Progress report for LS24-390
Project Information
Regionalization has been identified as one strategy to promote food system resilience. However, many of the markets that are the hallmark of local food systems, such as farmers markets, have often been inaccessible for consumers who are lower-income. Farm to Institution programs, such as Farm to Early Care and Education (ECE), School, University, and Senior Services, are one strategy to address this issue. These community institutions are a primary source of meals for children, youth, and older adults, especially in rural areas, and often rely on federal food assistance programs to subsidize feeding programs. Integrating local food into meals and snacks at these institutions has the potential to improve consumer access to healthy food, while also opening up new markets for small scale farmers.
Research has shown that selling into wholesale markets, such as institutions, increases the economic viability of small to mid-size regional farmers more than selling into direct markets alone. Despite these benefits, many small-scale farmers lack the infrastructure, resources, and experience needed to access these markets. Most small to mid-sized farms also do not have the same logistical and scale-related efficiencies observed in the mainstream food system, resulting in higher marginal costs. This has led to the question of how local food systems can be “scaled-up” so that the lower prices in wholesale markets can be offset by bulk volumes and supply chain efficiencies to increase profitability.
The Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) has implemented Farm to Institution (F2I) programs in North Carolina for many years. Through this work, we have identified and documented several barriers to establishing successful supply chains, including the volume, type, availability and distribution of products. However, we have never intentionally coordinated local food procurement among multiple F2I programs. We hypothesize that F2I supply chain coordination will generate strategies that can address the challenges observed when programs are implemented individually. We anticipate these strategies might include specifications for aesthetically imperfect products (“seconds”), a system for aggregating orders and production planning to increase the volume purchased, and shared distribution routes to reduce costs.
We propose piloting and evaluating a coordinated F2I approach in a rural county in North Carolina. We will work with a newly formed cooperative of farmers who are members of the Lumbee Tribe to assess their readiness and provide technical assistance to facilitate institutional market access and promote sustainable agricultural practices to reduce costs. We will conduct a market assessment and supply chain analysis across these four institution types to develop strategies that streamline F2I local food procurement. We will conduct formative and summative evaluations to make mid project adjustments, and identify best practices. Finally, we will work with NC Cooperative Extension’s Local Food Program Team to create a F2I Work Group that will develop a F2I Toolkit for Extension Agents, which we will disseminate through Extension trainings, webinars, conference presentations, etc.
- Assess Market and Analyze Supply Chains: We will analyze community institution markets (Early Care and Education, School, University, and Senior Services) in order to understand institutions’ capacity, requirements, and delivery needs. We will map current supply chains by taking into account both institutions’ and farmers’ capacity and locations in order to identify strategies that create efficiencies. The market assessment and supply chain analysis will inform the development of an integrated Farm to Institution market channel/supply chain.
Year 1 Update: We have conducted 8 assessments with community institutions and are currently mapping supply chains. We are still in the process of recruiting senior assisted living facilities to the project, and currently have one that is participating.
- Assess and Support Farmer Readiness: We will assess small-scale to mid-size farmer readiness to sell to community institutions, including what agricultural practices they currently employ. Based on input from participating farmers, we will provide training and establish systems to support regenerative agricultural practices that reduce costs, and will also prepare farmers to sell to institutions by offering GAP and post-harvest handling trainings.
Year 1 Update: We have conducted 5 farmer readiness surveys, and hosted one cover crop and one GAP food safety training for farmers.
- Develop and Pilot Farm to Institution Supply Chains: We will design a pilot project that will implement the integrated Farm to Institution supply chain strategies identified in Objective 1, once participating farmers have received training and are prepared to sell to these markets (Objective 2). These supply chain strategies will streamline sourcing from small to mid size, historically marginalized farmers by matching supply and demand and coordinating distribution routes, among other strategies that embed efficiencies into the system.
Year 1 Update: We are in the process of designing the pilot project. We are slightly behind our project timeline for a variety of reasons (see Unanticipated Delays, explained in the Research section). We will work on Objectives 4 (Evaluate the Pilot) and 5 (Create and Disseminate Resources) in Years 2 and 3 of the project.
