By Evyn Appel, NFSN Policy Intern

In 2022, National Farm to School Network and our partner organizations launched the “Who’s at the Table” campaign to raise awareness about the importance of values-aligned school meals for all policies (also referred to as universal meals). This interview series features the stories of real individuals who play a role getting food from the farm to school cafeterias. We looked into the lives of people who identify as a policymaker, principal, school nutrition supervisor, teacher, parent, student, and food producer from states with universal meals policies or states with strong coalitions still advocating for a policy. 

Teacher Rachel Sauvola (WI) 

Rachel is an agriscience instructor and Future Farmers of America (FFA) advisor at New Richmond High School where she has taught and inspired students for the past 26 years. In addition to her classroom commitments, Rachel founded the Student Opportunities with Agricultural Resources (SOAR) educational center for the schools that serves as a year-round working farm producing cattle, eggs, honey, and vegetables to fuel school meals with local, student-raised ingredients. While Wisconsin does not yet have a universal meals policy, Rachel advocates alongside Healthy School Meals for All Wisconsin, a robust and energized coalition shaping future policies to expand school meal access. 

We found Rachel after she was awarded the honor of Wisconsin’s 2025 Teacher of the Year. Her passionate acceptance speech focused on school meals for all. Here are just a few standouts from her remarks:

“Every single teacher I know has a drawer of granola bars. That may sound wholesome, but it isn’t. I have one colleague who spends over $60 a week of their own money just for snacks for her high school students. Now we know that high schoolers can be ravenous. But this goes beyond that. You see, in my district, elementary kids were so hungry, they were going into other kid’s lockers to steal snacks.”

“I don’t have to imagine, because I was one of those hungry kids…. I know a thing or two about hunger, and about how we stigmatize it. And we blame folks just for being hungry. That’s one of the reasons I became an agriculture teacher. After my first national FFA meeting at age 12, I was hooked. I made the connection between being able to grow food, feeding hungry people, showing leadership, and having fun while doing it. I was determined to break the cycle of hunger.” 

“Giving every student access to free, healthy breakfast and lunch eliminates the stigma of getting free school meals. And let me tell you, our cafeteria makes all of our food from scratch, and it’s good.”

“It’s pretty simple. Good people don’t want children to go hungry. Good people don’t look at those that have less and think those people are worth less. And I will always, always choose to feed and value all children. In education, we talk about equity and inclusion. This approach walks the walk. Poverty is not a moral failing. Not helping those with fewer resources is a moral failing. And doubly so for those who have no say in the matter.”

Our Interview with Rachel

Q: Thinking back to picking a career path, what motivated and inspired you to be a teacher, specifically in agriscience?

Rachel: When I was 12, I told my dad, a Wisconsin dairy farmer, that I was never going to be involved in agriculture. I told him I was never going to marry a farmer, and never have any sort of career involving agriculture because it was too hard. Well, fast forward about 6 months, I went to my first FFA conference where I decided that I was going to be an agriculture teacher and FFA advisor. Quite honestly, I was a first generation college kid, but I embarked on that journey and with a whole lot of help and support actually from my agriculture teacher, I've never veered off the path. You can never say never!

The importance of the work, and quite honestly, the cute cuddly, one-day old baby calves, they make you just want to be able to offer that to others in a community where many don't understand how food is produced, and that's kind of my job. So I do it, and I love it.

Q: What does lunch time look like for the students of New Richmond High School?

Rachel: I'm going to tell you that lunch lines are long and our kids love the food. And one of the reasons why our kids love it is because we’re making things from scratch, developing recipes, and getting kid’s feedback. The kids will actually look at the menu, see if any SOAR center beef is on the menu, knowing that any hamburger products, any roast type products, all are coming from us, and the kids just love that.

But, moreover, after our amount of beef is used up, because I'm not to the capacity where I can produce it for the whole school year, I have connected our school nutrition supervisor with local farmers who are producing delicious high quality products. Our students are never eating big box beef. In general, it's mostly all coming from local producers.

‍Q: We often see the higher cost of local products being a barrier for other schools, how have you navigated that aspect?‍

Rachel: Our wonderful nutrition supervisor here at New Richmond is very creative in the means, but is also very honest when we negotiate our deals for prices at the beginning of the school year. She tells me “I can't pay as much as the general public.” But to me, it's irrelevant. I want the beef to come into the school, and I will take what she can afford to pay, and my farmer friends are in that same boat. They will take more from other places to get this opportunity out there for our kids to be able to eat this local nutritious food. 

And likewise, when the folks from the community come to our steak sale next week, they are willing to pay a little bit over what they might pay at the grocery store. They know all the money goes back into the program. They know that they're bringing their family the most nutritious beef that they can find in our community. There is no fresher product out there and that's something people celebrate as well.

Q: Even though Wisconsin has a strong coalition of supporters for school meals for all, it has yet to pass a policy. What would having universal meals mean to you and your students?

Rachel: Well, I was one of those kids that could have benefited from universal school meals. And now that I have the means, and I have the voice, and I have the life experiences, it's my job to advocate for kids who have less than what they should have. But at the base level, kids cannot learn if they don't have their basic needs met, and one of those certainly is food in their belly. Student’s tummies are grumbling, they can't concentrate, they have anxiety because they don't know where their next meal is coming from. Goodness, gravy! Let's take care of business and feed the children so that we can be producing productive citizens who have goals and plans so that our society can move forward!

We have a family here in town who missed qualifying [for free meals] by $1.57. That's it, $1.57 in over the annual income limit. And now those students in that family are potentially not able to eat because they missed it. And [the student is] not at fault. They don't control the $1.57. They don't control the money that's put in their lunch account. They are just kids coming to school to learn and deserve to have food. If we could eliminate that barrier and just make it equitable for all, it would be such an incredible thing for our kids in all of our schools.

The SOAR Center always has a door open to visitors who want to learn more about the program and meet the students. To date, the SOAR center has welcomed visitors from 24 different states and 13 foreign countries. 

Great news, advocates! National Farm to School Network is proud to endorse two new bipartisan bills that would strengthen markets for local farmers. We’ve worked alongside national partners and Congressional offices to propose a permanent grant program for state, territory, and Tribal governments to purchase local food for schools and community food programs. This legislation has bicameral support, meaning it has backing in both the Senate and the House.

• In the Senate: Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S. 2338)
  Introduced by: Senators Jim Justice (R-WV) and Jack Reed (D-RI) 
  [Press release] | [Read the bill]
  

• In the House of Representatives: Local Farmers Feeding Our Communities Act (H.R. 4782)
  Introduced by: Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01), Rob Bresnahan (R-PA-08), Josh Riley (D-NY-19), and David Valadao (R-CA-22) alongside numerous cosponsors.
  [Press release] | [Read the bill]

What Do the Bills Do?

• Create a permanent funding program: The bills establish non-competitive cooperative agreements between USDA and eligible entities (states, territories, and federally recognized Tribes), hereby referred to as “states” for simplicity.
  
• Fund local food purchases: States can choose how to allocate the funds between organizations such as food banks, schools, or early childcare centers. “Local” can mean within 400 miles or another geographic boundary as designated by the state.
  
• Allow up to 25% for administration and technical assistance (TA)
  
  • House version: Half of the 25% set aside (12.5% of total funding) must be used for TA.
  • Senate version: 35% of the 25% set aside (8.75% of total) must be used for TA.
  • Both versions: TA must support producers, including food safety training, certification, and other efforts to strengthen local agricultural value chains.‍
    
• Prioritize Tribes and small states via the funding formula: 10% of funds are reserved for Tribal nations. Each state and territory receives 1% of the remaining funds, with the rest allocated using the Emergency Food Assistance Program formula.‍
• Require values-aligned purchases: The goal of both bills is to strengthen local food systems and the programs aim to support values-aligned producers. The Senate version requires that at least 51% of funds be spent on small or mid-sized, beginning, veteran; and underserved (term not defined in the bill) fishers, farmers, or ranchers. The House version lowers this requirement to 25% and unfortunately does not include “underserved” producers.‍
• Provide $400M in annual funding starting in 2026: USDA must use $200 million each year from the Commodity Credit Corporation, and Congress can provide an additional $200 million annually. Under the House bill, this funding is available from 2026 through 2030, while the Senate version authorizes funding through 2029. Any unspent funds can carry over until fully used.

What Happens Next?

These two bills are what are called “marker bills” in Congressional jargon –  proposals that offer policy solutions, iron out legal language or suggestions for tweaks, and show that there is strong support for these ideas. While a marker bill is unlikely to pass on its own, there are opportunities to incorporate popular marker bills into must-pass legislative packages, such as the currently overdue 2018 Farm Bill set to expire later this year. Immediate and widespread demand for a marker bill from constituents, and a critical mass of cosponsors from across the aisle, demonstrates that policymakers should keep this program top of mind for any legislative opportunities.

To build support, it will be important for policymakers to hear from many different types of farm to school and local food advocates – farmers, ranchers, school nutrition professionals, educators, parents, and others – so they know that local food purchasing isn’t just a niche priority. They also need to hear from local food advocates about the multiple ways that a more innovative program can increase the impact of federal child nutrition programs, while also supporting the producers and supply chains that generate economic impact for their state.

How Do I Get Involved? 

Right now, our top priority is adding cosponsors. We want to especially demonstrate strong bipartisan support, so if you have Republican elected officials, your outreach is particularly valuable!

Here are three ways to take action, from quickest to most involved:

• Use our action alert.
  This is the fastest way to let your elected officials know you support these bills.
  
• Send a personal message.
  Individual, heartfelt, and detailed messages from constituents often goes further than pre-written action alerts.
  
• Set up an in-person or virtual meeting. 
  NFSN’s policy team can help connect you directly with congressional offices to share why these bills matter for farm to school. Email Karen@farmtoschool.org.‍
• Host a site visit at your school or farm.
  Seeing farm to school in action is the most powerful way to show them how these bills will make a difference.

Keep Diving Into Policy Specifics

What Are Major Differences Between The Bills?

Our Analysis

Both bills are a huge step forward for supporting America’s local farmers, but there are a few areas we think could be strengthened.

What We Love:

• Flexibility for States: The cooperative agreement model gives states the ability to design programs that meet their unique needs and innovate in response to local food system opportunities.
• Funding for Administration and TA: Including dedicated funds for administration and TA will help ensure programs are successful and sustainable.
• The Program is Permanent: Permanency allows farmers, food hubs, and other food system actors to make long-term investments that can help them scale-up and meet demand.
• Broad Eligibility: The language is flexible enough to include childcare providers that don’t participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which can be burdensome for some sites. This means more children could theoretically be reached by this program.

What To Improve:

• Clearer Food Definitions with a Focus on Fresh Foods: The Senate bill’s broad definition of “foods” could unintentionally open the door to highly processed products and benefit large corporations that already dominate the market. We recommend tightening this language to ensure communities receive fresh, high-quality, nutrient-dense foods. States can also further restrict what foods they will allow if the federal definition remains overly broad.
• Ensuring Fair Access to Local Food Markets: Both bills commendably prioritize funding for Tribes and emphasize support for small, mid-size, beginning, and veteran producers. The final version should also ensure that support reaches communities that have historically faced discrimination and barriers to access local food markets, such as women and producers of color. 
• More TA for food service professionals: Producers will receive technical assistance under these bills, but food service professionals also need robust support to source, process, cook, and serve local foods successfully.

What is the Connection with the Local Food for Schools and Child Care Program (LFSCC)?

America's food security depends on a diverse network of producers. Supply chain disruptions like the pandemic highlight the need for decentralized food systems. The best way to achieve this is leveraging taxpayer dollars to create stable markets for small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers.

These bills would similarly give states the flexibility to develop specific cooperative agreements and would build upon lessons learned from previous programs like LFSCC. That program demonstrated how federal investments create wins for farmers while delivering healthy food to America’s children. However, LFSCC was not bipartisan and its design often missed the mark. These bills represent a much-improved approach developed by representatives from across the country with a focus on creating stable markets, investing in local supply chains, and supporting farmers in strategically scaling-up operations.

This is a time to celebrate! Together, we have already moved the needle by pushing back against the termination of LFSCC. We can continue this momentum to advocate for an improved, permanent policy solution that will culminate in a triple win for our farmers, our students, and our communities.

Written by Ryan Morra, Program Manager, Equity, Education & Curriculum, National Farm to School Network

When farm to school programs thrive, there’s usually someone behind the scenes bringing it all together: managing relationships, coordinating logistics, and championing good food in classrooms, cafeterias, and communities. That someone is often a Farm to School Coordinator.

Over the past two years, the National Farm to School Network has been proud to convene a Community of Practice for Farm to School Coordinators across the country and to collaborate with researchers at Colorado State University’s Institute for Research in the Social Sciences (IRISS) on a national study to understand these roles more deeply. Now, we’re excited to share the results and offer tools that can help you bring or strengthen a coordinator role in your own community.

New Research Highlights the Power of the Role

Our newly released Key Findings brief reveals what many practitioners already know: farm to school efforts reach more students, offer more robust programming, and are more likely to be sustained when there is a dedicated coordinator in place.

Among the key findings:

• Sites with a Farm to School Coordinator (or similarly-titled manager or specialist) were significantly more likely to offer local procurement, food education, and school gardens.
  
• These sites also reported greater student participation at all grade levels, from pre-K through high school.
  
• Coordinators often serve as the crucial link between food service staff, educators, and local producers, keeping communication flowing and programs moving forward.

“The kids are getting better food. The farmers are getting more money. It’s just a win-win for everyone.” — Survey respondent, FTS Coordinators Study

👉 Access the Key Findings document

A New Tool to Help You Define the Role

As a companion to this research, NFSN has developed a Farm to School Coordinator Job Description Template to help schools, districts, and partner organizations create or formalize these critical positions. Whether you’re hiring for a new role, expanding an existing one, or advocating for more support, this customizable tool can help define responsibilities, skills, and strategic goals.

