Plan Overview
Plan Information
| Category | Database entry |
| Plan Region | Maine |
| Publication Date | 2016 |
| Entry reviewed by original author | Yes |
| PDF attachment | View Full Report |
| Plan Title | The Maine Food Strategy Framework |
| Webpage | The Maine Food Strategy Website |
| Author(s) | The Maine Food Strategy (A network effort of funders and nonprofits, government agencies, and small businesses; see p. 34 for a list of all involved individuals). |
| Author Type | Network |
| Region Type | State |
| Funding Sources | Foundations; State University |
| Funders | Originally University of Southern Maine; switched to Third Sector New England (resource center) halfway through planning process. TSNE acts as a hub for directing resources. |
| Total Project Budget | Unspecified |
| Plan Goals | This plan was created to support an intentional coordinated approach to systems change in Maine’s food system. Four values are established (p. 9): economic development, a healthy Maine environment, vibrant communities, and healthy food for all. |
| Intended Audience | All food systems actors, including policymakers, funders, and those carrying out programs and initiatives within the food system. |
| Plan Recommendation Structure | Five specific goals, each with sub-strategies (framed as “how do we get there?”). Each sub-strategy offers a set of specific policy, program, or funding tactics. Each tactic is “tagged” with an icon representing one of the four Value Statements of the plan (p. 9). |
| Catalyst for Plan | A group of Maine / NE funders convened stakeholders to think about how organizations working on food system issues could increase information sharing and collaboration. Discussions led to the establishment of an ad hoc committee charged with developing an RFP to contract an organization(s) to develop a “plan.” |
| Creation Process | Formation and initiative planning (taken from p. 22-23 of the plan): 2011:- Ad hoc committee forms to discuss improving coordination between groups working on food systems issues. 2012:- Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine (USM) contracted to develop and implement a planning process. USM team recruits stakeholders for a “Design Team” to define a process and create a Steering Committee. 2013:- Design Team uses an open nomination process to select and appoint an 18-person steering committee. The steering committee helps define the scope and process to develop a statewide “plan” and guides four network-building initiatives: 1) a research study (survey) on household food purchasing conducted by USM; 2) a Food Summit, hosted by the University of Maine Cooperative Extension; 3) a report reviewing all food-related legislation introduced in that year’s legislature; and 4) Research on food plans at the state, national and regional levels and synthesis of recommendations from these. 2014:- Consumer Report (attached) published for widespread distribution- MFS Steering Committee outlines priorities based on research from past plans and recent reports- MFS conducts preliminary stakeholder interviews and publishes a report on fisheries (attached). 2015:- MFS hires contractors to help lead focus groups with stakeholders with financial or language barriers to participation.- Subcommittees formed around each identified priority area- 7 new SC members added via open nomination- Organizes a statewide Network gathering event 2016:- MFS publishes initial Framework Report- SC develops clear expectations and responsibilities for participating individuals- Subcommittee meetings held over 4 months ——————- Plan creation and stakeholder engagement (taken from p. 32-34 of the plan): 1. MFS reviewed 200+ reports from other states, countries, and Maine itself. Conducted expert interviews with key organizations, government agencies, and businesses within Maine. Drafter initial report (attached) on these findings.2. MFS SC hired consultants to set priorities and indicators (using “You Get What You Measure” framework)3. Feedback on identified indicators and priorities was provided via a) 20+ expert interviews, b) a targeted survey (150+ responses), and c) formal presentations to staff at over 25 local organizations, businesses, and gov’t agencies.4. Focus groups were held to target “harder to reach” populations, offering financial, logistical, and linguistic support.5. Project staff synthesized all of the collected information and input into a large document. Four new sub-committees within the SC were created (one for each goal) to refine and finalize the strategy. From Tanya Swain, Project Director:”One process piece that seriously slowed our initial launch was the hand-off from the ad hoc group that developed the RFP. Once the University was hired to do the planning process, the ad hoc committee dissolved and the project staff was charged with building a Steering Committee from scratch. I believe the planning process would have been shorter and run more smoothly if some ad hoc committee members had transitioned into a steering committee or an advisory group for the initiative. There are a number of reasons why this wasn’t the case; happy to share more if this is of interest. In short, however, our experience would suggest that some champions of the planning process stay involved in at least an advisory role once a project is funded. If a statewide planning process is not government-affiliated or supported, you need advocates from the NGO / grassroots organizing communities to build the case for why a plan is needed and legitimacy for the process that inspires people to be engaged.” |
| Theoretical Framework(s) Employed | Collective Impact Framework |
| Theoretical Framework(s): Additional Literature | Collective Impact (Kania and Kramer, 2011): https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact Whole Measure for Community Food Systems (Center for Whole Communities, 2009) (See supplemental documents) |
| Development Timeline | 5+ years |
| Implementation Strategy | Laid out briefly in the plan as:”Action: Partners convene to work on specific activities, policies and programs that advance the goals identified in the Framework.Assessment: Work within this emergent food systems network to find agreement on measurements that will help us know when progress is made.Evaluation: Develop channels for deeper communication across and within the network.” (p. 19) From Tanya Swain, Project Director:”At this point in time [2022], we see ourselves as holding a space for cross sector food systems work. We are serving as a convenor and incubator of sorts. We create opportunities and spaces to bring people to work on systems issues that benefit from a statewide approach and cross sector perspectives and resources. Funding permitting, we would like to do an assessment of food system shifts in the Framework priority areas from 2016 – present.” |
| Implementation Timeline | Unspecified |
| Evaluation Strategy | Unspecified, though assessment and articulation are highlighted as a key next step (see “Implementation Strategy”). Data-based measures for each goal are provided as an appendix (p. 28-31). As noted by the plan author, because the plan was driven largely by stakeholders in the nonprofit/academic sectors and not the state government, those involved in the process found it difficult to set specific measurable goals because of the initiative’s inability to direct resources or investments. The Framework was seen as more of an agenda-informing document than a plan. |
| International Development Framework(s) | None |
| Current Plan Status | Active |
| Government Adoption Status | Not Adopted |
| Government Adoption Status (Notes) | Framework was developed through a grassroots participatory process initiated by the nonprofit and funder communities. |
| Supplemental Documents | View Supplemental Documents |