Research library

Field research on food access, urban agriculture, and hospitality systems.

These are briefs written for people who have to make a decision — operators, funders, institutions, developers, farmers. Every figure is traced to a named primary source.

How we work

Houston-basedChef-led, operator-runFood-safety certified leadershipFood handler certification delivered in-houseFair-trade & BIPOC farm sourcingFarm-direct procurementPrimary-source research methodologyUniversity & workforce partnerships

These describe how the business operates and how the research is produced; they are not third-party endorsements.

Brief 01 · Food disparity · Houston

Houston's food insecurity is not a poverty story. It is a geography story.

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · September 2026 · 6 min read

In spring 2024, 39% of Houston and Harris County households reported food insecurity — roughly three times the national rate. The geography is uneven enough that county averages hide the neighborhoods where the work actually needs to happen.

The question

Where is food insecurity concentrated in Houston and Harris County, who is most affected, and what does the health linkage imply about who should pay for the intervention?

Method & data

Kinder Institute for Urban Research (Rice University) Greater Houston Community Panel, spring 2024, n>5,200, supplemented by peer-reviewed health-intersection analysis and Feeding America / USDA Food Access Research Atlas.

Fig. 01 · Left — Food insecurity, share of households

Source: Kinder Institute, Rice University (Greater Houston Community Panel, spring 2024, n>5,200).

Fig. 01 · Right — Harris County food insecurity rate

Source: Kinder Institute / Feeding America estimates (different instrument from left panel).

The two panels use different instruments and are not directly comparable: the left panel is a self-report share from the Greater Houston Community Panel (spring 2024); the right panel is the estimated Harris County food-insecurity rate across years.

What the data shows

0139% of Houston and Harris County households reported food insecurity in spring 2024 versus about 14% nationally — roughly three to one.
02In 7 of 30 Harris County neighborhoods studied, more than half of residents reported moderate or high food insecurity; in the Greenspoint and IAH area roughly four in five households did.
03By group: 47% of Hispanic households, 53% of Black households, 59% of households earning under $35,000 a year.
04Half of Harris County households with children under 18 reported food insecurity versus about 18% of families nationally.
05Feeding America estimates 43% of food-insecure residents earn too much to qualify for SNAP.
06Among residents of food-insecure households, 29% rate their physical health poor or fair versus 12% of food-secure residents; nearly two-thirds report a physical health condition; 73% of uninsured residents in food-insecure households are Hispanic.
07Harris County's rate rose from 13.7% in 2019 to 18% in 2023 to 20% in 2024.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Siting matters more than scale, so intervention should be ZIP-code specific rather than county-averaged. Because 43% are income-ineligible for SNAP, any model relying only on benefits or matching leaves the largest group unserved — which is where subscription meal programs, employer-sponsored nutrition, and clinically referred food fit. And the health linkage is strong enough that food access work belongs in health-system budgets, which changes who the buyer is.

Brief 02 · Produce prescriptions

Produce prescriptions work. The published numbers are better than most operators realize.

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · September 2026 · 7 min read

A pooled analysis of nine produce prescription programs found a one-third drop in household food insecurity and clinically meaningful improvements in HbA1c and blood pressure — largest among participants with the worst baseline markers.

The question

Do produce prescription programs meaningfully change diet, food security, and cardiometabolic health — and at what cost per unit of health gained?

Method & data

Hager et al. (2023) pooled individual-level pre/post data from nine programs across 22 sites in 12 states, 2014–2020, n=3,881 (2,064 adults, 1,817 children), median 6.0 months, median prescription value $63/month, using multilevel mixed models with Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 0.01. Wang et al. (2023) ran a health state-transition microsimulation on 6.5 million US adults aged 40–79 with both diabetes and food insecurity from NHANES 2013–2018 over a mean 25-year horizon.

Fig. 02 · Left — Change from baseline (per outcome)

Source: Hager et al. 2023 (Circ CV Qual Outcomes). Only F&V intake shows a published 95% CI here; other rows show point estimates only.

