You are on page 1of 58

The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona

:
An Analysis of Organizational Effectiveness

Jake Coldsmith Ashley Ireson Robin Israel Meghan McDavid Ana Pumarejo Brenda Quintero

December 6, 2011 Organizational Theory- PA 501 Instructor: Robin Lemaire

Case Study History and Leadership: The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) has operated in Tucson, Arizona since 1976. In the first year of its existence, it distributed 10,533 emergency food boxes and operated out of a 1,800 square-foot facility (History, 2011). Today, it operates in the five southern Arizona counties of Pima, Graham, Greenly, Cochise, and Santa Cruz; has branch locations in Marana, Ajo, Green Valley, Amado, and Nogales; has a 140,000 square-foot warehouse in Tucson; distributes enough food every day to provide over 61,000 meals; and works with over 200 local human service agency partners (Annual Report, 2010). The mission of the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona is: ―Through education, advocacy, and the acquisition, storage, and distribution of food, we will anticipate and meet the food needs of the hungry in our community.‖ The vision is ―freedom from hunger‖ (1000-day Strategic Plan, 2008). The CFB started as a single food drive operated by the City of Tucson Mayor‘s Office in response to the food needs of one family in 1976. A family called the Mayor‘s Office asking for food assistance. Since no program existed to meet this need, the Mayor‘s Office held a small food drive to provide the family with emergency food assistance. After helping this one family, an intern suggested starting a bank for food that could supply any Tucsonan in need of assistance. In response to this idea, the Mayor‘s Office hired one person to start a small food bank that could supply food boxes to distribution sites around town. At its beginning, the food bank was the supplier of food distribution sites and did not distribute food directly to clients. The first direct-to-client distribution occurred when the Food Plus program started in Tucson in 1986 (Tucker, 2011).

Since 1976, the CFB has had three Chief Executive Officers. The longest tenured CEO was Charles ―Punch‖ Woods who was CEO from 1978 until he retired in 2003 after 25 years on the job. When Woods started at the CFB less than ―80,000 pounds of food were distributed annually through 16 partner agencies‖ (Machelor, 2002). By 1995, a capital campaign initiated by Woods had generated $2 million and the CFB purchased the location it still occupies today at 3003 S Country Club Rd (Cook, 1995). The move to a new building addressed the need for more storage space as demand for food assistance continued to grow. Part of Woods‘ vision for the new location was also to create a multi-service center for those in need. Woods told the Arizona Daily Star in December of 1995, ―‗If you are hungry, it means you have other problems as well. The goal is to reduce the demand for food by providing other services‘‖ (Cook, 1995). In the spirit of providing the myriad of services clients might need, therefore preventing the need for food assistance, the Community Gardens of Tucson started a pilot program at the Community Food Bank in 1997. The program provided 5,000 square feet of land for a community garden where families could pay a $3 monthly fee and receive maintenance and drip irrigation for a 2 foot by 27 foot plot. This pilot program would grow into what is now the Community Food Resource Center of the CFB (History, 2011). By the time Woods retired in March of 2003, he was dedicated to the idea that the CFB needed to continue to ―make progress in attacking hunger in preventative ways.‖ ―It‘s as simple as that,‖ Woods said, adding that a 10foot-by-10-foot vegetable garden can provide a family with vegetables they need at a fraction of the cost‖ (Machelor, 2002). The transition to new leadership was not as smooth as one might hope. The initial search left the board split over two candidates in December 2002 and they decided to start the search over (Barrios, 2002). In April of 2003, Patrick Zumbusch was hired as the new CEO (History,

2011). Zumbusch had recently been CEO of the for-profit Global Atmospherics Inc. (Barrios, 2003). At this point in its history, the CFB was providing enough food for 34,000 meals per day. Eighteen months later, in November of 2004, Zumbusch resigned his position to return to the for-profit world just before the critical holiday season. CFB board president, Beth Walkup (wife of then Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup), was appointed to serve as interim CEO until a new search would be started in January (Machelor & Chesnick, 2004). By June of 2005, Beth Walkup was replaced by Joy Tucker as interim CEO. Tucker had been Director of Facilities before being appointed to the interim position. This long transition to new permanent leadership did not end until Bill Carnegie was hired as President and CEO in January of 2006. By the time Carnegie became CEO, the Community Food Resource center was fully up and running, making sure that the CFB was not only meeting emergency food needs of the community, but was also addressing root solutions for greater food security. Community food security is ―when all people at all times have economic and physical access to sufficient food for a healthy life‖ (Editorial, 2006). In 2006, the CFB was providing enough food for 30,000 meals per day in Pima Country; had branch banks in Marana, Green Valley, Amado, and Ajo ; ran two farmer‘s markets; and turned the pilot garden plot program into a demonstration garden at the time when Carnegie started. By 2011, Carnegie had added a branch bank in Nogales; distributions to Graham, Greenly, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties; a 10-acre farm in Marana; an Urban Farm in Midvale Park; Caridad Community Kitchen soup kitchen; and the CFB was distributing enough food to provide 61,000 meals per day. Programs and Services: Programs and services can be categorized into two groupings: food distribution programs and food security programs. Food distribution programs include The Emergency Food

Assistance Program (TEFAP) food boxes, Food Plus food boxes, Congregate Meal Sites, Caridad Community Kitchen, and Agency Market. Food security programs include Child Nutrition Programs, Family Advocacy, Farm-to-Child, Nuestra Tierra Demonstration and Market Garden, Home Gardening, Gardening Workshops, the Marana Heritage Farm, farmers‘ markets, and the Urban Community Farm. A third service entity is the Punch Woods Multi-Service Center. This center houses the CFB‘s main location as well as endeavors to provide a ―one-stopshopping‖ center for those in need of assistance. Some organizations that are located in the Multi-Service Center are Administration of Resources and Choices, Alzheimer‘s Association, Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Mobile Meals of Tucson, and Arbor Jobs Training. The goals of the Multi-Service Center are: 1) to strengthen the ability of collaborating agencies to provide for the overall health and well-being of our community‘s children, 2) to increase the number of families served, and 3) to increase the number of services available at one site. A brief description of the major programs follows. TEFAP food boxes are distributed directly to individuals and families at the CFB main location, branch banks, rural distribution sites, and through partner agencies and food pantries. Clients may receive a box once per month and must be residents of the county in which they receive the box. About half the food that goes into a TEFAP box is provided by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) Hunger Relief Program. Food Plus food boxes are also distributed directly to individuals; however, this program serves a different population than TEFAP. There are four categories of individuals that can qualify for the Food Plus program: 1) pregnant mothers, 2) mothers who have given birth within the last year, 3) children between the ages of 1 and 6 years old, and 4) senior citizens over the age of sixty. A client may not be using WIC and Food Plus at the same time. Food Plus, like

TEFAP provides one box per month. Food Plus is a joint venture between the USDA, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the Pima County Health Department. Food Plus clients must apply with the Pima County Health Department and, upon acceptance, receive a sixmonth refillable prescription for food. This prescription is filled at the CFB. Agency Market (AM) distributes food directly to 501c3 agencies that have feeding programs. There are over 140 agencies with 400 sites that access Agency Market. Last year AM distributed 5.9 million pounds of food. Food donations that are distributed through AM come from national food manufacturers, local distribution centers, grocery stores, and the public. Community food security programs include activities such as urban agriculture, community and backyard gardens, and farmers‘ markets that all increase access and affordability of fresh produce. These programs also include training for food processing, preservation, preparation, marketing, nutrition education, and food self-reliance. The Community Food Resource Center of the CFB encompasses all of these programs. Family Advocacy‘s purpose is to address needs that may not be addressed by other CFB programs. This includes helping families and individuals with referrals for other services like rent or utility assistance, giving classes in economic literacy, and helping people sign up for the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This program can even include giving people personalized attention to their unique circumstances and providing extra food assistance through the Agency Market program at the family advocate‘s discretion. The Marana Heritage Farm is a 10-acre production and education farm. The farm uses drip irrigation and organic methods to grow vegetables, fruits, herbs, and flowers. The Marana Heritage Farm also operates a youth apprenticeship program that teaches youth how to farm and educates them about food system issues that affect food security.

The CFB operates six farmers‘ markets. These markets make fresh, local products available to the public and low income individuals by accepting SNAP benefits. The markets also give small or large growers with excess food a place to sell and expand their gardening operations. Producers who cannot attend the markets can sell through consignment with the CFB (CFB Website Programs and Services, 2011). Environment, Structure, Strategy, Leadership, Organizational Culture: A main player in general environment in the CFB is the economy. Only twice in the Community Food Bank‘s history has it had to reduce the amount of food that clients receive. The first was in 1997 after the Clinton Administration made reforms to welfare programs. Donations had remained steady, but demand increased eighteen percent from the previous year necessitating Punch Woods to make the decision to halve what was offered in the emergency food boxes (Wabnik, 1997). The second time was in January of 2009 when, in response to increased demand caused by the recession, the CFB had distributed 36 percent more food than in the previous year and was 46 percent over budget for food purchases in the fiscal year. This time, instead of reducing the amount of food per box, the CFB accomplished essentially the same thing by reducing the number of times per mother that a family could receive a box from two, down to one (Kelly, 2009). Each time that the CFB has had to reduce the amount of food given per client has been the result of environmental forces. Revenue for fiscal year 2009-2010, including the cash value of donated food, was $51,560,121. Main sources of revenue for FY2009-2010 include donated food (81.05%), contributions and funds from events (12.98%), government grants and contracts (4.3%), and bequests (.43%) (Annual Report, 2010). Leadership at the CFB starts with the CEO. Carnegie maintains an outward, futureoriented focus in order to set the direction for the organization, while trusting the Management

Team with the day-to-day operational decisions. Carnegie characterizes himself as more of a convener than a manager: bringing people together to solve problems and giving them the authority to make the decisions they were hired to make. Carnegie is also active in the Association of Arizona Food Banks, sits on four national Feeding America committees, and is the vice chairman of the Western Regional Association of FA food banks (Carnegie, Hitzeman, 2011). Carnegie is much more tied in with FA than Woods was as CEO (Tucker, Hitzeman, 2011). When Carnegie first came to the CFB he recognized that departments were working in siloes and one of the first tasks he took on was breaking down these divisions. He gave departments permission to work with each other and help other departments even if it was not part of their duties. Over the last 5 years, CFB has seen an increase in the amount of interdepartmental cooperation (Carnegie, 2011). The CFB has a formal hierarchical structure with a Board of Directors at the top, followed by the CEO, then five operationally designated vice president-level staff that make up the Management Team, then directors and managers under each vice president. Day-to-day operations do not strictly follow the structure laid out on the organizational chart. The 134 employees tend to follow the chain of command, but are given the freedom to jump levels and/or cross operational boundaries when necessary. Over the last five to six years the Management Team has been learning and trying to operationalize the idea that the lowest level of staff can often come up with the best solutions to improve working systems. According to Management Team members this is still a work in progress (Hitzeman, Tucker, 2011). Another aspect of the CFB‘s structure is that it belongs to a national network of food banks called Feeding America (FA). CFB has a contract with FA to serve a specified area (the five southern Arizona counties that CFB currently serves), agrees to follow standards set by FA,

pays dues to FA, is monitored by FA, and in turn, CFB gains national credibility from FA, national donations, funding, and training. CFB has the option to get funding for doing FA programs locally, but is not taking full advantage of these opportunities because CFB feels that current programs offered address the specifics of local needs better than the FA programs would. This option to opt out of the program and the funds gives FA member food banks the flexibility and autonomy to serve their local area as they see fit. According to Eric Hitzeman, VP of Operations, the three things CFB gains from being a FA member are access to best practices and trainings, national representation in issues and with donors, and some funding. The CFB has always had at least an informal strategy set at Management Team meeting and some formal strategic plans set between the CEO and Board of Directors. Carnegie changed this top-down strategic plan setting when he created a committee that encompassed all hierarchical levels to create the first 1000-day plan under his tenure. This plan took eighteen months to finalize and covered the time period from July, 2008, to June, 2011. The current oneyear plan was created with input from all levels, but this time Carnegie used Feeding America‘s five main goals and had management level employees get ideas from all levels of staff to fill in the objectives strategies for meeting those goals. The one measure of effectiveness that is everpresent for the Management Team at the CFB is distributed poundage and FA‘s measure of pounds per person in poverty (PPPIP). The majority of Management Team members that were interviewed expressed this measure as a challenge in that it may take focus of programs that are very advantageous to clients, but that do little to increase PPPIP numbers in the short term. This is especially a problem for Food Security programs since they work on a relatively small scale and their effects are often seen in the longer term (Carnegie, Tucker, Hitzeman, Liu, 2011).

Internal organizational culture is very important at the CFB as it is at most nonprofit organizations. The organizational culture helps attract and retain the volunteer workforce that CFB depends on as well as the paid staff. In fiscal year 2009-2010, volunteers contributed 106,000 hours of work time. This is equivalent to the work hours of 50 additional full-time employees or 37% of CFB‘s workforce (Annual Report, 2010). Carnegie tries to take a bottom up approach when possible to make staff and volunteers feel appreciated. He believes that if staff members are treated in a friendly, positive way this atmosphere will transfer to the volunteers and ultimately to those being served (Carnegie, 2011). He tries to keep everyone feeling connected through his open door policy and frying pan chats, though he admits that there are always those who can feel disconnected at different levels. The employee satisfaction surveys from 2010 and 2011 show that the majority of employees rate all but one question in the affirmative on a 6 choice Likert scale with ―No Opinion‖ as the middle choice and a ―Not Applicable‖ choice. The one question that generated a majority of responses in the ―No Opinion‖ column was if the frying pan chats are an effective way of communicating with the CEO. Methods The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) was chosen for analysis because it is based here in Tucson and is a very visible community entity that virtually anyone who has lived here has heard of or perhaps even volunteered for. The 35 years CFB has been around is more than enough time for the organization to settle into patterns of behavior and, of course, there is quite a bit of material for analysis. Probably the most significant reason CFB was chosen was that one of the group members, Jake Coldsmith, is an employee there. Jake was an extremely valuable resource for this project. He provided a vast hub of

general knowledge about CFB that otherwise would have taken hours to research. His experience and status as an employee provided constant access to internal information, including surveys and reports that CFB had already conducted. Of those we refer to the Volunteer Assessment, Volunteer Hours 2010-2011, Employee Satisfaction Survey 2011, and the Hunger America Annual Report 2010. Jake was also able to schedule interviews with a majority of the uppermanagement staff, even the CEO. The employees that were interviewed included: Marco Liu, Director of Advocacy and Outreach; Joy Tucker, Senior Vice-President of Facilities MGMT; Bill Carnegie, President and CEO; and Eric Hitzeman, Vice-President of Operations. An example of the question sets used to conduct the interviews can be found in Appendix A. It was important to collect information from more than just management staff, so a survey was sent out to a number of lower-level staff as well. A copy of that survey can be found in Appendix B. To access the effectiveness of CFB, the System Resource Approach and Goal Approach theories were used. The Goal Approach focuses on how well an organization meets its goals and mission, which is especially important for the public sector because if an organization is not meeting its goals, then it is not fulfilling its commitment to the community and no longer has societal value or legitimacy. However, there are many problems with the Goal Approach; one specific to CFB is that oftentimes goals are vague and it can hard to measure the outcomes. Especially for the Food Resource Center where the focus is on long-term outcomes, looking at how those programs meet CFBs goals is not an accurate measure. As such, the System Resource Approach was the other theory used in this evaluation of effectiveness. This theory looks at how well an organization can exploit the environment for resources with the view that survival of an organization is most important. These two theories

make an interesting pairing in light of the fact that non-profits are known to be constantly juggling their fight for resources to survive and their struggle to provide a service to the community, defined by the goals. From here, the theories were applied to a range of topic areas: environment, leadership, strategy, structure, and organizational culture. These analyses follow: Environment A complete environmental analysis is an important component in assessing the organizational effectiveness of the CFB. This analysis showed us how the organization is influenced by forces outside and inside the environment. There are two categories of environmental effects, the first one being general or indirect, that result from economic and political factors. The second one is task or direct, that result from suppliers, funders, competitors, and regulators. We consider that the CFB environment is affected indirectly by the economy and politics and directly affected by funders, volunteers, and clients. Figure 1: Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) Environment

General/ Indirect Task/ Direct

Politics Historically, the U.S. government has tried to attack issues of poverty, hunger, and nutrition through a variety of direct and indirect policies. Efforts to address issues of hunger include programs such as the food assistance programs provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA provides food commodities to the CFB. Any political policy change will affect the amount of commodities the food bank receives. Economy The economic situation of the U.S. affects the CFB since it increases the demand of individuals asking for food assistance. ―Food banks report that increasing demand is particularly driven by more first-time users of the food assistance system (98 % of food banks) are more unemployed (92%)‖ (Feeding America Survey). Additionally, existing clients need assistance more frequently that before. Clients Feeding hungry people in southern Arizona is part of the CFB mission, meaning that they want to reduce the number of the individuals who live at, or below, the federal poverty level. In Tucson, 23.5% of the population lives at, or below the poverty level. On average, the CFB provides enough food for over 61,000 meals every day. Many of these meals are distributed through over 200 local human service agency partners that serve children, seniors, the working poor, the homeless, people suffering from illness or addiction, people fleeing abuse, people with disabilities and anyone else in need. Funders The CFB operates thanks to donors who donate the funds that they need to feed the hungry. The CFB receives several hundred thousand pounds of donated food and non-food items

each week from the food industry. Every donation plays a part in making it possible for the Food Bank to provide nearly eight million pounds of food and grocery products each year for hungry and disadvantaged people. The food industry is the backbone of food banking. Hundreds of local and national companies donate quality food to the CFB including: distributors, farmers, manufacturers, restaurants, retailers, and wholesalers. Additionally, donations are received through food drives. On the other hand, cash donations are increasingly important since they are used when the CFB needs to purchase food that has not been donated. Also, the CFB relies on local and state foundations. The impact that donors have on the CFB is indescribable. The CFB revenue for last year was $51.5 million, $41.8 million of which is donated food. If they receive one dollar, that dollar will help them distribute ten dollars‘ worth of food. Without donors, the food bank would not exist. Volunteers The CFB depends on hundreds of volunteers to bring food to southern Arizona. Last year the food bank‘s volunteers contributed about 106,000 hours of labor; the equivalent of 50 full-time employees, or 37% of our workforce (Annual Report, 2010). In order to accomplish its mission to help people in need of food assistance, the CFB opens its doors and offers volunteer opportunities to the community. There is a complementary way to analyze the environment, which includes an evaluation of its complexity, its state of dynamism, and its munificence. In order to fully analyze the environment we examined these three dimensions, which helped us determine the effects that the environment has on the CFB‘s effectiveness in achieving their goals and obtaining resources. The CFB works within a complex environment. The volatility and complexity in the

environment makes it less predictable (Milliken 1987). Primarily, the coercive institutional pressure by funders reflects the complexity in the environment. The CFB needs to follow regulatory agencies‘ requirements (Feeding America) in order to receive funding. Feeding America not only provides them with financial support but it also provides technical support and staff training. Therefore, having a healthy relationship with Feeding America is important in the process of achieving the CFB‘s goals. By being more involved with Feeding America, CFB is recognized nationwide and has gained legitimacy among donors. As Wiewel and Hunter stated, affiliations with other organizations further serve as a resource to a new organization because they serve to legitimize the organization and its activities (1985). With this alliance, the CFB will attract nationwide donors who will donate simply because the CFB is part of Feeding America. ―Coercive pressures imposed caused the program to grow incrementally across the nation‖ (Frumklin and Reignold, 2004). Nationwide recognition is helping the CFB gain more resources in order to achieve their goals. Also, the USDA requires the CFB to follow certain procedures with the commodities provided to feed the hungry. Other donors such as private funders, retailers, and manufacturers require that their donations are used in a timely manner in order to protect clients‘ health and themselves from any possible lawsuits. On the other hand, clients make up part of this complex environment. Since part of the CFB mission is to feed the hungry, they must use different avenues in order to reach this part of the population and consequently accomplish their mission. Some of these avenues include:  Feeding low income and homeless people through churches. With the ―Caridad Community Kitchen‖ program, four staff members prepare 800 meals to feed homeless and low-income individuals. They use food donated by the USDA, and if needed they purchase what is required to prepare a complete meal.

