium, and large schools. The ANOVA test revealed statistically significant differences (p≤0.05) among groups for the obstacles of “cost of food,” “adequate volume,” “reliable supply of food quantity,” “payment arrangement,” and “packaging material.”

LSD post hoc tests were performed and statistically significant differences were found between groups for several obstacle variables at p≤0.05. Statistically significant differences were found as follows: Between Group 1 (small schools) and 3 (large schools) for “cost of food,” Group 1 (small schools) and 2 (medium schools) and Group 1 (small schools) and 3 (large schools) for “adequate volume,” Group 1 (small schools) and Group 2 (medium schools) and Group 3 (large schools) for “reliable supply of food quantity,” Group 1 (small schools) and Group 2 (medium schools) and Group 3 (large schools) for “payment arrangement,” and Group 1 (small schools) and Group 2 (medium schools) and Group 3 (large schools) for “packaging material.” No significant differences were found between medium schools and large school means; all significant differences in groups were found between small and medium schools and small and large schools. All small school obstacles had lower mean scores compared to medium and large schools indicating small schools perceived fewer obstacles to purchasing local food compared to medium and large schools.

“Are school food service employees interested in receiving training to prepare and serve more local foods in their food service program?“

Three variables were used to evaluate school food service employees' interest in receiving training to prepare and serve more local foods in their food service program. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of food service employees' responses for these variables. Two variables, “I would be interested in serving more local foods in my school” and “I would like to learn new recipes for preparing local foods,” indicate that school food service employees were interested in serving more local foods as mean values were above 4.00. The mean score for variable, “I would like to receive more training on how to prepare and serve local foods” (3.50), indicates food service employees were interested in receiving food preparation training, but to a lesser degree, when compared to their interest in serving and receiving new recipes for local food in schools.

Table 3.

School Food Service Employees' Interest in Receiving Training To Prepare and Serve More Local Foods

Variables	N	Mean	SD
I would like to learn new recipes for preparing local foods.	49	4.17	0.926
I would be interested in serving more local foods in my school.	56	4.05	1.107
I would like to receive more training on how to prepare and serve local foods.	49	3.50	1.110

Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

SD, standard deviation.

“Are school food service purchasers interested in assistance in order to train their staff on preparing more local foods within their school food service program?”

A total of five variables were used to evaluate school food service purchasers' interest in obtaining more resources, assistance, and staff training to prepare local foods in their school food service programs. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of food service purchasers' responses for these variables. Mean responses for the variables, “I would like new recipes for preparing local foods,” “I will need assistance on ‘how to’ purchase local foods for my school,” and “I am interested in increasing my staff's food preparation skills through training,” indicated that food service purchasers were interested in pursuing these activities. For the variable, “I have the resources to train my food service employees to prepare meals with local foods,” mean responses indicated that purchasers felt they had the resources necessary. Food service purchasers' responses for the variable, “I would be willing to pay more for local foods,” indicated their disagreement regarding paying more for local foods.

Table 4.

School Food Service Purchasers' Interest in Receiving Training To Prepare and Serve More Local Foods

Variables	N	Mean	SD
I would like new recipes for preparing local foods.	58	4.17	0.920
I will need assistance on “how to” purchase local foods for my school.	58	3.88	1.141
I am interested in increasing my staff's food preparation skills through training.	59	3.80	1.141
I have the resources to train my food service employees to prepare meals with local foods.	59	3.07	1.172
I would be willing to pay more for local foods.	59	2.81	1.141

Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

SD, standard deviation.

Discussion

In this study, food service purchasers reported agreement with 13 benefits and 17 obstacles to purchasing more local food. Our data mirror similar previous research in this area.^7,10,15,16 Among the benefits, as identified by purchasers, “access to fresher food,” “good public relations,” and “supporting local Illinois farms and communities” were rated as the leading benefits. Among the obstacles analyzed, “seasonality of Illinois fresh fruits and vegetables,” “reliable supply of food quantity,” “cost of food,” and “delivery considerations” were rated as leading obstacles by school food service purchasers.

School food service purchasers from many Midwest regions are surrounded with indigenous agricultural ties because the environment is robust in farms, farmers' markets, foliage, and vegetation. Given the experience of purchasers with food procurement practices and involvement with the community where they live, their strong agreement with promoting their community relations and local economy is not surprising. Izumi, Alaimo, and Hamm suggested several reasons why purchasers value freshness so highly.¹³ Research indicates that school food service purchasers participating in Farm to School programs place high value on food freshness and taste and believe that local produce is fresher. School food service purchasers also believe that their students prefer local produce and consume more local foods than other cafeteria food.¹³

Findings from this study indicated differences in purchasers' perceptions of benefits and obstacles to purchasing more local food based on school size. Differences were seen in small versus large schools for the benefit “buyer knows product sources.” Mean scores from medium and large schools indicated a stronger perception of benefits when compared to purchasers at small schools. In most cases, food purchasers from large schools had higher mean scores for benefits to purchasing local food than either small or medium size schools. Larger school districts may have more resources, such as larger facilities and more equipment that allow them to efficiently process and serve more local food and fresh produce. Thus, large school systems may be more receptive to purchasing local foods when presented with the benefits.

Statistically significant differences in purchasers' perceptions of obstacles based on school size were found in the following variables: “cost of food,” “adequate volume,” “reliable supply of quantity,” “payment arrangement,” and “packing material.” Differences were found between small and medium schools and small and large schools except for the variable, “cost of food,” where the differences were seen only between small and large schools. Purchasers from the medium and large schools rated these obstacles as stronger when compared to purchasers at small schools.

These results were somewhat inconsistent with some previous research. For example, in the Iowa study, school food service purchasers from small communities rated similar benefits as large community schools.¹⁰ In contrast to the Iowa study, research from the Oklahoma Food Policy Council found that purchasers in large school districts were more interested in purchasing local food when compared to purchasers in small and medium schools that used canned fruits and vegetables rather than fresh fruits and vegetables.⁷

The results of the current study suggest that purchasers from smaller schools perceived obstacles related to cost, packing, payment and volume, and supply of food as less of a challenge than their counterparts in medium and large schools. These findings seem reasonable given that food service purchasers from small schools are looking for smaller quantities than their counterparts from medium and large schools. Payment arrangements in larger schools typically require more oversight, and/or larger schools purchase their supplies from a few reliable vendors where deliveries are invoiced and payments made on a 30-day notice. Smaller schools may have more access to “cash on delivery” type payments. Food service purchasers in small schools may be more willing to handle delivery and payment arrangement issues involving personal interaction with farmers whereas food service purchasers in large schools may not.

The results from this study indicate that school food service employees were interested in serving and preparing more local foods, as well as receiving more training on how to prepare local foods. Currently, no research has investigated school food service employees' specific interests related to their participation in Farm to School programs. This study indicates that school food service employees may view serving more local food as a positive practice. This is an important finding because it indicates that food service employees may be open-minded about the idea of supporting Farm to School programs. More specifically, it also indicates they may be open-minded about receiving training and resources to implement such programs. Providing school food service programs with training assistance and resources, supplemented with new recipes, should be considered by Farm to School program advocates when trying to encourage school food service employees to cooperate with and sustain Farm to School programs. Food service employees' attitudes could potentially have an impact on the acceptance and success of Farm to School programs.

