Exploring HAH Sustainability

Exploring Sustainability for Harvest Against Hunger

By

Katie O’Mara

A degree project submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Public Administration

University of Washington

2012

Approved by _________________________________________

2

Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 5

Chapter 2: Hunger in the Northwest and the Emergency Food System: Where Rotary First Harvest and Harvest Against Hunger Fit ............................................................... 7

Chapter 3: Case Studies .............................................................................................. 11 Table 1: Case Study Sites: Summary of Challenges Facing Each Organization ........................... 12 Lettuce Link ............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Thurston County Food Bank .............................................................................................................................. 16 Northwest Harvest Yakima ................................................................................................................................ 18 Food For All ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 4: Exploring Programmatic Problems and Challenges -‐ Literature Review ..... 28 Changes in Structure: New positions and Shifting Responsibilities ................................................. 28 Navigating Partnerships: Forging Ties and Maintaining Institutional Memory .......................... 30 Using Volunteers: Changing and Dividing Responsibilities ................................................................. 31 Engaging Participants: Recruiting and Managing Volunteers ............................................................. 33 Building Trust: Forming and Maintaining Donor Relationships ........................................................ 34 Diversifying Funding: Using New Sources to Fund Programs ............................................................ 37

Chapter 5: Connecting the Literature With On The Ground Strategies -‐ Analysis ........ 39

Chapter 6: Moving Forward for Harvest Against Hunger ............................................. 45

References ................................................................................................................. 46

3

Executive Summary Around Washington State, Rotary First Harvest is helping emergency food providers connect with farmers to recover excess produce through the Harvest Against Hunger Program (HAH). At eleven different sites, AmeriCorps VISTA members are working to solicit donations of fresh produce from small and medium-sized farmers, as well as home growers, in order to provide a higher availability of healthy food at emergency food access points. This study focuses on the four sites that are in their third and final year of VISTA eligibility. Each of these sites is working on multiple strategies to continue with HAH without the dedicated VISTA staff member in upcoming years. Exploring the diverse strategies being used to offset the withdrawal of the AmeriCorps member and the loss of outside resources helps to inform these organizations, as well as others that will be entering into this stage in upcoming years. Further, these techniques are useful to any organization attempting to implement produce recovery programs around the country. Methodology The study uses cases studies of four sites: Lettuce Link at Solid Ground in Seattle; Thurston County Food Bank in Olympia; Northwest Harvest Yakima in Yakima and the Okanogan County Community Action Council in Okanogan. Interviews with key program staff including VISTA members and their supervisors are supplemented with background research about hunger and the emergency food system in Washington State, as well as a review of a broad range of organizational and management literature relating to the program. Findings All four of the organizations are working to find a balance of new strategies that allow HAH to remain viable in the future. They face many challenges, including loss of funding, organizational change, difficulty recruiting donors and volunteers, and complications involving building and managing partnerships. In examining strategies both from the literature and from current organizational plans, several possible approaches emerged:

• Tapping new funding streams While taking different approaches, each of the four sites is looking at ways to increase program funding. These include cost savings in other areas of the budget, improving efficiencies to decrease expenditures, accessing sponsorship and grant dollars from local foundations and corporations and designing revenue generating components of the program. Combining these different strategies will, in several cases, help to fund a part or full-time gleaning coordinator position similar to that of the current VISTA member.

• Building and maintaining positive, strong donor relationships

4

Donors are one of the most important components of the HAH program. Thus far, one of the major aspects of the VISTA member’s job has been reaching out to potential donors and managing donor relations and specific gleaning events. These relationships are complicated and require a large amount of time and effort. Using this last year to build strong relationships with key donors is one of the most important jobs for the outgoing VISTA member. If they can create these ties and set up concrete plans for future program participation, this outreach work can be scaled back in upcoming years.

• Engaging both individual volunteers and groups to provide robust connections to

the program and donors Volunteer recruitment and management are also some of the key responsibilities for the VISTA member. To decrease time spent on these activities, organizations are looking to tap existing groups of volunteers such as church and youth groups or employees at local businesses. An added bonus of these groups is that they may be willing to volunteer regularly at one location, building connections with a specific farmer. This strengthens the program because it creates a dedicated group of volunteers that have been trained to harvest at a particular location. Farmer apprehension about volunteer harvesters will be reduced with regular, positive contact. If groups form relationships with a specific farmer and food bank or meal program, the need for HAH management of gleaning activities will be reduced.

• Fostering partnerships with like-minded organizations in the region

Related organizations may have access to resources and contacts that HAH staff has not been privy to. By tapping these resources, whether they be new volunteers, donors, grants or educational opportunities. However, staff at each organization must be aware of certain pitfalls involved with partnerships. These include mission creep and loss of institutional memory – as organizations work together, they must carefully delineate how they can accomplish goals relating to each of their programs. The careful planning of roles as well as documentation of activities will help to allow the program to continue with staffing and to maintain consistent information for volunteers and donors.

HAH is both a flexible and complicated program, with many moving parts. Organizations must plan to use multiple strategies to continue to strengthen and expand the program. Building relationships with various community members and organizations is key. Supporting these relationships with planning and attention to detail will help to spread the responsibilities of running the program among multiple entities and decrease the need for a single gleaning coordinator. As this final VISTA year continues at each of these four sites, assessing the implementation of these many strategies will inform the future of the program.

5

Chapter 1: Introduction Access to food is a problem in the United States. This is shocking in one of the wealthiest nations in the world and disheartening to organizations that are fighting to combat hunger. According to a survey conducted by the USDA in 2006, ten to twelve percent of Americans fall into the category of ‘food insecure’, which means that they do not always have the food that they need to feed themselves or their families, sometimes must skip meals or do not know where their next meal will come from. Further, three to four percent of those surveyed were classified as having ’very low food security’, which is defined as having multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake. Many of these families access food through the emergency food system, which consists of food banks, soup kitchens and shelters. Unfortunately, this system lacks enough food to provide for all of those in need. Food banks and other resources depend on donations from the public, businesses, religious organizations and other non-profits. Rotary First Harvest (RFH) is a non-profit whose mission is to help fill this gap with donations of nutritious food. RFH seeks to connect farmers with excess produce to emergency food sources. Through facilitation of these donations, improvements to distribution and transportation and innovative hunger relief programs, RFH is helping to feed millions of people in Washington State. The purpose of this study is to look at the future sustainability of Harvest Against Hunger (HAH), a program created by RFH in 2009. HAH aims to connect small and medium sized farmers with volunteers who can help to harvest surplus crops which are then donated to the emergency food system. Usually, this takes the form of ‘gleaning’, with volunteers harvesting or sorting produce that farmers are not going to sell to use for donations. HAH consists of individual programs at eleven different organizations across Washington State and is coordinated by a separate AmeriCorps VISTA members at each. This is a program unlike any other in the country -- the challenges inherent to food harvesting, transportation, delivery and storage are compounded by short time windows to coordinate between donors and volunteers and the necessity of large groups of volunteers to complete tasks. HAH has grown and evolved over the last three years and currently faces challenges with staffing, funding and maintaining volunteer and donor relationships. This study seeks to answer the question: How can each HAH produce recovery project around the state become sustainable after the withdrawal of the AmeriCorps volunteer and initial start-up resources?

6

Using four sites as examples of the program’s varied and unique forms around Washington, I compare the differing management, funding, and volunteer/donor recruitment, coordination and outreach strategies to build a toolkit of sustainable best practices for HAH as a whole. Various strategies will be especially important at these four sites because they are all entering into their final year with a VISTA position. Each site is an instance of a different type of organizational model, and each has a different geography and serves clients with distinct demographic profiles. RFH will use this toolkit with its 11 other sites in Washington and as a handbook of sorts for emergency food providers in other states looking to start similar programs. The toolkit will allow other programs to implement programs like HAH based on their similarities to the four example sites. The following chapters help to answer the question of program sustainability and develop strategies for HAH. Chapter Two focuses on the context of HAH, including background on hunger in Washington, the development of emergency food programs and the history, benefits and limitations of the AmeriCorps program. This background is crucial for understanding how HAH developed into the program that it has become. Descriptions of each of the four case sites follow in Chapter 3, with explanations of program design and site specific challenges and plans for the future. Following the case specifics, I examine the management and organizational literature into which the HAH program fits - organizational growth and development, managing partnerships, volunteer/donor recruitment and relations and developing diversified funding streams. These frameworks are used to contextualize the problems that HAH is facing. Finally, I evaluate strategies for HAH as it moves into the future and offer conclusions and implications for further research in the final chapters.

7

Chapter 2: Hunger in the Northwest and the Emergency Food System: Where Rotary First Harvest and Harvest Against Hunger Fit Rotary First Harvest and its Harvest Against Hunger program fit into a larger emergency food system in Washington. Understanding this system and the underlying issues that necessitate its existence is crucial to understanding the innovative nature of HAH and it changes and connects to the emergency system. This section explores the problem of hunger in the Pacific Northwest, the challenges faced by different demographics and locales, and how RFH has chosen to address some of these issues. Numerous factors contribute to the problem of hunger. Rising food and fuel costs, continued high levels of unemployment, growing numbers of individuals living at or near the poverty line and welfare and other public assistance reform and time limits all play a role in people not being able to access adequate food through conventional merchants. Food prices have gone up disproportionately over the last five years - food prices overall rose 4% between 2007 and 2009,(Kumcu and Kaufman, 2011) and prices for healthier foods like rose at much higher rates: eggs (42%), milk (20% per gallon), and fruits and vegetables (20% between 2005-2007) (Kumcu and Kaufman, 2011). Further, a study from the University of Washington’s Center for Public Health Nutrition found that less healthy, energy dense foods are less susceptible to price increases fueled by inflation (Monsivais et al., 2010). As prices increase, families are less able to spend limited dollars on groceries and become more dependent on other food resources. The recession and staggering levels of unemployment also play a role in people’s food budgets. Average unemployment in 2009 was 9.3%, compared to 4.6% in 2006 (Kumcu and Kaufman, 2011). In Washington, unemployment rates are currently around 8.5%, compared to a national average of 8.3% (BLS, 2012). Changes in employment and job security have implications for families’ food security. According to the USDA, average food expenditures between 2006 and 2009 decreased by five percent (Kumcu and Kaufman, 2011). These decreases in expenditures were largest among middle income families. To address citizens’ difficulty accessing food, federal and state governments provide social safety net options. Several programs specifically target the purchase of food, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as the Food Stamp Program) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Both of these programs are administered through the USDA and provide benefits to low-income populations. SNAP is an entitlement program,

8

allowing anyone who meets certain income based requirements to receive benefits (FNS, 2012). These programs aim to fill the gap between what families can afford to buy and what they need to maintain food security. Use of both programs has increased steadily since their inception. In the last five years, there has been a huge spike in SNAP users, up to 44.7 million in 2011 from 26.6 million in 2006; in Washington, there were over one million food stamp users in 2011(Welch et al., 2008). Average benefits per household in 2011 were $245.70 per month (FNS, 2012). Unfortunately, government food aid has not been enough to provide adequately for everyone who cannot afford the food that they need. This mismatch between publicly provided support and need was the impetus for the development of the emergency food system. Beginning in the 1980s, the country saw a major shift in economic prosperity. A crippling recession led to the inability of many families to purchase food. At the same time, government aid to individuals and families was drastically cut. Seeing the need for support and services, many charitable and non-profit organizations jumped in to help. Hunger became a problem that many could rally around. Food is one of the most basic human needs, and organizations recognized that with rising costs of living many people could not provide it for themselves. These organizations stepped in to set up donation and distribution systems to provide for this shortfall. In Washington, Rotary First Harvest works primarily with two umbrella nonprofits that distribute food to food banks, meal programs, and shelters around the state. Food Lifeline and Northwest Harvest both seek to facilitate large-scale organizations and to act as a redistributor and resource to smaller networks and individual food banks. These organizations are the distributors of government commodity foods and other large quantity donations. Food Lifeline distributes to counties in Western Washington, while Northwest Harvest serves providers all over the state. Together, they provide food to approximately 600 food banks in the state (Food Lifeline, 2012; Northwest Harvest, 2012). For the most part, Rotary First Harvest works with these large emergency food distributors. These organizations have the capacity, in terms of storage, transportation and refrigeration to accept the large-scale donations that RFH usually contributes. By acting as a conduit between farmers and emergency food providers, RFH has helped to distribute over 160 million pounds of produce in the last 30 years. This produce is surplus, usually due to minor imperfections which prevent its sale to conventional food distributors. RFH uses donated transportation when possible, to contain costs. Often, this

9

includes facilitating ‘back hauling’ for truckers – donations are loaded into trucks that have dropped off cargo nearby and are returning to the areas where distribution centers are located. Harvest Against Hunger works in a similar fashion to these larger scale donations. However, because individual food donations are smaller through the HAH program, they are distributed directly to food banks and other grassroots food distribution organizations. These groups often do not have the infrastructural or staff capacity to deal with large donations. One of the difficulties of managing this program is matching donations with appropriate recipients. This program is spread around the state and takes advantage of the wide network of small and medium sized farmers that produce here. Washington is home to 10,460 farms that are less than 49 acres (USDA, 2007). In order to access more of these small growers, HAH staff are stationed at 11 organizations around the state. Currently, these staff members are part of AmeriCorps VISTA, a national volunteer service program designed to fight poverty around the US. Since its inception in 1964, the VISTA program has funded opportunities for participants to actively combat issues of poverty in the United States. In 1993, VISTA was moved under the umbrella of AmeriCorps programs that seek to provide funded opportunities for people to serve their country. Each VISTA participant agrees to serve at a nonprofit or government agency for a one year term to work against issues of poverty – illiteracy, lack of health services, poor nutrition and substandard education as well as many others (CNCS, 2012) The VISTA program seeks to fund opportunities that concentrate on four main principles: anti-poverty efforts, community empowerment, capacity building and sustainable solutions. These principles share the same goals as those of HAH, and VISTA participants have proved to be very successful within the program. Volunteers are provided with a stipend, medical insurance, childcare reimbursement and a tuition grant at the end of service. In Washington State, VISTA supports 182 volunteers in many different types of programs (CNCS, 2012). Organizations must apply to host a VISTA volunteer. For HAH, Rotary First Harvest is the sponsoring organization for all of the VISTA members. By taking on this role, RFH shoulders the administrative burden relating to VISTA sponsorship for all of the organizations that participate in HAH. Organizations may have VISTA volunteers for three years; to extend that term of service, it is suggested that the organization participate in ‘cost sharing’. Cost sharing requires the organization to fund the living stipend offered

10

to AmeriCorps volunteers, while AmeriCorps continues to cover the cost of medical care, training and the education grant. RFH absorbs the cost for two of the positions, while a third, Lettuce Link, covers the cost of the stipend within their own individual organization budget. The first wave of VISTA volunteers came to RFH in 2009, so the organizations that started HAH three years ago are entering their final year with VISTA participation. These original sites are the four that comprise this study – Solid Ground in Seattle, the Thurston County Food Bank in Olympia, Northwest Harvest in Yakima and the Okanogan Community Action Council in Okanogan. These volunteers started the program from scratch – navigating donor and volunteer recruitment and management, program development and logistics. Within the AmeriCorps program, each volunteer develops a VISTA Assignment Description (VAD) to define their scope of work for their term. These VADs cover expectations, goals and procedures that volunteers must to pursue during their service. For HAH, the VADs all begin with volunteer and donor recruitment and move into other types of outreach and program support. Finally, each volunteer must track certain metrics to document the success of the program. These include number of volunteers, number of volunteer hours and tracking the participating farms and the amount of produce that is donated. This year, for the four sites with third year VISTA members, VADs also include a sustainability component that stresses research on how the program can move into the future.

11

Chapter 3: Case Studies The first part of this study consists of case studies of the four sites. Each site is unique – one runs a volunteer network through a large urban area; another is based out of a large food bank in a small, progressive city; a third is run by a community action council in a rural area; and, finally, the last is a network of food banks run through rural farming communities. They have different clientele, budgets and funding sources. These case studies illuminate the diverse models and organizations that are running HAH programs – other organizations can determine similarities in their own programs to help shape strategy moving forward. Each case study was developed through a combination of background research, site visits and interviews. Table 1 highlights the different challenges facing each of the organizations to pinpoint both general and specific problems for the reader.

12

Table 1: Case Study Sites: Summary of Challenges Facing Each Organization Lettuce Link Solid Ground

Thurston County Food Bank

Northwest Harvest Yakima

Okanogan County Community Action Council

Volunteers as donors

Volunteer retention through off season

Building trust with donors Connecting

volunteers with farmers in their area

Different Volunteer Positions

Building trust with donors

Accessing large and diverse agricultural community

Coordinating gleans with food bank distribution days

Creating community interest

Divide off season responsibilities between Produce and Volunteer Coordinators

Lay groundwork for self-‐sufficient programs

Covering a large region with a network of food banks

Small donations to a network of relief agencies

Create internship program through a local youth farming program

Connect specific donors with individual food provision programs, bypassing oversight by NWHY

Building trust with donors

Increase funding through grants

Promote local ties to agriculture through continuing agricultural education

Supporting an individual program within the structure of a statewide organization

Funding a full-‐time position to be split between HAH and other programs at various times of the year

Create CSAs through community farms

Increase efficiency of current programs

Provide materials in multiple languages

13

Lettuce Link Solid Ground Seattle, WA The Lettuce Link Program began in 1988 as part of Solid Ground, a multi-service organization striving to use community building to end poverty. Lettuce Link is one of 28 programs run through the organization – this diversity in programming has costs and benefits. Through this myriad of programs, Solid Ground has connections to community groups and other non-profit efforts all over the city. These linkages are helpful for program volunteer and donor recruitment, with multiple outlets for outreach and marketing. However, this widespread network of organizations and programs makes management difficult. These challenges concern issues of coordination and collaboration that are especially apparent in the complex nonprofit environment of an urban area. Lettuce Link consists of three separate initiatives to help increase access to fresh produce and teach people how to grow their own food. These initiatives are taking place at sites all over Seattle, as well at individual residences in many neighborhoods.

P-‐Patch Giving Gardens

Lettuce Link has partnered with growers at 30 city funded P-Patch community gardens around Seattle to encourage cultivation of extra produce outside of what gardeners are growing for themselves. This extra produce can take several forms. First, many P-Patch gardens have a plot set aside for hunger program gardening – these are called “Giving Gardens”. These plots are tended through volunteer effort and the produce is donated to food banks, shelters and meal programs. Gardeners are also urged to grow extra rows of produce within their individual gardens. Lettuce Link provides seeds for these extra plantings and also information about what types of produce will be most useful for different types of hunger programs. This infrastructure creates more efficient and valuable donations for relief agencies. Current VISTA member responsibilities include recruiting program participants, facilitating resources, seeds, plant starts and tools, and organization of the donation process. P-Patch volunteers harvest produce and deliver donations to specified sites. In 2010, a total of 20,889 pounds of produce were donated through Giving Gardens to approximately 15 hunger relief programs.

14

Fruit Tree Harvest

Lettuce Link also organizes a city-wide initiative to harvest the unused fruit from trees growing on public and private land. From its start in 2005 with 500 pounds of donations, the harvest has grown significantly. Not only does this program help to feed hungry people, but it also aids in managing some of the problems of growing fruit trees in urban areas. Many fruit trees are growing on the land of private, single family residences. These trees often produce more fruit than one family can consume, which leads to waste and messy, rotten fruit on the ground. Harvesting for food banks alleviate these problems. Volunteers traverse neighborhoods scouting for fruit trees in the area and leaving informational flyers for residents. Harvest coordinators also access potential donors through blogs, fliers, list serves, public radio and local newspapers. These outreach materials include procedures for registering the tree for donations – Lettuce Link partners with Seattle Tilth to conduct fruit tree intake and evaluation. Tilth’s Garden Hotline gathers contact information and basic descriptions about the tree, which allows assessment of if and how the tree can be harvested. This survey information is sent to Lettuce Link and collated by the Fruit Harvest Coordinator, who then contacts suitable tree owners to schedule harvest dates. Volunteers are sent to each site to complete the harvest and facilitate the donation when the fruit is ripe. Sometimes, a volunteer harvest cannot be arranged – the Fruit Harvest Coordinator then encourages the owner to complete the harvest themselves and passes along information about where the donations can be dropped off. This program requires a large and devoted volunteer base – with the number of trees around the city, harvest season can be very busy and harvesting opportunities can come up at short notice. The Harvest Coordinator strives to recruit dedicated volunteers and maintain their engagement throughout the season. Volunteers must submit the Lettuce Link Fruit Harvest Volunteer Application, which includes a waiver and several questions about potential transportation. The questions help to evaluate how volunteers can contribute to both the harvesting and donation process. The fruit harvest goes on for several months, making volunteer engagement one of the most crucial aspects of the program. Beginning in July and continuing through early October, this harvest brings in thousands of pounds of fruit each

15

year. In 2011, the Community Fruit Tree Harvest collected 4,605 pounds of fruit for local hunger relief agencies.

Giving Gardens At Community Farms: Marra Farm and Seattle Community Farm

The final prong of Lettuce Link’s produce provision strategy is the cultivation of food at two community farms within the city. Volunteers work to grow food for donation at these two locations and contributed over 22,000 pounds of produce in 2010. Food also goes to local families with plots, senior citizens through a lunch program and to local elementary schools. Volunteer recruitment is conducted through the same avenues as the other two programs. Marra Farm is the product of several different groups working in tandem to provide for many different populations in the South Park neighborhood. The Seattle Community Farm was created through partnerships with the Seattle Housing Authority and Seattle P-Patch gardening program. Produce from the Seattle Community Farm goes to the Rainier Valley Food bank or to local residents through a work trade program. Work trade helps to regularly complete important farming tasks while providing produce in exchange. These community farms allow locals to share agricultural knowledge and provide for their community in a very meaningful way.

These three programs are acquiring food for local agencies through many different avenues. This network of programs allows for higher levels of food donations, with a very diverse inventory of produce. But, since the VISTA member has been working to coordinate these disparate efforts, her exit poses challenges for Lettuce Link and the continuation of HAH. Challenges Lettuce Link is a unique program model among the HAH sites – facilitating growing and donations in an urban area is complex and very different from other program sites. Some of the issues include:

• Managing a wide network of volunteers Volunteers are participating at approximately 90 community gardens around the city, not to mention volunteers through the fruit harvest and community

16

farms. To recruit and maintain relationships with all of these volunteers requires an incredible amount of legwork and communication.

• Recruiting volunteers to do different types of jobs Lettuce Link has to access volunteers with different skill sets. Some must be willing to garden themselves, other to participate in fruit harvesting and some to keep the farms running smoothly. Finding the depth of volunteers for each problem is challenging and ties into the problem explored above.

• Creating community as well as individual interest in programs

Giving Gardens are cultivated within community P-Patches, volunteers for fruit tree harvesting must be out in the community gathering information and conducting outreach. In order for these programs to run smoothly, communities must be invested in production, harvesting and donation coordination.

• Coordinating small donations to a network of relief agencies While Lettuce Link does not have to coordinate actual donations to food banks and other agencies, they must clearly identify organizations for volunteers. Helping donations become more efficient and connecting specific gardens with certain programs will help to build sustainability. As those groups work together, they can build support for each other.

Finding the Money: Strategies for Next Year • Increase funding through grants to continue with a paid gleaning coordinator • Create CSAs through community farms to raise funds for staff position

Thurston County Food Bank Olympia, WA The Thurston County Food Bank (TCFB) has been serving the Olympia community since 1965 and has seen a growth in both supporters and clientele over its almost 50 years of operation. Through client surveys beginning in 2008, TCFB determined that one pressing client need was access to higher levels of fruits and vegetables. In response to this need, TCFB joined HAH in 2009 and received the services of a VISTA volunteer to create a gleaning program. Several gleaning programs have come and gone in Olympia over the past ten years. TCFB was committed to creating strong relationships with local growers and overshadowing inconsistent and disorganized experiences that farmers had with prior gleaning groups. This necessitates reliable coordination and volunteers that understand

17

the gleaning process and interact with farmers efficiently and respectfully. Assuaging farmer concerns about volunteer and program dependability remains one of the major concerns of program leadership. TCFB leadership is dedicated to building a strong and sustainable program that runs on relationships. At the beginning of the program, the first gleaning coordinator conducted outreach through letters to farmers in the area and followed up with phone calls. For those producers who showed interest, meetings were scheduled. It was crucial to both the coordinator and her supervisor that farmers show true interest in the mission of the program so that with proper management, participation would continue into the future. Initially, the coordinator identified two farms that were suitable to begin gleaning efforts. As interested as they are in facilitating a smooth donor experience, TCFB is dedicated to promoting a satisfactory volunteer experience. TCFB manages approximately 300 volunteers per year – each volunteer must complete an application and attend an initial orientation seminar. Outreach is conducted through fliers, internet classifieds and tabling at local colleges and events. After being placed with the gleaning team, volunteers go through training which includes an orientation to the TCFB space and familiarization with gleaning equipment. After completing this intake process for all volunteers, the gleaning coordinator begins to organize events. To better serve volunteers and donors, TCFB encourages commitment to the program through the entire gleaning season, which usually lasts from July through the end of November. As the program has grown, TCFB leadership has made a key strategic decision which has shaped its evolution: not all gleaning opportunities will be capitalized on. For leadership, maintaining steady and reliable opportunities that produce quality donations is more important than collecting all the food that is available. By building these donor relationships with a select group of farmers, TCFB hopes to be able to maintain them without a dedicated gleaning coordinator for at least part of the year. These farmers know the process for gleaning events and understand what types and quantities TCFB is looking for. TCFB is hoping to be able to conduct most of the gleaning activities during the off season, such as volunteer recruitment and periodical donor contacts through two other staff members: the volunteer and produce coordinators. During the harvesting season, TCFB hopes to hire an intern to coordinate Challenges TCFB is lucky to have a forward thinking and adaptive staff. Since the inception of the gleaning program in 2009, leadership has been actively promoting techniques and

18

strategies to increase the sustainability of the program and to partner with other organizations and farmers that can continue to foster a strong donation pipeline in the future. However, challenges do persist, some of which will be exacerbated by the loss of the VISTA volunteer:

• Volunteer retention without a dedicated contact TCFB assigns volunteers to very specific jobs that fit their interests and skills. Since TCFB has fairly rigid demarcations between volunteer crews, volunteers with the gleaning effort often get lost from season to season. The off season provides few opportunities to continue volunteering and with the loss of a specific coordinator, the gleaning program may have difficulty maintaining volunteer interest from harvest to harvest.

• Preservation of current donors and expansion to new farms

With so much of the foundations of this model built on personal contact with donors, loss of a direct gleaning coordinator during the off-season recruitment period may be problematic. Using other staff members to conduct this outreach may not allow for as much time to be dedicated to farmer contact as these staff members also have other responsibilities. Faced with other responsibilities at the food bank, the produce manager may not be able to dedicate enough time to following up with farms or other donors that could be key in the expansion of the program.

Dividing Roles: Strategies for Next Year • Divide off season gleaning work between Produce and Volunteer Coordinators • Hire intern through GrUB (local farm education group working with youth from

Olympia high schools) for gleaning season • Use scholarship/school credit to compensate intern above minimum wage pay • Promote local ties to agriculture through continuing agricultural education for

intern through Evergreen or South Puget Sound Community College

Northwest Harvest Yakima Yakima, WA Northwest Harvest Yakima (NWHY) is part of the Northwest Harvest emergency food distribution network. NWHY facilitates large-scale donations of food and redistributing them to food banks, meal programs and shelters around the region. Last year, food was sent to 47 different programs with a wide-reaching radius around the area. NWHY is situated in a rich agricultural region, with hundreds of farms in the surrounding area. Many of these farms are large scale, commercial enterprises, but there are also a number

19

of small and midsize farms. The VISTA member at NWHY is working with other staff to develop and implement several programs to take advantage of these different scales and hopes to make further improvements in the future to capture maximum donations.

Cull Bin Gleaning One of the most significant sources of produce for NWHY is donated through farmers’ own harvesting efforts. With each harvest, some food is unable to be sold for various reasons and is sorted out to a special bin. This process is called ‘culling’. These culls ordinarily contain a high percentage of produce that is perfectly edible. For the last several years, NWHY has been reaching out to farmers with culled produce for donations – the contents of the bins are picked up and brought back to the warehouse for sorting and repacking. This system is efficient for both farmers and the organization; culls would ordinarily be composted or thrown out, saving the farmer time and money. NWHY’s network of emergency food programs is appreciative of the fresh produce, even if it has slight imperfections. To increase further the efficiency of this program, NWHY is implementing a new strategy for cull bin gleaning this year. Similar to the idea of a recycling pickup, farmers will have designated bins for culls destined for NWHY. The organization’s VISTA volunteer has designed a specified route and pickup day for farmers to leave their bins at predetermined locations. The bins will be picked up and returned along this route by one of the organization’s truck drivers. This program seeks to decrease driving time and make pickups more reliable both for donors and NWHY. By scheduling a set pickup schedule for the whole harvest season, less staff time must be devoted to collection coordination, while still maintaining high levels of donated produce.

Orchard and Farm Gleans

Yakima and the surrounding area are home to some of the state’s most productive orchards. Beginning in 1991, NWHY helped to organize an annual Pick-a-Thon for a local high school. In the beginning, the program stressed the importance of including information about apple growing in many different areas of the school’s curricula: lessons in biology, history and social studies helped to highlight the significant impacts that apple growing has had on the economic and agricultural development of the region. As part of the culmination of these studies, students spend the day picking apples in local orchards and the fruit is then donated to NWHY.

20

Aside from the Pick-a-Thon, NWHY also gleans at other fruit orchards and farms in the area. Growers are encouraged to contact NWHY to help recruit volunteers to harvest. NWHY uses their network of existing volunteers to reach out to groups interested in gleaning events. These often include church and youth groups. With so much agriculture in the region, it is sometimes challenging to make contact with all of the farmers who have produce that they are willing to give. NWHY’s VISTA member is working diligently this year to reach out to the agricultural community with information about gleaning and donation possibilities so that this food does not go to waste.

Adopt a Farm Beginning this year, NWHY hopes to facilitate stronger bonds between specific groups of volunteers and individual farms. These volunteers may be associated with a church, school or particular emergency food provider and could maintain a direct relationship with the farmer to organize gleans of their own. Through this program, NWHY hopes to build a steady stream of donations directly to food banks, meal programs and shelters without having to act as the conduit. Organization leadership hopes that the stability provided by a regular and specific group of volunteers will help to assure farmers that their crops and property will not be damaged during gleans. This program targets small and midsize farms that ideally will have a variety of produce available to donate. If donations consist of larger amounts of a certain item than individual programs can store or use, excess can be delivered back to NWHY.

Seed Distribution

In keeping with the program’s goals to embrace sustainability, NWHY has been attempting to increase food production for the clientele of their distribution organizations. In light of this goal, volunteers have spent time repackaging bulk donations of vegetable seeds into individual kits with several varieties of seeds. These kits have been distributed to emergency food access points so that users can work on starting their own gardens to increase self-sufficiency. Further, seed packs are also being distributed to community centers, libraries and local community gardens. These packs are distributed with information about where local growers can donate extra produce from their personal gardens and NWHY hopes that seed recipients will contribute a portion of vegetables to local food programs.

21

Farmers Market Donations and Gleaning

Another new program this year seeks to engage famers and consumers as donors at the Yakima Farmers Market. NWHY’s VISTA volunteer is coordinating groups of volunteers from the city’s main food banks to help run a booth at the farmers market. This booth with accept donations both from customers, who have purchased produce at the market and from farmers, with anything they do not intend to take home at the end of the day. Food banks will rotate sending volunteers each week, with each organization running the booth five to six times during the market season. NWHY hopes that with initial support from the VISTA volunteer with facilitation and coordination of this program, the groundwork will be laid for food banks to coordinate with each other independently next year. Having a booth at community events also helps to advertise the work of NWHY and the food banks and increases awareness about when and where to donate outside of the farmers market.

U-‐Pick Donations

NWHY final new strategy this year is to leverage the power of tourist-related agricultural activities to increase produce donations. Yakima and the surrounding area are home to many ‘u-pick’ farms where individuals can harvest produce for themselves and pay the farmer, usually per pound. This model gears itself both to locals and also to tourists from other parts of the state. U-pick farms are advertised as a tourist attraction on several of the city’s tourism websites, which encourage visitors to take part in the rich agricultural tradition of the region. This strategy aims to access tourists as donors, with advertising about donating some of the produce they pick to local emergency food programs. Informational ads in tourist publications as well as on-site at the farms will increase awareness about the problem and coordination with farmers about storage and pickup times will smooth the donation process. Further, NWHY leadership hopes that this may bring additional revenue to local farmers. Increasing revenue from outside sources may be a way to improve relationships with these farmers, who may in turn donate of their own accord in the future.

22

Challenges This year is a key transitional time for NWYH. Both leadership and the VISTA member have been actively designing and pursuing strategies that will increase the efficiency of staff time and continue to expand donations. However, many of these strategies are only being implemented this year and are yet to be tested. Aside from these unknowns, NWHY has been dealing with some challenges that will continue to be a problem in upcoming years:

• Building trust with donors Many farmers who hear about NWHY gleaning program are apprehensive about letting volunteers harvest in their fields. Some of these farmers have had bad experiences with gleaners in the past or have heard stories of high value crops being ruined by inexperienced volunteers. Making personal connections with these farmers and assuring them that volunteers will be trained to properly harvest without doing damage is one of the most important aspects of the gleaning program. NWHY is developing a two – pronged approach to address this problem: first, this year the VISTA member will spend as much time as possible doing outreach with farmers to address these concerns; secondly, through the Adopt-a-Farm program, NWHY hopes to foster connections and build relationships between specific farmers and volunteer groups. With recurring interactions and a stable volunteer roster, NWHY believes that farmers will be more willing to participate in gleaning donations.

• Getting the word out to an enormous and diverse agricultural community Unlike other vocations, farming is an entire way of life. Accessing farmers is difficult – NWHY has countless experiences with farmers who did not know where to donate extra produce that they had. This year, NWHY staff is working to access farmers through existing networks – religious organizations, trade publications, the Yakima farmers market and other community events and organizations. By increasing this community knowledge about donation locations and benefits of donating, NWHY aims to make the donation process easier and more transparent, thus decreasing the need for staff time dedicated to constant outreach efforts.

• Tapping new resources efficiently The two new programs that are soliciting donations from consumers and farmers, at the Yakima Farmers Market and at u-pick farms in the region, attempt, after this pilot year, to remove NWHY from the equation. Local food banks will rotate through staffing a donation booth at the farmers market, each acquiring the

23

donated produce from the weeks they run the booth. Similarly, at u-pick farms, NWHY hopes to leverage the goodwill of tourists and other u-pick customers to expand donation streams. While NWHY will still have to coordinate pickup and redistribution of these donations, they will not have to conduct more time-intensive volunteer recruitment, training and management.

• Communicating with diverse populations Yakima County has a population that is approximately 45% of Hispanic descent, with 38.5% of the population speaking a language other than English at home (US Census County Report, 2010). This presents a unique challenge for any written materials NWHY uses – information in local publications, donation instructions distributed with seed packets and other outreach brochures and articles. Providing these materials in two languages requires extra staff time and specific language proficiency. This year’s VISTA member speaks Spanish and has been able to translate some materials, helping to access a new sector of the local population.

• Balancing local needs with umbrella organization’s mission and strategy Devoting staff time and resources towards HAH activities is not necessarily part of the mission of the greater Northwest Harvest organization. Justifying use of limited resources for the HAH program has proven to be difficult, since HAH is not part of the core mission of NWH. Time must be spent assuring organizational leadership of the importance and validity of HAH as a component to the larger NWH agenda. Collecting and reporting data relating to investment versus benefits to target populations is helpful in this regard.

Facilitating Independence: Strategies for Next Year

• Increase efficiency of cull bin gleaning to decrease staff time through better coordination and reliability

• Connecting individual farmers with emergency food providers • Using current agricultural direct marketing outlets (farmers markets, u-pick

farms) to enable direct donations • Support home gardeners to grow and donate through seed distribution

Food For All Okanogan County Community Action Council Okanogan, WA The Okanogan County Community Action Council (OCCAC) has been working to assist low-income individuals and families in the region since 1965. Community assistance

24

takes several forms including rental and energy assistance, skill building for individuals and provision of emergency food, both through their own food bank and through distributing to nine other providers throughout the county. Food For All is a program that seeks to provide holistic strategies to nutrition education – components include gardening, produce gleaning and classes about nutrition and food production. OCCAC exists in the heart of a rich agricultural region, consisting of farms of all sizes. With over 1600 farms as of 2007, agriculture is one of the main economic drivers in Okanogan County (US Agricultural Census, County Profile – Okanogan County, 2007). However, the average size of these farms is 725 acres – these farms are much bigger than those in King or Thurston County. While OCCAC tries to connect with some of these larger farms, the main focus of the gleaning program tends to target smaller farmers in the region. Finding volunteers for gleaning is one of the major components of the VISTA’s job. Traditionally, these volunteers have come from many different places: local schools, churches and businesses. Program organizers have found that many people in the area show initial interest in the gleaning program – farming is a huge part of the community. One of the most successful recruiting techniques has been to play a role in community events such as the local farmers markets and Okanogan Days, a community-wide celebration every June. Many of the towns in the region have farmers markets which OCCAC staff attend to engage community members. These are ideal events to attract volunteers and donors – people are already building relationships as buyers and sellers, there is a familiarity with the farmers that breeds successful connections. Further, since OCCAC serves such a large area, attending farmers markets around the county helps to reach out to donors. Most of the farmers who participate in the local farmers markets are the size of farms that are likely to participate in the program. Staff members note that farmers are more likely to participate if they know other farmers who have had successful gleaning experiences with OCCAC in the past. A personal recommendation about the program from a fellow farmer is helpful in convincing farmers to join up. OCCAC also works to educate their volunteers about how to harvest produce correctly in order not to damage trees, plants or property. This is especially important in this region as many of the donations are from fruit trees – incorrect harvesting methods can cause problems with the harvest for the next year. Last year, to mitigate this worry for farmers, OCCAC brought in a fruit tree specialist from Washington State University’s Agricultural Extension program to train volunteers in proper harvesting techniques. Using resources like these is key to building a successful volunteer and donor experience.

25

Gleans take different forms during the various seasons: late spring usually provides for one glean a week, whereas mid-summer through the fall, gleans occur between two and three times per week. A core group of approximately 35 volunteers participate in the gleans, with 5-15 people at each event. Orchard gleans tend to require more volunteers and bring in larger donations by pound. Coordination with transportation, storage and distribution is critical, especially with soft fruit donations. OCCAC is also working on a program that seeks to educate people about nutrition and help those in need grow their own food. People Learning About Nutrition Together (PLANT) offers classes about important growing techniques such as planting and composting and is also helping certain applicants to build their own vegetable gardens. Applicants were found through the local WIC office and selected based on perceived need, number of children and space available. OCCAC is able to build 10 gardens this year, with the help of local businesses such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Both of these stores have donated time, labor and materials to construct raised beds at each of the selected sites. PLANT teaches the ‘square foot gardening’ method, where beds are blocked off into 1’x1’ squares, in which certain numbers of different types of plants can be grown. Families are encouraged to choose many different types of vegetables from a list of available seeds and are also required to try at least one new type of vegetable, if possible. Involvement of both of these large chain stores has brought new types of volunteers into the OCCAC program. Access to large enterprises helps OCCAC build relationships with volunteers who may be able to engage others at their jobs. Furthermore, some of these companies offer incentives for employees to volunteer and grants to the organizations where employees are donating their time. This was the case for the local Wal-Mart, which contributed a thousand dollar grant to the program which allowed for the reallocation of budgeted funds. Building relationships with local businesses and their employees is a smart way for organizations to bring in groups of volunteers as well as funding. Challenges OCCAC is working hard to continue to make efficient use of the bountiful agricultural resources that saturate their region. However, the program does face some problems that make it difficult to reach its full potential and glean effectively.

26

• Connecting volunteers with farmers in their area One of the struggles that OCCAC faces in volunteer recruitment is finding volunteers and donors in the same place. Some farmers markets, such as the larger one in Twisp, generate a high number of volunteers – many people attend each week and connect with OCCAC, showing interest in gleaning. However, distance to donors often prevents these volunteers from participating in the program.

• Coordinating gleans with food bank distribution days Many of the food banks that OCCAC distributes to only open their doors once a week or even once every two weeks. With fresh foods, timing becomes much more important. Large donations of produce must be timed accordingly – many food banks are run out of other types of organizations which do not have the cold storage capacity to keep donations fresh until the next distribution date. This sometimes precludes volunteers from dropping donations off directly at the closest food bank. Because harvesting is often inflexible and can be affected by many different variables, this coordination can be very difficult.

• Fostering donor trust Building relationships with donors continues to be a complex undertaking for OCCAC. It is slow going – program recommendations from fellow farmers often are withheld until the end of the busy harvest/gleaning season, which makes growth a slower process. However these recommendations have proved to be excellent entrees with new farmers – endorsements from other donors go a long way. Bringing onboard gardening and farming enthusiasts who can serve as community ambassadors has helped bring together farmers, community members and volunteers to contribute to the program.

• Covering a large region with a network of food banks OCCAC works with nine different food banks around the county, in addition to the service offered out of their own facility. These organizations are fairly small – the majority only distribute a few times a month. They are also widespread. Donations coming in throughout the county must sometimes travel big distances to OCCAC and then are redistributed back out to individual food banks. This causes some inefficiencies. If individual food banks could be equipped to occasionally accept larger donations, of which they could keep part and transport the rest back to OCCAC, transportation issues could be mitigated. Since food banks send trucks to OCCAC before their distribution days to pick up food orders, using these trips to deliver donations from outlying areas would save time and money for the program.

27

A Seasonal Position: Strategies for next year • Continue with a gleaning coordinator in the spring, summer and fall • Use that same position to manage energy assistance during the late fall and winter

28

Chapter 4: Exploring Programmatic Problems and Challenges -‐ Literature Review Without the support of an AmeriCorps VISTA, host sites faces a difficult problem in terms of how to maintain efficiency and strength within the HAH program. This problem is complex – each site must determine either how to operate their program without a dedicated staff member or how to fund that staff position. Organizational structure and capacity will help to shape this determination. While there are other gleaning programs around the country, the level of organization and the extended network of HAH programs are unique. Examining the literature surrounding some of the complexities involved in this programmatic transition will help to inform future decisions. This section explores how organizations deal with structural changes, the differences between volunteers and paid employees, managing organizational networks and strategies for diversifying funding streams.

Changes in Structure: New positions and Shifting Responsibilities As VISTA members are phased out of HAH programs after the three-year AmeriCorps cycle, their organizations must decide how to manage their programs without them. Literature on how organizations deal with this loss of a government funded staff position is scarce – strategies differ depending on the political and economic environment, as well as the initial structure of the organization. Ultimately, organizations must consider the context in which they exist in order to evaluate how to best adapt program structure so as to continue to meet client needs. To meet challenges of staffing, funding and service provision, many organizations must be willing to recognize the necessity of change. Loss of funding for this VISTA position is similar to funding cutbacks that many other organizations have experienced over the last several decades. Review of cuts occurring in the 1980s provides concrete examples of organizational reactions to loss of federal funding. First, social service organizations sought to build revenue generating programs, fees for service and alternative funding sources such as state and local government (Liebschutz, 1992; Hadley and Culhane, 1993 alexander adaptive strategies). Often times these cuts corresponded with loss of professional staff, creating scenarios similar to those faced by HAH sites currently. In a study conducted in the mid ‘90s by Jennifer Alexander from the University of Cleveland, organizations mainly adopted one of three different adaptation strategies in response to funding cuts. Alexander notes changes in funder expectations as one of the main drivers behind organizational change and increased competition for clients and funders. All of these have implications for HAH – with the almost certain necessity of

29

fundraising to maintain a full or part-time program management position at each site, organizations must look for new funding streams and increase accountability accordingly. While expanding services and targeted populations is not necessarily as applicable to the current HAH problem, the second and third adaptive practices certainly have implications. Nonprofit organizations clearly face diverse and complex challenges that vary with types of services provision, size and capacity. Alexander notes the adoption of business management techniques as an important umbrella strategy to success. These include:

• Strategic planning to inform organizational choices and anticipate

various scenarios for the future. This type of planning can help organizations maintain new programs through inclusion in an overall plan. However, strategic planning can take months to organize and implement and rigid adherence to these plans can cause organizations to fail to capitalize on chance opportunities.

• Building technological capacity – with the need for higher levels of accountability and performance measurement, it is crucial for organizations to be able to track and report program outcomes. For HAH organizations, tracking volunteers, donors and types of donations is incredibly important to success. Data management will help to streamline and improve donations and maintain strong relationships with volunteers and donors.

Alexander also notes organizations changing the way that they connect with other entities in their communities. She calls these interactions and partnerships ‘boundary spanning activities’, which lead to increased resources and opportunities. Her focus group participants cite these linkages with the provision of “grants, contracts, professional services, referred clients, [and] media attention (pp. 298).” These connections are fostered at every level of the organization – staff, volunteer, board member and client. Increasing this kind of networking is very important for HAH host sites because new donors tend to be referred by existing donors or volunteers. With these personal connections to the organization, HAH can achieve higher levels of program participation, leading to more robust outcomes. Leveraging these increasing impacts will be key to accessing new funding sources. Finally, participants in Alexander’s study bring to light the importance of commercialization of some services. If this is possible, a new, stable revenue stream opens for the organization and emphasis is taken away from more volatile types of funding such as grants or government contracts. This often proves to be one of the most

30

challenging parts of adaptation – organizations that focus on serving low-income clients have great difficulty designing revenue generating programs. First, these programs may conflict with the mission of the organization, especially if that mission includes catering services to the poor. Secondly, relationships with stakeholders, donors, volunteers and the general community have been built on the original programmatic model. Many of these organizations have been built around a specific need instead of around the economic demand for services (Alexander, 2000). In attempting to reconcile these two goals, organizations must be careful to confront tension between new and old stakeholders and to clearly illuminate how increased revenues will benefit target populations. Recognition of these tensions is especially important for HAH because of the structure of the program – produce is often donated because of physical imperfections that make it difficult to sell. Creating a market for some of these donations could be difficult, as well as maintaining donor interest when some of their product may end up being sold. All three of the strategies above are important for HAH sites to keep in mind as they change the structure of the program. On their own, these strategies will not solve the problem of losing a full-time, funded staff member. To address this issue, organizations can take one of two paths: substituting volunteers to fill different aspects of the position or cultivating new funding streams to allow for that position within the budget.

Navigating Partnerships: Forging Ties and Maintaining Institutional Memory HAH sites currently depend on partnerships with like-minded organizations and groups that harness legions of volunteers. In examining organizational plans for the future, it appears as though all four sites plan to increase the scope of these partnerships to broaden inter-organizational cooperation and spread various responsibilities to mitigate the loss of the VISTA position. Building these partnerships takes time and effort – organizations struggle with finding appropriate, interested partners and maintaining communication and relationships necessary to create useful connections. Literature surrounding how organizations sustain partnerships while meeting individual goals addresses some of these problems and speaks to the overall importance of preserving institutional memory to protect the integrity of programs as partnerships form and reform over the years. Collaboration has been touted by nonprofit leaders and funders for its ability to increase resources and improve cost effectiveness (Clegg & Hardy, 1999; Cropper, 1996; Harrison & Weiss, 1998; Weiner & Alexander, 1998). However, partnerships are difficult to manage and present challenges to organizations who undertake them. Gaining benefits from a partnership while mitigating the costs proves to be one of the most difficult tasks for partners (Babiak & Theibault, 2009). Prior studies have noted many of these

31

challenges revolving around environmental constraints, divergent missions, communication barriers, varying modes of operation, power structures and lack of trust (Babiak & Theibault, 2009). These types of barriers must be considered as HAH sites to expand partnerships in the future. Levels of collaboration vary across organizations. Researchers have defined several different degrees of collaboration, each of which requires different types of management. Organizations must remain cognizant of how all the different types of partnerships in which they are involved depend on and play off of each other (Parise & Casher, 2003). Sometimes these networks of partnerships are the only way to solve complex or multifaceted problems. HAH sites note the merit of having multiple partners to carry out different parts of the program. Partnerships with religious or community groups and student organizations lead to dedicated numbers of volunteers; links to community gardens help bring in donations; connections with farmers markets lead to donations and access new potential donors. But common information about the program and process must be maintained to ensure the program continues as intended. Partnerships create fluidity for program execution; this fluidity, coupled with high rates of staff turnover at nonprofit organizations exacerbates the problems inherent to maintaining organizational memory. In an article examining organizational memory and its implications for management, E. W. Stein defines the concept as:

“Organizational memory is the means by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear on present activities, thus resulting in higher or lower levels of organizational effectiveness (Stein, 1995).

With gaps in organizational memory, it is difficult for management to make decisions about how processes are conducted and how procedures should be evaluated. The loss of documented memory through the VISTA program may be especially problematic as organizations look to continue the program through partnerships.

Using Volunteers: Changing and Dividing Responsibilities Several studies examine the effects of substituting volunteers for paid employees: issues include recruitment, retention and replacement. Clearly, organizations run mostly by volunteers function very differently than organizations with professional staff. Types of initiatives, scope of programs and levels of funding all determine whether it is possible to use volunteers to take on responsibilities of paid employees. Studies show two different patterns happening simultaneously within the non-profit sector, sometimes even at the same organizations: first, in response to more stringent

32

government stipulations and reporting, as well as increased government contracting, non-profits have been forced to engage in a ‘professionalization’ of their staff (Akingbola, 2004; Hall & Banting, 2000); however, secondly, non-profits are still using volunteers to varying degrees due to the cost of staff and the wide network of needs and programs (Brudney & Gazley, 2002). Although there is a perception that volunteers put the jobs of paid staff at risk, Brudney and colleagues show that there is a relatively small amount of tension between volunteers and staff in most cases (Brudney, 1993; Brudney & Kellough, 2000). In a study examining the interchangeability of volunteers and paid staff, several of these themes are explored. Findings include that with organizational growth and increased funding, most organizations transition to paid staff. Many organizations use volunteers to assist staff members with day to day tasks and allow organizations to “do more with less (Handy et al., 2008).” While many tasks are interchangeable, results of a survey of non-profits as part of the Handy study indicate that many jobs within non-profits require consistency and do not make sense when split among several people (Handy et al., 2008). Organizations cite training time, specific education and skills and turnover rate as important factors in limiting volunteer responsibilities. Although these drawbacks are very real for many organizations, Handy continues to develop a model for volunteer/staff interchangeability that explores many factors regarding how far organizations will go to utilize volunteer labor. This model looks at both organizational demand and volunteer labor supply as overarching factors regarding volunteer utilization. Organizational demand examines historical roles within the organization, determining whether or not volunteers have stepped into these roles before; budgetary health, exploring whether or not the organization can pay for a staff member; and, finally, the productivity of volunteer labor, including specific skill sets and time available to the position. From the supply side, Handy notes that labor market prospects, increasing life expectancy, and volunteering tradition all affect how eager volunteers are to participate in non-profit endeavors. These studies indicate that interchangeability for volunteers and paid staff is possible, but conditions and responsibilities clearly dictate levels of success. HAH host sites may be able to use volunteers to substitute for VISTA members, but this will take a fair amount of oversight. Dividing the responsibilities currently within the scope of the VISTA position will be complicated – most volunteers are unable to work the number of hours required to fill the position alone, meaning that tasks would need to be parceled out to different people. This decreases consistency and may lead to breakdowns in

33

communication. However, if some tasks can be managed by volunteers, it may be possible to hire a part-time staff member to oversee and coordinate big picture strategy for the program. Budgetary implications for a part-time worker are often much more feasible for organizations.

Engaging Participants: Recruiting and Managing Volunteers All HAH programs depend on volunteers to help with harvesting, as well as coordination of events and delivery of donations. Their participation is critical to the success of the program and has the potential for an increasing importance as VISTA members are phased out. Models for successful volunteer recruitment, continued engagement and overall management are critical to maintaining a strong volunteer corps to keep HAH running smoothly.

Recruitment

Recruiting volunteers can occur in myriad ways; careful recruitment of high quality, dedicated volunteers requires planning and an intentional process for an organization. This kind of recruitment lays the groundwork for successful, long-lasting relationships with volunteers.

Volunteers serve for a variety of reasons – organizations must understand these motivations and expectations to thoroughly harness the power of their volunteers. Trends in volunteering speak to the types of volunteers that HAH organizations can hope to engage. Sara Jane Rehnborg and Meg Moore, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin, document three important trends in volunteering that have implications for HAH: episodic volunteers, service linked to the private sector, and youth and student service (Rehnborg & Moore, 2012). HAH programs exhibit connections with many of these types of volunteers and have the potential to expand these connections. Episodic volunteers are those that volunteer for brief amounts of time, such as a once a year event. Private sector volunteers often fit into this category by participating in company-wide days of service. Both episodic and private sector volunteers fit into large, one time gleans, like NWHY’s Pick-a-Thon. Students and youth also have their place – internships and community service projects are becoming increasingly important on resumes and college applications. Students may be especially helpful as summer interns who can help with outreach and organization leading up to the harvest season. Recruiting in these demographics will help HAH programs target volunteers whose motivations fits the work of the program. Pursuing partnerships with

34

preexisting groups of these types of volunteers – youth groups, businesses with goals for public service and college volunteer organizations. If these organizations share further ties to some of the goals of HAH, it may be even easier to engage volunteers (e.g. food businesses, food justice groups, agricultural groups). Tapping into these networks of organizations will bring supporters that not only want to volunteer, but are also specifically interested in the mission of the program.

Continued Engagement The reasons that volunteers begin to serve are not always those that keep them involved with an organization over time (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen, and Miene 1998; Starnes and Wymer 1999). Making sure that volunteers are keyed into programs and responsibilities that feed their reasons for volunteering will increase engagement and decrease turnover. Screening volunteers from the outset helps organizations get a sense of both where volunteers will best fit and the types of motivations that are driving them to volunteer. Researchers found that “volunteers who serve in roles that match their motivations derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from their service and are more likely to continue to serve (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen and Miene, 1998).”

Creating different types of opportunities for volunteers will allow that flexibility in roles, so that individuals can move into positions that interest them the most. Multifaceted programs allow volunteers with different strengths to excel in various areas. Community and donor outreach, growing, gleaning, and transportation are very different activities that volunteers can select into. HAH programs need to ascertain where volunteers are most comfortable and will find the most fulfillment in order to keep participants engaged. With increased engagement and decreased turnover, programs can run more efficiently as volunteers become more reliable, involved and self-sufficient.

Building Trust: Forming and Maintaining Donor Relationships For gleaning programs, donor relationships look very different than with other types of organizations. The donation process is often ongoing, hopefully long-term, and involves much more coordination and training than a simple monetary contribution. Coupled with the fact that gleaning often happens alongside crops that will later be sold, farmers are sometimes hesitant to participate in these types of programs. Because donors are such an

35

integral part of the program’s existence, organizations running gleaning efforts must make special efforts with donors, beyond those which normal non-profits make.

Initial Outreach

Implementing a gleaning project requires donors. Depending on the site of the program, accessing donors may take differing levels of effort for staff. Both formal and informal networks can be used effectively to find donors. Local offices for USDA Farm Service Agency as well as state agricultural agencies can provide resources for organizations looking to locate farms and understanding which types of products are being grown (A Citizens Guide to Food Recovery, USDA 1996). During the gleaning program created through the USDA in 1996, AmeriCorps volunteers identified these agencies as important partners for gleaning projects. Agencies already have relationships with local farmers and keep track of the kinds of crops in production. Food banks and other recovery agencies can use this information to target the kinds of farms with products they need. Informal networks or local associations can also be helpful in finding donors. Farmers markets provide access to congregated groups of producers who may be interested in donating, both from market leftovers and later gleaning opportunities (Let’s Glean!, 2009). Personal connections with farmers through churches, schools and other social networks increase levels of trust and help to initially entice donations.

Continuing Relations Donor recruitment does not end the process: organizations must continue to maintain these relationships. Gleaning guides have many suggestions for keeping donors satisfied and cultivating a healthy experience for both parties. Practices include having detailed answers to questions regarding liability and information about grower benefits including tax exemption, as well as dedicated and proactive communication from the organization to the donor about gleaning events. These last two are noted as major sticking points for growers when they make the decision to donate. Organizations need to ensure that donors understand the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 1996. Main points of how the bill protects donors include (Feeding America, 2012):

36

• Protects donors from liability when they donate to non-profit organizations

• Protects donors from civil and criminal liability if the products are donated in good faith later cause harm to the recipient

• Standardizes donor liability exposure • Sets a floor of “gross negligence” or intentional misconduct for persons

who donate grocery products. The law defines gross negligence as “voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge (at the time of conduct) that the conduct is likely to be harmful to the health or well-being of another person (Subsection B, Rule 7).”

Secondly, organizations should stress that farmers can receive tax exemptions from their donations. An important component of obtaining these exemptions is the thorough documentation of the type and weight of donations. Organizations must provide a receipt for the kinds and amounts of produce they receive so that farmers can get the benefits of exemptions. Clearly providing information about these crucial program elements will help organizations exhibit to donors the serious nature of the program. Both the tax benefits and knowledge of legal protection will help to assure donors of the program’s legitimacy. Besides these policies, organizations must strive to maintain professional relationships with their donors before, during and after gleaning events. Gleaning guides suggest planning phone calls and visits so that both the volunteers and farmers understand the details of the event (USDA, 1996). Further, it is crucial that volunteers arrive at the event on time and are respectful of the farmers’ time and product. Treating donations with respect is key – farmers spend their lives creating this food and are invested in it (USDA, 2009). Finally, organizations should debrief with farmers after an event to build on the relationship and open up future possibilities for donation (USDA 1996). The dedicated VISTA position has allowed organizations to rely on a specific person to spearhead these efforts and maintain adherence to these behaviors by volunteers. As program management is divided between different people, it is crucial that organizations continue to recognize the importance of these donor relationship strategies and keep working to build positive connections.

37

Donor Recognition

Finally, articles maintain that organizations must work hard to recognize the importance of their donors both privately and publicly. Some suggestions include donor recognition events such as dinners, where donors and volunteers can come together to celebrate their work (USDA, 1996). These types of events help organizations to communicate the importance of donors to the program and to build connections between donors, volunteers and organization staff.

Diversifying Funding: Using New Sources to Fund Programs Completely replacing the VISTA positions with volunteers is likely not possible nor desirable, so HAH organizations must implement creative and varied strategies for increasing their budgets to include a new staff member. Funding will probably come from a mix of sources and organizations should be careful not to cannibalize sources that already are serving many programs within the community. Funding non-profits is the source of much discussion within the literature – funding can come from foundations, corporate philanthropy, individual gifts, fundraising and earned income. Foundations Philanthropy is evolving – studies suggest that nonprofits are being asked to provide a higher level of tracking and program data in order to comply. The Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) suggests that while these types of metrics are important, funders must also provide flexibility in their grant making. Foundations often measure their success through the effectiveness of the organizations and programs which they support, but sometimes all of this reporting puts undue strain on grantees. However, some foundations are moving towards simplifying the evaluation process. One example of this is Project Streamline, which attempts to “reduc[e] the burden on nonprofits” and allot “more time and money for mission-based activities (Bearman, 2008).” Funders fall into different camps in terms of how to best fix reporting practices. Some are attempting to create more rigorous, tailored reporting for each grantee, while others are easing requirements to free up staff time (Buteau and Chu, 2011). CEP is attempting to educate foundations about how they can help their grantees through both monetary and evaluation contributions. Finding funders who subscribe to CEP’s suggestions would be a benefit to HAH programs – these funders are more likely to work with grantees and

38

provide flexible funding. This is especially important to a program that takes on so many different models depending on the circumstances. A subsector of foundations that may be especially important to HAH programs are community foundations. Because of their roots in a specific city or region, these organizations are especially invested in solving community problems (Graddy and Morgan, 2006). Community foundations are growing fast – funded by individuals, corporations, other foundations and the government, they distribute money to causes in their area. Because HAH is such a community based program, these types of funders are an important part of funding strategy. Corporate Giving Within the corporate world, social responsibility is becoming increasingly important. Companies of all sizes are developing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives – many of these include substantial charitable donations (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Monetary contributions, in-kind donations, advertising and employee volunteerism programs all are important to a business’ relationships with employees and the community at large. Craig Smith writes that for many companies, CSR is not only the “right thing to do, but also the “smart thing to do (Smith, 2003).”

While much of the flurry of CSR initiatives seems to be motivated by the positive repercussions with consumers (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Brown 1998; Brown and Dacin 1997), non-profits can leverage this support. Companies that sell products relating to programs such as farming and gardening supplies, food or have connections to hunger relief efforts are prime targets, as they already have interest in the goals that HAH programs are pursuing. In an article about corporate citizenship, Naomi Garberg and Charles Fombrun note that corporate philanthropy creates “reputational capital”, which contributes to a company’s image in the community (Garberg and Fombrun, 2006).

Earned Income Many nonprofits are having to make difficult strategic choice to begin charging for some of their services in order to supplement grants and other funding sources. Many researchers see nonprofits “adopting an entrepreneurial posture” to make their organization more sustainable (Weerawardena, McDonald and Sullivan Mort, 2012, pp. 346). Many organizations are separating out part of their work as a for profit venture, which in turn allows them to fund social programs (Mair and Martı, 2006)

Developing a business-like structure for some programs is a possible strategy for bringing in revenue. Around the country, there are many examples of non-profit CSAs which aim

39

to provide access to healthy foods. The Wholesome Wave Foundation is providing grants to low-income individuals to participate in CSA programs in many states around the country (Wholesome Wave Foundation, 2012). Tapping these kinds of resources creates benefits for the organizations and recipients.

Chapter 5: Connecting the Literature With On The Ground Strategies -‐ Analysis Harvest Against Hunger is a flexible program – as exhibited by the case studies, goals can be met through many different models, which must be evaluated and implemented by each individual organization. Each organization has many considerations to make in this decision – other organizations willing to partner, the structure and interest of the local farming community, other types of local growers/providers including community gardens and farmers markets, along with evaluating how their own program is currently organized. This section examines organizations’ strategies for next year in conjunction with findings from the literature and considers how those strategies hold up. First, all of the organizations must look for some form of additional funding. This varies by program – Lettuce Link is attempting to find funding for a paid gleaning coordinator; TCFB must fund a paid internship; NWHY must find funding for driver time and other costs associated with the cull bin route a well as advertising and outreach for orchard harvests, u-pick programs and donor cultivation. Different strategies for funding these programs give examples for other organizations:

• Finding funding within the budget – smaller parts of the program may be able to fit within existing budgets. Depending on organizational priorities, funding for gleaning projects may take precedent over other initiatives or cost saving may be found in other areas. Gleaned food helps organizations to feed more people, a metric which is very important to funders.

• Funding events through partnerships – corporate sponsorships for episodic events

are increasing. One-time harvesting events provide the perfect opportunity for businesses to participate, both monetarily and with company-wide volunteering days. Finding companies with an interest in providing volunteer opportunities for their employees will open up the door to large groups of future volunteers and individual donors. These types of events could be modeled after NWHY’s Pick-a-thon and organizations could request funding for the event (for equipment, food and transportation costs).

40

• Using grants to fund larger costs – HAH is a very appealing program to funders. It is an innovative model that is based on increasing sustainability of the emergency food system. Because of the use of volunteers for gleaning activities, as well as fully donated produce, return on investment is high. Organizations should look for general operating grants, which allow for flexible spending. Best practices in the philanthropy community are moving towards structuring grants this way to give organizations discretion over how funds are spent. This is especially important for HAH because organizations are testing out new program models this year and intend to pursue those that are most effective; general operating grants will allow organizations to fund the models that they decide work the best.

New strategies for funding the program will help to maintain the current structure or fund changing management needs even as the program expands. Secondly, all of the HAH organizations are concerned about building and maintaining donor relationships. While most programs depend on donors to provide funding for services, HAH donors are even more integral, providing food that is the main driver of the entire program. This creates a unique connection between organizations and donors and underlines the importance of these relationships. But, donors come in all shapes and sizes – tailoring strategies to fit specific donor needs will lay the groundwork for successful relationships.

• Build relationships through existing networks – by using networks which the organization and staff are already part of, connections begin with pre-existing common ground. All of the case study organizations pinpointed donor trust as one of the challenges they face. Using community networks helps to build that trust through common acquaintances. These networks can include formal farming organizations such as local USDA agencies or state agricultural offices, or farmers’ market organizations. These groups already have relationships with farmers and can help with finding farmers who are interested in gleaning projects. Informal community networks can also be useful – farmers that staff members know through school, church or other groups can get a grounding in the program, along with assurances about liability and professionalism of volunteers.

• Sustaining positive relationships – after expressing initial interest, organizations

must work hard continue expanding on those connections. Gleaning events require the organization of many moving parts – training, volunteer coordination, transportation and packing of the produce. By assuring that these parts come together smoothly, organizations build confidence in the program and inspire future gleaning opportunities. Part of successful events is constant and clear

41

communication: whether staff or volunteers are organizing the glean, details must be worked out beforehand. Farmers must be assured of volunteers’ enthusiasm and respect for their product. Volunteers must arrive on time and carefully adhere to farmers’ instructions about harvesting. These practices will help to ensure that gleaning events are positive experiences for volunteers and donors, increasing the likelihood of future events.

• Maintaining relationships through the off-season – farmers and gardeners may

need to be reminded of the program during the winter months. Continued outreach to existing donors, with information about program successes from the previous year will help to keep gleaning donations on the radar. Donor appreciation events can also occur this time, to highlight how the organization depends on support from the agricultural community. Reminders of how much food was donated along with some metrics of how many people those donations affected will help to show farmers how important their contributions are.

• Connecting donors with specific emergency food providers – food banks and

other food access points manage their own cadres of volunteers, who can be organized to conduct gleaning events. These volunteers often have had to go through a screening process with the organization, increasing their reliability. With a dedicated group of volunteers, farmers will become more comfortable with the program and will not have to spend time retraining volunteers at each event.

Donor belief in and allegiance to the program is crucial. Carefully constructing the bonds between organizations and donors will make these relationships stronger and more effective. Focusing on creating trust will ensure the longevity of the program. All of the organizations acknowledge that volunteers will continue to be an important part of the HAH program. Maintaining strong connections with networks and individual volunteers will help organizations to continue with gleaning and staffing other parts of the program. Finding ways to continue to reach out to and retain quality volunteers will help to decrease the work required of a program coordinator. Much of volunteer management resembles donor management – outreach through existing networks, creating positive experiences and relationships and staying in touch during the off-season. Some specifics for positive volunteer management include:

• Evaluating where different volunteers fit best – HAH can be flexible, depending on the model of the organization. Cataloging volunteers specific skills and goals and assigning them to jobs that fit with those will create more volunteer satisfaction, which leads to continued service. Finding a niche for volunteers is

42

key – whether it be in gleaning activities, representation at the local farmers market or outreach to potential donors with fruit trees or other produce. When volunteers are doing something that they love and feel as though they are making positive contributions, they are more likely to continue to serve.

• Leveraging volunteer skills –Finding volunteers who know about program areas

and can pass that knowledge along to others represent a vast untapped amount of talent. OCCAC has exhibited this capacity especially well, connecting with community members who have been able to help with teaching about gardening, nutrition and composting.

• Creating a satisfactory volunteer experience – Running successful volunteer

events is key to retaining volunteers. Measures for success include clear communication about time commitment, necessary materials and gear, expectations and training. Organizations must make all this information clear to volunteers so that activities run smoothly and efficiently. Communication strategies can include emails or phone calls volunteer fliers or handbooks that explain different aspects of what volunteers should know. Holding trainings for volunteers also serves as an orientation to the program. These trainings can be more general, such as OCCAC’s presentation on fruit tree harvesting given at the volunteer welcome potluck at the beginning of the season, or they can be specific to individual gleaning events. Ensuring that volunteers are properly trained will elevate their experience as well as assuage farmers’ concerns about harmful harvesting mistakes.

• Maintaining connections through the off-season - Bringing back experienced

volunteers every year will help to streamline the administrative work of the program. However, during the non-harvest months, it is easy to lose touch with program supporters. Continuing to engage volunteers, either in other aspects of the organization or in HAH capacity building efforts throughout the winter months, such as farmer or community partner outreach, will help to keep the program at the front of volunteers’ minds.

• Engaging networks of volunteers – Accessing already existent groups willing to

participate in volunteer activities will help to introduce more people to the program and create another level of accountability for participants. Organizations have seen success with groups – people enjoy volunteering with others that they know and like spending time with. Volunteering becomes not only a helping activity but also a social one. As mentioned above, workplace volunteer groups

43

can also lead to other types of material support through corporate philanthropy programs.

Positive volunteer relationships and experiences will continue to make HAH successful. Through strategically and thoughtfully cultivating these bonds, organizations can tap an incredible amount of community strength. Aside from engaging volunteers from the community, HAH organizations should also work to build other types of partnerships and outreach within their region. Creating relationships with other organizations focused on food justice, farming, hunger and anti-poverty measures will open up opportunities and resources that HAH programs might not be able to access on their own. In creating these bonds organizations must be mindful of certain important aspects of organizational partnerships:

• Finding partners with complimentary skills and resources – Organizations should have benefits that they can offer each other. Programs with missions that fit well with components of HAH – nutrition, sustainability, agricultural efficiency – are good alliances. These programs may have contact with people who are interested in the work that HAH is doing, such as farmers who might donate or volunteers devoted to food justice. Accessing these other networks has the potential to build knowledge about HAH in the community and bring in new resources.

• Avoiding mission creep – While engaging other organizations can be helpful,

compromising on goals can lead programs away from their initial purpose. Carefully delineating goals for the partnership will help each organization maintain its own mission, even as they work together. Planning and assigning responsibilities will help organizations work together successfully and leverage each others assets effectively.

• Maintaining institutional memory – In creating partnerships, organizations can

lose track of different aspects of how to run the program. Without a central record of programmatic design and activity, continued management can be difficult with inevitable organizational turnover. Documentation of the program is key for maintaining consistency and strategically changing aspects of the program in the future.

• Marketing the program creatively – By accessing other sectors, HAH programs

can find new areas of support and engage those that might not otherwise participate. The best example of this strategy is NWHY’s plan to leverage the agricultural tourism in their region by setting up donation sites at U-Pick farms in

44

the area. Advertising the program in tourist publications and destinations will help bring awareness to the need, harness benefits from outside resources and hopefully increase revenue for local farmers. Other types of programs like this will help to bring in more donations and access money that is coming in from other parts of state.

HAH is working to meet a community need – decreasing hunger through sustainably sourced food. Harnessing the inevitable community support for these goals will help to strengthen the program and create buy-in amongst a diverse group of stakeholders.

45

Chapter 6: Moving Forward for Harvest Against Hunger Harvest Against Hunger is a program that looks to increase efficiency in the food system through making connections. At the base, it’s a simple program – the food would not be sold, farmers receive a tax deduction and hungry people are fed nutritious produce. But, pulling together the moving parts of this equation, like volunteers, last minute donations and uncertain harvests adds complexity. With dedicated work from VISTA members and other program staff, the HAH sites examined in this study have exhibited different, successful program models and varied strategies for next year. In many ways, this year is the test for these four sites – a test that will determine which components of new sustainability strategies will be useful in the future. Folding new ideas into already existing strategies will take time and results may not be immediately apparent. Follow-up analysis of how strategies have worked in practice for these organizations is key to understanding whether or not they will be useful for other sites. The fundamental benefit of this program is the flexibility. HAH has the ability to access resources on many different scales. Large, one-time volunteering opportunities such as an orchard-wide pick-a-thon work in tandem with home gardeners being asked to grow an extra row of produce and donate it to their local food bank. This type of program is inspirational in its ability to adapt to the resources that are available – it is helping to connect donors and willing volunteers to provide for a community’s most basic need. Though these initial connections require time and dedication, almost any type of social service organization can create a program like HAH. This study shows that there are strategies for continuing to implement the program without a VISTA member. The upcoming months will determine whether or not these strategies will allow the program to maintain its current level of participation or to continue to grow. Sustainability and self-sufficiency depend on clear, cohesive communication between organization staff, volunteers, donors and partners. Meeting this critical first step opens up a world of possibilities for HAH and programs who strive to implement similar strategies.

46

References Akingbola, K. (2004). Strategy, human resource management and government funding in nonprofit organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Alexander, Jennifer. “Adaptive Strategies of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations in an Era of Devolution and New Public Management.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2000 10 (3), 287-303.

Babiak, K. and Thibault, L. “Challenges in Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2009, 38 (117).

Bearman, J. Drowning in Paperwork, Distracted from Purpose. Project Streamline (2008): 35.

Bhattacharya and Sen, S.“Consumer–Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies,” Journal of Marketing, 2003 67 (April), 76–88.

Brown, T. “Corporate Associations in Marketing: Antecedents and Consequences,” Corporate Reputation Review, 1998 1 (3), 215–33.

Brown, T. and Dacin, P. “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 1997 61 (January), 68–84.

Brudney, J. L. (1993). Volunteer involvement in the delivery of public services: Advantages and disadvantages. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(3), 283-297.

Brudney, J. L., & Gazley, B. (2002). Testing the conventional wisdom regarding volunteer programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 525-548.

Brudney, J. L., & Kellough, J. E. (2000). Volunteers in state government: Involvement, management, and benefits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 111-130.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (18 February 2012) Economy at a Glance: Washington. Retrieved 18 February 2012 from http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.wa.htm

Buteau, E. & Chu, T. (2011) Grantees Report Back: Helpful Reporting and Evaluation Processes. The Center for Effective Philanthropy.

Clary, E. Gil; Snyder, Mark; Ridge, Robert D.; Copeland, John; Stukas, Arthur A.; Haugen, Julie; and Miene, Peter. (1998). “Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 74: 6, pp. 1516-1530. Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. (Eds.). (1999). Studying organizations: Theory and method.

47

London: Sage.

Corporation for National & Community Service (2012, 7 February). Washington 2011-2012. Retrieved on 15 February 2012 from http://www.nationalservice.gov/state_profiles/pdf/WA_FULL.pdf

Corporation for National & Community Service (2012). AmeriCorps VISTA. Retrieved on 15 February 2012 from http://www.americorps.gov/about/programs/vista.asp

Cropper, S. (1996). Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 80-100). London: Sage.

Feeding America (2012) Protecting Our Food Partners. Retrieved 20 March 2012 from http://feedingamerica.org/get-involved/corporate-opportunities/become-a-partner/become-a-product-partner/protecting-our-food-partners.aspx

FNS (2012, 11 April). Eligibility Requirements. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Retrieved April 28, 2012 from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

FNS (2012, 31 May) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average Monthly Benefit Per Household. Retrieved on 4 June 2012 from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/19SNAPavg$HH.htm Food Lifeline (2012) Who We Are: About Food Lifeline. Retrieved on 25 February 2012 from http://foodlifeline.org/who/index.html Garberg, N. & Fombrun, C. “Corporate Citizenship: Creating Intangible Assets Across Institutional Environments.” Academy of Management Review 2006 31 (2), 329–346.

Graddy, E. & Morgan, D. “Community Foundations, Organizational Strategy, and Public Policy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2006 35 (4) 605-630.

Hadley, T.R., and Culhane D. P. “The Status of Community Mental Health Centers Ten Years into Block Grant Financing.” Community Mental Health Journal, 1993, 23 (2), 95-102.

Hall, M., & Banting, K. (2000). The nonprofit sector in Canada: An introduction. In K. Banting (Ed.), The nonprofit sector in Canada: Roles and relationships (pp. 1–28). Montreal, Canada:McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Harrison, B., & Weiss, M. (1998). Workforce development networks: Community-based organizations and regional alliances. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kumcu, A. and Kaufman, P. Food Spending Adjustments During Recessionary Times. Amber Waves, 2011 9 (3) http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September11/PDF/FoodSpending.pdf

48

Liebschutz,S.F.“Coping by Nonprofit Organizations During the Reagan Years.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership,1992, 2 (4), 363–380.

Luo, X. & Bhattacharya, C.B. “Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value.” Journal of Marketing 2006 70 (October) 1-18

Mair, J. & Marti, I. “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight.” Journal of World Business 2006 41, 36–44.

Monsivais, P., Mclain, J., and Drewnkowski, A. “The rising disparity in the price of healthful foods: 2004-2008.” Journal of Food Policy 2010, 35, 514-520

Northwest Harvest (2012) About Us. Retrieved 25 February 2012 from http://northwestharvest.org/About_Us/About_Us.htm

Parise, S., & Casher, A. (2003). Alliance portfolios: Designing and managing your network of business- partner relationships. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 25-39.

Smith, Craig N. “Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?” California Management Review, 2003 45 (4), 52–76.

Starnes, Becky J. and Wymer, Walter W., Jr. (1999). “Demographics, Personality Traits, Roles, Motivations, and Attrition Rates of Hospice Volunteers.” Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing. Vol. 7: 2, pp. 61-75.

Stein, E. W. “Organizational Memory: Review of Concepts and Recommendations for Management.” International Journal of Information Management, 1995, 15 (2), 17-32.

USDA. (2007a) Census of Agriculture, 2007. Accessed 3, February 2012. USDA. (1996) A Citizens Guide to Food Recovery. Retrieved on 20 April 2012 from http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/gleaning/content.htm USDA (2009) Let’s Glean! Retrieved on 20 April 2012 from http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda_gleaning_toolkit.pdf Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. & Sullivan Mort, G. “Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation.” Journal of World Business 2010 45 346–356 Weiner, B. J., & Alexander, J. A. (1998). The challenges of governing public-private community health partnerships. Health Care Management Review, 23(2), 39-55.

Welch, C., Gupta, S. and Huang, J. (2008) Poverty and Hunger in Washington. Department of Social and Health Services.

Wholesome Wave Foundation (2012) Double Value Coupon Program. Retrieved on 25 May 2012 from http://wholesomewave.org/dvcp/

Exploring HAH Sustainability

Documents

Transcript of Exploring HAH Sustainability