Abstract
Introduction
Small non-profit organizations (NPOs) throughout the United States work tirelessly to address local poverty, impacting the community through various programs yet functioning on very limited resources (i.e., lack of donated goods, trained personnel, and funding) [1, 2]. Cheng and Chang [1] conducted a study at an NPO facility that compiled and distributed assistive devices for individuals with physical disabilities. The study was conducted by applying Lean Six Sigma principles, including a human factors and ergonomic analysis to redesign the work process and maximize resources. Research in this area however, remains very limited. Human factors and ergonomics principles can be implemented to enhance the quality and efficiency of work in NPOs, thus maximizing use of their limited resources and effectively supporting their mission to help impoverished persons.
Food pantries have been researched with a focus on a client’s experience and food donations (e.g., client satisfaction, food quality and availability, and space management for the food) [3–5]. The present case study adds to this body of research by focusing on enhancing worker experience through understanding and evaluating the worker-environment interaction in a food pantry. Workers were observed and interviewed using ethnography [6] and task analysis [7] techniques to determine (a) basic work processes performed in the food pantry, and (b) any concerns workers had with their tasks and aspects of their physical work environment. Human factors and ergonomics principles were then applied to the findings to provide recommendations to the foodpantry.
Method
Participants
Twelve individuals (11 volunteers and one manager) were observed at a food pantry in Orlando, FL. Most of the volunteers were older females (∼55 years old or older). A majority of the volunteers regularly volunteered with the pantry, and therefore, were familiar with one another and the primary pantry tasks. The work shift of volunteers varied depending on their availability (i.e., usually volunteers worked either the morning shift or the afternoon shift for approximately 4 hours for one or more days a week). The manager worked full-time (40 hours per week). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university of the investigators.
Ethnography techniques
Collection of data (i.e., information about the pantry’s work processes) was conducted through utilization of two ethnography techniques: naturalistic observation and structured interviews.
Naturalistic observation
On eight separate occasions, and at various times throughout the day, one or more members of the research team visited the pantry to observe the volunteers working on pantry tasks. During each visit, the researcher observed in a manner that was unobtrusive to the volunteers currently working. Occasionally, the researcher would ask questions to clarify work processes or issues that emerged. Observations were recorded via paper and pencil, and included information on the pantry layout, environmental conditions (e.g., lighting, temperature, noise level), tasks performed, and volunteer concerns.
Structured interviews
Two structured interviews were conducted with the pantry’s manager to supplement the analysis (see Appendix for a complete listing of the questions presented during each interview). The first interview was conducted approximately two weeks after the last observation and was approximately an hour long. Interview questions consisted of general questions about pantry tasks (e.g., What are the most common or important tasks performed?), questions focusing on the difficulty of pantry tasks (e.g., What tasks cause volunteers/employees to make the most mistakes?), and questions concerning the pantry equipment (e.g., Is there certain equipment that gets used quite a lot?). The second interview was conducted approximately two weeks after the first interview, was about 45 minutes long, and served as a follow-up interview. The purpose of this second interview was to identify any additional tasks, issues, or recommendations that were not previously identified (i.e., via observations or the first interview).
Procedure
First, permission was obtained from the pantry’s manager to observe and interview those who worked for, or volunteered at, the pantry. After permission was obtained, a task analysis (see [7]) was performed to identify the primary pantry tasks and their components using ethnographic techniques. Specifically, pantry volunteers were observed during eight separate occasions so the research team could develop an in-depth understanding of the tasks, workers, and environment including noting any potential work design concerns. After the observations had been completed, two interviews with the pantry manager were performed. Finally, the information obtained from both the observations and the interviews was reviewed to create a detailed list of all tasks, identify major design issues, and develop recommendations for mitigating these issues.
Findings
Notes taken during naturalistic observation and the semi-structured interviews were compiled and organized around three major aspects of the pantry system: worker tasks; workflow; and work environment. These findings, and other relevant findings, are discussed below with occasional reference to Fig. 1.
Workspace layout of the food pantry. Grey areas are not a part of the pantry. Not drawn to scale.
The task analysis revealed the three main tasks performed in the pantry to be (1) sorting new donations, (2) packaging food items, and then (3) distributing items to clients (i.e., workers were observed performing these tasks the majority of the time and the manager confirmed in the interview that these were the most common tasks). Once new donations were delivered to the pantry, all expired or spoiled food items were sorted into a separate pile, with produce being sorted immediately. The remaining (usable) food was weighed for documentation purposes. All usable items (i.e., produce, non-perishable food, toiletries) were then placed on the appropriate shelves or in the refrigerator. Non-perishable food items were then packaged into paper bags for a single-adult, a family, or “TEFAP” (government-funded food items only distributed to certain clients). Finally, when a client arrived to the pantry, the food pantry worker also received a voucher with the food items needed by the client. The food pantry worker retrieved the appropriate package and placed it on the counter for the client to take.
Workflow
The pantry was typically open during weekdays (Monday – Friday) from 8 : 30 am – 5 pm with client hours being between 9 am – 11 am and 1 pm – 3 pm. It was noted that the pantry was busiest (i.e., sees the most clients) in the mornings. In particular, Tuesdays and Wednesdays were identified as the busiest days of the week. On the one hand, Tuesdays were busy for the pantry workers due to the largest shipment of donations arriving on that day. On the other hand, Wednesdays were also busy because many of the pantry’s clients stopped by to obtain food supplies when they were most abundant andfresh.
Work environment
Analysis of the pantry work environment included the workspace, storage, signage, temperature, lighting, and noise level. A diagrammatic representation of the pantry is provided in Fig. 1.
Workspace
Observations of the pantry revealed several intricacies of the workspaces used when completing worker tasks. When sorting food, and other donated items, workers utilized large tables within the middle and back storage rooms. In addition, it was observed that throughout the pantry (i.e., the majority of rooms), clutter was abundant. The type of clutter differed depending on the room and the size of donations. For example, in the back room, the presence of a forklift made it difficult to maneuver when multiple workers were present. Clutter also occurred when the number of items donated exceeded the storage capacity of the food pantry. When a large shipment of donations arrived, additional clutter accumulated (e.g., piles of empty cardboard boxes). This created the possibility of tripping and falling, which is a high risk for the older adult volunteers. Finally, the walkways within the front room were quite narrow compared to the other areas of the pantry. Workers were instructed to use a cart to transport packages between rooms to limit heavy lifting; however, the cart obstructed the walkway, as workers took items out of the cart to place in the front storageroom.
Storage
There were three major storage rooms within the pantry (see Fig. 1): front; middle; and back. The front storage room was used to store packages of food and other items that were to be distributed that day. Perishable foods that were needed more immediately were also placed within this room in small fridge/freezer units. In the middle storage room, hygiene products, first aid items, and baby items were placed in bins, while packaged bags were placed on the shelves. The middle storage room also contained two walk-in coolers that were used to store perishable items. The back storage room was used to store non-perishable items such as cans, pasta, and cereal. In this back room, lighter items (e.g., diapers, cereal, marshmallows) were stored higher, and heavier items (e.g., cans, beverages, bulk items) were stored lower. These items were placed in crates or boxes before being placed on the shelves.
Signage
In the back storage room, two large white boards where used to inform workers which non-perishable items needed to be packaged into either the single-adult, family, or TEFAP bags. The boards used a color-coding system where each item was to be written in the color corresponding to the appropriate category; i.e., grains (purple), proteins (red), vegetables (green), fruits (black), and miscellaneous (blue). The worker would then find the item on the shelf for that category and place it in the appropriate bag. However, at times, the color coding confused some workers and they did not know which items to place in the respective bags. For instance, one worker was confused when “spaghetti” and “spaghetti (can)” where both listed on the white board with the different colors signifying that both dry spaghetti (a “grain”) and canned spaghetti (a “protein”) were needed. Due to this confusion, the worker only placed one of the spaghetti items in the bag.
Workers were also observed to be confused with the rotation system for the packages on the shelves at times. Workers did not clearly understand the signage (e.g., the sign in the middle storage room shelving read “pull from top to bottom and fill from top to bottom” which is not clear), or workers were confused because there was no sign (e.g., one new worker asked how to rotate items in the front storage room because there was no sign).
Temperature, lighting, and noise level
The temperature in the front rooms was comfortable, while the back room was slightly warmer. The back room did not have air conditioning, but there were two ceiling fans present. The walk-in coolers were described as being uncomfortably cold (i.e., some workers did not want to go into the coolers to perform their duties due to the cold as well as the fear that they would get trapped inside). Lighting in the front rooms was adequate for the worker tasks (i.e., food labels/expiration dates could be clearly seen). The back room was slightly dimmer. Finally, noise levels were mostly acceptable (i.e., pantry volunteers could communicate with one another without needing to raise their voice) throughout the pantry and could be attributed to the conversations between volunteers and shuffling of boxes/cans. However, it was observed that a loud industrial fan was used in the back room to combat the lack of air conditioning. The noise produced by the fan made it difficult for workers to communicate with one another when working near it.
Discussion
After reviewing observational and interview data, we have several key suggestions for food pantry operation (see Table 1 for a summary of these recommendations). We realize that not all food pantries operate in the same fashion as the one examined currently. As such, these are general recommendations that can be applied to a number of differentpantries.
Summary of key findings and recommendations
Summary of key findings and recommendations
Signage and job aids
Given the transient nature of the volunteers in food pantries, clear signage and job aids should be placed throughout the pantry to reduce the risk of confusion among workers and lessen the workload on the supervisor. Signs with visual representations of processes may be more appropriate for certain tasks than written steps. This would allow for quick understanding of the task at hand, especially in areas where there may be volunteers for whom English is not their primary language [8]. Additionally, jobs aids and signs should avoid using color as the primary mechanism by which important information is shared. This is because color vision deficiency is common (especially in males [9]). Thus, rather than using a color-coding system with white boards to indicate which items are needed in each package, such as in the present case, it may be more practical and simple to utilize a numbering system to further enhance clarity where a number, rather than a color, indicates the item needed. For example, the shelves could be labeled with numbers (e.g., #1 [protein nonperishables], #2 [fruit nonperishables]) and the corresponding numbers could be written on the white board with the needed item next to the appropriate number (e.g., 1 | spaghetti).
Environment
In pantries with walk-in freezers for preserving frozen goods such as the present case, we suggest the pantry inform volunteers that they need to bring a personal jacket and provide a place to keep the jackets. To alleviate potential anxiety with working in the freezer, workers could be trained to use the escape latch inside the freezer. If needed, a salient “panic button” could also be installed inside the cooler for workers to signal for help.
In large storage rooms in food pantries (such as the back storage room in the present case), we recommend enhancing lighting in order to reduce eyestrain from reading the small print food labels. This is especially critical given that vision may be worse for elderly workers.
In pantries where clutter is prevalent, efforts should be made to eliminate clutter to reduce the risk of trips and falls. For example, a volunteer could be assigned to move clutter off the floorspace on days when large shipments are received. To further eliminate the risk of falls, a step stool with handles is recommended for reaching items on top shelves (e.g., http://durable-medical-equipment.medical-supplies-equipment-company.com/product/step-stool-w-hand-rail_21477.html).
To maximize capacity in pantries with limited space, more shelving and storage space should be provided to contain overstock. Ultimately, however, major structural changes may be needed in order to properly maneuver within the environment.
Finally, simple improvements to enhance communication within the food pantry should be made. For instance, in the present case, when workers were not at the front, some clients were observed waiting at the front and had no way of communicating with workers in the back. A door bell could be installed to notify workers in the back storage room that someone needs assistance in the front.
Training
The common task of moving large or heavy items in food pantries (e.g., boxes of non-perishable products) such as in the present study is known as a manual material handling task where pantry workers may be at serious risk of physical injury (see [10]) especially females (see [11]).
To address this issue, we recommend first making engineering improvements such as rearranging or modifying the structures which involve lifting the heavy objects where possible (e.g., raising the scale where food is measured to lessen the amount the worker needs to bend down). Once engineering improvements have been made and heavy lifting is still required, training should be administered to limit potential injury (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-131/pdfs/2007-131.pdf). Specifically, basic ergonomic risk awareness training for volunteers should first be implemented (i.e., reviewing any potential risks with the workers before they begin work such as the risks highlighted in this study, for instance, warning volunteers that risk of tripping on floorspace clutter is greater on donation delivery days). Then, volunteers should be trained on proper lifting techniques, as well as limits for safe lifting (e.g., lifting no more than 51 lbs with two hands under ideal conditions; team lifting for heavier loads). Detailed guidelines from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to review with volunteers can be found at these websites: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-131/pdfs/2007-131.pdf; http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/electricalcontractors/materials/heavy.html; respectively. Additionally, posters including detailed images of lifting techniques could be displayed in a prominent location in the pantry to allow volunteers to reinforce their training (e.g., “Bilingual Safe Lifting Procedures”, http://americancontractorsorganization.org/compliance-posters-2/.).
Limitations and future research
While this study provided useful insights into the worker-environment interaction at a small food pantry, there were a few limitations that should be addressed with future research. First, the inclusion of formal measurements of environmental factors (e.g., lighting conditions, noise levels, workspace dimensions) would have provided additional precision (and insight) that would have complemented our observations and interviews. For instance, a more thorough biomechanical risk assessment could be used to determine appropriate workspace dimensions such as shelf height and horizontal distance (e.g., [12]). Additionally, the amount of time (number and, length, of visits) spent at the pantry was not enough to conduct other workplace analysis/evaluation techniques (e.g., holding a Kaizen event to obtain feedback from the volunteers on how work processes might be improved [13]). Future studies could provide a more in-depth look into food pantry work by utilizing the techniques used within this study (observation, interviews, task analysis) as well as those mentionedabove.
Conclusion
The above guidelines were provided to the present food pantry. Implementing these suggestions at the present food pantry would make the workplace safer and more productive. Further studies examining worker-environment interaction are needed in additional food pantry sites to produce a more in-depth analysis (e.g., determining specific measurements for lighting and workspace dimensions; determining additional volunteer training techniques), as well as studies of other types of small NPOs in order to assess generalizability of our findings. Through providing a healthier work environment for the volunteers and workers, these recommendations will allow the present food pantry to continue to effectively address poverty and strengthen the localcommunity.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Footnotes
Appendix
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the cooperation of the food pantry manager and all food pantry volunteers who participated. We are also grateful for the research assistants who assisted with data collection, Danielle S. Vanderhill, Keshia D. Pierre, and Jeremy DaCruz.