The results from school food service purchasers indicate interest in receiving new recipes, assistance on how to purchase local foods, increasing their employees' local food preparation skills, and additional resources to train employees on preparing local foods, but they are not willing to pay more for local foods. Results from previous research are consistent with these findings in that school food service programs are deficient in equipment, space, and skilled staff to prepare more local foods; deficient in knowledge on how to purchase local foods; and deficient in funds to pay more for local foods.^5,13

Conclusions

Findings from this research should encourage Illinois state legislators to support and develop funding resources for more regional food purchasing programs to assure adherence to the Illinois General Assembly Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act of 2009 (ILFFJA).¹⁷ The results also indicate the need for Farm to School advocates to develop organized local food purchasing and delivery systems and make them convenient to facilitate widespread implementation of Farm to School programs and further assure adherence to the ILFFJA of 2009. The USDA would be the best body to organize local or regional food purchasing and distributing programs for schools since it: (1) Creates regulation policies for school meal food items; (2) has already tried to improve school meals by establishing programs (Department of Defense Fruit and Vegetable Program) that successfully provided fresh produce to schools; and (3) is the executive body dealing with farming, agricultural, and food issues within the United States. In addition, all schools using National School Lunch Program meals have an opportunity to apply for the Department of Defense Fruit and Vegetable Program, and thus, they may already be familiar and comfortable with the system and policies.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist for the authors.

References

Graham

, Feenstra

, Evans

et al. Davis school program supports life-long healthy eating habits in children. California Agriculture, 2004; 58:200–205.

US Department Of Education Institute of Education Sciences. Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2008–09. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_overview.asp/. 2013 February 24.

Rosenkranz

, Dzewaltowski

. Model of the home food environment pertaining to childhood obesity. Nutr Rev, 2008; 66:123–140.

Center for Food & Justice, Urban & Environmental Policy Institute at Occidental College & Community Food Security Coalition. National Farm to School Network. 2009. www.farmtoschool.org/aboutus.php. 2013 February 24.

Tropp

, Olowolayemo

. Department of Agriculture, How Local Farmers and School Food Service Buyers Are Building Alliances. Lessons Learned from the USDA Small Farm/School Meals Workshop. May 1, 2000. http://agmarketing.extension.psu.edu/../PDFs/LclFrmrSchlFdSrvBuyer.pdf/. 2013 February 24.

Vallianatos

, Gottlieb

, Haase

. Farm-to-School: Strategies for urban health, combating sprawl, and establishing a community food systems approach. JRED, 2004; 23:414–423.

Oklahoma Food Policy Council and Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. The Oklahoma Farm-to-School Report Including the Oklahoma Institutional Food Service Survey. 2003. www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc/publications/Farm-to-School_report.pdf/. 2013 February 24.

Berkenkamp

. Making the farm/school connection: Opportunities and barriers to greater use of locally-grown produce in public schools. 2006. www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs-and-papers/2006-01-farm-school-connection/. 2013 February 24.

Azuma

, Fisher

. Healthy farms, healthy kids: Evaluating the barriers and opportunities for Farm-to–School. 2001. http://foodsecurity.org/pub/HealthyFarmsHealthyKids.pdf/. 2013 February 24.

10.

Gregoire

, Strohbehn

. Benefits and obstacles to purchasing food from local growers and producers. J Child Nutr Manag, 2002; 26:1–8.

11.

Kloppenburg

, Wubben

, Grimes

. Linking the land and the lunchroom: Lessons from the Wisconsin homegrown lunch project. J Hunger Environ Nutr, 2008; 3:440–455.

12.

Nollen

, Befort

, Davis

et al. Competitive foods in schools: Availability and purchasing in predominately rural small and large high schools. J Am Diet Assoc, 2009; 109:857–864.

13.

Izumi

, Alaimo

, Hamm

. Farm-to-School Programs: Perspectives of school food service professionals. J Nutr Educ Behav, 2010; 42:83–91.

14.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Farm to School in Minnesota. Third Annual Survey of School Food Service Leaders. 2011. www.iatp.org/files/2011_F2S_FoodServiceLeadersSurveyResults.pdf/. 2013 February 24.

15.

Izumi

, Rostant

, Moss

et al. Results from the 2004 Michigan Farm-to-School survey. J Sch Health, 2006; 76:169–174.

16.

Strohbehn

, Gregoire

. Innovations in school food purchasing: Connecting to local food. J Child Nutr Manag, 2001; 25:62–65.

17.

Illinois General Assembly. Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act of 2009. www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HB/09600HB3990sam001.htm/. 2013 February 24.