The template reflects the diversity of how coordination work happens across the country. It is designed to support full-time and part-time roles, whether embedded in child nutrition, a school garden program, or a community-based nonprofit.

👉 Access the Job Description Template

Real People, Real Impact

Our Community of Practice included 8 incredible Farm to School Coordinators who generously shared their time, strategies, and stories with one another. Many reflected on the challenges of being “a team of one,” the joy of watching kids try a new food for the first time, and the deep relationships they build in their communities.

‍

‍“Hearing everyone else's successes and struggles helps shape my ideas and directions we choose to take in our district's program.” - F2S Coordinator CoP Member,  Minnesota

“After the first gathering, I was re-inspired and motivated in my work. This work can be isolating since there are not many F2S focused folks that we get to work closely with. It is nice to be in a room full of people to talk out strategies and ideas with.” - F2S Coordinator CoP Member, California

“Knowing that there are other people out there who can relate to the work and all of the successes and areas of opportunity feels invaluable. I'd like to be better at being able to communicate with them, but knowing they're there is a comfort in not feeling so alone in my day-to-day district operations.” - F2S Coordinator CoP Member, Ohio

‍

In April 2025, the Community of Practice came together in person for a powerful learning academy at the Horse Shoe Farm in North Carolina, in partnership with Shelburne Farms. It was a joyful space filled with connection, mentorship, and growth. 

👉 Watch the video here 

Keep the Momentum Going

Whether you’re a farm to school advocate, school leader, or community partner, now is the time to build on this momentum. Here’s how you can take action:

• Explore the key findings brief and use it to advocate for coordination roles in your school or district
• Share the findings with administrators, food service teams, and policy partners
• Download and use the F2S Coordinator Advocacy tool and slide deck, visual guides to demonstrate the value of F2S Coordinations, to build the case for a designated champion in your schools
• Download and customize the job description template to support hiring or strategic planning related to Farm to School coordination
• Celebrate and support the coordinators in your own community

Farm to school programs thrive when they have a champion. Our hope is that these new tools will ensure every program has one!

‍

Thank you to Life Time Foundation and USDA for supporting this work. 🌱

States are charging ahead with farm to school progress despite dramatic shifts at the federal level in 2025. The cancellation of the FY25 cycle of USDA’s Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program and the termination of Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) left many agency staff and advocates in a precarious position. At the time of these cancellations, many state agencies had already worked to adjust budgets. Advocates had already created legislative strategies to make the most of the one-time $660 million influx from LFSCC. Some states quickly pivoted in March with increases in funding, while others lacked the time or infrastructure to respond. As of June, the landscape is uncertain: we’re still seeing proposed federal cuts to SNAP, SNAP-Ed, and early care and education programs. Questions still linger about what federal support will remain by the end of the year and how states will respond.

In spite of these challenges, lawmakers in over 30 states have introduced more than 100 farm to school-related bills and resolutions, alongside at least 125 bills from 45 states aimed at expanding access to school meals. These efforts reflect the growing momentum we’re seeing across the country that was highlighted in our latest State Policy Handbook (released March 2025). From local purchasing to school gardens, school meals for all to food dye bans, this mid-year snapshot shares just some of the wins, the promising bills still in motion, and the broader trends shaping the year so far. To dig deeper into what's happening in your state or track updates in real time, check out our interactive State Policy Map.

