Bringing the UMass Mentor Farm Model to Urban Agriculture

Progress report for SNE23-004-MA

Project Type: PDP State Program
Funds awarded in 2023: $116,251.00
Projected End Date: 09/30/2026
Grant Recipient: UMass Extension
Region: Northeast
State: Massachusetts
State Coordinator:
Clem Clay
UMass Extension
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

This project will develop a Mentor Farm model within the new UMass Extension Urban Agriculture initiative. It will identify three Mentor Farms per year for three years who will receive stipends, soil and disease diagnostic services, and intensive education from Extension Urban Agriculture Educators and experts in disciplines including soil health, pest management, and horticulture. In exchange, the Mentor Farms will host on-farm education events for other urban farmers and service providers, as well as provide key feedback and guidance to UMass Extension. UMass Extension personnel will participate in training specifically designed to help them engage with new audiences with respect and humility and to work with urban farmers.

We anticipate that in addition to the three farms per year we engage with intensively, 6 on-farm events per year will attract at least 20 participants per event, or 120 per year. We also expect to direct 20 inquiries per year to each Mentor Farm, or 60 in total. These extended audiences will be comprised primarily of individuals who are both farmers and service providers.

Key objectives of the project are to: (1) build trust between UMass Extension and those who support urban agricultural practitioners; (2) improve UMass Extension’s ability to deliver expertise to new audiences in a respectful way; (3) demonstrate material benefits of Extension expertise to urban farmers; and (4) support peer-to-peer learning within urban agriculture networks.

Performance Target:

Over 3 years, 9 Mentor Farms represented by at least 9 ASP’s will gain comprehensive science-based farming knowledge that improves productivity and efficiency of farm operations, and results in increased knowledge and improved practices for participating employees, volunteers, and trainees whose number are too difficult to predict. In Collaboration with UMass Extension, these 9 Mentor Farms will educate 120 ASP’s and 240 urban farmers at on-farm events, resulting in reported increases in knowledge of relevant farming topics and expected behavior change that can lead to greater resource efficiency, productivity and food safety. Of those 120 ASP’s and 240 farmers reached, we expect at least 30 to subsequently report that they have passed knowledge they learned on to at least 50 other urban farmers. Finally, we expect at least 6 Extension personnel to participate in training and to subsequently use best practices in engaging with urban farming audiences.

Introduction:

Description of Problem or Opportunity:

Urban farmers in Massachusetts are a growing and diverse group, but they have never been defined or counted. They include mission-driven non-profit organizations, small- scale entrepreneurs, large corporations, businesses seeking to provide amenities or food grown on site for employees, and many more. They exist in every urban and many peri-urban areas in the state, but because there is not yet a common definition of “urban agriculture” that is inclusive and attached to a census, no one can claim to know how many urban farmers operate in Massachusetts. For the purposes of this proposal, from our direct experience, we will assert with confidence that in Massachusetts, there are at least 100 private urban farmers and at least 30 organizations engaged in farming who provide farming opportunities (though employment, training, land access, or otherwise) to at least 300 individuals annually. These are conservative numbers intended to demonstrate that a proposal focused on “Urban Agriculture” has the potential to reach a large number of individuals engaged in farming, both directly and indirectly.

The growth of urban farming in Massachusetts has been widely acknowledged, and many organizations offer financial or technical support to these farmers. These include the MA Department of Agricultural Resources’ Urban Agriculture Grant program, Massachusetts Food System Collaborative’s support of a statewide Urban Agriculture Coalition, the establishment of GrowBoston as a City of Boston Office of Urban

Agriculture, USDA programs and services being offered through NRCS and FSA, and additional programs and services offered for urban farmers by non-profit organizations with local, statewide, and broader scopes. Importantly, many urban farming organizations that might be classified as “farmers” by some definition can also be seen as service providers because they are providing land, inputs, knowledge, and so on through their mission-driven programming.

Many of the support services offered focus on access to land, capital, and markets, development of programming, and other important aspects of developing a robust urban agricultural sector. There is very little in the way of direct education and technical support for those who desire to learn how to apply scientific knowledge in order to farm in a productive, efficient, safe, and sustainable manner in cities. To address this gap, UMass Extension has recently hired its first Urban Agriculture Educators, and is hiring a second one. This investment has been well received by stakeholders, and most of the feedback our new Educator has received regarding the preferred types of assistance is in the realm of core Extension strengths such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), soil health management, and horticultural science.

