Implement

Evaluate Values-Based Purchasing Program

This stage helps institutions understand the importance of evaluating their values-based procurement programs.

Public & Private
FSMC & Self-Operated

Implement:

Evaluate Values-Based Purchasing Program
Review Values-Based Procurement Data Collection and Management

Review Values-Based Procurement Data Collection and Management

A robust data collection and management approach is critical for a successful values-based procurement program. 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

Creating Reports

The first step in evaluating data is creating reports. Reports should be structured according to 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:

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.

The above table could be tailored to include only the values established by the institution’s food purchasing guidelines, or only those for which the institution is required to have some form of tracking. 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 sharable internally and externally.

Common evaluation challenges institutions may face 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.

Assessing Values-Based Procurement Practices

Perhaps the most important use for data collection is to inform improvements to 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: (1) what is working, (2) where the institution is falling short, and (3) what aspects of the values-based procurement program might be contributing to those successes or failures. The following sets of questions are intended to guide this evaluation process, but they are not exhaustive. Institutions should take time to develop an evaluation approach that works for 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 by considering questions such as:

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. Consider questions such as:

Is the institution falling short of any of its goals?
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.

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 is receiving inaccurate, inconsistent, or missing purchasing data. This can occur due to 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 enforce contracts and help them to provide better information about their food sourcing.

Using Data to Identify Potential Obstacles and Find Solutions

The institution should use data to identify obstacles to reaching its goals and to find solutions by asking questions such as:

Could the food purchasing guidelines be modified to more effectively align purchasing with the institution’s values?
Institutions set definitions for their values in their food purchasing guidelines. Sometimes, refining those definitions is necessary to ensure that fulfillment by vendors or partners is reliable. For example, the institution’s definition of “local” may not match the definition set by their food service management company or food distributors and aggregators. The institution may want to negotiate its definition of “local” to ensure data collection is consistent across partners, 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. Progress can be stalled by many factors, including the set of metrics selected. Institutions need to weigh the values they hold against the challenges of validating the associated certifications. Tracking the values that are more easily fulfilled and identifying ways to fulfill more challenging values can help build progress for values-based purchasing. Working toward more challenging values over time, identifying alternative vendors who can deliver on a challenging value, or finding new ways to negotiate with management companies are some possible paths forward.

Are contracted parties following through on their obligations to report accurate, usable data?
Food data reports can help institutions evaluate whether contracted parties are complying with 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, purchasing reports 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?
In some cases, the institution may be doing everything right, but there are too few 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.

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.