An evaluation of the California Instructional School Garden Program

Abstract

Objective: California Assembly Bill 1535 awarded $US 15 million to California public schools to promote, develop and sustain instructional school gardens through the California Instructional School Garden Program (CISGP). The present study was designed to assess the effectiveness of the CISGP at assisting schools in implementing, maintaining and sustaining an academic school garden programme, determine how schools utilized the funding they received and assess the impact of the California state budget crisis on the CISGP. Design: A mid-term evaluation was used to assess the degree to which schools achieved their instructional garden-related goals. Setting: California. Subjects: Only schools that applied for the CIGSP grant as part of a school district and also provided a contact email and had a unique contact person were included in the study (n 3103, 80?6 %). Results: In general, many schools reported not achieving their predicted goals with regard to the CISGP grant. Only 39?4 % of schools reported accomplishing all of their garden-related goals. Over one-third (37?8 %) of schools reported that their school gardens were negatively affected by the California budget deficit. Conclusions: The difference between predicted and actual utilization of the CISGP grants may be due to a combination of the effects of budget shortfall and insufficiency of the grant award amount.

Integrating local agriculture into nutrition programs can benefit children's health

“…Assembly Bill (AB) 1535 created the California Instructional School Garden Program, allowing the California Department of Education to allocate $15 million for grants to promote, develop and sustain instructional school gardens. About 40% of California schools applied for these grants, and $10.9 million was awarded (Hazzard et al 2012).…”

Teens as Teachers in the Garden: Cultivating a Sustainable Model for Teaching Healthy Living

“…Additionally, teaching lessons in the school garden may increase children's physical activity and decrease sedentary time throughout the school day (Rees-Punia et al, 2017). Yet, even with the fiscal support of public incentives, creating and sustaining school garden programs remain a challenge (Hazzard, Moreno, Beall, & Zindenberg-Cherr, 2012).…”

“…With the "garden in every school" initiative launched in 1994 across California, thousands of school garden beds were built (Eastin, 2013). Yet, school administration and local educational values often determine the level of support for garden programming (Boyle, 2013;Hazzard et al, 2012). Many schools are inadequately equipped with the people, funds, materials, and training needed to achieve and sustain their school garden programming goals (Hazzard, Moreno, Beall, & Zindenberg-Cherr, 2011;Hazzard et al, 2012), resulting in fallow, unused garden beds.…”

“…Yet, school administration and local educational values often determine the level of support for garden programming (Boyle, 2013;Hazzard et al, 2012). Many schools are inadequately equipped with the people, funds, materials, and training needed to achieve and sustain their school garden programming goals (Hazzard, Moreno, Beall, & Zindenberg-Cherr, 2011;Hazzard et al, 2012), resulting in fallow, unused garden beds. Overcoming these barriers is paramount to implementing and maintaining garden programming that successfully promotes healthy living education (Lekies & Eames-Sheavly, 2008).…”

Public health nutrition and the environment

“…The California Instructional School Garden Program, authorizing the distribution of $US 15 million worth of grants towards school gardens, is one such well-intentioned effort. But as Hazzard et al (3) show, in less than half of the schools receiving grants were the funds sufficient to accomplish their garden goals; over a third of schools responded that the severe budget deficit in California had a negative impact on their garden programme. School garden programmes might enjoy greater success if they are integrated into existing curricula, with active involvement by (often undervalued) home economics teachers as well as school food service personnel.…”