Cash-First Programme: final evaluation report

Executive Summary

Introduction

The ‘Cash-First: Towards Ending the Need for Food Banks in Scotland’ Plan (the Plan) sets out the Scottish Government’s ambition for a Scotland without the need for food banks. The Plan includes nine actions over three years (2023–2026) to help ensure that fewer people need to rely on food parcels to meet their essential needs.

Action 1 of the Plan committed funding to support new local partnership approaches to delivering Cash-First. The resulting Cash-First Programme (the Programme) committed to provide up to £1.8 million over three years to test and embed approaches that prioritise dignity, choice and autonomy, enabling people to decide how best to meet their essential needs.

The eight Delivery Partners for Action 1 were:

• Aberdeen City, led by Aberdeen Council of Voluntary Organisations (ACVO)
• Aberdeenshire, led by Aberdeenshire Council
• City of Edinburgh, led by Edinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership
• Fife, led by Fife Council
• Glasgow City, led by Glasgow Centre for Population Health
• North Lanarkshire, led by North Lanarkshire Council
• Orkney, led by Voluntary Action Orkney
• West Dunbartonshire, led by West Dunbartonshire Council

The Delivery Partners were supported by a Learning Partner, who provided advice, facilitated shared learning, and encouraged reflection and adaptation during delivery.

Each Delivery Partner area adopted a tailored approach shaped by local need, infrastructure and challenges. Some focused on direct advice and support, while others prioritised strengthening service infrastructure or testing new approaches at a smaller scale. The Programme took place over 30 months, from October 2023 to March 2026. The evaluation covered activity from April 2024 to December 2025, and included interviews, focus groups and survey responses within this period. However, the value of spend reported covers the entirety of the Programme.

Research aims and methods

The evaluation assessed how the Programme was implemented, the outputs it produced, the role of the Learning Partner, and the difference it made for service users, partners and local systems.

This report builds on the previous interim evaluation which covered April to December 2024 (Stage 1). It presents findings from January 2025 to December 2025 (Stage 2), with a particular focus on how delivery and learning evolved over time.

The evaluator used a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data across all eight areas. Research included interviews with the Delivery Partners, local core partners, stakeholders and the Learning Partner; surveys of service users; quarterly monitoring data; learning reports; and outputs from learning events.

The evaluation addressed three overarching questions:

• Has the Programme been implemented and delivered as intended?
• What has been produced as a result of the Programme?
• What difference has the Programme made and for whom?

Has the Programme been implemented and delivered as intended?

Overall, the Programme was implemented broadly in line with Scottish Government intentions, successfully testing and embedding locally tailored Cash-First approaches.

Delivery required substantial investment in partnership working, capacity building and learning, and varied in response to local context.

Each Delivery Partner used its allocation of up to £200,000 to develop a mix of interventions shaped by local service landscapes, existing partnerships and individual’s needs. Over the Programme duration, the Delivery Partners reported 10,611 interactions and distributed £526,533 directly to individuals. In addition to this, the Glasgow Delivery Partner’s test of change supported 77 unique beneficiaries. Around 33% of the Delivery Partner funding was provided as cash or shopping vouchers, and the remaining 67% used to resource staffing, partnership development, referral pathways, engagement and data processes, demonstrating that the Programme is resource intensive.

Governance and collaborative working

A range of governance models were implemented. Many areas embedded Programme governance within existing Community Planning structures, strengthening alignment with local anti-poverty strategies and shared accountability.

Strong partnership working was a key enabler of effective delivery. Trusted Partner networks, where established, enabled rapid mobilisation by drawing on shared values and pre-existing relationships. However, building and sustaining partnerships required significant time and effort.

The Delivery Partners’, local core partners’ and referral partners’ understanding of Cash-First approaches evolved over time. Interpretations of what a Cash-First approach was became more consistent, and partners also recognised that, for some vulnerable or isolated people, provision of food remained the most appropriate form of support.

Engagement

Engagement with local core partners, stakeholders and people with lived experience strengthened throughout the Programme and was integral to delivery. Indeed, several areas embedded participatory mechanisms that supported dignity and empowerment.

Attitudes shifted from early scepticism among some local core partners, referral partners and wider stakeholders towards greater acceptance of Cash-First support as a holistic, person-centred approach, as confidence grew in safeguarding, wraparound provision and risk management. However, some resistance remained, reflecting safeguarding concerns and differing views on the role of food banks.

The Learning Partner played a key role in enabling engagement and relationship building between the Delivery Partners through peer learning, shared problem solving and skills development.

Targeting

Targeting of service users in each Delivery Partner area was adaptive, informed by data, service knowledge and local intelligence. The Delivery Partners refined the groups to target as learning emerged, extending reach to cohorts previously less well served, including young men and non-custodial parents.

Local context strongly influenced delivery. In rural areas, dispersed populations and transport barriers necessitated intensive outreach and strong local relationships. Despite some successes in reaching people eligible for Cash-First support, awareness of the support among potential service users remained uneven, with stigma and uncertainty around eligibility acting as barriers. This was also impacted by the active choice made by most of the Delivery Partners to limit promotion of Cash-First, in order to manage referrals and uptake or concentrate on delivery. Sustaining engagement beyond initial crisis support, particularly for people with complex needs, remained challenging and required flexible, open-door approaches.

