Food for Thought Food Assistance a needs Assessment Geelong, Victoria

Summation of Literature Review

This will require input from all levels of society ranging from Federal, State, Local Government, Non-Government Organisations’ to engaging with the community and making a commitment to improving the local food assistance system.

Therefore looking at the food system as a whole and developing partnerships, networks and policies that interconnect the four environments for health – social/cultural, economic, natural and built is needed for better access to food and better health outcomes¹¹.

The literature suggests that the future of Emergency Food Assistance Services hinge not only on just the provision of food but on community based initiatives that have a health, social and environmental benefit.¹¹

However when deciding on a model the following features should be considered to ensure success;

• 
  Centralised warehouse which stores and distributes food to Food Assistance services and programs (perishable and non perishable items)
  
• 
  Business opportunities for sustainable funding
  
• 
  Educational opportunities- training arm associated with hub
  
• 
  Using new technologies and communication
  
• 
  and making food assistance a communal community goal
  

Any model is reliant on a good business plan that coordinates the supply chain logistics, a secure a sustainable supply of the in demand foods and sustainable funding.

The literature cited that securing this is the major hurdle and challenge for this type of model.

Conclusion

Food Assistance provides an important humanitarian role and can be a powerful builder of community cohesion and unify people in shared experiences.¹⁴

Improvement of emergency food assistance services is reliant on community development and assets that exist within a particular community. Food Assistance Services, Programs and initiatives need to look beyond individual risk conditions to surrounding social and environmental causes of food insecurity.

It appears that there is no right or wrong way to address Food Assistance as the community needs will determine this. What works for one community may not work in another for varying reasons. On reviewing the literature it is not clear on which is the best way to move forward to improve and make the food assistance services more efficient.

What the literature is clear about is that; Services need to work collaboratively and develop a model that is cost effective, increases food security to vulnerable population groups and sustainable to help pull people out of the cycle of disadvantage.

5.2 Food Assistance Survey

a) Providers

Services

Figure 1. Shows the classification of the organizations that completed the Food for Thought Project Survey. Together these organizations are running a total of 102 individual food programs Organisations could nominate more than 1 classification type. The largest groups represented are charitable organizations (64% with religious affiliations) followed by welfare agencies and community groups.

Figure 1. Classification of Participating Organisations

n=53 Providers n=3 Distributors

GFAN organisations offer a wide range of food programs including vouchers, food parcels, prepared meals, food co-ops, client participation in meal preparation, subsidized meals, Christmas lunches and a minimart. The most common type of food assistance provided were food parcels/boxes (60% of providers) followed by vouchers (42% of providers) and fresh food (40% of providers). Many organisations provide a combination of food assistance methods.

Figure 2. Types of food assistance offered

Participating agencies noted that consistency of food supply was a major challenge with 72% finding some goods constantly in short supply (n=38). Most common shortfalls included dairy products, meat, cooking oils, fruit & vegetables. To address this problem 94% of providers source their food from more than one source/distributor (n=50). Many providers have to top up their supplies by buying food each week (n=33) valued at $8, 205 across the agencies. The most commonly bought items are dairy products and meat/proteins. Lack of storage capacity results in 59% of providers having to refuse food donations, mostly fresh produce, due to lack of storage capacity (n=30 out of 51 providers who accept food). Majority (91%) of the providers aim to target the social determinants of food insecurity by referring clients to complimentary services & programs ,examples include NILS (No Interest Loan Scheme), addiction specialists and counseling. (n=48)

The Survey revealed an increase in demand being placed on the participating providers due to the rising number of clientele approaching these organizations for food assistance. 64% of providers have seen an increase in clientele in the past year (n=34) and 34% of providers have experienced increases of over 15% (n =18).

It was noted by 72% of providers that more than half of their clientele were long term (n=38). At least 3 aproviders have seen an increase in the number of Newly Arrived and Refugee groups presenting for food assistance. A fact supported by information supplied by Diversitat that 981 Newly Arrived and Refugees have been resettled in Geelong in the last year (2012-2013)

These programs employ 225 paid staff,12 full time, 213 part time, (almost half (n=110) of these paid staff are solely from one organization) but rely heavily on a volunteer workforce who provide an estimated $ 2, 118, 504 in kind labour annually.(This figure was calculated using the up to date 2013 recommended hourly rate for volunteers of $31.50 derived from ourcommunity.com.au ‘Valuing Volunteers’ help sheet). It was found that 58% of providers have most of volunteers aged 51 years and over (n=25, out of 43 agencies with volunteers)

Individual monetary running costs of food programs ranged from $0-265, 000. Responses given during the Survey interviews have been used to construct Table 1. which provides an indication of the monetary and in kind costs of running these food assistance programs. The figures take into consideration expenditure on staffing, rental, utilities, transport and food purchase. Together the costs of the provider and distributor programs are over $5.5 million dollars annually. The in kind contribution is important to note as this propels program capacity far beyond the monetary value.