Making
Policy
Work
for
You

Federal
 policy
 can
 affect
 the
 work
 you
 do,
 whether
 it’s through
school
lunch
regulations,
access
to
locally
grown foods,
or
farm
conservation
that
affects
our
clean
air
and water.
 
 Since
 policy
 can
influence
 you,
it’s
important
 to stay
 informed
 and
 let
 your
 legislators
 know
 how
 you feel.
 Remember
 that
 you
 have
 a
 valuable
 local perspective
 to
 share!
 Policymakers
 need
 to
 hear
 from individuals
and
community
groups
to
better understand the
 way
 federal
 policies
 affect
 real
 people
 and
 their communities.

Before
the
Meeting

• Call
ahead
to
schedule
a
meeting
with
your
Congressperson
or
a
member
of
the legislative
staff.
Don’t
be
disappointed
if
you
get
a
meeting
with
a
staff
person.
They actually
have
a
lot
of
power
in
the
office
as
the
go
to
experts
on
specific
issues.

• For 
information 
on
 scheduling
 a 
meeting 
with
 your 
senators, 
consult www.senate.gov

• For 
information
 on
 scheduling 
a 
meeting 
with 
your 
representative,
consult www.house.gov

• If
scheduling
a
meeting
for
a
group,
make
sure
to
keep
the
group
small,
but representative
–
no
more
than
3‐6
people.

• Read
up
on
your
Congressperson
and
his
or
her
background,
voting
record,
issues
of
focus,
and
Congressional
committee
membership.

• Organize
and
prepare
to
talk
about
your
issue.
This
includes
researching
and
understanding
potential
opposing
views
to
your
request,
so
you
will
be
prepared
to
respond
with
a
factual
counter
argument
if
necessary.

• Again,
if
meeting
as
a
group,
plan
what
each
of
you
will
cover
in
order
to
use
your
time
most
effectively.
Most
meetings
with
legislators
and/or
staff
are
only
15‐30
minutes
long.

• Gather
materials
to
bring
with
you.
In
addition
to
gathering
background
materials
about
your
issue,
you
should
also
bring
information
about
your
organization
or
program
in
the
district
and
your
contact
information.

• Dress
professionally
for
your
meeting

• Give
yourself
plenty
of
time
to
get
to
the
meeting.
Arrive
on
time
or
early,
but
also
be
prepared
to
wait
as
hearings
and
committee
meetings
may
run
longer
than
expected,
delaying
the
availability
of
Senators,
Representatives,
and
staff.

During
the
Meeting


• Introduce 
yourself 
and 
your 
organization. 

Remind 
whomever 
you 
meet 
with 
that
 you
are
a 
constituent.
• Be
succinct,
and
be
clear
about
what
you’re
asking
them
to
do
(i.e.
sponsor
a
bill,
co‐
sponsor
a
bill,
vote
yes
or
no
on
a
bill,
etc.).
• Remember
that
you
are
an
expert
on
how
an
issue
or
program
affects
your
community!
Tell
the
legislator
or
legislative
aid
all
about
the
issue
in
your
state.
The
person
you
meet
with
could
know
a
lot
or
a
little,
so
be
prepared
to
educate.
And,
be
confident!
• Answer
the
staff
person
or
legislator’s
questions
as
thoroughly
as
you
can,
but
don’t
be
afraid
to
say
”I
don’t
know”
and
follow‐up
after
the
meeting
with
the
answer.
• Take
notes
of
follow‐up
items
and
reactions
the
staff
person
or
legislator
has.

If
you
are
meeting
with
a
staff
person
who
cannot
commit
to
your
“ask,”
set
a
deadline
as
to
when
you
will
receive
an
answer
(i.e.
”Can
I
call
you
next
week
to
find
out
if
Sen.
Jones
will
co‐
sponsor
the
bill?”)
• Obtain 
a
 business 
card 
from 
whomever
 you 
meet 
with 
so 
that 
you
 may
 contact 
that
person 
again, 
directly.
• And
 don’t 
forget 
to 
leave 
behind 
your
 materials 
or 
a 
fact 
sheet 
concerning 
your 
issue.

After
The
Meeting


• Debrief… 

Talk
 over
 your 
impressions, 
and 
decide 
if
 any 
next 
steps 
are 
necessary.
• Decide 
who 
will 
write
 a 
thank‐you
 note, E‐mail
 or 
fax
, Thank 
you 
notes .
Include 
in 
your
email
 or 
fax 
an 
overview 
of
 main
 points 
of 
the
meeting, 
and 
answer 
any 
questions
 you
left 
unanswered
• Maintain 
contact 
with 
your 
legislators 
by
adding 
their 
names 
or 
their 
aids’
 names 
to
your 
mailing 
lists
 and 
newsletter 
lists, 
by 
inviting 
them 
to 
visit 
a 
farm 
to 
school
 program
in 
your
 area,
or 
by 
e‐mailing 
updates 
on 
farm 
to 
school
 developments 
in 
your 
area.

How
Can
I
Find
Out
Who
My
Legislators
Are?


• Check
 out 
the 
government 
section
 of
 your 
local 
phone 
book.
• Call 
the 
Capitol 
Switchboard 
at 
(202)
224‐3121.
• Search
 by 
state 
or 
zip
code 
at
 www.house.gov 
and 
www.senate.gov.

H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, addresses the programs and authority of
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA currently has authority over processed
foods, fruits and vegetables, and fish, while USDA has authority over meat and poultry.
H.R. 2749 proposes to expand FDA’s role in agriculture, particularly through creating
new food safety standards, a new traceability program, and a mandatory processing
facility fee.

