Recipient Location Survey Request

Here are the results for the survey sent March, 2016. The survey was to gather input from the membership regarding criteria for selection of Recipient Locations. The Recipient application form was revised according to the survey results. Thank you to all members who participated in the survey (66 responses)!

Question 1:
Should we deliver to for-profit recipient locations that provide meals and charge fees? (ex: nursing homes, kids camps
)

YES: 22        33.33%                NO: 38                      57.58%

Comments:

  • If there is excess food that would otherwise be wasted, and it would help the for-profit locations reduce costs to their consumers, I would be in approval of delivering to them.
  • If we have an over supply
  • Low-income housing and residence for disabled
  • Might wish to check on who operates it and how much is charged to supplement food costs. Ex. Government operated might qualify but PRIVATE for profit not. Case by case might be called for to determine qualifications.
  • Yes, but they should be lower on an established “distribution priority” list and perhaps only on a “as available” basis.
  • But only if all the non-profits have their fill, better for someone to use the produce then let it go to waste.
  • If there is extra produce after we cater to the nonprofits
  • Perhaps this could cut their costs and help reduce charge to needy in facility.
  • I think that the cost of these establishments will remain the same price whether or not donations of fresh produce are delivered or not. That is sad! On the other hand, are the residents of these places actually receiving the benefits of the fresh foods?
  • A charge to break even would be OK
  • If the majority of kids receive scholarships
  • Businesses are being squeezed out by non-profits. Many provide great service for far less cost because they have to watch their bottom line more closely as they don’t get donations or grants.
  • Only if there is plenty of food for all.
  • Depending on the camps some may charge but also rely on donations especially food an example I know Outdoor Mission Camp in Maggie valley does charge a donation but not require. Many churches provide meals cooked every week in the summer.
  • Only when there is an abundance
  • If the for-profits are helping those in the community who are are underprivileged.
  • This should be at the discretion of the Gleaners board. Some for-profit locations don’t have enough income to provide the fresh fruits + vegetables that gleaners can provide.
  • Yes, with some restrictions as to documented need of clients.
  • This is a difficult question because you want to help the camp side to help more kids and things but the cost nursing homes charge is getting to a uncontrolled issue.

Question 2:
Should recipient locations that are NOT preparing meals be required to distribute the produce at NO cost to their clientele?

YES: 63        95.45%                NO: 3             4.55%

Comments:

  • We are giving free produce
  • “Distribute” usually means setting contributions out on a table in the laundry room or other area where all residents have equal access — this is fine — and far preferred to taking our contributions to the doors of the residents (as many residents don’t want what we are delivering on that day).
  • But only if all the non-profits have their fill, better for someone to use the produce then let it go to waste.
  • I think if the organization is reputable, they may have reasons to charge; requirements sometimes get in the way of doing the right thing.

Question 3:
Should we deliver to tax supported recipient locations where income verification IS required (ex: low income housing units
)

 YES: 60        90.91%                NO: 6             9.09%

Comments:

  • But only if all the non-profits have their fill, better for someone to use the produce then let it go to waste.
  • This would be my prime choice for food.
  • Low-income housing residents are already receiving assistance in the way of food stamps, rent assistance, medical, etc.
  • Rather than go to waste
  • It says I have to answer… is distribution an issue? I don’t really know enough about this to answer.
  • Possibly, this borders on hand-out, not hand-up…if we do everything for folks

Question 4:
Should we deliver to tax supported recipient locations where NO income verification is required (ex: services that deliver meals, orphanages, prisons)

YES: 57     86.36%                NO: 9                   13.64%

Comments:

  • Yes, but they should be lower on an established “distribution priority” list and perhaps only on a “as available” basis.
  • But only if all the non-profits have their fill, better for someone to use the produce then let it go to waste.
  • However, prisons would be questionable in my eyes. The prisoners need to work for their food. Children and the elderly always need fresh foods.
  • I don’t think ” the open door ” has verification, but there is definitely need, tax supported or not

Question 5:
Should recipient locations be required to have an established system for distribution of the produce to their clientele (ex: specific food pantry distribution days, specific times and days for meal services)

YES: 52        79.9%                            NO:  14         21.21%

Comments:

  • So that we know the food is not just left to go bad.
  • Suggest that the distribution coordinater(s) get a signed agreement as to what the details are as to avoid misunderstandings.
  • Feel, as a minimum, some established system is needed to confirm the recipient location’s required need to insure the produce is being distributed to food insufficient clientele and not private/commercial distribution. A flexible distribution schedule of “as produce is available” for certain locations such as low income high-rise housing should be an allowable consideration.
  • There are some places when organizations can do extra handouts, depending on supply.
  • Yes but not so strict that the foods go to waste. I know of a particular case where a family was turned down for assistance with food because it was the wrong day for food distribution at a particular aid location. Maybe there should be an exception to the rule at times depending on a verified situation.
  • So there is no spoilage due to lack of communication.
  • Fresh produce should go out immediately
  • avoid waste
  • Since we may not know what days we are going to deliver, or what is available, the plan could be adjustible and very basic
  • Come when it is available!
  • I think that recipients need to be good stewards of the gleaned produce and ensure that it gets to clients in best condition with clearly communicated distribution days/times so that clients can access the produce in a timely manner.

Question 6:
Should recipient locations be required to provide assistance to the gleaning effort (ex: field gleaning, transporting gleaned produce from the field, printing forms and maps, etc.)

YES: 28        42.42%                   NO: 38                      57.58%

Comments:

  • However, I think it should be strongly encouraged as it would help spread the word and increase community involvement.
  • If the clients are able to help.
  • In some cases yes and in some cases no.
  • They should be able to work with us to receive product and provide services able
  • Absolutely! If we are to be considered a “hands up NOT out” organization that is not yet another welfare program, we need to expect a “partnership arrangement” where there is serious commitment on the part of the what is now considered “a distribution site”. A name change to the latter need be made to reflect a true “partnership.
  • Better to convey a “Welcomed vs Required” support in some way. Otherwise, recipient/clientele support/involvement of gleaning operation definitely should not be a criteria.
  • When an organization does not have people that are able to work, there is always something they can do.
  • This is an emphatic YES except for disabled persons.
  • Most recipient locations also have volunteers that could help with the gleaning effort. If they receive funding from sources, maybe they could provide transportation of foods (at least).
  • According to what is feasible for the agency
  • Not required, but strongly encouraged.
  • Sometimes the recipients are not physically able to do the help that is needed to get the produce gathered………some are
  • Many nonprofits are already in need of volunteers themselves
  • Maybe not required, but encouraged.
  • Only to the extent that they have a place set aside for produce and agree to notify residents of the availability. Many could not help but are still in need.
  • If there are volunteers, I wouldn’t turn anyone away.
  • If available
  • A request should be made to recipient locations if they have clients who are capable of helping.
  • I think the Gleaners organization is a separate entity from the recipient agencies, and that each should focus on the goals inherent in their respective activities/ministries.
  • Only if there are able bodied people.
  • Some recipient locations may involve food insecure persons who are unable to provide assistance and/or have limited staff available. I would strongly encourage it but not make it mandatory.
  • How do we sustain ourselves without support? And, if they have “no buy-in” then how much do they value this offering. Even 1 time per season, means something!