Anh Vo and Rodney Holcomb Oklahoma State University Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center

Transcription

1 SURVEY RESULTS OF OKLAHOMA SCHOOLS AND DISTRIBUTORS Anh Vo nd Rodney Holcom Oklhom Stte University Roert M. Kerr Food & Agriculturl Products Center To ssess prticiption in FTS nd determine the school district chrcteristics most closely ssocited with FTS prticiption, survey of Oklhom school districts ws conducted y the Roert M. Kerr Food &Agriculturl Products Center t Oklhom Stte University. Informtion otined through the surveys included school district size, current suppliers of fruits nd vegetles, the portion of schools food udgets llocted for fruits nd vegetles, distriutors utilized y the schools, nd produce preferences. The FTS coordintor with the Oklhom Deprtment of Agriculture, Food nd Forestry (ODAFF) nd the stff with the Oklhom Deprtment of Eduction were instrumentl in this effort. A we-sed survey ws sent to Oklhom school districts vi e-mil y employing third prty survey compny. The survey popultions consisted of food service directors, child nutritionists, superintendents nd other school personnel from Oklhom school districts. Contct informtion ws otined from the Oklhom Stte Deprtment of Eduction (OSDE), complete with nmes of school personnel, phone numers, e-mils nd ddresses. Dt on the districts tht hve prticipted in FTS lso ws provided y ODAFF. The survey ws sent out in August of 2008 to more thn 800 school personnel in Oklhom. Although there re only 535 school districts in Oklhom, the contct list provided y the OSDE hd more thn one contct nme listed for some of the districts. The emils were sent out totl of three times during period of three months to remind the recipients of the survey. The response rte to the e-miled survey ws 57% overll: 3 from the first emil, 17% from the second request nd 1 from the third request. Some recipients requested tht hrd copy survey e sent vi the postl service. Less thn one percent of the responses were otined from miled surveys. In n ttempt to void incomplete responses relted to school district chrcteristics, dditionl dt for incomplete responses were retrieved from the OSDE We site. The retrieved dt included the numer of students enrolled in district nd the percentge of free nd reduced mels offered y the district. Since ODAFF is wre of the current nd pst prticipnts of FTS in Oklhom, the respondents who did not stte whether their district hs prticipted in the progrm, lso ws dded ccordingly. The distriutors listed y the responding schools lso were surveyed to identify their opertionl stndrds for FTS produce delivery. Responses from this survey hve een summrized nd re provided fter the school survey responses. Findings from the survey provide unique insight into the opertionl prmeters nd ptterns of Oklhom school nutrition progrms. Results re provided in the following tles nd in vriety of formts: some providing ggregte responses, some orgnized to show differences mong school district sizes (sed on student popultion) nd some to highlight differences in responses etween FTS nd non-fts prticipnts. Consistent with the mkeup of school district sizes within the stte, Tle 1 illustrtes the mjority of the schools tht responded to this question re of smller size (popultion of 500 students or less). Tle 2 reflects the informtion gthered from the question, On verge, how mny students does your district serve per dy during the school yer? This question is pertinent ecuse not ll students prticipte in school mel progrms. Some children hve the option of ringing sck lunch or uying food outside of the school lunch nd rekfst progrm. Although the numer of students served is divided into the sme size groups s district size, Tles 1 nd 2 cnnot esily e compred ecuse lrger schools my feed less thn 500 kids dy. With the lst option ( Other ) in Tle 3, respondents hd the opportunity to stte if there were eneficiries in ddition to those listed. A totl of six different responses Frm to School 11

