Participatory State and Regional Food System Plans and Charters in the U.S.: A summary of trends and national directory

Completed in August of 2021, this report offers a snapshot of national trends, and a directory of food systems plans and charters that exist at state and regional levels across the United States (see the directory at the end of this document). It is intended to serve as a resource to facilitate network building and co-learning among practitioners leading these efforts and groups interested in launching their own plans and charters. We collected information from plans and charters that are publicly available on websites, and — to the extent possible — followed up with lead organizations or individuals to review information1 relevant to their state. We looked for plans and charters that: a)are systems-based and cross-sector (covering the entire food system), b)propose visions beyond 2021 or that are currently being updated (e.g., the 2005 California plan proposed avision of the food system into 2030), and c)were participatory and collaboratively developed (those that crowdsourced ideas and attempted to mobilizestakeholders throughout the state using numerous strategies such as summits, working groups, etc.)

Challenges to operationalizing sustainable diets: Perspectives from Kenya and Vietnam

Despite the urgent need for comprehensive food systems strategies, the challenge lies in defining feasible, evidence-based intervention points. Too little is known about issues food systems decision-makers and other change agents are running up against, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where food systems are the most vulnerable to a growing number of intertwined crises. We look at this question through the lens of sustainable diets, a growing area of research and a concept that is the basis of over 30 sets of national guidelines that aim to simultaneously address health, economic and environmental dimensions of food systems. Based on 114 interviews carried out in Kenya and Vietnam, we examine the extent to which food systems researchers, business and project managers and policy actors are attempting to intervene in food systems in ways that mirror the concept of sustainable diets. We also consider how they are managing two key ingredients that are critical to systems-change—interdisciplinary data and cross-sector collaboration. Most stakeholders we interviewed were carrying out systems-based projects, oriented—even if not explicitly—around many of the sustainable diets domains: agriculture, livelihoods, food security/access/nutrition and/or environment. The majority faced formidable challenges with both data and collaborations, however, showing why it can be so difficult to move from normative ideals like “sustainable diets” to practical realities, regardless of the context. To support more comprehensive food systems policies and interventions, our findings suggest the need for strategies that can improve the collection and accessibility of actionable, cross-sector data, and mechanisms to overcome institutional barriers that limit collaboration

Planning Resettlement: Assessing Governance Gaps in the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program

Cities, especially those that have faced population loss and austerity measures, may engage in welcoming work to support refugees and immigrants in efforts to revitalize their cities. Local and county governments may have an office or implement a plan dedicated to new Americans; they do not just provide lip service but deploy monetary resources. In theory, welcoming work bolsters the U.S. refugee resettlement program by supporting refugees in adjusting to a new home. This research examines the welcoming work and governance gaps that refugees experience in two cities and their surrounding counties: Buffalo, located in Erie County, New York and Grand Rapids in Kent County, Michigan. Utilizing a qualitative research approach including document review and interviews, I examine how urban planning impacts the refugee experience and adjustment to a new homes. I first examine comprehensive plans and welcome plans to understand whether and how these documents address the needs of refugees. Comprehensive plans are required in some states and are a crucial tool for planners to create a vision for the future with input from community members. Welcome plans, sometimes referred to as immigrant integration plans, are less common. They often are spearheaded by government agencies in an effort make their localities more welcoming and inclusive to immigrant populations. The analysis shows that welcome plans are more thorough in including needs of refugees, while comprehensive plans primarily cover select topics such as housing, safety, and employment. Secondly, through interviews and a focus group, I examine how local and county governments engage and interact with other refugee support organizations, including local resettlement agencies and refugee-led community organizations. While it is common for support organizations to point to local resettlement agencies as key players in supporting refugees, they generally do not see the work that refugee-led community organizations do and are unclear as to how local planners are involved in resettlement. Additionally, communication and collaboration between these entities is lacking, resulting in a lack of understanding of what each entity does as well as missed opportunities for greater impact. Lastly, I examine how official welcoming work is perceived and experienced by refugees, in comparison to unofficial support offered by grassroots groups. Data show that while local and county governments attempt to support refugee communities, they largely miss the mark, either through their engagement processes or by cherry picking from among the variety of challenges refugees face to include in the plan. On the other hand, refugee-led community organizations, while not perfect, are more effective at serving refugee communities as their work shares some principles and modalities of insurgent planning (Miraftab, 2009) . Research findings show that the welcoming work by local and county governments is done in a way that ostracizes refugee communities, even as they have good intentions and invest resources. Further, a lack of collaboration with and leadership from refugees themselves prevents buy-in to the welcoming work. This results in perpetuation of a harmful rhetoric, with cities – especially rust belt cities in need of retaining population – seeing refugees as a way of “saving” or “revitalizing” their cities, rather than being places where refugees have the tools and support to flourish in their new homes. I outline a way forward through a collaborative approach to resettlement that can also weather changes in political views.PhDUrban and Regional PlanningUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/178139/1/alexjud_1.pd