ALL CHAPTERS

Running head: CREATING A MOBILE PANTRY MODEL 1
Creating a Mobile Food Pantry Model
For the Lowcountry Food Bank
Elise Gruber
Academic Magnet High School

CREATING A MOBILE FOOD PANTRY 2
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3
Rationale...................................................................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................................ 4
Method ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 6
Implications................................................................................................................................. 7
Significance................................................................................................................................. 7
Applicability................................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter II: Review of Literature..................................................................................................... 9
Food Deserts................................................................................................................................ 9
Federal Solutions to Food Insecurity ........................................................................................ 11
Food Insecurity in South Carolina ............................................................................................ 12
The Lowcountry Food Bank ..................................................................................................... 12
Food Insecurity in North Charleston......................................................................................... 13
Addressing North Charleston Food Insecurity ...................................................................... 15
Community Solutions to Food Insecurity ................................................................................. 15
Food Co-op/Farmers Market ................................................................................................. 16
Community Gardens.............................................................................................................. 18
Mobile Food Pantries............................................................................................................. 19
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 22
Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 24
Participants................................................................................................................................ 24
Materials.................................................................................................................................... 25
Procedure................................................................................................................................... 25
Evaluation.................................................................................................................................. 26
References..................................................................................................................................... 47

Chapter I: Introduction
Rationale
Food insecurity is a phenomenon seen in both rural and urban locations across the United
States. Food insecurity is defined as a household's inability to obtain affordable, nutritious foods
easily as a result of both monetary and logistical limitations (Cumming and MacIntyre, 2002). A
study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture finds that 48.8 million people in the United States,
or one of every six Americans, experience food insecurity periodically over the course of a year
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, n.d.). While this term was first coined in the 1990s, it has
recently gained distinction in the United States, as food access has found to exacerbate issues
relating to education and health (Cummins & MacIntyre, 2002). The Lowcountry Food Bank
(LCFB) is a nonprofit organization and network member of Feeding America who serves the ten
coastal counties of South Carolina and has three base locations: one in Yemassee, one in the
Myrtle Beach, and another, the largest, in North Charleston and works through over 300
partnering agencies (Lowcountry Food Bank, n.d.). Within these ten counties however there are
various demographics, populations, poverty rates, and partnering agency presence. All of these
factors contribute to the Lowcountry Food Bank's evaluation of the individual needs of each
country and influence the LCFB's distribution capacity and frequency. The Lowcountry Food
Bank’s mission is as follows: “ To feed the poor and hungry of the ten coastal counties of South
Carolina by soliciting and distributing healthy food and grocery products to nonprofit agencies
serving the poor and to educate the public about the problems of and solutions to domestic
hunger' (Lowcountry Food Bank, 2005). The organization has adopted various outlets to
facilitate this mission, many specifically in the urban area of North Charleston.

Food banks across the country have formulated different programs to address food
insecurity and extend their scope of distribution. One solution, which has gained popularity
within the past several decades, is the implementation of a mobile pantry program. A mobile
pantry program utilizes vehicles such as retired beverage trucks as satellite distribution points
which then carry nonperishable and/or perishable food items to underserved areas with limited
available community resources (Pennant, 2011). This idea was first introduced in 1998 by John
Arnold of the West Michigan Food Bank as a way to distribute perishable produce nearing
expiration (Feeding America [Producer], 2012). Last year the Lowcountry Food Bank (LCFB)
received a retired beer truck which they began to use as a mobile food pantry for nonperishable
foods. The Lowcountry Food Bank is currently utilizing the mobile pantry as a point of
distribution in the Accabee, Bayside, Chicora, and Ashley Shores neighborhoods of North
Charleston; however, the LCFB has yet to permanently define this program and its purpose
(Lowcountry Food Bank, 2012).
The Lowcountry Food Bank works closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
is a member of the national food bank organization Feeding America. The LCFB thus must
comply with the two distribution standards of these organizations which are measured by PPIP
(pounds per person in poverty) and total amount of food distributed per census track of the ten
county area, respectively (Young, 2012). The Lowcountry Food Bank's mobile pantry program
has yet to fully be defined; however, the LCFB is currently working to establish a program
model which can fill the gaps in the food bank's current distribution network.
Statement of the Problem
Last year the Lowcountry Food Bank began its mobile food pantry program. Its current
definition is as follows: “A method of distribution via dry and/or refrigerated vehicle that

provides for direct client distribution in an organized format managed either by the Lowcountry
Food Bank or member agency representatives to provide food that traditional pantries do not
normally accept or distribute to unserved/underserved areas and/or populations” (Lowcountry
Food Bank, n.d., p. 1). This is a vague definition of operations and fails to address the targeted
community, be it rural or local, the need which the program fills, the specific type of agency it
associates with, and how the program is financed. There are several rural census tracts with high
poverty rates within the LCFB’s ten county area that have fewer partnering agencies thus less
access to the Lowcountry Food Bank's resources and provisions. These tracts are considered
underserved by the USDA and Feeding America standard, creating a gap in the LCFB’s
distribution. Mobile food pantries have been described as “[the] most ambitious approach to
getting food to those who need it most” and, with this in mind, the Lowcountry Food Bank hopes
to use their program as a tool to expand and enhance their distribution network, specifically in
these targeted areas (Pennant, 2011, p. 1). While the LCFB plans to use the mobile pantry
program to fill its current distribution gaps, the Lowcountry Food Bank has yet to establish a
clear, thorough definition of the mobile pantry program. The establishment of this definition and
mission will allow the organization to better market and solicit funding for the program. This
definition needs to include information regarding what areas it distributes to, the need which it
fills, the type of food it utilized, the form and consistency of distributions, and the sources of
funding for this program (A-M., Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012).
Method
The researcher provided recommendations for how to define and utilize the Lowcountry
Food Bank's mobile pantry program through an analysis of the mobile pantry practices of
similarly structured food banks. This method required a qualitative examination of different

features of food pantry programs across the country through a set of interviews conducted with
food banks associated with Feeding America, the national network of food banks. The data
collection occurred during interviews, both over phone and through email correspondences, and
utilized a standardized questionnaire. The consistency of the interview questions allowed for a
more accurate and thorough comparison between mobile pantry models. The benefits and
disadvantages of each model were then discussed and applied to the goals and distribution needs
of the Lowcountry Food Bank. After each interview the notes and comments on each food
bank’s program were recorded and shared with the researcher’s mentor, allowing open
communication on any shortcomings seen during this data collection process. Supplementary
information regarding mobile pantries’ modeling was provided from additional research and
program reports found on the Feeding America networking sites, Hungernet.org.
The gaps of the Lowcountry Food Bank’s distribution were also determined and
analyzed. This information was gained through interviews with representatives from the
Lowcountry Food Bank and Feeding America's annual distribution assessments. The gaps of
distribution were determined to be the counties within the Lowcountry Food Bank's service area
which were considered underserved by Feeding America and USDA standards.
Research Questions
The primary research question was "What is the most effective mobile pantry model for
the Lowcountry Food Bank considering the gap in its current distribution and available
resources?". Follow up questions related to this primary question are as follows: “What have
been the best practices for mobile pantry programs across the country for comparable
organizations?”, “What qualities of a mobile food pantry can assist in best filling the gaps of the
LCFB distribution?", “What are the current distribution gaps of the LCFB within the ten

counties which it serves?”, “How can the LCFB realistically use the mobile pantry to fill the
current gaps in the service”, and “How can the mobile pantry program afford to consistently
distribute to communities and agencies unable to financially contribute to the mobile pantry’s
distribution costs?”.
Implications
Mobile pantry programs have largely been recognized as the most effective way to
accommodate underserved communities with minimal existing partnering agencies and
community resources. The recommendations provided by this thesis allows the Lowcountry
Food Bank to have a preplanned model of how its mobile pantry program will operate and be
used, thus giving the program a greater chance of success. This information can also be shared
with other food banks across the country that are attempting to establish a mobile pantry
program. By presenting a provisional guide to introducing a mobile pantry program, this project
helps to prepare food banks for what to expect considering the addition of a mobile pantry
program.
Significance
As food insecurity is becoming an increasingly prevalent problem across the country it is
important to explore new and creative ways to address hunger while evaluating the efficacy of
current solutions. By sharing information, assessments, and critiques of food banks' existing
mobile pantry programs, organizations such as the Lowcountry Food Bank which plan on
introducing a mobile pantry program are given a better initial understanding of the structure and
needs of a mobile pantry program, thus increasing the likelihood of a pilot program's success.
Applicability

By systematically analyzing the differing uses and models of a mobile pantry program,
the researcher created a recommended model based on the determined needs of the Lowcountry
Food Bank's service area and capacity of the organization. This provides the Lowcountry Food
Bank an outline of a pilot program for the organization; however, the Lowcountry Food Bank's
staff will implement this model as they see fit.

Chapter II: Review of Literature
Cummings and Macintyre (2002) describe food insecurity as a household’s inability to
easily get affordable, nutritious foods, as a result of both monetary and physical limitations. It is
a phenomenon seen in both rural and urban locations across the United States and is synonymous
with hunger. This nutritional disadvantage has caused an abnormally high instance of obesity,
heart disease, and other dietary related diseases. Areas experiencing food insecurity are known as
“food deserts” and are almost always low-income, minority neighborhoods (Murray, 2010).
North Charleston, SC has been labeled an area food desert within the Tricounty area, a fact
which multiple local organizations such as Metanoia, the Lowcountry Housing Trust, the
Children’s Garden Project, and the Lowcountry Food Bank are working to address in progressive
and sustainable ways. As this demographic and social phenomena gains recognition, many
communities across the country are doing the same. Three recurring community solutions to food
insecurity have been the establishment of locally featured food co-ops, mobile food pantry
programs, and community gardens. This review of literature will examine the current uses of
these solutions and the existing response to North Charleston food insecurity on behalf of
community organizations, specifically the Lowcountry Food Bank.
Food Deserts
“Food desert” is a term used to describe areas that suffer from food insecurity.
Researchers Cummins and MacIntyre (2002) define food deserts as areas experiencing food
insecurity as a result of limited access to nutritious, affordable foods. This typically occurs in
areas with low-income, minority residents who, due to this nutritional disadvantage, are more
prone to dietary-related diseases (Murray, 2010). This inaccessibility to healthy food is typically

due to lack of fully stocked grocers in the area and limited transportation to other resources of
healthy foods and fresh produce (Knich, 2011). A study conducted in 2010 by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture (n.d.) found that 48.8 million people living in the United States live in
food-insecure households. This study defines a food insecure household as one which,
periodically, is unable to acquire enough food for the residents needs due to lack of resources for
food, both monetary and logistical (U.S. Department of Agriculture, n.d.). Bowers (2011)
discusses a complementary study conducted by USDA focusing specifically on the North
Charleston area. It found that of the 33,000 people living in the food insecure areas of North
Charleston, SC, 19,500, or 59%, are considered to have “low access” to grocery stores, meaning
that the nearest grocery is over a mile away from their residence, a severe limiting factor for
those without the luxury of a car. Instead of grocers, residents rely on fast food restaurants or
corner grocery stores, which typically provide a narrow selection of unprocessed items or healthy
produce (Bowers, 2011).
While this trend was first named as early as the 1990s, it has recently gained attention at a
national level, as it is a trend which fosters cyclically adverse lifestyles which, in turn, affect all
areas of life, including education and health (Cummins & MacIntyre, 2002). As a whole, this
information supports the existence of a health risk based on socio-economic standings. Many
communities around the United States are now attempting to address this social and demographic
problem.
Murray (2010) describes urban food deserts such as North Charleston as almost always
occurring in low-income, minority neighborhoods where obesity and dietary-related diseases are
prominent. Hall (2010) describes this as a “grocery gap,” a nationwide phenomenon which
places poorer and minority-based communities at a disadvantage to wealthier areas for a need as

basic as nutritious food. Hall (2010) further explains the problem of food desertification within
the District of Columbia and the disproportionate access to fully stocked grocers between low-
income wards such as Seven and Eight to wealthier sections such as Wards Two and Three,
which contain roughly half of the city’s supermarkets. Wards Seven and Eight are historically
food insecure areas with predominately African American residents and are known to have the
highest poverty rate of the entire district, with roughly 31% of the residents living below the
poverty line (Hall, 2010). Hall (2010) also asserts that “rates of obesity, diabetes, poor access to
grocery stores, poverty rates, unemployment and hunger measures…[are] all very much related”
(p. 2), which lends support to the idea that by fulfilling a community’s need to access nutritious
foods, one can also address some of the cyclical health problems and poverty of an area.
Federal Solutions to Food Insecurity
Food insecurity is a problem which is gaining recognition at both a local and federal
level. First Lady Michelle Obama recently launched the "Let’s Move" campaign which aims to
slow the current epidemic of childhood obesity in America. In tandem with this nationwide
campaign is the Healthy Food Financing Initiative", sponsored by the Departments of the
Treasury, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services. This program is designed to promote
nutritious foods in small grocers and retailers operating in communities with limited grocery
options. This initiative provides below-market rate loans, grants, and federal tax credits to
businesses that provide additional nutritional foods and produce, thus encouraging the expansion
of the food options within a food-insecure community. By doing this the administration hopes to
also create jobs and more opportunities for involvement of those living in “distressed”
communities (Hall, 2010). Last year the Lowcountry Housing Trust, an organization based in

North Charleston, SC, received a $500,000 federal grant with the intention of addressing the
food desertification (Knich, 2011).
Food Insecurity in South Carolina
Of the roughly 4.5 million people living in South Carolina 810,000 people, or eighteen
percent, experience food insecurity. The county with largest portion of people experiencing food
insecurity is Allendale County, with an overall rate of food insecurity being thirty-six percent.
Much lower rates of food insecurity are seen in larger cities such as Columbia with an overall
rate of seventeen percent, or Charleston and North Charleston, each with sixteen percent
(Feeding America, 2012). This information is validated by the fact that rural counties are isolated
from and poorly connected to larger nonprofit networks such as the Lowcountry Food Bank
which can provide community support and partnerships. In these rural counties the poverty rates
are typically higher and the residents are, naturally, more separated from one other and the local
relief organizations that do exist (A-M., Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012).
The Lowcountry Food Bank
The Lowcountry Food Bank (LCFB) is a nonprofit organization and a member of
Feeding America, with the mission of alleviating hunger across a ten county area of South
Carolina and educating the public about problems associated with domestic hunger (Lowcountry
Food Bank, 2005). The LCFB has three locations, one in Grand Strand, one in Yemassee and
another, its largest, in North Charleston. The organization has multiple outlets of distribution
across its service; however, the city of North Charleston hosts multiple food service programs as
it is a densely populated city and known food desert. These North Charleston programs include
Backpack Buddies, Kids Kitchen, Food Works, TEFAP, CSFP, Benefit Bank, school pantry and,
as of last year, a mobile food pantry (A-M., Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012).

The Lowcountry Food Bank typically works with a network of over 320 partnering
agencies across its service area, distributing food to these agencies that then disperse food
product throughout their local community. These partnering agencies are usually small
community-based nonprofits, faith-based organizations, or school run programs. In order to
receive a distribution, an agency's location must comply with Feeding America’s standards for
food safety and contribute a shared maintenance fee to the Lowcountry Food Bank to assist with
the cost of procuring, moving and storing food. This fee is minimal, as low as four cents per
pound of food, and is thus significantly less than the food cost associated with a wholesale store
such as Costco.
Food Insecurity in North Charleston
Inaccessibility to a fully stocked grocery store has been recognized by the North
Charleston community as a significant problem since the early 1990s, especially to those living
in the southernmost end of the county (Bowers, 2011). After Hurricane Hugo, businesses began
to steadily leave the neighborhood as a result of high instances of crime in the area and the risk
of decreasing margins when catering to a low income community (Paras, 2007). In 2005, the
Winn-Dixie in Shipwatch Square was the final grocery store in the area to close, leaving the
entire southern portion of North Charleston without any fully stocked grocery store (Knich,
2011). It is important to note that this failed business was a result of an executive decision to
close all of South Carolina’s Winn-Dixie stores rather than location-related business problems in
North Charleston (Wise, 2011). On the contrary, the chain's Shipwatch location was one of the
most profitable Lowcountry locations (Bowers, 2011). This lends support to the suggestion that,
despite the low income level of a given community, a business with small profit margins, such as
a grocery store, can still thrive in these neighborhoods with the income supplement of EBT

