Efficient and Effective:

Washington State Hunger-Relief Transportation and Storage Capacity

Gaps and Possible Solutions

Photo credit Rotary International/Alyce Hanson.

July through November 2009

Rotary First Harvest

Capacity Building Project

Benjamin Rasmus Harvest Against Hunger AmeriCorp Vista

2

Table of Contents Glossary …………………………………………………………. 4 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………….... 6 Methodology …………………………………………………………. 7 Section I: Storage Capacity and Transportation Overview …. 8 Section II: Current Distribution Model and Chokepoints ……… 9 Diagram A …………………………………………….. 10 Section III: Gaps …………………………………………………... 11 Gap #1: Need to Increase Cooperative Transportation ……. 11 Possible solutions: Transportation Coalitions ……………………………. 11

Government Funding ………………………………… 12 Distribution Center and Food Bank Vehicles ……… 13 Maintenance Cooperatives ………………………….. 13

Gap #2: Need for Donated and Reduced-Rate Trucking….... 14 Possible Solutions: Donated and Reduced Rate Trucking ……………… 14

Shared-Trucking Communication Platform ………… 15 Gap #3: Need to Improve Storage Capacity …………………. 16 Possible Solutions: Throughput………………………………...…………… 16 Shared Cold Storage …………………………………. 17

Ordering Government Commodities ………………... 17 Government Storage …………………………………. 17 Commercial Cold Storage …………………………… 17 Mobile Food Banks …………………………………… 18 Cross Docking ………………………………….. 18 Tailgate Distribution ………………………………….. 18

Gap #4: Need to Continue to Improve Dialogue …………….. 20 Possible Solutions: Funding Opportunities ………………………………… 20

EFAP Model ………………………………………….... 20 Regional Conference Calls …………………………… 20 Additional Staff ………………………………………... 21

3

Gap #5: Need for More Community Based Partnerships …... 22 Possible Solutions: Business Community ………………………………… 22

Service Clubs …………………………………………. 22 Gap #6: Need to Expand Clusters of Partnership …………… 24 Possible Solutions: Clusters of Partnership ………………………….…… 24

Diagram B …………………………………………….. 26 Food Redistribution …………………………….……. 27 Food Repackaging Center ………………………….. 27 Nutritious Food ………………………….……………. 27 Diagram C …………………………………………….. 28 Diagram D …………………………………………….. 29

Section IV: Next Step and Pilot Models ………………………….. 30 Rotary First Harvest Position Paper ………………… 31

4

Glossary:

Storage capacity – Ability to collect and warehouse dry and climate controlled food. Transportation – Ability to move food in a variety of trucks and vehicles. Food banks – A program that distributes unprepared food for free to people in need. Distribution centers – An organization that collects, warehouses and distributes donated food on a local, regional and/or statewide level. Regional distribution center – Operates in a multi-county service area. Local distribution center – Operates in a countywide or smaller service area. Department of General Administration (GA) – State agency that manages two USDA federal food distribution programs, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) – Federally funded program that provides operational funding and food, like meats, rice, pasta, eggs, canned fruits and vegetables. Emergency Food Assistance Program (EFAP) – Washington State funded program through the Department of Commerce that allocates money and resources to food banks and distribution centers. Lead agency – An organization that subcontracts with one or more distribution center or food bank to provide food to food banks or clients. There are 28 lead agencies for EFAP, 21 for TEFAP, often one distribution center is the same lead agency in a county for both EFAP and TEFAP. Semi-trailer loads – Often utilized in the hunger-relief system for the regional and statewide transportation of donated food. Trailers vary in length from 28 to 53 feet and can handle loads up to 44,000 pounds. Flatbed semi load – A load floor that can haul stacked and strapped-down cargo, often to transport large loads of fruit for loads up to 60,000 pounds. Box truck loads – Often used in the hunger-relief system for local and regional transport of donated food. Box trucks have a cubed shaped cargo area and handle loads from 15,000 to 20,000 pounds. Refrigerator (reefer) truck – A truck (also could be a trailer or van) that uses a cooling unit to haul perishable items, like fresh produce.

5

Cold storage – Refrigerating or freezing food products to maintain or extend its integrity. Throughput – The ability to move product through a warehouse in a timely and efficient manner. Cross-docking – The process of moving food from one transport vehicle to another with little or no warehousing. Drop shipping – A common supply-chain management technique that bypasses warehousing and transports food directly from producer to food bank. Repack center – A facility, often at a distribution center, that can receive bulk food donations then sort and package food into usable donation sizes for food bank clients. Gleaning – Collecting unharvested produce and tree fruits to be distributed into the hunger-relief system and onto clients in need.

6

Executive Summary Transportation and storage capacity bottlenecks contribute to gaps in the hunger-relief system. This report identifies six barriers that prevent the fluid distribution of hunger-relief food across the state. With each recognized barrier, or gap, possible solutions are also recommended. The goal of the gaps and recommendations in this report are threefold:

• Build-upon previous reports by pinpointing transportation and storage capacity gaps that disrupt the distribution of food.

• Create a common understanding within the hunger-relief system of gaps and expand upon current or develop new solutions that address barriers.

• Allow this report to act as a springboard to create pilot models that address transportation and storage capacity bottlenecks. Feasibility of replicating successful pilot models statewide could also be explored.

The six barriers addressed in this report are not ordered in importance. However, all gaps do directly relate to issues of infrastructure and capacity, like transportation, dry and climate-controlled storage space or factors that may improve food distribution. The six gaps are:

1. Need to increase cooperative transportation 2. Need for donated and reduced-rate trucking 3. Need to improve storage capacity 4. Need to continue to improve dialogue 5. Need for more community based partnerships 6. Need to expand clusters of partnership

Along with the six gaps, 24 possible solutions are also suggested. Hunger-relief organizations may already be using some of these solutions in certain parts of the state or country, while others may be new strategies to fight hunger. In either case, some recommendations will be pilot tested. Rotary First Harvest will actively lead and pilot test a few models in 2010, while other possible solutions will be left to other hunger-relief organizations to coordinate pilot models. A common thread throughout the majority of this report is the need to improve collaboration among hunger-relief organizations and partnerships with businesses. The vast majority of the possible solutions offer methods to combine local resources and improve cooperation. As the report suggest, such partnerships can improve existing transportation and storage capacity, potentially better serving distribution centers, food banks, meal programs and ultimately people in need.

7

Methodology This report was written from the perspective of the entire Washington State hunger-relief system, not from the view of any single organization. Each gap and possible solution was identified either from previous published reports and data or directly from interviews and conversations held between July and November 2009. These interviews were held in person and over the phone with a variety of individuals from around the state. Conversations were held with hunger-relief stakeholders to learn about and identify transportation and storage capacity constraints and solutions to such bottlenecks. A number of individuals participated in these conversations from regional and local distribution centers, food banks and other hunger-relief organizations. During the data collection process, ride-alongs were also done with truckers that transport hunger-relief food. This assisted in illustrating how transportation and capacity issues impact hunger-relief food distribution. Additionally, government and funding organizations were included in the data collection stage to better learn about transportation and storage capacity issues from their perspective. The business community was also sought on how to better improve ties between nonprofit and for-profit organizations to benefit hunger-relief efforts. Trucking companies were contacted on how to create new or leverage established donated and reduced rate transport partnerships. Companies that have experience moving large quantities of refrigerated or frozen food in a short amount of time also provided suggestions and expertise for this report.

8

Section I: Storage Capacity and Transportation Overview The hunger-relief system in Washington State fulfills a most fundamental and basic need for hundreds of thousands of people, providing sustenance to men, women and children in nearly every community. A network of organizations, employees and volunteers all contribute to feed the hungry throughout this state. While the system is grassroots-orientated efficient and effective, transportation and storage capacity barriers can prevent the fluid distribution of donated food throughout the hunger-relief system and to clients in need. In recent years, numerous interviews, studies and reports indicate that issues of transportation and storage capacity remain impediments for the effective and equitable distribution of hunger-relief food. Previous reports, such as the Department of Commerce’s capacity building report, “A Fork in the Road1,” have addressed such bottlenecks as part of a broader analysis of the hunger-relief system. However, this gap analysis differs from previous reports because it focuses solely on transportation and storage capacity gaps that continue to create distribution chokepoints. These barriers are amplified by requirements to safely distribute the most nutritious foods, like fresh produce, meat and dairy. Food bank clients and low-income individuals often have a harder time buying nutritionally dense food items. This puts even more burden on the hunger-relief system to procure, transport and store nutritious food. Sometimes when these healthy foods enter the hunger-relief system they are near expiration and timely transport combined with the capacity for storing such items is challenging. As noted earlier, the hunger-relief system is grassroots based and organic in nature; food banks tend to sprout where needs exists. This is a great strength of the statewide hunger-relief system because services gravitate towards need. Naturally, parts of the hunger-relief system evolved to target local need, which may have inadvertently developed service models that are too narrowly focused in some areas. Now an opportunity exists to realign the overall hunger-relief distribution network and increase regional and local cooperation. Fortunately, because the system is locally based, it can continue to serve local community needs, while also balancing the desired goals of the regional and statewide system. This analysis identifies six gaps and shares a handful of possible solutions to transporting food in a more effective and timely manner locally, regionally and statewide. This report also addresses the importance of transportation and storage capacity for the distribution of food. Transportation and storage capacity issues are often the convergence points for most obstacles within the current emergency food distribution model.

1 The full document and other Department of Commerce publications can be found at:

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/666/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=666

9

Section II: Current Distribution Model and Chokepoints There are two important phases of emergency food distribution: food entering the hunger-relief system through various channels, and food leaving the system through food banks and meal programs to its endpoint, clients. Procured food, donated or purchased, enters the system from farmers, growers, wholesalers, processors, packers, grocery stores, government food assistance programs2 and non-commercial donations, like local food drives. Food then exits the system through food banks and meal programs, ultimately reaching clients in need. In between these two phases, the successful handling of all food hinges on two critical points: transportation and storage capacity. Adequate transportation is crucial for the intake of food into the system. For instance, food is usually transported from food sources to distribution centers, and then from distribution centers to food banks3. Once the food is transported, storage capacity becomes the next challenge for fluid food movement. Sufficient food storage must exist from the largest distribution center to the smallest food bank. Without adequate storage and efficient coordination between the distribution center and food banks, there is an increased risk that perishable donations will be compromised or the food bank will have to refuse the food. Within the current distribution model, gaps exist that create inefficient use of storage capacity and transportation (see Diagram A).

