Purpose: To inform the development of Farm to School initiatives in Washington state so that scarce resources can be use most effectively to increase the use of Washington grown foods in Washington's schools.
Objectives of the Washington State Department of Agriculture Farm-to-School Project:
1. Use existing survey data to describe the current state of farm to school activities and capacities as well as interest in building stronger programs in schools across the state.
2. Develop recommendations for the next steps for farm to school in the state including the most promising opportunities and the needs for further information.
The project will be divided into "deliverables." Students will work on these deliverables in teams.
Readings:
All class members should complete these readings:
The following will be useful for preparation of reports:
Student groups develop data tables using the results of a Survey of 82 School Nutrition Directors from school districts in Washington State. The de-identified survey data are posted on the computers in the Health Sciences Library as an SPSS file. Team A will work with an additional file that currently has only the unique identifier and the name of the district. These files will be merged once the district information is entered as described below and the names of the districts are deleted. You may access the data and the SPSS software in the library. Use your UW NETID to login at the learning commons, the files are on network drive J: the folder is J:\CDATA\nutr531. The files are read-only. Please save to another location if you want to make modifications. Here's a copy of the survey questions:
Map the districts that responded to the survey:
Map the districts on a map of the state to depict geographic distribution
Create a database of district characteristics
Using data from OSPI ( http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2010-11), find % FRPL, % white, and total enrollment for each district. Create a database using the same unique identifier that is used on the master database that includes the unique identifier, % FRPR, % white and total enrollment for each district.
Create a table that describes these three district characteristics in categories that make sense based on the distribution of the data (e.g., large/medium/small districts; districts with < 25% FRPL, 25% < FRPL < 75% FRPL, > 75% )
Describe exsiting efforts and current capacity based on questions 8, 9,10,11,12, 13, 14, 15
Describe the foods that are currently being used and that schools are interested in using questions 6,6,16,32,33
Describe perceived possibilities for expanding FTS actions (questions 17, 23, 24,30, 38, 39)
Describe policies (questions 25,26,27,29,31)
Describe perceptions about FTS (questions 34,35,36,37)
Conduct a search of peer reviewed (pubmed & agricola) and "grey" literature about policies and practices that seem to work to support FTS.
Build a table of the policies and practices that emerge, the references that support each policy & practice, and the level of the science (i.e., controlled trial, comparative study based on "natural experiments, "case study, practice-based evidence, etc. )
Develop a list of the top ~10 policies and practices that emerge from this review
Assemble similar data from other sources
Colorado (movement.livewellcolorado.org)
Vermont (www.vtfeed.org)
Complete an internet search to find as many other food/nutrition services survey reports of FTS from other states as possible.
Prepare a matrix with the name of the source and the kinds of data from each that are similar to the data from the WA State 2011 Survey.
What are the completion rates for each question? (Indicating that respondents are confused or unable to answer some questions.)
Does the completion rate fall off at the end of the survey (Indicating that the survey might be too long.)
Are there inconsistencies in responses across related survey items?
Are there common responses in the "others" write-in sections that seem to deserve their own response options?
Are there other concerns about responses that could be addressed in future versions of the survey?
· Based on the class decisions on January 27, run tests for associations between characteristics of the districts (enrollment, % FRPL, etc.) and key survey responses.
· Develop a bulleted list of the highlights of these analyses
Guidance to WSDA: what programs are needed, why is work important, what are schools asking for?
The general public: state of F2S, celebrate successes/increases, awareness and support
Advocates: what policy solutions are needed, why is work important, what are schools asking for?
Stakeholders: farmers, food companies - quantify school interest as market opportunity
Stakeholders: schools - nutrition programs and administrators - state of F2S in WA, WSDA programs that can assist
January 6 |
Introduction and BackgroundTricia Kovacs, MSc Shoko Kumagai, MPH Becky Elias, MBA Washington State Department of Agriculture - Slide Presentation
Donna Johnson
Getting Organized for Phase One & Phase Two
|
January 13 |
Phase One: Teamwork |
January 20 |
Phase One: Check in with Donna & Teamwork |
January 27 |
Phase One: Class meets as a group - presentation of phase one results & Plans for Phase two |
February 3 |
Phase Two: Teamwork |
February 10 |
Phase Two: Class meets as a group - presentation of preliminary phase one and phase two results to WSDA preceptors |
February 17 |
Phase Three: Teamwork |
February 24 |
Phase Three: Class meets as a group - check in with Donna & further teamwork |
March 2 |
Phase Three: Teams prepare final deliverables |
March 9 |
Phase Three: Class meets as a group - check in with Donna & Teams prepare final deliverables |
March 1310:30-12:20 |
Presentation to Stakeholders |
|
Points |
||
Group |
|
||
Each of products demonstrates comprehension and appropriate application of basic concepts learned in class for cultural competence, evidence based practice, practical program evaluation, and strong links between assessment finding and recommendations. |
85 |
||
Organization and presentation of final products |
15 |
||
Individual |
|
||
Successful participation in steps of data collection, data compilation and analysis, and policy development |
40 |
||
Role in phase one & two and final presentations |
10 |
||
Rating of individual effort by other members of group: Rating Sheet (please post to class dropbox:
|
50 |
||
Total |
200 |