-
Title
-
Eng
The Sustained Impacts of an Agriculture-based Youth Development Program on Alumni's Connection to the Environment, Food, Community, and Self
-
Date
-
2018
-
Creator
-
Eng
Salin, Shaina
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
THE SUSTAINED IMPACTS OF AN AGRICULTURE-BASED YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON ALUMNI’S CONNECTION TO THE
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD, COMMUNITY AND SELF
by
Shaina Salin
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2018
©2018 by Shaina Salin. All rights reserved
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Shaina Salin
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shawn Hazboun, PhD
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
The Sustained Impacts of an Agriculture-Based Youth Development Program on
Alumni’s Connection to the Environment, Food, Community and Self
Shaina Salin
Garden and farm-based education programs can serve as powerful tools for engaging
youth in personal development, community-building and environmental stewardship.
This research examined the sustained impacts of Garden-Raised Bounty’s (GRuB)
agriculture-based youth development program on alumni’s connection to the
environment, food, community and self between two and eighteen years after program
participation. The study employed a mixed-methods approach through an online survey
(n=45) and semi-structured interviews (n=19). Critical food pedagogy (Sumner, 2015;
Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015) and positive youth development (PYD) (Lerner,
Lerner, et al., 2005; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2000) served as the analytical frameworks
for this study.
Results from analysis of both datasets indicate that participation in GRuB’s youth
program imparts positive, lasting impacts on alumni’s connection to the environment,
food, community and self through measures of critical food pedagogy and PYD.
Statistical tests showed few significant differences across social groups, suggesting
consistent and persistent positive outcomes from participation in GRuB’s program.
Qualitative reports provided more detailed descriptions of alumni’s experiences in
GRuB’s youth program, which in many cases influenced subsequent lifestyle and career
decisions. Both the quantitative and qualitative datasets also highlighted the summer
portion of the program as a particularly influential experience, as the length of time
involved in the program did not always directly correspond with the magnitude of the
program’s impact. This study contributes to the literature on the sustained impacts of
programs that integrate environmental, experiential and farm-based education with PYD
principles. The results corroborate and extend previous research suggesting positive,
lasting impacts from these types of youth engagement programs.
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... vii
Preface: Reflexivity Statement......................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 3
Description of the Study Context: Thurston County, WA .................................................... 6
Olympia. .................................................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2: Background on GRuB’s Youth Program .................................................... 9
Chapter 3: Literature Review ........................................................................................ 18
Preface ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Education .................................................... 19
Critical environmental education frameworks. ..................................................................... 24
Food Cultivation Education .................................................................................................... 26
Food systems education. ....................................................................................................... 29
Critical Food Pedagogy ........................................................................................................... 31
Food literacy.......................................................................................................................... 33
Food justice. .......................................................................................................................... 37
Youth Development Theories: Positive Youth Development and Community Youth
Development ............................................................................................................................. 40
Review of Studies on Community-Based Youth Agriculture Programs ............................ 45
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 53
Chapter 4: Methods ........................................................................................................ 55
Sampling and Recruitment ..................................................................................................... 56
Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................................... 58
Survey. .................................................................................................................................. 58
Interviews. ............................................................................................................................. 59
Measures ................................................................................................................................... 59
Survey. .................................................................................................................................. 59
Interviews. ............................................................................................................................. 64
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 65
Surveys. ................................................................................................................................. 65
Interviews. ............................................................................................................................. 68
Chapter 5: Quantitative Results .................................................................................... 70
Descriptive Statistics................................................................................................................ 73
Food and environment: Indicators of critical food pedagogy. .............................................. 73
PYD outcomes. ..................................................................................................................... 77
Inferential Statistics ................................................................................................................. 79
Independent samples t-tests. .................................................................................................. 79
Analysis of variance tests. ..................................................................................................... 81
Regression models. ............................................................................................................... 81
Open-ended qualitative responses .......................................................................................... 90
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 92
Chapter 6: Qualitative Results ...................................................................................... 94
Evidence of Critical Food Pedagogy ...................................................................................... 95
Empirical/analytic food literacy. ........................................................................................... 95
iv
Historical/hermeneutic food literacy. .................................................................................... 99
Critical/emancipatory food literacy. .................................................................................... 100
Positive Youth Development Outcomes ............................................................................... 108
Confidence. ......................................................................................................................... 108
Competence. ........................................................................................................................ 110
Character. ............................................................................................................................ 114
Connection. ......................................................................................................................... 116
Caring. ................................................................................................................................. 118
Contribution. ....................................................................................................................... 120
GRuB as a Formative Catalyst: “If it Weren’t for GRuB” ............................................... 122
Carving a Path: A Sense of Direction. ................................................................................ 122
Finding a Passion. ............................................................................................................... 124
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 126
Chapter 7: Discussion ................................................................................................... 127
Bringing It All Together ........................................................................................................ 127
Critical food pedagogy. ....................................................................................................... 128
PYD outcomes..................................................................................................................... 130
Connection to follow-up studies of agriculture-based youth development programs. ....... 131
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 134
Recommendations for future research ................................................................................ 135
Chapter 8: Conclusion .................................................................................................. 137
Works Cited ................................................................................................................... 139
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................. 153
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 162
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Benchmarks of Food Literacy………………………………………..……..…36
Table 2: Independent Control Variables………………………………….…...………..64
Table 3: Independent Programmatic Variables…………………………..….……..…..64
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables…………………..…..…….…67
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Participant Demographics………………...…….…71
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Program Participation……………………...…..…..72
Table 7: Food and Environmental Issues of Concern……………………………...…...76
Table 8: Independent samples t-test for Communication and Decision-Making and
Race.…………….………………………………………………………………………80
Table 9: Welch’s t-test for Self and Low-income Background…………….………..…81
Table 10: Ordinal Logistic Regression Models of Food and Environment and
Communication and Decision-Making………………………………………………….86
Table 11: Ordinary Least Squares Regression
Models of Community and Self………………...………...……………………………..88
Table 12: Ordinary Least Squares Regression
Models of Food and Environmental Civic Engagement………………………………...90
vi
Acknowledgements
There are a number of people to whom I owe gratitude for their support in this project.
Thank you first and foremost to Kim Gaffi for the opportunity do this research. Thank
you to Kim, Wade Arnold, Mallorie Shellmer, Selena Watte and all the staff at GRuB for
your support in alumni outreach and participant recruitment.
Thank you to Shawn Hazboun, my thesis advisor, for your mentorship, valuable
feedback, statistical guidance, and overall wisdom. It has been a privilege to work with
and learn from you.
Thank you to Jean MacGregor for deepening my appreciation for environmental
education and for taking the time to advise me throughout the research and writing
process.
Thank you to the MES core faculty: Miranda Mellis, Ted Whitesell, Kathleen Saul, Erin
Martin, John Withey and Kevin Francis. I’m lucky to have had the chance to work with
every one of you throughout my journey in MES.
Thank you to my parents for your support and enduring belief in education.
Thank you to my peer review group, Ari Simmons, Kenzi Smith and Lucy Pierce for
your feedback and support.
And finally, thank you to the GRuB alumni who generously took the time to partake in
this study and share their experiences.
This project wouldn’t have come to fruition without all of you.
vii
Preface: Reflexivity Statement
I came to the MES program with a strong background in organic farming,
environmental communication and nutrition, with a particular interest in the connection
between soil health and human health. In the spring quarter of my first year, I applied to
be a farm intern with GRuB, an Olympia-based non-profit organization and educational
farm. I saw it as an opportunity to enhance my skills and knowledge in producing high
quality, nutrient-dense food, and helping to make that knowledge and nourishment
democratically available to the community. I stayed on as an intern through the summer,
working alongside the Youth Crew to grow, harvest and distribute over 15,000 pounds of
produce to CSA members, low-income families and seniors, and the Thurston County
Food Bank.
During my internship experience at GRuB, my interests expanded beyond the
ecological and human health benefits of sustainably grown food to include implications
for personal and community development, as well as broader systems change. As tomato
flowers turned into fruits for harvest, I also witnessed remarkable growth in the Youth
Crew members themselves. Many of them demonstrated enhanced confidence, openness,
maturity and appreciation for the land and food over the course of the seven-week
program. Pre and post-program evaluation reports provided further evidence of positive
learning and development outcomes from participation in GRuB’s youth program. My
own observations, combined with the well-documented benefits of garden-based
education programs in general, led me to wonder how GRuB’s youth program impacts
alumni’s attitudes toward and connection to the environment, food, community and self
over the long-term. In addition, I found that very little research has explored the sustained
1
impacts of agriculture-based youth development programs specifically. After my
internship ended and I began the thesis process in fall quarter of my second year, I
approached Kim Gaffi, GRuB’s co-founder and Director of Youth Programs, to see if the
organization would be interested in a follow-up study with their program alumni. Luckily
for me, they were, and Kim granted me the opportunity to conduct this research.
I recognize that my pre-existing interest in sustainable agriculture and social
justice, as well as my previous experience with GRuB, may serve as potential sources of
bias in this research. As such, I have imbued this thesis with deliberate transparency in
my methodology and analysis and have strived to present the results in a manner that
speaks for itself. I hope that the findings here can provide useful information not only for
GRuB, but also for other farm-based youth development programs seeking to foster
lasting, positive changes in their program participants.
2
Chapter 1: Introduction
Garden and farm-based education hold a longstanding and significant history as a
means of promoting environmental awareness, food security, leadership development,
community engagement, and social, emotional and physical wellbeing (Hayden-Smith,
2014; Lawson, 2005). Recent decades have seen a surge in community and school-based
food and agriculture education programs, which have proliferated in part in response to
an increasingly industrialized, unjust and ecologically destructive global food system.
The dominant industrial food system is characterized by mass-scale, mechanized and
chemical-intensive crop and animal production, with extensive processing and
distribution chains primarily governed by corporate interests (Heffernan, Hendrickson, &
Gronski, 1999). All too often these corporate interests stand at odds with environmental
sustainability and social justice, with profit centered as the ultimate priority (Alkon &
Agyeman, 2011). Both producers and consumers—arguably the most pivotal food system
actors—have been largely excluded from participating in decision-making processes that
shape the dominant food system, with a concomitant loss of knowledge and skills to take
informed action (Jaffe & Gertler, 2006). The industrialized food system consequently
perpetuates systems of privilege and oppression, which maintain class, race, and genderbased disparities in food security and health (Alkon & Norgaard, 2009). Such disparities
carry attendant implications for educational attainment, employment and income, among
many other factors (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).
Youth comprise a population particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts from
systemic barriers such as poverty and racism, which often lead to greater instances of
youth disengagement in school and in their communities (Baker, 1977; Gross & Gross,
3
1977, Umholtz, 2013). Just as producers and consumers have been largely disempowered
by the dominant industrial food system, the conventional US school system has left many
youth marginalized and unsupported—especially low-income youth (Rains & Umholtz,
2016; Umholtz, 2013). The US public school system has employed a parochial focus on
standardized testing that does not accommodate a multiplicity of learning styles or
cultural backgrounds, leaving many students feeling estranged from their own learning
process (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Gruenewald, 2004, 2008; Higgs, 1995 as cited in
Umholtz, 2013). As farmer and author Michael Ableman (2005) states, “Schools and
farms have become a lot alike. They have both become factories, with assembly-line
controls and engineered inputs, cranking out either grades and test scores or ‘food,’” (p.
178, as cited in Wever, 2015, p. 12).
As a form of environmental education, garden and farm-based education
programs can engage youth in personalized, hands-on and relevant learning experiences
that carry broader social and environmental impacts (Schusler & Krasny, 2010; Smeds,
Jeronen, & Kurppa, 2015). This experiential learning approach, coupled with theoryinformed program design, can serve as an effective means to re-engage students in their
own personal development, as well as academically, civically and environmentally
(Umholtz, 2013; D.R. Williams & Dixon, 2013). In addition, these programs can provide
youth with the critical awareness to not only be knowledgeable about the socio-ecological
issues tied to the food system, but also to actively address those issues (Sumner & Wever,
2016).
Numerous studies have highlighted beneficial outcomes from youth participation
in farm and garden-based education programs, including increased ecological awareness,
4
social connectedness and community engagement (Broaddus, Przygocki, & Winch, 2015;
Fulford & Thompson, 2013; D.R. Williams & Dixon, 2013). However, few studies have
examined the longevity of these outcomes beyond program involvement—particularly
how these programs influence participants’ lives in adulthood (Brigham & Nahas, 2008;
Sonti, Campbell, Johnson, & Daftary-Steel, 2016). This study assesses the sustained
impacts of an agriculture-based youth development program on former participants two
to eighteen years after program involvement. The focus of this study is Garden-Raised
Bounty (GRuB), a 501(c)3 organization and urban farm based in Olympia, Washington.
The primary research question that this study explores is: What are the sustained impacts
of GRuB’s agriculture-based youth development program on alumni’s attitudes toward,
and connection to, the environment, food, community and self? More specifically, this
study hones in on two sub-questions: To what extent does participation in GRuB’s youth
program foster a sustained, critical awareness of the environment and food system? To
what extent does participation in GRuB’s youth program lead to long-term positive youth
development outcomes? To answer these questions, a mixed-methods study design was
employed. Quantitative and qualitative perspectives were collected through an online
survey (n=45) and semi-structured interviews (n=19). The theoretical frameworks of
critical food pedagogy and positive youth development provided the basis for data
analysis, and will be discussed in depth in the literature review (Chapter Three).
The following section will provide a brief geographic and demographic profile of
Thurston County and the city of Olympia, the region that GRuB primarily serves.
Chapter Two will discuss the history of GRuB, including the organization’s mission,
values, and the evolution and structure of its youth program. Chapter Three provides a
5
review of the literature on critical food pedagogy and positive youth development, as well
as other relevant literatures including environmental education, food cultivation
education and related research in these fields. Chapter Four details the design of this
study and the methods employed in data collection and analysis. Chapter Five discusses
the quantitative results from the surveys, and Chapter Six delves into qualitative analysis
of the interviews. Chapter Seven brings both the quantitative and qualitative datasets into
discussion, relates the results to the greater body of literature, and provides insight for
future research. Chapter Eight discusses the broader implications of this research and
offers concluding remarks.
Description of the Study Context: Thurston County, WA
Thurston County, home to Washington’s capital city of Olympia, sits at the
southern tip of the Puget Sound in Western Washington. Prior to colonization, First
Nations tribes including the Nisqually, Squaxin and Chehalis resided on and stewarded
the land and surrounding waters. Today, approximately 280,588 residents comprise the
population (US Census Bureau, 2017). As of 2016, 82.5% of the population identified as
white; 3% identified as black or African American, 1.5% identified as American Indian
or Alaska Native, 5.7% identified as Asian, 0.9% identified as Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander, and 5.4% identified as two or more races (US Census Bureau, 2016a).
With regard to ethnicity, just 8.6% identified as Hispanic or Latino (US Census Bureau,
2016a). As of 2016, the poverty rate in the county was approximately 12% (US Census
Bureau, 2016b), which is comparable to the national 12.7% poverty rate according to
recent estimates (Semega, Fontenot, & Kollar, 2017).
6
Education, health care and social assistance professions comprise the most sizable
economic sector (21.3%), followed by public administration (17.5%) and retail trade
(11.7%) (US Census Bureau, 2016b). Agriculture also plays a crucial role in the local
culture and economy (Bramwell et al., 2017), and the region is relatively progressive in
its commitment to developing a robust, localized food system (Coit et al., 2012).
Thurston County encompasses both urban and rural land, and faces mounting
development pressure from projected population increases (Bramwell et al., 2017; Coit et
al., 2012). Nonetheless, the county also maintains a strong conservation ethic and
emphasizes the value of sustainability, which is characteristic of Western Washington. In
addition, Washington State upholds legislation that charges counties with minimizing
urban sprawl and conserving natural, open space (Growth Management Act, 1990).
Along with local government agencies and other non-government organizations, GRuB
plays a prominent role in facilitating the advancement of a local, sustainable and just food
system.
Olympia.
While GRuB’s work extends throughout Thurston County, the majority of the
organization’s projects, including youth program activities, occur within the city of
Olympia. As the capital of Washington, Olympia is the legislative center of both the
county and the state, which fosters ample opportunity for residents to engage in social
and political activism. The city is also home to The Evergreen State College, a public
liberal arts school known for its forward-thinking, interdisciplinary and student-centered
approach to education. Olympia’s racial demographics reflect slightly less diversity than
those of greater Thurston County, with 84.6% of the population identifying as white,
7
1.9% identifying as black or African American, 0.8% identifying as American Indian or
Alaska Native, 0.3% identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 4.4%
identifying as two or more races (US Census Bureau, 2016c). However, Olympia has a
slightly larger Hispanic or Latino population (7.4%) as compared to the greater Thurston
County area (US Census Bureau, 2016c). Olympia also has a higher poverty rate (17.1%)
than that of greater Thurston County (Thurston Regional Planning Council, 2016).
However, according to the Thurston Regional Planning Council’s compilation of 20122016 American Community Survey Estimates, Olympia has the sixth highest poverty rate
out of the county’s nine jurisdictions (Thurston Regional Planning Council, 2016).
GRuB’s work ultimately aims to end hunger in Olympia and in Thurston County at large,
which their youth program participants play an integral role in. Chapter Two will provide
further background on the theoretical foundations and evolution of GRuB’s youth
program.
8
Chapter 2: Background on GRuB’s Youth Program
Garden-Raised Bounty (GRuB) is a non-profit organization and two-acre urban
farm that aims to foster a healthy, empowered community and equitable food system
through sustainable agriculture, food education and community engagement. GRuB
emerged as a unified organization from two grassroots food initiatives. Drawing
inspiration from Vietnam veteran Dan Barker’s Home Gardening Project in Portland,
Thurston County residents Richard and Maria Doss founded the Kitchen Garden Project
in 1993, which served to build free vegetable gardens at the homes of low-income
individuals and families. Two Evergreen State College students, Kim Gaffi and Blue
Peetz, created The Sister Holly Garden Project in 1996, which provided garden-based
education to youth and seniors in the community. In 2001, these two projects coalesced to
form GRuB, which has since expanded and evolved to include a number of initiatives
aimed at advancing food access and justice in Thurston County. GRuB’s work integrates
the fields of agriculture, health, sustainability and education with youth and community
leadership development. GRuB’s mission is:
“To inspire positive personal and community change by bringing people together
around food and agriculture…by partnering with youth and people with low incomes
to create empowering individual and community food solutions, and by offering tools
and trainings to build a just and sustainable food system,” (Rains & Umholtz, 2016, p.
303).
In enacting this mission, the organization works to establish empowering
relationships with marginalized communities in Thurston County in a collaborative effort
to create a sustainable, equitable and localized food system where “everyone has a place
at the table.”
9
GRuB’s mission stems from a set of five core values that informs the basis of their work
and organizational culture:
“We believe good food is a basic human right. We believe growing, eating and
gathering around healthy food is a simple and powerful way to connect people to
each other and to important work in our community.
We believe that everyone is powerful regardless of current life circumstance and
that our work and community thrives by including diverse experiences, cultures,
opinions, and beliefs. We seek to transform the systems of privilege and
oppression that keep us from reaching our full potential as a community.
We begin our work by learning what others have accomplished and what others
are currently doing. We believe that we are all students and teachers and that we
can accomplish meaningful and sustained social change if we work from a place
of abundance, love, joy, and appreciation.
We believe that building meaningful relationships between people is a key
strategy for social change. We begin all of our relationships from a place of trust,
compassion, respect and honoring people where they are.
People will make powerful positive personal changes when they engage in
community-building work they believe in. Powerful, lasting community change
requires people who are creating solutions to issues that directly affect their
lives.” (Rains & Umholtz, 2016, p. 304)
These values provide the foundation for implementing GRuB’s diverse range of
programs, which primarily engage pre-K through high school youth, veterans, tribal
communities, seniors, and low-income families and individuals. A core facet of GRuB’s
programming centers on promoting youth empowerment and leadership development
through their farm-based dropout prevention, employment training and alternative
education program for high school youth, which is the focus of this research. While a
programmatic mainstay since the organization’s inception, GRuB’s youth program has
shifted in scope and format over time. The original version was the Cultivating Youth
Employment Program (CYEP), which operated from 1999 to 2010. The CYEP provided
low-income and/or disengaged high school youth, as well as out of school youth pursuing
10
a GED, with job training, dropout prevention support, and opportunities for social and
emotional development. The program specifically served youth in three Thurston County
school districts living at or below 135% of the federal poverty line and employed
between ten and thirty youth per year (Rains & Umholtz, 2016). The CYEP was
comprised of an eight-week summer job training program and a nine-month academic
year program (AYP) that ran after school and on weekends. The CYEP engaged youth in
hands-on work to combat hunger, poverty, inequality and oppression in the community—
barriers that many of the youth faced directly in their own lives (Rains & Umholtz, 2016,
p. 304).
Through their work on the farm and in the community, youth earned stipends and
had the opportunity to earn one school credit. In addition to learning how to cultivate and
distribute sustainably grown food through the farm’s Community Supported Agriculture
(CSA) programs, an on-site market stand and the Thurston County Food Bank, the
program curriculum included a variety of workshops designed to accommodate diverse
learning styles. The workshops covered a range of topics including social justice, nonviolent communication and conflict resolution, public speaking, personal wellness,
community development and fundamental employment skills. Crewmembers also played
a key role in carrying out the mission of the Kitchen Garden Project by building raised
garden beds at the homes of low-income families and individuals. Furthermore, youth
had the opportunity to engage in fundraising, networking and advocacy work, including
grant writing, event planning, speaking at City Council meetings, attending conferences,
and hosting the National Rooted in Community Summit—a nation-wide coalition of
youth food justice organizations (see Rooted in Community, n.d.). Youth who completed
11
the academic year program could apply to return in various summer leadership positions,
including Peer Crew Leaders (PCL’s), who provided peer-to-peer mentorship and support
for the incoming summer Youth Crew, and Farm Assistants, who aided the Farm
Manager in leading farm operations. When additional opportunities were available within
the organization, youth could also apply to lead special projects or assist with
administrative work. The short-term goals of the CYEP aimed to provide youth with job
training and dropout prevention support, fostering empowered, hirable youth who
graduated high school. In the big picture, GRuB “hoped to empower a new generation of
leaders who would continue to build a more just world,” (Rains & Umholtz, 2016, p.
306).
Owing to the positive personal, social and academic outcomes that CYEP alumni
exhibited, the principal of Olympia High School (OHS) approached GRuB in 2009 with
an opportunity to expand the CYEP into an alternative half-day high school program.
This partnership with the Olympia School District enabled GRuB to grow the CYEP
program into what is now known as ‘Food Justice High School,’ or GRuB School. GRuB
School continues to offer low-income and/or disengaged youth an experiential, holistic
and credit-generating education along with job and life skills, but with an expanded
curriculum and more hours on-site during the school year. GRuB School engages
between twenty and twenty-five youth per cohort, 50% of whom are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch and are struggling in the conventional school system; 25% of whom
are struggling in the conventional school system from any income level; and 25% of
whom are eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch and are doing well in school. The
GRuB School program is also divided into a summer employment training and education
12
program that retains the basic structure, curriculum and activities of the CYEP, as well as
a nine-month academic year program. Through a partnership with the Olympia School
District and The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), GRuB
expanded the CYEP curriculum to meet the specifications of Washington’s Career and
Technical Education (CTE) requirements in 2016. This agriculture and food justicecentered curriculum provides students with the opportunity to earn core and elective
credits in horticultural science, civics and entrepreneurship during the school year, as
well as one credit in horticulture and natural resource management during the summer.
These school district partnerships play a key role in sustaining the GRuB School
program, as CTE funds are leveraged to staff the lead educator positions and as the
school budget accommodates a portion of the farm’s operating expenses (Rains &
Umholtz, 2016).
The GRuB School model launched in 2011 as a two-year pilot program with
OHS. By 2013, the GRuB School model demonstrated numerous beneficial outcomes for
first two cohorts, including increased academic engagement and performance, leadership
skills, teamwork, self-confidence and efficacy, community involvement, and food
knowledge and security (Rains & Umholtz, 2016). Since 2013, three more GRuB-like
programs have been established in partnership with different high schools in Thurston
County, and four other counties throughout the region have also adapted GRuB-like
youth programs to meet the needs of their own communities (GRuB, n.d.-a).
Additionally, in March of 2018 the Washington State Legislature passed a “breakfast
after the bell” bill that includes language supporting farm-based youth engagement
programs like GRuB’s (GRuB, n.d.-a), which the organization and youth program
13
participants played a key role in advocating for. For GRuB specifically, the ultimate goal
of their school program “is to grow adults who understand connections between
environmental sustainability and social justice, and are invested in changing their world
for the better,” (GRuB, 2017).
Despite changes in program structure and content, particularly during the school
year, GRuB’s youth program has consistently centered on three interconnected themes—
Farming Land, Farming Self, and Farming Community—which aim to foster
environmental stewardship along with personal and community development. These
themes and the activities they inform have been integral to both the CYEP and GRuB
School curricula. In Farming Land, youth play an essential role in cultivating, harvesting
and distributing over 15,000 pounds of produce and flowers for the organization’s market
stand, CSA programs, and the Thurston County Food Bank, as well as for themselves and
their families. In doing so, youth learn about sustainable farming methods including
composting, soil health, cover crops, crop rotation, chemical-free pest and weed
management, proper harvesting techniques and more. In addition, youth participate in
field trips to other local farms to learn about the food system in a broader context and to
experience various styles of sustainable farm management. Outcome objectives from
Farming Land include an increased sense of environmental awareness and stewardship,
increased knowledge of sustainable food systems and environmental science, and
practical skills in food cultivation.
In Farming Self, youth participate in workshops including multicultural
communication, teambuilding and public speaking to gain interpersonal and leadership
skills as well as an enhanced sense of empowerment. A crucial component of Farming
14
Self is “Straight Talk,” a method of providing and receiving constructive criticism that
highlights one’s strengths while identifying opportunities for further growth. In addition,
youth learn job skills and receive support in academic planning and goal setting. Another
aspect of Farming Self is personal wellness, wherein youth learn healthy lifestyle habits
and utilize farm produce to prepare group meals with Guest Chef volunteers from the
community. Outcome objectives from Farming Self include a renewed commitment to
school, increased leadership and communication skills, and enhanced self-confidence and
personal agency.
In Farming Community, youth lead volunteers and community groups in work on
the farm and host field trips for middle, elementary and pre-school students. In addition,
youth support the Kitchen Garden Project (now called the Victory Garden Project) in
building community gardens and raised beds for low-income families. Youth also engage
in public speaking and advocacy as GRuB ambassadors, strengthening community
connections and furthering the organization’s mission within the community and local
and state governments. Outcome objectives from Farming Community aim to provide
youth with an increased value for civic engagement and contribution. Furthermore, the
Farming Community component of GRuB’s program seeks to promote food justice by
providing equitable access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food, as well as
opportunities for the public to participate in developing a sustainable local food system.
In addition to Farming Land, Self and Community, the curriculum for both youth
program formats has been constructed around four pillars of Relevance, Responsibility,
Relationships and Rigor, or “The 4 R’s.” These tenets were adapted from The Food
Project, an agriculture and food justice-based youth empowerment program in
15
Massachusetts whose model has inspired the emergence of numerous programs across the
country that share a similar philosophy and vision (The Food Project, n.d.). In developing
their program model, GRuB also incorporated tools from Stanley Pollack’s Center for
Teen Empowerment, as well as Thurston County’s Dispute Resolution Center, Stonewall
Youth, and many other organizations and professionals advancing the fields of youth and
community development.
The 4 R’s provide a framework for developing and evaluating program activities
and outcomes. Relevance refers to the importance of engaging youth in context-based,
meaningful learning that they can directly relate to and understand the broader
implications of. Responsibility provides youth with the opportunity to lead crucial tasks
on the farm and in the community, practice accountability, and understand the direct
impacts of their decisions and actions. Relationships represent a foundational aspect of
GRuB’s organizational values and play a critical role in positive youth and community
development (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Pittman et al., 2000). Lastly, Rigor provides
opportunities for youth to challenge themselves and expand their capacity to commit to
and follow through on tasks, both individually and as a team. While not a distinct fifth R,
reflection plays a central role in each aspect of the aforementioned tenets to provide
opportunities for youth and staff to contemplate their experiences, recognize new
learning, and identify opportunities for further improvement and growth.
Pre and post-program evaluations have demonstrated positive outcomes from
GRuB’s program model including increased academic success, self-esteem, socioemotional development, and community engagement. According to GRuB’s website,
“From 2001-2011, only 39% of youth who entered GRuB’s youth programs were on
16
track to graduate. Today, 90% have either graduated from high school, are on-track to
graduate, and/or have earned their GED and 66% have gone on to college,” (GRuB, n.d.b, para 2). Outcomes from the two-year pilot of GRuB School included 70% of students
feeling greater self-confidence, 92% of students reporting an increased locus of control
(sense of self-determination), 95% of students making advancements toward education
and career goals, an overall average increases in GPA scores and earned credits, as well
as a number of other beneficial results (Rains & Umholtz, 2016, p. 310). The present
study aims to assess whether and how these program outcomes are sustained throughout
participants’ lives as understood through the lenses of critical food pedagogy (Sumner,
2015; Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015) and positive youth development (Eccles &
Gootman, 2002; Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005; Pittman et al., 2000). These concepts, which
provide the theoretical basis for this study, will be discussed in greater depth in the next
chapter.
17
Chapter 3: Literature Review
This chapter will provide a review of the literature that serves as a background
and foundation to this thesis. To establish a broad conceptual framework, this chapter
begins with an overview of the philosophical foundations of environmental education and
discusses how the field has evolved over time. It then focuses more specifically on
garden, farm, agriculture and urban agriculture education—which will be referred to
more generally as food cultivation education—all of which share common roots with
environmental education in terms of origins and desired outcomes. This section will then
transition to a discussion of critical food pedagogy (Sumner, 2015; Sumner & Wever,
2016; Wever, 2015), which provides an analytical framework for this study. Critical food
pedagogy is an emerging field of education that aims to cultivate not just practical food
knowledge and skills, but also an enhanced awareness of the social, political, economic
and ecological issues that create injustices in the food system. Furthermore, the principles
of positive youth development (PYD) and community youth development (CYD) are
reviewed, which both provide an additional theoretical basis for this study. This section
then discusses how food cultivation education programs represent a fitting conduit for
youth and community development. Finally, a review of relevant studies on youth
gardening and urban agriculture programs is provided, along with a discussion of how
this study contributes to the existing literature.
Preface
Environmental education represents a broad, multifaceted field of study,
embodying a number of origins, subfields and evolutionary transformations that currently
encompass topics from watershed restoration to community-based agriculture. As such,
18
numerous pedagogical threads have woven together to form the basis of environmental
education. Before delving into the history of environmental education, a concept born
from Western ideologies, it must be noted that humans’ intrinsic kinship with the Earth
and ethics of environmental stewardship hold deep roots in the traditional wisdom,
knowledge, values and practices of Indigenous cultures around the world. This includes
the acquisition and cultivation of food, which is a primary focus of this thesis. The
impetus for environmental education as it is defined today stemmed from multiple
departures from nature, driven by colonization, industrialization and urbanization. Values
of environmental awareness, sensitivity and connectedness are not new concepts, but reemerged as an awakening to an increasingly industrialized and polluted world
(Gruenewald, 2004; K. Wheeler, 1975). Concepts of nature have since rightfully
expanded to include the urban environment, as the vital importance of place (Sobel,
2004) and the influence of privilege and oppression on the environment and food systems
have begun to take hold (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011; Bullard, 1993; Grass & Agyeman,
2002). These concepts will be discussed in more depth later in this literature review.
Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Education
The primary forebears that have come to form the basic constitution of
environmental education include nature study, conservation education, outdoor education
and experiential education (MacGregor, 2017; Stevenson, 2007; G. Wheeler, Thumlert,
Glaser, Schoellhamer, & Bartosh, 2007; K. Wheeler, 1975). In the 19th century, nature
study emerged in Europe, Australia and North America as a favorable technique for
enhancing processes of learning and inquiry, emphasizing the importance of direct
experience in nature in order for students to develop an intimate understanding of and
19
personal connection to natural systems (Jackman, 1892; MacGregor, 2017; Stevenson,
2007). In the United States, early progressive educators Liberty Hyde-Bailey and Anna
Botsford Comstock forwarded the nature study movement as a form of agricultural
advocacy in response to increasing urbanization and the perceived need to improve
agricultural practices in order to feed a growing urban population (Comstock, 1911;
Danbom, 1979; Hayden-Smith, 2014). Specifically, the nature study movement in the
northeastern United States sought to re-instill rural interest in agriculture, especially in
primary schools, by encouraging students to develop a personal connection to the land
while enhancing their understanding of natural systems, with the goal of preparing them
to become skilled, intuitive farmers (Danbom, 1979; Hyde-Bailey, 1909; Peters, 2006).
Nature study provided a means of advancing scientific inquiry through personal
discovery while instilling environmental sensitivity and a deeper connection to the land
(MacGregor, 2017), with farms and gardens serving as primary vehicles for such learning
(Kohlstedt, 2008).
Conservation education emerged in the first half of the 20th century, prompted by
increasing concern about rates of natural resource extraction. As opposed to forming a
distinct pedagogical practice, conservation education originated more so as a campaign to
garner public support for resource conservation and the land management agencies
implementing those practices (MacGregor, 2017; C.E. Roth, 1978; G. Wheeler et al.,
2007).
Outdoor education provided a means of progressive educational reform, seeking
to create learning experiences that transcend the classroom and connect students with the
surrounding community (MacGregor, 2017). The philosophy behind outdoor education
20
largely stems from progressive educator John Dewey’s work, and emphasized the values
of experiential learning and student-centered teaching to cultivate well rounded, engaged
individuals who actively participate in civic life (Dewey, 1938). Theories of experiential
learning recognize that experience encompasses a continuous, reflexive interaction
between individual internal processes and external cultural, social and physical
environments (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 2005/1970; Kolb, 2015/1984). Experiential learning
occurs through a cumulative, cyclical process of perception, critical reflection,
conceptualization and action, allowing the learner to utilize present experience to build
upon, challenge and transform past knowledge (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 2005/1970; Kolb,
2015/1984). In order to be most impactful, however, experiential learning requires a
structured framework (Dewey, 1938), which environmental education can provide
(Desmond, Grieshop, & Subramaniam, 2004). Utilizing this framework, environmental
education places curricular and personal development objectives in the context of
localized, real-world applications, thus making the learning process more relevant to the
learner and fostering a greater personal connection to social and ecological systems
(Desmond et al., 2004; Dewey, 1938; Orr, 1992).
Outdoor education informed the expansion of experiential education, not just for
school students but also for teens and adults, largely advanced by the immersive,
adventure-based Outward Bound School, founded during World War II (MacGregor,
2017; G. Wheeler et al., 2007). The field has since expanded to include any form of
learning through experience and reflection, including wilderness education and service
learning (MacGregor, 2017). The primary goal of experiential education, as with outdoor
education, is to provide a holistic learning experience that promotes personal, social and
21
moral development along with increased knowledge and critical thinking skills
(MacGregor, 2017).
In the 1960’s, increasing rates of environmental degradation and pollution
prompted widespread public concern and a greater perceived need for environmental
education in order to address these issues. The first formal attempt to conceptualize
environmental education came from professor William B. Stapp (1969) and his cohort of
graduate students in a seminal paper that put forth the following definition:
“Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable
concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to
help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution,” (p. 30, original
emphasis). In other words, the purpose of environmental education is to create an
informed and engaged populace that actively works toward solving environmental
problems.
Environmental education gained worldwide recognition in the 1970’s. The
UNESCO-UNEP International Governmental Conference on Environmental Education
formalized the first global definition in the 1977 Tbilisi Declaration, citing the core
objectives of promoting awareness of environmental problems, knowledge of
environmental systems and the issues therein, attitudes of responsibility toward the
environment, skills to develop strategies to address environmental problems, and
participation in direct action to implement those solutions (UNESCO, 1978). The
conference further concluded that environmental education “should consider the
environment in its totality – natural and built, technological and social (economic,
political, technological, cultural-historical, moral, aesthetic),” while promoting
22
interdisciplinary collaboration, critical thinking and a lifelong learning ethic (UNESCO,
1978, p. 27). With respect to this research, the ultimate goals of GRuB’s youth program
share similar objectives to those of environmental education, as the program aspires to
cultivate empowered leaders who are equipped to engage in their communities, with the
hopes of continuing efforts to create a more equitable society (Rains & Umholtz, 2016).
As a field, environmental education continues to evolve and adapt to the changing
needs of society. Various outgrowths of environmental education include education for
sustainable development, urban environmental education and urban agriculture education.
Taken together, environmental education and its co-fields theoretically embody the
principles of holistic systems thinking, experiential learning, interdisciplinary problem
solving and participatory action to promote collective planetary wellbeing (Stapp et al.,
1969; UNESCO, 1978). In practice, however, environmental education and the
mainstream environmental movement have been criticized for promoting a dominant,
westernized conception of the environment as pristine nature while ignoring the social,
economic and political systems of power and oppression that perpetuate environmental
problems and social and economic inequities (Bullard, 1993; Ceaser, 2012; Gruenewald,
2003, 2004, 2008; Kyburz-Graber, 1999; Stevenson, 2007). Environmental education
scholars have responded by calling for a greater emphasis on the importance of place,
authentically situating learning within the particular social, economic, cultural, and
historical contexts of individual communities or regions, with the aim of enhancing
student learning by engaging directly with their local environment as Dewey advocated
for (Gruenewald, 2008; Orr, 1992; Sobel, 2004).
23
Critical environmental education frameworks.
Gruenewald (2003) puts forth the idea of a critical pedagogy of place, which
integrates principles of place-based education with critical pedagogy to cultivate an
appreciation for the unique ecological and cultural aspects of place while promoting
awareness of the societal structures that create inequality, with the purpose of actively
working to challenge those structures. Gruenewald (2003) draws from Brazilian
philosopher and educator Paulo Freire’s (2005/1970) seminal work Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, which represents one of the foundational texts on critical pedagogy. In his
work, Freire (2005/1970) identifies the “banking” model of education—the hierarchical,
unidirectional transfer of knowledge from teacher to student—as a force of oppression.
Instead, Freire (2005/1970) advocates an educational model wherein students and
educators engage in mutual, dialogue-based processes of teaching and learning. Freire
(2005/1970) contends that the purpose of education is to promote conscientizacao, or
critical consciousness, which is the ability to identify and address the social, political and
economic forces that create oppressive structures. According to Freire (2005/1970),
critical consciousness can be acquired through praxis, or the process of reshaping reality
through reflection and action. In this way, education serves as a means of liberation,
extending the concept of literacy from the ability to read and write to the capacity to
critically analyze and take actions to transform the world (Freire, 2005/1970; Freire &
Macedo, 1987 as cited in Gruenewald, 2003).
Gruenewald’s (2003) critical pedagogy of place melds the ideas of transformative,
critical education with the importance of developing genuine care for one’s place, as is
the aim of place-based education. This pedagogical framework recognizes the historical
injustices tied to place and works to conserve localized ecological and cultural tradition
24
in an effort to promote social and environmental healing while preventing oppressive
forces from creating further harm and destruction (Gruenewald, 2003). In order to
achieve this, Gruenewald (2003) links the concepts of re-inhabitation and decolonization,
explaining that, “a critical pedagogy of place aims to identify, recover and create material
spaces and places that teach us how to (a) live well in our total environments (reinhabitation); and (b) identify and change ways of thinking that injure and exploit other
people and places (decolonization)” (p. 9). In other words, care for one’s environment
cannot be severed from concern for the historical, cultural and communal aspects of
place, and must integrate environmental sustainability with social justice (Gruenewald,
2003).
With reference to this research, the theoretical underpinnings and critiques of
environmental education play an important role in understanding GRuB’s youth
development program in the context of food cultivation education, which will be
discussed in the following section. The coalescence of nature study, outdoor education
and experiential education, with respect to creating authentic and relevant learning
experiences, is central to GRuB’s educational philosophy. By engaging youth in handson, farm-based experiences, the program aims to instill a sense of environmental
stewardship while advancing students’ understanding of agro-ecological processes.
Furthermore, by incorporating anti-oppression work, non-violent communication and
conflict resolution into the curriculum, students engage in a critical pedagogy of place,
with the goal of gaining an understanding of the societal forces that create socioecological harms, as well as the skills to address them in the local community and at
large. This research aims to evaluate how these learning experiences influence alumni’s
25
current attitudes toward, and connection to, the environment, food, community and self in
terms of self-efficacy, collective agency, critical consciousness and care for place. The
concepts of critical pedagogy and critical pedagogy of place set a foundation for critical
food pedagogy, one of the analytical frameworks informing this study, which be
discussed further subsequent sections of this literature review.
Food Cultivation Education
Garden, farm, agriculture and urban agriculture-based education—which will be
termed broadly here as food cultivation education—can be classified as distinct subfields
of environmental, experiential and place-based education, all of which share common
roots in nature study and outdoor education (Desmond, Grieshop, & Subramaniam, 2004;
Smeds, Jeronen, & Kurppa, 2015). It is therefore important to understand the foundations
and critiques of environmental education and the environmental movement, and how
those concepts parallel the motives and critiques of various forms of food cultivation
education and the food movement.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, food cultivation education represented an
integral component of school systems in the United States, and on a broader level served
as a form of building national resilience (Lawson, 2005). As discussed previously, the
impetus behind the early, widespread implementation of school gardens stemmed initially
from the nature study and progressive education movements, which sought to provide
children with authentic learning experiences by connecting them with the natural world
and surrounding community (Dewey, 1916; Kohlstedt, 2008). School gardens were
prevalent in both rural and urban areas, and were adapted to meet the specifications of the
particular community (Kohlstedt, 2008). Speaking to the efficacy of experiential learning
26
in school gardens as opposed to didactic, classroom-based lessons, Dewey claimed, “No
number of object-lessons, got up as object lessons for the sake of giving information, can
afford even the shadow of a substitute for acquaintance with the plants and animals of the
farm and garden acquired through actual living among them and caring for them,”
(Dewey, 1899, p. 20). Aside from enhancing academic learning, food cultivation
education also served as a means of vocational training, leadership development and
instilling a sense of civic responsibility (Hayden-Smith, 2014; Hoover & Scholl, 2007;
Kohlstedt, 2008; Lawson, 2005). Food cultivation education also served to promote a
“producer” ethic to combat an increasing focus on mass consumerism, to integrate urban
and rural interests, and to re-establish a widespread connection with sources of fresh food
(Hayden-Smith, 2014, p. 90). However, it is also critical to note that garden-based
education was also used as a tool for cultural assimilation for immigrants and Native
Americans, with the goal of inculcating middle-class, Euro-centric ideals of morality,
work ethic and patriotism (Hayden-Smith, 2014; Kohlstedt, 2008; Lawson, 2005). In
Native American boarding schools for example, the garden curriculum employed a strict
agenda, providing “little room for self-expression or creative collaboration among the
pupils” (Kohlstedt, 2008, p. 71). Self-expression and creative collaboration are crucial
elements of experiential learning that many youth agriculture programs embrace today,
and which GRuB integrates as a core component of its youth program curriculum.
In the early 1900s, food cultivation education received significant support from
national agricultural and gardening organizations, as well as federal and legislative
support. World War I represented a time of increasing concern for national security, in
which food security played a central role (Hayden-Smith, 2014). Initiatives such as the
27
United States Student Garden Army (USSGA) galvanized students to grow food as
“soldiers of the soil.” (Hayden-Smith, 2014; Lawson, 2005). “Liberty gardens” cropped
up not only in schools but also in public spaces, on front lawns, in windowsills, and in
workplaces (Hayden-Smith, 2014). These efforts served to bolster the domestic food
supply as agricultural production focused on exporting goods to relieve food shortages in
allied countries (Hayden-Smith, 2014; Lawson, 2005). Support for school gardens began
to fade after World War I due to shifts in national priorities (Lawson, 2005), and though
World War II brought about a short-lived revival of victory gardens, the overall focus of
education shifted toward technology and athletics (Sealy, 2001, as cited in Desmond et
al., 2004). However, during the Great Depression, urban gardens still served as sites of
food cultivation education, providing work-relief to the unemployed as well as general
subsistence in individual households (Lawson, 2005).
The next wave of public interest in food cultivation education arose in the 1970s
as a response to increasing environmental and social concerns, representing a form of
grassroots activism to combat rising food prices and urban disinvestment, reconnect
children with natural systems, and strengthen community social relations (Lawson,
2005). In the 1980s, school gardens witnessed a downturn due to conservative social and
economic policies (Gaylie, 2009), although entrepreneurial gardens providing
employment training opportunities for youth and adults flourished during this time period
in response to economic conditions (Lawson, 2005). School gardens emerged yet again in
the 1990s as the political climate brought about reinvigorated interest in progressive
education and concern for the environment (Desmond et al., 2004). California has served
as a leading advocate of school gardens, and in 1995 launched an initiative to incorporate
28
a garden into every public school in the state (Desmond et al., 2004; Lawson, 2005). The
USDA’s national Farm-to-School program has further bolstered the role of food
cultivation and food systems education in K-12 settings, connecting small and mid-scale
farmers with local schools and communities to improve the nutritional quality of school
lunches, teach youth about food systems, and engage them in process of growing food
(Feenstra & Ohmart, 2012). Agriculture-based youth employment programs also
proliferated throughout the 1990s (Lawson, 2005), and have continued to crop up in
urban and rural areas across North America in recent years. Many of these programs
integrate youth and community development philosophies, which will be discussed
further in a subsequent section of this literature review.
Overall, the aims of food cultivation education—particularly garden-based
education in either rural or urban settings—share many commonalities with
environmental education in terms of promoting environmental knowledge, awareness and
stewardship, all of which contribute to ecological literacy (Desmond et al., 2004; Orr,
1992). Further goals include facilitating enhanced “academic skills, personal
development, social and moral development, vocational and/or subsistence skills and life
skills” and civic engagement (Desmond et al., 2004, p. 20), also common objectives of
environmental education that overlap with the goals of the GRuB’s youth development
program.
Food systems education.
Related to food cultivation education, food systems education has emerged as a
rising field in recent decades, predominantly in college and university settings (Galt et al.,
2013; Hilimire, Gillon, McLaughlin, Dowd-Uribe, & Monsen, 2014). Food systems
29
education transcends disciplinary boundaries, providing a comprehensive outlook on the
entire supply network of food, fiber and fuel, which encompasses the production,
processing, distribution, sale, consumption, disposal and renewal of such products
(Hilimire et al., 2014). While the literature tends to refer to food systems education in the
context of post-secondary education, this does not necessarily mean that the framework is
solely reserved for higher education settings. Food systems education encompasses food
cultivation education, including garden-based learning in K-12 schools, as well as
informal, community-based education through food justice organizations (Meek &
Tarlau, 2016).
Food systems education shares many of the pedagogical principles that inform
environmental education, including experiential learning, systems thinking and
interdisciplinary approaches (Galt et al., 2013; Valley, Wittman, Jordan, Ahmed, & Galt,
2017). The goal of food systems education, at least in a post-secondary educational
context, is to provide students with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to confront the
complex and interrelated social, environmental and economic issues within food systems
through collective action, which involves effective communication, collaboration, critical
reflection, and an ability to take multiple viewpoints into account (Valley et al., 2017).
However, in agreement with critical food scholars Meek and Tarlau (2016), I argue that
these principles and pedagogical approaches should be applied in food systems education
throughout educational settings and divisions, tailored to different stages of cognitive
development. Such exposure has the potential to empower youth to discuss and take
action around socio-ecological injustices at an earlier age. Educating and engaging youth
in efforts to address these issues make them a key part of the solution.
30
Critical Food Pedagogy
In accordance with critiques of the mainstream environmental movement, critical
food scholars assert that the mainstream food movement has focused too narrowly on
consumer choice, nutritional behavior modification and environmentally sustainable food
production practices (Guthman, 2008a, 2008b; Meek & Tarlau, 2016). While these are
important issues that warrant attention and practice, they do not directly address the
underlying social, political and economic factors that shape food systems and form the
roots of the inequalities therein (Alkon & Norgaard, 2009; Allen, 2008; Gottlieb &
Fisher, 1996; Levkoe, 2006; Meek & Tarlau, 2015, 2016). Industrial agricultural
practices and the policies that support them have led to pervasive socio-ecological
degradation through soil erosion, chemical pollution, fossil fuel dependence, habitat and
biodiversity loss, corporate consolidation and labor exploitation (Gliessman, 2015). Lowincome communities and communities of color disproportionately experience the
injurious nature of the dominant food regime, as structural racism and policies based on
principles of deregulation and privatization have influenced urban planning, land
ownership, access to fresh, affordable food, and the availability of public programs
(Alkon & Agyeman, 2011). As environmental justice scholar Robert Bullard (1993)
asserts, “the environmental crisis simply cannot be solved effectively without social
justice,” (p. 23, as cited in Gruenewald, 2003, p. 6), nor can the current food system
crisis.
In an aim to address this from an educational standpoint, educators have
deliberately begun to integrate critical perspectives into curricula around food and food
systems in an effort to engage students as more socially and politically conscious food
system actors—as producers, consumers and problem-solvers (Valley et al., 2017).
31
Critical food pedagogy, founded on the educational philosophy of critical pedagogy and
tied to transformative learning, represents a broadly applicable approach for elucidating
the complexities of the social, environmental and political elements of food systems
(Sumner, 2015; Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015). Sumner (2015) first proposed
this concept, fastening a critical lens to the emerging concept of food pedagogies, which
encompass the numerous formal and informal opportunities for teaching and learning
centered around food (Flowers & Swan, 2015). As Sumner (2015) states, “critical food
pedagogies can be found at a range of scales, from the individual through the local to the
national and the global. In addition, they aim to promote progressive change through
more balanced relationships, greater equality, redistributed power and cultural tolerance,”
(p. 204). School nutrition and farm-to-school programs, school gardens, agricultural
youth employment programs, universities, farmers’ markets, and community supported
agriculture programs all represent sites where critical food pedagogy has the potential
take root and flourish (Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015).
Critical food pedagogy stems from the notion that education is a fundamentally
political process, as education provides a foundation for how people engage in society
(Freire, 2005/1970; Sumner, 2015; Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015). Sumner and
Wever (2016) define critical food pedagogy as: “A pedagogical approach that
discourages acceptance of the status quo and encourages critique of our unsustainable
food system and the creation of alternatives that are more environmentally, socially and
economically sustainable,” (323). This rejection of the status quo incorporates Freire’s
(2005/1970) notions of critical consciousness and praxis, or the ability to recognize
societal injustices and actively work to change the circumstances that perpetuate them.
32
These notions are also tied to transformative learning, or “…learning that results in a
fundamental change in world view,” prompted by a disorienting experience that leads to
critical reflection and a re-evaluation of how one perceives and engages in the world
(Mezirow, 1991, 2009; Sumner & Wever, 2016, p. 324). In essence, critical food
pedagogy provides a means to become conscious of the problems within the food system,
to critically reflect on these issues, and to devise and implement transformative solutions.
Food literacy.
Also inherent in critical food pedagogy is the concept of food literacy (Sumner,
2015; Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015). Numerous recent efforts in scholarship
have aimed to define food literacy, and though a consensus has not been reached, many
common themes have emerged. In a comprehensive review of the academic and grey
literature on food literacy, Truman, Lane, & Elliott (2017) identified six dominant themes
that provide a framework for what constitutes food literacy: skills and behaviors,
food/health choices, culture, knowledge, emotions, and food systems (p. 367). According
to the authors,
“Skills and behaviors describe physical actions or abilities involving food;
food/health choices describe actions associated with informed choices around
food use; and culture describes societal aspects of food. Knowledge refers to the
ability to understand and seek information about food (i.e., nutrition education);
emotions cover the influence of attitudes and motivation; and food systems
describes understanding the complexity of food systems (i.e. environmental
impact, food wastage, food risk/safety, and so forth,” (Truman, Lane, & Elliot,
2017, p. 367).
These elements illustrate the broad range of factors that contribute to food
literacy, from cognitive and behavioral aspects to emotional, cultural and socioecological implications.
Building from the range of definitions in the literature, scholars have begun to
33
develop benchmarks for assessing food literacy (Goldstein, 2014, 2016; Wever, 2015). In
her Master’s thesis, Goldstein (2014) identified and divided measures of food literacy
into two paradigms: the neoliberal consciousness paradigm, focused on individual
behavior modification, personal skills and consumer habits, and the critical consciousness
paradigm, which encompasses a holistic, systems-oriented form of food literacy that
inspires social and political action. Wever’s (2015) Master’s thesis expanded on
Goldstein’s (2014) benchmarks in an effort to transcend the apparent dichotomy that the
proposed paradigms present, offering a more holistic and fluid understanding of food
literacy and critical food pedagogy.
Drawing from Goldstein’s (2014) work and Sumner’s (2013) application of
Habermas’ (1971) three learning domains to food literacy, Wever (2015) developed
additional food literacy benchmarks that align with empirical/analytic,
historical/hermeneutic and critical/emancipatory forms of learning. Empirical/analytic
knowledge refers to the practical skills and awareness that an individual must possess in
order to source, prepare and consume food (Sumner, 2013; Wever, 2015). This
empirical/analytic knowledge corresponds with what Goldstein (2014, 2016) would refer
to as the neoliberal consciousness paradigm, and what Truman, Lane and Elliot (2017)
would generally characterize as skills and behaviors, food/health choices, and knowledge.
The historical/hermeneutic realm of food knowledge includes a socio-cultural
perspective, encompassing emotions tied to food as well as different cultural, social,
linguistic and media-driven connotations of food (Sumner, 2013; Truman, Lane & Elliot,
2017; Wever, 2015). Critical/emancipatory knowledge refers to the holistic, action
inspired critical consciousness that Goldstein (2014, 2016) described in her work, which
34
includes a critical awareness of the social, political, economic and ecological factors that
shape the food system and lead to disparities in justice (Sumner, 2013; Wever, 2015).
Using Goldstein’s framework as a foundation, Wever (2015) also integrated measures of
ecological literacy, critical pedagogy of place, and transformative learning to formulate
food literacy benchmarks in each learning domain. These benchmarks are reproduced in
Table 1, and are used as an analytical framework in this study.
35
Table 1: Benchmarks of Food Literacy
(Reproduced from Wever (2015, p. 49). Normal text represents the benchmarks that
Goldstein (2014, p. 53) developed, and italicized text represents Wever’s (2015)
additions)
Empirical/Analytic
Knowledge and Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increased nutrition
knowledge
Improved cooking skills
Cooking more meals from
scratch; ability to cook for
oneself
Ability (and desire) to
purchase healthy foods
Improved food safety
behaviors
Ability to budget/plan meals
Increased consumption of
fruits and vegetables
Interest in trying new foods
Confidence and motivation
to use food knowledge to
make healthy choices
Ability to make informed
decisions and judge
marketing, new products and
quality of food
Ability to influence
family/friends in
purchasing/cooking/eating
decisions
Satisfaction, creativity,
confidence, resilience
because of food knowledge
and skills
Ability to cook with
substitutes
Knowledge of where food
comes from and various
food terminology (e.g.
GMO)
Ability to read and interpret
food labels
Historical/Hermeneutic
Knowledge and Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge of one’s food
culture
Understanding of food as a
catalyst for community
building
Knowledge of how food’s role
in society has changed over
time
Knowledge of unhealthy
relationships to food
Ability to understand and
dissect food advertising
Ability to analyze the role of
food in media such as
television, movies, literature,
etc.
Critical/Emancipatory
Knowledge and Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
36
Knowledge and awareness of
the multiple dimensions of
food (broader engagement)
Ability to reflect critically on
food and the food system,
interest in seeking change
Awareness of socio-political
impacts of the food system
and ability to analyze
associated discourses
Interest in active citizenship
as it relates to food
Ability or attempts to disrupt
current food system through
informed actions
Exercising food-related
behaviors that support a
democratic, socially,
economically and
ecologically just food system
Knowledge and awareness of
food and agricultural systems
and their relationship to
environmental health
Knowledge and/or skills
related to ecological
relationships, processes,
cycles, patterns, and context
Knowledge of the plants and
animals that affect the
ecological aspects of growing
food
Sense of connection to and
care for a particular socioecological place, expressed
through human, non-human
and food-based relationships
Evidence of critical reflection
in support of transformative
learning
Evidence of critical discourse
in support of transformative
learning
Critical knowledge of the
social and economic forces of
a society that affect food.
Wever (2015) clarifies that these three domains of learning are not hierarchical in
value, but instead are nested within one another, each domain representing an essential
element of food literacy. According to Wever (2015),
“Within this framework, individualistic learning is not negative or misguided—it
is merely one component of a larger concept, and necessary for but not sufficient
to comprise food literacy…Thus understanding these forms of knowledge as
components of a larger concept of food literacy removes the false dichotomy of
situating individualistic learning opposite that of collective learning, and does not
force the concept of food literacy into boxes or a linear continuum,” (p. 38).
As such, each of the three domains of food literacy comprises a crucial aspect of
critical food pedagogy, which together can create a dynamic interplay of reflection and
action to work toward positive change in the food system (Wever, 2015).
Food justice.
Food justice represents another important concept related to critical food
pedagogy. Although the rhetoric of the alternative food movement ostensibly claims to
integrate issues of social justice, it has lacked in practice, perpetuating the exclusion of
marginalized communities by centering on ideals derived from middle class, white
culture (Allen, 2010; Guthman, 2008a, 2008b, 2011). Guthman (2008b, 2011)
characterizes these ideals as “colorblind” and “universalist,” noting a substantial paucity
of multicultural and historical sensitivity, a lack of awareness of white privilege, and an
overall disregard for a plurality of perspectives on the part of the alternative food
movement. In contrast, the food justice movement recognizes the institutionalized race,
gender and class-based inequalities responsible for creating societal disparities in health,
food access, and participation in the food system (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011; Alkon &
Norgaard, 2009).
