Evaluation of Community Gardens: University of Wisconsin

8/3/2019 Evaluation of Community Gardens: University of Wisconsin

1/98

Evaluat ion of

Com m uni t y Gardens (A program of the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension)

Report produced by

J i l l F lorence Lackey & Assoc ia tes

February 1998


2/98

Principal investigator

Jill Florence Lackey, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Jill Florence Lackey and Associates would like to acknowledge thecontributions 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 forassisting in the development of evaluation instruments, facilitatinginterviews and/or reviewing this document: Stan Binnie, HorticultureAgent for Waukesha County UW-Extension; Margaret Ernst, HorticultureEducator for Waukesha County UW-Extension; Thomas Kalb,Horticulture Agent for Kenosha County UW-Extension; DennisLukaszewski, Urban Agriculture Coordinator for Milwaukee County UW-Extension; Greg Matysik, Professor of Youth Development, UW-Extension; and Sharon Morrisey, Horticulture Agent for MilwaukeeCounty UW-Extension.

The author also wishes to thank the UW Extension for supplying many ofthe photographs that appear in this report Faculty and other personnel

from the Kenosha County office received permission from clients (andparents 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 & YouthIssues Team, and UW-Extension county offices in Kenosha, Milwaukeeand Waukesha.

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


3/98

Table o f Content s

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 findingsChapter 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 justiceGardening 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


4/98

Lis t o f Tab les

Table 2.1. Interviewee characteristics.

Table 2.2. Posttest participants.

Table 3.1. Ratings given by Community Gardens clients on

the personal importance of the program.

Table 4.1. Self-reports of 1/2 cup helpings of vegetables

eaten during past 24 hours.Table 4.2. Reported eating habits during past four months.Table 4.3. Organic Choices of rental gardeners.

Table 4.4. Hours spent exercising in last week.

Table 4.5. Calories expended in last week's exercise.

Table 4.6. Reasons selected for participating in the

Community Gardens program.

Table 4.7. Estimated dollars saved on food by growing

vegetables through the program.

Table 5.1. Reasons given to participate in program.

Table 5.2. Reasons given to participate compared with

program rating: Adult clients.

Table 5.3. Reasons given to participate compared with

program rating: Youth clients.

Table 5.4. Reasons given for participation in program.

Table 5.5. Youth and gardening practice.

Table 5.6. Reported changes in valuing nature during past

four months: Adult participants.

Table 5.7. Reported changes in valuing nature during past

four months: Youth participants.

Table 6.1. Changes in forging fellowship during the past

four months.

Table 6.2. Reported work in improving local neighborhoods

in past four months.

Table 6.3. Volunteering for the hungry.

Table 6.4. Reported food-sharing during past four months.

Table 6.6. Resource choice of Community Gardens clients.

Table 7.1 Tasks that clients said they would be willing

to do.


5/98

Chapter One:In t roduc t ion to Comm uni ty Gardens

During 1997, the research consultant firm of Jill Florence Lackey andAssociates conducted an evaluation of Community Gardens-a programadministered by the University of Wisconsin's Cooperative Extension. Thischapter will introduce the program and the specific gardens evaluated bythis research team.

The Com m uni t y 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 wareffort and to supplement food production at home during a time when

much of the agricultural labor force was overseas. The American CommunityGardening Association grew out of the victory garden movement and hasbeen a voice and consolidating force for urban horticulture ever since.

The University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension founded the firstWisconsin community garden 25 years ago on the Milwaukee "countygrounds"-a site that today hosts 1003 rental plots. Within two decades theprogram expanded throughout Milwaukee County. Additional programswere initiated in nearby Waukesha and Kenosha Counties. Today, CommunityGardens sponsors three types of programs: (1) rental gardens, (2) youthgardens, and (3) gardens designed to serve the clientele of local foodpantries. The gardens within these categories are diverse enough to meetthe 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, telephonehotlines, and various media (e.g., videos, written materials, and television andradio programs).


6/98

Because of the unwieldy number of Community Gardens, the evaluationteam and program stakeholders selected a sample of garden sites forevaluation. 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 newlydeveloping garden to the sample. The staff thought it was important for theevaluation team to understand the processes and challenges involved instarting up a gardening program.

The following section summarizes the garden sites that were eventuallyselected for the evaluation. in addition to describing the general locationand resources of each garden, we have added information on the particularpolitical constraints and opportunities involved in each program'sdevelopment No assessment of the Community Gardens program would becomplete without a description of the land tenure issues this project hasfaced-and continues to face-throughout its history.

Gardens se lec t ed for eva luat ionThe final list of gardens in the evaluation sample included four rentalgardening sites (with one start-up garden), two youth gardening sites, andone pantry gardening site.

Rental Gardens

Community Gardens rental programs lease plots to local residents andgroups, often in collaboration with community-based organizations. Somegardening sites are located in urban neighborhoods and others are in moreoutlying areas. The 1997 rental rates and plot sizes vary by county, but rangefrom $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, andrespect their neighbors' boundaries. In return, Community Gardens rototillsthe plots each year, provides tools and compost and offers horticulturalinformation in various forms.


7/98

Milwaukee rental garden: county grounds.

The 25-year old county grounds site accommodates 1003 garden plots forover 350 families. According to program documents, 60 percent of thesefamilies are low income, and just over half live in apartments or flats.Nearly one-third of the clientele served at this location are Hmongswho immigrated to the United States within the past two decades.

Most of the Hmong immigrants practiced slash-and-burnhorticulture 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 mastergardeners teach advanced horticultural techniques. The area is accessible by

roads and bus, and most of the gardens are set far enough back from themain highways to avoid vandalism. The program collaborates withAmericorps, whose volunteers help rototill the land, participate in gardenmaintenance, and facilitate some community involvement

The county grounds are located in an undeveloped area just north of theMilwaukee County Medical Complex. The University Cooperative Extensionhas always used the land from Milwaukee County. In the past two years, theMilwaukee County Executive made budget proposals to sell a major portion ofthe county grounds for commercial development. This action would probablylead to the eviction of the gardening program. A nearby suburban groupunrelated to Community Gardens organized against the sale of the

Rental garden at county grounds,Milwaukee County.


