Project Evaluation:
Building Community Power for Food
Justice
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region,
Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
June, 2012
Project Holder: WhyHunger
Evaluator: Aley S. Kent
Report prepared for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2. Program Background and Context
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3. Evaluation Scope & Methods
.
Evaluation Process
.
.
Background on the Evaluator
.
Discussion of Evaluation Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
5
6
6
4. Findings
.
Accomplishments
Challenges
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
7
9
5. Participatory Analysis and Recommendations for the Project
.
.
.
9
6. Lessons Learned
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
7. Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8. Appendices
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix 1: Agenda for meeting with DFFI Executive Committee to plan the evaluation
Appendix 2: Membership survey .
.
.
.
.
.
17
Appendix 3: Interview questions and compiled feedback .
.
.
.
Appendix 4: Facilitation plan and notes for participatory program review meeting.
Appendix 5: Interview questions for WhyHunger staff
.
.
.
.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
16
16
18
25
34
Page 2
1. Introduction
It has been almost 3 years since WhyHunger initiated its Building Community Power to Eliminate Food
Deserts project to organize food systems organizations in the Mississippi Delta region. This is a qualitative
evaluation exploring how a network of anti-hunger, health, business, and sustainable agriculture groups is
functioning to effect fundamental changes in the Mississippi Delta food system, and how effective
WhyHunger has been in supporting the development of the network.
The lessons emerging from this evaluation point to the importance of multi-sectoral networks in rebuilding
healthy and viable food systems in areas that suffer from a depleted farming sector, a depressed economy,
and populations with inadequate access to healthy food. Findings show the essential role that community
building plays in stitching together food systems, and how the processes of networking and implementing
projects support one another. It also demonstrates the valuable role that Grassroots Support Organizations
(GSOs) can play in assisting these networks to form, and the importance of their using a facilitative
approach that builds capacity and empowers the members of the network to lead.
This report includes accomplishments and challenges in network formation and operation thus far, lessons
that these findings hold for the network itself and for related projects, and a discussion of what this project's
experiences might teach a national community of funders and organizations who are trying to support
networks as a tool for eliminating food deserts in the United States.
2. Program Background and Context
The notion that healthy communities and sustainable farms are interdependent has grown popular in the
recent decade, and many funders and organizations have been working to address these issues on a
regional scale, through working to link various sectors of the food economy.
Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts builds on this trend, focusing not only on bringing
together diverse players in the food system of the MS Delta, but also on building capacity to organize and
manage the network itself. This project has pushed many organizations and groups in this region to take a
larger look at the landscape, consider new and unlikely partners, and broaden ideas about how to tackle the
issues that suddenly become multi-pronged once a new perspective is taken. While individual members of
the network may be focused on nutrition, anti-hunger, or farm viability issues, this project has encouraged
these various groups to consider some more fundamental contextual realities common to all of them, such
as policies that do not promote consumption of fresh foods, a lack of centralized local markets and
distribution hubs, a dearth of growers who are outfitted to supply sufficient food to the local region, poor
perceptions of the farming labor force, and a legacy of power imbalances that have consistently advantaged
Whites over People of Color.
In response to this, Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts has three main goals, with the
cumulative goal of improving community food security as well as the local capacity to drive community food
systems development:
1. To enhance a coalition of local organizations and businesses actively working to improve the availability
and accessibility of healthy food in their communities in the Mississippi Delta region
2. To facilitate a visioning and planning process that leads the coalition to implement community-owned
strategic and appropriate approaches for the geographical areas that will result in abundant and
equitable access to healthy food for all.
3. To provide access to models, resources, technical assistance, training and information about potential
goals/targets and successful strategies for increasing the accessibility and affordability of fresh, healthy
food, such as:
a) Establishing new or expanding existing outlets in the community that sell fresh produce at affordble
prices, such as farmers markets, CSA, local farms, supermarkets, grocery stores or bodegas,
b) Increasing the uptake of local, state and federal government safety net programs related to incomce
and food,
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 3
c)
Increasing the availability of fresh and healthy food in schools, hospitals and other institutions in the
44community,
d) Increasing the ability of community residents to purchase healthy and nutritious food, and
e) Developing jobs, entrepreneurial activities or income streams associated with increasing access to
and availability of healthy food.
The project has also pushed WhyHunger, historically an advocacy and networking agency, to strengthen its
role as a "Grassroots Support Organization" (GSO), investing time and resources into fostering the
development of programs on the ground. For the three years that this project has been running, WhyHunger
has been playing a role in the formation and operation of the network in the following ways outlined in the
grant proposal (the grant involves the MS Delta coalition in question as well as two other groups in other
parts of the country):
1. Working in partnership with WhyHunger's existing community-based partners to facilitate coalition
building around eliminating food deserts through a process of developing a shared analysis of the needs
and assets and a shared vision for the future,
2. Providing at least 8 training opportunities to a minimum of at least 300 community-based organizations
in the two program areas about the successful approaches and models mentioned above,
3. Providing targeted technical assistance to a minimum of 20 community based organizations,
4. Distributing seed money to each coalition that will allow for initial investment in chosen projects,
5. To create and disseminate a multi-media tool-kit outlining processes and resources documents the work
being conducted to make fresh and healthy food available and accessible within the Mississippi Delta
region.
In addition to #1 above, WhyHunger has been providing significant support to assisting with organizational
development and with building the leadership capacity of the network membership. WhyHunger has used a
participatory approach in its interventions at the community level, based in a conviction that the priority
issues and the solutions to address them need to come from the people living and working in the MS Delta
in order for activities to be appropriate and for the project itself to have any lasting impact.
Thus far, a network, named Delta Fresh Foods Initiative (hereafter referred to as “DFFI”) has formed, a
coordinator has been hired, a leadership and decision-making structure has been established, trainings have
been conducted, DFFI has representation on the MS food policy council, and several local programs have
flourished, including cooking classes, church and community garden programs, on-farm hoop house and
farmers market development. At the start of this evaluation, network leaders were beginning a process of
reflection in order to plan how to most effectively move forward, while actively working on 501c3
incorporation and a new farm-to-school initiative.
Meanwhile, WhyHunger is actively working to build networks with similar aims in other parts of the country,
and is interested in understanding how they can best play a role in supporting efforts like this from afar.
3. Evaluation Scope & Methods
There are three levels of activity in this project: (1) the programmatic activities that network members are running
on the ground, such as cooking classes, on-farm trainings, and infrastructure development; (2) the organizing
activities of the network collaborative to enhance the activities of its membership and foster fundamental
changes in the MS Delta food system; and (3) the capacity building activities that WhyHunger staff are
undertaking with the leadership of the new network to help it function effectively.
