This document provides the results of a survey of 12 food policy councils (FPCs) in New England conducted during October – December 2017. The survey’s purpose is to understand New England FPCs’ policy priorities, identify recent policy and planning processes, and learn about how FPC’s incorporate public participation. This survey also incorporates results from another survey, the annual survey conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF), which surveys all FPCs in North America

Ashcraft, Catherine M

Porter, Cathryn A.

English

University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire 
University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository 
Natural Resources and the Environment 
Scholarship Natural Resources and the Environment 
7-1-2020 
New England Food Policy Council Survey Results 
Cathryn A. Porter 
University of New Hampshire, Casey.Porter@unh.edu 
Catherine M. Ashcraft 
University of New Hampshire, catherine.ashcraft@unh.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/nren_facpub 
Recommended Citation 
Porter, Cathryn A. and Ashcraft, Catherine M., "New England Food Policy Council Survey Results" (2020). 
Natural Resources and the Environment Scholarship. 142. 
https://scholars.unh.edu/nren_facpub/142 
This Data Set is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources and the Environment at 
University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources and the 
Environment Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For 
more information, please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu. 
1 
 
New England Food Policy Council Survey Report  
 
Cathryn A. Porter, University of New Hampshire (corresponding author) 
Catherine M. Ashcraft, University of New Hampshire  
 
Introduction 
Little is known about food policy councils (FPCs) in New England, including their policy priorities and 
how they engage the public. This document provides the results of a survey of New England FPCs 
engaged in policy initiatives in New England conducted during October – December 2017 to understand 
FPCs’ policy priorities, learn about the types of policy and planning processes the councils have recently 
led, and learn about how public participation was incorporated into these processes. The survey 
instrument is available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.34051/c/2020.4 (Porter and Ashcraft, 2020). This report 
also includes results from selected 2016 survey data provided by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable 
Future (CLF), an annual survey of all FPCs in the U.S. and Canada. 
Methods 
We identified 29 FPCs or networks in New England: 26 FPCs and two food policy networks were 
identified using CLF’s 2016 survey data and one more food policy network was identified through an 
internet search. We recruited one representative from each of the 29 FPCs or networks to respond to a 
mix of open and closed-ended survey questions. The survey was conducted online through Qualtrics. To 
participate in the survey respondents had to (1) have been a member of the FPC for at least a year, and (2) 
report that the FPC was engaged in policy efforts. The University of New Hampshire Institutional Review 
Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research approved this study (IRB: 6761, approved 
9/20/2017). 
Survey Results 
Out of the 29 New England FPCs or networks contacted, 18 completed the survey (Table 1). Researchers 
attempted to contact the 11 FPCs or networks that did not respond with follow up emails and phone calls.  
Five additional FPCs that did not complete the survey provided some information about policy priorities 
by telephone or email. Six FPCs did not respond to the survey and could not be reached by phone or 
email. Information about their policy priorities was determined through internet research. Based on the 
combined results, we determined that none of the three food policy networks were both active and 
engaged in policy efforts and 15 of the 26 FPCs were both active and engaged in policy efforts. 12 of the 
15 FPCs actively engaged in policy efforts responded to the survey. 
 
2 
 
Table 1. New England FPC and networks survey population, recruitment methods, and response 
rates  
Recruitment method Total # 
FPCs 
FPCs engaged 
in policy 
FPCs not engaged 
in policy 
Inactive 
FPCs 
Responded to survey 18 12 4 2 
Contacted by 
telephone or email 
5 2 3 0 
Internet research only 6 1 4 1 
Total # FPCs 29 15 11 3 
 
This survey focused only on food policy councils engaged in policy efforts. Table 2 presents an overview 
of the attributes of the 12 surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy efforts. 
Table 2. Attributes of surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy 
Name of food policy 
council 
State Geographic 
scale  
Organization 
type 
Staff capacity  Budget  
Bridgeport Food Policy 
Council 
CT Municipal 
Embedded in 
government 
Part-time paid 
staff member 
$0 -10,000 
Hartford Advisory 
Commission on Food 
Policy  
CT Municipal 
Embedded in 
government 
Part-time paid 
staff member 
$10,000-25,000 
New Haven Food Policy 
Council 
CT Municipal 
Embedded in 
government 
Part-time paid 
staff member 
No data 
Cambridge Food & 
Fitness Food Policy 
Council 
MA Municipal  
Embedded in 
government 
No data 
No data 
3 
 
Massachusetts Food 
Policy Council 
MA State 
Embedded in 
government 
Part-time paid 
staff member 
$0 -10,000 
Worcester Food Policy 
Council 
MA Municipal Non-profit 
Full-time paid 
staff member  
$25,000-
100,000 
Community Food 
Matters 
ME County 
Grassroots 
coalition  
More than one 
paid staff 
member 
$0 -10,000 
Cumberland County 
Food Security Council 
ME County 
Housed in 
another non-
profit 
More than one 
paid staff 
member 
No data  
Good Food Council of 
Lewiston-Auburn 
ME Municipal 
Grassroots 
coalition 
Part-time paid 
staff member 
$0 -10,000 
Healthy Waterville ME  Municipal 
Grassroots 
coalition 
Full-time paid 
staff member 
$25,000-
100,000 
Washington County 
Community Food 
Council 
ME County 
Housed in 
another non-
profit 
No data 
$0 -10,000 
Rhode Island Food 
Policy Council 
RI State 
Housed in 
another non-
profit 
More than one 
paid staff 
member 
No data 
Data source for analysis: Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Food Policy Network 2016 survey 
data (Sussman and Bassarab, 2016).  
 
1. Policy Priorities and Policy Efforts  
The survey asked respondents to select their FPC’s top policy priorities from a list of 13 policy priorities 
or write in additional options. Respondents most commonly identified food access as a policy priority 
(Figure 1). Other common policy priorities include: public health, food waste/recovery, land use/planning, 
economic development, and food justice/equity. 
 
4 
 
 
Figure 1. Policy priorities of surveyed New England FPCs.  
  
The survey asked respondents to identify up to three of their FPC’s policy efforts, shown in Table 3. 
Common topics for FPC policy work that respondents identified include general food systems work, 
school food, and urban agriculture. Not all FPCs reported three separate policy efforts – one FPC reported 
two, and another reported only one policy effort.  
Table 3. Policy efforts reported by surveyed New England FPCs.  
Urban agriculture Increase summer meals provision and utilization  
Urban agriculture zoning ordinance School wellness policy  
Favorable zoning changes for agriculture, poultry 
and bees 
SNAP matching collaboration 
Urban agriculture master plan SNAP Ed and Double Dollars at local markets 
City’s Climate Action Plan SNAP incentives at Farmers Markets 
Local Food Action Plan  Food access 
Community Food Charter Mitigating hunger/food insecurity through 
advocating for program implementation 
State food strategy Streamlining the emergency food system 
Strategic action plan Permitting and licensing of new food businesses 
Action Plan Priorities  Protecting food workers 
Action Plan Topics  Food System Summit 
Community Food Assessment Food Policy Forum 
Community Food Assessment Wasted Food Policy Change 
School food security assessment  Equity Based Policy Change 
Cultural considerations in school food Distribution infrastructure 
K-12 School Food Procurement Processing infrastructure  
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Other - school wellness
Food labor
Environment
Food production
Nutrition
Land access
Food procurement
Food justice/equity
Economic development
Land use/planning
Food waste/recovery
Public Health
Food access
# of FPCs with policy priority 
P
o
li
cy
 p
ri
o
ri
ty
5 
 
Breakfast after the bell legislation  
 
2. Workgroups 
Survey respondents identified the focus of workgroups of surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy 
(Figure 2). Most New England FPCs engaged in policy (10) report having targeted workgroups. 
Workgroups allow a council to take on multiple foci, and also provide a forum to engage members of the 
public who do not necessarily want to be a member of the council or can’t commit the time to full 
membership. Three surveyed New England FPCs reported having a workgroup focused specifically on 
policy. Themes included within the “other” category include communications, food waste, cooperative 
procurement, recruitment committee, lead team, transportation, and planning and development.  
Figure 2. Workgroups of surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy.  
 
3. FPC Membership  
Survey respondents identified the sectors and stakeholder groups currently represented as members of the 
FPC (Figure 3). A list of sectors and stakeholder groups was provided, and respondents could check all 
that applied or write in others. The membership of most New England FPCs is diverse. Well represented 
sectors in New England FPCs include food access, public health, government, farmers, nutrition, 
concerned citizens, and economic development. Sectors respondents wrote in under “Other” include 
researchers, legal aid, social justice, funder, small business, cooperatives, and emergency food providers. 
Fewer surveyed New England FPCs report having representatives from colleges and universities, food 
waste, food distribution, food processing, Extension or the fisheries sector as members. Most surveyed 
New England FPCs report their council membership includes individuals representing diverse genders, 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Nutrition
Events
Distribution
Economic Development
Policy
Food Access
Schools/Youth
Agriculture
Other
# of FPCs reporting having a workgroup 
W
o
rk
g
ro
u
p
 t
h
em
e
6 
 
ages, income levels. Fewer, but still more than half of New England FPCs report having members 
representing diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. 
 
Figure 3. Membership of New England FPCs engaged in policy by sector and stakeholder group.  
  
 
Fewer than half (5) of surveyed New England FPCs reserve membership seats (Table 4). Four FPCs 
reserve seats for community members or the public. Other common sectors for which seats are reserved 
are city government (two), food distribution (two), food access/hunger (two), agriculture/farmers (two), 
and nutrition/dieticians (two). No surveyed New England FPCs report reserving seats for groups 
representing diverse age, gender, income level or race/ethnicity. 
 
 
 
 
 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fisheries
Other (please describe)
Extension
Food processing
Food distribution
Food waste
Colleges and Universities
Planning
Schools (K-12)
Economic development
Concerned citizens
Nutrition
Farmers
Government
Public health
Food access
Individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds
Individuals from a variety of income levels
Individuals of different ages
Individuals of different genders
# of FPCs
S
ec
to
r/
S
ta
k
eh
o
ld
er
 G
ro
u
p
 
7 
 
 
Table 4. Membership Seats Reserved by surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy efforts.  
Council  Seats reserved for sectors/stakeholders  
#1 residents, city officials  
#2 city departments, non-profit organizations, community members   
#3 city manager, hunger, processing & distribution, food industry, consumers, dieticians, 
city administration, public & private nonprofit food providers, public  
#4 member of state senate, member of state house of representatives, commissioner of 
agricultural resources, commissioner of public health, commissioner of elementary and 
secondary education, commissioner of environmental protection, commissioner of 
transitional assistance, secretary of housing and economic development, farmer or 
representative of a farm organization, representative of food distribution, processing 
and marketing interests, representative of direct-to-consumer marketing efforts, 
representative of a local health department addressing food safety & nutrition, food 
safety expert, food processing & handling expert, representative of community-based 
efforts addressing nutrition & public health.  
#5 hunger relief, nutrition, businesses in the food sector, farming, institutional food 
management, public.  
 
 
The survey asked respondents whether their FPC recruits members from diverse demographics (Figure 4). 
Respondents could select among provided options or write in additional options. Respondents from more 
than half of the surveyed FPCs report their FPC recruits members from under-represented groups. One 
council does not report recruiting from any of the listed demographic groups (age, gender, income level, 
race and ethnicity), and respondents from three councils reported being unsure of their FPC’s recruitment 
strategy. No councils report specifically recruiting individuals of different genders. Four respondents 
report their FPC recruits members of diverse ages and diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Two report 
recruiting members representing diverse incomes. Other responses included recruiting individuals 
experiencing food insecurity, newcomers to the state, and recruiting youth to participate in a youth 
engagement group.  
 
 
8 
 
Figure 4. Surveyed New England FPCs recruitment of under-represented groups. 
 
4. Public Participation  
Survey respondents were asked to identify how they engaged the public through the policy efforts they 
identified, which are shown in Table 3. All surveyed New England FPCs reported engaging the public as 
part of at least one of their policy efforts (Figure 5). All surveyed New England FPCs report using 
multiple public participation methods, including strategies with more dialogue and strategies with lower 
levels of engagement. All but one New England FPC reported using at least three different methods to 
engage the public during a policy effort. The most commonly reported strategies are attending meetings 
of other organizations or groups, listening sessions or face-to-face discussions, and conducting interviews. 
Only two surveyed FPCs report not engaging the public for all identified policy efforts.  
Figure 5. Public participation methods used by surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy 
efforts. 
 
0 1 2 3 4 5
Gender
Other: newcomers to the state
Other: based on demographics
Other: food insecure
Income
Race/Ethnicity
Age
# of FPCs
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Other
Citizen's forum at regularly scheduled council…
Social media
Surveys
Interviews
Listening sessions or face-to-face discussions
Attending meetings of other organizations/groups
# of FPCs that used method to gather input for at least one policy effort 
P
u
b
li
c 
P
ar
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
 M
et
h
o
d
 
9 
 
The survey asked respondents to identify the sectors and demographic groups that were engaged in public 
participation opportunities for each policy effort they identified, which are shown in Table 3. A list of 
sectors and stakeholders was provided and respondents could also write in others. The results present the 
number of FPCs reporting they engaged a specific sector or demographic group in at least one policy 
effort (Figure 6). Where FPCs reported engaging the same sector or demographic group across different 
policy efforts, the results record this once. Nearly all (11) of the surveyed FPCs report engaging 
individuals of different genders, varying ages, or a variety of income levels in policy efforts. Most 
surveyed FPCs (9) report engaging individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The most 
commonly reported sectors engaged include food access, public health, and schools (K-12). Sectors 
engaged by fewer surveyed FPCs are colleges and universities, Extension, and fisheries. Other sectors 
written in by survey respondents included businesses, networks, land trusts, and United Way.  
Figure 6. Sectors and stakeholders engaged by surveyed New England FPCs in public participation 
opportunities.  
  
Survey respondents were asked about levels of satisfaction with the public participation opportunities 
offered by the FPCs as part of the policy efforts. Respondents were asked to rank their own level of 
satisfaction, their perception of the satisfaction of FPC members, and their perception of the participants’ 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Other
Fisheries
Extension
Colleges and Universities
Food processing
Food waste
Food distribution
Planning
Economic development
Concerned citizens
Nutrition
Farmers
Government
Schools (K-12)
Public health
Food access
Individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds
Individuals from a variety of income levels
Individuals of different ages
Individuals of different genders
# of FPCs that engaged the sector/stakeholder group in at least 1 policy effort 
S
ec
to
r/
S
ta
k
eh
o
ld
er
 G
ro
u
p
 
10 
 
satisfaction (Figure 7). While a respondent’s perception of the satisfaction of others may not be accurate, 
these questions about satisfaction were intended to provide information about the quality of the public 
participation opportunities. Generally, most of the survey respondents report being somewhat or very 
satisfied with most public participation opportunities. Six respondents were somewhat or very satisfied 
with the participation opportunities across all of the policy efforts they identified. Two of the respondents 
reported being somewhat or very satisfied with none of the participation opportunities. Respondents 
reported being somewhat or very satisfied with 23 out of 33 public participation opportunities, neither 
satisfied nor dissatisfied with four opportunities, and somewhat dissatisfied with six opportunities.  
Figure 7. Survey respondents’ satisfaction and perception of FPC members’ and participants’ 
satisfaction with public participation opportunities.  
  
For 20 out of 33 of the policy efforts respondents reported perceiving differences between their own level 
of satisfaction with public participation opportunities and the level of satisfaction of either the FPC or of 
the participants. Respondents indicated they perceived participants and FPC members to be less satisfied, 
as compared to themselves, with participation opportunities in 13 and seven policy efforts, respectively. 
Respondents indicated they perceived participants and the FPC members to be more satisfied, as 
compared to themselves, with participation opportunities in six and five policy efforts, respectively.  
0 5 10 15 20
Participants
Council Members
Respondents
# of policy efforts 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
11 
 
Respondents were asked to report whether the input gathered through the public participation 
opportunities impacted the outcome or decision made. For most policy efforts, 23 out of 33, respondents 
reported that the input did shape the decision or outcome made by the FPC (Figure 8). 
Figure 8. How input gathered through public participation shaped the outcome or decision made by 
the FPC. 
 
 
References  
Porter CA, Ashcraft CM. 2020. New England Food Policy Council Survey Instrument. Natural Resources 
and the Environment Scholarship. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.34051/c/2020.4 
Sussman L, Bassarab K. 2016. Center for a Livable Future Food Policy Council Annual Survey 2016 
Responses. 
 
0 5 10 15 20 25
No
Not Sure
Yes
# of policy efforts 


New England Food Policy Council Survey Results

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Natural Resources and the Environment Scholarship Natural Resources and the Environment 7-1-2020 New England Food Policy Council Survey Results Cathryn A. Porter University of New Hampshire, Casey.Porter@unh.edu Catherine M. Ashcraft University of New Hampshire, catherine.ashcraft@unh.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/nren_facpub Recommended Citation Porter, Cathryn A. and Ashcraft, Catherine M., "New England Food Policy Council Survey Results" (2020). Natural Resources and the Environment Scholarship. 142. https://scholars.unh.edu/nren_facpub/142 This Data Set is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources and the Environment at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources and the Environment Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu. 1  New England Food Policy Council Survey Report   Cathryn A. Porter, University of New Hampshire (corresponding author) Catherine M. Ashcraft, University of New Hampshire   Introduction Little is known about food policy councils (FPCs) in New England, including their policy priorities and how they engage the public. This document provides the results of a survey of New England FPCs engaged in policy initiatives in New England conducted during October – December 2017 to understand FPCs’ policy priorities, learn about the types of policy and planning processes the councils have recently led, and learn about how public participation was incorporated into these processes. The survey instrument is available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.34051/c/2020.4 (Porter and Ashcraft, 2020). This report also includes results from selected 2016 survey data provided by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF), an annual survey of all FPCs in the U.S. and Canada. Methods We identified 29 FPCs or networks in New England: 26 FPCs and two food policy networks were identified using CLF’s 2016 survey data and one more food policy network was identified through an internet search. We recruited one representative from each of the 29 FPCs or networks to respond to a mix of open and closed-ended survey questions. The survey was conducted online through Qualtrics. To participate in the survey respondents had to (1) have been a member of the FPC for at least a year, and (2) report that the FPC was engaged in policy efforts. The University of New Hampshire Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research approved this study (IRB: 6761, approved 9/20/2017). Survey Results Out of the 29 New England FPCs or networks contacted, 18 completed the survey (Table 1). Researchers attempted to contact the 11 FPCs or networks that did not respond with follow up emails and phone calls.  Five additional FPCs that did not complete the survey provided some information about policy priorities by telephone or email. Six FPCs did not respond to the survey and could not be reached by phone or email. Information about their policy priorities was determined through internet research. Based on the combined results, we determined that none of the three food policy networks were both active and engaged in policy efforts and 15 of the 26 FPCs were both active and engaged in policy efforts. 12 of the 15 FPCs actively engaged in policy efforts responded to the survey.  2  Table 1. New England FPC and networks survey population, recruitment methods, and response rates  Recruitment method Total # FPCs FPCs engaged in policy FPCs not engaged in policy Inactive FPCs Responded to survey 18 12 4 2 Contacted by telephone or email 5 2 3 0 Internet research only 6 1 4 1 Total # FPCs 29 15 11 3  This survey focused only on food policy councils engaged in policy efforts. Table 2 presents an overview of the attributes of the 12 surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy efforts. Table 2. Attributes of surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy Name of food policy council State Geographic scale  Organization type Staff capacity  Budget  Bridgeport Food Policy Council CT Municipal Embedded in government Part-time paid staff member $0 -10,000 Hartford Advisory Commission on Food Policy  CT Municipal Embedded in government Part-time paid staff member $10,000-25,000 New Haven Food Policy Council CT Municipal Embedded in government Part-time paid staff member No data Cambridge Food & Fitness Food Policy Council MA Municipal  Embedded in government No data No data 3  Massachusetts Food Policy Council MA State Embedded in government Part-time paid staff member $0 -10,000 Worcester Food Policy Council MA Municipal Non-profit Full-time paid staff member  $25,000-100,000 Community Food Matters ME County Grassroots coalition  More than one paid staff member $0 -10,000 Cumberland County Food Security Council ME County Housed in another non-profit More than one paid staff member No data  Good Food Council of Lewiston-Auburn ME Municipal Grassroots coalition Part-time paid staff member $0 -10,000 Healthy Waterville ME  Municipal Grassroots coalition Full-time paid staff member $25,000-100,000 Washington County Community Food Council ME County Housed in another non-profit No data $0 -10,000 Rhode Island Food Policy Council RI State Housed in another non-profit More than one paid staff member No data Data source for analysis: Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Food Policy Network 2016 survey data (Sussman and Bassarab, 2016).   1. Policy Priorities and Policy Efforts  The survey asked respondents to select their FPC’s top policy priorities from a list of 13 policy priorities or write in additional options. Respondents most commonly identified food access as a policy priority (Figure 1). Other common policy priorities include: public health, food waste/recovery, land use/planning, economic development, and food justice/equity.  4   Figure 1. Policy priorities of surveyed New England FPCs.    The survey asked respondents to identify up to three of their FPC’s policy efforts, shown in Table 3. Common topics for FPC policy work that respondents identified include general food systems work, school food, and urban agriculture. Not all FPCs reported three separate policy efforts – one FPC reported two, and another reported only one policy effort.  Table 3. Policy efforts reported by surveyed New England FPCs.  Urban agriculture Increase summer meals provision and utilization  Urban agriculture zoning ordinance School wellness policy  Favorable zoning changes for agriculture, poultry and bees SNAP matching collaboration Urban agriculture master plan SNAP Ed and Double Dollars at local markets City’s Climate Action Plan SNAP incentives at Farmers Markets Local Food Action Plan  Food access Community Food Charter Mitigating hunger/food insecurity through advocating for program implementation State food strategy Streamlining the emergency food system Strategic action plan Permitting and licensing of new food businesses Action Plan Priorities  Protecting food workers Action Plan Topics  Food System Summit Community Food Assessment Food Policy Forum Community Food Assessment Wasted Food Policy Change School food security assessment  Equity Based Policy Change Cultural considerations in school food Distribution infrastructure K-12 School Food Procurement Processing infrastructure  0 2 4 6 8 10 12Other - school wellnessFood laborEnvironmentFood productionNutritionLand accessFood procurementFood justice/equityEconomic developmentLand use/planningFood waste/recoveryPublic HealthFood access# of FPCs with policy priority Policy priority5  Breakfast after the bell legislation   2. Workgroups Survey respondents identified the focus of workgroups of surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy (Figure 2). Most New England FPCs engaged in policy (10) report having targeted workgroups. Workgroups allow a council to take on multiple foci, and also provide a forum to engage members of the public who do not necessarily want to be a member of the council or can’t commit the time to full membership. Three surveyed New England FPCs reported having a workgroup focused specifically on policy. Themes included within the “other” category include communications, food waste, cooperative procurement, recruitment committee, lead team, transportation, and planning and development.  Figure 2. Workgroups of surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy.   3. FPC Membership  Survey respondents identified the sectors and stakeholder groups currently represented as members of the FPC (Figure 3). A list of sectors and stakeholder groups was provided, and respondents could check all that applied or write in others. The membership of most New England FPCs is diverse. Well represented sectors in New England FPCs include food access, public health, government, farmers, nutrition, concerned citizens, and economic development. Sectors respondents wrote in under “Other” include researchers, legal aid, social justice, funder, small business, cooperatives, and emergency food providers. Fewer surveyed New England FPCs report having representatives from colleges and universities, food waste, food distribution, food processing, Extension or the fisheries sector as members. Most surveyed New England FPCs report their council membership includes individuals representing diverse genders, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8NutritionEventsDistributionEconomic DevelopmentPolicyFood AccessSchools/YouthAgricultureOther# of FPCs reporting having a workgroup Workgroup theme6  ages, income levels. Fewer, but still more than half of New England FPCs report having members representing diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.  Figure 3. Membership of New England FPCs engaged in policy by sector and stakeholder group.     Fewer than half (5) of surveyed New England FPCs reserve membership seats (Table 4). Four FPCs reserve seats for community members or the public. Other common sectors for which seats are reserved are city government (two), food distribution (two), food access/hunger (two), agriculture/farmers (two), and nutrition/dieticians (two). No surveyed New England FPCs report reserving seats for groups representing diverse age, gender, income level or race/ethnicity.      0 2 4 6 8 10 12FisheriesOther (please describe)ExtensionFood processingFood distributionFood wasteColleges and UniversitiesPlanningSchools (K-12)Economic developmentConcerned citizensNutritionFarmersGovernmentPublic healthFood accessIndividuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgroundsIndividuals from a variety of income levelsIndividuals of different agesIndividuals of different genders# of FPCsSector/Stakeholder Group 7   Table 4. Membership Seats Reserved by surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy efforts.  Council  Seats reserved for sectors/stakeholders  #1 residents, city officials  #2 city departments, non-profit organizations, community members   #3 city manager, hunger, processing & distribution, food industry, consumers, dieticians, city administration, public & private nonprofit food providers, public  #4 member of state senate, member of state house of representatives, commissioner of agricultural resources, commissioner of public health, commissioner of elementary and secondary education, commissioner of environmental protection, commissioner of transitional assistance, secretary of housing and economic development, farmer or representative of a farm organization, representative of food distribution, processing and marketing interests, representative of direct-to-consumer marketing efforts, representative of a local health department addressing food safety & nutrition, food safety expert, food processing & handling expert, representative of community-based efforts addressing nutrition & public health.  #5 hunger relief, nutrition, businesses in the food sector, farming, institutional food management, public.    The survey asked respondents whether their FPC recruits members from diverse demographics (Figure 4). Respondents could select among provided options or write in additional options. Respondents from more than half of the surveyed FPCs report their FPC recruits members from under-represented groups. One council does not report recruiting from any of the listed demographic groups (age, gender, income level, race and ethnicity), and respondents from three councils reported being unsure of their FPC’s recruitment strategy. No councils report specifically recruiting individuals of different genders. Four respondents report their FPC recruits members of diverse ages and diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Two report recruiting members representing diverse incomes. Other responses included recruiting individuals experiencing food insecurity, newcomers to the state, and recruiting youth to participate in a youth engagement group.    8  Figure 4. Surveyed New England FPCs recruitment of under-represented groups.  4. Public Participation  Survey respondents were asked to identify how they engaged the public through the policy efforts they identified, which are shown in Table 3. All surveyed New England FPCs reported engaging the public as part of at least one of their policy efforts (Figure 5). All surveyed New England FPCs report using multiple public participation methods, including strategies with more dialogue and strategies with lower levels of engagement. All but one New England FPC reported using at least three different methods to engage the public during a policy effort. The most commonly reported strategies are attending meetings of other organizations or groups, listening sessions or face-to-face discussions, and conducting interviews. Only two surveyed FPCs report not engaging the public for all identified policy efforts.  Figure 5. Public participation methods used by surveyed New England FPCs engaged in policy efforts.  0 1 2 3 4 5GenderOther: newcomers to the stateOther: based on demographicsOther: food insecureIncomeRace/EthnicityAge# of FPCs0 2 4 6 8 10 12OtherCitizen's forum at regularly scheduled council…Social mediaSurveysInterviewsListening sessions or face-to-face discussionsAttending meetings of other organizations/groups# of FPCs that used method to gather input for at least one policy effort Public Participation Method 9  The survey asked respondents to identify the sectors and demographic groups that were engaged in public participation opportunities for each policy effort they identified, which are shown in Table 3. A list of sectors and stakeholders was provided and respondents could also write in others. The results present the number of FPCs reporting they engaged a specific sector or demographic group in at least one policy effort (Figure 6). Where FPCs reported engaging the same sector or demographic group across different policy efforts, the results record this once. Nearly all (11) of the surveyed FPCs report engaging individuals of different genders, varying ages, or a variety of income levels in policy efforts. Most surveyed FPCs (9) report engaging individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The most commonly reported sectors engaged include food access, public health, and schools (K-12). Sectors engaged by fewer surveyed FPCs are colleges and universities, Extension, and fisheries. Other sectors written in by survey respondents included businesses, networks, land trusts, and United Way.  Figure 6. Sectors and stakeholders engaged by surveyed New England FPCs in public participation opportunities.    Survey respondents were asked about levels of satisfaction with the public participation opportunities offered by the FPCs as part of the policy efforts. Respondents were asked to rank their own level of satisfaction, their perception of the satisfaction of FPC members, and their perception of the participants’ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12OtherFisheriesExtensionColleges and UniversitiesFood processingFood wasteFood distributionPlanningEconomic developmentConcerned citizensNutritionFarmersGovernmentSchools (K-12)Public healthFood accessIndividuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgroundsIndividuals from a variety of income levelsIndividuals of different agesIndividuals of different genders# of FPCs that engaged the sector/stakeholder group in at least 1 policy effort Sector/Stakeholder Group 10  satisfaction (Figure 7). While a respondent’s perception of the satisfaction of others may not be accurate, these questions about satisfaction were intended to provide information about the quality of the public participation opportunities. Generally, most of the survey respondents report being somewhat or very satisfied with most public participation opportunities. Six respondents were somewhat or very satisfied with the participation opportunities across all of the policy efforts they identified. Two of the respondents reported being somewhat or very satisfied with none of the participation opportunities. Respondents reported being somewhat or very satisfied with 23 out of 33 public participation opportunities, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with four opportunities, and somewhat dissatisfied with six opportunities.  Figure 7. Survey respondents’ satisfaction and perception of FPC members’ and participants’ satisfaction with public participation opportunities.    For 20 out of 33 of the policy efforts respondents reported perceiving differences between their own level of satisfaction with public participation opportunities and the level of satisfaction of either the FPC or of the participants. Respondents indicated they perceived participants and FPC members to be less satisfied, as compared to themselves, with participation opportunities in 13 and seven policy efforts, respectively. Respondents indicated they perceived participants and the FPC members to be more satisfied, as compared to themselves, with participation opportunities in six and five policy efforts, respectively.  0 5 10 15 20ParticipantsCouncil MembersRespondents# of policy efforts Very satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedSomewhat dissatisfiedVery dissatisfied11  Respondents were asked to report whether the input gathered through the public participation opportunities impacted the outcome or decision made. For most policy efforts, 23 out of 33, respondents reported that the input did shape the decision or outcome made by the FPC (Figure 8). Figure 8. How input gathered through public participation shaped the outcome or decision made by the FPC.   References  Porter CA, Ashcraft CM. 2020. New England Food Policy Council Survey Instrument. Natural Resources and the Environment Scholarship. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.34051/c/2020.4 Sussman L, Bassarab K. 2016. Center for a Livable Future Food Policy Council Annual Survey 2016 Responses.  0 5 10 15 20 25NoNot SureYes# of policy efforts 

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&amp;context=nren_facpub

New England Food Policy Council Survey Results

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Hampshire

UNH Scholars' Repository