Case study DEPARTMENT OF EEE

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

Lessons from USDA AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning - A Case Study

How the USDA AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning Worked

The Summer of Gleaning was based on the philosophy that government should provide energy, vision, and some

limited funds to serve as a catalyst to increase citizen efforts.

Summer of Gleaning projects worked in partnership with literally hundreds of locally based anti-hunger groups, youth

service corps, churches, food banks, and food recovery organizations, that are currently recovering food in 20 States.

(See Appendix E.)

These AmeriCorps partnerships created collaborative efforts that brought together farmers, agribusinesses, food

distribution organizations, special event organizers, large institutions, and restaurants to recover food that would

otherwise have been thrown away.

Overall, Federal funding was minimal. The AmeriCorps members received a small living stipend that allowed them to

meet basic living expenses as they provided full-time community service. If they successfully completed the program,

the AmeriCorps members earned an educational voucher that may be used to partially pay for college, graduate

school, job training, or to pay back already existing student loans.

The program was based on the "volunteer generator" model in which a handful of compensated AmeriCorps members

recruit numerous noncompensated volunteers to help implement large-scale tasks. The 88 AmeriCorps members in

the summer program recruited over 1600 noncompensated community volunteers who helped pick, sort, deliver, and

prepare the recovered foods.

There were a total of 22 Summer of Gleaning projects operating 12-week, 480- hour programs that were administered

by USDA agencies (Rural Development, the Farm Service Agency, and the Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service), with technical assistance and support provided by the USDA Food and Consumer Service

and the USDA National Service staff.

The 88 AmeriCorps members in the program served in teams of two to six members each, organizing and

implementing gleaning projects that rescued ripe fruits and vegetables from farmers' fields that would otherwise have

gone unharvested and either been left to rot in the fields or plowed under. The fresh produce was then distributed to

needy families and individuals in the local area, emphasizing the community-building aspect of the AmeriCorps

program. In addition to gleaning produce directly from farmers, several of the summer projects focused on efforts to

rescue prepared and perishable foods from local restaurants, resorts, bakeries, and other businesses involved with food

service.

Perhaps most importantly, the food recovery programs that were begun through the initiative of the USDA

AmeriCorps members now continue to operate in every one of those communities, even though the AmeriCorps

members are no longer there.

Key Issues Identified During the Program

The following issues have been identified by staff and project partners. They do not represent a comprehensive

approach to food recovery issues, but do provide one case study about key challenges and solutions that can affect

many food recovery projects:

Creating and Implementing Partnerships

No gleaning project can operate without effective local partnerships, and the AmeriCorps USDA Summer of Gleaning

projects were no exception.

In general, effective partnerships appear to have been easily established between the Federal agencies responsible for

administering the gleaning projects and local nonprofit organizations.

USDA staff provided preliminary guidance and information to potential project managers and, wherever possible,

tried to facilitate links among groups that sometimes were not even aware of each other's existence. Comprehensive

lists of local groups, such as those in Appendix B of this guide, were provided to local project managers at a training

program and through subsequent mailings in order to give them a starting point. However, in many cases we found

that this type of information was not needed, because the project managers were already familiar with the types of

services available in their own communities. Most of the project proposals came in to USDA headquarters with letters

of commitment from a wide variety of partners, saving a great deal of start- up time for the short summer projects that

could be better used contacting farmers or other donors and getting right to work on the actual gleaning/food recovery

activities.

In creating partnerships, it is essential to delineate the responsibilities of each participant in the project. Each partner

needs to know exactly what it will be expected to contribute, and what it can expect the others to do. This must be

done at the beginning of the project, to eliminate confusion and possible collapse as the project proceeds.

Formal written agreements are not always necessary, but letters of commitment are a very good idea. Administering

agencies should also be prepared to replace partners in the event that some logistical problems arise; a contingency

list is advisable.

Once a project develops to a level where there are several key partners involved, regular contact, either through

meetings or conference calls, should be sustained to avoid confusion and to be sure that all of the necessary tasks are

being completed and all commitments are being fulfilled.

Some of the summer projects were slightly less effective in implementing good partnerships because they did not

always recognize an organization's real potential as a good partner. Every group, organization, and company that

brings added value, however small, to the project should be treated as a valuable partner. USDA noted that thanks and

recognition, even in small gestures, often generated increased support for the project, and played a critical part in the

local communities' interest in continuing the gleaning projects beyond the summer.

General Donor Identification Issues

Obviously, finding donors for any sort of food recovery program, whether it involves farm and field gleaning, or is

designed around a prepared and perishable food rescue operation, is absolutely critical. Without the donors, there is

no food to be recovered.

USDA learned through the AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning projects that, because this is such a critical element,

contacts with potential donors must be one of the first tasks accomplished if a program is going to succeed.

Furthermore, if donors are carefully identified, solicited, and maintained during the gleaning project, they are much

less likely to drop out of the program as it progresses, and their peers who declined to participate at the outset, for

whatever reason, are more likely to offer their own contributions as well.

Two types of food recovery programs — farm gleaning and perishable food rescue programs — have a number of

common concerns related to donors.

For example, both types of donors are going to be concerned about liability questions, such as, "What if someone gets

sick from the sandwiches I donate because they weren't refrigerated properly after they left my restaurant?" or, "What

if someone trips and falls while gathering cucumbers in my field?"

End of Preview - Want to read all 76 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

` Lessons from USDA AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning - A Case Study How the USDA AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning Worked The Summer of Gleaning was based on the philosophy that government should provide energy, vision, and some limited funds to serve as a catalyst to increase citizen efforts. Summer of Gleaning projects worked in partnership with literally hundreds of locally based anti-hunger groups, youth service corps, churches, food banks, and food recovery organizations, that are currently recovering food in 20 States. (See Appendix E.) These AmeriCorps partnerships created collaborative efforts that brought together farmers, agribusinesses, food distribution organizations, special event organizers, large institutions, and restaurants to recover food that would otherwise have been thrown away. Overall, Federal funding was minimal. The AmeriCorps members received a small living stipend that allowed them to meet basic living expenses as they provided full-time community service. If they successfully completed the program, the AmeriCorps members earned an educational voucher that may be used to partially pay for college, graduate school, job training, or to pay back already existing student loans. The program was based on the "volunteer generator" model in which a handful of compensated AmeriCorps members recruit numerous noncompensated volunteers to help implement large-scale tasks. The 88 AmeriCorps members in the summer program recruited over 1600 noncompensated commu ...
Purchase document to see full attachment