37
According to Alkon & Norgaard (2009) food justice represents “a theoretical and
political bridge between scholarship and activism on sustainable agriculture, food
security, and environmental justice,” (p. 289)—movements that have traditionally been
advocated for in isolation from one another despite their common temporal roots. The
food justice movement arose in tandem with the environmental justice movement, born
out of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s with the aim of addressing
hunger in inner cities (Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996), the Black Panthers’ Free Breakfast
Program for school children playing a key role in this (Gottlieb & Joshi, 2010). However,
scholars have since noted that solely focusing on equitable food access, as definitions of
food security typically emphasize, renders too narrow a definition for food justice
(Clendenning, Dressler, & Richards, 2016; Loo, 2014).
Allen (2010) identifies two forms of equity that are essential to bringing food
justice to fruition: “material equity (that is, the distribution of resources) and process
equity (that is, inclusion and democratic participation),” (295). Levkoe (2006) concurs
that limiting the definition of food security to food access does not adequately address
food justice, and argues that the concept of Community Food Security provides a more
comprehensive approach to food justice in terms of addressing access to resources,
collaborative decision-making, community resilience, and environmental, social and
economic sustainability. In this sense, the food justice movement is a conduit for
transcending the person-as-consumer paradigm to facilitate democratic participation in
the food system (Levkoe, 2006). To fully achieve food justice, local food projects must
include marginalized populations in decision-making processes (Allen, 2010).
To achieve food justice on a broader scale, Allen (2008, 2010) argues that institutions,
38
including schools and hospitals, can play an important role in advancing social justice
and food access. Allen (2008) further contends that schools have a responsibility to teach
social justice and provide students with the critical thinking skills to take action against
food system and greater societal inequities.
Regarding the present study, the GRuB School Program incorporates critical food
pedagogy through various means, and the organization as a whole strives to promote food
justice. However, as with any organizational program, not all goals are realized and not
all participants fully engage. The GRuB School Program, formerly the Cultivating Youth
Employment Program, aims to integrate critical food pedagogy by working to engage
youth in understanding systems of power and oppression that shape their experiences and
in taking collective action to address hunger, poverty and inequality in their community.
GRuB’s organizational emphasis on social justice and democratic participation within
food systems aims to forward the principles of food justice. In both program formats,
GRuB has also provided opportunities for youth to connect to the national food justice
movement through the Rooted in Community Summit—a national coalition of youthcentered food justice organizations. In addition, youth in both programs have had the
opportunity engage in advocacy work to forward GRuB’s mission by speaking at City
Council meetings.
On an institutional level, GRuB’s partnerships with local school districts provides a
dual intervention of two dominant, conventional systems—the school system and the
food system. Through this partnership, GRuB School seeks to enhance students’
educational experiences and sense of self-worth through direct participation in the food
system, while increasing local access to nutritious food. In the expanded curriculum of
39
GRuB School, youth have had opportunities to engage in political advocacy on the local
and state levels to promote legislation that integrates farm-based alternative education
and drop-out prevention programs like GRuB’s into more school districts. In sum, this
exposure to critical perspectives on food systems provides an analytical framework
through which to assess alumni’s long-term takeaways from their experiences working
and learning with GRuB. Specifically, this study will utilize the food literacy benchmarks
(Goldstein, 2014, 2016; Wever, 2015) to assess how engaging in critical food pedagogy
translated to food literacy in each of the three domains of learning over the long-term.
Youth Development Theories: Positive Youth Development and Community
Youth Development
Along with critical food pedagogy, additional fields of theory that inform this
study include positive youth development (PYD) (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner,
Lerner, et al., 2005; J.L. Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, & Foster, 1998) and community
youth development (CYD) (Perkins, Borden, Keith, Hoppe-Rooney, & Villarruel, 2003;
Pittman & Wright, 1991; Sutton, 2007; Sutton et al., 2006). While food cultivation
education has always incorporated aspects of personal development, positive youth
development and community youth development add additional layers of intentionality
and support.
PYD and CYD are closely linked fields, as CYD represents an expansion and
evolution of PYD concepts. Before delving into a description of CYD, it is important to
build a foundational understanding of the principles of PYD. Since the late 1980s,
positive youth development has emerged as an effective conceptual framework for
adolescent enrichment and growth, providing youth with the necessary self-assurance,
40
skills and knowledge to successfully segue into adulthood (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; J. J.
J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 2003b). PYD takes a multifaceted approach to
promoting personal growth, addressing the physical, psychological, social, cultural,
historical and environmental aspects that influence human development (Lerner,
Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005). The PYD philosophy stands in contrast to a longheld, clinical conception of youth as “problems to be managed,” and rather considers
young people as “resources to be developed” (J.L. Roth et al., 1998, p. 442). As such, the
PYD approach recognizes youth as valuable members of society, anchoring its focus on
enhancing the strengths and assets inherent in youth as opposed to preventing
problematic behavior (Pittman & Wright, 1991; J.L. Roth et al., 1998). This ideology
evolved from a seminal statement by Karen Pittman, a leading youth development
practitioner: “Prevention is not synonymous with development; a problem free young
person is not necessarily a fully-developed, capable young person,” (Pittman & Wright,
1991, p. 61). It is important to note, however, that what constitutes fully developed and
capable will depend on different social and cultural contexts (J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn,
2016).
The PYD field has not come to consensus on what constitutes an effective youth
development program, as programs must be tailored to best serve the needs of their
community (J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). However, there are general characteristics
that youth development programs can draw from. In a widely cited review of communitybased youth development programs, Eccles & Gootman (2002) outline eight essential
aspects of promoting PYD: physical and emotional safety; a balanced and stable
structure; emphasis on cultivating authentic, trusting relationships; fostering a sense of
41
belonging in a community; promoting positive standards of behavior; promoting
individual and collective agency and sense of purpose; skill development; and combining
the forces of family, school and community to support these goals (9-10). Other youth
development scholars have further distilled these criteria to three distinct features:
positive and lasting relationships between youth and adults; engaging youth in activities
that promote life skill development; and providing youth with opportunities to participate
in and lead meaningful community-based activities (Lerner, 2004; J.L. Roth & BrooksGunn, 2003a).
The most common framework to measure PYD program outcomes emphasizes
five primary goals, the “Five Cs,” which include fostering Competence, Confidence,
Connection, Character and Caring (Lerner, 1995 credits Little, 1993 as an originator of
this framework; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2000; J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 2003b).
Competence refers to skill development in social, cognitive, academic, occupational and
cultural arenas, including interpersonal communication, decision-making, work ethic,
career goal-setting and multicultural awareness (Lerner, 1995, 2004; Lerner, Lerner, et
al., 2005; J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 2003b). Confidence encompasses aspects of
self-esteem, personal agency and identity; Connection refers to fostering authentic,
mutually beneficial relationships with peers, adults, community and institutions; and
Character involves moral and ethical development including traits such as responsibility,
integrity and valuing diversity (Lerner, 1995, 2004; Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005; J.L. Roth
& Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 2003b). Last, Caring regards sympathetic and empathetic
consideration of others (Lerner, 2004; Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005; J.L. Roth & BrooksGunn 2003a, 2003b).
42
This model has demonstrated consistent reliability and generalizability in terms of
assessing program outcomes across multiple stages of adolescence, although the degree
to which youth integrate these characteristics will differ based on the context of the
program and the individual’s internal and external circumstances (Bowers et al., 2010;
Conway, Heary, & Hogan, 2015; J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). A sixth C,
Contribution, can result from developing the first five Cs, which manifests in the forms of
increased self-care, concern for others, and civic engagement, thus connecting personal
growth to broader community benefits (Lerner, 2004; Pittman et al., 2000). Contribution
represents a significant component of PYD that previously held less emphasis in the field.
As PYD programs gained traction throughout the 1990s, Pittman (1999) amended the
original PYD byword with the addendum: “Problem free is not fully prepared. And fully
prepared is not fully engaged,” (1). In her article, Pittman (1999) describes the critical
importance of youth investment and involvement in their individual growth, as well as
the development of the communities they live in and society as a whole.
Making tangible community differences through civic engagement provides youth
with a vehicle to develop leadership skills and the Six Cs, while simultaneously
benefitting the community at large (Perkins et al., 2003). Youth civic engagement lays
the foundation for the principles of community youth development (CYD), which can
lead to PYD outcomes, albeit through various means. In general, CYD emphasizes the
essential roles of youth in community development and community in youth development
(Irby, Ferber, Pittman, Tolman, & Yohalem, 2001; Kemp, 2011; Perkins et al., 2003;
Sutton, 2007; Sutton et al., 2006).
Different community youth development programs emphasize varying levels of
43
civic engagement, however. Sutton and colleagues (2006; Sutton, 2007) define a
spectrum of community youth development programs, from social integration focusing
on individual development (PYD) at one end, to civic activism emphasizing social
transformation at the other, with community improvement initiatives comprising an
intermediate range. While each form of community youth development program provides
significant benefits, Sutton (2007) and Kemp (2011) argue that CYD programs with a
greater emphasis on PYD tend to eschew critical examinations of the social inequities
built into the fabric of society, and that the standard PYD framework may not necessarily
be attuned to different cultural needs, despite the purported PYD emphasis on context
(Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005). On the other hand, more transformative
community youth development programs incorporate a greater awareness of the social,
economic and political structures that create and perpetuate injustice, and engage youth
with their communities to redress those structures (Kemp, 2011; Perkins et al., 2003;
Sutton, 2007; Sutton et al., 2006). Empowering youth through impactful, civic
participation puts the principles at the core of democracy into practice and works toward
creating a more inclusive and equitable society (Kemp, 2011; Sutton, 2007).
With Farming Land, Farming Self, and Farming Community as the organization’s
three core themes, GRuB’s program provides a balanced integration of positive youth
development and community youth development. The program’s emphasis on positive
adult-youth and peer relationships, constructive and straightforward communication, and
supportive environments all encompass the principles of PYD, while the community
engagement aspect of GRuB’s youth program incorporates CYD. While GRuB seeks to
inspire social transformation, a primary focus is youth development, situating GRuB in
44
the community improvement arena closer to the social transformation end of the
spectrum (Kemp, 2011; Sutton, 2007; Sutton et al., 2006). While GRuB may clearly be
classified as a CYD program, the organization specifically identifies PYD as a foundation
of its youth development philosophy. In addition, the well-established benchmarks of the
Six Cs provide a standard measure through which to assess the long-term outcomes from
participation in GRuB’s youth program. As such, the PYD framework will serve along
with critical food pedagogy as an analytical lens for this study.
Review of Studies on Community-Based Youth Agriculture Programs
Community-based youth agriculture programs provide a fitting conduit for critical
food pedagogy and positive youth and community development. Whether in schools or
through community organizations, these programs provide opportunities to foster greater
resilience on individual, community and greater environmental scales by promoting civic
engagement, youth leadership, food justice, community food security, and by practicing
and teaching environmentally sustainable food cultivation techniques (Ceasar, 2012;
Heiges, 2017; Krasny & Tidball, 2009; Levkoe, 2006).
Research has demonstrated that environmental education programs that integrate
youth development philosophies with environmental action can successfully achieve the
goals of both (Schusler & Krasny, 2010; Schusler, Krasny, Peters, & Decker, 2009).
Schusler et al. (2009) define environmental action as “a process of co-creating
environmental and social change that builds individuals’ capabilities for further
participation contributing to personal and community transformation,” (p. 16),
demonstrating the potential for environmental programs to foster youth and community
development with potential long-term impacts. Moreover, youth participation in
45
community-based programs has been associated with greater dedication to civic action
throughout life, as well as increased motivation in work and school (Irby et al., 2001).
As discussed previously, food cultivation education has a long history of
promoting personal development, leadership skills, vocational training and community
building (Hoover & Scholl, 2007; Lawson, 2005). As such, the immediate benefits of
garden-based education in schools are well documented for a number of variables,
including improvements in academic achievement, diet and nutrition, environmental
attitudes, social connectedness and personal growth (Ruiz-Gallardo, Verde, & Valdés,
2013; Skelly & Bradley, 2007; D.R. Williams & Dixon, 2013). Similarly, involvement in
extracurricular community-based agriculture programs have demonstrated favorable
youth and community development outcomes including civic engagement, relationship
building and identity formation (Broaddus, Przygocki, & Winch, 2015; Fulford &
Thompson, 2013; Hung, 2004; Lerner & Lerner, 2013; Sonti, Campbell, Johnson, &
Daftary-Steel, 2016).
Yet, while the literature demonstrates numerous benefits of youth agriculture
programs, such programs have not escaped critique. Weissman (2015) notes a tendency
for youth agriculture programs to perpetuate neoliberal ideologies of market-driven and
individual choice-based solutions to systemic problems. This is an important critique to
consider, especially in relation to critical food pedagogy and food justice. Studying urban
agriculture projects in Brooklyn, New York, including those that incorporate youth
programming, Weissman (2015) found that these projects primarily operate within
capitalist constructs, seeking to leverage change through market-based strategies and
individual consumer behaviors as opposed to political action. Weissman (2015) contends
46
that maintaining these neoliberal strategies ultimately weaken the prospects of bringing
political transformation to fruition. Nonetheless, Weissman (2015) states that, “Although
current trends indicate that urban agriculture youth programming works to (re)produce
neoliberalism and undercuts the political efficacy of Brooklyn’s urban agriculture, these
projects simultaneously produce openings for building political solidarities,” (351).
Integrating critical perspectives into youth programing curricula, even while
operating within the larger system, has the potential to foster greater awareness and
agency among youth participants to carry forward as they engage in the world. Regarding
critical food pedagogy, Sumner and Wever (2016) state,
“Such a perspective can counter the neoliberal ideology supporting the current
dysfunctional food system and raise critical consciousness about more sustainable
alternatives…Critical food pedagogy also involves cultivating an emancipatory
approach with respect to food, which can help individuals and social groups
develop new types of knowledge that contribute to resistance, greater freedom and
agency to shape their world” (Sumner & Wever, 2016, p. 323-324).
Combining critical food pedagogy with positive youth and community
development has the potential to equip and empower both individuals and communities to
enact positive change in the food system and in society as a whole.
Despite valid critiques, the benefits of engaging youth in food cultivation
programs are multifold. To assess academic achievement improvements from schoolbased garden education programs, D.R. Williams and Dixon (2013) reviewed 48 studies
between 1990 and 2010 that measured direct and indirect outcomes on student
performance. The authors’ analysis demonstrated that the vast majority of school
gardening programs yielded significantly improved outcomes primarily in science, as
well as mathematics and language arts. Beyond academic objectives, the authors found
commonalities among studies regarding improvements in outcomes including nutrition,
47
environmental sensitivity, and personal efficacy. However, most of the studies assessed
student outcomes in primary education settings, while outcomes for high school students
remained the least examined. Furthermore, the authors noted a collective shortfall of
research integrity among the suite of studies, citing a general lack of research
transparency in regards to methodology, sampling and validity. Moreover, D.R. Williams
and Dixon (2013) noted an overall sense of bias in the research, as most of the studies
were conducted by researchers who were actively engaged in the field and with an avid
interest in the benefits of education through gardening. While the study’s outcomes were
generally favorable, there is clearly a need for more systematic research in this field.
Fulford and Thompson (2013) examined the impacts of a community gardenbased youth internship program in Winnipeg, Canada on youth and community
development outcomes. The authors based their assessment on the program’s Circle of
Courage framework, a youth development model comparable to the framework of the Six
Cs, but deeply informed by Native American philosophy and with a direct focus on
decolonization and anti-oppression work (Bendtro, Brokenleg & Van Bockern, 1991,
2005 as cited in Fulford & Thompson, 2013), indicating elements of critical food
pedagogy. Through semi-structured interviews with youth and staff, as well as
observations and film-based participatory research, the authors found that interns gained
leadership and job skills, developed a greater sense of self-esteem, experienced improved
nutrition and food security, developed a critical understanding of the food system,
demonstrated enhanced environmental awareness and sensitivity, and cultivated a deeper
connection to their community—all desired youth development outcomes. Interviews
with program staff members revealed that these benefits extended to the broader
48
community, and that the youth interns played a significant role in imparting these
benefits—demonstrating the immediate relationship between community youth
development programming and positive outcomes on multiple fronts (Fulford &
Thompson, 2013). However, including community members’ perspectives in this study
could have strengthened its conclusions.
Similarly, Broaddus, Przygocki, and Winch (2015) conducted a year-long case
study of a youth urban agriculture internship program to assess key program elements for
engaging and retaining youth participants, identifying leadership opportunities, authentic
relationships, team work and mutual processes of teaching and learning as the most
effective components that resulted in positive outcomes. These program elements and
results align with the principles and desired outcomes of positive youth development
through program involvement, but again only portray short-term outcomes from
immediate program experience. Nonetheless, short-term indicators gleaned from studies
such as Fulford and Thompson’s (2013) and Broaddus et al. (2015) provide a
comparative foundation for longer-term studies such as the present one.
One of the longest running studies of youth development outcomes through
program participation comes from 4-H, a well-established, nation-wide agriculture-based
youth development program. This sequential longitudinal study began in 2002, surveying
fifth graders involved in extracurricular youth development programs including 4-H, and
assessed outcomes based on the Five Cs (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005). The study
specifically sought to establish an empirical connection between involvement in
community-based youth development programs and PYD outcomes, and to determine
how these variables relate to youths’ propensity for Contribution. The first wave
49
demonstrated that both involvement in youth development programs and evidenced PYD
indicators were significantly associated with Contribution; however, PYD outcomes were
not significantly related to particular youth development programs for this sample
(Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005). The ninth and most recent wave of the study, completed in
2013, included students who participated in at least two years of the study and
encompassed participants in grades 5-12 (Lerner & Lerner, 2013). The comprehensive
report produced from this study indicated that youth involved in 4-H programs exhibited
significantly greater rates of PYD outcomes and rates of contribution than youth enrolled
in other extracurricular activities, which were not defined in this wave (Lerner & Lerner,
2013). While this study further corroborates the benefits of continued engagement with
agriculture-based youth development programs over longer developmental time frames, it
does not assess the impacts of such programs beyond present involvement.
A growing number of Master’s theses have pursued the question of how youth
agriculture and food education programs can foster critical awareness around food issues.
Stinson (2010) explored the potential of incorporating a food-systems focus into high
school curricula to promote food literacy in students, finding that the students gained an
enhanced understanding of the personal, social and ecological implications of food—
particularly when exposed to food studies through different classes utilizing various
approaches. In a case study of Toronto’s Food Leadership for Youth (FLY) program at
The Stop Community Food Center, Goldstein (2014) assessed how participation in the
program advanced food literacy in both the neoliberal and critical levels of
consciousness. Goldstein (2014, 2016) found that despite the program’s intentions to
foster a more critical and holistic understanding of food system issues, more practical
50
skills and knowledge based on individual choice and consumption comprised the primary
takeaways for participants. In her study, Wever (2015) expanded and applied a critical
food pedagogy framework to assess learning outcomes from participation in School
Grown, an integrated, agriculture-based youth employment and school program in
Toronto. Her findings indicated that program participation facilitated elements of
critical/emancipatory learning with regard to food literacy, although
historical/hermeneutic and empirical/analytical food literacy constituted the most
prominent outcomes (Wever, 2015). Additional outcomes included improved
interpersonal skills, renewed academic engagement and job skills (Wever, 2015).
Examining the experiences of returning interns at East New York Farms!, a youth urban
agriculture program that employs a similar philosophy to GRuB’s, Delia (2014) found
that the interns’ narratives provided strong evidence of positive youth development
outcomes and increased critical consciousness as understood through the lens of a critical
pedagogy of place (Gruenewald, 2003).
Relatively few studies in the grey or peer reviewed literature have examined the
long-term influences of agriculture-based youth development programs. One follow-up
study in the grey literature comes from The Food Project, an agriculture and food justicebased youth empowerment program in Boston. The Food Project curriculum has
informed numerous other food and agriculture youth development programs and served
as a model from which GRuB drew inspiration for its own distinct program. To assess the
long-term outcomes from participation in The Food Project’s youth employment
program, Brigham & Nahas (2008) conducted interviews with thirty program alumni to
identify the most impactful aspects of their internship experience. The alumni had entered
51
the program at age fourteen or fifteen and were between eighteen and twenty-four years
old at the time of the interviews (Brigham & Nahas, 2008). The long-term takeaways that
the alumni expressed included a positive work ethic, an empowered sense of leadership, a
greater appreciation for diversity, a heightened understanding of social justice issues, a
deeper appreciation for food, and an enhanced understanding of sustainable agriculture—
although the first five outcomes were most prevalent across interviews (Brigham &
Nahas, 2008).
Few follow-up studies on agriculture-based youth programs appear in the peerreviewed literature as well. Hung (2004) interviewed former interns from East New York
Farms!, assessing their connection to place, sense of self, engagement with the
community and other salient program impacts between four and six months after their
internship experience. The former interns highlighted increased leadership capabilities,
greater knowledge and skill in food cultivation, an enhanced and empowered sense of
self, and a deeper sense of connection and contribution to their community as a result of
the program (Hung, 2004). Sonti et al. (2016) conducted a follow-up study on the same
program in New York, surveying fifty alumni who had completed the program one to
nine years prior. The variables of assessment included alumni’s academic and career
paths, levels of civic engagement, as well as their attitudes and behaviors regarding the
environment, food, health, community, and sense of self (Sonti et al., 2016). The results
of the study demonstrated overall positive impacts in each arena, with interns largely
attributing these outcomes to involvement with the program (Sonti et al., 2016). This
thesis expands upon this study by extending the timeframe since program participation.
Furthermore, this study includes interviews in addition to survey questions, integrating
52
two forms of follow-up program evaluation used in previous studies (Brigham & Nahas,
2008; Sonti et al., 2016). With this mixed-methods approach, this study sought to gain
deeper insight about how respondents’ experiences at GRuB may have had a lasting
influence on their lives.
As the literature on program evaluations for environmental education and youth
development programs indicates an overall paucity of systematically conducted followup studies (Carleton-Hug & Hug, 2010; Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins,
2002; J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016; Stern, Powell, & Hill, 2014), this thesis seeks to
address that need. The present study utilizes the survey instrument from the study by
Sonti et al. (2016) to provide a basis for comparison, with modifications to make
questions specific to GRuB alumni. This study also builds upon the survey instrument to
assess current beliefs about and levels of engagement with issues related to food systems
and the environment. Because youth development programs must be examined in context
(J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016), it is important to assess how programs with similar
practices and objectives relate through different geographic, social and cultural frames of
reference. Moreover, the relative lack of retrospective studies that specifically assess how
community-based urban agriculture programs influence long-term youth development
outcomes, as well as critical consciousness regarding environmental and food system
issues, necessitates further research and substantiates the present study.
Conclusion
To conclude, this literature review provided an overview of the history,
development, goals and critiques of environmental education to establish a conceptual
foundation for this study. This review then provided an overview of the philosophies and
53
evolution of food cultivation education, which includes garden, farm, agriculture and
urban agriculture education, and described the parallels to environmental education and
GRuB’s youth program. A discussion of food systems education followed, with a focus
on the theoretical and practical framework of critical food pedagogy as measured by the
three domains of food literacy. This review then discussed the principles of positive
youth development and community youth development to establish a conceptual basis of
youth development philosophies, with PYD serving as an additional analytical
framework for this study. Finally, this chapter reviewed the relevant research on
agriculture-based youth development programs, describing how they form a comparative
basis for this study, as well as how this thesis will build upon the existing literature. The
methods for assessing the long-term outcomes from participation in GRuB’s youth
program will be discussed in the following chapter. The results will be examined through
the complementary lenses of critical food pedagogy (operationalized through the
benchmarks of food literacy) and the Six Cs of positive youth development.
54
Chapter 4: Methods
This study follows the research tradition of retrospective program evaluation, a
common approach in long-term environmental education studies (Liddicoat & Krasny,
2013). According to Liddicoat and Krasny (2013), “…Retrospective evaluation research
focuses on a clearly defined experience, and in cases where memory research is included
in such studies, often goes deeper than the general EE program to focus on the specific
activities,” (292). In carrying out this study, a convergent parallel mixed methods design
was employed (Creswell, 2014), using surveys and semi-structured interviews conducted
with former participants in GRuB’s youth program. A mixed method study design
incorporates both quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry, which together allow for
a more holistic understanding of a research question by obtaining, analyzing and
comparing data from various perspectives (Creswell, 2014). A convergent parallel mixed
methods design implements simultaneous quantitative and qualitative data collection, in
which:
“…A researcher collects both quantitative and qualitative data, analyzes them
separately, and then compares the results to see if the findings confirm or
disconfirm each other. The key assumption of this approach is that both
qualitative and quantitative data provide different types of information—often
detailed views of participants qualitatively and scores on instruments
quantitatively—and together they yield results that should be the same,”
(Creswell, 2014, p. 219).
This study design was implemented in order to gain an enhanced understanding of
the most salient and impactful aspects of GRuB’s youth program in the four arenas of
environment, food, community and self. The quantitative survey approach sought to
reveal how those perspectives may relate or differ based on program format and duration
of program involvement, among other variables. By incorporating a qualitative element
55
through semi-structured interviews, this study aimed to garner more personal, contextbased perspectives from participants’ experiences. Taken together, this study then
examined how the significant findings from the survey analysis related to the conclusions
drawn from qualitative analysis.
From 1999 until 2011, GRuB’s Cultivating Youth Employment Program (CYEP)
ran after school and on Saturdays as a job training, dropout prevention and youth
empowerment program. The current GRuB school program was initiated in 2011 as an
alternative high school day program in partnership with the Olympia School District,
which still incorporates many job-training and personal development aspects of the
CYEP—particularly in the summer program. GRuB School is an extension of the CYEP
in that it provides an expanded, food justice-oriented curriculum that aligns with
Washington’s Career and Technical Education frameworks, thereby enabling students to
earn core high school credits.
Due to the necessity to reach alumni who were at least eighteen years old, as well
as the relative newness of the GRuB School program, outreach efforts included alumni
from both program formats. This strategy not only maximized the sample pool and
potential response rate, but also allowed for a comparison of the two program formats.
Comparing alumni’s responses from the CYEP and GRuB School provided insight about
how changes in the youth program structure and curriculum may have influenced
participants’ experiences.
Sampling and Recruitment
A multifaceted, multi-phased, purposive sampling strategy was utilized for this
study. In order to be eligible to participate, alumni had to be eighteen years of age or
56
older, have completed at least one summer or academic semester in either GRuB School
or the CYEP, and not be currently employed at GRuB. These inclusion criteria were
chosen to maximize the sample pool for this study and to assess how different forms of
program involvement influence the perceived lasting impacts. Alumni who met the
inclusion criteria were identified utilizing GRuB’s records of youth program participants.
Recruitment efforts were focused on GRuB alumni from or before the 2014 cohort to
ensure that participants would be eighteen or older. However, some alumni from the 2015
and 2016 cohorts were eighteen years old and opted to participate.
Eligible participants were cross-referenced in the organization’s database to
obtain contact information. A master spreadsheet of eligible participants was created in
Microsoft Excel with accompanying contact information, if available. Alumni for whom
contact information was available were recruited by email and/or phone using the
information from the database. Those who were recruited by phone were asked for a
current email address and sent a link to the survey along with a recruitment flyer that
provided more information about the study. However, some contact information proved
to be out of date, which has been identified as a common difficulty in conducting
program follow-up studies (Sonti et al., 2016). Respondents who completed the survey
received a $20 gift card of their choosing, delivered either by e-mail or postal mail. At the
end of the survey, respondents could indicate whether they would be willing to
participate in a thirty- to sixty-minute interview for an additional $30 gift card, and if so,
to provide contact information. Research expenses were covered by the researcher’s
personal education savings fund.
In an effort to overcome missing or inaccurate contact information for alumni,
57
social media was used as an additional recruitment strategy. Announcements about the
study were posted in GRuB’s alumni Facebook group along with the recruitment flyer
and a link to the survey. Additionally, in an effort to minimize response bias, individuals
on Facebook whom could be verified as alumni but were not a part of the alumni
Facebook group were direct messaged with a link to the survey. Kim Gaffi, GRuB’s cofounder and current Director of Youth Programs, conducted initial outreach through
email and social media, and she and other GRuB staff provided substantial support with
follow-up recruitment efforts.
The survey was active from January 11th to March 4th, 2018. Of 304 alumni in the
database, 276 were eligible to participate. Of those eligible alumni, 187 were successfully
contacted. Forty-five respondents submitted the survey, yielding a reasonable 24%
response rate. A total of nineteen interviews were conducted from the pool of
respondents. Evergreen’s Institutional Review Board approved this research for ethical
conduct prior to initiating the study.
Data Collection Procedures
Survey.
The survey instrument derived from a follow-up study on a youth internship
program in Brooklyn, New York that shares a similar philosophy and mission to GRuB’s
on agriculture-based youth and community development (Sonti et al., 2016; also see
Falxa-Raymond & Campbell, 2013). The researchers who designed the survey granted
permission to utilize and adapt the instrument for this study. Elements of the instrument
were modified to tailor the survey to GRuB’s program, and additional questions about
issues related to food and the environment were developed to gain a more comprehensive
58
understanding of alumni’s beliefs about and participation in such matters. The survey was
built and administered online using Google Forms.
Interviews.
Interviewees were selected on a first-come, first-serve basis from respondents
who completed the survey and indicated interest in participating in an interview. Due to
timing constraints, the total number of interviews was limited to nineteen. While a
randomized selection of interviewees after closing the survey may have been more
favorable, the relatively short timeline for completing the study necessitated a continuous
interview process while the survey remained active to allow adequate time for
transcription, coding and analysis. Interviewees were contacted by phone and/or email
using the information they provided on the survey form. Interviews were conducted by
phone or in person. Each interview was audio-recorded using built-in iPhone recording
software and transcribed verbatim.
Measures
Survey.
Dependent variables
A total of thirty questions comprised the survey instrument, consisting of
quantitative multiple-choice questions, Likert-type scales, and open-ended quantitative
and qualitative questions. Adapted from those implemented by Sonti et al. (2016), the
survey questions inquired about alumni’s involvement with GRuB, their education, career
paths, and recreational activities, as well as levels of general civic engagement. The
Food, Health and Environment; Community; Self; and Communication and DecisionMaking scales from Sonti et al.’s (2016) survey sought to measure alumni’s attitudes and
59
behaviors within these realms with Likert-type rankings of Never, Rarely, Every Once in
a While, Sometimes, and Often. For the purposes of this study, the Food, Health and
Environment scale was slightly modified to include only Food and Environment
measures; as a result, one item from the original instrument (“I am physically active”)
was excluded from this survey.
Sonti et al.’s (2016) survey provided an ample opportunity to quantitatively
measure positive youth development outcomes (PYD) through the items in the
Community, Self and Communication and Decision Making scales. In addition, the Food
and Environment scale provided a means to assess the empirical/analytic domain of food
literacy with regard to critical food pedagogy. New survey items were developed to
create the Food and Environmental Policy Beliefs scale, which aimed to measure
alumni’s beliefs about and engagement with issues related to food and environmental
policy, sustainability and justice. This scale reflects the historical/hermeneutic and
critical/emancipatory domains of food literacy, as critical food pedagogy and food
literacy encompass practical knowledge along with broader cultural and critical
awareness (Goldstein, 2016; Sumner & Wever, 2016; Wever, 2015). However, it is
important to note that this scale placed most emphasis on the critical/emancipatory
domain of food literacy. The Food and Environmental Policy Beliefs scale implemented
five-point Likert scale measurements that ranged from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree, with Neutral serving as the middle ground. Although previous researchers have
argued that quantitative assessments of food literacy can render over-simplified analyses
of the data (Goldstein, 2014, 2016), the mixed-methods approach employed in this study
provides a more comprehensive examination of food literacy due to the combined
60
quantitative and qualitative perspectives.
In addition, the Food and Environmental Civic Engagement scales were
developed to assess alumni’s participation in food and environmental issues based on
activities in the scale measuring general civic engagement. Sonti et al. (2016) adapted the
general civic engagement measures from Fisher et al. (2011, as cited in Falxa-Raymond
& Campbell, 2013), and in turn these measures were derived from a compilation of
common national surveys on civic participation (Falxa-Raymond & Campbell, 2013).
However, while the general Civic Activity scale measured civic participation in the last
twelve months, the Civic Engagement in Relation to Food and Environment scales
utilized the Likert-type rankings of Never, Rarely, Every Once in a While, Sometimes,
and Often to obtain a more fine-grained assessment of how frequently alumni engage
with these issues. See Appendix A for the full version of the administered survey, with
annotations indicating scale items removed through inter-item reduction analysis.
Independent variables
The independent variables assessed in this study included socio-demographic
controls such as age, gender, race, low-income background, and education, as well as
programmatic variables including program type, duration of program involvement,
whether or not alumni returned in a leadership position, and number of years since
program involvement. Although additional employment opportunities within the
organization were at times available to alumni, this study only included the Peer Crew
Leader and Farm Assistant positions for statistical analysis, as these positions work most
directly with the youth program. Race and ethnicity were initially measured using
categories from a proposed 2020 Census revision (Cohn, 2016). However, race was
61
collapsed into a binary variable for statistical analysis (white and racially diverse), as
there were not enough responses in each of the racial categories to assess them all
independently. The racially diverse category encompasses people of color as well as
mixed race people1. The full list of racial categories can be found on the survey in
Appendix A.
In evaluating levels of civic engagement related to food and the environment,
composite scores for general civic engagement were also included as an independent
variable. Including general civic engagement as an explanatory factor in these two
regression models seemed appropriate, as alumni’s propensity for public participation in
a broader sense would likely influence their level of engagement with food and
environmental issues.
A significant body of research has demonstrated an association between certain
socio-demographic variables and environmental attitudes. For example, younger
individuals, females, whites, and people with higher educational attainment have been
shown to exhibit greater environmental concern as measured by the New Ecological
Paradigm Scale, a standardized measure of environmental attitudes (Liere & Dunlap,
1980; McMillan, Hoban, Clifford, & Brant, 1997). PYD research has not yet determined
distinct relationships between socio-demographic variables and PYD outcomes, as the
context-based interactions among individuals, programs and other socio-environmental
factors play a significant role in determining what and how PYD outcomes are fostered
(J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016), and as PYD outcomes can be subject to different
cultural interpretations (J.L. Williams & Deutsch, 2015). However, research has
1
The researcher recognizes the limitations of categorizing race in binary terms and apologizes for any
inadvertent misrepresentation. The terminology was chosen in an effort to avoid perpetuating whitecentered categorizations of race (i.e. “non-white”), as recommended by Madowitz & Boutelle (2014).
62
demonstrated that youth at greater risk, as determined by socioeconomic status, race,
ethnicity and academic performance among other factors, tend to benefit more from
participation in PYD programs (J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016).
It is also important to consider programmatic variables to determine whether
differences in program structure and/or participation influence various PYD outcomes
and environmental attitudes. For example, Sonti et al. (2016) found that differences
program curriculum influenced the Food and Environment composite scores of the
alumni in their study. In addition, the researchers found that duration of program
involvement influenced alumni’s Communication and Decision-Making scores (Sonti et
al., 2016). Table 2 presents the independent control variables measured in this study and
the formats in which they were analyzed. Table 3 displays the programmatic independent
variables considered.
63
Table 2: Independent control variables
Variable
Gender
Race
Low-income Background
Educational Attainment
Age
General Civic Engagement (used
only to analyze Civic Engagement
in relation to food and the
environment)
Format
Binary (0 = Male or other
gender identity, 1 = Female)
Binary (0 = White, 1 = Racially
diverse)
Binary (0 = No / Prefer Not to
Say, 1 = Yes)
Ordinal (3 = Bachelor's degree
or higher; 2 = Associates
degree or certificate program; 1
= High School or GED; 0 =
None yet completed)
Continuous
Continuous (Check all that
apply; composite score
calculated from civic activities
checked)
Table 3: Independent programmatic variables
Variable
Program Type
Length of Time in Program
Years Since Program Involvement
Returning Position
Format
Binary (0 =CYEP, 1 = GRuB
School)
Categorical (0 = one summer; 1
= one academic semester; 2 =
two academic semesters; 3 =
one summer and one semester;
4 = Full year (one summer and
two semesters)
Ordinal (0 = 2-5 years; 1 = 6-10
years; 2 = 11-14 years; 3 = 15+
years)
Binary (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Interviews.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain more nuanced perspectives
of the long-term takeaways from participation in GRuB’s youth development program.
64
The interviews provided a deeper understanding of the direct relationship between
alumni’s experiences at GRuB and the perceived lasting influences on their lives. The
interview protocol consisted of eleven sets of questions, some of which included
additional sub-questions to guide the interview process and to facilitate clarification or
elaboration of responses.
The interview questions were organized thematically, covering the four areas of
interest in this study—environment, food, community and self. Some interview questions
were drawn from the open-ended survey questions found in Sonti et al., (2016) [see
Falxa-Raymond & Campell (2013) for the original, expanded evaluation and survey
instrument in full], and others were inspired by Wever (2015). Introductory and
concluding questions sought to acquire more general information about alumni’s
experiences, including why they joined the GRuB program they participated in, how long
they were involved, and what the most salient aspects of program participation were in
general. Overall, the interview questions were developed to assess how involvement in
GRuB’s programs may have resulted in long-term changes in alumni’s outlooks,
behaviors and engagement on personal, social and broader societal levels. Qualitative
variables of interest included reported instances of personal development, enhanced
connection to community, and greater awareness of and involvement with issues related
to the environment and food. See Appendix B for the interview protocol.
Data Analysis
Surveys.
Following Sonti et al. (2016), Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each set of
questions from the Food and Environment, Community, Self, and Communication and
65
Decision-Making scales to evaluate the reliability of each scale as applied to the sample
in this study. Inter-item reduction analysis was performed to obtain the strongest
Cronbach’s alpha score for each scale. Sonti et al. (2016) previously reported Cronbach’s
alpha scores of 0.71 for Food, Health and Environment; 0.52 for Self; 0.78 for
Community; and 0.69 for Communication and Decision-Making. Cronbach’s alpha scores
for the same scales in this study were 0.79, 0.82, 0.78, and 0.78, respectively. The higher
Cronbach’s alpha scores in the present study indicate greater reliability of each scale with
this sample. Composite scores for each section were then calculated from the remaining
items that comprised the most reliable scales.
66
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for dependent variables
(N = 45 unless otherwise noted)
Cronbach's
Scale
# of items
alpha n
Food and
Environment
5
0.79 45
Community
Self
Communication and
Decision Making
Food and
Environmental
Policy Beliefs (N =
44)
Food Civic
Engagement (N =
44)
Environmental
Civic Engagement
(N = 40)
Range
Mean
SD
5-25
23.73
1.92
9
0.78 45
9-45
36.51
5.78
12
0.82 45
12-60
54.04
5.44
6
0.78 45
6-30
26.67
3.59
12
0.87 44
12-60
55.27
5.03
14
0.92 44
14-70
29.70
10.87
14
0.94 40
14-70
26.60
11.47
Inter-item reduction analysis was also performed on the Food and Environmental
Policy Beliefs, Food Civic Engagement, and Environmental Civic Engagement scales to
obtain the most dependable measures, and composite scores were calculated from the
most reliable items in each scale (see Table 4). It is important to note that the high
Cronbach’s alpha scores for both the Food and Environmental Civic Engagement Scales
may be indicative of redundancy among the questions asked, as well as the large number
of items in the scale (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). However, the removal of any items did
not lower the score below 0.90, the suggested maximum (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).
A series of independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance
67
(ANOVA) were performed to determine significant differences in the dependent
variables based on several independent variables, including gender, level of education,
program type (CYEP or GRuB School), and whether or not alumni returned in a
leadership position. Mean composite scores between GRuB School and CYEP
participants were also compared utilizing an independent-samples t-test. Last, a series of
multiple linear or logistic regression models were estimated for each of the dependent
variables. Diagnostics were performed on each regression model to assess whether the
model met the assumptions of regression. Specifically, each model was analyzed for
multicollinearity, normality of error, and equality of error variance. Overly correlated
independent variables were identified and some were removed from the model. In this
case, Age, Program Type and Years Since Program Involvement were highly correlated.
As this study aims to assess the sustained impacts of program participation, Years Since
Program Participation was kept and Program Type and Age were removed from the
models. The only two models that did not meet the assumptions of regression were the
Food and Environment and Communication and Decision-Making scales. For these
models, the composite scores were transformed into ordered categories according to the
quartile values of each distribution and ordinal logistic regression models were estimated.
Statistical analysis was performed using JMP software. An alpha value of 0.05 served as
the significance level for all statistical tests.
Interviews.
All interviews were transcribed verbatim for analysis, including fillers and
intonations. Qualitative data analysis took the form of a closed coding approach, as the
overarching research question for this study specifically sought to analyze the long-term
68
impacts of GRuB’s youth program on alumni’s attitudes toward, and connection to, the
environment, food, community and self. Moreover, the sub-research questions of this
study aimed to assess the extent to which participation in GRuB’s youth program fostered
critical consciousness around issues related to food and the environment in addition to
positive youth development outcomes. As such, this study was designed with pre-set
themes and indicators based on the food literacy benchmarks of critical food pedagogy
(Goldstein, 2014, 2016; Wever, 2015) and the Six Cs framework of positive youth
development (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005; Pittman et al., 2000). This approach did not
preclude the emergence of new themes, as the coding process allowed for patterns that
had not been previously determined to arise.
Prior to initiating coding, all transcripts were reviewed to provide a neutral
baseline and general perspective of the content. Each transcript was then examined in
greater depth, and the broad themes of Environment, Food, Community and Self served
as the starting points for generating codes. Within those themes, quotations that pointed
to evidence of positive youth development and critical food pedagogy were identified and
coded respectively. This closed coding process elucidated the most prominent themes
regarding how former GRuB program participants felt the program had or had not
influenced their lives, their relationship to community, and their environmental
worldviews. The primary findings from the interviews were then compared to the survey
results to assess how the two datasets supported or contradicted one another.
69
Chapter 5: Quantitative Results
Descriptive statistics for the socio-demographic characteristics of this sample are
reported in Table 5. Of the forty-five alumni who responded to the study, twenty-eight
identified as female (62%), sixteen identified as male (36%), and one respondent
identified as another gender identity (2%). Twenty-eight respondents identified as white
(62%) and seventeen respondents identified as a person of color and/or mixed race
(38%), a breakdown that reflects the general population of Thurston County. The
respondents’ ages ranged from eighteen to thirty-five years old, with an average age of
twenty-five. Forty-one respondents (91%) identified as coming from a low-income
background, a logical outcome considering that GRuB’s program has primarily served
low-income youth. As for educational attainment, eight respondents had completed a
Bachelor’s degree or higher level of education (18%), twelve had completed an
Associates degree or certificate program (27%), twenty-two had earned a high school
diploma or GED (49%), and three had not yet completed high school or a GED program
(7%).
70
Table 5: Descriptive statistics for participant demographics
(n = 45 unless otherwise noted)
Variable
Categories
N %
Gender
Female
28 62%
Male
16 36%
Other gender identity
1 2%
Race
White
28 62%
Racially diverse
17 38%
Low-income
Background
Yes
41 91%
No / Prefer not to say
4 9%
Educational
Attainment
Bachelor's degree or higher
8 18%
Associates degree or
certificate program
12 27%
High school or GED
22 49%
None yet completed
3 7%
Age (n = 43)
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Range
18
35
25
23
Descriptive statistics for the programmatic characteristics of the survey
respondents are displayed in Table 6. CYEP alumni comprised a slight majority in this
sample (60%) as compared to GRuB School alumni (40%), which is reasonable
considering that the GRuB School Program is new relative to CYEP. The greatest
percentage of respondents were only involved in the program for one summer (38%),
while 33% had completed a full year. Nine respondents participated for one summer and
one academic semester (20%), and four participated for only two academic semesters
(9%). As for time since program involvement, the data indicated a fairly even
representation of the program’s evolution. Fifteen respondents had participated in the
71
program two to five years prior (33%), eleven had participated six to ten years prior
(24%), eleven had participated eleven to fourteen years prior (24%), and eight had
participated fifteen or more years prior (18%). Fifteen respondents returned as a Peer
Crew Leader or Farm Assistant in a subsequent year (33%).
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for program participation
(n = 45)
Variable
Categories
N
Program Type
Cultivating
Youth (19992010)
27
GRuB School
(2011-2016)
18
Length of time in
One summer
program
17
One academic
semester
0
Two academic
semesters
4
One summer and
one academic
semester
9
Full year
15
Years since program
involvement
2-5 years
15
6-10 years
11
11-14 years
11
15+ years
8
Returning position
Yes
15
No
30
%
60%
40%
38%
0%
9%
20%
33%
33%
24%
24%
18%
33%
66%
The quantitative portion of this study aimed to examine how different sociodemographic and programmatic variables were related to alumni’s sustained attitudes
toward and connection to the environment, food, community and self. Specifically, the
survey sought to determine explanatory factors that significantly correspond to critical
food pedagogy and positive youth development outcomes. The Food and Environment
72
scale contained measures relevant to the empirical/analytic domain of food literacy, while
the Food and Environmental Policy Beliefs scale included measures primarily relevant to
critical/emancipatory food literacy, and to a lesser extent historical/hermeneutic food
literacy—all of which are encompassed in the theoretical framework of critical food
pedagogy. In addition, the Community, Self, and Communication and Decision-Making
scales were comprised of PYD indicators linked to the Six Cs: Confidence, Competence,
Character, Connection, Caring and Contribution.
Descriptive Statistics
Food and environment: Indicators of critical food pedagogy.
The data indicate that GRuB alumni overall maintain strong empirical/analytic
food literacy skills and generally positive attitudes toward food and the environment.
Ninety-six percent of the alumni surveyed reported having a good idea of where their
food comes from, eating fruits and vegetables, and trying to reduce waste sometimes or
often. Ninety-three percent of alumni reported cooking sometimes or often, and 98% of
alumni reported caring about nature and the environment sometimes or often.
Interestingly, 55% percent of alumni reported that they still garden sometimes or often.
For the item “I eat fast food,” 75% percent of alumni indicated doing so every once in a
while, rarely or never.
Alumni also exhibited some historical/hermeneutic food literacy, although the
survey did not emphasize this domain. However, 82% of alumni agreed or strongly
agreed that all people should have access to culturally appropriate food, which is a core
aspect of the historical/hermeneutic domain of food literacy. The respondents further
73
demonstrated a fairly high level of critical/emancipatory food literacy through their
survey responses, though the data most strongly support empirical/analytic food literacy.
For example, 87% of the alumni surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the dominant
industrial food system has serious negative environmental consequences, while 71%
agreed or strongly agreed that organic agriculture is always more sustainable, even on an
industrial scale. While organic standards prohibit the use of most synthetic pesticides and
fertilizers, industrialized organic agriculture can still perpetuate social and environmental
problems including labor and pollution concerns, especially when co-opted by the same
large corporations that dominate conventional food (Guthman, 2004). Nonetheless, 84%
of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were concerned about the rights of
farmworkers, indicating a critical/emancipatory understanding of social issues embedded
in the food system. Furthermore, 95% of alumni agreed or strongly agreed that equal
access to healthy food is a current problem in our society, and 91% agreed or strongly
agreed that agriculture, social justice and environmental health are all connected, further
exhibiting critical/emancipatory awareness of food system issues.
Interestingly, 64% of alumni agreed or strongly agreed that consumer choice is
the best way to influence food policy, reflecting what Goldstein (2014, 2016) refers to as
the neoliberal consciousness paradigm. At the same time, 84% agreed or strongly agreed
that activism is important for food policy change and 93% agreed or strongly agreed that
collective action creates the most effective change, indicating a broader, critical
consciousness about leveraging change in the food system. Indeed, these approaches are
not mutually exclusive, and informed, collective consumer decisions can instigate food
system change (Friedland, 2008; Jaffe & Gertler, 2006). In addition, 96% of alumni
74
agreed or strongly agreed that all people should have an equal opportunity to participate
in decision-making processes about their food systems, which further demonstrates
critical/emancipatory food literacy in terms of understanding the importance of
democratic participation in food systems. Table 7 presents descriptive statistics of
alumni’s top issues of concern related to food and the environment. Equal access to
healthy food represented the most prevalent concern, with 89% of alumni selecting this
response. Farmworkers’ rights represented the second-most identified issue of concern
(42%), and creating more localized food systems rounded out the sample’s top three
primary issues of concern (29%).
75
Table 7: Food and Environmental Issues of concern*
Issue
n
%
Equal access to healthy food
40
89%
Farmworkers' rights
Creating more localized food
systems
Reducing corporate influence
over food policy
Increasing educational
opportunities about the
environment and food system
Reducing corporate influence
over environmental policy
Government support for small
and mid-size farmers
Government support for
sustainable farming practices
Increasing opportunities for
public participation in food
systems
Reducing agriculture's impact on
climate change
19
42%
13
29%
10
22%
10
22%
9
20%
6
13%
6
13%
5
11%
5
11%
*Respondents could select up to three responses, so the total
percentage exceeds 100%
However, when it comes to civic engagement in food and environmental issues,
the data were largely skewed toward minimal participation. The mean composite score
for Food Civic Engagement amounted to 30 out of a possible score of 70, while the mean
composite score for Environmental Civic Engagement came to 27 out of a possible score
of 70 (see Table 4 in previous chapter). These results suggest that while GRuB alumni
possess a reasonably high level of critical/emancipatory awareness about food and
environmental issues, this does not necessarily translate into political praxis.
76
PYD outcomes.
Community
On the whole, respondents demonstrated fairly strong evidence of sustained PYD
outcomes. Fifty-three percent of the survey respondents reported taking leadership roles
in their community sometimes or often, which demonstrates Confidence and
Competence. Forty-nine percent reported participating in community activities
sometimes or often, which indicates Connection and Contribution. Notably, 84% of
alumni reported feeling connected to a larger community sometimes or often, and 69%
reported never or rarely feeling disconnected from the people around them—both of
which strongly support a sustained capacity for Connection on an interpersonal and larger
institutional level. In addition, 98% of alumni reported feeling comfortable interacting
with people of different races, genders and abilities sometimes or often, demonstrating a
strong, collective value for diversity, which is an indicator of Character (Lerner, Lerner,
et al., 2005). Moreover, 82% of alumni reported feeling capable of making change in
their community and beyond, which further supports an overall sense of Confidence and
Competence within the sample.
Self
Respondents also demonstrated a generally positive concept of self. Ninety-one
percent of alumni considered themselves to be good leaders and believed they have a lot
to be proud of sometimes or often, and 82% reported feeling good about themselves
sometimes or often. However, only 54% of alumni reported never or rarely having low
self-esteem, which indicates that levels of self-confidence can waver. Nonetheless, 76%
of alumni reported feeling like they have a sense of purpose in life often, which is a
significant indicator of Confidence. In addition, 70% reported often feeling motivated at
77
work and/or school, which demonstrates sustained characteristics of Competence and
Character. Furthermore, the majority of alumni reported often enjoying new experiences,
whether learning new information (84%), learning new skills (91%), or trying new things
(84%), which the literature identifies as important developmental assets (Lerner, Lerner,
et al., 2005).
Communication and decision-making
The alumni surveyed also reported strong communication and decision-making
skills. Ninety-three percent view themselves as good communicators sometimes or often,
and 91% feel comfortable discussing difficult decisions with friends or adults sometimes
or often, which demonstrates a collective sense of social and cognitive Competence. In
addition, 80% of alumni reported feeling comfortable talking issues out with others when
they get upset, which further demonstrates a strong capacity for social Competence.
Furthermore, 76% of alumni often consider multiple viewpoints and perspectives before
making a decision, while only 2% of alumni often let peer pressure influence their
decisions, which provides additional evidence for a high level of cognitive Competence
among the group. Moreover, 91% of alumni reported speaking up or taking action when
they see a problem sometimes or often, while the remaining 9% reported doing so every
once in a while. The reportedly high frequencies of speaking out or taking action against
observed problems demonstrate a solid sense of Confidence, Competence, Caring and
Contribution within the sample. The following sections will statistically unpack the
potential explanatory factors that may contribute to sustained critical food pedagogy and
PYD outcomes.
78
Inferential Statistics
Independent samples t-tests.
Statistical analysis began by examining each independent variable in relation to
each dependent variable: in this case, the relationship between each socio-demographic
and programmatic variable and the composite scores detailed in Table 4. A series of
independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess significant differences in composite
scores according to gender identity, race, low-income background, and program type
(CYEP or GRuB School). Neither gender identity nor program type exhibited a
significant relationship with any of the composite scores. This finding stands in contrast
to previous studies that have shown females to have more favorable environmental
attitudes (Liere & Dunlap, 1980; McMillan et al., 1997), as well as the study by Sonti et
al. (2016), which found that females in their sample were more likely to have lower Self
scores. In addition, Sonti et al. (2016) determined that changes in program curriculum
subsequently corresponded to higher Food and Environment scores. The Food and
Environment mean composite scores for CYEP and GRuB School alumni both amounted
to 23.7 out of a possible total of 25. That the two program formats showed no significant
differences in any of the mean composite scores suggests that the program has fostered
consistent outcomes for its youth participants, despite changes in curriculum and
structure.
In examining variation in mean composite scores based on race, the only
significant difference appeared in the Communication and Decision-Making scale. The
mean score for alumni who identified as white (M = 27.36, SD = 3.14) differed
significantly than the mean score for alumni who identified as a person of color and/or
79
mixed race (M = 25.53, SD = 4.08), t(1) = 1.69, p = 0.049. These results are presented in
Table 8.
Table 8: Independent samples t-test for Communication & DecisionMaking and Race
Race
Racially
diverse
Total sample
Mean
Communication
& DecisionMaking
26.67
Min Max
16
30
White
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Prob > t
3.59
25.53
4.08
27.36
3.14
0.049
However, it is important to note that common PYD constructs may not manifest
in the same way across different races, ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. It is well
established that communication styles differ across cultures (Mindell, 2014). As J.L.
Williams and Deutsch (2015) explain,
“…A youth’s racial and/or ethnic background as a characteristic of the youth can
directly influence the interactions the youth has in a [youth development program]
(e.g., program culture that is aligned, or not, with a youth’s racial or ethnic
cultural norms and expectations) which then may increase or reduce the potential
effects of that program on youth development” (205-206).
As such, these results do not necessarily indicate that alumni in the racially
diverse group are less capable of communication and decision-making, as this difference
may be attributed to contextual differences that the survey did not capture.
A Welch’s t-test, which accounts for unequal variances and unequal sample sizes,
revealed a statistically significant difference in mean composite scores for the Self scale
between alumni who identified as coming from a low-income background (M=53.81,
SD=5.63) and those who did not or preferred not to say (M=56.50, SD=1.29), t(1)=2.47,
80
p=0.023. Research on the relationship between self-esteem and growing up in poverty
supports this finding, as the experience of chronic stress associated with poverty in
adolescence has been linked with lower self-concept in adulthood (Mossakowski, 2015;
Orth, 2017). Nonetheless, the alumni identifying as coming from a low-income
background averaged a reasonably high composite score (53.81 out of 60). These results
are presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Welch's t-test for Self and Low-income background
Low-income background
Total sample
Self
No/Prefer
not to say
Yes
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Prob >
F
54.04
36
60
5.44
53.81
5.63
56.50
1.29
0.023
Analysis of variance tests.
A series of one-way ANOVA’s were conducted to assess differences across
educational attainment, length of time in the program, and years since program
involvement on each of the composite scores. No significant mean differences were
detected for educational attainment or length of time in the program. An initial significant
mean difference arose in examining the relationship between years since program
involvement and Self scores—however, the groups displayed unequal variances, and a
Welch’s ANOVA did not reveal any significant mean differences.
Regression models.
After analyzing significant relationships among each of the independent and
dependent variables in isolation, a series of regression models were generated.
81
Regression models estimate the relationship of each independent variable with a
dependent variable, holding all other factors constant. Because the Food and
Environment and Communication and Decision-Making scales did not meet the
assumptions of regression, ordinal logistic regression was used instead of linear
regression. The composite scores for these two variables were collapsed into ordered
categories ranked low, medium and high based on their relative distributions. Table 10
presents the ordinal logistic regression models, and odds ratios are reported. In this
analysis, any statistically significant coefficient that is greater than one signifies that the
variable corresponds with a greater likelihood of having a lower composite score, while
significant coefficients less than one indicate that the variable corresponds with a greater
likelihood of having a higher composite score2.
The ordinal logistic regression model of the Food and Environment scale revealed
participation in the summer program as a significant factor. Alumni who participated
only during the academic year were almost nine times more likely to have a lower
composite score (odds ratio: 8.864) than alumni who participated in the summer program
only. This is a logical outcome, as youth spend more hours on the farm during the
summer, which provides more direct experience with food in the environment. Although
not statistically significant, it is interesting to note that regardless of how long alumni
were involved in the program, those who participated in the summer were more likely to
score higher on the Food and Environment scale than alumni who participated only
2
It is important to note that different statistical programs use slightly different parameters to compute
ordinal logistic regression coefficients and odds ratios, which affects interpretation. Typically, odds ratios
above one are interpreted as the likelihood of a variable ending up in a higher category, while odds ratios
less than one are interpreted as the likelihood of a variable ending up in a lower category (i.e. with SPSS
and Stata). However, for SAS statistical programs, including JMP, the interpretation is reversed. See GraceMartin (2013) for a detailed explanation.
82
during the academic year based on their relative odds ratios. It is important to note that
small sample sizes can mute potentially significant effects that would appear were the
sample size larger (du Prel, Hommel, Röhrig, & Blettner, 2009). In addition, statistical
significance does not always correspond with practical significance, as large sample sizes
can produce statistically significant results that do not carry much meaning in the real
world applications (Whitlock & Schluter, 2015). As such, it is important to also consider
confidence intervals when evaluating the significance of data, which takes into account
the magnitude of the effect, and whether that effect occurs within the probable range of
values for the entire population (du Prel et al., 2009; Whitlock & Schluter, 2015).
With this in mind, several additional factors hovered just above the threshold
demarcating statistical significance (around or below 0.08, but above 0.05). Returning
Position emerged as a nearly significant factor, with a p-value of 0.068 and an odds ratio
of 0.463, 95% CI [0.198, 1.000]. While the confidence interval does overlap with 1, or
the null value, indicating a lack of statistical significance, Szumilas (2010) states that,
“Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to interpret an [odds ratio] with a 95% CI that
spans the null value as indicating evidence for lack of an association between the
exposure and outcome,” (227). In other words, despite not being statistically significant,
alumni who returned in a summer leadership position were about 54% more likely to
have higher scores on the Food and Environment scale. This is a logical outcome, as
leadership positions typically occur during the summer. As the summer program involves
the most intensive hands-on farm experience during the peak of the season, these results
point to the value and salience of experiential learning over the long-term. In addition,
respondents who identified as female were about 45% more likely to have higher Food
83
and Environment scores at a level of near-significance (odds ratio: 0.541, p=0.085), 95%
CI [0.253, 1.091]. Unlike the t-tests discussed earlier, the result from this regression
model corresponds with previous research that has found that females are more likely to
uphold positive environmental attitudes (Liere & Dunlap, 1980; McMillan et al., 1997).
Ordinal logistic regression for Communication and Decision-Making also
revealed some interesting associations. Years since program participation emerged as an
influential variable. Alumni who had been out of program for fifteen or more years were
nearly ten times more likely to have lower composite scores for this scale (odds ratio:
9.836) than alumni who had been out of the program for eleven to fourteen years. This
indicates a possible fifteen-year threshold for sustained improvements in communication
and decision-making skills, although a conclusive determination cannot be drawn from
the data.
However, a near-significant relationship also arose between alumni who had been
out of the program between eleven and fourteen years and those who had been out for six
to ten years that confounds the previous finding. Alumni in the eleven to fourteen-year
range were about 82% more likely to score higher on the Communication and DecisionMaking scale than alumni in the six to ten-year range (odds ratio: 0.184) at a p-value of
0.078, 95% CI [0.026, 1.122]. This indicates a non-linear relationship between years out
of the program and relative scores for this scale. Educational attainment also arose as a
significant variable, wherein alumni who had earned an Associate’s degree or job training
certificate had 93% greater odds of scoring higher on the Communication and DecisionMaking scale. This is a logical outcome, as post-secondary education provides further
opportunity to hone these skills.
84
Table 10 displays the ordinal logistic regression model results. For ordinal logistic
regression, McFadden’s pseudo R2 is reported, which provides an indication of how well
the model fits the data, or how much the variability in the dependent variable is explained
by the regression model (UCLA Statistical Consulting Group, 2011; Whitlock &
Schluter, 2015). The Food and Environment Scale has a pseudo R2 value of 0.133,
meaning the model explains about 13% of the variation in composite scores for this
variable. The Communication and Decision-Making Scale has a pseudo R2 value of
0.194, which indicates that the model explains about 19% of the variation in composite
scores. While these may seem like relatively low pseudo R2 values, is important to note
that R2 values under 50% are common in social science studies, as human attitudes and
behaviors are difficult to predict (Stone, Scibilia, Pammer, Steele, & Keller, 2013). In
addition, higher R2 values do not always mean that the model represents a good fit to the
data (Stone et al., 2013).
85
Table 10: Ordinal logistic regression models of Food and
Environment and Communication and Decision-Making scores by
socio-demographic characteristics (controls), length of program
involvement, years since program participation and returning
position. Odds ratios and standard errors (in parentheses) are
reported.
Food and
Communication and
Controls
Environment
Decision-Making
Female
0.541 (1.247)
1.009 (0.351)
Racially diverse
0.927 (0.356)
1.721 (0.392)
Low-income background
0.835 (0.539)
1.427 (0.624)
a
Education
HS/GED (None
completed ref)
0.459 (1.453)
2.414 (1.612)
Associates or certificate
0.560 (0.867)
0.070** (0.989)
Bachelor's degree or
higher
1.287 (0.954)
5.479 (1.030)
Length of Time in Program
(One summer ref)
Two academic semesters
8.864* (1.074)
0.606 (0.875)
One summer + one
semester
0.448 (0.689)
0.755 (0.695)
Full year
1.029 (0.967)
3.000 (0.719)
Years Since Program
Participationa
6-10 years (2-5 years ref)
2.376 (1.196)
5.570 (1.181)
11-14 years
1.229 (0.891)
0.184 (0.959)
15+ years
0.818 (0.943)
9.836* (1.046)
Returning Position
0.463 (0.422)
1.332 (0.418)
45
n
45
Prob > ChiSq
0.450
0.089
2
Pseudo R
0.133
0.194
*p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
a
Ordinal variable: Each subsequent level references the preceding level.
Base level is provided in table.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression models were estimated for the
remaining five dependent variables that did meet the assumptions. No significant or near-
86
significant factors were detected for the Food and Environmental Policy Beliefs
composite score, although the respondents scored reasonably high on average (55 out of
60). In addition, no significant or near-significant variables were identified in the
Community scale. Years since program involvement resurfaced as a significant factor in
the Self model. Those who had been out of the program for fifteen or more years were
more likely to score nearly eight points lower on the Self scale (β= -7.779, p=0.003) than
alumni in the eleven to fourteen-year group. No additional near-significant factors were
detected. The Community and Self regression models are presented in Table 11. The very
low adjusted R2 values of -0.246 and 0.045 for the Community and Self models,
respectively, indicate that these models have little practical significance in predicting
variation in composite scores.
87
Table 11: Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models of
Community and Self scores by socio-demographic characteristics
(controls), length of program involvement, years since program
participation and returning position (unstandardized beta
estimates).
Controls
Community
Self
Female
0.455
-0.086
Racially diverse
-0.140
0.726
Low-income background
-1.387
-2.392
a
Education
HS/GED (None completed ref)
3.091
2.621
Associates or certificate
2.729
2.345
Bachelor's degree or higher
0.249
-1.704
Length of Time in Program (One
summer ref)
Two academic semesters
0.089
-1.414
One summer + one semester
1.455
-0.550
Full year
-1.634
-0.551
a
Time Since Program Participation
6-10 years (2-5 years ref)
-2.040
-2.759
11-14 years
0.371
2.85
15+ years
-1.634
-8.390**
Returning Position
1.089
0.717
n
45
45
Prob > F
0.7878
0.2546
Adj. R2
-0.246
0.045
*p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
a
Ordinal variable: Each subsequent level references the preceding
level. Base level is provided in table.
Additional OLS models were estimated for the Food and Environmental Civic
Engagement scales, although these models included alumni’s composite scores for
General Civic Engagement as an independent variable. Not surprisingly, General Civic
Engagement was the only significant factor predicting both the Food (β=2.924,
p<0.0001) and Environmental (β=3.100, p<0.0001) Civic Engagement composite scores.
However, educational attainment represented a near-significant variable for
88
Environmental Civic Engagement, with those who had completed an Associates degree or
certificate program more likely to score about seven points higher on this scale (β=6.800,
p=0.089), 95% CI [-1.074, 14.073]. This variable did reach statistical significance when
general civic engagement was not factored into the model. The full regression model is
reported in Table 12. The adjusted R2 value indicates that the independent variables
account for approximately 45% of the variability in Food Civic Engagement scores and
approximately 51% of the variability in Environmental Civic Engagement, adjusted for
sample size and the number of parameters in the model.
89
Table 12: Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models of Food
and Environmental Civic Engagement scores by socio-demographic
characteristics (controls), length of program involvement, years since
program participation, returning position and general civic
engagement scores (unstandardized beta estimates).
Food Civic
Environmental
Controls
Engagement Civic Engagement
Female
-0.693
-0.583
Racially diverse
0.826
0.690
0.406
-1.504
Low-income background
Educationa
HS/GED (None completed ref)
-4.862
0.183
Associates or certificate
1.953
6.798
-3.861
-6.054
Bachelor's degree or higher
Length of Time in Program (One
summer ref)
Two academic semesters
2.908
5.351
-4.128
-4.600
One summer + one semester
0.621
0.953
Full year
a
Time Since Program Participation
6-10 years (2-5 years ref)
-3.563
-3.195
-2.564
-0.224
11-14 years
6.349
2.943
15+ years
Returning Position
-0.923
-2.337
Civic Engagement Composite Score
2.924***
3.100***
44
40
n
0.0022**
0.0015**
Prob > F
0.446
0.509
Adj. R2
*p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
a
Ordinal variable: Each subsequent level references the preceding level.
Base level is provided in table.
Open-ended qualitative responses
The survey also provided alumni with the opportunity to add any comments that
they would like to share about their experience at GRuB. Only ten of the forty-five
alumni left comments, and two were clarifications of survey responses. However, the
remaining responses reflected positive experiences, as well as gratitude and support for
GRuB. Alumni wrote about the impacts that GRuB had on their life, including an
90
enhanced sense of self-worth, the cultivation of personal values, improved job skills, and
increased environmental and nutrition knowledge. One alum commented on how they did
not get to experience as much as they would have liked to with GRuB, but it is unclear
whether this was due to personal or programmatic circumstances. Another alum offered
this reflection on how the program impacted their connection to the environment, food,
community and self:
GRuB occurred [6-10] years ago in my life and it still largely affects my decisions
today. I still take on challenges happily, and look for a recycling bin wherever I'm
at. I started buying organic as soon as I could afford it and it remains a part of
my lifestyle. GRuB was an irreplaceable piece of my life puzzle and shaped my
values and character, beyond food and environmental policies. Some students in
the program were oblivious to this gift they had been a part of, and others are
doing better because of it. All of us will remain a family, no matter where we end
up in the world.
This perspective also brings up the important point that not all program
participants fully engaged, and so some may benefit more from the program more than
others. However, those perspectives were not directly voiced in the comment section.
Other alumni provided the following responses:
GRuB laid the good foundations of sustainable living, food equality, and
community involvement that I continue to build on as an adult.
GRuB brought a lot to my attention including food and where it comes from. For
me, the main reason I'm happy I attended is GRuB taught me a lot of life lessons
and how do deal with situations and how to handle yourself.
GRuB came into my life at a perfect time and helped me realize how much I had
to offer.
Working for GRuB is by far the best job I ever had. I really appreciate the
opportunity I was given.
I believe in everything you’re fighting for keep going.
Some of the alumni who shared comments also participated in interviews, and
their stories are recounted in the next chapter.
91
Summary
Overall, the quantitative data suggest that GRuB alumni possess strong
empirical/analytic food literacy skills and some historical/hermeneutic food literacy,
though the survey did not emphasize this domain and thus a firm conclusion cannot be
drawn. In addition, GRuB alumni demonstrated a reasonably high level of
critical/emancipatory awareness, though this awareness does not necessarily translate into
praxis in terms of active political engagement in food and environmental issues.
Furthermore, the survey data indicate that GRuB alumni do exhibit PYD outcomes
encompassing Confidence, Competence, Character, Connection, Caring and
Contribution. However, the data also suggest that these concepts are not static and may
be subject to variation depending on one’s present circumstances.
As the quantitative portion of the study sought to understand the factors involved
in the sustained impacts from participation in GRuB’s youth programs, it is evident that
years since program participation does not impart a significant influence on most
program outcomes. In other words, the data demonstrate that the majority of program
outcomes are sustained over time, although alumni who have been out of the program for
fifteen or more years were more likely to have lower Self and Communication and
Decision-Making scores than alumni in the eleven to fourteen-year range. There may be
something significant about the fifteen-year mark where sustained impacts from the
program begin diminish in those areas—however, a definitive relationship cannot be
determined. While t-tests suggested that race (racially diverse group) and low-income
background corresponded with lower composite scores for the Communication and
Decision-Making and Self scales, respectively, those influences disappeared when all
other variables were accounted for in the regression models. However, educational
92
attainment was associated with a higher Communication and Decision-Making score in
the ordinal logistic regression model. In addition, it is important to note that certain
aspects of the program played an important role in alumni’s Food and Environment
score—specifically, alumni who experienced the summer program were more likely to
have higher composite scores for this scale than alumni who participated only during the
academic year. The open-ended qualitative responses provide an initial sense of some of
the most notable, lasting impacts of GRuB’s program for some alumni. The following
section will delve deeper into the perceived long-term impacts from participating in
GRuB’s youth program, as expressed through alumni interviews.
93
Chapter 6: Qualitative Results
While the surveys provided a quantitative impression of the sustained learning
and development outcomes from participation in GRuB’s youth program, interviews with
alumni issued a deeper look into what exactly those impacts are, and how these outcomes
have served alumni over the long-term. A total of nineteen alumni comprised the
interview sample. While the majority of interviewees participated in the Cultivating
Youth Employment Program (fifteen out of nineteen), the entire interview sample
provided a representative range of the program’s evolution—from the initial years of the
CYEP up through recent years of the GRuB School Program. Participants’ involvement
in the program ranged from one summer to two years, depending on whether they
returned in a leadership position. However, alumni’s accounts revealed that the length of
time involved with the program did not always demonstrate a linear relationship with the
magnitude of the program’s impact on their lives. In other words, some of the most
transformative experiences recounted were the product of participating in just the
summer program.
On the whole, alumni expressed overwhelmingly positive impacts from
participation in both formats of GRuB’s youth program. While the most salient
takeaways from program participation depended on the context of the individual alum,
each interviewee spoke to a number of lasting impacts that GRuB imparted on their
lives—whether they were in the arenas of the environment, food, community, self, or a
combination thereof. The interview data demonstrated strong evidence of critical food
pedagogy and positive youth development outcomes. In terms of critical food pedagogy,
the data indicated that the majority of learning occurred in the empirical/analytic and
94
critical/emancipatory domains of food literacy, although some learning did occur in the
historical/hermeneutic realm. The data also demonstrated long-term PYD outcomes that
related to each of the Six Cs, with Confidence, Competence and Connection appearing as
the most common takeaways across interviews. In addition to the themes of critical food
pedagogy and PYD, a new theme emerged: GRuB as a Formative Catalyst: “If It Weren’t
for GRuB.” While this theme undoubtedly connects to both critical food pedagogy and
PYD, the phrases “because of GRuB” or “if it weren’t for GRuB” were so prevalent
across interviews that a standalone theme was warranted. Within GRuB as a Formative
Catalyst, two subthemes came to light: Carving a Path: A Sense of Direction and Finding
a Passion. First, qualitative indicators of the empirical/analytic, historical/hermeneutic,
and critical/emancipatory food literacy benchmarks will be discussed to demonstrate
critical food pedagogy outcomes (Goldstein, 2014, 2016; Wever, 2015). Next, PYD
outcomes will be examined through each of the Six Cs (Lerner, Lerner et al., 2005;
Pittman et al., 2000). Finally, this chapter explores the emergent theme, GRuB as a
Formative Catalyst: “If It Weren’t for GRuB.” Pseudonyms have been used for all
interviewees to protect their confidentiality.
Evidence of Critical Food Pedagogy
Empirical/analytic food literacy.
Based on the interviews, empirical/analytic and critical/emancipatory food
literacy represented the primary outcomes in terms of critical food pedagogy, with
evidence of historical/hermeneutic food literacy appearing to a lesser extent. The alumni
in the interview sample came to GRuB with varying levels of gardening experience and
nutrition knowledge, from knowing “absolutely nothing” to having grown up with a
95
garden and/or health-conscious family members. The most prevalent benchmarks of
empirical/analytic food literacy were increased nutrition knowledge (mentioned in
sixteen out of nineteen interviews), confidence and motivation to use food knowledge to
make healthy choices (mentioned in seventeen interviews) and knowledge of where food
comes from and various food terminology (e.g. GMO) (mentioned in fourteen interviews)
(Goldstein, 2014, 2016). However, these benchmarks interrelate closely with the other
indicators in the empirical/analytic domain, and as a result, aspects of each benchmark
arose at least once in the collection of interviews.
For many alumni, the nutrition knowledge they gained at GRuB resulted in an
increased awareness of the different processes involved in various forms of food
production, and how those processes subsequently impact human health. This awareness
manifested in reported lifestyle changes including increased fruit and vegetable
consumption, label reading, cooking, and/or consciousness of food sources. For example,
one respondent who did the summer program stated:
[GRuB] taught me that everything doesn’t come out of a box, I mean that’s for
sure. ‘Cause I mean, like I said before…when I came in there…I had no
understanding of really anything. –August, GRuB School alum
Later on in the interview, August expanded upon how his experience at GRuB changed
his views about and connection to food:
Like I’m always cautious of what I put into my body…I know that it’s not…not a
lot if it’s healthy for you and a lot of it’s not fresh. A lot of it’s been sitting on a
shelf for a very long time or been sitting in the back of a truck, you know, driving
all the way across the state to get here…So it made me a lot more aware, really
aware of…good food and where it comes from…and how it affects me with what’s
in it, what’s around it.
Another summer program participant reflected on how his experience at GRuB also
changed his relationship to food:
96
It was a pretty transformative experience. I kinda learned how to eat healthier as
well because before going to GRuB I never ate vegetables to be honest. But after
foraging them and trying them all on the farm I gained a liking to it, so my diet
changed. –Darren, CYEP alum
When asked later if he noticed any differences between himself and peers whom had not
participated in GRuB that he might attribute to his experience in the summer program,
Darren referenced his heightened awareness of food quality and nutrition:
Yeah, I feel like other people don’t really—that I know, don’t really want to
bother going anywhere near nature or they don’t go out of their way to make sure
that the food that they’re eating, the food that’s going inside their body is
something that should be inside their body. But I make sure to check that, I check
labels, I check Google. I Google just to make sure that I know what I’m getting
myself into.
Similar sentiments echoed across many of the interviews, particularly with regard to the
connection between food quality and human health:
My experience at GRuB like totally opened those doors for me, like I had no idea
whatsoever…I didn’t really understand the manufactured side of things…I never
thought about where food was coming from or how long it took or the types and
the kinds of food I was eating, the quality of food that I was eating…And so
learning about that at GRuB allowed me to be like “Okay, well I need to not eat
at McDonald’s anymore” and I need to you know, think about making more foods
from scratch instead of doing all of these prepared boxed foods with all these, you
know, chemicals and really just things that aren’t good for you. —Mia, CYEP
alum
Beforehand I was always eating…junk food…probably drinkin’ a two-liter of
soda a day. Now I eat a lot healthier and…more cautious about what I eat and…
put in my body as well. –Reese, CYEP alum
Being part of GRuB and being able to bring home vegetables every week, like that
was huge, huge …you know it’s huge to me now like, you are what you eat. –Gabi,
CYEP alum
I don’t think I’ve eaten fast food for like, two years, and like I make all my own
food now. Like you know, whether it’s like stir-fry or whatever and I only use
organic food. I don’t wanna be eatin’ any GMOs or anything that’ll you know,
kill me. –Elliot, GRuB School alum
97
At the same time, some alumni expressed that while they possess a greater
awareness and desire to purchase healthy food, as well as confidence and satisfaction in
that knowledge, the price that comes with high quality food can make it difficult to fulfill
that insight. For example, one respondent who completed a year in GRuB’s program
stated,
I definitely have made a lot of positive choices for myself around my eating
habits. It’s also helped me recognize when my body doesn’t respond very well to
certain things, which is like sugars and highly processed food…It’s helped me
make more informed decisions on, like, where I’m gonna buy stuff from and
choosing it, like—understanding that my purchases are going to make a
difference, and that that is kind of you like voting on, on what you are and what
you’re gonna support, even though there’s also that level of like, well you can’t
always choose—a level of like, access that you don’t have or resources that you
don’t have or you don’t have the financial stability or, or you’re gonna have to
take what you’re given kind of thing…So I’m definitely like more aware of what
I’m putting in my body…and sometimes it sucks when I know I don’t have a
choice because I am broke and I have to eat something anyway, but, like, I feel
good knowing that I know that. And that like, when I do have a choice that I can
make the right choice. –Marley, CYEP alum
Here Marley refers to the systemic lack of affordable, healthy food. This
statement also reveals critical/emancipatory awareness of the social and economic
complexities of food systems, while simultaneously grappling with the dominant
neoliberal consciousness model of leveraging food system change through purchasing
decisions. While supporting local, sustainable food production is certainly an important
component of building a resilient and just food economy, as Marley conveys, this form of
participation in the food system is not accessible to everyone, which necessitates direct
political strategies that aim to equalize that access. However, many respondents spoke to
the common reality of not having the time, energy or interest in becoming more
politically involved in the food movement due to the demands of daily life, so most
98
actions directed at change were implemented on the individual level using skills and
knowledge from the empirical/analytic domain.
Historical/hermeneutic food literacy.
In addition to gaining skills in the empirical/analytic domain of food literacy,
some alumni also expressed elements of historical/hermeneutic learning, particularly in
reference to the cultural implications of food, as well as food’s capacity for community
building. When prompted to speak generally about her experience at GRuB, one
respondent who participated in GRuB’s program for two years stated:
My experience with GRuB, I didn’t expect anything. I totally went in blind and
came out, I learned a lot about food and friendship and culture…gender study as
well, I didn’t know all that. –Nora, CYEP alum
The link that Nora makes between food, culture and friendship reflects an awareness of
food as a source of connection, while her mention of social roles ties to the
critical/emancipatory domain of learning. With respect to historical/hermeneutic learning,
Nora later spoke of how her time at GRuB led her to embrace her cultural background
through food:
It was funny because I…I would never bring like, food, like to school. Like…what
my mom cooked and it’s just because like, you know, it’s different than American
food. So, I think that really opened—Like I remember bringing something, I
forget. It was a dish that my mom made…to GRuB and everyone really liked it
and after that I was like “Okay I’m not really shy about that anymore.”
An awareness of the link between food and community building was evident in Wes’
response to the same general prompt about his experience at GRuB for two summers:
It was a really amazing experience for me. I learned a lot about…personal
relationships and community and communication…health…nutrition…farming,
and…community building, and…how to help…people access healthy food in our
community and I was able to see a direct impact in peoples’ lives. Especially in
building the gardens with the Kitchen Garden Project and stuff like that. –Wes,
CYEP alum
99
When asked what it was like to work in the community with GRuB, another respondent
who participated for one year cited how the Kitchen Garden Project facilitated
community connection and development:
We would…build raised garden beds for low-income families so it was nice to go
out to the community to those low-income families’ homes or apartment complex,
build raised beds and just help them out and give them the ability and everything
to grow their own food and to help the community that way as well. –Reese,
CYEP alum
The two previous responses also tie into critical/emancipatory learning in terms of
increasing community access to healthy food, which served as a common thread across
interviews in that domain.
Critical/emancipatory food literacy.
The collection of interviews revealed several indicators of critical/emancipatory
learning and awareness, although levels of understanding and personal interest varied
from person to person. Some alumni claimed that their experience at GRuB inspired them
to continue researching the social, political and ecological aspects of food systems after
their time in the program. However, similar to Goldstein’s (2014, 2016) findings, many
alumni expressed interest in food system and/or environmental change, but were less
involved in actually seeking that change through direct, collective action. In other words,
the majority of change-oriented food and environmental behaviors reported were enacted
on an individual level through purchasing decisions, dietary choices and/or efforts to
reduce waste. However, while individual behavior modification may be indicative of the
dominant neoliberal consciousness paradigm, as Wever (2015) concluded with the
School Grown graduates in her study, these actions were informed by a more holistic
100
understanding of the links between social, economic, and ecological issues. In addition,
some alumni expressed a desire to learn more about food and environmental policies in
order to become more informed. From the data, it is evident that GRuB provided many
alumni with the foundational awareness that accompanies critical/emancipatory food
literacy, and that in a number of instances this awareness has flourished since their time
at GRuB.
The most common benchmarks that arose included knowledge and awareness of
multiple dimensions of food (broader engagement) (mentioned in eight of nineteen
interviews); knowledge and awareness of food and agricultural systems and their
relationship to environmental health; knowledge and/or skills related to ecological
relationships, processes, cycles, patterns, and context (referenced in six of the interviews
together with the previous benchmark); and critical knowledge of the social and
economic forces of a society that affect food (arising in six interviews) (Goldstein, 2014,
2016; Wever, 2015). However, it is important to note that many of these benchmarks
overlap with other measures within the critical/emancipatory domain, so indicators of one
benchmark may actually demonstrate competence in more than one measure. Despite the
overall trend of individual-level behaviors with regard to food and the environment, some
alumni spoke of exercising food-related behaviors that support a democratic, socially,
economically and ecologically just food system (Goldstein, 2014, 2016; Wever, 2015). In
addition, multiple alumni demonstrated critical knowledge and reflection in support of
transformative learning, as well as sense of connection to and care for a particular socioecological place, expressed through human, non-human and food-based relationships
(Wever, 2015). This care for socio-ecological place arose most prevalently as a fond
101
reflection of working with their fellow crewmembers in the dirt, which half of the
interviewees specifically mentioned.
One of the most frequent benchmarks of critical/emancipatory food literacy was
knowledge and awareness of the multiple dimensions of food (broader engagement)
(Goldstein, 2014, 2016), which arguably encompasses additional measures such as
awareness of socio-political impacts of the food system and ability to analyze associated
discourses (Goldstein, 2014, 2016) and critical knowledge of the social and economic
forces of a society that affect food (Wever, 2015). Many alumni spoke of interrelated
social, ecological, economic and political concerns about the food system. For example,
when asked about new skills and knowledge that she gained from GRuB, one respondent
who participated in GRuB’s program for two summers claimed:
They brought in this old TV and showed us this video of…the food system and the
impact that farming has on our environment, on our health, and…on our society
as a whole. And…that really showed me that…there was a much larger
connection that we were learning about and there was just a whole other world
that I just, I knew nothing about up until I had joined GRuB and they showed me
that I actually have a passion for learning more about this. –Robin, CYEP alum
This statement also reflects an understanding of the relationship between the food
system and environmental health, as well as transformative learning—two additional
benchmarks of critical/emancipatory food literacy as specified by Wever (2015). Robin
followed up on this statement later when asked about food or environmental issues that
interest her most:
Really the subsidies and the mass farming. It more ties into that, that obesity
epidemic and how that is really affecting America and the rest of the world…just,
killing people because of the massive amounts of sugars that get thrown into all of
our food…And then how much that, those farms are affecting our environment,
the run-off that comes from them, the mass amounts of pesticides and fertilizers
that are used are just ruining so many communities because it’s leeching into
their water system, things like that and…It’s a vicious cycle that obviously no one
102
has figured out yet, but, should be made a much higher priority…to figure out a
better alternative.
This statement clearly reflects critical knowledge of the social and economic
forces of a society that affect food (Wever, 2015), in addition to knowledge and
awareness of food and agricultural systems and their relationship to environmental
health (Goldstein, 2014, 2016). From the data, the connections between agriculture and
socio-ecological health, as well as knowledge of ecological processes and cycles,
appeared to be significant learning takeaways for a number of alumni in the
critical/emancipatory domain:
[GRuB] just made me realize that we’re a part of [the environment]…We cannot
exist without there being a balance between us and nature and it is extremely
imbalanced and people are getting sick from their food because we’re abusing
it…Everything is connected…us and the earth are one entity. We can’t exist
without it. And to think that anything that’s affecting the earth isn’t going to affect
us is ridiculous because it’s, it’s directly linked to us. –Marley, CYEP alum
I think it was really fascinating to see how, like, the process of planting
something, growing it into a sprout, and then seeing it grow into, like, a vegetable
or a fruit and then putting it on our table and eating it. Like that whole process
was…magical to me. So I just thought that was…almost life changing just to
actually see the process and be so close to, and intimate with our food. You
know? –Mel, CYEP alum
[GRuB] taught me…how food grows in a whole different process that made me
look at how everything is like made and, and like even how animals are raised. –
Spencer, CYEP alum
GRuB really just kind of opened my whole mind to a full spectrum of… respecting
life and the earth…good stewardship and, you know managing and, and
protecting and conserving resources and things that I didn’t even know really
existed I guess, before GRuB. You know I just thought there was like, the city and
then there was like, nature and that was about it you know? –Wes, CYEP alum
That GRuB provided the foundations for critical reflection on the food system
was also evident across interviews, particularly in regard to corporate farming:
103
It did make me interested in learning more about…the pros and cons of organic
farming like on a large scale. And it made me pretty interested in the politics of it.
You know like for instance the FDA’s definition of organic and how that might not
necessarily meet the standards that most people have when they think of organic.
So you know, who is responsible for making that distinction? And who’s paying
them? –Nolan, CYEP alum
I…realized…well, that there’s like a massive operation that’s like profit-driven
and not…there’s no interest in people so much, or nutrition…when it comes to
farming. And that…you know it’s, it’s just much more important and sustainable
to grow organic and smaller and…it’s a more natural and better for the earth and
better for people. And…you know it’s, like I feel great supporting that in the
community. You know like, going to the farmer’s market and just kind of trying to
like, take some power out of…the machinery of farming in the nation you know? –
Wes, CYEP alum
While the extent of food activism that Wes reports may be limited to personal
lifestyle behaviors and purchasing decisions, those choices are informed by a critical
awareness of the larger socio-political forces that govern food systems. In addition,
consumers do represent significant constituents of the food system, and while perhaps not
the most effective means of food activism according to critical food scholarship,
understanding one’s role in the food system and exercising purchasing decisions with a
critical lens can serve as an indirect way to address socio-ecological concerns.