This evaluation began as the project was in its third year of operation, and as the activities of the network were
just beginning to be implemented, the evaluation focused on the second and third levels of activity outlined
above. Since the project is geared towards facilitating the emergence of a network and supporting it to become
independent and responsive to the needs of its members, this evaluation is a qualitative analysis of the way the
network functioned, operating from the assumption that a functioning network will be serving the needs of its
members well. Therefore, it does not include any detailed data gathering on the first level of activities described
above, but rather examines participant satisfaction with the extent to which these activities are being supported
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 4
by the network.
The central questions that this evaluation attempts to answer are:
1. How has WhyHunger been effective in enabling the development of the network?
2. How well is the network functioning and what can help it become more effective at fostering fundamental
changes in the MS Delta food system?
Consistent with the participatory approach Whyhunger has employed in its community-level work, this
evaluation strove to facilitate participant involvement in the creation of evaluation tools, and participant
reflection on the progress of the project so far. The hope was for the process to be useful to the participants
in addition to elucidating lessons and recommendations for the funding and Grassroots Support
Organization communities of practice.
Evaluation Process
Steps in the process were chosen in collaboration with the WhyHunger staff who have been intimately
involved with the project. Below is the final set of procedures:
1. Executive committee meeting and tours
At the meeting, the evaluator discussed the purpose and process of the evaluation with the executive committee.
The group reviewed a set of interview questions to be used, and discussed an outreach strategy for a face-toface program review meeting. The group also contributed their input to a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) survey focused on the DFFI network. The full agenda is in Appendix 1. During the visit,
the evaluator also was able to meet a few members of projects that DFFI has supported, to gain a better
understanding of how the program is playing out on the ground.
2. Survey
A survey consisting of the SWOT questions was created and the DFFI coordinator and executive committee
chairperson assisted the evaluator in distributing it via email and a “Survey Monkey” link to the entire DFFI
membership. After two weeks, the survey was answered by only 1 person, and there were continual technical
difficulties with the Survey Monkey link. Since the meeting where this information would be used was fast
approaching, and the evaluator reconsidered the need for this data in this particular format, this data gathering
step was abandoned. The survey document can be found in Appendix 2.
3. Phone interviews with DFFI participants
The evaluator interviewed via phone 15 members who responded to a request for an hour-long phone interview.
Questions were generated by the evaluator and edited at the executive committee meeting (step 1, above), and
focused on gathering data on DFFI's structure, function, and impact on the landscape. The executive committee
put together a list of 27 members who have been involved since the beginning of the project and forwarded to
the evaluator after the executive committee meeting. The project coordinator also sent an email blast to these
members notifying them that the evaluator would be trying to set up interviews. The interview questions and the
compiled feedback from these interviews that was used during the program review meeting (below) can be found
in Appendix 3.
4. One day participatory program review meeting
The evaluator conducted a full day participatory program review to which all DFFI members were invited and 21
people attended. The evaluator devised the agenda in partnership with DFFI's project coordinator and the chair
of the executive committee, and focused on getting feedback on how network activities have affected food
systems work at the community or project level and on providing a space for participants to analyze this data,
and the data from the phone interviews, to generate ideas around how the network's activities and operations
could be improved. This process allowed the evaluation to go beyond gathering data to laying the groundwork
for a strategic planning process that the network will start in the summer of 2012. The full agenda, plan and
notes are included in Appendix 4.
5. Interviews with WhyHunger staff
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 5
The evaluator also interviewed WhyHunger staff involved in the project to hear their views on the successes,
challenges and lessons of the project. Interview questions are included in Appendix 5.
Background on the Evaluator
The evaluator is an independent consultant based in New York City and has done no prior work in the
Mississippi Delta, though she does have some contacts in the state and has visited food systems
development project there in the past. Her background includes 3 years working at the project level in urban
agriculture projects in New York, and 9 years as a program officer with Heifer International's USA Program.
This included managing grants, writing reports, and providing support to 20 community food security projects
in the Northeast, serving as a facilitator and technical assistance provider to project groups and their
leadership as they planned, implemented and reviewed their projects. Throughout this time and in her
current capacity as an organizational development and project consultant to food systems development
groups, she has utilized participatory methodologies and continues to develop these skills as a trainer and
facilitator with the National Technology of Participation® Network. These areas of expertise meshed with the
capacity building aims of the overall project, and hopefully negated the low familiarity of the evaluator with
the geographic region and the participants involved in DFFI.
Discussion of Evaluation Methods
The evaluation methods included some notable strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths included the participatory approach used in the evaluation, which was consistent with the
empowerment model that WhyHunger has practiced during the course of this project. This approach also
allowed for the evaluation to be collaborative and somewhat iterative in its implementation. That is, the interview
questions were reviewed with the executive committee of DFFI and amended to be as relevant as possible, and
when the survey didn't work out, it was possible to flex the face-to-face meeting agenda to make up for this.
Another benefit of this participatory approach was that the project leadership and all participants in the study
were very cooperative and eager to help with the evaluation. Both achievements and hurdles in project progress
were shared without hesitation and there seemed to be a genuine desire by participants to see the outcomes of
this evaluation, in order that they can learn from it and grow in appropriate directions.
The balance of anonymous interviews and public meeting was also a strength, as it allowed interview
participants the ability to be candid in their comments on the project, and then at the meeting participants could
consider this honest data and work to address concerns in a collaborative way. The two forms of data collection
also allowed for comparison between “private” and “public” feedback, and on the whole, information was
consistent from one format to another, reinforcing the validity of the data.
The evaluation had some inherent weaknesses as well: The evaluator worked remotely and conducted the
interviews and much of the planning for the face-to-face event via phone and internet, which limited the amount
of time that the evaluator could spend gathering data, and also posed a barrier to building rapport with
participants, which typically affects the level of comfort people feel with sharing their thoughts and feelings. The
evaluator also attempted to send out a survey to the full membership, and while she knew that some follow-up
phone calls might be necessary, she got an even smaller response than she anticipated (only one respondent
even with reminders and encouragement from the DFFI leadership), and ended up eliminating this tool from the
process, instead working this piece into the face-to-face meeting.
