The Impact of Local Food Expenditure on School Foodservice Revenues

Abstract

BACKGROUND Locally grown foods, through farm‐to‐school (FTS) activities, may be a key component to balancing foodservice budgets and alleviating financial constraints in school districts. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact of local food expenditures on school foodservice revenues and earnings. We anticipated a positive impact of local food expenditures on foodservice revenues and earnings. METHODS Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis was conducted using data from the 2013 US Department of Agriculture Farm to School Census. The questionnaire primarily asked all US public school districts about their FTS operations during 2011‐2012 school year. RESULTS Although our results initially showed a negative impact of local milk and nonmilk expenditures on foodservice revenues from food sales, when combined with revenues from the federal government, the impact is positive. The positive effect seems to hold when adding foodservice revenues from both food sales and federal funds. Our study found a similar pattern for foodservice earnings. CONCLUSIONS This may indicate that competitive foods are still widely preferred in school districts. Revenue from the federal government is critical to maintain FTS activities viable to students and community members although federal funds and food sales may not cover total foodservice expenditures.

Procurement from local producers for food service in primary and secondary school settings: A scoping review

“…Five articles cited the 2013 and/or 2015 Farm to School USA census as their main data source. [22][23][24][25]28 The Farm to School USA census has only been completed on these two occasions. Data collected in the census are detailed elsewhere.…”

“…40 Budget constraints and/or increased cost of local food were commonly identified barriers to sourcing foods locally. 23,28,[40][41][42] In some instances, this resulted in schools serving nutritionally inferior food items to maximise revenue. 23 Higher expense of locally procured food included higher delivery fees from local farmers.…”

“…23,28,[40][41][42] In some instances, this resulted in schools serving nutritionally inferior food items to maximise revenue. 23 Higher expense of locally procured food included higher delivery fees from local farmers. 41 Producers felt they were unlikely to see increased income due to foodservice staff operating under tight budgets, 17 which is ultimately a barrier to them playing key roles in school food.…”

“…26 On average in the USA, school districts incurred negative foodservice profits when foodservice expenditures (food costs, staffing, equipment) were taken into account. 23 One study used Farm to School census data to demonstrate a statistically significant negative impact between local milk expenditures and food service revenue, indicating sourcing milk locally financially disadvantaged schools. There was a negative impact between local non-milk expenditures and foodservice revenue, but this was statistically insignificant.…”

The Impact of State Farm to School Procurement Incentives on School Purchasing Decisions

“…In the most recent FTS census, 45.3% of responding school districts cited pricing as a barrier to FTS procurement, and 67.5% of schools indicated availability was a significant barrier to local food purchasing 25 . There is also preliminary evidence that spending on local food is negatively correlated with profits of individual lunch programs 26 . Other identified challenges include burdensome school foodservice guidelines, 27 communication barriers between FSDs and producers, lack of regional supply chain infrastructure, 24,27,28 challenges with product quality and amount of processing required, 29 lack of parental support for FTS programs, 27 and lack of food safety certifications among local producers 22,30 …”