Socio-Ecological Model!!!!!!! ! ! ! Individual Interpersonal Organizational Community Society !"#!$"%%&$%()*+$!%,-./.,*.$ 01$23+$0144$ "/35),6$7%*3($"%%&$8%/9:;%<$
Chapter 2 Mapping reciprocal partnerships Artists Police Schools Sculptures, art for garden Outlet for crafts, network A s ce lte ur D rn so on at re s at iv ip io e tr e, ns ac ac ld , sp tiv Bank ie Retirement ch ,f s ity s, ip ec er te h k Center rs to si te la on un g ho vi in sc l ol ga Vo ch Th ic ls, en rd era a il om Te ce en Vo py sk lu act on nte ivi $, Ec ent ers ty ity m , w isd un op om m vel m e Co D Location for meetings Volunteers,Ladies Bridge C om m u n ity intergenerational work Youth Club G a rd e n Center Watchful, family Creative outlet, learning presence ce opportunities ur so Sk re ills b , v ha Co olu / re es mm nte ra py pli un ers e s up ity Th aid int te G Local st eg Supplies, donations si La r ra oo Publicity, outreach Fi tio Persons w/ ns ce nd d n tio Hospital vi fo disabilities , m lea er na od ,s em do ,s rs be r s be ki e, de ac rs ll m s e sp ,s tr M ki g ai tin lls ni ee , ng M Affordable Church Housing Local Retailers Community Organizing in Community Gardens 57
CONNECTING THE DOTS: Mapping Reciprocal Partnerships Community Garden G ard en Project Source: John Kretzmann and John McNight, Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Source: Kretzmann Communities from Tow oward Finding Community’s Assetsasset-based community development American Community Gardening Associationworkshop handout Growing Communities Curriculum 105
Compiled 7/24/08Jenifer J. Martin, J.D.Director, Government RelationsUniversity of Michigan School of Public HealthThese are examples of the types of written communication materials that are useful inadvocacy efforts.! One-Pagers: A one-page summary of your issue and objective is the most important advocacy tool. You will use this in all of your "leave behind" materials you provide to policymakers and their staff. Two of these "one-pagers" advocate for specific funding requests by UMSPH to the Congress for Prevention Research Centers, and Centers for Public Health Preparedness. Note that the UM SPH advocates for the nationwide network of Centers that provides funding for centers housed here at the School. We first explain the need for the network, then highlight whats going on here in Michigan – constituent Members of Congress care about whats happening in their home State. The third one-pager was written by Students Against Secondhand Smoke and advocates for passage of the smokefree workplace legislation here in Michigan. We used this in visits with policymakers last spring.! Testimony: Testimony to relevant committees is extremely important, because it goes into the public record on the issue. The first example advocates for a policy change – enactment of smokefree workplace legislation. Note that Dean Warner explicitly refutes the oppositions arguments – especially the argument asserted by the Michigan Restaurant Association that sales will be adversely affected with passage of the bill. Also, he builds support for his arguments using the examples of other countries experiences, as well as citing survey results. The second example of testimony addresses an appropriation, or funding issue – the impact of cuts in funds for tobacco prevention and chronic disease prevention programs. Note that he bolsters his arguments using very compelling statistics to illustrate his points.! Letters: The first letter is from Dean Warner to Senator Stabenow, urging her to cosponsor legislation to expand federal preventive medicine residency programs. This is a very common way of trying to get policymakers to advance your cause. The second letter is from Senators Stabenow and Levin to the new Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH. He had solicited input to his strategic plan for the agency; I wrote the letter to urge continued support for community-based participatory research – something thats very important to our faculty. Then I lobbied the Senators offices to send the letter – you can see that Director Schwartz responded.! Op-Eds: The first example is an op-ed written by Dean Warner advocating for passage of the smokefree workplace bill. The second includes two opinions – one for, one against – passage of the controversial "shield" law. I think it includes excellent examples of how to anticipate and respond to the oppositions points of view.
Compiled 7/24/08! Talking Points: Talking points are very helpful to organize your thoughts and emphasize main messages. I always type up talking points in preparation for meetings or even phone calls. This is especially useful when there is more than one person in the meeting – its helpful to split up the discussion and allow everyone to talk, without duplicating topics.Finally, I have included a "checklist" of how to organize any advocacy communication –whether a letter, meeting talking points, or a one-pager. Always begin with a thank you!
The University of Michigan School of Public Health Draft, 2/27/05 Urges Congress to Provide $48.6 Million in FY 09 Funds for Centers for Public Health PreparednessBackground: Centers for Public Health Preparedness (CPHP)The nationwide network of Centers for Public Health Preparedness (CPHP) includes 27 competitively awardedcenters housed at accredited schools of public health. These centers comprise a workforce developmentinitiative designed to ensure that frontline public health workers are prepared to respond to bioterrorism andother health crises caused by SARS, West Nile virus, or pandemic influenza.The CPHP network is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state and localcapacity program. Congress provided approximately $28.6 million in FY 08 funds for the CPHP network; thePresident’s budget requests $28.5 million for this program in FY09. The University of Michigan School ofPublic Health, as part of the Association of Schools of Public Health, urges Congress to provide $48.6million for the CPHP network in the FY 09 Labor/HHS appropriations legislation. This increase of $20million will meet the directives of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), including newresearch addressing gaps in the scientific knowledge base relating to preparedness and public health systems’effectiveness, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine.Impact: Michigan Center for Public Health Preparedness! The Michigan CPHP (MI-CPHP) works in partnership with the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Michigan Association for Local Public Health (representing Michigan’s local health departments) to provide high-quality, competency-based training to Michigan’s state and local public health workforce. Since October 2002, the MI-CPHP has delivered more than 30,000 direct training contact hours, reaching more than 8,000 public health workers across the State. Specific accomplishments include:! Surge Capacity Training for CDC Quarantine Stations to respond to public health emergencies. The MI-CPHP trained the response team for the Detroit Quarantine Station at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and provided training in 2007 to U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Officers. An online version of the course is being developed for use at quarantine stations across the country.! Great Lakes Border Health Initiative Annual Tabletop Exercises attended by federal, state, and local health officials in the U.S. and Canada. The exercises focus on testing communication plans among leaders in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Topics have included pandemic influenza, viral hemorrhagic fever, and food borne illnesses.! Region 2 South Symposium, "Public Health…The Next Generation of First Responders Forging the Alliance in Emergency Response," held in Farmington Hills in March 2007 to inform and improve collaboration of emergency response protocols between the public health and public safety communities.! Applied Incident Command for Public Health designed to give public health professionals a highly interactive opportunity to experience the Incident Command System (ICS). Participants are led through an illness event from the vantage point of a public health responder, and have the opportunity to discuss the process of an ICS-based response to a public health emergency.! Tools for Investigating Outbreaks – a hands-on session which teaches public health professionals to develop and analyze questionnaires using Epi-Info, a CDC tool for investigating outbreaks.! Global Public Health Preparedness Symposium brought international experts together to discuss issues related to preparing for catastrophic health events, addressing multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and sustaining the public health workforce in the international community.! Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Exercise to test the functionality of the University of Michigan Executive Officers’ Emergency Operations Center.! Public Health Action Support Team (PHAST), opportunities for public health graduate students to assist health departments in meeting the demands of public health events, disasters, and investigations. Contact: Matthew L. Boulton, MD, MPH; 734-936-1623 ; www.mipreparedness.org
The University of Michigan School of Public Health Urges Congress to Provide $39.1 Million in FY 09 Funds for CDC Prevention Research CentersBackground: Prevention Research Centers (PRCs)o The nationwide network of Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) includes 33 academic research centers that conduct participatory, community-based prevention research to prevent disease and promote health; and translate that research directly into public health programs and policies. This collaboration of academic, public health, and community partnerships links science to practice by engaging communities to develop and evaluate community-based interventions addressing the leading causes of death and disability. Each center receives approximately $745,000 in annual funding.o The PRC network is funded by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Congress provided approximately $29.1 million in FY 08 funds for the PRCs; the President’s FY 09 budget recommends $29 million for the network. The University of Michigan School of Public Health, as part of the Association of Schools of Public Health, urges Congress to provide $39.1 million for the PRC network in the FY 09 Labor/HHS appropriations legislation. This additional $10 million includes funds to create new centers and expand support for the existing centers.Impact: Prevention Research Center of Michigano The Prevention Research Center of Michigan (PRC/MI) has developed strong and committed partnerships among community-based organizations, health departments, health advocacy groups, health service providers, and academic institutions. Research projects have focused on adolescent risk behaviors, asthma, obesity, physical activity, violence prevention, and infant mortality. Current projects include: o Youth Empowerment Solutions for Peaceful Communities (YES) connects middle school students with adults from neighborhood organizations to design, carry out, and evaluate community improvement projects to create safer and healthier environments. The project is based in Flint, MI. The youth and adults revitalize parks, create community gardens, and spearhead neighborhood clean- ups. In its first three years, 180 young people and 85 adult volunteers participated. To measure its effects, the project is tracking crime and environmental indicators, and student behaviors in the intervention and comparison communities. Preliminary results indicate that youth from the program area have more positive perceptions of their neighborhoods than youth from the comparison area. o The PRC/MI is evaluating the Genesee County REACH 2010 and REACH U.S. Initiatives, which focus on reducing disparities in African American infant mortality by improving baby care systems, mobilizing the community, and reducing racism. Notably, the African American infant mortality rate in Genesee County decreased from 22.1 per 1000 live births in 2004 to 15.2 per 1000 live births in 2005, representing a 30% reduction from the average African American infant mortality rate in the previous five years. Preliminary data compiled by the Genesee County Health Department indicate that the improvement in African American infant mortality rate was sustained in 2006 and 2007. o The PRC/MIs Speak to Your Health! Community Survey was instrumental in obtaining funding to support the Genesee Health Plan (GHP), community-sponsored health coverage for the uninsured. These data were used to determine the number of uninsured and to conduct actuarial analyses to estimate the cost of providing coverage. This information was essential in obtaining $1.7 million in start-up funding over a three-year period. The data were also provided to the County Commissioners in support of a decision to place a millage on the 2006 ballot to fund the health plan. The ballot initiative was a success, providing $11.5 million over three years to support GHP. 28,000 residents are currently enrolled in GHP. Results from the PRC/MI Community Survey are also being used to evaluate the effects of GHP coverage on the health of the Genesee County population.TheThe= Contact: Susan Morrel-Samuels, 734-647-0219, firstname.lastname@example.org, www. sph.umich.edu/prc
University of Michigan School of Public Health Students Against Secondhand Smoke Urge Senate Passage of House Bill 4163 to Make Michigan Smoke-freeStudents Against Secondhand Smoke are committed to enacting meaningful legislation to makeMichigans air smoke-free. We strongly oppose any weakening amendments or alternative bills thatdo not mandate the elimination of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke has a detrimental impacton the health and economic interests of Michigans citizens.Secondhand Smoke: Impact on Health ! Smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds of which more than four dozen are known carcinogens (including Polonium 210, arsenic, ammonia, and carbon monoxide) ! Secondhand smoke is the second leading preventable cause of death ! Secondhand smoke is proven to cause heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema, and asthma ! 2,400 Michiganders die each year due to secondhand smoke ! Nonsmokers regularly exposed to secondhand smoke suffer 30% higher death rates than unexposed nonsmokers ! Food service workers are 50% more likely to develop lung cancer due to exposure to secondhand smokeSecondhand Smoke: Impact on Michigan’s Economy ! Numerous studies show that revenues from restaurants and bars do not decrease after smoking bans are instituted in states and municipalities ! The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the cost savings of eliminating secondhand smoke in the workplace to be between $35 and $66 billion a year ! Nationally, businesses spend up to $158 billion annually in direct costs associated with smoking, including higher health, life, and fire insurance premiums; higher worker absenteeism; lower work productivity; and higher workers compensation rates ! 80% of Michigan voters would go to restaurants “more often” or “just as often” if they became smoke-free, according to a statewide poll conducted in March 2005 ! $3.80 billion = annual smoking-caused productivity losses in Michigan ! $3.40 billion = annual health care costs in Michigan directly caused by smoking ! $1 billion = annual health care costs to Michigan’s Medicaid program caused by smoking ! $637 = annual state and federal tax burden to each Michigan household from smoking-caused government expendituresStudents Against Secondhand Smoke includes graduate students from the University of MichiganSchool of Public Health and the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Members are residents ofMichigan as well as the smoke-free states of Illinois, Ohio, New York and California. We strive tocreate a smoke-free Michigan by supporting legislative efforts and raising awareness through media. email@example.com
Detroit Free PressJune 18, 2007 Monday ! METRO FINAL Edition EDP; EDITORIAL; Pg. 14SMOKE-FREE OR DIESMOKING BAN WILL SAVE LIVESKENNETH E. WARNER smoke-free. It is not a 26, would outlaw smoking question of if, but when. in the workplace, includingEvery time you enter a Every year that our bars and restaurants. OurMichigan restaurant or bar lawmakers fail to act on lawmakers will not fulfillthat allows smoking, you this issue, hundreds if not their constitutionalinhale the same radioactive thousands of Michigan obligation to protect theelement - polonium 210 - citizens will die from health and welfare ofthat killed the former completely preventable, Michigan citizens until theyRussian spy earlier this premature deaths because vote to pass such smoke-year. You also draw into of secondhand smoke. free legislation.your lungs formaldehyde, Conversely, our currentwhich is used to preserve Legislature has a historic There is massive publicdead bodies, and benzene, opportunity, by passing support for laws protectingarsenic, ammonia, carbon smoke-free legislation, to innocent people frommonoxide and dozens of affect the greatest life secondhand smoke. Halfother chemicals that cause savings ever achieved by the states now bancancer. Michigan lawmakers. smoking in workplaces, including restaurants andThere are more than 4,000 As they debate the wisdom bars. Over a dozenchemical compounds in of a smoke-free workplace countries have gone or willcigarette smoke, and until law, our legislators should go smoke-free withinwe pass smoke-free air consider this: Secondhand months, including Englandlegislation in Michigan, smoke is the single and France. Ireland wentevery citizen patronizing deadliest environmental smoke-free in 2004.restaurants and bars that exposure the average Surveys of the Irishpermit smoking will be person confronts. Until the citizenry consistently findforced to breathe those law changes, we are that overwhelmingchemicals. Whether you accepting arsenic as a part majorities of bothsmoke or not, citizens of our meal when dining nonsmokers and smokersunfortunate enough to out, and we are tacitly express enthusiasm forwork in bars and endorsing the presence of their newly smoke-freerestaurants that allow hydrogen cyanide in the air pubs and restaurants.smoking are themselves of bars. Michigan law notde facto smokers, inhaling only permits but effectively No safe levelsthose chemicals for eight requires us to inhale thoseor more hours a day. chemicals. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhandWaiting kills House Bill 4163, which is smoke, and studies have scheduled for a second shown that even the mostOur state will eventually go committee hearing on June sophisticated ventilation
system is inadequate. restaurant, no one seemsAdults who dont smoke to notice. Its time forbut are exposed to Michigans voters to notice.secondhand smoke have a Tell your state lawmakers25%-30% greater chance that you will no longerof developing heart tolerate the daily poisoningdisease, and a 20%-30% of our citizens.greater chance ofdeveloping lung cancer. KENNETH E. WARNER isStudies show that children the dean of the School ofexposed to secondhand Public Health at thesmoke have an increased University of Michiganrisk for sudden infant death and an internationallysyndrome (SIDS), acute known expert on tobacco-respiratory infections, more related health and policysevere asthma, and ear issues. He has been on theproblems. U-M faculty since 1972 and devoted much of the lastSeveral studies have found 30 years to tobacco-relatedthat communities that have research. Write to him ingone smoke-free have care of the Free Pressexperienced significant Editorial Page, 600 W. Fortdecreases in heart attack St., Detroit 48226 orhospitalizations and firstname.lastname@example.org. In addition tohealth benefits, there are ILLUSTRATION: Drawingeconomic upsides. Multiple MIKE THOMPSON Detroitstudies show that Free Pressrestaurant sales are nothurt - and may evenincrease - as a result ofsmoke-free policies, whilecleaning costs decline. Andright now, Michigan islosing convention businessfrom the numerousprofessional associationsthat have adopted policiesrequiring them to hold theirannual meetings in smoke-free states. Does this makesense in a state sufferingfrom severe economictrauma?When a former Russianspy is poisoned withpolonium 210, its front-page news. Yet when achild in Michigan is forcedto inhale that samepolonium 210 in a
Checklist of Points to Include: One-Pager/Meeting Talking Points/Letter! Thank you for your consideration/support of this proposal/issue…thank you for taking the time to meet with me today regarding…! Upfront, state "the ask" – be sure to be very clear on what youre asking the policymaker/decisionmaker to do (Im writing to request your support for…or, I urge you to vote "no" against the proposed amendment offered by Rep. Martin…)! If appropriate, include the specific legislation/vehicle that addresses the issue – bill number, amendment number, etc (H.R. 2031/S. 12) and say who the lead is (introduced by Senator Carl Levin…)! Include the context for consideration – will this issue be considered as part of a hearing, markup, or on the floor of the legislative body, or is it purely an administrative/executive order issued by the Governor/President! Name the specific account or program where your project is located/overseen (for example, if something is a CDC program, which agency or division oversees it?)! If you are asking for funding, cite the exact amount you are requesting, and provide exact funding amounts that have been received in previous funding cycles/years and who provided them (do the work for them!)! Provide information on the timing – is this issue coming up for debate or a vote? Or, is it an issue that is just beginning to surface, and you are educating the decisionmaker for future activity – if so, offer yourself as a resource and make yourself available to share expertise! Define the problem your "ask" will solve – (for example, x is a terrible problem/disease that impacts x number of people)! Provide substantive background on the issue. Include research findings, demonstrate a credible analysis of the topic, including points that refute your oppositions points (While some may argue x, research demonstrates y….)! Include statistics/data that is specific to Michigan or the policymakers constituency if possible (for example, if this is a county issue, have data specific to that county)! Propose your solution. Describe the impact you will make, and how you will solve the problem – (for example, this project will address the problem by developing a meaningful intervention that achieves x for x number of people…..)! Compelling statistics that highlight why your proposed solution will work, how it has worked previously, what your plans are for the future, etc! Conclude with -- thank you for your attention/time/support.
Michigan Good Food CHARTER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Barely into a new millennium, the need for a thriving economy, equity and sustainability for all of Michigan and its people rings truer than ever. As part of achieving these goals, we need to grow, sell and eat “good food” – food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable.Vision and Goals By reemphasizing our local and regional foodWe envision a thriving economy, systems, alongside the national and global Good foodequity and sustainability for ones, we have an opportunity to create a means food that is:all of Michigan and its people system based on good food in Michiganthrough a food system rooted in and achieve a healthier, more prosperous Healthylocal communities and centered It provides nourishment and and more equitable state.on good food. enables people to thrive. Consider the irony: GreenBy 2020, we believe we can ! Michigan has the second most diverse agricultur- It was produced in a man-meet or exceed the following al production in the country, and yet 59 percent ner that is environmentallygoals: of our residents (distributed across each of our sustainable.1. Michigan institutions will 83 counties) live in a place that has inadequate Fair source 20 percent of their access to the food they need for a healthy No one along the produc- food products from Michigan daily diet. tion line was exploited dur- growers, producers and ! Currently, it is often easier to buy food from ing its creation. processors. another continent than from a farmer in or near Affordable2. Michigan farmers will proﬁt- your community. All people have access to it. ably supply 20 percent of all ! Consumer interest in local and farm-direct foods Michigan institutional, retailer Adapted from the W.K. Kellogg is growing rapidly, and yet mid-sized farms are Foundation and consumer food purchases disappearing at an alarming rate and many and be able to pay fair wages farms cannot support themselves without to their workers. off-farm work.3. Michigan will generate new agri-food businesses at a rate What is the Michigan Good Food Charter? that enables 20 percent of food purchased in Michigan The Michigan Good Food Charter presents a vision for Michigan’s food and to come from Michigan. agriculture system to advance its current contribution to the economy, pro-4. Eighty percent of Michigan tect our natural resource base, improve our residents’ health and help gen- residents (twice the current erations of Michigan youth to thrive. The charter outlines a sequence of level) will have easy access steps we can take over the next decade to move us in this direction. to affordable, fresh, healthy We need to enact policies and strategies that make it just as easy to get food, 20 percent of which is food from a nearby farm as from the global marketplace and that will as- from Michigan sources. sure all Michiganders have access to good food and all Michigan farmers5. Michigan Nutrition Standards and food businesses have entrepreneurial opportunities. will be met by 100 percent of school meals and 75 percent Photo by Cara Maple. of schools selling food outside school meal programs.6. Michigan schools will incor- porate food and agriculture into the pre-K through 12th grade curriculum for all Michigan students and youth will have access to food and agriculture entrepreneurial opportunities.
AG EN DA PR I OR I TI ES AT A G L AN C ESCALE TYPE FOOD SYSTEM AGENDA PRIORITY ARENA 1. Expand and increase innovative methods to bring healthy foods to under- served areas as well as strategies to encourage their consumption. 2. Improve school food environments and reduce school sales of low- Community-based nutrient, high-sugar, high-fat and calorie-dense foods through snack and vending machines or competitive food sales. LOCAL AGENDA PRIORITIES 3. Maximize use of current public beneﬁt programs for vulnerable populations, especially children and seniors, and link them with strategies for healthy food access. 4. Provide outreach, training and technical assistance to launch new grocery stores and improve existing stores to better serve underserved people in urban and rural areas. 5. Establish food business districts to encourage food businesses to locate in the same area and to support their collaboration. Land use-based 6. Use policy and planning strategies to increase access to healthy food in underserved areas. 7. Review and seek appropriate revisions to state and local land use policies to preserve farmland and blend protection with farm viability programs. 8. Encourage institutions – including schools, hospitals, colleges and Market- based universities – to use their collective purchasing power to inﬂuence the food supply chain to provide healthier food and more foods grown, raised and processed in Michigan. 9. Expand opportunities for youth to develop entrepreneurship skills and Business or non-proﬁt- STATEWIDE AGENDA PRIORITIES learn about career opportunities related to good food that support youth based and community economic development. 10. Establish Michigan as “the place to be” for culturally based good food that is locally grown, processed, prepared and consumed. 11. Incorporate good food education into the pre-K-12 curriculum for all Michigan students. 12. Implement a reimbursement program to provide an additional 10 cents Legislation-based per school meal, as a supplement to existing school meal funds, in order to purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables. 13. Amend Michigan’s General Property Tax Act to exempt certain on-farm renewable energy installations. 14. Set targets for state-funded institutions to procure Michigan-grown, sustainably produced products.Please note that agenda priority numbers do not reﬂect rank order.
SCALE TYPE FOOD SYSTEM AGENDA PRIORITY ARENA 15. Direct $10 million to regional food supply chain infrastructure development investments through the Michigan state planning and development regions or other regional designations. 16. Implement a food safety audit cost-share or reimbursement program targeted at small and medium-sized farms and work to ensure that audits are conducted in the context of the farm scale. 17. Provide ﬁnancial incentives for farmers and for development of food system infrastructure to support institutional local food purchasing programs. 18. Develop a farm-to-institution grant program to provide planning, implementation and kitchen or cafeteria equipment grants to maximize State agency-based the use of locally grown, raised and processed foods in institutional cafeterias. STATEWIDE AGENDA PRIORITIES 19. Direct state agencies to maximize capital access through state- sponsored programs that provide farm ﬁnancing. 20. Ensure that all state and higher education business, work force and economic development programs include farming and agriculture in their target audiences for programmatic development, training, investment and technical assistance. 21. Contingent upon further market assessment, establish a state meat and poultry inspection program in cooperation with the federal Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) to spur new meat processing infrastructure. 22. Include Michigan food and agriculture in state marketing efforts, such as the Pure Michigan campaign, to build awareness of the state’s great variety and quality of local food products and farm amenities. 23. Charge business support entities, such as the 18 Michigan Technical Education Centers, with identifying and supporting the equipment and process engineering needs of farmers and other agri-food enterprises, and ensure that food and agriculture are included in state and local economic development plans. 24. Examine all of Michigan’s food- and agriculture-related laws and regulations (food safety, production, processing, retailing, etc.) for Research-based provisions that create unnecessary transactions costs and regulatory burdens on low risk businesses and ensure that regulations are applied in a way that acknowledges the diversity of production practices. 25. Develop systems for collecting and sharing production and market data and other data relevant to regional food supply chain development. Good food Farms and Food system Youth farmers Institutions access infrastructure
By the Numbers In 2007, the average age of Michigan farmers was over 56. Michigan loses an average of 30,000 acres of farmland every year. Farms between 100 and 999 acres decreased 26 percent between 1997 and 2007. Nearly 59 percent of all Michigan residents live in what are considered “underserved areas” with limited Photo courtesy of Blandford Nature Center. access to healthy and affordable food. What Needs to Change? Roughly 65 percent of adults and Current policies, practices and market structures keep us from realizing nearly 30 percent of youth in these opportunities. For example, some zoning regulations limit growing grades 9-12 are overweight or food in cities; high quality, healthy food is not always available at places obese. where people use public beneﬁts to purchase food; and institutions, Only about 14 percent of Michigan especially K-12 schools, face restrictive budgets for school meals. farmers’ markets accept Bridge Michigan buyers and farmers have limited opportunities to connect direct- Cards (which replaced food stamps) ly with one another. Regulations are typically more easily implemented by for food purchases. large-scale farms and markets. Food safety requirements are often inﬂex- It costs about $2.90 to prepare ible and can be cost-prohibitive for small- and medium-scale growers. a school meal, but the current Farmland is unaffordable in many cases. New farmers face challenges federal reimbursement for a “free” in accessing capital to begin their operations and thus have difﬁculty meal for qualifying students is only developing a market. $2.57. USDA food safety good agricultural What Can We Do? practices (GAP) and good handling practices (GHP) audits cost $92/ We can address these barriers through speciﬁc, strategic state and local hour, including travel time for audi- actions, and we can forge new partnerships centered on the values of tors to get to farm locations. Total good food. We can raise public and private policymakers’ awareness of costs in 2009 ranged from about these issues and make Michigan good food policies and practices a $92 to $1,600 per farm. priority at all levels of decision making. The 25 policy priorities outlined here offer speciﬁc strategies for reaching our goals in the next ten years. CONTACT: MORE INFORMATION: Kathryn Colasanti at 517.353.0642 For the complete Michigan Good Food Charter, including references for or email@example.com. the numbers cited above, supporting documents and tools, please see: www.michiganfood.orgThe following have led the process of developing the Michigan Good Food Charter: The Michigan Good Food Charter is made possible through principal funding from: the c.s. mott group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU