Results from the 2007 Survey of School Food Service Providers in Oregon Prepared by: Michelle M. Ratcliffe, M.S.E.L., Ph.D. and Haley C. Smith, Maters Candidate, Portland State University
I. Introduction Across the country, farm-to-school programs are being institutionalized within school districts and states. Within the past two years, Vermont, Washington, Delaware, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Colorado, New York, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico have already considered, passed, or are currently debating farm-to-school legislation. Farm-to-school programs have been shown to increase children s consumption of produce thereby improving childhood nutrition and helping to prevent obesity and its attendant diseases. Farm-to-school programs also educate children and the school community about agriculture and food systems, and help to increase market opportunities for farmers, food processors, and manufacturers. These programs narrow the distance between producer and consumer, which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces reliance on foreign oil. The following report summarizes the outcomes of a survey conducted by the Oregon Department of Education s Child Nutrition Services to assess the opportunities and barriers to implementing farm-to-school programs in Oregon. Findings from this report will be used to inform the Oregon Department of Education s Farm-to-School Program housed within the Child Nutrition Programs, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Statewide Food Policy Council, and all the community supporters who help make farm-to-school programs possible. II. Methods and Sample The 2007 Survey of K-12 School Food Service Providers was sent out via email to 349 food service directors representing all public schools, private schools and RCCI s that participate in the National School Lunch Program in Oregon. A total of 181 participants completed the online survey, resulting in a response rate of 52%. 1
Of these, 62.8% represent small food service programs that serve three or fewer lunch sites, 23.3% represent medium-sized programs that serve 4-9 sites and 14% are from larger programs, serving 10 or more sites. III. Results 1. Current Purchasing Practices Of the respondents, 43.8% are members of purchasing cooperatives. Out of these, most are members of the Oregon Child Nutrition Cooperative (73.2%). In addition, 8.5% are members of the Applegate Trail Child Nutrition Co-op and 18.3% reported being members of another cooperative. The most popular vendors that food service providers purchase from include Sysco (57.3%) and Food Services of America (30.1%). Other popular vendors include Duck Produce Delivery (16.1%), Franz Bakery (15.4%), McDonald s Wholesale (12.6%), Spring Valley Dairy (10.5%), Umpqua Dairy (10.5%), USDA Commodities (9.1%), Costco (8.4%), Alpenrose (5.6%) and United Grocers (5.6%). Most food service providers do not have contracts with food vendors that prohibit them from making local purchases (75%), however some of these contracts include exclusivity agreements. These agreements are most often required by milk suppliers (92.3%), followed by bread suppliers (61.5%) and general suppliers (46.2%), and least commonly exercised by fruit and vegetable suppliers (32.3%). Of these exclusive contracts, 86.9% expire within one year. The average annual amount spent on produce is $40,835, although half of respondents spend less than $8,000. A few food service programs use donated produce (13.1%), but 85% of those who use donated produce report that it accounts for 5% or less of total food used on an annual basis. 2
Only 8.3% of food service providers currently use organic produce. For those who do incorporate organic food in their meal service, organics account for anywhere from.25% to 25% with an average of 9.3% of total annual food. Many respondents were not aware if the milk they serve is hormone free (57.2%). Of the 15.9 % of respondents who do serve hormone-free milk, almost all say they serve it exclusively. Food service providers order canned foods and meats an average of 13 days in advance, fresh produce 5 days in advance and dairy 4 days in advance. o 77.9% of food service programs prepare at least half of their food on-site. o 21.4% prepare at least half at a central kitchen. o 4.1% have more than half the food they serve prepared by an off-site vendor or caterer and delivered to schools. o 91% of schools have some portion of their food prepared on-site. 2. Schools with Salad Bars Most schools reported offering salad bars as part of their meal service (74.3%) and of these, almost all reported that salad bars are being used by their students (97.2%). The average number of vegetables served in salad bars was 4.3 fresh,.8 canned and.4 frozen. The average number of fruits offered was 2 fresh, 1.5 canned and.1 frozen. In addition, school salad bars offered an average of 1.4 servings of whole grains and 1 serving of meat or a meat alternative. The five most popular whole fruits, in order of popularity, are apples, oranges, bananas, melons and grapes. The five most popular prepared vegetables include lettuce/salad mix, carrots, broccoli, celery and cauliflower. 3. Past Local Purchasing In the past year, 30.4% of respondents reported purchasing foods from a local farmer/producer. The most commonly purchased local products were milk (100%), apples (76.5%), beef (66.7%), eggs (66.7%), cucumbers (62.5%) and yogurt (60%). Only 18.4% of food service providers saw an increase in students fruit and vegetable 3
