FarmRaisers: Raising funds, kids, and crops in the Upper Valley

Objective One: "Based on market research, we will work with the Center for Cartoon Studies, a nearby school offering applied and graduate degrees in the field, to develop and test Do-It-Yourself templates for implementation and evaluation for farmers and schools as well as “kid-friendly” marketing materials with educational information about nutritional and environmental FarmRaiser benefits."

• We undertook market research using the Community Based Social Marketing model. We were able to hold focus groups at four schools and, based on focus group results, build a survey deployed electronically, on paper, and/or in person at three schools.
• All our contacts were interested in trying one of two styles of FarmRaiser: 1) A single farm offering or 2) a multiple farm offering. No school expressed interest in educational information to accompany the brochure save recipes to assist families with using new veggies.
• Using the information gathered via the research phase, we worked with faculty and an alumnus from the Center for Cartoon Studies to create a logo, a short comic, a brochure, a small poster, and several stand-alone images which can be easily replicated in school offices and adapted by FarmRaiser coordinators. These are attached.
• In winter 2013-14 we created a toolkit of FarmRaiser materials on our website, which includes the promotional materials and order forms developed with the Center for Cartoon Studies; instructions for developing a FarmRaiser at your school and tips.

Objective two: "Pilot the FarmRaiser at five schools."

• In early 2013 we met with our collaborators at Upper Valley Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) and Upper Valley Farm to School Network and built a short list of likely early adopter schools. We had additional funding from the Vermont Community Foundation which limited us to Vermont schools and farmers.
• We reached out to the short list and started discussions with ten schools in all grades. Confirming participants took longer than we had anticipated, but we confirmed five elementary schools as 2013 partners. These were the schools of Sharon, Hartland, Bradford, Newbury, and Quechee, VT. These schools in turn suggested 33 participant farms, which Vital Communities then solicited. A total of 14 farms were interested and able to follow up, and sold products to the schools. All five schools and 14 farms completed their sales and delivery. Three New Hampshire schools also did FarmRaisers, two for the second time and one for the first time, all with the same NH farm. We assisted minimally with these FarmRaisers, which either did not need much help or were assisted by Upper Valley Healthy Eating Active Living.

Objective three: "Develop and launch accompanying curricular activities at five schools through Upper Valley Farm to School Network."

• The Upper Valley Farm to School Network supports our region’s schools in pursuing farm to school work that best suits their unique situation. Each school integrated the FarmRaiser into their Farm to School (FTS) activities in a different way, appropriate to their own FTS programming. It became clear through the project duration that the FarmRaiser is a great fundraiser for farm to school programs themselves, though it is not always used for that purpose. In fact, we found that although we approached this project as a market outlet for farmers, almost all the participants (both farms and schools) see it as a point of connection rather than profit, and it is turning into a farm to school tool. Curricular examples included: Sharon Elementary students read the brochure, identified the farm products (e.g., the difference between an acorn and butternut squash), and sorted the orders which required math and other skills. Hartland Elementary School’s FarmRaiser farms included those selling directly to the cafeteria, including a beef farmer who supplies the school’s ground beef. Bradford Elementary integrated the FarmRaiser pickup at their annual Harvest Dinner. Newbury Elementary used the FarmRaiser delivery as the basis for a celebratory event including hayrides, cider pressing, local product sales, crafts, and live music by their principal. They launched their Sustainable Newbury and farm to school programs with this event and the FarmRaiser.
• During the year of the grant, Upper Valley Farm to School Network requested to merge with Vital Communities’ Valley Food & Farm program and was approved to do so. FarmRaisers will now fall into Farm to School programming.

Performance Targets:

"Total direct FarmRaiser sales between five schools and 3-10 farms gross $25,000 overall and at least $3,000 per farm."

 We engaged five new schools in 2013; together the schools worked with 14 distinct farms. The total gross sales to farms were $4394.

 Several factors resulted in a different total gross for 2013:

• One is a math error at the time of the funding application. Our experience in Canaan, NH had shown that a farm selling mixed boxes of produce at $30 a box could gross around $2000-3000 from a FarmRaiser at a small school. The one farm selling mixed boxes in Vermont did in fact gross approx $2000 by selling two sizes of box to 86 customers. If each of five schools had chosen the mixed-box model, farms would have grossed potentially $15,000. We apologize for the error.
• A second factor in the gross sales variance is that four schools wanted to offer a multi-farm “a la carte” ordering to their communities. We supported this. We heard in focus groups and surveys that affordability, choice, and supporting multiple farm businesses were important to school community members. We thought ‘a la carte’ would increase participation, offer low-cost entry points for buyers, expose more farms to more buyers. This was all true, however, the profit for both school and farm was much lower than the ‘mixed box’ model.
• Farms in the ‘a la carte’ model offered 1-4 products , Their gross ranged from $6-250, 20-30 families participated at each school and bought 1-10 items per order, and schools grossed $140-300. Schools set their markup, and the amount ranged but was never more than 34%
• Farms using the ‘box’ model choose a price ranging from $25-40 per box and the schools are adding a $5 markup per box. It’s difficult to assess how many discreet families are buying the boxes but we do know 70 total boxes are a typical sale.

"Indirect sales attributed to relationships developed during this project resulted in $1,000 per farm and $5,000 overall. This may include new farm-to-institution sales or retail customers attracted through the FarmRaiser."

• As mentioned above, confirming participating schools took longer than we had anticipated. Contact with farm partners appropriate to the schools took place starting in the very busy time of May and continued through the summer. The timing limited farmer ability to develop a marketing plan, sales and marketing targets, all of which were benchmarks for our performance targets.
• We evaluated the project with participant farmers in late 2013. All were wrapping up the season and any indirect sales related to FarmRaiser would occur in spring 2014. There was no method of knowing the indirect sales for the farms new to FarmRaising in 2013. We can extrapolate from one farm in Enfield, NH which did a second round of FarmRaisers in 2013 estimated 2-3 new CSA members garnered from FarmRaiser relationships. At his lowest CSA share price this would equal $1134 in indirect sales attributed to FarmRaiser-related market exposure.

 "During business plan development, all farms will set their own minimum sales and marketing targets for the project. Our overall goal will seek an increase in quantifiable marketing value for each participating farm– i.e., farm newsletter signups, farm Facebook “likes,” etc. For instance, Blue Ox Farm might set a goal of $3,000 in direct sales, two indirect CSA sign-ups, and market exposure to 500 potential new customers."

• Due to the unexpectedly condensed timeline mentioned above, farms were not prepared to set sales targets. We can extrapolate qualitative information from initial conversations and evaluative conversations.
• We will not know indirect effects of FarmRaiser participation until a farm has been selling for two-three years.
• Farmers were willing to participate in a FarmRaiser without any guarantee of minimum sales during the FarmRaiser itself. For most farms, the project is part of general community market exposure.
• Ensuring that the farms get the best marketing exposure from the FarmRaiser is a key component to work on with both farmers and school champions. With busy farmers and busy school parents, important non-essential details can fall by the side. Despite reminders, not all farms took advantage of this friendly, captive audience except in that their products were clearly labeled. Some farms who wanted to attend pickup hours were either busy or not invited with enough advance notice.
• Participating farms have a wide range of marketing tools and experience. The FarmRaiser tool kit needs to include prompts and suggestions for both farms and schools about promoting the participating farms beyond the FarmRaiser sales. One customer commented on the follow-up survey, ““Some of the items I purchased, I really liked. Where are the products sold locally?” This illustrates a messaging gap that we will continue to address with materials and assistance to farmers.

"Post-purchase surveys will be issued to FarmRaiser consumers. Of these consumers, we anticipate that at least 10% will self-identify as new purchasers of local food;"

• Disappointingly, we were unable to gather significant data from FarmRaiser consumers. We posted an online survey link and created paper survey forms, and provided those to the school champions. We offered respondents a chance to win a gift certificate to a restaurant. The Champions wanted to be the primary contact for disseminating the survey. After the FarmRaiser was over, families were not motivated to respond, or responding was too complicated. We received a total of 35 responses to our survey, most of these from 2 of the 5 schools. Responses were positive, with 23 respondents indicating the FarmRaiser increased the amount of locally grown food the family ate in the fall; 21 reporting exposure to a new farm; and 22 indicating the project helped them meet healthy eating goals.
• Positive comments included, “The products I ordered were much fresher and tastier than grocery store items.” “Loved it! Great organic food at reasonable prices.”

 "Of participating farms, 75% indicate the project worthwhile and welcome working with additional schools;"

• 100% of the farms said they wanted to do the FarmRaiser again. In general farms would welcome working with additional schools if the schools were geographically nearby or on an established delivery route.

"Publications and/or Web communications developed include: Materials to market the program to schools; Assessment materials for farmers and schools; Year 1 evaluation report for dissemination to funders, including evidence to support the value of Farm to School to districts and families."

• Publications are available on our website, including marketing materials, assessment materials and guidelines, guidelines for doing your own FarmRaiser. Annual reports to funders were sent in December/ January 2014.

• A parent picking up their box at the Quechee Elementary School
• FarmRaiser champions at Hartland Ele, themselves farmers, sort the orders while surrounded by buyers and farmers
• Newbury school created an entire festival around the FarmRaiser pickup day