Tag: fight-hunger

We Can’t Fight Hunger With Food Shaming

September is Hunger Action Month, a time to raise awareness about the prevalence and reality of hunger in America. I firmly believe that the way we think about hunger is the primary obstacle to solving it, so this month I am focusing on challenging the assumptions we’ve been conditioned to accept, and offer new tools for taking those ideas out into the world.

As a woman, I often receive unwanted public attention towards my food choices. If I order a salad, critiques range from how I must be watching my weight to compliments for making the healthy choice. When I order a steak, someone may congratulate me for not caring what other people think or they may offer some gross innuendo about the carnality of eating meat. My food choices are judged and discussed as if they are appropriate for public discussion.

While women generally receive the bulk of commentary about what they eat, it doesn’t mean that men don’t experience this. Overall, America’s obsession with diet culture means that our food choices are regularly evaluated by others, no matter who we are. People buying junk food are criticized for their ignorance of healthy eating, but people sticking to an organic, local diet are similarly castigated for being elitist and bougie.

No matter how we choose to eat, someone somewhere is comfortable announcing why we’re wrong.

Our society tends to treat foods as either good or bad with no middle ground, and we categorize people who eat those foods the same way. This fosters stigmatization and discrimination against people whose choices we disagree with.

This problem quickly becomes apparent in food pantries. It’s essential to remember that the foods most available to food pantries (even the ones doing their best to be healthy!) are the cheapest and least healthy- the “bad” foods. Even when pantry clients have few other options, it’s easy for volunteers and staff to make negative assumptions about individuals based on their selection of food. Fostering negative attitudes about shoppers inevitably manifests a less positive environment, and can unintentionally facilitate other discriminatory attitudes.

Alongside a desire to offer our opinions, there is a parallel desire to control what people experiencing poverty eat.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the efforts to add restrictions to SNAP limiting the purchase of unhealthy junk foods (which completely ignore the reality that healthy food costs more- we need to raise SNAP benefits if we want people to make different choices.)

Alongside the shame of visiting a food pantry, people experiencing hunger often undergo the secondary trauma of having their food choices supervised, monitored, and judged. This is a significant barrier to getting people the food they need to thrive. A welcoming pantry where shoppers feel free to pick the foods that work for them, rather than being pressured or humiliated into certain choices, is the pantry most effectively fighting hunger.

How we can reduce food shaming in pantries:

  • Do not monitor food choices. Too often, knowing a volunteer is watching their every move is enough to influence what a food pantry client is comfortable taking. While your pantry may have volunteers enforcing limits, do so as respectfully and as noninvasively as possible. If your pantry has staff or volunteers check or repack food selections before a client checks out, see if there is any way to change your system so that shoppers don’t feel like their choices have to be “approved.”
  • Offer a wide variety of foods. The more available your fresh produce is, the more people are likely to take it, but you cannot shame anyone into eating healthier. And too many people don’t have the capacity to use fresh options– many clients may depend on a microwave as their only cooking tool, or only have minutes available between work and caregiving responsibilities. Shaming them for the food choices does not make any healthier foods easier to eat. Offering a wide range of foods ensures that there is something that will work for everyone. Don’t turn your back on instant options.
  • Train volunteers to recognize their implicit biases and understand how it influences how they support shoppers. Unfortunately, food shaming is closely linked to weight shaming and fatphobia, and can manifest through poor treatment and services. This is a sensitive subject worthy of its own blog post, but it’s important to explicitly recognize that our judgements about size and food choice heavily influence how we interact with people. If we want to build inclusive, respectful, and effective food pantries, we need to acknowledge and work on these biases.

Major appreciation to Elie Jacobsen for helping source photos this week!

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Hunger is Political

September is Hunger Action Month, a time to raise awareness about the prevalence and reality of hunger in America. I firmly believe that the way we think about hunger is the primary obstacle to solving it, so this month I am focusing on challenging the assumptions we’ve been conditioned to accept, and offer new tools for taking those ideas out into the world.

Several years ago, I worked as a volunteer coordinator at a major food bank. I was lucky enough to start there just as we rolled out a new advocacy strategy, which meant my colleagues and I were responsible for introducing it to the community. As part of the volunteer repack shifts, we began to develop discussion points for engaging volunteers in anti-hunger advocacy.

While respecting the lobbying limitations of a nonprofit, we initiated conversations about the relationship between hunger and housing, healthcare, racial justice, and other issues. While some volunteers were receptive, many others were deeply irritated or even offended that we mentioned such problems.

“Stay in your lane! Hunger isn’t supposed to be political.”

I regularly received feedback that people volunteer with the food bank specifically because hunger “wasn’t political.” The second we started talking about how increasing affordable housing or accessible healthcare would fight hunger, we crossed a line.

The reality is, hunger is intensely political. The food insecurity rates of our neighbors and communities are directly related to the choices that we, from individuals to nations, make every day.

Hunger does not exist in a silo. No one experiencing hunger faces that as their only challenge. Hunger is intimately related to housing, healthcare, wages, racism, discrimination, gender, childcare, and a million other issues. If we really want to end hunger, then we need an organized plan to address poverty and all that encompasses.

If you are angry with your food bank for talking politics, then you aren’t really fighting hunger.

You’re fighting for the status quo.  

Every public policy related to hunger. But while hunger is political, it doesn’t have to be partisan.

For example, libraries offer a space for people to use computers and the internet for free, which can be essential for applying to jobs or accessing resources. Losing this option can heavily impact the food security of an individual. The library bond on your ballot is a hunger issue.

Many, many people rely on public transportation to get to work, buy groceries, and carry out their daily life. Without a reliable way to get around, people go hungry, work can’t get done, and the economy suffers. The loud city bus your neighbor complains about is a hunger issue.

Many our food pantry clients have jobs, but are still forced to live in their cars, shelters, or couch surf. Without housing options within their budgets, they struggle to maintain a job, stay safe, and eat healthy food. Food pantries and SNAP are designed for people with kitchens, which meant we have fewer options to offer these people who go hungry as a result. Affordable housing is a hunger issue.

Voting is one of the most important ways we provide feedback and guidance to our government. Increasing barriers to vote (like we’re currently seeing) means we silence valuable opinions and lived experience that help shape stronger communities. Voting rights are a hunger issue.

It takes bravery for anti-hunger organizations to publicly discuss these relationships. And the legalities of nonprofits and politics make many organizations wary of crossing a line. But if we really want to solve hunger, we can’t limit our advocacy efforts to just food access.  

Here’s how anti-hunger organizations can begin engaging with the bipartisan politics of hunger in their communities:

  • Host voter registration drives. This is a great entry point because it doesn’t explicitly connect hunger with politics, but it still opens the door for action from clients and volunteers alike. There is also an enormous amount of misinformation and voter suppression this year, so providing reliable resources and support is an incredibly valuable option.
  • Incorporate clients referrals to partner organizations that can help them with other issues like housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and other challenges. Make sure your volunteers know about these relationships, and why they are important. Every opportunity that our community sees a connection between hunger and other symptoms of poverty helps strengthen our understanding of the challenge we face.
  • Develop systems where your public-facing employees can have these conversations. Does volunteer orientation discuss how hunger relates to other challenges in your region? Start small, in one-on-one or small group discussions for practice, before bringing it to bigger volunteer shifts. Don’t try this unless leadership at every level believes and is ready to support the intersectionality of hunger. You’re likely to irritate or lose those volunteers who maintain that these discussions are too political- make sure to support your staff when this happens, but also remember that it also builds a stronger team who is better prepared to take decisive actions towards ending hunger.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Fight Hunger with Local Food

The last food pantry that I worked at was always buried in local plums during summertime. Community members, overwhelmed by the abundance of their fruit trees, knew that we had the capacity and the enthusiasm to take as much as they had to give away. Our walk-in refrigerator was piled high with cases of fruit and coated in the sticky juice that rapidly spread to all surfaces of the pantry.

The scale of the donations and the short shelf-life of ripe plums meant that we encouraged our visitors to take as much as they wanted, no holds barred. Alongside this fruit, we also received donations of excess zucchini, cucumbers, tomatoes, root vegetables and more from local gardeners.

These foods were fresher than what we got from the grocery stores, and the irregular sizes, shapes, and colors were popular among our clients precisely because they identified the foods as locally grown.

But as summer ended and the local gardens and fruit trees were depleted, our fresh options dwindled as well. Our produce selection shrank to whatever we received from grocery stores and our regional food bank, rarely in the same quantities as the plums, and never as fresh.

