Fictional Food Bank Case Study
The board decides to update its annual food drive to focus its procurement efforts on a neighborhood closest to where the majority of its board members live. Historically, the drive has included procurement efforts within all neighborhoods in their community. This approach requires additional board and staff bandwidth in order to canvas a larger area. Past results average 6,000 pounds of consumable food that is immediately available through the food bank, which has recorded more need than capacity to serve for the past 10 years.
Board members determine it is most efficient, convenient and aligned with relationships they have with local business owners to focus organizational efforts in one neighborhood this year. They offer to open up their homes and leverage personal relationships as a part of this new strategy, and there is greater excitement and interest by board members to get involved in the drive than in past years. The events and marketing efforts feel fresh, fun, and feedback from event attendees and local business owners is overwhelmingly positive. There is media attention on the events, and the board is featured on the local news and various social media platforms. Local political candidates highlight the organization's efforts in city council elections, and brand recognition spikes. Results of this year's strategy equate to 1,500 pounds of consumable food that is immediately available: a decrease of 4,500 pounds. Staff time required to support this strategy was also 15% higher than in years past, equating to $60,000 in HR expenses devoted to this initiative.
A board that does center community will acknowledge that while their efforts and updated strategy increased awareness by individuals who could help the organization in the future, it did not fulfill immediate community needs. Board members will partner with staff to create a plan to secure the deficit: the 4,500 pounds in consumable foods.
They will also acknowledge the organization's historic strategy, which did not garner the same media, political, or trustee attention, but did equate to 6,000 pounds of food procured, needs to be revisited. And ideally, they will carry lessons learned and benefit from their approach this year to strengthen the historic strategy.
They will also connect with individuals served by the food bank and/or show up on a day when it is open to ensure that service delivery is occurring as intended. They will be open to direct feedback from individuals served by the food bank and staff about ways to optimize resources. They will recruit individuals who have historically received services from the organization to join a committee or board. Before board meetings, they will review data and benchmarks about the food bank's service delivery to ensure they are versed in operational gaps and challenges in hopes of addressing them collaboratively.
A board that does not center community will insist the excitement, media, and increased engagement of the board are all signs that their approach is working, despite the decrease in food delivered by 75%. They may feel depleted from their efforts, and request staff to figure out a way to secure the outstanding 4,500 pounds in food.
They may create a narrative that future years will equate to even more than 6,000 pounds of food procured based on positive feedback they have received. They will insist on repeating their strategy, without data or evidence this is possible.
The Executive Director attempts to lift up the 4,500-pound discrepancy as rationale to reconsider the approach, but the board decides to omit a discussion around the immediate loss in food, and fails to acknowledge the families that will be walking away from the food bank expecting their allocation of 3 pounds that they relied on to support their family and stretch a paycheck that does not provide a living wage. They may not realize the impact of their choices and decisions at board meetings, as they have not read reports designed to educate them on the organization's current functioning.