Progress 02/01/16 to 01/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience: In this reporting period we reached out to the following three target audiences. 1. Middle school parents. 2. Middle school children. We are currently in the process of completing the school experiments in schools in PA and IA to assess the purchasing or choice preferences of middle school children for locally grown foods. 3. School foodservice Directors 4. Academics through presentations 5. Family and consumer science professional through presentation Changes/Problems:Delaware State University was also part of this project. However, we were unable to get any additional participation from the institution as both our previous collaborators retired. We therefore were able to train and educate a graduate student, and also get support for completion of the project at Penn State University. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project included one graduate student and undergraduate students working with the PI and Co-PIs. The work listed in an earlier section provided an opportunity to train and educate the graduate student in the following aspects: 1. Conducting field experiments: The graduate student was designated as the point of contact for the two field experiments in PA. This project allowed the graduate student to learn how to set up the field experiment, develop the materials for data collection, implement the materials for data collection, and obtain the data from schools. Additionally this student also learned how to clean up the data, and then analyhze it to assess any impact on student choices. The undergraduat student was working with the graduate student to help in all these aspects. 2. Mentoring: The graduate student has also been explosed to mentor the undergraduate student through this project experience. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results so far have been communicated through presentations at three conferences, and other informal meetings. Some of these have been reported in the product outcomes. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The project has ended.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
2. To investigate the effectiveness of consumer orientation interventions on students' and parents' preferences, students' purchase frequency, and parents' choices for locally grown FVs. During this year the focus was on completing Objective 2 of this project. Students' preferences for fruits and vegetables were assessed by conducting three different field experiments in our partner schools in Iowa and Pennsylvannia. The school in Iowa helped us implement this experiment by offereing two different types of carrots: small uncooked, and lightly cooked carrot medallions. The PA schools helped us investigate the impact of promoting apples in the school on students' choices; and by offering whole versus cut apples to students. All of these three experiments were completed successfully and we are now in the process of analyzing this data. The parent survey was completed and we will continue to analyze this data.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Sharma, A., Soh, J., Kelley, K., & Strohbehn, C. (2016). Producers' Decision to Sell Local Foods to Schools: Impact of Transaction Costs and Benefits, to Agriculture and Human Values. Submitted to Agriculture and Human Values.
This paper is in the process of being resubmitted.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Strohbehn, C.H., Sharma, A., Kelly, K. (2016).� Effects of Producers Perceptions of Costs and Experiences on School Sales. Farm to Cafeteria Conference (Poster) Madison WI. June
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Kelley, K., Sharma, A., & Strohbehn, C.H. (2016).� A Survey of Iowa and Pennsylvania Fruit and Vegetable Growers: Identifying Barriers to Serving Schools. (Poster). School Nutrition Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.�July
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Strohbehn, C.H. Sharma, A., & Kelley, K. (2016).�Views of Iowa and Pennsylvania School Foodservice Directors on Local Food Purchasing. (Poster). School Nutrition Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.�� July
|
Progress 02/01/12 to 01/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience: In this project the following audiences were included: 1. Middle school parents 2. Middle school children 3. School foodservice Directors 4. Academics through presentations 5. Family and consumer science professional through presentation Changes/Problems: Delaware State University was also part of this project. However, we were unable to get any additional participation from the institution as both our previous collaborators retired. We therefore were able to train and educate a graduate student, and also get support for completion of the project at Penn State University. However, the lack of collaboration did impact our ability to obtain data from Delaware. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?This project allowed us to train undergraduate and graduate students. All information provided in the most recent progress report is uptodate and we have nothing more to report at this moment. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The results of this project have been, and continue to be communicated to all of our audiences through a diverse set of channels, as follows: 1. Refereed academic papers 2. Conference presentations 3. Media reporting of our results 4. PI's website of the Food Decisions Research Laboratory 5. Integrated in courses taught by the PI 6. Non refereed publications What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. To develop a consumer orientation model for locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables (FVs) based on parents' and students' preferences. 2. To investigate the effectiveness of consumer orientation interventions on students' and parents' preferences, students' purchase frequency, and parents' choices for locally grown FVs. 3. To assess the costs and benefits for farms and schools of implementing a consumer-orientation model The following is an overall summary of our project findings, however, this is highly abbreviated, and we look forward to an opportunity to present our overall findings to the USDA's SMF program: Producers' Costs and Benefits Our results provide more details of our findings, and we are in the process of resubmitting the paper that would showcase these results in more details. However for the moment the following points prove a snapshot of our findings. • We found that producers' perceived the main benefits of selling to schools included potentially higher prices, and increased sales from other outlets. None of the costs or obstacles appeared to be statistically significant in one of our analysis that pooled all costs and benefits together. However, when we futher investigated these percieved benefits with producers' commerical farming experinece, we found that producers with less commercial farming experience were... -9 times more likely to believe schools pay higher prices. -1.5 times more likely to believe directly selling to schools will lead to higher sales from other outlets. •These findings, and others togther make us conclude that farmers and producers appear to have a less understanding of institutions market (such as schools), specially for those with less experience. School Foodservice Directors Our prodject also investigated the costs and benefits for school foodservice directors to source locally, directly from producers. Again, while we have several details from our findings, the following is a small snapshot of the highlights of our results that potentially provide a unique perspective on this topic: Some of our findings suggest that schools could face higher transaction costs due to: Inability to find growers that could provide them the appropriate products, an preferred prices, and who meet all the requirements for selling directly to schools. On the other hand schools also seem to have an unclear understanding of the operational impact of sourcing locally grown foods directly into the schools. For instance, some of this operational impact could be indirect (such as billing), but others could be more direct, such as cooking skills and capacity required to prepare food using local ingredients. Schools may also perceive limited benefits from the sourcing of local foods. For instance, our findings suggest the following: Foodservice directors perceive that sourcing local foods could lead to higher costs of food purchases. FSDs also beleive that there would be less support from parents. We look forward to verifying this perception through our parent survey. Producers and Schools - Summary Through our findings, we beleive there appear to be (at least perceived) higher transaction costs for both growers and schools. Market inefficiencies - This clearly suggests there might be several 'real' and 'perceived' transaction costs of sourcing local foods. Given these aspects of our findings, we are now leveraging results of this project to investigate the following: Is direct transaction the best alternative for farm to school programs? If not, then what role can market makers, such as food hubs, play in order to strengthen the linkages between local producers and schools within the local food system? Students' Access Students' food choices are impacted by: Individual preferences. Environmental factors (time duration). While periferal to this project, we have also nvestigated school lunch duration, and found it to be a critical issue. Studies suggest less time for lunch negatively impacts healthier food consumption. For instance, duration of school lunches in the US: Has been decreasing; no standard minimum. Can be as low as 8-10 minutes. Fruits and vegetables (FVs) require more time to eat Shorter duration also negatively impacts likelihood of choosing FVs. Student Access - Summary In a related study that we conducted to understand how students choices could be impacted during school lunches so they make healthier food choices such as fruits and vegetables, we found that students who felt they never have enough time during school lunches were... 3.3 times more likely to state that getting through the lunch line quickly had a Very Strong Influence on their food choices. 7.10 times more likely to state that avoiding lunch line had a Very Strong Influence on their food choices. Discussion Questions The findings of our project are also stimulating broader questions we have possed to several of our research audiences: Could communities benefit from stronger local food system linkages with schools? Should schools be encouraged to buy more local foods? Are we comfortable allowing less time for our kids to choose and eat lunches?
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Sharma, A. (2017). Economics of Food in Schools: Shaping the Future of our Children by enhancing sourcing, serving, and consumption of fruits and vegetables. 93rd Annual PAFCS Conference, April 29, 2017, State College, PA.
|
Progress 02/01/15 to 01/31/16
Outputs
Target Audience:In this reporting period we reached out to the following three target audiences. 1. School foodservice director. The foodservice directors in the state of Pennsylvania and Iowa were surveyed to understand their preferences for purchaing locally grown foods directly from small and medium sized farms. 2. Middle school children. We are currently in the process of completing the school experiments in schools in PA and IA to assess the purchasing or choice preferences of middle school children for locally grown foods. The data from Delaware is currently pending and we hope to collect it during the summer given that we lost two of our colleague at DSU due to their retirement. 3. Growers. We finished our grower segment investigation by going back to the some of the growers and producers to verify our survey of their preference for selling directly to schools. That data is now complete. Changes/Problems:Our challenge in Delaware has been that both our colleagues who were on the project have retired. We are therefore trying to reestablish links in that state so we can complete our data collection. We are most concerned about possibly not getting into the schools. Howver, we should be able to get other datasets. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We were able to diisseminate the results mostly in profossional meetings and conferences. However we hope to go into the communities more so in this financial year. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?1. Continue our data collection in schools. 2. Complete the online survey with parents. 3. Complete data collection from Delaware. 4. Begin a wide dissemination of results through online short videos to be made available to all our stakeholders. 5. Begin publishing the results of our producer and foodservice director surveys; and complete data analysis of the school expeirments.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. This year we accomplished going back into the schools to begin our experiments. This has allowed us to begin collecting prefernce data from middle school students. 2. We were able to complete data collection from school foodservice directors.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Motta, V., & Sharma, A. (2016). Benefits and transaction costs of purchasing local foods in school districts. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 81-87.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Sharma, A. Kelley, K., Strohbehn, C. (2015). Annual Summer Conference of the International Council of Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education, Orlando, FL, "Impact of Transaction Cost on Producer Decision to Sell Local Foods: Does experience matter? (July 28, 2015 July 31, 2015).