Some key concerns with HR 2749 include:

1. Fees: Within this bill there is a mandatory $500 per year fee for processing
facilities (with a $175,000 cap for companies with numerous plants – a cap that
benefits large processors). This fee will help pay for FDA inspections of
processing plants, but the bill’s requirement of inspections every 6-12 months for
high-risk food is not nearly frequent enough for the millions of pounds of food
being inspected. A sliding-scale fee would be more appropriate and more
affordable for the smaller operations.

2. Definition of a “food facility”: Another concern within the bill is the definition
used for a “food facility”. Several advocacy organizations are currently working
very hard to get a definition that will work for local/regional food system players.

3. The third major concern is the proposed traceability program. This new
traceability program is intended to allow the FDA to track back any food item to
its original source within two days. H.R. 2749 exempts farmers or fishermen who
sell their products directly to the consumer, a restaurant, or a grocery store from
the traceability program and places less burdensome recordkeeping on these
producers and buyers. It would be desirable to exempt all product that is “farm
and source verified” from small and medium-size farms, but in the very least to
exempt those farms involved in direct sales or marketing of on farm processed
foods.

Congressional Action on HR 2749:

• In
the
final
days
before
passage,
the
House
Ag
Committee
negotiated
some
changes
on
behalf
of
Sustainable
Ag
and
Family
Farmers
that
quieted
some
fears
of
FDA
encroachment
onto
the
farm.
o Further
clarification
was
provided
for
the
meaning
of
a
“Food
Facility”.
o Also
some
specific
exemptions
for
“direct
selling”
were
provided.
• However,
these
changes
do
not
do
enough
for
family
farmers
and
sustainable
agriculture.
• HR
2749
was
brought
to
the
floor
on
Wednesday,
7/29/09
under
suspension
of
the
rules,
which
prohibited
amendments
and
floor
debate,
but
required
a
two‐thirds
majority
vote
to
pass.
The
bill
failed
to
pass.
• As
a
result,
the
Rules
Committee
determined
the
bill
would
be
brought
to
the
floor
again
on
Thursday,
7/30/09,
requiring
only
a
simple
majority
to
pass.

Unfortunately
the
Rules
Committee
did
not
allow
any
amendments
to
be
introduced
on
the
floor,
but
Representative
Farr
and
Representative
Blumenauer
gave
a
colloquy,
so
their
objections
to
the
bill
were
added
to
the
formal
record.
These
objections
included
concerns
about:

– the
lack
of
a
scaled
fee
system
– the
lack
of
a
plan
for
coherence
with
the
USDA
National
Organic Program
– the
need
for
electronic
records
– the
lack
of
recognition
of
current
safe
food
practices
through
conservation
efforts the
lack
of
targeted
efforts
to
focus
on
high‐risk
problems.
– Additionally,
on
the
floor
of
the
House,
Rep.
Dingell
chided
Sustainable
– Agriculture
and
Family
Farm
Advocates
somewhat
for
our
concerns,
but
promised
that
these
concerns
would
be
worked
out
in
the
conference
and
management
process.

H.R.
2749
was
referred
to
the
Senate
on
8/3/09,
just
before
August
recess.
The
bill
was
read
twice
and
referred
to
the
Senate
Committee
on
Health,
Education,
Labor
and
Pensions.
It
is
currently
on
the
regular
calendar
in
the
Senate.

In
the
Senate,
the
regular
calendar
process
will
permit
amendments.
And,
it
is
likely
a
conference
committee
will
be
required
to
resolve
the
differences
between
the
two
versions
of
the
food
safety
bills.

The
Companion
Bill
to
H.R.
2749
is
S.
510,
The
FDA
Food
Safety
Modernization
Act.

• S.
510
was
introduced
by
Richard
Durbin
back
in
March,
and
has
since
been
waiting
on
the
Senate
Calendar.
There
seems
to
be
no
urgency
to
get
to
this
issue
on
the
Senate
side,
and
no
progress
is
likely
until
after
the
health
care
debate
ends
(as
the
HELP
committee
is
also
involved
in
Health
Reform).

• S.
510
has
not
been
fully
analyzed
yet
for
its
differences
with
H.R.
2749
and
for
other
potential
issues.

This
work
will
begin
among
advocate
groups,
such
as
NSAC
and
NOC,
in
September.
They
are
currently
working
on
a
strategy
for
getting
their
comments
into
the
bill
drafting
process
before
it
is
“marked‐up”
by
the
committee.

CFSC
is
continuing
to
track
Food
Safety
legislation,
and
is
in
close
contact
with
the
above‐mentioned
groups,
but
at
this
time
we
are
not
actively
advocating
for
the
issue.
We
will
send
out
action
alerts
as
necessary.

[pdf]http://nacaa.net/wp-content/uploads/HotPeppersPeaches.pdf[/pdf]

The community food security (CFS) concept was briefly highlighted in the introduction to this report, along with a definition that embraces many of the goals its practitioners share (Hamm and Bellows, 2002). This section delves a bit deeper into the concept, and examines the ways in which the CFP Program integrates community food security elements into its objectives and priorities. This helps illustrate how specific activities linking communities and food may get emphasized or downplayed in projects funded by this program.

In the 1990s, the community food security concept was devised as a framework for integrating solutions to the problems faced by poor households (such as hunger, limited access to healthy food, and obesity), and those faced by farmers (such as low farm-gate prices, pressures toward consolidation, and competition from overseas). Additionally, food advocates were becoming increasingly concerned about the unsustainable nature of the industrial food system as indicated by growing “food-miles;” the degradation of diverse natural and cultural heritages; and a commodity subsidy structure that floods markets with cheap, highly processed food while providing little support for the production of healthier foods.

The CFS definition therefore describes not only the qualities of the food that all community members should have, but also the characteristics of the sys- tems and methods by which this food is made avail- able. In other words, the CFS definition holds that: a) all community members should have regular access to safe, nutritious, affordable, and culturally appropriate diets, and that b) these diets should be products of food systems that promote local self-reliance, and are sustainable and socially just.

The accompanying sidebar on the previous page presents a concrete set of CFS activities that offer intermediate outcomes, such as increasing the adoption of healthy diets by youth, connecting local farmers with institutions that serve food, and obtaining widespread resident engagement in community food assessments. Most projects with a CFS orientation include multiple activities from this list, and have multiple positive impacts on their food systems and communities. Taken together and along with others, these types of activities can bring local places closer to attaining community food security.

However, translating CFS ideals into more systematic change actions can be challenging (Anderson and Cook, 1999). For one, we don’t know all the steps that need to be taken to achieve CFS, nor do we have a clear picture of what a neighborhood or a region looks like that has fully realized CFS goals. Practically speaking, not every individual community food action can deliver all the desired elements of CFS. Indeed, some types of actions can be in ten- sion with broader goals of CFS if they are not supplemented with other actions.

For example, in an effort to provide low-income residents with more fresh fruit and vegetables, community garden groups may donate a portion of their harvest to local food pantries for distribution. This action allows needy households to consume more fresh produce and thereby eat more healthfully–an important goal of community food security. By itself, however, it may continue to foster dependence on food pantries. Such dependence works against household self-reliance in food, as well as systemic solutions to food insecurity–other important goals of CFS. Combining such a strategy with ones that enroll qualified households into nutrition programs (such as food stamps, Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs, WIC, etc.); training low-income youth to produce food for their families’ consumption or for income-generation; and working with local Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms to develop “sweat-equity” shares might help reduce the tension between short-term and more sustainable food security.

The community food security movement has shown that there are as many starting points to creating change as there are actors; that no single approach or set of activities will get us there; and that lasting change has to engage eaters in meaningful ways. Over the decade of its existence, the CFP Program has offered the resources with which to develop a set of activities to increase access to healthy foods in low-income communities, create benefits for small food producers, build related organizational and physical infrastructure, and engage community members and stakeholders in longer-term food planning. As described in the previous sidebar, these activities also are important to community food security outcomes. It is important, therefore, to ask to what extent and how the CFP Program reflects community food security goals and ideas.

This compares the objectives of the CFP Program as summarized in its Request for Applications and related program guidelines. As the third column shows, many elements of the Community Food Security concept are explicitly supported in the RFA language. Some, such as “reducing food-miles” are implicitly supported because they are closely related to other principles that are explicitly supported, such as activities that link community-based producers and consumers, which can reduce food-miles. Additional elements are implicitly supported when grants are awarded to projects that contain these elements. For example, as project applications from organizations serving First Nation or immigrant groups to support their community food systems are funded, the CFS element of “preserving diverse food cultures” is advanced.

Some important sustainability elements related to community food security, such as reducing energy consumption in food systems; reducing concentration and corporate control of food systems; reducing negative impacts of agricultural activities on water, soils, air, and habitat; and increasing biodiversity are absent in the RFA. They also tend to be less common in projects that end up being funded. This is also the case with some social justice elements of CFS, such as increasing wages of workers, improving the working conditions of farm and food workers, reducing and correcting other imbalances in the overall food system to benefit small-scale producers and low-income consumers. These activities understandably require more systemic approaches that target policy and market conditions rather than programmatic ones led by community nonprofits.

Thus Table 1 demonstrates that the CFP Program supports some CFS principles more rigorously than others. This is by no means a criticism of the pro- gram. Any program has to be defined based on the goals that drive it, existing resources that may support other desired goals, and practical constraints of time, geographic scale, and budgets. The CFP Program’s goals are defined and circumscribed by the legislation that created it. The CFP Program has benefited numerous communities by supporting a remarkably broad range of CFS principles, especially considering the small size of the program.

It is possible that as projects are implemented on the ground, they may deliver more CFS elements in practice. For example, a community garden project may result in more neighboring residents composting their food scraps and yard wastes. This activity would increase its contribution to environmental sustainability. It also is possible that some core CFP Program objectives (such as engaging residents in project planning and implementation, developing collaborative stakeholder processes, creating long- term solutions to food system problems, etc.) may be difficult to implement effectively within project funding and time limits. In such cases, Table 1 may overstate the presence of CFS elements in the CFP Program as implemented by specific projects.
Finally, the CFP Program is truly miniscule when compared to the Farm Bill’s annual budget or those of major Farm Bill Programs such as Food Stamps. The CFP Program funds about twenty Community Food Projects annually, at around a couple of hun- dred thousand dollars each. As this report shows, CFPs make important contributions toward advanc- ing CFS concepts and practice. For these contribu- tions to reach many more communities, the CFP program may need to be orders of magnitude bigger than it is. As this report also shows, CFPs face sys- temic challenges in implementing elements of com- munity food security. These challenges largely stem from the nature of the industrial food system and the policy structures that support it. These challenges also need to be addressed proactively to achieve greater community food security.

The Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program was established in the 1996 Farm Bill. In the past 10 years, it has provided 243 grants to non- profit organizations in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and one U.S. territory. These grants, ranging in size from $10,400 to $300,000, have made healthy food more available in low-income communities; enabled youth and adults alike to gain skills in food production and marketing; supported the development of local jobs and food-related businesses; and developed a host of innovative approaches to problems linking food, agriculture, and nutrition. The CFP Program is rightly seen as a flagship resource for the growing community food security movement.