It is generally true that urban farmers and the grassroots farming organizations serving them face great barriers to success such as financing, language, land, infrastructure, and equipment. Many do not fit the traditional producer molds that longstanding service programs – Extension included – have been designed to serve.

These producers may need different or customized services in order to realize desired outcomes, but may not always be able to identify what their specific needs are or how they need to receive assistance, especially if they have been omitted by mainstream providers. In the case of urban farming organizations as well as individual producers, they may simply be unaware that agricultural Extension exists, or may believe it is not there to serve them.

This presents a novel challenge for UMass Extension, which generally has more demand from its traditional audiences than it is able to meet with available capacity. Now, we will be faced with a need to introduce ourselves to new audiences, market our services, and prove that we can adapt our expertise to the diverse needs of people and organizations with whom we do not have a foundation of trust. We also need to learn to respect cultures of learning and knowing that are different from those that traditional Extension culture has grown out of, including an emphasis on peer-to-peer education.

Solution and Benefits:

A good solution to the needs and challenges described above will: (1) build trust between UMass Extension and those who support urban agricultural practitioners; (2) improve UMass Extension’s ability to deliver expertise to new audiences in a respectful way; (3) demonstrate material benefits of Extension expertise to urban farmers; and (4) support peer-to-peer learning within urban agriculture networks.

While there are many possible approaches, we propose modifying one that has proved successful for us in our IPM work with commercial vegetable producers, referred to as the “Mentor Farm” model. This is essentially an agreement between our Vegetable

Team and a cohort of farms throughout the state in which UMass Extension agrees to provide intensive planning, training and diagnostic services that we cannot offer to most farms in exchange for the farmer’s agreement to host Extension meetings for other growers, act as a mentor to nearby growers, and provide feedback on the program to Extension staff. Grant funding provides key support, and both the mentor farms and others benefit from the knowledge gained, while UMass Extension develops its expertise and program delivery capability with intensive work on a small number of farms and meaningful feedback.

We believe that this model can be successfully adapted to the urban farm context. It will provide direct benefits for participating farms through intensive consultation and free services, while ensuring that they also play a key role as service providers (aka mentors delivering peer-to-peer knowledge). It will create opportunities to engage broader audiences of urban farmers and supporting organizations at twilight meetings” or similar events hosted by mentor farms, building trust by demonstrating value, and doing so on non-Extension “turf.” Finally, we will offer Extension staff (who are ASP’s) opportunities to receive training in a campus setting, and direct conversational and survey-based feedback from participants regarding their ability to approach program delivery with humility and respect.

Service Provider Interest:

Unfortunately, there was too little time between discussions with NESARE staff approving this alternate proposal concept and the extended proposal deadline to do adequate consultation with service providers. However, we have done substantial outreach in recent months to many such service providers, and have received strong encouragement to develop the Extension Urban Agriculture initiative in a way that concretely demonstrates the expertise that Extension staff and faculty have to offer. We have also been advised repeatedly to listen carefully to stakeholder needs, and we believe that the Mentor Farm model provides us with an excellent opportunity to listen in a sustained way and develop a strong understanding of the needs of participating farms. Prior to launching the project, we will conduct outreach to test concepts with the target audience.

Educational Approach

Educational approach:

Engagement

Our first step in engagement will be to identify three Mentor Farms. Our plan is to advertise the opportunity and seek applicants prior to making any selections with the help of our Advisory Committee (AC). Because there will be an attractive combination of stipend ($2,000 per farm per year) and services and a modest set of obligations, we believe we will have more applicants than slots. If the AC recommends a different approach, we may alter this plan. Either way, we will select three farms representing geographic diversity and diversity of ownership and management models. Once selected, much of the activity with Mentor Farms will be described under Learning below, and will include intensive engagement.

