Cash-First Programme: interim evaluation - updated

3. Has the Programme been implemented and delivered as intended?

Highlights

• There is a good understanding of the aims of the Cash-First approach amongst Delivery Partners. However, amongst wider stakeholders, the Cash-First approach is not universally understood or always viewed as an appropriate intervention, and confidence in Cash-First among local stakeholders is currently limited.
• Delivery Partners have encountered some persistent negative views about Cash-First approaches across public and third sectors. Evidence shows some assumptions that vulnerable people will make poor choices when given cash and that this may encourage harmful behaviours, and a belief that it encourages opportunistic applications for support.
• Cash-First approaches have largely been implemented as intended. As this is a pilot Programme, Delivery Partners have had to be flexible in their approaches for delivering the projects. For example, service beneficiaries and specific target groups can face barriers to accessing support, including stigma, shame, and a reluctance to engage with some services. To minimise these barriers, Delivery Partners utilised their strong networks, partnerships and relationships across organisations.
• There is a fragmented and cluttered service landscape, where activities to address food insecurity can often be hidden. Despite this, Delivery Partners can mobilise quickly and effectively to implement Cash-First activity when building on existing organisational relationships.
• Still, there is evidence of some tension between partners implementing Cash-First approaches and other services providing emergency food. There is evidence that some stakeholders perceive food banks as a core service and Cash-First as a potential threat to this.
• Strong governance arrangements are established. But the capacity and resources required to deliver are often stretched within Delivery Partners.
• The Learning Partner is a valued resource that provides good support to Delivery Partners, though peer learning, relationship building, learning sets, and providing specialist expertise on topics such as partnerships and data collection. There is a substantial time and staffing resource needed to attend Learning Partner events, whether online or in person, but Delivery Partners say that the benefits they get from these events make this worthwhile. Some share the engagement across different members of staff.
• All Delivery Partners use available data and knowledge to plan and shape local Cash-First provision. Local project design has been informed by available local demographics, knowledge, and intelligence; but data on food bank use is limited and incomplete.

This chapter sets out how Cash-First approaches have been planned and implemented to date and assesses if this is in line with the Scottish Government’s original intention. It considers the various governance mechanisms employed, partner, stakeholder and service beneficiary engagement, project target groups and how data and knowledge has been used to shape planning and delivery. It recognises that as Programmes, particularly pilots, unfold, there can be very good reasons for them to adapt in line with their project aims.

Understanding of Cash-First aims

Delivery Partner understanding of and support for Cash-First

The Evaluators found that there is a common and agreed understanding of the Cash-First approach as “a transactional relationship with wrap-around support”. Cash-First is generally viewed as one component of a wider solution that offers service beneficiaries increased choice, agency and dignity.

People do want to pay for food. Transaction is desirable because it is more dignified. Value is prescribed by paying for things. – Delivery Partner

Delivery Partners’ understanding of the principles of Cash-First is generally good. However, the Learning Partner has reported that there is a degree of inconsistency in how Cash-First principles are implemented in practice between Delivery Partners. In addition, according to the Learning Partner the interpretation of what is prevention varies across the Cash-First Programme. This may reflect the different types of pilots, delivery models, and local infrastructure.

Whilst many Delivery Partners believe it is too early in the Programme to identify any significant changes in stakeholder understanding of Cash-First, there is a perception that this is likely to improve, and some do note significant improvement, for example:

There is already a noticeable difference in attitudes and understanding - a shift to more openness and willingness to learn. – Delivery Partner

Delivery Partners and stakeholders have reported that the landscape in local areas can be very cluttered, is often fragmented, and lacks clarity. Activities to address food insecurity can often be informal, and therefore hidden, and many Delivery Partners note difficulties in obtaining a comprehensive overview of activity in their area. This is exacerbated by a constantly evolving landscape. Delivery Partners report that new services emerge, and existing services expand their offer, change the focus of their activities, or cease to operate, as illustrated by the following comment.

