Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California:

findings from the CSA farmer/operator survey

Libby Christensen,^ Ryan E. Galt,*^ˇ Katharine Bradley,^ Natasha Simpson,ˇ & Kate Munden-Dixon^

University of California, Davis,*Department of Human Ecology, ^Geography Graduate Group, ˇCommunity Development Graduate Group UC Davis-CAFF CSA Workshop, Sebastopol Grange, Sebastopol 9/28/15

Outline

• Farm details

• CSA farmer/operator details

• CSA characteristics

• CSA shares

• CSA membership & retention

• Farm finances

• Farm labor

• Farmer satisfaction

• Regional comparisons

Farm details

Independent Corporation 7%

Non-profit organization 7%

Family corporation (≥51% of ownership) 9%

Partnership (no limited liability) 20%

Sole proprietorship (no limited liability) 56%

OneTwo

ThreeFourFiveTen

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Number of farm partners

Ownership structure of the farm

Farm land

Acres Mean Median % of farms

Total 242 15 —

Owned 19 0.75 51%

Rented 210 7.5 83%

Cropland 53 7 97%

Rangeland/pasture 187 0 37%

Certified organic 13 0 34%

Subsidized land access — — 48%

4%

44% 52%

Crops onlyMixed crops & livestockLivestock only

veg + fruit

veg only

veg + fruit + flower

veg + fruit + flower + layer

veg + fruit + layer

veg + grain + flower

veg + fruit + grain + feed + flower + layer

0 4.5 9 13.5 18

2

2

3

3

10

12

18

Numbers of farms with specific production mixes

Production mix: crops & livestock

Farm practices in relation to organic

Practices % of farmscertified organic 44%follow organic rules but the farm is not certified 38%consider practices to be beyond organic 42%biodynamic 8%most but not all of practices comply with organic 8%use synthetic pesticides 2%use synthetic fertilizers 4%

CSA operator details

CSA operators’ beginnings

What year did you... Average Median

start farming/gardening (even if as a hobby)? 1990 1994

start farming as a profession (or start selling your farm's products)? 1999 2004

start your CSA? 2006 2008

CSA operator demographics

Mean Median Percentage

Age 45 46 —

Gender: female — — 53%

Race: white — — 84%

Race: POC — — 14%

Undergraduate degree — — 73%

Graduate degree

— — 19%

CSA characteristics

Types of CSAs by organization

6%9%

85%

Single-farm CSACSA independent of farmMulti-farm CSA

Management structure of non-single-farm CSAs

CSAs indep. of farm

Multi-farm CSAs

jointly run — 1

core group runs 2 2

staff independent of a farm

6 —

one farm runs — 1

run by my farm 2 3

Strongly disagreeDisagree

Mixed feelings/neutralAgree

Strongly agree

0% 30% 60%

4%

14%

21%

28%

33%

The CSA shares production risk w/ members

n=97

Strongly disagreeDisagree

Mixed feelings/neutralAgree

Strongly agree

0% 30% 60%

8%

36%

42%

11%

2%

Members form a supportive community

n=99

Strongly disagreeDisagree

Mixed feelings/neutralAgree

Strongly agree

0% 30% 60%

57%

37%

5%

1%

0%

Members get a good value for their money

n=99

Strongly disagreeDisagree

Mixed feelings/neutralAgree

Strongly agree

0% 30% 60%

15%

30%

27%

17%

10%

Members cover costs of production

n=99

Members pre-pay in advance for shares

We host events related to our CSA

A core member group helps with CSA share distribution

A core member group helps with production decisions

We use participatory budgeting with members

Members must work on the farm

0% 30% 60% 90%

0%

1%

5%

10%

56%

90%

Characteristics of member relationship (% of farms)

Deliver to drop-off locations

Share is consistent

Farm pickup

Items reflect seasons of abundance and scarcity

Multiple shares available (e.g., full, half)

Regular add-ons available

Various delivery frequencies

Deliver to individual homes

Shares are customizable

0% 30% 60%

18%

33%

39%

42%

43%

53%

58%

61%

65%

Characteristics of shares (% of farms)

Donate CSA shares or food (to food banks, etc.)

Maintain low share prices to increase food access

Lower-priced shares for low-income households

Allow gleaning by those in need or org’s serving them

Accept EBT (for CalFresh, WIC etc.)

Other

0% 25% 50%

9%

16%

18%

18%

38%

46%

Community food security strategies

n=103

CSA membership & retention

CSA membership

word of mouth (member to member)

LocalHarvest or similar web profile

posting or distributing pamphlets or fliers

farmers' market booth

community groups and institutions

Internet advertising (e.g. through Google)

print advertising (e.g. newspaper magazine)

rewarding members for bringing new members

on-farm advertising

social media

radio and/or press

0 50 100

7

16

28

32

33

39

41

42

61

73

101

Recruitment strategies

n=102

CSA membership

GrowthSame

Decrease

0% 30% 60%

18%

22%

53%

Change in membership, 2012-2013

n=93

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

1990 2000 2010 2012 2013

15,434

12,708

10,463

2,298

177

Cumulative change in membership, 1990-2013

n=97Do not want more members

31%

Want more members 69%

• 100% communicate in English • 9% communicate in Spanish

• Mean membership size: 159 • Median membership size: 50

CSA membership retention

• Mean = 62.9%

• Median = 62.7%

100%90-99%80-89%70-79%60-69%50-59%40-49%30-39%20-29%10-19%

0-9%

0 8 16

1

1

2

7

7

16

11

12

13

6

4

Retention rates, 2012-2013

n=80

CSA shares

CSA characteristics

1 week

2 weeks

3 weeks

1 month

1.5 months

2 months

3 months

half-season

full season

0 10 20 30

13

2

7

6

2

29

1

3

18

Minimum pre-payment period

n=81

Share characteristics

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

0 10 20 30

1

1

6

15

9

9

8

2

2

29

Duration of shares, in months

n=82

Weekly value of shares

$60-65

$45

$40-44.99

$35

$30-34

$25-29.50

$20-24

$15-19

$10-12.50

0 15 30

4

11

26

30

17

4

4

2

2

n=100

Mean = $26

Farm finances

Off-farm income• 50% of CSAs have at least one farm partner

working an off-farm job

Not at all

Moderately

Heavily

Completely

0% 20% 40% 60%

32%

12%

21%

35%

Off-farm income covers household expenses

n=85

Not at all

Moderately

Heavily

Completely

0% 20% 40% 60%

9%

14%

23%

54%

Off-farm income covers farm expenses

n=78

Market outlets

Services 1%

Wholesale 6%

Direct-to-retail 14%

Other direct sales 7%

Mail order 1%On-site sales

8%Farmers’ market 22%

CSA 42%

Average % of sales

CSA

Farmers’ market

On-site sales

Mail order

Other direct sales

Direct-to-retail

Wholesale

Services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of farms using various market outlets

Market outlets per farm: mean = 2.6, median = 3

Profitability of market outlets

At a loss

Break even

Profitable

Very profitable

0% 25% 50%

8%

46%

30%

16%

CSAAt a loss

Break even

Profitable

Very profitable

0% 25% 50%

22%

33%

27%

18%

Farmers’ marketAt a loss

Break even

Profitable

Very profitable

0% 25% 50%

17%

47%

25%

11%

On-site sales

At a loss

Break even

Profitable

Very profitable

0% 25% 50%

8%

50%

42%

0%

Other directAt a loss

Break even

Profitable

Very profitable

0% 25% 50%

7%

41%

35%

17%

Direct-to-retailAt a loss

Break even

Profitable

Very profitable

0% 25% 50%

11%

56%

17%

17%

Wholesale

n=93 n=60 n=36

n=24 n=54 n=18

Farm budgetsAve. Median Min. Max.

Operating expenses $223,125 $51,500 $1,000 $4,156,182

Per partner earnings $14,258 $2,750 $0 $148,000

Capital expenses $22,162 $5,000 $0 $250,000

Gross income $544,883 $57,500 $0 $20,000,000

Net profit (- earnings) $4,221 $0 -$324,000 $240,000

Net profit + earnings $26,628 $4,000 -$323,300 $444,306

Grants $701 $0 $0 $13,978

Views of CSA profitability

• 72.6% of CSA farmers are not satisfied with their CSA’s profitability

• Of these, the percentages below feel they can’t raise their CSA prices due to:

• competition — 52%

• market size — 23%

• other reasons — 14%

with other CSAs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong

Farmers' perceptions of competition within their CSA market region

with other direct marketing channels

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong

with retails market channels

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong

with grocery home delivery services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong

Farm labor

Employees

Farmworker(s), seasonal

Farmworker(s), year-round

Intern(s)/apprentice(s)

Non-farm-partner manager(s)

Administrative/logistics position(s)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

10%

21%

34%

39%

45%

Types of employees (% of farms)

n=82

Average wages of employees

$0.00 $7.00 $14.00

$13.14

$3.60

$11.03

$9.22

n=35

Farmer satisfaction

Farmer satisfactionMaintenance or improvement of soil quality

Community involvement

Workload for other workers

Farmer stress level/quality of life

Financial ability to meet annual operating costs

Compensation for other workers

Workload for the farmer

Financial ability to build and maintain physical farm infrastructure

Farmer compensation

Financial security for farmer (health insurance, retirement, etc.)

Average satisfaction

1 2 3 4 5

3.02

2.15

2.64

2.87

2.88

2.99

3.07

3.08

3.42

3.45

3.86

1=very unsatisfied, 2=unsatisfied, 3=mixed feelings/neutral, 4=satisfied, 5=very satisfied

Discontinuation of their CSA• 8 of the 111 CSAs had discontinued in the

previous year

Insufficient income for the amount of workOther

Lack of members/demandLeft farming for a new profession (did not retire)

Lost faith in the CSA modelRelocated

Health reasonsChange in family circumstances

Retired

0 1 2 3 4 5

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

3

5

Regional comparisons

Base map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/california_map.html

Northern California

Southern California

Central CoastCentral Valley

FOUR REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA

Table&1:&Regional&characteristics

Region Population%.of.State.Population

Square.Miles

%.of.State.Area

Population.Density

Southern.CA 22,175,462 58% 45,083 29% 1,031Central.Coast 8,045,956 21% 14,556 9% 2,203Central.Valley 6,843,613 18% 42,162 27% 238Northern.CA 1,267,490 3% 54,271 35% 39Total/Average 38,332,521 100% 156,072 100% 685

ANALYSIS OF CSA CHARACTERISTICS BY REGION

ANOVA tests were performed on a wide range of variables:

farmer demographics: age, gender, race, education, number of partners

farm characteristics: start year, acres, subsidized rent, organic certification, grows crop, raises livestock, diversity, employee numbers, membership size

farm finances: income from CSA, profitability of CSA, profit rate, index of perceived competition, retention rate

CSA characteristics: risk sharing, member support, member loyalty, event hosting, core group, member participation in distribution, length of pre-payment

community food security strategies: accepts EBT, sliding scale pricing, donations, gleaning, low prices for low-income families

farmer satisfaction: income, financial security, maintaining infrastructure, stress, soil building, workload, compensation for workers, worker benefits, community

Table&2:&Significant&differences&in&variables&between&the&regions

Variable(&(type^ mean st(dev n mean st(dev n mean st(dev n mean st(dev n F

Farmer&demographicsFemale(head(farmer((b) 31% 0.5 16 54% 0.5 28 60% 0.5 30 59% 0.5 17 2.69 0.10 *

Farm&characteristicsTotal(employees((i) 6.0 3.9 9 5.3 2.7 18 4.5 4.2 24 4.4 2.5 12 2.01 0.04 **

Farm&finances&(none&significant)CSA&characteristicsShares(risk((L) 1.7 0.9 20 2.2 1.3 30 2.4 1.1 31 3.0 1.2 16 3.84 0.01 ***

Members(are(supportive((L) 3.4 0.9 20 3.6 1.0 31 3.3 0.9 32 3.1 0.6 16 2 0.10 *

Host(farm(events((b) 60% 0.5 20 70% 0.5 27 52% 0.5 29 33% 0.5 15 3.51 0.06 *

Core(group((b) 0% 0.0 20 0% 0.0 27 7% 0.3 29 20% 0.4 15 7.6 0.01 ***

Length(of(preOpay(period((c)( 3.5 2.2 17 4.8 2.7 25 4.3 2.9 26 6.2 2.4 13 2.05 0.05 **

Community&food&security&strategiesCommunity(food(security(

strategies((%(index)28% 0.2 22 20% 0.2 32 22% 0.3 31 34% 0.3 17 3.31 0.01 ***

Farmer&satisfactionwith(covering(costs((L) 2.4 1.1 16 3.2 1.0 24 3.3 1.1 27 3.3 1.1 14 2 0.10 *

with(maintaining(

infrastructure((L)2.1 0.8 14 3.0 0.9 24 2.9 1.1 27 3.3 1.2 14 2.6 0.04 **

with(workers'(pay((L) 2.5 1.1 13 3.0 1.0 21 2.9 1.2 25 3.9 0.7 10 2.55 0.05 **

Average((L(index) 2.6 0.7 16 3.2 0.7 24 3.0 0.7 27 3.3 0.7 14 2.51 0.06 *

^(b=binary,(c=categorical,(index=combined(variables,(i=integer,(L=LikertOscale,(%=percentage

^^(pOvalues(shown(as(<0.10(=(*,(<0.05(=(**,(<0.01(=(***

Central(Coast Central(Valley

pOvalue^^

Northern(CASouthern(CA ANOVA(test

Conclusion: CSA farms & farmers

• Farms running CSAs are small and medium size, using organic production

• CSA farmers are younger on average than other farmers, and tend to have higher levels of formal education

• Most CSAs engage in one or more community food security strategies

Conclusion: membership

• CSAs are unlikely to share production risk with members, and for only 45% members clearly cover the costs of production

• Retention rates vary widely, but are 63% on average

• The average membership size is 159, while the median is 50

Conclusion: shares

• The most common pre-payment length is 1 month, followed by 1 week and full season

• The average full-share price is $26 per week

Conclusion: finances• 54% of CSA farmers/operators report their

CSA is profitable, yet 72.6% of CSA farmers are not satisfied with their CSA’s profitability

• CSA farmers/operators perceive strong competition, especially with retail outlets

• CSA farmers/operators report highest satisfaction with building soil quality, and lowest with farmer compensation and financial security

Acknowledgements

• We would like to thank:

• the CSA farmers and CSA members (current and former) who participated in the study

• UC Cooperative Extension Advisors Rachel Surls, Julia Van Soelen Kim, Ramiro Lobo, Cindy Fake, Aziz Baameur, and Richard Molinar, who have helped the project greatly

• the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources for its generous funding through a competitive grant