Your nonprofit organization steps out onto the yellow brick road, hearts full for your hopeful march to achieve your mission. So why is it that the Emerald City doesn’t seem any closer now than it was a year ago, or even five?
Maybe because there is a fork in the road that you are missing which could really get you there.
Maybe you need to pivot.
The Foodbank of Santa Barbara County has been engaged in a significant pivot over the last five years from simply providing emergency food to 300 local nonprofit agencies to operating like a preventative health organization, raising low-income people’s health in the cheapest way possible – through what they eat.
We were originally seen as an essential organization for the community, but one whose job was to apply a nutritional band aid to a problem that could never be fixed.
We knew the true hunger issue locally was a form of institutionalized malnutrition – lack of food access for healthy food and easy access to poor quality food. These factors led to poor nutrition and health. Even more significant was a lack of the skills and empowerment needed to make good use of fresh.
Our first stage was to outlaw candy and soda and put hundreds of thousands of dollars into sourcing more fresh produce and making it available free to agencies.
Our pivot has been a big success for us, so let’s consider what tactics might be applicable to you in your situation.
Why don’t you start by taking a helicopter view of what you are doing and how it fits in with who else is doing what in this area.
Take a hard look at your true impact against the total need both from the perspective of the individuals you serve and related to what the community really needs.
Consider extensive stakeholder and user interviews. You will probably find that your end users have a different perspective of your services than you do.
With the Foodbank, once we’d made this commitment to pivoting by focusing on nutritional health rather than pumping out empty hunger –inducing calories, we realized that ‘charity’ was not going to get us more than part of the way to our destination. So we moved from focusing on a simple one-way charitable exchange to messy, awkward exhausting – yet sustainable – community engagement.
This was exemplified in our programs like the national award winning HSP, where an old model of food distribution (poor kids go to a room and pick up your bag of food while everyone watches) was replaced by a mutually supportive healthcare model that engaged the whole family in the excitement of helping each other stay healthy with food.
So, try not to think only in terms of your existing ‘mission’ which may be too open ended or vague. Perhaps consider what is the ‘destination’ you need to arrive at? (A community where…)
In our previous mission, everything was about the short term and today’s crisis. Our clients are needy, we are needy as an organization. Help! Help! That will get you sympathy money. That will get you ‘go away’ money. But it will not get you the money you need to try to really solve the problem.
Move out of your historical comfort zone and do more of what needs to be done (as opposed to what you’re ‘good’ at doing) and build the partnerships that will help you reach the destination in collaboration with others.
What chunk of the destination goal could your organization take on, either by yourself or in partnership? How can you build support and resources for this?
Your pivot will fail if societal and local circumstances are not in favor of it (for the Foodbank it was donor and client interest in healthy food available for all, and also granting foundation interest in moving from outputs to long term outcomes). Another reason to pivot may be to avoid a big bad twister of a change in the outside world that is coming toward you.
It may be easier to sell your pivot as an ‘evolution’ as opposed to a sudden turn. It will cause less unease for all parties. And with some people you just have to pretend nothing’s changed!
Use data to win the argument for pivot – this is a way of avoiding it being a battle of personalities. Who are the supporters who can help you compile and interpret this data?
Who are the key influencers that can help you make the case for a pivot? Look for individual champions on your board, volunteers and funding community to influence others. Balance when to ask permission and forgiveness.
You may have to operate like an internal start-up within your larger organization. This will be a core group of believers who can steer change.
Money greases the most painfully grinding of wheels. So find a source of outside funding which will enable you to research or take on some small initial facet of your pivot. Use this outside money to speed internal change. Use this ‘win’ to demonstrate to those who are on the fence that your pivot will draw new forms of support. We were able to secure partial funds to hire a dietician, and it enabled us to make a lot of changes.
Make peace with the fact that your pivot may require you to be a ‘two-faced’ organization for a period of time presenting either the old or evolved mission in different ways to different people.
It will take time, education and persuasion for donors supporting your original mission to come to understand and embrace your new mission. (What is that verse from the Bible…For what shall it nonprofit a man to gain the whole world and lose… his funding.) When I am talking to donors, I know within 30 seconds whether I should be having a hunger or nutrition conversation)
Finally, it’s not all about the outside world. Pivoting the mission is a lot easier than pivoting the culture. What is your plan for making this kind of shift internally? Identifying and empowering champions is one way. Firing or ‘freeing up the future’ of people who cannot move on in their thinking is another uncomfortable but vital tool. The culture is going to be the last thing to change and it will take years (Culture eats mission for breakfast).
As long as you remember Glinda’s words and you will get there just fine.
We are nearing the financial year end for many nonprofit organizations, and maybe things are going to work out fine and you will make budget. Perhaps you will even produce one of those modest nonprofit surpluses that will make everyone feel good, with being so much that it would raise any eyebrows in the community. It is unlikely to be enough to enable you to truly reinvest in your mission at the level necessary.
Maybe, though, you are going to have a deficit this year. Is it a one-off freak event or do you sense a gradual softening of your fundraising?
In the world of food banking and emergency food provision we rode a wave of recession-based fundraising from 2008 to 2012 that was based on general recognition that doubling down on core services was a necessity that had to take priority over funding the opera or saving the snowy plovers.
Those days are over. The problem is that the recovery is job-lite, and a growing number of the people who access our services are food insecure families with at least one breadwinner trying to piece together a living from a handful of part-time, low-pay, no-benefit jobs.
Nevertheless, many donors have become bored with the recession, and they want to move on. Now, they could be whistling opera arias while they feed the snowy plovers, rather than tapping their toe to a Woody Guthrie number and making sure that no American goes hungry. Many foundations have already moved on from a posture of feeling obligated to focus their resources on ‘urgent needs’ of a recession.
I have touched on the challenges of the current fundraising environment in this column before, typically by encouraging you to ‘sell a new bill of goods’ to your donors (such as nutrition and food literacy; or food banks as preventive health institutions; or as community development engines). These newer ‘cure not band aid’ activities are designed to work symbiotically with the previous singular focus of hunger relief.
However, in this post, I want to encourage you to consider a more permanent shift in how you approach the entirety of your fundraising and development.
Walk down the hall to look at your fundraising person or staff or department. However many, or how wonderful they are, they are NOT going to be able to succeed in providing the level of funding truly needed for you to succeed at your stated mission.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but they cannot do it alone.
It requires everyone on the payroll and also everyone with links to your organization to have a ‘resource acquisition’ mentality, which is something different from simple ‘fundraising,’ and I hope to make this distinction clear.
When nonprofit leaders swap notes about fundraising, we usually gravitate to chit-chat about direct mail vs. events vs. online vs. this or that. We get hung up on the tactical tools rather than focusing on the types of shift in strategic approach that will enable us to succeed.
The good news is this strategic approach requires you to focus heavily on only two things:
1. Building and maintaining diverse relationships in the community;
2. Having the technology and dynamic internal communications/culture to assemble and actively disseminate the latest information about those relationships to all staff.
That’s it, folks. Focus all your energies and staff on these two issues and your organization will be sustainable in the long term. (Assuming, of course, you are the right people doing the right thing at the right time for your community)
So how do you do what I am suggesting? Let’s take a look at a group of people who are doing them already – people who are raising money for institutions of higher education. You’ve seen them at airport hubs in shorts and a suit jacket, modern day bounty hunters, tracking down their prey. These gift officers put incredible focus on steadily building relationships and joining the dots between a complex net of interconnected people. Of course, they start with an advantage, that they have a finite group of ‘prospects’ with a common interest related to a shared past experience of their glorious alma mater. (And even if that experience was plain bad, the fundraiser knows that they can give it a decade or two and rely on the golden glow-generator of memory to make that graduate positively inclined towards the institution. Or maybe just call it Stockholm Syndrome!)
We seek to involve people beyond the ‘twanging heart strings’ level of financial support, because we want to directly connect people to an area of their on-going interest:
“The Foodbank are interested in optimum nutrition and exercise? So am I!
The Foodbank is working to provide special support to those with diabetes? I’ve got an aunt with diabetes!
The Foodbank is bringing special focus to build collaboratives to address poverty in a particular part of town? That’s the part of town my family pulled themselves out of, or that’s the part of town that I could make a lot of money long-term by investing in at the ground floor!
The list goes on and on and on. Everyone who supports us is interested in ameliorating hunger, but most are interested in so much more; in things that are ‘stickier’ than solely hunger, the perception of which will ebb and flow with (skewed or otherwise) perceptions of the local situation.
If we can engage people long term in a positive change area, then this is going to garner us far more sustainable resources to help us achieve our mission of building healthy communities through good nutrition.
Technology can help us achieve this, because we can source new types of information on people and compare links between large amounts of data. We can utilize a cheap (or theoretically free to nonprofits) CRM (Constituent Relationship Manager) like Salesforce or spend lots of money on Raiser’s Edge or any of the other IT solutions out there. It doesn’t really matter what you use as long as you are aggregating and linking all that data, and taking all of those relationships seriously.
This demands that we bring a high level of sophistication and focus to fundraising efforts over a wider level of dollar donation, whereas before, this was only the purview of the major gift level. I am sensing the need for us to flatten out how we treat small scale and large-scale contributors to our organizations. People want more information, more access. We have to find ways of doing it that don’t suck us dry of time and money.
Clearly, it is not cost effective to spend hour upon hour of staff time to build a relationship with a very chatty $25 donor, which is why social media and utilizing groups of community supporters acting as a conduit, becomes vitally important. You might also be pleasantly surprised to discover that the contractor who gives you $25 at Christmas is one degree of separation away from the wealthy person who favors that contractor for the job of moving the west wing of their house to the east wing or whatever the current priority is.
Perhaps at this stage of the discussion, you might acknowledge the potential benefits of focusing on relationship building and mapping, but how do you make it happen with a staff that is already stretched tighter than Simon Cowell’s face?
This enables everyone in the organization to scale the impact they could achieve on their own. They work with volunteers, community leaders (super volunteers), knowledge philanthropists and interns.
For this to work, processes need to be simplified and automated, online training needs to be provided for tasks, and we need the ability to break down complex tasks into smaller discrete sub-tasks which can be taken on by those with only a modest amount of time to commit to the organization. The upside for employees of this kind of ‘outside-in’ organization is that they will be become better paid.
If this wasn’t confronting and challenging enough by itself, I am further suggesting that you need to up the ante by insisting that all staff be tasked with bringing resources into the organization as well. (And be rewarded for doing so).
However small your staff is, they have between them relationships with the people who have the relationships with the people that are waiting to be inspired and actively engaged in your mission, and which will bring it the sustainability of funding that it needs to succeed. You just need to give staff the confidence, permission and motivation to start to grow and link those relationships.
I’m afraid this involves more of that indigestion-provoking medicine called ‘culture change’ and the kind of cross-functional teams and situations that can get people talking and sharing what and who they know.
This now brings us to considering the distinction that I drew earlier, when I said it was more a question of getting staff, board and volunteers to understand that what we are asking of them is not ‘fundraising,’ but ‘resource acquisition’ which is different. The more introverted members of your team can be reassured that ‘resource acquisition is far less scary and embarrassing than fundraising.
It is not asking your friends for money. REPEAT. It is not asking your friends for money.
Rather it is building a matrix charting the varying resource needs of the organization alongside the different interest/involvement areas that your organization provides, and then to begin to join the dots themselves about who they know who might be interested in what area.
This kind of culture change also involves tasking staff who come to you with great idea for a new initiative with getting involved in generating the resources to put that initiative into action.
To which they reply: Wait, isn’t it the development department’s job to come up with the money to make my initiative a reality? I mean I can work up a budget or something, but the development director needs to schmooze some people and write some begging letters, because that’s their expertise, right?
It is their job, however it is also the job of the employee with the lightbulb over their head. Again it is a question of breaking down the elements of this initiative into chunks of people, things and money. We can’t afford to pay for everything ourselves, because that would be hogging all the fun, right? So where are new resources for each of these chunks out there in the community, which are laying in the hands of people who are waiting for the opportunities that their social investment in you will bring them, their employers, families and groups.
I would argue that the required resources for many new initiatives are out there, they just need to be tapped, and who better to do it than the person who within your organization who is excited by what that new initiative can achieve? Of course they are working in tandem with the accepted development team, so that you minimize toe-stepping and mixed messaging, but they can play a key role in helping to drive the process. They can get involved in meeting with people who may be able to play and working their own set of relationships and forging new relationships built on common interest and shared vision.
I don’t know about you, but when I walk into an all-staff meeting, I don’t see a bunch of job titles sitting around, I see everyone as a walking ‘Kickstarter’ campaign ready to inspire the community to deliver on an amazing idea.
This doesn’t mean that the development department is getting off the hook, oh no. They have to utilize the same approach. If they come up with great new fundraising ideas, they also need to come up with the people (who are not paid staff) who want to execute the idea. They also need a logical framework for how this activity is going to get some oversight and accountability from within our organization. This requires us to work with trusted volunteers who can engage with other volunteers or community organizations. We also need to rely on a sharing technology and culture to enable us to mitigate the risk of a crazy or self-serving person doing damage to our good name/brand.
These days, we are all Sherlock Holmes, looking for the clues and connections that are going to close the case or close the campaign, and build an organization that is sustained by the community for generations to come. Your mission deserves nothing less, right?
One day not too long from today, funding for organizations like ours will be heavily based on the social impact returns we can bring against the financial investment made. We will have to make our cost benefit pitch over what improvements in health can we bring. Who are the specific groups we will touch and what specific disease areas will we help to mitigate or eradicate? How much money can we save the City, County, State and Nation in healthcare costs? Over what period can we do it?
If we can put forward a persuasive argument, we will receive funding with the remit to deliver on our proposals. Our food and education programs and our demonstrated ability to link to a continuum of community support and empowerment for under-resourced individuals and families will help us make a strong case.
We will then have to evaluate and measure impacts and wrangle and present the kind of data that makes our current activities in this area seem equivalent to counting on our fingers.
It could be like Feeding America’s quadriannual Hunger Study – every day!
Before you wake up screaming in sweat-soaked sheets, we are not there yet. This may be a world that you don’t want to get to. However, it is coming, whether you like it or not and we need to position ourselves by our deeds to demonstrate the hugely beneficial public health impacts of food banks.
Sure, I am a nice guy who wants to help people be healthy and feel positive about what they can achieve in life for themselves, their families and their communities. But I also care about the long-term direction and viability of organizations and a network like ours. We need financial resources to do our work, and our march into the future is going to require mastery of juggling dual funding streams (charitable donations for food insecurity and provider service fee payments for health outcomes) to be able to survive over the coming decades.
From my cheap seat in the bleachers, hunger is no longer driving the national discussion in the way it did a few years ago. It is already viewed as a sub-component of poverty, which has morphed into the ‘real issue.’ The perception is now that the country has drifted in a situation where people find it incredibly difficult to improve their circumstances no matter how hard they work, no matter how much they take personal responsibility for their own situation.
Partnership with other organizations nationwide and locally is the only way to begin to take on both situational and generational poverty. Feeding America’s fledgling Collaborating for Clients (C4C) initiative is a great step in this direction. Here is a download for some FAQ’s about this: Collaborating for Clients FAQ_1.27.2014
The vital next step after that is ‘collaborating with clients’ to achieve the kind of sustainable transformations in local communities that will work long-term. The Federal government is not going to gallop in on an ethnically balanced white/brown/black horse and save the day. Those days are done. We have to help micro-communities connect and find their own solutions, and then turn around and use their own power and ability to work together to drive the national agenda from the bottom. I mean, what is the point of all this social networking crap unless we can get it to do something worthwhile, right?
Anyway, it’s clearly time for one of my pink happy pills to calm down, because all that is still a ways off and we want to help people be more nutritionally healthy right now.