While the term “local food” is thrown around often enough to numb us to its meaning, there are real, tangible reasons why it is important and worth supporting.

Alongside tasting better, fresh foods are more nutritious, and small local operations are far more likely to grow varieties that haven’t been sapped of their nutritional value.

Making local purchases ensures that money stays in the community, rather than heading to a corporation halfway around the world. Foods grown in our community travel shorter distances, which means they have less of environmental impact when it comes to transportation and storage.

I have to note that it’s important to consider what our definition of “local food” is. While contracts and federal funding demand more clarity, my favorite framing of local is food that comes from as close as possible. Only eating locally grown foods is largely unrealistic- there are no cocoa farms in Oregon, so I’m not willing to even try. However, focusing on foods grown in our region when we can adds offers real benefits to our bodies and our communities.

But food banks and pantries were not designed to prioritize fresh options, and the systems we have rarely support local producers or growers.

Where do food pantries get their fresh produce?

  • Donations from grocery stores. These donations are often where pantries find a real diversity of foods, based on the store’s options. However, they may vary widely in quality because all stores (and their staff) have different standards for how donations are handled. Some donate foods when they’re just past their peak but still functional, but often times donations are well past their use-by date. It’s not malicious- this is simply a system that doesn’t really work for fresh produce.
  • Food banks. These options can come from grocery stores, but also producers and distributors who may have over-ordered or are unable to sell the food for a variety of reasons beyond expiration dates. Food banks are generally able to access and store higher quantities of produce, which in turn helps food pantries offer more consistent choices for their shoppers. An increasing number of food banks have started buying produce in bulk, but generally must prioritize price over place of origin.
  • Community and neighborhood gardens. Some community gardens dedicate specific growing space for their local pantry, while others simply donate their excess. This often helps pantries access foods that grow in abundance, like zucchini, cucumber, tomatoes, and of course plums and other fruits. Getting these foods to the food pantry can sometimes be challenging, because there may not be enough volume to justify the organization doing regular pickups.

The challenge with all of these options is that most of the time fresh produce is donated because no one else wants it. While occasionally mistakes like over-ordering lead to accessing perfectly ripe produce, most donations are made because the food is past its peak or is otherwise undesirable.

Even the community garden donations tend to skew towards ten-pound zucchinis and bruised apples. While these options are still functional, these are not foods that food pantry clients would select at the grocery store or their local farmer’s market.

Offering foods near the end of their lifespan also shortens the timeline of when someone can use it. Providing produce that needs to be eaten immediately means that recipients will not have any fresh produce after just two or three days, and makes it harder to assemble tasty, functional meals.

How can anti-hunger organizations access quality local produce?

  • Purchase produce. Since the pandemic, more and more food banks have been purchasing produce to pass on to pantries that is more desirable and lasts longer. With thoughtful purchasing, we can support local farmers, reduces shipping costs, and offers fresher food to clients. It does require a shift in priorities to secure additional funding, so it demands leadership that is clear and committed to the mission of uplifting the health of their community.
  • Connect with farmers markets. One of my food pantries regularly received a donation of excess produce from the farmers market, and it was always magnificent! This food was far fresher than anything we ever got from the grocery store and provided a wider range of culturally specific options. However, one of the main challenges of this partnership is that farmers markets are often weekly events whose schedule may or may not align with food pantry hours.
  • CSA (Community Supported Agriculture). This week I connected with a food pantry that buys shares from their local CSA to supplement their fresh produce options, and I’m absolutely enamored with the idea. This is a brilliant way to support local farmers, access fresh produce, and maintain a diversity of options in the pantry. The primary challenge for using this is that CSA shares generally need to be picked up on site, but food pantries who already have volunteers doing donation pickups may be able to add another site to the schedule.

I checked in with my food justice friends to name a few of their favorite CSAs. While the season is winding down, you can still save this list for next spring!

Turkey River Farm in Elkport, IA

Old Homeplace Farm in Oneida, KY

Land’s Sake Farm in Weston, MA

Wild Coyote Farm in Berrien Springs, MI

Three Goats Farm in Oregon City, OR

Zenger Farm in Portland, OR

Old Plank Farm in Plymouth, WI

*There are other ways for people experiencing hunger to access local produce outside of the pantry- such as Double Up Food Bucks and Veggie Rx. Today I’m specifically examining how to get those foods into pantries.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Do Food Pantry Clients Have the Time to Cook From Scratch?

After a long day of work, there is nothing worse than having to decide what to cook for dinner. If I don’t already have a plan, figuring out how to quickly assemble a meal that is nutritious and appealing based on what’s in the fridge is a challenge. As a perpetually hungry (and often hangry) individual, I hate scrambling to put a meal together last minute.

While I’ve previously discussed the emotional labor of fighting hunger, it’s also important to acknowledge the emotional labor it takes to nourish a household.

Preparing meals for your family requires an enormous amount of thinking and planning, no matter how simple the actual process of cooking may be.

Preparing food isn’t limited to the physical labor of cooking.

Meal planning requires considering personal preferences, nutritional requirements, cooking skills and capacity, and the availability and accessibility of ingredients. The household cook must align household expectations with their budget and resources.

This work is largely invisible, and sharply divided by gender. For people who aren’t the primary cooks of their household (like the men who predominantly manage anti-hunger programs and determine policy), it’s easy to believe that meal prep only encompasses the tasks necessary to safely cook, prepare, and serve dinner.

The challenges of putting together a tasty meal are amplified if you’re a food pantry client, as you likely have little choice or autonomy over the foods and quantities available to you.

One of the primary challenges is that more than half of people facing food insecurity are employed full time. Those who aren’t working full time face significant barriers to doing so, such as disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, or a lack of employment opportunities. To make ends meet, many people work multiple jobs, which means available time for food preparation is extremely limited.

The next challenge is to figure out how to turn eight cans of beans, two cans of tuna, a butternut squash, and a jumbo bag of potato chips into something your household is excited to eat. While I’m sure it can be done, it takes creativity, research, and time to transform food pantry donations into a functional meal. This is a big ask from someone already overextended by the trials of poverty.

Despite the challenges of living with food insecurity, we still haven’t moved away from the unrealistic expectation that people who care about their families cook wholesome, time-intensive meals from scratch, and project that assumption on our emergency food assistance programs.

While we don’t have the option of increasing wages or reducing work hours for our clients, there are steps food pantries can take to ease the burden on our shoppers.

  • Provide foods that accommodate a variety of lifestyles and living situations. Too many of our food pantry clients had little time or capacity for intensive cooking sessions. While I applaud the movement to emphasize fresh, whole foods, this level of food prep may not be accessible for working households. Microwave meals, canned goods, and instant options are essential to accommodate all lifestyles. It’s important to remember that our opinions of what people “should eat” has no impact on what they are able to eat.
  • Bundle. The food that pantries provide is only useful if clients can use it. That means providing food in quantities and partnerships that make it useful. No one eats tomato sauce on its own- partnering it with pasta, chili ingredients, or other pairings ensures that it supports a functional meal. While providing a household with a small can of chicken noodle soup may prevent starvation, it doesn’t relieve the burden of trying to figure out what else the meal requires to make sure everyone’s belly is full. Offer useful quantities and partner with appropriate items when possible.
  • Offer culturally appropriate foods that are familiar to clients. This saves people from having to learn how to prep new foods and convince their family to eat it. (While I’m a fan of encouraging people to try new foods, it’s important to offer it as an option rather than expectation.) Offering cooking classes or taste tests alongside sensitivity training for volunteers may be necessary to ensure they are able to appropriately support clients when shopping.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

What Data Should We Ask of Food Pantry Clients?

I once got a phone call at my food pantry from a woman who had recently tried to get help from another pantry in the region. Crying into the phone, she wanted to make a complaint about the volunteer she had worked with, mistaking our pantry as the parent organization.

This woman was trying to get food for the first time from this site but was told because she didn’t have proof of identification for every member of her household, she wasn’t eligible. She became understandably upset, and in the ensuing argument was told she was banned from visiting for a year. She was panicked that her family would go hungry, and frustrated by the excessive demands to qualify for food assistance.

Requiring proof of identification from every member of her household was an excessive and inappropriate expectation. Who carries that kind of information with them? How do they manage that with children in the household? I was frustrated that this happened, but requiring documentation or proof of need is a longstanding tradition in emergency food assistance. Our desire to make sure that people really “deserve” the help motivates demands for proof of income, address, or other evidence that proves a household struggles with hunger.

The more information organizations require of their clients, the more people they deter from participating.

If our goal is to reduce hunger, then this is antithetical to our mission. In many cases, merely the fear or stigma of having to prove one’s need is enough to stop many people from seeking help.

Most food pantries require their clients’ names, birthdays, address, and the names and birthdays of all household members. Sometimes this information is required to determine eligibility (like address for programs who only serve certain zip codes), while others simply need it for their records. Federal programs like TEFAP may also require an income declaration for proof of need.

 When I first started working at one of my food pantries, they required gender as well, for a completely unknown reason (as soon as possible I changed it to asking our shoppers’ pronouns instead.)

Requiring documentation represents an burden for many different reasons. Immigrants, regardless of their immigration status, may be fearful of authority and avoid situations that leave them vulnerable and subject to scrutiny. In addition, too many organizations do not or are unable to translate their documents and signage explaining their requirements, which makes them largely inaccessible to people who don’t read or write in English. Not knowing expectations can be immensely intimidating.

I have also worked with multiple survivors of domestic violence who refused to share even their names out of fear that their abuser might find them. The administrative requirements of food assistance should never outweigh the safety of the people we are trying to serve, but in many cases, this demands making exceptions to existing policy.

Documentation can also be a barrier for people who are houseless, or who don’t have easy access to the necessary paperwork. They may or may not have an ID, and might not carry any other information with them. I’ve also worked with many young adults who were covertly trying to improve their family’s food supply and were therefore unable to access the information they need to get food.

Requiring documentation also increases the responsibilities of staff and volunteers to appropriately manage the information. TEFAP forms must be stored for years, while other intake documents must also be processed and stored while respecting the confidential nature of their contents.

But shortcuts can be equally problematic.

I recently connected with a food pantry that based eligibility on preexisting participation with federal programs like SNAP, WIC, and Social Security. Although it saved them from having to evaluate any other data, it also meant that a) their pantry was deliberately unavailable to populations that couldn’t access federal services and b) implies a greater government connection than often exists, which can be problematic for people fearful of authority or concerned with confidentiality.

How food pantries can be thoughtful about data expectations:

  • Minimize your eligibility requirements and ask for as little information as possible. What information do you really need and why do you need it (for partner reports, grants? Do these partners really need it, or are there alternatives you can offer?)
  • It can be tempting to make your client paperwork look as official and legitimate as possible. But this can increase client fears that their information is being collected by the government or other agencies outside of your organization. Developing less formal-looking paperwork can help.
  • Reassuring clients that we recognize the burden and annoyance of completing any paperwork helps minimize its importance and made it less intimidating. My previous food pantry participated in TEFAP, which meant there was one form that clients had to complete annually (or provide a signature at each visit). The speech my team gave was, “I know this looks super official and scary, but we promise that no one will ever look at this form and it will disappear in a dusty office drawer until we shred it.” This introduction opened up an opportunity to have a comfortable conversation about what we did with the information we collected, and how it was kept confidential.

Eligibility requirements persist in response to the fear that welfare abuse can be prevented through strict oversight and evaluation.

Adding documentation requirements limits service to shoppers who adhere to YOUR version of need. Who is excluded?

After a decade of working in food pantries, I can say with confidence that no one is trying to exploit food assistance. Every step we take to make services more accessible is progress towards ending hunger.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

How SNAP Solves Hunger Better Than Food Pantries

Ending hunger is a big goal. I believe it can be done, but it’s important to acknowledge that it can’t be done through food pantries. As much as I love this model, food pantries have very little capacity to influence the systemic roots of hunger. They are merely a band-aid for a much bigger wound.

For the general public, the inadequacy of food banks and pantries to solve hunger may not be obvious.

Hunger is a symptom of oppression. People experience hunger because they have less access to money than others.

Even in the most isolated, famine-stricken deserts, there are people who have money to buy food and those who don’t. Fundamentally, hunger is a money shortage problem- not a food problem.

People who struggle to afford food have jobs that don’t pay living wages, can’t find safe and accessible housing within that low budget, can’t afford the medical care they need to stay healthy, face discrimination in employment or housing, or a host of other barriers that prevents them from being able to afford basic necessities.

The scope of need is far beyond what our food banking system can support. Over forty-four million Americans, or one in eight households, are food insecure.

It’s far more efficient to supply families with the money they need to buy their own food than to give them food.

A 2022 Feeding America study identified approximately 60,000 partner organizations including pantries and meals sights fighting hunger across the country serving more than fifty-three million households. This is a higher number than the one listed above because estimating food insecurity rates is complicated and often undercounts the reality.

If the work was evenly distributed between these organizations, each partner agency would serve 883 households, which is far beyond the capacity of most organizations. With few food banks or pantries able to meet the full nutritional needs of their clients, it’s obvious that meeting the needs of nearly nine hundred households is an impossible and utterly unrealistic goal.  

Beyond this, emergency food assistance programs are not equally accessible. Pantries are rarely open more than one or two times a week, with many only offering a few hours once per month to serve a couple dozen clients.

Food pantries are often open during the hours most convenient for volunteers and staff, which are likely the opposite of accessible hours for working individuals or those juggling caregiving responsibilities.

Food banks and pantries also tend to prioritize urban areas, which makes them much less accessible to rural residents who are more vulnerable to hunger. Organizations congregate near their food sources rather than their clients, which leaves them as inaccessible as the grocery stores that households experiencing hunger can’t get to.

Food pantries are predominantly run by people of Western European backgrounds, which means they may not have the interest, knowledge, or capacity to serve culturally appropriate foods for their clients.

In comparison, as an entitlement program, anyone who qualifies for SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) can use it, which means there is no limit on the number of households served, unlike food pantries. This program can support the level of need (if politicians are willing to fund it).

SNAP provides money specifically allocated for food via Electronic Balance Transfer (EBT) which allows people to shop discreetly by paying with a card.

Although SNAP can only be spent at participating retailers, the number of stores accepting SNAP far outweighs the number of food pantries. Additionally, grocery stores have wider hours that can accommodate families working long or flexible shifts.

The most valuable aspect of SNAP is that it allows autonomy of food choice.

Although still limited by the funds available, users get to make their food purchases based on what their family wants or needs, rather than the much more limited and restrictive options that food pantries provide.

While SNAP users still experience harassment for being food insecure, there is less humiliation and judgement in shopping at a grocery store than in using a food pantry.

SNAP is one of the best anti-hunger tools we have. It’s important to recognize the urgency to shift the burden of fighting hunger from food pantries to SNAP and other federal programs if we’re actually committed to solving this problem.

How can food pantries uplift SNAP?

  • Help sign clients up for SNAP! As a government program, the application process can be intimidating, confusing, and wrought with complications. Making sure everyone has the support to participate is huge- too many people who are eligible don’t even apply.
  • Educate our communities on the complex relationship between housing, healthcare, wages, and hunger. Money is more effective than donated and expired food, and increasing SNAP benefits is our best tool against hunger.
  • Help clients sign up for SNAP! This is so important it deserves to be said twice. Food banks and pantries can’t end hunger, and SNAP is our strongest opportunity for relieving the burden on this industry.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

What Can Food Pantries Offer Besides Food?

Do you remember the toilet paper shortage of 2020? I remember cruising the largely empty aisles of my grocery store under signs announcing, “1 package per person,” with strict enforcement at checkout and rampant fears among my community that it wouldn’t be enough.  

It’s an essential supply that we previously took for granted, without which life is significantly more uncomfortable. Toilet paper is also one of the most requested non-food items at many food pantries.

Because food is essential for survival, it makes sense that services prioritize it.

However, that focus can make it easy to forget that there are other nonfood requirements for modern life that many people struggle to access.

Americans tend to have a very narrow view of what poverty looks like. I can’t count the number of times I’ve shared that I work with food pantries, and people assume that my clients are exclusively unemployed and houseless.

Thanks to the myth of the American dream, we are eager to assume that someone who has the capacity to work has the resources to support themselves.

The reality is that having a full-time job is not a guarantee that an individual can afford housing, healthcare, food, and other necessities. While keeping our neighbors nourished is an essential goal, food pantries are also well-positioned to offer support on other household products.

Here are the most important nonfood essentials that food pantries can offer:

Pet Food

Publicize to the community if you can take open bags of pet food.

One of the hardest yet most impactful responsibilities I once had was accepting donations of leftover dog or cat food after a beloved pet passed away. Donors regularly reduced me to tears in the parking lot with stories about their pet, and shared the reassurance they felt knowing the food went to animals in need. We bagged pet food into gallon-sized Ziplock’s, which was not enough to fully support larger animals but was adequate for smaller critters. This interaction offered a unique opportunity for connection and empathy.

Menstrual Hygiene Products

Partner with a local period advocacy group who might have access to menstrual hygiene products for distribution. PLEASE allow your clients to choose the supplies they want rather than just handing them a package or a mixed bag.

Laundry Detergent and Dish Soap

Host a laundry detergent or dish soap-specific drive. Encourage donors to donate these items or funds to purchase these in bulk.

These are essential for dignity, hygiene, and simple practicality, and there aren’t many options for working around their absence. I’m thrilled to have just learned there are entire organizations dedicated to this effort like Each Stitch Counts based in New Jersey.

Diapers

Is there a diaper bank in your community? There are often programs specifically dedicated to diapers, and connecting clients with diapers and wipes is a much-needed resource. Additionally, holding diaper drives for your pantry can be fun and successful.

People often like to donate supplies for newborns, but babies grow fast and there’s not much someone can do with a too-small diaper, so I often encourage donations of larger sizes. I encourage offering diaper exchanges, so people can drop off diapers that are too small or brands that didn’t work for them. Opened packages are often totally fine!

Toilet Paper

It’s cheaper if you buy it in bulk, but too many people can’t meet that upfront cost no matter what the long-term savings are. Although offering a single roll at every visit is inadequate, it can still be an incredibly helpful addition to pantry options.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Where Do I Find Super Volunteers?

Every food pantry has at least one super volunteer. The person who is always happy to fill in when someone else cancels at the last minute, who knows how to work in every position, and acts as a compassionate mentor for new volunteers. The volunteer who just laughs and rolls up their sleeves when you hesitantly ask them to take on a nasty job like rinsing the compost bins or sweeping under the produce-sorting table.

Often, these volunteers seem to appear organically. Someone excited to have an impact on their community, enthusiastic about the policies they’re following, and happy to connect with the people around them. At every pantry I’ve ever worked at, there was always one volunteer (or several when I was lucky) about whom we’d wistfully say, “I wish we could clone you,” and “I need ten of [that person.]”

But it’s not just luck that finds you the best volunteers.

Organizational mission, culture, and practices have a significant influence on the community members we attract and retain.

Here are some simple steps to help you find and keep the volunteers you need most.

  • Be clear on your mission. Volunteers seek out organizations that align with their own interests and passions. You’re more likely to find volunteers that are aligned with your mission if the public is clear on what that is.

If reducing food waste is your goal, advertise that. If you’re focused on social justice and root causes of hunger, don’t be shy in sharing. This helps volunteers identify any mismatch of values early on. A volunteer who wants to minimize food waste may not be a fit for a pantry focused on maintaining the highest quality of food and asks them to throw out options they deem usable.

            I once knew a food pantry leader reluctant to clarify the mission for this same reason- they didn’t want to risk committing to any values that might deter someone from volunteering. This is how we ended up with volunteers inconsistently enforcing policies, increased conflict, and excessive staff energy spent on volunteer supervision and mediation. If we had clarified our specific values and goals, our volunteer network might have been smaller, but healthier and more productive.

  • Find teaching opportunities. Every quiet moment should be an educational opportunity for volunteers, which requires having staff who are knowledgeable and ready to share. Although more intensive, one-on-one conversations are where your volunteers are most likely to have an a-ha moment about your work! It can be easy for food pantries to neglect the value of continuing education for staff, so make sure you’re paying fair wages and not burning them out– your volunteers will notice in the quality of interaction and education.
  • Enforce client dignity. Like any industry, we all have encounters with people who are challenging. Food pantry clients are likely to carry trauma and stress, which can make interactions harder and bias our attitudes. Proactively working to uplift our community is a habit that needs to be fostered and developed through our language choices. It’s tempting to say, “that client was annoying,” but making the transition to “I was challenged by that interaction” or “I was getting frustrated in that conversation,” avoids fostering an adversarial attitude.

Any time a volunteer has a negative comment about a client, I try to find an alternative idea that puts them in a positive light. Hearing, “they took way too much food,” I respond with, “they must feel so secure to have that food for their family right now. I can’t imagine the relief.” “That person was so rude today” answered with, “I hope their day is better now that they know their family is having dinner tonight.”

  • Prioritize making a positive impact on the community you serve. When we amplify impact, it helps us move away from the stationary goal of providing food. This attitude also makes it easier to embrace new strategies, because of the widely accepted goal for progress.

Volunteers are notoriously reluctant to change, but by incorporating a commitment to outcomes rather than inputs, you can make it a little easier to support the evolution of your program.

Consistent, positive messaging from leadership is infectious, and the most powerful opportunity we have for defining the culture of our anti-hunger organization. Practice enough, and your volunteers will start to internalize this way of thinking and pass it on to new volunteers as it becomes a standard part of the organization.

This attitude is difficult to get started, but through repetition, it’s possible to build momentum and establish your organization as one where the volunteers are known to be well-educated on food insecurity, compassionate about the stigma of visiting a food pantry, and enthusiastic about stepping up when and where you need it.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Thriving vs. Surviving in Food Pantries

I once worked with a food bank whose mission stated that the root cause of hunger was nutrition education (they’ve since changed it). By teaching people to cook, they proposed we could solve food insecurity. However, this perspective naively ignores the systemic causes of hunger in favor of teaching people how to cook dry beans.

Unfortunately, this perspective is far too common, which is why I strongly advocate against using cooking classes and nutrition education as anti-hunger tools. However, it’s important to recognize that these opportunities still have incredible value- they just aren’t a solution to hunger.

Cooking classes shouldn’t be our answer to helping people survive- they don’t influence the conditions that prevent the purchase of food that households need. They are, however, a powerful component of enabling people to thrive.

Increasing confidence and comfort working with diverse foods allows people to eat a wider variety of options, often increases interest in healthy eating, and has many other benefits for participants.

Teaching people how to garden is not an effective strategy for saving them money on food, but it is a powerful opportunity to engage with their food, be more active, eat healthier, and connect with their neighbors. These kinds of events build relationships and help bring fun and health to the process of preparing and eating- a fundamental career goal of mine.

Delicious, pleasurable food is an essential component of maintaining a healthy quality of life.

Anti-hunger organizations with a holistic approach absolutely should offer these classes. We just need to be thoughtful about how we present them. They don’t solve the problem, but they still enormously benefit people facing food insecurity.

Food banks were invented primarily to provide a short-term response to acute problems rather than addressing chronic poverty, as they now do. Intended to keep people from starvation, these programs often maintain a distinction between the resources necessary to survive and the resources to thrive. This attitude has become engrained in anti-hunger attitudes.

My food pantry never gave away a filet mignon without a volunteer commenting about how this food was too good for the food pantry or our clients. The subtext was that our options weren’t supposed to be ones that our shoppers enjoyed, relished, or were proud of. Food pantry food was supposed to help people survive, nothing more.

How can food pantries use food to help our clients thrive?

  • Prioritize delicious food. While there is an urgency to get people enough food to eat, we need to increase our commitment to good food. Offer essential ingredients like oils and sauces. Commit to spices and seasonings. Focus on whole food ingredients and remember that food pantry clients still enjoy a box of cookies or the occasional ice cream. Remind your team there’s no food that’s too good for your neighbors, or items that they don’t deserve.
  • Celebrate abundance. Even with an emphasis on quality, that doesn’t mean that we’re excused for maintaining a scarcity mindset. Food insecurity is an emotional challenge just as much as a physical one. The knowledge of looming hunger increases stress, anxiety, and forces people to think differently than they would if they were food secure. Ensuring people have enough food that they feel confident and secure is an essential component of thriving.
  • Emphasize culturally specific foods. Food justice includes providing people with foods that are relevant and familiar. Many volunteers who are predominantly white retirees of western European descent, may forget that every culture has specific foods associated with different holidays, events, and traditions. Emphasizing the importance of these, as well as offering education on specifics, can help volunteers and the broader community recognize the value of trying to do better than prevent starvation.  

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Can You Be “Too Dependent” on Food?

“Our clients can only visit once per month,” a fellow food banker told me when comparing services offered by our respective organizations. “We don’t want anyone becoming too dependent.”