The CFP Program was initially funded at $2.5 mil- lion per year, with the first year receiving only $1 million. The initial funding was doubled to $5 mil- lion in the 2002 Farm Bill. The designation of the program’s funding as mandatory in both Farm Bills has made it a consistent and steady source of support for Community Food Projects since its inception. The program’s authorizing language, objectives, and application requirements, along with examples of successful proposals, can all be found at www.nacaa.net/funding.

According to the CFP Request for Applications, Community Food Projects should be designed to: 1. Meet the food needs of low-income people; 2. Increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and 3. Promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues; and/or Meet specific state, local, or neighborhood food and agriculture needs for:

a. infrastructure improvement and development
b. planning for long-term solutions
c. the creation of innovative marketing activities that mutually benefit agricultural producers and low-income consumers.

The program gives preference to CFPs designed to:

1. Develop connections between two or more sec- tors of the food system, such as production and distribution
2. Support the development of entrepreneurial projects
3. Develop innovative connections between the for- profit and nonprofit food sectors
4. Encourage long-term planning activities and multi-system, interagency approaches with collaborations from multiple stakeholders that build the long-term capacity of communities to address the food and agricultural problems of the community, such as food policy councils and food planning associations.

In addition to community-based food projects, the CFP Program supports two additional categories of projects: training and technical assistance (T&TA) and planning projects. T&TA Projects have national or regional relevance, and provide assistance to potential CFP grant applicants or support current CFP grantees with operating their projects. Examples of T&TA services offered may include project evaluation, leadership development, or assistance on a particular type of project, such as farm-to- institution methods. The purpose of a Planning Project is to complete an assessment and to plan activities toward the improvement of community food security in a defined community.

Although only non-profit organizations are qualified to apply for CFP funds, the program strongly encourages collaborations with public and for-profit entities to foster long-term and sustainable solutions. Thus, to summarize, the program emphasizes two inter-connected strategies to better link communities and food systems: a) Strategies that meet the food needs of low- income communities in ways that also benefit local producers. The CFP Program recognizes that to be sustainable, these strategies need to involve entrepreneurship and appropriate physical infrastructure. b) Strategies that build communities’ capacity to solve problems associated with local food systems, agriculture, and nutrition. To be comprehensive and systemic, strategies need to involve public and private sector stakeholders and actively engage community residents.

HOW THE COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM CAME TO BE

In July 1995, Texas Representative Eligio “Kika” de la Garza introduced the Community Food Security Act of 1995, the bill that would later fund the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program. He was initially joined by 17 Congressional co-sponsors, a bipartisan group that grew to 33 as deliberations continued. This group included Bill Emerson of Missouri, then chair of the House Committee on Agriculture’s subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.

At the time of the bill’s introduction, Representative de la Garza said “The concept of community food security is a comprehensive strategy for feeding hungry people, one that incorporates the participation of the community and encourages a greater role for the entire food system.” One important role for the food system, as envisioned in the proposed legislation, was to provide low-income populations with fresh and healthy food from local farms.

How did this bill come to be introduced by Representative de la Garza? In 1995, the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) had just formed. Among its founders were Mark Winne, Bob Gottlieb, Hugh Joseph, Kate Fitzgerald, and Andy Fisher. At their first meeting in Chicago in August 1994, these and other CFSC leaders laid out a plan for a new alliance of food, farming, and hunger activists, with a policy agenda for the Farm Bill as its first course of action. The upcoming Farm Bill provided an opportune moment for exploring federal policy options to advance community food security.

CFSC leaders were the primary authors of the Community Food Security Act, with the support of Julie Paradis, minority staff to the House Agriculture Committee. They recommended creating a funding program to support grassroots initiatives that would help small producers provide fresh food in low-income communities. These ideas were championed by their Congressional co-sponsors and supported by their colleagues, and the Community Food Security Act became law in 1996 as part of the Farm Bill. It provided $2.5 million in annual mandatory spending, which was expanded to $5 million in 2002 when the Farm Bill was reauthorized.

The CFP Program exists today largely thanks to the leadership exercised by the Community Food Security Coalition in developing the concept and advocating for federal funding. CFP Program administrators and community food advocates have continued to work closely over the years to ensure that the Program serves communities as effectively as possible.

For the purposes of this project, the University of California Cooperative Extension’s
Emergency Food Client Questionnaire (UCCE-EFCQ) and the United States Department
of Agriculture’s Core Food Security Module (USDA-CFSM) were combined so that a
more in-depth analysis of factors influencing hunger and food insecurity could be
conducted. One survey was developed from these two models and revised to meet the
specific needs of Calaveras County. This revised version was called the “Client Survey”
(Appendix B, pp. 84-99). Questions 1 through 32 on the Client Survey were taken from
the UCCE-EFCQ. Questions 33 through 48 on the client survey were taken from the
USDA-CFSM. The following list outlines the changes to the original UCCE-EFCQ that
were made and the reasoning behind those changes:

Revised “Client Survey”(p. 85)–Question 6: What kind of housing do you have?
Responses were worded to more specifically differentiate between house, mobile
home, and recreational vehicle (RV). For example, “own home” on the original
survey was changed to two separate responses “own house (not mobile home)” and
“own mobile home” on the revised “Client Survey”. The response “mobile
home/RV” on the original survey was changed to two separate responses “rent mobile
home” and “RV”. These changes were based on the knowledge that Calaveras
County low-income residents might choose to live in mobile homes or recreational vehicles. If a large percentage of clients was found to choose this lifestyle,
intervention programs could be designed to target this particular subgroup.

