Analysis of Food Gatherers’ Community Engagement
and Data Collection Efforts
Prepared by: Tina Sang
Introduction
Food banks around the country are facing decreasing donations from restaurants, grocery stores,
and the USDA commodities program while communities are pressing for more food to stave off
hunger.1 Pressure from both fronts is pushing food banks to analyze the efficiency of their
operations, develop innovative programs that tackle the root causes of hunger, pair food
distributions with government-funded programs such as food stamps, and reach those
community members who are most in need.
The focus of this report is to analyze Food Gatherers’ community engagement and data
collection efforts within this socioeconomic context. The analysis will utilize Ulrich’s Critical
Systems Heuristics and that framework’s twelve procedures to describe current efforts (Is-mode)
as well as to identify suggestions for improvement (Ought-mode).
Sources of Motivation
(1) Who is (ought to be) the beneficiary?
Is-mode: Individuals and families who receive free food from Food Gatherers are beneficiaries
of the organization. Food Gatherers’ non-profit partner organizations also benefit from
receiving food at no or low cost. Thanks to Food Gatherers, these non-profits are able to
concentrate their efforts and funding on running programs rather than procuring food for their
clients.
Ought-mode: Problems emerge from language barriers between Food Gatherers and its nonEnglish speaking beneficiaries. For example, non-English speaking seniors at a governmentsubsidized housing site in Ann Arbor have raised questions about whether Food Gatherers is a
branch of the government and where the free food comes from. Language barriers prevent a
group of beneficiaries from learning Food Gatherers’ organizational structure and programs.
This in turn leads to confusion and possible mistrust of Food Gatherers’ services. Leaders of
churches or other local non-profits may be unaware of Food Gatherers or reluctant to form a
partnership due to language communication barriers.
(2) What is (ought to be) the purpose?
Is-mode: Food Gatherers’ mission is to “alleviate hunger and eliminate its causes in our
community by: reducing food waste through the rescue and distribution of perishable and nonperishable food; coordinating with other hunger relief providers; educating the public about
hunger; and developing new food resources.”2
Ought-mode: In order to achieve its mission, the organization ought to make proactive efforts to
engage non-English speaking individuals, families, non-profits, and businesses. This would
result in more equitable distribution of Food Gatherers’ services in Washtenaw County.
1
2
Shin, A. (2008, November 23). Food banks adapt for lean times. Washington Post, pp. F01.
Food Gatherers. (2009). Website homepage. Retrieved from http://foodgatherers.org.
1
(3) What is (ought to be) the measure of success?
Is-mode: Food Gatherers currently measures the organization’s success annually by how many
pounds of food were distributed; how many volunteer hours were donated; how much food and
monetary funds were given by individuals and businesses, and how much funding was received
from foundations, government, and Feeding America (the national food bank network).3
Ought-mode: Food Gatherers ought to collect data on the number of unduplicated
individuals/families who receive services. The organization can then analyze this data to reveal
if the beneficiaries are those most in need of food (e.g. homeless, unemployed, single parents,
low-income). Another measure of success ought to be the diversity of their non-profit partners
to help ensure that people from a variety of backgrounds and ages are benefiting from Food
Gatherers.
Sources of Power
(4) Who is (ought to be) in a position to change the measure of success?
Is-mode: The Food Gatherers Board of Directors and President are decision-makers. Together
they analyze trends in the food industry and food bank funding sources to create the
organization’s five-year strategic plan. These decision-makers often consult Food Gatherers
staff, food security4 experts, and periodically survey their non-profit partners and individual
beneficiaries to gain a better understanding of the community’s needs. The decision-makers,
however, have the final say on what information will be used to create programmatic
improvements and how to measure success.
Ought-mode: A well-defined, transparent communication process should be established for staff
and community members to provide their feedback on Food Gatherers’ services to the decisionmakers. This communication process ought to include a method for non-English speaking
people to share their needs, concerns, and appreciation. To increase honest feedback, staff and
community members should have the option of submitting feedback anonymously. Those who
provide contact information along with their feedback will receive a response from Food
Gatherers. Truthful information from a broader group of people will be more helpful to the
decision-makers. Since successful communication requires mutual sharing of information,
Food Gatherers ought to develop a regular means of information dissemination to their
beneficiaries. For example, the organization can publish a quarterly newsletter that is available
in the languages most widely used by people living in Washtenaw County.
(5) What resources of success are (ought to be) controlled by the decision-makers?
Is-mode: The decision-makers determine how much funding, staff time, and volunteer hours are
devoted to each Food Gatherers program. Within the past year, more efforts have been placed
in starting the USDA Summer Food Service Program, buying nutritious food items to
compliment donated food, and distributing increasingly larger amounts of food. Food Gatherers
has also expended efforts to educate the public about the types of food donations that are greatly
needed, namely fresh produce and high-protein items.
3
Food Gatherers. (2008). Food Gatherers strategic plan goals 2005-2007.
Mike Hamm and Anne Bellows of Coalition for Community Food Security define food security as “a condition in
which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable
food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice.”
4
2
Ought-mode: The decision-makers ought to have access to data on individuals/families who are
beneficiaries so they can make informed decisions on tailoring programs to better serve those
most in need. It is especially important for decision-makers to have bilingual staff and/or
volunteers who will collect data from non-English speaking populations.
(6) What conditions of success can (should) the decision-makers not control?
Is-mode: Trends, opportunities, and constraints that are part of the current environment and
are not under the control of the decision-makers include:
 More efficient food industry that has less waste and fewer donations for food banks,
 More demands from beneficiaries for healthy foods like fresh produce,
 Depressed local and national economy that result in fewer donations and an
increased need in the community for free food, and
 Heightened public awareness regarding the linkage of food to health.
Ought-mode: Food Gatherers can initiate communication with business owners, community
leaders, volunteers, and individuals who are not fluent in English. However, people should not
feel obligated to work with Food Gatherers. The choice to partner with Food Gatherers should
be made by these individuals, groups, and organizations rather than by the Food Gatherers’
decision-makers.
(7) Who is (ought to be) considered a professional or expert?
Is-mode: The Board of Directors and President are considered experts because they have
connections with and in-depth knowledge of foundations, businesses, and non-profit
organizations. In addition, they have years of experience leading the organization and know
how to anticipate some of the conditions in the environment that affect funding and programs.
Ought-mode: Beneficiaries should be considered experts because they know how important the
food they receive from Food Gatherers is in their lives. The beneficiaries know if they seek free
food only in times of financial crisis or continuously to supplement purchased food. The
beneficiaries also know if the types of food they receive from Food Gatherers are culturally
appropriate and beneficial to their health. Information from beneficiaries, including nonEnglish speaking beneficiaries, can be used by Food Gatherers to determine what types of food
to purchase from wholesalers and how best to match the food with beneficiaries’ needs.
(8) What kind of expertise is (ought to be) consulted?
Is-mode: Expertise that is consulted includes food security experts, public health professionals,
professionals with knowledge on how to design surveys and analyze data, and professionals who
plot data on maps using Geographic Information Systems. Food Gatherers decision-makers
consult staff members and beneficiaries to get a better picture of who is receiving services.
However, this solicitation of information is done on an as-needed basis and may not be done at
regular time intervals. A recent example of data collection is the Food Security Study of 2008
that involved Food Gatherers administering surveys to over 20o people who receive food from
food pantries run by their non-profit partner organizations.
Ought-mode: The 2008 Food Security Study client survey was not translated into Spanish,
Chinese, Russian, or any other language. Very few of the survey administrators were fluent in
the above mentioned languages. Thus, information from a large portion of beneficiaries was not
captured or recorded but not accurate due to these language barriers.
3
(9) What or who is (ought to be) assumed to be the guarantor of success?
Is-mode: The Board of Directors, President, and key staff members agree that the organization’s
services are true to the mission statement. The amount of food that is distributed during the
year and its equivalent in the number of meals served is another guarantor of success. The
ability of Food Gatherers to receive continued funding so it can keep providing services is
considered a significant accomplishment in these tough financial times.
Ought-mode: More meaningful guarantors of success are the number of people in Washtenaw
County who were able to continue working, maintain their health, and pay for other essential
needs because they received free food from Food Gatherers. Data collection efforts should
uncover the number of beneficiaries who were especially in need of food (e.g. people who cannot
access food stamps due to their immigration status).
Sources of Legitimation
(10) Who argues (should argue) for stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves?
Is-mode: An organization’s true legitimacy rests upon the views of witnesses; that is people and
groups affected but not directly involved in the organization. Funders such as Washtenaw
United Way are pushing for local organizations to engage in multi-agency collaborations to
coordinate programs, fill service gaps, and develop issue-based expertise.
Ought-mode: Feeding America, the national food bank network, should initiate a policy that
requires all of their member food banks and their non-profit partners to standardize the
collection of data from beneficiaries. Support for this policy should also come from the Food
Bank Council of Michigan. Local efforts in Washtenaw County should be supported by national
and state level data collection improvements.
(11) Where does (should) legitimacy lie?
Is-mode: Legitimacy is currently from Food Gatherers-administered surveys to beneficiaries
such as the Hunger Study and Food Security Study. These studies show that Food Gatherers’
beneficiaries are often low-income families with children and seniors; many of whom rely on
Food Gatherers for an ongoing supply of free food to supplement their purchased food.
Ought-mode: Legitimacy should come from the results of surveys that are administered by an
impartial outside organization. The surveys should also be translated into the languages that
are commonly used by non-English speaking beneficiaries.
(12) What different visions of “improvement” are (should be) considered?
Is-mode: Food Gatherers plays a vital role in alleviating hunger and eliminating its root causes
in Washtenaw County. Improvement is currently defined as being able to bring in additional
funding/donations and volunteers to distribute larger amounts of food.
Ought-mode: Distribution of food should target those most in need and be more equitable by
engaging low-income people and community leaders who are not fluent in English.
4
Values, Theory, and Methodology
This analysis was guided by the social work value of embracing diversity. I strongly believe an
organization that serves the entire county should not place people at a disadvantage because
they are not part of the more privileged group that is fluent in English. Hiring bilingual staff,
utilizing bilingual volunteers, and translating surveys into other languages are not favors
provided to non-English speaking populations, but means for more equitable distribution of
services. The social and community development theory that flows from this value is the
concept of social inclusion and exclusion (i.e. marginalization). Food Gatherers can choose to be
more inclusive of non-English speaking populations by bridging language barriers and making
this practice an important part of the organization’s everyday operations.
Two methods, Interactive Planning and Viable System Model, may prove helpful in guiding
Food Gatherers as it plans and implements changes for improvement. Interactive Planning
begins with participants describing the organization as it currently operates, characteristics of
the organization that block its progress, projections of the organization’s future if no action is
taken, and the organization in its ideal form.5 Then improvements can be designed by
discovering ways to close the gap between the organization’s current state and its ideal form.
Funders are interested in knowing the demographics of Food Gatherers’ beneficiaries, and the
impact the organization has on beneficiaries’ level of food security. Data from non-English
speaking beneficiaries provide meaningful information that helps Food Gatherers and funders
gauge the organization’s success. In addition, inclusion of more community members helps to
ensure the organization’s survival by making it relevant to a greater number of people.
Viable System Model (VSM) draws an analogy between the human body and the components of
an organization. Improvements to communication both within the organization as well as
between the organization and the outside environment can be identified by comparing the
organization’s structures with those of the human body. VSM acknowledges that information
from beneficiaries is pared down by staff before it reaches decision-makers in a phenomenon
called attenuation. Attenuation results in entropy (disorder, redundancy, and waste from
decisions being made without vital pieces of information). One way an organization can
significantly offset attenuation is by gathering information from various sources, otherwise
known as variety amplification. This method does not suggest collecting ever larger amounts of
information from beneficiaries. Rather, it recommends that an organization focuses on
gathering vital pieces of information from as many beneficiaries as possible. VSM can be used
to improve organizational structures and communication pathways so they promote inclusion of
more community members.
Conclusion
A depressed national economy is causing food banks to scramble for funding. The food banks
that implement data collection efforts and can prove the effectiveness of their services will have
a strategic advantage when seeking funding. Data collection from beneficiaries, like a food
bank’s services, must be equitable to all those who reside in the community. Surveys of
beneficiaries should be translated into the languages most commonly used by community
members. Bilingual staff and volunteers are needed to pass vital information from non-English
speaking beneficiaries to the food bank’s decision-makers. When the process of communication
is smooth between beneficiaries and decision-makers, then well-informed choices and
improvements to services can be made. Bridging the language barriers that isolate a food bank
from its beneficiaries reduces marginalization of already vulnerable people and helps to ensure
the organization’s long-term survival.
5
Ackoff, R. L. (2001). A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design.
5