A PROBLEM OF HUNGER
Professor Kathryn Beard
23 April 2013
Prateek Prakash
Aftab Shaik
Adeel Siddiqui
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 1
12% of the U.S. population is still hungry to this day. Despite $60 billion yearly in
government food nutrition programs, one in six children go hungry each month. This staggering
statistic shows that hunger is a major problem we are facing today, which is why we decided to
focus our efforts of the problem of hunger. The organization that we decided to focus on whose
goal is to combat hunger is Gleaners Community Food Bank. Gleaners is an institution which
can do things the government cannot. For instance, Gleaners actually allocates food to various
clients and those who need it, whereas the government realistically cannot. Likewise, the
government can massively put money in at a macro level whereas Gleaners cannot. This is the
relation between macro versus micro levels of society. Hunger itself is a micro level, yet the
problem affects the macro level of society. As such, simply pouring in money from the macro
level, or providing foods from the micro level both don’t solve this macro-micro duo. Gleaners
is an institution acting as an agency which fights against the structure of hunger at a micro level
yielding macro support.
The problem of hunger exists alongside of humanity. It has existed since the dawn of
civilization, and will continue to exist. Hunger according to the World Health Organization
(WHO) is defined as the extended discomfort experienced by the lack of food. The problem
itself arising from hunger is associated with the consequences of this discomfort, like starvation
for example1. When looking as to why hunger exists and different theories behind it, one can
see that a majority of theories proposed link hunger and poverty. The WHO for instance links
hunger and calls it the critical manifestation of poverty1. They state that although not all poor
people are hungry, almost all hungry people are poor. An example of such is looking at data
provided by FeedingAmerica.org. According to their statistics, in 2011, there were 46.2 million
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 2
people in poverty. Also in 2011, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households2. To
better understand these facts, understanding what food security, or the lack thereof (food
insecurity) is. The World Food Summit in 1996 defined food security as existing when all people
at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that
meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life 3. Food insecurity
is therefore the opposite of this. It is when people don’t have the access to safe and sufficient
foods, whether it is an economical or physical barrier. Thus, the correlation between the
statistics of 46.2 million Americans estimated to live in poverty and the 50.1 million Americans
who live in food insecure households exist. While this theory is the most common and it is
backed a plethora of evidence, various other theories exist to address the problem of hunger. A
Cambridge researcher showed a different take on hunger where he linked hunger with natural
issues such as drought.4 He claimed that excessive droughts caused hunger. This is because the
droughts affected the total pool of food as crops. When crops failed due to drought, human
starvation was a prominent effect. While this theory on hunger proves to be plausible, this is
very situational as Africa in this instance relies heavily on food from farming unlike the
corporations present in America. Overall, the most effective theory which explains hunger puts
its focal point on poverty.
The problem of hunger is observed at different levels, national, state, and local. It too is
fought at these levels. The way the government interacts with each other is coined federalism.
According to Barbour and Wright, federalism is a political system in which power is divided
between the central and the regional units of a government5. What this references is essentially
the way the different levels of government interact i.e. national with state and state with local.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 3
This can be seen in how laws are applied, for instance a national level legislation can be
blanketed over the states whereas each individual state can modify it to fit its own political
agenda. Another key term in understanding governments is an institution. An institution,
according to Barbour and Wright, are organizations in which governmental power is exercised5.
It essentially acts as a liaison between the government and the people. An example of such
would be a court house, a law firm, and etcetera.
Looking at hunger at different scopes shows the problem in how it relates to the
government at different scopes. At the national level, hunger isn’t quite present due to the fact
that hunger is a micro problem- it’s only seen at an individual or a familial level. However, this
micro problem is large enough to illicit a governmental response. At the national level, in 2011
50.1 million people live in food insecure households2.Breaking this statistic down, 33.5 million
people were adults and 16.7 million were children. Additionally, 14.9 percent of households
were food insecure, where 5.7 percent (roughly one third of this 14.9 percent) of American
households experienced critical food insecurity. Hunger proves to be prevalent nationally,
although it itself is a micro problem. National execution by the US government to treat this
problem of hunger exists in the forms of different policies. Some main policies of contention
are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the food stamp programs),
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF). SNAP is a program which is basically the compilation of all food stamp acts in the US. It
has been recently renamed to SNAP from other varying act names, including the Food and
Agricultural Act of 1977, Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability of Portability Act of 2000,
etc. Applications for SNAP are done at local offices specific to different states. Essentially then
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 4
SNAP is just a food stamp program, where it provides monetary benefits for food to people
deemed needy by SNAP’s standards. To be eligible for SNAP, a person must meet few
prerequisites. One of such is the maximum monthly income; SNAP determines eligibility based
off of the poverty line, but 130 percent that value. For instance, for a family of three, the
poverty line determined is $1,591 a month. 130 percent of that is then $2,069 monthly. Thus,
to be eligible for SNAP, a family of three must make less than or equal to $2,069 a month or
$24,828 yearly. The maximum benefits for a household of three provided by SNAP is $526 of
benefits, averaging around $412. This benefit is then used in various grocery stores and places
of food sales6. NSLP, unlike SNAP, provides food for solving hunger. NSLP provides free or
reduced lunches to various sites like schools. NSLP however similarly follows SNAP in modifying
the poverty lines to determine eligibility. For a household of three, the poverty line is drawn at
$1,591 monthly. To obtain reduced lunches, the family must have below 185 percent the
poverty line, which would be $2,944. To obtain free lunches, the family must have below 130
percent the poverty line, which is $2,069. The point of contention for NSLP is that the actual
school provides the meals- the government just determines eligibility based off the poverty
line7. TANF, however, holds more of its position as a safety net- it itself is a block grant rather
than a legislation. TANF essentially provides monetary benefit to needy families in the form of
block grants. To be eligible for TANF, the applicant has to be a family rather than an individual.
