-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
Youth Education Programs at College and University Student Farms
in the United States: An Investigation of Initial Program Implementation
and Long-Term Organizational and Financial Sustainability
by
Justin Rogers
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
December 2011
Copyright©2012 by Justin M. Rogers. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Justin Rogers
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Jean MacGregor
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
Abstract
Youth Education Programs at College and University Student Farms in the United
States: An Investigation of Initial Program Implementation and Long-Term
Organizational and Financial Sustainability
Justin Rogers
The goals of my research were to (a) gain a better understanding of what is required to implement
and sustain a student farm youth program over time; (b) identify the various funding and
organizational opportunities, issues and challenges for these programs; and (c) identify ways for
other farms to improve their operations, and possibly stimulate more youth programs on student
farms to be established throughout the United States. My research included a review of the
literature, a quantitative on-line survey of forty-six (46) identified student farms in the United
States, and a qualitative phone interview session with five student farm youth program
stakeholders. Via my investigations and research, I was able to identify (a) best practices of farmbased education, environmental education, and Nature Center program management from the
literature; (b) physical and programming characteristics of over sixty (60) percent of existing
student farms in the U.S.; and (c) youth program details such as program implementation, staffing
and funding from the qualitative data. With this information, I identified and elaborated on best
and promising practices for youth programs in the areas of strategic planning, staffing, funding,
programming, and partnerships. The five major best practices identified included (1) developing
successful strategic planning around the concepts of simplicity, flexibility and participatory
processes; (2) providing program stability by financing a highly trained and permanent position,
such as a director or manager who can handle the diverse responsibilities; (3) identifying potential
funding sources with a focus on establishing a diversified balance between short-term financial
efficiency and long-term resilience with a desired goal of self-sufficiency; (4) establishing
programming that is diverse, age-appropriate, efficient in delivery and scope, and responsive to
the specific needs of the youth in the community; and (5) identifying partnerships, stakeholders
and allies within the community and supporting institution to establish program stability and
sustainability. I also identified and discussed youth program barriers and obstacles and ways of
addressing them in the future. Major program barriers included (1) facility, land, and staffing
shortages; (2) lack of consistent and reliable staffing; (3) unsustainable funding sources; (4)
tensions between institutional and program pedagogy; and (5) a chronic inability to keep up with
the community’s increasing demand for the youth program’s services. Insights and conclusions
from the research also show that (1) local community demand is strong and growing, (2) the
community development value of farm-based youth education often fuels and justifies program,
(3) college and university students want more from traditional agricultural programs, (4) diverse
student farm outreach opportunities are already in motion, (5) inspired and well supported
institutional students are catalysts to program start-up, (6) most student farm youth programs have
little to no “official” budget, (7) direct income from services/products and institutional funds
support youth programs, not grants, and (8) student farm stakeholders are very interested in
supporting farm education research and furthering youth program implementation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: Literature Review
1.1 Relevant Definitions
1.2 History of Environmental Education, Garden-Based Education, Farm-Based
Education, and the National Farm to School Program in the United States
1.2.1 Environmental Education (EE)
1.2.2 Garden-Based Education (GBE)
1.2.3 Farm-Based Education (FBE)
1.2.4 National Farm to School Program in the United States
1.3 Student Farms in the United States
1.4 Effectiveness of Environmental Education, Garden-Based Education and
Farm-Based Education Programs
1.4.1 Environmental Education (EE)
1.4.2 Garden-Based Education (GBE)
1.4.3 Farm-Based Education (FBE)
1.5 Characteristics of Successful Farm-Based Education Programs
1.6 Best Practices with Respect to Environmental Education and Nature Center
Program Management
1.6.1 Environmental Education Programs
1.6.2 Nature Centers
1.7 Summary of Best Practices Regarding Successful Farm-Based Education,
Environmental Education and Nature Center Program Management
iv
CHAPTER 2: Research Methodology
1.1 General Research Approach
1.2 Quantitative On-line Surveys of Existing Student Farms
1.3 Qualitative In-depth Phone Interviews with Major Stakeholders of Student
Farms with Youth Programs
CHAPTER 3: Research Findings
1.1 Quantitative Research (On-line Survey)
1.2 Qualitative Research (Phone Interviews)
1.2.1 Student Farm Descriptions
1.2.2 Phone Interview Summaries
CHAPTER 4: Discussion & Recommendations
1.1 Quantitative Research (On-line Survey)
1.2 Qualitative Research (Phone Interviews)
1.3 Promising Practices
1.3.1 Strategic Planning
1.3.2 Staffing
1.3.3 Funding
1.3.4 Programming
1.3.5 Partnerships
1.4 Barriers and Obstacles and Ways of Addressing Them
1.4.1 Strategic Planning
1.4.2 Staffing
1.4.3 Funding
1.4.4 Programming
1.4.5 Partnerships
v
1.5 Synthesis and Additional Insights
1.5.1 Community Demand and Community Building
1.5.2 The Role of Students
1.5.3 The Resiliency of Limited Funding
1.5.4 The Momentum of Farm-based Education Research
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions
APPENDIX 1: Quantitative On-line Survey Cover Letter
APPENDIX 2: Quantitative On-line Survey Questions
APPENDIX 3: Qualitative Phone Interview Cover Letter
APPENDIX 4: Qualitative Phone Interview Questions
REFERENCES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Survey Responses of U.S. Student Farms by Region
Figure 2: Survey Responses of Student Population
Figure 3: Survey Responses of U.S. Student Farm Establishment
Figure 4: Survey Responses of Types of Outreach Activities
Figure 5: Survey Responses of Youth Program Existence
Figure 6: Survey Responses of Youth Program Establishment
Figure 7: Survey Responses of Youth Program Current Sources of Funding
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Best Practices Regarding Farm-based Education, Environmental
Education and Nature Center Program Management
Table 2: Quantitative Survey Criteria
Table 3: Student Farms and Youth Program Comparisons from Qualitative Phone
Interviews
Table 4: Youth Program Stakeholder Response Comparisons from Qualitative Phone
Interviews
viii
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ADD
Attention Deficit Disorder
ADHD
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
AEE
Association of Experimental Education
ANCA
Association of Nature Center Administrators
CFSC
Community Food Security Coalition
EE
Environmental Education
FBE
Farm-Based Education
FBEA
Farm-Based Education Association
FBL
Farm-Based Learning
GBE
Garden-Based Education
GBL
Garden-Based Learning
IFAFS
Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems
NAI
National Association for Interpretation
OSPI
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
PEAS
Program in Ecological Agriculture and Society
SAEA
Sustainable Agriculture Education Association
SARE
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
UEPI
Urban & Environmental Policy Institute
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I must first and foremost acknowledge my thesis reader Jean MacGregor. Her
patience, persistence, and expertise have been monumental to my success with this
research. Thanks to her guidance and wisdom my knowledge of environmental education
in its many forms has expanded immensely over the last few years due.
I would also like to thank everyone that participated in my quantitative on-line
survey and qualitative phone interviews. Your willingness to support my research and
share your experiences was crucial to this research and immensely valuable. I was
continually inspired and amazed at the creativity, passion and professionalism
demonstrated by the students, staff and faculty involved on student farms across the
United States. Your leadership and experience are the foundation for emerging student
farms and youth programs.
My return to the classroom would not have been possible without the love and
support from my family. I thank you endlessly for the belief in me and my passions. My
graduate degree is as much yours as it is mine.
Finally, I would like to thank the amazing faculty and staff of the MES
department for their endless support as well. No matter how much my life and academic
circumstances changed over the years, I always felt supported and encouraged toward
finishing my degree. I have grown as a person and as a student during my time in the
program and I will always be grateful for those experiences.
x
INTRODUCTION
According to the research literature, K-12 school programs that utilize gardenbased education (GBE) have the potential not only to contribute to students’ academic
skills, but also to address a child’s development in a social, moral, and practical or lifeskill sense. GBE can be defined simply as an instructional strategy that utilizes a garden
as a teaching tool and whose pedagogy is based on experiential education applied in the
living laboratory of the garden. GBE is used in the context several different educational
fields such as environmental education, ecological literacy, agricultural literacy, and
agricultural education. It has the potential to significantly contribute to the traditional K12 classroom curriculum on many levels. However, for GBE programs to be truly
effective, they must be tied to a comprehensive and cohesive educational program or
garden curriculum that is implemented across grade levels and ideally is tied to local,
state, or national education standards.
Farm-based education (FBE), also widely referred to as farm-based learning
(FBL), is similar to garden-based education (GBE) yet has many distinct and unique
characteristics that have the potential to significantly enhance and contribute to existing
and associated learning curricula. FBE can simply be defined as an instructional strategy
that utilizes a farm, a tract of land cultivated for the purposes of agricultural production,
as a teaching tool. FBE is also a form of experiential, interdisciplinary education that
connects people to the environment, their community, and the role of agriculture in our
lives. If teachers and educators agree that FBE experiences can indeed significantly
enhance existing and future GBE curriculum, then more proactive steps could be taken to
expand farm-based learning opportunities.
1
FBE utilizes some of the same educational subjects as GBE, such as botany,
ecology, and biology, integrating concepts of science, math, art, history, and health.
However, FBE experiences offer teachers and students the potential for a significantly
more enriched learning experience within the associated garden-based curriculum,
because the farms offer many more learning opportunities. Physical advantages of farms,
such as additional space for livestock, compost, greenhouses, large vegetable production
and pollinator cultivation, offer the potential for a more in-depth learning experience
about food systems and food-community connections. Farm education experiences can
complement traditional classroom work with a hands-on learning environment. Seeing
firsthand how food is grown can give youth a direct link between agriculture and their
everyday lives while potentially increasing the chances that they also get excited about
healthy, nutritious food.
Farms also offer the potential for a greater understanding of living systems and
the interconnected and interdependent nature of all living things. When children meet
farmers and are immersed in the real work and cycles of life on a farm, farms can become
classrooms where students can see and touch systems. Farms can thrive when they mimic
the ways of nature and in doing so, foster respect for land and nature, an essential element
to potentially understanding and meeting today’s environmental challenges.
While GBE experiences have their own set of unique advantages as well as the
potential for curriculum connections to living systems, school gardens are often beholden
to the limitations of space, economic viability, and ecological diversity. However, the
integration of FBE experiences into pre-existing GBE curriculums could provide the best
of both worlds and help to reinforce crucial overlapping themes. One such opportunity
2
and location for FBE experiences often occurs on student farms on the campuses of
colleges and universities in the United States.
Student farms can be defined as farms that physically engage students in ways
that teach them about crop production as well as direct marketing. Most work from farm
planning to crop harvesting is done by college and university students, usually in addition
to student farm managers, volunteers and staff. The farm demonstrates basic plant and
animal husbandry, professional cultivation methods, integrated pest management, and
research.
Student farms on United States colleges and universities can enhance college and
university curricula by integrating research, extension and teaching missions, reinforcing
classroom instruction, and improving job training. Student farms are sites of agricultural
production and marketing at which students have, through coursework and/or internships,
opportunities to supplement classroom instruction with "real world" experience. Student
farms and their influence on curricula began decades ago; more recently, the number of
student farms has been increasing every year.
In addition, many of these student farms have also been implementing an
additional youth education element to the overall farm structure, outreach and
curriculum, which provides farm-based learning opportunities for children and
adolescents from the surrounding community. These youth education opportunities can
provide valuable learning assets not only for the community youth involved, but also for
the student farm curriculum and staff. Youth programs on student farms, which can be
defined as any outreach activities specifically targeted for age ranges from preschoolers
3
through adolescents, have the potential to be mutually beneficial for both child learning
development and student farm enhancement.
However, according to the literature, there is a lack of knowledge and
understanding regarding the start-up funding and operating costs of these youth programs
at student farms, which potentially hinders the development of new programs on student
farms and the ongoing success of existing student farm youth programs. From the
existing research, the following questions are still being explored:
(1) How have these youth programs been established and funded?
(2) How do they continue to operate via various funding sources?
(3) What are the strategies and challenges of securing stable and long-term financial
support?
While there have been attempts in the past to research basic quantitative
characteristics of existing student farms, there is no inventory of those student farms that
also have youth education opportunities. Furthermore, in the small but emerging
literature about student farms, there is very little organizational analysis regarding how
these youth programs are developed, implemented, established, funded, and sustained
over time. Most research relating to the management of youth programs and student
farms can be found in the related areas of nature center and non-profit educational
program organization, implementation and structure.
My research attempted to gain a better understanding of how much a student farm
youth program really costs to implement and sustain over time; it also identified the
various funding and organizational opportunities, issues, and challenges for these
4
programs. Studying the details of funding sources and the factors contributing to success
of each individual student farm youth program may allow other student farms to improve
their operations and outreach capabilities, and possibly stimulate more youth programs to
be established. My research investigated and explored this problem and attempted to
reveal patterns of best practice, such as those found in similar youth programs at nature
centers and other non-profit programs that are similar to student farms in structure and
implementation.
5
CHAPTER ONE: Literature Review
1.1 Relevant Definitions
My research focuses on farm-based education (FBE) on student farms in the
United States. More specifically, my research examines the financial aspects and
characteristics of student farms with youth programs. There are several interdisciplinary
fields and various definitions that relate to farm-based education. These definitions will
be helpful in framing my research.
“Farm-based education” (FBE) and “garden-based education” (GBE) are very
similar in pedagogy, types of “non-formal education” and application; they fall under
several sub-classifications of “environmental education” such as “experiential
education”, “place based education”, and “outdoor education” (Wheeler, 2007;
MacGregor, 2011). Within these environmental education (EE) fields exists “agricultural
education,” specifically on “student farms”. It is on these student farms where various
forms of community “outreach” are conducted, such as “youth programs.” My research
focuses on the financial and organizational structure of these youth programs as they
exist on a student farm within an institution of higher education (i.e. college or
university). All of these fields of EE are linked in their historical and philosophical roots,
which in turn have influenced the development and cultural impacts of each other. In this
chapter, I will provide further definitions of these various EE strands and related
educational fields as well as provide the interdisciplinary linkages that connect them
together.
6
One of the most widely accepted definitions of “environmental education” (EE)
was given in the Tbilisi Declaration, which was developed at an international conference
of environmental educators sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1977 (MacGregor, 2003). Within this Declaration,
EE was defined as “a learning process that increases people’s knowledge and awareness
about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and
expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments
to make informed decisions and take responsible action” (UNESCO, 1978). According to
the Declaration, environmental education is seen as a life-long process that is
interdisciplinary and holistic in nature and application. It concerns the interrelationship
between human and natural systems and encourages the development of an
environmental ethic, awareness, understanding of environmental problems, and
development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. On a broader scale, EE
focuses on working collectively and individually to overcome environmental challenges
on all levels and scales of community.
Under the umbrella of EE are several related strands that are directly relevant to
my research. They are experiential education, place-based education, and outdoor
education. “Experiential education” is both a philosophy and a methodology in which
educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in
order to increase knowledge, develop skills, and clarify values (MacGregor, 2011).
Experiential education takes many forms, such as service-learning, adventure education,
wilderness education, and outdoor education among others. The goal is to provide
participating individuals and students with an experience beyond the traditional
7
classroom that aims to foster students’ teamwork skills, improved self-esteem, personal
discipline, and a strong sense of purpose and service to others and their community.
“Place-based education” immerses individuals and students in their local landscape, with
emphases that can include history and heritage, culture, ecology, and local issues. These
experiences can often lead to a strong foundation for the study of language arts,
mathematics, social studies, science, and other subjects (Wheeler, 2007).
Place-based education programs often encourage teachers and students to use the
schoolyard, community gardens, public lands, businesses and other local relevant places,
such as student farms, as essential resources. These programs turn communities into
classrooms and community members into potential mentors and teachers (Sobel, 2004).
Since place-based educational philosophies are project-focused and inherently tailored by
local people to local realities, these programs can be made equally relevant on many
varying scales (small towns and big cities) and equally effective for various age groups of
learners from kindergarteners to high school students to college-level learners (Wheeler,
2007; Sobel, 2004).
“Outdoor education” is a vital component of EE. Outdoor education is a kind of
experiential education that occurs outside the classroom, usually in the natural
environment, and that encourages lifelong enjoyment of and an appreciation for the
outdoors, wildlife, and nature (Wheeler, 2007; MacGregor, 2011). The purpose of
outdoor education is to use resources outside of school classrooms for educational
purposes in order to make teaching and learning more effective by engaging learners
beyond the walls and field of school buildings. Outdoor education programs, or
sometimes also referred to as “outdoor environmental education” programs, typically
8
bring school classes and groups to rural, outdoor locations and settings for a day or longer
to engage in hands-on, environmental education in nature (Lindberg, 2009). One common
form of outdoor program is the outdoor learning center or nature center, which provides
many of these outdoor environmental education programs at one facility (Wheeler, 2007).
A nature center conserves and protects the native ecosystems and educates a local
community through interpretive programs, naturalist-led activities, and events that
promote the conservation ethic (ANCA, 1998). A nature center brings environments and
people together under the guidance of trained professionals to experience and develop
relationships with nature. A nature center focuses on conservation and preservation;
offers a gateway for direct experience in nature; and stresses environment-responsible
behavior (Evans & Evans, 2004). Nature centers are usually not residential and their
audience generally includes school groups on field trips, families, adult groups, and
various clubs. Nature centers are very similar to educational farms in organizational and
management practices. Since nature center practice has a robust literature, they will be
referred to often in my discussion of student farms.
All three of these “non-formal” strands of EE, experiential education, place based
education, and outdoor education, provide the framework for local and community-based
hands-on learning outside the classroom, involving various age groups of students and
individuals. Directly related to this framework are three emerging fields of environmental
education that focus on the growing of food which are agricultural education, gardenbased education and farm-based education.
“Agricultural education” refers to a type of vocational education in agriculture
which includes the development of the specific skills and knowledge necessary to
9
become effectively employed in some aspect of the system of commerce that provides a
society’s food and fiber (Desmond et al., 2002). On an institutional level, agricultural
education programs seek to develop in students the necessary skills, knowledge, and
techniques to become the next generation of farmers or at the very least, acquire some
form of “agricultural literacy.” Agricultural literacy can be defined as interdisciplinary
education about various aspects of agriculture such as a person’s understanding of the
food and fiber system, its history and current economic, food processing, domestic and
international marketing, and social and environmental significance (Desmond et al.,
2002).
“Garden-based education” (GBE) can be defined simply as an instructional
strategy that utilizes a garden as a teaching tool. Based in the fields of experiential
education and/or environmental education, garden-based education is applied in the
living laboratory of the garden. GBE employs several different learning pedagogies and
has the potential to significantly enrich and strengthen the traditional K-12 curriculum in
many levels. These pedagogies are generally most effective when tied into a
comprehensive and cohesive educational plan or program or garden curriculum
implemented across grade levels and when ideally tied into the local community. GBE is
similar to farm-based education in its use of concepts from the fields of botany, ecology,
biology, and agriculture.
The term “farm-based education” (FBE) is a relatively new term in the broader
field of EE and is defined by the Farm-Based Education Association (FBEA) as, “a form
of experiential, interdisciplinary education that connects people to the environment, their
community, and the role of agriculture in our lives…(and) promotes land stewardship, the
10
value of meaningful work, and supports the local food systems that sustain us” (FBEA,
2012). On a basic level, FBE can also be defined as an instructional strategy that utilizes
a working farm as a teaching tool. Even though FBE experiences are similar to GBE,
they have many distinct and unique characteristics that have the potential to significantly
enhance and contribute to existing and associated learning curriculums due to the several
physical characteristics of farms compared to gardens. These characteristics are ample
space for livestock, enhanced compost facilities, greenhouses, large and often diverse
vegetable production, and pollinator cultivation. These characteristics offer the potential
for more variety in learning experience in regards to food systems, food ecology, and
food-community connections.
One specific setting where FBE and similar agricultural education models are
being utilized is on “student farms.” “Student farms” are defined as farms at institutions
of higher learning (i.e. colleges and universities) that put students to work in ways that
teach them about crop production, direct marketing, basic plant and animal husbandry,
professional cultivation methods, integrated pest management, and all work from
planning to harvesting (Leis, 2011). A majority of the work on the student farm is done
by students while faculty and staff integrate other areas of interdisciplinary agricultural
education into the overall curriculum. Student farms are sites of agricultural production
and marketing at which students have, through coursework and/or internships,
opportunities to supplement classroom instruction with "real world" experience. In
addition, there are two essential and loosely defined criteria for student farming: here
“there must be some level of student initiative or possibilities for student leadership
11
associated with the farm; and, there must be a degree of attention and concern paid to
questions of environmental stewardship and sustainability” (Sayre & Clark, 2011).
In addition, many of these student farms have also been successful in
implementing additional “outreach programs” into the overall farm educational structure
and overall learning goals. An “outreach program” is defined broadly as efforts to
increase the availability and utilization of services, especially through direct involvement
and interaction with a specific target population or the wider community. Student farms
can often engage in many different forms of community outreach, such as on-site public
tours of the farm, larger public events such as fairs or festivals, or in some cases
involvement with the youth of the local community. This youth involvement may come
in many loosely structured forms such as impromptu farm tours for a local elementary
school.
Alternatively, these farms might create more intentional and consistent
community involvement, such as an established “youth program” on the student farm (i.e.
youth camps, routine farm visits, paid work opportunities, etc.).
It is important to clarify that student farms on college and university campuses
have diverse missions. Some are associated with training students for small and largescale agricultural professions; this often is the case at land grant universities. On smaller
campuses, some student farms prepare students both for more small-scale commercial
farming and for hobby farming that might be taken up without the expectation that the
farm be a primary source of income. Other student farms have even more modest
12
objectives: they function as small demonstration gardens with no formal agricultural
curriculum. Often these farms are run entirely by student and community volunteers.
A “youth program” can be broadly defined as any outreach activities specifically
targeted for age ranges from preschoolers through adolescents. These youth program
education opportunities can provide valuable learning assets not only for the local
community youth involved, but also for the student farm students and staff. Youth
programs on student farms have the potential to be mutually beneficial for both youth
learning development and student farm enhancement.
In summary, there are many kinds of environmental and farm-based education
that are relevant to my research about youth programs on student farms in the U.S. The
various fields of education and pedagogical strategies described above are
interdisciplinary and inter-connected.
1.2 History of Environmental Education (EE), Garden-Based Education (GBE),
Farm-Based Education (FBE), and the National Farm to School Program in the
United States
1.2.1 Environmental Education (EE)
The current field of environmental education (EE) has been created by the
interconnection of many different and distinct fields of education, each claiming its
background in different historical moments, yet all forging together to form the larger
field of environmental education. There are four primary roots of EE; nature study,
13
conservation education, outdoor education and experiential education (Wheeler, 2007;
MacGregor, 2011).
“Nature study” was founded in the 1890s and took hold in the industrialization of
that time as a movement to rekindle students’ interest in and their connection to the
natural world. This was also a time of “manifest destiny” for many European settlers, a
time to conquer and personally own and control a seemingly vast, untouched landscape of
North America. In many ways, nature study was a counter-movement to the urbanism
and industrialization of the time. Nature study aimed to teach students various naturalist
skills such as careful observation of the natural world, identification and collection of
plants and animals, and knowledge of the life histories of these creatures. Its pedagogical
goal was to make learning practical through direct contact with nature and close
observation of the natural world. In addition to the content of nature study, this field
encouraged first-hand observation and active, inquiry-based learning. At the time nature
study was introduced and added into the school curriculum in the 1890s-1920s, most
schools taught little or no science at all. Therefore, it was extremely new and teachers had
virtually no background with which to teach this new material. The nature study
movement briefly declined in the post-World War I 1920s, along with the progressive
education movement in general. Later, in the 1950s, nature centers and interpretive
centers began to expand and rekindle the nature study movement. The field continues to
reign strong today and there are many excellent resources for nature study and hundreds
of nature centers throughout the United States and Canada.
"Conservation education" emerged in the first decades of the 1900s as agency
managers (i.e. of the US Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee
14
Valley Authority, and the National Park Service) sought to promote natural resource
protection and management both as a practical conservation act and as a “patriotic” act to
strengthen nationalism. At the turn of the 20th century, extensive over-harvesting and
extraction of natural resources led some organizations and political realms to believe that
these resources needed to be managed and protected by the government in order to ensure
their continued presence for future generations. Later, in the 1950s, conservation
education grew out of this movement, and as a result was driven and managed largely by
government resource managers educating the public about the conservation of natural
resources. Conservation educators taught students about America's ecological systems
such as forest, soil, watershed, and wildlife resources and promoted the wise use of these
resources now and into the future. Emphasis was placed on the characteristics of certain
resources, their distribution, and promotion of good management choices. At first
implementation and education was conducted by agency professionals, of which many
did not have any educational background, and thus many early conservation educators
were never sure of the curriculum applications. Overall, this has changed with expert
educators now acquiring positions throughout resource management agencies and
industry as well. However, in the current educational landscape, conservation education
remains a marginal extra in the typical school science curriculum.
“Outdoor education” also traces its historical background to the early 20th
century, yet differs from both conservation education and nature study in that it was
distinguished primarily by its teaching method and pedagogy, rather than by its content.
It was created not by proponents of environmental knowledge or stewardship, but from
the teachers and educators themselves, heavily involved in basic school and curriculum
15
improvement efforts. The goal was to better educate children by using resources outside
of school classrooms for educational purposes, in order to more explicitly connect
education to the “real world” outside the school. Outdoor education came specifically out
of progressive education movements and various activity-based curriculums, whose goals
were “education for life in a democracy”. It also revolved around child-centeredness,
learning how to learn, and the integration of school learning coupled with personal
experience (MacGregor, 2011). Whereas nature education sprang from nature scientists
and horticulturalists, outdoor education was created by K-12 educators determined to find
new ways to improve classroom teaching and learning. As nature education and
conservation education introduced new content, outdoor education introduced a new
pedagogy. Outdoor education is highly varied depending upon what teachers want to
stress. It could also offer outdoor extensions or community-based experiences to study of
any traditional school subject. Or it might incorporate content from nature education and
conservation education as well. Some outdoor education programs have focused on the
development of “outdoor skills,” such as hiking, map-reading and orienteering, canoeing,
and camping. Ultimately, outdoor education’s goal is to teach out-of-doors, what can best
be learned out-of-doors.
“Experiential education” is another highly diverse and interdisciplinary
educational field that has evolved into many sub-fields, many with strong connections to
environmental education. One of its more well-known advocates in the early 20th century
in America was philosopher John Dewey. However, the branch of experiential education
most associated with the outdoor learning developed from lessons learned from programs
to strengthen sailors’ confidence and resilience in World War II and the potential benefit
16
of educating young adults through experiences that would both require cooperation and
fortitude. The goal was a type of extremely powerful experiential learning that would
give youth exposure to enough tough experiences, confidence-building and team-work
skills to be ready for the challenges of life. The original prototype for this model was
developed in the 1930s by the path-breaking work of Kurt Hahn. Hahn's approach
(through what were to become known as Outward Bound Schools) was to create
powerful experiential learning experiences for youth by placing them in challenging
situations in natural settings and forcing them to work cooperatively to succeed, thus
building endurance, confidence, teamwork, and an ethic of service to others. These
learning concepts and the Outward Bound movement soon spread from England to the
United States and also to at least a dozen other countries around the world. Many
Outward Bound programs still provide experiences for teenagers and young adults, but
there are also now programs for adults, corporate groups, and troubled youth. Over the
past several decades, experiential education has expanded out to also include experiences
including service learning, esteem education, eco-political education, expeditionary
education, adventure education, wilderness education, and outdoor education among
others. All these forms of experiential education aim to give participants wilderness
skills, teamwork skills, self-esteem, personal discipline, and a sense of purpose and
service to others, in order to overcome the perceived cynicism and ego-centrism that is
common in Western culture (Breunig, 2005). Today, experiential education professionals
have a formal Association of Experiential Education (AEE), which defines experiential
learning as, “A process through which a learner constructs knowledge, skill and value
from direct experiences. Experiential education is a philosophy and methodology in
17
which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused
reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills and clarify values” (AEE
website, “What Is Experiential Education, n.d., paragraph 3).
1.2.2 Garden-Based Education (GBE)
Garden-based education (GBE), also referred to as garden-based learning (GBL),
integrates a wide variety of disciplines and is basically an instructional and curricular
strategy that utilizes a garden as a teaching tool based in the dual theoretical frameworks
of experiential and environmental education (Subramaniam, 2003). The perceived
importance of GBE comes from current research in the literature that claims that garden
settings are natural bridges between the school classroom and the community, with
complex connections to issues as diverse as ecology, poverty, hunger, international
economics, and public health. In theoretical terms, GBE proponents find support for their
approach in a number of contemporary educational theories including Howard
Gardener’s theory on multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), Daniel Goleman’s theory of
emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995), and Kolb’s theory of experiential learning
(Kolb, 1984).
The history of the school garden movement and GBE has a strong connection to
on-going historical cycles of educational reform (Meyer, 1997). In the United States the
school garden movement reached high points in several different eras, mainly in response
to specific reform efforts. In the early twentieth century (1900-1930s), progressive
education and social reform movements originally encouraged GBE. In the mid–
18
twentieth century (1960-1970), after a lull in GBE activity and support, counter-culture
and environmental movements created a resurgence of interest in school and community
gardens. By the late twentieth century (1990-2000), because of the rebirth of progressive
education coupled with renewed interest in environmental education and nutrition/health
issues for youth, school gardens were once again of major interest. In summary, from an
historical perspective, garden-based education has been viewed as contributing to all
aspects of basic education, including academic skills, personal development, social
development, moral development, vocational and/or subsistence skills, and life skills. In
each of these eras of renewed and expanded educational and cultural interest, the lure of
GBE in basic education was grounded on its potential presentation of educational
strategies that are strongly accepted within the literature and research as valid and
essential as pedagogical approaches to meaningful learning. Today, GBE occurs not only
in schools but in communities and institutions of higher learning as well, such as colleges
and universities. GBE’s definition is however limited by the its scale of activities within
the “garden” setting, which is usually smaller in size, complexity, and labor required as
compared to an agricultural setting, such as a farm.
1.2.3 Farm-Based Education (FBE)
According to the literature, the history of farm-based education (FBE) does not
have any specific dates of origin or initial implementation. The concept and definition of
“farm-based education” is still emergent and developing among educators, researchers
and agriculturalists. In addition, the term FBE also incorporates various concepts of
19
outreach sometimes conducted on a farm, such as farm tours, workshops, or public events
that would create various conditions for “farm-based education” to occur. This is
significantly different than “agricultural education” in which the intent is to train
agricultural professionals. Farm-based educators focus on cultivating and fostering
connections with the local community through a broader spectrum of interdisciplinary
agricultural education and environmental education. FBE is essentially “education in a
farm setting” and differs from garden-based education with respect to scale of learning
environment (i.e. farm size vs. garden size) and the dual purposes, sometimes in tension
with one another, of production and education. Most commercial farms in the United
States are not deliberately educational by design or structure. However, according to the
literature, many farms over the last decade have begun to embrace and incorporate
various “farm-based educational” opportunities and outreach into their overall services, if
even for the potential financial contributions through tour fees, on-site programming,
youth summer camps, and other paid outreach services in the community. This additional
direct income and customer attention received from increased FBE opportunities can
often be perceived as extremely valuable for the farm’s continued financial viability and
positive community standing.
1.2.4 National Farm to School Program
In many ways the “Farm to School” movement is closely linked to youth farmbased education and therefore is an essential part of my research. In general, “Farm to
School” is a program that connects schools (K-12) and local farms with the objectives of
20
serving healthy meals in school cafeterias, improving student nutrition, enhancing health
and nutrition education opportunities, and supporting local and regional farmers. The
National Farm to School Network believes that its work and mission are an “essential
component of strong and just local and regional food systems, ensuring the health of all
school children, farms, the environment, economy and communities” (FTS website,
“About Us” n.d., paragraph 2).
Much like the goals of FBE focused on youth, Farm to School aims to establish
relationships between local foods and school children. Several examples of Farm to
School programs and initiatives include, but are not limited to, promoting local products
on school menus, supporting food-related curriculum development and experiential
learning opportunities, supporting school gardens, offering school to farm tours and
farmer-in-the-classroom sessions, providing education for parents and community
members, and supporting the overall expansion of Farm to School programs through
local communities. In addition, many of the intended benefits of the Farm to School
program are similar benefits of youth FBE as well, such as strengthening children's and
communities' knowledge about, and attitudes toward, agriculture, food, nutrition and the
environment; increasing children's participation in the school meals program and
consumption of fruits and vegetables; and increasing market opportunities for farmers,
fishers, ranchers, food processors and food manufacturers.
The history of the Farm to School movement began in 1996 through pilot projects
in California (Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District and The Edible Schoolyard,
Berkeley) and Florida (New North Florida Marketing Cooperative). In 2000, the USDA
Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems (IFAFS) provided support to
21
establish the National Farm to School Program enabling program development, research,
and policy. From the consistent efforts of organizing workshops around the country to
bring farmers and school food service providers together, successful pilot program
implementation, and continued federal financial support, the Farm to School movement
had established over 400 programs in 22 states by 2004. The National Farm to School
Network, was founded in 2007 through a year-long collaborative planning process
engaging more than 30 organizations across the country; it already has mounted a
national staff, eight regional lead agencies, 50 state leads, and thousands of Farm to
School advocates across the country. The National Farm to School Network was
originally co-led by staff from the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) and the
Urban & Environmental Policy Institute (UEPI) at Occidental College until 2011, under
whose guidance and leadership the organization blossomed and grew significantly,
providing assistance to Farm to School programming in all 50 states through an
expanding national and regional infrastructure and staff. Farm to School is now
operational in more than 10,000 schools spanning all 50 states.
1.3 Student Farms in the United States
At the same time there is a rich history of agricultural education on specific
college and university campuses throughout the United States, particularly land-grant
institutions. Historically, these institutions have provided agricultural education
opportunities to students who intend to enter agricultural professions and who wish to
gain valuable skills to improve their existing agricultural knowledge and skills. The
22
educational settings in which these skills are commonly taught to the students have
included the classroom as well as in the field, such as a field laboratory or on a campus
farm. These farms, also referred to as “student farms” are typically owned, operated, and
maintained by the institution. However, since the majority of the academic and physical
work and educational experiences on the farm involve institutional students, the term
student farm can accurately be used to describe these farms on campuses of higher
education.
Since the nineteenth century, the student farm movement has developed, survived
and flourished in North America. Many progressive era thinkers championed “the naturestudy movement” in the early twentieth century as a way of introducing an inspiration
and a wonder for the natural world into elementary school education (Koester, 1999).
School gardens were consequentially promoted as a practical, tangible way of connecting
children to nature and to the local community (Mayer-Smith et al., 2009) . In addition,
many other progressives were also concerned with the problem of educating farmers as a
means of improving rural life. The education of non-farmers about farming was also a
future goal to be addressed, but less immediately practicable than educating farmers or
school children (Sayre & Clark, 2011).
From the perspective of many progressives, by the late 20th century, the
institutionalization of agriculture as a science had gone too far. It had lost sight of
interdisciplinary education and the need to communicate or justify agriculture’s means
with the wider non-farming public (Moncure & Francis, 2011). Foundational structures
embodying utilitarian ideals of the U.S. for the development of agricultural expertise such
as, the Morrill Act of 1862, which established the land-grant colleges, the Hatch Act of
23
1887, which created the agricultural experiment stations, and the Smith-Lever Act of
1914, which authorized federal funding for cooperative extension, eventually gave way to
a gradual separation of theoretical and practical knowledge that, over the 20th century,
effectively insulated agricultural research from outside understanding and critique for a
variety of historical reasons (Sayre & Clark, 2011). The consequences would be seen in
many spheres of education, the environment, and society in general.
In a nation with fewer and fewer farmers every year, new generations of students
have very limited understanding of agriculture’s profound importance; this was one of the
worst consequences of the separation and insulation of agricultural education from
mainstream education (Lyson, 2004). A failure of the secondary schools and liberal arts
colleges to teach even basic courses on food and agriculture meant that an enormous
majority of Americans, even among the well-educated and wealthy, were now totally
ignorant of an area of essential knowledge that only a few generations before was widely
common among the population. It also meant that the United States’ policies regarding
agricultural trade, technical assistance, foreign relations, and food production were being
discussed and formulated without information and input from all sides of the public table
(Leis, 2011; Sayre & Clark, 2011).
The decade following the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 was a significant time in U.S.
agricultural history since many scholars and citizens at the time viewed agriculture as
widely relevant to human concerns such as natural resource use, individual health,
economics, and international relations. These human concerns were viewed, and still are
today, as so essential to societies throughout the world, that agriculture can be argued to
not only transcend traditional academic disciplines but also demand a level of basic
24
practical familiarity even among those who are not professional farmers (Leis, 2011;
Lyson, 2004).
The first few decades of the twentieth century were indeed a turning point in U.S.
farming history. A realization that the study of agriculture needed to be enriched and
questioned by the perspectives of non-agriculturists was gaining more attention. The
realization that the lives and thinkers of non-agriculturists needed to be enriched and
questioned by the study of agriculture was also gaining supporters. Overall, these
realizations began to shed light on the fact that disciplinary and cultural divisions were
increasingly coming to isolate food producers from the wider food-consuming public,
simultaneously obscuring the political processes affecting the food system on both the
global and the local levels (Leis, 2011; Sayre & Clark, 2011).
Later in the twentieth century, several progressive educators such as David Orr
began to propose the establishment of college farms, working outside the land-grant
system, as at least a partial remedy for these farmer-to-public issues (Jorgensen, 1993).
Rather than focus on the need to reform the land grant system itself, these educators and
reformers saw significant potential in small-scale, hands-on farming as a means of
enriching a liberal arts education. The potential of college-based farming, or student
farms, was also an extension of the ideas of ecological literacy, the belief that no student
could be roundly educated without developing some sense of place, including a basic
familiarity with the natural systems of his or her local region. Many educators at the time
believed that students could acquire this ecological literacy from direct experiences with
farming as a way of life (Moncure & Francis, 2011; Koester, 1999). From these beliefs
arose a proposed a list of benefits, both pedagogical and institutional, that could be
25
gained by including agriculture as a part of a complete liberal arts education. Many of
these potential benefits included instilling an ethic of work while promoting ecological
awareness; offering interdisciplinary field sites for the study of plants, soils, and other
natural systems; helping to revitalize local and rural economies; protecting biodiversity;
mitigating carbon impacts by reducing food miles and/or planting trees; recycling yard
and food wastes; and teaching problem solving and strategies for institutional change
(Lyson, 2004). It was argued that these benefits related directly to several of the most
promising fundamental and broad lessons to be learned on a student farm, such as the
students’ understanding of what is possible in the world and the ongoing balance of
negotiations of power between individuals and institutions (Sayre & Clark, 2011; Leis,
2011; Smith, 2010).
By the 1990s, dozens of student farms throughout the United States had been
established. This student farm surge was a direct reflection of a new level of institutional
recognition for sustainable agriculture in general, as evidenced by the creation of the
USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program in 1988
(Smith, 2010; Koester, 1999). The SARE program, along with other key USDA
programming, was a significant source of both legitimacy and funding for faculty and
students, making a case for research and practices regarding more sustainable agricultural
values beyond the common industrial agricultural models of production. Farmers
stretched to the edge of viability and financial stress throughout the U.S. began to
develop various low-input and self-sufficient farming systems as a way of reducing costs
and mitigating environmental and human health impacts (Lyson, 2004). During this time
of the 1980’s and 1990’s, the idea of sustainable agriculture first began to really take hold
26
in the agricultural industry, eventually influencing institutional and educational
agricultural policy on student farms as well (Wilkins, 2005; Jorgensen, 1993).
The student farm’s balancing act between agriculture and higher education is a
unique and dynamic relationship. Student farms can be considered places where people
of all ages within the community can learn something significant and lasting about classic
agrarian issues such as how food is grown, who grows it and where, and how things
historically and politically came to be this way. However, the gathering of that
community diversity into the student farm fields can often fuel debate and challenges to
fundamental questions about a whole range of social, political, environmental, and
economic questions that are specifically linked to the practices and politics of agriculture
(Leis, 2011; Sayre & Clark, 2011). This unique mixture of “farmers” and “non-farmers”
can therefore become a lab for best practices to be tested, a physical forum for intellectual
and practical discussions, an arena for theory to practice experimentation to take form, all
contributing to an ideal of the possibilities of sustainable agriculture (Smith, 2010;
Mayer-Smith et al., 2009).
As like all agricultural farms and businesses, educational or not, student farms are
also significantly influenced by infrastructural concerns, intergenerational conflicts,
numerous market pressures, shifting definitions and research of best management
practices, as well as the growing unpredictability of acute and seasonal weather patterns
(Leis, 2011). In addition, student farms can also be influenced by the institutional context
in which they operate and the corresponding political and geographical logistics (Smith,
2010). However, one key difference between a student farm and a traditional U.S. farm is
its labor pool. The student farm’s labor force is often undergraduate and graduate
27
students, each with different levels of academic and practical experience and motivation.
Each student farm, then, operates within a set of relationships among the farm itself, its
engaged students, and its larger institutional context; thus, each student farm establishes
its own identity based on the strengths and weaknesses of these evolving relationships.
This situation is unique and unusual compared to the standard structure and operation of a
typical commercial farm in the United States.
The literature on student farms at United States colleges and universities reveal
that these programs aim to enhance curricula by integrating research, extension and
teaching missions, reinforcing classroom instruction, and improving job training (Leis,
Whittington & Kleinhenz, 2011). Varying in scale, size and focus, student farms are also
often places of agricultural production, applied hands-on experiences and marketing, at
which students have opportunities to supplement classroom instruction with "real world"
experience, such as through coursework, individual research projects, or internships.
Typically, the goal is to provide basic training in organic production and marketing while
linking to more formal academic subjects such as agro-ecology, environmental studies, or
other disciplines (Jorgensen, 1993; Moncure & Francis, 2011; Leis, 2011). At the same
time, student farms can facilitate broader campus sustainability objectives such as the
recycling of food wastes and the provision of local food for dining halls. Frequently,
there is a community service element as well, as students grow food to be donated to
local food banks, install gardens at nearby secondary schools, or host farm tours for
elementary school groups (Smith, 2010; Lyson, 2004). Some student farms are focused
specifically on the training of new farmers while others serve as sites for undergraduate
and graduate student research, while providing an experiential underpinning for an
28
academic program in sustainable food and farming systems. Some produce large
quantities of food for their local communities. All teach a wide range of practical skills,
and a host of less tangible skills, such as leadership, teamwork, tolerance, resilience,
flexibility, organization, responsibility, ethics, and communication (Sayre & Clark,
2011).
However, the core essence of experiential education, significantly utilized within
student farm educational programs, is that of engaging students to “solve problems
inductively, actively use and explain knowledge through solving problems, and make
connections and apply knowledge beyond the classroom and school, based on real-life
problems” (Knobloch, 2003, p. 23).
According to the literature, over the last ten to fifteen years, there has been an
increase in demand from college and university students for more hands-on academic
farming experiences (Leis, 2011; Smith, 2010; Sayre & Clark, 2011). This demand has
facilitated the formation of many student farms throughout U.S. institutional campuses, in
various sizes and functionality, in which stakeholders of colleges and universities are
responding to these demands. Since 1990, there have been at least 41 new student farms
created on a wide variety of U.S. college and university campuses, ranging in size from
less than an acre to dozens of acres (Sayre & Clark, 2011). Various sources of literature
and research on student farms indicate that there are currently 80 to 90 student farms in
the U.S. as of 2012, with the trends strongly suggesting more being established every
year (Leis, 2011; Smith, 2010).
29
1.4 Effectiveness of Environmental Education (EE), Garden-Based Education (GBE)
and Farm-Based Education (FBE) programs
1.4.1 Environmental Education (EE)
According to the literature, environmental education’s interdisciplinary and multifaceted nature contributes to the integration of many teaching practices that are thought to
characterize effective education. Thus, EE programs encompass a wide range of
promising successful characteristics. Because of its potential to span many different
disciplines, EE can appeal to students who possess very different learning styles and
backgrounds (Wheeler, 2007).
According to the research literature, environmental education is a potentially
effective means of achieving a number of desirable student outcomes such as an increase
in academic achievement across a wide range of classes, an increase in students’ selfesteem, engagement and motivation, a deeper integration of many techniques that are
thought to define good education, an increase in active student civic engagement, a
catalyst in transforming school culture, and providing a streamline to connect schools to
communities (Subramaniam, 2003; Blair, 2009; Lekies et al., 2006; Ozer, 2007). While
all of these potential outcomes from EE programs are indeed positive and inspiring,
simply providing EE programs does not in itself produce these outcomes. In other words,
EE is still an emergent field and continues to be integrated into school curriculums where
possible. More and more research and positive results are being brought forward every
year concerning EE’s potential benefits.
30
One piece of valuable research was recently completed by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). In 2006, the Washington State Legislature
passed Engrossed House Bill 2910 which directed the OSPI to create a study report on
the impacts of environmental education on K-12 students. Accordingly, the OSPI
developed the Environmental Education Report, which summarizes academic research
measuring the impact of EE on one or more of the following: academic achievement;
career development; graduation requirements; self-esteem, engagement and motivation;
and civic responsibility and service learning (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. i). In all, 76
relevant studies were located and the findings of the most methodologically rigorous
studies were weighted most heavily in the OSPI report (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. i). The
report's findings suggest that EE is an effective means of achieving a number of desirable
educational outcomes (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. ii).
Of the 20 reviewed studies that addressed student achievement, the EE Report
cited 18 that indicated a correlation between participation in environmental education and
improved academic achievement, for both high-ranking and low-ranking students
(Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. ii). From these studies there was strong evidence that
environmental education increased math and science achievement the most out of all
achievement areas (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. ii). However, many studies did not test for
statistical significance and instead relied on small sample sizes. In addition, very few
studies controlled for other factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, age, and level
of achievement prior to participation in environmental education.
When it came to career development, the report found no studies that examined
the impact of K-12 environmental or sustainability education on career choice. Several
31
studies which analyzed adult populations suggested that EE programs increased
awareness and interest in environmental careers and that participation in service-learning
programs can enhance career development. Studies of individuals working in an
environmental field cited outdoor opportunities and participation in environmental
educational programs as an influence in their career choice (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. ii).
There is limited evidence available on the impacts of environmental education on
graduation rates. Only one study suggested that environmental education participation
reduced dropout rates and increased university enrollment, while no studies focused on
culminating projects required for graduation (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. iii).
With respect to more affective outcomes, of the sixteen studies reviewed, there
was some evidence that seemed to indicate that environmental education had a positive
impact on students’ self-esteem, motivation, and engagement (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg.
iii). However, much of the impact showcased in the studies may have resulted from the
experiential nature of environmental education programs examined, whose learning
approaches frequently involved outdoor/adventure activities as opposed to traditional
classroom learning. In addition, only one study used well-developed and reliable
instruments for measuring changes.
Finally, when it came to taking a closer look at the research involving the effects
of EE on civic responsibility and service-learning, eight studies reviewed found mixed
evidence that participation in environmental education increased civic engagement
(Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. iii). These studies focused on self-reported data rather than
measured behavior changes.
32
In general, the Environmental Education Report seemed to indicate that there
were various positive benefits to students from EE programs and environmental
education curriculum integration. The comprehensive nature of this report, investigating
numerous scientific reports and documents concerning the potential benefits of EE
programs on student performance and overall life influences, does provide strong
evidence in favor of more environmental education integration in the future. However, it
is also clear that more research must be conducted to truly gauge the effectiveness,
especially long-term effectiveness, of EE programs and EE concepts into student
curriculum (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg. iv).
1.4.2 Garden-Based Education (GBE)
Similar to research regarding environmental education program effectiveness,
research focusing on garden-based education program effectiveness is plentiful, yet in
need of further rigorous studies. According to the existing literature and research,
whether GBE occurs under the fields of environmental education, ecological literacy,
agricultural literacy, or agricultural education, it appears to have the potential to
contribute to basic education (Blair, 2009; Desmond et al., 2004; Ozer, 2007;
Subramaniam, 2003). The literature also suggests that GBE can be a unique and effective
strategy to be used in basic education to introduce an experiential component in support
of the traditional curriculum or as an environmental education curriculum Desmond et al.,
2004). As with the promise of EE program effectiveness, programs that utilize GBE have
the potential not only to contribute to academic skills, but also to address a child’s
33
development in a social, moral, and practical or life skills sense (Blair, 2009; Desmond,
2004). According to an international survey of garden-based learning (GBL)
organizations, GBE supports academic skills, personal development, social and moral
development, vocational and/or subsistence skills, and life skills (Subramaniam, 2003).
Some of the suggested benefits and core uses of GBE programs can be divided and
summarized into academic skills and life-skills categories.
Academically, many subjects can be taught using nature and gardens as the
learning lab, making these concepts potentially more meaningful (Blair, 2009; Lekies et
al., 2006; Poudel et al., 2005). Gardens offer dynamic settings in which to integrate every
discipline including science and math, language arts, history and social studies, and art
(Desmond, 2004). GBE also has the potential to increase environmental literacy and in
teaching scientific concepts (Subramaniam, 2003). Other broad academic benefits include
broadening children’s experience of ecosystem complexity, clarifying the nature-andculture continuum through an emphasis on place-based learning, teaching food systems
complexity through exposure to vegetable gardening and helping to shape adult attitudes
and environmental values through garden-based academics experiences (Blair, 2009;
Ozer, 2007; Subramaniam, 2003). In general, all of these sources evaluated some
dimensions of student learning.
Several studies indicate that when children work in gardens, 90 percent of their
experience is classified as hands-on (Ball et al., 2001; Poudel et al., 2005). Therefore, it
was found that learning by doing produced a 75 percent retention rate of knowledge over
time. GBE also has the potential to effect cooperation and communication in an academic
and school environment. Several studies show that facilitating cooperation and
34
communication in a real-world setting rather than a classroom makes learning teamwork
possible (Ozer, 2007; Poudel et al., 2005). Additional promising benefits within the
literature from GBE among students include increased concentration and impulse control,
enhanced emotional coping skills and stress reduction, more creative play, reduced
symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), contributions to a foundation for stewardship, and increased motor
coordination (Blair, 2009).
Some potential core life-skills acquired from garden-based education beyond
basic academic education revolve around the concepts and issues of community
development, food security, sustainable development, vocational education, the greening
of school grounds, personal development (mental and physical), social and moral
development, vocational and/or subsistence skills (Desmond et al., 2004; Lekies et al.,
2006; Ozer, 2007). Research also suggests that gardens can help create a sense of
community and belonging, foster a connection with the environment, and help students
develop self-confidence, discipline, collaboration skills, and multi-cultural understanding
(Meyer as cited by Desmond, 2004). School garden projects nurture community spirit and
provide numerous opportunities to build bridges among students, school staff, families,
local businesses, and community based organizations (Desmond, 2004).
The literature also documents the positive health benefits, both short-term and
long-term, that gardens can provide by creating opportunities for children to discover
fresh food, make healthier food choices and become better nourished (Gale et al., 2001;
Harman et al., 1999; Ozer, 2007). Links with school gardens, school food-service
programs, and local farms can ensure a fresh nutritious diet for children while teaching
35
about sustainable food systems (Harman et al., 1999). Young people can also potentially
experience deeper understandings of natural systems and become better stewards of the
earth (Desmond et al., 2004). This empowerment and connection to the earth can often
give students a sense of achievement and motivation.
One recent garden-based education resource, Learning Gardens and
Sustainability Education: Bringing Life to Schools and Schools To Life, uses the
metaphor of living soil as a foundation for designing and using learning gardens
(Williams & Brown, 2012). The authors state in this advocacy book that garden-based
education has the potential cultivate a sense a place, awaken the senses, nurture
interconnectedness, embrace practical experiences, enhance value regarding bio-cultural
diversity, foster curiosity and wonder, and provide enlightenment to the concepts of
rhythm and scale. One example within this resource points to the Learning Gardens
program in Portland, OR as a model garden-based education program that connects
children to schools and the community. The goals of this program include the following:
1) to foster multidisciplinary learning, connecting math, science, social sciences,
language arts and aesthetics; 2) to promote multicultural learning representing multiple
agricultural and culinary traditions of the parent community; 3) to cultivate
intergenerational learning among young adults, parents and grandparents, educators, and
others in the community; and 4) to nurture multisensory learning by involving not only
our heads but hands, hearts, skins, tongues, intestines, and palates. This book also give
numerous examples of successful garden-based programs throughout the United States
and the positive impacts they have had on the children, teachers and parents involved.
36
Many of these outcomes match the literature already mentioned earlier in this research
review.
1.4.3 Farm-Based Education (FBE)
As mentioned earlier, farm-based education (FBE) is an emerging concept that
offers similar potential academic and life-skill benefits as garden-based education (GBE).
The main difference of course is that most of the actual learning experiences occur on a
farm instead of in a garden. FBE educational farms can range from having a single
teacher-farmer to a staff of hundreds. Educational farms can also serve all ages from
infant visitors with their parent, through kindergarten to 12 grades, to university students
and adults throughout their lives. Research shows that FBE programs are growing in
popularity within the United States and in particular in students who are often completely
removed from these elements and need an opportunity to experience the basic elements
of food and farming (Olson, 2010). Basically, FBE can help to create a stronger
connection between people and their food.
Farm-based education can offer many potential benefits to students and youth
involved with student farms. These benefits can be organized into two categories,
academic skills and life-skills. Academically speaking, FBE is among the most effective
and promising forms of environmental, experiential, and place-based education because
of its innate ability to connect all people with farms and food production. Furthermore,
agriculture and education on farms lends itself to interdisciplinary studies as well,
involving economics, business, math, science, politics, languages, social studies, and art.
37
Farms are natural laboratories for environmental education while enhancing the potential
to illustrate ecological principles. Practical lessons on farms enhance and reinforce
theoretical learning in schools. Finally, farms offer a tremendous array of prospects to
expose people to the interconnectedness of food, land and people through direct and
hands on experiences (Olson, 2010).
In terms of life-skills, the literature indicates that FBE can be effective on many
related levels. First, there is a chance to develop a vast array of abilities, including critical
thinking, decision making, problem solving, application of knowledge, sense of
responsibility, leadership skills, management skills, motivation, work ethic, and building
of interpersonal relationships (Olson, 2010; Ball et al., 2001; Leis et al., 2011; MayerSmith et al., 2009). These abilities can often be crucial in the job market, as employers
seek potential employees skilled in problem solving, critical and analytic thinking,
adaptability, effective communication, and ability to work as a member of a team, in
addition to a practical background in agriculture (Smith, 2010). In addition, hands-on
learning on farms builds confidence, self-awareness, and individual and collective
responsibility, which can lead to an increased sustainable stewardship of our world
Poudel et al., 2005).
In regards to youth in the community, FBE programs offer learning environments
for youth to develop empowering connections with their communities and a deeper
understanding of their abilities as leaders (Gale et al., 2001). FBE can promote life values
in youth, such as respect for nature, manual work, individuals, and community by relating
to the social, moral, cognitive, and emotional aspects of the human experience (Leis et
al., 2011). FBE also has the potential to promote the idea that the raising of food is
38
fundamental to our society and that all people, including the youth, should know about
agriculture and where their food comes from (Wilkins et al., 2005; Leis et al., 2011).
Furthermore, natural rhythms and cycles seen and experienced on farms can lead to a
deeper and accessible understanding of the world for children as well as older students as
well (Booth, 2009).
1.5 Characteristics of Successful Farm-Based Education (FBE) Programs
From the literature review and existing research I was able to locate three important
resources regarding how to create an effective and successful farm-based education
program. The first resource is called A Start-Up Manual for Farm-Based Education
Programs by Nick Olson, released in 2010. This manual presents a step-by-step approach
to creating a farm-based education program outlined below. Much of this manual is
simply a lesson in creating a small business with an emphasis on farm considerations.
However, this manual is geared specifically toward private or non-profit farms, not
institutional farms operating as part of colleges and universities. Obviously, institutional
farms have their own set of potential challenges and advantages mentioned earlier.
Despite these differences, this document is helpful in providing guidance to any farm
developer who desires to implement a farm-based education program.
The A Start-Up Manual for Farm-Based Education Programs suggests that the
first step toward the creation of a farm-based education program is to turn your “dream to
vision.” This is accomplished by developing a mission statement for the program along
with specific goals and the identified audience that this program hopes to serve within the
39
community. The majority of farm-based education programs used as positive examples
within the manual focus largely school-age visitors. These schools can be public schools,
private schools, preschools, alternative schools, religious based schools, and home-school
networks. This concentration of students within schools and the fact that there are schools
in nearly every community make schools are an excellent audience to serve, according to
this publication (Olson, 2010, pg. 9).
Next is to focus on the business side of things early in the process. Creating a
business plan is absolutely essential and at the heart of the entire program. Decisions
need to be made concerning a wide variety business logistics such as, but not limited to
for-profit vs. non-profit status, legal matters, safety, educational vs. farm income,
diversified income sources, grants and charitable giving, and marketing (Olson, 2010, pg.
15).
Selecting a location that considers aesthetics, access, and flow are also very
important to the future of the farm program. The locations of crops, animals, and other
important infrastructure must be at least roughly determined before further decisions can
be made. In addition, decisions such as whether to buy, lease, or rent the land will
potentially determine future uses as well. Finally, a decision must be made as to what
type of farming practices will be conducted on the land to ensure viability, both
ecologically and financially (Olson, 2010, pg. 44).
The next step to starting a farm-based education program according to this manual
is locating and acquiring the appropriate staffing and volunteers, while identifying and
securing potential long-range partnerships such as with local schools. The manual
40
suggests that when contacting schools, it is most effective to locate an individual who
will be very interested in your program, which is often an individual classroom teacher or
a science coordinator. It is important to build a relationship with that individual to create
trust that will last. Long range relationships can be successfully established with schools
through providing different forms of professional development for their teachers, such as
working with a group of schools or a school district to provide opportunities for educators
to learn more about farm based education in conjunction with their classrooms. These
types of strong relationships take time and inputs from both sides (Olson, 2010, pg.55).
Finally the manual discusses how “it comes together with education.” The
programming is central to the “education” side of the success of the farm-based program.
The manual recommends that this programming be diverse, age-appropriate, and efficient
in delivery and scope. It also states that successful programming should assist teachers in
meeting State and National standards when appropriate and foster further community
connections. This education can include many different types of activities beyond direct
interaction with the farms operations (i.e. sowing, harvesting, etc.) such as teacher
workshops, adult workshops, programs for seniors, corporate programming, large events,
open houses and festivals, movies and dances, farmer’s markets, hay and sleigh rides,
weddings, and meeting space opportunities (Olson, 2010, pg. 58).
