Use of Crisis Communication Strategies by Food Bank Network During a Global Pandemic

1 Introduction

Crises, or unprecedented events outside predictable events, bring an automatic expectation for effective communication between communities and organizations. This communication is also expected to be comprehended by a diverse range of audiences, cognizant of potential communication infrastructure challenges, and an awareness of how crisis communication plans and strategies are impacted by the crisis (Chandler 2010; Choi 2008; Coombs 2012; Drabek 2016; Haupt 2021; Haupt and Azevedo 2021, 2022; Seeger 2006). These aspects are especially critical for disaster response and recovery related service oriented nonprofit organizations, such as food banks and pantries. Understanding how crisis strategies are utilized within nonprofit organizations and their collaborators, including information sharing within a network, and how crisis can impact communication within a network beyond the crisis is of paramount importance as nonprofits are increasingly playing critical roles in community development and recovery efforts (Azevedo, Bell, and Medina 2022).

During the 2020 novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), a type of biological crisis, nonprofit organizations needed to quickly rethink their crisis strategies concerning the sustainability of their organizations along with strategic communication (Azevedo, Haupt, and Markoski, 2022; Choi 2008; Coombs 2012; Haupt 2021; Haupt and Azevedo 2022). Due to their key involvement in disaster response and recovery activities, their current and future stability hinges on planning for how crises can negatively impact their reputational and operational capacity as not preparing, or exercising crisis communication plans, can be devastating. The most widely utilized theory in supporting and understanding crisis communication strategies is situational crisis communication theory (SCCT). Utilizing SCCT, a method which connects response strategies to crisis situations with specific adaptations for community needs and crisis type (Coombs and Holladay 2002; Gamage 2016), is an appropriate method for exploring how community-based organizations respond to crisis through instructing stakeholders of organizational response strategies, adjusting their organization based on information about the crisis, and sharing information at the onset of crisis.

This exploratory study focuses on the impact of COVID-19 on the Federation of Virginia Food Banks (FVFB), which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit state association of food banks affiliated with Feeding America and is the largest hunger-relief network in the state of Virginia (FVFB 2021). A survey was sent to the FVFB, which supports seven regional Virginia/Washington DC food banks in aspects such as building partnerships, securing resources, sharing data, and raising awareness of food insecurity throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. The unprecedented breadth and depth of the pandemic’s impact presented unique opportunities for understanding how service-oriented nonprofits, who must share timely and accurate information across stakeholders and work closely with partner organizations, can deliver services during crisis periods. Therefore, this exploratory study sought to answer the following research questions through a quantitative and qualitative survey, which are grounded in SCCT: (1) What crisis communication strategies were utilized by the FVFB during the pandemic based on their community needs and crisis understanding? and (2) How did the respondents incorporate information gathering, dissemination, and adaptation in their communities?

The following section of this study will provide information on the role of nonprofit organizations and crises, a discussion of general and nonprofit specific crisis communication strategies, theoretical foundation based on SCCT, and a profile on the Federation of Virginia Food Banks. Following the methods, results and discussion segments, the researchers present practical implications for nonprofit organizations and their crisis response and recovery networks and insights into the needs for nonprofit organizations to engage in crisis communication planning for diverse crises and planning resources.

2 Nonprofit Organizations, Crises, and Collaborative Capacity

Nonprofits are often well positioned to support their communities during crises, due to their established networks and place within their communities, and often already having programs and structures in place to support vulnerable groups. Although nonprofits have historically mobilized citizens and resources during times of civil unrest and other disasters, these efforts were not always organized. Now, their unique positioning makes them well situated to respond to many of these complex social issues during crises like mobilize volunteers and resources, build and develop community, increase activism, provide and tailor holistic services, innovate service delivery, promote social values, create civic activism, and increase capacity and accessibility through co-production and community involvement (Almog-Bar 2018; Azevedo, Bell, and Medina 2022; Bode and Brandsen 2014; Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Hu, Knox and Kapucu 2014; Kapucu 2006, 2007; Kapucu, Yuldashev and Feldheim 2011; Niles et al. 2021). They also have more flexibility than government agencies in responding to crises (Steuerle 2002) and can work collaboratively with other agencies to mobilize resources even more quickly due to their geographic locality; thus, nonprofit networks require a better understanding of how crisis response and communication are organized.