8/98

land, arguing that members did not want to lose their natural surroundings.The group won a brief moratorium on the development decision and theCounty Board agreed to set up an advisory panel to investigate the issue.In the meantime, the gardeners-some who have been in the program forover 20 Vears-were left uncertain about their future. one programstakeholder 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 theCity of Milwaukee. The site currently has 135 plots, serving approximately 65families. Program records indicate that nearly all of the families renting thegardens are middle to upper-middle class European Americans. Most are alsohome-owners, although the program is now attempting to draw a clientele fromretirement villages and apartment complexes.

Boy working in his family'srental garden.


9/98

The Mitchell site offers the core resources for rental programs-tools,compost, rototilling, and horticultural education. Newly opened in thespring of 1997, the area presented a number of environmental challenges.First the soil quality was lower than expected. Second, gardeners hadproblems with the wild animal population In the area. And third, the nearbycreek 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 twoyears ago. For 25 years, the gardens were located at Whitnall and BrustAvenues, and were comprised of over 400 plots managed by 220 families. Inaddition to serving European American clients, these gardens attractedHmong and Latino families. In 1997 a local group, comprised of area residentsand political and business leaders, requested the removal of the gardens. Acorporate neighbor maintained that a little league park would be a moreappropriate choice for the site, and committed to help build it in an effortto find a new location for the gardens, program staff contacted a nearbyvillage, offering to develop gardens in their industrial park. Village officialsimmediately rejected the offer, claiming that the gardens would not lookgood in an industrial park.

Community Gardens staff were eventually able to negotiate a new land site inOak Creek, although the area was less desirable than the previous one.Many of the clients and collaborators from the original site returned to theprogram-some a bit disenchanted. The largest loss of gardeners was theHmong and Latino families. The original site of the Mitchell gardens now liesvacant, and discussions of the little league park apparently never resumed.Below, a stakeholder summarizes the experience.


10/98

Waukesha rental gardens: Northview grounds.

The Waukesha County program has two rental gardening sites-one quartered in a low-incomehousing project, and a second open-access site located on county-ownedgrounds next to the Huber work-release jail. Because the latter site offeredopen access to any residents, it was considered a more appropriateevaluation choice.

The Northview gardens are comprised of 63 rental plots gardened by 50 families. Most of thefamilies are European Americans from the working- or middle-classes. The site offers coreresources for rental gardens and has good access to water in addition, it is situated near a road anda bus stop, but is set back far enough from the traffic flow to hinder vandalism and theft

Rental garden at Northviewgrounds, Waukesha County.


11/98

That decision was made four years ago, but today the County Board isrevisiting the Northview grounds issue. In December of 1997, WaukeshaCounty announced that it planned to study the use of the Northviewgrounds and consider economic development of the area. The County ParksManager and the County Board are expected to consider a wide range ofalternative uses for the land by early 1998 (Milwaukee Joumal-Sentinel 1997)

1.

While the development issue emerged shortly after the data were collectedfor this evaluation, one Waukesha garden stakeholder did express concernsthat the program would always risk loss of its land, due to competingpolitical and economic interests. These comments appear below.

Kenosha rental gardens: Northside site.

Kenosha has two rental garden sites-- the Northside Community Gardens and acentral (downtown) site. The Northside gardens were selected for this evaluation

because they had more participants. The Northside site accommodates 45 lotsserving 28 families and community groups. most of the families are EuropeanAmericans and come from a working- or middle-class backgrounds.

Located next to the Northside Public Library, the Northside gardens aresituated on a six acre lot that is shared with one of the program's pantrygardens. The farmland site has good soil quality, and offers core rentalresources, 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 thesuccess of the existing Community Gardens program.


12/98

As with most Kenosha gardens, the Northside land was donated by a private

benefactor for temporary use. When gaining access to the propertM thelandowner informed staff that the Property could be developed in 1997.Despite the small risk, staff accepted the property because it was located inthe hub of the neighborhood and was surrounded by apartment dwellers-atargeted clientele 9MUP. The program staff sectioned off the land and placedthe rental gardeners in the area least likely to be developed, to minimize therisk of clients losing their lands,

Of all three counties, the Kenosha programs appear to have the mostcommunity backing from business and political sectors. The CountyExecutive, many county supervisors, city officials, several corporations, and ahost of community-based organizations have expressed public support forCommunity Gardens and collaborate with them on various projects. Thissupport has often left the program with land options, and program staff candraw upon an inventory of potential benefactors when any site is lost One

Family watering tomatoes intheir rental garden: KenoshaCounty.


13/98

Yout h Gardens

All three counties host youth gardening programs, most often incollaboration with local community and daycare centers. Like the rentalgardens, these sites can be located in urban neighborhoods or in moreoutlying areas. Unlike the rental gardeners, youth participants do not usuallygarden for a full season. The youth programs range in length from 4 to 18weeks, although the children can choose to continue garden ing-pa rticularIVif the garden is located in their own neighborhood. In addition to the actualexperience of gardening, programming may include nutrition classes,instruction in ecological topics, field trips, gardening games, stories, andcraft-making. Most of the clientele in all three counties are members ofethnic minorities and come from low income families. The gardens are often

designed to reflect this diversity, Some gardens are arranged according toethnic themes (e.g., salsa gardens, African Heritage, Native American gardens),and others are arranged according to rainbow color schemes.

Leaders of the African Heritagegarden, where youth grow vegetableswhich are historically important toAfrican and African-American

cultures.

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


14/98

Waukesha County youth prden: La Casa collaborative.

The Waukesha County/La Casa youth garden program is a collaborative effort between theUniversity Cooperative Extension and La Casa cle Esperanza, a Waukeshacommunity center During the summer of 1997, the program served anaverage of 20 children between the ages of 8 and 15-mostIV Latino and someEuropean American and African American.

The gardening program is integrated with La Casa's summer claycareprogram, which also offers the children field trips to educational sites,lessons in fishing, and hiking expeditions (among other resources). Activitiesat the gardens include Instruction on horticultural techniques and nutrition,salad-building, cultivating salsa plots (cilentro, tomatoes, peppers), keepinggardening journals (see example below), constructing scarecrows andcompost piles, mulching, looking for evidence of animals and bugs, storytelling, and gardening games

Children plantingpeppers togetherIn their garden.

The Waukesha/La Casa garden is located on the same site as the rentalgardens, which means that this open-access program is equally threatened bVloss 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.


