The carry-over effects of school gardens on fruit and vegetable availability at home: A randomized controlled trial with low-income elementary schools.

This group-randomized controlled trial examines the effects of a school garden intervention on availability of fruits and vegetables (FV) in elementary school children's homes. Within each region, low income U.S. schools in Arkansas, Iowa, New York, and Washington State were randomly assigned to intervention group (n = 24) or waitlist control group (n = 22). Children were in grades 2, 4, and 5 at baseline (n = 2768). The garden intervention consisted of both raised-bed garden kits and a series of grade-appropriate lessons. FV availability at home was measured with a modified version of the GEMS FJV Availability Questionnaire. The instrument was administered at baseline (Fall 2011) and throughout the intervention (Spring 2012, Fall 2012, Spring 2013). Analyses were completed using general linear mixed models. The garden intervention led to an overall increase in availability of low-fat vegetables at home. Among younger children (2nd grade at baseline), the garden intervention led to greater home availability of vegetables, especially, low-fat vegetables. Moreover, for the younger group, garden intervention fidelity (GIF) or robustness predicted home availability of fruit, vegetables, and low-fat vegetables. School gardens have potential to affect FV availability in the home environment.

Non-formal educator use of evaluation results.

Increasing demands for accountability in educational programming have resulted in increasing calls for program evaluation in educational organizations. Many organizations include conducting program evaluations as part of the job responsibilities of program staff. Cooperative Extension is a complex organization offering non-formal educational programs through land grant universities. Many Extension services require non-formal educational program evaluations be conducted by field-based Extension educators. Evaluation research has focused primarily on the efforts of professional, external evaluators. The work of program staff with many responsibilities including program evaluation has received little attention. This study examined how field based Extension educators (i.e. program staff) in four Extension services use the results of evaluations of programs that they have conducted themselves. Four types of evaluation use are measured and explored; instrumental use, conceptual use, persuasive use and process use. Results indicate that there are few programmatic changes as a result of evaluation findings among the non-formal educators surveyed in this study. Extension educators tend to use evaluation results to persuade others about the value of their programs and learn from the evaluation process. Evaluation use is driven by accountability measures with very little program improvement use as measured in this study. Practical implications include delineating accountability and program improvement tasks within complex organizations in order to align evaluation efforts and to improve the results of both. There is some evidence that evaluation capacity building efforts may be increasing instrumental use by educators evaluating their own programs.