whyhunger.org€¦ · web viewappendix 1: agenda for meeting with dffi executive committee to...

Project Evaluation:Building Community Power for Food

JusticeCase Study: Mississippi Delta Region,

Delta Fresh Foods Initiative

June, 2012

Project Holder: WhyHungerEvaluator: Aley S. Kent

Report prepared for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Program Background and Context . . . . . . 3

3. Evaluation Scope & Methods . . . . . . . 4Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . 5Background on the Evaluator . . . . . . . 6Discussion of Evaluation Methods . . . . . . 6

4. Findings . . . . . . . . . 7Accomplishments . . . . . . . . 7Challenges . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Participatory Analysis and Recommendations for the Project . . . 9

6. Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . 11

7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 14

8. Appendices . . . . . . . . . 16Appendix 1: Agenda for meeting with DFFI Executive Committee to plan the evaluation 16Appendix 2: Membership survey . . . . . . 17Appendix 3: Interview questions and compiled feedback . . . . 18Appendix 4: Facilitation plan and notes for participatory program review meeting. 25Appendix 5: Interview questions for WhyHunger staff . . . . 34

Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food DesertsCase Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative

1. Introduction

It has been almost 3 years since WhyHunger initiated its Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts project to organize food systems organizations in the Mississippi Delta region. This is a qualitative evaluation exploring how a network of anti-hunger, health, business, and sustainable agriculture groups is functioning to effect fundamental changes in the Mississippi Delta food system, and how effective WhyHunger has been in supporting the development of the network.

The lessons emerging from this evaluation point to the importance of multi-sectoral networks in rebuilding healthy and viable food systems in areas that suffer from a depleted farming sector, a depressed economy, and populations with inadequate access to healthy food. Findings show the essential role that community building plays in stitching together food systems, and how the processes of networking and implementing projects support one another. It also demonstrates the valuable role that Grassroots Support Organizations (GSOs) can play in assisting these networks to form, and the importance of their using a facilitative approach that builds capacity and empowers the members of the network to lead.

This report includes accomplishments and challenges in network formation and operation thus far, lessons that these findings hold for the network itself and for related projects, and a discussion of what this project's experiences might teach a national community of funders and organizations who are trying to support networks as a tool for eliminating food deserts in the United States.

2. Program Background and Context

The notion that healthy communities and sustainable farms are interdependent has grown popular in the recent decade, and many funders and organizations have been working to address these issues on a regional scale, through working to link various sectors of the food economy.

Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts builds on this trend, focusing not only on bringing together diverse players in the food system of the MS Delta, but also on building capacity to organize and manage the network itself. This project has pushed many organizations and groups in this region to take a larger look at the landscape, consider new and unlikely partners, and broaden ideas about how to tackle the issues that suddenly become multi-pronged once a new perspective is taken. While individual members of the network may be focused on nutrition, anti-hunger, or farm viability issues, this project has encouraged these various groups to consider some more fundamental contextual realities common to all of them, such as policies that do not promote consumption of fresh foods, a lack of centralized local markets and distribution hubs, a dearth of growers who are outfitted to supply sufficient food to the local region, poor perceptions of the farming labor force, and a legacy of power imbalances that have consistently advantaged Whites over People of Color.

In response to this, Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts has three main goals, with the cumulative goal of improving community food security as well as the local capacity to drive community food systems development:

1. To enhance a coalition of local organizations and businesses actively working to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy food in their communities in the Mississippi Delta region

2. To facilitate a visioning and planning process that leads the coalition to implement community-owned strategic and appropriate approaches for the geographical areas that will result in abundant and equitable access to healthy food for all.

3. To provide access to models, resources, technical assistance, training and information about potential goals/targets and successful strategies for increasing the accessibility and affordability of fresh, healthy food, such as:a) Establishing new or expanding existing outlets in the community that sell fresh produce at affordble

prices, such as farmers markets, CSA, local farms, supermarkets, grocery stores or bodegas,b) Increasing the uptake of local, state and federal government safety net programs related to incomce

and food,


c) Increasing the availability of fresh and healthy food in schools, hospitals and other institutions in the 44community,

d) Increasing the ability of community residents to purchase healthy and nutritious food, ande) Developing jobs, entrepreneurial activities or income streams associated with increasing access to

and availability of healthy food.

The project has also pushed WhyHunger, historically an advocacy and networking agency, to strengthen its role as a "Grassroots Support Organization" (GSO), investing time and resources into fostering the development of programs on the ground. For the three years that this project has been running, WhyHunger has been playing a role in the formation and operation of the network in the following ways outlined in the grant proposal (the grant involves the MS Delta coalition in question as well as two other groups in other parts of the country):

1. Working in partnership with WhyHunger's existing community-based partners to facilitate coalition building around eliminating food deserts through a process of developing a shared analysis of the needs and assets and a shared vision for the future,

2. Providing at least 8 training opportunities to a minimum of at least 300 community-based organizations in the two program areas about the successful approaches and models mentioned above,

3. Providing targeted technical assistance to a minimum of 20 community based organizations,4. Distributing seed money to each coalition that will allow for initial investment in chosen projects,5. To create and disseminate a multi-media tool-kit outlining processes and resources documents the work

being conducted to make fresh and healthy food available and accessible within the Mississippi Delta region.

In addition to #1 above, WhyHunger has been providing significant support to assisting with organizational development and with building the leadership capacity of the network membership. WhyHunger has used a participatory approach in its interventions at the community level, based in a conviction that the priority issues and the solutions to address them need to come from the people living and working in the MS Delta in order for activities to be appropriate and for the project itself to have any lasting impact.

Thus far, a network, named Delta Fresh Foods Initiative (hereafter referred to as “DFFI”) has formed, a coordinator has been hired, a leadership and decision-making structure has been established, trainings have been conducted, DFFI has representation on the MS food policy council, and several local programs have flourished, including cooking classes, church and community garden programs, on-farm hoop house and farmers market development. At the start of this evaluation, network leaders were beginning a process of reflection in order to plan how to most effectively move forward, while actively working on 501c3 incorporation and a new farm-to-school initiative.

Meanwhile, WhyHunger is actively working to build networks with similar aims in other parts of the country, and is interested in understanding how they can best play a role in supporting efforts like this from afar.

