The main factors we observed impacting people’s’ choices were 1) Price; 2) Quality; 3) Options (or lack of options) available; 4) Influence of family and friends; and 5) Access to information about healthy food options. After conducting our field observations, we decided to narrow our focus to the efforts of organizations in low-access, low-income communities, with the goal of better understanding the challenges that already-established organizations focusing on this problem were facing. We interviewed six professionals from five different organizations. Of these organizations, four were smaller in size and scope, and their efforts were primarily focused on improving their immediate local communities. In contrast, one of the organizations we interviewed was larger, with a more national, policy-orientated scope. Through these interviews, we found that organizations in this realm focus their work on addressing the following four themes: 1) Improving access to healthy food, specifically in regard to price and location; 2) Bettering education, particularly in changing negative perceptions of healthy food; 3) Advancing data collection capabilities; and 4) Strengthening relationships within the communities they aim to serve.

We further explored some of the themes from our interview findings by creating an online survey, sent to over 100 organizations focused on food access across the country. Through our survey, we learned more about nonprofits’ technological capabilities and data collection abilities, and investigated whether organizations with less ability to collect and analyze data had less indicators of program success. Some of the main findings from our survey data were that 1) Organizations are actively collecting data, although their systems for organizing or analyzing this data are not particularly robust; 2) Organizations value and maintain an online presence; and 3) Organizations do have some tech infrastructure, but generally lack staff with expert computer proficiency skills. Additionally, we discovered that nonprofits view discounts on healthy food, community support, and taste as major motivators for supporting changes in eating habits in these communities. 

Our survey results were limited by a small population pool of only 28 respondents. This led to statistically insignificant findings regarding our two hypotheses. We were not able to suggest a correlation between operating budget and types of data collected by organizations. We also were not able to suggest a correlation between satisfaction with data collection and data collection abilities. We were limited by recruiting resources and time. 

Based on the findings from our observations, interviews, and surveys, we found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, improving access to healthy foods in low-income areas remains the biggest challenge for residents and nonprofits alike. Changing negative perceptions through food education initiatives and building support within affected communities were also prevalent findings across all research methods. Finally, when it comes to improving the operations of nonprofits dedicated to improving healthy food access, we found that more sophisticated data collection capabilities could have a significant positive impact. In terms of potential design implications, this area is fraught with opportunity for further development, but significant additional research on nonprofits’ current operations would have to precede any such solutions. Further research opportunities on healthy food access should also involve interviewing and surveying not just nonprofits, but the “end” users, or residents of low-access areas. Future work on this subject may also benefit from narrowing the focus of this project, to obtain more directly relevant findings.