cards, WIC benefits, and Social Security Checks (Bowers, 2011). These figures are often not
taken into account when examining an area’s income level, and thus is a common but misguided
deterrent for businesses.
The southernmost part of North Charleston contains eleven districts which are considered
urban food deserts (Knich, 2011; Ploeg et al., 2009). This exact number fluctuates with each
study as factors which contribute to “inaccessibility” are varying, relating not only to physical
proximity to fully stocked grocers and transportation availability, but also affordability of
healthy foods for county residents. In a 2009 report to Congress, the Department of Agriculture
defined an urban food desert as being an area where residents live over one kilometer (or a half
mile) away from a fully stocked grocer (Ploeg et al., 2009). This applies to North Charleston
where residents rely primarily on the Save-A-Lot grocery on the corner of Rivers and Durant
Avenues.
Save-A-Lot only provides relief to those living in the northern portion of North
Charleston and is the only fully stocked grocery in the area. In the southern portion of North
Charleston, residents' only easily accessible foods come from corner stores or fast food
restaurants which do not provide affordable, healthy food (Bowers, 2011). A 2010 MUSC study
surveyed fourteen of the area's convenience stores and found that, combined, they devoted less
than fifty feet of shelving space to fresh produce while providing over two thousand feet of shelf
space to soda and alcohol (Knich, 2011). A few small local restaurants, such as Isabell's
Kitchen, will sell fresh produce, but not at affordable prices for consistent shopping. At Isabell's
Kitchen a 14.5 oz. can of mustard greens is $1.49, a 10.8 oz. can of Campbell's chicken noodle
soup is $1.79, and a 12 oz. can of Hunt's tomato paste is $2.19. At Save-A-Lot these same items
would cost 79¢, $1.69, and 78¢, respectively (Bowers, 2011).

In the 2011 article by Knich, a North Charleston resident, April Jones, was
interviewed and discussed her typical route for grocery shopping. Jones does not have a car, so
she must use the bus, pay for a taxi, or take advantage of rides from her cousin to Save-A-Lot.
She usually takes a bus to the grocery store and then pays an additional $10 for the cab fare
home, with an added 25¢ charge for each bag of groceries. Jones is the mother of two and, like
many other North Charleston residents, the inaccessibility to a fully stocked grocery store is a
major complaint. For years lack of an accessible grocery story has been noted as such at town
meeting and city improvement meetings (Bowers, 2011).
Addressing North Charleston Food Insecurity
The most direct solution to this problem of food insecurity in North Charleston would be
the addition of a fully stocked grocery in a centrally located area, a prospect which is currently
being discussed by officials of the City of North Charleston. As of now the Mayor of North
Charleston, Keith Summey is working to draw in businesses to Shipwatch Village through
incentives such as financial contributions toward construction costs (Knich, 2011). Bill Stanfield
of Metanoia, a Christian community development group in North Charleston, states that ideally
this grocer would be a fully stocked, 45,000 square foot supermarket; however, due to the
economy and ulterior business problems, this is a complex and prolonged solution to North
Charleston food insecurity (Bowers, 2011). Many nonprofit and faith-based organizations in the
area are working to resolve North Charleston’s hunger crisis through community based solutions
currently implemented in other counties and states.
Community Solutions to Food Insecurity
Some of the alternative solutions being discussed among nonprofits like Stanfield's
Metanoia, the Lowcountry Housing Trust, the Lowcountry Food Bank and others are the

establishment of a grocery chain in the North Charleston area, the creation of a mobile food
pantry which could act like an ice cream truck, periodically transporting perishable and/or
nonperishable items to those in need, or the creation of a community garden. These have been
utilized before in communities around the country as ways to address food insecurity and, in
many cases, have proven to be effective.
Food Co-op/Farmers Market
Co-op markets have become increasingly prevalent as solutions to food insecurity.
Between the years of 1994 and 2002 farmers markets across America expanded 79%, giving
many urban areas increased access to fresh, affordable foods and providing support to local
economy. Food co-ops are given a relatively high success rate of 82%; however, operating public
markets in lower income communities is notoriously more challenging and less successful due to
a smaller disposable income, restrictive transportation, and limited awareness (Project for Public
Spaces, Inc., 2003). As a solution for a food insecure community, a weekly farmers' market
requires a central location and the provision of locally grown, fresh produce at affordable prices
(D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2007). Some of the difficulties associated with introducing a farmers’
market targeting low-income communities were identified by the Project for Public Spaces, Inc.
(2003) to be as follows: “difficulty in attracting farmers, [an] insufficient customer base, [the]
inability to meet venders’ financial expectations, [an] inability of small growers to meet
demands, [an] over-reliance on federal food aid programs/lack of cash sales, insufficient
community buy-in, [and a] difficulty in keeping the market producer-only” (p.8). Other
communities who have attempted to create low income-based farmers' markets have found that
these enterprises lack the local financial resources such as federal grants, mixed support from
high and low-income residents, and farmer subsidies needed to cover the initial operational costs

(D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2006). In areas like North Charleston that are being redeveloped and
diversified in terms of income and race, the varying community demographics may offer
additional support for the introduction of a food co-op (D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2006).
The District of Columbia is one area where food co-ops have been utilized to address a
community's food insecurity. The D.C. Office of Planning has facilitated many efforts to provide
an inclusive and diverse co-op which can be supported by and convenient for the higher-income
residents while still accommodating the lower-income residents who have limited means of
accessing fresh, unprocessed foods and rely on the co-op to fill this gap (D.C. Hunger Solutions,
2006).
One of the Office of Planning's most notable endeavors is the H Street Freshfarm Market
of Ward 6 of Washington, D.C is. It is structured as a community-based market, established with
the support of volunteers and the district’s residents and has the long-term goal of creating a
greater sense of community while providing a relief to those with little access to fresh produce.
The area, however, has recently been experiencing gentrification and the market’s primary
consumers are now middle to upper income citizens who use the market as an alternative to
stores such as Whole Foods (D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2007). In order to encourage the expansion
of the customer base and to become more inclusive to the low-income residents, D.C. Hunger
Solutions (2007) wrote an analytical guideline which discusses ways in which the H Street
Freshfarm Market and any community market may alter its structure in order to expand its
targeted audience. One of the first suggestions it makes is to account and provide the
infrastructure needed to accommodate those in lower socioeconomic brackets who rely on
federal nutrition programs such as food stamps, WIC benefits or other offshoots of federal aid
such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (South Carolina Department of Social

Services, n.d.). It also suggests the creation of partnerships within the community through
churches or other organizations in order to secure community interest, awareness, and
involvement in the co-op (D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2007).
Community Gardens
Community gardens are portions of land within a community that are devoted to
cultivation of fruits and vegetables for shared community use (D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2006).
Neighborhood communities across the nation have found resident-run gardens to be an
increasingly popular, successful, localized solution to food insecurity (Hall, 2010). A 2006 study
by D.C. Hunger Solutions found that community gardens promote neighborhood improvement
and community while also providing “environmental education and youth development” (p. 26).
A 20 foot by 20 foot plot of land can produce an average of $500 worth of food in a year, which
is slightly less the average benefit of a food stamp recipient (D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2006).
While the potential benefits of community gardens are evident, land availability, time, volunteer
ability, and transportation are all limiting factors to a community garden’s success. Of these
problems securing land is seen as the most challenging due to the rapidly increasing cost of land
and rapid pace of development (D.C. Hunger Solutions, 2006).
Types of Community Gardens. Many different types of community gardens have been
established across the country. For example, in Cleveland, Ohio, the Brooklyn Centre
Community Orchard has been established as a community run orchard where those who help
grow and harvest the plants receive the fresh produce. This is the most common community
garden model, where a diverse group of residents cultivate crops and then receive the product of
their harvests (Hall, 2010). In Worcester, Massachusetts, the Charlie Buffone Community
Garden is a community development run completely by the neighborhood's youth. Although

grown by a group of young people, the produce of this garden is donated to the community
residents, both individual families and other community programs such as senior homes. (Hall,
2010).
Community Gardens in Charleston. Clay Hampton is a resident of the Chicora-
Cherokee neighborhood in North Charleston who independently began a community garden in
an empty lot on Spruill Avenue three years ago. At this garden anyone can come and take
produce in exchange for work to the garden (Bowers, 2011). This is one instance in North
Charleston where an independent neighborhood member has utilized a community garden to
address the problem of food insecurity within his immediate community.
Metanoia is a Christian nonprofit based in North Charleston and founded by Reverend
Bill Stanfield, the organization’s CEO. Recently Metanoia has become increasingly involved in
the city of North Charleston’s effort to address the problem of food insecurity, a supplemental
focus to the organization’s founding mission of building affordable housing and providing after-
school programs for the residents (Bowers, 2011). Over the past several years Metanoia has
established the Metanoia Community Development Corporation, a program which allows local
Chicora Cherokee residents to oversee and benefit from the cultivation of an urban,
neighborhood garden. Through this introduction of this corporation, Metanoia has created a
reliable, local, and creative food source for residents in a food insecure area.
Mobile Food Pantries
Mobile food pantries have been implemented in many communities by food banks and, at
times, private organizations across the United States. Feeding South Florida describes the use of
a satellite food distribution network like a mobile pantry as “[the] most ambitious approach to
getting food to those who need it most” (Pennant, 2011, p. 1). Mobile food pantries operate like

an ice cream truck, carrying food goods, produce and/or packaged foods, to a designated
community, urban and/or rural, where it is then distributed within the community. Depending on
the structure and mission of the organization, food can either be donated or sold through the
mobile pantry (Greater Chicago Food Depository, n.d.). The use of mobile food pantries
provides individuals living in food deserts with access to healthy, affordable foods through an
unorthodox venue.
Variables of a Mobile Food Pantry. The format of a mobile food pantry is dependent
upon the type of organization and community which it serves. Depending on the breadth of the
organization promoting the mobile pantry program, the mobile pantry may accommodate
exclusively one local county or a large expanse of communities. The frequency and type of
distribution also will change based on the organization the funding of the program, types of food
product, the mission of the program, types of trucks available, and volunteer availability (A-M.,
Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012). Types of trucks are another variable present
amongst differing mobile pantry programs. Trucks which are responsible for perishable food
such as produce, dairy, meat and bake goods required refrigerated trucks while some containing
nonperishable foods such as canned goods can utilize non-refrigerated trucks (Greater Chicago
Food Depository, n.d.).
Financing a Food Pantry. Feeding South Florida estimated that it takes roughly $38,000
to provide 50 mobile pantry distributions in a year, a figure which accounts for staffing, fuel, and
transportation, and maintenance costs. While this particular organization calculated one
distribution event to cost roughly $760, this is a value that would vary based on the structure of
the mobile pantry program (Pennant, 2011). Food items in the mobile pantries are typically
donated by a grocery chain or sold by parent organizations, local farmers, or grocers at reduced

prices due to a nearing/passed expiration date, excess, or packaging abnormalities of a product
(Greater Chicago Food Depository, n.d.).
Funding for mobile pantry programs vary case by case. As an extension of a nonprofit
organization, these programs rely typically on private donations and/or grants available at
national, state, and/or county level (A-M., Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012). The
Food Bank of Central and Northeast Missouri, for example, was a recipient of a mobile pantry
truck from Kraft Foods and 14,000 pounds worth of donated food. This sizable donation from a
large commercial donor added to the organization’s existing mobile food pantry program and
aided the expansion and enhancement of the program (Demkiewicz, 2011).This type of large-
scale funding is typically unavailable for community organizations in the introductory stages of
establishing a mobile food pantry program. Instead many nonprofits and food banks rely on less
significant, less consistent donations from one or multiple smaller companies and/or grants to
cover introductory costs associated with a mobile pantry program. Nonprofit networks and
parent organizations such as Feeding America can also provide structural support and access to
government grants and food donations (A-M., Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012).
Community Impact of Mobile Food Pantries. The impact of a mobile food pantry
varies depending upon the program's scope and the population which it serves. Over the course
of two seasons the Helping Hands Food Pantry in New York City was able to donate 200,000
pounds of food to 2,328 people living in the area (Fresh Youth Initiatives, n.d.). Feeding
Florida's mobile food pantry program serves between 7,000 and 10,000 lbs. of food to roughly
300 individuals in a single distribution. With a weekly distribution frequency the organization
has the ability to serve roughly 477,000 pounds of food over the course of a year (Foundation
Source Philanthropic Services Inc., 2012). The Greater Chicago Food Depository (n.d.)

distributed roughly 5.3 million pounds of food to Chicago residents through the organizations
mobile food pantry program. Another mobile pantry program sponsored by the Food Bank for
Central and Northeast Missouri's delivers roughly 993,600 pounds of food across 32 different
counties within Missouri annually. These large disparities in a mobile pantry program's
distribution scope show the variations in community impact between organizations.
Mobile Food Pantry Program in North Charleston. The Lowcountry Food Bank,
received a retired beverage truck last year and began utilizing it as a distribution tool within the
North Charleston area but hopes to expand, enhance, and structure the program in the future. The
program currently gives food away in mass distributions at locations such as local schools or to
existing partnering agencies. A set schedule or list of recipients has yet to be established due to
the new nature of this program; however, the historic success of mobile pantry programs and
initial success of the Lowcountry Food Bank’s program indicates the potential for a positive
impact upon the organization's ten country service area (A-M., Young, personal communication,
April 27, 2012).
Conclusion
Food insecurity continues to become a more and more recognized issue in the United
States as it relates directly to a community’s wellbeing. As organizations and community
members work to confront this phenomena, many different methods are being attempted based
on the needs, size, and socioeconomic standing of the effected community and the capacity of
the available community outreach organizations. An MUSC study found North Charleston to be
a food insecure area, and many local organizations, both nonprofit and federally based, are
actively working to respond to this problem through the establishment of a fully stocked grocery,

a community garden, and a mobile food pantry program, amongst others (Murray, 2010). Each
proposed solution addresses a different demographic and has various benefits and disadvantages.
The Lowcountry Food Bank’s mobile food pantry program was created in 2011 and is
used as a satellite distribution center, donating nonperishable food items to those in need
specifically in North Charleston. This program has the capacity to become a pivotal and active
part of the Lowcountry Food Bank’s food distribution network and mission. Based on the
successes of mobile pantries of similarly structured food banks in similar communities, the
Lowcountry Food Bank's mobile pantry program has the potential to establish itself as a
beneficial, useful solution to food insecurity in not only North Charleston, but also in the
Lowcountry Food Bank's entire ten county service area.

Chapter III: Methodology
The use of a mobile pantry program is a recently popularized method for distributing
food to underserved areas via a satellite delivery vehicle (Pennant, 2011). The Lowcountry Food
Bank introduced its first ever mobile pantry program last year, after receiving the donation of a
retired beverage truck. The organization is currently utilizing the mobile pantry as a distribution
tool in the Accabee, Bayside, Chicora, and Ashley Shores neighborhoods of North Charleston;
however the organization has yet to clearly define the mission and structure of this program
(Lowcountry Food Bank, 2012). During this thesis process, the researcher analyzed the different
models of mobile pantries used by food banks across the country and then determined which
practices would be most effective to implement in the Lowcountry Food Bank's program given
the organizations mission, scope, and current available resources. The governing question was
“What is the most effective model for the Lowcountry Food Bank’s mobile pantry program
considering the gaps in its current distribution and available resources?” The method of this
research was qualitative analysis research as it required the observation and criticism of
variations of other mobile pantry programs. The evaluated variables of each program included
funding sources, food procurement strategies, distribution scope and frequency, product per
distribution, and additional staffing required. Practices utilized by other mobile pantry programs
were then contrasted and analyzed in terms of the Lowcountry Food Bank's structure and
mission in order to best determine which aspects of each model fit with the needs of the given
organization.
Participants
The researcher was the primary participant of this study; however she worked closely
with Ava-Martine Young and Anna Hamilton during the analysis of other mobile pantry models

and the Lowcountry Food Bank’s goals and potential. With the guidance of Ms. Hamilton and
Ms. Young the researcher found other food banks belonging to Feeding America that are similar
to the Lowcountry Food Bank in terms of annual pounds distributed and annual operating
expenses (Young, 27 April 2012). This information was found in Feeding America’s records on
Hungernet.org in the Excel documents entitled “FA Member Operating Expenses FY10” and
“FA Member Pounds and Meals Distributed FY10”. The first document contains the annual
operating expenses for the year 2010. In the year 2010 the Lowcountry Food Bank’s expenses
were $4.4 million so the researcher found for organizations with annual expenses between $3
million and $6 million (Feeding America, 2010, Operating Expenses). These food banks had to
simultaneously distribute between 15 and 20 million pounds of food annually as the Lowcountry
Food Bank distributed 18.6 million pounds of food in the year 2011 (Feeding America, 2010,
Pounds and Meals Distributed). In addition to these two preliminary qualifications the included
food banks had to have existing mobile pantry programs.
Materials
The researcher utilized data obtained from interviews with representatives and mobile
food pantry coordinators from eligible food banks. Information regarding the distribution gaps
within the Lowcountry Food Bank service area was additionally required. Feeding America
provides an annual report of which areas are above, below or at the organization's distribution
standard., thus providing the researcher with the needed information to determine the
Lowcountry Food Bank's distribution gaps (Young, 27 April 2012).
Procedure
The researcher created a set list of practices which were examined in each model. These
evaluated traits included cost of a single distribution, distribution type, food procurement

strategies, presence of existing agency relationships, shared maintenance fees, scope and
frequency of distribution, and primary sources of funding,. Six mobile pantry programs were
compared. The differences between each of the food pantry models, along with benefits and
difficulties associated with the various models were then recorded in a condensed, qualitative
summation. Additionally a table of quantitative comparisons of costs per distribution, number of
counties served, frequency of distribution, and shared maintenance fee, along with the annual
costs and pounds distributed of the evaluated programs was created. The goals, capabilities, and
needs of the Lowcountry Food Bank were then discussed in context of each of these different
models thus allowing the determination of which traits and/or models would best serve the needs
of the Lowcountry Food Bank. The traits which the researcher found to be the most applicable
and beneficial were compiled into a pilot mobile pantry model which the Lowcountry Food Bank
can begin to adopt as they so choose.
Evaluation
The success of the research project will be judged primarily by the employees of the
Lowcountry Food Bank as they will ultimately decide whether or not to adopt the
recommendations presented by the researcher. The data collected will be evaluated in order to
discern what factors of the analyzed mobile food pantry models are most effective for the
Lowcountry Food Bank's mobile pantry considering the organization's goals for the program.
The validity of this research will be tested through the application of the researcher's final mobile
pantry model and the success of the pilot program.
The data analysis created a clear evaluation of the benefits and disadvantages of different
practiced associated with various mobile pantry models and also discussed the assorted
applications of a mobile pantry program. The hypothesis would be confirmed if the Lowcountry

Food Bank deems the researcher’s conclusion qualified and accurate enough to apply to their
mobile pantry program.

Chapter IV: Findings
The original research question of “What is the most effective mobile pantry model for the
Lowcountry Food Bank considering the gap in current distribution and available resources?” was
addressed by evaluating mobile pantry programs of comparably sized and funded food banks. By
determining the most effective components of each model and then applying them to the capacity
and goals of the Lowcountry Food Bank, the researcher composed a recommended best practice
pilot program for the Lowcountry Food Bank to adopt for its new mobile pantry program,
Feeding America's Annual Network Report for the year 2012 indicates that the
Lowcountry Food Bank's annual operating expenses totaled $4,424,000.00 while distributing
roughly 18,688,000 pounds of food. Thus the preliminary qualifications for the food banks to be
analyzed were that the organization's annual operational costs for the year 2010 ranged between
3-6 million dollars while its distribution ranged between 15 to 25 million pounds. Food banks
which satisfied both of these qualifications while additionally having an existing mobile pantry
program were found through Feeding America FY10 reports to be the following: the Second
Harvest Food Bank of East Tennessee in Knoxville, TN, the Montgomery Area Food Bank in
Montgomery, AL, the Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana in Indianapolis, IN, the Inner-Faith Food
Shuttle in Raleigh, NC and the Connecticut Area Food Bank in New Haven, CT. Additionally,
the Harvest Hope Food Bank in Columbia, SC and the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank in Verona,
VA were interviewed about their mobile pantry programs as the Lowcountry Food Bank has pre-
existing relationships with these organizations.
Second Harvest Food Bank
The Second Harvest Food Banks of East Tennessee, located in Knoxville, Tennessee,
distributed 15,597,420 pounds of food in 2010 with its annual operating expenses totaling at

$4,339,362.00. The organization service area consists of 18 rural counties, all of which the
mobile pantry program works through. The Second Harvest Food Bank hosts roughly fourteen
food distributions per month through their mobile pantry program, distributing between 180-
230,000 pounds of food per event. By distributing an average of 2,027,664 pounds per month,
Second Harvest Food Bank of East Tennessee's mobile pantry program is responsible for
approximately 13% of their annual pounds distributed. The mobile pantry program is the
recipient of 4% of the food bank's annual expenses.
Second Harvest Food Bank- 4% of annual expenses devoted to
mobile pantry program
Annual operating
expenses of SHFB
Annual budget of SHFB
The Second Harvest Food Bank of East Tennessee's mobile pantry program is composed
of two trailers and five tractor trailers. These trailers are typically filled with donated or
reclaimed food product that is easily available within the warehouse. This slow-moving product
is supplemented, as needed, with purchased VAP product. Not including the cost of the
purchased supplements, a single mobile pantry distribution event costs $2,500.00, a figure which
includes the cost of goods, gas, truck maintenance, and labor. A large portion of this, however, is
offset by donations and grants.
The mobile pantry program partners with nonprofit organizations by request and does not
require any historical partnering relationship for mobile pantry distribution events. The shared

maintenance fee provided by these nonprofits is set at $1,000 per full trailer load of food. This
agency sponsorship covers roughly 32% of the total cost of a mobile pantry distribution.
Due to its request-based distribution structure, the Second Harvest Food Bank of East
Tennessee's mobile pantry program has a consistent source of financial support for their mobile
pantry program through their partnering agencies' shared maintenance fee. With the mobile
pantry operating within areas with a strong enough agency and resource presence to support
mobile pantry distributions, the Second Harvest Food Bank does not typically use the mobile
pantry program as a tool to fill its distribution gaps.
The communities within the Second Harvest Food Bank's service area that have less
developed partnering agency relationships have historically struggled with supporting the mobile
pantry program. The Second Harvest Food Bank has worked to resolve this distribution
incongruity through the creation of a community sponsorship program. Through this program
local groups such as service organizations, local high schools, churches, Junior Leagues, and
other nonprofits have the opportunity to sponsor a food distribution event in targeted areas which
otherwise would have difficulties supporting a food distribution event. This funding is not
always available, however, making distributions through this program inconsistent.
Montgomery Area Food Bank
The Montgomery Area Food Bank, located in Montgomery, Alabama, distributes
approximately 16,018,958 pounds annually with an average operational cost of $2,235,791.00.
The Montgomery Area Food Bank has 35, predominately rural, counties within its targeted
service area; however, the mobile pantry program only operates within twelve of these counties.
There are, on average, ten food distribution events through the mobile pantry program per
month, each distributing between 12,000 and 15,000 pounds of food. The mobile pantry program

