Evaluation of Community Gardens

Evaluation of
Community Gardens
(A program of the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension)
Report produced by
Jill Florence Lackey & Associates
February 1998

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

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

List of Tables
Table 2.1. 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.

Chapter One:
Introduction to Community Gardens
During 1997, the research consultant firm of Jill Florence Lackey and
Associates conducted an evaluation of Community Gardens-a program
administered by the University of Wisconsin's Cooperative Extension. This
chapter will introduce the program and the specific gardens evaluated by
this research team.
The Community Gardens Program
Community gardening had its roots in the Victory gardens of World War II.
Victory gardens were developed in the United States to support the war
effort and to supplement food production at home during a time when
much of the agricultural labor force was overseas. The American Community
Gardening Association grew out of the victory garden movement and has
been a voice and consolidating force for urban horticulture ever since.
The University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension founded the first
Wisconsin community garden 25 years ago on the Milwaukee "county
grounds"-a site that today hosts 1003 rental plots. Within two decades the
program expanded throughout Milwaukee County. Additional programs
were initiated in nearby Waukesha and Kenosha Counties. Today, Community
Gardens sponsors three types of programs: (1) rental gardens, (2) youth
gardens, and (3) gardens designed to serve the clientele of local food
pantries. The gardens within these categories are diverse enough to meet
the needs of culturally specific populations and community needs, but all
offer a core of resources including arable land sites, gardening tools,
compost, and horticultural information through direct teaching, telephone
hotlines, and various media (e.g., videos, written materials, and television and
radio programs).

Because of the unwieldy number of Community Gardens, the evaluation
team and program stakeholders selected a sample of garden sites for
evaluation. The selection criteria included the following:
· at least one garden would be evaluated from each program category;
· the gardens selected would more-or-less typify their program categories;
· the gardens selected would serve a minimum of 15 clients each;
· the garden sites would have easily accessible client lists (for data
collection purposes).
In addition to these criteria, the program staff suggested adding a newly
developing garden to the sample. The staff thought it was important for the
evaluation team to understand the processes and challenges involved in
starting up a gardening program.
The following section summarizes the garden sites that were eventually
selected for the evaluation. in addition to describing the general location
and resources of each garden, we have added information on the particular
political constraints and opportunities involved in each program's
development No assessment of the Community Gardens program would be
complete without a description of the land tenure issues this project has
faced-and continues to face-throughout its history.
Gardens selected for evaluation
The final list of gardens in the evaluation sample included four rental
gardening sites (with one start-up garden), two youth gardening sites, and
one pantry gardening site.
Rental Gardens
Community Gardens rental programs lease plots to local residents and
groups, often in collaboration with community-based organizations. Some
gardening sites are located in urban neighborhoods and others are in more
outlying areas. The 1997 rental rates and plot sizes vary by county, but range
from $10 to $22 annually for plots between 4000 and 900 square feet Pl.
Gardeners are expected to keep their areas free of weeds and trash, and
respect their neighbors' boundaries. In return, Community Gardens rototills
the plots each year, provides tools and compost and offers horticultural
information in various forms.

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

land, arguing that members did not want to lose their natural surroundings.
The group won a brief moratorium on the development decision and the
County Board agreed to set up an advisory panel to investigate the issue.
In the meantime, the gardeners-some who have been in the program for
over 20 Vears-were left uncertain about their future. one program
stakeholder summarized the frustration felt by many gardeners.
Milwaukee start-up garden: Mitchell garden site.
The Mitchell gardens are located in Oak Creek, a bedroom community of the
City of Milwaukee. The site currently has 135 plots, serving approximately 65
families. Program records indicate that nearly all of the families renting the
gardens are middle to upper-middle class European Americans. Most are also
home-owners, although the program is now attempting to draw a clientele from
retirement villages and apartment complexes.
Boy working in his family's
rental garden.