 

The CFB goes to low-income apartment complexes to feed people who lack a transportation method. At the CFB warehouse, food boxes are given when people require them.

The ability of the CFB to be effective in obtaining resources to feed the hungry depends of the capacity at which they have to be proactive and create a strategy that allows them to adapt to the complexity of the environment. The CFB is part of a dynamic environment that is constantly changing. Since the economy is a factor that affects the CFB, any shifts in it affect the ability of the CFB to accomplish its goals. Theory suggests that ―it is evident that characteristics of the external environment played a dominant role in determining successes or failures during periods of decline‖ (Cameron and Zamuto, 1983). Today, the economy is unstable. Due to the economic crisis, donations received both from the government and private donors do not keep up with the demand for assistance. In the same way the economy is affecting the CFB, it is affecting the population in general. As more people are out of work, more people are hungry. There is also uncertainty in regards to the local, state, and federal funding that the CFB receives from the government. The political environment is so dynamic that the federal government‘s reduction efforts can reduce the amount of funding for next year by one million dollars, the equivalent to four million pounds of food. In times of economic crisis and uncertainty, the help of volunteers is crucial in the process of achieving the CFB‘s goals. Since the demand for resources is increasing, more volunteers are needed in order to satisfy the needs of the CFB clients. The more help the CFB receives from volunteers the more boxes they can produce which results in better food access for clients. The challenge that the CFB has is finding ways to attract more and more volunteers. Fortunately, throughout the years they have been able to attract volunteers in different areas

including packing boxes or working at the farm. Today, the number of volunteers must increase significantly since the demand for food is increasing. The downside is that most people volunteer during their spare time from work or from other responsibilities. Due to economic crisis, it might be the situation that those volunteers are out of work and they need this time to find another job, which may or may not give them extra time to volunteer. Cameron and Zamuto stated that organizations are successful to the extent to which they match environmental conditions (1983). In order to survive in this dynamic environment and be successful, the CFB is having additional food drives, increasing marketing materials, opening more volunteer opportunities, and solidifying their relationship with city councilors, county supervisors, and state representatives. Environmental munificence relates to the degree to which a firm operates in an environment where resources are scarce or abundant. Since its foundation, the CFB has not experienced that much competition and has been a monopoly since then. This was an advantage since no other agencies where asking for food funding. On October 31, 2011, Interfaith Community Services Food Bank (ICS), using a mimetic strategy, was expanded. Basically, ICS gets a high percentage of the food they provide the community from the CFB and the other percentages from their own food drives and fundraising events. Today, ICS is considered a competitor of the CFB. Even though ICS is using the same model as the CFB, there is now another food bank applying for grants, funding, and donations. The downside is that during an economic crisis, grants, funding, and donations are scarce, making competition harder. From the government side, allocations have been reduced, decreasing the amount of food that the government buys from agriculture. Instead of sending food to community food banks in the U.S., the USDA is sending it to areas that have experienced

national disasters. For example, in the month of August, most USDA food went to Hurricane Irene survivors. Additionally, fewer grants are available making them more competitive. The decrease in funding received directly affects the CFB‘s process of achieving their goals, since fewer resources are received in order to satisfy the needs of their clients. With resources scarce, the CFB is implementing different strategies that will allow them to lessen the impact of the economic crisis. Through these strategies they are able to obtain resources that will help them accomplish their goals. The CFB is holding more food drives in order to lessen the impact of the reduction in food donations. Donor relationships have become even more important in order to assure donors that the CFB is working for a good cause. The CFB is creating solid relationships with foundations that share their same mission, in order to increase brand awareness, which will lead to more contributions. Since grant competition is becoming tougher, the CFB has two people writing grants in order to ensure that they are applying to every small and large grant available. Additionally, the CFB is working with attorneys in town so they might suggest donating to the CFB to people when preparing their wills. Since eating healthily and having a good lifestyle is so important to society, the CFB has added education to its mission statement. In order to accomplish this, the CFB started a Community Food Resource Center; a program designed to provide awareness, education and information on food assistance programs in Pima County. By teaching people how to grow their own food and how to eat healthier, they hope this will lead to long-term solutions which will decrease the number of hungry people. Also, the CFB is able to apply for grants geared toward education of good eating habits. We believe that a munificent environment with high uncertainty surrounds the CFB.

Internal development, such as the food assistance programs and the ability to achieve donations, will increase the competitive advantage of the organization and will help them obtain resources to feed the hungry and educate people on how healthier lifestyles. Leadership Leadership is the ―capacity of someone to direct and energize people to achieve goals‖ (Rainey, 2003). Bill Carnegie, CEO of the CFB, motivates his staff to meet the mission of anticipating and meeting the needs of the hungry in our community. His leadership is pivotal to the success of the Community Food Bank because of the motivation that he brings to his staff and people in the community. The CFB board also plays an important role in the dynamic of the food bank. The board has immediate authority over Carnegie and must approve what he does. They also help bring in essential resources through their personal power within the community. Determining the reason behind the success of a great leader is a challenging task because there is no clear cut answer to this question. Leadership is an abstract concept that is defined in many ways, and sometimes in many different situations. Throughout the years, scholars developed theories behind the idea of what it is to be a great leader. This includes but is not limited to; trait theories, and behavioral/style theories (Rainey, 2003). Additionally, leaders are thought to be effective when they maintain and develop networks for the organization which encourage growth and partnership internally and externally of the organization (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007). Others have suggested that there are both similarities and differences between being a manager and being a leader—saying that both can help lead to the effectiveness of an organization (Zaleznik, 2000). Therefore, this analysis will examine the various theories that have defined leadership over time and compare their points with the leadership of Carnegie and the board at the CFB. Carnegie‘s influence as the CEO of the CFB contributes to the

accomplishment of the food bank‘s goals and the acquisition of the food bank‘s resources. The board also has a role in the effectiveness of these practices. ―Trait‖ theories tug at the need to define characteristics that help explain effective leadership (Lecture, 11/28). Researchers tried to determine the traits that make up an effective leader, whether it be physical traits like height and hair color, or personality characteristics like honesty and integrity—anything that would help explain why one person was a leader and another one wasn‘t. Today we know that this theory falls short because it fails to recognize that there are leaders of all shapes and sizes with various personality characteristics—meaning that it is not possible to determine effective leadership when only looking at a person‘s traits. Even so, an interview with Carnegie shows that he is a kind person with exceptional drive and a fantastic sense of humor (11/17). Therefore, we propose that the traits that make up his personality influence the way that he forms the various networks internally and externally of this organization. Ibarra and Hunter suggest that there are three distinct forms of networking that a manager of an organization must participate in; operational, personal, and strategic (2007). They say that ―the alternative to networking is to fail‖ which suggests that one cannot succeed without these important tasks (2007). Operational networking is the creation of strong working relationships in the internal workings of the organization. This type of networking helps work get done efficiently and makes the group strong. Personal networking is about the development of the leader in his/her professional position which deals with external players but does not reach the same level that strategic networking does. Ibarra and Hunter suggest that strategic networking is one of the most important networking tasks because it helps managers find new opportunities which will further the development of their organization and lead to long-term concrete

connections (2007). These connections are the relationships that a leader forms with outside groups that helps the organization reach its needed acquisition of resources and partnerships that lead to the expansion of services that meet the goals that the organization is trying to accomplish. Carnegie says, in an interview on November 19th, that it is necessary for him to participate in all three forms of networking because of the influence that it has on the CFB. He mentions that he sits on several non-profit boards and finds that by working with them he is able to gather and share ―best practices‖ with other non-profits (11/17). Carnegie must also work internally with his board and externally with the media and various outside organizations. The relationships that he forms in the non-profit sector and in the community are the essence of strategic leadership—Mr. Carnegie participates in convincing others of taking a needed action that will benefit the CFB (Ibarra and Hunter, 2007). It is his ―ability to marshal information, support, and resources‖ that helps contribute to the accomplishment of goals and the acquisition of resources (2007). Ibarra and Hunter suggest that strategic networking is a skill that can be learned if one has the right mind-set about networking (2007). Carnegie has that mind-set—he is driven and smart and he knows what it takes to start and maintain a food bank due to all of his past experiences. And so, his traits have an effect on the ability of the organization to receive resources and build connections with pivotal organizations that will help the CFB reach its goals. While the trait theory does not wholly define the effectiveness of a leader because there are no specific traits that are exhaustive and exclusive, it does touch upon an important idea—personality is critical and can have an effect on one‘s ability to perform a necessary organizational task. The next set of theories is called behavioral/style theories. These theories propose that there are two basic leadership styles which are effective depending on the situation and time

