Food bank decisions: worked out examples

A useful first answer is:

“I recommend protecting weekly access to the underserved area before choosing on cost per meal. The warehouse quote is £2 per meal of additional capacity, but it has not established delivered-meal costs or shown that it can meet the access requirement. I would compare the truck with a fully costed alternative that includes delivery to that area, rather than approving the warehouse upgrade alone.”

The initial ratios use the output each proposal quotes:

• Truck: £60,000 ÷ 20,000 additional meals = £3 per meal.
• Warehouse: £20,000 ÷ 10,000 meals of additional capacity = £2 per meal of capacity, before confirming delivery.

They are not yet comparable solutions to the complete problem. The cheaper option is missing a required service.

Measure whether food reaches the people the programme is intended to serve. Adding distribution capacity helps only if it improves that access.

An additional meal supported by warehouse capacity still needs food supply, handling and a workable route to recipients. Ask whether the 10,000 figure represents capacity created, meals made available or meals actually expected to be delivered.

Establish whether the plans serve the same people. An improvement at the central site may help households who can travel there while leaving distance and transport barriers unchanged for others.

In your closing answer, make the gap concrete: “The warehouse proposal needs a funded weekly delivery plan for the underserved area.” That is more useful than a generic warning about equity.

Asked for delivery costs and the available budget, the interviewer supplies Exhibit 1: fully costed programme options within £60,000. The warehouse team now confirms that its 10,000 meals can be delivered through existing channels, with those costs included, but those channels do not establish weekly access in the underserved area. The transport team also supplies a smaller route option. All meal counts below are incremental annual deliveries:

Assume the two meal counts in the hybrid serve separate demand, enough food and staff are available, and the quoted costs include the coordination needed. Those conditions make the comparison usable.

The hybrid delivers 18,000 meals for £60,000. The full truck delivers 20,000 meals for the same budget and also meets the access requirement. Under the supplied objective of maximising additional meals while protecting weekly access, the full truck programme is better by 2,000 meals.

The warehouse's £2 unit cost remains true. It does not make the hybrid the best complete plan because retaining the minimum route uses £40,000 to deliver 8,000 meals.

I would recommend the full truck programme in this version of the case.

Now suppose the transport team can provide the same minimum weekly route for £30,000, still delivering 8,000 meals. The warehouse improvement costs £20,000, leaving £10,000 of the budget.

Do not immediately spend the remainder at £2 per meal. That unit cost came from a particular £20,000 project; it does not prove that the warehouse can keep adding meals at the same rate.

If the interviewer confirms that an additional £10,000 buys another 5,000 delivered meals, with capacity and demand available, the hybrid reaches 23,000 meals: 8,000 on the protected route plus 15,000 through the warehouse-supported channels. It now beats the truck's 20,000.

If no further expansion is feasible, the hybrid remains at 18,000 meals and simply spends less. You would then ask how the charity values the remaining £10,000 or whether it can fund another useful programme. The objective determines the choice.

A hybrid may use the truck to distribute meals counted in the warehouse proposal. In that case, adding both totals would count the same meals twice.

Ask where each additional meal goes and which activity makes it possible. Likewise, check whether transport, refrigeration, volunteer coordination and food supply are included once in the complete budget. A programme cannot use the same donated stock or volunteer hours simultaneously in two separate forecasts.

You do not need to list every operating detail in the final minute. Mention the one that remains material to your chosen plan and give an owner responsibility for confirming it.

Return to Exhibit 1, where the minimum truck route costs £40,000 and no extra warehouse expansion has been confirmed. For that original comparison, a strong answer is:

“I recommend the full truck programme. It meets the weekly access requirement and delivers 20,000 additional meals within the £60,000 budget, 2,000 more than the feasible hybrid. Before committing, the operations lead should confirm the food supply, staffing and delivery schedule supporting that volume.”

Practise updating the recommendation when the cheaper route and additional warehouse capacity become available. Then try Food Bank Capacity in the final-synthesis library.