Fig. 02 · Right — $18,100 per QALY

Source: Wang et al. 2023 (J Am Heart Assoc), national microsimulation over 25-year horizon.

Left panel: each row is scaled to its own outcome; only fruit & vegetable intake carries a published 95% CI in the source, so no intervals are imputed for the clinical markers. Right panel: net of $39.6B health-care savings and $4.8B productivity savings against a $44.3B intervention cost — $18,100 per QALY from a health-care perspective, cost-saving from a societal one.

What the data shows

01Adult fruit and vegetable intake rose 0.85 cups/day (95% CI 0.68–1.02) and children's 0.26 cups (0.06–0.45).
02Odds of household food insecurity fell to 0.63 (0.52–0.76), roughly a one-third reduction.
03HbA1c fell 0.29 percentage points among adults starting at or above 6.5% and 0.58 points among those at or above 8.0%.
04Systolic blood pressure fell 8.38 mmHg above a 130 baseline and 11.10 mmHg above 140; diastolic fell 4.94 mmHg above 80 and 9.43 above 90.
05BMI fell 0.36 kg/m² above 25 and 0.52 above 30.
06Nationally the microsimulation projects 292,000 cardiovascular events prevented (95% UI 143,000–440,000) and 260,000 QALYs gained, against $44.3B intervention cost ($37.3B food, $7.0B administration), with $39.6B in health care savings and $4.8B in productivity savings — $18,100 per QALY from a health care perspective and cost-saving from a societal one.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Effects were largest among participants with the worst baseline markers, so a well-designed program screens for clinical risk rather than distributing broadly. Medically tailored meals and produce boxes should be priced and documented like a clinical service — enrollment criteria, per-participant cost, adherence, and outcome reporting — because that is the format a payer can underwrite. Note the structural constraint that the principal federal produce-prescription funding stream restricts applicants to government and nonprofit entities, so for-profit operators typically participate as the delivery contractor rather than the grantee.

Brief 03 · Urban agriculture

The urban farms that survive are not selling vegetables. They are selling access.

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · September 2026 · 6 min read

A national USDA/Cornell study of 14 commercial urban farms found that two of three viable models depend on events, education, and site-based experiences for a third or more of revenue. The farm's commercial partner should be a hospitality operator, not just a buyer.

The question

Which urban farm business models are commercially viable, and what revenue mix and yield assumptions make them pencil?

Method & data

Rangarajan & Riordan's 2019 national study for USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and the Cornell Small Farms Program — 14 commercial urban farms across 13 cities, selected from 85 candidates, with financial data primarily from 2015 and more than 160 expert interviews — plus two peer-reviewed harvest-quantification studies.

Fig. 03 · Left — Revenue mix by farm model

Product sales Events / education Grants, gifts & other

Source: Rangarajan & Riordan 2019 (USDA AMS / Cornell Small Farms Program), n=14. Residual = grants, gifts, education & site rental.

Fig. 03 · Right — Yield per square foot

$435 average seasonal savings per plot · 253 sq ft supplies one adult's recommended vegetables for nine months

Source: Algert et al. 2014 (J Acad Nutr Diet), San Jose community gardens.

Revenue shares are midpoints of reported ranges; the residual segment bundles grants, gifts, education and site rental, which the source does not split uniformly across models. Yield figures are from a single-site San Jose study and are illustrative of intensive-bed practice.

What the data shows

01Viable commercial urban farms sort into production (7 of 14), hybrid (4 of 14) and training (3 of 14) models.
02Production farms earn over 90% of revenue from agricultural product sales; hybrid farms just over 60%, with 35% or more from events, site rentals, workshops and speaking; training farms report near-zero profit by design because earnings are reinvested and all staff are salaried.
03Only 6 of 14 farms paid the owner a salary — 8 took owner draws from profit — and farms reporting roughly 40% net revenue excluded owner salary from expenses, so cross-farm profit comparisons are meaningless unless normalized for owner labor.
04A San Jose study found community garden practices produced 0.75 lb of vegetables per square foot versus 0.60 lb for conventional field agriculture, with 2.55 lb per plant and average seasonal savings of $435 per plot; a three-year Wyoming study found the average 253 sq ft plot yielded enough for one adult's USDA-recommended vegetable intake for nine months.
05The recurring binding constraints across the literature are urban land cost and tenure, access to capital, and thin availability of agriculture-specific technical assistance.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

If two of three viable models depend on events, education, and site-based experiences for a third or more of revenue, a farm's commercial partner should be a hospitality operator, not just a buyer — on-site dinners, classes, and certification days are a revenue line, not marketing. Budget owner labor explicitly or the pro forma overstates margin; and intensive-bed yields are high enough that a small parcel plus premium event demand can pencil where wholesale-only cannot.

Brief 04 · Institutional demand

The biggest local-food buyer in America is already funded, already scheduled, and already looking.

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · September 2026 · 5 min read

US schools spent $1.8 billion on local food in SY 2022–23 — appropriated money on a procurement calendar, not a grant cycle. Intent is no longer the bottleneck; qualified, aggregated supply is.

The question

How large and how committed is institutional demand for local food, and what does a small grower need to actually access it?

Method & data

USDA Food and Nutrition Service 2023 Farm to School Census, covering school year 2022–23 — a national census of all school food authorities participating in the National School Lunch Program across the 50 states, DC and five territories; 18,789 eligible records, 11,803 respondents analysed, 67% response rate, weighted to be nationally representative.

Fig. 04 · Left — $1.8B already budgeted

16%of school food budgets

Source: USDA FNS 2023 Farm to School Census (SY 2022–23), weighted national estimates.

Fig. 04 · Right — Participation in farm-to-school

Source: USDA FNS 2023 Farm to School Census (SY 2022–23).

Local food is 16% of school food authority purchases — $1.8 billion in SY 2022–23 — appropriated money on a procurement calendar, not a grant cycle. 74% of schools run farm-to-school activities and 63% of school food authorities already serve local food; intent is no longer the bottleneck.

What the data shows

01Local food purchases by school food authorities totalled $1.8 billion in SY 2022–23, about 16% of total food purchases — appropriated money on a procurement calendar, not a grant cycle.
0274% of US schools ran farm-to-school activities and 63% of responding school food authorities served local food, so intent is no longer the bottleneck; qualified aggregated supply is.
0357.2% used local food in the National School Lunch Program, the highest-volume child nutrition stream.
04Access requires food-safety documentation, consistent pack and grade, reliable weekly volume, and audit-ready invoicing, which most individual small growers cannot supply alone.
05The same pattern extends to universities, hospitals, early-childhood programs, senior nutrition, and corporate dining.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

The scarce asset in local food is the coordination layer that makes a small grower legible to an institutional buyer — food-safety documentation, aggregation across farms to hit volume, standardized pack and grade, cold chain, and invoicing. Whoever builds it captures recurring budgeted revenue and raises the floor for every farm in the network. For growers, the practical next step is certification and paperwork, then plugging into an aggregator, because the buyer's constraint is procurement compliance long before it is price.

Brief 05 · Houston procurement

Houston's largest kitchen is a school district. The procurement calendar is already set.

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · September 2026 · 6 min read

Texas school districts spent an estimated $254 million on local food in SY 2022–23 — a 67.6% jump from the prior census cycle. Houston ISD alone serves roughly 184,000 students across 274 schools. The money is budgeted, the calendar is set, and the constraint is the same as everywhere else: qualified, aggregated supply.

The question

How large is the institutional food procurement opportunity in Houston specifically, and what does a local grower or aggregator need to access it?

Method & data

Texas Department of Agriculture reporting on USDA 2023 Farm to School Census data; USDA Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program records for Texas; Houston ISD enrollment and nutrition services data from HISD and U.S. News & World Report; Houston Public Media reporting on CEP changes for 2026–27; National Farm to School Network census analysis.

Fig. 05 · Left — Texas local-food spending, $M

Source: Texas Department of Agriculture, citing USDA 2023 Farm to School Census. Prior-cycle figure estimated from reported 67.6% growth.

Fig. 05 · Right — Houston institutional scale

Sources: U.S. News / Wikipedia (HISD 2023–24); TDA / Square Meals (LFS program).

Texas school districts spent an estimated $254 million on local food in SY 2022–23 — a 67.6% jump from the prior census cycle. Houston ISD is the largest single institutional kitchen in the region at ~184,000 students across 274 schools, and Texas drew $22.3 million in USDA Local Food for Schools funding with up to $250,000 per contracting entity.

What the data shows

01Texas school districts spent an estimated $254 million on local foods in SY 2022–23, a 67.6% increase from the prior farm-to-school census cycle — one of the largest jumps of any state (Texas Department of Agriculture, citing USDA 2023 Farm to School Census).
02Houston ISD is the largest school district in Texas with roughly 184,000 students across 274 schools (2023–24), making it the single largest institutional kitchen in the region (U.S. News & World Report).
03Texas received $22.3 million through USDA's Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program, with individual contracting entities eligible for up to $250,000 based on enrollment (TDA / Square Meals).
04HISD operates USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program sites and a summer Food Systems Camp as part of its farm-to-school work, and its Nutrition Services team was recognized at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo for connecting schools and Texas farmers (HISD, National Farm to School Network).
05For 2026–27, 33 HISD campuses lost Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) universal free meals because fewer students automatically qualify through SNAP — meaning meal-application volume and procurement complexity are rising just as the local-food pipeline is scaling (Houston Public Media).
06Nationally, 46% of school districts reported plans to increase local food purchases in coming years, and USDA announced $1.13 billion in additional local food program funding in December 2024 (National Farm to School Network; USDA).
07A Texas district reported receiving $250,000 from LFS in 2023–24 and $363,000 in 2024–25, using it to buy pasture-raised ground beef from local ranchers — a concrete model for what the funding unlocks when an aggregator is in place (Reporting Texas / University of Texas).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Houston ISD is the largest single food buyer in the region, and Texas is one of the fastest-growing state-level local-food markets in the country. But 33 campuses losing CEP means the district's procurement is getting more complex at the same time the local-food pipeline is scaling — which is exactly the gap an aggregator fills. A grower or aggregator that can hold food-safety documentation, consistent pack and grade, and reliable weekly volume windows can plug into budgeted, recurring district revenue. The opportunity is Houston-specific, the calendar is already set, and the constraint is supply-side readiness, not demand.

Research cadence

New briefs, published quarterly.

We publish original field research on a quarterly cadence — one brief per season, each one primary-sourced, dated, and built for the people who have to make a decision. A regular publishing schedule keeps the research citeable and lets other organizations link to it over time. Download any brief above to join the research list and receive the next one before it goes public.

Q1 · Winter

January publication

Q2 · Spring

April publication

Q3 · Summer

July publication

Q4 · Fall

October publication

Methodology

Four rules that govern every brief.

Primary sources only

We cite peer-reviewed literature, federal statistical programs, and university research centers — not our own client work.

Instruments stated

Every figure names its sample, instrument, and collection year so a reader can judge comparability.

Uncertainty shown

Where a source reports confidence intervals, we show them. We do not impute intervals the source omits.

No client data

We publish no confidential engagement data. Private engagements never appear on this page.

Commissioned research

The same standard, applied to private engagements.

We apply the same primary-source standard to private research and feasibility work. Engagements typically cover:

→Neighborhood-level food access and demand analysis
→Food-anchor and amenity feasibility for developers
→Program design and outcome frameworks for funders and health partners
→Grower aggregation and institutional procurement readiness
→Menu engineering and unit economics

Private engagements are confidential and never appear on this page.