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Sharma, A. (Presenter), Kelley, K., Strohbehn, C. (2015). Impact of Transaction Cost on School Decisions to Purchase Local Foods: Does Experience Matter? Yale Food Symposium, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (October 30-31, 2015).
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Sharma, A. (Presenter) (2015). Economics of Food Decisions in Schools: Local Food Sourcing Non-Market Transaction Costs and Experience (AHFME Research Symposium, New York, NY, Economics of Food Decisions in Schools: Local Food Sourcing Non-Market Transaction Costs and Experience (November 7, 2015).
|
Progress 02/01/14 to 01/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience: In this period we completed our farmer and producer survey. Therefore the target audience were farmers and producers of fruits and vegetables selling to schools in PA, IA and DE. The responses from DE are still being collected. Changes/Problems: We have been working with our schools to plan the field experiment so that we are able to conduct it in Fall 2015. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? We are in the process of disseminating our farmer and producer survey results. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? We plan to accomplish the following activities: 1. Conduct a school foodservice director survey. 2. Conduct a survey of parents of middle and high school students. 3. Conduct a field experiment in our target schools.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
During this period the following were accomplished: 1. Developed and implemented the online survey for farmers and producers. 2. Collected data and reported results in a conference presentation. 3. Developed another paper for a second conference presentation. This is still under review. 4. Began preparation for the school foodservice director survey.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Sharma, A., Institute Paul Bocuse 7th International Research Symposium, Lyon, June 5th 2014, Institute Paul Bocuse, Lyon, France, "Market Orientation of Farm to School Programs in the US," Oral Presentations/Papers, Invited. (June 6, 2014). International.
|
Progress 02/01/13 to 01/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: In this reporting period the team focused on accomplishing Objective 1 and 3. The team was delayed in getting in the schools to conduct the experiments for Objective 2 as the schools were trying to comply with the new nutrition guidelines. The following four audiences were targeted: 1. Farms currently selling or wanting to sell to schools in Pennsylvania. These farms were contacted and discussions were held to understand their preferences for selling to schools. 2. School food service directors - Food service directors of 2 schools in PA were contacted to understand their preferences for purchasing locally grown foods. 3. Students, grades 6-12 - The purpose of contacting students was to conducted focus group discussions, to understand their preferences for locally grown foods. 4. Parents of students in grades 6-12 - The purpose of conducting parent interviews was to understand parent preferences for locally grown foods in schools. Changes/Problems: The biggest challenge we faced was our inability to interview school foodservice directors and students because the schools were feeling overwhlemed in trying to implement the new school nutrition guidelines - theHealthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA). As a conseuqence our project timeline has been delayed. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Accomplish Objective 1, and part of objective 3. Prepare to conduct experiments as part of Objective 2 in Fall 2014.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
We are in the process of collecting data from growers/producers, and foodservice directors. The data from children will be collected in Fall 2014.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Producer Costs-Benefits of Direct Local Food Sales to Schools: Is it worth it?
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Time Constraints and Food Choices: An Agenda for Research
|
Progress 02/01/12 to 01/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: In this reporting period the team focused on accomplishing Objective 1. The following four audiences were targeted: 1. Farms currently selling or wanting to sell to schools in Pennsylvania. These farms were contacted and discussions were held to understand their preferences for selling to schools. 2. School food service directors - Food service directors of 2 schools in PA were contacted to understand their preferences for purchasing locally grown foods. 3. Students, grades 6-12 - The purpose of contacting students was to conducted focus group discussions, to understand their preferences for locally grown foods. 4. Parents of students in grades 6-12 - The purpose of conducting parent interviews was to understand parent preferences for locally grown foods in schools. Changes/Problems: As expected, we had some challenges in getting the schools to help us recruit students and parents for focus groups and interviews. We have taken steps to counter this challenge - essentially by increasing communication with school food service directors, and by increasing the number of invitations that are being sent out to students and parents. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Two graduate students have been working with the research team. The actitivites in this last reporting period has provided them opportunties to train in development of the survey instruments and protocols, as well as underatand the overall scale and scope of this project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? The project progress report was presented as a poster at the Project Director meeting in February 2013 in Washington, D.C. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? In the next reporting period the following will be accomplished: 1. Compelte student focus groups and parent discussions. 2. Develop the consumer orientation model. 3. Submit paper and conference presentations. 4. Begin working on objecitve 2, school experiemnts in Fall 2013 5. Plan to complete school experiments in Spring 2014.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
In this reporting period the research team worked on Objective 1. The methods used to accomplsih this objective were farm and school interview discusions, student focus groups, and parent interviews. The farm and school discussions were completed. The team has begun to recruit students and parents but the focus groups and parent interviews have not yet been completed. As a consequence the team will continue to work on these aspects. Once these have been completed the consumer orientation model will be developed in Fall 2013.
Publications
|
|