Potential Demand for Local Agricultural Products by Mobile Markets Worcester, MA

Transcription

1 Potential Demand for Local Agricultural Products by Mobile Markets Worcester, MA Alice Reznickova and Lydia Zepeda 1 University of Wisconsin- Madison Funded by USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Cooperative Agreement no. 14-TMXXX-WI-0033 February 18, 2016 Abstract The objective of this cooperative agreement is to evaluate the potential of mobile markets to increase local farmers sales and improve access to fresh produce. The report reflects one of the six selected sites that each has a mobile market funded through the Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP); the sites represent a variety of US regions and demographics. In Worcester, MA, we conducted in- depth, semi- structured interviews on the farming, marketing, and distribution of produce with nine participants. Four interviews were with employees of an organization that runs a mobile market and farmers market in low- income neighborhoods, one interview was with a food bank, two were with urban farmers and two were with rural farmers. We found that mobile markets appear to have effective strategies to increase food access in low- income neighborhoods due to: offering half- off discounts; providing ethnic produce that is culturally appropriate; and collaborating with local farmers, the neighborhoods they serve, and other organizations in Worcester, particularly the local food bank. The food bank serving the area accepts produce from five farmers who deliver to the food bank and receives a large donation of produce from the Community Harvest Project. In addition, as a single- county food bank, it has been a leader in the county to end hunger by providing grants for food systems projects, collaborating with other organizations, founding and leading the city s food council, advocating for local and state legislation, providing grants to nonprofit organizations that work with youth and immigrant farmers, and helping to fund the doubling of SNAP benefits used to purchase fresh produce offered through the FMPP funded mobile market and farmers markets. This latter approach is novel and is more cost effective than the food bank purchasing transportation, equipment and labor to source and deliver produce. In addition to increasing access to produce, by funding double SNAP benefits for produce, the food bank also is increasing sales to local farmers. Introduction Agriculture in the United States is moving towards fewer, larger farms. Within the last census period ( ), the number of farms decreased by 4.3% while the average farm size increased (USDA 2014a). With the decreasing number of farms and increasing age of principal farm operators, there is concern about the future of farming (USDA, 2014b). In addition, small farms are the primary suppliers of fresh produce (USDA ERS, 2011), which should be about a half of our daily food consumption based on the USDA 1 Respectively, PhD candidate Environment and Resources, Professor of Consumer Science 1

2 dietary guidelines (ChooseMyPlate, n.d.). Furthermore, 15.8% of the US population is food insecure (Feeding America, 2013), hence any decrease in the number of farmers or amount of produce available could disproportionately affect their access to fresh, healthy food. The purpose of this report is to evaluate whether mobile markets and mobile food pantries could increase sales for produce farmers, as well as increase access of produce to the food insecure. Mobile markets and mobile food pantries can be cheaper to establish than brick- and- mortar stores. Furthermore, one mobile market or mobile food pantry can serve many communities, whereas a storefront can only serve the community it is located in. Often mobile markets and mobile food pantries bring produce to areas that would otherwise not have access to produce, therefore, they have the potential to increase local farmers sales. Mobile markets and mobile food pantries differ in funding, structure, mission and the difficulties they face. Mobile markets can be both non- profit and for- profit organizations that sell primarily fresh produce, sometimes supplemented by other grocery items. Depending on the mobile market and its mission, the produce can be local, organic, or conventional and sold for full or reduced price. Often, mobile markets accept government benefits (EBT, WIC) and may accept farmers market coupons. Non- profit mobile markets usually sell produce at or slightly above cost to low- income clients which means they require outside funding. They may also form a partnership with a for- profit organization, or subsidize produce sold to low- income people by selling produce at higher prices in affluent neighborhoods. Aside from funding, obstacles that prevent mobile markets from reaching more people include: lack of advertising, affordability, lack of convenience in terms of hours and products offered, lack of value and service and lack of trust from the communities they serve (Zepeda, Reznickova and Lohr, 2014). The original purpose of food banks and mobile food pantries was to provide emergency free food. Food banks employ mobile food pantries to distribute food in areas that are hard to reach or to support partner agencies with fresh produce delivery. Because the nutritional quality and sufficient quantity of food from food pantries has been questioned (Akobundu et al., 2004), food banks are increasing the amount of fresh produce they offer, in some cases by working with local farmers (Vitiello et al., 2014). This is particularly important since food pantries no longer appear to be emergency sources of food; people rely on them as a regular source of food (Daponte et al. 1998). In this case study of Worcester, MA, we investigate whether mobile markets and mobile food pantries can provide farmers with a venue to increase their sales and increase access to healthy foods for the food insecure. We report on the impediments mobile markets and mobile food pantries face to source locally and the impediments to local farmers to sell to mobile markets. In addition, we comment on other obstacles farmers face to expanding markets, whether mobile markets and food pantries expand food access to the food insecure, and report on issues they face while trying to reach their communities. Study Site: Worcester, Massachusetts Worcester is located in the centre of Worcester County in Central Massachusetts; its population of 182,544 makes it the second largest city in New England. Worcester is an urban area closely surrounded by eight smaller towns, one of which hosts the Worcester 2

3 County Food Bank. Worcester is located approximately 45 miles west of Boston and 40 miles northwest of Providence, two large cities with a number of year- round farmers markets that compete with Worcester for attention of local farmers. Worcester County is representative of Massachusetts in terms of poverty and food insecurity (Table 1), all of which are lower than the national averages (US Census, 2013; Feeding America, 2013). However, in the city of Worcester, overall and child poverty rates and SNAP benefit participation are nearly double the country rates (US Census, 2013; Feeding America, 2013). Worcester is twice as diverse as the rest of Massachusetts: the African- American population is 11.6% and Hispanics or Latinos are 20.9% (US Census, 2010). In general, the neighborhoods with more diverse populations have lower average income. The median annual household income in diverse neighborhoods is under $32,000 with the Arts District having the lowest median household income of $23,663, while neighborhoods that are predominantly White have a median annual household income around $60,000. The median annual household income in the city of Worcester is $45,011 (City Data, 2013). While the city of Worcester is not a food desert based on the USDA criterion of one- mile from a grocery store, a large portion of Worcester s population lives 0.5 miles or more from a grocery store (Figure 1). A report discussing Worcester food insecurity argues that those most affected by food insecurity are low- income minorities because they live in neighborhoods with corner stores that do not have fresh produce available and supermarkets are difficult to access by walking or bus (Allen at el., 2012). Table 1. Rates of poverty, food insecurity and SNAP benefits for Worcester, Worcester County, Massachusetts, and the US Variable Worcester Worcester County Massachusetts United States Overall Poverty* 21.4% 11.2% 11.4% 15.4% Child Poverty* 31.4% 15.2% 14.9% 21.6% Food insecurity overall** N/A 10.9% 11.5% 15.8% Food insecurity child** N/A 16.8% 16.5% 21.4% SNAP benefits* 21.7% 12.1% 11.7% 12.4% Sources: *US Census (2013) **Feeding America (2013) 3

4 Figure 1. Food deserts in the city of Worcester, MA (green = low income and 1 mile from grocery store; orange = low income and ½ mile away from a grocery store) Source: USDA ERS, 2015 The Census of Agriculture suggests that agriculture in Massachusetts has not changed much over the period. As opposed to the trends in the United States, the number of farms in Massachusetts increased marginally by about 1% from 7,691 to 7,755 between 2007 and Total acreage also increased by about 1%, so the average size of the farms changed only slightly from 67.3 to 67.5 acres. The majority of farms are small to medium: 30% are under 10 acres, 37.6% are between acres, and 23.6% are between acres. About half (47.2%) of the farms have annual income below $2,500 (USDA, 2014c). Similar to the US trend, primary operators are getting older; in 2007, the average farmer age was 56.3 years old, in 2012, this increased to 57.8 years. For half of the farmers, farming is their primary occupation; this increased somewhat from 2007, when this was true for only 48% (USDA, 2014c). Larger changes occurred among vegetable farms; their number increased from 1,001 to 1,404, with total acreage increasing from 15,764 to 17,770. The average size of vegetable 4

5 farms decreased from 15.8 to 12.6 acres, which suggests that the new farms are smaller, a trend seen in other states (USDA, 2014c). Massachusetts is ranked as 5 th in the US in direct market sales and 6 th in the number of CSA farms. Massachusetts farms are also popular agritourism destinations; over the census period agritourism sales increased by 141% (USDA, n.d.). Worcester County is ranked as 6 th in the US in direct market sales, 7 th in number of CSA s, and 5 th in agritourism sales (USDA, n.d.). Worcester County has more of Massachusetts farms than average based on its area; it has 1,560 farms, a small increase from 1,547 in The average farm size in the county is 65 acres, which is similar to the state average. The majority of farms are small to medium: 29% are under 10 acres, 35.4% are between 10 and 49 acres, and 26.0% are between 50 and 179 acres. Over a half (51.9%) earn less than $2,500 per year. The number of vegetable farms in Worcester County has nearly doubled from 170 to 315 farms. However, the total acres farmed decreased from 1,616 to 1,391, decreasing the average size of a vegetable farm from 9.5 to 4.4 acres (USDA, 2014c). Methods Interviews This field research is one of the six sites selected for a case study. The study involved semi- structured, in- person interviews of organizations and farmers and a survey of farmers. Overall, the sites were selected based on the following criteria: 1) Is there a functioning mobile market funded through Farmers Markets Promotional Program (FMPP) by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service? and 2) Has the market been in operation for at least one season? The first condition was required by the funding agency, the second condition ensures that the mobile market is not too new so that the researchers are able to evaluate the success of its strategies. Once this list of potential sites was established, in conjunction with the USDA AMS six sites were selected to represent both urban and rural areas in different parts of the United States and include different demographics. In addition to Worcester MA, the other sites included: New Orleans, LA; Santa Fe, NM; Concord, CA; Baltimore, MD; and Adrian, MI. Worcester was visited July 13-16, The participants for interviews were selected as follows. The Regional Environmental Council (REC) mobile market is the FMPP mobile market and therefore was the reason for this site visit; we interviewed the manager and two assistants. The REC mobile market manager identified three other participants: another REC staff member who was in charge of REC farmers markets and plans for Worcester Food Hub; Urban Farm 1, an urban program for refugee farmers; and Rural Farm 1 with which they collaborate. Similar to our approach at the other study sites, we interviewed a food bank that serves the area, Worcester County Food Bank, one of the very few single- county food banks in the country. All these contacted agreed to participate. In addition, we recruited Urban Farmer 2 through an online search of urban farming in Worcester and Rural Farmer 2 at a farmers market. It is important to note that specifically at this site, farmers were difficult to recruit. Four other farmers in the area connected to the mobile market who initially expressed interest in the interview did not respond to repeated attempts to confirm an interview prior to and during the visit. 5

6 In total, we conducted nine interviews: five with local organizations, the Regional Environmental Council (REC) and Worcester County Food bank (Table 2), and four farmers (Table 3). REC was represented by four employees: a program director, two mobile market assistants, and a project coordinator formerly in charge of farmers markets. All the interviews were conducted at a location convenient to the participant; three were conducted in an office, three at a mobile market site, two at the farmers market, and one via a phone (due to a last- minute scheduling conflict). Prior to each interview, the participants were informed about the purpose of the study, verbally confirmed agreement to participate and allowed us to use quotes in publications using an institutional review board approved consent form. All participants received $50 in compensation. The interviews lasted between 18 to 88 minutes and were 44 minutes on average. The interviews were audio- recorded and professionally transcribed. To ensure confidentiality, identifying information of the individuals has been removed. The transcripts were reviewed by both co- authors and coded for answers to our research question, specifically how mobile markets and mobile food pantries work with local farmers and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the collaborations. In addition we report on issues of food access, and for farmers, obstacles to farming and increasing sales. In the following sections we summarize the characteristics, goals, and visions of each organization and farm. Table 2. Summary of mobile market/mobile food pantry characteristics Market/ Pantry Mission Areas served Work- force Fresh Produce Source People Served Worcester Food Bank Engage, educate and lead Worcester County in creating a hunger- free community Worcester County 17 FTE volunteers (5,000 volunteer hours) Local farmers; non- profit farm that donates everything to them 101,000 individuals, served 4-5 times a year each REC Mobile Market REC Farmers Market Building sustainable, healthy and just communities 15 stops around Worcester Main South and Beaver Brook 1 FTE + 2 PTE Their own youth- run farm; local farmers 8,000 people/year 6

7 Questionnaire In addition to interviews, we also distributed a structured questionnaire to those who were interviewed. Collecting survey data at farmers markets has been a more successful strategy than solicitation. However, although a researcher attended two farmers markets, the markets were small, at one there was only one vendor who was interviewed for this study. At the other market, only two produce vendors were present, one of whom was interviewed and the other one could not be interviewed because there was an issue of translation. Therefore the only questionnaires collected were from farmers who participated in the interviews and are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of farm characteristics Farmer Size (actual/ farmed) (acres) Products Workforce Sales Venues Wants & Needs Urban Farm 1* Urban Farm 2 Rural Farm 1* Rural Farm 2 15 acres at 3 sites; 0.25 acres per family 3/ /200 20/20 (3 sites) New England crops; ethnic crops Produce Produce, eggs, dairy, meat, value- added, wood Produce, meat * farmers who sell to REC mobile market At least 1 FTE; 60 families 1 FTE, 4 work- share, volunteers 3 FTE + intern, family members 4 FTE; family children Farmers market, two mobile markets, CSA CSA 20 farmers markets, mobile market, restaurants, grocery stores, farm store + restaurant 6 farmers markets, online store More staff time More community engagement Access to Boston farmers markets Higher farmers market attendance 7

8 Results Regional Environmental Council (REC) REC was founded in 1971 as an environmental organization. In 1995, they redefined their mission in terms of environmental justice. Most of their current programs focus on food justice. Their programs serve 8,000 people a year and include: a mobile market; a community gardens program (60 community and school gardens in the city); a youth urban agriculture program (a year- round program for 35 teens on two urban farms); and two farmers markets. In this report, we focus on the mobile market and farmers markets as they directly interact with local farmers. Aside from these projects, REC is currently working on developing a food hub in Worcester. This project is based on collaboration with the local food bank, city legislature, and other stakeholders. Currently, there are 80 people on its advisory committee. The goals are workforce development, economic development, food justice, and health, economic and environmental sustainability. This project is a partnership with the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce and received a planning grant from the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts. The objective is not to duplicate effort but rather, create a network to increase the capacity of local food systems in Worcester County. In phase I of the project, five focus groups were conducted with various stakeholders including farmers. Next steps were identified in the planning year and funding for a pilot year was received with up to 3 years of implementation funding available. The pilot will include a commercial kitchen incubator, food services culinary training program and aggregation, marketing and distribution support for local farms. REC Mobile Market The mobile market was started as a part of REC food justice program five years ago. The market was inspired by the People s Grocery mobile market in Oakland, CA. The mobile market is a result of community interest in the REC farmers markets. The two REC farmers markets were not accessible to everyone and lack of transportation is an issue in Worcester. REC was unable to start more farmers markets to serve these people and additional markets would place too many demands on farmers time to be worthwhile. The mobile market offered a solution. It began as a pilot program using a donated van from the Worcester Regional Transit Authority. It operated for two months in the late fall of 2012 with nine stops on two days a week. Initially, the van did not have refrigeration; they had to use a walk- in cooler in a senior center at one of their stops. The pilot was successful and in their second year, REC received funding from the Harvard Pilgrim Foundation, which paid for the colorful wrap and contributed toward health- oriented marketing; and an FMPP grant, which provided them with a walk- in cooler. The mobile market offers fresh produce and following the advice of a business consultant, includes other products such as bread, cheese, tea, honey, etc. The produce is sourced from 5-6 farmers on a regular basis. The relationships were developed through the REC farmers market and through growers coalitions of which REC is a member. The mobile market preferentially purchases from their farmers market vendors, which is one of their strategies to make the farmers time at their low- income farmers markets worthwhile. In 8

9 this way, REC helps farmers increase sales by providing them with venues such as the mobile market, WIC and Senior Farmers Market Coupon distributions, and programs such as the half- off EBT program that makes produce more affordable to their low- income customers. 2 The mobile market worked with other farmers in the past but discontinued their relationship due to difficulties with logistics, the prices being too high, and issues with quality and transparency of sourcing. For the farmers, advantages of working with the mobile market include flexibility with logistics, better prices, and a relationship with a local organization. Flexible logistics include easy communication via calling and texting, orders on harvest day depending on availability, and pick up close to the farm. Due to the outside funding, REC is able to pay farmers closer to retail price than a wholesaler would. The farmers indicated they appreciate the REC mission and enjoy being connected to a local organization that brings fresh produce to people who would otherwise not have access. In turn, the staff believe that by sourcing from local farmers they are able to offer good quality produce. Thus, they are able to support local food systems while improving food access for low- income people, making the system more just and healthy. The mobile market has operated for three growing seasons. There are currently five stops a day on three days a week, totaling 15 stops every week. The stops are selected based on applications and given a trial period in the fall. If the neighborhood residents are receptive, the stop is kept in the schedule. The mobile markets stops at housing complexes, senior centers and public locations. The stops with the best sales are at busy locations, such as a local bus station and the summer farmers market on Worcester Common outside of the City Hall, and senior stops, specifically those with Eastern Europeans and Southeast Asian residents. REC staff believes this is because these seniors may be used to fresh food and open air markets. On the other hand, the stops with low sales are at public housing units for families. On average, people shop at each stop with some stops reaching 100 customers. Each stop is unique in terms of the clients. The customers are excited about fresh food; locally grown food appears to be important to them. The mobile market works to offer ethnic food that is culturally appropriate by sourcing from immigrant farmers. There is never much produce left over and what there is often can be sold the next day. Any leftover produce is taken home, composted, or given to charitable organizations such as homeless shelters. Donations depend on the quality of the produce that is left over at the end of the week. The mobile market accepts EBT and offers a half- off discount for EBT holders. Given that about 50-75% of their customers use EBT, the staff believes that accepting SNAP benefits and offering the discount is what makes the mobile market successful. In 2014, out of the total sales of $57,500, EBT transactions accounted for $11,700. EBT sales increased by two- thirds to $19,700 in Despite this success, the staff pointed out that they reach only 0.1% of Worcester population and therefore there is much room for growth. The staff believes that there are other, less concrete obstacles that prevent them from accessing more people besides affordability and proximity. They may include language and 2 This program is described in the farmers markets section below. 9

10 or cultural differences, and lack of community empowerment. REC staff believes that they can overcome these issues through education and community organizing; however, obtaining funding for programs to address these needs is more difficult than funding for equipment. To ensure that their activities and products appeal to customers, the staff work with farmers who represent the cultures the customers are from, they hire staff from the neighborhoods, they speak a variety of languages, they provide written materials in six languages, and they strive to make people feel welcome and comfortable. In the future, the staff would like to see a year- round full time staff position to support outreach programs such as cooking demonstrations and education programs. The mobile market staff expressed a need to catch up by focusing on strengthening their current program because REC has experienced rapid growth over the past five years. They questioned whether mobile markets can be sustainable because they know from experience that funding for projects is provided for a short period of time. They would like to create more marketing partnerships with WIC and the Family Health Center or possibly find corporate sponsorship. However, they point out that getting corporate sponsors can be difficult because of their mission of community building among low- income people; while there may be sponsors who are interested in wellness and giving back to the community, the staff have found that locally, potential sponsors have not been attracted to their customer demographics. Rather, these potential sponsors are interested in sales of products or services to affluent foodies, and therefore find sponsorship of high- end farmers markets more attractive. In the future, REC wants to focus on market- oriented solutions to funding, but they are unsure what those might look like. REC Farmers Market The REC farmers market began in order to utilize the produce from the youth employment program at an urban farm operated by REC. While the program had plenty of fresh produce, they did not have a place to sell. In 2008, REC piloted a one- month farmers market in a low- income neighborhood. The success of this pilot encouraged them to continue with a full season. Prior to this, no farmers markets in Worcester were located in low- income neighborhoods and food stamps were not accepted at the existing farmers markets located in affluent neighborhoods. Two to three years ago, REC took over an existing market in an affluent neighborhood after their market manager passed away. Currently, REC operates one market in an affluent neighborhood on Mondays and Fridays and one market in a low- income neighborhood on Saturdays. These two REC farmers markets accept food stamps and farmers market coupons. In addition, they offer half- off the price of purchase up to $40 per day to EBT users. For example, these customers are charged $20 for a $40 purchase. The funding for the half- off program comes from the food bank, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Project Bread. Similar to their mobile market, 48% of the people who purchase at the farmers market in a low- income neighborhood used government assistance. In the more affluent farmers market, only 17% of people use government assistance but the number has been steadily increasing over the years. In 2014, the two farmers markets earned about $81,000. EBT 10

11 transactions amounted to approximately $15,400 in 2014, increasing to $23,100 in In 2015, the low- income farmers market and high- income farmers market contributed $15,200 and $7,900, respectively, in EBT transactions. While EBT transactions are smaller in the high- income market, the 2015 figure represents a 430% increase in EBT sales over There are four to five farmers at each market with some overlap in producers on the three days; however, all these producers also sell at farmers markets elsewhere. This is an issue for farmers because the more farmers markets they sell at, the more time farmers have to spend going to multiple markets. On average, the farmers travel minutes each way and the time spent at a market is time they cannot farm. Furthermore, it is not clear if multiple farmers markets increase the number of customers or simply make it more convenient for existing customers to reach a market. To encourage farmers to participate in markets, REC provides other sales opportunities such as the mobile market and restaurant sales as part of their services. However, REC staff explained that due to limited staff time, these programs have mixed results. Additionally, the low- income REC farmers market typically has lower prices than the other markets in Worcester; this is offset by farmers charging more for products in affluent neighborhoods, and through payments from the half- off program. The vendors at the farmers markets predominantly sell produce. However, products such as meat, cheese, honey, hams and bread are sold by REC on behalf of other producers so they do not have to come to the market. Other features at the farmers markets include health outreach information booths and free yoga. Like the mobile market, a variety of customers visit the farmers markets. Customer surveys collected by REC show that the demographics of those who attend the markets closely resemble the community. The farmers at the markets also represent the predominant ethnicities in the community; as such, they provide produce varieties that are desired by these communities. The REC staff believes that because of this, people would still attend the market even without the half- off program. They believe the community shows strong support for their family and friends. However, when asked whether for the customers, local is an important aspect of the foods sold at the market, the REC staff responded that freshness and quality for the right price are more important. One of the issues REC faces is that some people in low- income neighborhoods are not used to coming to farmers markets and they have limited time, so they might need to go to a full service grocery store instead. The majority of unsold produce can be sold at full price at the next market. Leftovers from Friday, Saturday and Monday can be purchased for the mobile market, which operates Tuesday- Thursday. Unused produce that is not in good shape is fed to animals or composted. Worcester County Food Bank Worcester County Food Bank, located in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts was founded in Massachusetts is served by four food banks; three of which, including Worcester County Food Bank, are members of the Feeding America food bank network. Worcester County Food Bank (hereafter, the food bank) is one of a few single- county food banks in the US. 11

12 The food bank s mission is to engage, educate and lead Worcester County in creating a hunger- free community. The food bank is operated by 17 full- time employees, a volunteer board of directors, and 313 volunteers who donate over 5,000 hours a year mostly to sort incoming product for food safety and quality. Most volunteers are retirees; volunteer opportunities for schools and corporate groups fluctuate according to the amount of donations that the food bank receives. In FY 2014, the food bank distributed 5.4 million pounds of food, which was enough for 4.5 million meals. The food categories distributed in the highest volume were protein (frozen meat, fish, and poultry), fresh fruits and vegetables, canned and frozen vegetables, and non- meat proteins (peanut butter, beans, eggs). The budget in FY 2014 was $1.7 million, the majority of which came from individuals. The two major food sources were the food industry including producers, local farms, wholesalers and supermarkets and the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program, followed by the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP/USDA), food drives, and food that is purchased for a Co- op Program. The Massachusetts Food Assistance Program (MEFAP) is a state- funded program, which in FY 2014, provided $14 million in funding to the four Massachusetts food banks; the Worcester County Food Bank received $1,592,500 million worth of food and $125,000 in operating funds. The MEFAP began in 1995 due to a decrease in food donations from USDA; however, when USDA donations started increasing, MEFAP continued and is now considered an essential source of food for the food bank. The food bank uses this funding strategically to support the local economy by purchasing from local farmers; they prioritize food purchases with this funding by buying from Massachusetts, New England, and US companies, in that order. In regards to food donations, the trends are similar to those reported by other food banks. Twenty years ago, most food donated to the food bank came from supermarkets. The food was nonperishable and the product was transported to the food bank by the supermarket or a tractor- trailer truck company. The food bank paid for these food delivery services. However, trends in the food industry changed; although the food bank still receives nonperishable food donations from supermarkets, the amount has decreased and the availability of fresh and perishable food has increased. For this reason, the food bank purchased refrigerated box trucks to pick up food and uses staff to drive the trucks. In addition, the food bank purchases some products for its Co- op Program so that its Partner Agencies do not have to make a trip to a retail food store. This food is sold to these agencies without a markup. Food drives are 2% of the food distributed by the food bank; however, their advantage is that food drives can be targeted, i.e. the food bank can ask for specific foods, such as gluten- free or low- sodium foods. Regardless of who the food donor is, the food bank makes strategic decisions about whether they would accept the donation or whether it would be more advantageous to connect the donor with a food pantry. Those decisions are based on the donor s location and amount of food donated. In 2003, the food bank initiated a concerted effort to work with a dozen or so local farmers; currently, it has relationships with 5 farmers. In the beginning, the food bank picked up produce from the farmers and delivered it to its nearby Partner Agencies rather than bringing it to the food bank s distribution center; this decreased travel time. The food bank mostly picked up excess produce that the farmers did not expect to sell. Now farmers 12

13 deliver any surplus product directly to the food bank. In addition, the food bank has a unique collaboration with the Community Harvest Project, a mostly volunteer run acre farm and 30- acre apple orchard that produces and donates about 300,000 lbs of produce to the food bank. The food bank picks up at the farm 3 to 4 days a week and distributes the food directly to specific Partner Agencies often on the same day with the exception of Mondays, when the food is brought to the food bank. Lastly, some of the Partner Agencies identified fresh food sources such as community gardens in their own location and are working to strengthen these relationships. Aside from receiving more nutritious food, an advantage of the food bank working with farmers is they work with more community members and help farmers distribute their food. One issue the food bank is concerned about is receiving seconds; they do not believe these are appropriate for distribution because they do not want people to feel that they are not worthy of high quality produce simply because they are poor. The food is distributed with the help of 138 Partner Agencies, including food pantries and community meal programs, many of which are faith- related. One requirement is that Partner Agencies must be a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. The goal is to fill service gaps rather than duplicate efforts, so the food bank strives to diversify areas served, as well as days and times the food pantries operate. One new trend in food banks operations mentioned was instead of the food bank picking up donated food from retailers, the food bank supports its pantry partners in picking up food directly and bringing it to their pantry location. The food pantry then submits a form to the food bank saying what types and amount of food was picked up and the food bank submits a report to Feeding America and sends donor thank you letters for tax deduction purposes. For this to work, the food bank has to provide Partner Agencies with additional training and food safety tools such as thermometers and freezer blankets. At the same time, the food bank can reduce the amount of driving between food sources, food bank, and agencies. The food bank distributes donated food at no cost to its Partner Agencies. However, Partner Agencies contribute a shared maintenance fee per pound for some of the food they receive that requires more handling by food bank staff and volunteers such as the nonperishable food from food retailers. The shared maintenance fee can be as low as one cent per pound and never exceeds 16 cents pound. This fee does not reflect the actual value of the product. Every year, the valuation of donated food items is based on the approximate average wholesale value of one pound of donated product as calculated in the Product Valuation Survey Methodology, Agreed- Upon Procedures prepared by Feeding America. Donated food from MEFAP, USDA, farms, and food drives is distributed without a shared maintenance fee. The food bank also supports its Partner Agencies by convening network meetings 2 3 times a year where they learn about SNAP outreach and application assistance, grant writing, and other topics. In the past 20 years, the number of people receiving food assistance has doubled from approximately 50,000 to 101,700 with each person visiting a food pantry on average 4-5 times per year. The composition of the clients is: 35% children, 10% retired seniors, 18% employed adults and 37% unemployed adults. The majority of clients are White, followed by Latino/Hispanic, African- American, and other. The food bank noted that with the loss of manufacturing jobs in the last two decades that people in Massachusetts who work in low- 13

14 wage service jobs cannot afford the high cost of living, and must rely on food pantries to help make ends meet. The food bank is not always able to provide foods for people who seek ethnic products or special products to accommodate food allergies. The food bank also wanted to sustain the direct service provided by its hunger- relief network of food pantries as well as support advocacy and food systems work more broadly so it established the Worcester County Food Bank Fund to End Hunger at the Greater Worcester Community Foundation in The fund makes grants to organizations that work to increase access to healthy food and/or support individual and household economic self- sufficiency. In four years, the fund has distributed over $258,000 in grants to their Partner Agencies and other food systems projects. These projects included building an aquaponics greenhouse co- op that provides job training and healthy food production, improving the local Meals on Wheels Program, providing matching funds to double the amount of produce people receive when they use their SNAP EBT at the Regional Environmental Council s mobile market and farmers market. Additionally, the food bank is part of a group of organizations working with Worcester city government to amend zoning laws to permit for- profit urban farms. Currently, urban farming is only permissible for non- profit organizations; the new zoning law would allow commercial farm enterprises to farm within the city. Worcester County Food Bank is interested in supporting self- sufficiency and they will continue to help feed people who are hungry now while working to create hunger- free communities of tomorrow. They believe that chronic hunger and malnutrition are solvable problems through systemic solutions. Their belief is that people s basic needs for safe and affordable housing, high quality food, and good education should be met; these are issues of social justice. The food bank pointed out that legislation requiring a $15 per hour minimum wage would be a good start toward this vision. Food Policy Council Worcester In 2002, the food bank decided to become more involved with food justice and food systems work as well as sustainable solutions to hunger as an alternative to relying solely on food donations that provided relief from hunger but were not a long- term solution to hunger. In 2005, the food bank and its network of Partner Agencies co- sponsored a community forum on hunger with Congressman McGovern. That forum was the first time that the food bank engaged community leaders from business, education, and local and state government and asked them to work with them on specific proposals as part of a community solution to hunger. One initiative that evolved from the forum was the creation of the Worcester Food Policy Council in 2006 by then Worcester Mayor Timothy Murray with leadership and support from Congressman McGovern. The Council is a coalition that brings together representatives and resources from agriculture, education, faith groups, government, public health and healthcare, as well as anti- hunger to foster a healthy and just food system in Worcester, MA. The Council is funded by the food bank and its Manager is a staff member of the food bank. From the beginning, the Council focused on collaborative leadership and action. In its first 4 months, the food bank expanded the summer food service program for youth in 14

15 Worcester from 13 to 22 sites and the number of meals from 37,000 to 59,000. This accomplishment captured the attention of the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts, who invited the Council to apply for a synergy initiative grant, which provides multi- year funding for partnership- based projects that target public health problems with integrated, comprehensive strategies. Between 2007 and 2012, The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts, provided $1,557,443 in funding to support the Council s Hunger- Free & Healthy Project. The project s strategies included food stamp outreach and application assistance at health care centers and hospitals, improving the quality of school meals, establishing school gardens, farmers markets in low- income neighborhoods, and nutrition- based cooking and budgeting classes. The food bank served as the fiscal agent for this grant. Each project partner contributed those individual strengths to a collective effort to accomplish what could not be accomplished individually. This approach offered opportunities for maximizing resources and affecting the greatest number of people in a community. The Hunger- Free & Healthy Project chose specific strategies because they were best practices and they connected very well together as a whole, as part of a system. They also were sustainable by embedding them in the existing programs of the groups involved, such as the REC farmers market and mobile market. Advocacy for policies at local, state, and federal levels was another way to sustain the Hunger- Free & Healthy Project s efforts and success without creating a separate entity. A strong advocacy agenda complemented project components and partner participation in legislative advocacy and public policy related to nutrition, health, and hunger was an expectation of the project from the start. The timing of the project coincided with a growing momentum around the region, state, and country on the issues of community food security and healthy food access so there were many pieces of legislation we could incorporate into our advocacy agenda. Many of the advocacy efforts came to fruition in At the state level, Hunger- Free & Healthy and the Worcester Food Policy Council were part of a broader coalition that advocated for more than two years for the establishment of a Massachusetts Food Policy Council. In August 2010, Governor Patrick signed the bill into law. Of the council s goals, one is to develop and promote programs that increase access to healthy food in low- income communities with disproportionate burdens of obesity and chronic disease. The Project was also part of a coalition that advocated for school nutrition legislation at the state and federal levels. In Massachusetts, Governor Patrick signed a school nutrition bill in July 2010 that set nutritional standards for all food sold in schools, other than school meals, so now there is a statewide policy in place to support the changes that schools like Worcester and others are making in improving the quality of the school food environment. Urban Farm 1 Urban Farm 1 is a multi- plot urban farming program offered by a refugee social services/resettlement non- profit organization. It was started seven years ago through a 15