However, as mentioned previously, consumers do not always have the agency to
enact informed decisions. Issues of particular concern cited throughout the interviews
were access and affordability when it comes to healthy food:
[GRuB] made me understand that there was a line below poverty and they made
me understand like, so many things about how…healthy eating is so important
and how so many people are missing out on that. –Ava, GRuB School alum
I definitely think that you know, our…food system, you know a lot of our food,
especially healthy foods, like they’re not very affordable for people who are of
lower income or middle class. You know…it’s very hard to eat healthy because
you have like, if you’re on food assistance or, you know, if you just don’t make
enough money to like be buying all these really expensive products all the time…I
think that’s what deters a lot of people from eating healthy and that’s a big
104
contributor to why people buy a lot of junk…Having healthy food accessible and
affordable is the biggest thing for me. –Jamie, CYEP alum
I learned about how what types of foods were accessible to people. So
originally…you know I didn’t really know very much about like organic foods and
stuff like that but then I found out that…it’s more expensive to you know, eat
healthier than it was to not eat healthier. And like McDonald’s has a dollar menu
but if you want a salad it’s like six dollars…You know and so that, it opened up
my mind that way to like be able to see how much, you know, people who can’t
afford food really aren’t getting the best things for them. –Mia, CYEP alum
Some alumni discussed how they have continued to implement the practical
farming skills they learned to grow their own food instead of having to purchase it. In
addition, a few alumni talked about teaching others how to grow food, which connects to
the critical/emancipatory benchmark of exercising food-related behaviors that support a
democratic, socially, economically and ecologically just food system (Goldstein, 2014,
2016; Wever, 2015). Jamie, a CYEP alum who participated in GRuB’s program for one
summer, mentioned this several times throughout the interview:
I definitely think, you know…learning how to grow things organically…it’s very
rewarding to you know, know how to grow your own food and it’s just, it’s, it’s
good to know the skills to be able to teach other people as well. Because then it’s
rewarding to teach them, and it benefits you and the person you’re teaching.
Later on, when asked how GRuB influences her life today, Jamie said:
I definitely think that the you know…learning how to be more sustainable with my
food was a big thing for me because now I know how to grow it, so I can teach
other people how to grow it and what to do with it. You know ‘cause sometimes
people will grow food and, and they’re like “I don’t really know what recipes this
is good in,” or you know…So I can help with that which is really…definitely a big
impact.
Other alumni also mentioned putting their farming skills to work by providing food for
others and/or teaching other people how to grow food for themselves:
I’ve helped a lot of people, independently, build their own plots and start their
own gardens. –Drue, CYEP alum
105
I think it, it affected me in a positive way because now I can, like…my friend, her
grandma was trying to like grow some tomatoes and I went out and helped her
out and like, in her greenhouse now they’re goin’ like strong. It’s nice, she was
super happy about that so, just the chance to help others you know? –Elliot,
GRuB School alum
And for me…whenever I grow veggies I always end up growing more, so it’s like
I’m supporting myself and like, feeding my friends and family, giving them an
option to like have some fresh produce if they don’t have access to it…and they’re
like, more likely to eat it when it’s just given to them than if they have to work
extra hard, save up extra like, budget better so they can have some decent
produce. Because organic produce is so much more expensive, and so it’s, it’s
helped me be much more aware and make smarter choices and really recognize
how much value there is in being able to share with the people around you. –
Marley, CYEP alum
By teaching others the empirical/analytic skills and knowledge to grow food,
these alumni have also facilitated more democratic participation and autonomy within the
food system, thus demonstrating a form of critical/emancipatory praxis. However,
personal food cultivation is not a viable solution for everyone, especially in dense urban
areas with a lack of space to do so. The opportunity for personal food production is
somewhat unique to the South Sound region due to its urban and rural landscape and
because Washington State maintains relatively strict regulations on urban expansion.
Sydney, a CYEP alum who participated in the program for one year, raised this issue
during our interview:
…For the first time I’ve been living in a metropolitan area where it’s much more
difficult to have space to grow your own food…I feel like Olympia, even if you’re
really poor there’s like a lot of space. So, we always had like, a little yard or
something…Here, most people live in apartment buildings…I think that it’s
unreasonable to expect everyone to be able to grow their own food…Getting a
plot in a garden space somewhere in [metropolitan city]…the waitlist is five years
long. Like there’s no way. And also it’s unreasonable to expect people to like,
take time out of their—gardening is like so much work and it takes so much
time…So…I care about local food production but I don’t understand how it could
ever be successful and affordable. I don’t see it in my community…So yeah, food
issues I care about. Just to generalize it, affordability and I wish that there was a
way for people to grow their own food. But I also think it’s unrealistic.
106
Nonetheless, the empirical/analytic skills and knowledge that many alumni gained
through their time at GRuB has often served as a source of personal and collective
empowerment, and has also translated to critical/emancipatory learning and practice. For
one alum who participated in the program for one summer, this knowledge base has led
to an interest in active citizenship as it relates to food, a benchmark of
critical/emancipatory food literacy (Goldstein, 2014, 2016):
So basically I learned that like certain farms…have to follow like specific
regulations on to what they can grow and how they can grow it. And…I learned
about having to rotate your soil and stuff so that the nutrients in the soil aren’t
like overused and it becomes a barren land. And it was really nice to learn that
stuff because now I know that like…if I go into that kind of field that I can follow
the proper procedures and I can read more about the policies and be able to put
my opinion out there instead of just kind of sitting back and kind of throwing my
procedural…ballots into the trash like most people do. And I can actually have an
influence in the community in what happens to our food and how healthy our food
is when we get it. –Aspen, GRuB School alum
From the collection of interviews, it is clear that GRuB successfully fostered
elements of critical food pedagogy in its youth program participants. Empirical/analytic
food literacy served as a primary outcome in this regard, with historical/hermeneutic food
literacy arising to a more minor extent in this sample. It is also clear that participation in
GRuB’s youth program inspired an appreciable level of critical/emancipatory food
literacy in a number of the alumni interviewed, though again the most salient takeaways
from program participation differed depending on the context of the individual. The
following section will expand upon these findings with an analysis of PYD outcomes
based on the Six Cs framework discussed in the literature review.
107
Positive Youth Development Outcomes
In addition to critical food pedagogy, the data also demonstrated strong evidence
of PYD outcomes. The range of interviews revealed multiple indicators of the Six Cs:
Confidence, Competence, Connection, Character, Caring and Contribution, with some Cs
appearing more prevalently than others. Specifically, indicators of Confidence appeared
in eleven of the interviews, measures of Competence arose in twelve, Connection
emerged in sixteen, Caring in eight, and Contribution surfaced in nine of the interviews,
and indicators specific to Character unfolded in six interviews. However, it is important
to emphasize that as with the indicators of the three domains of food literacy within
critical food pedagogy, many measures of the Six Cs also overlap, and so signs of Caring
may also be indicative of Character and Contribution, etcetera. The following subsections
will discuss the findings from the interviews in terms of each of the Six Cs.
Confidence.
Across interviews, Confidence emerged as a powerful takeaway for many alumni
from their experiences in both formats of GRuB’s youth program. Quite a few alumni
discussed developing greater confidence as a direct result of the responsibilities that
GRuB provided them with. Specifically, many alumni spoke of opportunities to challenge
themselves and push beyond the boundaries of what they initially thought they were
capable of, which resulted in a greater sense of self-worth and self-efficacy. In particular,
a number of alumni spoke of the importance of having these experiences as youth, and to
be able to recognize at a young age that they are valuable members of society.
Confidence…believing in myself, having a self-esteem, all of that was attributed
to GRuB. –Drue, CYEP alum
I feel like I could you know, make changes in the community and it’s not just you
know…me all by myself. I feel like I would be able to create a support network
108
and then be able to implement a change, be able to get people to want something
to change. And I feel like I would have enough of the capabilities and skills, you
know…because of GRuB that I would be able to do something like that. So, they,
they helped me I guess feel more confident…about things like skills and
leadership, and…networking and… trying to make differences. –Mia, CYEP alum
Well I think the most I got out of GRuB, or like the main benefit was…just more
self-confidence. For sure. I mean, being able to—like even though I still get
nervous public speaking like it helped me with at least knowing how to keep
practicing at it…and also that I could, I could do whatever I put my mind to.
–Gabi, CYEP alum
It’s changed me because I’ve learned to not give up so easily. Before, before then
I would usually give up on something ‘cause it was hard or something, that I was
uncomfortable with. And now I’m willing to do that and step out of my comfort
zone. –Darren, CYEP alum
I think GRuB overall…that’s like, their underlying, foundational message to us
kids. It’s just like, you’re worthwhile. You’re valuable. And you can contribute to
the greater society…and that’s always been very important to me, I guess. It’s
what I took from GRuB. –Mel, CYEP alum
A number of alumni also spoke of GRuB as a place that enabled them to grow and
become empowered, unique individuals.
I felt validated for the first time and I felt like I had a space that I could actually
grow in, rather than being in a space where I was gonna have to completely keep
changing and adapting myself to work with the rest of the world around me even
if it’s not really what I agreed with. –Marley, CYEP alum
Later on in the interview, Marley reiterated this sentiment, referencing the importance of
feeling empowered as a young person:
It was nice because it was a space for me to actually, like, feed that, that thirst for
social justice knowledge that I needed, and then it was also a good way to help
me be able to communicate effectively, to be able to express myself and feel that I
have power in my own voice. It was the first time that we had been told our voice
was powerful and deserves to be heard.
Taken together, these excerpts speak to GRuB’s strengths in fostering confident,
empowered people who recognize their value. The indicators of Confidence also tie into
Competence, the outcomes of which will be explored in the following section.
109
Competence.
As discussed in the literature review, Competence encompasses a number of
personal capabilities, including vocational (i.e. work ethic and occupational exploration),
social (i.e. communication and conflict resolution), cognitive (i.e. reasoning and decisionmaking), and academic as demonstrated through performance and engagement (Lerner,
Lerner et al. 2005, p. 23; Lerner, 2004; J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a). The alumni
interviews revealed numerous instances of competence development as a result of
participation in GRuB’s youth program, primarily in the vocational and social arenas. In
terms of vocational skills, many alumni expressed how GRuB provided them with their
first job experience and allowed them to develop fundamental employment skills:
Well it was my first job. And…it was a lot of fun and very, very eye opening…I
would say that GRuB kind of gave me the first look into what having a job is, and
how I would need to interact with people in that kind of a setting. –Robin, CYEP
alum
I guess it’s been a way of starting out my working career because that was my
first job…It was a good experience of me, like I said, being an individual and
going to like work every single day and having kinda like, co-workers, people I
barely know you know what I mean? Instead of classmates…And so I went to go
start work like I had more of a mindset of like, an understanding of how things
work…like we’re just a team…It gave me an understanding of how jobs actually
work. –August, GRuB School alum
Some alumni spoke of how the work skills they gained through GRuB served to benefit
them in subsequent jobs:
I definitely think that it made me a better person for customer service…Like, you
know…those skills are applicable to my other jobs that I’ve had…and actually
just some recent ones that I’ve had. –Jamie, CYEP alum
Being responsible for setting up and selling, learning how to sell things to people
and keeping track of change. That was definitely a useful skill. And then I
actually, one of my first jobs when I moved to [metropolitan city]…was, I worked
at the farmer’s market because I was able to say, like, “I have experience working
at a farmer’s market.” Even if it was just one farm stand…And then…other
110
skills…I mean literally just teamwork. I mean like, learning how to be a part of
team, that was new…I had been on like sports teams before, but…working as part
of a big group is really different. –Sydney, CYEP alum
Well I learned how to farm. And I worked on organic farms for probably close
to…5 or 6 years after GRuB. So I learned a lot about just the practical side of
working a farm. –Wes, CYEP alum
Notably, a number of alumni derived Confidence and Competence from the practical
skills they gained in cultivating food, which have continued to serve some as a source of
self-sufficiency. As Elliot, a GRuB School alum who participated in the program for one
year, states,
I have an actual, like I have a greenhouse in my backyard that I built from the
skills that I learned from GRuB, which really helps out a lot and makes it so that
we can actually grow plants during winter. Like I took care of the chickens when I
was at GRuB and like, we have a chicken coop in our backyard now that we can
get eggs from every day. So I just, really just helped me grow as like, you know an
individual you know trying to survive on his own, you know?
Other alumni corroborated this sentiment:
[My favorite part] was definitely learning about horticulture. It was definitely
learning how to grow my own food. I still use that today. I have a big garden now,
it’s amazing. –Ava, GRuB School alum
I learned how to do the garden from them so I could bring it home and do it for
myself and provide food for my family. –Spencer, CYEP alum
I learned to build garden beds with them, like raised garden beds…which I built
for myself later on which was great. –Iris, CYEP alum
Even if they don’t currently apply the practical skills that they learned at GRuB, some
alumni expressed that the knowledge base they gained serves as a personal reservoir of
possibility should they choose to put those skills into practice. As Iris, who participated in
the CYEP program for one summer elaborates,
I think they’ve affected me in a lot of subtle ways…there’s a lot of things that I
think I learned with GRuB that maybe I don’t use all the time, but that if I want to
try something out, like when I, I don’t currently have my own garden but it’s
111
something I feel capable of doing…and I think that’s a big way that I walked
away from it.
Mia, a CYEP alum who participated in the program for an academic year and two
summers, also expressed a strong sense of competence from the diverse set of skills she
gained at GRuB:
So if I wanted to you know, start a garden I could…I know that if I had a garden
that I had extra food I could donate that extra food instead of letting it go to
waste, or I could start the community boxes like they were doing, and getting
people in the community to eat healthier too. Or start a farm stand. I know how to
do things like that. I know how to write grants. I know how to…do public
speaking and fundraising and like those are things I know how to do now because
of GRuB. So I feel like if I were to want to do something like that in my life…at
some point in time, I could do it because I have the experience that I had with
GRuB.
In addition to vocational skills, many alumni discussed gaining enhanced social
competence through the communication and conflict resolution skills they developed at
GRuB. Robin, a CYEP alum, recounted a particularly frustrating social experience that
turned into a vibrant learning opportunity:
[Our teacher]…had to sit us down and it was like “Okay, we need to talk this out
and you guys need to start getting along because this doesn’t work.” And I had to
learn that even if I think I’m right, and even if I know that this guy is just a jerk, I
need to step back and let him be who he needs to be, and I can’t influence that.
Sometimes you just don’t like people but you need to learn to get along.
Other alumni also spoke about developing stronger interpersonal skills at GRuB:
Yeah [GRuB] definitely made it a lot easier for me to talk to people and like,
figure out how to, you know, relate and stuff. –Elliot, GRuB School alum
So the entire thing for me was like a really big, just I walked in every single day, I
wanna try my hardest, I wanna sweat as much as I can and, and then I was also
learning a lot too. But my favorite part was either working out every single day or
like, getting more in depth in understanding things. Emotionally. –August, GRuB
School alum
112
A few alumni attributed positive personal and social development to learning the practice
of Straight Talk, a method that GRuB employs to teach youth how to provide and receive
constructive criticism. As Nolan, a CYEP alum who participated in the program for two
years, explains:
So yeah, it’s a way of de-escalating conflict or communicating without, you know,
aggravating someone. So sometimes people’s feelings get the better of them and
you know they, they can’t do…what needs to be done if you know, they’re thinking
about themselves…as a subject rather than an object. So yeah this Straight Talk is
something that I uh, still think about and use today.
Sydney and Marley also mentioned Straight Talk as a beneficial takeaway from their time
at GRuB, despite the challenges that came along with it:
I don’t think I liked Straight Talk that much but I think it was really important.
And now I can say it was like, a very valuable thing that we did. And, I guess it
wasn’t like, my favorite most fun thing ‘cause it was hard, but, I’m glad that we
did it, or we learned how to do it. –Sydney, CYEP alum
We did Straight Talk which is, you know, constructive feedback, constructive
criticism, alphas and deltas, and that was hard getting used to ‘cause it’s hard to
hear things that you need to do better…if you’re someone that’s really hard on
yourself. And so it was difficult, and it made a huge--like, that’s one thing that
made so much positive change in my life. –Marley, CYEP alum
As qualitative analysis seeks to unveil the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of particular
phenomena, it is important to take a moment to explore key factors that can successfully
foster a sense of competence in youth. A couple of interviewees brought up the
importance of being held accountable to standards as young people, which is a crucial
component of PYD programs (Eccles & Gootmann, 2002):
It was really interesting how they would treat us the way that they would adults
and have a kind of mediation session or things like that. And it was…it
was…refreshing. To not be treated like a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old and to be
treated like an adult and expected to behave like one as well. –Robin, CYEP alum
I remember being like treated like really professionally in a way that I…kind of
hadn’t gotten other places. Like it felt really easy at that time and as a teenager to
113
be just like, kind of like, disregarded, you know…of feeling like you’re only
expected to do so much, or you’re not capable of doing more and I just completely
got like the opposite like of that from people at GRuB, which just felt like really
cool and empowering and like made me want to connect with them more. –Iris,
CYEP alum
GRuB’s approach in treating its youth program participants with respect, dignity
and accountability, and expecting the same in return, serves as a central facet in
promoting Competence as well as the other five Cs of PYD. The next section will explore
evidence of Character outcomes from the interviews.
Character.
As discussed in the literature review, Character refers to a strong sense of
morality, integrity, responsibility and an appreciation for diversity (Lerner, Lerner et al.,
2005; Lerner, 2004; J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a). Some interviewees described
how GRuB helped them develop skills to become more well-rounded, conscientious
individuals:
I had a lot of personal growth in that, in that program and we did a lot of team,
team activities so I learned how to work as a team and personally, you know, be a
little more honest about things. –Jamie, CYEP alum
They’ve definitely helped me like, be able to trigger what’s right and wrong in
just social interactions and like that kind of stuff. –Ava, GRuB School alum
In addition, some alum brought up how their experiences at GRuB also instilled a sense
of commitment to responsibility:
And…it’s not so much the skills I learned but also something that really, that was
really important that I learned was to actually like, follow through with work. And
to know that I can do hard things, because the stupid summer days and weeding,
like, that was super rough, but to like, stick with it and work all the way through
and looking back on the row that I weeded, and it’s like, really accomplishing.
And I felt that accomplishment, and so…I think that is something important too.
Just to, you know, that I can do hard things and I can actually finish a task. –Mel,
CYEP alum
114
Well I mean…now I actually get up at like, you know, six, seven am and I’ll go out
and do chores, do work instead of just waking up, you know, slackin’ off, skippin’
school. You know. But like I think it just made me a better person overall. Like,
like now if I see somebody who needs help you know I’ll help ‘em. Without
questioning it. –Elliot, GRuB School alum
A number of alumni also discussed how GRuB provided them with the
opportunity to connect with a diverse group of people, many of whom they would not
have formed friendships with otherwise:
It was really fun because…the people in the crew, like…we were all so different. I
mean, from different…ethnicity, different crowds from the high school. So to
interact with them and to get to know them, that was really interesting. And…like,
if, if it wasn’t for GRuB I wouldn’t interact with those people at all, so…that was
really fun and just us growing really close together and getting to know each
other. –Mel, CYEP alum
I think, yeah, the strongest point for me is just the, the perspectives that I learned
at such a young age…and building relationships with people, and seeing how
such a diverse group of people can easily come together and share common
ground. –Iris, CYEP alum
So, people can get along. Even people that you don’t think could get along, and
that’s what really surprised me. There’s types of people that I probably never
would’ve tried to talk to at that point in my life and it really, really helped with
that. –Drue, CYEP alum
The opportunity to relate to others while bridging across differences demonstrates
an increased value for diversity, which is an essential aspect of Character (Lerner, Lerner,
et al., 2005; Pittman, Irby, Tolman, Yohalem, & Ferber, 2003). The traits associated with
character also play into the PYD outcomes of Connection and Caring, which will be
discussed in the following sections.
115
Connection.
Connection arose as a prevalent PYD outcome throughout the interviews, which
is not surprising given GRuB’s emphasis on relationship building. Nearly all of the
interviewees described cultivating profound friendships with their fellow crewmembers
at GRuB. Interestingly, eleven of the nineteen interviewees mentioned maintaining some
of their friendships from GRuB to this day.
It was amazing to like, be put in a group with all these different people, different
backgrounds, different schools, different ethnicities, different, you know, hobbies,
interests, everything. And for us to be able to all come together in a way that we
actually felt really solid in each other and trusted each other and relied on each
other, and, when we all had to go our separate ways it was, it was really sad but,
those of us that really wanted and needed it found a way to keep each other in our
lives…It really is like a small family and support group. And they’re there for you
even when your own family can’t be. –Marley, CYEP alum
My crew was amazing. I’m actually still friends with most of them...I made some
of the best friends that I have in my life now through GRuB. –Ava, GRuB School
alum
It was awesome…in fact I actually still talk to quite a few of the crew uh, to this
day, even though I was in the crew back in [11-14 years ago]. But gained a lot of
friendships as well. –Reese, CYEP alum
In addition to forming long-lasting friendships, a number of alumni described how
their experience in GRuB has enabled them to engage in healthy, positive relationships
with friends, family and the community at large. As Aspen, a GRuB School alum
explains,
I think that I kind of pick a different crowd nowadays. Like I said before I’m not
doing what I used to do so I don’t really meet the people that I was meeting
before and I’m meeting a lot more people who are more active in the community
and people who are running programs and inspiring others to do the same.
Other alumni concurred in how their experience in GRuB provided them with the
foundations for connecting with others and establishing a sense of community:
116
At such a young age… that GRuB…you know, was introduced to me, I feel like it
really impacted me in a positive way. Towards food and towards relationships,
towards community…The relationship I’m in is really healthy. All my friends, we
have a healthy, respectful relationship. I have a good relationship with my
mom…In general I just feel really positive. –Nora, CYEP alum
I mean [GRuB] made me just, kinda drew me out of my shell kind of thing and
realize that like, making those connections is really important. –Gabi, CYEP alum
Before I worked at GRuB and in my family life I didn’t really participate in the
community as a whole, ever…And after GRuB, I—and during my time with
GRuB—I, I found myself just, actively participating in community and building
relationships and getting to know people all over the place and…I found a, a part
to play in, in the world…I think that’s been a lasting change where I don’t…I
don’t think I would have ever felt the way I do about community or society or, or
anything if I hadn’t gone through that experience at GRuB. –Wes, CYEP alum
In addition to feeling connected to others in their crew, many alumni mentioned
positive relationships with staff members as having a profound impact on their lives.
When asked about a standout moment or learning experience from GRuB, Iris, a CYEP
alum, offered some insight:
I think that would go back to the teachers and leaders at GRuB…and just how
they, how they conducted themselves, how they…communicated with youth…and
just genuinely treated everyone with respect...I learned about how important that
was to me…I guess thinking about this now and that experience and applying it to
my…career and professional life now, like that’s—those elements and those
values are still really strong to me…I value that and seek that in other people and
feel like committed to acting that way myself.
Having supportive adult-youth relationships represents another crucial element of PYD
programs (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner, 2004). Sydney, another CYEP alum,
reiterated the importance of having a positive adult mentor when asked about her
standout moment or experience from GRuB:
Honestly just…getting to know [lead educator] and how he interacted with us.
That was, that’s like the biggest standout thing…building a relationship with an
adult who like, really positioned himself as an ally, in like, such a, such a
deliberate way. I had never seen that before, really.
117
Later on in the interview, Sydney expanded on how the experience has influenced her life
today:
Watching someone as a role model and how they work with youth has directly
translated to how I work with youth in my job now, and pursuing youth
development work.
An important ingredient in building healthy, trusting relationships is Caring, which
represents the fifth PYD outcome.
Caring.
Caring, or having a sense of empathy, was also an evident outcome from
participation in GRuB’s youth program. Many alumni described becoming more open
minded as a result of their experience at GRuB, as well as developing a deeper sense of
compassion for others. For example, when asked how her time at GRuB changed the way
she relates to others, Nora, a CYEP alum, provided this reflection:
I think more compassion I guess…I used to volunteer at the food bank after GRuB
too and…I don’t know I just, I feel like I’m more…I mean I’ve always been like a
kind person but, I don’t dismiss them, people. Everyone has their story.
Other alumni also remarked how their experience at GRuB taught them to be more
accepting, kind and understanding toward others. For some, this manifests as a nonjudgmental outlook on people:
I feel like…before I joined GRuB I was a lot less open minded…They really
changed me and they really turned my views around on people and they showed
me how to treat people and they showed me that people could be all sorts of
everything…and you had to really love everyone for who they are. –Ava, GRuB
School alum
I don’t judge people. I think all of us do when we’re younger. But I like to think
that I don’t judge people like most people do. And that is definitely an impact
from [GRuB].—Drue, CYEP alum
118
[I learned] you shouldn’t just judge people for what you think that they’ve been
through because a lot of people have kind of just been through the same stuff as
you. –Aspen, GRuB School alum
For other alumni, Caring arises as a deepened sense of empathy. As August, a GRuB
School alum, explains:
I’ll always put myself in the person’s shoes. And I realize a lot of people don’t do
that. A lot of people are kinda selfish in a way where they want people to feel for
them…and they won’t feel for somebody else. Like I will always—I will see how
this bigger situation is going and like, what I would do if I was them and how I
would feel if I were them if I were to do something. Like, you know if I were to say
something rude how would that person feel?
An additional form of Caring that arose in the interviews included a greater desire to help
others whenever possible, and a sense of joy in doing so. As Spencer, a CYEP alum who
participated in the program for one summer, states:
If anybody needs help I just try to help ‘em and be a good neighbor and it just all,
in general just I try to help whoever and even if it doesn’t matter and I gotta help
somebody and I don’t get help in return it’s just, it makes me feel good to show
somebody that I do care.
The element that drives the aforementioned expressions of Caring can be understood as
an underlying sense of love—not necessarily romantic love, but an approach to all
interactions, even difficult ones, with a genuine sense of compassion and humanity.
Sydney, a CYEP alum, offers her reflection on this idea:
If I have to, if I feel the need…to give someone feedback or constructive criticism
I know how to do it in a…I think from a place of love is, like, one thing that GRuB
talked about a lot, was like even like, things that are hard to hear can be worded
from a place of love, or like come from a place of love.
From the alumni’s perspectives, it is apparent that Caring served as a significant
takeaway for many, as evidenced through exercising greater compassion, empathy, and a
non-judgmental outlook.
119
Contribution.
The sixth C, Contribution, manifests as a personal investment in oneself, family,
community and society (Lerner, Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, 2004; Pittman et al., 2000).
Contribution also appeared as a significant outcome for a number of the alumni
interviewed. Many of them reported having a greater appreciation for community work
after their time at GRuB, whether in an interpersonal, volunteer or occupational capacity.
I know directly that my experience with GRuB…has influenced my thinking a lot
on…the desire to, to give back and contribute to something greater… I’m
engaged in, in helping others of a fair capacity…in one way or another like pretty
much at all times…Whether that’s with supporting friends or family or helping a
organization build things or lend a hand…it, it comes out in many different ways.
–Iris, CYEP alum
I work in a non-profit, and I work in my community…I feel like at least my day to
day…I can come home feeling satisfied that I did something to like, hopefully
improve the life of someone in my community or part of my community. –Sydney,
CYEP alum
Since [GRuB], every chance I get out and I volunteer with the [local] Land
Trust…So that’s a huge experience that I got to gain from that because it’s not
something that I would have taken part in before. –Aspen, GRuB School alum
Later on in the interview when asked about how her time at GRuB impacted her
connection to community, Aspen reiterated her commitment to community engagement:
A lot actually…before I wasn’t a part of it really. I mean, I guess I was part of the
community in a general sense but I wasn’t actually active in the community. Now
I’m out there with everybody taking part as much as I possibly can.
In response to the same question Ava, a GRuB School alum who participated in the
program for one year, also described becoming more engaged in her community:
I started being a lot more of an activist. I started supporting things that I fully
support, like I’ve been to probably at least six protests in 2017 and I’ve started
just getting a lot more involved in my community. I started shopping at the co-op,
I started…supporting local businesses more…GRuB definitely impacted me in
that way.
120
Drue, a CYEP alum who participated in the program for one year, further emphasized
how her experience at GRuB influenced her participation in community:
Later on it made it so I was confident and doing petitions, doing independent
study projects…so it really had a huge impact on my life and it made it so I
volunteered—I did an internship at [non-profit organization] for over year…and
then I worked at [government agency] for a year. So. It all came together.
For Drue, her role in community has flourished into something of a greater synergy:
I somehow built this network, when anyone needs anything in the community, they
come to me and I point them in the right direction…‘Cause that’s what GRuB and
[another non-profit organization] did for me…I think it’s had an impact on the
fact that I can have impact on others.
