Active Case
Food Available, Route Not Reachable
Training note: before arranging transport or food, check whether anyone is unwell or out of medicine. Walking four miles along a road without a footpath during hot weather is itself a safety question, not a fallback plan.
Step 1 of 7: Review the case
Read what the case states, what it does not state, and what this practice case is asking you to learn.
Fictional resident
Mr. Arturo Peña
58 years old · Adult living alone, works night shifts
ZIP code
78252
Preferred language
Spanish; comfortable with English in writing
Coverage
Uninsured
What is happening
Mr. Peña was given a pantry address by a previous navigator, along with a promise that an on-demand van would collect him. The pantry has food and is open three days a week. It is four miles from his house along a road with no footpath. He has no car. When he called the van service, he was told his address is not in one of its zones. He now has two days of food left. He works night shifts and sleeps in the morning. He says he has stopped trusting referrals because the last one did not work.
What you are practicing here
- Work out which part of the previous plan actually failed, and how you would find that out.
- Decide what you can promise about a service and what has to be checked first.
- Build a plan he could carry out from his own address, on his own schedule.
The detailed learning objectives for this case name the intended answers, so they are shown in the debrief after you submit. The safety note on the case page is different: it states the intended emergency response deliberately, because safety information is never withheld to make an exercise harder.
What the resident says matters most
- Food he can actually collect within the next two days, before what he has runs out
- Not being sent somewhere that turns out not to work
- Keeping his sleep hours so he can work his shifts
Strengths already present
- Called the van service himself and got a clear answer
- Already receiving food assistance he uses
- Steady work and a phone he answers
- Says directly when something has not worked
Stated in the case
- Two days of food left in the house
- Pantry is four miles away, open three days a week, along a road with no footpath
- No vehicle; the on-demand van service told him his address is not in a zone
- Works night shifts and sleeps in the morning
- Prefers Spanish for spoken conversation and reads English comfortably
- A previous referral failed, and he says he now distrusts referrals
Not known — would need asking
- Whether he or anyone with him is unwell or out of medicine
- Which pantry hours could fit around his night shifts
- Whether the pantry offers delivery, curbside collection, or a proxy pick-up
- Which fixed bus route, if any, has a stop he could reach on foot
- Whether a neighbor or co-worker could collect on his behalf with the pantry's agreement
Social determinants in this case
Some domains are stated in the case; others are only possible mechanisms to consider and are not established here. The full five-domain framework is mapped on the Methods page.
- Neighborhood and Built Environment stated in this caseFour miles with no footpath and no vehicle; the on-demand service does not cover his address.
- Economic Stability stated in this caseTwo days of food left, and he is uninsured.
- Social and Community Context stated in this caseHe says a failed referral has cost him trust in referrals generally.
- Health Care Access and Quality possible mechanism, not establishedNot established here. He is uninsured, so whether he has a usual source of care is worth asking rather than assuming.
Why this is structural: A service can be funded, open, and stocked and still be unreachable. Zone boundaries, footpath gaps, and opening hours set against shift work decide who can use it. When a plan is built on an unverified assumption about coverage, the resident carries the cost of the mistake.