CONGRESSIONAL HUNGER CENTER
National Hunger Fellows Program
Evaluation Report
September 2004
Fighting Hunger by Developing Leaders
National Hunger Fellows Program
Evaluation Report
September 2004
Patrick A. Corvington, Executive Director
Veena Pankaj, Project Manager
Innovation Network, Inc.
1625 K Street, NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
202-728-0727
info@innonet.org
www.innonet.org
Submitted to:
Kristin Anderson, Co-Director
National Hunger Fellows Program
Congressional Hunger Center
2291⁄2 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-547-7022 ext. 17
kanderson@hungercenter.org
www.hungercenter.org
This project has been funded at least in part with funds
from the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. The content
of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of the Department, nor does mention of trade
names, commercial products, or organiztions imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.
ii National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
October 2004
Dear Congressional Hunger Center Supporters,
It is my pleasure to share with you the attached Evaluation Report summarizing the highlights of
ten years of CHC’s National Hunger Fellows Program. This comprehensive evaluation was conducted by Innovation Network, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit team of evaluators who provide their
services to other nonprofits as a means of social change. This report includes input from 73% of the
hunger fellow alumni, as well as many of our partners.
Without the participation of these parties—hunger fellows and alumni, field and policy site
supervisors, program Advisory Board members, former program directors, CHC Board Members, and
contributors, this evaluation could not have been a success. You have our gratitude for your involvement and support!
Those of us connected to the Emerson National Hunger Fellows Program are pleased that
Innovation Network has concluded that the Hunger Fellowship is a “reputable, well-run program”
that is “instrumental in developing young leaders in the anti-hunger/social justice field.” In fact,
56% of hunger fellow alumni are currently employed in anti-hunger or social justice positions (while
24% are currently enrolled in graduate school). For example, a member of the 9th Class reports: “The
Fellowship enabled me to gain experience in doing meaningful work with excellent organizations while simultaneously exposing me to many leaders in the anti-hunger/social justice field and challenging me to think
about how I can address inequality in society.”
The combined experience of field and policy work that the Emerson Hunger Fellowship provides
is unique, and this distinctiveness was captured by hunger fellow alumni in the program evaluation: “The exposure to real communities across the country along with the policy experience, it’s a great
balance . . . important change must and does take place on the ground and on the Hill and I was honored to
meet . . . people involved in both movements.” (Hunger Fellow, Class 7)
Of course, we owe thanks to our many private sector contributors, including General Mills, The
UPS Foundation, Altria, Presbyterian Hunger Fund, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Victory
Wholesale Grocers, Proctor and Gamble, Grocery Manufacturers of America, and Mr. Al Franken. In
closing, I’d like to extend a special thank you to Ambassador Tony Hall, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, Rep.
James McGovern, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for making it possible
for more than 200 young people to increase access to food and a better life for thousands of poor
individuals and families!
Sincerely,
Edward M. Cooney
Executive Director
Table of Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Introduction and Evaluation Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Key Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background and Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Major Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Perceptions of the National Hunger Fellowship Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Evolution of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Program Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Leadership Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Impact on the Fight Against Hunger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Value of Field and Policy Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Impact on Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Relatedness of Field and Policy Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendices
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix 2: Alumni Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix 3: Current Fellows Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix 4: Evaluation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
iv National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
T
The fellowship program
has evolved into a
reputable, well-run
program that has
been instrumental
in developing
young leaders in the
anti-hunger/social
justice field.
he Congressional Hunger Center (CHC)
contracted with Innovation Network, Inc. to
assess the overall impact of the National Hunger
Fellowship Program on participating fellows as
well as on the national fight against hunger.
This report highlights evaluation results from
Innovation Network’s comprehensive analysis of
survey and interview data gathered from various
stakeholders of the program. Key findings are
framed in the context of the evaluation questions
listed below.
What are the overall perceptions of the
National Hunger Fellows Program? The fellowship program has evolved into a reputable,
well-run program that has been instrumental in
developing young leaders in the anti-hunger/
social justice field. In general, people have a positive perception of the program, regardless of its
initial growing pains. Not only has the fellowship
program grown in reputation, but the number
of people applying to the program has greatly
increased, making the selection process highly
competitive. The dedication and commitment of
Congressional Hunger Center staff are credited
with many program successes.
How has the program evolved over the
past ten years? The fellowship program was
initially funded through a Volunteers in Service
to America (VISTA) grant. The passing of the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill in 2000 marked
a watershed for the program, increasing the
program’s flexibility. In the earlier years of the
program there was more emphasis on fellows’
field experience; this emphasis has shifted over
the years and the program is currently more
focused on the policy experience. To staff the
fellowship program, in the past, CHC mainly
recruited recent graduates of the fellowship program who were looking for the next logical step
after the fellowship. However, as program funding
has become more stable, the Center has been able
to invest in hiring more permanent staff members
who view their positions as their careers.
What are the primary benefits of the
program experienced by the participants?
Innovation Network’s analysis illustrates that the
key benefits experienced by program participants
include: professional development, an increased
awareness of anti-hunger and related issues,
increased number of connections and networking
opportunities, bonds formed with other fellows,
and leadership experience. Many Fellowship
participants have had varying degrees of antihunger experience in the field and policy arenas;
the program helps tie in both perspectives, giving
participants a broader picture of how to combat
hunger. The combination of both field and policy
experience offers fellows a unique perspective that
provides context and understanding of hunger in
the United States.
To what extent has the program been successful in developing leaders in the field? The
National Hunger Fellows Program has been instrumental in grooming future leaders. Coming at
an influential time in fellows’ lives, the program
helps to sharpen fellows’ thinking and provides
them with a real context that prepares them for
life after the fellowship. Based on Innovation
Network’s conversations with former program
directors and fellows, the program opens up individual opportunities for work, growth and formation that may not have previously existed. Survey
results indicate that a majority of the fellows have
been involved in some form of leadership activities since completing the program. The fellowship
is based on the premise that after completing the
program, participants will continue working for
social justice organizations. According to a report
published by Independent Sector, nonprofit sector employment represents 9.5 percent of total
employment in the United States. It is interesting
to note that approximately half of the individuals
who participate in the fellowship experience are
currently working in the nonprofit sector. While
individuals applying to the fellowship program
may have already had a propensity to work with
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report v
Executive Summary
nonprofits, Innovation Network’s analysis reveals
that the fellowship program did inspire a commitment among participants to continue working for
social justice.
What are the most valuable and least
valuable aspects of the field and policy placements? The field and policy placements form
the core of the fellowship experience, and helped
create unique learning opportunities for participants. Participants value many aspects of field
placement, including:
The National Hunger
Fellows Program has
been instrumental in
grooming future leaders.
Coming at an influential
time in fellows’ lives,
the program helps
to sharpen fellows’
thinking and provides
them with a real context
that prepares them for
life after the fellowship.
●
The experience of being immersed in local
communities,
●
Access to positive mentors/role models in
the field, and
●
The opportunity to take on leadership roles.
Some of the challenges fellows face in the field
include:
●
Poor working conditions within the host
organization, and
●
Difficulties that arose within the host site.
The most valuable aspects of the fellows’
policy experience are:
●
Exposure to interactions between various
government agencies,
●
Increased opportunities to network, and
●
The opportunity to practice skills sets that
enhance professional development.
Participants also faced challenges in policy
placement, notably a feeling of detachment
between the work being done and its actual
impact on hunger, and a lack of ownership over
the work being completed.
To what degree has the National Hunger
Fellows Program been successful in influencing the career choices of individual fellows?
One of the main theories behind the program
is that young adults who are provided with an
intense experience in both policy and fieldwork
will have a better sense of what they want and
vi National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
don’t want to pursue in their career. Innovation
Network found that exposure to multiple
approaches to solving hunger helps participants
determine their own interests. Our findings
illustrate that participating in this program helps
fellows make educated decisions about what paths
to follow after completing the fellowship.
Do the field and policy placements need to
be more connected in content areas? One of
the issues that the Congressional Hunger Center
has struggled with is whether or not to form a
more purposeful connection between field and
policy placements by intentionally relating the
subject matter of the two placements. A majority of the individuals interviewed for this evaluation indicated that they prefer no deliberate
connection between the two placements, unless
specifically requested by the fellow. One of the
positive characteristics of the program is that it
provides fellows with a broad understanding of
how to fight hunger in the United States. The
current structure allows participants the flexibility
to work on a number of different hunger-related
issues. Relating the content area of the two placements may cause fellows to miss out on a key
experience.
The evaluation report that follows illustrates
the above findings with data from Innovation
Network’s evaluation surveys and interviews.
Innovation Network gathered data from program
alumni, current fellows, former program directors, staff members, site supervisors, and a board
member to highlight the successes and challenges
of the program and to form a basis for making
recommendations for improving program impact.
Introduction and Evaluation Focus
T
The level of responsibility
and unique combination
of field and policy
experiences offered by
the program provides
participants with the
skills and confidence
necessary to be a leader
in the field.
he Congressional Hunger Center is celebrating the ten-year anniversary of its National
Hunger Fellows Program. This program’s goal is to
develop hunger-fighting leaders with an in-depth
understanding of hunger and poverty at both the
local and national level. Each year, the organization recruits 20–24 young adults to take part in a
year-long leadership program. Fellows undergo a
six-month field placement where they work directly with a grassroots organization in the United
States. During this time, fellows have the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of communitylevel hunger problems affecting many parts of
the country. Following the field placement, each
fellow is given the chance to spend six months in
Washington, D.C., working with a national organization involved in the anti-hunger/anti-poverty
policy arena. The premise of this program is that
with the combined field and policy experience,
fellows will be better positioned to find innovative solutions and create the political will to
end hunger.
In the fall of 2003, the Congressional Hunger
Center contracted with Innovation Network,
Inc., to assess the overall impact of the National
Hunger Fellowship Program on participating
fellows and on the national fight against hunger.
This evaluation report presents a comprehensive
analysis of interview and survey data gathered
from program alumni, current fellows, former
program directors, site supervisors, Board members, and Congressional Hunger Center staff.
This report highlights the structural nature of
the program and includes suggestions on how
to improve the overall fellowship experience for
participants. The principal goal of this report is to
inform the following questions:
●
What are the overall perceptions of the
National Hunger Fellows Program?
●
How has the Program evolved over the past ten
years?
●
What are the primary benefits of the program
experienced by participants?
●
To what extent has the program been successful in developing leaders in the field?
●
What are the most valuable and least valuable
aspects of the field and policy placements?
●
To what degree has the National Hunger
Fellows Program been successful in influencing
the career choices of individual Fellows?
●
Do the field and policy placements need to be
more connected in content areas?
Current Hunger Fellows and
Alumni come together at
Washington, D.C.’s Capital
Area Food Bank
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 1
Key Findings
I
With the supportive
experience of the
program to get them
started, many fellows
devote their professional
lives to social causes—
years after the program
is over.
nnovation Network’s analysis reveals that the
fellowship program has made a very strong
impact on those who participate.
The program is specifically geared towards
developing leaders in the anti-hunger/social
justice area. Participants who have gone through
the fellowship program have been able to demonstrate elements of leadership as evidenced
by the type of work and volunteer activities they
continue to be involved in. Many fellows have
pursued graduate degrees and have taken on
leadership roles in the organizations with which
they work. Over the course of their fellowship,
participants are engaged in hunger-related issues
at both the community and national level. The
level of responsibility and unique combination
of field and policy experiences offered by the
program provides participants with the skills and
confidence necessary to be a leader in the field.
The program has been instrumental in influencing the career choices of participating
fellows. The opportunity to work in local communities and at the national level provides participants with a better understanding of where their
interests lie. Many fellows form a strong preference for either the community or the national
level of work by the completion of the program.
During their policy placement, fellows have the
opportunity to meet with even more professionals in the anti-hunger/anti-poverty field through
the Professional Development Days, designed
specifically to help fellows learn about available
career options. Few leadership programs are able
to provide such diverse experiences in a one-year
time frame.
2 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Hunger Fellow Darcy O’Brien and friends in Idaho
A majority of the participating fellows stay
involved in the social justice field, even
after completing the program. Fifty-six percent
of the 122 alumni surveyed indicated that their
current job addresses anti-hunger or related social
justice issues. Most fellows leave the program
with a strong desire to stay connected to the field,
bolstered by a network of professional connections that can help guide their careers. With the
supportive experience of the program to get them
started, many fellows devote their professional
lives to social causes—years after the program is
over.
The fellowship program has been successful
in creating and expanding the fellows’ professional network. Over the course of their participation, fellows have access to a wide array of
contacts from their field and policy placements,
Professional Development Days, and the community of peers they form over the course of their
fellowship. Innovation Network’s analysis reveals
that many of the fellows continue to stay in
touch with their peers and professional contacts
after completing the program.
Fellows are having a positive impact on the
communities they serve. Community impact is
most directly demonstrated through the projects
accomplished during the field placement, when
fellows work directly in communities where
people are affected by hunger. This experience
allows fellows to see first-hand the impact of their
work.
Background and Historical Context
I
n 1984 the United States Congress established the Select Committee on Hunger to
help address both international and domestic
hunger issues. The Committee was founded
by Representatives Ben Gilman (NY), Mickey
Leland (TX), and Bill Emerson (MO), and was first
chaired by Rep. Leland. Following the death of
Rep. Leland in 1989, the committee was chaired
by Rep. Tony P. Hall of Ohio. During this time,
hundreds of hearings were held and legislation
passed that strengthened U.S. efforts to mitigate
and eliminate the worldwide problem of hunger.
In 1993, the 103rd Congress eliminated the
Select Committee on Hunger, along with several other select committees, as a cost-cutting
measure. In response to this act and to draw
attention to the worldwide problem of hunger,
Chairman Hall went on a 22-day hunger fast,
generating publicity that resulted in the formation of two new anti-hunger establishments: the
Congressional Hunger Caucus in the House of
Representatives, later eliminated by the 104th
Congress, and the Congressional Hunger Center
(“CHC”), established by Representatives Hall and
Emerson as a charitable and educational 501(c) 3
tax-exempt organization.
In 1994 CHC initiated a challenge grant from
VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) to establish a model anti-hunger leadership program. This
program has endured and evolved over the years,
celebrating its tenth anniversary in 2004.
The Co-Chairs of the CHC Board are
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Rep. James
McGovern (D-MA). The Board includes other
Members of Congress, representatives of private
industry, and members of the advocacy community. Currently the Congressional Hunger Center
has a staff of ten.
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson and
Rep. James P. McGovern,
Board Co-Chairs
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 3
Methodology
F
or this evaluation, Innovation Network gathered information from multiple stakeholders.
Data was collected using the methods illustrated
in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Sources of Data: Breakdown by Method
Source of Data
Number of Respondents
Electronic Surveys
Alumni (Class 1 through 9)
122
Current Hunger Fellows (Class 10)
23
Key Informant Interviews
Alumni
7
Site Supervisors
3
Former Program Directors
3
CHC Staff
4
Board Members
1
Table 2: Survey Respondents by Fellowship Class
Number of Alumni
Percentage of Class
Class 1 (Year ’94-’95)
7
6%
Class 2 (Year ’95-’96)
12
10%
Class 3 (Year ’96-’97)
16
13%
Class 4 (Year ’97-’98)
9
7%
Class 5 (Year ’98-’99)
12
10%
Class 6 (Year ’99-’00)
12
10%
Class 7 (Year ’00-’01)
19
16%
Class 8 (Year ’01-’02)
19
16%
Class 9 (Year ’02-’03)
16
13%
122
100%
Total
N=122 Percentages have been rounded
Number of
Current Fellows
Class 10 (Year ’03-’04)
23
Percentage of
Current Fellows
Innovation Network administered the electronic survey to 168 program alumni, with a
seventy-three percent response rate (122 completed surveys). In addition, the current class of
24 Hunger Fellows was surveyed, with a ninetysix percent response rate (23 completed surveys).
These surveys helped Innovation Network identify general trends and themes among the fellows
who have participated in the program. Please refer
to Appendix 1-A for the survey instruments.
Following up on trends that appeared in the
survey data, Innovation Network interviewed
key stakeholders. Speaking to a variety of people—people who were involved in the program
in various roles and at different points over the
years—helped Innovation Network build a comprehensive understanding of the National Hunger
Fellows Program. Please see Appendix 1-B for copies of the interview protocols. The combination of
the data obtained from the surveys and key-informant interviews provided multiple perspectives to
help inform this evaluation.
Who Completed the Survey?
Innovation Network received completed surveys from both current fellows and alumni.
Alumni
As expected, the response rate from the first
class was low,1 but all other classes showed a fairly
even span of results. Table 2 is a breakdown of the
alumni who completed the survey by class.
What did alumni do immediately after the Program?
Sixty-four percent of the alumni who completed the survey obtained employment within
the first year of completing the National Hunger
Fellowship Program. Eighteen percent attended
graduate school; nine percent did both.2
96%
N=23
We expected a low response rate from the first class because they are
ten years removed from the program.
2
Thirteen percent indicated that they did something other than attending graduate school or obtaining employment after completing
the fellowship program. Refer to Table 8 in Appendix 2.
1
4 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Sixty-seven percent of those alumni who
obtained employment within the first year of
completing the program indicated that their position addressed anti-hunger or other related social
justice issues “a great deal”.3
Figure 1. Relatedness of First Job to Anti-Hunger/Social Justice
�������
��
��
��
��
�
������������
��������
��������
����������
N=87
Table 3. Graduate Degrees Pursued by Fellows
Degree
Number
Percentage
JD
15
21%
MD
8
11%
MPP/MPA
9
13%
MSW
6
8%
MPH
8
11%
Other
24
34%
Total
70
98%
Among those alumni who pursued a job
within the first year after completing the fellowship, seventy-five percent worked in the nonprofit
sector.4 Seventy-two percent of the alumni who
took part in this survey pursued a graduate degree
at some point after completing the fellowship
program.5 Twenty percent of the respondents
went to graduate school within one year after
completing the program, while forty-nine percent
are currently enrolled in a graduate program.
Table 3 is a breakdown of the type of degrees
pursued by program alumni.
Among those that pursued graduate school,
sixty-nine percent indicated that the National
Hunger Fellows Program influenced their decision
to pursue their chosen degree.6
Since graduating from the Fellowship Program,
fifty-two percent of the alumni indicated that
they worked in the nonprofit sector; nine percent
indicated they have worked in the public sector;
and thirty-one percent have worked in both the
public and nonprofit sectors.7
This data illustrates that the fellowship experience influences next steps taken by participants
after the program is over. Since many of the fellows had a strong preference towards social justice
and anti-hunger work before applying to the program, the assumption that the fellowship alone
influenced individuals to pursue this line of work
cannot be made. However, it can certainly be
inferred that the fellowship experience broadened
participants’ understanding, opened up options,
and strengthened their desire to continue in the
field.
N=71 Percentages are rounded
Refer to Table 11 in Appendix 2 for more details.
Refer to Table 9 in Appendix 2. Percentage sited in text of report uses
a sample size of n=87 (only looking at those alumni who pursued a
job within the first year after completing the program).
5
Refer to Table 2 in Appendix 2.
6
Refer to Table 5 in Appendix 2. Sixty nine percent of the 72 fellows
who attended graduate school indicated that the fellows program
influenced their decision to pursue a graduate degree.
7
Refer to Table 6 in Appendix 2.
3
4
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 5
Methodology
Current Fellows
Current fellows were surveyed to gauge their
plans after the program is over.8 While the survey
results were informative, Innovation Network
did not rely on it as strongly in this evaluation,
because the survey was administered when the
current fellows were only halfway through the
program. The true impact of the program on this
group is yet to be seen.
Table 4: Current Fellows’ Plans After Completing Fellowship
Frequency
Attend Graduate School
Percent
7
30
11
48
Attend Graduate School and Obtain Employment
3
13
Other
2
9
Total
23
100
Obtain Employment
The survey asked the current fellows what they
plan to do immediately after the program. Fortyeight percent plan on obtaining employment and
30 percent plan on attending graduate school
(Table 4).
Among those who would like to attend
graduate school:
●
Fifty-seven percent would like to pursue a JD,
●
Twenty-nine percent would like to pursue an
MD, and
●
Fourteen percent would like to pursue an MPH.
Among current Fellows who plan on obtaining
employment in the first year:
●
Seventy-three percent would like to work in
the nonprofit sector
●
Eighteen percent would like to work in the
public sector
●
Nine percent would like to work in the
private sector
All of the Current Fellows who responded to
the survey indicated that they believe they will
continue to be involved in anti-hunger/poverty
issues after the completion of the program.
Hunger Fellows (in disguise)
and friends in Tucson, AZ
8
6 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
See Table 2 of Appendix 3 for more details.
Major Themes
T
he major themes identified below reflect the
structure of Innovation Network’s Evaluation
Plan. The evaluation questions were designed to
shed light on each of the areas below.
Perceptions of the National Hunger
Fellowship Program
Many respondents feel
that the success of the
program can be largely
attributed to the staff
of the Congressional
Hunger Center. Site
supervisors emphasize
the diligence with which
CHC trains fellows so
they are ready to get to
work immediately after
arriving at the host site.
In general, people have a positive perception
of the National Hunger Fellows Program. Data
gathered from program alumni, site supervisors and former program directors indicate that
although the program experienced some initial
structural problems, it has improved with each
class. Fellows, especially from earlier classes,
report that the program has overcome its initial
growing pains. From what they know of the program today, they feel that fellows are having very
positive experiences.
In addition to improved program quality,
the caliber and quantity of applicants has also
increased. Now, with over 200 applicants applying for the program annually, there is a highly
competitive selection process. Recent alumni also
feel that the level of experience obtained through
the program is distinctive from other types of programs. As mentioned earlier, the balance between
field and policy experience is seldom seen in
other leadership programs.
Many respondents feel that the success of the
program can be largely attributed to the staff of
the Congressional Hunger Center. Site supervisors
emphasize the diligence with which CHC trains
fellows so they are ready to get to work immediately after arriving at the host site. While much of
the current success of the program can be accredited to the current staff, it will be important for
the Hunger Center to institutionalize the program
so that its success can be carried forward, even
with new staff members.
Program stakeholders also had positive comments about the commitment and drive of the
Congressional Hunger Center’s staff, best illustrated by the following comment from a current
fellow:
The Congressional Hunger Center is incredible. I’m
moved and impressed by the scope and depth of
their commitment, and by the program staff. They
do an incredible job of exposing us to interesting
and helpful people and opportunities. The program
is well structured, organized and it inspires as well
as it teaches. C URRENT F ELLOW
Site supervisors and program alumni expressed
that the willingness and openness of the staff
to hear new ideas and listen to suggestions has
helped improve the quality of the program over
time.
Staff are listening to our suggestions, they are open
to our suggestions. They aren’t defensive about
constructive criticism. They are 150% committed
to this program and consistently trying to make
it better. Because of their hard work . . . it has become a much better program. Every time I’ve given
a speech, the Center staff have been there. Whether
it’s talking to college groups, the national student
campaign against homelessness and hunger, to
just improving projects. They are all over it.
S ITE SUPERVISOR
Comments from individuals that have been
involved in the program, either as site supervisors or as fellows, indicate a high degree of
overall satisfaction with the program outcomes.
These contributors and participants feel that the
National Hunger Fellows Program is one of the
best leadership development programs that provide anti-hunger field and policy experience.
Evolution of the Program
The National Hunger Fellows Program has
undergone a few structural changes over the past
ten years. During the first six years, the program
was funded by VISTA (Volunteers in Service
to America). The passing of the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill in 2000 marked a watershed
for the program.
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 7
Major Themes
The changeover from VISTA funding freed up the
program to do different things. There were a lot of
strings that came with VISTA funding . . . I think
being free of VISTA funding allows the program
to go in directions that they weren’t able to go
before. F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
The Congressional Hunger Center was no
longer required to follow the strict requirements
imposed by VISTA, and had more freedom to
make changes to the program to help enhance
the overall fellowship experience. As the program
switched over from VISTA funding, the administration of the program gradually changed. Some
of the more notable shifts in the program include:
A shift in focus from the field to policy
experience. One of the initial assumptions of
the program was that fellows would benefit more
from direct service experience. In the program’s
earlier years, there was more emphasis placed
on the field experience: approximately seventy
percent of the fellows were placed at food banks.
This focus has gradually shifted over the years,
to a greater emphasis on the policy experience. Conversations with current staff members
indicate that this field-to-policy shift may have
resulted from new staff who took a new, more
systemic approach to addressing hunger issues.
The attributes of the program’s applicants also
changed over the years: many prospective fellows
had already gained direct service experience in
college, and were looking for a fellowship experience that would enable them to better engage in
the policy process.
Fellows return from their field experience in
February of each program year and receive extensive training on policy issues. This training, which
lasts roughly eleven days, includes discussion of
important policy issues and processes. Highlights
include:
●
Expert policy briefings on the reauthorization
of important anti-hunger/anti-poverty policies (such as TANF and the Child Nutrition
Programs);
●
An overview of the federal budget process and
a refresher course on “U.S. Government 101”;
8 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
●
Participation in the national Anti-Hunger
Policy Conference sponsored by the Food
Research and Action Center, America’s Second
Harvest, and the National CACFP Forum;
●
A tour of the Capitol Complex;
●
Meetings with Representatives, Senators, and
other Capitol Hill staff representing field site
host communities; and
●
An opportunity to connect with policy experts
and former hunger fellows.
An increased ability to hire more permanent staff. In the earlier program years, the
Hunger Center hired alumni. While this proved
to be effective in recruiting staff members with
a solid understanding of the program and also
served as an opportunity for recently graduated
fellows to continue their learning, program directors didn’t stay long because of the low compensation levels and an interest in pursing a graduate
degree. This made it challenging to build institutional knowledge within the organization. With
the changes to the organization’s funding streams
in 2000, the Hunger Center was able to invest
the necessary funds to hire more permanent staff
members who viewed their position as a career,
rather than as an extension of the fellowship. This
has helped create program consistency over time.
A marked change in recruitment strategies. Initially CHC staff recruited individuals
from different backgrounds into the program.
VISTA did not require that fellows have a college
degree. In the early years, program applicants
included individuals of more diverse ages and
socioeconomic backgrounds.
The year that I was a fellow was probably the most
ethnically diverse year. [Also] Each year we had
an older person who in both those cases had been
formerly homeless people. One of the things we
realized was that the program was not necessarily
equipped to deal with this group. Their problems
were unique. The two people who were formerly
homeless had a lot of social work issues to be dealt
with and we just didn’t have the capacity. F ELLOW ,
C LASS 3, F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
Hunger Fellow Patience Butler
gleaning corn in western
Pennsylvania
Since the program’s inception, recruiting
strategies have been modified in several ways. The
most obvious change in recruiting can be seen in
the places where the recruitment happens. While
the focus used to be small liberal arts colleges,
there has been a shift towards larger state universities and Historically Black Colleges. This has
created a small demographic shift in the pool of
applicants.
In addition to changes in direct recruitment
activities, the use of the Web has enhanced
recruiting by making information available to a
wider audience.
Finally, recruiting has also changed the type of
fellows that are being sought. In the past, fellows
that were interested in direct service experience
were recruited. More recently, the focus has been
on policy experience: many of the new fellows entering the program are seeking an experience that
will enhance and bolster their policy training,
having completed direct service work in college.
An increase in suitability of applicants due
to increased popularity of program. There
has been a dramatic increase in the number of
individuals applying to the program.9 More and
more individuals with specific knowledge and
experience in anti-hunger issues are applying
to the program, making the selection process
9
This information is based on conversations with program staff.
more competitive. Over the same time period,
the experiential and socioeconomic diversity of
program applicants has dramatically declined.
The program’s tendency to attract white, upper
middle class individuals is endemic to fellowship
programs in general. Usually the low pay involved
with these programs deters individuals from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds from applying. Now
that more people are applying to the program,
CHC staff will have to redouble their efforts to
ensure that a diverse group of fellows is recruited
for each class.
Enhanced ability to build program infrastructure. In the early years, Program Directors
focused on sustaining the program. As funding
has become more secure, CHC staff has been
able to concentrate more time and resources on
building the program infrastructure and laying
the necessary foundations for established program
processes.
When I first started, the Hunger Center was young,
a nonprofit struggling, there wasn’t very good
structure in the organization. There was no administrative support for the work being done. It was
a challenging program to run. F ORMER P ROGRAM
D IRECTOR
The increased resources have allowed program
staff to enhance the quality of the training fellows
undergo as part of their experience. For both the
field and policy placements, the trainings have
become considerably more intense and have
focused on the specifics of what fellows will be
doing once they are at their placement agencies.
These changes have resulted in smoother and
more successful program implementation.
Program Benefits
Innovation Network’s evaluation found six key
benefits to participating in the National Hunger
Fellows Program:
Professional development experience.
The opportunity to work at the community level
during the field placement, coupled with the
chance to gain policy experience in Washington,
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 9
Major Themes
D.C., provided fellows with a unique exposure to
anti-hunger issues at both the local and national
level. Fellows were able to apply what they were
learning in the field to what was going on in their
policy placement.
The exposure to real
communities across
the country along with
the policy experience,
it’s a great balance. I
walked about knowing
that important change
must and does take
place on the ground
and on the Hill and I
was honored to meet
. . . people involved in
both movements. Fellow,
Class 7
The exposure to real communities across the
country along with the policy experience, it’s
a great balance. I walked about knowing that
important change must and does take place on
the ground and on the Hill and I was honored to
meet . . . people involved in both movements.
F ELLOW , C LASS 7
Participants gained multi-faceted experience:
by the program’s end, fellows understand the
fundamentals of working in an organization, and
have a solid grasp of the challenge of maintaining
multiple (sometimes conflicting) interests within
the hunger community while keeping the overall
goal of alleviating hunger in mind. Since many
individuals participating in the fellowship have
had varying degrees of anti-hunger experience either at the field or policy level, the program helps
to tie in both perspectives, giving individuals a
broader picture of how to combat hunger in the
United States. This type of professional development experience is not typical of most one-year
programs, and is enhanced by the quantity
and caliber of training provided to participants
throughout the year.
As a complement to the policy training
detailed above, fellows are provided with extensive field training throughout their fellowship.