Mia, another CYEP alum, discussed how the opportunities she was exposed to
through GRuB inspired her to expand her horizons in terms of community engagement.
Referencing a conference she attended with GRuB:
I think that that conference made it to where I was more interested in not just the
GRuB part of the experience but more of like what else I could do…in other
aspects of my life. Like…now I do community service stuff but I do community
service stuff that helps with you know…domestic violence and women and
children and…people who are addicts or ex-addicts and stuff like that. So I’ve,
I’ve focused my, my time more doing stuff like that. But I wouldn’t have ventured
out of my bubble, my GRuB bubble if it wouldn’t have been for things like that
conference where I learned about like a whole new almost like a whole new world
kind of thing.
From the perspectives and experiences recounted in the interviews, it is clear that
GRuB played a significant role in fostering PYD outcomes in its youth program
participants. However, it is important to emphasize that PYD outcomes can manifest in
different ways and to varying degrees in different people, depending on the context of the
individual (J.L. Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). In addition, due to the fluidity and
interconnection of PYD indicators (for example, evidence of Caring can also reflect
Character and Contribution) the attempt to compartmentalize outcomes may provide a
121
somewhat reductionist perspective on the overall impact of the program. This became
evident in conducting the qualitative analysis, wherein a significant, third theme emerged,
GRuB as a Formative Catalyst. This theme is discussed in the next section.
GRuB as a Formative Catalyst: “If it Weren’t for GRuB”
Throughout the interviews, a number of alumni repeated phrases along the lines
of “if it weren’t for GRuB” or “because of GRuB” when discussing the paths they took in
life after participating in the program. As such, GRuB as a Formative Catalyst became a
prominent theme, with two underlying subthemes: Carving a Path: A Sense of Direction
and Finding a Passion.
Carving a Path: A Sense of Direction.
Many alumni spoke about how their experiences at GRuB set them on a positive
trajectory in life and influenced the decisions that they made after participating in the
program. For several alumni, GRuB opened up an abundance of new possibilities. As
Robin a CYEP alum explains,
I think that it helped to… kinda show myself that I could…actually talk in front of
large crowds and that changed really what I wanted to do, going forward. I still
didn’t know what I wanted to do with my life at that point but I knew that I wasn’t
going to be limited. Because I could do something that I couldn’t before.
Later on in the interview, Robin expanded on this reflection.
You know you never really know exactly how something in your past influenced
your present and your future, and I think a lot of things in my life would be very,
very different…It was, I think it was a bit of a, a catalyst in helping me come out
of my shell and live in a way that I would be happy…Had I not been at GRuB I’m
sure that I would still be happy…I think I would just be going in a very different
direction.
122
Several other alumni echoed how GRuB provided them with a sense of direction that has
led to personal fulfillment.
Probably just more like direction. So, it kinda like just like helped me…have a
wider, open perspective but also narrowed me like, of what I wanted to do. So
like…looking at what’s important, what do I want to do in the world, or what,
what can I do…It just kind of made me realize my potential. –Gabi, CYEP alum
I can definitely say it’s changed a lot of my life on like how I, how I’ve acted and
like that program…it really kinda put me in a good path on doing something good
in my life…where I’ve just kinda stepped up and I really did something and I
mean that, that made me feel really good. –Spencer, CYEP alum
I know that if I wasn’t at GRuB I would be a very, very different person…because
the path that I chose before GRuB was not very positive…so GRuB helped me in
that where it gave me something to think about, and have a different type of
mindset that I didn’t before. –August, GRuB School alum
For a number of alumni, the ability and desire to make fulfilling choices in life came
from having a safe space to grow, take risks, and develop their identities as young people.
As such, GRuB represented more than just a job or school:
I think being a teenager it was so much more than working or you know, learning
things or workshops and stuff like that. I mean it was really cool learning all
those things…For me though, it was so much more because…I was able to always
have someone to reach out to that would reach me—put me in the right direction.
And so…it was a lot of things and it really absolutely changed my life. I, I don’t
know what would’ve happened to me if it wasn’t for them. –Drue, CYEP alum
I remember…that’s the first place where like I openly like told people stuff that
was like straight off my mind and didn’t like think about it. Like, one thing for me
that I really appreciated about GRuB was that it wasn’t just a farm for me and
like, working hard. For me…it was also a place where you learn more about
yourself and how to deal with situations and even when you’re angry or when
other people are angry or how to help people with their situations...But I mean
that’s the first place where I truly like opened up and stuff. And so I really
appreciated that. –August, GRuB School alum
In addition, many alumni expressed how the opportunity to develop authentic
relationships and engage in difficult, vulnerable conversations aided them in their
personal development:
123
I think that really…working there was…the safest place I’d ever felt…Like I’d
never felt safer in my life than when I worked there and we were able to like, dig
through a lot of personal stuff in a small group in these like workshops we were
doing about interpersonal relationships and all kinds of things and it was just a
very unique, wonderful thing…And so…that has always stuck with me too…it’s
just a, like a permanent building block in my life, you know? –Wes, CYEP alum
My favorite thing was really just having a safe space because that’s what the
biggest thing was for us, was that we didn’t always all get along, we didn’t all
have the same ideas, but we always had space to be able to talk about it. And it
brought us all closer together, it changed a lot of peoples’ opinions, it helped us
all grow together and, and like, do that self-reflection. –Marley, CYEP alum
It was probably the best experience I’ve had in my life, honestly…They’re the
nicest people I ever met…they’re understanding, like you can just walk into there
with any problem and they’ll help you solve it. And like, never had that anywhere
else. –Elliot, GRuB School alum
Finding a Passion.
In addition to finding a sense of direction and a solid sense of self, for many
alumni, their time at GRuB helped them discover what they’re passionate about and led
them to follow that passion. In many instances this manifested in career choices or other
lifestyle decisions. As Marley recounts,
I feel like GRuB is really good at kinda just reminding people that there’s more
things out there and that there are things we can be passionate about that’s not
about money…I’m more focused on like, how am I gonna make some really
positive change and improve the lives of the generation after me? How am I
gonna set up some fundamental things to make the kids that I interact with
successful in life in a way that they feel successful themselves?…That success in
knowing that what you’re doing is your passion and that you are happy with who
you are.
Later on in the interview, Marley reiterated:
Like, my time at GRuB made me realize that I am about doing peer and otherwise
support. And really about building people up and really about giving people the
space to heal, giving them the space to be empowered, giving them the tools that I
was given so that they can go out and be their own advocates and advocate for
other people.
124
Similarly, Sydney also pursued a career path based on her experience at GRuB:
Well…I started thinking more about my experience this past, like, week and I
realized that I pursued youth development work after leaving GRuB because of
my experience at GRuB. So like I didn’t enter any kind of like farming or
sustainable food system kind of career. I just wanted to work with youth and
like…be a figure in someone, a young person’s life that like, just, showed that
they cared.
Mel, another CYEP alum who participated in the program for one year, also talked about
discovering passions through her experience at GRuB:
I feel like before GRuB…I don’t really feel like I had a personality I just, I’d kind
of get lost in the crowd, but, going through GRuB…helped me to find, kind of
like…my voice and to have things that I’m…passionate about—about food, about
the environment, about social justice issues…I think that it, it has definitely
changed me a bit.
Later on in our interview, Mel emphasized how discovering those passions has
subsequently impacted the lifestyle decisions she has made,
I wanna say—because of GRuB, like, I live in a…community…with a community
garden of our own and we have chickens and ducks and, and the people in my
community, they’re very much aware and very much involved with environmental
and food-related issues…So, I wanna say, without GRuB I wouldn’t have chosen
to live in a place like this and to be surrounded with more…people who are
educated on issues like that.
A number of other alumni also discussed the importance of finding passions and feeling
empowered to pursue what they value in life:
I think that GRuB also helped to…make me more aware of social issues…It was
something that I became passionate about after GRuB because of kind of the
chain reaction of, of learning about these social issues and agricultural issues
…you dig deeper and, had I not really been introduced to those things I don’t
really think I ever would’ve…wanted to get involved with other organizations and
other non-profits…and do all this other stuff to really improve the system that we
have. –Robin, CYEP alum
Well I definitely think if it wasn’t for GRuB I wouldn’t want to, or I wouldn’t even
think about branching out or creating changes or doing anything like that in my
community because I wouldn’t have had the confidence to think that it was
possible to do it anyway…I feel like lots of people don’t feel like they can do
125
something because they’re only one person. And so when I worked at GRuB I
realized that even the smallest groups of people can get together and form
networks, make changes happen. I feel like I’m more passionate about things like
that and now that’s like the type of stuff that I like to do. So if it wasn’t for GRuB I
probably wouldn’t be doing any type of that volunteer work or anything like that
because I wouldn’t know that I could do something. –Mia, CYEP alum
Summary
From all the experiences recounted in the interviews, it is evident that both
formats of GRuB’s youth program have provided strong foundations for critical food
pedagogy, positive youth development, and creating a life they find meaningful and
fulfilling. Every interviewee described their experience in GRuB as a positive one, and
for many it was transformative. Notably, when asked what a difficult aspect of their
experience in the program was, the most common responses involved overcoming
personal issues or finding the same level of support after leaving the program. While each
individual took away their own unique lessons and perspectives, the data show across the
board that GRuB’s youth program can successfully promote positive, lasting changes in
all four arenas of environment, food, community and self.
126
Chapter 7: Discussion
The overarching research question explored in this study is: What are the
sustained impacts of GRuB’s agriculture-based youth development program on alumni’s
attitudes toward, and connection to, the environment, food, community and self? More
specifically, this study focused on two sub-questions: To what extent does participation
in GRuB’s youth program foster a sustained, critical awareness of the environment and
food system? To what extent does participation in GRuB’s youth program lead to longterm PYD outcomes? Critical food pedagogy and PYD served as the theoretical
frameworks informing data analysis. This chapter integrates the findings from the
qualitative and quantitative datasets to explore how they confirm or contradict one
another. In addition, this chapter discusses how the findings relate to the greater body of
literature on agriculture-based youth development programs.
Bringing It All Together
On the whole, the findings from the two datasets largely support one another. One
of the most significant findings in both the quantitative and qualitative datasets was the
impact of participating in the summer program. In the quantitative dataset, alumni who
only participated in the summer program were statistically more likely to have higher
Food and Environment composite scores than alumni who only participated during the
academic year. Likewise, interviewees that had only experienced the summer program at
GRuB described a number of important, lasting impacts from their experience, including
a greater respect for nature and food, developing fundamental job skills, and becoming
more in touch with personal values that influenced later life decisions. As such, the length
127
of time in the program did not necessarily always correlate directly with the magnitude of
the program’s impact. As one respondent put it,
And I mean relatively like, three months…what uh, [6-10] years ago? Like on one
scale it seems really insignificant but that, that experience has really held strong
with me. –Sydney, CYEP alum
Critical food pedagogy.
In terms of critical food pedagogy, both datasets suggested that the deepest
learning occurred in the empirical/analytic and critical/emancipatory domains of food
literacy. While the survey did not provide a sufficient opportunity to analyze
historical/hermeneutic food literacy, 82% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
all people should have access to culturally appropriate food, which suggests some degree
of learning in this domain. In addition, a handful of interviewees referred to developing
historical/hermeneutic aspects of food literacy, including a greater appreciation for one’s
food culture as well as food’s capacity to build community. Empirical/analytic food
literacy appeared as the most prominent and salient learning domain in regard to critical
food pedagogy. Quantitatively, this was reflected in the high mean composite score for
the Food and Environment scale (23.7 out of a possible score of 25). Qualitatively, a
number of the interviewees discussed gaining skills and knowledge in growing and
cooking food, and many derived a sense of confidence and competence from these skills
as well, which ties into PYD outcomes. In addition, many of the interviewees discussed
learning the importance of food quality and nutrition during their time at GRuB, which
resulted in personal behavior changes including label reading and selective food sourcing.
Both datasets also support the development of critical/emancipatory food literacy,
but primarily in terms of critical awareness and not so much in terms of political
engagement, which is the ultimate goal of critical food pedagogy (Sumner & Wever,
128
2016). The survey results indicated low levels of participation in issues related to food
and the environment as reflected in the mean scores for those scales (29.7 out of 70 for
Food Civic Engagement and 26.6 out of 70 for Environmental Civic Engagement).
However, the survey results did support a strong awareness of political, social and
economic food system issues as indicated by the high composite mean score for the Food
and Environmental Policy Beliefs scale (55.7 out of 60).
The interviews corroborated and expanded on the quantitative findings in terms of
political engagement, as alumni were conscious of the multiple dimensions of food
systems, but lacked the time, energy or interest to engage in these issues politically.
Many alumni cited individual purchasing decisions as their primary form of engagement
in these issues as a form of consumer activism. These results parallel Goldstein’s (2014,
2016) findings, as the food education program participants in her study expressed an
interest in food system change, but were not interested in actively pursuing change
beyond individual consumption habits. However, Goldstein (2014, 2016) notes that the
program she studied also served as a catalyst that inspired some graduates to become
more interested in researching the deeper complexities of food systems, though she
remarks that a firm conclusion would require follow-up research after years had passed—
a perspective that the present study offers. These results similarly align with Wever’s
(2015) findings, as the program graduates in her study also demonstrated critical
awareness that did not translate into praxis apart from personal behavior changes.
However, Wever (2015) notes that respondents’ lifestyle changes arose from a more
holistic understanding of food and environmental issues, which thus ties into
critical/emancipatory awareness.
129
It is important to mention that the respondents in Goldstein’s (2014, 2016) and
Wever’s (2015) studies were all recent graduates of their respective food education
programs, while the present study encompasses a broader range of alumni in different
stages of life. Nonetheless, while the most evident form of food system participation
manifested on the individual level in this study, many of the GRuB alumni interviewed
did express an interest in becoming more informed about food and environmental policies
in order to make more informed decisions.
PYD outcomes.
The quantitative and qualitative data also suggest the development and
maintenance of the Six Cs among the group, although Confidence, Competence and
Connection appeared most prevalently in both datasets. As for the survey, the
Community, Self and Communication and Decision-Making scales were primarily
comprised of indicators for those three outcomes, which allowed them to come to the
forefront. However, the scales did contain some items that also related to Character,
Caring and Contribution. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Six Cs are not
necessarily discrete concepts, but rather feed into one another. This idea was also
reflected in the interviews. While alumni spoke most frequently of gaining Confidence, a
greater capacity for Connection, and various social, cognitive, vocational and academic
Competencies, their stories simultaneously reflected indicators of Character, Caring and
Contribution. In a way, it seemed that GRuB’s program provided the fertile ground for
developing Confidence, Competence and Connection, from which qualities of Character,
Caring and Contribution subsequently sprouted. It is important to reiterate that the
primary takeaways from program participation are dependent upon the context of the
130
individual. As such, indicators for each of the Six Cs may not have appeared in every
interview, but the interviews collectively demonstrated sustained development in each
arena.
Interestingly, while the survey results suggested that program alumni who had
been out of the program for fifteen or more years were more likely to score lower on the
Self and Communication and Decision-Making scales than other groups, this was not
reflected in the interviews. On the contrary, interviewees from that group emphasized
growing more confident and becoming better communicators because of their time at
GRuB, and some provided specific examples of communication skills that they continue
to implement. It is possible that alumni may have felt more comfortable answering
questions honestly in an online survey rather than discussing personal insecurities with a
researcher. Nonetheless, while the survey data indicate a possible decline in self-concept,
communication and decision-making fifteen or more years after program involvement,
the interview data—which provides more nuanced perspectives—does not support this
finding.
Connection to follow-up studies of agriculture-based youth development
programs.
In examining the few studies that have investigated the long-term impacts of
participation in agriculture-based youth development programs (one year or more),
several overlapping findings emerge. In their interview-based follow-up study with
alumni from The Food Project, Brigham and Nahas (2008) also found that program
participants gained invaluable employment skills (social and vocational Competence),
leadership skills (Confidence, social Competence, Contribution), a greater value for
diversity (Character, Connection), more compassion from an enhanced understanding of
131
social issues (Caring, critical/emancipatory awareness), and a heightened appreciation for
food quality (empirical/analytic food literacy) and sustainable agriculture
(empirical/analytic food literacy). In addition, the study found that alumni’s experiences
with The Food Project similarly influenced their career and lifestyle choices, highlighting
“the importance of finding meaning in their professional lives,” (Brigham & Nahas,
2008, p. iii). However, unlike the stories expressed by GRuB alumni, graduates from The
Food Project were largely unable to maintain long-term friendships due to geographical
dispersion (Brigham & Nahas, 2008). In contrast, 58% of the GRuB alumni interviewed
spoke of maintaining long-term friendships with their fellow crewmembers. While a
number of GRuB alumni have remained around the Olympia area, that is not the case for
all, and many have continued to foster those relationships over long distances.
While Brigham and Nahas (2008) identified increased knowledge of sustainable
agriculture as a theme in their findings, it was not mentioned as prevalently across their
collection of interviews. In contrast, a number of the GRuB alumni interviewed have
continued to implement the practical food cultivation skills they learned, and over half of
the entire sample reported gardening sometimes or often. As noted in Chapter Six, these
differences may be attributed to the availability of space in Thurston County, whereas
personal food cultivation is more difficult in highly urbanized settings. Despite this
difference, some of The Food Project alumni also discussed changing dietary and
lifestyle habits as a result of their experience in the program, though the issue of
affordability and access also arose (Brigham & Nahas, 2008). Interestingly, Brigham and
Nahas (2008) did not include program alumni who had only experienced The Food
Project’s summer program, and recommended that future studies do so. The researchers
132
predicted that participants who only participated in the summer program might bring
more critical perspectives to program evaluation—which was not the case in the present
study, as both the quantitative and qualitative data show that GRuB’s summer program
has positive, lasting impacts on many alumni who participated for only that portion of the
program. This could have significant implications for other Food Project and GRuB-like
youth programs.
The results from this research also complement findings from the follow-up study
on East New York Farms! (Sonti et al., 2016). Alumni in their study exhibited reasonably
high composite scores for the Food and Environment, Community, Self, and
Communication and Decision-Making scales. However, a direct comparison among
means is not practical, as different survey items were eliminated in each respective study,
which affects the calculation of mean composite scores. Sonti et al. (2016) also obtained
written qualitative responses via a comment box on their survey, from which they
identified nine prominent themes: increased gardening and nutrition knowledge;
strengthened communication, interpersonal and public speaking skills; a greater sense
responsibility and work ethic; an enhanced connection to community; increased selfconfidence and leadership skills; a greater appreciation for diversity; improved money
management skills; a grounded sense of personal identity and values; and new
opportunities for career paths. These findings are similarly reflected in the present study,
which speaks to the transferability of program designs that incorporate PYD and food
justice principles when tailored to the needs of their community.
133
Limitations
This study carried a few important limitations that must be taken into
consideration when drawing conclusions from the data. First, while all necessary
measures were taken to ensure that the quantitative data met the assumptions of each
statistical test, the relatively small sample size may have limited the reliability and
statistical power of some of the analyses. Inaccurate contact information for alumni
proved to be somewhat of a barrier in the recruitment process. While in many cases
utilizing social media turned out to be a successful outreach strategy to overcome missing
or inaccurate contact information, not all alumni could be found on Facebook.
Furthermore, it is possible that some alumni who were contacted through Facebook no
longer have active profiles, which further limited the sample size. It is also important to
factor in the possibility of response bias, wherein alumni who had a positive experience
at GRuB may have been more likely to respond to the survey, and even more likely to
participate in an interview. Taking this into consideration, it is likely that the data are not
representative of every alumni’s experience in the youth program. Furthermore, it is also
possible that social desirability bias may have influenced some participants’ responses to
the survey or interview questions, wherein answers were chosen based on what others
would view as more agreeable as opposed to selecting the response that personally rang
most true.
As a study employing retrospective evaluation, it can also be difficult to draw
firm conclusions about cause and effect, particularly when it comes to the quantitative
data. While the interviews unveiled a number of perceived long-term benefits from
participating in GRuB’s youth program, it is also possible that some reports were
enhanced by subsequent life experiences that alumni have engaged in since their time at
134
GRuB. As Liddicoat and Krasny (2013) state, “A major challenge inherent to
retrospective evaluation studies is linking current attitudes and behaviors to specific
experiences in the past, given months and often years of intervening experiences,” (p.
294). However, commenting on the value of memory, “…through their specificity and in
combination with existing theory, episodic memories also shed light on teaching practices
that will promote long-term retention of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors,” (Liddicoat
& Krasny, 2013, p. 294). The findings from this study do point to programmatic elements
that foster sustained outcomes that may be transferrable to other programs, including an
emphasis on relationship-building, supportive staff, communication and team-building
workshops, opportunities to challenge oneself, and a focus on experiential learning both
on the farm and in the greater community. However, while aspects of the findings may be
transferrable to other programs, a final limitation of this study is the generalizability of
the conclusions, as youth development programs are typically tailored to meet the needs
of a specific community.
Recommendations for future research
The field of agriculture-based youth development programs is rapidly growing
and ripe with opportunity for future research. First, integrating data from pre and postprogram evaluations would provide a comparative basis from which to conduct a
longitudinal study for future cohorts. In addition, given the data richness that mixedmethods study designs can produce, these pre and post-program evaluations would
ideally include both quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, future survey research
could also include more measures specific to historical/hermeneutic food literacy, as the
present survey did not provide an adequate opportunity to capture that concept
135
quantitatively. Moreover, it would be interesting to see how this survey could transfer
across additional agriculture-based youth development programs in different
geographical and cultural contexts.
136
Chapter 8: Conclusion
In pursuing the primary research question addressing the sustained impacts of
GRuB’s agriculture-based youth development program on alumni’s connection to the
environment, food, community and self, it appears that those impacts are multifold and
multidimensional. Taken together, both datasets provide evidence of lasting program
impacts in all arenas, though the most salient and permanent takeaways depend upon the
context of the individual alum both then and now. In addressing the two sub-research
questions, it is evident that GRuB’s program provides essential foundations for critical
food pedagogy and positive youth development. Participants demonstrated strong
empirical/analytic skills and knowledge and critical/emancipatory awareness. Although
this awareness did not always translate into political action, many alumni did speak of
other actions they take that support a democratic and just food system, including sharing
the bounty of their gardens with others or teaching others to build gardens and grow their
own food. Historical/hermeneutic learning remained the least developed domain of food
literacy, which may be a consideration for future program development. This could
include more discussions around how food connects to culture, how food is represented
in the media, and how the role of food has changed over time (Sumner, 2013; Wever,
2015).
In terms of positive youth development outcomes, the data showed mixed results
with regard to self-concept and communication and decision-making. Despite indications
from the quantitative data that self-esteem and communication skills may diminish fifteen
or more years after program involvement, the qualitative data do not support this finding.
This suggests that these mixed results may also be a factor of individual context and not
137
time out of the program, as further indicated by the higher Communication and DecisionMaking scores held by alumni in the eleven to fourteen-year range as compared to alumni
in the six to ten-year range. Indeed, the qualitative data do show strong and sustained
development of each of the Six Cs across the range of interviews. Moreover, one of the
most significant findings from the qualitative data is that GRuB served as a formative
catalyst for many alumni, influencing subsequent lifestyle and career path decisions
based on personal values they developed in the program. It appears that for many alumni,
GRuB provided a personalized compass for them to orient themselves with what they
find most meaningful in life, as well as the courage to pursue those passions.
Considering the broader implications of this study for agriculture-based youth
development programs, this research provides further evidence of the importance of
learner-centered, relationships-based, experiential education programs. The results
suggest that these programs provide more than just short-term benefits and can equip
youth with skills that translate to lasting positive personal, social and environmental
outcomes. This is especially important with regard to present patterns of youth
disengagement in the conventional public school system, as well as producer and
consumer disempowerment in the dominant industrial food system. Programs that
directly engage youth in issues related to food, the environment and community have the
potential not only to contribute to meaningful personal and community development, but
also to foster critical awareness and inspire action to create a more sustainable, equitable
society.
138
Works Cited
Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (2011). Introduction. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.),
Cultivating Food Jusitce: Race, Class, and Sustainability (pp. 1–20). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Alkon, A. H., & Norgaard, K. M. (2009). Breaking the food chains: An investigation of
food justice activism. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), 289–305.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00291.x
Allen, P. (2008). Mining for justice in the food system: Perceptions, practices, and
possibilities. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(2), 157–161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9120-6
Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 3(2), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq015
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student
motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–38. Retrieved from
http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/611/testing_and_motivation.pdf
Baker, H. (1977). Growing up unheard. In B. Gross & R. Gross (Eds.), The Children’s
Rights Movement: Overcoming the Oppression of Young People (pp. 187–199).
Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V, & Lerner, R. M. (2010).
The Five Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of
confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39(7), 720–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9530-9
Bramwell, S. G., Moorehead, S., Meade, A., Sero, R., Gray, S., & Nowlin, M. (2017).
South Puget Sound agricultural producer needs assessment. Olympia, Washington.
Retrieved from http://extension.wsu.edu/thurston/wpcontent/uploads/sites/12/2014/01/South-Sound-Agricultural-Producer-NeedsAssessment.pdf?x90625
Brigham, R. A., & Nahas, J. (2008). The food project: A follow-up study of program
participants. Brigham Nahas Research Associates. Retrieved from
http://thefoodproject.org/sites/default/files/The Food Project Follow Up Study.pdf
Broaddus, E. T., Przygocki, P. S., & Winch, P. J. (2015). Engaging city youth in urban
agriculture: Examining a farm-based high school internship program through the
lens of self-determination theory. Children, Youth and Environments, 25(3), 22.
https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.25.3.0022
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future
139
of Children, 7(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602387
Bullard, R. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots.
Boston, MA: South End Press.
Carleton-Hug, A., & Hug, J. W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating
environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 159–
164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.005
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D.
(2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on
evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.515a
Ceaser, D. (2012). Our School at Blair Grocery: A case study in promoting
environmental action through critical environmental education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 43(4), 209–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.637094
Clendenning, J., Dressler, W. H., & Richards, C. (2016). Food justice or food
sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA.
Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460015-9625-8
Cohn, D. (2016). Federal officials may revamp how Americans identify race, ethnicity on
census and other forms. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/04/federal-officials-may-revamphow-americans-identify-race-ethnicity-on-census-and-other-forms/
Coit, R., Sharar, J. B., Blumhagen, S., Kelley-Donohue, D., Edwards, Z., Ellings, E., …
Witt, P. (2012). Local food systems panel white paper. Olympia, WA. Retrieved
from https://www.trpc.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/679
Comstock, A. B. (1911). Handbook of nature study (24th ed.). Ithaca, New York:
Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press. Retrieved from
https://ia902702.us.archive.org/29/items/handbookofnature002506mbp/handbookof
nature002506mbp.pdf
Conway, R. J., Heary, C., & Hogan, M. J. (2015). An evaluation of the measurement
properties of the Five Cs model of positive youth development. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01941
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Danbom, D. B. (1979). Rural education reform and the country life movement, 1900-
140
1920. Agricultural History, 53(2), 462–474. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3742421
Delia, J. (2014). Cultivating a culture of authentic care in urban environmental
education: Narratives from youth interns at East New York Farms. (Master's thesis).
Cornell University. Retrieved from
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/36015/jed259.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y
Desmond, D., Grieshop, J., & Subramaniam, A. (2004). Revisiting garden-based learning
in basic education. Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations &
International Institute for Education Planning. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/a-aj462e.pdf
Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
du Prel, J.-B., Hommel, G., Röhrig, B., & Blettner, M. (2009). Confidence interval or pvalue?: Part 4 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches
Ärzteblatt International, 106(19), 335–9. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2009.0335
Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Falxa-Raymond, N., & Campbell, L. K. (2013). East New York Farms! Youth internship
alumni evaluation report. Brooklyn, New York. Retrieved from
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/nyc/localresources/downloads/2013_ENYF_AlumniReport.pdf
Feenstra, G., & Ohmart, J. (2012). The evolution of the school food and farm to school
movement in the United States: Connecting childhood health, farms, and
communities. Childhood Obesity, 8(4), 280–289.
https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2012.0023
Flowers, R., & Swan, E. (2015). Food pedagogies: Histories, definitions and moralities.
In R. Flowers & E. Swan (Eds.), Food pedagogies (pp. 1–27). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.) (30th Anniv Ed.).
New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970).
Friedland, W. H. (2008). Agency and the agrifood system. In W. Wright & G.
141
Middendorf (Eds.), The fight over food: Producers, consumers, and activists
challenge the global food system (pp. 45–68). University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Fulford, S., & Thompson, S. (2013). Youth community gardening programming as
community development: The youth for ecoaction program in Winnipeg, Canada.
Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 4(2), 56–75.
Retrieved from http://anserj.ca/index.php/cjnser/article/view/145
Galt, R. E., Parr, D., van Soelen Kim, J., Beckett, J., Lickter, M., & Ballard, H. (2013).
Transformative food systems education in a land-grant college of agriculture: The
importance of learner-centered inquiries. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(1),
129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9384-8
Gaylie, V. (2009). The learning garden: Ecology, teaching, and transformation. New
York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Gliessman, S. R. (2015). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems (3rd ed.).
Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
Goldstein, S. (2014). Advancing youth education on food and food systems to increase
food literacy. (Master's thesis). York University, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from:
https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/30215/MESMP000
88.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Goldstein, S. (2016). Youth and food literacy: A case study of food education at The Stop
Community Food Centre. In J. Sumner (Ed.), Learning, Food, and Sustainability:
Sites for Resistance and Change (pp. 181–200). Toronto, Onatrio, Canada: Palgrave
MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53904-5
Gottlieb, R., & Fisher, A. (1996). “First feed the face”: Environmental justice and
community food security. Antipode, 28(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678330.1996.tb00522.x
Gottlieb, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Food justice. MIT Press.
Grace-Martin, K. (2013). Opposite results in ordinal logistic regression--solving a
statistical mystery. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from
https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/ordinal-logistic-regression-mystery/
Grass, R., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Reorienting environmental education for
environmental justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.threecircles.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ReorientingEnvironmental-Education.pdf
Gross, B., & Gross, R. (1977). Introduction. In B. Gross & R. Gross (Eds.), The
142
children’s rights movement: Overcoming the oppression of young people (pp. 1–12).
Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Growth Management Act. Pub. L. No. RCW 36.70a (1990). USA.
GRuB. (n.d.-a). Our history. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
https://www.goodgrub.org/history
GRuB. (n.d.-b). Understanding the GRuB School model. Retrieved from
https://www.goodgrub.org/grub-school
GRuB. (2017). Garden-Raised Bounty. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/91-1594312
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place.
Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003
Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). A Foucauldian analysis of environmental education: Toward
the socioecological challenge of the Earth Charter. Curriculum Inquiry, 34(1), 71–
107.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). Place-based education: Grounding culturally responsive
teaching in geographical diversity. In D. A. Gruenewald & G. A. Smith (Eds.),
Place-based Education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 137–153). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guthman, J. (2004). Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Guthman, J. (2008a). Bringing good food to others: Investigating the subjects of
alternative food practice. Cultural Geographies, 15(4), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474008094315
Guthman, J. (2008b). “If they only knew”: Color blindness and universalism in california
alternative food institutions. The Professional Geographer, 60(3), 387–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802013679
Guthman, J. (2011). “If they only knew” The unbearable whiteness of alternative food. In
A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and
Sustainability (pp. 266–281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. (J. Shapiro, Ed.). Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Hayden-Smith, R. (2014). Sowing the seeds of victory: American gardening programs of
World War I. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.
143
Heffernan, W., Hendrickson, M., & Gronski, R. (1999). Report to the National Farmers
Union: Consolidation in the food and agriculture system. Columbia, MO. Retrieved
from http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/whstudy.pdf
Hilimire, K., Gillon, S., McLaughlin, B. C., Dowd-Uribe, B., & Monsen, K. L. (2014).
Food for thought: Developing curricula for sustainable food systems education
Programs. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(6), 722–743.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.881456
Hoover, T. S., & Scholl, J. F. (2007). A historical review of leadership development in
the FFA and 4-H. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 100–110.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03100
Hung, Y. (2004). East new york farms: Youth participation in community development
and urban agriculture. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 20–31.
https://doi.org/https://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/14_1/articles/article2full.htm#
end1
Hyde-Bailey, L. (1909). The nature study idea: An interpretation of the new schoolmovement to put the young into relation and sympathy with nature (3rd ed.). New
York: The Macmillan Company.
Irby, M., Ferber, T., Pittman, K. J., Tolman, J., & Yohalem, N. (2001). Youth action:
Youth contributing to communities, communities supporting youth (Community &
Youth Development Series No. 6). Takoma Park, MD. Retrieved from
http://forumfyi.org/files/YouthAction.pdf
Jackman, W. S. (1892). Nature study for the common schools (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Henry Holt and Company.
Jaffe, J., & Gertler, M. (2006). Victual vicissitudes: Consumer deskilling and the
(gendered) transformation of food systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 23,
143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-005-6098-1
Kemp, S. P. (2011). Leaders of today, builders of tomorrow. In S. E. Sutton & S. P.
Kemp (Eds.), The paradox of urban space: Inequality and transformation in
marginalized communities (pp. 135–156). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Kohlstedt, S. G. (2008). “A better crop of boys and girls ”: The gardening movement,
1890-1920, History of Education Quarterly, 48(1), 58–93. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.111/j.1748-5959.2008.00126.x
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
(Original work published 1984).
144
Kyburz-‐‑Graber, R. (1999). Environmental education as critical education: How teachers
and students handle the challenge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 415–
432. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0305764990290310
Lawson, L. J. (2005). City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lerner, R. M. (1995). America’s youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs
and policies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among America’s youth.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth
development: A view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211
Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2013). The positive development of youth: Comprehensive
findings from the 4-H study of positive youth development. Chevy Chase, MD.
Retrieved from: https://4-h.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/4-H-Study-of-PositiveYouth-Development-Wave-9-Report.pdf
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., …
von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth
development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461
Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture
and Human Values, 23(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-005-5871-5
Liddicoat, K., & Krasny, M. E. (2013). Research on the long-term impacts of
environmental education. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals
(Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education (pp. 289–
297). New York, NY: Routledge.
Liere, K. D. Van, & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A
review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 44(2), 181-197. Oxford University PressAmerican Association for Public
Opinion Research. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748427
Loo, C. (2014). Towards a more participative definition of food justice. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(5), 787–809.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9490-2
145
MacGregor, J. (2017). Environmental education’s precursors and cousins, or, the multiple
vines in the arbor of environmental education. (Unpublished lecture notes). The
Evergreen State College: Olympia, WA.
Madowitz, J., & Boutelle, K. N. (2014). Ethical implications of using the term “nonwhite” in psychological research. Ethics and Behavior, 24(4), 306–310.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.858604
Mayer-Smith, J., Bartosh, O., & Peterat, L. (2009). Cultivating and reflecting on
intergenerational environmental education on the farm. Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education, 14, 107–121. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842743.pdf
McMillan, M., Hoban, T. J., Clifford, W. B., & Brant, M. R. (1997). Social and
demographic influences on environmental attitudes. Southern Rural Sociology,
13(1), 89–107. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.7804&rep=rep1&typ
e=pdf
Meek, D., & Tarlau, R. (2015). Critical food systems education and the question of race.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 5(4), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2015.054.021
Meek, D., & Tarlau, R. (2016). Critical food systems education (CFSE): Educating for
food sovereignty. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(3), 237–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1130764
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass, Inc.
Mezirow, J. (2009). Insights from transformative learning in practice: Insights from
community, workplace, and higher education. (J. Mezirow, E. W. Taylor, &
Associates, Eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Mindell, A. (2014). Sitting in the fire: Large group transformation using conflict and
diversity. Florence, Oregon: Deep Democracy Exchange.
Mossakowski, K. N. (2015). Disadvantaged family background and depression among
young adults in the United States: The roles of chronic stress and self-esteem. Stress
and Health, 31(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2526
Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern
world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Orth, U. (2017). The family environment in early childhood has a long-term effect on
146
self-esteem: A longitudinal study from birth to age 27 years. American
Psychological Association, 114(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000143
Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., Keith, J. G., Hoppe-Rooney, T. L., & Villarruel, F. A.
(2003). Community youth development: Programs, policies, and practices. (F. A.
Villarruel, D. F. Perkins, L. M. Borden, & J. G. Keith, Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Peters, S. J. (2006). “Every farmer should be awakened ”: Liberty Hyde Bailey’s vision
of agricultural extension work. Agricultural History, 80(2), 190–219. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3744806
Pittman, K. J. (1999). The power of engagement. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://forumfyi.org/files/Youth Today--September 1999.pdf
Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2000). Unfinished business: Further reflections on
a decade of promoting youth development. Takoma Park, Maryland. Retrieved from
http://forumfyi.org/files/UnfinishedBusiness.pdf
Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2003). Preventing
problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: Competing priorities
or inseparable goals? Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://forumfyi.org/files/Preventing Problems, Promoting Development,
Encouraging Engagement.pdf
Pittman, K. J., & Wright, M. (1991). Bridging the gap: A rationale for enhancing the role
of community organizations in promoting youth development. Washington, DC:
Center for Youth Development and Policy Research. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=153802
Rains, K., & Umholtz, J. (2016). A case study: Garden-Raised Bounty (GRuB): Everyone
at the table. In E. Hodges Snyder, K. McIvor, & S. Brown (Eds.), Sowing seeds in
the city (pp. 303–315). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-7456-7_24
Rooted in Community. (n.d.). Rooted in Community. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from
https://www.rootedincommunity.net/photography/
Roth, C. E. (1978). Off the merry-go-round and on to the escalator. In W. B. Stapp (Ed.),
From Ought to Action in Environmental Education. A Report of the National
Leadership Conference on Envirnmental Education (Washington, D.C., March 2830, 1978). Washington, DC.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003a). What exactly is a youth development program?
Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111.
147
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003b). What is a youth development program?
Identification of defining principles. In F. Jacobs, D. Wertlieb, & R. M. Lerner
(Eds.), Handbook of applied developmental science: Promoting positive child,
adolescent, and family development through research, policies, and programs: Vol.
2. Enhancing the life chances of youth and families: Contributions of programs,
policies and service sys. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). Evaluating youth development programs: Progress
and promise. Applied Developmental Science, 20(3), 188–202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1113879
Roth, J. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy
adolescents: Synthesis of youth development programmes evaluations. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8(4), 423-459. Doi: 10.1207/s15327785jra0804_2
Ruiz-Gallardo, J.-R., Verde, A., & Valdés, A. (2013). Garden-based learning: An
experience with “at risk” secondary education students. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 44(4), 252–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.786669
Schusler, T. M., & Krasny, M. E. (2010). Environmental action as context for youth
development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4), 208–223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960903479803
Schusler, T. M., Krasny, M. E., Peters, S. J., & Decker, D. J. (2009). Developing citizens
and communities through youth environmental action. Environmental Education
Research, 15(1), 111–127.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620802710581
Semega, J. L., Fontenot, K. R., & Kollar, M. A. (2017). Income and poverty in the United
States: 2016. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60259.pdf
Skelly, S. M., & Bradley, J. C. (2007). The growing phenomenon of school gardens:
Measuring their variation and their affect on students’ sense of responsibility and
attitudes toward science and the environment. Applied Environmental Education &
Communication, 6(1), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150701319438
Smeds, P., Jeronen, E., & Kurppa, S. (2015). Farm education and the value of learning in
an authentic learning environment. International Journal of Environmental &
Science Education, 10(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.251a
Sobel, D. (2004). Place based education: Connecting classrooms and communities.
Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
148
Sonti, N. F., Campbell, L. K., Johnson, M. L., & Daftary-Steel, S. (2016). Long-term
outcomes of an urban farming internship program. Journal of Experiential
Education, 39(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916655444
Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., … Havlick,
S. (1969). The concept of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 1(1), 30–31.
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Hill, D. (2014). Environmental education program
evaluation in the new millennium: What do we measure and what have we learned?
Environmental Education Research, 20(5), 581–611.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.838749
Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in
purpose and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701295726
Stinson, E. (2010). Eating the world: Food literacy and its place in secondary school
classrooms. (Master's thesis). University of Victoria. Retrieved from
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/2841/Project final for DSpace.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Stone, B. K., Scibilia, B., Pammer, C., Steele, C., & Keller, D. (2013). Regression
analysis: How do I interpret R-squared and assess the goodness-of-fit? Retrieved
May 10, 2018, from http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics2/regression-analysis-how-do-i-interpret-r-squared-and-assess-the-goodness-of-fit
Sumner, J. (2013). Food literacy and adult education: Learning to read the world by
eating. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 25(2), 79–91. Retrieved
from
http://libproxy.temple.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue%7B&%7Ddb=eue%7B&%7DAN=94596007%7B&%7Dsite=ehostlive%7B&%7Dscope=site
Sumner, J. (2015). Learning to eat with attitude: Critical food pedagogies. In R. Flowers
& E. Swan (Eds.), Critical Food Studies: Food Pedagogies (pp. 201–214). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sumner, J., & Wever, C. (2016). Pedagogical encounters: Critical food pedagogy and
transformative learning in the school and community. In C. Z. Levkoe, C. R.
Anderson, & J. Brady (Eds.), Conversations in Food Studies (p. 358). University of
Manitoba Press.
Sutton, S. E. (2007). A social justice perspective on youth and community development:
Theorizing the processes and outcomes of participation. Children, Youth and
Environments, 17(2), 616–645. Retrieved from
149
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye
Sutton, S. E., Kemp, S. P., Gutiérrez, L., & Saegert, S. (2006). Urban youth programs in
America: A study of youth, community, and social justice conducted for the Ford
Foundation. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/sesut/Sutton
Website PDFs/UrbanYouthPrograms.pdf
Szumilas, M. (2010). Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(3), 227–9. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20842279
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International
Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/IJME.4DFB.8DFD
The Food Project. (n.d.). What we do. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from
http://thefoodproject.org/what-we-do
Thurston Regional Planning Council. (2016). 6-03A: Poverty. Retrieved May 8, 2018,
from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1coPTTYn5VNRCzDyoWmZ2on5cFY9fByDmYURDYQjzjY/edit?usp=sharing
Truman, E., Lane, D., & Elliott, C. (2017). Defining food literacy: A scoping review.
Appetite, 116, 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.007
UCLA Statistical Consulting Group. (2011). FAQ: What are pseudo r-squareds?
Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/other/multpkg/faq/general/faq-what-are-pseudo-r-squareds/
Umholtz, J. (2013). Re-engaging youth through environmental-based education for
sustainable development. Journal of Sustainability Education, 5. Retrieved from
http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JustinUmholtz-finalproof-May2013.pdf
UNESCO. (1978). Tbilisi Declaration: Intergovernmental conference on environmental
education. Tibilisi, USSR: UNESCO & UNEP. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf
United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization, S. (1975). The Belgrade Charter:
A framework for environmental education. Belgrade: UNESCO & UNEP. Retrieved
from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000177/017772eb.pdf
US Census Bureau. (2016a). ACS demographic and housing estimates: 2012-2016
American Community Survey 5-year estimates Thurston County, Washington.
Retrieved June 1, 2018, from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=C
F
150
US Census Bureau. (2016b). Selected economic characteristics: 2012-2016 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates Thurston County, Washington. Retrieved June
1, 2018, from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=C
F
US Census Bureau. (2016c). ACS demographic and housing estimates: 2012-2016
american community survey 5-year estimates Olympia city, Washington. Retrieved
May 6, 2018, from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=C
F
US Census Bureau. (2017). Population estimates. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/thurstoncountywashington/PST045217
Valley, W., Wittman, H., Jordan, N., Ahmed, S., & Galt, R. (2017). An emerging
signature pedagogy for sustainable food systems education. Renewable Agriculture
and Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000199
Weissman, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial endeavors: (Re)producing neoliberalization
through urban agriculture youth programming in Brooklyn, New York.
Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 351–364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.993931
Wever, C. (2015). Cultivating critical learning: Critical food pedagogy in FoodShare’s
School Grown program. (Master's thesis). York University, Ontario, Canada.
Retrieved from http://fes.yorku.ca/files/outstandingpapers/Cassie_Wever_FINAL_MRP.pdf
Wheeler, G., Thumlert, C., Glaser, L., Schoellhamer, M., & Bartosh, O. (2007).
Environmental education report empirical evidence, exemplary models, and
recommendations on the impact of environmental education on K-12 students.
Olympia, WA. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499818.pdf
Wheeler, K. (1975). The genesis of environmental education. In G. C. Martin & K.
Wheeler (Eds.), Insights into environmental education (pp. 2–19). Great Britain:
Willmer Brothers Limited, Birkenhead.
Whitlock, M. C., & Schluter, D. (2015). Why statistical significance is not the same as
biological importance. In Analysis of biological data (2nd Ed., pp. 176–177). New
York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company, Macmillan Learning.
Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of garden-based learning on academic
outcomes in schools: Synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Review of
Educational Research, 83(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313475824
151
Williams, J. L., & Deutsch, N. L. (2015). Beyond between-group differences:
Considering race, ethnicity, and culture in research on positive youth development
programs. Applied Developmental Science, 8691(June), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1113880
152
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Adapted from Sonti, N. F., Campbell, L. K., Johnson, M. L., & Daftary-Steel, S. (2016).
Long-term outcomes of an urban farming internship program. Journal of Experiential
Education, 39(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916655444 and
Falxa-Raymond, N., & Campbell, L. K. (2013). East New York Farms! Youth internship
alumni evaluation report. Brooklyn, New York. Retrieved from
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/nyc/local-resources/downloads/2013_ENYF_AlumniReport.pdf
“The Sustained Impacts of an Agriculture-Based Youth Development Program on
Alumni’s Connection to the Environment, Food, Community and Self”
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. I estimate that it will take you
about 20 minutes to complete.
As a thank you for your time, you will be able to choose a $20 e-gift card to Visa,
Amazon.com or Home Depot after you’ve completed the survey. E-gift cards will be
delivered by email within three weeks of submitting your survey responses. If you would
prefer to have your gift card delivered by mail, please provide a mailing address at the
end of the survey. Mailed gift cards may take longer to deliver.
Demographics
1) How old are you? _________________
2) What gender do you identify with? (Check one)
o Male
o Female
o Transgender
o Gender non-conforming
o Other: __________
o Prefer not to say
3) What categories describe you? (Check all that apply)
o American Indian or Alaska Native
o Asian
o Black or African American
o Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin
o Middle Eastern or North African
o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
o White
o Other: _____________________
o Prefer not to say
153
4) Do you identify as coming from a low-income background? (Check one)
o Yes
o No
o Prefer not to say
5) What are you doing now? (Check all that apply)
o In 4-year college program full time
o In 4-year college program part time
o In 2-year college program full time
o In 2-year college program part time
o In a graduate degree program full time
o In a graduate degree program part time
o In a job training or career program
o Working full time
o Working part time
o Seeking work or unemployed
6) What education or training have you already completed? (Check all that apply)
o Completed a 4-year college program
o Completed a 2-year college program
o Completed a graduate degree
o Completed a job training or career program
o Completed high school or GED
o None completed yet
7) If you are in school, what is your major? Or if you haven’t picked a major yet,
what do you think you’d like to study?
_______________________________
8) If you completed a college degree or career training program, what did you
study?
_______________________________
9) If you are working, what is your job?
__________________________________________________
10) Which GRuB program did you participate in? (Check one)
o GRuB School
o Cultivating Youth Employment Program
154
11) How old were you when you started your involvement in the GRuB program?
_____________________
12) What year did you start you start your involvement in the GRuB program?
_______________________
13) How long were you a crew member for? (Check all that apply)
o One summer
o One academic semester
o Two academic semesters
14) Did you return as a Peer Crew Leader? (Check one)
o Yes
o No
15) If you answered yes to #14, what year did you return as a Peer Crew Leader?
____________________
16) Did you return as a Farm Assistant? (Check one)
o Yes
o No
17) If you answered yes to #16, what year did you return as a Farm Assistant?
___________________
Recreation
18) In the past year, have you: (Check all that apply)
o Gone camping, hiking, or canoeing?
o Looked for a new job or explored career opportunities?
o Participated in any sports such as running, biking, swimming, football, soccer,
basketball or bowling?
o Read novels, short stories, poems or plays, other than those required for school?
o Written novels, short stories, poems or plays, other than those required for
school?
o Attended a live music event?
o Played music?
o Tried to meet new people for social purposes?
o Volunteered at an arts or cultural organization?
155
o None of the above
19) We are interested in learning if the things you learned at GRuB stuck with you
and affect your life today. Please mark one answer in each row.
Food and Environment
I grow food or garden.a
Never
Rarely
I have a good understanding of where my food comes from.
Never
Rarely
I cook.
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
I care about nature and the environment.
Never
Rarely
I find ways to reduce waste (compost, recycle, reuse).
Never
Rarely
I take leadership roles in my community.
Never
Rarely
I participate in community activities (volunteering, clubs,
community gardens, church groups, etc.).
I feel close to my friends and peers.
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
I feel lonely or disconnected from the people around me.
Never
Rarely
I feel close to the adults in my life.
Never
Rarely
I feel connected to a larger community (school, church,
neighborhood, etc.).
I feel comfortable interacting with people of different races,
genders, and abilities.
I surround myself with people who are a positive influence.
Never
Rarely
Never
I feel capable of making change in my community and
beyond.
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
I am a good leader.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I feel good about myself.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I have a lot to be proud of.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I have low self-esteem.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I am motivated at work and/or school.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I enjoy learning new information.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I am comfortable applying math and science concepts when I
need them.
I enjoy learning new skills.
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I plan for my future.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
I enjoy trying new things.
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
Sometimes
Often
I eat fruits and vegetables.
I eat fast food.
a
Community
Self
156
I feel like I have a sense of purpose in life.
Never
Rarely
I feel confidence in my beliefs even when they are different
from how other people think.
Never
Rarely
I communicate well with others.
Never
Rarely
Peer pressure influences my decisions.
Never
Rarely
I consider multiple viewpoints or perspectives before making
a decision.
I feel comfortable talking with a friend or an adult about
difficult decisions.
When I get upset, I feel comfortable talking it out with others.
Never
Rarely
Never
I speak up or take action when I see a problem.
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Communication and Decision Making
a
= item removed through factor analysis, not considered in composite score
Food and Environmental Policy Beliefs
20) How much do you agree with the following statements? Please mark one answer
in each row.
The dominant industrial food system is defined here as the globalized, large-scale
production, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food.
The dominant industrial food system has serious negative
environmental consequences.
Organic agriculture is always more sustainable, even on an
industrial scale.a
I am concerned about the rights of farmworkers.
Federal food policies prioritize social justice.a
Equal access to healthy food is a current problem in our
society.
Agriculture, social justice and environmental health are all
connected.
Consumer choice is the best way to influence food policy.a
Being informed about food policy is important.
The dominant industrial food system successfully feeds the
world’s population.a
All people should have an equal opportunity to participate
in decision-making processes about their food systems.
All people have a right to healthy food.
Activism is important for environmental policy change.
There is too much corporate influence over environmental
policy.
Everyone is equally affected by environmental problems.a
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
157
Agricultural practices are irrelevant to climate change.a
All people should have access to culturally appropriate
food.
Activism is important for food policy change.
Collective action creates the most effective change.
a
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
= item removed through factor analysis, not considered in composite score
Civic Activity
21) In the past year, have you: (Check all that apply)
o Looked for information about political or social policy issues, current affairs or
political campaigns?
o Discussed your views about political or social policy issues, current affairs, or
political campaigns?
o Contacted an elected government representative?
o Contacted the national or local media?
o Signed a petition?
o Attended a public, town, community board or school meeting?
o Given a speech?
o Voted in a local election?
o Voted in a national election?
o Collected money or signatures for a cause?
o Worn a button, or distributed or put up a flyer/sticker/poster of a political
campaign?
o Participated in a protest?
o None of the above
Civic Activity in Relation to Food and Agriculture
22) The following questions ask about your participation in action or advocacy
about issues related to food policy, food systems or food justice. These terms
encompass issues of social justice, food system sustainability, government funding
and regulations, etc. Please mark one answer in each row indicating how often you
do the following.
Look for information about food policy, food systems or food
justice?
Share information about issues related to food policy, food
systems or food justice?
Discuss your views on food policy, food systems or food
justice?
Contact an elected government representative about issues
related to food policy, food systems or food justice?
Contact the local or national media about issues related to
food policy, food systems or food justice?
158
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Sign a petition on issues related to food policy, food systems
or food justice?
Attend a public, town, community board or school meeting
about issues related to food policy, food systems or food
justice?
Give a speech about food policy, food systems or food justice?
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Attend a workshop on food policy, food systems or food
justice?
Teach a workshop on food policy, food systems or food
justice?
Participate in community organizing activities related to food
policy, food systems or food justice?
Collect money or signatures for a cause related to food policy,
food systems or food justice?
Wear a button, or distribute or put up a flyer/sticker/poster for
a cause related to food policy, food systems or food justice?
Participate in a protest, demonstration or rally for a cause
related to food policy, food systems or food justice?
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
23) Civic Activity in Relation to the Environment
The following questions ask about your participation in action or advocacy about
issues related to environmental policy, environmental sustainability or
environmental justice. These terms encompass issues of social justice, ecological
sustainability, government funding and regulations, etc. Please mark one answer in
each row indicating how often you do the following.
Look for information about environmental policy,
environmental sustainability or environmental justice?
Share information about issues related to environmental
policy, environmental sustainability or environmental justice?
Discuss your views on environmental policy, environmental
sustainability or environmental justice?
Contact an elected government representative about issues
environmental policy, environmental sustainability or
environmental justice?
Contact the local or national media about issues related to
environmental policy, environmental sustainability or
environmental justice?
Sign a petition on issues related to environmental policy,
environmental sustainability or environmental justice?
Attend a public, town, community board or school meeting
about issues related to environmental policy, environmental
sustainability or environmental justice?
Give a speech about environmental policy, environmental
sustainability or environmental justice?
Attend a workshop on environmental policy, environmental
sustainability or environmental justice?
Teach a workshop on environmental policy, environmental
sustainability or environmental justice?
Participate in community organizing activities related to
environmental policy, environmental sustainability or
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
159
environmental justice?
Collect money or signatures for a cause related to
environmental policy, environmental sustainability or
environmental justice?
Wear a button, or distribute or put up a flyer/sticker/poster for
a cause related to environmental policy, environmental
sustainability or environmental justice?
Participate in a protest, demonstration or rally for a cause
related to environmental policy, environmental sustainability
or environmental justice?
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
Never
Rarely
Every once
in a while
Sometimes
Often
24) What issues related to food, agriculture and the environment do you care about
most? (Check the top three)
o Equal access to healthy food
o Reducing corporate influence over food policy
o Reducing corporate influence over environmental policy
o Increasing opportunities for public participation in food systems issues
o Farmworkers’ rights
o Government support for small and mid-size farmers
o Government support for sustainable farming practices
o Increasing educational opportunities about the environment and food system
o Creating more localized food systems
o Reducing agriculture’s impacts on climate change
o Other ___________________
25) Is there anything else you would like to add? (Comments, questions,
suggestions?)
26) Would you be willing to participate in a 30-60 minute interview for this study? If
you decide to complete an interview, you will be given a $30 e-gift card to Visa,
Amazon.com or Home Depot as a thank you for your time. A limited number of
interviews will be taken.
o Yes
o No
27) If you answered yes to #26, please provide your name and an email address or
phone number so we may contact you to schedule an interview. If the maximum
number of interviews has been taken, we will still contact you to let you know.
28) Please indicate which $20 gift card you would like to receive for completing the
survey.
o Visa
o Amazon.com
o Home Depot
160
29) Would you like an e-gift card or a mailed gift card?
o E-gift card
o Mailed gift card
30) Please provide your name and an e-mail address (if you haven’t already above)
or mailing address to receive your gift card.
Please click SUBMIT to turn in your survey responses and we can send you your $20 gift
card. Thank you for your participation!
BACK
SUBMIT
161
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Please note that this is a semi-structured interview. This means that I may ask
clarification questions or ask you to elaborate on your responses. Potential clarification
questions have been added, but might not be asked. This interview is completely
voluntary, and you are free to skip any question or stop at any time.
1) Why did you join CYEP or GRuB School?
2) How long were you involved in the program?
3) Tell me about your experience at GRuB.
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
What was your favorite part?
What was difficult?
What was it like to work on the farm?
What was it like to work in the community?
What was it like to work with your crew as a team?
4) What is a standout moment or experience that you remember about your time at
GRuB?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
What did you learn from that moment?
Do you feel that that moment changed you? If so, how?
5) What did you know about food and agriculture before your time in the GRuB
program?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
What skills did you learn?
What new knowledge did you gain?
162
How do you think these skills and knowledge have affected you?
6) How did your time in the CYEP or GRuB School Program impact your
relationship to food?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions
Did it change the way you eat? If so, what changed and why?
Did it change your views about how food is grown? If so, what changed and why?
Did it impact the way you view the food system? If so, what changed and why?
Did it change your views on food policy? If so, what changed and why?
Did it change your views on food justice issues? If so, what changed and why?
What food system or food policy issues interest you the most and why?
7) How did your time in the program impact your views on the environment?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
Did it change the way you think about the environment? If so, what changed and why?
Did it change the way you relate to the environment? If so, what changed and why?
Did it change your views on environmental policy? If so, what changed and why?
Did it change your views about sustainability? If so, what changed and why?
What environmental issues interest you the most and why?
8) What differences do you see in yourself as a result of the program?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
Do you attribute personal growth to your time in the program? If so, what changed and
why?
Do you notice any differences between you and other people your age as a result of your
experience at GRuB? If so, what differences?
163
9) Did your time in the program impact your connection to community?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
Did your time in the program change the way you relate to others? If so, what changed
and why?
How do you engage or connect with your community today?
10) How does your experience at GRuB influence your life today?
Potential follow-up or clarification questions:
Do you continue to apply what you learned at GRuB? If so, what and how?
Did your experience at GRuB influence your life choices after you left the program?
11) Is there anything else you would like to add?
164
Salin_Thesis_2018.pdf