FOOD RELIEF GOES LOCAL - Closing the Hunger Gap

FOOD RELIEF GOES LOCALGARDENING, GLEANING, AND FARMING FOR FOOD BANKS IN THE U.S.Domenic Vitiello Jeane Ann Grisso Rebecca Fischman K. Leah WhitesideA report on research funded by the Penn Center for Public Health Initiatives

TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgments 2Executive Summary 3Introduction 5Methods 8Summary of Findings 10Case study: Gleaners Food Bank of Southeast Michigan, Detroit, MI 14Gleaning 15Case studies:Village Harvest, San Jose, CA 19Second Harvest Food Bank of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA 21Food Forward, Los Angeles, CA 23Portland Fruit Tree Project, OR 25Gardening 27Case studies:Food Gatherers Food Bank, Ann Arbor, MI 30Oregon Food Bank, Portland, OR 31Farming 33Case studies:Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CA 34Chester County Food Bank, PA 35Inter-Faith Food Shuttle, Raleigh, NC 37Capital Area Food Bank, Washington, DC 39Conclusion: Policy Implications and Opportunities 41Endnotes 44Appendix: Interview Questions for Case Studies 451

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis report summarizes research funded by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Public Health Initiatives(CPHI) pilot grant program. We owe a great thanks to the many people who supported us in this project:Our colleagues in the CPHI and the Penn Office of the Provost for the generous grant support of this project; andmore generally to Wendy Voet and our colleagues in the CPHI Food Access Working Group for their ongoingsupport of our work exploring the roles of urban agriculture in community food systems.Gillian Brainard, Bill Shick, and especially Steveanna Wynn at our partner organization in this research, SHAREFood Program of Philadelphia, who helped shape the questions, data collection, and policy relevance of thisresearch.Adina Lieberman, who worked with us as a research assistant along with Rebecca Fischman and Leah Whiteside.Sheila Christopher at Hunger Free Pennsylvania, who along with our colleagues at SHARE procured data thatenabled us to build our database of food banks and programs.The staff of food banks and other organizations who hosted our site visits and participated in interviews, the resultsof which are reported in case studies in the report: Larry Welsch, Phoebe Kitson-Davis, and Jack Muhs at theChester County Food Bank (PA); Craig Deserens at Village Harvest (CA); Diane Zapata at Second Harvest FoodBank of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (CA); Starlite Ossiginac and Jerry Creekpaum at Second Harvest ofOrange County (CA); Meg Glasser at Food Forward (CA); Michael McDonald, Ariana Riegel, and Anne Schenkat Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeast Michigan; Missy Orge and Eileen Spring at Food Gatherers (MI);Jill Staton Bullard, Kia Baker, Terri Hutter, Kathleen Andrew, and Neal Wisenbaker at Inter-Faith Food Shuttle(NC); Ali Abbors and Ginny Sorensen at the Oregon Food Bank; Katy Kolker at the Portland Fruit Tree Project(OR); Shamia Holloway and Jody Tick at the Capital Area Food Bank (DC); and also the many other food bankprofessionals who answered our email and phone inquiries.Professor David Aftandilian of Texas Christian University, who shared some of his research on food banks’gardening programs.Holly Beddome at the University of Manitoba, who shared her Masters study of fruit gleaning organizations.Food Gatherers, Ann Arbor, MI2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYMore than one in eight Americans relies on foodassistance distributed through food banks, includingover 14 million children. Food banks are nonprofitorganizations designated by state governments todistribute federal and state food aid to food cupboards(also known as pantries), soup kitchens, homelessshelters, and other emergency food organizations.Most food relief comes from federal and stateprograms that provide surplus commodities, mainlycanned and boxed foods, from industry to foodbanks. However, food banks have recently enlargedtheir distribution and promotion of fresh vegetablesand fruit. Many food banks are accomplishing thisthrough involvement in and connections to localagriculture, in a diverse range of gardening, farming,and field gleaning programs. Many food banks arealso playing expanded roles in building communityfood security, especially through programs thatsupport gardeners and farmers. As more Americansneed food assistance while, at the same time, stateand federal funding for food relief is shrinking,scaling up and replicating programs that distributeand support production and consumption of freshproduce offers a vital opportunity to transform foodrelief systems.This report summarizes the results of researchexamining food banks’ engagement in and with localagriculture. The report documents how food banksgrow, support production, and acquire fresh fruit andvegetables directly from local farms and gardens incities and regions across the United States. We includeinformation about the different ways that food banksdo this as well as estimates of how much fresh, localproduce they distribute to hungry people. The reportconsists of: a brief introduction; a description of ourmethods; basic summary analysis of our findings;sections on gleaning, gardening, and farmingprograms, with case studies of best practices at elevenfood banks and partner organizations; followed by abrief discussion of some policy implications of theirwork.The main ways food banks attain food from localagriculture are:• Gleaning: volunteers, nonprofit staff, or farmworkers harvest vegetables and fruit that farmers orgardeners do not want, in the field, backyards andparks, or from farmers markets, and they distribute itto food banks, cupboards, or other recipients.• Grow-a-row: gardeners or farmers plant rows,plots, or fields of vegetables for donation to foodbanks, cupboards, and other organizations.3Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CA

Key findings from our national scan and case studiesof food banks and allied programs in cities andmetropolitan areas include:Village Harvest, CA• Garden support programs: food bankssupport community, school, and home gardeners,in poor and middle class communities, providingeducation, materials such as raised bed starter kits,and outlets for donated produce.• Food banks’ own farms and gardens: staff andvolunteers tend and harvest these sites, some of whichinclude new farmer training programs.• Contracts with farms: some food bankscontract with farmers for single crops or to supplya mix of food for weekly distribution to low-incomehouseholds.Some food banks also process, preserve, and preparefood produced and procured through the meanslisted above in their kitchens. Often these activitiesare carried out in concert with cooking education andfood worker training programs.• Gleaning, gardening, and farming for foodrelief are expanding.• These activities enable food banks and relatedorganizations to diversify the mix of food theydistribute, increasing the volume and share of freshfruits and vegetables, and promote healthier dietsamong those least able to afford it.• Currently, locally grown food that isdistributed by food banks makes up a very smallproportion of the total food distributed, usuallyaround one percent (1%).• However, some food banks have expandedtheir programs to include a large proportion of locallygrown food. For example, we found 17 food banksthat produced and sourced over five percent (5%) oftheir total food directly from local agriculture. At 13of those food banks the proportion was above 10%,and at 4 food banks it reached 40% or higher.• The greatest quantities of fresh producesourced directly from farmers to food banks areharvested through large-scale gleaning programsthat distribute millions of pounds, usually from bigcommercial growers.• Gardening and farming programs account forlower volumes of food (and often do not documenttheir yields), but they play vital roles in buildingcommunity capacity for healthy food production,distribution, and consumption, and in some casespromoting food justice. These activities have led tofood banks assuming new and diverse roles in manycommunity food systems.• Efforts are just underway to replicate andscale up these efforts, and to document their impacts.Food banks are often unaware of others’ programs,which slows the pace of dissemination and expansion.• Like other parts of the food relief sector, theseprograms are largely dependent upon grant fundingand volunteers, though they adopt varied businessmodels.• For local, state, and federal food relief policy,these programs offer examples of how food reliefproduction, procurement, and distribution systemscan be transformed to provide more healthful, freshfood and to promote community capacity to combatfood insecurity.4

INTRODUCTIONThe experience of SHARE Food Program (Self Helpand Resource Exchange), our partner in this research,is representative of an important trend in food relief.Since 1991, SHARE has distributed federal and statefood relief to over 500 emergency food cupboards inthe city of Philadelphia, the poorest big city in theU.S. today. Most of this food is commodity surplus,cans and boxes, often highly processed. But over theyears, SHARE’s director Steveanna Wynn and herstaff have complemented this with a growing streamof fresh, local food, especially in recent years withincreased public concern over nutrition and healthand more funding for food programs. The large-scaleinfusion of fresh produce has come about through avariety of creative ways of gardening, farming, andsourcing of fruits and vegetables, but also throughsignificant shifts in SHARE’s role in the local andregional food system.Like other distributors of food relief, SHARE haspursued diverse strategies to link hungry peoplewith fresh local produce. In 2001, SHARE partneredwith The Food Trust to initiate a Fresh Food Packageof locally grown fruits and vegetables from nearbyLancaster County, which SHARE distributesmonthly as part of its signature buying club program,which it has operated in Philadelphia since 1986.SHARE now partners with Chester County FoodBank to purchase more from farmers in the region.Since 2006, the Society of St. Andrew, which runsgleaning networks in 22 states, has delivered tractortrailerloads of potatoes from Mid-Atlantic farms toSHARE, twice each year. In 2006, SHARE helped thePennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) establishthe City Harvest program, in which communitygardeners grow and deliver food to over thirtycupboards. In 2009, SHARE planted its first of twoorchards with the Philadelphia Orchard Project, on aplot of land across the parking lot from its warehouse.In 2010, SHARE expanded fresh package distributionthrough a weekly “low-income CSA.” Also that year,it hired a full-time farmer, erected a 60-foot-longhoop house next to the orchard with the Penn StateAgricultural Extension, and formally established theNice Roots Farm. In 2011, SHARE opened a gardencenter with PHS to distribute seedlings, compost, andother supplies, and SHARE’s farmer began helpingcupboards start their own gardens. By 2012, thesevarious programs were producing, procuring, anddelivering over 235,000 pounds of fresh, locally grownfruits and vegetables to low-income Philadelphians.Far more than a food distributor, SHARE has become aproducer in its own right, a food hub aggregating localfood, an urban agriculture support organization, anda community food center. On days when cupboardSHARE Food Program, Philadelphia, PA5

Practitioners of food relief have diverse yetcomplementary motives for connecting to localagriculture. For most food banks, growing or sourcingmore fresh fruits and vegetables is a logical outgrowthof their commitment to promote healthy eating andlifestyles. In a related vein, some food banks seek topreserve and promote local agricultural heritage andto support new generations of gardeners and farmers.Some food banks also explicitly promote food justice,particularly in gardening and farming programs. Ona more basic level, food banks across the United Statesare driven by the rise in poverty and demand for theirassistance since the mid-2000s, which has inspiredfood relief organizations to seek new sources of food.SHARE Food Program, Philadelphia, PAoperators pick up canned and boxed food from thewarehouse, they buy produce at cut-rate prices fromthe farm, where the farmer and volunteers also offerdemonstrations, tastings, and tips for growing andpreparing fresh vegetables. SHARE has plans to covermuch of its 4-acre warehouse roof with greenhousesand raised beds, and already keeps honeybees there.The story of SHARE’s efforts to procure, produce,distribute, and support others in growing freshvegetables and fruits is repeated at many food relieforganizations across the United States. Increasingly,food banks, cupboards, and other emergencyfeeding organizations are seeking a broader andmore nutritious mix of food to distribute to poorpeople. Growing and getting local vegetables andfruit helps food banks put more good food into foodrelief, providing a vital complement to federal andstate commodity surplus programs, which have longbeen dominated by shelf stable canned and boxedgoods, many with artificial preservatives, sweeteners,and other ingredients condemned by today’s publichealth and good food advocates. Equally significant,through their gardening and farming programs,many food banks have adopted new roles inpromoting community food security. This constitutesa marked departure from food banks’ traditional rolein distributing commodity surplus and charitabledonations.Yet most food banks and allied food relief organizationsare acting in relative isolation – collaborating at thelocal level, but often unaware of related efforts inother states and regions. This was one inspirationfor our research, which grows more specifically outof our collaboration with SHARE in its recent urbanagriculture programs and strategic planning, throughwhich we became curious about the patterns andtrends among food relief organizations nationally. Inparticular, we wanted to know just how widespreadthese activities are as well as how, and how much,they are impacting food relief.This study aimed to document the scope, scale,and best practices in food banks’ involvement inlocal agriculture in cities and regions of the UnitedStates – a sort of “state of the nation.” We asked twoprincipal questions: In what ways are food banks andother agencies that distribute federal food relief at thecounty or larger level directly sourcing, producing,or supporting others in growing fresh vegetables andfruits locally? How much food are these differentprograms, which include a variety of gleaning,gardening, and farming activities, contributing to thestream of food distributed by food banks? Althoughlocal and national media have profiled some of theseprograms, there has been almost no study of the largerpatterns and trends among these programs nationally.In addition to characterizing the patterns and trends,our findings provide a baseline picture of the scopeof current practices with which practitioners,researchers, and policy makers can assess futurechanges over time.6