Collaborative capacity, or the ability of nonprofit organizations and their collaborators to work together to pursue collective community outcomes, are essential in understanding nonprofit crisis response. As governance mechanisms and strategies are increasingly networked to deal with complex problems and environmental contingencies, nonprofits require collaborative capacity to fulfil their missions more effectively. Nonprofit research and practice emphasize collaborative capacity within different levels: memberships, external relationships, internal organizational structure, and sponsored programs (Choi 2008; Foster-Fisherman et al. 2001). The importance of collaborative capacity and the role of nonprofits is highlighted in nonprofit, emergency management and public sector crisis literature. Connections are made during crises like the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina, the Boston Marathon Bombings, and more. During these crises, nonprofit organizations worked collaboratively to provide essential services, like donations and crisis funds, transportation and dissemination, sheltering, food services, and more (Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Hu, Knox and Kapucu 2014; Kapucu 2006, 2007; Kapucu, Yuldashev and Feldheim 2011; Niles et al. 2021).

Collaborative capacity is influenced by existing knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes brought to any collaboration (Choi 2008; Foster-Fisherman et al. 2001). To build successful collaborative capacity, Foster-Fisherman et al. (2001) suggest enhancing member competencies, creating new relationships, strengthening operations of the coalition, and promoting effective community-based program designs and implementation. Weber and Khademian (2008) further identify the need for a collaborative capacity builder, or network leader, who can successfully transfer, integrate, create, and apply new knowledge and who considers various perspectives and mindsets to address difficult problems. Partnerships among nonprofit and public agencies are improved by prior collaborative experience, trust, intensity of shared goals, and level of partnership investment (Gazley 2010). Intelligent improvisation, leadership, and community engagement are critical for the adaptive capacity of an organizational network (Choi 2008; Demiroz, Kapucu and Dodson 2013; Kapucu and Demiroz 2013).

3 Crisis Communication Strategies

Communication is an intentional activity incorporating a focus on transmitting messages and information processing by its recipients (Andersen 2015). Crises are considered unpredictable events that can negatively impact operations and reputations of organizations and presents learning opportunities that can lead to positive growth (Haupt 2021). The differentiation of negative and positive outcomes is done due to previous literature highlighting the opportunity to learn with each unprecedented event (Birkland 2009; Coombs 2012; Drupsteen and Guldenmund 2014; Toft and Reynolds 2016). Coombs (2012) generated a crisis typology utilized in this research (see Table 1 for crisis definitions). All types of crises present impossible conditions for those who are responsible for managing the response and recovery operations and are required to make timely decisions even if information about causes and consequences are unknown.

Within crisis communication strategies, a linear format parallels the emergency management communication strategies of before, during, and after, but there is a distinction between adapting to a crisis and those impacted, managing information and created a shared meaning (Coombs 2012; Drabek 1985; Ulmer, Sellnow and Seeger 2017; Walker 2012; Waugh and Streib 2006). Within the pre-crisis stage, it is critical for crisis communication officials to focus on planning and preparation along with being knowledgeable about policies and procedures and undergo training and exercises to identify any potential implementation challenges. The crisis response stage incorporates implementation of policies and procedures and adapting communication strategies with the influx of new information. The post-crisis stage concerns follow-up with stakeholders and returning to a sense of calm before preparing for the next event.

The main strategies for crisis communication revolve around message transference, time to disseminate, necessary components to include, comprehensibility, and potential response (Chandler 2010; Comfort 2007; Kapucu, Hawkins and Rivera 2013; Kapucu and Özerdem 2011; Sylves 2014; Waugh and Streib 2006). The linear format of general emergency management communication strategies, although widely used, is superficially detailed and leaves most of the decision making to those initiating the communication. Crisis communication strategies build upon general timeline approach and incorporates the need to adapt messages for local community needs, type of event, stakeholders involved, as well as involving a cyclical timeline where communication is constantly undergoing adaptation, instruction, and sharing (Benoit 1997; Comfort 2007; Coombs 2012; Coombs and Holladay 2002; Liu, Austin and Jin 2011; Massey 2001; Seeger 2006). The addition of the cyclical, or evolving structure of crisis communication has integrated concepts from SCCT, which is the theoretical component on which we base our understanding of crisis communication within the FVFB network.

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) is used to “evaluate the reputational threat posed by the crisis situation and then recommend crisis response strategies based upon the reputational threat level” (Coombs 2012, p. 138). SCCT takes an audience-centered approach and considers the reaction of stakeholders to a crisis along with how an individual and groups cognitively processes cause and effect within their environment (Coombs 2012; Sellnow and Seeger 2013; Ulmer, Sellnow and Seeger 2017; Walker 2012). SCCT is an important concept to base our understanding and exploration, due to its integration of attribution theory, or how individuals can process their environment and determine responsibility (Kelley 1967; Weiner 1985). Understanding that organizations must utilize strategies that are adapted to meet the needs that are prescribed from the community, this can help leaders and managers determine best strategies for positive reputation and resilience capacity (Coombs 2014).

For the purposes of this study, researchers focused on crisis communication strategies that connect to information processing, transmission, and dissemination, which are key concepts in SCCT. These strategies are also considered best practices in the crisis communication arena:

1. Use common (easy-to-understand) language to explain what is going on,

2. Use visual images to facilitate communication of information,

3. Identify the most important topics, and highlight these in communications,

4. Have a team that sifts through the information and decides what is most important from the institution’s perspective,

5. Provide tailored messages to different cultures within the community,

6. Provide communications in different languages for the community,

7. Develop letter or e-mail templates for staff and citizens to provide information when a crisis occurs,

8. Use a spokesperson with whom the community is familiar,

9. Use a set of consistent images and phrases in our communications,

10. Use of technology to disseminate information, and

11. Responding to rumors and gossip with factual information (Benoit 1997; Coombs 2012; Coombs and Holladay 2002; Haupt 2021; Haupt and Azevedo 2021, 2022; Liu, Austin and Jin 2011; Massey 2001; Seeger 2006).

It is important to note many crisis communication endeavors are well-intentioned, but the impact varies due to how the messages were sent, received, applied, and reacted to (Phillips and Morrow 2007).

Every communication situation during a crisis must be approached with consideration of many dynamics. Therefore, communicated messages are complex and ambiguous at the same time. Successful public communication seeks to balance the needs and expectations of all of these diverse audiences and speak to each of them while not miscommunicating to the remainder (Chandler 2010, p. 58).

This speaks to the important component of collaborative capacity within a crisis. Collaborative capacity includes frequent and open communication between members of the crisis network, staff, leaders, and the community (Fearn-Banks 2016; Foster-Fisherman et al. 2001; Kapucu 2006, 2007; Kapucu and Demiroz 2013; Kapucu, Yuldashev and Feldheim 2011). Open and honest communication with the public can also help to increase trust and the likelihood of receiving necessary support and assistance (Garcia 2020). Although crisis communication is particularly important for nonprofits due to their position of providing critical community services, nonprofits are especially vulnerable to crisis situations because they tend to be less likely than other sectors to have crisis communication plans due to limited staff and resources, including training, in addition to dedicated public relations personnel (Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Haupt 2021; Haupt and Azevedo 2021; Niles et al. 2021).