15/98

Kenosha youth gardens: Lincoln collaborative.2

The Kenosha/Lincoln youth gardens are a collaborative effort between the University cooperativeExtension and Lincoln Neighborhood Community Center This project isKenosha's largest youth garden. (The Kenosha program also collaborates withthe Spanish Center, the Shalom Center, the Boys and Girls Club, and theChristian Youth Center on other youth gardens.) The gardens are located ontwo sites within a block of the Lincoln Center One of these sites has beendeveloped into an African Heritage garden featuring indigenous Africanvegetables. During the summer of 1997, the Kenosha/Lincoln gardens servedan average of 15 youth each class between the ages of 3 and 17-mostlyAfrican Americans.

Garden program activities include cultural heritage programming,horticultural and nutrition instruction, story-telling, gardening games, artsand crafts, and collaborates with a sponsorship program that provides theeducation and health care of a boy and girl in Africa. The children alsoparticipate in beautifying the gardens. They helped create colorful signs forthe outh ardens see below assist in arden maintenance and lanted

Kenosha/Lincoln youth garden.The signs Include colorfulhandprints of the youthparticipants.

2The evaluation team also included three youth from the Kenosha/SpanishCenter 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).


16/98

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 landto the collaborative. The staff have been successful in getting benefactors

this way in addition, both the city and county governments have invitedCommunity Gardens staff to make use of more of their properties.

Pant ry Gardens

Pantry gardens are projects designed to distribute fresh vegetables to the clients of soup kitchensand 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 ownvegetables. In Kenosha, needy and unneedy volunteers grow food in fields of two acres or more tostock 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, KevinCostner 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, andtrusted the volunteers to come. They did. In the two Vears since the garden opened, the project hasdrawn 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 lotadjacent to a Field of Dreams garden. Thesebeans were delivered to food pantries.


17/98

Program staff helped organize the massive project through a volunteer

hotline. Here volunteers could call in and leam when theV were needed atthe 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, theBusiness and Professional Women, and the Kenosha CountV governmentThe Field of Dreams gardens are currentIy situated on three sites-alltemporarilV donated by land owners. One of these gardens is on theNorthside lands that are slated for development (The project had previousIVlost a parcel of land in 1996.) However, the program staff in Kenosha feelconfident that their high profile in the community and the public expressionof support they have received will insure ongoing land donations to keep theprogram viable. In his State of the CountV address, the County ExecutiveJohn Collins, described why he felt the Field Of Dreams was a "best practices"candidate.


18/98

Summary

During 1997, the research consultant firm of Jill Florence Lackev andAssociates conducted an evaluation of CommunitV Gardens-a collaborative

program administered bv the county offices of the University of Wisconsin'sCooperative Extension. CommunitV Gardens sponsors programs inMilwaukee, Waukesha, and Kenosha Counties. The gardening sites sampledfor this evaluation include four rental gardens, two youth gardens, and onegarden designed to serve the clientele of local food pantries.The following chapter will summarize the research design and methods usedin this evaluation.

Volunteers working togetherIn the Field of Dreams togrow food for the poor.

Examples of cardsproduced by youth atMilwaukee youthgarden (Havenwood).


19/98

Chapt er Tw o: Eva luat ionDesign and Met hods

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

Overv iew of eva luat ion des ign

This evaluation relied on "critical multiplism" for the strength of its design.According to Cook (1985), an evaluation requires multiple realizations inresearch questions, data sources, methods, samples, measures, and analysesto establish the validity of the study. Key findings should reflect points ofconvergence among various data sources (triangulation), help attributeresults to program activities, and reduce alternative explanations. in thespirit of critical multiplism, we incorporated both qualitative and quantitativecomponents in the evaluation of Community Gardens.

Qualitative component

informed bV "fourth generation evaluation" (Guba and Lincoln, 1989), weincluded qualitative data collection procedures in our overall design. Theconstructivist approach of Guba and Lincoln looks beyond the positivist searchfor causal and universal relationships. According to these authors, anyobserved action is the result of a "large number of mutual, simultaneousshapers, each of which is constantly shaping, and being shaped bv, all othershapers (p.106)." Guba and Lincoln also assume that project problems andsolutions may have local applicability onlV, and may not apply to the overallprogram. This approach was particularly useful for Community Gardens,


20/98

because the evaluation team learned early that the gardeners were anythingbut a homogeneous group. Clients participated in the program for a varietyof reasons and experienced multiple outcomes based in part on their originalmotivations and their subsequent experiences. We also became aware thateach county and each garden had its own particular histories, which hadprofound 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 quantitativemodel, an instrument used to measure program effects isalmost never changed. The program may go through modifications, or the evaluators may discoverother indicators of program effects, but the measurements must remain consistent throughout thetesting periodisi, or risk threats to validity. For that reason, these models fail to locate unintendedoutcomes of programs (Koppelman, 1983). in contrast, qualitative measurement instruments areoften 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 toinventory potential program meanings and success inclicatom in the spring of 1997, members of theevaluation team began to meet with program staff to gather Preliminary information. Because of thelate 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 submitevaluation topics to the group. From these the evaluation team developed semistructured qualitativeprotocols.

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.


21/98

Participant observation.members of the evaluation team observed daily Chapter Tw program activities between 3 and20 times at each garden. Team members took notes and photographs during sessions, and alsoobserved 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 methodobservation that was possible. No evaluation team members attended staffmeetings, conferences, collaborator meetings, or political events thataffected the program. Moreover, the short period of time we spent doingthis evaluation (six months) limited the amount of program contextinformation we could collect As a result we relied heavily on second-hand

information (particularly from the interviews) for the historical andcollaborative dimensions of the program.

Interviews. Members of the evaluation team conducted 47 semi-structuredinterviews 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-quarterwere given over the telephone (due to geographical distances). Samplingwas done by peer nomination

3(except in the case of the Milwaukee county

grounds garden, where some gardeners were selected randomly). The 47interviews included 17 from the Milwaukee rental gardens (county grounds)

4,

5 from the Milwaukee start-up garden (Mitchell), 3 from the Waukesha rentalgarden (Northview), 6 from the Waukesha/La Casa youth garden, 4 from theKenosha rental garden (Northside), 6 from the Kenosha/Lincoln youthgarden, and 6 from the Kenosha pantry garden (Field Of Dreams). Of theseinterviewees, 22 were gardeners, 10 were staff or program volunteers, 7 wereyouth horticultural teachers, 4 were collaborators, and 4 were parents ofyouth gardeners. See Table 2.1 for these and other intervieweecharacteristic&

3Because of the relatively large number of collaborators, educators, and staff

involved in the youth gardens (and the relatively small number of stakeholdersinterviewed per garden), the decision was made by the group to exclude youthfrom the qualitative interviews. However, those stakeholders interviewed In thequantitative component of these gardens were all youth clients.