A second informative book on FBE is Growing A Garden City: How Farmers,
First Graders, Counselors, Troubled Teens, Foodies, a Homeless Shelter Chef, Single
Mothers, and More Are Transforming Themselves and Their Neighborhoods Through the
Intersection of Local Agriculture and Community—And How You Can Too, published by
Jeremy N. Smith in 2010. This book tells the story of Missoula, Montana’s Community
41
Food System. It describes the origins of this city’s local food actions and food movement,
its expansion to include more and increasingly diverse participants, and the connections
between production and consumption that involve many different stakeholders and
community members. It also describes in detail a non-profit called “Garden City Harvest”
which partners with other non-profits and governments at multiple levels to grow and
distribute healthy food to low-income people, offer education and training in ecologically
conscious food production, and utilize various sites for the personal restoration of
troubled youth and adults. The PEAS farm (Program in Ecological Agriculture and
Society) maintains a partnership and collaborative relationship with Garden City Harvest,
as well as the University of Montana.
Regarding accounting for farm costs, Growing a Garden City states that, there
must be a distinction between those that are required for the business and those that are
necessary to support student education. It continues by expressing that student farms need
to maintain flexibility and adaptability, especially in regards to new programs focused on
education. In addition, a balance must be established between short-term financial
efficiency and long-term resilience. In some cases, student farms may actually be forced
by financial pressures to become more financially self-sufficient. However, the results of
this increased self-sufficiency can potentially generate enough income for its annual
operating costs while also contributing to staff salaries and capital infrastructure.
Encouraging an economic reality within an educational and agricultural setting so that
production and educational obligations can inform one another is one major goal of any
student farm. Self-sufficiency is a desired characteristic of most student farms and farms
in general.
42
This book also underscores the importance of blending small groups, humble
labor, and tangible, beautiful edible results to maximize the positive aspects found within
the creative tension between production and education. Acknowledging and remaining
patient and flexible with these tensions between production and instruction is extremely
important. In addition, striking a balance between student leadership and staff or faculty
direction is crucial as well. The ingredients of first-hand experience, traditional
explanation, and the successful assumption of responsibility from instructors often come
together in an extremely positive way when delivered and implemented successfully.
The Growing a Garden City book continues by stating that a public farm, or
student farm, can sometimes be a “catalyst for community” as it works to establish and
develop civic responsibility. The book also emphasizes that an educational and student
farm exists within a community and therefore it should be a public place (where
appropriate), open to passive experiences of the continual agricultural process, and
include the inviting involvement of children and community celebration. In this way, the
farm can become a force for the creation and maintenance of local culture. The student
farm supporting the community as the community supports the student farm is a real and
achievable goal for resiliency.
Finally, this resource offers some basic advice for student-farm long-term
viability. It suggests forming a trusted core group, identifying allies in the community
and the institution, doing a business plan, seeking diversified funding, starting small,
keeping the farm weeded and aesthetically organized, reading and writing as an exercise
in knowledge expansion, thinking very carefully before adding livestock, cultivating
partners and supporters beyond campus, and never forgetting to socialize. In general, the
43
book recommends the creation of an authentic student farm experience through the
following pieces: educational experience, customer service, adequate public facilities,
safe and accessible environment, community relations, and proper financial planning for
the future.
Another important resource for my research came from a confidential phone
conversation with a staff member at Shelburne Farms, a membership-supported,
nonprofit environmental education center. Shelburne Farms is a 1,400-acre working farm
and National Historic Landmark on the shores of Lake Champlain in Shelburne,
Vermont. Shelburne Farm’s mission is to cultivate a conservation ethic for a sustainable
future by practicing rural land uses that are environmentally, economically and culturally
sustainable. For purposes of confidentiality, I will refer to my informant as “SF.”
During our telephone conversation, SF drew on her experience to identify many
of the best practices of creating and maintaining a student farm. One thing SF
emphasized was how crucial partnerships are for the success of a farm-based education
program. According to SF, one way to build a positive partnership is to look into the
needs of the community and local schools first in order to identify potential audiences
and how best to serve their needs and assist in overcoming educational obstacles. This
could be accomplished by meeting with the superintendent of the school district and with
the local teachers to discuss their needs. Working within the systems and various
standards already in place at schools is often an extremely important way to build lasting
and productive partnerships. SF recommended working with curriculum experts in
district/school and developing education opportunities with what teachers are already
required to teach is also a great way to justify field trips from the school to the farm. It is
44
essential to get approval of the community education program from the school district
and have funding in place before implementing program in the community. Otherwise,
there is a potential for wasted time, money and effort. Some other specific strategies for
successful implementation of a FBE program within the community are to offer free
busing for schools to increase access and participation. This can be accomplished through
grants in most cases. SF also suggested the possibility of leasing land from the school
district to grow food and install gardens.
The final resource of direct significance that I utilized in my research and
literature review comes from a 2011 book that I have cited earlier entitled Fields of
Learning: The Student Farm Movement in North America by Sayre and Clark. One
chapter of this book that I found extremely useful and relevant is titled “Starting a
Student Farm”. This chapter stresses the importance of experienced farming expertise as
essential to the creation and maintenance of a successful student farm. All the student
farms investigated by the authors of this book have evolved and changed continually over
the years in terms of their acreage, market strategies, infrastructure, management,
academic curriculum and community partnerships. In addition, the authors advise that it
often takes several years to get the student farm established, so patience and consistent
efforts to create opportunities for student successors one year to the next is a key
ingredient. Successful and resilient student farms all represent the qualities of adaptability
and flexibility, for long-term survival and growth.
Based on their research with student farm managers, the authors state that there is
no single set of consistent rules or blueprint for starting a successful student farm. While
there may ideal conditions and resources such as quality land, staff expertise, faculty and
45
administration support, ample funding, committed students and interest among the wider
community, this does not always equate to success in itself, mainly because no student
farm begins its program implementation process with all of these elements. There are
many different ways to organize a student farm.
A student farm needs to be developed within the context of its specific location,
both geographically and institutional and should serve the needs and interests of the
students at that school and the local community as well when possible. It is important to
perform quality and meaningful research, which considers physical attributes, proximity
to campus, facility possibilities, future barriers, and fertility of soil, as some of the most
important factors in where the student farm should be located.
Forming a small core group of people interested, committed and willing to work
hard to start a student farm is crucial. The next step is to identify your allies or people
who can help you, such as faculty members, Deans, the provost, the president, alumni,
student organizations, and facilities staff. Get to know your institutions goals and needs,
academically, financially, and philosophically.
When seeking funding realize that in most cases some kind of financial
commitment from the institution will be critical for the stability of the farm and this can
take many forms, such as land, buildings, vehicles, utilities, personnel, and/or work-study
allocations. It is also important to be realistic about how much you can bring in from the
sale of farm products alone, especially in the early stages of the student farm. Grants are
valuable, but they can also be unstable. From the research, it is clear that even well-
46
established thriving student farms typically cover only operating expenses (seeds,
supplies, other inputs) from their sales revenue, not salaries.
Diversity and simplicity of the student farm’s mission and capabilities is key,
especially in the early stages of implementation. As things go well, diversify and expand
year after year. At the end of the term, a simple, manageable initiative brought to a
completion is infinitely more appealing than a few odd parts of a larger vision.
Keeping the student farm tidy, clean and well weeded is a good way to increase
support, especially from the campus. Aesthetics matter, especially if you’re in a highly
visible location. A well-kept farm is appealing to outsiders, safer, more pleasant to work
in, and demonstrates a sense of commitment.
Committing what you’ve done and what you plan to do on paper on a regular
basis will help you develop your ideas, facilitate communication among current student
farm workers, and provide an indispensable record of what worked, what didn’t, and how
much it all cost for student farmers in years to come.
Cultivating partners and supporters beyond campus is essential on many levels for
the student farm. There is great value in developing partnerships with the wider local
community. Offering gardening or farming workshops and field days as well as
sponsoring community education events will increase awareness of your activities and
promote an appreciation for your efforts. Get to know your local organic and sustainable
farming community. Its members will constitute one of your most valuable resources. Get
input from multiple stakeholders, and think about how you can work together.
47
According to all the resources discussed above, here is a synthesis of the best
practices in regards to successful farm-based education programs:
1) Develop simple and manageable mission statement, program goals, and business
plan: Identify land and facility needs: Acquire staff and volunteers; Identify
programming that is diverse, age-appropriate and efficient in delivery and scope.
2) Identify audience and community needs.
3) Identify potential funding sources: Establish balance between short-term financial
efficiency and long-term resilience with a desired goal of self-sufficiency;
Diversify funding sources if possible.
4) Identify partnerships, stakeholders and allies within the community and institution
which is crucial for long-term success.
5) Maintain flexibility and adaptability, especially in regards to new educational
programs.
6) Maximize the positive aspects found within the creative tension between
production and education.
7) Strike a balance between student leadership and staff/faculty direction.
8) Remember that the student farm supports the community as the community
supports the student farm: This is a real and achievable goal for resiliency.
9) Work within educational standards of local schools.
10) Keep student farm tidy and clean to increase support.
1.6 Best Practices with Respect to Environmental Education and Nature Center
Program Management
1.6.1 Environmental Education Programs
As mentioned in several sections of this thesis, there are limited specific resources
and research publications focusing on best practices of student farms. Since student farm
research is still emerging, and while there are a few quality resources, I have also chosen
48
to expand my literature review research beyond the realm of student farms. Because of
their organizational similarities, such as program management, funding and staffing,
environmental education and nature center programs are solid examples of best practices
in regards to student farms. There is a wealth of resources and research concerning
environmental education and nature center programs throughout the United States, that
are valuable for this student farm research as well. The characteristics of these programs
can also be applied to other farm-based education programs. In general, most EE and
nature center programs operate as or within a non-profit organization. While not all
student farms operate or start as a non-profit, many do, and the research available
concerning these related programs is valuable as well.
Much of the research about EE programs can be summarized from the 2007
Office of Public Instruction (OSPI) report Environmental Education Report. In addition
to analyzing programs’ effects on student outcomes, the EE Report stated that the
environmental education research investigated had helped to identify various
characteristics that help to define successful environmental and sustainability education
as well as best practices. In general, the report also indicated that successful programs
were tied “either to 1) teaching practices, where there tend to be elements of active
experiential learning, or 2) program characteristics that promote community involvement,
an integrated curriculum with an evaluation component, and well trained staff” (Wheeler
et al., 2007). It was also emphasized that programs that operate a long time seemed to
have a stronger impact on students, especially in the areas of academic performance and
mastering skills and knowledge. However, most of the reviewed studies in this report
49
focused on “identifying measured changes in students’ performance and behavior, and do
not identify the specific factors that caused these observed effects” (Wheeler et al., 2007).
Here is a summary of several types of long-term EE programs mentioned in the
OSPI Environmental Education Report:
Inquiry-based projects and programs, based on critical thinking is at the core of
best practices in environmental and sustainability education. Inquiry is a crucial part of
the teaching and learning practices found in a classroom with fully implemented
environmental and sustainability education. Within these programs, effective teachers use
a variety of methods and types of experiences to integrate inquiry into their everyday
classroom activities. The students are often involved in gathering and interpreting
information through observation from a variety of sources and investigate new ideas,
issues, and concepts through collaboration, in which finding solutions to real-world
problems using scientific research models and methods is a desired goal (Wheeler et al.,
2007, pg.36).
Service-learning and real-life programs appear to be most successful when they
tie academic concepts to real-world, locally relevant examples and allow students to
apply their knowledge to projects in their communities. The research from this report
seems to indicate that such service-learning activities increase student motivation and
interest and assist students in the development of a sense of pride, ownership, and respect
for themselves and others (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg.36).
Student-led projects, activities and programs that include leadership, cooperative
learning and group work are also mentioned as a type of successful EE program model.
50
From the research, student-centered and constructivist approaches to learning and
teaching are often viewed as strategies and techniques to improve student performance,
motivation, and engagement. Lessons and facts have the potential to become more
interesting when students have an opportunity to construct their knowledge themselves
and to apply it to real, important, and relevant situations (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg.36-37).
Finally, when it comes to describing characteristics of an EE program, almost
every research and resource publication mentions hands-on learning. It is well
documented that learning by “doing” helps students master real-life skills and potentially
provide an opportunity to integrate skills and knowledge from different areas. As a result,
students may be more motivated and engaged and may be more likely to remember the
learning and apply the information and skills to new situations (Wheeler et al., 2007,
pg.37).
Here is a summary of program characteristics of successful EE program
according to the research conducted by the OSPI within the 2007 Environmental
Education Report:
According to the research in the report, effective EE programs require a highly
trained and competent instructor. These educators work in a variety of settings and within
a variety of jobs. They also teach in public and private classrooms, and lead activities for
children and adults at non-formal educational institutions such as nature centers, zoos,
museums, outdoor learning centers, and parks. They develop curriculum materials, put on
public awareness events, and administer national, state, and local programs. Their
51
training involves both initial educator training, as well as ongoing professional
development.
In regards to EE program characteristics, utilizing an integrated approach and
being able to work on multiple tasks at the same time is a necessary skill in many current
work environments. In the context of an EE program, integration of several disciplines
allows the potential for students to draw deeper connections between different subjects
and to move from isolated concepts to a network of interrelated ideas. EE programs that
use integration may help students develop greater motivation and interest in learning and,
as a result, possibly lead to higher academic performance (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg.37).
The report mentions that the characteristics of effective communication and
documentation between team members, teachers, schools, and the community is one of
the key elements of a successful environmental and sustainability program. The studies in
this EE Report also suggest that documenting the program activities could help with
program assessment and evaluation. In addition, regular meetings and planning time for
teachers involved in the development and delivery of the program has the potential to
improve the quality of the program (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg.37).
Involvement of community partners in the EE programs can improve their quality
and impact on students, according to the report. Community members and organizations
have the potential to provide formal and non-formal programs with environmental
learning opportunities, professional expertise, and financial support (Wheeler et al., 2007,
pg.37).
52
Professional development of environmental education teachers can lead to a highquality, well-educated staff, which is crucial to the long-term success and overall
improvement of the program. Some examples of professional development suggested
within the research can come in the form of summer institutes and workshops, weekly or
biweekly learning sessions, and common planning time to collaboratively develop and
refine ideas (Wheeler et al., 2007, pg.37).
Finally, authentic assessment, specifically that which informs student learning, is
one of the strategies to create and maintain a successful EE program according to the
research. Authentic assessment allows students to assume an active role in the assessment
processes and potentially increase their self-esteem and motivation. Through assessment
tasks that are relevant to students’ lives, what students gained from the program can be
assessed. These assessments can help them develop ownership of their learning and may
improve their attitude specifically toward school and learning (Wheeler et al., 2007,
pg.37).
Here is a summary of best practices regarding EE program management:
1) Develop projects and programs that include inquiry and critical thinking; servicelearning that asks students to apply their knowledge to projects in their
communities; student-led activities that include leadership, cooperative learning
and group work: “learning by doing” helps students master real-life skills;
opportunities to integrate several disciplines.
2) Acquire a highly trained and competent instructor who can work in a variety of
settings and within a variety of jobs.
3) Provide professional development opportunities for staff.
4) Develop effective communication and documentation between team members,
teachers, schools, and the community.
53
5) Involve community partners: community members and organizations provide
environmental learning opportunities, professional expertise, and financial
support.
6) Allow students to assume an active role in the assessment processes; provide
authentic assessment, specifically that which informs student learning.
1.6.2 Nature Centers
The principal resources that I found regarding best practices of nature centers
were the Evans & Evans 2004 book, The Nature Center Book: How To Create And
Nurture A Nature Center In Your Community and the Association of Nature Center
Administrators 1998 book, The Nature Center Handbook: A Manual of Best Practices
from the Field (Volume 1). Both of these resources come highly recommended in the
environmental education field and provide excellent examples and discussions
concerning everything from start-up to funding to programming. I have summarized
many of the main points from these resources below in an attempt to create a stronger
framework from which to view student farm implementation and long-term
sustainability.
The resource The Nature Center Handbook: A Manual of Best Practices from the
Field is a director and user guide to running a successful nature center and was developed
by The Association of Nature Center Administrators (ANCA). This valuable manual
offers best practices, tips, techniques, and examples from nature center administrators and
other experts in five essential areas: leadership, strategic planning, boards, staff, and fund
raising and development. The ANCA was founded in 1989 in response to a demand for a
national professional network for nature center administrators. The founding directors
54
recognized the need to develop peer relationships and ways to share knowledge,
expertise, successes, and failures with each other. In addition, ANCA promotes
leadership and quality management for the nature center profession in addition to offering
services to its members.
The manual has several related nature center definitions. The first definition is
that a nature center brings environments and people together under the guidance of
trained professionals to experience and develop relationships with nature. A more
expansive definition comes from the ANCA in which it states that a nature center consists
of 1) a natural site or home base to conduct educational programs; 2) a separate legal
entity with a precise mission statement managed by a governing body; 3) a paid
professional staff; 4) an established education program. In regards to best practices, a
successful nature center is one where the mission is fulfilled, clients are reached through
programs and services, and sufficient funding is attained to achieve the organization’s
goals. A nature center brings environments and people together under the guidance of
trained professionals to experience and develop relationships with nature. A nature center
consists of a natural site or home base to conduct educational programs; a separate legal
entity with a precise mission statement managed by a governing body; a paid professional
staff; and an established education program.
Strategic planning is defined as a disciplined, consensus building process of
creating a desired future for an organization and developing strategies to attain that
future. Benefits to strategic planning include promotion of strategic thinking and action,
improved decision making, enhanced organizational responsiveness and improved
performance, and direct benefits to the people of the organization. In general, successful
55
strategic planning leads to action, builds a shared vision that is values-based, is an
inclusive, participatory process in which board and staff take on shared ownership,
accepts accountability to the community, is externally focused and sensitive to the
organization’s environment, requires an openness to questioning the status quo, and is a
key part of effective management. The process requires teamwork and improves
communication, trust, respect, and consensus among board members, staff, and other
important members of your constituency. Strategic planning is an on-going part of the
organization’s operations.
In regards to best practices with staffing, people are an organization’s greatest
asset. Staff members plan, conduct, and carry out the nature center’s programs and
activities, and represent the organization to its constituents on a daily basis, while
providing important services and support to visitors, members, donors, and the general
public. Most nature centers operate with paid staff, who in partnership with the director,
volunteers and board members, work to achieve the organization’s mission. Coordinating
and training volunteers, accumulating materials, planning activities, researching learning
resources, and securing funding are all vital processes that will require significant time
and energy. Therefore, these resources recommend that one best practice would be to
finance a permanent position, such as a director or manager, who can handle these
responsibilities, instead of spreading the load among existing staff.
As is true with almost all organizations, student farms, EE programs and nature
centers, funding is necessary to advance the organization’s mission and achieve goals,
and essential to ensure growth, stability, and longevity of any organization. To produce
sufficient resources to support the center, most directors develop an income mix that may
56
include earned income (fees, services, contracts), interest income (from endowments or
other investments), and charitable contributions (donations, gifts, grants, and support).
These resources recommend that an integrated development program should combine
short and long-term fundraising through annual, capital and planned giving programs.
Annual giving produces basic income for operations, while capital giving targets funds
for special projects and capital needs such as buildings and facilities. Planned giving
concentrates on large, permanent gifts for long-term support such as bequests.
Established fundraising practices that generate annual, capital and planned gifts
for nature centers and that are based on strong ethical principles and practices are the
keys to success for any organization or nonprofit. By protecting donor rights and
incorporating sound business and fund management practices, the organization can build
donor confidence in the organization’s credibility. However, fund raising and
development is challenging and requires a sustained commitment to develop relationships
with donors and supporters. Short-term fund raising successes are important, but to
guarantee the stability and longevity of programs and mission, planned steady growth is
essential.
These resources recommend the keeping of records of all financial activity
including receipts from all purchases of goods or services, volunteer time or materials,
and staff time and activity. These records become a vital tool in selling the project,
keeping it alive, and helping it prosper.
Fund raising strategies vary widely among nature centers, and have involved both
traditional and innovative approaches. Nature centers take their funding where they can
57
get it and usually, that means locally. Most often, numerous funding sources rather than
one primary source support the project. The majority of nature centers are partnerships
between non-profit organizations and public entities, relying on public funds, private
donations, program fees, contracts, endowment income, annual giving programs, grants,
fund-raising drives, nature shops, and memberships, as well as admission charges. The
most important advice regarding all this funding potential is that a project will not receive
funds from any source unless the staff or volunteers ask.
Non-profit organizations receive about 85 percent of their financial support from
individuals through annual giving and endowments, with the remaining coming from
foundations, corporations, and bequests. Therefore, the organization should have a broad
approach to fund-raising and not rely on any single large entities that can suddenly end
support and shut down your center.
Here is a synthesis of best practices regarding nature center program management:
1) Develop successful strategic planning around a participatory process: Provides
shared ownership, accountability to the community, and is sensitive to the
organization’s environment.
2) Finance a permanent position, such as a director or manager, who can handle the
main responsibilities, instead of spreading the load among existing staff.
3) Develop a broad approach to fund-raising and do not rely on a single large entity.
4) Develop an income mix that includes earned income (fees, services, contracts),
interest income (from endowments or other investments), and charitable
contributions (donations, gifts, grants, and support).
5) Develop an integrated development program that combines short and long term
fund raising through annual, capital and planned giving programs. Planned steady
growth is essential.
6) Provide staff with necessary support to achieve goals of developing relationships
with donors and supporters.
7) “You will not receive funds from any source unless you ask.”
58
1.7 Summary of Best Practices Regarding Successful Farm-Based Education,
Environmental Education and Nature Center Program Management
After researching program management best practices regarding successful farmbased education, environmental education, and nature center education, several patterns
and themes emerged from the literature. These themes and patterns can be organized into
five distinct areas of program structure: strategic planning, staffing, funding,
programming and partnerships.
In the area of strategic planning, it was clear that simplifying program goals,
missions and the overall business plan was key for early program success and
implementation. It was also suggested that this development process be participatory,
involving many stakeholders to create shared ownership and increase buy-in from the
supporting institution and the community. In addition, identifying needs of the youth
program in terms of land and facility requirements is crucial as well. In most cases, these
needs are limited by already maxed out student farms and university campuses. However,
understanding what these minimal requirements of land and facilities would be to run an
effective program is essential to long-term success.
Identifying the needs of the community, institution, and university students is
equally as important as land and facility needs. These audience needs may vary from
community to community, and may even change over the years. The youth program
needs to be able to respond to these needs from the beginning in order to remain viable in
the community and within the structure of the supporting institution. If the program
59
chooses to become a non-profit, addressing these needs may become even more
important, especially when applying for funding from various foundations.
Best practices from the literature also revealed that many youth programs within
the context of a student farm atmosphere encounter constant challenges and tensions
between the responsibilities of production and education on the farm. However, these
tensions can be overcome or mitigated by maximizing the positive aspects of this
challenge instead of dwelling on the potential negative impacts it might have on the
program. Several examples cited in the literature state that focusing on the creative
solutions to logistical issues with student and staff involvement can enhance team
building and community. Even financial tensions between production and education can
be resolved by working together with institution and community to identify solutions that
fit the goals of the youth program. Communication among stakeholders is seen as the key
to tension resolution.
In the program management area of staffing, best practices from the literature
revealed that acquiring funding to hire at least one full-time director or manager in charge
of the youth program was crucial for long-term viability and success. It was agreed by
most program resources that utilizing temporary staff employees, especially those reliant
on institutional student positions or AmeriCorps or Campus Corps positions, created
program instability and limited growth for the future. Having a permanent staff member
to handle the main responsibilities, instead of spreading the load among temporary staff,
was deemed ideal. Institutional funding for this position was also viewed as more
sustainable than grant funding for overall program stability.
60
Identifying quality staff and volunteer bases was seen as critical for program
success. This staff and volunteer base most often comprises university students and
community volunteers such as teachers and parents of children involved with the youth
program. Providing this work force base with the necessary support to achieve the goals
of the program was also key for long-term viability. These resources stated that simply
filling positions within the youth program with quality employees and volunteers is not
enough. Continuous financial and program support is also needed to enhance and expand
program services into the future.
Finally, striking a balance between student leadership and staff and faculty
direction was also stated as important. Developing effective communication and
documentation between team members, teachers, schools, and the community is essential
for sustainability of the program. The main point is that there needs to be a feeling of
participation and ownership among everyone involved with the program.
The issue of funding was another theme of program management discussed within
the literature. Identifying potential funding sources requires a focus on establishing a
balance between short-term financial efficiency and long-term resilience with a desired
goal of self-sufficiency. Diversifying funding sources through a broad approach to fundraising was identified as ideal for long-term success. Relying on a single funding entity
was viewed as extremely risky over the long haul. Income mixes that included earned
income (fees, services, contracts), interest income (from endowments or other
investments), and charitable contributions (donations, gifts, grants, and support) was also
viewed as ideal. Several resources also stressed how important it was to not assume that
61
financial support was not available from any particular source. Stated plainly, you will
not receive funds from any source unless you ask.
When it came to best practices in programming and curriculum, many resources
agreed that identifying programming that is diverse, age-appropriate, and efficient in
delivery and scope, was the ideal for short-term and long-term program success. Also
mentioned in the literature were the types of programming or activities that research had
shown to provide positive impacts for children. These types of programming included
inquiry-based projects and programs based on critical thinking; service-learning that
allows students to apply their knowledge to projects in their communities; student-led
projects and activities that include leadership, cooperative learning and group work; and
learning by “doing” which has the potential to help student’s master real-life skills. In
general, any programming that incorporated the integration of several disciplines was
deemed ideal as well. Allowing students to assume an active role in the assessment
processes of this programming was also identified as a key element in program
sustainability. The literature indicated that this student role in assessment provided
authentic assessment, specifically that which informs student learning.
Other significant elements of programming revealed in the literature stated that
maintaining flexibility and adaptability, especially in regards to new educational
programs was a desired quality of the program. Also, working within educational
standards identified through the local schools was also identified as a way to connect on a
deeper level within the community. In general, programming must remain adaptable and
flexible enough to provide services to meet the needs of the community, even as these
needs change throughout the years.
62
Strong and vibrant partnerships were identified by many literature resources as
being one the most critical elements to achieve for overall program viability. Solidifying
involvement of community partners, members and organizations had the potential to
provide environmental learning opportunities, professional expertise, and financial
support. In fact, several resources cited partnerships as the most important factor for
program success. It was emphasized in the literature that the institution and student farm
supports the community as the community supports the student farm and youth program.
This synergy is a real and achievable goal for resiliency. It was also emphasized that
keeping the student farm and youth program tidy and clean increased institutional and
community support.
The literature that I reviewed point fairly consistently to best practices in five
areas, which are strategic planning, staffing, funding, programming, and partnerships.
These best practices are summarized in Table 1. on the following page.
63
Table 1: Summary of Best Practices Regarding Farm-based Education, Environmental
Education and Nature Center Program Management
Strategic
Planning
Develop simple and manageable mission statement, program goals, and business plan.
Develop successful strategic planning around a participatory process: Provides shared ownership,
accountability to the community, and is sensitive to the organization’s environment.
Identify land and facility needs.
Identify audience and community needs.
Maximize the positive aspects found within the creative tension between production and education.
Staffing
Provide staff with necessary support to achieve goals of developing relationships with donors and
supporters.
Finance a highly trained and permanent position, such as a director or manager, who can handle the main
responsibilities, instead of spreading the load among existing staff.
Identify potential staff, student and volunteer base. Provide professional development opportunities for
staff.
Funding
Strike a balance between student leadership and staff/faculty direction. Develop effective communication
and documentation between team members, teachers, schools, and the community.
Identify potential funding sources with a focus on establishing balance between short-term financial
efficiency and long-term resilience with a desired goal of self-sufficiency. Planned steady growth is
essential.
Diversify funding sources if possible. Develop a broad approach to fund-raising and do not rely on a
single large entity.
Develop an income mix that includes earned income (fees, services, contracts), interest income (from
endowments or other investments), and charitable contributions (donations, gifts, grants, and support).
“You will not receive funds from any source unless you ask.”
Programming
Identify programming that is diverse, age-appropriate, and efficient in delivery and scope.
Develop teaching strategies known to strengthen student learning, including inquiry-based projects and
programs based on critical thinking; Service-learning which allows students to apply their knowledge to
projects in their communities; Student-led projects and activities that include leadership, cooperative
learning and group work; Learning by “doing” which helps students master real-life skills; Integration of
several disciplines is optimal.
Maintain flexibility and adaptability, especially in regards to new educational programs.
Allow students to assume an active role in the assessment processes. Provide authentic assessment,
specifically that which informs student learning.
Partnerships
Work within educational standards of local schools.
Identify partnerships, stakeholders, and allies within the community and institution, which is crucial for
long-term success.
Involve community partners, members, and organizations to provide environmental learning
opportunities, professional expertise, and financial support.
Remember that the student farm supports the community as the community supports the student farm;
This is a real and achievable goal for resiliency.
Keep student farm tidy and clean to increase support.
64
CHAPTER TWO: Research Methodology
1.1 General Research Approach
In order to identify which student farms in the United States have existing youth
programs and better understand what the financial and organizational issues are with
implementing and sustaining these youth programs, I decided to undertake both
quantitative and qualitative research methods. After identifying existing student farms in
the United States through an extensive literature review and individual student farm
research, I conducted quantitative on-line survey research to yield broad descriptive data
concerning various institutional and program characteristics of existing student farms.