The critical relationship between communication and its impact is not a linear relationship, so nonprofit leaders must understand the complex phenomena of communication, know, and implement strategies focused on information processing, transmission, and dissemination along with impact (Coombs 2012; Fearn-Banks 2016; Haupt and Azevedo 2021; Reynolds and Seeger 2005; Seeger 2006). Several practical resources, such as a crisis communication planning framework, were established for nonprofit crisis communication planning (Haupt and Azevedo 2021), as this information is critical since nonprofit organizations continue to become more formally integrated into the crisis response and recovery system and provide programs and services related to community needs like sheltering, food distribution, and donations (Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Fearn-Banks 2016; Kapucu 2006, 2007; Kapucu and Demiroz 2013; Kapucu, Yuldashev and Feldheim 2011; Niles et al. 2021). Next, we explore food banks and look at the FVFB as a focus for understanding crisis communication strategies during COVID-19.

4 Food Banks and COVID-19 Impact

Food banks, or intermediary organizations focused on collection and distribution of food to hunger-relief agencies, needed to adapt quickly to the evolving protocols and new environment the COVID-19 pandemic created. A collaborative survey by Reuters and Charity Navigator described 75 % of food banks as being affected by COVID-19 (Dowdell and Lesser 2020, see also Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Niles et al. 2021). This critical impact was felt by numerous partner agencies as food banks distribute more than 70 % of food through local food pantries (Abou-Sabe et al. 2020). More than half of hunger relief nonprofits reduced their programs, due to limited availability of volunteers and food, just to meet increased demands (Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Dowdell and Lesser 2020; Niles et al. 2021).

Although food banks tend to rely on donations, the closure of partner organizations, like restaurants, casinos, hotels, and grocery stores, cut off a critical supply source. As a result, nonprofits shifted to purchasing most of their supplies directly causing a significant increase in costs. For example, the Food Bank for the Heartland in Omaha increased its monthly spending on food purchases from $73,000 to $675,000 (Kulish 2020). Feeding America, the largest network of food banks in the US and a connected agency to the Federation of Virginia Food Banks (FVFB), projected a shortfall of $1.4 billion within the first few months of the pandemic. Organizations like Northwest Harvest reported the increased need for hunger relief assistance skyrocketed from 800,000 to 1.6 million meals (Kulish 2020). Although some estimates for the food insecurity rate state an increase from 11–12 % to 38 % during 2020, the impact of food insecurity during COVID-19 is unknown (Leddy et al. 2020; Niles et al. 2021; Wolfson and Leung 2020).

Nonprofit organizations also faced challenges due to loss of volunteers (Shi et al. 2020). Elderly individuals make up a significant number of volunteers for food banks, but they are considered a vulnerable population within the pandemic. This status led many to stop their volunteer services. To adapt to this change, many food banks appealed to government assistance for National Guard personnel to assist in conducting activities, such as packaging and distributing food boxes (Abou-Sabe et al. 2020). Relying on non-traditional means of food preparation and government support continue to be important adaptations by hunger relief organizations.

Food banks also adapted to the guidelines for reduced contact between individuals (low touch, no touch) and enhanced social distancing. Some organizations shifted to pre-packaging their groceries as opposed to letting clients select the groceries (Alam 2022; Clay et al. 2018; Clay and Rogus 2021; Niles et al. 2021). Creation of low-contact drive-through food distribution centers was another adaptation that allowed clients to pick up pre-packaged and boxed non-perishable foods (Abou-Sabe 2020). Mobile markets also surfaced to transport products closer to their constituents along with some nonprofits taking online orders and delivering packaged goods to the clients via curbside pickup (Abou-Sabe 2020; Meiksins and Jarrin 2020), like grocery delivery service apps like Instacart. Other novel operational changes included take-home meals and meal packages from traditional dine-in services. The change in food distribution ensured that staff and clients were protected from exposure and reduced the risk of coronavirus transmission.

5 Methods

To determine what strategies were utilized by the FVFB during the pandemic, how the network incorporated information gathering, dissemination, and adaptation and the impact on collaboration and communication, this exploratory study utilized a survey to analyze regional level nonprofit organizations within the Federation of Virginia Food Banks (FVFB) network and identify the use of crisis communication strategies utilized or not-utilized by nonprofit organizations during the disaster response and recovery activities for COVID-19. Understanding that key issues in crises include coordination and communication, the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique opportunities for understanding how service-oriented nonprofits, who must share timely and accurate information across stakeholders and work closely with partner organizations, can effectively, efficiently, and equitably deliver services, collaborate, and communicate with the communities they are located within.

6 Results and Discussion

6.2 Multiple Factor Analysis

When the data was analyzed as a whole, the MFA identified 14 different significant factors that when combined, explained 83 % of the variance in the survey results. Factor 1 explained approximately 28 % of the variance while factors 2 and 3 explained roughly 13 % each. The rest of the factors accounted for between 1.5 and 7.7 % of the variance each. For factor 1, its highest loading on any of the variables was 0.8144 for impact communication by regional rep and its lowest loading was −0.0854 on information processing and presentation rumor response. This contrasts with factor 14 which had its highest loading on information processing and presentation rumor response (0.2717) on information processing and presentation familiar spokesperson (−0.0051). However, the results were a Heywood case where the uniqueness for at least one variable was less than zero. While the identification of 14 factors is still valid, the Heywood condition makes a discussion of practical interpretation questionable (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Scree plot of significant factors and eigenvalues for MFA analysis of all questions.

To better explore how respondents incorporated information gathering, dissemination, and adaptation (research question 2), we looked at an analysis of communication strategies on these concepts. For the MFA analysis of communications strategies, only 1 factor had an eigenvalue above the threshold and its factor loadings ranged from 0.439 to 0.7709. For information gathering, three factors had the requisite eigenvalues and explained 99.25 % of the variance. The uniqueness (i.e. the stochastic variance) of the variables ranged from 0.1514 to 0.7785. Two factors explaining 85.88 % of the variance were significant for information processing and presentation. The uniqueness for IPP variables ranged from 0.2375 to 0.7470. Strategies for information dissemination has 82.88 % of its variance explained by two factors as well. The uniqueness of the variables ranged from 0.2039 to 0.7697. Impacts were only affected by 1 factor. The variables ranged in uniqueness from 0.1683 to 6263. There were three factors that affected collaborative capacity and accounted for approximately 87.42 % of the variance (see Table 6). See Appendix B for factor loadings (Figure 2).

Table 6:

Number of significant factors and total variance explained for each subgroup.

Subset	Number of factors	Total variance explained
Commstrat	1	92.05
Infogath	3	99.25
IPP	2	85.88
SID	2	82.88
Imp	1	80.03
CC	3	87.42

Figure 2:

Score plot for organizations of collaborative capacity factors 1 and 2.

7 Discussion

With COVID-19 impacting most operations, FVFB needed to adapt their processes regarding hours of operation, food handling and distribution, donations, volunteer management, and communication. Participants noted gathering information occurred more from direct observations, reports from local food banks and pantries, state agencies, and newspapers with information from state and regional representatives ranking the lowest. This presents an opportunity for state and regional representatives to strengthen their relationships with local food banks and pantries and become a more sought out source during a crisis.

Disseminating information brought about more variability in terms of level of importance. The lowest ranking items included having a team sift through information to determine the most important messages along with tailoring messages for different cultures in the community. Variability was also seen in creating templates for easy message dissemination, utilizing a spokesperson the community is familiar with and using consistent images and phrases. The variability is an area for future research and an opportunity as it is critical adapt information for community needs and disseminate information in a way that community members can understand and act. Methods of tailoring communications, using a spokesperson, consistency in images and phrases all impact message comprehension. These actions also assist with building trust with community members during crisis periods.

In terms of collaboration, the most variability is seen for collaborating with state and regional representatives, business organizations, and media partners. These results are intriguing since positive relationships with these entities are ranked high, but collaboration when implementing crisis communication strategies is more variable. The disconnect between perception and implementation can negatively impact an organization’s operations during a crisis. Countering this disconnect is done through training of crisis communication plans and strategies during non-crisis periods when time is not as much of a factor. More importantly, training allows for more effective collaboration and coordination during crisis periods.

An additional interesting finding is the statistically significant relationship between information sharing with different community organizations and having adequate technology. As the pandemic pushed us into a more technologically based world, organizations are becoming increasingly dependent on technology to communicate. If food banks and pantries do not have the technology needed, then their communication capability is affected. An additional finding that bears more research is the latent variables appearing within the multifactor analysis.

This study advances our understanding of nonprofit networks and how they communicate after crisis. Utilizing SCCT as a prescriptive approach was seen in how leaders’ connected responses to strategies and emphasized adaptation to community needs during a pandemic. This was seen in the concept of information variability, tailored communications, and constancy and comprehension in messaging. The messaging responses of respondents in our survey are in line with expectations advocated in SCCT; that is, response strategies depend on crisis understanding and community context and leaders must be cognizant of reputation to remain resilient through complex crises (Coombs 2012; Coombs and Holladay 2002; Gamage 2016).

8 Conclusions

The pandemic presented unique opportunities for understanding how service-oriented nonprofits, who must share timely and accurate information across stakeholders and work closely with partner organizations, can deliver services during crisis periods. This study analyzed the impact of COVID-19 on the Federation of Virginia Food Banks and their use of crisis communication strategies. The pandemic presented unique challenges in that the FVFB was suddenly faced with a long-term crisis that was compounded by additional crises within the 2020 year, such as the social justice movements, natural hazards, and political divisiveness.

At its core, crisis communication strategies incorporate phases of information gathering, dissemination and adaptation. Within these phases, there is an emphasis on collaboration. Although results showcased an unfamiliarity with crisis communication strategies, the participants noted their role and responsibility in gathering information, dissemination, and collaboration. Therefore, although there is an unfamiliarity with the crisis communication strategies in terms of nomenclature, it does not mean they are not familiar with them in practice. In terms of strategy usage, FVFB engaged in practices of timely communication within the hierarchical structure of the network from regions to state organization to state government and then federal. However, the effectiveness of this communication is impacted by multiple variables such as lack of a crisis communication plan in general and for specific crises, availability and familiarity with technology, actual collaboration among stakeholders versus just stating the relationships are important, and variability among templates for message dissemination, utilization of community leaders, and usage of consistent images and phrases.

To support effective crisis communication, nonprofit leaders should operate in such a way that information collection, organization, and dissemination leads to messages characterized as: open, honest, accurate, tailored, two-way, and knowledgeable (Coombs 2012; Haupt 2021; Haupt and Azevedo 2021, 2022; Seeger 2006). Some additional identified best practices include promoting effective communication regarding process approaches and policy development; pre-event planning; partnerships with the public; listening to the public’s concerns and understanding the audience; collaboration and coordination with credible sources; meeting the needs of the media and remaining accessible; communicating with empathy and concern; accepting uncertainty and ambiguity; and promoting self-efficacy (Coombs 2012; Haupt 2021; Kapucu 2006, 2007; Kapucu and Demiroz 2013; Kapucu, Yuldashev and Feldheim 2011; Seeger 2006).

Future research is not only needed to gain a deeper understanding of crisis communication planning and implementation by these critical nonprofit organizations, but to understand the full breadth of the collaborative network for the Federation of Virginia Food Banks. A study utilizing social network analysis would be appropriate to determine connections along with strength of the links and visual patterns. Additional research can include a study on the process of crisis communication planning conducted by the FVFB and how they received training or education regarding this process. The researchers must also note the limitation in the number of study participants due to the changes within the network at the time of the pandemic. Future research needs to be done to verify results.