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

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

That decision was made four years ago, but today the County Board is
revisiting the Northview grounds issue. In December of 1997, Waukesha
County announced that it planned to study the use of the Northview
grounds and consider economic development of the area. The County Parks
Manager and the County Board are expected to consider a wide range of
alternative uses for the land by early 1998 (Milwaukee Joumal-Sentinel 1997) 1.
While the development issue emerged shortly after the data were collected
for this evaluation, one Waukesha garden stakeholder did express concerns
that the program would always risk loss of its land, due to competing
political and economic interests. These comments appear below.
Kenosha rental gardens: Northside site.
Kenosha has two rental garden sites-- the Northside Community Gardens and a
central (downtown) site. The Northside gardens were selected for this evaluation
because they had more participants. The Northside site accommodates 45 lots
serving 28 families and community groups. most of the families are European
Americans and come from a working- or middle-class backgrounds.
Located next to the Northside Public Library, the Northside gardens are
situated on a six acre lot that is shared with one of the program's pantry
gardens. The farmland site has good soil quality, and offers core rental
resources, good access to water, available parking, and a nearby bus stop.
1. While under study, additional land on this property has been gained due to the
success of the existing Community Gardens program.

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

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

Waukesha County youth prden: La Casa collaborative.
The Waukesha County/La Casa youth garden program is a collaborative effort between the
University Cooperative Extension and La Casa cle Esperanza, a Waukesha
community center During the summer of 1997, the program served an
average of 20 children between the ages of 8 and 15-mostIV Latino and some
European American and African American.
The gardening program is integrated with La Casa's summer claycare
program, which also offers the children field trips to educational sites,
lessons in fishing, and hiking expeditions (among other resources). Activities
at the gardens include Instruction on horticultural techniques and nutrition,
salad-building, cultivating salsa plots (cilentro, tomatoes, peppers), keeping
gardening journals (see example below), constructing scarecrows and
compost piles, mulching, looking for evidence of animals and bugs, story
telling, and gardening games
Children planting
peppers together
In their garden.
The Waukesha/La Casa garden is located on the same site as the rental
gardens, which means that this open-access program is equally threatened bV
loss of land if the County opts for redevelopment of the NOrthview grounds.
The only other Waukesha youth gardens are situated on land owned by a New
Berlin child care center.

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

The Kenosha youth gardens are all located on city- and privately-owned sites.
Program staff seek out abandoned lots in central city neighborhoods,
contact the owners, and ask them if they would be willing to lend the land
to the collaborative. The staff have been successful in getting benefactors
this way in addition, both the city and county governments have invited
Community Gardens staff to make use of more of their properties.
Pantry Gardens
Pantry gardens are projects designed to distribute fresh vegetables to the clients of soup kitchens
and pantries. Currently onIy Milwaukee and Kenosha Counties have these gardens. In Milwaukee,
pantrV recipients are offered free garden plots near the food pantries in order to grow their own
vegetables. In Kenosha, needy and unneedy volunteers grow food in fields of two acres or more to
stock local food pantries and soup kitchens.
Kenosha pantry garden: Field of Dreams.
The Kenosha pantry garden was named after the movie "Field of Dreams." In the movie, Kevin
Costner believed that if he built a baseball field for deceased Hall of Famers, "they would come."
The Kenosha staff followed a similar vision, developed a volunteer garden to help the needy, and
trusted the volunteers to come. They did. In the two Vears since the garden opened, the project has
drawn nearIV 550 volunteers and harvested over 45 tons of food (or 305,000 vegetable helpings)
for local food pantries and soup kitchens.
Volunteers shucking beans In parking lot
adjacent to a Field of Dreams garden. These
beans were delivered to food pantries.

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

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

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

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

Participant observation.
members of the evaluation team observed daily Chapter Tw program activities between 3 and
20 times at each garden. Team members took notes and photographs during sessions, and also
observed two Evaluation educational programs in progress at the youth gardens.
Limitations.
The design relatively small budget of the evaluation, the short duration of the project,
and the large geographical area the program covered limited the amount of and method
observation that was possible. No evaluation team members attended staff
meetings, conferences, collaborator meetings, or political events that
affected the program. Moreover, the short period of time we spent doing
this evaluation (six months) limited the amount of program context
information we could collect As a result we relied heavily on second-hand
information (particularly from the interviews) for the historical and
collaborative dimensions of the program.
Interviews. Members of the evaluation team conducted 47 semi-structured
interviews with program stakeholders, which included gardeners, staff,
horticultural educators, parents of youth gardeners, and collaborators.
Three-quarters of the interviews were conducted in-person, and one-quarter
were given over the telephone (due to geographical distances). Sampling
was done by peer nomination 3 (except in the case of the Milwaukee county
grounds garden, where some gardeners were selected randomly). The 47
interviews included 17 from the Milwaukee rental gardens (county grounds) 4,
5 from the Milwaukee start-up garden (Mitchell), 3 from the Waukesha rental
garden (Northview), 6 from the Waukesha/La Casa youth garden, 4 from the
Kenosha rental garden (Northside), 6 from the Kenosha/Lincoln youth
garden, and 6 from the Kenosha pantry garden (Field Of Dreams). Of these
interviewees, 22 were gardeners, 10 were staff or program volunteers, 7 were
youth horticultural teachers, 4 were collaborators, and 4 were parents of
youth gardeners. See Table 2.1 for these and other interviewee
characteristic&
3 Because of the relatively large number of collaborators, educators, and staff
involved in the youth gardens (and the relatively small number of stakeholders
interviewed per garden), the decision was made by the group to exclude youth
from the qualitative interviews. However, those stakeholders interviewed In the
quantitative component of these gardens were all youth clients.
4 Here, as in the quantitative component, the sample size at the county
grounds garden is approximately four times the sample size of the other gardens.
This is due to the extremely large number of clients served at this site (1003 plots, 350 families).

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

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

Quantitative component
Because the evaluation team was contracted after the gardening seaso n was
already in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasi
experimental evaluation design-both which require pretests of intervention
and comparison group participants before program services begin. With
limited options, we developed a posttest-onIV design with intervention and
nonequivalene comparison groups (although one series of questions were
asked retrospectively in an attempt to compare some behaviors over the
expanse of the gardening season. Royse (1991) and Rutman (1983) maintain
that a posttest-onIy design with a comparison group is not as strong as the
experimental models, but is stronger than pretest-posttest designs with one
group only (program clients).
We selected comparison groups for each of the gardens under study. The
process involved a number of considerations. First, each garden served
clients with specific characteristics. Not only did the gardens serve different
geographical areas, but each garden category-rental, youth, and pantry
attracted a unique type of client Fortunately we were able to delay
decisions on the comparison sites until we had completed most of our
observations and interviews. From the qualitative data we were better
positioned to understand the characteristics of the clients in each program.
in order to capture the differences between program types, we first
matched groups as aggregates. For example, we knew that the Field of
Dreams gardeners participated in the program, not to cultivate vegetables
for their own consumption, but to donate their time and produce to the
needy. Thus we sought a body of volunteers for our pantry comparison
group that was helping underprivileged people.
This means that the groups were not randomly selected from the same pool
of potential participants, as in the case of experimental evaluation models.
In one series of Instrument questions, we asked Intervention and
comparison group respondents about their activities during the previous four
months. A statement was read (e.g., "In the past four months, I have made more
friends than usual") and respondents selected answers from a scale ("O=strongly
disagree, 1 =disagree, 2-not sure, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree").

Second, we understood from our qualitative findings that some individual characteristics across all
program categories would be important variables to match. For example, we learned during
interviews that cultural background played a role in the motivation to garden. We also knew that
we would have to match Participants by age level and gender because we would be measuring
several age- and sex-sensitive behaviors, such as daily exercise and diet. Thus we sought
matching pairs of participants by ethnic group, age, and gender. 7
Third, we understood from the literature that comparison participants should be involved in
programs, or receiving some kind of common service (as long as the service was not that which
was provided by the program being evaluated). Posovac and Carey (1989) argue that the attention
alone that program clients receive may account for changes in their behaviors over time. Thus we
sought comparison groups that were linked by common services.
With these three principles in mind, we selected several comparison group sites. The sites are
outlined below, with descriptions of the aggregate and individual traits we sought to match with the
program groups.
Comparison groups for rental garden.
Aggregate traits. Rental gardeners participated in the program for a variety of reasons, but mostly
to improve the quality of their lives, and gain some sense of self-efficacy. They did not usually
participate in gardening activities collectively (although there were opportunities to do so), but used
program resources on an individual basis. Rental gardeners came from all social classes, all age
groups, all educational backgrounds, and all ethnicities. For the comparison site, we pursued a
collectivity that would attract this diversity, and seek common, selfenrichment services on an
individual basis. We selected University adult study programs (both degree and non-degree) in all
three counties-UWMilwaukee in Milwaukee, UW-Waukesha in Waukesha, and UW-Parkside in
Kenosha. Individual traits. We attempted to match the intervention and comparison groups on the
basis of ethnic backgrounds (because of the cultural salience of gardening), and age and gender
(because of the age and gender variation in dailV exercise, diet and social factors).
7 See Rossi and Freeman (1987) for further description of aggregate and pair matching in comparison groups.