Services keep popping up […] things change so rapidly […] A lot of third sector organisations are dependent on funding – they might not even exist two or three months down the road, things get picked up by someone else, etc. – Delivery Partner

Given this complex landscape, Delivery Partners have taken time to understand their local support ecosystem. There is, however, no evidence in the evaluation that Cash-First approaches have made a cluttered landscape more complex. Instead, there is a sense that, over time, it has the potential to make services easier for beneficiaries to navigate through the provision of wrap-around support, organisations working together, and in Glasgow and Edinburgh, through systems change. This is illustrated by the following:

A unified approach, as many agencies as possible getting onboard, is the focus. - Local stakeholder

A Citizens Advice welfare worker will be involved in administering the Cash-First approach and try to identify people early. The whole aim is prevention. – Local stakeholder

Whilst not the aim of Cash-First nor the focus of this evaluation, it is noted that some partners have stated that a comprehensive systemic change and a complete overhaul of support systems, in particular the welfare system, is needed. However, it is recognised that this is a wider structural issue outside of the scope of Cash-First.

Wider stakeholder understanding of and support for Cash-First

Early indications are that attitudes towards, and understanding of, Cash-First amongst wider stakeholders – that is, those wider local services and organisations that sit outside of the Delivery Partners - have been mixed. Delivery Partners reported limited levels of understanding around the Cash-First approach. They noted that the term is unfamiliar to many stakeholders, and the focus of a lot of early-stage work has been on raising awareness and understanding, as explained by these Delivery Partners.

We’ve spent time trying to tease that out - focusing on increasing awareness and improve training in food organisations. As part of that, we put together a comms Programme and web page to talk about what Cash-First is/isn’t- it’s not well understood. – Delivery Partner

Food banks, third sector and NHS have been slow to fully buy in to the Cash-First gateway/pathway. [We] held a conference to get these agencies on board and got them to sign a pledge to participate in the pathway. – Delivery Partner

In interviews, some of the wider stakeholders, such as potential referring organisations, wider support services, and frontline public services, demonstrated a good appreciation of the vision and aims of Cash-First as an approach to tackling poverty and food insecurity. They welcome the approach and commitment that has been made, as noted in the comment below.

People who need to use a food bank often don’t like to. Cash-First gives them freedom from this, and more choice – Local stakeholder

However, negative judgement and views of individual capabilities are still evident, even for stakeholders who see the value in the Cash-First approach:

Wrap-around support and services are vital, as some individuals don’t know how to effectively spend and save their money. - Local stakeholder

However, there is also evidence of some tension and lack of a shared vision between partners implementing Cash-First and other services providing emergency food, reported by Delivery Partners who encountered the following views:

Some food banks do not see that ending the need for them is a positive outcome – they don’t want to be ‘put out of business.’ – Delivery Partner

There has been a suggestion of opening another food bank […] and we want to try to prevent that – Cash-First might help us achieve that. – Delivery Partner

This also indicates the extent to which food banks have become normalised and viewed as mainstream services, rather than the option of last resort. This is a key challenge that Delivery Partners are faced with at project level.

In some cases, a lack of knowledge and understanding of local Cash-First projects has created a barrier to engaging organisations, for example as noted in the following comment:

The mosque initially engaged but then disengaged before I visited. There is sometimes some wariness from people about why the public sector is coming to “look at what you’re doing” - which isn’t what we are doing, but I understand the reluctance. – Delivery Partner

It was also identified that organisations are still feeling the impacts of the Covid pandemic. Delivery Partners and stakeholders state that they believe that the pandemic played a key role in normalising food bank use. Food banks and vouchers were often the easiest way to support people, which has helped establish a view of food banks as an essential core and mainstream service. This perception is a barrier to future Cash-First success that must be addressed.

Negative perceptions of Cash-First approaches

Delivery Partners have encountered some entrenched and persistent negative views about a Cash-First approach amongst some stakeholders, such as food banks, frontline workers and wider support organisations across both the public, and third sectors. These include a belief that giving vulnerable people cash could encourage harmful behaviour (such as gambling; or provide access to drugs or alcohol); and that offering a cash payment results in opportunistic applications rather than those resulting from genuine need. There is also some lack of confidence in the decision-making capabilities of recipients, with an assumption that funds will be spent on “the wrong things.” Delivery Partners have suggested that this language also indicates a moral judgement.

