Collect and Manage Food Data
This stage outlines key considerations for food data collection and management and discusses practical applications.
Read more
- Public Institution
- FSMC-Operated
Evaluate VBP Program
This stage helps institutions understand the importance of evaluating their values-based procurement programs through data collection, management, and assessment
Introduction
Maintaining and growing a values-based procurement program requires regular evaluation, including assessing quantitative food data and qualitative vendor and partner relationships. Reviewing the successes and failures of the program allows an institution to compare its actual purchasing with its stated goals, check-in on partner and vendor interactions, and make modifications where necessary. On this page, you can learn how to:
- Review and manage values-based procurement data by creating reports, sharing data, and assessing practices
- Use data to evaluate values-based procurement relationships both internally and externally
Keep In Mind: While providing templates and tools for evaluation falls outside the scope of this Toolkit, this section lays out a general framework for key considerations institutions should include in their evaluation practices.
Review Values-Based Procurement Data Collection and Management
As discussed previously, a robust data collection and management system is critical for a successful values-based procurement program. However, collecting detailed data is only valuable if the institution takes time to evaluate that data and implements appropriate changes informed by it. There are many ways to successfully evaluate food data. While providing templates and tools for evaluation falls outside the scope of this Toolkit, this section lays out a general framework for key considerations institutions should include in their evaluation practices. This Toolkit recommends three basic steps to include in values-based program evaluations:
- Creating reports
- Sharing data internally and externally
- Assessing values-based procurement practices
1. Creating Reports
The first step in evaluating data is creating reports. Reports should be based around the institution’s food purchasing guidelines; these guidelines inform the key performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics that the institution uses to measure its progress towards its values-based procurement goals. The institution should also include any metrics required by their food service contract with a food service management company, or any metrics needed for required reporting as a self-operated institution. Reports should compile data for the necessary reporting period, which could be monthly, quarterly, seasonally, annually, or some other period of time.
A report could be based on the following table: (WE NEED A HEADLINE HERE FOR METRICS MODEL LANGUAGE)
| Value | Example Food Purchasing Guideline(s) | Metric/KPI |
|---|---|---|
| Animal Welfare | • [Institution] prefers food from vendors with [insert preferred animal welfare certification(s)]. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from vendor with animal welfare certifications. |
| Climate & Sustainability | • [Institution] prefers food from small and midsize farms. • [Institution] will purchase [insert purchasing goal] of plant-based products each [tracking period]. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from small and midsize farms. • Dollar spend/amount plant-based products purchased. |
| DEI | • [Institution] prefers food from [insert vendor type or producer group(s)]. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from certain vendor types or producer groups. |
| ESG & CSR | • [Institution] prefers food from [insert business model(s)]. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from vendors operating under certain business models. • Number of vendors purchased from that meet specific ESG & CSR criteria. |
| Health & Nutrition | • [Institution] prefers food from vendors with [insert preferred health & nutrition certification(s)]. | • Dollar spend/amount organic product (or product with other health & nutrition certification) purchased. • Dollar spend/amount no antibiotic, pesticide, fertilizer, etc. product purchased. |
| Land Conservation & Preservation | • [Institution] prefers food from farms with [insert regenerative agriculture certification or practices]. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from vendors with regenerative agriculture certification or practices. • Number of local farms purchased from. • Number of farms purchased from whose farmland is protected from development (via conservation easement or other). |
| Local Economic Investment | • [Institution] prioritizes purchasing food from local vendors [as defined by the institution]. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from local vendors [as defined by the institution]. |
| Workers’ Rights & Welfare | • [Institution] prefers food from vendors that are [insert equitable and fair labor certification(s)] certified. | • Dollar spend/amount purchased from vendors with compliant workers’ rights certifications or practices. |
| *Insert additional institution values as necessary |
The above table could be tailored to include only the values established by the institution’s food purchasing guidelines, or those for which the institution is required to have some form of tracking. Note, too, that some public institutions may be limited by law in the specific metrics they can track.
Each institution should tailor their food data reporting system so it (1) is workable for the individuals in charge of managing it, (2) includes the data most relevant to the institution’s food purchasing guidelines, and (3) is understandable and shareable internally and externally.
Common challenges institutions may face in evaluating their values-based procurement data could include irregular data, inconsistent reporting, and having difficulty determining an appropriate metric for certain values. Vendors may not all collect the same type of data, or collect it consistently. In addition, compiling, translating, and manually entering data can take time. Institutions should be aware of this and communicate with procurement personnel to evaluate whether enough resources are being allocated toward data reporting, whether additional information is needed from vendors, or if the institution should modify its metrics to better align with the available data while still providing useful information.
2. Sharing Data Internally and Externally
Once the data is compiled into reports, institutions can share it. Assess: Data Collection & Management details several key ways that compiled data can be used. These include sharing data through internal and external reporting and for public awareness and education. Data reports may be incorporated into annual reports sent to shareholders, customers, alumni, employees, or other audiences. Data can also be instrumental in informing an institution’s storytelling strategy. As discussed in Implement: Storytelling, food data could be incorporated into institutional publications or media for the public. Data reports should be shared within the institution so that the appropriate departments can locate them when requested by media or other outlets.
Some institutions may be required by law to disclose certain information about their food purchasing. New York requires all state agencies that purchase food to report the amount of food purchased that was grown, harvested, produced, or processed in New York.[1] Other states also have similar laws.[2] Institutions should work closely with their legal and procurement teams to ensure that their data reports satisfy all reporting obligations imposed by law. If any required data is missing, institutions should assess their data collection practices and make changes accordingly.
3. Assessing Values-Based Procurement Practices
Perhaps the most important use for data compilations is to inform what changes are needed to improve an institution’s values-based food procurement practices. Data can be used to identify challenges in the procurement process or obstacles that were not known at the outset. In addition, it can be used to see areas of significant progress and where the institution may want to scale up its program.
Any evaluation should consider what is working, where the institution is falling short, and what aspects of the values-based procurement program might be contributing to those successes or failures. The below questions are intended to start this evaluation process, but the questions are not exhaustive. Institutions should take time to develop an evaluation system that works for them and their particular needs.
Using Data to Identify What is Working
The institution should use data to identify how its food purchasing guidelines are helping it reach its goals:
What food purchasing goals did the institution meet (or make progress towards meeting)?
A great first step is to identify the institution’s successes. Doing so helps the institution celebrate its progress and identify what aspects of the values-based procurement program are working well. Identifying successful strategies is useful so that these strategies can be replicated or scaled up in the future.
Additionally, choosing one values-based procurement metric as a “benchmark” metric can be a great way to measure progress over time. For instance, an institution may have set a goal to purchase a certain percentage of its food from “local and sustainable” sources. Whenever this institution evaluates its program, it should determine the current percentage of local and sustainable purchasing. Focusing on one number can provide an easy way to demonstrate progress and the impact of the values-based procurement program. For example, Emory University set a goal to serve 75% local and sustainable food in its dining halls and hospitals.[3] Each year, Emory reports on its progress toward this goal, providing a focal point for its values-based procurement program.
How can the institution build on (or scale-up) these successes?
Identifying successes is a wonderful way to celebrate the program’s progress and those responsible for implementing it, but the most effective way to use this data is to inform modifications to the program to increase success in the future. The data is important for this step, but institutions may need to dig a bit deeper and ask more questions to figure out why a particular aspect of the values-based program was particularly successful. This could include having conversations with members of the values-based procurement team, vendors, consumers, or others to understand the meaning behind the data.
Using Data to Identify What is Not Working
The institution should use data to consider whether its food purchasing guidelines should be changed:
Are there any goals that the institution fell short on?
Taking time to identify areas for improvement is an important part of evaluating a values-based procurement program. Reflecting on unmet goals can help the institution identify necessary modifications to purchasing guidelines, purchasing practices, budgets, or procurement teams to make the values-based procurement program more successful in the future. More on how to modify a values-based procurement program is included below.
Is the institution receiving enough information from its management company and vendors to accurately track and record its purchasing data?
Sometimes an institution may be making significant values-based purchases, but there is inaccurate, inconsistent, or missing purchasing data, so the institution has no record of it. Reasons for this may include improper product labeling or a failure to track where food is sourced from. Some of these problems may be addressed by devoting more institutional personnel to data management, or working more closely with vendors and distributors to encourage or help them to provide more information about their food sourcing.
Using Data to Identify Potential Obstacles and Find Solutions
The institution should use data to identify potential obstacles to reaching its goals and use that information to find solutions:
Could the food purchasing guidelines be modified to more effectively align purchasing with the institution’s values?
As discussed in Prepare: Establish Food Purchasing Guidelines, institutions often have to set definitions in their guidelines. Sometimes, reworking those definitions could make it easier for the institution to meet its food purchasing goals. For example, sometimes the institution’s definition of “local” may not match the definition set by their food service management company or food distributors and aggregators, so the data they collect may not be usable by the institution to track progress toward its local purchasing goals without some extra modification. The institution may want to rewrite its definition of “local” to more closely match the available data, making tracking and reporting much simpler for the institution.
Similarly, data reports might show little to no progress in advancing one or more of the institution’s values. This could mean that the relevant purchasing guideline should be rewritten to focus on a different or broader set of metrics. For example, a purchasing guideline aimed at buying from vendors who value their workforce may favor a particular certification and exclude others, but a more effective purchasing guideline would prioritize purchases from multiple certification types that still advance the institution’s values.
Are contracted parties following through on their obligations to report accurate, usable data?
Food data reports can also provide a measuring stick to verify whether contracted parties are following the terms of an agreement. For example, if a management company agreed to purchase a certain amount of food from a certain type of vendor, reports created from food data can be used to determine if the management company is fulfilling its promises, review progress toward institutional goals, and identify unexpected obstacles that limit values-based purchasing. Contracts with distributors and management companies should also be reviewed and updated when the contract terms expire to ensure accurate data reporting.
Are vendor eligibility requirements too restrictive that they exclude otherwise qualified values-based vendors?
An institution may be falling short on its purchasing goals because qualified vendors are being excluded from consideration prematurely. If the data shows that to be the case, the institution may want to consider expanding its vendor eligibility requirements to ensure all otherwise qualified vendors are included for consideration.
Are institutional resources limiting values-based purchasing capacity?
An institution may not have allocated sufficient resources—budget, staffing, or infrastructure—to the values-based procurement program. This could limit the total values-based purchasing the institution could achieve. Identifying which resources are restricting purchasing, and finding ways to increase those resources, could be necessary for an institution to meet its purchasing goals or scale up its values-based procurement.
Is there a large enough supply of the institution’s desired values-based products?
Sometimes, the institution may be doing everything right, but there just are not enough available vendors selling the values-based products the institution wants. The institution may need to adjust its purchasing guidelines to better align with the available supply. The institution may do this by altering its purchasing guidelines to include a hierarchy-based system that identifies its first priority vendors as well as second and third priority vendors should its first priority not be available. Additionally, in winter months, there may not be enough locally grown produce available to meet the institution’s goals. Seasonally planning menus to feature in-season local produce could be a way to maintain local purchasing goals year-round.
Review Values-Based Procurement Relationships
Throughout this Toolkit, relationships, trust, and communication are emphasized as core components at every step of program development and implementation. In addition to quantitative data evaluation, institutions should conduct a qualitative review of their values-based procurement relationships on a regular basis. Evaluation of these relationships should also be informed by quantitative food data.
In reviewing relationships, institutions should consider all working relationships, both internal and external.
Internal
Institutions should hold check-ins with their values-based procurement personnel, asking for feedback on what is going well and what could be improved. Additionally, institutions may want to check in with other institutional stakeholders, such as dining/culinary executive leadership and staff, key decision makers, and the values-based procurement advisory committee.
- What obstacles exist that limit the amount of values-based purchasing the institution can conduct?
- Are institutional decision makers receiving enough information about the values-based procurement program? What additional information would they like to see?
- What resources are needed to support an increase in values-based purchasing?
- Does the food preparation team need additional resources to better use values-based products in the kitchen?
External
Institutions should check in with their vendors, management company, members of their group purchasing organization, and any other external partners. This review may involve an evaluation of standard operating procedures and orientation materials for vendors. Institutions should ask vendors what is working well and what could be improved.
- What parts of the standard operating procedures are working well for vendors? What parts are not?
- What information was left out of the orientation process that would help lower onboarding barriers for new vendors?
- Is the vendor able to increase the amount of product sold to the institution? If no, what obstacles prevent such an increase?
- Are both the institution and the management company upholding the terms of their food service contract? Are there any terms of the contract that should be modified when the contract is up for renewal?
Institutions should try to alter their values-based procurement relationship practices in light of what is learned through these analyses.
Footnotes
[1] NYS Food Purchase Report and Guidelines: New York State Food Executive Order and Statutes, New York State Office of General Services, https://ogs.ny.gov/procurement/nys-food-purchase-report-and-guidelines (citing N.Y. Exec. Order No. 32 (Aug. 23, 2023)).
[2] See, e.g. Ark. Code Ann. § 15-4-3805(a) (2025) (requiring Arkansas state agencies to report annually the dollar amount the agency spent on local farm and food products and the percentage of the agency’s total food purchases that were with local farm and food vendors); 30 Ill. Comp. Stat. 595/10(e) (2023) (requiring Illinois state agencies to publish notices of their purchases of local farm or food products annually).
[3] Sustainability, Emory University Dining, https://dining.emory.edu/about/sustainability.html.