# Brief: Local food and farmers markets Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22. ## Measures funders require ### Agricultural Marketing Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture), Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP) 15 of 140 measures shown. #### Develop Business Plans and Feasibility Studies - Code: Outcome 1 - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Number of feasibility studies conducted - Code: No. 1.1 - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Number of the following identified through needs assessment or feasibility studies: - Code: No. 1.2 - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### New markets - Code: No. 1.2a - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Unmet consumer needs - Code: No. 1.2b - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Barriers to local foods - Code: No. 1.2c - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Unserved populations - Code: No. 1.2d - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Supply chain gaps - Code: No. 1.2e - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Partnership opportunities - Code: No. 1.2f - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Other identified needs - Code: No. 1.2g - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Number of projects: - Code: No. 1.3 - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Deemed viable after conducting feasibility study, or - Code: No. 1.3a - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Deemed not viable after conducting feasibility study - Code: No. 1.3b - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Number of business development plans created - Code: No. 1.4 - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf #### Facilitate Regional Food Chain Coordination and Increase Capacity of Direct-to-Consumer Entities - Code: Outcome 2 - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: USDA AMS performance measures, PDF p. 1, https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FMLFPPPerformanceMeasures.pdf ## What you can collect, and how Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier. ### Tier 1: Collect today from your own records #### Number of feasibility studies conducted - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. #### Number of the following identified through needs assessment or feasibility studies: - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. #### Number of projects: - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. #### Number of business development plans created - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. ### Tier not determined #### Develop Business Plans and Feasibility Studies #### New markets #### Unmet consumer needs #### Barriers to local foods #### Unserved populations #### Supply chain gaps #### Partnership opportunities #### Other identified needs #### Deemed viable after conducting feasibility study, or #### Deemed not viable after conducting feasibility study #### Facilitate Regional Food Chain Coordination and Increase Capacity of Direct-to-Consumer Entities ## What grantees achieved 1 grantee of Specialty Crop Block Grant Program: California Food for California Kids: Promoting California Grown Fruits and Vegetables in Summer Meals reported 2 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 505% of target (middle half 488% to 523%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: California CDFA Specialty Crop Block Grant final performance reports, https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Specialty_Crop_Competitiveness_Grants/pdfs/CA_SCBG_2016FinalReport.pdf. - Center for Ecoliteracy (SCBGP 2016 agreement SCB16010): Sales increased from 2016 baseline to 110 percent and by 10 percent as result of marketing and/or promotion activities. The following fruits and vegetables were tracked by lead school districts in each region: avocado, carrot, cucumber, grape, melon, peach, squash, strawberry, and tomato. (Natomas USD); promised 10%, actual 47% (470% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Specialty_Crop_Competitiveness_Grants/pdfs/CA_SCBG_2016FinalReport.pdf 1 grantee of Specialty Crop Block Grant Program: Growing Healthier Lakota Youth by Increasing Natural Food Knowledge & Consumption reported 2 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 143% of target (middle half 91% to 194%), and 50% met or exceeded the target. Source: South Dakota DANR Specialty Crop Block Grant final performance reports, https://danr.sd.gov/Conservation/SpecialtyCropBlockGrant/docs/2019/Cheyenne%20River%20Youth%20Project%202019%20SCBG%20Final%20Report%20for%20website.pdf. - Cheyenne River Youth Project (9/30/2019 to 9/29/2022): 40 teens will complete Food Sovereignty internships.; promised 40, actual 98 (245% of target); unit: count. Source: https://danr.sd.gov/Conservation/SpecialtyCropBlockGrant/docs/2019/Cheyenne%20River%20Youth%20Project%202019%20SCBG%20Final%20Report%20for%20website.pdf Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Senior and Woman, Infants, and Children Farmers' Market Programs reported 7 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 105% of target (middle half 97% to 105%), and 57% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Senior and Woman, Infants, and Children Farmers' Market Programs (2005): Number of outlets (farmers' markets and farm stands) authorized to accept FMNP benefits; promised 4,500, actual 4,714 (105% of target); unit: count. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003025.2006.html ## Target-setting language with precedent Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule. Showing clauses from USDA. - USDA FAS Food for Progress FY2025, applicant Q&A, questions 72-73 (2025): Paraphrase: Yearly targets may be written as percentage-point change when the baseline value is not known. — https://apply07.grants.gov/grantsws/rest/opportunity/att/download/348844 ## What reviewers penalize These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment. - [ ] Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29 - [ ] Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6 - [ ] Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5 - [ ] Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14 - [ ] Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10 - [ ] Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19 - [ ] Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24 ## Protocol skeleton ### Draft text, edit before use Measures: Develop Business Plans and Feasibility Studies; Number of feasibility studies conducted; Number of the following identified through needs assessment or feasibility studies:; New markets; Unmet consumer needs; Barriers to local foods; Unserved populations; Supply chain gaps; Partnership opportunities; Other identified needs; Number of projects:; Deemed viable after conducting feasibility study, or; and 3 more listed above. Baseline: \_\_\_\_ months from award, using FMLFPP Outcomes and Indicators. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month \_\_\_\_, or committed now as a change of \_\_\_\_ percentage points from baseline (see the USDA FAS precedent above). Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): \_\_\_\_ Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): \_\_\_\_ Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: \_\_\_\_ Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): \_\_\_\_ Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: \_\_\_\_ Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): \_\_\_\_ Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): \_\_\_\_ Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): \_\_\_\_ Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): \_\_\_\_ Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): \_\_\_\_ The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.