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

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

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

Quantitative data analysis.
Univariate analysis primarily included frequencies and means, and crosstabulations. Bivariate
analyses primarily included chi squares and tests of significance.
Evaluation staff and timelines
The evaluation team was made up of an urban anthropologist/principal
investigator, seven multi-cultural interviewers, a statistician, and a data
specialist.
The evaluation team completed the qualitative component of the study
during July and August of 1997. The youth posttests of the intervention and
comparison groups were conducted between mid August and September
1997, when the youth gardening programs were ending. The adult posttests
of the intervention and comparison groups were conducted between mid
September and mid October 1997, when the adult gardening programs were
ending. The data were analyzed and the report was written bV late
December 1997.
Summary
The Community Gardens' evaluation design included a qualitative and a
quantitative component
The qualitative component included document reviews of annual reports and
program promotional materials, participant observation at each of the seven
garden sites targeted for evaluation, and 47 semi-structured interviews with
program stakeholders (including gardeners, staff, volunteers, horticultural
educators, collaborators, and parents of youth gardeners).
The quantitative component included a posttest survey with 123 randomly-selected
gardeners and 123 matched comparison group participants.
Because the evaluation team was contracted after the gardening season was
already in progress, we were not able to develop an experimental or quasi-experimental
design-both which require pretests of intervention and
comparison group participants before program activities begin. We opted for
the next best choice and developed a posttest only design with program and
non-equivalent comparison groups. We selected the comparison
aggregates and individuals within these aggregates based on the salient
processes and traits we found among program clients, while completing our
qualitative component

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

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

To view ratings for specific gardens, see Appendix A
Preview of most significant outcome
findings
The evaluation team gathered quantitaitive and qualitative data on a wide
variety of topics ranging from healthy habits to transmission of heritage to
community-building practices.
Quantitative findings.
When we compared survey responses of the intervention group
(gardeners) to the comparison group participants, the results clearly
suggested positive outcomes for the program clients. The following is a
summary of statistically significant findings (and most were highly
significant at the level of <0.001).
· Gardeners reported consuming more helpings of vitaminrich
vegetables in the previous 24 hours than comparison participants.
· Gardeners reported engaging in more physical exercise in the
previous week than comparison participants.

When asked about behaviors in the previous four months…
· Gardeners indicated they had eaten a balanced diet much
more often that comparison participants.
· Gardeners indicated they had shared food with others
more often than comparison participants;
· Gardeners indicated they had spent more time with their
families than comparison participants;
· Gardeners indicated they had made improvements in their
neighborhoods more often than comparison participants;
· Gardeners indicated they had felt more in charge of their
lives than comparison participants; and
· Gardeners indicated they learned more about gardening
than comparison participants.
Qualitative findings.
Qualitative data help to attribute quantitative findings
to actual program activities (as opposed to some unknown intervening or
confounding factors that may account for group differences). wherever we
measured indicators quantitatively, we also gathered data on these indicators
through qualitative strategies (e.g., interviews of program clients and
stakeholders, participant observation, review of program documents). in
addition to strengthening the quantitative findings, qualitative data often
yielded unexpected program outcomes and impacts (see examples below).

The following is a summary of the more salient qualitative findings.
· Many gardeners described how they used program resources to
transmit their cultural heritages to a younger generation;
· Many gardeners participated in the program for the sheer "fun" of
watching plants grow and improving their gardening skills;
· Many gardeners used the program as a means to convene with
The next three chapters will present detailed findings on each of these
topics. Chapter Four will discuss the material deliverables of gardening,
Chapter Five will summarize the meanings that clients ascribe to the
program, and Chapter Six outlines the social and psychosocial value of
CommunitV Gardens activities. Findings on minor themes or those specific to
program management can be found in Appendix A.
nature;
· Some gardeners described how their plots had become focal
points for communitV-builcling activities;
· Some gardeners gave away their produce as a means to promote
social justice;
· Some gardeners described how the program activities had helped
Boys watering marigolds
together in their neighborhood
garden.

Chapter Four: The material
deliverables of gardening
This chapter will summarize findings on the material benefits provided bV
the CommunitV Gardens program. Two categories of material deliverables
include (1) the health benefits of gardening (nutrition and exercise), and (2)
the money clients saved on food.
Earlier studies and literature on urban greening have highlighted the material
advantages of gardening. For example, studies done in LOS Angeles,
Philadelphia, and New JerseV found that urban gardeners increased their
vegetable consumption and saved moneV in food purchases as a result of
their participation in horticultural programs (Ashman et al, 1993; Blair et al,
1991; Patel, 1991). Taylor (1990) has argued that gardening is excellent
outdoor exercise, and that participants may bum more calories per hour
growing vegetables than they would doing aerobics.
Health benefits of gardening
Our evaluation findings demonstrate that Community Gardens clients
maintained nutritious diets and gained outdoor exercise while participating in
the horticultural program. These findings were significantIy stronger for
CommunitV Gardens clients than they were for comparison group
participants. in terms of diet, the gardeners reported consuming over twice the
vitamin-rich vegetable helpings than the comparison participants.
Program clients claimed they ate a mean of 11.19 vegetable helpings (one-half
cup each) during the previous 24 hours, while the comparison
participants reported eating 4.55 vegetable helpings in the same

period. 8 Table 4.1 shows the reported consumption of each vegetable listed
in the survey.
8 The vegetable consumption for both the gardeners and the comparison participants may have
been affected by the time of year of the interviews. The interviews of adult participants were conducted
between September 15 and October 15, and both groups reportedly eaten more of the vegetables that
reached their peak during this Period--particularly tomatoes and peppers. The exception was the large
number of helpings of lettuce reported eaten by both groups. When we compared the helpings of
tomatoes and peppers claimed by the adult participants with those claimed by the youth participants,
who were interviewed between August 15 and September 15, we see strong differences in reporting.
The mean helpings of tomatoes claimed by youth gardeners is .69 (in contrast to 2.61 claimed by adult
gardeners), and .39 for the comparison youth (in contrast to.73 by comparison adults); and the mean
helpings of peppers claimed by youth gardeners is .54 (in contrast to 1.62 claimed by adult gardeners),
and .26 for the comparison youth (in contrast to .49 claimed by the comparison adults).

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

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

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

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

activity level significantly higher than their comparison counterparts'. We
then hypothesized that both groups had reported the same number of
exercise hours in every activity category except gardening, and we
computed the difference between the two groups, The results were still
statistically significant 9.
In addition to being positive outcomes for the program, nutrition and
exercise were also cited as strong motivators for program involvement
When we asked all clients the reasons why they participated in the
Community Gardens program, the "chance to get fresher food with more
flavor" was the response selected second most often (68 percent) 10. The
response, "the exercise," was selected third most often (57 percent). See
Table 4.6.
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, was
2,937. This number was divided in two to get an equal number for both groups, or
1,468.5 hours each. To this number was added 523 hours of gardening for the
gardeners, and 53 hours of gardening for the comparison participants, or a mean
of 16.19 weekly hours for gardeners (n - 123) and 12.37 weekly hours for the
comparison group members (n=123). If we assume a constant standard deviation
of 11.427 (the standard deviation for the entire sample of 246 people for all
activities other than gardening), we were able to do a z-test comparing the two
means--z=(16.19-12.37)/sqrt(11.427112/l23)-2.62. This value is significant atO.004 for
a one-sided alternative (hypothesis is gardeners are more active than non
gardeners).
10 Adult clients selected this response 80 percent of the time, and the proportion rose to 82
percent when we eliminated the clients from the Kenosha pantry garden from the adult sample (pantry
garden volunteer's did not consume their own vegetables, thus would not be likely to select this
response).