Wider engagement will become important as we work with Mentor Farms to host Extension outreach events and support other growers by sharing what they have learned. On-farm events will generally take place twice per year at each participating farm, and will be co-designed and co-led by the Mentor Farm and Extension. On average, we expect 20 participants per event, or 120 per year. Of these, we expect 40 to be non-farming service providers affiliated with supporting organizations, and 80 to be farmers or staff or trainees of farming organizations, many of whom play educational roles within their organizations and could be considered to be service providers (e.g. a nonprofit farm education leader who trains formerly incarcerated individuals in farm management skills). We also expect to direct 20 inquiries per year to each Mentor Farm, or 60 in total. At least half of these will be from people who could be defined as service providers in addition to their role as farmers.

Learning

The Mentor Farmer learning will be customized to each farm, based on initial consultation to acquaint them with Extension resources, determine objectives, and make a plan for the coming year. As determined in that plan, Extension staff and faculty, and possibly other guests, will provide educational content and training on the topics of interest during weekly or biweekly farm visits and in virtual sessions. Likely topics include basic plant science, soil health and plant fertility, soil toxins and food safety, pest and disease identification, weed management, IPM including trapping and scouting, organic strategies, high tunnel practices, and greenhouse and soilless production. The method of delivery will also be customized to provide the type of learning opportunity with the greatest value to the farmer. This could range from informal one-on-one trainings with a lead farmer to multi-speaker workshops with an entire farm crew including youth or other trainees, and may include preparation of fact sheets and related materials that can be share more widely. We will provide access to soil testing for nutrients, organic matter, and heavy metals, and training on how to interpret test results and select appropriate amendments and practices. Likewise, any diagnostics for diseases, nematodes and insect pests will be covered within budget limits. Use of these services can vastly accelerate learning and increase farmer confidence, but they are often difficult for small and urban farms to afford. Ultimately, the goal of each Mentor Farm’s plan will be to understand and use the resources available through Extension to become more proficient at the kind of farming they want to do at their specific location, and then to share their knowledge with others.

We will support that knowledge-sharing by Mentor Farmers on an ongoing basis through regular check-ins about referrals we have sent to them and inquiries they have received. We will collect data for reporting purposes, but also be available to workshop their responses as needed, so they develop confidence applying what they have learned to the different contexts experienced by others. In many cases, Mentor Farmers are likely to be working with employees, volunteers, trainees, and others, and passing on knowledge gained though the Extension relationship to them. Mentor Farmers will also co-design and co-present curriculum for trainings or other educational events hosted on their farms, increasing their learning while making the material relevant to the urban farming audience. Those attending the on-farm workshops and related events will often be service providers themselves, so knowledge they gain will potentially be extended to their audiences as well. Our Urban Agriculture Educators will be available for follow-up questions from all of these direct and indirect participants.

Finally, we will offer Extension staff (who are ASP’s) opportunities to receive both training in a campus setting, and direct conversational and survey-based feedback from participants regarding their ability to approach program delivery with humility and respect.

Evaluation

Evaluation with Mentor Farmers will be intensive. We will seek to build strong bonds of trust between our Urban Agriculture Educators and Mentor Farmers, and to schedule honest conversations about our strengths and weaknesses. Constructive feedback will be conveyed to other Extension personnel who have engaged with Mentor Farmers.

Mentor Farmers will advise on program changes annually. If Extension has engaged with multiple staff/volunteers/trainees at a Mentor Farm, they will be surveyed.

Participants in the 6 annual on-farm events will also be surveyed. Dual goals of the evaluation will be to gauge gains in knowledge and utilization, and to measure Extension personnel effectiveness in delivering content respectfully and appropriately for the audience. Extension personnel who attend training will also evaluate its effectiveness.

Milestones

Milestones:
  1. Engagement: November 31,2023. 3 Mentor Farms selected, representing geographic diversity (likely one in Greater Boston, one in an Eastern MA Gateway City, and one in a Western MA Gateway City), at least two types of organizational structure (e.g. non-profit organization, small-scale entrepreneur), and with clear engagement of communities and/or farmers. There will be at least one committed ASP per farm, but potentially more depending on the farm’s capacity and needs. Mentor Farms and their ASP’s will commit to a 1-year or 2-year agreement in exchange for a $2,000/year stipend and $500/year in diagnostic services.

STATUS: Complete (3/15/24)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Selected Urban Farming Institute (Mattapan/Boston, nonprofit), Regional Environmental Council (Worcester, nonprofit), and Nordica Street Community Farm (Springfield, private/mission-driven). Milestone was delayed due to staff turnover in our Urban Agriculture Educator positions, but achieved in time for the 2024 season.