And so, there is ‘preventative health’ which can be the second flank of a ‘pincer movement’ that enables us to come at the ingrained and complex problems of poverty from two different sides, utilizing different partners. Fighting poverty through job creation and community development is actually not enough in itself. If you improve people’s financial situation, you can make them food secure, but this doesn’t necessarily improve their health. However, if you work to help people improve their health, you give them skills (food literacy) that will be invaluable to them in times of scarcity or times of plenty.
I also think it is possible to steer the issue of poverty away from being a lightning rod for people’s knee-jerk political reactions and deep seated personal fears (oops, same thing) and into a more neutral territory where we treat the ravages of poverty as a public health issue that there can be broad consensus to rally around. That is a ways off, but I think it gives us somewhere to head for that is worth reaching for.
So that is the ‘why.’ What about the how? How can we engage with the current preventative healthcare framework and demonstrate our worth to be part of this fabric.
Below I lay out five different steps you can take. You can’t do all of these things at once (don’t tell my staff that, though), but achieving a win in any of these areas will give you some credibility and provide the foundation to broaden and deepen your health-related activities.
1. Diabetes is a great place to start:
Playing a part in diabetes care is one of the best initial possibilities for demonstrating the vital role we can play in community health. Obesity is much harder for us to prove the specific benefits of our role. (Even for us our food bank with 60% of our distributed product as fresh produce). Diabetes is much easier for us to demonstrate the success of our interventions.
For the last two years, the drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb has been funding pilot programs in diabetes care with three food banks across the country, each pursuing slightly different versions of partnership with local healthcare providers. (Here is some basic information on the project. More detailed data will be released soon.)BMS Diabetes Project 2014 The interim results of these studies provide us with some real data about food banks can play a vital role in screening, helping people control their condition, and also dealing with the huge swathe of ‘borderline diabetics.’ Here is a link to an informational website on this area, which has a lot of helpful info.
We are actively speaking to a number of local health providers in our county about running similar programs. Virtually all of them have been enthusiastic about this. It is a big problem, they can save a lot of money, and they also have funds available for this type of activity. We are still working through how the financial model will work, but we are increasingly looking for fee payments (by healthcare provider, not individuals) for the type of direct service that we are providing in the healthcare space. We can’t be apologetic about asking these organizations to pony up. Yes, people expect charitable hunger relief for $25 bucks and a turkey too big for someone’s oven, but I can assure you that they do not expect to get bona fide health interventions so cheaply.
2. Consider providing training in screening for food insecurity for medical staff:
Oregon and its food bank are way ahead on this one. (what was that Ron Burgundy was saying in Anchorman II about only leaving the country once – when he went to Salem, Oregon?). They have a dedicated site with excellent online and written training materials for medical staff centered around utilizing the existing USDA two question survey to gauge food insecurity.
Of course, medical staff will have a full-blown panic attack if you attempt to suggest adding anything more to the huge clipboard of paperwork needed to be filled in on patient intake (waivers to waive the right to waive waivers and the like). However, persuasive arguments can be made – continuing education points are available in the Oregon model, for which there are existing requirements for medical staff to obtain. Also, being aware that a patient is in a food insecure household is a pretty useful thing to know when you are looking at strategies to improve the health of that patient.
The other major potential sweetener is the possibility of providing doctors with the ability to ‘write prescriptions’ for fresh produce for some patients. They could then bring these prescriptions to a food pantry (ideally one that would be open at that time) where they could receive some fresh produce. Medical staff like to have something to give patients, and even if they have to pay something to help contribute to the cost of fresh produce, it is still a small cost compared to other interventions they could offer.
3. Get in on the ‘Community Health Needs Assessments’ wagon train:
This was supposed to be our admittance ticket, our way of building relationships with local hospitals and health authorities. They are now mandated to see what is happening with the health of their communities and devise strategies to deal with these issues. Food insecurity is a significant portion of this reality, as well as the health conditions that optimum nutrition can help alleviate.
We actually contributed to our local plan a few months back in terms of being invited to a stakeholder interview roundtable. We are still at the stage where we were not considered partners, more a case of ‘we better ask a bunch of nonprofits what they think.’ Consequently not much significant has resulted from our modest involvement in this process. In your area, you may be able to insert yourself at a more opportune point in the process and be more involved. From our viewpoint, I figure that we need to get on with the other things we are doing in this area, and then when next time rolls around, things will have shifted significantly.
4. Stop whining that the bigger fish get all the fish food. Puff yourself up bigger to get bigger funding:
I am not talking about increasing the size of your organization, which may not be a good idea even if it is financially possible. What I mean is to link together with other food banks or similar organizations to run health based programs over a broader geographical area. While I may have my visionary moments, most of the strategies I pursue have a very pragmatic basis. Such is the case with this. Trying to get the Feds to cough up for the dire needs of those in hunger in Santa Barbara County is an uphill struggle. Why, dear reader, even you are smirking now. What do they know about hunger? We always have to deal with the kneejerk reaction of having one rich city in a county with rampant food insecurity and low food stamp uptake. (In the 58 California counties, only 14 have more food insecurity than Santa Barbara). Also, the reality is that if you are looking for health money not USDA food security money, a county of 400,000 is a gnat bite. They want big populaces to make significant impacts on regional numbers.
This is one of the reasons for the formation of the ‘Food Bank Health Alliance of the Central Coast.’ This is an aggregation (currently) of ourselves, Santa Cruz and Ventura Counties. Between us, we have a million and a half people. If we can get San Luis Obispo and Monterey County to join us we will have an unbroken line of sister organizations covering the whole coastal region that separates LA from San Francisco.
Our organizations are linked by MOU committing us to jointly seek for health related federal funding (though we’ll take money from USDA, Department of Defense, Smokey the Bear…). Marriages of convenience without shared values and objectives are a recipe for disaster – as I’m sure you’re all aware from your previous collaborations – however, this more open relationship is based on a shared outlook. This boils down to:
GOOD NUTRITION – Is the bedrock of our activities, sourcing and distributing as much nutrient dense food as possible. We also have nutrition and wellness policies so we can walk the talk (and help our member agencies do so).
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT – As well as making a success of ‘feeding the line’ of people who are food insecure, we are also very focused on ‘shortening the line’ of those who will need help in the future. The only way to achieve this is through empowering the community to take control of its own nutritional challenges – on an individual and neighborhood level and upwards. This involves making those who were previously ‘clients’ into partners for healthy lifestyles and environments.
EVALUATION OF IMPACT – A need to move beyond measurement of outputs to demonstrating the efficacy of our actions on the public health and development of communities. We will additionally work to demonstrate wellness and self-sufficiency.
A HISTORY OF COOPERATION AND MUTUAL TRUST – We have a long shared history as members or partner distribution members of Feeding America, the national organization of Food Banks as well as the California Association of Food Banks.
There will doubtless be lots of challenges, different organizations used to running their own unique programs in their own idiosyncratic way. However, unless we can make this type of collaboration of very similar organizations work, then none of us have any hope at succeeding in collaborating with the wider groupings that will be necessary to have a true impact on poverty in America.
An ‘alliance’ like this needs large amounts of cash to grease the wheels and make it work, so stay tuned for results on how we’re doing. Or better yet, why wait to see whether we fall flat on our faces and put together your own regional collaborations. If the Feds don’t give you the money, they’ll only spend it on something really dumb, so you might as well go for it!
5. Lead with Seniors:
Often, funding to feed seniors is treated in a similar way to finding the money to feed homeless people. Besides a few highly motivated donors, these are the programs that it is harder to get broad funding for, so they tend to get paid for out of general operating expenses. It’s a shame, but scruffy dudes with matted beards or finicky grey hairs clipping coupons do not always excite funders. Consequently, it’s so easy to lead with kids and get funding for those kids. (I call it ‘taking candy with a baby’) Individual donors or foundations feel the heartstrings twang and they also think kids might be a better long-term investment. I have always muttered that ‘Kids are just the Seniors of tomorrow,’ but that hasn’t made much difference. I have been waiting for some perspective to shift or something to click for me in this area and I think it just did.
At a recent meeting with a major healthcare provider, he said: “Kids are basically healthy unless you really mess them up, but seniors are a significant expense.” If you think about it, asking the health world to pay up now to ease the problems kids will generate thirty years from now is asking too much. If we can help them keep seniors healthy and independent as long as possible, we can save them some serious cash in the here and now, not after they’ve retired or moved on. That is something that they would be prepared to invest in – and the sums would be a drop in the ocean compared to the increased expenses they face.
In this case I am thinking about a more integrated and expansive range of senior nutrition programs that move beyond the straightforward grocery bags or congregate feeding. These programs would have a nutrition and health element and that mesh more organically with existing health screening.
We are still putting together the right mix of ideas and partners before making a significant investment, but it has to happen and soon. We are seeing an explosion of need amongst seniors and what might be termed ‘pre-seniors’ (those close enough to retirement age that they are finding it very hard to get employed as people don’t want to invest training cash in them). Really, once you are in mid to late 50’s it gets harder and harder (So that’s why those Food Bank ED’s stay so long in their jobs!) To give an example of the type of programs we are looking at in the senior arena:
• A program providing ingredients for seniors to cook a meal together a couple of times a month at a community or senior center. This would give people motivation to keep their cooking skills going and also allows social contact, additional nutritional education and health screening from other healthcare groups.
• In seeking to meet the needs of our large Latino community, we are looking at a program that caters to the large number of grandparents who look after kids while their parents work. This program would also allow for a weekly meal in a community center where both generations would work together to cook a meal. This way, nutritional health and food literacy skills can be the focus for these two age groups, who if they disagree about a lot of things, are united in their belief that mom and dad can’t cook to save their lives, or that they are convinced they don’t have the time to. Again, this situation offers great health screening opportunities for diabetes etc.
• Meal delivery to seniors. In our area (and maybe yours) senior meal delivery has become a hot potato (or a reheated lukewarm potato, more like) with responsibility for the service being passed around. Meals on Wheels may be a large presence in your area or one that is suffering from a volunteer force that is figuratively and literally dying off. The reality in many places is either some kind of vacuum or spotty service at best. We are interested in investigating partnerships in this area. At one extreme, you can be like Feedmore in Virginia and create one big entity of MOW, food bank and community kitchen. At the other is at least more collaboration and integration within the range of services in your area. I know that Greater Chicago Food Depository has been piloting a program where health visitors drop off an ergonomic box of six frozen meals with low-income seniors that they visit. These are to be picked up from various centralized locations, and the frozen element allows delivery before food safety becomes a major issue. For the health visitors it is obviously an inconvenience but also provides something tangible that they can give people and that helps them make their numbers and keep their clients happy. This is a complex strategy and I know that there have been significant challenges with it, though this is clearly a direction worth pursuing and seeking the type of local and state reimbursement funding which would make it more financially viable.
It is up to you how tightly you are able to integrate this type of programming with the health screening and health treatment needs of seniors, but the tighter you do so, the more you guarantee a stream of funding. Food is still the draw to get involved in a program whether you are seven or seventy.
Feeding America recently published a report on Senior Hunger, which may provide some help to you in pushing for funding and partnership in this increasingly vital area of our operation.
Are the tactics I have suggested a distraction from your core mission of feeding people? I would argue that they enhance the mission in multiple ways. Take the suggestion around training medical staff to screen for food insecurity. Can you imagine how much your development staff will benefit from the type of new understanding that doctors and health teams will gain of both food insecurity and our work to eradicate it? People want to get involved when the discussion is good nutritional health, and now is the time to start leveraging our credibility and boots on the ground in this area.
Twas the night before Christmas when all through the food bank
Not a creature was stirring not even a mouse…
(Especially not a mouse, or those AIB inspectors will be down on us like a ton of moldy potatoes)
If you search the web for the words ‘hunger’ and ‘hope’ together, you will get a hundred and fifty four million hits. The idea has gained currency over the years that not only does the food we provide fill bellies, but that we are also offering something else, something that will not break our programmatic budget to provide: the ‘hope’ of a better day tomorrow.
Let me be direct and say that I don’t see much hope at the average unadorned food distribution: “I hope the line moves quicker,” and “I hope they don’t make me feel too embarrassed.” This feeling of disempowerment has nothing to do with the sincerity or charitable spirit of those volunteers or staff running the distribution. Some are run in a very compassionate and sensitive way, yet however we sugar the pill, people are still held back by the unequal relationship between ‘giver’ and ‘taker.’
Please, hold your snowballs to my face until the end, because in this special holiday cheermeister edition of ‘From Hunger to Health’ I want to briefly question the benefits of trading so freely in ‘hope’, as we turn to looking at shortening the line for our services, and avoiding the institutionalization of ’emergency food’ as a handy alternative to paying people enough money to live on.
First, hold my hand and fly through the chilly winter air, avoiding the Amazon drones, and let us alight in a town and peer through the brightly-lit windows of two food distributions. One is a standard ‘Come, Wait, Wait Some More, Take your Bag and Go’ distribution and the other is a distribution that offers wrap-around or holistic services. The sights we see are very different, as we will see as we tamp the snow off our boots and go inside.
Yet, what is this? Before we can enter, the ‘Ghost of Foundation Cash Yet to Come’ taps its boney finger on our shoulder and commands us to “E-VAL-U-ATE” in a deep and terrifying voice. “Okay”, we say back to him, “You want us to evaluate our programs and those of our partners? Here is a metric that is way more sophisticated than any that could be developed by the boys and girls at the ‘Stanford Social Innovation Review.’ It is called eye contact.” This simple (and quite literally) straight-faced test measures the amount of eye contact the programmatic interaction elicits from clients.
We actually did this test last week on two programs a few miles apart in our service area. At the standard distribution, virtually no one met your eye when they could avoid it and wanted to get away as quickly as possible. At the other, one of our Healthy School Pantry programs where we are running what is for all intents and purposes a ‘health fair’ with a lot of activities and opportunities designed to build community, we saw a much different picture. People were generous in their eye contact saying how much they were enjoying being there and appreciating learning and being a part of something where they felt empowered and valued as equals.
But you’re giving them hope too, I hear you say. What’s the difference?
Let me begin to answer that question by looking at the national perspective. We can offer people the solid reassurance that we will fight to protect their meagre food stamps and commodity benefits from more punitive cuts. Yet, we certainly can’t offer the real hope that people are crying out for: a society where working hard at a job will enable you be able to feed and provide a roof over the heads of your loved ones.
We know from our work that more and more people cannot earn enough money to support their families without help from the food bank network and its partners. People run faster and faster on the hamster wheel of low-pay, no-benefit jobs. If we continue to apply the current strategies, it is hard for me to see the ‘hope’ for anything beyond endless SNAP wars, more companies expecting food banks to cover the tab for their food insecurity-level wages and the growth of the ‘hunger industrial complex’ to keep the whole mess from boiling over into civic unrest. Sorry to be such a downer in this season of ‘Goodwill to All men’, but I have enormous respect for the hardworking families we work with, certainly enough to want to level with them.
I don’t believe I am being fatalistic or even negative. I’m not noble enough for lost causes and so I am sincerely convinced that we will end hunger in America and become a more equitable and healthier country. It’s just that I’m not getting any younger and I’m impatient about waiting millennia for it to happen.
So why should our daily ‘hope distributions’ be slowing this process down?
Humor me for a moment as we consider the words of my guru, Buddhist monk, poet, teacher and all-round cool dude in black pajamas, Thich Nhat Hanh. Hanh said:
“The future is made of a series of present moments. Therefore the best way to take care of the future is to take care of the present moment. That is why hope is sometimes an obstacle. People tend to hope because they feel helpless in the present moment. The present moment is so heavy, so unbearable to endure, which is why they invest in the future with hope. ‘I hope tomorrow will be better.’ They get a little bit of relief because of this investment. However, to do this we have to spend a lot of energy hoping for the future and there isn’t much energy left for us to take care of the present. Without enough energy, we cannot have a breakthrough. If we can bring more energy back to the present, we find this breakthrough.”
[Transcribed from the recording of retreat as ‘The Art of Mindful Living’ (2000), Sounds True Audio with occasional paraphrasing to make it less Vietnamesely monkish on the printed page.]
This is, for me, the danger of focusing too much on ‘hope’ rather than action to transform our society in the present moment. I am not talking about it in a literal, mean-spirited fashion that we should promote hopelessness. We want to give joy and love in everything we do. However I am advocating every day we focus on real change and the actions required to make that happen. Our organizations, because we are concerned with the most basic tool (food) that can sustain and help and bring people together, can play a huge role in leveraging this change.
Have a wonderful Holiday season, and heartfelt thanks from Scrooge to everyone working to build food security in the USA.
Food banks and other nonprofit organizations typically start off as wholly volunteer groups coming together around a (chipped and borrowed) table to plot a community response to a social problem or a social opportunity (such as, how to repurpose excess food).
Assuming the nonprofit does not pass away in its scrawny infancy, it goes through a steady year by year cycle of increasing professionalism. It needs to build a machine for the long-term. That machine is comprised of an increasing number of paid staff.
This cycle may continue until volunteers become something of an appendage. A phantom limb that takes on the shape of the purpose it used to have, but is no longer vital to the continued health of the organization. Instead volunteers become a way of connecting the community to the organization it supports. An interim stage to a cash donation. Busy work volunteer tasks are sometimes created to keep them occupied. (Anyone who is reading this post, put your hand on your heart and promise that you never laboriously created a volunteer opportunity for a corporate sponsor). A group of corporate volunteers may don a t-shirt descend like locusts and to ‘make a difference’ in two hours and then depart.
We’re grateful for their interest and support, but it is not fair to them if it is in support of an antiquated use of volunteers, tied into an old model of operating. It’s not like there is a shortage of work to be done, and in fact there is an urgent need for new strategies in volunteer management.
Why, Erik? Why does there have to be a new damn strategy every five minutes for every little thing? Why can’t we just – for once – keep things the way they are?
Well dear reader, in this case it is because we will all fail in our long-term goals without it. We can continue being the teenie ‘Dora the Explorer’ band aid covering the suppurating wound, but we will never reach the ‘scale’ required to solve the problems we want if we rely on the old paradigm of strict separation between professional staff and traditional volunteers.
We need a new approach that is scalable and sustainable. And the only way to do that is to let the community into our organizations in a whole new way – a way where they have real power and influence, and also parity in many ways with paid staff.
‘Scary!’ as my two-year old would say.
I am talking about the use of what I call ‘community leaders’ and which you may already call ‘skills-based’ volunteers. These are people who want to do more than de-stress over a huge bin of gently rotting carrot nubs. In this post I want to talk about how our embrace of this approach is bringing our food bank back to the community we serve, building long-term sustainability and forcing us all to improve our game and our leadership skills.
I know, folks, being nice to people from the community, rather than grouching at your paid employees is hard work. That’s why to understand why we needed to do this, you first need to understand why there was literally no other way we could actually plan a way to achieve our mission.
I would have taken the low road, really I would!
So why did we start this? Because it was the only way we could have the numbers to move from the endless ‘war on hunger’ approach to food banking and social service provision to a specific destination that we could state as a vision and then back up with metrics detailing achievable steps along the way.
We moved from a traditionally cautious mission statement about storing and distributing food safely to a kind of combo version of vision and Mission Statement as below:
The above is putting a lot of the onus on the community to solve the community’s problems. You might even view it as having some kind of nerve to ask folks for money and then to throw the thing back at them and say: ‘You do it, we’ll help.” I suppose it is somewhat cheeky, but the reality is that there is no other way we’re going to get beyond Dora and her sticky non-solution. It can also be viewed as a positive thing, that we are inviting the community in – especially if your focus is health and nutrition. It is an invitation to a celebration of what we can achieve together.
Running isolated programs is not going to get us to our destination, because they come or go, depending on funding / leader preference etc. That means we need to move from programs to ‘pathways’
To give you an example of this type of approach, we can look at our ‘Feed the Future series of children’s programs.
The below demonstration of the sequential nature of our children’s programs shows how they are taken along a progressing pathway of programs with the clear destination of nutritionally independent young adults.
If we’re going to talk about sustainability, we need to talk a little about the flow of energy – human energy. So, I ask, which of these progressions is more sustainable?
Okay, so the questions start easy. Obviously that ecologically right-on looking circle of arrows is more sustainable. So let’s look at these two energy flows applied to the world we operate within:
Most of us live in the space between these two places, sometimes going back to charity and sometimes reaching ahead to a true state of community engagement.
Here is what the one way arrow has always looked like:
And this is what a more circular form of community engagement looks like. The example is a flow diagram showing how our Healthy School Pantries operate, with people entering at the top right of the diagram, trying a recipe, then learning how to cook it, then receiving the actual food they need to make the meal they are tasting.
So lets look at what are the differences between a volunteer and a community leader:
Of course there is still a place for regular volunteers. We are talking about ‘super volunteers’ overseeing other volunteers or knowledge philanthropists that might run a short-term task force or provide special knowledge.
This all sounds great! Except, remember we are going for that nice circular, sustainable energy flow thing. How, therefore, can we draw Community Leaders from our client base? To this we also need to factor in the unspoken tension between volunteers coming into a community to ‘fix’ their problems (before leaving) and the community itself.
Our solution to this is our Nutrition Advocates.
This is a grassroots organizing framework that allows the Foodbank to act as a catalyst to encourage micro-communities to take ownership of their own nutritional health and that of their friends and neighbors. The NAs are Foodbank program clients who have become engaged beyond the traditional modality of client-based food bank volunteerism.
I have identified two distinct strand of involving volunteers. The first are Community Leaders that have been recruited in the traditional manner with some of the typical expectations of volunteer service:
And then you have Community Leaders drawn from our engagement with clients with a slightly different entry point, but ultimately a similar satisfaction and result. Empowerment and connection for all involved:
Bringing together these two different types of volunteers certainly makes for a more interesting volunteer recognition event. Awkward at first, when you shove together two sets of people used to playing the roles of ‘beneficiary’ and ‘benefactor’, but I am confident that after a few years, this will become the norm with the lines between those helping and being helped becoming ever more fuzzy and permeable.
Of course the outside world is the easy stuff. You just have to move heaven and earth. The real heavy lifting is within your own organization.
We had training from an outside consultant (Vantage Point consulting – based in Canada, experts in this field) to a pretty wide group of managers and developed materials, like simple sample contracts stating what is expected of both parties, yet the reality was that ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’ and if we did not find a way to steadily (yet urgently) evolve our culture, then all these types of approach were doomed to eventual demise, while everyone subtly folded their hands and waited for the ED to get interested in something else, something less threatening!
I put it to my staff that we want to work with motivated staff who care about our organization and the people in it, and who are open to working in new ways to ensure that the organization continues to develop and move forward. If they are open to us improving how we do things, and open to working with a wide variety of people, then there is a long and successful career for them at the Foodbank. (Staying positive!)
I explained that the number one attribute we are looking for in ALL staff is leadership potential. We want to help them develop that potential. Of course they wondered how can everyone be leaders, right? Who’s going to do all the darn work!! Well, the way it can work is for everyone is for all to be responsible for leading and working with others from the community who connect with the organization. Leadership doesn’t mean making speeches or bossing around people. It means being committed to moving forward the organization and to developing their own skills and those of their team members; it means realizing that all of them are leaders in our community, representing and drawing people to the Foodbank; it means that all of them have to be able to work with, lead and inspire a whole range of volunteers and community leaders to come into the organization (after all, it is their organization as much as ours ) to enable us to achieve much more than we could have done by ourselves.
