Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-qn7h5 Total loading time: 0.317 Render date: 2022-10-04T02:13:45.807Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Which schools receive state-level support for local food purchases? Evidence from reimbursement incentive programs in Michigan and Oregon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2022

Jeffrey K. O'Hara*
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC, USA
Becca B. R. Jablonski
Affiliation:
Agricultural & Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Zoë T. Plakias
Affiliation:
Agricultural, Environmental, & Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jeffrey K. O'Hara, E-mail: jeffreyk.ohara@usda.gov

Abstract

State-level reimbursement programs are increasingly being used to incentivize procurement of local foods by US K-12 school food authorities (SFAs), which are schools or school districts that administer a food service program. However, few studies have explored the characteristics of SFAs that are associated with applying for and receiving reimbursement incentives. We consider reimbursement incentive programs in two states, Oregon and Michigan. In 2018–2019, the school year we study, Oregon used an opt-in model in which all SFAs were eligible to receive reimbursement incentives. In contrast, Michigan used a competitive funding model in which only some SFAs were eligible to apply and only some SFAs that applied received support. Using data from the Farm to School Census, as well as data from the two states' Departments of Education, we estimate discrete choice regressions to explore the factors that are associated with SFAs' application for and receipt of these reimbursement incentives. We find that SFAs that opted into Oregon's procurement program are larger, in metropolitan areas, and more likely to purchase fruits and vegetables locally. Thus, the reimbursement incentives are directed toward SFAs with characteristics that complement F2S program development, instead of SFAs with greater structural impediments. In Michigan, we find that SFAs with past F2S experience and community support for F2S were the most likely to apply for reimbursement incentives. However, conditional on applying, the SFAs most likely to receive funding in Michigan were those located in rural areas, more likely to source meat and seafood locally, and more likely to source directly from producers. Thus, Michigan's support, which was more budget constrained, appeared to target SFAs with distance-based challenges and non-traditional procurement strategies.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr O'Hara is currently employed at USDA's Office of the Chief Economist, although his contributions to this manuscript occurred when he was employed at USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.

References

Bobronnikov, E, Boyle, M, Grosz, M, Lipton, I, Nutter, R, Velez, M and Yadav, L (2021 a) Farm to school literature review. Available at https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/Farm-to-School-LitReview.pdf (Accessed 26 September 2021).Google Scholar
Bobronnikov, E, Prenovitz, S and Yadav, L (2021 b) 2019 Farm to School Census report. Available at https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-Farm-to-School-Census.pdf (Accessed 26 September 2021).Google Scholar
Bonanno, A and Mendis, S (2021) Too cool for school? Analyzing the determinants of farm to school programming continuation. Food Policy 102, 102045. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkins, E and Roe, B (2018) Understanding participation in farm to school programs: results integrating school and supply-side factors. Food Policy 74, 126137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L, Jablonski, B and O'Hara, J (2019) School districts and their local food supply chains. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 34, 207215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, D, King, B, Kolodinsky, J, Roche, E, Koliba, C and Trubek, A (2012) You can know your school and feed it too: Vermont farmers’ motivations and distribution practices in direct sales to school food services. Agriculture and Human Values 29, 321332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, D, Sevoian, N, Heiss, S and Berlin, L (2014) The diverse values and motivations of Vermont farm to institution supply chain actors. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 695713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimmons, J and O'Hara, J (2019) Market channel procurement strategy and school meal costs in farm-to-school programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 48, 388413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, B, Wright, D and Hamm, M (2010) Market diversification and social benefits: motivations of farmers participating in farm to school programs. Journal of Rural Studies 26, 374382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, D, Kruse, S, Ratcliffe, M, Sobel, S and Tessman, N (2011) The Impact of Seven Cents. Portland, OR: Ecotrust. Available at https://ecotrust.org/publication/the-impact-of-seven-cents/ (Accessed 26 September 2021).Google Scholar
Long, A, Jablonski, B, Costanigro, M and Frasier, W (2021) The impact of state farm to school procurement incentives on school purchasing decisions. Journal of School Health 91, 418427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyson, H (2016) National policy and state dynamics: a state-level analysis of the factors influencing the prevalence of farm to school programs in the United States. Food Policy 63, 2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matts, C, Conner, D, Fisher, C, Tyler, S and Hamm, M (2016) Farmer perspectives of farm to institution in Michigan: 2012 survey results of vegetable farmers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 31, 6071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matts, C, Kuhlman, A, Parrotte, Z and Trumbull, E (2020) 10 Cents a Meal Pilot: 2018–2019 Evaluation Results, Reflections, and Recommendations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems.Google Scholar
McCarthy, A, Steiner, A and Houser, R (2017) Do state farm-to-school-related laws increase participation in farm-to-school programs? Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 12, 466480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2018) Public elementary school/secondary school universe data. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp (Accessed 4 February 2018).Google Scholar
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2021) Public elementary school/secondary school universe data. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp (Accessed 2 December 2021).Google Scholar
National Farm to School Network and the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (NFSN and CAFS) (2019) State Farm to School Policy Handbook: 2002–2018. Washington, DC and South Royalton, VT: NFSN and CAFS.Google Scholar
O'Hara, J and Benson, M (2019) The impact of local agricultural production on farm to school expenditures. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 34, 216225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plakias, Z, Klaiber, H and Roe, B (2020) Trade-offs in farm-to-school implementation: larger foodsheds drive greater local food expenditures. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, 232243.Google Scholar
Ralston, K and Newman, C (2015) School Meals in Transition. EIB 143. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
Ralston, K, Beaulieu, E, Hyman, J, Benson, M and Smith, M (2017) Daily Access to Local Foods for School Meals: Key Drivers. EIB 168. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
Turner, L, Leider, J, Piekarz, E, Schermbeck, R, Merlo, C, Brener, N and Chriqui, J (2017) Facilitation fresh: state laws supporting school gardens are associated with use of garden-grown produce in school nutrition services programs. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 49, 481489.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) (2020) Rural-urban continuum codes. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx (Accessed 26 September 2021).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS) (2021 a) Farm to School Census: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at https://farmtoschoolcensus.fns.usda.gov (Accessed 26 September 2021).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS) (2021 b) Income Eligibility Guidelines: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/income-eligibility-guidelines (Accessed 16 November 2021).Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Which schools receive state-level support for local food purchases? Evidence from reimbursement incentive programs in Michigan and Oregon
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Which schools receive state-level support for local food purchases? Evidence from reimbursement incentive programs in Michigan and Oregon
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Which schools receive state-level support for local food purchases? Evidence from reimbursement incentive programs in Michigan and Oregon
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *