More Related Content Similar to LCFA-2009_Research_Report-3 Similar to LCFA-2009_Research_Report-3 (20) 2.
ii
FOOD
SECURITY
IN
THE
URBAN
BLUEGRASS:
LESSONS
LEARNED
LEXINGTON
COMMUNITY
FOOD
ASSESSMENT
2009:
INTERVIEW
&
FOCUS
GROUP
RESULTS
RESEARCH
REPORT
Copyright
©
2009
Brett
Wolff
and
Keiko
Tanaka
All
rights
reserved.
Published
by
Department
of
Community
&
Leadership
Development
University
of
Kentucky,
Lexington,
KY40546‐0215
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CLD/LCFA
The
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment
Project
is
an
integrated
research,
instruction,
and
outreach
project
by
Keiko
Tanaka
and
Patrick
Mooney
in
the
University
of
Kentucky.
For
more
information
about
the
project
and
this
report,
please
contact:
Dr.
Keiko
Tanaka
at
ktanaka@uky.edu.
The
University
of
Kentucky
is
committed
to
a
policy
of
providing
opportunities
to
people
regardless
of
economic
or
social
status
and
will
not
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
race,
color,
ethnic
origin,
national
origin,
creed,
religion,
political
belief,
sex,
sexual
orientation,
marital
status,
age,
veteran
status,
or
physical
or
mental
disability.
The
University
of
Kentucky
is
an
equal
opportunity
university.
Questions
concerning
compliance
with
regulations
may
be
directed
to
the
Equal
Opportunity
Office,
13
Main
Building,
University
of
Kentucky,
Lexington,
KY
40506‐0032,
(859)
257‐8927
or
at
http://www.uky.edu/evpfa/eeo.
4.
iv
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
report
is
part
of
an
on‐going
project,
The
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment,
by
Drs.
Keiko
Tanaka
and
Patrick
Mooney.
The
project
engages
students
in
service
learning
activities
through
use
of
community
food
assessment
as
a
tool
to
better
understand
the
constraints
of
food
access
in
Lexington.
This
particular
report
is
based
on
findings
from
Phase
VIII
of
this
project,
which
sought
to
answer:
(1)
What
do
community
members
living
in
previously
identified
“food
deserts”
see
as
challenges
and
opportunities
in
improving
the
food
system
in
Lexington?
(2)
What
do
community
leaders
working
with
and
in
these
communities
see
as
challenges
and
barriers?
Focus
groups
and
interviews
were
conducted
by
both
graduate
and
undergraduate
students
in
Tanaka
and
Mooney’s
fall
2009
course,
SOC
541:
Food
Security.
Both
research
findings
and
limitations
experienced
in
the
course
of
research,
shed
light
on
important
aspects
of
the
Lexington
food
system.
The
“lessons
learned,”
presented
here
will
prove
invaluable
to
any
further
research
or
work
done
in
the
area
of
food
access
and
security
in
Lexington.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
work
of
SOC
541
students:
Zachary
Davis,
John‐Mark
Hack,
Peter
Hamrick,
Julia
Hofmeister,
Megan
Maurer,
Eric
Stiff,
and
Brett
Wolff.
These
students
designed,
coordinated,
and
executed
all
data
collection
for
this
project.
5.
5
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Executive
Summary ................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................iv
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6
Research
Questions................................................................................................................ 6
Methods................................................................................................................................. 7
In‐Depth
Interviews
with
Community
Leaders ................................................................................. 7
Focus
Group
Interviews
with
Residents ........................................................................................... 8
Results:
Key
Findings
and
Major
Themes ................................................................................ 8
1.
Education
is
lacking
and
important................................................................................................. 8
2.
Community
gardens
may
serve
multiple
roles
in
addressing
perceived
issues. ............................. 9
3.
Economically
sustainable,
market‐based
solutions
are
important ................................................. 9
4.
Policy
change
must
supplement
local
activist
effort....................................................................... 9
5.
Lack
of
interest?............................................................................................................................ 10
Limitations
&
Research
Problems ......................................................................................... 10
1.
