Abstract
Annie’s Project: Farming in New Jersey’s Cities and the Urban Fringe focused on the following five areas of risk identified by the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service: financial, production, marketing/price, legal/institutional, and human/personnel. Additional education regarding urban farming topics included securing suitable land, dealing with contaminated soils and alternative growing medias, and securing water for crop production. We delivered a series of six 3-hour evening classes to 23 producers. We administered a retrospective evaluation at the conclusion of the series and distributed an evaluation survey 6 months after training. Both evaluations found that participants increased their understanding of farm risks. Furthermore, they indicated they were better able to manage the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their farm business activities.
The average age of all US farm producers in 2017 was 57.5 years, which is 1.2 years older than that in 2012, thus continuing a long-term trend of aging of the US producer population; furthermore, they have been on their current farm for an average of 21.3 years (US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2017). According to the same census, the average age of New Jersey farmers was 59.4 years. This indicates an experienced, yet aging, farming population, which has implications for the future of agriculture in the nation and the need for succession planning and attracting younger farmers. At the same time, New Jersey is well ahead of the national average, with 40% of its farmers being women. The national average is 27%. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the United States, with 92.2% of its residents living in urban neighborhoods; however, it has an estimated 750,000 acres of farmland (US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2022). Pressman et al. (2016) reported that nearly 65% of the US urban farms they surveyed had been in business for 5 years or less; furthermore, they found that more than half of the surveyed urban farmers were female, the average age of the survey participants was 44 years, and they had limited farming experience. As the number of urban farms has increased, the number of small and women-owned farms also increased (Greenwood 2015; Pressman et al. 2016).
To address these trends and accompanying challenges, Annie’s Project (Annie’s Project National Office 2023) has an educational focus on empowering women in agriculture and, to date, has delivered programming in 33 states across the US. Its educational programs cover topics such as dealing with risks, business and estate planning, insurance, taxes, transition planning, and retirement planning, which are areas that the US Department of Agriculture has identified as major challenges that farmers face (US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 2023).
Because inexperienced female farmers in New Jersey primarily manage the growth of urbanized farming, we recognized an opportunity to develop the first Urban Annie’s Project (UAP). A team of 20 people comprising extension and research faculty from Rutgers University, professionals in the agricultural industry, including the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey, New Jersey Farm Bureau, and Farm Credit East, and community leaders created a program that taught production and business management skills to female urban farmers and addressed the particular challenges they encounter (Brumfield 2023a). The program allowed participants to interact with other new and recently established urban farmers. We selected team members to design the UAP curriculum based on their knowledge of agriculture and dedication to collaborating with farmers. Together, this group modified and added to the established Annie’s Project curriculum to create Annie’s Project: Farming in New Jersey’s Cities and the Urban Fringe (also known as UAP).
The program addressed issues that urban farmers face, including soil quality issues such as fertility and heavy metal contamination, the need for additional off-farm employment requiring time management skills, crop irrigation and water quality, direct marketing in food deserts, food safety, working with clients of the women, infants, and children (WIC) and supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) education (SNAP-Ed) programs, overcoming language and cultural barriers, and acquiring short-term leases for land and property.
The program comprised 6 weekly classes during the evening and was offered regionally at three urban sites simultaneously (Dec 2019–Jan 2020); facilitators at each location communicated via WebEx video conferencing. The workshop program, including speakers and the topics they presented, are listed in Supplemental Table 1. Similar to previous Annie’s Project New Jersey workshops, each 3-hour evening session focused on a different risk management theme (Brumfield et al. 2017). The evening format enabled participants with daytime employment to attend. Our target audience included female producers, first-time farmers, and military veterans. The inclusion of veterans was inspired by a previous Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Essex County program that provided training for unemployed New Jersey military veterans regarding careers in horticulture and urban agriculture. Women involved in that program comprised ∼25% of the military veterans, and they showed a desire for more training options related to urban farm business management. The women who attended the UAP workshop were required to complete a business plan that matched the following key areas of farm risk identified by the US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2023): production, marketing or pricing, financial, institutional or legal, and human or personnel risks (Brumfield et al. 2020).
Some urban farms begin on abandoned urban lots (Malone 2022). The vacant urban lots that are transformed into urban farms and community gardens often have contaminated soil (Wortman and Lovell 2013). Thus, in addition to the basic risk management topics covered by the Annie’s Project program, we discussed essential knowledge regarding production risks that are unique to urban farmers. We presented production risk and management topics regarding how to identify, manage, and avoid pollutants such as heavy metals, including lead, by testing the soil, mitigating the contaminants, or bypassing them altogether through production methods such as raised beds or hydroponics. Obtaining land is another obstacle that potential urban farmers often face (Pressman et al. 2016); therefore, we presented information regarding leasing and other options for obtaining land. Most farmers in New Jersey obtain their irrigation water from a well (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2017), which is usually not an option for urban farmers; therefore, finding a source of water, water management, and hydroponic production systems were topics presented as ways of overcoming these issues. Certain types of farming that may be considered noisy or unsightly necessitated us to address right-to-farm laws in New Jersey. Sessions about farm adaptations to mitigate climate change, carbon credits, food safety, and accepting WIC and SNAP vouchers were new topics for the Annie’s Project program offered in New Jersey.
Some urban farmers manage community gardens in low-income neighborhoods, often through not-for-profit organizations with limited financial support (Gómez et al. 2019). Farm Credit East donated funding for scholarships to participants with limited resources. One-third of participants received a scholarship that allowed them to participate in UAP (Brumfield et al. 2020).
The overall goal of the training program was to preserve a good work–life balance while emphasizing effective production, marketing tactics, farm business planning, and financial management. We encouraged participants to finish a section of their business plan each week, and instructors led discussions about these homework assignments at the start of class at each site. The conversations led to networking, which occasionally became a continuous collaboration between participants. Participants received training in crucial areas that would aid them in starting or growing profitable enterprises. The sharing of information and networking opportunities provided by our UAP (Brumfield 2023a, 2023b) is valuable to potential, new, and established urban farmers. Rutgers University Continuous Education internet technology staff recorded the program sessions and posted the presentations on the Rutgers Farm Management Website (Brumfield 2023c) so participants and interested parties could view the recordings.
We determined the program’s success by measuring the level of learning regarding farm risk management, including marketing, production, financial, human, and legal risks, Participants assessed their level of knowledge before and immediately after the training program using a program evaluation survey. We administered a 6-month follow-up survey to measure the adoption of practices presented in the series.
Materials and Methods
To determine how well UAP participants understood how to manage their farm risks, we administered a retrospective evaluation of the participants (n = 23) on the last day of class. The goal of this article is to present a statistical analysis of the results of the program evaluation studies. The evaluation assessed the level of “understanding/knowledge” across five categories of farm management risk. We conducted surveys using the following Likert scale:
None: no knowledge of the topic.
Low: very little knowledge of the topic.
Moderate: basic knowledge; there is more to learn.
Advanced: working knowledge; can apply most of the topic.
High: thoroughly knowledgeable about the subject and capable of applying its ideas (Brumfield et al. 2020).
Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
The significance of the test was estimated by computing the P value by using the standard normal significance level (typically 0.05). We performed all calculations using Stata software (Stata 2023). We used the following hypotheses:
H0: There is no difference in the responses received before and after participating in UAP.
Ha: There is a difference in the responses received before and after participating in UAP.
Based on the calculated critical value, we either rejected or accepted the null hypothesis.
Results
We evaluated the retrospective data of 23 participants who attended our UAP program to assess understanding/knowledge about every single program topic before and after the training program. We organized them into the following five risks categories: marketing or price risk, financial, personnel or human risk, legal or institutional risk, and production risks. Table 1 displays the median difference of the Likert scores and Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test results. The program attendees reported significant improvement in all five areas of risk. We used short questionnaires to obtain higher response rates (Rolstad et al. 2011; Roszkowski and Bean 1990; Sahlqvist et al. 2011). Additionally, we removed unanswered questions.
Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test results of Urban Annie’s Project participants assessing their understanding/knowledge of the five areas of farm risk using a Likert scale of 1 to 5.
Discussion
The estimated Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test results showed that all questions regarding all five risk areas showed significant improvements of 1%, confirming that the program had a positive impact and that attendees increased their understanding/knowledge of the topics presented during the UAP program, as shown in Table 1. In addition, the median difference in the financial risk recorded was uniformly higher (2 points), which denotes that attendees gained substantial knowledge about financial risks. The estimated overall median difference was 2 points for legal risk and 1 point for human/personnel risk. Topics covered under human/personnel risk and legal risk had median differences that ranged from 1 to 3 points, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test results were significant at 1%, indicating that attendees gained significant knowledge. Market/pricing risk had a median variance of 1 to 2 points. According to the estimated results, the production risk before and after the training program had an overall median change of 2 points and a median variance of 0.5 to 2 points for all production risk topics. The Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test results also reported that participants gained more insight into these risk categories.
In addition, we included open-ended questions about what participants felt were the most/least valuable topics and topics for future programs in the program evaluation survey. The top three most valuable topics were business planning (36%), marketing (36%), and food safety (14%). The least valuable topics varied by participant, with responses of less than 9% for specific topics. When asked what additional subjects they would like to learn more about, their responses included marketing winter crops, rearing livestock, and hydroponics. Another question inquired about which topics were most beneficial and why, and one participant endorsed the requirement to write a business plan, saying, “Developing a business plan was good; the homework made us use what we learned” (Brumfield et al. 2020).
Post-training program evaluation 6 months after the workshop ended.
We administered an online evaluation survey to the UAP program participants 6 months after the workshop ended. After a second reminder, a total of 12 participants (52%) completed the survey (Supplemental Table 2). Participants answered questions regarding the specific actions toward risks they experienced in business planning, production, personal and business finance, web marketing, marketing strategy, human and financial management before and after the class. The answer choices were as follows: already in place before class started; started during class; completed during class; started after class; completed after class; and not applicable. Appendix 1 gives the frequency and percentage of respondents’ details of the post-training program evaluation. Each section was split into different topics. For instance, regarding business planning, most of the respondents gained information related to their production plan (50%), marketing plan (50%), financial plan (33%), farm description (33%), goals/objectives (33%), and mission statement (25%) for their farm. Concerning the personal finances, nearly half of the respondents were already aware of household budgeting (50%), checking their credit report (67%), and net worth calculations (33%) before attending the class, which showed that they were familiar with personal financial planning. With respect to business finance section, slightly more than 25% of the respondents completed their income statement (25%), balance sheet (33%), cash flow statement (27%), ratio calculations (25%) and cost accounting/enterprise budgeting (33%) for their farm after the class. Most of the respondents were already familiar with web presence/marketing; however, 8% to 25% of them improved their marketing approach across different segments after the class (Supplemental Table 2).
Although the emphasis of UAP was on risk management, another benefit of the program was providing participants with an opportunity to network with each other and professionals involved in the agriculture field (Table 2). We asked the survey participants about their networking activities after the completion of the program. The majority, 75% of the 12 respondents, had identified networking opportunities with other peers across the state via e-mail, phone, texts, or in-person. Participants also reported they were contacted by other class participants via e-mail, phone, texts, or in-person (58%), attended follow-up urban agriculture programming (online or in-person) (42%), and made follow-up contact with agricultural professionals to obtain information or assistance (online or in-person) (42%). The survey respondents answered open-ended questions about their UAP experience and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their farm and business plans. Figure 1 summarizes the participants’ responses under four different categories: specific changes made by participants; future changes that participants plan to make; lesson learned from the UAP program; and measures used to deal with risk (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic). The pandemic presented unique challenges and opportunities for the program participants. One challenge was that a participant noted a reduction in staff and volunteers where she works; therefore, scheduling staff for maintenance and harvests was difficult. However, new marketing procedures (e.g., curbside pickup and outdoor activities) generated additional sales.
Networking activities conducted by Urban Annie’s Project participants after the completion of the course. Values indicate the number of respondents and percentages of the total number of respondents (n = 12).
Changes made and lessons learned, measures used to deal with the pandemic (risk mitigation), and planned future changes reported by Urban Annie’s Project participants.
Citation: HortScience 58, 11; 10.21273/HORTSCI17305-23
Conclusions
UAP had a significant impact on the participants’ self-rated knowledge/understanding of urban farming risks. They made changes to their farming business in all five areas of farm risk and planned to make additional changes in the future (Table 3). The analysis revealed that for each section of the questions, including market, financial, human, legal, and production risks, the response was highly significant at 1% (P > 0.0001), confirming that participants increased their understanding of the different topics that were presented. In addition, results of the post-training program evaluation survey administered 6 months after the training ended indicated that attending UAP resulted in sustained knowledge improvements among participants with respect to farm risks. This helped farmers better-manage the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their farm business activities. Overall, UAP improved the participants’ knowledge about farm risk management.
Outcomes and impacts: Changes made, lessons learned, measures used to deal with risk, and planned future changes reported by Urban Annie’s Project participants.
Our multiyear involvement with delivering Annie’s Project programming in New Jersey resulted in this 2020 UAP that was aimed at addressing issues faced by women farmers who operate in urban areas. We reviewed what worked and what did not work and summarized the strengths and weaknesses of the program in Table 4. We applied these lessons in the subsequent an online workshop that we organized during the COVID-19 pandemic, which consisted of a set of learning modules and assignments that focused on risk management for women farmers operating businesses in urban environments. We built on the strengths of this program and performed modifications to create a completely online course. Because we were aware that there were too many speakers and not enough time for the 2020 workshop, the 2022 online “Annie Goes Online: Risk Management on Your Kitchen Table” had fewer speakers who were given more time, including time for questions. Additionally, we used Canvas to add additional resources that producers could access outside of the online class. We hoped to attract more participants for the online course, but our program associate accepted another job; therefore, we lost some time during the critical promotion period because we had to recruit and train a new associate. Publicity at an appropriate time is critical. We switched internet technology vendors, and we switched from WebEx to Zoom, which is a platform that allows easier use for speakers and participants. We required speakers to attend a Zoom practice session; therefore, we did not have any technical problems. The chat box was monitored to quickly answer questions and help participants with any technical issues.
Summary of what we learned and the strengths and weaknesses of program delivery.
Participants’ feedback.
Annie’s Project is largely regarded as a great educational program for women involved in agriculture. Participants often appreciate the following aspects of the program: education and capacity-building, female empowerment, experienced instructors, networking and instructional support, interactive learning, flexibility, and long-lasting impact.
References Cited
Annie’s Project National Office. 2023. National Annie’s Project website. https://www.anniesproject.org/. [accessed 11 Aug 2023].
Brumfield RG. 2023a. Annie’s Project New Jersey. https://anniesproject.rutgers.edu/. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
Brumfield RG. 2023b. Program Agenda: Annie’s Project: Farming in New Jersey’s Cities and the Urban Fringe. December 3, 10, 17, 2019 and January 7, 14, 21, 2020. https://sites.rutgers.edu/annies-project/wp-content/uploads/sites/753/2022/07/Workshop-Agenda_Farming_NJ_Cities_Urban_Fringe_2019.pdf. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
Brumfield RG. 2023c. Rutgers farm management website. https://farmmgmt.rutgers.edu/. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
Brumfield RG, Carleo JS, Kenny LB, Melendez M, O’Neill B, Polanin N, Reynolds-Allie A. 2017. Modifying and Supplementing Annie’s Project to Increase Impact in New Jersey and Beyond. J Ext. 55(5):1–8.
Brumfield RG, Greenwood D, DiNardo MF, Both AJ, Heckman JR, Govindasamy R, Polanin N, Rouff AA, Rowe A, VanVranken R, Arumugam S. 2020. Farming in New Jersey’s Cities and the Urban Fringe: A successful educational program for women producers, beginning farmers, and military veterans. Proceedings of Conference on Women Empowerment in the World. Dec. 26–27:355–363.
Cureton EE. 1967. The normal approximation to the signed-rank sampling distribution when zero differences are present. J Am Stat Assoc. 62(319):1068–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10500917.
Gómez C, Currey CJ, Dickson RW, Kim H, Hernández R, Sabeh NC, Raudales RE, Brumfield RG, Laury-Shaw A, Wilke AK, Lopez RG, Burnett SE. 2019. Controlled environment food production for urban agriculture. HortScience. 54(9):1448–1458. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI14073-19.
Greenwood D. 2015. Understanding agricultural transformation: The urbanization and feminization of agriculture in the United States [PhD Diss]. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Iman RL. 1974. Use of a t-statistic as an approximation to the exact distribution of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Statistic. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 3(8):795–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927408827178.
King AP, Eckersley RJ. 2019. Inferential statistics III: Nonparametric hypothesis testing, p 119–145. In: King AP, Eksersley RJ (eds). Statistics for biomedical engineers and scientists. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102939-8.00015-3. Academic Press (Elsevier), The Netherlands.
Lehmann EL, D’Abrera HJM. 2006. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
Malone M. 2022. Seeking justice, eating toxics: Overlooked contaminants in urban community gardens. Agric Human Values. 39:165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10236-8.
New Jersey Department of Environ Protection. 2017. New Jersey water supply plan 2017-2022. http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/wsp.html.
Pratt JW. 1959. Remarks on zeros and ties in the Wilcoxon signed rank procedures. J Am Stat Assoc. 54(287):655–667.
Pressman A, Oberholtzer L, Dimitri C. 2016. Urban agriculture in the United States: Baseline findings of a nationwide survey. ATTRA Publication IP527 National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, MT, USA. https://attra.ncat.org/publication/urban-agriculture-in-the-united-states-baseline-findings-of-a-nationwide-survey/. [accessed 11 Jun 2023].
Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A. 2011. Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 14(8):1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003.
Roszkowski MJ, Bean AG. 1990. Believe it or not! Longer questionnaires have lower response rates. J Bus Psychol. 4(4):495–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013611.
Sahlqvist S, Song Y, Bull F, Adams E, Preston J, Ogilvie D. 2011. Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: Randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 11(62). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-62.
Shier R. 2004. Statistics: 2.2 The Wilcoxon signed rank sum test, Mathematics Learning Supporting Center. https://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/wilcoxonsignedranktest.pdf. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
Stata. 2023. Statistical software for data science. https://www.stata.com/. [accessed 8 Jul 2023].
Sudore RL, Knight SJ, McMahan RD, Feuz M, Farrell D, Miao Y, Barnes DE. 2013. A novel website to prepare diverse older adults for decision making and advance care planning: A pilot study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 47(4):674–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.05.023.
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2023. Risk in agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/risk-management/risk-in-agriculture. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2022. 2022 State agriculture overview for New Jersey. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=new%20jersey. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Census of agriculture highlights. Farm producers. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farm_Producers.pdf. [accessed 15 Aug 2023].
Wortman SE, Lovell ST. 2013. Environmental challenges threatening the growth of urban agriculture in the United States. J Environ Qual. 42(5):1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.01.0031.
Xia Y. 2020. Correlation and association analyses in microbiome study integrating multiomics in health and disease. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2020.04.003.
Overview of the Urban Annie’s Program workshop. Each weekly section occurred on successive Wednesdays, starting at 6:00 PM and ending at 9:00 PM. Sessions were broadcast simultaneously to three locations and recorded using Zoom. Each presentation included a question and answer portion.
Postprogram evaluation data collected 6 months after the completion of the Urban Annie’s Project.