2 Two government funded programs, the Department of General Administration’s TEFAP and the

Department of Commerce’s EFAP both play critical roles in the hunger-relief system. 3 Food also goes directly from the source to food banks.

10

Diagram A:

Food Banks

DistributionCenters

Convergence point where

majority of gaps exist

TransportationStorageCapacity

Distribution

Food enters hunger relief system:

Farmers

Grocery Stores

Processors and Packers

GovernmentWholesalers

Local Food Drives

Individual Donations

Food Recovery OperationsService Clubs

Food exits hunger relief system:

Reaching clients in need

Food is distributed

through a distribution center

Food is distributed

directly to food banks

Current Distribution Model

Gaps also occur at

the food bank level

11

Section III: Gaps The gaps listed in this analysis are compiled from discussions with various individuals in the hunger-relief system and previously published data. The identified gaps by no means cover all existing barriers in the hunger-relief system, but are merely identified transportation and storage capacity chokepoints and possible solutions that some organizations and individuals have identified. Below are six gaps, not in order of importance. Gap #1: Need to Increase Cooperative Transportation Problem: Not enough transportation collaboration occurs between county-level distribution centers and food banks and among local networks of food banks. Although transportation partnerships do exist in some parts of the state, there are more opportunities to improve cooperation, like shared trucking coalitions. Many small food banks have to rely on their volunteers’ vehicles as a way to transport food. Other food banks often lack adequately-sized vehicles or any vehicles at all, due to operating and maintenance costs. Additionally, many distribution centers and food banks report spending a large amount of money on maintaining an aging fleet of trucks and trailers, which are added operational costs. This lack of available transport sometimes limits the amount or kind of food hunger-relief organizations can pick-up or receive. Possible Solutions: Transportation Coalitions Create new or expand existing transportation coalitions. Transportation cost-sharing programs, like the South King County Food Coalition (SKCFC), allow for the shared transport of goods within a regional network, resulting in larger amounts of food being available to all partner food banks. The SKCFC purchased their shared vehicle from a grant originating from the United Way. Now the 11 partner food banks share the truck as an added resource in addition to each food banks’ original vehicle fleet. Whenever a partner food bank receives a load from the SKCFC they must pay a shared maintenance fee. This fee covers overhead costs of the truck, like insurance and gas. Even with the delivery fee, the SKCFC cost-sharing program is cheaper than other transport options, like renting a truck. If one food bank does not originally have the ability to accept a full truckload of procured food, now, with the help of a coalition and shared vehicle, ten partner food banks can share and allocate the food amongst themselves.

12

This SKCFC model demonstrates that if a local distribution center or food bank network wants to establish a transportation cooperative, they can build upon local food bank coalitions or preexisting hunger-relief networks. Sustaining, rather than starting, shared transportation partnerships is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects. Therefore, such coalitions should also seek new and ongoing funding sources to support the project. The coalition must also determine how to manage the program and how much each delivery fee will cost. When local food banks participate as a unified network, collaborative transportation allows local networks to deliver and receive larger amounts and potentially more diverse kinds of food

Government Funding and Transportation Government resources, like TEFAP and EFAP are other sources of funding and assistance to help with purchasing or sharing a partnered vehicle. Food banks can try to improve local transportation collaboration by pooling their funding4 to purchase a vehicle and pay for its gas, maintenance and repair costs. This funding could also be used to assist food banks to reimburse some local transportation costs and provide mileage reimbursement. Coalitions could also consider seeking preexisting vehicle contracts through government purchasing co-ops such as the Department of the General Administration. Contracts are available to GA co-op members to purchase contracted price vehicles, which are at a discounted rate5. Typically there is a $400 two-year co-op membership fee. If local food bank partnerships are exploring purchasing a new vehicle, like a cargo van, they can consider leveraging available vehicle contracts to purchase vehicles at a reduced rate. Transportation coalitions could either join a co-op or explore purchasing options through their lead agency, which would help cut costs of a new vehicle. Additionally, eligible distribution centers and food banks can purchase used surplus vehicles through the GA without being a co-op member. General Administration already has a number of trucks continually traveling around the state, delivering TEFAP commodities and food for the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (OSPI) School Lunch Program. Distribution centers and food banks can pay to utilize the existing GA trucking networks to transfer dry food. At this time, the GA does not have the capacity to transport frozen or chilled foods, but may in the future. To transfer dry food items, the GA uses the Materials Management Centers. Distribution centers and food banks may use these established routes to move procured food, which charges $35 a pallet, traveling west to east, and $45 a pallet traveling east to west.

4 EFAP funding comes from the Washington State General Fund and may be used by food bank

programs for administrative costs. 5 Besides TEFAP and CSFP, the GA is a potential resource for eligible non-profit organizations

for contracts, used surplus equipment, possible transportation and warehousing services. Please contact GA Food Programs if you would like specific information.

13

Regional lead agencies can also lower costs when they order the delivery of TEFAP commodities collectively. TEFAP also has the ability to drop ship a semi load of commodities to three separate locations. This method may help lead agencies save money upfront because the cost of drop ship transportation is included within the commodity price.

Distribution Center and Food Bank Vehicles Another example of shared transportation responsibilities is a distribution center purchasing a vehicle with the intent of delivering the food it procures to partner food bank sites. There are several distribution centers that offer this service to food banks in their county or multi-county regions, lessening the burden of transportation costs on local food banks. Distribution centers and food banks can also apply for second-hand vehicles from companies or transit organizations. Once a vehicle is retired from its commercial purpose it may be donated to a nonprofit organization. Seeking donations from companies or corporations that donate vehicles with refrigerated transport may prove especially valuable. The addition of vehicles, new or used, is a good way hunger-relief organizations can increase their transportation capacity. However, distribution centers and food banks must be aware of ongoing operating and maintenance costs of any additional vehicles, which could be mitigated by the following possible solution.

Maintenance Cooperatives Regional hunger-relief networks made up of distribution centers and food banks can explore the creation of donated or reduced rate maintenance cooperatives to mitigate expenses. A maintenance cooperative could find one mechanic or shop that is sympathetic to the hunger-relief cause. The cooperative could guarantee that all maintenance work for the county’s equipment would be brought to that business. That one mechanic or shop could then service all equipment in a certain region, possibly even including items like forklifts. Similar to purchasing vehicles, GA contracts are also available for the maintenance of vehicles and forklifts. While GA contracts are usually for government agencies and schools, non-profits such as food banks, can also take advantage of these contracts and benefit from savings. Any shared or reduced maintenance costs would very likely result in a significant savings for all providers.

14

Gap #2: Need for Donated and Reduced-Rate Trucking Problem: Throughout the interviewing and data gathering stage of this gap analysis, individuals from hunger-relief, funding and commercial organizations all stressed the importance of efficiently transporting food. The majority of distribution centers and food banks all expressed the desire to reduce transportation costs. Currently, there are a variety of statewide, regional and local transportation networks within the hunger-relief system that truck a variety of food6. However, these transportation networks cost the hunger-relief system a large amount of money. New or enhanced methods could be explored to reduce the amount of money spent on trucking food. Possible Solutions: Donated and Reduced Rate Trucking Increases in the amount of reduced-rate and donated commercial trucking within the hunger-relief system could be very beneficial. More donated and reduced rate trucking regionally and locally could positively impact both the capacity and efficiency of food delivery. New donated trucking options could reduce the amount of money spent on transport and free-up money for additional food procurement. Distribution centers and food banks could establish new partnerships with various commercial organizations to help fill transportation gaps in the hunger-relief system. Throughout the state, commercial trucking companies do currently assist with the transport of procured food. For instance, some hunger-relief organizations utilize donated trucking to transport large amounts of food to regional distribution centers. Other local distribution centers have had success partnering with trucking schools to transport fresh produce. However, additional needs still exist, especially trucks of smaller sizes that transport loads on a regional and local level, which could assist county-level distribution centers and local food banks. A key component to forming new relationships is matching available resources with need. When local distribution centers and food banks develop new, or improve upon existing transport partnerships, they should identify and target smaller, local haulers as well. Exploring partnerships organizations, like beverage distributors, that already have pre-established distribution routes and vehicles with reefer transport could also be very beneficial. Ideally, donated or reduced-rate trucking can be effective and responsive to local hunger-relief

6 A variety of means of transport are needed and used by the hunger relief system. Often large

semis deliver upwards of 40,000 pounds of food on routes around the state. Additionally, more regional and localized delivery routes are also needed that use smaller transport options, usually around 3,000 pound loads, like refrigerated box trucks that are very useful to transfer fresh produce, cargo vans and pick-up trucks.

15

needs, evolving and growing in a local and grass-roots manner, even with the addition of commercial transport partnerships. Shared-Trucking Communication Platform If trucking companies or organizations are willing to assist the hunger-relief system, a platform of communication should be established. This platform would assist to facilitate smooth dialogue between distribution centers, food banks and the trucking industry. Within the hunger-relief system there are often two types of transportation, set-routes that occur consistently on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and episodic pick-ups and deliveries that occur on short notice. Although a number of the system’s transport needs are dynamic routes, the greatest opportunity for donated trucking may exist with set and regularly scheduled engagements, whether it’s for local, regional or statewide deliveries. A shared-trucking platform could possibly allow for new food procurement, particularly from neighboring states that otherwise may have been forfeited. Sometimes large distribution centers have the opportunity to pick-up donated or reduced-rate food in places like California or Oregon for distribution in Washington State. A platform for shared trucking could allow for more food procurement from sources in other states. Distribution centers can’t always supply their own transport to pick-up available food, especially when the food is across state lines and their current transport fleet is being used for more local deliveries. This platform should allow distribution centers and food banks to identify and communicate regularly scheduled pick-ups and deliveries to dispatchers of commercial trucking companies. The platform should also have the ability to alert the trucking system of unpredictable loads on a short notice, to see if donated or reduced-rate trucking is potentially available. This platform should strive to match the hunger-relief system’s needs with a commercial transport company’s donation in a timely and collaborative, but non-disruptive manner. Such a platform could exist online in the form of a website, email list-serve or a social media tool.

16

Gap #3: Need to Improve Storage Capacity Problem: Even with strong coalitions that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation, overall capacity is still contingent on the storage and warehouse space of distribution centers and food banks. Climate controlled storage is a critical issue that impacts all aspects of the hunger-relief network from the largest distribution centers down to the smallest food banks. Adequate cold storage is perhaps one of the biggest obstacles for food banks and some distribution centers. Often times a distribution center’s storage or warehouse space is sufficient, but can quickly become overwhelmed when food banks are full and unable to take additional food from the distribution center. As noted by one county-level distribution center manager, when a partner food banks’ warehouse space is full, especially cold storage, food accumulates at the distribution center. This was particularly true this past year with the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which increased the amount of bonus TEFAP food. TEFAP commodities generally focus on shelf-stable foods, but the ARRA funding focused on distributing bonus high-protein items that often require cold storage, like ham. Bonus commodities are usually announced and delivered on a relatively short-notice, sometimes complicating distribution. Because of a lack of cold storage space at local distribution centers and food banks, the hunger-relief system may also lose-out on opportunities to procure fresh produce. Possible Solutions: Throughput Throughput is the ability to move product through a warehouse in a timely and efficient manner. Improving the efficiency of county-level distribution centers and local food banks is crucial to improving storage capacity. Because some local distribution centers and many food banks have limited cold storage capacity it is critical to mitigate bottlenecks by keeping product moving fluidly from distribution centers, into food banks and to clients in need. In this respect, the amount of storage space is not necessarily the most crucial point, but the efficient use of the distribution center and food bank’s space becomes most important. If food cycles through the entire hunger-relief distribution system in a more efficient manner, a greater likelihood exists for an increased amount of food to enter the system and reach clients. For instance, food that would otherwise need to be stored in a cooler could be delivered the same day the food bank is open. If the food has sufficient shelf life, it could be delivered after the food bank had distributed the inventory it did have.

17

Shared Cold Storage In the same way food banks can share a truck, they can partner to purchase a shared walk-in cooler or freezer located at one of their sites. Costs for the repairs and increased utility bills could be shared based on an agreed-upon formula. EFAP funding can be used for such purchases. Another shared model to explore is buying used or finding donated refurbished reefer trailers. These reefer trailers could potentially be used at local distribution centers as external cold storage, thus increasing storage capacity for the distribution center and partner food banks. This could be a joint project between a local distribution center and food banks for a foundation’s grant. Ordering Government Commodities Lead agencies that order TEFAP commodities can do so strategically to reduce overstocking a certain item that could create a bottleneck. A lead agency can identify what commodities are coming into the system and when, this allows the lead agency to coordinate that their TEFAP commodities and independent food procurements don’t oversupply a particularly item. Some distribution centers have done this effectively, for example, if TEFAP has a heavy frozen food month then lead agencies could target other months to procure frozen food. Doing so has the potential to not only save money, but may also minimize capacity bottlenecks, particularly for items that need to be refrigerated or frozen and better provide for a nutritionally balanced food diet for clients. Government Storage Integrated networks could explore improving cooperation of storage between the Department of General Administration, like TEFAP commodities, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)7 and OSPI’s School Lunch Program and food delivered to prisons. Such coordination may be difficult, due to issues of logistics, liability and safety, but still may be worthwhile to pursue. For instance, in some parts of the state during the summer months hunger-relief organizations might be able to use a school’s cold storage. In order for this model to operate successfully, it must be mutually beneficial to all involved organizations, like the General Administration, schools and hunger-relief organizations. Commercial Cold Storage Some lead agencies already have in place back-up cold storage options, like partnerships with commercial cold storages or large regional distribution centers. Those that do not could pursue collaborative efforts to store excess amounts of frozen or chilled items when there are increases in commodity distribution or during the holiday season when there is an increase in procured food.

7 CSFP is a federally funded program that provides USDA food packages primarily to children

and the elderly. This program is only offered in limited areas of the state due to caseload limits at the federal level.

18

Hunger-relief organizations could establish or improve ties with commercial cold storage companies. Adding to the available cold storage space for distribution centers and food banks through donated commercial space could assist in relieving a large chokepoint. Some agricultural regions of the state could potentially increase the amount of procured produce with additional cold-storage capacity. For example, some gleaning operations in the state must forfeit tons of produce because of a lack of capacity to cold store food. One individual involved with gleaning efforts in an agriculture center said with additional cold storage capacity they could likely glean produce to supply the food banks for several months after the gleaning season is over in November. Overall additions to cold storage capacity could allow the hunger-relief system to bring in greater quantities of healthier, more nutritious food that necessitates being frozen or chilled. Mobile Food Banks Another option a hunger-relief network could explore is establishing or expanding mobile food banks. Mobile food banks could be additional services of distribution centers or local food banks and be an added opportunity to bring additional food directly to those in need. Mobile food banks have the potential to not only reach clients in remote and rural communities, but also in certain urban areas with high pockets of poverty where there are currently few or no food banks. Cross Docking One commonly used commercial method to move large quantities of product is cross-docking, which could take place at a regional or local distribution center to improve storage capacity. Cross-docking is the process of moving cargo directly from one transport vehicle to another with little or no warehousing. Such a system could efficiently move large amounts of fresh produce from farms or stores and onto local distribution centers or food banks, especially during peak harvest season and large gleans.

Tailgate Distribution Some service networks may have access to large amounts of fresh produce, but don’t have adequate cold storage and could explore bypassing cold storage warehousing altogether. For example, distribution centers or food banks could arrange for a procured truckload of produce to be unloaded at a prearranged drop-site. Once the food is unloaded clients could self-select produce directly from the pallets or bins. Members from the hunger-relief community should coordinate and be present to make sure the produce is shared equitably. In addition, food banks could plan with other local social service agencies to maximize client turnout and distribution8. This potential model could draw in many stakeholders, like county-level distribution centers, food banks, farms, commercial trucking and other nonprofit organization, in a local food system.

8 The California Association of Food Banks uses this distribution model for bulk produce items.

More information about this model and additional produce distribution formulas may be found at: http://www.cafoodbanks.org/Farm_to_Family_Produce_Distribution_Guide.html

19

This model might be most feasible in agricultural areas of the state, like Wenatchee, that have access to large amounts of fruits and vegetables, but may lack the capacity to cold store large amounts of produce.

20

Gap #4: Need to Continue to Improve Dialogue Problem: Food banks and distribution centers can improve their existing models of communication, especially on county and local levels. Recently, the hunger-relief system has seen improvement in communication, but more can still be done. A lack of dialogue may create bottlenecks, prohibiting the fluid distribution of food, duplicating transportation routes, and decreasing the likelihood of distribution centers and food banks receiving funding from donors. Additionally, a lack of regional and local dialogue lessens the chances for collaborative partnerships and innovative solutions to hunger-relief bottlenecks. Possible Solutions: Funding Opportunities One method to develop more dialogue is to seek funding through regional collaboration to improve partnerships, collaboration and communication. Private funding organizations are increasingly likely to fund projects that focus resources among local partnerships, rather than on a singular organization. Additionally, more federal funding opportunities, like USDA grants, are being structured in a competitive way, positioning states and regions to vie amongst each other. This shift in funding can encourage state, regional, county and local hunger-relief networks to explore building new communication chains or improve upon existing models. EFAP Model Another method to improve dialogue is to build upon the EFAP model, which encourages participation by requiring lead agency grantees, distribution centers and food banks in the same county to meet every two years. One of the strengths of the EFAP model is its responsiveness and ability to adapt to local need. Funding can be allocated for different uses in different parts of the state, but must be agreed-upon for how to use and allocate available state funding. County designated lead agencies and partnering distribution centers and food banks could use this framework to increase the frequency of communication within their service area for a host of collaborative efforts. Some counties have used this EFAP model as a springboard to form a stronger coalition to address local needs of the hunger-relief system. Such a coalition operates most effectively when they encourage member organizations to attend meetings regularly, on at least a quarterly basis. Building upon the EFAP model could also be beneficial in forming coalitions where they did not previously exist.

21

Regional Conference Calls Establish regional or local food bank conference calls. For instance, the county lead distribution center could facilitate a monthly or quarterly conference call with all partner food banks. These conference calls could improve local cohesiveness and potentially fuel more transportation and storage capacity collaboration. This model may prove more helpful for large geographic areas, like the Olympic Peninsula, where it’s not as easy to meet face-to-face on a frequent basis. Additional Staff Allocate or find funding for a staff position that can assist in improving local, regional or statewide communication. Creating and sustaining increased dialogue is a time consuming process and may require the full-time attention of a dedicated individual. The majority of organizations most likely don’t have the resources for a staff member to strictly work on facilitating and sustaining dialogue within the hunger-relief system. This position could potentially exist at a large regional distribution center or even at a statewide hunger-relief organization, like the Washington Food Coalition. For example, additional staff could assist the hunger-relief system improve communication within the business community to improve upon capturing more resources to fight hunger.

22

Gap #5: Need for More Community-Based Partnerships Problem: A number of businesses and organizations exist that may have resources to share at a reduced-rate or donate to the hunger-relief system. However, many hunger-relief organizations fail to reach-out to the business community and many businesses remain unaware of the hunger-relief system’s needs. Some business communities may donate or sell reduced-rate food or infrastructure, like cars, trucks or cold storage. Possible Solutions: Business Community County-level distribution centers and local food banks could improve relations with the business community, like farms, grocery stores, packing houses, cold and dry storage and transport companies by telling their stories and asking for help. Clearly, many large and small hunger-relief organizations around the state already do this successfully, but additional resources can still be captured. This outreach involves educating the business community about the gaps in the hunger-relief system and how businesses can assist in filling certain needs. One potential benefit from increased education and awareness of the hunger-relief system could be access to additional donated or reduced-rate food. Tons of edible food are refused and end-up being discarded at commercial food warehouses and distribution centers. Often this food is still nutritious and fit for consumption, but may have physical blemishes. Educating food vendors and companies on how to offload such food for the benefit of the hunger-relief system could result in more captured food. Similar education could also take place at interstate and highway weigh stations and truck stops. Sometimes semi-trucks carrying food products are overweight and must unload a few tons before continuing on their trip. Hunger-relief organizations could alert their local weigh station officials or post signs at truck stops to instruct drivers how to donate food in situations like these. This outreach may result in increased opportunities for food procurement. Service Clubs A natural setting to explore such collaboration with the business community is through local service clubs, like Rotary, Kiwanis and Lions. These clubs can potentially help bridge the gap between nonprofit and for-profit organizations and draw in new resources for the hunger-relief effort. While establishing new connections, the local hunger-relief community should use a dynamic person who can educate and engage the business community. Such individuals, who understand their local community and needs, could help spark new partnerships between the hunger-relief system and the businesses.

23

If distribution centers and food banks were able to promote more connections within their business community, added resources could be captured to help feed hungry families. While pursuing new partnerships, distribution centers and food banks may have better luck forming collaborations with family-owned businesses rather than large corporate companies. Additionally, in this current economic downturn, funding organizations are reducing the amount of money they provide to the hunger-relief system. Creating new business partnerships may help make-up for certain funding cuts.

24

Gap #6: Need to Expand Clusters of Partnership Problem: The Washington State hunger-relief system can improve upon integrating nonprofit and for-profit organizations to fight hunger as one unified group. Because of a lack of overall collaboration, hunger-relief organizations miss-out on opportunities to partner, through a coordinated approach, with commercial organizations like food, trucking and cold storage companies. Forming and sustaining a unified hunger-relief network is probably the most challenging of the identified gaps, but also has the potential to be the most beneficial. If a more integrated system is created and maintained a variety of pilot models or new programs could be established to leverage the resources of an entire network, rather than parts or single entities of the hunger-relief system. Possible Solutions: Clusters of Partnership County-level distribution centers and local food banks, both large and small, have the most opportunity to benefit from expanded clusters of partnership. This network of collaboration would not be a completely new layer of the hunger-relief system. Rather, it would be a combination of additional resources available to a network of distribution centers and/or food banks. These networks could serve a number of functions, and would likely evolve out of and remain responsive to local needs and resources. This model could operate in a collaborative manner similar to the SKCFC, but on a larger scale and with partnerships beyond transportation. For example, a cluster could establish itself around single or multiple distribution centers, or single and multiple food banks, depending upon local resources. One of the goals of the cluster is to create economies of scale that give local pockets of the hunger-relief system advantages to fight hunger. Some of the more proactive local distribution centers around the state have already started to incorporate a cluster network intentional or not. These sites have had success maximizing local food procurement by expanding beyond just distributing food to food banks. For example, this network draws-in resources like a local repackaging center to process and repack bulk food items, such as frozen vegetables. Similarly, a distribution center or a network of food banks could explore operating a cannery to repack fresh and frozen food items to increase its shelf life. A cluster of partnership could also look to establish close ties to a farm or orchard for donations or gleaning produce for the hunger-relief system. A cluster could also encourage local gardeners to grow an extra-row or even try approaching commercial farmers to consider growing additional food for donation, if it fits within their operation’s profit margin.

25

Besides distribution centers, food banks are also able to improve their capacity if they act within a cluster of partnership. As one food bank manager said, food banks must ask themselves what happens if they are offered a pallet of frozen food for donation, but don’t have the space to take it. A cluster of partnership could assist with increased food procurement in situations like this by working collaboratively. For instance, such a partnership could cluster around a hunger-relief organization operated in a local or county-level that was smaller than a distribution center, but larger than an average food bank. Such an organization could possibly assist other food banks that lacked adequate storage space at certain times. This partnered effort may allow that food bank to accept a pallet of frozen food that otherwise would have to be refused. Overall, this cluster network could help build upon existing or fuel new programs to improve capacity, transportation and distribution. Clusters could establish or enrich hunger-relief partnerships that a single organization working independently might not have been able to accomplish (see Diagram B).

26

Diagram B:

Cluster of Partnership BenefitsAdded resources for

food distribution:

STORAGEMaximize storage:

1. Local distribution centers

and food banks

2. Commercial cold

and dry storage

3. Government

warehouse

TRANSPORTATIONMaximize transportation:

1. Shared transport fleets

2. Donated statewide and

local commercial transport

3. Government transport

FOODMaximize additional food

procurements, such as:

1. Farm donations

2. Gleaning events

3. Grocery recovery

4. Buying cooperatives

Model of food distribution:

Food enters hunger-relief system:

Farmers, Grocery Stores, Packers,

Processors, Government,

Wholesalers & Food Drives, Etc.

Statewide &

Regional

Distribution

Centers

County &

Local

Distribution

Centers

Food BankFood Bank

Food BankFood Bank

Local

Food Bank

Networks

Clients in need

Greater amounts of procured transportation,

storage and food may benefit the cluster

where most need exists, whether it’s the

distribution center, food bank or a network of

food banks.

27

Food Redistribution An expanded network could redistribute product between food rich and food poor areas9 and deal with elasticity in supply. For instance, at certain times during the year some distribution centers and food banks have surpluses and shortages of specific food items. If a mechanism existed to easily redistribute or trade certain food items regionally and locally, some food banks might stay better supplied. Food Repackaging Center Enriched local and regional networks could establish their own repack center at a distribution center, food bank or third party location. These repack centers could allow partner hunger-relief organizations to procure larger amounts of bulk food, like beans, rice, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables. Repack centers could help networks of distribution centers and food banks handle previously unavailable sources of nutritious food and redistribute more accessible quantities of food in an efficient manner. People who help run and maintain repackaging centers must be aware of potential conflict of interest if food is procured in one county or locality, but repackaged and redistributed to another county. Under some circumstances, such redistribution might be acceptable, however, food should usually remain in the original area of procurement whenever possible. Additional Nutritious Food With stronger local and regional partnership, a cluster of distribution centers and food banks could cooperate to maximize healthy and fresh produce procurement. Healthy food is not limited to produce, but all foods that promote a healthful diet, like certain shelf-stable items, grains and dairies. Although this report focuses mainly on capturing, transporting and storing fresh and frozen produce, the hunger-relief system should also focus on procuring other healthy shelf-stable foods for a well-balanced diet. Clusters of partnership might help in doing so. For instance, individual distribution centers or food banks may not have the transportation, storage and volunteer capacity to procure additional food. However, working as a cluster they may have the ability to secure more nutritious food, by accessing additional fresh produce or by sharing resources such as transportation and storage capacity to draw-in additional food.

9 Some food rich areas in the state have natural agriculture connections, are close to packing

houses or nearby an abundance of grocery stores and markets. Food poor areas may not have such ease in procuring food because of a lack in potential sources.

28

Diagram C:

Local Food BanksLocal Food Banks

Local Food Banks

Local or Multi-County

Distribution Centers

Network without Clusters of Partnership

Food is distributed from

distribution centers to food

banks but more cooperation

could take place between

local food banks

More opportunities exist

for local distribution

centers to cooperate

29

Diagram D:

Local Food BanksLocal Food Banks

Local Food Banks

Local or Multi-County

Distribution Centers

When local

FBs and DCs

cooperate as a

cluster additional

resources can

be captured

Access to MoreNutritious Food

Network with Clusters of Partnership

Networks

of local

food banks

cooperate

with one

another

Local food banks

cooperate with

one another

Added Resource of

Food Repackaging

Added Resource of

Food Redistribution

Added Resource of

Procured Transport

Added Resource of

Procured Storage

30

Section IV: Next Step and Pilot Models This gap analysis is an attempt to identify and create a common framework to discuss future storage capacity and transportation improvements across the hunger-relief network. These six gaps can serve as a starting point of reference for some of the capacity and transportation issues in the statewide hunger-relief system. Some distribution centers and food banks may identify with many of the gaps and possible solutions in this assessment, while others may only relate to a few. The next step is to expand the conversation among all participants in the hunger-relief system and to commercial partners that could provide expertise and additional resources. In creating this analysis that identifies current gaps and some possible solutions, an opportunity exists for dialogue to further develop solutions. Some solutions will eventually be expanded and tested through selected pilot models. Pilot models will be asked to address one or more of the above gaps, but are not limited to the identified possible solutions in this report. Hunger-relief organizations in Washington State may build upon the above possible solutions or formulate different recommendations and pilot models to improve transportation and storage capacity. Some of the pilot models align with larger organizations, like distribution centers to initiate, find partners and coordinate. Other pilot models may work best at small or mid-size organizations or food banks.

31

Rotary First Harvest Position Paper Any hunger-relief organization may independently seek funding and partners to pilot test models as they see fit. However, Rotary First Harvest (RFH) will lead some pilot models and actively seek partners for those projects. For the pilot models RFH does select they will closely align with RFH’s mission:

• To feed the hungry with surplus nutritious food, • Access and improve food distribution and transportation systems, • Develop innovative hunger relief solutions, • Replicate concept of RFH.

Pilot models RFH coordinates will work with other hunger-relief organizations and help to identify partners to capture resources, equipment and funding. The process for RFH to identify and pilot test models will be as follows. First, recommendations and possible solutions in this report, along with other models will be prioritized, based on scale and scope and feasibility of RFH to successfully carry out the project. RFH board members will help determine what pilot models are best fit for RFH to take on and support. Second, hunger-relief organizations, and potential partners, donors and funding organization will be identified to test pilot models in a handful of settings in the state. Finally, pilot models will be evaluated to determine the success of a project. If certain projects are deemed successful then the feasibility of replicating similar models statewide will be explored.