1250-1750-word (+ Works Cited)

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 81

Advancing food democracy: The potential and limits

of food policy positions in local government

Erika Berglund a * and Neva Hassanein b

University of Montana

Paul Lachapelle c

Montana State University

Caroline Stephens d

University of Montana

Submitted January 31, 2021 / Revised March 14 and May 29, 2021 / Accepted June 1, 2021 /

Published online October 22, 2021

Citation: Berglund, E., Hassanein, N., Lachapelle, P., & Stephens, C (2021). Advancing food democracy:

The potential and limits of food policy positions in local government. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems,

and Community Development, 11(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.111.002

Copyright © 2021 by the Authors. Published by the Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems. Open access under CC-BY license.

Abstract For several decades, food policy councils (FPCs)

have led the effort to place food on local govern-

ment policy agendas. While FPCs are making pro-

gress in supporting local food systems, they also

face institutional and organizational challenges. In

recent years, a handful of cities and counties have

endeavored to further food system reform with the

establishment of full-time government staff posi-

tions focused on food policy. As of spring 2020,

there were 19 confirmed food policy positions

housed in local governments across the United

States. While there is considerable literature on

FPCs, little research has been published regarding

food policy staffing in local governments.

a * Corresponding author: Erika Berglund, M.S., Environmental

Studies Program, University of Montana.

Ms. Berglund is now at JG Research and Evaluation; 2103

Bridger Drive, Suite 1; Bozeman, MT 59715 USA; +1-805-

708-8864; [email protected]

b Neva Hassanein, Professor, Environmental Studies Program,

University of Montana, Jeannette Rankin Hall 106A, Missoula,

MT 59812 USA; [email protected]

c Paul Lachapelle, Professor, Department of Political Science,

Montana State University, P.O. Box 172240, Bozeman, MT

59717 USA; [email protected]

d Caroline Stephens, Lecturer, Environmental Studies

Program, University of Montana, Jeannette Rankin Hall 106A,

Missoula, MT 59812 USA; [email protected]

Funding Disclosure

The authors are grateful for the support of the University of

Montana BRIDGES program, funded by National Science

Foundation Grant No. DGE-1633831, as well as funding

provided to the first author from the University of Montana

Graduate School, Environmental Studies Program, and

Brainerd Foundation.

Author Note

The original research for this article was conducted as part of

the first author’s graduate student professional paper.

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

82 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

Accordingly, this study uses original in-depth inter-

views with 11 individuals in municipal or county

food policy positions to understand the purpose

and function of governmental food policy staff

positions and their impact on local food systems.

Our findings suggest that these positions help to

coordinate and nurture local food programs and

policies and have the potential to facilitate mean-

ingful participation of individuals and groups in the

community in food system reform. We discuss the

potential benefits and challenges for governmental

food policy positions to support food democracy,

and provide the following recommendations for

communities interested in establishing or

strengthening similar positions: (1) identify and

coordinate existing opportunities and assets, (2)

foster and maintain leadership support, (3) root the

work in community, (4) connect with other food

policy professionals, and (5) develop a food system

vision.

Keywords Food Policy, Food Democracy, Coordination,

Local Government, Food System, Food Policy

Council

Introduction Over the last several decades, numerous scholars,

community development practitioners, and acti-

vists have critiqued the dominant, industrial food

system, in part because of the extraordinary levels

of economic and political power held by trans-

national agri-food firms. In particular, the concen-

tration of economic power among agri-food firms

means that a small number of firms have gained

extensive control over the shape and development

of the agri-food system at nearly every level, from

seeds and inputs, to processing, to retail (Hendrick-

son et al., 2017; Lang et al., 2009). This oligopo-

listic power structure has produced a globalized

food system that exacts an extraordinary toll on the

living and working conditions of farmers and farm

laborers, the biodiversity and health of ecosystems,

the rights and well-being of marginalized commu-

nities, and the health of consumers. In response,

calls for more democratic food systems have

amplified concerns about the need for sustaina-

bility and equity in the dominant food system.

Food democracy envisions individuals and

communities as vital, active participants in shaping

more just, equitable, and community-based food

systems (Hassanein, 2003; Sieveking, 2019). One

manifestation of the potential for food democracy

is the ever-expanding network of food policy coun-

cils (FPCs), which have been established in locali-

ties throughout the United States and the world

(Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable

Future, n.d.). For several decades, FPCs have

emerged as desired forums for civic participation in

the food system, and laid substantial groundwork

in placing food on local government policy agendas

where it once was notably absent (Feenstra, 1997;

Muller et al., 2009; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999;).

In 2018, 283 FPCs in the U.S. were verified as

either active, in development, or in transition

(Santo et al., 2021). Many FPCs serve as vital insti-

tutions for fostering food democracy and advising

local governments in their efforts to create vibrant,

resilient, and equitable local food systems (Bassarab

et al., 2019; Hassanein, 2003; Sieveking, 2019).

FPCs also have the potential to promote many of

the basic tenets of community development,

including encouraging local self-reliance, building

resiliency, supporting equity and justice, and

enhancing social capital, to name but a few

(Christensen & Phillips, 2017; Lamie & Deller,

2017). Yet, despite their fundamental role in food

system reform and food democracy, FPCs face lim-

itations in their capacity and resources. For exam-

ple, the majority of FPCs primarily rely on volun-

teer membership, and only 36% (n=198) of those

who responded to the 2020 Food Policy Networks

survey report having paid staff, which may limit the

depth and breadth of their work (Santo et al.,

2021).

In many cases, a lack of financial and person-

nel resources causes FPCS to focus more heavily

on programs, rather than policy (Gupta et al., 2018;

Scherb et al., 2012; Schiff, 2008). According to

interviews conducted by Schiff (2008), some FPCs

expressed that having a programmatic focus allows

them to engage in the hands-on implementation of

food policy rather than getting bogged down in the

bureaucracy and political messiness of researching,

developing, and recommending policy. While FPCs

may be more experienced and efficient in develop-

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 83

ing and supporting food-related programs, this lack

of focus on policy suggests that there remains a

gap in the development stage of food policy for

many communities. This gap points to earlier

scholarship on community food policy and plan-

ning by Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999), which

identified FPCs as one of multiple approaches to

pursuing local food policy initiatives. Communities,

they argued, may also find opportunities to create

comprehensive food system plans and policies

through municipal departments of food or by inte-

grating food policy into existing planning agencies.

Rather than relying on one policy model, commu-

nities may find food systems work can be amplified

and strengthened through an integrated and multi-

faceted approach.

Few studies of the role of government actors

or civil servants in facilitating food democracy exist

in the literature (van de Griend et al., 2019). Yet,

some local governments have recently established

staff positions centered on local food policy or

food systems (Hatfield, 2012; Santo et al., 2014).

The number of city and county food policy staff

positions in the U.S. has fluctuated, in part because

food policy and food systems planning are novel

additions to local government agendas. Therefore,

there is little precedent for longitudinal studies or

determining best practices (Hatfield, 2012). The

overall trend, however, is one of growth in num-

bers, having reached 19 confirmed positions in the

U.S. by 2020. Nearly all of these positions were

established in the previous five years (as detailed in

our findings below).

While local governments continue to establish

these positions, there is little scholarship regarding

their genesis, development, and impacts on food

democracy. In an important recent addition to the

literature, however, van de Griend et al. (2019)

conducted an ethnographic study in the Dutch

municipality of Ede that specifically explored how

government actors working on an urban food pol-

icy shaped the conditions for different types of

participation among non-governmental organiza-

tions. Evaluating civic participation as a key dimen-

sion of food democracy and a core strategy for citi-

zens to shape their community’s food system, they

found that food democracy can be enhanced and

made more inclusive when a municipality commits

to achieving a holistic food policy and creates

spaces for civic participation. Moreover, van de

Griend et al. (2019) argue for balancing a strong

leadership role in local government with a more

open and responsive approach toward non-

governmental organizations. Such a balance, they

contend, will not only facilitate movement toward

achieving food policy objectives, but also enhance

food democracy through meaningful civic partici-

pation and collaborative action.

In order to add to the emerging literature on

the role of government actors in food democracy,

this article presents the results of research on these

relatively new food policy positions in local

governments in the U.S., as well as the benefits,

challenges, and outcomes of their work. Our spe-

cific research questions are: (1) Based on the expe-

riences of communities with food policy staff posi-

tions, what opportunities do food policy staff posi-

tions provide local governments in terms of

advancing the creation of a more healthy, sustaina-

ble, and equitable food system? (2) What limita-

tions or challenges do these staff encounter as they

try to achieve specific outcomes? (3) How might

these positions be helping to advance food democ-

racy? Similar to Sieveking’s (2019) evaluation of

FPCs in Germany, we operationalize the concept

of food democracy using Hassanein’s (2008)

framework as a means for analyzing governmental

food policy positions as tools for food democracy.

In particular, we consider the following key dimen-

sions of food democracy:

(1) Collaborating toward food system

sustainability;

(2) Becoming knowledgeable about food and

the food system;

(3) Sharing ideas about the food system with

others;

(4) Developing efficacy concerning food and

the food system; and

(5) Acquiring an orientation toward the

community good.

To address our research questions, we carried

out and thematically analyzed original, in-depth

interviews with 11 individuals in municipal or

county food policy staff positions. Based on this

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

84 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

thematic analysis, we describe the relevance of gov-

ernmental food policy staff positions to U.S. com-

munities and reflect upon the potential for such

positions to support the principles of food democ-

racy in community food systems. We then provide

recommendations for communities interested in

establishing food policy positions in local gov-

ernment. Finally, we discuss opportunities for

future research of governmental food policy posi-

tions as emergent models of food democracy.

Methods In order to generate the sample for this study, we

endeavored to identify and verify all active food

policy staff positions in city or county governments

throughout the U.S. This process began with

referencing Hatfield’s (2012) study, and cross-

referencing that information with resources such as

the Food Policy Networks directory (Johns

Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, n.d.), local

government online resources, and the U.S. Confer-

ence of Mayors Food Policy Task Force (United

States Conference of Mayors, n.d.). The prelimi-

nary list of food policy staff positions was then

reviewed and updated by the senior program

officer at the Johns Hopkins University Center for

a Livable Future (K. Bassarab, personal communi-

cation, January 28, 2020).

The verified list includes 19 municipal or

county governmental food policy staff positions as

of 2020. From this list, 11 individuals were inter-

viewed using a semistructured format in spring

2020. While individuals in all 19 positions were

invited to participate, several did not respond and a

handful were unable to participate within the time

constraints of the project. Thus, our sample repre-

sents 58% of all known positions at the time. Table

1 shows a list of interview participants. Participant

identity was not made confidential because partici-

pants work in local government and their infor-

mation is publicly available; furthermore, the au-

thors felt that their identity and location would

provide a valuable resource for collaboration and

networking opportunities.

In general, interview questions addressed the

participants’ professional background, the history

and responsibilities of their position, and their

experiences working at the job. The interview

guide is in the Appendix. Audio from each inter-

view was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and

analyzed using thematic content analysis (Hesse-

Biber, 2017). A comprehensive description of the

methods used is detailed in Berglund (2020).

Descriptive Findings The findings presented in this section describe the

themes and topics most frequently discussed

among the 11 interview participants. The central

themes that emerged include organizational struc-

ture, benefits of the position, challenges of the

position, lessons learned, and recommendations for

establishing a food policy position. Based on these

findings, we then analyzed the potential and limita-

tions of food policy positions to support food

democracy using the key dimensions of food

democracy introduced above and described by

Hassanein (2008).

Governmental food policy staff are positioned in

local government in a myriad of ways. For

example, we note that positions are often housed

in a variety of departments, including sustainability,

economic development, public health, the mayor’s

office, and county extension. Among the 11 indi-

viduals interviewed, each position has a different

title, but all have a food systems or food policy

focus and serve in a leadership or advisory capac-

ity. As of April 2020, all these positions are one

full-time equivalent (1 FTE). Seven serve as the

sole staff person working on food systems in their

government. At the same time, all but one of the

communities represented in this research have an

active food policy council or board, which the

respective food policy staff is tasked with support-

ing (Lexington, Kentucky, does not have a coun-

cil). Two positions, the Columbus local food sys-

tems strategies coordinator and Franklin County

food systems planner, support the same food

board and local food council, because the city of

Columbus is located within Franklin County.

In general, these 11 positions were established

as the result of collaborative action and advocacy

by community leaders and elected officials, such as

mayors, local FPCs, and/or leadership in gov-

ernmental departments. The motivations behind

Jo u rn

al o f A

gricu ltu

re, F o

o d

S ystem

s, an d

C o

m m

u n

ity D ev

elo p

m en

t

IS S N

: 2 1 5 2 -0

8 0 1 o

n lin

e

h ttp

s:/ /

fo o

d system

sjo u rn

al.o rg

V o

lu m

e 1 1 , Issu

e 1 /

F all 2

0 2 1

8 5

Table 1. Description of Eleven Positions and the Respective Food Policy Council as of May 2020

City or County Name of Position

Year

Established

Position

Location Position Funding

Individual

in Position

Years in

Position

Addi-

tional

Staff

Food Policy

Council

Year FPC

Established Structure Members

Austin, TX Food Policy

Manager

2014 Office of

Sustainabiity

City general fund Edwin Marty 6 years 1.5 Austin-Travis

County Food

Board

2008 Govern-

mental

13

Columbus,

OH

Local Food

Systems

Strategies

Coordinator

2015 Public Health

Department

Originally funded

through temporary

funds (i.e. grants,

foundations, inno-

vation fund); now

city general fund

Cheryl L.

Graffagnino

5 years 1 Columbus-

Franklin County

Local Food

Board; Franklin

County Local

Food Council

2016;

2013

Govern-

mental;

nonprofit

12; 10

Denver, CO Food Systems

Administrator

2015 Department of

Public Health

and

Environment

Originally funded

through temporary

funds (i.e. grants,

foundations, inno-

vation fund); now

city general fund

Laine

Cidlowski

3 years 5 Denver

Sustainable

Food Policy

Council

2010 Govern-

mental

Varies

Indianapolis,

IN

Food Policy and

Program

Coordinator

2016 Office of Public

Health and

Safety

City-county council

budget

Milele

Kennedy

1 year

or less

None Indy Food

Council

2014 Govern-

mental

Varies

Lexington,

KY

Director of Local

Food and

Agricultural

Development

2014 Mayor's Office

of Economic

Development

Originally funded

through temporary

funds (i.e. grants,

foundations, inno-

vation fund); now

city general fund

Ashton

Potter-Wright

6 years None None N/A N/A N/A

Madison,

WI

Food Policy

Director

2016

(2012–16

was Food

and Alcohol

Policy

Coordinator)

Mayor's Office City general fund George

Reistad

4 years None Madison Food

Policy Council

2012 Govern-

mental

23

Minneapolis,

MN

Local Food Policy

Coordinator

2014 City

Coordinator's

Office,

Sustainability

Division

City general fund Tamara

Downs Schwei

6 years 2 Homegrown

Minneapolis

Food Council

2011 Govern-

mental

21

Jo u rn

al o f A

gricu ltu

re, F o

o d

S ystem

s, an d

C o

m m

u n

ity D ev

elo p

m en

t

IS S N

: 2 1 5 2 -0

8 0 1 o

n lin

e

h ttp

s:/ /

fo o

d system

sjo u rn

al.o rg

8 6

V o

lu m

e 1 1 , Issu

e 1 /

F all 2

0 2 1

City or

County Name of Position

Year

Established

Position

Location Position Funding

Individual

in Position

Years in

Position

Addi-

tional

Staff

Food Policy

Council

Year FPC

Established Structure Members

Salt Lake

City, UT

Food and Equity

Program

Manager

2019 Sustainability

Department

Originally funded

through temporary

funds (i.e. grants,

foundations, inno-

vation fund); now

city general fund

Supreet Gill 1 year

or less

None Salt Lake City

Food Policy

Council

2008 Govern-

mental

Up to 16

Dane

County, WI

Community Food

Systems

Coordinator

2019 Dane County

Extension

County and state

extension funds

Jess Guffey

Calkins

1 year

or less

None Dane County

Food Council

2006 Govern-

mental

12

Douglas

County, KS

Sustainability and

Food Systems

Analyst

2014 Sustainability

Department

Originally funded

through temporary

funds (i.e. grants,

foundations, inno-

vation fund); now

county general fund

Kim Criner

Ritchie

1 year

or less

None Douglas County

Food Policy

Council

2010 Govern-

mental

16

Franklin

County, OH

Food Systems

Planner

2016 Economic

Development

and Planning

Department

County general fund Brian

Estabrook

3 years None Columbus-

Franklin County

Local Food

Board; Franklin

County Local

Food Council

2016;

2013

Govern-

mental;

nonprofit

12; 10

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 87

creating these positions centered around (1) elevat-

ing the food system, (2) developing a holistic and

coordinated approach to food system governance,

and (3) addressing the community’s persistent

food-related issues.

The role played by these food policy staff is

often complex and dynamic, as a result of the

structure of the food system and of shifting com-

munity needs, priorities, and resources. The re-

sponsibilities and duties assigned to these positions

are distinct in some instances, but generally fall into

the following categories:

• Communication, coordination, and public

relations,

• Policy development and implementation,

• Project development, support, and man-

agement, and/or

• Food systems analysis.

When asked about which areas of food policy

they prioritize in their position, the majority of

study participants identified (a) economic develop-

ment, (b) healthy food access, (c) food waste re-

duction and recovery, and (d) food procurement.

Several participants also mentioned food produc-

tion, land use planning, and transportation. These

priority areas were most frequently determined by

existing plans and policy activity in local govern-

ment. However, several participants also pointed to

community input and FPC recommendations as

influential determinants of priority areas. In many

instances, participants described working on poli-

cies and programs that address multiple priorities

at once, such as the city of Madison’s Healthy

Food Retail Access Program, which provides fund-

ing support to small, food retail businesses in areas

lacking in healthy food access.

Several positions described their job and its

priorities as constantly evolving over time. Al-

though their job priorities can be categorized into

tidy boxes, in reality, the complex work requires a

“systems-thinking” approach that includes under-

standing various food system elements and their

interconnections, scales, and feedback loops

(Bassarab et al., 2019; Clancy, 2012; Palmer &

Santo, 2020). For example, the city of Austin faces

urgent issues around affordable housing, healthy

food access, and farmland preservation, and ad-

dressing one issue in isolation may undermine

progress on another. As Austin’s food policy

manager, E. Marty, explained: “We really spent the

last five years trying to unwind that very complex

equation … what I call a triangulation of quality of

life, where we need to have dense, affordable hous-

ing located near good food retail in combination

with access to multi-mobility transportation

options.” Similarly, Indianapolis’s food policy and

program coordinator strives to identify and address

the root causes of poverty to more meaningfully

address food insecurity at the city scale.

In considering the value of their particular position

and the role it plays for their community, partici-

pants mentioned a number of benefits, broadly

grouped into four thematic categories: (1) coordi-

nation and collaboration, (2) food system leader-

ship, (3) capacity building, and (4) systems think-

ing. The majority of participants spoke to benefits

in all four categories, with coordination and

collaboration benefits mentioned most frequently.

Coordination and collaboration. Seven par-

ticipants described being a kind of point-person for

food systems in government and the larger

community—someone who fills a communication

and coordination gap. B. Estabrook, food systems

planner for Franklin County, OH, explained:

The primary benefit is that there is someone

within the county who is aware of all of this

work happening across multiple different,

siloed efforts and can understand and com-

municate across all those silos and coordinate

work and make connections. A big, big, big,

big part of our role with the local food team is

coordination, collaboration, connection. And

so, that can only be done if someone knows

everything that's going on. So, a lot of the ben-

efit is just having one sort of centralized hub

where those things are known.

Leadership. Rather than addressing the food

system in a patchwork fashion or with part-time

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

88 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

staff, which is frequent in local government

(Harper et al., 2009), these full-time policy staff are

uniquely focused on the food system, affording

them the opportunity to foster a leadership role.

Along with coordination and expertise, interview-

ees described how they practice leadership, espe-

cially through outreach. Five participants expressed

that they are able to facilitate and lead conversa-

tions around food in their community and beyond.

In some places, the food policy positions now

involve a greater supervisory role. In Denver, for

example, the food systems administrator, L.

Cidlowski, has been able to grow the city’s local

food team to include five full-time staffers, now

one of the largest municipal food systems teams in

the country.

Capacity Development. Perhaps one of the

more obvious benefits of these positions is that

they build capacity for food systems work through

the dedication of time, resources, and personnel,

which in turn expands local government’s ability to

engage in and support food-related policy and pro-

grams. As government staff, they have access to

key stakeholders and information, and are often

able to leverage resources for food policy initia-

tives. Several participants mentioned that working

in a municipality or county allows them to explore

opportunities and incubate new programs through

funding opportunities and the development of

strategic relationships between government and

non-government actors. Furthermore, five

participants described their work as an effort to

elevate and sustain existing programs, and not to

undermine or co-opt grassroots initiatives by con-

necting them with resources and expertise to which

they otherwise may not have access.

Providing staffing for food policy councils has

tradeoffs when it comes to organizational capacity

building. Five of the ten participants who staff

their council specifically mentioned positive out-

comes in building the capacity of the group by

providing a more direct connection to local gov-

ernment and dedicated staff time. For instance, the

sustainability and food systems analyst for Douglas

County has been able to build the FPC’s capacity

by applying for grants and recruiting new mem-

bers. Two participants, however, expressed con-

cerns that their role in the FPC could lead to a

sense of complacency or disempowerment among

the members. Similarly, Schiff (2008) and Bassarab

et al. (2019) found that a strong tie to government

can strengthen a FPC’s credibility and access to

resources, but can also undermine its autonomy.

Systems Thinking. An advantage of working

in local government is the freedom to apply

complex systems thinking. For example, the city of

Austin’s food policy manager explained:

One of the great things about working for

municipal government … we have a lot of

leeway to say, hey, this is a really complicated

issue and we're not seeing any good way to

describe this. And we're going to keep working

on this and we're going to keep talking about it

and keep putting this all on the table.

Several participants reported that their position

in government allows them to be both nimble and

thoughtful—that is, able to dedicate time to

understanding complex issues in order to build the

best possible outcomes. Even in government, G.

Reistad thinks that his position is among only a few

in the city of Madison with the opportunity to look

and work across departments, organizations, and

the community to develop and implement more

integrated solutions. Given both the holistic nature

of their work and the relative novelty of their

positions, the majority of participants have found it

difficult to develop meaningful benchmarks for

measuring the success of their work: for example,

in terms of increasing healthy food access or

decreasing food insecurity. Despite these

challenges, however, some participants continue to

seek useful metrics and ways to evaluate their

work.

While participants described many benefits pro-

vided by their position, their work has its chal-

lenges, which are often unique to a particular com-

munity and staff position. Nevertheless, three gen-

eral categories emerged in the analysis: (1) limited

resources, (2) the scope of systemic problems, and

(3) political dynamics.

Limited Resources. The most common

challenges faced by participants were related to

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 89

lack of adequate personnel and financial resources.

Ironically, in their efforts to build capacity for

food systems work in their communities, about

half of the participants mentioned their own needs

for more resources and their struggles with being

the sole person working on food systems in their

government. Also, three participants expressed

frustration with not having a permanent or

adequate budget to actually support the programs

that they manage. At the time that interviews were

conducted, only five of the positions represented

in this study had an operational budget. Similarly,

some have found it difficult to sustain programs

over time due to limited resources. C. L.

Graffagnino expressed a related concern: “We still

have a funding system that is competitive. So, it

does not encourage collaboration and people

working together.” Several participants noted,

however, that collaboration with other

departments and community organizations is

crucial to making progress in their work despite

resource limitations.

Scope of Systemic Problems. Several indi-

viduals described challenges related to the scale of

the issues that they are tasked with addressing. For

instance, reflecting upon Indianapolis’s high rate

of food insecurity and substantial struggle with

food access, M. Kennedy explained, “when you

look at the numbers … you're constantly thinking

about the kind of impact that you can make, and

so, that can be a really daunting task.” A couple of

participants also noted the challenge of navigating

the tension between short-term emergency food

provisioning and longer-term, systemic food

policy changes. The complex structure of food

systems can also make it difficult to determine

next steps or prioritize projects. When faced with

the need to prioritize, the majority of participants

said that their priorities are largely driven by the

momentum of other projects and policies in local

government as well as by salient community needs

and interests.

Political Dynamics. Other challenges men-

tioned by interviewees centered on social and polit-

ical aspects, the circumstances of which were fairly

unique to their community and individual experi-

ences. Two participants, including L. Cidlowski,

food systems analyst for the city of Denver,

described the inherent political frustrations that

come with working in local government:

It’s very political. And getting over, passed

around, politics is an art, not a science…

adapting to whatever the existing conditions

are and understanding what will help people to

change the way they've been doing things or

why they should care about these food access

needs. It's definitely a trickier part of it.

Similarly, Austin’s food policy manager faces

obstacles working in the context of a state

government that has different and often opposing

priorities and perspectives than the city has about

governmental food systems work.

Other challenges mentioned less frequently by

participants included bridging the rural-urban

divide, building demand for locally produced prod-

ucts, and finding a balance between diving deep

into specific programs and looking broadly across

the whole food system. Learning to navigate poli-

tics and the many mechanics of local bureaucracy

is, of course, a necessity of the job. Several partici-

pants spoke to the value in practicing patience

while also being flexible enough to seize opportu-

nities when they present themselves.

In general, food policy staff suggested that

these challenges are not insurmountable and that

they continue to find strategies to minimize or

overcome them. Over time, individuals in these po-

sitions have been able to leverage their relation-

ships and establish credibility, which has translated

to availability of more resources and a stronger

commitment by the local government to food

systems work.

In addition to the perceived benefits and challenges

of their position, participants were asked to share

the major lessons they have learned during their

tenure. Lessons were not easily generalized, partic-

ularly because some participants have been in the

position for several years, while four participants

had less than a year of experience in the position.

Nevertheless, several common takeaways provide

valuable insight for other communities.

Time and Patience. One of the most com-

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

90 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

mon and, perhaps, obvious lessons participants

shared was that their work takes time, and there-

fore requires patience. This temporal constraint is

both a function of the bureaucracy and of the com-

plex dynamics associated with food system change.

For example, when new projects or policies are

proposed by working groups within the 23-mem-

ber Madison Food Policy Council, they must be

approved by the council as a whole prior to mov-

ing up the chain of command in the city. G.

Reistad explained that the process is time-consum-

ing, but “more often than not, the criticisms or the

feedback that come through that vetting process of

the food policy council has actually helped improve

the idea.” Ultimately, the time and dedication

required suggest that it can be “its own full-time

job … something that needs undivided attention”

(M. Kennedy). In learning to accept the slow pace

of their work, participants have also developed

strategies to maximize progress.

Adaptation to Specific Circumstances. Sev-

eral participants have learned that while models

from elsewhere provide valuable insights and ideas,

they usually need to be adapted to the specific cir-

cumstances of their community. Three participants

practice a “why not both” or “por que no los dos”

philosophy: pursuing multiple strategies simultane-

ously in an effort to keep their options open and

take advantage of opportunities when they arise.

As L. Cidlowski explains:

It’s good to attempt to do more than you

actually can do because there may be a lot of

irons you have on the back fire and you think,

oh, that's not ready right now or I don’t have

the support for that at the current time, but

something could change really quickly. A city

council member could get appointed who

really cares about food or a community-based

coalition can get a big grant to work on

community engagement.

This, again, demonstrates the significance of

these individuals having an intimate knowledge of

the community’s food system and the various

food-related activities that government depart-

ments, organizations, and community members are

engaged in.

Flexibility and Continual Adjustments.

Several individuals have realized that, due to the

complexity of food systems and policymaking,

their work does not follow a linear trajectory;

rather, “it’s always a squiggly line kind of path.

There’s never really like, ‘OK, this is what we’re

going to do and this is how we’re going to do it’”

(S. Gill). In general, participants emphasized the

importance of maintaining flexibility, openness,

and a collaborative spirit.

Coalition Building. All participants discussed

the realization that they cannot achieve anything

alone and that building a network of partnerships is

central to their effectiveness. A. Potter Wright

explained, “relationships are paramount in this

work, and I couldn’t do anything without the part-

nerships that I’ve developed.” Relationships are

what allow food policy staff to leverage resources,

make in-roads, develop lasting strategies, and

achieve both leadership and community buy-ins.

As a result, individuals in these positions are con-

stantly seeking ways to network, develop champi-

ons for their work, and engage the community.

Food policy staff also prioritize “engaging commu-

nity members on the solutions” (J. Guffey Calkins).

Similarly, four participants highlighted the signifi-

cance of fostering inclusivity and making sure that

all voices in the community are represented in their

work, especially those most disadvantaged. For M.

Kennedy, this often entails finding “not just one

approach to reaching the community, but ensuring

that there are a number of ways for the community

to be involved, whether it's at a personal level from

their smartphone or online, or in a community

level by coming out and being engaged in

community groups and community meetings.”

Actionable Strategic Planning. An impor-

tant lesson that a few participants discussed is the

value of having a plan that outlines food systems

goals for the community and developing strategies

for implementation of the plan. For example, B.

Estabrook described the local food action plan

process in Franklin County and Columbus, OH:

A lot of times, local government creates a plan,

and it sits on a shelf and no one looks at it.

And everybody says, ‘hey, we created this cool

plan,’ but there’s no plan to do something with

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 91

the plan. So, we really gave a lot of thought to:

what does it look like to actually make this

actionable?

Both in communities where a strategic food

system plan or local food action plan exists and

where it does not, food policy staff stressed the

value of developing a roadmap to guide their work

and help align the goals of the community with

those of the local government.

When asked if they would recommend that other

communities develop a staff position such as

theirs, seven participants affirmed that it was a val-

uable means of advancing a community food sys-

tem. For example, K. Criner Ritchie stated, “I

would say any opportunity to have a staff person

that can focus on food systems work can only be a

good thing,” and A. Potter Wright said, “I think

lots of places could benefit from a position like

this.” The other four participants were more

reserved with their endorsement, saying that the

value of these positions depends on the specific

community and its available resources. From this

perspective, not every city or county needs a per-

son working in government on food systems;

however, they did think that each community

needs people and groups to address food systems

specifically, broadly, and intentionally.

Prior to establishing such a position, several

individuals strongly recommended that the city or

county perform a community food assessment

(CFA), such as those described by Pothukuchi

(2004), to identify food systems gaps. Additionally,

G. Reistad suggested doing an “asset assessment”

to better understand what the community is doing

well and what assets can be leveraged by a staff

person to address the gaps. Three participants also

suggested that the community should develop a

food action plan or long-term food vision. In high-

lighting the value of a food action plan, two partici-

pants stressed the significance of having a full-time

food policy staff position to lead the implementa-

tion of the plan.

Once a clear purpose and directives are estab-

lished, four participants recommended that the

community spend time carefully considering where

the position should most effectively be housed in

its local government, as this influences what type

of work can be done. One participant, however,

stressed that the specific department where the

position is housed was not nearly as important as

having the support of government leadership.

Seven participants also identified leadership sup-

port as an essential component of successfully

establishing and maintaining a position. Addition-

ally, four participants expressed the need for finan-

cial support and, ideally, at least a small operational

budget.

Overall, the 11 participants felt that having a

local food policy position in government plays a

valuable role for their community’s food system. In

general, the individuals in these staff positions

expressed pride in their role in local government,

citing numerous food-related achievements, and

felt that their work helps to move the needle on

food system reform for their communities.

Discussion: Key Dimensions of Food Democracy The above findings provide insight into the nature

of the recently established food policy positions in

local government and initial evidence for

understanding these positions as an approach to

advancing food democracy. Accordingly, the fol-

lowing section analyzes these findings in light of

five key dimensions of food democracy identified

by Hassanein (2008), Sieveking (2019), and van de

Griend et al. (2019).

Food democracy requires effective coalitions that

expand the number of people involved, include dif-

fering perspectives, and enable groups to collabora-

tively affect change in ways that they could not do

on their own (Hassanein, 2008). Such collaborative

action was clearly shown in this study in several

ways. First, the genesis of these positions in local

governments emerged from collaborative action

among stakeholders from both in and outside

government. Second, every participant in this study

said that they could not achieve anything alone

and/or that building collaborative networks is

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

92 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

essential to their work. Third, all 11 interviewees

were fundamentally concerned with developing

sustainable outcomes for their community with

regard to “ecological soundness, economic viabil-

ity, and social justice and welfare” (Hassanein,

2008, p. 290). For example, among food policy pri-

orities, economic development and healthy food

access were the most frequently mentioned, by ten

and nine participants respectively. Because collabo-

ration is fundamental to food system sustainability

and food democracy, our findings suggest that

these government actors are providing leadership

that facilitates such collaboration across public and

private sectors in ways that are similar to findings

by van de Griend et al. (2019).

Food democracy recognizes the importance of

individuals having the knowledge necessary to par-

ticipate effectively in the food system. We found

that food policy staff often serve as a food sys-

tems expert, point-person, and educator for both

the government and the community generally.

Typically, as with ten of the 11 positions in this

study, their responsibilities include staffing the

local FPC and providing administrative support as

well as expertise. FPCs likely benefit from the

increased resources and expertise that food policy

staff can provide while still maintaining their focus

on the community’s interests. Previous studies

have shown, however, that an FPC’s relationship

with government yields complicated results. A

close relationship with government can lend

legitimacy and credibility to an FPC, but that

relationship can also limit or undermine its

efficacy by coercing it to align its work with the

local administration’s agenda and adhere to

bureaucratic processes and timelines (Bassarab et

al., 2019; Schiff, 2008). This may be true of other

grassroots organizations involved with food

systems work. Communities and individuals in

food policy positions should take care to recog-

nize this possibility and build strategies to elevate,

not hinder, grassroots and community efforts

through helping others become more knowl-

edgeable about the food system and its elements

(van de Griend et al., 2019).

Food democracy depends on discussion and delib-

eration that enable community members to share

their viewpoints and clarify values. Study partici-

pants indicated clearly that coordinating and facili-

tating such discussions across a wide variety of

food initiatives in a community and across local

government are central tasks in their work. While

these positions are necessarily housed in a

particular government department, their work

encompasses a diverse spectrum of programs and

policies that relate to overall community well-

being. In the process of coordinating food-related

programs and policies, food policy staff act as an

effective information pipeline between a commu-

nity and its government. Most importantly, in staff-

ing the FPCs and bringing together different stake-

holders, these positions have the potential to create

spaces for collaboration on food system issues in

ways that a strictly volunteer council may not have

the capacity for.

Individuals in local food policy positions may

also work to connect with others elsewhere, re-

gionally and nationally, developing a broader net-

work of idea sharing (Hatfield, 2012). While the

U.S. Conference of Mayors Food Policy Task

Force includes several people interviewed for this

study, the task force is, of course, limited to munic-

ipalities. Furthermore, not all municipalities with a

food policy position are included in the task force

at this time. A broader network that includes both

cities and counties, and perhaps national and inter-

national participants, could expand collaborative

and innovative food policy initiatives.

From the outset, food policy staff positions lend

increased visibility to community-driven food

systems work in local government and across the

community. By deliberately creating a space within

government for the community to engage in food

policy and programs, these positions provide an

effective avenue for public participation in food

system reform. Additionally, these positions repre-

sent a dedication of resources and staff time to

food-related initiatives. Hassanein defines efficacy

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 93

as “not only a capacity to act but also includes

actually having an effect” (2008, p. 297). With a

specific food systems point-person located in local

government, individuals and communities have a

clear pipeline to not only express their food-related

concerns but also pursue solutions. As such, the

additional resources, networks, and capacity pro-

vided by a food policy staff position may increase

the efficacy of actions by citizens and food policy

groups. However, it should be noted that individu-

als in these positions continue to face challenges

with securing sufficient resources for their work

and, at times, can be limited by bureaucratic pro-

cesses and timelines. Practicing food democracy

and developing efficacious food policy takes time

and resources, both fiscal and human (van de

Griend et al., 2019), and will require ongoing and

collective effort by food policy staff, food-related

organizations, and the community.

A strong democracy requires that citizens care

about the public or common good and are willing

to go beyond self-interests to promote the well-

being of the entire community. Because food is a

basic human need, FPCs generally have been

understood to be a space to advance the common

good with respect to meeting that need (Bassarab

et al., 2019; Hassanein, 2003). The extent to which

a food policy staff person engages with the com-

munity FPC and seeks out the community’s input

varies by context as well as by the individual. While

we cannot fully assess these dynamics based on this

study design, clearly, in establishing these new posi-

tions, local governments are investing resources

and public funding in order to promote more

meaningful participation in all the dimensions of

food democracy discussed above. There not only

needs to be public support for creating these

opportunities, but also evaluations to ensure the

community feels a sense of ownership in the

process and is able to participate in meaningful and

effective ways (Lachapelle, 2008).

Conclusion and Recommendations The emergence and continued expansion of FPCs

demonstrates movement toward more democratic,

community-based food systems. Local govern-

ments have begun to respond to pressure from

community food organizations by becoming more

actively engaged in food policy and increasingly

dedicating staffing resources to these issues (Gupta

et al., 2018; Hatfield, 2012). Our study identified

ways that some local governments are using food

policy staff positions to increase community capac-

ity and move toward food democracy. However,

the outcomes of such support in terms of realizing

particular community food system visions needs

further investigation (Raja et al., 2018; van de

Griend et al., 2019).

Our study builds on the work of scholars who,

over the last decade, have described the emergence

of city and county governmental food policy staff

positions and highlighted the potential of such

positions to create food system reform (Hatfield,

2012; Raja et al., 2018; Santo et al., 2014; van de

Griend et al., 2019). This study contributes to this

body of scholarship by describing the purpose,

functions, and outcomes of 11 food policy posi-

tions housed in city or county governments

throughout the U.S. and analyzing the potential

and limits of these positions to advance food

democracy in their communities. As this area of

research remains understudied, this study also

contributes additional questions and areas for

future research.

Our data show that while there are a variety of

challenges for food policy staff operating in local

government, many of our interviewees report

significant advantages to pursuing food system

reform at a governmental level. In particular, par-

ticipants felt that a food policy position in local

government increases the attention, resources, and

coordination directed toward their community’s

food systems work. Our findings suggest that gov-

ernmental food policy positions have the potential

to support food democracy and food system

reform, echoing the findings discussed by van de

Griend et al. (2019) in their analysis of government

actors participating in urban food policy. There-

fore, we offer five recommendations for communi-

ties interested in establishing or strengthening food

policy positions in local government.

(1) Identify and Coordinate Existing Oppor-

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

94 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

tunities and Assets. Food policy staff can

expand and strengthen food-related, sustaina-

bility-focused work in their community by

assessing existing opportunities, assets, and

resources in the food system, which then can

be leveraged to identify new prospects to

address problems and resource gaps in the

community.

(2) Foster and Maintain Leadership Support.

A primary step in successfully establishing and

sustaining a governmental food policy staff

position is securing leadership support, both

from leaders in government and the greater

community, by building strategic relationships,

speaking to the fundamental concerns of lead-

ers, and highlighting the key gaps and op-

portunities present in the food system through

data and community voices. Finding champi-

ons to support systemic change through policy

is critical, particularly because governmental

food policy positions are a relatively new con-

cept. Securing the support of leaders in the

community can create space and resources for

food policy work as well as build collaborative

rapport between local government and

community organizations.

(3) Root the Work in Community. At its core,

the concept of food democracy is premised on

the idea that all community members in a food

system have valuable contributions to make in

the process of developing solutions to food-

related problems (Hassanein, 2003). Local

governments interested in supporting food

democracy and citizenship should strive to

engage as many constituencies as possible in

the decision-making process in order to suc-

cessfully plan for community food systems

(Raja et al., 2018). By ensuring that all commu-

nity perspectives are a cornerstone of the work

of food policy staff, local governments will be

better equipped to understand the significant

gaps in local food systems and, thus, able to

build appropriate and lasting solutions.

(4) Connect with Other Food Policy Profes-

sionals. Consistent with Hatfield’s (2012)

recommendation, food policy staff can in-

crease their impact by connecting and sharing

resources with others in similar positions.

While a handful of resources do currently exist,

food policy professionals stand to benefit from

an expanded and active communication net-

work. Rather than starting from scratch, food

policy staff can learn from one another, collab-

orate, and amplify their work, although they

may have to adapt it somewhat to their own

communities.

(5) Develop a Food System Vision. A vision

could take several forms, from a single vision

statement to a long-term community action

plan. A clearly defined food system vision that

is constructed with input from the community

and a diversity of food system representatives

can help to guide the responsibilities and long-

term goals of a food policy staff position. It

may also help to ensure that the position aligns

with the community’s interests and values over

the long term, a key consideration in advancing

food democracy.

As governmental food policy positions con-

tinue to emerge, communities across the U.S. can

bolster the success of their food policy work by

learning from and applying lessons from the

experiences of other communities, such as those

highlighted in our study. Future scholarship should

seek to further describe the array of existing local

government staff positions in food policy, similar

to the Center for a Livable Future’s Food Policy

Council directory. This study analyzed 11 food

policy positions in an effort to describe the concept

of these positions as a whole. Comparative analyses

based on specific variables, such as age of the posi-

tion, size of the city or county, the department in

which the position is housed, and if the position

supports an FPC may provide valuable insights

which our analysis did not yield.

As scholars, practitioners, activists, and com-

munities seek to nurture democratic food systems,

recently established food policy positions in city

and county governments offer an opportunity to

connect policy and government resources with

residents, local businesses, and community organi-

zations. Such collaboration and coordination

throughout a community food system may facili-

tate the kind of active citizenship and systemic

change that is central to food democracy.

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 95

Acknowledgments We would like to thank all those food policy staff

who graciously offered their time and perspective

to this study as well as the University of Montana

Environmental Studies Program and UM

BRIDGES program for their guidance and

support.

References Bassarab, K., Clark, J. K., Santo, R., & Palmer, A. (2019). Finding our way to food democracy: Lessons from US food

policy council governance. Politics and Governance, 7(4), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2092

Berglund, E. (2020). Food policy for a healthy, sustainable, and equitable local food system: Recommendations for Missoula

(Professional Paper No. 11583). University of Montana. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11583

Christensen, B., & Phillips, R. (2017). Local food systems and community economic development through the lens of

theory. Community Development, 47(5), 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2016.1214609

Clancy, K. (2012). Digging deeper: Bringing a systems approach to food systems. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and

Community Development, 3(1), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.031.017

Feenstra, G. (1997). Local systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 12(1), 28–35.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300007165

Gupta, C., Campbell, D., Munden-Dixon, K., Sowerwine, J., Capps, S., Feenstra, G., & Van Soelen Kim, J. (2018). Food

policy councils and local governments: Creating effective collaboration for food systems change. Journal of

Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 8(Suppl. 2), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.006

Harper, A., Shattuck, A., Holt-Gimenez, Alkon, A., & Lambrick, F. (2009). Food policy councils: Lessons learned

(Development Report No. 21, executive summary). Food First.

https://foodfirst.org/publication/food-policy-councils-lessons-learned/

Hassanein, N. (2003). Practicing food democracy: A pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1),

77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00041-4

Hassanein, N. (2008). Locating food democracy: Theoretical and practical ingredients. Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition, 3(2–3), 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240802244215

Hatfield, M. M. (2012). City food policy and programs: Lessons harvested from an emerging field. City of Portland, Oregon Bureau

of Planning and Sustainability.

https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/City-Food-Policy-Programs-web1-1-201304101132.pdf

Hendrickson, M., Howard, Philip. H., & Douglas, C. (2017). Power, food and agriculture: Implications for farmers, consumers and

communities (Working paper). University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066005

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2017). The practice of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. (n.d.). Food policy groups around the world. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of

Public Health, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

http://www.foodpolicynetworks.org/fpc-map/FPC-around-the-world.html

Lachapelle, P. (2008). A sense of ownership in community development: Understanding the potential for participation in

community planning efforts. Community Development, 39(2), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330809489730

Lamie, R. D., & Deller, S. (2017). Motivations for a special issue on local food systems. Community Development, 48(5),

609–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2017.1373899

Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food Policy: Integrating health, environment and society. Oxford University Press,

Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567882.001.0001

Muller, M., Tagtow, A., Roberts, S. L., & MacDougall, E. (2009). Aligning food systems policies to advance public

health. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(3–4), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240903321193

Palmer, A., & Santo, R. (2020). Building the foundation to grow food policy: The development of a toolkit to measure

advocacy capacity. In A. Blay-Palmer, D. Conaré, K. Meter, A. Di Battista, & C. Johnston (Eds.), Sustainable food

system assessment: Lessons from global practice (pp. 159–177). Routledge.

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

96 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (1999) Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of municipal

institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 213–224.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007558805953

Pothukuchi, K. (2004). Community food assessment: A first step in planning for community food security. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 23(4), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04264908

Raja, S., Clark, J. K., Freedgood, J., & Hodgson, K. (2018). Reflexive and inclusive: Reimagining local government

engagement in food systems. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 8(Suppl. 2), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.013

Santo, R., Misiaszek, C., Bassarab, K., Harris, D., & Palmer, A. (2021). Pivoting policy, programs, and partnerships: Food policy

councils’ response to the crises of 2020 (Report). Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins

Center for a Livable Future.

https://assets.jhsph.edu/clf/mod_clfResource/doc/FPC%202020%20Census%20Report_2021-04-05_FINAL.pdf

Santo, R., Yong, R., & Palmer, A. (2014). Collaboration meets opportunity: The Baltimore Food Policy Initiative. Journal

of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 4(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2014.043.012

Scherb, A., Palmer, A., Frattaroli, S., & Pollack, K. (2012). Exploring food system policy: A survey of food policy

councils in the United States. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(4), 3–14.

https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.024.007

Schiff, R. (2008) The role of food policy councils in developing sustainable food systems. Journal of Hunger &

Environmental Nutrition, 3(2–3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240802244017

Sieveking, A. (2019). Food policy councils as loci for practising food democracy? Insights from the case of Oldenburg,

Germany. Politics and Governance, 7(4), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2081

United States Conference of Mayors. (n.d.). Committees and task forces.

https://www.usmayors.org/the-conference/committees-and-task-forces/

van de Griend, J., Duncan, J., & Wiskerke, J. (2019). How civil servants frame participation: Balancing municipal

responsibility with citizen initiative in Ede’s food policy. Politics and Governance, 7(4), 59–67.

https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2078

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021 97

Appendix. Interview Guide for Municipal or County Food Policy Positions

Introduction: Before we get started, I want to thank you for giving your time and agreeing to participate in this

interview—I am excited to have the opportunity to connect with you.

I also want to thank you for completing the informed consent form.

Begin Interview:

Personal background: I’d like to start with a little bit about your background and the basics of your position.

1. How long have you held the food policy (manager/director/coordinator) position for (city or county

name)?

Follow-up: are you the first to hold this position?

2. Briefly, what educational and/or experiential background do you bring to the job?

Probe: what is your experience working on food-related policy?

3. What are some of your main job responsibilities?

4. I understand that your community has a food policy council, what relationship does your position have

with the council?

Probe: How has the council’s work changed, if at all, since your position was created?

Structure/organization of position: Great, now I’d like to learn about the genesis of the position itself and the

local government’s work on food policy.

5. What department of government is the position housed in?

Follow-up: who is your direct supervisor?

6. How is the position funded?

7. Why did the (city/county) create this position?

Follow-up (if necessary): when was that?

Follow-up: what steps were taken to establish the position?

Probe: are there any other the reasons?

8. The term “food policy” encompasses a wide variety of food-related dimensions, what aspects of food

policy does you prioritize in your position?

Probe: How do you go about setting those priorities?

9. How is progress on food-related goals measured and evaluated?

Lessons learned from position: Now that I understand the context of the position, I’d like to hear more about

your personal experiences working as the (food policy manager/coordinator/etc.).

10. What do you see as the primary benefits of this position for the (city/county)?

Probe: are there any other benefits you’d like to mention?

11. What are some notable accomplishments that you have led in this position?

Probe: any others?

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

ISSN: 2152-0801 online

https://foodsystemsjournal.org

98 Volume 11, Issue 1 / Fall 2021

12. What are some of the major challenges that you face in this position?

Probe: any other challenges?

Probe: how are you meeting those challenges?

13. What major lessons have you learned from this position?

Probe: What changes, if any, would you make to the organization or responsibilities of the

position?

Wrap-up/big picture: Now, I just have a few more questions to wrap up our conversation.

14. Would you recommend that other communities develop a food policy coordinator position? Why or why

not?

Follow-up: if so, are there any key ingredients they may need for success?

15. Is there anything else you think I should know but we didn’t touch on?

16. Do you have any questions for me?

Again, thank you so much for your participation. I’ve really enjoyed speaking with you. Is it OK if I circle back to

you if I have any additional or clarifying questions?

End Interview.

* Note: If unable to find job description online, be sure to request one from interviewee *