Revised “Client Survey”(p. 86)–Question 9: What are the ages of the people who live
in your house, apartment, etc. not including yourself? The question on the UCCE-
EFCQ that asked for information on the ages of children and adults in the
respondent’s family seemed confusing and complicated. The question on the UCCE-
EFCQ was redesigned in an attempt to make it less complicated and more
understandable to respondents.

Revised “Client Survey” (p. 88)–Question 16: What are you or your household’s
monthly sources of income? (your best estimate) Two responses on the UCCE-
EFCQ needed clarification. One response, Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), had recently changed its title to Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF);
therefore, both acronyms were used to facilitate respondent understanding. The
response “salary” was clarified by changing it to “Employment (Salary)”.
Revised “Client Survey” (p. 88)–Question 17: How much does your household
spend each month on the following items? (your best estimate) The list of responses
was made more specific. For example—“rent/mortgage” was separated on the revised
survey to “rent” and “house or mobile home payment”. The response
“gas/electricity” was changed to six separate responses “gas”, “electricity”, “wood”,
“propane”, “sewer”, and “garbage” to reflect the variety of utilities used in Calaveras
County.

Revised “Client Survey” (p. 90)–Question 23: Why do you or other members of your
household shop there? This question refers to the type of store where respondents buy
their groceries. Due to the rural nature of Calaveras County, the answer, “no
transportation to get anywhere else” was added to the response choices.
Revised “Client Survey” (p. 90)–Question 25: Would any of the following things be
helpful to you or other members of your household? One of the purposes of doing the
survey was to identify the needs of Calaveras County residents who seek emergency
food assistance. The addition of this question allowed the development of a set of
responses to identify specific workshops, informational materials, or interventions
that might help respondents manage their limited resources more efficiently.

Revised “Client Survey” (pp. 91-93)—Questions 26 through 31: The original UCCE-
EFCQ had several questions related to soup kitchens and emergency food. All
questions relating to soup kitchens were eliminated since soup kitchens do not exist in
Calaveras County. The questions relating to emergency food recipients were grouped
together on pages 91 through 93. The goal of these questions was to elicit details
about respondent households that were utilizing the emergency food system in
Calaveras County. The questions asked for more in-depth answers in areas such as
where most households sought emergency food, the frequency of need, the frequency
of needing but not receiving, the reason for need, problems getting to emergency food
sites, and the quality of the food received. If a respondent had not received
emergency food in Calaveras County, the first of these questions allowed a “no”
response and the respondent was instructed to skip to question #33.

Revised “Client Survey” (p. 92)–Question 29: What problems did you have now or in
the past getting to the emergency food site? One of the goals of the survey was to
identify the obstacles and barriers respondents experienced when seeking emergency
food assistance. This question was added to elicit more in-depth information.
Revised “Client Survey” (pp. 94-98)—Questions 33 through 48): The USDA-CFSM
questionnaire was added to determine the food security status of the respondent
household instead of food security questions 28 through 31 on the original UCCE-EFCQ

Across the country, people are working in their com- munities to increase the availability of healthy, locally grown food for their fellow residents. Some are helping small farmers successfully market their prod- ucts in underserved areas, while others are engaging urban youth in growing vegetables or learning how to prepare healthy foods. Yet others are adding fresh fruits and vegetables to the food boxes that low- income families can obtain from local food pantries. Many are developing community food assessments to document their area’s food resources and needs so as to help develop local policies to increase food securi- ty and strengthen the local economy.

These efforts can be found in inner city and rural communities, and they span geographic scales from a neighborhood block to an entire region. They typi- cally involve partnerships with public, private, and nonprofit agencies, and deliver community goals in health, economic development, sustainability, and social justice. These initiatives are supported by many different sources, including governments, foundations, private businesses, and committed indi- viduals who volunteer their time and skills.

This report focuses on a particular group of commu- nity-based food initiatives: those funded by the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This Program has been a major funding source for community-based food and agriculture projects in the country over the last ten years. Community Food Projects (or CFPs) have developed and honed practices to strengthen local food systems by linking local producers and con- sumers, improving access to nutritious foods, and fostering self-reliance. In sharing these practices and other experiences at national conferences and local meetings, CFP participants also have helped grow a national movement in community food security.

This report documents some of these experiences and the lessons learned from them.

Based on an analysis of five years of CFP grantee report summaries, this research report provides basic information on Community Food Projects, their activities, and key factors that explain their successes and challenges. Although greatly diverse, Community Food Projects generally share a few core objectives. These include meeting the food needs of low-income populations; linking local producers and consumers in entrepreneurial relationships; increas- ing the food self-reliance of communities; and pro- viding comprehensive solutions to food, agriculture, and nutrition-related problems. These objectives overlap with community food security goals, which seek food systems that promote health, sustainability, local self-reliance, and social justice. Hence, this report also looks at ways in which Community Food Projects are able to deliver community food security and the constraints they face.

Community food security (CFS) is a relatively new and evolving field, and there is not yet one broadly accepted definition of the term. The following is one that is widely used by practitioners:
Community food security is defined as a situa- tion in which all community residents have access to a safe, culturally acceptable, and nutri- tionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes self-reliance and social justice (Hamm and Bellows 2002).

Looking at Community Food Projects through a community food security lens is useful for at least two reasons. First, the Community Food Security Coalition and the emerging CFS movement played a key role in the creation of the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program. Because of this, there is a great deal of overlap between the CFP Program objectives and community food security concepts and practices. Second, Community Food Projects are a key source of illustrations, models, and inspiration in community food security discussions and practice.
This report is a summary of research that sought to answer the following questions: • Who leads, participates in, and is served by Community Food Projects (CFPs)? • What types of food system and community change activities are typically offered by CFPs? • In what ways do CFPs contribute to community food security and what constraints exist to their contributions to community food security? • What factors underlie successes in CFPs and what challenges do CFPs typically face? • What are some broad lessons derived from CFP practice?

Over the decade of the CFP Program’s existence, some of these issues have been informally discussed at conference sessions and on electronic listservs by CFP grant recipients, program supporters, and com- munity food security advocates. Reports that have profiled CFP projects also explore some of these issues (for example, World Hunger Year, no date; Community Food Projects 10th Anniversary Production Team, 2007; and Tauber and Fisher, 2002).

In 2005, a reporting system called the Common Output Tracking Form (COTF) was instituted to systematically gather data on outputs across CFPs. However, to date there has not been a comprehensive attempt to review the accomplishments of CFPs and draw lessons from those data. This report partly addresses that gap by analyzing and reporting on results from 42 CFP projects.
The research for this report was undertaken in 2006. It is based on a content analysis of project report summaries submitted by organizations funded by the CFP Program, as well as a focus group of representa- tives of diverse projects conducted over two sessions. (For more information on how the project report summaries and focus group discussions were obtained, see Appendix A: Research Methods.) The 42 projects span those awarded from 1999 to 2003 and completed by 2005. They constitute 17 percent of the total projects funded by fiscal 2006. The research also is informed by the author’s active involvement in the CFP Program as a reviewer of multiple rounds of applications, and as a provider of technical assistance to prospective applicants in other years. The author is an active participant in the community food security movement, as a two-term board member of the Community Food Security Coalition and a volunteer with local efforts in the Detroit area and elsewhere.

This report is aimed at audiences involved in the national community food security movement: those currently or previously associated with the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program (including grantees, administrators, and applicants), and sponsors, supporters, and students of community food security initiatives in general. We hope that this report will help community groups leading food projects to learn from the expe- riences of others, and to plan and act more effective- ly to reinforce successes and overcome challenges. We also hope that it will contribute to broader dis- cussions about how to: enhance community food security, increase the scale of activities and impacts across food sectors and communities, and embrace communities currently underserved by the Community Food Projects program.

Community Food Projects implement creative and dynamic programs that strengthen their communities and build their food systems. Over the past 10 years, the impact of the more than 240 projects funded by the USDA Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program has been impressive. This report was initiat- ed out of an interest in articulating the successes and challenges of these projects and the factors that affect them, so that future Community Food Projects can benefit from these lessons.

Initiated as part of a Community Food Projects Training and Technical Assistance grant focused on evalua- tion, this research is one of the first attempts at summarizing Community Food Project activities and results across programs. It complements the Common Output Tracking Form (COTF), implemented in 2005 to track outputs across CFPs, and adds breadth and depth to this numerical data.1
The research for this project was directed by Dr. Kami Pothukuchi with support from a research intern, Tammy Morales. The project was managed by Jeanette Abi-Nader, the Evaluation Program Manager for the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC). Dr. Pothukuchi also authored this paper and worked with Jeanette Abi-Nader and Kai Siedenburg of CFSC on editing. The graphic design was done by Rebecca Mann and coordinated by Aleta Dunn of CFSC.

The research conducted on five years of past Community Food Project (CFP) grant report summaries and on related literature was truly brought to life in our two focus group interviews with seven experienced Community Food Project grantees. Although the focus group was small, it included diverse projects and types of organizations. Their stories helped provide a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to Community Food Project successes and struggles.

In addition to providing extensive information regarding Community Food Projects and the intersection of CFP work and community food security principles, this report also highlights the key factors that were iden- tified as contributing to a successful CFP. On the next page, we have highlighted eight characteristics of suc- cessful Community Food Projects, which are further explained in Section IV. These characteristics are not an exhaustive list and not every successful CFP would necessarily demonstrate all characteristics. Instead, they offer a snapshot of the characteristics we found common among the projects we studied.

We wish to congratulate the Community Food Projects Program staff for their dedication and innovation toward creating a more just and healthful food system.

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS

• They show progress in meeting particular community food needs.
• They are able to “hit the ground running”.
• They gain community buy-in and support of activities.
• They adapt effectively to changing and unforeseen conditions.
• They are able to build and strengthen effective community-based networks.
• They develop innovative, multi-sector approaches.
• They build community food leadership.
• They are able to sustain selected activities after the grant ends.

How it Started

Official introduction occurred in May 2000 through cooperative efforts of the USDA, the Kentucky Department of Ag., University of Kentucky Extension and the Kentucky Department of Education. Some school districts in Kentucky had noted the North Carolina model and had been purchasing produce through the DOD fresh program and from local cooperatives. In the first year the program was piloted in regions 4 and 8. Schools were encouraged to request product grown in Kentucky, if prices were comparable. The program went statewide this year. Farm-to-School in Kentucky now has a full time coordinator who handles communications with farmers and schools funded by the State Department of Agriculture.

Farm to School Project and Components Clark County is Kentucky’s model program for integrating Farm to School with nutrition and health education. There they are developing and piloting the Clover CAT (Cooking, Activity, and Time to be well) curriculum. This curriculum includes nutrition, time management, exercise and self-esteem.

The curriculum is being piloted in the 5th, 7th, and 9th grades with introductory, intermediate and advanced levels. In some areas the YMCA offers a three-month scholarship to obese children who attend these classes. If the children work out at the YMCA 30 times in three months they are offered another three- month free membership. Intergenerational gardens are being piloted but not always in conjunction with the farm to school program.

Farm-to-school coordinator plans to develop additional components (ag education, nutrition education) in the future.

Funding The farm to school program is incorporated into the jobs of nearly all those involved. The program is broadly supported by the State of Kentucky. No additional funding has been required.

Farmers/Crops The Kentucky Department of Agriculture facilitates communication between farmers and schools. They promote products grown in Kentucky such as seedless watermelons, sweet potatoes, broccoli and seasonal decorative products. Local and Kentucky grown cannot always provide quantities needed by school districts. In these cases commodities and out-of-state foods are used. Farm cooperatives comprise the majority of farms involved in the program. Few independent farms participate. There is some question as to how beneficial this program is to new, small-scale, or non-traditional farms.

School food service commented that farmers have not approached schools independently. If they did, they might be well received. Additional product is needed for summer feeding program and school food service might be willing to purchase direct if farmers made the effort.

DOD provides purchasing expertise some contact with growers. DOD helps set prices, work with growers and seek out small-scale growers Delivery School Districts place their orders in May each year. Contracted produce distributors ship their produce to larger distribution sites 5 located in Kentucky, one in Ohio and one in Tennessee. Product is shipped from these sites to schools. Department of Ag. inspects and approves distributors prior to their involvement with farm-to-school In districts served by a central kitchen food service directors at individual schools can order from their local distributor to supplement what is provided by the central kitchen. The central kitchen places a request once a month for bid. Bids are published and individual schools may order from that list. Schools are encouraged to choose lowest bid first, Kentucky grown second. Produce is delivered once a week.

Price Farm-gate price is negotiated by Kentucky Dept. of Ag and DOD. A 5.6% surcharge is added to farm gate price and this price is offered to schools. Price for Kentucky grown has not been an issue with product purchased through State farm-to-school program but price for locally grown can be an issue when purchasing from local distributors. Commodities and low prices take precedence over locally grown.

School Food Service Support School food service was supportive from the beginning. At the May 2000 conference they shared the barriers they had confronted and overcome as well as barriers that persist. For the last year and a half Jefferson County has prepared food in the central kitchen and delivered to schools in refrigerated trucks owned and operated by Food Service. Menus are developed for periods of 6-months. Seasonality impacts price but is not necessarily a consideration in menu development.
USDA rep provides regular training to food service in handling fresh product and some nutrition education.

Kitchen Facilities Jefferson County has a model central kitchen which can process huge quantities of food with little additional staffing. Food for school lunches is prepared at this site and shipped to individual schools. Other schools have some processing capability but prefer pre-cut, prepackaged product. No additional labor has been necessary.
Sustainability This project has a great deal of State support. Nearly all aspects of the program are incorporated into the jobs of those involved. Elementary and middle schools do not allow students to leave campus during school hours. Ala carte items, which are part of school menu, are sold during lunch but no competitive foods are sold on campus. Although high schools have soft drink contracts, the machines cannot be turned on until ½ hour after last lunch period. Under these conditions the program is sustainable.

Contact Person: James Mansfield Kentucky Department of Agriculture 100 Fair Oaks Lane 5th Floor Frankfort, KY 40601 502-564-7274 [email protected]

Once outcome statements, such as performance targets and milestones, have been established, it is much easier to set up a Logic Model or similar evaluation. To proceed, consider how the project will verify that proposed changes have taken place by measuring comparative data from the start of the project and as the project comes to an end. Establish benchmarks that represent indicators of progress. Verifying these changes may mean conducting follow-up with beneficiaries by conducting surveys, phone interviews, or by using some other mechanism to assure that the planned benefit has been achieved.

dvance planning of a project’s evaluation component can help determine the design, cost, and resources needed to implement the evaluation. The application should describe, at least in general terms, what will be evaluated and how it will be done, who will oversee and coordinate evaluation activities, how low-income participants and other community members will be involved in the evaluation, and what baseline data will be used for comparative purposes.

In developing an evaluation plan, applicants should:

• decide at least in general terms what to evaluate and what process to use; • determine who will oversee or coordinate evaluation activities; • identify participants – who the evaluation will focus on and who will participate in its design and implementation; • identify baseline data that is available; and • estimate costs and the need for outside expertise at the onset of the project.

Consider also:

• how to involve stakeholders to provide insights and identify priorities for evaluation
• how to select practical indicators and associated measurement tools such as surveys to gather information and track developments
• how to interpret the information you derive
• what steps are needed to refine evaluation procedures on an ongoing basis
• and what steps will ensure ongoing record-keeping, data collection, and monitoring.

The CFSC provides evaluation training workshops, handbooks, and specific evaluation tools to help CFP grantees conduct effective evaluations. (See Evaluation Program webpage for more information: http://www.nacaa.net/evaluation.html) The RFA encourages applicants to seek expert assistance with evaluation design and implementation, as appropriate and available. Academic institutions may collaborate for free or at a fairly low cost, out of interest in the project. Otherwise, independent consultants can also provide such assistance, though probably at a much higher cost. (Note: See the CFP RFA and CFSC’s Evaluation Handbook and Toolkit for additional guidance on evaluation and logic models: http://www.nacaa.net/evaluation_pg2.html).

g. Self-Sustainability Because Community Food Projects awards are intended as one-time funding, USDA is interested in how the project will continue or be sustained after the CFP grant ends. Sustainability should make sense in terms of project priorities and strategies. Unless there is a strong entrepreneurial component, project activities are not expected to generate an on-going revenue stream.