4Here, 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 (1003plots, 350families).


22/98

During interviews, members of the evaluation team asked all participants to

describe typical program activities at each garden, discuss what the programmeant to them, and assess program strengths and weaknesses (and if theparticipants actualIy gardened, we also asked them how they had learned thisskill). we questioned youth garden staff and educators about their observationsof children in the program and various learning contexts. Parents of the youthgardeners were asked about changes in their children's behaviors sinceparticipating in the gardens and the prospects.for parental involvement in theprogram. The evaluation team asked stakeholders in the start-up garden torelate their experiences with a new garden site. We questioned the pantrystakeholders about hunger issues in Kenosha and how the gardens affectedthe food supplies in pantries and soup kitchens.


23/98

Qualitative data analysis.

The qualitative data were analyzed using componential and domain analysis(Spradley, 1980). These strategies seek out specific categories -or domains-ofmeaning in the data (e.g, "X is a reason for growing vegetables'l, and then searchfor dimensions of contrast among andwithin these domains.

In addition to giving us data on program descriptions and meanings, ourqualitative component also strengthened our quantitative component(presented next) in three ways. First the qualitative data helped to increasethe internal validityof our quantitative findings, a recommended strategy inthe literature (Posovac and Carey, 1989). Through our observations andinterviews, we were able to at least partially attribute many of the

quantitative results to actual activity. For example, quantitativefindings suggested that gardeners were significantly more likely to reportsharing food with others during the previous four months than members ofthe comparison groups. From our observations we saw that gardeners wereconstantly offering fresh vegetables to strangers, including us. From ourinterviews, we heard gardeners describe how they and others cultivatedvegetables with the primary or secondary purpose of donating them to theirchurches, to food pantries, or to needy (and not-so-needy) neighbom

Second, we were able to use our qualitative data to strengthen ourquantitative design. From our observations and interviews, we were in abetter situation to select comparison groups for each garden. Weunderstood which social processes and demographic variables wereimportant (and which were not) when we were seeking specific comparison

groups. For example, we leamed during interviews that gardeners used theprogram to transmit their cultural heritage to their young, and that this wasparticularly important to the Hmong clientele. We then knew that we had tomatch our comparison group participants by ethnicity.

Third, we also modified our survey instrumentsas we collected qualitative data.For example, we began by assuming that only volunteers in theKenosha pantry garden would participate in the program in order to give awayfood. But our qualitative data showed us that even rental gardeners were activein this pursuit Thus we added a survey question on sharing food, and ended upbeing able to report this as an unintended effect of the program, overall.

The following section presents the quantitative component.


24/98

Quant i ta t i ve c omponent

Because the evaluation team was contracted after the gardening seaso n wasalready in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasiexperimental evaluation design-both which require pretests of interventionand comparison group participants before program services begin. Withlimited options, we developed a posttest-onIV design with intervention andnonequivalene comparison groups (although one series of questions wereasked retrospectively in an attempt to compare some behaviors over theexpanse of the gardening season. Royse (1991) and Rutman (1983) maintainthat a posttest-onIy design with a comparison group is not as strong as theexperimental 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. Theprocess involved a number of considerations. First, each garden servedclients with specific characteristics. Not only did the gardens serve differentgeographical areas, but each garden category-rental, youth, and pantryattracted a unique type of client Fortunately we were able to delaydecisions on the comparison sites until we had completed most of ourobservations and interviews. From the qualitative data we were betterpositioned to understand the characteristics of the clients in each program.in order to capture the differences between program types, we firstmatched groups as aggregates. For example, we knew that the Field ofDreams gardeners participated in the program, not to cultivate vegetables

for their own consumption, but to donate their time and produce to theneedy. Thus we sought a body of volunteers for our pantry comparisongroup that was helping underprivileged people.

This means that the groups were not randomly selected from the same poolof potential participants, as in the case of experimental evaluation models.

In one series of Instrument questions, we asked Intervention andcomparison group respondents about their activities during the previous fourmonths. A statement was read (e.g., "In the past four months, I have made morefriends than usual") and respondents selected answers from a scale ("O=stronglydisagree, 1 =disagree, 2-not sure, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree").


25/98

Second, we understood from our qualitative findings that some individual characteristics across allprogram categories would be important variables to match. For example, we learned duringinterviews that cultural background played a role in the motivation to garden. We also knew thatwe would have to match Participants by age level and gender because we would be measuringseveral age- and sex-sensitive behaviors, such as daily exercise and diet. Thus we soughtmatching pairs of participants by ethnic group, age, and gender.

7

Third, we understood from the literature that comparison participants should be involved inprograms, or receiving some kind of common service (as long as the service was not that whichwas provided by the program being evaluated). Posovac and Carey (1989) argue that the attentionalone that program clients receive may account for changes in their behaviors over time. Thus wesought 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 theprogram groups.

Comparison groups for rental garden.

Aggregate traits. Rentalgardeners participated in the program for a variety of reasons, but mostlyto improve the quality of their lives, and gain some sense of self-efficacy. They did not usuallyparticipate in gardening activities collectively (although there were opportunities to do so), but usedprogram resources on an individual basis. Rental gardeners came from all social classes, all agegroups, all educational backgrounds, and all ethnicities. For the comparison site, we pursued acollectivity that would attract this diversity, and seek common, selfenrichment services on anindividual basis. We selected University adult study programs (both degree and non-degree) in allthree counties-UWMilwaukee in Milwaukee, UW-Waukesha in Waukesha, and UW-Parkside inKenosha. 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).

7See Rossi and Freeman (1987) for further description of aggregate and pair matching in comparison groups.


26/98

of gardening), and age and gender (because of the age and gender variationin daily exercise, diet and social factors).

Comparison group for pantry gardeners.Aggregate traits.The volunteers who participated in the Kenosha Field ofDreams garden did not cultivate vegetables for their own use, but donated theirtime and produce to food pantries and soup kitchens. These volunteers camefrom all social classes and ethnic backgrounds. We pursued a Kenosha program

where volunteers worked to help the hungry. We selected the Shalom Centersoup kitchen staff as the comparison site, screening out those volunteerswho also participated in gardening programs.

Individual traits. Aswith the previous program categories, we matched theintervention and comparison groups on the basis of ethnic backgrounds(because of the cultural salience of gardening), and age and gender (because ofthe age and gender variation in daily exercise and social factors).

We ran into problems matching the Hmong clients from the Milwaukeerental gardens. The Hmong University students were generally muchyounger than the gardening group. We tried to develop a separatecomparison group for the Hmong gardeners, but when we contacted severalHmong-serving programs we were told that their clients were also avidgardeners (and many participated in the Community Gardens program). Weended 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 communityGardens. Typically, they came to their sites from community or daycarecenter programs. In addition, most of the children came from low incomefamilies and were members of ethnic minorities. For the comparison site, wepursued a community center program for low income youth, but one whereclients did not garden. However, because of the small number ofcommunity centers in Waukesha and Kenosha and the pervasiveness ofCommunity Gardens, we failed to find a program where a large number ofchildren did not garden. Thus we selected a Milwaukee community center

program-Holton Youth daycamp-as a comparison site for both youthgardens.

Individual traits. We matched the intervention and comparisongroups on the basis of ethnic backgrounds (because of the cultural salience

Youth gardenersbeing interviewed byeducator


27/98

Limitations.

The posttest only model with nonequivalent groups has a built-in weakness. Without pretests, theintervention and comparison groups might have been different in relevant ways from the start Thusany variation noted in posttests may simply reflect these initial differences in the groups,rather than effects of the program (Clark, 1976). For example, an evaluatorusing this model to assess a math tutoring program might assume that theintervention was unsuccessful if the comparison group scored higher duringposttests. However, without pretests there would be no way of knowing ifmembers of the comparison group did not begin with superior math skills.

This problem is less pronounced in the Community Gardens evaluation. Welearned through qualitative and quantitative findings that gardeners entered

the program for a wide variety of reasons, usually involving quality of lifeissues (see Table 5.1 later in this report). According to Schuerman (1983), thepurpose of pretests is to determine if both groups were "equally in need ofservices" (1983:69). But there was no simple pattern of needs that drewclients to this program, such as delinquencv, alcohol dependencV, orilliteracy. The project was not designed to treat known and measurabledeficiencies in the gardeners, In this case, initial group differences may beless a problem than in evaluations of programs to correct identifieddeficiencies. But while we did attempt to match the intervention andcomparison groups on variables we knew to be salient, and added a strongqualitative component to increase validity (Riecken and Boruch, 1974), we stillmust recognize that the groups may have had initial differences in importantunidentified ways.

Quantative data gathering procedures.

Members of the evaluation team conducted the posttest survey with 123gardeners and 123 matched comparison group participants. For rental andpantry gardens, we randomly selected the gardeners from client lists (except inthe case of the county grounds garden, where we randomly selected thegardeners from plot numbers). For youth gardens, we randomly selected theclients from program meetings during high participation times (selecting onlychildren over the age of nine, to insure comprehension of the instrument). Weinterviewed 50 clients from the Milwaukee county grounds garden, 53 fromthis garden's comparison group, 12 to 14 clients from each other garden, and11 to 12 participants from these gardens' comparison groups. See Table 2.2for respondent characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences

between intervention and comparison groups in ethnic background, agecategories, and sex.


28/98

The posttest instrument asked all intervention and comparison participantsquestions their social and communitV activities in the previous four months,and about their health habits-particularIy diet and exercise. We asked thegardeners to rate the importance of the program to them personalIy, to assessthe food money they saved because of gardening, to provide reasons forparticipating in the program, and to respond to a host of garden-specificquestions.


29/98

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

Evaluat ion s ta f f and t imel ines

The evaluation team was made up of an urban anthropologist/principalinvestigator, seven multi-cultural interviewers, a statistician, and a dataspecialist.

The evaluation team completed the qualitative component of the studyduring July and August of 1997. The youth posttests of the intervention andcomparison groups were conducted between mid August and September1997, when the youth gardening programs were ending. The adult posttestsof the intervention and comparison groups were conducted between midSeptember and mid October 1997, when the adult gardening programs wereending. The data were analyzed and the report was written bV lateDecember 1997.

Summary

The Community Gardens' evaluation design included a qualitative and aquantitative component

The qualitative component included document reviews of annual reports andprogram promotional materials, participant observation at each of the sevengarden sites targeted for evaluation, and 47 semi-structured interviews withprogram stakeholders (including gardeners, staff, volunteers, horticulturaleducators, 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 wasalready in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasi-experimental design-both which require pretests of intervention andcomparison group participants before program activities begin. We opted forthe next best choice and developed a posttest only design with program andnon-equivalent comparison groups. We selected the comparisonaggregates and individuals within these aggregates based on the salientprocesses and traits we found among program clients, while completing ourqualitative component


30/98

However, the posttest-only model has a built-in weakness. Without pretests,the intervention and comparison groups could have been different inrelevant ways from the start, thus variations noted in posttests may simplyreflect initial differences in groups rather than effects of the program. Thisproblem may be less pronounced in the Community Gardens evaluationbecause gardeners did not enter the program with a clear pattern of need.Regardless, we strengthened the overall design bV including multiplemethods, multiple samples, multiple data sources with triangulation, multiplemeasures, and multiple analyses in the overall evaluation plan.

The findings that appear in the following chapters reflect these variedresearch strategies, and will demonstrate some unintended, as well as someintended outcomes for Community Gardens.


31/98

Chapter Three: Overview o f

Evaluat ion Findings

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

Program impor t ance Rat ings

Members of the evaluation team asked Community Gardens clients to ratethe program. SpecificalIy, we asked gardeners the following question: "on ascale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the highest), how important is the gardenprogram to you?" Overall, clients gave the program a very high mean ratingof 8.62. Adult gardeners, who usualIV received program benefits for a fullseason, gave higher ratings (mean of 8.98) than the youth gardeners, whousualIy participated in the program for 4 to 18 weeks (mean of 8.00). Whenwe compared the importance ratings given by European Americans to thosegiven 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.


32/98

To view ratings for specific gardens, see Appendix A

Preview o f mos t s ign i fi can t ou tc ome

f indings

The evaluation team gathered quantitaitive and qualitative data on a widevariety of topics ranging from healthy habits to transmission of heritage tocommunity-building practices.

Quantitative findings.

When we compared survey responses of the intervention group(gardeners) to the comparison group participants, the results clearlysuggested positive outcomes for the program clients. The following is asummary of statistically significant findings (and most were highlysignificant at the level of


33/98

When asked about behaviors in the previous four months

Gardeners indicated they had eaten a balanced diet muchmore often that comparison participants.

Gardeners indicated they had shared food with othersmore often than comparison participants;

Gardeners indicated they had spent more time with theirfamilies than comparison participants;

Gardeners indicated they had made improvements in theirneighborhoods more often than comparison participants;

Gardeners indicated they had felt more in charge of theirlives than comparison participants; and

Gardeners indicated they learned more about gardeningthan comparison participants.

Qualitative findings.Qualitative data help to attribute quantitative findingsto actual program activities (as opposed to some unknown intervening orconfounding factors that may account for group differences). wherever wemeasured indicators quantitatively, we also gathered data on these indicatorsthrough qualitative strategies (e.g., interviews of program clients andstakeholders, participant observation, review of program documents). inaddition to strengthening the quantitative findings, qualitative data oftenyielded unexpected program outcomes and impacts (see examples below).


34/98

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

The following is a summary of the more salient qualitative findings.

Many gardeners described how they used program resources totransmit their cultural heritages to a younger generation;

Many gardeners participated in the program for the sheer "fun" ofwatching plants grow and improving their gardening skills;

Many gardeners used the program as a means to convene withnature;

Some gardeners described how their plots had become focalpoints for communitV-builcling activities;

Some gardeners gave away their produce as a means to promotesocial justice;

Some gardeners described how the program activities had helped

Boys watering marigoldstogether in their neighborhoodgarden.


35/98

Chapter Four: The m at er ia l

de l iverab les o f gardening

This chapter will summarize findings on the material benefits provided bVthe CommunitV Gardens program. Two categories of material deliverablesinclude (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 materialadvantages of gardening. For example, studies done in LOS Angeles,Philadelphia, and New JerseV found that urban gardeners increased theirvegetable consumption and saved moneV in food purchases as a result oftheir participation in horticultural programs (Ashman et al, 1993; Blair et al,1991; Patel, 1991). Taylor (1990) has argued that gardening is excellentoutdoor exercise, and that participants may bum more calories per hourgrowing vegetables than they would doing aerobics.

Heal th benef i t s o f garden ing

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


36/98

period. Table 4.1 shows the reported consumption of each vegetable listedin the survey.

8The 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 conductedbetween September 15 and October 15, and both groups reportedly eaten more of the vegetables thatreached their peak during this Period--particularly tomatoes and peppers. The exception was the largenumber of helpings of lettuce reported eaten by both groups. When we compared the helpings oftomatoes 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 adultgardeners), and .39 for the comparison youth (in contrast to.73 by comparison adults); and the meanhelpings 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).


37/98

We also asked the groups if they maintained balanced diets. Specifically, we

asked all evaluation participants to agree or disagree with the statement, "inthe past four months, I have eaten a balanced diet most days from the foodpyramid (which includes breads/cereals, fruit/vegetables, meat/fish/beans, anddair-y products." Gardeners were significantly more likely to agree. See Table4.2

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


38/98

We also questioned the rental gardeners (the largest clientele group) aboutorganic 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 foodorganicalIy (without using chemical fertilizers or unnatural chemicalpesticides), over half said "Yes." When we asked them if they rented theirplots 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.


39/98

in terms of exercise, gardeners again fared better than their comparisoncounterparts. The evaluation team asked all participants to report thenumber of hours they had spent in the last week doing various types ofactivities-from housework to gardening to playing basketball. Overall,gardener's reported nearly twice the number of hours engaged in exercisethan members of the comparison groups. See Table 4.4. (See Appendix B fora breakdown of specific activities.)

We also compared the two groups on actual calories expended duringweekly activity hours, using calorie tables from the Complete Food andNutrition Guide(A.D.A., 1996), Compendium of Physical Activities(A.U.M.,1996), and The Fitness Partner Connection(Printus, 1995-1997). Gardenersexpended twice number of calories on their reported activities than theircomparison counterparts. See Table 4.5. (See Appendix B for a listing ofcalories expended per hour of each activity, based on individual body weight of 150 pounds.)


40/98

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

A young girl hoeingweeds out of herfamily's garden.


41/98

activity level significantly higher than their comparison counterparts'. Wethen hypothesized that both groups had reported the same number ofexercise hours in every activity category except gardening, and wecomputed the difference between the two groups, The results were stillstatistically significant

9.

In addition to being positive outcomes for the program, nutrition andexercise were also cited as strong motivators for program involvementWhen we asked all clients the reasons why they participated in theCommunity Gardens program, the "chance to get fresher food with moreflavor" was the response selected second most often (68 percent)

10. The

response, "the exercise," was selected third most often (57 percent). SeeTable 4.6.

9This 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, was2,937. This number was divided in two to get an equal number for both groups, or1,468.5 hours each. To this number was added 523 hours of gardening for thegardeners, and 53 hours of gardening for the comparison participants, or a meanof 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 deviationof 11.427 (the standard deviation for the entire sample of 246 people for allactivities other than gardening), we were able to do a z-test comparing the twomeans--z=(16.19-12.37)/sqrt(11.427112/l23)-2.62. This value is significant atO.004 fora one-sided alternative (hypothesis is gardeners are more active than nongardeners).

10Adult 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 (pantrygarden volunteer's did not consume their own vegetables, thus would not be likely to select thisresponse).


42/98

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

Children harvesting fresh beans fromtheir neighborhood garden.


43/98

Stakeholders from the youth gardens also discussed how the children hadincreased their nutrition awareness since participating in the program. In thefollowing examples, parents of youth clients from Kenosha and Waukeshadiscuss program effects on their young.

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

involved in gardening.


44/98

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

The money c l ien ts saved on food

Most clients also gleaned modest economic benefits from the CommunityGardens program. During interviews, some clients from all gardens mentionedthe way the program had eased their food budgets. When we asked allgardeners if they or family members stored any of the vegetables they grew, 86percent 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 onfood. When asked how much money they thought their families had saved from growing vegetables in the Community Gardens this year, over half (56

percent) said they had saved more than $50 (for a mean savings of $131.90overalD. (The table for the entire sample is not shown.)

Of all groups, the rental gardeners reported saving the most money. Nearlyhalf (46 percent) said they saved between $101 and S300 (for a meansavings of $167.95 this year). See Table 4.7.


45/98

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


46/98

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

Summary

Evaluation findings demonstrated that the Community Gardens program wasvalued bV clients for the material deliverables gained from activities.Gardeners generally consumed more vitamin-rich vegetables, ate a morebalanced diet and expended more calories in exercise than members of the

comparison groups. Program clients and stakeholders also reported savingmoney on food because of their participation in Community Gardens. Theeconomic benefits were expressed most often by the Asian gardeners at theMilwaukee 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 socialimpacts of gardening.


47/98

Chapter Five: Gardening andMeanings

This chapter will summarize findings on the meanings that clients ascribe tothe Community Gardens program. The three categories of meaning thatemerged from the data are: (2) gardening as a strategy to transmit culturalheritage, (2) gardening as an enjoyable practice, and (3) gardening as a viraV toconvene with the natural environment in some cases, findings suggest thatthese meanings may have been more important to gardeners than thematerial delive rabies described in the previous chapter

The literature on gardening also suggests the value that gardeners attach tohorticultural traditions. PF Barlett (1993) maintained that agrarian values are frequently in conflict with thosein the industrial world, and that part-time cultivation may be one way to maintain the heritage and pass it onto the next generation. While Barletts research focused on European American and African American smallfarmers in the South, a number of writer's have discussed the oppression that the Hmong population hasendured 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 countrywhen local political forces demanded they engage in cash cropping or othernonagrarian 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 alldepended on a horticultural tradition.

Hmong family gardeners


48/98

Gardening as a s t ra t egy to t ransm i t c u l tura l

her i tage

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 forstakeholders to transmit practices from their cultural heritages to succeeding generations. Thiswas described by members of all the ethnic groups we interviewed.

Adult gardeners

Among adult gardeners, the cultural factors cited in gardening were particularIV strong. Whenmembers 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 ofthe time), among 10 possible choices. In addition, the responses "the chance to teach othersgardening" 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).


49/98

However, when we crosstabulated the responses to the reasons clientsparticipated in the program with the ratings given on the personalimportance of the program, the heritage transmission variables becamemore 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 participationwere more likeIV to give the program the top rating in personal importancethan those who selected anV other reasons for participation. Over two thirds

of those who selected each of the transmission of heritage variables gave theprogram a "10."

In order to understand how Community Gardens helped clients to pass ontheir heritage, we looked at the interview data.

In general, adult clients discussed the ways that program activities helpedthem 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

meanin ful.


50/98

in the following examples from the Milwaukee rental gardens, clients describethe cultural value of participating in the Community Gardens program. Thefirst quotation below is from an African American, the second from a Hmonggardener, and the last is from a European American.

Asparagus beans, apopular Asian vegetable,growing on a teepee.

In the following examples, clients discuss more about bringing generationstogether to share a horticultural heritage. The first quotation is from aWaukesha gardener, the second from a Milwaukee gardener with a disabledson, and the third is from a Kenosha gardener-all European American.


51/98

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


52/98

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

Youth Gardeners

The cultural value of gardening did not emerge as a salient factor for youth inthe quantitative data, possibly because children at this age did not understandsome of the terms associated with heritage. Among the 26 childreninterviewed, not one said they participated in the program "to keep my culturaltraditions." only 19 percent said they participated to "teach other aboutgardening," and only 12 percent said it was a "good chance to spend time withmy family." (The table is not shown.)

However, when we looked at the relationship between the reasons they gavefor 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 Table5.3.


53/98

The qualitative data from the children's parents, teachers, and program staffdid suggest that at least some of the youth were interested in the culturalaspects of gardening.

In the following examples, two adult stakeholders from the Waukesha youthgardens describe gardening choices of the Latino youth, and an adultstakeholder from the Kenosha youth gardens discusses the potential for thetransmission of African American traditions throu h the ro ram.


54/98

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

Gardening as an en joyab le prac t ice

Findings from the qualitative and the quantitative data indicated that programclients enjoyed the actual act of gardening and the information they gleanedfrom the practice. Approximately three-quarters of all adult and youth clientssaid they participated in the Community Gardens program "for the fun," andnearly half of the adults and over three-quarters of the youth said they wereinvolved "to learn skills".

11See Table 5.4.

11Findings 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 meansfor youth were: gardeners 3.15, comparison groups 1.57; the means for adults were: gardeners2.63, comparison groups 1.57 (scale: 0 = strongly disagree, I = disagree, 2 = not sure, 3 -agree, 4 = strongly agree).


55/98

We needed to understand how clients considered gardening "fun." Duringqualitative interviews, gardeners often told us how much they simply enjoyedwatching their vegetables grow. Below, clients from the Kenosha rental andpantry gardens, and the Milwaukee start-up garden comment on thisexperience.


56/98

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

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


57/98

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

Garden ing as a w ay to convene w i th t henatura l env i ronment Both the quantitative and the qualitative findings demonstrated thatprogram clients valued the time they spent in the gardens' naturalsurroundings. Adult and youth gardeners alike reported significantly more

attention to the environment during the high cultivation months than thecomparison participants. In all, Community Gardens clients reported learningmore about the environment paying more attention to nature, and caringmore about the environment than their nongardening counterparts. SeeTables 5.6 and 5.7.


58/98

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

Child showing the worm hefound in the garden


59/98

Summary

Evaluation findings demonstrated that the Community Gardens program wasvalued by clients for more than just the material deliverables gained fromactivities. Many gardeners ascribed their own meanings to the program.Some clients strongly appreciated the way the program empowered them topass on horticultural heritages, many cited the actual "fun" involved ingardening, and others valued the opportunity to spend time in naturalsurroundings.