In terms of the interviews, the evaluator relied on the executive committee for a list of contacts to interview. This
could have skewed the data, as there was little way of knowing if this list was representative of the project
membership. The hope for the meeting with the executive committee was to build a shared understanding about
the purpose of the phone interviews, make the questions relevant to both the evaluation and the group itself, and
in doing so generate some trust and buy-in that would translate to a list of contacts that represented a true
cross- section of the network membership. There is no real way for the evaluator to tell if this desired outcome
actually occurred, but the array of experiences and perspectives she heard in the interviews seem to support her
approach.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 6
Overall time for the evaluation was also limited, and the evaluator was challenged to squeeze phone interviews
and a survey into the span of less than 2 months. Had she had more time, she may have tried to redouble her
efforts to send out the survey, or followed up with more people to try to arrange more phone interviews.
Nonetheless, since the anonymous and public data gathering methods yielded similar sentiments, it seems that
the data gathered during this phase gave a representative look at the true experiences of the project members.
Another consideration that may have affected the data is that the evaluator is white and from the northeastern
US, and therefore does not share a common background with a significant population of the project
membership, so there may have been some inconsistencies in the feedback she received. At worst, she may
have misinterpreted statements by various members due to cultural differences. To compensate for this, she
took time to examine the interview feedback for consistencies, and included various methods for drawing out
shared opinions in the meeting format.
In terms of how to improve upon this methodology, this experience yields some recommendations for future
evaluations:
Email and web surveys seem to be an ineffective media for groups whose members do not all have equal
connectivity to the internet or email. A better way to gather this data may be through hosting focus groups with
different sets of members, ideally grouped by agricultural sector. Of course, this takes more time and resources
but can potentially yield more profound learnings. This evaluation initially explored hiring local graduate students
to both conduct interviews and host focus groups, but this idea was abandoned upon WhyHunger staff learning
from the professor with whom they are in contact that this activity would not be a sufficient amount of work to
render itself worthwhile to his students. In addition, the timing was poor for students on a semester schedule.
Also, it may be wise to not include WhyHunger staff (or GSO staff in general) at the face-to-face meeting if one
evaluation goal is to evaluate the GSO's interventions. Even though the anonymous interview feedback on
WhyHunger was overwhelmingly positive, and on the surface members seemed comfortable (if not happy) that
WhyHunger staff were present, there is a chance that their absence from the meeting could have yielded some
deeper collective analysis and even decision-making about how to handle their relationships with WhyHunger
going forward.
The meeting outline itself was effective, though it is important to allow enough time for participants to discuss the
findings that they discover, and to do some collective analysis. As it was, a one day meeting put a cap on the
amount of time people had to do this critical thinking and was thoroughly exhausting to most people in
attendance. Therefore, stretching the meeting into more than one day would be advisable – either more total
time for the meeting, or splitting the meeting between data gathering phase and data analysis phase. This way,
participants would have time – either overnight, through the course of a week, or other stretch of time – to
absorb the data and start a reflection process, so that drawing out lessons and conclusions comes easier when
they are face-to-face.
4. Findings
Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts has produced some notable accomplishments while
also running into some important challenges through its development in the MS Delta. Data from interviews
and the meeting are grouped under the findings listed below in bold:
Accomplishments
The Delta Fresh Foods Initiative (DFFI), a multi-sectoral network of organizations and businesses,
has provided a structure for organizations of varying but related missions to come together around
increasing community food security in the MS Delta.
 The network is making progress towards becoming incorporated as a
“Before DFFI, we talked
501c3 organization.
about partnership, but
 There is a strong sense of solidarity and cooperation among people who
this program solidified a
structure for working
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
together.”
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 7
have been active participants to this point.
Members value being linked with new contacts and organizations, and appreciate the coordination of
food-system development activities in the region so as not to duplicate efforts.
 Several organizations that had not seen their missions as linked to food have started food-systems
related programming since the Future Search – the 2-day participatory meeting to find common ground
among different sectors in the community which launched DFFI.
 Many felt that the diverse and passionate membership is the biggest strength
“It's great to have
of the program, and is responsible in large part for the successes that DFFI
the young sharp
has experienced so far, as members bring varying viewpoints to the table,
minds and old
provide the means to get programs off the ground, and are the best conduit for
sharp minds
growing the network.
working together to
develop a new
The network has enhanced the success of several local efforts, and has linked
system.”
various partners in support of creating new food systems infrastructure and

markets.
 DFFI helps maintain cohesion among various projects and helps people see that their work fits into
something larger than their local effort.
 DFFI has helped in promoting local initiatives and is credited with helping to boost membership in local
efforts.
 Farmers have received technical assistance in navigating USDA certification in order to sell to large
buyers.
 DFFI has opened up some new farmers markets and has supported markets through overseeing a
VISTA volunteer to help sign farmers up, offering a one day certification for the use of EBT machines at
markets, and expanding the market catchment radius to 200 mi to ensure there was enough to sell at
each market.
 DFFI helped to expand the Cooperative Extension cooking classes to new areas.
 DFFI has provided trainings and assisted in the development of hoop houses on member farms.
“At the start, you wouldn't
think we could be doing
all that we do, in terms of
running programs.
People's areas of
expertise seem to fit and
have contributed to a
great whole.”
The project has enabled members to gain new knowledge and skills
 Funding through DFFI has enabled nine individuals to participate at
regional and national conferences, such as the Community Food Security Coalition
conference in Oakland, the Food Policy conference in Portland, OR, and the
American Community Gardening Association conference. DFFI has also sponsored
a visit by several members to Jones Valley Urban Farm, a Growing Power
workshop with a member organization, and a series of “Growing Together”
workshops for the community and church gardening participants.
 Information about events, funding availability and workshops are shared on
the DFFI website.
Network trainings, events and meetings have helped people to gain new perspectives on their areas of
expertise through working with others, or have gained a more systemic look at the food system. Some
individuals who would otherwise not know about one another now lean on each
“We have some of
other for information.
the best leadership
 The process of forming the network has given several members new skills in
you can find: [we
leadership and in organizing large groups.
are] from different
organizations, and
The network has established an effective leadership structure.
each member adds a
 There was broad and consistent recognition of the work that the Executive
different perspective
Committee has done to establish a workable structure.
and different
 Executive Committee members noted that they work together well and have a
strengths.”
sound decision making structure in place.

The DFFI network has made inroads to supporting structural change in the MS food system.
 The DFFI coordinator sits on the MS Food Policy Council.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 8


DFFI worked with MS FPC on Farm-to-school initiatives and helped to develop legislation.
DFFI worked together with MS FPC on increasing the number and utilization of EBT machines at
Farmers markets.