In August, prior to reporting to their field site
organizations, fellows participate in an eleven-
Hunger Fellows Corina
Bullock, Rachel Clay, Rajiv
Magge, and Heather Axford
Celebrate Commencement
day field training that focuses on the realities of
domestic hunger, the emergency food system, and
the federal programs designed to alleviate hunger
in the United States. Midway through the field
site placement, fellows participate in a retreat to
reflect on their learning so far. In addition, two
or three times a month during the policy training phase, fellows have the opportunity to attend
Professional Development Days (PDDs). PDDs
serve as an opportunity for fellows to connect
with professionals in the Washington, D.C.,
area; hone their leadership skills (as they design
and implement most PDDs themselves); and
explore topics related to hunger, such as the U.S.
Agriculture System, Tax Policy and Class, Race
and Racism, and International Hunger.
Increased awareness of anti-hunger and
related issues. The combination of the field and
policy experiences provides fellows with an increased understanding of anti-hunger issues. Over
ninety percent of the alumni who participated in
the survey agreed or strongly agreed that participating in the fellowship provided them with an
understanding of hunger and poverty at the local
and national level. The direct experience of working at the community and national level enabled
participants to witness first-hand the role of the
government in addressing hunger-related issues.
A few comments are listed below:
I look at the National Hunger Fellows Program as
giving me a chance to see the bigger picture of the
role of government and public policy on disadvantaged people. F ELLOW , C LASS 6
The combination of fieldwork and policy placement gave me perspective on the seriousness of the
hunger/poverty problem, and the lack of programs
through the federal government to adequately
address those problems. F ELLOW , C LASS 5
Direct exposure to communities impacted
by hunger and poverty. The fellowship experience provided a unique opportunity for participants to expand their knowledge of hunger and
poverty and how it can impact a community. By
working directly with individuals and communi-
10 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
ties living in poverty, Fellows were able to deepen
their understanding and knowledge of the far
reaching implications of hunger in the U.S.
The most important part for me, was [getting] to
know the people in the community. My friends were
low-income people that were living in a rural, eastern Kentucky community. . . . I certainly learned a
lot about hunger, communities and what the issues
were. F ELLOW , C LASS 8
The Fellowship enabled
me to gain experience
doing meaningful
work with excellent
organizations while
simultaneously exposing
me to many leaders
in the anti-hunger/
social justice field and
challenging me to think
about how I can address
inequality in society.
Fellow, Class 9
It was so exciting to go into rural communities and
figure out the infrastructure that exists and figure
out how to help hungry kids. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
The number of connections made through
networking opportunities. Respondents indicated that a key benefit of the Fellowship Program
was the professional network established over
the course of the fellowship. They emphasized
the uniqueness of the political ties they were able
to build in the field and in Washington, D.C. In
addition to meeting individuals who are currently
in the anti-hunger field, fellows were also able to
forge strong ties with their fellowship classmates.
These connections have proven to be lasting.
Typical survey/interview quotes include:
You meet so many people and through professional
development days and you hear about how they got
where they are . . . The relationships I made during
those years and the exposure to work on the Hill
had a lasting impact on me. F ELLOW , C LASS 3
The opportunity to connect and bond
with other like-minded individuals. The
Congressional Hunger Center enhanced the
community of participants through various
trainings and retreats. The Center staff built in a
strong ‘fellowship’ component into the program
through a combination of the Field Training,
Midfield Retreat, Policy Training, and a number
of Professional Development Days. With an open
venue in which to share and discuss program
experiences, participants were able to learn from
each other and develop bonds that endure beyond the duration of the program. Many program
alumni described the community aspect of the
program as being essential. Our data show that
many former fellows still keep in touch with
members of their class. Survey and interview comments include:
The fellowship aspect was invaluable to my experience. There was networking, sharing a common
experience, being connected with people from that
program. Because it is such a unique experience,
it’s nice to have people who have gone through
it, who sort of understand where you are coming
from. F ELLOW , C LASS 4
. . . one of the strongest suits of the program is that
[fellows] are provided with a network of similar
folks who are as dedicated and as committed to
the issue of making the world a better place as they
are. F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
First-hand leadership experience. The
Fellowship Program offers participants high levels
of responsibility in settings that support their
learning. These projects range from conducting
assessments of local school breakfast programs
to researching and producing information for
distribution among anti-hunger networks. These
experiences help build the confidence and capacity of participants to continue their work even
after the program is completed. During their
placements, fellows are able to interact with and
glean knowledge from a number of leaders in
the field. The unique experience provided by the
fellowship is one of the hallmarks of the program.
Typical testimonials from alumni include:
As a first job out of college, the professional development that the Hunger Center facilitated enabled
me to grow as a leader and to develop extremely
useful skills sets. F ELLOW , C LASS 8
The Fellowship enabled me to gain experience doing meaningful work with excellent organizations
while simultaneously exposing me to many leaders
in the anti-hunger/social justice field and challenging me to think about how I can address inequity
in society. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 11
Major Themes
Leadership Development
Impact on the Fight Against Hunger
Of the alumni who responded to the survey,
a majority has been involved in some form
of leadership activities since completing the
fellowship program.
The top five activities that program alumni
have been involved in after completing the
program were:
The National Hunger Fellows Program is based
on the premise that coaching a group of individuals in both field and policy work puts those
individuals in a better position to impact the fight
against hunger. The program’s combination of
field and policy perspectives leads participants
to a unique understanding of the problem of
hunger. The survey and interview questions used
for this evaluation were designed to get a better
understanding of how successful the National
Hunger Fellows Program has been in developing
leaders. Innovation Network’s analysis reveals the
following:
The Program is instrumental in grooming
future leaders. The fellowship is structured so
that participants are able to harness their experience and knowledge to make a lasting difference at both the community and policy level—a
difference that goes beyond the duration of the
fellowship. Participants work on hunger-related issues in a real-world setting, gaining experience in
organizational dynamics and development issues,
while also learning how to solve problems at the
policy level.
1. Volunteering personal time for a social
justice cause
2. Engaging in advocacy activities
3. Serving as a leader in a social justice
organization
4. Lobbying public officials on behalf of a
social justice cause
5. Volunteering professional services on behalf
of a social justice cause/organization
Table 5: Activities Alumni have Participated in Since
Completing Fellowship
Activity
Percentage
Volunteered personal time for a social justice cause
88%
Engaged in other advocacy activities
(education campaigns, demonstrations, etc.)
70%
Served as a leader in an organization pursuing social justice
(as a staff member or as a volunteer)
62%
Lobbied public officials on behalf of a social justice cause
50%
Volunteered professional services to a social justice
cause/organization.
47%
Participated in a conference as a presenter or panelist advocating a
social justice cause
42%
Served in another leadership role (Advisory Board,
Board of Trustees, etc.)
28%
Published or edited an article or book to advance a particular
social justice cause
26%
Served on the Board of Directors for a social justice organization
12%
Categories are not mutually exclusive. Each activity is listed as a percent of 100.
12 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
The program develops . . . leaders with an awareness of the problems with hunger and gives them
real world experience in an organizational setting
so they can be exposed to office management and
learn how people interact within an organization
and how people handle problems on the ground.
They get to see how hunger affects communities
in different ways. [The program] allows individuals to develop leadership skills and experience. No
matter what they do throughout the rest of their
life, they can use a lot of the things that they’ve
learned in their fellowship. S ITE S UPERVISOR
The program’s structure offers a well-balanced
opportunity. Fellows not only conduct formal
policy analysis of anti-hunger programs; they
work with and learn from the people and communities who are affected by policy. The experience
of building relationships with people who are impacted by hunger and poverty in their everyday
Hunger Fellow Elizabeth
Whelan and community
member Rosalva Coronado
pick up donated kitchen
micro-enterprise supplies in
Tucson
After completing the
Fellowship Program,
participants continue
to make a difference in
the real world:
lives gives participants a unique perspective when
they are at their policy placement. One former
fellow sums up the experience thus:
I feel like I could go
conquer anything. In
that realm it’s very
empowering. I really am
prepared to be a leader
in the field. I now know
so much more than
others in the world. I’m
in the minority of people
who have done the work
hands on and who can
speak with authority.
Fellow, Class 9
I feel like I could go conquer anything. In that
realm it’s very empowering. I really am prepared to
be a leader in the field. I now know so much more
than others in the world. I’m in the minority of
people who have done the work hands on and who
can speak with authority. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
Fellows take on leadership roles after
completing the program. After developing
leadership skills over the course of the oneyear program, many fellows continue to make
a difference in the anti-hunger or other social
justice fields. The program is based in part on
the assumption that after completing the fellowship, participants will continue working for social
justice organizations. Since most organizations
involved in anti-hunger and other social justice
issues are nonprofits, we specifically asked alumni
what sectors they have worked in since completing their fellowship. Our survey data indicate
that the great majority of the alumni (90 percent)
continue working in the nonprofit/social justice
field well after the program is over.
Fifty-six percent of survey respondents
reported that their current position “greatly” addresses anti-hunger or other related social justice
issues. In addition, eighty-four percent of the
survey respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed”
with the statement that the program provided
them with an understanding of how to alleviate
hunger and poverty in the United States. In addition, over eighty-five percent of the alumni who
responded to the survey agreed that the program
fostered their commitment to working for a social
justice cause.
When you look at where
participants have gone
after the program, I think you’ll see that they
have taken on fairly significant leadership roles
in different organizations and I think that’s a
testament among the people I know. People point
to the Hunger Fellows Program as the key critical experience that put them on the path to where
they are. S ITE S UPERVISOR
The Fellowship has a marked impact on
the lives of those who participate. As the
first job out of college, the program comes at an
instrumental time in a fellow’s life. Participants in
the program obtain a type of exposure and experience that sharpens their thinking and provides
them with a real context that prepares them for
life after the fellowship. According to conversations that Innovation Network had with former
program directors and fellows, the program opens
up individual opportunities for work, growth, and
formation that may not have existed prior to the
Fellowship. This enables fellows to take on more
responsibility in various leadership roles after the
completion of the program:
I think that [the program] allows participants to
have significant leadership responsibility . . . right
out of college. Having that experience at a young
age puts you on a different trajectory in some ways
because you don’t have to work yourself up to those
positions of responsibility. Whatever you do after
the Fellowship, you already come into it with a
certain level of responsibility. F ORMER P ROGRAM
D IRECTOR
Fellows are able to influence the organizations and communities they are working in.
In addition to making a personal difference in
the lives of the fellows themselves, the program
enables fellows to have a tremendous impact
on the constituencies and communities they
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 13
Major Themes
work in. The work that they do during their field
placement and later on in their policy placement
can transform organizations and communities.
During their placements, fellows play an instrumental role in defining, shaping, and carrying
out projects that impact the community on both
the local and national level. The following comments from site supervisors help to illustrate this
finding:
Looking back . . . it’s
really obvious to me
that the work that [the
Fellows] have done
has really significantly
improved the awareness
of our advocacy . . .
People now view us as
more of a leader on
hunger issues because
of the research the
Fellows have done. Site
Supervisor
and has been in existence for 10 years, there are
over 200 leaders, a majority of whom stay in the
social justice field, that continue to make a difference in the fight against hunger or related social
justice issues.
[The National Hunger Fellows Program] has not
only achieved, but it has far surpassed the goals
that we set for in training emerging leaders in the
fight against hunger. The goal was . . . to provide
exposure, experience and the expertise to committed and dedicated folks who are looking for a
start in this work whether it be against domestic
or international hunger. From all the evidence of
being able to talk with . . . alumni, both recent and
a little bit distant, it’s doing just that. F ORMER
[Fellows] produce reports and information. It’s not
an academic exercise—they produce things that actually get utilized, sent out and widely distributed
among our anti-hunger network. S ITE S UPERVISOR
[One Fellow] did an analysis on the summer food
service program here in Milwaukee County, and
that research has really spurred additional investment in the local summer food program. This
year there’s a significant increase in the number
of meals served to kids. It all goes back to that
research. That research has paid its dividend many
times over already. S ITE S UPERVISOR
Looking back . . . it’s really obvious to me that
the work that [the Fellows] have done has really
significantly improved the awareness of our advocacy . . . People now view us as more of a leader on
hunger issues because of the research the Fellows
have done. S ITE S UPERVISOR
Fellows are indeed making a difference in
the fight against hunger. Every class of fellows
in the National Hunger Fellows Program is trained
in and educated about hunger issues in the
United States. The program provides fellows with
multiple perspectives that help them identify
key issues and gain experience in solving hunger
at both the local and national level. After the
program is over, most fellows (fifty-six percent)10
either obtain employment with an organization
involved in social justice and/or pursue a graduate
degree (fifty-nine percent).11 The program helps
to bolster participants’ interests in hunger-related
issues, and provides them with the tools necessary
to create change. Considering that the Fellowship
selects approximately 20 individuals each year
14 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
So much of what the program does is develop
leaders that may have an impact on the future . . .
No matter what Fellows end up doing the experience . . . and knowledge . . . will stay with
them. F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
Value of Field and Policy Placement
The field and policy placements are the core
of the National Hunger Fellowship Program. To
better understand the strengths and challenges of
the fellowship, Innovation Network asked alumni
to provide information regarding their experience
in both the field and policy placements.
Field Placement—Most Valuable Aspects
The survey and interview data included many
comments describing the most valuable aspects
of the field placements. Seventy-four percent
of the alumni who completed the survey indicated that the National Hunger Fellows Program
provided them with an opportunity to gain
first-hand experience working in local communities.12 Over ninety percent of alumni agreed with
56.6 percent of alumni report that their current position addresses
anti-hunger or related social justice issues “somewhat” to “a great
deal.” Refer to Table 14 in Appendix 2 for more details.
11
Refer to Table 2 in Appendix 2.
12
Refer to Table 15 in Appendix 2 for more details.
10
Hunger Fellow Robert
Campbell and CHC Board
Co-Chair Congresswoman
Jo Ann Emerson
Fellows are indeed
making a difference in
the fight against hunger.
the statement that the program helped provide
an understanding of hunger and poverty at the
local level.13 Analysis of the data reveals three key
aspects of the program that participants found
most valuable:
Experience of being immersed in local
communities. The field experience provided a
unique opportunity for fellows to experience the
hardships faced by the communities they worked
in. For many fellows, this was an eye opener: it
gave them the chance to view the world from a
different perspective. Participants were able to
work with individuals that were directly impacted
by hunger. Field assignments took fellows to
places such as food banks, coalition meetings,
and soup kitchens. Through these venues, fellows
were able to see first-hand what it is like to be
poor and witness the impact of community-level
programs on the individuals that need them.
The most valuable aspect of my field placement
was living and working in a local community. This
provided me an opportunity to see hunger from a
local perspective. F ELLOW , C LASS 7
I learned how to become a part of someone else’s
world for a little while. F ELLOW , C LASS 1
Second, fellows valued the experience of being mentored by a good supervisor. Many of
the fellows felt that they benefited from working
with a positive role model. Participants usually
worked closely with their field site supervisor and,
in many instances, the site supervisor took on a
mentoring role as he/she exposed fellows to the
fieldwork:
My supervisor . . . was a terrific mentor. She really
allowed me to be creative in my work and took the
time to help develop my skills. F ELLOW , C LASS 7
Not all participants had such open and communicative relationships with their supervisors.
Occasionally, fellows learned from difficult situations that arose due to a challenging relationship
with their site supervisor, for example:
13
Refer to Table 16 in Appendix 2 for more details.
The most valuable aspect of my field placement
was working with unprofessional supervisors. As
ridiculous as that might sound, it taught me ‘what
not to do.’ F ELLOW , C LASS 9
Finally, fellows appreciated the opportunity
to take on a leadership role. Many of the
fellows indicated that one of the most valuable
aspects of their field placement was that they were
given high levels of responsibility. On several
occasions, fellows were responsible for projects
that involved intense community work. Initial
successes in their fieldwork helped build confidence and empowered fellows as they moved on
to take other responsibilities:
I was given a lot of leeway . . . in my field placement to do organizing around a summer feeding
program. It was daunting at first . . . but once we
got there and had people in the room together, it
worked. We really felt good about the awareness
that was raised. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
The most valuable aspect was having a good
amount of individual control over projects and
being placed into a position of leadership.
F ELLOW , C LASS 4
Field Placement—Least Valuable Aspects
Innovation Network also asked alumni what
the least valuable aspects of their field placement
were. Answers to this question naturally varied by
each individual’s experience; however, the following themes did surface from the survey:
The least valuable aspect of the fellows’ field
experiences stemmed from unfavorable working conditions that resulted from lack of work
plan clarity and strong leadership from the field
site. While these types of situations were rare,
they did impact the overall fellowship experience
for those placed in such scenarios. In instances
where participants were placed in organizations
with poor leadership, fellows were able to learn a
lot about effectively leading an organization:
The quality of leadership at my field placement
was very low. I learned a lot about leadership by
observing how ineffective our Food Bank was. It
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 15
Major Themes
Celebrating at the Mid-Field
Retreat, Staff and 10th Class
Emerson Fellows
would have been nice to have had the opportunity
to work with someone who was really an effective
leader. F ELLOW , C LASS 6
While the staff at the Hunger Center has taken
many steps to make sure that participants have a
positive field experience, the distance between all
the field sites makes it difficult to control what is
happening at the sites.
Secondly, a few participants were unsatisfied
with the type of work they were required
to do during their field placement. Most of these
complaints stemmed from unclear job duties.
In these cases, the work did not reflect the tasks
outlined in the initial work plans. One of the key
themes that emerged from Innovation Network’s
analysis was that there was often a discrepancy
between what was stated in the field site work
plan and the actual tasks given to fellows:
I spent more than half my time preparing meals,
which was not the intent of the fellowship. My
field placement viewed my partner and I as free labor, rather than valuable employees with meaningful things to contribute. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
One former program director acknowledged
this problem and indicated that it was sometimes
difficult to coordinate and keep tabs on what was
16 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
going on in all the different field locations. The
Hunger Center has strived to clarify the type of
work fellows should be involved in by having
strict guidelines and requiring all sites to submit
detailed work plans; however, this did not always
work. As mentioned earlier, the distance between
Washington, D.C., and the various field sites drastically limits the amount of interaction CHC can
have with the field sites. In many cases, the field
sites themselves are nonprofits struggling to stay
afloat. Typically, fellows were able to handle such
situations on their own, but on occasion, Center
staff would have to intervene.
Issues within the field site organization
would sometimes take away from the overall
experience of the fellowship. A few of the fellows
expressed discontent around the internal politics
of the organizations they were placed in. In instances where field sites had a lot of internal strife,
it was difficult for fellows to separate themselves
from the politics going on within the organization in order to see the bigger picture. Although at
the time of the fellowship, fellows were frustrated
to be caught up in the organizational issues of a
host site, conversations with alumni reveal that
these situations helped them get a more realistic
perspective on the challenges that may arise in
any work setting. The issues that fellows were dealing with at their hosting agency are comparable to
issues they may face in the real world.
Finally, the issue of mentoring and support
received from the Congressional Hunger
Center in the formative years of the program
was a problem as referenced by seven percent of
the respondents. Most of the negative comments
regarding the level of support provided from
the Hunger Center were from the earlier classes.
Initially the Congressional Hunger Center lacked
the necessary funding to put towards the training
and professional development of the fellows. As
funding became more secure, the Hunger Center
staff was able to make the trainings more focused
and provide more support to the fellows out in
the field. Beginning with the ninth class, the
Hunger Center incorporated a “midfield retreat,”
providing fellows with an opportunity to come
together midway through their field placement.
This retreat has been well received by program
stakeholders. The ability to share experiences
midcourse through the placement has been of
tremendous value to participants. The comments
below illustrate some of the issues that arose in
the early years of the program, prior to the incorporation of the midfield retreat:
There was a lack of guidance and available resources from the Hunger Center. F ELLOW , C LASS 2
[My policy placement
provided] the
opportunity to meet and
watch national policy
advocates work. I think
I learned a tremendous
amount about the
workings of DC and
the way in which social
policy advocates can
participate. Fellow,
Class 6
There was little contact with the Hunger Center
during our field placement. We were out there on
our own. . . . I wonder if CHC could have made
our experience even better by prodding us on what
we were learning, asking us questions, challenging
us, etc. F ELLOW , C LASS 1
The Hunger Center took feedback and applied
lessons learned from each class to make improvements for the next. This resulted in the program
improving with incoming classes of new fellows.
Policy Placement—Most Valuable Aspects
Over sixty percent of the alumni who responded to the survey indicated that they benefited
greatly from working first-hand for a policy
organization in Washington, D.C. Through these
experiences fellows were able to increase their
understanding of how the different pieces of the
policy network fit together in combating hunger
and poverty. Below is a summary of what the
fellows found to be the most valuable aspects of
their policy placement.
The most valuable aspect of the policy placement was an increased understanding of
the interactions between various government agencies. The policy placement provided
fellows with an opportunity to see first hand how
the government works. Fellows gained a more indepth view of the legislative process and a greater
understanding of the relationships between various people in the policy world. By seeing the interactions, competitions, and overlap within the
anti-hunger organizations in Washington, D.C.,
fellows were able to develop their own thoughts
and determine their fit in the overall anti-hunger establishment. Considering that the policy
component was one of the most popular aspects
of the program in its later years, the opportunity
to be immersed in the D.C. political climate is one
of the main draws to the program:
I gained most value from seeing firsthand how
the government operates, for better and for worse.
Grasping the size and scope of the divide between
the Federal approach to social justice issues and
the nonprofit approach. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
Secondly, participants reported that they
valued the increased networking opportunities provided by the program. Through the
policy experience, participants were able to meet
different players in the political network and get
a close view of how politics works at the federal
level. Over the course of the policy placement,
participants were typically exposed to a number of different people in the political arena. In
addition, the Hunger Center provided weekly
Professional Development Days, during which
fellows could meet with professionals involved in
different aspects of anti-hunger work. This was a
great resource, giving fellows the benefit of broad
perspectives on hunger issues from professionals
in the field.
[My policy placement provided] the opportunity to
meet and watch national policy advocates work.
I think I learned a tremendous amount about the
workings of DC and the way in which social policy
advocates can participate. F ELLOW , C LASS 6
Finally, some fellows reported that they most
valued having the opportunity to practice
skill sets that contribute to their own professional development. For the most part, the
work that fellows were involved in helped them
get an in-depth understanding of policy work.
The type of work that participants were involved
in included grant making efforts, advocacy, and
education campaigns. These experiences contributed to their knowledge and served as an asset
in subsequent positions they have held since the
completing the Program.
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 17
Major Themes
It’s a phenomenal way
to get a look at what
you want to do with
your life. [Through the
program] I realized
that I didn’t have much
interest at the national
policy level. I came back
to the community level.
The program really had
an impact on me in
deciding what I wanted
to do. Fellow, Class 2
Policy Placement—Least Valuable Aspects
In addition to learning about the most valuable aspects of their policy placement, Innovation
Network asked alumni about the least valuable
characteristics of their policy placement.
Alumni reported that a major drawback of the
policy placement was that at times, the content
of the policy work appeared disconnected
from the possible impact on anti-hunger
issues. In a few instances fellows did not feel
the immediate connection between the work
they were involved in and its overall impact on
hunger. Because fellows were at their placement
organization for only six months, it was not
always possible for them to see the fruition of
their work. This was more common during the
policy placement than in the field placement,
where fellows were usually working directly in
local communities and could see results almost
immediately. The nature of policy work appears,
at times, to be more removed from the actual
communities that are being impacted. Fellows
felt disconnected from the impact of the work
they were doing.
My policy placement was excellent—but sometimes
it felt disconnected from reality; so much paper was
shuffled, and yet I am not sure how much of an
impact all of this . . . had. F ELLOW , C LASS 6
It [the policy placement] was research [oriented]
and didn’t have enough direct and immediate
policy relevance. F ELLOW , C LASS 2
A few fellows were unhappy with the discrepancy between work plans and the actual
work given to the Fellows. Occasionally
fellows were faced with the situation where their
work plan did not accurately reflect the work they
were doing:
The work plan that my organization submitted
did not . . . have the substance the organization
presented. I felt that I lost an opportunity to do the
substantive work I had hoped to. F ELLOW , C LASS 4
The discrepancy between work plans and
the actual work carried out by the fellows is, as
18 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
discussed above, a recurring problem in field
placements, where distance makes coordination
difficult. Such discrepancies are a more limited
problem among policy sites, where distance and
coordination are less of an issue. Considering
the struggle many nonprofits face to keep afloat,
it’s easy to see how host organizations can pull
fellows into extraneous tasks not specified in
the fellowship work plan. The Congressional
Hunger Center is taking action to educate host
organizations at the start of the program and to
monitor progress during the placement. In recent
years, CHC has started providing opportunities
for policy site supervisors to convene midway
through the placement with other supervisors
and CHC staff to troubleshoot and come up with
alternative solutions to challenging situations.
Finally, it appears that fellows sometimes
have unreasonable expectations regarding
the level of ownership they will have in
the work completed during their policy
placement. One of the perceived benefits of
the fellowship experience is the opportunity to
self-direct on projects at both the community
and policy level. In a few instances Fellows felt
that they were not given an appropriate level of
responsibility over the work they were doing at
their policy site. The following comments help to
illustrate this:
The project I was working on had little room to be
creative. F ELLOW , C LASS 7
I experienced a lack of ownership on the project I
was working on. I think the work plan should give
over a project or major pieces of it to a Fellow so
that we don’t end up doing piecemeal work.
F ELLOW , C LASS 4
In these instances fellows felt disempowered
within the context of their policy placement.
One of the key attributes of this program is that
it empowers individuals by giving them a fair
amount of control over projects, coupled with
appropriate guidance when needed. In the situations described above, these participants weren’t
able to experience the full range of the fellowship.
level. The program really had an impact on me in
deciding what I wanted to do. F ELLOW , C LASS 2
Table 6: Fellowship Program’s Influence on Career Choices
Ways in which National Hunger
Fellowship Program impacted career
Number of
Respondents
Response
Ratio
Program helped participants make educated
decisions regarding their career paths
98
81%
Program introduced participants to key players/
organizations in the anti-hunger/poverty field
92
76%
Program provided opportunity to gain
first-hand field experience
90
74%
Program provided outlets for participants to stay
involved in anti-hunger/poverty issues after the
completion of the Fellowship
60
50%
Other
18
15%
Categories are not mutually exclusive. Each row in table is listed as a percent of 100.
There needs to be a method to better gauge the
amount of control given to the individual fellows
to ensure they are reaping the full benefits of the
program.
Impact on Career
One of the main theories behind the program
is that by providing young adults with this type
of intense experience in both policy and fieldwork, they will have a better sense of what they
want and don’t want to pursue in their career.
Innovation Network’s analysis revealed that the
Fellowship Program has indeed influenced the
career choices of many of the fellows. Data supporting these findings are described below:
We found that exposure to multiple approaches to solving hunger helps participants determine their interests. The field
and policy experiences provide fellows with different perspectives on how to solve the problem of
hunger. By exposing participants to two differing
approaches, they are better able to discern what
type of work they would like to be involved in.
The comment below helps illustrate this point:
It’s a phenomenal way to get a look at what you
want to do with your life. [Through the program] I
realized that I didn’t have much interest at the national policy level. I came back to the community
We also found that participating in the
Fellowship Program helps fellows make
educated decisions about what to do after
completing the program. Our analysis shows
that the fellowship has had a profound effect in
the lives of those who participated. Almost seventy
percent of those survey respondents who pursued
a graduate degree after completing the program
indicated that the Fellowship program influenced
their decision about what degree to pursue.14 Table
6 illustrates ways in which the Fellowship Program
impacted the career of alumni.
Alumni describe the Fellowship program as
being pivotal in determining what career path to
follow. For many, the combined field and policy
experience has helped shape their views and
actions, and foster a lasting commitment to alleviating hunger. Approximately 86 percent of the
alumni who completed our survey agreed with
the statement that participating in the Fellowship
Program has provided them with a commitment
to working for a social justice cause.15 The comments below provide a glimpse of how the fellowship program has helped shape the career paths of
those who participated:
The fellowship was definitely a pivotal experience
in my career and sort of the last six or seven years
since I’ve participated in the program. I can definitely say that I probably wouldn’t be in the career
that I’m in right now had I not participated in this
fellowship. F ELLOW , C LASS 4
My policy experience shaped my views and actions
by exposing me to the field of community organizing. I have since made a commitment to dedicate
my efforts to supporting truly grassroots, community-based solutions to poverty and other social
issues. F ELLOW , C LASS 7
This percentage represents only those individuals who have
pursued graduate school. (N=72) , not all survey respondents
(N= 122). For complete representation of all statistics, refer to
Table 5 in Appendix 2.
15
Refer to Table 16 in Appendix 2 for more detail.
14
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 19
Major Themes
The Relatedness of Field and
Policy Placements
Hunger Fellows Katie
Bolz and Alison Leff get
to know Ohio
One of the issues that the Congressional
Hunger Center has struggled with is whether
or not to form a more purposeful connection
between the field and policy placements by
intentionally relating the subject matter, allowing fellows to work on the same issue area in
both placements. On the one hand, correlating
the two placements by relevancy of content
area could enhance the fellows’ knowledge in a
particular issue area—by the end of the program,
fellows could have an in-depth understanding of
a focused subject area (e.g., food stamps or summer feeding programs) within the greater field
of hunger alleviation. On the other hand, part
of the uniqueness of the fellowship experience is
its ability to expose participants to a broad array
of anti-hunger issues in the U.S. Focusing on
one particular issue for the entire year may limit
opportunities for understanding different perspectives and approaches to solving hunger.
Historically, it has not been a primary concern
of the program to relate field and policy placements unless fellows request it. Eighty-three
percent of the survey respondents reported that
they benefited from the combination of both the
field and policy experiences, with no deliberate
subject-matter connection between the two.
During the in-depth interviews, Innovation
Network probed further by asking alumni, former
program directors, and site supervisors if they
thought a greater emphasis on subject-matter
connection would create added program benefits.
The majority of the individuals interviewed indicated that they prefer no deliberate connection
to be made between the two placements, unless
specifically requested by the fellow. The general
consensus among interviewees was that broadness
of perspective is one of the program’s primary
benefits. With the program’s current structure,
fellows are given a chance to work on a variety
of different issues. By relating the subject matter
of the two placements, fellows may miss out on
a key experience. Participants also felt that by
specializing on one topic area for the entire year,
they may end up with a very narrow perspective
on hunger issues. The following comments help
illustrate this finding:
I think the idea behind the program is to give
people as much experience as possible and to
give them some exposure to a variety of issues. It
wouldn’t be beneficial for the fellows themselves to
work on a similar program for 12 months straight.
At some point they would lose a lot of that energy
and momentum that they have when they are here
for six months at the host site. S ITE S UPERVISOR
I appreciated the diversity of the program. I think
it’s important to keep it up to the hunger fellows
and what their interests are. It would be a loss if
all the sites focused on only one issue for both the
field and policy placement. They might miss out on
some experience. I found it beneficial having . . .
two very different experiences. F ELLOW , C LASS 4
AND F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
20 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Recommendations
I
nnovation Network asked alumni what they
would change about the Hunger Fellows
Program, given its current structure. The information collected via survey and through the
in-depth interviews reveals the following suggestions to help improve the Fellowship Program:
Improve the screening process used to connect host agencies with participating fellows.
Many of the negative experiences faced by program participants occurred as a result of conflicts
within the placement organizations. A lot of these
conflicts stem from discrepancies within the work
plan submitted by the host site and the actual
work that the fellows were expected to do. Part of
the solution may be to temper the expectations of
fellows so they have a more realistic view of what
to expect once they arrive at their host organization. It may also help if fellows are given tips on
how to react in various realistic scenarios that
could occur at their host site.
In addition to setting participant expectations
to a more realistic level, steps need to be taken to
improve the overall screening process. Although
this process has improved greatly over the years,
there are still a few kinks in the system. Some of
the suggestions to improve this process include:
Revamp the policy placement process to make it
more transparent, predictable, and fair for fellows
and policy sites. Also do a better job of screening
field and policy sites, and establish clearer and
stronger links with those groups and their staff to
ensure all Fellows have challenging and productive
experiences. F ELLOW , C LASS 9
One thing that needs to be improved on is the
quality and consistency of the field sites. CHC has
been taking measures to improve in the past couple
of years. In my year there were a few field sites that
didn’t really have their acts together. They didn’t
have adequate housing for the fellows. F ELLOW ,
C LASS 8
Educate fellows so they are able to form
realistic expectations of the work they will
be performing at their host sites. As mentioned above, some recurring problems stem from
discrepancies between work plans and the actual
work that fellows engage in. The Congressional
Hunger Center needs to find a way to accurately
communicate the goals of the program and help
set realistic expectations so that fellows understand the differences in experience between the
field and policy experience. As part of this education, fellows should be informed how to take a
pro-active stance in shaping their own fellowship
experience.
Allow fellows more input into decisions
regarding their field placements. A few alumni
expressed interest in having more input in deciding which field site to be placed in. The current
structure of the program does not allow participants much control over where they are going for
their field placement. Although fellows are asked
to fill out a form indicating their preferences, it
is not always feasible for the Hunger Center to
match fellows with field sites according to preference. In part, this is due to the quick turnaround
time between the selection of the fellows and the
start of the field placement. A few of the alumni
interviewed indicated that they did not mind the
lack of choice of field placement, because they
ended up having a good experience. Typical comments of those who wanted more input in the
process are reflected below:
. . . there’s almost no control that the fellows have
about where they end up in the field placement,
or the type of issues they will work on. For the
policy placement you get a whole lot of say in
what’s going on. Typically it works pretty well.
F ELLOW C LASS 8
I like the structure that’s in place right now.
Going into your policy you get some choice as to
where to go. Also, it would be nice if they could
build in some leeway in choosing a field site.
F ELLOW , C LASS 4
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 21
Recommendations
Strengthen the Hunger Fellows alumni network. Several alumni indicated that there needs
to be more frequent communication among
fellows in and between different classes. Some
suggestions for strengthening the network of
alumni were:
●
●
Developing a mentoring system. A few alumni
indicated interest in being available to mentor
more recent classes of fellows. These individuals thought there would be value in capitalizing on the alumni network by providing
a system where Fellows could freely contact
alumni for career advice.
Distributing an alumni directory. A number of
alumni, especially from the earlier classes,
indicated that they didn’t know where many
of their classmates were or what they were involved in. One suggestion was for the Hunger
Center to request that alumni submit description of the community where they work and
the kind of work they do, along with contact
information. This information could then be
consolidated and distributed among all program alumni. This material could be used for
networking and peer-advisory purposes. It was
suggested that this type of list be distributed
once every two or three years.
●
Create opportunities for alumni to be involved in
volunteer work. Many alumni indicated that
they are still passionate about the anti-hunger cause, even if their current work does not
address it directly. These individuals indicated
that they would like to know more about
volunteer opportunities as a way to stay connected with the field as well as other alumni.
●
Strategically utilize alumni to raise money to help
support the program. Now that the program
has been in existence for ten years, there are
over 200 alumni affiliated with the program. It
was suggested that the Congressional Hunger
Center develop more intentional mechanisms
through which alumni could donate time or
money.
●
The connections that I have with other Fellows
doesn’t really transcend to other classes. We have
more connection with the class before and after us.
There was a space made for interaction with those
groups. The weakness in the alumni connections
is to go beyond that. It would be helpful to have
access to a list of alumni, where they are and what
they are doing. F ELLOW , C LASS 5
We asked alumni to rate the level of support they have received from the Congressional
Hunger Center in helping to maintain their
alumni network. Forty-six percent of alumni indicated that they were receiving adequate support,
while twenty-two percent reported that they were
receiving plenty of support.16
It should be noted that most of the alumni
who indicated that they did not receive enough
support from the Hunger Center in maintaining
their alumni network were participants of the
program during its earlier years.
Most dissatisfaction with the level of support
received from CHC occurred for those who participated in the first two classes of the program.
Respondents from Classes 7–9 reported the highest levels of satisfaction.17
16
17
22 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Develop venues for older alumni to connect with
more recent Fellows. A few survey respondents
indicated that while they have connections
within their own class of Fellows, and usually
with the class immediately before and after
their own, these connections rarely transcended further. Both alumni from earlier classes as
well as current Fellows indicated an interest in
further networking opportunities with more
distant classes of Fellows.
Refer to Table 22 in Appendix 2 for more detail.
Refer to Table 25 of Appendix 2.
Table 7: Reliance on Peer Network by Class
Hardly Ever
Class
Several x Yr/
At least 1x mo.
Once a Year
Total
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
1
0
0%
2
66%
1
33%
3
100%
2
3
37%
3
37%
2
25%
8
100%
3
6
60%
2
20%
2
20%
10
100%
4
0
0%
1
20%
4
80%
5
100%
5
6
60%
1
10%
3
30%
10
100%
6
0
0%
4
33%
8
66%
12
100%
7
5
5%
5
26%
9
47%
19
100%
8
1
5%
3
16%
14
77%
18
100%
9
Total
0
0%
2
14%
14
87%
16
100%
21
20%
23
22%
57
56%
101
100%
* Percentages have been rounded.
Innovation Network also asked alumni how
often they rely on their network of peers from
the program for resources and information.
Forty-two percent indicated that they refer to
their network at least several times a year.18 Table
7 illustrates that members of the later classes are
more likely to rely on their network of peers.
The loosest alumni ties, with a high percentage
of respondents who “hardly ever” rely on their
peer network, occur in Classes 2, 3, and 5. The
closeness of networking ties tends to rise with the
more recent classes.
Increase program length. A few people have
suggested increasing the length of the program by
up to a year. Many people feel that Fellows and
host sites will both benefit from a longer program.
However, respondents are sensitive to the fact
that expanding the duration of the program may
deter people from applying. A few recommendations for program expansion are listed below:
A longer placement would probably be ideal,
but a two-year program is probably not realistic.
F ELLOW , C LASS 5
18
Refer to Table 26 in Appendix 2.
Extend the program to a two-year experience,
one year in the field and one year in DC. When
one class of fellows moves from the field to the
policy placement, a new class can begin their field
experience. F ELLOW , C LASS 4
For me, I didn’t feel like the experience was long
enough. A lot of people are attracted to the program
because it’s a one-year experience between college and something else. To have a really intense
experience, I’ve thought about a 2-year program.
However, that may reduce the applicant pool.
F ELLOW , C LASS 4 AND F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
CHC staff has considered the possibility of
increasing the length of the program, but has not
done so for two primary reasons. Increasing the
length of the program could not likely be done
without drastically reducing the size of the class
in order to accommodate budgetary changes
needed to run two overlapping classes concurrently. Furthermore, the staff fear that many
applicants to the program would be lost if the
program length was increased to two years, as a
sizeable number of applicants report that they are
interested in only a one-year program.
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 23
Recommendations
Enhance recruitment strategies to ensure
more diversity with in each class. The diversity
of the program has shifted since its start in 1993.
Early on, there was a more diverse vision for the
program. Each class of fellows was diverse, with
individuals from various socioeconomic strata,
age groups, educational backgrounds, etc. VISTA,
the program’s main source of funding in the
early years, did not require participants to have
a college degree. As the program shifted funding
sources, there was a parallel shift occurring in the
pool of applicants. One former program director
sums it up:
During my time as program director . . . there was
a big question about [if] we should move towards
just recruiting recent [college] graduates. Initially,
in order to be a Hunger Fellow, applicants had to
meet the VISTA recruitment requirements. As we
were switching from VISTA to more independent
funding, we were looking at who our population of
fellows should be. The application pool has gotten
more competitive . . . and has changed dramatically over the years. F ORMER P ROGRAM D IRECTOR
As mentioned earlier in this report, as the program increased in popularity, the selection process
became more competitive, and the diversity of
the applicant pool began to shrink. As the pool
of applicants got more competitive, it became
harder to ensure diversity within each class. As
the program now stands, it is mostly made up of
white, upper middle class females with previous
leadership experience and a strong interest in
anti-hunger policy.
In my class we had 18 females, four males, and a
handful of minorities. I know they are taking great
strides to reach out to historical black colleges.
They are being more proactive about trying to reach
out to minorities. One thing that’s structural about
nonprofits is that there’s a big gender gap. White
females dominate this industry. F ELLOW , C LASS 8
One of the main recommendations by alumni
of the program along with current fellows is to
employ strategies to increase the diversity of each
incoming class. Previously, with limited funding,
24 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Welcome to DC! Emerson Fellows, 11th Class
the Congressional Hunger Center staff could focus
mainly on recruiting from private, liberal arts colleges that hold their own recruiting events in the
D.C. area. Students in these schools were easier
to reach with limited funding. Now, CHC staff is
using different recruiting tactics to draw in a more
diverse applicant pool.
While the Congressional Hunger Center
is experimenting with methods to expand its
applicant pool, they may have to widen their
tactics even further. For example, CHC has shifted
its recruiting emphasis from small, liberal arts
colleges to public and Historically Black Colleges.
The underlying assumption in focusing on
Historically Black Colleges is that they will be
able to target a more diverse group of qualified
individuals to apply for the program. However,
since the ending of segregation in the 1960’s, students of color have equal opportunities to attend
colleges of their choice. The pool of students at
Historically Black Colleges has gradually changed
over the past 40 years. Public colleges, intentionally diversifying their student body, have been
successfully recruiting top-notch students who
otherwise would have attended Historically Black
Colleges. The Congressional Hunger Center
may need to rethink its strategy on how to draw
applicants from minority populations.
Increase Board and Congressional
involvement. After interviewing program
alumni, Innovation Network also interviewed
Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, the Co-chair
of CHC’s Board of Directors. She emphasized
the importance of Board members involvement
in the activities of the fellows. She felt that the
work being done by program participants could
inspire Board participation and lead to a stronger
commitment to the program. Congresswoman
Emerson recommended inviting Board members
to the annual luncheons where fellows convene
to share their field and policy experiences.
We have never actually had Board members attend
meetings with fellows. We need to do that. They
would be inspired. Once a year we have a lunch
with the domestic and international hunger fellows. We go around the table and everyone talks
about what they have been doing and plan on doing. I think that if board members actually listened
to this, it would help them be more involved.
C ONGRESSWOMAN J O A NN E MERSON
Congresswoman Emerson also suggested
getting more members of Congress involved in
the program. She feels that hunger is an issue that
many Representatives are passionate about, but
are limited because of time.
I think that if more of my colleagues got involved
with the individual fellows, it would expand our
pool here. The more members of Congress we have
that are passionate and interested in what the program does, then the more ability we have to help
solve the problem. It’s not changing the program,
it’s growing it a little bit more. . . . We need to find
a way to pull more of my colleagues in.
C ONGRESSWOMAN J O A NN E MERSON
The Congressional Hunger Center is hopeful
that the new House and Senate Hunger Caucuses
(established 2004–2005) will provide another way
that CHC can engage Hill Staff on the issue of
hunger, and connect those staff and members of
Congress with fellows.
Hunger Fellow
LaFleur Stephens
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 25
Conclusions
T
he Congressional Hunger Center has done
a remarkable job in shaping and solidifying
their National Hunger Fellows Program over the
past ten years. This evaluation has led to important insights into the effectiveness and impact of
the program, and has revealed opportunities for
strengthening the fellowship. Overall, the data
show that the National Hunger Fellows Program is
a successful leadership development program that
meets the expectations of participants, alumni,
host agencies and others with vested interests.
Innovation Network’s analysis reveals the
following insights about the program:
The Program has improved over the years.
In its earlier years, there was more uncertainty
regarding program sustainability. As the program
shifted its funding from VISTA to other sources,
program staff has been able to focus more on
improving the overall fellowship experience.
26 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
The host agencies have been impressed
with the caliber and readiness of the Fellows
they receive. The Congressional Hunger Center
does a good job in training and preparing the
fellows prior to their field and policy placements.
Program participants are fully informed on relevant issues and ready to start working as soon as
they reach their host site.
The program has an impact on career
decisions made by participants. Many alumni
indicated that going through the fellowship
experience influenced their career choices. The
fellowship program provides a unique glimpse
into both field and policy work, allowing participants to get a better feel for the type of work they
are interested in.
The fellowship program has been vital
in developing a professional network for
participants. Not only do fellows have access
to their community of peers, but also the fellowship program introduces participants to a wide
network of individuals in the anti-hunger field.
In addition, during the Professional Development
Days, fellows are exposed to even more individuals who are involved in different aspects of
anti-hunger work.
Alumni of the program continue to stay
involved in anti-hunger/social justice work.
The evaluation data reveal that a majority of those
who have gone through this program are still
involved in anti-hunger or related social justice
work—either through their jobs or volunteer work.
The program has succeeded in developing
leaders in the field. Analysis of survey and interview data reveals that the fellowship experience
has been pivotal to the professional development
of participants. The program provides individuals
with a unique knowledge of anti-hunger issues
both at the community and national level. This
combination of experiences puts fellows in a
position to speak with authority and take on
additional leadership roles.
In addition to demonstrating the successes of
the program, Innovation Network’s analysis also
revealed the following areas as opportunities for
improvement.
. . . the evaluation data
clearly illustrate that the
National Hunger Fellows
Program has evolved
into a cutting edge
leadership program
that plays a key role
in developing young
leaders to spearhead
the fight against hunger
and poverty in the
United States.
Diversity. Although staff at the Congressional
Hunger Center have been using different techniques to attract a more diverse stream of applicants to the program (people of color, males,
and individuals from socioeconomic backgrounds
other than the upper middle class), additional
work in this area is needed. The nature of the
program attracts mostly white, upper middle class
females. Alumni of the program feel that expanding the diversity of each incoming class is crucial
to the overall fellowship experience.
Work plans. A number of alumni indicated
that host sites need to be held more accountable
to the work plans they submit to the Hunger
Center. A handful of alumni and current fellows
indicated that their experience would have been
better had their host site abided by the original
work plans, or if the work plans gave fellows more
ownership over the work they were involved in.
This is a challenging issue for two main reasons:
(1) Nonprofits are sometimes understaffed, and
therefore rely on fellows for more day-to-day administrative tasks than preferred by CHC program
staff and fellows; and (2) it is difficult for CHC to
screen and monitor the field sites, because they
are located all over the United States.
Alumni Network. Survey and interview data
reveal that participants are in favor of developing
a stronger alumni network. Participants from the
earlier classes feel disconnected from their classmates. Others indicated that although they feel
connected with their own class and the classes
immediately before and after their own, there is
not much contact with members of other classes.
Ongoing Evaluation and Monitoring.
The Congressional Hunger Center has incorporated evaluation mechanisms into the everyday
structure of its National Hunger Fellows Program.
Some of these mechanisms include fellow selfevaluations, supervisor evaluations of the fellows,
fellow evaluations of their field and policy sites,
and fellow evaluations of the program. This has
enabled the Hunger Center to stay informed and
continue to make modifications to the program.
As the Congressional Hunger Center moves the
Fellowship Program into its second decade of
operation, Innovation Network strongly recommends that CHC continue to use program evaluation as a tool to guide and improve the program.
In conclusion, the evaluation data clearly
illustrate that the National Hunger Fellows
Program has evolved into a cutting edge leadership program that plays a key role in developing young leaders to spearhead the fight against
hunger and poverty in the United States.
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 27
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-A: Innovation Network Surveys
Current Fellows Survey
E-mail Text: Innovation Network has been contracted
by the Congressional Hunger Center to help evaluate the
impact of the National Hunger Fellows Program on those
individuals who have participated in this program. With
the upcoming 10-year anniversary of the program, the
folks at the Congressional Hunger Center thought this
would be a good time to officially explore the strengths and
challenges of the program. As current participants of this
program, we feel that your responses to these questions will
add tremendous value to this evaluation. Please take a few
minutes to complete this survey. We ask that you respond
honestly and openly. The information that you provide
will be aggregated with the responses from other Hunger
Fellows and your confidentiality will be maintained. Please
feel free to contact me, Veena Keswani @ 202–728–0727
ext. 107, if you have any questions.
Welcome! Thank you for taking the time to fill out
this survey. Your responses to this survey will provide the
Congressional Hunger Fellows with an opportunity to
hear your thoughts about potential program improvements
and help them continue to share the program’s successes
with potential Hunger Fellows, site host organizations,
and funders. This survey should take approximately 15
minutes to complete. Thank You!
Background Information
1. Are you currently participating in the National
Hunger Fellows Program?
= Yes = No
2. How did you hear about the National Hunger
Fellows Program? (check all that apply)
= On-campus recruiter
= College professor
= Promotional literature
= Job fair
= Friend
= Alumni of the program
= Career web page (i.e. Idealist.org)
= Other _______
3. What do you plan on doing immediately after you
complete your fellowship?
= Attend graduate school
= Obtain employment
= Attend graduate school and seek employment
= Other ________
28 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
[If they answer BOTH—ask both sets of questions below]
[If Graduate School, then]
4. What degree do you think you’ll pursue?
= JD
= MD
= MPP/MPA
= MSW
= MPH
= Other (please specify) _______
[If yes to obtain employment, then]
5. What sector do you think you will work in?
= Private sector
= Nonprofit sector
= Public sector
[If yes to obtain employment]
6. What industry do you think you would like to
work in after you complete your fellowship?
= Advocacy
= Foundation/Grant Making
= Arts/Culture
= Government
= Consulting
= Health Services
= Information
= International
Technology
Development/Relief
= Education
= Legal Services
= Social Services
= Public Relations
= Other (please specify) ___________
7. Do you think that you will continue to be
involved in anti-hunger/poverty issues after you
complete the program?
= Yes = No = Not sure
Please explain:
[If yes to above question]
8. How do you think you will be involved in antihunger/poverty issues after the program is over?
= As a volunteer
= As a staff member
= Other (please specify) ____________
[If no or undecided to 2 questions above]
9. Do you think you will become involved in other
social justice issues?
= Yes = No = Not sure
Please explain:
Program Benefits
10. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. The National
Hunger Fellows Program is providing me with . . .
= Direct knowledge, experience and skills that
will enable me to find employment after the
program is over
= Access to a broader professional network
= An understanding of how organizations work
= Guidance to make more informed career choices
= An understanding of hunger and poverty at the
local level
= An understanding of hunger and poverty at the
national level
= An understanding of how to alleviate hunger
and poverty in the U.S.
= A commitment to working for a social cause
= Awareness of specific hunger related issues
11. What was the most valuable aspect of your field
placement?
12. What was the least valuable aspect of your field
placement?
13. The Congressional Hunger Center feels that the
success of their fellowship program hinges on
the uniqueness of the combined field and policy
experiences, and the balance between these two
six-month placements. By this time, you should
have already received your policy placement. To
what extent do you feel you will benefit from the
combination of these experiences?
= A great deal
= Somewhat
= Not much
= Not at all
14. From your perspective, what do you believe to be
the most valuable benefit of participating in the
National Hunger Fellows Program?
16. Please indicate which of the following activities
you think you will be involved in after your fellowship is complete. (check all that apply)
= Participating in the alumni listserv
= Training and professional development of future
Hunger Fellows
= Recruiting and/or selecting future Hunger
Fellows
= Serving as a field or policy site supervisor for
future Hunger Fellows
= Collaborating professionally with the
Congressional Hunger Center
= Contributing funding to the Congressional
Hunger Center
= Attending events or parties sponsored by the
Congressional Hunger Center
= Reading and/or contributing to the CHC
Newsletter or NHF Alumni Newsletter
= Other (please specify) ____________
17. How connected do you feel with your community
of peers in the fellowship program?
= Very connected
= Somewhat connected
= Not very connected
= Not connected at all
18. Do you think that you will stay in touch with
members of your fellowship program after the
completion of this program?
= Definitely yes
= Probably yes
= Probably no
= Definitely no
19. In the space below, please let us know if you have
any additional comments or suggestions about the
National Hunger Fellows Program.
15. If there was one thing you could change about the
program, what would it be?
THANK YOU!
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 29
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-A: Innovation Network Surveys
Alumni Survey
E-mail Text: Innovation Network has been contracted
by the Congressional Hunger Center to help evaluate the
impact of the National Hunger Fellowship Program on
those individuals who have participated in the program.
With the upcoming 10-year anniversary of the program,
the folks at the Congressional Hunger Center thought this
would be a good time to officially explore the strengths
and challenges of the program. Please take a few minutes
to complete this survey. We ask that you respond honestly
and openly. The information you provide will be aggregated with the responses from other Hunger Fellow Alumni
and your confidentiality will be maintained. Please feel
free to contact me, Veena Keswani @ 202–728–0727 ext.
107 if you have any questions.
[included in first page of survey] Welcome! We appreciate your time and willingness to participate in this survey.
Your responses to this survey will provide the Congressional
Hunger Center with an opportunity to hear your thoughts
about potential program improvements and help them
continue to share the program’s successes with potential
Hunger Fellows, site host organizations, and funders. This
survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Thank You!
Background Information
We are going to begin by asking you a few questions about
what you’ve accomplished since completing the National
Hunger Fellows Program.
1. What year did you participate in the Congressional
Hunger Center’s National Hunger Fellows
Program?
= Class 1 (Year 94–95) = Class 6 (Year 99–00)
= Class 2 (Year 95–96) = Class 7 (Year 00–01)
= Class 3 (Year 96–97) = Class 8 (Year 01–02)
= Class 4 (Year 97–98) = Class 9 (Year 02–03)
= Class 5 (Year 98–99)
2. Since graduating from the National Hunger
Fellows Program, have you pursued a graduate
degree?
= Yes = No
3. When did you pursue your graduate degree?
[if answered yes to #2]
= Within one year of completing my fellowship
= I am currently enrolled in a graduate program
= Other (please specify): __________________
30 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
4. What degree did you pursue (or are you pursuing)
in graduate school? [if answered yes to #2]
= JD
= MD
= MPP/MPA
= MSW
= MPH
= Other (please specify): _______________
5. Did participating in the National Hunger Fellows
Program influence your decision to pursue this
degree? [if answered yes to #2]
= Yes = No
Please explain: ________________________________
6. Since graduating from the National Hunger
Fellows Program, have you worked in the nonprofit or public sector?
= Yes, I’ve worked in the nonprofit sector
= Yes, I’ve worked in the public sector
= Yes, I’ve worked in both sectors
= No, I have not worked in either sector
7. Please indicate the activities you have participated
in since graduating from the National Hunger
Fellows Program. (check all that apply)
= Served on the Board of Directors for a social
justice organization
= Served in another leadership role (i.e. Advisory
Board, Board of Trustees, etc.)
= Published or edited an article or book to advance a particular social justice cause
= Participated in a conference as a presenter or
panelist advocating a social justice cause
= Volunteered personal time for a social justice
cause
= Volunteered professional services to a social
justice cause/organization
= Served as a leader in an organization pursuing
social justice (as a staff member or a volunteer)
= Lobbied public officials on behalf of a social
justice cause
= Engaged in other advocacy activities (i.e. education campaigns, demonstrations, etc.)
= Other (please specify):_______________________
Now we would like to ask you a few questions about the
activities you pursued immediately after completing your
fellowship program.
8. What did you do within the first year of completing the National Hunger Fellows Program?
= Attended graduate school
= Obtained employment
= Both
= Other (please specify): _______________________
9. In what sector were you employed within the first
year of completing the National Hunger Fellows
Program? [ask if they answered ‘obtained employment’ or ‘both’ in #5]
= Private sector
= Nonprofit sector
= Public sector
10. Please select an industry that best describes your
line of work within the first year of completing the
program. [ask if they answered ‘obtained employment’
or ‘both’ in #5]
= Advocacy
= Health Services
= Arts/Culture
= Information Technology
= Consulting
= International
= Education
Development/Relief
= Foundation/
= Legal Services
Grant Making
= Public Relations
= Government
= Social Services
= Other (please specify): ________________
11. To what extent did this position address anti-hunger or other related social justice issues? [ask if they
answered ‘obtained employment’ or ‘both’ in #5]
= A great deal
= Somewhat
= Not much
= Not at all
= Don’t know
The next couple of questions will focus on your current
professional status.
12. What is your CURRENT employment status?
(check all that apply)
= Working full-time
= Working part-time
= Attending graduate school
= Not currently employed
= Other (please specify): _______________
13. In what sector are you CURRENTYLY employed?
[if selected ‘working full-time’ or ‘part-time’ in #6]
= Private Sector
= Nonprofit Sector
= Public Sector
14. Please select an industry that best describes your
CURRENT line of work.) [if selected ‘working fulltime’ or ‘part-time’ in #6]
= Advocacy
= Health Services
= Arts/Culture
= Information Technology
= Consulting
= International
= Education
Development/Relief
= Foundation/
= Legal Services
Grant Making
= Public Relations
= Government
= Social Services
= Other (please specify): ________________
15. To what extent does the position you CURRENTLY
hold address anti-hunger or other related social
justice issues? [if selected ‘working full-time’ or ‘parttime’ in #6]
= A great deal
= Somewhat
= Not much
= Not at all
= Don’t know
Program Benefits
Now we would like to ask you a couple of questions about
some of the benefits of participating in this program.
16. From your perspective, what was the most important benefit (professionally and personally)
of participating in the National Hunger Fellows
Program?
17. In what ways has your participation in the
National Hunger Fellows Program impacted your
career? (check all that apply)
= The program provided an opportunity to gain
first-hand field experience
= The program introduced me to key players/organizations in the anti-hunger/poverty field
= The program provided outlets for me to stay
involved in anti-hunger/poverty issues after the
completion of the fellowship
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 31
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-A: Innovation Network Surveys
Alumni Survey
= The program helped me make educated decisions regarding my career path
= Other (please explain):______________________
18. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Participating
in the National Hunger Fellows Program provided
me with . . .
Program Design
We are concluding this survey with a few questions about
the overall design and structure of the program. Your
answers to these questions will help the Congressional
Hunger Center fine-tune the program for future Fellows.
19. If there was one thing you could change about the
structure of the National Hunger Fellows Program,
what would it be?
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
No
opinion
Agree
Strongly
agree
Access to a broader professional network
=
=
=
=
=
20. What was the most valuable aspect of your field
placement? How did this experience influence
your views or actions since the fellowship?
An understanding of how
organizations work
=
=
21. What was the least valuable aspect of your field
placement?
An understanding of hunger & poverty at the local
level
=
=
22. What was the most valuable aspect of your policy
placement? How did this experience shape your
views or actions since the fellowship?
An understanding of
hunger & poverty at the
national level
=
=
=
=
=
An understanding of how
to alleviate hunger & poverty in the U.S.
=
=
=
=
=
A commitment to working
for a social justice cause
=
=
=
=
=
Awareness of specific hunger related issues
=
=
=
=
=
Direct knowledge, experience and skills that helped
me find employment after
the program was over
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
23. What was the least valuable aspect of your policy
placement?
24. Do you feel that the experience and knowledge
gained from your field placement contributed to
your experience and learning during your policy
placement?
= Yes = No
25. The Congressional Hunger Center feels that the
success of their fellowship program hinges on
the uniqueness of the combined field and policy
experiences, and the balance between these two
six month placements. To what extent do you
feel you benefited from the combination of these
experiences?
= A great deal
= Somewhat
= Not much
= Not at all
= Don’t know
Please use the space below to include any comments you may have regarding the above question.
32 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
26. Do you have any suggestions on how to better
integrate the field and policy placements within
the program? Please explain.
27. Please indicate how often you’ve engaged in the
following activities.
Never
Occasionally
Often
N/A
Participated in the alumni
listserv
=
=
=
=
Participated in training &
professional development of
Hunger Fellows
=
=
=
=
Participated in the recruitment and/or selection of
Fellows
=
=
=
=
Participated as a field or
policy site supervisor
=
=
=
=
Participated as a Program
Advisory Board Member
=
=
=
=
Donated funds to the
Congressional Hunger
Center
=
=
=
=
28. How would you rate the level of support that
you’ve received from the Congressional Hunger
Center in helping to maintain your alumni network?
= Not enough support
= Adequate support
= Plenty of support
29. As a result of participating in the National Hunger
Fellows Program, did you develop a network of
peer contacts?
= Yes = No
30. How often do you rely on that network for resources and information? [if answered yes to #20]
= Hardly ever
= About once a year
= Several times a year
= At least once a month
31. How could the Congressional Hunger Center
improve access to the alumni network? Please
explain.
32. Please share any additional comments you may
have about the National Hunger Fellows Program.
Thank You!
Provided in-kind services to
the Congressional Hunger
Center
=
=
=
=
Attended an event or
party sponsored by the
Congressional Hunger
Center
=
=
=
=
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 33
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-B: Innovation Network Interview Protocols:
Alumni
Participating Class: _____
Question 1: Can you tell me about your experience
with the Hunger Fellows Program? What stands
out for you?
