King County Food and Fitness Initiative

PROPOSAL NARRATIVE
I. COMMUNITY CONTEXT
The Pacific Northwest is known for its livable communities and King County is home to a
number of initiatives that aim to make it easier to eat well and live actively. Efforts are underway
to promote local agriculture and provide fresh, healthy food to King County residents, especially
those in underserved communities. Building environments that support physical activity is
attracting increasing attention. A King County Food and Fitness Initiative (KCFFI) would be the
catalyst for integrating and expanding these existing efforts.
King County covers 2,134 square miles and is home to 1.8 million residents, 33% of who live in
Seattle, 60% in suburban cities, and 7% in rural areas. 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. See appendix 1 for demographic data.
Local health department data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)
show that while half of residents are overweight or obese, the likelihood of being obese is 1.3
times more for those with low-incomes compared to those with high incomes, 1.6 times more for
African Americans (relative to whites), and 1.6 times more for people living in suburban south
King County than for those in urban Seattle. Disparities in physical activity are even more
pronounced. Overall, 44% of residents are not moderately physically active. Latinos are reported
to lack physical activity at a rate 1.9 times higher than whites, people with low-incomes at a rate
2.9 times higher than those with higher incomes, and south King County residents at a rate four
times higher than Seattle residents. While 5.1 % of the total population has diabetes, 7.6% of
African Americans, 8.8% of Native Americans and 8.5% of low-income people are affected.
Community Selection
The KCFFI will work at three distinct and nested geographic levels: 1) the food production
region (primarily Washington State, but also the greater Pacific Northwest), 2) King County, and
3) two local communities. In order to produce measurable changes in behavioral and health
outcomes, the Collaborative will focus more intensively on two smaller communities affected by
the disparities described above with populations less than 120,000. Eight communities are under
consideration for inclusion (Appendix 2). Communities will be compared using the data
described in appendix 3 and other variables that may emerge through the planning process.
Detailed demographic, health and behavioral data for the eight communities are included in
appendix 4.
The Leadership Council (see below) will review the data, identify gaps in information needed to
make the selection and prioritize selection criteria. Once the necessary information has been
collected, the Leadership Council will review the final data and select two communities. This
selection process will coordinate with existing coalitions (Appendix 5) addressing food and
fitness (FF) issues in the area in order to create linkages and assure a critical mass of activities to
produce community change.
Local Food System
For this Initiative, the primary region of food production is defined as Washington State.
However, emphasis will be placed on components of the food system (production, marketing,
distribution, etc.) as close to King County as possible. Significant changes in this food system are
unfolding. More families are seeking locally and sustainably produced foods, for the health of

1
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

their children and the natural environment. The food system is beginning to respond to this shift
in consumer preferences with several innovative approaches, as described below.
Production
Farms: 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. Public interest in preserving farmland, expressed through the County’s
Farmland Preservation Program, has maintained farmland acreage at 41,759 acres since 19921.
The average farm is 38 acres, and the average farmer is 56 years old. Attracting new farmers to
sustain the farming industry in the area is a challenge for local agriculture.
Community Gardens: Seattle residents have increasingly participated in community gardens.
There are now 70 gardens managed through the P-Patch Program, which encompasses 14 acres
of land, 2,500 plots, and 5,000 urban gardeners, with a waiting list of 500. The aptly named
“Lettuce Link” program provides 7-10 tons of fresh P-Patch produce to urban food banks
annually. Community garden programs are lacking throughout the rest of King County.
Efforts have begun to extend the benefits of community gardens to low-income and immigrant
residents. Marra Farm, a four-acre inner city farm in a largely Latino low-income Seattle
neighborhood, is an inspiring model for the Collaborative (Appendix 6). It integrates community
development, local food production, and opportunities for physical activity while increasing
access to fresh, inexpensive food. The site offers a place for social gatherings and physical
activity. Cultivating Communities, a program within P-Patch, has partnered with immigrant and
low-income residents to create urban market gardens, youth gardens, and nutrition education
programs.
Interest in involving youth in gardening is 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.
Homeless and under-served youth engage in garden-based education and employment, farm at
Marra Farm, and sell produce in Seattle farmers’ markets through Seattle Youth Garden Works.
Marketing and Distribution
Families in King County are now able to purchase locally produced food in a number of venues.
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 County1.
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. Farmers travel
from all over the state to sell at King County farmers’ markets2. The Puget Sound Fresh
marketing program promotes local farm products in King and eleven other counties in Western
Washington (Appendix 7). Farmers within King County participate in twelve CSA programs, 59
market directly on the web through Puget Sound Fresh, and 51 farms and farmers’ markets sell
directly through the annual Puget Sound Fresh Farm Guide.
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 is the largest food cooperative in the country (40,000 members). In addition to buying from
local farms, PCC supports the local food system by participating in the Acting Food Policy
Council, and by operating a Farmland Trust to purchase and protect Washington State farmland.

2
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

Families that eat out can find more locally produced foods on the menu. An increasing number of
restaurants purchase from local farms. For the last two years, a partnership between Chefs
Collaborative, Ecotrust, Cascade Harvest Coalition, Washington State Department of
Agriculture, and others brought over 250 farmers, food buyers, and chefs together to increase
markets for local farmers and provide procurement options.
Food Assistance: Food assistance programs help many residents meet basic food needs. Well
over 68,000 low-income families in Seattle depend on a network of 30 community food banks. A
substantial proportion of food bank clients are families with children. Despite the important role
that the food bank system plays in feeding children during their most critical developmental
years, food banks receive little fresh, local produce and other healthy food products. Food banks
in Seattle and King County are coordinated by the Seattle Food Committee and the King County
Food Coalition, whose participation in KCFFI will help the Initiative engage low-income
families at increased risk for obesity and poor nutrition.
Schools: Youth eating at schools find more local produce in the cafeteria through efforts of the
Farm-to-School-Connections Team. Parents, schools, food producers, and retailers connect
schools to farms via the classroom and the cafeteria, or at the farm. The Cascade Harvest
Coalition works with the University of Washington to increase locally grown food in campus
cafeterias.
Wholesale Markets: In addition to direct sales to consumers, many larger farms sell wholesale
through local buyer/distributors that in turn supply local restaurants, schools, and institutions.
While some farmers have cultivated relationships with retailers and restaurants through direct
sales, there is significant opportunity for expanding wholesale networks.
Gaps in the Food System
The local food system has significantly increased its capacity to deliver local foods to King
County families over the last decade, but barriers to accessing to locally grown food remain.
Farmers lack access to processing and storage facilities, transportation networks, and
infrastructure necessary to move food efficiently to local markets. Farmers selling to institutions
such as hospitals or schools encounter liability issues related to food safety. The true cost of food
production makes local, healthy food less affordable for low-income communities.
Public Health and Health Care Institutions
Public Health - Seattle & King County (PHSKC) has made prevention of overweight through
built environment and food systems 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 (see Section IIIC below and
Appendices 5 and 8). 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 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 overweight youth and
families) and culturally responsive, age specific resources promoting nutrition and active living.
They emphasize partnerships with parents and children, linkage with community resources, and a
cohesive system of care based on the socio-ecologic model to support children, youth, and

3
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

families making healthy lifestyle choices. For details on these and other clinical services for
children, see appendix 9.
Education System
The K-12 schools of the county can greatly influence food and fitness among children and youth.
In King County, nearly 260,000 students are enrolled in public schools (Appendix 10). The
Seattle School District recently passed progressive School Nutrition (2004) and Physical Activity
(2005) policies (Appendix 11). 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 (Appendix 12).
The University of Washington is a center for innovation in addressing the impact of the built and
food environments on health. The Center for Public Health Nutrition in the School of Public
Health has extensive experience in community-based participatory research aimed at improving
community health through environmental and policy change. The Urban Form Lab and the NW
Center for Livable Communities, both part of the College of Urban Design and Planning, use
community data to describe the built and food environments. Washington State University King
County Extension (WSU KCE) translates research knowledge into practice in nutrition,
agriculture, and local food systems through individual and community education. WSU KCE has
been at the forefront in developing a local food policy council and the Farm-to-School
Connections Team WSU KCE also helps Hmong farmers successfully produce and market their
crops.
Recreational Resources
Many community organizations provide opportunities for safe recreation, often in partnership
with city and county parks and recreation agencies. 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.
Transportation
Members of the KCFFI such as Feet First, Cascade Bicycle Club, and Transportation Choices
Coalition promote policies to improve regional non-motorized transportation options. Such
organizations have been instrumental in legitimizing biking and walking through activities such
as enacting “Complete the Streets” legislation, creation of a Bicycle Master Plan this year
(Walking Master Plan to be developed in 2007), and developing “Safe Routes to Schools.”
Planning Environment
Local and regional planning efforts shape the food and built environments in which families live
and play. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) focuses on regional transportation,
economic planning, and growth planning. Through collaboration with local planners and public
health officials, PSRC leaders are beginning to integrate health concerns (especially the impact
of the built environment) into their planning vision3. Local public health and planning officials
are developing health policy language for inclusion in the PSRC Vision 2040 plan. The King
County Executive advocates for recognition of the impact of the built environment (land use
planning and transportation systems) and food systems on health in planning efforts. He calls for

4
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

incentives for high street connectivity and compact development. The Acting Food Policy
Council (AFPC) advocates for regional food security and sustainable food systems as necessary
elements of regional planning. Recent updates to King County’s Comprehensive Plan integrate
planning with public health, climate change, and transportation. While the Plan addresses
agriculture in terms of land use, it does not mention food systems.
Policy and Regulatory Environments
City and county governments are increasingly developing policies and programs to support
healthy eating and active living. Voters recently passed “Bridging the Gap,” a Seattle proposition
that funds street maintenance, sidewalk construction, and a Bicycling and Pedestrian Master
Plans (Appendix 13). Last year, the King County Board of Health adopted a resolution with
specific policy goals for promoting nutrition, increasing physical activity, and improving the
built environment and land use to reduce overweight and obesity prevalence in the population
(Appendix 14).
The King County Agriculture Commission has advised local elected officials how to promote
commercial agriculture since 1995. Although King County has implemented strong farmland
preservation policies and programs, city or county government do not address the food system in
any formal capacity at this time. The Acting Food Policy Council (AFPC) convened diverse
sectors of the food system in early 2006 to address policies and collaborate with other food
system assessment efforts to improve the local food system. The AFPC is awaiting official
recognition from the City of Seattle and King County. In Seattle, an informal city
interdepartmental team has been examining food system enhancement from the municipal
perspective for the last two years in conjunction with the University of Washington and the
AFPC.
Economic Development
Economic development is a priority for both the City of Seattle and King County. A number of
initiatives throughout the region are creating economic opportunities in potential KCFFI focus
communities. For example, in White Center, one of the lowest-income neighborhoods in King
County, a Community Development Association was formed in 2002 to revitalize economic,
physical, and social environments. Black Dollar Days Task Force works to decrease social
service dependency in central and southeast Seattle through community-based
economic development. Their buy-local campaign includes a community
urban farming project. Sustainable Seattle is assessing the multiplier factor for locally
produced food to make an evidenced-based economic case for strengthening local food economy
linkages. Its “Healthy Business Districts” program increases understanding of factors that make a
place desirable, economically successful, and the center of a community. Local philanthropic
organizations are investing in work that supports healthy communities. Several large corporate
employers contract with food service companies, such as Bon Appetit Management Company,
that make local food procurement a priority.
Seattle and King County have the resources and relationships among government, non-profit,
grassroots, and business entities to create a strong KCFFI Collaborative and develop an
innovative Community Action Plan to integrate local food systems, the built environment, and
health.
II. VISION AND PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVES
The Collaborative envisions healthy, vibrant communities where all residents have equal
opportunities to reach their maximum health potential through access to healthy, locally grown

5
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

food; safe environments for physical activity and play; and economic development that supports
and sustains the natural environment. As one Collaborative member put it, “We want an
environment where the healthy choice is the easy choice,” healthy for people, the environment,
and the economy. The KCFFI approach to systems change will use a socio-ecological model that
considers interventions at the individual, social network, community, organizational,
environmental, and policy levels. This approach is more effective than focusing solely on
individuals. Higher-level changes make it possible to reach more people at lower cost and create
health-promoting social and physical environments for people of all races, ethnicities, and
incomes. Changes that are incorporated into institutional policies, laws, or regulations are more
likely to be sustained than costly programmatic services.
Implementation Phase Goals and Objectives
The Collaborative anticipates the following five goals for the Implementation Phase (IP):
IP Goal 1. Foster social environments that encourage healthy eating and physical activity, and
reduce socioeconomic disparities in overweight, poor nutrition, and physical inactivity.
IP Goal 2. Develop an integrated regional food system that supports local, sustainable
agriculture and provides healthy, affordable food - especially to marginalized communities.
IP Goal 3. Create built environments and land use policies that promote physical activity and
environmental sustainability.
IP Goal 4. Engage youth and others disproportionately impacted by health disparities in program
planning, intervention, implementation, and policy development.
IP Goal 5. Continue the participatory, community-based process initiated during the Planning
Phase to realize KCFFI goals.
While the specific objectives and activities to reach these goals will be determined through
collaborative decision-making during the Planning Phase, the Collaborative Partners have
developed a menu of potential objectives and strategies (Appendix 15). Each activity will be
evaluated for its impact on reducing disparities, cultural competence for improving social and
built environments and health, cost-effectiveness in promoting healthy eating and active living,
community acceptability, feasibility of implementation, local food system improvement,
sustainability, and other measures of best practice. Benchmarks for the overall success of the
KCFFI will be guided by national W.K. Kellogg Foundation FFI objectives, CDC Healthy
People 2010 objectives, and other objectives determined by KCFFI.
The following strategies provide examples of what KCFFI will consider for inclusion in its
Community Action Plan.
Individual
• Promote awareness of links between sustainable food systems, nutrition, physical activity,
and health through individual education and social marketing.
Family and social networks
• Encourage families to share healthy mealtimes.
• Encourage families to participate in one hour of daily physical activity together.
Community
• Promote creation of and participation in community gardens (including youth gardens) and
small urban farms, especially in low-income and minority communities.
Institution/organization

6
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

• In schools: Implement policies to increase availability of healthy, locally produced foods

and opportunities for daily, vigorous physical activity; integrate nutrition education for
students through curriculum development and school gardens; extend learning to families
(e.g. fun and informative family nights aligned with community culture and interests).
• In large institutions (e.g. schools, hospitals and government agencies): Enhance access to
locally produced foods for employees through cafeterias, CSAs, and onsite
farmers’markets; stock vending machines with foods that meet rigorous nutrition standards;
increase actions to promote physical activity and reduce stress at work; provide incentives
that help employees make healthier choices at work and home.
• In restaurants: increase menu labeling and healthy food choices and provide incentives for
restaurants to serve locally produced foods.
• In architectural, engineering and urban planning agencies and organizations: Offer
training in food and fitness issues and strategies; encourage the use of “built environments
and health” checklists and Health Impact Assessments when designing and approving
projects.
• In the health system: Link patient care to community food and fitness resources; encourage
nutrition education that emphasizes consumption of locally produced foods.
• In food banks: Increase availability of locally produced and other healthy food items;
conduct cooking demonstrations and health awareness activities.
Environment
• Increase the number of safe, quality parks, trails, and recreational facilities so that all
neighborhoods have access to spaces that promote physical activity.
• Improve access to farmers’ markets, grocery stores, or produce stands selling locally
produced foods.
• Complete missing sidewalk links so that children can bike or walk to schools, homes of
friends and family, and parks.
• Develop food distribution systems to link small-medium sized local farms to local markets.
Policy
• Implement policies that increase access to local, healthy food for low-income populations
(e.g. increased funding and use of the farmers’ market nutrition programs, EBT machines
for each farmer at farmers’ markets).
• Increase use of Health Impact Assessments for land-use, zoning, and development
decisions.
• Secure official recognition of the food policy council by local government.
• Encourage the federal government to reduce and eventually eliminate subsidies for farm
commodities, and to increase support for the production of food by sustainable local farms.
• Decrease marketing of unhealthy food to children by voluntary agreements, regulation of
local television broadcasting, and food placement by retailers.
• Promote preferential purchasing of local, sustainable food by public agencies and eliminate
policies that limit geographic preference for purchasing.
• Increase public/private funding for parks and trails.

7
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

• Coordinate land use planning efforts across urban and rural communities, such as
integrating access to locally grown food with planning for non-motorized transit, economic
development, and physical activity in an urban environment.
Planning Phase Goals and Objectives
The goals of the Planning Phase (PP) focus on developing a diverse Collaborative and a
Community Action Plan (CAP). Specific strategies for attaining these goals are found in sections
III and IV. Measures for each objective are described in Section V (Evaluation Plan).
PP Goal 1. Create a King County Food and Fitness Initiative Collaborative
Objectives:
• Create a strong, representative Collaborative based on democratic and inclusive principles,
and develop a participatory process for planning and implementing the KCFFI.
• Create and build upon existing community networks to engage youth and community
members in assessment, program design, advocacy, and policy development.
• Take early steps to assure sustainability of the Collaborative and/or its actions by
developing a sustainability plan, developing communications strategies, and building a
constituency.
PP Goal 2. Develop a systems-based approach to increase access to local healthy food and
safe space for physical activity and play for communities in King County
Objectives:
• Assess the status of the food system and built and social environments to identify gaps and
redundancies in current activities; identify opportunities to expand successful approaches.
• Collect information on best and promising strategies for addressing concerns and gaps.
• Determine effectiveness, cost, community acceptability, and feasibility of potential
strategies.
• Develop a comprehensive Community Action Plan that prioritizes strategies and defines
roles and accountabilities for implementation.
• Identify two communities for focused KCFFI activities and engage members from these
communities in leadership roles.
PP Goal 3. Implement pilot projects to develop effective local approaches for implementing
Community Action Plan strategies
Objectives:
• Develop two culturally appropriate pilot projects in focus communities.
• Develop two policy background and position papers.
PP Goal 4. Begin integration of current and future food, fitness, and health activities
Objectives:
• Facilitate networking, communication, and information sharing among Collaborative
members and others interested in food and fitness.
• Identify areas of common interest and activity among Collaborative members and others;
discuss development of common approaches and tools.
• Facilitate collaboration on shared projects or policy work.

8
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

• Establish linkages among organizations and activities to promote coordination and

synergies.
PP Goal 5. Implement a communications strategy
Objectives:
• Develop credibility and recognition of the KCFFI among community members, media, and
decision makers though implementation of a communications strategy.
• Assure smooth flow of information among Collaborative members.
III. COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE
A. Collaborative Partners
The Collaborative Partners, their constituencies, and roles in the KCFFI are listed in attachment
B. The newly formed KCFFI Collaborative has strong representation of the regional food
system, with participation of local leaders representing rural and urban farms, youth and
community gardens, food distributors, restaurants, school nutrition services, farm-to-school
connections, food assistance programs, farmers’ markets, food policy council, retail sales,
education, and government. The physical activity and built environment sectors are represented
by partners from community based organizations, schools, employer wellness programs,
universities, economic development, and government agencies (parks, community development,
transportation, and urban planning). Community health partners work in hospitals, schools,
community health centers, a foundation, the local health department, and community based
organizations. The Collaborative will seek more direct participation from the business
community, food distribution and processing entities, faith-based organizations, local funding
entities, and farmers. The Co-conveners have begun attending organizational meetings, using
snowballing methods to identify interested organizations and leaders, and educate potential
funders. The Collaborative will strive to create a welcoming and inclusive environment that
values the contributions of all participants. Through its governance structures, decision-making
processes and culture, the Collaborative will demonstrate that it highly values diversity of
cultures, sectors, and viewpoints.
The KCFFI is facilitating multicultural collaboration by uniting with networks and organizations
connected to racial and ethnic communities through membership (e.g. Black Dollars Day Task
Force), affiliation (e.g. faith-based organizations), or mission (e.g. REACH Coalition, Austin
Foundation).

9
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

Youth will participate in the KCFFII. The Collaborative already counts several youth-focused
organizations among it members (4H of King County, YMCA of Greater Seattle, the Austin
Foundation, Childrens Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Cultivating Youth, Food $ense-
CHANGE, Passages NW, Steps School Council, and Puget Sound School Gardens Collective
and is engaging with others (Bike Works, Seattle Youth Garden Works, The Service Board, and
Girls on the Run). Youth will participate in the Advisory and Work Groups (see below),
collaborate with the Assessment Team through acquiring data on their local food system and
built environment, and contribute to development of the Community Action Plan by suggesting
activities and reviewing proposals. During the Implementation Phase, they will conduct food and
built environment projects, participate in service-based learning, and join in advocacy work.
KCFFI will inform its youth engagement strategies by referring to innovative model programs
such as AmeriCorps, BLAST’s Youth Initiative, and Youth Infusion.
B. Infrastructure
The proposed structure is a flexible vehicle for encouraging all relevant sectors of the community
to work together towards the goals of the KCFFI. The Collaborative will seek to develop the
characteristics of successful coalitions described in the literature (Appendix 16).
Structure
The Conveners and Proposal Planning Group developed a provisional structure (Appendix 17). It
reflects the Collaborative’s core values of democratic decision-making, shared leadership, and
inclusion of diverse constituencies. It offers multiple ways to be involved. The Collaborative will
review, revise, and adopt its structure within the first three months.
Collaborative: Membership in the Collaborative is open to any organization, agency, or
community member interested in the Initiative who will participate in regular meetings or
activities of at least one of the component groups described below. The Collaborative will meet
as a whole twice a year.
Leadership Council: The Leadership Council (LC) will include representatives from the Working
and Advisory Groups, an at-large member (a member who is not otherwise involved in a Group),
and the Conveners (as facilitators). The LC will assure that the mission and vision of the KCFFI
are realized. It will be the primary decision-making and guiding body of the Collaborative and
assure that planning and policy initiatives and evaluation are carried out. It will meet monthly. A
Fiscal Oversight Committee (a sub-group of the LC) will assure that resources and funding are
used effectively.
Conveners: The Conveners will facilitate the Collaborative by ensuring that KCFFI efforts stay
focused, that relationships are built and maintained, that additional funding is secured, and that
evaluation efforts are completed. They will oversee day-to-day operations including organizing
and facilitating meetings, developing meeting agendas with input from the LC, maintaining
communication, and engaging partners. The Conveners will represent the KCFFI to other
organizations, coalitions, and media. They will be accountable to the LC.
Advisory Groups: Advisory Groups will enable meaningful participation of community members
in the planning process. To ensure that diverse community voices are part of the core discussions
and decisions, a Community Member Group (including families and youth) will have three
representatives on the LC. Community members will also join Advisory Groups focused on
Initiative topic areas (Physical Activity, Community Health, Local Food Systems - one
representative from each to serve on the LC). Additional Advisory Groups or members may be
created once the focus communities are chosen and important constituent groups are identified.

10
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

Working Groups: Several strategic work groups will form to develop and participate in
implementation of specific aspects of the KCFFI (Assessment, Communication and Outreach,
Policy, Strategic Planning, Evaluation, Youth, and Collaborative Development). These groups
will operate during different phases of the planning process as appropriate. To promote learning
and leadership development, community members will be encouraged to take leadership roles in
the Working Groups and be compensated by a stipend as appropriate. Each Working Group will
identify one member as representative to the LC. The proposed Working Groups include:
• Assessment: Oversee year one assessment activities in conjunction with the Assessment
Team (see below) and then fold into the Strategic Planning Group in year two.
• Communication and Outreach: Initiate communication with the media and wider
community during year one and develop and implement a communications strategy with
the communication consultant during year two and the Implementation Phase. Promote a
diverse membership by recruiting new members from missing groups and sectors.
• Policy: Develop policies for the Implementation Phase and seek opportunities to work with
other organizations in implementing food and fitness policies during both phases.
• Strategic Planning: Develop the Community Action Plan. Form in year two from a
combination of the Assessment, Policy and Youth Working Groups.
• Evaluation: Oversee the evaluation. Includes the evaluators contracted by the KCFFI (see
Section V) and interested members of the Collaborative.
• Youth: Assure youth involvement in the planning process by working directly with youth
and representatives of youth groups.
• Ad hoc Collaborative Development: Propose bylaws, standard operating procedures and
other governance policies.
The Conveners, with direction from the LC, will recruit Working Group members from current
Collaborative members and add additional members as needed throughout the Planning Phase to
assure diverse participation. The Collaborative will select Advisory members based on planning
needs. It will develop criteria for selecting Advisory and Working Group members. The Groups,
which will include professionals and laypersons, will be formed within the first four months. To
facilitate youth and community member participation, the Collaborative will provide meals,
childcare, easily accessible meeting locations and times, and incentives. Incentives may include
equipment for physical activity, gift certificates for healthy family activities or farmers’ markets
and healthy food stores, or cash. In addition, whenever possible, the Collaborative will meet
youth, families and community constituents in their community settings.
Process
Decision Making: The Collaborative will develop an egalitarian and transparent process that
respects the interests and expertise of all participants and delegates decision-making authority as
appropriate. For example, Working Groups will have the autonomy to make decisions that fall
within their scope of responsibility as determined by the LC. Power will be equalized and
conflicts resolved by having participants objectively define criteria for guiding decision-making.
Within the first three months, the LC will determine the dollar amount below which Convener
Staff will be permitted to make independent decisions.
The Collaborative will make decisions by consensus. If members do not reach consensus they
will attempt to address the concerns of the minority to achieve a decision that all can move
forward with. Appendix 18 contains a description of the proposed consensus process.

11
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

Communication: The Collaborative will develop an internal communication plan that identifies
what information needs to be conveyed to Collaborative members, preferred communication
methods (e.g. phone, email, website, list serves, newsletters, meetings, specialty publications,
events, etc.), and a schedule of communication. When appropriate, meetings will include social
time for networking, developing relationships, and building trust. Retreats for teambuilding and
strategic planning will be held annually with additional retreats as needed. Meeting minutes will
be distributed by email and posted to a central web site.
Learning: Learning will be integral to the Collaborative’s functioning. Members will learn
through presentations, networking, study circles, newsletter items, retreats, workshops, and web
site content. Members will make brief presentations at meetings to share knowledge of their
organizations and communities. The Collaborative will model a culture of physical activity and
healthy eating by integrating both into meetings and events. The Conveners will create
opportunities for development of leadership skills and for learning about meeting facilitation,
cultural competency, social justice, conflict resolution, and coalition building.
Leadership/Governance: The Collaborative will adopt a model of shared leadership. The LC will
have overall responsibility for KCFFI. Sylvia Kantor (WSU KCE) and Erin MacDougall
(PHSKC) will act as Conveners on behalf of their organizations to support the LC.
Administration: The Proposal Planning Group chose Public Health - Seattle & King County as
the named grantee and fiscal agent (See Section VII for further detail). With 2,000 employees
and an annual budget over $235 million, PHSKC has a proven track record as the administrative
and fiscal agent for complex, coalition-based community health projects funded by large federal
and private grants. PHSKC has accounting staff and services in place to monitor budgets, issue
and monitor subcontracts, and generate fiscal reports.
Conveners: The Proposal Planning Group selected PHSKC and WSU KCE as the Conveners.
Between them, these organizations provide broad and deep access to the content areas and
stakeholders relevant to this Initiative.
The mission of Public Health - Seattle and King County is: "To provide public health services
that promote health and prevent disease to King County residents in order to achieve and sustain
healthy people and healthy communities." PHSKC is recognized for its progressive public health
programming in many areas, including chronic disease prevention and addressing the linkage
between built environment and health. PHSKC has managed complex, coalition-based
community health projects such as REACH 2010, King County Asthma Forum, Allies Against
Asthma, King County Physical Activity Coalition, and Steps to Health (Appendix 5). To support
these coalitions, PHSKC has established communication systems, organized regular and special
meetings, developed strategic planning processes, identified routes to sustainability, provided
staff support to elected (non-PHSKC) leadership and committees, managed data systems, and
overseen evaluation activities. Central to this role, PHSKC has demonstrated its commitment to
participatory community-based public health practice.
King County Extension (KCE) has been serving the local food and farming community for
nearly 100 years, bringing Washington State University food and agriculture expertise and
resources to the community. It provides leadership in agriculture and the stewardship of land;
creates confident, public-service-oriented citizens through the 4-H program and adult leadership
training; delivers evidenced-based nutrition programs that target low-income families with
youth; and strengthens families and the viability of communities. It leads efforts to develop the
food policy council, build farm-to-school connections, and provide support for and technical

12
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

assistance to area farmers, including targeted outreach to immigrant communities. In addition, it

has developed a $785,000 nutrition education program serving low-income youth called Food
$ense CHANGE – Cultivating Health and Nutrition through Gardening Education (Appendix
19). This program generates half its budget through community matching funds and in-kind
work, and typifies the community-based approach of all KCE programs.
C. Collaborative History
Seattle/King County has an extensive history of cross-sectoral collaborations, community
building, and participatory planning. Brief descriptions of several local coalitions are contained
in appendix 5. In the area of food and fitness, strong coalitions exist in food systems (e.g. Acting
Food Policy Council, Cascade Harvest Coalition, Sno-Valley Tilth), overweight and health (Steps
to Health KC, Overweight Prevention Initiative, KC Physical Activity Coalition, Feet First), and
the built environment (Transportation Choices Coalition), and all currently are, or are expected to
soon be, KCFFI participants.
For example, King County Steps to Health is a $9 million, CDC-funded, five year initiative that
aims to reduce the impact of chronic diseases through preventing and controlling asthma,
diabetes, and obesity; promoting a comprehensive approach that coordinates actions at the
individual, family, clinical, school, and community levels; integrating interventions addressing
multiple chronic conditions; and reducing health disparities. Steps has more than 75 members,
including community-based organizations, health care providers, hospitals, health plans, clinics,
universities, faith-based groups, government agencies, and school districts. Activities related to
food and fitness include teaching groups how to shop for healthy foods; successfully promoting
school policies that discourage sales of non-nutritious foods and encourage physical activity (see
Appendix 11); promoting housing and community development policies that support physical
activity, nutrition and healthy environments; developing capacity to apply Health Impact
Assessment methods to land use decisions; and supporting programs that encourage physical
activity (e.g. running groups for adolescent girls, walking groups, biking to school, mentors,
personal trainers) and good nutrition (e.g. food preparation demonstrations, healthy snacks).
Steps has successfully integrated built environment and community health efforts. The Steps
coalition is a member of the KCFFI and Steps members are also participating in the Initiative
(e.g. Austin Foundation, Bike Alliance, Bike Works, Feet First, Girls on the Run, PHSKC, Strong
Kids, Strong Teens).
The Overweight Prevention Initiative has likewise brought together community health and built
environment concerns. It has created a strong network of researchers, clinicians, urban planners,
policymakers, educators, and public health professionals to address obesity through programs,
policies, and systems change (Appendix 8).
These coalitions, several of those listed in appendix 5, are participants in KCFFI. While some
coordination is occurring across these partnerships (e.g. leadership of REACH and Steps
participate in the Overweight Prevention Initiative, Steps used the OPI policy goals to guide
selection of its policy priorities), much more is needed to develop an integrated, cross-sectoral
approach to food and fitness. This RFA provides an ideal opportunity to do so by building on a
firm foundation and the strong interest among the coalitions for further collaboration.
D. Challenges and Opportunties
The joining of diverse individuals and organizations in the KCFFI has presented both challenges
and opportunities. Members have encountered diverse communication styles and varied
disciplinary cultures, languages, and values. They have more to learn about building these

13
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

differences into strengths though improving communication skills and appreciating differences.
The rapid pace of preparing the application did not permit as participatory a process as many
members desired. Conveners have noted issues that need more discussion and the Collaborative
will address these in the coming months. Maintaining a balance between process and product
that suits all members will be a challenge. The Collaborative recognizes the need to engage
additional stakeholders who are not participants. Bringing them to the table will be an
opportunity to create connections between sectors working in isolation. This is perhaps the
greatest opportunity presented by the Initiative. Participants have been impressive in their
commitment to building systems and looking beyond narrow organizational interests. Yet the
Collaborative undoubtedly will run into conflicts between organizational and Collaborative
goals, and will need to support individual organizations while addressing systems-level issues.
IV. PLANNING APPROACH AND TIMETABLE
The goals of the Planning Phase are described in Section II. This section outlines how goals
related to the planning process (PP goals 2, 3 and 5) will be implemented.
PP Goal 2: Develop a Community Action Plan (CAP)
The CAP will include the goals, objectives, and strategies for the Implementation Phase, a logic
model, a specification of the roles of Partners in implementing the activities, and a timeline. The
following steps will lead to development of the CAP.
Community Assessment
The community assessment, completed in year 1, will describe the production, distribution, and
access to locally grown food and features of the built environment that promote active living. It
will guide the selection of the two focus communities, lay the groundwork for developing the
Community Action Plan, and provide baseline measures for evaluation of the Initiative. Potential
assessment items, measures, and data sources are described in appendix 3. Using participatory
assessment methods, an expert Assessment Team will work closely with the Collaborative to
design the assessment process, select appropriate measures and activities, review and interpret
data, and present findings. Multiple qualitative and quantitative assessment methods will be
employed based on established approaches4, 5, 6, 7, 8,.
Qualitative Assessment: Ethnographic methods will be used to collect qualitative assessment
information on food and fitness issues and strategies. The analyst will conduct key informant
interviews with 10-15 individuals knowledgeable about food systems, built environments, and
access to food in King County, including members of the Leadership Council and individuals
recommended by the Collaborative. She will conduct five group interviews to understand
barriers and opportunities for physical activity and access to healthy food.9 Potential groups
could include: youth; parents; farmers, distributors and sellers; retail market managers; school
staff; community council members; city and county planners; planning council members; and
community center staff. Some of the interviews will be conducted in a language other than
English, reflecting the ethnicities involved in this project. Youth will add data by conducting peer
interviews. A sample question guide and data collection plan are in appendix 20.
Discussions with community organizations and boards: The Collaborative will directly engage
residents and organizations from the focus communities to discuss food and fitness issues and
strategies through community forums and meetings with organization staff and boards.
Community audits: Initiative staff will support youth and adult community members in
conducting walking/biking audits and community food assessments of the focus communities
using standard tools (Appendix 21). Staff will support youth in using photo voice methods10. This

14
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

approach allows youth to visually document and communicate their experiences regarding
community assets and barriers related to food and fitness. Assessment staff will work with
interested residents and Leadership Council members to analyze these data (including GIS
methods).
Analysis of archival materials: Staff will collect, catalog, and analyze archival materials
describing local activities related to the built environment and health, food systems, growth
management and long range urban growth boundary planning, regulations and policies, program
materials, and evaluations of community-based health/food/built environment initiatives. For
example, the Sound Food Report2 is an assessment of the current food system. These materials
will provide the contextual background (e.g. historical and political factors) necessary to build
this Community Action Plan.
Quantitative Assessment: Staff will analyze data from several secondary data sets (and collect
limited primary data) to provide a quantitative description of food and fitness issues and assets.
Data sets include public-access geospatial data on the built environment collected and organized
by the University of Washington Urban Form Lab (Appendix 22) and geocoded individual-level
population-based socioeconomic, risk, and health outcome data from BRFSS, vital records, and
other sources. See appendix 3 for a list of potential variables. For example, staff will produce
maps at the regional level to display food system and transportation assets and barriers. Detailed
maps at the neighborhood level will show locations of parks and playgrounds, gaps and hazards
in walking and biking routes, locations of local healthy food sources (e.g. retailers, schools,
hospitals, community centers), and locations of less healthy fast foods. BFRSS data will describe
physical activity and nutrition behaviors and overweight prevalence, and vital
records/hospitalization data will show disease rates. Data will be analyzed at the community and
county levels.
Assessment Team: The Assessment Team will include faculty and staff from the University of
Washington, WSU KCE, and PHSKC. See appendix 23 for Assessment Team members,
affiliations, and expertise.
Policy Assessment
An inventory of regional food and fitness policy activities (historical and current) will be created
through key informant and group interviews and a review of web sites and public documents.
Policies will be entered into a database modeled after the ENACT Local Policy Database and
posted on the KCFFI website for local and national use.
Identification of CAP Objectives
Beginning in year two, the Strategic Planning Working Group will use the assessment findings to
identify issues at the regional, county, and neighborhood level and review assets, resource gaps,
and barriers to addressing those gaps. The Group will present this analysis to the LC at a formal
two-day retreat (with external facilitation). Using a charette model and nominal group process,
the LC will agree upon objectives for the CAP. Staff will then present these objectives to key
informant and group interview participants and selected CBOs for further comments. The LC
will then finalize its choice of objectives.
Review of Best and Promising Practices
The next step will be to collect best and promising practices for attaining CAP objectives. Staff
will identify model policies and programs through website searching, literature reviews,
discussion with other FFI sites and program staff, and expert consultation (Appendix 24). The
information will be summarized using a standard template that includes a description of the

15
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

strategy, evidence of effectiveness, estimated local feasibility of implementation (including a

SWOT analysis of policy options), estimated costs, potential implementing organizations, likely
impact on disparities, ease of sustainability, and fit with existing activities. Summaries will be
reviewed and modified by the Advisory and Working Groups.
Selection of CAP activities
At a second facilitated retreat, the LC will review potential interventions emanating from the best
and promising practices review and suggestions generated from key informants, group
interviews, and community outreach meetings. Members will suggest additional interventions.
Local experts in food systems, built environments, nutrition, and physical activity will be invited
to serve as information resources. Members will prioritize activities using standard group
decision-making methods (e.g. nominal group process). The process will emphasize development
of an approach that integrates organizations, activities, and advocacy using methods developed
by local coalitions such as Steps and Allies Against Asthma (Appendix 25). Another round of
community consultation will occur, in which key informants, group interview participants, and
CBOs will review and comment on the selected strategies. The LC will review this input,
develop a final list of priorities, and determine how resources will be allocated for strategy
implementation.
PP Goal 3: Implement pilot projects to develop effective local approaches for implementing
Action Plan strategies
Some ideas could be to:
• Develop background and position papers on policy initiatives.
• Develop small-scale projects such as community gardens in focus neighborhoods, a trial of
CSA in a public housing site, school-based garden programs, or food service changes.
PP Goal 5: Implement a communications strategy
The Collaborative will develop and implement a communication plan in the second year with the
assistance of a communications consultant to engage and inform community residents and
organizations about the Initiative and leverage support for policies, funding, and implementation
from local public and private sector leaders. Specific objectives include:
• Develop a compelling presentation on food and fitness and the CAP (this might include a
DVD or PowerPoint presentation, brochure, Press Kit, talking points, or website content).
• Create a media outreach strategy; track and distribute news coverage and articles to
Initiative participants and other target audiences.
• Develop updates on the Initiative, ways to be involved, exciting developments, and success
stories in order to increase the visibility of the Collaborative.
• Train Collaborative members in a variety of media techniques including: responding to
unexpected opportunities or challenges in the media, identifying and improving key
messages, interviewing skills, drafting and publishing op-eds and guest columns, pitching
radio and TV talk shows, and preparing letters to the editor and blog comments.
• Assist staff with development of internal communication mechanisms.

16
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

Timeline
Activity Year 1 Year 2
Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
Community Assessment
Qualitative data collection and analysis
Archival analysis
Community discussions
Community audits
Secondary quantitative data analysis
Policy Assessment
Develop database of past and current policies
CAP Development
Determination of CAP objectives
Review of best and promising practices
Selection of CAP strategies/activities
Pilot projects
Identify topics for projects
Implement and evalaute projects
Communications
Develop promotional and educational resources
Develop media outreach strategy
Implement outreach activities
Develop internal communciations methods

V. EVALUATION
The KCFFI is a complex, multi-level program and evaluating it will be a complex undertaking.
Evaluators will look to the emerging “systems thinking” approach as a framework for the
evaluation.11, 12 They will use methods for capturing systems change developed in previous
work.13
A. Outcome Measures
Planning Outcomes
Five goals are outlined above for the Planning Phase. With respect to the first goal, creating the
KCFFI Collaborative (PP1), the outcome measures will include participant satisfaction with
processes, diversity of members, number of youth participating, representation from key sectors,
satisfaction with leadership, diversity of leadership, number of collaborative actions initiated by
youth and residents and number of sustainability actions identified and initiated. Data will be
analyzed separately for youth in order to assess youth engagement.
Evaluators will assess attainment of goals PP2 and PP3, developing a system-based approach and
implementing the pilot projects, by seeking evidence of task completion.
Outcome measures associated with integration (PP4) include density of communication linkages,
number of tools and approaches developed jointly by KCFFI members, number and description
of joint projects and policy initiatives, density of coordination linkages among members, number
of cross-referral mechanisms established, and number of activities coordinated.
Finally, outcome measures for developing a communication strategy (PP5) include components
of strategy implemented, number of contacts, number of media mentions, satisfaction with
knowledge of initiative, and ease of communicating with other members.
Implementation Outcomes
Five overall implementation goals are outlined in this proposal, related to social environments,
integrated food systems, built environments, engaged youth, and a participatory community
process.
Distal outcomes: The first three goals are ambitious, targeting overarching community systems
and norms, and it will be challenging to demonstrate a measurable change in distal outcome

17
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

measures (e.g. overweight prevalence or physical activity levels) specifically attributable to

KCFFI activities. As a result, the 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 attribute those changes to KCFFI. Examples of these
outcomes are included in appendix 3 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.
Intermediate outcomes: Intermediate outcomes related to systems and policy changes will be
primarily qualitative; for example, descriptions of changes in community-level food systems,
changes in the built environment, and changes in policy. For each community change, the
evaluators will measure to the extent possible both the “reach” of the change (e.g. how many
people are affected), and the “intensity” of the change (e.g. magnitude of effect on each affected
person), to the extent possible. Most of the intensity information will come from previous
studies; for example, estimates of the effect of implementing a walking trail on physical activity.
Youth Engagement: Outcomes related to youth engagement (IP4) will include number of youth
involved in KCFFI, a description of their roles, a self-rating of the impact they have had and the
degree to which they have been engaged.
Community Engagement: Assessment of the community process (IP5) will focus on the
Collaborative itself, continuing to track measurements of effective collaborative functioning.
Additional community process outcomes will include the degree to which potential community
partners, outside the formal process, have been engaged.
B. Data
Planning Data: The evaluation of the planning process will rely primarily on qualitative data:
participant observation at meetings, interviews with members and other community stakeholders,
reports, meeting notes, attendance lists, planning products, and activity logs of key staff.
Qualitative data will be supplemented with closed-ended partnership member surveys, assessing
satisfaction with the partnership, based on the California Health Endowment Partnership Survey
(Appendix 26).
Implementation Data: Implementation data on proximal policy and systems change outcomes
will come primarily from documents and interviews with representatives of sectors where the
systems/policy changes are occurring. Estimates of the reach and intensity of community
systems and policy changes will come from documents, project logs, and literature on the impact
these changes have had in other settings. Outcome data related to youth engagement and the
community process will come from surveys, interviews, meeting minutes, and other documents.
Data on project reach will be collected with an online database.
Principal long-term outcome measures at the local community level such as population-level
changes in diet, physical activity, and accessibility of healthy food options, will come from
secondary data sources when available and primary data collection if necessary. Secondary
sources for measuring individual-level behavior change include the Healthy Youth Survey
(Washington State version of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) and BRFSS. Primary sources
may include community walking audits and community food assessments, carried out by
University of Washington students, youth, and other community members (Appendix 3).
C. Design

18
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

The Implementation Phase evaluation will use a combination of (1) a structured case-study
design to describe and assess the short-term and intermediate impact of the Initiative, and (2) a
quasi-experimental design using quantitative outcome measures with interrupted time-series
analysis to assess the distal impact of KCFFI in the two local communities.14, 15 The Planning
Phase evaluation will use only the structured case study approach.
Structured Case Studies: The purpose of the case study is both descriptive and analytic: to
describe the process of change, draw lessons learned for program improvement, document
outcomes (e.g. community-level policy and environmental changes), rate the significance of
those outcomes, and assess the contribution of KCFFI in bringing them about. The basic
organizing tool for the case study is the Community Action Plan, which describes in detail the
objectives, timeline, and expected outcomes for each intervention strategy. A regular progress
reporting scheme will capture the status of major elements of the action plan along with
outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned.
Two key elements of the case study are an assessment of (1) the significance of systems and
policy changes that occur, and (2) the contribution of the Initiative to bringing about such
changes. The significance of a given community change depends on the number of people
affected and the intensity of the effect for each person. If quantitative data on the effectiveness of
a community change exist, a more precise estimate of impact may be made. For example, if the
evidence suggests that eliminating soda vending machines from schools results in a 10% decline
in soda consumption, then the effect of such a policy can be readily calculated for a given school.
If the evidence is less quantifiable, such as the creation of new walking trails, a more subjective
estimate may be required (e.g. number of trail users, adjusted roughly for diversion from existing
walking patterns).
The contribution of KCFFI to a given community change will be assessed largely through key
informant interviews with stakeholders directly involved in bringing about the change, along
with other documentation (e.g. meeting minutes). The Collaborative will also consider tracking
the pattern of changes over time, following the pattern matching approach of Yin.16 For some
changes, the partnership will be the clear initiator and all stakeholders will agree that without the
partnership the change would not have happened. In other cases, particularly for large-scale
policy and environmental change (e.g. school vending policies, new parks/walking trails,
changes in building codes), the partnership may be only one of many actors. In these more
complicated cases, it may be difficult to determine the exact contribution of the partnership. In
the past, a three-tiered rating scheme has been used: “critical” - change would not have happened
without partnership; “key” - partnership played a key role, equal to other important actors;
“minor” - partnership was involved, but change would have happened without it.
Quasi-Experimental Design: A quasi-experimental design will be used to assess changes in distal
community-level outcomes in the two focus communities, using secondary data related to
physical activity, nutrition, and access to healthy foods. It is possible to compare many of these
secondary data sources with county, state, or national values. This comparison can determine
whether trends toward healthier behavior or access to healthier foods in local communities
exceed trends elsewhere. For example, population-level changes in physical activity in the two
focus communities can be compared to changes in the rest of Seattle/King County using BRFSS
data. The larger Initiative may want to consider using similar data across all sites to compare
trends aggregated across sites with trends in comparison communities, using interrupted time
series analysis with multiple baseline points.

19
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

D. Collaborative Process
The Evaluation Team uses a collaborative approach in all of its evaluation work, involving
community members and other stakeholders in the process. Following past practices, the
evaluators will lead the Evaluation Working Group comprised of stakeholders who provide
ongoing feedback and input on key decisions. In addition, the evaluators will create opportunities
for feedback from all Leadership Council participants on key decisions (design, data collection
methods and instruments, analysis, and interpretation) that minimize the time required but allow
everyone to be aware of evaluation status and to offer feedback. Often, feedback is elicited
through periodic evaluation presentations at Leadership Council meetings. This approach assures
broader community representation. The Evaluation Work Group will work with the Leadership
Council to identify the best approach to communicate evaluation results that may be useful for
refining and improving the planning process. This will include brief summary reports of specific
survey activities and presentations to partnership meetings.
E. Evaluation Leadership
The evaluation will be led by the Group Health Community Foundation Evaluation Team, which
has conducted evaluations of several large-scale community-based initiatives (more fully
described in appendix 26 and attachment C) including the Kaiser Permanente (KP) Community
Health Initiative, which is using an approach similar to the WK Kellogg FFI to promote healthy
eating and active living in 14 communities in 8 KP regions. Most of these initiatives included a
planning or start-up phase focusing on development of community action plans and
forming/strengthening community coalitions. Allen Cheadle PhD, Research Professor at
University of Washington School of Public Health, will lead the Evaluation Team. He has led
many of the Group Health evaluations (Appendix 26, Attachment C).

VI. OTHER FUNDING RESOURCES

The prospect of W.K. Kellogg Foundation funding and excitement with the vision of the KCFFI
have allowed the Collaborative to leverage significant additional resources. The Conveners have
pledged resources valued at $216,577 for the two-year period. Funding sources for WSU KCE
are state funds (through WSU) local funds (through King County, including general tax revenues
and water quality), and federal pass-through dollars. PHSKC resources are from state dollars
allocated to local health jurisdictions to support capacity development. In addition, several
Collaborative Partners have committed to providing in-kind support for a total of $XXX in
addition to XXX hours of staff time (dollar amount not specified) (Attachment B).
The Seattle Foundation’s Healthy Kids Fund has pledged $50,000 contingent upon receipt of the
grant. Funds will be used for a discrete project to augment assessment activities, with emphases
on improving access to healthy foods, and improvement of the regional food and farming system.
The Collaborative has identified additional areas of interest and will continue to seek funding for
the planning years to enhance the proposed scope of work.

VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS

This planning grant was prepared through a participatory process. On October 18, 2006 PHSKC
convened a facilitated meeting of those who were involved in preparing the Letter of Intent as
well as additional organizations interested in the proposal for the Planning Phase of the Initiative
(Appendix 27). At this meeting, participants decided on a process for selecting a fiscal agent,
selected the Conveners, and identified Collaborative Partners for the Planning Phase based on a

20
 King County Food and Fitness Initiative

set of mutually agreed upon criteria (Appendix 28). A Proposal Planning Group open to all
interested participants was formed (Appendix 29). Facilitated by the Conveners, this group met
in person five times and exchanged numerous emails and phone calls to develop this proposal
(Appendix 30). The Conveners prepared an initial draft of the proposal with assistance from
planning group members. The evaluators prepared a draft of the evaluation section and PHSKC
and UW staff prepared a draft of the assessment section. The planning group reviewed each
section and Conveners made revisions. The Conveners integrated these components into the final
full proposal, which they sent out for email review. A draft budget was prepared by the
Conveners, and along with the final version of the narrative, was approved by the Proposal
Planning Group.

21
1
Ostrom, M, et al. 2005 King County Food System Atlas, WSU CSANR Technical Report 2005-05-10 (2005).
2
Garrett, S, et al. Sound Food Report: Enhancing Seattle’s Food System, (2006).
3
What’s Health Got to Do with Growth Management, Economic Development and Transportation? (2006).
4
Beebe, J. Rapid Assessment Process: An Introduction. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press (2001).
5
Mizoguchi, N, et al. A Handbook for Participatory Community Assessments: Experiences from Alameda County. Oakland,
CA: Alameda County Public Health Department (2004).
6
Heaven, C. Developing a Plan for Identifying Local Needs and Resources. Ed. K. Nagy and J. Schultz. Community
Toolbox. 2003. University of Kansas. March 2004. http://ctb.lsi.ukans.edu - Accessed 12/4/06.
7
AssessNow: A Washington State CDC funded assessment clearinghouse. http://www.assessnow.info/ - Accessed 12/4/06.
8
Israel, Barbara A, et al. eds. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. John Wiley and Sons: San
Francisco, CA (2005).
9
Keiffer, E, et al. The Application of Focus Group Methodologies to Community-Based Participatory Research in Methods
in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. Israel, Barbara A., Eugenia Eng, Amy J. Schulz, Edith A. Parker,
eds. John Wiley and Sons: San Francisco, CA (2005).
10
López, E, et al. Photovoice as a Community-Based Participatory Research Method: A Case Study with African American
Breast Cancer Survivors in Eastern North Carolina in Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health.
Israel, Barbara A., Eugenia Eng, Amy J. Schulz, Edith A. Parker, eds. John Wiley and Sons: San Francisco, CA (2005).
11
McLeroy K. Thinking of Systems. Am J Public Health 96:402 (2006).
12
Leischow S, Milstein B. Systems Thinking and Modeling for Public Health Practice. Am J Public Health 96:403-405
(2006).
13
Cheadle A, et al. The California Wellness Foundation's Health Improvement Initiative: Evaluation Findings and Lessons
Learned. Am J Health Prom;19(4):286-296 (2005).
14
Thyer BA. Promoting Research on Community Practice: Using Single System Designs. Research Strategies for
Community Practice. J Community Practice. Supplement 1: 47-61 (1998).
15
Biglan A, et al. The value of interrupted time-series experiments for community intervention research. Prev Sci. Mar
1(1):31-49 (2000).
16
Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications (1994).