is responsible for the distribution of roughly 1,620,000 pounds per year, providing 10.1% of the
Montgomery Area Food Bank's annual pounds distributed.
Montgomery Area Food Bank- 21% of annual distribution via mobile
pantry program
Total pounds distributed through
MAFB
Total distributed through MAFB
The Montgomery Area Food Bank typically hosts these mobile pantry events through
established partnering agencies which can request mobile pantry distributions. A single
distribution of both dry goods and fresh produce incurs a total cost of roughly $1,250.00, a figure
which is partially counteracted by a shared maintenance fee of $250 that is requested from
partnering agencies.
At a distribution the twelve palettes of the truck are set up in the parking lot of the agency
which hosts the event. Volunteers of the agency set up and distribute the palettes while those
receiving food from the program line up in their cars in a drive-through style. By using this
distribution method, they successfully serve roughly 150 families in as little as two hours.
The Montgomery Area Food Bank also uses the mobile pantry program to reach out to
underserved communities within its service area. The pantry program is implemented as a tool to
make additional poundage more accessible in high-need areas while simultaneously establishing
and strengthening relationships with partnering agencies within these targeted communities.
Bullet County is one of the counties within the Montgomery Area Food Bank service area in
which there are few historical partnerships. In counties such as this, the Montgomery Area Food
Bank has been able to cultivate relationships with and work through the county's social services

agencies, the commissioner’s office, housing agencies, and the Department of Public Health.
When introducing the mobile pantry program into these counties the food bank initially
sponsored mass give-away distributions through these organizations or smaller nonprofits. These
distributions were resource investments for the food bank; however, the Montgomery Area Food
Bank found that this method helped educate the targeted area about the mobile pantry program
and its commitment to those within their community. Once the presence and benefits of the
mobile pantry program is known to this targeted community and to the area's nonprofit
organizations and social service agencies, the establishment of partnerships with these
organizations was more easily made. With the creation of these partnerships came the
availability of additional grants and sponsorships within local agencies as the Montgomery Area
Food Bank could then cite and submit specific data regarding the number of families assisted
through the mobile pantry program and the scopes of past distributions.
These atypical agency partnerships with Social Service agencies, County Commissioners
offices, and housing agencies provided the mobile pantry program with partnerships and
sponsorships previously unavailable to the food bank. The Montgomery Area Food Bank has
found that typically these agencies are unable to offer contributions equivalent to typical
partnering agencies; however, the assistance has aided the mobile pantry program's ability to
access these high-need counties.
Blue Ridge Area Food Bank
In the fiscal year of 2012 the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank located in Verona, VA
distributed 21,000,000 pounds of food with a budget of $5,043,990.00. The mobile pantry
program was responsible for the distribution of 1 million of the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank's 21
million pounds of food, accounting for roughly 4.8% of its annual distribution. This was

accomplished while devoting 5% of the annual operational expenses to the mobile pantry
program, or roughly $252,200.00.
Blue Ridge Area Food Bank- 4% annual distribution via mobile
pantry program
BRAFB
Total distributed through BRAFB
Blue Ridge Area Food Bank- 5% of annual expense devoted to
Annual operating expenses of
BRAFB
Annual budget of BRAFB mobile
pantry program
While the food bank is responsible for 34 legal jurisdictions, 25 counties and 9 cities, the
mobile pantry program's primary role in the food bank is not yet declared. Currently the mobile
pantry distributes to five locations, hosting a total of eight distribution events per month.
The Blue Ridge Area Food Bank distributions are typically organized through interfaith
networks. At this point in the mobile pantry program's development, the Blue Ridge Area Food
Bank is currently incurring all costs of distributions. By eliminating a shared maintenance fee for
its partnering agencies at this time, the food bank hopes to establish an awareness of the mobile
pantry program so, in the future, organizations will seek out the mobile pantry program. While
this current practice is making the distributions costs a challenge for the food bank, it is the first
step of a financing plan. For any new organization that becomes a partnering agency, the first

twelve months of distributions will be free. For the following six months the organization will be
asked to provide between 25- 50% of the typical shared maintenance fee for partnering agencies.
(This standard shared maintenance fee is not yet decided upon; however, the food bank predicts a
figure between $300 and $500.) This proportional contribution is maintained until the 19th
month where the organization is requested to sponsor the mobile pantry's distribution event at the
full partnering agency rate.
The Blue Ridge Area Food Bank has also been able to derive funding from the grants
from local organizations or institutions. For example, during the start up of the mobile pantry
program, two large donations were made from a private business in Charlottesville and the
University of Virginia. These grants in and of themselves are not renewable; however, as they
come from established sources comparable donations could be predicted to be made in the future
as well.
Gleaners Food Bank
The Gleaners Food Bank, located in Indianapolis, IN, distributed 16,006,340 pounds of
food in the fiscal year of 2010 with an annual operating budget of $5,766,267.00. The food bank
has 21 counties in its service area with the mobile pantry program operating with 19 of these.
Within these counties the mobile pantry program hosts roughly 20 distribution events per month,
serving an average of 480 individuals per distribution. At each mobile pantry event around 7,500
pounds of food are distributed. With 1,438,198 pounds distributed through the mobile pantry
program in 2012, Gleaners Food Bank distributed 7% of their annual poundage through the
mobile pantry program.

Gleaners Food Bank- 7% annual distribution via mobile pantry
program
Gleaners
Total distributed through Gleaners
The average cost of a mobile pantry distribution is $1,500; however, this figure is largely
reduced by grants, donations, and a shared maintenance fee provided by partnering agencies.
This fee is equal to that of a typical agency charge, plus the charge of any purchased product.
The mobile pantry program of Gleaners Food Bank was recently restructured so that it
could better be used as a tool to accommodate underserved counties and fill distribution gaps.
Gleaner's mobile pantry program hosts some distribution events at night or during the weekends,
times when food assistance is traditionally unavailable, as to effectively expand distribution
service to those in high need. Gleaners has found that providing these distribution events in
underserved areas in tandem with outreach programs on behalf of its Agency Relations team has
effectively allowed the development of community partnerships in areas that were historically
lacking.
Harvest Hope Food Bank
The Harvest Hope Food bank, located in Columbia, SC, distributed 25,576,136 pounds of
food in the year 2010, while having annual operation expenses of $6,110,388.00. This food bank
has a twenty county service area, five of which host mobile pantry distribution events. With
roughly 33 food distribution events per month, the mobile pantry program is responsible for
distributing roughly 6% of Harvest Hope’s annual pounds distributed.

The Harvest Hope Food Bank offers its mobile pantry distribution events to any
organization or location within a high-need, underserved region. Some of these distributions are
mass distribution events located in untraditional areas, such as a dentist office or another central
site in the targeted community, while others are hosted at local nonprofit organizations, typically
churches. Partnering sites and agencies can participate in mobile pantry events for up to a year
before becoming a formal partnering agency.
There are no partnering agency fees associated with the mobile pantry program. The
primary funding for the distribution events comes from grants and private sponsorships.
Boxes of food are packaged in advanced and distributed at the food event. Each two hour
distribution costs the food bank $270.00, a figure not including food costs as all product
distributed through the mobile pantry program is donated. Representatives from the Harvest
Hope Food Bank do not encourage this practice as it has historically instigated competition
between traditional partnering agencies and the mobile pantry program for popular food product.
Inner-Faith Shuttle
The Inner-Faith Food Shuttle, located in Raleigh, North Carolina distributed 5,723,878
pounds of food in the year 2010 with final operating expenses totaling at $1,945,816. While this
food bank's primary mission is food service and distribution to those in need, under its current
leader the Inner-Faith Food Shuttle has enhanced its focus on nutrition. Unlike the majority of
Feeding America food banks, the Inner-Faith Food Shuttle derives the majority of its food
product through reclamation programs in chains, restaurants, and grocery stores. The shuttle
distributes across seven counties and typically has a monthly "Emergency Food Relief"
distribution. This type of distribution reserves room for the unpredictable and allows the food
bank, in the event of an emergency, to have the ability to distribute wherever it may be

immediately needed at the time. In addition to this monthly distribution the mobile pantry truck
is used as a "mobile market" to promote nutrition. Across the seven community service area the
truck hosts nutrition workshops that educate about nutrition, demonstrates how to prepare several
types of healthy meals with available foods, and then introduces a monthly health challenge for
families in the area.
The Inner-Faith Food Shuttle uses its mobile pantry program primarily as a tool to extend
its nutrition agenda rather than fill or enhance a distribution gap like the majority of the other
mobile pantries analyzed. This is dissimilar from the methods and practices implemented in other
food bank's mobile pantry programs while still effectively providing food assistance to those in
need and simultaneously promoting nutritional outreach.

