Alternative food movements work to create more environmentally and economically sustainable food systems, but vary widely in their advocacy for social, racial and environmental justice. However, even those food justice activists explicitly dedicated to equity must respond to the unintended consequences of their work. This paper analyzes the work of activists in Oakland, CA, who have increasingly realized that their gardens, health food stores and farm-to-table restaurants play a role in what scholars have called green gentrification, the upscaling of neighborhoods (...) through the creation of environmental amenities. Gentrification has had grave consequences for the low-income communities of color that food justice activists seek to serve. Activists are reflexive about this dynamic, and have developed strategies to push back against displacement. Most commonly, non-profit organizations and individual social entrepreneurs found businesses that seek to raise the profile of people of color in the trendy Oakland food scene while employing long-term residents in well-paying, green jobs. However, while these efforts are an essential component of a broader agenda to create both food justice and development without displacement, even these relatively high paying “good food jobs” cannot keep up with escalating rents. For this reason, we also highlight the direct action and policy-oriented strategies engaged by a smaller number of food justice activists, and argue that these are necessary compliments to a market-based approach. (shrink)

Several different evaluation issuesare perceived as important by people involved withinnovative projects intended to improve local food andnutrition systems; particularly the establishment oflocal food policy coalitions. Several such coalitionshave been formed in North America, Europe, andAustralia with the goal of improving community foodsecurity and promoting sustainable local food systems.Pioneer coalitions have served as models, yet therehas been little systematic evaluation of thesemodels. A qualitative study was conducted to identifyfactors that may hinder evaluation efforts. In grouptelephone interviews, we sought the views (...) ofacademics, project organizers, and funders, a total of24 key informants. Pressures to evaluate were assessed differently bythe three groups of key informants. Academics felt thefocus of evaluation should be on the effectiveness ofthe process used to discuss issues and formulatepolicies and plans. Project organizers and fundersperceived a need to assess project impact andoutcomes. A lack of suitable evaluation models andmethods was viewed as a formidable barrier. The use ofinappropriate methods and premature impact evaluationwere noted as potential threats to projectsustainability. External constraints and resourcelimitations were also said to inhibit evaluationefforts. It appears that several other factors may also beimpeding progress in conducting more (and more useful)evaluations including: (1) the apparent negativeconnotation of evaluation and the limited benefitsexpected from evaluation by stakeholders, (2) a lackof consensus about important evaluation questions,(3) insufficient evaluation expertise among projectorganizers, and (4) inadequate appreciation ofincreasing accountability pressures. (shrink)

There has been a recent push to offer more food assistance programs at farmers markets. Yet, as more programs are developed for farmers markets, little input has been sought from those who are ultimately responsible for their implementation. This ethnographic study explores the experiences of farmers markets that have been early adopters of federal food assistance programs. Participant observation and in-depth interviews were used in six early-adopting markets to understand staff perspectives on the challenges and benefits of administering food assistance (...) programs. The results show that even markets with strong organizational capacity experienced significant burdens while operating food assistance programs. In addition, most worried about the sustainability of these programs due to the level of resources needed for their support. The findings suggest that calls to expand food assistance programs to all farmers markets will continue to be met with challenges as many markets will not have the capacity to operate them. Targeting farmers markets with strong organizational capacity may increase the probability of successful implementation, but building the organizational capacity of farmers markets may be necessary for widespread adoption. The study has implications for other sectors of civil society that are increasingly taking on the work of providing government programs. (shrink)

This article contributes to a growing conversation about the role of numbers in promoting gendered agendas in potentially contradictory ways. Drawing from interviews with gender advisors—the professionals tasked with mainstreaming gender in development projects—in an East African country, I begin from the paradox that gender advisors articulate a strong preference for qualitative data to best capture the lives of the women they aim to assist while voicing a need for quantitative metrics. I demonstrate that gender advisors come to imagine metrics (...) as expeditious bureaucratic tools able to inspire cooperation from otherwise reluctant coworkers. I argue that development organizations are gendered in ways—acutely seen in how advisors struggle, are sidelined, and attempt to advance their goals with numbers—that lead to the utility of valuing quantitative metrics over qualitative ones. I establish two theoretical contributions: Gendered organizations theory is essential to understanding the adoption and globalization of performance metrics, and in an age of evidence-based decision making, the utility of quantified data to garner resources is heightened, rewarding those who adopt quantified knowledge production. I coin the term “the paradox of quantified utility” to describe how these material advantages encourage even skeptics to value quantitative metrics. (shrink)

This paper is a report on aconversation held between the authors andcentered on their shared interest inalternative methods of inquiry and evaluationin agriculture. The conversation was initiatedat the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and has evolvedthrough a series of long distanceconversations. Though not a verbatim transcriptof our conversations, this paper represents acomposite of both the face-to-face conversationand our stream of dialogue over the past year.Central to our discussion is an exploration ofthe parallels between the paradigm shift thatoccurred in evaluation in the (...) early 1980s andthe current agricultural paradigm shift beingpromoted by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Inthe course of this conversational paper, wesuggest not only that evaluators andresearchers should cultivate their capacity tohear and tell stories, but also thatagricultural programs and their long-termimpacts could benefit from different kinds ofevaluation efforts. From this perspective, theevaluation or research report is no longer anattempt to mirror reality, but rather it is anevocative story that asks the reader to engagethe storyline morally, emotionally,aesthetically, and intellectually, as well asfrom a social impact perspective. It is ourhope that this paper will serve as what Lather(1993) has called an ``incitement to discourse''in the disciplinary fields of agriculture andevaluation. (shrink)