Also, the maximum monthly income threshold has to be less than or equal to $784 monthly,
and the applicant must have assets less than $1000. TANF is only given 48 times to a specific
applicant. After that, the applicant can only apply if the family’s situation worsens severely
(mental/physical handicap, etc). The benefit provided from actually qualifying to TANF is $504
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 5
for a family of three people. Again, this can be used up to 48 times a lifetime, only increasing if
the family undergoes extreme conditions i.e. people with physical or mental handicaps. TANF
itself isn’t created as a policy to combat hunger but rather a general safety net to combat ill
conditions9.
While these three policies deal with hunger on a national scale, there aren’t any explicit
state level policies battling hunger. The State of Michigan and its government acts as a liaison
between the federal level government and the local level target. In Michigan alone, in 2002,
12.1 percent of the population rests below the poverty line. In 2004, 19.0 percent of Michigan’s
population was below 135 percent of the poverty line. In 2002-2004, 11.3 percent of Michigan
was reported to be food insecure (with or without hunger) while 3.8 percent was reported food
insecure with hunger. In 2004, 1,014,253 people participated in food stamp programs in
Michigan alone. Also in 2004, TANF had 212,182 participants in Michigan alone. Lastly,
regarding NSLP, in 2004 in Michigan, an average 9 month participation rate yielded 858,355
students in the program8. Within Michigan, certain cities are also being affected drastically.
Detroit happens to be one of the big cities facing this hunger problem. Some causes of
this hunger problem are reduced accessibility to food, malnutrition, and economic instability.
Detroit’s major policies on hunger and food security do not actually come from the Detroit City
Council themselves. The Detroit City Council has appointed two major groups to deal with the
problem of hunger and food security in the city. These two groups are the Detroit Food Policy
Council (DFPC) and the Detroit Public Schools (DPS) Office of School Nutrition. Each group has
its own focus on the hunger problem, but their efforts do intertwine. The DFPC focuses on all
aspects of hunger in the city of Detroit, while the DPS Office of School Nutrition focuses on
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 6
hunger among children and in schools. Some of the policies of these groups include urban
gardening and farming systems, school nutrition programs, and agricultural programs. Each
policy has its own level of effectiveness in the city and it may not be efficient or feasible to
continue all of them in the future. This is why new policies and alternative policies may be
required to be put in place.
In the meantime, Detroit has had a group of concerned citizens, who were known as the
Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, who have analyzed the hunger and food
security problem in Detroit. “In June of 2006 the Detroit Black Community Food Security
Network (DBCFSN) spoke before the Neighborhood and Community Service Standing
Committee of the Detroit City Council” (DBCFSN). The outcome of this meeting was that the
Detroit City Council agreed on creating the Detroit Food Policy Council (DFPC) in order to create
a comprehensive plan or policy on food security in Detroit. “The goal of the DFPC is to empower
individuals and community organizations to partake in the food systems as growers, processors,
sellers, preparers, consumers and planners” (DFPC 3). One of the ways to intend on accomplish
this goal is through urban agriculture, or urban gardening, and farming throughout the city.
Urban agriculture refers to the idea of turning vacant plots of land in urban areas into
productive plots of farmland. The DFPC highly recommends the idea of urban agriculture.
Surprisingly, “Detroiters recognize that the value of the vacant land in the city goes beyond the
construction of a structure. Residents have turned abandoned lots into productive agricultural
resources” (DFPC 1). In October of 2012, a draft of what is known as the Urban Agriculture
Ordinance was submitted to the Detroit City Planning Commission for approval. The ordinance
defines many agricultural terms and most importantly, it sets up a grid for how vacant plots
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 7
should be allocated. The plan is quite detailed and has a suggestion for all aspects of urban
agriculture from everything to equipment needed, space needed, and even trash handling
(Buhl). The plan was approved by the Detroit City Planning Commission in December of 2012
and zoning is planned to start in early 2013 (Gallagher 1).
The Urban Agriculture Ordinance is a very well laid out plan of action and should be
effective when it is fully in place. Since the plan is still not in place, it is hard to determine its
effectiveness, efficiency, and feasibility. One aspect that was vague in the policy is funding. In
the draft that was reviewed, no mention of financing the works was mentioned, but it is
believed that these farms will be privately owned by non-profits (Gallagher 2). Though one way
to predict its success may be to look at some urban farms that are already in place. Currently,
there are urban farms such as RecoveryPark and Hantz Farm that are similar to what the Urban
Agriculture Ordinance call for. RecoveryPark is owned by a non-profit group while Hantz Farm is
a private farm. Both of these farms are doing extremely well as far as production is going and if
the urban farms that result from the Urban Agriculture Ordinance do just as well as these
farms, it could be one of the major solutions that is being sought in respect to the hunger
problem.
The DFPC also points out that schools “have a major impact on the dietary habits and
health of the community” (DFPC 1). Unfortunately, the DFPC is as involved directly with school
related hunger policies. The Detroit Public Schools (DPS) Office of School Nutrition is
responsible for this. “The Office of Nutrition is committed to supporting the educational
development of students by providing healthy breakfast and nutritional lunches to all students
in grades K-12 at no charge” (Detroit). DPS has had a significant impact on the community in the
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 8
past couples years. DPS has many programs that help alleviate the hunger problem via schools.
These programs include the Universal Breakfast program, lunch programs, supper programs,
and the Farm to School program. These policies though are short term and they only alleviate
the problem slightly. The most significant policy by the DPS though it the food-based education
system that has been initiated, which hopefully will be a longer lasting solution to the problem.
At 45 of Detroit’s public schools, this food-based education system program has been
put into place. At each school, there will be a garden which “will feature at least three raised
beds utilizing recycled materials, compost bins, gravel walkways and a training center staffed by
teachers who have been educated in agricultural skills” (DFPC 3). This program is not only
designed to provide food but to educate the children for the future and possible create jobs for
the future.
All of these programs are relatively new so the success or downfall of them is yet to be
seen. Thus far, the food-providing programs such as the breakfast, lunch, and supper programs
have seen great success. DPS has provided “100,000 meals each day to about 68,000 students”
(DFPC 2). The gardening and education policies are somewhat similar to the urban gardening
ideas and thus there is hope that they will be successful. An issue with the food based
education policies though, similar to that of the Urban Agriculture Ordinance, is that the
funding is defined vaguely. Currently the idea is that they work off of donations by local farmers
and the Detroit budget, but this will only work as long as there are farmers that are willing to
donate. If these donations were to ever cease, the whole program would be at risk. One
positive aspect of the plan is that once the gardens are set in the schools, they can be self-
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 9
sustaining as long as there are people to look over them, which the teachers themselves could
easily be trained to do.
At the grassroot level Gleaners works to solve the problem of hunger. The staff and
workers there are more than well aware of the problem of hunger: every single time we’ve
been there to volunteer, they display a two to three minute long video of recent firsthand
accounts in dealing with hunger and what Gleaners did to help them. We have seen various
people come to Gleaners in search of helping solve hunger. We also ran into people who
actually were helped by Gleaners, and they decided to join in on the cause. Also, we noticed
various official groups touring Gleaners every so often. When interviewed, these people
revealed that they felt strongly against hunger- moreover, one person stated “When you can
help out, help out” Hunger is a more than obvious problem in Detroit and Gleaners, its
volunteers, and its many associate groups recognize and try to fight against it. Politics plays its
hand in hunger as both a boon and a bust. Politics allows for the formation of various different
programs like TANF, SNAP, and NSLP. This helps combat hunger to provide monetary benefits,
which can in turn help the needy obtain nutrition. However, although politics allows for these
programs, it too limits the programs. For instance, to apply for SNAP, one must have a
maximum monthly income of 130 percent of poverty line. This barrier then cuts off everyone
slightly above 130 percent, leaving them outside of this generous food stamp net. Likewise, the
other two programs designate recipients based off of poverty line and conditions, and too cut
off people not necessarily in well conditions but not deemed needy enough to fall within the
social programs. Like politics, power also plays a hand in hunger. Power is defined as the ability
to get others to do what you want, according to Barbour and Wright5. In relations to hunger,
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 10
power is seen in institutions like Gleaners: they have the ability to draw in governmental money
as well as donations. They then use their power to distribute resources to the powerless needy.
They too can utilize their power to attract others for volunteering. Those attracted may not
necessarily yield power to instigate change, but at the very least work to provide manpower.
A structure is anything that is here to stay. It is something that is not able to be solved
through simple actions. Solutions to a structure are very complex and take months and even
years to implement. To come up with a solution to a structure, what is needed is an agent. An
agent is any person or organization that is able to act without held back by the power exerted
by the structure itself. In the case of hunger, hunger itself is the structure. The agent in this case
would be an organization like Gleaners Community Food Bank. The goal of Gleaners is to
overcome the structure which is hunger and in the process of doing so, it is considered an
agent.
For a realistic solution in the local metro Detroit area, we turned to Gleaners. Gleaners
is a food bank-like organization which both collects food and helps redistribute it. Their mission
statement follows the lines of working with the community to fight hunger in southeast
Michigan10. As a strategic plan, Gleaners aims to simply provide as much food as possible to as
many people as possible. In a three year plan, they aim to rise to 50 million pounds of food
(from 36 million) by the end of this year (the plan started in 2010). As specific goals, Gleaners
doesn’t solely want to feed, but they want to provide more food choices, as well as better
nutrition. Alongside this, Gleaners also plans to educate the general public and their clientele to
get rid of reliance on emergency food programs and systems11.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 11
Gleaners was started in 1977. It was started by Gene Gonya as a way to further his
mission in the Catholic Church towards community service. At first, Gleaners started out as a
small warehouse. We’ve been told by the lead volunteering coordinator at the Detroit
Gleaners, our site, that the building used to be an automobile warehouse- they even had a
special antique lift used for raising cars. Gleaners was one of the first US food banks. Several
years later, the same founder founded Harvest, a national food network. Over the years to
come up until now, Gene has received much acclaim, and many rewards praising success. The
original Gleaners was simply the single story warehouse. Over these years, Gleaners grew to be
a multiple-location massive food bank. The Detroit Gleaners itself grew to be vast and it has
three floors. Harvest became Feeding America which aids Gleaners and other organizations. 12
The exact address of Gleaners Detroit is 2131 Beaufait Street, Detroit, MI. [Appendix]
The front is a simple single lane drive leading to a warehouse. Across the street is a rundown
building, and further down Beaufait are residential areas. The original intention behind placing
Gleaners in this location was partially because of a local soup kitchen named Capuchin. Karen
Rogensues, the head volunteering coordinator, informed us that Gleaners and Capuchin
worked heavily together in the beginning days, which would indicate why Gleaners would want
to be located on Beaufait, as Capuchin is only two miles from that location.
