Evaluation of Community Gardens

(A program of the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension)

Report produced by

Jill Florence Lackey & Associates

February 1998

Principal investigator Jill Florence Lackey, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jill Florence Lackey and Associates would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following research assistants in this project: Statistical analysis, TIM Welnetz; interviewing, Matthew Balistrieri, Randall Brown, Mary Kerry, AhMad Muhammad, Carlos Rodriguez, Carolyn Taylor, and Kate Terskan; data entry, Elena Schafer. The author wishes to express her thanks to the following individuals for assisting in the development of evaluation instruments, facilitating interviews and/or reviewing this document: Stan Binnie, Horticulture Agent for Waukesha County UW-Extension; Margaret Ernst, Horticulture Educator for Waukesha County UW-Extension; Thomas Kalb, Horticulture Agent for Kenosha County UW-Extension; Dennis Lukaszewski, Urban Agriculture Coordinator for Milwaukee County UWExtension; Greg Matysik, Professor of Youth Development, UWExtension; and Sharon Morrisey, Horticulture Agent for Milwaukee County UW-Extension. The author also wishes to thank the UW Extension for supplying many of the photographs that appear in this report Faculty and other personnel from the Kenosha County office received permission from clients (and parents of youth clients) to reproduce these photographs in reports. The evaluation was funded through the UW-Extension Urban initiative, UW-Extension Building Supportive Communities for Families & Youth Issues Team, and UW-Extension county offices in Kenosha, Milwaukee and Waukesha.

Cover photograph: A school group sowing seeds together in the Field of Dreams food pantry garden.

Table of Contents
Chapter One: introduction to Community Gardens The Community Gardens program Gardens selected for evaluation Chapter Two: Evaluation design and methods Overview of evaluation design Evaluation staff and timelines Chapter Three: overview of evaluation findings Program importance ratings Preview of most significant outcome findings Chapter Four. The material deliverables of gardening Health benefits of gardening The money clients saved on food Chapter Five: Gardening and meanings Gardening as a strategy to transmit cultural heritage Gardening as an enjoyable practice Gardening to convene with the natural environment Chapter Six: Social and psychosociall benefits Gardening as a strategy in building communities Gardening to promote social justice Gardening to build personal character Chapter Seven: Future challenges Retaining land sites for gardening Developing collective management for the gardens Chapter Eight: Summary and Recommendation Summary of evaluation Recommendations Bibliography Appendix A: Program Process and Management Tables Appendix B: Original Findings on Exercise Activities

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 3.1. Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Table 4.3. Table 4.4. Table 4.5. Table 4.6. Table 4.7. Table 5.1. Table 5.2. Table 5.3. Table 5.4. Table 5.5. Table 5.6. Table 5.7. Table 6.1. Table 6.2. Table 6.3. Table 6.4. Table 6.6. Table 7.1 Interviewee characteristics. Posttest participants. Ratings given by Community Gardens clients on the personal importance of the program. Self-reports of 1/2 cup helpings of vegetables eaten during past 24 hours. Reported eating habits during past four months. Organic Choices of rental gardeners. Hours spent exercising in last week. Calories expended in last week's exercise. Reasons selected for participating in the Community Gardens program. Estimated dollars saved on food by growing vegetables through the program. Reasons given to participate in program. Reasons given to participate compared with program rating: Adult clients. Reasons given to participate compared with program rating: Youth clients. Reasons given for participation in program. Youth and gardening practice. Reported changes in valuing nature during past four months: Adult participants. Reported changes in valuing nature during past four months: Youth participants. Changes in forging fellowship during the past four months. Reported work in improving local neighborhoods in past four months. Volunteering for the hungry. Reported food-sharing during past four months. Resource choice of Community Gardens clients. Tasks that clients said they would be willing to do.

Chapter One: Introduction to Community Gardens

During 1997, the research consultant firm of Jill Florence Lackey and Associates conducted an evaluation of Community Gardens-a program administered by the University of Wisconsin's Cooperative Extension. This chapter will introduce the program and the specific gardens evaluated by this research team.

The Community Gardens Program

Community gardening had its roots in the Victory gardens of World War II. Victory gardens were developed in the United States to support the war effort and to supplement food production at home during a time when much of the agricultural labor force was overseas. The American Community Gardening Association grew out of the victory garden movement and has been a voice and consolidating force for urban horticulture ever since. The University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension founded the first Wisconsin community garden 25 years ago on the Milwaukee "county grounds"-a site that today hosts 1003 rental plots. Within two decades the program expanded throughout Milwaukee County. Additional programs were initiated in nearby Waukesha and Kenosha Counties. Today, Community Gardens sponsors three types of programs: (1) rental gardens, (2) youth gardens, and (3) gardens designed to serve the clientele of local food pantries. The gardens within these categories are diverse enough to meet the needs of culturally specific populations and community needs, but all offer a core of resources including arable land sites, gardening tools, compost, and horticultural information through direct teaching, telephone hotlines, and various media (e.g., videos, written materials, and television and radio programs).

Because of the unwieldy number of Community Gardens, the evaluation team and program stakeholders selected a sample of garden sites for evaluation. The selection criteria included the following: at least one garden would be evaluated from each program category; the gardens selected would more-or-less typify their program categories; the gardens selected would serve a minimum of 15 clients each; the garden sites would have easily accessible client lists (for data collection purposes). In addition to these criteria, the program staff suggested adding a newly developing garden to the sample. The staff thought it was important for the evaluation team to understand the processes and challenges involved in starting up a gardening program. The following section summarizes the garden sites that were eventually selected for the evaluation. in addition to describing the general location and resources of each garden, we have added information on the particular political constraints and opportunities involved in each program's development No assessment of the Community Gardens program would be complete without a description of the land tenure issues this project has faced-and continues to face-throughout its history.

Gardens selected for evaluation

The final list of gardens in the evaluation sample included four rental gardening sites (with one start-up garden), two youth gardening sites, and one pantry gardening site. Rental Gardens Community Gardens rental programs lease plots to local residents and groups, often in collaboration with community-based organizations. Some gardening sites are located in urban neighborhoods and others are in more outlying areas. The 1997 rental rates and plot sizes vary by county, but range from $10 to $22 annually for plots between 4000 and 900 square feet Pl. Gardeners are expected to keep their areas free of weeds and trash, and respect their neighbors' boundaries. In return, Community Gardens rototills the plots each year, provides tools and compost and offers horticultural information in various forms.

Milwaukee rental garden: county grounds. The 25-year old county grounds site accommodates 1003 garden plots for over 350 families. According to program documents, 60 percent of these families are low income, and just over half live in apartments or flats. Nearly one-third of the clientele served at this location are Hmongs who immigrated to the United States within the past two decades. Most of the Hmong immigrants practiced slash-and-burn horticulture in their native counties of Laos, Thailand, and China. This very large rental area is challenged bV limited access to water However, the site offers a variety of gardening resources, including standard plots, organic-practices-only gardens, and demonstration plots where master gardeners teach advanced horticultural techniques. The area is accessible by roads and bus, and most of the gardens are set far enough back from the main highways to avoid vandalism. The program collaborates with Americorps, whose volunteers help rototill the land, participate in garden maintenance, and facilitate some community involvement The county grounds are located in an undeveloped area just north of the Milwaukee County Medical Complex. The University Cooperative Extension has always used the land from Milwaukee County. In the past two years, the Milwaukee County Executive made budget proposals to sell a major portion of the county grounds for commercial development. This action would probably lead to the eviction of the gardening program. A nearby suburban group unrelated to Community Gardens organized against the sale of the

Rental garden at county grounds, Milwaukee County.

land, arguing that members did not want to lose their natural surroundings. The group won a brief moratorium on the development decision and the County Board agreed to set up an advisory panel to investigate the issue. In the meantime, the gardeners-some who have been in the program for over 20 Vears-were left uncertain about their future. one program stakeholder summarized the frustration felt by many gardeners.

Milwaukee start-up garden: Mitchell garden site. The Mitchell gardens are located in Oak Creek, a bedroom community of the City of Milwaukee. The site currently has 135 plots, serving approximately 65 families. Program records indicate that nearly all of the families renting the gardens are middle to upper-middle class European Americans. Most are also home-owners, although the program is now attempting to draw a clientele from retirement villages and apartment complexes.

Boy working in his family's rental garden.

The Mitchell site offers the core resources for rental programs-tools, compost, rototilling, and horticultural education. Newly opened in the spring of 1997, the area presented a number of environmental challenges. First the soil quality was lower than expected. Second, gardeners had problems with the wild animal population In the area. And third, the nearby creek flooded its banks in the spring and washed out the garden plots. Most of the gardeners had to replant The original Mitchell gardens actually occupied a more desirable land site two years ago. For 25 years, the gardens were located at Whitnall and Brust Avenues, and were comprised of over 400 plots managed by 220 families. In addition to serving European American clients, these gardens attracted Hmong and Latino families. In 1997 a local group, comprised of area residents and political and business leaders, requested the removal of the gardens. A corporate neighbor maintained that a little league park would be a more appropriate choice for the site, and committed to help build it in an effort to find a new location for the gardens, program staff contacted a nearby village, offering to develop gardens in their industrial park. Village officials immediately rejected the offer, claiming that the gardens would not look good in an industrial park. Community Gardens staff were eventually able to negotiate a new land site in Oak Creek, although the area was less desirable than the previous one. Many of the clients and collaborators from the original site returned to the program-some a bit disenchanted. The largest loss of gardeners was the Hmong and Latino families. The original site of the Mitchell gardens now lies vacant, and discussions of the little league park apparently never resumed. Below, a stakeholder summarizes the experience.

Waukesha rental gardens: Northview grounds. The Waukesha County program has two rental gardening sites-one quartered in a low-income housing project, and a second open-access site located on county-owned grounds next to the Huber work-release jail. Because the latter site offered open access to any residents, it was considered a more appropriate evaluation choice. The Northview gardens are comprised of 63 rental plots gardened by 50 families. Most of the families are European Americans from the working- or middle-classes. The site offers core resources for rental gardens and has good access to water in addition, it is situated near a road and a bus stop, but is set back far enough from the traffic flow to hinder vandalism and theft

Rental garden at Northview grounds, Waukesha County.

That decision was made four years ago, but today the County Board is revisiting the Northview grounds issue. In December of 1997, Waukesha County announced that it planned to study the use of the Northview grounds and consider economic development of the area. The County Parks Manager and the County Board are expected to consider a wide range of alternative uses for the land by early 1998 (Milwaukee Joumal-Sentinel 1997) 1. While the development issue emerged shortly after the data were collected for this evaluation, one Waukesha garden stakeholder did express concerns that the program would always risk loss of its land, due to competing political and economic interests. These comments appear below.

Kenosha rental gardens: Northside site. Kenosha has two rental garden sites-- the Northside Community Gardens and a central (downtown) site. The Northside gardens were selected for this evaluation because they had more participants. The Northside site accommodates 45 lots serving 28 families and community groups. most of the families are European Americans and come from a working- or middle-class backgrounds. Located next to the Northside Public Library, the Northside gardens are situated on a six acre lot that is shared with one of the program's pantry gardens. The farmland site has good soil quality, and offers core rental resources, good access to water, available parking, and a nearby bus stop.
1. While under study, additional land on this property has been gained due to the success of the existing Community Gardens program.

Family watering tomatoes in their rental garden: Kenosha County.

As with most Kenosha gardens, the Northside land was donated by a private benefactor for temporary use. When gaining access to the propertM the landowner informed staff that the Property could be developed in 1997. Despite the small risk, staff accepted the property because it was located in the hub of the neighborhood and was surrounded by apartment dwellers-a targeted clientele 9MUP. The program staff sectioned off the land and placed the rental gardeners in the area least likely to be developed, to minimize the risk of clients losing their lands, Of all three counties, the Kenosha programs appear to have the most community backing from business and political sectors. The County Executive, many county supervisors, city officials, several corporations, and a host of community-based organizations have expressed public support for Community Gardens and collaborate with them on various projects. This support has often left the program with land options, and program staff can draw upon an inventory of potential benefactors when any site is lost One Kenosha stakeholder sums up the issue of the Northside gardens as follows.

Youth Gardens
All three counties host youth gardening programs, most often in collaboration with local community and daycare centers. Like the rental gardens, these sites can be located in urban neighborhoods or in more outlying areas. Unlike the rental gardeners, youth participants do not usually garden for a full season. The youth programs range in length from 4 to 18 weeks, although the children can choose to continue garden ing-pa rticularIV if the garden is located in their own neighborhood. In addition to the actual experience of gardening, programming may include nutrition classes, instruction in ecological topics, field trips, gardening games, stories, and craft-making. Most of the clientele in all three counties are members of ethnic minorities and come from low income families. The gardens are often designed to reflect this diversity, Some gardens are arranged according to ethnic themes (e.g., salsa gardens, African Heritage, Native American gardens), and others are arranged according to rainbow color schemes.

Leaders of the African Heritage garden, where youth grow vegetables which are historically important to African and African-American cultures.

The youth gardens selected for this evaluation were the Waukesha County/La Casa Center collaborative garden, and the Kenosha County/Lincoln Center collaborative garden.

Waukesha County youth prden: La Casa collaborative. The Waukesha County/La Casa youth garden program is a collaborative effort between the University Cooperative Extension and La Casa cle Esperanza, a Waukesha community center During the summer of 1997, the program served an average of 20 children between the ages of 8 and 15-mostIV Latino and some European American and African American. The gardening program is integrated with La Casa's summer claycare program, which also offers the children field trips to educational sites, lessons in fishing, and hiking expeditions (among other resources). Activities at the gardens include Instruction on horticultural techniques and nutrition, salad-building, cultivating salsa plots (cilentro, tomatoes, peppers), keeping gardening journals (see example below), constructing scarecrows and compost piles, mulching, looking for evidence of animals and bugs, story telling, and gardening games

Children planting peppers together In their garden.

The Waukesha/La Casa garden is located on the same site as the rental gardens, which means that this open-access program is equally threatened bV loss of land if the County opts for redevelopment of the NOrthview grounds. The only other Waukesha youth gardens are situated on land owned by a New Berlin child care center.

Kenosha youth gardens: Lincoln collaborative. 2 The Kenosha/Lincoln youth gardens are a collaborative effort between the University cooperative Extension and Lincoln Neighborhood Community Center This project is Kenosha's largest youth garden. (The Kenosha program also collaborates with the Spanish Center, the Shalom Center, the Boys and Girls Club, and the Christian Youth Center on other youth gardens.) The gardens are located on two sites within a block of the Lincoln Center One of these sites has been developed into an African Heritage garden featuring indigenous African vegetables. During the summer of 1997, the Kenosha/Lincoln gardens served an average of 15 youth each class between the ages of 3 and 17-mostly African Americans. Garden program activities include cultural heritage programming, horticultural and nutrition instruction, story-telling, gardening games, arts and crafts, and collaborates with a sponsorship program that provides the education and health care of a boy and girl in Africa. The children also participate in beautifying the gardens. They helped create colorful signs for the youth gardens (see below), assist in garden maintenance, and planted

Kenosha/Lincoln youth garden. The signs Include colorful handprints of the youth participants.

The evaluation team also included three youth from the Kenosha/Spanish Center garden in the survey sample, as the many of the Kenosha/Lincoln youth were too young to understand the survey questions (i.e., under the age of nine).

The Kenosha youth gardens are all located on city- and privately-owned sites. Program staff seek out abandoned lots in central city neighborhoods, contact the owners, and ask them if they would be willing to lend the land to the collaborative. The staff have been successful in getting benefactors this way in addition, both the city and county governments have invited Community Gardens staff to make use of more of their properties.

Pantry Gardens
Pantry gardens are projects designed to distribute fresh vegetables to the clients of soup kitchens and pantries. Currently onIy Milwaukee and Kenosha Counties have these gardens. In Milwaukee, pantrV recipients are offered free garden plots near the food pantries in order to grow their own vegetables. In Kenosha, needy and unneedy volunteers grow food in fields of two acres or more to stock local food pantries and soup kitchens. Kenosha pantry garden: Field of Dreams. The Kenosha pantry garden was named after the movie "Field of Dreams." In the movie, Kevin Costner believed that if he built a baseball field for deceased Hall of Famers, "they would come." The Kenosha staff followed a similar vision, developed a volunteer garden to help the needy, and trusted the volunteers to come. They did. In the two Vears since the garden opened, the project has drawn nearIV 550 volunteers and harvested over 45 tons of food (or 305,000 vegetable helpings) for local food pantries and soup kitchens.

Volunteers shucking beans In parking lot adjacent to a Field of Dreams garden. These beans were delivered to food pantries.

Program staff helped organize the massive project through a volunteer hotline. Here volunteers could call in and leam when theV were needed at the gardens. in addition to volunteers, the Field of Dreams project brings together various communitV groups, including churches, Vouth organizations, local farmers, the Salvation ArmV, the Optimist Club, the Shalom Center, the Business and Professional Women, and the Kenosha CountV government The Field of Dreams gardens are currentIy situated on three sites-all temporarilV donated by land owners. One of these gardens is on the Northside lands that are slated for development (The project had previousIV lost a parcel of land in 1996.) However, the program staff in Kenosha feel confident that their high profile in the community and the public expression of support they have received will insure ongoing land donations to keep the program viable. In his State of the CountV address, the County Executive John Collins, described why he felt the Field Of Dreams was a "best practices" candidate.

Summary
During 1997, the research consultant firm of Jill Florence Lackev and Associates conducted an evaluation of CommunitV Gardens-a collaborative program administered bv the county offices of the University of Wisconsin's Cooperative Extension. CommunitV Gardens sponsors programs in Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Kenosha Counties. The gardening sites sampled for this evaluation include four rental gardens, two youth gardens, and one garden designed to serve the clientele of local food pantries. The following chapter will summarize the research design and methods used in this evaluation.

Volunteers working together In the Field of Dreams to grow food for the poor. Examples of cards produced by youth at Milwaukee youth garden (Havenwood).

Chapter Two: Evaluation Design and Methods

This chapter will describe the evaluation design, methodology, procedures, and the study participants.

Overview of evaluation design

This evaluation relied on "critical multiplism" for the strength of its design. According to Cook (1985), an evaluation requires multiple realizations in research questions, data sources, methods, samples, measures, and analyses to establish the validity of the study. Key findings should reflect points of convergence among various data sources (triangulation), help attribute results to program activities, and reduce alternative explanations. in the spirit of critical multiplism, we incorporated both qualitative and quantitative components in the evaluation of Community Gardens. Qualitative component informed bV "fourth generation evaluation" (Guba and Lincoln, 1989), we included qualitative data collection procedures in our overall design. The constructivist approach of Guba and Lincoln looks beyond the positivist search for causal and universal relationships. According to these authors, any observed action is the result of a "large number of mutual, simultaneous shapers, each of which is constantly shaping, and being shaped bv, all other shapers (p.106)." Guba and Lincoln also assume that project problems and solutions may have local applicability onlV, and may not apply to the overall program. This approach was particularly useful for Community Gardens,

because the evaluation team learned early that the gardeners were anything but a homogeneous group. Clients participated in the program for a variety of reasons and experienced multiple outcomes based in part on their original motivations and their subsequent experiences. We also became aware that each county and each garden had its own particular histories, which had profound influences on the individual programs (see previous chapter). Qualitative research designs tend to be fluid, and thus avoid closing topics of inquiry too early (Spradley 1980). In a typical quantitative model, an instrument used to measure program effects is almost never changed. The program may go through modifications, or the evaluators may discover other indicators of program effects, but the measurements must remain consistent throughout the testing periodisi, or risk threats to validity. For that reason, these models fail to locate unintended outcomes of programs (Koppelman, 1983). in contrast, qualitative measurement instruments are often open-ended or semi-structured, and can allow for new information, new indicators, or new meanings that will add depth and holism to the evaluation. Guba and Lincoln (as well as Fetterman, 1994) advise getting stakeholders together early to inventory potential program meanings and success inclicatom in the spring of 1997, members of the evaluation team began to meet with program staff to gather Preliminary information. Because of the late start of the evaluation, the group was not able to bring other stakeholders to the table. However, program staff did contact various categories of clients and collaborators and asked them to submit evaluation topics to the group. From these the evaluation team developed semistructured qualitative protocols. Qualitative data gathering procedures. Qualitative methods included review of program documents, participant observation at gardens, and 47 interviews of program stakeholders. Document review. Members of the evaluation team reviewed annual reports, promotional materials, collaborator reports, and newspaper articles on each of the gardens, as these documents were made available.

Participant observation. members of the evaluation team observed daily Chapter Tw program activities between 3 and 20 times at each garden. Team members took notes and photographs during sessions, and also observed two Evaluation educational programs in progress at the youth gardens. Limitations. The design relatively small budget of the evaluation, the short duration of the project, and the large geographical area the program covered limited the amount of and method observation that was possible. No evaluation team members attended staff meetings, conferences, collaborator meetings, or political events that affected the program. Moreover, the short period of time we spent doing this evaluation (six months) limited the amount of program context information we could collect As a result we relied heavily on second-hand information (particularly from the interviews) for the historical and collaborative dimensions of the program. Interviews. Members of the evaluation team conducted 47 semi-structured interviews with program stakeholders, which included gardeners, staff, horticultural educators, parents of youth gardeners, and collaborators. Three-quarters of the interviews were conducted in-person, and one-quarter were given over the telephone (due to geographical distances). Sampling was done by peer nomination 3 (except in the case of the Milwaukee county grounds garden, where some gardeners were selected randomly). The 47 interviews included 17 from the Milwaukee rental gardens (county grounds) 4, 5 from the Milwaukee start-up garden (Mitchell), 3 from the Waukesha rental garden (Northview), 6 from the Waukesha/La Casa youth garden, 4 from the Kenosha rental garden (Northside), 6 from the Kenosha/Lincoln youth garden, and 6 from the Kenosha pantry garden (Field Of Dreams). Of these interviewees, 22 were gardeners, 10 were staff or program volunteers, 7 were youth horticultural teachers, 4 were collaborators, and 4 were parents of youth gardeners. See Table 2.1 for these and other interviewee characteristic&

Because of the relatively large number of collaborators, educators, and staff involved in the youth gardens (and the relatively small number of stakeholders interviewed per garden), the decision was made by the group to exclude youth from the qualitative interviews. However, those stakeholders interviewed In the quantitative component of these gardens were all youth clients.
4

Here, as in the quantitative component, the sample size at the county grounds garden is approximately four times the sample size of the other gardens. This is due to the extremely large number of clients served at this site (1003 plots, 350 families).

During interviews, members of the evaluation team asked all participants to describe typical program activities at each garden, discuss what the program meant to them, and assess program strengths and weaknesses (and if the participants actualIy gardened, we also asked them how they had learned this skill). we questioned youth garden staff and educators about their observations of children in the program and various learning contexts. Parents of the youth gardeners were asked about changes in their children's behaviors since participating in the gardens and the prospects.for parental involvement in the program. The evaluation team asked stakeholders in the start-up garden to relate their experiences with a new garden site. We questioned the pantry stakeholders about hunger issues in Kenosha and how the gardens affected the food supplies in pantries and soup kitchens.

Qualitative data analysis. The qualitative data were analyzed using componential and domain analysis (Spradley, 1980). These strategies seek out specific categories -or domains-of meaning in the data (e.g, "X is a reason for growing vegetables'l, and then search for dimensions of contrast among andwithin these domains. In addition to giving us data on program descriptions and meanings, our qualitative component also strengthened our quantitative component (presented next) in three ways. First the qualitative data helped to increase the internal validity of our quantitative findings, a recommended strategy in the literature (Posovac and Carey, 1989). Through our observations and interviews, we were able to at least partially attribute many of the quantitative results to actual activity. For example, quantitative findings suggested that gardeners were significantly more likely to report sharing food with others during the previous four months than members of the comparison groups. From our observations we saw that gardeners were constantly offering fresh vegetables to strangers, including us. From our interviews, we heard gardeners describe how they and others cultivated vegetables with the primary or secondary purpose of donating them to their churches, to food pantries, or to needy (and not-so-needy) neighbom Second, we were able to use our qualitative data to strengthen our quantitative design. From our observations and interviews, we were in a better situation to select comparison groups for each garden. We understood which social processes and demographic variables were important (and which were not) when we were seeking specific comparison groups. For example, we leamed during interviews that gardeners used the program to transmit their cultural heritage to their young, and that this was particularly important to the Hmong clientele. We then knew that we had to match our comparison group participants by ethnicity. Third, we also modified our survey instruments as we collected qualitative data. For example, we began by assuming that only volunteers in the Kenosha pantry garden would participate in the program in order to give away food. But our qualitative data showed us that even rental gardeners were active in this pursuit Thus we added a survey question on sharing food, and ended up being able to report this as an unintended effect of the program, overall. The following section presents the quantitative component.

Quantitative component
Because the evaluation team was contracted after the gardening seaso n was already in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasi experimental evaluation design-both which require pretests of intervention and comparison group participants before program services begin. With limited options, we developed a posttest-onIV design with intervention and nonequivalene comparison groups (although one series of questions were asked retrospectively in an attempt to compare some behaviors over the expanse of the gardening season. Royse (1991) and Rutman (1983) maintain that a posttest-onIy design with a comparison group is not as strong as the experimental models, but is stronger than pretest-posttest designs with one group only (program clients). We selected comparison groups for each of the gardens under study. The process involved a number of considerations. First, each garden served clients with specific characteristics. Not only did the gardens serve different geographical areas, but each garden category-rental, youth, and pantry attracted a unique type of client Fortunately we were able to delay decisions on the comparison sites until we had completed most of our observations and interviews. From the qualitative data we were better positioned to understand the characteristics of the clients in each program. in order to capture the differences between program types, we first matched groups as aggregates. For example, we knew that the Field of Dreams gardeners participated in the program, not to cultivate vegetables for their own consumption, but to donate their time and produce to the needy. Thus we sought a body of volunteers for our pantry comparison group that was helping underprivileged people.

This means that the groups were not randomly selected from the same pool of potential participants, as in the case of experimental evaluation models. In one series of Instrument questions, we asked Intervention and comparison group respondents about their activities during the previous four months. A statement was read (e.g., "In the past four months, I have made more friends than usual") and respondents selected answers from a scale ("O=strongly disagree, 1 =disagree, 2-not sure, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree").

Second, we understood from our qualitative findings that some individual characteristics across all program categories would be important variables to match. For example, we learned during interviews that cultural background played a role in the motivation to garden. We also knew that we would have to match Participants by age level and gender because we would be measuring several age- and sex-sensitive behaviors, such as daily exercise and diet. Thus we sought matching pairs of participants by ethnic group, age, and gender. 7 Third, we understood from the literature that comparison participants should be involved in programs, or receiving some kind of common service (as long as the service was not that which was provided by the program being evaluated). Posovac and Carey (1989) argue that the attention alone that program clients receive may account for changes in their behaviors over time. Thus we sought comparison groups that were linked by common services. With these three principles in mind, we selected several comparison group sites. The sites are outlined below, with descriptions of the aggregate and individual traits we sought to match with the program groups. Comparison groups for rental garden. Aggregate traits. Rental gardeners participated in the program for a variety of reasons, but mostly to improve the quality of their lives, and gain some sense of self-efficacy. They did not usually participate in gardening activities collectively (although there were opportunities to do so), but used program resources on an individual basis. Rental gardeners came from all social classes, all age groups, all educational backgrounds, and all ethnicities. For the comparison site, we pursued a collectivity that would attract this diversity, and seek common, selfenrichment services on an individual basis. We selected University adult study programs (both degree and non-degree) in all three counties-UWMilwaukee in Milwaukee, UW-Waukesha in Waukesha, and UW-Parkside in Kenosha. Individual traits. We attempted to match the intervention and comparison groups on the basis of ethnic backgrounds (because of the cultural salience of gardening), and age and gender (because of the age and gender variation in dailV exercise, diet and social factors).

See Rossi and Freeman (1987) for further description of aggregate and pair matching in comparison groups.

We ran into problems matching the Hmong clients from the Milwaukee rental gardens. The Hmong University students were generally much younger than the gardening group. We tried to develop a separate comparison group for the Hmong gardeners, but when we contacted several Hmong-serving programs we were told that their clients were also avid gardeners (and many participated in the Community Gardens program). We ended up settling for a somewhat younger Asian sample in our comparison group than we had intended. Comparison group for youth gardens. Aggregate traits. Unlike the rental gardens, youth were more likely to participate collectively in community Gardens. Typically, they came to their sites from community or daycare center programs. In addition, most of the children came from low income families and were members of ethnic minorities. For the comparison site, we pursued a community center program for low income youth, but one where clients did not garden. However, because of the small number of community centers in Waukesha and Kenosha and the pervasiveness of Community Gardens, we failed to find a program where a large number of children did not garden. Thus we selected a Milwaukee community center program-Holton Youth daycamp-as a comparison site for both youth gardens. Individual traits. We matched the intervention and comparison groups on the basis of ethnic backgrounds (because of the cultural salience of gardening), and age and gender (because of the age and gender variation in daily exercise, diet and social factors). Comparison group for pantry gardeners. Aggregate traits.The volunteers who participated in the Kenosha Field of Dreams garden did not cultivate vegetables for their own use, but donated their time and produce to food pantries and soup kitchens. These volunteers came from all social classes and ethnic backgrounds. We pursued a Kenosha program where volunteers worked to help the hungry. We selected the Shalom Center soup kitchen staff as the comparison site, screening out those volunteers who also participated in gardening programs. Youth gardeners being interviewed by educator Individual traits. As with the previous program categories, we matched the intervention and comparison groups on the basis of ethnic backgrounds (because of the cultural salience of gardening), and age and gender (because of the age and gender variation in daily exercise and social factors).

Limitations. The posttest only model with nonequivalent groups has a built-in weakness. Without pretests, the intervention and comparison groups might have been different in relevant ways from the start Thus any variation noted in posttests may simply reflect these initial differences in the groups, rather than effects of the program (Clark, 1976). For example, an evaluator using this model to assess a math tutoring program might assume that the intervention was unsuccessful if the comparison group scored higher during posttests. However, without pretests there would be no way of knowing if members of the comparison group did not begin with superior math skills. This problem is less pronounced in the Community Gardens evaluation. We learned through qualitative and quantitative findings that gardeners entered the program for a wide variety of reasons, usually involving quality of life issues (see Table 5.1 later in this report). According to Schuerman (1983), the purpose of pretests is to determine if both groups were "equally in need of services" (1983:69). But there was no simple pattern of needs that drew clients to this program, such as delinquencv, alcohol dependencV, or illiteracy. The project was not designed to treat known and measurable deficiencies in the gardeners, In this case, initial group differences may be less a problem than in evaluations of programs to correct identified deficiencies. But while we did attempt to match the intervention and comparison groups on variables we knew to be salient, and added a strong qualitative component to increase validity (Riecken and Boruch, 1974), we still must recognize that the groups may have had initial differences in important unidentified ways. Quantative data gathering procedures. Members of the evaluation team conducted the posttest survey with 123 gardeners and 123 matched comparison group participants. For rental and pantry gardens, we randomly selected the gardeners from client lists (except in the case of the county grounds garden, where we randomly selected the gardeners from plot numbers). For youth gardens, we randomly selected the clients from program meetings during high participation times (selecting only children over the age of nine, to insure comprehension of the instrument). We interviewed 50 clients from the Milwaukee county grounds garden, 53 from this garden's comparison group, 12 to 14 clients from each other garden, and 11 to 12 participants from these gardens' comparison groups. See Table 2.2 for respondent characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between intervention and comparison groups in ethnic background, age categories, and sex.

The posttest instrument asked all intervention and comparison participants questions their social and communitV activities in the previous four months, and about their health habits-particularIy diet and exercise. We asked the gardeners to rate the importance of the program to them personalIy, to assess the food money they saved because of gardening, to provide reasons for participating in the program, and to respond to a host of garden-specific questions.

Quantitative data analysis. Univariate analysis primarily included frequencies and means, and crosstabulations. Bivariate analyses primarily included chi squares and tests of significance.

Evaluation staff and timelines

The evaluation team was made up of an urban anthropologist/principal investigator, seven multi-cultural interviewers, a statistician, and a data specialist. The evaluation team completed the qualitative component of the study during July and August of 1997. The youth posttests of the intervention and comparison groups were conducted between mid August and September 1997, when the youth gardening programs were ending. The adult posttests of the intervention and comparison groups were conducted between mid September and mid October 1997, when the adult gardening programs were ending. The data were analyzed and the report was written bV late December 1997.

Summary
The Community Gardens' evaluation design included a qualitative and a quantitative component The qualitative component included document reviews of annual reports and program promotional materials, participant observation at each of the seven garden sites targeted for evaluation, and 47 semi-structured interviews with program stakeholders (including gardeners, staff, volunteers, horticultural educators, collaborators, and parents of youth gardeners). The quantitative component included a posttest survey with 123 randomlyselected gardeners and 123 matched comparison group participants. Because the evaluation team was contracted after the gardening season was already in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasiexperimental design-both which require pretests of intervention and comparison group participants before program activities begin. We opted for the next best choice and developed a posttest only design with program and non-equivalent comparison groups. We selected the comparison aggregates and individuals within these aggregates based on the salient processes and traits we found among program clients, while completing our qualitative component

However, the posttest-only model has a built-in weakness. Without pretests, the intervention and comparison groups could have been different in relevant ways from the start, thus variations noted in posttests may simply reflect initial differences in groups rather than effects of the program. This problem may be less pronounced in the Community Gardens evaluation because gardeners did not enter the program with a clear pattern of need. Regardless, we strengthened the overall design bV including multiple methods, multiple samples, multiple data sources with triangulation, multiple measures, and multiple analyses in the overall evaluation plan. The findings that appear in the following chapters reflect these varied research strategies, and will demonstrate some unintended, as well as some intended outcomes for Community Gardens.

Chapter Three: Overview of Evaluation Findings

This chapter will provide an overview of evaluation findings. We will summarize the program importance ratings given bV CommunitV Gardens' clients, and provide a preview of the most significant outcome findings.

Program importance Ratings

Members of the evaluation team asked Community Gardens clients to rate the program. SpecificalIy, we asked gardeners the following question: "on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the highest), how important is the garden program to you?" Overall, clients gave the program a very high mean rating of 8.62. Adult gardeners, who usualIV received program benefits for a full season, gave higher ratings (mean of 8.98) than the youth gardeners, who usualIy participated in the program for 4 to 18 weeks (mean of 8.00). When we compared the importance ratings given by European Americans to those given by the people of color (Asian American, Latino, and African American clients), we found that the ratings were nearIy identical for both groups (mean of 8.59 and 8.65 respectiveIy). See Table 3.1.

To view ratings for specific gardens, see Appendix A

Preview of most significant outcome findings

The evaluation team gathered quantitaitive and qualitative data on a wide variety of topics ranging from healthy habits to transmission of heritage to community-building practices. Quantitative findings. When we compared survey responses of the intervention group (gardeners) to the comparison group participants, the results clearly suggested positive outcomes for the program clients. The following is a summary of statistically significant findings (and most were highly significant at the level of <0.001).

Gardeners reported consuming more helpings of vitaminrich vegetables in the previous 24 hours than comparison participants. Gardeners reported engaging in more physical exercise in the previous week than comparison participants.

When asked about behaviors in the previous four months Gardeners indicated they had eaten a balanced diet much more often that comparison participants. Gardeners indicated they had shared food with others more often than comparison participants; Gardeners indicated they had spent more time with their families than comparison participants; Gardeners indicated they had made improvements in their neighborhoods more often than comparison participants; Gardeners indicated they had felt more in charge of their lives than comparison participants; and Gardeners indicated they learned more about gardening than comparison participants.

Qualitative findings. Qualitative data help to attribute quantitative findings to actual program activities (as opposed to some unknown intervening or confounding factors that may account for group differences). wherever we measured indicators quantitatively, we also gathered data on these indicators through qualitative strategies (e.g., interviews of program clients and stakeholders, participant observation, review of program documents). in addition to strengthening the quantitative findings, qualitative data often yielded unexpected program outcomes and impacts (see examples below).

The following is a summary of the more salient qualitative findings. Many gardeners described how they used program resources to transmit their cultural heritages to a younger generation; Many gardeners participated in the program for the sheer "fun" of watching plants grow and improving their gardening skills; Many gardeners used the program as a means to convene with nature; Some gardeners described how their plots had become focal points for communitV-builcling activities; Some gardeners gave away their produce as a means to promote social justice; Some gardeners described how the program activities had helped

The next three chapters will present detailed findings on each of these topics. Chapter Four will discuss the material deliverables of gardening, Chapter Five will summarize the meanings that clients ascribe to the program, and Chapter Six outlines the social and psychosocial value of CommunitV Gardens activities. Findings on minor themes or those specific to program management can be found in Appendix A.

Boys watering marigolds together in their neighborhood garden.

Chapter Four: The material deliverables of gardening

This chapter will summarize findings on the material benefits provided bV the CommunitV Gardens program. Two categories of material deliverables include (1) the health benefits of gardening (nutrition and exercise), and (2) the money clients saved on food. Earlier studies and literature on urban greening have highlighted the material advantages of gardening. For example, studies done in LOS Angeles, Philadelphia, and New JerseV found that urban gardeners increased their vegetable consumption and saved moneV in food purchases as a result of their participation in horticultural programs (Ashman et al, 1993; Blair et al, 1991; Patel, 1991). Taylor (1990) has argued that gardening is excellent outdoor exercise, and that participants may bum more calories per hour growing vegetables than they would doing aerobics.

Health benefits of gardening

Our evaluation findings demonstrate that Community Gardens clients maintained nutritious diets and gained outdoor exercise while participating in the horticultural program. These findings were significantIy stronger for CommunitV Gardens clients than they were for comparison group participants. in terms of diet, the gardeners reported consuming over twice the vitamin-rich vegetable helpings than the comparison participants. Program clients claimed they ate a mean of 11.19 vegetable helpings (onehalf cup each) during the previous 24 hours, while the comparison participants reported eating 4.55 vegetable helpings in the same

period. 8 Table 4.1 shows the reported consumption of each vegetable listed in the survey.

The vegetable consumption for both the gardeners and the comparison participants may have been affected by the time of year of the interviews. The interviews of adult participants were conducted between September 15 and October 15, and both groups reportedly eaten more of the vegetables that reached their peak during this Period--particularly tomatoes and peppers. The exception was the large number of helpings of lettuce reported eaten by both groups. When we compared the helpings of tomatoes and peppers claimed by the adult participants with those claimed by the youth participants, who were interviewed between August 15 and September 15, we see strong differences in reporting. The mean helpings of tomatoes claimed by youth gardeners is .69 (in contrast to 2.61 claimed by adult gardeners), and .39 for the comparison youth (in contrast to.73 by comparison adults); and the mean helpings of peppers claimed by youth gardeners is .54 (in contrast to 1.62 claimed by adult gardeners), and .26 for the comparison youth (in contrast to .49 claimed by the comparison adults).

A child showing off the "Fruit Face" she created in youth gardening program.

We also asked the groups if they maintained balanced diets. Specifically, we asked all evaluation participants to agree or disagree with the statement, "in the past four months, I have eaten a balanced diet most days from the food pyramid (which includes breads/cereals, fruit/vegetables, meat/fish/beans, and dair-y products." Gardeners were significantly more likely to agree. See Table 4.2

We also questioned the rental gardeners (the largest clientele group) about organic food. When we asked these clients if theV ate organicalIy grown food, nearly three-quarters said they did. When we asked if they grew their food organicalIy (without using chemical fertilizers or unnatural chemical pesticides), over half said "Yes." When we asked them if they rented their plots from an organic-practices-only site, few said they did. Most who said "no," either claimed lack of knowledge of the sites or said they already gardened organicalIy and did not want to make a transition. See Table 4.3.

in terms of exercise, gardeners again fared better than their comparison counterparts. The evaluation team asked all participants to report the number of hours they had spent in the last week doing various types of activities-from housework to gardening to playing basketball. Overall, gardener's reported nearly twice the number of hours engaged in exercise than members of the comparison groups. See Table 4.4. (See Appendix B for a breakdown of specific activities.) We also compared the two groups on actual calories expended during weekly activity hours, using calorie tables from the Complete Food and Nutrition Guide (A.D.A., 1996), Compendium of Physical Activities (A.U.M., 1996), and The Fitness Partner Connection (Printus, 1995-1997). Gardeners expended twice number of calories on their reported activities than their comparison counterparts. See Table 4.5. (See Appendix B for a listing of calories expended per hour of each activity, based on individual body weight of 150 pounds.)

A young girl hoeing weeds out of her family's garden.

However, we learned by comparing the data for both intervention and comparison groups that the gardeners may have been more active generalIy, and that not all the activities they reported were related to gardening (see Appendix B for original activity hours). We then wanted to know if the gardening hours alone would have made the intervention groups weekly

activity level significantly higher than their comparison counterparts'. We then hypothesized that both groups had reported the same number of exercise hours in every activity category except gardening, and we computed the difference between the two groups, The results were still statistically significant 9. In addition to being positive outcomes for the program, nutrition and exercise were also cited as strong motivators for program involvement When we asked all clients the reasons why they participated in the Community Gardens program, the "chance to get fresher food with more flavor" was the response selected second most often (68 percent) 10. The response, "the exercise," was selected third most often (57 percent). See Table 4.6.

This was done by averaging the number of hours of each weekly activity for all participants. The total number of hours for all activities, except gardening, was 2,937. This number was divided in two to get an equal number for both groups, or 1,468.5 hours each. To this number was added 523 hours of gardening for the gardeners, and 53 hours of gardening for the comparison participants, or a mean of 16.19 weekly hours for gardeners (n - 123) and 12.37 weekly hours for the comparison group members (n=123). If we assume a constant standard deviation of 11.427 (the standard deviation for the entire sample of 246 people for all activities other than gardening), we were able to do a z-test comparing the two means--z=(16.19-12.37)/sqrt(11.427112/l23)-2.62. This value is significant atO.004 for a one-sided alternative (hypothesis is gardeners are more active than non gardeners).

Adult clients selected this response 80 percent of the time, and the proportion rose to 82 percent when we eliminated the clients from the Kenosha pantry garden from the adult sample (pantry garden volunteer's did not consume their own vegetables, thus would not be likely to select this response).

10

The health benefits of gardening were also frequently mentioned during the qualitative interviews with program clients and other stakeholders. in the following examples, two clients from the Milwaukee rental garden (county grounds) and a stakeholder from the Kenosha pantry garden discuss the nutritional quality of the fresh vegetables they grow in the gardens.

Children harvesting fresh beans from their neighborhood garden.

Stakeholders from the youth gardens also discussed how the children had increased their nutrition awareness since participating in the program. In the following examples, parents of youth clients from Kenosha and Waukesha discuss program effects on their young.

interviewees also mentioned the value of the outdoor exercise they gained from gardening. In the following examples, clients from the Waukesha, Milwaukee, and Kenosha rental gardens comment on the phVsical activity involved in gardening.

The following section will present data on the ways the program helps client food budgets.

The money clients saved on food

Most clients also gleaned modest economic benefits from the Community Gardens program. During interviews, some clients from all gardens mentioned the way the program had eased their food budgets. When we asked all gardeners if they or family members stored any of the vegetables they grew, 86 percent of the adult clients and 31 percent of the youth clients said they did (table not shown). We also asked clients to estimate the dollars they saved on food. When asked how much money they thought their families had saved fro m growing vegetables in the Community Gardens this year, over half (56 percent) said they had saved more than $50 (for a mean savings of $131.90 overalD. (The table for the entire sample is not shown.) Of all groups, the rental gardeners reported saving the most money. Nearly half (46 percent) said they saved between $101 and S300 (for a mean savings of $167.95 this year). See Table 4.7.

The clients who discussed the economic benefits of the program most often were the Asian American gardeners. Members of the evaluation team found large lineages and clans of Hmongs where members had designated roles. some members worked outside the home, some cared for the children and the home, and others manned the gardens. The gardeners shared their vegetables with the group, and sometimes sold the surplus on the farmers' markets. Below, several Asian clients discuss their appreciation of the program.

stakeholders from the Kenosha Field Of Dreams project also discussed the economic value of the program. Below, two invested participants describe the money that local food pantries saved because of vegetable donations from the garden.

Summary
Evaluation findings demonstrated that the Community Gardens program was valued bV clients for the material deliverables gained from activities. Gardeners generally consumed more vitamin-rich vegetables, ate a more balanced diet and expended more calories in exercise than members of the comparison groups. Program clients and stakeholders also reported saving money on food because of their participation in Community Gardens. The economic benefits were expressed most often by the Asian gardeners at the Milwaukee county grounds and stakeholders in the Kenosha pantry garden. The following chapters will present data on additional program effects, including the meanings that gardeners ascribe to the program, and the social impacts of gardening.

Chapter Five: Gardening and Meanings

This chapter will summarize findings on the meanings that clients ascribe to the Community Gardens program. The three categories of meaning that emerged from the data are: (2) gardening as a strategy to transmit cultural heritage, (2) gardening as an enjoyable practice, and (3) gardening as a viraV to convene with the natural environment in some cases, findings suggest that these meanings may have been more important to gardeners than the material delive rabies described in the previous chapter The literature on gardening also suggests the value that gardeners attach to horticultural traditions. PF Barlett (1993) maintained that agrarian values are frequently in conflict with those in the industrial world, and that part-time cultivation may be one way to maintain the heritage and pass it on to the next generation. While Barletts research focused on European American and African American small farmers in the South, a number of writer's have discussed the oppression that the Hmong population has endured in order to preserve traditions associated with horticulture. McInnis et al (1990) and Trueba et al (1990) describe how Hmong clans fled from country to country when local political forces demanded they engage in cash cropping or other nonagrarian economic pursuits.

In the case of the Hmong population, the free practice of horticulture always meant more than access to ethnic foods. Their herbalist healing traditions, their animist religious practices, and their open air market economies all depended on a horticultural tradition.

Hmong family gardeners

Gardening as a strategy to transmit cultural heritage

The cultural value of gardening emerged as the leading program strength in the qualitative data. Again and again, clients described how Community Gardens had made it possible for stakeholders to transmit practices from their cultural heritages to succeeding generations. This was described by members of all the ethnic groups we interviewed. Adult gardeners Among adult gardeners, the cultural factors cited in gardening were particularIV strong. When members of the evaluation team asked gardeners the reasons theV participated in the program, the response, "to keep my cultural traditions," was selected third most frequentIV (60 percent of the time), among 10 possible choices. In addition, the responses "the chance to teach others gardening" was selected 31 percent of the time, and "good chance to spent time with my family" was selected 49 percent of the time (see Table 5.1).

However, when we crosstabulated the responses to the reasons clients participated in the program with the ratings given on the personal importance of the program, the heritage transmission variables became more salient As seen in Table 5.2, adult clients who selected the responses "to keep mv cultural traditions," "the chance to teach others gardening," and "good chance to spend time with mV familV" as reasons for participation were more likeIV to give the program the top rating in personal importance than those who selected anV other reasons for participation. Over two thirds of those who selected each of the transmission of heritage variables gave the program a "10."

In order to understand how Community Gardens helped clients to pass on their heritage, we looked at the interview data. In general, adult clients discussed the ways that program activities helped them both reminisce about a less complex way of life, and at the same time, transmit the skills and the values of this way of life to a younger generation. Some suggested that gardening had made their family traditions more meaningful.

in the following examples from the Milwaukee rental gardens, clients describe the cultural value of participating in the Community Gardens program. The first quotation below is from an African American, the second from a Hmong gardener, and the last is from a European American.

Asparagus beans, a popular Asian vegetable, growing on a teepee. In the following examples, clients discuss more about bringing generations together to share a horticultural heritage. The first quotation is from a Waukesha gardener, the second from a Milwaukee gardener with a disabled son, and the third is from a Kenosha gardener-all European American.

Clients also discuss the ways that members of different cultures got together and shared ideas about food and recipes in the Community Gardens. The first quotation below is from an African American gardener, and the second is from a Latino-both from the Milwaukee county grounds site.

in the final example, a Milwaukee European American client describes the way that family traditions can become more meaningful through gardening.

Youth Gardeners The cultural value of gardening did not emerge as a salient factor for youth in the quantitative data, possibly because children at this age did not understand some of the terms associated with heritage. Among the 26 children interviewed, not one said they participated in the program "to keep my cultural traditions." only 19 percent said they participated to "teach other about gardening," and only 12 percent said it was a "good chance to spend time with my family." (The table is not shown.) However, when we looked at the relationship between the reasons they gave for involvement and the ratings they gave the program, we see that four of five (80 percent) who said they participate to "teach others about gardening" rated the personal importance of the program at 10 (the highest rating). However, these numbers are too small to make any kind of generalization. See Table 5.3.

The qualitative data from the children's parents, teachers, and program staff did suggest that at least some of the youth were interested in the cultural aspects of gardening. In the following examples, two adult stakeholders from the Waukesha youth gardens describe gardening choices of the Latino youth, and an adult stakeholder from the Kenosha youth gardens discusses the potential for the transmission of African American traditions through the program.

In the next section, we discuss a topic that relates closely to the intergenerational heritage of gardening-that is the value of the gardening practice itself.

Gardening as an enjoyable practice

Findings from the qualitative and the quantitative data indicated that program clients enjoyed the actual act of gardening and the information they gleaned from the practice. Approximately three-quarters of all adult and youth clients said they participated in the Community Gardens program "for the fun," and nearly half of the adults and over three-quarters of the youth said they were 11 involved "to learn skills". See Table 5.4.

Findings for both youth and adult gardeners suggested that they learned significantly more about gardening in the past four months than members of their comparison groups. The means for youth were: gardeners 3.15, comparison groups 1.57; the means for adults were: gardeners 2.63, comparison groups 1.57 (scale: 0 = strongly disagree, I = disagree, 2 = not sure, 3 agree, 4 = strongly agree).

11

We needed to understand how clients considered gardening "fun." During qualitative interviews, gardeners often told us how much they simply enjoyed watching their vegetables grow. Below, clients from the Kenosha rental and pantry gardens, and the Milwaukee start-up garden comment on this experience.

Stakeholders from the youth gardens stressed both the enjoyment of gardening and the learning involved. Below, a parent and a teacher from the Waukesha youth gardens discuss their observations of clients.

When members of the evaluation team asked the youth gardeners if they gardening at home, 85 percent said they did. When we asked them if they felt they were "doing a good job" in the gardens, 92percent said yes. We also asked those youth clients who had gardens at home if they helped in these gardens, and every one said they did. See Table 5.5.

While clients ascribed considerable value to gardening heritages and gardening practices, findings also indicated that gardeners had a strong appreciation for the program's natural settings.

Gardening as a way to convene with the natural environment

Both the quantitative and the qualitative findings demonstrated that program clients valued the time they spent in the gardens' natural surroundings. Adult and youth gardeners alike reported significantly more attention to the environment during the high cultivation months than the comparison participants. In all, Community Gardens clients reported learning more about the environment paying more attention to nature, and caring more about the environment than their nongardening counterparts. See Tables 5.6 and 5.7.

During qualitative interviews, gardeners and program stakeholders expressed appreciation for the natural surroundings of the gardens. in the following examples, three Milwaukee clients discuss their fascination with the wildlife on the County grounds, and a Waukesha youth teacher talks about her students' new found interest in bugs and thistles.

Child showing the worm he found in the garden

Summary
Evaluation findings demonstrated that the Community Gardens program was valued by clients for more than just the material deliverables gained from activities. Many gardeners ascribed their own meanings to the program. Some clients strongly appreciated the way the program empowered them to pass on horticultural heritages, many cited the actual "fun" involved in gardening, and others valued the opportunity to spend time in natural surroundings.

Children harvesting vegetables from their neighborhood garden to take home.

Chapter Six: Social and Psychological Benefits

This chapter will summarize findings on the social and psychosocial benefits that clients derive from Community Gardens. The three categories of social and psychological value that emerged from the data are: (1) gardening as a strategy in building communities, (2) gardening as a way to promote social justice, and (3) gardening as a strategy for building personal character Literature also supports gardening as a way to build community. Relf (1992) reviews research that demonstrates ways that greening activities enhance positive images for neighborhoods and create opportunities for people to work together Lewis (1991) shows how community gardens foster a sense of neighborliness among residents.

Social anal p

Gardening as a strategy in building communities

During interviews, Community Gardens clients and other stakeholders often discussed the ways that the program had helped build local communities. Member's of the evaluation team asked interviewees general questions about forging new fellowships and improving local neighborhoods through Community Gardens activities. The findings were mixed on whether the program helped people gain new friendships. When asked in the survey whether they had "made more friends than usual" or "learned more about different cultures" during the past four months, gardeners were slightly more likely to agree with the statements than members of the comparison groups (see Table 6.1), but the results were not significant The means for the client responses fell between "not sure (2)" and "agree 0." However, when we asked clients their reasons for participating in Community Gardens,

51 percent selected the option, "get to meet other people in the gardens," and 61 percent of this group gave the program the highest rating of 10.

In order to understand more about the program's role in forging fellowship, we looked at the qualitative data. Here we see that clients and stakeholders had different experiences gardening with their neighbors. in the quotations below, stakeholders from the Kenosha Youth garden. Milwaukee rental garden, and Milwaukee start-up garden comment on the positive fellowship-building forged bV public gardening.

on the other hand, problems can develop when gardeners share common grounds. Two program staff and a Milwaukee rental gardener discuss the varying standards and motivations clients have concerning gardening, and complaints they hear about clients who lack respect for others' property.

On the issue of improving local neighborhoods, the findings were considerably less ambiguous. During interviews, gardeners and stakeholders described how some gardening areas had become focal points in their neighborhoods. As focal points or "hubs," they often drew the support of local groups-both informal and formal. in the following quotations, stakeholders from the Kenosha youth and Pantry gardens, and the Waukesha Youth garden comment on the community-building function of these neighborhood hubs.

By participating in and supporting these local hubs, gardeners may have felt they Played roles in bettering their neighborhoods. When asked if they had ,made some improvements in (the] neighborhood" during the high gardening months, Community Gardens clients concurred significantly more often than comparison group participants. See Table 5.2.

Children watering plants together in their Community Garden.

But perhaps equally important in improving neighborhoods were the efforts of program stakeholders and gardeners to alleviate community hunger.

Gardening to promote social justice

When members of the evaluation team asked Community Garden clients if they had reasons for participating in the program that were "other" than the reasons listed in the instrument a full 27 percent said they participated "to give away food" (see Table 5.1 in previous chapter). Nearly all the volunteers in the Field of Dreams (Kenosha pantry) effort offered this reason. When asked to assess local hunger issues, all 12 Field of Dreams gardeners said they believed hunger was a problem in Kenosha, and nearly half said they knew someone personally who was suffering from hunger Of those volunteers who maintained their own gardens, nearly three-quarters said they had donated vegetables to the hungry in the past, and the same number said they expected to donate in the future. See Table 6.3.

During the qualitative interviews, Field Of Dreams stakeholders discussed the value of this effort In the following quotations, gardeners and staff talk about the way this project has mobilized groups for social justice and at the same time enhanced community spirit.

In the next set of examples, program stakeholders directly involved with the food pantries discuss the value of the vegetable donations from the Field of Dreams garden.

But using the gardens for altruistic purposes was not limited to stakeholders from the Kenosha pantry garden. During interviews, many other gardeners described how they regularly donated food to their churches or shared with others. The quantitative data bears this out When all evaluation participants were asked if they had "shared food with my friends or neighbors on a regular basis" during the past four months, Community Gardens clients were significantly more likely to concur See Table 6.4.

Moreover, when we gave the rental gardeners a list of potential resources and asked them to choose the ones they would actually use (if offered), clients were much more likely to select "food-sharing activities" than any other possibility (61 percent selected this option). In addition, when asked if they would like to leave extra food in a distribution box or give food directly to a food pantry, 62 percent of the gardeners replied "yes." See Table 6.5.

Vegetables from the Field of Dreams being loaded and delivered to local food pantries.

Much of the Community Gardens' social value that program stakeholders describe also had residual effects on the participants' sense of self-worth. This will be discussed in the next section.

