The Capital Area Food Bank board has decided to change a policy that will have a significant impact on its 700 members. Its members, area food banks, will soon have to pay ten cents a pound for fresh fruit and vegetables. The revenue will help offset the costs of rising transportation and food prices. The consequence means that some members will have to increase their own budgets, in some cases, significantly, or find some other way to find the same items without the added cost (recognizing thought that just the process of acquiring these items from different sources means increased indirect or volunteer costs).
I wonder whether or not the Capital Area Food Bank, in not originally assessing a cost for these items, was really doing a service in the first place. Not having ever assessed a fee historically makes this move appear as an onerous act. One might also argue from a marketing framework, no fee has lowered the perceived value of the offerings (free is often perceived as "no value"). And, of course, the Food Bank had these costs all along although perhaps not as high as today.
So, the decision to charge certainly makes sense on many levels. And yes, there is a consequence for the members. But isn't a nonprofit board's first obligation to ensure the financial wellness of its organization or else threaten the accomplishment of its mission (which I'm guessing is to increase the access to wholesome food to its members)? A ten cents a pound charge continues to meet mission and address these issues.
For details on the story, visit the Washington Post.