2025 State Farm to School Wins to Date:

Funding for Local Procurement 

• Vermont steps in to provide $500,000 in one-time LFSCC funding amid federal cuts
  This is in addition to $500,000 for the Farm to School & Early Childhood Grant Program, fully funded school meals for all, $150,000 to Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) sponsorship organizations, and a $500,000 annual appropriation for the state’s existing Local Foods Incentive Grant Program.
• Minnesota increases funding for its Local Food Purchasing Incentive Program
  Farm to School and Early Care Grant Program (an additional $550,000, totaling $1.6 million in FY26 and $1.5 million in FY27). MN’s grant program and new state-level Local Food Purchasing Assistance program funded at $700,000 per year through FY29.
• Connecticut increases funding for and makes technical changes to its Local Food for Schools Incentive program ($1.5 million in 2025-26 and $3.4 million in 2026-27), continues funding its farm to school grant via the state budget. The changes include switching administration from the Department of Agriculture to Education and stipulating that at least 20% of program funds must be used to engage with partners for activities including technical assistance, training, outreach, and education. No funding, unfortunately, was included to expand school meals access like in previous years.
• Alabama appropriates $600,000 for Local Food Purchasing Incentive Program via the Education Trust Fund (S.B. 112). This program began in 2020 with a budget of $120,000 and has been growing ever since.
• Colorado passes two bills related to farm to school and school meals for all, leading to a ballot measure. Colorado has been facing a budget deficit and struggling with sufficient funding for its healthy school meals for all program. These issues have caused the “values aligned” components, such as staff training, stipends and wages, grant programs, and a local food purchasing incentive, to be paused or held at current levels. The incentive was funded at the pilot level of $500,000 for another year. For more permanent fixes, the legislature passed two bills. Voters now have to decide whether to “retain” AND “raise” additional funding for the program in November. Read more here.
• New York continued to fund its farm to school grant, regional coordinator positions, and local food purchasing incentive via the state’s budget. In May, the state awarded $10 million to two regions through its Regional School Food Infrastructure Grant Program, which is set to award $50 million over a 5 year period.
• Maine explicitly adds seafood to its existing local food incentive program via L.D. 1858 (S.P. 728).
• Oklahoma Department of Agriculture implements its $3.4 million Local Food for Schools incentive program this year, passed via the budget last year, building on USDA’s LFS program. This is a substantial level of state funding for this state! 

Other Ways States Are Supporting Local Procurement 

• West Virginia passes a Republican-led resolution urging West Virginia’s members of Congress to ask the President not to cut funding for LFSCC via H.C.R. 96, marking a significant show of state-level support for the program.
• Hawai’i increases the small purchasing threshold for local foods to $250,000 via H.B. 1293 and modifies benchmarks for its local food purchasing goals via H.B. 110.
• Maryland defines equity language and includes food waste provisions for its Food System Resiliency Council via H.B. 9, which already included school procurement.

School Gardens and Education

• Maine establishes the Outdoor School for All program to provide equitable, ag- and nature-based immersive education for 4th–8th graders via LD 895 (SP 384).
• Washington passes new provisions to reduce food waste in schools by integrating food waste topics into curricula and its existing farm to school program via H.B. 1497.
• South Carolina now allows public school students to be excused for up to ten days per year to participate in FFA, 4-H, and other technical ed. events via H. 3247. New York introduced a similar bill this year as well (S. 6655).
• Arkansas repeals the statutory annual reporting requirement for the farm to school and early childhood education program via Act 213.
• Iowa allocates $150,000 to promote agricultural education for future farmers and $125,000 for its local food and farm program coordinator position via S.F. 646.

Bills Moving Through the Legislature We’re Excited About

• California introduces a bill to codify its Farm to School Incubator Grant program, which unanimously passes the Assembly in May (A.B. 675).
• North Carolina introduces a bill that incorporates both universal free breakfast and $5 million for a “farm-to-table” initiative via H.B. 774. This move highlights how some advocates see the value in combining both food access and farm to school to strengthen advocacy efforts. In addition to this bill, the state’s current proposed budget includes $2.5 million for a local food purchasing incentive program.
• Oregon, California, and Michigan all propose to maintain funds for their state’s local food purchasing incentive and/or grant programs via their state’s budgets.
• New Jersey introduces a $6.5 million local purchasing incentive program via A. 3742 in 2024, which was voted favorably out of committee on June 12. 

Honorable Mentions

• Maryland’s Governor vetoes a bill that would have directed state agencies to create a local food procurement program and centralized purchasing platform for schools. H.B. 56 / S.B. 177 also would have increased the price preference for certified local farms (5% to 10%) and allowed schools to limit purchases to local producers. 
• Local food purchasing incentive bills have been introduced in Indiana and Oklahoma – two states that have been building policy capacity in recent years. Massachusetts introduced a bill for an incentive program that includes funds for staff training and education. New York attempted to expand its 30%  incentive program to include lunch.
• Farm to school grant programs and other bills related to education and school gardens have been introduced in Illinois, Iowa, Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and more! 
• Kentucky introduces a bill to subsidize participation in the Community Eligibility Provision that tied funding to plans to increase local food purchases and decrease food waste via S.B. 48. Though the bill did not advance, it reflects growing political interest in linking local food systems with school meal access.

Efforts to Expand School Meal Access Still Going Strong

• New York becomes the ninth state to establish a permanent school meals for all policy via the state’s budget. NFSN has partnered with the state’s School Meals for All coalition since 2023 and is excited to see their work come to fruition.
• Arkansas passes universal free breakfast in February via S.B. 59, leading the nation among red states that support expanding school meals access. 
• Oregon allocates $127M – enough to expand free breakfast and lunch to every public school — via the Joint Ways and Means Education Subcommittee. Advocates are still pushing for permanent policy change through H.B. 3435.
• Many other states are continuing the charge via incremental and full universal meals policies. 

Food Dye & Additive Bills on the Rise – Our Take

While NFSN doesn’t specifically track these bills, the School Nutrition Association reports that over 80 bills related to food dyes and other additives have been introduced this year. California was the first state to sign a similar bill into law via its 2024 School Food Safety Act (A.B. 2316). These bills, largely introduced by Republican legislators and aligned with the rising Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, aim to restrict harmful chemicals in school meals. While concerns about artificial dyes and additives are valid, there is limited research on how widespread these substances actually are in school food.

School meals are already among the most nutritious meals many kids eat each day, and while these bills may have merit, they risk reinforcing a negative and often inaccurate narrative about school food that we do not want to perpetuate. Rather than relying solely on bans and restrictions, NFSN urges lawmakers to invest in school meal programs through efforts to expand scratch cooking and local food purchasing. One silver lining to this recent attention can be to educate lawmakers on solutions that naturally lead to healthier, more transparent meals. 

Looking Ahead

State leadership will need to continue to drive progress in the farm to school movement. But as federal investments shift or recede, a critical question remains: will states keep stepping in for programs that once relied on federal support? Will they be able to amid other urgent budget priorities? While states can't fill every gap left by federal cuts, many are demonstrating the political will to invest in farm to school. These programs are often small enough for states to meaningfully fund, showing commitment to kids, farmers, and communities. We’re seeing continued momentum for local food incentive programs, especially for states building on LFSCC to pursue long-term, state-funded programs. As other COVID-era initiatives like the USDA Farm to School State Formula Grant sunset, now is the time for states to plan for sustainability. What roles or programs created with temporary dollars should continue? And how?

Meanwhile, advocates need to have hard conversations in coalition about how they can center racial equity and should address new movements like MAHA. The door is open for advocates to forge relationships with conservative lawmakers and steer these conversations toward investments in scratch cooking and local sourcing. Similarly, as more states expand access to school meals, advocates have an opportunity to align that momentum with farm to school values like equity, nutrition, and labor rights. How do we thread these needles? All eyes are on the states while we continue to put pressure at the national level.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is currently seeking public comments that could determine the future of the USDA Farm to School Census. After so many cuts to federal programs that support farm to school and early care, now is the time for us to speak up and help protect this crucial resource. Read below to learn more and make your voice heard.

OMB Control Number: 0584-0646
Deadline: Friday April 25, 2025
Notice Link

CLICK HERE FOR THE COMMENT SUBMISSION LINK

Link not working? Try https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and select Department of Agriculture

OMB Seeks Comments Regarding:

• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency;
• Whether the information gathered will have practical utility;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; 
• Ways to minimize the burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and 
• The accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

‍Why This Matters:

The Census provides the only nationally representative data available on farm to school participation and activities in the United States. It provides detailed information on how states and school food authorities (SFA) engage with farm to school efforts from local food purchasing, to gardening to food education. The Census illustrates the scale and reach of the farm to school movement, showing how child nutrition programs are effectively supporting American farmers, ranchers, and food producers. It equips:

• Policymakers and advocates with real evidence needed to shape and sustain policy.
• Federal, state, and local governments with data to identify trends, allocate resources, and tailor local programs to local needs.
• Farmers and food producers with insight into schools that are interested in local purchasing, and what they may want to buy.
• Researchers and evaluators with data to assess outcomes of related policies and programs (examples: Connolly and Wen, 2022; Kashyap et al., 2024)

The Census allows the farm to school and ECE movement to grow strategically, quickly, and efficiently. Census data is used to ensure financial investments are effective and reach all kids across the nation. Please take time this week to share your personal story of how you use the Census and what it means for your work.

State policy plays a powerful role in bringing local food to schools, growing school gardens, and expanding food education for millions of children, farmers, and communities nationwide. That’s why we’re excited to introduce a new resource to support partners in this work: the State Farm to School Policy Handbook: 2002-2023. 

Created by the National Farm to School Network and the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, this Handbook breaks down every farm to school and early care and education (ECE) bill and resolution introduced from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2023, across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories. This resource allows users to explore legislation by state, topic, and year, while also providing insights into legislative trends, case studies, and additional resources related to state farm to school policy.

Whether you’re new to farm to school or working to expand policies in your state, the Handbook is a great tool. Use this resource to discover innovative policies in other states, see the trends in the farm to school policy landscape, or learn more about farm to school policy in your own state or region.  

What’s new in this edition?

The State Farm to School Policy Handbook: 2002-2023 builds on a survey that was originally released in 2011, and updated in 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Alongside this latest edition, we’re introducing an interactive database featuring all coded bills from the Handbook. This powerful tool helps you easily search for example policies by state, year, status, and topic. Explore the database here: https://www.farmtoschool.org/policy/state-database

What are the key takeaways?