Using quantitative data analysis for the survey research enabled me to be able to analyze
many student farm survey responses in the context of a limited number of questions, thus
facilitating comparison and statistical analysis of the data.
I then conducted a series of in-depth qualitative phone interviews with five
identified student farm youth programs. This qualitative research provided numerous
details concerning youth program organizational finances, implementation and overall
longevity. Synthesizing this data, I utilized summative research to determine youth
program effectiveness, specifically program financial effectiveness. Summative research
can be defined as conclusions made about a program to make a major decision about its
value, whether it should be continued, and whether the demonstrated model can or should
be generalized to and replicated for other participants or in other places. This research
method is used in the context of judging the merit of a program at the end, and to make
recommendations for the future if such a program is undertaken again.
65
I applied purposeful sampling as my sampling strategy for the research on student
farms. Purposeful sampling can be defined as a sampling strategy in which information
rich cases or subjects are purposefully selected for potential in-depth studies.
Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of
central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling.
Studying information-rich cases also tend to yield insights and in-depth understanding
rather than empirical generalizations. In general purposeful sampling focuses on selecting
information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study.
Not only did I employ both quantitative and qualitative methodology, I also
attempted to incorporate illuminative evaluation methodology. My goal in utilizing
illuminative evaluation was to examine financial and organizational strategies and
outcomes for youth program implementation and longevity on student farms via data
from numerous sources in order to "il1uminate" the realities of and barriers to financial
sustainability. By exercising illuminative evaluation, I had the flexibility to discover
information and perspectives applicable to my original research questions and to
incorporate these findings into my discussion and analysis in order to produce a complete
story of various financial strategies of youth programs on student farms in the U.S.
I employed a combination of deductive and inductive research analysis.
Deductive analysis is where the data is analyzed according to an existing framework
whereas inductive analysis involves discovering patterns, themes, and categories in one’s
data. Inductive analysis findings emerge out of the data, through the analyst’s interactions
with the data. I utilized deductive analysis to interpret my quantitative survey data and
used inductive analysis to evaluate my qualitative interview data. Each of these analysis
66
strategies are appropriate for the type of respective data that was collected applying both
quantitative and qualitative methods.
While my thesis did not have a specific hypothesis in a way that explicitly links
dependent and independent variables, I did however have several assumptions from my
early literature research regarding youth programs on student farms. These assumptions
shaped my research design and analysis strategies and also influenced the framework of
my main research questions.
One broad assumption was that student farms are growing in popularity, number
and size as a result of the increasing interdisciplinary interests from students, staff and
faculty at colleges and universities across the United States. These interests are partially
created by the overall growing movements surrounding food and farming issues such as
food security, organics, and climate change. In addition, food issues are interdisciplinary
by nature, involving many different areas of institutional curriculum study such as human
health, ecology, economics, energy, and education. The realization from students that
farms are linked to these other interdisciplinary areas of study is expanding and therefore
the institutional demand and need for expanded academic offerings is growing as well.
The second assumption was that the potential benefits of garden-based and farmbased education programs to the overall development of children and adolescent youth is
well documented and growing in popularity throughout K-12 schools across America.
The third assumption was that the structure, curriculum, and funding of student
farms varies greatly across the United States because of geographical, political,
economic, and institutional factors.
67
Fourth, the addition of a youth program, defined as any outreach activities
specifically targeted for age ranges from preschoolers through adolescents, to an existing
student farm program benefits both the surrounding community (specifically the youth
within that community) and the students working on the student farm as well.
Fifth, that student farm youth program potential benefits are not thoroughly
researched or documented and that examples or inventories of existing and emergent
student farm youth programs have not been well researched as well.
My last assumption was that by understanding the financial and organizational
issues related to implementing and sustaining a youth education program on a student
farm could benefit future youth program implementation and overall student farm
research.
1.2 Quantitative On-line Surveys of Existing Student Farms
Along with my literature review I discovered three resources that were crucial for
my survey research: the Rodale’s Institute online “Directory of Student Farms”, the
Sustainable Agriculture Education Association (SAEA) online “Student Farms in the
U.S. and Canada” student farm directory through Cornell University, and the student
farm directory found in the appendix of the 2011 book Fields of Learning by Sayre and
Clark. In the spring of 2012, I created a spreadsheet combining all of these student farm
inventories along with all associated information, such as geographic characteristics, land
uses, institutional location, farm name, year established and stakeholder contact
information, if available. Eighty (80) student farms were identified on this integrated
68
inventory representing student farms throughout the United States. Through further
research, three of these student farms were discovered to be no longer in existence. This
left seventy-seven (77) student farms to be contacted.
Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of the list in order to verify student
farm existence and current information. However, it is understood from the literature that
the student farm movement is continually evolving with new student farms and
associated academic programs emerging or in development. My research and inventory
efforts provided a strong list of potential student farm candidates based on the most
current information and research available at the time of this project.
On March 13, 2012, I created an online survey through the limited free services of
Survey Monkey (Appendix 2). This survey’s intention was to collect quantitative data
regarding various qualities of these identified student farms such as location and size of
the associated institution, existence and types of outreach programs, existence and age
ranges of a youth program, average operating budget and current sources/types of
funding of youth program, and willingness to participate in a confidential follow-up
phone interview. These responses were then investigated and organized to determine
various descriptive data.
Between March 18th and March 31st, 2012, two rounds of email messages were
sent to the identified major stakeholders (i.e. farm manager, program director, etc.) at
each student farm within my inventory. The message stated my research goals and
expressed my desire for their responses to the survey invitation (Appendix 1). This email
also included my explanations of the project’s confidentiality documents and a link to my
69
research survey via Survey Monkey. The first round of email messages included all
seventy-seven (77) stakeholders. After ten days, another friendly reminder message was
sent via email to all stakeholders who had yet to respond to the first online survey
message. No other email contact was attempted with the stakeholders beyond these two
rounds of emails regarding the research survey.
1.3 Qualitative In-depth Phone Interviews with Major Stakeholders of Student Farms
with Youth Programs
Once the survey was completed, utilizing pre-selected survey criteria, I selected
five student farms to be potentially contacted for in-depth phone interviews. These
criteria narrowed down the original survey inventory pool to consider potential
interviews with the farm stakeholders who indicated the following responses to these
general questions:
Table 2: Quantitative Survey Criteria
Survey
Question
#3
Question
Response
Do you (the institution) currently have a student farm?
Yes
#6
Does the student farm have a youth program?
Yes
#10
Would you be willing to engage in a confidential follow-up
interview?
Yes or Maybe
I chose these criteria because the goals of my phone interviews were to gain
deeper insight into youth programs on student farms, not just any outreach program that
70
the farm might offer or engage in with the community. In addition, survey question #3
(Figure 1) insured that these farms originally gleaned from online inventories and Fields
of Learning actually still existed and were in operation. Finally, question #10 (Figure 1)
was included as a phone interview criterion to provide additional student farm
stakeholder information. It also provided me with the confidence that these stakeholders
would be willing to engage in a follow-up interview in the near future.
Based on the results of my pre-selected survey criteria and with the appropriate
respondent permissions, I sent two rounds of emails (Appendix 3) to identify student
farm youth program stakeholders between April and June of 2012. This letter thanked the
identified stakeholders for their original participation in the on-line survey and requested
their further research participation in the form of a brief 60-90 minute phone interview to
be conducted within the next few weeks. I utilized the “standard open-ended interview”
research process which consisted of a set of questions (Appendix 4) carefully worded and
arranged with the intention of taking each interviewee through the same sequence and
asking each respondent the same questions with essentially the same words. This
approach helped to minimize variation in the questions initially posed to the student farm
stakeholders, increased comparability of responses, and maximized the time efficiency of
each interview. This interview consistency was crucial for my interview analysis.
Through correspondence via response to my phone interview email, I arranged the
logistics of the phone interview with several of the stakeholders, such as the appropriate
phone number and time to call. With the consent of these stakeholders who responded to
my request, the interviews were recorded using a digital recorder and a cell phone on
speaker mode and eventually transcribed to Word documents. I also manually took notes
71
during the interview sessions for back-up purposes during the actual interview. These
phone interview research sessions were conducted between April and June, 2012.
72
CHAPTER THREE: Research Findings
1.1 Quantitative Research (On-line Survey)
As mentioned earlier, eighty (80) student farms were originally identified from
multiple resource inventories and individual research, while three were discovered to no
longer have an existing student farm. Of the seventy-seven (77) verified student farms
that were sent a request and link to participate in the on-line survey, forty-six (46)
completed the survey while two responded that they would not or could not participate in
the survey at all. In summary, forty-six (46) out of seventy-seven (77) potential
responders completed the survey research, resulting in a 60% response rate.
Here are further summary details of the survey categorized by question and
corresponding responses:
“What is the name AND location of your institution?”
Forty-two (42) responders answered while four skipped this first question of the
survey. Answers to the “location” part of this question revealed data regarding where
these student farms were geographically located by region; Northeast, Southeast, West,
and Midwest. The West had the most responses with fifteen (15), while the Northeast had
eleven (11), the Midwest had nine (9) and the Southeast had seven (7). The original
student farm survey contact list of seventy-seven (77) potential responders yielded the
following numbers per geographical region: Northeast, twenty-seven (27); West, twentyfive (25); Midwest, thirteen (13); and the Southeast, twelve (12). When these potential
responders by region are compared to the actual responses by region, it is revealed that
the Midwest had the best response rate by region at seventy (70) percent. The response
73
rates for the rest of the U.S. were sixty (60) percent for the West region, fifty-eight (58)
percent for the Southeast region, and forty-one (41) percent for the Northeast.
Figure 1: Survey Responses of U.S. Student
Farms by Region
Southeast
Midwest
West
Northeast
0
Total Survey Responses
Total Student Farms
5
10
15
20
25
30
Northeast
11
West
15
Midwest
9
Southeast
7
27
25
13
12
“What is the size of your institution in terms of numbers of students?”
All forty-six (46) responders answered this question. On the survey, the
respondents were given five selections to choose, ranging from “less than 1,000 students”
to “15,001 or more students”. Of the possible institution student population size ranges,
thirteen (13) responders answered ”15,001 or more students” and “1,001-5,000 students”
respectively. The next highest answered selection was “less than 1,000 students” with ten
responses, “10,001-15,000 students” with eight responses and “5,001-10,000 students”
with two responses.
74
Figure 2: Survey Responses of Student
Population
> 1,000
1,001-5,000
5,001-10,000
10,001-15,000
> 15,000
0
Survey Responses
2
> 15,000
13
4
6
8
10,001-15,000 5,001-10,000
8
2
10
1,001-5,000
13
12
14
> 1,000
10
“Do you currently have a Student Farm?”
Forty-three (43) responded “yes” to this question. Out of those forty-three (43),
thirty-six (36) responded to both parts of the follow up question, “If YES, what is the
name of your Student Farm AND the year established?” From these thirty-six (36)
responses, two (2) student farms (5%) were identified to have been in existence less than
five years. Twelve (12) student farms (33%) have been in existence between six and ten
years. One (1) student farm has been in existence between eleven and fifteen years. Seven
(7) student farms have been in existence between sixteen and twenty years. Fourteen (14)
student farms have been in existence for at least twenty-one years or more.
75
Figure 3: Survey Responses of U.S. Student
Farm Establishment
20 + yrs
16-20 yrs
11-15 yrs
6-10 yrs
1-5 yrs
0
Survey Responses
2
1-5 yrs
2
4
6-10 yrs
12
6
8
11-15 yrs
1
10
12
16-20 yrs
7
14
16
20 + yrs
14
“Does the Student Farm have any outreach programs? (An outreach program is
defined as efforts to increase the availability and utilization of services, especially
through direct intervention and interaction with the target population.)”
Thirty-nine (39) responders answered “Yes” to this question indicating that they
had at least one outreach program in place. Two responders skipped this question and the
other five answered “No” and were directed to skip to the end of the survey.
“What kinds of outreach does the Student Farm engage with the community? (Check
all that apply)”
Forty (40) responders answered this question while six skipped it. The purpose of
this question was to gain a better understanding of the types of outreach activities that
were being conducted by the student farms with the community by providing a broad list
76
of outreach categories, as well as an option to specify “other” activities not listed on the
survey. It is important to emphasis that the responders were allowed to “check” all
answers that applied, including the “other” category. Of the total possible outreach
choices, “farm staff guided tour opportunities” were the most popular with thirty-three
(33) responders selecting this choice. The selections “open to public visitation” and
“public events (fairs, festivals, open house, etc.)” were the next most popular answers,
both receiving thirty-one (31) responses. Rounding out the rest of the outreach survey
choices were as follows: “workshop/course offerings” with twenty-seven (27) responses;
“other” with twenty-two (22) responses; “self-guided tour opportunities” with fifteen (15)
responses; “on-site explanatory signage about the farm itself” with eight responses; and
“summer camps” with seven responses.
The twenty-two (22) responses stated “other” types of outreach engagement
revealed many other distinct and specific outreach activities, as stated and defined by the
responders themselves. Several of these activities were duplicated in other responses. The
consolidated list of outreach activities includes: informal outreach; livestock/animal
sales; working with students on campus kitchens; field trips; working with high school
interns; hosting work days with the community; offering a service learning site; farmer’s
market and CSA opportunities; established community gardens; volunteer opportunities
offered; student employment; food bank donation programs; community dinners; 4-H and
Master Gardener tours; seedling adoption program; Green Eaters program with local
Boys and Girls Club; and service learning components working on commercial farms.
77
Figure 4: Survey Responses of Types of
Outreach Activities
Summer camps
On-site explanatory signage
Self guided tour opportunities
Other
Workshop/course offerings
Public events
Open to public visitation
Farm staff guided tour opportunities
0
5
10
Farm staff
Open to public
Workshop/co
guided tour
Public events
visitation
urse offerings
opportunities
Survey Responses
33
31
31
27
15
Other
22
20
Self guided
tour
opportunities
15
25
30
On-site
explanatory
signage
8
35
Summer
camps
7
“Do you have a youth program? (A youth program is defined as any outreach activities
specifically targeted for age ranges from pre-schoolers through adolescents.)”
Forty-one (41) responders answered the question while five skipped the question.
Of those forty-one (41) responses, seventeen (17) responders answered “Yes, we do”
indicating that they did have a youth program. Fifteen (15) responded “No, we don’t have
a youth program and do not envision having one in the near future” and were directed to
advance to the end of the survey. Eight responders answered “No, but it is an aspiration
for the future” while one responder replied “No, but we are actively planning/developing
one now.” Both of these answers were also directed to advance to the end of the survey.
78
Figure 5: Survey Responses of Youth Program
Existence
No, but actively planning and developing
one now
No, but it is an aspiration for the future
No, and do not envision having one in
the near future
Yes, we do have a youth program
0
Yes, we do have a youth
program
Survey Responses
17
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
No, and do not envision
No, but it is an aspiration No, but actively planning
having one in the near
for the future
and developing one now
future
15
8
1
Twelve (12) of the seventeen (17) responders answered the follow-up question, If
answer is YES, what year was the program implemented?” Five responders indicated that
their youth program was established between six and ten years ago, forty-two (42)
percent. Three responders stated that their program was established between recently and
within five years ago, for twenty-five (25) percent. Two responders indicated that it was
established between sixteen and twenty years ago, seventeen (17) percent. One responder
each stated that their youth program was established between eleven and fifteen, and over
twenty-one years ago respectively.
79
Figure 6: Survey Responses of Youth Program
Establishment
21 + yrs
16-20 yrs
11-15 yrs
6-10 yrs
1-5 yrs
0
Survey Responses
1
1-5 yrs
3
2
6-10 yrs
5
3
11-15 yrs
1
4
16-20 yrs
2
5
6
21 + yrs
1
“What are the age ranges (youth audience) of children participating in the Youth
Program?”
Seventeen (17) responders answered this question while twenty-nine skipped. The
seventeen (17) responses revealed an age range from 4-18 years old for the youth
audience participating in the youth program.
“What is the average annual operating budget for the youth program?”
Seventeen (17) responders answered this question while twenty-nine skipped. Of
these seventeen (17) responses only seven stated any annual budget at all; one estimated
at over $100,000, four from $18,000-50,000, and two from $250-500. Of the remaining
ten responses, four stated that they had no money in the budget for these programs and
80
six stated that they did not know or could not produce any numbers available to even
calculate what a budget might be.
What are the current sources of funds for the youth program? (Check all that apply)”
There were fifteen (15) responders who answered this question while thirty-one
(31) skipped. Responders were allowed to “check all that apply” for this question,
including an opportunity to submit their own individualized answer under the choice of
“other”. The most popular answer was “direct income from services or product sales”
with ten total responses. The next most frequent responses were “institutional funds
(general operating funds from the institution to support youth program)” with seven
answers, and “grants”, “charitable giving” and “other” each with five answers. The
“other” category yielded multiple answers consolidated as “field trips”, “AmeriCorps”,
and “tour fees”. Remaining answers included: “donations” and “camps” with four
answers apiece; “special fund-raisers or events” with two answers; and
“workshops/courses” and “memberships” each with one answer.
81
Figure 7: Survey Responses of Youth Program
Current Sources of Funding
Memberships
Workshops/courses
Special fund-raisers or events
Camps
Donations
Other
Charitable giving
Grants
Institutional funds
Direct income from services or product sales
0
Direct income
from services Institutional
or product
funds
sales
Survey Responses
10
7
2
4
6
8
Grants
Charitable
giving
Other
Donations
Camps
5
5
5
4
4
10
12
Special fundWorkshops/c
raisers or
Memberships
ourses
events
2
1
1
“Would you be willing to participate in a confidential follow-up phone interview
regarding more details of the student farm and its outreach programs?”
Forty-six (46) responses were received with no responders skipping this question.
Of those forty-six (46) responses, twenty-one (21) responders stated that “Yes, I would
be willing to participate in a confidential interview”. Eleven (11) responses stated
“Maybe, please provide me with more specifics”, while fourteen (14) answered “No,
thanks”. A combined total of thirty-two (32) responders indicated that they would
82
definitely be willing or could possibly be willing to participate, with more information, in
a confidential interview. This represents approximately seventy percent (70%) of the total
responders surveyed, with the other thirty percent (30%) indicating that they did not want
to participate. Of the seventeen responders who indicated that they did have a youth
program, thirteen (13) student farms were willing to participate or needed more
information to consider participation in a follow up phone interview.
1.2 Qualitative Research (Phone Interviews)
1.2.1 Student Farm Descriptions
In order to maintain confidentiality, I have changed the names of the student
farms and the phone interview informants who participated in this research. However,
other broad institutional and farm characteristics, such as regional location or acreage, as
well as certain broad details specific to the individual informants, such as role and
position on the farm was revealed to add more tangible meaning to the data and paint an
overall picture of the student farms and programs.
Alder Farm
Alder Farm is located in the Northwestern region of the United States and was
established in 1996 residing on approximately ten acres. It is located on the campus of a
publically funded research institution with a student population size of approximately
14,200 students. Alder Farm grows field and horticultural crops, raises poultry, offers
CSA shares and donates to the local community Food Bank. The farm currently engages
83
in several different kinds of outreach such as open public visitations, farm staff guided
tour opportunities, public events, workshop/course offerings, summer camps, and
educational field trips for local schools. Alder Farm’s youth program was established in
2005 serving the age ranges of 3-18 year olds. The average annual operating budget for
the youth program is around $50,000 with current sources of funding coming from direct
income from services or product sales, grants, donations, charitable giving, and camps (in
no particular order).
Birch Farm
Birch Farm is located in the Northeastern region of the United States and was
established in 1994 residing on approximately seven acres. The farm is located on the
campus of a private liberal arts institution with a student population around 1,000
students. Birch Farm grows field and horticultural crops, offers CSA shares, participates
in a local farmers market, and grows some portion of food for the institutional dining
hall. The farm currently engages in several different kinds of outreach such as open
public visitations, on-site explanatory signage about the farm itself, self-guided tour
opportunities, farm staff guided tour opportunities, public events, workshop/course
offerings, and summer camps. The Birch Farm’s youth program was established in 2007
and serves the age ranges of preschool through twelve-grade. There is no established
average annual operating budget for the youth program. Current sources of funding come
from grants, donations, and camps (in no particular order).
84
Chestnut Farm
Chestnut Farm is located in the Western region of the United States and was
established in 1967 residing on approximately twenty-seven (27) acres. The farm is
located on the campus of a publically funded research institution with a student
population of approximately 17,500 students. Chestnut Farm grows horticultural crops,
raises poultry, offers CSA shares and donates to the local community Food Bank. The
farm currently engages in several different kinds of outreach such as open public
visitations, on-site explanatory signage about the farm itself, self-guided tour
opportunities, staff guided tour opportunities, public events, workshop/course offerings,
summer camps, school field trips, and school educator workshops. Chestnut Farm’s youth
program was established in 1979 serving the age ranges of 4-18 year olds. The average
annual operating budget for the youth program is an unknown portion of the larger
outreach budget, which is around $840,000. Current sources of funding come from direct
income from services or product sales, institutional funds, grants, special fund-raisers or
events, donations, workshops/courses, charitable giving, camps, and field trips (in no
particular order).
Dogwood Farm
Dogwood Farm is located in the Northeastern region of the United States and was
established in 2003 residing on approximately one acre. The farm is located on the
campus of a private Ivy League university with a student population size of
approximately 11,900 students. Dogwood Farm grows horticultural crops, raises poultry,
85
offers CSA shares and donates to the local community Food Bank. The farm currently
engages in several different kinds of outreach such as open public visitations, self-guided
tour opportunities, farm staff guided tour opportunities, public events, and
workshop/course offerings. Dogwood Farm’s youth program was established in 2004
serving the age ranges of 4-18 year olds. The average annual operating budget for the
youth program is around $500, not including substantial in-kind contributions including
staff time paid from other sources. Current sources of funding come from direct income
from services and institutional funds.
Elm Farm
Elm Farm is located in the Southeastern region of the United States and was
established in 1995 residing on approximately five acres. The farm is located on the
campus of a community college with a student population size of approximately 4,700
students. Elm Farm grows horticultural crops, raises poultry, offers CSA shares and
donates to the local community Food Bank. The farm currently engages in several
different kinds of outreach such as open public visitations, farm staff guided tour
opportunities, public events, workshop/course offerings and summer camps. Elm Farm’s
youth program was established in 2009 serving the age ranges of preschool-middle
school. There is no official average annual operating budget for the youth program and is
included as part of the college’s general department budget. Current sources of funding
come mainly from institutional funds.
86
Table 3, “Student Farm and Youth Program Comparisons from Qualitative Phone
Interviews” summarizes the general characteristics of the five student farms whose
stakeholders I interviewed.
Table 3: Student Farm and Youth Program Comparisons
Youth Program
Student Farm
Institution
From Qualitative Phone Interviews
U.S. Region
Type*
Year Established
Alder Farm
NW
A
1893
Birch Farm
NE
B
1869
Chestnut Farm Dogwood Farm Elm Farm
W
NE
SE
A
C
D
1965
1701
1961
Student Enrollment*
14,200
1,000
17,500
11,900
4,700
Year Established
Size (acres)
Production Types*
1996
10
A,B,C
1994
7
A,B
1967
27
B,C
2003
1
B,C
1995
5
B,C
A,C,D,E,F
A,D,E,F,G
2009
preschoolmiddle
school
Types of Outreach*
A,D,E,F,G,H A,B,C,D,E,F,G A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H
Activities
Year Established
2005
2007
1979
2004
Age Ranges
3-18 yrs.
preschool-12th
grade
4-18 yrs.
4-18 yrs.
$50,000
n/a
<$840,000
$500
n/a
A,C,E,G,I
C,E,I
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,I,J
A,B
B
Average Annual
Budget
Sources of
Funding*
Institution (Student Enrollment): Enrollments are approximate based on 2012 data
Institution (Type): A= publically funded research; B= private liberal arts; C= Ivy league research;
D= community college
Student Farm (Production Types): A= field crops; B= horticultural crops; C= livestock
Youth Program (Types of Outreach): A= open to public visitation; B= on-site explanatory signage
about the farm itself; C= self-guided tour opportunities; D= farm staff guided tour opportunities; E=
public events; F= workshops/course offerings; G= summer camps; H= other
Youth Program (Sources of Funding): A= direct income from services or product sales; B=
institutional funds; C= grants; D= special fund-raisers or events; E= donations; F=
workshops/courses; G= charitable giving; H= memberships; I= camps; J= other
87
1.2.2 Phone Interview Summaries
As mentioned earlier, thirteen (13) out of the seventeen (17) student farms that
indicated they had a youth program agreed to participate in the phone survey or would
consider participation with more information. All thirteen (13) student farms were
contacted via email in early April to request their participation in the survey as well as
explain the logistics of the confidential interview (Appendix 4). This initial request
resulted in three positive responses from Alex at Alder Farm, Bonnie from Birch Farm,
and Casey from Chestnut Farm. These phone interviews took place on April 19 and April
26, 2012.
Following these interviews I made a second attempt in late May, 2012 to contact
the other ten student farms that had not yet responded to my original phone interview
requests, using the same email and content as before. This second attempt yielded two
more positive responses and subsequent phone interviews with Daniel at Dogwood Farm
on June 15, 2012 and Erin at Elm Farm on June 18, 2012.
The following is a summary of the various responses from the informants,
organized by specific questions asked during the respective interview sessions:
“Tell the story of how the youth program began and how you became a part of it.”
Alder Farm
In the past, according to the Community Education Director, the student farm has had
88
persistent interests from local public schools to come to the farm for field trips. In 2005,
one of the university’s graduate students was interested in enhancing these field trips by
creating a more structured program. She applied for, and eventually received an $8,0009,000 grant in the fall of 2005.
The graduate student used some of these funds to create a 400-level practicum class,
incorporated into the farm, to give university students some practical experience doing
outdoor education with a focus on sustainable agriculture. The graduate student recruited
and taught undergraduate and graduate students for this class whose purpose was to
prepare them to be the farm’s teachers.
In Fall 2005, the first year of the practicum class drew about 500-700 kids for farm visits,
with university students leading the field trips and learning about outdoor education. The
following year, another graduate student took over the practicum class and received the
same grant from the year before. In 2007 the farm started to incorporate some service
projects, summer camps, and more field trips. In 2008, after maintaining the funding
from 2005 and the practicum class, the program took off, serving over 2,000 kids for the
year.
After the success of 2008, the farm started adding program income with the summer
camps and started working with local schools to start and maintain their school gardens.
Now in 2012, the student farm is serving about 3,000 students a year on field trips to the
farm at four different summer camps, while also working with multiple local schools to
maintain their student gardens. The Community Education Director emphasized though,
that even with all of this expansion and success, the interest and desire from the
89
community is still more than the student farm can currently serve.
Birch Farm
The Program Manager stated in the interview that local schools in the community have
heard through word of mouth that the student farm has a youth program, so teachers will
call the farm and want to bring their students out for field trips. The Program Manager
also said that the student farm operates a CSA, which has helped to draw attention to the
farm and the program since it does not officially advertise its services or programs.
Depending on interest from faculty and staff, the student farm has had camps in the past
such as morning camps for “kinder gardeners”, summer exploration day school,
gardening, nature craft program, and introduction to entomology.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that the student farm youth program started in 1979, when a
principal at a local elementary school came to a few teachers at the university and asked
if they could turn a school parking lot into a garden, and the teachers eventually did. Out
of that transformation the university teachers found that the children were not only
learning about gardening but about science and the investigation of science as well. It
was from the success of this garden project that initially started the youth program as a
non-profit and “things just kept growing.”
Over the next several years this group of teachers received several large national grants to
write curriculum, do research on language acquisition using gardens to enhance science
90
education at rural schools, and travel throughout the country to look at other
school/learning gardens to identify best practices for starting a garden. Soon after, several
other grants were secured to build the youth program teaching garden space.
Overwhelming support from the local communities and schools has enabled the farm’s
outreach program to grow steadily throughout the years. The youth program now serves
over 130 field trips per year in the spring and fall and nutrition workshops in the winter,
to go along with its on-site programs. The farm also offers summer camps and a teenager
empowerment program, in which students get paid for their work on the farm, while
learning about healthy eating habits and doing work with the community food bank. The
student farm and youth programs also do a lot of teacher training in curriculum and
environmental education.
A crucial element of the programs growth has been the establishment of a robust
internship training program with over 65 university student interns a year. These interns
are put through intense training programs and many go on to lead summer teaching
programs and farm field trips offered during the year.
Dogwood Farm
The Student Farm Director stated that while programs involving youth with the student
farm have taken many different forms throughout the years on the student farm,
opportunities for children to come to the farm were originally created by graduate and
staff initiatives. Graduate research assistants at the university primarily take on these
youth program outreach initiatives, especially over the last 6 years because the funding
91
was already available for grad students to do some type of community outreach work.
These research assistantships have grown out of the Department of Forestry.
The research awardees coordinate the youth program with the help from other student
volunteers to deliver the curriculum and to work with the kids who come to the farm.
They have developed a Peer Mentorship Model in which every pair of research graduate
students will have a mentor and a protégé (i.e. senior student with two years of
experience and a junior student with 1 year experience together). This has been going on
for the last five years.