Challenges
Limited organizational capacity
 While the project framework has helped significantly in clarifying a structure for where to put project
energies, DFFI clearly has less staffing and funding than it needs to do the work it envisions.
 Several people identified the need for having better internal processes to make decisions and implement
programming. Some felt that DFFI still tends to be in a mode where they are reporting to or leaning on
WhyHunger for many decisions when they could be improving their abilities to make decisions and solve
problems on their own.
 Some fears were also raised about the small size of the leadership committee in terms of how one
person's stepping down could cause major setbacks to progress.
 There is also concern that DFFI has no long term sustainability plan, either in
terms
of funding or in terms of succession of the leadership of the project.
“We need to help
locals understand
Lack of full representation by all stakeholders
that [this is] a local
 There was concern that while DFFI has a lot of members on paper, many of
initiative and not
outsiders coming in.” those members may not see themselves as such, and therefore are not well represented
in the project. Executive committee does not include representation from all stakeholder
groups.
 There was even some concern that DFFI is seen as a threat to some groups who ideally should be
partners. This could be due to the fact that other organizations see themselves in “competition” with
DHA, the current fiscal sponsor, or simply because organizations with complimentary missions may
currently be working in “silos,” and not see their overlap.
Inadequate internal and external communications
 There was significant concern that information was not getting out to everyone in the larger group, and
that this may contribute to DFFI being less effective than it could be.
 Several participants mentioned that “a lot of people have dropped off since the Future Search meeting,”
and felt this was due to lack of or inadequate communication with all Future Search attendees.
 Some phone interviewees said that they often don't know about the meetings, or that they had trouble
connecting to phone conferences early on.
 Most respondents recognized that it is difficult to keep some people involved without face-to-face
contact, and as of yet the leadership has not been able to reconcile preferred networking methods with
the large geographic scope of the network.
5. Participatory Analysis and Recommendations for the Project
The participatory evaluation process included opportunities for participants to do some analysis based on their
own feedback and generate some ideas for how to move forward. Below are the recommendations that came
out of the meeting and the interviews, grouped into priority areas that emerged during the meeting and listed in
order of popularity.
Facilitate capacity building and training for members.
 Support farmer-to-farmer mentoring and grower education programs.
 Promote EBT machines and support grower certification.
 Build intentional relationships with Alcorn Extension and other organizations who
serve small growers interested in growing food.
 Partner with Farmers Market Coalition to train Delta Regional Farmers Market
Association market managers how to measure/asses their markets.
 Provide financial services for rural development and alternative enterprises in the
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
“DFFI has been
critical in linking
us with technical
resources to
help our efforts
get going.”
Page 9
Delta.
“When we focus
our work in
communities, we
are at our best
because we are
brought back to
our purpose”
Link supply and demand.
 Create partnership with local businesses for community supported Agriculture.
 Connect Farmers with Delta Regional Farmers Market Association market
managers.
 Hire a Farm-to-school coordinator - 1st year building relationships between
schools and growers.
 Identify local place(s) to store produce to facilitate distribution - renovate and recycle crumbling
infrastructure.
Promote the Delta Fresh Foods Initiative.
 DFFI could increase its advocacy efforts to build smallholder equity in the system.
 Develop a marketing campaign for DFFI and reach out to local and state media.
 DFFI could also invest some time in developing the website to clearly show where DFFI representation
and connections are – and the intentions for the future.
 Use the DFFI website to link to member websites or offer members that don't have a website a place to
share their story – collaborative promotion.
 Utilize avenues where the project is already doing work to get the word out, such as conducting trainings
or perhaps organizing another regional summit.
 Each member is a potential representative of DFFI. Outfit members with printed materials and/or
messaging to share with those whom they interact.
 External communications need to clarify the geographic scope, and help the public and potential
partners to see the relevance to their lives or missions.
 The executive committee should discuss how they intend to tackle this priority, and how DFFI could
support training in community organizing techniques for members that want to take this on.
Increase accountability to stakeholders.
 Facilitate meetings with farmers – commercial and organic/small scale
or diversified – to hear needs, concerns, ideas.
 Conduct intentional routine check-ins with all stakeholder groups.
“The title, 'Delta Fresh Food
Initiative,' is about building
a healthy community, and
that has helped us to focus
and be clear about what
we're trying to do.”
Engage new sectors and partners.
 With the new farm-to-school activity, a stronger organizational
infrastructure and a mission and framework of activities in place, it is
time to re-engage some of those who haven't been involved since the
Future Search conference.
 Need to reach out and reconcile whatever happened with institutional racism discussion.
 Reach out to those who didn't see the Future Search as relevant at the time. Beyond the grassroots or
non-profit organizations which currently make up the majority of membership, participants expressed the
need to have more presence from the following groups: city and county government, extension,
businesses, funders, farmers, including those with larger-scale operations or practicing conventional
agricultural practices; the Department of Human Resources, WIC program directors, school food service
directors, as well as consumers.
Grow a sustainable network.
 DFFI Leadership development to develop the next crop of executive committee members.
 Finalize the 501(c)3 process; go after grants to support DFFI’s work.
 Focus on our strengths – what can we do well, with confidence, now?
 Conduct more focused conversations within each sector and then facilitate communication between the
sectors.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 10


DFFI is in the process of creating an identity for food systems development work going on in the MS
Delta.
It is important that DFFI does not reinvent the wheel.
Create and support replicable models.
 Create a Community-based food system model project to demonstrate what DFFI is trying to do at the
local level.
 Develop a farm-to-school pilot program.
 Focus on specific target areas to pilot farmers markets.
 models to educate members and leadership on “viable and appropriate scale” of regional food system.
Develop and leverage resources and stay connected to the national movement.
 Make Delta Regional Farmers Market Association thrive by offering training and leveraging outside
resources.
 Implement “double -up bucks.”
 Facilitate attendance to national and regional conferences in food movement.
6. Lessons Learned
The Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts project has clearly enabled a robust network to form
and enable some significant progress on the road to eliminating food deserts in the MS Delta. This evaluation
process has elucidated some factors that have led to the project's successes and challenges so far:
The participatory planning processes fostered collaboration from the beginning and set the project up
for long-term success.
The participatory Future Search conference took a significant investment of time, money and energy to pull
together but was key to bringing to the table an array of organizations and individuals representing a broad
range of sectors. The process of forming a shared vision also cut through some organizational, sectoral and
racial divides. The energy generated by this process lasted beyond the conference and allowed DFFI to get
organized and keep participants invested in its development. Before any funding was even available, the
collaboration was assisted to articulate context-driven goals and strategies, rather than having to fit their ideas
into specific deliverables or budget lines already established, or be forced to collaborate around a pot of money.