gardening and urban farming sector as well asolder suburban farms, offers diverse and expandingopportunities to source food in areas of the regionalfood system that may not yet be tapped or turfed out.Food Gatherers, Ann Arbor, MIHealthy, fresh, and local foods are increasinglyavailable with the growth of urban and suburbangardening, farming, and markets that link consumersdirectly with farmers. Expanded philanthropicsupport of these activities has shaped these trends,partly by encouraging nonprofit gardening, farming,and direct marketing programs to link with foodrelief organizations. Programs’ diverse goals andactivities produce different priorities as well asvaried definitions of “healthy” and “local.” Theseare both relative terms, but in this study they referto fresh fruits and vegetables grown within thesame city, metropolitan region, or state as the foodbank distributing them (and in one case in adjacentMexico).For most food banks, the food produced or procuredthrough gardening, gleaning, and farming programsis part of broader strategies to distribute and promotehealthy food. Some food banks have adopted healthyfood guidelines that place restrictions on what theydistribute. Many have expanded education anddistribution programs encouraging healthy eatingand living. Significantly, the largest part of foodbanks’ fresh produce procurement still happens atports and large wholesale and retail markets. Yetlocal agriculture, including the growing communityGenerally, our research finds that gleaning,gardening, and farming achieve different goalsand results for food banks and their constituents.Gleaning yields by far the greatest volume of foodamong these programs, especially when it is tied tolarge-scale farming. Gardening provides more thanjust fresh produce; it also helps develop communitycapacity for food production and promotes healthiereating and activities that contribute to household andcommunity food security and health. Food banks’farming programs are fewer and typically younger,representing a more experimental set of efforts toaddress an even wider range of food system andallied community economic development challenges,including food production and distribution butextending also to workforce training, small businessincubation, and youth leadership. As many foodbanks have become gardening and farming supportorganizations, they have transformed their role in thelocal food system most substantially, expanding fromsourcing, warehousing, distribution, and education,into significant roles in production, grower support,workforce training, small business incubation, youthleadership, and food processing, as well.In this report, we present a summary analysis ofpatterns and trends as well as case studies detailingthe organizational and distribution chain modelsemployed by some of the larger and longer-establishedprograms that produce and/or distribute fresh localfood. Discussion is organized mainly in three broadcategories – gleaning, gardening, and farming – each ofwhich includes diverse institutional and distributionpatterns. We also report the amount of fresh producethese programs distribute, and discuss related – butoften uncounted – ways that food banks support localagriculture and vice versa. Finally, we reflect uponsome of the policy implications of food banks’ recentprogram development in local agriculture as well aspotential directions for future research.7

METHODSOur research consisted of two parts: 1) a nationalscan of gleaning, gardening, and farming programsrun by, or that donate food directly to, food banks;and 2) site visits, interviews, and participation ingardening, farming, and gleaning activities.The national scan consisted of three stages. First,we reviewed information on food banks listed asmember organizations of Feeding America, the tradeassociation of most of the larger food banks in theUnited States. The Feeding America directory notesif food banks run farm or garden programs , thetotal pounds of food distributed by each memberfood bank, and the number of people served,among other information. We then examined theweb sites of food banks that listed such programs tolearn more. In addition, we screened the websites ofremaining Feeding America food banks to identifyany food banks that reported gardening, gleaning,or farming programs that had not been captured inthe directory.Our second phase involved working with ourpartner organization, SHARE, and Hunger FreePennsylvania to identify additional food banks andother lead agencies distributing federal and stateemergency food relief in counties that were notaffiliated with Feeding America.The third phase consisted of a snowball sample,developed as follows. Each time we contactedindividuals at food banks and colleagues in urbanagriculture, we also inquired about additional foodbanks that we had not yet identified. Where it wasunclear from internet research if a program existedor whether it was run by the food bank or a partnerorganization (in a small number of cases), and whenthe total pounds harvested from the program(s) in2011 were not reported on the web site (in manycases), we emailed and then phoned the food bankseeking answers to these questions.In each case, we reviewed the websites of potentiallyeligible food banks to collect standardized informationon each food bank that included: 1) brief descriptionsof the methods used to produce or procure freshproduce (e.g., gleaning, farms, gardens) and 2)numbers of pounds of fresh produce the programsdistributed in the last year , and what proportion thatrepresented of the total food distributed by the foodbank. If this information was unclear or not available,we contacted the food bank via email and phone toclarify. These data represented the basis of our analysisof national patterns of production and distribution.Our scan’s methods have several strengths andweaknesses. Food banks count pounds of food asa routine part of their operations, since they arereimbursed for (and often charge food cupboardsfor) each pound of food they distribute. So weGleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan, Detroit, MI8

could be reasonably confident that they were at leasttrying to count the food in their gleaning, farming,and gardening programs; though this is especiallychallenging among gardening programs where foodbanks do more than run their own gardens at theirwarehouses. Internet research of course misses whatfood banks and other organizations do not include ontheir web sites. However, the information includedon food banks’ web sites has become relativelystandardized in compliance with federal food reliefprograms, and by Feeding America among itsmembers. And since food banks exist principally toreceive donated food and distribute it to people inneed, their web sites tend to make clear the varietyof ways that people can donate, volunteer, andparticipate in other ways in gardening, gleaning, andfarming programs.Our sample of programs represents a particular partof the larger food relief sector’s involvement andlinks to local agriculture. We only capture programsoperated by food banks and programs that donatefood directly from farms (or farmers), gardens, andorchards to food banks. We thus exclude food thatfirst passes through wholesalers or retailers, but weinclude food donated to food banks from farmersmarkets where growers sell their own produce. Weinclude programs that collaborate directly withfood banks in donating to their member agencies,mostly cupboards. But we do not include the vastnumber of smaller gardening and farming programsacross the United States that donate directly to foodcupboards, soup kitchens, and other emergencyfeeding organizations independently of food banks.Furthermore, we do not capture the great quantitiesof food that community and home gardeners donateto cupboards and other feeding programs outsidethe context of any formal program (though we studythis in other research on community gardeners’ andurban farmers’ food production and distribution inU.S. cities). These latter streams of food from farmsand gardens to food relief organizations are leastlikely to be formally and accurately quantified.Our sample allows us to analyze not only thedistribution streams most likely to be counted reliably.But, also, due to food banks’ position in the “foodrelief chain” as county-level or regional distributors,our sample enables us to examine activities thathave been integrated into food relief in typically9Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan, Detroit, MImore systematic ways and at a larger scale thanneighborhood-based cupboards or soup kitchens.Understanding this activity systematically and at scaleis especially important for drawing policy-relevantlessons from this research.Our site visits and interviews examined the operationsof a cross-section of programs. In selecting sites tovisit, we sought a diverse range of gardening, gleaning,and farming programs in different regions of theU.S., with different climates and agricultural bases.We visited mainly older and larger programs, butalso some younger and smaller ones. The questionswe asked examined each program’s history and howit operates, including details of the production anddistribution chain. The full list of questions is includedas an appendix to this report. On our site visits, wealso enjoyed the great pleasures of participating inharvesting food banks’ gardens, gleaning backyardfruit trees and commercial farms, and touring foodbanks’ and allied programs’ gardens, farms, orchards,warehouses, kitchens, and related sites. This allenabled us to profile a range of gleaning, gardening,and farming programs in detailed case studies thatilluminate best practices in linking local agricultureand food relief.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGSOur findings from the study of one hundred fifteen(115) food banks and allied organizations in the U.S.suggest that the main ways food banks obtain fruitsand vegetables from local agriculture are, in order oftheir frequency in our sample:• Gleaning: volunteers, nonprofit staff, or farmworkers harvest vegetables and fruit that farmers orgardeners do not want, in the field, neighborhoods,or after farmers markets, and they distribute it tofood banks, cupboards, or other recipients.• Grow-a-row: gardeners or farmers plantrows, plots, or fields of vegetables for donation tofood banks, cupboards, and other organizations.• Garden support programs: food bankssupport community, school, and backyard gardens,in poor and middle class communities, providingeducation, materials such as raised bed starter kits,and outlets for donated produce.• Food banks’ own farms and gardens: staffand volunteers tend and harvest these sites, some ofwhich include new farmer training programs.• Contracts with farms: some food bankscontract with farmers for single crops or to supplya mix of food for weekly distribution to low-incomehouseholds.Of the 115 organizations or programs for which wecollected information, 90 are food banks, 9 are stateassociations of food banks or statewide gleaningnetworks, and the remaining 16 are nonprofit gleaningorganizations, five of which also run garden programsand one of which operates a farm. Many food banksoperate or partner with multiple programs. The 90food banks in our study run 48 gleaning programs, 61gardening programs, and 21 farm-related programs.Together, the 115 organizations in our study accountfor 73 gleaning programs, 65 gardening programs,and 21 programs operating or partnering with farms.Within each category – gleaning, gardening, andfarming – programs operate in a variety of ways,engaging different sectors of agriculture and runningon distinct business models, with correspondinglydiverse food production and distribution patterns.Among gleaning programs, the statewide initiativesand many individual food banks partner withcommercial growers whose employees harvest,package, and truck what they would otherwise notpick. Other gleaning programs organize volunteersto harvest, especially fruit from commercialorchards and backyards – often these are smallnonprofits that deliver the harvest to food banksTop 10 Food Banks -- Total Fresh Produce Harvested (lbs.)Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara & San Mateo Counties** 22,000,000St. Mary's Food Bank Aliance 7,350,339East Texas Food Bank 5,520,000Mid-Ohio Food Bank 4,014,000Blue Ridge Area Food Bank 3,860,000Food Bank for New York City 3,705,116Second Harvest of Orange County** 3,176,163Inter-Faith Food Shuttle 3,000,000San Antonio Food Bank 2,514,934Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona 2,467,845Table 1* This and all other tables in the document report annual harvest figures for 2011.** This figure overlaps with those from the Farm to Family program and Ag Against Hunger, as the food bank sources most of its gleanedproduce from these two programs.***This figure includes both gleaning and wholesale produce totals, between which the food bank does not distinguish in itsrecord-keeping.10

Top 10 Organizations Donating Produceto Food Banks (lbs. harvested)New Jersey Farmers Against Hunger 430,000Village Harvest 203,000Community Harvest Project 170,000Faith Feeds 96,000Salem Harvest 92,209Portland Fruit Tree Project 70,500Harvest Sacramento 40,000Backyard Harvest 36,800The Harvest Club of Orange County 24,561Table 2State Associations of Food Banks and Multi-StatePrograms (lbs. harvested)California Association of Food Banks 127,000,000Society of St. Andrew 26,900,000Ohio Association of Food Banks 26,000,000Association of Arizona Food Banks 18,563,139Texas Food Bank Network 13,000,000Ag Against Hunger 8,400,000Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance 1,200,000Feeding Colorado 1,000,000Kentucky Association of Food Banks 984,865Table 3and affiliated cupboards. Gleaning by commercialgrowers predictably yields larger volumes of fruit andvegetables for food banks in most cases, though somenonprofit and volunteer-run programs harvest anddistribute millions of pounds annually, too. Some ofthe smaller nonprofits also seek to build communityfood networks, tying gleaning to food production,preservation, preparation, education, and communityorganizing.Gardening and orchard programs boost production ofvegetables and fruit and distribute it in more diverseways than gleaning programs, which usually provideproduce to the food banks rather than distributingit directly to individuals. Gardening and orchardprograms also engage a diverse range of gardeners toachieve varied aims. Many food banks run their owngardens next to their warehouses or on other sites,often for demonstration as well as food production.Many food banks and partner organizations rungrow-a-row programs in which community andbackyard gardeners donate to the food bank oraffiliated feeding organizations. Increasingly, foodbanks are also adopting the roles of community, home,and school garden support organizations, providingmaterials, technical assistance, and sometimes land.Growers range from people who seek food relief tomore affluent gardeners; and this and other researchwe have done has shown that poor and middle classgardeners alike donate much of what they grow. Mostof the harvest from gardens not operated by foodbanks or other nonprofits goes uncounted, whichis perhaps the greatest limitation of the quantitativeside of this study. Findings from our interviews withprogram operators, however, suggest that gardeningprograms contribute significantly to building foodrelief organizations’ volunteer and donor bases, andto increasing communities’ capacity to get freshproduce into food relief and, through home andcommunity gardening, even more directly to foodinsecure households.Farming programs vary more than gleaning andgardening programs, and they account for the smallestnumber of programs in our sample, which limits ourability to establish patterns. Among twenty-one (21)food banks with farming programs, fourteen (14) runtheir own farms and nine (9) contract or partner withother farms (including three [3] of those with theirown farms). Food banks’ farm programs and their11