Use of data and knowledge

The Delivery Partners made active use of data and evidence to shape delivery. Learning from delivery informed ongoing Programme adaptation and the identification of underserved groups.

The absence of standardised data sharing protocols and inconsistent data collection, particularly across food banks and informal provision, limited the ability to track repeat use, attribute outcomes and evidence changes in food bank demand. It also limited the flow of information between services, meaning that a trauma-informed approach was not always possible, and service users sometimes had to re-share their story when they first engaged with a new service or worker.

What has been produced as a result of the Programme?

The Programme produced a range of outputs. Most notably, it resulted in new and enhanced partnerships and support pathways in all areas, directly responding to needs identified through Cash-First activity.

Building on strong links with welfare rights and money advice services, the Delivery Partners strengthened connections with holistic services, including health, housing, fuel, social and wellbeing support, enabling more coordinated responses to complex needs.

New and improved processes enabled faster, more person-centred access to support, including streamlined referrals, interim payments to bridge delays in statutory provision, and closer alignment with the ‘No Wrong Door’ approach and wider tackling poverty approaches. Programme delivery also highlighted gaps in existing systems, prompting the development of new pathways.

Data sharing remained a general challenge, but some progress was made to support and improve this. For some of the Delivery Partners, data sharing was strengthened to improve coordination and reduce the need for individuals to repeatedly share their information and circumstances. However, progress was constrained by the time required to establish GDPR compliant agreements, inconsistent data practices and limited capacity to embed new systems alongside frontline delivery.

A range of tools, resources and learning materials were developed to support delivery and build partner capability, including risk assessment tools, referral templates, engagement materials and guidance. Training and learning resources were refined over time and shared through peer networks facilitated by the Learning Partner, supporting adaptation and improvement across areas.

Programme outputs evolved from Stage 1 to Stage 2, resulting in a set of resources, processes and partnerships shaped by need and with potential to support continued Cash-First delivery beyond the Programme.

What difference has the Programme made and for whom?

The Programme helped many people address short term food insecurity and, for some, laid foundations for longer-term change. It delivered clear positive impacts in terms of access, dignity, choice and short-term wellbeing, while also strengthening partnership working and learning across local systems. Evidence of sustained or transformational change was limited, reflecting short term funding.

Service users reported that they prefer cash or cash equivalents to food banks, stating that this provides choice; and they found interactions with services to be respectful. Many service users experienced reduced anxiety and improved mental wellbeing, with over half worrying less about running out of food. Self-reported food bank use declined after engaging with the Programme, though impacts on food insecurity were inconsistent and both service users and the Delivery Partners were less confident about the potential for longer-term positive impacts.

Impacts were strongest where the full offer of emergency income combined with wraparound support was taken up. Over half of service users reported receiving wider support. Most commonly, this included: welfare rights advice, benefits checks, and assistance with housing or energy costs. However, around two-fifths did not receive or recognise this support resulting in a limited potential for prevention of future hardship.

Where wraparound support was accessed, service users reported improved financial confidence, better debt management and greater ability to cope with day-to-day pressures. Structural factors, including in work poverty, rising living costs and debt, often limited longer-term change.

At a system level, partnership working strengthened, understanding of Cash-First support improved, and new ways of working were embedded. The Learning Partner was widely credited with supporting peer learning and problem solving across areas.

Conclusions

Overall, the programme demonstrated the added value of taking a Cash-First approach for both service users and the Delivery Partners. However, it also highlighted limitations in relation to implementation, resourcing and long-term sustainability.

A Cash-First approach to food insecurity

The Programme made a positive difference for some people experiencing food insecurity, particularly where cash support was combined with wraparound services that helped prevent recurring crises. Service users valued the dignity, choice and reduced stigma associated with the Cash-First approach, while the Delivery Partners were able to respond flexibly to individual needs. However, as a pilot, the Programme was relatively small scale, and take-up of the full support offer was uneven.

The role of data in supporting a Cash-First approach

Data was both an enabler and a challenge for the Programme. It helped the Delivery Partners understand local need, target services and support a “No Wrong Door” approach through improved coordination and data sharing. However, limitations in available data and the complexity of sharing information across organisations created challenges for delivery and impact measurement.

Engaging people with lived experience in Programme design

Engaging people with lived experience strengthened Programme design by ensuring services better reflected user needs. Where engagement was meaningful and embedded, it improved service design and gave participants greater confidence that their experiences were shaping delivery.

Developing staff skills for a Cash-First approach

Learning and development opportunities provided through the Learning Partner helped strengthen staff knowledge, foster peer support networks and facilitate knowledge sharing, with many of the Delivery Partners intending to sustain these relationships beyond the life of the Programme.

Systems change

The Programme contributed to meaningful early-stage systems change by strengthening partnerships, improving referral pathways and supporting more joined-up, person-centred responses to food insecurity. However, progress varied across areas and required significant time and resources to achieve. While the Programme helped address short-term food insecurity, the evaluation highlights that wider structural drivers of poverty and limitations within existing welfare systems remain significant barriers to longer-term change.