DFFI therefore had the freedom to evolve how it needed to and the collaboration was more prepared to handle
funding once it became available.
Clarity of purpose and structure was a critical step to gaining momentum.
The project endured a 6-month period of “storming,” where the project had difficulty making decisions and spun
its wheels around how best to collaborate or where to put its energies. There was a shared sense across the
board that establishing a title of the project and a framework of clear objectives and activities were
breakthroughs in surviving this phase and moving the project from visioning to action.
Paid staffing and a smaller group of decision-makers promote quicker action, and need not hinder full
participation.
Many participants claimed that reducing the number of committee members and hiring a paid coordinator for the
project was key to coming through a rocky organizational development phase and moving into action. For DFFI,
a smaller number of members helped to foster faster resolution on decisions, and the coordinator has ensured
that there is a dedicated person to manage the development of the programs. The coordinator has also
eliminated the need for every decision to be made by consensus and all work to be done on a volunteer basis,
which some respondents felt was putting a strain on members. However, some participants noted that volunteers
started dwindling as soon as there was a paid staff person, suggesting that these volunteers did not see their
work as worth their effort. One question that this evaluation did not resolve was if the number of committee
members dwindled because of the storming itself, or because the mission of DFFI that emerged did not apply to
a broader range of members.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 11
If DFFI wants to continue to serve a networking and information exchange function, it is crucial that it remain
connected to a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that it remains open to all viewpoints. However, related
to the above point about clarity of purpose, it is also critically important that DFFI become clear about what types
of food system programs or relationships it is trying to promote and support – that is, what kind of agriculture it
wants to see flourish, what kinds of channels are best to get food to people, and what kinds of programs it feels
are effective – or else it can hamstring itself as being too obtuse, or not having a clear cause. Judging from the
myriad ideas that came out of the meeting for where DFFI should put its resources, it seems that overcoming the
loss of volunteer energy is better addressed through focusing on making the work of DFFI as relevant as
possible, rather than through eliminating paid staff.
Leadership needs a succession plan.
The executive committee needs to prioritize the steps it can take to nurture the next crop of executive committee
members, as well as bring up new local leaders throughout the region. Part of a succession plan may be for the
executive committee to work with WhyHunger staff to create an “exit strategy”. This would include examining the
governance structures and procedures of DFFI to ensure they include appropriate support for the future
leadership in their decision making and program implementation, as well as building a resource list of local, state
and national contacts that DFFI can tap into as the program evolves. Some participants noted that DFFI could
potentially do more without money if they are better organized. Future strategic planning could focus on
strengthening working groups through empowering local leaders within DFFIs areas of focus.
Funding and incorporation is a double-edged sword.
DFFI is already making steady progress towards becoming incorporated as a 501c3 organization, a designation
that will thrust DFFI into a more “established” entity than a loose-knit network, and which will free it from the
need for fiscal sponsorship and enable it to receive funding directly. A 501c3 will enable DFFI to offer tax
incentives to local businesses and individuals for their donations, and this might dovetail nicely with some
members' ideas about raising funds from local businesses and individuals. However, as a new organization,
DFFI must remain careful to avoid a situation where they are competing with their members for the same
funding. DFFI may want to consider membership fees, or work with member organizations to apply for funding
where DFFI will receive a portion of the total. Participants also came up with ideas about putting on fundraisers
that serve both to raise money and also to outreach to the community and raise awareness of their issues.
The balance between networking and running projects is fluid and each needs the other.
The Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts project has involved an uneasy but progressively
more stable combination of networking and project implementation. Building a network creates the opportunities
for these individual projects to have larger or deeper impact, avoids reinventing the wheel, and also can engage
new membership. And it was noted again and again that DFFI has played an important role as a referral service
for linking people with existing programs to facilitate greater “synergy” among food systems work in the region.
But running projects has been beneficial to the overall progress of the program since some people need to see
something concrete happen before jumping in and getting involved even if others are energized by the “bigger
picture” conceptual work. Establishing projects based on the framework was important to building enthusiasm
and participation in DFFI, as the projects helped the group to begin moving ideas into action, and also helped
DFFI to re-engage people who didn't want to do the administrative “big picture” work. It also appears that there is
a serious shortage of infrastructure for local food systems in the area, so some projects are definitely needed,
especially if no one is currently doing this work. It is also easier to find funding to help with project development
and implementation than for networking.
But there is a constant tension between how much energy to focus in each of these
two sides of the same development coin. Pairing up programs to mentor each other,
providing educational or outreach tools that various organizations can use, or
“piggybacking” on existing programs to offer training or services, rather than
developing entirely new programs, can help foster the synergy and collaboration that
DFFI hopes to produce. It may be wise for DFFI to “screen” new project ideas with a
set of questions, such as “How well does this project fit the mission?” “Is this project
duplicating efforts of another entity?”, and “How can DFFI best partner with other
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
“DFFI has the potential
of being an organizing
network for most, if not
all, of the community
food system
development work in
the state.”
Page 12
organizations to produce mutually productive outcomes?” Such an iterative process will enable them to better
understand over time the best role for DFFI, both as a networking and a project implementation entity, and will
also help them grapple with the related tension between working on a regional level, versus bringing broad
partnerships to local project initiatives.
What seems most important is that projects undertaken by a network mesh well with the networking aspect of
the project – that is, they need to be mutually beneficial rather than draining energy from one another. For
instance, the farm-to-school project seems to be a good “cross-cutting” program that involves linking producers
and consumers, engaging a population (parents and youth) that can lend a lot of energy to the movement, and
engaging in policy work.
Communications are an important part of making a network strong and adaptable, and need dedicated
resources from the beginning of the project.
There is ample recognition among project members that DFFI needs to be intentional in its communications and
relationship building efforts to ensure that its work continues to reflect the real needs on the ground, maintain
continued stakeholder involvement and broaden the network. The importance of keeping members up-to-date
and engaged often becomes apparent only after programs have gone through some evolution, and therefore this
is frequently an under-resourced aspect of a project, a situation which can cause programs to struggle and even
fail in the long term. While DFFI leadership seems somewhat stumped by this hurdle now, they also are poised
to dive into this arena. They have launched a website and are considering the effectiveness of various channels
of communication, and they are planning a strategic planning process which will enable them to become even
more focused on “what they do”. They will then need to devise messaging to fit the audiences and channels
chosen, for which they might want to seek professional assistance or designate current member(s) to focus their
energies.
In terms of channels of communications, it is worth noting that the website and even email modes of
communications, while useful for the business, non-profit and even some portions of the consumer sector, will
probably not be sufficient in reaching the sectors that are already underrepresented. Teleconferences for the
whole network have been somewhat successful, so there is merit to continuing these; but finding ways to make
in-person meetings more accessible, such as holding meetings in different areas, or at different times of day,
may make it more possible for people to attend and have their voices heard. DFFI could try to arrange for an
annual check-in with farmers during a slower farming season, or conduct phone call check-ins with a
representative group, the former needing considerable lead-time to plan and publicize and the latter requiring
considerable staff or volunteer time.
It also appears that having some sort of regular opportunity for people to be face-to-face is critical to developing
and sustaining the network, so given the wide geographic area and broad range of sectors involved, it might
make sense to follow the suggestions of some members and try to schedule regional (meaning several counties
wide) in-person meetings, or to hold conversations within each sector and then facilitate communication between
the regions or sectors. These two options would offer different kinds of opportunities, the first allowing for
building local alliances and the second providing for a caucus for each sector to articulate its needs or issues.
DFFI seems to be addressing structural racism through helping different groups to work together, but
this is just a start.
It goes without saying that there is a strong legacy of power imbalances in Mississippi, and disproportionate
numbers of People of Color remain disadvantaged in numerous ways. The work of Building Community Power to
Eliminate Food Deserts in Mississippi has thus far provided a platform for a conversation about structural racism
to take place and even be considered as a singular area of focus for the network. Ultimately, the network
members decided to go a different way and pursue concrete projects, yet this issue came up continuously during
interviews, interestingly only by white members (though this could be a reflection on the race of the evaluator,
outlined above). It seemed from these interviews that there is genuine concern that this issue be addressed in
some way and that the project, in fostering collaboration among a range of groups, is helping to strengthen
interracial relationships and build some trust between historically divided groups. It remains to be seen how
much the act of working together will mend differences or address structural imbalances in the food systems of
Mississippi Delta communities, but it does seem that this collaboration has at least become mindful of this issue
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 13
through their formation. However, the very fact that people continue to think about this issue may speak to the
need for the network to focus more intentionally on discussing it more openly, or at least on building the
intercultural competency of its members.
WhyHunger's focus on building relationships and developing a strong organization has played a critical
role in DFFI's early success.
According to almost everyone interviewed, WhyHunger has been very effective at providing a capacity building
role for the network itself, shepherding and helping DFFI leadership think through decisions in a way that has
fostered reflection and group problem-solving, increasing the capacity of the leadership rather than stifling it or
taking over. Their presence seems like the right balance of attention: while many members wish that WhyHunger
staff were there more often, there was also recognition that some struggling on their own has helped them to
grow. WhyHunger has provided a crucial link with resources (human and otherwise) from the region and from
outside the area, leading to a more robust network and building the skills and knowledge of the membership.
They have fostered direct relationships with these resources, rather than acting as a “gatekeeper,” so that DFFI
retains autonomy over how these resources are approached and utilized.
Of vital importance to WhyHunger's success are the skill set, philosophy and even personal style of the
WhyHunger staff. Staff have approached this community with a winning mixture of humility and prodding, backed
up by skills to help project members seek answers to their own questions and formulate their own thoughts and
ideas. Furthermore, the staff's ability to form relationships, and build rapport and trust has been critical to finding
the right partners for this project, receiving candid feedback on project progress, and ultimately understanding
how they can best assist the network and its members.
There was emphatic feedback that the relationship with WhyHunger should continue, as those interviewed felt
that at this new stage of DFFI's existence, WhyHunger can help to further build the capacity of the leadership to
run productive meetings and make decisions effectively, but also has connections to funding partners and
national policymakers that could help the network and its activities to thrive and evolve further.
7. Conclusions
The experiences of the Delta Fresh Foods Initiative thus far suggest that certain kinds of support be considered
for other community food systems development efforts:
Networks are valuable and need more support.
Funders are more often attracted to projects with quantitative outcomes over networking activities or
organizational support, yet multi-sectoral networks are a valuable force for taking the collective work of individual
projects to the next level. Networks link sometimes isolated community food security projects, amplifying their
outcomes, pushing them to evolve, and even connecting them to other movements nationally and globally. One
might even argue that community building is a fundamental piece of food systems change that must be in place
for investments in technical capacity or capital improvements to
have lasting impact. The relationships that are being built though
“I think this is an amazing project. This is
this network are opening minds, opening doors, and opening
the poorest region of the country – the
wallets in ways that are helping lift up the entire food system, not
main industries are casinos, government,
just one specific sector or business. This is not to say that technical
and farming, so it's amazing to be able to
capacity is not relevant, but that interpersonal and professional
develop an industry from the ground up.
connections enable members to find the resources or service
Every day I wake up and feel like there's
providers that they need, boosting their self-reliance and selfsomething I've never done before. It's
confidence, and laying the necessary foundation for a project to
tough and sometimes frustrating, but we're
grow.
really capable of doing this, and not just
from a profit motive, but by supporting
A focus on capacity building is important to the success of
living wages and good health.”
the network.
A network of groups and individuals is itself a new entity and
involves specific challenges related to a new geographic scale of operation, differing needs of various players,
and organizational development. Organizations, especially established groups, often need assistance to
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 14
It's been a mental shift, moving from
individuals fighting over resources to
a collaborative that is working to
make the whole community rise up.
They have to change how they talk,
but also the practice of developing
their work. They're in it together.
That's what feels like a
transformational shift, and they're
helping others to see this, too.
collaborate for the long term. New leadership structures,
communications systems and decision making processes must be
established, and this takes significant time and attention at the “front
end” of the collaboration and as the network matures. Therefore, building
individual and organizational capacity to create alliances and share
leadership is a critical companion to the market development, consumer
education, policy change and other efforts of a network like DFFI.
The case of DFFI also suggests that program and organizational
development processes that are participatory in nature build the shared
ownership and community power that will create long-term change, and
- WhyHunger Staff that this requires consistent and capable help from a facilitator who can
keep the process moving and shepherd the group through inevitable
storming phases. Facilitating the organizing and leadership abilities of
members themselves is another piece of the picture here, as the long-term sustainability of DFFI’s work is
dependent on members who can collaborate and lead effectively. Furthermore, it is also essential that groups
that are part of the network have the ability to run the programs that the network supports and move them into
the future.