Local Fresh Produce as Percentage of Total Food Bank DistributionBlue Ridge Area Food Bank 52%Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara & San Mateo Counties 49%Inter-Faith Food Shuttle 41%Food Gatherers Food Bank 40%Cleveland Food Bank, Inc.*** 26%Island Harvest 22%Chester County Food Bank 22%East Texas Food Bank 14%Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County 13%The Food Bank for Westchester 13%Mid-Ohio Food Bank 12%St. Mary's Food Bank Alliance 12%Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona 10%Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan*** 7.6%Arkansas Foodbank 6.0%San Antonio Food Bank 5.7%Food Bank for New York City 5.5%Table 4***This figure includes both gleaning and wholesale produce totals, between which the food bank does not distinguish in its record-keeping.growers range from youth leadership development tonew farmer training, though most employ a full-timefarmer and draw volunteers from food banks’ regularstream of volunteers – for whom the farms offervolunteer opportunities far different from packingboxes in the warehouse. Food banks contract typicallywith small farmers to supply single or multiple crops,sometimes on land owned by the food bank, andin some cases for CSA-style distribution. In someinstances, food banks partner with local governmentsto access and preserve farmland producing for theseprograms.Together, the 115 organizations we studieddocumented distribution of over 274 millionpounds of fruits and vegetables in 2011. Gleaningaccounted for some 266 million pounds, fully 96.9%of the total fresh local food. The gardening programscounted close to 1.4 million pounds, and the farmingprograms more than 3.5 million pounds, though thegardening programs supported far more productionand distribution than they recorded (without furtherresearch, it is difficult to estimate how much more).As noted above, it is important to bear in mind thatthe gardening and farming programs typically havebroader goals, outcomes, and impacts than just theprovision of fruits and vegetables to food banks orother feeding organizations.At most food banks operating or connected togardens, farms and gleaning, this produce accountedfor approximately one (1) percent of the total foodthey distributed. However, seventeen (17) food banksobtained more than five (5) percent of their total food,and thirteen (13) of those got more than ten (10)percent, from local gleaning, gardening, or farming,including food banks in Cleveland, Detroit, NewYork City and Long Island, and San Jose and OrangeCounty, California. Five (5) food banks produced oracquired more than twenty-five (25) percent of all thefood they distributed; and three (3) of those, mainlyin suburban areas, reported that half of their foodcame from local agriculture.Many of the top producers and distributors of freshlocal food among food banks get that food fromdiverse sources, while gleaning programs account forthe rest of the top distributors in tables 1, 2, and 3,which list the largest distributors of fresh local foodin our sample. Gleaners Food Bank of Southeast12

Top 10 Food Banks -- Fresh Produce per Person (lbs.)Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara & San Mateo Counties 52.78Food Gatherers Food Bank 44.04Cleveland Food Bank, Inc.*** 38.44East Texas Food Bank 30.16Blue Ridge Area Food Bank 26.51Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan 24.25Mid-Ohio Food Bank 16.15Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County 14.31Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona 10.97San Antonio Food Bank 10.89Table 5***This figure includes both gleaning and wholesale produce totals, between which the food bank does not distinguish in its record-keeping.Michigan, for example, which is profiled in the firstcase study below, reflects both of these patterns. In2011, it supported production and distribution ofmore than 2.4 million pounds of vegetables andfruit from affiliated gardens, farms, and producedistribution centers, some 7.6 percent of all thefood distributed by the food bank. This translatedinto more than 24 pounds to each of over 100,000people in Detroit. Over 96 percent of the fruit andvegetables that were counted came from gleaning.Some of the gardens and farms connected with thefood bank grew more that was not counted, anothercommon pattern noted above.In summary, several key patterns and trends emergefrom our inquiry into the types of programs andthe amount of food they distribute. Food banksand their partners are expanding their links withlocal agriculture through gleaning, gardening, andfarming. At most food banks, this accounts for a verysmall proportion of the total food they distribute;but some attain a large proportion of the foodthey distribute through these means. Large-scalegleaning programs account for the great majorityof the fresh, local fruits and vegetables distributedthrough food banks, and have enabled some todistribute large amounts of produce. Gardeningand farming account for a more diverse range ofactivities that address a wider variety of problemsand opportunities that are vital to food and foodsecurity, namely household and communitycapacity for the production and consumptionof good food, including the preservation oflocal agricultural heritage and training of newgenerations of gardeners and farmers.The next several pages as well as the three sectionsthat follow – on gleaning, gardening, and farmingprograms – consist principally of 1) tablesillustrating some of the quantitative results ofour research, mainly in the form of “top 10” listsdocumenting the larger scale operations; and2) case studies that detail the operations of some ofthe larger, more established programs representingbest practices of diverse sorts from across theUnited States.13

CASE STUDYGleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern MichiganGleaners Community Food Bank of SoutheasternMichigan incorporates fresh produce into itsdistribution as part of its mission of providingnutritious food to the hungry. Michael McDonald,Agency Relations Coordinator, recognizes thatbuying local produce helps farmers, helps the foodbank, and is better for their hungry clients. Out of atotal 90 staff members, about 30 are involved in freshproduce distribution.Gleaners runs several fresh produce programs: theFresh Food Program, their DTE Energy Gardens,a gleaning program, Cooking Matters classes, andvarious pantry programs. The agency also donated ¾of an acre of food bank land to Earthworks to operatea farm that grows 14,000 pounds of fresh foodannually. Around 90% of the harvest goes directly tothe Capuchin Soup Kitchen.A collaboration between Gleaners and the Fair FoodNetwork, Greening of Detroit, and Eastern Market,the Fresh Food Program, a Community SupportedAgriculture (CSA) weekly food box program thatpurchases mainly from Michigan farmers, grewout of a noticeable dearth of supermarkets andthe high price of produce in the city. Initially, theprogram targeted a single area of Detroit, but hassince expanded operations to distribute over 12,000pounds annually to over 20 sites citywide, includingchurches, schools, and health centers. Partneragencies coordinate orders for fresh produce boxes,which are delivered to agencies once a month. Large(30 lbs. for $24) and small boxes (20 lbs. for $14) anda fruit box (10 lbs. for $14) are available, and eachsite must have a minimum of 10 orders to qualifyfor delivery. Produce is 75-100% Michigan-grown,depending on the season.Gleaners accepts food stamps and offers “doubleupfood bucks” for Michigan-grown produce. Somefarmers set aside produce or plan for the programwhen planting. Customers range from nurses anddoctors to call center employees, and there is a waitinglist of sites. However, the three-year grant funding theprogram ended in January 2012 and Gleaners does nothave the resources to expand the program.Four years ago, DTE Energy approached Gleaners withthe idea of starting donation gardens on DTE Energysites. Gleaners funds a staff position for managingall of the garden sites. All harvested produce goes tothe Gleaners warehouse or is directly distributed tomember agencies that are located close to a gardensite. The program has low overhead and is consideredto be a great success so far.Gleaners also participates in Cooking Matters, a statefunded,6-week program that teaches participantshow to cook and use raw vegetables. Chefs hired bythe food bank host the classes at member agency sites.A mobile pantry program operates out of schools,churches, and community centers and distributes dryboxes of food and fresh produce to clients. Schooldistributions are free and directed toward familiesenrolled in the reduced lunch program.Distributing produce quickly and finding methodsof distribution that will prolong produce life are twomajor challenges for Gleaners. Moreover, memberagencies are hesitant to accept the less familiar fruitsand vegetables, and the food bank is sometimes facedwith trying to convince these agencies to acceptdonations. Gleaners staff members expressed optimismthat the national trend of interest in local produce andfresh food will spur growth of the food bank’s freshproduce programs. Detroit is an important center ofurban agriculture, and Michigan has a rich and diverseagricultural base. However, fresh produce distributionprograms’ reliance on grant support raises concernsabout the long-term financial sustainability of suchprograms at Gleaners and other food banks.14

GLEANINGThe overwhelming majority of fresh fruits andvegetables sourced directly from local farmers tofood banks comes from gleaning and is highlyconcentrated in several large programs. Six state andmulti-state programs linked to commercial growersaccount for four-fifths (80%) of all the produce wetallied at 116 programs:• California Association of Food Banks’ Farmto Family program, which accounts for 46% of all theproduce we counted (127 million out of 274 millionpounds). The program pays large commercialgrowers at cost to keep their workers in the fieldsand warehouses longer, picking and packing fruitsand vegetables that they otherwise would not harvestand sell. The growers truck this food directly to foodbanks around the state. The program has producedreports intended for use by others interested inreplicating such work.• Similar programs at the state associationsof food banks in Arizona, Ohio, and Texas. Someof these associations are working with FeedingAmerica, the trade organization of large food banksin the U.S., to promote replication in other states.• The independent nonprofit Ag AgainstHunger, started by the Second Harvest Food Bankof Santa Cruz and the Santa Cruz Farm Bureauin California, distributes fresh produce to foodassistance programs on the West Coast. Like theprograms above, it works with commercial growersand shippers. Ag Against Hunger also organizesvolunteers to glean commercial fields.• The Society of St. Andrew, the oldest ofthese large gleaning organizations, operates a largenetwork of regionally based gleaning across theSouth, especially in the Southeast, but also in theMid-Atlantic and Midwest. In 2012, it marshaledclose to 38 million volunteers, many from churches,to harvest participating farmers’ fields and packproduce for shipment to food banks and otherfeeding organizations. The Society of St. Andrew’sPotato and Produce Project distributes throughoutthe continental U.S.Other statewide produce gleaning programs exist inArkansas, Colorado, and Kentucky, and others arepresently in the planning stages. Statewide and localnetworks of hunters, such as Hunters for the Hungry,also supply food banks and allied organizations withmeat harvested locally, typically venison (thoughwe did not include meat in our summary analysis).The Venison Donation Coalition of New York, forexample, has provided over 337 tons of meat to foodrelief in the state since 1999.Some individual food banks also operate their own15Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CA

This pattern is shared with other food banks in othermostly-wealthy suburban counties, where, comparedto big cities, food banks and allied organizationssupply a larger share of fresh produce to the smallerproportion of area residents in need (see also theChester County Food Bank profiled in the farmingsection below).Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CAlarge gleaning programs tied to big commercialagriculture, accounting for a substantial proportionof the total food they distribute. For example, theEast Texas Food Bank and the San Antonio FoodBank each glean from area growers, the latter attheir packinghouses. Some food banks in Texas havealso received large donations from their local beefindustry.Some smaller food banks in rural regions and in thesuburbs of major metropolitan areas acquire a largerproportion of their total food from local farmers andproduce brokers:• Outside New York City, the Food Bank forWestchester gleaned some 773,000 pounds of fruitsand vegetables, amounting to 12% of all the food itdistributed.• Island Harvest on Long Island acquired some1.8 million pounds from local farmers, which madeup 22% of its total food distribution.• The Vermont Food Bank harvested 238,380pounds of mainly fruits from orchards and organizesa state-wide gleaning program that accounts for 3.6%of all food distributed.At many food banks, gleaning is one among severalcomplementary strategies to source fresh produce;and gleaning itself takes multiple forms that constitutedistinct streams of food – most commonly, harvestedand packed by farmworkers or volunteers, or acquiredat the close of farmers markets. For example, theGreater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank gleaned117,670 pounds of vegetables and fruits directly fromfarms; and it pairs affiliated cupboards and othermember organizations with farmers markets wherefarmers donate what they do not sell (these donationsare often unmeasured). The St. Mary’s Food BankAlliance in Flagstaff receives gleaned produce fromthe Association of Arizona Food Banks; and it alsoruns its own Citrus Gleaners program in whichtree owners register and pay a small fee to the foodbank for gleaning, mainly in home gardens. A localcommercial grower, Sun Orchards, processes thiscitrus, about 800,000 pounds, into juice. The FoodBank of Santa Barbara, California, receives millionsof pounds from the Farm to Family and Ag AgainstHunger programs, in addition to organizing harvestevents with volunteers in its Backyard Bountyprogram, which yielded over 140,000 pounds. Thefood bank distributes some of this food throughmobile farmers markets as well as cupboards andschools.Most gleaning programs are supported byphilanthropy, which covers some of their costs,though when programs pay growers for harvesting,packing, and shipping, most food banks pass onthat cost (commonly 30 to 40 cents per pound) tocupboards and other member agencies distributing topoor people. Some food banks and other distributorsof food relief do not pass on that cost, distributinggleaned (and first pick) produce they purchase fromfarmers to cupboards and other constituents free ofcharge.Finally, smaller nonprofit gleaning organizations in16

some cities and regions distribute mainly fruit to foodbanks and their affiliates. They typically organizevolunteers to harvest from home-based gardens andsometimes from commercial orchards. They gleanfrom an overlapping but often-distinct set of growersfrom the bigger programs, including those at mostfood banks. Their yields are usually small, but in atleast two cases amount to hundreds of thousands ofpounds. Three of these groups, Village Harvest in SanJose (over 200,000 pounds), Food Forward in LosAngeles (about 350,000 pounds), and the PortlandFruit Tree Project (40,000 pounds in 2011, over67,000 in 2012), are profiled in case studies below.Despite their similarities, these nonprofits’organizational models differ. Village Harvest isentirely volunteer-run, organizing other volunteersand connecting with homeowners in the South Bay,many of whose homes were built on tracts that wereonce commercial citrus groves. Food Forward has afull-time staff of six people who organize school andcorporate retreats and other events for a fee. Bothorganizations glean from backyard growers and smallcommercial orchards. The Portland Fruit Tree Projecthas grown to three staff – one is an AmeriCorpsvolunteer – and supports backyard fruit growers andcommunity orchards in addition to gleaning and fruitpreservation events. Similar programs gleaning back(and front) yard fruit trees and small commercialorchards exist in other cities and metropolitan regionsof the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.Some programs that glean for food banks (organizingvolunteers like Village Harvest and the Portland FruitTree Project) have been established through urbanagriculture support organizations that are connectedto community gardens and small urban and suburbanfarms. Although they do not yield large volumes ofproduce compared to the total amounts of food thatfood banks distribute, they often address other foodsystem challenges beyond gleaning for food relief.These programs include the New Orleans Fruit TreeProject (10,000 pounds of mainly citrus in 2012),founded and run by an AmeriCorps volunteer at theHollygrove Market and Farm. Harvest Sacramento(40,000 pounds in 2011, 53,000 in 2012) is one ofmany production, distribution, and market programsat Soil Born Farms Urban Agriculture and EducationProject. Many smaller gleaning programs contributeSecond Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, CAto cupboards, youth programs, or other communitybasedsettings, rather than passing it through thefood bank’s warehouse where it is more likely to beweighed and tallied. Urban agriculture organizationsoften focus more on supporting food production,markets, and other formal and informal communitybaseddistribution of fruits and vegetables that tackleother problems of community food security includingbut well beyond how much produce moves throughfood relief organizations. Many of these initiatives –those tied to food banks – are profiled in the followingsections on gardening and farming.17

Top 10 Food Banks -- Gleaning (lbs. harvested)Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara & San Mateo Counties* 22,000,000St. Mary's Food Bank Alliance** 7,350,339East Texas Food Bank*** 5,500,000Mid-Ohio Food Bank 4,000,000Blue Ridge Area Food Bank 3,800,000Food Bank for New York City 3,700,000Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County* 2,796,096San Antonio Food Bank 2-3,000,000Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona** 2,452,150Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan 2,372,293Table 6* This figure overlaps with those from the Farm to Family program and Ag Against Hunger, asthe food bank sources most of its gleaned produce from these two programs.**This figure overlaps with those from the Association of Arizona Food Banks, as the foodbank sources most of its gleaned produce from the Arizona Gleaning Project.*** This figure overlaps with those from the Texas Food Bank Network, which contributes asignificant portion of the food bank’s produce through the Texans Feeding Texans program.Top State Associations of Food Banks and Multi-StatePrograms -- Gleaning (lbs. harvested)California Association of Food Banks 127,000,000Society of St. Andrew's 26,900,000Ohio Association of Food Banks 26,000,000Association of Arizona Food Banks 18,563,139Texas Food Bank Network 13,000,000Ag Against Hunger 8,400,000Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance 1,200,000Feeding Colorado 1,000,000Kentucky Association of Food Banks 984,865Table 718

CASE STUDYVillage HarvestJoni Ohta Diserens founded Village Harvest in 2001with the mission of providing food for the hungrywhile promoting sustainable use of urban resources,particularly the fruit trees from earlier orchardsthat still stand amidst residential subdivisionsin California’s Santa Clara Valley. Starting as aninformal project linking the Master Gardeners, 4HClub, and the Valley of Heart’s Delight project ofthe Foundation for Global Community in Palo Alto,Village Harvest has evolved into an organizationthat manages regular harvest teams from San Joseand neighboring communities. Volunteers, using acombination of hand picking, pickers, ladders, and ahomemade chute, pick neighborhood fruit trees 3-5times a week and donate the harvest to food relieforganizations. Now led by Executive Director CraigDiserens, the organization also provides educationon fruit tree care, harvesting and food preservation.Craig estimates that 10-40 million pounds offruit go to waste in Santa Clara County backyardsannually. Village Harvest volunteers save 200,000to 300,000 pounds from going to waste each year.231,000 pounds were picked in 2012, and in 2011the largest donations totaled 40,000 pounds.Harvest fruit is donated to 15 different hunger relieforganizations (HROs), with the Second HarvestFood Bank of San Mateo and Santa Clara Countiesreceiving around one quarter of all donations. Threethousand volunteers are involved with the gleaningorganization, and 3,000 homes have been offered forpicking. However, due to volunteer time constraints,only 500 homes can realistically be picked per year.While homeowners offer myriad types of fruit treesfor picking, oranges are by far the largest harvest ataround 50,000 pounds annually.fruit. Many HROs now offer their own vans to VillageHarvest for produce transportation, even givingthe gleaning organization keys to their facilities soharvests can be delivered on weekends. To avoidover-picking and waste, Village Harvest confers withits partners to determine how much they can storeand distribute. The perishability of fruit and HROs’limited refrigerated storage space remain the greatestchallenges and limits to their work.Through 2012, Village Harvest was an all-volunteerorganization, supported by a $25,000 yearly budgetand the generosity of volunteer staff and harvestersranging from stay-at-home mothers to retirees toyoung students. With a background in softwareengineering, Craig constructed and customized thewebsite and volunteer database. In-kind donationsincluded some of the harvesting equipment usedand a new van. Homeowners offering their trees forpicking are also encouraged to make a small donationto Village Harvest.As of March 2013, Village Harvest has two paid staffmembers (one part-time and one full-time). Theirweb site lists a large number of gleaning organizations,mainly in the western United States, and Craig dreamstheir work will ignite a national network of gleaningorganizations.19Village Harvest builds short, efficient supply chains,choosing picking sites and routes based on theirproximity to a specific food bank or other agency.Craig has developed strong relationships with theHROs to which Village Harvest donates, beginningby simply asking if the organization needed any

“Village Harvest operates strategically to ensure that its limited resources are used efficiently. Picking sitesand routes are chosen based on their proximity to a specific food bank or food distribution agency.”Village Harvest, CA20

CASE STUDYSecond Harvest Food Bank of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties“Local produce” takes on a different meaning inSilicon Valley, the heart of commercial fruit andvegetable farming in the USA. As explained byDiane Zapata, Senior Manager of Food Resources,the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara andSan Mateo Counties aims to improve nutrition andeliminate waste, and views fresh produce distributionas a way to achieve both goals. When it first beganincorporating fresh produce into its distributionstream, the food bank had a goal of making freshproduce comprise 50% of its total distributed food;Second Harvest has already met that goal. In 2011,the food bank distributed 25 million pounds of freshproduce out of a total food distribution of 50 millionpounds. Over 90% of this fresh produce came fromthe California Association of Food Banks’ “Farmto-Family”program. The statewide organizationsolicits fresh produce from farmers, and each foodbank pays the association for any freight and valueaddedprocessing fees. The rest comes from VillageHarvest and other, smaller donations.Most of the Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo’s300 member agencies receive some fresh produce. Inaddition, the food bank has invested in 24 producemobiles that crisscross its service area. These mobilesact as modified farmers markets at each participatingmember agency site. At a minimum, each site needsa parking lot, but many sites use schools or churchesfor the produce distribution. Member agencies signup for the program and an in-house nutritionistputs together a diverse and healthful supply of freshproduce. Volunteers, along with the nutritionist,staff the produce mobiles. Between July 2011 andFebruary 2012, produce mobiles delivered 2,654,341pounds to food insecure people.The food bank has made substantial investments ininfrastructure and staff to support fresh fruit andvegetable distribution. It has created produce hubsthat move perishable fruits and vegetables quicklybetween producer and partner agencies. Five foodhubs currently exist in San Mateo County, allowingmember agencies to quickly pick up availableproduce and thus to deliver better product to theirconstituencies.The food bank has also hired more nutritionists toease the transition and to address related challengesof offering new foods for member agencies. Currently,Diane estimates that 80% of her time is dedicated tofresh produce distribution, and her team is all certifiedto handle fresh produce. To improve its operationsfurther, the organization worked with “produce guru”Frank Bonner at St. Mary’s Food Bank in Phoenix,Arizona to learn more about adapting fresh produceto food bank operations.The Food Bank of San Mateo and Santa Clara offersinfrastructure grants to member agencies so thattheir facilities can begin to accommodate perishableproducts. Grants from Kaiser Permanente, otherfunders, and the donation of a new building dedicatedsolely to the distribution of fresh produce haveenabled this work.Initial resistance to the produce mobile program andmanaging member agency expectations presentedtwo major challenges for the food bank. But withthe help of nutritionists, member agency staff arebecoming more educated and open to fresh produceand seasonal variations. Irregular and unpredictablevolunteers also pose a problem when the food bankis trying to distribute produce quickly; the VolunteerServices Department is starting to work more closelywith Diane to improve operations. Moreover, similarto many other hunger relief organizations, the foodbank is still trying to discern the actual capacity ofmany member agencies to avoid potential inundation.The food bank created a “produce planning tool”to try to capture the actual demand and to forecastproduce minimums and maximums. Diane imaginesan upward, but slowly stabilizing, growth trajectoryfor the food bank’s fresh produce distribution.21

“Initial resistance to the produce mobile program and managing member agency expectations are two majorchallenges...but with the diligence of nutritionists, member agency staff are becoming more educated and open tofresh produce and seasonal variations.”Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, CA22

CASE STUDYFood ForwardRick Nahmias founded Food Forward in 2009 afterworking with and documenting migrant workersin California. Realizing that most workers cannotafford the produce they are picking, he vowed to helpchange the food system. Food Forward’s mission isto harvest backyard fruit for the hungry. The firstvolunteers, recruited from Craigslist and the localchapter of the Slow Food movement, identified alocal food bank that would accept fresh backyardproduce, and a passionate, four-person core teamof gleaners was born. Over the following two years,the organization remained exclusively volunteerrun,increasing their volunteer numbers along theway. In 2011, the organization was able to hire theirfirst staff members through a grant from the DurfeeFoundation. The grant also funded the constructionof the organization’s current website, which includesa web-based program that enables volunteers toregister trees. Food Forward currently has far moreregistered trees than they can feasibly pick, a listof 5,000 volunteers, and 50 partner agencies. Allpartner agencies are required to have appropriaterefrigeration, 501(c)(3) status and the ability to pickup the harvested food. Food Forward averages 30– 40 picking events each month and has harvested1.3 million pounds of fruit, most of which is citrus,since its founding in 2009.Picks, or fruit tree harvest events, are the main focusof Food Forward’s work. A Super Volunteer or PickLeader will lead a pick on weekends and evenings,and weekday picks have recently been added to theschedule to accommodate retirees and others withflexible schedules. Before each pick, staff confirmsthe location and available harvest of each tree. Allfruit is donated to hunger relief organizations, withthe exception of a small percentage of lemons thatare kept for fruit preserving activities. On organizedCanning Days, fruit is preserved and prepared forsale on the Food Forward website and in local cafes.In addition to picks, the organization recentlyinitiated the Farmers Market Recovery Program,collecting unsold produce from markets anddistributing it to partner agencies. By August 2013,the program will expand to collections from ninemarkets. Adding to the total fresh fruit poundageare four wholesale distributors who, when theyhave surplus produce, are connected through FoodForward to partner agencies for direct donation.Funding for the new farmers market gleaningprogram comes from family foundations, and a recentgrant has enabled Food Forward to hire a softwareengineer to build a volunteer database. The majorityof the organization’s operating budget comes fromfamily and corporate foundations, supplemented by afew fundraising events. In-kind donations of graphicdesign, printing, discounted rent, and boxes (donatedby International Paper and emblazoned with the FoodForward logo) help keep the agency running. Meg,the Managing Director, believes the organizationis currently financially stable but is always lookingto diversify the revenue streams and expand socialenterprise programs that generate money for theorganization. One of these is Food Forward’s PrivatePicks for school, corporate, or other groups, whichit markets as an alternative to a traditional companypicnic or birthday party.Much like other nonprofit gleaning organizations,Food Forward faces significant challenges to itsoperations, particularly as it begins to scale up itsprograms. Transportation has been a persistentchallenge for the organization, and there has beensome difficulty in getting participating agenciesto pick up an allocated harvest. Calculating theappropriate number of volunteers to work a harvesthas also been a hurdle, as volunteers do not alwaysshow up to the pick events.Food Forward has been actively sharing best practiceswith similar organizations, and Meg is a memberof the Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force. Megimagines expanding within Los Angeles County anddeepening their work in areas where they are already23

“Food Forward currently has far more registered trees than they can feasibly pick, a list of 5,000 volunteers,and 50 partner agencies.”working. She is looking forward to reaping the full potential of the farmers market and wholesale market programsand building relationships with local producers.Food Forward, CA24

CASE STUDYPortland Fruit Tree ProjectIn 2006, Portland resident Katy Kolker noticed justhow much fruit was going to waste throughoutthe city. In a place where fruit trees are ubiquitousin yards, city parks, and even at times as streettree plantings, Katy saw that a clear connectioncould be made between unpicked fruit and peoplewith limited access to affordable food. In 2007 thePortland Fruit Tree Project was officially established,presenting what Katy terms “a unique urban twiston traditional gleaning.” Her vision is to see a timewhen all of Portland’s fruit trees are fully utilizedand shared with the community.To achieve this vision, PFTP offers four programs:harvesting from residential fruit trees; foundingand management of community orchards; tree careeducation and skills training for fruit tree owners;and a food preservation workshop series. The lastthree programs are meant to complement eachother and to support the main harvest program. Thecommunity orchard program was started in 2010with the Sabin Community Orchard, established onunused, city-owned land in the northeast quadrantof the city. Trained volunteers manage the orchard,while community volunteers participate in workingparties in which PFTP provides expert technicalassistance and training on tree care. PFTP alsomaintains the Green Thumb Community Orchard,a one-acre orchard in the southeast quadrant, andit is currently in the process of establishing a newcommunity orchard in north Portland.The tree care program likewise started in 2010,providing education and skills training for fruittree owners, in addition to providing tree careservice to owners. This grew out of the need fortree maintenance across the city. The goals of theseprograms are to enhance skills and resources in thecommunity for tree care, improving and securingharvest potential. PFTP also hosts a CommunityFood Forest next to the office, which is managed by acore group of volunteers and produces approximately500 pounds of food annually.The harvest program is the main focus of theorganization; and unlike most gleaning programs itdeliberately involves people who are experiencingfood insecurity in the act of harvesting. PFTPregisters fruit tree owners and harvests fruit whenowners do not want or cannot harvest any more. Thereare two types of harvest events – “harvesting parties,”in which half of the volunteer spots are reserved forlow-income individuals or those living with foodinsecurity; and “group harvests,” which are arrangedin partnership with other organizations servinglow-income or food-insecure populations, and areattended solely by groups of these organizations’clients. The number of harvest parties and poundageof fruit has increased significantly every year, startingwith 8 harvests in 2007 and rising to 88 in 2012. In2011, 551 people participated in harvests and gleanedapproximately 40,000 pounds of fruit. Fifty-threepercent of those harvesters were from low-incomehouseholds. In 2012, PFTP harvested 67,000 poundsof fruit in its 88 harvest parties. Katy sees a lot ofpotential to harvest more trees; the staff, interns, andvolunteers are always striving to do as many harvestsas possible. She emphasizes the empowerment thatcomes from teaching people how to pick their ownfruit and take charge over food insecurity.Harvested fruit is distributed 50-50 betweenparticipants and food pantries. Participants generallytake home about 5 pounds per person, and theremaining fruit is brought directly to one of 4 or 5food pantries with which PFTP has established arelationship. Partners are chosen based on theircapacity to store and distribute fruit without spoilage,and there is at least one partner in each quadrantof the city. PFTP also distributes to other types ofpartners, including a backpack lunch program forlocal elementary schools; food pantries with capacityto distribute only small amounts of fresh fruit; andoccasionally to Urban Gleaners, which gleans fromgrocery stores, farmers markets, and businesses anddistributes to local schools.25

“Katy attributes volunteer interest in the programs mainly to the need for the program – the straightforwardapproach of gleaning and donating just makes sense to their volunteers.”Volunteers play a key role in this small organization.PFTP has two full-time staff, including Katy asExecutive Director, and a program coordinator. Katyhas experience in permaculture, and is passionateabout social equity and environmental resources,food justice, and access to healthy foods. Her decisionto focus on trees was based on their abundance as aresource in Portland. Bob, programs coordinator, hasa degree in leadership and ecology, and worked withgardening and agriculture programs throughoutPortland before coming to PFTP. The organizationrecently took on a full-time AmeriCorps volunteerwho coordinates the expansion of the communityorchard program. Outside of coordinating, which isdone by staff, most of the PFTP’s work is done byvolunteers. There are 90 people in leadership rolesfor tree registrations, tree care, and the preservationworkshop series. Each program has a thoroughtraining system for the 1,000 leaders and volunteerswho participated in and led workshops, work partiesat the community orchard, harvests, and fundraisingevents.When she started the organization, PFTP was one ofthe only groups with such a program, but in their firstfew years they received many inquiries from peoplein other cities who were interested in starting similarprograms, one of which became the New OrleansFruit Tree Project. Katy admits that they have anadvantage in the high visibility that food access issueshave in Portland, and they are lucky to have a goodclimate for fruit trees, but she also believes that withgood volunteer coordination, a small program is quitepossible to run in other settings.PFTP plans to continue increasing its harvest in thefuture, with a goal of 10-15% expansion of harvestsset for 2013. Future focus areas for the organizationare in creating a more advanced tree care team so thatthey can engage with another tier of advanced andknowledgeable volunteers; growing the communityorchards program; and expanding harvests at largeorchards.Katy attributes volunteer interest in the programsmainly to the need for the program – thestraightforward approach of gleaning and donatingjust makes sense to their volunteers. And theharvests are fun for participants, offering a chanceto meet people of different backgrounds, andpeople want to keep the fruit they harvest. Katy alsodescribes a general interest in Portland in urbanforaging and gleaning; the harvest events offer a wayto do these things under the umbrella of an officialorganization. And for tree owners, PFTP providesa valuable service. Many of the owners are simplysick of the fruit by the end of the season, and theharvest parties provide a way to get rid of the fruit,and provide cleanup and tree maintenance, withoutthe owner having to make the effort on their own.PFTP has a budget of $140,000, with the majorityof funding spent on the harvest program, and Katyis confident that this program is very replicable.A Portland Fruit Tree Project “Harvest Party,” Portland, OR26

GARDENINGFood banks’ gardening programs most often fall intoone or more of three categories:• Gardens operated by food banks, typically attheir warehouses but also at other sites. Food bankstaff organize volunteers to maintain and harvestfrom the gardens. Sometimes these are organizedas demonstration and teaching gardens or ascommunity gardens where individual plot-holdersdonate a portion of their harvest to the food bank.• Grow-a-row programs coordinated by foodbanks and other organizations, in which homeand community gardeners (and farmers) plantand harvest rows or plots of food to donate to thefood bank and/or affiliated cupboards and feedingorganizations.• In some cities and regions, food banks havebecome the main garden support organization,supplying materials such as seedlings, compost,and raised beds, as well as technical assistance andeducational programming for community, school,and home gardens and gardeners.Many food banks and affiliated feeding organizationsbenefit from two programs that link gardeners tofood relief organizations nationwide:• The Garden Writers Association of America’sPlant-A-Row for the Hungry program has tallied over18 million pounds of fresh produce for food relief since1995, an average of more than one million pounds peryear. Garden writers and radio hosts encourage readersand listeners to plant, tend, and harvest a row in theirgardens for hunger relief organizations. The programtrains and supports committees of volunteers whopromote local gardening and coordinate collectionfor donation (and weighing) of harvest.• Ample Harvest, founded by a pioneer in theemail industry and community garden director inNew Jersey, is a virtual organization with a web siteand smartphone apps that match gardeners in all 50states with more than 5,000 food pantries, includingpersonalized driving directions. It collaborates onoutreach with master gardeners, USDA, FeedingAmerica, AARP, and the National Council ofChurches. In 2011, Ample Harvest recorded close to15 million pounds.Eastside Learning Garden, Oregon Food Bank, Portland, OR27

Eastside Learning Garden, Oregon Food Bank, Portland, ORFood banks also operate their own grow-a-rowprograms in their city and region, and these areoften combined with food banks’ own production,community, and teaching gardens. Representativeand outlier examples of such programs run by foodbanks include:• The Arkansas Food Bank Network in LittleRock established a quarter-acre community garden in2010, where volunteers harvested some 4,000 poundsin 2011 that was distributed through the food bank.Pantry operators and other community members alsoharvested vegetables directly, though this food wasnot tallied. This scale and organization of productionand distribution is common among food banks’ owngardens, especially those planted recently.• Harvesters – The Community Food Networkin Kansas City, Missouri, runs its own garden andpartners with a network of gardens and garden centersfor harvest and distribution, which together with aseparate donation program yielded nearly 40,000pounds in 2011. This mix of sources is also common,and the yield is the median (the mean average is143,000 pounds) among food banks’ gardeningprograms.• Second Harvest of the Inland Northwest inSpokane, Washington, boasts the nation’s largestPlant-A-Row program run through a food bank,counting almost 285,000 pounds in 2011, includingdonations from gardeners, farmers, and farmersmarkets.• The Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma inOklahoma City maintains edible landscapes on itsgrounds and runs the Urban Harvest educationprogram whose harvest (about 1,700 pounds in 2011)goes to elementary school students and afterschoolprograms. Such programs complement the backpackprograms that are nearly ubiquitous at food banks inthe U.S.• FOOD for Lane County in Eugene, Oregon,operates a larger and more diverse set of three gardens,from which it counted over 75,000 pounds of freshproduce: the 2.5 acre GrassRoots Garden, with a citycompost demonstration site, outdoor kitchen, andworkshops by food bank staff and master gardeners;a 3.5 acre youth farm, home to the food bank’s teenjob skills program which operates a CSA and twoproduce stands; and a 1-acre community gardenwhere neighbors and students from several nearbyschools grow and learn about food.• The community-based Learning Gardens ofthe Oregon Food Bank in Portland are profiled in acase study below.As the teaching gardens above suggest, many foodbanks have expanded their promotion and directsupport of home, community, and school gardening.Programs that reflect the range of activities and sitesinclude:• The Food Bank of Santa Barbara supportshome gardeners – some 4,000 in 2011, the program’sfirst year – with training and materials, including aseed library at the warehouse and community-basedseed banks.• The Atlanta Community Food Bank supportsover 100 community gardens linked to cupboardsand other community-based organizations. The foodbank helps find land and organize neighbors to startgardens, in addition to supplying seeds, tilling, tools,and volunteers for garden maintenance and harvestdays. The Tapestry WIC garden is the only gardenwhere harvest is recorded (over 106,000 pounds in2011).28

• The Capital Area Food Bank in Washington,DC, connects experienced and aspiring gardenersto material and technical support via its web site aswell as its own programs, which are profiled in a casestudy in the farming section below• The Food Gatherers Food Bank in Ann Arbor,Michigan, partners with churches and the localhousing authority to expand and support communitygardening and connect it to food relief. It is alsoprofiled in a case study below.• The Chester County Food Bank, highlightedin a case study in the farming section, has helpedbuild and support school gardens and allied farm-toschoolprograms in the poorest districts of the county.As noted above, the harvest from the gardeningprograms discussed in this section is difficult tomeasure, as it often goes uncounted by dispersedhome and community gardeners. Fieldwork by us andother scholars has demonstrated that gardeners’ yieldsvary widely, but that overall community gardenerscontribute substantially to networks of formal andinformal food distribution, including in communitiesexperiencing high levels of food insecurity. From ourinterviews, however, it is clear that more researchis needed for food banks to evaluate and track theimpacts of their community, school, and home-basedgarden support programs.Our national scan and interviews do make clear thatcommunity, school, and home-based garden supportprograms (and some farming programs) are changingfood banks’ roles in community food systems.Food bank staff reported that garden support andeducation are among their most popular programs,often helping to catalyze people’s deeper involvementin food production, donation, and support of foodbanks and other more or less organized forms of foodrelief. This includes both middle class volunteers andpoor people who regularly seek food assistance atcupboards. Gardening programs are no replacementfor the commodity surplus programs, volunteersupport, and donations, as gardening has not scaledup to meet the vast demand for food assistance (as itdid for example in the Victory Gardens programs ofWorld Wars One and Two). Gardening at a large scaleis also not a realistic strategy for many people who arefood insecure, so should not be viewed as a substitutefor current food relief systems. But programs thattrain and support food insecure people in growingtheir own food help to build individuals’, households’,and communities’ capacity to meet at least some oftheir own food needs. Surely, this represents a morelasting investment in community food security thanthe commodity surplus programs.Top 10 Food Banks -- Gardening (lbs. harvested)Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County 287,067Second Harvest Inland Northwest 287,067Atlanta Community Food Bank 110,292Oregon Food Bank 92,000Food Bank of Northeast Georgia 89,867Community Food Bank of New Jersey 82,382Food for Lane County 75,250Harvesters - The Community Food Network 37,840Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan 30,213Food Bank for Larimer County 29,475Table 829

CASE STUDYFood Gatherers Food BankAs described by Chief Program Officer Missy Orgeand CEO Eileen Spring, Food Gatherers in AnnArbor, Michigan, is committed to providing diversefood streams that include fresh produce as a way toimprove clients’ food security. Fresh produce sourcingbegan in response to client demand for more freshfoods. The food bank now operates a farm, gleaningprogram, and a Faith and Food program, while anon-site nutritionist educates member agencies andclients about fresh produce storage and usage. Atthe inception of these programs, only one-fifth ofmember agencies had the capacity to distribute freshproduce, but now, as a result of Food Gatherer’scapacity grants, around one half of member agenciesare sufficiently equipped.Food Gatherers’ half-acre farm has been inoperation since 2009 and is run by Farm ManagerDan Calderone, a former operations staff member.Volunteers help maintain and harvest the farm.Originally funded by a grant from Pfizer, farmoperations are now incorporated into the foodbank’s general budget. Food Gatherers has exploredoptions for scaling up farm operations, workingwith the University of Michigan Business School toconsider costs and benefits, but in the end the costs ofincreasing operations have proven too great to moveforward.The food bank’s operations include purchasing directlyfrom local farmers, in addition to large companiesand wholesalers. Food Gatherers also participatesin Michigan’s nascent Farm-to-Food Bank program,run by the Food Bank Council of Michigan, andMichigan’s Agricultural Surplus Program, as a way toincrease their distribution of fresh produce.a few churches deliver directly to member agencies,the food bank prefers to act as intermediary, ensuringequity of distribution and preventing individualagencies from being overwhelmed with produce. Thereligious community has embraced the program, andthe minimal infrastructure involved has meant theprogram has been easy to maintain.In 2009, Food Gatherers received Pfizer’s Big IdeaGrant, which has funded most of its local agricultureand fresh produce programs. The food bank alsoreceives other donations that help sustain eachprogram. Food Gatherers’ greatest challenges in theseprograms include the pressure of time sensitivityin fresh produce distribution and the capacity ofmember agencies to receive, store, and distribute itto clients. Also, although the food bank continuesto seek new sources of fresh produce, many localfarmers cannot provide the desired large scale ofdonations. Furthermore, because many local farmersoperate on a CSA model, it is hard for the food bankto offer competitive prices for their produce. YetFood Gatherers is optimistic about the future of theirfresh produce distribution programs, and envisionsworking closely with a newly-opened food enterpriseincubator; starting a farm box program similar to thatof Gleaners Community Food Bank in nearby Detroit;connecting additional Faith and Food congregationswith farmers who want to donate land; and focusingon the nutrition and public health implications ofproviding clients with fresh produce.Food Gatherers partners with the botanicalgardens to grow starter plants for Faith and Food, aprogram that encourages churches to grow for thefood bank. About 30 churches are now involved,harvesting their gardens and dropping off 50% oftheir produce at Food Gatherers’ warehouse. WhileFood Gatherers, Ann Arbor, MI30

CASE STUDYOregon Food BankThe Oregon Food Bank (OFB) is the largest foodrelief organization in the state, distributing food to945 partner agencies through a network of 4 branchesand 16 independent regional food banks. To achieveits vision of everyone having access to an ample,nutritious, affordable and appropriate food supplythrough traditional, nonemergency channels, OFBfocuses on what gardening staff describe as two sidesof their mission – to provide emergency food relief,and to address the root causes of food insecurity.About five years ago, while searching for foodsources, the food bank’s food research developersrealized that OFB’s location in a major agriculturalarea offered the opportunity to connect farmersand producers with the food bank, and thereforeto people in need. This led to the development of aseries of programs aimed at providing fresh producefor food bank clients, and to education programsfocused on fresh food production and nutrition.OFB operates three programs related to freshfoods: Farmers Ending Hunger; Plant-A-Row; andthe Learning Gardens Program. Through FarmersEnding Hunger, OFB sources produce grownfor donation from farmers throughout the state,distributing different types of produce to provide awide variety of fresh produce to each of its branchesand regional food banks, over 950,000 pounds eachyear. The Plant-A-Row program links individualgardeners interested in donating their excessproduce directly to partner agencies. Rather thanacting as intermediary between gardeners and foodpantries, OFB hopes that gardeners will developrelationships with partner agencies and becomeinvolved in their other activities. In addition, OFBencourages partner agencies to register with AmpleHarvest, the national online registry that homegardeners can use to identify hunger relief agenciesthat accept produce donations. Staff estimates thatpartner agencies in the two Portland metro-areabranches receive 80,000 pounds of fresh produceeach year through Plant-A-Row and Ample Harvestdonations.The Learning Gardens offer two programs intendedto counteract the root causes of hunger: Seed toSupper and Dig In! Seed to Supper, run in partnershipwith the Oregon State University Extension Service,was founded in 2007 as a mobile, 5-week beginnergardening series for adults, with lecture-style classestaught indoors and the ability to bring lessons outsideif the class site has garden space. Classes are volunteertaught,and are hosted at community centers, seniorhomes, and affordable housing developments. OFBmatches volunteers, participants, and class sites, andalso serves as curriculum developer, trainer, andlogistics coordinator. OFB also partners with localcorrectional facilities to allow prisoners in the systemto fulfill a requirement in the Master Gardenercertification program through nonprofits such as theLettuce Grow Garden Foundation.The Dig In! volunteer program is a hands-on servicelearningopportunity based at two Learning Gardensin the Portland area. The Eastside Learning Gardenis next to OFB’s main distribution warehouse innortheast Portland, and the Westside LearningGarden is on the site of an environmental andscience middle school in Beaverton, just outside city.Together, the two gardens use less than 0.5 acres andyield an estimated 17,000 pounds of fresh produce peryear. The bulk of the harvest goes into the emergencyfood system, although the goal of the gardens is not toproduce, but to educate.The Eastside Learning Garden was established in2002 and was originally intended to teach Portlandresidents facing food insecurity a variety of methodsfor producing their own food. However, only ahandful of food bank clients are able to participate inthe garden because of its location, in an industrial areabehind the Portland airport, which is challenging toaccess via public transportation. While staff originallyused an elaborate tracking system to determine howmany garden volunteers were from low-incomehouseholds, to avoid placing a stigma on low-incomeparticipants they abandoned the system and now31

“The Learning Gardens involve volunteers in every step of the gardening process. Volunteers plan the gardenspaces in the winter, start seeds in the spring, and harvest crops in the summer and fall.”allow all interested volunteers to participate. cipate.The Learning Gardens involve volunteers in everystep of the gardening process: planning the gardenspaces in the winter, starting seeds in the spring, andharvesting crops in the summer and fall. The Gardenscomprise a number of large, production-style rowsand a series of demonstration gardens that show howpeople can configure small yard spaces in a varietyof garden shapes to maximize food production.In 2007 the Eastside Learning Garden doubled insize, and in 2011 staff added a greenhouse to startseedlings. In 2012, 4,200 plants from the greenhousewere distributed to partner agencies, and staff areworking on new ways to connect partner agenciesto the gardens through targeted marketing of theirgarden starts.At the Westside Learning Garden, during theschool year each middle school class completes arotation of class time in the garden, planting seeds,weeding, and composting, and learning aboutfood production with a range of crops that can beharvested throughout the year. OFB staff highlightthe meaningful links the students are able to makebetween the food they help produce and how theirdonation of the harvest helps families in need. Likethe Eastside garden, the middle school garden isdependent on dedicated adult volunteers for gardenplanning, maintenance, and contributing to lessonsfor the students.OFB funds these programs with corporate,philanthropic, and individual donations. Inconsidering the future of the gardening program andthe question of whether and how to scale up, OFBis assessing the role it wants to play – as expressedby staff, should the food bank be in the businessof farming, or should it convene individuals andorganizations to discuss access to healthy foods?While staff do not expect to increase the number orsize of gardens or to make them more productionoriented,they are interested in expanding thegardening network through the greenhouse seedlingsprogram; encouraging individuals and partneragencies to plant their own seedlings; providingsoil and supplies to those partner agencies that runcommunity gardens; and teaching Seed to Supperclasses as part of the garden outreach strategy inPortland and across the stateWestside Learning Garden, Oregon Food Bank, Portland, ORStudents’ activity chart from the Westside Learning Garden, Oregon Food Bank32

FARMINGAs urban farming and direct marketing (farmersmarkets, CSAs) have expanded in recent years,food banks have increasingly established their ownfarms and developed direct sourcing relationshipswith local farmers for their “first harvest” crops (inaddition to gleaning), delivering food to the urbanpoor sometimes in the form of a CSA or farmersmarket.Food banks’ own farms support a variety of food andcommunity development programs; for example:• The Food Bank of Western Massachusettswas one of the earliest food banks to start its ownfarm, on 60 acres in Hadley, in 1992. The commercialMountain View Farm leases it from the food bank,in exchange for 100,000 pounds of fresh, chemicalfreeproduce annually.• The Community Food Bank of SouthernArizona in Tucson operates two community farms,in addition to a demonstration and market gardenand a home gardens support program. The 3-acreMarana Community Food Bank Farm grows for thefood bank, hosts monthly workshops and a youthprogram, and honors the agricultural heritage ofthe area’s native peoples through its plantings andevents. Las Milpitas de Cottonwood communityfarm and garden is cultivated by high schoolstudents and neighbors, its harvest going to the foodbank, youth-run farmers markets, and gardeners’families and friends. It is a demonstration site for33Top 10 Food Banks -- Farming (lbs. harvested)Inter-Faith Food Shuttle 2,475,000Chester County Food Bank 178,000Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York 143,316Food for Lane County 100,000South Plains Food Bank 100,000The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts 100,000Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County 93,000Blue Ridge Area Food Bank 60,000FreeStore/FoodBank, Inc. 60,000SHARE 56,000Table 9desert food production, composting, permaculture,and ecological restoration.• The New Hampshire Food Bank, a programof Catholic Charities in Manchester, runs three smallfarms, including one that operates a small farmbusiness incubation program for refugees.• Inter-Faith Food Shuttle in Raleigh, NorthCarolina, also runs training farms and is profiled in acase study below.• Also profiled in a case study below are SecondHarvest Food Bank of Orange County, California,and its Incredible Edible Park.Finally, food banks source fresh produce directlyfrom local farmers via seasonal contracts (includingfor CSAs) or more or less regular purchase. Programsthat reflect the range of these activities include:• The Food Bank for New York City participatesin a state program supported by Cornell Universityto connect food banks with farms for CSA-styledistribution. Participating residents of Harlem pickup CSA shares weekly.• The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern NewYork sources produce from farms (close to 145,000pounds in 2011) for distribution to cupboards andother member agencies, a separate CSA, and for saleat a farmers market.• The Chester County Food Bank, profiled ina case study below, leases a 4-acre farm in a countypark and purchases directly from other local farmersat their farms and at a local auction.

CASE STUDYSecond Harvest Food Bank of Orange CountyLocated on an old military base, the Second HarvestFood Bank of Orange County is striking in its stateof-the-artfacilities and its proximity to both its ownfarm – The Incredible Edible Park – and to the newestlocal agriculture venture in Irvine, The Great Park.The food bank has multiple fresh produce programs,and about half of its staff is involved in fresh fooddistribution, although none have a background inagriculture. Sam, the Harvest Coordinator at theIncredible Edible Park, worked as a truck driverbefore taking on his new role.Staff estimate that 40% of total food distributedis fresh produce, roughly one third of that fromlocal sources. In 2011, the food bank distributed2,796,096 pounds of gleaned produce thanks tothe California Association of Food Banks’ Farmto-Familyprogram. The food bank also harvested93,000 pounds of produce from its own IncredibleEdible Park. Five thousand pounds of this harvestwas distributed to clients through the mobile pantryprogram.The Food Bank of Orange County’s mobile pantryprogram began in 1999 with a repurposed old sodatruck and a grant from KRAFT to design a truckcapable of storing and distributing fresh produce.Now, 200 to 300 families receive food within an hourof collection, and sites without refrigeration capacitycan offer their clients fresh produce. OC HealthcareAgency is a partner of the program, providingrecipes and volunteer nutritionists to clients on-site.AG Kawamura, who with his brother runs OrangeCounty Produce, is credited with the birth of the8-acre Incredible Edible Park in the early 2000s.Originally, Kawamura recruited volunteers to his ownfields to collect leftover produce and to deliver theharvest to the food bank. But he eventually decidedit would be more efficient to start a separate farmthat would grow solely for the food bank. The Cityof Irvine now provides free water for the Park andcontributes $50,000 annually for farm maintenance.Sam runs the Park with the help of two paid staff and acadre of volunteers. Planting each season is based on amember agency survey. Zucchini has been the largestcrop, and there are 88 citrus trees on the site.As staff at the Food Bank of Orange County beganto design and develop their fresh produce programs,they spoke to several experts in the field. In turn, thefood bank is collaborating with the Los Angeles andSan Diego food banks to increase their fresh producedistribution. Several targeted grants help fund OrangeCounty’s fresh produce programs, but the majorityof each program’s funding comes from the operatingbudget. Its greatest continuing challenges, shared byfood banks in general, include increased demandfor food in the economic crisis since 2008 and theperishability of produce in a food bank seeking todistribute as much as possible.The food bank’s new CEO, Nicole Suydam , whoworked with the food bank many years earlier, notedone of the big changes she found upon her return wasthe food bank and member agencies’ new emphasis onfresh produce and the fascination with “farm-to-fork”amongst donors. Looking forward, food bank staffhope to glean more produce from available resourcesand work with other food relief organizations to scaleup their fresh produce operations.Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CA34

CASE STUDYChester County Food BankThe Chester County Food Bank officially opened inNovember 2009 under the leadership of ExecutiveDirector Larry Welsch. Yet the organization’s historydates to 1996, when County Commissioner AndyDinniman (now a State Senator) started a gleaningprogram with Amish farmers, using volunteersto collect produce from participating farms anddistributing the food to churches, schools, andother organizations. When the Food Bank tookover responsibility for federal and state feedingprograms, Chair of the Board of Trustees BobMcNeil felt that that the Food Bank should also dosomething different, not just “cans in and cans out.”Bob helped expand the network of farmers, linkingthem to feeding programs, and he helped raise fundsto develop a commercial kitchen that expanded theFood Bank’s capacity to use and store locally grownfoods. Now, Chester County Food bank works with29 food cupboards, 10 soup kitchens, 7 shelters,and 24 other programs reaching 40,000 householdseach year. In 2011 they distributed over 200,000pounds of locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables,accomplished through the effective organization of1,200 volunteers and a variety of programs.The food bank’s gleaning program currently workswith over 40 farms, and it has expanded beyondgleaning into other farming activities. It is led byPhoebe Kitson-Davis, a Presbyterian minister withno training in agriculture, but great skills at workingwith farmers and organizing volunteers. The FoodBank provides volunteer labor, saving the farms andthe food bank from paying for pick-and-pack labor.In 2011, the food bank contracted with three farmsin advance of (not just during) the growing seasonto set aside acres for donation. It also grows fields ofpotatoes and a small kitchen garden with the help ofvolunteers in a county park that is a historic – andstill working – farm. Another initiative to sourcelocal produce inexpensively involves stationing threeretired gentlemen at farmers’ auctions. In 2011 theywere able to buy 178,000 pounds of fresh produceaveraging just 28 cents per pound. The food banksought to double that purchase the next year. In early2013, it hired a farmer of its own.The Chester County Food Bank is working totransform school food in the poor districts ofPennsylvania’s wealthiest county, which are oftenattended by children of agricultural workers in whatremains a vital farming area, including the world’scenter of mushroom production around KennettSquare. The food bank has developed raised bedgardens in collaboration with 30 schools, in 6 outof the 12 school districts. Families volunteer to carefor and harvest the food over the summer monthswhen school is out. During the school year, gardensare tied to teaching and farm-to-school programs insome cafeterias. The food bank also distributes freshproduce as well as local fruits and vegetables processedin its kitchen through its backpack program in 11elementary schools, providing food for 1,000 youngchildren and their families each month.One of the advantages of having a commercial kitchenis that a high volume of locally grown food can beprocessed and stored, extending its life and makingit available to additional programs. Volunteers makedried fruit, soups, tomato sauce and additional driedfoods, which are used in senior box programs, afterschool snacks, meals on wheels, and other settings.There are always challenges for food banks, but thebiggest faced by Chester County in distributing freshlocal produce is the supply chain. The opening hoursof food cupboards do not always fit with harvestingschedules. It is also difficult to predict when crops willbe ready for harvesting and to schedule volunteersaccordingly. Despite these challenges, the Food Bankhas developed a culture of saying yes to everything,from accepting even the smallest donation to beingready to pick up food at a moment’s notice. Staff believethis creates good will and trust that inspire othersto get involved, leading to increased partnerships,volunteering, and donations.35

“One of the advantages of having a commercial kitchen is that a high volume of locally grown food can beprocessed and stored, extending its life and making it available to additional programs.”Larry’s vision for the future involves creating a countywide network of farms, feeding programs, schools, andfamilies that will end hunger in Chester County. Within the next five years, he plans for 50% of the food bank’stotal food distributed to be locally grown, fresh produce.Chester County Food Bank, PA36

CASE STUDYInter-Faith Food Shuttle“Food doesn’t fix the problem”, says executivedirector and co-founder Jill Staton Bullard. Jill wasa soccer mom with four children when she andMaxine Solomon became concerned about all thegood food that they saw being wasted. Managers ofgrocery stores told her that they were required todispose of unsold food, rather than donate to foodrelief organizations. Luckily, Jill knew the directorof Environmental Health Services of Wake County,who confirmed that there were no such rules orregulations. He and Jill worked together to develop aplan for redistribution of unused food from grocerystores. Jill put two coolers in the trunk of her car andpersonally distributed donated food to shelters andpantries. That was the beginning of the Inter-FaithFood Shuttle in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1989.Shortly thereafter, Jill discussed her concerns withthe Commissioner of Agriculture, who facilitatedan arrangement with North Carolina StateFarmer’s Markets to pick up “seconds” and unsoldfood, providing the organization with enormousquantities of fresh food. From there, Jill’s efforts grewexponentially. By 1991 Inter-Faith had acquiredits own building near the state farmers market inRaleigh, and in 1996 Jill began visiting food banks andfeeding programs throughout the U.S. to advocatefor “feeding people, not landfills,” and teachingInter-Faith’s methods of gleaning from retailers andfarmers. One of Jill’s most important steps forwardfor fresh produce distribution was working with thestate legislature to pass a new, more effective stateGood Samaritan Law that would protect farmersfrom liability when donating produce. In additionto millions of pounds from farmers markets, Inter-Faith also developed its own field gleaning program.In continuing to personally distribute donated foodto pantries, shelters, recreation centers, and housingauthority residences, Jill realized that the obstaclesto families’ access to fresh, healthy food were notonly economic, but also geographic and educational.Many people lacked skills in cooking fresh foods theyhad never seen before. This spurred the formationof informal cooking classes, taught by grandmotherswho would go to distribution points to pass on theirknowledge. Upon discovering how particularlyisolated and alienated immigrant populationsare from U.S. food systems, Jill obtained land forimmigrant groups to use for community gardens.And to combat poverty, Inter-Faith implemented jobtraining programs.In 2011, the Food Shuttle rescued 7.1 million poundsof food. A large portion of this food (41%) is freshproduce; staff estimate that they rescue 3 millionpounds of fresh food each year. An additional 38% ofdistributions are perishable, representing local eggs,meats, dairy, baked goods, frozen foods, deli andrestaurant donations. This means only about one-fifthof the food Inter-Faith distributes is canned or boxed.Food is distributed, using 13 refrigerated trucks, to213 programs and 169 agencies in seven counties,including cupboards, shelters, schools, and publichousing sites. Inter-Faith also collaborates with theseand other partners in a backpack program, afterschool programs, and home delivery of groceries tolow-income seniors. All of this work is done with acombination of paid staff members and the help of5,000 volunteers. Inter-Faith also relies on the helpof those completing court-mandated communityservice, and on high school students looking forcommunity service experience.Some of the 3 million annual pounds of fresh produceInter-Faith distribute come from the organization’sgardening and farming programs, through whichit plays expanded roles in the local food system.In addition to making land accessible to people atrisk of food insecurity, the Food Shuttle is workingto help grow new generations of farmers as well asother food sector workers and home cooks. It alsoruns cooking demonstrations and workshops taughtby AmeriCorps volunteers that attract nearly 8,000participants each year.Inter-Faith has helped to found and operate seven37

“Jill realized that the obstacles to families’ access to fresh, healthy food were not only economic, but also geographicand educational.”community gardens throughout Raleigh andDurham. The organization pays residents fromsurrounding neighborhoods to manage the gardensand to train others in gardening and leadership, withthe hope that local residents will eventually takeover Inter-Faith’s management functions. The FoodShuttle also coordinates a grow-a-row programwith community gardeners. And it uses four of thegarden sites in Raleigh to train youth in farmingtechniques, as Inter-Faith has become one of twelveRegional Outreach and Training Centers trainingnew small farmers across the nation supported byurban agriculture pioneer Growing Power.The Food Shuttle runs two farms, each supportingmultiple programs: the first on 6 acres of leased landon the outskirts of Raleigh, and the second on 2 acresin Carrboro. Staff estimate harvesting 16,000 poundsannually through the efforts of 2,000 volunteers. Thefarms include hoop-houses, worm composting, andaquaponic demonstration modeled after GrowingPower, and they also raise goats and chickens andencompass community gardens for Congolese andother immigrants. Inter-Faith runs a summer farmtraining program for high school teens, in whichstudents receive stipends for their work and bringhome fresh food for their families. The Food Shuttlealso participates in a national program called Craft-Up, in which young farmers intern with experiencedfarmers. The average farmer in the US is 57 yearsof age), an effort to give young people paths toemployment and preserve the tradition of small- tomid-scale farming.In a related effort to attack poverty and workforcedevelopment in other parts of the food sector, Inter-Faith’s culinary job training program provides adultswith intensive skills training, job coaches, and socialservices. In 2011, 26 people graduated from the60th class of the program, which uses some localproduce from the farms and gardens. Over 70% ofpast participants are successfully employed, mainlyin the food service industry.As the Inter-Faith Food Shuttle has rapidly expandedthe scope and diversity of its programs, it hasencountered new challenges. Zoning restrictionslimit urban agriculture. The existing tax structuresfor both urban and rural land do not support smallentrepreneurial farms. Public transportation islimited in the Raleigh-Durham region, which causesdifficulties for both volunteers and clients. With abudget of over $2 million per year and 60 paid staff,there is constant financial pressure on the organization,a common challenge among food banks.Nevertheless, for Jill Staton Bullard, this is still justthe beginning of what local agriculture can do to helptransform food relief. Her vision includes havingvegetable gardens on every urban block, using jobtraining in urban farming as a method of broadereconomic development, and ultimately ensuring thatno child in the state goes hungry.Inter-faith Food Shuttle, Raleigh, NC38

CASE STUDYCapital Area Food BankWhen president Lynn Brantley founded the CapitalArea Food Bank (CAFB) in 1988, she recognized aneed to solve hunger while also providing access tonutritious food. Ms. Brantley has always consideredhunger to be directly related to health issues such asdiabetes and heart disease, as they often stem frompeople not eating well. The mission of the food bankhas thus from the beginning been to educate andempower residents to make healthful food choices.From an organizational standpoint, the food bankalso recognizes that it is financially strategic to buildrelationships with farmers who have extra producethat they can contribute to the food relief system. Outof the 32 million pounds distributed in 2012, 16.5million of those were fresh produce (not all local),distributed to 478,000 residents in the Washington,D.C., southern Maryland, and Northern Virginiaarea. CAFB is the largest nutrition education andfood distribution resource in the metro region. Over700 partner agencies receive its services, many ofthem social agencies with a food pantry, kitchen, ormeal program.CAFB approaches nutritious food from a variety ofangles, but the emphasis is on education of partneragencies and clients, and on connecting them tofarms and gardening opportunities. In 1991 a familyconnection between a CAFB staff member and afarm manager led to a partnership with Clagett Farm,located in southern Maryland. The food bank hasreceived 30,000 pounds of fresh produce annuallyfrom this farm for the past ten years. The CAFB alsohas ties to Waterpenny Farm, in northern Virginia.Waterpenny Farm and shareholders donate a fewCSA shares to the food bank each year, but CAFBacts primarily as a customer of the farm, purchasingCSA shares at reduced prices in addition to 3,000 to5,000 pounds of fresh produce for the food bank perseason.CAFB has a direct partnership with Clagett Farmthat involves both produce sourcing and educationthrough the Fresh Produce Grant and From theGround Up programs. Clagett Farm agrees todistribute 40% of its seasonal harvest to the food bankeach year, dedicating a portion of its 20-25 acres toproduction for CAFB. About 70% of the harvest isused in the Fresh Produce Grant program, which linkspartner agencies with produce from Clagett Farm.Agencies with the capacity to handle large volumes offresh produce apply for the grant, and upon receivingit go directly to the farm to pick up produce fordistribution to clients or for use in meal programs.The remaining 30% of Clagett Farm’s product for thefood bank is sold in CSAs at significantly reducedprices to individuals who qualify for federal aid.From the Ground Up focuses on educating andempowering partner agencies and clients throughlessons on growing produce, sustainability, andfood justice. Partner agencies also receive a cookingdemonstration focusing on seasonal ingredients fromthe farm, and the program provides partner agencieswith a list of upcoming farm produce throughout theseason. This helps agencies with meal programs planways to use products they may never have cookedwith before. For agencies that focus on distribution,recipes can be included in emergency food bags sothat clients learn how to use new ingredients. Withthe opening of CAFB’s new food distribution center,most of the food bank’s educational programming willsoon take place at a new on-site urban demonstrationgarden, which will function as a hands-on laboratoryfor learning how to grow nutritious food.To describe and advertise its healthy food initiativesand connect people to other garden and food supportprograms in the region, CAFB maintains an easilyaccessible webpage. It offers a wealth of information onresources available to individuals and organizations,ranging from cooking and budgeting classes to farmsand gardening programs to healthy eating initiatives.The website makes it easy forpeople to sign up for programs, apply for a FreshProduce Grant, or sign up to volunteer at the Clagettand Waterpenny Farms. CAFB wants to give its39

