Farm to School: An Overview of
Policy and Training Opportunities in Minnesota
Minnesota NPA Component I
Status Report to CDC for October 31, 2010 milestones
Compiled by Lisa Gemlo, MPH, RD, LD
For more information contact:
Physical Activity & Nutrition Program
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 64882
85 East 7th Place, Suite 220
St. Paul, MN 55164-0882
Telephone: 651-201-5406
Website: http://www.health.state.mn.us/mnpan
Printed on Recycled Paper
Table of Contents
Making the Case for Change
1
Introduction to Farm to School and Its Impacts
3
Description of the Environmental Scan
4
Assessment of the Policy and System Changes Ripening in MN
5
Lessons from Past Trainings and Identification
of Future Training Needs and Opportunities
10
Appendix
16
Making the Case for Change
Obesity-related chronic disease is a threat to health of the people of Minnesota. As our aging population
combines with an increasingly overweight population, the cost of healthcare in Minnesota will become
unsustainable. In addition, obesity threatens to undermine our economic security and our communities
by contributing to an increasingly chronically ill and disabled workforce. Even the armed forces are
becoming concerned about this problem. Obesity rates among children and young adults have increased
so dramatically that they threaten not only the overall health of America but also the future strength of
our military. http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_Too_Fat_to_Fight-1.pdf It is time to carefully assess
the strategies and interventions that will ensure and slowing and reversal of the obesity trend. (MN
Obesity Plan)
Obese children are more likely to become obese adults.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpcd/chp/cdrr/obesity/pdfdocs/obesityplan20090112.pdf
State-level data representative of all Minnesota children are not available for Minnesota. However, the
Minnesota Steps to a Healthier US was implemented in four Minnesota cities. According to data from
their 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, they found that 13.6 percent of high school students in
Minneapolis public schools, 14.9 percent in St. Paul public high schools, 7.8 percent in Rochester public
high schools, and 9.9 percent of Willmar public high schools were obese.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5712.pdf (page 20). Furthermore, the National Study of Children’s
Health collected height and weight data from the parents of 10-17 year-olds in Minnesota and found
over 10 percent were obese. These surveys describe the magnitude of the childhood obesity problem in
certain Minnesota populations. www.nschdata.org
Obesity-related chronic diseases are preventable. A diet high in fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk
of many leading causes of death and can play an important role in weight management. For example,
Healthy People 2010 objectives for fruits and vegetables include targets of increasing to 75% the
proportion of persons aged ≥2 years who consume two or more servings of fruit daily and to 50% those
who consume three or more servings of vegetables daily.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a1.htm?s_cid=mm5935a1_w
According to the 2007 Minnesota Student Survey, fewer than 20 percent of elementary, middle, and
high school students surveyed report eating the recommended five servings of fruits and vegetables.
While reasons for this are multifactoral, including the relative high cost of fruits and vegetables, there
are also some budding opportunities. With more than 750,000 school meals served to Minnesota
students (on an average day in 2009), there is enormous opportunity to ensure the health and wellbeing
of future generations. While there is considerable evidence for the need to increase fruits and vegetables
in the diets of students through school meals, there is also evidence demonstrating limited access as a
barrier to consumption. For example, in a recent report by the MN Dept of Health and Blue Cross, Blue
Shield, more people in greater MN report difficulty accessing fruits and vegetables than those in urban
areas.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpcd/chp/cdrr/obesity/pdfdocs/summaryBCBSaddressrootcausesobes
ity.pdf
1
In addition, it is estimated that the typical item in the US travels 1500 to 2400 miles from farm to plate.
http://www.farmtoschool.org/files/FARMTOSCHOOL-FINAL%20BROCHURE.pdf As communities
become increasingly concerned about the economic and environmental impacts of this distance, a
prudent look at sourcing food closer to home seems a logical step. Yet, the United States is currently
not producing enough fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and dairy products for all U.S. citizens to eat the
quantities of these foods recommended by the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR31/ However, comparatively small parcels of land can be
used to meet regional fresh vegetable consumption needs. At the national level, fewer than 100 acres
could produce the annual needs of a small city of 10,000 persons.
www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_files/midwest.html. Clearly, for the health of the nation,
changes in health and agricultural policy will be necessary to address the issues at hand.
2
Introduction to Farm to School and Its Impacts
Farm to School programs are premised on the assumption (and research is demonstrating) that if
students are provided knowledge about healthy, locally grown foods, in addition to having access to
them, then it is more likely that they will have positive attitudes towards such foods, and potentially
develop lasting eating habits at an early age that can reduce the rate of obesity-related chronic diseases.
As important as it is to get people to consume more fruits and vegetables, a challenge that precedes
consumption is ensuring consistent access to fruits and vegetables in a wide variety of settings. Farm to
School is a strategy that can address both fruit and vegetable access and consumption in the school
setting.
Studies show that Farm to School programs have contributed positively to students’ knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors toward local, healthy food; promoted healthier dietary choices and increased
consumption of fruits and vegetables. In fact, the National Farm to School Network has tracked that
fruit and vegetable consumption is up by one serving on average in schools with Farm to School
programs. http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/publications/BF%20full%20report.pdf (page 61).
Furthermore, Farm to School meals have been shown to increase student and adult school meal
participation, thus increasing potential food service revenue.
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/publications/BF%20full%20report.pdf (page 9).
A 2009 report surveying a subset of school food service directors in MN reported that 69 districts (or
71% of respondents) purchased MN-grown foods in 2009. The most commonly used local foods were
apples, potatoes, peppers, winter squash, sweet corn and tomatoes. Seventy-six percent of this group
indicated their intention to expand their Farm to School programs in 2010. This indicates that in MN,
the potential impacts of Farm to School are continuing to grow.
http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=107270
Beyond the health and educational benefits of Farm to School Programs and perhaps an even greater
community benefit, is the potential economic impact in communities. It has been shown that for every
dollar spent on local foods in schools, one to three dollars circulates in the economy.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00090.x/pdf and
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/publications/BF%20Appendices.pdf A recent study analyzing the
economic impact of Farm to School programs in a five- county area in Central MN was conducted.
They found that the potential annual economic impact of Farm to School programs in Central Minnesota
ranged from $20,000 for a monthly special meal to $427,000 for sourcing a large amount of easily
adapted products. The economic impact of Farm to School programs varies depending on the ways
schools utilize the locally grown products and on the price paid for the products.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/projects/community/EconomicImpact/components/economic-impact-offarm-to-school-programs-report.pdf While this report only analyzed the impact for one five county
region, the economic impact by involving all 126 counties in MN could be quite significant.
3
Description of the Environmental Scan
Prior to receiving ARRA funds, the MN Dept. of Health did not have anyone working in the Farm to
School arena and, there was little internal capacity on the topic. Therefore, upon hiring, the Farm to
School Planner proceeded to conduct an environmental scan of Farm to School programs both locally
and nationally. The environmental scan consisted of two parts. One was to consider the policies and
systems both positive and negative impacting Farm to School. The other was to assess the training needs
around the state and any best practices that existed in this area already. Various approaches were
enlisted to complete the scan.
A broad scan regarding Farm to School efforts in other states was completed. A thematic analysis of
state Farm to School policies was completed. Scanning the systems in place touching Farm to School by
USDA and other national organizations was also completed.
In order to assess Farm to School efforts on a local level, the Farm to School Planner personally
conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with individuals who had potential linkages to current Farm to
School activities in MN. There was also an opportunity to interview 3 task oriented groups by the
Planner and/or MDH Nutritionist. In total, approximately 50 people provided input regarding the past,
present and future activities and needs around Farm to School in Minnesota.
Getting a handle on Farm to School in MN, while seemingly smaller than the Federal sweep, actually
proved to be more challenging. There were few systems in place to determine the activity and level of
Farm to School efforts in the state. There appears to be four primary organizations that have been
involved in active technical assistance of Farm to School work. They are: The MN School Nutrition
Association (MSNA), Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), University of MN Extension
Service and the MN Department of Health (MDH) through the Statewide Health Improvement Initiative
(SHIP) and now Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) Components 1 and 2. The MN
Department of Agriculture also has provided some support identifying local farmers through the MN
Grown Division.
IATP and MSNA were the furthest ahead in the surveillance of Farm to School efforts across the state,
having conducted two surveys of MSNA members around Farm to School. However, the data was
limited because it was a survey only of MSNA members. These members represent less than one-third
of the school districts across the state. SHIP had targeted efforts in Farm to School at the local school
level that began in 2009. However, there is not yet a uniform reporting system for Farm to School work
by these projects. U of MN Extension is just completing a pilot program with four districts across the
state and therefore will just be completing the analysis of the project. While the grass roots nature of
Farm to School is commendable, better analysis of the successes and limitations of the work is necessary
to make informed decisions that will support the sustainability of the work.
Additionally, there was limited survey information obtained about Farm to School trainings held in 2010
by the University of MN Extension Service. A more extensive evaluation of the perceived needs around
Farm to School work at the statewide SHIP conference was conducted in August 2009. Informal
observations at trainings were also conducted by the Farm to School Planner.
4
Assessment of the Policy and System
Changes Ripening in MN
In June 2010, twenty-four states had some type of statewide Farm to School policy adopted by their state
government. The National Farm to School Network provided a summary of each state policy. The
Planner determined a thematic summary would be most helpful for stakeholders interested in pursuing a
legislative response to Farm to School in MN. The thematic summary is provided.
Figure 1
_______________________________________________________________________
Thematic Summary of State Farm to School Policies
Money allotted for Fruits and Vegetables
CA: $.10/meal, encouraging locally grown
CO: Some $ for fruits and veggies
N.M: $85,000 for a high school to increase use of N.M. grown
NY: Raise cap on direct purchase from $.15 to $.20 per meal
OR: Reimbursement of $.15 lunch and $.07 for breakfast if food in meal was produced, packaged or
processed in OR
WA: Fruit and vegetable snack program
Grants to Schools
CA: Competitive grant for education
IL, OR: Created a mechanism to accept public and/or private dollars
PA: Local produce
VT: Mini-grants, including grants to processors
WA: Extensive “Washington Grown Fruit and Vegetable Grants”
WI: Grants include “expanding and diversifying production, processing, marketing and distribution of
food produced in WI for sale in schools in state”
Bid Language
CO, GA, KY: Requires purchase if quality and price met
MD; 5% price preference above lowest bid
Mass: 10% price preference “
“
MI: No bid necessary if < $100,000
MT, WA: Revise procurement and contract procedures by state agencies and institutions
Where Program and $ Housed
Most common: Department of Agriculture or Dept of Ed
IL: Farm Fresh School Fund granting body in state treasury
IA: Dept of Ag and Land Stewardship and mandated Farm to School Council
TX: Interagency Task Force
5
Certification Process
CT: If >20% of food served consists of Connecticut grown/produced foods they are eligible for
certification as a Connecticut Farm Fresh School
KY: All vendors selling to state agencies must participate in KY grown labeling program
Promotion
MD: Home Grown School Lunch Week
NY: Harvest for NY Kids Week in Oct
Database
MD: Development of a database of farmers
Education
PA: Trains teachers and other education staff on nutrition and agriculture education
Farmers
RI: 5% income tax credit if they sell to local schools
WA: Market technology improvement to help farmers with EBT and credit
VT: Farm to Plate Initiative directs the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, in consult with the Sustainable
Agriculture Council and other stakeholders to develop a ten year strategic plan to strengthen VT’s farm
and food sector.
Compiled July 22, 2010
________________________________________________________________________
Stakeholders Perspective
The semi-structured interviews conducted with a diverse pool of individuals across the state of
Minnesota provided a surprisingly consistent response to the question of policy suggestions around
Farm to School (See Table 1). Overwhelmingly the most common response was to create support for the
access, storage, simple processing and distribution needs that exist. Most of those who spoke on this
topic suggested that the response should be regional in nature. Suggestions included “regional food
hubs or campgrounds,” “regional forager,” “regional leadership,” “consider different policies for
different communities” or as one respondent summarized; “set up regional systems for growing,
processing and preparing.” One non-regional suggestion involving the distribution system that was
named on at least three occasions concerned the commodity system and the desire to explore expanding
the entitlement program to include locally grown foods.
The next most common response considered the involvement of state agencies. Recommendations for a
state coordinator for Farm to School work were made and the involvement of both the MN Department
of Education and the MN Department of Agriculture were also suggested. Coordination around
collaboration was considered important. Other items noted in this category were making enrollment in
Free and Reduced lunch easier. This was noted in order to increase revenue for healthier foods.
6
Furthermore, eliminating the standard for grant and funding opportunities limitation to those schools
who have >50% participation rate in free and reduced lunch was deemed useful.
Consideration for farmers in policy development was also considered. Providing infrastructure and
support for the farm side was mentioned as well as coordinating Farm to School connections by more
than one interviewee. Supporting GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) certification was mixed. On one
hand, distributors were driving this need due to liability concerns and a rebate for GAP certification
would be consistent with an already existing partial rebate for organic certification. However, concerns
were expressed, sometimes strongly, that GAP certification is too labor intense for the small farmer and
has very little food safety benefit.
A few responses fell into a category of a school policy approach. Strengthening wellness policies or
school board policy language for local purchasing were named as were the need for money to purchase
equipment and/or skills training for food service staff. Pricing strategies to make healthy foods less
expensive was also named.
Finally, there was a miscellaneous set of responses. Surprisingly, evaluation needs were named by three
respondents including creating accountability and concrete measures and goals, evaluation that
documents behavior change, and simply to just determine who is doing Farm to School across the state.
Other policy changes named were bringing Home Economics back to schools and providing more
funding for food in schools.
Table 1
Stakeholders Policy Suggestions for MN Farm to School
General Category
Regional Response
Involvement of State
Agencies
Farmer Support
School Policy
Miscellaneous
Suggestions
• Regional food hubs
• Regional forager
• Regional leadership
• Regional systems for growing, processing and preparing
• State coordinator of Farm to School
• Ensure involvement of MN Departments of Education and Agriculture
• Coordinate collaboration
•Make enrollment in free/reduced lunch easier, especially in smaller
communities
• Eliminate standard for grant/funding limits to schools who have >50%
free/reduced participation rates
• Coordinate farmer—school connection
• Support GAP certification (mixed)
• Strengthen wellness policies or school board language for local
purchasing
• Money needed for equipment and skills training
• Expand commodity system to include locally grown foods
• Evaluation of Farm to School
• Home economics in school
• More funding for schools
7
Farm to School Policy Workgroup
In June 2010, Blue Cross, Blue Shield (BCBS) invited a core group of individuals working on nutrition
issues in MN to a policy discussion group around Farm to School programs. This group brainstormed
policy options and over the course of the next three months worked through a decision making matrix on
the options considering: 1) The impact on strengthening Farm to School programs 2) Whether a state
law was needed to accomplish it 3) The political viability (See Table 2).
Table 2
Farm to School Statewide Policy Options
Draft, July, 2010
Policy option
High, medium, or low
impact on
strengthening F2S
programs?
Do we need a state
law to accomplish
this?
High, medium, or
low political viability
in 2011 legislative
session?
“Complete Kitchens” –
funding for kitchen
equipment and facilities
MDA study to look at
limitations on the supply
side
Farmer/schools
engagement, training
opportunities to facilitate
connections and
relationships
Regional F2S networks
Food Policy Council
Reduce barriers related to
competitive bidding
Income tax credit for
farmers that participate in
F2S programs
Technical assistance for
farmers to become gap
certified
Training/uniformity in the
sanitarian system
Study that tracks
percentage of foods in
school that are local
Reimbursement for
schools using local foods
Farm to School
coordinator or council
8
This group has identified “complete kitchens,” a study on the limitations on the supply side, technical
assistance for farmers and training in the sanitarian system to be potential priorities. Further exploration
will be considered once the political landscape after the general election is determined.
Summary
In looking at Farm to School policy needs in MN, it has been helpful to identify three main policy arenas
to support the work. They include federal and state policies, local policies as well as local and state
procedures or operations that may or may not require a policy enactment. Further exploration of
potential waivers within the commodity entitlement system to include local foods is one arena that at
first blush, seems ripe for change. While operationalizing this change would likely be considered
difficult for MDE and may not be supported by them because of this, it would provide more equal
access among schools and be supportive financially.
Many of the recommendations in the 2009 Policy Options Brief “Promoting Fruits and Vegetables in
Schools” by the Public Health Law Center for promoting and implementing Farm to School programs
have been launched in MN. However, strengthening support around “issues involved in transporting
and processing the produce” continues to be a need.
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/resources/promoting-fruits-and-vegetables-school
Based upon interviews and reports on Farm to School programs in MN, looking ahead to a more
regional response to the needs is by far the approach that would most likely have the largest impact.
Utilizing existing regional partnerships such as the Sustainable Regional Partnerships, Rural
development systems etc as well as statewide systems such as SHIP, U of MN Extension Service, FNS
and local grassroots efforts in various regions in a focused regional response seems like a logical next
step. Obtaining funding to create coordination of a regional aggregation and distribution system is seen
as critical if Farm to School is going to be anything more than a successful program.