16 Refugee Agricultural Partnership Program grant. The program works with a 60 families of refugees, immigrants, or recent citizens from Bhutan, Burundi, Kenya, Somalia, Vietnam, Poland and other countries. Urban Farm 1 leases two plots, one in West Springfield and another in Sutton, and maintains three Worcester lots in partnership with the city and REC. At the first two locations they have single sites with infrastructure that are subdivided for families; in Worcester, plots are smaller and grown intensively. Each of the larger sites has about five acres in cultivation and each family farms about a quarter acre. The families provide their own labor, while the organization provides them with resources like seeds, soil amendments, technical assistance, classes, marketing services, and organizes a CSA, farmers markets, and other sales. The farms are not certified organic because it is deemed too difficult to obtain certification for multiple plots that are farmed by different people, but all farmers are required to follow organic practices. While the families are free to grow what they like, the organization develops a master crop plan, which facilitates marketing and sales. On average the farmers collectively grow about 60,000 pounds of produce a year. For the CSA, the farmers grow traditional New England crops. The farmers like the CSA because it provides them with a stable income. While the program views the CSA as inexpensive, it does have to be paid in full at the beginning of the season; so most customers are middle- income families. While they considered offering a CSA with ethnic crops, they realized that customers interested in these foods like to see the produce prior to purchase. The farmers are known for growing specialty crops from their home countries, which they sell at the REC low- income farmers market and at two mobile markets serving low- income communities, one in Worcester operated by REC and another in West Springfield operated by LiveWell Springfield, a local community coalition. At the REC farmers market, they sell mostly ethnic crops because the clientele is ethnically diverse. Urban Farmer 1 indicated they enjoy selling there because it meets their social goals of supporting food access in low- income diverse communities. During the site visit, people lined up in front of their stall a half hour before they opened. In addition to being culturally significant, the ethnic produce is fresh, and affordable, particularly because they accept EBT; the market offers half off EBT sales up to a cap. EBT sales account for approximately 60% of their total sales. In terms of mobile market sales, in Worcester, Urban Farm 1 is the only farm that provides the mobile market with ethnic crops. Selling to two mobile markets, in Worcester and West Springfield, allows Urban Farm 1 to offer their produce in low- income neighborhoods. The West Springfield mobile market was originally managed by Urban Farm 1; however, it was beyond their staff capacity to continue. Now the mobile market is run by a local community coalition, but still uses Urban Farm 1 s infrastructure such as coolers and parking. The advantages of selling to mobile markets are the perks of selling via wholesale, and also knowing that most of the produce goes to low- income families. In addition, because the mobile market and Urban Farm 1 are both small non- profit organizations, they understand each other and are able to be flexible. Restaurants, on the other hand, pay higher retail price and while the income is stable, the demand is not high. In addition, selling to restaurants can be difficult because they require the same product consistently throughout the season. 16

17 Very little product is wasted; the farmers take leftover produce home to their families to either preserve it or sell it independently to friends and neighbors. Produce left over from the farmers market is delivered to a men s shelter chosen because of familiarity and convenience. Urban Farm 1 does not think their Worcester County land is expensive, though the West Springfield lease is a relatively large expense. They rent using one- year leases. They purchased infrastructure such as a cooler, wash station, and a tractor through grants. While Urban Farm 1 would like to increase sales, they have difficulties funding more staff to do so, and language barriers limit the independent sales opportunities of the farmers. At two of their sites, there are many people who would like to become farmers, but currently Urban Farm 1 cannot expand because they are at capacity given their budget for staff salaries, even though more land is available. They would like to see more consistent funding through the USDA and private foundations that would support programming and also to move away from wholesale orders because they take too much staff time relative to the benefits. Wholesale orders are time- consuming because it is difficult to put together orders from 30 plus fields. Instead, they would like to train the farmers to be able to sell at the farmers markets by themselves. To do this, the staff are training farmers to calculate prices, manage the cash drawer, and communicate with customers. An important aspect of Urban Farm 1 s work is the intangible emotional and social benefits to farmers. The staff thinks the immigrant farmers love participating in this program because it allows them to provide for their families, which they are often unable to do otherwise because of language barriers, and to continue family farming traditions, which are important to their cultural identity. Urban Farm 2 Urban Farm 2, located in the city of Worcester, was founded in The founder received land through collaborating with a church and a local corporation. The farm is on a three- acre property; the farm itself is between one- half and three- quarters acre. The farm produces mixed annual vegetables and perennial herbs. While the farm is not certified organic, the farmer follows organic and biodynamic practices. Currently, the farm is under the umbrella of another non- profit, which has limited the farm s ability to seek funding directly. In 2009, the farmer purchased lumber for raised beds through corporate sponsorship. Originally, the farmer intended to donate all produce. However, in 2010, she received extra help from an experienced farmer, and they grew and sold at the low- income farmers market. In 2011, her partner left and since the farmer did not enjoy selling at the farmers market, she decided to change her model to a CSA and get additional labor through work shares. Besides a paid full- time farmer, the farm has a volunteer board, two part- time short- term employees who run the education program, four CSA work- shares, and volunteers, who are mostly CSA members. One obstacle to work- share participation has been lack of childcare because without childcare, work- share members are unable to work. At any time, there are three to eight people on the farm with the farmer working hours a week. 17