Gleaners works with various clients along with others, like Capuchin. Some partners
with Gleaners includes soup kitchens, food pantries, shelters, and disaster relief agencies. As
partners with Gleaners, they use the food Gleaners supplies to help fulfill their own causes.
Usually these partners, these clients, are food relief organizations. Oftentimes however some
clients include youth groups and churches which also provides food. Gleaners mainly services
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 12
organizations, although they also have open door policies to providing food as a food bank
itself13.
Gleaners from the outside view is a simple warehouse, with few docking bays. This is
from the point of view from Beaufait street; on the other side of Gleaners is a farm. The people
who work here are more than ordinary however. At our site in Gleaners Detroit, most of the
people were direct employees of Gleaners. The hierarchy of Gleaners at our site rests mainly
around few individuals. The volunteer coordinator is one main head at the site which helps
direct volunteers on their jobs. There also were few other offices, one for program coordinator
of whom we ran into during one of our volunteer sessions. Typically, Gleaners had these heads
run their specific jobs and deal respectively with the various workers unloading and moving
around orders and produce. Employees generally desk jobs like being a receptionist. Also there
are IT jobs, working with machinery and packing goods into trucks. While most people at the
site are paid to work, there still are many volunteers. Volunteers perform different jobs, from
simply pulling orders and sorting produce to helping out with different Gleaners projects.
Typically whatever the Gleaners site needs the volunteers will help out with. The employees
help sort out the organizational aspect whereas the volunteers help provide the manpower to
work with them. Some projects available to volunteers include Gleaners Greeters, which assists
with partner agencies. Kids helping kids is another program for the younger volunteers, where
kids learn about hunger and help out other kids to better understand the problem of hunger.
Gleaners estimates that around 39,000 people volunteer at their sites yearly 14.
Specific Gleaners events slightly correlates with volunteer events, such as the Empty
Bowls project. This project tackles hunger through a unique perspective. They have craftsmen,
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 13
potters, and other workers create handcrafted bowls. Guests are invited to a simple meal of
soup and bread. In exchange for a cash donation, guests will then be asked to keep the bowl
they have as a reminder of all the empty bowls worldwide. Guests are projected to be from
ages six to seventeen. There is a $5 donation cost to participate in this event. Money raised is
then donated to organizations working to end hunger, such as our site, Gleaners Detroit. The
resources involved in this program includes manpower provided by volunteer guests, the $5
entry cost, and the supervisors and craftsmen to help make the bowls15. Along with other
programs and events, Gleaners works with various high schools and organizations to collect
food. GFS, Gordon Food Services, is one of such organizations. From Thanksgiving to the second
week of December, GFS collected foods from stores and participating locations. They then
donated to Gleaners to help contribute to the Gleaners food bank. The Fun Funds program held
by GFS also contributes to Gleaners monetarily. One to ten percent of amount purchased of
items at different locations goes towards Gleaners16. Gleaners also has donation incentives, like
Double Your Dollar for Kids. In this incentive, donations made at specific Emagine Theatre sites,
like in Novi, Canton, Woodhaven, Royal Oak, and Rochester Hills, will be matched by the
Huntington National Bank17. Another program which helps combat hunger dealing with
Gleaners is Outnumber Hunger. Gleaners Food Bank is also one of the food banks that is
targeted by the Outnumber Hunger program. The Outnumber Hunger program basically works
by donating to your local food bank every time you purchase certain foods and enter the code
of the packaging online. General Mills is the organization that runs this program. They donate
$0.65 for every participating purchase you make up to March 1, 2014, up to a maximum total
donation of $1,300,000. After entering the code online, you enter your zip code and choose
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 14
your local food bank, which in this case would be Gleaners Food Bank. The program itself is
dependent of people who purchase the products that are enrolled in the program. General
Mills has provided 15.6 million meals through the Feeding America network thus far. From the
beginning of this year alone, this program itself has generated 6, 118, 890 meals, and they have
a goal of at least 10 million meals by the end of the year 19. Lastly, one of the main programs
that benefits Gleaner’s in its fight against hunger is the Fun Foods Program that is run by GFS
Marketplace. This program was made to provide a way for shoppers at GFS to donate out a
percentage of their purchases to non-profit organizations, such as Gleaners, of their choice.
Depending on the volume of the purchase, this percentage can go up to ten percent as
donations. Because one has to purchase a large amount for this program to be effective, it is
mainly direct towards people who own large business and bulk purchasers. This program
require very little additional resources from Gleaners and GFS. GFS already has food items it
wishes to sell, and a percentage of that money is set aside for the donation being made at the
end of the fiscal quarter. Statistically speaking the program is very broad and wide spread. GFS,
on average, makes about $2.15 billion in sales. At max efficiency, this entails that the program
causes $215 to be donated to organizations for their philanthropy. Even with a percentage of
this money, Gleaner’s gets well over millions dollars for its work20, 21,
Gleaners is available to volunteer at for most days from Monday to Saturday, 9 – 12 AM
and 1 – 4 PM. Signing up to volunteer at Gleaners is simply either online via submission form or
by direct email to the volunteer coordinator. To the actual clients, Gleaners is quite easy to
access: on their website partner agencies can fill out forms to request an order from Gleaners.
To become a partner agency with Gleaners, the organization must have a non-profit
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 15
designation, a history of distributing food, a clean building, and workers working within proper
food safety requirements. Lastly, the organization must let in people without the requirement
of paying, praying, or working for them18.
Gleaners, while a large and widespread organization, must meet certain monetary costs.
Gleaners receives money from different sources, like donations and the government. From
2011 – 2012, Gleaners received $12,380,502 in just donations alone. From grants, Gleaners
received $1,858,876 in that same period. In reimbursements, Gleaners received $4,346,551.
Lastly, from agency shared maintenance, Gleaners received $819,629. From 2011 – 2012, the
total revenue received was $19,405,558. Most of this money is seen to be donations, and thus
Gleaners rides mainly on donations and government grants22. In that same period, 2011-2012,
Gleaners spent $24,573,132. This is significantly more than what they spent in the previous
fiscal year as well as more than what they received. This is partly because they had money left
over (in 2010 – 2011, they received $22,012,741 while they spent $18,354,017). Of this budget,
Gleaners spent most of it in its programs and outreach ($11,491,041) and spent the next most
in food ($8,260,441)22. Gleaners in that period donated 46,735,852 lbs of food using 38,800
volunteers.
Gleaners interacts with the government in ways which both help and hinder it. For
instance, Gleaners receives grants. They received $1,178,242 from such 23. To also help
Gleaners, SNAP and Gleaners work together to try and solve hunger. However, although SNAP
works with Gleaners, SNAP is a program which gives money rather than food directly to
individuals so the impact limiting. Another government policy, a local one, is called EarthWorks
Urban Farming. This policy impacts Gleaners to help its farm and make better use of Gleaners’
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 16
land. However, again this doesn’t quite impact Gleaners too effectively as the program targets
empty land for farming. Gleaners uses farms, but it doesn’t rely solely on farms nor does it gain
most of its produce by such. Our policies mentioned don’t quite directly correlate with
Gleaners, and as such don’t impact Gleaners too effectively. However, other government
policies hinder Gleaners, like state and level local revenue income taxes. Property taxes also
contribute, and UBIT (unrelated business income tax) also hinders Gleaners’ budget 24. Because
of this, Gleaners will pool its total money and spend extra just to meet government standards.
Gleaners itself acts a food bank, but it provides to organizations as partners and
individuals who are needy. As such, different cultural values impact the ability of individuals
and organizations to obtain help from Gleaners. For instance, the idea of shame in many cases
prevents people from obtaining help. If a person is shamed about his or her status of being
hungry, he or she will feel ashamed to actually try to receive help. A Gleaners video depicted a
first person account of a family who fell under the poverty line and started having food
insecurity issues. The mother gave accounts of feeling too ashamed to actually entering a food
kitchen. This only made her feel worse afterwards as her children were reliant on her ability to
obtain food, and her shame interfered with her ability to get food. The cultural norm of shame
prevents people from getting food from soup kitchens and food banks, including Gleaners.
Another cultural obstruction which prevents people from obtaining help is the idea of
individualism. This stems from a deep sense of pride and it can relate to shame, where an
individual doesn’t necessarily want help- he or she wants to make ends meet on his or her own.
Getting help can truly harm one’s pride, and as such people hesitate towards getting help.
These cultural values obstruct one’s ability to get help, and as such impact Gleaners and its
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 17
ability to give help. Other structures that have impact on Gleaners and its ability to do work is
the structure of corporation. Corporations limit Gleaners’ ability to do work as it they help
provide food for Gleaners. Stores like Walmart, Meijer, and other corporations which sell foods
provide economic barriers where Gleaners needs to spend its money to obtain foods. Other
economic structures which obstruct Gleaners includes transportation price, the location price,
and the employee price. Gleaners has to transport foods to different locations using trucks, and
of course there is a cost to provide the transportation as well as gas. Likewise, there is a price to
provide the money for the upkeep of Gleaners at its location- the warehouse has cooling units,
power supply, and water bills to cover, all of which costs money and Gleaners must divide its
budget on. Lastly, the payment for employees also counts, where Gleaners needs to provide
payment to those who work there, like the volunteer coordinator, program planner, etc. In
general, different structures hinder Gleaners ability to operate properly, whether it poses as a
cultural structure or an economic structure.
Gleaners, as an organization combating hunger, has its pros and cons. Firstly, in 2012
Gleaners received a four star rating, the highest possible, from Charity Navigator, which is an
independent evaluator of the nation’s largest nonprofit organizations. It received this four star
rating for the fifth year in a row. Gleaners partnered with over 558 agencies to reach 634,800
children, seniors, and working families and others with emergency food and personal care
items in 2012 alone. Lastly, Gleaners was awarded best multichannel campaign by Blackbaud
for Gleaners’ ability to spread the word of hunger in southeast Michigan. Blackbaud helps with
nonprofit organizations and fundraising software. As to firsthand, every time we volunteered at
Gleaners they showed videos about success stories. One of such included an interview with DPS
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 18
(Detroit Public School) teachers who sincerely complimented Gleaners’ ability to provide food
to the children who otherwise were needy. Gleaners helped in lighting up the mood by
providing food to the kids for lunch as well as over the weekend. However, even with all the
money it intakes and all the groups it works with, Gleaners has few downsides. For instance,
Gleaners is only an organization which indicates it can only work so fast and with so many other
organizations. While Gleaners has 558 partner agencies, it can’t necessarily pump out food to
all of them in a set time. Efficiency severely holds them back as they only provide directly at
their food bank sites, like Gleaners Detroit. Overall, Gleaners does indeed provide many food
and personal items to those around the sites, like in southeast Michigan. In 2011-2012 alone,
Gleaners spent $24,573,132, most of which went towards its own food programs and
purchasing foods, which indicates Gleaners has the ability to make some change. However, this
change is limited by scope, and thus Gleaners is effective only locally at a grassroots level. Like
mentioned, Gleaners is restricted by few structures, like economic structures such as
corporations and value structures such as the cultural idea of shame, individuality, and pride.