consumption when serving locally produced foods, while 36.7% were not sure if there was any change. Of those who had purchased from a local farmer, 54.8% said they would purchase from a local farmer or producer again. Those who would not purchase from a local source again reported the following reasons: inconsistent quality (30.6%), reliability (13.9%), price (36.1%) and too much effort (16.7%). Other areas of concern were availability of local sources (16.7%), health regulations, food safety and liability (11.1%), getting approval from another authority such as the school board, the FDA or from State contracts (11.1%), variety offered (2.7%) and delivery (2.7%). 4. Interest in Buying Local Food service providers either agreed or strongly agreed that they would purchase food directly from a local producer if price and quality were competitive and a source was available (78.6%) and/or if their vendors offered local foods as part of their contract services (83.7%). However, only 8.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they would be willing to pay a higher price to buy locally produced foods to serve in cafeterias. In general, food service providers expressed strong interest in connecting their schools with a local farmer, with 55.9% reporting being very interested or somewhat interested. Furthermore, 24% of the respondents expressed an immediate interest in implementing farm-to-school programs and requested that they be listed as food buyers in the Guide to Local and Seasonal Products for Oregon and Washington published by Portland-based Ecotrust. The 31 school districts that asked to be listed in the Guide to Local and Seasonal Products include: 1. Adapt/Crossroads (in Roseburg) 2. Ashland School District 3. Astoria School District 4. Bend LaPine Schools Nutrition Services 4
5. Dufur School District 6. Corvallis School District 7. Creswell School District 8. Culver School District 9. Dallas School District 10. Dayton School District 11. DeLaSalle North Catholic HS 12. Gladstone School District 13. Harrisburg School District 14. Hood River County School District 15. Klamath County Juvenile Dept. 3331, Klamath Falls, Oregon 16. Lebanon Schools 17. McKenzie 18. McMinnville School District 19. Mt. Nebo 20. North Bend, Coquille, Myrtle Point, Reedsport School Districts 21. Nyssa School #26 22. Phoenix talent (Medford, OR) 23. Prairie City School Grant #4 24. Santiam School District 25. Sherman County School District 26. Sisters School District 27. Sweet Home School District 28. Warrenton-Hammond School District 29. Willamina School District 30. Woodburn School District 31. Yamhill Carlton School District An additional 56% of the respondents requested more information before being listed as buyers in the Guide. Only 12.5% responded that they were not very interested or not interested at all in farm-to-school programs. In terms of interest in purchasing specific vegetables, respondents were most interested in local cucumbers (88.2%), carrots (77.5%), broccoli (76.5%), lettuce (69.6%) and potatoes (63.7%). In general, respondents were not interested in purchasing dry beans (8.8%), soybeans (5.9%) or grain (4.9%). Fruits that food service providers were most interested in purchasing locally included: apples (96.3%), strawberries (85%), melons (84.1%), pears (76.6%), peaches (69.2%) and blueberries (63.3%). Purchasing beef ranked at 73.6% and eggs at 73.6%. In the dairy category there was interest in purchasing milk (83.8%) and yogurt (71.6%). 5
5. Barriers The most commonly reported barrier to purchasing foods directly from local producers was budget (83.3%). Other significant barriers were convenience (63.6%), lack of products available during certain times of the year (59.8%), lack of staff to prepare fresh produce (52.3%), federal and state procurement regulations (51.5%), a lack of local producers in the area (50.8%) and safety (50%). Along similar lines, the greatest concern among respondents was the cost of purchasing local food (86.2%). Other concerns included food safety (75.4%), delivery considerations (73.1%), reliable supply (66.2%), seasonality of fruits and vegetables (63.8%) and food quality (57.7%). 6. Opportunities The strongest motivation for food service providers to serve locally grown food in institutions was a desire to support the local economy and local community (75.6%). More than half of the respondents were also motivated by the opportunity to offer fresher foods (61.8%) and higher quality food (52.8%). Helping Oregon farms and businesses was another deciding factor (61.8%) as was the flexibility to purchase small quantities (58.5%). The most important information food service providers felt would help them make local food purchasing decisions included a list of suppliers and products for local sources (78.4%), health and safety information of local foods (75%) and regulatory information about buying foods direct from farmers (73.3%). Half of respondents were also interested in receiving assistance in developing a system for buying from multiple sources. 6
Highlights of Oregon School Food Service Providers Survey Interest: Food service providers either agreed or strongly agreed that they would purchase food directly from a local producer if price and quality were competitive. More than half of Oregon food service providers expressed strong interest in connecting their schools with a local farmer. 24% expressed an immediate interest in implementing farm-to-school programs. Barriers: The most commonly reported barrier to purchasing foods directly from local producers was budget, making the cost of purchasing local food the greatest concern. The most important information food service providers felt would help them make local food purchasing decisions included a list of suppliers and products for local sources. Opportunities: The strongest motivation for food service providers to serve locally grown food is a desire to support the local economy and local community. More than half of the respondents were also motivated by the opportunity to offer fresher, higher quality foods. 7