3. Evaluation Scope & Methods

There are three levels of activity in this project: (1) the programmatic activities that network members are running on the ground, such as cooking classes, on-farm trainings, and infrastructure development; (2) the organizing activities of the network collaborative to enhance the activities of its membership and foster fundamental changes in the MS Delta food system; and (3) the capacity building activities that WhyHunger staff are undertaking with the leadership of the new network to help it function effectively.

This evaluation began as the project was in its third year of operation, and as the activities of the network were just beginning to be implemented, the evaluation focused on the second and third levels of activity outlined above. Since the project is geared towards facilitating the emergence of a network and supporting it to become independent and responsive to the needs of its members, this evaluation is a qualitative analysis of the way the network functioned, operating from the assumption that a functioning network will be serving the needs of its members well. Therefore, it does not include any detailed data gathering on the first level of activities described above, but rather examines participant satisfaction with the extent to which these activities are being supported


by the network.

The central questions that this evaluation attempts to answer are: 1. How has WhyHunger been effective in enabling the development of the network?2. How well is the network functioning and what can help it become more effective at fostering fundamental

changes in the MS Delta food system?

Consistent with the participatory approach Whyhunger has employed in its community-level work, this evaluation strove to facilitate participant involvement in the creation of evaluation tools, and participant reflection on the progress of the project so far. The hope was for the process to be useful to the participants in addition to elucidating lessons and recommendations for the funding and Grassroots Support Organization communities of practice.

Evaluation Process

Steps in the process were chosen in collaboration with the WhyHunger staff who have been intimately involved with the project. Below is the final set of procedures:

1. Executive committee meeting and toursAt the meeting, the evaluator discussed the purpose and process of the evaluation with the executive committee. The group reviewed a set of interview questions to be used, and discussed an outreach strategy for a face-to-face program review meeting. The group also contributed their input to a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) survey focused on the DFFI network. The full agenda is in Appendix 1. During the visit, the evaluator also was able to meet a few members of projects that DFFI has supported, to gain a better understanding of how the program is playing out on the ground.

2. SurveyA survey consisting of the SWOT questions was created and the DFFI coordinator and executive committee chairperson assisted the evaluator in distributing it via email and a “Survey Monkey” link to the entire DFFI membership. After two weeks, the survey was answered by only 1 person, and there were continual technical difficulties with the Survey Monkey link. Since the meeting where this information would be used was fast approaching, and the evaluator reconsidered the need for this data in this particular format, this data gathering step was abandoned. The survey document can be found in Appendix 2.

3. Phone interviews with DFFI participants The evaluator interviewed via phone 15 members who responded to a request for an hour-long phone interview. Questions were generated by the evaluator and edited at the executive committee meeting (step 1, above), and focused on gathering data on DFFI's structure, function, and impact on the landscape. The executive committee put together a list of 27 members who have been involved since the beginning of the project and forwarded to the evaluator after the executive committee meeting. The project coordinator also sent an email blast to these members notifying them that the evaluator would be trying to set up interviews. The interview questions and the compiled feedback from these interviews that was used during the program review meeting (below) can be found in Appendix 3.

4. One day participatory program review meetingThe evaluator conducted a full day participatory program review to which all DFFI members were invited and 21 people attended. The evaluator devised the agenda in partnership with DFFI's project coordinator and the chair of the executive committee, and focused on getting feedback on how network activities have affected food systems work at the community or project level and on providing a space for participants to analyze this data, and the data from the phone interviews, to generate ideas around how the network's activities and operations could be improved. This process allowed the evaluation to go beyond gathering data to laying the groundwork for a strategic planning process that the network will start in the summer of 2012. The full agenda, plan and notes are included in Appendix 4.

5. Interviews with WhyHunger staff


The evaluator also interviewed WhyHunger staff involved in the project to hear their views on the successes, challenges and lessons of the project. Interview questions are included in Appendix 5.

Background on the Evaluator

The evaluator is an independent consultant based in New York City and has done no prior work in the Mississippi Delta, though she does have some contacts in the state and has visited food systems development project there in the past. Her background includes 3 years working at the project level in urban agriculture projects in New York, and 9 years as a program officer with Heifer International's USA Program. This included managing grants, writing reports, and providing support to 20 community food security projects in the Northeast, serving as a facilitator and technical assistance provider to project groups and their leadership as they planned, implemented and reviewed their projects. Throughout this time and in her current capacity as an organizational development and project consultant to food systems development groups, she has utilized participatory methodologies and continues to develop these skills as a trainer and facilitator with the National Technology of Participation® Network. These areas of expertise meshed with the capacity building aims of the overall project, and hopefully negated the low familiarity of the evaluator with the geographic region and the participants involved in DFFI.

Discussion of Evaluation Methods

The evaluation methods included some notable strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths included the participatory approach used in the evaluation, which was consistent with the empowerment model that WhyHunger has practiced during the course of this project. This approach also allowed for the evaluation to be collaborative and somewhat iterative in its implementation. That is, the interview questions were reviewed with the executive committee of DFFI and amended to be as relevant as possible, and when the survey didn't work out, it was possible to flex the face-to-face meeting agenda to make up for this. Another benefit of this participatory approach was that the project leadership and all participants in the study were very cooperative and eager to help with the evaluation. Both achievements and hurdles in project progress were shared without hesitation and there seemed to be a genuine desire by participants to see the outcomes of this evaluation, in order that they can learn from it and grow in appropriate directions.

The balance of anonymous interviews and public meeting was also a strength, as it allowed interview participants the ability to be candid in their comments on the project, and then at the meeting participants could consider this honest data and work to address concerns in a collaborative way. The two forms of data collection also allowed for comparison between “private” and “public” feedback, and on the whole, information was consistent from one format to another, reinforcing the validity of the data.

The evaluation had some inherent weaknesses as well: The evaluator worked remotely and conducted the interviews and much of the planning for the face-to-face event via phone and internet, which limited the amount of time that the evaluator could spend gathering data, and also posed a barrier to building rapport with participants, which typically affects the level of comfort people feel with sharing their thoughts and feelings. The evaluator also attempted to send out a survey to the full membership, and while she knew that some follow-up phone calls might be necessary, she got an even smaller response than she anticipated (only one respondent even with reminders and encouragement from the DFFI leadership), and ended up eliminating this tool from the process, instead working this piece into the face-to-face meeting.

In terms of the interviews, the evaluator relied on the executive committee for a list of contacts to interview. This could have skewed the data, as there was little way of knowing if this list was representative of the project membership. The hope for the meeting with the executive committee was to build a shared understanding about the purpose of the phone interviews, make the questions relevant to both the evaluation and the group itself, and in doing so generate some trust and buy-in that would translate to a list of contacts that represented a true cross- section of the network membership. There is no real way for the evaluator to tell if this desired outcome actually occurred, but the array of experiences and perspectives she heard in the interviews seem to support her approach.


Overall time for the evaluation was also limited, and the evaluator was challenged to squeeze phone interviews and a survey into the span of less than 2 months. Had she had more time, she may have tried to redouble her efforts to send out the survey, or followed up with more people to try to arrange more phone interviews. Nonetheless, since the anonymous and public data gathering methods yielded similar sentiments, it seems that the data gathered during this phase gave a representative look at the true experiences of the project members.

Another consideration that may have affected the data is that the evaluator is white and from the northeastern US, and therefore does not share a common background with a significant population of the project membership, so there may have been some inconsistencies in the feedback she received. At worst, she may have misinterpreted statements by various members due to cultural differences. To compensate for this, she took time to examine the interview feedback for consistencies, and included various methods for drawing out shared opinions in the meeting format.

In terms of how to improve upon this methodology, this experience yields some recommendations for future evaluations:

Email and web surveys seem to be an ineffective media for groups whose members do not all have equal connectivity to the internet or email. A better way to gather this data may be through hosting focus groups with different sets of members, ideally grouped by agricultural sector. Of course, this takes more time and resources but can potentially yield more profound learnings. This evaluation initially explored hiring local graduate students to both conduct interviews and host focus groups, but this idea was abandoned upon WhyHunger staff learning from the professor with whom they are in contact that this activity would not be a sufficient amount of work to render itself worthwhile to his students. In addition, the timing was poor for students on a semester schedule.

Also, it may be wise to not include WhyHunger staff (or GSO staff in general) at the face-to-face meeting if one evaluation goal is to evaluate the GSO's interventions. Even though the anonymous interview feedback on WhyHunger was overwhelmingly positive, and on the surface members seemed comfortable (if not happy) that WhyHunger staff were present, there is a chance that their absence from the meeting could have yielded some deeper collective analysis and even decision-making about how to handle their relationships with WhyHunger going forward.

The meeting outline itself was effective, though it is important to allow enough time for participants to discuss the findings that they discover, and to do some collective analysis. As it was, a one day meeting put a cap on the amount of time people had to do this critical thinking and was thoroughly exhausting to most people in attendance. Therefore, stretching the meeting into more than one day would be advisable – either more total time for the meeting, or splitting the meeting between data gathering phase and data analysis phase. This way, participants would have time – either overnight, through the course of a week, or other stretch of time – to absorb the data and start a reflection process, so that drawing out lessons and conclusions comes easier when they are face-to-face.

4. Findings

Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts has produced some notable accomplishments while also running into some important challenges through its development in the MS Delta. Data from interviews and the meeting are grouped under the findings listed below in bold:

Accomplishments

The Delta Fresh Foods Initiative (DFFI), a multi-sectoral network of organizations and businesses, has provided a structure for organizations of varying but related missions to come together around increasing community food security in the MS Delta.

The network is making progress towards becoming incorporated as a 501c3 organization.

There is a strong sense of solidarity and cooperation among people who


“Before DFFI, we talked about partnership, but

this program solidified a structure for working

together.”

have been active participants to this point. Members value being linked with new contacts and organizations, and appreciate the coordination of

food-system development activities in the region so as not to duplicate efforts. Several organizations that had not seen their missions as linked to food have started food-systems

related programming since the Future Search – the 2-day participatory meeting to find common ground among different sectors in the community which launched DFFI.

Many felt that the diverse and passionate membership is the biggest strength of the program, and is responsible in large part for the successes that DFFI has experienced so far, as members bring varying viewpoints to the table, provide the means to get programs off the ground, and are the best conduit for growing the network.

The network has enhanced the success of several local efforts, and has linked various partners in support of creating new food systems infrastructure and markets.

DFFI helps maintain cohesion among various projects and helps people see that their work fits into something larger than their local effort.

DFFI has helped in promoting local initiatives and is credited with helping to boost membership in local efforts.

Farmers have received technical assistance in navigating USDA certification in order to sell to large buyers.

DFFI has opened up some new farmers markets and has supported markets through overseeing a VISTA volunteer to help sign farmers up, offering a one day certification for the use of EBT machines at markets, and expanding the market catchment radius to 200 mi to ensure there was enough to sell at each market.

DFFI helped to expand the Cooperative Extension cooking classes to new areas. DFFI has provided trainings and assisted in the development of hoop houses on member farms.

The project has enabled members to gain new knowledge and skills Funding through DFFI has enabled nine individuals to participate at regional

and national conferences, such as the Community Food Security Coalition conference in Oakland, the Food Policy conference in Portland, OR, and the American Community Gardening Association conference. DFFI has also sponsored a visit by several members to Jones Valley Urban Farm, a Growing Power workshop with a member organization, and a series of “Growing Together” workshops for the community and church gardening participants.

Information about events, funding availability and workshops are shared on the DFFI website. Network trainings, events and meetings have helped people to gain new perspectives on their areas of

expertise through working with others, or have gained a more systemic look at the food system. Some individuals who would otherwise not know about one another now lean on each other for information.

The process of forming the network has given several members new skills in leadership and in organizing large groups.

The network has established an effective leadership structure. There was broad and consistent recognition of the work that the Executive

Committee has done to establish a workable structure. Executive Committee members noted that they work together well and have a

sound decision making structure in place.

The DFFI network has made inroads to supporting structural change in the MS food system.

The DFFI coordinator sits on the MS Food Policy Council. DFFI worked with MS FPC on Farm-to-school initiatives and helped to develop legislation.


“It's great to have the young sharp minds and old sharp minds

working together to develop a new

system.”

“At the start, you wouldn't think we could be doing

all that we do, in terms of running programs. People's areas of

expertise seem to fit and have contributed to a

great whole.”

“We have some of the best leadership you can find: [we are] from different organizations, and each member adds

a different perspective and

different strengths.”

DFFI worked together with MS FPC on increasing the number and utilization of EBT machines at Farmers markets.

Challenges

Limited organizational capacity While the project framework has helped significantly in clarifying a structure for where to put project

energies, DFFI clearly has less staffing and funding than it needs to do the work it envisions. Several people identified the need for having better internal processes to make decisions and implement

programming. Some felt that DFFI still tends to be in a mode where they are reporting to or leaning on WhyHunger for many decisions when they could be improving their abilities to make decisions and solve problems on their own.

Some fears were also raised about the small size of the leadership committee in terms of how one person's stepping down could cause major setbacks to progress.

There is also concern that DFFI has no long term sustainability plan, either in terms of funding or in terms of succession of the leadership of the project.

Lack of full representation by all stakeholders There was concern that while DFFI has a lot of members on paper, many of

those members may not see themselves as such, and therefore are not well represented in the project. Executive committee does not include representation from all stakeholder groups.

There was even some concern that DFFI is seen as a threat to some groups who ideally should be partners. This could be due to the fact that other organizations see themselves in “competition” with DHA, the current fiscal sponsor, or simply because organizations with complimentary missions may currently be working in “silos,” and not see their overlap.

Inadequate internal and external communications There was significant concern that information was not getting out to everyone in the larger group, and

that this may contribute to DFFI being less effective than it could be. Several participants mentioned that “a lot of people have dropped off since the Future Search meeting,”

and felt this was due to lack of or inadequate communication with all Future Search attendees. Some phone interviewees said that they often don't know about the meetings, or that they had trouble

connecting to phone conferences early on. Most respondents recognized that it is difficult to keep some people involved without face-to-face

contact, and as of yet the leadership has not been able to reconcile preferred networking methods with the large geographic scope of the network.

5. Participatory Analysis and Recommendations for the Project

The participatory evaluation process included opportunities for participants to do some analysis based on their own feedback and generate some ideas for how to move forward. Below are the recommendations that came out of the meeting and the interviews, grouped into priority areas that emerged during the meeting and listed in order of popularity.

Facilitate capacity building and training for members. Support farmer-to-farmer mentoring and grower education programs. Promote EBT machines and support grower certification. Build intentional relationships with Alcorn Extension and other organizations who

serve small growers interested in growing food. Partner with Farmers Market Coalition to train Delta Regional Farmers Market

Association market managers how to measure/asses their markets. Provide financial services for rural development and alternative enterprises in the

Delta.


“We need to help locals understand that [this is] a local initiative and not

outsiders coming in.”

“DFFI has been critical in linking us with technical

resources to help our efforts

get going.”

Link supply and demand. Create partnership with local businesses for community supported Agriculture. Connect Farmers with Delta Regional Farmers Market Association market

managers. Hire a Farm-to-school coordinator - 1st year building relationships between

schools and growers. Identify local place(s) to store produce to facilitate distribution - renovate and

recycle crumbling infrastructure.

Promote the Delta Fresh Foods Initiative. DFFI could increase its advocacy efforts to build smallholder equity in the system. Develop a marketing campaign for DFFI and reach out to local and state media. DFFI could also invest some time in developing the website to clearly show where DFFI representation

and connections are – and the intentions for the future. Use the DFFI website to link to member websites or offer members that don't have a website a place to

share their story – collaborative promotion. Utilize avenues where the project is already doing work to get the word out, such as conducting trainings

or perhaps organizing another regional summit. Each member is a potential representative of DFFI. Outfit members with printed materials and/or

messaging to share with those whom they interact. External communications need to clarify the geographic scope, and help the public and potential

partners to see the relevance to their lives or missions. The executive committee should discuss how they intend to tackle this priority, and how DFFI could

support training in community organizing techniques for members that want to take this on.

Increase accountability to stakeholders. Facilitate meetings with farmers – commercial and organic/small scale or diversified – to hear needs,

concerns, ideas. Conduct intentional routine check-ins with all stakeholder groups.

Engage new sectors and partners. With the new farm-to-school activity, a stronger organizational

infrastructure and a mission and framework of activities in place, it is time to re-engage some of those who haven't been involved since the Future Search conference.

Need to reach out and reconcile whatever happened with institutional racism discussion.

Reach out to those who didn't see the Future Search as relevant at the time. Beyond the grassroots or non-profit organizations which currently make up the majority of membership, participants expressed the need to have more presence from the following groups: city and county government, extension, businesses, funders, farmers, including those with larger-scale operations or practicing conventional agricultural practices; the Department of Human Resources, WIC program directors, school food service directors, as well as consumers.

Grow a sustainable network. DFFI Leadership development to develop the next crop of executive committee members. Finalize the 501(c)3 process; go after grants to support DFFI’s work. Focus on our strengths – what can we do well, with confidence, now? Conduct more focused conversations within each sector and then facilitate communication between the

sectors. DFFI is in the process of creating an identity for food systems development work going on in the MS

Delta.


“When we focus our work in

communities, we are at our best

because we are brought back to

our purpose”

“The title, 'Delta Fresh Food Initiative,' is about

building a healthy community, and that has

helped us to focus and be clear about what we're

trying to do.”

It is important that DFFI does not reinvent the wheel.

Create and support replicable models. Create a Community-based food system model project to demonstrate what DFFI is trying to do at the

local level. Develop a farm-to-school pilot program. Focus on specific target areas to pilot farmers markets. models to educate members and leadership on “viable and appropriate scale” of regional food system.

Develop and leverage resources and stay connected to the national movement. Make Delta Regional Farmers Market Association thrive by offering training and leveraging outside

resources. Implement “double -up bucks.” Facilitate attendance to national and regional conferences in food movement.

6. Lessons Learned

The Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts project has clearly enabled a robust network to form and enable some significant progress on the road to eliminating food deserts in the MS Delta. This evaluation process has elucidated some factors that have led to the project's successes and challenges so far:

The participatory planning processes fostered collaboration from the beginning and set the project up for long-term success.The participatory Future Search conference took a significant investment of time, money and energy to pull together but was key to bringing to the table an array of organizations and individuals representing a broad range of sectors. The process of forming a shared vision also cut through some organizational, sectoral and racial divides. The energy generated by this process lasted beyond the conference and allowed DFFI to get organized and keep participants invested in its development. Before any funding was even available, the collaboration was assisted to articulate context-driven goals and strategies, rather than having to fit their ideas into specific deliverables or budget lines already established, or be forced to collaborate around a pot of money. DFFI therefore had the freedom to evolve how it needed to and the collaboration was more prepared to handle funding once it became available.

