King County Food and Fitness Initiative 

Annual Progress Report 
April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
“Creating vibrant communities that support access to locally grown, healthy, affordable food and 
 
  safe places for physical activity and play—for everyone.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Grantee Name: Public Health – Seattle & King County  
Director of Project: Erin MacDougall  
Phone: (206) 263‐8804 
Email: erin.macdougall@kingcounty.gov  
Date: May 14, 2008 
 
 
 
 
Prepared by Sylvia Kantor, Washington State University King County Extension with Erin MacDougall and 
Jim Krieger, Public Health Seattle & King County; and Brad Gaolach and Maggie Anderson, Washington 
State University King County Extension. 
 Table of Contents 
 
Table of Contents 
Report Narrative KCFFI Year 1 ...................................................................................................................... 3 
A. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3 
B. Progress on Work Plan .......................................................................................................................... 3 
C. Additional Unplanned Objectives or Activities ................................................................................... 11 
D. Additional Information ....................................................................................................................... 12 
Financial Report – See Financial Report file (to be provided by Linda Schwartz) ...................................... 19 
Work Plan – Year 2 ‐‐ See Work Plan file .................................................................................................... 19 
Evaluation Report ‐‐ See Evaluation Report file .......................................................................................... 19 
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 19 
A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees .................................................................... 19 
B. Visioning Exercises Data ..................................................................................................................... 19 
C. Youth Engagement Report .................................................................................................................. 19 
 

 
 
 
  Key to Abbreviations 
 
  CP ‐ Collaborative Partners  
  DNDA ‐ Delridge Neighborhood Development Association 
  IDHA ‐ International District Housing Alliance 
  KCFFI ‐ King County Food and Fitness Initiative 
  LC ‐ Leadership Council 
  PHSKC ‐ Public Health – Seattle & King County 
  WSU KCE ‐ Washington State University King County Extension 
  WC CDA ‐ White Center Community Development Association 

2 
 
Report Narrative KCFFI Year 1  
 

A. Summary 
The King County Food and Fitness Initiative has made significant progress toward its two major goals to 
1) establish a strong, representative Collaborative based on democratic, inclusive, and participatory 
principles and 2) develop a community action plan. Emphasis in Year 1 was to establish the Collaborative 
and the Leadership Council, identify focus communities, engage youth, and put into place the structures 
needed to develop the community action plan. Toward the end of Year 1 the decision was made to 
transfer the grant to Washington State University in order to make more funding available for work in 
the focus communities. 

B. Progress on Work Plan 
Goal 1 (Create a King County Food and Fitness Collaborative)
Outcome 1.1: A strong, representative Collaborative based on democratic, inclusive, and 
participatory principles plans, implements, and sustains the KCFFI. 
Objective 1.1.1: A collaborative composed of organizations and individuals from diverse sectors of 
food, fitness, built environment systems. 
The KCFFI currently consists of over 120 people representing 56 diverse organizations. 
 
Objective 1.1.2: Formalized Collaborative Leadership Council structure and governance procedures.  
Benchmark: CP's approve the bylaws to establish and guide council:  
Bylaws were approved by the Leadership Council on 1/31/08. 
Benchmark: Leadership Council established:  
The Leadership Council (LC) was established via a broad call for applicants and a collaborative voting 
process. Recruitment efforts focused on seeking diversity both of individual attributes (race, gender, 
ethnicity, etc) and food system and built environment representation. Initially, eleven people 
comprised the LC and they held their first meeting on 1/31/08. Two members, Rebecca Deehr, 
FeetFirst and Amy White, YMCA of Greater Seattle volunteered to serve as interim co‐chairs until the 
council was fully populated. As of April 2008, seven more members from the two focus communities 
joined the LC for a total of 18 members. This two‐stage process was intentional. Because our proposal 
listed eight potential focus communities, to be reduced to two by year one, we wanted to ensure that 
we had the LC in place as soon as possible. Seats at the LC table were held for additional members 
from the communities selected. To help recruit a broad diversity of members, we established the 
ability for members who so chose to receive a stipend for their participation. 
Benchmark: Documented Leadership Council decisions (and process):  
The LC has held three meetings since its inception. Key decisions include approving bylaws and a 
decision making process, selecting interim co‐chairs, approving the application form for focus 
community members to join the LC, approving community members on the LC, and approving the fiscal 
agency change to WSU. See Appendix A for detail. 
 
Objective 1.1.3: Collaborative Partners are engaged in planning and decision making process 
Benchmark: Working group members, topics, and timetables are identified:  
Current work groups include the Youth Engagement Team and the Assessment Team. The Youth 
Engagement Team involves approximately 14 Collaborative Partner organizations and the Assessment 

3 
 
 Team is comprised of researchers and students (and Collaborative Partners) from the University of 
Washington, Washington State University, Children’s Hospital, Group Health Community Foundation 
(KCFFI Evaluators), and Public Health‐Seattle and King County. Other working groups were not 
identified in Year 1, in part because of the focus on establishing the Leadership Council and selecting 
the two focus communities which was done by smaller, ad hoc groups of Collaborative Partners to 
assist with each of the processes. However, planning groups are developing in the two focus 
communities to develop the Community Action Plan. 
Benchmark: Working groups interface regularly with the Leadership Council: 
The Youth Engagement Coordinator attends the Leadership Council meetings and will likely become a 
formal member in the near future. The Assessment Team has yet to have a formal interface with the LC 
but there was some informal interaction of five of the team members at our community‐wide meeting 
and celebration on 4/23/08. 
Benchmark: In person meetings (See Appendix A for details):  No. of Meetings 
The whole Collaborative met to share information, to make decisions (about   
developing a Request for Application (RFA) for youth engagement, bylaws for the  6 
Leadership Council, and to plan and conduct the site selection process), and to   
learn about and share visions for food and fitness.    
Youth serving organizations met to discuss how to engage youth and how to best   
utilize funding for youth engagement. One meeting was held after the youth  6+ 
coordinator was hired in February. The youth coordinator held several meetings   
with youth in preparation for the youth conference in Arizona in March 2008. The   
Youth Engagement Team met once after the conference in Seattle on March 31,   
2008.   
 
The Assessment Team met in the summer, fall and winter in Year 1 to develop an  3 
assessment plan and compile a comprehensive set of assessment questions.    
The Co‐conveners scheduled bi‐monthly meetings and conference calls and has  12‐18 
met at least monthly since the grant began. 
 
Outcome 1.2: Collaborative Partners understand how their work relates to common goals outside of 
their focus areas. 
Objective 1.2.1 Collaborative Partners share a common understanding of food and fitness 
In August 2007, to begin to develop a shared understanding of the attributes of a community-based food
system Collaborative Partners were asked to answer the question: What does food access, affordability,
healthy, and local mean to you? A diverse set of responses were recorded and are posted on the KCFFI 
web site. 
During their visit in November 2007, the TAP Team facilitated a visioning exercise with Collaborative 
Partners. Some of the shared visions that resulted include: 
• Families have enough resources & time to eat and play together in their own communities 
• Neighborhoods we live in are close together (walkable), have easy access to healthy foods, and 
inspire us to engage in physical activity with our neighbors and take care of this place. 
• Our collaborative is cohesive and respected: legislative bodies turn to KCFFI for guidance in 
policy making. 
• Every community & city would have a commission focusing on health & fitness. 
• More access to physical activity & nutrition awareness—broad engaged community with equal 
access to food/health resources. 
• Healthy food is as accessible as fast food. 

4 
 
 On February 19, 2008, a structured group discussion was held with the Leadership Council of the King 
County Food and Fitness Initiative.  The purpose was to collect an inventory of current activities, 
strategies, programs and policies on healthy local eating and physical activity in King County. Emerging 
themes included: 
• Strong sense of motivation – “kids want to move”, “immigrant populations come together 
around food”, activities and policies are being promoted at many levels, CBOs and government 
agencies are talking about these issues. 
• A lot of opportunities to build off of existing programs across all domains. 
• Delridge and White Center have a lot of community based assessment work, maps of physical 
environment, parks, gardens, etc. 
• Funding is, as always, considered a barrier to program and policy development and 
implementation. 
• Cost and lack of availability of healthy local food are considered barriers in the focus 
communities. 
• Existing collaborations such as YMCA, Parks and Recreation Departments and schools can be 
strengthened and supported. 
• More information needed on youth perspectives on these domains – can be collected from the 
Youth Serving organizations. 
See Appendix B. Visioning Exercises Data 
 
In addition to specific activities to develop a shared vision, other activities, such as presentations at 
Collaborative Partner and Leadership Council meetings, the KCFFI website and newsletter, and 
announcements and invitations to events related to FFI goals, were also sent out to the collaborative. 
Examples of events and activities promoted by the KCFFI include: 
• Public meetings about the Local Food Action Initiative 
• Speaking engagements with Wayne Roberts, Michael Pollan, and Francis Moore Lappé 
• Community events such as the Sustainable West Seattle Fair and Delridge Days 
• Planning for the National Pro Walk/ Pro Bike Conference to be held in Seattle 
• Seattle’s Pedestrian Master Plan 
• Seattle Walks 
• The National Public Health Week walks 
• Bike to Work/School Month Urban Sustainability forums on healthy parks, schools, 
communities and social and health equity 
• All help to increase understanding of common FFI goals. 
 
Benchmark: New links between organizations, communities and activities are forged: 
The KCFFI has brought together 56 organizations many of which were already linked and many of 
which were not. Connections have been made between organizations focused on food with those 
focused on the built environment and physical activity. In addition, youth organizations have made 
new connections with other youth organizations and with other Collaborative Partners. Through the 
Delridge Neighborhood Development Association and the White Center Community Development 
Association, Collaborative Partners are connecting to the focus communities. 
 
Objective 1.2.2 Collaboration on shared projects or policy work 
Many Collaborative Partners engaged in policy work that resulted in two key outcomes. 
Local Food Action Initiative 
City of Seattle Council Chair, Richard Conlin introduced a food system sustainability resolution with 

5 
 
 priority areas identified by the Acting Food Policy Council and the City of Seattle Interdepartmental 
Team for Food System Enhancement. The Local Food Action Initiative, which passed April 28, 
2008, is a series of actions meant to promote local and regional food sustainability and security. 
The intent is to improve our local food system and in doing so, advance the City of Seattle’s 
interrelated goals of race and social justice, environmental sustainability, economic development, 
and emergency preparedness. 
Local Farms Healthy Kids Bill 
Passed by Washington State Legislature in March 2008. Enhances efforts for local food 
procurement in schools and other state institutions; establishes statewide Farm to School program; 
ensures funding for low income residents through farmers market nutrition program and 
technology at farmers markets; establishes state version of fresh fruit and vegetables program in 
schools; pilots a farm to food banks program. 
 
Outcome 1.3: Internal communication: Collaborative Partners are aware of all KCFFI activities 
Objective 1.3.1 Networking, communication, and information sharing among Collaborative Partners 
and others interested in food and fitness. 
Benchmark: Internal communications strategy: 
Meetings:  
Updates are provided at all meetings. Regular meetings include 1) Co‐conveners ‐ twice a month; 2) 
Leadership Council – monthly; 3) Youth Group – monthly; 4) Collaborative Partners – quarterly; 5) 
Assessment Team – as needed. 
Web pages: 
Web page traffic has increased significantly since the beginning of the grant period. For all of 2007 (9 
months) the site received 1,123 visitors, an average of 124 visits per month. From January through 
March 2008 the site has received 700 visitors, an average of 233 per month. 
Print and electronic media: 
• Established the kcfficollaborative list serve in September 2007 which currently hosts 172 
members. 
• Developed internal co‐convener distribution group. 
• Established separate list serve for the Leadership Council. 
Developed email protocol to manage quality and quantity of email generated to the 
Collaborative. 
• Established biweekly electronic newsletter KCFFI News Reel to provide updates and information 
to Collaborative Partners in an organized fashion. 
• Developed graphic identity for print and electronic media (brochures, flyers, etc.). 
Formal Presentations:  
• Overview of the KCFFI presented at the Food and Fitness National Advisory Committee meeting, 
December 2007 for the 11‐ member committee including 5 local co‐conveners and 3 Oakland 
HOPE collaborative staff.  
• Overview of the KCFFI presented at WSU at Benaroya Hall Alumni event attended by over 300 
people. 
• Poster presentation at Miami, FL Food and Fitness Co‐Convener’s Meeting titled “The Flow of 
Community Action Planning,” presented in front of more than 65 attendees. 
 
Outcome 1.4: Youth members are engaged in the KCFFI and the Collaborative  
Objective 1.4.1 Funding to support youth engagement. 

6 
 
 Benchmark: Submit proposal to Seattle Foundation:  
On behalf of the KCFFI, WSU KCE received $50,000 from the Seattle Foundation Community Grant 
Making Program to support youth engagement in the Community Action Planning process of the KCFFI.
Grant funds support a subcontract to coordinate youth engagement as well as training, workshops, 
travel and stipends for youth. 
 
Objective 1.4.2 Youth engagement plan for planning phase (See Appendix C for details). 
Benchmark: Develop preliminary plan for engaging youth. 
Four meetings with Youth Organizations in the KCFFI Collaborative were held to get input from youth 
serving organizations about how youth can be involved in the Initiative and how the Youth Engagement 
funding might be used. The scope of work for  the IDHA subcontract specifies that youth will 
participate in at least four assessment activities (one on the built environment in each focus 
community and one on the food system in each community), that youth will be recruited to participate 
in appropriate working groups, and that one or two youth‐focused workshops will be produced. 
 
Objective 1.4.3 Coordination of youth engagement efforts. 
Benchmark: Hire youth engagement coordinator: 
The subcontract was awarded to the International District Housing Alliance (IDHA) in the amount of 
$30,000. (See attached subcontract). The IDHA is working with youth in the focus communities as well 
as youth associated with Collaborative Partners who are interested in participating in the KCFFI 
planning process.  
 
Objective 1.4.4 Opportunities for youth to participate in planning phase. 
Benchmark: Youth/Community members have representation on the Leadership Council: 
Organizations that serve youth are represented on the Leadership Council; however, due to scheduling 
difficulties, it has not been practical for youth to attend Leadership Council meetings.  
In March 2008, five youth ages 14 ‐20 traveled to Arizona with the IDHA youth coordinator to attend a 
four day youth orientation conference with the other eight FFI communities. 
The Youth Engagement Team is working with the Assessment Team to identify appropriate assessment 
questions, tools, and activities for youth participation and leadership. 
 
Objective 1.4.5 Youth serve on Leadership Council and on working groups as appropriate. 
Benchmark: draft recommendation for youth engagement: 
With the establishment of the Youth Engagement Team, fueled by participation in the youth 
conference in Arizona, a youth engagement plan is under development. Youth are being recruited to 
participate in KCFFI assessment activities for Summer 2008. One youth participated in the site selection 
process. 
 
Outcome 1.5: The Collaborative is sustained beyond the grant period. 
Objective 1.5.1: Sustainability plan and timeline for implementation developed. 
Benchmark: Partners are routinely informed and aware of collaborative activities: 
Regular updates are provided via meetings, list serves, and a bimonthly electronic newsletter. 
Potential problems are anticipated, decision‐making perceived to be fair: 
Every reasonable attempt has been made to ensure decision‐making is perceived as fair and 
transparent.  
The process to fill seats on the Leadership Council included a strong effort to recruit diverse members 

7 
 
 in terms of demographics and sectors, while ensuring seats were set aside for members of the focus 
communities once the sites were selected. The site selection process included representatives from all 
potential focus communities on the site selection committee.  
The youth engagement subcontract opportunity was promoted to all Collaborative Partners and WSU 
King County Extension recused itself from the selection process to avoid any perception of conflict of 
interest should their 4‐H Program decide to apply.  
With co‐conveners being responsible for much of the initial decision‐making, we anticipated it could be 
challenging to build leadership capacity of the Leadership Council once it was established. We are 
developing strategies to address this situation such as creating an executive committee, finding ways to 
ensure LC members have the information they need to make intelligent decisions, and preparing and 
encouraging the interim co‐chairs to accept more authority. 
Benchmark: Funding opportunities identified and grant applications prepared: 
The Seattle Foundation Community Grantmaking Program awarded $50,000 to support youth 
engagement in the KCFFI. 
Additional funding opportunities will be explored and developed in Year 2. 
 
Objective 1.5.2: Funding and other resources are identified to sustain the effort. 
At the end of Year 1, a decision was made to transfer fiscal agency to Washington State University in 
order to make more funding available for the Initiative, funding that otherwise had been needed to 
cover indirect costs that King County was charging to Public Health Seattle and King County. WSU is 
able to absorb indirect costs. Additional funding opportunities will be explored and developed in Year 
2. 
 
Outcome 1.6: KCFFI is recognized among the general public, media, and local decision makers 
Objective 1.6.1: External communications strategy for the Collaborative 
Web page, listserve, at least six meetings with high‐level city and county staff working in 
transportation, parks, neighborhoods, economic development and community planning about KCFFI. 
Approximately six meetings in the focus communities thus far to communicate about the initiative and 
to garner interest and participation. At least 12 of our Collaborative Partners have been mentioned in 
print or at public meetings about KCFFI including Full Circle Farm owner, Andrew Stout at a press 
conference with the County Executive for Eat Local for Thanksgiving kick off in Nov 2007; updates on 
KCFFI in newsletters sent by non‐profit organization partners since the grant was funded; and public 
testimony to Seattle City Council on the Local Food Action Initiative in April 2008; article and editorial 
published in Seattle PI on May 1 and 2, 2008 highlighting the work of KCFFI around access to healthy 
foods. 
In addition, co‐conveners have conducted numerous in person meetings with Collaborative Partners, 
media, and others to develop and build the relationships necessary for sustaining the KCFFI and to raise 
awareness of KCFFI efforts. 
 
Goal II (Develop a community action plan)
Outcome 2.1: The Collaborative focuses planning efforts on two communities. 
Objective 2.1.1: Two communities in which to focus planning and implementation change actions are 
identified. 
Benchmark: Decision made to uncouple site selection process from process to form leadership council:  
Advantages of uncoupling the Site Selection process from establishing the Leadership Council include: 
• The Site Selection Committee would be temporary with the sole function of selecting two focus 

8 
 
 communities, and would not make any longer‐term decisions about change actions, 
membership, or resources 
• Participation on the Site Selection Committee by Collaborative Partners from the eight 
geographic areas, community based organizations, and members of the Assessment Team 
would provide a holistic assessment of applications based on agreed upon criteria.  
• The Leadership Council can form sooner and begin planning for the regional and county wide 
policy assessment and youth engagement, without waiting for the two sites to be selected. 
Seats on the LC for members from the two focus communities will be reserved. 
The unanimous decision to uncouple the site selection committee from the leadership council was 
made on November 14, 2007 by the collaborative partners. 
Benchmark: Site Selection RFA drafted and circulated: 
The draft RFA was first discussed at the November 14, 2007 Collaborative Partner meeting, and there 
was agreement that the final selection of appropriate questions would be made by the members of the 
Site Selection Committee for the sake of fairness and equal representation. The final RFA (eventually 
dubbed an RFQ) was released after the comment/revision period on December 31, 2007 with a 
deadline for application of January 31, 2008.  
KCFFI staff arranged meetings with many of the interested potential focus communities (Kent, Federal 
Way, SeaTac, Tukwila) in preparation for the site selection process. These meetings were well attended 
by municipal staff, in some cases, from several departments including human services, parks, youth, 
planning, and elected officials. 
The site selection committee was formed with specific membership guidelines including 
representatives from each of the potential focus communities as well as a youth member, sector 
representation, and representation from the Assessment Team. The committee met twice: once to 
determine the RFQ guidelines and once to select the two focus communities.  
Delridge and White Center were selected on February 11, 2008. 
 
Outcome 2.2: Focus communities are aware of KCFFI activities 
Objective 2.2.1: Communications strategy for the two communities 
Benchmark: List of communication venues and key organizations as well as types of effective 
communication methods: 
The communication strategy for the two focus communities is integrated with communication across 
the Collaborative. We use bimonthly newsletters, email, list serves, in person meetings, and phone 
calls to communicate with the focus communities. 
Benchmark: List of best practices: 
The focus community lead organizations (DNDA, WC CDA) know their residents well and utilize web 
and personal communication methods to regularly communicate in their neighborhoods.  
Benchmark: Interpretation needs identified and costs estimated: 
This benchmark has not been achieved yet. However, DNDA and WC CDA have past experience with 
planning and outreach in their communities, so they know what languages are spoken by residents that 
would be engaged in this new effort in their communities. 
 
Outcome 2.3: Planning priorities are aligned with community values 
Objective 2.3.1 Diverse community members are engaged in the KCFFI and the Collaborative once 
communities are selected. The focus communities were selected in February 2008, and efforts to 
engage community members have started in Year 1 but are really expanding in Year 2. However, the 
outreach conducted in White Center and Delridge prior to selecting them as the focus communities 
served as a foundation for further outreach in those two neighborhoods. In addition, the IDHA is 

9 
 
 working with youth organizations in the Collaborative and in the focus communities to recruit and 
engage diverse youth members. The Delridge Neighborhood Development Association and the White 
Center Community Development Association are well connected to the local communities and provide 
critical community engagement.  
Benchmark: Assessment of venues and times that work to accommodate community members: 
This is done in conjunction with the DNDA and WC DNA who are most familiar with what works in their 
communities. 
Benchmark: Translation needs identified: 
DNDA and WC CDA are aware of translation needs and will communicate them to the KCFFI as needed. 
Benchmark: Two cultural competency trainings conducted: 
These will be conducted in Year 2. 
 
Outcome 2.4: The Collaborative has increased understanding of the assets and opportunities for 
change in food and fitness 
Objective 2.4.1: Data on the status of the food system and built and social environments to identify 
assets, gaps, redundancies, and opportunities as it pertains to King County, Puget Sound, and 
Washington State.  
Benchmark: A list of questions that get at what we already know and what we want to know 
A list of initial questions was developed by the Assessment Team and discussed with FFI Leadership. 
The Assessment Team then reviewed domains and items for assessment based on the TAP Team 
Planning Guide Series, other reports on food systems and built environment assessments, the domains 
identified in the HEAL Convergence Partnership project, review of assessment items on multiple 
websites (e.g. PolicyLink, Prevention Institute ENACT Database, Active Living/Healthy Eating by Design, 
etc) and assessment tools in the published literature. These were placed in a matrix that related initial 
questions to assessment items. Assessment Team members reviewed the matrix and selected priority 
measures based on relevance to the FFI project and feasibility of obtaining and analyzing data. The 
matrix will next be reviewed by Leadership Council members and focus community leaders for 
relevance and a final set of indicators will be compiled.  
Benchmark: A list of associated assessment tools 
Assessment tools identified thus far include: 
‐ Multiple secondary data sets (BRFSS, police crime reports, DOT data and multiple other GIS data sets 
[see original application for list of UW Urban Form Lab data sets]),  
‐ School secondary data (free/reduced lunch participation, safe routes to schools, recess policies, 
wellness policies, farm to school programs)‐  
‐ Parks and green space equity mapping (using TPL tools) 
‐ Description of community gardens, urban farms, CSAs, Farmers Markets (website review, Eat Well 
Guide, Ag Census, KI interviews) 
‐ Restaurant location mapping and menu audit (in conjunction with PHSKC evaluation of menu labeling 
regulation) 
‐ Key informant interviews to elicit perspectives on issues, assets, gaps, redundancies and suggested 
actions 
‐ Local policy scan 
A report is presented to the LC with gaps, redundancies and opportunities 
Initial secondary data will be gathered and presented to the LC and focus community leads along with 
list of assessment indicators. Revisions to the indicators will be made by LC and others and the 
Assessment Team will revise their work as appropriate. 
 

10 
 
 Objective 2.4.2: Data on the status of the food system and built and social environments to identify 
assets, gaps, redundancies, and opportunities as it pertains to the two focus communities.  
Benchmarks: A list of associated assessment tools 
Assessment tools identified thus far include: 
• Walking and bike audits in focus communities  
• Photovoice in focus communities (youth activity) 
‐School audit (built environment inspection, food environment observation and interview, 
hand raise survey in classrooms) 
• Parks audit 
Community center audit (observation and interview) 
• Food market basket assessment 
‐Food store audit  
 
Outcome 2.5: Draft CAP document and present to Collaborative Year 2 Activity 
Objective 2.5.1: Information on best and promising strategies to strengthen assets and address 
issues identified by the Collaborative. 
Benchmark: Initial list of strategies. 
 
Outcome 2.6: Change actions reflect the values of the Collaborative. Year 2 Activity 
Objective 2.6.1: Assessment of strategies for alignment with these values 
Benchmark: Set of criteria recommended to the LC for approval.    
 
Objective 2.6.2: Policy recommendations. 
Benchmark: Collection of policies and status of their implementation 
 
Objective 2.6.3: A comprehensive Community Action Plan that prioritizes strategies and defines roles 
and accountabilities for implementation. 
Benchmark: Initial list of strategies ranked by ability to meet criteria. 
Benchmark: Description of roles for each strategy. 
Benchmark: A report is presented to LC which presents potential impact of potential strategies and 
activities for the implementation plan 
Presentation of draft CAP to LC. 

C. Additional Unplanned Objectives or Activities 
Identify and report on any additional significant objectives or activities that were not included in the 
original Workplan. 
 
Eat Local for Thanksgiving – August‐November 2007. This was a successful community wide campaign 
that the KCFFI partnered with other organizations and coalitions to launch for the first time in King 
County. This garnered support by local elected officials and residents to highlight the importance of food 
assets and barriers in our region around building a local, sustainable food system. 
 
Local Farms Healthy Kids Bill – passed by Washington State Legislature in March 2008. Enhances efforts 
for local food procurement in schools and other state institutions; establishes statewide Farm to School 

11 
 
program; ensures funding for low income residents through farmers market nutrition program and 
technology at farmers markets; establishes state version of fresh fruit and vegetables program in 
schools; pilots a farm to food banks program. 
 
City of Seattle Local Food Action Initiative – city resolution sets a broad and comprehensive policy 
framework for the City of Seattle to make addressing food a priority and is a first step to the formation 
of an official food policy council.  

WSU King County Extension Filming for Hmong Family Farms Youth Project – The purpose of this 
project is to engage Hmong youth in helping the Hmong family farms of King County develop sustainable 
agricultural practices. With the kids' help, WSU KCE is creating demonstrative, instructional videos to 
enhance Hmong farming businesses and help develop sustainable skills in agriculture. 

D. Additional Information 
Specifically address your responses to the evaluation questions within the context of the annual report.  
 
What types of partnerships have developed at the local, state, and national levels to support the 
development of action plans to promote environmental and policy change strategies? 
See item #5 in next section. 
 
Describe the partnerships in the community collaborative that are being established to reflect the 
racial and ethnic diversity of the community. 
The International Housing District Alliance is subcontracted to coordinate diverse youth engagement 
and is partnering with the Delridge Neighborhood Development Association, the White Center 
Community Development Association, and other organizations that reflect the diversity of the 
community. IDHA is a multicultural organization that has a long history of working with over 15 ethnic 
groups. Their youth leadership program gives young people the opportunity to develop their leadership 
skills by providing multilingual education and creating and implementing community‐driven solutions to 
environmental justice issues.  
Ethnically diverse members of the communities and partner organizations serve on the Leadership 
Council and Collaborative Partners. 
• 4 men/ 14 women (22% Male and 78% Female) 
• 2/18 (11% African American) 
• 10/18 identified as Caucasian (55%) 
• 2/18 (11% Asian/ Pacific Islander) 
• 2/18 (11% Hispanic) 
• 3/18 (Identify as being more than 1 ethnicity of non‐Hispanic origin) 

To what extent and how have youth leaders been engaged and participated in the community action 
planning process? 
See attached youth engagement progress report. 
 
To what extent have grassroots community‐based organizations and leadership been involved in 
decision‐making regarding the community action plan? 
Since the focus communities were only selected in February 2008, grassroots leadership in those 
communities is underway, building on existing relationships and past planning processes. See Objective 
2.3.1 for a description of community groups involved in the focus community selection process. 

12 
 
What concrete efforts illustrate the bridging of the local food systems, physical activity and built 
environment, and public health sectors in the action planning process? The assessment process has 
included experts in all of these sectors. Through collaborative assessment work, each sector has 
contributed its distinct assessment approaches and data. Often, members of each sector were not 
aware of the approaches and data commonly used by the other sectors.   
 
How is the collaborative addressing the social and health inequities related to access to local healthy 
foods and safe environments for physical activity? 
‐providing data in the assessment process that documents these inequities 
‐emphasizing elimination of inequities and social justice as core FFI values 
‐openly discussing the challenges in balancing the sometimes competing goals of making affordable 
healthy food available in low‐income communities and supporting local farmers 
‐selecting focus communities that are especially affected by social and health inequities  
 
What types of strategies are in the community action plan to strengthen family and community 
interaction?  
We are too early in the development of the action plan to name strategies at this time. 
 
Describe the leadership development and community capacity building activities that are emerging in 
the work. What are the future plans? 
The Leadership Council offers a way to develop leadership among Collaborative Partners and community 
members.  
Community Planning groups will help to build capacity in Delridge and White Center. 
IDHA will conduct training for youth to develop leadership and understanding of food and fitness issues. 
 
What activity has occurred to assess opportunities for local and state policy change?  
• Local/state policy scan from NW Nonprofit Resources which has been contracted by the Kellogg 
Foundation to provide information on the policy and advocacy environment in Washington. 
• Collaboration with Children’s Alliance statewide obesity policy prevention project. This project is 
in its initial year of planning with the support from local funders including the Seattle Foundation, 
the WA Dental Service Foundation, and the Washington Health Foundation. The aim is to engage 
stakeholders statewide in developing a roadmap for statewide policy in the coming years to 
address childhood obesity in Washington State; modeled on learning from the Strategic Alliance in 
California. 
• Work with Acting Food Policy Council which has developed a series of food policy issue papers on: 
The Farm Bill, Eating Local for Thanksgiving, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Food, and Mapping 
Food Access in Seattle and King County. 
• The development and passage of the Local Food Action Initiative by City Councilmember Richard 
Conlin has created a food policy framework within which the KCFFI can leverage policy 
development activities. 
• ENACT, NCSL and other HEAL related databases that have been developed to inventory local and 
state policies related to Healthy Eating and Active Living with information on research and 
best/promising practices. 
 
How is communication being used as a tool to support systems change? 
We promote connectivity to a broad array of enrichment opportunities through email and web site and 
provide easily accessible links to partner organizations to promote system connectivity. We use list 
serves as a means to also promote discussion of issues. See Outcomes 1.5 and 2.2. 

13 
 
 
In addition, if not already addressed, please respond to the following: 
 
1. What unanticipated outcomes did you experience? 
 
Food and Fitness Indicators and Public Health 
Public Health Seattle and King County is working to incorporate indicators used in the KCFFI 
assessment into routinely used community health assessment measures. 
 
Eat Local for Thanksgiving 
The Eat Local for Thanksgiving campaign raised awareness of the value of eating locally grown food 
by focusing on actionable change people could make for Thanksgiving. People were asked to pledge 
to include at least one locally grown item in their Thanksgiving menu. 
Over 2300 pledges were made. 
 
Local Farms, Health Kids Legislation Passed 
The Washington Environmental Council – a coalition of over 65 environmental organizations – 
selected the Local Farms, Health Kids legislation as one of four of their environmental Priorities for a 
Healthy Washington for 2008. The Local Farms‐Healthy Kids legislation achieved bi‐partisan 
support in land‐slide votes. The initiative was supported by a broad and diverse coalition 
representing the environmental, farming, school and public health communities. The Local Farms 
Health Kids Act establishes a state Farm to School Program within the Washington State Department 
of Agriculture and a Washington Grown Fresh Fruits and Vegetables grant program for schools. It 
also sets up a Farm to Food Bill pilot program and provides funding for better access to farmers 
markets for those receiving WIC and senior citizen benefits.  
 
Local Food Action Initiative 
City of Seattle Council Chair, Richard Conlin drafted a food system sustainability resolution with 
priority areas identified by the Acting Food Policy Council and the City of Seattle Interdepartmental 
Team for Food System Enhancement. The Local Food Action Initiative is a series of actions meant to 
promote local and regional food sustainability and security. The intent is to improve our local food 
system and in doing so, advance the City of Seattle’s interrelated goals of race and social justice, 
environmental sustainability, economic development, and emergency preparedness. 
 
While these outcomes cannot be explicitly linked to the work of the KCFFI alone, they represent a 
key aspect of the KCFFI work and Kellogg’s involvement.  We presume King County was selected for 
funding because the community “is ready” to address the complex and interrelated goals of the FFI.  
Therefore, it is expected that other activities are occurring along with the work of the local FFI.  
Several CP’s of FFI have already been active in these events and helped to bring FFI activities in line 
to support these activities.  In addition, the choice of Kellogg to fund the King County FFI in part 
added to the existing momentum to help these activities come to fruition.  FFI members 
participated in the processes that led to these successful efforts. 
 
2. What lessons have you learned from this year’s experiences? 
• Creating a collaborative is rooted in strong relationships and relationships take time to develop 
and nurture. Although our community has a long history of working in food and fitness, creating 
strong relationships has been somewhat challenging because many agencies already had 
working relationships and are challenged to  find the time/energy/reasons to expand their 

14 
 
 work/relationships to include either the built environment or the food system focused entities. 
The broad, interdisciplinary, holistic approach that the KCFFI requires is outside the comfort 
zone or experience of some Collaborative Partners but they are learning and growing as the 
Initiative progresses. 
• Decision‐making in an inclusive and democratic way also takes time and may be perceived as 
less efficient. Due to tight timelines associated with applying for funding and initial activities in 
Year 1, many decisions were made by the co‐conveners making it a challenge to transition 
decision making to the leadership council because of expectations that developed over time. 
• It is important to develop a vision early in the process, yet it has been a challenge to develop a 
vision shared by all with the later inclusion of focus community members in the collaborative 
and the leadership council. We have not yet determined the extent to which members of the 
two focus communities share the vision. We hope to address this through the Organizational 
Learning and Systems Thinking meeting in May 2008. 
• Though it may have taken more time, including representatives from all eight potential focus 
communities in the site selection process allowed for a transparent selection and decision 
process. However, we may want to evaluate the process with those communities that were not 
selected to see if there are other ways to support them, such as directing future resources and 
funding opportunities their way, providing them with technical assistance from FFI and other 
Initiatives such as STEPS. It may also be important consider how we could have addressed the 
South County sense of exclusion better, and to document other lessons learned from the 
selection process. 
 
3. If some planned activities were not accomplished, please note them and explain why. 
Planned Activity  Explanation 
Cultural competency trainings  Our efforts in Year 1 focused on building relationships to 
  establish the Collaborative. Once the Collaborative is a bit 
more mature, we hope to offer cultural competency 
training. 
 
Collaborative Partner Retreat (scheduled  Simply due to timing and workload this was postponed 
for April 23, 2008)  until April 23, 2008. 
 
Some evaluation activities.  See Evaluation Report. 
 
Developing shared values.  More work is needed to develop shared values, for 
example, balancing values of food justice and support of 
local farming mentioned above. 
 
4. What have been the greatest disappointments or obstacles to achieving your progress and how are 
they being addressed? 
• Activities associated with developing the Collaborative and creating the community action plan 
take more time than imagined making it challenging to adhere to work plan objectives and 
benchmarks, and to balance inclusiveness with efficiency. As new people join it is a challenge to 
bring them up to speed without slowing down existing momentum.  Therefore, we are in the 
process of developing a communications team that will be tasked not only with external 
communications about the FFI but also with internal communications to help bring new 
members up to speed quickly without slowing existing momentum in the Initiative. 

15 
 
 • The Site Selection process took longer than we expected, thus delaying fully seating the 
leadership council, beginning assessment work on the focus communities, and creating working 
groups that include community members. A challenge in setting criteria for selecting focus 
communities arose in defining “readiness” versus “need.” However, open and transparent 
process is crucial to establishing a foundation of trust necessary to move the Initiative forward 
in the two selected communities while maintaining engagement of the Collaborative Partners in 
the communities not selected. These are long term issues to address in any inclusive community 
collaborative and we will continue to self‐evaluate and identify solutions. 
• Interactions with the TAP Team and Foundation at times have caused confusion when receiving 
what appear to be conflicting messages. This has created several downstream challenges for us:  
o The funder required attendance at a number of unanticipated meetings, requiring an 
unplanned expenditure of time and expenses.  
o This was especially problematic for our evaluator’s time to travel to a national 
evaluation meeting. Our budget for evaluation was small to begin with and spending 
some of it on a national evaluation meeting has impacted our ability to evaluate our 
local initiative. As a result, we have had to delay some of our local work and/or reduce 
the scope of the work in order to accommodate these additional time commitments. 
o The assessment information from the TAP Team came quite late, one year into the 
planning process.  We have worked hard to integrate as many indicators and more into 
our assessment work plan. 
o Locally hosted meetings including the TAP site visit, the NAC site visit, and the 
Organizational Learning and Systems Thinking training, also required unanticipated and 
therefore unbudgeted needs for staff time, Leadership Council member time, and 
meeting space and food costs. In year two, we will request a budget amendment from 
the Foundation to address these needs. 
• Due to changes in WSU’s personnel procedures, hiring our program coordinator took much 
longer than anticipated (hired in November instead of July 2007) and resulted in the lead co‐
conveners handling this level work in addition to other responsibilities. 
• Concerns have been expressed about local farming being viewed as a “boutique” sector and 
therefore not accessible or affordable for everyone. Our assessment activities include gaining 
understanding of the barriers farmers in our region face and the role the Initiative may play in 
strengthening the food system from production to consumption. 
• The size and geography of our collaborative is both an asset and a challenge. The challenge is 
communicating and engaging all the players. We are innovative in our use of communication 
methods internally and externally and are working to engage as many people as possible with 
the staff and in‐kind resources available. 
• The KCFFI has a lot of activity and many moving parts to track. In addition, a lot of activity 
related to improving food and fitness is occurring in this region making it challenging to define 
the specific outcomes related to the KCFFI in this renaissance movement. 
• Many Collaborative Partners lean toward programmatic work – and find it difficult to think in 
terms of policy and system change. Ongoing conversations and visioning work in the 
communities and with partners continue to build a bridge across this gap. 
• Work groups have been slow to form as of yet but are starting to take shape as we focus on 
products rather than topics. We have emphasized preventing development of comfortable silos 
based on knowledge and expertise and this requires working across sectors to make decisions. 
We endeavor to provide key background information to the LC members, in particular, to build 
their capacity to make informed decisions across food and fitness sectors. 

16 
 
 • The Assessment work group is currently composed almost entirely of technical experts. We are 
working now to include the youth engagement coordinator, community members, and LC 
members. 
• The Youth group is forming but not yet fully integrated (i.e. working in concert with other work 
groups and the Leadership Council). However, we are learning that it is not always appropriate 
to try to engage youth in process from the start and it may be more effective (and interesting to 
youth) to bring them in after process has lead to clearer objectives and products that are 
appropriate for youth.  
 
5. Describe how collaborating with other organizations or institutions is helping or hindering your 
progress toward your goals. 
The collaboration between Public Health Seattle and King County and WSU King County Extension is 
creating new linkages to help people to understand that health and agriculture are connected. This 
understanding will be necessary to solve our current food system and health crises. The benefits of 
agency infrastructure come with some challenges in that neither organization is truly on the ground in 
community on a daily basis. 
 
Collaboration with University of Washington researchers and Group Health Community Foundation 
evaluators has created a strong team of technical expertise to guide both assessment and evaluation 
work. 
 
Collaboration with the International District Housing Alliance is proving to be successful so far in 
engaging youth and developing plans for youth to conduct assessment activities. The IDHA is also 
collaborating with 13 Collaborative Partner organizations serving youth. 
 
The White Center Community Development Association and the Delridge Neighborhood Development 
Association have become key collaborators since White Center and Delridge were selected as the two 
focus communities. They have very strong ties to community networks and organizations, which will 
lead to enhanced collaboration between conveners and LC members with community representatives. 
 
In addition to providing funding for youth engagement in the KCFFI, The Seattle Foundation provided 
funding ($136,000) to four KCFFI Collaborative Partners for three projects that complement the goals of 
the KCFFI.  
The Austin Foundation and Treeswing are working collaboratively on a pilot program, Teen 
CHAT. They received $41,000 to engage youth in fitness training and leadership development. 
By educating kids about health and giving them the tools to spread the message, adolescents 
can effectively teach their peers the keys to staying healthy and keeping active, moving the 
focus from treatment of the problem to prevention.    
The Children’s Alliance was awarded $50,000. The Alliance will establish a childhood obesity 
policy and prevention platform and campaign for Washington State, and will work locally and 
statewide to address this issue. The project has a two‐pronged approach: short‐term 
advancement in current school‐based standards and a long‐range strategic plan focusing on 
long‐term changes to low‐income communities.    
Solid Ground, formerly known as the Fremont Public Association, received $45,000 to support 
the Apple Corps Pilot Project. This is an innovative, school‐based service corps that will 
develop nutrition, health and fitness programs. The Apple Corps Project will train full‐time 
volunteers to set up these programs, plus facilitate family‐oriented food and fitness activities 
to make sure healthy habits continue at home.  

17 
 
 Information from   – www.seattlefoundation.org  
 
The Washington Environmental Council partnered with several KCFFI Collaborative Partner 
organizations including The Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network, Solid Ground, and 
dozens of others (for a complete list of supporters visit 
www.king.wsu.edu/foodandfarms/documents/LFHKsupporters.pdf)  to pass the Local Farms, Healthy 
Kids Bill in March 2008. 
   
Many Collaborative Partners worked with the Acting Food Policy Council to help pass the Local Food 
Action Initiative. 
  
6. What critical incidents had major impact on the work of the collaborative this year? 
Probably the most critical incidents to impact our work has been finding ways to leverage, maintain, and 
enhance momentum of existing efforts such as farm to school (LFHK Bill), the Local Food Action 
Initiative, STEPS, REACH, Overweight Prevention Initiative, and more. 
 
7. What information from your project has been made available to the field or general public and 
how? 
Notes from Collaborative Partner, Leadership Council, and Youth Team meetings are posted on the web 
www.kcffi.org as well as notes from the Site Selection Process. In addition, email updates are posted as 
well as copies of the KCFFI News Reel newsletter and our two‐page monthly updates (March‐May 2008). 
 
Information about the KCFFI has been shared via a number of presentations: meetings with the 
potential focus communities, meetings about alignment of WSU Research with King County priorities, 
the Eat Local for Thanksgiving campaign, State of WA Public Health Conference, as well as at meetings 
for REACH and STEPS. We also presented information about our Collaborative to the National Advisory 
Committee for Food and Fitness and at national Food and Fitness meetings. The WKKF web site also 
serves as a portal for information about the KCFFI. 
 
8. Overall, what has worked well for your project and what has not worked so well? 
See Item #4 for what has not worked well so far. 
What has worked well includes LC development with true cross sector integration, selection of two 
activated and dynamic communities, the partnership between WSU King County Extension and Public 
Health Seattle and King County, and the partnerships and collaborations described in Question 5. 
 
9. What contributions has the collaborative made to the Food and Fitness learning network? 
• See response to Question 1. 
• We conducted a site selection process that included meeting with potential focus communities 
and presenting the FFI with opportunities for questions before the two focus communities were 
selected. The process also included creating a selection committee that included members of 
the potential focus communities.  This process meant that we considered communities in 
different municipalities with different social and political structures – from suburban cities to 
neighborhood groups.  The process helped us identify what strengths and specific barriers each 
community we engaged could bring to the KCFFI. 
• We have built a list of food system and built environment indicators for which we plan to 
acquire baseline data, and which our TAP team has indicated is impressive in its 
comprehensiveness. 
 