Cooperators
- - Technical Advisor
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
Before we began the project, we formed an Advisory Committee to guide our work. This committee included a TA provider representing the ECE community (Partnership For Children), the School Nutrition Director for the County School District, the UNC-Pembroke Dining Services General Manager, a representative from the Lumber River Area Agency on Aging, and the core advisor farmers. At the end of Year 1, we also added the new Agriculture and Natural Resources Director for the Lumbee Tribe. The purpose of this committee is twofold. First, it ensures that our project is participatory by giving community institutions the chance to make decisions that will affect them. Second, it will improve communication and trust among all project partners and give them a regular way to meet to discuss shared challenges, and to propose collaborative strategies to address them. We compensated all Advisory Committee members for their time (for farmers, through individual stipends, for community institutions through organizational honorariums). The Advisory Committee for this project met twice in Year 1 (see Project Activities for more information).
In Year 1 of this project, we focused on Objectives 1 and 2 from our original proposal, updated below to reflect actual activities, and are just beginning to work on Objective 3:
Objective 1. Assess Market and Map Supply Chains
1.a. PI Bloom (Rural Sociologist) supervised a Graduate Research Assistant (GRA; funded by the Department of Agricultural and Human Sciences), Bhavisha Gulabrai, and worked with Co-PIs Brown, Ham, and Stout (Farm to Institution program directors) and Project Collaborator Blackburn (Farm to School Extension Associates) to assess the four community institution markets, including developing a food service interview guide. Co-PI Hundley left NC State, and was replaced as Farm to ECE Interim Director by Brown. Gulabari is co-advised by Collaborator Dr. Katie Sanders, who contributes evaluation and food systems communication expertise to the project.
We used qualitative methods to collect data from kitchen managers and staff for the ECE, school district, University, and senior services sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews with four early care centers, a university food service manager, a school district nutrition director, and an assisted living facility. We are still actively recruiting additional assisted living facilities, and re-assessing the best way to engage with senior services in this county as an institutional market. In addition, we had hoped to recruit the local Head Start, but were unable to gain access to their administrative director. We continue to try and build a relationship with the Head Start, but in the meantime we are instead focusing on four private ECE sites with high CACFP reimbursement rates. These institutional interviews explored institutional food procurement practices, interest in local food sourcing, perceived benefits and challenges, logistical considerations, and preferred product types. The qualitative nature of these interviews allowed for in-depth exploration of each institution’s unique constraints and opportunities regarding local food integration.These data will serve as baseline data against which we can measure progress as we conduct formative and summative evaluations (Objective 4).
Qualitative methods are appropriate to collect information about participants’ perceptions, as they allow participants to explain themselves in an open-ended format. To analyze these data, GRA Gulabrai, under the supervision of PI Bloom, uploaded all interview transcripts into a qualitative data analysis software program, Dedoose. They created a codebook for this project, and conducted qualitative coding to identify emergent themes and patterns. Through this process, they extracted relevant quantitative data about procurement practices, according to our evaluation framework, as well as data that will inform Objective 1.b and the internal report in Objective 3.b.
1.b. Co-PI Dr. Lauren Davis (Industrial Engineer at NC A&T State University) is currently supervising two undergraduate research assistants (URAs) to map current supply chains that depict sourcing and distribution pathways between farmers and institutional markets. Using the data collected in task 1.a, Co-PI Davis and the URAs have developed a python application that reads the farm and institution addresses and automatically plots them on a map. This allows us to determine spatial proximity between potential supply and demand locations. We will extend this visualization so that supply and demand locations can be filtered by product type and GAP certification. This will allow us to see which farm locations can best meet the product-specific and regulatory demands of the institutions.
Objective 2. Assess and Support Farmer Readiness
2.a. PI Bloom, GRA Gulabarai, Co-PIs, and Collaborators designed and conducted farmer readiness surveys with five farmers in the study county to identify farmers’ infrastructure and training needs to access institutional markets. The survey assessed farm capacity, production capabilities, current certifications, and training needs related to institutional supply chains. This data provided insight into the feasibility of matching institutional demand with local supply. The GRA has analyzed these surveys and will use the results to inform the internal report in Objective 3.b., design the pilot, and create a series of on-farm workshops for Fall of Year 2 that will provide targeted training to support farmers’ capacity to sell to the four community institutions. Three of the four core farmers in the Lumbee Farmers’ Cooperative participated in this data collection process, as well as two additional farmers; in addition, we had 14 farmers attend a GAP Food Safety training, where we were able to share more about the project in order to recruit additional participants. We will continue to work closely with the Lumbee Tribe and Cooperative Extension to identify new farmers to recruit to the project until we feel confident that farmers have sufficient capacity to supply these markets to meet institutional demand.
2.b. We worked with our partners to offer two training workshops. Co-PI Dr. Dari provided a training on cover crop practices that will improve farm productivity while reducing environmental footprints and farm input costs. This training was conducted on Millard and Duncan Locklear’s farm (New Ground Farm) and included a farm tour to demonstrate relevant concepts (see Educational Outreach Section for more details). Since public school systems in North Carolina require Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification, we also partnered with NC Cooperative Extension Area Specialized Agent, Fresh Produce Food Safety, Elena Rogers to provide a GAP training workshop. The Lumbee Tribe has funding to provide one on one technical assistance for any farmer pursuing GAP certification, and producers will have access to a GAP cost share program through the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, as well as support from the Lumbee Tribe.
Objective 3. Develop and Pilot Farm to Institution Supply Chains
3.a. Due to delays in data collection from farmers (see Unanticipated Delays, below), Co-PI Davis is currently (at the end of Year 1) using supply chain data and a map of farmer and market locations to identify supply chain strategies across multiple community institutions that decrease costs and increase efficiencies (for example, aggregating orders, using central drop-off points, shared delivery, etc). This information is being used to create distribution routes and other systems that support integrated Farm to Institution supply chains.
3.b. Once 3.a. is complete, GRA Gulabrai will develop an internal report summarizing all data collected for Objectives 1 and 2. This report will summarize each market and analyze each farmer’s capacity in order to make suggestions for how to design the pilot in such a way that aligns producer and institutional capacity. The report will have detailed information needed to develop supply chain strategies, and to coordinate between farmers and institutions (for example, through production planning, understanding market requirements for grading in order to analyze the possibility of selling seconds, needed certificates, etc.). These data will include data gathered from food service and farmers, and the report will be used to design the pilot.
3.c. In addition to coordinating among producers and buyers to implement the pilot, we are currently planning programming to support and promote consumption of local products, where appropriate. Currently, through another USDA grant, PI Bloom and Co-PI Brown are planning a Farm to ECE Collaborative (series of workshops and trainings), and Robeson County will form a county team to receive technical assistance and support for expanded Farm to ECE programming at the four participating ECE sites. This includes training about gardening, food-based learning activities, and how to plan menus and prepare local foods.
Unanticipated Delays:
First, our contact with the Lumbee Tribe left their position, and we have taken time to build new relationships with their replacement, who was recently added to the Advisory Committee. In addition to submitting our research to NC State’s Institutional Review Board, we were required to also submit our farmer-related research for approval by the Lumbee Tribe’s Institutional Review Board. This process took longer than anticipated, and while we received approval from the NC State IRB in September, 2024, we just received Tribal IRB approval to conduct farmer surveys in February, 2025. This delay pushed back our data collection, and subsequent pilot planning, which is currently underway.
An additional delay to the project has been the recent cancellation of the Local Food for Schools and Child Care Center funding from the USDA. While we had facilitated meetings between the school district and participating farmers to discuss preferred products, the termination of this funding source has affected the school district’s ability to purchase these local food products directly from farmers. Originally, the school district had committed to purchasing four products for their summer feeding program (peppers, carrots, watermelons, and blueberries); as a result of the funding cut, they are now planning to only purchase two items (watermelons and blueberries). In addition, the uncertainty with federal funding, and the demands for budgetary cuts at the district level, have made it challenging to make future plans related to their ability to purchase local food.
Another potential delay with implementing the pilot program is that the contract for university dining services at UNC-Pembroke will be changing in August. As a result, the Dining Services Manager who was interviewed for this project will not be employed starting in the spring, so we are unclear whether the University will purchase any local food in the future. We plan to work on re-establishing this relationship when a new Dining Services Manager is hired, and re-asses interest in and demand for local farm products at this institution.
Finally, we have encountered challenges finding institutions that serve seniors to participate in the pilot. While we interviewed one assisted living facility, we have been unable to find other facilities that are interested in participating. We are exploring other avenues for reaching seniors. We have had a meeting with the NC Department of Health and Human Services Division of Aging to discuss opportunities to collaborate on promotion of the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program. In addition, the Lumbee Farmers Cooperative is exploring the purchase of a van that could be used as a mobile market to serve Housing Authorities with high senior populations.
Preliminary findings from semi-structured interviews with various institutions have highlighted a range of challenges and opportunities that will inform the pilot project. Early care centers, a university food service, school nutrition program, and an assisted living facility face distinct barriers, yet common themes have emerged regarding logistical constraints, cost considerations, and the feasibility of incorporating local food.
Early care centers struggle with food quality and logistics, such as payment issues at farmers’ markets and limited kitchen equipment (especially storage). All four centers are open to gardening but need training, and face some parental resistance to fresh produce, leading to concerns about acceptance of healthy food offerings. The university food service director was open to local sourcing, but faced farmer-side challenges that need addressing for local food integration, especially a shortage of farmers with GAP certification. As mentioned above, we may have to re-assess this institution once the change in food service companies occurs. The school district has attempted local sourcing in the past, but encountered quality issues, leading to hesitance moving forward. However, the summer feeding program, USDA Fruit and Vegetable Grant Program, and interest in value-added products present opportunities for local food inclusion, if the funding constraints mentioned earlier can be addressed. The assisted living facility incorporates local food when possible, but faces challenges with preparation time and pricing. Delivery remains a preferred method of sourcing, reinforcing the theme that logistical ease is critical for local food adoption.
Across all settings, logistical constraints, cost, and food quality are primary barriers to sourcing local foods. Despite these challenges, there is a shared interest in supporting local producers. These findings will inform strategies to overcome barriers and identify solutions for integrating local food.
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation Summary:
We have had several consultations, including two Advisory Committee meetings, and several meetings facilitating relationships between farmers and institutional markets (see Project Outcomes section of report). Although we are still in the data collection, analysis, and planning stage of the project, we were able to provide a Research Update presentation about this project at the Food Distribution Research Society’s annual conference, held in Puerto Rico in October, 2024 (see Information Products section).
In addition to these activities, we have conducted the following educational outreach:
- Farm to Early Care and Education Training (36 participants)
Co-I Shironda Brown (Interim Director of CEFS Farm to Early Care and Education Program) conducted a Whole Center Training on August 30th, 2024 for the teachers and staff in two of the ECE programs in the project. This training was designed to generate buy-in from both centers to support the educational components of Farm to ECE, in order to increase the impact of local food purchasing.
- Cover Crop Training (10 participants)
Conducted by Co-I Biswanath Dari (Agriculture and Natural Resource Specialist, A&T State University), this training introduced participants to the basics of cover cropping. It was hosted on Millard Locklear’s New Ground Farm, one of our advisory farmers, and also the lead farmer for the Lumbee Farmers Cooperative. The workshop included a farm tour of New Ground Farm. In addition to seven farmers, one representative from Cooperative Extension attended, and two representatives from the Lumbee Tribe.
- Good Agricultural Practices Training (14 Participants)
Conducted by NC State Extension’s Area Specialized Agent for Food Safety, Elena Rogers, this workshop introduced participants to the principles of Good Agricultural Practices, and provided each farmer with a kit to begin to implement practices. We also invited the Agriculture and Natural Resource Manager from the Lumbee Tribe to share additional services from the Lumbee Tribe to work one on one with farmers to create their food safety plans, as well as to provide financial support for GAP certification.
Upcoming Educational Activities:
During the Spring and Summer 2025, CEFS will offer its Farm to ECE Collaborative. We will use a Breakthrough Series Collaborative method developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (www.ihi.org) and successfully trialed by CEFS’ NC F2ECE Initiative In 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 (leadership from Co-PI Brown), to accelerate F2ECE improvements and sustain practice changes. Robeson County Partnership for Children will lead a county team, including Cooperative Extension and four child care centers to participate in this Farm to ECE programming training.
Based on the data collection that we have conducted with Institutional Food Service for ECE, schools, University, and senior services, we have updated Table 1 from our original proposal with the estimated number of consumers who we anticipate will receive local food through this pilot program.
Table 1. Institutional Participant Estimates
|
Institution Type |
Number of Sites |
Number of Adults |
Number of Children (age 0-18) |
Percent population received federal subsidy |
Number Receiving federal subsidy |
Number of Adults trained or educated |
Number of children educated |
|
Early Care and Education |
4 |
n/a |
464 |
52% |
239 |
36 |
TBD |
|
K-12 School |
14 |
n/a |
20,000 |
n/a |
n/a |
TBD |
TBD |
|
University |
1 |
1,600 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
TBD |
TBD |
|
Senior Services |
1 |
36 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
TBD |
TBD |
|
Totals |
20 |
1,636 |
20,374 |
55% |
204 |
36 |
n/a |
Learning Outcomes
Cleaning and sanitation of food contact surfaces
How to determine if water is adequate for its use
Handling compost safely
Health and hygiene for produce handling
Nutrient management
Pest and disease control
Cover crops
Benefits of conservation tillage
Weed management under conservation tillage
Crop rotations
Conservation tillage systems
Project Outcomes
Our project has engaged in two main activities to affect future agricultural sustainability. First, we have collected data and built relationships with the goal of creating and strengthening the institutional market for local farmers. As part of this, we have completed the following:
- Formed an Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee consists of three farmers from the Lumbee Farmers Cooperative, and one representative each from: Robeson County Partnership for Children, Robeson County Public Schools, University of North Carolina at Pembroke’s Dining Services, Lumber River Area Agency on Aging, Robeson County Cooperative Extension, and the Lumbee Tribe. The Advisory Committee has met twice (June 10, 2024 and December 3, 2024), in addition to multiple one on one follow up meetings for those who could not attend the full meetings.
- Conducted Research
As described in the Research section of this report, we have collected data from 7 institutional food service and 5 farmers in the region to understand logistical constraints and preferred products.
- Facilitated relationships between farmers and food service
In addition to research, we have facilitated meetings between farmers and institutional food service, especially the public school system, University, and ECE sites to identify preferred products, delivery systems, and other requirements. As a result of this project, one farmer plans on obtaining GAP certification so that he can sell watermelons to the school district for their summer feeding program.
The second set of project activities relates to training for both farmers and institutions, which are described under the Educational Outreach Section of the report.
Taken together, these activities contribute to economic sustainability by creating the basis of a stable, integrated institutional market for farmers, including providing them with training and resources to help them access the market. Increasing their economic sustainability also affects their social sustainability, especially as this project offers a path for small, beginning farmers to learn what they need to do to sell to wholesale markets by starting with smaller markets with less requirements (ECE and senior/assisted living), and then as they scale up production and obtain certifications, they can enter the school system and University markets. Social sustainability is additionally addressed by creating a plan to provide fresh, healthy produce to community institutions, which are often a primary meal source for community members at risk for food insecurity. Finally, environmental sustainability is addressed by offering key workshops related to topics such as cover cropping.
While we had hoped to have the pilot program fully designed by the end of Year 1, we are behind in our timeline due to a few factors, as described in the Research section. We are currently working on the design of the pilot (Objective 3), and re-assessing the two markets that are currently experiencing changes (school and University), as well as re-engaging with county partners to refine our strategy for recruiting senior assisted living facilities. We will use the evaluation plan presented in our original proposal to conduct an evaluation after Year 2, once the pilot has been implemented
Since we have spent the first year of this project collecting and analyzing data in order to design a pilot project, we do not yet have any recommendations. We will have concrete recommendations after we are able to evaluate the pilot project in Years 2 and 3 of the project.