Want to create interactive content? It’s easy in Genially!
Get started free
Using the Framework
Rebekah Erickson
Created on August 4, 2023
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
Transcript
JEDI Outcomes
Framework Use 1: Evaluate an Activity
Page 2
1.1 Multiple goals, outcomes and principles are represented in visions of the food system.
The Framework can be used to assess whether an activity/ intervention is contributing to JEDI (justice, equity, decolonization, inclusion) outcomes that signify progress towards a more just food system. Click on numbers 1-4 below and follow the steps to evaluate an activity. Download this worksheet to record your answers.
1.2 Differing interpretations of problems and solutions are acknowledged and incorporated in food work.
1.3 Processes are established to allow for differing or conflicting visions to resolve or coexist.
Impacts
Outputs
JEDI Outcomes
Activity
1.4 Historic and ongoing injustices (e.g., colonial legacies, intergenerational poverty, racism) are incorporated into how food system problems are framed, root causes are understood, and solutions are developed.
1.5 Equity-deserving communities are recognised as experiencing hope, joy, resiliency and vibrancy in the past, present and future, rather than simply being framed as oppressed.
Click and drag relevant outcomes below. Headings can be moved for extra space.
Substantial contribution:
Embracing difference
1.6 The impact on future generations (of humans and other species) is intentionally incorporated into food systems planning (e.g., considering social, economic and environmental impacts).
Considering past, present and future
2.1 Increased capacity of equity-deserving groups to address their own challenges and achieve their own objectives (e.g. organizational development, self-determination, resources, business development, food sovereignty).
2.2 Increased knowledge and understanding of local food system governance, processes and tools.
Capacity to participate
Recognitional Justice
2.3 Food-system grants/funding sources support community-determined priorities, are flexible, and have accessible, low-barrier application and reporting processes.
2.4 Reduced systemic power imbalances in governance (e.g., moving from top down, prescriptive, opaque approaches to more transparent, flexible and non-hierarchical approaches).
2.5 Equity-deserving communities are leading or meaningfully engaged throughout the planning, implementation and evaluation of policies & programs.
Just processes
Procedural Justice
Moderate Contribution:
2.6 Reduced barriers and increased safety to participate in food systems planning (e.g., offer stipends, childcare, transportation, translation, etc).
3.1 Increased food security for equity-deserving groups (access to nutritious, culturally preferred, affordable food).
3.2 Processes are established to identify individuals or groups experiencing/ at risk of food insecurity.
Distributive Justice
3.3 Greater Indigenous food sovereignty/ food sovereignty (i.e., more local control over distribution, supply and production).
Access to food
3.4 Increased resilience in local food systems to ensure they can withstand natural disasters, economic shocks, and supply chain disruptions.
3.5 Increased food literacy so people can participate in their food system in whatever way they choose (e.g., gardening, preserving classes, nutrition, cooking, cultural and traditional food practices, etc.).
Labour justice
Minimal Contribution:
3.6 Fair, adequate and equitable pay in food-related jobs (i.e., across genders and races, providing at minimum a living wage).
3.7 Increased employee support (e.g. health insurance, training, adequate staffing) and safety from pollution, hazards, weather, and other adverse conditions in workspaces.
Respectful relations
3.8 Increased access to food system jobs/business opportunities and infrastructure (e.g., farmland, processing facilities, distribution chains, etc.) for equity-deserving groups and rural/remote communities.
3.9 Reciprocal relationships between equity-deserving (e.g., women, racialized groups, indigenous communities, LGBTQ2SI+, low-income) and dominant groups (e.g., white, cis, hetero, white-collar workers/managerial class) are established.
3.10 Equity-deserving food actors have opportunities to provide feedback on partnership relations.
3.11 Reciprocal relationships between different food actors (e.g., farmers, processors, distributors, food access organizations, funders) are established.
Gap Analysis
Reflection and verification
3.12 Humans have an ethical (versus exploitative and harmful) relationship with the animals, plants and land needed for food (e.g., animal welfare, reduced food waste, agroecological practices, increased biodiversity and ecosystem health)
JEDI Outcomes
Framework Use 2: Organizational Audit
1.1 Multiple goals, outcomes and principles are represented in visions of the food system.
Page 3
The Framework can be used as an organizational audit tool to identify the aspects of a just food system that your organization supports and bring awareness to the gaps where further work can be done. Click on numbers 1-4 below and follow the steps to perform an audit. Download this worksheet to record your answers.
1.2 Differing interpretations of problems and solutions are acknowledged and incorporated in food work.
1.3 Processes are established to allow for differing or conflicting visions to resolve or coexist.
Impacts
JEDI Outcomes
1.4 Historic and ongoing injustices (e.g., colonial legacies, intergenerational poverty, racism) are incorporated into how food system problems are framed, root causes are understood, and solutions are developed.
Click and drag relevant outcomes below. Headings can be moved for extra space.
1.5 Equity-deserving communities are recognised as experiencing hope, joy, resiliency and vibrancy in the past, present and future, rather than simply being framed as oppressed.
Substantial contribution:
Embracing difference
1.6 The impact on future generations (of humans and other species) is intentionally incorporated into food systems planning (e.g., considering social, economic and environmental impacts).
Considering past, present and future
2.1 Increased capacity of equity-deserving groups to address their own challenges and achieve their own objectives (e.g. organizational development, self-determination, resources, business development, food sovereignty).
2.2 Increased knowledge and understanding of local food system governance, processes and tools.
Capacity to participate
2.3 Food-system grants/funding sources support community-determined priorities, are flexible, and have accessible, low-barrier application and reporting processes.
Recognitional Justice
Procedural Justice
2.4 Reduced systemic power imbalances in governance (e.g., moving from top down, prescriptive, opaque approaches to more transparent, flexible and non-hierarchical approaches).
Moderate Contribution:
2.5 Equity-deserving communities are leading or meaningfully engaged throughout the planning, implementation and evaluation of policies & programs.
Just processes
Procedural Justice
2.6 Reduced barriers and increased safety to participate in food systems planning (e.g., offer stipends, childcare, transportation, translation, etc).
3.1 Increased food security for equity-deserving groups (access to nutritious, culturally preferred, affordable food).
3.2 Processes are established to identify individuals or groups experiencing/ at risk of food insecurity.
Distributive Justice
3.3 Greater Indigenous food sovereignty/ food sovereignty (i.e., more local control over distribution, supply and production).
Access to food
3.4 Increased resilience in local food systems to ensure they can withstand natural disasters, economic shocks, and supply chain disruptions.
3.5 Increased food literacy so people can participate in their food system in whatever way they choose (e.g., gardening, preserving classes, nutrition, cooking, cultural and traditional food practices, etc.).
Minimal Contribution:
Labour justice
3.6 Fair, adequate and equitable pay in food-related jobs (i.e., across genders and races, providing at minimum a living wage).
3.7 Increased employee support (e.g. health insurance, training, adequate staffing) and safety from pollution, hazards, weather, and other adverse conditions in workspaces.
Respectful relations
3.8 Increased access to food system jobs/business opportunities and infrastructure (e.g., farmland, processing facilities, distribution chains, etc.) for equity-deserving groups and rural/remote communities.
3.9 Reciprocal relationships between equity-deserving (e.g., women, racialized groups, indigenous communities, LGBTQ2SI+, low-income) and dominant groups (e.g., white, cis, hetero, white-collar workers/managerial class) are established.
3.10 Equity-deserving food actors have opportunities to provide feedback on partnership relations.
3.11 Reciprocal relationships between different food actors (e.g., farmers, processors, distributors, food access organizations, funders) are established.
Reflection & Verification
Provide Examples
GapAnalysis
3.12 Humans have an ethical (versus exploitative and harmful) relationship with the animals, plants and land needed for food (e.g., animal welfare, reduced food waste, agroecological practices, increased biodiversity and ecosystem health)
JEDI Outcomes
Framework Use 3: Community Assessment
1.1 Multiple goals, outcomes and principles are represented in visions of the food system.
The Framework can be used to measure community progress towards a just food system. Food actors can come together to collectively identify the aspects of a just food system present in their community and the gaps where further work can be done. This can support food system planning, prioritization and resource allocation. Click on numbers 1-4 below and follow the steps. Record your answers on this worksheet.
1.2 Differing interpretations of problems and solutions are acknowledged and incorporated in food work.
1.3 Processes are established to allow for differing or conflicting visions to resolve or coexist.
Impacts
JEDI Outcomes
1.4 Historic and ongoing injustices (e.g., colonial legacies, intergenerational poverty, racism) are incorporated into how food system problems are framed, root causes are understood, and solutions are developed.
1.5 Equity-deserving communities are recognised as experiencing hope, joy, resiliency and vibrancy in the past, present and future, rather than simply being framed as oppressed.
Click and drag relevant outcomes below. Headings can be moved for extra space.
Substantially supported:
Embracing difference
1.6 The impact on future generations (of humans and other species) is intentionally incorporated into food systems planning (e.g., considering social, economic and environmental impacts).
Considering past, present and future
2.1 Increased capacity of equity-deserving groups to address their own challenges and achieve their own objectives (e.g. organizational development, self-determination, resources, business development, food sovereignty).
2.2 Increased knowledge and understanding of local food system governance, processes and tools.
Capacity to participate
Recognitional Justice
2.3 Food-system grants/funding sources support community-determined priorities, are flexible, and have accessible, low-barrier application and reporting processes.
Procedural Justice
2.4 Reduced systemic power imbalances in governance (e.g., moving from top down, prescriptive, opaque approaches to more transparent, flexible and non-hierarchical approaches).
2.5 Equity-deserving communities are leading or meaningfully engaged throughout the planning, implementation and evaluation of policies & programs.
Just processes
Procedural Justice
Moderately supported:
2.6 Reduced barriers and increased safety to participate in food systems planning (e.g., offer stipends, childcare, transportation, translation, etc).
3.1 Increased food security for equity-deserving groups (access to nutritious, culturally preferred, affordable food).
3.2 Processes are established to identify individuals or groups experiencing/ at risk of food insecurity.
Distributive Justice
3.3 Greater Indigenous food sovereignty/ food sovereignty (i.e., more local control over distribution, supply and production).
Access to food
3.4 Increased resilience in local food systems to ensure they can withstand natural disasters, economic shocks, and supply chain disruptions.
3.5 Increased food literacy so people can participate in their food system in whatever way they choose (e.g., gardening, preserving classes, nutrition, cooking, cultural and traditional food practices, etc.).
Labour justice
Minimally supported:
3.6 Fair, adequate and equitable pay in food-related jobs (i.e., across genders and races, providing at minimum a living wage).
3.7 Increased employee support (e.g. health insurance, training, adequate staffing) and safety from pollution, hazards, weather, and other adverse conditions in workspaces.
Respectful relations
3.8 Increased access to food system jobs/business opportunities and infrastructure (e.g., farmland, processing facilities, distribution chains, etc.) for equity-deserving groups and rural/remote communities.
3.9 Reciprocal relationships between equity-deserving (e.g., women, racialized groups, indigenous communities, LGBTQ2SI+, low-income) and dominant groups (e.g., white, cis, hetero, white-collar workers/managerial class) are established.
3.10 Equity-deserving food actors have opportunities to provide feedback on partnership relations.
3.11 Reciprocal relationships between different food actors (e.g., farmers, processors, distributors, food access organizations, funders) are established.
Indicators
GapAnalysis
Provide Examples
3.12 Humans have an ethical (versus exploitative and harmful) relationship with the animals, plants and land needed for food (e.g., animal welfare, reduced food waste, agroecological practices, increased biodiversity and ecosystem health)
JEDI Outcomes
Framework Use 3: Community Assessment
1.1 Multiple goals, outcomes and principles are represented in visions of the food system.
The Framework can be used to measure community progress towards a just food system. Food actors can come together to collectively identify the aspects of a just food system present in their community and the gaps where further work can be done. This can support food system planning, prioritization and resource allocation. Click on numbers 1-4 below and follow the steps. Record your answers on this worksheet.
1.2 Differing interpretations of problems and solutions are acknowledged and incorporated in food work.
1.3 Processes are established to allow for differing or conflicting visions to resolve or coexist.
Impacts
JEDI Outcomes
1.4 Historic and ongoing injustices (e.g., colonial legacies, intergenerational poverty, racism) are incorporated into how food system problems are framed, root causes are understood, and solutions are developed.
1.5 Equity-deserving communities are recognised as experiencing hope, joy, resiliency and vibrancy in the past, present and future, rather than simply being framed as oppressed.
Click and drag relevant outcomes below. Headings can be moved for extra space.
Substantially supported:
Embracing difference
1.6 The impact on future generations (of humans and other species) is intentionally incorporated into food systems planning (e.g., considering social, economic and environmental impacts).
Considering past, present and future
2.1 Increased capacity of equity-deserving groups to address their own challenges and achieve their own objectives (e.g. organizational development, self-determination, resources, business development, food sovereignty).
2.2 Increased knowledge and understanding of local food system governance, processes and tools.
Capacity to participate
Recognitional Justice
2.3 Food-system grants/funding sources support community-determined priorities, are flexible, and have accessible, low-barrier application and reporting processes.
Procedural Justice
2.4 Reduced systemic power imbalances in governance (e.g., moving from top down, prescriptive, opaque approaches to more transparent, flexible and non-hierarchical approaches).
2.5 Equity-deserving communities are leading or meaningfully engaged throughout the planning, implementation and evaluation of policies & programs.
Just processes
Procedural Justice
Moderately supported:
2.6 Reduced barriers and increased safety to participate in food systems planning (e.g., offer stipends, childcare, transportation, translation, etc).
3.1 Increased food security for equity-deserving groups (access to nutritious, culturally preferred, affordable food).
3.2 Processes are established to identify individuals or groups experiencing/ at risk of food insecurity.
Distributive Justice
3.3 Greater Indigenous food sovereignty/ food sovereignty (i.e., more local control over distribution, supply and production).
Access to food
3.4 Increased resilience in local food systems to ensure they can withstand natural disasters, economic shocks, and supply chain disruptions.
3.5 Increased food literacy so people can participate in their food system in whatever way they choose (e.g., gardening, preserving classes, nutrition, cooking, cultural and traditional food practices, etc.).
Labour justice
Minimally supported:
3.6 Fair, adequate and equitable pay in food-related jobs (i.e., across genders and races, providing at minimum a living wage).
3.7 Increased employee support (e.g. health insurance, training, adequate staffing) and safety from pollution, hazards, weather, and other adverse conditions in workspaces.
Respectful relations
3.8 Increased access to food system jobs/business opportunities and infrastructure (e.g., farmland, processing facilities, distribution chains, etc.) for equity-deserving groups and rural/remote communities.
3.9 Reciprocal relationships between equity-deserving (e.g., women, racialized groups, indigenous communities, LGBTQ2SI+, low-income) and dominant groups (e.g., white, cis, hetero, white-collar workers/managerial class) are established.
3.10 Equity-deserving food actors have opportunities to provide feedback on partnership relations.
3.11 Reciprocal relationships between different food actors (e.g., farmers, processors, distributors, food access organizations, funders) are established.
Indicators
GapAnalysis
Provide Examples
3.12 Humans have an ethical (versus exploitative and harmful) relationship with the animals, plants and land needed for food (e.g., animal welfare, reduced food waste, agroecological practices, increased biodiversity and ecosystem health)
Step 4 (Optional): Indicators for Verification
Using the Framework to assess community progress towards a just food system relies on the assumption that the example initiatives you identified in Step 2 actually support the JEDI outcomes in your community a meaningful way.
As a next step, if you would like to verify and more concretely measure and track progress towards any JEDI outcomes that are of particular interest to your community, we encourage you to explore developing your own shared indicators/metrics and collecting data on these.
The indicators you choose will depend on what data sources are available to you and what you have the resources and capacity to measure. Please note, some JEDI outcomes are qualitative in nature and can be more difficult to develop indicators for/measure. This next step may require further investment in the evaluation/data collection capacity of your community.
Record your answers on page 8 of the worksheet.
Step 1: Identifying JEDI Outcomes
*Prior to completing the community assessment, we encourage each participating organization to conduct their own organizational audit. This will better inform your answers and help you to collectively identify JEDI strengths and gaps in your community.
- Review the list of JEDI outcomes and identify the outcomes you believe are supported in your community (i.e., through various food programs, projects, practices, policies or organizations).
- Rate the extent of this support - is the outcome minimally, moderately or substantially supported in your community?
- Click and drag these outcomes into the box below, arranging them within their respective categories (minimal, moderate, or substantial support).
*If you run out of room to place the outcomes, you can move the category headings to make more space.
Record your answers on pages 1-4 of the worksheet.
Step 3: Reflection and Verification
Using the Framework relies on the assumption that your organization's activities/outputs actually contribute to your selected outcomes in a meaningful way. Step 3 involves exploring how you might verify these linkages to reduce bias.
One you have finished Step 2, review the outcomes selected and reflect, discuss and determine:
- Where possible, how can you measure or verify that your organization/ the example initiatives you provided actually contribute to each of the outcomes? (Please note, some outcomes are qualitative in nature and thus more difficult to measure)
- In cases where your organization only minimally contributes to an outcome, what steps can you take (if any) to further support that outcome?
Record your answers on pages 6-7 of the worksheet.
How to Evaluate an Activity
The Framework can be used to assess whether an activity/intervention is contributing to JEDI (justice, equity, decolonization, inclusion) outcomes that signify progress towards a more just food system:
- Write down an activity/intervention (e.g., a program, project, policy, etc.) you would like to evaluate.
- Write down the outputs (the immediate tangible or intangible results) of this activity/intervention.
- Select the outcomes from the list that your activity and its outputs contribute to and drag them into the box.
- How can I measure or verify that my activity/its outputs actually contributes to each of these outcomes?
- To what extent does my activity contribute to each of the outcomes selected? Slightly, considerably or highly?
- Where slight, what can we do to contribute to it at a greater extent?
Step 4: Reflection and Verification
Using the Framework relies on the assumption that your activity outputs actually contribute to your selected outcomes in a meaningful way. Step 4 involves exploring how you might verify these linkages to reduce bias. One you have finished Step 3, review the outcomes selected and reflect, discuss and determine:
- Where possible, how can you measure or verify that your activity / its outputs contribute to each of the outcomes? (Please note, some outcomes are qualitative in nature and may be more difficult to measure).
- In cases where your activity only minimally contributed to an outcome, what steps can you take (if any) to further support that outcome?
Record your answers on pages 6-7 of the worksheet.
Step 2: Provide Examples
How is your community supporting these JEDI outcomes? Provide a few examples of initiatives (e.g., food programs, practices, policies, projects or organizations) that contribute to your selected outcomes.
Record your answers on page 5 of the worksheet.
Step 1: Determine your activity
Briefly describe a food activity/ intervention (e.g., a policy, program, project, etc.) that you would like to evaluate using the Framework.
Record your answer on page 1 of the worksheet.
Step 1: Identifying JEDI Outcomes
- Review the list of JEDI outcomes and identify the outcomes that your organization supports through its programs, projects, practices, or policies.
- Rate the extent of this contribution - does it contribute to the outcome minimally, moderately or substantially?
- Click and drag these outcomes into the box below, arranging them within their respective categories (minimal, moderate, or substantial contribution).
*If you run out of room to place the outcomes, you can move the category headings around to make more space.
Record your answers on pages 1 -4 of the worksheet.
Step 2: Identify Outputs
Write down the outputs (the immediate tangible or intangible results) of your activity/intervention.
Record your answer on page 1 of the worksheet.
Step 5: Gap Analysis + Reflection
Review the outcomes that you did not select because they are not affected by your activity. Reflect and discuss:
- Are any of these outcomes relevant to / within the scope of your organization and the activity?
- If yes, what barriers have prevented you from taking action thus far? (e.g., financial, human, resources, knowledge gap, etc.)
...
- How can you overcome these barriers and what can be done to contribute to these JEDI outcomes?
Record your answers on pages 7-8 of the worksheet.
How to Evaluate an Activity
The Framework can be used to assess whether an activity/intervention is contributing to JEDI (justice, equity, decolonization, inclusion) outcomes that signify progress towards a more just food system:
- Write down an activity/intervention (e.g., a program, project, policy, etc.) you would like to evaluate.
- Write down the outputs (the immediate tangible or intangible results) of this activity/intervention.
- Select the outcomes from the list that your activity and its outputs contribute to and drag them into the box.
- How can I measure or verify that my activity/its outputs actually contributes to each of these outcomes?
- To what extent does my activity contribute to each of the outcomes selected? Slightly, considerably or highly?
- Where slight, what can we do to contribute to it at a greater extent?
Step 3: Gap Analysis and Reflection
Review the outcomes that are not supported or are only minimally supported within your community. Reflect and discuss:
- What barriers have prevented your community or your organizations (for outcomes that are within your scope) from taking action to support these outcomes? (e.g., limited financial or human resources, knowledge gap, etc.)
...
- How might you overcome these barriers and what steps can you take to ensure these JEDI outcomes are further supported in your community?
- For outcomes that are outside your scope, who in your community is responsible for them? Where possible, how could you connect or collaborate with them to gain a fuller picture of how JEDI is supported in your food system and how to collectively make progress toward a more just future?
Record your answers on pages 6-7 of the worksheet.
Step 2: Provide examples
How is your organization is supporting these JEDI outcomes? Provide examples of initiatives (e.g., programs, practices, policies or projects) and their outputs (immediate tangible or intangible results) that contribute to each of your selected outcomes.
Record your answers on page 5 of the worksheet.
Step 4: Gap Analysis and Reflection
Review the outcomes that you did not select because they are not supported by your organization. Reflect and discuss:
- Are any of these outcomes relevant to / within the scope of your organization?
- If yes, what barriers have prevented you from taking action thus far? (e.g., limited financial or human resources, lack of knowledge, etc.)
...
- How might you overcome these barriers and what steps can you take to contribute to these JEDI outcomes?
Record your answers on pages 8-9 of the worksheet.
Step 3: Identifying JEDI Outcomes
- Review the list of JEDI outcomes and identify the outcomes that your activity and its outputs contribute to.
- Rate the extent of this contribution - does it contribute to the outcome minimally, moderately or substantially? Click and drag these outcomes into the box below, placing them in their respective categories.
* if you run out of room to place the outcomes, you can move the category headings around to make more space.
Record your answers on pages 2-5 of the worksheet.
Step 4 (Optional): Indicators for Verification
Using the Framework to assess community progress towards a just food system relies on the assumption that the example initiatives you identified in Step 2 actually support the JEDI outcomes in your community a meaningful way.
As a next step, if you would like to verify and more concretely measure and track progress towards any JEDI outcomes that are of particular interest to your community, we encourage you to explore developing your own shared indicators/metrics and collecting data on these.
The indicators you choose will depend on what data sources are available to you and what you have the resources and capacity to measure. Please note, some JEDI outcomes are qualitative in nature and can be more difficult to develop indicators for/measure. This next step may require further investment in the evaluation/data collection capacity of your community.
Record your answers on page 8 of the worksheet.
Step 1: Identifying JEDI Outcomes
*Prior to completing the community assessment, we encourage each participating organization to conduct their own organizational audit. This will better inform your answers and help you to collectively identify JEDI strengths and gaps in your community.
- Review the list of JEDI outcomes and identify the outcomes you believe are supported in your community (i.e., through various food programs, projects, practices, policies or organizations).
- Rate the extent of this support - is the outcome minimally, moderately or substantially supported in your community?
- Click and drag these outcomes into the box below, arranging them within their respective categories (minimal, moderate, or substantial support).
*If you run out of room to place the outcomes, you can move the category headings to make more space.
Record your answers on pages 1-4 of the worksheet.
Step 2: Provide Examples
How is your community supporting these JEDI outcomes? Provide a few examples of initiatives (e.g., food programs, practices, policies, projects or organizations) that contribute to your selected outcomes.
Record your answers on page 5 of the worksheet.
How to Evaluate an Activity
The Framework can be used to assess whether an activity/intervention is contributing to JEDI (justice, equity, decolonization, inclusion) outcomes that signify progress towards a more just food system:
- Write down an activity/intervention (e.g., a program, project, policy, etc.) you would like to evaluate.
- Write down the outputs (the immediate tangible or intangible results) of this activity/intervention.
- Select the outcomes from the list that your activity and its outputs contribute to and drag them into the box.
- How can I measure or verify that my activity/its outputs actually contributes to each of these outcomes?
- To what extent does my activity contribute to each of the outcomes selected? Slightly, considerably or highly?
- Where slight, what can we do to contribute to it at a greater extent?
Step 3: Gap Analysis and Reflection
Review the outcomes that are not supported or are only minimally supported within your community. Reflect and discuss:
- What barriers have prevented your community or your organizations (for outcomes that are within your scope) from taking action to support these outcomes? (e.g., limited financial or human resources, knowledge gap, etc.)
...
- How might you overcome these barriers and what steps can you take to ensure these JEDI outcomes are further supported in your community?
- For outcomes that are outside your scope, who in your community is responsible for them? Where possible, how could you connect or collaborate with them to gain a fuller picture of how JEDI is supported in your food system and how to collectively make progress toward a more just future?