To better help Gleaners, assessment of its short and long term goals is important. For
short term goals, Gleaners needs few things immediately: manpower, money, and food. They
already yield the ability to organize different events and a daily routine with their own staff;
they however need the manpower to make the daily routine work and to make the programs
work. They also need money and food as basic resources, such as food to simply deliver, and
money to be split amongst paying for food, paying the staff, and paying for building
maintenance and such. While there are many short term costs, as seen Gleaners receives much
money, many of which is budgeted accordingly. This is of course again only realistic with its
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 19
donations received. For long term needs, Gleaners needs to be able to expand- it is limited by
its location and size. In the grand long term scheme, Gleaners will have employees and
donations as an income; Gleaners will eventually cap out, however, in its productivity as it is
limited by the actual size and number of its location sites. Providing more sites for Gleaners will
be a long term need as it can then spread out to different grassroot locations and solve hunger
as it has been doing. After all, Gleaners works on a grassroots level; expanding this grassroots
level throughout the state of Michigan and ultimately throughout the United States of
American will be the long term answer to the long term goals of Gleaners.
Due to the severe limitations of Gleaners in its scope, it cannot service the majority of its
constituency. Only people who go to the site directly or those that are serviced by their partner
agencies are affected by Gleaner’s philanthropy.
To combat this limitation of scope, we had an idea: instead of having people approach
the site for help, why not bring the site closer to them? What we mean to say is that Gleaner’s
itself is just one site, with limited reach. But if we were to expand this reach, Gleaners would be
extremely effective in what it does.
What we propose is essentially implementing miniature food banks in the midst of
needy neighborhoods. The miniaturized versions can be easily integrated into already existing
facilities such as grocery stores or open markets. These stores can obtain food directly from
Gleaner’s and distribute it to those that are greatly in need. What essentially we are proposing
is a grassroot level program that affects people surrounding those sites, expanding the
effectiveness of Gleaners. This idea came to us as we were pulling orders in Gleaners- we pulled
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 20
an order needing an incredible amount of food. This order can be taken anywhere and
distributed directly to people in need. Thus, this order can be sent to our site of idea.
We plan to implement this program starting this summer. Initially, we will need to set
up relationships with different organizations and businesses around local areas. We plan to be
finished with this preliminary step by June 15th. This will allow us to see how many people will
go along with our plan, Operation: Grassroots Attack. From there, we have to break down who
is going to be affected, how much food is estimated, how much manpower is needed, and how
much time is dedicated. This should be done by the end of June, June 25 th. Assuming enough
organizations agree to go along with our plan, we have to set up specific places to actually
donate food. It has to be an efficient system where people naturally at the site (grocery store,
etc) aren’t affected by the influx of the target audience. This should be done by the end of
August, where we actually construct our area(s) of the site. After that, we have to let people
know about this program: public relations and letting people know is a major determining
outcome step. If the program isn’t advertised well enough, the program will fail. In this public
relations duration, we will work with multiple organizations to get the word out about our
smaller site. This has to be done by the end of November. This step includes making a website
to inform the general public about our project, making various fliers to spread the word, and
even possibly looking into public advertising such as television ads and radio advertisements.
From the end of November to the end of second semester, we have to actually start working
with Gleaners to make a plan of action. The finite details such as how much food is given out
and what to give out will be determined. We can also figure out how many resources Gleaners
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 21
is able to provide to us for doing such. This should be done early on, ideally before second
semester starts, around January 7th.
The actual program is implemented in the second semester. We require that groups of
students in the Honors College at Wayne State University to be our main workers. One group
will work specifically with Gleaners to pull orders for our site, whereas the other group will
actually be at the site distributing food and resources. Realistically, we would need six to seven
people in the group pulling orders from Gleaners. However, we require two to four people per
site to help out. We would also need overseers at the sites to enforce and look over the
distribution for sake of efficiency and performance. The actual jobs for people pulling orders in
Gleaners will simply be as Gleaners sees fit. However, for our site, we would need the groups to
mainly distribute, as we have an enforcer to oversee as mentioned.
To fiscally meet these needs, we will need around $10,000 total during this project. This
will help obtain a space at the sites, which is quite important. Majority will be put into obtaining
the site(s), $5,000 as a safe number. We also need to put money into advertising. Making fliers
alone will realistically cost $2000. Another $1000 will be needed for computer systems and
other appliances. The remaining $2000 will be put into salaries for the overseers.
The opportunity cost to do this program affects more than just us. Because we are
renting out space from various sites, the other food banks, grocery stores, and locations will
evidently lose business. This is a necessary cost as we will effectively both advertise and provide
at different locations. While we will be drawing the same amount of clientele from a food bank,
this will advertise our sites at other places like grocery stores and open markets which don’t
normally distribute out free food.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 22
While this all changes at the direct level, institutional change can help illicit a better
Gleaners. For instance, lobbying, a simple solution, can actually be targeted at specific policies
and programs which will in turn aid Gleaners. An idea of such is if we lobbied to have non profit
benefits, allowing for Gleaners to not spend excessive money on taxes and other modes of
governmental economic restraints. In this way, lobbying helps benefit Gleaners as it can limit
what expenses Gleaners has to take annually. This allows Gleaners to focus its funds on other
important needs, such as purchasing of food, pouring in resources for programs, and as a long
term need pouring in money to obtain new sites. This then will increase the effectiveness of
Gleaners as it will work on a larger grassroots level. To properly implement this indirect action
plan, we will need a plan of action as well. A timeline has been provided in the appendix of
what we envision, but we too will explain it. We would need few resources. One of such is
money, and we would need $500. This money will be put into both fliers and other modules of
informing the general public, such as simple advertisements (signs, etc). The idea is that we
need to inform the public of a certain policy such that they can provide public voice and votes
to raise awareness to our governors. Specifically, we want to target UBIT (unrelated business
income tax), which limits Gleaners and other organizations. UBIT is a national level policy which
limits Gleaners as said. The goals of this lobby would be to ultimately exempt Gleaners and
other organizations like it from UBIT as they in no way are profiting from actions. The methods
towards such would be working towards distributing fliers locally. On such fliers we can inform
the public to write letters of consent mentioning the urgency to exempt Gleaners and other
non-profits from UBIT. This indirect method is specific and only works in this way because we
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 23
need to modify the policy rather than take direct action ourselves. Removing governmental
limitation is the idea behind indirect action.
As for the actual timeline for this indirect plan, we will start parallel to our direction
action plan, Operation: Grassroots Attack. We will start this plan by providing a letter of
consent to the governors ourselves about the harms of UBIT. This will be done by June 15 th.
Then, we will work on making the fliers. We won’t actually start advertising just yet, but simply
organizing. This will be done by June 20th. From June 25th to August 31st, we plan on distributing
the fliers out locally as well as informing people to write letters of consent. Informing the public
of UBIT will help provide votes and raise public voice towards the exemption of UBIT. In this
way, we will help raise awareness towards UBIT and also allow for lobbying, ultimately in hopes
to change policy. This policy change will then be beneficial to nonprofit organizations like
Gleaners. A point of contention is that this plan of action is realistic for us to perform, as we
only have a $500 budget and time spent; no manpower aside from ourselves and few friends is
needed and no organizations necessarily need to be contacted other than the government.
Ultimately, when looking back, solutions can be effective, as well as being detrimental.
Our Direct and Indirect action plan can work, as well as it could hinder progress towards solving
hunger. Even still, it may have such little effectiveness that it’s not noticeable in the large
scheme of solving hunger. Currently, what we’re proposing is to essentially help out the
grassroots level. We believe that the grassroots is where initial hunger change is made. There
are drawbacks to such an idea like how we don’t work to solve the problems of TANF, etc.
These policies are problems in itself in that TANF for instance has such a low threshold for
who’s applicable. Likewise, SNAP has a low safety net provision, where people above 130
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 24
percent of the poverty line are unaffected. Different social programs like these need solutions,
but for our organization they don’t directly apply. That is why our action plans can be mildly
effective: the way we work is to solve those who already fell into hunger conditions. We plan to
both provide food ourselves as our direct action plan and to make it easier to give food
provisions, realistically, indirectly via lobbying. That’s why our problem isn’t too effective,
because we don’t plan to solve the problem of why people fall into hunger. We don’t work to
help solve poverty, a crucial link towards hunger, yet we work within what we can realistically
do. Thus, our solutions are only slightly more effective than status quo: we don’t make a direct
impact to the broken safety-net social programs like TANF and SNAP, but we do try to help
those in hunger locally.
In general, our group had problems identifying what to be done as a direct plan and an
indirect plan. For the direct plan, we generally agreed along similar lines that we should open
grassroot-level sites which help distribute food. The reason we came to consensus on this was
because it simply follows suit of something out of PS 1010. We can both use the manpower
provided by Wayne State University as well as realistically try to combat hunger. However, the
details behind the direct action plan varied in how we saw implementation. One of us felt that
there should be more money allocated to advertisement, which is crucial in our plan. However,
we came to an agreement that our money should be firstly put into obtaining a site partially
because the more sites bring out more turn out. For an indirect action plan, we all wanted to
lobby for different policies. At the national level we all felt that TANF was broken, SNAP was
broken, and other policies could have better implementation. Our state level policies were
nonexistent and carried over to the national level. Lastly, the local level policies we researched
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 25
were too new to seek change in them. We decided to try to change a policy which directly
affects Gleaners, and we found that UBIT directly affected Gleaners by affecting how much
expense Gleaners has to pay.
Hunger is a problem seen to be due to few main causes. Hunger relates heavily to
poverty, and in dealing with such providing both food and monetary relief helps combat it. It
heavily relates to politics in how different policies both help and hurt the fight against hunger.
Social programs like TANF, SNAP, and NSLP all help to fight hunger, but the issue of politics is
seen in how they are broken in both provisions provided as well as eligibility requirements.
When we analyzed a specific institution combating hunger named Gleaners Detroit, we learned
the benefits of service in how it helps spread information and work towards a main cause like
solving hunger. We also observed power relations by servicing at Gleaners and researching how
Gleaners has the power to both draw in manpower and get people to do what they want for
working with them as well as being able to provide needs to others who are powerless, like the
needy who don’t have the ability to get what they want. As seen in the project, we observed a
heavy dose of structure vs agency, and how institutions work. Gleaners as an agent combats
the structure of hunger, while also facing the governmental structure and such. We as agents
use institutions like Gleaners to help illicit a change and combat the structure of hunger.
All in all, this project showed us the idea of federalism and how different policies are
implemented at different levels. We witnessed the relationships of the city to the government,
and how nonprofit organizations like Gleaners relates to both. The community is one of the
most intricate ones, where many problems are prevalent, some of which we haven’t even been
informed of. The problem of hunger is more intricate than we ever imagined, and the
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 26
organizations working to solve it seem more noble than before. This is a community we are
inevitably tied to, and we must work towards solving its problem as people, as active agents,
fighting the structures of problem.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 27
Appendix
TIMELINE: OPERATION: GRASSROOTS ATTACK
By June 15,
2013
By June 25,
2013
• Finish speaking with different businesses around the local area...
• Finalize relations with these places and insure we can set up the food banks
within their premises...
• Assess how bad the problem is in the area we plan on helping out...
• May require the use of surveys and assessments...
• Set up the miniature food banks themsevles...
By August 31, • Have the food banks implimented in the places we have spoken with...
2013
• Spread the word about the program with the use of other organizations...
• Possibly set up a website and advertise through other means such as flyers and
By November radio broadcasts...
30, 2013
• Work with Gleaners to finalize the project...
By January 7, • Get everything in place and tie up any lose ends to get the project running...
2014
After January
7, 2014
• The plan should be implemented with the help of WSU Honors Community!
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 28
BUDGET FOR OPERATION: GRASSROOT ATTACK
Budget
$1,000
Obtaining Space
$2,000
$5,000
Advertising
Salaries
Systems & Appliances
$2,000
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 29
TIMELINE FOR INDIRECT ACTION
June 15
June 20
• Writing letter of consent to Governer about the harms of
UBIT.
• organizing and preparation.
• make flyers and such for our cause.
• distributing the fliers
• encouraging people to write to representatives about
August 31 dangers of UBIT.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 30
Works Cited/ Referenced
2012 Annual Report. Rep. no. 2012. Detroit: Gleaners, 2013. Print.
The Almanac of Hunger and Poverty in America, 2006: A Comprehensive Guide to National and
State Facts on Hunger and Poverty. Chicago, IL: America's Second Harvest, the Nation's
Food Bank Network, 2006. Print.
Barbour, Christine, and Gerald C. Wright. Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in
American Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2009. Print.
Buhl, Laura. Kathryn Underwood. “Urban Agriculture Ordinance.” City Planning Commission. 12
September 2012. PDF File.
DBCFSN. “Establishment, Structure, and Functioning of the Detroit Food Policy Council.” Detroit
Black Community Food Security Network. 2012. PDF File.
"Department of Public Health & Human Services." - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF). N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
Detroit Public Schools. Detroit Public Schools Office of School Nutrition. Detroit Public Schools,
2013. Web. 26 March 2013.
DFPC 1. “Detroit Food Security Policy.” Detroit Food Policy Council. 2012. PDF File.
DFPC 3. “Detroit Food System Report 2011-2012.” Detroit Food Policy Council. 2012. PDF File.
DFSC 2. “Detroit Food System Executive Summary 2011-2012.” Detroit Food Policy Council.
2012. PDF File.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 31
"Double Your Dollar for Kids." - Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
"Empty Bowls." Empty Bowls. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
Financial Statements. Publication no. 2012. N.p.: Gleaners, 2013. Print.
"Fun Funds." Fundraising Program. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
"Fun Funds." Sign Up for. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
Gallagher 1, John. “Detroit’s Urban Agriculture Plans Move Forward.” Detroit Free Press. 7
December 2012. Web. 26 March 2013.
Gallagher 2, John. “Large Scale Farming Projects In Detroit May Be Under Way By Next Spring.”
Detroit Free Press. 8 October 2012. Web. 26 March 2013.
Gleaners Community Food Bank. Growing Hunger Gap Requires Ambitious Response. Detroit:
Gleaners Community Food Bank, 2013. Print.
Gleaners Community Food Bank. Volunteering WithGleaners Community Food Bank. Detroit:
Gleaners Community Food Bank, 2013. Print.
Gordon Food Service Inc. History. Rep. N.p.: Funding Universe, 2013. Print.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/gordon-food-service-inc-history/
"History." Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan:. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr.
2013.
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 32
"How to Become a Partner Agency." How To Become A Partner Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr.
2013.
Hunger and Poverty: Definitions and Distinctions. Rep. New York: Hunger Project, 2008. Print.
Lofchie, Michael F. "Political and Economic Origins of African Hunger." The Journal of Modern
African Studies (1975): 551-67. Print.
"ONE CODE. FIVE MEALS." OUTNUMBER HUNGER. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
"Our Mission." Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan:. N.p., n.d. Web. 23
Apr. 2013.
"Our Partner Agencies." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
"A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
Tax on Unrelated Business Income of Exempt Organizations. Publication no. 598. D.C.: Dept. of
Treasury, 2012. Print.
Tribiano, Jeffery J. Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment
Request—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Administrative Review
Requirements— Food Retailers and Wholesalers. Rep. no. 17004. Vol. 77. N.p.: United
States of America Government, n.d. Print. Ser. 57.
U.S. Census Bureau. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, B. Proctor, C. Lee. Income, Poverty, and Heath
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. September 2011
Prakash, Shaik, Siddiqui 33
USDA. Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. Household Food Security in the
United States in 2011.