On 6/6/2016 2:47 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 09:02:59 -0500, dejamos wrote:
>
>> On 6/5/2016 1:39 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:02:55 -0600, Janet B wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health...-scare-n585531
>>>
>>> We have a 22-page book of all the brands and varieties of sunflower
>>> seed products that have been recalled from dressings to granola bars.
>>> These massive recalls like this are a bitch for food banks to sort
>>> through because they can get donations of this stuff from now until 3
>>> years from now. Sunflower seeds, tuna, mac & cheeze, Pilgrim's
>>> chicken, cumin, frozen vegetables, now flour... Over 52 million
>>> pounds of foods are always on recall within the last 18 months.
>>>
>> I never thought about that aspect of the recalls. I read several years
>> ago that donating money rather than food provides more and better
>> options for the food banks, so that is what I do. Given your
>> experiences, would you agree with that?
>
> Food Banks want money because it's more versatile and also pays
> salaries and operating costs.
>
> There is a lot of overhead having to sort through random donations
> collected from individuals (about 20% of the total donations) and from
> grocery stores/distributors/manufacturers (80%). They have to pay for
> trucks and drivers to pick the stuff up from grocery stores and then
> they have to pay staff to run the volunteers that do the bulk of the
> inspecting and sorting of those items. This donated food is virtually
> free to the food bank and accounts for about 25% of the food bank's
> total revolving inventory.
>
> OTOH, money provides the ability for food banks to buy USDA-subsidized
> food for about $.15-$.20 on the dollar. If a can of beets costs $.50
> wholesale then they can buy 10-12 cans for $1. This food isn't free,
> but it's very low cost and doesn't require sorting and much
> inventorying since it comes on pallets and is distributed by the case
> (to food pantries). The food obtained this way accounts for about 75%
> of the food bank's total inventory.
>
> So figure that can of beets you paid $.80 for and donated could, if in
> the form of cash, have been turned into 2 cans of USDA-subsidized
> beets and still have $.50 leftover to pay for operating costs.
> Buying food at retail *specifically* to give to the food bank is by
> far the least economical way to support the cause.
>
> About 90% of the cash contributions come from SMB's, corporations, and
> families who have set up philanthropic funds. About 10% comes from
> Joe Schmoe - most of that around the holidays. Our food bank has
> raised an extra $25 million in the past few years to pay for a new
> facility that opens in a couple weeks, so they are fairly good at
> raising money.
>
> Yes, they would rather have money than food. It's not greed or
> anything underhanded, it's just much more economical. Unfortunately a
> lot of people are of the attitude that they'll buy a homeless person a
> McDonalds Value Meal, but they would never give them the $5 to buy it
> themselves. And they don't trust a lot of charities to handle the
> money wisely either.
>
> -sw
>
That certainly confirms what I had read. Thank you for the more
detailed explanation. I will continue to donate money rather than food
to my local food bank. I want my contribution to do the most good,
whether it is to buy extra food or to pay for the staff and operating
costs required to run it.