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