60/98

Children harvesting vegetables from their neighborhoodgarden to take home.


61/98

Chapter Six: Soc ia l and

Psyc ho log ica l Benef i t s

This chapter will summarize findings on the social and psychosocial benefitsthat clients derive from Community Gardens. The three categories of socialand psychological value that emerged from the data are: (1) gardening as astrategy 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 enhancepositive images for neighborhoods and create opportunities for people towork together Lewis (1991) shows how community gardens foster a sense ofneighborliness among residents.

Gardening as a s t rat egy in bui ld ingcommun i t i es

During interviews, Community Gardens clients and other stakeholders oftendiscussed the ways that the program had helped build local communities.Member's of the evaluation team asked interviewees general questions aboutforging new fellowships and improving local neighborhoods throughCommunity Gardens activities. The findings were mixed on whether theprogram helped people gain new friendships. When asked in the surveywhether they had "made more friends than usual" or "learned more aboutdifferent cultures" during the past four months, gardeners were slightly morelikely to agree with the statements than members of the comparison groups

(see Table 6.1), but the results were not significant The means forthe client responses fell between "not sure (2)" and "agree 0." However, whenwe asked clients their reasons for participating in Community Gardens,


62/98

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, welooked at the qualitative data. Here we see that clients and stakeholders haddifferent experiences gardening with their neighbors. in the quotations below,stakeholders from the Kenosha Youth garden. Milwaukee rental garden, andMilwaukee start-up garden comment on the positive fellowship-building forgedbV public gardening.


63/98

on the other hand, problems can develop when gardeners share commongrounds. Two program staff and a Milwaukee rental gardener discuss thevarying standards and motivations clients have concerning gardening, andcomplaints 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 stakeholdersdescribed how some gardening areas had become focal points in theirneighborhoods. As focal points or "hubs," they often drew the support oflocal groups-both informal and formal. in the following quotations,stakeholders from the Kenosha youth and Pantry gardens, and the WaukeshaYouth garden comment on the community-building function of theseneighborhood hubs.


64/98

By participating in and supporting these local hubs, gardeners may have feltthey Played roles in bettering their neighborhoods. When asked if they had

,made some improvements in (the] neighborhood" during the high gardeningmonths, Community Gardens clients concurred significantly more often thancomparison group participants. See Table 5.2.

Children watering plants together in their Community Garden.


65/98

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

Gardening t o promote soc ia l jus t ice

When members of the evaluation team asked Community Garden clients ifthey had reasons for participating in the program that were "other" than thereasons listed in the instrument a full 27 percent said they participated "togive away food" (see Table 5.1 in previous chapter). Nearly all the volunteers

in the Field of Dreams (Kenosha pantry) effort offered this reason. Whenasked to assess local hunger issues, all 12 Field of Dreams gardeners said theybelieved hunger was a problem in Kenosha, and nearly half said they knewsomeone personally who was suffering from hunger Of those volunteerswho maintained their own gardens, nearly three-quarters said they haddonated vegetables to the hungry in the past, and the same number saidthey expected to donate in the future. See Table 6.3.


66/98

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


67/98

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

But using the gardens for altruistic purposes was not limited to stakeholdersfrom the Kenosha pantry garden. During interviews, many other gardenersdescribed how they regularly donated food to their churches or shared withothers. The quantitative data bears this out When all evaluation participantswere asked if they had "shared food with my friends or neighbors on aregular basis" during the past four months, Community Gardens clients weresignificantly more likely to concur See Table 6.4.


68/98

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

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


69/98

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

Gardening as a s t ra tegy for bu i ld ing

persona l c harac t e r

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


70/98

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

Boy Scoutharvesting beans forthe poor in Field of


71/98

Evaluation findings also suggested that the youth may have been gaining

self-esteem from the gardening experience. When we asked the youth ifthey thought they were "doing a good job in the gardens," 92 percent said"yes." Other youth garden stakeholders discussed the ways the program hasincreased the children's sense of self-worth. in the following examples, aparent of a Kenosha client a Kenosha teacher, and a parent of a Waukeshaclient talk about the pride that many of the children have expressed in theirgardening.

SummaryEvaluation findings demonstrated that the Community Gardens program wasvalued by clients for more than just the material deliverables and meaningsgained from activities. Many gardeners found social and psychosocialbenefits through participation in the program. Some clients described howthe gardens had become social hubs in their neighborhoods, drawing thesupport of formal and informal groups. other clients discussed the waysthey used gardening to promote social justice-particularly by donating foodto help alleviate hunger And some clients described how these activitieshad 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. ChapterSeven will summarize these findings.


72/98

Chapter Seven:

Fut ure Chal lenges

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

Reta in ing land s i tes for garden ing

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 itsprogram sites through any form of public policy.unlike policy makers in other areas, Wisconsin legislators have never proposed orpassed any laws that permanently set aside land for urbangardens. And program administrators do not have the budgets to purchase andmaintain year-around the large tracts of land required for over 2000 garden plots. TheCommunity Gardens program is left depending ontemporary land donations by private, public, and commercial owners. While someprograms have received consistent public support and have a pool of land donors tocall upon when in need (such as many in Kenosha), others have limited options andare about to lose critical parcels of land.


73/98

several examples have been highlighted in this reportin Oak Creek (Milwaukee County), the Mitchell garden was forced off itslocation when business interests expressed a desire to build a little leaguefield on the site-a project that never materialized. The Mitchell gardeneventually found another site, but one less desirable in terms of soil qualityand location.

In Waukesha, county officials are currently debating various developmentproposals for the land that houses the Waukesha rental and youth gardens.Despite years of campaigning to secure that (very desirable) site, the gardensmay have to look for other lands. This problem is further exacerbated bycurrent 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 oneof the most stable land sites of the program-a site which encompasses 1003garden plots. After 25 years on these grounds, the Milwaukee CountyExecutive has proposed selling this land to commercial interests. Theproposal now faces resistance from a nearby suburban group that did notwant to lose their natural surroundings. The group, the Friends ofMenomonee River, convinced the Board to hold a brief moratorium and setup an advisory panel to evaluate other options.

While interviewing gardeners in Milwaukee, nearly every person we talked toconveyed concern about the loss of the land and the subsequent fate

Documents

Evaluation of Community Gardens: University of Wisconsin