Lack
of
Interest.............................................................................................................................. 11
2.
Lack
of
Trust .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.
Lack
of
Time .................................................................................................................................. 11
4.
Inaccurate
Lists.............................................................................................................................. 11
Conclusions
&
“Lessons
Learned” ......................................................................................... 11
1.
Establish
Rapport .......................................................................................................................... 12
2.
Stimulate
Interest
&
Demand
through
Education......................................................................... 12
3.
Invest
Considerable
Time
for
Further
Research............................................................................ 12
References ........................................................................................................................... 13
Previous
LCFA
Publications ............................................................................................................ 13
Appendix
A:
Interview
Guide
for
Community
Leaders........................................................... 14
Appendix
B:
Interview
Guide
for
Focus
Group
Interviews ..................................................... 14
Appendix
C:
List
of
Community
Leaders
Interviewed ............................................................ 15
6.
6
INTRODUCTION
Since
participants
at
the
1996
World
Food
Summit
defined
food
security
as,
“a
situation
that
exists
when
all
people,
at
all
times,
have
physical,
social
and
economic
access
to
sufficient,
safe
and
nutritious
food
that
meets
their
dietary
needs
and
food
preferences
for
an
active
and
healthy
life,”
(FAO,
1996)
global
interest
in
food
security
has
quickly
expanded.
Local,
regional,
national
and
international
research
and
intervention
efforts
have
focused
intensely
on
working
toward
this
goal.
For
over
seven
years,
researchers
working
on
the
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment
(LCFA)
have
sought
to
understand
the
specific
local
food
landscape
of
Lexington
through
the
use
of
various
research
methods.
The
foundational
piece
in
this
series,
the
“Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment
2004‐07:
Research
Report”
(Tanaka
and
Mooney
2008)
laid
out
four
years
of
work
including
a
series
of
maps
outlining
areas
of
limited
food
access
or
“food
deserts”
in
the
Lexington
area.
The
following
year,
the
LCFA
research
team
administered
surveys
regarding
the
food
related
values
of
shoppers
at
different
locations
in
the
city.
The
results
of
that
phase
of
the
project
may
be
found
in
Brislen
and
Tanaka’s
(2008)
“Shopping
for
Values:
Food
Concerns
and
Insights
from
Lexington,
Kentucky.”
There
is
a
similar
survey
of
Lexington
Farmers
Market
shoppers
planned
for
fall
of
2010.
This
particular
phase
of
the
LCFA
sought
to
focus
particularly
on
the
areas
previously
identified
as
food
deserts
in
the
area.
Particularly,
the
goal
of
the
project
was
to
contact
community
members
as
well
as
community
leaders
to
assess
record
their
opinions
about
challenges
and
opportunities
within
the
Lexington
food
system.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
This
project
had
two
primary
research
questions:
1. How
do
community
leaders
view
the
food
system?
• What
are
major
food‐related
challenges
faced
by
the
communities?
• What
do
they
see
as
available
resources
for
addressing
these
challenges?
• What
is
their
organization’s
role
in
addressing
issues?
• What
is
their
vision
of
the
future?
2. How
do
community
members
living
in
previously
identified
“food
deserts”
view
the
food
system?
• What
are
major
problems?
• Who
is
working
to
address
them?
• What
they
would
like
to
see
happen
in
their
community?
The
rationale
for
these
questions
was
founded
in
community‐based
research
goals.
That
is,
researchers
wanted
to
ask
the
opinion
of
people
living
in
communities
most
directly
affected
by
7.
7
food
access
inequality.
Additionally,
the
opinions
of
community
leaders
would
be
incorporated
to
provide
a
broader
“internal”
view
of
food
security
in
the
Lexington
area.
The
background
purpose
of
this
phase
was
to
gauge
community
interest
in
and
concern
about
the
food
system
and
to
assess
preliminary
support
for
a
food
policy
council
(FPC)
in
the
Lexington
community.
If
such
a
body
were
to
be
successful,
it
would
necessarily
be
based
in
the
active
concern
of
citizens.
METHODS
Following
from
the
research
questions
explained
above,
students
carried
out
focus‐group
interviews
with
Lexington
residents
and
in‐depth
interviews
with
community
leaders
to
examine:
(a)
What
concerns
different
individuals
and
groups
have
with
food
security
issues
in
Lexington?
(b)
What
do
they
see
as
“needs”
in
addressing
their
food
security
issues?
(c)
What
do
they
see
as
“assets”
in
addressing
their
food
security
issues?
(d)
What
thoughts,
concerns,
and/or
visions
do
they
have
for
the
Lexington
food
system?
(for
a
full
list
of
the
outlines
used,
see
Appendix
A
and
Appendix
B)
IN‐DEPTH
INTERVIEWS
WITH
COMMUNITY
LEADERS
Community
leader
interview
subjects
were
selected
based
on
their
activity
in
the
food
system,
their
relationship
with
communities
living
in
the
food
deserts
of
Lexington,
as
well
as
their
role
in
the
civic
culture
of
Lexington
at
large.
In
the
initial
stages,
a
large
list
of
potential
stakeholders
was
drafted
(n=54),
and
from
this
list,
requests
for
interviews
were
made
via
telephone
and
e‐mail.
Of
the
approximately
40
interview
requests
made,
14
were
granted.
It
is
significant
that
of
the
15
members
of
the
Lexington
Fayette
Urban
County
Council,
only
one
consented
to
an
interview
(total
interviews:
n=15).
Once
initial
contact
had
been
made,
the
interview
date
and
time
were
set
up,
with
researchers
usually
meeting
the
subject
at
a
location
of
mutual
convenience.
Subjects
were
asked
a
series
of
8
questions
(see
Appendix
A),
and
some,
but
not
all
interviews
were
recorded
and
transcribed.
TABLE
1
shows
the
distribution
of
interviewees
among
various
types
of
community
organizations
in
Lexington
(see
Appendix
C
for
the
list
of
community
leaders
interviewed).
Table
I:
Types
of
Community
Organizations
Interviewed
Type
Number
Local
government/public
organizations
3
Businesses
2
Trade
organizations
2
Advocacy
organizations
6
Neighborhood
organizations
2
8.
8
With
the
hope
of
initiating
open
conversations,
students
created
an
outline
of
interview
and
focus
group
discussion
topics.
This
provided
a
guide
for
useful
data
collection
while
allowing
enough
flexibility
to
give
the
feel
of
a
typical
conversation.
Each
interview
took
approximately
one
hour.
If
permitted,
interviews
were
recorded.
Interview
notes
were
developed
for
the
research
team
to
share.
FOCUS
GROUP
INTERVIEWS
WITH
RESIDENTS
Although
this
study
had
intended
to
draw
heavily
upon
the
experiences
of
local
neighborhood
associations
as
a
source
of
focus
group
data,
the
response
rate
was
low.
A
total
of
14
neighborhood
associations
(NA)
were
identified
in
areas
previously
identified
as
“food
deserts.”
Representatives
of
each
of
these
14
NAs
were
contacted
with
multiple
call‐backs.
By
the
end
of
the
project,
two
focus
group
sessions
were
conducted.
Both
were
fairly
informal
in
their
execution,
due
to
time
constraints
on
the
part
of
the
subjects
as
well
as
the
limited
number
of
people
in
each
focus
group.
Nevertheless,
there
was
a
basic
outline
used
by
students
to
provide
some
measure
of
structure
(see
Appendix
B).
While
researchers
attempted
to
adhere
to
these
interview
guides,
actual
interviews
were
much
more
free
form,
and
loosely
followed
the
drafted
guide.
Focus
group
interviews
were
not
recorded,
only
written
notes
were
taken.
RESULTS:
KEY
FINDINGS
AND
MAJOR
THEMES
Due
to
the
low
response
rate,
and
the
relatively
small
number
of
focus
groups
conducted,
a
standalone
analysis
of
those
results
would
not
be
highly
meaningful.
Therefore,
the
major
themes
presented
here
are
a
synthesis
of
focus
group
and
interview
results.
These
themes
were
drawn
from
the
interview
data,
and
in
most
cases
were
emphasized
by
multiple
respondents.
1.
EDUCATION
IS
LACKING
AND
IMPORTANT
A
lack
of
education
regarding
food,
and
particularly
“healthy
food”
was
mentioned
as
a
concern
by
numerous
subjects,
and
many
included
education
in
their
vision
of
food
security
in
Lexington‐Fayette
County.
The
major
areas
of
emphasis
were:
teaching
people
how
to
grow
food,
showing
people
where
and
why
to
buy
“healthy”
food,
and
how
to
prepare
it.
The
purpose
of
this
education
was
variable;
for
some
education
instilled
practices
to
achieve
better
health.
For
others,
the
educational
process
was
beneficial
since
it
helped
to
create
informed
consumers.
Certified
community
kitchens,
chicken
coops
and
community
gardens
were
mentioned
as
assets,
and
sites
for
mutual
learning
and
effort.
Respondents
also
mentioned
a
future
in
which
9.
9
small‐scale
agriculture—both
for
direct
consumption
and
for
sale—would
be
the
norm.
This
would
be
the
end
result
of
the
educational
process
discussed
above.
2.
COMMUNITY
GARDENS
MAY
SERVE
MULTIPLE
ROLES
IN
ADDRESSING
PERCEIVED
ISSUES.
To
address
the
aforementioned
concern
of
inadequate
education,
many
respondents
mentioned
community
gardens
as
effective
educational
tools.
In
addition
to
their
educational
value,
some
subjects
mentioned
the
social
and
economic
benefits
of
more
gardens.
Several
respondents
discussed
the
“community
building”
experience
of
a
shared
garden,
and
the
community
empowerment,
which
comes
from
taking
charge
of
land
in
their
neighborhood.
Economically,
gardens
were
mentioned
as
sources
of
“free”
food
which
could
supplement
food
supplies
and
help
to
insulate
against
food
insecurity,
and
if
the
garden
were
large
and
intensive
enough,
food
production
could
provide
supplemental
income
to
community
members.
3.
ECONOMICALLY
SUSTAINABLE,
MARKET‐BASED
SOLUTIONS
ARE
IMPORTANT
One
of
the
major
challenges
identified
by
respondents
was
the
lack
of
options
for
purchasing
food
in
the
food
desert
areas.
The
visions
for
addressing
this
issue
were
various,
but
several
respondents
highlighted
the
important
role
of
for‐profit
ventures
in
addressing
the
presence
of
food
deserts.
One
interview
subject
mentions
a
desire
to
curtail
the
business
practices
of
the
street‐corner
convenience
stores
in
low‐income
neighborhoods.
On
several
occasions
he
discusses
the
need
for
large‐scale
supermarkets
(he
identifies
Kroger)
to
provide
fresh
produce
to
these
areas.
Others
point
to
expansion
of
local
markets
like
Farmers
Markets
as
an
important
commerce‐
based
solution
to
providing
opportunities
for
food
purchase.
Nevertheless,
other
respondents
point
out
the
issues
with
businesses
expanding
into
the
underserved
areas.
Particularly,
it
is
difficult
for
for‐profit
ventures
to
start
and
sustain
businesses
in
areas
where
they
will
not
draw
many
patrons.
The
aforementioned
economic
benefits
of
gardening
should
be
reinforced
here.
4.
POLICY
CHANGE
MUST
SUPPLEMENT
LOCAL
ACTIVIST
EFFORT
Another
major
set
of
challenges
identified
by
respondents
were
those
that
exist
on
a
structural
level.
The
vision
for
changing
these
primarily
took
the
form
of
policy
level
reform
directed
specifically
at
the
food
system.
Many
subjects
brought
up
specific
policy‐based
issues
and
solutions.
Lack
of
transportation
(including
public)
was
mentioned
by
several
subjects.
Fayette
County
Public
school
funding
issues
as
well
as
bureaucratic
barriers
to
Farm
to
School
Programs
were
also
reported.
One
subject
said
that
the
government
should
certainly
permit,
if
not
mandate
increased
amounts
of
community
and
individual
gardens.
10.
10
One
respondent
perceived
systemic
leadership‐based
issues.
He
said
the
government
must
better
understand
its
community
and
that
community’s
issues
in
order
to
effectively
propose
and
lead
progress.
Several
respondents
acknowledge
that
policy
initiation
and
change
occurs
not
on
the
personal
or
interpersonal
level,
but
on
an
institutional
plane,
and
that
he
recourse
for
policy
change
is
not
the
same
as
that
for
community‐based
activist
efforts.
Particularly,
one
subject
talked
about
removing
passion
from
the
process
of
policy
change.
His
assertion
was
that
by
focusing
on
facts
and
laws
and
by
formulating
an
appealing
logical
argument,
agents
for
change
could
more
effectively
bring
their
ideas
to
the
mainstream.
This
respondent
was
not
proposing
specific
policy
change,
but
rather
proposes
a
method
for
achieving
it.
5.
LACK
OF
INTEREST?
Clearly
based
on
the
above
findings,
there
are
a
number
of
subjects
who
have
a
great
amount
of
interest
and
investment
in
this
issue
of
food
security.
On
the
other
hand,
several
interview
subjects
who
proposed
changes
also
acknowledged
that
the
people
they
represent
or
with
whom
they
work
(including
a
large
proportion
living
in
food
deserts)
have
not
often
indicated
that
any
sort
of
food
issue
is
important.
Therefore,
their
policy‐based
efforts
are
focused
elsewhere
due
to
the
lack
of
demand
for
change
in
the
food
system.
Additionally
several
respondents
indicated
that
the
lack
of
interest
also
drove
effective
market‐
based
efforts
to
relocate
elsewhere.
Stated
simply,
vendors
will
sell
what
people
will
buy,
where
they
will
buy
it;
if
there
is
no
demand
for
“healthy”
fresh
food,
then
there
is
little
incentive
to
provide
a
supply.
There
are
other
relevant
“findings”
to
be
drawn
from
the
research
process,
but
as
they
do
not
represent
the
opinion
of
respondents,
this
discussion
will
be
continued
in
the
section
below.
LIMITATIONS
&
RESEARCH
PROBLEMS
The
type
of
research
undergone
in
this
project
could
be
described
as
nontraditional
and
innovative.
For
that
reason,
successes
and
failures
in
the
research
processes
are
extremely
important
sources
of
information
for
future
efforts
as
well
as
indirect
findings
in
a
holistic
approach
to
answering
the
posited
research
questions.
It
is
very
important
to
note,
however
that
these
are
indirect
and
inferred
findings
and
should
therefore
be
understood
and
acted
upon
with
some
caution.
It
is
helpful
to
reiterate
here
the
specifics
of
the
low
response
rates.
As
noted
above,
of
the
28
potential
interview
candidates
(community
leaders)
contacted,
14
consented.
This
is
actually
a
respectable
response
rate
compared
with
other
comparable
studies.
However,
of
the
15
LFUCG
councilmembers
contacted,
only
one
eventually
met
with
the
research
team.
Additionally,
the
11.
11
response
rate
for
focus
groups
was
very
low
(2
of
14).
This
result
was
the
most
disappointing,
and
may
be
attributable
to
a
combination
of
any
of
the
factors
listed
on
the
following
non‐
exhaustive
list:
1.
LACK
OF
INTEREST
As
noted
above,
several
interview
subjects
said
their
constituents
were
not
concerned
about
these
issues.
Additionally
the
very
low
response
rate
from
Neighborhood
Associations
may
indicated
that
the
interest
of
the
people
living
there
indeed
does
not
pertain
to
food.
2.
LACK
OF
TRUST
Instead
of
assuming
that
non‐participation
indicates
a
lack
of
interest
we
may
instead
see
that
the
researchers,
and
the
university
at
large
had
no
rapport
already
established
with
the
potential
respondents.
There
was
no
personal
or
even
institutional
relationship
working
as
an
incentive
for
participation.
3.
LACK
OF
TIME
This
applies
to
both
researchers
and
subjects,
though
slightly
differently.
There
was
a
relatively
small
window
of
opportunity
for
conducting
focus
groups
and
finishing
the
research.
This
caused
problems
for
some
researchers.
Secondly,
many
of
the
people
contacted
for
the
study
are
most
likely
employed,
in
school,
or
may
have
family
commitments.
All
of
these
factors
may
have
contributed
to
the
low
response
rate.
4.
INACCURATE
LISTS
The
research
team
contacted
the
neighborhood
associations
according
to
a
list
of
telephone
numbers
culled
from
the
Internet
and
other
sources.
This
list
had
one
or
two
contact
persons
listed
per
association.
Multiple
attempts
were
made
to
contact
each
member.
CONCLUSIONS
&
“LESSONS
LEARNED”
Respondents
indicated
that
they
felt
that
education
was
crucial
to
overcoming
the
problems
they
perceived
with
the
food
system
in
Lexington.
Among
other
efforts,
community
gardens
were
mentioned
as
one
method
for
approaching
this
educational
goal.
To
complement
this
process
of
education,
there
would
need
to
be
changes,
which
would
allow
for
a
food
economy
that
is
viable
for
both
vendor
and
buyer.
Most
respondent
acknowledge
that
as
a
backdrop
to
all
of
these
changes,
there
was
a
need
for
widespread
policy
reform
to
structurally
facilitate
the
changes
desired
in
the
food
system.
Despite
the
quality
of
responses,
the
initial
questions
asked
were
neither
completely
nor
satisfactorily
answered.
This
is
due
to
a
confluence
of
factors,
most
of
which
have
been
laid
out
in
the
previous
sections.
This
is
only
one
phase
of
the
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment,
however,
and
some
of
the
most
important
“findings”
are
those
culled
from
the
research
process
itself.
In
the
spirit
of
this
ongoing
project,
below
is
a
list
of
suggestions
regarding
future
12.
12
efforts.
Future
researchers
will
be
more
successful
if
they
keep
the
following
recommendations
in
mind:
1.
ESTABLISH
RAPPORT
Action
in
the
field
of
food
security,
social
justice
and
sustainability
has
very
important
grassroots
elements,
which
can
only
be
addressed
via
a
sense
of
trust
and
familiarity.
Any
sort
of
future
research
in
this
field
must—either
directly,
or
through
the
more
effective
coordination
of
certain
“gatekeeper”
individuals—establish
both
a
reputation
and
a
relationship
with
the
communities
being
studied.
This
would
allow
for
a
more
extensive
sample
of
actual
community
opinion
and
concern.
2.
STIMULATE
INTEREST
&
DEMAND
THROUGH
EDUCATION
As
mentioned,
two
of
the
common
trends
in
interviews
were
citizen
and
consumer
interest
in
food
system
issues,
as
well
as
education.
These
issues—while
often
voiced
discretely
and
often
considered
as
distinct
problems—may
actually
be
considered
as
one
overarching
problem.
Education
may
help
to
address
each
of
these
issues.
By
emphasizing
health,
educational
institutions
may
encourage
better
food
choices.
These
choices
are
in
the
interest
of
the
individual,
the
community
and
the
environment.
3.
INVEST
CONSIDERABLE
TIME
FOR
FURTHER
RESEARCH
The
interviews
and
research
in
this
field
requires
dedicated,
long‐term
efforts
by
the
parties
interested.
Our
past
effort
with
the
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment
project
confirms
that
both
research
and
action
in
this
field
cannot
be
completed
in
the
short‐term.
4.
Develop
&
Offer
Community‐Based
Research
Training
In
any
research,
it
is
important
to
have
carefully
trained
interviewers
to
conduct
work.
Particularly
in
situations
like
this,
it
would
be
wise
to
give
interviewers
some
specific
training
related
to
community‐based
research
work.
13.
13
REFERENCES
FAO.
(1996)
ROME
DECLARATION
ON
WORLD
FOOD
SECURITY
AND
WORLD
FOOD
SUMMIT
PLAN
OF
ACTION.,
IN:
F.
D.
W.
96/3
(ED.),
FOOD
AND
AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION
OF
THE
UNITED
NATIONS,
ROME.
PREVIOUS
LCFA
PUBLICATIONS
Brislen,
L.
and
K.
Tanaka.
2010.
Shopping
for
Values:
Food
Concerns
and
Insights
from
Lexington,
Kentucky;
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment,
2008,
Consumer
Survey
Results,
Research
Report.
Lexington,
KY:
Department
of
Community
and
Leadership
Development.
Tanaka,
K.,
P.
Mooney,
T.
Lunsford,
B.
Maddock,
W.
Samson,
H.
Sands,
C.
Stapel,
C.
Thompson,
and
Q.
Tyler.
2008.
Lexington
Community
Food
Assessment,
2004‐2007,
Research
Report.
Lexington,
KY:
Department
of
Community
and
Leadership
Development.
14.
14
APPENDIX
A:
INTERVIEW
GUIDE
FOR
COMMUNITY
LEADERS
1. Please
tell
us
about
your
organization
–
its
history,
mission(s),
organizational
structure,
funding
sources,
clients,
services,
etc.
2. Please
tell
us
about
the
neighborhood(s)
to
which
you
provide
services.
What
is
unique
about
the
neighborhood(s)
and
residents?
3. This
study
is
interested
in
issues
surrounding
community
access
to
food.
What
do
you
see
as
challenges
that
residents
in
the
neighborhood(s)
face
in
accessing
adequate
quality
food?
4. What
kind
of
services,
if
any,
has
your
organization
offered
to
address
these
challenges?
• What
are
the
key
achievements
your
organization
has
made
in
these
services?
• What
are
the
major
difficulties
your
organization
has
faced
in
carrying
out
these
services?
5. What
resources
does
your
organization
need
to
effectively
address
the
challenges
of
food
access
that
residents
in
the
neighborhood(s)
face?
6. What
initiatives,
either
in
existence
or
currently
under
development
by
other
organizations,
address
these
challenges?
7. What
role
does
your
organization
play
in
these
initiatives?
8. What
resources
and
services
do
you
think
that
residents
in
the
neighborhood(s)
need
to
overcome
the
challenges
of
food
access?
APPENDIX
B:
INTERVIEW
GUIDE
FOR
FOCUS
GROUP
INTERVIEWS
Theme
1:
Concerns
with
food
security:
What
problems
do
you
have
or
see
with
food
in
this
community?
Theme
2:
Community
needs:
Of
those
problems
mentioned,
what
do
you
see
as
the
most
important?
Theme
3:
Community
assets:
What
is
working
in
this
community
to
address
these
problems?
Theme
4:
Visions
for
change:
What
would
you
like
to
see
happen?
15.
15
APPENDIX
C:
LIST
OF
COMMUNITY
LEADERS
INTERVIEWED
Name Organizational Affiliation
Tom Blues Lexington Fayette Urban County Government District 2
Jeff Dabbelt Lexington Farmers’ Market
Jim Embry SustainLex
Anne Hopkins Good Foods Market & Café
Hap Houlihan Local First! Lexington
Renee Jackson Downtown Lexington Corporation
Mark Johnson Lexington Health Department
Ryan Koch Seedleaf
Bob McKinley In-Feed
Dave Riggins LexTran
Rebecca Self Seedleaf
Danielle Tussey God’s Pantry
Knox van Nagell Fayette Alliance
John Walker Lexington Urban Gleaning Network; Faith Feeds
Various William Wells Brown Aerobics Class
Various St. Martin’s Neighborhood Association Meeting
Fayette County Public Schools Food Services