  1. Learning: January 31, 2024  3 Mentor Farms and at least 3 respective ASP’s will work with a UMass Extension Urban Agriculture Educator to develop a customized plan for the year, including critical challenges, learning objectives, soil testing plans, a draft schedule of Extension activities (e.g. farm visits, trainings, trap/lure deployment, communication agreements, and a plan for two on-farm events (e.g. Twilight Meeting, focused training) including target audience, tentative date, and priority topics.

STATUS: Complete (May 2024)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: MOU's were signed with each Mentor Farm in April, 2024. Extension staff site visits and in-depth conversations with Mentor Farm managers identified pest management as a common and high-priority challenge across sites. Work Plans for the season were based on this insight but were not as concrete as originally proposed, evolving as the season proceeded. In addition to the three (3) Mentor Farm managers (considered ASP's in our proposal) and two (2) Extension Urban Ag Educators, four (4) additional individuals associated with the farms and six (6) Extension Educators in Vegetable, Fruit, and Soil Health were engaged in this process.

  1. Learning: May 31, 2024  6 UMass Extension personnel who are ASP’s complete training on working with new audiences, organizations and urban farmers. Priority participants will be those most likely to engage with urban farmers through this and other programs.

STATUS: Complete (3/3/24)

ACCCOMPLISHMENTS: Four (4) staff (Urban Agriculture Educators Ibrahim Ali and Olivia Golden, Production Agriculture Leader Susan Scheufele, and Extension Agriculture Program Director Clem Clay) attended a 2.5-day in-person workshop. We had fewer participants than the six proposed because we opted to participate in a weekend training rather than bring in consultants to work with our staff. The intensive nature of the workshop made this a more meaningful experience than our budget would have allowed with consultants, and we hope to provide the opportunity for others in Extension to participate in the future.

  1. Engagement and Learning: November 15, 2024. At least 24 farm visits or ASP trainings completed at the 3 mentor Farms during the growing season, reaching at least 3 ASP’s. 6 on-farm educational events co-led by Extension and ASP’s completed at the 3 Mentor Farms, reaching at least 120 participants, including 40 non-farming service providers affiliated with supporting organizations, and 80 farmers or staff or trainees of farming organizations, many of whom play educational roles within their organizations and could be considered to be ASP’s. Extension Educators and Mentor Farms collaborate on response to at least 60 inquiries from ASP’s and farmers. The specific topics, knowledge, and skills will depend on the plans developed in #1 above.

STATUS: Complete

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Including the initial planning site visits but excluding on-farm events, we conducted a total of 18 site visits to Mentor Farms in 2024. Participants in these site visits included: 10 Urban Farm Managers/Staff, 2 Outside Farmers, 9 Extension Ag Service Providers, 1 Non-Extension Ag Service Provider, 1 Community Gardener, and 4 Additional Community Members. These visits allowed our Urban Ag staff to better understand the operations and challenges at each site, and to bring others at UMass Extension with relevant expertise to provide assistance with insect, disease, soil, and horticultural challenges. Extension Staff attending site visits included Olivia Golden, Ibrahim Ali, Susan Scheufele, Ali Shokoohi, Elizabeth Garofalo, Arthur Siller, Maria Gannett, Nicole Bell, and Matthew Bley.

We completed six (6) educational events, two at each Mentor Farm. The total of 107 Participants in these events (approximately 97 unique individuals) included: 35 Urban Farm Managers/Staff (including youth employees), 3 Other Farmers, 5 Extension Ag Service Providers, 7 Non-Extension Ag Service Providers, 5 Community Gardeners, 12 Home Gardeners, 4 Additional Community Members, and 23 attendees who did not return a post-participation survey with demographic information.

We conducted 2 Total Sorbed Metals Soil Test, 3 Routine Soil Analysis with Organic Matter, and 7 Vegetable Crop Disease Analysis Tests using grant funds. Several Mentor Farms had sent soil samples for testing not long before joining the program, and did not need the service as much as we had anticipated, but are interested in additional soil tests in the coming months. Also, disease and insect identification were often conducted during site visits and without use of the diagnostic lab.

We determined that our proposed inquiry referral approach was overly complex and not feasible, at least in the first year, so did not track these referrals. We do believe that the Mentor Farms, through their participation, have increased visibility among their peers and will continue to be useful resources to other urban farmers and to share their experiences with UMass Extension in those interactions, resulting in increased requests for Extension services.

  1. Evaluation: January 15, 2025. Evaluation activities for the first mentor Farm year completed. These include:

(1) pre- and post-intervention surveys of all 120+ participants (40 ASP and 80 farmers who may also be ASP’s) in the 6 on-farm events assessing knowledge gain, expected behavior change, confidence in passing on knowledge to others, and perceptions of Extension interactions;

(2) time-delayed post-intervention surveys of these same 120 program participants to estimate actual transfer of knowledge to additional urban farmers;

(3) surveys of 10 Extension personnel participating in training;

(4) numerical and resolution analysis of 60 collaboratively-managed inquiries from urban farmers;

(5) Extension and Advisory Council narrative evaluation of Mentor Farms’ adherence to plans and agreements; and

(6) intensive and multi-modal evaluation of Extension programs by 3 or more ASP’s participating on behalf of their respective Mentor Farms.

Modes of evaluation by Mentor Farmers will include: surveys of any employees, volunteers, trainees, or others who participated in discrete programming in groups; quarterly and as-needed conversations with primary Extension contact about program relevance, quality, and delivery; Mentor Farmer evaluation conversations with Program Consultant and corresponding conversations with Extension personnel to deliver sensitive feedback and/or put feedback into a context that informs future program modification; and a collaboratively-developed summary of the year of work together that includes strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned on all sides.

STATUS: In Progress

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: We have collected evaluations from most attendees of the 6 on-farm events (#1 above). Some results are reported in other sections, but the overall feedback was extremely positive in terms of knowledge gain and likelihood of sharing information. We have also surveyed the three Mentor Farms (#6 above) and received feedback through email, meetings, and in-person conversations. In the coming month, we hope to work on the "collaboratively-developed summary of the year of work together that includes strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned on all sides."

Some aspects of our evaluation plan were too ambitious, at least for our first year. For example, we would be unlikely to reach or receive time-delayed post-intervention feedback (#2) because we did not collect contact information for all attendees and made post-event survey anonymous. We think this was the right trade-off because it increased participants' comfort with the setting and with UMass Extension, but we will continue to consider how we can gather time-delayed information n program effects in the future. We also cannot evaluate inquiry referrals (#4) because we did not implement this concept. Mentor Farm adherence to agreements (#5) was excellent, and we did not think a formal survey was needed. We did not formally evaluate the training for our staff because the organizers conducted their own evaluation of all participants. However, we may do this after a 2025 workshop and include both 2024 and 2025 Extension participants.

  1. Engagement: November 31, 2024 and November 1, 2025 See #1 above, to be repeated for the next two years, with any modifications discussed and agreed among the Project Team (and NESARE if necessary).

STATUS: Not begun

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: N/A

  1. Learning: January 31, 2025 and January 31, 2026  See #2 above, to be repeated for the next two years, with any modifications discussed and agreed among the Project Team (and NESARE if necessary).

STATUS: Not begun

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: N/A

  1. Learning: April 30, 2025 and March 31, 2026 See #3 above, to be repeated for the next two years, with any modifications discussed and agreed among the Project Team (and NESARE if necessary). Because some personnel will have undergone training already, we may bring in new Extension staff for similar training, or refresh training for those who have already had it, whichever seems likely to lead to the greatest sustained impact.

STATUS: Not begun

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: N/A

  1. Engagement and Learning: November 15, 2025 and August 31, 2026 See #4 above, to be repeated for the next two years, with any modifications discussed and agreed among the Project Team (and NESARE if necessary).

STATUS: Not begun

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: N/A

10 Evaluation: January 15, 2026 and September 15, 2026. See #5 above, to be repeated for the next two years, with any modifications discussed and agreed among the Project Team (and NESARE if necessary).

STATUS: Not begun

ACCOMPLISHMENTS: N/A

Milestone Activities and Participation Summary

32 Consultations
1 Curricula, factsheets or educational tools
6 Workshop field days
18 Other educational activities: Site visits other than for on-farm events (consultation with Extension staff, primarily)

Participation Summary:

10 Extension
1 NRCS
5 Nonprofit
1 Agency
49 Farmers/ranchers
44 Others

Learning Outcomes

8 Agricultural service providers reported changes in knowledge, skills and/or attitudes as a result of their participation.
38 Farmers reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills and/or awareness as a result of their participation
8 Ag service providers intend to use knowledge, attitudes, skills and/or awareness learned through this project in their educational activities and services for farmers

Performance Target Outcomes

Performance Target Outcomes - Service Providers

Target #1

Target: Number of service providers who will take action to educate/advise farmers:
9
Target: The educational action(s) they will take:

educate ASP’s and urban farmers at on-farm events resulting in reported increases in knowledge of relevant farming topics and expected behavior change that can lead to greater resource efficiency, productivity and food safety.

Target: The number of farmers who will be educated/advised by the service providers:
240
Target: Total size/scale of the farms these farmers manage (e.g. total acres or animal units managed, gross sales or production volume, etc.):

not measured and hard to assess in urban ag

Verified: Number of service providers who reported taking the targeted action(s) to educate/advise farmers in each year:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
3
The educational action(s) taken:

The three target ASP's are the farm managers at the participating Mentor Farms. They engaged with their farming constituents, including youth employees, adult farm staff, volunteers, and other community members, to apply what they learned. Other urban farmers also attended and intend to apply knowledge gained on their own farms.

Verified: The number of farmers who were educated/advised by the service providers:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
38
Verified: Total size/scale of the farms these farmers manage (e.g. total acres or animal units managed, gross sales or production volume, etc.):
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

not measured

Activities for farmers conducted by service providers:
ActivityYear 1Year 2Year 3Total
Curricula, factsheets and other educational tools 1 1
Consultations 32 32
Workshops and field days 6 6
Site visits other than for on-farm workshops. 18 18
8 Total number of agricultural service provider participants who used knowledge and skills learned through this project (or incorporated project materials) in their educational activities, services, information products and/or tools for farmers
38 Farmers reached through participant's programs
Total amount of production these farmers manage:
not measured
Performance target outcome for service providers narrative:

Activities for the program included:

    • 18 visits to the three mentor Farm sites for planning, consultation, and education. These were always coordinated and attended by at least one of our Urban Agriculture Educators, Olivia Golden and Ibrahim Ali. In many cases, they included one or more other Extension Educators with relevant expertise in insect, disease, soil, and horticultural challenges. A total of 9 Educators participated. Mentor Farm managers (10) and staff were the primary participants, but other ASP's (1), farmers (2) and community members (5) also attended some site visits. We did not consider verification requests necessary for these activities, but have photos and communications to support these numbers.
    • 6 On-farm educational events, two at each Mentor Farm, were co-led by Mentor Farms and UMass Extension's Urban Agriculture staff. An educational program, training activities (such as scouting for a specific insect pest), and a meal were part of each agenda. We counted total attendance at each event, which ranged from 12 to 31 attendees, for a total of 107 total attendees and approximately 97 unique individuals (duplicates were UMass Extension staff). We conducted anonymous written evaluations at the conclusion of each event and collected 67 responses. Non-respondents included 23 participant and 17 UMass Extension personnel. Of the 67 attendees surveyed:
      • 38 were Mentor Farm staff, including youth employees. For analysis, we considered the three primary farm managers to be our target ASP, while we considered the 35 others to be Farmers.
      • 3 were Farmers from other farms.
      • 5 were non-Extension ASP's.
      • 12 were Home Gardeners and 5 were Community Gardeners (some Mentor Farms have active programs supporting home and/or community gardeners).
      • 4 did not select a group membership option.
      • 47 respondents had a valid response to questions about whether they gained knowledge related to the IPM topic of the workshop, and 36 of these (77 percent) reported at least a one-point increase in knowledge on a 1-5 scale; 11 did not report any change. Those reporting knowledge gain included 3 Non-Extension ASP's, 2 Farmers at non-Mentor farms, and 20 Farmers at Mentor Farms. The survey did not distinguish between Mentor Farm managers and others working at the farm.
      • Of the 36 who said they gained knowledge of the topic, 28 (78 percent) rated their likelihood of sharing new knowledge with others as a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning "very unlikely" and 5 meaning "very likely." Those reporting likelihood of sharing acquired knowledge included 3 ASP's, 2 Farmers at a non-Mentor farms, and 13 Farmers at Mentor Farms. The survey did not distinguish between Mentor Farm managers and others working at the farm.
    • 32 consultations (13 in-person or virtual meetings, 7 calls, 12 email exchanges) were conducted with Mentor Farms. We did not consider verification requests necessary for these activities.
    • We also developed a modified Pest Scouting sheet that was intended to simplify the scouting task for urban farmers who may have less time and expertise than commercial growers.