Working with the right grassroots support organizations (GSOs) can help funders to extend their reach.
The role of WhyHunger as a grassroots support organization has been
critical to the early success of this project. Its facilitative leadership focused
“WhyHunger has provided even
on asking questions and providing an outside perspective to help the network
more than some of the other
come together and find its way. While it is widely accepted that ideas and
funders in terms of coming to us,
solutions for community development ultimately need to come from the
helping to keep us focused, not
community in order to create lasting change, an outside entity can provide an
having unrealistic expectations,
organizing impetus to inspire new solutions, as long as it doesn't come with
helping us identify our strengths
preconceived notions of what a community should or should not be or do.
and weaknesses, and
One might even argue that an outside entity is a preferred candidate to
connecting
us with other
facilitate the formation of networks, as they can often come to the table openresources that can help us.”
minded and unburdened by past challenges or relationship hardships that
might hinder local groups from being fully inclusive. The experience of this
project shows that it is not entirely necessary to put a grant application together with local groups as long as the
GSO has the expertise, resources and long-term support to conduct the requisite organizing that leads to
community-driven solutions. Having the freedom and resources to run an organizing and visioning process
before knowing which specific activities will ultimately be implemented (or funded) also enables a GSO to figure
out who the local change-makers are, and who is merely “in it for the money.” The fact that WhyHunger is not
based in the area also necessitated and therefore pushed the group to build its own capacity to make decisions
and organize itself, as they could not lean on WhyHunger for all of their decisions.
Finally, WhyHunger also has the advantage as a GSO of being linked to a national network, which provides a
channel for the local group to learn from and be inspired by other initiatives, as well as to disseminate its own
lessons to a wider audience. In regards to this, it is important that any GSO ensure that they help link groups
with resource partners directly, rather than acting as even a well-intentioned go-between, which risks caging in
the local group. Increasing community responsibility for working with resource partners directly increases
community power, the ultimate aim of this and many other food systems development projects.
It should also be noted that WhyHunger has learned a lot from being in a GSO role. This project has given
WhyHunger direct experience with project development, helping the organization to learn what is needed on the
ground for projects like this to be successful, and effectively receiving a dose of reality that can inform their
future work to support food systems change in this and other ways.
Partner for the long term.
The case of DFFI has reinforced the lesson that projects like Building Community Power to Eliminate Food
Deserts take longer than 3 years to become fully self-sustaining. The initial outreach and organizing process
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 15
alone takes 1-2 years. Full participation also takes time, but the work tends to be owned by all and therefore the
results have more staying power. The project also needs time and budgetary room to reflect on and adjust its
strategies according to its experiences and changing contexts as many results of the collaboration's work only
become clear much later on through taking time to reflect and self-assess. For networks working on food
systems-level solutions with numerous moving parts, it might be useful to consider as much as a decade of
partnership. A GSO or related entity is useful to this process not only at the organizing phase, but along the way
as the initiative grows and evolves. This suggests that more funding be made available to sustain and grow
strong initiatives, rather than the tendency to support new and innovative programs. Indeed, some of the most
important innovations may come out of longer-term projects given the time to learn and the support to
experiment with new ideas based on experiential knowledge.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 16
8. Appendices
APPENDIX 1: Agenda for meeting with DFFI Executive Committee to plan the evaluation
AGENDA: DFFI Evaluation Informational and Planning Meeting
October 17, 2011
5:30-8:30pm
Cleveland, MS
1. Introductions (20 min)
 Who am I, History in this field, role in DFFI, go over agenda for the evening.
 Round robin: Everyone's name, affiliation/role in DFFI, 1 question about the evaluation, or evaluation
in general
2. Explain Evaluation process and purpose (30 min)
 Layout/time line of activities
 How evaluation fits into goals of DFFI/strategic planning needs
 What this will require of DFFI members
 Q & A: Clarifying questions, then: What do you hope to see come out of this process? How can this
be most useful for your group or DFFI?
3. Conduct SWOT survey (30 min)
 Demonstration of an element of the evaluation
 Explain that this info will be augmented by emailed/mailed survey to other members (who else? How
many people?) and compiled for the face-to-face meeting this winter.
4. Review survey questions (30 min)
 Hand out copies, read through, note that this will be conducted with about 15 people in DFFI
 What questions stuck out to you? How were you feeling as we went through this? What information
do you think this survey will generate? What other questions need to be answered through an
anonymous survey?
5. Set dates for Face-to-face program review and planning meeting (10 min)
6. Set/create a calendar of dates for one-on-one interviews. (15 min)
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 17
APPENDIX 2: Membership Survey
Delta Fresh Foods Initiative Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats Survey
Greetings! This survey is going to the membership of DFFI as part of a larger evaluation process, currently
underway, to gauge effectiveness of the program and identify the best ways to move forward.
Your answers will be anonymous. Please send your completed survey to aley.kent@gmail.com by
December 1st.
Alternately, you can answer these same questions online at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NVTBPQ6
Thank you for contributing your thoughts
Please answer the four questions of this survey based on your experience with Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
(DFFI) and your knowledge of the region.
For your reference, DFFI's stated objectives are:
7. Sustainable Network Development - building capacity and shared leadership
8. Create Demand for Local, Healthy Food Products - educate and attract consumers
9. Build Supply of Local Healthy Food Products - to increase availability
10. Improve Market Capacity - build infrastructure and skills to expand markets
11. Support Structural Change - Policies to support a community food system
Question #1: What are the internal strengths of the Delta Fresh Food initiative network? That is, what about the
membership or procedures helps the network achieve its objectives?
1.
2.
3.
Question #2: What are the internal weaknesses of the DFFI network?
1.
2.
3.
Question #3: What are external opportunities (social, political, economic, etc.) that will help DFFI move towards
its stated objectives?
1.
2.
3.
Question #4: What are external threats to DFFI's progress on its stated objectives?
1.
2.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 18
3.
APPENDIX 3: Interview questions for DFFI members and compiled feedback analyzed at the face-to-face
program review meeting
Name(s) of Person(s) Interviewed:
Follow-Up Contact Information: PHONE:
Date of Interview:
Location of Interview: Phone
Length of Interview:
Name of Interviewer: Aley Kent
Other notes:
EMAIL
Introduction to be read by interviewer to every person interviewed:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. WhyHunger and Kellogg Foundation have a lot to learn from
hearing your views on DFFI’s successes and challenges.
I am conducting these interviews with 15 DFFI members.
Please feel free to be open and honest. Your responses will be treated anonymously (unless you desire
otherwise) and compiled with other survey answers. The compiled feedback will be shared with WhyHunger
staff and DFFI leadership to improve the program.
The interview should take less than an hour, but we can talk longer if you want to and have the time. I will ask
you a total of 14 questions, and be taking notes as you talk.
What questions do you have before we begin?
OK, let's begin with the first question.
1. Please tell me about the role that you play in Delta Fresh. How and why did you or your group
become involved in the network?
2. Reflecting on your experiences with the network, what do you value most about Delta Fresh?
3. Please tell me about the ways in which DFFI has had an impact on your program, organization,
community, or group. How has it been most useful? (activities related to creating demand for and supply
of local healthy food, improving markets and structural policies around healthy local food)
4. What do you feel would make DFFI stronger or more relevant to the needs of your group or other
organizations in the MS Delta?
5. Please tell me about the value that your participation in DFFI has added to your personal or
professional life. (e.g. professional development? new skills, knowledge, or practices? New
connections? New outlook or perspectives on your field?)
6. What has been your experience of the evolution of the DFFI network itself? Considering the wide
geographic area it covers and the multi-sectoral group of participants it brings together what has worked
well? What happened that was unexpected?
7. What has been most challenging in the formation of Delta Fresh?
8. Please describe a major challenge that DFFI currently faces and your ideas for how to address it.
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 19
9. What is your opinion of the the communications infrastructure of Delta Fresh? How could this be
improved? (indicators: easy to find/connect with others, cultivating synergy/non-duplication of efforts,
documentation of activities, clarity in network directions, well-organized events and outreach, etc.)
10. What is your opinion of the the leadership and organizational capacity? How might this be
improved? (indicators: sense of unity, leadership is knowledgeable of issues, decisions incorporate your
views and needs, etc.)
11. What value do the members of Delta Fresh add to the network? Who else needs to be at the table?
How might these people best be engaged?
12. Please describe what you see Delta Fresh doing five years from now. Who’s involved? What is
being accomplished? What is your group or organization getting out of your participation in the network?
13. As you reflect on your experiences with WhyHunger, what could their staff and resources or networks
be doing even better to help DFFI, your project and the region?
14. What else do you think I should know about your experience with DFFI?
APPENDIX 4: Interview questions for WhyHunger staff
1. What has surprised you most during your involvement with DFFI?
2. In your opinion, what about your or WhyHunger's interactions with DFFI have worked well?
3. What would you change?
4. How has WhyHunger's involvement been most helpful to DFFI?
5. What other forms of assistance are needed?
6. In light of other food systems development programs going on around the country, what lessons does
DFFI have to teach?
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 20
APPENDIX 5: notes from the Participatory Program Review meeting.
DFFI Evaluation and Planning Meeting
January 10, 2012, 9:00am – 5:00pm
Center for Economic Development, Delta State, Cleveland, MS
PROPOSED OUTCOMES:
 Participants have common understanding of DFFI's milestones and accomplishments since September,
2010
 Participants evaluate and discuss DFFI's programs and impact so far
 Participants identify opportunities and hurdles for DFFI's progress towards it mission, and make
recommendations about how DFFI can successfully move into the future.
 Participants analyze interview data as it relates to the role of the network in supporting DFFI's programs.
 Participants form priority focus areas for the structure and management of DFFI that will best support
DFFI's programmatic goals and objectives
Where are we / What do we know?
presented a brief background on DFFI's Mission, Framework, Projects and working Groups:
MISSION:
Committed to building sustainable, equitable, community-driven food systems to strengthen the local food
economy and promote healthy lifestyles in the Mississippi Delta
FRAMEWORK GOALS:
Sustainable Network Development: Build regional capacity and local shared leadership for Delta Fresh Foods
Initiative
Create Demand: Educate and attract consumers for locally produced, healthy food products
Build Supply: Increase availability of locally grown, healthy food products for regional consumers
Build Market Capacity: Build infrastructure and skills necessary to start and expand local and regional markets
Support Structural Change: Engage in partnerships to support policies and initiatives to promote all of the
above
PROJECTS:
Growing Together - Church garden network
Coahoma County Good Food Revolution - healthy cooking classes for local church groups with produce from
raised beds; community wide Fall Harvest Festival
Farm to School - funding FTS coordinator for the Delta in partnership with Delta Directions
WORKING GROUPS
Education - for growers and consumers
Public Relations/communications
Research
Fund Raising
Advocacy
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 21
Major milestones of DFFI since September, 2010
People discussed the evolution of the project in pairs, then wrote milestones on the time line posted on the wall:
TIMELINE
Sept. 2009
Organizing and outreach for Future Search gathering
Feb. 2010
Future Search Conference: What will Delta Fresh Foods be? A vision was developed
May 2010
Regular meetings started with larger stakeholder group
MS Food Policy Council begun
Start of “Storming phase”
June 2010
Meeting at DHA to begin trimming down steering committee
August 2010
Started to identify growers and producers of edible crops
October 2010
Meeting with Dreyfus – work on DFFI mission/vision/structure
Delta Growers to Growing Power Conference
Coming out of “storming phase”
Jan 2011
Hoop house training w/ MEGA and Growing Power
Feb 2011
2nd phase Kellogg $$
Started developing DFFI Framework
March 2011
Hired Judy Belue
Identifying project goals
DHA becomes fiscal agent
Hoop Houses in Quitman Co.
May 2011
Attended national food policy conference in Portland, OR
Cooking classes in Quitman Co.
July, 2011
Quitman Co. Grower receives GAP certification
Davis farm USDA certification supported by DFFI
Judy Elected to MS Food Policy Council Board
Shelby, MS: DFFI hosts Live Real Food and Freedom Rides
Jesse and Ryan attend ACGA conference in NYC
Southern Living Magazine Feature article
Sept. 2011
Healthy Cooking classes with Delta Fresh
Delta Food Economy Assessments
Oct 2011
Growing Together Composting workshop
Presentation on DFFI at National CFSC conference
Nov 2011
Growing together youth programs workshop
Dec 2011
New Website! www.deltafresh.org
Jan 2012
Today's meeting: continuance of expansion for DFFI, keeping the idea fresh in people's
minds
Future: Community garden development & competition
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 22
Evaluation: Building Community Power to Eliminate Food Deserts
Case Study: Mississippi Delta Region, Delta Fresh Foods Initiative
Page 23