The research included interviews with non-service users, that is, people who could be eligible for Cash-First but have not yet benefited from it. The majority of non-service users consulted agreed that Cash-First could be a helpful approach. Only a small number of this group echoed some negative views around the Cash-First approach. Concerns focused on what the money could be spent on, for example, drugs and alcohol, and that the benefit of a food bank or food pantry is that people have to accept or buy food. This view was further strengthened by the following comment:

People with lived experience have been quite frank about the funding – “I’ve got an addiction, so I won’t be in a better position if you give me cash” – Delivery Partner

This suggests that further information and education is needed on the importance of person-centred approaches that reflect the individuals’ circumstances within Cash-First. This may also minimise judgement and address some of the preconceived ideas that individuals can hold about Cash-First approaches noted above. It should be made clear that Delivery Partners can consider alternatives to cash, such as vouchers, to support particularly vulnerable individuals based on their needs.

Delivery Partners recognise there is a fundamental power imbalance in giving food to people, which is not always sympathetically understood by food bank staff and volunteers. Some concerns have been raised by partners about discriminatory and stigmatising behaviours amongst some food bank staff and volunteers. Where these have been identified, they are being locally addressed with training and information, which, whilst a positive action, creates additional demand on already-stretched resources.

Awareness that the funding is limited, and that the Programme is short-term, has raised doubts about its overall value and effectiveness, as demonstrated by the following stakeholder comments:

£1.6m is more than it was in the beginning, but there’s only a limited amount you can do on that. There’s lots of commitment to the vision and working to the same end, but everyone is struggling for resources to get there.

It’s a great thing, but we know it isn’t long term… it was brought in to reduce demand on and the need for food banks, but, again, this is a funded 18-month Programme.

More needs done. It’s still a bit of a sticking plaster.

– Local stakeholders

Governance

Delivery Partners vary in scope and scale across the eight delivery areas, but each includes specialist expertise and reflects a good understanding of the local service landscape.

Lead local Cash-First partners include Local Authorities, a Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP), Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs), and a specialist research organisation. Partners frequently include the HSCP, the local TSI and the Local Authority, unless they are the lead partner. They can also include third sector organisations and representatives from food banks. Some partners noted that they believe that it is important the Local Authority has ownership of, and takes responsibility for, the issues Cash-First is tackling, although not necessarily as lead partner.

Collaboration takes different forms depending on area. This can be seen in structures such as steering and operational groups. For example:

• Steering groups drive local projects, shaping them according to local need, whilst aligning them to overarching Programme aims. They may require a Memorandum of Understanding between member organisations as well as Terms of Reference. Strategic alignment to local priorities comes through governance and reporting lines. One of the Delivery Partners stakeholder groups is facilitated jointly with Trussell (formerly The Trussell Trust), to support both delivery and shared learning across the area.
• Operational groups tend to comprise frontline services and core partners. These groups have oversight of the day-to-day project operations. Many Delivery Partners highlighted the links between food insecurity and fuel poverty, and this has shaped project design, the selection of key partners, and delivery mechanisms in some projects.

Due to the flexible nature of the Programme supporting local adaptability, there is no standard governance model across the eight Delivery Partners. Governance structures are largely determined by what reporting and governance mechanisms and frameworks are already in place for the lead partner. Local Community Planning structures are widely used to manage Cash-First approaches, and this also promotes and facilitates partnership working. Reporting lines vary across Delivery Partners as follows:

• In Aberdeen City, the Lead Partner is Aberdeen Council of Voluntary Organisations (ACVO), the TSI. The Delivery Partner reports to Aberdeen City Council Anti-Poverty Group and the Community Planning Team.
• In Aberdeenshire, the Lead Partner is Aberdeenshire Council. The Delivery Partner reports to Aberdeenshire Council.
• In Edinburgh, the Lead Partner is Edinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP). The Delivery Partner reports to The Edinburgh Partnership (the Community Planning Partnership).
• The Lead Partner in Fife is Fife Council. The Delivery Partner reports to the Community Planning Partnership – Tackling Poverty Board.
• In Glasgow, the Lead Partner is Glasgow Centre for Population Heath. The Delivery Partner reports to the project management team, comprising GCPH, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow HSCP Health Improvement Team and Trussell.
• North Lanarkshire Council takes the Lead Partner role in that area. The Delivery Partner reports to the Community Planning Partnership – Tackling Poverty group.
• In Orkney, the Lead Partner is Voluntary Action Orkney, the TSI. The Delivery Partner reports to the Cost of Living Taskforce.
• In West Dunbartonshire, the Lead Partner is also the local Council. The Delivery Partner reports to West Dunbartonshire Cost of Living Group.

The range of models reflects local ecosystems and needs, as well as organisational capacity and priorities. There are benefits to aligning with existing structures, such as Community Planning Partnership groups, as organisations do not need to implement new practices or processes. These provide established mechanisms into which Cash-First can be incorporated, and Cash-First aligns well with local strategies to address poverty, for instance. This has been recognised by Delivery Partners where Community Planning structures have a governance role.

All Delivery Partners report challenges in staff capacity to deliver services, gather and report data and information to the Scottish Government and the Evaluator, and to participate in Learning Partner activities. They recognised the benefits of these activities, but state it puts additional pressure on staff time.

Capacity issues are difficult to address given the Cash-First funding period and wider budgetary constraints. It is difficult to recruit and retain staff when funding is short term, and budgets are restricted. Post-pandemic recovery, the cost-of-living crisis, and energy costs have all contributed to create massive demand on services, with shrinking resources to meet them. The following comment highlights this issue.

Crisis is growing, debt is growing, services are stretched, staff are stretched. The situation is worse from when we did the first mapping of support in 2020. The cost-of-living crisis hadn’t hit – Delivery Partner

Collaboration and Partnership Working

Partnership models

The evaluation aims to understand how engagement and collaboration takes place across the Delivery Partners. Through interviews and reviews of documentation, it was clear that there are two principal models of partnership working employed across Delivery Partners:

1. Community Planning, the model adopted in North Lanarkshire, Fife, and Edinburgh, where the local Cash-First Delivery Partners form part of the wider Community Planning ecosystem and operate within this. This enables multiple public and third sector organisations to be brought together under the same umbrella to facilitate joint working. The Community Planning approach also offers a formal governance framework, as noted above.

2. The Trusted Partner model, used in Aberdeenshire and West Dunbartonshire, where organisations with similar or shared values and aims work together to achieve project objectives.

Aberdeen City employs a combination of both approaches. They engage with Community Planning partners through the reporting structure, meaning they have a formal structure and meetings schedule, and clear overarching objectives, to engage with partners including the Local Authority; and they also work with a Trusted Partners network to build deeper and additional relationships with wider partners in the third and public sectors, without necessarily having the underpinning engagement framework of Community Planning.

Partnership working is a critical component in delivering Cash-First. Delivery Partners are comprised of a number of organisations. Partners usually have a history of working together, for instance in developing or implementing local poverty-related strategy. As an example, the chair of an established Food Insecurity group, sits on, but does not lead, the Cash-First Delivery Partners group in one area.

Maximising pre-existing relationships is in part driven by the very complex support landscapes that exist around poverty and food insecurity. One Delivery Partner described this as follows:

It’s been full-on and complex - when starting something new there’s a learning period, but because the landscape is so complex it’s been harder than I anticipated and taken longer. There’s so much complexity built in. There are some relationships in place, though, which is very helpful. However, it’s still huge. – Delivery Partner

Choosing to work with a known organisation with shared values and experience has meant that projects could be mobilised more quickly than if new relationships had to be brokered and built.