In addition to evaluating individual activities, we have conducted an evaluation of the entire 2024 experience with the Mentor Farm managers, whom we classified as ASP's for the purposes of this grant. Selected results from this survey include:

  • All three respondents to "How closely did the program meet your expectations?" selected "Overwhelmingly met our expectations."
  • All three respondents to "How likely are you to share what you learned through the program?" selected "Extremely likely."
  • All three respondents to "How likely are you to you recommend this program to other farms?" selected "Extremely likely."
  • When asked if they could describe some of the impacts that the mentor farm program had on their farm, one mentor farmer said: “Our knowledge and confidence has grown tremendously, especially with pest management. We can be a better resource for our community.”
  • One mentor farmer shared that their farm has “learned a great deal from the UMASS team that will continue to help us as we improve and further develop our farming and educational programming. The resources that we have gained access to will help us with our long-term pest management strategy, as well as our soil health, pollinator habitat, fruit growing and many aspects of the work we do.”

 

Performance Target Outcomes - Farmers

Target #1

Target: number of farmers who will make a change/adopt of practice:

30

Target: the change or adoption the farmers will make:

pass knowledge they learned on to other (urban) farmers.

Target: total size/scale of farmers these farmers manage:

not measured

Verified: number of farmers who made a change/adopted a practice:

15

Verified: the change or adoption the farmers made:

Note that our verified reporting is for the number of farmers (including workers at the Mentor Farms) who reported a likelihood of sharing knowledge gained about pest scouting and pest management. Likelihood was deemed to be 4 or 5 on a sale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning "very unlikely" and 5 meaning "very likely." We do not have direct evidence of changes in management practices, other than from the three mentor farm managers, whom we categorize as ASP's.

Verified: size/scale of farms these farmers manage:

not measured

15 Farmers made a change/adopted a practice as a result of this project
Size/scale of farms affected by this project:
not measured
Performance target outcome for farmers narrative:

The activities, outcomes, and validation information for Farmers is already provided in the ASP section above. The nature of this project and its audiences makes the distinctions required for this grant very difficult to maintain. If we receive guidance from NESARE, we can attempt to separate information more carefully in an update to this report.

Additional Project Outcomes

Number of grants applied for that built upon this project:
Year 1Year 2Year 3Total
2 2
Number of new working collaborations:
Year 1Year 2Year 3Total
3 3
Additional Outcomes Narrative:

We received additional funds to develop relationships with and serve new audiences in this project. Among 63 survey respondents a majority reported that they are new to working with us.

We used the extra funds to provide direct benefits to Mentor Farms, including stipends and free soil testing and plant diagnostic services. Even more important than these funds, however, was the availability and accessibility of UMass Extension staff to urban farmers that is the foundation of this project. Our two Urban Ag Educators conducted respectful and patient outreach to communities throughout Massachusetts and have gradually built trust. They have demonstrated an ability to tap into UMass Extension resources on behalf of people and organizations who did not expect to be served by our institution, and to offer meaningful opportunities for trust-building and sharing of expertise. While there is room for much more progress, we are confident that this work is effectively building relationships with new audiences. Two anecdotes below illustrate this fact.

An anecdote from one of our Urban Ag Educators:

As someone who has worked extensively in community in Springfield, MA as well as in partnership with many of the constituents we were seeking to interact with across the state, I had the great experience of introducing this project to a number of the groups early on in this process. Initially, there was much apprehension with getting involved with an institution the size of UMass for these mostly locally based grassroots groups. Some of the things that were shared with me including concerns that UMass did not know how to communicate effectively with grassroots organizations, and that UMass did not offer recommendations for organic farmers (the vast majority of Urban Ag projects in the state are pesticide free)… The new messaging that is being shared now is that UMass is actively addressing past grievances via this Urban Ag extension program, and I spoke with an urban grower from Mattapan Boston who shared with me that "I think it is a big step that UMass has hired someone from our community to assure that we have a voice at extension". Additionally, another grower from Springfield shared with me that "I can't believe that UMass is going to be supporting Urban Farmers! This is fantastic news."

Another anecdote from one of our Urban Ag Educators:

In addition to farmers that shared positive interactions with the new Urban Extension program, we had candid conversations with farm groups and organizations across the state that are doing the heavy lifting in many of our cities regarding Urban Agriculture. A program in Pittsfield, MA that provided me with a tour of the entire community farms/gardens that were functioning at the time didn't even know that UMass was an option for the services that are offered, as they had heard the labs were closed (due to Covid). Our conversation with this groups leader not only brought to light the beneficial services that are offered at UMass, but shared with us that "had we not had this conversation I would have never thought that UMass was an option for us since we are not a big farm" and that they believe this program will "change the way many of us think about UMass Extension".

Success stories:

A Mentor Farm Story

In our initial meetings with the mentor farms, one of the mentor farmers said that spider mites had done extensive damage to his high tunnel tomatoes for the past several years. He had tried a couple of different interventions in the past, but they did not have much impact. We were expecting him to have spider mites again this year, so we discussed potential biocontrol options. When the farmer started noticing the tomato damage this season, we sent a sample to the UMass Plant Diagnostics lab to get a positive identification for the pest and we found out they had russet mites. The farmer was able to spray sulfur and then later release predatory mites to manage the russet mite population. He told us that as a result, his tomato plants were able to survive a lot longer than in previous years and that his farm “would not have been able to identify the russet mite issue if it weren’t for UMass.”

Assessment of Project Approach and Areas of Further Study:

We are currently reflecting on Year 1 and planning for Year 2. While not finalized, some of our thoughts on potential improvements include:

  • Start earlier.
  • Plan time for all mentor farms to work together before the season starts, and to connect with each other during the season.
  • Identify more specific projects and goals in the planning phase.
  • Develop more written resources and collect them as a "manual" that would be valuable to all Mentor Farms and other Urban Ag organizations.

SARE Outreach

Outreach about SARE:

Communication related to the Mentor Farm project references that this is a Northeast SARE funded program. When appropriate, the project number is also included.

The MA SARE State Coordinator oversees several Extension program areas that conduct the bulk of SARE outreach through a combination of newsletters, in-person events (e.g. twilight meetings), and one-on-one conversations. Newsletters including Vegetable Notes; Healthy Fruit; Grape Notes; and the Crop, Dairy, Livestock and Equine Newsletter reach a large and relevant audience for SARE Farmer and Partnership grants. These newsletters, as well as direct, grant-funded partnership work, helps us reach organizations representing underserved producers that are an excellent target for SARE Professional Development Grant, including Flats Mentor Farm, All Farmers, and Nuestras Raíces. Our Urban Ag program, both through SARE-funded activities and more generally, increases our reach as well. Our program staff regularly include notice of SARE grant opportunities in their newsletters, and are often able to answer questions that producers and organizations have about these programs, even though this outreach is not directly conducted by the State Coordinator. Due to this non-centralized mode of outreach, the audience results reported are rough estimates.

The State Coordinator occasionally receives and responds to direct inquiries from potential applicants seeking feedback on proposal fit and content.  Other inquiries and responses take place throughout our programs, but are not tracked numerically. In many cases, it is necessary to refer inquiries to NESARE staff to ensure that correct answers are provided, particularly as NESARE programs have been paused, reformulated, and introduced.

In general, UMass Extension has very limited capacity to represent its own programs through formal outreach and tabling at conferences and events. This has made it more challenging to represent SARE in these contexts as well, as the most efficient approach is to include SARE materials in Extension outreach efforts. The overall reduction in paper-based outreach brought on by the pandemic has raised questions about the relative importance of this type of outreach. Unless and until we have additional Extension outreach capacity, it is unlikely that SARE outreach at in-person events using paper-based materials will be impressive.

Recieved information about SARE grant programs and information resouces:

Audience Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Service providers 200 0 0 200
Farmers 600 0 0 600
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.