Strengthening Community Engagement in Sustainable Local Food Systems

Strengthening Community Engagement in Sustainable Local Food Systems

Summary

This project will increase public dialogue among community residents regarding sustainable localized food systems in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The value of expanding public conversations regarding community food systems is that such conversations enable residents to define, and thus, create the type of community they desire, including the role of a locally sustainable food system. Agriculture and the food system are commonly overlooked as communities define their futures. Agricultural land is preserved for its open space rather than for its economic potential to provide diverse local foods to satisfy consumer demand or to support a locally vibrant economy and quality of life. The desired long-term outcome for Extension educators and communities is to build community consensus in order to develop a common vision for a sustainable local food system. This project will provide Extension educators with the knowledge, program resources, and strategies a) to facilitate community conversations and b) to seek greater media coverage regarding the local food system.

This project will provide the foundation on which to expand Extension programming on the local food system through collaboration with other organizations in their communities. During 2003, an e-survey of field-based Extension educators in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania was carried out and the Project Advisory Council became active. The intent of both initiatives is to enhance the capacity of Extension educators in collaboration with others in their communities to carry out local food system programming.

A locally vibrant agriculture is part of a community’s economic viability and quality of life for all residents, not only for those in agricultural production. Nevertheless, agriculture and the food system are commonly overlooked as communities define their futures. Agricultural land tends to be preserved for its open space rather than for its economic potential to provide diverse local foods to satisfy consumer demand or to support a locally vibrant economy and quality of life. Few counties or municipalities in Pennsylvania include agriculture in their planning. In fact, both county and municipal planners in Pennsylvania(Abel, 2000) have indicated that incorporating food system issues into the planning process is likely to occur only through government mandates, citizen pressure, or expanded funding. Such outcomes can best be influenced by public actions at the local level.

Extension educators can respond to such local community interests. To facilitate Extension’s involvement on the local food system in their communities, Extension educators should be aware of their views on the food system and those of their colleagues as well as their perceived support for such programming within Cooperative Extension and their communities.

During 2003, an e-survey of field-based Extension educators in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania was carried out (Milestone 2). These educators provided their perspectives on food system issues in their communities, their involvement with such issues, as well as community and organizational support and barriers regarding such programming within their communities. In October, the three-state Project Advisory Council involving field-based educators met to discuss the e-survey and its program implications, programming resources, and strategies to strengthen programming on food system issues within communities (Milestone 1).

Objectives/Performance Targets

Performance targets (Milestone 4) are defined in the project proposal. Success for this project is defined as an increase in appropriate community-defined initiatives that support continuing public dialogue on a sustainable local food system. The specific initiatives Extension educators and community collaborators undertake will be based on their own communities’ current involvement in such concerns.

Those involved in local action to address food system issues might a) initiate a process in the community to identify assets and needs for a sustainable local food system; b) determine the type, structure, and inclusiveness of community groups that may already exist and could explore food system issues at the community level; c) work in collaboration with community groups to initiate local programming on relevant food system issues; d) initiate contacts to expand media coverage of local food system issues; e) seek resources to expand community dialogue on the local food system.

Multiple strategies will be used to accomplish project objectives. Survey research, educational (in-service) workshops, specialist support, and engaging Extension educators currently involved in such programming will be the principle strategies employed.

Accomplishments/Milestones

Milestone 1. Establish a multi-state Extension Educators’ Project Advisory Council.

Extension educators in each state have been identified to provide input to the project through this Council in order to ensure that educational strategies are appropriate at the community level, regardless of state. These educators represent the mix of extension program areas as well as the geographical diversity of each state. Their insights regarding local needs and interests and interpretation of community level data are intended to ensure more responsive, educational programs across the participating states.

At the October Project Advisory Council meeting, members reported e-survey results for each state and discussed their implications as well as shared resources to support local programming on the food system. Another outcome was to establish on-going communication and resource exchanges among participants. A conference call among Council members in the three states is scheduled for mid-January. Project personnel in New Jersey and New York are developing a compendium of resources on food system programming.

Milestone 2. Conduct a baseline electronic survey among field-based Extension educators in each participating state.

This survey will determine the perceptions of Extension educators regarding public engagement with food system issues within their states as well as assess their own participation in food system programming.

In January 2003, the e-survey supported by TestPilot through Penn State was piloted with field-based Extension educators in a neighboring state. In late February-March, the e-survey was carried out among Extension educators in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, 90 field-based educators were invited to respond to the survey; 40 responded for a 45% response rate. In New York, 296 were e-mailed the survey; 79 responded for a 27% response rate. In Pennsylvania, 81 of 203 replied for a 40% response rate.

Responses to the e-survey indicate that Extension educators across all three states perceive each of the 21 local food system issues to be “important.” Yet importance alone cannot determine program focus. Extension educators must respond to community-defined needs regarding the food system. Demographic variables such as gender, primary area of program responsibility, previous involvement with food systems programming, rural-urban counties, and extension region (district) of the Extension educators are of strategic importance to local programming on the food system. Just as different issues resonate with different stakeholders, similar diversity exists among Extension educators. Such differences must be acknowledged as programs are defined and implemented.

Each state is continuing to analyze responses to the e-survey for their own state as well as determine how this information and its implications can be shared in order to be most useful for their own educators.

Milestone 3. Implement in-state in-services focusing on strategies to enhance community dialogue and media coverage on locally relevant food system issues.

Each state has addressed this project through workshops for Extension personnel. In New Jersey, a Project Advisory Council meeting was held and the Extension Administrative Council was updated on the project. At the 2003 Agriculture In-service and the Fall Update for Food and Nutrition Education in Communities in New York, multidisciplinary, cross program initiatives which focus on food system issues were requested in order to identify models for community-based programming in this area. A presentation was also made at the Association of Cornell Cooperative Extension Employees’ annual conference.

To introduce this project to Extension educators in Pennsylvania, a March 2003 in-service entitled “Implementing Community-Based Conversations on the Local Food System” was held. Preliminary data from the e-survey was presented at a “Maintaining Agriculture in Your Community” in-service and at retreats held by Extension community development educators during the year. Results from the e-survey and their programming implications will be discussed at the community development in-service in mid-January 2004 as well as at the spring 2004 in-service “Consumers Can Change Their Local Food Systems!”

Building on the diverse interests and expertise within communities can strengthen the resulting community efforts. A local food system reflects the community of which it is a part. All who are involved in this food system must participate in creating a shared vision of the local food system in order to develop consensus on, as well as acceptance of, local action. Defining the community’s “food future” depends on such engagement.

Homitzky, Claire (2003). “Introduction to the Edible Connections model for community dialogue of food and farming issues.” Presented to the Advisory Board of the MidAtlantic States Food Systems Education Center, Pennsville, New Jersey, October 22.

Homitzky, Claire (2003). “Lessons Learned from IFAFS Farm-to-School Projects in New Jersey.” Panel at the annual conference of the Community Food Security Coalition, Boston, November 4.

Thomson, Joan (2003). “Interest in Heightening the Visibility of Local Foods? Strengthening Local Agricultural Viability?” Community, Food, and Agriculture Program News, 11:4:11. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Fall.

Thomson, J.S., R. Radhakrishna, and L. Inciong. (2003). “Extension Educators’ Perspectives on Local Food System Issues: Implications for Extension Research and Programming.” Paper under review for 2004 National Agricultural Education Research Conference.

Wilkins, J. (2003). “NY Farm to School Program: Linking Farms and Schools.” Eat Well, Play Hard Regional Conference, Poughkeepsie, NY, October 14.

______ (2003). “Building Partnership for NYS Farm-to-School from Day One.” Panel at the conference of the annual Community Food Security Coalition, Boston, November 4.

Wilkins, Jennifer. (2003). “Lessons Learned from IFAFS Farm-to-School Projects in NYS.” Panel at the annual conference of the Community Food Security Coalition, Boston, November 4.

______ (2003). “Farm to School Cafeteria—Linking Health and Agriculture,” Session 3: Consumers, Marketing, Food Away From Home, LEAD-NY, November 7.

______ (2003). Farm-to-School Round Table for NYS Senator Selland, District 43,
Rhinebeck, November 13.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

Community-initiated programming, the foundation of this project, requires a longer time line than two years. Building capacity at the local level is a long-term, continuing challenge too often overlooked.

Abel, J.L. (2000). “Assessing the Involvement of Pennsylvania Professional Planners in Food System Activities.” Master’s thesis, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Penn State University, University Park, PA.

Collaborators: