Network approaches to collaborative leadership suggest that local leaders’ success depends on activities that connect their organization to diverse stakeholders and resources. Drawing on the literature on managerial networking and a mixed-methods approach that includes 38 semi-structured interviews and a survey of 185 New York State municipal leaders, we explore the impact of leaders’ networking efforts on food access and security in their communities. We hypothesize that different forms of leaders’ social capital (bridging, bonding, and linking) has an impact on policy success. Our results suggest that only bridging social capital has an impact on food access. We conclude with some suggestions for future research and offer policy recommendations.

New York State’s Regional Economic Development Councils (REDCs) were created to support sustainable, equitable, community-driven growth by distributing state funding across diverse regions. While allocations are geographically widespread, our research suggests that structural features of the REDC model may unintentionally reinforce disparities in local capacity and limit long-term impact, particularly in rural and under-resourced communities. This paper asks: To what extent does the REDC model reinforce or reduce disparities in economic development funding? Using qualitative system dynamics, specifically causal loop diagramming, and drawing on public data of RECD funding, interviews with municipal leaders, and public administration theory we examine systemic patterns that shape which municipalities repeatedly secure funding, and which remain excluded, identifying reinforcing and balancing processes that explain such systemic patterns. Key feedback structures include: the Capacity-Investment Loop, where high-capacity communities grow increasingly competitive over time; the Need-Funding Mismatch Loop, where administrative burdens block access for distressed communities; and the Collaboration Loop, which shows how competition can disincentivize shared regional strategies. These loops highlight how program structure—not just intent—shapes outcomes. Our findings suggest that, while the REDC model is intended to promote fairness and efficiency, it risks reproducing the disparities it seeks to address. Adjustments that strengthen regional collaboration, support capacity-building, and align funding with community need may help advance more inclusive and sustainable economic development.