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

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.

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.