9
Lessons from Past Trainings and Identification of Future Training Needs
and Opportunities
Past Trainings
In the past year, the amount of training for Farm to School work has exploded in MN. IATP has
contracted with MDH to provide training to Statewide Health Improvement Initiative (SHIP) grantees to
assist them in getting Farm to School work started in schools within their region. IATP has also
partnered with MSNA to promote Farm to School efforts and provide marketing materials to be used in
cafeterias across the state. The University of MN Extension Service, along with its partners, has
provided Farm to Cafeteria workshops and has utilized a model bringing both farmers and food service
workers together and then providing training tracks for both audiences. MSNA has created a train the
trainer curriculum on Farm to School for members. While Annette Derouin previously would conduct
these trainings, she has now created a curriculum for MSNA trainers. She has also created a manual for
school food service workers under a contract with Countryside SHIP. Other trainings related to Farm to
School work that we know of in the past year included a workshop at the statewide MSNA conference in
July, presentations to Food Safety specialists, as well as training to BCBS grant recipients working on
local food issues.
Based upon the training evaluations that have been shared around these workshops, the feedback has
generally been positive. Learning from others, providing time for networking and idea sharing has been
often mentioned as extremely valuable in trainings. In the initial workshops, many people were at the
“just getting started” phase and appreciated the information on steps to get started and needed support
navigating food safety issues as well as procurement support. From the workshops, the need to have
clear food safety guidance at the state level became evident. As a result, a series of fact sheets to answer
any food safety regulation issues relating to the utilization of produce direct from the farmer were
created and approved by both the MN Department of Health and MN Department of Agriculture.
Future Training Needs
The Statewide Health Improvement Initiative (SHIP) has been partly responsible for the increase in
Farm to School activity across the state. Many SHIP grantees have chosen to focus on improving the
health environment in schools and Farm to School has been one avenue to make positive changes in this
arena. In order to determine the Farm to School training needs of SHIP grantees and the schools they
are working with, we took the opportunity to survey attendees at the statewide SHIP conference in
August. The responses reflect that SHIP grantees had significant training needs that were different from
the school food service staff they were partnering with. Table 2 displays the findings form this survey.
Table 3 indicates the verbal needs recorded at the Farm to School session at the SHIP conference. From
this and other information, regional trainings were planned for Fall 2010 to focus more on the soft skills
of the work and to provide more specific information about the Federal laws influencing decisions for
school lunch.
10
Table 3:
Farm to School Training Needs Identified by SHIP Grantees Survey, August 2010
Event
Audience
SHIP Training (October-November)
FTS Integrated Training
SHIP Coordinators
Shared Audience
School Food Service Workers
(frontline, directors, leadership)
Refer to MSNA survey for training
content
Sharing of success stories
FTS tool kit
Writing nutrition policies or wellness
policies
Promotion/marketing & communications
workshop; learn about existing campaigns
(e.g., dig my farmer)
“What to do with dirty vegetables…”
 safety, liability
 logistical, equipment
 time management
How to conduct Farm to School
evaluation
How to use FTS website/technology
Basic food prep
Soft Skills
 How to Influence:
 Development of wellness
committee
 Engage communities & other
stakeholders
 Others to take leadership to
write/develop policies
Resources & Information:
 Federal, school rules & regulations
(e.g., USDA, MDH, etc.)
 Networking opportunities
 Farmer lists
 Best practices
Strategies to engage communities
11
Table 4:
Training Needs Captured at the Farm to School Sessions at Statewide SHIP Conference (Unsorted):
DAY ONE
New people coming in
Best practices for farmer connections
Addressing concerns/fears that
farmers have
Values: Why should we do it
differently?
Legal aspects
Best practice training
Promotional needs
Communications
How to take FTS ideas/activities
further than 1 time/monthly
How do we get growers to ramp up
and grow enough for schools (Ryan
Pesch)
How to engage smaller school
districts
Training for food service
workers
How to find farmers, cost issues,
advertising
Ideal and realistic policy goals for
schools
Support for field trips
Look at commodity lists & and look
at which are healthier options
$ cost is big barrier
How to build buyers group on
reservation
What are sample policies?
Regulations around safety
Giving people permission (e.g.,
nursing home
Fields of corn not utilized
Marketing to students and
parents
Tension between local food and
healthy eating: Does it matter if it’s
local?
Vendors on border too
What about buildings and
kitchens?
Meeting with school food
service directors
Laws around using volunteers in
kitchens:
 Food safety certification
 Liability concerns
3 Cs (Connections):
 Curriculum
 Cafeteria
 Community
Do we need SHIP Logo on
materials that they are printing
from IATP?
How to bring education to
students
DAY TWO
How to make FTS work in rural
areas
Basics: Best practices
Training on federal
requirements
12
Interviews with stakeholders also provided insight into the future training needs for Farm
to School. Upon analysis, the training needs can be lumped into five major audiences for
training. These audiences include food service personnel, teacher/schools, farmers, SHIP
grantees and the community at large. There also was a category of suggestions that did
not fit an audience but was related to how information was shared. Table 5 summarizes
the training needs identified in these interviews.
Table 5:
Training Needs Identified by Semi-structured Stakeholder Interviews
Audience Identified
School Food Service Worker
Teachers/School Support
Farmers
Training Needs
 Basic Food prep (most common)
 Coaching
 Planning for 5th season/season
extension
 Procurement/local access
 Sharing creative recipes
 Menu planning
 Connect IOM and local foods
 Whole Foods training
 Basic non-web based toolkit for
schools
 Integrated curriculum with grad
standards
 Curriculum and training to integrate
Farm to School in the
classroom/field trips
 Web based library of curriculum;
identify who has great curriculum
for classroom integration at various
age levels
 Liability insurance questions
 Explore the issues with the
industry: Get them together and
determine need
 Small business assistance (SBA)
 Educate farmers about the school
market (most common response);
who to talk to, how to talk to them,
13

SHIP/Community at Large




Training Delivery







what schools need in order to
purchase their product
Suggestions include working with
Extension Educators, Farmers
Union, Farm Bureau and Fruit and
Vegetable Growers Association
More training needs on
implementation now vs. planning
Build training around community
wellness language and policy
Provide assistance with building
community relationships because
wellness committees are to involve
the community
Provide basic information and
knowledge for the community on
Farm to School; why is it important,
what is in it for them
Provide a coordinated statewide
website
Desire a central place trainers, state
departments, and non-profits can
post their Farm to School resources
Hold a Farm to School summit
More opportunities for training
Ways to share creative, fresh ideas
Newsletter for parents who need
information on basic skills of using
fresh produce
Where does sharing across states
make sense?
14
Summary
While a great deal of training effort has launched Farm to School into action in MN, the
environmental scan that has been completed indicates there is significant training and
coordination needs as we move into the next phase of Farm to School work. To begin,
the introductory training and material needs to be systematized for easy access to anyone
entering this work. Ongoing support of school food service personnel will be necessary
as they gain new skills and advance their efforts. Farmers have specialized business
needs and to date there has not been a coordinated effort to support this critical
component of Farm to School work. If the use of local foods is to grow and be sustained,
helping farmers work on liability, marketing and distribution issues will be necessary.
Another need identified is supporting the educational efforts for students and assisting
teachers with identifying relevant educational materials. This seems like a project that
would be a perfect fit for a graduate student. Again, attention to some type of
clearinghouse for materials seems logical. Finally, the need for coordination of Farm to
School efforts and resources in a systematic fashion is overwhelmingly evident.
15
APPENDIX
Farm to School Planning
External Partner Meeting
Partner Name:
Agency/Organization
Name:
Contact Info:
Date:
1. Tell me about the organization you work for.
2. What is the mission or purpose of your organization?
3. As you know, we are meeting today to talk about Farm to School (FTS). What
does FTS mean to you?
4. Tell me about the work you do. What is the work that you do around the topic
Farm to School?
16
5. What are some things you’ve seen that make the Farm to School program
successful?
PROBE for concrete examples:
6. In MN, what would you change about the Farm to School programs to make them
better?
PROBE: What communities in Minnesota are not being reached or could be served better
with Farm to School programming?
7. My position has been funded by a federal grant from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). The goal of this grant is to increase the amount of
fruits and vegetables children eat by strengthening a statewide Farm to School
Program. One of the components of the work is to help develop a statewide Farm to
School policy.
In an ideal world, what do you think this Farm to School policy would include?
8. The other responsibility of the position is to identify training needs across the
state to enhance Farm to School programming. Can you please tell me more
about the training in Farm to School.
 What training re: Farm to School have you participated in?
o What about these were helpful?

Are there other Farm to School trainings that you’ve heard of?
17

Is there training/curriculum that has been missing?

What kinds of training or resources might be useful for Farm to School
programming?

Is there anything else MDH can do to enhance existing Farm to School Training?
9. Who else would you suggest I talk to about Farm to School?
10. Do you have any reports evaluations or data you could share with me regarding
Farm to School work in MN?
18