Most people know that food pantries lack the supply and capacity to provide shoppers with everything they’ll need to get through the month. Restricting visits and quantity is a common solution. But somehow, these limitations have become entwined with the idea that they also prevent people from growing “too dependent” on assistance. We justify providing inadequate resources in the name of fostering self-sufficiency.  

The belief that offering help reduces self-sufficiency shapes modern welfare. Ensuring that resources are never enough forces users to continue looking for other options to fill the gap; to work harder; to “better themselves.”

This idea assumes that there are other options.

Thanks to the myth of the American dream, we tend to believe there is always something one can do to escape poverty- work longer hours, continuing education, a higher-paying job, or smarter budgeting. At its core, this attitude embraces the idea that poverty results from a lack of effort, and that finding the right motivation is the key to success. Ensuring that welfare doesn’t provide security is supposedly that incentive.  

However, the reality is that economic mobility in the U.S. has never lived up to the hype.

The fear of dependency entirely neglects the reality of the environment around us- success is rarely achieved through individual effort. Most people who attain self-sufficiency enjoy inherited wealth, racial privilege, and social advantages not available to everyone. How hard we work has little impact on our economic mobility.

Preventing people from growing “too dependent” on things like food or other resources robs them of stability. Instead of enjoying the security of having their needs met, it forces individuals living in poverty to constantly scramble to make end meet. This instability makes it impossible to plan for the long term because the short-term is always a crisis of scarcity.

Hunger never happens in a silo. Denying a household adequate food, besides leaving them hungry, may force them to deplete their housing budget, fuel trauma, impede their health, reduce work performance, or have other harmful impacts.

Our disdain for providing adequate help is one of the very reasons keeping people in poverty.   

At its root, our preoccupation with the idea that someone might grow “too dependent” on food assistance boils down to the fear that they haven’t earned it. But the primary result of this policy is that it removes stability and security. We’ve institutionalized perpetual uncertainty for welfare recipients.

How can anti-hunger advocates fight the dependency narrative?

  • Be outspoken about why this is a ridiculous concern. We need food to live, so arguing against people becoming too dependent on a reliable food source is both absurd and dehumanizing.
  • Acknowledge the inadequacy of our system. Few organizations can offer enough food to fully support their clients. That’s ok, but make sure your community knows that it’s not enough. Don’t ignore or dismiss comments about the inadequacy of resources- empathize!
  • Advocate at every opportunity for increasing benefits, on the local, state, and federal level. We know that adequate support helps people succeed. Increased SNAP benefits during the height of Covid kept hunger at bay. Providing people experiencing poverty with a stable foundation is the best way to set them up for success.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Can We Solve Hunger and Food Waste with the Same Solution?

“Clean your plate- don’t you know there are children starving in Africa?”

Even if your parents didn’t say it, I’m sure you’re familiar with this prompt to finish your meal instead of throwing it away. It’s meant to guilt us into appreciating what we have through an awkward celebration of abundance in comparison to the scarcity experienced by others.

This phrase also feels like it could be the potential origins of the theory that reducing food waste is an effective strategy for fighting food insecurity. In addition, it is one of the most common misconceptions I encounter about hunger.

A growing global population and fears about the impacts of climate change on agriculture have prompted a movement focused on the reduction of food waste. By keeping food out of the garbage, we reduce our own consumption and theoretically add to the supply available for others while minimizing our contribution to climate change. Salvaged food is distributed for free to people who can’t afford to buy their own.

If there weren’t enough food for everyone, reducing waste and redistributing the excess would be a logical solution. This idea has facilitated the growth and development of food banks, who have an essential and positive impact on their communities. But wanting food shortages to be a root cause of hunger doesn’t make it a reality.

 While we absolutely should worry about climate change’s impacts on agriculture and reducing our contributions to the landfill, we do not have a food shortage. Reducing food waste is an essential component of a sustainable food system but not a magical solution to hunger.

I am a passionate advocate for sustainable agriculture and responsible consumption, as well as food banking, but this framing fails to capture the complexity of food insecurity.

Hunger is primarily caused by a lack of access to food. People experiencing hunger can’t afford it, can’t physically access it, or don’t have the ability to use it.

Reducing food waste in itself does not improve physical access, doesn’t make it more affordable (for people in need, although there are significant financial advantages for corporations to donate), and rarely increases an individual’s capacity to use it. Redirecting it to food pantries does improve financial access but doesn’t guarantee that the physical location is available to who need it most or ensure that it is nutritionally or culturally appropriate for the community.

Food pantries also face a constant struggle of determining whether their food selection promotes respect or disdain for their clients. Too often, the push to reduce food waste leads organizations to distribute produce that is wilted and mushy, dented cans with illegible labels, or dairy products long past their expiration with questionable edibility.

Whether or not the food is perfectly good or rotting in its package, using food waste as an anti-hunger tool also perpetuates harmful stigmas about food insecurity and food assistance.

Our cultural conviction that it’s possible to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” if you just work hard enough means that we often view poverty as an indicator of laziness or personal failure. Framing people who are food insecure in this way justifies providing them with food otherwise destined for the garbage, and subtly reinforces the idea that they deserve less because of their inadequacies.

In an ideal world, everyone would have the resources they need to access their own food. But recognizing we still depend upon the essential services of food banks and pantries, here’s how we can make sure we’re still uplifting, rather than oppressing, our clientele while using salvaged resources.

  • Does your food demonstrate respect for your shoppers? Are you giving it away because it’s functional, or because your volunteers didn’t want to toss it? The fact that clients take it does not mean they’re excited about- it just implies they have no other option. You may need to start throwing out more food than you want to to elevate the quality of what’s offered. Respecting your shoppers needs to be the number one priority of every anti-hunger organization.  
  • Are your donors using you as their waste disposal? Are you receiving food that should have already been discarded, and they’ve just offloaded it from their garbage to yours? It is uncomfortable to correct donors, but what a waste of your time, energy and resources! By distributing poor quality food, you’re likely offloading the garbage onto your shoppers just as your donors did to you. Make sure donors know and follow your standards, with an emphasis on human dignity.
  • How do you talk about your use of food waste? Without careful navigation, emphasizing how much food is salvaged can reinforce the public perception that it’s ok for people experiencing hunger to eat garbage. Consider focusing on “food rescue” or “food surplus” rather than “food waste.” Food pantries usually have a significant cadre of volunteers whose mission is environmental rather than social, and it is important that you educate them on the nuances of this distinction. There is room for them to support the environment while still emphasizing that everyone deserves good quality food no matter their capacity to purchase it.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Why Think of Food as Medicine?

At one of my food pantries, I once welcomed a couple looking tired and stressed. They were from across the state, and they explained that they were camping in their car while a friend was in the local hospital. They didn’t have money for a hotel or groceries, so the internet had directed them to us for help.

Food pantries are often poorly equipped to serve people without access to a kitchen, but we did our best to supply them with healthy options that didn’t require preparation or storage. They discussed the possibility of coming back once their friend was released from the hospital, to make sure this individual had a fully stocked pantry for their recovery. I never saw them again, so I never learned how things turned out. I can only hope that they all found the foods they needed to stay healthy.

There is no time where inadequate food access is more destructive than when someone gets sick. When the body is at its weakest is the time where we need nourishment for healing the most. My own experience with serious illness and the relationship with food allows me to vouch for the importance of what we eat for health and quality of life.

 Emergency food assistance programs are designed to prioritize processed and nonperishable foods, which means we’re working against the current to uplift fresh and whole options. SNAP is wholly inadequate for supplying a healthy diet.

With skyrocketing increases in diet-related illness like diabetes and heart disease, it should be abundantly clear that improving healthy food access is essential to keeping people healthy and out of the hospital and free from medical debt.

While traditional food pantries will continue to play a role, there are new models increasing access to healthy food through healthcare that deserve recognition for their effectiveness and innovation.

Food pantries in hospitals

While the logistics of starting any new food pantry are huge, and grow exponentially in relation to their commitment to healthy foods, incorporating food pantries into hospitals is an incredibly valuable strategy. I started my anti-hunger career running three school-based food pantries, with the theory that being located in schools makes them more accessible and less intimidating to families. The same concept applies here, only amplified. Either for visiting families or for outgoing patients themselves, having a food pantry onsite removes the burden of having to seek out this additional resource after the stress and exhaustion that come with a hospital visit.

Healthcare providers can have increased confidence that their patients will be able to stick with their nutrition plan, because they have been supplied with the specific foods necessary for their recovery. While this doesn’t remove barriers for people without access to kitchens, the physical ability to cook, or access to healthcare itself, this is still a valuable progression for increasing food access to our most vulnerable populations.

Prescription programs

Diet-related diseases are one of the most common, and most preventable illnesses in the U.S. Despite popular rhetoric, my decade in food access work has also taught me that the unhealthy foods that lead to poor health are often unavoidable for those living in poverty. People experiencing food insecurity know what they should be eating- but the barriers to healthy meals are simply too high.

The healthcare costs for managing diet-related diseases are astronomical- both for individuals as well as their health insurance. While the more cynical among us may observe that profits offer little incentive for change, it does highlight the opportunity for potential savings when healthcare providers invest in food. Ensuring people have access to healthy, fresh options has a substantial impact on their short- and long-term health.

Luckily, the medical community is beginning to recognize the potential value of programs connecting clients with fresh food. A new strategy allow doctors and healthcare workers to prescribe fresh foods through coupons or other tools that connect patients with fresh and healthy options.

There is a wide range of structures for how these programs can be implemented, but this model generally offers far more dignity than a food pantry. This system also has greater capacity to supply quality fresh produce, since it is being purchased rather than donated.

There are alarms sounding everywhere as food insecurity rises. Frustration at the inability of government to take effective action may prompt communities to push for opening more food pantries- but now is an opportunity to consider alternate models. We’ve been fighting hunger with roughly the same approach for the last fifty years- and now is the time to try something different.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

When Are Clients Too Entitled to Food?

This week, I heard someone who works in the anti-hunger field ask a speaker how to handle (and prevent) food pantry shoppers feeling “entitled” to food, and I can’t stop thinking about all the ways to unpack this concern.

Anti-hunger and food banking staff do this work to have a positive impact on the world, with the bold aspiration of eliminating hunger entirely. With a fundamental ambition to do good, it can be hard to tolerate situations and people that don’t leave us with a warm glow.

When these interactions don’t feel good, it’s easy to justify a defensive response to preserve our feelings of appreciation and impact. Staff and volunteers should feel this way- but not at the expense of the people we serve.

Every food pantry client IS entitled to food.

The power differential that exists between food pantry staff and clients unfortunately offers an opportunity to demand behaviors from people experiencing hunger– commonly humility, gratitude, and submission. Giving free food to an individual who behaves in this manner is much easier and more gratifying than someone complaining about the selection, quantity, or model of distribution.

While some attitudes and behaviors are harder to deal with than others, everyone deserves to eat, no matter what. While it’s easy to say, “they can just go somewhere else” to avoid challenges or confrontation, this is false.

Finding transportation to another location may be impossible, distribution hours might not work with their schedule, previous incidents of harassment at other pantries may make them uncomfortable returning, or other organizations might not have resources that meet client nutritional or cultural needs.

I’ve heard tearful stories of food pantry clients being turned away because they didn’t have proof of address, citing fears of exploitation, or because an intake form was completed incorrectly, and they were accused of fraud. I’ve listened to panicked tales of waiting in line for an hour only to see the pantry doors close the moment the distribution ends, leaving clients still waiting without food.

These experiences elicit anger and frustration from people experiencing hunger, but this very justified emotional reaction too often leads to accusations of entitlement.

Believing that people aren’t entitled to food is synonymous with the idea that everyone doesn’t deserve to eat.

How do anti-hunger organizations perpetuate the idea that people aren’t entitled to food?

Are you open to criticism?

Defensiveness is often the first reaction to a complaint, especially when it’s something we’ve poured our heart and soul into making perfect. It’s entirely human to want to react to any attitude besides humility with deflection. As we’ve been conditioned to believe that hunger is an individual failure, it’s a logical next step to treat criticism as an attitude problem rather than a genuine concern. But dismissive attitudes towards shoppers can foster environments which consistently disregard the needs, and even the humanity, of the people we intend to help.

Catch your malicious compliance.

Are you holding your shoppers to the letter of the law, or the spirit? If someone was in line before you closed, were they really too late or can you still serve them? If a mistake is found in their paperwork, can you help them fix it rather than accusing them of ill-intentions? If someone is struggling to self-regulate, can you give them a granola bar and a bottle of water before accusing them of disrespect? Setting your guests up to fail is an active way to increase conflict, resentment, and hostility on all sides of the relationship between organization and community. Maybe your policies are inflexible for a reason, but I’ve too often witnessed their enforcement as a tool to demand submission from shoppers, which further models the acceptability of this attitude to volunteers.

If someone doesn’t get food from you, they might not eat at all.

Imagine the panic and fear of having your food security depend on someone else’s interpretation of your attitude. Consider the humiliation that accompanies the demand to humble yourself to deserve food to feed your family tonight. If we want to build anti-hunger systems that actually fight hunger, we need practices and models that support, rather than subjugate, people experiencing hunger. It is entirely possible, while uplifting the dignity and respect of every person experiencing hunger, to ensure everyone is served well. De-escalation techniques are a vital resources, and every direct service organization should host regular trainings so that everyone has the tools they need for their community to thrive.

Of course, this work is more fun when everyone is kind, humble, and deferential. But demanding this behavior implies that people experiencing hunger are only deserving of what we decide they’ve earned. Everyone is entitled to food, and it’s up to us as anti-hunger advocates to figure out systems that honor this reality.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Why Kindness Doesn’t Fight Hunger

A media source once visited one of my food pantries and requested interviews with some of our shoppers. My favorite moment was when a client told the interviewer with great enthusiasm, “They’re not just nice to me- they’re nice to EVERYONE!”

This resonated because I regularly heard stories about the experience our clients had at other food pantries- and kindness seemed in short supply. In most cases it was not that volunteers or staff at other organizations were explicitly rude- it was that those seeking emergency food assistance are sensitive to judgement, disingenuity, and prejudice. There is already such stigma against using emergency food assistance internalized by both recipients and distributors, that without conscious effort, it’s easy to commit microaggressions even while acting kind and welcoming.

No one wants to go to the food pantry.

I have never met someone who preferred to be handed discarded, cast-off, or expired food at a food pantry over having autonomy over their own grocery shopping.

Of course, many people are grateful for the much-needed help in feeding their families, but even the most dignified food pantry experience isn’t better than the power to choose what and how much your family wants to eat without restriction. (And of course, no one needs to be grateful for food.)

This reality influences every food pantry visit. Recognizing that no one wants to be there, it’s essential for organizations to ensure that they’re sensitive to the baggage that accompanies such a task.

While institutional policies impact the food pantry experience, volunteer attitudes and actions carry the greatest weight when it comes to building a safe space for people experiencing hunger. Having volunteers truly committed to compassion, kindness, and empathy is the most effective way to establish a dignified food pantry environment but is no simple achievement.

Even when volunteers are kind and welcoming, it can be easy to unconsciously reflect problematic attitudes through their actions. By building respectful foundational attitudes, you can help your volunteers practice empathy at every shift.

Assume good intentions.

Remind volunteers that we never know the whole story of why someone is at the food pantry- and it’s none of our business. If your community embraces the idea that people only come who are in need, then it’s easy to make everyone feel welcome without judgement. If volunteers (or staff) think people are there to exploit the system, this reflects in conversations, actions, and policy. Any concerns voiced should be an opportunity for discussing barriers to food security and building respect.

A client arriving in a fancy car may have recently experienced a catastrophic job loss or medical bill that leaves them broke, even though their car screams wealth. Expensive belongings may have been donated, or speak to previous stability, or maybe were all that was grabbed while fleeing domestic violence.

Remembering to be open-minded about the circumstances that bring someone to the food pantry creates a space free of judgement, which will help visitors feel more welcome. Volunteers who can’t adopt this mindset may need to find a different opportunity.

Food is a gift.

Just like any other gift given, the giver has no authority over how it is used. With all the work that goes in to sourcing and distributing food for emergency services, it’s easy to feel possessive over how it’s used. But if we maintain the assumption that everyone who visits a food pantry does so out of need, we need to relinquish the compulsion to control how the food is used.

We’re still building food security if the food is shared with a neighbor, or served at a church luncheon, or stashed in the back of a cupboard untouched for a future emergency. For pantries that are without limits, this attitude can also help check judgements about how much people take. Once it’s in someone’s cart, we can appreciate the hard work we put in to get it there and celebrate that someone will eat well tonight. It doesn’t matter who, or what, or how much.

Services are for shoppers.

I once had a week-long argument with a coworker who was adamant that our food pantry was a volunteer-centered organization. They argued that clients were the vehicle we used to provide an experience for our volunteers, which justified turning away any client who negatively influenced this experience.

The fact that services should focus on fighting hunger seems obvious, but all direct-service anti-hunger organizations wrestle with this conundrum every day. An explicit commitment to serving the community needs to be regularly revisited to ensure that policies focus on the needs of shoppers. This doesn’t mean that volunteers or staff are neglected, but their needs should be considered in a different light.

Everyone knows the importance of being kind at a food pantry, but establishing an atmosphere that truly welcomes people without judgement or stigma requires a much stronger foundation. While established a clear mission and supporting policies can help, this is also the kind of foundation that can be built guerilla-style by a single individual ready to make a change. Conversations uplifting each of these tenets can slowly permeate the organizational culture and build an environment that is more genuine and welcoming, and therefore more effective at fighting hunger.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Want Food Assistance? Go Broke First

If someone is experiencing hunger, they must be completely broke, right?

The idea that people seeking emergency food assistance have no money is a perspective I regularly encounter in the world of food banking and social services and amongst the public. If you have any money at all, society deems you undeserving of food assistance.  

Fueled by a collective conviction that people experiencing hunger aspire to exploit the system, anti-hunger policies reinforce assumptions with restrictions that prevent us from effectively fighting hunger.

Emergency food assistance resources such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) require participants to declare income and financial assets below a certain threshold determined by federal and state policies.

Benefits are reduced or halted when recipients exceed these limitations, intending to prevent people from taking advantage of resources they don’t need, assuming they should deplete their own resources first. These policies perpetuate the idea that people must be completely broke to deserve food assistance. (Most states have implemented a policy workaround to these limitations called Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility, but the paradigm in favor of restrictions remains.)

A serious consequence of setting limits is that it prevents individuals living in poverty from preparing for financial emergencies. As studies repeatedly demonstrate, most Americans do not have the resources to weather an unexpected $1,000 expense without hardship.

All it takes is one unforeseen medical bill, car accident, or housing transition to deplete one’s savings. Limitations on assets ensure that families who have the capacity to save a little every month are disincentivized from doing so, because it’s unlikely that savings can sustain them as effectively as SNAP or TEFAP.

For those who have the capacity to save, the federal asset limit for SNAP is $2,750, beyond which a household may lose their food assistance. It is usually far safer in the short term for a household struggling with food security to stop building savings than to relinquish SNAP benefits.

Some of my readers may react with disgust at the idea that an individual can have nearly $3,000 and still receive food assistance. That seems like far too much money to need help. Most Americans have far less.

Our society believes that people must be utterly broke, without a penny to their name, to deserve social assistance. We demand that they deplete their own resources before utilizing any others. But this is an incredibly destructive attitude that perpetuates hunger.

Fears of abuse are internalized by the people receiving assistance as well as those implementing it.

At my food pantry, I used to regularly encounter first-time clients who confessed that their cupboards were empty, or that they hadn’t eaten that day, or had been subsisting on a single daily meal. “I didn’t want to take resources away from someone who needed it more” was a constant rationalization for postponing seeking help.

When we require that people are empty before we fill them up, we deliberately increase their barriers to achieving stability and security.

It also breeds a perverse sense of competition. If there is always someone hungrier than you out there, do you ever really deserve help?

Demanding that people living in poverty burn through their savings before receiving SNAP or shopping at a food pantry leaves them in a vulnerable position, while providing our neighbors with abundant and dignified food resources before they spend their last dollar is far more likely to ensure that they remain food secure, housed, and healthy.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Why is College Hunger a Joke?

Eating nothing but ramen is often considered a rite of passage for college students.

Young adults heading off to school are gifted care packages stuffed with ramen in various flavors, and are taught to expect that these cheap, nutritionally bereft meals are the responsible way to survive a tight budget. Poor nutrition and limited meals are deemed just part of the experience.

The idea of young adults living on ramen is so normalized that it is often treated as a joke.

How did we get here?

If you imagine the stereotypical demographic of someone experiencing hunger in the US, what do they look like?

My guess is you envisioned a senior or a single mother with children. Those are the two demographics consistently portrayed as the most “deserving” of food assistance.

Because seniors and children are more vulnerable to conditions around them, anti-hunger programs have long prioritized uplifting these populations. As a result of this focus, 7% of American seniors were food insecure in 2021 (the most recent data I found.) Approximately 8% of households with children experience food insecurity.

In comparison, on average, 12.8% of the American population is food insecure.

Hunger rates for children and seniors, although still unacceptably high, are low relative to other demographics. That is specifically because targeted efforts are successful. Programs like Meals on Wheels and the National School Lunch Program effectively reduce hunger for these populations.

In contrast to seniors and children, in 2020 approximately 34% of college students were food insecure (although other reports regularly place that number closer to 50%.) This high hunger rate is often a surprise- we tend to stereotype college student as comfortably supported and funded by their parents. But this is no longer the reality.

The demographics of college student have changed. Since the Great Recession in particular, attendance at community college has grown, the age of the average student has increased, their responsibilities outside of school are greater, and they have less external support.

Considering the exorbitant cost of tuition and books on top of paying rent, childcare and utilities, it should be no surprise that college students are left with few resources to buy food. But because our culture has normalized and even romanticized student hunger, organized efforts and policies to combat it are lacking.

Recognizing that targeted approaches reduce hunger, we need to improve food access for college students. Generalized tactics only support the populations already most empowered with the strongest access, while addressing demographics with the greatest barriers offers the most opportunity for impact.

Because of stereotypes and dismissive attitudes, college students may be disinclined to seek help but also face limited access to transportation, cooking facilities, or juggle inconsistent schedules that make it hard to visit a food pantry. A solution that works for a working parent or a resident of a shelter may not work for a student. To end student hunger, we need more and stronger policies specifically recognizing the needs of this demographic. Anti-hunger programs of all types need to consider how accessible they are for college students.

We are failing students by fostering a culture that permits, and even jokes about, student food insecurity. No one learns well without a nourishing, healthy diet, no matter their age.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Do Food Pantry Clients Deserve to Make Their Own Choices?

“Is it okay if I take two cans of beans today?” a food pantry shopper asked me recently as I was volunteering at one of my favorite local food pantries.

“You can actually take as many as you like- this whole room is unlimited,” I was happy to respond. The shopper’s eyes grew big, and they grabbed two more cans- totaling four of the kidney beans, and excitedly moved down the line. Other shoppers who were clearly regulars moved more confidently, some bypassing the canned goods entirely while others took several flats of the beans in my section. I estimate we averaged about three cans of each item per household for the day, although amounts ranged wildly among individuals.

Allowing this freedom of choice for shoppers is a radically controversial practice in the food banking community. There is an archaic, unsubstantiated fear that food pantry shoppers (and welfare recipients in general), are always seeking to exploit the system.

Setting limits on foods is often considered essential to protect from abuse. This attitude is based on the fundamental belief that food insecurity is a personal failing- that America is the land of opportunity where anyone can succeed with enough determination- and that poverty results from poor judgement, moral weakness, or a lack of effort.

This attitude justifies the strict policies that structure American anti-hunger programs.

Despite the rarity of welfare abuse, every conversation I initiate on the subject inevitably produces someone arguing with conviction that any misuse of welfare is intolerable, and we need stricter controls to prevent it. They’ve internalized the notion that welfare recipients have poor judgement which led them to poverty and need careful supervision to keep them on the right track.

This argument reinforces my belief that the fundamental problem with America’s anti-hunger culture is not that we’re short of resources, but that we have developed a system that focuses on punitive action and mistrust instead of solving the problem.

The focus on welfare abuse is the impetus for policies like time limits and work requirements for SNAP, and quantity and attendance limits at food pantries.

Rather than focusing on meeting the need or ending hunger, anti-hunger policies limit access to resources and deliberately ensure that they’re inadequate.

Arguments in favor of strengthening these limitations are justified by concerns about money wasted- that misused funds are lost opportunities to support those who “truly need it.” However, this argument doesn’t hold up. It’s not really about the money.

If we’re worried about everyone meeting their responsibilities when it comes to government funding, why does the discussion focus on welfare? There are hundreds of other examples of “wasted” federal funds with much higher price tags.

For example, wealthy Americans may deprive the US of up to $175 billion dollars a year in tax evasion. I have yet to hear someone concerned about welfare fraud express any frustration about rich people abusing the system, even though the impact is significantly higher than a few misspent SNAP dollars.

Why do we treat the person with an EBT card with more suspicion than we do the person driving a Lamborghini?

Fundamentally, our national consciousness views poverty as an indicator of immorality, and by institutionalizing this conviction, we’ve hobbled ourselves in the fight against hunger.

Limiting anti-hunger resources both perpetuates and reinforces the idea that people experiencing hunger are corrupt and looking to exploit the system. This is why we see discomfort with the idea that people in poverty have access to all the food they need. We still believe they haven’t “earned” it.

Anti-hunger organizations at every level need to examine their policies to see where they have internalized and institutionalized the attitude that people facing food insecurity can’t be trusted. Until our focus is on ending hunger instead of enforcing our narrow idea of morality, we’ll never be able to solve this problem.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Why You Oppose Giving People Too Much Free Food

I once worked with a food pantry leader who liked to prowl their pantry taking photos of the full shopping carts of clients. They used these photos to advocate for limiting how much food their visitors were allowed to take, adamant that no one really needed that much.

Why did they believe people were taking too much food?

Our client’s shopping carts were full.

The assumption about the needs of our visitors had nothing to do with the reality of their situation- whether they had a big family or only shopped once every three months or had a specific nutritional requirement. It was entirely based on the discomfort of seeing an individual living with hunger experience an abundance of food unconditionally.

While I wish this was a unique scenario, in my decade of food justice advocacy I’ve found that people are much more likely to have concerns about giving food pantry clients too much food than too little. Inevitably, someone voices fears that, left unrestricted, clients take more than they need, make inappropriate selections or don’t make the most efficient or cost-effective choices. 

Food pantries intend to prevent hunger by distributing free food. Why is there such a strong conviction that we have to control and limit these resources to end hunger?

As a student of American history, a quote from the author Horatio Alger (known for his rags-to-riches novels) comes to mind.

“The difference between the rich merchant and the ragged fellow who solicits his charity as he is stepping into his carriage, consists, frequently, not in natural ability, but in the fact that the one has used his ability as a stepping-stone to success, and the other has suffered his to become stagnant, through indolence, or dissipation.”

Horatio Alger, Ragged Dick

Horatio Alger’s 19th century stories about young men escaping poverty through sheer grit and determination are foundational to our nation’s conviction that hard work inevitably fosters success.

The ability to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is a primary tenet of the American dream and weighs heavily on efforts to end hunger. We’re taught to believe that the failure to be food secure is a personal one, typified by someone too weak-willed, corrupt, or lazy to put in the effort.

If you fundamentally believe that food pantry clients experience hunger because of a personal failing, it’s logical to endorse the idea that they need guidance from more successful individuals to direct them down a better path.

This justifies controlling how much food shoppers take and basing these limits on our comfort level rather than the reality of the need.

What do people mean when they are concerned about food pantry clients taking “too much food?” Often, I hear that “too much” means any more than the bare minimum for survival. It means having a couple cans left over by the time of the next pantry visit. It’s a whole family eating a heaping, unrestricted serving at meals. It means having leftovers. Referencing the Horatio Alger myth, it is enjoying abundance without earning it through the perseverance we think escaping poverty demands.

Food pantries may occasionally implement limits because of a constrained food supply. However, it’s important to examine the instinct to restrict food based on our comfort level and the judgements we make about poverty when implementing programs to eradicate it.  

The fear of someone experiencing hunger taking “too much food” ultimately hobbles how effectively we combat the problem. Food justice organizations need to actively encourage abundance and provide the needed resources without imposing assumptions about hunger upon those living the reality.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Why Food Banks Can’t End Hunger

When people don’t have enough to eat, giving them food can seem like a good solution. However, hunger isn’t that simple. Food isn’t enough.

Providing people with emergency food is an essential responsibility. People need food to live and to thrive, so the importance of services provided by food banks cannot be overstated.

However, giving away free food does little to end hunger in the long-term.

While we can hope that providing food at a food pantry frees up a couple dollars for buying other necessities, it is unlikely. People only visit a food pantry when they are short of money for food in the first place, so while the food may keep families fed in the moment, it rarely empowers them to change their spending. Shopping at a food pantry is more likely to free up funds to pay rent or a utilities bill, or buy medication, or new shoes for their kids, than to build savings. It can allow people to better meet their immediate needs, but is unlikely to change outcomes. The idea that a couple dollars savings can change our financial outcomes just won’t die, which is why people continue to argue that minimal aid is enough to pull someone out of poverty (and why poverty is an indicator of a lack of effort).

But giving away free food is easier than digging into the root causes of hunger. When we recognize that food isn’t the answer, we must examine the conditions that make people food insecure in the first place.

While hunger is largely typified as an individual problem and a personal failing, data shows that systemic barriers are the root causes of poverty and hunger.

Giving food away to single mothers does little to empower them if they make less money than their male peers. Offering food assistance to LGBTQ+ individuals is only a small help when they face increased risks of employment and housing discrimination due to their identity. Free food for BIPOC individuals is inadequate insulation against daily racial discrimination, harassment, and violence.

Discrimination ensures that vulnerable populations make less money and have less stability, which increases their capacity to access food and risk of food insecurity.

In America, we love to believe that working hard begets success, and that a lack of success is a symptom of laziness, poor judgement, or a personal failure. This attitude excuses us from addressing the inequalities that perpetuate hunger.

While it’s certainly discouraging to recognize that we can’t end hunger through our local food pantry or food rescue program, when we don’t call this out we perpetuate the blame and shaming of hunger on the individual. Systemic problems require systemic solutions, and that starts with evolving our understanding of the root causes of hunger and poverty.

Food banking is an essential tool for keeping our neighbors fed, but it is not the vehicle through which we can end hunger.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

You Can’t Build Food Justice Through Efficiency

I recently had a conversation with a volunteer at a food pantry who voiced frustration that the organization didn’t seem to be thinking about the client experience. They observed that volunteers were being discouraged from restocking empty shelves even when there was ample food, and that clients were told they should “come earlier” to get high-demand items rather than asking volunteers to help meet their needs.

Due to a shortage of help, leadership was seeking to increase efficiency and reduce the demands on volunteers. As a result, clients were exasperated and volunteers fearful that the shopping experience was increasingly humiliating and disrespectful.

I understand these decisions and why they happen. Managing a pantry’s food supply in all its complexity is exhausting and takes careful juggling, rapid assessment, and confidence in your instincts. (Overseeing food flow is one of my favorite parts of pantry operations- it’s an art form!)

The nonprofit sector is intimately aware that volunteer rates are decreasing. While many organizations experienced a surge in volunteering during the pandemic when unemployment was high, most have now returned to work and cut back on their service.

As a result, food pantries are rethinking their operations to run with less help, and the primary way to do that is by increasing efficiency. While it is an essential component of any institution, this volunteer’s concerns demonstrate how it can also subtract focus from the true mission of fighting hunger.

Why not efficiency?

Efficiency is all about achieving a goal with as little energy, waste, or effort as possible. In many businesses, this is important and logical. But when it comes to anti-hunger efforts, it’s vital to remember what your organization is really hoping to achieve. If our mission is to end hunger, then efficiency may not be the best path forward.

There is an intensely emotional component of using food assistance. It can feel incredibly vulnerable to ask for help.

I’ve heard hundreds of stories from people who had a negative experience at a food pantry and chose to go without food rather than risk such treatment again.  Even worse, individuals may internalize the idea that they must undergo disrespect to deserve this help (“I need to be grateful for whatever I can get”).

Both experiences are unacceptable.

How can food pantries ensure that they are not sacrificing the client experience in favor of efficiency?

The most important component is to develop an organizational culture that prioritizes dignity and intentionality. Food pantries with cultures that concentrate on the client experience empower their volunteers to go the extra mile for individuals walking through their doors.

Whatever your goal is, here’s how to examine the balance of efficiency and dignity within your organization:

Unlike a for-profit business, the end goal does not justify the means. We’re not building food justice if clients leave feeling disrespected, neglected, or without the food their family needs to feel nourished and safe. We’re failing in our services if the volunteer experience sacrifices that of individuals seeking food assistance.

Negative volunteering experiences reduce the number of volunteers, which further pushes organizations to lean on efficiency over dignity. Without intervention, this produces an endless cycle that leaves neither clients nor volunteers feeling fulfilled or satisfied.

While we should always be brainstorming ways to improve food assistance, it’s important that we do so in ways that lift up food justice first, even at the expense of efficiency.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!