Project Overview & Focus

The Better Food Policy Fund was created to support food policy councils across the U.S. – local and regional groups working at the intersection of community and government to shape better food systems. From the start, the intent was to do philanthropy differently: centering participation and community voice instead of donor control.

I was brought in as a strategic advisor to design and launch the fund. One of my primary responsibilities was building its governing body, the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC). The challenge wasn’t just to stand up a new board, but to create a culture of shared leadership and decision-making that reflected the Fund’s values. This case study tells the story of how that committee came into being, and what shifted as its members learned to govern themselves.

Systemic Context

Food policy councils are doing important work across the country, but the field is riddled with tension and organizational trauma. Groups are often underfunded, overextended, and pulled thin by the complexity of the issues they’re trying to address. It’s common for councils to burn out, fracture, or retreat from government partnerships. Traditional philanthropy only adds to this strain with opaque processes, competitive funding, and power concentrated at the top.

The fund was meant to be different. We wanted governance itself to be participatory, equitable, and generative. That meant the process of building the IAC had to model those values from the very start.

What Was Needed

Since this was the inaugural board, the first slate of IAC members would hold outsized influence over the trajectory of the fund. The initial “core” team included the seed donor, a program manager at Tides Foundation, and me – three people of similar age, gender, ethnicity, education, and regional knowledge. There wasn’t enough difference among us to guarantee we would get the diversity of perspectives that would be needed to lead a fund serving such a wide range of food policy councils across the US.

Once we got the selection of members settled, we would need to address the fact that they didn’t know one another. Although each would be involved with food councils or adjacent work, our hope was that they would come from different geographies, disciplines, and perspectives. They would need a safe, supportive container where they could build trust and learn to make decisions together. They also would need practical experience in deciding together, so that, when the time came, they could tackle harder questions without falling into the usual traps of conflict or paralysis.

My Role & Approach

First, I had to figure out how we were going to select members without introducing bias. I opted to create the “board before the board” – an interim group called the Advance Team – who would first decide the initial strategies for the fund and then form the IAC which would implement these strategies.

To select the Advance Team members, I set up a diversity matrix that included diversity dimensions such as their food system focus, whether they had knowledge of rural or urban locations, which geographic experiences they had, and basic demographics. I then started searching – through one-on-one interviews with food system researchers, online profiles, and keyword searches – to find people who had food policy council knowledge, preferably in more than one setting.

I was fortunate that the people I approached either agreed to serve or referred me to someone else in their network who would be willing. The Advance Team had six people who met for about 2-3 months to do preliminary thinking for the fund; I used facilitation methods designed to foster alignment quickly without requiring significant amounts of trust.

Ultimately, they landed on a multi-prong approach to selecting the IAC members. First, they identified two members who would carry forward to provide continuity. Then, the members who were rolling off each recruited someone in their network to fill their spot. And finally, we opened it up to the community of about 250+ people that we had engaged in the landscape analysis – to get their nominations. We had a few more nominations than we had spots – all of whom were qualified – so we made our selection based on who would add missing perspectives to the group.

Once the IAC was selected, I designed a board development process that balanced structure and humanity. We used consent-based decision-making and practices found in Sociocracy and Holocracy, holding to the motto “good enough for now, safe enough to try.” This helped the group build confidence without waiting for perfection.

I also made sure people felt connected before they ever stepped into a formal meeting. I spoke with them individually, learned their contexts, and adjusted the process to make participation accessible. And I added life-giving touches such as handwritten thank you postcards, care packages, and hand-drawn graphics instead of sterile branding. These small things mattered. They signaled that this wasn’t a corporate exercise; it was a human endeavor.

At the group’s request, we convened in person. Planning the retreat gave members a chance to practice decision-making together in areas with no long-term consequences – deciding on travel logistics, food, and agenda design. By the time they gathered face-to-face, they already had some muscle memory for how to work together.

After an intense two days getting oriented to the work, reviewing landscape analysis data, and surfacing decision points, it looked nearly impossible to formulate a plan without delaying dinner. But we stayed with the consent-based proposal process. Two of the members worked with me to incorporate all the group’s concerns into a single proposal. When tension emerged, the group discovered they could work through concerns without fracturing. By the end, they reached “good enough for now” on critical decisions about the grantmaking program – and we still had time to relax before dinner!

What Shifted

Through this process, the IAC developed the capacity to govern itself. Members grew comfortable naming dissent, which became an opportunity for growth rather than a sign of failure. They began to see decision-making not as a battle of wills but as a collective act of creativity. And there was relief that the group could make good headway rather quickly while still feeling like everyone was having a say.

One of the most meaningful outcomes for me was seeing members take these practices back into their own communities. Consent-based decision-making, once new to them, started showing up in other groups around the country. The ripple effect went beyond the fund.

Reflections & Insights

Board development should reflect the values of the group the board serves. It’s not just about getting the right people in the room; it’s about building the skills and habits that allow diverse groups to lead together in a way that aligns with shared values.

As with many of my projects, my goal was to step back once the foundation was strong enough to hold on its own. By the time I left, not every governance detail was resolved, but the board was steady, and one of its members had stepped into the facilitator role I had been carrying. What mattered most was that we had built a governing body rooted in relational trust, experienced in engaging their different perspectives with curiosity and making decisions with confidence. That gave the fund solid ground to stand on as it reached for the next aspects of fund development.