Harbor Food Network: New Pantries or Policy Advocacy
The Harbor Food Network has a three-year, $1.1 million grant and 14 staff. Option A would expand direct service by opening two new food pantries in the northern county, where 22% of residents report food insecurity and the nearest pantry is 18 miles away; each pantry costs $280,000 to launch and $190,000 annually. Option B would launch a policy advocacy campaign for a state grocery tax credit, budgeting $350,000 per year for a lobbyist, research, and coalition organizing; a similar campaign in a neighboring state took four years and won a credit worth $60 million annually. The grant requires measurable outcomes within 36 months. The network's existing pantries serve 8,400 households monthly but run at 92% volunteer capacity. A board member warns that advocacy could jeopardize relationships with lawmakers who control other funding.
1. Recommend one option. Explain how the grant's 36-month outcome requirement affects your choice.
Read the worked answer
I would recommend Option A, the two new pantries, because the grant requires measurable outcomes within 36 months and Option A can produce them. Each pantry costs $280,000 to launch and $190,000 annually; two pantries would cost $560,000 to launch and $380,000 per year, or $1.14 million over three years before any fundraising. That is slightly above the $1.1 million grant, so the network would need to close a small gap, but the spending maps onto a deliverable: two facilities serving a county where 22% report food insecurity and the nearest pantry is 18 miles away. Option B's own comparison is a four-year campaign, which exceeds the grant period. A tax credit worth $60 million annually would be transformative, but the network cannot claim that outcome in 36 months; it can only claim intermediate steps. The 92% volunteer capacity is a constraint, but it is a management problem the network can address with the launch budget.
2. Respond to the board member's concern about political risk.
Read the worked answer
The board member is right that advocacy carries political risk, and the response should not be that the risk is imaginary. Lawmakers who control other funding may punish a nonprofit that lobbies against their tax positions, and a grocery tax credit could be framed as a tax increase. The network should separate lobbying from education: it can publish research, convene coalition partners, and meet with legislators without endorsing candidates or attacking individual officials. It should also diversify its funding base before the campaign so that one lawmaker's displeasure cannot cripple core services. But this concern cuts toward sequencing, not rejection. If the network waits until political risk is zero, it will never advocate. The real question is whether the grant's 36-month clock makes the risk worth taking now; my answer is no, because the measurable outcome is too distant.
3. What assumption about the advocacy campaign is most important, and how would you test it?
Read the worked answer
The most important assumption is that the neighboring state's four-year campaign succeeded because of the advocacy campaign, not because of a pre-existing legislative coalition, a budget surplus, or a governor's priority. If the $60 million credit was already on the legislative agenda, Harbor's campaign would be claiming credit for a trend. To test this, the network should interview coalition partners in the neighboring state and review the campaign's internal timeline: when did the credit first have a sponsor, committee hearing, and floor vote? It should also model what intermediate outcomes, such as a bill introduction or a committee hearing, would count as progress by month 30. If those milestones are unlikely, the advocacy option is a bet the grant cannot underwrite.