Gardening as a strategy for building personal character

Many of the gardeners we interviewed described how their efforts had given them a sense of personal value and introspection. In the following examples, clients from the Milwaukee and Waukesha rental gardens discuss their feelings. A gardener and a staff member from the Milwaukee rental gardens (county grounds) describe how this sense of self-worth is embedded in a larger social context

Boy Scout harvesting beans for the poor in Field of Dreams

other clients comment on the way that gardening helps to relieve stress. in the following examples, participants from the Milwaukee rental and Kenosha pantry gardens discuss the therapeutic value of the program.

Evaluation findings also suggested that the youth may have been gaining self-esteem from the gardening experience. When we asked the youth if they thought they were "doing a good job in the gardens," 92 percent said "yes." Other youth garden stakeholders discussed the ways the program has increased the children's sense of self-worth. in the following examples, a parent of a Kenosha client a Kenosha teacher, and a parent of a Waukesha client talk about the pride that many of the children have expressed in their gardening.

Summary
Evaluation findings demonstrated that the Community Gardens program was valued by clients for more than just the material deliverables and meanings gained from activities. Many gardeners found social and psychosocial benefits through participation in the program. Some clients described how the gardens had become social hubs in their neighborhoods, drawing the support of formal and informal groups. other clients discussed the ways they used gardening to promote social justice-particularly by donating food to help alleviate hunger And some clients described how these activities had given them a sense of self-sufficiency and personal value. While the past several chapters have highlighted the strengths of the Community Gardens program, evaluation data also suggested some challenges. Chapter Seven will summarize these findings.

Chapter Seven: Future Challenges

This chapter will present findings on program challenges. The two categories of challenges that emerged from the data are (1) retaining necessary land sites for gardening; and (2) developing broad-based management for gardens. For a brief inventory of challenges faced by specific gardens, see Appendix A

Retaining land sites for gardening

As outlined in Chapter one, many gardens we evaluated experienced a recent problem with land tenure. The program neither owns land, nor receives formal protection for its program sites through any form of public policy. unlike policy makers in other areas, Wisconsin legislators have never proposed or passed any laws that permanently set aside land for urban gardens. And program administrators do not have the budgets to purchase and maintain year-around the large tracts of land required for over 2000 garden plots. The Community Gardens program is left depending on temporary land donations by private, public, and commercial owners. While some programs have received consistent public support and have a pool of land donors to call upon when in need (such as many in Kenosha), others have limited options and are about to lose critical parcels of land.

several examples have been highlighted in this report in Oak Creek (Milwaukee County), the Mitchell garden was forced off its location when business interests expressed a desire to build a little league field on the site-a project that never materialized. The Mitchell garden eventually found another site, but one less desirable in terms of soil quality and location. In Waukesha, county officials are currently debating various development proposals for the land that houses the Waukesha rental and youth gardens. Despite years of campaigning to secure that (very desirable) site, the gardens may have to look for other lands. This problem is further exacerbated by current lack of a horticultural agent to deal with the political issues. But these examples pale when compared to the challenge that faces the Milwaukee county grounds gardens. The county grounds area had been one of the most stable land sites of the program-a site which encompasses 1003 garden plots. After 25 years on these grounds, the Milwaukee County Executive has proposed selling this land to commercial interests. The proposal now faces resistance from a nearby suburban group that did not want to lose their natural surroundings. The group, the Friends of Menomonee River, convinced the Board to hold a brief moratorium and set up an advisory panel to evaluate other options. While interviewing gardeners in Milwaukee, nearly every person we talked to conveyed concern about the loss of the land and the subsequent fate of the program. The following example from an interviewers field notes was typical of the reception we received while attempting to carry out the evaluation among Milwaukee clients.

During other interviews, stakeholders said they failed to understand why the media and the politicians seemed to gloss over the interests of the gardeners, who had occupied the area for so long. Newspaper articles never mentioned the gardeners (see below). In the quotations that follow,

interviewees discuss this issue and various dimensions of the problem.

Nearly every client we interviewed discussed their fear of losing the county grounds, but we found no evidence that the gardeners were organizing to stop the development Some stakeholders discussed a lack of collective action in other program contexts as well. This was particularly apparent when we asked stakeholders to discuss participatory management issues.

Developing collective management for the gardens

Members of all stakeholder groups we interviewed mentioned the need for broader participation in the day-to-day management of Community Gardens. First while gardeners roundly praised the help they received from program staff, some staff described how their Community Gardens responsibilities have escalated in recent years. A few program managers

Nearly every client we interviewed discussed their fear of losing the county grounds, but we found no evidence that the gardeners were organizing to stop the development Some stakeholders discussed a lack of collective action in other program contexts as well. This was particularly apparent when we asked stakeholders to discuss participatory management issues.

Developing collective management for the gardens

Members of all stakeholder groups we interviewed mentioned the need for broader participation in the day-to-day management of Community Gardens. First while gardeners roundly praised the help they received from program staff, some staff described how their Community Gardens responsibilities have escalated in recent years. A few program managers

discussed countless hours they spend locating and developing new garden lands, and having to nurture relationships with the political and economic forces that donate these lands. Some staff also described the effort they expend developing the collaborations necessary to carry out the objectives of specific programs, such as the pantry and youth gardens. Beyond this these staff still tried to keep up with the day-to-day work of teaching gardening skills, organizing program activities, and maintaining the gardens. The latter task seemed to be taking up more time than necessary (although this did not emerge as an issue in all counties). A few staff members expressed concerns that they were hired as horticulturalists and horticultural educators, but ended up spending a disproportionate amount of time picking up trash, settling disputes among gardeners, and cleaning weeds-this on top of their added roles in the political arenas. Some also said that efforts to recruit volunteer's for garden maintenance have been relatively unsuccessful. As a response to these concerns, the evaluation team asked rental gardeners what contributions they would be willing to make to the day-to-day management of the gardens. Of the tasks we listed, over three-quarters of the clients said they would be willing to till their own plots (if they could start gardening anytime they wanted). Nearly two-thirds said they would pick up the trash, and nearly half said they would fill the water barrels, cut the grass, open and close gates, or clean weeds from alley ways. See Table 7.1.

The above findings were inconsistent with some staff reports that they could not recruit volunteers for garden maintenance. A reason for the disparity might be that the survey respondents overstated their willingness to help with the tasks, or the findings may mean that a sizeable proportion of the gardeners would assume maintenance responsibilities, if these tasks simply became part of the program expectations. Our findings suggested a second issue relating to more participatory management A number of interviewees recommended that Community Gardens try to involve a wider range of players in the work of food production-particularly those individuals that received indirect benefits from the program. Some Field Of Dreams stakeholders hoped that pantry clients would become more active in growing and distributing food, and some youth garden stakeholders (including parents) hoped to find a role for the mothers and fathers of youth clients in the program. See the examples below.

During qualitative interviews, we asked the parents of youth gardeners if they wanted to become more active in the program. Although we only interviewed four parents, all said they would like to be more involved. (Unfortunately we collected no data on the food pantry clients. Most of the findings do suggest that a broader base of participation in Community Gardens can be developed, and that their contributions may free up some staff time to deal with issues in the external environment

Summary
Evaluation findings indicated two categories of future challenges for Community Gardens. First the project neither owns any land, nor receives protection for its program sites through any form of public policy, in the near future, Community Gardens may lose several gardening areas that are slated for development-most notably the Milwaukee county grounds that currently houses 1003 garden plots. Nearly every gardener we interviewed in Milwaukee expressed concerns about losing this site. Second, members of all stakeholder groups we interviewed said the program needed to involve gardeners and other stakeholders in the day-to-day management of the gardens. Findings indicated that staff may be overburdened with the number of roles they play-particularly their collaborative and negotiating efforts with external organizations-and could use help with garden maintenance tasks. Findings also suggested that those groups who received indirect benefits of the program should be encouraged to become active in some facet of the program.

Child harvesting a cucumber that he grew In his local youth garden.

A scarecrow decorates this rental garden and keeps birds away too.

Chapter Eight: Summary and Recommendations

This chapter will summarize the evaluation design and findings, and present recommendations to improve program viability.

Evaluation summary
Associates conducted an evaluation of Community Gardens-a program administered by the University of Wisconsin's Cooperative Extension. Community Gardens sponsors programs in Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Kenosha Counties. The gardening sites sampled for this evaluation include (1) four rental gardens (Milwaukee county grounds, Milwaukee Mitchell gardens [a "start-up" effort], Waukesha Northview site, and Kenosha Northside garden); (2) two youth gardens Waukesha La Casa/Extension collaborative, and Kenosha Lincoln/Extension collaborative); and (3) one garden that serves the needs of food pantry clientele (Kenosha Field of Dreams).

Evaluation Design The Community Gardens' evaluation design included a qualitative and a quantitative component. The qualitative component included document reviews of annual reports and program promotional materials, participant observation at each of the seven garden sites targeted for evaluation, and 47 semi-structured interviews with program stakeholders (including gardeners, staff, volunteers, horticultural educators, collaborators, and parents of youth gardeners).

