1
2

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 3

AMS purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 4

History of AMS grant programs ............................................................................................................ 4

Goals and Approach ................................................................................................................................... 5

Project goals and scope ...................................................................................................................... 5

Discovery methods and approach........................................................................................................ 6

As-Is Results and Assessment .................................................................................................................. 8

Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 8

AMS Personnel Interview Key Findings ............................................................................................... 9

Qualitative Grant Reports and Applications ....................................................................................... 13

Previous Evaluations (SCBGP, FMLFPP, FSMIP) ............................................................................. 13

NASDA Foundation Feedback Sessions............................................................................................ 14

National Stakeholder Survey ............................................................................................................. 20

As-is Logic Models ............................................................................................................................. 33

Revision Methods and Approach ....................................................................................................... 33

Recommended Logic Models ............................................................................................................ 33

Outcome Narratives ........................................................................................................................... 34

Focus Groups..................................................................................................................................... 34

Common Themes............................................................................................................................... 37

Evaluation Framework ............................................................................................................................... 38

Recommended Metrics and Logic Models ......................................................................................... 38

AMS Learning Objectives................................................................................................................... 38

Data Collection Considerations.......................................................................................................... 38

Implementation Recommendations.................................................................................................... 41

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix 1: Discovery Results .......................................................................................................... 42

Appendix 2: Grant Thornton Stakeholder Survey Respondents’ Geographic Breakdown................. 46

Appendix 3: Stakeholder Involvement with Grant Program Breakdown ............................................ 47

Appendix 5: Attrition Rate by Grant Program Breakdown.................................................................. 50

Appendix 6: Grant Thornton Survey Agree/Disagree Response Question Breakdown ..................... 52

Appendix 7: Grant Thornton Survey Written Response Theme Heatmaps........................................ 56

As-is Logic Models ............................................................................................................................. 62

Recommended Logic Models............................................................................................................. 72

Program Goals ................................................................................................................................... 92

Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 94
3

Executive Summary

In 2015, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to devise strong performance metrics for its Specialty Crop Block Grant 

Program (SCBGP), At the time, OMB was concerned that the existing performance metrics did not fully capture 

the intent of the grant program, and therefore, AMS staff coordinated with OMB to establish mutually-agreed 

upon and approved performance metrics. Having gone through this rigorous OMB approval process, AMS 

felt that the SCBGP performance metrics provided a solid basis for its additional grant program performance 

metrics as well and began to implement them as part of the programs. While these metrics did receive 

approval, grant recipients, specifically SCBGP state grant coordinators, voiced concern that certain metrics, 

specifically in relation to marketing data, were difficult to obtain from grant recipients. These concerns rose to 

the level of Congressional awareness. 

As such, Congress incorporated action to address these concerns into the Agricultural Improvement Act 

of 2018 (P.L. 115-134, “2018 Farm Bill”), mandating that the in conjunction with the State departments of 

agriculture, USDA develop performance measures to be used as the sole means of evaluating the SCBGP. To 

conduct this process, AMS engaged Grant Thornton Public Sector LLC (Grant Thornton) to assess the current 

performance measures for not only for SCBGP, but for three additional AMS programs as well, and recommend 

a new framework with feasible, low-burden indicators enabling comprehensive evaluation of individual grant 

recipient and overall grant portfolio impact. 

Grant Thornton, in collaboration with the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Foundation 

(NASDA Foundation), employed a mixed-methods approach including: thorough review of relevant policies, 

past evaluations, grant applications and reports; in-person and virtual feedback sessions; a nationwide online 

survey; and targeted expert interviews. Consulting stakeholders through these mediums served to elevate 

a diverse, comprehensive set of first-person experiences and fulfilled the legislative mandate for State 

consultation as stipulated in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

This formal investigation into AMS’s current evaluation framework focuses on two primary objectives: 

1) Provide a comprehensive overview of feedback received about current program measures; and 2) 

Recommend indicators, data collection strategies, and evaluation framework components that reduce burden 

and promote accurate evaluation of impact across AMS’s grant programs.

Drafting as-is logic models outlining current performance indicators provided a baseline to identify key issues in 

AMS’s approach to evaluation. Resources reviewed during discovery and feedback received from stakeholder 

engagement identified numerous opportunities for improvement to better align indicators with program 

activities and goals; make sure that indicators are indicative of early, mid, and late stage impact; and provide 

AMS with recommendations on how grant recipients can collect the required data. Three common themes 

pervaded feedback received by all grant programs assessed in this report: 1) Indicators are not aligned with 

the PoP (e.g. early-stage indicators were missing, and many indicators required effort extending beyond the 

project period); 2) There exists general confusion over what indicators recipients should report on depending 

on their activities; and 3) Recipients struggle with collecting data measuring behavior change in response to 

marketing and other outreach.

The recommendations provided in this report and the accompanying outcome narratives tables acknowledge 

these themes through a few primary strategies. First, the report provides a robust set of indicators that are 

more feasible within the PoP, better aligned with project goals and recipient activities, and reflective of work 

undertaken from project start through completion. This allows recipients and subrecipients to report accurately 

on all aspects of their project and will promote the ability for evaluators to track progress from project start 

to completion. Second, AMS must support recipients’ understanding of what indicators are required based 

on their specific activities. Third, grant recipients and subrecipients need additional guidance and technical 

assistance in collecting the data required to report on recommended indicators.

Readers should refer to the associated Outcome Narratives to review the recommended indicators, justification 

for inclusion, and any data collection recommendations. Recommended logic models in Appendix 9 provide 

the structural outline for how indicators connect to activities, outputs (i.e. measures of activity), and outcome 

indicators (i.e. measure of impact). AMS staff should rely on recommendations outlined in both the outcome 

narratives and logic models to implement recommended indicators successfully.
4

Associated Outcome Narratives incorporate these strategies and outline the recommended indicators, 

where they may overlap with current indicators, and provide justification for the recommendation. The 

outcome narratives further provide guidance on how this data should be collected, and specific examples 

of how recipients might report on the indicators based on different types of activities. Implementing these 

recommended measures will provide AMS and recipients with a framework that provides more flexible and 

accurate assessment of recipient activities and strengthen AMS’s ability to demonstrate grant portfolio impact 

overall.

AMS purpose

Since its establishment in 1939, AMS has worked to support rural America and the Nation’s agricultural sector. 

With an original mission of facilitating the efficient and fair marketing of U.S. agricultural products, AMS has 

evolved over the last 81 years to support the diverse, multi-faceted needs of the agriculture industry. Working 

with a variety of organizations, AMS creates domestic and international marketing opportunities for American 

farmers, ranchers, and businesses in a supply chain extending from field to table. In doing so, AMS provides 

the agriculture industry with valuable services – a combination of applied research, technical services, grant 

support, and more – to ensure the quality and availability of wholesome food across the country. AMS’s 

Transportation and Marketing (T&M) Program Grants Division provides millions of dollars in grant investments

annually to support a wide variety of industries and stakeholders. Specifically, the Division enhances the 

marketability and competitiveness of U.S. agricultural products locally, nationally, and internationally by 

promoting a variety of agricultural systems. The Division supports such initiatives by providing high-quality, 

transparent service, and exemplifying proper management of Federal resources. 

History of AMS grant programs

The trajectory of AMS grants programs begins with the 1946 Agricultural Marketing Act, which declared that “a 

sound, efficient, and privately operated system for distributing and marketing agricultural products is essential 

to a prosperous agriculture and is indispensable to the maintenance of full employment and to the welfare, 

prosperity, and health of the Nation.” The 1946 Act authorized continuous research to improve the marketing 

and transportation of agricultural products and calls for cooperation between Federal and State agencies, 

producers, industry organizations, and other stakeholders. As a means of accomplishing the enumerated 

objectives relevant to information dissemination, free movement of agricultural products, and establishment of 

new market opportunities, the 1946 Act allocated annual grant dollars to the pursuit of these goals, including 

authorizing the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP). 

AMS’s grant portfolio has developed and diversified in tandem with the needs of America’s agricultural sector 

and its workers. Accordingly, the Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) was added in the 2002 Farm 

Bill (PL 107-171) (§10605) (amending the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976). The Specialty 

Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 authorized the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) through the 

Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. Funding was made available for SCBGP for each fiscal year (FY) 

from 2005 to 2023, as a means of enhancing American specialty crop production. 

The Farmers Market Promotion Program was reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Bill (§10106) and it, among other 

changes, provided mandatory funding through 2012. FMPP ceased momentarily in 2013 as no new Farm 

Bill was passed until 2014. The 2014 Farm Bill (§10003) finally passed, reauthorizing FMPP, and adding the 

Local Food Promotion Program as FMPP’s sister Program. This new larger program became the Farmers 

Market and Local Food Promotion Program. The 2014 Farm Bill also reauthorized the Sheep Production and 

Marketing Program (SPMGP) to enhance the production and marketing of sheep products, authorized the 

new Acer Access and Development Program (Acer) to promote the domestic maple sugar industry, and added 

the Specialty Crop Multi-State Program (SCMP) as a competitive, multistate funding opportunity, added on to 

SCBGP funding. 

Similar to the 2014 Farm Bill, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) is a legislative pillar 

for AMS’s grant programs, as it provides both legislative backing and appropriates federal dollars for additional 

programs. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized the Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives (DBI) to support the 

development, production, marketing, and distribution of dairy products and designated funding for DBI beginning 

in FY 2019. It also authorized the Regional Food System Partnerships (RFSP), a new AMS grant program that 
5

AMS will launch in FY2020. In addition, the 2018 Farm Bill instituted a consequential re-organization of AMS’s 

local-regional food economy grant programs by formalizing the Local Agricultural Marketing Program (LAMP) 

organizational structure, which comprises FMLFPP and RFSP.1

While AMS’s formal evaluation journey began in FY 2015, it remains an ongoing and iterative process. The 

subsequent grant cycles after FY 2015 entailed a cross-program adaption and rollout of the outcome and 

indicator measures developed for SCBGP across FMPP, LFPP, DBI, Acer, and they remain the recommended 

evaluation criteria for SCMP. A timeline of program authorization and outcome integration can be seen Figure 1:

Figure 1: AMS Grants Timeline

Since initial deployment, AMS identified opportunities to improve feasibility of data collection, increase the 

programmatic relevance of outcomes and indicators, and create further alignment between evaluation criteria 

and overall program goals. AMS contracted Grant Thornton to conduct a formal assessment of the current 

evaluation structure across its grants portfolio. Subsequently, and in collaboration with the NASDA Foundation, 

Grant Thornton was charged with proposing a revised set of outcomes and indicators that retain consistency 

across programs while balancing the unique goals of each individual grant program, the unique types of projects 

grant recipients perform, and to satisfy 2018 Farm Bill requirements to incorporate wide input from stakeholders 

across American agricultural industry, academia, local and state agencies, and the federal government.

Goals and Approach 

Project goals and scope 

The Grants Division of AMS Transportation and Marketing retained Grant Thornton with the goal towards 

recommending a set of standardized performance measures to: mitigate inconsistencies in grant-related 

data collection; diminish administrative burden for AMS grant applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients, 

Agency personnel, and passthrough entities in collecting and aggregating data; and remedy challenges in the 

evaluation of combined grant program impacts. In addition, AMS seeks to establish a uniform grant evaluation 

1 AMS is currently developing VAPG, and it is not within the scope of this evaluation.
6

framework that aligns with USDAs strategic goals, can be easily adapted to the Government Performance and 

Results Modernization Act (GPRA), and ensures that the Division’s customers (applicants, recipients, and subrecipients) have consistency among requested data points.

In pursuit of project goals and objectives, Grant Thornton remained cognizant of the diversity across AMS’s 

grant programs. The approach to stakeholder involvement and the performance measure revisions accounted 

for programmatic differences across AMS’s grant portfolio, including legislative differences and requirements, 

differences across industries and beneficiaries, as well as differences in organizational capacity and project 

maturity. While bearing these issues in mind, Grant Thornton aimed to achieve AMS’s desire for uniform and 

consolidated grant program performance measures, resulting in flexible yet structured evaluation framework, 

that accommodates the variety within individual grant programs.

As seen in Figure 2, Grant Thornton’s discovery and recommended performance measures and evaluation 

framework encapsulate programs with existing program performance indicators, including: SCBGP, SCMP, 

FMPP, LFPP, Acer, and DBI. Programs without existing performance measures are not in scope.

Figure 2: Project Scope

For each grant program evaluated, Grant Thornton employed program evaluation techniques consistent with 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) best-practices to evaluate and revise a set of tailored, comprehensive 

performance measures. For instance, the evaluation process included creating logic models for each program, 

which depict how grant recipient activities relate to measures of those activities (i.e. output measures), and 

how those measures of activities relate to measures of actual impact (i.e. outcome measures) within the 

program model. Grant Thornton leveraged these logic models to strategically pare down some programs’ 

required performance measures to reduce grant reporting burden. In other cases, new performance measures 

were added, particularly re-aligned to each program’s stated goals and outcomes. In addition, decisions 

regarding performance measure revisions occurred in consultation with and were guided by stakeholder 

input, in adherence to the legislative mandate in the 2018 Farm Bill.2 Broad discovery efforts Grant Thornton 

deployed included interviews with Agency personnel, a national-level online stakeholder survey, targeted focus 

groups, as well as in-person feedback sessions hosted by the NASDA Foundation. 

Discovery methods and approach

In conducting this evaluation, the Grant Thornton Team employed a variety of cross-disciplinary discovery 

methods to assess AMS’s current approach to evaluation, as well as to incorporate feedback from community 

members and external stakeholders to guide and validate recommendations. The team employed the following 

methods, depicted in Figure 3:

2 (3) Evaluation.--``(A) Performance measures and review.-- ``(i) Development.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the State 

departments of agriculture, in consultation with specialty crop stakeholders, shall develop performance measures to be used as the sole 

means of performing any evaluation of the grant program established under this section.

In-Scope of Evaluation

Speciality Crop Block Grant Program/Speciality 

Crop Multi-State Program

Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion 

Program

Acer Access and Development Program

Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives

Out of Evaluation Scope

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program

Regional Food Systems Program

Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program
7

Figure 3: Discovery Methods
8

Grant Thornton’s discovery process entailed a robust set of activities comprising the first step of a two-phased 

approach to discovery and validation. As depicted in Figure 4, Grant Thornton analyzed six discovery inputs in 

concert with one another to identify the most pressing reporting challenges across programs, develop a fullcycle understanding of the reporting process, and make portfolio-level determinations about areas of potential 

improvement. Notably, the team considered a wide range of stakeholder feedback shared through both the 

NASDA Foundation’s feedback sessions and Grant Thornton’s national stakeholder survey. Together, discovery 

methods informed the development of as-is logic models, the culminating artifact shared with AMS at the end 

of the discovery process.

The subsequent revision process required addressing issues with the as-is structure with reinforcement from 

multiple rounds of review with grant recipients, industry experts, researchers, and other external stakeholders. 

To ensure continual refinement throughout the revision process, Grant Thornton leveraged a cyclical 

methodology, as further detailed in Figure 4. The revision process was a continuous loop, in which feedback 

and revision fed into one another for ongoing program refinement based on changes in audience and 

recommendations stemming from multiple perspectives. This structure provided an opportunity for Grant 

Thornton to elicit feedback on a recurring basis and refine recommended indicators accordingly. 

Figure 4: Process Overview

As-Is Results and Assessment 

Overview

This section includes a summarized discussion of the results from each discovery method listed above and 

will refer to appendix support providing detailed analysis. Results from AMS personnel interviews, reviews of 

qualitative reports and applications, previous evaluation reviews, the NASDA Foundation’s feedback sessions, 

and Grant Thornton’s national stakeholder survey informed initial performance measure recommendations. 

Subsequent focus groups served as a means of verifying and validating initial recommendations. AMS 

personnel and the NASDA Foundation then thoroughly reviewed refined metrics to provide final feedback 

before recommendations were finalized.
9

AMS Personnel Interview Key Findings

SCBGP

Introductory Interview:

It is of central importance to consider that SCBGP contains diverse stakeholders with a range of capabilities. 

Performance measures were originally mandated 2014-2015 and developed in collaboration with OMB. As far 

as we can understand, marketing-related measures were and continue to be a priority for OMB, though they 

remain particularly problematic for grant recipients and sub-recipients. In some cases, SDAs (which are the 

grant recipients for SCBGP) and sub-recipients have difficulty aligning their projects with existing performance 

measures. Performance measures also vary widely in terms of ease and clarity, which renders some more 

common than others. It was generally agreed-upon that for SCBGP, grant recipients tend toward overcommitting to multiple performance measures. In cases where multiple outcomes and indicators are pursued, 

grant recipients make uneven progress toward meeting them. It was concluded that it would be beneficial to 

distinguish between short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals. Providing clearer and more comprehensive 

definitions within performance measures would be beneficial. As a general trend, recipients have found 

outcomes related to technology and sales to be problematic. Because SDAs are the grant recipients for 

SCBGP, AMS has very limited direct contact with sub-recipients. Because of the vast array of sub-recipients, 

activities pursued, and methods used, as well as the nature of SCBGP being that it calls for AMS to delegate 

authority to SDAs, creating a framework for data collection and reporting would likely help sub-recipients as 

well as GMSs.

Logic Model Consultation:

Outcome 1: The consensus is that there is little room to adjust outcome 1, and any revised set of performance 

measures will likely have to include it in some variant because of OMB’s requirements. What is subject to 

change are the indicators that grants applicants and recipients can select in order to speak to competitiveness. 

Outcome 2: A helpful distinction can be made between long-term and intermediate outcomes for this 

performance measure. In doing so, it becomes possible to distinguish between behavior change and gained 

knowledge, for example, as indicators.

Outcome 3: The idea was suggested that there might be a logical efficiency to be exploited by combining 

outcomes two and three, provided that we do not diminish the tri-equal “access” element. This premise of 

combining outcomes was predicated by the idea that, by merging carefully, a coherent value-chain might be 

developed within the outcome. 

Outcome 4: The suggestion was made that outcome 4 may represent another case where indicators may be 

better aligned with other outcomes. There was a lengthy discussion of more suitable placements for indicators 

within outcome 4. However, it was also noted that the outcome might not be comprehensive, which prompted 

further discussion of how outcomes were categorized during their development in 2015. Attempts to strictly 

adhere to established categories might explain some discontinuity. Adding and replacing some outcome 4 

indicators would likely be of value. 

Outcome 5: The question of whether research might be considered an outcome in lieu of behavior changed 

was posed. Based on that question, there was a discussion of short-term, intermediate, and long-term 

outcomes. The extant outcomes seemed to the GMSs to be largely long-term outcomes. There could be 

upstream outputs (e.g. research, knowledge) that logically feed into behavior change-oriented outcomes, like 

the current ones. 

Outcome 6: There was minimal discussion of outcome 6, as it was considered straightforward.

Outcome 7: It was mentioned that there was previous discussion around Outcomes 6 and 7 being combined. 

The consensus in the room is that there is a potential efficiency to tap into, as well as a potential to add 

additional outcomes and indicators.
10

Outcome 8: It was proffered that outcome 8 is a feasible way to measure programmatic success for SCBGP, 

and the other outcomes lead up to outcome 8. AMS should be measuring this outcome meticulously, even 

though it might not be a grant recipient priority. Questions arose on how this outcome might capture projects 

with less tangible, though not necessarily less valuable projects, e.g. research. There was excitement about 

the prospect of adding new indicators.

SCMP

Introductory Interview:

SCMP and SCBGP were authorized under the same legislation, so the programs should be reflective of each 

other. However, distinct categorical priority areas related to multi-state nature projects, which must have 

regional or national impact, differentiates SCMP from SCBGP. As such, there is also a distinct partnership 

aspect to SCMP projects that is important to account for. When SCMP was originally designed, AMS avoided 

being overly prescriptive, the reason being that there was already extant concern around the SCBGP 

performance measures, specifically in relation to the marketing and sales outcomes. AMS is not looking at 

pushing marketing and promotion out of the program, but rather revising outcomes and indicators, so they are 

both more feasible. Adaptability of revised outcomes for SCMP, as well as SCBGP, is a priority.

Logic Model Consultation:

Because SCMP has no required, standardized performance measures, no current-state logic model was 

created.

FMLFPP

Introductory Interview:

It was emphasized that there is a plain language challenge with FMLFPP performance measures; grant 

applicants, recipients, and even GMSs have difficulty understanding the complex language of some of the 

outcomes and indicators. Stakeholders oftentimes don’t understand the metrics. Commonly, grant applicants 

overcommit to a number of performance measures based on the assumption that doing so will advantage 

them in the selection process. There are no performance measures specifically designated for planning 

grants, which has posed a formidable obstacle. The vagueness of some outcomes makes them difficult for 

less-experienced stakeholders to understand. Applicants have challenges providing baseline measurements. 

GMSs are often looked to for guidance around selecting outcomes and indicators, as well as conducting 

baseline measurements. It was expressed that training and educational activities would likely be beneficial 

to both GMSs and recipients. It was generally agreed that there needs to be better definitions of terms to aid 

grant-applicants in their understanding and decision-making. GMSs didn’t feel that the proposed performance 

measures for FMLFPP are currently effective at mapping back to larger program goals. 

Planning grants and implementation grants currently have the same outcome measures, which is illogical 

given that these sub-programs of LFPP that are involved in very different activities. It was also noted that small 

stakeholder groups have particular difficulties transmitting information that’s useful for AMS purposes. 

Logic Model Consultation: 

Outcome 1: The GMSs noted that outcome 1 is more commonly-selected because it is measurable and clear. 

Nevertheless, there is a problematic trend where grant-applicants hugely overestimate; GMSs expressed 

the desire for applicants and recipients to be more realistic in their estimations. The importance of grants 

outcomes having baselines was reiterated. There is currently little-to-no data validation occurring, and there 

is not requirement by AMS to do so. Social media was resoundingly-deemed useful for grant recipients. The 

challenge was summed up to balancing feasibility of collection with diversity of options.

Outcome 2: It was noted that Sales is a particularly difficult outcome for grant recipients to accurately track 

and report on. There was focus on potential alternatives to asking for exact sales numbers, like averages, 

ranges, percent’s, volume of commodities, etc.
11

Outcome 3: GMSs concluded that the intent of indicators a-f are straightforward and should be retained, as 

they align with one of the program’s goals of creating new access points. There are a number of outcomes and 

indicators that contribute to a variety of different value chains in ways that are not entirely logical. For Outcome 

3, there are a number of things categorized as outcomes in the logic model that don’t necessarily align to the 

outputs.

Outcome 4: The GMSs concurred that, generally, outcome 4 and its indicators seem sound as they stand.

Outcome 5: This outcome was identified as being a long-term outcome under the assumption that non-federal 

dollars procured is a long-term process. It was communicated that this is a planning grant outcome indicator 

only. Indicators for this outcome come across as disjointed e.g. How federal dollars relates to performing a 

needs assessment. Language for this outcome, especially around the framing of needs assessments, needs 

to be clarified. In some cases, grant recipients will follow-up on activities produced under this grant by applying 

for an implementation program after receiving these grants. 

Outcome 6: The biggest problem with outcome 6 is that recipients sometimes do not complete the activities or 

are otherwise unable to report the outcome they select.

Acer

Introductory Interview:

Grants management specialists (GMS) overseeing Acer shared that grant recipients are invested in the 

goals of the program, amenable to AMS’s performance measures, and generally encounter limited barriers 

in reporting relevant indicators. Their reports often contain an array of data formats, from conventional raw 

data, to manuals, to videos produced, and more. Acer grant recipients are more established organizations, like 

State Departments of Agriculture (SDAs), universities, tribal governments, etc. GMSs also described a smaller 

community of applicants and grant recipients, who are more likely to help one another. AMS identified this 

small, collaborative dynamic as one of the reasons that they have heard less negative feedback regarding Acer 

reporting. It was unclear to GMSs if there were any especially problematic or burdensome outcomes. Rather, 

reporting the metrics as-written has not been a noted difficulty for most recipients. Furthermore, specialists 

suggested that recipient-proposed indicators could be considered future-looking and might be useful for 

informing curated, measurable and quantifiable outcomes. 

As-is Logic Model Consultation:

Outcome 1 – GMSs distinguished that we might not want to focus on access because that doesn’t align with 

the goals of the program to 1) increase maple sugaring activities and 2) increase production. Notwithstanding, 

in addition to the program goals, one of the legislative requirements under the application is that the applicant 

is required to estimate the increase in maple sugaring activities/production that will result “in application 

activities.” It was universally agreed that these measures should not be combined. “Access points” might be 

better accounted for under outcome three, where it already is an indicator. 

Outcome 2 – GMSs reiterated the importance of including additional options outside of direct, numerical sales. 

It was also noted that while some grant recipients do report on sales, it is not a major component of most 

projects. 

Outcome 3 – It was generally expressed that indicator language for outcome three is too complex for grant 

recipients to easily understand. Questions were also levied regarding how closely the outcome relates to the 

overarching goal of creating new market opportunities. Multiple GMSs insinuated that the outcome itself was 

disjunctive in that new delivery systems/access points come across as very different from improved products. 

Indicators should extend beyond just delivery. One suggestion was to track if recipients perform outreach and 

also tracking improvements to delivery systems.

Outcome 4 – GMSs generally agreed that PoP (PoP) renders some of these outcomes difficult or impossible 

to report on accurately. Oftentimes, impact of these kinds of activities become apparent long after the grant 

period is over. Outcome and indicator revisions need to be realistic to PoP.
12

DBI

Introductory Interview: 

DBI encourages the development and marketing of innovative new dairy products and other revenuegenerating processes that increase distribution for dairy producer groups. Milk production is already incredibly 

efficient, and production is not a goal of DBI. This reality contributes to outcome one, sales, being particularly 

difficult for recipients to report on. Producers and producer groups are extremely reluctant to report sales data, 

which is both challenging in terms of privacy and methodology. A critical task is thus to determine potential 

alternatives to demonstrate sales. 

Logic Model Consultation:

Outcome 1: GMSs overseeing DBI haven’t received feedback from grant recipients funded by DBI, since the 

grant PoP just began in September 2019. However, in the NASDA Foundation’s regional feedback sessions 

participants expressed concerns around “access” and “consumption” being combined in the first indicator. 

Outcome 2: The sales-related indicator posed significant challenges for DBI recipients. Possible alternatives 

to reporting sales data, including reporting ranges in lieu of exact numbers, reporting percentages, omitting 

baselines, or asking recipients to report on reduced supply were proffered by GMSs. Furthermore, the outcome 

could be re-ordered more logically, so that there is a clearer value-chain depicted. 

Outcome 3: There may be an opportunity to ask grant recipients to report on outcome-level indicators related 

to these outcome streams, so that we’re getting more measures of upstream activities that are related to these 

over-arching outcomes. A goal of this revision process is to tie what grant recipients are being asked to perform 

by the outputs, so that they aren’t confused by the disparity between grant objectives and activities prompted 

by the outcomes. This point begs a question of how these stated outcomes align to the program goals. It is 

important that the link is clear enough that grant recipients understand why they are being asked to report on 

the designated performance measures included in grant applications.

FSMIP

Introductory Interview:

It was confirmed that FSMIP does not have formalized performance measures. Rather, applicants instead have 

a list of technical requirements for application narratives. Applicants currently choose their own metrics, and 

consequently, the information they report back can’t easily be collated or aggregated to use as justification on a 

national level. To evaluate the achievability section of FSMIP applications, AMS reviews applications to ensure 

they align with the Request For Applications (RFA), after which they are sent to reviewer panels comprised 

of subject matter experts in fields related to FSMIP. Previously, there was a focus on measuring return on 

investment, though it became evident that ROI doesn’t seem to lend itself to FSMIP projects because they 

focus on marketing, research, and other exploratory projects that don’t always yield tangible outcomes within 

a three-year PoP. It was generally agreed-upon that FSMIP exemplifies the importance of delineating among 

short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, it is important to consider how we can actually 

take exploratory projects and attribute value, moving beyond monetary-based outcomes and developing novel 

approaches to quantifying less tangible results, such as behavior change in direct result to marketing activities. 

AMS entered into a collaborative partnership with Auburn University, through which Auburn produced a report 

containing recommended metrics for FSMIP, including metrics around baseline economic data collection, tool 

consolidation, and more. Finally, there was expressed desire for GMS training to incorporate new perspectives 

related to marketing, research, and food more generally in addition to the grants and administrative training 

they already receive.

Logic Model Consultation:

Because FSMIP has no standardized performance measures, no current-state logic model was created.
13

SPMGP

Introductory Interview:

GMSs relayed that the current outcomes for SPMGP exist largely as a result of intense lobbying by the 

sheep industry. The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center (Sheep Center), the sole grant recipient 

that administers the grant to sub-recipients. SPGMP used to be administered out of the Livestock, Poultry, & 

Grain division of AMS, during which standardized grant reporting was not mandated. Yet, some SPMGP grant 

recipients still reported, albeit reports were not standardized. Now under Transportation and Marketing, grant 

recipients submit annual reports more formally, in order to verifying that projects are proceeding within terms 

and conditions enumerated in approved grant proposals. 

Logic Model Consultation:

Because SPMGP has no standardized performance measures, no logic current-state model was created.

RFSP

Introductory Interview:

As a future part of the Local Agricultural Marketing Program (LAMP), outcomes and indicators for RFSP should 

be based on those used for FMLFPP. Under legislation applicable to LAMP, there are overarching goals for 

the LAMP program that connect FMLFPP and RFSP. Keeping these legislative and programmatic similarities 

in mind, it remains important to ideate around indicators/outcomes that are specific to this kind of specific 

partnership program. 

Logic Model Consultation:

Because RFSP has no formalized performance measures, no logic model was developed.

Qualitative Grant Reports and Applications

A preliminary element of Grant Thornton’s discovery entailed reviewing a sample of grant applications and 

reports for each grant program within the scope of the evaluation. These applications and reports provided 

a clear line of sight to grant recipient activities and the types of projects being performed under AMS’s grant 

programs. In order to obtain a comprehensive perspective, the team reviewed applications and reports from 

a wide array of geographic regions and spanning a diversity of project types. In doing so, Grant Thornton was 

able to identify and categorize many of the major activities commonly performed under each respective grant 

program, which the team leveraged to frame inputs for as-is logic model development. 

Additionally, applications and reports provided helpful insight into the structure of the application process, 

allowing the team to view reporting from an applicant’s perspective. Doing so yielded a process-level 

understanding that better informed the team’s perception of challenges grant recipients face and opportunities 

to enhance their overall experience. For instance, the team was able to gain awareness of application 

length and format, which have important implications for implementation recommendations discussed in 

this evaluation framework. These reviews likewise facilitated further understanding of different reporting 

requirements. For instance, they illuminated the extent to which requirements and the layout of annual reports 

differ compared to final reports. Overall, application and report reviews were an important exercise that helped 

the team gain context-specific knowledge fundamental to evaluation success. 

Previous Evaluations (SCBGP, FMLFPP, FSMIP)

Grant Thornton’s discovery also involved attaining current knowledge of previous grant program evaluations 

conducted on behalf of AMS. The team reviewed three prior evaluations of AMS programs for FMLFPP, 

FSMIP, and SCBGP conducted by Kansas State University’s Office of Innovation and Evaluation (OEIE), the 

Auburn Center for Evaluation, and Purdue University’s Evaluation and Learning Research center respectively. 

Kansas State University’s 2018 FMLFPP evaluation assessed how FMLFPP’s 2014 agreements supported 

the statutory purpose of the program, centering on the goals of: describing successful outcomes that can be 

supported with evidence, illustrating the impact on the local food industry’s capacity regionally and nationally, 

and identifying barriers that prevent the Program from addressing its primary purpose (Shuman, Allen, and 

Miller, 2018). The Auburn Center for Evaluations’ 2018 report analyzed project data from 26 FSMIP final 
14

reports submitted during FY2014-15, with the objectives of analyzing economic impact data, categorizing 

funded projects, recommending standard performance measures, and identifying areas of improvement 

for program administration (Henry et al, 2018). Finally, Purdue University performed a program evaluation 

for fiscal year 2013 SCBGP projects to ascertain the impact of the SCBGP on the national specialty crop 

industry, identify areas for improvement, and provide an independent program review (Burgess, Kirkham, and 

Bessenbacher, 2018).

These evaluations provided an important historical perspective that aided in orienting Grant Thornton to the 

challenges that grants applicants have faced in attempting to successfully report on project impacts. The 

reports likewise provided helpful contextual awareness for the vast array of activities grant recipients conduct 

in attempt to reach the goals they establish. Because multiple of the evaluations feature recommendations 

for new or additional performance measures, they provided an early glimpse into the extant opportunities for 

improvement Grant Thornton would later become familiar with through other discovery methods. These prior 

evaluations also served to assist Grant Thornton in the validations of the final set of recommended indicators 

and outcomes. 

NASDA Foundation Feedback Sessions

The NASDA Foundation’s in-person and virtual feedback sessions collected data from stakeholders for four 

AMS grant programs – SCBGP/SCMP, FMLFPP, Acer, and DBI. Stakeholder comments were aligned to theme 

categories, which NASDA Foundation defined using the definitions in Figure 5. The various themes and their 

associated definitions, provided by the NASDA Foundation, are outlined below.

Figure 5: NASDA Foundation Theme Definitions

NASDA Foundation Themes and Definitions

y Clarify Outcome/Indicator: Outcome/indicator is confusing and requires clarification.

y Data Collected Doesn’t Show Outcome/Indicator Success: Data required for outcome/indicator 

does not actually provide proof of meeting outcome/indicator.

y Difficult to Collect Data: Hard to collect data to meet requirements for outcome/indicator

y Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator: Hard to collect data to meet requirements for outcome/

indicator.

y External Factors Impact Outcomes: External factors could be impacting the numbers collected 

for outcome/indicator. External factors could include weather, market fluctuation, and trade policy.

y Good Outcome/Indicator: Outcome/indicator should be maintained and there are no overarching 

challenges associated with meeting the requirement.

y Grant Period Too Short: Grant and/or program period is too short to realistically accomplish the 

outcome/indicator.

y Make Outcome/Indicator Optional: Outcome or indicator should be optional.

y New Activity Needed: Another activity should be allowed in grant.

y New Outcome/Indicator: Should include another outcome and/or indicator. Details provided on 

new outcome/indicator.

y Not Effective Outcome/Indicator: Should include another outcome and/or indicator. Details 

provided on new outcome/indicator.

y Separate Outcomes for Scientific Trails and Marketing Projects: Projects focused on scientific 

projects should have different outcomes than projects focused on marketing.

y Too Many Variables in Indicator: Too many variables are included in the variable.

y Urban/Rural Divide: Difficulty arises from urban and rural factors, such as urban farmers working 

with rural farmers. 
15

The top themes were discerned by establishing counts of stakeholder comments that align with each theme. 

Comments received during the in-person and virtual feedback sessions were aggregated together. Tables 

1-4 below describe top themes attributed to each outcome for SCBGP/SCMP, FMLFPP, Acer, and DBI.3

For a breakdown of every theme count captured for the four grant programs during the NASDA Foundation 

Feedback Sessions, see Appendix 1.

Table 1: SCBGP/SCMP Top NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Themes

General Comments Across All Outcomes 

Themes 1. Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2. New Outcome/Indicator4

Example Written 

Responses

“It would be nice to have a video and/or training from AMS that explained the type of data USDA 

would be looking for with each outcome and indicator.”

“Would like to see more outcomes that fit for research projects.”

3 In some cases, participant response rates for Acer and DBI were too low to include the standard three themes attributed to 

the larger grant programs, like FMLFPP and SCBGP. 

4 In contrast with rankings for outcome-specific themes in the tables below, numbering does not connote rank in the case of 

these general themes, which apply to multiple outcomes. 

Outcome 1: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased sales

Themes 1. Difficult to Collect Data 2. New Outcome/Indicator 3. External Factors Impact Outcomes

Example Written 

Responses

“We find it very difficult to collect data on this outcome. Some recipients have [difficulty] knowing 

how to collect data and there is an overall general reluctance by people to report on earnings.”

 “Hard to collect sales numbers from the growers...Getting percentage change is slightly easier but 

still tough.”

“Even allowing recipients to measure EITHER the dollar value increase OR the % increase would 

be helpful.”

Outcome 2: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased consumption

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Difficult to Collect Data

Example Written 

Responses

“Challenge to collect/verify consumption post-consumer engagement, like “knowledge/intent” but 

not ‘reported.’”

“Would like to see more outcomes for grower education (there is a lot focused on consumer and 

market education-Outcome 2&3).”“Like this! Important indicators to keep in food system evaluation 

framework [with] alterations of measurements.”

Outcome 3: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased access and awareness

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Difficult to Collect Data 3. (Tie) Clarify Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) Not 

Effective Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Confusing to mix consumers and wholesalers in same indicator—separate them and related 

action.”

 “We like these indicators...but experienced confusion about the definition of these terms from the 

perspective of SCBGP/SCMPP and how to quantify our metrics to support those indicators in a 

way that the indicators intend.”

“We interact with a lot of producers who may not know that specialty crop production could be a 

viable option. Just building awareness of options would be an important goal... so an outcome 

could be enhanced grower awareness, and an indicator could be the number of producers who 

gain knowledge on options, take further steps in collecting information and ultimately plant a new 

specialty crop.”
16

Outcome 8: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through enhancing or improving the economy 

as a result of specialty crop development

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Clarify Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data 3. (Tie) 

Grant Period Too Short

Example Written 

Responses

“With the length of grant it is hard to give feedback on if these results last or if [impact] happens 

1-2 years after. Jobs fluctuate in rural areas.”

 “Definition of career? Hard to explicitly measure urban vs rural - complex employment chains are 

common.”

“Data collection is difficult because growers are reluctant to share information on sales, costs, 

profit & loss, etc.”

Outcome 4: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through greater capacity of sustainable 

practices of specialty crop production resulting in increased yield, reduced inputs, increased efficiency, 

increased economic return, and/or conservation of resources

Themes 1. (Tie) Grant Period Too Short 1. (Tie) New Outcome/Indicator 3. Clarify Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Adoption of recommended practices & acres that the practices are used.”

“Adoption of most practices developed through SCBG awards take years to take place - members 

of growers adopting practices, new varieties, etc. [operate] on a time scale much longer than the 

award recognizes.”

“Conservation of resources section should be expanded to include more regenerative and climate 

adaptive practices.”

Outcome 5: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through more sustainable, diverse, and resilient 

specialty crop systems

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Clarify Outcome/Indicator 3. Grant Period Too Short

Example Written 

Responses

“Number of growers/producers that gained knowledge about science‐based tools through outreach 

and education programs (Comment: Besides just a number that gained knowledge. It would be 

better to understand the number of producers or growers that applied the new knowledge).”

“Similar to above, seeing a financial gain from implementing the results of a project (new practice) 

takes a long time and can’t be measured within the project period. Growers are also reluctant to 

divulge financial info.”

“Comment was made during the call about a broader interpretation of tools that are not only, new 

technologies. We have been fortunate in how our state has allowed this, but I agree innovation 

might not always be high tech” 

Outcome 6: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increasing the number of viable 

technologies to improve food safety

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Clarify Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) Data Collected Doesn’t Show 

Outcome/Indicator Success 3. (Tie) Grant Period Too Short 3. (Tie) Good Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“The number of reported changes would be found out only through surveys or through a research 

trial? What about changes in personnel behavior through improved food safety training?”

“How many technologies would 1 project generate? Do “numbers” mean anything - we need to 

know impacts of technologies on product safety”

“Would want to know technologies implemented; results of that implementation and perhaps - how 

this addresses competitiveness” 

Outcome 7: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased understanding of threats to 

food safety from microbial and chemical sources

Themes 1. Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2. New Outcome/Indicator 3. Data Collected Doesn’t Show Outcome/

Indicator Success

Example Written 

Responses

“Microbial threats (risks) do not usually refer to parasites (Cyclospora). Need to have a food safety 

expert review all of the terminology.”

“GAP cert. NOT relevant to FMs or direct markets since they are buyer driven --> need language 

based on markets. GAP certification does not equate to no food borne outbreaks. We need to 

make sure all growers are aware of hazards/risks and implement best practices even if they are 

not GAP certified”

“Also includes FSMA [Food Safety Modernization Act] certifications?”
17

Table 2: FMLFPP Top NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Themes

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to locally and regionally produced agricultural products

Themes 1. Difficult to Collect Data 2. Clarify Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) New Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) 

Good Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Lots of work to gather date “reported”. How do you measure “gained knowledge”! Would AMS 

provide feedback/post project surveys to do this.”

“It can be very difficult... [to] track knowledge gained... [and] increased consumption of healthy/

local foods...They are generally based entirely on self-report, which is rife with measurement 

uncertainty. In addition, given that consumers are engaging with these projects on sporadic time 

scales, it can be difficult to establish a clear baseline of data, follow up with consumers, and 

then establish direct impact. In addition, particularly in low-income communities, there is a... to 

be surveyed.... Further, there are a variety of USDA-funded programs... that often ask similar 

questions, but differences between the specific wording and evaluation expectations lead to 

confusion among recipients and overall inconsistency in the data.”

 “How are we gathering data to show the increase/number of people who have more knowledge 

on having access to “produce, prepare, and preserve locally,” is this by observation or how do we 

make this data factual.”

Outcome 2: To increase customers and sales of local and regional agricultural products

Themes 1. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data 1. (Tie) New Outcome/Indicator 2. External Factors Impact 

Outcomes

Example Written 

Responses

“Extremely difficult to track/hard to get real sales info from farmers.”

“Hard to get markets/vendors to report actual sales & hard to validate honesty”

“Can be difficult for proposals focused on institution development, esp. a challenge getting 

baseline sales of full target population. Maybe make optional? Fits great for some projects.”

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for farm and ranch operations serving local markets

Themes 1. (Tie) Difficult to collect Data 1. (Tie) New Outcome/Indicator 2. Clarify Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Number of ‘careers’ is challenging because businesses start and fail, no place to capture those 

experiences and challenges”

“Very hard to get data on number of people hired seasonally across multiple markets/farms”

“How important is to keep the long explanation on jobs & careers. Very long explanation for such a 

short question. It is confusing.”

Outcome 4: to improve the food safety of locally and regionally produced agricultural products

Themes 1. Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2. (Tie) Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2. (Tie) Difficult to Collect 

Data 2. (Tie) Good Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Farmers do not have the time, money, or education to complete.”

“Not a good indicator as GAP cert. is not typically required for direct markets. But, practices and 

understanding risks is crucial!”

“The system is only as strong as the weakest link. Local/farmers markets are frequently exempt 

from FSMA. Making food safety highest priority for grants is a must.”

Outcome 5: To establish or expand a local and regional food business enterprise 

Themes 1. Difficult to Collect Data 2. (Tie) Grant Period Too Short 2. (Tie) Too Many Variables in Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

 “Difficult to account for technical assistance outside of business plans etc. addressing specific 

barriers.”

“How do markets measure without asking farmers/vendors for more finance info??”

“Estimating investment $ - Difficult to estimate before feasibility study” 
18

Table 3: Acer Top NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Themes

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to maple syrup and maple-sap products

Themes 1. Not Effective Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“It’s not a state assoc. job to track consumption of products. That is the state Health Dept.”

Outcome 6: All applicants must identify at least one additional outcome and indicator based on relevant project 

activities not covered above

Themes 1. Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2. Good Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses “Allows for customization for goals/activities specific to project. Yay!”

“Outcome 6 shouldn’t be required. All 5 outcomes are sometimes enough.”

“If using standard set of outcomes should not require an additional outcome. Most stakeholders do 

not know how to construct one to match the AMS logic model.”

Outcome 4: To increase the sustainable practices of maple syrup production resulting in increased yield, 

reduced inputs, increased efficiency, increased economic return, and/or conservation of resources 

Themes No Themes Attributed to Comments

Outcome 2: To increase sales of maple syrup or maple-sap products

Themes No Themes Attributed to Comments

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for producers or processors of maple syrup or maple-sap 

products

Themes 1. Clarify Outcome/Indicator

“Would like to see this separated, maintained, and then created”

Table 4: DBI Top NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Themes

All Outcomes

Themes New Outcome/Indicator 2. Not Effective Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Emphasize Quality, not Quantity. More milk will not help farmers as much as a more consistent 

and fairer marketplace.”

“Where is the # of new product launches? This is for innovation.”

“Sustainable practices in the DBI industry?”

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to dairy products

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) Clarify Outcome/Indicator 3. 

(Tie) Difficult to Collect Data

3. (Tie) Good Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

“Need consumer #’s for trial or behavior change.”

“Break into a) access (distribution, channels, etc.) domestic & international, b) consumption 

(consumer change indicators - buy rate, trial/repeat).”

“Perhaps also collect data regarding consumers not consuming DBI and their reasons, which may 

include animal welfare, public health, DBI-related disease, DBI intolerance, etc.”

Outcome 2: To increase sales of dairy products

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 3. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data 3. 

(Tie) Good Outcome/Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

 “Sales info is not generally reported - or reported accurately.”
19

Outcome 3: To Develop New Market Opportunities for Producers or Processors of Dairy Products.

Themes 1. New Outcome/Indicator 2. (Tie) Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2. (Tie) Not Effective Outcome/

Indicator

Example Written 

Responses

 “Small scale dairy farmers trying to reach local consumers, but struggling finding creameries to 

process their milk.”

“Unclear what “dairy activities” refers to? Herd size? New dairy project lines?” 
20

National Stakeholder Survey 

AMS, NADAF and Grant Thornton collaborated to develop an online survey available to all members of the 

public to fill remaining gaps in stakeholder representation and maximize the amount of feedback received 

on current performance indicators. The survey provided another layer of data concerning the experiences 

and opinions of recipients, subrecipients, grant collaborators, and other members of the public with a vested 

interest in AMS’ programs. This section outlines survey results.

Demographics

Grant Thornton’s national stakeholder survey collected information from a sample of 641 AMS grant program 

stakeholders with a wide-ranging demographic profile. As shown in Figure 6, all 50 US states (including Alaska 

and Hawaii, not pictured) as well as Washington D.C., the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI), Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are represented in the survey results. A more detailed 

breakdown of geographic 

location is outlined in 

Appendix 2. As the question 

capturing demographic location 

was at the end of the survey, 

this demographic breakdown 

only represents 295 of the 641 

respondents due to participants 

who did not complete all the 

questions of the survey. The 

survey additionally captured 

responses from a broad 

representation of stakeholder 

groups, with most respondents 

identifying with the Non-Profit 

Organization stakeholder group 

(29.2%), Producer stakeholder 

group (28.2%), or the Higher 

Education stakeholder group 

(19.2%). As depicted in Figure 

7, other stakeholder groups represented in the survey include State Departments of Agriculture, Cooperative 

Extensions, Farmer Orgnaizations, Agricultural Cooperatives, Local Governments, Trade Organizations, 

Tribal Governments, or “other”. The majority of the respondents who identified themselves under the “other” 

stakeholder group were grant reviewers, Agricultural Distributors/Wholsalers, or External Evaluators. Appendix 

table 2.1 outlines other stakeholder groups encompassed in the “other” category in more detail. 

Figure 7: Survey Respondent Background

Figure 6: Survey Respondent Geographic Breakdown
21

The survey captured the majority of responses for the two largest grant programs, with 66.1% of respondents 

providing feedback for the Specialty Crop Block Grant or Specialty Crop Multi-State Program (SCBGP/SCMP), 

and 38.4% of respondents providing feedback for the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program 

(FMLFPP). However, the survey captured data for all seven grant programs, as outlined in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Survey Response by Grant Program

The stakeholders varied in their relationship to each grant program, with 56.7% of respondents representing 

past or current recipients. Figure 9 outlines the breakdown in more detail. Furthermore, Appendix 3 provides 

more detail of stakeholders’ involvement with each grant program.

Figure 9: Stakeholder Involvement 

Survey Completion/Attrition

Variations in survey completion rates indicate an attrition bias within the sample population. Of the survey 

respondents, 43.2% completed the entire survey. Looking at the response timeline in Appendix 4, most 

responses were completed at the beginning of the survey, in March, and at the end of the survey, in May. As 

depicted in Figure 10, completion rates were highest among representatives from Higher Education (56.3%), 

State Departments of Agriculture (50%), and Tribal Governments (50%) stakeholder groups and lowest among 
22

the Local Government (36.4%), Producer, (33.7%) and Trade Organization (18.8%) stakeholder groups. The 

completion rate was highest for SCBGP/SCMP at 47.5%, and lowest for SPMGP at 23.1% (see Figure 11). An 

overview of the attrition rate per grant program is outlined in Appendix 5.

Figure 10: Survey Completion by Respondent Type

Figure 11: Survey Completion by Grant Program 

Survey Results

Figures 12-13 summarize results from the Grant Thornton survey, including a high-level overview of Likert 

scale agree/disagree responses, top themes discerned from written responses, and example key written 

responses. Themes and subthemes were built with insight provided from the NASDA Foundation provided 

 Total 118 84 6 69 63 181 32 51 22 175 16

 Total 406 38 53 236 67 24 13 
23

themes collected previously. Grant Thornton added additional subthemes and themes to enable specific insight 

and alignment with recommendations. For example, if a qualitative statement indicated that data is difficult to 

collect, the team attempted to identify the reason for why the data is challenging. 

Only the agree/disagree questions that received a large majority of agreement or disagreement by respondents 

are included in the tables. Top three themes were discerned by establishing counts of stakeholder comments 

that align with each theme. Figure 12 below outlines theme and subtheme definitions, and Figure 13 provides 

the list of agree/disagree questions that were asked for each outcome for SCBGP, FMLFFP, Acer and DBI 

grant programs. A More detailed breakdown of results can be found in Appendix 6.

Figure 12: Grant Thornton Survey Theme and Sub-theme Definitions 

Themes/Subthemes and Definitions

y Additional Consideration: New idea or factor impacting the industry, outcome, or indicator that should 

be considered. Examples include public acceptance, resources required to accomplish an outcome, 

realistic expectations of grant recipients, and the objectivity of the measure.

y Change Outcome/Indicator: Data required for outcome/indicator does not actually provide proof of 

meeting outcome/indicator.

o New Outcome/Indicator: New outcome/indicator was identified to improve grant outcomes.

o Not Effective Outcome/Indicator: Outcome/indicator does not effectively measure the goals or impact of 

program activities.

o Clarify Outcome/Indicator: Outcome/indicator is unclear due to wording or other confusion.

o Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities: Outcome/indicator is not within scope of the grant or 

respondent’s specific activities.

o Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator: Outcome/indicator has too many variables, creating confusion or 

making it infeasible.

y Difficult to Collect Data: Data required for outcome/indicator is generally difficult to collect due to multiple 

factors, including but not limited to, limited state data available, difficulties tracking needed information, 

and hesitancy from partners to share necessary data

o Lack Data Collection Methods: Data required for outcome/indicator is difficult to collect specifically due to 

lack of data collection methods

o Hard to Collect Data from Partners: Data required for outcome/indicator is difficult to collect due to 

challenges collecting data from partners, independent producers, or other partner organizations.

o Difficult to Set Baselines: Baseline data required for the outcome/indicator is nonexistent and/or difficult to 

establish.

y External Factors Impact Outcomes: External factors could be impacting the numbers collected for 

outcome/indicator. External factors could include weather, market fluctuation, and trade policy.

y Data Reported is Inaccurate: Data required for outcome/indicator is inaccurately reported from 

independent producers, sub-recipients, or other partners.

y Grant Period Too Short: Grant and/or program period is too short to realistically accomplish the 

outcome/indicator.

y Good Outcome/Indicator: Outcome/indicator should be maintained and there are no overarching 

challenges associated with meeting the requirement.

y Incorporate Industry Knowledge: Respondent reported appropriate industry knowledge to improve the 

outcome/indicator.

y TA/Sample Materials: Providing example materials would assist with achieving outcome, indicator, or 

grant program goals, such as proposed methods of outreach and data collection materials. 
24

Figure 13: Grant Thornton Survey Agree/Disagree Questions

Table 5 below summarizes survey results and feedback for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP). 

More detailed breakdowns of results can be found in Appendix 7. 

Table 5: SCBGP Theme Summary

Outcome 1: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased sales

Agree/Disagree It is easy for me to collect this indicator data: 83.9% Disagree

Baseline data is available or easy to collect: 79.8% Disagree

I understand this outcome: 93.0% Agree

I understand the indicators: 90.6% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 76.2% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

 “Many [farms] do not want to share specific numbers on sales or financials.”

“While I understand why this information is needed, it is very hard to receive hard data on these 

numbers.”

“...many things impact sales numbers which are not reflective of activities performed (primarily 

weather). That being said, I don’t know what else could be offered.”

Themes/Subthemes and Definitions

y It is easy for me to collect this indicator data

y Baseline data is available or easy to collect

y I understand this outcome

y I understand the indicators

y I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period

y The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s)

Outcome 2: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased consumption

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 93.0% Agree

I understand the indicators: 91.9% Agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period: 78.2% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 86.3% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

“The indicators should be changed to allow for a [broader] definition of consumption (instead of 

just eating).”

“...Baseline of this information can be difficult.”

 “Survey data is reasonably easy to collect.”
25

Outcome 3: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased access and awareness

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 91.1% Agree

I understand the indicators: 87.2% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 83.8% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

 “...we do not have baseline data.”

 “These...are more survey based and national data based, so it is feasible to gather this data.”

“[Add] more emphasis on production/farmer-level outcomes/indicators.”

Outcome 4: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through greater capacity of sustainable 

practices of specialty crop production resulting in increased yield, reduced inputs, increased efficiency, 

increased economic return, and/or conservation of resources

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 94.9% Agree

I understand the indicators: 92.7% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 83.6% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

“Often adoption happens after a two-year grant cycle, as we share research results from our 

work with growers near the end of two years of field data. Other metrics would be types of best 

practices developed, number and list of outreach activities provided disseminating research 

results to growers, and the likelihood of growers to adopt these practices in the future.”

 “There are impediments such as producers’ unwillingness to share their data that can limit our 

ability to successfully document these outcomes.”

“Because mainly we provide educational sessions and workshops, we do not have baseline 

data.”

Outcome 5: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through more sustainable, diverse, and resilient 

specialty crop systems

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 92.0% Agree

I understand the indicators: 87.2% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 81.5% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

“These outcomes need to be expanded to include measures appropriate for assessing 

innovations for controlling vertebrate pests of plants and innovations for detecting invasive 

plants/weeds. As written, they are very focused on insect and microbial pests.”

“This objective is easy to collect baseline data and track outcomes...simply by those who 

participated in training.”

 “indicators for crops with a plant-to-harvest time of a year under multi-state one-year programs 

may not see farmer adoption and would not see increased yields or revenues until year 2 or 3, 

after project closure. The number of farmers reached and educated may be a better indicator 

for one-year programs.”

Outcome 6: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increasing the number of viable 

technologies to improve food safety

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 92.5% Agree

I understand the indicators: 94.3% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 84.6% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

“The outcome should be renamed to encompass more than technologies to improve food 

safety. Successful education and adoption of any strategy which mitigates food safety risks 

would be beneficial.”

 “Lots of good work on food safety is happening on the ground that is not being captured 

through this list of indicators.”

 “This is an important and often used outcome in a number of projects.”
26

Outcome 7: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through increased understanding of threats to 

food safety from microbial and chemical sources

Agree/Disagree It is easy for me to collect this indicator data: 83.3% Agree

Baseline data is available or easy to collect: 78.6% Agree

I understand this outcome: 89.1% Agree

I understand the indicators: 87.0% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 87.8% Agree

Key Written 

Responses

 “Indicators should include farmers with a food safety plan, but not GAP certification. The 

primary goal is to increase food safety practices/procedures on ALL farms, only some need to 

get GAP certified.”

“The lack of market demand for food safety certifications for much of the small to mid-size direct 

to consumer farms makes metrics around GAP certification not very meaningful. Adoption of 

food safety risk mitigation practices would be more beneficial.”

“From an evaluation standpoint, it is apparent that these are good indicators that could be 

evaluated if needed.”

Outcome 8: To enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops through enhancing or improving the economy 

as a result of specialty crop development

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 85.5% Agree

I understand the indicators: 85.3% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 74.2% Agree

Themes 1. Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Hard to Collect Data from Partners)

2. Grant Period Too Short

3. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

Key Written 

Responses

“Anything requiring project beneficiaries, not actual awardees, to report financial or even 

business-related data...is difficult for sub-awardees to obtain...Other benchmarks need to be 

developed that are more attainable for awardees.”

“Our state has very little baseline data on these indicators and much of what is available is 

aggregated. Ag Census data is self-reported and typically only the mainstream commercial 

growers tend to file. The Ag Census misses hundreds of small growers (under 10ac) in our 

state.”

“The term “career” implies a time period that far exceeds the project period.”
27

Table 6 below summarizes survey results and feedback for the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion 

Program (FMLFPP). More detailed breakdowns of results can be found in Appendix 7.

Table 6: FMLFPP Theme Summary

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to locally and regionally produced agricultural products

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome 89.5% agree

I understand the indicators 81.5% agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 76.2% agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 90.4% agree

Themes 1. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

2. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not Effective Outcome/Indicator)

3. Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Difficult to Set Baselines)

Key Written 

Responses

“You can collect this data but it does take a lot of time and finding a baseline is not available or 

easy to collect. It takes up a large majority of time.”

“Combining indicators for consumer-facing projects with producer-focused projects can be 

confusing for both applicants and reviewers, especially when a project has components that 

serve both audiences.”

“This outcome/indicator metric is really trying to assess different things by including both 

buyers and sellers of local foods. It would make sense to split consumers (those “buying”) 

local foods into a category/metric separate from food producers.”

Outcome 2: To increase customers and sales of local and regional agricultural products

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome 91.9% agree

I understand the indicators 90.2% agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 77.6% agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 95.2% agree

Themes 1. Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Hard to Collect Data from Partners)

2. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

3. Good Outcome/Indicator 

Key Written 

Responses

 “It’s not easy because of grower attitudes, but the information gathered is a necessary metric 

of effectiveness of the grant program.”

“Measuring customer counts is easier as partners/beneficiaries are more willing to share this 

information but it can still be really hard if you aren’t the entity actually doing the sales.”

“In my experience these are very straightforward, and we have been collecting these for many 

years. I know it can be difficult for projects that haven’t been collecting this information to 

implement it but there are some great resources out there (like visitor count protocols from the 

Farmers Market Coalition).”
28

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for farm and ranch operations serving local markets

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome 90.2% agree

I understand the indicators 88.0% agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 79.5% agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 89.1% agree

Themes 1. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

2. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not Effective Outcome/Indicator)

3. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator) 

3. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program 

Activities)

3. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Hard to Collect Data from Partners)

3. (Tie) Additional Consideration 

Key Written 

Responses

“There is just so much variation here that it is hard to know what is “good” for a particular 

recipient. For example, 1 CSA program can be tiny, or huge, so a “1” in that item doesn’t 

necessarily mean much. This is a weird grouping of items so perhaps think about separating 

out the enterprise related items from the jobs/careers related items?”

“So many direct-to-consumer markets are just barely getting by, so it would be great if there 

was more available to support those markets to get them to places of greater stability, or to 

support direct-to-consumer markets in places that wouldn’t otherwise be financially viable.”

“I think that the USDA should use a small number of consistent indicators to measure the 

outcomes of technical assistance/educational programs:1) % that learned something new; 

2) % that will be doing something different (e.g. start farming, use different farming or sales 

methods, etc.).”

Outcome 4: to improve the food safety of locally and regionally produced agricultural products

Agree/Disagree It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 82.9% agree

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 74.4% agree

I understand this outcome 95.2% agree

I understand the indicators 95.1% agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 86.5% agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 92.5% agree

Themes 1. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

2. Additional Consideration

3. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not Effective Outcome/Indicator)

Key Written 

Responses

“GAP certification should not be the only indicator. ALL farmers need a food safety plan, 

regardless of or whether or not they need third-party verification.”

“Somewhat irrelevant to the scope of work, but anyone processing local food should learn 

basics of food safety.”

“This outcome is fairly straightforward for programs that are training or supporting growers and 

other entities in gaining food safety knowledge and certification, and a well-done survey of 

participants can capture increases in knowledge and skill.”

Outcome 5: To establish or expand a local and regional food business enterprise 

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome 85.7%

I understand the indicators 77.5%

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 87.2%

Themes 1. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not Effective Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Change outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program 

Activities)

2. (Tie) Good Outcome/Indicator

3. Additional Consideration
29

Outcome 5: To establish or expand a local and regional food business enterprise 

Key Written 

Responses

“I remember that this was one of the outcomes that applied more to planning grants. Because 

our planning grant was focused on helping multiple supply chain businesses, it would have 

been helpful to have an indicator more like “number of food businesses engaged in planning 

process.”

“Having the option to individually list the metrics requested in item 5.a. (Number of unmet 

consumer needs, barriers to local foods, unserved populations, etc.) might allow for more 

accuracy in outcome reporting, since many projects address a number of these items.”

 “This is typically only for LFPP planning grants, needs to be clear who is expected to respond 

to this. 5a and b ask the same thing, which nobody knows how to accurately respond to. [...] 

Since the metrics are outcomes of the grant project, it’s inappropriate to ask about fundraising 

when it’s prohibited. Use industry terms, feasibility analysis, economic impact, comprehensive 

business plan, etc. What is the actual point of this outcome? Once decided, create meaningful 

metrics to capture.”

Outcome 6: All applicants must identify at least one additional outcome and indicator based on relevant project 

activities not covered above

Agree/Disagree There were no formal Likert-style questions for Outcome 6, given that recipients create a wide 

array of measures depending on project type and goals. Instead, respondents were provided 

an open text response option. 

Themes 1. Good Outcome/Indicator

2. (Tie) Change outcome/indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Additional Consideration

2. (Tie) TA/Sample Materials 

Key Written 

Responses

“Could tailor the outcome to our scope of work and track the indicators that were most 

reflective of our success.”

“This is good. There is a general lack of understanding among applicants as to what an 

appropriate outcome is and how to establish your process to measure. This grant also needs 

better explanation of how many outcomes each applicant should choose to measure. Most of 

the applicants think they must measure ALL of these. PLEASE provide better explanation of 

how many “should” be chosen and more examples of what this should look like in a fundable 

application. This is the biggest downfall in this grant program!”

“I like this option so that it can be customized to the specifics of the proposed program.”

Table 7 below summarizes survey results and feedback for Acer Access and Development Program (Acer). 

More detailed breakdowns of results can be found in Appendix 7.

Table 7: Acer Theme Summary
30

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to maple syrup and maple-sap products

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 87.5% Agree

I understand the indicators: 100% Agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period: 85.7% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 100% Agree

Themes 1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator)

1. (Tie) Additional Consideration

Key Written 

Responses

“[Indicator] 1b contains too many variables—each should be separate for quality data.”

“There should be a higher emphasis on the skills acquired and new technologies that the 

beneficiary got exposed to.”

Outcome 4: To increase the sustainable practices of maple syrup production resulting in increased yield, 

reduced inputs, increased efficiency, increased economic return, and/or conservation of resources 

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 77.8% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 88.9% Agree

Themes 1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

1. (Tie) Grant Period Too Short 

2. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Difficult to Set Baselines)

Outcome 2: To increase sales of maple syrup or maple-sap products

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 88.9% Agree

I understand the indicators: 88.9% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 77.8% Agree

Themes 1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program 

Activities)

1. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Lack Data Collection Methods)

1. (Tie) Difficult to Collect Data (Sub-theme: Hard to Collect Data from Partners)

1. (Tie) Grant Period Too Short

Key Written 

Responses

“This can be extremely difficult for the awardee to measure since often they are working on 

behalf of those who would sell but have no sales themselves and no viable means to collect the 

sales data from project beneficiaries.”

“Not able to collect consumer data within three years as most education is to producers to help 

them. Not directly marketing maple products.”

“As stated previously, marketing and promotion are different--similar, but different.”

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for producers or processors of maple syrup or maple-sap 

products

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome: 71.4% Agree

I understand the indicators: 71.4% Agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the grant program: 87.5% Agree

Themes 1. Good Outcome/Indicator

2. (Tie) Additional Consideration

2. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not Effective Outcome/Indicator)

Key Written 

Responses

“This can be easier to measure. As a past Acer reviewer, I feel recipients are typically more 

skilled in measuring these types of outcomes.”

“Most of these marketing areas are not new areas. Most producers are already utilizing them.”
31

Table 8 below summarizes survey results and feedback for Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives (DBI). More 

detailed breakdowns of results can be found in Discovery Results Appendix.

Table 8: DBI Theme Summary

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to dairy products

Agree/Disagree It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 75.0%

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 75.0%

I understand this outcome 100%

I understand the indicators 100%

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 100%

Themes 1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator)

Key Written 

Responses

“1 b has too many variables to count and the data will be disparate 1c needs to be 3 measures-

-knowledge is one; access a second, and produce a third.”

Outcome 4: To increase the sustainable practices of maple syrup production resulting in increased yield, 

reduced inputs, increased efficiency, increased economic return, and/or conservation of resources 

Key Written 

Responses

“Outcome is great, but the indicators are more related to field crop operations, not forest 

operations. Should include yield of syrup per tap.”

“It would be good to have an indicator [that] precedes “adoption of best practices”. We expect 

that we will “educate, inform” etc... [many] beneficiaries. We might also facilitate “plan to 

adopt”... But the actual adoption of best practices will not necessarily fall within the project 

period.”

“Too many variable[s], [indicators should] measure 1 thing at a time. Not sure baselines are 

there for dollars and costs per acre—[especially] for maple production—more so in smaller 

scale operations.”

Outcome 2: To increase sales of dairy products

Agree/Disagree I understand this outcome 100%

I understand the indicators 100%

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 75.0%

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 100%

Themes 1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not Effective Outcome/Indicator)

1. (Tie) Additional Consideration

Key Written 

Responses

“Production increases do not always translate into revenue gains. Be specific about sales 

measure (revenue or pounds/gallons etc.).”

“Marketing and promotion are 2 diff things--and are achieved in different, though similar ways.”
32

Table 9 below summarizes survey results and feedback for RFSP. Only written comments were requested for 

this grant program. More detailed breakdowns of results can be found in Appendix 7.

RFSP

Themes 1. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

2. Additional Consideration

Key Written 

Responses

“Promote use of local food versus imported food.”

“[Suggested:] 1. Percent contribution of recipient and public/private resource partner. 2. Time 

period of commitment by public/private resource partner. 3. Enhancement of regional food system 

distribution as a result of the program. 4. Reduction in transportation footprint as a result of supplying 

locally sourced foods as replacement for foods grown outside of the region.”

“[Suggested:] Number of new partnerships or collaborations developed, dollar value of leveraged 

resources, number of barriers addressed, or gaps filled through partnerships, number of 

stakeholders engaged.”

Table 10 below summarizes survey results and feedback for FSMIP. Only written comments were requested 

for this grant program, and more written responses were included to demonstrate feedback more broadly. More 

detailed breakdowns of results can be found in Appendix 7.

FSMIP

Themes 1. Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: New Outcome/Indicator)

2. Additional Consideration

3. (Tie) TA/Sample Materials

3. (Tie) Good Outcome/Indicator

Key Written 

Responses

 “I like how flexible this program is to allow us to explore a wide range of applied research and 

market intelligence to support various industry sectors.5”

“As a state-wide grant manager of SCBGP, SCMP, and several state grants...I do believe having 

examples of measurable outcomes and indicators is a good idea...I think you should give some 

general options with examples of what completed outcome sections, including explanations of how 

to measure.”

“[Suggested:] 1. Number of Transportation and Distributors contacted 2. Successful opportunities 

identified 3. Dollar increase over previous 4. Barriers overcome 5. New Market opportunities 

identified”

“Marketing outcomes are difficult to quantify, and especially within the short-term duration of the 

grant. This section should be divided into two parts: (a) short -term outcomes and (b) expected/

estimated long-term outcomes...[also] please provide an option for the recipients to provide Letters 

of Commitment OR Letters of Support.”

“[Suggested:] [1.] Number of farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses persons and stakeholders which 

increase the knowledge to access profitable markets [2] Number of farmers, ranchers, and 

agribusiness persons which accessed profitable markets as result of the implementation of the 

acquired knowledge.”6

5 Because FSMIP does not have established outcome measures that allow for agree/disagree feedback, respondents were given the 

option of providing open-text responses. Those responses which the team felt merited consideration have been included. 

6 There were no relevant pieces of written feedback for SPMGP. Only written comments were requested for this grant program. 

Outcome 3: To Develop New Market Opportunities for Producers or Processors of Dairy Products.

Agree/Disagree Baseline data is available or easy to collect 66.7% agree

I understand this outcome 66.7% agree

I understand the indicators 66.7% agree

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 66.7% agree

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 66.7% agree

Themes 1. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Clarify Outcome/Indicator)

2. (Tie) Change Outcome/Indicator (Sub-theme: Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program 

Activities) 

Key Written 

Responses

“Comments about roadside stands, farmers markets already made; wholesale ticket --what is that? 

what grocery store doesn’t already sell dairy products? what are dairy activities? 3 g in this climate 

isn’t very likely; 3 i is that value added or raw product? jobs & careers maintained/created doesn’t 

have a direct tie to program--there’s a ton of variables to that.”
33

As-is Logic Models

In order to identify logical gaps and opportunities for improvement within the current performance measures 

Grant Thornton developed “as-is” logic models for each program. As depicted in the example in Figure 14,

these logic models map the current progression from inputs to activities to outputs, and ultimately the short and 

long-term outcomes for each program’s current performance measures. Full logic models depicting the current 

performance measures for each AMS grant program evaluated can be viewed in Appendix 8. 

Figure 14: Logic Model Structure 

Developing as-is logic models for each grant program yielded a series of key inferences, namely that the 

current performance measures fail to adequately capture upstream outputs and startup activities that 

contribute to short-, medium-, and long-term indicators of grant success. In addition, it became evident that the 

current indicators disproportionately captured long-term project impacts which, in many cases, were unrealistic 

for the three-year PoP of AMS’s grant programs. Finally, as-is logic models aided in identifying outcomes which 

ineffectively combined unrelated indicators or otherwise lacked a tight internal logic, highlighting opportunities 

for improvement. 

Drafting the as-is logic models provided a baseline from which Grant Thornton could engage stakeholders 

through surveys, focus groups, and targeted interviews to identify key themes and issues preventing thorough 

evaluation of individual recipient and overall program impact. These key themes, outlined below, guided the 

creation of recommended logic models that: 1) encompass recipient and subrecipient activities from project 

planning to project completion, 2) promote all activities justified under each program, and 3) better align 

activities, outputs, and indicators with the grant PoP and cross-program reporting requirements. 

Revision Methods and Approach

Grant Thornton’s evaluation process incorporated the results from all 

discovery methods to inform the development of as-is logic models, the 

identification of priority areas for improvement, and the team’s development of 

preliminary recommendations. After grounding recommendations in these 

discovery methods, the team undertook the robust revision process, depicted 

in Figure 15, to validate and verify the recommended measures. The iterative 

and ongoing process entailed refining recommendations through a continuous 

cycle of stakeholder feedback – comprised of a series of focus groups and 

internal reviews with AMS staff – and subsequent revisions. Throughout the 

process, the Grant Thornton team developed multiple draft versions of 

recommended logic models based on feedback and ultimately a set of 

comprehensive outcome narratives to further aid AMS in implementing the 

recommended indicators. 

Recommended Logic Models 

Grant Thornton leveraged information and data highlighted above through the team’s discovery process to 

inform the development of recommended logic models. While the process of developing these models was 

analogous to those taken to develop the as-is logic models, recommended logic models differ fundamentally 

from the as-is models by depicting a future state for each grant program. Functionally, leveraging 

recommended logic models as the basis for constructing recommended outcomes and indicators had 

multiple benefits. First, it required the team to adhere to a tight, formal logic that flowed from activities and 

inputs through short-, medium-, and long-term indicators. Given the over-arching objective of streamlining 

outcomes that focus more tightly around topic areas, program goals, and state objectives, recommended logic 

Figure 15: Revision 

Process Overview
34

models imposed a beneficial structure to the recommendation process. In addition, creating recommended 

logic models helpfully distill a distinct position in the value chain for each recommended activity, output, and 

indicator in the model. In contrast with the current performance measures, which had unspecified time frames 

for completion, the recommended indicators feature more specific designations of short-term and longerterm consistent with the value chains established for each outcome. Grant Thornton’s recommendations are 

grounded in the recommended logic models developed at this step. Full recommended logic models can be 

viewed in Appendix 9. 

Outcome Narratives

Grant Thornton created a set of Outcome Narratives to assist AMS with understanding justification and support 

for adding or modifying previous indicators, and to provide guidance supporting implementation and reporting. 

While the Outcome Narratives contain some of the same features as the recommended logic models, their 

primary function is to provide additional insights and guidance aimed to support recommendation justification 

and recipients’ or subrecipients’ ability to report on recommended indicators. Intended to be read left-to-right, 

each Outcome Narrative is broken down to an indicator level and depicts the respective outputs intended 

to flow into each recommended indicator. A unique component of the associated Outcome Narratives is a 

justification column, in which the intuition behind each revision and associated supporting evidence from the 

discovery and revision processes are recorded. 

The Outcome Narratives also showcase the position of each recommended indicator in the value chain, 

which supports expectation-setting in reporting and conveys the relationships between indicators, in cases 

where natural progressions have been built in (e.g., SCBGP indicators 1.1 and 1.2). In addition, the Outcome 

Narratives contain recommendations for standardized data collection and other best practices which are 

critical to successful implementation and reporting. Finally, each Outcome Narrative clarifies if there is overlap 

between the current performance measures and Grant Thornton’s recommendations. The full Outcome 

Narratives are available as a supplement to this document.

Focus Groups

Grant Thornton facilitated multiple rounds of focus groups to elicit initial feedback from stakeholders around a 

preliminary set of draft performance measures. Participants were selected in conjunction with AMS personnel. 

To compensate for knowledge gaps and incorporate industry expertise, the Grant Thornton team first facilitated 

a series of preliminary focus groups attendant to specific topic areas (e.g., marketing, research, food safety, 

etc.) which had relevance across AMS’s grant program portfolio. Main themes from topic-specific focus groups 

are captured in Table 11. Subsequent to these topic-specific focus groups, Grant Thornton incorporated 

feedback and made further revisions to recommended performance measures. After doing so, the team 

facilitated a second set of program-specific focus groups to solicit further stakeholder feedback. Main themes 

from feedback Grant Thornton received throughout the program-specific focus groups are further enumerated 

in Table 12:
35

Table 11: Topic-Specific Focus Group Main Themes 

Topic Area Focus Group Key Findings

Marketing Main Themes:

1. Indicators only focus on buyers, expand to include distributors 

2. Incorporate market channel availability and separate out year-round vs. seasonal availability

3. Delineating children and adults (e.g., SCBGP O1) is only sometimes appropriate, sub-indicators 

should connect directly to program goals

4. Perception that consumption outcomes focused on in-home consumption, when they could be 

broadened to include culinary professionals and other stakeholders

5. There could be a larger emphasis on maintaining market access by focusing on infrastructural 

improvements, procurement, etc. (SCBGP O2)

6. Engaging with underserved populations should be emphasized more

Research Main Themes:

7. Consider how the data AMS is collecting can be used by researchers to further progress of 

agriculture industries

8. Consider the impact of seasonality on recipients’ ability to establish a business plan within a 

three-year grant period

9. Technical assistance: consider providing recipients with examples of pre-post surveys and/or 

worksheets with example survey questions, as not every recipient knows how to build a strong 

survey

10. Clarifying terminology by providing definitions (e.g., “distribution systems,” “new specialty crops,” 

economic studies” would be helpful)

Food Safety Main Themes:

11. Some measures would be hard to implement in three-year grant period (e.g., implementing 

food safety plans can take a considerable amount of time) – consider measuring intention to 

implement as an appropriate measure within the period

12. Farmers are reluctant to share food violations/issues. Instead, consider changing this to report 

assessments of food safety risks and how stakeholders attempted to mitigate them 

13. Food safety plans and certifications are usually established separately, and some recipients may 

not focus on both 

Sustainability Main Themes:

14. Ensure indicators do not just capture access to products, rather, also focus on sustaining access 

to products for different stakeholders

15. Some environmental indicators are not applicable across industries (e.g., pesticides are not 

widely used in the maple industry)

16. Rather than just reporting on the “number of” technologies developed, expand to report on the 

economic return from investing in a new technology, or the number of stakeholders who adopted 

a new technology

17. Developing best practices can take years - consider expanding to include/encourage adoption of 

already identified best practices
36

Table 12: Program Specific Focus Group Main Themes 

Program Focus Group Key Findings:

SCBGP y Developing and implementing best practices can take years - consider expanding to include 

intermediary steps such as research, identification, knowledge gain, and intention to adopt. 

Indicators should also encourage adoption of already identified best practices. 

y Farmers are reluctant to share information on food safety violations. Instead, consider using 

indicators that report assessments of food safety risks and mitigation processes. 

y Indicators are primarily consumer focused. Consider expanding to include intermediary buyers in 

the food chain, such as distributors, etc. to measure impact on the mid-tier value chain.

y Suggested to add indicators to broaden metrics that capture consumer activity, such as business 

transactions and customer counts.

y Incorporate indicators for the maintenance/sustainability of food safety knowledge and 

certifications.

y Consider how the data AMS is collecting can be used by researchers to further the progress of 

agriculture industries.

y Consider providing recipients with examples of pre-post surveys and/or worksheets with 

example survey questions, as not every recipient knows how to build a strong survey.

y Ensure recipients and subrecipients can report projects that went forward or were abandoned 

upon completion of analysis or feasibility study.

y Stakeholders requested clarification and definitions for terms, where appropriate.

y Stakeholders confirmed the list of sustainability metrics but recommended adding an indicator 

for energy conservation.

y Stakeholders confirmed that measuring impact of outreach via social media and web trafficking 

is feasible; however, recipients and sub-recipients may need technical assistance to conduct 

these activities. Recipients and sub-recipients should also be encouraged to develop marketing 

plans.

y Add indicators that emphasize the development and use of online distribution channels and 

services. This is especially relevant after COVID-19. 

FMLFPP Main Themes: 

y Early-stage outcomes (Outcome 1 and Outcome 2) were noted as comprehensive for 

successfully capturing planning and start-up work.

y Add indicators that capture relationships with socially disadvantaged populations and encourage 

grant activities that cater to underserved population needs.

y Allow recipients and subrecipients to report informal partnerships not formalized with contracts 

or MOUs.

y Balance quality-driven outputs and indicators with quantity driven outputs and indicators (e.g., 

emphasize quality of marketing materials vs. just quantity).

y Incorporate environmental sustainability indicators.

y Stakeholders requested clarification and definitions for terms, where appropriate.

y Ensure indicators encourage business viability.

y Ensure recipients and subrecipients can report projects that went forward or were abandoned 

upon completion of analysis or feasibility study.

y Requested technical assistance for conducting needs assessments, such as a list of 

recommendations, examples, or options.

y Percent change or percent increase is an easier way to report sales than a dollar value.
37

Program Focus Group Key Findings:

Acer Main Themes:

y Incorporate “wholesale markets” in list of outputs and indicators throughout

y Define “producers” to include a range of maturity levels, from backyard producers and hobbyists 

to commercial-level producers

y Suggested to include an indicator to capture the intermediary step of “intent” of private 

landowners entering the maple industry, which is more feasible to report on within the grant time 

period.

y Production-focused indicators are more applicable to Acer grant projects.

y “Taps” and “tap management practices” were indicated as more appropriate metrics that “acres” 

across all outcomes

y Indicated it would be easier to report revenue if it was a binary yes or no questions or a percent 

change, rather than exact dollar values.

y Suggested to add an indicator to encourage long-term access and sustainment of access to 

private land to support the longevity of the industry.

Balance quality-driven outputs and indicators with quantity driven outputs and indicators (e.g., 

emphasize quality management, impact of marketing materials vs. quantity).

DBI Main Themes:

y Suggested to add indicators to encourage diversifying and maintaining existing partnerships.

y Ensure recipients and subrecipients can report projects that went forward or were abandoned 

upon completion of analysis or feasibility study.

y Add delivery points (distributors, exporters, distribution channels) to list of access points.

Activities related to increasing consumption are rarely, if ever pursued. 

Common Themes

In Figure 16, Grant Thornton identified the following themes, which were recurring across grant programs, 

throughout the discovery and revision process: 

Figure 16: Common Themes Across Programs

Common Themes 

y Accurate sales and other financial data points are difficult for recipients 

and sub-recipients to solicit from growers and other partners

y Indicators are not aligned with the PoP (e.g. early-stage indicators were 

missing, and many indicators required effort extending beyond the project 

period);

y Recipients struggle with collecting data measuring behavior change in 

response to marketing and other outreach

y Partnerships were not adequately accounted for in current performance 

measures, especially those including diverse partners across the supply 

chain

y Researchers were provided insufficient opportunities to report on their 

activities 

y Financial sustainability is a priority for recipients across programs that is 

unaccounted for in the current performance measures
38

Evaluation Framework

Recommended Metrics and Logic Models

Drafting the as-is logic models provided a baseline to identify key issues in AMS’s approach to evaluation. The 

discovery methods identified numerous opportunities for improvement to better align indicators with program 

activities and goals; make sure that indicators are indicative of early, mid, and late-stage impact; and provide 

AMS with recommendations on how grant recipients can collect the required data. Readers should refer to 

the associated Outcome Narratives to review the recommended indicators, justification for inclusion, and any 

data collection recommendations. Recommended logic models in Appendix 9 provide the structural outline for 

how indicators connect to activities, outputs (i.e. measures of activity), and outcome indicators (i.e. measure of 

impact). AMS staff should rely on recommendations outlined in both the outcome narratives and logic models 

to implement recommended indicators successfully.

AMS Learning Objectives

This section outlines the evaluation questions AMS can answer through ongoing collection and analysis 

of recommended indicator data. Answering these questions enables AMS to perform ongoing assessment 

and organizational improvement by understanding which aspects of data collection, reporting and tracking 

demonstrate successes or failures. Answers to these questions will help AMS determine priority areas for 

improvement and help AMS staff identify how to address these issues. 

•	 Are AMS recipients developing effective educational and technical assistance materials that increase 

the production and consumption of specialty crops?

•	 Have grant programs created best practices that increase production of specialty crops?

•	 Can those best practices be replicated across other grant programs within and outside of AMS?

•	 What are the benefits of these best practices when implemented in other grants/programs?

•	 Have recipients increased the consumer knowledge base and has that led to an increase in the 

consumption of specialty crops?

•	 Do AMS grants effectively build new local and regional partnerships that increase the consumption and 

access to agricultural products? 

•	 How many new market opportunities have been developed for producers? What are their effects on 

production, access, and sales?

•	 What is the percentage increase in sales/revenue for AMS grant recipients?

•	 Which grant programs have higher rates of success? What are these programs doing differently to 

achieve such success?

•	 Has the reporting of outputs and outcomes increased since implementation of the new grant evaluation 

process?

•	 What technical assistance has been provided to recipients? What has been successful and what needs 

to be improved?

Data Collection Considerations

The recommended data collection strategies assume that recipients/subrecipients will determine a valid 

proxy for number of people reached, and number of people who demonstrated behavior change based on 

their planned outreach/marketing activities. AMS must acknowledge that many outreach/marketing activities 

necessitate relying on estimates to determine reach, especially measuring reach & behavior change impact of 

on-air methods. This table provides some examples of proxies, however other methods may prove valid. 

AMS must include review of proposed proxies and methods for estimation as a part of the grant application 

process. The application process for projects should assist recipients with identifying which knowledge and 

behavior gained indicators are relevant to their proposed activities and require applicants to identify what data 

they will use to report number of stakeholders reached and stakeholders who elicited the desired behavior 

change. 
39

Estimating Number of People Reached: 

In-Person Audience (e.g. Educational Workshops, Presentations, Conferences, etc.):

Recipients/subrecipients can estimate reach for in-person audiences by tracking attendees via sign-in sheets, 

digital registrations, RSVPs, completion of pre-event surveys, etc.

Digital Platforms (e.g. Social Media Sites, Websites, Blogs, etc.):

Recipients/subrecipients can estimate reach of digital platforms by tracking unique browser websites visits, 

subscribers, clicks, views, shares, reads, etc. This digital engagement can be analyzed via free web analytics 

tools such as Google Analytics and Facebook for Business. For outreach through online radio/TV/podcasts, 

Recipients/Subrecipients can track streams through websites and applications.

On-Air Methods (e.g. Radio, TV, etc.)

Recipients/subrecipients can estimate reach of on-air methods by relying on station/studio estimates of 

reach, and/or the average number of listeners/viewers the station has for the day and time the outreach airs. 

Audiences can be more selectively targeted according to geographic location and the station format (e.g., a 

pop radio station will target younger populations than a public radio station). Methods for increasing reach 

include advertising over longer periods of time and multiple times a day, using short-duration commercials, 

and using a variety of stations/methods. Recipients/subrecipients have the option to invest in media planning 

software tools that help estimate reach based on information such as advertising type, launch location, rating/

popularity of radio/TV/newspaper, etc.

Print Methods (e.g., Newspaper, Magazine, Print ads, etc.):

Recipients/subrecipients can estimate reach of print methods by looking at the geographic coverage areas 

and associated populations, newspaper/magazine ratings/subscribers/average number of readers/etc. Other 

print methods, such as print ads and infographics, can be estimated through methods such as number of 

households receiving the outreach, Quick Response (QR) codes, average number of people exposed to the 

print ad location, or number of outreach handouts taken at a farmers market or other access point. Recipients/

subrecipients have the option to invest in media planning software tools to help estimate based on information 

such as advertising type, launch location, rating/popularity of radio/TV/newspaper, etc.

Estimating Behavior Change:

The method employed to measure whether key stakeholders exemplified a desired behavior change will 

vary depending on the type of outreach/marketing activity and the intended impact of that activity. Examples 

of different strategies are outlined below. Note that recipients may need to estimate behavior change as 

a percentage of overall audience reached based on data collected via the methods below, or other data 

collection methods.

Surveys:

For in-person audiences, pre- and post- surveys should be conducted either during the in-person event or via 

email, phone, or other method after. Where most appropriate, such as for measuring consumption change and 

increased engagement with producers/access points, it is recommended recipients/subrecipients follow up with 

surveys after the event to allow time for respondents to engage in the behavior. In-person surveys can also be 

useful to census consumers at market access points, when feasible. Digital, on-air, or print outreach can direct 

audiences to unique website addresses, QR codes, phone numbers, etc. to track number of individuals gaining 

knowledge or acting on knowledge. Recipients/subrecipients can incentivize participation in surveys through 

promotions, coupons, discounts, etc. as appropriate and allowable.

Studies:

Recipients/subrecipients can measure the impact of their outreach method and message on all behavior 

change indicators through marketing studies. Study examples may include surveying test audiences, 

comparing sales, consumption, or other desired metric in the locations where the outreach campaign was 

launched vs. similar demographic locations where the outreach campaign was not launched, etc. Once the 

effect on behavior change has been measured, recipients/subrecipients can estimate impact based on a 

percentage of overall audience reached. AMS, the NASDA Foundation, or other institutions can alleviate some 

burden of conducting studies by validating estimated reach/impact of specific outreach/marketing methods. 

Recipients/subrecipients can then base their reporting on these estimates. 
40

Measuring Digital Traffic:

Recipients/subrecipients can track clicks to an article/website and time spent reviewing the digital content of 

interest with the tracking methods outlined under the digital platforms section above. Recipients/subrecipients 

can track the number of viewers that stay on a website/article for the estimated article reading time to 

approximate engagement with specific content. Additionally, tracking clicks and traffic to online points of sale 

can provide insight into the relationship between digital content and impact on sales/consumption.

Transactions:

Outreach targeting consumption should direct consumers to online, phone, in-person, or other mediums 

where recipients/subrecipients can track transactions, number of conversions from shopper to buyer, average 

purchase amounts, number of orders added to online shopping carts, etc. The outreach can direct consumers 

using unique website addresses, phone numbers, QR codes, etc. that can only be attributed to the outreach 

method to estimate impact. Recipients/subrecipients can additionally compare consumption before and after 

an outreach campaign is launched to estimate efficacy. Sales receipt questionnaires can be used by recipients/

subrecipients in brick and mortar stores to track consumers that engaged with the outreach method.

Returning Visitors:

Recipients/subrecipients can track returning online visitors to websites, social media posts, store locators (to 

estimate in-person visitors), or other online location promoted through the outreach via unique browser counts, 

as outlined under the digital platform section above. For in-person visitors, recipients/subrecipients can track 

visits to markets, farms, or other location through sign-in sheets, online registrations, etc. In-person tracking 

methods should ask how the visitor heard of the location to measure engagement with the outreach method. 

Recipients/subrecipients can also compare website traffic and in-person visits before and after an outreach 

campaign is launched to estimate impact.

Research Considerations

Promoting research is an integral goal of both Acer and SCBGP/SCMP and the downstream impacts of 

research completed are diffuse across programs. Stakeholder and GMS feedback indicated that true early 

stage investigative research was not captured in the previous framework. The recommended framework fixes 

this gap, and enhances AMS’s ability to track all stages of research related activities, outputs and outcomes 

through Outcome 6 in SCBGP/SCMP and Outcome 4 in Acer. These outcomes provide opportunity for 

recipients who are conducting research but have not progressed to dissemination or implementation. These 

two outcome frameworks provide AMS with opportunity to track progress and results of research activities, 

and also draw connections between research and research-developed products that influence impact in other 

outcomes across the evaluation framework.

The recommended indicators outlined in the outcome narratives will enhance AMS’s ability to track impact 

across the PoP for research projects. However, understanding the complete downstream impact of research 

activities requires long-term analysis that cannot be completed by AMS, recipients or subrecipients during the 

PoP. Metrics that represent the reach and impact of research, such as citation counts or counts of researchvalidated processes implemented, will only manifest downstream of project completion. Grant recipients may 

be able to report on some of these recommended metrics during the PoP, or report on impact of previous 

grant activities upon receipt and execution of a new grant that translates research into implementation. In most 

cases, AMS will have to track the longer-term impact of research products through a variety of recommended 

metrics listed in the outcome narratives. AMS staff or external evaluators should document the products of 

research (e.g. journal articles, online reports, new technologies, etc.) from recipient qualitative reports, and 

rely on the recommended data collection and relevant best practices outlined in the outcome narratives 

to understand how the products of AMS-supported research influence the community years following the 

conclusion of the grant.
41

Implementation Recommendations

Seamless implementation and adoption of recommended indicators requires consideration of several factors. 

This section outlines domains requiring additional attention and planning to promote efficient implementation. 

Strategic Communications 

To facilitate the implementation and adoption of recommended indicators, AMS should employ strategic 

communications to engage prospective applicants, current recipients, and other stakeholders. Messaging to 

announce the transition to new performance measures and a public comment period to allow feedback on 

recommended indicators should predate the implementation phase and help orient stakeholder expectations. 

Likewise, messaging should clearly detail and provide clear instructions on how stakeholders should 

participate in AMS programs given performance indicator changes. These strategic communications should 

be disseminated widely through AMS’s standard communication channels, as well as through intermediary 

organizations, like State Departments of Agriculture, to ensure wide breadth of understanding. 

Application Process & Technical Assistance

Grants applicants’ ability to successfully navigate AMS’s grant application process will require improved 

clarity and functionality to promote the ability for recipients to select indicators aligned with relevant activities. 

Feedback received from recipients throughout the process continually emphasized that there is often general 

confusion over which, and how many indicators are required. This issue remains critical since the new 

recommendations expand considerably upon the previous framework with new indicators and multiple subindicators. Recipients must understand the indicators are intended to be flexibly adopted only by recipients and 

subrecipients who are performing activities that align with specific indicators, and that recipients should select 

as many indicators as are aligned with their activities. AMS, NASDA Foundation, and/or the SDAs must help 

recipients understand this through strategic communications, technical assistance and training. Additionally, 

an enhanced application processes is required to guide recipients through the identification of appropriate 

indicators aligned with relevant activities. This supplement will assure consistent alignment of activities and 

indicators, and can capture preliminary data about application activities, appropriate indicators, and help 

recipients/subrecipients with data collection strategies prior to funding and project kickoff. 

AMS’s GMSs should also be able to articulate variation between the current performance measures and 

the recommended indicators. While some recommended indicators are closely associated with current 

performance measures, many of the recommendations are new additions. The outcome narratives provide 

alignment to assist with GMS understanding. Training on proper reporting and data collection methods will be a 

key role that GMSs will need to undertake during the implementation process. 

Consistent definitions and terminology will likewise be important to facilitating uniform, consistent 

understanding of the recommended indicators. GMSs should leverage the definitions and guiding language in 

Appendix 11 to ensure prospective applicants, recipients, intermediaries, and passthrough agencies interpret 

the recommended indicators consistently. 

In addition to clearly defining the indicators and their entailed expectations, in cases where grant applicants or 

recipients require assistance developing surveys, business development and other related plans (e.g. strategic 

plans, management plans, etc.), GMSs should attempt to provide guidance or examples for reference. AMS 

should work to establish a repository of high-quality templates and materials recipients/subrecipients can use 

to create strategic plans, studies, surveys, and other kinds of tools. Doing so will both lessen recipient reporting 

burden and enhance the quality of reported data. 

Data Systems

Currently AMS lacks internal data management systems that are crucial for collecting, maintaining, tracking, 

and reporting data. Success of these recommended indicators hinges on the ability for AMS to collect these 

data over a long period of time, compare project activities and communicate observed impact associated with 

these activities. AMS must invest in a system that enables staff to easily collect, track and report recommended 

indicators through a simple ‘point-and-click’ dashboard interface. The dashboard should interact seamlessly 

with an AMS-selected federal grant reporting system, such as GrantSolutions, so that all data collected from 

recipients is accessible to GMSs, AMS leadership, and external evaluators. An application with this functionality 

would interact with data collected during the application process to decrease the burden required to track and 

communicate data and improve AMS’s ability to perform ongoing evaluation and comparison of impact across 

its programs.
42

Appendices

Appendix 1: Discovery Results

Themes not listed did not receive associated comments for that outcome

Table 1.1: SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Theme Heatmap

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 1

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Difficult to Collect Data 22

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 3

Grant Period Too Short 1

Make Outcome/Indicator Optional 1

New Activity Needed 1

New Outcome/Indicator 8

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 2

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Difficult to Collect Data 3

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 1

New Outcome/Indicator 6

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 3

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2

Data Collected Doesn’t Show Outcome/Indicator Success 1

Difficult to Collect Data 3

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 1

New Outcome/Indicator 7

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Too Many Variables in Indicator 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1
43

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 4

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Difficult to Collect Data 1

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 10

New Outcome/Indicator 10

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 1

Separate Outcome for Scientific Trials and Marketing Projects 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 5

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 7

Collecting Too Much Data 1

Difficult to Collect Data 1

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 6

New Outcome/Indicator 9

Separate Outcome for Scientific Trials and Marketing Projects 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 6

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Data Collected Doesn’t Show Outcome/Indicator Success 2

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 2

New Outcome/Indicator 5

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 7

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 7

Data Collected Doesn’t Show Outcome/Indicator Success 2

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 1

New Outcome/Indicator 6

Good Outcome/Indicator 1
44

Table 1.2: FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Theme Heatmap

FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 1

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Difficult to Collect Data 7

New Outcome/Indicator 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

SCBGP/SCMP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 8

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 5

Difficult to Collect Data 3

Difficult to Select Outcome/Indicator 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Grant Period Too Short 3

New Outcome/Indicator 6

Too Many Variables in Indicator 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 2

Theme Total

Difficult to Collect Data 5

External Factors Impact Outcomes 2

New Activity Needed 1

New Outcome/Indicator 5

Too Many Variables in Indicator 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 3

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Difficult to Collect Data 6

External Factors Impact Outcomes 2

Grant Period Too Short 1

New Outcome/Indicator 6

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Urban/Rural Divide 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 4

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Difficult to Collect Data 1

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 3

Good Outcome/Indicator 1
45

FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 5

Theme Total

Difficult to Collect Data 6

Grant Period Too Short 1

Too Many Variables in Indicator 1

FMLFPP NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 6

Theme Total

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

Acer NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 2

Theme Total

No Themes Attributed to Comments -

Acer NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 3

Theme Total

No Themes Attributed to Comments -

Acer NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 4

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Table 1.3: Acer NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Theme Heatmap 

Acer NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 1

Theme Total

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 1

Table 1.4: DBI NASDA Foundation Feedback Session Theme Heatmap

DBI NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 1

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

New Outcome/Indicator 4

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

DBI NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 2

Theme Total

Difficult to Collect Data 1

New Outcome/Indicator 3

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

DBI NASDA Foundation Feedback Outcome 3

Theme Total

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2

New Outcome/Indicator 5

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 1
46

Appendix 2: Grant Thornton Stakeholder Survey Respondents’ Geographic 

Breakdown

Table 2.1: State-by-State Response Breakdown (295 Total Responses)

State Count State Count State Count State Count State Count

AL 4 ID 5 MN 11 ND 6 VT 1

AK 1 IL 4 MS 5 OH 3 VA 7

AR 2 IN 7 MO 3 OK 3 WA 7

AZ 10 IA 5 MT 2 OR 8 WV 1

CA 25 KS 7 NE 3 PA 8 WI 3

CO 3 KY 4 NV 2 RI 1 WY 0

CT 3 LA 6 NH 2 SC 1 CNMI* 1

DE 2 ME 3 NJ 7 SD 3 DC* 4

FL 11 MD 6 NM 3 UT 4 GU* 2

GA 3 MA 5 NY 7 TX 14 PR* 16

HI 4 MI 11 NC 7 UT 4 VI* 2

*=territory

Table 2.2: “Other” Stakeholder Breakdown

Other Stakeholder Total Responses Other Stakeholder Total Responses

External evaluator 6 Grower organization 1

Teacher/school or school 

district 4 U.S. government 1

Grant reviewer 3 Video production company 1

Almond Board of California 2 Wholesaler 1

Commodity organization/

association 2

Management of chain 

restaurant fresh produce 

supply chains from Farm to 

Form

1

Farmers market director, or 

other 2

Coalition of technical 

assistance providers/local 

food systems organizations

1

Ag association 1 Manufacturing plant 1

Broker warehouse 1 Packer/shipper 1

Manufacture of ag 

equipment 1 Previous public health worker 1

Distribuidor Agricola 1 Farmer 1

Health specific olive oil 

production 1 Fertilizer manufacturer 1

Semi-independent State 

agency

1 Retired 1
47

Appendix 3: Stakeholder Involvement with Grant Program Breakdown
48
49

Appendix 4: Response Timeline

Aggregate completion rate is the percentage of complete versus partial responses.
50

Appendix 5: Attrition Rate by Grant Program Breakdown

*Start = the number of respondents answering “Yes” to the question: “I would like to provide feedback regarding the 

following program(s) performance indicators.” For calculating Start totals, those who begin responding to multiple 

programs are counted repeatedly x the number of programs they indicate “Yes.” 

Question Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -23.9%

2 -14.2%

3 -9.4%

4 -2.5%

5 -7.7%

6 -1.4%

7 0.0%

8 -0.5%

Total Falloff 47.8%

Question Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -43.2%

2 -8.2%

3 -6.5%

4 -2.6%

5 -7.1%

6 -1.9%

Total Falloff 46.8%

Question Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -42.1%

2 -9.1%

3 -10.0%

4 0.0%

Total Falloff 52.6%
51

*As RFSP/FSMIP/only one open-ended question, the second column represents 

the number of respondents who completed it. SPMGP each have

Question Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -37.5%

2 -13.3%

3 -7.7%

Total Falloff 50.0%

Question 

SPMGP

Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -100.0%

Total Falloff 100.0%

Question 

RFSP

Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -0.83%

Total Falloff ~83.0%

Question 

FSMIP

Percent 

Change

Start -

1 -0.74%

Total Falloff ~74.0%
52

Appendix 6: Grant Thornton Survey Agree/Disagree Response Question 

Breakdown

Percentages were calculated according to the total responses received for each agree/disagree question for each 

outcome.

Table 6.1: SCBGP/SCMP Agree/Disagree Survey Responses

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 1

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 16.1% (20) 83.9% (104)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 20.1% (25) 79.8% (99) 

I understand this outcome 93.0% (120) 7.0% (9)

I understand the indicators 90.6% (116) 9.4% (12)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 29.1% (34) 70.9% (83)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 76.2% (93) 23.8% (29) 

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 2

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 60.0% (57) 40.0% (38)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 48.9% (45) 51.1% (47)

I understand this outcome 93.0% (93) 7.0% (7)

I understand the indicators 91.9% (91) 8.1% (8)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 78.2% (68) 21.8% (19)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 86.3% (82) 13.7% (13)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 3

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 61.8% (47) 38.2% (29)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 53.3% (41) 46.8% (36)

I understand this outcome 91.1% (72) 8.9% (7)

I understand the indicators 87.2% (68) 12.8% (10)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 74.0% (54) 26.0% (19)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 83.8% (62) 16.2% (12)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 4

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 60.5% (69) 39.5% (45)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 51.3% (59) 48.7% (56)

I understand this outcome 94.9% (111) 5.1% (6)

I understand the indicators 92.2% (106) 7.8% (9)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 58.9% (66) 41.1% (46)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 83.6% (97) 16.4% (19)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 5

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 51.8% (43) 48.2% (40)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 58.0% (47) 41.0% (34)

I understand this outcome 92.0% (80) 8.1% (7)

I understand the indicators 87.2% (75) 12.8% (11)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 64.6% (51) 35.4% (28)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 81.5% (66) 18.5% (15)
53

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 6

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 74.0% (37) 26.0% (13)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 69.4% (34) 30.6% (15)

I understand this outcome 92.5% (49) 7.6% (4)

I understand the indicators 94.3% (50) 5.7% (3)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 75.0% (36) 25.0% (12)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 84.6% (44) 15.4% (8)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 7

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 83.3% (35) 16.7% (7)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 78.6% (33) 21.4% (9)

I understand this outcome 89.1% (41) 10.9% (5)

I understand the indicators 87.0% (40) 13.0% (6)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 73.0% (27) 27.0% (10)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 87.8% (36) 12.2% (5)

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 8

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 37.5% (24) 62.5% (40)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 36.5% (23) 63.5% (40)

I understand this outcome 85.5% (59) 14.5% (10)

I understand the indicators 85.3% (58) 14.7% (10)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 44.4% (28) 55.6% (35)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 74.2% (49) 25.8% (17)

Table 6.2: FMLFPP Agree/Disagree Survey Responses

*Note: No agree/disagree questions were asked for FMLFPP Outcome 6

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

FMLFPP Outcome 1

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 56.9% (37) 43.1% (28)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 47.0% (31) 53.0% (35) 

I understand this outcome 89.6% (60) 10.5% (7)

I understand the indicators 81.5% (53) 18.5% (12)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 76.3% (45) 23.7% (14)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 90.5% (57) 9.5% (6) 

FMLFPP Outcome 2

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 64.4% (38) 35.6% (21)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 59.0% (36) 41.0% (25)

I understand this outcome 91.9% (57) 8.0% (5)

I understand the indicators 90.1% (55) 9.8% (6)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 77.6% (45) 22.4% (13)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 95.1% (59) 4.8% (3)

FMLFPP Outcome 3

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 68.8% (33) 31.3% (15)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 68.0% (34) 32.0% (16)
54

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

I understand this outcome 90.2% (46) 9.8% (5)

I understand the indicators 88.0% (44) 12.0% (6)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 79.6% (35) 20.5% (9)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 89.1% (41) 10.9% (5)

FMLFPP Outcome 4

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 82.9% (34) 17.1% (7)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 74.4% (32) 25.6% (11)

I understand this outcome 95.2% (40) 4.8% (2)

I understand the indicators 95.1% (39) 4.9% (2)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 86.5% (32) 13.5% (5)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 92.5% (37) 7.5% (3)

FMLFPP Outcome 5

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 51.8% (43) 48.2% (40)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 58.0% (47) 41.0% (34)

I understand this outcome 92.0% (80) 8.1% (7)

I understand the indicators 87.2% (75) 12.8% (11)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 64.6% (51) 35.4% (28)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 81.5% (66) 18.5% (15)

Table 6.3: Acer Agree/Disagree Survey Responses

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

Acer Outcome 1

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 28.6% (2) 71.4% (5) 

I understand this outcome 87.5% (7) 12.5% (1)

I understand the indicators 100.0% (8) 0.0% (0)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 85.7% (6) 14.3% (1)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 100.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 

Acer Outcome 2

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 66.7% (6) 33.3% (3)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 55.6% (5) 44.4% (4)

I understand this outcome 88.9% (8) 11.1% (1)

I understand the indicators 88.9% (8) 11.1% (1)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 77.8% (7) 22.2% (2)
55

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

Acer Outcome 3

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 57.1% (4) 42.9% (3)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 57.1% (4) 42.9% (3)

I understand this outcome 71.4% (5) 28.6% (2)

I understand the indicators 71.4% (5) 28.6% (2)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 57.1% (4) 42.9% (3)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 87.5% (7) 12.5% (1)

Acer Outcome 4

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 66.7% (6) 33.3% (3)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 55.6% (5) 44.4% (4)

I understand this outcome 77.8% (7) 22.2% (2)

I understand the indicators 66.7% (6) 33.3% (3)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 44.4% (4) 55.6% (5)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 88.9% (8) 11.1% (1)

Table 6.4: DBI Agree/Disagree Survey Responses

Outcome Percent Agree 

(Count)

Percent Disagree 

(Count)

DBI Outcome 1

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1)

I understand this outcome 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0)

I understand the indicators 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 100.0% (3) 0.0% (0)

DBI Outcome 2

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 40.0% (2) 60.0% (3)

I understand this outcome 100.0% (5) 0.0% (0)

I understand the indicators 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0)

DBI Outcome 3

It is easy for me to collect this indicator data 33.3% (1) 66.7% (2)

Baseline data is available or easy to collect 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1)

I understand this outcome 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1)

I understand the indicators 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1)

I can achieve these goals by the end of the grant period 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1)

The outcome aligns with the activities and goals of the program(s) 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1)
56

Appendix 7: Grant Thornton Survey Written Response Theme Heatmaps

Themes not listed did not receive associated comments for that outcome

Table 7.1: SCBGP/SCMP Written Response Theme Heatmap 

SCBGP/SCMP Outcome 1

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 4

External Factors Impact Outcomes 5

Data Reported is Inaccurate 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 5

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2 8

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 1

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 1

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 11 13

Difficult to Set Baselines 1

SCBGP Outcome 2

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 3

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 1

Data Reported is Inaccurate 3

Good Outcome/Indicator 4

Additional Consideration 3

Change Outcome/Indicator Clarify Outcome/Indicator 17

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 6

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 1

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 2 5

Difficult to Set Baselines 2

SCBGP Outcome 3

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 2

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 1

Data Reported is Inaccurate 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 5

Additional Consideration 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 2

3

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 2

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 5 10

Difficult to Set Baselines 1
57

SCBGP Outcome 4

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 7

External Factors Impact Outcomes 3

Data Reported is Inaccurate 3

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

Additional Consideration 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 4

9

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 1

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 2

Difficult to Collect Data

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 2

4

Difficult to Set Baselines 2

SCBGP Outcome 5

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 4

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 5

Additional Consideration 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 4

10 Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 3

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 2

Difficult to Collect Data Hard to Collect Data from Partners 2 3

SCBGP Outcome 6

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 1

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

TA/Sample Materials 1

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 3

Additional Consideration 7

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 3

12

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 1

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 2
58

SCBGP Outcome 7

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 2

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

TA/Sample Materials 2

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 3

Additional Consideration 4

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 3

10 Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 1

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 2

Difficult to Collect Data

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 1

2

Difficult to Set Baselines 1

SCBGP Outcome 8

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 8

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Data Reported is Inaccurate 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 3

6 Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 1

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 1

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 1

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 4 9

Difficult to Set Baselines 3

Table 7.2: FMLFPP Written Response Theme Heatmap

 FMLFPP Outcome 1

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

Data Reported is Inaccurate 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 1

Additional Consideration 4

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 3

16 Clarify Outcome/Indicator 6

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 5

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 2

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 2

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 4 11

Difficult to Set Baselines 5
59

FMLFPP Outcome 2

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 1

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 1

Data Reported is Inaccurate 4

Good Outcome/Indicator 7

Additional Consideration 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 4

9 Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 2

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 2

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 2

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 8 12

Difficult to Set Baselines 2

FMLFPP Outcome 3

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 1

Data Reported is Inaccurate 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

Additional Consideration 4

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 6

22

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 4

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 6

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 2

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 4

Difficult to Collect Data

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 3

4

Difficult to Set Baselines 1

FMLFPP Outcome 4

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

TA/Sample Materials 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

Additional Consideration 4

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 6

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 2 11

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 3

Difficult to Collect Data Lack Data Collection Methods 1 1
60

FMLFPP Outcome 5

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 2

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

TA/Sample Materials 1

Incorporate Industry Knowledge 1

Good Outcome/Indicator 4

Additional Consideration 4

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 3

18 Clarify Outcome/Indicator 7

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 4

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 4

Difficult to Collect Data Lack Data Collection Methods 1 1

FMLFPP Outcome 6

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

TA/Sample Materials 5

Good Outcome/Indicator 7

Additional Consideration 5

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 3

8

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 5

Difficult to Collect Data Lack Data Collection Methods 1 1

Table 7.3: Acer Written Response Theme Heatmap 

Acer Outcome 1

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Additional Consideration 1

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 1

2

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 1

Acer Outcome 2

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 1

Change Outcome/Indicator

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program 2

Activities 1

Difficult to Collect Data

Lack Data Collection Methods 1

2

Hard to Collect Data from Partners 1

Acer Outcome 3

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

Additional Consideration 1

Change Outcome/Indicator Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 1 1
61

Acer Outcome 4

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Grant Period Too Short 2

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 2

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1 4

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 1

Difficult to Collect Data Difficult to Set Baselines 1 1

Table 7.4: DBI Written Response Theme Heatmap

DBI Outcome 1

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Change Outcome/Indicator Clarify Outcome/Indicator 12

Too Many Variables in Outcome/Indicator 1

DBI Outcome 2

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Additional Consideration 1

Change Outcome/Indicator Clarify Outcome/Indicator 12

Not Effective Outcome/Indicator 1

DBI Outcome 3

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Change Outcome/Indicator Clarify Outcome/Indicator 12

Not in Scope of Grant Program or Program Activities 1

Table 7.5: RFSP Written Response Theme Heatmap

RFSP

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

Additional Consideration 2

Change Outcome/Indicator New Outcome/Indicator 3 3

Table 7.6: FSMIP Written Response Theme Heatmap

FSMIP Qualitative Feedback

Theme Subtheme (when applicable) Subtheme Count Total

External Factors Impact Outcomes 1

TA/Sample Materials 2

Good Outcome/Indicator 2

Additional Consideration 5

Change Outcome/Indicator

New Outcome/Indicator 6

7

Clarify Outcome/Indicator 1
62

As-is Logic Models

Instructions

Grant Thornton has drafted the current performance measures in logic model format to present the shared 

relationships and chain of causes and effects among resources/inputs, activities, outputs, and indicators that 

lead to each outcome. 

There are two “sides” to a Logic Model – a process side on the left (activities and outputs), and an outcomes 

side on the right (short-term and longer-term outcomes and indicators). As you read from left to right, the chain 

of reasoning the connection among program activities, outputs, and outcomes should become apparent if you 

think in if/then statements:

IF you accomplish your planned activities, then you will hopefully deliver the amount of product and/or 

service that you intended (outputs).

IF you accomplish your planned activities to the extent you intended (outputs), then participants will benefit 

in learning, knowledge, attitude and/or skills (short-term outcomes).

IF benefits are achieved, then changes in behavior and actions occur, after which social, economic, health, 

civic, and/or environmental impacts may occur (longer-term outcomes).

Table 8.1: SCBGP As-Is Logic Model

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: Enhance the competitiveness of Specialty Crop (SC) 

through increased sales

1.a. Baseline and total 

sales numbers.

1.b. Changes in sales numbers.

Outcome 2: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through 

increased consumption

2.1. Number of 

children/ youths 

reached

2.2. Number of adults 

reached

2.1a.-b/2.2a.-b. Of the 

number of children/

adults reached, the 

number who gained 

knowledge about, 

and/or reported an 

intention to eat more

2.1./2.2c. Of the 

number of children/

adults reached, the 

number that reported 

eating more SC

2.3 Number of 

new and improved 

technologies/ 

processes to

enhance the 

nutritional value and 

consumer acceptance 

of SC

2.4 Number of 

new SC products 

introduced to 

consumers

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs

Marketing

y Outreach: Including 

phone calls, 

emails, print/ tv/air/

social media, and 

other methods, 

including native 

website-based 

marketing tactics to 

contact and share 

information with 

stakeholders and 

partners

y Partnerships: 

Developing and 

maintaining 

partnerships with 

key organizations 

and stakeholders 

and recruiting new 

stakeholders and 

organizations to 

partner

Activities
63

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 3: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through 

increased access and awareness

3.1. Number of 

consumers/ buyers 

reached 

3.2. Number of 

individuals (e.g. 

kitchens, culinary 

professionals, etc.) 

reached

3.1a.-b./3.2a.-b. 

Of the number of 

individuals reached in 

3.1/3.2, the number 

that gained knowledge 

or reported an 

intention to access/ 

produce/prepare/

preserve SC

3.1c./3.2c. Number of 

individuals reached in 

3.1/3.2 that reported 

supplementing their 

diets with SC that they 

produced/preserved/ 

obtained/prepared

3.3a.-j. Number of 

existing delivery 

systems/access 

points reached that 

expanded and/or 

improved SC offerings

3.4a.-j. Number of 

new delivery systems/

access points offering 

SC 

Outcome 4: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through greater 

capacity of sustainable practices resulting in increased yield/

efficiency/ economic return/resource conservation, or reduced 

inputs

No specific outputs 

measuring activities 

related to outcome 4.

4.1. Number of plant/

seed releases

4.2a. Number of 

growers/producers 

indicating adoption 

of recommended 

practices

4.2d. Number of acres 

in conservation tillage 

or acres in other 

best management 

practices

4.2b. Number of 

growers/producers 

reporting reduction in 

pesticides, fertilizer 

and water used per 

acre

4.2c. Producers 

reporting increased 

dollar returns/acre or 

reduced costs/acre

4.3. Number of 

acres established/

maintained for the 

mutual benefit of 

pollinators/SC

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

Technical Assistance 

and Education

y Offering targeted 

technical assistance 

to improve sales, 

customer outreach, 

marketing, and the 

diversity of products

y Hosting stakeholder 

workshops and 

trainings

Business Enterprise 

Planning and Tools

y Creating strategic 

business/project 

plans

y Conducting 

stakeholder needs 

and resources 

assessments/audits 

and using data to 

inform project plans

y Creating digital 

databases, 

collaboration tools, 

or information 

repositories to 

enhance business 

acumen or 

enterprise

y Conducting 

feasibility studies 

and economic 

analysis

Research and Analysis

y Performing market 

research to 
64

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 5: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through more 

sustainable, diverse, and resilient SC systems

5.5. Number of new 

diagnostic systems 

available for detecting 

crop pests/ diseases

5.1. Number of new or 

improved innovation 

models, technologies, 

networks, products, 

processes, etc. 

developed for SC 

entities

5.6. Number of first 

responders trained in 

early detection and 

rapid response to 

combat plant pests 

and diseases

5.8. Number of 

growers/producers 

that gained knowledge 

about sciencebased tools through 

outreach/education 

programs

5.2. Number of 

innovations adopted

5.3. Number of SC 

growers/producers 

(and other members 

of the SC supply 

chain) that have 

increased revenue in 

dollars

5.4. Number of new 

diagnostic systems 

analyzing SC pests/

diseases

5.7. Number of 

technologies/

processes developed/

modified that increase 

SC distribution/

production

Outcome 6: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through 

increasing the number of viable technologies to improve food 

safety

6.2. Number of viable 

prevention, control, 

and intervention 

strategies for all SC 

production scales for 

foodborne threats 

along the production 

continuum

3.2. Number of 

individuals (e.g. 

kitchens, culinary 

professionals, etc.) 

reached

6.1. Number of 

viable technologies 

developed/modified 

for the detection and 

characterization of SC 

supply contamination 

from foodborne 

threats

6.3a. Number of 

individuals who learn 

about prevention/

detection/ control/

intervention safety 

practices

6.3b. Of the number 

identified in 6.3a, the 

number who report 

increasing their 

food safety skills or 

knowledge

6.4. Number of 

improved prevention, 

detection, control 

and intervention 

technologies

6.5. Number of 

reported changes 

in prevention, 

detection, control, and 

intervention strategies

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

assess consumer 

preferences, 

competitors, best 

practices, and/or 

upcoming trends

y Launch and monitor 

pilot programs to 

determine early 

model successes 

and gaps

y Survey stakeholders 

to gauge capacity, 

knowledge, and 

interest

Technology and 

Infrastructure 

y Developing 

technological tools 

or processes to 

improve efficiency, 

feasibility, 

replicability, or ease.

y Enhancing physical 

capacities for 

standard operations 

or new activities to 

be performed

y Installation or 

expansion of new 

technologies.
65

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 7: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through 

increased understanding of threats to food safety from microbial 

and chemical sources

6.2. Number of viable 

prevention, control 

and intervention 

strategies for all SC 

production scales for 

foodborne threats 

along the production 

continuum

3.2. Number of 

individuals (e.g. 

kitchens, culinary 

professionals, etc.) 

reached

7.1. Increased 

understanding of 

fecal indicators and 

pathogens

7.3. Increased 

understanding of pre/

postharvest process 

impacts on microbial 

and chemical threats

7.4. Increased 

understanding of 

the roles of humans, 

plants and animals as 

vectors

7.2. Increased safety 

of all inputs into the 

SC chain

7.5. Number of 

growers/producers 

obtaining on-farm food 

safety certifications

Outcome 8: Enhance the competitiveness of SC through 

enhancing or improving the economy as a result of SC 

development

8.1./2. Number of new rural/urban careers created

8.3./4. Number of jobs/small businesses maintained/created

8.5. Increased revenue/increased savings/one-time capital purchases 

(in dollars)

8.6. Number of new beginning farmers who went into SC production

8.7. Number of Socially disadvantaged farmers who went into SC 

production

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities
66

Table 8.2: FMLFPP As-Is Logic Model

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to locally and 

regionally produced agriculture product

Total number of 

project beneficiaries/

stakeholders reached

1.c. Of the 

total number of 

stakeholders reached, 

the number that 

gained knowledge 

on how to access, 

produce, prepare, 

and/or preserve 

locally/regionally 

produced agriculture 

products

1.b. Of the 

total number of 

stakeholders reached, 

the number that 

reported buying, 

selling, aggregating, 

storing, producing, 

and/or distributing 

locally/regionally 

produced agriculture 

products 

Outcome 2: To increase customers and sales of local and regional 

agriculture products

2.a. Baseline and final 

sales numbers

2.b. Baseline and final 

customer counts

2.a. Percent change in sales

2.b. Percent change in customer counts

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for farm and 

ranch operations serving local markets

3.a.-3.f. Number of 

new and/or existing 

delivery systems/

access points reached

3.h. Of the total 

number of delivery 

systems/access points 

reached, the number 

that reported an 

increase in revenue 

and that gained 

knowledge about new 

market opportunities

3.g. Of the total 

number of delivery 

systems/access points 

reached, the number 

that reported an 

increase in revenue

3.i./3.j. Number of 

new careers created 

and jobs maintained/ 

created

3.k. Number of new 

beginning farmers 

who when into 

local/regional food 

production

3.l. Number of socially 

disadvantaged 

farmers who went into 

local/regional food 

production

Outcome 4: To improve the food safety of locally and regionally 

produced agriculture products

1.a./3.a.-3.f. Number 

of beneficiaries/

stakeholders reached 

and/or new and/

or existing delivery 

systems/access points 

reached

4.a. Total number of 

project individuals who 

gained knowledge 

about prevention 

detection, control, 

and intervention food 

safety practices

4.b./4.c.Number of 

individuals identified 

in 4.a. who reported 

increasing their food 

safety skills and 

knowledge, and/

or who obtained 

on-farm food safety 

certifications

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

Marketing

y Outreach: Including 

phone calls, 

emails, print/ tv/air/

social media, and 

other methods, 

including native 

website-based 

marketing tactics to 

contact and share 

information with 

stakeholders and 

partners

y Partnerships: 

Developing and 

maintaining 

partnerships with 

key organizations 

and stakeholders 

and recruiting new 

stakeholders and 

organizations to 

partner

Technical Assistance 

and Education

y Offering targeted 

technical assistance 

to improve sales, 

customer outreach, 

marketing, and the 

diversity of products

y Hosting stakeholder 

workshops and 

trainings

Business Enterprise 

Planning and Tools

y Creating strategic 

business/project 

plans

y Conducting 

stakeholder needs 

and resources 

assessments/audits 

and using data to 

inform project plans

y Creating digital 

databases, 

collaboration tools, 

or information 

repositories to 

enhance business 

acumen or 

enterprise
67

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 5: To establish or expand a local and regional food 

business enterprise

5.a. Number of unmet 

consumer needs, 

barriers to local foods, 

unserved populations, 

etc. identified through 

needs assessment

5.b. Number of 

plans (business, 

economic, feasibility) 

developed based on a 

comprehensive needs 

assessment

5.c. Amount of nonFederal financial, 

professional, and 

technical assistance 

measured in dollars 

secured as a result of 

the developed plan(s)

Outcome 6: Recipients are required to identify at least one 

outcome and indicator based on relevant project activities

N/A

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

y Conducting 

feasibility studies 

and economic 

analysis

Research and Analysis

y Performing market 

research to 

assess consumer 

preferences, 

competitors, best 

practices, and/or 

upcoming trends

y Launch and monitor 

pilot programs to 

determine early 

model successes 

and gaps

y Survey stakeholders 

to gauge capacity, 

knowledge, and 

interest

y Marketing

y Establish 

partnerships

y Technical assistance

y Promotional 

materials

y Workshops 

y Site visits

y Research 

and scientific 

experiments

y Needs assessments

y Business plan(s)
68

Table 8.3: ACER As-Is Logic Model

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to maple 

syrup and maple-sap products

1.a. Total number of 

project beneficiaries/ 

stakeholders reached

1.c. Of the number 

identified in 1.a, the 

number that gained 

knowledge on how 

to access or produce 

maple syrup or maplesap products

1.b. Of the number 

identified in 1.a/c, the 

number that reported 

buying, selling, 

aggregating, storing, 

producing, and/ or 

distributing maple 

syrup or maple-sap 

products 

Outcome 2: To increase sales of maple syrup or maple-sap 

products

2.a. Baseline and final 

sales numbers

2.a. Percent change in sales

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for producers 

and processors of maple syrup and maple-sap products

1.a. Total number of 

project beneficiaries/ 

stakeholders reached

3.a.-3.f. Number of 

new and/or existing 

delivery systems/

access points reached 

that expanded and/or 

improved maple syrup 

or maple-sap products

3.g. Of the maple 

syrup/sap product 

landowners or 

operators of privately 

held land containing 

maple trees reached, 

the number that 

reported an increase 

in revenue expressed 

in dollars

3.h. Of the maple 

syrup/sap product 

landowners or 

operators of privately 

held land containing 

maple trees reached, 

the number that 

reported an increase 

in maple sugaring 

activities

3.i. Of the maple 

syrup/sap product 

landowners or 

operators of privately 

held land containing 

maple trees reached, 

the number that 

reported an increase 

in maple syrup 

production

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

Marketing

y Outreach: Including 

phone calls, 

emails, print/tv/air/

social media, and 

other methods, 

including native 

website-based 

marketing tactics to 

contact and share 

information with 

stakeholders and 

partners

y Partnerships: 

Developing and 

maintaining 

partnerships with 

key organizations 

and stakeholders 

and recruiting new 

stakeholders and 

organizations to 

partner

Technical Assistance 

and Education

y Offering targeted 

technical assistance 

to improve sales, 

customer outreach, 

marketing, and the 

diversity of products

y Hosting stakeholder 

workshops and 

trainings

Business Enterprise 

Planning and Tools

y Creating strategic 

business/project 

plans

y Conducting 

stakeholder needs 

and resources 

assessments/audits 

and using data to 

inform project plans

y Creating digital 

databases, 

collaboration tools, 

or information 

repositories to 

enhance business 

acumen or 

enterprise
69

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

y Conducting 

feasibility studies 

and economic 

analysis

Research and Analysis

y Performing market 

research to 

assess consumer 

preferences, 

competitors, best 

practices, and/or 

upcoming trends

y Launch and monitor 

pilot programs to 

determine early 

model successes 

and gaps

y Survey stakeholders 

to gauge capacity, 

knowledge, and 

interest

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

3.j./3.k. For number 

of jobs, farmers that 

went into production, 

the number of jobs 

maintained/created, 

and the number 

of new beginning 

farmers that began 

producing maple 

syrup or maple-sap 

products

3.l. For number of 

jobs, farmers that 

went into production, 

the number of socially 

disadvantaged 

farmers that began 

producing maple 

syrup or maple-sap 

products

Outcome 4: Adoption of best practices and technologies as a 

result of promotional activities resulting in increased yields, 

reduced inputs, increased efficiency, increased economic return, 

and conservation of resources

1.a. Total number of 

project beneficiaries/ 

stakeholders reached

4.a. Number 

of producers 

indicating adoption 

of recommended 

practices

4.b. Number of 

producers reporting 

reduction in 

pesticides, fertilizer, or 

water used/acre

4.c. Number of 

producers reporting 

increased dollar 

returns per acre or 

reduced cost per acre
70

Table 8.4: DBI As-Is Logic Model

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: To increase consumption of and access to dairy 

products

1.a. Total number of 

project beneficiaries/

stakeholders reached

1.c. Of the total 

number that were 

reached, the number 

that gained knowledge 

on how to access, 

produce, prepare, 

and/or preserve dairy 

products

1.b. Of the 

total number of 

stakeholders identified 

in 1.a, the number 

that reported buying, 

selling, aggregating, 

storing, producing, 

and/or distributing 

dairy products 

Outcome 2: Outcome 2: To increase sales of dairy products

2.a. Baseline and final 

sales numbers

2.a. Percent change in sales

Outcome 3: To develop new market opportunities for producers 

and processors of dairy products

1.a. Total number of 

project beneficiaries/ 

stakeholders reached

3.a.-3.f. Number of 

new and/ or existing 

Delivery systems/

access points reached 

that expanded and/

or improved dairy 

products

3.g./3.h. Of the 

dairy businesses, 

the number that 

reported an increase 

in revenue and that 

reported an increase 

in dairy activities

3.i. Number that 

reported an increase 

in dairy product 

production and 

innovative marketing 

strategies

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

Marketing

y Outreach: Including 

phone calls, 

emails, print/tv/air/

social media, and 

other methods, 

including native 

website-based 

marketing tactics to 

contact and share 

information with 

stakeholders and 

partners

y Partnerships: 

Developing and 

maintaining 

partnerships with 

key organizations 

and stakeholders 

and recruiting new 

stakeholders and 

organizations to 

partner

Technical Assistance 

and Education

y Offering targeted 

technical assistance 

to improve sales, 

customer outreach, 

marketing, and the 

diversity of products

y Hosting stakeholder 

workshops and 

trainings
71

y Federal/State 

Legislation and 

Funding

y Federal 

Opportunity 

Announcement 

& Reporting 

Requirements

y Compliance 

& Safety 

Regulations/ 

Certifications

y Data Systems 

& Information 

Technology

y Contractual 

Relationships 

and 

Partnerships

y Staff & 

Volunteers

y Promising and 

Best Practices

Resources/Inputs Activities

Business Enterprise 

Planning and Tools

y Creating strategic 

business/project 

plans

y Conducting 

stakeholder needs 

and resources 

assessments/audits 

and using data to 

inform project plans

y Creating digital 

databases, 

collaboration tools, 

or information 

repositories to 

enhance business 

acumen or 

enterprise

y Conducting 

feasibility studies 

and economic 

analysis

Research and Analysis

y Performing market 

research to 

assess consumer 

preferences, 

competitors, best 

practices, and/or 

upcoming trends

y Launch and monitor 

pilot programs to 

determine early 

model successes 

and gaps

y Survey stakeholders 

to gauge capacity, 

knowledge, and 

interest

Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

3.j./3.k. For number 

of jobs, farmers that 

went into production, 

the number of jobs 

maintained/ created, 

and the number of 

new beginning
72

Recommended Logic Models

Instructions

Grant Thornton has drafted these preliminary performance measure recommendations in consultation with 

feedback provided by the NASDA Foundation, a national stakeholder survey, and a series of stakeholder 

interviews. These recommendations have not yet been validated in focus groups or through other external 

review processes and are subject to future revision. Internal use only. Do not distribute. 

There are two “sides” to a Logic Model – a process side on the left (activities and outputs), and an outcomes 

side on the right (short-term and longer-term outcomes and indicators). As you read from left to right, the chain 

of reasoning the connection among program activities, outputs, and outcomes should become apparent if you 

think in if/then statements:

IF you accomplish your planned activities, then you will hopefully deliver the amount of product and/or 

service that you intended (outputs).

IF you accomplish your planned activities to the extent you intended (outputs), then participants will benefit 

in learning, knowledge, attitude and/or skills (short-term outcomes).

IF benefits are achieved, then changes in behavior and actions occur, after which social, economic, health, 

civic, and/or environmental impacts may occur (longer-term outcomes). 

Table 9.1: SCBGP Recommended Logic Model

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: Increase Consumption and Consumer Purchasing of Specialty Crops

y Marketing

y Educational materials/

programs

y Outreach

y Create/explore sales 

opportunities

y Number of marketing 

strategies/plans 

developed and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts 

for any used): a. 

Telephone scripts, b. 

Contact databases, 

c. Print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other

y Technical assistance 

(TA) developed/ 

implemented: a. 

Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/ 

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ 

ad-hoc support

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

marketing, TA, and/or 

other methods

1.1 Total number of 

consumers who gained 

knowledge about specialty 

crops __. Of those, the 

number of 1.1a Adults __. 

1.1b Children __.

1.2 Total number of 

consumers who reported 

purchasing more specialty 

crops ___. Of those, the 

number of 1.2a Adults___. 

1.2b Children___.

1.3 Number of additional 

specialty crop customers 

counted

1.4 Number of additional 

business transactions 

executed
73

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Baseline established for 

sales in dollar amounts 

or a combination of 

volume and average 

price 

y Baseline established for 

number of specialty crop 

customers

y Baseline established 

for average number of 

business transactions

Outcome 2: Increasing Access to Specialty Crops and Expanding Specialty Crop Production and Distribution

y Marketing

y Technical assistance

y Educational materials/

programs

y Business plan(s)

y Outreach

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts 

for any used): a. 

Telephone scripts, b. 

Contact databases, 

c. Print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other

y Technical assistance 

developed/implemented:

y a. Educational/training 

materials/courses 

y b. TA sessions/

workshops 

y c. 1-1 TA/ ad-hoc 

support 

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

marketing, TA, and/or 

other methods

y Number of market 

access points reached 

through marketing, 

technical assistance, 

and/or other methods: 

a. Farmers Markets, 

b. Roadside Stands, 

c. Agritourism, d. 

Grocery Stores, e. 

Wholesale Markets/

buyers, f. Restaurants, 

g. Agricultural 

Cooperatives, 

2.1 Number of stakeholders 

that gained technical 

knowledge about producing, 

preparing, procuring, and/or 

accessing specialty crops 

2.2 Number of stakeholders 

that reported producing, 

preparing, procuring, and/

or accessing more specialty 

crops

2.3 Total number of 

market access points for 

specialty crops developed 

or expanded___. Of those, 

2.3a the number of new 

online portals created to 

sell specialty crops, 2.3b

the number with expanded 

seasonal availability, 2.3c

the number of existing 

market access points 

that expanded specialty 

crop offerings, and 2.3d 

the number of new 

market access points that 

established specialty crop 

offerings

2.4 Number of stakeholders 

that gained knowledge about 

more efficient and effective 

distribution systems

2.5 Number of stakeholders 

that adopted best practices 

or new technologies 

to improve distribution 

systems 

2.6 Total number of 

partnerships established 

between producers, 

distributors, and/or other 

relevant intermediaries 

related to distribution 

systems __. 2.6a Of those, 

the number formalized 

with written agreements 

(i.e. MOU’s, signed 

contracts, etc.) 2.6b Of 

those established, number 

of partnerships with 

underserved organizations 

2.7 Total number of new/

improved distribution 

systems developed__. 

Of those, the number 

that 2.7a stemmed from 

new partnerships 2.7b

increased efficiency 

2.7c reduced costs 2.7d

increased specialty crop 

grower participation 2.7e 

expanded customer reach 

2.7f increased online 

presence

2.8 Number of specialty 

crop-related jobs 2.8a 

created 2.8b maintained
74

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

h. Retailers, i. 

Distributors, j. Food 

Hubs, k. Shared-Use 

Kitchens, l. School 

Food Programs, m. 

Community-Supported 

Agriculture (CSAs), n. 

Other

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted 

y Number of partnerships 

established

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Number of research 

studies, experiments, 

models, or other 

research-related 

activities conducted

y Number of technologies/

best practices/innovation 

models researched to 

improve distribution 

systems and reduce 

costs of specialty crop 

distribution 

y Number of new market 

opportunities identified

y Number of supply-chain 

inefficiencies identified

y Baseline established 

for number of products 

offered (supplement 

with details in qualitative 

report)

y Baseline established 

for number of specialty 

crop-industry jobs

y Baseline established for 

number of specialty crop 

producers

y Baseline established 

for sales and revenue 

in dollar amounts or a 

combination of volume 

and average price

y Baseline established for 

costs in dollar amounts

2.9 Total number of new 

individuals who went into 

specialty crop production 

as a result of marketing 

___. Of those, the number 

who are 2.9a beginning 

farmers or ranchers 2.9b

socially disadvantaged 

farmers or ranchers 

2.10 Number of market 

access points that reported 

increased 2.10a revenue, 

2.10b sales, and/or 2.10c 

cost-savings

Outcome 3: Increase Food Safety Knowledge and Processes

y Outreach 

y Research/ scientific 

experiments

y Technical assistance

y Workshops

y Site visits

y Number of outreach 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed 

y Number of outreach 

materials developed 

(provide counts for any 

used): 

3.1 Number of stakeholders 

that gained knowledge 

about prevention, 

detection, control, and/

or intervention food safety 

practices, including relevant 

regulations (to improve their

3.2 Number of stakeholders 

that 3.2a established a food 

safety plan 3.2b revised or 

updated their food safety 

plan.

3.3 Number of prevention, 

detection, or
75

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

a. Telephone scripts, 

b. Contact databases, 

c. Print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other Number of 

stakeholders reached 

through outreach, TA, 

and/or other methods

y Technical Assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

outreach, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Number of site visits 

focused on technical 

assistance and/or 

information gathering

y Number of viable 

technologies, best 

practices, or strategies 

researched for 

the detection and 

characterization of 

specialty crop supply 

contamination from 

foodborne illness 

pathogens

y Number of specialty 

crop producers/

processors reached 

about food safety best 

practices, processes, 

and regulations

ability to comply with the 

Food Safety Modernization 

Act (FSMA) and/or meet the 

standards for aligned third 

party food safety audits such 

as Harmonized GAP/GHP)

intervention practices 

developed or enhanced to 

mitigate food safety risks.

3.4 Number of specialty 

crop stakeholders who 

implemented new/

improved prevention, 

detection, control, and 

intervention practices, 

tools, or technologies to 

mitigate food safety risks 

(to improve their ability 

to comply with the Food 

Safety Modernization Act 

(FSMA) and/or meet the 

standards for aligned third 

party food safety audits 

such as Harmonized GAP/

GHP).

3.5 Number of stakeholders 

who 3.5a obtained or 3.5b 

maintained third-party 

food safety certifications 

(such as Good Agricultural 

Practices, Good Handling 

Practices, etc.)

Outcome 4: Improve Pest and Disease Control Processes

y Outreach

y Technical assistance

y Educational materials/

programs

y Research/ scientific 

experiments

y Business plan(s)

y Number of outreach 

plans developed and 

executed

y Number of outreach 

materials developed 

(provide counts for any 

used): a. Telephone 

scripts, b. Contact 

databases, c. Print

4.1 Number of stakeholders 

that gained knowledge 

about science-based tools to 

combat pests and diseases

4.2 Number of stakeholders 

that adopted pest and 

disease control best 

practices, technologies, or 

innovations

4.5 Total number of 

producers/processors that 

enhanced or maintained 

pest and disease control 

practices __. Of those, the 

number that reported 4.5a

reduction in product lost 

to pest and diseases 4.5b

improved crop quality
76

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

marketing brochures/

materials, d. 

Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other Number of 

stakeholders reached 

through outreach, TA, 

and/or other methods

y Technical Assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

outreach, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

y Number of new 

diagnostic systems 

detecting specialty crop 

pests and diseases 

investigated

y Number of management 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

for number of acres 

managed using pest and 

disease control practices 

and/or integrated pest 

management

y Baseline established for 

labor costs related to 

pests and diseases

y Baseline established for 

industry-relevant grade 

and/or quality labels (or 

other quality metrics 

described in qualitative 

report)

4.3 Number of stakeholders 

trained in early detection 

and rapid response 

practices to combat pests 

and diseases, and of 

those 4.3a the number of 

additional acres managed 

using integrated pest 

management.

4.4 Number of new 

diagnostic systems, 

methods, technologies or 

other tools developed for 

analyzing specialty crop 

pests and diseases

4.5c reduction in labor 

costs 4.5d reduction in 

pesticide use

4.6 Number of producers/

processors improving 

the efficiency of pest and 

disease control diagnostics 

and response testing, as 

reported by 4.6a improving 

speed 4.6b improving 

reliability 4.6c expanding 

capability 4.6d increasing 

testing (i.e. survey work for 

pests)
77

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 5: Develop New Seed Varieties and Specialty Crops

y Technical assistance 

y Educational materials/

programs

y Research/ scientific 

experiments

y Business 

y Technical assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

y Number of research 

studies, experiments, 

models, or other 

research-related 

activities conducted 

y Number of new cultivar/

seed variety-related 

research activities 

performed

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted 

y Number of business/

strategic plans 

developed and executed

y Number of management 

plans developed and 

executed

5.1 Number of cultivar and/

or variety trials conducted, 

of those 5.1a the number 

of cultivar/variety trials 

evaluated

5.2 Number of cultivars 

and/or seed varieties 

developed

5.3 Number of cultivars 

and/or seed varieties 

released

5.4 Number of growers 

adopting new cultivars and/

or varieties

5.5 Number of acres 

planted with new cultivars 

and/or varieties

Outcome 6: Expand Specialty Crop Research and Development

y Conduct research

y Establish research 

collaborations/ networks

y Share research results

y Focus of research: a. 

Methods of storage 

for postharvest loss 

b. Nutrient profiling 

c. Technology 

improvements d. Pest/

Disease control e. Water 

use f. Pollinator health 

g. Soil health h. Other 

(please specify)

y Number of research 

goals identified

y Number of expert 

interviews conducted

y Number of surveys 

developed/administered

y Number of outside 

resources reviewed

y Number of research 

collaborations/networks 

created

y Number of technical 

experts hired/contracted

y Number of experiments 

conducted

y Number of poster 

sessions, conferences, 

or presentations 

attended

6.1 Number of research 

goals accomplished

6.2 For research 

conclusions, the number 

that 6.2a yielded findings 

that supported continued 

research 6.2b yielded 

findings that led to 

completion of study 6.2c

yielded findings that allow 

for implementation of 

new practice, process or 

technology

6.3 Number of industry 

representatives and other 

stakeholders who engaged 

with research results 

6.4 Total number of 

research outputs published 

to industry publications 

and/or academic journals 

__. For each published 

research output, the 6.4a

number of views/reads of 

published research/data 

6.4b number of citations 

counted

*For research outputs 

published formally to 

academic publications, 

recipients should note 

publication information, so 

AMS can track leadership 

and citation numbers after 

the end of the grant period.
78

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of repositories 

and/or public forums 

used to share research

Outcome 7: Improve Environmental Sustainability of Specialty Crops

y Technical assistance

y Educational materials/

programs

y Research/ scientific 

experiments

y Business plan(s)

y Number of outreach 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of outreach 

materials developed 

(provide counts 

for any used): a. 

Telephone scripts, b. 

Contact databases, 

c. Print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

outreach, TA, and/or 

other methods

y Technical assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

y Number of new or 

improved innovation 

models, technologies, 

networks, products, 

processes, etc. 

identified for specialty 

crop entities 

y Number of best 

practices identified 

through research

y Number of research 

studies, experiments, 

models, or other 

research-related 

activities conducted 

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted 

7.1 Number of stakeholders 

that gained knowledge about 

environmental sustainability 

best practices, tools, or 

technologies 

7.2 Number of stakeholders 

reported with an intent 

to adopt environmental 

sustainability best practices, 

tools, or technologies

7.3 Number of producers 

that adopted environmental 

7.3a best practices 7.3b

new tools or technologies

7.4 Number of new tools/

technologies developed 

or enhanced to improve 

sustainability/ conservation 

or other environmental 

outcomes

7.5 Number of additional 

acres managed with 

sustainable practices, 

tools, or technologies that 

focused on 7.5a water 

quality/ conservation 7.5b

soil health 7.5c biodiversity 

7.5d reduction in energy 

use 7.5e (optional) other 

positive environmental 

outcomes

7.6 Number of additional 

acres established and 

maintained for the mutual 

benefit of pollinators/ 

specialty crops
79

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of technologies 

and/or best practices 

researched to 

improve conservation, 

sustainability, or other 

environmental outcomes 

in specialty crop 

operations 

y Number of management 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

for number of acres 

managed with 

sustainable practices, 

tools, or technologies 

that focus on the listed 

metrics

y Baseline established 

for number of acres 

maintained for the 

mutual benefit of 

pollinators/specialty 

crops

Table 9.2: FMLFPP Recommended Logic Model 

Goal: To develop, coordinate, and expand direct producer-to-consumer markets to help increase access to and 

availability of locally and regionally produced agricultural products. 

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: Develop Business Plans and Feasibility Studies

y Needs assessment

y Technical assistance

y Needs assessment(s) 

conducted (number of if 

applicable)

y Number of impact 

studies conducted 

y Number of technical 

experts hired/contracted

y Number of gap/market 

analyses conducted

y Number of potential 

partnerships identified 

between local/regional 

food entities 

y Number of products 

reviewed for 

improvement

y Outputs for indicator 

1.4 stem from program 

activities completed 

in pursuit of indicators 

1.1-1.3

1.1 Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

1.2 Number of the following 

identified through needs 

assessment or feasibility 

studies 1.2a new markets 

1.2b unmet consumer needs 

1.2c barriers to local foods 

1.2d unserved populations 

1.2e supply chain gaps 1.2f 

partnership opportunities, 

and/or 1.2g other identified 

needs

1.3 Number of projects 

1.3a deemed viable after 

conducting feasibility study, 

or 1.3b deemed not viable 

after conducting feasibility 

study 

1.4 Number of business 

development plans created
80

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 2: Facilitate Regional Food Chain Coordination and Increase Capacity of Direct-to-Consumer Entities

y Partnership/

collaboration meetings

y Trainings

y Number of coordination/

partnership strategies 

developed 

y Number of impact 

assessments conducted

y Number of collaboration 

meetings conducted

y Number of new market 

opportunities identified

y Number of partnership/

collaboration meetings 

conducted

y Baseline established 

for relevant metrics 

(reach, volume capacity, 

efficiency)

y Annual review of 

strategic plan (if 

applicable)

y Number of gap or 

market analyses 

conducted

y Number of training 

opportunities 

established

y Technical assistance 

(TA) developed/

implemented: a. 

Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ 

ad-hoc support 

2.1 Total number of 

partnerships and/

or collaborations 

established between 

producers/ processors 

and local/regional supply 

networks___. 2.1a Of those 

established, the number 

formalized with written 

agreements (i.e. MOU’s, 

signed contracts, etc.) 2.1b

Of those established, the 

number of partnerships with 

underserved organizations

2.3 Total number of 

stakeholders trained on 

how to develop or maintain 

a direct-to-consumer 

enterprise___. 2.3a Of those 

trained, the number that are 

beginning producers

2.2 Of the total number 

of partnerships and 

collaborations identified 

in 2.1, the number that 

reported 2.2a expanded/

improved regional food 

systems 2.2b higher 

profits 2.2c more efficient 

transportation 2.2d

improved marketing 

channels 2.2e and/or 

other mid-tier value chain 

enhancements

2.4 Number of strategic 

plans developed or updated

2.5 Total number of 

new direct producer-toconsumer market access 

points established___. Of 

those, the number that 

were 2.5a farmers markets 

2.5b roadside stands 2.5c

agritourism 2.5d grocery 

stores 2.5e wholesale 

markets/buyers 2.5f 

restaurants 2.5g agricultural 

cooperatives 2.5h retailers 

2.5i distributors 2.5j food 

hubs 2.5k shared-use 

kitchens 2.5l school food 

programs 2.5m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 2.5n other

Outcome 3: Enhance the Market for Local/Regional Agricultural Products

y Marketing

y Technical assistance 

y Educational materials/

programs

y Workshops

y Engage new and 

existing marketing/

distribution points, 

including institutions, 

food hubs, and food 

processors

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

and executed (provide 

counts for any used): 

a. telephone scripts 

b. contact databases, 

c. print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. promotional videos 

created, e. newsletters, 

f. social media sites, g. 

websites/web platforms, 

h. other

y Technical assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

3.1 Number of stakeholders 

that gained technical 

knowledge about producing, 

procuring, and/or accessing 

local/regional foods. Of 

those, the number that 

were 3.1a farmers markets 

3.1b roadside stands 3.1c

agritourism 3.1d grocery 

stores 3.1e wholesale 

markets/buyers 3.1f 

restaurants 3.1g agricultural 

cooperatives 3.1h retailers 

3.1i distributors 3.1j food 

hubs 3.1k shared-use 

kitchens 3.1l school food 

programs 3.1m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 3.1n other

3.3 Number of new tools/ 

technologies developed to 

improve local/regional food 

processing, distribution, 

aggregation, or storage 3.3a

Number of stakeholders 

trained to use new tools/

technologies

3.4 Number of delivery 

systems/market access 

points that reported 

increased or improved 

3.4a processing 3.4b 

distribution 3.4c storage 

3.4d aggregation of locally/ 

regionally produced 

agricultural products 

3.5 Total number of delivery 

systems/market access 

points that established and/

or expanded local/regional
81

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of market 

access points/delivery 

systems reached through 

marketing, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods: a. Farmers 

Markets, b. Roadside 

Stands, c. Agritourism, 

d. Grocery Stores, e. 

Wholesale Markets/

buyers, f. Restaurants, 

g. Agricultural 

Cooperatives, h. 

Retailers, i. Distributors, 

j. Food Hubs, k. SharedUse Kitchens, l. School 

Food Programs, m. 

Community-Supported 

Agriculture (CSAs), n. 

Other

y Number of technologies 

and/or best practices 

researched to 

improve local/regional 

food distribution or 

transportation

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

y Baseline established for 

relevant metrics (volume, 

capacity, efficiency)

y Number of partnerships 

established 

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

or number of products 

offered (supplement 

with details in qualitative 

report)

y Baseline established for 

sales in dollar amount or 

a combination of volume 

and average price

y Baseline established for 

revenue in dollar amount

y Baseline established for 

costs in dollar amount

3.2 Total number of delivery 

systems/market access 

points that increased 

engagement with local/

regional producers___. 

Of those, the number that 

were 3.2a farmers markets 

3.2b roadside stands 3.2c

agritourism 3.2d grocery 

stores 3.2e wholesale 

markets/buyers 3.2f

restaurants 3.2g agricultural 

cooperatives 3.2h retailers 

3.2i distributors 3.2j food 

hubs 3.2k shared-use 

kitchens 3.2l school food 

programs 3.2m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 3.2n other

agricultural product or 

service offerings ___. Of 

those, the number that 

were 3.5a farmers markets 

3.5b roadside stands 3.5c 

agritourism 3.5d grocery 

stores 3.5e wholesale 

markets/buyers 3.5f 

restaurants 3.5g agricultural 

cooperatives 3.5h retailers 

3.5i distributors 3.5j food 

hubs 3.5k shared-use 

kitchens 3.5l school food 

programs 3.5m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 3.5n other 

3.6 Number of delivery 

systems/market access 

points that reported 

increased 3.6a revenue, 

3.6b sales, and/or 3.6c cost 

savings
82

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 4: Increase Viability of Local/Regional Producers and Processors

y Marketing

y Technical assistance 

y Educational materials/

programs

y Workshops

y Stakeholders

y Calculate baselines

y Research 

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed 

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

and executed (provide 

counts for any used): 

a. telephone scripts 

b. contact databases, 

c. print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. promotional videos 

created, e. newsletters, 

f. social media sites, g. 

websites/web platforms, 

h. other

y Technical assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

y Number of producers/

processors reached 

through marketing, 

technical assistance, 

and/or other methods 

y Number of value-added 

products researched 

y Baseline established for 

number of local/regional 

agricultural jobs 

y Baseline established for 

sales in dollar amounts 

or a combination of 

volume and average 

price

y Baseline established 

for revenue in dollar 

amount

y Baseline established for 

costs in dollar amount

y Baseline established for 

costs in dollar amount 

Baseline established for 

number of local/regional 

producers 

4.1 Number of producers/

processors who gained 

knowledge about new 

market opportunities 

4.2 Number of producer/

processors that reported 

increased engagement with 

new delivery systems or 

market access points 

4.3 Number of producers/

processors that 

implemented new or 

improved operational 

methods 

4.4 Number of valueadded agricultural products 

developed 

4.5 Number of producers/

processors that reported 

selling new local/regional 

food products 4.5a Number 

that reported selling new 

value-added products

4.6 Number of producers/

processors that reported a 

reduction in on-farm food 

waste through new business 

opportunities and marketing 

4.7 Number of producers/ 

processors that reported 

increased 4.7a revenue, 

4.7b sales, and/or 4.7c

cost savings due to local/

regional food, operational, 

and/or value-added product 

activities

4.8 Number of local/regional 

agricultural jobs 4.8a 

created or 4.8b maintained 

4.9 Total number of new 

producers who went 

into local/regional food 

production. Of those, 

number who are 4.9a 

beginning farmers/ ranchers 

4.9b socially disadvantaged 

farmers/ranchers 4.9c family 

farmers/ranchers 4.9d 

veteran farmers/ranchers
83

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 5: Improve Food Safety of Locally and Regionally Produced Agricultural Products

y Outreach

y Technical assistance

y Educational materials/

programs

y Workshops

y Number of outreach 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of outreach 

materials developed 

and executed (provide 

counts for any used): 

a. telephone scripts 

b. contact databases, 

c. print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. promotional videos 

created, e. newsletters, 

f. social media sites, g. 

websites/web platforms, 

h. other

y Technical assistance 

developed/implemented: 

a. Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support 

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

outreach, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods 

y Number of partnerships 

established

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

5.1 Number of stakeholders 

that gained knowledge 

about prevention, 

detection, control, and/

or intervention food safety 

practices, including relevant 

regulations (to improve their 

ability to comply with the 

Food Safety Modernization 

Act (FSMA) and/or meet 

the standards for aligned 

third party food safety audits 

such as Harmonized GAP/

GHP) 

5.2 Number of stakeholders 

that 5.2a established a food 

safety plan 5.2b revised or 

updated their food safety 

plan 

5.3 Number of stakeholders 

that implemented new/

improved prevention, 

detection, control, and 

intervention practices, tools, 

or technologies to mitigate 

identified food safety risks 

(to improve their ability to 

comply with the Food Safety 

Modernization Act (FSMA) 

and/or meet the standards 

for aligned third party 

food safety audits such as 

Harmonized GAP/GHP)

5.4 Number of prevention, 

detection, control, or 

intervention practices 

developed or enhanced to 

mitigate food safety risks

5.6 Number of stakeholders 

that 5.6a purchased or 

5.6b upgraded food safety 

equipment

Outcome 6: Increase Consumption and Consumer Purchasing of Local/Regional Agricultural Products

y Marketing

y Educational materials/

programs

y Outreach

y Create/explore sales 

opportunities

y Number of marketing 

strategies developed 

and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

and executed (provide 

counts for any used): 

a. telephone scripts 

b. contact databases, 

c. print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. promotional videos 

created, e. newsletters, 

f. social media sites, g. 

websites/web platforms, 

h. other

y Number of stakeholders 

reached for each of 

the above marketing 

materials used

6.1 Total number of 

consumers who gained 

knowledge about local/

regional agricultural 

products ___. 6.1a Adults 

6.1b Children

6.2 Total number of 

consumers who consumed 

more local/regional 

agricultural products ____. 

6.2a Adults 6.2b Children

6.3 Number of additional 

local/regional agricultural 

product customers counted

6.4 Number of additional 

business transactions 

executed for local/regional 

agricultural products 

6.5 Increased sales 

measured in 6.5a dollars, 

6.5b percent change, 

or 6.5c combination of 

volume and average price 

as a result of enhanced 

marketing activities
84

Table 9.3: Acer Recommended Logic Model

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: Increase consumption of maple syrup and maple-sap products

y Marketing

y Focus groups

y Marketing workshops

y Consumer awareness 

or education campaigns 

developed and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts 

for any used): a. 

Telephone scripts, b. 

Contact databases, 

c. Print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other

y Technical assistance 

(TA) developed/ 

implemented: a. 

Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/ 

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ 

ad-hoc support

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

marketing, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods

y Baseline established 

for number of maple 

customers

y Baseline established 

for average number of 

business transactions

y Baseline established for 

sales in dollar amount or 

a combination of volume 

and average price 

1.1 Total number of 

consumers who gained 

knowledge about maple 

syrup and maple-sap 

products___. 1.1a Adults 

1.1b Children

1.2 Total number of 

consumers who consumed 

more maple syrup and 

maple-sap products___. 

1.2a Adults 1.2b Children 

1.3 Number of additional 

maple product customers 

counted

1.4 Number of additional 

business transactions 

executed

1.5 Increased sales 

measured in 1.5a dollars, 

1.5b percent change, 

or 1.5c combination of 

volume and average price 

as a result of enhanced 

marketing activities

Outcome 2: Develop New Market Opportunities for Maple Producers and Processors

y Marketing

y Establish partnerships

y Technical assistance

y Technical assistance 

developed/ 

implemented: a. 

Educational/training 

materials/courses b. TA 

sessions/ workshops c. 

1-1 TA/ ad-hoc support

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

2.1 Total number of existing 

market access points 

that established and/or 

expanded maple syrup or 

maple-sap offerings ___. 

Of those, the number that 

were 2.1a farmers markets 

2.1b roadside stands 2.1c

agritourism 2.1d grocery 

stores 2.1e wholesale

2.3 Total number of 

partnerships and/or 

collaborations established 

between maple producers/

processors and market 

access points___. 2.3a

Of those established, the 

number formalized with 

written agreements (i.e. 

MOU’s, signed contracts, 

etc.) 2.3b Of those
85

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts for any 

used): a. Telephone 

scripts, b. Contact 

databases, c. Print 

marketing brochures/

materials, d. Promotional 

videos created, e. 

Newsletters, f. Social 

media sites, g. Websites/

web platforms, h. Other

y Number of market access 

points reached through 

marketing, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods: a. Farmers 

Markets, b. Roadside 

Stands, c. Agritourism, 

d. Grocery Stores, e. 

Wholesale Markets/

buyers, f. Restaurants, 

g. Agricultural 

Cooperatives, h. 

Retailers, i. Distributors, 

j. Food Hubs, k. SharedUse Kitchens, l. School 

Food Programs, m. 

Community-Supported 

Agriculture (CSAs), n. 

Other 

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

y Number of partnership/

collaboration meetings 

conducted

y Number of partnerships 

established 

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

for number of products 

offered (supplement 

with details in qualitative 

report)

y Number of outreach 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

markets/buyers 2.1f 

restaurants 2.1g agricultural 

cooperatives 2.1h retailers 

2.1i distributors 2.1j food 

hubs 2.1k shared-use 

kitchens 2.1l school food 

programs 2.1m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 2.1n other

2.2 Total number of new 

market access points that 

established maple syrup or 

maple-sap offerings ___. 

Of those, the number that 

were 2.2a farmers markets 

2.2b roadside stands 2.2c 

agritourism 2.2d grocery 

stores 2.2e wholesale 

markets/buyers 2.2f

restaurants 2.2g agricultural 

cooperatives 2.2h retailers 

2.2i distributors 2.2j food 

hubs 2.2k shared-use 

kitchens 2.2l school food 

programs 2.2m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 2.2n other

established, the number 

or partnerships with 

underserved organizations

2.4 Of the total number 

of partnerships and 

collaborations identified 

in 2.4, the number 

that reported 2.4a 

expanded/improved 

maple infrastructure 2.4b

higher profits 2.4c more 

efficient transportation

2.4d improved marketing 

channels 2.4e and/or 

other mid-tier value chain 

enhancements

2.5 Number of new 

or existing producers/

processors who increased 

production to meet 

increased demand in new/

additional market access 

points.

2.6 Number of maple 

producers/processors 

that increased revenue by 

pursuing new/increased 

market opportunities
86

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of impact 

assessments conducted

y Number of new market 

opportunities identified

Outcome 3: Increase the Number of New Maple Producers and Expand Capacity of Existing Maple Producers

y Promotional materials

y Workshops 

y Site visits

y Research and scientific 

experiments

y Needs assessments

y Business plan(s) 

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts for any 

used): a. Telephone 

scripts, b. Contact 

databases, c. Print 

marketing brochures/

materials, d. Promotional 

videos created, e. 

Newsletters, f. Social 

media sites, g. Websites/

web platforms, h. other 

y Technical assistance (TA) 

developed/ implemented: 

a. Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ adhoc support 

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

marketing, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods

y Number of best practices 

identified through 

research

y Number of management 

plans developed and 

executed

y Number of collaboration 

meetings conducted

y Number of partnerships 

established

y Number of new market 

opportunities identified

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

for number of products 

offered (supplement 

with details in qualitative 

report)

3.1 Number of producers, 

processors, private 

landowners, or other 

stakeholders that gained 

knowledge about maple 

production or maple 

business improvement 

methods

3.2 Number of producers 

or processors that adopted 

new maple production 

or maple business 

improvement methods 

3.3 Number of producers/

processors that learned 

about new or improved 

quality management 

procedures, and of 

those 3.3a the number 

that implemented these 

procedures

3.4 Number of 3.4a.

landowners 3.4b. lessors 

3.4c. free-access individuals 

3.4d. students reported with 

an intent to enter the maple 

market

3.5 Number of 3.5a. private 

landowners 3.5b. lessors 

3.5c. free-access individuals 

3.5d. students 3.5e or other 

producers that initiated 

maple sugaring activities.

3.6 Number of 3.6a. private 

landowners 3.6b. lessors 

3.6c. free-access individuals 

3.6d. students 3.6e or other 

producers that established 

long-term partnerships to 

maintain maple sugaring 

activities

3.7 Number of producers/

processors that expanded 

their maple product line 

3.8 Number of producers 

that increased production 

3.8a from small-scale levels 

to mid-scale levels or 3.8b

from mid-scale levels to 

commercial-scale levels 

3.9 Number of maple 

producers that reported 

increased 3.9a maple syrup 

production (gallons), 3.9b 

sales, 3.9c price/gallon, 

and/or 3.9d cost-savings

3.10 Number of maplerelated jobs 3.10a created 

or 3.10b maintained
87

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Baseline established for 

sales in dollar amounts 

or a combination of 

volume and average 

price

y Baseline established 

for equipment (sap 

collection infrastructure) 

purchased/installed

y Baseline established 

for price/gallon in dollar 

amounts

y Baseline established for 

costs in dollar amounts

y Baseline established 

for number of mapleindustry jobs 

y Baseline established 

for number of maple 

producers

Outcome 4: Expand Maple Research and Development

y Conduct research

y Establish research 

collaborations/networks

y Share research results

y Focus of research: a. 

Methods of storage 

for postharvest loss 

b. Nutrient profiling 

c. Technology 

improvements d. Pest/

Disease control e. Water 

use f. Pollinator health 

g. Soil health h. Other 

(please specify)

y Number of research 

goals identified

y Number of expert 

interviews conducted

y Number of surveys 

developed/administered

y Number of outside 

resources reviewed

y Number of research 

collaborations/networks 

created

y Number of technical 

experts hired/contracted

y •Number of experiments 

conducted

y Number of poster 

sessions, conferences, 

or presentations 

attended

y Number of repositories 

and/or public forums 

used to share research

4.1 Number of research 

goals accomplished

4.2 For research 

conclusions, the number 

that 4.2a yielded findings 

that supported continued 

research 4.2b yielded 

findings that led to 

completion of study 4.2c 

yielded findings that allow 

for implementation of 

new practice, process, or 

technology

4.3 Number of industry 

representatives and other 

stakeholders that engaged 

with research results 

4.4 Total number of 

research outputs published 

to industry publications and/

or academic journals___. 

For each published research 

output, the 4.4a number of 

views/reads of published 

research/ data 4.4b number 

of citations counted

*For research outputs 

published formally to 

academic publications, 

recipients should note 

publication information, so 

AMS can track readership 

and citation numbers after 

the end of the grant period.
88

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 5: Promote Natural Resource Sustainability in the Maple Syrup Industry

y Marketing

y Research and scientific 

experiments

y Management plans

y Technical assistance

y Workshops

y Site Visits

y Number of outreach 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed 

y Number of outreach 

materials developed 

(provide counts for any 

used): a. Telephone 

scripts, b. Contact 

databases, c. Print 

marketing brochures/

materials, d. Promotional 

videos created, e. 

Newsletters, f. Social 

media sites, g. Websites/

web platforms, h. other

y Technical assistance (TA) 

developed/ implemented: 

a. Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ adhoc support 

y Number of stakeholders 

reached through 

outreach, technical 

assistance, and/or other 

methods

y Number of research 

studies, experiments, 

models, or other 

research-related 

activities conducted

y Number of technologies 

and/or best practices 

researched to 

improve conservation, 

sustainability, or other 

environmental outcomes 

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

y Number of management 

plans developed and 

executed 

y Number of site visits 

conducted for information 

gathering/technical 

assistance 

y Baseline established for 

number of taps managed 

using sustainable best 

practices

y Baseline established for 

number of dollar returns 

or input costs per tap 
89

Table 9.4: DBI Recommended Logic Model

Goal: To assist DBI initiatives in managing regional efforts to support dairy businesses in the development, 

production, marketing, and distribution of dairy products.

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 1: Encourage the Use of Regional Milk Production

y Develop outreach 

strategies

y Coordinate partnerships 

and/or development 

strategies

y Conduct economic 

impact studies

y Identify educational/

operational 

collaborations

y Number of outreach 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of potential 

partners identified 

y Number of potential 

collaborators identified

y Number of collaboration 

meetings conducted

y Number of impact 

assessments conducted

y Number of new market 

opportunities identified

y Number of partnerships 

established

1.1 Total number of 

partnerships and/

or collaborations 

established between dairy 

producers/processors 

and local/regional supply 

networks___. 1.1a Of those 

established, the number 

formalized with written 

agreements (i.e. MOU’s, 

signed contracts, etc.) 1.1b 

Of those established, the 

number of partnerships with 

underserved organizations 

1.1c Of those established, 

the number of partnerships 

with dairy cooperatives

1.2 Of the total number 

of partnerships and 

collaborations identified 

in 1.1, the number that 

reported 1.2a expanded/

improved local/regional 

dairy infrastructure 1.2b 

higher profits 1.2c more 

efficient transportation 

1.2d improved marketing 

channels 1.2e increased 

volume of local/regional 

milk used 1.2f and/or 

other mid-tier value chain 

enhancements

Outcome 2: Diversify and Expand Dairy Product Market Opportunities

y Identify new and 

existing market 

opportunities

y Develop marketing and 

outreach materials

y Hold discussions on 

innovative processing

y Conduct research on 

improving dairy products

y Create technical 

assistance materials

y Develop workshops

y Conduct site visits

y Create new dairy 

products

y Market new dairy 

products to producers 

and access points

y Number of new 

and existing market 

opportunities identified

y Number of marketing 

and outreach materials 

developed

y Number of print 

marketing materials 

converted to digital 

formats

y Technical assistance 

(TA) developed/ 

implemented: a. 

Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ 

ad-hoc support

y Total number of projects 

focused on enhancing 

value of dairy products 

through new uses and 

process innovations

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

2.1 Number of dairy 

businesses that 

implemented new marketing 

procedures 

2.2 Total number of 

existing market access 

points that established 

and/or expanded dairy 

product offerings___. Of 

those, the number that 

were 2.2a farmers markets 

2.2b roadside stands 2.2c

agritourism 2.2d grocery 

stores 2.2e wholesale 

markets/buyers 2.2f 

restaurants 2.2g agricultural 

cooperatives 2.2h retailers 

2.2i distributors 2.2j food 

hubs 2.2k shared-use 

kitchens 2.2l school food 

programs 2.2m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 2.2n other

2.3 Total number of new

market access points that

2.4 Number of dairy 

businesses that increased 

dairy product sales by 

selling to new/additional 

market access points to 

meet increased demand

2.5 Number of market 

access points reporting 

increased sales of dairy 

products
90

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts 

for any used): a. 

Telephone scripts, b. 

Contact databases, 

c. Print marketing 

brochures/materials, 

d. Promotional videos 

created, e. Newsletters, 

f. Social media sites, g. 

Websites/web platforms, 

h. Other

y Number of market 

access points reached 

through marketing, 

technical assistance, 

and/or other methods: 

a. Farmers Markets, 

b. Roadside Stands, 

c. Agritourism, d. 

Grocery Stores, e. 

Wholesale Markets/

buyers, f. Restaurants, 

g. Agricultural 

Cooperatives, h. 

Retailers, i. Distributors, 

j. Food Hubs, k. SharedUse Kitchens, l. School 

Food Programs, m. 

Community-Supported 

Agriculture (CSAs), n. 

other 

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

y Number of partnerships 

established 

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

for number of products 

offered (supplement 

with details in qualitative 

report)

established dairy product 

offerings .Of those, the 

number that were 2.3a

farmers markets 2.3b

roadside stands 2.3c 

agritourism 2.3d grocery 

stores 2.3e wholesale 

markets/buyers 2.3f 

restaurants 2.3g agricultural 

cooperatives 2.3h retailers 

2.3i distributors 2.3j food 

hubs 2.3k shared-use 

kitchens 2.3l school food 

programs 2.3m communitysupported agriculture 

(CSAs) 2.3n other
91

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

Outcome 3: Promote business development that diversifies farmer income through processing and marketing 

innovations

y Identify marketing 

strategies

y Develop marketing 

materials

y Develop educational/

promotional materials 

(sales-based vs 

education-based 

activities)

y Identify new processing 

procedures to 

improve dairy product 

development

y Develop marketing 

materials

y Hold discussions on 

development expansion

y Conduct workshops 

to provide technical 

assistance and 

education about dairy 

opportunities

y Conduct site visits

y Conduct research and 

scientific 

y Conduct needs 

assessments

y Number of marketing 

plans/strategies 

developed and executed

y Number of marketing 

materials developed 

(provide counts for any 

used): a. Telephone 

scripts, b. Contact 

databases, c. Print 

marketing brochures/

materials, d. Promotional 

videos created, e. 

Newsletters, f. Social 

media sites, g. Websites/

web platforms, h. Other

y Technical assistance (TA) 

developed/ implemented: 

a. Educational materials/

courses b. TA sessions/

workshops c. 1-1 TA/ adhoc support 

y Number of partnerships 

established 

y Number of research 

studies, experiments, 

models, or other 

research-related 

activities conducted

y Number of applicable 

insights/ best practices/ 

technologies/ innovations 

investigated

y Number of new 

processes or production 

methods researched and 

identified

y Number of dairy 

businesses that learned 

about innovative dairy 

processes

y Number of dairy 

businesses that learned 

about new dairy products

y Number of feasibility 

studies conducted

3.1 Number of dairy 

businesses that gained 

knowledge about dairy 

product development or 

dairy business improvement 

methods 

3.2 Number of dairy 

businesses that 

implemented new or 

modified dairy processes or 

production methods 

3.3 Number of dairy 

businesses that expanded 

their existing dairy product 

line 

3.4 Number of dairy 

businesses that began 

producing dairy products

3.5 Number of dairy 

products created or 

enhanced

3.6 Number of dairy 

businesses that increased 

dairy product sales 

measured in 3.6a dollars, 

3.6b percentage change, or 

3.6c combination of volume 

and average price

3.7 Number of dairy-related 

jobs 3.7a created or 3.7b 

maintained
92

Activities Outputs

Indicators

Short-Term Longer-Term

y Number of operational 

plans developed and 

executed

y Baseline established 

or number of products 

offered (supplement 

with details in qualitative 

report)

y Baseline established for 

sales in dollar amount or 

a combination of volume 

and average price

y Baseline established for 

number of dairy-industry 

jobs 

Program Goals

FMPP

FMPP funds projects that develop, coordinate, and expand direct producer-to-consumer markets to help 

increase access to and availability of locally and regionally produced agricultural products. The program 

focuses on:

y Supporting and promoting domestic direct producer-to-consumer marketing such as farmers markets, 

roadside stands, agritourism activities, community-supported agriculture programs (CSA), or online 

sales;

y Encouraging the development of value-added agricultural products;

y Developing marketing strategies for producers of local food and value- added products;

y Facilitating regional food chain coordination and mid-tier value chain development;

y Promoting new business opportunities and marketing strategies to reduce on-farm food waste;

y Responding to changing technology needs in direct producer-to-consumer marketing; and

y Covering expenses related to costs incurred in obtaining food safety certification and making changes 

and upgrades to practices and equipment to improve food safety

LFPP

LFPP funds projects that develop, coordinate and expand local and regional food business enterprises 

that engage as intermediaries in indirect producer to consumer marketing to help increase access to and 

availability of locally and regionally produced agricultural products. The program focuses on:

y Supporting and promoting local and regional food business enterprises that engage as intermediaries in 

indirect producer-to-consumer marketing;

y Supporting the processing, aggregation, distribution, and storage of local and regional food products 

that are marketed locally or regionally, including value-added agricultural products;

y Encouraging the development of value-added agricultural products;

y Assisting with business development plans and feasibility studies;

y Developing marketing strategies for producers of local food products and value-added agricultural 

products in new and existing markets;

y Facilitating regional food chain coordination and mid-tier value chain development;

y Promoting new business opportunities and marketing strategies to reduce on-farm food waste;
93

y Responding to changing technology needs in indirect producer-to-consumer marketing; and 

y Covering expenses to cost incurred in obtaining food safety certification related and

y Improvements to food safety practices and equipment.

DBI

This program assists DBI initiatives in managing regional efforts to support dairy businesses in the 

development, production, marketing, and distribution of dairy products. These initiatives specifically focus on:

y Diversifying dairy product markets to reduce risk and develop higher value uses for dairy products;

y Promoting business development that diversifies farmer income through processing and marketing 

innovation; and

y Encouraging the use of regional milk production.

Acer

To support the efforts of States, tribal governments, and research institutions to promote the domestic maple 

syrup industry through the following activities:

y Promotion of research and education related to maple syrup production.

y Promotion of natural resource sustainability in the maple syrup industry.

y Market promotion for maple syrup and maple-sap products.

y Encouragement of owners and operators of privately held land containing species of trees in the genus 

Acer

o to initiate or expand maple-sugaring activities on the land; or

o to voluntarily make the land available, including by lease or other means, for access by the 

public for maple-sugaring activities.

SCBGP

SCBGP assists State departments of agriculture in the 50 States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops by—

y leveraging efforts to market and promote specialty crops;

y assisting producers with research and development relevant to specialty crops;

y expanding availability and access to specialty crops; and

y addressing local, regional, and national challenges confronting specialty crop producers.

RFSP

Supports partnerships that connect public and private resources to plan and develop local or regional food 

systems. The RFSP focuses on building and strengthening local or regional food economy viability and 

resilience by alleviating unnecessary administrative and technical barriers for participating partners.

FSMIP

To explore new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products, and encourage research and 

innovation aimed at improving the efficiency and performance of the U.S. agricultural marketing system. 

FSMIP funds a wide range of applied research projects that address barriers, challenges, and opportunities 

in marketing, transportation, and distribution of U.S. food and agricultural products domestically and 

internationally.
94

SPMGP

The purpose of SPMGP is to develop projects that strengthen and enhance the production and marketing 

of sheep and sheep products in the United States, including the improvement of infrastructure, business, 

and resource development, and the development of innovative approaches to solve long-term need. The 

SPMGP seeks to develop solutions for practical problems on a national basis and address the needs of 

the entire sheep industry, while focusing on the measurable benefits for sheep producers, encouraging 

partnerships among other sheep industry organizations, and reducing duplication of effort among participating 

organizations.

Definitions

Table 11.1: General Definitions

General definitions are non-program specific terms (e.g., terms found in at least two grant programs and are 

not specific to an industry).

Themes Definition

1-1 Technical 

Assistance (TA)/AdHoc Support

Individual consulting service related to technical assistance.

Additional Added, extra, or supplementary to what is already present or available. Intended for recipients/

subrecipients to measure/determine “additional” via estimating an average baseline and note 

whether an increase has occurred after performing grant activities.

Best Practices A procedure that has been shown by research and experience to produce optimal results and 

that is established or proposed as a standard suitable for widespread adoption.

Business 

Improvement Method

Process of identifying, analyzing, and improving existing business practices to optimize 

performance, meet best practice standards, or improve quality or user experience.

Business 

Transactions

Sale count or exchange of industry-related product or service with another party for money. 

Includes both online and in-person transactions.

Collaboration Cooperation with a person or an organization unaffiliated with the applicant in the conduct of 

the project and is not immediately connected to the management of the project.

Consumer An individual who ingests or uses an industry-related product, including buying in bulk.

Consumption The ingestion or use of an industry-related product, including buying in bulk.

Cost-Savings Savings resulting from a reduction in costs or expenses. 

Educational 

Materials/Courses

Materials/courses developed with the goal of acquiring knowledge, facts, concepts, or theories.

Feasibility Study An analysis or evaluation of the practicality of a proposed plan or method to ascertain the 

likelihood of completing the project successfully. For example, evaluating a proposed marketing 

plan before it is implemented to discern if it can be viably launched given an organization’s 

resource constraints and analyze whether it is a worthwhile investment.

Food Safety Plan “Provides a systematic approach to the identification of food safety hazards that must be 

controlled to prevent or minimize the likelihood of foodborne illness or injury.”i Plans should be 

updated on the most up-to-date food safety and/or other market access prerequisites.

Impact Study An analysis or evaluation of the effectiveness of a new strategy, process, policy, or activity 

and/or the changes resulting from its implementation. For example, evaluating a proposed 

marketing campaign (deemed feasible and viable) before it is implemented to measure its 

predicted reach and associated impact on an audience. 
95

Themes Definition

Jobs Refers to a paid position of regular employment (including seasonal workers) directly aligned 

to the agricultural industry. Does not apply to grant administrative positions or positions 

contingent on grant funding. Recipients can determine jobs according to the number of full-time 

employees (FTEs) within an organization, in collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations. FTEs can be calculated based on the average number 

of hours worked by an FTE per year or per month, depending on what’s most appropriate for 

a recipients’ project (e.g., if a recipient employs mostly seasonal workers or has subrecipients 

that only participate in the project or report on project involvement for a certain number of 

months, they may choose to calculate FTEs per month). See below for suggested calculation 

options.

y Calculating FTEs per year: Generally, 2,080 hours per year is standard; however, 

recipients can refer to state/local policy codes to approximate standard FTE hours. 

o Step 1: Determine number of labor hours resulting from project activities for the 

year

o Step 2: Divide result of step 1 by the total standard FTE count of hours per year

y Calculating FTEs per month:

o Step 1: Determine the number of FTEs who work 30+ hours per week per 

month during the measurement period

o Step 2: Determine the total part-time and seasonal hours worked per week per 

month during the previous year and divide by 120

o Step 3: Add up the subtotal in steps 1 and 2, then divide by 12 to determine the 

number of FTEs

y Jobs “Created”: Refers to a new position developed as a result of grant activities that is not 

contingent on grant funding.

y Jobs “Maintained”: Refers to jobs sustained as a result of grant activities, despite adverse 

seasons (such as an economic recession, etc.). Jobs “maintained” are also not contingent 

on grant funding.

Local and Regional Agricultural activities relating to raising, producing, aggregating, storing, processing, and 

distributing occurs in the locality or region where the final product is marketed to consumers, 

so that the total distance that the product travels between the farm or ranch where the product 

originates and the point of sale to the end consumer is at most 400 miles, or both the final 

market and the origin of the product are within the same State, territory, or tribal land.

Management Plan An outline for executing a business or agricultural operation that clearly defines objectives, 

roles and responsibilities, and timelines for accomplishing tasks. For example, an outline of 

how a marketing campaign will be managed throughout its duration to ensure proper execution 

and quality, including assigning clear roles and responsibilities, enforcing and adhering to 

timeline goals, developing quality assurance processes, etc.

Marketing Promotion with the goal of increasing buyer engagement, sales, etc.

Marketing Channel A subset within a supply network, a marketing channel is a system of processes, organizations, 

and activities involved specifically in the transfer of agricultural products or services after point 

of production to the end-user/consumer.

Marketing Plan/

Strategy

Outline of an approach designed to spread awareness and/or promote industry-related 

products, services, or information. Typically, a marketing plan includes marketing goal(s), target 

audience(s), type of outreach, duration, location, etc.

Mid-Tier Value Chain 

Enhancement

Indicates a local or regional supply network that links independent producers with businesses 

and cooperatives that market value-added agricultural product in a manner that:

y Targets and strengthens the profitability and competitiveness of small and medium-size 

farms and ranches that are structured as a family farm; and

y Obtains agreement from an eligible agricultural producer group, farmer or rancher 

cooperative, or majority-controlled producer-based business venture that is engaged in the 

value chain on a marketing strategy.
96

Themes Definition

New Unique; used, implemented, or acquired by an organization for the first time; new to the 

industry or existing but newly applied to an organization, stakeholder, or other project-related 

entity. 

New Market 

Opportunities

A demand that a stakeholder or organization can capitalize on that is not being fully addressed 

by current industry players.

Operational Plan An outline or strategy of how different components of an organization (teams, departments, 

processes and procedures, etc.) will contribute to the achievement of an organization’s goals. 

For example, an outline of how a communications team will develop necessary marketing 

content that will be used in the overall marketing plan or strategy.

Other Environmental 

Outcomes

Beneficial consequence or impact on the environment resulting from project activities other 

than in those domains described in sub indicators 8.5a - 8.5c.

Outreach Promotional activities or communications related to education, knowledge sharing, etc.

Partnership Is a relationship involving close cooperation between parties having specified and join rights 

and responsibilities in the management of the project. May include informal partnerships and 

partnerships formalized with MOU’s/contracts.

Procure/Access Obtaining industry-related goods or services.

Reached Audiences that have interacted with project activities, including outreach, marketing, and/or 

educational/information-sharing event, presentation, site-visit, or campaign.

Stakeholders Any person or organization with an interest or concern in the industry, recipient organization, or 

the outcomes/goals sought by the project.

Strategic Plan An outline of an organization’s mission or high-level goals, measures for evaluation, and plans 

for implementation and achievement over a period of time. For example, a marketing strategic 

plan would outline marketing goals, measures for evaluating those goals, a timeline for 

accomplishments, and an outline for implementing the marketing strategy, including location, 

marketing method, target demographic, marketing content, air time and channel (if applicable), 

and any other appropriate marketing component.

Supply Networks System of processes, organizations, and activities involved in the production and distribution of 

agricultural products or services to the end-user/consumer.

Technical Assistance 

(TA) Sessions/ 

Workshops

Course or workshop designed to share information and expertise, instruction, skills training, 

transmission of working knowledge, and/or consulting services.

Third-Party Food 

Safety Certification

An official document demonstrating a third-party verification attesting to a comprehensive 

and satisfactory understanding and knowledge of food safety standards related to products, 

processes, or systems across the food supply chain.

Underserved 

Organizations

Organizations that are mainly staffed or comprised of the populations specified below:

y Beginning Farmer or Rancher: an individual or entity that has not operated a farm or ranch 

for more than 10 years and substantially participates in the operation.

y Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher: a farmer or rancher who is a member of a 

socially disadvantaged group. Socially disadvantaged group is a group whose members 

have been subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.

y Operators of small or medium sized farms or ranches that are structured as Family Farms: 

Family farm is one in which the majority of the business is owned by the operator and 

individuals related to the operator by blood, marriage, or adoption, including relatives who 

do not live in the operator household.

y Veteran Framers or Ranchers: a producer who served in the United States Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard, including the reserve components thereof; was 

released from the service under conditions other than dishonorable; and--

o has not operated a farm or ranch, or has operated a farm or ranch for not more 

than 10 years; or

o who first obtained status as a veteran during the most recent 10-year period
97

Table 11.2: SCBGP/SCMP Definitions

Themes Definition

Adult Person 18 years or older.

Child Person under the age of 18.

Crop Quality Refer to AMS Grade and Quality Labels for Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialty Crops or other 

relevant grades/standards.

Diagnostic Systems A set of classification procedures serving to identify, indicate, or a characterize plant pests and 

disease, including methods, tools, and technologies. May include low-tech methods and tools.

Distribution Systems System of processes, organizations, and activities involved in the transfer of agricultural goods 

and services from post-harvest to the end-user/consumer. Includes food hubs, grocery stores, 

farmers markets, or other types of channel, model, or network used to distribute food. 

Early Detection and 

Rapid Response

“Coordinated set of actions to find and eradicate potential invasive species in a specific location 

before they spread and cause harm.”ii Recommended that eradication efforts proceed within 

weeks or, at most, 1-2 years for a rapid response to be successful. 

Integrated Pest 

Management

An effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that uses current, 

comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment 

combined with available pest control methods to manage pest damage by the most economical 

means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment.iii

Intervention 

Practices

Involves the addition of control measures into a process to reduce, and ultimately, prevent or 

eliminate food safety risks. Intervention practices should include updating strategies according 

to on the most up-to-date food safety/other market access prerequisites.

Sustainability Best 

Practices

A procedure that has been shown by research and experience to produce optimal results and 

that is established or proposed as a standard suitable for widespread adoption that focuses 

on water, soil, biodiversity, reduced inputs, food waste reduction, and other uses. For further 

reference, NRCS defines best management practices to include soil and water conservation 

practices, other management techniques, and social actions that are developed for a particular 

region as effective and practical tools for environmental protection.

Table 11.3: FMLFPP Definitions

Themes Definition

Business 

Development Plan

An outline of a strategy to establish or initiate an agricultural business or to sustain growth for a 

pre-existing agricultural business or organization. For example, a farmers market might identify 

a growth strategy focused on extending the range of its off-season produce. Accordingly, their 

business development plan might select local producers to collaborate with, determine new 

marketing goals and activities, and establish an adjusted financial plan. 

Delivery System Means or process for conveying a product or service to a recipient, inclusive of intermediary 

organizations and local or regional Food Business Enterprises.

Direct Producer-toConsumer Market 

Access Point

Locations where producers sell locally or regionally produced agricultural food products directly 

to the consumer (including farmers markets, roadside stands, CSA programs, agritourism 

activities, online sales, producer-to-retail, producer-to-restaurant, and producer-to-institutional 

marketing) with minimal involvement of a middle-man such as an intermediary, a wholesaler, a 

retailer, and agent, a broker, or a reseller.

Engagement Value-added set of strategies, business interactions, activities, and/or partnerships between 

producers and delivery systems/market access points to promote long-term economic stability, 

competitiveness, and/or growth. Examples include, but are not limited to, procurement 

agreements, joint marketing projects, delivery coordination, education opportunities, etc.

Food Delivery 

Infrastructure

The physical and organizational structures needed for sufficient operation of food delivery 

across the supply chain from the producer to the consumer. This does not include production 

infrastructure, which is not eligible under this program.

Gap Analysis Evaluation of a market or organization to examine and compare current performance with 

desired performance.
98

Themes Definition

Local or Regional 

Food

Locally and Regionally Produced Food means food that is raised, produced, aggregated, 

stored, processed, and distributed in the locality or region where the final product is marketed 

to consumers, so that the total distance that the product travels between the farm or ranch 

where the product originates and the point of sale to the end consumer is at most 400 miles, or 

both the final market and the origin of the product are within the same State, territory, or tribal 

land.

Local or Regional 

Food Business/

Enterprises

Means an organization or business entity that functions as an intermediary between producers 

(farmers or growers) and buyers by carrying out one or more local or regional food supply 

chain activities—including aggregating, storing, processing, and/or distributing locally or 

regionally produced food products—to meet local and regional market demand. Examples 

include but are not limited to eligible entities that serve as food hubs, food aggregators, food 

distributors, food wholesalers, food processors, and other value-added production enterprises, 

such as shared-use kitchen or kitchen incubator operations.

Market Access Point The location/point from which producers are able to sell their food or agricultural products in a 

given market. Market access points can be final, direct to-consumer venues (farmers markets, 

roadside stands, etc.) or intermediary organizations and local or regional Food Business 

Enterprises

Market Analysis Gathering information about market variables and conditions

Needs Assessment A systematic process for determining and addressing needs, or "gaps," between current 

conditions and desired conditions or "wants."

Operational Methods Processes associated with efficiently managing the internal workings of a business, including 

how different components of an organization (teams, departments, processes and procedures, 

etc.) will work and contribute to the achievement of an organization’s goals. 

Unmet Consumer 

Needs

Product or service not being addressed by industry organizations. “Need” can connote a 

deficiency, a consumer “want,” or an unmet problem facing a population (typically for a 

community, county, or state). Examples include, but are not limited to, improving product 

accessibility (both financially and/or physically), knowledge, quality, and variety.

Value-Added 

Products

Means any agricultural commodity or product that:

y Has undergone a change in the physical state or form of the product (such as milling wheat 

into flour or making strawberries into jam);

y Is produced in a manner that enhances the value of the agricultural commodity or product, 

(such as organically produced products);

y Is physically segregated in a manner that results in the enhancement of the value of that 

commodity or product (such as an identity preserved product);

y Is a source of farm- or ranch-based renewable energy, including E–85 fuel; or

y Is aggregated and marketed as a locally produced agricultural food product and, as a 

result of the change in physical state or the manner in which the agricultural commodity 

or product is produced and segregated, the customer base for the commodity or product 

is expanded and a greater portion of revenue derived from the marketing, processing, or 

physical segregation is made available to the producer of the commodity or product.

Table 11.4: Acer Definitions

Themes Definition

Commercial-Scale 

Levels

Characterizes production levels that meet one or more of the following criteria:

y Utilizes over 15,000 taps

y Utilizes over 250 acers

y Generates Annual Gross Sales of over $250,000

Consumer 

Awareness 

or Education 

Campaigns

Outreach designed to inform about maple syrup/maple-sap products, technologies, practices, 

or other industry-related topic.
99

Themes Definition

Long-Term 

Partnerships

Business relationships established with a time horizon spanning beyond the grant PoP and 

characterized by mutual desire to achieve long-term goals rather than in pursuit of a single 

objective, event, or initiative.

Maple Quality Refer to AMS Maple Syrup Grades and Standards or other relevant grades/standards.

Maple Sugaring 

Activities

Activities related to the collection of sap from any species of tree in the genus Acer for the 

purpose of boiling to produce food.

Mid-Scale Levels Characterizes production levels that meet one or more of the following criteria:

y Utilizes 5,000-15,000 taps

y Utilizes 90-250 acres

y Generates Annual Gross sales of $100,000-$250,000

Producer A person or organization that makes, grows, or supplies maple syrup and maple-sap products, 

ranging from large commercial-scale producers to backyard producers and hobbyists.

Quality Management 

Plans

An outline for executing a project or program that clearly defines how quality will be maintained 

or improved, including policies, procedures, quality criteria, roles and responsibilities, and 

timelines for accomplishing project tasks.

Quality Management 

Procedures

Activities that carry out the quality management plan, with set quality criteria that must be 

adhered to.

Small-Scale Levels Characterizes production levels that meet one or more of the following criteria:

y Utilizes less than 5,000 taps

y Utilizes less than 90 acres

y Generates Annual Gross sales less than $100,000

Table 11.5: DBI Definitions

Themes Definition

Cooperative Collection of dairy farmers, organizations, and/or businesses that engage in a variety of 

activities to provide members an assured market for their milk.

Dairy Businesses Businesses that develop, produce, market, or distribute dairy products.

Dairy Processes Procedure for transforming raw milk to dairy products.

Dairy Product 

Offering

Products manufactured for use by humans which are derived from the processing of milk and 

include fluid milk products. Products may include but are not limited to butter, cheese (whether 

natural or processed), skim milk, cream, whey or buttermilk (whether dry, evaporated, 

stabilized or condensed), and frozen desserts.

Marketing Procedures Organizational processes related to marketing, such as target audience identification, market 

analysis, marketing material development, marketing planning, or other marketing-related 

activity.

Regional Dairy 

Infrastructure

Basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the operation” of dairy 

production, distribuion, and sale on the regional level.

Endnotes

i U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved from https://www.FDA.gov/

ii U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/

iii U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/