School districts and their local food supply chains

Abstract

The 2015 Farm to School Census reports that during the 2013–2014 school year there were over 5200 farm to school (FTS) programs in the USA that involved 39,000 schools and 24.1 million children. These FTS programs are intended, in part, to increase market access and therefore the viability of farms and ranches. Accordingly, the majority of FTS programs involve local food procurement directly from farmers, from non-traditional suppliers that market locally branded food products such as ‘food hubs’, or from traditional suppliers such distributors and food service management companies. Yet, there is reason to believe that transaction costs vary based on the supply chain that schools use to procure local food. Moreover, that the supply chain that schools use to procure local food has a relationship with school's expenditures on local food. We use the 2015 Farm to School Census to estimate the relationship between school district's local food expenditures per student and supply chain structure. We analyzed data using ordinary least squares regressions, controlling for the region of the USA, the type of local food products purchased, and other school-specific characteristics. Importantly, we find a negative and significant relationship between school district's non-milk local food expenditure per student, and purchases directly from the farm and from non-traditional suppliers. This implies that schools that purchase local food from traditional distributors are likely to have higher on average expenditures per student compared with schools that purchase local food directly from farmers or non-traditional distributors. Results point to the need for additional research in determining the efficacy of policies to support direct and non-traditional FTS marketing arrangements.

Australian Consumer Perceptions of Regionally Grown Fruits and Vegetables: Importance, Enablers, and Barriers

“…Governments could also support organizations that sell RGFFV, for example, through food procurement legislation of state-owned food outlets to prioritize inclusion of regional produce. This has been trialed in the USA in schools (e.g., Christensen et al [57]), military bases (e.g., Dunning et al [58]) and hospitals (e.g., Kendra et al [59]), although a number of barriers including negotiating with centralized procurement systems, maintaining food safety and seasonality of supply [58,60] have been identified. Implementing integrated ordering systems, sequencing market entry and growth, and facilitating flexible contracts that work for both the institution/s and the producer/s are recommended for increasing the proportion of RGFFV purchased by these institutions [60].…”

Evaluating the Economic Impacts of Farm-to-school Procurement: An Approach for Primary and Secondary Financial Data Collection of Producers Selling to Schools

“…According to the 2013-2014 Farm to School Census, 65% of school districts buy local food through a distributor. Christensen, Jablonski, and O'Hara (2017) found that schools that purchase local products directly from farms and/or nontraditional distributors spend significantly less per student on non-milk local food purchases. The fact that intermediaries facilitate the majority of farm-to-school transactions also poses new challenges for identifying producers engaged in farmto-school sales and measuring supply and demand for local foods in schools.…”

Missing the Boat? Measuring and Evaluating Local Groundfish Purchases by New England Institutions

“…Buying local food products from distributors is the market channel that schools used most frequently, although making local food purchases directly from farmers and processors/manufacturers was also common (Christensen, Jablonski, and O'Hara 2017). Questions in the Farm to School Census did not solicit disaggregated information about which supply chains were used for specific food products.…”

“…The food budget of 93 New England colleges was $292 million. The use of food service management companies by schools is uncommon (Christensen, Jablonski, and O'Hara 2017). In contrast, 73% of New England colleges use food service management companies like Sodexo, while 27% have self-operated dining operations (FINE 2017a).…”