Clover Sites



FOOD SYSTEMASSESSMENT OF LUCAS, MONROE, AND OTTAWA COUNTIESKurt Dieringer, Emily Knox, Eric Meyer, Glennon Sweeney, and Elizabeth VaraneseD r. J ill Clark: Food Systems Planning and the Economy The Ohio State University, 2013 Table of ContentsI. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….22. Study Area………………………………………………………………………………....3-5 Lucas County……………………………………………………………………….....3-4 Ottawa County…….…………………………………………………………………..4-5 Monroe County…………………..………………………………………………………53. Food Policy Council……………………...………………………………………………….74. Food Production………………….…………………….………………………………...7-115. Food Process and Distribution…………………...…….………………………………11-126. Retail…………………………………………………………...………………………..12-147. Consumption………………………………………………………………………...….15-20 Expenditures……….….…..…………………….………………………………………...15 Food Insecurity ……………………...….………………………………………………...16 Food Assistance..……………………………..………………………………..…….…17-20 A. Government Assistance………………………………………………….…..17-20 B. Private Assistance.....………………………………..………………..…............20 8. Food Access…………………………………………………………………………….20-22 9. Alternative Food System Practices & Projects………………………………………21-2210. Food and Farm Policy…………………………………………...……….…………..22-27Lucas County……………………………………………………………………..22-24Ottawa County……….………………………………………………………………24Monroe County…………………………………………………………………...25-2711. Gaps in Assessment………..........………………………………………………...………2012. Conclusion...……………..………………………………………………………...…..28-2913. Works Cited………....…………………………………………………………………30-3214. Appendices….…………………………………………………………………...……..33-351. Food System Assessment IntroductionA food system consists of all the processes and infrastructure involved in providing food for a population. Common components of a food system include cultivation, collection, refining, packaging, distributing, marketing, consumption, and disposal of food and food related products. Food systems are subject to the influence of economic, political, environmental, and social factors, and these influences can affect how people, governments, and firms view each component of the system. Changes in regulatory practices, consumer demand and preferences, and tolerance for environmental impact are examples of how food systems are affected. A comprehensive food system assessment looks to catalog and comment on all the components of the food system and the factors that influence the food system (Freedgood, 2011).Not all food system assessments study every part that makes up the food system. Food system assessments vary in both the scope of food system components covered and in the extent of the targeted geographical area. Some food system assessments are narrow in scope, often only covering a single city or town, while others can extend to entire regions or countries.Food system assessments can have several goals. Some food system assessments are designed to help engage citizens in the planning of food system processes; others help communities and governments address sustainability and food access issues. Still others evaluate the extent to which dietary needs are met, and economic development is affected by the food system (Freedgood, 2011). Overall, food system assessments give governments, organizations, and citizens evaluations and data from which problems and successes in the food system become clear. The purpose of this food system analysis of Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa counties is to provide information to local governments, organizations, and citizens in a format that facilitates the improvement of problem areas in the food systems in these counties, while expanding on their positive practices. Without this understanding of strengths and weaknesses, no new policies and strategies can improve the operation of the food systems. This report begins by addressing Lucas County, followed by Ottawa County and Monroe County, Michigan.2. Study AreaLucas County, Ohio Figure 2.1.0: Map of Lucas County, OhioFigure 2.1.1: Map of Ohio with Lucas County HighlightedLucas County is located in the northwestern portion of Ohio bordering Fulton and Henry Counties to the west, Wood and Ottawa Counties to the south, Lake Erie on the East, and the State of Michigan and Monroe and Lenawee Counties to the north, as shown above in figures 2.1.0 and 2.1.1. As figure 2.4 on page 6 shows, Lucas County shares many characteristics with the state of Ohio. First, the population of Lucas County (441,815) is larger than its neighboring counties, containing nearly three times the population of Monroe County (152,021) and close to ten times as many people as Ottawa County (41,428). The size of the county enables it to employ people in a broad range of sectors and a more diverse population, like the state as a whole. It has a low rate of foreign-born inhabitants (3.6%) and a small percentage of non-English speaking households (6.1%). Lucas County contains more African Americans (19.4% compared to 12.4%), fewer Whites (76% compared to 83.6%), and a higher level of poverty (19.5% compared to 14.8%) than the state of Ohio as a whole. Lucas County’s inhabitants are of similar age demographics as the state of Ohio, with children under five years of age comprising 6.6% of the county, people under the age of 18 comprising 23.7% of the county, and persons sixty-five years and older comprising 13.4% of the county. Demographic trends, particularly poverty rates and public assistance rates are helpful measures in determining where, how, and what types of food are being consumed in the region. Ottawa County, OhioFigure 2.2.0: Map of Ottawa County, Ohio Figure 2.2.1: Map of Ohio with Ottawa County HighlightedOttawa County is located south/southeast of Lucas County and shares a large eastern border with Lake Erie, a southern border with Erie and Sandusky Counties, and a western border with Fulton County as shown in figures 2.2.0 and 2.2.1. Ottawa County is the smallest of the three counties discussed in this assessment in terms of population (41, 428), but Ottawa County is also the smallest geographically (254.92 sq. miles) by over 100 sq. miles. Ottawa County is far less diverse than Lucas, Monroe, and the state of Ohio, with a non-Hispanic white population (93.3%) dominating the vast majority of Ottawa County. Ottawa County also has the lowest percentage of inhabitants under the age of five (4.8%) and under the age of 18 (20.3%), as well as the highest percentage of inhabitants age sixty-five or older (19.5%) when compared to Lucas County, Monroe County, and the state of Ohio. However, Ottawa County does exhibit the lowest poverty rate (10.2%) of any county in this assessment and compared to the state of Ohio as a whole (14.8%). Finally, Ottawa County is notable for a higher than normal rate of homeownership (81.3%) both compared to the state of Ohio (68.7%), and to Lucas County (64.1%) and Monroe County (80.4%).Monroe County, MichiganFigure 2.3.0: Map of Monroe County, Michigan Figure 2.3.1: Map of Michigan with Monroe County HighlightedMonroe County, Michigan is located in the southeast corner of the state bordering Lake Erie to the east, Wayne and Washtenaw Counties to the north, Lenawee County to the west, and Lucas County, Ohio to the south, as shown in figures 2.3.0 and 2.3.1. Monroe County is the largest of the three counties discussed in terms of geography (254.92 sq. miles) and is similar to the state of Ohio in terms of population density (276.7 persons per sq. mile compared to Ohio’s 282.3). Monroe County is only slightly more diverse than Ottawa, as Monroe has a high rate of non-Hispanic Whites (92.3%). Monroe County’s percentage of inhabitants living below the poverty line (10.4%) nearly matches Ottawa County’s low rate (10.2%) as well. Monroe parallels Lucas and the state of Ohio in terms of the percentage of inhabitants under five years of age (5.7%), under eighteen years of age (23.7%), and sixty- five and above (13.8%). Lastly, Monroe has the lowest level of inhabitants age twenty-five and older who hold at least a Bachelor’s degree (17.2%) of any area included in this assessment.People QuickFactsLucas CountyOttawa CountyMonroe CountyOhioPopulation, 2012 estimateNANANA11,544,225Population, 2011 estimate440,00541,396151,56011,541,007Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base441,81541,428152,02111,536,502Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012NANANA0.1% Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011-0.4%-0.1%-0.3%Z Population, 2010441,81541,428152,02111,536,504Persons under 5 years, percent, 20116.6%4.8%5.7%6.2%Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011 23.7% 20.3% 23.7% 23.3% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011 13.4% 19.5% 13.8% 14.3% Female persons, percent, 2011 51.6% 50.6% 50.7% 51.2%White persons, percent, 2011 (a)76.0%97.4%95.1%83.6% Black persons, percent, 2011 (a)19.4%1.0%2.3%12.4% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011 (a)0.4%0.2%0.4%0.3% Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a)1.6%0.3%0.6%1.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2011 (a)ZZZZ Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 20112.7%1.1%1.6%1.9% Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b)6.2%4.3%3.1%3.2% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 201170.9%93.3%92.3%81.0%Living in same house 1 year & over, percent, 2007-201183.7%88.3%88.8%85.3% Foreign born persons, percent, 2007-20113.6%1.8%1.9%3.9% Language other than English spoken at home, percent age 5+, 2007-20116.1%4.0%3.8%6.5% High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-201187.3%90.1%88.2%87.8% Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-201123.0%19.8%17.1%24.5% Veterans, 2007-201131,5724,08712,271914,971Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2007-201119.721.924.622.9Housing units, 2011202,27228,00962,7495,133,446Homeownership rate, 2007-201164.1%81.3%80.4%68.7% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2007-201125.9%13.0%13.5%22.9% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2007-2011$119,200$141,900$156,600$135,600Households, 2007-2011178,77718,00958,2004,554,007Persons per household, 2007-20112.422.252.592.46Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2011 dollars), 2007-2011$23,857$28,404$25,774$25,618Median household income, 2007-2011$41,949$53,614$55,826$48,071Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-201119.5%10.2%10.4%14.8%Business QuickFactsLucas CountyOttawa CountyMonroe CountyOhioPrivate nonfarm establishments, 20109,9471,0202,383253,491Private nonfarm employment, 2010188,4039,96234,6784,352,481Private nonfarm employment, percent change, 2000-2010-14.6-18.6-12.3-13Nonemployer establishments, 201024,2892,9708,283730,393Total number of firms, 200730,8674,72310,419897,939Black-owned firms, percent, 20077.1%F1.7%5.8% American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms, percent, 20070.8%F0.7%0.3% Asian-owned firms, percent, 20071.9%S1.3%2.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms, percent, 2007FFFS Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 20072.1%S0.7%1.1% Women-owned firms, percent, 200726.0%S28.9%27.7%Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000)20,075,519762,7443,502,955295,890,890Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000)4,943,58771,776D135,575,279Retail sales, 2007 ($1000)5,829,999461,1921,465,317138,816,008Retail sales per capita, 2007$12,493$11,195$9,555$12,049Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000)728,585101,439171,54917,779,905Building permits, 201127179110 13,762Geography QuickFactsLucas CountyOttawa CountyMonroe CountyOhioLand area in square miles, 2010340.86254.92549.39 40,860.69Persons per square mile, 20101,296.2162.5276.7282.3FIPS Code9512311539Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical AreaToledo, OH Metro Area Toledo, OH Metro Area Monroe, MI Metro Area(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.X: Not applicable(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standardsFN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of dataZ: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measureNA: Not availableF: Fewer than 100 firmsD: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential informationSource: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFactsFigure 2.4: Fact sheet, Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties and Ohio, data from US Census.3. The Food Policy CouncilEleven local representatives with a variety of backgrounds founded the Northwest Ohio Food Council (NOFC) in the spring of 2011. Universities, hospitals, the YMCA, and faith-based organizations represent the council. Initially, farmers and food retailers were not involved with the NOFC. However, over time the council has grown to over 160 members, including farmers and food retailers. The NOFC’s mission is: To promote a healthy, sustainable, and equitable food system in the Metropolitan Toledo Area and the Northwest Ohio/Southeast Michigan Region. The NOFC plans to accomplish this goal by:?Fostering a network of collaboration throughout the local food system?Initiating, supporting and promoting programs in the above areas?Promoting local and state policies that support the local food systemIndeed, the NOFC has accomplished much during its short existence. Among the NOFC’s accomplishments are several projects including the establishment of healthy corner stores and healthy food pantries. The NOFC collaborates with the Toledo Farmers’ Market to support the “Double-Up Food Bucks” program, and with Lucas County Extension to promote a Northwest Ohio Farm to School initiative.In the near future, the NOFC hopes to develop a local foods directory that will be available online and in print form, and to continue to improve their website and their Facebook page, which serve as outreach tools for local communities. In the future, the NOFC hopes to attract more business leaders, and to establish a stronger presence of farmers and food retailers on the Council.4. Food ProductionBelow is a brief summary of farm and crop production data in the study area, such as the number and size of farms, total land in farming, farm type and productivity. Data are from the Agricultural Census and reflect trends over a 15-year period. Direct sales have made changes that are even more dramatic in the years prior. In addition, each county represented is a notable leader in the acreage dedicated to vegetable production and may therefore have the capacity to expand direct markets for those crops.Figure 4.1 illustrates the number of farms by size in the three counties from 1992-2007. Figure 4.2 illustrates the number acres utilized for farming in the three counties from 1992-2007. Finally, figure 4.3shows agricultural production by type for the three counties.Number of Farms by Size25002000150010005001,000+ acres500 to 999 acres180 to 499 acres50 to179 acres10 to 49 acres1 to 9 acres01992199720022007Figure 4.1 Number of Farms by Size in the three counties from 1992-2007 [NOFC]250000Land in Farms200000Acres150000100000Lucas Ottawa Monroe5000001992199720022007Figure 4.2: Number of acres utilized for farming in the three counties from 1992-2007 [NOFC]Types of NW Ohio Regional AgriculturalProductsCorn Soybeans Milk CattleVegetablesOther LivestockOther CropsFigure 4.3: Agricultural products by type for the three counties [NOFC]Lucas County Highlights (Agriculture Census 2007):?54 farms sold $1.1 million of food directly to consumers. This is a 46% increase in the number of farms selling direct (37 in 2002) and a 101% increase in direct sales over 2002 sales of $529,000.?Direct sales are 2.2% of farm product sales, more than 5 times the national average of 0.4%.?Lucas County ranks 4th in Ohio for acreage of vegetables, with 2,260.Monroe County, Michigan, highlights (Agriculture Census 2007):?114 farms sold $628,000 of food directly to consumers. This is a 2% decrease in the number of farms selling direct (116 in 2002) and a 51% decrease in direct sales since 2002 sales of$1.3 million.?Direct sales are 0.5% of farm product sales, more than the national average of 0.4%.?The county ranks 8th in Michigan for acreage of vegetables, with 6,707.?Monroe County ranks 1st in Michigan for aquaculture sales, with $1.4 million.Ottawa County highlights (Agriculture Census 2007): ?66 farms sold $472,000 of food directly to consumers. This is a 50% increase in the number of farms selling direct (44 in 2002) and a 60% increase in direct sales over 2002 sales of$295,000.?Direct sales are 1% of farm product sales, more than double the national average of 0.4%.?Ottawa County ranks 10th in Ohio for acreage of vegetables, with 1,412. [NOFC]Economic Productivity, 2007LucasOttawaMonroe, MIOhioTotal Acres in Farmland 62,906115,145207,81213,956,563Farmland as Percentage of TotalLand Area28.8%70.6%58.9%49.2%Total Crop Sales (Thousands) $46,281.00 $43,886.00 $122,058.00 $4,109,722.00Total Livestock Sales (Thousands) $1,607.00 $2,239.00 $8,012.00 $2,960,490.00$/acre $761.26 $ 400.58$ 625.90 $506.59Figure 4.4 Economic Productivity of Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties and the state of Ohio, 2007.Figure 4.4 outlines the economic productivity for the three counties and the state of Ohio in 2007. The chart provides data regarding total acres in farmland, farmland as a percentage of total land area, total crop and livestock sales, and dollar per acre. The reason for differences in land productivity for each county is unknown and inconclusive if not studied over a multi-year period, although the high profitability of vegetable production may be responsible for placing Lucas and Monroe Counties over the state average. The slight variations of direct sales and product mix, as shown above, cannot account for the large differences in output per acre, leading us to look also at soil characteristics. Weather is most likely comparable in each county, but it is notable that in 2007, 39% of the region’s farms (5,355 of 13,635) reported net losses. If due to an unusual weather season, this could have presented an issue for the higher clay content of Ottawa County’s soil; if so, we would expect to find similar losses from that year in other counties within the Great Black Swamp Region, shown below in figure 4.5.Figure 4.5: Historic Map of the Great Black Swamp. Created by Gary L. Franks for "The Maumee & WesternReserve Road: Its History and a Survey of the Milestones" published in 2008. The red line denotes the so-called“Mud Pike.”5. Food Processing and DistributionCensus of Agriculture, 2007LucasOttawaMonroe, MIOhioAverageRegionalAverageNumber of food processors31479.916.19Number of fruit and vegetablepreserving and specialty food manufacturers2000.660.40Number of fruit and vegetablecanning, pickling, and drying manufacturers2000.400.22Number of cheese manufacturers1000.220.26Number of animal slaughteringand processing manufacturers0111.511.21Number of perishable preparedfood manufacturers1010.240.14Number of breweries0000.090.09Number of wineries0110.500.29County Business Patterns, 2010Number of food processingestablishments27479.75N/ANumber employed in foodprocessing99720 to 99100 to 249569N/AAnnual payroll in food processing($1,000) 44,939.00N/A1,795 23,736.00N/AAnnual payroll per employee$ 45,074.22N/AMAX $17,950$ 41,715.29N/AFigure 5.1: Food Processing in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties with Ohio and Regional Averages.The number of food processors is expectedly proportional to population, as shown below in figure 5.1. Notable, however, is that the payroll distributed to these employees is staggeringly different from Lucas to Monroe counties. Though the County Business Patterns data is flagged to protect certain business’ information, the best-case scenario salary for a food-processing employee in 2010 is $17,950. The Census Bureau makes no distinction of how many of these employees are part-time.Additionally, Lucas County lost four food processors between 2007 and 2010, accounting for over one quarter of the lost facilities in the sector statewide during that period.6. RetailNumber of Food Retailers by TypeNumber of Stores90080070060050040030020010020072009Lucas20072009Ottawa20072009Monroe, MIWIC-authorized stores (2008/2011)5055572731SNAP-authorized stores (2008/2011)371459162869118Supercenters & club stores6100111Specialized food stores483656169Grocery stores747012112522Convenience stores230238262353480Figure 6.1: Food Retailers by Type, Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe CountiesFood retail splits into two areas: those who sell food for home consumption (groceries) or for consumption in an establishment (restaurants). Figure 6.1 reflects the number of grocers in each county, separated by type. It should be noted, however, that many stores will overlap categories and should not be considered additive. For instance, a convenience store may have authorization to sell under SNAP. The number of SNAP and WIC authorizing stores together, however, is larger than all other categories combined in some cases; therefore, data from the USDA cannot be verified. When examining thesecharts, one should keep in mind that the three counties are contiguous and that political boundaries do not constrain consumer purchasing.At first glance, it appears that access to all types of stores in Lucas County is by far superior to that of Monroe or Ottawa County. A more accurate picture emerges when looking at figure 6.2, which is normalized by how many of each type of store is in the county per 1,000 people. SNAP- Authorized stores are much more numerous in Lucas County than in Monroe or Ottawa, while Monroe County has the most WIC-Authorized store per 1,000 people. Ottawa leads in the number of both Convenience and Grocery stores per 1,000 people. One thing to keep in mind when contemplating these numbers is that distance is not a consideration. The population in Lucas County is denser than in either Monroe or Ottawa County; this means that many stores in Lucas County are serving larger populations. In addition, Monroe County is in Michigan while Lucas and Ottawa County are in the State of Ohio. Both the SNAP and WIC programs are federal programs, with resources filtered through the state government to the counties. Therefore, the policies of both states and all three counties will differ in pressure put on private industries and the amount of incentives they are able to offer.Food Retailers per 1,000 Persons21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20200720092007200920072009LucasOttawaMonroe, MIWIC-authorized stores(2008/2011)SNAP-authorized stores(2008/2011)Supercenters & club stores Specialized food stores Grocery storesConvenience storesFigure 6.2: Food Retailers per 1,000 Persons for Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe CountiesRestaurants reveal interesting trending in figures 6.3 and 6.4 during the period of oncoming economic recession. Lucas County lost 20 fast food restaurants, but replaced almost half ofthese with full-service restaurants. Monroe, MI on the other hand, added 16 fast food restaurants. Ottawa County has more full-service than fast food restaurants, and has significantly more of each type than surrounding counties. This may be due to its lakeside location and focus on tourism.Restaurants by Type800Number of Restaurants70060050040030020010020072009Lucas20072009Ottawa20072009Monroe, MIFull-service restaurants33434356538383Fast-food restaurants370350363680960Figure 6.3: Restaurants by Type in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2007 & 2009.Restaurants per 1,000 Persons2.521.510.5Full-service restaurantsFast-food restaurants02007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009LucasOttawaMonroe, MI Ohio AverageFigure 6.4: Restaurants per 1,000 Persons in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2007 & 2009.7. ConsumptionThis section examines food consumption in the three counties. Included is an examination of per capita food expenditures at home and away from home as well as food insecurity. In addition, this section examines the various forms of food assistance available throughout the counties, the geographies and the populations they serve. Finally, this section will examine access to food in each county. Together, these measures tell a story of how much people spend on food, how easy or difficult it is to access and afford it, in addition to pointing to populations that may be underserved in one or all of these categories.ExpendituresPer Capita Food Spending Estimates inLucas, Ottawa & Monroe CountiesAnnual Expenditures4,000.003,500.003,000.002,500.002,000.001,500.001,000.00500.00200920102011Away from Home1,772.001,819.601,889.90At Home1,965.102,000.002,100.100.00Figure 7.1: National per capita food expenditures, 2009-2011.The US Census Bureau measures food expenditures at the per capita level. Unfortunately, this data is only available at the national level; therefore, food expenditures for each of the three counties are estimated to be the same. Above, in figure 7.1 are the calculated per capita food expenditures at and away from home for the three counties in 2009, 2010, and 2011.Food InsecurityThe USDA defines food security as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life” (USDA Food Security in US Households). This definition takes into account physical proximity and transportation to access food, as well as resources with which to purchase or grow food. The index measures, the county averages, and the data years available for Ottawa County differ from Lucas and Monroe in household food insecurity. Displayed below in three tables are the averages and changes for the three counties. The first table, figure7.2, reveals household food insecurity in Lucas and Monroe Counties. Since the data for Ottawa County differed significantly from data retrieved for both Lucas and Monroe Counties, there is a separate table for Ottawa County, figure 7.3. The third table, figure 7.4 illustrates child food insecurity across the three counties.Average HouseholdChangeFood Insecurity2009-112006-081999-011999-2011Lucas15.5%13.3%9.1%6.4%Monroe14.2%8.1%7.5%6.1%Figure 7.2: Household food insecurity in Lucas and Monroe Counties, 1999-2001;2006-2009; 2009-2011 [USDAAverage HouseholdFood Insecurity2008-102005-07ChangeOttawa16.4%12.2%4.2%Figure 7.3: Household food insecurity in Ottawa County,2005-2007; 2008-2010 [USDA]Average Childhood2003-112001-07ChangeFood InsecurityLucas8.6%8.2%0.4%Monroe8%7.60%0.4%OttawaN/A8.2%N/AFigure 7.4: Average childhood food insecurity for Lucas, Monroe,and Ottawa Counties, 2001-2007; 2003-2011 [USDA]As the above charts clearly illustrate, food insecurity in the region is rising, with the most dramatic increases occurring at the household level in all three counties. Child food insecurity in Lucas and Monroe Counties has risen only slightly compared to the rise in overall householdfood insecurity. However, children make up roughly 24% of the population in both Lucas andMonroe counties, which may indicate that children are disproportionately food insecure.Food Assistance US government-administered food assistance is through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Free and Reduced School Lunch Program, and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program. Private assistance comes from food banks and other charitable organizations. This section first examines federal and state assistance programs.A. Government AssistancePerhaps the most well-known governmental food assistance program is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. The data available for SNAP is averaged for each state, as is many governmental assistance programs. When this is the case, data for Lucas and Ottawa Counties is together. Between 2009 and 2011, SNAP participation in both states increased with a 3.66% rise in Ohio and 4.98% rise in Michigan. The eligible student participation rate in the two states vary as well, with Ohio’s rate at 79% and Michigan’s at 95%, as illustrated in figures 7.5 and 7.6.SNAP ParticipationPercent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP2011Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP2009ParticipationPercent Change2009-2011Eligible Student Participation Rate 2009Lucas & Ottawa15.42%11.76%3.66%79%Monroe19.53%14.55%4.98%95%Figure 7.5: SNAP participation percentages and rates for Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2009-2011 [USDA]25.00%20.00%15.00%10.00%5.00%Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP2009Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP20110.00%Lucas & OttawaMonroeFigure 7.6: Percent of population participating in SNAP in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2009 & 2011 [USDA]As mentioned above, children in the region appear to be disproportionately food insecure, which makes the percentage of children participating in the federal school lunch program a useful population to examine. Figures 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 detail the participation and eligibility rates for the school lunch programs in Ohio and Michigan. This program has a relatively low participation rate when considering the percentage of students who meet the qualifications to participate.CountySchool Lunch Percent Participants2009School Lunch Percent Participants2011CountyPopulation2010School Lunch Participant Percent Change 2009-2011Percent Free Lunch Eligible Students2009PercentReduced Price Eligible Students2009Lucas9.71%9.83%91,0320.12%38.45%4.58%Ottawa7,458Monroe9.15%9.22%32,1130.08%29.17%6.71%Figure 7.7: School lunch program participation rates with county populations for Lucas, Ottawa,and Monroe Counties, 2009, 2010, 2011 [US Census]School Lunch Program Participation andEligibility in Michigan26%School Lunch Participants74%Eligible Student's NotParticipatingFigure 7.8: School lunch program participation and eligibility in Michigan, 2011[US Census]School Lunch Program Participation andEligibility in Ohio23%School Lunch Participants77%Eligible Student's NotParticipatingFigure 7.9: School lunch program participation and eligibility in Ohio, 2011 [US Census]The final measure of government assistance that we will examine in this section is WIC. Interestingly, participation in the program varied only slightly over the period from 2009-2011,and Ohio’s participation declined while Michigan’s increased, as shown in figure 7.10 below.WIC PercentWIC Percent Percent Change in WIC ParticipationParticipation 2011Participation 2009-20112009Lucas & Ottawa2.64%2.44%-0.03%Monroe2.45%2.56%0.01%Figure 7.10: WIC participation rates in Ohio and Michigan, 2009, 2011 [US Census]B. Private AssistanceIn addition to the assistance the government offers, a number of private and non-profit institutions assist people with their food needs. Private assistance typically covers specific geographic areas with programs tailored to the needs of that service area. The appendix lists the organizations that run community-based food distribution programs for each county.8. Food AccessAccess to food is measured by how close in proximity a person lives to fresh food. Figure 8.1 is a chart of the percentage of population by county with low access to food sources. This information, gathered from the USDA’s website, details the percentage of the general population, as well as specific population groups who experience food access problems. Included in the chart are children, households with no car, low-income individuals, and seniors with low access to food in Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties. In most categories, Lucas and Monroe counties are within a percentage point of each other, but in the population with low access category, Monroe County tops Lucas County by almost 4%. Ottawa County exhibits lower rates in the population with low access, households with no car, and seniors categories than does Lucas or Monroe County. These rates could perhaps be due to access issues inherent for the 700+ permanent residents on the Bass Islands.2010Children with Low access to StoresHouseholds with no car & low access to storesLow income and low access to storesPopulation with low access to storesSeniors with low access to storesLucas4.20%1.20%5.24%16.78%2.28%Monroe4.87%1.91%4.72%20.59%2.75%Ottawa4.73%3.74%5.03%22.29%4.41%Figure 8.1: Children with low access, households with no car and low access, low income and low access,total population with low access, and seniors with low access for Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties,2010 [US Census]9. Alternative Food System Practices and ProjectsAmong the trio of counties chosen from the Northwest Ohio Food Council’s membership, there are stark differences in the level of development of alternative food system practices. One unifying factor among the three counties is that each county has a prevalent Extension Service, which includes robust programs in food access assistance and in nutrition education. Lucas County, Ohio has a thriving community effort to bolster the local food system that includes several well-established organizations such as Toledo GROWs, which promotes community gardening, and CIFT, which provides technical assistance to various sectors of the food system economy with the end goal of promoting increased access to healthy food. Monroe County, Michigan has a strong agricultural base that contributes to the presence of numerous outlets for healthy food access for the county residents, such as numerous farmers’ markets and CSAs. While Ottawa County also has a strong agricultural base and a notable number of farmers’ markets, there appears to be room for the development of alternative food system practices. Below, in figure 9.1 is a chart of the number of alternative food system practices and programs in Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties.Practice/ProjectLucas OHMonroe MIOttawa OHFarmer’s Markets664Farm to School programs110Farms selling directly thru CSA463CSA110Food Co-op100Community Gardens16540Food Incubator/Community Kitchen (Parentorganization based in Lucas County)100Food Hubs000Extension Service with food access assistance andnutrition education programYesYesYesFigure 9.1: Alternative food system practices and programs in Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties(see works cited for source list)10. Food and Farm PolicyThis section examines comprehensive plans, zoning codes, land use plans and any other available resources for the three counties to find policy or legislation concerning the food system. All aspects of the food system are examined, including food waste and agricultural land use.Lucas CountyLucas County’s planning commission partners with the City of Toledo to form the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commission. Often, the focus of the commission is upon Toledo, but the organization represents and works in collaboration with all jurisdictions in the County. The County does not have a comprehensive plan, but mentions several parts of the food system in the land-use policy and zoning code.The City of Toledo has zoning for urban agriculture in one of its twenty-four districts (Englewood), and defines it as ‘moderate sized farming operations, including gardens, hoop houses, green houses, orchards, fish farms and livestock (Toledo 20/20). The city’s policy also mentions food safety issues, like the healthy raising and selling of livestock and poultry (Toledo Municipal Code).Policy also includes the distribution portion of the food system. It mandates the Toledo Market must operate from April 1 until December 31, and must be closed from January 1 until March 31. The market must remain open Monday through Saturday between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry (Toledo Municipal Code) determines all regulations for products sold within the market. The municipal code states that in areas considered ‘Community Development Corporations’, convenience stores should be present, and healthy food options should be encouraged by the mayor. The municipal code also offers guidelines for food safety and waste disposal, as well as regulations for the distribution of food from a vehicle and regulations for the preparation process of foods (Toledo Municipal Code).The city forbids raising or keeping hogs, cows, goats, geese or ducks within the corporate limits, unless given a written permit from the Commissioner of Health. If given permission, residents must keep animals within the confines of the premises of the owners.The City of Toledo has its own comprehensive plan, entitled Toledo 20/20, but it makes few references to the food system, apart from its recommendation that truck farming and bedding should continue as an important agribusiness within the city, and expansion should be encouraged (Toledo 20/20). Similarly, the 2011 Downtown Plan makes little mention of food, agricultural land, or any other aspect of the food system outside of outlining areas for possible food retail commercial development (Toledo Downtown Plan).Other townships within Lucas County currently have food system legislation and policy in place, including Monclova Township, Springfield Township, and Sylvania Township. All three jurisdictions have comprehensive plans that include food system and agricultural land policy. These zoning and planning commissions delve deep into agricultural land use policy, food waste, the keeping of livestock and poultry, farms and orchards as they see fit for the smaller townships. Preservation of agricultural land is a focal point. Outside of Toledo, a large portion of the county is rural. These three townships recognize the importance of developing greenfield and agricultural land, and in their plans, mention strategies to preserve this land to improve food security and protect community heritage (City of Toledo Plan Commission).Ottawa CountyOttawa County has no county-level comprehensive plan. Of the twelve townships that fall within the area, seven have their own zoning codes, including Allen, Benton, Catawba Island, Danbury, Put-In-Bay, Harris and Portage Townships. Of these seven, Danbury and Portage also have land use codes. Bay, Carroll and Salem Townships have no zoning or land use codes in place (Ottawa County). The final two townships, Erie and Clay Townships, have no websites according to the State of Ohio Township Directory, and therefore no data was collected.Similar to Lucas County, many of the township individual zoning and land use codes include recommendations for different aspects of the food system and delve into specific policy and land use, however, reviewing each township’s planning and zoning practices is beyond the scope of the county-level food system assessment. Monroe CountyMonroe County is the only of the three counties to have a published Comprehensive Plan. The plan not only addresses agricultural land use, but also addresses the food system and the potential for a greater focus on creating a local food economy. It focuses on planning for the future and the projected food requirements of the population, including balancing development with the preservation of agricultural land. A large portion of the county is considered ‘prime farmland,’ which the comprehensive plan recommends preserving. While nationally, farmland use has been declining, in 2000, 63.5% of Monroe County’s land was considered agricultural (Monroe County Plan Commission). The plan recognizes the benefits of preserving agricultural land, as well as the issues and difficulties associated with doing so.Most significant in the Monroe County plan is the recognition of a local food system. The Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) is a collaboration of five counties in southeast Michigan, formed to help develop a local food economy, including the production, processing, transportation, distribution and consumption processes (Monroe County Plan Commission).The Comprehensive Plan outlines methods with which to preserve farmland in the area. These practices include identifying target preservation areas, reviewing and evaluating applicable preservation tools, and implementing programs, policies, and regulation aimed at meeting shared preservation efforts. The two techniques most often implemented in the area are zoning/land development controls and voluntary development right agreements. The former may include slide scale zoning, which limits the number of times an agricultural lot may be split for another use, or quarter/quarter zoning, which limits the amount of residential and non-agricultural development on an agricultural lot of 40 acres or more. Extensive Agricultural zoning designations disallow all non-farm dwellings. Agricultural buffer zoning requires including a buffer zone between agricultural land and higher-intensity uses in order to preserve the rural lifestyle (Monroe County Plan Commission). The second technique outlined, Development Rights Agreements also comes in many forms, but generally includes financial incentives to preserve farmland. Tax benefits and exemptions from special assessments incentivize preservation for those involved in a Farmland Development Rights Agreement. The State Purchase of Development Rights Program in Michigan offers agricultural landowners cash payments for preserving their land. The Agricultural Preservation Fund helps local governments put these programs into place through grants (Monroe County Plan Commission).The county’s plan recommends finding ways to implement these programs and continue preservation efforts. They also recommend continuing to work with FSEP in order to further the development of the local food economy. The plan addresses other portions of the food system, stating that the county will strive to ‘encourage new and expanded markets for locally produced agricultural products’ (Monroe County Plan Commission), which may include attracting and retaining processing plants and agricultural support operations. The Future Land Use Plan for the county includes both agricultural preservation land (prime agricultural land) and secondary agricultural land (Monroe County Plan Commission).Monroe County’s food systems work creates a great opportunity for Ottawa and Lucas County to improve upon their local food network. Taking advantage of the work done by FSEP, these two Ohio counties have a head start in improving their local food production and distribution processes. As previously stated, this organization represents five contiguous counties in southeast Michigan, to which Lucas and Ottawa counties are connected. Using existing systems and strategies, Ottawa and Lucas County have the ability to develop a more localized food system in conjunction with Monroe County. Their addition to the program could also potentially benefit and strengthen FSEP and encourage further development.11. Gaps in AssessmentAlthough most information required for a thorough food assessment was accessible, gaps do exist. One issue encountered in this food system assessment is that much of the government assistance distributed was at the state level, rather than at the county level. Thus, this report does not include a comprehensive list of all community-based food assistance programs for the study area. Furthermore, data on zoning and land use plans in non-urban areas, townships, and smaller cities was difficult to obtain due to the number of political entities that could have policies and regulations in place. Determining the prevalence of access to alternative food programs was troublesome as well, as this information was often unavailable or incredibly time consuming and impractical to obtain. In addition, this assessment lacks the resources to do mapping, which may identify neighborhoods where many families strain to find food access. Production data for a good variety of products could only be located from an already-completed food assessment at the regional level, and any attempts to explain peculiar data are guesses at best. Furthermore, the assessment might be much more valuable if it included specific anecdotal stories, especially in alternative practices and policy creation.12. ConclusionIn general, Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa counties are achieving moderate success in some areas. Farmers are doing well in terms of selling their crops directly to consumers. Although all three counties are above the national average, Lucas County experiences directfarm sales to consumers at over five times the national average. High levels of food processing in Lucas County should allow for access to locally produced food in all three counties. Ottawa County has a large number of convenience stores and grocery stores percapita, although this may be a function of Ottawa’s small population.Wide differences in income from agricultural production per acre between these counties generate more questions than answers. Recent weather patterns, including flooding, and differences in soil types across the counties explain some of the production differences, yet the processes used in Lucas County to achieve the highest rate of income from agricultural production per acre of the three counties in this study should bear additional examination. The rise in each county’s food insecurity rate is troubling, as economic factors negatively impact Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties. There is little in terms of alternative food programs across the counties, with the exception of numerous community gardens in Lucas County. The large number of stores accepting SNAP per capita in Lucas County could be explained by the county’s high population density, and Monroe County’s lead in WIC affiliated stores per capita could be explained by policy differences between Michigan and Ohio. Meanwhile, the general prohibition or lack of policies on agricultural land use in urban centers in Ohio compared to Monroe County’s comprehensive land use plan is troubling.Overall, differences exist in agricultural income per acre, food production, food insecurity rates, lack of extensive comprehensive land use plans in Lucas and Ottawa counties, and in usage of federal assistance programs. It is unclear what factors discussed in this food system assessment explain the rising food insecurity rates experienced in all three counties. Each individual county seems to be successful in certain areas of the food system, such as Ottawa’s high rate of grocery and convenience stores, but not successful as a whole system. In order to continue improving, this assessment recommends that greatercoordination and method sharing actions be undertaken across Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa counties in order to facilitate the sharing of successful food system methods and processes. Engaging the local food policy council, which is actively working to improve access to healthy foods, with the local governments would be a logical place to begin coordination efforts.13. Works CitedCenter for Innovative Food Technology Contact. (2013, March 14). [Electronic mail message]. Retrieved from of Toledo. (2013). Toledo Municipal Code. American Legal Publishing Corporation. Retrieved March 2013, from templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:toledo_ohCity of Toledo Plan Commission. (2012). Codes. City of Toledo. Retrieved March, 2013, from System Economic Partnership. (2011). Farm to school. Retrieved from System Economic Partnership. Lenawee County Commissioners, (2006). Presentation to: lenawee county board of commissioners. Retrieved from website: System-Economic-PartnershipFranks, Gary L. (2008) Historic Map of the Great Black Swamp. "The Maumee & Western Reserve Road: It’sHistory and a Survey of the Milestones"Freedgood, J., Pierce-Quinonez, M. E., & Meter, K. A. (2011). Emerging assessment tools to inform food system planning. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(1), 90. Retrieved from . (2013). Monroe county bank inc.food . Retrieved from Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan. (2013). Nourishing communities by feeding people.Retrieved from , C., & Wigton, S. (2010). Local accessibility in monroe county 2010. Retrieved from . (2012). Home. Retrieved from County. (n.d.). Health: toledo-lucas county health department. Retrieved from , Ken. University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. (2011). Northwest Ohio (and Southeast Michigan) LocalFarm & Food Economy. Retrieved from website: Maziarz, T. Ohio Department of Health, Healthy Ohio. (2012). 2012 lucas countycreating healthy communities interventions. Retrieved from website: County Intermediate School District. (2013). Food banks. Retrieved from County Opportunity Program. (2012). Food programs. Retrieved from County Planning Commission. (2009). Monroe County Planning Department. Monroe County. RetrievedMarch,2013, from Extension. (2013). Nutrition. Retrieved from Grows. (2011). A garden for every faith space. Retrieved from Central Regional Center for Rural Development, (n.d.). Food systems profile: lucas county, ohio. Retrieved from University of Wisconsin-Extension website: County,Ohio_39095.pdfOnboard Informatics. (2012). Monroe, Michigan. Retrieved from Michigan.htmlOSU Extension-Ottawa County (2013, March 16). Welome to osu extension-ottawa county: Erie basin extension education and research area. Retrieved from Extension-Lucas County (2013, March 16). Welome to osu extension-lucas county: maumee county education and research area . Retrieved from County. (2013). Welcome to ottawa county! Retrieved from Applied Population Laboratory. (n.d.). North central region: County food systems indicators profiles . Retrieved from Lord's Harvest Pantry. (2013). The lord's harvest pantry: offering choice, preserving dignity. Retrieved from Botanical Gardens. (2013). Toledogrows. Retrieved from Downtown Plan. (2011) The City of Toledo. Retrieved March 2013 from GROWs, (n.d.). Our city in a garden: Growing produce, harvesting rewards. Retrieved from Center forInnovative Food Technology website: 20/20. (2010). The City of Toledo. Retrieved March 2013 from Commission/Reports-PlansUnited States Census Bureau, (2012). American community survey. Retrieved from US Department of Commerce website: Economic Research Service. (2012, December 11). Food environment atlas. Retrieved from Food and Nutrition Service. (2013). Wic prescreening tool. Retrieved from Food Security in US Households. (2013) Retrieved from assistance/food-security-in-the-us.aspx#.UUYGf1dWGJRAlternative food system practices and projects citations:Lucas County: Food Systems Profile Lucas County, Ohio Toledo GROWS Community Gardens CIFT info@ Creating Healthy Communities Program County Health Department ; MultiFaith GROWS Project of the MultiFaith Council of Northwest Ohio Local Harvest Real Food, Real Farmers, Real Community Search Map Our City In A Garden County: Local Food Accessibility in Monroe County 2010 lity9_20_10.pdf Food System Economic Partnership Michigan Farm to School ; Local Harvest Real Food, Real Farmers, Real Community Search Map ; Ottawa County: Local Harvest Real Food, Real Farmers, Real Community Search Map ; Ottawa County Ohio website ; Oak Harbor Chamber of Commerce Food Systems Practices and ProjectsLucas CountyFarmers’ MarketsDowntown Toledo farmers marketWestgate farmers marketMayberry Farmers MarketFarms selling thru CSA Sage organicsSeeds of Hope farm Shared Legacy Farms Friendship farmsCSAClaudia’s natural food marketFood Co-opPhoenix Earth Food Co-opCommunity GardensToledo GROWsFood Incubator/Community KitchenCenter for Innovative Food Technology (CIFT) Lucas County ExtensionMonroe CountyFarmers’ MarketsBedford farmers’ market Detroit beach farmers’ market Dundee farmers’ marketMilan farmers’ marketMonroe county farmers’ marketYouth farm stand marketFarm to School ProgramName not knownCSABrenda Jo’s organic foodsFarms selling directly through CSA Garden to GoSmith Road Farm Valley Family Farm Zilke Vegetable FarmHealth matter herbs and moreBack to basics country marketCommunity gardensAmber Garden MinistryCity of Monroe Community Garden PlotsSt. Mary Organic FarmYouth Farm Stand ProjectMonroe County ExtensionOttawa CountyFarmers’ marketsOak harbor farmers’ market Port Clinton farmers’ market Genoa farmers’ market Lakeside farmers’ marketFarms selling directly through CSA Shared legacy farmsOttawa County ExtensionLucas & Ottawa Food Resources – United Way of Northwest Ohio (attached)Please consult the United Way of Northwest Ohio 211 before sharing this listMonroe County Community Food Distribution NetworkGleaners Community Food Bank2131 BeaufaitDetroit, Michigan 48207866-GLEANER (45302637)The Lord’s Harvest Pantry1140 S. Telegraph RoadMonroe, Michigan 48161734-224-TLHP (8547) County Food Bank, Inc.15513 Military StreetMonroe, Michigan 48161734-241-6955Monroe County Opportunity Program (MCOP)1140 South Telegraph RoadMonroe, Michigan 48161734-243-1520 Outreach Ministries214 WashingtonMonroe, Michigan 48161734-241-6955The Salvation Army of Monroe815 E. First St.Monroe, Michigan 48161734-241-0440Mary_thomas@usc.St. Joseph’s Food Closet937 East Third StreetMonroe, Michigan 48161734-241-9590Steward Road Church of God1199 Stewart RoadMonroe, Michigan 48162734-241-1000 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download