18 
 
10. What else should we understand about the work over the past year? 
 
11. What are the guiding principles for new and future work? 
We continue with our guiding principles of transparency, equity, partnership and collaboration, equity 
and social justice, shared leadership, systems building and integration, policy‐based strategies, and 
youth engagement. We also intend to focus on how neighborhood activities can link up to local and 
state policy.  

 Financial Report – See Financial Report file  
 

 Work Plan – Year 2 ­­ See Work Plan file 
 

Evaluation Report ­­ See Evaluation Report file  
 

Appendices 

A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees 

B. Visioning Exercises Data  

C. Youth Engagement Report 

19 
 
Financial Report  
Work Plan Year 2

Goals and Objectives 2008 2009

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-09 Feb Mar Apr
Project Management: Build Infrastructure to
Accomplish Goals
Program Coordinator hired.
Work plan submitted to WKKF
Set up Year 2 subcontracts
Guidance, feedback, interaction with WKKF and other FAS 24-26 Eval?
Collaboratives Detroit
Computer equipment set up.
Co-Conveners communication and decision making Monthly meetings
Progress reports 15
Budget Accountability

Implementation Phase Begins

Facilitated collaborative meetings
Goal 1. Create a King County Food and Fitness Initiative Collaborative
A collaborative composed of organizations and
individuals from diverse sectors of food, fitness, built
enviroment systems.
Formalized Collaborative leadership council structure and LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg LC Mtg
governance procedures.

CP's are engaged in planning and decision making CP Mtg CP Mtg CP Mtg CP Mtg Final CP
process Mtg
Collaborative members share a common understanding of
food and fitness
Collaboration on shared projects or policy work.
Networking, communication, and information sharing
among Collaborative members and others interested in
food and fitness.
Funding to support youth engagement.
Youth engagement plan for planning phase

Coordination of youth engagement efforts.

Opportunities for youth to participate in planning phase. Assessment Activities

Youth serve on Leadership Council and on working

groups as appropriate.
Sustainability plan and timeline for implementation Proposal Submit
developed. RFP Proposal
Funding and other resources are identified to sustain the Progress
effort. Report
DUE
External communications strategy for the Collaborative

Goal 2. Develop a Community Action Plan (CAP)

Two communities in which to focus planning and
implementation change actions are identified.

Communications strategy for the 2 communities ID

interpret
ation
needs
Diverse community members are engaged via working
groups or at large in the KCFFI and the Collaborative
once communities are selected.
Data on the status of the food system and built and social Assessments
environments to identify assets, gaps, redundancies, and done
opportunities as it pertains to King County, Puget Sound
and Washington State
Data on the status of the food system and built and social
environments to identify assets, gaps, redundancies, and
opportunities as it pertains to the two focus communities.

Information on best and promising strategies to

strengthen assets and address issues identified by the
Collaborative.
Assessment of strategies for alignment with these values

Policy recommendations.
A comprehensive Community Action Plan that prioritizes Draft CAP Present
strategies and defines roles and accountabilities for draft
implementation. CAP to
Collab.

Evaluation

Assessment identifies what works and what can be Post-

improved. survey of
Collab.
CAP on schedule and focused on appropriate strategies Review CAP

Evaluation plan for proposal developed. Develop evaluation plan

Assessment of integration
Successful communication strategies implemented.
High number of active Collaborative Partners
Assessment of Collaborative decision-making
decision making processes.
processes
Evaluation Report  
KCFFI Year 1 Evaluation Report
Prepared by the Center for Community Health and Evaluation
5-5-08

Overview of Year 1 Evaluation Activities

The evaluation of KCFFI is being conducted by an Evaluation Team, led by the Center for
Community Health and Evaluation (CCHE) with participation from KCFFI staff and
collaborative members and the KCFFI Assessment Team. Both the Evaluation and Assessment
Teams are identifying measures related to food and fitness that will provide information for
planning purposes and serve as baseline measures for the implementation phase evaluation.

The KCFFI planning phase evaluation has two main goals: (1) to assess whether primary
planning phase outcomes have been met, namely creating an implementation plan and putting in
place a strong and representative community collaborative; and (2) to provide formative
evaluation feedback and other forms of support to the collaborative and Leadership Council.
Most of the first year's evaluation resources have gone into the second objective - providing
feedback and support. The evaluators have worked closely with the Convening Group and staff
to design and implement the process for selecting the focus communities; CCHE helped design
the criteria for selection and the RFP process. CCHE also worked with KCFFI staff around the
process for creating and writing bylaws for the Leadership Council (LC). The evaluation team
also attended National FFI meetings and interacted with the cross-site evaluators.

Given the focus on feedback and support, a limited amount of primary evaluation data was
collected during the first year. CCHE designed and implemented an online survey of
collaborative members and attended KCFFI meetings, both as a participant and an observer.
During the second year, CCHE will conduct key informant interviews with collaborative
members to evaluate the planning process and to provide lessons learned and guidance for the
implementation phase. CCHE will continue to work with the Assessment to identify long-term
outcome measures and collect baseline information.

Technical Evaluation Questions

Note: Most of 1(a)-1(d) below was addressed in our initial proposal to the WK Kellogg
Foundation. The information represents a brief summary of the information from the proposal.

1. Describe the existing:

(a) Strengths and assets in your community related to affordable, locally grown, healthy foods
and safe and inviting places for physical activity and play.
• Farms: Public interest in preserving farmland, expressed through the County’s Farmland
Preservation Program, has maintained farmland acreage at 41,759 acres since 1992.
• Community and School Gardens: There are now 70 gardens managed through the P-Patch
Program, which encompasses. The “Lettuce Link” program provides 7-10 tons of fresh P-
Patch produce to urban food banks annually. Interest in involving youth in gardening is

1
 increasing. School garden programs are beginning to integrate gardening activities into
curriculum. The Puget Sound School Gardens Collective connects existing school garden
programs and links them to other farm-to-table efforts.
• Direct Markets: Families can shop at 28 farmers’ markets in King County, including ten in
Seattle. Washington State farmers' market sales have increased 20% annually since 1997,
with estimated total sales of $22 million in 2003. In 2005, Seattle farmers' markets alone
totaled $3.5 million in sales, and all county markets combined totaled more than $7 million.
• Retail: Families can find locally produced foods at many grocery retailers, including PCC
Natural Markets, Whole Foods Markets, Safeway, Thriftway, QFC and Metropolitan
Markets. PCC, a KCFFI partner, is the largest food cooperative in the country (40,000
members).
• Physical activity opportunities: Examples of organizations providing free or low-cost
recreation opportunities for children, youth, and their families include: the Austin Foundation
Youth and Fitness, The Service Board, Girls on the Run, Passages Northwest, YMCA, Bike
Works, Bicycle Alliance, Cascade Bicycle Club, the School of Acrobatics and New Circus
Arts, and Skiforall. These organizations take advantage of the numerous public recreational
facilities and parks that offer year round recreation including hiking, biking, skiing, boating,
camping, and swimming.

(b) Evidence of family and community demand for affordable, locally grown, healthy foods
and safe and inviting places for physical activity and play.
Evidence of demand comes from both the increase in the purchase of locally grown produce and
the increase in the number of community outlets - including stores, farmer's markets, and other
distribution channels (see 1(a) above for more details). Demand for fresh produce has led to
increased production of high value crops through intensive row and greenhouse/nursery methods.
The value of produce has more than doubled in value since 1982. Locally produced food is
contributing a growing share to the $108 million in dairy products and $120 million in vegetable
products sold each year in King County.

(c) Climate for policy, environmental and systems change through the natural & built
environment and procurement & consumption of local healthy foods in your community.
The climate is very favorable in King County for policy and systems change around the KCFFI
goals. Several organizations participating in the KCFFI collaborative are part of the growing
number of efforts in this area. One of the two convening organizations - Public Health - Seattle
& King County (PHSKC) has made prevention of overweight through built environment and
nutrition strategies one of its top three priorities since 2004. Its initiatives emphasize working
with youth and families in low-income communities. PHSKC supports several coalitions that
address food and fitness issues. Efforts addressing the built environment include piloting of
health impact assessment tools and checklists for planners. PHSKC recently hired an
environmental health planner, who will participate in KCFFI, to address issues of health and the
built environment.

Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, a recognized leader in pediatric health, the
Children’s Obesity Action Team (COAT), and Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic, all KCFFI
partners, are dedicated to the prevention and management of pediatric overweight. These groups
provide innovative community-based programs (e.g. Strong Kids Strong Teens program for

2
overweight youth and families) and culturally responsive, age specific resources promoting
nutrition and active living.

The Seattle School District recently passed progressive School Nutrition (2004) and Physical
Activity (2005) policies. The framework is in place to balance the fiscal limitations of school
meal programs with policies to support local procurement. The Robert Wood Johnson-funded
Eat Better, Feel Better Project at TT Minor Elementary School is changing the school food and
activity environment. Finally, both the University of Washington (UW) and Washington State
University (WSU) have departments that are specifically focused on the built environment and
food systems (e.g., The UW Urban Form Lab in and the NW Center for Livable Communities in
the College of Urban Design and Planning, and the WSU King County Extension).

(d) Demographic, cultural make-up and diversity of your community (e.g. race, ethnicity,
gender, class, age, immigrant status, language).
Despite a generally healthy economy, minorities and low-income communities are affected by
significant economic disparities. Recent growth in Seattle has resulted in increasing
concentrations of minority and low-income populations in the suburban cities south of Seattle.
Over one in five people live in households below 200% of the federal poverty level. (include
some demographic data from Appendix 1 of the proposal). The two focus communities of
Delridge and White Center have large numbers of low-income, underserved county residents,
particularly immigrants and refugees (include focus community demographics).

2. Describe the partnerships that are being established to reflect the diversity (e.g.
race/ethnicity/gender/class/age/immigrant status/language) of the community. Indicate types
of member groups; who is already on board, who needs to be recruited, and the degree of
commitment of members to the goals of the Initiative. Describe the extent to which members
represent target constituencies of the Initiative.
The KCFFI collaborative has more than 60 active partners who attend meetings and participate
in other ways. Table 1 on page xx lists the organizations and provides information about the
sectors and populations that they represent. Most of the organizations have a primary mission
that includes serving underserved populations and 11 of the 64 listed in Table 1 have a specific
focus on communities of color.

Leadership Council recruitment efforts focused on seeking diversity both of individual attributes
(race, gender, ethnicity, etc) and food system and built environment representation. Seven more
members from the two recently selected focus communities were added to the LC in April 2008,
further increasing the diversity of the LC, which is the primary decision-making body of the
LC.(add ethnic/gender representation of LC?)

Efforts to involve youth in KCFFI have also prioritized underserved, ethnic minority
communities. The International District Housing Alliance (IDHA) is the lead organization
promoting youth involvement and has worked extensively with youth of color in its other
programs.

3
3. Describe the partnerships that are being established to reflect the integration of local food,
physical activity, built environment (transportation, play, community redesign), parks and
recreation and health systems.
KCFFI has made it a priority to build both an overall collaborative and LC with diverse
representation across the sectors targeted by the initiative. As Table 1 shows, this diversity across
sectors has largely been achieved, with representation from food systems, physical activity, built
environment, public health and education. Many of these organizations had not worked together
before KCFFI . Overall collaborative meetings include segments that attempt to build a shared
understanding of the initiative goals and bridge the cultures distinct to each sector. (is there
more that can be added about specific new partnerships that have come about as a result of
KCFFI?).

4. All coalitions take time to evolve. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being very low success and 5
being very high success, provide a rating of your coalition/collaborative at this time on the
following attributes. (Note: this rating should come from the evaluators.) In the last column,
please describe the data that led to your ratings.
Many of the attributes listed in the table are subjective and depend on the perspective and
experiences of KCFFI stakeholders. The baseline online survey was conducted too early in the
process to provide much relevant information, and in-depth key informant interviews will be
conducted only during Year 2 of the planning phase. Therefore, as a first approximation we
asked the LC members to rate the extent to which they are present in KCFFI. Attendees at the
April 2008 LC meeting were asked to complete the ratings, and a follow-up emailing was done
to gather ratings from LC members not attending the April meeting. Average rankings are shown
for the eight LC members who completed rankings. Most items were rated "3"; those rated
somewhat higher were the recruitment of needed stakeholders, presence of trusted leaders and
the level of enthusiasm for the work.

Low High
Attribute 1 2 3 4 5
Recruitment of needed stakeholders X
Presence of trusted leaders X
Effectiveness of governance and decision X
making procedures
Clarity of your collective vision, mission X
and goals
Level of participation by stakeholders X
Visibility in the community X
Alignment with other efforts with similar X
goals
Level of enthusiasm for the work X
Development of advocacy capacity in the X
community

4
5. What has been identified as the definition for success of the work of the collaborative?
Include indicators, measurements, data sources, and key informants that have been identified
at this time to track policy, environmental and systems change.
The implementation plan is still in development and specific definition of success will depend on
implementation plan goals. The goals listed in the proposal were:
• Goal 1: Foster social environments that encourage healthy eating and physical activity, and
reduce socioeconomic disparities in overweight, poor nutrition, and physical inactivity.
• Goal 2: Develop an integrated regional food system that supports local, sustainable
agriculture and provides healthy, affordable food - especially to marginalized communities.
• Goal 3: Create built environments and land use policies that promote physical activity and
environmental sustainability - especially in marginalized communities.
• Goal 4: Engage youth and others disproportionately impacted by health disparities in
program planning, intervention, implementation, and policy development.
• Goal 5: Continue the participatory, community-based process initiated during the Planning
Phase to realize KCFFI goals.

In the baseline online survey we asked collaborative members how they would define success
("From your point of view, what will success look like for the King County Food and Fitness
Initiative at the end of the implementation phase -10 years from now?") Verbatim responses are
included in the attached report (Appendix xx)' the main themes that emerged were (1) improved
access to food, fitness opportunities through policy, systems and environmental changes; (2)
stronger community partnerships, organizational linkages; and (3) increased physical activity,
better nutrition

As outlined in the draft implementation phase evaluation design included in our proposal,
specific indicators and data sources will depend on the strategies proposed in the implementation
plan. Outcome measures will focus on outcomes that are more proximal to the activities of
KCFFI; for example, specific changes in the built environment that the partnership targets (e.g. a
walking trail) or evidence of greater access to locally produced foods for employees in cafeterias.
It may be possible to measure population-level distal outcome changes in the two local
communities and estimate the contribution of KCFFI to those changes.. Examples of these
outcomes are included in Appendix 3 of the proposal and might include prevalence of
overweight, physical inactivity, inadequate fruit/vegetable consumption among children and
adults, number and location of farmers’ markets, or proportion of selected foods sold by
community retailers.

6. How is sustainability being defined and addressed?

Defining and addressing sustainability will be an integral part of the process of developing the
implementation plan over the next several months. The overall emphasis of KCFFI on systems,
policy, and environmental change reflects the commitment to sustainability and belief that these
areas are more likely to be sustained.

7. What specific plans has your collaborative put in place to address inequities in your

5
community related to affordable, locally grown, healthy foods and safe and inviting places for
physical activity and play? What specific indicators of inequities will you be tracking over
time?
We are primarily addressing disparities by focusing our work in underserved areas within King
County. The two focus communities were selected partly because of their high representation of
underserved, communities of color in their demographic composition (see 1(d) above). We will
report long-term indicators (e.g. individual-level nutrition/PA) by ethnic/income groups. .

6
 Table 1. KCFFI Collaborative, By Organizational Sector/Population Served

Organization Built Economic Farming Physical Land Use Youth & Communities
Environment Development Activity Planning Families of Color
Total number in sector/population (n=64) 10 12 14 11 9 21 11
21 Acres X X
Acting Food Policy Council of Seattle and
King County
Austin Foundation X X X
Black Dollar Days Task Force X X
Cascade Bicycle Club Education Foundation X
Cascade Harvest Coalition X X
Center for Public Health and Nutrition, UW
Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical
Center
Children's Alliance X
City of Seattle-Department of Neighborhoods
City of Seattle-Mayor's Office X X X X X
City of Seattle-Office of Sustainability &
Environment X X X
Community Food Security Coalition
Community Health Centers of King County
Delridge Neighborhoods Development
Association X
Etc.
Earth Ministries
Feet First X X X
Food Lifeline
Full Circle Farm X
Futurewise X X X X
Good Food Strategies
Group Health Community Foundation
Hmong Farmers Association X
International District Housing Alliance X X
King County X X X X X X X
King County 4-H Association X X X
King County Agriculture Commission X
King County Board of Health
Mithun X X X
7
Organization Built Economic Farming Physical Land Use Youth & Communities
Environment Development Activity Planning Families of Color
Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance
Neighborhood House X X
Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic X
Pacific Asian Empowerment Program X X
Passages Northwest X X
PCC Natural Markets X
Puget Sound Neighborhood Health Centers
Puget Sound Regional Council X X X
Puget Sound School Gardens Collaborative X
REACH Coalition X
Safe Futures Youth Center X
Seattle Chefs Collaborative
Seattle Indian Health Board X
Seattle Tilth X
Seattle Youth Garden Works
Sno-Valley Tilth X
Solid Ground X X X
STEPS to Health King County X X X
The Seattle Foundation X X
Transportation Choices Coalition X X X X
Treeswing X X
UW Center for Obesity Research
UW Urban Design and Planning X X
University of Washington Northwest Center
for Livable Communities X X X
Washington Health Foundation X
Washington State Department of Health
Washington State Dept of Agriculture Small
Farm & Direct Marketing Program X
Washington State University
WSU Small Farms Program X X
WA Sustainable Food and Farming Network X
White Center CDA
YMCA of Greater Seattle X X
Youngstown Cultural Arts Center
Youth Media Institute

8
Appendix A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees

Date Group Goals/Objectives Outcomes # of Attendees

7/2/07 Assessment Team
11/29/07 Assessment Team
2/15/08 Assessment Team
7/10/07 Co-convener
8/30/07 Co-convener
(Anne Moudon) 3
Part of TAP visit
·Review draft assessment work plan ·Individual assessment team members identified for each 7
·Discuss division of labor aspect of assessement (Donna Johnson-Schools, Brain
·Establish reccomendations for distribution to leadership Saelens-Parks, Branden Born-Food)
council for potential focus community levels
·Discuss roles and decision making "who does what" ·General target dates set for next CP meetings set
(Collaborative, Leadership Council, Co-conveners) ·Timeline for Leadership Council and Site Selection
Plan next core-planning team meeting proposed.
·Set timeline for next CP meetings, LC placement, & site
selection
·Updates (goals for assessment team and collaborative) Next steps for bylaws and LC nomination outlined.
·Additional feedback on bylaws and LC nomination
procedures
·TAP/NAC meeting discusssion (planning)
·Contract updates

9/13/07 Co-convener ·Development of Workplan Approach for work plan developed.

11/29/07 Co-convener
12/13/07 Co-convener
2/5/08 Co-convener
·Update on community outreach
·Discuss CP meeting goals
·Discuss admin assistant hiring info.
·TAP visit wrap-up/debrief ·TAP visit wrap-up/debrief 13
·re-capping challenges/oportunities ·re-capping challenges/oportunities
·Assessment update/timeline planning ·Assessment will begin right away! (Maggie schedule
·Leadership Council discussion (begin with what we have or meeting date)
recruit further?) ·Actively recruit more applicants to diversify council
·Site selection: Consider letting community selection consist
of 2 Seattle communities
·Re-cap of Miami co-convener meeting ·Maggie will compile a list of potential technical assistance 7
·Leadership Council Updates to provide communities not chosen
·Assessment efforts update ·Additional TA resources identified
·Site Selection ·Feedback request will be sent out to discuss the best use
of Karen Snyder's time before she leaves for Canada

3/4/08 Co-convener ·Discuss co-convener roles/responsibilities for the future ·Budget meeting planned 6
·Fiscal agent transfer ·Maggie will make reporting timeline
·Youth coordinator update
·Discuss Year 1 reporting to Kellogg

10/25/08 Co-convener ·Collaborative Partner Meeting debrief Workplan development continued. 20

·Community Outreach updates
·Workplan discussion/updates

7/18/07 Collaborative Partner ·Review/discuss Leadership Council modifications
·Strategic planning for upcoming meetings
·Propose activity timeline and initial goals
·Introduce workplan objective and call for volunteers
8/16/07 Collaborative Partner ·Co-convener updates (timeline, kellogg meetings
announcement, seattle foundation grant, workplan,
orientation visit from TAP & NAC)
·Attributes and Values of the Food System exercise
·Leadership Council:Structure, nomination process, ad hoc
group, work groups, sectors, timeline
·Defining "Collaborative Partner"
9/11/07 Collaborative Partner
10/16/07 Collaborative Partner ·Introduction to the Food Trust work in PA and expansion
model
·Discuss local issues and opportunities
10/24/07 Collaborative Partner ·Leadership Council Update
·Discuss proposed process for site selection
·Build community through team building activity.
Continue Leadership Council development with input from
CPs.
·Uncovered our shared understanding of the attributes of a 36
community-based food system.
·Meaningfully discussed our shared definitionss of food
access, affordability, healthy, and local.
23
Information shared
·Decision to have an open RFA for recruiting new youth 21
coordinator (question will be sent out on listserv)
·CP's agreed to move forward with LC bylaws after a few
proposed changes to the document.
·CP's discussed/brainstormed ideas for voting in a diverse
leadership council

11/14/07 Collaborative Partner ·Make final decision regarding how leadership council will be ·Volunteers identified to assist in recruiting additional LC 18
voted in. applicants from diverse sectors and backgrounds
·Vote on uncoupling between Leadership Council and Site ·LC and Site Selection uncoupled
Selection Committee
11/30/07 Collaborative Partner ·Offer KCFFI members perspective on the WKKF FFI and ·TAP commitment/assistance options outlined 31
how we fiti in. ·Broader social issues discussed
·Discuss the WKKF vision for FFI and how that relates to
how CP's see the vision.
·Identify who is at the table and who else needs to be
engaged in the Collaborative (group exercise)
·Discuss how to keep partners engaged
·Identify the support of the TAP team
Appendix A. List of Meetings, Outcomes, and Number of Attendees
Date Group
4/23/08 Collaborative Partner ·Networking opportunity for Collaborative Partners,
7/18/07 Core Planning
11/29/07 Evaluation
7/5/07 Evaluators Meeting
1/31/08 Leadership Council
2/19/08 Leadership Council
3/12/08 Leadership Council
4/8/08 Leadership Council
12/20/07 Site Selection
2/11/08 Site Selection
6/4/07 Youth
7/5/07 Youth
9/24/07 Youth
11/29/07 Youth
2/25/08 Youth
Goals/Objectives
Leadership Council, Youth, Delridge and White Center
residents and neighborhood planning leads
·Celebrate the selection of the two focus communities and
learn more about them
·Identify and advance next steps for developing the
Community Action Plan
·Review roles & responsibilities of co-conveners, leadership
council, and co-chairs
·Review timeline
·Discuss strategic planning needs
·Plan next collaborative partner meeting (dates)
·Discuss Seattle Foundation grant.
·Discuss further evaluation and introduce TAP team
(with Bill Beery)
·Introduction (to one another)
·Introduction to planning timeline
·Overview of workplan
·Brainstorm ground rules/review bylaws
·Elect interim co-chairs
·Leadership Council Community Rep. draft application
review
·Accept Ground Rules
·Discuss Food & Society Conference
·Planning next CP meeting(s)
·Structured group assessment discussion
·Community Action Planning overview
·Food System overview (Cascade Harvest Coalition
·Group education topics for CAP planning
·Communication plan and communication options within the
LC
·June networking meeting volunteers
·Provide a clear overview of the working parts of KCFFI
·Identify areas of expertise and resources (people/places)
that members bring to the table
·Plan for collaborative partner meeting to be held April 23rd.
·Overview of KCFFI process to develop site selection plans
and information documents
·Discuss RFA questions and criteria and suggest changes
·Agreement to finalize RFA and criteria
·Review next actions/steps
·Fair review of each site.
·Site 2 minutes speaches and Q & A from selection
committee
Community Outreach Meeting
Meeting (with Amy White)
Draft recommendations to the Co Conveners defining
1. How youth should be organized to be involved in the
planning phase of this initiative, and
2. What resources will be needed to implement the
recommendations
·TAP team introduction (Jim Muldavin)
·Identify what folks are most proud of/ what drives work with
youth
·Youth networking meeting in AZ.
Meet with focus communities and discuss assessment
Outcomes # of Attendees
·Shared understanding and introduction (names to faces) 45
of members of the various working teams involved in
KCFFI (co-convener, youth, assessment, leadership,
evaluation)
·Information sharing and relationship building
·Leadership Council bylaws will be revised/simplified 26
·A more formal work plan with benchmarks will be created
(Sylvia Kantor)
·
12
3
·Next meeting set (2/19/08) 14
·Ground Rules drafted/draft bylaws accepted
·Amy White and Becca Deehr elected interim co-chairs
·Community representative application form accepted 19
·Ground Rules (accept at next meeting)
·Volunteers identified for F/S conference
·CP Meeting planning group identified
·Quick overview of group assessment brainstorm (report
to come later)
·Increased understanding of our local Food System, 10
including an opportunity to discuss what amount of local
food is currently being consumed at a local level
·New communication materials will be developed prior to
the next Leadership Council meeting in order to better
address inconsistency of information.
·Small group activity identified potential resources as well 20
as highlighted shared knowledge
·Detroit networking meeting participants identified
·Collaboartive partner meeting planning volunteers
identified
·May Leadership Council meeting rescheduled to
accommodate Organizational Learning & Systems
Thinking Meeting
·RFA revised to an "RFQ" and questions narrowed down 15
to 3 general questions (1. History of F&F, 2. History of
collaboration, 3) past community/youth engagement.
·Decided on face-to-face interviews to answer community
questions regarding history and collaboration.
·Discussed and defined "readiness".
·Discussed actual $ that might be invested over time.
·Set next meeting date.
·White Center & Delridge chosen as focus communiites 20
5
3
·Community building through brainstorming 11
·next actions identified
·Quick introduction to youth and policy and how youth 15
might be involved with KCFFI
Appendix B. Visioning Exercises Data 
King County Food and Fitness Initiative
Previous Visioning Activities and Outcomes
July 2006-April 2008
July 13, 2006
W.K. Kellogg Foundation Planning Grant – initial meeting
Visioning Question to prepare for Letter of Intent submission

What are the possibilities you see arising for our community (or
your organization) that inspire you to join this effort to develop
the letter of intent to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation?

I would like to see evidence that access to safe, sustainable and healthy food
supply and daily physical activity are deeply woven into our community practices
and life. I dream that our citizens would view these practices and activities as
typical and common-place versus difficult, rare and expensive. As a trivial example,
when visiting St. Paul MN last year, I noticed that various paths (such as around a
small lake) had signs posted with the number of steps for that walk. This
suggested to me that many people were at least familiar with counting steps.

This could be a really great integrative (truly!) effort that bridges health-natural
environment-built environment. To me, this adds up to planetary sustainability.

I am excited about this opportunity because I hope it will allow us to communicate

and learn from people affected by overweight and obesity and help us find out
what helps them eat healthy local food and increase safe physical activity.

Long-term coordinated effort to make systems change.

Being integrally involved with the STEPS grant, which is working in these 3 areas,
this is a wonderful opportunity to sustain, further integrate and add to current
efforts.

I think this effort could lead to a campaign that would serve to unify and amplify
grassroots level work that is already happening in a way that it can capture public
imagination, build new partnerships, and galvanize support for policies and individual
actions that represent measurable change and progress toward a healthier
community.

Ensure a permanent location for the U-District Market at University Heights

Center and create additional programs at the center which include: children’s
recreation facilities (inside and out), children’s dance, theatre and exercise
classes, education about food and nutrition, education on local farms and farming,
children’s garden and community kitchen.

Community leadership training in diverse ethnic groups.

Developing and implementing policies to create access to healthy food (locally

produced with sustainable methods) and environments that promote physical
activity, especially for low-income and minority populations.

Coordination and integration of efforts. Potential for a culturally relevant,

completely accessible, affordable and well-utilized healthy food and fitness system
for everyone.

To keep the momentum going in the schools around nutrition and physical activity.
We have made significant changes already, let’s keep going!

In the Seattle Public Schools, we see an opportunity for our community to

collaborate in this movement to fight obesity in multiple populations, by
encouraging and educating our school communities about the importance of healthy
food choices and physical exercise.

I see that we can enhance a local food system to increase access and consumption
of local, healthy food for children and families and especially people at the
greatest risk for lifestyle-related chronic diseases.

I see myself as an institutionalist, thus I’m excited by the possibility of building

institutions or relationships across them that address the fractured nature of the
good work being done in food systems, physical health and activity, urban design,
and community development.

If Seattle can develop a food and fitness plan based on sustainable food and
farming with state and county policies that will support this system – then this can
be a model for other regions/counties in the state.

To provide us with momentum and community partners to produce and evaluate

physical activity programs for youth.
Possibility of expanding models that work to underserved communities – (bring
small solutions up to scale in poor communities).

This grant is an opportunity to build upon the work in food systems in the City of
Seattle. There is a real chance to improve food systems (a report has been
developed). More broadly, we want to be strategic in advancing physical activity,
community health and food systems focusing on lower income and vulnerable
populations.

I see the food and fitness initiative as providing extensive education and
sustainable lifestyle changes for residents living in Seattle Housing Authority
Communities (low-income).

Improve stakeholder communications and partnerships. Expand funding

opportunities for ongoing and future projects. Reach a broader
audience/participants. Strengthen existing programs, messages and outcomes.

I see this endeavor as an unprecedented opportunity to move our collective efforts

to improve the social and economic health of this region to a level of effectiveness
not yet experienced here by: 1) capitalizing on the synergies that result between a
marriage of food and fitness strategies and 2) advancing existing efforts to
officially establish a food policy council to coordinate food system enhancements,
to break through barriers to making farm-to-institution connections, and to
integrate the benefits of local food production into the fabric of our everyday
lives.

I am hoping that the needs of low-income and diverse ethnic communities are met
in a culturally appropriate manner, and that their voices and participation will be
included.

Seattle/King County is prepared to confront institutional, psychological, and

cultural barriers to individuals making healthy choices through an aggressive,
research-based, public policy initiative.

Injury Free Seattle is interested in making sure that interventions to promote

physical activity acknowledge and incorporate best practices in child injury
prevention to make our community health and safe.
This is an opportunity to integrate neighborhood resources such as farmer’s
markets and P-Patches (community gardens) into fabric of community centers-
schools through lunch and gardening, cooking, work with local farmers and
marketing of local food products.

Opportunity to impact specific communities, build sustainable infrastructure,

address policies that can change all three aspects of the grant focus.
Collaborative Partner Meeting August 16, 2007
Results of Attributes and Values of the Food System Exercise

Food System Attributes: Group Exercise

What is our shared understanding of the attributes of a community-based food system?

What does food access, affordability, healthy, and local mean to you?
Consider the concepts of Food System Attributes below and discuss your
understanding and definitions, noting any similarities or variations. Select someone
from your group to summarize your findings.

Some concepts of Food System Attributes for consideration:

Healthy
The USDA food pyramid suggests the minimum standard for a healthy diet. American
Heart Association further elaborates that a healthy diet is one that is varied, rich in
vegetables and fruits, with whole grains, high-fiber foods, lean meats and poultry, fish at
least twice a week, and fat-free or 1 percent fat dairy products.
How would you define healthy in your community?

Affordable
The USDA's thrifty food plan (TFP) represents a minimal-cost nutritious diet, including a
variety of foods form the major food groups. Food stamp benefit levels are based on the
nationwide cost of a TFP market basket.
How would you define affordability in your community?

Access
Individuals have sufficient incomes or other resources to purchase, produce, or obtain
appropriate food needed to maintain consumption of an adequate diet and nutritional
level. Access presumes availability of sufficient quantities of appropriate food within
reasonable transportation distances.
How would you define access in your community?

Local
Locally grown is a not a definitive term. Some say it applies to foods grown within a 100-
mile radius; others stretch it to 250 miles. Another definition is food grown within a
"day's leisurely drive from your home." It also usually implies seasonal food from small
farms, as opposed to the massive agribusinesses where most supermarket food comes
from.
How would you define local in your community?
RESULTS:

HEALTHY:
• Promoting health in the community may be a “job” done locally
• Multicultural, colors, nutritious; some “care in that food”
• Beyond food- healthy diet
o Consistent with food environment
o Culturally appropriate; relevant to people’s lives
o Health through lifespan. Starts early and lasts a lifetime
• Eating
o Reject the USDA Food Pyramid
o Full fat dairy can be in a healthy diet
• Eating as a family
o Cultural reasons
o Paying attention to food
• Food:
o Minimally processed,
o toxic free,
o nutrient (vitamin) rich,
o fresh
o appropriately stored and processed
o simply prepared
o variety
o organic nutrients
• Growing Food:
o Good nutrient levels in soil
o The food is good for the soil and environmentally appropriate
o No preservatives
o Adapted to cultural/regionally
• Restaurants:
o Privately owned (independent vs. franchise)
o Easier to solve/manage health problems

ACCESS:
• Physical Access
• Ability to prepare (time, space, scheduling issues, affordability)
• Feeling comfortable in space where food is available
• Convenience
• Time efficient
• Travel distance
• Equitable access
• Should be easy to shop
• Policy supports access
• Time/Cost
• Access to culturally appropriate foods
 • Marketing access for producers
• Education/Awareness on preparing food
• Walking distance-safety
• Linguistic/ Term barriers (eg: natural, organic)
• Signage to find food
• Non motor vehicle access
• Convenient/neighborhood delivery
• Street corners
• Broad selection
• Culturally relevant
• Alternative selection than just chain grocery
• Institutional purchases/ access (hospitals, schools, prisons)
• Zoning/Land use
• Farm worker access to healthy food (i.e. immigration policy)

LOCAL:
• Whole state (WA)
• Regional
• Seasonal
• Emphasis on Puget Sound whenever possible
• Closer the better but might travel to support farms
• Not to sacrifice variety
• Farmers market support- know your producer/grocer
• Involve and employ local people
• Local economy benefit
• Grain/Fruits from WA
• Dairy/Meat/Vegetables from Puget Sound
• Emphasize concentration of foods that are ‘plain’ vs ‘exotic’.
• Close proximity to market (time to travel minimal)
o Carbon balanced or carbon neutral (reduced use of other resources)
• Local is not always appropriate when referring to culturally appropriate, in which
case travel might be necessary.
• Policy supports equitable distribution
o System into neighborhoods (shorter supply chain)
o 100 milesÆ concentric circles (environment, $, cultural)
• Gardening/Growing food at home
• (Ask about WKKF Vision focus on procurement)
• Young people gardening/farming

AFFORDABLE:
• Within reach of all families
• Skill/ time/ knowledge accounting for not just $
• Not false choice (food vs. rent/ shelter/ education)
• Stretch $, minimal cost
• Real food costs same as fast food
• Choices available
• Sense of well being- not a treat
• Good Food should not be a privelage
• Increase communication between alternative food suppliers.
• Increase Affordability
• Equity
o Wide variety of budgets
o Afford it through the pay period
o Affordable trips
o Affordable relative to local (US National Economy)
o Organic vs. conventional cost
• # of meals any given person can make
• Home cooking (issue of accounting for time)
• Sustainable pricing for producer and consumer
o Proportionately priced food (% of total budget
• Perceived value vs. relative cost
• Something in the system is broken and needs fixing:
o Need to elevate the value of food (ie food costs vs. housing)
• Resources (space) and equipment for food preparation and storage
 11/30/07 King County Food & Fitness Initiative Collaborative Partners Meeting
Small Group Work (summarized outcomes)
11/30/2007
A) If KCFFI is successful, from the point of view or your organization what
would be ONE thing that would look different in King County in 10 years? List one
response from each group.

B) Indicate one statement to work on as a group and list who needs to be

involved in the collaborative to make this vision statement a reality. You can name
specific individuals or the kinds of people that need to be engaged, such as the
director of food services for the schools, community leaders, etc.

Group Members: Laura Raymond, Amy Ellings, Amy White, Aviva Vikstrom, B
Sanders, Michelle Bates-Benetua

A) Families have enough resources & time to eat and play together in their own
communities

B) People/Groups to be involved:
Policy people: labor unions, service industry employers, policy makers
(local/state/regional), transportation, school district, safety, churches

People also need: access, income, safety, knowledge, and help from program
people.

Group Members: Anne Bikle, Steve Dahl, John Gould, Laura Niemi

A) Neighborhoods we live in are close together (walkable), have easy access to healthy
foods, and inspire us to engage in physical activity with our neighbors and take care of
this place.

B) People/Groups to be involved:
Political leaders, Zoning and permitting departments within cities, architectural
groups, landscapers, planners, sustainable workforce, church groups, historical
societies, child care, & other community groups.

Group Members: Rebecca Deehr, Martha Aitken, Maggie Anderson, Heather Paves

A) Our collaborative is cohesive and respected: legislative bodies turn to KCFFI for
guidance in policy making.

B) People/Groups to be involved:
Mayors of cities, directors of public works/transportation, people on the upper
echelon, big business, faith based community representatives, Group Health
Cooperative, Odessa Brown Clinic representative.

Group Members: Ruth Egger, Sue Lerner, Laura Streichert, Merina Hanson
 11/30/07 King County Food & Fitness Initiative Collaborative Partners Meeting
Small Group Work (summarized outcomes)

A) Every community & city would have a commission focusing on health & fitness.

B) People/Groups to be involved:
Poverty/welfare organizations, schools, public health department, transportation
department, universities.

Group Members: Willie Austin, Julie Salathe, Diana Vinh, Val Allen, Colleen Brandt-
Schluter

A) More access to physical activity & nutrition awareness—broad engaged community

with equal access to food/health resources.

B) People/Groups to be involved:
City municipality representatives, representatives of underserved ethnic groups,
schools, contractors, public works, food growers, nutrition experts, religious
organizations, economic development organizations, public safety officers.

Group Members: Allen Cheadle, Patrick Green, Caren Adams, Kathleen Perez-Hureaux

A) Healthy food is as accessible as fast food.

B) People/Groups to be involved:
Suburban cities (i.e. Federal Way), City permit agency (facilitate permits for fruit
stands), local entrepreneurs, zoning officials, non profits supporting local stores in getting
more healthy food.
Food Systems – Leadership Council Discussion (2/19/2008)
Local Assets
Producing (agriculture, harvest from the
wild)
• Community gardens
• Increased consumer demand for locally
produced food
• Longfellow P-patch
• High Point Market Garden/possible farm
stand in Delridge
• Danny Woo Garden in ID
• Marra Farm in South Park
• Rainier Valley Grower’s Cooperative
• Seattle Tilth program
• Available land
• Immigrant populations able to access
gardens
• Reservoir lidding – P-patch/garden
opportunity
• LFHK
• P-Patch Cultivating Youth – Delridge
• WC 10 garden plots in WC Heights Park
Processing (transforming, packaging and
labeling)
• Local labeling
• Mobile slaughter unit
Distributing (wholesaling, storage and
transportation)
• Lettuce Link – P-patch food donations
• Gleaning of fruit tree in Delridge & White
Center
• Food banks
• Meal programs
• Odessa Brown – possible Solid Ground
partnership for fruits & veg access
• Farm to school efforts
• West Seattle Farmer’s Market
• Asian Council RS food bank in ID
• WC food bank & community resource
center
Retailing (supermarkets, grocery stores,
farmers markets)
• Past experience with WC farmers market
• Farm to consumer marketing
• Consumer Supported Agriculture (CSA)
• Restaurants serving local food
• Food buying clubs
• Grocers selling local foods
• Asian stores selling produce
• Locally owned groceries interested in local
foods
• Diverse food culture and food
establishments
• Delridge – support for town center with
grocery store
Preparing (institutional food service,
emergency food programs)
• White Center food bank – has community
garden & teaches residents how to
prepare foods
• Interest in community kitchen
• Donated building for community kitchen
• Cooking classes at community colleges
and PCC market
• Gospel Mission/Salvation Army provide
meals
• Rainier Valley kitchen – pay for food
• WC Heights Park plots – foodbank
Eating (nutrition & consumption)
• Community kitchens – Rainier & Garfield
• Some YMCAs developing community
kitchens
• Local food movement
• School nutrition programs
• Healthy Eating by Design at TT Minor
elementary
• WSU Food Sense CHANGE project in
WC schools
• Fruit on neighborhood trees
• Everyone eats
• Lots of choice
• Immigrant communities think of food as a
way to share culture
• Restaurants
Laurent
Barriers
Barriers
• Increasing land prices
• Urban sprawl
• Development
• How to reach low-income residents
• Small farmer financial burden
• Demand for local produce?
• 3% local grower increase is
capacity*
• Lack of water/water rights
• Flooding issues
• New farmers
• Winter production is slow
• Is farming a viable occupation?
Barriers
• Lack of certified infrastructure,
especially for small/mid-sized
producers
• Lack of processing facilities for
meat, dairy, produce
• Cost of facilities
• Lack of interest in cooperatives
• Food safety concerns
Barriers
• Lack of certified infrastructure,
especially for small/mid-sized
producers
• Lack of processing facilities for
meat, dairy, produce
• Cost of facilities
• Lack of interest in cooperatives
• Food safety concerns
Barriers
• No retail/fresh produce in Delridge
• Locally grown, organic foods
expensive
• West Seattle considered
“saturated” for groceries, but is all
concentrated north, not in focus
areas
• Buyer education/lack of
knowledge/awareness
• Economics of pricing
• Distribution
• Sustainability targeted to higher-
end retailers
• EBT – lack of access to famers
markets
• Transportation to stores
• Consumer confusion about labels
Barriers
• Typically high prices of locally
produced foods
• Need to form nutritional thinking for
targeting community health (focus
on nutrients rather than whole
foods, food systems, food & health)
• Time and knowledge issue for
healthy food prep
• “Grab and Go” culture and
relationship to food prep
• Lack of time
• Lack of a positive food culture
Barriers
• School challenges for healthy foods
• Resources of providing fresh,
locally grown foods
• People are “too busy” to cook
• Lack of knowledge about fresh
foods
• Access is limited for low-income
populations and seniors
• Time to prepare healthy foods
• Cost
• Poor farm-to-school programs
• Lack of a positive food culture
Page 1
Regional Assets
Producing (agriculture, harvest from the wild)
• Urban agriculture organizations
• King County Farmland Preservation
• 42,000 acres + farmland in King County
• Pierce county also has farmland protection
• Washington Farm Link
• Increased farmer apprenticeship program
• WSDA
• WSU programs
• Season extension programs
Processing (transforming, packaging and labeling)
• “Eat Local Now” – Sustainable Ballard program for
modeling
• Puget Sound Fresh
Distributing (wholesaling, storage and
transportation)
• Food banks – 28 in Seattle, 35 in KC
• South King County Food Bank Coalition
• WSU Farm-to-School program
• Local Farms, Healthy Kids bill proposed in state
legislature
• Interest in schools to participate in healthy food
activities
• Food Policy Council
Retailing (supermarkets, grocery stores, farmers
markets)
• KC healthy restaurant initiative
• CSA shares increasing
• Restaurants serving local foods
• Food buying clubs
• Farmers Markets
• Farm-to-table efforts
Preparing (institutional food service, emergency
food programs)
• WSU Food Sense CHANGE
• Fare Start training
Eating (nutrition & consumption)
• Rainier Valley and Garfield community kitchens
• YMCA developing community kitchens
• Seattle schools nutrition curriculum
• SNAC – King County Public Health (Elizabeth Kimble)
• Healthy Restaurant Initiative in King County
• Carbon consciousness encourages local eating
• Schools (some) focusing on healthy eating
• Bastyr University
• Some local restaurants focused on local food
• Diversity of food types and cuisine
• Local political will
• Eat Better, Feel Better and Apple Corps in schools
(Solid Ground program)
• School vending machine policies restricting unhealthy
foods
5/9/2008
Fitness Environment Domains – Leadership Council Discussion (2/19/2008)
Local Assets
Schools
• Activity spaces affiliated with schools such as
basketball courts
• Kids love to move
• A health scan and fair prepared for Summer
2008
• Pilot program “Family Connections” with Annie
E. Casey Foundation
• Seattle Public Schools new PE curriculum
• Recommend at least 60 minutes of physical
activity each day for Seattle Public Schools
Improved learning and exercising environment
with lower operating costs – does that mean
more money for programs?
• Gates funding/Thrive By Five focus on White
Center Early Learning
Parks and Recreation
• New Parks and Renovation at White Center
Heights, Cox Park Memorial, White Center
Pond
• Planned redevelopment and renovation of
parks
• High ratio of open space to people and
extensive existing trails
• Very active stakeholder base interested in
increasing programming with funds committed
by parks
• Land and space for CSA development
• Reservoir lidding (potential open space for
park / garden / farm?)
• Islandwood
• Walking Groups
• White Center Neighborhood Plan: UW
completed some initial open space inventory
in 2007
• “Friends of” community groups exist though
they need more support
• Public safety group is interested in parks and
safety with law enforcement
• YMCA is active
• Dells and Ridges trail mapping
Active Transportation (walking, biking, public
transit etc)
• Potential expansion of the street car system
• Planned rapid ride routes for busses in
Delridge and White Center
• With DNDA and SOPI – a discussion of a TOD
th th
project at 98 and 15 SW
• Pedestrian safety improvements at 98 Street
th
including pathways, lights, art and a kiosk
• Increased community awareness of bike and
walking paths
• Series of neighborhood walks and surveys
regarding walking
• Roundtable discussions about this in the
community
• Many modes of transportation begin and end in
the ID
• Neighborhood representation on the Seattle
Pedestrian Master Plan advisory group & King
County Food & Fitness initiative
• Not many residents drive
• Stakeholders use public transportation
• White Center and Delridge have highest bus
ridership
• Transit hub in White Center
Laurent
Barriers
• Increasing land prices
• District is slow to move
• WASL takes priority (over other issues)
• Nature Deficit Disorder
• Time
• Safety
• Stranger Danger
• Less participation of kids and parents in low
income areas in bike or walk to school
programs
• Growing number of families with young
children – many who don’t know or
understand the American school systems
• Limited resources to evaluate policies
• Funding
• 30 minute PE periods limit curriculum options
and activities
• Many schools in K-12 (at all levels) are not
meeting the minimum number of hours that
OSPI requires for PE
• Funding for basics of bicycling and similar
programs – if not funded by the district then
difficult to sustain
• Funding and administration of crossing guard
program in Seattle
• Current budget and fiscal policies
• City codes
• School board approval – if productive school
profits not important ?
• Need all schools to buy in on the idea of
changing their PE
• Need more money
• Sustainability of facilities – lower up front cost
may not translate into long-term savings or
health
• Parks and open spaces are underutilized
• Time
• Doesn’t connect with all populations
• Funding lacking
• 3 small areas of open space – underutilized for
legitimate activities
• Broken connections between WC & Delridge
• Lacking partnership of local school
• Safety and access
• YMCA has difficulty recruiting and retaining
families
• Other organizations find it difficult to gain
access to city, county parks for program
• Lack of access to fitness centers for homeless
and low income communities
• No sidewalks in neighborhoods north of 85 in
th
Seattle
• Low-income areas have less access to biking
programs
• Less participation of parents with kids biking to
school
• Delridge and White Center: preferred rapid ride
route is going to Fauntleroy
• Cultural expectations and norms regarding
walking and physical activity
• Safety
• Inadequate bike routes
• Pollution from modes of transportation threaten
and compromise health
• Area business owners and employees and
visitors don’t use public transportation
• Stadium traffic
• People’s fears about safety w/r/t for biking and
walking
• Schools don’t always have bike racks
Page 2
Regional Assets
• Activity spaces with schools
• Health scan and fair, Summer 2008
• Community groups such as Cascade
Bicycle Coalition interest in schools –
also have Basics of Bicycling for bike
safety
• PA programs after school
• TT Minor Playfield
• History of Seattle Parks and school
partnerships
• Seismic upgrade funding
• South Seattle Community College looking
at culturally appropriate fitness centers
• K-12 PE curriculum adopted in Seattle
• WA State Center for Safe Routes to
School
• Healthy Foods/Healthy Kids initiative in
the legislature
• Walk-a-thons instead of food as
fundraisers
• Green school/LEED standards
• Seattle Marathon
• Danskin Triathlon
• Triathlon clubs
• Access (driving & ferry) to outdoors
• YMCA – Strong Kids and Teams program
• Green Legacy Coalition funding for parks
and open spaces
• Parks levy
• Seattle Parks & Rec are pushing health
and fitness activities for youth & families
• Community centers adding more cooking
classes for youth and families for healthy
eating
• SDOT Safe Routes to school coordinator
– Jim Curtin
• Cascade Bike to Work Day/Month
• Bike to school programs
• Cascade’s Bike Safety Education
program
• Feet First pedestrian programs
• Biodiesel buses
• Bridging the gap money
• Seattle Bike Master Plan
• Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan
5/9/2008
Fitness Environment Domains – Leadership Council Discussion (2/19/2008)

Community Design/Land Use

• Redesign of Children’s Park in the ID • Seattle Schools lack of clear policy and • Seattle Ped & Bike Master Plans
• Livable SoDo plan bringing awareness commitment on putting bike racks in new • Sidewalk requirements for Seattle
• Boren School site – no current plans; could facilities developers
be town center? • Business and commercial lack of bike facilities • Healthscape work
• Dense Development for bike commuters • Light rail (evaluate PA in control
• St. James Cultural Center – potential hub for • Unincorporated King County – what’s ahead communities?)
community activities for annexation? • Increased zoning downtown – recent
• 98 Street Corridor redesigned
th
• Delridge: school district is not eager to let go of code amendment
• Dells and Ridges work site (Boren) • Incentive zoning proposals
• Walking routes project • SPU and SDOT are not friendly to • Cascade agenda – land conservation and
• Walkable neighborhoods communities plans
• Neighborhood matching funds from • Funding • Pomegranate Agency
government • Public safety at some destinations • Code requirements for construction to
• WC neighborhood plan (2007) • Adequate resources for evaluation process include bike racks
• Many parks • Public safety • Community involved in development in ID
• Promise of new facilities • Research doesn’t always impact practice • Efforts looking at high land use impact
• Boys & Girls Clubs • Gentrification and livability
• Community Centers • Green streets and open spaces
• YMCAs
• Lots of advocates
• SDOT inventoried sidewalks
• Delridge – support for town center & grocery
store
• Seattle interested in pedestrian safety
measures

Laurent Page 3 5/9/2008

Resources in Delridge and White Center – based on 4.8.08 LC meeting
People Places Other Resources (e.g., organizations,
programs)
ƒ Christina Orbe @ Youngstown ƒ Camp Long ƒ 12th Night
ƒ Community builders [for Greenbridge] ƒ DR Greenbelt ƒ Asian Housing Walking Groups
ƒ Don @ Neighborhood Service Center ƒ Elizabeth House in Highpoint ƒ Austin Foundation
ƒ Edna Noga @ Pasifika ƒ Green Bridge Redevelopment ƒ Boys & Girls Club Health workshops
ƒ Electeds: ƒ Greenbridge Campus ƒ Boys & Girls Club of White Center
o District 3 Legislative ƒ High Point Community Center ƒ Cascade Bicylce Club programs
Representatives: Sharon ƒ High Point Gardens ƒ C-Cal (Wa alliance of Cambodian…)
Nelson, Joe McDermott ƒ King County Fitness Centers ƒ Chief Sealth Service Learning program
o Dow Constantine ƒ Libraries (Delridge) ƒ Child Care—general in White Center
o Julia Patterson ƒ Longfellow Creek Trails ƒ Community councils
o Nickels Constantine ƒ Mara Farm ƒ Community Harvest of SW Seattle
o Richard Conlin (Food ƒ Neighborhood House Family Center ƒ County Sherriffs
Initiative) ƒ P-Patches ƒ Ctr srcts in WA State (ot sure what this is?)
ƒ Jim Diers ƒ Sanislo Elementary ƒ Delridge P-Patch
ƒ King County Parks people ƒ Schools ƒ Department of Neighborhoods (small &
ƒ Pamela Orech (community outreach, ƒ SHA buildings and King County Grounds simple, large project fund, neighborhood
mayor’s office) ƒ South Seattle Community College street fund, CRF)
ƒ Paul Benz (church council, homeless ƒ Southwest Youth & Family Center ƒ DNDA/WCCDA
council) ƒ St. James Church (WC) Community ƒ DuRCC(?)-Similar Asset ID prices for WC
ƒ Paula & Minh (friends of Jennifer) Center ƒ Early learning work groups
ƒ PE Teachers ƒ Steve Cox Park ƒ Elizabeth House in High Point (is this a
ƒ Peter Ivolt? ƒ SW, Delridge, Alki (What does this mean?) person, place, org?)
ƒ Randy @ Youngstown Cultural Arts Center ƒ Trusted Advocates (Do they also have a ƒ Family Services
ƒ Rick Jump, Fran, & Jack of White Center “place”/site for ppl to congregate?) ƒ Feet First
Food Bank ƒ WC Park ƒ Fitness room at community center funded
ƒ Ron Angeles ƒ West Seattle Christian Church by DON grant
ƒ Ron Share: developer of mixed use ƒ West Seattle Trails ƒ Food banks, WC Food Bank
housing/business ƒ White Center Food Bank ƒ Green Schools
ƒ Seattle Police ƒ White Center Heights Park ƒ Group Health Kids Programs
ƒ Service board (Who/what is this?) ƒ Youngstown Cultural Arts Center ƒ High Point Market Garden & Cultivating
ƒ Sili Savusa [school board member] Youth
ƒ Staff @ Youth Media Institute ƒ Highline School District
ƒ SW Community Center advisory council ƒ Highline Sheriff department
member [parks & recreation department] ƒ Holy Family of White Center
ƒ Trusted Advocates ƒ KC unincorporated area council
ƒ King County
ƒ King County Parks
ƒ Longfellow and Delridge P-Patches
Resources in Delridge and White Center – based on 4.8.08 LC meeting
ƒ Making Connections (Casey Foundation)
ƒ Nature Consortium
ƒ Neighbor to Neighbor
ƒ Neighborhood House
ƒ Neighborhood Service Center [Ron
Angeles]
ƒ PASEFIKAS
ƒ Pdit.org (activists/communication)
ƒ Power of Hope
ƒ PTAs
ƒ Public Health Clinic in White Center
ƒ Puget Sound Energy
ƒ PSNHC [High Pt. Medical/Dental]
ƒ Rosella’s Community Café
ƒ Roxbury Health Clinic [shop arounds,
community kitchen at highpoint]
ƒ Salvation Army
ƒ Sea Mar
ƒ Seattle DOT
ƒ Seattle Housing Authority
ƒ Seattle Parks
ƒ Seattle Parks O2 program
ƒ Seattle Public Utilities
ƒ Seattle Rotary
ƒ Seattle Safe Routes to School
ƒ Seattle School District
ƒ Senior Asst. Living Center in Highpoint
ƒ Senior Center at the Salvation army [we
need to make sure it’s used for community
members, ie training programs]
ƒ Senior housing groups in WC
ƒ South Seattle Community College
ƒ SPD, King
ƒ State of WA (not sure what this means…a
specific dept?)
ƒ Sustainable West Seattle
ƒ TAFdn
ƒ Union Gospel of White Center
ƒ United Way, SOAR
ƒ University of Washington (CAUP, ECOK?,
Resources in Delridge and White Center – based on 4.8.08 LC meeting
etc)
ƒ Veterans group
ƒ Westwood Christian Assembly
ƒ White Center chamber of commerce
ƒ White Center Head Start program
ƒ White Center Heights Elementary,
Mountain View Elementary
ƒ Whole Foods’ Blue Star Development
ƒ WS Helpline
ƒ WSU 4-H program
ƒ WSU Extension Food $ense Program
ƒ YES Foundation
ƒ YFWC: Yes Foundation of White Center—
Pat Thomson
ƒ YMCA / YWCA
Youth Media Institute
Food System in Delridge & White Center
1. What do you want to do to improve access to healthy foods in Delridge & White
Center?

ƒ SSCC – open spaces for culinary arts folks to teach and education community use of
open spaces for food growth and “sustainable urban farms”
ƒ Croft Place – groups of people to work together
o Planting strips – use those areas
o Need for CSAs in Deridge and White Center
o Expensive to garden: starting seeds together to make it more
o Community Kitchens
ƒ Use school gardens
ƒ Work with local businesses to stock produce from community
ƒ Farmers’ Market in WC and Delridge
ƒ People getting together to go to market
ƒ Consider cooperatives, buying in bulk to save money
ƒ Land bank
ƒ Are people asking for garden spaces?
ƒ Increased access to food
ƒ Use resources already available
ƒ How much demand is there from the community for fresh, locally grown produce?

Notetaker: Margo Fanene, mfanene@ugm.org

Active Transportation in Delridge & White Center
2. What do you want to do to improve walking, biking, or other modes of active
transportation in Delridge & White Center?

ƒ Walking groups (High point)

ƒ Walking “school bus”
ƒ Bike to school programs
ƒ Bike racks
ƒ Designated biking / walking corridors
ƒ Sidewalks
ƒ Crossing guards
ƒ Walking safety, not just home to school, but for after school programs
ƒ Places to dry off at public facilities
ƒ Connections to where kids hand out
ƒ Make streetscape more inviting
ƒ Neighborhood bike clubs
ƒ Walking social activities
ƒ Sidewalk art – wayfinding system
ƒ Bike shop (community model)
ƒ Adopt-a-street program
ƒ Safety on staircases along Delridge
ƒ Policy / system change, zoning

Notetaker: Phillippia Goldsmith, 206.923.0917x116

Play and Recreation in Delridge and White Center
3. What steps should we take for creating safe and inviting places for play and recreation
in Delridge and White Center?

ƒ Open parks
o Increase lighting
o Increase activity
o Increase presence of people at parks for safety
ƒ SSCC
o Better park site info on websites – easier to contact coordinators to reserve
o Better relationship with schools with good facilities
ƒ Assets: pretty well-maintained
ƒ Need scholarships for reserving fields for different groups
ƒ Need access to more areas for pick-up games
ƒ Unutilized spaces Æ access to information and improve use
ƒ Greg Davis Park – need slower traffic on 26th
ƒ Bathroom access at parks
ƒ Publish calendar online to reserve parks / how to find facilities
ƒ Greenbelt volunteers needed to greenbelt maintenance (Duwamish is the largest)
ƒ Need for kids in clubs (boxing) to have access to food
ƒ Food donations for sports programs
ƒ Safe walking places
ƒ Policies for funding to working, active programs to continue or expand programs

Notetaker: Mollie Greves, greves@u.washington.edu

4a. Who is missing from this meeting?

ƒ NHUAC (?)
ƒ Highline School District
o M+V
o WCH
o New Start
ƒ Seattle Public Schools
ƒ New Futures (in Burien, but with the possibility of annexation, should get Burien
involved)
ƒ City of Burien
ƒ YES foundation
ƒ Parks & Rec
ƒ SW YFS
ƒ Police: King County Sheriff, Seattle Police
ƒ Khmer Community Center / Museum
ƒ Churches: Holy Family / Pastor Mabel & others
ƒ Ukrainian Westwood Assembly/ Mt. View Pres.
ƒ SWAC, SWLL, Soccer (?)
ƒ Seniors – Sr. Ctr Salvation Army, Greenbridge
ƒ Hispanic – Para Los Ninos
ƒ Consejo, Sea Mar, Ryther (?), RDCC
ƒ SWYFS Family Ctr., (Latino grp in N. Highline)
ƒ Identify other grassroot ethnic groups
ƒ Trusted Advocates
ƒ Seattle Public Utilities’ Environmental Justice Network
ƒ Need to map and list any grassroot and informal groups that are missing

(notetaker: Tom Slattery, WC resident and CDO@Child Care Resources,

www.childcare.org)
4b. How can we best engage them in these activities?
ƒ Invite
ƒ Active outreach to learn about them
ƒ Build Relationships with them
o 2-way learning, *we* also need to be at their table
o Don’t come at people our agenda. We need to let them know our goals,
but allow room to grow together
ƒ Transparent Communication
o Clearly share goal with communities so others know why and how to
engage
ƒ Be consistent
ƒ Acknowledge the community’s needs
ƒ Leadership Council – Development
ƒ Identify key community members and key informants in orgs to contact
ƒ Translate materials
ƒ Interpreters at meetings
ƒ Work with existing community organizations and agencies that already have ties
ƒ Share funding and knowledge resources with community
ƒ Value community-initiated action as much as [funder-outlined] planning activity
(note-taker: Laura Raymond, Laura.raymond@seattle.gov, KCFFI Leadership Council)
5. Regional Health – What one thing would you do to make your community healthier,
and why? Please specify the region when answering (city, county, Puget Sound, WA
state).

The discussion centered on activities that could occur at any level. In some cases, having
the action happen at a macro level could make local action easier.

• Giving incentives for healthy behaviors

o Insurance
• Food Access
o Food to institution (school, hospital, work) policies
o Changing food procurement process (i.e. schools not required to go with
the lowest bid, but could have other criteria to apply such as X amount
needs to be fresh)
o Schools have some local choices but limited funds; increase funds or
change district policies
o Make healthy food more affordable
• Fitness access
o Increase activity requirement in schools for all ages
o More culturally appropriate activities
o Utilize churches for PA opportunities
• Safety (real and perceived)
o Prevents kids from getting outside for recreation
o Increase the critical mass outside to improve feelings of safety
• Improve State requirements for healthy food in schools
• Food education – how to prepare fresh and healthy food, and the variety of prep
available
• Community education – churches, culturally specific
• Create more opportunities for lifetime fitness
• Community fitness groups (walking, sports)
• Equitable development. Prevent against gentrification, and keep the most vulnerable
populations in the area as it transitions to a healthier environment.
o Includes wage increases/living wage
o Rent protection
o Affordable housing
o Commercial protection of locally owned businesses
Appendix C. Youth Engagement Report 

Quarterly Progress Report

Person Completing Form: Quyet Huynh

Agency Name: International District Housing Alliance
Program Name: King County Food & Fitness Initiative, Youth Engagement Coordination
For Quarter Ending: May 1, 2008

1. Youth Participants: Meetings / Activities

ƒ Initial Meeting, March 4, 2008, 5:00-6:00pm

Youngstown Cultural Center, Conference Room
This meeting was the first time that all of the youth and the youth engagement coordinator
met, as the youth were referred from other youth serving organizations. The purpose of this
meeting was to get to know each other and to tell the youth about the King County Food &
Fitness Initiative before departing for the Youth Networking Conference in Tucson, Arizona.

ƒ Pre-conference Meeting, March 11, 2008, 5:00-6:00pm

Youngstown Cultural Center, Conference Room
Prior to the conference, there was much to be finalized, including collecting permission slips
and release forms, checking that each person had appropriate identification for air travel,
establishing a meeting point & time at the airport and packing appropriate materials and
attire. This meeting was also a great opportunity for the youth to take part in a team building
activity.

ƒ Youth Networking Conference, March 13-16, 2008

Tucson, Arizona
The Youth Networking Conference, coordinated by the California Center for Civic
Participation, was a great opportunity for the youth to explore and to gain a better
understanding of the overall initiative and what we hope to achieve. Activities such as the
“Salad Bowl” helped to define what the initiative is and what we hope it can do for each of
our communities. The youth also participated in an activity called “The Five Ms of
Successful Communication” which helped the youth to picture how we can market the
initiative to our audience. Our youth met 40 other youth and were encouraged by the idea
that many others across the nation were working towards the same goal: a healthier
community.

1
ƒ Next Steps, March 26th, 2008, 5:00-6:30pm
Youngstown Cultural Center, Conference Room
After the conference, the youth gathered to talk about their favorite moments from
conference, which included getting to know youth from across the nation and participating in
the programming at the Tohono O’odham Reservation. Also, at the request of the conference
organizers, we discussed recommendations for how to make the next conference better, from
the youth perspective.

ƒ Continuing Next Steps, April 8th, 2008, 5:00-6:00pm

Youngstown Cultural Center, Conference Room
Following an explanation of what an assessment is in the context of the Food & Fitness
Initiative, the youth began brainstorming ideas around what kind of information they would
like to collect in their communities. Ideas ranged from surveying residents on their main
mode of transportation (and why) to interviewing classmates on why students choose to eat
fast food over school lunch.

ƒ Youth & Youth Serving Organization Meeting, April 21, 2008, 4:30-6:30pm
Youngstown Cultural Center, South Classroom
With both the youth and the youth serving organizations present at this meeting, the
discussion around assessments really began to take shape. With the help of the youth serving
organizations matrix, which organized what each organization had to offer towards fulfilling
the expected outcomes, everyone was able to get a better understanding of how they fit into
this collaboration. A few suggestions were offered for workshops and summer programming,
and we hope to develop these ideas more at the next meeting.

2. Youth Participants

Meetings or Activities Attended

Conference

Continuing
conference

Next Steps

Next Steps

YSO 4/21
Initial 3/4

3/13-3/16

Youth &

Hours
Youth Name Specific Comments

Total
Pre-

3/11

3/26

4/8

1. Ben Kieu + Presented at Youth Serving Org 1 1 35 1.5 1 2 43.5

meeting 3/31 (2 hours)
2. Jennifer Parra - Was on spring break on 3/26 1 1 35 0 1 0 38
3. Emma Henderson + Presented at Youth Serving Org 1 1 35 1.5 0 2 42.5
meeting 3/31 (2 hours)
- Was not able to attend the youth
meetings on 3/4 and 3/11, but
alternate times were established.
4. Danny Huang 1 1 35 1.5 1 2 41.5
5. Kamilah Debnam - Was planning for “Seeds of 1 1 35 1.5 0 0 38.5
Compassion” on 4/8
6. Zacky Chau - Was referred by Ben 0 0 0 1.5 1 2 4.5

Total youth participants: 6 Total Hours participated: 208.5 Hours

3. Outcomes & Lessons Learned of youth participation

2
ƒ King County Food & Fitness Initiative
The involvement of the youth speaks to their interest and concern for the health of their
families, peers and community. Based on discussions about the type of information they
would like to gather for the assessments, the youth have expressed interest in the long term
outcomes of this planning phase and especially the implementation phase.

ƒ The Five Ms of Successful Communication

At the Youth Networking Conference, the youth participated in this activity, in which they
had to practice defining the different aspects of marketing the initiative. This includes the
target audience, the message, who is giving the message, what form the message will be
transmitted and the materials needed to publicize the message. This enabled youth to better
understand how they could play a role in the planning phase.

ƒ Tohono O’odham Reservation

The youth expressed appreciation that the conference reserved time to focus on a community
that tends to be overlooked. Participating in the activities the Tohono O’odham youth
organized and led was special because many of the youth have never had an opportunity to
interact so closely with first nations people. The youth commented multiple times on how the
Tohono O’odham youth were more like them than they had once thought, and one youth
thought the food served on the reservation was good and healthy.

ƒ Food Systems Tour

The youth from the Seattle, Philadelphia and Holyoke teams toured a few places throughout
Arizona. The three stops that were made included: 1) a soup kitchen run by a man who only
pays himself ten dollars per week and helps to collect food for the soup kitchen, 2) a food
bank that serves an area the size of the state of Connecticut and 3) an edible garden which
has an outdoor toilet and shower using recycled water and a solar powered oven and water
heater. The youth found this tour very valuable because it helped them make the connection
between the different parts of the food system, and how creating access to fresh, healthy and
affordable foods is important to sustaining healthy lifestyles.

4. Youth Serving Organizations: Meetings / Activities

ƒ February 25th, 2008 at Youngstown Cultural Center, from 1:00pm-2:30pm

3
 This meeting was an initial meeting between the youth engagement coordination team and a
few youth serving organizations old and new to the collaborative. The goal of this meeting
was to introduce White Center and Delridge neighborhood youth serving organizations to the
King County Food and Fitness Initiative, and to recruit youth for the Youth Networking
Conference in Tucson, Arizona. Also discussed at this meeting were issues of youth
involvement, sustainability and assessments. Karen Snyder from Public Health of South King
County joined us to talk about assessments.

ƒ March 31st, 2008 at Youngstown Cultural Center from 1:00pm-3:00pm

The goal of this meeting was to define our: 1) understanding of youth engagement, 2)
principles of engagement, and 3) organizational involvement in the King County Food &
Fitness Initiative, as well as to hear from the youth about the Youth Networking Conference
in Tucson, Arizona (Ben and Emma volunteered). In order to define what we meant by youth
engagement, we started by giving each organization an opportunity to discuss where they felt
their youth programming was on the spectrum of youth leadership, as well as where they
envisioned the KCFFI being on this spectrum. Most agreed that components of the initiative
would be youth led while others would be youth driven. Also discussed was the issue of
principles of engagement – how we as a group would communicate. Sylvia clarified this
point by stating that the Initiative hoped that the youth serving organizations would
collectively make decisions.

ƒ April 21st, 2008 at Youngstown Cultural Center from 4:30-6:30pm

With both the youth and the youth serving organizations present at this meeting, the
discussion around assessments really began to take shape. With the help of the youth serving
organizations matrix, which organized what each organization had to offer towards fulfilling
the expected outcomes of the youth engagement portion, everyone was able to get a better
understanding of how they fit into this collaboration. A few suggestions around what
workshops and summer programming were offered, and we hope to develop these ideas more
at the next meeting.

4
5. Youth Serving Organizations

Meetings or Activities Attended

2/25/08 (1.5

(2 hours)

(2 hours)

Hours
3/31/08

4/21/08

Total
hours)
Organizations Participants

1. Safe Futures Youth Center ƒ Sorya Svy 1.5 2 2 5.5

2. Youth Media Institute ƒ Marissa Chavez 1.5 2 2 5.5
ƒ Estevan Munoz-Howard 0 0 2 2.0
3. White Center Community ƒ Aileen Balahadia 1.5 1.5
Development Association
4. Youngstown Cultural Center & ƒ Randy Engstrom 1.5 2 2 5.5
Delridge Neighborhood ƒ Derek Bernie 1.5 2 3.5
Development Association ƒ Naomi Caivns 1.5 1.5
5. International District Housing ƒ Joyce Pisnanont 1.5 2 2 5.5
Alliance ƒ Quyet Huynh 1.5 2 2 5.5
ƒ Tung Kong 1.5 2 3.5
6. Treeswing ƒ Elyse Rowe 1.5 1.5
7. Seattle Youth Garden Works ƒ Janice Dilworth 1.5 1.5
8. Public Health Seattle King ƒ Erin MacDougall 2 2.0
County ƒ Karen Snyder 1.5 1.5
ƒ Roxana Chen 2 2 4.0
9. Washington State University ƒ Sylvia Kantor 1.5 2 3.5
King County Extension ƒ Sue Lerner 1.5 2 2 5.5
ƒ Maggie Anderson 1.5 2 2 5.5
ƒ Sarah Butzine 1.5 1.5 3.0
ƒ Shanyanika McElroy 2 2.0
10. Cascade Bicycle Club ƒ Serena Lehman 2 2 4.0
ƒ Ashley Geisendorfer 2 2.0
11. Austin Foundation ƒ Vanisha Duggal 1.5 2 2 5.5
12. Passages Northwest ƒ Robin Chiles 2 2.0
13. KCFFI Youth ƒ Ben Kieu X X Hours
ƒ Emma Henderson counted
X X in youth
ƒ Danny Huang X hours.
ƒ Zacky Chau X

Total Organizations: 12 Total Participants: 28 Total Hours: 83.0 Hours

5
6. Reflections of the Youth Engagement Coordination Team

The Food & Fitness Initiative as a nationwide movement to change food systems and built
environment is an incredible opportunity for communities to partner with many organizations
and institutions. The initiative provides communities with resources, experiences and knowledge
that can contribute greatly to this project. One level of expertise that is very valuable is that of
the youth—the voice of those who are most affected by food and fitness access today.

While the abundance of resources is great, there are some challenges to accessing these
resources. With so many people and organizations involved, prioritization of multiple interests
and perspectives is difficult. Similarly, with the wealth of resources available, it is difficult to
determine where to find certain information and who to go to for answers in order to achieve
project outcomes. Additionally, the lack of clarity around decision making (given the number of
stakeholders and interconnectedness of their roles) hinders our ability to move forward
efficiently with our work.