Between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2023:

• 48 states, DC, and two US territories introduced 809 farm to school bills and resolutions.
• 45 states, DC, and two US territories passed 369 farm to school bills and resolutions.
• The popularity of farm to school legislation increased rapidly in the past few years. Between 2021-2023, 43 states and DC proposed 296 bills that relate to at least one of the core elements of farm to school—128 of these bills passed. 
• The most common bill category was Local Food Purchasing Incentives, representing 22% of introduced bills.
• Farm to ECE has also seen tremendous growth: in 2021-2023, 18 states proposed 39 bills and resolutions that support or relate to farm to ECE. That’s 13% of all bills! 

In this new edition, we have also broadened our scope beyond the three core elements of farm to school: school gardens, education, and local procurement. This update includes three new policy areas that also have a significant impact on the success of farm to school: 

• Expanding school meals access: California and Maine were the first states to establish permanent School Meals for All in 2022, and this type of legislation has gained momentum ever since. Since 2021, 32 states have introduced 86 School Meals for All bills, and eight states (CA, CO, ME, MA, MI, MN, NM, VT) have currently implemented permanent programs.   

• Supporting the rights of essential workers and elevating the work of child nutrition professionals: The well-being and agency of all people who get food from the farm to the table are integral to farm to school. From 2021-2023, there were 37 bills across 37 states introduced to elevate child nutrition professionals or protect essential workers’ rights. 
• Funding kitchen infrastructure and equipment upgrades: The appropriate kitchen infrastructure is necessary to serve high-quality, scratch-cooked local food in school cafeterias. From 2021-2023, we observed 49 policies across 14 states that funded kitchen infrastructure and equipment upgrades. 

How can you use the Handbook?

The data in this Handbook demonstrates that momentum for universal school meals and farm to school policies has surged in the past few years—more than a third of all farm to school bills ever introduced were introduced between 2021 to 2023. Eight states implemented permanent universal meal programs, and 43 states and DC introduced farm to school bills.  

The momentum is real, but we’re also navigating an uncertain policy landscape. With shifting priorities at the federal level, state-level work is more important than ever, and the State Farm to School Policy Handbook is a powerful resource to help you navigate policy opportunities tailored to your state’s needs. By strengthening local coalitions, advancing smart state policies, and working together across sectors, we can ensure this progress continues.

EXPLORE THE HANDBOOK

Have questions about this new resource or need a thought partner on how to connect with your state lawmakers? Don’t hesitate to contact our Policy team for support! We look forward to hearing how your work continues to grow the farm to school movement, state by state. 

The State Farm to School Policy Handbook: 2002-2023 is co-written by National Farm to School Network and the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School (CAFS). This project was made possible with support from the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

This week, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the cancellation of the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program for fiscal year 2025, which would have provided $10 million to help schools and early care and education (ECE) centers incorporate local foods, nutrition education, and garden activities into their meal programs. Applicants to this competitive grant program were not informed of the reason for this blanket cancellation, nor when they can get the chance to reapply. 

The Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program is an annual competitive federal grant program administered by USDA. Since 2013, this grant has provided one of the only dedicated sources of federal funding for schools and ECEs to connect children with healthy, local foods while supporting farmers, ranchers, and food producers. The program assists grantees in the planning, development, and implementation of farm to school programs with the goal of connecting students to their food sources through nutrition education, school gardens, and local food procurement. 

Without this funding, vital progress toward healthier food for kids and the education to learn where that food comes from, is at risk. This announcement comes on the heels of USDA’s cancellation of the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) funding, which would have provided $660m in funds for local food purchases to child nutrition programs. In addition to all this, communities across the country are currently facing numerous other disruptions and uncertainties. 

In the previous grant cycle, FY24 funding awarded 154 projects, serving an estimated 1.9 million students across the country, supporting projects ranging from as small as $21,000 to multi-state coordination grants of up to $500,000.

National Farm to School Network is extremely dismayed at this announcement. Cancelling these awards undermines the important progress made since this program was created by Congressional legislation in 2010 to support students’ health and build more resilient local and regional food systems. We urge USDA to fulfill its responsibility to carry out the Farm to School Grant Program each year, and offer a re-issued grant application at the earliest possible opportunity. We will continue to seek further information about this decision. 

Speak up and let policymakers know how important these programs are to your community! 

• Notify your legislators about the impact of this abrupt cancellation with our Action Alert
• Sign and share our petition calling on USDA to recognize the need for vital investments in farmers and child nutrition 
• Share this information with your networks, and urge them to speak up
• Share our story of how the Farm to School Grant Program helped your community, and the impact that delays, cuts, and uncertainties have on the people you care about. 

Update on 3/19/2025: National Farm to School Network has compiled a tracker of media coverage on the Local Food for Schools and Child Care termination. View the tracker here to see ongoing news coverage on this issue.

The United States of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service has officially terminated the second round of the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) program as well as its sibling Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program. LFSCC was set to provide state agencies with $660 million for schools and child care sites to purchase local food over the next three years. National Farm to School Network aims to shed light on the disastrous impact this decision will have for each state's farmers and ranchers, and the child nutrition programs working every day to nourish kids. This is a devastating loss for our community and farmers across the US. Right now we need every voice to speak out to push back against this decision.

Take Action Today

1. Contact Your Elected and Local Officials: 

• Visit NFSN’s Action Alert here to easily contact your federal legislators to raise the alarm (including talking points to easily craft your message!)
• Raise your concerns to state officials, particularly your state Departments of Agriculture and Agriculture Commissioners, to urge them to fight for these programs. Not sure who to contact? Reach out to the NFSN Policy Team for help (Karen@farmtoschool.org).‍

2. Share Your Story:
Use our Impact Form to let us know how this will affect your community. If you can speak on record to the press about these impacts, we are eager to connect with you as well.‍

3. Spread the Word:
The effects of this program cut will be felt by farmers and ranchers, food hubs and distributors, schools and child care providers, and families. We want to help amplify stories, particularly from producers, that can illustrate this for policymakers and the press. Please share this information with your networks to help inform and mobilize.

What is LFSCC?

First Round: In December 2021, AMS launched the Local Food for Schools (LFS) program as part of a suite of federal COVID-19 relief programs to help states address supply chain disruptions and boost local and regional food systems. The first round of LFS provided $200 million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in non-competitive funding to state agencies through cooperative agreements. 42 states and the District of Columbia benefitted from this round. The funding was solely for purchases of local, unprocessed or minimally processed foods from farmers, ranchers, and small businesses, for distribution to schools participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. While states had flexibility in program design, LFS funds could not be spent on administration costs. 

Second Round: In October 2024, the USDA announced it would provide $660M for a second round of funding for the LFS program. The new round of funding mirrored the first but expanded the program to childcare. Now called LFSCC, this program would have allocated $472M to K-12 schools and $189M to childcare sites participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The first round targeted small businesses and “socially disadvantaged” producers, and this round prioritized “Historically Underserved” producers, farmers, fishers, and small businesses, which includes beginning, veteran, and limited resource farmers and ranchers. The program opened on December 10, 2024, and many states had already signed new agreements.

How Has My State/Territory Been Impacted?

LFSCC Round 2 for states ranges from $1-75 million. You can learn more about the original projects, how much funding your area received for Round 1 (R1), and was set to receive in Round 2 (R2) on our Program Matrix.

Why Was this Program Terminated – Is this Legal?

Round one agreements that were already in place are not affected. This funding was through the Commodity Credit Corporation which can be used at the discretion of USDA Secretary Rollins. It is within USDA’s rights to terminate agreements if they provide state agencies a contractually-obligated 60 days notice. The letter sent to state agencies stated that “AMS has determined this agreement no longer effectuates agency priorities and that termination of the award is appropriate.” 

Why Do We Need This Program?

LFSCC is a common-sense program that delivers real economic and community benefits while improving child nutrition. Here’s why we can’t afford to lose it:

• Smart, Targeted Investment in Local Economies
  LFSCC directed food dollars straight to farmers, ranchers, and food businesses. This has already changed lives by forging new connections between local buyers and producers and strengthening rural economies.
• Ensures High-Quality Food for Kids
  Funding for this program can only be used for fresh and minimally processed foods. If we want to “Make America Healthy Again,” this program is a shining example of serving kids locally grown, high quality, dye-free, scratch cooked meals while supporting American farmers.
• Empowered Local-Decision-Making
  Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, LFSCC allowed states to design their own strategies for getting local food on the lunch tray, ensuring solutions that fit their unique needs.
• Transparent and Accountable Spending
  Federal law requires strict financial oversight entities receiving over $750,000 annually in federal funds. LFSCC funding was subject to audits that reviewed operations, internal controls, and financial accountability, ensuring taxpayer dollars were spent efficiently, effectively, and only on local food spent in schools.

One of the most commonly reported challenges by schools is food cost. Without this program, schools will struggle to afford local food among rising food costs, and small farmers will lose a critical market. The loss of LFSCC threatens the progress we've made in strengthening local food systems, supporting small farmers, and ensuring kids have access to fresh, healthy meals—now is the time to speak up and demand a better solution.