Agenda - 11-10-2022 Work Session; 2 - Discussion Regarding the Community Food Access Assessment Report and Food Council Memorandum of Understanding Agreement Renewal

Browse Search

23 Funding information was collected and compared by these categories. After budget information was collected, it was separated by type of program: institutional vs community and charitable organizations. Institutional programs included any funding going to programs operated by local or federal govern- ment, and community programs included any funding going to non-profit and community based or- ganizations. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding was identified and compared across the five categories identified in Figure 1. This information was then compiled in a workbook that was distributed to the Community Experts prior to the Community Expert sessions. It is hard to judge food access investments and interventions on budget data alone. In addition to budget data, the assessment team originally aimed to collect both internal department policies and programmatic policy information in each of the five areas in order to develop a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the systems in place. After reaching out to numerous department directors and staff members, it became clear that it would be challenging to collect policy information. The two biggest challenges to collecting policy data included 1) staff not knowing how or not having the ca- pacity to organize all policy information and 2) limited or no response from some departments. Policy data can be difficult to organize because of the layers and interactions between town, county, state, and federal policies that are implemented at the local level. Community Experts are still interested in more policy transparency from the County. 2. Photovoice The narrative that "communities can't take care of themselves" assumes that people experiencing hunger are lazy and need to be helped by those with more "knowledge." This is rooted in race and class stereotypes, and results in outside, often white-led, organizations deciding what is best for communities. Photovoice combats this by embracing the lived experience and knowledge of communities experiencing food insecurity and uses photography as a medium to illuminate structural inequalities2. Photovoice is a qualitative research approach that uses the power of photography and personal ex- perience to spark conversation and advocate for change in the community. The Photovoice process was facilitated by five Master's of Public Health candidates completing coursework in a Photovoice class at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health in a series of 4 sessions. Prior to each meeting, four Community Experts decided on a question to prompt the photos and videos they would take for the week. The guiding questions were as follows: • How does healthy eating affect communities differently? • How do disparities in food access, quality and availability affect our ability to be healthy? • How does housing, transportation, education and cost impact the types of food we can get and how we prepare them? Community experts then shared their photos with the group and selected one photo to guide their conversation using the SHOWED method: What do you See here? What is really Happening here? How does this relate to Our lives? Why does this condition Exist? What can we Do about it? The Photovoice facilitators recorded and transcribed these conversations, and used qualitative analysis methods to code the conversations and identify common themes. These themes were shared in a presentation, and were used along with direct quotes to inspire the poetry framing this report. The Photovoice conversations made it clear that the gap between community wisdom and policy decisions on food access and insecurity needs to be bridged. This informed our open conversation approach for the community expert sessions that followed. 2 https://vvfpc.sanford.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/05/Whiteness-Food-Movements-Research-Brief-WFPC-October-2020.pdf 8