frame. There are two basic concerns connected to the leadership styles; concern for task and concern for social-emotional needs. This idea was developed more fully by political scientist James MacGregor Burns who named the two distinct leadership styles: transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Rainey, 2003). A transactional leader recognizes task needs and offers rewards to those who, in return, provide excellent performance and support (2003). Conversely, a transformational leader tends to focus on inspiring and motivating people while being selfless in their acts and doing things for the greater-good. These two concepts are similarly discussed in Zaleznik‘s article about the difference between managers and leaders (2000). His definition of managers as problem-solvers is closely linked with the transactional leader‘s focus on tasks. Zaleznik says that one of the main jobs of a manager is to ―shift balances of power toward solutions acceptable as compromises among conflicting values‖ (2000). Leaders, on the other hand, are innovative and create new ideas. He says that ―to be effective, leaders must project their ideas onto images that excite people‖, which is another way of saying that leaders practice transformational leadership. So, is there a better practice? No, organizations need both managers and leaders, but at different vital points in the life cycle of the organization. This is not to say that one is strictly a transactional leader or a transformational leader either— just one type is usually more prominent than the other. Therefore, it is best for a new organization or one that is going through a major change to find a person that is more prominently a transformational leader—they can symbolize a change in a new direction and help inspire subordinates to see a long term vision. Carnegie came at a time of major change; the CFB had been looking for a replacement CEO for four years before finding him. Today he describes his position as one in which he is responsible for everything but does not act as an overseer (Carnegie, 11/17). Instead he alludes to

his position as one of ―kind of being like a captain on a ship‖ (11/17). Ultimately, he says that he is in charge of the future of the organization and tends not to worry about the day-to-day responsibilities, spending most of his time thinking in terms of at least a year ahead. Carnegie, therefore, is primarily a transformational leader—he establishes a vision that intends to inspire and motivate the CFB staff so that they may carry out the goals of the organization and gain the necessary resources that help make the organization effective when considering the goal and system-resource approaches to effectiveness. Carnegie calls the organizational structure an ―upside-down pyramid‖ because he feels as though he is there to support the employees who are really the most important people in the organization because they have direct contact with the community. When he first entered the organization he worked very hard at making the employees feel comfortable with him in the leadership role. At the end of the monthly all-staff meeting, Carnegie would stay after to have a ―frying pan chat‖ with CFB staff members so that they could address him with their concerns (11/17). Carnegie took the time to work on the socialemotional needs of the organization, as a transformational leader, which helped establish trust with subordinates. He even says that he ―likes to convince people that it was their idea and not [his]‖ when it comes to talking about new concepts (Carnegie, 11/17). By doing this, Carnegie motivates people to continually come up with new ideas that may help the organization reach its goals and gain resources. Again, Carnegie inspires and motivates those around him to do the best that they can so that the organization can prosper. The support that he has of his staff members helps them to find the courage to say openly what is working and what isn‘t. This open dialogue allows them to discover the best practices that ultimately will make their organization effective. The ―openness‖ of this organization also gives every employee a chance to participate in the goal making process. Being a part of this process makes it possible for all employees to really

understand the current goals of the organization so that when they are doing their job, they know which direction they need to go to accomplish the goals. With this knowledge, subordinates can help the organization better reach its goals which makes for an effective organization when considering the goal approach to effectiveness. Additionally, Carnegie‘s motivation tactics work on the community, where he intends to inspire people to bring in the resources that the CFB needs. The more that he acts as a transformational leader and inspires people about the mission and the goals of the organization, the more resources that the CFB can bring in. Carnegie motivates people to donate food and time (as volunteers), to the southern Arizona community, which has an effect on the effectiveness of the organization. Essentially, Carnegie is vital to the CFB because he encourages others to be the best that they can be which can, in turn, foster innovation and motivate subordinates. The board of directors at the CFB also has an influence on the effectiveness of the organization. The members of the board are all people who have deep roots in the Tucson community, which gives them great leverage when networking. Ibarra and Hunter say that ― the key to a good strategic network is leverage‖, meaning that the board of directors can use their connections in the community to help advance the goals of the CFB organization (2007). Community connections may also help the CFB obtain the resources it needs to be effective when considering the system resource approach. Additionally, the board of directors has the power to hire, fire, and evaluate Carnegie as CEO of the CFB. This power does influence the effectiveness of the organization if, as we have suggested, Carnegie plays a pivotal role in the effectiveness of the organization.

Strategy Within the past few weeks, CFB finalized its latest strategic plan, which is currently awaiting board approval. An official strategic plan is a relatively new concept to CFB. Previously, the board and the CEO set the course path quite informally. The mission, which at that time only consisted of feeding the hungry, was quite specific and straight forward so that all levels of employees had a real sense of what CFB was all about. The board and CEO did set goals and objectives, but employees were given a lot of freedom to accomplish the mission in other ways. Eric Hitzeman, VP of Operations, recalls that when Punch Woods was CEO, if any management staff could secure $1000 in funding to start-up a small program, Woods would then divert CFB funds to keep them going (11/17). Mintzberg & Walters would refer to this method of setting the direction as an ―umbrella strategy‖ (1985). Within such a strategy, the leadership sets the vision of the organization, which acts as a boundary for the actions of the other staff. Therefore, these staff actions are quite ―emergent‖ in that they are not set deliberately from one central place and instead arise from a variety of individual actors. A benefit that CFB saw from using the umbrella strategy was a high ability to exploit the environment for resources. Allowing the staff to apply for funding meant that money was coming in that might not have even been applied for had all the decisions been left up to the CEO and board. These aspects of the CFB strategy, would classify the organization as an ―analyzer,‖ according to Miles and Snow‘s typology (1978). Although CFB was not constantly looking for new services to offer or taking huge risks, the flexibility of their strategy allowed them to be innovative and to find new and better ways of meeting the needs of Tucson‘s hungry. One point in CFB‘s history, during which they might be better classified as a ―prospector‖, was when they

incorporated the Food Resource Center. The center was the biggest step away from simply giving the hungry food that CFB had taken. Although it had a similar aim as the other CFB programs, it was addressing the issue from a completely different angle. The addition was a risk for CFB and it took away resources that could have provided more pounds of food, which is the standard by which CFB assesses its accomplishment of the mission. The programs within the Food Resource Center seem to be quite successful and some even contribute food to the distribution side of CFB, but so far the organization has not found a way to measure if they are achieving what they had hoped through the center in terms of educating the public. This ―prospective‖ moment in CFB history is the best example of the way their strategy has embraced diversification. Diversifying is beneficial to organizations because as they add more activities to their operations, their arena of potential funding sources grows and hopefully the number of funders they actually have, which is important for a non-profit so that if one source dries up, the organization will still survive with the other funders. Also, providing more services adds to the societal value of the organization, further ensuring its continued existence. CFB has more purpose in the community today with its other programs than it did when it only distributed food. Furthermore, diversification means the organization has a toolbox of tactics for meeting its goals and mission. As mentioned, the Food Resource Center takes a different approach to addressing hunger. Instead of giving people food, it teaches them how to grow their own food, which CFB hopes will ultimately prove to be a proactive method of empowering people to obtain food themselves before they become hungry and need food boxes. In this way, diversification helps CFB to reach their goals with different tactics whether it be delivering food boxes, running a soup kitchen, or helping a family start their own garden.

Diversification can also be a bad thing when it adds too much complexity or spreads an organization to thin. So far, CFB has stayed away from adding non-mission-related activities to its operations, but one instance where diversifying created challenges for CFB was when they added frozen foods to the food they distribute. Most of the partner organizations that distribute CFB food are small and do not have large freezers, so whenever CFB receives frozen foods they cannot utilize these partners. Hitzeman noted at his interview that CFB might need to look for new agencies that have the technology to distribute all the types of food CFB collects, which may be necessary anyway due to CFB‘s continued growth (11/17). Competition in the environment is often a key strategic consideration for organizations and Michael Porter developed a model that analyzes how organizations position themselves in relation to their competitors in order to be successful (Lecture, 10/4). While CFB did not necessarily fit one of Porter‘s characterizations, it did take a conscious stance towards competitors (Lecture, 10/4). In her interview, Joy Tucker discussed how Woods strove to make CFB very inclusive of other organizations so that they would come to CFB if they needed food or other resources rather than actually becoming a competitor and seeking out funding and donation sources (11/17). This strategy has proved quite successful because unlike other cities that have many food banks, such as Phoenix, which has three, Tucson has only one large-scale food bank. However, Joy Tucker mentioned that the Northwest Interfaith center has the potential to become a competitor food bank in the future. They have recently expanded their operations and changed their name to include ―food bank,‖ although they currently still get their food from CFB. In 2006, Bill Carnegie became the new CEO. The first strategic plan under his leadership was crafted differently than any that had preceded it. Not only was it an official plan, shared

throughout the organization and with the public, but it was created with input from all levels of staff. Employees are always going to be more supportive and motivated towards the objectives of an organization if they, themselves, helped to craft them or at least had some of their ideas incorporated. Most likely, this was a big part of why the goals of this strategic plan were completed so quickly – even before the 1000 days had passed. Strategy under Carnegie has taken a shift. Employees no longer have the power to initiate programs themselves, but, as the 1000 day strategic plan is a clear example of, their input is taken into account. This plan may have been a transition point, however, because CFB seems to no longer use an ―umbrella strategy,‖ but now uses more of a ―planned strategy‖ (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). The strategic plan that was just completed within the last few weeks is an example of this ―planned strategy.‖ For this plan, it was CFB‘s leadership that formulated the framework by deciding to use the goals of FA. Input was requested from the lower levels, but it did not include the face-to-face meeting between staff and leadership of the previous plan. Instead, a request was sent down the chain of command and comments and opinions were sent back up to the leadership. It is unclear the degree to which leadership utilized the staff input they had requested. Although too early to tell, again, staff will be more willing and motivated to carry out the strategy if they feel their ideas have been taken to heart. Although CFB became a member of FA while Woods was CEO, Carnegie has taken the organization even further towards aligning with FA. There are a number of benefits CFB receives from this alignment strategy. Especially with federal funding declining, each and every funding source is especially important; so even though CFB does not receive a large portion of it‘s funding from FA, it is still necessary to keep that relationship healthy. Furthermore, FA

brings CFB into the federal area where it can be recognized by and potentially receive funds from a greater source pool. Under Carnegie‘s leadership, CFB has shifted resources from starting new programs to expanding current ones, especially to new geographic areas. Woods‘ tenure saw the introduction of a whole new part of the mission. In contrast, Carnegie has added a branch bank in Nogales, distributions to Graham, Greenly, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties, a 10-acre farm in Marana, an Urban Farm in Midvale Park. A study by Andrews, Boyne, and Walker (2006) found that high-performing organizations used a strategy of ―innovation and continuous searching of the external environment for new markets,‖ which demonstrates why the directions of both Woods and Carnegie have been successful. Woods focused on innovative ways to access new markets, trying new programs that were still under the mission, while Carnegie has found new markets (of clients and funding sources) by expanding the service area and aligning with FA in order to reach a national audience. In this way, Carnegie has continued CFB‘s history of performing as an ―analyzer,‖ despite some changes in the organizational strategy. So far CFB has been quite successful in acquiring resources from the environment thanks to their strategic performance as an analyzer through innovation and diversification. However, their effectiveness in meeting their goals is less clear. Their current measure of success, based on pounds of food distributed, does not address the mission in totality. Furthermore, interviews revealed some staff questioning if pounds of food is even really an appropriate measure of feeding Tucson‘s hungry. However, there has been discussion of tackling this evaluation challenge in the near future. Only time will tell if the latest strategic plan and the alignment with FA will achieve everything CFB is hoping.

Structure Federation Upon his arrival, Bill Carnegie focused on the importance of their affiliation with Feeding America. In Carnegie‘s view, being a part of this organization allowed for greater access to financial resources as well as reputation building through national advertisement. In order for the organization to remain affiliated under Feeding America it has to pay a monthly membership fee and comply with branding, marketing and safety policies. As an affiliate, the CFB is regulated and held to high food safety standards as well as more formalized administrative procedures such as accounting and inventory processes. Some examples of standards that the CFB has to adhere to are product inspection, keeping perishable foods in special freezers, and issuing timely receipts to donors. Aside from this, the CFB has full autonomy over the programs and services it wishes to offer. Becoming an affiliate of a federation structure is beneficial to the effectiveness of the CFB in that it allows the organization to gain resources both at a national and local scale. At the national scale, a federation adds value to a brand and communicates its attributes to donors and local communities (O‘Flanagan and Taliento, 2004). In simple terms, it helps build upon the organization‘s reputation. According to Yuchtman and Seashore the "reputation of individuals or groups as ‗influentials‘ in their community political affairs is itself a resource‖ (1967). At the same time, the CFB runs the advantage of having the ability to attract resources in terms of donations and volunteers at the community level. In addition, the organization benefits from training opportunities, technical support and other incentives such as trucks and other equipment that are provided by Feeding America. As such, being an affiliate of Feeding America benefits the organization by maximizing their ability to get resources.

Interestingly, being part of this federation or ―franchise‖, as described by CEO Carnegie, does not serve as a safeguard against competition (11/17). According to O‘Flanagan and Taliento some issues that may arise in a federation are turf battles, tense relationships between national and local staff and the possible alienation of foundations and corporate partners (2004). Feeding America is a competing organization to the CFB because it raises funds in the Tucson Community. In partnering with them, the CFB is able to engage in the exchange of resources with Feeding America while remaining competitive at the community level (Carnegie, 11/17). There is a balance between autonomy from and commitment to the federation allowing the CFB to exploit its environment and acquire scarce and valuable resources that are essential in pursuing its official goals (Tolbert and Hall, 2009). The Organizational Hierarchy The CFB has grown over the years into a complex hierarchical structure as more programs and initiatives are added to the overall mission. The nature of structure allows the CFB to organize into functional departments. A large component of the structure encompasses five vice presidents who are in charge of supervising and managing the functions of the CFB including development, operations, finance, facilities management and food security and distribution programs. Functional grouping is key to accomplishing the CFB‘s mission given the nature of the services provided and the varying task environments that exist at different levels of the organization. One of the advantages for the CFB in having a decentralized structure is that it fosters flexibility and allows for the organization to quickly respond to environmental changes. Merton argues that the merit of a hierarchy is ―its technical efficiency, with a premium placed on precision, speed, expert control, continuity, discretion and optimal returns on input‖ (1940). This

is especially true for the CFB in regards to policy compliance. As stated earlier, funders and donors set specific standards and policies for the CFB to adhere to. For example, Feeding America sets policies for ensuring safety in the warehouse facilities and on setting time margins for issuing receipts to donors. Assuring that the organization is fully complying with all standards is more easily accomplished by distributing the responsibilities across the organizational divisions. This, in turn, helps the CFB‘s ability to optimize the acquisition of resources from funders and donors. Structuring in functional components allows the CFB to efficiently accomplish the dayto-day goals of the organization (Lecture notes, 11/1). This is especially true at the operational level where food box preparation and distribution takes place. In preparing food boxes, for example, tasks are divided among the workers and volunteers. Some are in charge of making sure that there are enough amounts of the different foods on the floor available to those that are placing the food items into the boxes. In the meantime, others are in charge of inspecting, counting and stacking the food boxes. Such task specialization increases efficiency by saving time through coordinated efforts. Furthermore, it allows for the CFB to be resourceful by keeping track of the amounts of food being used when preparing the boxes. Divisional grouping may present some disadvantages to the CFB. Those individuals serving in departments such as accounting, marketing, public relations and human resources do not have the opportunity to directly see the impact of the their work on the community. Joy Tucker, the Vice President of Facilities Management describes this as the inability to see the ―face of hunger‖ (11/17). As a result, these individuals may not share the same passion and it may confound an individual which affects their motivation to cooperate to achieve the overall mission of the organization (Tolbert and Hall, 2009). Carnegie claims that this creates barriers

among the layers of the organization especially with communication between the people ―upstairs‖ and ―downstairs‖ (11/17). Structure that creates lack of smooth communication can lead to goals being more difficult to accomplish, or maybe not accomplishing goals at all, if the structure is too difficult to communicate through. Dividing organizational tasks into functions may produce a narrow focus making it difficult for individuals to appreciate any other view of what is important to the overall mission. Prior to the Bill Carnegie‘s arrival to the CFB, the organization had been without a permanent CEO for four years. During those years, the organization had been operating in silos where five departments operated independently from each other and the rest of food bank. There was a huge disconnect, as well as lack of collaboration and communication, between these departments. Structuring by function, in this case, resulted in a lack of organizational effectiveness in goal attainment. Bill Carnegie has attempted to reduce this silo effect on the structure by encouraging informal processes among the levels and focusing specifically on collaboration between departments. Formal vs. Informal Structure The organizational chart (see appendix c) depicts a horizontally organized structure with many layers implying that decision-making and reporting travels through a complex filter. Carnegie‘s bottom up philosophy follows the idea that managers are there to facilitate the completion of organizational tasks by the bottom-line. In fact, in his five years of service, he has emphasized an open-door policy where people from all levels of the organization are welcomed to discuss ideas, concerns and anything in regards to the organization. Carnegie‘s focus on implementing an informal structure is a way of maintaining flexibility among departments to allow them to optimize their operational effectiveness.

Most of the decision-making is made by the vice presidents of the CFB. These five managers are the people that are in charge of coordinating the day-to-day operations to achieve the short-term goals of the organization. There is a significant level of influence from those at the bottom layers in decision-making and some discretion is distributed among the layers decreasing as it makes its way to the lowest levels of the organization. Managers ensure that those at the lower levels have the opportunity to contribute to the organization by having them join their staff meetings and drawing on their knowledge when creating the strategies and establishing procedures for the CFB. Yuchtman and Seashore argue that a resource that is ―universally required by organizations, that is scarce and valued, and that is the focus for sharp competition, is energy in the form of human activity‖ (1967). The informal structure created has served to motivate employees as well as volunteers to serve and provide this valuable energy for the CFB. As such, the CFB benefits from workers that are invested in the mission of the organization improving overall organizational performance in regards to the day-to-day operations of food production and distribution. Mission Misalignment between Divisions The Community Food Security programs have added many layers to the organizational chart, increasing the complexity of the hierarchy. By adding this component, the mission of the CFB changed to also serve the hungry through education and advocacy. It seems, however, that the only layer of the structure of the CFB that focuses on pursuing the mission of education and advocacy is the Community Food Resources. This has created a division between the rest of the CFB due to the distinct mission being pursued by both parties. This incongruence or misalignment of the overarching organizational goals has produced a lack of communication and collaboration between departments running these two types of programs.