Question 2: What is your overall perception of the
National Hunger Fellows Program? If there were
one thing you could change about the program,
what would it be? In your opinion, is there any
way that the structure of the program could be
improved?
Question 3: What skills did you acquire from the
program? What did you learn? What were the
main benefits of the program?
Question 4: What types of anti-hunger/social justice activities have you been involved in since
completing the program? Please describe your
involvement.
[If appropriate, ask]
Question 5: What are some of your accomplishments
in the anti-hunger/social justice field? [Example—
have you published articles, presented at conferences,
served as a leader in an organization, volunteered, etc.]
Question 6: What did you do immediately after the
program was over? Did it relate to anti-hunger or
other social justice issues?
Question 7: What type of work are you currently
involved in? Does it relate to anti-hunger or other
social justice issues? What prompted you to pursue
this line of work?
Question 8: Have your volunteered for an anti-hunger
or other social justice cause? Please tell me about
the type of volunteer work you were involved in.
34 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
The Congressional Hunger Center feels that the
success of their fellowship program hinges on the
uniqueness of the combined field and policy experiences, and the balance between these two six month
placements.
Question 9: To what degree do you feel that the two
placements compliment each other?
Probe: Can the program be structured to improve
the overall fellowship experience?
Question 10: How useful were the connections you
made during the program? Do you still keep in
touch with fellows from your participating class?
Question 11: How could the Congressional Hunger
Center be of value to you as you move along in
your career? Is there anything they could do to
help you stay connected with your class of fellows?
Question 12: The Congressional Hunger Center is
interested in determining whether this fellowship
program has played a significant role in helping
their participants get started in their careers. From
your perspective, how did participating in the
National Hunger Fellows Program impact your
career?
Question 13: Is there anything else you’d like for
us to know about your experience with the
Congressional Hunger Center?
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-B: Innovation Network Interview Protocols:
Board of Directors
Question 1: Please tell me about your involvement
with the Congressional Hunger Center.
Probe: How long have you been a board member?
Question 2: What is your overall perception of the
Emerson National Hunger Fellows program?
Probe: If there were one thing you could change
about the program, what would it be?
Question 3: What is your vision for the Emerson
National Hunger Fellows program?
Probe: What changes would you like to see over the
next couple of years?
Question 7: What changes to the Fellowship program
have you noticed over the course of your involvement with the Congressional Hunger Center?
Probe: How did these changes impact your role as a
Board Member?
Question 8: What benefits have you derived from
being a Board Member?
Question 9: What advice do you have for how CHC
can enhance greater Board participation in
Fellowship activities and events?
Question 4: What do you believe to be the strengths of
the fellowship program?
Question 5: From your perspective, what sets this program apart from other leadership programs?
Probe: What is the unique nature of this program?
Question 6: In your opinion, what impact are the
Fellows having on the fight against hunger?
Probe: What do you believe to be the value-added
of this fellowship program towards the fight
against hunger?
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 35
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-B: Innovation Network Interview Protocols:
Former Program Directors
Question 1: I understand that you are a former
program director for the Congressional Hunger
Center. Can you tell me about your experience as
program director?
Probe: How long were you involved in the program
as program director (timeframe)?
Question 2: Are you still involved with the
Congressional Hunger Center?
Probe: Please describe your involvement.
Question 3: What is your overall perception of the
National Hunger Fellows program?
Probe: If there were one thing you could change
about the program, what would it be?
Question 4: What were the biggest challenges you
faced as program director?
Question 5: From your perspective, how effective was
the structure of the Hunger Fellows Program during the time you were Program Director?
Probe: In what ways can the program be improved?
The Congressional Hunger Center feels that the
success of their fellowship program hinges on the
uniqueness of the combined field and policy experiences, and the balance between these two six month
placements.
Question 6: To what degree do you feel that the two
placements complimented each other?
Probe: Does it make sense to make the field and
policy components of the program more connected?
Probe: Can the program be structured in a way to
improve the overall fellowship experience?
Question 7: From your perspective, how important
is the “Fellowship” component (i.e. community
building aspect) f the program? Do you have
advice on how to enhance this component of the
program?
36 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Question 8: What sets this program apart from other
leadership programs?
Probe: What is the unique nature of this program?
Question 9: What impact do you believe this program
is having on the lives of the participating fellows?
Question 10: What changes to the Fellowship program
have you noticed over the course of your involvement with the program?
Probe: How did these changes impact your role as
program director?
Question 11: In your opinion, what impact are the
Fellows having on the fight against hunger?
Probe: What do you believe to be the value-added
of this fellowship program towards the fight
against hunger?
Question 12: Are there any other insights about the
program you’d like to share with us?
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instruments
1-B: Innovation Network Interview Protocols:
Site Supervisors
Question 1: How have you been involved with the
Congressional Hunger Center?
Probe: How long have you been a site supervisor?
Question 2: Please tell me about your role as a site
supervisor for the Fellowship Program.
Probe: Is there any way that the Congressional
Hunger Center can further assist you in your role
as site supervisor?
Question 3: What is your overall perception of the
National Hunger Fellows program?
Probe: If there were one thing you could change
about the program, what would it be?
The Congressional Hunger Center feels that the
success of their fellowship program hinges on the
uniqueness of the combined field and policy experiences, and the balance between these two six month
placements.
Question 8: Did you receive adequate communication
from Program Directors?
Question 9: From your perspective, what sets this program apart from other leadership programs?
Probe: What is the unique nature of this program?
Question 10: What changes to the Fellowship program
have you noticed over the course of your involvement with the program?
Probe: How have these changes impacted your role
as a site supervisor?
Question 11: In your opinion, what impact are the
Fellows having on the fight against hunger?
Probe: What do you believe to be the value-added
of this fellowship program towards the fight
against hunger?
Question 12: Is there anything else you’d like to share
with us about the Hunger Fellows Program?
Question 4: To what degree do you feel that the two
placements compliment each other?
Probe: Can the program be structured to improve
the overall fellowship experience?
Question 5: Do you have any suggestions on how to
improve the current structure of the program?
Question 6: What are some of the accomplishments
of the fellows you have worked with during their
time with your organization?
Probe: What type of projects have they been
involved in?
Probe: Can you give us any examples of how
they have been able to demonstrate leadership
during the course of their placement with your
organization?
Question 7: Did the Hunger Fellows you have hosted
come to you with adequate training?
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 37
Appendix 2: Alumni Survey Results
Table 1. Survey Respondents by Class Year of Participation
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Class 1 (Year ’94-’95)
7
5.7
5.7
5.7
Class 2 (Year ’95-’96)
12
9.8
9.8
15.6
Class 3 (Year ’96-’97)
16
13.1
13.1
28.7
Class 4 (Year ’97-’98)
9
7.4
7.4
36.1
Class 5 (Year ’98-’99)
12
9.8
9.8
45.9
Class 6 (Year ’99-’00)
12
9.8
9.8
55.7
Class 7 (Year ’00-’01)
19
15.6
15.6
71.3
Class 8 (Year ’01-’02)
19
15.6
15.6
86.9
Class 9 (Year ’02-’03)
16
13.1
13.1
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 2. Number of Fellows who have Pursued a Graduate Degree
Since Completing Program
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Yes
72
59.0
59.0
59.0
No
50
41.0
41.0
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 3. When Did Fellows Pursue Their Graduate Degrees?
Frequency
Percent
Within one year of completing fellowship
19
27
Currently enrolled in graduate program
35
50
Other
16
23
Total
70
100
38 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Table 4. Degree Pursued After Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
JD
15
12.3
12.3
12.3
MD
8
6.6
6.6
18.9
MPP/MPA
9
7.4
7.4
26.2
MSW
6
4.9
4.9
31.1
MPH
8
6.6
6.6
37.7
Other
24
19.7
19.7
57.4
Not Applicable
50
41.0
41.0
98.4
100.0
No Response
Total
2
1.6
1.6
122
100.0
100.0
Table 5. Did Fellowship influence Decision to Pursue Graduate Degree?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Yes
49
40.2
40.2
40.2
No
22
18.0
18.0
58.2
Not applicable
50
41.0
41.0
99.2
1
.8
.8
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
No Response
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 6. Sectors Fellows have Worked in Since Graduating from Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Nonprofit Sector
63
Public Sector
11
9
Both Sectors
38
31
Neither Sector
10
8
122
100
Total
52
Table 7. Activities Fellows have Participated in since Completing Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Served on Board of Directors for social justice organization
15
12
Served in another leadership role (i.e. Advisory Board, Board of
Trustees, etc.)
34
28
Published or edited an article or book to advance a particular social
justice cause
31
26
Participated in a conference as a presenter or panelist advocating a
social justice cause
51
42
106
88
Volunteered professional services to a social justice cause/organization
57
47
Served as a leader in an organization pursuing social justice (as staff
member or volunteer)
75
62
Lobbied public officials on behalf of a social justice cause
60
50
Engaged in other advocacy activities (i.e. education campaigns,
demonstrations, etc.)
85
70
Volunteered personal time for a social justice cause
Each row represents a separate variable.
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 39
Table 8. What Fellows did within First Year of Completing Fellowship Program
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Attended graduate school
22
18.0
18.0
18.0
Obtained employment
78
63.9
63.9
82.0
Both
9
7.4
7.4
89.3
Other
13
10.7
10.7
100.0
Total
122
100.0
100.0
Table 9. Sector of Employment in First Year after Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
Nonprofit sector
65
53.3
53.3
55.7
Public sector
19
15.6
15.6
71.3
100.0
Private sector
Not Applicable
Total
35
28.7
28.7
122
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
Table 10. Industry that Best Describes Line of Work 1st Year after Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Advocacy
21
17.2
17.2
17.2
Consulting
2
1.6
1.6
18.9
Education
8
6.6
6.6
25.4
Foundation/Grant Making
4
3.3
3.3
28.7
Government
Cumulative Percent
12
9.8
9.8
38.5
Health Services
4
3.3
3.3
41.8
Information Technology
1
.8
.8
42.6
International Development/Relief
2
1.6
1.6
44.3
Legal Services
2
1.6
1.6
45.9
Social Services
10
8.2
8.2
54.1
Other
21
17.2
17.2
71.3
Not Applicable
35
28.7
28.7
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 11. Extent to which First Job after Fellowship Addressed Anti-hunger or other
Related Social Justice Issues
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Not at all
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
Not much
11
9.0
9.0
11.5
Somewhat
15
12.3
12.3
23.8
A great deal
58
47.5
47.5
71.3
100.0
Not Applicable
Total
40 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
35
28.7
28.7
122
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
Table 12. Current Employment/Graduate School Status of Alumni
Working full-time
Working part-time
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
71
58.2
58.2
58.2
3
2.5
2.5
60.7
Attending graduate school
29
23.8
23.8
84.4
Both working & attending school
15
12.3
12.3
96.7
Not currently employed
2
1.6
1.6
98.4
Other
2
1.6
1.6
100.0
Total
122
100.0
100.0
Table 13. Current Sector of Employment for Program Alumni
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Private sector
17
13.9
13.9
13.9
Nonprofit sector
59
48.4
48.4
62.3
Public sector
13
10.7
10.7
73.0
Not Applicable
33
27.0
27.0
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 14. Extent to which Current Position Addresses Anti-Hunger/Other Related
Social Justice Issues
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Not at all
8
6.6
6.6
6.6
Not much
12
9.8
9.8
16.4
Somewhat
19
15.6
15.6
32.0
A great deal
50
41.0
41.0
73.0
Not Applicable
33
27.0
27.0
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 15. Ways in which Participation in Fellowship Program has Impacted
Career of Participants
Frequency
Percent
The program provided an opportunity to gain first-hand field
experience
90
74
The program introduced me to key players/organizations in the antihunger/poverty field
92
76
The program provided outlets for me to stay involved in anti-hunger/
poverty issues after the completion of the fellowship
60
50
The program helped me make educated decisions regarding my career
path
98
81
Each row represents a separate question. Row percents add up to 100%
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 41
Table 16. Benefits Provided to Participants of the National Hunger Fellows Program
Strongly Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Agree
Strongly Agree
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Access to a broader professional
network
0
0
6
5
12
10
53
43
51
42
An understanding of how
organizations work
0
0
2
2
6
5
51
42
63
52
An understanding of hunger &
poverty at the local level
0
0
2
2
9
7
46
38
65
53
An understanding of hunger &
poverty at the national level
0
0
1
1
3
2
45
37
72
60
An understanding of how to
alleviate hunger & poverty in
the U.S.
0
0
6
5
13
11
78
64
25
20
A commitment to working for a
social justice cause
0
0
3
2
14
11
42
34
63
52
Awareness of specific hunger
related issues
0
0
2
2
7
6
43
35
70
57
Direct knowledge, experience
& skills that helped fellows find
employment after the program
was over
2
2
9
7
20
16
39
32
52
43
Each row represents a separate variable. Row percentages should equal 100% (percentages maybe skewed due to rounding).
Table 17. Did Experience/Knowledge Gained from the Field Placement Contribute to
your Experience/Knowledge During your Policy Placement?
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Yes
92
75.4
75.4
75.4
No
26
21.3
21.3
96.7
4
3.3
3.3
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
No Response
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 18. Extent to which Fellows Benefited from the Combination of the Field and
Policy Placement
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Not much
2
1.6
1.6
1.6
Somewhat
19
15.6
15.6
17.2
A great deal
101
82.8
82.8
100.0
Total
122
100.0
100.0
42 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Cumulative Percent
Table 19. Frequency with which Alumni have Stayed Engaged in Congressional Hunger Center Activities
Never
Occasionally
Often
Not Applicable
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Participated in the alumni listserv
51
42
61
50
8
7
2
2
Participated in training &
professional development of
Hunger Fellows
66
54
40
33
13
11
3
2
Participated in the recruitment
and/or selection of fellows
50
41
54
45
15
12
2
2
Participated as a field or policy
site supervisor
103
86
8
7
3
3
6
5
Participated as a Program
Advisory Board Member
110
91
5
4
2
2
4
3
Donated funds to CHC
91
76
17
14
4
3
7
6
Provided in-kind services to CHC
91
76
17
14
4
3
7
6
Attended an event or party
sponsored by CHC
43
35
56
46
20
16
3
2
*Each row represents a separate variable. Row percentages should equal 100% (percentages maybe skewed due to rounding).
Table 20. Level of Support Received from CHC after Completion of Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Not enough support
38
31
Adequate support
54
44
Plenty of support
26
21
No response
Total
4
3
122
100
Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole number
Table 21. Frequency of Alumni who have Developed Contacts as a Result of
Participating in the National Hunger Fellows Program
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Yes
101
82.8
82.8
82.8
No
21
17.2
17.2
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Cumulative Percent
Table 22. Level of Support Received from CHC in Helping Past Participants Maintain
their Alumni Network
Frequency
Percent
Not enough support
38
32
Adequate support
54
46
Plenty of support
Total
26
22
118
100
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 43
Table 23. Percentage of Alumni who Developed a Network of Peer Contacts as a
Result of Participating in Fellowship
Frequency
Yes
Percent
101
No
Total
83
21
17
122
100
Table 24. Frequency with which Alumni Rely on Network for Resources and
Information
Frequency
Percent
Hardly Ever
21
17
About once a year
23
19
Several times a year
42
34
At least once a month
15
12
Not applicable
Total
21
17
122
100
‘Not applicable’ refers to alumni who answered ‘no’ in Table 22. Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole number
Table 25. Level of Support by Class
Not Enough Support
Class
Adequate/Plenty of Support
Total
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent*
1
5
83%
1
16%
6
100%
2
6
50%
6
50%
12
100%
3
5
33%
10
66%
15
100%
4
4
44%
5
55%
9
100%
5
5
41%
7
58%
12
100%
6
4
40%
6
60%
10
100%
7
3
15%
16
84%
19
100%
8
4
21%
15
78%
19
100%
9
2
12%
14
87%
16
100%
38
32%
80
67%
118
100%
Total
*Percentages have been rounded. Each row adds up to 100 percent
Table 26. Reliance on Peer Network
How often alumni rely on network
Number of Responses
Percentage
Hardly ever
21
21%
About once a year
23
23%
Several times a year
42
42%
At least once a month
15
15%
101
100%
Total
44 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Appendix 3: Current Fellow Survey Results
Table 1. How Current Participants Heard about Fellowship Program
Frequency
Percent
On-campus recruiter
0
0
College professor
1
4
Promotional literature
4
17
Job fair
2
9
Friend
5
22
Alumni of the program
3
13
Career web page
4
17
Other
9
39
Each category is not mutually exclusive. Respondents had the option of selecting more than one answer option.
Breakdown of “Other” Category from Table 1
1 Field Site Supervisor
2 Student Coalition Against Hunger and Homelessness
3 Fellowship policy site host
4 Hunger center website
5 NSCAHH website
6 Worked @ CHC
7 staff attending a conference
8 mentioned in a campus public service newsletter
9 Office of Fellowships at my college
Table 2. What Fellows Plan on doing after Completion of Program
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
7
30.4
30.4
30.4
11
47.8
47.8
78.3
Attend graduate school &
seek employment
3
13.0
13.0
91.3
Other
2
8.7
8.7
100.0
Total
23
100.0
100.0
Attend graduate school
Obtain employment
Cumulative Percent
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 45
Table 3. Type of Graduate Degree Fellows Plan on Pursuing after Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
JD
4
57
MD
2
29
MPP/MPA
0
0
MSW
0
0
MPH
1
14
Total
7*
100
*This total represents the number of current fellows who plan on attending graduate school immediately after completing the fellowship program.
Table 4. Sector in which Current Fellows Plan on Seeking Employment
Frequency
Percent
Private Sector
1
9
Nonprofit Sector
8
73
Public Sector
Total
2
18
11*
100
*This total represents the number of current fellows who plan on seeking employment immediately after completing the fellowship program.
Table 5. Industry Fellows would like to Work in After Completion of Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Advocacy
1
18
Consulting
1
9
Education
2
18
Government
2
18
Health Services
1
9
International Development/Relief
2
18
Other
5
45
Breakdown of “Other” Category from Table 5
1 Community Development
2 economic development (possibly international)
3 undecided
4 grassroots organizing
5 economic development/community development
Table 6. Percentage of Fellows that Plan to Continue their Involvement in
Anti-hunger/poverty Issues after Completion of the Program
Question: Do you think you will continue to be involved in
anti-hunger/poverty issues after you complete the program?
Frequency
Percent
Yes
23
100
No
0
0
46 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Table 7. How Current Fellows Plan on Being Involved in Anti-hunger/poverty Issues
after Completion of the Program
Frequency
As a volunteer
As a staff member
Percent
3
13
15
65
Other
5
22
Total
23
100
Breakdown of “Other” Category from Table 7
1 Could be either, not sure yet.
2 Will try to combine healthcare and poverty
3 Activist
4 Policy maker and professor
5 Not sure yet—probably both
6 I will be in school, but I will be involved
Table 8. The National Hunger Fellows Program is Providing Fellows with . . .
Strongly Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Agree
Strongly Agree
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Direct Knowledge, experience
and skills that will enable me
to find employment after the
program is over
0
0
1
4
0
0
6
26
16
70
Access to a broader professional
network
0
0
0
0
1
4
6
26
16
70
An understanding of how
organizations work
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
17
19
83
Guidance to make more
informed career choices
0
0
1
4
3
13
13
57
6
26
An understanding of hunger &
poverty at the local level
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
35
15
65
An understanding of hunger &
poverty at the national level
0
0
0
0
1
4
6
26
16
17
An understanding of how to
alleviate hunger and poverty in
the U.S.
0
0
0
0
3
13
9
39
11
48
A commitment to working for a
social cause
0
0
1
4
0
0
6
26
16
70
Awareness of specific hunger
related issues
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
13
20
87
Each row represents a separate variable. Row percentages should equal 100% (percentages maybe skewed due to rounding errors).
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 47
Table 9. Most Valuable Aspect of Field Placement for Current Fellows
#
Response
1
Getting to learn about approaches to fighting poverty that I previously knew nothing about.
2
The opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the many levels at which hunger and poverty are
combated though experience working with others involved in this fight.
3
The opportunity to work on local issues autonomously was awesome.
4
Learning from my executive director about local politics, coalition building, and advocating for change.
5
The most valuable aspect of my field placement was the opportunity to work with my supervisor. She is
not only passionate but savvy and effective and I really look to her as a mentor.
6
Was able to gain and understanding and grasp of a wide array of issues. Did not work directly with hunger
issues, but gained great experience in poverty issues as a whole.
7
grassroots hands on work
8
The opportunity to work with local organizations, community members, and children because this
experience has taught me the benefits and limits of doing community outreach.
9
The opportunity to learn about the amount of change that can be accomplished on the local/state level.
10
Having a chance to see the different ways local groups collaborate and support each other to address
hunger and poverty.
11
Incredible mentors.
12
Getting a wide perspective on the issue of hunger from my various coworkers
13
The independence of having a project that would be directly used by an organization and people who
have been working in the anti-hunger field for multiple years.
14
Working with and understanding the broad range of interactions occurring among groups at the local,
state and national levels was incredibly valuable. Understanding the intersection of all three interests was
a phenomenal learning experience. In working with a local food bank, a state wide advocacy organization
and the USDA, I was able to see how each group comes in with different interests, focused on the same
goal of alleviating hunger, and how this all plays out.
15
The most valuable aspect was the relationships I was able to build with co-workers and other community
members in an environment of caring and justice.
16
Having a lot of trust and responsibility.
17
Being in the midst of people in need while trying to help at the same time.
18
making connections with organizations in a new city.
19
Learning how a private organization/operation dedicated to social work is operated and maintained.
20
The incredible group of people I met and worked with.
21
The composition of my project, working with government, a food bank, and a state advocacy group, gave
me a unique perspective that will inform how I create policy and think for the rest of my life.
22
I received a valuable experience working in a small-nonprofit organization.
48 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Table 10. Least Valuable Aspect of Field Placement for Current Fellows
#
Response
1
Everything was valuable. Even the very few negative experiences taught me something.
2
I’m unsure of the value of my Hunger Free Community Report as of yet, but I’m just finishing it now, so I
may come to better appreciate it down the road.
3
Difficulty communicating with my field site supervisor during the initial few months of my placement was
a challenge. Higher expectations for communication between the CHC, fellows & supervisors would have
helped.
4
Administrative work which was unrelated to the fellowship that my boss asked me to do.
5
My field site placement has been incredible. I can’t think of anything I would change.
6
career help, some extraneous work (already planned on attending med school)
7
lack of resources
8
A few of the conferences that I attended, though important in themselves, did not provide me with
a concrete understanding of how I can help. Many of the conferences opened up dialogue without
providing solutions, or even potential solutions.
9
While I think it was good that we had to complete a report at the end of our time in the field—I felt
like I really only spent 3–4 months actually in the field, and then the last month or two working on
summarizing my field work in my HFCR.
10
There wasn’t a least valuable aspect of my field placement.
11
Can’t think of one.
12
I think the actual placement (i.e. the town) had little value to my experience as a whole.
13
Spending a majority of my time in an office. Although I had the opportunity to some interviews with food
stamp and food pantry clients, I wish I had more of a chance to interact with people.
14
The lack of structure at the local level.
15
The long, stressful hours.
16
unclear/vague work plan.
17
lack of connection to other fellows during placement
18
All of it was valuable. Taken as a whole, it was invaluable!
19
social barriers
20
A supervisor that while great, really micromanaged me.
21
I did not feel there was enough direct service or exposure to the community.
Table 11. Extent to which Current Fellows Feel they will Benefit from the
Combination of their Field and Policy Placements
Percent
Frequency
Not at all
0
0
Not much
0
0
Somewhat
1
4
A great deal
22
96
Total
23
100
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 49
Table 12. What Current Fellows would Change about the Program
#
Response
1
More non-food field placements . . . but I think they’re moving towards that. A greater emphasis on the
connection between alleviating hunger and other social and economic efforts going on in the US.
2
Better opportunities for fellows to give input into field site placements.
3
I would make the program 14 months long so that the field and policy site portions could be a full sixmonths each
4
I will tell the Hunger Center staff this too, but I think perhaps releasing a press release to all of our staff
people on our first day and asking them to distribute it to the rest of the staff (this would also help
differentiate b/t fellows and interns)
5
I wouldn’t change a thing.
6
Publicize it more as a poverty fellowship- many people may shy away from applying because they assume
it will only concern hunger. Calling it the Bill Emerson Poverty Fellowship would bring in many more
interested applicants I believe.
7
I would extend the program to a two year program, providing the fellows with a year at each placement.
This will provide the fellows with an opportunity to complete a more in-depth work plan and even see
some of the tangible outcomes of their work.
8
More development of community among the fellows.
9
Perhaps make it longer.
10
Give more opportunities to people of color. The stipend makes it very hard for low-income individuals to
participate in a program with so little benefits.
11
I would make the August training more engaging with more discussion and more community building
activities.
12
It is an impeccably run program. The support we receive from the CHC is unsurpassed in other similar
programs. I suppose the only thing I would change, again, would be to have more direct service contact.
13
It can be quite intense for some fellows in the field to both live and work together—perhaps consider
giving them a bit of space. Also, I’d suggest only assigning two to a supervisor if that supervisor is truly
prepared to take on the commitment of supervising two fellows.
14
Rethinking the trainings to be more heavy on the reading and discussion rather than constant speakers.
15
More monetary assistance with housing and transportation in DC.
16
Make the health and dental insurance more affordable. The co-pays for prescriptions are too high. And
since it is based on a network in DC it is prohibitively expensive to use the dental insurance during field
site placements. One visit can cost half a month’s stipend.
17
I’d like to see the fellows all in a single city during the field site placements. It’d be an opportunity to
make a staggering difference in a city for 6 months. All of our projects were interesting and great, but 20+
fellows in a single town for 6 months could achieve a blow your mind away progress in the area.
18
to be able to lobby!
19
Perhaps a little better communication of supervisor responsibilities and roles before fellows arrive. They
often seem to not read the materials that they are given. A phone call explaining the role of the fellows,
how much ownership and what types of work it is ok for them to do, would be really helpful.
20
The fellowship should ensure the field placements have structured work plans and the capacity to host
fellows.
50 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Table 13. Activities Current Fellows Think they will be Involved in after
Completing Fellowship
Frequency
Percent
Participating in the alumni listserv
21
91
Training and professional development of future hunger fellows
21
91
Recruiting and/or selecting future hunger fellows
20
87
7
30
Collaborating professionally with CHC
17
74
Contributing funding to CHC
11
48
Attending events or parties sponsored by CHC
22
96
Reading and/or contributing to the CHC Newsletter or NHF Alumni
Newsletter
20
87
Serving as a field or policy site supervisor for future hunger fellows
Categories are not mutually exclusive. Respondents had the option of selecting more than one answer option.
Table 14. Level of Connection with Community of Peers among Current Fellows
Frequency
Percent
Not connected at all
0
0
Not very connected
0
0
Somewhat connected
11
48
Very connected
12
52
Total
23
100
Table 15. Extent to which Current Fellows Believe they will Stay in Touch with
Members of their Class after Program is Complete
Frequency
Percent
Definitely no
0
0
Probably no
2
9
Probably yes
11
48
Definitely yes
10
43
Total
23
100
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 51
Appendix 4: Evaluation Plan
Evaluation Questions
How does participating in the National Hunger
Fellows program benefit fellows?
Does the program provide fellows with the
knowledge, experience and skills needed to
find employment after the program is over?
Does the program provide participants
with an increased understanding of how
organizations work?
Source of Data
Data Collection Method
• Graduates of the program
Design and administer an on-line survey
to be distributed to all graduates of the
program.
• Current fellows
• Program staff
• Site supervisors
• Former Program Directors
Select a sample of responses and follow-up
with an in-depth telephone interview.
Design and administer a survey to all current
fellows.
Interview staff members where appropriate
(some of these have already been
completed).
To what extent does the program help
broaden the professional network of
participating fellows?
Are graduates of the program able to
leverage their experience to get into a
graduate program of their choice?
How did the experience of the National
Hunger Fellows program impact past
participants?
• Graduates of the program
• Program staff
To what degree was the fellowship program
a stimulus for the work alumni are currently
involved in?
Design and administer an on-line survey
to be distributed to all graduates of the
program.
Select a sample of responses and follow-up
with an in-depth telephone interview.
Interview staff members where appropriate
(some of these have already been
completed).
Did the Emerson program influence their
career path?
What impact did the Emerson fellowship
experience have on the lives of those who
participated?
To what degree did National Hunger Fellows
program help foster leaders in the field?
To what extent have current and past
fellows impacted the fight against hunger?
• Graduates of the program
• Program staff
• Former Program Directors
To what extent are graduates of the
Emerson program able to make a difference
in social justice issues?
Has the Emerson program been successful in
creating leaders in the field?
Has the program been instrumental in
training fellows to be key players in the fight
against hunger?
52 National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report
Design and administer an on-line survey
to be distributed to all graduates of the
program.
Select a sample of responses and follow-up
with an in-depth telephone interview.
Interview staff members where appropriate
(some of these have already been
completed).
Evaluation Questions
To what extent does participation in the
National Hunger Fellows program increase the
overall awareness on specific hunger related
issues among participating fellows?
Source of Data
Data Collection Method
• Graduates of the program
Design and administer an on-line survey
to be distributed to all graduates of the
program.
• Current fellows
• Former Program Directors
Select a sample of responses and follow-up
with an in-depth telephone interview.
Design and administer a survey to all current
fellows.
How is the current structure of the National
Hunger Fellows program working?
Can the Emerson program design be
improved to better connect fellows’ field
and policy experiences?
• Program staff
• Graduates of the program
• Current fellows
Conduct interviews with a sample of
graduates. of the program.
• Board of Directors
Survey of current fellows.
• Board of Directors
Conduct telephone interviews with a sample
of Board members.
How have the changes that have occurred
over the past ten years impacted the
fellowship program?
How is the National Hunger Fellows program
unique from other such programs?
How does this program contribute to the
fight against hunger?
Conduct telephone interviews with a sample
of Board members.
• Graduates of the program
• Program staff
Conduct interviews with a sample of
graduates of the program.
National Hunger Fellows Program Evaluation Report 53
Congressional Hunger Center
2291⁄2 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-547-7022
www.hungercenter.org