Top: City of Seattle 3-stream residential curbside collection carts (left, top). Minneapolis residential curbside set-out (left, bottom). Residential collection in Hamilton. MA (right). Photos courtesy of Seattle Public Utilities, City of Minneapolis Department of Solid Waste & Recycling, City of Hamilton, MA.
Betsy Lipson and Mimi Shah
In this three-part series, Amplify for Change has explored what makes curbside collection of food scraps and/or yard trimmings programs work — clear program design, strong data practices, and outreach that actually motivates people. When these elements come together, communities see higher participation and lower contamination. But the clearest evidence doesn’t come from us. It comes from the communities that have already tried these strategies and seen real results.
Part III spotlights five communities — Minneapolis, MN, Arlington, VA, Newburyport, MA, Hamilton, MA, and Seattle, WA — that each tailored curbside composting programs to their local needs, resources, and goals. Program types include:
- Voluntary — Offered but household needs to opt in
- Standard Offering —All eligible households receive collection cart but voluntary to participate
- Mandatory — Residents are required to participate.
Their stories show that when you match your program structure with the right level of outreach and education, you can build participation, keep contamination low, and turn challenges into lasting wins — no matter your starting point.
Snapshot Summaries
Minneapolis, MN
- Program Type: Voluntary
- Level of Outreach: Comprehensive
- Program Age: 15+ years
- Participation: 50% of households
- Contamination Rate: Less than 2%
- Program Details: Offered citywide with no additional cost to residents. Participants choose from 32- or 64-gallon carts. Households receive a kitchen container and liner bags.
- Outreach Tactics: Direct mail, videos, social media, city newsletters, signage on trucks and shelters, recycling block leaders, and translated materials.
- Results: High program visibility, strong community support, and extremely low contamination for a voluntary system. The city attributes success to sustained, multi-channel outreach and frequent messaging, reinforced by in-person engagement through block leaders.
- Quote: “It took several years of steady messaging to reach our current participation rate. Consistency and local visibility were key,” said a program coordinator with the city’s Solid Waste & Recycling Division (see this BioCycle profile).
- Takeaway: Consistent and frequent messaging through multiple channels helps increase program awareness and change behaviors.
Arlington, VA
- Program Type: Standard Offering
- Level of Outreach: Direct Engagement/Education
- Program Age: 5 years
- Participation: 20% of households
- Contamination Rate: Low
- Program Details: Food scraps are bagged and added to the existing 64-gallon yard trimmings cart. Households receive a kitchen bin and printed materials.
- Outreach Tactics: Cart tags, website information, social media, city-produced videos, community signage, email updates, and aired commercials on streaming devices promoting the program.
- Results: Strong program infrastructure combined with basic educational outreach helped Arlington get traction in early years. While growth has slowed, the County continues to invest in community engagement.
- Quote: “Our residents are responding to the convenience of using their existing yard waste cart,” noted County staff. “We’re seeing more set-outs each month.”
- Takeaway: In standard offering programs, be patient with participation growth as you build awareness.
Seattle, WA
- Program Type: Mandatory
- Level of Outreach: Comprehensive
- Program Age: 15+ years
- Participation: 88% of single-family households (SFH)
- Contamination Rate: Less than 2% (SFH), less than 7% multi-family (MFH)
- Program Details: Mandatory curbside collection. Households select a 12-, 32-, or 96-gallon organics cart and pay a fee ranging from $7 to $14/month.
- Outreach Tactics: “Compost Right” campaign, regular videos, social media, public signage, and biennial resident surveys.
- Results: The city’s campaign has built long-term behavior change through positive, frequent messaging and clear guidelines. Lower contamination in single-family homes reflects the effectiveness of customized outreach.
- Quote: “We ask for feedback every two years so we can adjust our messaging. That’s helped us refine our visuals and instructions to be clearer,” said a program staff person.
- Takeaway: Monitor and evaluate your program frequently to identify opportunities for improvement.
Analysis of What Worked
Each municipality tailored its outreach intensity to match its compost program type and participation goals. Several themes emerge:
- Program age matters. Older programs like those in Minneapolis and Seattle have had time to mature, improve messaging, and build familiarity and trust among residents.
- Policy clarity is powerful. In Hamilton and Seattle, mandatory participation backed by strong policy and enforcement led to the highest compliance.
- Leadership commitment influences results. Programs with visible support from local leadership (e.g., Newburyport and Hamilton) had smoother rollouts and fewer resident concerns.
- Personalized outreach boosts results. Minneapolis’ use of neighborhood recycling leaders is a proven way to reach late adopters and reinforce correct behaviors.
- Funding limitations can be overcome. Cities with limited outreach budgets (like Newburyport) face slower growth. Grant funding or partnerships with haulers can help in these cases.
- Plan for initial contamination spikes. Even strong programs like Seattle’s initially faced high contamination until clear visual guidelines and cart tagging were introduced.
- Address cultural barriers. In communities with high numbers of non-English speakers or multifamily housing, extra steps like translated materials and community champions were essential.
- Build community buy-in. Prior to rolling out Arlington’s food scraps collection program, the County asked for input from the community and designed their program accordingly.
Many communities found that pilot programs and phased rollouts helped identify issues before scaling up. Others emphasized that success depends on viewing composting as a long-term investment — not a one-time launch.
No One Size Fits All
These snapshots confirm that there’s no one-size-fits-all model for municipal composting — but there are common principles that support program success. Aligning outreach efforts with program type, investing in clear communication, and planning for continuous education all contribute to lasting impact.
We hope you’ve found this three-part series helpful as you consider starting a composting program in your community or refining the one in place. In summary, keep these best practices in mind:
- Choose a program structure that fits community readiness.
- Start with strong design — convenient carts, clear signage, and early incentives.
- Select a level of outreach that matches your goals and budget.
- Learn from peers while tailoring strategies to local needs.
- Monitor and evaluate your program frequently to continue to fine-tune it.
With the right combination of policy, program design, and outreach, communities can build compost programs that are not only effective but embraced by residents. If you are curious about what might work best in your community, we’d love to help you think it through. Contact Betsy Lipson, Principal and Mimi Shah, Principal.
Amplify for Change brings more than 25 years of experience designing, leading, and evaluating outreach campaigns that help communities meet their solid waste and recycling goals. It partners with local governments nationwide to boost participation in food scraps collection and reduce contamination — whether through small pilots or citywide rollouts. Our team uses research tools like surveys and focus groups to tailor messaging to real-world municipal needs, ensuring campaigns that are effective, scalable, and grounded in what residents respond to.