Moreover, intangible factors such as education and advocacy are hard to measure and thus create goal displacement by encouraging the organization to focus on outputs rather than outcomes (Lecture Notes, 9/6). The only method of measuring performance for the gardening program, for example, is by the number of educational classes offered. This method, however, diverts the focus on producing the desired outcomes of educating the community and promoting healthier eating habits to a focus on expanding the program in terms of the classes they offer to a population and the number of clients they serve. Organizational Culture The organizational culture problems that were apparent when Carnegie took over as CEO of the CFB five years ago were a result of the organization being leaderless for nearly four years. When a long-term, task-oriented employee took the interim position, the long-term vision became secondary and day-to-day functioning took over so that the work could continue as it was. This led to department heads focusing on the hierarchy and keeping things as formal as possible—including getting permission from someone over them for nearly everything. Things like allowing employees to help those in other departments were perceived to lead to potential inter-departmental problems and, thus, discouraged. Departments began to work as separate islands, communicating minimally. Carnegie sought to build a new organizational culture that intentionally emphasized value of employees' and volunteers' work, respect for them and their personal and family lives, and the importance of their opinions and input. He did this through allowing cooperation between departments and removing the dependency on the hierarchy; creating an ―open door‖ policy and ―frying pan chats‖; encouraging communication and direct talk between different levels and departments with monthly all-staff meetings; including all levels of staff in decision-making and

building the 1000-day strategic plan; and forming a Human Resources Committee that runs an employee newsletter, designed the Annual Employee Satisfaction Survey, and created a SMILE Team that actively motivates the team (Carnegie, 11/17). While Carnegie acknowledges that his work in creating an ideal organizational culture is ongoing, the CFB was rated the third top nonprofit to work for in the United States for 2011 by The NonProfit Times (Clolery, 2011). In evaluating the effect and impact that this organizational culture may have on the CFB, this analysis will draw heavily from Edgar Schein's theory of how the external and internal dimensions of culture are built. In developing a strong organizational culture in the CFB, the external dimensions that will be vital include mission, goals, means to achieve goals, and measurement, as well as internal elements that work primarily with interpersonal relations. According to Schein, culture exists when employees share an identity and mission (Schein, 1990). Reviewing employee satisfaction surveys and individual surveys distributed within this group, a belief in the mission to ―meet the food needs of the hungry in our community‖ is one that ties individuals to their work and to each other. While there are no direct questions on these surveys about individual's connection to the mission, it is frequently commented on in sections that allow for voicing opinions: ―I think it‘s a great organization just for the fact that we are stopping the hunger for the people‖, ―I believe we as an organization and part of a nationwide network of food banks, meet and exceed our core values to our communities ...I'm proud to be a member of that integral obligation to help feed the hungry‖ (Employee Satisfaction, 2011). This is an indication that leadership's intent to ―keep talking about [the value and mission of the CFB] and why we do what we do‖ is being carried out beyond the initial hiring and into daily life (Carnegie, 2011). Volunteers, too, felt purposeful at a rate of 97 to 100% in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Volunteer Assessment, 2011). Personal observations by

our group can document this, as the employees with direct contact to volunteers emphasized the need for the CFB in the Tucson community, who the organization was serving, and what impact the volunteers made that day, in numbers of clients served. The effect this focus on mission and value has on the CFB is that volunteers are not only satisfied with the work completed that day; they are also willing to return and to recruit new volunteers. Volunteer Manager, Kristen Hershberger, noted in her email interview that ―many volunteers come to us through word-of-mouth. Current volunteers also recruit volunteers‖ (11/30). One of the most valuable resources that the CFB utilizes is community volunteers. In 2010 the CFB employed 134 people, but utilized 1060 volunteers (IRS 990, 2010). Volunteers are used for the vast majority of manual labor and in-house distribution, making up over 152,000 hours of manpower annually (Volunteer Hours, 2011). ―They are one of our most valuable assets,‖ according to Carnegie (11/17). Without that motivating conversation of the organizational mission there may not be such a strong sense of purpose that would regularly bring back volunteers and bring new ones in. Inherently tied to the mission are measurable goals. Goals and the means to achieve them are also critical in developing a culture that allows employees to feel satisfied with their work. Goals must have an endpoint and all group members must be aware of those goals and agree on them. There must be a clear consensus on how to reach those goals. Means may include the design of the tasks, the division of labor, an incentive system, and technology (Schein, 1990). While multiple ―lower-level‖ employees have mentioned, in the employee satisfaction surveys and in our independent survey, that ―upper-level‖ decisions are occasionally made of which ―lower-level‖ employees are unaware and may impact their work temporarily (20% according to the 2011 Employee Satisfaction Survey). They generally also note that it is not a particularly

unusual level: ―I have been occasionally blind-sided with changes that need to be made... that I had no idea about. Nothing too bad, though, and having worked at a non-profit before, I find that normal‖ (Employee Satisfaction Survey, 2011). So while the design of the task may sometimes change and employees find it temporarily annoying, they do not seem to let that get in the way because, according to Joy Tucker in her November 2011 interview, most procedures that are not set by Feeding America or the USDA are generally determined by the individual department. Depending on the manager of a given department, how those tasks are established are designated by that manager. While the intention of leadership is that all employees have input and that their ideas will be considered, if they are not, employees do have the freedom to speak with the CEO using the ―open door‖ policy. This seems to be effective, as evidenced by the 2011 Employee Satisfaction Survey that reaveals 92% of employees feel that their manager/supervisor values their opinions and 93% feel that they have the freedom to prioritize and complete tasks on their own. 90% feel comfortable communicating their concerns to their supervisor. While communication continues to be raised as a concern, many employees have noted an improvement with the encouragement of using email and cell phones that are provided by the CFB. Tucker did note, however, that all employee need to ―make a conscientious effort as individuals‖ to keep communication up (11/17). As Schein notes, technology, and the communication through it must be shared regularly and become a conscious part of the culture (1990). While this is an effort on the part of the CFB, it is one of those aspects that still does not seem to be fully accepted. Additionally, the incentives offered by the CFB, according to the 2011 Employee Satisfaction Survey, are moderately acceptable. It seems that while employees do expect much, in terms of incentives because the organization is a non-profit and because they are serving those in poverty, they are not extremely dissatisfied with them but are not particularly motivated by them. Clearly

they would like to be rewarded with incentives, because they do mention compensation through additional time off and financial incentives for exceptional work. Robert Behn tells us that appropriate measurement of goal achievement must be chosen for a given circumstance because what is measured is what actually gets done (2003). Schein tells us that, while this is true, to create a positive culture, a belief in this measurement must be shared across all levels. To do this, an employee must be able to trust his or her own evaluation of his or her own work, must be getting regular input from those above, must obtain feedback from someone outside (like a co-worker), and must be able to trust hard data (Schein, 1990). The CFB is largely dependent on numbers and, therefore, measures much of its organizational success on numbers of boxes distributed, pounds of food distributed, and numbers of clients served. Volunteers are also encouraged with these numbers. Numbers tend to be one of the significant motivating forces that allow employees to feel successful and productive, which 95% report feeling in the 2011 Employee Satisfaction Survey. In all these elements of measurement, the one most lacking is exemplified by the 13% of employees who feel they are not getting regular feedback on their job performance. This may be a problem within a specific department, however, because there is no specification from which department the percentage of numbers comes from and 75% of all employees noted feeling that they are getting adequate feedback. All this focus on goals, goal achievement, and measurement of goals is important because these ideas add up to an employee‘s general attitude and, as Carnegie noted in his November 2011 interview, ―When people are happy, they are going to treat our clients in a friendly and positive manner. Everything is going to be positive. Drivers who are happy they are going to make [those making donations] feel good. When people come here and they have to stand in line for food—it's demoralizing for a lot of people, so as positive as possible that we can make that

experience, it makes us a stronger organization.‖ A strong organization with positive feedback from clients and a good image within the community will be more attractive to funders and those who make food and in-kind donations. Of the internal dimensions that Schein discusses, the one that has the most significant impact on the organizational culture of the CFB is the distribution of power and the importance that everyone be granted some level of power and limitations around that power (1990). This power must be specifically granted. Soonhee Kim's article demonstrated a positive relationship between a participative strategic planning process and job satisfaction, resulting in better attendance, loyalty to the organization, reduced stress, and longer-term employment (2002). This may be due to a better buy-in from employees because they are more involved in making decisions that they feel are appropriate and effective. The most recent strategic plan was designed with goals from Feeding America and left blank, with the intention of having each employee‘s input on creating a plan of process for achieving those goals. This took many months and orchestration, but the CFB followed through with the process and the plan was built with input from all employees, working from the top down to every employee and then sent back up the hierarchy to the CEO and board, where the strategic plan was put together. Beyond adding to morale, this helps the employees to effectively work together and within their organization, strengthening both member identification and group identification, to establish effective processes, of which employees are well aware of the nuances because they are the ones that actively perform those processes each day. When employees feel they are working through their jobs in the most effective way they know--not simply with some ideas that the ―upper-level‖ managers think are good ideas without seeking input--the buy-in becomes even stronger and the productivity higher (Kim, 2002).

Some deeper issues are also addressed by Schein that require all members of an organization be aware of the human nature of relationships. Of this, he suggests that issues of hierarchy and power must be addressed; that all members must feel safe, comfortable, and productive; and that personal relationships must be built (1990). The CFB‘s attempt at identifying these issues has been the Human Resource Team's development of the Employee Satisfaction Survey that revealed the issues with communication and decision-making, so that they could be directly addressed with many of the above actions. Additionally, it revealed some issues that were entirely unexpected by leadership and management: a single reference to a recurring instance of sexual harassment and a serious break-down in the intended culture of communication. Though the survey was anonymous and there was no way for leadership to determine who had made the comment, Carnegie issued a call to all employees to come forward and formally report the incident, otherwise he would have no idea of the details or the perpetrator. Eventually, a woman came forward and told her story. It revealed that, not only was an investigation in order, but that she had, indeed, reported the incident to the appropriate person. That person did not know how to deal with the report and chose to act as if he had never heard it. Eventually, several other women came forward to report incidents of sexual harassment from the same individual that the first woman had reported. After the investigation, two actions occurred: the individual was fired and the managers were educated on the formal process of dealing with such a report (Carnegie, 11/17). The reports of these incidents clarified procedures and hierarchy for which formalization is necessary to build a sense of safety (Rainey, 2003). This clarified what behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate within the designed culture, and deepened relationship between leadership and employees by actively taking an interest and following through. Hal Rainey ranks as one of the important elements to build an attractive organizational

culture the need for leaders to ―[r]eact to critical incidents and organizational crises in ways that send appropriate cultural messages. Crises provide opportunities for leaders to demonstrate fortitude, commitment to organizational members, and other values...‖ (2003).When a relationship like this is developed and loyalty tightened, a very important thing happens: the employee talks about the organization as a caring one—aside from having a mission to which a person can relate, aside from having goals that appropriately address the mission, aside from being a part of the decision-making process, the employee can feel that she can represent the organization as a stand-up organization that truly cares and respects the people who work there and the people they serve. In an organization in which employees have regular contact with clients, donors, and the public, this representation is invaluable in building an image for the community—an image that is not simply built on press releases, but one that is built with human contact.

Integration/ Conclusion: The real world is complex and the factors described above (environment, structure, strategy, leadership, and organizational culture) can affect each other. The following chart will elaborate on the ways in which each factor effects and is affected by one other:

Strategy

Environment
Environment

Leadership

Structure

Organizational Culture

Each organization has a different degree of dependence on the external environment, especially on the resources they rely on to accomplish their goals. In times of uncertainty, resource acquisition can difficult, requiring managers to be proactive and make decisions that will adapt to the external demands. As stated by Cameron and Zamuto, ―a condition of gradual resources cutback provides the impetus of a proactive managerial action‖ (1983). In the CFB,

environmental factors contribute to the leadership style of the board of directors and the CEO, Bill Carnegie. The board, which represents the southern Arizona community, has the responsibility of making decisions to fulfill the needs of the community. Recent research supports the hypothesis that board effectiveness is related to the use of certain prescribed board practices, and some research also supports the hypothesis that board effectiveness is related to overall nonprofit organizational effectiveness (Herman and Renz, 2004). This indicates the direct relationship the board has with the environment. Any change in the environment directly affects the decisions the board makes in order to obtain the resources required to achieve the CFB goals. On the other hand, Carnegie‘s leadership style is influenced by the ability he has to understand and address changes in the environment. Having a proactive leader like Carnegie, who is continuously making strategic decisions, is helping the CFB adapt to changes in the environment. His strategic choices, such as educating society, are helping the CFB educate people on how to grow crops which, in the long, run will decrease the amount of hungry people. Also, Carnegie has decided to increase alternatives such as: additional food drives, increasing marketing materials, and opening up more volunteer opportunities. Additionally, he is working on solidifying CFB‘s relationship with city council members, county supervisors, and state representatives, in order to obtain resources which help the CFB reduce uncertainty. Lastly, his decision on cooperating with other organizations, such as Feeding America, helps the CFB obtain additional resources, which are always advantageous in achieving their goal of feeding the hungry. The leadership of the CFB influences the environment in additional ways. The board of directors impacts the environment because it can gather support throughout the community for the food bank. It is expected that their influence will help the food bank find opportunities for

new partnerships that will benefit the CFB and help it reach their goals. Furthermore, board members are known for having connections to funders, which provide monetary resources. These funds become a part of the resources that the CFB brings in, meaning that the board influences whether or not effectiveness can be achieved in the system resource model. Carnegie, CEO, has similar connections as the board. He participates in strategic networking, seeking out opportunities and convincing others to help, which again influences the environment (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007). Carnegie and the board are utilizing funders, volunteers, and partnerships which limits other organizations use of these same contacts. Essentially, the CFB board and CEO have formed many connections within southern Arizona, that remove opportunities for funding/partnerships/volunteers from similar organizations that are trying to gather resources and/or use those resources to accomplish goals. Carnegie influences the environment in other ways as well—he works with the government and politicians to find further support for the programs that the CFB pursues. Carnegie talks to as many politicians in southern Arizona that he can, to get support for CFB at the government level. Again, his ability to acquire this support may take away opportunities for others, influencing the environment. The government cannot take on every problem, meaning that Carnegie has the job of convincing the politicians that the CFB is worth it. Once he has done this though, politicians can bring new ideas into Congress about programs that would substantially further the mission of the CFB. Without Mr. Carnegie‘s influence on the environment, the CFB may not be able to receive any attention from the government because other organizations will have convinced the politicians that some particular organizations have more worth. Carnegie also has to control (as best he can) what the media says about the food bank,

ensuring that the image of the food bank stays positive. Recently, the media reported that the CFB was handing out food to the Occupy Tucson movement downtown—an incorrect statement because Carnegie and the board believe in remaining neutral in politics (Carnegie, 11/17). A CFB truck had been seen delivering food in an area close to the Occupy Tucson movement and it was assumed that the food bank was delivering food to the protesters. In reality, the drop off location was one that had always been there and the Occupy Tucson protestors just happened to be in that location. The media, therefore, reported incorrectly that the food bank didn‘t have enough food for the holidays but it did have enough for the Occupy Tucson followers. Carnegie needed to influence the media by instead sending a truck without the CFB logo on it, protecting the image of the food bank. By doing this, he helped to prevent another miscommunication about the CFB‘s involvement in the political movement (Hitzeman, 11/17). It is part of Carnegie‘s job to always make the CFB look good to outsiders because the image of the food bank can heavily affect whether or not the goals and resources are accomplished and received. First, if the image of the food bank is negative, it might deter low-income persons who need the help that the food bank is providing. If so, then the food bank will not meet its mission of helping all of those in need. Additionally, a bad media image could deter funders and opportunities for partnerships that are so important for the CFB. Therefore, Mr. Carnegie‘s leadership can and should influence the environment because of the negative and positive effects that has on the ability of the organization to achieve its goals or acquire necessary resources which determine the effectiveness of the CFB The leadership of CFB influences the CFB‘s strategy. This relationship seems obvious since it is the job of the board of directors and the CEO to set the strategy for the organization. Carnegie‘s closer connection to FA could have been one factor that made him see the need for

the change to a five-county distribution area. FA considers the southern Arizona counties outside of Pima County to be underserved areas for which the CFB is responsible. This change in distribution area not only changes what is considered in the mission to be the ―community‖ of the CFB, but also changes the environment the CFB is working in. This change in service area effectively transforms what it means for the CFB to meet its goals and changes the area from which resources can be gathered and to which resources need to be distributed. Secondly, Carnegie‘s closer tie to FA has set the strategy areas that need to be addressed in the new strategic plan by adopting FA‘s goals as a starting framework for strategy creation. In this way, Carnegie allows the CFB to meet the unique needs of its community within the stated goals FA has for its network members. Finally, Carnegie‘s decision to include staff in the creation of the last two strategic plans has certainly influenced the strategic direction of the CFB. This bottomup process for creating strategy ties into Carnegie‘s idea that those who do the work every day have greatest insight into what has to be done to improve services and ensure greater buy-in from CFB employees since they were part of the plan creation. Leadership‘s also has an influence on structure. The CFB board determines who will be the CEO and also approves what the structure of the organization will look like. By choosing Carnegie as CEO the board has chosen someone who sets the tone of what the organizational culture is. The culture that Carnegie has created is one of openness and support. In an interview on November 17th, Carnegie says that he tries to make the decision-making process available to everyone so that all can have a voice and feel heard. This tone of ―openness‖ influences the informal structure of the organization. When Carnegie took over as CEO, after the four years without a permanent CEO at the CFB, there were obvious negative effects from the changes that were occurring in the organization. There were departmental silos, in which ―cliques‖ were

formed. None of the groups within the CFB were collaborating on projects or assisting each other in day-to-day activities. Carnegie changed this around by simply telling everyone that they can and should help each other. He also eliminated a rumor mill that had been circulating within the organization (11/17). Carnegie‘s influence helped to change the informal structure of the organization, allowing people to feel more comfortable about crossing lines that were believed to be taboo. The informal structure of an organization is important because it can be one that encourages collaboration. With collaboration comes the ability to be more efficient and possibly more effective when considering the goal approach model. Structure is generally said to follow strategy, but in the case of CFB, they both have impacts on one another. One of the strategies, since Carnegie became CEO, has been to increase a sense of unity among staff by modifying the informal structure to opening up new channels of communication and by uniting the different programs. Previously, each program had its own logo, color scheme, etc., but to achieve a more united front, Carnegie required that every program use the CFB logo (Tucker, 11/17). Increased staff unity helps achieve organizational goals because employees are happier, do their jobs better, and are more likely to help one another. At the same time, it improves CFB‘s ability to obtain resources because accomplishments are more likely to be attributed to CFB as a whole rather than to an individual program and funders will have a better impression of them as a cohesive, well put together, organization. Another example involves the current structure in which each manager oversees a series of processes within a specific program. This design can most likely be attributed to Woods‘ policy that encouraged staff members to try to secure funding for a variety of programs, which basically made each program its own entity and, therefore, required its own staff for each

task. At the time, this strategy helped CFB diversify and attract new funding, but today, the resulting structure is inefficient, which is discussed below. As was just mentioned, currently, each manager oversees a number of steps within his or her respective program. However, if each process were combined with its counterparts in the other programs so that, for example, packaging of food was overseen by one manager instead of one for each program, it would be much more efficient. Each manager would become an expert at the process they oversaw, rather than a Jack-of-all-trades. A final example of structure impacting strategy is the loss of a $600,000 grant from the CDC. Without the renewal of this grant or an alternative, half of the center staff positions will disappear. Unfortunately, this seems to be the reality, which is going to have a significant impact on strategy in terms of finding ways to continue programs with fewer staff and, if programs are cut, ensuring that the mission and goals are still being met. The CFB‘s organizational culture is largely impacted by leadership, but it is only as strong as the structure—the managers who carry it through to the whole staff. Culture varies from department to department with different incentives offered by different managers, depending on their style. But, because the CFB is so small and Carnegie makes an effort to stay in regular contact with all levels, organizational culture can still be modeled and carried through, allowing for the sense of closeness and caring that Carnegie is concerned with. Additionally, the changes made in decision-making and opportunities for communication that have been instituted—all-staff meetings, newsletters, ―frying pan chats‖, the Human Resources Team, and the organizationally understood ―open door policy‖—have all created a positive culture that allows employees to continue to speak of improvements to be made. This builds an organization