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

Stakeholders from the youth gardens also discussed how the children had
increased their nutrition awareness since participating in the program. In the
following examples, parents of youth clients from Kenosha and Waukesha
discuss program effects on their young.
interviewees also mentioned the value of the outdoor exercise they gained
from gardening. In the following examples, clients from the Waukesha,
Milwaukee, and Kenosha rental gardens comment on the phVsical activity
involved in gardening.

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

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

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

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

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

However, when we crosstabulated the responses to the reasons clients
participated in the program with the ratings given on the personal
importance of the program, the heritage transmission variables became
more salient As seen in Table 5.2, adult clients who selected the responses
"to keep mv cultural traditions," "the chance to teach others gardening," and
"good chance to spend time with mV familV" as reasons for participation
were more likeIV to give the program the top rating in personal importance
than those who selected anV other reasons for participation. Over two thirds
of those who selected each of the transmission of heritage variables gave the
program a "10."
In order to understand how Community Gardens helped clients to pass on
their heritage, we looked at the interview data.
In general, adult clients discussed the ways that program activities helped
them both reminisce about a less complex way of life, and at the same time,
transmit the skills and the values of this way of life to a younger generation.
Some suggested that gardening had made their family traditions more
meaningful.

in the following examples from the Milwaukee rental gardens, clients describe
the cultural value of participating in the Community Gardens program. The
first quotation below is from an African American, the second from a Hmong
gardener, and the last is from a European American.
Asparagus beans, a
popular Asian vegetable,
growing on a teepee.
In the following examples, clients discuss more about bringing generations
together to share a horticultural heritage. The first quotation is from a
Waukesha gardener, the second from a Milwaukee gardener with a disabled
son, and the third is from a Kenosha gardener-all European American.

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

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

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

In the next section, we discuss a topic that relates closely to the
intergenerational heritage of gardening-that is the value of the gardening
practice itself.
Gardening as an enjoyable practice
Findings from the qualitative and the quantitative data indicated that program
clients enjoyed the actual act of gardening and the information they gleaned
from the practice. Approximately three-quarters of all adult and youth clients
said they participated in the Community Gardens program "for the fun," and
nearly half of the adults and over three-quarters of the youth said they were
involved "to learn skills". 11 See Table 5.4.
11 Findings for both youth and adult gardeners suggested that they learned significantly more
about gardening in the past four months than members of their comparison groups. The means
for youth were: gardeners 3.15, comparison groups 1.57; the means for adults were: gardeners
2.63, comparison groups 1.57 (scale: 0 = strongly disagree, I = disagree, 2 = not sure, 3 -
agree, 4 = strongly agree).

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

Stakeholders from the youth gardens stressed both the enjoyment of
gardening and the learning involved. Below, a parent and a teacher from
the Waukesha youth gardens discuss their observations of clients.
When members of the evaluation team asked the youth gardeners if they
gardening at home, 85 percent said they did. When we asked them if they
felt they were "doing a good job" in the gardens, 92percent said yes. We
also asked those youth clients who had gardens at home if they helped in
these gardens, and every one said they did. See Table 5.5.

While clients ascribed considerable value to gardening heritages and
gardening practices, findings also indicated that gardeners had a strong
appreciation for the program's natural settings.
Gardening as a way to convene with the
natural environment
Both the quantitative and the qualitative findings demonstrated that
program clients valued the time they spent in the gardens' natural
surroundings. Adult and youth gardeners alike reported significantly more
attention to the environment during the high cultivation months than the
comparison participants. In all, Community Gardens clients reported learning
more about the environment paying more attention to nature, and caring
more about the environment than their nongardening counterparts. See
Tables 5.6 and 5.7.

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

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

Children harvesting vegetables from their neighborhood
garden to take home.

Social anal p
Chapter Six: Social and
Psychological Benefits
This chapter will summarize findings on the social and psychosocial benefits
that clients derive from Community Gardens. The three categories of social
and psychological value that emerged from the data are: (1) gardening as a
strategy in building communities, (2) gardening as a way to promote social
justice, and (3) gardening as a strategy for building personal character
Literature also supports gardening as a way to build community. Relf (1992)
reviews research that demonstrates ways that greening activities enhance
positive images for neighborhoods and create opportunities for people to
work together Lewis (1991) shows how community gardens foster a sense of
neighborliness among residents.
Gardening as a strategy in building
communities
During interviews, Community Gardens clients and other stakeholders often
discussed the ways that the program had helped build local communities.
Member's of the evaluation team asked interviewees general questions about
forging new fellowships and improving local neighborhoods through
Community Gardens activities. The findings were mixed on whether the
program helped people gain new friendships. When asked in the survey
whether they had "made more friends than usual" or "learned more about
different cultures" during the past four months, gardeners were slightly more
likely to agree with the statements than members of the comparison groups
(see Table 6.1), but the results were not significant The means for
the client responses fell between "not sure (2)" and "agree 0." However, when
we asked clients their reasons for participating in Community Gardens,

51 percent selected the option, "get to meet other people in the gardens,"
and 61 percent of this group gave the program the highest rating of 10.
In order to understand more about the program's role in forging fellowship, we
looked at the qualitative data. Here we see that clients and stakeholders had
different experiences gardening with their neighbors. in the quotations below,
stakeholders from the Kenosha Youth garden. Milwaukee rental garden, and
Milwaukee start-up garden comment on the positive fellowship-building forged
bV public gardening.

on the other hand, problems can develop when gardeners share common
grounds. Two program staff and a Milwaukee rental gardener discuss the
varying standards and motivations clients have concerning gardening, and
complaints they hear about clients who lack respect for others' property.
On the issue of improving local neighborhoods, the findings were
considerably less ambiguous. During interviews, gardeners and stakeholders
described how some gardening areas had become focal points in their
neighborhoods. As focal points or "hubs," they often drew the support of
local groups-both informal and formal. in the following quotations,
stakeholders from the Kenosha youth and Pantry gardens, and the Waukesha
Youth garden comment on the community-building function of these
neighborhood hubs.

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

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

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

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

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

Much of the Community Gardens' social value that program stakeholders
describe also had residual effects on the participants' sense of self-worth.
This will be discussed in the next section.
Gardening as a strategy for building
personal character
Many of the gardeners we interviewed described how their efforts had given
them a sense of personal value and introspection. In the following examples,
clients from the Milwaukee and Waukesha rental gardens discuss their
feelings. A gardener and a staff member from the Milwaukee rental gardens
(county grounds) describe how this sense of self-worth is embedded in a
larger social context

other clients comment on the way that gardening helps to relieve stress. in the
following examples, participants from the Milwaukee rental and Kenosha
pantry gardens discuss the therapeutic value of the program.
Boy Scout
harvesting beans for
the poor in Field of
Dreams

Evaluation findings also suggested that the youth may have been gaining
self-esteem from the gardening experience. When we asked the youth if
they thought they were "doing a good job in the gardens," 92 percent said
"yes." Other youth garden stakeholders discussed the ways the program has
increased the children's sense of self-worth. in the following examples, a
parent of a Kenosha client a Kenosha teacher, and a parent of a Waukesha
client talk about the pride that many of the children have expressed in their
gardening.
Summary
valued by clients for more than just the material deliverables and meanings
gained from activities. Many gardeners found social and psychosocial
benefits through participation in the program. Some clients described how
the gardens had become social hubs in their neighborhoods, drawing the
support of formal and informal groups. other clients discussed the ways
they used gardening to promote social justice-particularly by donating food
to help alleviate hunger And some clients described how these activities
had given them a sense of self-sufficiency and personal value.
While the past several chapters have highlighted the strengths of the Community
Gardens program, evaluation data also suggested some challenges. Chapter
Seven will summarize these findings.

Chapter Seven:
Future Challenges
This chapter will present findings on program challenges. The two categories
of challenges that emerged from the data are (1) retaining necessary land
sites for gardening; and (2) developing broad-based management for
gardens. For a brief inventory of challenges faced by specific gardens, see
Appendix A
Retaining land sites for gardening
As outlined in Chapter one, many gardens we evaluated experienced a recent problem
with land tenure. The program neither owns land, nor receives formal protection for its
program sites through any form of public policy.
unlike policy makers in other areas, Wisconsin legislators have never proposed or
passed any laws that permanently set aside land for urban
gardens. And program administrators do not have the budgets to purchase and
maintain year-around the large tracts of land required for over 2000 garden plots. The
Community Gardens program is left depending on
temporary land donations by private, public, and commercial owners. While some
programs have received consistent public support and have a pool of land donors to
call upon when in need (such as many in Kenosha), others have limited options and
are about to lose critical parcels of land.

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

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

Nearly every client we interviewed discussed their fear of losing the county
grounds, but we found no evidence that the gardeners were organizing to
stop the development Some stakeholders discussed a lack of collective
action in other program contexts as well. This was particularly apparent when
we asked stakeholders to discuss participatory management issues.
Developing collective management
for the gardens
Members of all stakeholder groups we interviewed mentioned the need for
broader participation in the day-to-day management of Community Gardens.
First while gardeners roundly praised the help they received from program
staff, some staff described how their Community Gardens responsibilities have
escalated in recent years. A few program managers

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

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

During qualitative interviews, we asked the parents of youth gardeners if
they wanted to become more active in the program. Although we only
interviewed four parents, all said they would like to be more involved.
(Unfortunately we collected no data on the food pantry clients. Most of the
findings do suggest that a broader base of participation in Community
Gardens can be developed, and that their contributions may free up some
staff time to deal with issues in the external environment
Summary
Evaluation findings indicated two categories of future challenges for
Community Gardens. First the project neither owns any land, nor receives
protection for its program sites through any form of public policy, in the
near future, Community Gardens may lose several gardening areas that are
slated for development-most notably the Milwaukee county grounds that
currently houses 1003 garden plots. Nearly every gardener we interviewed in
Milwaukee expressed concerns about losing this site.
Second, members of all stakeholder groups we interviewed said the program
needed to involve gardeners and other stakeholders in the day-to-day
management of the gardens. Findings indicated that staff may be
overburdened with the number of roles they play-particularly their
collaborative and negotiating efforts with external organizations-and could
use help with garden maintenance tasks. Findings also suggested that those
groups who received indirect benefits of the program should be encouraged
to become active in some facet of the program.

Child harvesting a cucumber that he grew In
his local youth garden.
A scarecrow decorates
this rental garden and
keeps birds away too.

Chapter Eight: Summary
and Recommendations
This chapter will summarize the evaluation design and findings, and present
recommendations to improve program viability.
Evaluation summary
Associates conducted an evaluation of Community Gardens-a program
administered by the University of Wisconsin's Cooperative Extension.
Community Gardens sponsors programs in Milwaukee, Waukesha, and
Kenosha Counties. The gardening sites sampled for this evaluation include (1)
four rental gardens (Milwaukee county grounds, Milwaukee Mitchell gardens
[a "start-up" effort], Waukesha Northview site, and Kenosha Northside garden);
(2) two youth gardens Waukesha La Casa/Extension collaborative, and Kenosha
Lincoln/Extension collaborative); and (3) one garden that serves the needs of
food pantry clientele (Kenosha Field of Dreams).
Evaluation Design
The Community Gardens' evaluation design included a qualitative and a
quantitative component.
The qualitative component included document reviews of annual reports and
program promotional materials, participant observation at each of the seven
garden sites targeted for evaluation, and 47 semi-structured interviews with
program stakeholders (including gardeners, staff, volunteers, horticultural
educators, collaborators, and parents of youth gardeners).

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

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

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

Evaluation of Community Gardens

Evaluation of Community Gardens

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Evaluation of Community Gardens

Similaire à Evaluation of Community Gardens (20)

Plus de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

Plus de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Evaluation of Community Gardens