The quantitative component included a posttest survey with 123 randomly selected gardeners and 123 matched comparison group participants. Because the evaluation team was contracted after the gardening season was already in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasi experimental design-both which require pretests of intervention and comparison group participants before program activities begin. With limited options, we developed a posttest only design with program and non equivalent comparison groups. We selected the comparison groups and individuals within these groups based on the salient processes and traits we found among program clients, while completing our qualitative research. However, the posttest-only model has a built-in weakness. Without pretests, the intervention and comparison groups could have been different in relevant ways from the start, thus variations noted in posttests may simply reflect initial differences in groups rather than effects of the program. This problem may be less pronounced in the Community Gardens evaluation because gardeners did not enter the program with a clear pattern of need. Regardless, we strengthened the overall design bV including multiple methods, multiple samples, multiple data sources with triangulation, multiple measures, and multiple analyses in the overall evaluation plan. Key Evaluation Findings Evaluation results were very positive for Community Gardens. When asked to rate the personal importance of the program on a scale of 1 to 10, clients gave it a mean rating of nearly 9 (8.62 overall, and 8.98 for adult gardeners). Material deliverables. Findings demonstrated that the program was valued by clients for the material deliverables gained from activities. Gardeners consumed significantly more vitamin-rich vegetables than their comparison counterparts, ate a more balanced diet, and expended significantly more calories in exercise than members of the comparison groups. Program clients also reported saving money on food because of their participation in Community Gardens. The economic benefits were expressed most often by Hmong gardeners at the Milwaukee county grounds and stakeholders from the Kenosha pantry garden.

Meanings ascribed to program. Evaluation findings demonstrated that Community Gardens was valued by clients for more than just the material deliverables. Many gardeners appreciated the way the program empowered them to pass on horticultural heritages. Adult gardeners who answered, "keep my cultural traditions," as a reason for participating in the program were more likely to give Community Gardens a 10 rating in personal importance than any other group. Other gardeners cited the actual "fun', involved in gardening (the top reason given for participating in the program, overall). Others said they valued the opportunity to spend time in natural surroundings. Adult and youth clients reported significantly more attention to the environment during the high cultivation months than the comparison participants. Social and psychosocial benefits. many gardeners derived social and psychosocial benefits from program activities. Some clients described how the gardens had become social hubs in their neighborhoods, drawing the support of formal and informal groups. When asked if they had "made some improvements in [the] neighborhood" during the previous four months, Community Gardens clients concurred significantly more often than their comparison counterparts. other clients discussed the ways they had used gardening to promote social justice-particularly by donating food to help alleviate hunger Gardeners reported sharing food with others during the previous four months significantly more often than members of the comparison groups. Moreover, some clients described how these specific activities had given them a sense of self-sufficiency and personal value. Future challenges. Findings suggested two categories of future challenges for Community Gardens. First, the project neither owns any land, nor receives protection for its program sites through any form of public policy. in the near future, Community Gardens may lose several gardening areas that are slated for development-most notably the Milwaukee county grounds that currently houses 4003 garden plots. Second, members of all stakeholder groups we interviewed said the program needed to involve gardeners and other non-staff stakeholders in the daily management of the gardens. Findings indicated that staff may be overburdened with the number of roles they play, and could use help with garden maintenance tasks. Findings also suggested that those groups who received indirect benefits of the program should be encouraged to become active in some facet of the program. (A brief summary of challenges facing specific gardens appears in Appendix A)

Recommendations
Because of the strength of this program assessment the evaluation team is making only one comprehensive recommendation for the general Community Gardens project This team recommends that program staff initiate a community organizing effort among gardeners to address the major challenges facing the program. Goals Depending upon the needs of specific programs and areas, a community organizing effort could involve any of the following strategies: (1) organizing clients to advocate for their land parcels, (2) organizing clients to assist in the day-to-day management of the gardens, and (3) organizing clients to involve new stakeholders. 1. Organizing clients to advocate for their land parcels. in the Milwaukee programs (and perhaps Waukesha), loss of access to public lands is tantamount to loss of program funds-but the voices of the gardeners have been silent Newspaper articles that describe proposals to develop specific land sites do not even include the gardeners in their lists of groups that make use of the sites. In social programs, staff typically organize clients when funds are threatened. Clients may then choose to hold peaceful demonstrations, give testimony on the importance of services, write letters to policy-makers, give their stories to the media, or join advocacy committees. With proper counseling, client groups can advocate for their interests without risking the necessary political and collaborative relationships that program managers must maintain with the external environment, or risk violating any anti-lobbying rules of the University. In addition to advocating for their current land parcels, clients might consider forming committees to seek new garden sites. For example, clients could form collaboratives with schools and churches that have available land parcels on their grounds. A Community Gardens program might meet all groups' collective goals of promoting fellowship, education, social justice, and cooperative activity.

2. organizing clients to assist In the day-to-day management of the gardens. Program managers need to nurture collaborative relationships to keep the programs viable. Program teachers need to instruct clients on horticultural techniques. Both groups currently spend a great deal of their time responding to individual client complaints, and maintaining the gardens (weeding alley ways, opening and closing gates, etc.). To compound the problem, some of these programs are seriously understaffed. in their survey responses, rental gardeners indicated a willingness to perform specific tasks, such as tilling their own plots and picking up trash. we recommend that staff invite gardeners to an assembly, show them the survey results, ask for their further input then collectively map out a plan where clients are empowered to play stronger roles in daily garden management 3. Organizing clients to Involve new stakeholders. Many clients, collaborators, and volunteers asked why certain categories of stakeholders were not active in the program. In particular, interviewees mentioned clients of the food pantries and parents of the low-income youth gardeners. Clearly working people at the poverty line have little time for extra activities, particularly if they also are parents. Nevertheless, a collective effort to invite the participation and input of these groups would be desirable. in the process, clients may be able to identify other potential collaborators.

Strategies We recommend that program personnel consider planning a series of retreats during the 1998 off-season to address these topics. Because of the political sensitivity of advocacy work, staff might consider contracting with an outside consulting firm with experience in community organizing12. These consultants have knowledge of strategies aimed more at building consensus than spurring conflict The evaluation team recognizes that some of the above-listed activities have already been tried at specific sites, with little success. However, Community Gardens currently has a natural organizing "peg," which is the potential loss

12

In Milwaukee, the Non Profit Center's School for Leaders provides this service, as does the private consultant, Roberta Harris.

of the lands that house three-quarters of the program's gardening plots. By focusing all issues on program sustainability, these clients (that gave the program a personal importance rating of nearly 9 on a 10 point scale) will understand where their vested interests lie.

Bibliography
Ashman, L (1993). Seeds of change: Strategies for food security in the inner city, American Community Gardening Association, Multilogue Newsletter 12(3):1. Barlett, PF (1993). American Dreams, Rural Realities: Family Farms in Crisis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Blair, D. (1991). A dietary social and economic evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project Journal Of Nutrition Education 23(4): 161-167. Clark, LP (1976). Designs for Evaluating Social Programs. New York: Policy Studies Associates. Cook, T.D. (1985) Postpositivist critical multiplism. In R.L. Shotland and M.M. Mark (eds.) Social Science and Social Policy. Beverly Hills: Sage. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally Fetterman, D.M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice 15(l):1-15. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, YS. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage. Holly, L (1997). County told to decide duty to fair before improving center Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. December 9. Lewis, C.A. (1991). Effects of plants and gardening in creating interpersonal and community well-being. in D. Reif (ed.) The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Portland: Timer Press. MadaUS, G.F; Scriven, M.S. and Stufflebeam, D.L. (1983). Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Boston: Kluwer=Nijhoff. McInnis, K.M.; Petracchl, H.E.; and Morgenbesser, M. (1990). The Hmong in America: Providing Ethnic-Sensitive Health, Education, and Human Services. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Patel, I.C. (1991). Socioeconomic impact of community gardening in an urban setting. in D. Reif (ed.) The Role Of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium Portland: Timber Press; PP. 84-87.

Peck, DA (1997) Group to write grounds report Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [DENNIS: date?] Posovac, E.J. and Carey, R.G. (1989) Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. Beverly Hills: Sage. Rossi, PH. and Freeman, H.E. (1982). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (Second Edition) Beverly Hills: Sage. Reif, D. (1992) Human issues in horticulture. HortTechnology 20:159-171. Royse, D. (1991). Research Methods in Social Work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Rutman, L and Mowbray, L (1983). Understanding Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage. Schuerman, J.R. (1983). Research and Evaluation in the Human Services. New York: Free Press (Macmillan). Taylor, M.K. (1990). The healthy gardener Flower & Garden. March/April: pp. 46-47 Trueba, H.T.; Jacobs, L and Kirton, E.11990). Cultural Conflict and Adaptation: The Case of Hmong Children in American Society, New York: The Falmer Press.

APPENDIX A PROGRAM PROCESS AND MANAGEMENT TABLES

The following pages will present tables on specific topics and specific garden sites that may be of interest to program staff and collaborators. The tables are self-explanatory.

Program tables: Issues affecting all gardening clients

Program Tables: Issues Affecting All Rental Gardeners Only

Challenges affecting specific gardens--qualitative findings

(Based on stakeholder responses on specific programs, when asked: "What are some of

the weaknesses of the Community Gardens program?") Milwaukee rental gardens: county grounds need to secure lands need improved access to water desire improved patrols near roads (problem with theft and vandalism) Milwaukee start-up garden: Mitchell plots flooding from creek prefer site with fewer wild animals Waukesha rental: Northvlew site need permanent staffing desire more information from bulletin board Waukesha youth: La Casa collaborative believe ratio of youth to leaders is too high need better yellow bus transportation to gardens prefer permanent staffing Kenosha rental: Northside gardens [no findings] Kenosha youth: Lincoln collaborative prefer season-long program need more planting to increase yield prefer parental involvement Kenosha pantry: Field of Dreams need more volunteers-especially among pantry clients desire classes on food storage and recipes (for pantries) need more communication between pantries and program staff (on when food will arrive/how much food will be available)

APPENDIX B ORIGINAL INTERVENTION AND COMPARISON GROUP FINDINGS: EXERCISE ACTIVITIES