Cash-First Programme: interim evaluation - updated

6. Key Learnings from Year One

Over the first year of the programme, there is evidence that a Cash-First approach has reduced food insecurity for some beneficiaries, but further data and evidence is required to understand fully the scale and sustainability of this reduction. Whilst it is too early to assess the full impacts of the programme, there are some key learnings worth considering for the second year of implementation.

Delivery of the programme during Year 1 has largely taken place as anticipated, though there have been delays in set up in some cases. Delivery Partners have been established in all eight delivery areas. New partnerships have been developed across a broad range of services that extend beyond emergency food provision and money and debt advice. Project monitoring systems have been established and continue to develop; however, data accessibility, sharing and analysis are key challenges for all Delivery Partners. The Learning Partner has facilitated meaningful relationships between Delivery Partners and their expertise in key topic areas are valued by Delivery Partners.

Awareness and buy-in is strong from Delivery Partners. However, there is a lack of understanding and buy-in from wider stakeholders. Clear and informative communications have been widely distributed, building stakeholder understanding and awareness. While understanding of emergency support is clear, further work is needed to develop a shared understanding of prevention. Limited understanding of Cash-First approaches amongst wider stakeholders creates resistance and generates assumptions about activity and service beneficiary behaviour.

There are some early signs of Cash-First having a positive impact on reducing food insecurity, though long-term impacts are yet to be seen. It is not clear from the year one findings whether the positive outcomes are due to the cash payment or the wider support services offered.

There are wider systemic issues and causes of poverty that need to be addressed if the need for food banks is to be ended. Food bank use is a symptom of deeper issues. Food insecurity does not stand in isolation and is intrinsically linked to wider poverty issues including fuel insecurity and wellbeing, and Cash-First approaches have to work effectively with other services.

Systems change is needed to deliver long term change and deliver sustainable outcomes for individuals. There has been very positive progress made on this in Year 1 across all Delivery Partners. Delivery Partners are seeking to embed long term change with the activities they deliver and support, such as staff, volunteer and beneficiary training and skills development. Longer term wrap-around support is seen to be making a considerable difference to those accessing these services, but more needs to be done to promote the benefits of this.

Some areas demonstrated strong engagement of people with lived experience, particularly where Delivery Partners had previous mechanisms in place to facilitate this. However, other areas are at an earlier stage of involving those with lived experience. There is an opportunity to implement learning from those Delivery Partners who are more experienced in engaging people with lived experience to improve and strengthen this activity.

The Cash-First approach has been positively received by many of its beneficiaries, who see it as a more dignified approach than using food banks, that gives them more choice in the food required to meet their needs. There is evidence that the Cash-First Programme has positively impacted on beneficiaries’ wellbeing through the provision of wrap-around support, which has improved confidence and skills, and reduced isolation, for some beneficiaries.

Place-specific challenges

In Year 1, some challenges have emerged that are more specific to some areas than others. Understanding what is effective in areas with different characteristics will be a key focus of the evaluation in Year 2.

Setup and delivery took longer in areas with no previous Cash-First structures or processes. Linked to this, areas with no, or more limited, evidence bases - particularly relating to existing service provision and use - had to undertake this research within the Programme period.

In rural areas, beneficiaries can be especially concerned about visibility and confidentiality within their communities, which creates additional challenges to implementing appropriate engagement mechanisms and achieving engagement with service beneficiaries.

In large urban areas, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, consideration was required about how limited resources can be used to have the greatest impact. Significant time and resource were needed to do this.

Other considerations for the future

There has been good progress made in Year 1 of the Programme and significant amounts of activity has been undertaken with the aim of delivering long term and sustained change. Key learnings to consider for Year 2 include:

Deeper understanding of aims

While understanding of emergency food insecurity support is clear, further work is needed to develop an agreed understanding of how to ensure prevention and deliver sustained change.

Service provider training and development

The training and development for service providers that has taken place in Year 1 has reached a large number of organisations, although the majority of this activity has been focused in two Delivery Partner areas. Delivery Partners could think about how to maximise access to training and training resources for staff across the wider stakeholder network. This, along with sustained relationship building, would increase understanding and buy-in, and extend reach into target groups.

Communications

Delivery Partners and the Scottish Government could consider ways to ensure consistent and streamlined messaging is provided to all stakeholders, to support improved understanding of Cash-First approaches. This would raise awareness of Cash-First to ensure that there is a good and accurate understanding of the approach and what it is trying to achieve. This could be shared alongside area-specific information and would help change perceptions that food banks are mainstream and core services.

Data

There is need for improved understanding of what data can be shared amongst partners, and what data sharing protocols are needed. This would minimise some delays to providing services to target beneficiaries and mean that beneficiaries do not need to repeat their information when they engage with each service.