These student farm youth programs involve repeated visits by local school classes so that
the children who come to the farm can work on a project as it progresses through a
growing season. It is based on the idea that with a “one shot visit” to the farm, it is very
difficult to figure out how this really impacts the kids. With the repeat visits there is a
reinforcement of learning experiences and practice that the teachers can start to build
upon and thus better document the impact the experience has on the kids. The Student
Farm Director pointed out that this is why they have emphasized having higher quality
visits, rather than larger numbers of kids coming to the farm. That means that the grad
students year to year are working to improve on the prior year’s experiences. They are
building on these established relationships from the visitation. They do some
collaboration with the school teachers to make sure that they are integrating it with their
school curriculum.
After about five years of exploratory workshops, the student farm youth program has
developed into something with a more standardized curriculum, with more evaluation
92
built into it, so the graduate students and farm staff can understand how the children are
affected when they come to the farm. The program is now better scheduled, managed,
and equipped to work within the standardized curriculum through collaboration with the
teachers on curriculum, training volunteers, and training for the student volunteers. The
learning objectives change slightly from year to year depending on the graduate research
students and the needs of the community and/or individual schools that the program is
working with from year to year.
Elm Farm
The Supervisor to the farm manager stated in the interview that the student farm was on
the college campus before the youth outreach program was established. In the beginning,
the college had a recruiter who would work mainly in middle-schools, so a lot of students
would come to the farm on career day. In addition, the college also has a preschool
daycare on campus, so the young kids from the preschool would often come to the farm
as well to explore and experience the gardens. This eventually led to gardens being
created at the preschool by various college student projects. Over the years, college
students have also established an ongoing relationship with the preschoolers from student
projects as well. While there is no real curriculum or program consistency, these college
student visits with the preschoolers often occur several times a year.
The Supervisor continued in saying that some students who are completing their servicelearning requirement now have the option to get credit to create a student project that
works with the preschoolers and the gardens. The service project can be something that
connects with local organizations that are doing advocacy or sustainable food systems or
93
agriculture. This is an option that students have within the sustainable agriculture class at
the college.
The student farm has also hosted different events like summer camps that other local
community organizations are running. These organizations want their campers to have a
farm experience for the day to learn about agriculture. The student farm also offers
guided tours on the farm to public, private and charter schools. Since the college also has
a very strong alternative energy and building curriculum, many schools in the community
are looking for an all-around college field trip experience to explore topics in energy,
building and farming.
“What is your role with the youth program and how long have you had it”
Alder Farm
The informant’s title at the student farm is Community Education Director. The
Community Education Director’s role is mainly associated with youth education since the
student farm youth program does not offer adult educational opportunities. The informant
did also state that the title Youth Education Director would probably be more appropriate.
Birch Farm
The informant’s title at the student farm is Program Manager. The responsibilities of this
position include overseeing the farm’s functions and CSA program and the
implementation of the college’s energy education programs. The Program Manager also
participates in various farm camps and youth programs when the faculty and staff need
assistance.
94
Chestnut Farm
The informant is the Co-director for the youth program.
Dogwood Farm
The informant is the Director for the student farm and related programs. The
responsibilities of this position include running the student farm, teaching, and organizing
speakers, workshops and student participation on the student farm. The Director is also
involved in operational reforms with the university campus dining.
Elm Farm
The informant has been the Supervisor for the farm manager since 1999, especially in
various technical capacities. The Supervisor’s responsibilities include student flow and
teaching on the farm, such as classes in organic crop production, plant science, pest
management, CSA marketing, intro to sustainable agriculture and sustainable livestock
management.
“Who carries out the program (staff? volunteers? mix?) and who do they report to?”
Alder Farm
Until 2012, the Community Education Director was the only employee in the youth
program. Now the Community Education Director utilizes an assistant during the
summer, an unpaid intern that works close to full time for 14-16 weeks since the summer
is a busy time with the camps and production. In 2012, the program also added another
95
position, a school garden coordinator from extra money earned through the student
farm’s programs. This new position will work ¾ time in the growing season for 30 weeks
of the year and will take over a lot of the school garden responsibility, maintenance, and
new projects.
The Community Education Director teaches the practicum class in the fall and works for
the university as an adjunct. The youth program does utilize volunteers and relies a lot on
the PTAs through the local schools to line up volunteers on behalf of the school garden.
However, coordinating these volunteers can be a lot of work.
The Director also stated that the youth program utilizes students in one of three ways.
The students can take the fall practicum class (sustainable agriculture education class)
and participate in a twice-a-week field trip with the local schools for 5-6 weeks in the
fall. The students can also participate through the practicum class by getting an
opportunity to develop curriculum and lesson plans, which is a requirement for the class.
Another way the students are utilized is through Campus Corps, an AmeriCorps program
that actively engages members in meeting community-identified needs through
meaningful service. Students may choose to participate in either the Service Team
Campus Corps Program or the Service Learning Campus Corps program. There is one
Campus Corps person per year. The Community Education Director admits that without
that person, they would not have been able to do all the things that they have been able to
do. The Director also stated that most of those Corps students go on to continue in some
96
kind of agriculture or youth education from the experience that they get within the youth
program at the student farm.
Birch Farm
The Program Manager stated that the student farm uses a variety of staff, students, and
volunteers, depending on the interest of those involved. Since the farm manager is so
busy with the day-to-day work of the farm, the Program Manager often tries to do most
of the youth programming and be the person on the ground when the school groups come
to the farm for field trips. Occasionally, depending on the particular work and the
particular interest of the farm manager, the Program Manager can get some college
interns to help on the farm and in the youth program. The Program Manager has also
used community volunteers, many of which are environmental educators. In general, the
help comes from whoever the Program Manager can get to help and that wants to be
involved.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that the youth program has one person full-time and one person
half time doing the field trips, two full-time people doing the youth empowerment
program, one full-time person doing garden workshops, one half-time administrative
person, a half-time garden person to help take care of the maintenance of the space, and
one full-time “everything person”, working on outreach, teacher training, and the
website.
97
The youth program does not get a lot of volunteers, but there are about 60 interns a year,
with the majority of these intern students getting credit for structured field trip trainings.
At the beginning of the program, the Co-director stated that the program used to have to
beg students to be interns, but now “we have plenty of interest.” The internship program
associated with the youth program is focused on making sure that the program and
university gives back to the students as much as they give to the program through their
time and hard work. The Co-director also stated that coordination is a big part of the
youth program staff’s jobs since it is crucial to the overall success of the youth program
on the student farm.
Dogwood Farm
The Director stated that the student farm has both student and non-student volunteers
who also work through the other academic programs at the university. The Director also
mentioned that in the actual youth programs themselves, the volunteers are coordinated
by the pair of research graduate associate students. However, there is also room for
volunteers to do general work on the farm that is not program specific, such as supporting
organization events.
Elm Farm
The Supervisor stated that the actual planting of the beds at the institution
preschool/daycare is organized by student volunteers from the sustainable agriculture
department.
98
“Is there a plan for ongoing staffing that sustains program quality? If so, please
provide more details.”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director stated that having the same person to maintain
consistency and establish relationships is very crucial. The consistency is what makes the
program most successful. Constant turnover, especially in the director position, because
the institution doesn’t want to pay for a permanent position, can cause a lot of problems.
Student-run programs are not a sustainable model. The Director emphasized that the
program won’t have as deep an impact in the community if there is not that consistency
and reliability in the position and partnerships of the program.
“How is the youth program currently funded and financially supported?”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director stated that the program has been funded by the same
foundation since it began in 2005. The foundation continues to fund the program partially
because the youth program has increased the program income through field trips and
other activities. In 2007, when the Director first started, there was no program income.
Now the youth program is generating about $14,000 per year in program income, which
is a large increase in 4 ½ years. The Director stated that this offers a lot of stability to the
program because he feels like eventually the foundation will stop giving and the program
is likely to be more financially independent.
99
The youth program income is about 1/3 of the overall budget and the rest is through grant
money, the Director stated. The Director would like to diversify even more but it is
difficult as a non- profit, especially working with the school district since they cannot
really charge money. What the youth program has been successful in doing is to create as
many partnerships as possible with PTAs, after-school programs, and local businesses
that are willing to donate to these projects with money or materials. Those partnerships
and in-kind donations associated in addition to program income account for about 50% of
the total budget. Overall, 50% of the program’s budget comes from grants and 50%
comes from in-kind donations and program income.
Establishing these relationships is especially important with expanding the school garden
projects since the schools don’t have money. The Director stated that getting people
excited about the youth program is not hard, but providing a way for people to help
beyond cash donations is a little more challenging.
Birch Farm
The Program Manager stated that the student farm youth program has no budget and
never has. However, the program does have the support of the college. The student farm
does occasionally ask for donations from general field trips or visitations, but not from
the school classes. The Program Manager also stated that the operating income for the
youth program as a whole comes from income generated by the CSA. The Program
Manager’s position and the position of the farm manager come from an endowment. The
rest of income for the student farm and the youth program comes from CSA income,
100
grants, and donations. Any revenue, if any, for camps goes back into the general college
budget.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that when the program first started over 18 years ago it was 99.9%
grant funded and usually by only one or two grants. At the time the Co-director knew that
this was a problem because large grants provide lots of money, but only for a finite
amount of time. What results is that you don’t have consistent staffing because you are
hiring them only for a specific amount of time, or a specific project and then they are
gone or you have to scramble to get more money to keep them. What the Co-director
found out over time is that diversity in funding sources is the key to why the youth
program is still here today. The trick however with diversified funding is that you don’t
have the cash flow you need all the time, so it is a little harder to manage cash flow.
However, if you can establish a buffer with diversified funding, then you can withstand
the really rough times.
Now, the youth program gets grants from longer-term foundation grants and smaller
grants from various sources. The Co-director also stated that the program charges fees for
services, such as $125 for field trips, and fees for summer camps at various levels. The
program also sells books and merchandise from an on-line store. The program also makes
money from benefits, community events, and various donations.
The Co-director summed up the overall distribution of her budget as the following: 40%
grants, 25% fees for service, 25% donations and 10% from merchandise sales.
101
Dogwood Farm
The Director stated that the youth program has been able to continue thanks to continued
funding of the research assistantships that come through the university graduate school.
This funding is approximately $3,000-5,000 per student per year. The students are paid
on an hourly basis and they are allocated 10 hours per week. The Director said that this is
what ensures that there will be skilled and committed students to the program.
The Director continued by saying that there are fairly insignificant material costs, under
$500 per year and this is paid out of the student farm’s budget. The farm’s budget mainly
comes from produce sales.
The Director also stated that the student farm and the youth program are totally part of
university and under its umbrella of insurance and governance, which is critical for any
future survival of the children’s programs. The Director couldn’t imagine the student
farm and youth program working independently with the way it is currently structured.
Elm Farm
The informant stated that there isn’t any budget for random school tours or interaction
with schools in the community since there isn’t an organized youth program. The
program’s activities are just part of the sustainable agriculture program at the university
and its budget.
102
“What are the funds spent on (Operating budget/ insurance)?”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director stated that somewhere around 2/3 of the budget was
spent on payroll, wages, and administration costs. About 10%, is spent on bussing the
kids to the farm from the schools. The Director emphasized that the youth program offers
(pays for) free bussing for any public school that wants to come to the farm, which adds
up to a lot of gas and transportation costs in general. The Director continued by saying
that materials and supplies such as seeds, weed mat, and various curriculum costs account
for about 10% of the budget. The fuel costs (to travel to various school gardens) can be
significant because there are so many school gardens to maintain. A lot of transportation
is needed to get to and from the school gardens. A small portion is educational supplies,
but the Director tended to use what is on the farm already. Insurance such as general
liability, auto and farm liability insurance amounts to about 5% of the budget.
Birch Farm
The Program Manager stated that funds spent for the staff and faculty time for the
instructors and facilitators constitute the biggest piece of the overall budget. The Program
Manager emphasized that community outreach was a mission of the college in general so
the salaries associated with work on the farm and in the youth program was financially
justified even if there was not a formal budget for such activities. Occasionally, there
might be some small amounts of supplies depending on the activities, such as printing
costs for hand-outs, small supplies, or maps. The Program Manager added that these costs
were minimal, but that they added up over time. In summary, the Program Manager
103
stated that less than $500 a year would be a fair estimate for the average total yearly costs
for supplies associated with the youth program.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that the funding for the youth program budget was mostly spent on
salaries and health insurance for the employees and staff. The total health insurance
budget alone costs about $125,000 a year. The Co-director emphasized that they were
committed to taking care of their youth program staff, so they make sure that the staff has
a “living wage” and health insurance. This investment is worth it because keeping quality
employees is crucial for continuity and program success. The Co-director also mentioned
that they use some of the budget for land rental from the university and stipends for the
youth empowerment program. Budget money is also spent on incidental costs that add up
such as copy machine usage, general printing, and other administrative necessities.
However, the Co-director added that they had a pretty low over-head, which averages
about 10% or less per year.
“In your opinion, is the funding model a sustainable model over time?”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director stated that the current foundation that has been
funding them every year since the youth program began will eventually begin to fund less
or not. The Director also admitted that the youth program had just been really lucky to
have a grant relationship with the same foundation for 7-8 years. However, the Director
added that the current partnerships and program income are solid and sustainable.
104
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that the program had already been sustainable for 32 years and
that it was set up that way from the beginning. The Co-director did have real concerns
over what was going to happen in the current economy. Health care costs are one of the
biggest concerns for the long-term sustainability of the program because insurance
companies are increasing their rates all the time. In addition, the Co-director also stated
that the last two years had been really tough financially and now the program did not
have much of a buffer anymore.
“What are some opportunities and barriers in regards to funding, staffing, and
educational issues?”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director stated that it would be great to expand the volunteer
base sometime in the future.
Birch Farm
The Program Manager stated that one of the biggest strengths at the college is the
Education Department. This department in the past has already connected with the youth
program and the students involved are now bringing the kids to the farm as well. There is
real potential to strengthen and develop this relationship into the future by tapping into
the existing education department and students with environment education interests.
105
The Program Manager did share several challenges for the youth program. One is that
school district severe budget cuts have resulted in the kids from the local community not
being able to come to the farm as often as they used to. Another challenge was how to
make a better connection between the college students on the main campus and the
student farm itself. An ongoing challenge for the Program Manager through the years has
been to remain careful with scheduling community farm visits so they do not disrupt or
conflict with other farm activities, functions, or activities.
There were also several challenges addressed by the Program Manager that focus more
on the insufficiencies of facilities on the student farm. Specific facility needs that were
raised were concerns with not enough covered teaching and classroom space during
raining weather and not enough bathrooms for public and community field trip
visitations. However, the Program Manager revealed that several grants recently awarded
to the student farm might be able to meet all of these needs soon in the form of a new
farm building, equipped with classroom space and bathrooms.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that they wished they had more space for garden and youth
program expansion. The annual youth empowerment program is especially needy
because 250 at-risk kids apply for only 50 positions. The Co-director also said that the
program is currently working on the funding to expand in these areas mostly through
grants.
106
Dogwood Farm
The student farm Director stated that one limiting factor to current youth program growth
was that there was surplus demand in the community, but that the assistantships were
limited to 10 hours per week during the academic year. There are also physical restraints
since the student farm is relatively small – only one acre. The Director admitted that there
is nothing that can be done about these physical constraints right now, because there is no
other land on campus that can be used for the farm.
The Director mentioned as well that there are constraints to keeping the student farm a
student emphasized program because the university students would always be balancing
the needs of their other academic commitments. Therefore, students would never have the
time to devote their entire attention to the youth program.
The Director summarized the constraints of the program as constraints of time, physical
constraints of land and strategic constraints of trying to balance the larger university’s
educational missions and the mission of this particular program.
Elm Farm
The Supervisor to the farm manager stated that there were no real plans to expand the
youth outreach in regards to kids at the local schools right now. The Supervisor added
that other than supporting student’s interests in childhood education in agriculture, they
did not currently have a direct pathway for students to get involved.
107
“What, if any, are the tensions between instruction and financial stability?”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director stated that there are tensions between the youth
program and the PTA, regarding who is going to do the fundraising and how much
money it raised, and who gets it. Then there is tension between the youth program and
those local schools that want the garden installation service but cannot pay for it. The
Director said that the program has come to the point where it is going to do as much as it
can with the schools for free. If the program cannot do it for free, then it is not going to
offer the service. The Director emphasized that they would rather scale back than
overextend.
The Director continued by saying that there is very little cost sharing, because the youth
program is paying for everything. Even the university is doing little cost sharing with the
student farm. The university contributes no operating costs, so the youth program is
completely funded through the student farm non-profit. The Director added that as far as
institutional money goes, he did not think that much money would be put towards the
farm and sustainable agriculture in general from his experiences. The program has
learned to get creative in how they are going to expand and figure out where to grab
funds when they can.
Birch Farm
The Program Manager admitted that one of her biggest challenges up until this year has
been the buy-in from the farm staff regarding youth education opportunities. The
108
previous farmer was an excellent farmer, but community members’ visits to the farm
created conflicts for his time and farm responsibilities. However, the Program Manager
has recently hired a new farm manager who is completely supportive and equally positive
with growing the youth program.
Another major challenge that the Program Manager mentioned has always been the
logistics of time with everything else going on the farm. She emphasized that you need
buy-in from all of the stakeholders at the farm in order to make the youth program work.
Another challenge comes from needing extra financial support especially concerning the
farms’ facilities and general maintenance. Maintenance and upkeep with the farm has
always been a major challenge.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director stated that the biggest issue is that the current demand from the
community is far more than the youth program can financially afford or logistically keep
up with without more funding. One major concern from this expanding demand from the
community is that the staff is maxed out already and which can quickly lead to burnout.
The Co-director also said that there needs to a balance of youth program responsibilities
and work-load limitations. It takes the whole community to share and to help. In general,
the Co-director emphasized that there is always a looming tension of how much does he
ask his staff to do in regards to programming or raising money.
109
“Is there anything that you would like to add or re-emphasize?”
Alder Farm
The Community Education Director wanted to reemphasize how critical partnerships
were to long-term program success. The Director also emphasized that “keeping the
focus of making the youth program as much about the kids as possible is the best way to
appeal to these people and partnerships because you can get bogged down with ideals and
mission statements and all the logistics.” The Director continued in saying that focusing
on the kids and getting the kids in a position to understand food, gardening and farming
and nutrition and the holistic nature of the farm guaranteed that continued support would
always be there for the program.
Chestnut Farm
The Co-director emphasized the benefits that the program’s website has had on positive
exposure to the community as well as national recognition of the program’s success. The
Co-director also wanted to emphasize how important research regarding youth education
on farms was to their program’s current success. She believes strongly that this type of
research is crucial to raising awareness about the importance of farm-based and gardenbased education.
Dogwood Farm
The student farm Director emphasized that the youth program was meeting the overall
mission of the institution because it was involving academia with community outreach,
while improving the university student’s academic experience greatly. The support for
110
this program comes from the Director being able to reemphasize the quality of the
program to the institutional stakeholders that this type of community engagement is
creating a richer experience, which helps to sustain the youth program overall. It has
allowed the Director to keep the program growing and well respected in the university
and community. The Director also emphasized that the quality of impact on the
community and local kids was more important than the quantity of visits to the farm. In
general, the youth program and supporting university are more focused on training
leaders than creating farmers.
Elm Farm
The farm manager Supervisor emphasized that the support and involvement of the
Sustainable Agriculture program at the university would continue to help the youth
program grow and expand in the future, by offering opportunities for students to receive
credit for interacting with children from local community schools on the student farm.
Table 4, “Youth Program Stakeholder Response Comparisons from Qualitative
Phone Interviews” summarizes the general responses from the informants of the five
student farms whom I interviewed.
111
Table 4: Youth Program Stakeholder Response Comparisons
Birch Farm
Chestnut Farm
Dogwood Farm
Elm Farm
1) Northwest Region
2) Publically funded
research institution
3) Established in 1893
4) *14,200 students
1) Northeast Region
2) Private Liberal Arts
institution
3) Established in 1869
4) *1,000 students
1) West Region
2) Publically funded research
institution
3) Established in 1965
4) *17,500 students
1) Northeast Region
2) Ivy League research
institution
3) Established in 1701
4) *11,900 students
1) Southeast Region
2) Community College
institution
3) Established in 1961
4) *4,700 students
Student Farm
Characteristics
1) Established in 1996
2) Ten (10) acres
3) Production types
include field crops,
horticultural crops, and
livestock
1) Established in 1994
2) Seven (7) acres
3) Production types
include field crops and
horticultural crops
1) Established in 1967
2) Twenty-seven (27) acres
3) Production types include
horticultural crops and
livestock
1) Established in 2003
2) One (1) acre
3) Production types
include horticultural
crops and livestock
1) Established in 1995
2) Five (5) acres
3) Production types include
horticultural crops and
livestock
1) Established in 2005
2) Age Ranges: 3-18
years old
3) Average annual
budget: $50,000
1) Established in 2007
1) Established in 1979
2) Age Ranges: preschool- 2) Age Ranges: 4-18 years old
12th grade
3) Average annual budget:
3) Average annual budget: $840,000
none
1) Established in 2004
2) Age Ranges: 4-18 years
old
3) Average annual budget:
$500
1) Established in 2009
2) Age Ranges: preschoolmiddle school
3) Average annual budget:
None
a) The Community
Education Director; b)
One unpaid summer
assistant intern;
c) One school garden
coordinator;
d) Community
volunteers; e) Numerous
university students
receiving credit for farmbased teaching
practicum class; f) One
annual AmeriCorps or
Campus Corps student
a) The Program Manager;
b) A variety of staff and
students; c) Institutional
& community volunteers
a) The Co-directors; b) One
a) The Director; b) Two
full-time farm field trip leader; annual research assistants;
c) One part-time farm field trip c) Numerous student and
leader; d) Two full-time youth community volunteers
empowerment staff; e) One fulltime garden workshop staff; f)
One part-time administrative
staff; g) One part-time
maintenance staff; h) One fulltime "everything" staff; i) Sixty
(60) university interns annually
a) The Supervisor;
b) College student
volunteers from the
Sustainable Agriculture
Program
The funding is split
evenly between two
different sources:
a) Grant funding by
same foundation since
2005, and b) Field trips,
direct income for
services and products,
camps, and in-kind
donations
a) Currently no budget;
b) Most support comes
from the college;
c) Moderate support
comes from the student
farm CSA memberships,
grants, and donations for
student farm tours;
d) Two student farm
positions come from an
endowment; e) Any
revenue from camps goes
back into general college
budget
a) Longer-term and shorterterm grants; b) Direct income
for fees associated with field
trips, summer camps,
merchandise, benefits, and
community events
All budgets and costs are
part of the university's
Sustainable Agriculture
program
What are the funds spent on?
How is the youth program currently funded
and financially supported?
Who carries out the program?
Institution
Characteristics
(*2012 data)
Alder Farm
Youth Program
Characteristics
From Qualitative Phone Interviews
a) 70% Payroll, wages, a) Staff and faculty
and administration costs; salaries; b) Small amount
b) 10% on free bussing on educational supplies
for local schools to
come to farm; c) 10%
farm supplies; d) 5%
each on educational
supplies and insurance
a) Research assistantship
positions paid through the
university graduate
school; b) Student farm
budget mainly comes
from produce sales
a) Mostly on staff salaries and Two annual research
health insurance; b) Moderate assistant positions
amount on leasing the student
farm land and stipends for the
youth empowerment program;
c) Small amount on
administration costs and
educational supplies
Faculty salaries
112
Table 4: Youth Program Stakeholder Response Comparisons
Is there anything that needs to be reemphasized?
What are the tensions between
instruction and financial stability?
What are the opportunities and barriers in regards to funding,
staffing, and educational issues?
Is the funding model a
sustainable model over time?
From Qualitative Phone Interviews (Continued)
a) Current foundation
funder will eventual
begin to fund less;
b) Partnerships and
program income are
solid and sustainable
a) Confident in the fact that the
youth program has been
around for 32 years; b)
Concerns are focused on
overall state and federal
economies in general and how
this will affect health insurance
costs; c) Concerns of
contracting savings account
since nation-wide recession
Expanding the volunteer Challenges include:
More space garden and youth
base
a) severe state budget
program expansion is always a
cuts impacting the ability challenge as community
of local schools to visit demand continues to increase
the farm; b) strengthening
connections between
student farm and main
campus; c) remaining
mindful of the balance
between farm tours from
the community and the
daily logistics of student
farm activities; and d)
insufficiencies in current
facilities to meet the
needs of the student farm
and youth program
Tensions between the
youth program and a)
the local PTA regarding
who is going to do the
fundraising, how much
money it raised, and who
gets it; b) those local
schools that want garden
installation service but
cannot pay for it; and,
c) the university because
there is very little cost
sharing
No answer
Tensions between the
needs and operations of
the student farm and the
needs of the youth
program
a) Partnerships are
No answer
critical to long-term
program success;
b) Always keep the
program focus about
meeting the needs of the
youth and school
teachers in the
community
No answer
No answer
a) Limited time and energy
of research assistants to
meet the increasing needs
of the community because
of part-time schedule;
b) Physical constraints of
land for farm expansion;
c) Barriers to balancing
the university's
educational missions and
the mission of the youth
program
a) Limited funds and land
for student farm and youth
program expansion; b) No
direct pathway for students
to get involved with the
youth program and other
community outreach
activities
a) Community demand is more No answer
than the youth program can
financially or logistically
handle; b) Struggles with
balancing youth program
responsibilities and staff workload limitations
No answer
a) Benefits of youth program
website has had a positive
exposure to the community as
well as national recognition of
the youth program's success;
b) Garden-based and farmbased education research is
critical to raising awareness
about it's value to the
community
The support and
involvement of the
Sustainable Agriculture
program at the university
would continue to help the
youth program grow and
expand in the future
a) The youth program is
meeting the overall
mission of the institution
because it is involving
academia with community
outreach, while improving
the university student's
academic experience; b)
The quality of impact
from the youth program
on the community and
local kids is more
important than the
quantity of visits to the
farm from the community
and schools
113
CHAPTER FOUR: Discussion & Recommendations
1.1 Quantitative Research (On-line Survey)
In general, forty-six (46) out of seventy-seven (77) identified United States student farms
participated in the survey, a response rate of sixty (60) percent. The following discussion
is organized by question asked within the on-line survey.
“What is the name AND location of your institution?”
Forty-two (42) responders answered this survey question with the location of the
institution included in the response. These answers were then organized by regions of the
U.S.: Northeast, West, Midwest and Southeast. Based on this data, the West region had
the most survey responses at fifteen (15). The Northeast (11), Midwest (9) and Southeast
(7) all had less survey responses in general. When these response numbers are compared
to the original group of potential responders who were identified through various
inventories, a different story begins to emerge. Of the original seventy-seven (77)
identified student farms in the U.S., twenty-seven (27) were from the Northeast and
twenty-five (25) from the West. These regions combined together represent
approximately sixty-eight (68) percent of all student farms in the entire U.S. The
Northeast and West regions individually had twice as many student farms as the
Midwest, thirteen (13) student farms, and the Southeast, twelve (12) student farms,
combined. These results seem to indicate that the Northeastern and Western regions of
114
the U.S. have over three times as many student farms as the rest of the country combined.
This data does not give any clues as to why this is the case.
In regards to regional participation rates to the student farm on-line survey, the Midwest
had the best response rate at seventy (70) percent, with the West region at sixty (60)
percent, and the Southeast at fifty-eight (58) percent. Even though the Northeast region
had the most identified student farms at twenty-seven, it had the worst survey response
rate at forty-one (41) percent. The data does not give any clear reason why the region
with the most student farms had the worst response rate.
“What is the size of your institution in terms of numbers of students?”
Based on the data received from the survey, there appears to be a fairly even distribution
of institutional student population size among the survey choice categories. Of the total
forty-six (46) responders, twenty-one (21) said that their institution had at least 10,001
students or more, forty-six (46) percent, while twenty-three (23) said that their institution
had 5,000 or less students, fifty (50) percent, with the remaining two responses citing that
their institutional size was between 5,001 and 10,000 students. This seems to show within
this sample size of forty-six (46) student farms who responded to the on-line survey that
student population size is not necessarily a strong indicator of whether or not a student
farm exists on a campus, except for the student size populations between 5,001 through
10,000 students. While many more factors must be considered, my data for this particular
question shows that student farms exist at both large institutions, 10,000 or more, and
smaller institutions, 5,000 or less. This is consistent with the other literature and research
115
investigated for my research regarding institutional student population size in comparison
to student farm existence upon these institutions.
“Do you currently have a Student Farm?”
Of the forty-three (43) responses to this question, thirty-six (36) also responded to the
follow up question of what year was the student farm established. Based on my literature
review and research of student farms in the U.S., I would have assumed that most student
farms were established within the last ten years. While I do not have concrete data to test
this assumption for all seventy-seven student farms identified in the U.S., The data from
the thirty-six survey responses suggests a different reality. Fourteen (14) of the thirty-six
(36) responses to this survey question indicated that their student farm was established
over twenty-one (21) years ago. In fact, twenty-one (21), or fifty-nine (59) percent of the
total responses indicated that their student farm was at least sixteen (16) years or older.
Twelve (12) responses stated that the student farm was established between six and ten
years ago, with only two student farms being established within the last five years.
While this data is from only thirty-six (36) of the total seventy-seven (77) student farms
identified in the U.S., it does provide some interesting data regarding the age of the
student farms themselves. Perhaps the more established farms were more willing and
capable to participate in the on-line survey because of various assumptions such as more
staff, stronger marketing capabilities or willingness to share information about their
experiences. While more research is definitely needed to answer this question, the
116
responses to this survey indicate that there is currently a good sample size of established
student farms in the U.S.
“Does the Student Farm have any outreach programs? (An outreach program is
defined as efforts to increase the availability and utilization of services, especially
through direct intervention and interaction with the target population.)”
Of the forty-three (43) responders who answered “YES” to having a student farm, thirtynine (39) also responded “YES” to having at least one outreach program or one specific
outreach activity currently in practice, ninety-one (91) percent. This strongly suggests
that most student farms within this research not only engage in curricular activities, but
also engage in outreach activities as well. The reasons for this are not consistent
throughout each specific student farm, but the literature seems to suggest that the most
important aspects these outreach activities provide for the student farm is to raise
awareness about the farm’s activities, raise funds for the farm’s operations, and provide
students with additional outlets for curriculum enhancement and community involvement
beyond the physical and academic borders of the student farm.
“What kinds of outreach does the Student Farm engage with the community?(Check
all that apply)”
Of the forty-three (43) responders who answered “YES” to having a student farm, forty
(40) also responded at least once to the list of potential choices regarding kinds of
117
outreach on the student farm. Responders were also given the choice to submit additional
answers, under the “other” category, not already provided on the survey list. Three
choices were favored heavily from the eight different types of outreach choices given.
These were “farm staff guided tour opportunities” chosen by eighty-three (83) percent of
the responders, “open to public visitation” and “public events” chosen by seventy-eight
(78) percent of the responders, and “workshop/course offerings” chosen by sixty-eight
(68) percent of the responders.
The data shows that guided tours on the farm appear to be the most common form of
ongoing outreach on the student farms who were surveyed. The reasons for this
consistency could come from the relatively simple logistical nature of giving tours on the
farm itself. Aside from the busiest times of year, offering and engaging in guided tours
for various community and student populations can be done without much preparation
and without any material resources. While resources of time from farm staff, volunteers
or even current farm program students can be considered a cost or resource used, the
overall logistics of successfully offering guided farm tours is relatively straightforward
and achievable in most cases. In addition, the audience for these tours is coming to the
farm as opposed to the farm “going out” into the community, which also reduces overall
costs and increases the consistent likelihood of ongoing farm tours when coordinated
with seasonal farm work schedules.
Being open to public visitations and public events, a seventy-eight (78) percent response
rate, can also be considered a fairly simple strategy to cultivate and provide support for
ongoing engagement. Most public institution student farms that operate on institutionally
owned land must be open to the public for most of the year, simply by the public nature
118
of its status. This does not mean trespassers can run amuck on the farm at any time, but it
does mean that the invitation for public visitation must exist at all times, under the
guidance of the farm managers and student farm staff.
Public events are also crucial for student farms for fundraising and exposure purposes.
Annual festivals and fairs raise awareness about the farm and help establish and
strengthen valuable relationships between the campus, community, and the student farm.
These public events are also ideal times to fundraise, sell farm products and solicit
potential donations. These can also be a time for staff and students to simply celebrate the
farm for all it represents and does for the students involved, the institution and the
community. It is not surprising that these categories were selected at a high rate on the
survey.
Workshops and course offerings, a sixty-eight (68) percent response rate, seemed higher
than what I would have expected from my literature review, because of the additional
organizational and financial support that is required to engage in these forms of outreach
activities. However, this data suggests that student farms who participated in this on-line
survey are interested in offering educational opportunities beyond those offered to
institutional students. It is not known from my research how much demand exists for
these workshop and course outreach activities, but it can be assumed that there must be
enough for these activities to exist at all on the student farm. The survey data did not
indicate what the student farm’s primary purpose is for these activities, such as adding
valuable revenue or satisfying community demand for educational opportunities.
119
“Self-guided farm tour opportunities”, a thirty-eight (38) responses rate, was a little lower
than expected, especially considering such a high rate of student farms that are “open to
public visitation”, a seventy-eight (78) percent response rate. This could possibly be
accounted for by the potential liability and safety dangers of allowing outside community
members on the farm without supervision, as well as the potential disruptions this might
cause the academic programs and physical work conducted on the farm itself. Without
strong support for self-guided tours, it would make sense that these student farms would
also not have extensive “on-site explanatory signage about the farm itself”, a twenty (20)
percent response rate. The time of year the survey was distributed to the student farm
stakeholders could also play a role in explaining these response rates, due to seasonal
demands in farm responsibilities and staffing.
Finally, the category “other” representing other categories not pre-determined on the
survey was selected at a fifty-five (55) percent response rate. However, the individual
responses within this category were not consistent enough to yield any meaningful results
beyond involvement with “food banks” and “farmers markets” each being stated twice.
The choice “summer camps” was selected at a eighteen (18) percent response rate in the
survey. This seems to indicate the potential difficulty of organizing and financially
supporting a summer camp on a student farm. This low response rate could also indicate
that local community demand is low or that the physical features of the farm itself are
incompatible with the space and safety requirements that a summer camp could dictate.
120
“Do you have a youth program? (A youth program is defined as any outreach activities
specifically targeted for age ranges from preschoolers through adolescents.)”
Of the forty-three (43) responders who answered “YES” to having a student farm,
seventeen (17) responded that they also had an established “youth program” on the
student farm, a forty (40) percent response rate. This amount of student farms with a
youth program was more than anticipated. While these youth programs can vary in size,
scope and impact, according to the research, their very existence at such a response rate
of student farms surveyed seems to indicate that outreach geared toward involvement
with youth, defined as 18 years and younger, is higher than assumed. In addition, eight
responders indicated that they did not have a youth program currently, but that it was “an
aspiration for the future” while one other student farm responded that they also did not
currently have a youth program but were “actively planning/developing one now.”
When merged with student farms with youth programs, the data shows that sixty (60)
percent of all student farms identified through the survey either have an existing youth
program, are aspiring to create a program or are actively developing a program right now.
The other forty (40) percent indicated that the student farm did not have a youth program
and did “not envision having one in the near future”. This data suggests that the majority
of student farms in this research are in some way, either actively or passively, pursuing
outreach activities geared toward youth in the community.
121
“What are the age ranges (youth audience) of children participating in the Youth
Program?”
Of the seventeen (17) student farms identified as having an existing youth program, all
seventeen offered varying responses to age ranges of the youth involved in these
programs. In summary, the age ranges varied from four to eighteen years old, depending
on the student farm and the specific program. Since the survey model did not categorize
smaller age ranges into potential survey selections, such as four to seven year-olds or
eight to ten year-olds, I was unable to detect any meaningful patterns of specific youth
age ranges.
“What is the average annual operating budget for the youth program?”
Of the seventeen (17) student farms identified as having an existing youth program, only
seven, a forty-one (41) percent response rate, indicated having any real documented
annual budget at all. Of these seven responses, one had an annual budget of over
$100,000 while four responders indicated budgets between $18,000-50,000. The last two
stated that their annual budget were extremely small, between $250-500 a year. These
figures seem to showcase a large financial discrepancy between annual youth program
budgets among the seven responders that indicated they indeed had a budget at all. While
the majority of responses express annual budgets between $18,000-50,000, the sample
size is too small to gain any significance from this data. In addition, one program was at
least twice as big as these other program budgets at $100,000 and two others were fifty to
122
a hundred times smaller. With no additional program details to compare these budgets to,
any discussion concerning this data is limited.
Of the remaining ten responses, four stated that they had no money in the annual budget
for these programs and six stated that they did not know or could not produce any
numbers available to even calculate what their budget might be. Therefore, almost sixty
(60) percent of those student farms who stated that they have a youth program, also
responded that there was no real budget or that any information concerning annual costs
was unattainable or nonexistent.
This analysis may indicate that the youth programs on these specific student farms are
either very undeveloped or minimal in scope at best. It also may indicate that these
programs are part of a larger student farm budget, with financial resources and potential
individual program budgets merged into other larger annual budgets. What is clear from
the data is that the majority of student farm youth programs, who responded to this
survey question, operate with no specific annual or consistent budget, documented or
undocumented.
What are the current sources of funds for the youth program? (Check all that apply)”
Of the seventeen (17) student farms identified as having an existing youth program,
fifteen (15) stated that their youth program acquired funds from at least one of the
suggested survey choices, a eighty-eight (88) percent response rate, including the “other”
category, in which responders could include additional sources of funding not already
mentioned on the survey. Almost fifty-nine (59) percent of the seventeen (17) responders
123
stated that “direct income from services or product sales” was a source of current
funding. This finding is consistent with the literature regarding student farm activities.
The overwhelming majority of student farms across the United States engage in vegetable
and/or animal production, often resulting in potential revenue-generating produce and
products. In fact, according to the literature, produce and product sales are often part of
the overall academic and organizational missions of the student farm, not only for the
financial stability of the farm itself, but also for the educational value to the institutional
students within these associated student farm programs.
“Institutional funds,” general operating funds from the institution to support youth
program, was also cited at a forty-one (41) response rate as a source of current youth
program funding. This is lower than originally expected based on the literature review
and seems to indicate a certain level of financial independence on these particular student
farms, at least in regards to funding their respective youth programs. A lack of
institutional funds within most of the youth programs highlighted in the research may
also help explain why the majority of these youth programs, sixty (60) percent, stated that
they had no real and/or documented budget specifically for the youth program itself. A
lack of institutional funds would indicate that funding is being acquired from other “noninstitutional” sources perhaps, which could also blend into other overall student farm
operational budgets. Without specific follow-up questions within the survey to this
specific funding source inquiry, it is difficult to draw any further conclusions.
“Grants,” “charitable giving,” and “donations” were cited sources of funding, averaging
between a twenty-five (25) and thirty (30) percent response rate. According to the
literature regarding funding, these sources of revenue are extremely crucial for most
124
student farms and in some cases make up most of the consistent sources of funding,
especially for those in non-profit status. From the results of this survey data, it appears
that at least one third of all youth program funding comes from either grants, charitable
giving, donations, or some combination of all three.
“Camps” also seem to be an important source of potential youth program funding as
indicated with a twenty-four (24) percent response rate. It is unclear from the survey what
types of camps are being referenced, such as youth camps, day camps, or summer camps.
According to the literature, camps can offer a valuable stream of funding with the proper
organization, institutional support (if needed), farm space, and community demand.
However, meeting all of these requirements can often be difficult to accomplish for most
student farms.
Field trips, tour fees, special fund raisers, workshops, and memberships were also cited as
potential funding sources, but only at a twelve (12) percent response rate or lower. The
survey data shows that these sources are not relied upon as consistent types of funding
and while acutely valuable at times, should probably be incorporated into other forms of
diverse funding sources. This is also consistent with the literature.
“Would you be willing to participate in a confidential follow-up phone interview
regarding more details of the student farm and its outreach programs?”
In general, all forty-six (46) original survey participants responded to this question, with
twenty-one responders stating that they “would be willing to participate in a confidential
interview”, a forty-six (46) percent response rate. Another eleven (11) responders stated
125
that they would “maybe” be willing to participate in the interview if more specifics were
provided. That makes approximately seventy (70) percent of all original survey
responders willing or potentially willing to engage in another tier of student farm
research.
This high percentage of willingness to participate further seems to indicate that student
farm survey responders, such as farm managers, farm program directors, and faculty, are
interested in continuing to assist in student farm research, at least for this particular
project. This could also mean that many of these respondents recognize that there is not
currently very much research regarding student farms in general, let alone the additional
outreach activities and various programs that they engage in. This could mean that they
are interested in the results of this research for their own student farm growth and
stability. However, without further research into what their specific motivations are in
regards to willingness to participate in further research, I can only analyze this data in a
very broad way.
In summary, the quantitative survey research has revealed several clear findings
concerning student farms in general, farm outreach activities and the financial of specific
youth programs on these farms.
Sixty (60) percent of all identified student farms in the United States participated
in the online survey research. The Midwest had the highest response rate at
seventy (70) percent. The Northeast had the lowest response rate at forty-one (41)
percent.
126
Student population size at a particular institution is not a strong indicator of
whether or not a student farm will also exist at that same institution. Student
farms exist fairly equally at both larger institutions (10,000 plus students) and
smaller institutions (less than 5,000 students) according to the survey data.
Fifty-eight (58) percent of student farms surveyed have been in existence for at
least sixteen (16) years or more. Only six percent of student farms were five years
or younger in existence.
Ninety-one (91) percent of existing student farms that participated in the survey
participate in at least one outreach activity/program.
The three most cited outreach activities/programs are “farm staff guided tour
opportunities”, “open to public visitation” and “”public events,” with response
rate ranges between sixty-eight (68) and eighty-three (83) percent. “Summer
camps” were the least cited of the given survey response choices.
Forty (40) percent of student farms have a youth program or engage in some sort
of youth outreach activities. Another twenty (20) percent are aspiring or are
actively developing a youth program currently.
The age ranges of the youth being served in these outreach efforts vary greatly
from four to eighteen years old.
Only forty-one (41) percent of these student farms have an official annual budget
for their youth programs/activities, with the majority of annual budgets averaging
between $18,000-50,000 per year.
127
Sixty (60) percent of these student farms either have no budget at all or expenses
are part of a larger student farm budget, and thus specific information regarding
the youth program/activities is not available.
Of the student farms with a youth program, approximately sixty (60) percent
stated “direct income from services or products” as a source of funding for the
youth program/activities, more than any other potential funding source.
Institutional funds had a forty-one (41) percent response rate, while grants,
donations and charitable giving had response rates between twenty-five (25) and
thirty (30) percent.
Seventy (70) percent of all original survey responders, with or without a youth
program, were willing to or potentially willing to participate, with more
information, in a future follow up phone interview.
1.2 Qualitative Research (On-line Survey)
The following is a synthesis of the phone interview sessions with the five
individual student farm informants. All of their responses have been investigated and
analyzed for potential patterns, themes and possible best practices.
“Tell the story of how the youth program began and how you became a part of it? How
was the youth program first funded and/or implemented?”
I decided to group the answers to these two questions together, even though they
were asked at different points in the live interview sessions. After analyzing the answers
given, it was clear that “how the program began” and “how it was first funded” provided
128
pieces to the same youth program creation story. These pieces also revealed several major
themes shared by many of the informants. These themes are 1) Community demand and
interest, 2) Graduate student leadership, 3) Grants, non-profits and research, and 4)
Courses, workshops, and camps.
When asked about how the youth program was first implemented, many
informants explained how strong community demand and interest eventually sparked the
creation of the program. According to the informants, this interest mainly came from
local schools in the community. Often it was the teachers at these schools who, having
heard that there was a student farm, would call for possible farm tours for their young
students. This interest in field trips would materialize and build upon itself with even
more tours for other local schools as well. Eventually the student farm would have to
make a choice to either create an established youth program to better serve the needs of
the school classes in the community, or continue with fairly unorganized and underfinanced field trips.
This community demand would also spread through existing student farm
programs and services such as CSA memberships and larger farm events. These services
and programs would create excitement and recognition surrounding the student farm,
often resulting in an increased desire from the community for more involvement with
youth and local schools. One informant stated that students and staff on the student farm
originally would work with youth “off the farm” and in the local community. This service
eventually churned up so much demand and institutional support that the student farm
stakeholders found a way to start their own youth program on-site, while still providing
services out in the community.
129
Several of the informants also mentioned how collaborations with the on-campus
daycare center eventually led to the development of a youth program on the student farm.
In was explained how many years of university student projects involving environmental
education and the young students at the daycare center created a real momentum and
perceived need for a more organized youth program. In many ways, the daycare, with
support from its staff and teachers, became the testing grounds for the early stages of a
fully developed youth program.
These student projects often originated from graduate student leadership and
research which provided the early stages of the youth program with the invaluable
networking, inspiration, and business planning that was needed to kick-start the program.
In many cases, the graduate students would often receive institutional credit for their
efforts on the student farm working with youth from the community, which created a
precedent of multiple opportunities for future graduate students to take advantage of as
well. This was crucial, since this continuous support and student interest created glimpses
of program consistency and provided the strong evidence for student farm and
institutional stakeholders to eventually provide financial support for an established youth
program.
On one student farm in particular, graduate students were actually paid through
graduate research assistant positions awarded annually to two students out of the
Department of Forestry at the institution. These graduate students coordinated the
program with other student volunteers to deliver the curriculum and work with local
school classes on the farm. A peer model system was utilized, where current graduate
130
assistants would mentor incoming graduates while providing training and support. This
created a strong program of consistency that was crucial for initial success.
Another major theme revealed by several informants was the role that establishing
a nonprofit and conducting research played in establishing and implementing a youth
program. Grants were secured by efforts from graduate student or faculty research in
most cases, which consequently led to youth program formation. One example of how
this grant funding was utilized included offering free busing to local schools to engage in
field trips on the student farm. One student farm’s grant funded initiatives and projects
included writing curriculum on ways to enhance science education in rural schools.
Another used funds to conduct research with school children to find out what they wanted
in a school garden environment. This research overwhelmingly indicated three elements
most desired from children in a school garden: food to pick and eat, some kind of water
feature or potential for water interaction, and some type of hiding, quiet and safe places.
These conclusions and the success of the research eventually led to additional funding to
create an interactive garden site and vibrant youth program on the university’s student
farm.
The final theme that emerged from the phone interviews regarding youth program
implementation focused around the role that institutional courses and student farm
workshops played in eventually starting an established youth program. One informant
stated how a graduate student, through funding from a grant and support from the
university, created a practicum class for undergraduates to gain experience doing outdoor
education and sustainable agriculture on the student farm. This practicum class would
basically teach students how to give student farm tours to local school children, while
131
developing curriculum and working with the local school teachers to meet state
standards. This class had so much success and university student demand that it was
continued for three to four years, being taught by a series of graduate students. This
eventually created overwhelming support from the institution and the community to fund
an established youth program.
Several other student farms began to offer classes on food and nutrition to the
undergraduate university students which generated increased interest on the farm. These
courses eventually expanded into nutritional classes for young children, teaching them
how to eat well and prepare simple foods found on the student farm.
For several student farms, summer camps and teacher training workshops were
also instrumental in the eventual creation of an established youth program. In many
cases, the summer camps started out slowly, with attendance at first being stagnant.
However, as stated by the informants, once word of mouth spread throughout the
community, these camps quickly expanded, becoming a valuable fund generating and
youth program supporting service. Hosting events for other local businesses and
organizations on the student farm along with youth-camp offerings was also stated by
several informants as critical for generating community interest and establishing funding
for eventual youth program creation.
“What is your role with the youth program and how long have you had it?”
I received a variety of answers to these questions from the informants. The titles
were all distinct and original, yet they had similar roles within the youth program and on
132
the student farm. Some examples of titles included: Community Education Director,
Farm Program Manager, Executive Co-Director of the Youth Program, Farm Director,
and Supervisor for the farm manager. In every case however, these individuals all had
multiple responsibilities in addition to the youth program and the student farm. Some
taught classes at the university or college while others directed multiple departments
within the institution. However, all informants played an active role in the youth
program’s core elements such as community involvement, program service delivery,
business structure, funding and future goals. There was not a real consistency with how
long they had been involved with the youth program or the student farm. While some had
been involved for twenty years or more, several were fairly new to their positions. There
was not a correlation between years on involvement and level of responsibility. Every
informant was very knowledgeable and passionate about the youth program and the
student farm.
“Who carries out the program (staff, volunteers, mix) and who do they report to?”
When it came to who actually does the work within the youth program, three
major groups were identified as having the most involvement: 1) Directors, managers and
coordinators, 2) Volunteers, and 3) Student, interns and “Corps” positions. What is
interesting about these responses and important to understanding program
implementation, is that the student farm manager is not heavily involved in any of these
youth programs, beyond input and logistical coordination of farm tours and camp
offerings. A possible explanation is that the farm manager is already busy with their day-
133
to-day responsibilities, both agricultural and educational. This is why it is crucial to find
additional staffing or student supported positions to implement the youth program. In all
cases, the farm manager was simply too busy to provide the youth program with the extra
time and support it needed to get off the ground, no matter how emotionally supportive
they were in the process.
Most informants stated how their roles as directors, managers, and coordinators at
one time or another also included youth program implementation and ongoing functions.
Many stated how they were, or still are, primarily responsible for the success of the
program. Real youth program success came only after additional staffing or interns were
introduced into the program. All agreed that this additional support was slow to
materialize, often taking years to gather enough institutional or grant funded support to
afford additional staffing. However, the benefits of this type of additional support to the
youth program quickly paid off in the form of program consistency and growth into the
community.
One youth program has had so much success that they now currently employ five
full-time, three half-time staff, and two co-directors. Another program has recently hired
a school garden coordinator at ¾ time for 30 weeks of the year with responsibilities of
maintenance and new projects. However, even with these additional staffing hires, the
majority of the youth program responsibilities and decision making still fall on the
shoulders of the directors, managers and coordinators.
Another significant group of individuals who carry out the youth program’s
services are the base of volunteers from both the university and the local community.
134
These volunteers mostly come from the undergraduate and graduate students involved in
other university classes such as sustainable agriculture or community gardens. However,
there is also a dedicated group of community, non-student, volunteers who also
participate in various parts of the youth program and student farm when needed. One
youth program relies especially on Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) through the local
schools to hire, train, and coordinate volunteers. Another program utilizes the community
school teachers themselves for volunteer opportunities, especially on student farm field
trips. There was also a general agreement among informants that many adult volunteers
in the community are current or former environmental educators who value an avenue to
connect with children on farms.
Students, interns, and Corps positions were also stated as valuable for maintaining
the functions of the youth program. As mentioned by several informants, students, and
interns are crucial for the longevity of the program, either through farm associated
programs or direct research projects associated with environmental and/or youth
education. My informants said that the most successful scenarios involving students and
interns were the ones in which they received credit and/or wages for their time and
research within the youth program. This provided extra incentive for quality work and
maintained a steady pipeline of inspired and qualified students involved with the
program. In some cases, the students and interns actually got to develop curriculum,
conduct farm tours and work with local teachers to help meet state standards.
AmeriCorps and Campus Corps positions filled by students were also identified as crucial
for the ongoing success of the youth programs.
135
One final theme from youth program staffing and support from all informants was
that they all have at one point or another, asked for support from whomever could help,
no matter what their community or student standing. While some have tremendous
demand and support from students, volunteers and interns, others still need help from a
variety of sources in the community. One pattern that is clear from these responses is that
a youth program requires steady and consistent forms of staffing and support to become
successful and remain viable within the community. Directors, managers, and
coordinators eventually must yield to the overwhelming workloads associated with these
programs. Without a variety of support and the internal infrastructure to maintain and
manage this support, youth programs will have very little chance of growth or
sustainability into the future.
“Is there a plan for ongoing staffing that sustains program quality? If so, please
provide more details.”
All informants agreed that staffing consistency is crucial for maintaining
institutional and community relationships. Constant turnover and short-lived staffing
positions can be extremely disruptive and inefficient. While student-run programs or
grant funded projects can jump start various program initiatives, it is not sustainable over
time. Staff turnover can eventually burn out the program and cause stagnation. Eventually
the youth program must hire permanent staff if it is to grow and be successful over time.
As mentioned earlier, the student farm manager does not have the time to run a youth
program as well.
136
“How is the youth program currently funded and financially supported?”
According to the informants interview statements, there are several ways in which
their youth programs are funded: 1) Grants, 2) Fees from programs, products, events and
camps, 3) Donations, endowments and partnerships, and 4) Institutional support from the
parent college or university.
Grants appeared to be the most crucial form of funding for several of the youth
programs, both currently and as initial program implementation. One informant
mentioned that their youth program has had the same funder for almost eight years.
Another revealed that their program gets larger grants from longer term foundations and
smaller grants from shorter term sources. Several stated that grants still make up about
40-70% of their overall annual budget. However, they all admitted that while grants
funds may be valuable for program implementation, they are not as preferred for longterm program sustainability because of the unreliable nature of the funding sources.
Funds from programs, fees, products, events and camps were preferred and
desired by all informants over grants for long term program viability. The inherent values
and exposure gleaned from the student farm also benefited the youth program as well in
the form of various products and event fees from festivals. Often these funds were
separate from the student farm, such as the student farm CSA memberships. But in many
cases, the youth program itself generated its own funding while utilizing elements of the
student farm.
137
While all informants claimed that they did receive funds from these sources at
some level, some programs had more developed funding sources than others. One
informant stated that at first they had zero program income, but it was now at $14,000 a
year, about a third of the overall budget. Several other programs stated that these funding
sources made up about 25% of their budgets as well, offering the program much needed
stability.
Most funds came from fees associated with day and summer camps offered
through the youth program. These camps were also opportunities to sell merchandise
such as books or value-added products such as jams. All informants stated that camps
were crucial for program independence and stability, even though the camps often take
several years to support themselves. Major events were also mentioned as major funding
opportunities throughout the year and a great way to network and reach out to the
community.
Donations, endowments, and partnerships with local businesses were also stated
as being important to the overall budget of the youth program. Donations for two
programs constituted around 25-30% of the youth program’s overall annual budget.
Another informant stated that they sometimes request donations from adult farm tours,
but never from the local schools. Donations also come from major events or occasional
auctions held on the student farm grounds. Institutional endowments paid for the
positions of director and farm manager on one student farm. Another informant explained
how they have created a lot of partnerships with PTAs, after school programs, and local
businesses that are willing to donate time, materials and/or money. This has been crucial
for their budget stability.
138
Institutional funding, in one way or another, was crucial for several of the youth
programs and in one case was almost the entire source of funding. One type of
institutional funding came in the form of youth program budgets, both for staffing and
materials, simply being absorbed into larger program or department budgets. This often
resulted in no real separate account information for the youth program, since it was
“under the umbrella” of the institution. Youth programs that were not as developed in
terms of staffing and programming fell into this category.
Another type of institutional funding for one youth program came in the form of
two paid graduate research assistants, paid through the institution’s Department of
Forestry. These positions were paid between $3,000-5,000 each for the year and were
crucial for the sustainability of the youth program. While these students did have other
academic commitments other than the youth program, this funding did insure that a
consistent student staff would be compensated for their efforts and research within the
program every year. This provides less program flexibility but more program
consistency.
In general, all informants agreed that diversified funding was key to program
sustainability, but that it made it harder to manage cash flow. Most informants also
emphasized how important it was to establish a buffer and savings to weather hard times.
“What are the funds spent on (operating budget/insurance)?”
When it came to what the funds were spent on within the youth program, the
overwhelming response among informants was salaries for staff. Insurance and overhead
139
costs were mentioned as less than 10% of the budget, while materials and general
program supplies were consistently mentioned as insignificant or extremely small. In one
case, free busing for local school students to the student farm was a significant cost every
year, but was currently being covered by ongoing foundation grants. Another youth
program mentioned that it used a small portion of its budget to rent a trailer for supplies
and storage. One youth program was able to provide a very detailed break-down of its
budget as follows: 70% payroll, wages and administration costs, 10% free busing for
school classes to the farm, 10% materials and supplies, 5% insurance, and 5% on fuel and
educational supplies. Overall, the only real consistency was that salaries constituted most
of the youth program budgets.
“In your opinion, is the funding model a sustainable model over time?”
Overall, it was agreed by all informants that current funding models were not as
sustainable as they needed to be to provide confidence and security into the future. Only
two responses were positive in regards to sustainability due to confidence in how long the
program had already been in existence (32 years) and confidence in current partnerships
in the community. However, many issues were discussed that prevent youth program
funding sustainability. The most popular statement raised concerns about the uncertainty
from year to year of support from current foundations and their willingness or capability
to continue funding into the future. The informants also emphasized that they believed
that this annual uncertainty was a natural state of most non-profits, especially in time of
economic recession. However, most admitted that they were unsure where their funding
140
would come from in the near future. Other statements concerning unsustainable funding
models mentioned issues relating to rising health costs, shrinking program savings (postrecession), shaky state economies, and the need for more diversified funding.
“What are some opportunities and barriers in regards to funding, staffing, and
educational issues?”
The opportunities expressed by the informants covered a wide range of program
goals. Expanding the youth program volunteer base was stated as a desire from several
informants. Volunteers were also seen as crucial for program stability and growth into the
future. Another frequently mentioned opportunity was strengthening connections with
existing institutional education departments and programs. Many informants agreed that
connecting the youth program curriculum with teaching and education curriculum at the
university had the potential to enhance both programs. In addition, students interested in
outdoor and environmental education could gain valuable experience through the youth
program. One institution also had a daycare on campus that was identified as a potential
collaboration and educational opportunity for students and the youth program.
Other opportunities expressed included connecting school class activities with
state learning standards. This was seen as a crucial next step for youth program growth by
several informants, while a few others had already realized this potential through years of
working with community teachers to enhance curriculum. All informants agreed that
making stronger connections between the youth program and the parent institution was
crucial for long term success. Getting the word out to the students, faculty and staff of the
141
supporting institution was equally as important as making those connections with the
local community. This was emphasized by several of the informants since their programs
relied so heavily on university student involvement, participation, and research.
The barriers mentioned by all of the informants are bundled into three main
constraint categories, land, staffing, and institution. Within the land category, physical
constraints such as limited land for program expansion, and inadequate farm facilities and
infrastructure, were mentioned by several informants as major barriers for the future.
Simply not having enough space for classrooms or youth program activities created real
tension without much relief in sight for the foreseeable future. In most cases, this
constraint was tied directly into constraints of the existing student farm, which was
feeling many of the same barriers within its structure. All agreed that more land was
desired to ensure program success into the future.
The second category identified by informants as a barrier in regards to funding,
staffing and educational opportunities concerns the issue of people, or the lack of
qualified staffing. In almost all cases, informants stated that a lack of funding was a
major barrier for hiring and retaining quality youth program staff. While some programs
utilized annual paid research graduate students for program staffing, most informants
insisted that hiring permanent staff was the only way to maintain program stability and
sustainability.
There were also several institutional barriers that were expressed by informants.
One barrier expressed was pressure to maintain constant focus on the institution’s
mission and pedagogy. While this mission sometimes aligned well with the mission and
142
goals of the youth program, other times it did not. This was particularly an issue with
those youth programs that were primarily financially tied into the associated institution.
This was mainly seen as a potential barrier to youth program growth and creativity. In
addition, balancing needs of student volunteers and staff with other institutional academic
programs created natural barriers due to academic conflicts in limited time and energy.
Essentially, youth programs that relied on student involvement the most had the most
barriers to program sustainability on many levels because of the overlapping institutional
constraints and the dueling responsibilities of the students themselves. It was emphasized
again by most informants the importance of permanent staffing for the long term success
of the youth program.
All informants agreed that demand from the local community for the youth
program’s services irritated these barriers even more. While the community demand was
considered desirable from the informant’s perspective, not being able to meet those
demands was extremely frustrating and often crippling for the youth program’s growth.
Creativity, persistence and patience were expressed as essential elements for program
survival, despite the barriers.
“What, if any, are the tensions between instruction and financial stability?”
There were three main tensions identified by informants regarding instruction and
financial stability, financial support and buy-in, and time and demand. Financially,
tensions exist in several areas. One was the lack of institutional financial support for new
farm facilities and farm facility maintenance. Many informants stated that this put a
143
constant strain on student farm and youth program staff. In most cases, this tension has
been stressed even more by tightening institutional budgets.
Several informants also mentioned financial tensions between services provided
in the community and the lack of cost sharing. Most program leaders agreed that
providing free services and activities to local schools was always the priority if possible.
However, as community demand increases, several youth programs have started charging
for a few of their services, such as summer and day camps. But when it comes to local
schools, these services usually remain free. This eventually creates a tension with the
quality of instruction and financial stability because of limited program financial and
staffing resources. All informants agreed though, that if they could not provide their
services for free to local schools, then they would not provide them at all.
Another identified tension that affects instruction concerned support and buy-in
from student farm and institutional staff and faculty. This was particularly acute in
regards to student farm manager buy-in. In an example provided by one informant, a
former student farm manager did not provide buy-in to the youth program because this
individual was already so busy with his responsibilities as a manager. He did not have the
time or energy to assist in planning school tours or building community partnerships.
This was identified as a major barrier to youth program stability, even though this
individual was considered a quality farm manager. Buy-in from student farm stakeholders
within the supporting institution was also deemed extremely important from all
informants. These stakeholders might be faculty, facility managers, or institutional staff.
Their support was seen by informants as crucial for continued youth program viability
and the financial link back to the institution.
144
Finally, time and demand were also seen as ongoing tensions between youth
program instruction and financial stability. In all cases, informants agreed that staff time
was already maxed out as community demand was increasing. Staff in most cases is
being asked to do more and more to keep up with this demand. This tension, as witnessed
by the informants, leads to burn out and program instability.
“Is there anything that you would like to add or reemphasize?”
At the end of the interviewing sessions, each informant was given the opportunity
to add or reemphasize any points crucial to youth program viability and sustainability.
One concerned partnerships. Several informants stressed how important partnerships
were to long-term success and stability of the youth program. These partnerships came in
many forms such as financial and volunteer based support. However, these informants
also reemphasized that finding the right people within these community organizations
and schools to work with was equally as important as financial support. With time being
so thin already for youth program staff and students, knowing whom to talk to within the
community and knowing who has the authority to make decisions was crucial.
Institutional and community outreach was also seen as crucial to youth program
success. Getting the word out about the services and value of the youth program,
especially to the supporting institution, was a priority for all informants. This institutional
outreach insured a continued stream of interested students and provided increased
evidence to student farm stakeholders that the youth program was still a valuable service
to the university and the community. Community outreach was also deemed crucial for
145
program long-term viability, even though the tactics for this outreach were sometimes
different than institutional outreach. One informant expressed how powerful the Internet
and youth program website has been in promoting their services to the community, while
strengthening partnerships and exposure. Digital and social platforms also play an
important role in sharing youth program research and resources.
The third point reemphasized by several informants was to always keep the
program focus on the services being offered to the children in the community and the
benefits provided to the institution, especially its university students. One informant
stated that it was crucial to always remember that the program’s focus should be getting
children in a position to understand food, gardening, farming, nutrition and holistic
nature. This message was also crucial to maintain when engaging community partners.
Positive involvement in the youth program from university students was also seen as
important for program stability and continued institutional support. Several informants
stated that the youth program was one of many ways that students could accomplish goals
of community engagement which improved their overall academic experience at the
university. This involvement with the community through the youth program developed
communication and leadership skills that were viewed as extremely valuable to all
informants. All agreed that the quality of experiences by the children of the community
and the institutional students involved in the program was more valuable than the
quantity of experiences.
The final point reemphasized by all informants was how much the youth program
has influenced other programs at the institution. In some cases this influence has even led
to new programs and courses being created from student and community demand. One
146
informant stated that new academic and course offerings had sprung from their youth
program and its interactions in the community such as nutrition and culinary
opportunities courses at the college. Another informant stressed how the success of the
youth program has influenced an increase in demand for freshly cooked meals on
campus. All agreed that this influence from the youth program, combined with
community and student interest, created a vibrant recipe for new opportunities to form
and evolve into the future.
1.3 Promising Practices
1.3.1 Strategic Planning
After analyzing the data acquired from the informant interview sessions, many
promising practices were identified in the areas of strategic planning, staffing, funding,
programming, and partnerships. These promising practices were also compared to the
best practices identified from the research literature (Table 1). These comparisons
revealed many common themes and patterns. These comparisons also revealed several
promising practices not mentioned in the literature review.
In regards to strategic planning, most informants stated that project initiatives
from university graduate students were the catalyst to youth program implementation.
Student created projects such as creating a farm tour curriculum or working with local
schools to install campus gardens were the initial spark that provided momentum and
support for a structured youth program eventually. Another example included graduate
research that led to grant funding for student farm activities with local school children.
Yet another example included a graduate student writing a business plan for the youth
147
program while receiving academic credit through the university. In almost every case,
graduate student projects, coupled with their academic interests and passion for youth
education, were the driving forces behind initial program planning. From writing grants
to creating partnerships in the community, student led efforts were critical for program
development. However, without the stakeholder support from the institution and the
student farm, these student inspired projects and research would have never been
possible. There is a direct correlation between youth program initiation and the strength
of this type of ongoing institutional support. Students that are well supported from their
institution and student farm are more willing and capable of creating youth programs
from the ground up.
Another promising practice concerning strategic planning involves identifying
crucial stakeholders and allies early on in the program initiation process. In every case,
local schools, specifically teachers at these schools, were absolutely crucial for initial
program implementation. These teachers were valuable on several levels. One, they were
willing and inspired to participate in farm tours involving the children in their
classrooms, which created community support for the budding youth program. Second,
these teachers provided valuable mentorship and resources to the graduate students on
effective environmental education curriculum and activities, and on ways to connect
curriculum to the state standards. Third, the teachers helped to spread the word out into
the community about the program which generated more partnerships and opportunities.
In general, the teachers gave back as much as the programs gave to them and their
classrooms. Not every teacher according to the informants was as willing or as able to
participate to this level of involvement. However, enough teachers were fully engaged to
148
provide the extra support needed to these graduate students and program stakeholders to
create the needed momentum for initial program implementation.
When these promising practices stated by the informants are compared with the
best practices identified from the literature, several similarities appear. Developing
simple and manageable program goals and business plans was the most important best
practice revealed in the literature. Graduate student projects were identified through the
informant interviews to be critical for program implementation. These initial graduate
student inspired projects on all cases were simple in scope and delivery. In several
examples, graduate student projects consisted of conducting farm tours with local schools
for academic credit. Another graduate project found funding in order to provide these
local schools with free bussing to the student farm. Yet another graduate project
developed curriculum that was focused on meeting state standards while teaching farmbased education concepts. These projects were modest in delivery and scope, even though
the students worked aggressively to meet their project goals. It was this simplicity, one
graduate student project at a time, which eventually led to the support and vision needed
for youth program implementation.
Another commonality between literature and informant best practices was the
early identification of who the key audiences and stakeholders were within the
community. It was emphasized that meeting the needs of the children within the
community was the most effective way to create positive impacts. Just because the youth
program might offer cooking classes does not necessarily mean that it is what the
community needs at that moment. Identifying local schools as a primary audience and
allowing them to communicate what their specific needs were was critical in youth
149
program establishment. In addition, identifying major stakeholders at the supporting
institution and in the community was stated by several literature resources and all
informants to also be critical in the early stages of program development.
1.3.2 Staffing
The most significant best practice identified regarding staffing and the youth
program workforce base from both the literature and informant interview research was
maintaining consistency. All agreed that a successful and sustainable youth program
required a steady and consistent form of dedicated staffing and support to remain viable
within the community. This consistency was also crucial for marinating institutional and
community relationships. Constant turnover and short-lived staffing positions can be
extremely disruptive and inefficient. Eventually, the youth program must hire permanent
staff if it is to grow and be successful over time according to all resources and research
results. Student-run programs or grant-funded projects can jump-start various program
initiatives, but these approaches are not sustainable over time. Hiring a program director
capable of program management, fund-raising, and generating community support was
seen as ideal. It was also emphasized that asking the farm manager to assume this director
role was not a suggested organizational structure. Farm managers were often too busy
with the responsibilities of the farm to focus much attention on youth program
development or sustainability. Farm managers were viewed as critical allies to the
program at best.
150
Cultivating interest and support from graduate students was also seen as a best
practice. The most successful models identified within the literature and interview
research revealed that graduate students who could receive academic credit for their
efforts within the youth program were more likely to fully engage and participate in
various program activities. This would also encourage other graduate students to spread
the word about the student farm and the youth program within the university. This
structure creates a positive cycle of newly inspired students participating in the program
as other students are graduating and leaving the program. One example showcased by an
informant was a peer model system, which compensated two research graduate assistants
to participate in various research and youth program activities, while mentoring and
training incoming graduate student assistants. This provided a support network that was
student led and initiated.
Several informants recommended that, in general, a student volunteer base was
preferred to a community volunteer base. This was not because the community was
lacking in any way. Instead, student volunteer bases helped to generate more interest and
support through the institution. In addition, the informants revealed, this student base was
also generally more accessible and willing to provide their time than community
volunteer bases. Several informants mentioned that AmeriCorps and Campus Corps
positions had provided valuable sources of staffing in the past. These were most
successful in situations in which the student farm or youth program could not afford to
hire a permanent director or permanent staffing. The informants noted that the most
successful scenarios involving students and interns were the ones in which they received
credit and/or wages for their time and research within the youth program.
151
In general, the best practices from the literature and the best practices identified
from the informants were very similar and consistent with each other. Communication
and striking a balance between student leadership, staff, and faculty was emphasized as
being crucial for program success. Providing financial and academic support to graduate
student projects, student volunteer work bases, and various Corps positions was agreed to
be ideal. Financing a highly trained and permanent position, such as a director or
manager to handle the main responsibilities, instead of spreading the load among existing
staff, was also viewed as a critical best practice.
1.3.3 Funding
With respect to funding youth programs, there were several best practices
identified by the informants during the interview process. Creating a non-profit and
securing grant funding were the most likely ways to start a student farm youth program.
According to the literature and informant research, these moves gave the youth program
more financial control and more program freedom initially. This control and freedom
allowed the program to remain flexible and adaptable to the needs of the children of the
community. However, grant funding was not deemed ideal over the long haul for
program sustainability despite the advantages during program implementation. All
resources and research stated that while grant funds may be valuable for program
implementation, they are not as preferred for long-term program sustainability because of
the unreliable nature of such funding sources.
152
Institutional funding was also seen as a best practice regarding funding
sustainability, but this funding often came with strings attached. Informants and literature
that showcased youth program examples of completely institutionalized funding also
stated that with this financial support, expectations of program mission and goals aligned
with institutional values was demanded. These expectations sometimes caused conflicts
between the youth programming and its responsibilities to the university. However, the
stability that this institutional funding provided to the youth program as a whole was
viewed as a more positive funding source, capable of establishing long-term
sustainability within the program structure.
Diversifying funding sources was agreed by all informants and the literature to be
a desired best practice, but that it often made it harder for the program to manage cash
flows. All informants preferred funds from programs, fees, products, events, and camps
over grants for long term program viability. All informants also emphasized that camps in
particular were crucial for program independence and stability, even though the camps
often take several years to support themselves. Diversified funding, with successful
camps programs, were deemed as best practices in regards to successful funding models.
Creating a strong donation network with local businesses, PTAs, and after school
programs was also viewed as a best funding practice. These relationships take years to
cultivate and require a steady and consistent staff base to develop and sustain.
153
1.3.4 Programming
When it came to programming, both the literature and the interview research
agreed that student farm field trips and the activities associated with those field trips
(harvesting vegetables, planting seeds, feeding livestock, etc.) were the most effective in
establishing youth program support, while also meeting the needs of the community.
Most field trips are simple in delivery and scope, yet provide quality hands-on learning
experiences for children. In addition, these field trip experiences often integrate several
different disciplines and educational themes, which gives the children a greater positive
farm experience. These educational opportunities are also deemed as best practices in the
literature.
Another best practice emphasized by all informants and the literature was
concerned with maintaining the focus of the youth program’s mission on the children of
the community. It was emphasized from all sources just how crucial it was to always
remember that the program’s focus should be getting children in a position to understand
food, gardening, farming, nutrition, and holistic nature.
Some sources also stated that it was a best practice to ensure that the educational
quality of the university students involved with the program was equally important to
maintain. The youth program was one of many ways that institutional students could
accomplish goals of community engagement, which had the potential to improve their
overall academic experience at the university. This involvement with the community
through the youth program developed communication and leadership skills that were
viewed as extremely valuable to all informants.
154
Working with the local teachers to accomplish their educational goals for their
students was also viewed as a crucial best practice for long-term program sustainability
and community viability. This process created trustworthy lines of communication
between the local school, the teachers, and the staff of the youth program. Out of this
solid communication grows lasting partnerships and networking opportunities essential
for program growth and sustainability.
1.3.5 Partnerships
In general, both the literature and informants stated that partnerships were one of
the most important best practices for program implementation and program longevity.
These partnerships can come in many forms, such as financial and volunteer based
support. In every case however, these partnerships take time and patience to establish and
even more work to sustain over the years. Once in place though, the partnerships can
provide the essential support to a youth program as it grows and expands its services to
the community.
Creating and cultivating partnerships within the structure of the institution was
also viewed as important for youth program success. Partnerships with on-campus
daycare centers were the testing grounds for the early stages of a fully developed youth
program according to several informants. Another program established strong support
with various academic and research courses at the university that wanted to utilize the
student farm and the children involved with the youth program for programming
activities. This partnership included nutrition and food concepts courses collaborating
155
with the youth program to discuss healthy eating for children. Other collaborations
included community outreach research regarding local food security among at-risk
neighborhoods. The multi-disciplinary nature of environmental education and the youth
program’s educational goals provides precious opportunities for internal institutional
partnerships and is deemed as a desired best practice.
Hosting events at the student farm for other local businesses and organizations
was stated as a great way to bring attention to the youth program’s services and
connection to the children of the community. This was deemed as especially effective for
youth programs that have existing day and summer camp offerings. Hosting events at the
farm generates community interest and builds potential and ongoing partnerships that are
crucial for youth program sustainability.
1.4 Barriers and Obstacles and Ways of Addressing Them
There were several consistent barriers and obstacles identified throughout the
literature and the qualitative interview research analysis. According to the informants, in
some cases these barriers are currently impossible to address or remedy, while other
barriers have reachable solutions within the grasp of the various youth programs. The
literature also provides recommendations on various strategies to overcome common
program barriers. For the sake of research consistency, I have organized these barriers
and ways of addressing them into familiar program categories: strategic planning,
staffing, funding, programming and partnerships.
156
1.4.1 Strategic Planning
One major barrier identified by several of the informants concerned the role
graduate students in program initiation. It was mentioned earlier with Promising
Practices that the efforts of graduate student research and projects has been instrumental
in kick-starting a youth program. It was also mentioned that institutional support was
crucial for the graduate students and ultimately provided them with the incentive to invest
so passionately in their work involving environmental education. However, without
financial and academic support these graduate students would not have the opportunities
to be so involved with the student farm or youth program. So while properly supported
graduate students can be crucial for program support or even program initiation,
inadequately supported graduate students will ultimately burn out or lose inspiration in
the program and its services to the community. Put simply, students, especially graduate
students, have little extra time in their lives beyond academics, research, and possibly
earning a little extra income to support their weekly living expenses. Providing a
structure where a student could receive academic credit and/or even a stipend for their
work within the youth program makes an enormous difference in the quality of work and
the quality of students interested in participating in the program. Youth programs that
rely on institutional support should create opportunities for their students and graduate
students to encourage continued research and program investment.
Other identified barriers within strategic planning that was expressed in the
literature and the informant interviews concerned the need for more land for the
program’s long term viability. More land was a barrier for the student farm associated
with the youth program as well. Community and university student demand for
157
agricultural and environmental education programming has been growing steadily over
the last ten years according to the research. This demand has put increased stress on
already over-utilized student farms with little or no plans for expansion. There are some
cases in which the institution has assisted in farm land expansion. However in most cases,
student farm land expansion is simply not an option because of existing land constraints
already found on the university or college campus. One way to address this barrier could
be to purchase or lease land off-campus that could meet the needs of the program and
student farm as well. However, this option can be rather complicated, especially for a
larger institution due to financial realities and logistical issues. Most informants admitted
that this was not a realistic option and that this would continue to find creative ways to
utilize limited student farm and campus land for youth program services and operations.
The final barrier that was emphasized regarding strategic planning is the lack of
adequate farm facilities for current and long-term program viability. The real issue is not
having enough space for outdoor or indoor classrooms for youth program activities. One
informant expressed the lack of restrooms and wash stations for local school farm tours
as being a major barrier for program expansion and viability within the community.
Again, student farm leaders also expressed the same stress because of the lack of proper
facilities on the farm. Lack of institutional financial support, resulting from tight
university and college budgets, is the main barrier for facility upgrades or expansion. One
way to address this issue would be to gather increased financial support from local
partnerships, through donations, or large fund raising events. Another potential remedy
would be working with the institution and student farm stakeholders to apply for specific
grants that might have interest in supporting environmental education and services for
158
children in the community. However, if the student farm or youth program is not a nonprofit, then this option might prove difficult. All informants agreed that creativity and
communication with university and student farm stakeholders was the best way to deal
with the lack of facilities for now, until other options present themselves.
1.4.2 Staffing
From both the literature and informant research, staffing consistency was viewed
as a major barrier for most student farm youth programs according to best practices. This
was especially true for programs without permanent staffing and those that relied on
student and volunteer staffing for program functions. As mentioned earlier, constant
turnover and short lived staffing positions can often be very disrupting and inefficient
within the structure of the youth program. In addition, staff changes year in and year out
can cause stagnation among long-term partnerships within the supporting institution and
within the community. One way to address this issue is to build the financial support
structure to hire a permanent employee dedicated to the program. If this is not an option,
as is the case for many financially challenged youth programs, then the next best option is
to provide a reliable system for students to receive credit and/or stipends for the time and
effort they provide into the program. This system could take the form of an annual
financial and academic incentive staff position, or possibly even take the generic form of
an AmeriCorps or Campus Corps position. At the very least, best practices suggest that a
consistent and reliable way of attracting and retaining motivated students within the
youth program while they are in institutional students is the most effective way to meet
159
the staffing needs of the program. Another barrier emphasized states that temporary
student staff are not as engaged because of the overlapping institutional constraints and
dueling responsibilities of the students themselves. Maintaining a balance with the
student staffing work force is a constant challenge for programs with inadequate funds to
make a permanent hire for the program.
For some student farm programs, not having the buy-in or logistical support of the
farm manager can be a major barrier for youth program success. According to the
literature and research, farm managers are extremely busy with logistics of the farm and
many do not have the time or energy to devote to any extra programming not directly
related to their responsibilities and duties. Even the managers that are enthusiastic about a
youth program may have very little time to give toward program activities such as tours
or workshops for children. For emergent youth programs with very little staff, this can be
a major issue for program initiation. However, ways to address this include establishing
strong temporary student staff and volunteer positions that can bridge the gap. It is clear
from the literature and informant interview research that relying on a farm manager to
assist in youth program activities and implementation is not viable or sustainable.
All of these staffing barriers would not exist however if there was not a growing
demand from the community for youth programs that sense the needs of the children in
that community. Demand cannot be seen as a barrier in itself, but it does have the
potential to create barriers, even after program success. Consensus from the literature and
my qualitative research suggests that success breeds demand which often breeds more
success. In summary, staffing barriers and staffing challenges are almost always present
160
in youth programs, whether emergent or established. Finding creative ways to meet this
challenge is what establishes sustainability within the program.
1.4.3 Funding
Both the literature and my research agreed that a lack of steady, reliable and
sustainable funding was a major barrier. It was emphasized that a lack of funding was a
major barrier for hiring and retaining quality youth program staff. Lack of stable funding
also affected facility maintenance and overall youth program growth. Uncertainty from
year-to-year has the potential to create stagnation in program vision and uneven service
into the community. Much of this unreliability does not just come from tightening
institutional budgets or shrinking foundational funding. It was stated by several
informants that rising health care costs and shaky state budgets were also to blame for
youth program financial instability. However, several ways of attempting to address this
challenge were identified. As mentioned earlier, diversified funding was key to long-term
program viability and sustainability. This financial diversity not only included fees for
services and camps, but it also included the power of community partnerships. In fact, it
was the diversity of these community partnerships that provided the only real financial
security, according to many of the informants interviewed. Partnerships were viewed by
much of the literature and the qualitative research to be as crucial as any grant or
institutional funding, if not more so.
161
1.4.4 Programming
The most consistent barrier identified by my research was the challenge of trying
to maintain a constant focus on the youth program’s supporting institution’s mission and
pedagogy. Programs that were closely tied to institutional funding often felt pressure to
adhere to the mission and values of the institution. It was stated by many informants that
this was not necessarily a negative aspect of the program’s relationship with the
institution all the time. However, youth program goals and institutional sometimes
clashed over programming, staffing priorities and adequate funding. These tensions were
especially noticeable with more successful programs, because more successful programs
needed to be more adaptable and flexible to the needs of the community. This
adaptability was often slowed by conflicting institutional stakeholder program goals.
According to several informants, one way that this occasional tension was addressed was
to generate more program service income. Youth programs that were able to sustain more
financial independence through increased funds from services such as camps, workshops
and events, were able to eventually create more freedom within their program structure.
The connection to the institutional mission was still viewed as vital to program success.
However, the financial freedom gave the programs the flexibility and room to grow as
needed to serve the community more affectively.
Another way to address potential institutional barriers, identified through the
literature and interviews, was to strengthen communication and participation among all
student farm and youth program stakeholders. If financial independence is not possible
for the youth program, then finding ways to discover common ground within the goals of
162
the institution and the youth program appears to be key to softening barriers for program
viability.
1.4.5 Partnerships
The only significant barrier identified within the category of partnerships was
concerned with was the lack of cost sharing between the youth program and local schools
in specific situations. All my informants agreed that providing free services and activities
to local schools was always the priority if possible. Examples of these free services
included farm tours, workshops, camps, and school garden installations. However,
barriers seemed to rise when community demand increased and the youth program did
not have the financial capacity to meet that demand. This inadequate ability to meet the
community’s demand often created tension between certain parts of the community and
the youth program. This tension was especially acute in communities that where they
were accustomed to receiving free services from the youth program in the past. It was
also acute in situations in which the youth program grew too quickly and could not
financially or logistically handle all of the needs of the community at once.
According to the informants there are several ways to address this tension and
soften these barriers. One is to strengthen communication efforts among the community
and the youth program staff as to what services are realistic and sustainable at current
levels of support. In some situations, cost sharing and requiring fees for service might be
a necessity to maintain youth program services. This must be communicated in a way that
is participatory and inclusive among all stakeholders. Program growth requires financial
163
stability. Alternatively, if cost sharing and fees for service are not feasible or desired by
the youth program, then it must be communicated to the community that some services
might be reduced or eliminated. All informants agreed though, that if they could not
provide their services for free to local schools, then they would not provide them at all.
1.5 Synthesis and Additional Insights
These insights come from analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data that I
have collected over the last few years for this thesis project. They also come from several
years of personal experience that I have had as both a college student and employee on a
student farm. From my student farm experiences, I was fortunate to have the opportunity
to participate and organize student farm tours for pre-school children in the local
community. While the student farm did not have an organized youth program, it did have
students and staff who were passionate about farm-based education. The demand from
the local community for these farm-based education opportunities often translated into
student-led farm tours for pre-school age students. However, this was often the extent of
the services the student farm could offer, due to financial and organizational barriers. I
experienced first-hand many of the same obstacles to develop a more formalized youth
program that were identified by the survey and phone interview research. My humble
experiences and the data presented within this research project call to light a collection of
insights and conclusions that I would like to share concerning youth education on student
farms.
164
1.5.1 Community Demand and Community Building
One major insight involves community. According to the literature, my survey
results and phone interviews, there is no doubt that local community demand for farmbased educational opportunities on student farms is strong and growing. In fact, all of the
interview respondents stated again and again that one of their major challenges for the
future was keeping up with this demand. There seems to be several reasons why this
demand is currently so expansive. The interest in organic and local foods and healthier
lifestyles in general has been gaining popularity recently throughout the United States.
The increase in farmers markets and organic produce consumption has been well
documented in the media and literature. At the same time, many parents and community
members have realized the need for a stronger connection between youth and nature. This
connection can be strengthened on many levels, one of which is embracing farm-based
education opportunities, which are very similar to garden-based education learning
opportunities. Their educational missions and public exposures to the local community
make student farms ideal candidates for these types of farm-based education
opportunities. Mix in a few passionate and inspired university and college students who
desire environmental educational experiences and suddenly the demand has a potential
outlet to flow toward. However, as mentioned earlier, these student farms are often not
equipped to serve the needs and demands of the community, because they lack the
financial and operational support to implement a student farm youth program.
The main point is that community demand is growing, which also means that the
community recognizes the value of farm-based educational opportunities. This
community is not just made up of concerned and inspired parents. It is also made up of
165
local schools and local school teachers who wish to supplement their teaching goals with
elements of environmental education. This adds a very exciting and powerful element to
the demand for farm-based educational opportunities. Teachers who incorporate farmbased education into their curriculum not only expose more students to these learning
opportunities, but also expose more fellow teachers and school administrators to the
values of increased environmental educational learning experiences. From a broader
viewpoint, demand from teachers and parents has the potential to sustain a larger farmbased education movement that can enhance the values of environmental education as a
whole in the current educational system.
Another insight that was revealed through this research process concerning
community was just how powerful the community building aspect was to fueling and
justifying youth programs on student farms. There are many ways to build community
whether it is in a rural or urban setting. My interviews and literature review indicated that
many institutions are especially focused on building community and offering educational
opportunities for their university and college students to experience this process. This
community building focus, both pedagogical and institutional, creates the foundation
needed to support student interests focused in community development. All of the phone
interview responders cited this foundational support as crucial for continued youth
program and/or farm-based education learning opportunities. Farm-based youth
education is seen as just another type of community development and thus is
educationally supported through credit generating student projects and internships. This
foundation does not always translate into a fully funded youth program, but it does insure
that farm-based education is recognized by the institution as a valued form of community
166
development. This value can be a spring board for future youth inspired initiatives to
launch from toward a potential fully operational farm-based youth program.
1.5.2 The Role of Students
According to the literature and my research, there is a growing trend of college
and university students who want more from traditional agriculture programs. This is not
to say that students do not still desire formal agricultural education experiences and
practical in the field knowledge. These hands-on opportunities are very important to the
future of American farming. However, there is also evidence that a growing number of
college and university students interested in agriculture are also interested in other related
aspects such as nutrition, food justice, agro-ecology and agro-economics. These students
are not interested in becoming full-time farmers but still care deeply for the issues and
challenges apparent in the current global food system and want to be involved in the
processes for positive change.
Some institutions have recognized this growing demand for an increased diversity
in food system courses. This recognition spurred by student demand has expanded many
institutional science and agricultural departments to include environmental education and
community outreach experiences. It has also sparked an increase in student farms of all
sizes and educational goals and opportunities. Diverse student farm outreach is already in
motion throughout the U.S. Demand from the local community and demand from college
and university students has created an educationally charged atmosphere on many
campuses. This trend is very promising for even more student farms to develop in the
167
coming years along with the cast of supporting outreach and farm-based education
opportunities as well.
Another promising trend and insight is that inspired and well supported
institutional students are often the catalysts to youth program implementation. According
to my research, graduate student projects seem to have been the main sparks for the
eventual creation of a student farm youth outreach program. Even though I do not have
evidence either way to support or deny this assumption, I believe that graduate students
are better equipped to create and implement projects that might lead to youth program
start-ups. Graduate programs in general have a major focus on research, both through
developing strong literature review analyst and research techniques. This skill set can
lead to a stronger research project which is supported by the graduate program. This
strong research project also requires a dedication and commitment necessary to finish the
research in a timely and professional manner. In other words, I believe that graduate
students have a distinct advantage to creating program initiatives due to the fact that their
graduate program calls for a higher level of academic rigor not usually found in the
undergraduate level. This is not to say that all undergraduate programs do not have high
standards or that institutions without graduate programs will never support motivated
students with high quality research projects. In general, graduate students do have the
research skills and the project focus, encouraged and supported by the graduate program
itself, to tackle and answer more in-depth research questions for academic credit. In the
phone interviews I conducted, three out of five responders agreed that these academic
conditions greatly influenced the success of the graduate student projects that eventual
led to youth program implementation.
168
1.5.3 The Resiliency of Limited Funding
When it comes to funding a student farm youth program it appears that most
programs do not have an official budget. Not having an official budget includes
everything from not spending any extra funds on youth outreach related activities to the
actual budget being absorbed into a larger student farm or academic program budget.
Only a few student farm youth programs have been able to grow to the point of
establishing significant annual budgets capable of sustaining most of the program’s
services, staff, and operations. The trend however is that most programs operate on a
shoe string budget, at least partially (if not fully) supported financially by the associated
institution. I believe that this is both a positive and negative situation.
The negative side of youth programs that have no real budget indicates that these
programs are still in the infant stages of implementation and operational sustainability.
There is either no real hope for an increase in program capacity and financial support or
support is slowly being formed internally both at the institutional and youth program
level. In other words, some programs have no plan to expand due to a lack of institutional
or community support, while some programs are simple remaining patience and building
strong partnerships for future financial contributions and support. Either way, these
programs will continue to face the documented barriers of unsustainable financial
support, struggling to meet the demand from the local community and institutional
students for more farm-based learning opportunities.
On the other hand, the reality that student farm youth programs with no budgets
are still offering even limited services to the community is also a very positive sign for
169
the future of farm-based education. I believe that this shows a high level of existing
passion of the student farm stakeholders and the college and university students involved
toward youth outreach. The fact that so many youth programs still exist and continue to
slowly grow despite limited financial support indicates just how dedicated those involved
really are to the educational and community values of the services being provided.
Dedicated students, staff and faculty keep these programs alive year after year and
continue to build strong community partnerships. Creativity and determination fuels these
programs despite the constant financial challenges. This trend revealed from the literature
and my research, offers tremendous hope for the future of farm-based education in
general. It shows that if college and university students are given the academic support
and if student farm programs are provided even basic institutional financial support,
farm-based youth programs can still provide a valuable impact within the community.
A final insight regarding funding is that direct income from services/products and
institutional funds not grants, support student farm youth programs. According to my
phone interview research grants are a good way to jump-start a program in most cases,
but such funds cannot be relied upon for long-term sustainability. I believe that this is
overlooked by many students and student farm stakeholders when creating a strategic
business plan for a youth outreach program. From my own experiences and from all of
the phone interview research responses for this thesis project, it is clear that grants can be
very alluring in the early stages of program implementation. In fact, in most cases stated
from the interview responders, grants were the only way that the youth program was able
to get a running start from the beginning. However, grants can also bind a program to an
alternate path beholden to the requirements of the funding foundation. Grant funding can
170
also end before program implementation is fully realized. While it can be tempting to rely
on state and federal grants to sustain a program, building strong financial partnerships in
the local community was overwhelming agreed by all interview responders as being the
most sustainable path for long-term program viability.
1.5.4 The Momentum of Farm-based Education Research
One final insight that became very clear after this research process was that
support among student farm and youth program stakeholders for more farm-based
education research is passionate and greatly needed. Throughout my research process of
soliciting student farm staff to participate in an on-line survey and conducting in-depth
phone interviews, I was struck by how excited most responders were that this type of
research was being done. The excitement was equally acknowledged regarding the
research questions I asked and regarding the interest that I expressed about their
respective programs. It was clear that all who participated had pride and meaningful
purpose to their student farm responsibilities and believed in the value of their services
and educational opportunities to the institutional students and the community.
Furthermore, all phone interview respondents agreed that more research was needed to
continue the momentum of farm-based education on student farms and in communities
throughout the U.S. They realize, as I do, that student farm outreach is still an emerging
practice for most institutions. It will take time to fully develop and mature. Research is
one ingredient that is needed for this maturation process to continue and for the farmbased education movement to continue into the future. More research is needed and
171
according to my findings, student farm stakeholders are very eager to participate and
contribute.
172
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions
My research objectives were to (a) gain a better understanding of how much a
student farm youth program really costs to implement and sustain over time, (b) identify
the various funding and organizational opportunities, issues and challenges for these
programs, and (c) identify ways for other farms to improve their operations, and possibly
stimulate more youth programs on student farms to be established throughout the United
States. Whereas previous studies have made an attempt to research basic quantitative
characteristics of existing student farms, there is no inventory of those student farms that
also have youth education opportunities. Furthermore, in the small but emerging
literature about student farms, there is very little organizational analysis regarding how
these youth programs are developed, implemented, established and funded/sustained over
time. Most research relating to youth programs and student farms can be found in the
related areas of nature center and non-profit educational program organization,
implementation and structure.
This research attempted to fill these critical literature and research gaps. The
study included a review of the literature, a quantitative on-line survey of forty-six (46)
identified student farms in the United States and a qualitative phone interview session
with five student farm youth program stakeholders. Via my investigations and research, I
was able to identify (a) best practices of farm-based education, environmental education
and Nature Center program management from the literature; (b) physical and
programming characteristics of over sixty (60) percent of existing student farms in the
United States; and (c) youth program details such as program implementation, staffing
and funding from the qualitative data. With this information I identified and elaborated
173
on best and promising practices for youth programs in the areas of strategic planning,
staffing, funding, programming, and partnerships (Table 1). The five major best practices
identified included (1) developing successful strategic planning around the concepts of
simplicity, flexibility and participatory processes; (2) providing program stability by
financing a highly trained and permanent position, such as a director or manager, who
can handle the diverse responsibilities; (3) identifying potential funding sources with a
focus on establishing a diversified balance between short-term financial efficiency and
long-term resilience with a desired goal of self-sufficiency; (4) establishing programming
that is diverse, age-appropriate, efficient in delivery and scope, and responsive to the
specific needs of the youth in the community; and (5) identifying partnerships,
stakeholders and allies within the community and supporting institution to establish
program stability and sustainability. I also identified and discussed youth program
barriers and obstacles and ways of addressing them in the future. Major program barriers
included, (a) facility, land and staffing shortages; (b) lack of consistent and reliable
staffing; (c) unsustainable funding sources; (d) tensions between institutional and
program pedagogy; and (e) a chronic inability to keep up with the community’s
increasing demand for the youth program’s services.
Reflecting on these findings, I drew some additional insights and conclusions.
First, community demand is strong for farm-based education experiences, and growing.
This community development value is often the fuel and justification to implement a
youth program as well. Second, inspired and academically supported students, especially
graduate students, are often the catalysts to youth program start-up. Third, most student
farm youth programs have little to no official budget. In addition, these youth programs
174
are primarily funded with direct income from services or products and parent institutional
funds, not grant funding. Finally, there is strong support among student farm stakeholders
for future research regarding farm-based education and youth programming.
However, my research does have limitations. Below I will discuss its primary
limitations and provide suggestions for further research.
First, while I did receive a sixty (60) percent response rate from my request to all
existing student farms, I would have liked to have had about twenty (20) percent or more.
I believe that the two factors that prevented an even higher response rate were my
personal time for this research and the time of year that I sent out the survey response
request. I sent my first and second survey requests out in the spring, which would have
been a very busy time of year for student farm stakeholders. Late fall or even wintertime
requests might have generated a stronger response rate. In addition, contacting these
student farms by phone to encourage survey participation might have generated a higher
response rate as well.
Second, I believe that more qualitative phone interviews would have been very
beneficial to my research. Again, limited time for my research and seasonal issues
prevented me from interviewing all the potential informants who might have participated.
Out of twenty-one (21) informants that responded “Yes, I would be willing to participate
in a confidential interview” on the survey, only five interviews were actually scheduled.
Another eleven (11) survey responses also indicated that they might participate with more
interview details. I believe that many of these eleven (11) would have also been willing to
conduct an interview with more follow-up and time for research. I believe that the data
175
from the five strong interviews I conducted is significant to this research. However, more
interviews could have revealed more patterns or themes about youth program structure
and financial organization.
Third, I think that in-person visits and observations of these student farms and
youth programs would have yielded a wealth of additional information and data. While
this is rather cost prohibitive for this research, especially visitations on the east coast, it
would have been valuable to schedule a few visits to regional student farms. However,
this approach might have altered my research methodology to involve more of a case
study approach.
Finally, I would have liked to have learned more about the programming and
education elements of these youth programs. Even though, this was a smaller piece of my
research, I believe that it would have been valuable to know more about how
programming affects funding or vice versus. Two questions emerged from this research:
Is there a correlation between types of programming offered and the types of funding
utilized by the youth programming? And, do programs that have more stable or
sustainable funding achieve higher programming goals?
The future research that I suggest could significantly advance understanding of
youth program implementation and sustainability. However, this study has provided
current and valuable data identifying student farm youth program best practices and ways
to address barriers and obstacles. The research also shows that current student farms are
indeed engaged in many different types of outreach in the community, including youth
outreach. In addition, student farm stakeholders are also very interested in supporting
176
farm education research and furthering youth program implementation. They recognize
not only the education value of farm-based education but the community building value
of student farm outreach as well.
177
APPENDIX 1: Quantitative On-line Survey Cover Letter
Dear Participant:
I am a graduate student at The Evergreen State College in the Master of Environmental
Studies program. As part of my graduation requirements in the program, I will be
conducting survey and phone interview research for my thesis project titled “Youth
Education Programs at College/University Student Farms in the United States: An
Investigation of Initial Program Implementation and Long-Term Organizational and
Financial Sustainability”.
The purpose of my project is to gain a better understanding of how much a youth
outreach program on a student farm really costs to implement and sustain over time, as
well as identify the various funding opportunities, issues and challenges for these
programs. Studying the details of funding sources and the factors contributing to success
of each individual student farm youth program would also allow other farms to improve
their operations, and possibly more youth programs on student farms to be established.
My research therefore will investigate and explore this problem and attempt to reveal if
there are patterns of best practice.
A portion of my research involves a short 5 minute survey that I graciously ask for your
participation. Simply click on this link to begin:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6NFL65T
If you have already participated in the survey please let me know.
All research will be confidential and there are no risks to you. There will be no
compensation of any kind available for your participation, which is completely voluntary.
You may withdraw your participation at any point or skip any question you do not wish
to answer without penalty. The information you provide will only be used by myself and
my faculty sponsor, Jean MacGregor. As mentioned above, I will use your responses
only as partial resource material for my research paper. I may report your answers in my
paper, but I will keep your identity confidential and not reveal any identifying
information about you or your institution in my final paper and presentation.
If you have any questions about this project or your participation in it, please call me at
512.660.8313. My email address is olyrogers@gmail.com. The person to contact if you
experience problems as a result of your participation in this project is John McLain,
Academic Grants Manager at The Evergreen State College, Library 3821, Olympia, WA
98505; Phone 360.867.6045.
Thank you so much for your participation and assistance!
Sincerely,
Justin Rogers
178
APPENDIX 2: Quantitative On-line Survey Questions
1. What is the name AND location of your institution?
2. What is the size of your institution in terms of numbers of students?
Less than 1,000 students
1,001-5,000 students
5,001-10,000 students
10,001-15,000 students
15,001 or more students
3. Do you currently have a Student Farm?
No (please skip to question #10)
If "YES", what is the name of your Student Farm AND the year established?
4. Does the Student Farm have any outreach programs? (An outreach program is
defined as “efforts to increase the availability and utilization of services, especially
through direct intervention and interaction with the target population.”)
Yes
No (please skip to question #10)
5. What kinds of outreach does the Student Farm engage with the community?
(Check all that apply)
Open to public visitation
On-site explanatory signage about the farm itself
179
Self-Guided tour opportunities
Farm staff guided tour opportunities
Public events (fairs, festivals, open house, etc.)
Workshops/Course offerings
Summer Camps
Other
If "OTHER" please specify
6. Do you have a youth program? (A youth program is defined as "any outreach
activities specifically targeted for age ranges from pre-schoolers through
adolescents.")
Yes, we do
No, but we are actively planning/developing one now
(please skip to question #10)
No, but it is an aspiration for the future (please skip to question #10)
No, we don’t have a youth program and do not envision having one in the
near future (please skip to question #10)
If answer is "YES", what year was the program implemented?
7. What are the age ranges (youth audience) of children participating in Youth
Program?
8. What is the average annual operating budget for the youth program?
180
9. What are the current sources of funds for the youth program? (Check all that
apply)
Direct income from services or products sales
Institutional funds (General operating funds from the institution to support
the youth program)
Grants
Special fund-raisers or events
Donations
Workshops/Courses
Charitable Giving
Memberships
Camps
Other
If "OTHER" please specify
10. Would you be willing to participate in a confidential follow-up phone interview
regarding more details of the student farm and its outreach programs?
Yes, I would be willing to participate in a confidential interview
Maybe, please provide me with more specifics
No thanks
Please provide name and contact information for who I should speak with
181
APPENDIX 3: Qualitative Phone Interview Cover Letter
Dear (Informant Name),
I wanted to thank you sincerely for participating in my “Student Farm Research” survey
recently. I am also pleased that you are willing to participate in a follow-up confidential
phone interview.
Here are some details about the phone interview:
1) All of my interview questions will seek information about the professional
development and implementation of your student farm’s outreach and youth
education programs. These questions will not ask for your personal opinions.
2) All the reporting of my data will be confidential and anonymous.
3) You may withdraw your participation at any point or skip any question that you
do not wish to answer.
4) Your participation is voluntary and there will be no compensation for providing
information.
5) I will digitally record the interview as well as manually transcribe notes as backup.
6) After my thesis research is complete, all the data will be destroyed.
7) The phone interview will last no more than an hour and will cover the following
areas of your youth program in more detail:
Start-up story
Staffing
Funding
Educational Programming
Opportunities and Barriers
Please let me know what your availability is for a phone interview this week or next
week. I look forward to speaking with you very soon and thank you again for your
participation in this research.
You may contact me at olyrogers@gmail.com or #512-660-8313.
Best,
Justin Rogers
182
APPENDIX 4: Qualitative Phone Interview Questions
Start-up Story:
Tell the story of how the youth program began and how you became a part it.
What is your role with the youth program and how long have you had it?
Staffing:
Who carries out the program (staff? volunteers? mix?) and who do they report
to?
Is there a plan for ongoing staffing that sustains program quality? If so, please
provide more details
Funding:
How was the youth program first funded and/or implemented?
How is the youth program currently funded and financially supported?
What are the funds spent on? (Operating budget/ insurance?)
In your opinion, is the funding model a sustainable model over time?
Opportunities and barriers:
What are some opportunities and barriers in regards to funding, staffing, and
educational issues?
What, if any, are the tensions between instruction and financial stability?
Close out interview with final question:
Is there anything that you would like to add or re-emphasize?
183
REFERENCES
Abraham, J. (2003). Making Community-Based Education Programs Sustainable?
Education for Health: Change In Learning & Practice, 16, (2)
Arnett, J.J. (2004). Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: A Cultural Approach (2nd ed).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Association for Experiential Education (AEE). (n.d.) What Is Experiential Education?
Retrieved July 18, 2011 from the Association for Experiential Education: A Community
of Progressive Educators & Practitioners from http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE
Association of Nature Center Administrators. (1998). The Nature Center Handbook: A
Manual of Best Practices from the Field (Volume 1). Dayton. OH: Author.
Ball, A.L., Garton, B.L. & Dyer, J.E. (2001, December). Learning Communities and
Agricultural Youth Organizations: Their Influence on College Agriculture Students’
Academic Performance and Retention. 28th Annual National Agricultural Education
Research Conference. Lectured from New Orleans, LA.
Barraza, L., Duque-Aristizabal, A.M. & Rebolledo, G. (2003). Environmental Education:
from policy to practice. Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 347-357.
184
Best Management Practices in Agritourism. (2007). Agricultural Marketing Resource
Center. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from www.agmrc.org
Blair, D. (2009). The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative Review of the Benefits of
School Gardening. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 15-38.
Bonnett, M. (2002). Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental
Education Research, 8(1), 9-20.
Booth, L.S. (2009). Teaching About Living Systems on the Farm: Remembering What
We Already Know (winter/spring newsletter). Farm-Based Education Association.
Retrieved June 17, 2011 from http://www.farmbasededucation.org/
Breunig, M. (2005). Turning Experiential Education and Critical Pedagogy Theory into
Praxis. Journal of Experiential Education, 28 (2), 106-122.
Brophy, J., Allemna, J. & O’Mahony, C. (2003). Primary-grade student’s knowledge and
thinking about food production and the origins of common foods. Theory and Research
in Social Education, 31 (1), 9-49.
Byrd, N.J. (1998). The Nature Center Handbook, Vol.1: A Manual of Best Practices from
the Field. Pompano Beach, FL. Association of Nature Center Administrators.
185
Carver, R. (1999). Carver's Conceptual Framework of Experiential Education. Pathways:
The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 12 (2), 11-14.
Chalker-Scott & Tinnemore, R. (2009). Is Community-Based Sustainability Education
Sustainable? A General Overview of Organizational Sustainability in Outreach
Education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (12), 1132-1137.
Chiu, L. (1988). Measures of Self-Esteem for School-Age Children. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 66, 298-301.
Coblyn, S. (2001). French Fries and the Food System: A Year Round Curriculum
Connecting Youth with Farming and Food. The Food Project. Retrieved January 23, 2012
from http://thefoodproject.org/books-manuals
Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist Discourses and the Field of Education:
Problems and Possibilities, Educational Theory, 52 (4), 409-428.
Davis, S. & Luce-Kapler. (2000). Engaging Minds: Learning and Teaching in a Complex
World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeMarrais, K. & Lapan, S.D. (2004). Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in
Education and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
186
Desmond, D., Grieshop, J. & Subramaniam, A. (2004). Revisiting Garden-Based
Learning in Basic Education. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Retrieved March 9th, 2006 from International Institute for Educational Planning from
www.unesco.org/iiep
Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1915). The School and Society. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education (1963 ed.). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Sanders, D. & Teamey, K. (2005). On Food, Farming and Land
Management: Towards a Research Agenda to Reconnect Urban and Rural Lives.
International Journal of Science Education, 27 (11), 1359-1374.
Dirks, A. & Orvis, K. (2005). An evaluation of the Junior Master Gardener Program in
third grade classrooms. HortTechnology, 15 (3), 443-447.
Dittmer, A., Fischetti, J. & Wells, D. (1993). Constructivist Teaching and Student
Empowerment: Educational Equity through School Reform. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 26(1), 40-45.
187
Elkind, D. (1981). Children and Adolescents: Interpretive Essays on Jean Piaget (3rd
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Evans, B. & Evans, C.C. (2004). The Nature Center Book: How To Create And Nurture
A Nature Center In Your Community. Fort Collins, CO. The National Association For
Interpretation.
Fenwick, T. (2001). Experiential Learning: A Theoretical Critique from 5 Perspectives.
Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
(ERIC Document No. ED99CO0013). Retrieved September 18th, 2006 from the ERIC
database.
Fleming, D.S. (2000). A Teacher's Guide to Project-Based Learning. Charleston, WV:
AEL, Inc. (ERIC Document No. ED469734). Retrieved February 21st, 2006 from the
ERIC database.
Fonte, M. (2008). Knowledge, Food and Place. A Way of Producing, A Way of
Knowing. Rural Sociology, 48 (3).
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos).
New York, Herder and Herder.
188
Gale, G. & DeVoe-Talluto, K. (2001). Growing Together: A guide for building inspired,
diverse, and productive youth communities. Lincoln and Roxbury, Massachusetts: The
Food Project, Inc.
Ganapathy, S., Bliss Duffy, S. & Getz, C. (2005). A Framework for Understanding Food
Insecurity: An Anti-Hunger Approach; A Food Systems Approach. The Center for Weight
and Health, College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved
September 7th, 2006 from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/cwh/activities/position.shtml
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Gardner, H. (2004). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools
Should Teach. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers.
Garst, B., Scheider, I., & Baker, D. (2001). Outdoor Program Participation Impacts on
Adolescent Self-Perception. The Journal of Experiential Education, 24 (1), 41-49.
189
Gauvain, M. (2001). The Social Context of Cognitive Development. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Gillham, J.E., Reivich, K., & Shatt, A. (2002). Positive Youth Development, Prevention,
and Positive Psychology: Commentary on Positive Youth Development in the United
States. Prevention & Treatment, 5(18).
Gliessman, S.R. (2007). Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems (2nd
ed.) New York, NY. CRC Press.
Gogtay, N. (et. al.) (2004). Dynamic Mapping of Human Cortical Development During
Childhood Thru Early Adulthood. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 101
(21), 8174-8179.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY. Radom House, Inc.
Green, S.K. & Gredler, M.E. (2002). A Review and Analysis of Constructivism for
School-Based Practice. School of Psychology Review, 31(1), 53-70.
Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of Learning. New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
190
Greene, M. (1988). The Dialectic of Freedom. New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
Hansen, E.J. & Stephens, J.A. (2000). The Ethics of Learner-Centered Education:
Dynamics that Impede the Process. Change, Volume September/October, 42-47.
Harmon, A., Harmon, R. & Maretzki, A. (1999). The Food System-Building Youth
Awareness Through Involvement. A Guidebook for Educators, Parents, and Community
Leaders. The Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences.
Harper, D. (2000). Reimagining Visual Methods. Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, J.M. (2000). Rethinking Sustainability: Power, Knowledge, and Institutions. Ann
Arbor, MI. The University of Michigan Press.
Hersch, P. (1998). A Tribe Apart: A Journey into the Heart of American Adolescence.
New York: The Random House Publishing Group.
Hewitt, N.A. (2007). Application of a Framework for Educational Provision: Research
Findings and Implications for Education for Sustainability. Applied Environmental
Education and Communication, 6, 179-185.
191
Hubbert, K. (2002). Service Learning and Learning Communities. Cerritos College,
California.
Imhoff, D. (2007). Food Fight: The Citizen’s Guide to a Food and Farm Bill.
Healdsburg, CA. A Watershed Media Book.
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D. Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary
Learning: Process and Outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27 (2), 95-111.
Jackson, P. (2009). Changing Families, Changing Food. Great Britian, England. Palgrave
MacMillan.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria,VA, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative,
and Mixed Approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Jorgensen, E.L. (1993). Agriculture and Environmental Education: A Resource Guide for
Non-formal Education Programs. San Jose, CA: University of California San Jose,
Cooperative Extension. (ERIC Document No. 382484). Retrieved February 26th, 2006
from the ERIC database.
192
Koester, U. (1999). Experiments & Education on the Farm: Giving Children a Role in
Sustainable Agriculture. Minneapolis: Midwest Food Connection.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching As Learning in Practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3 (3),
149-164.
Leis, A., Whittington, M.S., Bennett, M. & Kleinhenz, M. (2011). Student Farms at
United States Colleges and Universities: Insights Gained From A Survey of the Farm
Managers. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 9-15.
Lekies, K.S., Eames-Sheavly, M., Wong, K.J., & Ceccarini, A. (2006). Children's Garden
Consultants: A New Model of Engaging Youth to Inform Garden Design and
Programming. HortTechnology, 16 (1), 139-142.
Lieberman, G.A. and Hoody, L.L. (1998). Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the
Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. San Diego, CA: State Education and
Environment Roundtable (SEER). Retrieved February 21st, 2006 from
http://www.seer.org
193
Lindberg, A.E. (2009). Curricular Connections between Outdoor Environmental
Education and Classrooms: A Camp Coleman Case Study. A MES Thesis Essay of
Distinction, June 2009.
Lyson, T.A. (2004). Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community.
Medford, Massachusetts. Tufts University Press.
MacGregor, J. (2011). Environmental Education’s Precursors and Cousins. Lecture
given in Environmental Education, MES program, The Evergreen State College.
Mack (et.al.) (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide.
Family Health International.
Mayer-Smith, J., Bartosh, O., & Peterat, L. (2009). Cultivating and Reflecting on
Intergenerational Environmental Education on the Farm. Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education, 14 (1), 107-121.
McAleese, J.D. & Rankin, L.L. (2007). Garden-Based Nutrition Education Affects Fruit
and Vegetable Consumption in Sixth-Grade Adolescents. Journal of the American Diatec
Association, 662-665.
194
McCombs, B.L. (2001). What Do We Know About Learners and Learning? The LearnerCentered Framework: Bringing the Educational System into Balance. Educational
Horizons, Summer, 183-193.
McGeehan, J. (2001). Brain-Compatible Learning. Green Teacher, Spring, 7-12.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering Sustainable Behavoir. Gabriola
Island, Canada. New Society Publishers.
McKeown, R. (2002). Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit (version 2).
Knoxville: Energy, Environment and Resources Center, University of Tennessee.
Measham, T.G. (2006). Learning About Environments: The Significance of Primal
Landscapes. Environmental Management, 38 (3), 426-434.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of
reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19 (1), 54-72.
Moncure, S. & Francis, C. (2011). Foundations of Experiential Education as Applied to
Agroecology. NACTA Journal. September, 75-91.
195
Morrison, J.D, Howard, J., Johnson, C., Navarro, F.J., Plachetka, B., & Bell, T. (1997).
Strengthening Neighborhoods by Developing Community Networks. Social Work, 2 (5),
527-534.
Norberg-Hodge, H., Merrifield, T., & Gorelick, S. (2002). Bringing the Food Economy
Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness. Bloomfield, CT. Kumarian Press, Inc.
Olsen, N. (2010). A Start-Up Manual for Farm-Based Education Programs. Farm-Based
Education Association. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from
http://www.farmbasededucation.org/forum/topics/a-startup-manual-for-farmbased
Orr, D.W. (2004). Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect
(10th ed.). Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern
World. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Ozer, E.J. (2007). The Effects of School Gardens on Students and Schools:
Conceptualization and Considerations for Maximizing Healthy Development. Health
Education & Behavoir, 34, 846.
Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Ed. 3). Thousand Oaks,
CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
196
Phibbs, E. J. & Relf, D. (2005). Youth in Horticulture: Improving Research on Youth
Gardening. HortTechnology, 15(3), 425-428.
Poudel, D.D., Vincent, L.M., Anzalone, C., Huner, J., Wollard, D., Clement, W.T.,
DeRamus, A., & Blackwood, G. (2005). Hands-On Activities and Challenge Tests in
Agricultural and Environmental Education. Journal of Environmental Education, 36 (4),
10.
The Place-Based Education Evaluation Collaborative (Second Edition). Promise of
Place: The Benefits of Place-based Education (2nd ed.), Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.promiseofplace.org/Research_Evaluation/Display?id=105
Rodale Institute. Farming For Credit Directory. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ffc_directory
Sayre, L. & Clark, S. (2011). Fields of Learning: The Student Farm Movement in North
America. Lexington, KY. The University Press of Kentucky.
Seidel, S., Aryeh, L. & Steinberg, A. (2002). Project-Based and Experiential Learning in
After-School Programming. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of
Education. (ERIC Document No. ED481931). Retrieved February 28th, 2006 from the
ERIC database.
197
Smith, G.A. & Sobel, D. (2010). Place-And-Community-Based Education in Schools.
NY, New York. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Smith, J.N. (2010). Growing A Garden City: How Farmers, First Graders, Counselors,
Troubled Teens, Foodies, a Homeless Shelter Chef, Single Mothers, and More Are
Transforming Themselves and Their Neighborhoods Through the Intersection of Local
Agriculture and Community—And How You Can Too. New York, NY: Skyhorse
Publishing.
Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education. Great
Barrington,MA: The Orion Society and the Myrin Institute.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-Based Education. Great Barrington, MA. The Orion Society
Subramaniam, A. (2003). Garden Based Learning: Considering Assessment from a
Learner-Centered Approach. University of California, Davis, 4-H Center for Youth
Development. Retrieved April 2rd, 2010 from http://fourhcyd.ucdavis.edu
UNESCO (1975). The Belgrade charter: A framework for environmental education.
Retrieved April 10, 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/00017772eb.pdf
UNESCO (1977). Intergovernmental conference on environmental education. Retrieved
April 10, 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf
198
USDA Farm to School Team: 2010 Summary Report. Retrieved April 13, 2012 from
http://www.farmtoschool.org/publications.php?pt=case
Volk, T.L. and Cheak, M.J. (2003). The Effects of an Environmental Education Program
on Students, Parents, and Community. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34 (4),
12-25.
WA State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2007). Environmental
Education Report: Empirical Evidence, Exemplary Models, and Recommendations on the
Impact of Environmental Education on K-12 Students. Retrieved June 13, 2012 from
http://www.k12.wa.us/EnvironmentSustainability/Resources.aspx
Weber, K. (2009). Food, Inc.: How Industrial Food Is Making Us Sicker, Fatter, and
Poorer- And What You Can Do About It. New York, NY. Public Affairs.
Wheeler,G., Thumlerr,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. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved February 25,
2012 from http://www.k12.wa.us/EnvironmentSustainability/pubdocs/EEReport.pdf
199
Wilkins, J. & Eames-Sheavly, M. (2005). A Primer on Community Food Systems:
Linking Food, Nutrition and Agriculture. Cornell University. Division of Nutritional
Sciences: Discovering the Food System.
Williams, D. & Brown, J. (2012). Learning Gardens and Sustainability Education:
Bringing Life To Schools and Schools To Life. New York, NY. Routledge.
200