Clarity of purpose and structure was a critical step to gaining momentum.The project endured a 6-month period of “storming,” where the project had difficulty making decisions and spun its wheels around how best to collaborate or where to put its energies. There was a shared sense across the board that establishing a title of the project and a framework of clear objectives and activities were breakthroughs in surviving this phase and moving the project from visioning to action.

Paid staffing and a smaller group of decision-makers promote quicker action, and need not hinder full participation. Many participants claimed that reducing the number of committee members and hiring a paid coordinator for the project was key to coming through a rocky organizational development phase and moving into action. For DFFI, a smaller number of members helped to foster faster resolution on decisions, and the coordinator has ensured that there is a dedicated person to manage the development of the programs. The coordinator has also eliminated the need for every decision to be made by consensus and all work to be done on a volunteer basis, which some respondents felt was putting a strain on members. However, some participants noted that volunteers started dwindling as soon as there was a paid staff person, suggesting that these volunteers did not see their work as worth their effort. One question that this evaluation did not resolve was if the number of committee members dwindled because of the storming itself, or because the mission of DFFI that emerged did not apply to a broader range of members.

If DFFI wants to continue to serve a networking and information exchange function, it is crucial that it remain connected to a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that it remains open to all viewpoints. However, related to the above point about clarity of purpose, it is also critically important that DFFI become clear about what types


of food system programs or relationships it is trying to promote and support – that is, what kind of agriculture it wants to see flourish, what kinds of channels are best to get food to people, and what kinds of programs it feels are effective – or else it can hamstring itself as being too obtuse, or not having a clear cause. Judging from the myriad ideas that came out of the meeting for where DFFI should put its resources, it seems that overcoming the loss of volunteer energy is better addressed through focusing on making the work of DFFI as relevant as possible, rather than through eliminating paid staff.

Leadership needs a succession plan. The executive committee needs to prioritize the steps it can take to nurture the next crop of executive committee members, as well as bring up new local leaders throughout the region. Part of a succession plan may be for the executive committee to work with WhyHunger staff to create an “exit strategy”. This would include examining the governance structures and procedures of DFFI to ensure they include appropriate support for the future leadership in their decision making and program implementation, as well as building a resource list of local, state and national contacts that DFFI can tap into as the program evolves. Some participants noted that DFFI could potentially do more without money if they are better organized. Future strategic planning could focus on strengthening working groups through empowering local leaders within DFFIs areas of focus.

Funding and incorporation is a double-edged sword.DFFI is already making steady progress towards becoming incorporated as a 501c3 organization, a designation that will thrust DFFI into a more “established” entity than a loose-knit network, and which will free it from the need for fiscal sponsorship and enable it to receive funding directly. A 501c3 will enable DFFI to offer tax incentives to local businesses and individuals for their donations, and this might dovetail nicely with some members' ideas about raising funds from local businesses and individuals. However, as a new organization, DFFI must remain careful to avoid a situation where they are competing with their members for the same funding. DFFI may want to consider membership fees, or work with member organizations to apply for funding where DFFI will receive a portion of the total. Participants also came up with ideas about putting on fundraisers that serve both to raise money and also to outreach to the community and raise awareness of their issues.

The balance between networking and running projects is fluid and each needs the other. The Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts project has involved an uneasy but progressively more stable combination of networking and project implementation. Building a network creates the opportunities for these individual projects to have larger or deeper impact, avoids reinventing the wheel, and also can engage new membership. And it was noted again and again that DFFI has played an important role as a referral service for linking people with existing programs to facilitate greater “synergy” among food systems work in the region.

But running projects has been beneficial to the overall progress of the program since some people need to see something concrete happen before jumping in and getting involved even if others are energized by the “bigger picture” conceptual work. Establishing projects based on the framework was important to building enthusiasm and participation in DFFI, as the projects helped the group to begin moving ideas into action, and also helped DFFI to re-engage people who didn't want to do the administrative “big picture” work. It also appears that there is a serious shortage of infrastructure for local food systems in the area, so some projects are definitely needed, especially if no one is currently doing this work. It is also easier to find funding to help with project development and implementation than for networking.

But there is a constant tension between how much energy to focus in each of these two sides of the same development coin. Pairing up programs to mentor each other, providing educational or outreach tools that various organizations can use, or “piggybacking” on existing programs to offer training or services, rather than developing entirely new programs, can help foster the synergy and collaboration that DFFI hopes to produce. It may be wise for DFFI to “screen” new project ideas with a set of questions, such as “How well does this project fit the mission?” “Is this project duplicating efforts of another entity?”, and “How can DFFI best partner with other organizations to produce mutually productive outcomes?” Such an iterative process will enable them to better understand over time the best role for DFFI, both as a networking and a project implementation entity, and will also help them grapple with the related tension between working on a regional level, versus bringing broad


“DFFI has the potential of being an organizing network for most, if not all, of the community

food system development work in

the state.”

partnerships to local project initiatives.

What seems most important is that projects undertaken by a network mesh well with the networking aspect of the project – that is, they need to be mutually beneficial rather than draining energy from one another. For instance, the farm-to-school project seems to be a good “cross-cutting” program that involves linking producers and consumers, engaging a population (parents and youth) that can lend a lot of energy to the movement, and engaging in policy work.

Communications are an important part of making a network strong and adaptable, and need dedicated resources from the beginning of the project. There is ample recognition among project members that DFFI needs to be intentional in its communications and relationship building efforts to ensure that its work continues to reflect the real needs on the ground, maintain continued stakeholder involvement and broaden the network. The importance of keeping members up-to-date and engaged often becomes apparent only after programs have gone through some evolution, and therefore this is frequently an under-resourced aspect of a project, a situation which can cause programs to struggle and even fail in the long term. While DFFI leadership seems somewhat stumped by this hurdle now, they also are poised to dive into this arena. They have launched a website and are considering the effectiveness of various channels of communication, and they are planning a strategic planning process which will enable them to become even more focused on “what they do”. They will then need to devise messaging to fit the audiences and channels chosen, for which they might want to seek professional assistance or designate current member(s) to focus their energies.

In terms of channels of communications, it is worth noting that the website and even email modes of communications, while useful for the business, non-profit and even some portions of the consumer sector, will probably not be sufficient in reaching the sectors that are already underrepresented. Teleconferences for the whole network have been somewhat successful, so there is merit to continuing these; but finding ways to make in-person meetings more accessible, such as holding meetings in different areas, or at different times of day, may make it more possible for people to attend and have their voices heard. DFFI could try to arrange for an annual check-in with farmers during a slower farming season, or conduct phone call check-ins with a representative group, the former needing considerable lead-time to plan and publicize and the latter requiring considerable staff or volunteer time.

It also appears that having some sort of regular opportunity for people to be face-to-face is critical to developing and sustaining the network, so given the wide geographic area and broad range of sectors involved, it might make sense to follow the suggestions of some members and try to schedule regional (meaning several counties wide) in-person meetings, or to hold conversations within each sector and then facilitate communication between the regions or sectors. These two options would offer different kinds of opportunities, the first allowing for building local alliances and the second providing for a caucus for each sector to articulate its needs or issues.

DFFI seems to be addressing structural racism through helping different groups to work together, but this is just a start.It goes without saying that there is a strong legacy of power imbalances in Mississippi, and disproportionate numbers of People of Color remain disadvantaged in numerous ways. The work of Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts in Mississippi has thus far provided a platform for a conversation about structural racism to take place and even be considered as a singular area of focus for the network. Ultimately, the network members decided to go a different way and pursue concrete projects, yet this issue came up continuously during interviews, interestingly only by white members (though this could be a reflection on the race of the evaluator, outlined above). It seemed from these interviews that there is genuine concern that this issue be addressed in some way and that the project, in fostering collaboration among a range of groups, is helping to strengthen interracial relationships and build some trust between historically divided groups. It remains to be seen how much the act of working together will mend differences or address structural imbalances in the food systems of Mississippi Delta communities, but it does seem that this collaboration has at least become mindful of this issue through their formation. However, the very fact that people continue to think about this issue may speak to the need for the network to focus more intentionally on discussing it more openly, or at least on building the intercultural competency of its members.


WhyHunger's focus on building relationships and developing a strong organization has played a critical role in DFFI's early success. According to almost everyone interviewed, WhyHunger has been very effective at providing a capacity building role for the network itself, shepherding and helping DFFI leadership think through decisions in a way that has fostered reflection and group problem-solving, increasing the capacity of the leadership rather than stifling it or taking over. Their presence seems like the right balance of attention: while many members wish that WhyHunger staff were there more often, there was also recognition that some struggling on their own has helped them to grow. WhyHunger has provided a crucial link with resources (human and otherwise) from the region and from outside the area, leading to a more robust network and building the skills and knowledge of the membership. They have fostered direct relationships with these resources, rather than acting as a “gatekeeper,” so that DFFI retains autonomy over how these resources are approached and utilized.

Of vital importance to WhyHunger's success are the skill set, philosophy and even personal style of the WhyHunger staff. Staff have approached this community with a winning mixture of humility and prodding, backed up by skills to help project members seek answers to their own questions and formulate their own thoughts and ideas. Furthermore, the staff's ability to form relationships, and build rapport and trust has been critical to finding the right partners for this project, receiving candid feedback on project progress, and ultimately understanding how they can best assist the network and its members.

There was emphatic feedback that the relationship with WhyHunger should continue, as those interviewed felt that at this new stage of DFFI's existence, WhyHunger can help to further build the capacity of the leadership to run productive meetings and make decisions effectively, but also has connections to funding partners and national policymakers that could help the network and its activities to thrive and evolve further.

7. Conclusions

The experiences of the Delta Fresh Foods Initiative thus far suggest that certain kinds of support be considered for other community food systems development efforts:

Networks are valuable and need more support. Funders are more often attracted to projects with quantitative outcomes over networking activities or organizational support, yet multi-sectoral networks are a valuable force for taking the collective work of individual projects to the next level. Networks link sometimes isolated community food security projects, amplifying their outcomes, pushing them to evolve, and even connecting them to other movements nationally and globally. One might even argue that community building is a fundamental piece of food systems change that must be in place for investments in technical capacity or capital improvements to have lasting impact. The relationships that are being built though this network are opening minds, opening doors, and opening wallets in ways that are helping lift up the entire food system, not just one specific sector or business. This is not to say that technical capacity is not relevant, but that interpersonal and professional connections enable members to find the resources or service providers that they need, boosting their self-reliance and self-confidence, and laying the necessary foundation for a project to grow.

A focus on capacity building is important to the success of the network.A network of groups and individuals is itself a new entity and involves specific challenges related to a new geographic scale of operation, differing needs of various players, and organizational development. Organizations, especially established groups, often need assistance to collaborate for the long term. New leadership structures, communications systems and decision making processes must be established, and this takes significant time and attention at the “front end” of the collaboration and as the network matures. Therefore, building individual and organizational capacity to create alliances and share leadership is a critical companion to the market


“I think this is an amazing project. This is the poorest region of the country – the

main industries are casinos, government, and farming, so it's amazing to be able to develop an industry from the ground up. Every day I wake up and feel like there's

something I've never done before. It's tough and sometimes frustrating, but we're

really capable of doing this, and not just from a profit motive, but by supporting

living wages and good health.”

development, consumer education, policy change and other efforts of a network like DFFI.

The case of DFFI also suggests that program and organizational development processes that are participatory in nature build the shared ownership and community power that will create long-term change, and that this requires consistent and capable help from a facilitator who can keep the process moving and shepherd the group through inevitable storming phases. Facilitating the organizing and leadership abilities of members themselves is another piece of the picture here, as the long-term sustainability of DFFI’s work is dependent on members who can collaborate and lead effectively. Furthermore, it is also essential that groups that are part of the network have the ability to run the programs that the network supports and move them into the future.