Challenges in partnership working

Delivery Partners report that building the necessary relationships to plan and implement Cash-First has been time and resource intensive. This has meant that there has been, in some cases, a time lag in starting to deliver, as evidenced by the following comment:

There’s a short timescale for what we’re trying to do, and what hasn’t been built in is the time it takes to start. We can start things but haven’t delivered on them [yet] as it takes time. - Delivery Partner

However, Delivery Partners stated in interviews that the investment in developing these relationships has established strong foundations for the future and will have a sustained impact on how organisations work together.

Learning partner contribution to development and delivery of activities

Support provided by the Learning Partner has comprised:

• Fortnightly online peer contact sessions covering topics such as tackling stigmatising language and practices; collecting data from third party providers; and supporting people with multiple challenges. Key topics were addressed through small action learning sets.
• Two in-person events:

The first, in April 2024, was an early scene-setting activity to bring partners together, including the Scottish Government and the Evaluator.

The second, in September 2024, explored topics raised by Delivery Partners. This looked at innovative approaches to data collection, with Trussell and the Poverty Alliance sharing their expertise on engaging people with lived experience and the Pathways to Advice and Cash Scotland project.

• Bespoke sessions by request for individual Delivery Partners on topics including partnership working, data collection and review, and embedding Cash-First approaches in wider strategy.
• An online workshop on supporting people with no recourse to public funds in January 2025 in response to a need identified by Delivery Partners.

Action learning sets were noted as being of particular value, enabling partners to focus on key activity and work collaboratively toward solutions. However, some Delivery Partners stated they are not clear on the role of the Learning Partner, and some have no previous experience of working with a Learning Partner. They reported that they expected the Learning Partner to have more of a formal training role. There is also a view that the Poverty Alliance and Child Poverty Action Group should be used alongside the Learning Partner to provide training to Delivery Partners.

Although a valuable resource, Delivery Partners state that capacity issues can make it hard to engage with the Learning Partner. One Delivery Partner reported:

Frequency of meetings [with the Learning Partner], while valuable, is a lot, so we’ve been splitting it up. The peer learning conversations and events are great, but because we’re splitting up, sharing information across our team is a task. - Delivery Partner

There is a balance to be struck between the value of the support and the resource required to take this up.

The Learning Partner also contributed to the development of the Programme logic model, and shared feedback and outputs from learning sessions and meetings to inform the evaluation.

Targeting

Delivery Partners identified target groups and activities in their area, based on local need and the identified gaps in service provision. Target groups have been identified through detailed understanding of local demographics, existing service usage, local and national policy focus and strategic priorities, and local knowledge and understanding of under-provision for key groups. Target groups vary significantly from one area to another, reflecting the range of Delivery Partners’ geographies, population groups, and local challenges.

It can be extremely difficult to reach and engage target groups. Good knowledge of local needs and challenges is required in order to develop effective engagement strategies. Delivery Partners have leveraged existing relationships, and also developed new ones, to do this, and in the case of Glasgow and Edinburgh have invested significant time and resource in this.

In general terms, key groups identified as needing support align with those groups known to be at greater risk of poverty. For example:

• Cash-First activities in Aberdeen City target single men between the ages of 18 and 45, in particular those receiving Universal Credit. This group forms a high proportion of food bank users, and they often face repeat crises.
• Aberdeenshire is targeting child poverty priority families and communities with significant barriers to accessing services, including Gypsy/Travellers.
• In Fife, locally agreed, individual projects were originally planned. In Year 1, two of these have been mobilised. Each is aimed at targeting specific groups, such as people facing barriers to support created by rurality, and those living with in-work poverty.
• North Lanarkshire Council is focused on creating a sustainable move away from food bank dependency, with stated target groups including those with addiction and mental health issues, and child poverty priority groups.
• West Dunbartonshire has identified particular priority groups that are at risk of food insecurity. This includes care-experienced young people, those experiencing homelessness or facing eviction, low-income households, people from minority ethnic communities, and families with a parent under 25, three or more children, or children under two years old.
• Priority groups in Orkney are households on the ferry-linked isles, in-work poverty and families. It is recognised that the majority of food bank users are single people households and a high proportion of these are male.

Some areas have not explicitly targeted groups. For example:

• Glasgow is taking a systems-change approach and so has no specific target client group.
• Edinburgh is implementing a series of small-scale tests of change projects aimed at strengthening the support ecosystem.

The research shows that strong relationships and collaboration with partner and stakeholder organisations are key to successful engagement of target groups. Delivery Partners rely on trusted partners and local organisations to help identify and reach the target groups, and they have noted that frontline workers have a crucial role in this.

Some Delivery Partners aspire to support additional target groups to meet gaps in support as the Programme progresses. These include non-custodial parents who do not receive any extra support for dependents; and groups who traditionally find it harder to access support, or that tend to be overlooked for help with food insecurity such as single men, and people leaving prison.

Challenges with identifying and reaching target groups

The pace of project implementation has varied across areas and has been slower than anticipated in some areas. This has meant that there is limited evidence of barriers to engaging target groups; however, some early challenges have been identified.

One of the key challenges for the success of this Programme is ensuring that people who may need this support are identified. In many instances, food insecurity can be hidden, and so identifying those who need the support can be challenging. Engaging with a wide range of frontline services and expert partners is one of the key approaches taken by Delivery Partners to reach people. Wider partners included in the development and/or delivery of local projects include food banks, pantries, Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx), Trussell, specialist advice services (such as welfare rights, debt or energy), and housing services.

Some local areas have a very complex system of food insecurity support, with many organisations operating in this space. A good example of this issue can be found in Edinburgh. In order to maximise the benefits of the Cash-First approach, the Edinburgh Delivery Partner commissioned an early piece of work to map relevant organisations in the city who are distributing food to people in need. The organisations identified form a core group for targeted engagement by the Delivery Partners. The Delivery Partners are confident that through the mapping exercise and engagement activity they have identified, and are reaching, up to 90% of relevant organisations.

Delivery Partners also stated that UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements can act as a barrier to supporting vulnerable people quickly and effectively. This is because sometimes the detailed information that needs to be passed on to facilitate the right support cannot be shared without data sharing protocols between organisations. These are not always in place, and this creates a barrier.

Barriers to accessing Cash-First services for target groups

The survey responses obtained highlighted the barriers to accessing Cash-First services that some service beneficiaries experienced.

Survey respondents were asked what changes would make the application process easier, with an open text box. One suggestion is that it would be helpful not to have to repeat the same information every time they engage with a service, emphasising the importance of streamlining data collection, sharing protocols and ensuring that there is “no wrong door” for accessing support.

The survey found that there is a perceived lack of knowledge about the support available through Cash-First amongst people who could benefit. Given that this is a pilot, with Delivery Partners identifying potential service users through personal relationship building instead of a nation-wide Programme rollout, this lack of wider awareness of the Programme is to be expected to some extent. Almost three quarters (72%) of respondents stated that they do not think people know about it. People in employment are even more likely to think there is a lack of knowledge and information about Cash-First at 88%.

This was supported by the qualitative research with beneficiaries which showed that that people in work or who are recently unemployed are particularly unaware of Cash-First services. The respondents suggested that there could be better marketing and promotion of the approach. Whilst it is perhaps understandable that people in work have traditionally been less likely to need to access services, a rise in in-work poverty means it is more important than ever that people in employment or at risk of becoming unemployed are aware of supports and services.

Service beneficiaries reported in interviews that they can feel shame and stigma, and worry that they will be judged, particularly if they have not previously needed or accessed this type of support. They may also perceive that the services are not “for them”, or that they are being “a burden.” One service beneficiary reported:

I think sometimes other people need the help more than me and it can embarrassing to go to the food bank. – Service beneficiary

This was echoed by Delivery Partners; one stated that:

Someone told us “I would rather go hungry than tell someone I’m struggling with money.” – Delivery Partner

This chimes with the findings of the Delivery Partners’ interviews in which they noted that people can feel reluctant to come forward for help because of their own attitudes and perceptions. Delivery Partners and stakeholders reported that individuals can also be concerned about confidentiality, and this can be particularly acute in small communities or rural areas where people are more likely to know each other.