I sincerely believe this approach actually means a much stronger career path for everyone on our staff, because all of us are able to multiply the results of what we do. I think that is exciting and a great opportunity for everyone to be a leader, whether you are a warehouse assistant working with teams of community leaders or a senior manager with a bunch of knowledge philanthropists running task forces for you.
Our experience over the last 18 months or suggests that these are the challenges:
I believe that sticking to this whole approach is becoming less and less crazy and looking more prescient as time goes on. It is concurrently both a programmatic and a development activity that is working with the community to build community.
There are times when I feel like I am an insignificant toiler in a great and serious national bureaucracy – the business of hunger in America.
Imagine our prospectus to potential investors:
Ladies and Gentlemen, business has been outstanding since the Great Boom of 2009, with emergency food organizations bringing in record amounts of money and building ever more impressive infrastructures ready to take the art and science of hunger relief into the 22nd Century. We have diversified into new business areas, and got our brand message and talking points over to lawmakers and the public through advocacy.
So, my fellow Americans, you might be for hunger or against it, but you can’t deny that as a vibrant concern, we are here to stay. Thank you and please give generously.
Okay, so I am getting a little carried away, but maybe that’s because this is the last moment to think for a second before we enter into that slalom run down to ‘The Holidays.’
This is the gravy season for emergency hunger organizations when genuine loving concern for one’s fellow man, paired with a side order of good old-fashioned guilt allows us to make a sizeable chunk of our operating nut for the coming year.
Before we board this seasonal gravy (and turkey) train once more, I thought it would be good for us to ask ourselves a hard question. We say we want to shorten the line and end hunger in America. That is a laudable goal, but how exactly are we going to do it? What is our ‘Theory of Change’ (the detailed measurable steps contained in a logic model) that are going to take us from here to there.
It’s at this stage in the conversation that Mr. Spock might begin to find our logic a little “…illogical, Captain.” We might say that the problem can be ‘solved’ by protecting and strengthening the federal safety net; finding more money for advocacy to engage the public in ‘the fight’; generating way more TEFAP; providing generous funding for a strong food bank network. Oh, yes, and Farm Bill, Farm Bill, Farm Bill.
All great things, but nowhere near a theory of change. In reality they are far closer to a ‘Theory of Stasis.’
Logic models and theories of change are something we find easier to deal with on a small-scale programmatic level where we have more control over the environment we are operating in. (Here is a resource from the Kellogg Foundation on applying Theory of Change to your mission).
Years ago, a local foundation provided me with a handy flow chart on which I had to chart how my program would lead to positive changes in client behavior. (Over time, I came to refer to this flow chart as the ‘Human Sausage Machine’ – clients and food were stuffed in at one end and changed humans miraculously popped out of the other end). We were veritable Willy Wonkas of nutrition with our INCREDIBLE BEHAVIOR-CHANGING MACnCHEESE!!
I must confess that the community kitchen I ran at that time had to make a few ‘creative leaps’ when demonstrating how we would actually change behavior. I would resort to my earnest protestations that children can’t learn if they haven’t had breakfast, or that people can’t look for jobs if they are hungry. All absolutely true, but the other truth was that we were not in the behavior change business. We were in the emergency hash slinging business, a subdivision of the ‘maintenance of things as they are’ business and that we should be funded because there was plenty of demand for those services.
Fast forward to the present day and I have to wonder whether we don’t have that same problem on a national level? We are stuck in the maintenance business rather than the transformational business. And how much fun is that?
Those of us working in the area of food insecurity have real problems articulating a persuasive theory of significant, sustainable change. We can talk convincingly of all the things that need to be done, but not how all this busyness will come together to actually change the situation. We have great theories for increasing the size of the band aid we are applying to the patient, but no clear idea about how to cure the patient. This is not a criticism of Feeding America or any other group. I think all national hunger-related organizations have the same challenge.
Can you end food insecurity in America by doing more of what we are doing? After 11 years in the hunger sphere, I can put my hand on my heart and give a hearty “No!”
From my perspective, I think one problem is that we have been stuck looking at too narrow an area – that of food insecurity. This has been a small enough area for us to operate proficiently and to demonstrate unique excellence in our nonprofit services, but it is not large enough to actually solve the problem that we are trying to deal with. When challenged about this, we tend to retract like a poked sea slug, saying that anything else is ‘too complex and we just have to stick to doing what we know.’
To my mind, this is a big mistake. We need to expand and take the helicopter up higher, not lower.
We are stuck dealing with complex health and social problems in an overly simplistic fashion. It has created a culture of food banking as a continuous shift in an ER ward, where we’re all too busy with the suffering and drama of the moment to give enough thought to how we can do anything more than get through. No time to think! Lives are in the balance!
Until recently we were talking pounds of food per person in poverty as the solution to ending hunger, now the metric has shifted to numbers of meals provided (even if those meals are a theoretical construct, made up of pounds of soda, candy or whatever the total ‘food’ poundage of a food bank might be). These metrics are too crude to really help us move up from our current level of support and national focus.
We got into using the term ‘Food security’ because hunger was too reductive an explanation for what we were dealing with (useful for fundraising, but not able to explain the broad need for food assistance). Yet food security has become it’s own little prison, constricting our room for bold maneuver.
Which brings me back to asking what is our ‘Theory of Change’, both with individuals, communities and with the nation as a whole? In our little gnat bite of a California county are piecing together our own local ‘theory of change’ which I will share in another post, but to come up with a workable ‘theory’ on a national level we need a whole new set of relationships and collaborations between hunger, health, nutrition, anti-poverty, job creation and community development organizations nationwide.
This partnership would form a continuum of help to keep people healthy and connected to building and maintaining vibrant communities. Food insecurity is really only one part of a longer engagement and relationship with people
It is clear that none of this can be achieved by a single organization or by a purely top-down approach. It is also clear – to me at least – that these things cannot be achieved purely within a sphere of operations labeled ‘hunger relief.’ No matter how many millions we collect it will still always be a ‘sop for the needy’ – not enough to actually deal with the issue.
However, if we were to pivot to focusing on the issue as one of public health where we were going to commit to marshaling our efforts and those of our 64,000 member agencies to raise the baseline health of Americans in the simplest and most cost effective way possible – by raising the standard of their nutrition, it would be a historic game changer.
It would have the power to bring in the Department of Health and Human Services as an additional funding partner. (I know we came to the dance with the USDA, but my feet are getting tired and so are theirs, I imagine, as they’ve been asked to do impossible limbo dances beyond their original dance card).
To make such a pivot at the national Federal agency level requires us to get our collaborative shit together with a broad coalition of national charities, prepared to use nutritional literacy and health as a pump-primer for other next stage activities, such as community development and job creation.
We know what we do is providing the most basic need possible, but we are leaving the potential for huge positive change in people’s lives on the table walking away from leveraging that basic food need, and the access it affords into people’s lives, to help them get ahead.
We need to reframe the issue from the negative one of charity for ‘the needy’ to a positive engagement with people to ensure long-lasting nutritional health is seen as a vital and attainable public health goal.
Lack of adequate healthy food and the skills to use it need to be presented as issues of unacceptable public health and should be addressed, treated and funded in that fashion. The food bank and emergency food network remains the sleeping giant of the public health world. We can be the engine of the largest improvement in health since indoor plumbing.
To do this we need to have the ability to demonstrate the efficacy of our nutritional and educational interventions using acceptable public health criteria. Evaluation is the key to opening the door to a new approach and new funding from the Feds, from health insurers and from donors who want to see a major long-term return on their social investment.
For me, this represents the broad strokes true ‘theory of change’ that will enable us to move people from hunger to health.
I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming ‘Closing the Hunger Gap’ conference in Tucson on Sept 15. If you weren’t planning on coming, maybe you should. This is not a national learning conference put on by a national body, but a grass roots effort staged by a single food bank, determined to do what it can to provide a forum for a range of types of organizations to come together how to move forward this vital work on both a local and national level.
People are doing new things in the food banking world. In our search to ‘shorten the line,’ we are getting involved in areas that we had not been involved with in the past – educational programs, anti-poverty or pro-community development work – not to mention all manner of strange new alliances and partnerships.
We are discovering that our existing organizational structures are not necessarily the most efficient vehicles for getting us where we want to go. ‘Feed The Line’ and ‘Shorten The Line’ can be like two sticky gears in a truck and if you are constantly crunching between them, your engine (read staff) can become overstressed and your gearbox (read budget) may get worn out with all the upshifting and downshifting.
A standard food bank operation can feel like like tank, rumbling along, and when the situation calls for us to get all nimble and ‘ninja,’ we can find it hard to change direction. We’re brute force powerful, but maybe not so suited for the asymmetrical challenges of tackling poverty or helping clients build social capital. How can we build the nimbleness of being able to deal with both micro and macro interventions within our humble and creaky org chart?
We all hate org charts because they have this way of deadening a living, breathing thing (If you have any doubt, check out the chart of the educational establishment below):
Then of course there is the org chart according to the Executive Director’s view of the world, which is much like Steve Jobs’ view:
For us to figure out what is the best structure for our organization, we need to start by being clear where we stand in relation to the community around us. [Here you can download a good SSIR article on the ‘Networked nonprofit‘]
When I am explaining to Foodbank supporters about the evolution of our mission, I talk about how we can no longer avoid looking ‘upstream’ of where we are, to try and understand and deal with what is driving so many people to our doors – typically situational or generational poverty.
I then tell them we need to consider what is ‘downstream’ of where we are operating – this means what are the true outcomes of our interaction with clients? It may be that their long-term health has not been affected as beneficially as we hoped. These ideas are summarized in the graphics I developed below:
So, how can we restructure to meet this enlarged understanding of how we are affected by, and in turn affect the world around us?
Let’s look at some ways in which food banks are organized around these elements of the mission.
THE CLASSIC FOOD BANK
The first model is the ‘Classic’ food bank. Unreconstructed, proudly focused on the core mission and seeing no need to evolve further. Not only is it structurally unsuited for any expanded mission, it doesn’t even want to consider the possibility of one.
Typically this food bank will be in a high need / low resource area, where the only mindset accepted is ‘running faster and faster to keep in the same place.’ (Yes, I know my food bank is in hoity-toity Santa Barbara, but we serve the whole County, and of the 58 California counties, only 14 have more food insecurity than ours, so I should be at least be allowed an opinion…end of self-justifying whine!)
Another factor is that whatever food bank we are in operates the way it does for a million historical and community reasons – many of which may be hidden under the surface. ‘We’ve always done it this way’ can be a common refrain. These food banks will probably carry on much as they are, shrinking a little in size as ‘recession sympathy’ dries up further. The lack of desire to face shifting realities may be failure of leadership at the board or ED level or it could be just a lack of strongly voiced desire for anything more from the community.
Lets look at two other structural models that are currently out there in food bank land.
The Remodel is basically taking the old structure and trying to add on a few additions. It might be teaching some nutrition education classes or having some involvement in SNAP outreach.
There are many food banks are in this grouping. Whatever gets added might be as a result of ED interest, community stimulus or Feeding America encouragement. The problem here is that because the organization was not structured for this additional mission, then the new initiatives can be like vestigial limbs hanging off the org chart or they shoved in some department that feels like its original remit has become distorted.
This can lead to new initiatives being left to die by staff who feel they are already overworked, or that the program will be starved of resources once it has been there a while and is more noticeable for the problems it is causing the organization as opposed to the ‘new program paint smell’ that was so useful for fundraising in the early stages.
THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL
Of course the polar opposite of the ‘classic’ approach to food banking is what we might call the ‘We do it all’ or even the ‘Shining City on the Hill’ food bank. They stand out from all around them. They can be like a giant snowball rolling through town, picking up all manner of diverse activities: community gardens, job training, process kitchen etc etc. These activities are typically run by food bank staff. As someone remarked at the recent Feeding America ED forum, you’ve heard of ADD, this is called EDD.
This mode of operation tends to develop in places where the food bank is very much the ‘only game in town’ in terms of dwarfing other nonprofits, or having a large geographical area and considerable financial resources relative to the local nonprofit eco-system.
The general challenge with this approach is that it is expensive, difficult to sustain and challenging to coordinate. Also if you’re throwing a ton of programmatic outreach at the wall hoping some of it sticks, how do you know what element is really moving the needle, and what is well meaning but ultimately ineffectual?
CATALYST FOR CHANGE MODEL
I would like to suggest one additional approach –one that I believe our food bank is evolving into, which is more of a bottom-up ‘redesign’ and which could be called the ‘catalyst for change’ model.
The ‘Catalyst’ model means we create an uber goal – in our case ‘ending hunger in our service area AND transforming the health of the community through good nutrition.’ This goal allows us to partner with a full range of local health and service organizations and hunger relief becomes part of a positive goal that can be measured using public health indicators.
In reality, we still have our fingers in a bunch of pies, but the difference from the ‘we do it all model’ – and this is crucial – is that the food bank needs to remain value neutral over whether things are done either by them, by their existing agencies or whether achieving something requires new forms of partnership.
The overriding thing is that your organization commits to making sure that it happens one way or another, will evaluate the results and keep the process moving forward.
We expand what may already have been a long-term role as the encouragers of an ecosystem of community partners working to improve health and food security. The difference is that this time we want results and we want to be able to measure them. It could also mean that everyone’s programs might not be adjudged as wonderful as everyone else’s.
FB’s are perfectly positioned to be the catalysts to make sure that the things that are going to help solve food security and promote health are being done in coherent and interconnected fashion.
• We’re not going anywhere soon, so we have stability.
• We have respect to broker partnerships and coalitions.
• We also have detailed knowledge of the range of programs in our service area and through our existing agency reporting we have some crude idea of the outputs of service.
• More than anything, we have the food. That has always been our ace card, but we’ve never really played it as hard as we could. We really need to leverage every pound of food we distribute to effect lasting change.
This is all based around evolving the role of food within the organization. It is still central (relax…), but now it is not the end in itself. We are not only the food sourcers, storers and distributors – we are the food investors. We are going to leverage every nutritionally dense pound of food to bring significant long-term impact to the good health of our service area.
The price of doing business in the leverage is to provide good service to those who will always need food assistance as a result of challenges of age or faculty – yet even these folks can benefit from involvement in holistic service. Nevertheless, I am putting them lovingly to one side and saying that we will always find a way to source the food needed for these folks.
That leaves people whose lives we can impact significantly – children, families, those with chronic health conditions, those who question their limited voice or power in the community, those who want to share the skills required for good nutritional health with others in their neighborhood.
Being a catalyst sounds easier than doing everything yourself, but really it is just a different kind of difficult.
The below graphic shows the resources that we are providing in our area to stimulate effective nonprofit agency responses to local nutritional health issues:
If we have a traditional org structure then provision of the above services is going to look like the many-headed hydra. It also means that it is only a matter of time before one head or other gets lopped off, because it is not sustainable.
Let’s look at an alternate structure. Enter, if you will, through the doors of perception…
The doorway is a good metaphor, because people, food and resources can pass through it in both directions. So imagine your Foodbank in the center of the community (because it’s hard to escape from our self-obsessions) and further imagine four doors around you that lead in from and out to that wider community.
I am suggesting that this kind of restructure requires you to shift how you do business to facilitate the most efficient methods of stimulating two-way traffic through these doors. It means you have to inspire and join with and prod and poke your partners in the community (starting / but not ending with your member agencies) into embracing impact and sustainability and rigorous evaluation of their activities. And if you the food bank are going to initiate something new, you need to find a way to make it sustainable long term which means planning from the start of the process how the community will have assumed ownership of the project by the time it reaches maturity.
The four doors are:
1. Partner Organizations
2. Food Bank Programs
4. Community Leadership/Volunteers
Let’s look individually at each of these ‘portals’ for food, energy, time and collective will:
Partner Organization Doorway
This is always going to be the biggest door. If we’re going to maximize our impact we need vibrant relationships with other nonprofit organizations. Yet we need to shake things up a lot in terms of how our current partnerships work.