Working with the right grassroots support organizations (GSOs) can help funders to extend their reach.The role of WhyHunger as a grassroots support organization has been critical to the early success of this project. Its facilitative leadership focused on asking questions and providing an outside perspective to help the network come together and find its way. While it is widely accepted that ideas and solutions for community development ultimately need to come from the community in order to create lasting change, an outside entity can provide an organizing impetus to inspire new solutions, as long as it doesn't come with preconceived notions of what a community should or should not be or do. One might even argue that an outside entity is a preferred candidate to facilitate the formation of networks, as they can often come to the table open-minded and unburdened by past challenges or relationship hardships that might hinder local groups from being fully inclusive. The experience of this project shows that it is not entirely necessary to put a grant application together with local groups as long as the GSO has the expertise, resources and long-term support to conduct the requisite organizing that leads to community-driven solutions. Having the freedom and resources to run an organizing and visioning process before knowing which specific activities will ultimately be implemented (or funded) also enables a GSO to figure out who the local change-makers are, and who is merely “in it for the money.” The fact that WhyHunger is not based in the area also necessitated and therefore pushed the group to build its own capacity to make decisions and organize itself, as they could not lean on WhyHunger for all of their decisions.

Finally, WhyHunger also has the advantage as a GSO of being linked to a national network, which provides a channel for the local group to learn from and be inspired by other initiatives, as well as to disseminate its own lessons to a wider audience. In regards to this, it is important that any GSO ensure that they help link groups with resource partners directly, rather than acting as even a well-intentioned go-between, which risks caging in the local group. Increasing community responsibility for working with resource partners directly increases community power, the ultimate aim of this and many other food systems development projects.

It should also be noted that WhyHunger has learned a lot from being in a GSO role. This project has given WhyHunger direct experience with project development, helping the organization to learn what is needed on the ground for projects like this to be successful, and effectively receiving a dose of reality that can inform their future work to support food systems change in this and other ways.

Partner for the long term.The case of DFFI has reinforced the lesson that projects like Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts take longer than 3 years to become fully self-sustaining. The initial outreach and organizing process alone takes 1-2 years. Full participation also takes time, but the work tends to be owned by all and therefore the results have more staying power. The project also needs time and budgetary room to reflect on and adjust its strategies according to its experiences and changing contexts as many results of the collaboration's work only become clear much later on through taking time to reflect and self-assess. For networks working on food


“WhyHunger has provided even more than some of the other

funders in terms of coming to us, helping to keep us focused, not having unrealistic expectations, helping us identify our strengths

and weaknesses, and connecting us with other

resources that can help us.”

It's been a mental shift, moving from individuals fighting over resources to

a collaborative that is working to make the whole community rise up. They have to change how they talk, but also the practice of developing their work. They're in it together.

That's what feels like a transformational shift, and they're

helping others to see this, too.

- WhyHunger Staff

systems-level solutions with numerous moving parts, it might be useful to consider as much as a decade of partnership. A GSO or related entity is useful to this process not only at the organizing phase, but along the way as the initiative grows and evolves. This suggests that more funding be made available to sustain and grow strong initiatives, rather than the tendency to support new and innovative programs. Indeed, some of the most important innovations may come out of longer-term projects given the time to learn and the support to experiment with new ideas based on experiential knowledge.


8. Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Agenda for meeting with DFFI Executive Committee to plan the evaluation

AGENDA: DFFI Evaluation Informational and Planning MeetingOctober 17, 20115:30-8:30pmCleveland, MS

1. Introductions (20 min) Who am I, History in this field, role in DFFI, go over agenda for the evening. Round robin: Everyone's name, affiliation/role in DFFI, 1 question about the evaluation, or evaluation

in general2. Explain Evaluation process and purpose (30 min)

Layout/time line of activities How evaluation fits into goals of DFFI/strategic planning needs What this will require of DFFI members Q & A: Clarifying questions, then: What do you hope to see come out of this process? How can this

be most useful for your group or DFFI? 3. Conduct SWOT survey (30 min)

Demonstration of an element of the evaluation Explain that this info will be augmented by emailed/mailed survey to other members (who else? How

many people?) and compiled for the face-to-face meeting this winter.4. Review survey questions (30 min)

Hand out copies, read through, note that this will be conducted with about 15 people in DFFI What questions stuck out to you? How were you feeling as we went through this? What information

do you think this survey will generate? What other questions need to be answered through an anonymous survey?

5. Set dates for Face-to-face program review and planning meeting (10 min)6. Set/create a calendar of dates for one-on-one interviews. (15 min)


APPENDIX 2: Membership Survey

Delta Fresh Foods Initiative Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats Survey

Greetings! This survey is going to the membership of DFFI as part of a larger evaluation process, currently underway, to gauge effectiveness of the program and identify the best ways to move forward.

Your answers will be anonymous. Please send your completed survey to [email protected] by December 1st.Alternately, you can answer these same questions online at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NVTBPQ6

Thank you for contributing your thoughts

Please answer the four questions of this survey based on your experience with Delta Fresh Foods Initiative (DFFI) and your knowledge of the region.

For your reference, DFFI's stated objectives are:7. Sustainable Network Development - building capacity and shared leadership8. Create Demand for Local, Healthy Food Products - educate and attract consumers9. Build Supply of Local Healthy Food Products - to increase availability10. Improve Market Capacity - build infrastructure and skills to expand markets 11. Support Structural Change - Policies to support a community food system

Question #1: What are the internal strengths of the Delta Fresh Food initiative network? That is, what about the membership or procedures helps the network achieve its objectives?1.

2.

3.

Question #2: What are the internal weaknesses of the DFFI network?1.

2.

3.

Question #3: What are external opportunities (social, political, economic, etc.) that will help DFFI move towards its stated objectives?1.

2.

3.

Question #4: What are external threats to DFFI's progress on its stated objectives? 1.

2.


http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NVTBPQ6

mailto:[email protected]

3.

APPENDIX 3: Interview questions for DFFI members and compiled feedback analyzed at the face-to-face program review meeting

Name(s) of Person(s) Interviewed: Follow-Up Contact Information: PHONE: EMAILDate of Interview: Location of Interview: PhoneLength of Interview: Name of Interviewer: Aley KentOther notes:

Introduction to be read by interviewer to every person interviewed:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. WhyHunger and Kellogg Foundation have a lot to learn from hearing your views on DFFI’s successes and challenges.