Chapter V: Discussion
The researcher's recommendations to the Lowcountry Food Bank's mobile pantry
program are based on effective models and practices that foster relations to underserved counties.
The researcher also includes predictions regarding the percent increase of pounds distributed
through the mobile pantry program and the annual finances required to facilitate a mobile pantry
program with various models. This information can be compiled to create the outline for an
introductory pilot program.
Trends
Various applications for the mobile pantry program were evident. Some like the Blue
Ridge Area Food Bank, Gleaners Food Bank, and the Montgomery Area Food Bank focus on
filling the food bank's distribution gap and others like the Inner Faith Food Shuttle use their
program as an instrument to facilitate nutrition classes and cooking demonstrations. Of the food
banks interviewed the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Tennessee's mobile pantry program
had the least amount of focus on filling distribution gaps.
All of the food banks that were interviewed had a dynamic within their mobile pantry
program that required shared maintenance fees for the distributions to cover the remaining costs
after donations and grants were taken into account. The exact methods for gaining the funding
for these distributions and the frequency of distributions varied. The Second Harvest Food Bank
of East Tennessee distributes to areas unable to pay distribution costs only as sponsorships arise
and do not fully utilize the mobile pantry program as a tool to fill their current distribution gap.
Each of the food banks interviewed also had an established outreach program to solicit
partnering agency relationships within their targeted service area.

All mobile pantry programs required additional personnel and allocation of resources in
order to be successful. While the Montgomery Area Food Bank was able to facilitate 21% of
their annual distribution through the mobile pantry program the most realistic percentage of
Lowcountry Food Bank's annual distribution that this program will account for is 6%, a value
similar to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank. Of the food banks interviewed The Blue Ridge Area
Food Bank's mobile pantry program was considered the most comparable to the Lowcountry
Food Bank's program simply because it has a similar scope and level of newness.
Pilot Program Recommendations
The final product of the interviews and data collections is formulated into the
recommendations for a six month pilot program for the Lowcountry Food Bank.
Based on the data collected, the mobile pantry program has the capacity to contribute to
4-10% of the food bank's total distribution. With the annual pounds distributed from the
Lowcountry Food Bank being 18,688,000 pounds in 2012 there can be a conservative
expectation of at least a 6% or 1,122,000 pound addition to the annual distribution. The
interviews also indicated that the mobile pantry program would comprise between roughly 5% of
the annual operating expenses for a food bank of similar scope and financing to the Lowcountry
Food Bank. Considering the Lowcountry Food Bank's 2012 annual operation expenses of
$4,424,000.00 its mobile pantry program's budget would be roughly $221,200.00. This
percentage is based on the data from the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank's mobile pantry program.
During its first year of operation it comprised 4% of the food bank's total pounds distributed; the
researcher projects a number slightly higher as a result of the structured pilot program which the
Lowcountry Food Bank is organizing before implementing its mobile pantry program. The data
also supports the recommendation for a food bank structured similarly to the Lowcountry Food

Bank to utilize the mobile pantry program as a point of distribution for purchased goods rather
than donated. The expenses incurred by purchasing products would be included in the speculated
annual budget.
Missionof Program Model
The Montgomery Area Food Bank, Harvest Hope Food Bank, Blue Ridge Area Food
Bank, and Gleaners Food Bank each had mobile pantry programs which operated with the
central focus of making food distribution events more accessible to areas considered underserved
by Feeding America standards and with an insufficient presence of partnering agencies within
the community. Operating with this operational goal in mind, the Lowcountry Food Bank's
mobile pantry model will be structured as a tool for distribution in high-need areas while also
acting as a vessel to facilitate financial and community partnerships within the areas it serves.
Distributing Schedule and Scope of the Program
For the initial six months of the mobile pantry program, the researcher recommends the
projected amount of monthly distributions to be between eight and ten. The counties which are
considered high-need by Feeding America have been determined to be as follows: Jasper,
Hampton, Colleton, and Williamsburg. These four counties will thus be the concentrated focus of
the mobile pantry program.
Financial and Distribution Needs
As the counties which this pilot program aims to serve currently have underdeveloped
agency relationships the bulk of this funding would be derived from grants and proper allocation
of finances from within the Lowcountry Food Bank's annual budget. Mobile pantry programs in
food banks such as Gleaners Food Bank, Montgomery Area Food Bank, Blue Ridge Area Food
Bank, and the Harvest Hope Food Bank implement an agency development team or partnership.

The Gleaners Food Bank's Agency Relations Team works to find qualified nonprofit
organizations or groups within the targeted service area which can develop the capacity to
support distribution events with the assistance of the food bank. This practice has allowed these
food banks to utilize their mobile pantry program as a tool to expand their agency network.
The Harvest Hope Food Bank and the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank both have teams
working via their mobile pantry programs to facilitate the establishment of partnering agency
relationships with existing community organizations. Both food banks utilize an agency
development protocol which allows for the first year's worth of mobile pantry events to be
sponsored exclusively by the food bank. After these initial twelve months of structuring a
partnering agency relationship with this new organization, the food bank works through the
organization as a community partnering organization, which then provides sponsorship for the
future distribution through the shared maintenance fee. After the first twelve months of
developing a partnering agency relationship with the food bank, Blue Ridge Area Food bank
requests a sponsorship of the mobile pantry distribution event of 25-50% of the shared
maintenance fee for partnering organizations for the next six months. Following the eighteenth
month this sponsorship is requested to match a full normal agency fee.
When developing the Lowcountry Food Bank's mobile pantry program the researcher
recommends allocating resources to forging relationships within the community with
organizations, nonprofits, and county agencies with the ability to lend support to the mobile
pantry program, both financially and otherwise. In tandem with this initiative to cultivate
community relationships in underserved areas, it is recommended to also provide additional staff
and federal resources. These federal resources would include government provided food
assistance such as SNAP and WIC. Having information and resources about these programs

available at the mobile pantry distribution sites allows an increase in the number of those who
can connect and submit SNAP and WIC applications and thus redirect a portion of their hunger
needs to stable assistance programs.
Staffing and Procurement Needs
For the described proposal above, additional staffing and resources would be required for
the introduction of both an Agency Development Team and the connecting of local individuals
with federal food assistant programs such as SNAP and WIC. While requiring preliminary
funding, other food banks found that establishing these teams to work in tandem with the mobile
pantry program has provided sponsorships for the mobile pantry programs within the targeted
community and directed some food assistance needs towards the consistent channel of federally
funded programs.
The majority of the food banks included in the interview process rely on donated food
product to distribute through their mobile pantry program, while some, at times, supplement with
purchased produce as available. The Lowcountry Food Bank, has constraints on its ability to
access donated product unspoken for by other programs. There is, however, room for growth in
other food procurement avenues for the Lowcountry Food Bank such as warehouse partnerships,
retail sponsorships, and purchased products through Feeding America (VAP). While purchased
product is an available outlet there is typically high competition among other food banks for
product. Thus this venue, while offering supplementary opportunity for product, fails to provide
a sustainable primary source of product for the mobile pantry program.
Currently food product manufacturers and warehouses are underdeveloped venues of
food procurement for the Lowcountry Food Bank, and a number of these opportunities for food
procurement exist within the Lowcountry Food Bank's ten county service area. These sources of

food provide goods that are not fit to be sold on the market due to overproduction, outdated
labeling, or distressed packaging and will typically provide this product via either donation or at
a highly reduced cost. Within the Lowcountry Food Bank there is an insufficient allocation of
staffing toward this area of food procurement and a lack of resources (equipment and truck
drivers) to physically obtain this product. Reallocating and supplementing resources and staffing
to the area of food procurement could contribute to the establishment of community partnerships
which may be sustained for years to come.
The Lowcountry Food Bank mobile pantry program can also utilize excessively stocked
warehouse food product as a supplement to the mobile pantry program's primary source of food
procurement. Product overlooked by other partnering agencies that are stocked beyond capacity
within the warehouse can be given away at a food distribution that is paired with a preparation
demo, educating recipients about how to best make use of the food product they are receiving,
thus creating more receptive audiences for the food product which the food bank is providing.
This would contribute again to need for additional staffing and organization of a nutrition or
preparation demonstration at applicable food distribution events.
Beneficial Methods for Soliciting Support in Underserved Communities
The researcher recommends two practices in order to make the mobile pantry program
more accessible for counties without developed community partnerships or agency relationships.
A sponsorship program should be created so that local organizations can donate a
determined amount and sponsor a distribution to a site in need. Organizations could include
church groups, schools, and other nonprofit organizations. This could be established as a
supplemental source of income for underserved counties, rather than the primary source of
funding. When implemented in the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Tennessee it was found to

