For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
W14787
BRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK: FOSTERING PARTNERSHIPS,
FEEDING HOPE
Evan Vestal, Manoj Vanajakumari and Subodha Kumar wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors
do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain
names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com.
Copyright © 2015, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation
Version: 2015-06-02
Theresa Mangapora, executive director of Brazos Valley Food Bank, Incorporated (the Food Bank), sat at
her desk on January 14, 2013 and reviewed the upcoming staff meeting scheduled for later that day.
While she thought of the ancillary tasks at hand, she could not avoid the tantalizing scents of her
environment: the aroma of coffee from the break room blended with the sweet smell of oranges, apples,
grapes and even onions that were waiting delivery to partner agencies. It was a reminder that she and her
organization served a larger purpose, that is, the people and community of the Brazos Valley in central
Texas. In the winter months, she was able to serve these people well through numerous food drives and
donations from private and public institutions. There had been no shortfall during the holidays and the
outlook was promising for January and February and through the spring. She had prepared well, and the
people of her community had benefitted from the hard work of her organization.
While happy that the Food Bank had fulfilled its winter commitments, Mangapora worried about the
summer months. While others anticipated their vacations, she felt an urgency to address basic needs on a
daily basis for those who struggled to make ends meet. The summer was a time when children did not
receive consistent supplements at school; food supplies dwindled; and there were fewer volunteers, food
drives and donations of money. The people of the Brazos Valley might need food, but there would be less
of it and the variety would be limited. She was also concerned about the freshness and maximum
nutritional value of summer produce, given the organization’s limited space, efficiency of current design,
number of staff and number of partner agencies (and their capacity).
Mangapora assembled her administrative staff. While they were few in number, they had big expectations
for service delivery because the mission of the Food Bank was so needed and so critical. Keeping the
children and seniors of the Brazos Valley in good health was serious work.
BRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK, INC.
The Food Bank was a central distribution facility that received donations of food and money and
distributed these items to other charitable nonprofit entities that served those in need (see Exhibit 1). It
was a partner distribution organization of the Houston Food Bank and served six counties in central Texas
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 2
9B14D012
contingent to and including the central and main county of Brazos, which was home to Texas A&M
University, the largest employer in the area. The counties and their respective 2011 population figures
were as follows: Brazos (197,000), Burleson (17,000), Grimes (27,000), Madison (14,000), Robertson
(17,000) and Washington (34,000).1 This area included both urban and rural populations. The rural
population had little to no public transportation, unreliable access to cell and Internet service, reduced
employment opportunities and few grocery outlets.
The Food Bank was a registered charitable organization with authority to determine hires and strategic
goals and was responsible for its own fundraising and budgeting. It had a volunteer governing board of
Directors. It received its U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) commodities through the Houston Food
Bank, amounting to 6 per cent of all of the Houston Food Bank’s allocation. In 2012, the Food Bank
distributed approximately four million pounds of food. Exhibit 2 provides a list of its top donors.
The mission of the Food Bank was to reduce and alleviate hunger in the Brazos Valley by distributing
food and providing educational resources through a broad network of nonprofit partner organizations that
in turn fed individuals in need. The Food Bank’s nonprofit partners, who depended on it for, on average,
82 per cent of the food they distributed, included faith-based food pantries usually affiliated with a house
of worship, residential living facilities (such as homes for children or drug and alcohol rehabilitation
centres) and recreation centres. Partner organizations went through a rigorous application process, site
visits and board of director approval. Once approved, they were monitored annually by Food Bank staff
and were required to fulfill annual agreement requirements, as well as monthly reports.
As well as the partner organizations, the Food Bank had other food distribution sites, referred to as
“drops,” such as in low-income housing units. Drops were used primarily as a last resort for perishable
products (such as baked goods and fresh produce) or products that were in abundance. The Food Bank
also developed and ran several programs to get food into the hands of especially vulnerable populations.
These included the Children’s BackPack Program (a partnership with public schools), Senior Outreach
Program (a partnership with Meals on Wheels and other home-delivered meal programs), Mobile Food
Pantry Program (partnerships with area churches to get food to underserved areas), school-based food
pantries (on school campuses to reach older students in need) and sometimes the Food Bank itself
(distribution of emergency food boxes when no partner agencies were open to provide assistance).
Descriptions of these programs follow.
1
Children’s BackPack Program: Backpacks that contained shelf-stable, child-friendly food were
provided to schools for children to take home on weekends when they had no access to school-based
meals. The program operated in elementary schools in five of the six counties served by the Food
Bank. Thirty bags were provided to each school every week throughout the school year and were
placed discreetly in the backpacks of needy students on Friday afternoons so that other students did
not know these children were receiving food to tide them over the weekend. The program continued
in the summer months on a reduced level through local community centres.
Mobile Food Pantries: Mobile food pantries allowed areas to receive needed food supplements when
no existing food service agency was available or the ones that did exist could not meet existing needs.
They were located in areas such as fairgrounds or a school parking lot. To ensure privacy, individuals
could remain in their automobiles as they progressed through the drive-through line. Recipients
received up to 75 pounds of groceries per vehicle. There were three mobile food pantry locations in
the Brazos Valley.
Senior Outreach Program: This program provided bags of food to homebound seniors in a delivery
mechanism associated with Meals on Wheels and other home-delivered meal programs. The bags
Texas Association of Counties, www.txcip.org/tac/census/CountyProfiles.php, February 2013, accessed January 14, 2015.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 3
9B14D012
were considered to be supplemental to the recipients’ normal dietary intake, as well as a way to tide
seniors over on the weekend when hot meals were not delivered.
Emergency Family Boxes: Provided when no other assistance could be found, the family boxes were
provided on-site at the Food Bank distribution warehouse to those who could not access a mobile
food pantry during its operating hours because of work schedule, disability or transportation issues.
Emergency family boxes contained up to 40 pounds of nutritious food. This type of assistance was a
one-time service that still required all of the same paperwork as the ongoing programs.
The Food Bank staff consisted of an executive director, distribution manager, programs manager,
warehouse coordinator, food assembly coordinator, program and administrative support staff and
warehouse workers. Mangapora handled general administrative duties and was responsible for financial
donations, education, advocacy, policy generation, governance and speaker coordination. Rhonda
Behrens, the distribution manager, assisted with food drive coordination, receipt of food items, outreach
to food donors, donation pick-up schedules, oversight of program product creation, coordination of
monthly inventory and oversight of the Retail Pick-Up Program. As program manager, Shannon Avila
was in charge of agency relations, which included new agency recruitment and existing agency
monitoring, as well as oversight of the Children’s BackPack Program, Mobile Food Pantries and the
Senior Outreach Program. She was also in charge of data collection on people served. Jason Galindo, the
warehouse coordinator, handled coordination of deliveries, ensuring that partner agency orders were
pulled and accurate. He also coordinated product unloading and organization and managed all warehouse
workers and drivers. The food assembly coordinator, Gina Lane, oversaw volunteer and community
service efforts, including food sorting, monitoring food safety issues and handling food recalls. She was
also responsible for managing the assembly of food for backpacks, senior bags and family boxes. Miosha
Sanders was the social services outreach coordinator who assisted low-income individuals with applying
for various governmental safety net programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP). There were a few additional non-administrative positions that supported the efforts of the main
staff.
The efforts of the Food Bank were supplemented by volunteer and community service workers. Annually,
almost 15,000 volunteer hours were contributed to the Food Bank, the equivalent of seven full-time
employees. The contributions of these individuals were significant to daily operations.
Mangapora was a strong and well-experienced leader for the Food Bank. She had worked in humanitarian
organizations for 15 years. She had been with the Food Bank for eight years and brought to the table vast
knowledge of regional assistance programs. Along with charity and humanitarian work in Georgia,
upstate New York and Michigan, she had assisted with legislation that benefitted end-users during her
tenure as a legislative aide for the Michigan State Senate.
STRATEGIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD DISTRIBUTION IN THE BRAZOS VALLEY
The Food Bank was faced with several strategic issues. The supply of and demand for food and money
were difficult to evaluate since the Food Bank dealt primarily with donations (see Exhibits 3 and 4).
Resources, including funds, manpower and expertise to measure performance, were not readily available.
Manual processes were used for many of the daily operations of food distribution (for instance, manual
pallet jacks, manual conveyor belts in the sorting room and inventory not on a bar code system), although
the Food Bank did use inventory software called Primarius (ECCA) and donor software from a company
called Sage. The Food Bank lacked sufficient warehouse space, especially enough freezer and cooler
units. Warehouse operations were far behind the modern distribution systems utilized in the distribution
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 4
9B14D012
industry (see Exhibit 5). Plans for warehouse expansion were well underway, but the new facility would
not be ready for at least another year.
The Food Bank distributed food to many partner agencies within a defined geographic region. Thus, its
inability to plan caused many distribution efficiency issues from receiving funds and food from donors to
shipping to agencies. The absence of automation caused operational inefficiencies as outlined above.
Food close to expiration dates was occasionally shipped to the Food Bank. Donated produce always
included a percentage that was decayed. The Food Bank expended a lot of money salvaging expired or
unusable donations (see Exhibit 6). Time and effort were depleted by delineating which items were
appropriate for distribution and which were to be discarded. Often, delineation was completed by
volunteers or individuals who were meeting community service requirements. Inconsistency with this
process allowed for erroneous evaluation, inefficient time usage and food waste.
Mangapora spent a significant amount of time raising money when there were other issues that needed her
attention. However, monetary contributions were very much needed, so the focus of her tenure had been
in this area.
FOOD ASSIMILATION AND DISSEMINATION
The Food Bank received a weekly supply truck from the Houston Food Bank. The truck typically carried
items that had been provided by the USDA. There was generally no method to determine what may arrive
as it varied with each delivery.
The Food Bank also received a monthly truck of reclamation products from HEB, a grocer and the largest
privately held company in the state of Texas. This truck contained items that had been removed from the
consumer shelves at HEB and not only included groceries but also household products, toys and
electronics. Additional donations by Kroger, Wal-Mart, community food drives and individuals were
received throughout the year. However, such donations were sporadic and not consistent.
In addition to food donations and receipts, the Food Bank had to generate operating funds via fundraising
efforts. A large portion of the daily activities of the executive director was committed to raising funds for
administrative needs as well as food purchases.
Partner agencies placed orders for the food they wanted to include in their food distribution bags and/or
boxes. Some placed orders monthly and some weekly. The majority of orders were delivered by Food
Bank staff in Food Bank vehicles. Some partner agencies travelled to the Food Bank to pick up their
orders to avoid paying delivery fees and, while they were on-site, liked to “shop” for various items.
Because of limited resources, partner agencies in rural counties struggled to provide daily access to food
for those in need.
In Robertson County, there were four Food Bank partner agencies: two were affiliated with religious
organizations and two were community supported. Food was available weekly on Monday and Saturday
and every second Wednesday and Friday. However, individuals could only visit food pantries once a
month in all counties. Madison County residents had access to food Tuesday through Thursday each week
via a religious affiliated organization and once per month through the Food Bank’s Mobile Food Pantry
Program.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 5
9B14D012
Burleson and Washington Counties had five agencies each. Nine were religious affiliated and one was
community related. Food was available Monday, Tuesday and Thursday each week, as well as every third
Saturday, in Washington County and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday each week and the
second and third Saturday of each month in Burleson County.
The largest county within the Food Bank service area was Brazos. Of its nine agencies, four were
affiliated with religious organizations and five were community supported. Food was available six days
per week excluding Sunday. One of the agencies did not distribute food to be taken home and consumed
but served as a food kitchen allowing one meal per day, Monday through Friday.
Agencies often chose to rely on their relationship with the Food Bank to serve their local populations
since resources for food and monetary donations in their counties were limited. The synergism built
between each agency and the Food Bank allowed for an increased awareness of the need that existed in
each community. Periodic food orders from individual agencies allowed for the dissemination of valuable
food supplies that ultimately nourished families and individuals in need. Methods to increase the
efficiency of these operations between agencies and the Food Bank were desired and needed.
IMPENDING SUMMER DISTRIBUTION ISSUE
Historically, inventories were extremely low during the months of June, July and August when people
went on vacation. Both USDA supplies and donations from food drives were consistently lower. Food
drives tended to be better in the fall, winter and spring. College students returned in the fall and
coordinated philanthropic activities that were beneficial to the organization. People tended to be more
generous during the winter holiday season. While positive fundraisers occurred in June and August (a
Capital Campaign Dinner in June and an annual fundraising event in August), fundraisers by others for
the Food Bank were very limited during the summer months. Reclamation of donated food could also be
lower and the food that existed could be bottlenecked due to the lack of knowledgeable volunteers for
food sorting. At times, special needs volunteers participated in the summer.
The Food Bank anticipated increased demand in the summer of 2013 and in future years due to children
being out of school. Breakfasts and lunches that had been provided during the week by schools were the
responsibilities of families in summer. Food budgets were strained, even though fresh food could be
hoarded for six months. While summer feeding programs existed, they were underutilized. The Food
Bank’s food purchase budget was a set amount each year, dictated by the budget approved by the board of
directors as well as the success of fundraising efforts. Inventory stratification was required to manage the
abundance of donations in the winter and spring and utilize this abundance to help meet the summer
demand. However, there were more efficient mechanisms that could be utilized to make the best use of
purchase dollars.
For all these reasons, there was a possibility that not all distribution entities could be served in summer
2013, leading to increased hunger in the Brazos Valley. Mangapora, Behrens and Avila needed viable
solutions for the impending crisis.
OPTIONS TO AVERT THE IMPENDING CRISIS
In the meeting, Behrens and Avila contributed their thoughts as well as their hesitations. They also
promoted three timely, innovative ideas.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 6
9B14D012
1. Education: The Food Bank would attempt to educate employees on how to provide a deliverable in a
better manner and on how to better work with agencies in the distribution system. It would also
educate agencies on how to identify need, how to supplement need and how to work within the Food
Bank system to keep the distribution mechanism flowing in a manner that provided the appropriate
variety of needed food. They should also find ways to educate the recipients so that the end user
consumption can be regulated.
2. Raising additional money donations: This was much easier to control than raising food donations.
The typical sources of funding were 42 per cent from donations, 27 per cent from special events, 21
per cent from shared maintenance, 9 per cent from foundations and trusts and 1 per cent from
government grants. Often, Mangapora was the primary resource in this area, but she would recruit
Behrens and Avila to help her identify new sources of revenue and visit potential donors. They would
describe the needs of the community and request funds that could be used to purchase additional food
supplies. This option would mean converting some of the restricted funding (see Exhibit 7) to
unrestricted funds.
3. Cutting costs (see Exhibit 8): If costs were cut, more funds would be available for food purchases.
Electricity usage, supplies, auto fuel and other ancillary costs could be reduced. Due to the method
the Food Bank used to purchase food, such as purchasing in bulk and purchases from other food
banks or wholesalers, one dollar cut allowed for several additional dollars of food purchases.
Mangapora’s hard work and endless hours of effort to generate monetary donations and financial support
had manifested themselves in the planning of a wonderful new warehouse that would meet the needs of
the Brazos Valley in the foreseeable future. However, a pressing question lurked. Of what benefit was a
state-of-the-art warehouse and much-needed additional space if burdensome operational inefficiencies
were present and unresolved?
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 7
9B14D012
EXHIBIT 1: THE FOOD BANK’S SUPPLY CHAIN
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
EXHIBIT 2: TOP DONORS
Houston Food Bank
HEB Choice
Various Individual Donors
Food Drive by Local TV Station
Brenham Wholesale
HEB Tower Point #619
Houston Retail Sams Club
Pepsi Bottling Group, Brenham
HEB College Station #543
Pepsi Bottling Group
Feathercrest
Houston WalMart #1150
HEB Bryan #544
Monterey Mushrooms
Sam’s Club
Kroger FFF
WalMart Sams FFF
Houston WalMart #321
Total Pounds
January 1, 2012 to
December 30,2012
2,072,899
486,412
97,234
91,709
72,232
71,106
68,185
67,546
66,686
65,690
57,988
33,435
30,277
26,392
17,356
16,940
16,037
15,688
Number of
Donations in period
245
17
500
1
12
242
61
10
268
12
22
84
237
3
9
1
1
9
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 8
9B14D012
EXHIBIT 3: CASH AND FOOD DONATIONS
Cash Donations vs Food Donations
(in USD)
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Cash Donations
3,000,000
Food Donations
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2010
2011
2012
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
EXHIBIT 4: FOOD DONATIONS BY MONTH
Food Donations in USD for 2011
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
Food Donations USD
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 9
9B14D012
EXHIBIT 5: WAREHOUSE LAYOUT
Notes: The USDA items are directly stored on the shelves while the other food donations are received and stored
temporarily in the warehouse, then moved to the sorting room and from there to the warehouse shelves.
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
EXHIBIT 6: IN-KIND DONATIONS SALVAGED IN POUNDS, 2005 TO 2012 (FROM A DONOR)
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
For the exclusive use of Y. Hsu, 2018.
Page 10
9B14D012
EXHIBIT 7: RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED CASH DONATIONS IN USD
Note: The restricted funds in 2012 include the funds raised for the new warehouse
Source: Created by case authors from data from the Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
EXHIBIT 8: EXPENSES 2010 TO 2012 IN USD
Food — Donated
Food — Purchased
Personnel
Professional fees
Supplies
Communications
Postage and delivery
Occupancy
Rental and maintenance
Printing and publications
Travel
Agency training
Appreciation
Dues
Professional development
Insurance
Other
Total
2010
5,867,020
387,436
378,074
33,634
40,451
3,937
5,500
29,904
10,333
38,618
39,022
21
10,210
6,632
10,742
19,004
13,392
6,893,930
2011
4,943,255
469,366
414,576
52,957
34,315
3,285
4,892
30,623
26,594
37,865
37,443
3,623
6,781
6,690
6,961
28,709
18,085
6,126,020
2012
4,947,650
470,050
432,958
31,057
42,666
4,118
7,553
27,332
35,343
20,533
33,524
3,130
5,876
9,209
7,219
28,081
9,655
6,115,954
Note: Travel represents the transportation cost involved in distribution of goods. Cost of packaging boxes is included in the
Supplies.
Source: Created by case authors from data supplied by T. Mangapora, Brazos Valley Food Bank, February 2013.
This document is authorized for use only by Yen-An Hsu in Global Supply Chains 2018 Fall taught by CANAN GUNES CORLU, Boston University from Sep 2018 to Dec 2018.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment