Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Annual Progress Report
April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008
“Creating vibrant communities that support access to locally grown, healthy, affordable food and
safe places for physical activity and play—for everyone.”
Grantee Name: Public Health – Seattle & King County
Director of Project: Erin MacDougall
Phone: (206) 263‐8804
Email: erin.macdougall@kingcounty.gov
Date: May 14, 2008
Prepared by Sylvia Kantor, Washington State University King County Extension with Erin MacDougall and
Jim Krieger, Public Health Seattle & King County; and Brad Gaolach and Maggie Anderson, Washington
State University King County Extension.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Report Narrative KCFFI Year 1 ...................................................................................................................... 3
A. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3
B. Progress on Work Plan .......................................................................................................................... 3
C. Additional Unplanned Objectives or Activities ................................................................................... 11
D. Additional Information ....................................................................................................................... 12
Financial Report – See Financial Report file (to be provided by Linda Schwartz) ...................................... 19
Work Plan – Year 2 ‐‐ See Work Plan file .................................................................................................... 19
Evaluation Report ‐‐ See Evaluation Report file .......................................................................................... 19
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 19
A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees .................................................................... 19
B. Visioning Exercises Data ..................................................................................................................... 19
C. Youth Engagement Report .................................................................................................................. 19
Key to Abbreviations
CP ‐ Collaborative Partners
DNDA ‐ Delridge Neighborhood Development Association
IDHA ‐ International District Housing Alliance
KCFFI ‐ King County Food and Fitness Initiative
LC ‐ Leadership Council
PHSKC ‐ Public Health – Seattle & King County
WSU KCE ‐ Washington State University King County Extension
WC CDA ‐ White Center Community Development Association
2
Report Narrative KCFFI Year 1
A. Summary
The King County Food and Fitness Initiative has made significant progress toward its two major goals to
1) establish a strong, representative Collaborative based on democratic, inclusive, and participatory
principles and 2) develop a community action plan. Emphasis in Year 1 was to establish the Collaborative
and the Leadership Council, identify focus communities, engage youth, and put into place the structures
needed to develop the community action plan. Toward the end of Year 1 the decision was made to
transfer the grant to Washington State University in order to make more funding available for work in
the focus communities.
B. Progress on Work Plan
Goal 1 (Create a King County Food and Fitness Collaborative)
Outcome 1.1: A strong, representative Collaborative based on democratic, inclusive, and
participatory principles plans, implements, and sustains the KCFFI.
Objective 1.1.1: A collaborative composed of organizations and individuals from diverse sectors of
food, fitness, built environment systems.
The KCFFI currently consists of over 120 people representing 56 diverse organizations.
Objective 1.1.2: Formalized Collaborative Leadership Council structure and governance procedures.
Benchmark: CP's approve the bylaws to establish and guide council:
Bylaws were approved by the Leadership Council on 1/31/08.
Benchmark: Leadership Council established:
The Leadership Council (LC) was established via a broad call for applicants and a collaborative voting
process. Recruitment efforts focused on seeking diversity both of individual attributes (race, gender,
ethnicity, etc) and food system and built environment representation. Initially, eleven people
comprised the LC and they held their first meeting on 1/31/08. Two members, Rebecca Deehr,
FeetFirst and Amy White, YMCA of Greater Seattle volunteered to serve as interim co‐chairs until the
council was fully populated. As of April 2008, seven more members from the two focus communities
joined the LC for a total of 18 members. This two‐stage process was intentional. Because our proposal
listed eight potential focus communities, to be reduced to two by year one, we wanted to ensure that
we had the LC in place as soon as possible. Seats at the LC table were held for additional members
from the communities selected. To help recruit a broad diversity of members, we established the
ability for members who so chose to receive a stipend for their participation.
Benchmark: Documented Leadership Council decisions (and process):
The LC has held three meetings since its inception. Key decisions include approving bylaws and a
decision making process, selecting interim co‐chairs, approving the application form for focus
community members to join the LC, approving community members on the LC, and approving the fiscal
agency change to WSU. See Appendix A for detail.
Objective 1.1.3: Collaborative Partners are engaged in planning and decision making process
Benchmark: Working group members, topics, and timetables are identified:
Current work groups include the Youth Engagement Team and the Assessment Team. The Youth
Engagement Team involves approximately 14 Collaborative Partner organizations and the Assessment
3
Team is comprised of researchers and students (and Collaborative Partners) from the University of
Washington, Washington State University, Children’s Hospital, Group Health Community Foundation
(KCFFI Evaluators), and Public Health‐Seattle and King County. Other working groups were not
identified in Year 1, in part because of the focus on establishing the Leadership Council and selecting
the two focus communities which was done by smaller, ad hoc groups of Collaborative Partners to
assist with each of the processes. However, planning groups are developing in the two focus
communities to develop the Community Action Plan.
Benchmark: Working groups interface regularly with the Leadership Council:
The Youth Engagement Coordinator attends the Leadership Council meetings and will likely become a
formal member in the near future. The Assessment Team has yet to have a formal interface with the LC
but there was some informal interaction of five of the team members at our community‐wide meeting
and celebration on 4/23/08.
Benchmark: In person meetings (See Appendix A for details): No. of Meetings
The whole Collaborative met to share information, to make decisions (about
developing a Request for Application (RFA) for youth engagement, bylaws for the 6
Leadership Council, and to plan and conduct the site selection process), and to
learn about and share visions for food and fitness.
Youth serving organizations met to discuss how to engage youth and how to best
utilize funding for youth engagement. One meeting was held after the youth 6+
coordinator was hired in February. The youth coordinator held several meetings
with youth in preparation for the youth conference in Arizona in March 2008. The
Youth Engagement Team met once after the conference in Seattle on March 31,
2008.
The Assessment Team met in the summer, fall and winter in Year 1 to develop an 3
assessment plan and compile a comprehensive set of assessment questions.
The Co‐conveners scheduled bi‐monthly meetings and conference calls and has 12‐18
met at least monthly since the grant began.
Outcome 1.2: Collaborative Partners understand how their work relates to common goals outside of
their focus areas.
Objective 1.2.1 Collaborative Partners share a common understanding of food and fitness
In August 2007, to begin to develop a shared understanding of the attributes of a community-based food
system Collaborative Partners were asked to answer the question: What does food access, affordability,
healthy, and local mean to you? A diverse set of responses were recorded and are posted on the KCFFI
web site.
During their visit in November 2007, the TAP Team facilitated a visioning exercise with Collaborative
Partners. Some of the shared visions that resulted include:
• Families have enough resources & time to eat and play together in their own communities
• Neighborhoods we live in are close together (walkable), have easy access to healthy foods, and
inspire us to engage in physical activity with our neighbors and take care of this place.
• Our collaborative is cohesive and respected: legislative bodies turn to KCFFI for guidance in
policy making.
• Every community & city would have a commission focusing on health & fitness.
• More access to physical activity & nutrition awareness—broad engaged community with equal
access to food/health resources.
• Healthy food is as accessible as fast food.
4
On February 19, 2008, a structured group discussion was held with the Leadership Council of the King
County Food and Fitness Initiative. The purpose was to collect an inventory of current activities,
strategies, programs and policies on healthy local eating and physical activity in King County. Emerging
themes included:
• Strong sense of motivation – “kids want to move”, “immigrant populations come together
around food”, activities and policies are being promoted at many levels, CBOs and government
agencies are talking about these issues.
• A lot of opportunities to build off of existing programs across all domains.
• Delridge and White Center have a lot of community based assessment work, maps of physical
environment, parks, gardens, etc.
• Funding is, as always, considered a barrier to program and policy development and
implementation.
• Cost and lack of availability of healthy local food are considered barriers in the focus
communities.
• Existing collaborations such as YMCA, Parks and Recreation Departments and schools can be
strengthened and supported.
• More information needed on youth perspectives on these domains – can be collected from the
Youth Serving organizations.
See Appendix B. Visioning Exercises Data
In addition to specific activities to develop a shared vision, other activities, such as presentations at
Collaborative Partner and Leadership Council meetings, the KCFFI website and newsletter, and
announcements and invitations to events related to FFI goals, were also sent out to the collaborative.
Examples of events and activities promoted by the KCFFI include:
• Public meetings about the Local Food Action Initiative
• Speaking engagements with Wayne Roberts, Michael Pollan, and Francis Moore Lappé
• Community events such as the Sustainable West Seattle Fair and Delridge Days
• Planning for the National Pro Walk/ Pro Bike Conference to be held in Seattle
• Seattle’s Pedestrian Master Plan
• Seattle Walks
• The National Public Health Week walks
• Bike to Work/School Month Urban Sustainability forums on healthy parks, schools,
communities and social and health equity
• All help to increase understanding of common FFI goals.
Benchmark: New links between organizations, communities and activities are forged:
The KCFFI has brought together 56 organizations many of which were already linked and many of
which were not. Connections have been made between organizations focused on food with those
focused on the built environment and physical activity. In addition, youth organizations have made
new connections with other youth organizations and with other Collaborative Partners. Through the
Delridge Neighborhood Development Association and the White Center Community Development
Association, Collaborative Partners are connecting to the focus communities.
Objective 1.2.2 Collaboration on shared projects or policy work
Many Collaborative Partners engaged in policy work that resulted in two key outcomes.
Local Food Action Initiative
City of Seattle Council Chair, Richard Conlin introduced a food system sustainability resolution with
5
priority areas identified by the Acting Food Policy Council and the City of Seattle Interdepartmental
Team for Food System Enhancement. The Local Food Action Initiative, which passed April 28,
2008, is a series of actions meant to promote local and regional food sustainability and security.
The intent is to improve our local food system and in doing so, advance the City of Seattle’s
interrelated goals of race and social justice, environmental sustainability, economic development,
and emergency preparedness.
Local Farms Healthy Kids Bill
Passed by Washington State Legislature in March 2008. Enhances efforts for local food
procurement in schools and other state institutions; establishes statewide Farm to School program;
ensures funding for low income residents through farmers market nutrition program and
technology at farmers markets; establishes state version of fresh fruit and vegetables program in
schools; pilots a farm to food banks program.
Outcome 1.3: Internal communication: Collaborative Partners are aware of all KCFFI activities
Objective 1.3.1 Networking, communication, and information sharing among Collaborative Partners
and others interested in food and fitness.
Benchmark: Internal communications strategy:
Meetings:
Updates are provided at all meetings. Regular meetings include 1) Co‐conveners ‐ twice a month; 2)
Leadership Council – monthly; 3) Youth Group – monthly; 4) Collaborative Partners – quarterly; 5)
Assessment Team – as needed.
Web pages:
Web page traffic has increased significantly since the beginning of the grant period. For all of 2007 (9
months) the site received 1,123 visitors, an average of 124 visits per month. From January through
March 2008 the site has received 700 visitors, an average of 233 per month.
Print and electronic media:
• Established the kcfficollaborative list serve in September 2007 which currently hosts 172
members.
• Developed internal co‐convener distribution group.
• Established separate list serve for the Leadership Council.
Developed email protocol to manage quality and quantity of email generated to the
Collaborative.
• Established biweekly electronic newsletter KCFFI News Reel to provide updates and information
to Collaborative Partners in an organized fashion.
• Developed graphic identity for print and electronic media (brochures, flyers, etc.).
Formal Presentations:
• Overview of the KCFFI presented at the Food and Fitness National Advisory Committee meeting,
December 2007 for the 11‐ member committee including 5 local co‐conveners and 3 Oakland
HOPE collaborative staff.
• Overview of the KCFFI presented at WSU at Benaroya Hall Alumni event attended by over 300
people.
• Poster presentation at Miami, FL Food and Fitness Co‐Convener’s Meeting titled “The Flow of
Community Action Planning,” presented in front of more than 65 attendees.
Outcome 1.4: Youth members are engaged in the KCFFI and the Collaborative
Objective 1.4.1 Funding to support youth engagement.
6
Benchmark: Submit proposal to Seattle Foundation:
On behalf of the KCFFI, WSU KCE received $50,000 from the Seattle Foundation Community Grant
Making Program to support youth engagement in the Community Action Planning process of the KCFFI.
Grant funds support a subcontract to coordinate youth engagement as well as training, workshops,
travel and stipends for youth.
Objective 1.4.2 Youth engagement plan for planning phase (See Appendix C for details).
Benchmark: Develop preliminary plan for engaging youth.
Four meetings with Youth Organizations in the KCFFI Collaborative were held to get input from youth
serving organizations about how youth can be involved in the Initiative and how the Youth Engagement
funding might be used. The scope of work for the IDHA subcontract specifies that youth will
participate in at least four assessment activities (one on the built environment in each focus
community and one on the food system in each community), that youth will be recruited to participate
in appropriate working groups, and that one or two youth‐focused workshops will be produced.
Objective 1.4.3 Coordination of youth engagement efforts.
Benchmark: Hire youth engagement coordinator:
The subcontract was awarded to the International District Housing Alliance (IDHA) in the amount of
$30,000. (See attached subcontract). The IDHA is working with youth in the focus communities as well
as youth associated with Collaborative Partners who are interested in participating in the KCFFI
planning process.
Objective 1.4.4 Opportunities for youth to participate in planning phase.
Benchmark: Youth/Community members have representation on the Leadership Council:
Organizations that serve youth are represented on the Leadership Council; however, due to scheduling
difficulties, it has not been practical for youth to attend Leadership Council meetings.
In March 2008, five youth ages 14 ‐20 traveled to Arizona with the IDHA youth coordinator to attend a
four day youth orientation conference with the other eight FFI communities.
The Youth Engagement Team is working with the Assessment Team to identify appropriate assessment
questions, tools, and activities for youth participation and leadership.
Objective 1.4.5 Youth serve on Leadership Council and on working groups as appropriate.
Benchmark: draft recommendation for youth engagement:
With the establishment of the Youth Engagement Team, fueled by participation in the youth
conference in Arizona, a youth engagement plan is under development. Youth are being recruited to
participate in KCFFI assessment activities for Summer 2008. One youth participated in the site selection
process.
Outcome 1.5: The Collaborative is sustained beyond the grant period.
Objective 1.5.1: Sustainability plan and timeline for implementation developed.
Benchmark: Partners are routinely informed and aware of collaborative activities:
Regular updates are provided via meetings, list serves, and a bimonthly electronic newsletter.
Potential problems are anticipated, decision‐making perceived to be fair:
Every reasonable attempt has been made to ensure decision‐making is perceived as fair and
transparent.
The process to fill seats on the Leadership Council included a strong effort to recruit diverse members
7
in terms of demographics and sectors, while ensuring seats were set aside for members of the focus
communities once the sites were selected. The site selection process included representatives from all
potential focus communities on the site selection committee.
The youth engagement subcontract opportunity was promoted to all Collaborative Partners and WSU
King County Extension recused itself from the selection process to avoid any perception of conflict of
interest should their 4‐H Program decide to apply.
With co‐conveners being responsible for much of the initial decision‐making, we anticipated it could be
challenging to build leadership capacity of the Leadership Council once it was established. We are
developing strategies to address this situation such as creating an executive committee, finding ways to
ensure LC members have the information they need to make intelligent decisions, and preparing and
encouraging the interim co‐chairs to accept more authority.
Benchmark: Funding opportunities identified and grant applications prepared:
The Seattle Foundation Community Grantmaking Program awarded $50,000 to support youth
engagement in the KCFFI.
Additional funding opportunities will be explored and developed in Year 2.
Objective 1.5.2: Funding and other resources are identified to sustain the effort.
At the end of Year 1, a decision was made to transfer fiscal agency to Washington State University in
order to make more funding available for the Initiative, funding that otherwise had been needed to
cover indirect costs that King County was charging to Public Health Seattle and King County. WSU is
able to absorb indirect costs. Additional funding opportunities will be explored and developed in Year
2.
Outcome 1.6: KCFFI is recognized among the general public, media, and local decision makers
Objective 1.6.1: External communications strategy for the Collaborative
Web page, listserve, at least six meetings with high‐level city and county staff working in
transportation, parks, neighborhoods, economic development and community planning about KCFFI.
Approximately six meetings in the focus communities thus far to communicate about the initiative and
to garner interest and participation. At least 12 of our Collaborative Partners have been mentioned in
print or at public meetings about KCFFI including Full Circle Farm owner, Andrew Stout at a press
conference with the County Executive for Eat Local for Thanksgiving kick off in Nov 2007; updates on
KCFFI in newsletters sent by non‐profit organization partners since the grant was funded; and public
testimony to Seattle City Council on the Local Food Action Initiative in April 2008; article and editorial
published in Seattle PI on May 1 and 2, 2008 highlighting the work of KCFFI around access to healthy
foods.
In addition, co‐conveners have conducted numerous in person meetings with Collaborative Partners,
media, and others to develop and build the relationships necessary for sustaining the KCFFI and to raise
awareness of KCFFI efforts.
Goal II (Develop a community action plan)
Outcome 2.1: The Collaborative focuses planning efforts on two communities.
Objective 2.1.1: Two communities in which to focus planning and implementation change actions are
identified.
Benchmark: Decision made to uncouple site selection process from process to form leadership council:
Advantages of uncoupling the Site Selection process from establishing the Leadership Council include:
• The Site Selection Committee would be temporary with the sole function of selecting two focus
8
communities, and would not make any longer‐term decisions about change actions,
membership, or resources
• Participation on the Site Selection Committee by Collaborative Partners from the eight
geographic areas, community based organizations, and members of the Assessment Team
would provide a holistic assessment of applications based on agreed upon criteria.
• The Leadership Council can form sooner and begin planning for the regional and county wide
policy assessment and youth engagement, without waiting for the two sites to be selected.
Seats on the LC for members from the two focus communities will be reserved.
The unanimous decision to uncouple the site selection committee from the leadership council was
made on November 14, 2007 by the collaborative partners.
Benchmark: Site Selection RFA drafted and circulated:
The draft RFA was first discussed at the November 14, 2007 Collaborative Partner meeting, and there
was agreement that the final selection of appropriate questions would be made by the members of the
Site Selection Committee for the sake of fairness and equal representation. The final RFA (eventually
dubbed an RFQ) was released after the comment/revision period on December 31, 2007 with a
deadline for application of January 31, 2008.
KCFFI staff arranged meetings with many of the interested potential focus communities (Kent, Federal
Way, SeaTac, Tukwila) in preparation for the site selection process. These meetings were well attended
by municipal staff, in some cases, from several departments including human services, parks, youth,
planning, and elected officials.
The site selection committee was formed with specific membership guidelines including
representatives from each of the potential focus communities as well as a youth member, sector
representation, and representation from the Assessment Team. The committee met twice: once to
determine the RFQ guidelines and once to select the two focus communities.
Delridge and White Center were selected on February 11, 2008.
Outcome 2.2: Focus communities are aware of KCFFI activities
Objective 2.2.1: Communications strategy for the two communities
Benchmark: List of communication venues and key organizations as well as types of effective
communication methods:
The communication strategy for the two focus communities is integrated with communication across
the Collaborative. We use bimonthly newsletters, email, list serves, in person meetings, and phone
calls to communicate with the focus communities.
Benchmark: List of best practices:
The focus community lead organizations (DNDA, WC CDA) know their residents well and utilize web
and personal communication methods to regularly communicate in their neighborhoods.
Benchmark: Interpretation needs identified and costs estimated:
This benchmark has not been achieved yet. However, DNDA and WC CDA have past experience with
planning and outreach in their communities, so they know what languages are spoken by residents that
would be engaged in this new effort in their communities.
Outcome 2.3: Planning priorities are aligned with community values
Objective 2.3.1 Diverse community members are engaged in the KCFFI and the Collaborative once
communities are selected. The focus communities were selected in February 2008, and efforts to
engage community members have started in Year 1 but are really expanding in Year 2. However, the
outreach conducted in White Center and Delridge prior to selecting them as the focus communities
served as a foundation for further outreach in those two neighborhoods. In addition, the IDHA is
9
working with youth organizations in the Collaborative and in the focus communities to recruit and
engage diverse youth members. The Delridge Neighborhood Development Association and the White
Center Community Development Association are well connected to the local communities and provide
critical community engagement.
Benchmark: Assessment of venues and times that work to accommodate community members:
This is done in conjunction with the DNDA and WC DNA who are most familiar with what works in their
communities.
Benchmark: Translation needs identified:
DNDA and WC CDA are aware of translation needs and will communicate them to the KCFFI as needed.
Benchmark: Two cultural competency trainings conducted:
These will be conducted in Year 2.
Outcome 2.4: The Collaborative has increased understanding of the assets and opportunities for
change in food and fitness
Objective 2.4.1: Data on the status of the food system and built and social environments to identify
assets, gaps, redundancies, and opportunities as it pertains to King County, Puget Sound, and
Washington State.
Benchmark: A list of questions that get at what we already know and what we want to know
A list of initial questions was developed by the Assessment Team and discussed with FFI Leadership.
The Assessment Team then reviewed domains and items for assessment based on the TAP Team
Planning Guide Series, other reports on food systems and built environment assessments, the domains
identified in the HEAL Convergence Partnership project, review of assessment items on multiple
websites (e.g. PolicyLink, Prevention Institute ENACT Database, Active Living/Healthy Eating by Design,
etc) and assessment tools in the published literature. These were placed in a matrix that related initial
questions to assessment items. Assessment Team members reviewed the matrix and selected priority
measures based on relevance to the FFI project and feasibility of obtaining and analyzing data. The
matrix will next be reviewed by Leadership Council members and focus community leaders for
relevance and a final set of indicators will be compiled.
Benchmark: A list of associated assessment tools
Assessment tools identified thus far include:
‐ Multiple secondary data sets (BRFSS, police crime reports, DOT data and multiple other GIS data sets
[see original application for list of UW Urban Form Lab data sets]),
‐ School secondary data (free/reduced lunch participation, safe routes to schools, recess policies,
wellness policies, farm to school programs)‐
‐ Parks and green space equity mapping (using TPL tools)
‐ Description of community gardens, urban farms, CSAs, Farmers Markets (website review, Eat Well
Guide, Ag Census, KI interviews)
‐ Restaurant location mapping and menu audit (in conjunction with PHSKC evaluation of menu labeling
regulation)
‐ Key informant interviews to elicit perspectives on issues, assets, gaps, redundancies and suggested
actions
‐ Local policy scan
A report is presented to the LC with gaps, redundancies and opportunities
Initial secondary data will be gathered and presented to the LC and focus community leads along with
list of assessment indicators. Revisions to the indicators will be made by LC and others and the
Assessment Team will revise their work as appropriate.
10
Objective 2.4.2: Data on the status of the food system and built and social environments to identify
assets, gaps, redundancies, and opportunities as it pertains to the two focus communities.
Benchmarks: A list of associated assessment tools
Assessment tools identified thus far include:
• Walking and bike audits in focus communities
• Photovoice in focus communities (youth activity)
‐School audit (built environment inspection, food environment observation and interview,
hand raise survey in classrooms)
• Parks audit
Community center audit (observation and interview)
• Food market basket assessment
‐Food store audit
Outcome 2.5: Draft CAP document and present to Collaborative Year 2 Activity
Objective 2.5.1: Information on best and promising strategies to strengthen assets and address
issues identified by the Collaborative.
Benchmark: Initial list of strategies.
Outcome 2.6: Change actions reflect the values of the Collaborative. Year 2 Activity
Objective 2.6.1: Assessment of strategies for alignment with these values
Benchmark: Set of criteria recommended to the LC for approval.
Objective 2.6.2: Policy recommendations.
Benchmark: Collection of policies and status of their implementation
Objective 2.6.3: A comprehensive Community Action Plan that prioritizes strategies and defines roles
and accountabilities for implementation.
Benchmark: Initial list of strategies ranked by ability to meet criteria.
Benchmark: Description of roles for each strategy.
Benchmark: A report is presented to LC which presents potential impact of potential strategies and
activities for the implementation plan
Presentation of draft CAP to LC.
C. Additional Unplanned Objectives or Activities
Identify and report on any additional significant objectives or activities that were not included in the
original Workplan.
Eat Local for Thanksgiving – August‐November 2007. This was a successful community wide campaign
that the KCFFI partnered with other organizations and coalitions to launch for the first time in King
County. This garnered support by local elected officials and residents to highlight the importance of food
assets and barriers in our region around building a local, sustainable food system.
Local Farms Healthy Kids Bill – passed by Washington State Legislature in March 2008. Enhances efforts
for local food procurement in schools and other state institutions; establishes statewide Farm to School
11
program; ensures funding for low income residents through farmers market nutrition program and
technology at farmers markets; establishes state version of fresh fruit and vegetables program in
schools; pilots a farm to food banks program.
City of Seattle Local Food Action Initiative – city resolution sets a broad and comprehensive policy
framework for the City of Seattle to make addressing food a priority and is a first step to the formation
of an official food policy council.
WSU King County Extension Filming for Hmong Family Farms Youth Project – The purpose of this
project is to engage Hmong youth in helping the Hmong family farms of King County develop sustainable
agricultural practices. With the kids' help, WSU KCE is creating demonstrative, instructional videos to
enhance Hmong farming businesses and help develop sustainable skills in agriculture.
D. Additional Information
Specifically address your responses to the evaluation questions within the context of the annual report.
What types of partnerships have developed at the local, state, and national levels to support the
development of action plans to promote environmental and policy change strategies?
See item #5 in next section.
Describe the partnerships in the community collaborative that are being established to reflect the
racial and ethnic diversity of the community.
The International Housing District Alliance is subcontracted to coordinate diverse youth engagement
and is partnering with the Delridge Neighborhood Development Association, the White Center
Community Development Association, and other organizations that reflect the diversity of the
community. IDHA is a multicultural organization that has a long history of working with over 15 ethnic
groups. Their youth leadership program gives young people the opportunity to develop their leadership
skills by providing multilingual education and creating and implementing community‐driven solutions to
environmental justice issues.
Ethnically diverse members of the communities and partner organizations serve on the Leadership
Council and Collaborative Partners.
• 4 men/ 14 women (22% Male and 78% Female)
• 2/18 (11% African American)
• 10/18 identified as Caucasian (55%)
• 2/18 (11% Asian/ Pacific Islander)
• 2/18 (11% Hispanic)
• 3/18 (Identify as being more than 1 ethnicity of non‐Hispanic origin)
To what extent and how have youth leaders been engaged and participated in the community action
planning process?
See attached youth engagement progress report.
To what extent have grassroots community‐based organizations and leadership been involved in
decision‐making regarding the community action plan?
Since the focus communities were only selected in February 2008, grassroots leadership in those
communities is underway, building on existing relationships and past planning processes. See Objective
2.3.1 for a description of community groups involved in the focus community selection process.
12
What concrete efforts illustrate the bridging of the local food systems, physical activity and built
environment, and public health sectors in the action planning process? The assessment process has
included experts in all of these sectors. Through collaborative assessment work, each sector has
contributed its distinct assessment approaches and data. Often, members of each sector were not
aware of the approaches and data commonly used by the other sectors.
How is the collaborative addressing the social and health inequities related to access to local healthy
foods and safe environments for physical activity?
‐providing data in the assessment process that documents these inequities
‐emphasizing elimination of inequities and social justice as core FFI values
‐openly discussing the challenges in balancing the sometimes competing goals of making affordable
healthy food available in low‐income communities and supporting local farmers
‐selecting focus communities that are especially affected by social and health inequities
What types of strategies are in the community action plan to strengthen family and community
interaction?
We are too early in the development of the action plan to name strategies at this time.
Describe the leadership development and community capacity building activities that are emerging in
the work. What are the future plans?
The Leadership Council offers a way to develop leadership among Collaborative Partners and community
members.
Community Planning groups will help to build capacity in Delridge and White Center.
IDHA will conduct training for youth to develop leadership and understanding of food and fitness issues.
What activity has occurred to assess opportunities for local and state policy change?
• Local/state policy scan from NW Nonprofit Resources which has been contracted by the Kellogg
Foundation to provide information on the policy and advocacy environment in Washington.
• Collaboration with Children’s Alliance statewide obesity policy prevention project. This project is
in its initial year of planning with the support from local funders including the Seattle Foundation,
the WA Dental Service Foundation, and the Washington Health Foundation. The aim is to engage
stakeholders statewide in developing a roadmap for statewide policy in the coming years to
address childhood obesity in Washington State; modeled on learning from the Strategic Alliance in
California.
• Work with Acting Food Policy Council which has developed a series of food policy issue papers on:
The Farm Bill, Eating Local for Thanksgiving, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Food, and Mapping
Food Access in Seattle and King County.
• The development and passage of the Local Food Action Initiative by City Councilmember Richard
Conlin has created a food policy framework within which the KCFFI can leverage policy
development activities.
• ENACT, NCSL and other HEAL related databases that have been developed to inventory local and
state policies related to Healthy Eating and Active Living with information on research and
best/promising practices.
How is communication being used as a tool to support systems change?
We promote connectivity to a broad array of enrichment opportunities through email and web site and
provide easily accessible links to partner organizations to promote system connectivity. We use list
serves as a means to also promote discussion of issues. See Outcomes 1.5 and 2.2.
13
In addition, if not already addressed, please respond to the following:
1. What unanticipated outcomes did you experience?
Food and Fitness Indicators and Public Health
Public Health Seattle and King County is working to incorporate indicators used in the KCFFI
assessment into routinely used community health assessment measures.
Eat Local for Thanksgiving
The Eat Local for Thanksgiving campaign raised awareness of the value of eating locally grown food
by focusing on actionable change people could make for Thanksgiving. People were asked to pledge
to include at least one locally grown item in their Thanksgiving menu.
Over 2300 pledges were made.
Local Farms, Health Kids Legislation Passed
The Washington Environmental Council – a coalition of over 65 environmental organizations –
selected the Local Farms, Health Kids legislation as one of four of their environmental Priorities for a
Healthy Washington for 2008. The Local Farms‐Healthy Kids legislation achieved bi‐partisan
support in land‐slide votes. The initiative was supported by a broad and diverse coalition
representing the environmental, farming, school and public health communities. The Local Farms
Health Kids Act establishes a state Farm to School Program within the Washington State Department
of Agriculture and a Washington Grown Fresh Fruits and Vegetables grant program for schools. It
also sets up a Farm to Food Bill pilot program and provides funding for better access to farmers
markets for those receiving WIC and senior citizen benefits.
Local Food Action Initiative
City of Seattle Council Chair, Richard Conlin drafted a food system sustainability resolution with
priority areas identified by the Acting Food Policy Council and the City of Seattle Interdepartmental
Team for Food System Enhancement. The Local Food Action Initiative is a series of actions meant to
promote local and regional food sustainability and security. The intent is to improve our local food
system and in doing so, advance the City of Seattle’s interrelated goals of race and social justice,
environmental sustainability, economic development, and emergency preparedness.
While these outcomes cannot be explicitly linked to the work of the KCFFI alone, they represent a
key aspect of the KCFFI work and Kellogg’s involvement. We presume King County was selected for
funding because the community “is ready” to address the complex and interrelated goals of the FFI.
Therefore, it is expected that other activities are occurring along with the work of the local FFI.
Several CP’s of FFI have already been active in these events and helped to bring FFI activities in line
to support these activities. In addition, the choice of Kellogg to fund the King County FFI in part
added to the existing momentum to help these activities come to fruition. FFI members
participated in the processes that led to these successful efforts.
2. What lessons have you learned from this year’s experiences?
• Creating a collaborative is rooted in strong relationships and relationships take time to develop
and nurture. Although our community has a long history of working in food and fitness, creating
strong relationships has been somewhat challenging because many agencies already had
working relationships and are challenged to find the time/energy/reasons to expand their
14
work/relationships to include either the built environment or the food system focused entities.
The broad, interdisciplinary, holistic approach that the KCFFI requires is outside the comfort
zone or experience of some Collaborative Partners but they are learning and growing as the
Initiative progresses.
• Decision‐making in an inclusive and democratic way also takes time and may be perceived as
less efficient. Due to tight timelines associated with applying for funding and initial activities in
Year 1, many decisions were made by the co‐conveners making it a challenge to transition
decision making to the leadership council because of expectations that developed over time.
• It is important to develop a vision early in the process, yet it has been a challenge to develop a
vision shared by all with the later inclusion of focus community members in the collaborative
and the leadership council. We have not yet determined the extent to which members of the
two focus communities share the vision. We hope to address this through the Organizational
Learning and Systems Thinking meeting in May 2008.
• Though it may have taken more time, including representatives from all eight potential focus
communities in the site selection process allowed for a transparent selection and decision
process. However, we may want to evaluate the process with those communities that were not
selected to see if there are other ways to support them, such as directing future resources and
funding opportunities their way, providing them with technical assistance from FFI and other
Initiatives such as STEPS. It may also be important consider how we could have addressed the
South County sense of exclusion better, and to document other lessons learned from the
selection process.
3. If some planned activities were not accomplished, please note them and explain why.
Planned Activity Explanation
Cultural competency trainings Our efforts in Year 1 focused on building relationships to
establish the Collaborative. Once the Collaborative is a bit
more mature, we hope to offer cultural competency
training.
Collaborative Partner Retreat (scheduled Simply due to timing and workload this was postponed
for April 23, 2008) until April 23, 2008.
Some evaluation activities. See Evaluation Report.
Developing shared values. More work is needed to develop shared values, for
example, balancing values of food justice and support of
local farming mentioned above.
4. What have been the greatest disappointments or obstacles to achieving your progress and how are
they being addressed?
• Activities associated with developing the Collaborative and creating the community action plan
take more time than imagined making it challenging to adhere to work plan objectives and
benchmarks, and to balance inclusiveness with efficiency. As new people join it is a challenge to
bring them up to speed without slowing down existing momentum. Therefore, we are in the
process of developing a communications team that will be tasked not only with external
communications about the FFI but also with internal communications to help bring new
members up to speed quickly without slowing existing momentum in the Initiative.
15
• The Site Selection process took longer than we expected, thus delaying fully seating the
leadership council, beginning assessment work on the focus communities, and creating working
groups that include community members. A challenge in setting criteria for selecting focus
communities arose in defining “readiness” versus “need.” However, open and transparent
process is crucial to establishing a foundation of trust necessary to move the Initiative forward
in the two selected communities while maintaining engagement of the Collaborative Partners in
the communities not selected. These are long term issues to address in any inclusive community
collaborative and we will continue to self‐evaluate and identify solutions.
• Interactions with the TAP Team and Foundation at times have caused confusion when receiving
what appear to be conflicting messages. This has created several downstream challenges for us:
o The funder required attendance at a number of unanticipated meetings, requiring an
unplanned expenditure of time and expenses.
o This was especially problematic for our evaluator’s time to travel to a national
evaluation meeting. Our budget for evaluation was small to begin with and spending
some of it on a national evaluation meeting has impacted our ability to evaluate our
local initiative. As a result, we have had to delay some of our local work and/or reduce
the scope of the work in order to accommodate these additional time commitments.
o The assessment information from the TAP Team came quite late, one year into the
planning process. We have worked hard to integrate as many indicators and more into
our assessment work plan.
o Locally hosted meetings including the TAP site visit, the NAC site visit, and the
Organizational Learning and Systems Thinking training, also required unanticipated and
therefore unbudgeted needs for staff time, Leadership Council member time, and
meeting space and food costs. In year two, we will request a budget amendment from
the Foundation to address these needs.
• Due to changes in WSU’s personnel procedures, hiring our program coordinator took much
longer than anticipated (hired in November instead of July 2007) and resulted in the lead co‐
conveners handling this level work in addition to other responsibilities.
• Concerns have been expressed about local farming being viewed as a “boutique” sector and
therefore not accessible or affordable for everyone. Our assessment activities include gaining
understanding of the barriers farmers in our region face and the role the Initiative may play in
strengthening the food system from production to consumption.
• The size and geography of our collaborative is both an asset and a challenge. The challenge is
communicating and engaging all the players. We are innovative in our use of communication
methods internally and externally and are working to engage as many people as possible with
the staff and in‐kind resources available.
• The KCFFI has a lot of activity and many moving parts to track. In addition, a lot of activity
related to improving food and fitness is occurring in this region making it challenging to define
the specific outcomes related to the KCFFI in this renaissance movement.
• Many Collaborative Partners lean toward programmatic work – and find it difficult to think in
terms of policy and system change. Ongoing conversations and visioning work in the
communities and with partners continue to build a bridge across this gap.
• Work groups have been slow to form as of yet but are starting to take shape as we focus on
products rather than topics. We have emphasized preventing development of comfortable silos
based on knowledge and expertise and this requires working across sectors to make decisions.
We endeavor to provide key background information to the LC members, in particular, to build
their capacity to make informed decisions across food and fitness sectors.
16
• The Assessment work group is currently composed almost entirely of technical experts. We are
working now to include the youth engagement coordinator, community members, and LC
members.
• The Youth group is forming but not yet fully integrated (i.e. working in concert with other work
groups and the Leadership Council). However, we are learning that it is not always appropriate
to try to engage youth in process from the start and it may be more effective (and interesting to
youth) to bring them in after process has lead to clearer objectives and products that are
appropriate for youth.
5. Describe how collaborating with other organizations or institutions is helping or hindering your
progress toward your goals.
The collaboration between Public Health Seattle and King County and WSU King County Extension is
creating new linkages to help people to understand that health and agriculture are connected. This
understanding will be necessary to solve our current food system and health crises. The benefits of
agency infrastructure come with some challenges in that neither organization is truly on the ground in
community on a daily basis.
Collaboration with University of Washington researchers and Group Health Community Foundation
evaluators has created a strong team of technical expertise to guide both assessment and evaluation
work.
Collaboration with the International District Housing Alliance is proving to be successful so far in
engaging youth and developing plans for youth to conduct assessment activities. The IDHA is also
collaborating with 13 Collaborative Partner organizations serving youth.
The White Center Community Development Association and the Delridge Neighborhood Development
Association have become key collaborators since White Center and Delridge were selected as the two
focus communities. They have very strong ties to community networks and organizations, which will
lead to enhanced collaboration between conveners and LC members with community representatives.
In addition to providing funding for youth engagement in the KCFFI, The Seattle Foundation provided
funding ($136,000) to four KCFFI Collaborative Partners for three projects that complement the goals of
the KCFFI.
The Austin Foundation and Treeswing are working collaboratively on a pilot program, Teen
CHAT. They received $41,000 to engage youth in fitness training and leadership development.
By educating kids about health and giving them the tools to spread the message, adolescents
can effectively teach their peers the keys to staying healthy and keeping active, moving the
focus from treatment of the problem to prevention.
The Children’s Alliance was awarded $50,000. The Alliance will establish a childhood obesity
policy and prevention platform and campaign for Washington State, and will work locally and
statewide to address this issue. The project has a two‐pronged approach: short‐term
advancement in current school‐based standards and a long‐range strategic plan focusing on
long‐term changes to low‐income communities.
Solid Ground, formerly known as the Fremont Public Association, received $45,000 to support
the Apple Corps Pilot Project. This is an innovative, school‐based service corps that will
develop nutrition, health and fitness programs. The Apple Corps Project will train full‐time
volunteers to set up these programs, plus facilitate family‐oriented food and fitness activities
to make sure healthy habits continue at home.
17
Information from – www.seattlefoundation.org
The Washington Environmental Council partnered with several KCFFI Collaborative Partner
organizations including The Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network, Solid Ground, and
dozens of others (for a complete list of supporters visit
www.king.wsu.edu/foodandfarms/documents/LFHKsupporters.pdf) to pass the Local Farms, Healthy
Kids Bill in March 2008.
Many Collaborative Partners worked with the Acting Food Policy Council to help pass the Local Food
Action Initiative.
6. What critical incidents had major impact on the work of the collaborative this year?
Probably the most critical incidents to impact our work has been finding ways to leverage, maintain, and
enhance momentum of existing efforts such as farm to school (LFHK Bill), the Local Food Action
Initiative, STEPS, REACH, Overweight Prevention Initiative, and more.
7. What information from your project has been made available to the field or general public and
how?
Notes from Collaborative Partner, Leadership Council, and Youth Team meetings are posted on the web
www.kcffi.org as well as notes from the Site Selection Process. In addition, email updates are posted as
well as copies of the KCFFI News Reel newsletter and our two‐page monthly updates (March‐May 2008).
Information about the KCFFI has been shared via a number of presentations: meetings with the
potential focus communities, meetings about alignment of WSU Research with King County priorities,
the Eat Local for Thanksgiving campaign, State of WA Public Health Conference, as well as at meetings
for REACH and STEPS. We also presented information about our Collaborative to the National Advisory
Committee for Food and Fitness and at national Food and Fitness meetings. The WKKF web site also
serves as a portal for information about the KCFFI.
8. Overall, what has worked well for your project and what has not worked so well?
See Item #4 for what has not worked well so far.
What has worked well includes LC development with true cross sector integration, selection of two
activated and dynamic communities, the partnership between WSU King County Extension and Public
Health Seattle and King County, and the partnerships and collaborations described in Question 5.
9. What contributions has the collaborative made to the Food and Fitness learning network?
• See response to Question 1.
• We conducted a site selection process that included meeting with potential focus communities
and presenting the FFI with opportunities for questions before the two focus communities were
selected. The process also included creating a selection committee that included members of
the potential focus communities. This process meant that we considered communities in
different municipalities with different social and political structures – from suburban cities to
neighborhood groups. The process helped us identify what strengths and specific barriers each
community we engaged could bring to the KCFFI.
• We have built a list of food system and built environment indicators for which we plan to
acquire baseline data, and which our TAP team has indicated is impressive in its
comprehensiveness.
18
10. What else should we understand about the work over the past year?
11. What are the guiding principles for new and future work?
We continue with our guiding principles of transparency, equity, partnership and collaboration, equity
and social justice, shared leadership, systems building and integration, policy‐based strategies, and
youth engagement. We also intend to focus on how neighborhood activities can link up to local and
state policy.
Financial Report – See Financial Report file
Work Plan – Year 2 See Work Plan file
Evaluation Report See Evaluation Report file
Appendices
A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees
B. Visioning Exercises Data
C. Youth Engagement Report
19
Financial Report
Work Plan Year 2
CP's are engaged in planning and decision making CP Mtg CP Mtg CP Mtg CP Mtg Final CP
process Mtg
Collaborative members share a common understanding of
food and fitness
Collaboration on shared projects or policy work.
Networking, communication, and information sharing
among Collaborative members and others interested in
food and fitness.
Funding to support youth engagement.
Youth engagement plan for planning phase
Policy recommendations.
A comprehensive Community Action Plan that prioritizes Draft CAP Present
strategies and defines roles and accountabilities for draft
implementation. CAP to
Collab.
Evaluation
The evaluation of KCFFI is being conducted by an Evaluation Team, led by the Center for
Community Health and Evaluation (CCHE) with participation from KCFFI staff and
collaborative members and the KCFFI Assessment Team. Both the Evaluation and Assessment
Teams are identifying measures related to food and fitness that will provide information for
planning purposes and serve as baseline measures for the implementation phase evaluation.
The KCFFI planning phase evaluation has two main goals: (1) to assess whether primary
planning phase outcomes have been met, namely creating an implementation plan and putting in
place a strong and representative community collaborative; and (2) to provide formative
evaluation feedback and other forms of support to the collaborative and Leadership Council.
Most of the first year's evaluation resources have gone into the second objective - providing
feedback and support. The evaluators have worked closely with the Convening Group and staff
to design and implement the process for selecting the focus communities; CCHE helped design
the criteria for selection and the RFP process. CCHE also worked with KCFFI staff around the
process for creating and writing bylaws for the Leadership Council (LC). The evaluation team
also attended National FFI meetings and interacted with the cross-site evaluators.
Given the focus on feedback and support, a limited amount of primary evaluation data was
collected during the first year. CCHE designed and implemented an online survey of
collaborative members and attended KCFFI meetings, both as a participant and an observer.
During the second year, CCHE will conduct key informant interviews with collaborative
members to evaluate the planning process and to provide lessons learned and guidance for the
implementation phase. CCHE will continue to work with the Assessment to identify long-term
outcome measures and collect baseline information.
Note: Most of 1(a)-1(d) below was addressed in our initial proposal to the WK Kellogg
Foundation. The information represents a brief summary of the information from the proposal.
1
increasing. School garden programs are beginning to integrate gardening activities into
curriculum. The Puget Sound School Gardens Collective connects existing school garden
programs and links them to other farm-to-table efforts.
• Direct Markets: Families can shop at 28 farmers’ markets in King County, including ten in
Seattle. Washington State farmers' market sales have increased 20% annually since 1997,
with estimated total sales of $22 million in 2003. In 2005, Seattle farmers' markets alone
totaled $3.5 million in sales, and all county markets combined totaled more than $7 million.
• Retail: Families can find locally produced foods at many grocery retailers, including PCC
Natural Markets, Whole Foods Markets, Safeway, Thriftway, QFC and Metropolitan
Markets. PCC, a KCFFI partner, is the largest food cooperative in the country (40,000
members).
• Physical activity opportunities: Examples of organizations providing free or low-cost
recreation opportunities for children, youth, and their families include: the Austin Foundation
Youth and Fitness, The Service Board, Girls on the Run, Passages Northwest, YMCA, Bike
Works, Bicycle Alliance, Cascade Bicycle Club, the School of Acrobatics and New Circus
Arts, and Skiforall. These organizations take advantage of the numerous public recreational
facilities and parks that offer year round recreation including hiking, biking, skiing, boating,
camping, and swimming.
(b) Evidence of family and community demand for affordable, locally grown, healthy foods
and safe and inviting places for physical activity and play.
Evidence of demand comes from both the increase in the purchase of locally grown produce and
the increase in the number of community outlets - including stores, farmer's markets, and other
distribution channels (see 1(a) above for more details). Demand for fresh produce has led to
increased production of high value crops through intensive row and greenhouse/nursery methods.
The value of produce has more than doubled in value since 1982. Locally produced food is
contributing a growing share to the $108 million in dairy products and $120 million in vegetable
products sold each year in King County.
(c) Climate for policy, environmental and systems change through the natural & built
environment and procurement & consumption of local healthy foods in your community.
The climate is very favorable in King County for policy and systems change around the KCFFI
goals. Several organizations participating in the KCFFI collaborative are part of the growing
number of efforts in this area. One of the two convening organizations - Public Health - Seattle
& King County (PHSKC) has made prevention of overweight through built environment and
nutrition strategies one of its top three priorities since 2004. Its initiatives emphasize working
with youth and families in low-income communities. PHSKC supports several coalitions that
address food and fitness issues. Efforts addressing the built environment include piloting of
health impact assessment tools and checklists for planners. PHSKC recently hired an
environmental health planner, who will participate in KCFFI, to address issues of health and the
built environment.
Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, a recognized leader in pediatric health, the
Children’s Obesity Action Team (COAT), and Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic, all KCFFI
partners, are dedicated to the prevention and management of pediatric overweight. These groups
provide innovative community-based programs (e.g. Strong Kids Strong Teens program for
2
overweight youth and families) and culturally responsive, age specific resources promoting
nutrition and active living.
The Seattle School District recently passed progressive School Nutrition (2004) and Physical
Activity (2005) policies. The framework is in place to balance the fiscal limitations of school
meal programs with policies to support local procurement. The Robert Wood Johnson-funded
Eat Better, Feel Better Project at TT Minor Elementary School is changing the school food and
activity environment. Finally, both the University of Washington (UW) and Washington State
University (WSU) have departments that are specifically focused on the built environment and
food systems (e.g., The UW Urban Form Lab in and the NW Center for Livable Communities in
the College of Urban Design and Planning, and the WSU King County Extension).
(d) Demographic, cultural make-up and diversity of your community (e.g. race, ethnicity,
gender, class, age, immigrant status, language).
Despite a generally healthy economy, minorities and low-income communities are affected by
significant economic disparities. Recent growth in Seattle has resulted in increasing
concentrations of minority and low-income populations in the suburban cities south of Seattle.
Over one in five people live in households below 200% of the federal poverty level. (include
some demographic data from Appendix 1 of the proposal). The two focus communities of
Delridge and White Center have large numbers of low-income, underserved county residents,
particularly immigrants and refugees (include focus community demographics).
2. Describe the partnerships that are being established to reflect the diversity (e.g.
race/ethnicity/gender/class/age/immigrant status/language) of the community. Indicate types
of member groups; who is already on board, who needs to be recruited, and the degree of
commitment of members to the goals of the Initiative. Describe the extent to which members
represent target constituencies of the Initiative.
The KCFFI collaborative has more than 60 active partners who attend meetings and participate
in other ways. Table 1 on page xx lists the organizations and provides information about the
sectors and populations that they represent. Most of the organizations have a primary mission
that includes serving underserved populations and 11 of the 64 listed in Table 1 have a specific
focus on communities of color.
Leadership Council recruitment efforts focused on seeking diversity both of individual attributes
(race, gender, ethnicity, etc) and food system and built environment representation. Seven more
members from the two recently selected focus communities were added to the LC in April 2008,
further increasing the diversity of the LC, which is the primary decision-making body of the
LC.(add ethnic/gender representation of LC?)
Efforts to involve youth in KCFFI have also prioritized underserved, ethnic minority
communities. The International District Housing Alliance (IDHA) is the lead organization
promoting youth involvement and has worked extensively with youth of color in its other
programs.
3
3. Describe the partnerships that are being established to reflect the integration of local food,
physical activity, built environment (transportation, play, community redesign), parks and
recreation and health systems.
KCFFI has made it a priority to build both an overall collaborative and LC with diverse
representation across the sectors targeted by the initiative. As Table 1 shows, this diversity across
sectors has largely been achieved, with representation from food systems, physical activity, built
environment, public health and education. Many of these organizations had not worked together
before KCFFI . Overall collaborative meetings include segments that attempt to build a shared
understanding of the initiative goals and bridge the cultures distinct to each sector. (is there
more that can be added about specific new partnerships that have come about as a result of
KCFFI?).
4. All coalitions take time to evolve. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being very low success and 5
being very high success, provide a rating of your coalition/collaborative at this time on the
following attributes. (Note: this rating should come from the evaluators.) In the last column,
please describe the data that led to your ratings.
Many of the attributes listed in the table are subjective and depend on the perspective and
experiences of KCFFI stakeholders. The baseline online survey was conducted too early in the
process to provide much relevant information, and in-depth key informant interviews will be
conducted only during Year 2 of the planning phase. Therefore, as a first approximation we
asked the LC members to rate the extent to which they are present in KCFFI. Attendees at the
April 2008 LC meeting were asked to complete the ratings, and a follow-up emailing was done
to gather ratings from LC members not attending the April meeting. Average rankings are shown
for the eight LC members who completed rankings. Most items were rated "3"; those rated
somewhat higher were the recruitment of needed stakeholders, presence of trusted leaders and
the level of enthusiasm for the work.
Low High
Attribute 1 2 3 4 5
Recruitment of needed stakeholders X
Presence of trusted leaders X
Effectiveness of governance and decision X
making procedures
Clarity of your collective vision, mission X
and goals
Level of participation by stakeholders X
Visibility in the community X
Alignment with other efforts with similar X
goals
Level of enthusiasm for the work X
Development of advocacy capacity in the X
community
4
5. What has been identified as the definition for success of the work of the collaborative?
Include indicators, measurements, data sources, and key informants that have been identified
at this time to track policy, environmental and systems change.
The implementation plan is still in development and specific definition of success will depend on
implementation plan goals. The goals listed in the proposal were:
• Goal 1: Foster social environments that encourage healthy eating and physical activity, and
reduce socioeconomic disparities in overweight, poor nutrition, and physical inactivity.
• Goal 2: Develop an integrated regional food system that supports local, sustainable
agriculture and provides healthy, affordable food - especially to marginalized communities.
• Goal 3: Create built environments and land use policies that promote physical activity and
environmental sustainability - especially in marginalized communities.
• Goal 4: Engage youth and others disproportionately impacted by health disparities in
program planning, intervention, implementation, and policy development.
• Goal 5: Continue the participatory, community-based process initiated during the Planning
Phase to realize KCFFI goals.
In the baseline online survey we asked collaborative members how they would define success
("From your point of view, what will success look like for the King County Food and Fitness
Initiative at the end of the implementation phase -10 years from now?") Verbatim responses are
included in the attached report (Appendix xx)' the main themes that emerged were (1) improved
access to food, fitness opportunities through policy, systems and environmental changes; (2)
stronger community partnerships, organizational linkages; and (3) increased physical activity,
better nutrition
As outlined in the draft implementation phase evaluation design included in our proposal,
specific indicators and data sources will depend on the strategies proposed in the implementation
plan. Outcome measures will focus on outcomes that are more proximal to the activities of
KCFFI; for example, specific changes in the built environment that the partnership targets (e.g. a
walking trail) or evidence of greater access to locally produced foods for employees in cafeterias.
It may be possible to measure population-level distal outcome changes in the two local
communities and estimate the contribution of KCFFI to those changes.. Examples of these
outcomes are included in Appendix 3 of the proposal and might include prevalence of
overweight, physical inactivity, inadequate fruit/vegetable consumption among children and
adults, number and location of farmers’ markets, or proportion of selected foods sold by
community retailers.
7. What specific plans has your collaborative put in place to address inequities in your
5
community related to affordable, locally grown, healthy foods and safe and inviting places for
physical activity and play? What specific indicators of inequities will you be tracking over
time?
We are primarily addressing disparities by focusing our work in underserved areas within King
County. The two focus communities were selected partly because of their high representation of
underserved, communities of color in their demographic composition (see 1(d) above). We will
report long-term indicators (e.g. individual-level nutrition/PA) by ethnic/income groups. .
6
Table 1. KCFFI Collaborative, By Organizational Sector/Population Served
Organization Built Economic Farming Physical Land Use Youth & Communities
Environment Development Activity Planning Families of Color
Total number in sector/population (n=64) 10 12 14 11 9 21 11
21 Acres X X
Acting Food Policy Council of Seattle and
King County
Austin Foundation X X X
Black Dollar Days Task Force X X
Cascade Bicycle Club Education Foundation X
Cascade Harvest Coalition X X
Center for Public Health and Nutrition, UW
Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical
Center
Children's Alliance X
City of Seattle-Department of Neighborhoods
City of Seattle-Mayor's Office X X X X X
City of Seattle-Office of Sustainability &
Environment X X X
Community Food Security Coalition
Community Health Centers of King County
Delridge Neighborhoods Development
Association X
Etc.
Earth Ministries
Feet First X X X
Food Lifeline
Full Circle Farm X
Futurewise X X X X
Good Food Strategies
Group Health Community Foundation
Hmong Farmers Association X
International District Housing Alliance X X
King County X X X X X X X
King County 4-H Association X X X
King County Agriculture Commission X
King County Board of Health
Mithun X X X
7
Organization Built Economic Farming Physical Land Use Youth & Communities
Environment Development Activity Planning Families of Color
Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance
Neighborhood House X X
Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic X
Pacific Asian Empowerment Program X X
Passages Northwest X X
PCC Natural Markets X
Puget Sound Neighborhood Health Centers
Puget Sound Regional Council X X X
Puget Sound School Gardens Collaborative X
REACH Coalition X
Safe Futures Youth Center X
Seattle Chefs Collaborative
Seattle Indian Health Board X
Seattle Tilth X
Seattle Youth Garden Works
Sno-Valley Tilth X
Solid Ground X X X
STEPS to Health King County X X X
The Seattle Foundation X X
Transportation Choices Coalition X X X X
Treeswing X X
UW Center for Obesity Research
UW Urban Design and Planning X X
University of Washington Northwest Center
for Livable Communities X X X
Washington Health Foundation X
Washington State Department of Health
Washington State Dept of Agriculture Small
Farm & Direct Marketing Program X
Washington State University
WSU Small Farms Program X X
WA Sustainable Food and Farming Network X
White Center CDA
YMCA of Greater Seattle X X
Youngstown Cultural Arts Center
Youth Media Institute
8
Appendix A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees
3/4/08 Co-convener ·Discuss co-convener roles/responsibilities for the future ·Budget meeting planned 6
·Fiscal agent transfer ·Maggie will make reporting timeline
·Youth coordinator update
·Discuss Year 1 reporting to Kellogg
7/18/07 Collaborative Partner ·Review/discuss Leadership Council modifications Continue Leadership Council development with input from
·Strategic planning for upcoming meetings CPs.
·Propose activity timeline and initial goals
·Introduce workplan objective and call for volunteers
8/16/07 Collaborative Partner ·Co-convener updates (timeline, kellogg meetings ·Uncovered our shared understanding of the attributes of a 36
announcement, seattle foundation grant, workplan, community-based food system.
orientation visit from TAP & NAC) ·Meaningfully discussed our shared definitionss of food
·Attributes and Values of the Food System exercise access, affordability, healthy, and local.
·Leadership Council:Structure, nomination process, ad hoc
group, work groups, sectors, timeline
·Defining "Collaborative Partner"
9/11/07 Collaborative Partner 23
10/16/07 Collaborative Partner ·Introduction to the Food Trust work in PA and expansion Information shared
model
·Discuss local issues and opportunities
10/24/07 Collaborative Partner ·Leadership Council Update ·Decision to have an open RFA for recruiting new youth 21
·Discuss proposed process for site selection coordinator (question will be sent out on listserv)
·Build community through team building activity. ·CP's agreed to move forward with LC bylaws after a few
proposed changes to the document.
·CP's discussed/brainstormed ideas for voting in a diverse
leadership council
11/14/07 Collaborative Partner ·Make final decision regarding how leadership council will be ·Volunteers identified to assist in recruiting additional LC 18
voted in. applicants from diverse sectors and backgrounds
·Vote on uncoupling between Leadership Council and Site ·LC and Site Selection uncoupled
Selection Committee
11/30/07 Collaborative Partner ·Offer KCFFI members perspective on the WKKF FFI and ·TAP commitment/assistance options outlined 31
how we fiti in. ·Broader social issues discussed
·Discuss the WKKF vision for FFI and how that relates to
how CP's see the vision.
·Identify who is at the table and who else needs to be
engaged in the Collaborative (group exercise)
·Discuss how to keep partners engaged
·Identify the support of the TAP team
Appendix A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees
7/18/07 Core Planning ·Review roles & responsibilities of co-conveners, leadership ·Leadership Council bylaws will be revised/simplified 26
council, and co-chairs ·A more formal work plan with benchmarks will be created
·Review timeline (Sylvia Kantor)
·Discuss strategic planning needs ·
·Plan next collaborative partner meeting (dates)
·Discuss Seattle Foundation grant.
11/29/07 Evaluation ·Discuss further evaluation and introduce TAP team 12
7/5/07 Evaluators Meeting (with Bill Beery) 3
1/31/08 Leadership Council ·Introduction (to one another) ·Next meeting set (2/19/08) 14
·Introduction to planning timeline ·Ground Rules drafted/draft bylaws accepted
·Overview of workplan ·Amy White and Becca Deehr elected interim co-chairs
·Brainstorm ground rules/review bylaws
·Elect interim co-chairs
2/19/08 Leadership Council ·Leadership Council Community Rep. draft application ·Community representative application form accepted 19
review ·Ground Rules (accept at next meeting)
·Accept Ground Rules ·Volunteers identified for F/S conference
·Discuss Food & Society Conference ·CP Meeting planning group identified
·Planning next CP meeting(s) ·Quick overview of group assessment brainstorm (report
·Structured group assessment discussion to come later)
3/12/08 Leadership Council ·Community Action Planning overview ·Increased understanding of our local Food System, 10
·Food System overview (Cascade Harvest Coalition including an opportunity to discuss what amount of local
·Group education topics for CAP planning food is currently being consumed at a local level
·Communication plan and communication options within the ·New communication materials will be developed prior to
LC the next Leadership Council meeting in order to better
·June networking meeting volunteers address inconsistency of information.
4/8/08 Leadership Council ·Provide a clear overview of the working parts of KCFFI ·Small group activity identified potential resources as well 20
·Identify areas of expertise and resources (people/places) as highlighted shared knowledge
that members bring to the table ·Detroit networking meeting participants identified
·Plan for collaborative partner meeting to be held April 23rd. ·Collaboartive partner meeting planning volunteers
identified
·May Leadership Council meeting rescheduled to
accommodate Organizational Learning & Systems
Thinking Meeting
12/20/07 Site Selection ·Overview of KCFFI process to develop site selection plans ·RFA revised to an "RFQ" and questions narrowed down 15
and information documents to 3 general questions (1. History of F&F, 2. History of
·Discuss RFA questions and criteria and suggest changes collaboration, 3) past community/youth engagement.
·Agreement to finalize RFA and criteria ·Decided on face-to-face interviews to answer community
·Review next actions/steps questions regarding history and collaboration.
·Discussed and defined "readiness".
·Discussed actual $ that might be invested over time.
·Set next meeting date.
2/11/08 Site Selection ·Fair review of each site. ·White Center & Delridge chosen as focus communiites 20
·Site 2 minutes speaches and Q & A from selection
committee
6/4/07 Youth Community Outreach Meeting 5
7/5/07 Youth Meeting (with Amy White) 3
9/24/07 Youth Draft recommendations to the Co Conveners defining ·Community building through brainstorming 11
1. How youth should be organized to be involved in the ·next actions identified
planning phase of this initiative, and
2. What resources will be needed to implement the
recommendations
11/29/07 Youth ·TAP team introduction (Jim Muldavin) ·Quick introduction to youth and policy and how youth 15
·Identify what folks are most proud of/ what drives work with might be involved with KCFFI
youth
·Youth networking meeting in AZ.
2/25/08 Youth Meet with focus communities and discuss assessment
Appendix B. Visioning Exercises Data
King County Food and Fitness Initiative
Previous Visioning Activities and Outcomes
July 2006-April 2008
July 13, 2006
W.K. Kellogg Foundation Planning Grant – initial meeting
Visioning Question to prepare for Letter of Intent submission
What are the possibilities you see arising for our community (or
your organization) that inspire you to join this effort to develop
the letter of intent to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation?
I would like to see evidence that access to safe, sustainable and healthy food
supply and daily physical activity are deeply woven into our community practices
and life. I dream that our citizens would view these practices and activities as
typical and common-place versus difficult, rare and expensive. As a trivial example,
when visiting St. Paul MN last year, I noticed that various paths (such as around a
small lake) had signs posted with the number of steps for that walk. This
suggested to me that many people were at least familiar with counting steps.
This could be a really great integrative (truly!) effort that bridges health-natural
environment-built environment. To me, this adds up to planetary sustainability.
Being integrally involved with the STEPS grant, which is working in these 3 areas,
this is a wonderful opportunity to sustain, further integrate and add to current
efforts.
I think this effort could lead to a campaign that would serve to unify and amplify
grassroots level work that is already happening in a way that it can capture public
imagination, build new partnerships, and galvanize support for policies and individual
actions that represent measurable change and progress toward a healthier
community.
To keep the momentum going in the schools around nutrition and physical activity.
We have made significant changes already, let’s keep going!
I see that we can enhance a local food system to increase access and consumption
of local, healthy food for children and families and especially people at the
greatest risk for lifestyle-related chronic diseases.
If Seattle can develop a food and fitness plan based on sustainable food and
farming with state and county policies that will support this system – then this can
be a model for other regions/counties in the state.
This grant is an opportunity to build upon the work in food systems in the City of
Seattle. There is a real chance to improve food systems (a report has been
developed). More broadly, we want to be strategic in advancing physical activity,
community health and food systems focusing on lower income and vulnerable
populations.
I see the food and fitness initiative as providing extensive education and
sustainable lifestyle changes for residents living in Seattle Housing Authority
Communities (low-income).
I am hoping that the needs of low-income and diverse ethnic communities are met
in a culturally appropriate manner, and that their voices and participation will be
included.
What does food access, affordability, healthy, and local mean to you?
Consider the concepts of Food System Attributes below and discuss your
understanding and definitions, noting any similarities or variations. Select someone
from your group to summarize your findings.
Affordable
The USDA's thrifty food plan (TFP) represents a minimal-cost nutritious diet, including a
variety of foods form the major food groups. Food stamp benefit levels are based on the
nationwide cost of a TFP market basket.
How would you define affordability in your community?
Access
Individuals have sufficient incomes or other resources to purchase, produce, or obtain
appropriate food needed to maintain consumption of an adequate diet and nutritional
level. Access presumes availability of sufficient quantities of appropriate food within
reasonable transportation distances.
How would you define access in your community?
Local
Locally grown is a not a definitive term. Some say it applies to foods grown within a 100-
mile radius; others stretch it to 250 miles. Another definition is food grown within a
"day's leisurely drive from your home." It also usually implies seasonal food from small
farms, as opposed to the massive agribusinesses where most supermarket food comes
from.
How would you define local in your community?
RESULTS:
HEALTHY:
• Promoting health in the community may be a “job” done locally
• Multicultural, colors, nutritious; some “care in that food”
• Beyond food- healthy diet
o Consistent with food environment
o Culturally appropriate; relevant to people’s lives
o Health through lifespan. Starts early and lasts a lifetime
• Eating
o Reject the USDA Food Pyramid
o Full fat dairy can be in a healthy diet
• Eating as a family
o Cultural reasons
o Paying attention to food
• Food:
o Minimally processed,
o toxic free,
o nutrient (vitamin) rich,
o fresh
o appropriately stored and processed
o simply prepared
o variety
o organic nutrients
• Growing Food:
o Good nutrient levels in soil
o The food is good for the soil and environmentally appropriate
o No preservatives
o Adapted to cultural/regionally
• Restaurants:
o Privately owned (independent vs. franchise)
o Easier to solve/manage health problems
ACCESS:
• Physical Access
• Ability to prepare (time, space, scheduling issues, affordability)
• Feeling comfortable in space where food is available
• Convenience
• Time efficient
• Travel distance
• Equitable access
• Should be easy to shop
• Policy supports access
• Time/Cost
• Access to culturally appropriate foods
• Marketing access for producers
• Education/Awareness on preparing food
• Walking distance-safety
• Linguistic/ Term barriers (eg: natural, organic)
• Signage to find food
• Non motor vehicle access
• Convenient/neighborhood delivery
• Street corners
• Broad selection
• Culturally relevant
• Alternative selection than just chain grocery
• Institutional purchases/ access (hospitals, schools, prisons)
• Zoning/Land use
• Farm worker access to healthy food (i.e. immigration policy)
LOCAL:
• Whole state (WA)
• Regional
• Seasonal
• Emphasis on Puget Sound whenever possible
• Closer the better but might travel to support farms
• Not to sacrifice variety
• Farmers market support- know your producer/grocer
• Involve and employ local people
• Local economy benefit
• Grain/Fruits from WA
• Dairy/Meat/Vegetables from Puget Sound
• Emphasize concentration of foods that are ‘plain’ vs ‘exotic’.
• Close proximity to market (time to travel minimal)
o Carbon balanced or carbon neutral (reduced use of other resources)
• Local is not always appropriate when referring to culturally appropriate, in which
case travel might be necessary.
• Policy supports equitable distribution
o System into neighborhoods (shorter supply chain)
o 100 milesÆ concentric circles (environment, $, cultural)
• Gardening/Growing food at home
• (Ask about WKKF Vision focus on procurement)
• Young people gardening/farming
AFFORDABLE:
• Within reach of all families
• Skill/ time/ knowledge accounting for not just $
• Not false choice (food vs. rent/ shelter/ education)
• Stretch $, minimal cost
• Real food costs same as fast food
• Choices available
• Sense of well being- not a treat
• Good Food should not be a privelage
• Increase communication between alternative food suppliers.
• Increase Affordability
• Equity
o Wide variety of budgets
o Afford it through the pay period
o Affordable trips
o Affordable relative to local (US National Economy)
o Organic vs. conventional cost
• # of meals any given person can make
• Home cooking (issue of accounting for time)
• Sustainable pricing for producer and consumer
o Proportionately priced food (% of total budget
• Perceived value vs. relative cost
• Something in the system is broken and needs fixing:
o Need to elevate the value of food (ie food costs vs. housing)
• Resources (space) and equipment for food preparation and storage
11/30/07 King County Food & Fitness Initiative Collaborative Partners Meeting
Small Group Work (summarized outcomes)
11/30/2007
A) If KCFFI is successful, from the point of view or your organization what
would be ONE thing that would look different in King County in 10 years? List one
response from each group.
Group Members: Laura Raymond, Amy Ellings, Amy White, Aviva Vikstrom, B
Sanders, Michelle Bates-Benetua
A) Families have enough resources & time to eat and play together in their own
communities
B) People/Groups to be involved:
Policy people: labor unions, service industry employers, policy makers
(local/state/regional), transportation, school district, safety, churches
People also need: access, income, safety, knowledge, and help from program
people.
Group Members: Anne Bikle, Steve Dahl, John Gould, Laura Niemi
A) Neighborhoods we live in are close together (walkable), have easy access to healthy
foods, and inspire us to engage in physical activity with our neighbors and take care of
this place.
B) People/Groups to be involved:
Political leaders, Zoning and permitting departments within cities, architectural
groups, landscapers, planners, sustainable workforce, church groups, historical
societies, child care, & other community groups.
Group Members: Rebecca Deehr, Martha Aitken, Maggie Anderson, Heather Paves
A) Our collaborative is cohesive and respected: legislative bodies turn to KCFFI for
guidance in policy making.
B) People/Groups to be involved:
Mayors of cities, directors of public works/transportation, people on the upper
echelon, big business, faith based community representatives, Group Health
Cooperative, Odessa Brown Clinic representative.
Group Members: Ruth Egger, Sue Lerner, Laura Streichert, Merina Hanson
11/30/07 King County Food & Fitness Initiative Collaborative Partners Meeting
Small Group Work (summarized outcomes)
A) Every community & city would have a commission focusing on health & fitness.
B) People/Groups to be involved:
Poverty/welfare organizations, schools, public health department, transportation
department, universities.
Group Members: Willie Austin, Julie Salathe, Diana Vinh, Val Allen, Colleen Brandt-
Schluter
B) People/Groups to be involved:
City municipality representatives, representatives of underserved ethnic groups,
schools, contractors, public works, food growers, nutrition experts, religious
organizations, economic development organizations, public safety officers.
Group Members: Allen Cheadle, Patrick Green, Caren Adams, Kathleen Perez-Hureaux
B) People/Groups to be involved:
Suburban cities (i.e. Federal Way), City permit agency (facilitate permits for fruit
stands), local entrepreneurs, zoning officials, non profits supporting local stores in getting
more healthy food.
Food Systems – Leadership Council Discussion (2/19/2008)
Local Assets Barriers Regional Assets
Producing (agriculture, harvest from the Barriers Producing (agriculture, harvest from the wild)
wild) • Increasing land prices • Urban agriculture organizations
• Community gardens • Urban sprawl • King County Farmland Preservation
• Increased consumer demand for locally • Development • 42,000 acres + farmland in King County
produced food • How to reach low-income residents • Pierce county also has farmland protection
• Longfellow P-patch • Small farmer financial burden • Washington Farm Link
• High Point Market Garden/possible farm • Demand for local produce? • Increased farmer apprenticeship program
stand in Delridge • 3% local grower increase is • WSDA
• Danny Woo Garden in ID capacity* • WSU programs
• Marra Farm in South Park • Lack of water/water rights • Season extension programs
• Rainier Valley Grower’s Cooperative • Flooding issues
• Seattle Tilth program • New farmers
• Available land • Winter production is slow
• Immigrant populations able to access • Is farming a viable occupation?
gardens
• Reservoir lidding – P-patch/garden
opportunity
• LFHK
• P-Patch Cultivating Youth – Delridge
• WC 10 garden plots in WC Heights Park
Processing (transforming, packaging and Barriers Processing (transforming, packaging and labeling)
labeling) • Lack of certified infrastructure, • “Eat Local Now” – Sustainable Ballard program for
• Local labeling especially for small/mid-sized modeling
• Mobile slaughter unit producers • Puget Sound Fresh
• Lack of processing facilities for
meat, dairy, produce
• Cost of facilities
• Lack of interest in cooperatives
• Food safety concerns
Preparing (institutional food service, Barriers Preparing (institutional food service, emergency
emergency food programs) • Typically high prices of locally food programs)
• White Center food bank – has community produced foods • WSU Food Sense CHANGE
garden & teaches residents how to • Need to form nutritional thinking for • Fare Start training
prepare foods targeting community health (focus
• Interest in community kitchen on nutrients rather than whole
• Donated building for community kitchen foods, food systems, food & health)
• Cooking classes at community colleges • Time and knowledge issue for
and PCC market healthy food prep
• Gospel Mission/Salvation Army provide • “Grab and Go” culture and
meals relationship to food prep
• Rainier Valley kitchen – pay for food • Lack of time
• WC Heights Park plots – foodbank • Lack of a positive food culture
Parks and Recreation • Parks and open spaces are underutilized • Seattle Marathon
• Time • Danskin Triathlon
• New Parks and Renovation at White Center
• Doesn’t connect with all populations • Triathlon clubs
Heights, Cox Park Memorial, White Center
• Funding lacking • Access (driving & ferry) to outdoors
Pond
• 3 small areas of open space – underutilized for • YMCA – Strong Kids and Teams program
• Planned redevelopment and renovation of
parks
legitimate activities • Green Legacy Coalition funding for parks
• Broken connections between WC & Delridge and open spaces
• High ratio of open space to people and
extensive existing trails • Lacking partnership of local school • Parks levy
• Very active stakeholder base interested in • Safety and access • Seattle Parks & Rec are pushing health
increasing programming with funds committed • YMCA has difficulty recruiting and retaining and fitness activities for youth & families
by parks families • Community centers adding more cooking
• Land and space for CSA development • Other organizations find it difficult to gain classes for youth and families for healthy
access to city, county parks for program eating
• Reservoir lidding (potential open space for
park / garden / farm?)
• Islandwood
• Walking Groups
• White Center Neighborhood Plan: UW
completed some initial open space inventory
in 2007
• “Friends of” community groups exist though
they need more support
• Public safety group is interested in parks and
safety with law enforcement
• YMCA is active
• Dells and Ridges trail mapping
SSCC – open spaces for culinary arts folks to teach and education community use of
open spaces for food growth and “sustainable urban farms”
Croft Place – groups of people to work together
o Planting strips – use those areas
o Need for CSAs in Deridge and White Center
o Expensive to garden: starting seeds together to make it more
o Community Kitchens
Use school gardens
Work with local businesses to stock produce from community
Farmers’ Market in WC and Delridge
People getting together to go to market
Consider cooperatives, buying in bulk to save money
Land bank
Are people asking for garden spaces?
Increased access to food
Use resources already available
How much demand is there from the community for fresh, locally grown produce?
Open parks
o Increase lighting
o Increase activity
o Increase presence of people at parks for safety
SSCC
o Better park site info on websites – easier to contact coordinators to reserve
o Better relationship with schools with good facilities
Assets: pretty well-maintained
Need scholarships for reserving fields for different groups
Need access to more areas for pick-up games
Unutilized spaces Æ access to information and improve use
Greg Davis Park – need slower traffic on 26th
Bathroom access at parks
Publish calendar online to reserve parks / how to find facilities
Greenbelt volunteers needed to greenbelt maintenance (Duwamish is the largest)
Need for kids in clubs (boxing) to have access to food
Food donations for sports programs
Safe walking places
Policies for funding to working, active programs to continue or expand programs
NHUAC (?)
Highline School District
o M+V
o WCH
o New Start
Seattle Public Schools
New Futures (in Burien, but with the possibility of annexation, should get Burien
involved)
City of Burien
YES foundation
Parks & Rec
SW YFS
Police: King County Sheriff, Seattle Police
Khmer Community Center / Museum
Churches: Holy Family / Pastor Mabel & others
Ukrainian Westwood Assembly/ Mt. View Pres.
SWAC, SWLL, Soccer (?)
Seniors – Sr. Ctr Salvation Army, Greenbridge
Hispanic – Para Los Ninos
Consejo, Sea Mar, Ryther (?), RDCC
SWYFS Family Ctr., (Latino grp in N. Highline)
Identify other grassroot ethnic groups
Trusted Advocates
Seattle Public Utilities’ Environmental Justice Network
Need to map and list any grassroot and informal groups that are missing
The discussion centered on activities that could occur at any level. In some cases, having
the action happen at a macro level could make local action easier.
1
Next Steps, March 26th, 2008, 5:00-6:30pm
Youngstown Cultural Center, Conference Room
After the conference, the youth gathered to talk about their favorite moments from
conference, which included getting to know youth from across the nation and participating in
the programming at the Tohono O’odham Reservation. Also, at the request of the conference
organizers, we discussed recommendations for how to make the next conference better, from
the youth perspective.
Youth & Youth Serving Organization Meeting, April 21, 2008, 4:30-6:30pm
Youngstown Cultural Center, South Classroom
With both the youth and the youth serving organizations present at this meeting, the
discussion around assessments really began to take shape. With the help of the youth serving
organizations matrix, which organized what each organization had to offer towards fulfilling
the expected outcomes, everyone was able to get a better understanding of how they fit into
this collaboration. A few suggestions were offered for workshops and summer programming,
and we hope to develop these ideas more at the next meeting.
2. Youth Participants
Continuing
conference
Next Steps
Next Steps
YSO 4/21
Initial 3/4
3/13-3/16
Youth &
Hours
Youth Name Specific Comments
Total
Pre-
3/11
3/26
4/8
2
King County Food & Fitness Initiative
The involvement of the youth speaks to their interest and concern for the health of their
families, peers and community. Based on discussions about the type of information they
would like to gather for the assessments, the youth have expressed interest in the long term
outcomes of this planning phase and especially the implementation phase.
3
This meeting was an initial meeting between the youth engagement coordination team and a
few youth serving organizations old and new to the collaborative. The goal of this meeting
was to introduce White Center and Delridge neighborhood youth serving organizations to the
King County Food and Fitness Initiative, and to recruit youth for the Youth Networking
Conference in Tucson, Arizona. Also discussed at this meeting were issues of youth
involvement, sustainability and assessments. Karen Snyder from Public Health of South King
County joined us to talk about assessments.
4
5. Youth Serving Organizations
2/25/08 (1.5
(2 hours)
(2 hours)
Hours
3/31/08
4/21/08
Total
hours)
Organizations Participants
5
6. Reflections of the Youth Engagement Coordination Team
The Food & Fitness Initiative as a nationwide movement to change food systems and built
environment is an incredible opportunity for communities to partner with many organizations
and institutions. The initiative provides communities with resources, experiences and knowledge
that can contribute greatly to this project. One level of expertise that is very valuable is that of
the youth—the voice of those who are most affected by food and fitness access today.
While the abundance of resources is great, there are some challenges to accessing these
resources. With so many people and organizations involved, prioritization of multiple interests
and perspectives is difficult. Similarly, with the wealth of resources available, it is difficult to
determine where to find certain information and who to go to for answers in order to achieve
project outcomes. Additionally, the lack of clarity around decision making (given the number of
stakeholders and interconnectedness of their roles) hinders our ability to move forward
efficiently with our work.