2 District Size < ,000 1,000-2,500 2,500-5,000 5,000-10,000 >10, %* % % 1.09% respondents (55.43%) reported tht their school district hs less thn 500 students. Numer of Mels Served Per Dy < ,000 1,000-2,500 2,500-5,000 5,000-10,000 >10, % % 9.89% 2.56% 1.47% respondents (65.57%) reported serving less thn 500 students dily. Schools Students Frmers Community Other % 81.32% 83.52% 61.54% 2.75% Respondents were le to choose more thn one option when nswering the corresponding question. Of the 182 collected responses, 135 respondents(74.18%) sttes schools enefit from the FTS progrm. were collected for this option. Some respondents sid they did not prticipte in FTS; therefore, they did not stte who enefits. Others stted tht ll of the listed eneficiries, s well s txpyers in generl enefit from the progrm. Surprisingly, the results shown in Tle 4 suggest the gretest perceived rrier to FTS is not cost. The ility to provide timely nd efficient delivery ws perceived s much greter issue. Of lest concern were helth issues nd rriers not identified in the scope of the possile nswers. Mny school personnel nd deprtment of griculture officils elieve FTS cn e ffordle. When produce is in seson within Oklhom, mny consumers re le to receive loclly grown produce t lower price thn produce coming from outside of the stte. Some rgue the ssocited trnsporttion nd hndling costs of non-locl produce dds to the mrket price. According to the results in Tle 4, sesonlity nd vilility of products re perceived s prolems ut not with the sme severity s delivery. The prime seson for fruits nd vegetles within Oklhom does not coincide with the trditionl cdemic school yer. There re, however, mny fruits nd vegetles tht re in seson in Oklhom during the time children re in school. Some of the more prominent options re wtermelon, cntloupe honeydew melon, spinch, lettuce, tomtoes, cucumers, nd sqush. Becuse of Oklhom s growing seson, most of these commodities re still eing mrketed y frmers in August nd Septemer. Some commodities, such s spinch, re ville lter in the fll nd in the spring s well. The expnding use of greenhouses or hoop houses in Oklhom my mke longer mrketing seson possile, however dequte supply might still e prolem. In Tle 5, the fctors with the highest rting of importnce (rting of nine or 10) nd gretest influence on their prticiption in FTS re freshness of product, consistency in product qulity nd expense. Ese of prticipting in the progrm is rnked fourth mong the fctors of most importnce tht influence FTS prticiption. The lest importnt fctors ffecting FTS prticiption re delivery frequency, willingness to provide specific products nd produce origin. Overll, Tle 5 illustrtes wht fctors re importnt to potentil nd current FTS prticipnts. Produce origin hd the lowest rting of importnce comprtively. This could indicte tht loclly grown produce isn t necessrily of high demnd, or rther tht schools prticipte in the progrm ecuse the fruits nd vegetles re ville loclly nd the progrm exists. Prticiption lso my e result of the Oklhom Frm-To-School Act which encourges school food service personnel to uy locl produce when ville. 12 Frm to School

3 Tle 6 shows the frequency of prticiption in corresponding progrms ccording to school district size. The column FTS progrms refers to the question, Hs your school district prticipted in ny of the following Frmto-School progrms? There re totl of four options to this question: ) The Frm-to-School Pilot Progrm in during which seedless wtermelons were distriuted, ) The Sttewide Frm-To-School Progrm strting in 2006-Present, c) Working with locl frmers without Frm-to-School ssistnce (working with frmers independently) nd d) None of these. The column Brekfst progrms refers to the survey question, Do your schools prticipte in rekfst progrms? If so, how mny students do you serve per dy with the rekfst progrm? The next column, summer feeding progrms, refers to question five in the survey, Do ny of the schools within your district house summer feeding progrm? Hving summer feeding progrm ws coded s 1, otherwise the result received the vlue 0. The finl column refers to question seven in the survey, Is your school district closed cmpus or n open cmpus for high-school students during lunch hours? There re only two options to this question: open nd closed. The numers in Tle 6 represent the percent of respondents with n open cmpus policy. As shown in Tle 7, the numer of times produce is delivered within period vries from district to district. Only districts with student popultion size of 1,000 or less receive produce once month. Becuse fresh produce hs short shelf life, delivery frequency is importnt to ensure tht produce is fresh nd of high qulity. Overll, there is no pprent correltion in Tle 7 etween district size nd produce delivery frequency. The mjority of the districts (77.61%) hve fresh fruits nd vegetles delivered once week. It is likely the reson why the mjority of the districts hve produce delivered once week is freshness. In ddition, refrigerted nd cool storge spce is limited in mny kitchens which my not llow for mny districts to store produce exceeding week s worth of consumption. The informtion in Tle 8 is especilly pertinent to FTS ecuse the mjority of the FTS products re received whole nd unpckged. According to Oklhom Deprtment of Helth guidelines, cutting or processing produce in ny form would e considered vlue-dded processing ctivity which hs to meet the estlished food processing regultions (Oklhom Stte Deprtment of Helth, 2009). Meeting the regultions required for commercil food processor cn e costly nd time consuming for producer. Therefore, the mjority of frmers tht prticipte in supplying FTS products do not cut or pckge their produce. The mjority of the districts re- Costs Delivery Sesonlity Heltth Concerns Avilility of products Other % 53.77% 12.06% 6.53% 12.56% 6.03% 18 respondents (9.05%) stted the gretest rrier to FTS is cost. High Importnce (rting of 9 or 10) Percent % % % % % % % % 162 respondents (83.08%) rte freshness of product of high importnce when prticipting in FTS. Frm to School 13

4 ceive 25% or less of their produce precut nd gged. It is not unusul to see schools receive products redy for use. Lor is lrge component of school s cfeteri udget, which mkes redy-to-use products more ttrctive. However, if the price point for precut produce is considerly higher thn uncut produce, nd if spoilge occurs fster with pre-cut produce, cfeteris my ctully sve money y purchsing uncut produce nd utilizing their lor for cutting nd preprtion ctivities. The results in Tle 9 re gthered from the responses to n open ended question in the survey. The mount of free nd reduced lunch reflects the mount of reimursement the districts receive for the mels served to the students. According to Tle 9, only two district sizes (500 to 1,000 nd 1,000 to 2,500) receive the mjority of free nd reduced lunch in the 50 to 7 rnge. All other district sizes receive vried percentges of free nd reduced mel reimursements. Across ll district sizes, pproximtely 5 of the districts receive reimursements within the 50 to 75% rnge. Tle 10 illustrtes there is no pprent correltion etween school size nd the percent of the cfeteri food udget tht is llocted to fresh produce. The mjority of the schools spend less thn 15% of their food udget on fresh produce. Fresh produce is often the ctch ll food cost ctegory in school lunch progrms. Primry udget items include entrees, milk nd red products. Fruits nd vegetles, whether fresh or somehow preserved, must contend for the remining ville funds. Although FTS promotes delivery of loclly grown fruits nd vegetles to schools, the mens of delivery nd the definition of locl vry. In some cses, direct delivery y the producer is the most pproprite nd lest expensive mens of product delivery. However, for lrger produce frmers nd for opportunities to spred more stte-sed production to schools, utilizing existing dis- FTS progrms Brekfst progrms Summer feeding progrms c Open cmpus policy d 3.92% e 95.36% 18.95% 23.25% 9.26% 90.57% % 15.56% 97.78% 36.36% 23.08% % 53.85% 66.67% 10 75% 10 75% 42.86% 10.51% f 95.24% 27.37% 29.7 n=276. n=276. c n=274. d n=266. e This is the percentge of respondents tht re within the corresponding district size tht prticipte in the progrm or policy. For exmple, of the totl numer of districts with student popultion size of 500 or less, 3.92% prticipte in FTS. f Totl percentge of prticiption in the corresponding progrm or policy cross ll school districts. For exmple, 10.51% of the respondents tht nswered to the corresponding question prticipte in FTS. Once Month Twice Month Once week Twice Week % 77.62% 11.19% 1.92% 3.85% 80.77% 13.46% 2.38% 64.26% 91.67% 8.33% % 4.63% 77.61% 14.67% Of the respondents with district size of 500 or less students, 4.9 hve produce delivered once month. Across ll district sizes, 3.09% hve produce delivered once month. 14 Frm to School

5 1 25% 5 75% % 26.95% 19.15% 12.77% 1.42% 32.65% 30.61% 18.37% 14.29% 4.08% % 5 25% 16.67% % 29.48% 18.33% 13.94% 1.59% Of the districts with 500 or less students, 39.72% report 1 of produce received is precut nd gged. Across ll districts, 36.65% receive 1 of their produce precut nd gged. <25% 25% to 5 5 to 75% >75% 1.32% 16.56% 48.34% 33.77% % % 8.89% 26.67% 46.15% 15.38% 38.46% 46.15% 15.38% 66.67% 3% 14.29% 14.29% 42.86% 28.57% 4.03% 20.15% 50.18% 25.64% Of the districts with 500 or less students, 1.32% reported 25% or less of the students receive free nd reduced mels. Across ll districts, 4.03% districts reported 25% or less of their students receive free nd reduced mels. Frm to School 15

6 <5% 5% to 15% 15% to 25% 25% to 5 > % 55.48% 3.42% 2.05% 8.22% 39.62% 54.72% 1.89% 3.77% % 11.11% 6.67% 45.45% 45.45% 9.09% 66.67% 42.48% 57.14% 34.72% 52.83% 2.26% % Of the districts with 500 or less students, 30.82% reported 5% or less of their food udgets re llocted to fresh produce. Across ll districts, 34.72% districts reported tht 5% or less of their food udgets re llocted to fresh produce. As follow-up to the school survey, the distriutors identified y the schools lso were surveyed to ssess their perceptions of nd opertionl procedures for FTS produce shipments. These distriutors, which included oth lrge regionl/ntionl distriutors nd smller locl distriutors, were sked to provide informtion relted to their FTS produce distriution usiness. Nine of the distriutors responded to the survey. The informtion they provided included the numer of schools to whom they distriute, the percentge of their usiness derived from school deliveries, documenttion/requirements for hndling FTS produce from smll frmers, fees for hndling FTS produce nd even the types of trucks they use to mke deliveries. The results of the survey re provided in this puliction solely s n exmple of one stte s distriution systriution networks my e more efficient method for product delivery. Tles 11 nd 12 provide n insight into the more prominent distriutors of food items to Oklhom school districts. The list of distriutors is ment to encompss the most widely used distriutors in Oklhom. If there is food distriutor tht is not listed, the other option llowed for respondents to list the nme of the distriutor. This informtion cn e otined upon request from the reserchers. The choices shown in Tles 11 nd 12 do not differ gretly mong respondents, mening tht mny of the districts use the sme distriutor for oth fresh produce nd items other thn fresh produce. The two lrgest distriutors used for oth fresh produce nd non-fresh items re U.S. Foods nd Sysco, lthough the percentge of items received from ssorted smll suppliers nd locl grocery stores is reltively significnt. Some of the listed smll distriutors were Guderin, Redlnd s Produce nd Fdler s. The grocery stores were Wlmrt, Sm s nd other locl grocery stores. tem. These results my or my not e similr to those otined from distriutor surveys in other sttes. However, they re intended to provide n ide of the issues fced y distriutors who voluntrily gree to ssist nd support stte s FTS progrm. To protect the confidentility of the respondents, only ggregte results re provided. Tle 13 provides list of generl findings from the survey. Collectively, the responding distriutors deliver produce to more thn 4 of Oklhom s 535 school districts. Schools represent only smll portion of the usiness ctivity for these distriutors, with n verge of 9% of totl usiness volume coming from school purchses. Surprisingly, the level of usiness (s percentge of sles) tht schools represent for these distriutors did not significntly vry y size of the distriutor. However, these distriutors do view the schools s importnt clients nd mke significnt efforts to meet their demnds for loclly grown produce, whether or not the purchses re officilly designted s FTS purchses. Three of the nine respondents hd lower delivery chrges for schools compred to their non-school customers, generlly percentge of the produce price. The methods for pricing produce items delivered to schools vried from dily quoted prices for produce to fixed yerly ids with only ct of God provisions llowing price increses. Some even locked in prices on certin produce items for the yer while llowing other prices to vry ccording to mrket conditions. The risks of food orne pthogens re lwys present, whether produce comes from smll, locl supplier or lrge, ntionwide supplier. Thus, ll distriutors mintin strict set of required documents for suppliers, oth lrge nd smll. Requirements for smll, locl suppliers included product liility insurnce coverge (mounts vried y distriutor), Hzrd Anlysis nd Criticl Control Points (HACCP) documenttion, Good Agriculturl Prctices (GAP) documenttion nd if pplicle Good Mnufcturing Prctices (GMP) documenttion. Such documenttion is commonplce in the food industry, nd 16 Frm to School

