Of parks, streets, and surveys

1. Lessons from policy and environment change projects in Missouri Of parks, streets, and surveys MOCAN Quarterly Meeting October 2014

2. http://livablestreets.missouri.edu http://mocan.org • 2 different strategies with shared vision • Started LS in 2010 through CPPW/MOCAN/DHSS • Started ESIP in 2012 through MFH grant • Both supported by DHSS

3. Researched doers (KIIs) Tech assistance to partner communities Pre- and Post-training assessments Education and outreach Livable StreetS

4. Key Informant Interviews • KIIs with “doer” leaders in 2013 • 21 semi-structured interviews • Coded and analyzed using Nvivo • Report online & disseminated statewide

5. Communities interviewed • Belton • Blue Springs • Clayton • Columbia • Crystal City • De Soto • EWG/STL • Ferguson • Festus • Grandview • Herculaneum • Independence • Kansas City • Lee’s Summit • MARC/KC • St. Joseph • St. Louis City

6. Main themes for implementing • It’s a priority • Economic development • Public health and safety • Community accessibility and connectivity • National trend • Awareness among decision makers • Environmental benefits

7. What do you need to get a policy passed?

8. How long does it take to get a policy passed? • A year or less (57%)

9. Why? “Revitalization…In the past 30 years, we’ve been in a slump. In 2008 or 2009, we made Forbes [list of] 10 fastest dying cities in the country…Since then we’ve been trying to make Forbes eat their words.”

10. Flexible carrot policies But carrots are hard to evaluate

11. Barriers to policies

12. Terminology hurdles “People like the connectivity. They don’t know so much about complete streets or what it is but like that everything is connected by sidewalks or walking trails.” “Some folks really wanted to use the term livable streets term instead of complete streets. It has a different connotation…that engineers are building incomplete streets or insufficient streets. They wanted to emphasize the livability instead of the completeness.”

13. Street design standards • 12 of 21 respondents reported having them. • Only 5 said these were updated or included in their Livable Streets policy.

14. Small towns vs. large towns “Implementation means very different things for very different projects.”

15. What’s doable? Lg cities/towns reported policy integration and road redesign (32 mentions vs. 6 among small cities) Small towns reported sidewalk improvements and additions of signs and lighting

16. Ordinances = action • Communities with ordinances had more implementation actions • (58 mentions vs 17 among resolution towns vs. 10 long-range plans).

17. Finding funding • Own budgets • External sources • Often means “transportation dollars” • =HIGHWAYS • Matching funds • MoDOT

18. Along the way… Open, frequent communication with stakeholders about “what’s happening and why it’s happening” was credited for the lack of organized opposition or other major obstacles during the policy process.

19. Seeing success “We’ve seen trail usage go up by 700%. We’ve seen in one section over 400,000 users a year.” “Fifteen miles of sidewalks [have been] constructed. Thirty-three at my last check for new pedestrian crosswalks constructed. We’ve re- painted over 200 crosswalks right before school.” “We are watching occupancy along Main Street. We [have] nearly 100% occupancy.”

20. Evaluation views Two views emerged: • Measure the policy’s success • Fulfill grant requirements. Many informants didn’t seem to view these as one in the same.

21. “There is some tracking but it’s more for purpose of grant reporting not so much tracking for the work of the city.” “There’s evaluation included for our grant but there was nothing written into the policy.” “The policy itself didn’t require evaluation of traffic counts or [the] like. Those things have been done as part of other grants…we have good numbers on how …walking and biking have increased but it was not built into this policy.”

22. Informational interviews with new community partners • Ashland • Bowling Green • Chillicothe • McDonald County • Mark Twain Council of Govts/Perry

23. Themes from interviews

24. What are we doing about it? • Community meetings • Additional presentations planned • More to “Show Me”

25. Mo CAN! • Public buy-in is a key first step to getting of decision-maker and other internal stakeholder support. • Know a community who needs support? Let us know! • Share their stories and successes • (http://missourilivablestreets.blogspot.com)

26. Menu analysis Customer surveys Pre-assessments Sampling and intervention Post-assessments Eat Smart in Parks

27. ESIP/MML Food Choices Survey • Statewide online survey of local civic leaders (n=127) • Baseline study, spring 2014 • Incentive • Informed on earlier surveys, CDC’s Community Strategies Guide and CA Project LEAN Policymaker Survey

28. Who has a policy?

30. High awareness • Over 75% of respondents agreed there is a link between a person’s environment and obesity. • Half agreed that programs and policies promoting healthy foods and beverages have an effect on health.

34. Cognitive dissonance

35. 2 main themes • It’s not the role of the government to get involved with lifestyle choices • It’s personal responsibility to make healthy choices

37. Perception of community will

40. “I am not convinced there is much sentiment toward mandating healthy food choices. The identification of Michelle Obama with this initiative would actually be a major negative factor in our region - SE Missouri. If she was not a national leader in this movement, there would be more opportunities for local action, without being associated with a very unpopular administration.”

41. “I do not support the banning of certain categories of foods/beverages in any healthy food policy. I would support tobacco bans and bans on alcohol sales and tighter prescription pain drug controls. I believe these are more important issues than food/beverage policies.”

42. “As a clerk I do not give my personal opinion on issues as it will come back on me. I give out information in favor of a policy and against a policy as that is my job.”

43. “There is a long tradition of ‘not too much government’ in Missouri. Offering healthy options is a good thing, but prohibiting unhealthy options is considered too big brother. I would be reluctant to do more than encourage healthy options because of a fear of backlash either by the public or from the legislature.”

44. “Keeping this topic out there in the public eye is the beginning of greater knowledge and understanding as we move forward… It will take time to curb perceptions of healthier living and eating, and our greatest resource to move the campaign forward is the youth of our communities. ….”

45. Takeaways • Awareness/knowledge ≠ policy support • Message with reactance in mind, talk to both sides • Perceived community approval is often mediating • Perceived role of schools in debate

46. Reinforced in other studies

47. ESIP Parks Vendor Surveys 2012 & 2013 • 2012 and 2013 with park vendors • (MPRA concessionaires) • Statewide • Online

49. Some good news • Higher awareness of ESIP in 2013 • Increase of healthy options on menus in 2013 (yogurt/cheese, whole grain items and f/v)

50. What are we doing about it?