“From the Ground Up focuses on educating and empowering partner agencies and clients through lessons ongrowing produce, sustainability, and food justice.”clients information as well as skills that will allowthem to take their food destiny into their own hands,moving them along the spectrum of food relieftoward becoming less dependent on emergencyfood sources.The Fresh Produce Grant and From the GroundUp programs have certainly impacted the demandfor fresh produce at partner agencies. The grantprogram is in high demand, and clients who havebeen involved at the farm have recognized thedifference in taste and quality that locally sourcedproduce offers.New farm partners who can provide a high volumeof produce to the food bank are always welcome. Forexample, farm sourcing will expand in 2013 througha new nonprofit farm that plans to grow 1 millionpounds of food for donation to the CAFB. Farmpartnerships offer educational opportunities andbring in fresh, local produce, but in taking on newpartners, CAFB continues to evaluate the thresholdat which it is worthwhile for food banks to partnerwith sources that provide a comparatively low volumeof fresh produce. This is an ongoing question for thefood bank as its local produce programs continue toevolve.Capital Area Food Bank, D.C.Images Courtesy of Capital Area Food Bank, D.C.40

CONCLUSIONPolicy Implications and OpportunitiesAs discussed in the introduction and summary offindings, our national scan and case studies foundthat food banks engage in and with gleaning,gardening, and farming for distinct reasons thathighlight related challenges of community foodsecurity. Large-scale gleaning from commercialfarms and packinghouses yields the greatest volumeof fruit and vegetable “seconds” for food banks todistribute and sometimes process. Community,home, and school gardening programs contributesome produce to the mix of food distributed by foodbanks and their affiliates, although the quantity isdifficult to estimate given that produce from thesesettings is often not weighed. Regardless, theseharvests have broader impacts on households’and communities’ capacity to meet some of theirown food needs compared with crops obtainedthrough gleaning. The smaller number of food bankfarming projects address an even broader rangeof community development goals, and most havedeveloped recently.Gleaning and farming have enabled some foodbanks to grow and source a large proportion of theirtotal food from local fruit and vegetable growers.A small number of food banks like Food Gatherers(40%), Inter-Faith Food Shuttle (41%), food banks inCalifornia, and others profiled in this report have thusdramatically altered the mix and overall healthfulnessof the food they distribute to people who are hungry.Gardening and community farming programs havetransformed many food banks’ roles in local foodsystems and in promoting community food security.The various gleaning, gardening, and farmingprograms run by or tied to food banks in the UnitedStates present diverse implications and opportunitiesfor public policy at the federal, state, and local levels.The large gleaning programs that source “seconds”from commercial growers illustrate an efficient waythat federal and state emergency food programs,which are already tied to commodity surplus, couldadapt their supply chains to source significantlymore fruits and vegetables. The federal Farm Bill andstate agricultural, welfare, education, and food reliefpolicies and programs can incentivize and supportcoordination of these supply chains, as they do in somestates already. In the Farm Bill, this includes fundingand guidelines for TEFAP, TEFAP Bonus, CSFP, andschool food (which is also impacted by child nutritionacts).Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CA41

This can take the form of:• Promoting farmers’ awareness of gleaningopportunities and associated tax benefits, which somefood banks already do, but which state agriculturalextension and other public sector farm supportprograms could disseminate further.• Tying incentives in federal and state hungerrelief programs to the proportion of produce theydistribute.• Reimbursing food banks for purchase andtransportation costs of moving produce, particularlyin the TEFAP Bonus and state food purchaseprograms.• Replicating statewide programs such as thosein California and Arizona, which Feeding Americaand its members are already seeking to do.The gardening and community farming programsthat engage large numbers of adults and youthfrom communities experiencing food insecurityillustrate how food bank and allied programs canbuild individual and community capacity for foodproduction, marketing, preparation, and consumptionof fresh vegetables and fruit, and promote foodjustice. The recent growth of urban agriculture andits substantial contributions to building communityfood security present diverse opportunities for cities,states, and the federal government to support theformation and preservation of these links, from landpolicy at the local and state levels to the Farm Billand allied nutrition legislation. Yet presently, policiesand public support for urban gardening are unevenand target food insecure communities inconsistently.Community, school, and home gardening programsled by or tied to food banks are well positioned to reachpeople experiencing and at risk for food insecurity.Opportunities to capitalize on this position include:• Congress and the USDA could create anational fruit and vegetable garden support programthat builds more consistent and accessible supports forgrowers in urban, suburban, and rural communitiesat risk of food insecurity. Both new and existinggarden support systems can be linked much more tofood banks and their constituents, as the variety ofprograms profiled above illustrate. The CommunityFood Projects program in the Farm Bill, together withother federal and state agriculture and communitydevelopment funding, already support gardeningand urban farming on a project basis. However,since the end of the Urban Gardens Program thatoperated from the mid-1970s to mid-90s throughlocal extension, the federal government has notprovided ongoing support for city or countywidegarden support programs. Rebuilding a nationalgardening support system could entail a relativelysmall commitment of funding, but would require are-orientation of urban agriculture support and ruralextension service systems in many cities and regions.• At the municipal or county level, localgovernments and their nonprofit partners alreadysupporting community, school, and home gardeningcan link and embed their work more systematicallyin their local and regional networks of foodbanks, cupboards, and other emergency feedingorganizations. This can take the form of both materialand educational support for gardeners as well asexpanded grow-a-row networks.It is important to recognize that not every cupboard,homeless shelter, or soup kitchen will be a viable placeto garden, depending on their organizational capacityand focus of their work, nor will every recipient offood assistance be a good candidate to garden. Butmany are, as illustrated by the larger community andhome-based garden support programs discussedabove.Crucially, garden and small farm support programscost money to sustain. Food banks and especiallycupboards also often require equipment upgrades,mainly for refrigeration, in order to effectivelymanage the distribution of more fresh produce –and some of the food banks profiled in this reporthave assisted their member cupboards with thesecapital improvements and supply chain management.Although some effort is required, garden and smallfarm support programs represent some of the mostefficient and impactful investments in building foodsecurity.Finally, some farming programs discussed inthis report also suggest that food banks can playimportant roles in farmland preservation, regionalfood distribution, and in training and incubating newfarmers, chefs, and food enterprises, contributing tothe vitality and sustainability of far more than just the42

emergency food system. These programs help illustratethe contributions food banks can make to diversesectors of local economies, again with many potentiallocal, state, and federal agriculture and economicdevelopment policy opportunities and implications.Community Food Forest, Portland Fruit Tree Project, Portland, ORSecond Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, CA43

ENDNOTES1. CSA stands for “community supported agriculture,” an arrangement in which customers pay farmers beforethe growing season and receive produce weekly. In “low income CSAs,” which are typically subsidized, customerstypically pay smaller amounts on a weekly basis.2. A small number of scholars have formally studied gleaning programs, mainly through ethnographic methodsor single case studies. These include: Susan H. Evans and Peter Clarke, “Disseminating Orphan Innovations,”Stanford Social Innovation Review vol.9, no.1 (Winter 2011), 42-47; Anne Hoisington, Sue N. Butkus, StevenGarrett, and Kathy Beerman, “Field Gleaning as a Tool for Addressing Food Security at the Local Level: CaseStudy,” Journal of Nutrition Education vol.33, no.1 (January-February 2001), 43-48; Joseph J. Molnar, PatriciaA. Duffy, LaToya Claxton, and Conner Bailey, “Private Food Assistance in a Small Metropolitan Area: UrbanResources and Rural Needs,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare vol. 28, no.3 (September 2001), 187-210;Janet Poppendieck, “Dilemmas of Emergency Food: A Guide for the Perplexed,” Agriculture and Human Valuesvol.11, no.4 (Fall 1994), 69-76; Janet Poppendieck, Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement(New York: Penguin, 1999); and Valerie Tarasuk and Joan M. Eakin, “Food Assistance through ‘Surplus’ Food:Insights from an Ethnographic Study of Food Banks Work,” Agriculture and Human Values vol.22, no.2 (Summer2005), 177-186. Concurrent to our study, Professor David Aftandilian of Texas Christian University conductedan electronic survey of food banks’ gardening programs in the United States; and Holly Beddome surveyed fruitgleaning organizations in the U.S. and Canada for her Masters in Environmental Studies at the University ofManitoba. Some past studies of nutrition, food security, and community development also note food banks’ linksto urban agriculture, though these links themselves are not the core focus of these studies. They include: Gail W.Feenstra, “Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol.12(1997), 28-36; Michael W. Hamm and Anne C. Bellows, “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators,”Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior vol.35, no.1 (January-February 2003), 37-43; Charles Z. Levkoe,“Learning Democracy Through Food Justice Movements,” Agriculture and Human Values vol.23, no.1 (Spring2006), 89-98; Betty Wells, Shelly Gradwell, and Rhonda Yoder, “Growing Food, Growing Community: CommunitySupported Agriculture in Rural Iowa,” Community Development Journal vol.34, no.1 (1999), 38-46; and MarkWinne, Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty (Boston: Beacon, 2008).3. See: Domenic Vitiello and Michael Nairn, Community Gardening in Philadelphia: 2008 Harvest Report (2009);Domenic Vitiello, Michael Nairn, J.A. Grisso, and Noah Swistak, Community Gardening in Camden, NJ: HarvestReport (2010); Idem, Community Gardening in Trenton, NJ: Harvest Report (2010), all available at: https://sites.google.com/site/urbanagriculturephiladelphia/harvest-reports4. See: Farm to Family Out the Door: A Food Bank’s Guide to Produce Distribution in California (http://www.cafoodbanks.org/docs/F2F_Out_The_Door.pdf); and Utilizing New Methods of Crop Harvesting to IntroduceNutrient-Dense Specialty Crops to Low Income Consumers (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5096280&acct=gpfsmip).5. For links to fruit tree and gleaning projects in Canada, the U.K., and U.S., see: http://www.phillyorchards.org/orchards/links6. Vitiello and Nairn, Community Gardening in Philadelphia; Vitiello et al., Community Gardening in Camden,NJ and Community Gardening in Trenton, NJ; Josh Beniston and Rattan Lal, “Improving Soil Quality for UrbanAgriculture in the North Central U.S.,” in Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems, Rattan Lal and BruceAugustin, eds. (New York: Springer, 2012), 279-314.44

APPENDIXInterview QuestionsThe following questions were asked of all food banksand organizations interviewed for this report:General Background1. How and why did the food bank or organizationbegin sourcing from local agriculture?2. Where is the food from these programs distributed?3. Has there been increased demand for freshand/or local produce from member agencies ororganizations since the program began?4. Can the food bank meet demand?5. How many food cupboards, soup kitchens,and other organizations receive food from localagriculture sourcing programs? And, relatedly, howmany (estimated) households receive food throughthese same programs?Fresh Food Programs1. Please give a brief history of each relevant program.2. What are the program goals, and how do theyrelate to the organization’s mission, vision, andvalues?3. Is this an in-house program or partnership? Ifpartnership, discuss the partner organizations’ goals,missions, and roles.4. Please tell us about the organization of theprogram. What are the different staff roles, expertise,and backgrounds? How are volunteers involved inthe program? How are they recruited, coordinated,etc.? What is the program budget, and how is itfunded?6. Why have funders supported the program? Arethere any stipulations to funding? How long does thefunding exist?7. What prospects and barriers does the program faceto scaling up?8. How reliable is the supply chain for the program?Are there any efforts underway to find new suppliers?9. How replicable is this program? What are thechallenges of replication?10. What policies have you encountered that eithermake this program more difficult or facilitate it? Isthere an example of a policy enacted in response toan identified problem or barrier?11. What are your plans, if any, to augment theprogram in the near future (e.g., next 2 years)?12. Are you planning other new programs/initiativesthat you expect to involve local agriculture in the nearfuture?Synergies and Best-Practice Sharing1. Has the food bank or organization been in contactwith other food banks or similar organizations toshare best practices? If so, has this communicationbeen beneficial? If not, why? Are there any barriersto information sharing?2. If a database were created with national localagriculture practices and programs (as connected tohealthful food relief), would that be helpful to theorganization’s work?3. Are you aware of any programs in your area that areworth further investigation?5. Why do producers, consumers, and volunteersparticipate in the program? Do you partner withorganizations to run the programs, and if so, whatare the roles of partners?45