Viable sustainability strategies may include: continued support provided by the grantee, in-kind and institutionalized support from a project partner who takes an activity under its wing, continued grants or other fund-raising, and project revenues and income generated by project entrepreneurship. 3. Budget Narrative and Justification The application requires a budget narrative to explain how CFP funds will be used. Reviewers judge an application mainly by what it proposes to achieve and how it will accomplish its objectives. But the budget needs to be appropriate for the project and make sense. Because the USDA budget forms combine many line item categories, explaining the details can make the difference as to whether or not a proposal gets funded.

The budget justification should explain every budget line item, and break down large categories into specific expenditures. This is the place to explain any unusual expenditures – particularly if they are relatively large and not clearly detailed in the narrative section. Reviewers and USDA will look at these details to make sure they are consistent with the proposed activities, and also will consider whether there is sufficient funding to accomplish the activities being proposed. Give particular attention to the budget justification section; it should be neat and avoid redundancy. Splitting out costs for each year of the project is helpful, but it is not necessary to repeat lengthy information for every year; just break out the items that change, such as new supplies and equipment, salary increases, and the like.

The sources and amounts of all matching support should be summarized on a separate page and added as an attachment as part of the Budget Justification, with letters of commitment and other documentation of match details also included as attachments. 4. Letters of Matching Commitment As noted earlier, federal CFP funds requested must be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Matching resources may be either cash and/or in-kind, but must be non-federal in origin. They can come from a state or local government agency, or private sources such as businesses, foundations or charities, or from other non-profit entities. In-kind resources may include the value of office space used exclusively for the funded project, or the value, fairly assessed, of transportation, photocopying, postage or other costs covered by the applicant organization or by a project partner.

Matching resources must be detailed, explained, and firmly committed in a letter from project partners to the applicant or in a letter to USDA from the applicant. USDA requires that all matching resources for the life of the project be identified and committed “up front” before the project is initiated. Reviewers read these and other collaborator letters carefully to assess the degree of commitment and involvement of each organization. Form letters or letters that simply state the project is important and that the organization will endorse it signal to reviewers that the group has not been very involved in the planning of the project.

On the other hand, a unique, individualized letter that details the specific role of the organization, its past contributions, and its proposed activities in the planning and implementation of the project will be much more compelling. If a project is a true collaboration, this will show in the level of enthusiasm, substantive information, and consistency provided in these letters. Letters of commitment should document contributions of cash or in-kind support. Similarly, if a collaborator or consultant will be paid for work on the project, the nature of the work, hourly rate, and number of hours need to be documented in their letter.

The legislation does not require that an applicant contribute matching resources beyond the one-to-one requirement. However, evidence of additional funding can increase the project’s self-reliance and make it more self-sustaining. On the other hand, if the project has such extensive funding that CFP support will not represent a major or critical component, the application may not fit the intent of this program to “support the development of Community Food Projects with a one-time infusion of federal dollars to make such projects self-sustaining.” CFP is not looking to be a small part of a big, long-term program; the program wants to play a significant role in funding specific initiatives that might otherwise not take place. For example, CFP funds would not be appropriate to support or expand the regular activities of a food bank.

But they could assist the food bank in setting up a culinary skills training program, a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm or distribution initiative, or other such activities. a. Verification of matching resources Collaborators will need guidance on what to include in their letters of commitment regarding documentation of matching funds or in-kind. Partners should share the specific guidance for match contained in the RFA. Some types of match may be considered ineligible, because they are an intended outcome or integral part of a project. Examples include: food donations (e.g., the value of foods gleaned and donated to a food bank); food production (e.g., the value of food grown and marketed as part of the project); project income (e.g. from potential farmers’ market sales); and volunteer time that is already integral to a project (e.g., as a requirement for participation in a food coop).

Applications should include written commitments for both cash and in-kind contributions to verify matching support. Separate letters may be needed for each resource contributed to the project. Pages 18 and 19 of the RFA are very specific as to what should be included in letters from the applicant and its partners verifying the matching commitment. Written verification also means sufficient documentation to allow USDA to assess the value of the contribution, and providing evidence that a person with the appropriate level of authority has made this commitment; i.e., the commitment letter should be on letterhead and signed by the authorized organizational representative. The RFA states directly and unequivocally on page 18 that “Awards will not be issued until all matching has been verified.”

For matching funds (cash), verification of the source of the funds must be provided. But, if applicants already have funds on hand, potential complications in the grants management process may be avoided by simply stating the amount of cash available, rather than linking it to a specific grant commitment. If documentation of another grant received by the applicant is provided, it should include a copy of the award letter stating the purpose(s) for which the funding was provided and a statement as to when the funds are available.

The RFA on pages 18-19 states that for any third party cash contributions (i.e., by a partner in the project), a separate pledge agreement is required for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization. Such contributions must include a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the contribution and other details specified in the RFA. The RFA (page 19) states that the value of applicant contributions to the project shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles.

Again, clear details are needed for each item or type of in-kind provided. In addition, the applicant organization should demonstrate that it is willing and able to receive the items contributed and apply them toward the project. 5. Letters of Support In addition to letters of matching commitment, applications may include general support letters from project collaborators. A limited number of such support letters – such as those from farmers or schools, where appropriate – are encouraged to provide evidence of broad community involvement in both past planning, project operations, and future decision-making. Avoid using form letters for this purpose; an individualized letter that speaks to the role of the organization in the project, and importance of the project and its planned outcomes, is much more persuasive and helpful.