I am conducting these interviews with 15 DFFI members.

Please feel free to be open and honest. Your responses will be treated anonymously (unless you desire otherwise) and compiled with other survey answers. The compiled feedback will be shared with WhyHunger staff and DFFI leadership to improve the program.

The interview should take less than an hour, but we can talk longer if you want to and have the time. I will ask you a total of 14 questions, and be taking notes as you talk.

What questions do you have before we begin?

OK, let's begin with the first question.

1. Please tell me about the role that you play in Delta Fresh. How and why did you or your group become involved in the network?

2. Reflecting on your experiences with the network, what do you value most about Delta Fresh?

3. Please tell me about the ways in which DFFI has had an impact on your program, organization, community, or group. How has it been most useful? (activities related to creating demand for and supply of local healthy food, improving markets and structural policies around healthy local food)

4. What do you feel would make DFFI stronger or more relevant to the needs of your group or other organizations in the MS Delta?

5. Please tell me about the value that your participation in DFFI has added to your personal or professional life. (e.g. professional development? new skills, knowledge, or practices? New connections? New outlook or perspectives on your field?)

6. What has been your experience of the evolution of the DFFI network itself? Considering the wide geographic area it covers and the multi-sectoral group of participants it brings together what has worked well? What happened that was unexpected?

7. What has been most challenging in the formation of Delta Fresh?

8. Please describe a major challenge that DFFI currently faces and your ideas for how to address it.


9. What is your opinion of the the communications infrastructure of Delta Fresh? How could this be improved? (indicators: easy to find/connect with others, cultivating synergy/non-duplication of efforts, documentation of activities, clarity in network directions, well-organized events and outreach, etc.)

10. What is your opinion of the the leadership and organizational capacity? How might this be improved? (indicators: sense of unity, leadership is knowledgeable of issues, decisions incorporate your views and needs, etc.)

11. What value do the members of Delta Fresh add to the network? Who else needs to be at the table? How might these people best be engaged?

12. Please describe what you see Delta Fresh doing five years from now. Who’s involved? What is being accomplished? What is your group or organization getting out of your participation in the network?

13. As you reflect on your experiences with WhyHunger, what could their staff and resources or networks be doing even better to help DFFI, your project and the region?

14. What else do you think I should know about your experience with DFFI?

APPENDIX 4: Interview questions for WhyHunger staff

1. What has surprised you most during your involvement with DFFI?

2. In your opinion, what about your or WhyHunger's interactions with DFFI have worked well?

3. What would you change?

4. How has WhyHunger's involvement been most helpful to DFFI?

5. What other forms of assistance are needed?

6. In light of other food systems development programs going on around the country, what lessons does DFFI have to teach?


APPENDIX 5: notes from the Participatory Program Review meeting.

DFFI Evaluation and Planning MeetingJanuary 10, 2012, 9:00am – 5:00pmCenter for Economic Development, Delta State, Cleveland, MS

PROPOSED OUTCOMES: Participants have common understanding of DFFI's milestones and accomplishments since September,

2010 Participants evaluate and discuss DFFI's programs and impact so far Participants identify opportunities and hurdles for DFFI's progress towards it mission, and make

recommendations about how DFFI can successfully move into the future. Participants analyze interview data as it relates to the role of the network in supporting DFFI's programs. Participants form priority focus areas for the structure and management of DFFI that will best support

DFFI's programmatic goals and objectives

Where are we / What do we know?

presented a brief background on DFFI's Mission, Framework, Projects and working Groups:

MISSION:Committed to building sustainable, equitable, community-driven food systems to strengthen the local food economy and promote healthy lifestyles in the Mississippi Delta

FRAMEWORK GOALS:Sustainable Network Development: Build regional capacity and local shared leadership for Delta Fresh Foods

InitiativeCreate Demand: Educate and attract consumers for locally produced, healthy food productsBuild Supply: Increase availability of locally grown, healthy food products for regional consumersBuild Market Capacity: Build infrastructure and skills necessary to start and expand local and regional marketsSupport Structural Change: Engage in partnerships to support policies and initiatives to promote all of the

above

PROJECTS:Growing Together - Church garden network Coahoma County Good Food Revolution - healthy cooking classes for local church groups with produce from raised beds; community wide Fall Harvest Festival Farm to School - funding FTS coordinator for the Delta in partnership with Delta Directions

WORKING GROUPSEducation - for growers and consumers Public Relations/communications Research Fund Raising Advocacy


Major milestones of DFFI since September, 2010People discussed the evolution of the project in pairs, then wrote milestones on the time line posted on the wall:

TIMELINE Sept. 2009 Organizing and outreach for Future Search gathering

Feb. 2010 Future Search Conference: What will Delta Fresh Foods be? A vision was developed

May 2010 Regular meetings started with larger stakeholder groupMS Food Policy Council begunStart of “Storming phase”

June 2010 Meeting at DHA to begin trimming down steering committee

August 2010 Started to identify growers and producers of edible crops

October 2010 Meeting with Dreyfus – work on DFFI mission/vision/structureDelta Growers to Growing Power Conference Coming out of “storming phase”

Jan 2011 Hoop house training w/ MEGA and Growing Power

Feb 2011 2nd phase Kellogg $$Started developing DFFI Framework

March 2011 Hired Judy BelueIdentifying project goalsDHA becomes fiscal agentHoop Houses in Quitman Co.

May 2011 Attended national food policy conference in Portland, ORCooking classes in Quitman Co.

July, 2011 Quitman Co. Grower receives GAP certificationDavis farm USDA certification supported by DFFIJudy Elected to MS Food Policy Council BoardShelby, MS: DFFI hosts Live Real Food and Freedom RidesJesse and Ryan attend ACGA conference in NYCSouthern Living Magazine Feature article

Sept. 2011 Healthy Cooking classes with Delta FreshDelta Food Economy Assessments

Oct 2011 Growing Together Composting workshopPresentation on DFFI at National CFSC conference

Nov 2011 Growing together youth programs workshop

Dec 2011 New Website! www.deltafresh.org

Jan 2012 Today's meeting: continuance of expansion for DFFI, keeping the idea fresh in people's mindsFuture: Community garden development & competition


whyhunger.org€¦ · web viewappendix 1: agenda for meeting with dffi executive committee to...

Documents