Delivery Partners and stakeholders expressed views in interviews that people sometimes do not want to share their details and discuss their circumstances because they find it hard to trust services and are not clear or confident in how their personal information will be used. Compounding this, a lack of data sharing systems and protocols between organisations can mean that beneficiaries have to give personal and often sensitive information repeatedly. This has been recognised by all Delivery Partners as a barrier to engaging with wider wrap-around services and can also lead to inappropriate referrals, as illustrated by the following comment:

Data sharing has presented barriers to supporting individuals along the pathway – at engagement stage to understand need, and at referral to bring wider supports. - Delivery Partner

Use of data and knowledge

The evaluation to date clearly shows that local project design is informed by local demographics, knowledge, and intelligence. Partners often bring additional information, deeper insight and different perspectives to the scoping and planning process and working collaboratively enables a more fully rounded understanding of the challenges faced by communities and individuals.

A range of approaches have been taken to designing and developing projects that incorporate, variously:

• Available population demographics, for example NOMIS and Office for National Statistics.
• Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). While this is helpful for understanding the prevalence and dispersal of some issues, Delivery Partners recognise that it does not always map well to food insecurity.
• Public health data.
• A variety of local surveys and Community Planning data.
• Experience and learning from previous relevant projects that have been delivered.
• Partner experience and knowledge, through steering and stakeholder groups, often building on existing relationships.
• Scoping existing activity to prevent duplication.
• Feedback from people with lived experience via a formal panel or other feedback mechanisms.
• Future planned regular project reviews with adjustments made as required.

The range of potential data and input is broad, and the research shows there is no consistent access to data, particularly data on food bank use, across Delivery Partners.

For the Cash-First Programme, local project monitoring and evaluation processes are still evolving and there is wide variation across areas. Some Delivery Partners are shaping local data collection and evaluation according to the requirements of the Programme overall, others have created bespoke processes and tools, and in one area the Poverty Alliance has been commissioned as a critical friend to provide feedback and support. Some Delivery Partners have also implemented local project evaluation activity.

However, there are specific challenges regarding food bank data, experienced by all Delivery Partners:

• The nature of food bank support: Services that address food insecurity can take many forms, including food banks, food pantries, after-school clubs, faith-based groups and other formal and informal mechanisms. The landscape is very fragmented, and a fully comprehensive data set is most likely not achievable.
• Data collection: This varies widely across all food bank provision. Data collection is a challenge in part because it relies on already-stretched frontline volunteers, who may lack the skills or time to do this in a meaningful way; and, even when willing, people often do not know what to ask, or how to ask it. There are no standard or common data capture mechanisms, and the nature of the support means often only very basic data, if any, is gathered.

Food banks don’t ask any questions …maybe age or household, sometimes no questions at all. CAB handed out food parcels but are too busy to track. – Local Stakeholder

Many food banks do not ask for lots of information, as doing so can be a barrier to engagement, which further limits the data available.

[one food bank had] over 100 people on a Monday, they don’t ask questions and that’s why people go. For various reasons, it’s attractive to people to not have that pressure. Reluctant to share with those that are official, worried they would lose something or it’s intrusive. – Local Stakeholder

This is exacerbated by food banks having different approaches, such as Trussell, the Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN), and the Scottish Pantry Network, all collating different types of information.

• Data sharing: Where data is routinely collected, this is often not shared due to information governance issues between organisations. Specific data sharing agreements are needed to permit this.
• Data analysis: The inability to share data along with lack of staff resource means data is often not fully analysed or interrogated, and its value is therefore limited.

While available data have informed service design, for example, known demographics of repeat users and users presenting in crisis, all Delivery Partners have raised the challenges they face with collecting and collating food bank data. Approaches to address this include establishing a specific data sub-group in the Glasgow Delivery Partner.