7 21.84% 17.9% 14.94% 12.84% 11.49% 12.06% 10.73% 10.89% 6.13% 8.56% 6.13% 5.84% 4.98% 5.45% 4.98% 4.28% 4.6% 4.28% 3.45% 3.89% 3.07% 3.89% 3.07% 3.89% 1.53% 1.95% 1.15% 1.56% 0.77% 1.17% 0.77% 1.17% 0.38% 0.39% mny of these concepts re covered in the section of this puliction relted to food sfety. Distriutors prticipting in the Oklhom FTS progrm hve in the pst grciously greed to cp FTS produce hndling chrges to $1.50 per cse of product. In personl meetings with suppliers, some hd suggested tht this chrge my eventully hve to increse to cover the true costs of delivering smll quntities of loclly grown produce to schools. In fct, following the completion of the distriutor survey, the hndling chrge for the school yer ws incresed to $1.70 per cse. When sked out the hndling fee in the survey, the thoughts of distriutors vried gretly. Two of the respondents considered the $1.50 fee, which ws the fee t the time of the survey, to e n dequte mount if fuel prices did not return to record high levels. Two suggested incresing the fee, one y $0.20 to the current $1.70 mount nd one y $0.50 to $2.00. Three suggested t lest douling the old fee, i.e. chrging $3.00 or more per cse. Follow-up comments from distriutors suggested tht the old $1.50 per cse fee could e more esily mintined if the FTS progrm ws supported y lrger nd more consistent quntities of produce. Quntity, nd the consistency of tht quntity, is viewed y distriutors s the gretest rrier to the mintennce nd growth of the Oklhom FTS progrm. The qulity of locl produce lso ws viewed s rrier y two of the respondents. The price of locl produce ws only mentioned s potentil rrier to the FTS progrm y one distriutor. This is contrst to the findings of the school survey, in which roughly 72% of the respondents considered expense s n issue of high importnce in FTS progrm prticiption.

8 Numer of schools serviced Collectively, 233 Rnge = 5 to 100 Two lrge distriutors ccounted for 190 schools Percent of usiness generted y school deliveries Averge = 9% Rnge = 1% - 15% Different fee structure for schools versus nonschool customers Three hd different fee structures for schools, four did not, nd two did not respond Those with different fee structures chrged schools less thn other customers, chrging either fixed mrgins or mrgins tht could e vried t certin times during the yer. Nture of produce (not FTS) ids with schools Two hd fixed prices for the yer, with only ct of God chnges llowed Two hd pricing rrngements with schools for constnt percentges ove costs Three hd fixed ids for some items nd vrile prices for others Two hd weekly ids tht ccounted for weekly chnges in mrket prices Documenttion required of smll, locl frmers to distriute their produce Eight of nine hd strict documenttion requirements, nd the ninth did not purchse from smll frmers Six hd specific insurnce requirements, rnging in detil ut ll with t lest $1M per incident coverge Six hd specific requirements relted to HACCP, GAP, nd GMP (two didn t respond) One specificlly mentioned hold hrmless greement with smll frmers efore crrying their produce Bckhuls to keep down Only one currently ckhuls products from suppliers while mking deliveries trnsporttion chrges Three would like to hve some/more ckhul opportunities Two more would consider ckhul opportunities under certin conditions Thoughts on the $1.50/ cse hndling chrge for FTS produce deliveries (Note: The hndling fee incresed to $1.70/cse fter the survey ws completed.) Two hd no issues with the current rte, ssuming diesel prices remined low Two thought the chrge should e incresed y $0.20 to $0.50 per cse Two thought the chrge should e douled ($3/cse) One thought the chrge should e more thn doule its current rte Two did not offer opinions on the current rte Segregting produce to specificlly promote loclly grown (esides FTS produce) Two purposely seprte loclly grown produce from non-locl produce, with mrketing emphsis on the loclly grown produce The other seven do not regulrly segregte produce y locle, only identifying the loclly grown produce when it is redily ville Perceived rriers to expnsion of the FTS progrm (multiple nswers provided y ech) Two specificlly mentioned qulity issues relted to produce from locl frmers Five sid tht quntity (consistency of supply) ws significnt rrier One mentioned price One mentioned prolems getting locl producers to crry product liility insurnce Three did not provide comments to this question 18 Frm to School