in which members are driven by the mission, but can feel supported by the culture and maintain, or even exude, a belief in the organization and its intentions. When considering the systems resource approach, this has a direct impact on one the most invaluable environmental resources the CFB can utilize: volunteers deeply affect the functioning of the CFB. 152,436 hours have been provided by volunteers—over $1 Million in comparable funds if paid minimum wage (Volunteer Hours, 2011). Employees are the people who work in direct contact with volunteers. Employees are the people who train them, oversee them, motivate and model for them. Employees are the ones who make sure volunteers have a purpose and know what effect their assistance is having on the community for each 4-hour session they work. They are the people who convince volunteers to return and to bring in new volunteers. With 1060 volunteers working at the CFB last year, and those volunteers packing a bulk of the food boxes that provide food to over 225,000 people each month, the CFB has been effective in acquiring and retaining one of its most important resources (Annual Report, 2010). Oftentimes the environment is viewed as an untouchable force to which all entities within it must respond. However, Rainey notes that organizations at times ―enact‖ their environment through decisions (2003). For CFB, a number of their strategies actually impacted and shaped their environment. An example is the decision to become a member of FA. There were certain criteria for membership, which for the CFB, included expanding the service area from Pima County to a total of five counties. Expanding the service area meant that the environment affecting CFB was no longer Pima County, but now a broader area with different challenges and opportunities. CFB‘s goals are not only able to be met on a larger scale, but also, more funding sources are available. Additionally, the informal strategy, when Punch Woods was CEO, that encouraged small agencies to come to CFB for food, instead of becoming competitors of food

acquisition and funding, had a significant environmental impact. Unlike Phoenix, the service area of CFB has not seen the rise of any other large-scale food banks, in large part due to this informal strategy. In effect, Woods‘ strategy inhibited the introduction of competitors that would have threatened CFB‘s access to resources. Recommendations: Based on a system‘s resource and goal approach analysis the following recommendations are suggested: Recommendation One: allow structure to follow strategy more. Presently, structure is broken down by function at the Management Team level, but is then divided by program rather than by function at the manager and lower levels. This means that multiple programs pack and distribute different types of boxes. Efficiencies could be enhanced by structuring by function and having one box production department and one box distribution department. Similarly, multiple divisions attend events to distribute information about their own CFB programs. It may be more efficient and effective to have one department handle this type of public relation function, while the different program staff utilize their time for program-related functions rather than program promotion. Having one department handling all public relation functions may also help with solidifying a unified brand for the CFB. Recommendation Two: continue to increase communication and foster an open organizational culture. Making sure all levels feel included in decision-making and valued will ensure that the CFB continues to have a culture that attracts and retains quality staff, volunteers and donors that serve clients with respect. Communication will become even more difficult as the CFB continues to expand in their five-county service area, and as the staff and volunteer force continues to grow in number.

Recommendation Three: ensure that networking is multiplex. Multiplexity describes the strength of network ties based on the number and types of links (Provan, et al, 2005). Carnegie is actively engaged in many networks that contribute to the overall effectiveness of the CFB, as has already been discussed. However, the CFB should ensure that these network ties, and those of other CFB staff who are involved in networking, would not be lost if any single employee left the organization. The best way to ensure network continuity is to create ties that involve multiple staff and encompass multiple activities with the same network partners. The CFB can also identify organizations with which they have weak ties so that they can strengthen those ties and establish new ties that do not currently exist. It may be advantageous to allow some ties which may no longer be valuable to weaken in order to allocate valuable staff time to more productive networking objectives (Provan, et al, 2005).

Appendix A: Sample of Interview Questions
Who: Organization: Date: Time: Bill Carnegie, CEO Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona Tucson, AZ November 17, 2011 10:00 a.m., Mountain Standard Time

-Bill- did you start your own food bank? What type of background do you have in food banks? -Is the Community Food Bank a ―Federation‖ underneath the oversight of Feeding America? -what level of commitment do you have to Feeding America? - What type of requirements do you need to have to get funding from ―Feeding America‖? -How dedicated are you to Feeding America? Would you say that you take direction from their program when making decisions at the Community Food Bank? -What is your plan to network- with other organizations and with people in the field? -Bill- Are you involved in all three forms of networking (operational, personal, strategic)? - I know that you are on a lot of other non-profit boards, how does your relationship with these other organizations help/benefit the food bank? -Bill- what do you do to help focus the goals and prevent goal displacement? -Bill and Management team: do you think that running the farm takes away from providing food the public? In general, do the activities that are not ―feeding the poor‖ contribute or take away from the mission? -What kind of culture are you trying to build and how do you build it? -Do you think the informal structure follows the formal structural process? -What would you say is your managerial style? Can you give us an example? -How do you help create loyalty among your staff? -Do you recall an occurrence in which you had to stand up for your staff? -Do you think that there is a division between the employees who have been there the longest and those who have been there the least amount of time? -How do you help make the mission matter to employees and volunteers? -What do you do to motivate your staff? (people are motivated by friendship, support and loyalty) -Do you pay attention to politics and how they are affecting your organization? What does your organization do to influence policy making. - For the first strategic plan was there any planning about what to do once it ended? (after the three years-1,000 days) -What are the short-term goals of your organization? -How do you ―Brand‖ your organization? Do you have an estimate of how much your ―brand‖ is worth? -What strategies attract donors? -How do you determine what your priorities are? -Do you ever let the experts speak to the public (i.e. scientists, farmers...) instead of you? -What do you do to motivate your staff? (people are motivated by friendship, support and loyalty) -How does your organization measure effectiveness?

Appendix B: Volunteer Survey

Volunteer Assessment of the Community Food Bank Volunteer Program - 2011
There were 47 total responses, with most people responding to all questions. Statistics for each question were: Do you think volunteers are well accepted by staff at the Community Food Bank? (n=47) 2011: 98% Well accepted 2010: 92% Well Accepted 2% Mixed 4% Mixed Acceptance 0% Not well accepted 4% Not Well Accepted Do you think volunteers are accepted and welcomed by clients? (n=39) 2011:95% Well accepted 2010: 97% Well Accepted 5% Mixed 3% Mixed Acceptance 0% Not well accepted 0% Not well Accepted How comfortable do you feel with the assignments you are given? (n=47) 2011: 96% Comfortable 2010: 100% Comfortable 4% Mixed 0% Mixed Do you feel you received sufficient orientation about our agency before you began work?(n=47) 2011: 92% Yes 2010: 89% Yes 8% No 11% No Do you feel that you are given enough information to carry out your assignments? (n=47) 2011: 100% Yes 2010: 96% Yes 0% No 4% No Do you find your work purposeful, challenging and rewarding?(n=47) 2011: 100% Yes 2010: 97% Yes 0% No 3% Mixed Do you receive enough feedback by those you work with? (n=46) 2011: 94% Yes 2010: 99% Yes 6% No 1% No Do you feel your efforts are recognized at the Community Food Bank?(n=47) 2011: 100% Yes 2010: 98% Yes 0% No 2% No

On a scale of 1 to 5 how would you rate our volunteer program?(n=47) 2011: 4.7% average 77% (5) 2010: 83% (5) 21% (4) 14% (4) 2% (3) 3% (3)

Summary of Comments
Can you think of any new areas or new jobs in which volunteers might be of help to our agency?  Some times I feel unneeded. Not enough to do. Volunteers like to be kept busy  Cross train for different areas so we can help out when needed  I am very satisfied  More cooking classes/demos. Maybe provide recipe ideas? I sometimes get questions from clients about how to cook some of the produce they receive.  What I most appreciated was having a job that was not "over staffed." I felt great about my efforts and needed. MJ was a terrific boss.  More organization. Coffee in the break room.  No. I'm really enjoying my experience with CFB. It's a great organization.  Doing great as is - but do miss the free treats during our break  I look forward to my time at the food bank. I do other volunteering but this is by far my favorite.  A greeter in the lobby directing clients to Food Plus or TEFAP food boxes who is professional, courteous, and bi-lingual - not a community service volunteer unless he/she has extraordinary social skills. How can we enhance your experience at the Community Food Bank?  Keep volunteers busy - as much as possible be sure there is enough work  Better communication thru mail or email.  I loved doing it  How come I have to make coffee so often?  I wish I had had more computer training. Additional Comments regarding the Community Food Bank Volunteer Program. Responses Included the Following:  Thank you for the opportunity  I feel the volunteers should receive food snacks on our breaks. We work for free. It is the least you could do.  I really enjoy my time there and would like to do special events when needed.  The volunteer dept is well run and I am grateful to be able to participate in the work of the food bank. Thanks!  Working with good people and helping the clients who I found terrific.

      

This is one of the most efficiently run organizations for which I've had the pleasure of volunteering. Thank you!! More organization would help. Tell us when we come the plan for the day. People in charge need to be more in charge. As at the volunteer lunch - "We will eat by tables" then no one took charge and we did not go by tables. fun working at food bank and meeting others. I'm seriously going to miss distributing boxes at the parks and Tucson House. I not only enjoyed becoming familiar with the usual recipients, but also enjoyed working with a small team of volunteers and MJ. Anthony is so great to work for. Love the program. Hope to do this for a long time. I continue to feel that helping at special events could be more fully clarified. Parking for the volunteers should be arranged for, as well as their role and demeanor at the event clarified. Some events encourage friendly mingling, while others require silent standing with a food/cash bucket. I also think that we have too many volunteers at some events, and there is not enough to do.

Compiled: April 21, 2011

Appendix C: Employee Satisfaction Survey 2011 Sample

Appendix D: Volunteer Hours

Attachments: Organizational Chart, Works Cited