We are already monitoring member agencies, but because our focus has been about ‘maxing’ poundage, we have not pushed/encouraged agencies to embrace a ‘shorten the line’ agenda. Agency segmentation has been helpful for us in seeing who can be the best partners for ‘shorten the line’ services, but at some point, tough decisions need to be made about what relationships need to be prioritized for the good of the community.
We are in a time when traditional donated food supplies are tight and we are all working hard to find the next ‘wave’ of available product. Consequently this is the perfect time to make every pound count and leverage existing relationships by expecting more of our partners that turning our inventory for us.
If the relationship with community partners is to become more about impact and not just poundage, then you might find yourself with a different set of partners. Some of our most successful new partnerships are not based around agencies distributing food for us. We are working with American Heart Association, who are providing some educational components to our existing educational structure with our Kid’s Farmers Market Program.
We also are working with a local ‘cradle to career’ school initiative called Thrive, where our educational programs are helping them meet funding-mandated nutrition education requirements. We are in discussion with other potential partners around working together in community building and in food systems reform.
Our educational programs typically include a distribution element, yet in at least half of them, this is really a micro distribution compared to the ‘here’s 20lbs of broccoli, good luck with your life’ approach of the past. You might feel that this is mission drift, but I know that each one of these partnerships will have more long-term impact on increasing food security then setting up another mobile pantry.
Your existing agency relations structure may not be able to work with this expanded set of partners. For us there is already a challenge in how to work with two different types of partner within our existing agency structure. We need to do more to reconcile these types of partnership, so that the ‘non-food distributing’ partner does not become the poor relation (or vice versa). Close links between agency/partner relations and the work of the development and program departments now becomes crucial. The old siloed approach to information of the past can be disastrous in this kind of relationship.
FOODBANK PROGRAM DOORWAY
We are increasingly looking at pushing out our award-winning ‘Feed the Future’ children’s programs through our member agencies as a way of bringing them to scale and thereby meet our vision objectives. The programs are run by ‘super-volunteers’ and therefore are sustainable. Tapping into other agency’s ‘super-volunteers’ will enable this sustainable scale to increase. This represents another big element of the catalyst relationship – we can develop and evaluate programs and then our agencies and partners become the natural conduit for scaling these programs.
We need to make these programs (which all include both ‘feed the line’ and ‘shorten the line’ elements) so attractive in terms of curriculum, training and food availability and so effective that agencies will want to run the programs. Do agencies pay a license fee? Do we give them away? Do we ask them to provide some shared maintenance for the food element? For us, these issues are still to be decided.
We’re not big brother, but if they want to run a different program that is fine, as long as the evaluation and data connected to their program are broadly comparable so we know they are getting the impact.
A food bank running programs and fundraising to deliver them is not really sustainable in the long-term. Yes, you can always find a donor to pay for one nutrition ed program or another, but unless you have found a way to let the community take ownership of the program long-term, it will eventually languish. Which leads us to who should be running the programs.
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP / VOLUNTEER DOORWAY
I believe the closeness of the relationship of volunteers to non-profit organizations is cyclical. At one end of the cycle, the focus is on an all-paid workforce with an overlay of marginalized volunteers to manual tasks or food sorting or packing. This can lead to disconnection from a large part community – especially professional people who have a lot of other skills to offer. One way of telling whether your use of volunteers is truly able to help you build impact is to imagine if all your volunteers fell away – could you continue fairly easily with your mission? If so then volunteers are really window-dressing for you.
At the other end of the continuum is more of a volunteer-driven organization. Aiming to become this is a major element of the ‘catalyst’ approach for us. We have a special category of volunteer, called a ‘community leader’ who is a super-volunteer that is treated pretty much as a paid employee would be. They are typically there to focus on a particular project, but others may have long-term loyalty to a specific program.
These community leaders are paid – just not with money. This ‘payment’ might be with the provision of written references, or with respect, or with being given leadership responsibilities. These Community Leaders are held to account for what they have committed to do and reassigned or fired if they do not produce. This has helped us scale our programs significantly.
I can’t pretend this has not lead to cultural strains within the organization, which naturally wants to shift back to just having paid staff. Employees find it easier to lead people who are getting paid to listen to them, rather than having to go to the effort of inspiring volunteers will listen if we communicate effectively the power of our mission and the direct impact that volunteer can have on moving it forward.
We are making significant progress, though. I think there is something empowering for our employees in letting them know that they are all expected to be leaders of multiple volunteers, no matter what their job function is. It is all about multiplying their ability to achieve impact. Yes, we all know it feels so much easier to do something yourself rather than explain to someone else, but that is not sustainable.
The changes that this means to a traditional food bank structure is that you need a lot more ‘relationship manager’ type staff – they might be handling relationships with community leaders, short-term knowledge philanthropists that are working on a specific project, or outside organizations that we are partnering with. These are all people who need more attention / coaching/ focus than just the usual volunteer management skills. You are managing outside talent and it takes tact, organization and a clear understanding of the shared goals. We don’t really have the experience or skills in this area (besides in the fundraising arena) so it is learning a new skill and introducing a new culture, but the expectation is that staff will be managing an increasing number of community resources and so multiplying their impact as an employee.
As regards impact on the warehouse staff, if you have a rash of small scale educational programs that might require small poundage of high-quality produce or purchased items that are needed to demo a curriculum-specified recipe, these can be extremely difficult for current warehouse structures to deal with. Online ordering by programs staff becomes vital. Skills at staging and coordinating multiple micro distributions have to be developed. Drivers are overwhelmed by the number and complexity of deliveries and pick ups of programmatic materials from sites. In this situation it becomes increasingly important for volunteer drivers with loyalty to specific programs or sites to become involved.
The other side of the community leadership equation for us is the way we can erase the dividing line between ‘benefactors and beneficiaries.’ Our Nutrition Advocates come out of our programs and are encouraged to work more closely with both the Foodbank and become self-supporting groups. They are trained in food literacy, can be SNAP advocates and we also provide community organizing facilitation to help organize around any local health and community issues.
Community Leaders and Nutrition Advocates represent two powerful and brand new volunteer forces that are having a major impact in how our organization develops.
THE DEVELOPMENT DOOR
These other doorways suddenly open up a lot of other opportunities for the development department. We have community leaders teaching in programs and having direct access to working with clients so we are building the kind of long-term support from motivated professional people that no number of trips to the warehouse can generate.
The mantra in food banking has always been ‘once they go to the warehouse, they get it.’ This is true in terms of comprehending the size of our operations and the fact that we are not a glorified food pantry. However, if you really want to build long-term loyalty, you need to not show them the ‘tool,’ but involve them in what the tool has built. That means involvement in direct service with clients. The old hunger dynamic made this an awkward situation for all concerned. Now that our focus is about health, this is a way that benefactor and beneficiary can communicate as equals – we all care about being healthy, we all have ideas about how good nutrition can help with this. Teaching once a month in one of our programs is a golden way of building a whole new levels of ‘getting it.’
I used to get jealous about ‘Habitat for Humanity’ and their ability to involve supporters directly in their efforts by helping build a house and leaving them with the tangible results of what they have wrought. Community involvement with our programs now brings us ever closer to this model.
The desire to take more leadership in the health arena with local partners is also creating brand new funding opportunities with foundations, businesses and individual major givers who are looking for long term social solutions not short term charitable fixes.
One size does not fit all, and I am not suggesting that your organization should focus on the catalyst approach, like we are. Nevertheless, I would challenge you to look at your mission and how it has changed and then start asking the tough questions around organizational structure, so that you can be ready to meet the challenges of the next twenty years as we work to achieve the long-term health and food security of our communities.
NOTE TO ‘FROM HUNGER TO HEALTH’ READERS:
You can help us receive an award from Walmart by following this Facebook link and voting each day until April 30th