be a fairly inconsistent form of primary funding and thus incongruent with the goals of the
Lowcountry Food Bank's mobile pantry program. It still, however, can be used as a supplemental
avenue of funding for the mobile pantry program while simultaneously providing a venue to
increase awareness of the Lowcountry Food Bank, the mobile pantry program, and their
functions.
A relationship with federal and local government institutions should be established. It is
recommended that a relationship with areas such as the county commissioner's office, the county
housing agency, and social services office are built. It is recommended specifically that there are
several initial distributions within the areas these offices cater to in order to first establish the
presence and benefits of the mobile pantry program. These benefits can then be presented to
these offices and provide a strong case for the support of the mobile pantry program and the
provision of a shared maintenance fee from these government offices. The four counties within
the Lowcountry Food Bank's service area deemed to be underserved are Jasper, Hampton,
Colleton, and Williamsburg. The researcher recommends this as it may result in the eventual
provision of consistent funding; although, initially, the Lowcountry Food Bank could choose to
charge or not to charge these agencies.
Relevance
The recommendations provided by this project to the Lowcountry Food Bank regarding
mobile pantry programs allow for a more informed formulation of a pilot mobile pantry program.
This will then allow a more effective and expansive allocation of the Lowcountry Food Bank's
resources in order to distribute more food to more people. This information can also be shared
with other food banks across the country who are attempting to establish a mobile pantry

program with similar goals of filling a distribution gap. This would, on a larger scale, accomplish
the same goal of getting more pounds of food out to more people most effectively.
Shortcomings and Recommendations for Future Research
The shortcoming of these recommendations could be derived primarily from the
methodology and limited scope of the food banks which fit all of the set qualifications. Within
this limited number of qualified food banks there were variations of missions of the mobile
pantry programs and various factors into each food bank's distribution practices.
This shortcoming could be partially remedied by a more complete comparison of the
differences between each of the food banks and the Lowcountry Food Bank. This would allow
the practices of other mobile pantry programs to be more accurately tailored to fit the differing
needs of the Lowcountry Food Bank.
Statement of Conclusion
The Lowcountry Food Bank has the capacity to increase their distribution to those in
need by up to 20%, giving food to those who need it most. By creating the most economically
and logistically effective model, the program has a greater chance of succeeding and being a
sustainable outlet for years to come while also allowing for the most direct and efficient use of
resources. While intended for the Lowcountry Food Bank these recommendations can be applied
and shared with other food banks across the United States. As hunger in America becomes a
more and more prominent issue seen today, the creation of comprehensive, modern, and
unorthodox programs such as the mobile pantry programs allows the most effective allocation of
resources. By providing a more complete summation of the benefits of a mobile pantry program
and a detailed account of what distribution changes and expenses are associated with it, this set
of recommendations for an introductory programs has the potential to make mobile pantries as a

whole a more practical and accessible solution to hunger and assist to the alleviation of this
pressing social issue.

References
A-M., Young, personal communication, April 27, 2012
Bowers, P. (2011, December 14). The poorest neighborhoods have easy access to junk food, but
not fresh fruits and veggies. Charleston City Paper.
Cheeks, Erica, personal communication, July 24, 2012
Cummins, S., & Macintyre, S. (2002). “Food deserts”-- evidence and assumption in health policy
making. British Medical Journal, 325. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7361.436
D.C. Hunger Solutions. (2007). Food stamps accepted here: Attracting low-income customers to
farmers’ markets [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://www.dchunger.org/pdf/foodstampsacceptedhere.pdf
D.C. Hunger Solutions. (2006). Healthy food, healthy communities: An assessment and
scorecard of community food security in the District of Columbia [PDF document].
Retrieved from http://www.dchunger.org/pdf/healthfoodcomm.pdf
Demkiewicz, J. (2011). Food bank shows off new mobile food pantry. Columbia Missourian.
Retrieved from http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/08/26/food-bank-
shows-new-mobile-food-pantry/
Feeding America (2010). FA Member Operating Expenses FY10. [Excel].
Feeding America (2010). FA Member Pounds and Meals Distributed FY10. [Excel].
Feeding America. (2012). Facts about hunger in South Carolina. Retreieved from
http://feedingamerica.org/press-room/press-releases/south-carolina-facts.aspx
Feeding America (Producer) (2012). Mobile Pantry Program Training [DVD]. Vimeo, LLC.

Fresh Youth Initiatives. (n.d.). Community impact. Retrieved from
http://freshyouth.org/community-impact.html
Foundation Source Philanthropic Serves Inc. (2012). Mobile pantry market style food
distribution: Project of: Feeding South Florida.
Http://access.foundationsource.com/project/mobile-pantry-market-style-food-distribution
Graves, Zane, personal communication, June 14, 2012
Greater Chicago Food Depository. (n.d.). Mobile programs: Producemobiles. Retrieved from
http://www.foodbankst.org/index.asp?pageId=82
Halls, E. (2010). “Community gardens, food co-ops, and farmers markets provide an oasis in
‘food deserts’.” NeighborWorks.
Jowell, T. (10 February 2012). “Grad students studying mobile pantries and their process” [Msg
1]. Message posted to
https://www.hungernet.org/discuss/Lists/Mobile%20Pantry%20Program%20Discussion
%20Board/Flat.aspx?RootFolder=%2fdiscuss%2fLists%2fMobile%20Pantry%20Progra
m%20Discussion%20Board%2fGrad%20Students%20studying%20Mobile%20Pantries
%20and%20their%20process&FolderCTID=0x012002009A455DE01CC5DB48A03E6E
EC7CA0E3DF&TopicsView=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehungernet%2Eorg%2Fdiscus
s%2FPages%2FMobilePantry%2Easpx
Kearnes, Jolene, personal communication, June 27, 2012
Knich, D. (2011, September 26). Urban food deserts: Lack of large grocers a major
inconvenience in many neighborhoods. The Post and Courier. Retrieved from
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/sep/26/urban-food-deserts/

Lowcountry Food Bank (2005). Mission and history. Retrieved from
http://www.lowcountryfoodbank.org/about-mission-history
Lowcountry Food Bank (2012). Community development block grant ~OR~ HOME investment
partnership program funding application form. City of North Charleston
Lowcountry Food Bank (n.d.) Mobile pantry (formerly known as mass distribution) [PDF
document]. Lowcountry Food Bank.
Murray, C. (2010). 2 your health special: Surviving in a food desert. The Post and Courier.
Retrieved from http://www2.counton2.com/news/2010/nov/23/2-your-health-
specialsurviving-food-desert-ar-1127266/
Paras, A. (2007). North Charleston crime 7th in U.S. The Post in Courier. Retrieved from
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2007/nov/19/n_charleston_crime_th_u_s22661/
Pennant, A. (2011). Mobile pantry market style food distribution, project of: Feeding South
Florida. Foundation Source Philanthropic Services Inc. Retrieved from
http://access.foundationsource.com/project/mobile-pantry-market-style-food-distribution
Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (2003, November). Public markets & community-based food
systems: Making them work in lower-income neighborhood [PDF document]. Retrieved
from http://www.pps.org/pdf/kellogg_report.pdf
Samuel-Siegel, Doron, personal communication, July 31, 2012
South Carolina Department of Social Services. (n.d.). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). Retrieved from
https://dss.sc.gov/content/customers/food/foodstamp/index.aspx
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.) Food security in the United States: Key statistics and
graphics. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity/stats_graphs.htm

Wise, W. (2011). Shipwatch square’s end start of something new. The Post and Courier.
Retrieved from http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/sep/14/shipwatch-squares-
end-start-of-something-new/

ALL CHAPTERS

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (8)

Ähnlich wie ALL CHAPTERS

Ähnlich wie ALL CHAPTERS (20)

ALL CHAPTERS